«  Ils veulent détruire le noyau de la civilisation » – Xavier Meystre @halterophilo

« Ils veulent détruire le noyau de la civilisation » – Xavier Meystre

Dans cet entretien, M. Xavier Meystre, de la chaîne Haltérophilo, partage ses perspectives sur la libération de la femme et le féminisme à travers le prisme de la philosophie thomiste de Saint Thomas d’Aquin. L’interview aborde les thèmes de la place de la femme dans la société, des rôles traditionnels des genres et de l’impact des changements sociaux modernes sur la structure familiale. M. Meystre soutient que l’égalité des sexes promue par le féminisme moderne est incompatible avec la vision thomiste qui met en avant une hiérarchie naturelle et des rôles distincts pour les hommes et les femmes.

Il aborde des aspects de l’émancipation féminine tels que la contraception et le droit à l’avortement, les percevant comme des défis à la structure familiale traditionnelle. Si M. Meystre ne cherche pas à minimiser les capacités des femmes sur le marché du travail, il souhaite néanmoins mettre en lumière leur rôle crucial dans la maternité et la préservation des valeurs familiales.

00:00 : Prélude
00:53 : Rencontre avec M. Xavier Meystre
1:30 : Le féminisme, incompatible avec les traditions ?
2:52 : La place de la femme est-elle à la cuisine ?
6:25 : Les revers de la contraception
10:00 : La maternité, un rôle essentiel
15:54 : Les vertus féminines traditionnelles
20:21 : Familles brisées : quelles conséquences ?
22:19 : Une crise de l’identité sexuelle
26:53 : Le plaisir : un moyen, et non une fin
28:01 : L’infidélité et la sexualité au cinéma
30:04 : Qui est le coupable ?
32:57 : La pornographie, un outil révolutionnaire
34:41 : La déférence d’une femme envers son conjoint
38:50 : Les pièges du masculinisme
40:05 : Préservez-vous et prenez de vrais risques !

Pour aller plus loin :

– [ ] Nærde A, Ogden T, Janson H, Zachrisson HD, “Normative development of physical aggression from 8 to 26 months”, Dev Psychol (2014).
– [ ] Teymoori A, Côté SM, Jones BL, Nagin DS, Bovin M, Vitaro F, Orri M, Tremblay RE, “Risk factors associated with boys’ and girls’ developmental trajectories of physical aggression from early childhood through early adolescence”, JAMA Network Open (2018).
– [ ] Campbell SB, Shaw DS, Gilliom M, “Early externalizing behavior problems: toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment”, Dev Psychopathol.

💎 Soutenez NTD : https://l.ntdtv.fr/gDuaRT
______________________________________________________

Gan Jing World: https://l.ntdtv.fr/BhZPS4
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ntdfrancais
Telegram: https://t.me/NTDFrancais
Twitter: https://twitter.com/NTDTVFrance
Spotify: https://ntdtv.fr/spotify
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ntd_fr/

Journaliste : Laetitia Rodrigues
Caméra : Alex Mur
Son : Luca Cifardi
Pré-montage : Tuan Nguyen
Sous-titres : Patrick Gareyte, Henri Mandel.

Hello, Mr Meystre. Good morning. Thank you very much for accepting this interview for NTD France. You are a young editor and the founder of the Haltérophilo channel on which you host political debates with experts from different backgrounds. We welcome you today at the Côté Square restaurant at the Bristol Hotel in Geneva, to explore different themes around the question of women’s liberation and feminism, but with a perspective rooted in tradition. Indeed, you have a rather original vision of questions linked to the roles of men and women in society since you are interested in Thomistic philosophy, therefore of Saint Thomas Aquinas who is one of the main masters of scholastic philosophy and Catholic theology. My first question is going to be a bit challenging, I would like to know if it is possible to reconcile this Thomist vision, of Saint Thomas Aquinas, with the demands, the current demands for equality of the sexes, with feminism, everything simply. Is it possible to reconcile the two? So the answer is no. But first of all, perhaps before I elaborate, I will still clarify certain things: when I talk about men or women, I will talk about it in abstracto. So men, women in general, and not in concreto, that is to say this man or that woman. The thing to take into account in relation to the “in concreto”, we see it very well: for example, a doctor has subordinates who are probably men. Same thing for a teacher who has male students, etc. Then, in relation to the current demands, to put it simply, the current demands are the following: equality, equality which tends towards non-differentiation. Now, what does Saint Thomas tell us? What does the Catholic Church tell us in general? This is because there is a natural order, therefore a hierarchy and therefore inequalities. Something obviously that we cannot reconcile with the current vision of feminism, I would say, from the 60s, 70s to the present day. So, if I follow you, what you are trying to say is not necessarily that my place is in the kitchen doing the dishes. I still have a certain legitimacy in asking you questions at this time, even if I am a woman. Or do you think , do you have a more radical vision, let’s say of the return to a society where it is men who guide society, who lead society and women are rather in the background? So so that people who listen to us can understand why there is this sentence: “A woman’s place is in the kitchen”. This comes from an evangelist pastor from Africa. So it’s a scene that has become cult, at least in somewhat dissident circles etc., even among young people, since now we do sidewalk microphones with the beginning of the sentence: "The place of the woman is ‘is…’, and people respond and some people have the reference and others don’t. Then, it was obviously set up with the aim of caricature and distortion. Obviously, what I’m trying to bring about, in any case: a more traditional and natural vision between man and woman. So no, a woman’s place is not in the kitchen, but a woman’s place is in any case, yes, I would say in the home, in any case close to the children in a not closed environment, but in any case protected. We see it in this way, for rather philosophical arguments : the man’s sex, the penis is on the outside, the woman’s sex is on the inside. So there are all these things that must be taken into account in our overall vision between men and women. The woman, her ovum, you know, her ovules are always the same. She is regulated, while the man, all his spermatozoa are mobile. It is he who seeks, it is he who fertilizes. And so I would say that a woman’s place is not the kitchen, but she is certainly near the home. That’s one thing that’s certain. And we tend to want, we are going to approach it I think a little more, afterwards, to want to get the woman out of the home and put her in a condition of obligation to be on the labor market. We obviously see this with the menstrual leave which was recently implemented in the canton of Fribourg. Could you tell us a little more about these menstrual holidays? What is it exactly? So, there is a desire to allow women to take leave because of their periods which are very often painful, right? I don’t know that, but in any case, I suspect it. And so that would allow women to take time off, but to come back a few days later, as soon as their period has passed. But what we must understand behind this, as also behind paternity leave, is that there is a desire to lock women into the job market when women’s place is not in the labor market. I think that in general, it harms anthropology, it puts men and women in competition. But what we also need to understand and I would like the people who are listening to us and who, I hope, are in good faith, to understand: I am not calling into question the qualities of women in the job market. Obviously women are competent and it shows on a daily basis, carrying out many jobs. Not all. That too is something to take into account. Particularly in all manual professions, there are very very few women, it is almost non-existent. In fact, if I follow your reasoning, the sexual revolution and the entry of women into the job market after the Second War did not necessarily liberate women, contrary to the messages conveyed today in the media. We hear a lot, we hear a lot about this link in fact, between the entry of women into the labor market and the liberation of women as a whole in fact. And you, do you think it’s the opposite? And you are talking precisely about this contraception, the right to abortion. You discussed this subject on your philosophical YouTube channel. These are concepts, phenomena which are seen as fundamental rights of women: abortion, access to contraception. What do you think about it? Regarding the pill introduced by, the pill finally abortion, it is Simone Veil, at least in France. And the pill is Lucien Neuwirth. divorce Alfred Naquet. But what we also need to understand is that it changes anthropology. And there we are going to leave, I would say, Catholic circles, etc. But if we take a fairly simple example and studies that have been carried out which explain that precisely taking the pill changes the perception that a woman has of her husband and changes not only that, but also her sexual desires. And so now, what is recommended in so-called conservative circles is that the woman stops taking the pill six months before marriage because it will change the perception that the woman has of her husband. There is, what must be understood once again, is that behind all this, there is a will, there is a desire to destroy the family which obviously remains the core of all civilization, it is the family, and we want to destroy that through abortion, the pill, divorce. It was the revolutionaries who introduced divorce in 1792, although before that it was forbidden. I also remind you, according to the work of neuroscientist René Écochard, that we are a monogamous species. And what abolished polygamy and abortion was Christianity. It is Christianity which came to sublimate, I would say, the achievements and also allow a certain protection of women through marriage, through motherhood, which are precious things and which are things that our time tends to want destroy or postpone, since we see now, we can freeze our eggs to postpone motherhood because obviously professional requirements require it. As always, we highlight in fact progress which completely turns it into regression. The question I also ask the people who listen to us is: do they have the impression that the reports between men and women have improved over the past 50 or 60 years? Do they have the impression that since the introduction of the pill and divorce, relations between men and women have improved? And do they have the impression that since women have been on the job market, there has been an improvement in relations between men and women? You see, there is quite a paradox, I find, in our time, every year we are told that women stop working from the month of October. I no longer know precisely when they would start working for free, because obviously there would be salary inequalities. But all this is done to put men and women in competition and harm anthropology and obviously harm the essential role of women which is motherhood. And they also want to tell us that motherhood is bad, whereas motherhood is something exceptional, which must be highlighted and, once again, the media point to the south, so everything that the media say, theoretically we should do exactly the opposite. Not necessarily in principle, but after reflection. We are told this repeatedly, but every day we have to freeze eggs , every day having children contributes to global warming, the pill is progress. It’s catastrophic. This is the term that I would also like people to remember. This is the term intentionality, which is hidden behind all this. Here we can listen, for example, to a quote from Abbot Charles Guillemot who tells us that: “Women are less physically strong. Whatever some modern educators say. The muscle is not her doing, she is less intellectually powerful. Not that her mind is inferior in quality, but it is less able to apply itself to abstract conceptions, feeling too quickly obstructs intelligence and unscrupulously breaks the logical series of thought, but she is endowed with a heart . » Then I could quote Saint Thomas Aquinas, for a sentence which will undoubtedly be spicy for the listeners. But I am also surprised when we say for example: “Man and woman do not have the same intelligence” immediately people jump, get excited and say: “But what do you mean? Are you implying that women are dumber than men? » No, what I’m saying is that men and women have different intelligences. And even that, in fact, it has almost become unacceptable to say it, when it is simply things that can be seen with the naked eye. As I said in relation to scientific arguments, musculature, if a man and a woman exercise in the same way and train in the same way, there will not be the same results. This is why in all sports, there are different categories, since obviously competition is not possible. If you look again at the great writers, the great scientists, the great chefs, the great architects, most of them are men. And that is also factual. But the fact of saying it, in fact, one is considered misogynistic, retrograde, archaic. No. And in relation to these inequalities, perhaps I could add a point, physical force does not necessarily induce mistreatment and tyranny, on the contrary, physical force engages, engages in honor, in loyalty, in protection. This is also what our time does not want to see. She thinks that physical force necessarily leads to mistreatment and yes , there is some. But that’s not what we call original sin, because the soul is wounded and therefore there are acts that should be punished severely when there is violence committed against women, This, yes. But on the other hand, physical power obviously entails duties, and not just rights. And that, obviously, as we are in the era of individual rights and no longer duties, these are things that we tend to forget. Interesting. I didn’t have the opportunity to bring in a more radical feminist to discuss with you, but I think if a feminist were here, she might accuse you of being reactionary with your attachment, let’s say, to tradition. This is the case today for many people who are attached to tradition. They are accused of being reactionary. How do you differ from people on the far right? We can think of groups like Nemesis or men who are today accused of masculinism. How does your attachment to tradition distinguish you from these radical people? So first of all, nothing differentiates the feminist from the left and the right. They are both revolutionaries. So they place man at the center of everything. I have never heard a Nemesis feminist typically question the achievements of 89. She does not talk about patriarchy either, said patriarchy which does not exist. She doesn’t talk either, what do I know about salary inequalities or the right to abortion or the pill. She just talks a little about PMA. They are against prostitution, but otherwise nothing differentiates them, except a criticism of immigration. And if there was a so-called left-wing feminist, pleonasm, who was here, I would ask her if there was suddenly an attack and she was accompanied by a man. Is she waiting for the man to intervene? Or is it the woman? There too, there is a whole hypocrisy in relation to the roles which are done naturally. That is to say, defense, as a general rule, unless you come across a coward, which happens more and more. But I have the impression that this claimed equality is only a material point of view, that is to say doing 50-50 at the end of a restaurant, quite simply, that’s just it. And to come back to Nemesis, what they say like the sixty-eighters, “enjoy without hindrance”. So let us enjoy without hindrance, except that we do not want to be disturbed by non-European immigration when we go out in the evening, when we pass in the street, nor do we advocate piety or modesty or elegance in relation to outfits. The values, finally, which were conveyed by tradition and which all the traditions of the world have given and transmitted to women. It is not only Thomism and Catholicism that transmitted these values. I have brought here a quotation from the precepts for women. It is an ancient Chinese guide to cultivating traditional feminine virtues and it says: “Women should cultivate modesty and gentleness. » So it really seems that this vision is somewhat common to all cultures in the world, that the woman had this gentle, tender nature, with a certain deference for her husband, and that the man was the one who guided, who led, who was the leader, let’s say, to have this harmony and this balance. But this is what I mentioned at the beginning, that is to say it is natural law. So that is to say that there is an essence of man and woman. We also see, as I said, from the neuroscientific point of view, two distinct chromosomes, XX for women, XY for men, and therefore two different natures. And so obviously, as the child, when he grows up, will evolve in a different way, in particular the little boy will be much more attracted to toys, cars, etc. While the little girl prefers stories, fairy tales. So this may seem cliché, except that it is neuroscientists who have demonstrated it. I will also send you the sources because I know people need sources. But things that may seem cliché, despite everything, come from something that is completely natural, from an essence. And that, once again, since we are in existentialism, in nominalism. Basically, this glass of water is not a glass of water, this glass of water is a glass of wine, since what I am saying is, then no. Maybe one more point on this subject, I think that there are many young women and young men who are waiting for a speech like mine and who do not dare to say it precisely because it is politically incorrect and above all it is opposed, in general by almost everyone, almost everyone. I perhaps also have another quote, a quote from Léon Bloy, a thinker from the 19th and early 20th centuries, on precisely the essence of woman. “The more holy a woman is, the more woman she is”, “The more holy a woman is, the more woman she is.” » So the more obviously she fits into her femininity and the more she will also be respected, and hoisted, I would say. Just look at the way young women dress these days. These are calls to vulgarity, they are also calls to evil thoughts on the part of certain men. Once again, I do not legitimize attacks due to inappropriate outfits, especially not, because I know that we will quickly make shortcuts. But nevertheless, there is a modesty and piety in women’s clothing that must also be emphasized. I think you’ve also seen is a phenomenon in the United States called Trad Wife. So that too we are in the cliché. In the women of the 60s, the woman at home, the question arises much less nowadays for the simple reason that a salary is no longer enough to be able to meet their needs, or with great difficulty. I know people in France, for example, who have eight children. But it’s a sacrifice. They don’t have an exorbitant salary, but it’s a sacrifice. In Switzerland, having eight children, I think it’s very, very, very complicated, unless you have a salary that allows it, unfortunately, I fear that it will be more and more difficult these days. And there again, intentionality, there is a policy behind all this, in particular, I don’t know if in Geneva this is the case, but I believe that in Vaud and Valais, this is the case at the level of taxes. If you are married, you will pay more taxes than if you are cohabiting. For what ? This is nonsense. There should be precisely the fact that the State encourages structured families because we also know, that too, I will send you the statistics, but that has been said by everyone, by conservative, soft circles, not necessarily counter-revolutionary, but precisely, if there was the absence of the father in the home, it would greatly contribute to the fact that there were more criminals in society. So if we were logical with this reasoning, without going into theological considerations, we could simply consider that for the well-being of society, of the State, the State would have an interest in favoring these families so that they are numerous and structured, hierarchical. However, it is quite the opposite, it is becoming more and more chaotic where women have three children with three different husbands. I’m not here to judge, but nevertheless it raises questions. What is the father’s place in such situations? What is its legitimacy and therefore what is its role? Doesn’t this kind of situation destabilize children in their growth? Whether it’s physical obviously, but also intellectual, to have a good balance? It is undeniable in any case that divorced families tend…, so everything depends of course, then on the education that is provided by the single mother or the father who raises his child, which is rarer. But it is true that studies in America have really shown that children who came from divorced families were much more likely to turn to delinquency for men and not to prostitution for women, but it is rather that young girls would later have a tendency to in fact reproduce the family pattern, that is to say, to have children outside of marriage and to raise them again, therefore ultimately to perpetuate this cycle in which our society seems to have register, we really have families who are destroyed. A question that I ask myself is, are all these lessons that we transmit today in schools to encourage young people to ask themselves the question of their sexual identity? Little boys can be little girls. ‘they feel, little girls can be little boys if they feel it. Does this teaching, ultimately conveyed almost everywhere in society, not contribute to promoting a kind of confusion and to making families unstable, to making women more masculine and men more feminine and to reversing these roles? and doesn’t that ultimately contribute to a loss of harmony, the one you’re looking for? Yes, well, already, there are several phenomena. There is the trans phenomenon which is obviously highlighted, whether through the WHO, through the 2030 agenda, through other benevolent programs. Is not it ? Well, what’s going on there? It creates confusion. And what you need to know is that the more, as we said, the healthier the environment, the healthier the child too, whether the little girl will look at her mother and the little boy will look at his father to be a man. And I will answer your question, I will make yet another digression. In the Ancien Régime, children were entrusted to their mother until the age of seven and then they were entrusted to their father precisely so that there was the structure that the man came to supervise while the mother tended to be more supple, softer, more rounded, while men tend not to. Then, yes, there is intentionality behind it, since it creates confusion. There is also a sexualization of childhood and a destruction of innocence through the programs that we have also seen, notably in Geneva or even in Belgium with the Evras program, in Geneva I don’t remember the precise name of this program, but things are absolutely catastrophic. And there, we want to create confusion among the little boy and the little girl to create transsexual beings. And when we say transsexual or gender transition, I remind you that it does not exist, it is called sterilization by mutilation. To be precise, it is irreversible. We cannot go against nature. So there are catastrophic after-effects, particularly when the trans person becomes an adult, he or she must take medication constantly to ensure that their hormones are always properly regulated or disrupted. And compared to children, they have hormone blockers that are put in place. But it is certain that it creates confusion and that, gradually, unfortunately, totally destroys femininity and masculinity whether in the little boy or the little girl. I think it’s normal to ask questions, but to insist on this point. I rather think that it would be necessary to reassure and put people back on the right path rather than continuing to create confusion. And this is what is being done. And I think that, and I’m surprised at the silence of most parents regarding this catastrophic situation. The silence is partial, because there is the Parents collective in Geneva which is protesting against what we are currently seeing in the media, in particular. It seems that they have reacted, in any case there are voices that are starting to be raised about this. Yes, but again, it’s often a minority. Well, as always it’s a model that makes history, but it’s late, it’s late, you see, it’s a bit like people who wake up three years after the cold 21 and say to themselves ah gosh, maybe indeed… yes, but it’s too late. That is to say that the masses are always from yesterday or the day before yesterday and that we must always try, as a thinker or whatever, to be at the front of the masses in order to guide. So obviously, now, voices are waking up, but the program is already in the works and it’s already there, it’s already there. And the consequences, I think we can already see them. When we explain to a little boy, for example, that making love in the buttocks is not very serious, that sort of thing. Here once again, we also see the intentionality and the whole program which is anti-Catholic, anti-Christian. Pleasure, pleasure, if we have it, it’s Father Charles Grimaud who says it. If there is pleasure during sexual intercourse, like when we eat something, it is because it is a means. It’s not an end. So what that means is that if there is pleasure in having sexual intercourse, it is precisely because it is to perpetuate the species, it is so that there can be descendants. . Same thing for food, it’s because you have to live well and survive and it cannot be used precisely as an abusive and excessive pleasure. Because obviously afterwards we go towards all the excesses, in particular with this kind of program which explains to us that making love in the buttocks is something…, it’s nothing. And what’s more , making love in the buttocks doesn’t give you life. There is no life after. It’s all about the politics of death, divorce, abortion, pills, butt sex, those are the terms they use. Same thing also as “forbidden to prohibit” It is also libertinage in general. Loyalty is something, loyalty is old-fashioned. Finally. In any case, if we look at today’s films, infidelity is highlighted a lot. This is something that comes up a lot in themes related to the relationship between men and women. But that’s just the banality of sexual intercourse. And I meditated on that a little bit. Are we meant to have more than one sexual partner? I think not. Even in relation to neuroscience, the human being, the human species is a monogamous species and I think it’s like a reservoir if you like, love. It’s not a muscle, it’s a tank. And so, by dint of using it, this tank becomes empty. And what they say through Netflix films, even you watch a James Bond. We went from Sean Connery having one scene, to now it’s almost three or four sex scenes, in movies like that. And that conditions. We see it with social engineering, it conditions minds. You look, these are experiments that have also been done in the United States. When you have a movie where one person smokes and a movie where no people smoke. This will have consequences on the viewer’s behavior and therefore, they will want to smoke more if they see someone smoking. I think you can have the same levels of thinking with sex. These are incentives, I would say, to sin from a Catholic point of view and incentives, I would say, to deviate from our norm. I don’t think either man or woman is meant to have sexual thoughts all the time. And I think that it harms anthropology, as coming here, there is a lot of traffic, a lot of noise, that also harms anthropology. I think that man and woman, to be harmonious, must be faithful and be in time, part of a lineage. However, we are also doing everything to destroy this lineage. I agree with everything you say about the behavior of women in society today and of men too. Finally, it’s not just women that I think we should blame. I think that in general, I think that we can attack society or perhaps even the men who have instilled these values ​​in the minds of women. Finally, I’m talking about those who brought about the sexual revolution, sexual liberation. There were also men behind this phenomenon. So yes, I think it’s important to also emphasize the fact that women are more victims than instigators of depravity, and they are an instrument, let’s say, of the depravity of society but they are not not the only ones behind this. I think everyone has contributed, in fact, to the loss of these values, not just women . I don’t know if you know what I mean. Yes, I think of Sartre for example, who mistreated his wife and then forced her to give herself to men if I remember GOOD. He wanted just this depravity. And I think that there are many men who participated in the liberation of women in the 60s, who preached precisely for women who work, for women who are sexually liberated, but perhaps also with a intention to disrupt society, to destabilize society. So here, we perhaps come to a more spicy subject since behind this political question, there is an eschatological question, that is to say a question of the end of times. And so obviously some people contribute to the destruction of what we call Edom. Edom is Rome, therefore Christianity and therefore, all possible revolutionary tools are put in place. So, divorce is a revolutionary tool. Abortion is obviously a revolutionary tool and even a sacrifice. Then followed the so-called sexual liberation which, in the end, is a total imprisonment of the woman since the ancients, under the old covenant, polygamy and abortion and divorce were tolerated. Christianity has made it possible to sublimate all of this and to prohibit divorce, to prohibit abortion and to reestablish monogamy. Now, we are in the process of undoing all of that. And as I said, I don’t want to go into too much detail for obvious reasons, but in any case, there is a revolutionary intentionality, so revolutionary understand the revolution of 1789 to totally destroy the family base, the base of man and woman in their essence. And it will continue like this. I was talking about revolutionary tools but pornography. Have you ever heard feminists question pornography? No never. While pornography destroys and completely harms first of all the perception that we have of a sexual relationship. It demotivates, it demoralizes. We no longer want to go out since obviously we do all these things inside, at home. We have the woman who is totally humiliated, humiliated in all sexual relations. I’m not going to go into all the details, obviously, and all the practices. I think people see what I’m talking about. And feminists typically never question pornography. Last week we had a certain lady on RTS. Now his name escapes me. She has a particle name which recently explains to us that if our child has seen a pornographic film, we shouldn’t worry too much. Well, I think we should be worried. And at no point in her intervention does she question the viewing of pornographic films. And that too is a revolutionary tool. When we understand either the actors, the producers, the directors where these things come from, we understand intentionality. I also remind you that it’s a bit in the news, but I did two topics on the desexualization of our minds. The Israeli government had used pornographic scenes and allowed them to be shown in Palestine, already 20 years ago, because it is a wonderful tool for brutalizing. And there, we see the fruits, if I dare say, the rotten fruits since access to pornography is becoming younger and younger. I just wanted to come back to a question related to male-female harmony, you talk about it a lot. Does Saint Thomas Aquinas also speak of a woman’s deference to her husband? I ask you the question because today, we have a lot of feminists who talk about “unacceptable submission”. There, I think that if they hear you talk about this harmony, for them, it is not a harmony in fact, that the woman is submissive to her husband, it is a disharmony. A wife should never be blindly submissive to her husband. However, according to the ancients, the humble and tolerant character of a woman makes it possible to balance, precisely, to temper the strong and dominant character of the husband. And the problem is that if both want to be dominant, there will inevitably be conflicts. Or, if both are gentle and effeminate, there is no no decision will be made. Do we also find this in the Catholic tradition? So first of all, feminists prefer to be submissive to their boss rather than their husband. That ’s still something to point out. Then, there is obviously a submission that must be made, but it is a conditional submission. Submission is not humiliation, it is not violence, it is conditional submission. And man has duties. His duties, as I said, are to protect, to provide for his wife, to be charitable, to be loving, to be gentle. Christ tells us: “Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as the church was submissive to Christ. » But he also says because we always quote this first part to say: “See, Catholicism is misogynistic. » But the second part is: “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. » And so, if it is not a blind submission, it is not an unconditional submission as we can unfortunately see in other false religions. But here, it is really a submission which is made conditionally and moreover, we were talking about marriage, divorce, but the man and the woman, when there is an engagement in a Catholic marriage, preserve each other and do not have sexual intercourse. And so, nowadays, how many men agree to wait until marriage precisely to, in quotation marks, “taste the pleasures, etc.?” » ? Very little. And that is a way of protecting women, at least in their being. And there too, feminists see the opposite, in any case I ‘m not trying to convince feminists, I think it’s wasted effort, but to see the opposite in the sense that, there you are, you are liberated by having a lot of sexual intercourse, many times, you are liberated. But freed from what? Freed from what? To be used as unfortunately mops? It’s terrible, but there’s that too. There is also a hypersexualization of our society through music, films, clothing, well everywhere, advertisements, marketing and at the same time sexual misery. There is this paradox where there are men who have a lot of women, of suitors, others unfortunately perhaps, I don’t know anymore it’s Pareto, 20% of men have 80% of women, and unfortunately that creates misery and this precisely creates redirections towards pornography. Whereas if we have a vision, I would say traditional Catholic, men and women must preserve themselves. So no sexual relations , no temptation until marriage, and marriage, I would say, is the culmination of a preparation which will then affect the family and the children. Once again, when we have sexual relations in an uncontrolled manner, it harms anthropology, since obviously we have sexual relations for nothing, for nothing. We are shooting blanks, if I dare say, since the goal of the sexual relationship is the child, it is the descendants, it is the lineage. In addition, unfortunately more and more, we are taking risks in catching diseases, STDs, STIs, etc. That’s it, and I think that we must preserve both women and men and not fall into the trap that you mentioned previously of masculinism which tells us, like Andrew Tate in particular, or Thaïs d’Escuffon, who tells us here, unimaginable vulgarities, like a key opens many doors, implying a man can have several women, that’s no problem, buy big cars, spend a lot of money, have lots of suitors, Andrew Tate claims the fact to have more than fifteen children I believe, since he had several children with several women. The problem, this so-called traditional man but who is a scam, is also put forward by most conservative circles as being a model, whereas it is a complete scam and he is totally harmful, in any case to the fight that I advocate that of counter-revolution and that of having harmony between man and woman and then leading to children and loyalty and all that follows. What we can say in conclusion, I am addressing young women and young men of good faith. It’s preserve yourself, read, build either a business, or a project, or things that will contribute to the little that remains of civilization. Don’t fall into easy traps because we know it, quite stupid, but we always say as soon as it’s free, you’re the product. But I’m going to say something a little more elaborate, which is that as soon as it’s easy, it’s not the right direction, it’s not the right direction. Choose what is difficult, and what is difficult these days? Stay faithful, commit, take risks and not fall into the kind of baseness where we are told that pornography is nothing bad, that having several sexual partners is cool. No, it’s not cool actually, it’s catastrophic. And I tell my close or less close friends, if you are in a relationship, stop being in a relationship. It’s Squeezie who is in a relationship. If you are normally constituted men, you become involved with a woman in order to have a family and children. But the couple is Squeezie who is in a relationship and Squeezie is the eternal teenager, like most of the people we see these days who have McFly and Carlito, YouTubers who are 40 years old and who dress like fifteen and a half year olds. I think that here too it is the complicated thing to do and to choose, it is obviously the choice of the counter-revolution and therefore despite everything to dedicate oneself to a woman as soon as one has chosen her and that it corresponds to our expectations, etc., and to commit, because otherwise it is not possible, we can already see the results at the moment. For me on a natural and material level it is over, since in fact the reactionary damage is so far away, so catastrophic, but if people despite everything want to save their souls or if they simply believe in it, I hope that it There are still some who believe in it, It’s the only path to take. And if you want to continue to go into decadence thinking that it’s cool to have lots of girls, you’re wrong. In any case the ancients believed that when people deviate from the natural path which is where you are referring or struggle to change their role, harmony is lost and families will obviously fall apart, this is indeed a bit of what we see today. I think we can say that it is indeed the lack of harmony between men and women that leads to these problems that we see in society today. Thank you for bringing a little bit of perspective to this whole question of femininity. The gentle and kind feminine nature is actually a powerful force. You mentioned it a little, eh, but it’s a powerful force that accomplishes, that nourishes life itself. And for a woman, embracing this feminine nature does not necessarily mean that she demeans herself or that she sacrifices herself, but on the contrary, according to all traditions, as you said, the Western tradition, the Eastern tradition as well, it testifies to his desire to follow his destiny, ultimately his destiny. Do you have a quote or anything to add? I also had another sentence from Father Charles Grimaud. “Now, there is in the feminine soul a treasure of inestimable wealth, and from which, if we know how to exploit it, the heavy ingots which will solicit the scourge will emerge like from a mine of incalculable price. of freedom. This treasure is called the feeling of motherhood. » This is different from what we can hear today in relation to all these demands linked to motherhood, which should not be an obligation for women. In any case, you see it as a privilege to be a mother. But absolutely! In any case one thing is certain, tradition has a lot to contribute and I I think today you have shown it well, it is an important thing. Thank you very much, Mr Meystre. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I hope to see you soon to continue the discussion, perhaps in the form of a debate once with a person who does not necessarily agree with you, if you wish. Yes with pleasure. I am open to all debates, to all discussions. With pleasure then. See you soon. THANKS.