Romantic Relationships with Neo-Nazis | Leondardo Orlando

0:00Leonardo, you're the perfect person to talk to. So this SPLC thing is so fascinating. And SPLC is Southern poverty law center. And for years, they were the venerable institution that called out racists, called out all kind of rank bias. And then they went to Crazy Town. They, Magi Nua, sued them and won. But there was one particular element of this. They became ideologically captured. There's one particular element of the story I want to start by talking to you. I don't know how to say her name. I've only read it. Heidi Betriche. Yeah. Tell us about that. This is mind-blowingly fascinating. Well, this year there was in April an indictment of a great jury in the great state of Alabama. Again, it's the Southern poverty law center.

1:00And there was the first accusation that over the last 16 years, they had been transferring money in particular actually around $4 million US dollars to different head groups. Actually the very same group that allegedly they were fighting, well, they were funding them somehow. And then, yes. And then in O's there was a second indictment that supersedes the first one. And now it's not only the SPLC, but there is also a particular person, Heidi Betriche. In case that you pronounce like that, her class name, going to pronounce it like that. Who was during long time till 2020, the head of the intelligence project of SPLC. What does this mean? The intelligence unit is like the unit, the project that was monitoring and gathering intelligence on these head groups.

2:01And why is she's been inducted in this case? Well, because it seems that she was personally wiring money to an informant who was allegedly undercover for over 20 years at the National Alliance, that it's this extremist, wise supremacist, neo-Nazi group. And this is the juicy part that according to the allegations, she was living with this person and the vulnerable relationship. And actually, it seems that for at least five years around actually, yeah, five, six years, they were sharing bank accounts, they were sharing a house. And at least $140,000 were in those share accounts that they were using for just living

3:06expenses. And those were donations, it should be noted, those were donations. And I also want to say one more thing before you go on, these are, they've been indicted by a grand jury, but what's that expression? Even a ham sandwich could be indicted by a grand jury. So these are allegations, they have not been found guilty yet. It's still open and ongoing. Okay. But that said, go ahead. Of course. We need also to specify that, of course, both the SPLC and this individual, they are claiming that this is just some vindicative indictment, that is just the Trump administration that they are using their power to pursue them. That's very different. And there is no sentence yet. But it's very interesting, Peter, what you're mentioning regarding that is funding money, because sometimes people forget that the SPLC, their assets are estimated between 800 and 900 million. That's the money that they have. And average per year, they get 130 million US dollars, just in funding, just in gifts,

4:12money that people give to them. And what is even more interesting is that they were using this money to fund allegedly informants within this organization. But here, we'll have become interesting because it could check the national alliance. So it's funder William Pierce, the author of the Turner diaries, white supremacists. And he did it in Chulson and Chulson and Chulson and Chulson was the peak of the national alliance. When per year, they were getting around 1 million dollars. That was the peak. That was 24 years ago. So since then, I mean, every source of income for them has entirely disappeared. So they receive through this particular informant that in the case is designated as F9, with a known identity, but we know that he was infiltrated or part of the national alliance

5:13for at least 20 years. And he received 1.2 million dollars over this period from the SPLC. So first of all, this is like, well, you are fighting groups that are almost dead and somehow you are keeping these groups alive. You're resurrecting them. You're resurrecting them, but at the same time, it's understandable because if these groups actually die, well, you are out of a job because you are receiving hundreds of millions in order to fight them. Yes. So let's let's linger on that. So F9, I think, was the informant. I was having a conversation with someone and I said something like she's sleeping with her having sex with him and he corrected me. He was right to correct me. Technically, the allegation, the indictment says, because I went and I read it, a romantic relationship. So maybe we'll leave out the crude vulgarities and details of what that entails.

6:17But the other thing that was fascinating to me is people came, this is so crazy. People came to the SPLC wanting to get out and she paid them to stay in. And she even paid for the, for cross burnings. She even paid for the allegedly. She even paid for the crosses, for the wood and the fuel to burn the crosses. I mean, it's all, it's back to Douglas Murray's idea. There aren't enough neo-Nazi, so we just have to manufacture them. And in this case, she actually paid them. I mean, so people are trying to get out of these truly horrible groups. She's paying them to stay in the groups and then they're paying, you know, the sources to help these groups do with the very thing that they're supposed to be combating the groups to not do. Absolutely. But every layer, I mean, the level of infringements of law that there is in this case, it's completely

7:17insane because of course, they claim rightfully that it's not a crime to have informants. But one thing is to have informants and to pay them at a very different thing is the kind of action that you're describing. And for example, another thing that happened with this particular lady, Haydee Barrage, is that in 2014, this informant, F9, stole 25 boxes of documents from the National Alliance headquarters. And he crossed states to bring that. She wrote a report based on those papers that this person stole, has stolen. And then the funny thing is that they pay $6,000 to another person that is designed in the indictment as F36 is like another informant, $6,000 to take the fall. Like to say, well, you did it. So it was somebody that... Yeah. And that's the other thing. They were through Shell companies, which was interesting.

8:20The demand for Hayde was greater than the supply per Hayde. And when that happens, if you're raised on debtor of the organization is to, and you're a man who's the English is your third language, the reason I'm dead is to find and root out white supremacy, hate, and bigotry. But there's just not enough of it. So you have to keep inventing it. I mean, it's absolutely mind blowing. But I want to talk about the woman's relationship. That's what fascinates me. And that's one of the things. So to me, it's legible why they're in a romantic. I love that. I love that you from a romantic relationship. As if they're just sharing a house with candles and candlelight dinners and glasses of wine. So why would... Talk to me about that. Well, first of all, let's say a few things about this person, about Hayde's marriage. Because it's not just that she was working on this PLC and that she was leading this project.

9:26But also she's leading academic expert on white supremacism. So she's apparently according to her CV, she has been contacted, which out by hundreds of different media. She has appealed before Congress. So she's the authority fighting these people. So on one hand, you have somebody that is extremely committed to virtue signaling of how this people is bad and how good she is by fighting them. On the other hand. And second, according to Alleghenes, it seems that she has been in this as it stated romantic relationship, but for sure, according to the evidence that the prosecutors have, sharing a home with this informant. And then it's when it becomes interesting because we do not know anything about the informant. We only know it's F-9 this year, but we do know that this person was able to impersonate a neo-Nazi for over three years.

10:28So we don't know about his private beliefs. That's 100% true. We don't know. And we need to be totally upfront about that. We do know that he was extraordinarily successful and fundraising for them. And that's going to tell you something. And also we do not know with this money, with this $1.2 million that he received over the period of six years that he's mentioned. Well, actually, it's more the period of years. But we do not know what he did with this money. If he'd used it for personal use, if he used it to fund the national alliance. But the important part is this person was able to walk into the headquarters of a NASA group and be received as one of them. So even if he believes where he was building another thing, maybe secretly he was hiding these people, we do not know. What we know is that he clearly look and behave as a neo-Nazi.

11:33And this is interesting because... Yeah. Well, no, the children... Yeah. Go ahead, go ahead. You have like this lady that she's fighting the white supremacists that she sees as the worst ever on Earth. And maybe she's right on this. But at the same time, she's speaking as her romantic partner somebody that incarnates, at least in his body or in his gestures as we can assume, at least publicly, maybe in private life it was different. The stereotype of a neo-Nazi because she could not have been so successful in fundraising for the national alliance and have access over 20 years to all of them if we would not have the signs of a neo-Nazi. Okay. So let's talk about, again, to me this is very legible. Like, before I tell you my speculation of why they had a...

12:35Just love that room. It's such a euphemism. A romantic relationship. What do you think it is about the fact like there's to me something extra deranged, given the SPLC's mission, given her quote-unquote expertise in this, given what this guy did, given... I mean, the fact that she had a romantic relationship with this guy, how do you explain that? I mean, is there an evolutionary explanation for that? Because I have my own speculation. I'll tell you in a minute. Yes, there are several lines that can explain that. Once again, we are all... Everything that is going to follow assumes that they were actually in this romantic relationship and that this person looks and behaves as a neo-Nazi. So we are making that assumption. The first thing and everything that is going to follow comes from our book with Peggy Sass that we're discussing in the latest episode of your show with me some time ago.

13:38The first thing is the appeal that people on the dark trial that score high in the dark trial have on others. This is the first thing. And the dark trial should remind everybody it's like you score high in these three things that three traits of personality that are very vital, that it's been psychopathic, narcissistic and macchiavellic, meaning that you consider yourself the center of the universe. You use others' people just as means to reach your goals and that you don't have any empathy for other people. And what is fascinating is that people that score high in these traits, even if they have a very low share on the general population, still they are very successful. And that are able to signal that they have, you know, because these people, they signal

14:43that they have a high status, that they have, you know, the force and the willingness to fight for things that they want to achieve, all these characteristics, they work. Of course, relationship with these people, research establishes that are awful. It's an nightmare to be with these people. But paradoxically, research also has shown that people after breaking up with these kind of people, they kind of miss a little bit the fire that was there. So first of all, we have that. And then there is a broader trend that, well, this lady once again, a researcher, you know, everything that we have said, there are many things that came to mind. The first of these things is the Anna Harrend, you know, and Martin Heidegger. Anna Harrend and Martin Heidegger, they had this love affair in the 20s.

15:43When Anna Harrend, she was 18th and Heidegger was on his mid-late 30s and he was her professor. Of course, Anna Harrend, there she fled Germany. And as we know, Martin Heidegger became a prominent Nazi. And at the moment, at that moment, Anna Harrend, she was writing things very nasty about him in letters, et cetera. Yet, in the 50s, she was the one, even if they were not involved anymore in a romantic relationship, but they got in touch again, and they were very close. And Harry Heide was one of the key people for the rehabilitation of Martin Heidegger. So you know, we have a... Travis, sorry, go ahead. We have all these kinds of things. Another more contemporary thing is like this transgender actress, Levin Cox. She's the one that was in Orange is the new black, a prominent LGBTQ, et cetera, activist.

16:53And she declared, recently, one or two years ago, that she was for four years in a relationship with the hair, with the blonde hair, blue eyes, NYPD, COAP, that was a mega supporter. So you know, these things that is going to lead us into a very particular thing that we talk about in the book and that I'm going to talk about in a minute. But first, I want to hear your theory. Okay, so here's my theory. She's in a very feminine position. He's in a hypermasculine position. My guess is that he's fit and in shape. He's a leadership, in a leadership role. It's kind of sexy to be a spy. I'm assuming some women, someone commented hypothesis. Ha-ha.

17:55I think that there's something that is inherently sexy for women about that. And I think the whole covert nature of this... He was probably an alpha male. She's probably very feminine or at least aspires to be. So it's very legible for why that happened to me. Well, I mean, I will say according to what we wrote in our book, I will just respond bingo. Because it's essentially what we present as a theory. And Shaz, between brackets, what you mentioned regarding physical force and the connection between physical force, being strong and having a right wing, a political view, we can get into that later because that also has been established by research. But Shaz, regarding this particular thing of why she's self-adracted to him, that's what in our book we call the effect well-beck.

18:59So Michel well-beck, the French writer. The famous for maybe in the Anglo-Saxon world for his book Submission, published in 2015. But he has been writing since the 90s. And in all of his novels, you have the same phenomenon explaining different ways through some of the characters that is essentially, according to him, that feminist women hate feminist men. Or if you want to reformulate that, the best contraceptive for a man is to be a feminist, because no woman will touch him. So why is this? Well, they what he says is like these women that say things regarding the kind of man that they want, what today you will call the deconstructed man, actually in truth what their choice, their romantic choice, their sexual choice is the man that, while they call the beast,

20:05like the embodiment of the relative, of masculinity. And we know that this is true. But we know that this is true, because at the moment that we finished writing the book last year, one year ago, let's say, there were already 12 studies, 12. So showing the same phenomenon. So essentially, you were picking a bunch of women in particular young, liberal, feminist women, and you were telling them, OK, make a list of the things that you find sexist in a man, the behaviors, the attitudes that are sexist, according to you. So they made a list. And then you're like, well, now another list, write the characteristics that you wish in a potential partner, in a potential boyfriend. And the list is the same.

21:06So that's interesting. So the women claim they want X and they actually want Y or are men more honest in their desires. Well, the thing is that that's one of the key problems that we have nowadays. And I do believe also that this is one of the key problems that explains why the generation between 18 and 25 is a generation in the US at least, but also in Europe and other parts of the world that is having the less sex since that we have this statistic. So I mean, they're having less sex than their grandparents. And one of the reasons of this is that, let me just interrupt real quick a couple of things on that. I just talked to Deborah so about that. And I've talked to Ricky Schlott about that. And they both confirm that from multiple independent data sources. And at some point, let me know why that is because I think that that's fascinating.

22:10And yeah, go ahead. That it's like it's easy to explain from the point of view of this logic that I am mentioning that women, and we know this, we do know this. I want to be clear, this is not my view. This is something that we know women proclaim that they want some characteristics in a man. But the best way to avoid being chosen by a woman is to be this man that they claim that they want. And this is a terrible situation for everybody, for women because it puts them in this situation where they feel clearly conflicted because they feel attracted to the same male that they are denouncing. And for men, it's terrible also because they don't know what to do because we need to understand

23:11a key thing here. And this is a key finding of Charles Darwin in the descent of Van 1871 that is female choice. Regarding sexual selection, so life goes on because of reproduction and the ones that lead reproduction are females. So females ask what they want and men provide whatever females want. And that's how they get laid. So the thing is that in the particular situation that we are today, women proclaim what thing and when men give them this thing that they want, these personality characteristics that they claim that they wish, actually they are not chosen. So this is creating a terrible situation for everybody. And also it's not surprising that young men, they are completely frustrated and sometimes

24:12unfortunately they go into very misogynistic thoughts or even they follow crazy influencers with completely extreme and misogynistic ideas because they do not understand what's going on. So this is something real that we are seeing today. And somehow it explains also the phenomenon that we are describing of the lady that makes a living out of fighting white supremacists and that she shares a home with somebody that has been at the National Alliance for 20 years. So I'm kind of thinking if this is just an IQ test and I'm also thinking about what to do about it. Because the sexual selection strategy would men just lie? Would they just find the characteristics that women actually want and attempt to embody those so they can get laid? Well, that has a biological name and it's called Sneaky Fucker. Yeah, that's exactly why I asked the question.

25:14Yes. And that exists. I mean it exists. Usually it's like you see it in primates that the vitamins, the males that are usually not the alpha ones, not the ones chosen by females, they adopt an strategy of befriending the females. So they are there, she has hanging out. And from time to time they get lucky and we do know that from genetic data that shows that you know explain that explain Sneaky Fucker to everybody. Well, Sneaky Fucker, it's you know impersonating somehow in primates. It's this idea that you're just hanging out with the females. And that when the alpha male is gone, well, considering that you are there like a friend, maybe you know, sometime like you're going to be taken out from the friend son and get into another category. This once again in primates. And we do know by genetic data that not 100% of the offspring of a particular alpha male are his offspring.

26:15So the Sneaky Fucker manage to reach their goal. In humans, this is classic. You have for example, men that proclaim to be feminists nowadays. And I want to be very clear with this. I mean, and this is my view of course, but I believe that it's logical. It's a contradiction. No man in 2006 can be a feminist because feminists in 2006 implies believing all women. And all the men that proclaim to be feminists, they do so till the moment that they got accused for something and they defend themselves. They don't just say, well, we should believe all women. Therefore, compete me without any trial. They all want to trial. In Argentina, you know, I said, I'm just going to do this example because I think it's very clear one. In Argentina, we got the leftist president between 2019 and 2023. And he put more money on the ministry of women and gender than in the ministry of defense

27:16or in the ministry of security. He was completely insane. He was all the time making these things regarding how feminists he was. And long story short, now he's been prosecuted. He will probably like hope and imprison because we learned that during the time that he was president, he was beaten up the first lady who by the way was pregnant. And there are the pictures of the first lady being beaten up. And also the first lady she had testified in court, I mean former first lady, she had a testifying call that she seek help from the minister of women. She called her personally and the minister of women told her, give him time, he's going to come down. So wow. So how does evolution, yeah, I mean, how does evolutionary biology explain that? But before we do, we have a, you know, we're small nonprofit. We have a, sorry, I can barely read that. Neo-Epsis. We really need, we really need to retake the word misogynist.

28:16Some men may be sexist, but I doubt few men actually hate women. I think that's almost definitely true. It's grossly overused, yeah, for sure. Yeah, I entirely agree. And actually, just to make a comment on that, Michel Wolvec himself, he has been accused many times of being a misogynist. And he says there is a difference between being a misogynistic and being sexist. And be sure of excess, I am sexist, I am not misogynistic. So, of course, that's a clear difference. But I do believe that some, some young men that are lost because of this situation, and fortunately, they fall into something that I will label misogyny. Hold on, hold on. So let me interrupt you because I need to let's slow down here. What's the difference between misogyny and sexism? Because many, many, yeah, go ahead. I think that misogyny, he will be hate of women. And sexist is believing that maybe women, maybe they are not good enough, you know, for

29:20some particular things. I would say that that's the usual definition. However, I want to get back to something here. Because the problem with labels is that chivalry, for example, has been included into the group of sexism. So this idea that, for example, if you are holding the door for a woman, therefore you are assuming that a woman is not able to hold the door for herself. Why, what you're doing is an entirely different thing. So I think we need to be careful with this because in the 12 studies that I mentioned, that show that women want in a potential partner, the very same things that they label sexist, researchers that I always afraid to call things but their name, they have called this, well, this is benevolent sexism, you know, because men that are being protective, that have been this, but that's not sexism. That's what is called virility. It's, you know, the manhood that is protective and that provides resources.

30:26That's what women want for evolutionary reasons. That's what men provide and that's a little bit the idea of chivalry. Would feminists call that toxic masculinity? That's a type of toxic masculinity. Well, in general, we see that feminists call everything that has to do with men toxic but in particular, that's the thing. But I think that the problem with the label toxic masculinity is that it has encompassed absolutely every male characteristic. And for example, in order to be clear about this, let's take, for example, the case of white supremacy. Everything now, you know, it's like all the BLM movements and all the Southern poverty law center, all this movement, for example, they have label punctuality as white supremacists. You know, meritocracy as white supremacy. Well, that's the same thing that happened with toxic masculinity.

31:29That some characteristics that are very inherent to males, for example, systematizing. You know, it's like finding patterns and you know, these kind of things are label toxic masculinity. And I think that this is where, in my view, it becomes very interesting. Both the contradiction that in habits, these women, you know, that they claim that they want one thing and actually they want another. And feminists label in toxic masculinity lots of things that it's true statistically. They correspond more with males, but it's not only males that have that. Margaret Tatcher, she had a lot of characteristics that usually will find men. These things are also the basis or at least a very important part of civilization. If we do not have people ready to protect others with their body, we will not exist, who

32:35will just be the slaves of some other ones. And here is when what we claim in the book is that these impulse, these eagerness or this willingness that we see today in women for going for a very manly type of men, it's some ancient wisdom. Is the way that evolution has found to keep civilization going because these women are choosing men that to begin with will be able to protect them. So is the contradiction between stated desire and revealed desire already always existed or do you think it's a historical anomaly? Because I'm thinking and then I'll give you my take on that. No, I do believe that this opposition that we see nowadays is something entirely cultural that depends on. It's the result of feminism.

33:38It's the result of that because think for example of a classic of English literature, the head badge of honor. And this idea that this guy that he was a coward in a battle and then he spends the rest of his life trying to prove that he's not a woman. He does very brave things and he does all this because he's in love with a woman that doesn't want him because he was not a man enough. And at the end, even if he has done absolutely everything that a man can accomplish, still the girl is like, no, because you were a coward once. So I do not know if you're going to protect me when it's needed. And you know, that's the thing. And this was just one century ago. Right. Yeah, I was thinking when you were talking, are there any analogs from male, male, for homosexual relationships? I'm thinking of Otto Vinegur. You know, Hitler was asked if there was ever a Jew. He said, yeah, one Otto Vinegur. He said, a guy homosexual killed himself, but wrote some really interesting stuff.

34:43Are there any analogs in that in the male, male universe, sexual universe? According to the data we have and decided have been done what we see in the male, male, male universe is that male homosexuality, it's the peak of manliness. You know, all the behaviors. And this is very paradoxical sometimes. I'm in big trouble. But essentially what no comment, essentially what you have is, for example, think about this, like the places you know that there are in many different cities with different names, with gay men, they just want to have sex. That does not exist for straight people that does not exist for lesbian women. Certainly not for lesbian. Certainly not for lesbian, that for sure. And for straight couples, maybe you have the single cloud, the swing or things and all that.

35:43But it's very rare that you're going to find, you know, there are some places, but it's strange. It's not like in Paris, you know, if you go to Marrae, there is one of these places, every block. So the idea is that it's the male characteristics in this particular case, sex drive, the sex drive of men, as we discussed the last time, it's superior to the male drive of women. Do you know that there is no limit? Because, well, it's another man. So you see all these things as... Yes, sperm is cheap eggs or costly. Yeah, that's usually the way that they would show you biology, but it's, yeah. So okay, so we have a lot going on here. So she's back to our friend Heidi, some say our friend I've never met her. It's certainly not my friend. She, I think the SPLC was on my writing partner, Jim, they listed him.

36:44I mean, they really, I knew someone who was funding the SPLC and I had a long talk with her and I said, listen, this is just not the organization it was even a short time ago, as many years ago. Okay, so she has a romantic relationship with the guy who's, we don't know his private beliefs, but she's, he's infiltrated the national alliance, which is, and I think the guy who later had that, had that was Matt Hale, who's in prison now. And that's one of the things I've learned is that the, whoever the president is in his department of justice in the United States, like Eton Haim, they go after people. A lot of these things really are political and I don't mean political in that they'll go after you and, and bring you up on ideological charges. I mean, they'll go after you if you break the law because the Biden administration was aware of this when this is going on. Okay, so I'm just thinking about this idea that she's attracted to this spy, this hypermasculine

37:52guy, assuming Lee, this Aryan looking, we've looking at, I, yeah, I want to come back to that, but you, you, I, I made a throwaway comment and you know, you about, what was it, couples that have the most sex, it's men, men, men, women, women, women, and with women being the denominator of the least sex. And then this thing called lesbian, Beth, bed death, I just talked to Deborah, so I think about that, that interview will come out soon. And you know, I guess I have a question about lesbian. I'm not sure how topographically to map this on. Are they the epitome of female virtues if gay men are the epitome of male virtues? What do you understand by virtues? Do you mean like psychological characteristics, sexual behavior characteristics? Or, or I don't know, I don't know what I mean, are they, are they the most womanly?

38:59Are they womanly? If gay men are the pinnacle, the apex of masculinity, are, do gay women, is that isomorphic to gay women, do they operate in the same parallel? Are they most womanly? Yes, I believe that in that regard, it's interesting. Of course, there is a lot of individual variation. Yet I do believe that in particular, regarding to sex, that's clear. We do know that sex drive of males is much superior to that of females. So what you will predict is like, if you have two males that are attracted to each other, they will have a lot of sex and if you have two females that are attracted to each other, they will have far less sex than if a man is involved. And that's exactly what you find. Then there are other things, for example, data regarding domestic violence that we do now, for example. Yeah, go into that. That blew my mind. I just couldn't believe I'd go into that, please.

40:01That's entirely, you know, this is a very serious topic. I need something that is completely, I mean, I always say you have already heard me claim that feminists hate women, you know. And I do believe that one of the main resources is this. Domestic violence, we know, we have now for decades that the Duluth model, the model that they use to approach domestic violence is completely false, is flat, earth, false. Yet they continue with that. And one of the things that they, you know, that they miss, and there have been, I mean, there is so much research, and we have decades of research. The thing is like females, if men, of course, they are stronger and, and you know, in the case of Shas one, below the conletory kill, the woman, the thing is like we have data regarding women being asked, violent, as men in verbal. Okay, hold on a second. Before you go on, what's the, so, so what's the model, and then how is that model false?

41:01Well, the Duluth model, it's the model that established that, you know, everything in the feminist paradigm is power. They explain everything, but this, you know, sensical and, and Marxist thing, like, you know, Shas, oppress, oppressor, dynamic. It's the same thing that happens with rape, different, different topic, but it's the same thing that they explain in false sex, it's not for sex, sex is, sorry, rape is not for sex, rape is for power, as Stephen Pinker claims, one of the stupid, something is going to go to history, like one of the stupid ideas ever. Regarding domestic violence, they claim that the man, actually, is Shas exerting, you know, some kind of power, some, what they come like, sexist, you know, violence. And the thing is like, you have very particular scenarios where domestic violence happens. For example, Jalucin, right? So you have this thing in particular regarding that, then you have, you know, the fact also that it's completely denying

42:05this model, it's men being victims of domestic violence. Something that has existed, you know, in the Middle Ages, they have this tradition of riding the donkey backwards. If a man was being beaten up by his wife, they were putting the man in the village on a donkey and making ride the donkey backwards, in the other sense. It's just to make fun of him. And this is, you know, how it continues. There are no associations, and this is something that they deny because they cannot accept this model, they cannot accept that violence goes both ways. And regarding verbal violence, women are at least, if not more violent than men, inside of relationship. And then it's also the fact of when this verbal violence peaks. And this is a very important violence. What do you mean, verbal violence? Insults, you know, like shouting at each other, these kind of things. A very violent violence is violence that is not physical. So we're not talking about blows, you know,

43:05we're not talking about something. It seems like a stretch to call that violence though. Well, the thing is like, I think that it depends. We're not talking about microcrations. Like, you know, we're not talking about comments about your clothes. We are talking about, you know, a huge list of insults. We are talking about shouting things. We are talking about the main things that I do not believe that it's a stretch to call it violence because it can define, for example, if a woman, let's just be very clear with this. If a woman has in front of her a low-acquee individual that is not, you know, that reacts with violence and she starts, you know, shouting things at him insulting him, probably she's going to get hit and, and maybe she will attack him in the hospital. And this is, you know, Camille Pagliassi who has been, she has been writing since the 90s about this that when you say these things, you are saying,

44:07well, you are blaming the victim. No, nobody's blaming the victim. It's just that I will prefer that there are no victims. I will prefer that as Jordan Peterson has said many times, women maybe don't understand that there is a difference in physical strength, you know, regarding different men. We got to know that. Yeah, which, which the feminists, the red, the feminists in particular have denied the feminists have denied. I mean, it makes sense that you don't need an organization to stop me in words, but you need, you need one to stop blows. But when I was fascinated by that data, if you had asked me before I read that line of literature about the domestic abuse, I would have thought was being said virtually no domestic abuse. No, but they help us. But they have the most verbal abuse. Yeah. So, yeah, I'm not sure evolutionarily how one can explain that. You can. Yeah, you can't because I don't get it.

45:09Because it's easy, the way that, so, men are stronger than women, right, to begin with. And actually, this has been, for example, in one particular study when you control by body mass and abs training and absolutely everything, just for heating, like for giving a blow, men, they are 162% or 160% more powerful than women. And even like the weakest man was the strongest that the strongest women. Oh, yeah, like rip strength and such. Yeah, yeah. No, this is like a blow. This is like a blow with your fist. So like a hitting with your face. Essentially, this was this particular study. So first, you have this. Then you have something that men, we are exactly what you said, sperm is cheap, X are expensive. So men, we are expendable. You know, it's like that's why in our favor of vision history, if we did the hunter or hunter some fighters, it's like hunting and war, you know, expendable.

46:10So a woman, in particular, if it's pregnant, she's not going to get into battle. So the ways that men and women have to solve issues in men is physical violence, in women is war. So this has been, for example, this is over women improvement, like physical anthropology, and that women, for example, the method that they use for intracexual competition, you know, is like for fighting among the same sex to access to other mates, men, they fight, and men in nature fight, women, they use gossip, they use attacks on reputation, they do the famous silent treatment. This is everywhere in the world. So you know, you have these use, consequently, within a couple, men, unfortunately, use violence, and women use words.

47:13Oh, that's interesting. But yet I know, I'm just trying to think of, I'm trying to reconcile that and make sense of it. So they wouldn't adopt a strategy. Women wouldn't adopt a strategy they to get back at other women that males use to get back at other men, like a retributive strategy that's physical. Exactly. And this is the main difference that gets us back to this thing that we're talking about, the problem with words. And this is something you know that Jordan Peterson he has mentioned many times. And the fact that how do you approach another individual? And the thing is like men, we know that we need to be very careful with words. It's like you and me, we are not going to be light with words with an MMA champion, because we know that if we said something not obsessive, we are going to end up in the hospital. But that's because as men or as most men, not all of us,

48:18some average men, I would say, we had been socialized to violence and to hierarchies. It's like we know the men that can beat us up. And it's like all socials, but this is interesting, because usually for example, which are the women that are the most aware of the physical difference between men and women, sport combat women, like MMA fighters, because of course, they know that they can be the best in the world in day category, but just a mediocre average man in the same, I don't know, in jujitsu or in MMA or whatever, is going to beat them up. So you have the things that men we have been socialized to this, but women don't. And this I'm quoting almost word by word Jordan Peterson. I'm the series like, as women, as a socialized, yeah. Somebody in the comments wrote The Gift of Violence, which is Matt Thornton's book, if you have a chance,

49:19it's a fantastic book. Not to go down this rabbit hole, but it's interesting. I train at 30, 40, maybe even 50 MMA or jujitsu studios a year. And there's a kind of earned difference there. And I think when the differences earned, you don't need as many rituals. Again, we could go down that rabbit hole. But do you think there are cultures where men and women are not socialized in that way? Or do you think it's merely a cultureation? And I'm wondering to what extent our current culture is a historical in that sense. And again, you mentioned Camille Padglier, who writes fantastic stuff about this, I met her once. Well, I will think that that's the result of The Decline of Violence. I do think that even within you know,

50:21in the same country, my two countries are Gentilian friends, like a woman in Paris or in San-Sendani, in the north of Paris, that is the poorest region in France and Europe, completely Islamized. Or in Argentina, in Buenos Aires, if you go to the neighborhood who writes a rap that is very violent or the city center, that is, it depends how much have you been exposed to violence. That's going to make the difference. And so how for many people, they have no clue about violence. That's something I remember that when I, literally, when I arrived to Paris when I was 18th, and I took one in the Evening in Paris still, you don't have meat, so you have to take buses. And the buses were a disaster. And I remember that two people, I got into a fight. Of course, there were not French, the people that got into a fight. But I remember that some of the girls with whom I was,

51:22they started crying just because they saw some men fighting. And these were like, no teenagers, we're like 1819. So you know, this was a long time ago. Now France has become a much violent country. But I think that you can go, you know, and this is, it makes me think, you know, for sure, you know, Norbert Elias, the German sociologist, and he has a little essay on death. And he makes already several decades ago this claim that actually most people do not see the people during their lives. Something that, till recently, was very common because the people were being born at home. So everybody seems there was a child was seeing a corpse. But now people don't, you know, and this is like just to reply to your question well, culture, for sure. This is because we have become, you know, so low in violence that people have completely lost track of how violence works. And this also relates to many, many topics,

52:22immigration, for example. Yeah, I was the first time I saw a corpse, I was 16. And that was for me, I see him. I was 16. I was in, I went to Zavarian brothers and lots of Massachusetts. And they had an open casket. I think his name is Brother Mel. For one of the people, one of the teachers who taught at the school. And I just remember the effect that had on me. It was incredibly profound. And then I didn't see another, I went to an open casket funeral when I was in, when I was in college. And then I saw someone get stabbed and die when I was in New York. But each time it was chilling to me, even the open casket funerals, even the ritualized respectful,

53:23because I had, you're right, I had never seen a corpse and I think most people had it, but it has a sobering effect on one. And I think we, all of society, I mean, we just impose this, you know, I think a lot of these things are protective mechanisms to help us realize that, or not even help to protect us from the fact that we're gonna die. It's all just transitory, it's all temporary. But that's the main problem, you know, it's like a carpedium, right? So leave you now, baby. Since the day that something that everybody seems to want, at least all everybody on Instagram, and by the point is that in philosophy, as you know, you cannot have carpedien if first, that's actually the poem that comes first, in Horace, you have memento mori, you have remember that you're going to die. So once goes to another, with another, you need, I mean, you cannot have one, you know, carpedien without remembering that you're going to die.

54:25And it's the same thing regarding violence. If, of course, it's a good thing that we have lower violence, but that's one thing, and a very different thing, is to believe, as many people do, that violence that's not exist, because that's just been, you know, like the, yeah, totally. Yeah, it's like the, you know, the, it's been birds in islands, you know, it's like birds, it's like the, birds in islands, it has been very studied over generations, they lose fear of predators. That's one reason, you know, why they dodo bird, it was completely stint in the 70th century Mauricio Island, because the Europeans were arriving, the birds, it seems that they were very, very nasty to it. It was not even for the meat, they were just killing them, because the birds were approaching like idiots. So they were killing them. Well, that's the thing, if you do not have a good relationship with violence, as your friend, Matorto and explains in the Gif of violence, you cannot, you know, deal with the bad things in life.

55:29Like, for example, a domestic aggressor. Yeah, it's interesting. Travis who sitting right here said something super interesting to me once, that people have different, their threats, their threat levels, their threat perceptions are calibrated differently. I think my threat perception is calibrated fairly low. I think yours, you know, we've become good friends. I think your threat perception is calibrated low. And I know some people who's threat perceptions are calibrated incredibly high. They wouldn't know a threat. I'm thinking of some guy I got in the tube with in London, and these guys were going crazy, and he didn't even, he didn't even like, it didn't even register with him. So I, it was a really interesting thing when he said that to me, because I never really considered, I, yeah, I guess we could, we could plum that, but we're running, we're running late in the interview, or we're coming to a close. Is there anything about this story or anything that I should have asked you, that I didn't ask you, or do you want to add anything else?

56:31Or you're, because your work is so rich, we could talk about it forever. And if you have it real quick, if you haven't heard our first interview, I'd highly recommend that. So go ahead. Thank you. Look, there is something that, because we have assumed during the whole time that this person that was impersonating Enazzi, he was physically strong, he looked like Enazzi and all that. But I, I want to highlight that also we have data regarding physical strengths and political alliance, you know, is what a little bit joking, I call the Mark Zuckerberg effect, you know, it's like Mark Zuckerberg before practicing Jiu-Jitsu and, and mixed martial arts that was clear on the left, and now he moves into a libertarian. I am, of course, using that as kind of a joke, but we have several studies shown that actually strong men, we don't see this effect in women. Strong men tend to lean so towards some aspects, economic et cetera, that are aligned with the right.

57:33Even there is one study done by researchers at Arbys University in Denmark that, you know, they control and they show through different exercises how the size of the biceps was increasing. And the more the size of the biceps was increasing, you know, the more the person was like, well, okay, you know, I want a mousecloth from Tiers and, you know, an economic conservatory. And the first person. So I believe that this is important because it gets us back to the situation we see with this lady, we see a contradiction and there is. Somebody that has, you know, devoted her life to the cause and then is living with somebody that we don't know if we're real or not, but physically impersonates the adversary. And yet, what I want to highlight is once again, that there is some wisdom in this female's choice. And I believe that women should listen more to that evolutionary wisdom rather than to feminism. Yeah, interesting. So the penultimate question, I always ask people,

58:35do you want to ask me about anything? Well, you don't have to. It's a lot of people don't. No, if you have, if there is something, maybe that you want to do, you want to say in particular regarding the South-Portillo Center because it's somebody you know that people that you know very well. For example, they have a QCLA of being an extremist. They have accused, you know, the society for gender-based, gender evidence-based, gender-medsing, you know, being extremist. It's a very particular thing. And you mentioned that there was a friend that you said, and you are not giving money to the wood people. Yeah, so I think the ideology itself, and I'm just so sick of talking about this. I'm just, I'm so done with it, I've moved on. But I think it is, as I've said repeatedly, it's a universal solvent. It just destroys everything it touches. It destroys the organization's mission. I mean, look at Jason Arday. It destroys the plagiarist in England. It is, it is, it subverts and destroys and corrupts everything.

59:39And it is uniquely dangerous and uniquely pernicious. I don't know, look, I've just, as you said, I've moved out of this space and this. I just, there's nothing left that I can say about this. But what's so interesting about it is, even though they know, the universities know that you should fire players. They know that. I think there was, I just put something on my Twitter. It was at University of Maryland, I think the president was found guilty of like egregious plagiarism. Egregious, I mean, like basically, I'll let readers, our viewers decide for themselves how egregious the plagiarism was. Like unbelievable, she basically took someone's whole thing, changed the title, but she's a black woman. And so because she's a black woman, it changes. So the whole mission of the institution has changed, but it's interesting, Eric Kaufman just tweeted out some stuff. And I was just at his conference in Buckingham recently

1:00:41and we'll release those videos pretty soon about how merit, specifically merit with white man, has decreased research output and production and how in Canada, he goes around these side statistics. And so many people pick this up as if it's a gotcha. Like, look what happens. Look what happens when you don't have meritocracy. But the people promoting this madness, they know that it happens. They know that it happens and that's just not important to them. So that's a thing that people don't understand. There are no gotchas here. Like it's more important to them that a black woman be the president, the face of the president and the face of the university. They don't care that she played her. It's totally irrelevant. It's like, it's actually irrelevant. Because if they cared, they would have actually done something about it. Like Claudine Gay wouldn't have been found innocent of plagiarism before they even investigated. Or again, the Jason Ardae thing,

1:01:42I mean claiming that he had a degree from an institution that he didn't even go to is crazy. He's reading all these fables. But so I think that's a way to think about it. And that's the in commensurability part. These things are in commensurable. Like, you have a bunch of people, I hate to say on the right because it's become on the right. But it's really meritocracy is nothing about the right. You have a bunch of people saying, look, what happens? We don't have meritocracy. But then you have other people who don't give a shit. They couldn't possibly care less that there's no, that you research output is down. They just want more black people in there or indigenous people. So those values are inherently in commensurable. And the Southern property law center, they couldn't possibly care less. So the idea then, or agents in the Southern, I didn't mean to anthropomorphize them, that they couldn't possibly care less. And so the consequence of that is that people then don't trust those institutions. And in aggregate, we actually do need some institution

1:02:45to call out neo-Nazis. Like, we need some institution that says, these are hateful, bigoted people. But we don't have that because nobody trusts the institutions because they've raised on debt, their mission statements have been hijacked by an exogenous value. So now when a situation, it's this big kind of epistemic relativism, it's this big chowder of uncertainty, is that nobody knows who to trust anymore. And so I think it's, and then the whole idea of a romantic relationship between these two is so crazy to me and paying for the fuel and wood of cross-burnings. Like, even I, who is incredibly cynical about these kinds of things, wouldn't have expected that degree of corruption. I mean, that's another level of grotesqueness given the part of an organization that wants to root out bigotry hatred

1:03:47and white supremacy. I mean, it's just mind blowing. And I really are glad that you came on, because I love the database analysis of the stuff you do and the evidence that you do. So I'm very appreciative of that. All right, are you still doing Jitsu, by the way? Yes, well, I was, you know, it was a summer break of that time, resuming a Monday. So we'll see if I last more than five minutes. Yeah, good for you. Okay, well, you don't smoke, so that's a plus. Smoke, I don't drink. Good for you, man, good for you. Okay, where can people find your work? Well, on X mostly on Instagram and mostly French and in Spanish, but hopefully in English also soon, I hope. Okay, so spell your name for us. That's it. It's a little bit of a comment. Yeah, that's a liogabo for X.

1:04:47Excellent. And I would love to have you on again and continue to talk about these things. And I appreciate everybody tuning in. Keep your brows open and stay, we'll talk for a few minutes afterward. Thank you, my friend. And thanks for everybody for supporting the channel. We appreciate it.