Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

In this episode, we dive into a series of topics starting with controversial statements from Hillary Clinton regarding immigration and fertility rates. We then move to analyze unexpected trends in cultural behaviors and fetishes across different American regions. The hosts also discuss the perceived failures and intentions behind the Democratic approach to immigration, highlighting the recent reactions of institutions like the Episcopal Church and their handling of white South African refugees. Towards the end, there is a reflection on historical and cultural differences within American populations, including a personal anecdote involving film crews and the hosts' children. Join us for an engaging and thought-provoking discussion.Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. And today we are going to be exploring through a few chains of evidence starting with Hillary Clinton. Great replacement theorist.Now, apparently,Conspiracist Malcolm, not even theorist, she's a, she's making it happen.She, she is going out there. And, and telling these lies that immigrants have far more children than native born Americans, and that that's why they are being brought into the country. It's not a good look in advocating for this.the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, despite Trump saying he knew nothing about it, if you had read it, it's all in there. It's all in there. return to the family, the nuclear family , return to being a Christian nation return to, you know, producing a lot of children. Which is sort of odd because the people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants and they wanna.Deport them. So none of this adds up. But you know, one of the reasons why our economy did so much better than comparable advanced economies across the world is because we actually had a replenishment, because we had a lot of immigrants legally and undocumented. Who had a you know, larger than normal by American standards family.And, and she even points out illegal and legal immigrants. And you're not like, oh, maybe she just means legal immigrants. No, she's explicitly like. We are doing okay demographically because we, the Democrats got you guys so many illegal immigrants and they're having way more kids in the native population and that's why we brought them in, but.I wanna be contrasting this sort of like weird mask off moment with Hillary Clinton, which was fun 'cause she also cited our policy proposals in this. So now I know Hillary Clinton is watching stuff that we are putting out. But we're gonna be contrasting this with also the reaction to the very small handful of 60 white immigrants from South Africa that has caused massive changes in leftist policy positions.For example, the Episcopal Church in the United States shut down its programs to help immigrants just so it wouldn't have to help this very small pool of white immigrants. Wow. And for a lot of them it was like, wait, wait, what about the people they care about? Well, apparently they care about them less than making sure they don't help a single white immigrant.That's pretty screwed up. Like even if I was like super racist against white people, but there were some white people in a larger sample of non-white people that I wanted to help.I don't know, like. I mean, we see now the way they would respond, they'd say, we won't, we won't do it. We won't help out of principle.And I think that this is the horrifying aspect to all of this, and as, as, as we go into this, is we are increasingly seeing, and so often it's like slippery slope stuff with, with. You know, far left positions where they'll say, oh, you know, we would never say that. We would never fight for that. Like, that's just a crazy slippery slope argument.That's a conspiracy theory. And then five years later they're like, well, why do you think we were letting in so many immigrants? You know, it's like this is the what, this is what's always been the case, don't you know? And we're like, wait, you said this was a conspiracy theory. You very firmly told us this was a conspiracy theory like five to 10 years ago.In fact, the Keisha cancellation that just happened, the Fox Zoo girls, the Sweet Fox Foxing girl who was canceled by a CINA byte this girl. She, and, and, and note here, when I say set, I'm not saying that all trans people aresa bytes, I'm saying that there is a specific category of human that has spent their entire life searching for pleasure and self validation, and it has scrambled their mind.And now all they can do or get satisfaction from is hurting other people. And, and so. She was canceled. What they used to cancel her was saying that she was a great replacement theorist when what she was doing in that very video, which she was accused of, was simply disgusting. A speech given by a leftist politician in the UK who had these concerns.Like a elected politician, one of the, I think one of the heads of the major parties in the UK right now. So we're, we're gonna be discussin

Join Malcolm and Simone in an exploratory episode as they delve into the life experiences of Anna Valence, a trans woman navigating through various social and sexual landscapes in New York City. This discussion is prompted by Valence's own candid writings on her blog, covering her struggles with self-validation, dating challenges, and the harsh realities of transitioning. Amidst addressing broader themes like societal expectations and the pitfalls of certain lifestyles, the episode also touches on controversial topics such as trans misogyny and the generational differences in accepting trans identities.Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today, and this is an episode I have been dying to do literallyevery day.You're like, I wish we could record this now. This is, yeah. Butwe've had a reporter at our house every day for the past three days at two German groups. One a Japanese team. Yeah. And then we also had the Steve Truly Show it's got like, you know, million subscribers. So I had to do that and, and then before that it was the cruise.So it's been so long, but it's given me so much time to research this topic because of this. Yes. So we are going to diving in to the daily life of. Valence.you were an interesting study. Must, greed, deception, fertile ground, but rather mundane.This is the individual who attempted to cancel the YouTuber Kirsha.Ah, yes. Whois a a v YouTuber. We have another episode on that if you wanna see that.That is not what we are adjudicating here. That is not what we are talking about here. This isn't even really an episode designed to dunk on this reporter, Anna Valence. This is an episode that is designed to look at what happens and what the daily life of somebody who is bought in to all of the urban Monocultures, indulgences looks like when they hit their mid thirties.Hmm.What is the payout from all of this? You know, if you go with the lifestyle that we promote, you'd have a job that contributes to your community. You'd have a bunch of kids. You'd be, as we say, living the end of Gladiator.And I think a lot of people when we say things like, look I don't think that we should go out there , and make trans people feel bad about the choices that they've made.But I do think it's important to do things like bring up, well, what actually happens if you go all in with this lifestyle? Yeah. Where actually does that leave you? Because if you look at the celebrities who promote it, they're typically people who are beginning their journey within this lifestyle.Mm-hmm. It's, it's the before and I just decided to do this. It's not the, I've been doing this for 20 years and here's what happened to me after that. Right.Once upon a time, there was a fox and he was called Jerome One day, he found a copy of Cheekbone Magazine. And he read an article about London life.three weeks later, he was off his tiny face in a gay club. But the party lifestyle took its toll. Eventually he ended up on the streets, begging for cheese and Alston.And what's great about valence is you get that. Mm-hmm. And valence falls into the, and this is where I'd say we are not against, you know, your average trans person.Right. Do what you want. Right. We do strongly recommend against the Cine Byte lifestyle. And I'll explain. You need tobreak it down because I've, this was never heard of it before.Yeah,Doors to the pleasures of heaven nor hell. I didn't care, which I thought I'd gone to the limits I hadn't. The center bytes gave me an experience beyond the limits pain and pleasure.Indivisible.so there was a famous horror franchise in the 1980s called Hell Raiser. It's where the character Pinhead is from.Explorers in the further regions of experience, demons to some angels, to others. We came now you must come with us. Taste our pleasures please. Girl. Go away live. Oh, no tears, please. A waste of good suffering.This is the guy, if you have seen him, the horror guy with a bunch of pins all in his head. I, this was a world where if you had looked at other eighties horror franchises at the time the killers were often stereotypes of, you know, hillbillies or they were stupid or they were just crazy, right?Mm-hmm. Whereas they wanted to make a cunning and meticulous. Horror villain but who is still totally horrifying, right? And so the Cina bytes were people who went to another dimension, a hell dimension where they lived lives dedicated to exploring the furthest reaches of pleasure and experience and pain.And as they just kept indulging in pleasure, and pleasure and pleasure, they begin to desensitize to it. And so they begin to look for new ways to feel pleasure or anything at that point. You can think of them if you're more familiar with the Warhammer 40 K. These are Chy cultus. They begin, you know, ripping off their skin.They begin putting hooks in themselves. They begin putting nails in their heads and. It's not, you know, when you're warning somebody against the villains in this franchise, right? You will have a

Join Malcolm and Simone as they dive into the fascinating concept of 'Non-Linear Ethnic Niches' and their dominance in various industries, from grocery stores in Detroit to Dunkin Donuts in Chicago and Vietnamese nail salons. They discuss examples from Arc Ethereum's research, the historical and economic implications, and even ponder whether such niches can be engineered ethically for future techno-feudal societies. Alongside, they explore the significance of such niches, historical parallels, and how they could play a role in a post-globalized world driven by AI and demographic shifts. [00:00:00]Simone Collins: Hello, Malcolm. I'm so excited to be talking with you today, especially because I just learned about this thing. It's really weird. From Arc Ethereum. He, he writes, did you know that Chian own 90% of the grocery stores in Detroit? 40% of the truck drivers in California are Sikh, and about a third. US Sikhs are truck drivers and that 95% of Dunkin Donut stores in Chicago in the Midwest are owned by Indians, mostly Gujarati Patels. What?வணக்கம் உங்கள் அலுவலகத்தின் நேரத்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின்முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் முதல்தின் மSimone Collins: And then in New England and New York, 60% of Dunkin Donuts are operated by Portuguese immigrants.90% of the liquor stores in Baltimore are owned by Koreans. And all of these are apparently what ARC Ethereum calls and other people, other people's [00:01:00] had called non-linear ethnic niches. And it like, these are these weird industries. That are dominated by ethnic groups, but not like, because obviously those ethnic groups should dominate them.No,Malcolm Collins: I think it is obvious. I think that they were just bred, I think Indians are bred to run convenience stores. This is, it's an entire country breeding experiment to create the perfect convenience store owner. I'm gonna put like an APU thing here.Simone Collins: Well, no liquor stores and Koreans. There are more like Cambodian donut shops.Why Cambodians and Donuts? No. There is no, and like by the way, in, in all the research on non-linear ethnic niches, they remove all the ones that should be considered obvious, like Chinese people and like Chinese restaurants. 'cause obviously like Dove, of course they would maybe dominate that. Although I feel like.Actually they don't. So you might, right, like, aren't Chinese restaurants mostly like Korean run or something? They're mostlyMalcolm Collins: run by Koreans. Yeah. Or Mexicans. I feel like I've seen more Mexicans running No, no, no. It's mostly Koreans because white [00:02:00] people can't tell the difference. And so they're like, oh yeah, this makes sense.It just seems authentic.Simone Collins: Yeah. But no, they, they've actually parsed this out and here's the thing. Okay. Ethereum who introduced me to this concept, and we've done some podcasts and other essays he's written, he, he's, he's fun in that he is spicy takes, we don't necessarily agree with all of them, but they're quite interesting.He thinks they're terrible and I think they're freaking awesome. Okay. Okay. Go explain, explain the regression of everything that we've ever done is society, and I'm like, this is. Exactly what we need right now. You,Malcolm Collins: you wanna create some sort of like, ethnic carve out for my, our family and people. ISimone Collins: want to make a non-linear ethnic niche.I want to engineer one. And so what I wanna do with this episode is I wanna walk you through mm-hmm. Some of the examples here that Ark Ethereum describes. 'cause it's one, this is just super interesting. I, I, I like, I guess we've, we've kind of seen it, but I never really thought about it. Because, you know, I don't see race, Malcolm.Malcolm Collins: I don't, I don't know. ISimone Collins: didn't know Of course not. Of course not. Yeah. IMalcolm Collins: only, I only see race. That is the [00:03:00] only thing I use to judge people is just race.Simone Collins: Just like Jack, Jack Donkey just sees numbers on top of people's head.If everyone could see the world the way I see it, it would be a better place to live. I bet that's true, Tracy, but , I guess I just see the world the way I see it.Is he letting me keep this? I think so. I wish I was there so I could play with it. Hi Miss Levin.Simone Collins: You just see like I. They're, they're race. Have you played ethno, guesser? This is a little off topic, butMalcolm Collins: No.What, what is ethno? Guesser. OhSimone Collins: god. We shouldn't go into it too much. No, tell me. It's a game. No, you like it's this new game where you see men and women, I think composite faces, and you're supposed to like, choose. Zi wouldMalcolm Collins: be really good at this. He can like, no,Simone Collins: he's like, he, yeah, no, he, he obviously is gonna be like the world class ethno guesser winner.[00:04:00]But like now every

In this episode, we debunk the myth that Muslims will dominate global demographics due to high fertility rates. We delve into the data showing declining fertility rates across Islamic countries and look at the various strategies these nations are employing to reverse this trend. From cultural campaigns and economic incentives to restrictions on family planning, we explore why these measures are failing. Highlighting intriguing case studies from Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, we discuss the implications and what can be learned from their approaches. Tune in to uncover the complexities of this pressing issue and what it means for the future. Here is the story I mentioned putting together. If you guys like it I will make more.I Got Isekai'd as the Eighth Hero But Decided to Become a War Criminal InsteadThe Eighth Hero: Audio Book https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8FvZnsJSambIlYngUS0oYDl2WjT09Je/view?usp=sharingThe Eighth Hero: Text https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AxKVJudMdMZ2oPyS2E0j9rxTQOxDNayvFKjOiwLcLB8/edit?usp=sharingThe Discord: https://discord.com/invite/EGFRjwwS92Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Malcolm. I'm so excited to be speaking with you today, especially because we're talking about a big misnomer in the demographic collapse world, which is that Muslims are gonna take over the world 'cause they're gonna have perpetually high fertility, which is just not true as Kamir recently pointed out on X.And what's most interesting is when you go into what various Islamic countries and Muslim majority countries are trying to do to keep their birth rates up. It's basically. A buffet, an overloaded buffet of all of the disparate policies of the different camps that the prenatal movements want. There's the culture stuff, which, you know, we are always like, it's the culture, it's the culture's, the culture.Well, they did that stuff. And then there's the, all the, you know, it's the, there, it's the payout people. Well, it's all about the giving money and cash payouts and cash pays, what they're doing that, and, and then there's also the, the people who are like, no, it's traditionalism and you know, early marriage.It's the marriage. It's the marriage. Well, they're doing that too. And guess what? They're also doing the whole thing of scaling back, family planning, like taking away access to birth control and abortions. And that's not working either. And so I think [00:01:00] it's really important to look at, at the Middle East and Islamic countries as a case study and say, alright, so there is this world in which everyone got their way.All the prenatal leaders with all their disparate little pet projects got their way. Why is it not working?Malcolm Collins: And I, I'd point out here then people are like, well, don't, some Muslim populations have a high fertility rate. Muslims are not high fertility. They're poor. Okay. It's a mistake that people make.Muslims are actually have a lower fertility than Protestant groups when you control for income. And their fertility rate is so low that despite the relative poverty of the Middle East. Only Iran. You were saying what? What was it? Iraq only. IraqSimone Collins: Only Iraq. Only. Iraq. Israel, because I think Israel's a really great.Like, here's where we are with developed non non-Islamic Middle Eastern nations. And I think it's a really good base. And of course it's, it's the ul Ultra Orthodox Jews that are really propping this up. You know, they're, they're killing it. They're doing great, but they've [00:02:00] figured it out.Malcolm Collins: Okay. So in this episode, what we are going to be covering is crashing fertility rates around the Islamic world. Yes. Crashing fertility rates within the Islamic diaspora. Mm-hmm. What the Islamic communities are attempting to do to decrease this. And there areSimone Collins: some really, there, there are some policies in here that like.Are so insane in terms of a over the top. You will not believe it Malcolm. I'm like, what? So there's some good stuff in here.Malcolm Collins: Great. Okay. Let's goSimone Collins: and then, and then try to figure out what do we learn from this? 'cause they're not working. So, there's a mio. This, this was all inspired by him because he is so freaking amazing.We love him. He posted on x basically like a clarification to people because, especially in X as a whole, like Muslims. He writes, there's a myth that the Islamic world has figured out fertility, but it has not, they show the same declining fertility rates that other places have, barring Iraq. The Middle East has lower fertility rates in Israel, and hopefully you could put a, this graph that he shared up on the screen.Showing this just overall declining [00:03:00] fertility graph and infertility rates births per women in the, the Middle East, basically with Iraq at the top, then Israel, then Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Oman, Libya, and so on. With the UAE at the bottom. But I love the UAE because you're gonna see they have

Join Malcolm and Simone in a deep dive into the unfolding drama surrounding Kirsch vs Ana Valens . After a week-long vacation, they tackle this complex topic over two episodes, exploring the accusations, evidence, and cultural clashes. From discussing the nature of Vtuber and their avatars to analyzing the controversial actions of Ana Valens and her attempts at cancellation, the episode reveals a tangled web of motivations, including Valens' own experiences with sexuality, consent, and societal rejection. Discover how cultural shifts, personal identities, and internet culture collide in this fascinating, albeit tragic narrative. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. You cannot. I, I cannot tell you how excited I am to be here with you today.'cause today we are gonna be doing an episode that we were on vacation this last week, and so we weren't able to record new content. Oh yeah. We're around. OurSimone Collins: kids supposed to be on vacation. All Malcolm can think about is this one thing? Is this, this is all I'm hearing about the whole CruiseMalcolm Collins: Anna Len's drama.And so everyone else had covered this already. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna say, you know what, I'm gonna go into it in more detail. I'm gonna find things that our side is getting wrong. I'm gonna find bits of evidence that our side hasn't uncovered yet. Oh goodness. I am going to get so deep that we're actually gonna do two episodes on this because I.Find the situation so fascinating from the perspective of, because there's just so much history, recorded history on this journalist, Anna Valand. Okay. JustSimone Collins: for those who do not know anything about Vtu Burst, because. Malcolm thinks everyone knows what VT YouTubers are. VT tubers are about as well known [00:01:00] as furries.And actually most people, Malcolm don't know about furries either. Okay, so a vtu, okay, so v YouTubersMalcolm Collins: are people who use personas, an avatarSimone Collins: to avatars, just sort of be them. We have an episode with Lisa, an animated anime face instead of our faces, for example. Yes, typically comment on things. They comment on news stories.A lot of 'em are streamers. And so this is about a v YouTuber. Who was the target? Of a cancellation attempt carried out by a prolific online poster author, journalist who'd happened to execute this targeted attack campaign through Vice News articles. And it is theorized that. Part of why this person valence did this is because they were a not very good vtr who had lost a representation contract and had sour grapes about this vtr being successful.Oh, hold on.Malcolm Collins: You'reSimone Collins: confusing a number of things here. Okay?Malcolm Collins: And you're actually getting something wrong that a lot of other people get wrong that we will get into. So I'm gonna first clear up the first big mistake. Do it. A lot of people believe, and we'll [00:02:00] get into this in a second, you don't need to understand.What I'm talking about here. But basically this person did an unhinged piece about an agency allude tubber agency called V Allure. And in the piece you'll see that they were really just upset that they weren't hired by V Allure. Mm-hmm. And then Keisha, one of the V tubers, they did an attack on multiple V tubers trying to get their sponsors to drop them.So trying to get Keisha being theSimone Collins: main target. Right. They're livelihood peers,Malcolm Collins: you with the main target, but they also targeted leaflet. And, and, and lethal. It is our oshi. You know, that's who, who we push. That added a term in like fandom community means the main person we push, and I really like her content.But anyway both of these were right-leaning, but not like far right v tubers. When I say right-leaning and not far right these are the types of people who would say. Trans people are real and deserve to be protected, but there are perverts who pretend to be trans people to get covered. Like, they're, they're at that level.They have not trusted Trans Rubicon yet to say actually the entire trans thing doesn't really make a lot of sense. But. That's like their level of, so they're not that conservative, right? But certain individuals have [00:03:00] decided this just means they must be destroyed. And so, Keisha's understanding of this is, oh, well I did this, this episode that attacked his piece.Or her piece, sorry, not to misgender here. We we're gonna, we're gonna use the this is a, she.Right.Malcolm Collins: But I don't want, to, you know, they, they put a lot of effort into this whole thing, and I don't see the point in hurting their feelings without reason.Right. But we'll get into, within these two pieces, why you probably, if you are an actual, like if trans people really exist. You would want more than anyone else for somebody like this to not be able to identify as trans. Mm.Specifically , if you are somebody who says, , being trans is not a paraphilias., you would not want this person re

In this thought-provoking episode, the hosts dive into the unsettling world of antinatalism and its most extreme branch, efilism. The conversation begins with a tragic recent event—a suicide attack by an antinatalist—and draws parallels to previous attacks like Sandy Hook and the Christchurch Mosque shootings. The hosts explore the ideologies behind antinatalism, highlighting its logical inconsistencies and the dangerous zealotry it fosters. They discuss the rising prominence of these beliefs and their association with dark personality traits. The discussion also touches upon the implications for future societal trends and the ethical considerations of right-to-die policies. Strap in for an in-depth analysis of one of the most controversial and disturbing movements of our time. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. We unfortunately just had the, third suicide attack by an antinatalists.And we, just for context, this is the third, because the first was Sandy Hook in 2012.And then the second was the Christ Church Mosque shootings in 2019. Both were perpetrated by people who were antinatalists, either literally part of the movement, like familiar with the philosophical concept of eism, which is the extremist branch of Antinatalism, which is like, oh, let's also remove life without other people's consent.And, yeah, that was Adam Lanza. We'll get more into Adam Lanza. I want to at least. But theMalcolm Collins: point being is Antinatalists, and this is something where it's, it's a very large community. They're probably as large as the perinatal list community. If you look on Google Trends, if not larger, actually Iwanna argue that actually it's, it's quite larger.It's larger than you think.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Which we'll get into later. But what they believe is that humanity would be better off not existing. And [00:01:00] what the phylis believe, which this latest suicide attack , was motivated by, is that we also have a duty to sterilize all other life, or quote unquote glass the planet.So that nothing can evolve sentt again. So we're gonna be getting into these beliefs. It's been a while since I. Explained why they're really stupid and actually the I ideas behind them. While they make sense, if you do not allow them to be challenged by any sort of outside logic, the moment you apply like outside practical logic to them, they begin to fall apart really quickly.And so it's a weird sort of logical framework and that it has internal consistency. I'll admit that. But it lacks basic logic. So we're gonna get into like, way more details than anyone has covered on this. Do, do you want to get started, Simone?Yeah. So just to give the, the basics, a 25-year-old man named Guy Edward Barcus.Bombed the exterior of a fertility clinic [00:02:00] in California. This, I think, injured for employees. No one else was killed but him. And heMalcolm Collins: also did not destroy the embryo tanks. He only damaged the waiting room. Yeah. So fortunately he only killed himself and injured other people. However, in his video confession, 30 minutes, not video,it was like audio.Audio. Confession maybe. AudioMalcolm Collins: confession. Yeah. He admitted that he. Thought he might end up killing people, and he didn't care because he didn't think the lives of anyone working at an IVF clinic had value.Well, and he also, so being someone who he calls himself a pro mortals, he's, he's also clearly eist, clearly Antinatalists links to in his written manifesto, which he also provided a bunch of links to eism websites and content.He. It says in his spoken manifesto that. Per his life philosophy. Couples who use IVF are amongst the most, the worst form of what he calls pro-lifers, which I think is really funny 'cause most [00:03:00] people who are pro-life are, who call themselves pro-life, are technically anti-abortion. And people who are anti-abortion are more conservative Christians who also tend to be more sanctimonious against IVF.So anyway, whatever. Fine.Malcolm Collins: No, but, but you should be clear when he says pro-lifers, if you hovered over his website, what it used to say before it was taken down is FU pro-lifers. Yeah. What he means by pro-lifers are not people who are against abortion, but people who believe life is a good thing.Yeah. And so he's extra, he thinks that he, as he says in his spoken manifesto, he really extra super hates.People, couples who undergo IVF, because not only have they chosen to bring life into the world and bring kids into the world, they've worked extra hard and been extra thoughtful about it. So like, , it's almost a difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder to him, I think. Yeah. TheMalcolm Collins: words he used in his, in his speech when he was explaining this, he goes, I am not killing anyone.I am just changing the date that somebody dies.Yeah. He says, anyone who? The parents are the ones who cause death because they bring in life in the first place. As soon as you're alive, yo

Join us as we tackle a reporter’s concerns regarding nativism and its associations with religiosity, nationalism, and Nazism. We dive into the benefits and criticisms surrounding nationalism, exploring civic and ethnic nationalism, and discussing its cultural implications. From historical contexts to modern attitudes, this video offers an in-depth conversation about pride, patriotism, and the nuanced understanding of national identity within a global framework. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing a question that came from a reporter who was horrified that they went to Natal Con, and they go, well, you know.This nativism stuff, you know, it seems okay. Like I agree with what you're saying there, but why is it all wrapped up with all of these horrible other ideas like, you know, religiosity and nationalism and all this other Nazi stuff from their perspective. And I was like, wait, actually, I was like, wait, what?Like. Are, are you? Because you know, normally I might be like, well, you know, I support Tism. I don't support everything that everyone says. Who goes to like a prenatal convention? You're like, wait, what's wrong with religiosity and nationalism? Right? Like first religiosity. We will just take this aside, you know, I'm sorry that it's associated with better mental health, longer [00:01:00] life, you know, less stress, less anxiety.ScrewSimone Collins: those people,Malcolm Collins: screw those people. Just, we'll throw all that aside. Okay. Oh my goodness. But let's just talk about the concept of nationalism, because I was like, wait, I don't think there's anything really objectionable about nationalism. Like, I, I don't, what is. What is wrong with nationalism?Like I understand for example, like Nazis were nationalists, but Nazis also were like animal level and Nazis were underwearSimone Collins: and they also pooped and they also drove in. Cars wasMalcolm Collins: really, really big into dogs. He was really big into protecting dogs and protecting animals. And he was a vegetarian at times.Like, is PETA Nazi? Like, yeah, no. Yeah. Like that wasn't what people disliked about Hitler. Yeah. That he, that he had pride in Germany and German history. Yeah. There, the, that is not the bad thing. It was. The genocide. That was a bad thing. It was the [00:02:00] war That was the bad thing. It was the ethnic cleansing that was the bad thing, right?It wasn't the loving his country. That was the bad thing. Well, youSimone Collins: humans should be capable of separating out actions. Well,Malcolm Collins: and, and well, no, in America at this time period when we defeated the Nazis could be thought of as nothing other than nationalistic. This was a nationalistic effort. This is what individuals like Captain America represent.They represent nationalism. Mm-hmm. And so I decided to, I was like, okay, well I, now I need to go into definitions to be like, maybe there's some part of the definition of nationalism that's really offensive and I should be thinking more about, right? Mm-hmm. So I go to Wikipedia and I look up the nationalism definition and it is, I.Really bad. Like I, I could read the paragraph and it wouldn't get to a line that made sense until we, it's not like misleading, it's just gobbledygook. Okay. So then I clicked on civic nationalism 'cause I [00:03:00] was like, okay, well maybe this will get to the point. Okay.And civic nationalism, other wine, Don is, democratic nationalism is a form of nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights At.And is not based on ethnonationalism. So I'm like, okay, cool. The foreign nationalism is not ethno because obviously like we're not ethnonationalist. Like no one no could argue that, right? No civic nationalists. Defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need it as a partial shared aspect of their identity and upper identity in order to lead meaningful autonomous lives, and that democratic polities need a national identity to function properly.That, that seems like an obvious truth. Do they argue that they don't? Do they argue that like a country can no anarchy, that's the only way things will ever work? No, I, I think that they genuinely believe that a country should value the needs of non-citizens [00:04:00] over the needs of citizens. Like that's genuinely what they're asking for here.And a lot of progressives actually believe this. That's true. Yeah. Back to the whole. ProgressivesSimone Collins: care about rocks problem. Right.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. No, but when we talk about things I'm like, well, somebody was like, well, what about immigrants? Because I created like this state structure and this horrified guardian reporter was talking to me okay.They, I found a leaked version of this was their undercover reporter about nation state I wanted to create. And I still love that they published tha

In this episode, Simone Collins and Malcolm discuss a provocative article from the Intelligencer that critiques their views and actions regarding reproductive justice and other sociopolitical issues. They delve into topics including government sterilization programs, disparity in reproductive services, and policies surrounding abortion and birth control, particularly their implications on marginalized communities. The conversation touches on broader themes like demographic collapse, social safety nets, and the intersection of political ideologies with reproductive rights. The script also features a comparison of contemporary progressive stances to Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel 'Brave New World,' and a review of Amanda Bradford's innovative dating app idea. Overall, the duo challenges commonly held progressive narratives and explores the deeper societal impacts of these controversial subjects. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I'm excited to talk to you today. Every now and then an article comes out and it's never the big ones. Like there was a New York Times article on us where you've a big picture of you on the front of it. I loved it.You looked beautiful. It was the Women of Tism and I didn't care because it was kinda a boring article to me. But then it's the deranged articles I really like.Simone Collins: Oh yeah.Malcolm Collins: And, and one of the articles. From the Intelligencer basically argued that, and, and we'll go over it 'cause it's really fascinating.It was like, well, what we should really be talking about isn't Tism but what was the word that they used about reproductive justice? Re Okay, so what they meant by this is that TISM should have had a lot more talk about sterilizing black women. I, I, I'm sorry. The government sterilizing black women and then it wouldn't be as racially problematic.And I'm like, and hold on, hold on. No, sorry. You might be thinking here that ISTs should talk about the government not sterilizing black like that we should [00:01:00] be No, no, no, no. They think that Tism needs to have more talk in it in support of the government sterilizing black women. This is their progressive position.Simone Collins: And I, these are the conversations that are missing Now. She couches it in. Well, we can go into the language if you want to, but it, it's still deeply disturbing to me thatMalcolm Collins: Yeah, she, well, she's like, look, black women have historically had access to the ability to abort their child as easily as white women have.And that should be what we're focusing the prenatal list conversation around. And they haven't had access to b birth control and other means of sterilizing themselves at the rate white women had. And that is the one thing we should be talking about in fertility rates.Now if you're here thinking, wait, is that true? That doesn't sound true. It's not true actually. , while black people only make up 14.4% of the US population, 38% of abortions are performed on black women. They make up the vast majority of [00:02:00] abortions. And if you look at Planned Parenthood clinics, I think it's something like 89% of them are in a minority majority neighborhood., they were originally set up famously, even by their own website. To sterilize black women as part of a eugenics program, , and they still function in that capacity. There is almost no organization, , that I think you should be more in support of than Planned Parenthood if you are an actual racist or a eugenics.Simone Collins: To be fair, she also, you know, talks about the, the fact that they also want prenatal care, postnatal care fibroid screenings well also STI tests.So that just has to do with, you know, yeah. What's it having? Continue having sex. But basically she's just like, why aren't we giving free healthcare to people of color and. That's, I don't see how that has to do with anything. Also, well, that, that's not why, which real, she, well, she opens with that, but then she proceeds to just [00:03:00] make it an argument about reproductive choice and then how Roe versus Wade makes this a bigger issue than ever.So what's clear from her ultimate emphasis, even though she starts with this sort of vague illusion to wanting universal healthcare, at least for black women, is that. This is really an issue about abortions, and that's where it's, it, it gets my goat a little bit like, wait a second. Is that, that's what's missing from prenatal in yourMalcolm Collins: is.It was, it was weird and meandering. But, but I will say that, that if you go through, and we'll get to this when we get to the piece, 'cause I wanna read some excerpts from it because it's, it is actually a very interesting piece and I quite liked it. Like it's one of these pieces where it's critical of us, but I like that it comes out.Because of some of the things that are in it, which we'll get to in a second, not just from a humor standpoint, but a Oh, we've broken through one of the progressive walls. We're gett

In this intriguing episode, we explore the often overlooked history of female anti-suffrage movements. Surprisingly, many of the organizations opposing women's voting rights were primarily led by women. Join us as we delve into why these women resisted suffrage, their arguments, and whether their predictions about women's suffrage were accurate. Featuring key historical insights, thought-provoking discussions, and a look at modern perspectives, this episode uncovers a complex chapter in the history of women's rights. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be talking to you today. Today we are going to be doing a deep dive on an interesting phenomenon that is often forgotten in history, which is that female suffrage when women first started fighting to vote, the organization that opposed female suffrage and most of the.Organizations and movements that opposed female suffrage were majority female. They were not majority male. So we're going to do an investigation into these movements, the arguments they used and why women of the past didn't want women of today to vote, and what they predicted would happen to civilization if we allowed women to vote.Oh, were they, right? Mm.Simone Collins: Were they, I don't know. You know, it's 'cause I really, I've, I've even recently watched some historical videos on suffrage. They don't really talk about the counter movement especially, which was led by many women. They more talk about the atrocities [00:01:00] committed against some of the women who were jailed and force fed and, and whatnot, which was, you know, very unpleasant.They, they sort of talk about all the really showy stuff, but not really about the. The concerns, the intellectual argument. I'm excited we doing this. Well, theseMalcolm Collins: women who were fighting for suffrage were pretty vile people, which is something we'll also go into. The, yeah, I mean, thatSimone Collins: doesn't justify.Shoving a tube. Like at one point they shoved a tube down this one woman's throat. Well, they thought they did, except they shoved it into her lung instead. Like it wasn't great, you know? But wasMalcolm Collins: she, was she on a hunger strike? Yeah. That's not, that's, that's trying to help her get food. I know, I know. It still sucks.I, I know it still sucks, but she was being a B Okay, Simone.Simone Collins: Sorry. Let's get into it. Let's get into it. Please mansplain it to me. Tell me I'll man to you. Put me in my[00:02:00]Malcolm Collins: all, all. So historical records indicate that the female anti suffrage movement was substantial, particularly in the US until 1916, was more women joining anti suffrage groups than suffrage associations. So the female suffrage movement was majority male. The female anti suffrage movement was majority female.Simone Collins: Let's, let's get out of the vote.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Wow. For instance, women's suffrage in the United States notes that more American women organize against their own right to vote than in favor of it until this period. Suggesting a larger female presence in Nebraska. The Nebraska Association opposed to women's suffrage was overwhelmingly female, was men playing a marginal role in Great Britain.The Women's National Anti Suffrage League had about 337,000 signatures on a petition in 1914, indicating significant female involvement. Though exact comparisons was male participation is less clear in the uk. [00:03:00] Mm-hmm. More women joined anti suffrage groups than suffrage associations until 1916. , Jo c Miller., never a fight of woman against man. What textbooks don't say about women's suffrage and this is a, a book that they did. Okay. , so this is from a jstor. So this is like academic article here and it's titled Women Against Women's Suffrage, Miller Notes that Suffragettes Frequently opposed Referendums in which women would have the opportunity to vote on an issue tacitly acknowledging that their cause would be unlikely to prevail, for example, in 1871.So note here. What they're pointing out here is that female suffragettes, like the ones who wanted women to voteSimone Collins: mm-hmm.Malcolm Collins: Fought against women being able to vote on women voting because they thought that would decrease the probability that it would work. So. This, we're gonna go straight to Susan B.Anthony here. But yes, like Susan B. Anthony was against women voting at this time period. But she knew women would vote against women being able toSimone Collins: vote, right? All the turnout would be [00:04:00] the ones who care. Just how, like with some issues, you don't want to bring it to a vote because you know, only like retired people are gonna vote for it and kill your thing.Yeah. Yeah. Well, no,Malcolm Collins: so it's like, it's like the progressives when they're like, we really love black people, except when they're voting on LGBT issues. Let's do not have the vote. Can you, can you not? Let's not count the votes there.Simone Collins: Let's just not,

Join us in this engaging discussion as we dive deep into the article 'Arctic Instincts' by David's Sun, focusing on how genetics and cultural psychology explain the unique adaptations of East Asians to their local environments. We explore the intriguing concepts of collectivism, population density, individualism, and high agency, and how these traits have evolved over millennia. The conversation also touches upon the environmental pressures faced by different populations, the controversial nature of studying cultural genetic differences, and practical implications for contemporary society. Whether you're interested in cultural psychology, genetic evolution, or just curious about human behavior, this episode offers a captivating exploration of the forces that shape who we are. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I'm excited to be with you today.Today we are going to be Stu going over an article called Arctic Instincts by David's Sun, which covers how Asians adapted to their local climate, or some of Asians did. Okay.Simone Collins: MostMalcolm Collins: in terms of psychologically and in terms of other capacities, it's a spicy article. The guy who wrote it is Asian, so I don't know, I guess that can.He gets a free pass. Well, you know, he was interested in studying, like, why are his people different from other people? Like because, and, and specifically in the context of why are they different from other people in ways that Native Americans are also different from other people because they're closely related genetic groups.Yeah. Though ofSimone Collins: course, employee differences on its own is. Terribly dangerous. So I, I get theMalcolm Collins: controversy. Any, the paper has this big part at the beginning, which I'm, I'm taking out where he's explaining that, you know, he's been in academia for a while and he's been working on this for a while and he hasn't been able to publish it 'cause he is afraid of losing his job.But now we're in, you know, the new [00:01:00] era, blah, blah, blah. And so as in aporia obviously great paper. So let's, let's go for it.Simone Collins: All right.Malcolm Collins: My paper falls within the discipline of cultural psychology, which seeks to understand people's culture and personality by examining the socioecological factors that they experienced over the past 10,000 years.Many interesting findings have already been made as recent literature review documents. Population density predicts collectivism, tightness, and future orientation, and frontier regions are characterized by individualism in high agency. So there just let's unpack every one of those. If, if historically over the past 10 years an area was really, he heavily populated.Yeah. It is going to be more collectivistic and people who are are from that like genetic population are gonna be more collectivistic. Yeah. They would've of course, succeeded at a higher rate, was in a dense area. If there, so what regions would that be? Just, you know, off the top of your head, you're probably thinking India.China. And then he is like, okay. And then you have the frontier regions, which are more associated [00:02:00] with individualism and high agency. What are the, like the biggest frontier area is obviously going to be the American West. Oh, I was thinking likeSimone Collins: Mongolia, but Sure. I mean, I think like Asian populations have seen a lot of both, whichMalcolm Collins: is interesting.Simone Collins: But GoMalcolm Collins: ahead. Yeah. Well. No, Mongolia wouldn't really be a, I mean, I can look at the way the paper looks at it, but if you're looking at selective pressures, the frontier regions that are opt-in frontier regions rather than frontier regions you're just born into, are gonna have a much higher genetic effect.Because I. If you, if you talk about the American West, the reason why it's selected for individualism and agency at such a high level mm-hmm. Is first to immigrate to the United States. To begin with the population group, you have to have very high levels of you know, agency. It's a very big decision.It's a very risky decision. And then these regions sorted for people who immigrated over and then likely in multiple waves over multiple generations kept moving. Further west like, okay, well we're in Boston now, but I don't like this. It's still [00:03:00] too civilization. Let's go. Hey, too many people. Let's go to the, the mountains of, of the Appalachians.Okay? Okay. I like it here. Oh, no, too many people are coming. Let's go further. Let's go all the way to Texas. Let's go all the way out to, you know, so, it makes sense. And it also makes sense why that would give these regions some economic advantage over sort of global economies because agency, and there was one thing that you really pointed out to me recently, which is if you're talking about social status in the existing system like global system the, the one that we're entering into at least, it, it, it just seems to be a combination

In this episode, Simone and Malcolm discuss a thought-provoking report by McKenzie on the accelerating pace of demographic collapse and its implications on social contracts. They delve deep into how current systems, such as democracy and social security, may become unsustainable in the emerging demographic reality. Utilizing the reforms enacted by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as a case study, they explore potential solutions and transformations needed to adapt to these changes. They discuss concepts like AI-driven solutions, the role of private enterprises, and even the potential centralization of power. They end with playful banter about family life and cooking. Join them for an engaging conversation on the existential challenges ahead and what needs to change for society to thrive. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to have a conversation that was instigated by something that McKenzie said.This is McKenzie, the consulting firm, the mainstream consulting firm. The very normal, normal, normal people consulting firm. Yeah, that we don't saySimone Collins: anything crazyMalcolm Collins: consulting firm. We don't say anything crazy. We're just coming to you with reports. Some people might have been going around saying that the sky was falling, and we are now here to confirm that yes, the sky is descending at an accelerating pace and that it might make sense to reposition your assets in non-terrestrial positions.You know that that's, that's where we are in terms of, they said, quote on the call, right? And I mentioned this before the world as we know it won't work in the new demographic reality. Okay. That's not fun. That's, that is really, that is a consult. Jody's like, okay. Such professionalSimone Collins: wording. For the world's ending as we know it,Malcolm Collins: these prenatally seem pretty apocalyptic in what they're saying.It's [00:01:00] like, are they really, like, this is really like a thing, you know? And people expect them to come back and be like, no. Yeah, they're, they're just shock jocks. And they're like, ruffling the pavers. The world will not work in the new demographic reality world as we know. It just won work, which small.Whoops, all. And then they started talking about, well, we will need to rethink our social contracts. And when Mackenzie says that that's like. Do we, do we really need to go to Revolution right now? And the consultant is like, I would be investing in personal you know, like gun based assets gun based assets not, not stocks.I mean, you know, for your children and your wife. You may want to have a few of those around the house in case. Oh goodness. But anyway, I, I, I got to thinking about this, like, what, what does this reconstruction of social contracts look like? What do our existing social contracts look like? Why will they not work anymore?And, and [00:02:00] where do we go as a society? And, and so for the people who've watched the episode where I talk about us like, like the democracy stops working in an era of demographic collapsed. It's, you know, we should go into this a little bit. We're already at, and I didn't know it was this bad. In America, it's 1.8 tax payers for everyone.Dependent. Right now,Simone Collins: not good. Not sustainable.Malcolm Collins: This was in 2023. And if you go to 2017. No, 17 2007. It was two taxpayers for every dependent. So like it's increasing really quickly. And typically systems break down when you get to 1.5 per dependent. And keep in mind, a lot of the world is like way ahead of us on this particular rollercoaster.Right. You know, we're just like, dude. Tick, tick, but other people, the has already started. So, you know, you, you reach a point where the majority of a population is recipients of the state. And they are living off of the minority of the population who is essentially living as, I [00:03:00] guess sort of like slaves of the states to pay for the majority.And because the majority won't vote away their own rights or their own money or payment, they just don't turn off these systems. And then currencies collapses and you get revolutions and everything like that. Right? Not, not great, which basically makes democracies non-functional. In the demographic reality in which we were entering.And so I was thinking, okay, with that being the case, how do we rethink all of this in the most ethical format possible? Okay, so first I wanted look into what, what, what is the social contract that we live under in the United States right now? Mm-hmm. Any thoughts before I go further? Simone?Simone Collins: I have things to say as part of this conversation.I, I don't know if there's like, additional framing we need. Okay. So, but I, I guess I should ask, are we talking about social contracts between people and the government or amongst people or both?Malcolm Collins: Both, like, what do you have to say before I go further? I'm, I'm just gonna read out

In this provocative video, the hosts discuss the contentious question: do gays contribute to the collapse of civilizations? They explore historical examples including the Roman, Islamic, and Greek empires, as well as insights from the modern era. Drawing from various scholarly works, including JD Unwin's 1934 study, they examine the correlation between sexual norms and societal success or decline. The episode delves into whether loosening sexual boundaries, specifically around same-sex relationships, can be linked to civilizational collapse. The hosts also critique modern and historical cultural norms, providing a balanced view on a highly debatable topic. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today is going to be a very spicy episode because I am going to be asking the question, do gays lead to the collapse of civilization?The Fall of Rome.Joe Rogan had this to say on his podcast fascinating that the end of empires, they get really concerned with gender and hermaphrodites the Roman fem boy. Fully grown and willing to take on the role of a common Roman woman. Even the emperor himself donned girly outfits, mascara, and held many chamber parties . The Roman Senate began having debates to determine if quote, being with a fem boy was a totally gay thing. After all,Malcolm Collins: oh. So this is one of those things that I thought was really good for like. Us to do, because I think our audience knows that we would be honest with them about what we found on either side of this issue. Okay. Like there is no answer I could come to on this question that's not gonna piss off some large part of our audience.So, you know, you're getting an honest answer from me and [00:01:00] I I, and you know, a lot of people. What made me think about this is I heard. If you look at Christians today, because I was reading , a piece about how different the modern Christian and conservative movement is from the historic Christian and conservative movement.And they pointed out that if you look at Christians today who argue to ban things like same-sex marriage, they base their arguments on the Bible. But if you look at historic conservatives you know, you go back to a Ronald Reagan or something like that they based their arguments on loosening sexual morays, specifically around gay sex will lead to the collapse of civilization.And they don't really mention the Bible that much in, in why they, they argue for this stuff anyway, and it makes a lot more sense. Like, I, I argue that like, okay, if it was true that gays or loosening sexual boundaries around gayness could lead to the collapse of a, of a civilization, like if that was a trend that kept happening over and over again in history, like I can [00:02:00] understand like the morality of putting a law around gay marriage.I never understood why you'd wanna police somebody else's marriage, but I was like. Oh, the collapse of civilization. That makes sense. But the, the Christian argument makes no sense to me because like obviously these people don't believe what you believe about God or Christ, so you're not really helping them, like Right.How does it help a, a, a non, what you would think of as is your type of Christian person for you to enforce them to follow a few Christian rules? Yeah. Like that, that's not the core point of c That's like broadly against. Everything Christian. When, when, when it's supposed to be the, you know, if you're a traditional Christian on a alperin, you would say, well, Christ died for your sins.And it is through him that you, you, you get to God. Like, and, and, and even what Christ said, you know, he's not a Sharia law guy. You know, he's, he's. He's a, you know, render unde Caesar, right? Like Christianity is actually distinct among the major religions and that he does not talk a lot about how you should govern a country and explicitly has built [00:03:00] within it a separation of church and state which I argue is one of the reasons it has been such a successful religion.It's much better to build religion that way and that when you get a merger of church and state, as you have seen within some Christian churches, the churches get watered down super, super quickly. Which is funny, a lot of people think the reason you shouldn't have a merger of church and state is because the church will impose all sorts of theocratic rules on people when in reality, no, it's the state and the bureaucrats are very good at watering down churches.And that you really only get strong churches in regions where you don't have a melding of church and state. Right? And it, but it happens every time. So the melting happened recently. You might still get some theocratic stuff, but if it's a hundred years ago, 200 years ago, now it's typically wishy-washy.But a lot of this comes down from Janie Unwins work which is where the theory was initially posed. So I'll go into his arguments for this concept. JD Unwins work frequently cited in support of the claim for I say, theoretical fra

Join us for a compelling discussion on how Mitt Romney's candidacy unintentionally sparked political realignment in America and globally. This conversation explores the rise of the 'new right', the coalition of diverse conservative groups, and the controversial topic of genetic modification and designer babies. We delve into the evolving ideologies within the tech-right alliance, debates around reproductive technology, and the significance of preserving cultural autonomy against the urban monoculture. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be talking to you today. Today we are going to be talking about how MIT Romney of all people instigated the chain of events that led to the political realignment of America. And then from there, the political realignment of the right and the left across many countries around the world.And that in a way his candidacy. Birthed the new right now. I note it did not come from support of his candidacy. It actually came from a faction of the right that was disappointed with his loss and where the party had gone. But he also opened doors that really changed a number of things.Simone Collins: So inadvertently he loosened the lid on the tight jar of the new right.Yes. Yes. How exciting, and I love this theoryMalcolm Collins: and I want to discuss this in the context of a friend of ours who works for the Heritage Foundation. Emma Waters did a, a tweet chain [00:01:00] recently saying that people who do things , like us, that want to. Improve intergenerationally. , because right now, you know, let's be honest, we are talking about like polygenic selection, which, you know, we do, Elon's does like a lot of the tech elite do.Simone Collins: but what El the waters is criticizing more broadly 'cause it's not just polygenic risk selection. Yeah. Is this concept of designer babies, which. We are totally for, we're like Yes designer babies. Yes. CRISPR editing. Yes. Like all of the things, we are 100% into that and, and I, I don't want people to misconstrue it.Yes, of course. Right now we're choosing birth order largely based on cancer risk to buy time for cures for our kids who have higher cancer risk. That doesn't mean that when we get the chance. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Well, and I think that the, the polygenic risk conversation occludes the morality of the larger conversation.Mm-hmm. Because zero, you're focused more on not using all of the embryos. Mm-hmm. When the real question at hand was in the next 20 to 30 years is, should we be geneticallySimone Collins: modifying [00:02:00] humans? Yeah. And that, that is, it's such an important conversation. And I texted Emma when she posted it, when I saw it.That I was just so glad that she's bringing this debate up because it's not discussed enough and what we're heading toward, because this is what's happening at scientific conferences. I was just checking in on this recently. Is people just like, this is unethical. Let's just not do it. Let's just not do it.And it's really, it's stifling research. It's stifling development. And what I want instead are very productive discussions of, okay, why, why exactly is this so bad?Malcolm Collins: Well, what's what's interesting here is a lot of the pushback against it is coming from the left. The, the vast minority of the pushback against it is coming from the right.Yeah. And this is the first time we've really seen a right-leaning mainstream individual who we've been working with, like do this level of pushback. And IW you know, one of the things that we pointed out to her, well, and it'sSimone Collins: very explicit, I wanna point out that from the moment we first met Emma Waters, which was at the first natal con two years ago, her whole stance was IVF is not good.Any sort of repro tech [00:03:00] is something that should be avoided at all costs. And really what we need to do is give it the root causes fertility that we don't want to move toward these abominations of rep tech, and instead we want to. Find natural. You know, let's go back to tracking our cycles, getting to know our bodies, not taking birth control, avoiding endogenous irritants or pollutants that harm fertility, which is a very legitimate stance, but what we don't agree with is that like, oh, but you can't or shouldn't do these other things.Malcolm Collins: No, no. That's not even what we disagree with. What we disagree with is it makes sense to split this political allegiance over or alliance that's been building over this issue. And, and that is what she suggested doing in her chain of tweets. Yeah. She said, we cannot have a prenatal movement with people who use this type of technology.Yeah. She's like, goodSimone Collins: ISTs don't do designer babies. Which we, which is aMalcolm Collins: bigger problem because what she's essentially saying as she says that, is we cannot have the tech right new right alliance, which is we [00:04:00] cannot. Damaging, we cannot have the tech Right. MAGA alliance. Yeah. Which is cri

In this episode, Simone and Malcolm Collins discuss the controversial topic of allowing children to use smartphones and screens. Simone argues that preventing children from accessing technology can make you a bad parent, citing studies showing that children with access to smartphones, social media, video games, and other digital devices have better self-esteem, spend more time with friends, and engage more in physical activities. They delve into a recent study by the University of South Florida that highlights the benefits of smartphone ownership for kids aged 11 to 13. They also critique arguments from well-known author Jonathan Haidt, who believes that screens are detrimental to children's mental health. The episode also touches on personal anecdotes, discussing the impact of social media on personal and professional lives, and the evolving landscape of media and news reporting. Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello everyone, this is Simone Collins with Malcolm Collins. I'm taking over this dream today because I have found that actually you are a bad parent if you deny your child a phone in screens and that the good parents will do it because guess what?Kids are better off. When they have social media access, when they have phones and tablets and video games, andMalcolm Collins: Stu define better off, we're talking about studies here.Simone Collins: They have, they have less nihilism and a better self-esteem. They spend more time with their friends. They spend more time playing sports.They are just freaking better off with the screens and all these people. Jonathan Het who insist that the screens are the end are wrong, although we will go through their arguments and talk through some of the nuance. But first, I wanna get to this study because I'm so excited about it. It's very vindicating because we are famous for being profiled by the guardian and criticized by everyone on social media, not only for beating our children, but for having them walking around [00:01:00] the house with iPads.Chained to their necks. I needMalcolm Collins: to clarify. Barely beating our children. It was, it was a lightSimone Collins: spot. It was a mild beating. Oh my God.Soccer Boppers! Soccer Boppers! You can sock all day, and bop all night!Simone Collins: So first like huge, huge thing to, to Reason Magazine, which covered this article really well. And, and what they're covering is a new, as of April, 2025 study called. Kids with smartphones are less depressed, anxious, and bullied than peers without them..Simone Collins: So first huge hat Tip to Reason magazine for covering this research, which was done by a bunch of researchers at the University of South Florida. This was published in April, so this just came out. And these researchers investigated smartphone ownership among 11 to 13 year olds. So these are.Extremely vulnerable children who are not at all grown up and mature [00:02:00] enough to handle social media, and they're checking out how they did. So, okay. They, they did survey them, but they surveyed a good sample size. They surveyed 1,510 kids from Florida age 11 to 13.And basically on almost every metric. Measuring wellbeing, smartphone owning kids showed better results. So here are some examples.Malcolm Collins: You're not surprised at all. 11, 13. So this isn't like older kids. This isn't like teens. This is No, this is 11 to 13. This isSimone Collins: just as puberty setting in. So I would actually argue that these are some of the most vulnerable years.I don't know how this period was for you, but it was tough for me. Maybe not for you. I don't know.Malcolm Collins: Well, I can't imagine if I didn't have a smartphone. I mean, I didn't have a smartphone. You didn't a smartphone? I didn't have whatever was cool. This would be like I didn't have a smartphone and it was tough.Okay. Not having like aim during that period being one of the outcasts, you, oh my gosh.Simone Collins: Actually aim really was like one of my few sources of comfort and I think this is part of it and we're getting get into it. So kids with smartphones, oh, do youMalcolm Collins: remember all the sounds from aim that like ding [00:03:00]Simone Collins: and the door opening.Malcolm Collins: Like door opening ASimone Collins: would come in and you'd be like, yeah, that, that like, that that dopamine rush when you hear the door opening and maybe that person you have a crush on that just logged on. OhMalcolm Collins: my God. DidSimone Collins: you have crushesMalcolm Collins: on peopleSimone Collins: back in here? 100. His, his username was warped, STIG, and, and he ended up dating one of my best friends at the time, so that was a little awkward.Oh yeah. Were you, did you think he'd like talk to you? Did he ever talk to you on a Oh, like way late into the night, he was clearly like I. It was emotional cheating going on. At the very least. If they two were dating at that same time, whatever happened, those were like my first, my first late night chats

Join Malcolm and Simone as they delve into a comprehensive analysis of multiple studies that reveal striking differences in how social media use affects the mental health of liberals and conservatives. Learn through detailed graphs and data how liberal social media culture correlates with higher rates of depression and anxiety, while conservative content seems to have a more neutral or even positive impact. Explore the intricate relationship between personality traits, ideological orientation, and social media interactions, and uncover the factors contributing to the growing mental health disparities in contemporary society. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today is gonna be an interesting day because we are going to go over so many graphs today.I don't even think we're gonna get to them all. Ooh, the first and most critical of the graphs is one I am going to put on screen here, and it opens up a, a both an explanatory mystery, I guess is what I'd call it. And so what you can see in this first chart is liberal and conservative depression index scores by social media, use category where red is conservative and blue is liberal, and the higher the bar goes, the worse their depression is.And what you see in this chart is that if you are a progressive. The more liberal you are, the more using social media depresses you. But if you are a conservative, that is not the case. In fact, using social media frequently appears to increase your mental health when you're at the. High levels of use. [00:01:00] Now what's really fascinating, and I marginally you're still better off not using it at all, but marginally it increases mm-hmm.Compared to using it some versus using it an absolute ton. Mm-hmm. At least once a day specifically here. And then I would point out here that and, and actually the, the conservatives who use social media at least once a day have significantly better mental health than the liberals who use it only once or twice a month.Oh, goodness. That is how bad it is for liberals. Just the littlest bit. I mean, have youSimone Collins: beenMalcolm Collins: onSimone Collins: Blue Sky though? It's, it is depressing.Like that's a big thing that I see on Blue Sky that I don't see on Twitter. Like I tweet about the, the asteroid that was gonna hit us, but then didn't hit us. And I get normal responses on Blue Sky. I tweet about that, and a bunch of the responses are finally someone to cure the plague of humans upon this earth.Malcolm Collins: Here's where it gets really bad. Liberals and conservatives have almost exactly the same rates of depression and bad mental health. And we'll see this as we go to other charts when they don't use social media at all.[00:02:00]Okay. Which implies that, and will, you know, it's broadly known, liberals have way more mental health problems than conservatives right now. Right? If you look at white liberal women, for example, over 50% are dealing with a major mental health issue. Mm-hmm. But what this appears to be saying is this is not like an innate thing about liberals.It's not and this article will argue the opposite, but like the evidence shows otherwise, it's not like, oh if you are more likely to get depressed, then you're more likely to become a liberal. Mm. It's something about engaging with liberal culture itselfSimone Collins: makes you sad,Malcolm Collins: is what makes you sad.Simone Collins: Oh, my.Oh no.Malcolm Collins: And what's interesting is we're going to be able to break out the exact parts of liberal culture that do this. The amount that it's not being religious, the amounts that it's woke him, the amount that it's DEI stuff the amount that it's fear of, of like being attacked or something like that.And we often talk about the urban [00:03:00] monoculture as something of a mimetic virus, which you know, the iterations of it that are better at spreading, spread better. And it appears to, as a mimetic virus, first sort of lower your mental immune system by destroying your mental health before it begins to eat away at your brain.Mm-hmm. And we're going to see this in the data on this piece specifically. What she ends up finding out is first the mental health declines. Then a person starts identifying as a liberal, not first do they identify as a liberal, then the mental health declines.Simone Collins: Oh, really? Yes, I would've guessed the opposite.That's really interesting. Okay,Malcolm Collins: so I, I would've guessed the opposite as well, but what it appears is happening here is that the mental health decline is sort of an erosion of self-identity, self-pride, like self affirmation ability that is required before people start, like rotely accepting woke ideas.Simone Collins: Oh, yeah. Like, I guess it's a lot easier to accept. [00:04:00] Super progressive ideology when you have an external locus of control, for example, plus a lot of self hatred.Malcolm Collins: Yes. OhSimone Collins: no.Malcolm Collins: Wow. Okay. Wow. So, so it, it builds the

Join in this intriguing discussion as the hosts delve into the perplexing phenomenon of a high-fertility strip running from Texas to North Dakota. They explore various theories and data, including maps of fertility rates, immigration patterns, income levels, religious census, and more. Does this strip represent America's final frontier or a hub of conservative, religious communities? Tune in to explore the intersection of demographics, geography, and culture in the U.S. The song: Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be discussing a bizarre B, bizarre, bizarre phenomenon where there is, if you look at the county level, total fertility rate in the United States.There is an extremely high fertility, I mean, extremely high fertility. When you look at the rest of the map, nothing comes close to the strips. Fertility rate strip down basically like where the west side of Texas is. Mm-hmm. All the way up to the top of the United States.Simone Collins: Yeah. Like from the Texas panhandle up basically directly up from there is this weird blue strip.Malcolm Collins: And so like, obviously I'm gonna have a map on screen here that you guys can look at and be like, what is going on here? One of the people who dug into it was friend of the show, Robin Hansen. 'cause of course, like if somebody's looking at interesting questions, it's like always gonna be one of our like small friend groups.I sometimes wondered, it's like not everyone else programmed in [00:01:00] this simulation like Uhhuh because it like 20 people who are fully programmed and they're all guests of the show. And then everyone, you gotta saveSimone Collins: processing power. This stuff's expensive. I mean, so yeah, I'm very, so if, okay, what, before we go into what he thinks is going on, what are you gonna guess?Is it that like these are very low population rural states? I mean, we're looking at North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas a little bit. There'sMalcolm Collins: lots of low population rural states that would not explain this at all.Simone Collins: Okay. Okay.Malcolm Collins: So. I'm gonna guess it's either one of two things.Simone Collins: Okay.Malcolm Collins: Thing number one that it could be is it could be actually a mistake in the data.Okay. It could be something about how these are like near a date line or how these are near, some lines are done. So some zoneSimone Collins: where measured twice because of like weird, it's causingMalcolm Collins: things to be measured twice. That's hypothesis number one. Hmm. Because it just [00:02:00] doesn't seem realistic when I look at other things here.But then I think, okay, like I'm from Texas, right?Simone Collins: Yeah.Malcolm Collins: These districts do not, not make sense as to why they would be higher fertility. They are incredibly rural districts. Yeah, that'sSimone Collins: what I was thinking too rural and that's where you get those, I mean, it's, it's, there's a selection bias there, right?You're getting. People who want big families who are probably more likely to be religious conservative, who have this space. And of course there's all these pretty advocate spaceMalcolm Collins: problem. Problem was this explanation.Simone Collins: Okay.Malcolm Collins: The districts actually remind me most of places like Arizona or Western California, which is way below these districts in terms of fertility rate.Simone Collins: That's true. Yeah. Why would those not also show up as Yeah, why would those,Malcolm Collins: they're just as conservative. They're just as, so the other thing that it could be is immigration patterns is the other thing I I, I'd hypothesize here.Simone Collins: Interesting. ItMalcolm Collins: could be that if you look at this, this is, if you're looking at immigration waves moving west mm-hmm.This is [00:03:00] where pretty much everyone would stop when hitting the Rockies. Oh. So if you're just gonna continue to move west mm-hmm. Until you hit the Rockies, immigration wise that's what would lead to this line. This is the most, I wanted to get away from other people and live my own way of all people in the United States make up this line.I. That could be what we're seeing. Hmm. And then people could be like, well, what about that, like edge of Texas thing? Like, that's not the Rockies. And I'd say, well, that's the desert. Yeah. So let's, let's have a look here. What is, what is the first thing that he notes here? He says it's really weirdly along the mountain time and central time, time zone divider.Simone Collins: Yeah. What is up with that?Malcolm Collins: If you overlaid them, it looks so suspicious. That's why I think it could be a statistical error because Okay. That divider, if, if you look, and I'm comparing them on screen here. Yeah. Goes through the center of South Dakota [00:04:00] there. And the line moves from where it is on this map towards the center of South Dakota which is weird.Why is it doing tha

In this episode, hosts Malcolm and Simone are joined by Swedish demographer David Lorenzo to discuss intriguing demographic shifts. Delving into the incel crisis in Europe and the United States, the conversation explores how this has driven a mass female immigration into Western countries. The discussion highlights the gender-balanced migration trends often misrepresented in the media, particularly from regions like Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Additionally, they examine the factors contributing to the crashing birth rates in the second generation of immigrants in Northern Europe and other surprising demographic trends. The episode touches on the impact of marriage migration, political divides, gender-segregated economies, and the potential future implications for Western countries compared to other regions. The Song: Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, this is Malcolm and Simone here with a guest David Lorenzo, who's a demographer from Swedenand he's coming to us with some interesting theories. He pulled up a lot of data on. To just give like a brief summary of what we're gonna be getting into on this episode, we're gonna look out how the incel crisis in Europe and potentially the United States drove a mass female immigration into the Western world.We're gonna look at crashing birth rates in the second generation of immigrants in Northern Europe. And we're going to be looking at other surprising demographic facts that could be driven by current trends.David Lorentzon: Thank you. I appreciate that. the research, when I got into it, I was originally researching mass immigration from the Muslim world.And what Sweden does really well is that it has detailed data from every country and it also lets you divide it based on gender and age. Hmm. So. What I realized when I looked at the [00:01:00] total numbers was that it was very gender balanced migration into Sweden, but what you saw in the media was overwhelmingly male migration from, from the Middle East and Africa.So there was a very big discrepancy between the portrayal in the media and what the data was showing, and I, I later discovered the answer when I started looking through each country. Individually and saw that some countries you receive a lot of male immigration from and some you receive a lot of female migration from.And the female migration was so vast that it resulted in the total migration being gender balanced.Malcolm Collins: Wow. So where are we seeing female immigration fromDavid Lorentzon: so. To visualize the data in a simplified manner. This is the immigration to Sweden.Okay. And thered is where it's majority female from, and the blue is majority male from, and all the beige, there's a few beige countries. That's where it's so gender balanced. Wow.[00:02:00]And what you can see is that you can generalize entire regions of the world. So as, as you expect. You can see that Northern Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent is overwhelmingly male. You can also see that Western Europe you receive majority male migrants from, and then you receive from Eastern Europe, majority female, east Asia, Southeast Asia, the sovereign half of Africa, and also in general Latin America.That's where you receive mass immigration of women from. Mm-hmm. And it's primarily. Marriage migration.Simone Collins: Oh, oh. Because I would Okay. Okay. The, the, yes. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. That explained so much. I was like, why?Malcolm Collins: So let's talk about like a thesis for howSimone Collins: this would happen. No one wants to marry American women in Sweden.Well, no. It, it's, it's, well, no, but when you look at women in Sweden. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. America. No, but lookMalcolm Collins: at what, what these countries have. I have a Californian mom.David Lorentzon: So,Malcolm Collins: so what you see in these countries is that these are the most [00:03:00] anti woke and conservative countries with people who pass as white.Specifically we're looking arbitrage.Simone Collins: Major arbitrage. Major arbitrage. SoMalcolm Collins: within some of the woke countries like Sweden, and I would, wouldn't be surprised if we saw this in other European countries where the native women are removing themselves from the marriage market. Which is what we've seen with the rise of in seldom, and we've talked a lot about the dynamics of this.One of the core things that happens is women begin to value their marriage marketplace value as equivalent to their sexual marketplace value which causes them to highly misjudge the quality of guy they can get and not enter these serious marriage market until, and, and they also don't realize how quickly their value degrades after 30.So they and no, I'm not talking about this in like an objective, like I'm putting a price on women or something. Thing like that. What I'm talking about here is in the way that. Everything has a, a value to someone else. What I pay for a fish might be different from

In this episode, we embark on a controversial and thought-provoking journey into religious theology, focusing almost exclusively on Judaism. Host Malcolm begins with a fundamental question: 'Why were the Jews God's chosen people?' This query leads to an extensive exploration of Jewish theology, identity, and the broader implications for both ancient and modern Judaism. The discussion delves into the historical practices of Judaism, including proselytization, matrilineal descent, and circumcision, comparing them to contemporary interpretations and practices. Malcolm also scrutinizes the noahide laws, Kabbalism, and the concept of divine favor, ultimately questioning the reasons behind Jewish exceptionalism. This episode is a comprehensive examination aimed at challenging and reframing conventional understandings of Judaism within a broader religious context. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone! Today we're going to do another one of our track series where we do deep dives into religion that are very, very offensive.And for the first time we're going to have one that's almost exclusively focused on Judaism. Oh. This is track 10. The question that breaks Judaism. There is one question I started to innocently ponder that led me down a rabbit hole, which began to unravel Jewish theology, identity, and even raised the question of whether modern Judaism should be thought of as the less radical deviation from ancient Judaism when contrasted with Christianity.The question, the question that breaks Judaism is Why the Jews? Why were the Jews, of all people, singled out by God as his chosen people? Oh, right. Yeah.Simone Colins: Yeah, they gave herMalcolm Collins: child. Yes. Why? This is gonna get very offensive, and it's the type of information I hesitate to release if it could be used by antisemites.However, I think theologically it is a conversation we need to have in the [00:01:00] same way previous tracks have had to uncomfortably point out where modern Christianity does not align with what is actually in the Bible. We will be doing the same with modern Judaism today. And I would note here for people who want to be like, Oh, this is, you know, antisemitic or something like that.I did nine full tracks. Absolutely railing and ragging on modern Christian traditions and where I don't think they align with the Bible. I do one on Judaism. No, you don't get a be. I'm just trying to do as honest a dive as I can on these various subject matters. And I hope you can see that as I go through this and go over the data.But this data shocked me to my core. So we're going to be arguing that ancestral Judaism was not an ethno religion. The concept of matrilineal Jewish identity is a non biblical. In fact, pre Christ, Judaism actively and aggressively proselytized and even forced the mass conversion of conquered peoples at times.As evidenced by both biblical sources. Roman historical accounts and [00:02:00] the Jewish historian Josephus and even Roman law, which we'll see. The Noahide movement lacks solid biblical backing and is essentially a theological construct with minimal scriptural foundation. The biblical passages that Jews cite to argue against modifying God's covenant with man, which they use to deny Christianity as the more faithful offshoot of ancient Judaism, do not actually communicate what they claim.And this one is pretty in the extreme, which we'll get to. Even the way circumcision is practiced today may be incorrect, or I'm going to say is probably incorrect. What? Compared with Egyptian practices contemporary with the writing of the Old Testament, which we have a reason to believe the Jewish tradition may have been influenced by at the time of Christ, Judaism was a highly diverse tradition and the Christian branch was not unique in its differences.The quote unquote true Judaism that modern Jews claim to be descended from would have been just [00:03:00] one of many religious systems based on the Old Testament and was as different from the average theological understanding as Christianity was at the time. Original Christianity and Technopuritanism are much closer to the belief system of the average Jew at the time of Christ than modern Judaism.And, if Judaism started as a religion that actively proselytized and became an ethno religion after the Christian branch of the Jewish tradition gained widespread adoption, this makes the entire modern Jewish tradition appear as a reaction to the success of a version with an arguably greater divine mandate.Of course, we will be addressing the arguments against every one of these points, as I have discussed my positions with a few rabbis to gather the strongest counter arguments I could find. And, finally, we are going to go over a clever and unique Textual theological argument that fixes every one of the problems I raised throughout this entire video.We will also discuss How Christians have to reconcile with the fact that demographically speaking right now [00:04:00] th

In this episode, we delve into China's new policies designed to tackle its demographic decline. We discuss recent changes to marriage and divorce laws, their implications, and how the population is reacting to these changes. We explore the easing of marriage registration, the controversial 30-day cooling-off period for divorces, and the shift in property division laws in favor of the paying spouse. We also touch upon China's broader strategies to increase fertility rates, such as providing financial incentives and lowering the legal marriage age, and analyze their potential effectiveness and social impact. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. Today we are going to be going into how China is attempting to deal with its demographic catastrophe it's going through, and one of the ways is through changing how marriage and divorce work in the country. And we had seen a tweet that briefly covered some of the changes that they had in this area.But I wanted to go a lot deeper than this particular tweet into the specifics of how things are changing. How people in China are reacting to it and why they think it might work, ready to dive in, or any thoughts? We go further. I'm intrigued this would happen. We're like, look, people are going to, what's interesting about these changes is I think many red pillars would probably like a lot of them.So we'll see how this goes. You know, they're, they're not all the worst. Oh, okay. W Marriage registration. The revised law proposed in August, 2024 and effective as of February, 2025 removes regional restrictions on marriage registration, allowing couples to register [00:01:00] anywhere in China without needing to return to their household registration.Kuku locations. This simplifies the process aiming to encourage marriage amid demographic crises. Now, it soundsSimone Collins: like marriage before then must have been uniquely difficult one on earth. Is this like needing to return to.Malcolm Collins: This is actually a really interesting point. So, in China you are like sort of owned by your starting district often and to, to move to a new area, it can be quite difficult and require permission from the central government, almost like changing citizenship.Yeah, almost like changing citizenship. And if you're like a migrant worker or something like that, you often need to go back to your home area for certain like legal things. What's really fascinating about this is where this relates to religious history. Oh. A lot of people like modern, historians and stuff like this have said that they do not believe that Joseph had to return to his hometown during the census. Because they're like, that doesn't make sense. [00:02:00] How could a Roman census work where literally everyone who had ever moved at some point in their life had to return to their hometown at the same time for a census?And I think what they're not taking into consideration is one. We see this in other countries like China, even today, basically. Yeah. And two not as many people moved in those types of environments where your legal standing was in large part, tied to where you were born. Probably in the Roman Empire or something like that.If you moved too far from where you were born, somebody could just take you and say you're their slave, right? Like, there, there, there wasn't a lot you could legally do. So it was quite dangerous. To move long distances during those time periods and try to live somewhere else, unless your job was trading and if you were a trader, you'd have guards and stuff like that.And it was quite a different thing than just like moving. But anyway, I, I find that to be a good thing. They are loosening bureaucratic bloat.Simone Collins: 100%. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: China's marriage rate has plummeted with only 6.1 million marriages [00:03:00] recorded in 2024. A 20.5% drop from 2023. Year over year, it dropped by over 20%. And this was the lowest since 1986.This decline coupled with low birth rates, has prompted the government to promote family friendly policies, quote unquote, family friendly which is wild. Divorce proceedings. The 30 day cooling off period first introduced in 2021 under China's civil code is retained and emphasized in the 2025 revision.Couples filing for divorce by mutual consent must wait 30 days during which either party can withdraw the application effectively halting the process. Wow. If no withdrawal occurs, they must reapply within another 30 days to finalize the divorce. Otherwise, the application is automatically withdrawn and canceled.Simone Collins: Oh, so just adding friction to the process. They're, they're reducing friction to get married, adding friction to get divorced.Malcolm Collins: Exactly. [00:04:00] And obviously a lot of people are freaking out about the what, like what if he's abusive? Well, we'll get to that because it sounds like they haven't thought of that, but anyway.Simone Collins: Hmm.Malcolm Collins: This period has significantly reduced divorce

In this engaging discussion, Simone and the host explore the future of AI and its effects on the economy. They delve into questions about who will benefit most from AI advancements: large corporations or individuals using AI models. The conversation spans the significance of token layer versus latent layer in AI development, where major innovations may occur, and the potential for AI to achieve superintelligence. They also discuss the implications of AI on job training, investments, and societal transformation, along with a creative perspective on how AI can be harnessed for various purposes, including transforming industries. The duo imagines a future driven by interconnected AI systems and explores the philosophical aspects of AI mimicking human brain functions. Don't miss this thought-provoking episode that offers insights into the trajectory of AI and its profound impact on society. Malcolm Collins: . [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be focusing on a question, which is, as AI changes the way the economy works, who is going to be the primary beneficiary of this? Is it going to be the large companies that make and own the ais, or is it going to be the people using the individual AI models?The, the I like we all know, for example, like in probably 10 years from now, there will be an AI that can, let's say, replace. Most lawyers, let's say the bottom 50% of lawyers.Simone Collins: Well, and already studies have shown AI therapists perform better on many measures. There's, there's, it's already exceeding our capacity in so many places.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. They, they introduced it to a Texas school system and it shot to the top 1% of, of student outcomes. So as we see this, where is the economic explosion from this going to be concentrated? Because this is really important in determining what types of jobs you should be looking [00:01:00] at these days, how you should be training yourself, how you should be raising your kids, where you should be investing.The second question we're going to look at because it directly follows from the first question, okay, is, does the future of ai, when we're looking at the big world changing advancements that are going to come from it, are they going to appear on the token layer or at the latent layer? So can you defineSimone Collins: those differences?Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So by this what I mean is. When we look at continued AI advancement, is it going to happen in the layer of the base model IE the thing that open AI is releasing and Claude is releasing and everything like that? Or is it going to be in the token layer, the people who are making wrappers for the ai?For example, the Collins Institute is fundamentally a wrapper on preexisting ais. Our AI game company is a series of wrappers on ai. And if it turns out that the future of AI is in the token layer, it leans potentially more to, if not the big companies that are gonna capture the value [00:02:00] from this.Mm. And then the next question we're gonna look at is the question of. What gets us to ai, super intelligence? And I might even start with this one because if we look at recent reports with ai, a big sort of thing that we've been finding is that especially with like open AI's 4.5 model is that it's not as advanced as people thought it would be.It didn't get the same huge jump in capacity that people thought it would get. And the reason , is that pre-training IE. , the ways that you sort of train AI on the preexisting data before you do, like the narrow or like focus training after you've created the base model doesn't appear to have the as big an effect as it used to have.So it was working on, I think, 10 x the information of model four and yet it didn't appear dramatically better. And so one of the questions is, so that's, that's one area where pre-training doesn't seem to be having the same effect, and I think we can [00:03:00] intuit why. But the second big issue , is that the amount of information that we actually have, like, you know, peak oil theory, there's like , a peak pre AI information theory problem, which is it just eventually when you're dealing with these massive, massive data sets, runs out of new information to train on.So first. I love your intuition before I color it. Do you think, if you look at the future of LLMs base models so we're not talking about LLMs entirely, we're not talking about anything like that. Do you think that the base models will continue to improve dramatically?Simone Collins: I think they will. And at least based on people more experienced than this, , than I am, they will, but in lumpy ways.Like they'll get really, really, really good at programming. And they'll get really, really good at different esoteric forms of like developing their own synthetic data and using that to sharpen themselves, but that they're going to be severe diminishing marginal returns when it comes to some things that are already pretty advan

In this episode, Simone and Malcolm dive into a provocative op-ed recently published in The New York Times, exploring ideas that seem to align with their prenatal advocacy. The hosts discuss key excerpts from the article, contemplating the necessity of cultural and traditional preservation amidst the digital revolution. They scrutinize the New York Times readers' surprisingly positive reactions and debate the implications of a world leaning towards either radical change or nostalgic preservation. Tune in for an engaging conversation on modern cultural dynamics, tech-driven societal shifts, and the future of human existence. The song: Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I just read an article that shook me because it was an op-ed in the New York Times. It came out very recently. It seems to have potentially been instigated by our prenatals advocacy.That was one of the most based things I have ever read in an ultra progressive newspaper, but coded in a way that hid how based it was.Simone Collins: Well, that you, you have to, if they actually framed it as. Not being progressive, then no one would read it.Malcolm Collins: I will read a quote from it before we go into it deeper just to give our audience like an idea of what to expect.Simone Collins: Okay.Malcolm Collins: Have the child practice the religion, found the school support, the local cedar, the museum, the opera, or the concert hall, even if you can see it all on YouTube, pick up the paintbrush, the ball, and the instrument. Learn the language, even if there's an app for it. Learn to drive even if you think Waymo or Tesla will drive for you.Put up headstones. Don't burn your dead. Sit with the child. Open the book and read as the bottleneck tightens. All survival will [00:01:00] depend on heating. Once again, the ancient abian. I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.Therefore, choose life that you and your offspring may live.Simone Collins: But if we don't burn our bodies, we can't turn the carbon into diamonds. You can't do biodiesel. He's anMalcolm Collins: anti biodiesel activist. Ugh. He doesn't want us to turn the poor and the old into biodiesel, confirm progressive Curtis guard andSimone Collins: commanded.I mean, I, I'm all for Tibetan sky burials, but I'm pretty sure they're illegal in the United States.Malcolm Collins: I love that. That's what you focus on. Yeah. I thought that was an interesting one there, that you might even ask ai why he's asking us to burn to, to not burn dead people.Simone Collins: Burying the dead. I mean, if you're, especially if you're doing it in a graveyard, that's not very, I would say environmentally friendly or sustainable if you're doing it in your backyard, I mean, that's great, but also that could lead to.Property sale problems, future crime issues. 'cause they all assume it's a, you know, murder.Malcolm Collins: What, Simone, that's not the whiter point here. Point. No, clearly. But yeah,Simone Collins: no [00:02:00] hearing that. Whoa. There are enough keywords in there to say I am a progressive And this is a progressive editorial like opera, museum opera.Yes. Hundred percent. Yeah. LoveMalcolm Collins: his key words. I love he starts, if you look at the beginning of it, it's all stuff that we personally are doing. Have the child practice the religion, found the school. Do you think he like knows like what we're working on or he is like, yeah, that's like the most vitalist things you could do.And they're trying to wake the left up to this and I just don't know if it's doable when 17% of the left not sorry, 70% of Americans, so this might be like 40% of the left says that by a survey that we did that the planet would be better if no humans existed. Like things would be better. So any thoughts before we go deeper into this?Simone Collins: Let's go deeper. I, I'm, this is, this is a good sign though. I wanna see where you're taking this and what their point of their article was.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, there's been so many New York Times articles on us. In the past weeks, we've had, I'd say maybe eight articles referenced us in the New York [00:03:00] Times, or maybe 10 in the past two weeks.And a number of them have been op-eds and some of 'em are just like crazy. Like I don't go into the ones that are just like. Crazy in a not fun way. Like one of them was like, you can solve this with immigration. Like that's, they're, they're pro they said that the new prenatal list movement is going to fail the, the MAGA prenatal list movement.It's like, oh, what? Like you can't solve this with immigration. Like, show this.Simone Collins: Well, someone listen to us.Malcolm Collins: But okay. I, I'm not, I'm not talking about like ethically, I mean like logistically, like it would be very difficult. But let's get into this. And this was written by somebody called by Ross. Do.But, and I'm just reading the best parts, the parts I found most interesting.Simone Collins: Awesome.Malcolm Collins: But the ag

In this episode, we explore the intriguing story of 4Chan's downfall and the rise of SoyJack Party. The discussion delves into the history and cultural shifts within 4Chan, its eventual corruption, and how a new ironic far-right culture emerged from SoyJack Party. We also touch on the significant hack known as 'Operation Soy Eclipse' that exposed 4Chan's vulnerabilities. Join us for an in-depth analysis of how internet culture is evolving and what it means for the future of online communities. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I'm excited to be with you today. Today we are gonna be talking about the hacker known as four Chan and how he died, you know, no, no. Four chan is, and I would argue, and one of the arguments of this episode is gonna be, you don't even, to be so sad, the four chan environment had become.So corrupted by the time of its death that nothing of the host survived. Wow.All right. I'm not talking to that thing in your head. I'm talking to Skara. Nothing of the host survives. Your friend had a feeble mind. It suffered greatly and gave it easily.Malcolm Collins: You know, it, it was, it was no longer the site that it used to be. And that its death was not like wokes or something coming for it. It was the new form of new Right. Culture coming for it, attacking the old rights, [00:01:00] pathetic extremism.Right. You know? Okay.I always thought the Freakazoid theme song seemed bizarrely spot on as a theme songFor OG four Chan culture.So let's see if I can get away with posting it. Istextbook case by Seman. Check your computer.Malcolm Collins: Anything you wanna say or you know about this before I go deeper?Simone Collins: I actually don't know anything about this and so I am extremely curious to see what has happened because I remember for a while it was four chan and then there was eight Chan and I don't know who's what or where's where. It all seemed so ephemeral to begin with, so I'm very keen to hear what's going on 'cause I never really hung out Fortune, unfortunately.Malcolm Collins: [00:02:00] Yeah, I mean, I've always been adjacent to it and everything like that, and I've read it, but I've never really enjoyed like posting in it. Mm-hmm. I, I just, I might. Be a humble man. But I just really enjoy when people aate me for my post every Yes. This, this I, thisSimone Collins: anonymity thing reallyMalcolm Collins: isn'tSimone Collins: ourMalcolm Collins: game.Every other major new right figure, you know, you, you talk about like Bronze Age pervert or like R nationalists or like any of these people, they all started pseu anonymously, not me. Oh, no, no. Even just play video gamesSimone Collins: to no audience at all. You either play as yourself or as one of our kids. So like you're still like, it's always you in some way.Yes. Everybody mustMalcolm Collins: praise me. I, why would I write something without expectation of adoration?Simone Collins: Well, no, but even in video games, that's my point though, is even when there's literally, I. No audience, you still want to be yourself or us. 'cause you identify as your familyMalcolm Collins: or Yeah, yeah. I typically do. Well, or [00:03:00] one of my descendants or something like that is like, what am I, I'm like, okay, this is like a hypothetical descendant or something.So that's, that's just the way I interact with the world. It needs to be me. Okay, buddy. But anyway, and I, I love that this is antithetical to the new Right. In many ways because all the other new Right. We're all, you know, whether it's, it's, it's, you know, zero HP or Bronze Age pervert or R Nationalist, and yet I'm like,Simone Collins: here I am.Malcolm Collins: But it doesn't mean that I wasn't influenced by four Chan culture and I didn't enjoy four Chan culture, but I do think that it lived out its lifecycle. So let's talk about why. Let's talk about what happened.Simone Collins: Yeah. Wow. This is the end of an era. If, if this is real, how it's playing out, and it mayMalcolm Collins: not come back.It really may not. So the, the what took it down with a hack called Operation Soy Eclipse. And I'm gonna try to give you guys the most comprehensive view of this. Okay? Anywhere fine. The story begins in September, 2020 when four chance's, QA questions, an answered board was banned. This board originally a space for meta discussions has become a hub for [00:04:00] a specific subculture of users who reveled in creating and sharing soy jack memes.Caricatures, mocking perceived weaknesses of their ideological opponents. So if you're not familiar with soy jacks, I will throw some on screen for you here. You definitely know what they are. They're those little like, outlines of characters. When you think of like a meme face, that's soy jack, frequently.When four Chan's moderators shut down qa, these users felt betrayed, accusing the site of stifling their community. In response, a user known as Scoot launched soy jack party or soy jack party, a new image board dedicated to

In this episode, Simone and Malcolm Collins dive deep into the heated debate surrounding Blue Sky, a social media platform touted by its creators as a progressive haven. The conversation covers the consequences of isolating ideologically extreme communities, the risks of radicalization in echo chambers, and the comparison with X (formerly Twitter). With insights into user behaviors, platform demographics, and some humorous anecdotes, this discussion is both thought-provoking and entertaining. Tune in to understand the philosophical and practical implications of Blue Sky's existence and whether it’s beneficial or detrimental to public discourse. Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I'm excited to beMalcolm Collins: with you here today. Today we are going to be discussing as people with a tech writer, new right perspective. Is blue sky a good thing or a bad thing? Because part of me feels a bit like. We ban there, there was this meme for a while that the left was going to be banished in crystals.And that we were gonna trap them there under the Trump administration and was Blue Sky, it's like it came through, it's like in Superman, where the enemy is banished to a crystal and then shot into outer space where they can't interact with anyone else. And they're like, ah, no more harm.[00:01:00]Malcolm Collins: But then on the other side you're like, well.Is it really good to like isolate these communities where they can radicalize? Did we want this,Speaker 5: My safe space. People don't judge me and haters don't hate In my safeMalcolm Collins: that people forget how bad these communities used to be. And do not remember like how evil leftists actually are. And because I, we've heard, you know, you are on NPR and, and the guy was like, oh no, normal leftist would ever say that.And you're like, literally. Every day somebody says I'm a Nazi. Like I know you say, no normal leftist would ever say this, but they do. So first I wanna get into what I mean by all of this. So blue sky, if you just look at the numbers and you're not being delusional. But we will go into the rest of the numbers 'cause they're actually pretty interesting.Gets about 3.5 million active users a day and. X, on the other hand, gets 259 million active users a day, [00:02:00] which means that blue sky is getting 1.35% the users of X. Yeah. Or Twitter.Simone Collins: It's so small. It's so small. I didn't realize before going into this just how small it was.I had no idea.Malcolm Collins: Basically nobody uses it. Yeah. Except for and, and, and I will note that enough of the people who used to participate in like cancellation mods mobs use it. Yeah. We have gone viral on blue sky, like, I don't know, last weekend or something. Mm-hmm. And we have stopped going viral on Twitter entirely.We used to do this thing called media baiting, where we try to freak out progressives, you know, she dressed like a handmaid, right? And then they'd come do some prenatal list piece on us, and then we do something to freak 'em out. And then we go viral. And it was great for, you know, growing attention.Growing interest. And yet it doesn't work anymore. Like literally cancellation stopped working in part because everyone involved in them went to Blue Sky. And now they're just yelling at each other.Simone Collins: Although I, I will say [00:03:00] that it's not just like we went viral on it last weekend or last week. I.There are posts about us from all sorts of time ranges, and there's also this concerted desire in the community to not talk about us along the lines of that one article saying, stop talking about Simone and Malcolm Collins. One person on Blue Sky, Lizzie O'Leary posted. I think you call it Skitting 'cause you're skying slash tweeting.She skied, I am issuing an executive order banning writing about Malcolm and Simone Collins anymore on February 4th, 2025, which was quite a while ago. Actually, it didn't work because we've gone viral on blue sky since then. It really didn't. Yeah, and like people, people just like to go on there and make fun of us for.No particular reason. On April 14th, max posted, whenever I see that one eugenics couple, I think they look like a pair of protractors that were brought to life by a magic wishing star. It's life. [00:04:00] By a magic wishing star. Yeah. Then what? I guess, I guess I could look like a ProTrac. I guess he means I'm skinny.He must be in a world where like, I think like a, a protractor. I think they're just thinking like, can I think of a nerdy object and then humanize it with magic? I, I don't know though. I mean, progressive,Malcolm Collins: you're doing the Yankee thing, so we've been thinking like, what can I dress as if she's gonna dress as like a pilgrim, like full Japanese Yankee as like the hair back, the whole greaser out.I'm soSimone Collins: for it. I'm ready.Malcolm Collins: I'm, I'm still a little too timid to do the full podo look, but we'll see. We'll see. No,Simone Collins: no. Give it time. You

In this episode, we delve into the intriguing history of the Iron Mountain Underground Facility in Boyers, Pennsylvania—a former limestone mine converted for secure document storage by the US government. Discover how over 700 employees manually process 10,000 retirement applications each month in an outdated system plagued by inefficiencies and alleged misuse of funds. We also explore broader implications involving government corruption, deep state operations, and the political figures benefiting from bureaucratic grifts. This eye-opening discussion reveals the hidden layers of bureaucracy and the systemic challenges in modernizing government operations. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] they had an opportunity to buy it and instead it was bought, not just buy a, a shady company. Like why didn't they buy the mine? Mines don't have many other uses. Yeah. Who else is gonna useSimone Collins: a retired limestone Mine.Malcolm Collins: It. It should have been scrap basically in terms of buying and should able to say, well, if you don't want this mine, we'll go to another mine.That's why the world isSimone Collins: full of abandoned mines.Malcolm Collins: Exactly, so why did another company come along and buy it and now has a leasing agreement with the United States? That makes no sense.Let's take a walk. You think Zoolander is in trouble? Think again. What you stumbled upon goes way deeper than you could ever fathom.Malcolm Collins: And then JFK apparently was going to do a major restructuring of these organizations. Oh. And cut back within these organizations. Oh no,Simone Collins: I see where you're going here.Malcolm Collins: And Trump was running on doing the same thing. And if you look at [00:01:00] how the assassination atti, the assassination of JFK happenedWould you like to know more?Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be with you today. Today we are going to be discussing, remember what Elon was like.It turns out they've been taking all of those government files and all that government paperwork whenever somebody retired and it needed to be stored in a lime mine limestone,Simone Collins: Pennsylvania, our own home state,Malcolm Collins: Pennsylvania. Yes. And there were at least pictures that that looked like a. Indiana Jones, when they're wheeling the big cart of things that are going down.The Holy Grail. TheSimone Collins: holyMalcolm Collins: Grail. Yeah. So I heard that and I was like, oh, wow, that's wild. I wonder how that started. And then recently, like the thought hit me again and I was like, oh, wow. That's wild. I wonder why they were doing that. Like, yeah. Why and how did all of the federal documents, like if it was just some big [00:02:00] warehouse.I'd be like, okay,Simone Collins: right, maybe, but like having to take it down in an elevator and being able to retire only so many people per month because. The elevator takes a long time and you can't put that many files down all at once. That'sMalcolm Collins: yeah,Simone Collins: thatMalcolm Collins: was like, wait, what? Yeah. Oh, I should probably double click on this.Simone Collins: Yeah. So let's double click. Yeah. Okay.Malcolm Collins: The Iron Mountain and, and this is not me reading from an article I was going through and, and putting some, some things out was grok to try to like figure out what's, what's going on with this.Simone Collins: Oh, alright. Okay.Malcolm Collins: Gotcha. The Iron Mountain Underground Facility in Boyers, Pennsylvania.A former limestone mine converted for storage in the 1960s. The US government, particularly the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, began using it in 1970 for processing and storing retirement documents driven by the need for a secure climate controlled environment. Over 700 employees work. 220 feet underground, manually processing around 10,000 retirement applications monthly.[00:03:00]This manual system unchanged since the 1970s involves passing the files by hand leading to delays, especially when the elevator breaks down. Despite efforts to the one elevator. The one elevator. Yeah. Since the 1980s costing over a hundred million dollars modernization has failed. So they've spent over a hundred million dollars and we're gonna do a dive on that with a 2014 Washington Post report, calling it a quote unquote sinkhole of bureaucracy in 2015.Okay? Concerns about the mines ceiling degrading were raised, but no significant changes followed. That reminds me of 30 Rock whereThe Celia appears to be leaky. No, it's not. We've looked into it and it's not. Uh, if you have any questions, I'll write down my extension for you.Do you need a pen? Nope. I've kind of gotten used to it. You don't have pens? We're not in a recession. Boy, we've gotta crack the whip around here. Coer. You don't have [00:04:00] pens. The roof is leaking. No, it's not. I'll show you this study. Hey, we have a meeting with the appropriations committee like now. Oh no. I'm not prepared.I know I'm not drunk either, but we'll manag

In this episode, we explore the two key topics: how to secure and convert high-quality partners and how to avoid hypergamy in relationships. The discussion delves into personal examples and broader societal observations, including the dynamics that made the hosts' relationship successful. We also touch on the pitfalls of traditional and urban monoculture relationship paradigms, and the importance of having an aligned objective function for a stable partnership. Insights on effective dating strategies, transparency, and ideological alignment in relationships are shared to help viewers navigate their own journey to finding a lasting and fulfilling relationship. Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello everyone. I'm really excited to be talking with you today. I am a woman, a wolf, I'm hypergamous, I'm evil. And I'm going to tell you exactly why I chose my husband, who of course I will discard someday for a better, I mean, maybe let's find out specifically the two concepts we're going to be discussing in this episode.is how I secured Simone as a wife. And the second is IE, why did she develop feelings for me from her own perception? Why did she decide to marry me when before this she had been very urban monoculture, very in that bubble, you know, how do you secure and convert, not just secure, but convert high quality women?And then second, how do you avoid hypergamy? We're talking about this because a lot of people following this podcast are interested in finding a wife and also many of the ambitious, intelligent, successful young women they're dating are [00:01:00] also very urban monoculture pill. They're just like me. They never want to have kids.They want to focus on their career. They're the idea of pregnancy is abhorrent to them. So maybe we can use me as a case study delve into my previous brain and at least the, the dynamics that enabled. Malcolm's in my relationship to happen to see if maybe some of this might be replicated for you if this is a goal of yours.And then how to avoid hypergamy, which I would argue is made likely by overly trad relationships. Both being too overly urban monoculture or overly trad makes you very at risk for hypergamy. That's interesting. The first thing I think of when you mentioned that is when it comes to careers, the smart thing is to switch careers every few years because you're able to get a better income.And I wonder if the same dynamic is the case when your career is being a wife, like after a few years, especially if you feel like you're appreciating in value, like if you're building an online following or you're getting hotter in any way, like if you're actually a terrible wife trading [00:02:00] up and being hypergamous is, is actually the logical thing to do.That's interesting. Sorry. Well, let's start with you and why you chose me and what guys have Gotten your eye before. Yeah, so I have a very consistent track record of people I've had crushes on since I was a teen the universal factor is Having a unique passion for something in your life, knowing who you are and being very transparent about it and unapologetic about it.In other podcasts, we've, we've alluded to this like very embarrassing crush I had on this guy who was really into Catholic doctrine. And I would go to his dorm room bringing all these cupcakes and asking him hard questions about Catholicism. Cause it was just like my excuse to like get him to talk to me more.I had crushes on people. who were, you know, ended up, he ended up, he's like, Oh, Simone, I've enjoyed these discussions with you so much. I've decided to become a priest. And she's like, [00:03:00] no, this is how good my game is. For those who don't know, Catholic priests can't marry or date. So yeah, that was, yeah.I know it worked out really well. Come on, Malcolm. I'm really all is as it should be. I want to take a few notes on what you're saying here because Simone is not unique in this fact. Not at all. Most high value women I know have this profile in terms of what that like gets them excited about a partner.And A lot of the guys I know when they are pursuing women do not pursue them using these techniques and we'll go over the techniques that they use that are really ineffective. The first, I think one thing I'll just note is even when you look at a lot of the crushes that take place in fictional universes it's often on guys who.I have no interest in women are not like, Oh, I'm here. Cause I'm like powerful and cool. It's men who are extremely passionate about whatever it is. Like be that revenge or [00:04:00] saving their kingdom or something else. It's people who know who they are and have a mission and are pursuing it. And these are the women, this, these are the men to whom women want to hitch their wagons.Yep. Lots of Luigi Mini Gionni fan fictions going around right now. I was just watching that. Oh dear. But I, I. I want to explain one, why this is the case. And two, the, the reason why guys are making mistakes is the first mista

In this episode, the hosts engage in a deep discussion about the controversial downfall of Jack Murphy, a former conservative influencer, and whether kink shaming should have a place in the new right ideology. They explore sexual fetishes, societal norms around sexuality, and the implications of shaming non-normative arousal patterns. The conversation also touches on traditional values, arousal pathways, and the potential consequences of making private sexual preferences public. Join us for a candid, thought-provoking discussion on the balance between sexual morality and personal freedom in conservative spaces. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I had an interesting thing that happened in an episode recently where Ry Nationalist was on. We were talking about Jack Murphy, who used to be a famous sort of conservative influencer who had this, this club and this podcast and everything like that.And then it turned out that he was in to being, I. Cued specifically his girlfriend sleeping with other people and into putting things in his butt and this, we're gonna go over all of that. I wasn't like, we weren't conservative influencers when that happened, right. So, like, we had nothing to say on that, when that happened, but when I heard this, my first intuition was to be like, oh, I feel kind of bad for him.Like. I didn't have like embarrassing fetishes that I had to worry about like that, you know, like this is what turned him on, you know? And you don'tSimone Collins: get to choose what turns you on and what turns you on isn't a reflection of your morality either.Malcolm Collins: Yeah.Tamura, I [00:01:00] miss me something. My computer's hard drive. I need you to dump it in the bathtub and fry it. All done. Please rest in peace, Satoru.Malcolm Collins: And it made me think a question, right? Like. I want to go into all of this again, and I want to go into it, you know, as the, the new right.And the tech right is sort of consolidating as a ideological perspective. Okay. And you and I are some of the, I'd say primary, regular influencers shaping that ideological perspective. What should be like as we unc, UNC ourselves from the left, as we Debra de brainwash, deprogram ourselves, what should our perspective be on kink shaming?I like is kink shaming [00:02:00] something that we should continue to do? Is it certain kinks where we should continue to do it? And here, I would note when I talk about kink shaming, and I need to be as clear as I can about this,Simone Collins: hmm.Malcolm Collins: This does not include instances in which somebody else without your consent forces you to participate in their kink.Simone Collins: Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. ThatSimone Collins: is,Malcolm Collins: that's very different. They talk to you about their kink. That means they dress up as their kink in a public context. That means they go to children's book readings in their kink. Here I am talking about things that people do in private, and the reason why I think it's, it's bad to pretend like.All kinks are bad is, well, our book, the Pregnant Guided Sexuality, we did a, a survey on this just to see how common kinks are, right? Like non-normative arousal patterns. And we found that the average person is aroused by 22 weird things. People have. K people have a, a . I need to cut that out.'cause I had no more swearing on this show. [00:03:00] Mm-hmm. A basket of kinks. It was 23.1 for men and 20.8 for women. So not even like that different. And if you're like, how clustered are these? There was a study of 2,300 people in the UK showing that roughly 75% had some kink. So the vast of people. Have a kink.Mm-hmm. Our society works because we do not talk about it.Alright, kid. Here's the deal. At any given time,Around 75% of the people you interact with are perverts in some way.Most of them right here in Manhattan, and most of 'em are decent enough. They're just trying to make a living cab drivers not as many as you'd think. Humans, for the most part, don't have a clue. They don't want one or need one, either.They're happy, they think they have a good bead on things, but why? Why a big secret? People are smart. They can handle it. A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals. And you know it. 1500 years ago, everybody knew the earth was the center of the universe. [00:04:00] 500 years ago, everybody knew the earth was flat.And 15 minutes ago you knew that people wereMostly just turned on by the opposite sex.Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.What's the catch? The catch? The catch isjust because you're aroused by something doesn't mean you have to indulge in itAnd That doesn't mean it's okay to talk about this stuff in public. You keep that to yourselfor.you will sever every human contact. Nobody will ever know you exist anywhere, ever.I'll give you the sunrise to think it over.Hey, is it worth it?Malcolm Collins: If you're strong enough.But it's, it's a thing where it's like you can have something unusual that arouse

In this episode, we dive into the alarming state of religion in the United States with shocking statistics and insights. We discuss the significant decline in church attendance and religiosity among Americans, highlighting key findings from various studies, including the Pew Research Center's Religious Landscape Study. The conversation reveals a startling drop in religious affiliation, particularly among younger generations, and examines how different religious groups, such as Mormons and Catholics, are faring. We also explore the implications of these trends for the future of religion in America and the potential societal impacts. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today we are going to be discussing the horrifying state of religion in the United States. I'll be discussing some statistics I found, and you'll be discussing the statistics you found. Mm-hmm. The fifth one that I found that was shocking, where there was a recent study where they looked at where people were going in the United States using cell phone data.Mm-hmm. And they found out that despite 21 to 24% of Americans saying they attend church weekly, only 5% do. Which is way lower rate of religiosity than anyone expected.Simone Collins: Why would you lie about going to church on a survey? We'll get to that when we get to the interesting stuff. What is your, the gist of what I found is that religion is literally dying in the United States in every measurable way, and specifically by dying.I mean that the only people who still had God were the old ones. This isn't even about young people losing their faith. They never had it.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And, and this is something that people really get [00:01:00] wrong, is they look at the pupil where it showed religion going, not going down this year in the United States, and they think that that's an indication that the erosion of traditional religion in the United States is over.It is not. But let's go into the dataSimone Collins: so with regard to the United States and what the pew, and by the way, you should definitely check out the interactive tools with this pew research to give some background, has a religious landscape study.This spans over 17 years. They first did it in 2020, 2007. Then they did it in 2014, then they were gonna do it again in 2021, you know, every seven years. But then. You know, pandemic. So they actually did it 20, 23, 24. So you get this really wide span and you're able to see really how quickly over this 17 year period, we lost God.So, basically what happened was we went from 16% of Americans being religiously unaffiliated, like, you know, not that many to over 29%. So almost, almost a third of Americans just aren't religiously affiliated. And I would say it's [00:02:00] gonna be higher than that because they considered other religions to be things like Unitarian Universalists and spiritual people of like new age and that no, like dangling crystals does not make you religious.I'm so sorry. What? People fallMalcolm Collins: into that category other.Simone Collins: It's, it's like one, 1%, so very, very little. Now 2% actually. So it was 1% around 20 2007, and then around 2% in 2014. But I still, you know, that's. That ain't religious. So everything, I thinkMalcolm Collins: before we get into the statistics, the reason why a lot of people from religious communities aren't seeing this is because they are from religious communities.Yeah. And definitionally, it's the people when they leave your community. I. That they are disappearing from your religion so you no longer see them, you know, when they move or whatever. Mm-hmm. This is and, and people when they deconvert from religions, don't do it for the reasons people think.The, the number one reason why people stop attending church is just because they moved and they didn't, they didn't start going. Yeah, [00:03:00] because it was,Simone Collins: it was a community thing. It was a friend group thing. It's very similar to our models of friendship where you have. Convenience friends who are basically just the people that you were friends with because they lived right next to you.And I think a lot of people grew up, and especially this is the old people who are now dying, they were only religious because it was convenience, religion, that being a part of your community kind of mandated your being religious or showing up at church. 'cause that was also culturally normative. And you get a lot of side eye.Suspicion if you didn't show up at church. So they did it, but it was convenience religion. It wasn't utility religion. People didn't practice religion because they, on the whole, because they found it really helped them perform better in life, even if it did. And so,Malcolm Collins: and, and, and so this is why when Covid came and people started doing religious services from home mm-hmm.And all of these communities stopped, many of them never really fully reopened. That 5% number that I gave you that was measured before C

Join us as we delve into a riveting conversation with Raw Egg Nationalist, the mind behind the provocative 'Man's World' magazine. In this episode, we explore the unique aesthetic philosophy of the new right, its cultural significance, and the inspirations behind the artistic movement. We discuss the rebirth of men's magazines, the influence of anime and Greco-Roman aesthetics, and the importance of producing engaging and beautiful art in today's sociopolitical landscape. This video is a must-watch for those interested in understanding the burgeoning right-wing cultural scene and its impact on contemporary art and literature. Don't miss this engaging and thought-provoking discussion! Malcolm Collins: . [00:00:00] Hello everyone. I'm excited to be here. We have a raw egg nationalist with us again. I am so excited. And what we wanted to talk about is, I was looking at his, his, his magazine. I'd never seen a print copy before Man's World. And hold it, hold it up so they can see the anime girls and everything.'cause you're, it'sSimone Collins: perfection. Yes.Malcolm Collins: And I'll try to put like one on the screen here if I remember, and you can, you can turn it over to show sort of the back of it. But when I was looking at this, you know, like Shinzo, Abe, big titty, anime girl, Trump like, and missile also justSimone Collins: the formatting in general though, like, I remembered.From my, my childhood years, just really loving, for example, wired magazine because just had this incredible formatting and layout and I've missed that. And we're seeing it again here. And it's just so fun to see like this. Well, yeah, I go to one of us whereMalcolm Collins: it's like racist or whatever, right. You see how they did our article in it.But the reason I find this interesting, and I wanted to focus on it, is the, the new right has developed a very unique aesthetic philosophy. Mm-hmm. [00:01:00] And I think that this covers, sort of perfectly represents it so people understand it's not just Malcolm saying like the, the, the, the alt-right cat girl phenomenon or whatever.Yeah. No proof.Simone Collins: This is not just in Malcolm's head. This is awesome and it's here.Malcolm Collins: And, and I'll also put a sargon of a cod, a tweet here.死んだ は 初めて 俺 に 伝えて いる 絶望 の 匂い だ 面白い こと 見せよう か ほら こんな に ガチン が 多 すぎて お父さん アカン ドナルド君 は まだ 死ぬ 時 じゃ ない でしょ ア アメリカ 万歳 さよなら ここで 絶対 負けない よ ランドトゥライド まで 出ろ だ って まだ サンキュー 言ってない でしょ 一回 も 言って ください おい[00:02:00]仲良く して この 世界 に 傷ついて いける かな 昔 グレート だった 大きに また グレート に なるかな あの さ 有名人 なら 誰か の マンコ 掴んで さ そうそう そうそう やらせる でMalcolm Collins: Which I found amazing where they had like anime style Trump and over the top, and I thought it was the best. But I, yeah. I'd love to just hear your thoughts, how you constructed this and how you think about this sort of aesthetic move because it's really a new artistic movement that is starting and I don't think many people are cataloging or talking about.Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah. So I mean, so I started Mans World really by accident. You know, I was, thinking of, well, I mean, I write about masculinity a lot. You know, that's one of, that's my bread and butter. That's what I've been writing about on Twitter and, and [00:03:00] writing articles about, you know, for, for five, five years now actually.But in the sort of summer of 2020, I was thinking about men's magazines and I was thinking, you know, why are, why are there no men's magazines anymore? You know? So play Playboy is totally paused now. Playboy is so, you know, I mean, they had a transgender centerfold, I think.Simone Collins: Oh gosh. Okay. Yeah. What was thatMalcolm Collins: men's magazine that I used to love?Maxim. Maxim. Do you remember this? Okay. So it was little fashioned though. I felt like it was. No, no, no. So, so I gotta talk about this because this is the, a, a historic phenomenon that disappeared, but was like, I think a staple of our childhoods. When you would go to the magazine rack before you get on a plane or something like that.There was always a, like a, a category. I think Maxim was sort of the main one where we'd have like irreverent, funny articles that were targeted at men. And sort of the point of it was to be edgy and man focused. They even had a TV channel called Spike [00:04:00] TV that was edited this demographic in this format.We actually know the guy who was one of the, the showrunners for that, who now runs Dad Saves America. But anyway, they, they had shows like. So funny that it, the person who ran the the Man Show was Jimmy Kimmel. But I remember like an example of like a joke they had on the show. Can you believe that Jimmy Kimmel ran this joke?Is he would have a young kid go around and try to buy alcohol at convenience stores. And when they'd ask him for his id, he'd ask them for their green cards.. I just need to help old ladies cross the street. Old ladies. Yeah. I'm not old. Sure you are.Malcolm Collins: Anyway, continue document this.Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, so I was, so, I wa

Join us in an engaging conversation as we delve into the mysterious roots of modern leftist beliefs. We explore the perceived borderline theological nature of these beliefs and address three main areas: environmentalism, trans politics, and genetics. The discussion highlights the urban monoculture's tendency to ascribe moral value to perceived weakness, creating a 'noble obligation' that diverges from traditional self-preservation instincts. We also touch on the inherent mistrust of advancement, the industrial revolution, and the anti-human sentiment among progressives, drawing comparisons with historical and cultural contexts. This episode provides valuable insights into the cultural and ideational forces shaping present-day ideological dynamics. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be tackling and, and trying to work our way through something that I see as particularly an interesting mystery that I don't know if I have a formal thesis on what's causing it yet but it is when I look at you know, the urban monoculture from which, you know, modern leftist culture derives itself.Where it holds beliefs that I would say appear to an outsider to be borderline theological. And, and it is a sin to go against these particular beliefs. Most frequently these beliefs fall into a few categories. Environmentalism is a really big one. Another one is trans politics is a really big one.And then another one is genetics is a really big one. And I'm, I'm like actually like, sort of [00:01:00] surprised because not all of these things are like intrinsic to a leftist worldview. How they arrived and consolidated around these particular areas. Where they most frequently say things that just like on face value or was like the littlest bit of research are not true.Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.Malcolm Collins: You know, this can be, you know, in genetics it's like, well, everyone has exactly the same capabilities. And it's like they, they very obviously don't, like if you, if you do even the basis look at science, some of our. Proclivities and traits have a her component. Like that's a weird thing to claim.And people can be like, oh, well this is like downstream of like fears about like nazim and eugenics and stuff like that. And I'm like. Maybe, but it's weird that it's so core to the way they see the world. And Min was environmentalism. There's this form of not real environmentalism, but aesthetic environmentalism.I persistently see them retreat to mm-hmm. You know, where like they're taking [00:02:00] down like nuclear power plants in Germany. Despite their only other source of energy being like Russian oil, which is like obviously dirtier, but like as environmentalists we're anti-nuclear. Like, and, and it's not just that, it's also like when I mention something like this is like reporters frequently have like a visceral reaction when I tell them fertility collapse will affect people's lives more in the next hundred years than global warming will.And they're like, are you sure you don't wanna restate that? Like, they see this as like an absolutely insane thing to say. Like I'm saying the sky is red. When I say global, it's not the most important thing. Or they're like, well, don't you care about like a, a, a huge. Collapse in the number of species you know, like a mass extinction.And I'm like, a mass extinction is bad. Like it's not awesome. There are consequences of a mass extinction. They're not existential consequences. Like it's, it's, it's, it's [00:03:00] bad. Like it's not great. I'm not aiming for it, but it's not, you know, threatening to human survival or even the existing way that we structured our civilizations.Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.Malcolm Collins: In the way that they seem to be like implying it is. And I don't think that they really believe it is either. They're not afraid of a mass extinction because of humans. They're afraid of a mass extinction because the mass extinction matters. So as somebody who used to, I think you maybe used to genuinely hold some of these beliefs, maybe you can explain to me sort of how they work and, and where they're coming from.Simone Collins: I think maybe a lot of people steeped in the urban monoculture, super progressive modern religion have this modern version of noble abl in that they're indoctrinated in. That leads them to believe that their purpose is to protect anything that is perceived as less [00:04:00] capable of defending itself than they are that the last person for them to defend is anything close to them because they come from this position of privilege.So it's different from the old concept of noble obl, which I think had a little bit more of a self preservation instinct. This one's a more like suicidal form of noble obl, if that makes sense. That's just like, I don't matter. I am wretched. And I must protect all that, which is. Relatively more defenseless.Malcolm Collins: That's a really interesting point.

In this episode, Simone and her guest delve into the fascinating history of mail order brides in the Old West. They explore why men and women opted into these arrangements, what each gender valued in a partner, and how societal values have changed over time. The script covers a variety of firsthand accounts and marriage ads from the 1800s to early 1900s, highlighting the practical and often business-like nature of these unions. The hosts also discuss the broader cultural implications and talk about how modern individuals might learn from these historical practices. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today we are going to go into an interesting deep dive to learn more about dating in the old West. We are going to look at the widely practiced concept of mail order brides in the old West. Talked about why people opted into it, why they did it.Review a lot of firsthand accounts of what men were looking for back then and what women were looking for to understand what they valued in a partner and how that has changed in society. Because I think that that's something to go back to, like different cultural periods to one, better understand our own ancestry because I think a lot of Americans have forgotten what their great grandparents valued, what they were looking for in partners, et cetera.And we, we, through seeing different cultures, we can be like, oh, this is a different way to relate. To marriage and sexuality. And, and a lot of people would ask, they'd be like, how really, like women would do this. They would like get in a carriage and like drive out to meet with someone in the middle of nowhere in like the old west.Like, weren't they afraid of like being turned into [00:01:00] like a sex slave and like chained up in the basement or something. And it's like, well actually there wasn't that much risk of that because that was sort of like a strictly like worse value proposition for a guy than a wife. Sex slaves are very high maintenance.Especially if you're living on the frontier, like yeah, they'reSimone Collins: not doing that much work, which is, I mean, I guess you could, you could force them to work. There was like that, that tragic story recently of the. Mm. Well now man, but who had been trapped in his house for a long period of time and he was occasionally let out to clean the house.So he did do some housework, but then otherwise he was in his room. Yeah. That'sMalcolm Collins: strictly less like even if they were just cleaning the house, that's strictly lesser than you can get out of a dedicated wife who like you, you dedicated part of your time to. Right. You know, like you get a lot more labor out of her just by being nice.So we'll, we'll get to like the dynamics of this, although there was an instance. Where a woman did get married to a nice guy, only to realize shortly after her wedding, and we'll go into this case in a bit, that he had robbed her stage coach on the way over, not knowing it was his future wife, [00:02:00] and he was just on the low down, also a stage coach robber.Oh, oops. Well, he was nice about it too. He didn't know it was gonna be his future wife, and he let her keep her wedding outfit and everything. And Oh, that's, she was like, oh, I'm gonna get married. And then he's like, oh, yeah. He's like, I can just imagine his face when she arrives, like, oh, sh uhoh, uhoh.What a start, huh? That's, that's before getting into all of that. I want go into some marriage in the old West. Okay. Rucks coffee, coupons and rings. In late 18 hundreds, rucks Coffee was a dominant brand across the American frontier, especially among cowboys, homesteaders, and miners. Coffee was a staple, and Arbuckle stood out by including redeemable coupons or premiums in their three pound bags.These weren't just throwaways. Think of them as loyalty points. Customers collected them to train for goods like kitchenware, razors, and notably. Finger rings, the rings often simple bands or [00:03:00] modestly adorned were marketed as keepsakes or engagement symbols. The claim of 80,000 wes a year was, was one of their, their things.So the old wesler was a common practice of you would buy. Now, the, the reason this brand of coffee became popular among the old West first is they built a a way. To seal it so it stayed fresh longer so they could ship it further. And so, then the next thing they did is they built a system where you would get like this coupon book that you could use to buy things, but one of the most popular items in the coupon book was wedding rings.And so people would save up for various wedding rings that they would buy with coupons.Simone Collins: That is that, I mean, that makes sense. It, it sounds honestly like buying. A wedding ring with your credit card points today, which a lot of people do. So I bet if I log onto our credit card rewards, I will find ways to buy a ring.Which time all day. Yeah, maybe. Yeah. We spend all our points on, hey, this year, neverMalcolm Collins: [00:04:00] one

In this episode, the hosts discuss the profound implications of redistricting and its anticipated impact on future U.S. elections, particularly post-2030. They delve into population movements towards red states and the consequent shift in electoral votes which may disadvantage Democrats. The conversation explores how demographic and cultural shifts affect voting patterns, particularly among minority communities. The hosts also examine the internal challenges facing the Democratic Party, such as their exclusionary approaches, which complicate coalition-building. They consider potential paths and strategies Democrats might pursue to stay competitive, including appealing to new voter groups and addressing pertinent issues like job loss due to AI. The dialogue is rounded out with personal anecdotes and a light-hearted discussion on family dynamics and dinner plans. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Now, many of you watching might be aware of the current phenomenon going on in the United States. It makes it nearly impossible for Democrats to win elections after the 2030s. This is due to something called redistricting, in which as voters move to red states blue states lose votes because the number of votes you get in a presidential election and in Congress is based on your population.Well. Turns out nobody wants to live in blue states anymore. They've for a long time. And these states are lower fertility anyway.Simone Collins: Well, this also reminds me of that stat that showed that minority populations, like non-white populations that live in red districts versus blue districts have higher income.Like all these measures that were way better, like, oh, inMalcolm Collins: contrast it with white populations, actually everyone typically has lower income in red states. Just for clarification. But that's because the urban monoculture prefers to grow in environments where it can [00:01:00] harvest more money. So it focuses on wealthy cities and stuff like that.But you're right about that. They're like relatively less racist in the implications of their policy than belief states.Simone Collins: And while we, you're as consequentialist, we care about outcomes, you know, if they're thriving more in red districts, I would say red districts create better outcomes for minorities.Malcolm Collins: Right. But so in this episode you, you've probably heard of this or you're broadly aware of it, but I want to both go into the specifics of this and go into scenarios about what it means to actually win an election. Like I. What are you actually going to win? How does it change, which states or swing states and how does it change what Democrats need to do to win elections going forward?Okay. While also arguing that this is just gonna be incredibly hard for them to pull off and they'll likely need some new form of a coalition to. Win elections going forwards. And I don't know what that coalition's gonna look like. But what's interesting about the way the Democrats have built their coalition is it's entirely exclusionary recently.It's either you [00:02:00] support trans people or you're totally out. Either like, as we've said, like all you need to do is disagree on one thing and you're not a de at all anymore. Like a JK Rowling is a Damon every single way, but like. Trans issues. And she's like a demon, right? Like Elon was like every single way, but like trans issue, demon.And now he's like on the right, you know, like, so even if you like, just disagree on like the. The dumb thing, you point out the giant mole on their face. You know, it ends up causing you to be exercised from their culture. So,Simone Collins: yeah.Malcolm Collins: I mean, justSimone Collins: wait. You make the tiniest wrong move when you're out.That's the really scary thing.Malcolm Collins: It's very hard. Basically they need to find a new group to protect it, sort of the way their culture is structured. But who would that be? It could only be. Religious conservatives, but, but, you know, say, oh, well, we'll protect your children, but then that would upset the Chinese people and the, you know, so I don't know what they're gonna do, but, we'll, we'll move on that at the end of this, but let's just go into the stats here to start.Okay? Okay. Based on population projections for the [00:03:00] 2030 census, certain states are expected to gain house seats due to population groups, primarily in the south and west. Okay. Votes. Equals its number of house seats plus two for its senator who increase in house seats directly increases electoral votes.The states gaining electoral votes along with the number of votes are Texas plus four, Florida plus four Arizona plus one Utah plus one. North Carolina plus one Utah plus one total of electoral votes gained 12. Conversely, states with population decline or slower goes, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, as well as California, are projected to lose house seats, thus electoral voters.The states that are gonna lose

Join us in an insightful conversation as we dive into the juxtaposition of living during a technological revolution and a looming dark age. We explore perspectives from conservatives, the new right, and the traditional left on current societal shifts, highlighted by figures like Hank Green and John Oliver. The discussion also delves into AI's rapid advancements, its impact on jobs, society's unpreparedness for AI, and the potential concentration of wealth and power. Furthermore, we contemplate the resilience of civilization in the face of bureaucratic bloat, demographic collapse, and economic instability. Concluding with practical advice for the future, we look at how to equip the next generation for a radically different economy. Don't miss out on this riveting exploration of our evolving world. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be talking to you today. Today we are going to talk about living through both a dark age and an age of technological revolution. Why this is so exciting. We are gonna talk to the way that conservatives are increasingly relating to this. The way then the new right is relating to this and the way that the traditional left is relating to this.No. Which I think is best shown by Hank Green, you know, of the Green Brothers old YouTube fame, you know, obviously completely urban monoculture. He's on blue sky. He's talking about how great Blue Sky is, how he loves Harvey when they were so, so nice and smart and everything like that. And then he mentions.Like that's a big thing that I see on Blue Sky that I don't see on Twitter. Like I tweet about the, the asteroid that was gonna hit us, but then didn't hit us. And I get normal responses on Blue Sky. I tweet about that, and a bunch of the responses are finally someone to cure the plague of humans upon this earth.Malcolm Collins: And, and this is actually a fairly common [00:01:00] interpretation, if you look at our data 'cause we did a survey to see how many people thought the world would be better if everyone was dead.And what was it 17%?Simone Collins: Yeah, 17% of respondents in our census representative survey, we only. Looked at American responses in this case said the world would be better off if there weren't any humans, which is unhinged. WhingedMalcolm Collins: fiveSimone Collins: people about a fifth. Yes.Malcolm Collins: Wants to murder all people. It wants them all day one.Simone Collins: Just be better without any humans just hate the humans.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, no, it's, it's really interesting, like as a prenatal is advocate that, like you assume that's not something you're gonna have to debate. Like Yeah, likeSimone Collins: humanMalcolm Collins: good, right? Like we all agree that like. Humans are good, right? Yeah. Right. Like humanity should have a future and they're like, no, we don't.Like, let's actually debate that before we talk about like policy or implications or anything like that. So I wanna talk about that. I wanna talk about also why it's easier for [00:02:00] conservatives to become audience captured than progressives. That's another thing I wanna use because this is something I think we've increasingly seen in conservative faces where conservatives move right, a based on their audience a lot faster than move left based on their audience.Although, speaking of audience capture, I don't know if you saw, I, I mean this just might be that he's just completely, you know, cooked from the beginning. John Oliver did this piece supporting trans people in children's sports, and he got like tons of down votes and people were like, what? What, what are you, what?Like,Simone Collins: oh my goodness. So he thought he'd be supported in that and ultimately wasn't.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. I think only 18% of Americans support that. Like, it is, it is such a dumb issue to, to back like you, you have to literally like. Be like actually regarded. Um, Regard. I love, I love that they've ended up using that word.Simone Collins: I've not heard this before.Malcolm Collins: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, well, Joe Rogan says retarded is back,Simone Collins: andMalcolm Collins: then it is complaining. They're [00:03:00] like, oh, that's such a, how could you say that? Like, you know, that, that word hurts people. Like, why would you be excited that it's back? And it's like, well, we don't evenSimone Collins: use retarded as a, as a designator forMalcolm Collins: Yeah.It, it's like South Park and fag,I happen to be gay boys. Do you think I'm a fag? Do you write a big loud Harley and go up and down the streets ruining everyone's nice time?No. Then you're not a fag alright, look, you're driving in your car, okay? And you're waiting to make a left at a traffic signal. The light turns yellow, should be your turn to go, but the traffic coming at you just keeps coming.And even when the light turns red, a guy in A BMW runs the red light. So you can't make your left turn. What goes through your mind fag, right? This. This is ma

In this episode, Simone and I delve into a fascinating conversation about various subcultures that have emerged in response to modern societal challenges. We focus on the Yankees of Japan, the Dinos of the UK, and the Tradies of Australia, exploring how these distinctly different yet surprisingly similar groups share common traits like high fertility rates, rebelliousness, and a mistrust of mainstream societal institutions. Join us as we unpack how these subcultures thrive outside the urban monoculture and what it means for the future of society. Plus, stay tuned for insights into our latest projects and how you can get involved. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing a phenomenon where a certain convergently evolved cultural subgroup that is derivative often of American cultural subgroups in popular with the lower classes within a number of countries is. Staying or becoming one of the core high fertility communities,Simone Collins: it shall inherit the future.Malcolm Collins: Exactly. And the first of these is going to be the Yankees of Japan. Yes. If you, I, I'll put a clip of one hereつ つけ ばん じゃん ま まゆげつば はいたMalcolm Collins: I want daughters who act like that, by the way. That is, that is my plan is a hundred percent. But it's a culture that if you watch anime, you're [00:01:00] likely familiar with, in which people sort of dress like greasers. And they form gangs.Greasers being the 1950s American subculture. And they focus on a lot of Americana. This. And then the,Simone Collins: so not, not exactly. So yeah. Yankee culture is, is more just kind of like this. Yes. There's, there's the greaser hairstyle in many cases, like perms and little buffon and stuff. But there is just general, like as, as younger kids, they were hooligans, they had bike gangs.They caused destruction to property. But the movement now has evolved into what is referred to as mild Yankees, which are basically the grownup version of these people, and they've kind of switched out their. Souped up biker game bikes for God, what are they called? These weird looking Toyota cars that they spend way too much money on the, the Toyota LL Fire.It's like this really boxy van. Just look it up. It's, it's a thing. [00:02:00] And they're actually now known for being like fairly responsible, but they still kind of maintained a little bit of that rebellious streak. So basically whatMalcolm Collins: happened, and we're gonna go into a tweet that I think gives it into this really well, is they picked up this greaser rebellious, for rebellious sake culture that ended up being very similar to sort of redneck culture in the United States Truck Nut conservatives in the United States that we pointed out.This is a uniquely resistant to fertility collapse group and being reactively. Anti-authority and anti trend following. Yeah. Like mainstream trends mm-hmm. Is in the US and for obvious reasons, protective of fertility rates. Yeah. And it has acted protectively for this subculture and other subcultures as they've aged out of their pointless, rebellious phases.Simone Collins: Well, but I think what's really interesting about this group and also the other groups that we're going to explore in the United States, Australia, the uk, that bear a lot of similarities is. It. This rebelliousness also is correlated [00:03:00] with, or just exists alongside a fundamental mistrust in like mainstream societal institutions being plugged into mainstream news and also believing in things like the lifelong corporate job and going to university.So these groups also tend to either. Not even finish high school, but at at least definitely at very low rates go to university, so they're not getting higher education. And the, the, the man who actually coined the term mild Yankee, his name is Ada Yohe, he wrote this book called Yankee Economics, the New Conservatives as the Leaders of Consumption.He, he described them as the last Japanese generation to have parents who enjoyed permanent regular. Employment in a normal way. And that actually as they aged, their rebelliousness eased up a little bit because fewer and fewer of their parents had jobs and incomes that sort of allowed them to like wield social control that they might even like buck up against.So I think that also this generation. [00:04:00] More at the lower ends of the economic spectrum to begin with. Also was the first to see the crumbling of the lifelong corporate job, which was a really big thing in Japan, but certainly a big thing everywhere else too. So they also like, I think, are among the first cultures to start going off the grid.And by going off the grid, I mean not buying in to something that has turned out to be a fundamental lie. And that buying into also correlates with low. Fertility in that, the, the, the lifelong corporate job or buying into that kind of fantasy of like, I'm gonna make a lot of money. I'm gonna go to university, is

In this episode, we are joined by the renowned economist and author Robin Hansen, an Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University. The discussion centers around the challenging issue of fertility decline and its cultural underpinnings. Hansen outlines various trends contributing to lower fertility rates, such as prolonged education, intensive parenting, gender equality, urban living, and less religious adherence. He also explores the interaction of culture and economy, the potential for policy interventions, and the role of subcultures in addressing demographic challenges. Additionally, they touch on historical patterns, the evolution of cultures, and the strategies for fostering sustainable, high-fertility communities. The conversation offers a rich and insightful analysis of one of today's pressing societal issues. [00:00:00]Simone Collins: Hello everyone. As you can see today, we are joined by the one, the only, the incredibly prolific and brilliant Robin Hansen. He is the American economist author. He's also an associate professor of economics at George Mason University. But he is known for some of the most catchy ideas, ranging from grabby aliens to one of the most popular fertility intervention proposals, which has to do with sort of like a tax bonds on children's future tax generated income.But most recently on the prenatal list front Robin Hansen's focus has been shifting to culture. So we wanted to have him on base camp to talk about prenatal list culture. Welcome, Robin.Robin Hanson: Hello everyone. So, as you know, culture, I mean, fertility looks like a pretty hard problem, like, right? Yeah. So you guys are working hard.I hope you have success, but you, you get that it's an uphill battle, right? Yeah, yeah. But so at least I feel good about fertility that I can. Frame a proposal and say it in words and say, if only you would do this, it'll probably fix the problem. That doesn't mean you can get somebody to do it, but [00:01:00] it's a nice thing to have is to be able to, yes.Have a concrete proposal and say, look, if you do this, that would fix it.Simone Collins: Yes.Robin Hanson: And that's as a policymaker, I'm proud. Like that's kind of our job. Like, okay, if you guys won't do anything, you know what the hell Yeah. That's onSimone Collins: you. Yeah. You could have it's, you could have had niceRobin Hanson: things. We could, we at least had an idea for what to do.Simone Collins: Yeah.Robin Hanson: But so I thought about for. Fertility for like eight months. And then like most people in fertility, I came to see culture underlying as a fundamental cause of fertility decline. It's, it doesn't mean that we have to fix it that way. Right? We can fix things with money that are caused by culture.That's a, if you canSimone Collins: afford it. Yeah. Right. IfRobin Hanson: you can afford it. Money and culture interact and have for many centuries, yes. Like capitalism and culture have had a lot of influences on each other. So just because something's caused by culture doesn't mean it needs to be fixed by culture directly. That is, you could do a a money thing that changes culture and I think the money thing we talked about in our last episode is such a thing that would change culture.But you certainly notice that the proximate cause of the problem is [00:02:00] culture. And that induced me more of a theorist to say, okay, why? Hmm. What's causing culture to change? What is it just some random, you know, thing that just happens in the world? Or is there some more systematic way to understand why culture?So it's not, it's like a half a dozen trends. I can point out that cons that seem to be causing fertility decline. You, you guys know them all Probably.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, but I go into 'em. Let's go. Yeah. Yeah. We may particularlyRobin Hanson: very differently. Okay. Let's just mention them for, you know, for, for completeness sake. Yes.So obviously like. Longer years of education and early career prep. Right. A lot of young women want, who are s very powerful. You know, capable people want to prove that they can do well in their careers and our career ladders don't give very good pauses. Yeah. And they want to show that they are capable and.You know, be successful. And so they want to wait to as long as the career ladder requires to then consider having kids. So that's, that's one. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Hold on. As, as we go through each of these, I wanna talk about [00:03:00] how they can be addressed and how other cultures, their state high fertility have addressed them.The two ways that this particular problem I've seen addressed is one have women not become educated or have men and women not becomeRobin Hanson: educated. It works really well for fertility rates, but alsoSimone Collins: in places like Kazakhstan. You still have men and women getting educated, but they're having kids in university.And this is my favorite solution. I think that's the best time to have kids.Malcolm

In this episode, we delve into the ancient Roman fertility crisis, focusing on the efforts of Augustus to encourage marriage and childbearing among the Roman elite. We discuss various laws introduced by Augustus, such as the Lex Julia and Lex Papia Poppaea, aimed at promoting procreation and the penalties imposed on the unmarried and childless. We explore the historical context, examining the low fertility rates of notable Roman families and the societal implications. Furthermore, we draw parallels to modern issues of declining fertility rates, particularly in Italy, and the potential cultural and economic impacts. Join us as we uncover the motivations behind Augustus' policies and the ultimate challenges they faced in ensuring the survival of Rome's elite lineage. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today we are going to be talking about ancient Roman tism.Simone Collins: Oh, the failed kind,Malcolm Collins: right? Many people have heard. Of Rome as As, and they've, they've heard of, like Augustus say, being concerned about falling fertility rates among Roman elites. Mm-hmm. We've heard that he put in laws to try to prevent this.Mm-hmm. We've heard, oh, this is mirrored with our current societal collapse and this is a pretense of the destruction of a global empire in the same way.Simone Collins: Yeah.Malcolm Collins: People thought as a pretense of the destruction of the Roman empire. Right. Even though it wasn't, that happened a long time after this particular concern.But I mean it kind of was blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We'll see. But I was like, wait. What were those laws, what actually happened in Rome during this period? Mm-hmm. What did people of the period have to say about this? Mm-hmm. How low did the fertility rate of the Roman elite actually get? Hmm. And I'll also start by saying Rome's going through this again.Italy right now has the fertility rate of only 1.18. That means every hundred Italians, there's only gonna be 20 great grandchildren. We are looking at the complete collapse of, italian civilization likely was in our [00:01:00] lifetimes, which is gonna be good point.Simone Collins: Yeah. Hadn't thought. Yeah. We're sort of, we're back, we're back to square one.Malcolm Collins: And this, this also causes a lot of problems like for Catholicism because if, if Italy is no longer Italian or Catholic anymore, you know what happens to the Vatican? Tough, tough world we might be entering. But I, I, I think they're gonna get it together. I think they're gonna get it together. I have faith so we'll start here talking about Augustus.Okay. So Augustus uses platform to urge Romans to marry and have children framing it as a civic duty in a famous speech recorded by historian DiUS, he said. If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance. Oh wow. But since the nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them nor live in any way without them.Yeah. We must plan for our lasting preservation. That's rather than, rather for our temporary pleasure. That's amazing. Okay.Simone Collins: Yeah,Malcolm Collins: that is. I, we, we needed to have Augustus at Alcon, so all the journalists could be quoting [00:02:00] Augusta. Oh yeah.Simone Collins: He would be the clickbait. He would be the, the, yeah, the soundbite generator for natal con, the soundbiteMalcolm Collins: generator for, for modern journalists.Simone Collins: Wives, they're awful. But I mean, you gotta, you gotta put up with it. You gotta put up with it. It's like colonoscopies and wivesMalcolm Collins: necessary.Not exactly a view. I, I'm not gonna say like that, that's a view I would've given to Romans, like, sat them down and been like, okay, it's gonna be terrible. It's gonna be the worst thing ever.Simone Collins: Ugh. And women, I at least Trump, you know, is more like, man, you're so lucky. Yeah. Gods was really not selling it like at all. Like, you gotta do it. It sucks, but, but it's your duty. Yeah. No wonder this is doomed from the very start for the, my goodness.Malcolm Collins: You don't set it for the queen,Simone Collins: you know?Yeah. Yeah.Lie back and think of England or Rome in this case.Malcolm Collins: So this quote reflects his view that marriage, though challenging was essential for Rome survival. Mm-hmm. He also praised fathers of large families and criticized the childless, emphasizing the importance of producing heirs to maintain Rome's strengths.Mm-hmm. On the [00:03:00] duty of recreation, he said you have shown yourself to be mindful of the continued existence of our race while these others have not Dio, Cassius book 56 spoken to married men with children. This quote praises them for fulfilling their civic duty while implicitly criticizing unmarried and childless for neglecting it.This is so much worse than JD Vans. You have shown yourself to be mindful to the continued existence of our race. Well, the others have not. Childless catSimone Collins: is

In this episode, we delve into a new theory by EW, who explores why fertility rates fall faster in some countries than others. The theory suggests that countries modernizing later retain elements of ancestral culture, particularly outdated misogyny and gender roles, which haven't adapted to contemporary contexts, leading to a dramatic decline in fertility rates. We compare two groups of countries with differing fertility trajectories and investigate the roles of economic development, respect for elders, individualism, and gender dynamics. We also discuss the implications of these cultural factors on both family dynamics and societal trends, touching on real-world examples and personal anecdotes. Join us as we analyze these critical issues and invite you to share your thoughts on the factors influencing global fertility trends. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be talking about a theory about fertility rates that come out from EW for end of the show.Don't know if you've ever been on, we should ask him. Nice guy. But anyway, he has done a new theory where he tries to understand why fertility rates fall. Faster in some countries than other countries. Mm-hmm. IE what is protective of fertility rates and the, the gist of the argument is that these countries modernized later and that caused them to maintain more of their ancestral culture, specifically the misogyny and gender roles.Simone Collins: Oh.Malcolm Collins: Which is not properly updated for the new context. And leads to a crash in fertility raise. And I thought that the theory was really interesting. So let's go over it piece by piece, because I think he might be onto something here. But any thoughts before I start? Let'sSimone Collins: dive in. Let'sMalcolm Collins: do it. All right.Let's get a graph on screen here. Gotta you gotta [00:01:00] ex enhance, enhanced,Simone Collins: yeah. Give us, give us the visual and the, the premise that crem sets is what differentiates the countries in orange from the countries in blue? Why do the orange countries plunge into ultralow fertility while the blue ones have maintained themselves better?So let'sMalcolm Collins: talk about the two country groups. Orange includes Korea, Spain, and Italy. While blue includes the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.Simone Collins: And REU groups them into two sets. He says the countries in the first set are group one nations. In the second set, they're group two nations. Notice anything about their growth rates.One thing is that they've all grown to similar enough levels. Another is the acceleration of the pace of growth. So in the second tweet, he shares two additional graphs showing different. Trajectories of growth and different fertility ratesokay.In Group one, nations [00:02:00] started off a bit richer and they grew at a more stable pace. In Group two, the nations started off poorer, but they caught up to group one by growing faster. In the latter half of the 20th century, their fertility re rate trajectories followed suit.Malcolm Collins: And so what you see here is a really interesting thing in Group one countries where we've talked about it in other videos, but around the 1930s there was a huge fertility crash that a lot of these group one countries recovered from.This was mostly due to medical technology, although how seeing in the war played a role as well. Hmm. And you can look at our video on, you know, the, the ba the baby Boom. To get more information on this, but the gist being is that if you take the baby boom as an anomaly and you sort of try to draw a through line through these, it looks fairly stable.Whereas these other countries start to crash really dramatically and pretty quickly. And what's interesting is most of the crash in these other countries. Fertility rates [00:03:00] happens between 1920 and I'd say 1980. So before our, our, our modern time. And that's where they're dropping for much higher initial fertility rates.So if you look at it like sort of the mean fertility rate at the beginning of this period in 1920 for the group two, all of these countries where they started with a much higher mean fertility, let's say around. Four or maybe even 4.5, whereas the other group started with a mean fertility of three to 3.5.Mm-hmm. So it's almost as if the higher fertility you start with, the lower your fertility goes over time.Simone Collins: Yeah. And REU has a theory around this.Premiere rights. All societies used to be pretty sexist. They used to repress women in various ways, and that was just that for all of human history. But as societies have developed, one of the major changes has been that women's status has quickly moved up to the levelsthat have only once been seen by men with slow continuous growth. These norms changed and women's acceptance was [00:04:00] taken up gradually without much need for pushing. But with rapid growth, the picture is far different. The norms ha

In this insightful conversation, Simone and the host dive deep into the misunderstood world of Opus Dei, breaking down the myths and misconceptions popularized by media, such as “The Da Vinci Code.” They discuss the origins, beliefs, and practices of Opus Dei, contrasting them with those of the Jesuits. The conversation reveals Opus Dei's focus on personal sanctity through daily work and responsibilities, and its appeal to lay Catholics. In stark contrast, the Jesuits' history of social justice, intellectual pursuits, and perceived left-leaning tendencies are examined. The discussion also touches on the dramatic historical power struggles within the Catholic Church, highlighting moments when Jesuits' influence rivaled that of the Pope. Moreover, how these factions may reflect broader societal dynamics between progressives and conservatives is analyzed. The episode concludes with musings on the future of these groups and a humorous personal exchange about family life. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I'm excited to be talking to you today. Today we are gonna be talking about the Opus Day. You know, the villain from the Da Vinci Code. That is the exposureSimone Collins: like 99% of people have,Malcolm Collins: and most people know that they, they, they practice mortification or some of them do, where they like hurt themselves or like where like chains that cut into them when they wa even like famous ones.There's like a famous female author who's Opus Day who wears like a chain. And you may think that these guys are. Crazy. But what you will learn as we go into the opus day is they might be the only sane Catholics there are. You, they are definitely in the Catholic, and we'll see how much we have an opportunity to get in the Opus Day verse Jesuit mindset.They are definitely the good guy side. And the Jesuits are definitely the bad guy side.Simone Collins: You go so hard on Catholics. .Malcolm Collins: And I think you, Simone, specifically, are gonna love the Opus Day as you learn more about them. Yeah. Even more than you think you do right now.Simone Collins: Really?Malcolm Collins: So the Opus Day was established in 1928, so very, [00:01:00] very young. Wow.Simone Collins: I would've guessed like. Late 16 hundreds early S hundred. That's crazy.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. When Saint Joseph Maria Escoria, I, I'm gonna pronounce that wrong, we'll just call him Escoria had a spiritual insight that ordinary Christians could become saints by living their face fully in their daily routines. Wow. Especially through their work. He envisioned a past to holiness that didn't require withdrawing from the world into a monastery or covet.Convent, but instead embrace secular life as a means of sanctification. The vision was formerly recognized by the Catholic Church in 1982 when Pope John Paul II designated Opus Day as a personal re giving its special status to carry out its mission globally, so it didn't become like official until 1982.Wow.Simone Collins: Sounds a little bit like Maana Buddhism or. This premise is you don't have to become like a [00:02:00] reclusive monk in order to make religious progress. It's interesting.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, but I, I actually view it quite different. I'd actually say it's very similar to techno puritanism as techno puritanism relates to work, which is the idea that you should treat your work and your duty in life with religious fervor that you should be as dedicated.To your job. If your job and you, and you should have a job that attempts to improve the world by your philosophical framework and you should treat that. With the extremeness and with the fervor that a monk or hermit who has shut themselves off from society oh, treats their own seclusion.Simone Collins: Ah. So, whereas Maha Buddhism kind of allows for normalism, it's like, no, no, no.In everyday life you can do it, but also you're gonna be a completely weirdo. By the way No, no, no, no. This is, this isMalcolm Collins: like, you need to be max about your job. Okay. You need to be max about the most intense, an open state belief. You have a, a duty to be happy to other [00:03:00] people so that you don't bring other people down, you know?I love that. To, to, and we, we do this too, that you have responsibility for your mood. You have a responsibility for how you affect other people. Yeah. And all of this responsibility is an intent, religious responsibility. Hmm. Hmm. So sanctification of work members are encouraged to perform their daily tasks, whether professional, domestic or otherwise, with excellence as a way to serve God and others.So like you are supposed to be a mother as extremely as like a a hundred percent. 107% as like somebody would be a a in a monastery or something like that. Ah, and you're not supposed to be very different from other Catholic factions. You as a mother, if you're doing it a hundred percent, are not less than the none in the covenant,Simone Collins: right?Because, or a convent. You're makin

https://discord.com/invite/EGFRjwwS92 In this episode, our host discusses his changed perspective on the future of global governance, arguing that demographic collapse will inevitably lead to a shift toward monarchic and authoritarian regimes. He highlights the unsustainability of current democratic systems in the face of demographic crises and economic collapse. The episode explores various countries' timelines for potential social service collapse, the roles of AI and tech elites, and the possible political transitions and societal impacts. The conversation also touches upon the influence of social media and the looming possibility of walled garden city-states emerging as havens for the wealthy. [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today my mind has dramatically changed on a topic that I used to have a pretty firm stance on, okay. Which is I did not believe that it was good for the world to head in the direction of Monarch or authoritarianism.And I did not think that that was the direction the world was going to head. Now I am. Reassessing my beliefs around this in the face of the economic reality that demographic collapse will integrate. Mm. And I will be arguing in this episode that. Demographic collapse will both create authoritarian and, and monarchic systems, while at the same time making those systems governments with less overall suffering than the systems that insist on staying democracies.And the this change, when I say insist on staying democracies. A lot of these places won't have a choice, so let's [00:01:00] sort of talk about how this happens. Okay. Before we go into the details. Yeah. And this episode will also serve if you wanna introduce people to the prenatal list movement. I'm gonna introduce a lot of the, the basic facts, again, with their more modern updates.Okay. To help you understand just how unsustainable and how quickly the existing system is going to start collapsing. But the gist being is that within our lifetimes in many places around the world, we will be hitting scenarios. So by like 2060,in South Korea, we will have a country where there are two elderly people for every worker. And we will start seeing situations like this more and more around the world as demographic collapse continues. And we're gonna, going over when various countries hit this. Did you, did you see the, the graph on x that REU shared, generated by chat, GPT, by the way, they can just generate beautiful graphs for you.That demonstrated how, how many people were paying for how many retirees over time. Oh, no. And chose it. Now, as of. Maybe today, but maybe even [00:02:00] 2023. It's 2.4 workers are paying for each retiree. And that's America In the United States or in Korea? In America, yeah. So like that's, we're already in a really dangerous place.Like, I don't like this because also keep in mind, social security isn't just for people who are retired, who've painted into the system all their lives. It also plays a role in supporting people who are on disability, people who are severely disabled. Like this is, it's just not, ah, well I don't think You mean social security specifically here.You're talking about the various social safety nets. Like Medicare. Medicare, yeah. Yeah. But still like that's all. And, and, and so what ends up happening is as more and more people are reliant on the state and on systems like social security, this for our non-American listeners, about 50% of our listeners are non-American.This in America is a system that pays for old people to survive. If they don't have savings, and even if they do have savings, like it's a set. Mm-hmm. You get in the United States, and a lot of countries have this after a certain age as that demographic becomes the majority of the voting base, they will [00:03:00] not make cuts to the systems that are paying out to them.Hmm. Because they will have the voting power. Mm-hmm. And eventually that leads to economic collapse. Mm-hmm. That leads to a complete system collapse because you cannot pay for two elderly people on every one young person's salary. What happens if you try to do that? Because some countries will be trying to do this before other countries is young people will just leave your country.And then what you do, well then you start putting in travel restrictions and become authoritarian like anyways. Right. But then you have the, the, secondary problem here which is you're like, okay, well then maybe they can try to get their fertility rate up. Maybe they'll wake up when this starts to happen, but it's already too late then because they'll already have, like, even if they start getting their fertility rate above replacement, then they'll already have like 20 years of, of having every person in the economy support two or three elderly people in the economy.Which is just completely un economically viable. And so these countries will become [00:04:00] incredibly weak. They also won't be able to field militaries beca

In this unique episode, we dive into the transformative Replicator Program initiated by the United States, which aims to revolutionize modern warfare through the mass production of autonomous AI-controlled drones. We discuss how the evolution of drones in the Ukrainian war has shifted the focus away from traditional military assets like tanks. The program's various components, including maritime, land-based, and even space and subsurface drones, are explored. We touch upon China's advancements in drone technology and the implications for global military dynamics. Additionally, we delve into methods of countering these drone swarms and their strategic significance. Join us as we unpack how autonomous systems are reshaping the battlefield and what this means for future conflicts. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. Today we are going to be doing an episode that is quite different from our normal content, but we're gonna be talking about a program.And the moment I heard about this program, I was like, I need to think about this. Like potentially a lot because it changes a lot. I mean, what happened with drones in the Ukrainian war is we learned that drones changed the face of warfareSimone Collins: 100%.Malcolm Collins: And they in a large way have made things like large tanks and stuff like that, which used to be what countries were investing in obsolete.Simone Collins: Hmm. AndMalcolm Collins: countries specifically. The United States has started something called the Replicator Program, and this is a program where the United States is beginning to outfit battleships to be able to build hundreds of autonomous AI controlled drones every day. A kill drone printer. A, A AI is not controlled by humans either.These are autonomous [00:01:00] K drone printers for the sea.You okay with the program? Don't worry. It's not limited to the sea. They've also talked about how they want to build versions of this that can go on land and for the army and stuff like that. So we're gonna have killed drone printers everywhere.Simone Collins: It makes me think of those. The, the big ships in Star Wars, the, the crappy new ones that had all the droids come off of them.You know, they were just Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Unfolded and came out. I'm picturing those now. Hopefully they won't have really bad dialogue. At least we know our LLMs of our universe and kids. Roger, Roger, Roger, Roger. Oh my God. They were the worst. Well, no Jar Jar banks were the worst, but at least we have like this STH Lord theory, right?There was nothing for them. They were just awful. Like, like, oh no, don't even get me started. Let's keep going. Kill drone ships. Tell me more.Malcolm Collins: No. What's funny about the [00:02:00] drones in, in Star Wars, I remember it was like the earlier versions were better and those were like a cost cutting measure. But what's weird is like we now know from our world, and apparently it's in our same timeline because it takes place a long time to go in a galaxy far away.Yeah, sure. That like those drones, those, those droids were dumber than like deeps seek. Yeah, deepsSimone Collins: seek is really dumb.Malcolm Collins: That's somebody reached out to me and they were like, oh, well have you changed your mind about like, China's position? Oh yeah. Because of deeps seek. And I was like, deeps seek is a scam.Like, do you guys, have you used it? Like, I feel like exclusively people who think deep seek is impressive is. Is is a completely different bucket than people would you met one very smart andSimone Collins: successful person who uses deeps seek. Is their chosen? Yes,Malcolm Collins: but it's for a very, very narrow task. If you needSimone Collins: an open source,Malcolm Collins: LM, if you need a totally open source, LLM, deep, it's apparently better than llama.So marginally better, but that doesn't give China any power. Because anyone in any country can take Yeah. And use [00:03:00] it open source. Yeah. So you get no additional marginal power by having a fully open source LLM, and you only need a fully open source LLM if you're doing like absolutely massive scale stuff.And generally what matters more is good LLMs and not open source lms. Yeah. By the way, if you're like, how did Deep Seek become the number one app in blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The China Fact, take two. Do a good video on this. It appears to be mostly faked. Because they've traced the accounts, they were promoting it to China, CCP influencer accounts.I'm super not, I, I do not believe having used Deeps seeq, that there's a lot of people using deep seek records that, youSimone Collins: know, didn't the didn't that. Viral cycle around deep seek also correspond with this short-lived period when the YouTube algorithm weirdly favored Chinese propaganda videos. It's still doing that.I'm now getting the critical stuff again. Maybe because the algo realizes I refuse to watch the propaganda, but.Malcolm Collins: No, it's still

Join us as we delve into the history and controversies of the Quiverfull movement, a conservative religious group known for promoting large families as a response to modern secular trends. We discuss its origins, major influences, and the peak of its visibility, particularly through media exposure like the Duggar family's reality show. We also explore the numerous scandals and controversies, including those involving abuse and patriarchal control, that have led to its decline in recent years. Finally, we reflect on lessons that contemporary Christian high-fertility movements can learn to avoid similar downfalls. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing the quiver full movement and what happened to them because I was noticing at the recent prenatal list convention, we had lots of conservative religious people come.Yeah.Yes, it was about two thirds of the people there. With, as I said it's about one third just Tech bros. One third just Religion Bros. One third Tech and Religion bros. Um mm-hmm. And so, what there wasn't a lot of was.Evangelical. And especially what there noticeably wasn't a lot of was quiver full. And if you are unfamiliar with the quiverfull movement, I will give you a brief background. The movement primarily based in the United States with some spread in the uk, emerged in the late 20th century as a response to feminism and modern birth control.It derives its name and philosophy from 1 27 3 through five, which compares children to arrows in the hand of a warrior symbolizing [00:01:00] divine blessings and strengths through procreation. And it also says the children of your youth implementing in that land that you should have kids while you're still young, which I,Simone Collins: oh, which is one of the key things now is, is how do we get people in their twenties to start having kid again?So you think, oh, this is so promising. This is perfect. Okay, great start.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Basically, it, it argues, and I actually find it to be a really important passage in the Bible. Mm-hmm. It says that, you know, the children you have in your youth are like the arrows in your quiver for your adulthood. Because what it's basically telling you is that while you're young, you should fill your era with quivers so that when you go to war. You have the boat, but, but it, it talks about having kids as a preparatory thing for a full life rather than the capstone of it.Yes. Which is actually a really powerful way to see having children. Yes. Anyway. Adherence self-identify as quiver full or full quiver or qf. [00:02:00] Christians issue all forms of contraception, including natural family planning and sterilization. Viewing family sides is solely determined by God. This is the wheel people.Ah,Simone Collins: okay. First place. I'm seeing cracks here.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, note that this might be why they don't have many kids anymore because biological fertility has been falling and you really need to plan on kids. When Katherine Pock, she was on our show, she did college, she did a big thing where she interviewed 50 people who had over five kids.Only one of them used this method. So it is very rare to use this among large families. Mm-hmm. This NAIC approach is part of a broader conservative Christian pushback against secular trends aiming for demographic growth. To influence culture and politics. Early influences include works like a full quiver, family planning and the Lordship of Christ by Rick and Jan Hess, which framed large families of a fulfillment of divine command.The movement gained traction in the 1980s and nineties, aligning with other conservative ideologies like Christian patriarchy, which . Emphasized male headship and female [00:03:00] submission. No. Before we go further, was this, that's, that's basically the gist of what the movement was. It was the spooky prenatal list that I knew of growing up.Like if somebody had said, what is a prenatal list? Movement, I would've said Quiverfull. And when I grew up in the nineties,Simone Collins: 100%,Malcolm Collins: but. They've basically gone extinct as we showed in a recent episode, TISM significantly outcompete queer full as something like a search term these days. And so the question is, what happened to them?Why aren't they going to like natal list conferences? Why aren't they in talks with, you know, with all of the, the political talk about brutalism these days and JD vs in office, why isn't there some quiver full. You know, thinker or talker stepping up and catching news because there isn't. Mm-hmm.And it's uniquely interesting because they were having lots of kids. And so this is important to us. You know, it shows that just having lots of kids isn't enough and can even lead to the extinction of your movement. And so this is something that we have to look [00:04:00] out for. I mean, we are a Christian high fertility movement, right?Yeah. So, how do we pass that o

Join us as we discuss the recent coverage of Natal Con, focusing on a controversial Wired article that stirred the community. We dive into the misrepresentations and factual errors in the article, the financial realities of hosting such events, and how the prenatal list movement is rapidly growing compared to established movements like effective altruism and AI safety. With insights into the organizational efforts behind Natal Con and a comparison of different ideological movements, this video provides an in-depth look at the current landscape of natalism. We also touch on the motivations and commitments driving both the prenatal list and AI safety communities. Don't miss this engaging and eye-opening discussion! [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be with you here. Coming back from Nacon. We've had pieces on us in the past few days in the BBC in the New York Times there's gonna be a CNN one. We know there's gonna be an NPR one, we know that haven't come out yet. One on an Italian station, one of the two major stations in the country.But Wired did the most unhinged piece. And I am, which is weird. I grew up loving, wired. This is so strange. I did you. I thought of them as like a semi-professional, not a semi-professional. I actually thought of them as like a premium.Simone Collins: Absolutely beautiful print magazine. Loved their pieces. This is weird.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. But their piece was completely boast. Unhinged and, and non-factual, like they got almost every fact wrong in ways that even your average base camp watcher would know. Yeah.Simone Collins: I don't know. Even your understanding of basic linguistics would know.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And we're gonna read a bit of the piece and then go over statistics on what's been happening with the prenatal list movement when [00:01:00] contrasted with other movements recently, because we've now significantly passed in terms of like search traffic, effective altruism, AI safety, other stuff like that, which is really cool., so the,Simone Collins: the title of the Wired article is Far right. Influencers are hosting a 10 K per Person Matchmaking Weekend to Repopulate the Earth. Yeah, so they, they're claiming that it, it costs $10,000 to attend Natal Con, which is.Isn't that true?Malcolm Collins: Well, okay, so if you're a watcher of the show, you know, we've been promoting the conference constantly for a long time. We've been promoting it with, with small discounts, but it also means, you know, the conference cost at nothing near $10,000 to go to, I know it was expensive. I think it was around a thousand dollars.It wasSimone Collins: a thousand dollars. So then 900 with our 10% discount.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Which is a lot I know, but they also did a really good job of making it good and fun, like Yeah. My perspective.Simone Collins: Yeah.Malcolm Collins: And I do think that that amount of money is needed to screen out crazy people. Oh, plusSimone Collins: also, like, have you seen how much [00:02:00] any event space charges for food, like one cookie, $10 and they served breakfast, lunch, and dinner.On Saturday plus snacks, plus open bar at dinner, and then there was dinner and open bar on Friday. I just. You can't use professional venue spaces and basically do anything less than thatMalcolm Collins: these days. I think that what people are thinking when they think of like costs or they're comparing it to something, is they're not comparing, they're comparing it to a con, like a furry con or something like that.Yeah.Simone Collins: Where there's an artist alley, there's absolutely zero food. And then there's just some speakers and it's at a bigger event space. Yeah,Malcolm Collins: yeah. They're, they're not thinking like, okay, they've gotta pay for the speakers, they've gotta pay for the, hotels for the speakers, I don't think any of the speakers are paid, but they gotta pay for the hotels, for the speakers.They sometimes need to pay for flights. They need to pay for all of the venue space. They need to pay for security, they need to pay for insurance, and then they need to pay for all the meals. And the open bar too,Simone Collins: because there were protesters out the first night. There were [00:03:00] lots of people trying to get in who didn't have registration.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And it wasn't just like a normal venue, like it was like a really nice venue. Mm-hmm. And then they had the second one where they rented out a museum. So like, it, like, I, I'd say for what it was, it seemed reasonably priced to me. I agree. Just so people know, we donated to this to make it happen because I knew that like last year they were in the red in running it and I wanted to help them.Not, not risk that again, you know, Kevin Dolan took a personal hit on that. And. So, but we, we weren't organizing it, you know, we weren't personally going to suffer if this didn't end up working out. But the $15,000 thing, 10,000 is insane. Sorry. Yeah. The,

In this deep dive, we explore the intricate dynamics of the Effective Altruism (EA) community and its links to polyamory and sex work within the tech-centric Silicon Valley culture. The conversation exposes how women in these communities are often caught in a cycle of exploitation, love-bombing, and employment gaps, making it difficult to escape. We also discuss the cultural shift from monogamy towards polyamory, the socioeconomic repercussions faced by women, and the contrasting perspectives between supporters and critics of this lifestyle. Additionally, the discussion meanders through personal anecdotes, societal observations, and humorous insights, ultimately highlighting the complexities of modern relationships within a high-status, intellectually driven community. Simone Collins: [00:00:00] With the grooming gang pipeline in the UK, there was obviously. A sort of plan, intention, like we are going to begin using these young women as economic assets, we're going to go out and find them, but the same general dynamic happened organically, like the women in this case found the EA community, you know, they selected into it, but the same dynamic started to play, where they essentially first got love bombed, and they were vulnerable, and they were kind of disassociated from their home community at that point distinct from the rest of society, they fell into this community and then they started getting passed around.Speaker 9: Butters, do you have a problem? All these are kissing fellers, and they haven't figured out that they can be makingMalcolm Collins: And, it creates these giant black holes in their resumes.Simone Collins: Where for years Oh no, right, if you have this big employment gap.Malcolm Collins: Yes, and that's why they get trapped because now they can't do anything else. And now the type of guy who wants a long term partner doesn't want to marry them.Microphone (Wireless Microphone Rx)-2: And I'd point out, none of this happens intentionally. This is basically the story of the [00:01:00] EA community as it relates to women.Speaker 2: In an effort to raise money came up with a nifty plan where she'd date guys and charge them money.Speaker 4: I go on dates all the time with a whole bunch of, you know, boys andSpeaker 2: stuff.Speaker 4: And I kind of need somebody to help me out, like, you know, my partner in crime.Speaker 2: Yeah,thanks so much for asking. She said she needed my help to make sure that the dates went okay and that the guys paid her. Oh my god, you were a pimp. What? God, no. No, I was just trying to help a friend. And wouldn't you know it, some of Brenda's girlfriends Decided they wanted to be a part of it. Decided I shouldn't use my real name. So we came up with the name Gator. I'm telling you, you're a pimp. No! Are you even listening to the story?Would you like to know more?Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone! I have had my perspective changed pretty dramatically on polyamory recently. The affective altruist community, slash the rationalist community, slash the singularity community, because they sort of all come together into this Silicon Valley diaspora community, or wider sort of Silicon Valley.I [00:02:00] don't know what you want to say at the, like, heart of the Silicon Valley ecosystem at the moment. And it's been pretty dramatic, because I used to have this perspective of being okay with sex work more broadly.Not religiously speaking, I'm just like legally speaking, okay?Simone Collins: Legally. Wow. Okay. Where are we going with this? I'm so curious. What IMalcolm Collins: mean is, I think that all of this stuff is against the Bible. I think it is against what you're supposed to do. But Right, but if youSimone Collins: don't follow the Bible or any other religion that's against a personal thing, thisMalcolm Collins: is not Even legally, it might make sense to make this stuff illegal.Oh. Just because,Simone Collins: basically, logistically, it produces bad outcomes, from a societal level, on a personal level.Malcolm Collins: deleterious outcomes for many of the people or most of the people involved in a way that they would want at the end of the pipeline to be like, I wish I had never gotten into the beginning of that pipeline.In the same way drugs or gambling might create that scenario for an individual. But even more dramatically, it changed my [00:03:00] view on polyamory. Which I used to be pretty okay with. If people don't know polyamory. This is where you take multiple other partners, most partners, just sort of sleep around.Well,Simone Collins: no, not necessarily. Someone who's polyamorous just isn't exclusively romantically attached to people. So maybe one partner is monogamous and the other one's polyamorous, and as long as the monogamous partner consents to the polyamorous person having other partners, then it's still a functional relationship.It's not like everyone in a polyamorous relationship has to sleep around a ton.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, sure, sure. You can

In this episode, Simone and Malcolm delve into several studies examining how male earnings impact marriage and fertility rates. They discuss findings from economic shocks like the U.S. fracking boom, which significantly increased wages and job opportunities for non-college-educated men, leading to increased births both within and outside of marriage. Contrary to popular beliefs, the study found no significant increase in marriage rates despite higher earnings. They also compare results with older economic booms and explore the influence of changing social norms. The hosts highlight other relevant studies on job displacement, lottery winnings, and their effects on fertility and marriage, ultimately emphasizing that simple financial solutions alone are insufficient to boost fertility rates significantly without addressing deeper cultural and social issues. The conversation rounds off with humorous anecdotes about their personal lives and parenting experiences, offering a reflective and engaging exploration of these complex topics. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. Today we are gonna be talking about some studies that recently came out. Well, some recently came out, some came out a while ago. But looking at the topic of how earnings affect marriage rates and fertility rates and that surprisingly. For males, they no longer seem to increase marriage.Or, I mean, who goes against the narrative that you always hear on the right? Yeah, thisSimone Collins: is important. In fact, we did an episode in which we read one of Arctotherium's articles on Aporia, where he basically posited that The solution to birth rates would be to effectively economically disempower women by sort of removing them from bureaucratic roles or eliminating those roles entirely, and to economically re empower men with a supposition that this will increase marriage rates.Turns out that's not how it plays out in reality, at least in a post crisis world. Women earning money and having careers era.Malcolm Collins: [00:01:00] Yeah. All right. So i'll start here with the first study This is a new one that I found really interesting male earnings marriageable men and the non maritable fertility evidence from the fracking boom so this study exploited the economic shock from fracking booms across the U.S. regions. From 1997 to 2012, fracking created localized economic booms that significantly increased wages for non college educated men. They examined how marriage and birth rates responded to these economic improvements. Key findings, labor market effects. Fracking booms increased earnings for men without college degrees by 4.4 percent. Per thousand dollars of new production per capital job opportunities also increased for these men with spillover effects beyond the oil and gas industry birth effects, both marital and non marital births increased in response to fracking booms. The increase was statistically significant for both types of births to suggest children are quote unquote normal goods.People have more when income rises. [00:02:00] So I need to break down that a little bit because another study is going to look at this as well. Which is to say that there are some types of goods that people consume more of as income declines or economic slumps. Oh,Simone Collins: oh, yeah, like I remember when we used to work in the private equity world more.One, one period a group of investors were like, Oh yeah, we love nail salons because during recessions, women go to them more because it's like one of those small indulgences that they can still afford. Even if they want toMalcolm Collins: buy more of like fancy soaps, fancy soaps, fancy soap company people do more on What are some of the other things people do more on?They do more entertainment. They do more video games. Video games go up in recessions. Movies I think go up in recessions. Other types of entertainment goes up. So kids are not that type of good. And, and, and note what's being said here. Births increase. As money increases for uneducated men, which is great.This is an area where that isSimone Collins: really interesting that basically out of [00:03:00] wedlock births are increasing and people are choosing to have kids when theyMalcolm Collins: have more money, just not in wedlock. Is that a similar economic impact from the UBI study did not increase births. So handouts, not so much, but increasing the jobs or economy and male economicSimone Collins: empowerment does.Yeah.Malcolm Collins: But to marriage effects, this is where it gets more interesting. Contrary to the reverse marriageable men hypothesis, there was no evidence that marriage rates increased. The data showed no reduction in never married rates. Or increase in marriageable rates. These findings were consistent across different modal specifications.Fascinating. Social context comparison. They compared these results to the Appalachian coal boom of the 1970s to 80s. During the earlier coal boom, increased earnings led to more ma

Dive into the fascinating discussion between Simone and Malcolm as they explore a revealing study on heterosexual men's disgust response to images of two men kissing and maggots. They analyze the implications of these findings on human sexuality, disgust responses, and cultural norms. From the biological basis of disgust to the role of socialization, this episode covers the layers of human arousal, progressive culture, and societal perceptions. They also touch on unique fetishes, power dynamics, and their own personal experiences. Expect an insightful conversation filled with groundbreaking predictions and thought-provoking insights. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. Today we are going to be talking about a study that came out recently titled What Did Two Men Kissing and A Bucket of Maggots Have in Common? Heterosexual Men's. Indistinguishable salivary, a amylase response to photos of two men, kissing and disgusting images. This is gonna be one of those days where we're gonna go a lot into disgust.Mm-hmm.Sexuality and point out, but yet again, I called it. I called it, everybody said that I was wrong. Everybody said my ideas were crazy. Now everyone agrees with all of my genius. ISimone Collins: think that Donald Trump for some of his press conferences has like an I was right hat. Yes. This is my, I was right, right hat And I think you need to put on your I was right hat.Yeah. We, we need one too.Speaker: We are gonna win so much. You may even get tired of winning and you'll say, please, please, it's too [00:01:00] much winning. We can't take it anymore,Malcolm Collins: I no, I, am I ever gonna get credit for being so effing right all the time? No. No. Am I? No. Is there ever gonna be like the scientist? I love it. That like with, with, with eyes. They literally coined the same term I coined, which was utility convergence. And, and they're like, so we found this weird thing in AI where we get utility convergence and nobody predicted this in the space.And I'm like, I predicted it like literally 10 years ago. What are you talking about? I wrote many papers and things on this. Yeah. Yeah. And this is something that in our, you know, we talk a lot about human sexuality. I'd predicted this, and you're gonna be shocked, you're gonna be shocked by this, but it says a lot about one arousal and disgust work.Mm-hmm.Two. One of the big lies that progressives tell everyone about it. So to read part of the abstract here, participant current study viewed six different slideshows depicting same [00:02:00] sex, PDA, that's public display of affection or, or kissing, mixed sex, PDA, everyday items and disgusting images. This is like bowls full of maggots.Okay? While providing saliva samples in the lab, a series of paired sampled T-test were performed and found that SAA, this is saliva MLAs, which is produced by discussed responses like neurologically. It triggers the release of this enzyme responses to images of same sex men kissing. And universally disgusting images were significantly greater than SAA responses to a slideshow depicting everyday items.So basically we so-called it hold on, hold on. It gets better. It gets better. The results held across the full sample regardless of individuals, individual level of prejudice. Specifically prejudice against gay individuals. The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, [00:03:00] experience psychological responses indicative of stress when witnessing male, , same sex, couple kissing,Simone Collins: no wait.Did they also try this on gay men?Malcolm Collins: Not in this study, the possibility of socialized disgust response to same-sex PDA is discussed. Basically, let me lay this out for people who didn't catch what this means. It means that the disgust reaction that we have. We being most straight males have when watching two gay men kiss, which is a strong reaction.I talked about it myself and I couldn't get blow back from this. Like I had a gay roommate all through high school. Okay. Because I went to a boarding school in college, like my best friends were gay. I hung out with gay people all the time. I am not like an anti-gay person.I have an extreme to seeing men, kissing men, extreme disgust reaction. And what this is showing is that your acceptance of this is not [00:04:00] tied to your disgust reaction. This has a multiplicative downstream implications. The first being is that one, this disgust reaction is not socialized. This is not because of your religiosity or anything like this.Mm-hmm. Something that you are born with. Mm-hmm. It makes it much more likely that gay individuals and, and, and I, I've noted this in the pragmatist gay sexuality, because I think one of the core mysteries of human sexuality is why male gayness does not appear like female. And it appears like the exact inversion of male straightness.Yeah.Simone Collins: It's not like, yeah. So they're not, they're not sexual like a wom

In this episode, we delve into the rising mental health crisis among progressive women, examining data and discussing potential causes, including the impact of urban monocultures and the evolution of harmful online communities. We compare mental health and life satisfaction rates between liberal and conservative women, analyze the role of therapists, and explore the influence of platforms like Tumblr. The discussion also touches on the diverging experiences of men and women across political ideologies and the broader societal implications of these trends. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we will be touching on the issue of exploding mental health rate. Problems within progressive women as well as exploding lack of life satisfaction. They actually have life satisfaction ratings three times lower than conservative women.And we're gonna be going into co. Funding data that could explain this. This is a topic that we have touched on in the past, but it is a topic with such a voluminous amount of information around it that it is worth going into deeply with new data, with old data and, and trying to understand it because it's, it's, it's really fascinating to me because what we're seeing exploding mental health issues within progressive women is we are seeing.The urban monocultures effects on somebody's mental health in psychology. [00:01:00] And through that we can, because that's, that largely aligns with, with progressivism, right? The dominant culture of our, of our society. And we can understand through that through understanding what might be causing this is how the urban monitoring could be hurting people.And we're also going to go into a brief exploration that I found really interesting in, in a piece that I found. On how the most negative psychologically harmful culture evolved on, tumblr,Simone Collins: this sounds like just, you know, hitting all my favorite keywords. I am very excited about this and let's, let's do it.Malcolm Collins: All right. So. First, I'm gonna be going over a piece called Why So Blue Liberal women are less happy or lonely, but why?Simone Collins: Oh, they went there.Malcolm Collins: Good. Good points on the title. Yeah. Yeah. The loneliness thing is actually really shocking as well. Young liberal women are especially pro nowadays to reporting poor mental health.[00:02:00] This was a discovery that Zach Goldberg made almost five years ago, pouring over the Pew data in the spring of 2020. Now, here I'm putting a chart on screen and it's looking at has the doctor or other healthcare provider. Ever told you you have a mental health condition and this is the amount who said yes.Simone Collins: I just, I love this idea though of like the healthcare provider being, say, your dentist, just like, yeah,Malcolm Collins: she is problems. And this chart is famous. This one we've gone over before that showed that white liberal women. 18 to 29, 56 0.3% of them had been diagnosed with a mental health condition. Conservative womenSimone Collins: see is, I think is not the problem that they're seeing therapists in the first place.I think it's really hard for anyone to see a therapist and not be diagnosed with something, even if they're completely normal. Well,Malcolm Collins: the therapists are part of the cult of the urban monoculture. Yeah. It's like going to your confessions. Like they see it as important. As I've mentioned, I've seen women who will screen [00:03:00] dating guys.Who aren't seeing a therapist, and that's like they have been incepted with the dependency of the urban monoculture to believe that I cannot be mentally healthy and no one can be mentally healthy without seeing a therapist.Simone Collins: Yes. And yet when you see the therapist, they point out how mentally. Yeah.RubyMalcolm Collins: Art actually had an interesting talk about this, where he's like, oh yes, he went to be a progressive therapist and then a conservative therapist, and the progressive therapist just kept. Having him ruminate on his problems. Yeah. And the conservative therapist was like, okay, here's a chart. Here's what you need to do.Here's the timeline for getting rid of it. And what's, which is nice, I mean,Simone Collins: and he didn't even imply that the, I. The conservative therapist was certain, he just gave him potential things he could try that were evidence-based. And it's so, but it's also so indicative of the feminine versus masculine response to someone preventing a problem, presenting a problem.You know that the correct feminine response is, oh, I'm so sorry. Tell you more. This must be so hard for you. And then the masculine response responses, okay, let's make a [00:04:00] solution. And that that scene is so toxic by manyMalcolm Collins: people. Oh, absolutely. But, but to this graph right here yeah. One thing that's really interesting in it is, yes, okay, over half of liberal white women have a mental health condition, have been diagnose

In this episode, we are joined by Spoon, the YouTube personality known for his monarchist leanings. We dive into topics like the relevance of democracy today and possible alternatives. Spoon discusses his journey into politics, influenced by changing cultural and political landscapes, and how he arrived at his unconventional views. We also explore the dynamics between left and right-wing ideologies, the role of church and state, and the challenges of modern governance. This engaging dialogue bridges historical perspectives with contemporary issues, making for a thought-provoking session. Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello everyone. We're so excited today to be joined by a very special guest, spoon, the aristocratic utensil on YouTube as well as on X. Although your handle on X is at Aris.Malcolm Collins: And what I wanted to talk about today was voting ooh and democracy and is it relevant anymore? And where would, how could you construct better systems? And I thought that you'd be a great person to have on with this, especially talking with us because I know that you had like monarchist leanings, people have called our political beliefs.Plu Tists. I'm interested to hear more from you.The Aristocratic Utensil: Hmm.Oh, basically, how did I get to my views?Malcolm Collins: Yeah, well, did you, were, did you grow up? Why do you think it's better? Why you think it's, you know, a, a good structure, what a perfect country would look like?The Aristocratic Utensil: Hmm.Okay. So it's kind of weird how I even got into politics in general because if I, if I were to look at like my 6-year-old self and my 30 5-year-old self and go, you are gonna be on YouTube one day talking about [00:01:00] politics, I would go, okay, what, what the hell happened in my life that made me take an interest in politics, let alone monarchy?How, how did I get to that? That's just bizarre. I don't how and it was ba it was basically because a friend of mine several years ago this was like back in early 2010s, I wanna say. Hmm. Before Bernie Saunas really hit the scene, but she was also a Bernie fan. The, this, this is show you how long the culture has shifted for, and just a very short amount of time actually is that she was a.Californian girl who was let's just say she was built in a very feminine way. She's from California, but lefty perspectives, but she control like, an absolute a*****e right? Winger, which by today's standards makes no sense, an extremely lefty person, but they, but they spit right? Rightwing insults.Yes. Like she would drop slurs in a way that would get you banned on Twitter within 30 seconds which is not a human being that exists today. Standard. And she got me into [00:02:00] Bernie Sa as, as as a political figure. And then right about the time he said a couple of things that made me as a South African go, that's just factually not true.Hmm. He said,white people don't know what it's like to be poor. And I went mathematically, that doesn't even add up. That's just, that is not true. And the way he spoke about certain. Racial policies made me go. Okay. Were you,Malcolm Collins: were you a a like Bernie supporter at this point? Like you liked him as a political candidate?The Aristocratic Utensil: Yes, I think, okay, so I said this in one of my streams and I think this is what makes you go further left leaning and what makes you right wing.Mm-hmm. Is that from the, the old liberal perspective, I do think it is based upon a lot of people can look at the system and go, there is a lot of corruption. There is a lot of unnecessary government control in places they shouldn't be. And they sort of just look at the, the current paradigm and go, [00:03:00] this is not a moral system.And the problem is they look at this situation and go, there should be state intervention. What they're really looking for is morality in the state.Hmm.Whereas if you are a right winger, you'll recognize this doesn't work.Right. Andso you'll, you'll tend to go from more libertarian perspective, which is just these institutions are beyond repair because they incentivize a certain behavior that you cannot generate just through powering through the institutions.You have to structure them in a way that actually make the. Political class want to benefit the citizenry and the way that they want the system to work just does not gel with human nature.Hmm.And when you go from that perspective, you can go, okay, now you have to shift libertarian or go completely insane and advocate from monarchy in the 21st century.That's more the route that I took, whereas the opposite end of leftism, they are just moed motivated [00:04:00] purely by envy. It's just that I cannot compete in this system, and so I must smash it to b***h in the hopes that whatever comes next will appeal to me. And I've seen the people who go for that, and I don't want to be disrespectful, but there's not a brain cell in those people.Like really, they are completely driven by this fantasy idea of an idea

In this episode, we delve into research papers exploring how political ideologies affect empathy and understanding between left-leaning and right-leaning individuals. We discuss the fascinating phenomenon where conservatives seem to display more empathy towards liberals than vice versa. Studies like 'Empathetic Conservatives and Moralizing Liberals' provide insights into this asymmetry. We also touch on dehumanization, cultural narratives, and real-world examples from gaming communities. Join us for an eye-opening discussion on political empathy and cultural dynamics. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today is going to be an episode where we're gonna go over a few research papers that explore lefty and righty brains. Again, really interestingly, but with a focus on a persistent phenomenon that has been found, which is that people on the right politically.Have a much easier time modeling how people on the left think than people on the left able to model people on the right.Simone Collins: That is so strange. That is so strange. Yeah. The people I grew up thinking as someone on the left, that we were the empathetic ones, that we understood everyone better and we knew what everyone we needed.Malcolm Collins: How can we get this so wrong? Oh, it's not just that we're gonna go into other things. So like, just speaking of them not being empathetic, just to give a little sure thing away here. So there were four studies with nearly 4,800 participants in the UK and the us Okay. To look at how much empathy each side had for their political opponents.Yeah. This was called empathetic [00:01:00] conservatives and moralizing liberals. Political intergroup empathy varies by political ideology and is explained by moral judgment.So what it showed is that liberals have less empathy for conservatives than conservatives have of liberals. This actuallySimone Collins: makes a lot of sense too, because I remember being on the left, growing up. Having empathy for the entire world, but still seeing conservatives as this inhuman boogeyman. Yeah, so that actually checks out.That's wild.Malcolm Collins: Conservatives do not dehumanize lefties. But lefties do dehumanize conservatives. They do. They do. And, and this is, this is seen in the data, like this study was like, surprisingly, conservatives showed more empathy for liberals than liberals showed of conservatives. This asymmetry was found across studies and was statistically reliable.Why is it surprising? Maybe it's surprising because of your own biases going into the study. And I love the way the study explained this away. It's like, well, this is actually justified because [00:02:00] lefties beliefs, conservatives want to kill them, and conservatives don't think lefties wanna kill them. And I was like, well, but conservatives don't want to kill them, so it's not, this is like saying the Nazis were were justified because blood libel.They're like, yeah, well they did think the Jews were murdering their babies. And it's like, yeah, but the Jews weren't murdering their babies. That doesn't make their ideology justified. What? What are you talking about? Now I note here that there was a great study done on the nature of the dehumanization, which I think can help.So, this was the study, political meta dehumanization in mental representations, divergent emphasis in the minds of liberals versus conservatives. And this study found that liberals and conservatives differed in how they dehumanize the other, at least in the framing of this static. Okay. So what this study found was that.Conservatives tend to view liberals as immature, while liberals see conservatives as savage. Which is true. But one is like a pitying, like if you had more information. Yeah, yeah.Simone Collins: You're just misinformed. You're [00:03:00] just, you're not exposed to the world as it's, I, IMalcolm Collins: like that's dehumanization. It's not dehumanization.That's just like. Actually the way it is. If, if I believe that, if they, if, if you actually empathize with someone and see them as human, you're going to think that the reason they hold these views is they just don't have access to as much information as you Yeah.Simone Collins: That you must know something that they don't know and then that's why you view what you view.Yes, yes. Which, which is framed as, that's how I remember viewing conservatives as. A leftist young lady.Malcolm Collins: No, and I remember, Hey, I was a leftist at one point too, and I remember conservatives are the savages who live in the woods and are religious extremists and don't know any. Yes, scarySimone Collins: Bible. Thumping.Cultist. Monsters who don't care about other people at all and just want you to live like them. AndMalcolm Collins: yeah. So I wanna talk about like what creates this phenomenon. Yeah. And, and I should note the first study that I was mentioning that led to all of this I heard one guy, I. Point out this was sh

In this episode, we delve into the philosophical and psychological aspects of pessimism, nihilism, and antinatalism. The discussion begins with the exploration of Emil Cioran's ideas and the allure of pessimism and nihilism. We then touch on how adopting such mindsets can act as psychological protection and social dominance hacks. Throughout the episode, we contrast these perspectives with more optimistic and proactive approaches to life, personal responsibility, and earnest enthusiasm. Includes a critique of C. S. Lewis's argument from desire and the importance of avoiding nihilistic tendencies in personal relationships. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today is going to be an interesting and philosophical episode, but also focused on psychology and sort of best mental health practices for living. I was listening. to a podcast diving into the philosophy of Emil Kairon, who wrote Better Not to Have Been Bored.He, the Romanian philosopher. And he exhibited many traits that I think that all of us are susceptible to, which is the protective shell of dumerism, pessimism. And this feeling of suffering. And I think that if we investigate this, we can understand why it feels so comfy to go to this placeSpeaker 9: That's cool. I guess you can join up with usMicrophone (Wireless Microphone Rx): Antinatalists.Speaker 9: if you want.Speaker 10: Yeah, we're gonna go to the graveyard [00:01:00] and write poems about death and how pointless life is.Speaker 9: Thanks for offering to let me in your clit, guys. But to be honest, I'd rather be a crying little pussy than aMicrophone (Wireless Microphone Rx)-1: Antinatalist.Speaker 9: kid. We'll see you, Stan.Speaker 10: He's right. I don't even know who I am anymore. I like liking life a lot more than hating it. Screw you guys. I'm going home. Go ahead and go backSpeaker 9: to your sunshine, fairytale.Malcolm Collins: And, and, and, and just as a, a bit of a preview here, I think there's a few things that play I think one is, it removes some degree of responsibility for one's own failures or states, so there is less need for self judgment or self motivation two is I believe that it looks chic, like it, it, it looks sophisticated.Yes. Sophisticated. Three is it makes you much more difficult for other people to attack. It's a very lazy position to hold intellectually speaking, because [00:02:00] when people attempt to attack you. You know, you're just like, yeah, you know, life is terrible. Yeah, et cetera. And like, you can't hurt me. Like I'm, I'm at rock bottom.Where are you going to push me? Exactly.Microphone (Wireless Microphone Rx)-2: I found a video of some real Americans running across a far left voluntary human extinction rally.Speaker 7: Are these the Nazis?Speaker 6: No, Donnie, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.Microphone (Wireless Microphone Rx)-3: My first world life has involved some degree of suffering and I didn't consent to being born.Speaker 7: It's not fair!Speaker 6: Fair? Who's the f*****g nihilist around here, you bunch of f*****g crybabies? This guy's gonna hurt us, Walter. No, Donnie. These men are cowards. I f**k you!Speaker 7: F**kSpeaker 6: you!Speaker 7: I f**k you! I f**k you! Ball, man. Hey, dick. Oh.Hey, dick.Speaker 6: IMalcolm Collins: so let's go over all of these through the framing of this individual. All right. So this individual is really important to antinatalist philosophy where I [00:03:00] study, you know, if our opponents have a philosophy, I make a point of studying their intellectual arguments as much as I could.He, did not have any particularly sophisticated or interesting intellectual arguments. But he had a very interesting, buddhismSimone Collins: because I feel like one, this is a very, very, very old meme. The life is suffering meme is like extremely old. So what is, what are his novel? AreMalcolm Collins: I don't remember it. No, it was something like just not interesting. The other person I was studying today was C. S. Lewis who had, it was dumb for like way more interesting ways than this guy was dumb. But we'll, we will do C. S. with our audience.Simone Collins: If you're calling C. S. Lewis dumb, boy, oh boy. I'm sorry, Simone.I'm sorry.Malcolm Collins: He wasn't dumb.Simone Collins: Emails we're going to get.Malcolm Collins: He was straight up retarded. Like, I was shocked at the stupidity of some of his arguments.this, this yes, Lewis rant was moved to the end of the episode. If you want to see it, you can go there.Microphone (Wireless Microphone Rx)-4: That said, I'm probably wrong to call him dumb.It's more that [00:04:00] he's very Malcolm Gladwell y. He mostly just aggregates other people's ideas and tells them in a way that is more accessible to the average person. And when he has independent or new ideas, like the argument from desire, they're typically very, very bad. He doesn't really interject any interesting new ideas to the conversation.Malcolm Collins: Okay. So this guy did

In this intriguing episode, we delve into the modern origins of what is known today as witchcraft, Wicca, and Druidism. Discussing key figures like Gerald Gardner, who invented Wicca in the 20th century, and how he convinced people of its ancient roots, we also explore other notable personalities such as Aleister Crowley. The episode sheds light on how these new-age religions were shaped by modern influences and entirely invented narratives. The conversation further debunks misconceptions about ancient connections to current mystical practices, analyzing the role of historic beliefs and comparing them to modern adaptations. Dive into the fascinating history and evolution of these mystical traditions with a critical eye. [00:00:00]Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. Today is going to be a very interesting episode on a topic I should have done a long time ago. It's going to be on how the movement that today purports itself to be witchcraft or Wiccan or juridic, all of these religious systems.are very, very modern. They are some of the youngest religious systems to exist and have literally no ties to any historic pagan faith practices. And even when they were revived, were revised as monotheistic traditions and only became pagan in their later iterations. What?!Specifically here, I'm talking about the guy who made up the druidic phase, not the Wiccan phase.And these were both around the 1900s. So we're gonna go into these individuals, how they made it up, how they got people to believe them. We're gonna go into Alistair Crawley, another interesting figure. He didn't even claim to have connections to anything in the past, he was just Okay.A wackadoo. I didn't know he was a real guy. I, I saw him from the show, right? And I was like, [00:01:00] Oh, a real guy. No, he was a, he was a wacko, but way more fun than the other guys. Cause at least he owned that he was just making everything up. And the other guys, well, and he stole a bunch from Kabbalah and we'll go over where So were the other guys trying practiced as witchcraft today within the Wiccan community, not realizing that what they're practicing doesn't come from ancient witches, but it comes from Jewish mysticism.Simone Collins: Oh, my God. Do I understand correctly then that the two men who claimed to have either rediscovered or who reignited druidic practices in Wicca sort of pointed to historical materials that they may have made either misinterpreted or made up kind of like Joseph Smith using funerary texts from Egypt?Malcolm Collins: It's, well, maybe not crazier than the Joseph Smith story, but he said he, he, he met a cult in the woods that taught him about all of this is the first one we're going to go to. And we think we know who some of the figures he was talking about were. So we know that like, they didn't do this. There's been people who have [00:02:00] gone through and, and, and researched him to learn more about this.So the guy. Was Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant, with a taste for the occult. He returned to England in the 1930s, and he claimed that in 1939, he was initiated into a secret coven. in New Forest by a group he called the Wicca, allegedly survivors of an ancient pagan witch cult. His story leaned heavily on the now debunked theories of anthropologist Margaret Murray, who argued in the 1920s that European witchcraft was a remnant of pre christian fertility religions.Scholars later dismantled Murray's hypothesis. There is no solid evidence of a contiguous witch cult surviving the middle ages, but Garner ran with it. So a quick note here, if you're like, well, where did all of these mystical traditions come from if they didn't come from some ancient religion it turns out that people will invent the same [00:03:00] mystical traditions over and over again.For example, when you hear a sports player keeps a lucky sock under their helmet or something to win games, you don't go, oh, he must've picked that up from some ancestral religion. You're like, oh yes, humans often end up associating fetishes, not like Sexual fetishes, but like small token stuff with having magical properties and then build rituals around them.It is a natural and emergent human behavior with the fact that we see today things like chaos magic, which is another group I could go into, where they believe things like McDonald's arches are like abundant signs and stuff like that and can be used like, like just, or you see, pop culture paganism where people will believe that.Like Loki, not Loki, like the ancient Norse God, but Loki, like the hot guy from Marvel. Oh my God. Is, is. Oh no. The one who all the girls get a crush on. I mean, I don't know. I hear that he's supposed to be the hot one. NotSimone Collins: the [00:04:00] actual God. No, no, no, no, no, no. They're the different like Marvel characters. Like, Snape wives, right?Like, yeah. But not, not the. Snape wives. Yes. Snape is definitely not, no connection to anything. Harry Potter, Sephiroth. Like

In this engaging episode, the hosts sit down with Mike Solana, founder and editor-in-chief of Pirate Wires, to dissect the contemporary political scene. They explore Solana's role in shaping the tech-right political movement and the significant changes since the recent election cycles. The discussion spans from the transformation in Silicon Valley's political affiliations to the rise and strategy of Donald Trump's second term. Solana shares insights into the surprising status gain of Trump supporters in tech and the implications of such a shift. The conversation also delves into broader societal changes, including the shifting values in America, the decline of mainstream media, and the increasing significance of niche communities in a post-job economy. The episode is a fascinating look at the undercurrents shaping today's political and social landscape. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello everyone. We're excited to have with us today. Mike Solana, the founder and editing something chief of Pirate Wires. 1,Simone Collins: 2, 3. Hello everyone. We're so excited to be day today. Oh my gosh.Okay. Yeah. Sorry. You went,Malcolm Collins: this is why we go with mine. Okay. Anyway. For people who don't know who Mike Salona is he doesn't just have a podcast. It's very popular. But in a publication, that's incredible. Yes. You also sort of put together heretic on, right?Mike Solana: It was my idea.Yeah. Founded it, created it. It's out of done out of out of Founders Fund, but yeah, it's mine. All mine.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So you've been a central figure in the coalition or sort of the consolidation of this sort of new right or tech right political movement that right now is sort of blowing through the country within the White House and a lot of what we're seeing.And I wanted to talk with you as somebody who [00:01:00] is. Totally integrated in like what's going on sort of the venture capital Silicon Valley tech worker scene the vibe shift that you have seen post election cycle there What's changing about how people are relating to things as well as the role that you played in this?Consolidation to to write some history here as the country changes and also to discuss the political realignment. We're seeing in the United StatesMike Solana: Well, I think first of all my own in my own personal life. I kind of i'm like very cagey about labels I Have tried to just be honest about what I'm seeing.And so people tend to put me in a box based on that. Maybe I belong in the box. I don't know, but I can talk about what I've seen. And in terms of what's different right now, I think the best thing to contrast is not what's happening today versus what was happening like four years ago with Biden, but just to, to just, we have this great example of Trump's.[00:02:00]Presidency and his inauguration and you can just compare the first one to the second one. He's had two first terms in a sense Really like he hasn't had a first in a second term. These are two totally separate I said not too long ago. It sort of feels like He played the video game and and, and lost.And he just started the exact same game over from the very beginning. Now knowing where all of the bosses are, right? It's not like he's gotten to the second chapter. He's just still in that first chapter, but he's doing it all over again. So we've never seen that. None of us have seen that in any of our lives.So it's, it's like a very kind of new thing. And within tech, you can compare that first one to the second one. And it's obviously night and day. I mean, the first one was there was one person in tech who was open about his support of. Donald Trump. It was Peter Thiel, and he was completely alienated right out of town for it and has since been sort of forgotten to a, to a large extent because there were much louder people who came to Trump's defense and support this second [00:03:00] time around who've, I think, occupied a lot of the, Discourse surrounding that in tech.And I don't want to like, obviously I feel some kind of way about that. Having been on the front lines of it, obviously not like Peter, but I mean, I work for Peter, I've known Peter forever. So I have a feelings about the way he was treated. But the difference is just obviously today, Trump supporters.Have status in Silicon Valley. And in fact, being a right wing person almost grants a certain amount of status, I would say at the higher levels. So I think it's really unclear what's happening among the rank and file. We haven't seen another round of fundraising data. The last time that we looked tech was still overwhelmingly voting.funding Democrats, venture capital will so overwhelmingly funding Democrats, but all the people openly talking about it are, it's just like overwhelmingly Trumpian. And then everybody else is, I think either conflicted because the Biden term was so [00:04:00] disastrous or quiet. And I suspense it. I suspect it was conflicted rather than quiet.I think people actually just didn't k