America's Testosterone Crisis ft. Raw Egg Nationalist
Dr. Charles Cornish Dale, the Raw Egg Nationalist, argues that liberalism and environmental toxins like xenoestrogens are causing a U.S. testosterone crisis by suppressing male thymos. He contends hormonal birth control shrinks women's prefrontal cortices, shifting them left while men stay right, exacerbating polarization. Citing Professor Shanna Swan's prediction of zero sperm counts by 2050 and Hungary's failed natality policies, Dale asserts that regulatory capture and nationwide injunctions rig the system against traditional masculinity, leading to an existential "zoo" society devoid of spiritual purpose. [Automatically generated summary]
Testosterone Decline and Political Victory00:12:00
This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar.
I've got good news and bad news.
Here's the bad news.
Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients.
The good news, there's a better option.
I'm Will and I created IQ Bar plant protein bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low sugar brain and body fuel.
IQ bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and lion's mane, and zero weird stuff.
And right now, you can get 20% off all IQ bar products plus free shipping.
Try our delicious IQ bar sampler pack with seven plant protein bars, four hydration mixes, and four enhanced coffee sticks.
Clean ingredients, amazing taste, and you'll love how you feel.
Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ bar.
Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code bar20 to get 20% off all IQ bar products plus free shipping.
Again, go to eatiqbar.com and enter code bar20.
Welcome back to the culture.
I am your host, Tate Brown here, holding it down, and I'm very happy to be back with you guys today for this very special installation of the culture where I have a fantastic interview with the great Dr. Charles Cornish Dale, better known as the Raw Egg Nationalist.
He has a new book out, The Last Man, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity.
And I was reading this book, and there's really a lot going on in there.
He breaks down specifically the testosterone crisis that we have here in the United States, how testosterone levels are down across the board.
And this has led to really weak men.
In this book, he explores the reasons why.
Obviously, there's the chemical, I mean, the chemical situation, you know, the xenoestrogens, all the pesticides, et cetera, et cetera.
And we talk about this at length.
But also from the philosophical side, I mean, liberalism in and of itself does not really seem to facilitate masculinity.
So we get into all of that.
I bring them on.
I'm very excited to have this conversation with them and present it to you guys.
So without further ado, let's get into the interview.
Charles, thank you very much for joining us today.
A lot of people are going to be familiar with who you are.
But for those who aren't, give us a quick intro.
Who are you and what do you do?
Yeah, of course.
So I was just an anonymous poster beginning in about sort of late 2019, 2020.
Became this figure called the Raw Egg Nationalist.
I published a cookbook, the Raw Egg Nationalism Cookbook, which contains raw egg and cooked egg recipes and also some pretty based law as well.
It was intended to be a way of kind of smuggling red pills actually to the normy masses by means of an attractive coffee table cookbook.
And then I was in a Tucker Carlson documentary in 2022, The End of Men, about testosterone decline, which is actually the main theme of my new book that we'll get into.
That was when I really kind of blew up.
I was doxxed in 2024, so my identity was revealed by an activist group in the UK called Hope Not Hate, which does that kind of thing.
That's their forte.
And I've just been continuing writing ever since.
I write for InfoWars.
I do news reporting and opinion writing.
I've written for the American Mind, American Greatness.
I write for The Spectator now and for some quite some fairly mainstream publications actually now.
So the message of raw egg nationalism is definitely starting to break through into the mainstream, which is nice.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I love whenever Hope Not Hate and other adjacent organizations, you know, do they put all these eggs in the basket of this is surely going to end this guy.
And then it seems like almost every time at A, they reveal that they're a highly esteemed academic or a massively successful businessman or both.
And then two, it ends up just amplifying them.
They just become bigger than ever before.
So I'm wondering if maybe they've learned their lesson.
I doubt they have at this point.
But with that, maybe you could sort of give us, I guess, the background to this book.
Obviously, a fantastic book.
I've already read it, absolutely love it.
But maybe you could give a breakdown.
The best, the best.
There we go.
Now it's in camera.
Maybe you could give a sort of background on your intellect journey.
I mean, obviously, a lot of people are familiar with the work you've done on men's health.
But maybe you could give sort of that background, like that intellectual journey.
What led you to the point where you have diagnosed, obviously, liberalism as, you know, this pervasive force, so to speak.
So, I mean, actually, like my intellectual background, my university background, I have a doctorate from Oxford in medieval history.
I wrote about the Reformation.
So that obviously wasn't something that came out until I actually was doxxed, you know, that I'm a doctor, educated at Oxford, was at Cambridge before, did anthropology, social anthropology.
But I mean, I've got like a deep background in health and fitness.
I was a martial arts instructor as a teenager.
I taught kickboxing and did a bit of competition.
So I've always been, health and fitness has always been something that matters to me and I've always understood its importance.
Bronze Age pervert, actually, you know, a lot of people were turned on to, I think, the political importance of health and fitness and hormones in particular by Bronze Age pervert.
So he talks in Bronze Age Mindset about hormones and these things called xenoestrogens, which are harmful chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen in the human body and throw off the vital ratio between testosterone to estrogen, which determines whether you are male or female.
And this actually has bad effects for both men and women.
So I mean, this was something that I had been writing about for some time before I was in the Tucker Carlson documentary.
And then that's when it really started to my kind of diagnosis really started to take shape.
So the Tucker Carlson documentary was called The End of Men.
Came out in 2022.
RFK Jr. was one of the main stars.
And I was really actually the other main star.
It was quite a, you know, it was quite a way to be thrown into the limelight, you know, to be to be one half of a kind of 30-minute documentary.
RFK Jr. was the first half, I was the second half, talking about testosterone decline and the political implications of testosterone decline and also what can be done about that and what will happen if something isn't done about that.
So, I mean, one of the kind of central thesis of the book or one of the central theses of the book is that there is a generational civilizational decline taking place in testosterone levels.
So, you know, this is well substantiated in kind of gold standard scientific studies.
Testosterone is declining 1% year on year and has been for decades and decades.
And, you know, that might not sound like a lot or 1% a year, but, you know, 25 years, you're talking a quarter.
I mean, and you can extrapolate the trends and end up very soon, potentially, in a place where actually there's very little or no testosterone in men's bodies at all.
But people actually haven't really, for various different reasons, considered the political implications of what this might mean.
And I mean, there are a number of reasons for this, not least of all the fact that actually, you know, we live in a profoundly misandrist society.
We live in a society that actively persecutes and demonizes men for being men.
And, you know, you need to look at a phrase like toxic masculinity, right?
And when you actually dig into what that means, you find that it's just a description of all of the things that men have traditionally been expected to do, like be a breadwinner, physically defend their families and their countries, compete with one another.
You know, it's like all the kind of basic foundational male behaviors and attitudes.
No, they're toxic.
So we live in this misandrist society that has labeled men problematic for being men.
And so, I mean, men's problems don't get taken seriously.
And, you know, generally, if testosterone decline has even been discussed at all, it's been discussed as a positive thing because, of course, we're told testosterone is just the aggression hormone.
Testosterone is just what makes men dangerous.
And so actually, you know, it's a good thing if testosterone declines because that means men will be less dangerous.
They'll be less aggressive.
They'll be less traditionally masculine.
And we can have a progressive, more inclusive, more equal society.
And that's actually the messaging that was being used by the Democrats in the 2024 election, particularly at the DNC in Chicago.
You know, Planned Parenthood turned up at the event with a mobile clinic.
And on one day, they offered vasectomies to male convention girls.
I mean, it's insane.
It's so on the nose, but they actually did this.
You know, there are all these jokes about leftists being, you know, cuckolds and, you know, castrated and emasculated.
Well, actually, they're literally doing it outside the DNC.
And then inside the convention, you had, you know, because you have Carmela Harris as the presidential candidate, and you have, and she's supported by Tim Waltz.
The messaging was, look, actually, testosterone decline is good.
It means men are more likely to be like Tim Waltz and to be happy to take a kind of a backseat role and let women do the driving.
You know, that's what we want.
We want a female president.
And the only way we're going to get it is if men actually stop being so pig-headed and masculine.
And if there's a biological decline that's kind of taking place, well, that's a good thing because that will just help us on our way.
So it's an interesting thing.
And I think it actually does, you know, it's very easy to portray it as a kind of peripheral concern, but I actually think it cuts to the heart of the kind of crises, actually, political crises, polarization, et cetera, that we're facing, you know, America's facing as a nation, but actually we're facing as a civilization as well, the West.
Right.
We got bearskin.
Check out bearskin, bear.skin slash Tim.
That's B-A-E-R.
You guys already know about the Bearskin hoodie, right?
Well, if you've been waiting to get yourself one, now is the time.
Right now, bearskin is running their biggest deal of the year.
We're talking 60% off for this Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
Now, this isn't some old fleece.
This thing is built with 340 GSM bearskin fleece, 10 pockets, a rugged athletic fit that actually looks good.
Plus, if it starts pouring, you can zip on the heavy storm rain jack and instantly level up to full waterproof protection.
You get free U.S. shipping from their U.S. warehouse, and the gear will last you season after season.
So what you got to do, to get 60% off, text Tim to 36912.
Again, that's text Tim to 36912.
They'll send you a link so you can lock it in, click it whenever you can.
But you're not just buying a great hoodie.
You're also supporting the Fallen Outdoors and Hope for the Warriors veterans program.
So you're not just buying great gear, you're backing a cause that matters.
Grab your bearskin while this Black Friday deal is live by texting Tim to 36912.
Assault on Masculinity and Nature00:15:22
Well, I mean, because that's kind of the whole argument, at least people utilize with immigration is like, look, whatever your political issue is, whatever your primary concern is, you know, whether you're like pro-life or this, that, and the other, all these various political causes that people have, they say, well, it's downstream from immigration because immigration is what sort of creates the demographic reality that you have to operate in.
So that's how you actually would achieve some sort of political victories.
You need to have the actual constituency to achieve that, to get your party elected.
But it's kind of the same thing with Maha.
And I remember a lot of people were saying this, including yourself, when RFK was being included in the cabinet and they were sort of building this Mahali program out.
They were saying, look, you need to actually facilitate the population to achieve these political victories because right now it's an uphill battle.
Part of that is because of the physiological reality that men are just not masculine.
And so it's going to be a lot more difficult to again facilitate political projects that require a degree of disagreeableness or a degree of energy, for lack of a better word, when you have a very sick, incapacitated population.
And that's what's so interesting about your book is you almost because Francis Fukuyama, like people always talk about his end of history and the last man, and they use that to like mock him.
And they're like, see, how naive are people in the, you know, in the 90s that they believe that this was the reality.
But you kind of, you kind of almost, I don't want to say steel man it, but you actually say, like, no, there's a little more to what he was saying there.
And what you're saying is like, you know, it's beyond like a political reality, you know, this last bit, but it's actually become like, again, like a physiological reality, like the of the last man.
So I don't know.
Maybe you could expand on that specifically.
Because again, Fukuyama's like thrown around.
It's one of those, kind of like that meme with Nietzsche.
It's like, you know, Nietzsche said this.
Oh, really?
Did you read it?
No, me neither.
It's like Fukuyama.
It's like, did you read him?
No, no, neither.
So.
Yeah, well, I mean, Fukuyama really, yeah, not enough people read Fukuyama.
And those who do actually don't read him, I think, carefully enough.
So he is presented as this kind of parody or encapsulation of liberal hubris.
You know, old Francis Fukuyama, he's the guy who thought when the Berlin Wall fell that history ended.
And, you know, nothing interesting would ever happen again.
And it would all be, you know, just a progress towards the sunny uplands of the utopia and the brotherhood of man and all that kind of stuff.
Well, that isn't really, that isn't what he said at all.
And I mean, the title of the book is not just the end of history.
It's the end of history and the last man.
And the final quarter of the book is actually a really, really stinging, really devastating Nietzschean critique of what liberal democracy and what the triumph of liberal democracy in particular over all of its kind of competitor systems does to man and what it will do to man.
And, you know, Fukuyama says, well, okay, yeah, liberal democracy has triumphed over communism.
And it's hard to imagine that a better, more functional political system will now turn up, but it doesn't satisfy fundamental desires and aims and goals of men.
And it forces you to live a kind of crepuscular existence.
You know, you're just a consumer.
You're just one of many millions of people in a country and many billions of people on the planet.
You all have equal value.
You're all accorded equal sort of political rights and legal rights.
You're afforded equal opportunity, or you know so we're told, and so really there isn't any horizon for grander ambitions, there's no real horizon to assert yourself uh, as an individual, of a of of a higher worth, of a genuine higher worth, a different, a different kind of person in a hierarchy like there would have been in other kinds of societies throughout history.
So Fukuyama is really saying, like you know, like there's, there's a space, there's something missing from liberal democracy.
And I extend that um to the biological plane and I say, look like not only does, not only is the triumph of liberal democracy kind of reducing our scope for self-exertion and self-development, it's also, um having an effect on the hormonal level.
So uh, I mean, Fukuyama couches his thesis in terms of thymos, which is this ancient Greek term.
The ancient Greeks were very, very perceptive um uh, observers of human motivations and human behavior, and they had this idea that there was this thing called thymos, which is basically something like spiritedness is how you would, is how you would describe it, and it's what drives men to, to do anything really to, but particularly to do things like to compete, to assert themselves, to defend their polis, the city-state, their nation, you know,
their people um uh, and Fukuyama says, look like this is a case of.
Actually, you know, liberal democracy doesn't give outlet to certain kinds of of thymos that are fundamental.
So it it gives an outlet to this thing called isothymia, which is a desire to be equal with everyone else.
We all, we all, you know, have this desire to be, you know, not to be prejudiced against and and to be held in equal esteem.
That can be satisfied in a liberal democracy.
But megalothymia, which is a, this desire to be different, you want to be better, you want to be higher up in a, in a hierarchy um, you want to compete.
There's very little scope if, if any, actually for for real satisfying um uh, expression of this, of this desire, this megalothymia.
So I actually say, look like the, the behaviors that are associated with thymos are actually behaviors that are associated with testosterone.
So you can turn Fukuyama actually not from from just a kind of political explanation of what it's like to live in this kind of liberal democratic end state into a biological argument as well, and you can say, actually, not only is liberalism curtailing certain forms of behavior, it's also curtailing the development and the expression of our nature as hormonal beings.
It is testosterone that drives men to behave in particular ways, and what you have to understand about hormones is that they exist in a kind of feedback loop with your behavior.
So you know if you have test, if you have high testosterone, you behave in certain ways, and By behaving in those ways, you reinforce the fact that you have high testosterone, and it's like a virtuous circle.
But if you don't behave in, let's say, like high testosterone ways, then you go down.
It's like a vicious cycle and it drags you down and down and down.
And if you can't express yourself as a kind of testosterone-driven man, then actually you have less testosterone.
And then that means that you behave in less testosterone-driven ways and you're just going down and down and down.
So, yeah, so I mean, it's fundamentally the book, the kind of framing of the book is about Francis Fukuyama.
And I'm saying, look, like, actually, let's take this seriously.
This is a very perceptive critique of what is wrong with liberal democracy.
And it's also maybe not even pessimistic enough because you can extend it to the biological plane and you can say, actually, you know, it's altering our very nature.
And that's the starting point for the book, because then, so you've got this idea that maybe, you know, like liberal democracy might not be a high testosterone political system.
That's kind of my contention.
But then you have this big problem that, or potentially an even bigger problem, that actually we've created a world that is toxic.
We've created a world that is literally toxic.
We are bathed on a daily basis, whatever we do, in these harmful chemicals that I mentioned earlier, zenestrogens, plastic chemicals, fire retardants, food additives that are in processed food, herbicides, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, medicines.
There's this kind of kink of modern industrial society that all of these chemicals that we've come to depend on and that the modern world actually couldn't exist without, you know, I mean, try imagining the modern world without plastics.
All of them actually, for some reason, by some kink and idea, I don't think it's design, it couldn't have been design.
They encourage or mimic estrogen in the human body.
And so there's this kind of political, let's say social, cultural assault on masculinity and testosterone.
But then there's this also this environmental chemical assault on our bodies as well.
And it really is, it's like a kind of two-pronged attack.
And it really, it makes modern life fundamentally hostile to testosterone and masculinity.
And so that's what I'm really, it's a kind of long-winded explanation, but that's really what I'm what I'm trying to get at with the book is that not only do we live in a political system that's hostile to testosterone, we live in a chemical environment that is also hostile to testosterone.
And so we're in big trouble.
Yeah.
I mean, it's so interesting.
There's a lot of different directions we could go here.
I mean, I guess one question that jumps out to me, and obviously you went into this in the book, but what is the philosophical undercurrent that connects, because you said it's a double-pronged attack, that connects the environmental assault with the political assault on masculinity?
Because like, okay, it's two-pronged, but the parties involved do share a philosophy to some degree.
I mean, the evidence for this is, you know, you don't have to look past Monsanto to see they probably are throwing pride flags up and this, that, and the other.
So could you maybe identify, and again, you talked about in the book, but maybe identify that philosophical undercurrent that connects the two prongs?
I mean, one of the things that I often say, and it might come across as being a bit kind of facetious or even kind of fatuous, is like If all of these chemicals that we're exposed to on a daily basis, these harmful chemicals, these estrogenic chemicals, if they had the opposite effect, if they were androgenic, if they promoted testosterone and masculinization, if they made men more muscular, more assertive, competitive,
more likely to form groups to pursue their goals, political goals, social goals, whatever, if they made men more motivated, I have absolutely no doubt that governments around the world would have banded together to clean up the environment very quickly, right?
But because these chemicals have the opposite effect, because they have this kind of suppressant effect on masculinity and they make men less motivated, they make men put on weight, they make them have less libido, they make them more liable to like, you know, sit around and be a consumer than to be like an active producer of culture and values, nothing gets done.
I mean, there are lots of problems with the way that we think, and you could call that a philosophy or whatever.
I mean, one of the things that is a big problem is that we take this very, very lax attitude to the safety of novel chemicals that we create.
So this is one of the reasons why all of these chemicals again and again and again turn out to be harmful is because the attitude, whether you're talking about the FDA regulating food additives or the EPA regulating pesticides and herbicides, they take this attitude that actually, you know, we only need to do minimal safety testing, you know, and actually maybe we can even let the corporations that make these chemicals do the testing themselves.
And so that's what happens with the FDA, with their generally recognized as safe loophole, is that since the 1950s, food manufacturers have actually been able to create new food additives, test them themselves, and then introduce them to the food supply without even telling the FDA that that's what they've done.
So nobody in the US actually knows how many food additives there are in the food supply.
It's just guesstimates.
So people will say, there are 10,000 food additives in the food supply.
In the EU, by comparison, they know exactly how many.
It's around 2,000, but they actually know how many there are.
And that is one of the reasons why food is better in the EU.
You have some of the same problems, or a lot of the same problems, where you've still got harmful additives and you've still got herbicides and pesticides and stuff.
But nevertheless, I mean, it's a significantly better place to eat food than the US.
In fact, the US is probably one of the worst places in the world to eat industrially produced food.
So there's just this crazy kind of attitude, this crazy kind of lax attitude where you actually basically let corporations run wild in the name of profit, and it is in the name of profit.
And unfortunately, the regulatory institutions not only have these loopholes, but they're also corrupt in other ways.
Corporations end up actually putting friendly people on the board of the FDA in the EPA.
There's a revolving door between business and the regulators and industries and the regulators that are supposed to regulate them.
And these are all legitimate targets that RFK Jr. has identified as part of the Make America Healthy Again movement.
He's like, we need to end corporate capture of the regulators.
And we also need to do something about the way that we regulate chemicals and how they're licensed for safety, et cetera.
So there are different kind of philosophies at work.
And I mean, whether there is a philosophy that's like, okay, we can make people easier to control.
There's definitely, that's definitely, I think, at least a side effect of this prioritization actually of corporate profit at the expense of good science and the greater good of the public.
Well, I mean, because it's interesting, because just going back out to like the Mac or the big view with liberalism at large, it's almost, it seems like at the moment, it's almost impossible to capitulate it.
Trump Powers and Judicial Pushback00:10:09
I mean, my case for this is you look at South Africa.
This is a country that should have collapsed 20 years ago.
By every metric, it's a failed state.
Yet they still have elections.
For the most part, they still have like government institutions, albeit like falling apart, but they still exist.
In any other moment in history, this would have been like an emperor is no clothes moment.
It would have just completely collapsed.
But, you know, there's still a government and there's bureaucrats that still show up to work.
That is like a liberal democracy.
And again, it just, everyone's waiting for it to, you know, balkanize and shatter in a million pieces.
And it just hasn't happened yet.
And that kind of like goes to the point of this liberal democracy system is just really rigid.
It's a really rigid system.
And I guess that goes to the conversation that we're having here domestically of like, you know, what Donald Trump is up against, really, is almost insurmountable in a lot of ways.
So it's like, you know, some people are very frustrated and rightfully so.
But when you look at specifically this like leviathan that is liberal democracy, you realize how hard it is to truly penetrate it.
I mean, look what RFK is up against.
Like court injunctions on actions that are like fully within the realm of the FDA to be making.
And like that never happened to the Biden, you know, led FDA.
It never happened to the Obama-led FDA.
So it's just completely bizarre in the HHS by extension.
It's just completely, I mean, to your point, where you said, look, if these, you know, if these pesticides and whatnot and these chemicals were causing, you know, a renaissance of testosterone, then there would be like conversations around banning it.
But when it's the opposite, it's not a problem whatsoever.
So that's, I guess, my contention or my frustration with liberal democracies.
It just feels like it's almost impossible to capitulate.
And even when you have these Napoleonic-like figures like Donald Trump, who I truly believe is like a once-in-a-generation like figure, I think the greatest man since Napoleon, it's almost impossible for him to operate like that Napoleonic figure because of just how rigid this system is and how impossible it seems for it to like really bend and break apart.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, you're really seeing, I think, the hidden strengths of liberalism.
I mean, it's very easy, I think, to present liberalism and to present leftists as well, actually, as weak and pathetic.
And, you know, like you can look at the Antifa mugshots from Portland, Oregon from 2020.
And it's like, yeah, these people are disgusting.
I mean, they are like hideous, hideous individuals and malformed and, you know, whatever.
Yeah, exactly.
It's the Tatooine Cantina.
But they have a real strength.
They do have a real strength.
They have strength in depth.
They control the system.
And yeah, like you say, I mean, all of a sudden, when you try and do something, when you actually try and move the needle, you're attacked from multiple sides all at once.
So, I mean, it was very, very noticeable when Trump started, when Doge started dismantling USAID.
Look at what happened.
Look at what happened.
I mean, you had all of a sudden you have spontaneous protests, you know, like you've got this whole kind of paramilitary organization that gets people on the ground protesting.
And then you have journalists for the Wall Street Journal doxing members.
In fact, and it was actually a journalist who tried to dox me.
It was a woman called Catherine Long, who has very obvious deep state connections.
You know, she doxes Marco Elez.
You know, so you've got like this intimidation campaign from the media arm.
You've got grassroots protests.
You've got judicial pushback as well.
You know, you've got judges issuing these nationwide injunctions and halt orders and all this kind of stuff.
And it's like, whichever way you try and turn, you're presented with what appears to be like an immovable, an immovable object, a roadblock.
And I mean, I think we're all, in a sense, actually waiting for Trump and the Trump administration just to say, okay, we're just not going to take any notice of this now.
The Supreme Court issues ban on nationwide injunctions and district court judges just issue them anyway.
It's like the whole system is just kind of falling apart.
It's like Wiley Coyote's run off the cliff and he just hasn't looked down yet.
But actually, maybe we need to look down and realize actually there isn't any ground under our feet and you just got to act accordingly.
But it's very HHS.
Like HHS coming in, changing the vaccine schedule, and then a district court issues an injunction.
And you're sitting there like, are courts in charge of vaccine schedules now?
Like that's just an ultimate emperor has no clothes moment, in my opinion.
Well, I mean, when the Supreme Court struck down the nationwide injunctions, then, I mean, Justice Katanji Jackson Brown obviously was in favor of nationwide injunctions.
And I think it was Amy Kearney Barrett wrote this scorching commentary where she was like, you want to replace what you call an imperial presidency, you know, President Trump acting like an emperor with an imperial judiciary.
And it's true, you know, they have just usurped the legitimate powers of various other arms of government.
I mean, we can all talk about a kind of balance of powers and the three branches of government, whatever.
And it's like, but okay, but whichever way, you know, you're stopping the president from exercising his legitimate powers as the commander-in-chief, as the president of the United States.
Then you're stopping the agencies from using their legitimate powers to determine health care.
And it's just a nightmare.
And conceivably then the rest of the Trump administration, the remaining two, three years, you know, could be taken up with just trying to do stuff and being blocked and then saying, oh, well, we can't do anything.
I mean, at least with the tariffs, I think, you know, because the tariffs controversially struck down by the Supreme Court.
So, I mean, that's, again, that's another reminder.
You know, there actually isn't a single forum, not even the supposedly, you know, conservative Supreme Court that will actually can be relied upon to come down on the side of the administration.
And I think it was Kavanaugh wrote another, a scorching dissent where he said, like, look, it's obvious that the president can issue emergency tariffs.
It's obvious, you know, the IEPA or whatever it was, the name of the act, you know, that he was the Emergency Economic Powers Act.
It lets the president issue an embargo on a country.
So the president can say, actually, we're not going to buy any goods from your country.
So like China, you know, we're not going to let in a single good from China, from China.
You know, we're not going to let in a single Huawei modem router or, you know, whatever.
But you can't issue tariffs.
So you can have no trade with a country if the president decides, but you can't put far more reasonable, far more moderate limits on your trade.
It's just like it's totally crazy.
Like there's no logic to it.
All it reveals is that actually what matters is stifling and reversing President Trump's agenda for his second term.
That's what matters, is making sure that President Trump doesn't get his way at any cost.
I mean, yeah, it's crazy and it's difficult to know how you're going to get around that.
You know, packing the Supreme Court with conservatives obviously doesn't work because Amy Coney Barrett voted against the tariffs.
And she was appointed by Trump and is apparently conservative and apparently she can read as well.
So she should have been able to read the IEEPA, but she didn't and she had a very strange interpretation of it.
So it's really difficult to know what to do other than just to say, well, okay, we're going to do something else.
But I mean, the Trump administration is at least looking for other legal avenues to issue tariffs.
But the problem is, then they're going to be blocked too.
You just absolutely can't rely on anybody to uphold a neutral, non-partisan or even a fate, and certainly not a favorable pro-conservative, pro-right-wing interpretation of the law and the president's powers and all these kinds of things.
But I mean, the good thing, I think, at least about this is that President Trump is finally revealing, I think, the limits of the system, the limits of what you can do within the system, how broken the system is and how it's been bent and reshaped to serve just a left-wing agenda.
You can be a left-wing president and do whatever you want, but if you're a right-wing president, you can't do anything.
So I think it will encourage creative thinking and I think it will also encourage people to question actually whether something more fundamental needs to happen, whether the system really actually needs to be needs to be overhauled.
Birth Control and Societal Hierarchy00:14:05
I mean, obviously that's pretty drastic because, you know, I mean, the American system has worked pretty well for 250 years, more or less.
I mean, I think it changed a lot in the 20th century in ways that weren't good, beginning with FDR, with the New Deal and, you know, big, big changes.
But yeah, it's very, very noticeable, the limitations of the system and what you can and can't do if you actually aren't left-wing, if you don't actually, you know, pull in the right direction.
Yeah, well, and it's so interesting because also, no matter how bad things get, right, no matter how broken things, you know, around you become.
I mean, to go back to South Africa as an example, there's that Twitter page everyone's passing around, Josie versus Josie. just shows you a picture of Johannesburg from 2010 compared to now.
And like 2010, it's like, all right, it's like whatever.
You know, it's South Africa.
It's nice.
15 years later, it looks like a bomb went off or something.
And then the point of that isn't just to show you how bad things can get.
The point of that, in my opinion, my evaluation is there are still liberals in South Africa.
So no matter how bad things have gotten there, there are still people who are just liberals.
They're just committed to flattening hierarchy completely because they believe that is the pathway to utopia.
And that kind of goes back to our earlier conversation of like, you know, what makes right-wing thought, you know, distinct, but what makes right-wing thought the philosophy, the philosophy that would facilitate masculinity, that would, you know, facilitate testosterone and these sorts of things, is because it acknowledges hierarchy and then seeks to not only uphold it, but like, you know, embolden it.
I mean, because that's what facilitates human prosperity and flourishment and general fulfillment.
And liberalism, I mean, you talked about it in the book, is it, you know, creates room for goals, like on the micro level, like personal goals, but it doesn't facilitate the space for goals that maybe are all encompassing, that are like society-wide, they could actually leave a footprint on your nation and your planet.
Well, you know, I mean, the South African case is very interesting.
I mean, I had a South African girlfriend fairly recently and her family, they had just come over from South Africa.
They were dairy farmers near Johannesburg.
And they had had to leave South Africa because it was getting so, you know, so awful.
And I mean, I can remember meeting the girl's mum and she said, oh, Charlie, it's so nice being here.
And being able to get out of my car outside my house and open the door without thinking that someone might jump on me and try and carjack me or kill me.
Because, I mean, you know, she said to me, like, if you break down on a motorway, you know, on a freeway in South Africa, you're dead.
You are dead.
But, but, you know, they'd had this experience where, you know, I mean, they were Boas.
They had come over from South, from, from, you know, their ancestors had come from Holland, from the Low Countries to South Africa hundreds of years before, created a prosperous society, and then they had to leave, you know, after hundreds of years.
But this girl's family, they could not say that they thought life was better under apartheid.
Right.
They actually could, like, she wouldn't, she wouldn't say, her mother would not defend apartheid at any level, at any level, which I found very, very interesting.
Like, I tried to press a little bit, and I was like, okay, yeah, I'm not going to get anywhere arguing with you, for instance, that actually, okay, like maybe this discriminatory system actually is the only way that you can make a society like that work.
And in terms of, let's say, like a utilitarian calculus, actually everyone was better off because blacks in South Africa aren't doing better now than they were under apartheid.
But what happens, of course, is you get the EEF and Julius Malema and all of these people, they can blame the whites.
And the reason why things haven't gotten better for blacks in South Africa is just because whites still have land and whites still have disproportionate power.
And so what we need to do is we need to dispossess them and kill them and drive them off.
And then, of course, if South Africa becomes exactly like Zimbabwe, then obviously things are going to be better.
But yeah, it's very, very interesting.
The South African case, I think, is really a kind of anti-accelerationist case as well, actually.
I think about it quite a lot when I see people talking on Twitter as they do quite loosely about, oh, you know, and especially as they have been actually since, you know, the Iran strikes and since everybody started truning out really, really, I mean, it's just, it's such an awful place to be at the moment, Twitter.
But, you know, people really truning out saying, oh, well, you know, we've got to burn the whole system down.
I'm like, look at look at South Africa and see if that actually leads to a desired outcome because, you know, I mean, okay, the demographics of South Africa are different.
South Africa is, you know, a majority non-white society and it even was under apartheid.
But like, you know, there's a powerful case that actually things can just get worse and forever.
You know, like they don't get worse and worse and worse and then and then, you know, you're in you're in based world because there's this inevitable revolt or something.
That's not, that's not necessarily the case.
But yeah, I mean, the hierarchy thing, the hierarchy thing and testosterone is interesting because, you know, I talk in the book of, there's a lot of scientific studies in the book.
You know, I really try to ground my argument about like the biology of politics in science because there's actually a lot of interesting scientific work on maybe not enough, but there's quite a lot of scientific work on the way that testosterone affects particular attitudes.
So there are studies that show, for example, that if you give men a dose of testosterone, they actually become more comfortable with hierarchy, you know, and at a very, very fundamental level, the difference, the real difference between left and right concerns hierarchy.
The left wants to flatten hierarchy totally, you know, in every domain, every axis.
And the right wants to reconstitute correct forms of hierarchy in order to have a, you know, well-functioning society that values the right things, etc.
So like hierarchy is a fundamental difference.
And it turns out that actually if you rub testosterone gel on a man's arm, he's more likely to be happy with hierarchy than if he gets a placebo that doesn't contain testosterone rubbed on his arm.
I mean, that's a kind of one of many indications that actually, you know, like testosterone decline does favor a leftist liberal system.
And, you know, one reason why, and, you know, I try to make conservatives care about this kind of stuff because I think like it's not ephemeral.
Health and fitness is not ephemeral.
The biological changes that are taking place and have been taking place over the last 50, 70, you know, maybe even 100 years, they're not ephemeral.
They are driving the kind of trends that we're seeing at the moment and the kind of political polarization.
And so actually, you know, we need to take them seriously.
And it's affecting women as well.
I mean, this is something, you know, I mean, I kind of get called the masculinist guru and stuff that Vanity Fair called me that, I think.
And like, let's go.
Yeah, I mean, I'm fine with that.
Like, I don't mind too much.
But like.
On the resume.
It's on the back.
I think it's on the back of the, it's on the back of the, yeah, it's on the back of the book.
Masculinist health guru, vanity fair.
Yeah.
But like, this is affecting women too, you know, like the profound kind of hormonal changes that are taking place in our social and political environment affect women as well.
And one of the things that I get into in the book is hormonal contraception.
That's a very, very thorny subject.
And it's not something that people want to talk about.
It's not something that scientists are necessarily inclined to investigate because they know, you know, the sexual revolution, women's equality, women's freedom as and this kind of kind of mythical conception of women as being exactly the same as men rests on, I think, adequate contraception.
It rests on the invention of hormonal contraception, of the pill which allows women not to be slaves to their menstrual cycles and the possibility of unwanted pregnancy.
And so actually, you know, talking about any of the negative effects of hormonal contraception is strongly, strongly discouraged, stigmatized even, you know, if you try to do it so.
So there's a great book called this is your brain on birth control.
I think it's Sarah Hill is the author that I talk about in the book, and you know it's a catalogue of all the kind of negative effects of being on hormonal birth control as a woman, including the way that it affects, you know like perception moods emotions, sexual preferences.
So there is, there is, good experimental data that show that actually women's sexual preferences change on and off the pill.
So well, I mean, we all have kind of anecdotal evidence of this.
We all know someone whose kind of girlfriend has gone a bit crazy on or off the pill or whatever.
But like, you know, I mean, there's real like research, high quality data about the fact that women's sexual preferences change when they go on and off the pill.
And that's why actually a lot of relationships end up, including marriages, break up because actually, you know, you're on hormonal contraception and it fixes you within one particular phase of the menstrual cycle, the luteal phase, when your sexual preferences are different from if you were fertile and could get pregnant.
You know, women who are fertile and and and can get pregnant favor men with higher testosterone right, and that means like classically, classically masculine facial features and attributes they find more attractive.
And so women who, let's say, you're a woman on hormonal birth control and you know you meet a boyfriend, you come off hormonal birth control and you look at him and you're like who is this twink that i've been, you know, sharing my life with?
And that happens, that actually happens.
Um yeah, but there's.
But there's even more kind of sinister stuff that's starting to starting to be revealed, like there was a study that showed that women on hormonal birth control, a very, very important part of their brain actually shrinks.
So they did um Mri scans of women's brains on and off hormonal birth control, with controls and um, they showed that hormonal birth control you shrinks a region of the?
Um prefrontal cortex that is uh, it's called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and it's involved in uh, fear regulation and emotional processing.
So it's like it's a fundamental region of the brain that is involved in executive control and emotional control.
Right and it's, and it's being shrunk by hormonal birth control.
Tens of millions of women are on hormonal birth control, a lot of them actually beginning in their teenage years.
So, you know, there's there really is um, the possibility actually, I think, that hormonal birth control is is having like big aggregate effects on a societal level.
You know it's shifting women's preferences, it's shifting their behavior, not only in terms of like, the dating market and interpersonal relationships, but maybe also politically as well, because you know remember, there's a lot of data now about political polarization and and so much of it seems to suggest that actually, you know, it's not men who are, it's not men and women who are diverging from each other.
You know like, men are going really far right and women are going really far left.
It's that actually, men are still kind of cleaving towards the center, maybe getting a little bit more right wing, but it's not, you know, like a huge thing.
But then you've got women just veering off um yeah, to the left, and that may actually be a function of, at least on some level, of the changing hormonal environment uh, we live in, including the use of hormonal birth control.
So there's, there's so much that can be said.
Um uh, and I mean I, I have to in the book, you know, I have to talk about it at times in quite an impressionistic way because because it's a difficult subject to find you know a lot of data about.
You know, it's because because scientists, a lot of scientists, won't touch it, especially stuff about hormonal birth control.
There's more stuff about testosterone but less about hormonal birth control.
But I mean I, I do think it really is that is the case that actually, you know, the kind of trends that we've seen in in male and female hormones kind of favor leftism and they favor the kind of left would the leftward swing of society in various different ways.
So it's, it is something that right wingers should uh take seriously, and it's one of many reasons why I think right wingers should get behind Rfk Jr and try to protect him as much as possible and, and you know, protect what he's doing.
Rumble Wallet and Creator Support00:02:06
We have a great great, great sponsor for today's show.
It is Rumble Wallet.
Oh my gosh, we love rumble wallet.
You may have seen the conversations happening online lately.
Censorship is back and it is happening everywhere.
Platforms are controlling narratives and pushing the stuff that they want us to see.
We need to fight back.
Rumble is the only company that has stood the test of time and deserves our support.
On one side, Rumble is challenging big tech censorship, but now, on the other side, they have introduced something that will give us protection from the big banks that are shutting us off.
Banks can cancel our accounts and freeze our cards, so that is exactly why Rumble has launched Rumble wallet.
It's a wallet that no one can cancel and a wallet that supporters can use to instantly tip creators like ourselves here at Timcast, without any middlemen taking cuts.
With rumble wallet, you control Your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it.
It's yours.
It is only yours.
It's for you and to protect you and your family, your end your future.
It's a wonderful, wonderful thing.
You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin or Tether Gold in one place.
Tether Gold is real gold on the blockchain with ownership of physical gold bars.
It is not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by tipping them with the click of a button.
There will be no fees when you tip this channel or others, and we'll actually receive the tip instantly, unlike other platforms where we have to wait for payouts.
Very, that's a game changer, quite frankly.
That is a game changer.
Let's be honest here.
Support this show and other creators by clicking the tip button on this Rumble channel.
It is wallet.rumble.com.
Again, download Rumble Wallet today, open an account, and step away from the big banks for good.
Wallet.rumble.com or search Rumble Wallet on the app stores.
Well, and these are important points because, you know, in the conservative media, you know, ecosystem, whatever you want to call it, sphere, whatever you want to call it, there's a tendency to always dunk on men and that men are the problem.
You know, that's why families aren't forming, et cetera, et cetera.
If men would just step up.
Yeah, you could man up.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You got to man up.
Scott Greer talks, you know, and like, you know, parodying this type of, you know, conservatives, like the good man scarcity.
There's a scarcity.
Infertility Crisis and Biological Limits00:08:53
There's all these great women just waiting for husbands, but they just can't seem to find a good man.
And in my experience, I'm 25.
I'm like, these foids have come completely come unglued.
I don't know what's going on with them.
They're completely out of control.
They're like all over the place.
This isn't like your classical woman, like, you know, like my parents and grandparents where, you know, there's like some swooning going on and some courting.
Like they're crazy.
They're actually genuinely crazy now.
I've settled down.
I've found a great FOID who, to your earlier point, gluten, she's celiac disease.
She's from Britain, comes to America, gets sick all the time.
And then we look it up and it's like, oh, well, they don't have the list.
Like there's a certain amount of gluten they can get away with and still call it gluten-free.
That's besides the point.
But these, the women have gone crazy.
And it's the dating markets completely insane.
This is to your in your book, you talk about in chapter three and then beyond talking about like the reproduction.
You say, this is a common topic here at Timcast is the birth rate issue.
And no matter where you look, everyone's diagnosing it differently.
A lot of people are saying it is because the FOIDs have gone crazy and they're messing up the dating market.
Now men, Chuds, cannot find their FOIDs and it's a really disastrous situation.
And I think there's some truth there.
But what you really dive into is the actual chemical issue because a lot of these dropping birth rates transcend national boundaries.
It's not just like it's no longer a Western and like Japanese issue, as it's like global.
I mean, there's headlines, you know, a few months ago that India is sub-replacement.
Which if you're Indian, I could see why you wouldn't want to procreate.
But like that does indicate that there's like, you know, seriously, there's, it indicates there's like a chemical issue, most likely.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, the nate, the natalism issue, I, I, I find fascinating.
And, you know, like, I've sp I have spoke at the natalism conference in Austin twice in the last three years in 2024 and 2025, you know, where all sorts of people are coming together to try and address the issue of birth rates, declining birth rates.
How can you maintain a positive birth rate in a developed nation like the US without mass immigration?
Because mass immigration has been the main method of maintaining positive birth rates in Western nations for quite some time.
You know, it's like, oh, okay, you know, well, the native population aren't having any babies, so we'll import people from, you know, Africa, wherever, who, you know, habitually have nine children rather than one or two or none.
But like, yeah, it's difficult because you look at a nation like Hungary and Hungary is really the poster child for pronatalism.
Viktor Orban, conservative, you know, has kind of really effected a sort of conservative revolution in Hungary.
And one of the central, one of his kind of most the most famous things that he's done is to offer serious tax breaks for young people if they have children.
You know, because he says, look, we don't need, we don't need more people in, we don't need more babies in Hungary.
We need more Hungarian babies, right?
So it's like, we're not going to import people to have babies for us.
We're going to encourage the native population to have children themselves.
And that's a total break.
That's a total break with the way that even conservative governments in Europe and the West have been operating.
So he brought in all these, you know, like flagship tax relief measures and interest-free loans and stuff.
And I think, you know, if a woman in Hungary has four children, she never pays tax again in her life.
These were brought in, I think, in 2017.
And the sum total effect has been nothing.
Like there's been the most modest increase in the birth rate in Hungary, still well below replacement rate.
And so it looks like, no, you actually, you can't just throw money at people and get them to reproduce.
And I mean, you can look back in time, you can look at the Roman Empire, you can look at these things called the leges iulii, laws that were brought in by the first emperor Augustus.
You know, there were similar problems in the Roman Empire.
Romans weren't reproducing.
And so what happened was, you know, you had this constant churn of people coming into Rome, into the center from the periphery and kind of, you know, keeping the population alive, keeping Rome alive.
And you've got these genetic studies that show an almost like total turnover, actually, of the genetic, of the genetics of Republican to imperial Rome.
You know, like there's a fundamental change where you get loads of people from North Africa and the Levant and whatever.
Augustus tried to do something similar and it didn't work.
So it looks like actually we've kind of got this like trans-historical case that you just can't get people to have children if you just give them money.
So what's going on?
Like why, how do you increase the birth rate?
And also why is it decreasing?
So it's not just that it's economic pressures.
You know, we're used to hearing people talking about how the dating market is very bad, which it obviously is, and how the economic situation is very bad.
And it's hard for young people to earn enough money and to get a, you know, a decent place so that they can, because, you know, I mean, you don't want to raise a family in a dump, like you want to have a stable environment.
You want to have a home and you want to have a decent income and blah, blah, blah.
You know, all of these things, yeah, these are problems.
Like it's seriously, but there's also something, there's something else as well.
And one aspect of it I think is definitely biological.
It's these very, very unpleasant chemicals that are also lowering testosterone levels and messing with our hormonal balance.
You know, they are also driving infertility.
They're driving sperm counts down at an even more precipitous rate, I think, than testosterone.
So there's this prediction, which I kind of address at length in the book called Spermageddon by this, made by one of the foremost reproductive health experts in the world, Professor Shanna Swan.
She's done lots of research into sperm counts around the world, not only in the developed world, but also the developing world.
And they're just going off a cliff.
And if you extrapolate the trends, you just draw out the line even further.
It looks like by 2045 or 2050, the median man will have a sperm count of zero.
And what that means is that one half of all men will have no sperm whatsoever, and the other half will have so few, like it just doesn't make a difference because there's nothing you can do, you know, if your semen contains like 13 sperm a liter or something, right?
So it's like, you know, we're in trouble.
We're actually on course for a situation where it may be impossible to reproduce by natural means within a generation.
And I mean, the sperm count decline generally is the one that makes the headlines, but the same kind of things are happening to women's reproductive organs as well and their reproductive fitness.
So, you know, I mean, there's been, it's kind of a meme, you know, like girls talking about, oh, I've got endometriosis, you know, girls on Instagram talking about their endo stories and, you know, polycystic ovarian syndrome and all that kind of.
These kind of diseases, these kind of conditions are all massively on the increase because of, among other things, I mean, stress and some other things, but it's also these harmful chemicals, which are estrogenic and they, you know, they encourage, like I say, endometriosis, things like that, reproductive cancers.
So there's this kind of biological, environmental thing that's going on as well.
But I think there's also something spiritual happening too, which kind of brings us back to the kind of Fukuyama thesis and the kind of that kind of framing.
And this is actually what I talked about at the natalism conference last year in Austin, the second time I was there.
The Bronze Age pervert chimp in a state of nature never jerks off, you know, this very kind of meme.
You know, where basically it's actually, I mean, it's very profound, you know, people think it's funny and it is funny and that's part of the kind of power of it.
But it's also very profound because, I mean, what if the modern world is a prison?
The Modern World as a Zoo00:07:30
What if the modern world is the equivalent of a zoo, right?
Yes.
And we know that more complex animals really do not like being in zoos.
You know, if you've been to a zoo and you've watched a tiger at the zoo, you know it's miserable, right?
But that's also true of chimpanzees.
And actually it has been established that chimpanzees kind of and other primates descend into a kind of pointless self-abuse, basically, when they're in captivity in a way that they just don't, I mean, chimps do masturbate in the wild, but nothing like they do in captivity.
Yeah.
So it's like, well, you know, what if we are chimps in a zoo, basically?
And what does that actually mean?
It's like, do you, what if there's actually nothing?
What if you can't really express your nature?
What if you can't really be what you are?
And, you know, the Fukuyama thesis, which is drawn from Nietzsche, points to maybe some of what might be wrong is that, you know, like we have these very narrow horizons for action.
Oh, you can be a consumer.
You can watch Netflix.
You know, every four years, you get to put a cross in a box and put your paper in the ballot box and you've elected a president.
Like these are very narrow limits for human behavior.
There are no higher goals.
I mean, you know, like making money is not a high goal.
Making money is not a, you know, I mean, like, in many, in many ways, a medieval peasant, you know, had far higher goals than the richest man or one of the richest men in the world, a billionaire today, you know, like a medieval peasant was trying to make their way into the kingdom of God, into the kingdom of heaven at the end of their life.
You know, like no matter how lowly their existence, they were looking upwards towards eternity.
Whereas what you've actually got is you've got, you know, even billionaires are just like, well, I just want to make loads of money and, you know, just, you know, live as long as possible and all that kind of stuff.
But, you know, when you get down even lower than that to just like middle class people and normal people, the horizon is even more limited.
And so it's kind of hard to put your finger on exactly what it is.
But there is something.
And I think that the failure of the Orban government and of conservative groups really to do anything about the birth rate points to some much more fundamental problem than economic means.
It's not just about money.
It's not just about whether you can afford a flat with your girlfriend.
It's not just about whether you can even have a girlfriend.
Although, of course, you can't have children if you don't have a, you know, if you're a man and you don't have a female partner, unless, you know.
So, yeah, I mean, it's a very, very interesting, very multifaceted, complex problem, as you would expect.
And I don't think there is any kind of, I don't think there's any kind of easy solution to it.
And I certainly don't think there will be a solution to it until people start to address it as a genuinely, like a really complex problem that touches the very nature of what it means to be a human being and why you would want to live and why you would want to reproduce in the first place.
Yeah, I mean, because to your point, I mean, the scope of what would be required to fix something like this that is that existential would require like a total mobilization of like the government.
I mean, that's, it really is of that magnitude, the, the issue.
Um, because I totally, I mean, it's, you know, environmental, it's social, et cetera.
It's a spiritual, I think, to your point.
Like, you know, in a zoo, we are in many ways, you have chimps in a zoo.
I mean, I backpacked Africa last year.
It never occurred to me once to goon while I was over there.
It's like, there's too much going on.
It's too exciting.
And I think there's something to that.
Like, the fact that the whole point of modern society at every level is to kid-proof everything, to mitigate risk in every single way, really just indicates why people are so miserable.
Because you actually do need that feeling of existential.
Like, you need to feel like an existential feel, I guess, for lack of a better word, that supernatural feeling.
Like there's something more, there's something greater.
This isn't just a rock that I'm spinning around on.
I'm not just a meat computer piloting a body, but like I'm a soul and a body interconnected.
And that's something like the ancients understood.
To your point, not only was the medieval peasant better off in some ways, spiritually, so to speak, but they just had a better metaphysical understanding of the world and they couldn't even read.
Yeah, it's amazing.
Yeah, yeah.
And it's, yeah, I just, I think it's not something that's going to change easily.
And I think that I think that really in the meantime, I think that if Western governments want to wean themselves off mass immigration, which obviously they should if they want to, you know, if you want to preserve your nation actually as it is instead of turning it into an airport terminal, then they're actually going to probably have to make an argument for population retrenchment.
You know, like you're actually going to have to say, well, look, if we want to preserve who we are, we can't figure out the birth rate thing, then, you know, we might have to accept that the population is going to go down.
I mean, in Japan, at least until recently, then they were riding the tiger and they were like, okay, yep, yep, we're doing that.
And we're going to come up with high-tech solutions to a lot of the problems that population retrenchment causes.
So, you know, we're going to develop robots, you know, that can work in nursing homes and in other situations, in hospitality, blah, blah, blah.
Like, you will have to do something like that, I think.
And the thing is, as well, actually, and this is something I talk about in the book, like these populate, and we talked about earlier with India, you know, like the pop the TFR in pretty much like every country in the world is negative now.
So it's not, it's not, it's not that like, you know, even India is touched by these, by these, yeah, fundamentally by this problem.
And China, certainly, and I think they've been lying in China about the population and the birth rate for a long time.
So it's not that it's not happening to them.
The thing is that there is just a standing reserve of manpower that is so much larger in the third world, in the developing world, that Western governments can just continue importing people from India and Africa and Southeast Asia and wherever until there isn't a native European population in their countries anymore.
But nevertheless, the people they're importing will also suffer from the same biological and fertility problems.
So it's a really, really thorny problem.
Absolutely.
Well, Charles, we could literally talk about this for hours, but we are running out of time here.
I just wanted to say thank you so much for hopping on.
This is fantastic.
It's so fantastic to have you.
And I'm sure the audience is going to probably have more questions, I think, than answers because there was just so many topics that we just have to blow past.
Next Time with Charles00:01:16
But that's why I think your book would be a fantastic resource to pick up.
Where can people find this book and where can people find you?
Yeah, so the book is available on Amazon.
You can get it in hardcover, Kindle, and audio book formats.
You can find me on Twitter.
I am Roe Egg Nationalist.
Baby Gravy 9 is my unfortunate handle.
I also have a sub stack, raw eggstack.com, which I regularly write essays and health stuff, political opinions, all that kind of stuff.
I write for InfoWars at the weekend.
So you'll find my reporting and opinion pieces on Infowars.com.
But I mean, the best place for updates generally is just Twitter.
I post all my new content, all the stuff on there.
So look for me there.
Awesome.
Thank you so much, Charles.
I'll catch you next time.
Yeah, pleasure, Tate.
Thank you very much for watching this installation of The Culture.
I've been your host, Tate Brown.
Come give me a follow on X and Instagram at realTate Brown.
Make sure you're following me too.
A lot of you guys see my tweets and you say, I thought I was following you this whole time.
And I check and I wasn't following you.
Also, be sure to grab yourself a copy of The Last Man, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity.