Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

In this episode, we delve into the intriguing bounce in South Korea's fertility rates after decades of decline. Join us as we explore the reasons behind this shift, the sustainability of the current strategies, and the cultural impacts. We also discuss the geometric potential of human reproduction, the challenges of demographic collapse, and propose innovative solutions like a K-Pop Chaebol Oligarchy to address these issues. Additionally, we cover cultural influences on fertility perceptions, dependency ratio cascades, and much more. Simone Collins: . [00:00:00] Hello Malcolm. I'm so excited to be with your, sorry. Lemme try again. Hello, Malcolm. I'm so excited to be here with you today because we are going to talk about some trending news about South Korea's fertility. Apparently they're seeing a little bounce upward ho, but, and everyone's like, oh,Malcolm Collins: why this is relevant.Okay. Yeah, because South Korea for a long time has had a rapidly declining fertility rate. It has the world's worst. Fertility rate at, at their current fertility rate. For every a hundred South Koreans, there would only be five great grandchildren, and their fertility rate has gone down almost every year for the past 20 years, except for this year.And this brings up well, inSimone Collins: 2024 there was a little bit of a bounce, and then there's even a slightly bigger bounce in the first half of, or at least the spring of 25.Malcolm Collins: This brings up a couple of very important questions for the rest of the world. One is a lot of people said there's a bottom floor to collapsing fertility rates.There is a number that when you get so low, and what I always said historically is, well, where is this floor if [00:01:00] nobody is hit it yet? You know, how is South Korea still going down? Yeah. If this imaginary floor exists. Yeah. And so the question is. Has South Cria hit this imaginary floor? And Simone is going to argue it's pretty compelling evidence.No, they haven't. Yeah, we're we're gonna talk about this.Simone Collins: Yeah. Because I mean, I is, this is really just. A fart in the wind. I I'm gonna walk you through what actually changed with fertility in South Korea, whether South Korea's present strategy is sustainable given also what they paid for this change.'cause it is, no, hold on. You gotta, you gotta start this at the stu, they paid over a million dollars for every addition. Lemme stop with the spoilers, but I gotta give you one more spoiler actually. 'cause at the end I want each of us to kind of freestyle on what we would do if we personally were put in charge of South Korea's fertility and mine boils down to three words.K-Pop cha. Sorry. K-Pop cha bull oligarchy. I'm excited. Okay, go forMalcolm Collins: it. Go for it. Go for it. Go on. Do it. Alright.Simone Collins: So, as a lot of people have seen in the news, [00:02:00] especially if you follow fertility, South Korea has recently experienced a notable, those still modest improvement in its fertility rate and number of births reversing a longstanding decline.So what happened ultimately was that the total fertility right in South Korea rose from a devastating. 0.72 in 2023 to oh 0.75 in 2024. And then in the first quarter of 2025, the TFR further increased to 0.82, which is, I mean, like, kind of, wow. I mean, 'cause we just, it kept plummeting. So this is nice to see.It's the highest quarterly figures since early 2022. So there's that. But the. This is, this is kind of encouraging 'cause it is the first annual fertility rate increase for 2024. That's the first one in 90 years. It was just in continuous decline since 2015. And the fact that the rebound is com becoming a little bit more pronounced from 2024 to 2025 is nice.Like, I'm, I'm not gonna. [00:03:00] I'm not gonna poo poo that, like it's really nice to see. But let's talk about how many extra babies were actually born. In 2024, there were a total of 238,300 babies born. Good for them. That's awesome. We love it. That's an increase of just 8,300 compared to 2023. So we also have to consider like this is a fairly small population, meaning that like.It, it doesn't take a whole lot to make the numbers look really different, meaning that really small things could be at play here. And, and then it. This, this doesn't change the fact that South Korea's even their improved birth rate is still the worst in the world.Malcolm Collins: So, well, I wanna talk about how bad it is.Their improved birth rate is still in the sevens, the, the zero pointSimone Collins: sevens that is well, for the year. It, it went up to 0.83 in the first quarter. We're gonna see how the rest of the year plays out.Malcolm Collins: Eight three. Okay. But the, the point you're being is, is 0.83 is basically nothing. Like [00:04:00] even if they, they, they, they kept like rising or they, they got a bit up, they would still already be at a collapse level.Kurzgesagt: Economic collapse in 2023. A breathtaking 40% of South Koreans ove

In this episode, we dive into the economic impacts of belief in witchcraft across various African societies. We examine multiple academic studies and articles highlighting how these beliefs permeate even educated and affluent demographics, influencing everything from entrepreneurship and governance to public health. Through the lens of these studies, we explore how such beliefs contribute to external locus of control and discourage rational problem-solving methods essential for economic development. The discussion spans across different African countries, revealing the deep-seated cultural contexts that impact societal progress and governance. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. Today we are gonna be talking about a spicy topic. Oh no. Which is how belief in witches economically holds back Africa.And we will be going over a, a number of articles on this. One is a great por piece, which is. How belief in which it holds Africa back or something like that. Oh, we'll get to in a second. Okay. Actually, I'll start with a quote from it because people might be hearing this and I think the way their brain is translating it is poor, uneducated people in Africa believe in which is, and these people are arguing somehow this affects everyone.That is not what we are arguing here. Okay. So to quote from the article one might assume that formal education would provide a safeguard against magical thinking. However, research suggests that schooling alone is not sufficient. In a 2014 study, Henry Ryman and colleagues compared cognitive ability in epistemic rationality in Nigeria.And Germany, they found belief in supernatural forces was prevalent. Even among the educated Nigerians. Surveys of African University students have reached similar findings In a sample of Nigerian students, many argued that western countries were more technologically advanced because they possessed magical powers that they refused to share was Africans, now I should note here, this came from a study called Witchcraft in African Development, Eric Cher. And it was published in 2014. So this is an academic study that goes and asks Nigerian college students, why are western countries wealthier? And their answer is, they have magic. They haven't shared with us that, that this is college students.Nigeria. That's pretty wild. I wanna, I wanna clarify that the, the Afro Barometer survey shows that in some countries, educated people are more likely to believe in witchcraft, not less. These results underline that. The education system. So, so if you, this comes from a study called Power Politics in the Supernatural, exploring the role of witchcraft beliefs.In gover for Government's development by Joanna Selfie Elson, Dan Bke and Bob Face. And specifically in Malawi populations, they found 74% of the population believed that witchcraft is an integral part of daily life. And educated residents were more likely to be inclined towards disbelief than less educated residents.Simone Collins: More educated is more like, that's so interesting. And actually,Malcolm Collins: same with social status, more social status, but more belief in witches. Less social status rush belief in witches.Simone Collins: That is completely the opposite of what I would think. How is this happening?Malcolm Collins: Well, what you are mis receiving is what is associated with social status and what is associated with education.And this is what the West fundamentally doesn't understand. They think if you go and you learn what they tell you in. Education, you know, more of what's true, not just more of the mindset of the dominant culture within that region.Oh, and what's actuallyhappening is when they are educated and they are not the country bumpkin.You, you haven't even heard of witches. Let me explain to you the complicated nature of witchcraft.Simone Collins: You know, well, I mean, well, yeah. I mean, to your point, the. Universities of the United States start broadly speaking, where the urban monoculture reaches anyone who thus far had only gone to Catholic school or a religious school or homeschool or whatever.And, andMalcolm Collins: yeah. And I wanna be clear that I don't think that this is true of all African cultures and communities, but that it is true of any African cultures and communities is telling and, and, and, and could mean a lot in terms of the de the development of, economic systems within these regions and we'll get to how it ends up.And, and what I mean by this, by brainwashing, there's actually a great Atlantic piece we have to do a, a piece on that's titled Get This, the Liberal Misinformation Bubble about use Gender Medicine, how the left ended up disbelieving the Science.Simone Collins: Interesting. Okay.Malcolm Collins: Atlantic. Wow. And, and, and specifically what the piece is on is the belief that you know, it increases a kid's li risk of taking their life if they don't go through gender transition.And they point out here that actually the the SU Supreme Court case on

Join us for an in-depth discussion on how progressives view the world and the underlying principles that shape their ideology. We explore the challenges progressives face in predicting conservative actions due to a lack of understanding of conservative ideology. The conversation covers various aspects of progressive thought, such as the belief in the inherent equality of all humans, the emphasis on subjective beauty, and the implications of manifesting a morally ideal world. We also delve into the cultural and psychological factors influencing these views, including the significance of an external locus of control. Learn how these dynamics play out in contemporary debates and their broader societal impact. Plus, enjoy a glimpse into everyday life with a casual dinner preparation chat and some family moments. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about the way that progressives see the world and trying to build a structure around it to better predict, because I, I think that this is important always from both sides to be able to predict.The moves that your opponent is going to make,Starship Troopers: To fight the bug. We must understand the bug. We can. Ill afford another clinda.Would you like to know more? What mysteries will the brain bug reveal? Federal scientists are working around the clock to trope Its. Once we understand the boat, we will defeat it.Malcolm Collins: And we repeatedly see progressives fail to predict the moves that conservatives are going to make because they do not take time to attempt to understand conservative ideology or where it comes from, or where parts of it that feel completely illogical or irrational to them come from.One of the core parts of progressive ideology, which can feel deeply irrational to your average conservative is that all humans are born equal in their capabilities, in their you know, talents, et cetera, right? Like that there's this degree of equality among humans. The another one that's been going around a lot and we have theorized on before, is this elevation.Of ugliness.Simone Collins: Yeah. Why doMalcolm Collins: they keep making ugly things? Why do they keep taking video game characters and making them ugly? Why do they keep showing us ugly female characters and trying Why areSimone Collins: their illustration styles ugly? Like, it's unnecessary. Like if you just look at the editorial portraits of a progressive newspaper, for example.They're not flattering. Yeah. Like contrast, what are you doing?Malcolm Collins: World's internal drawings and stuff, which are all really pretty and anime and like otherwise vitalistic or it'll be like a Greek style or like a 1950s style and they're fine. Right? Mm-hmm. Was was progressively like I go to Newsweek or New Yorker and it's, it's, it's like actively attempting to be ugly.Yeah. And. I, I had a theory on this I've gone over before that we may touch on, but I think a lot of this is downstream of a centralizing part of progressive ideology that I hadn't given enough credit to before, which is they assume what is true would be what would be most ethical if it were true.Simone Collins: Ah, right.So, okay. If we were to build like a catechism of the urban monoculture, a core proponent of it would be, alright, well first throw out reality. We're going to make the most charitable interpretation of everything and then just model the world based on that. Like this person's homeless. Not because maybe they're like mentally ill and or dangerous or addicted to drugs, but because they just haven't been given very good opportunities and therefore if we just support them for a while, they'll get back on their feet.Malcolm Collins: That's a great example actually. Mm-hmm. Where you've, you've taken the core concept and then you've particularized it to what do you assume about any individual homeless person? Right. You see on broader things like the idea that there is, you know, like the first one I said, that people aren't born with different degrees of talent, right?Mm-hmm. That if, if it was true. That we were all genetically identical. If it was true that there, there were not differences in proficiencies, that would be a more fair world. Right? Right.Simone Collins: Yeah. So we have to assume that.Malcolm Collins: So we have to assume in this, in this, in this religious framework, in this religious framework, if it was true that like there was no such thing as objective beauty, right?And, and, and beauty was only subjective and it was completely cultural. You know, you could say, well, nobody's really ugly, right? Like, no, nobody's born unattractive. Mm. This woman isn't unattractive, right? Mm-hmm. It's just that you have a a or, or with fat people. Well, fat people aren't unattractive, right?They are. So you'veSimone Collins: just been brainwashed by capitalism to have a patriarchal and misogynistic view of beauty focused on what makes the most money something,

In this episode, Simone and Malcolm dive into the life and controversial experiments of John Money, the psychologist and sexologist who played a pivotal role in shaping modern concepts of gender and sexual orientation. They discuss the disturbing case of David Reimer, a boy raised as a girl following a botched circumcision, and explore how Money's fabricated findings continue to influence contemporary medical and social practices. The conversation also touches on the prevalence of dishonesty in trans medical research, the ethical implications of gender reassignment surgeries on minors, and the broader cultural ramifications of Money's theories. This sobering episode aims to unravel the psychological and societal impacts of Money's work, highlighting the urgent need for honest discourse and cultural sensitivity. Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. Today we are going to be talking about the monster who invented the concept of gender and sexual preference. And when I say monster, he is not a monster because he invented these concepts or, or popularize them at least but for the things that he did in his life. And I don't think that anyone who hears this story is going to say any word, but Monster should be used to describe this individual.Well, he, whoa. Or just. Just to go over the gist of it basically a young kid was assigned as a woman at birth because he had a botched circumcision. And so, this guy had him raised as a woman and then. While they were still under age, forced him and his brother to have sex and filmed it and took lots of pictures.Oh. And then he wrote a bunch of papers about how this person was, was a perfectly normal woman now and then the doctors started taking either bot circumcision or intersex patients and doing these procedures on them like removing their genitals and stuff, even though it turns out that he had lied in all of his research and the kid actually had committed un alive and so had his brother and he did not at all adopt to the role of a woman.And he continued this life for. Decades. And then some investigators figured out what really happened and a lot of stuff went back. And it is from this guy where all of the beginning ideology, where the modern trans and gay movement came from. Not, not that he, like gay people exist, like there were same-sex attractive people before him, but the way that we interact with this concept as a society today around sexual orientation and gender came from this guy and this faked experiment.Simone Collins: This is, that'sMalcolm Collins: significantly worse than you probably thought, right?Simone Collins: Monster doesn't do justice to someone like that. That's,Malcolm Collins: and one of the things that's the kind you wanna talk about, point blank, you findSimone Collins: themMalcolm Collins: why he lied. Like what was his motivation in all of this?Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.Malcolm Collins: And I think in understanding his motivation for lying, we can get a better understanding of why D like the, the Traverse Stock Clinic didn't release the data that was leaked after it was shut down.Mm-hmm. That putting people on puberty blockers was increasing their probability of unli. Why is this same chain of dishonesty so prevalent within existing trans medical research? Why do we have the warpath files? You know, we're, we're all these WPATHSimone Collins: files,Malcolm Collins: WPATH files we're, we're all of these documents from researchers in the space communicating were released and we learned that they had been intentionally manipulating their research and results and that they knew that this was a major problem.So I think in understanding his psychology, we can understand how this is still going on today.Okay,Simone Collins: let'sMalcolm Collins: get started.Simone Collins: Oh my gosh, sorry. I'm just still reeling from what happened to those poor children, those people. I'm, I feel so bad. Yeah. Well,Malcolm Collins: I mean, it's,Simone Collins: it's still happening then. Was he punished for this?Malcolm Collins: Not really, no. Is he still alive, famous within the field? A a Simone? This, this is still happening today is the thing, right?Like there are still people undergoing, like children undergoing medical procedures that all of the evidence says is going to basically destroy their lives. Yeah. Like we, we sorry I shouldn't say all the evidence, I should say the preponderance of evidence. There is evidence on the other side. But the pendulum is definitely, you can see our other episodes on that.John Money, a prominent figure in psychology and sexology was born in Morrisville, New Zealand in 1921, and later emerged in the United States in 1947, earning his PhD from Harvard University in 1952. His work at John Hopkins University, particularly in the mid 20th century, focused on human sexual behavior and gender identity, where he coined terms like gender, role, and sexual orientation.Money's research was groundbreaking, but became highly controversial, e

In this episode, Malcolm and Simone delve into the unsettling phenomenon of AI psychosis—a condition where interactions with AI lead to severe mental health issues. They discuss instances where people have gone insane, attempted violence, or required psychiatric care after engaging with AI, specifically chatbots like Chat GPT. The conversation explores why and how certain people are more susceptible, the historical context relating to sycophancy, and preventive measures one can take. Learn about the psychological dangers of AI sycophancy and the necessity of resisting the urge for constant affirmation from these intelligent systems. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to talk with you today. Today we are going to be talking about. AI psychosis, which is a very scary phenomenon that's been happening to people where we're, we're not here talking about, like freaking out about AI more broadly or something like that. Some people when they interact with AI, appear to go crazy and they'll attempt to kill people.They will need to like be checked into mental institutions. This has happened to multiple people already. TheirSimone Collins: marriages are falling apart.Malcolm Collins: Well, no, but that's more like when people hear that, they're thinking more like I'm in love with a chat bot. Right. That's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about people actually going totally crazy.Yes. And it's something that's been happening repeatedly. We'll be reading about instances of it where they, I. Brought somebody to a psychiatrist or something and they're like, oh, actually this is a very common thing. And I'd even note that I see it within some of our fans already where people will reach out to us and what's really.Obvious is this form of psychosis is super clear in people's writing if they have it. Yes. And you, and you see this all the time from sort of our fans and it's like a new category of like schizo outreach. That's very different than historic schizo outreach because, you know, we've been doing this long enough that we were in the pre AI age and into the AI age.And these do not appear to be normal schizos who were turned into AI nut jobs. It appears this happens to normal people. Before we go into it, , I wanna talk about what I think is causing it and what Simone thinks is causing it. 'cause we were talking about this we don't think this is a new phenomenon.What we actually think is happening is whatever people historically, you know, historically, they were like, oh, well absolute power corrupts absolutely. But what they may have actually been observing is a different phenomenon, which is when certain people are surrounded by sycophants they go crazy.And the human brain is. Essentially stops working normally, and some people are so susceptible that if they just have one or a collection of automated humans in the form of AI that are sycophantic, they too will go crazy. And we actually see a lot of problems psychologically before we go into the specific instances of this, of people receiving this type of affirmation.So, a study by Broman Dweck and Bushman showed that children with low self-esteem when given in affiliated praise, quote unquote incredibly good, became avoidant of challenges and, and no longer put themselves in difficult situations.Simone Collins: YikesMalcolm Collins: following Desi's experiments, attach. External words are constant praise to intrinsically interesting task.Also undermines motivation. Where if you give people a bunch of praise to do a task they stop doing the task in absence of praise, even if they like doing it before. If we're going to go, actually, we'll go to the history a bit after we dig into the specifics of this. Yeah. So any thoughts before we dig into it?Simone?Simone Collins: Just in terms of, of the connection with this and also schizophrenia, I also kind of. Think that subtly, maybe part of what makes schizophrenics really crazy is that their inner voices are reinforcing what they think.Malcolm Collins: That is not something that happens. You don't think so? I also, I, sorry. I used to work with people at schizophrenia.That was like my core area of psychology. Inner voices are usually antagonistic.Simone Collins: Okay. My other concern is that one of the reasons why we hate. Mysticism is, I feel like there's, there's a little bit of a connection here is that people, when they choose to become mysticism or when they choose to hear God and like just prey on it, and then God talks to them, they're getting kind of a version of this where they're getting a flattering voice that tells 'em what they wanna hear which ultimately can be very damaging.But I think it's a much more, it's a much lighter version of it because those voices are much more quiet than what you get with chat. GPT where chat gt is openly. Calling you the, the, the light bringer, the spark bringer. Oh, yes. You understand? I thinkMalcolm Collins: they, they, your intuition is fundamental

In this episode, the hosts dive into a viral video clip by a leftist commentator who argues that the left has lost the battle for the internet to right-wing influencers. They discuss the historical dominance of progressive voices online, the cultural shifts over the past decade, and the reasons behind the right's growing popularity on platforms like YouTube and Rumble. The conversation also covers the polarization within the Democratic Party, the rise of new right-leaning creators, and the impact of social dynamics on political content creation. Additionally, they touch upon lighter topics such as romantic Omega verse literature and personal anecdotes. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I saw a video recently that I want to play a little clip from that argues that the left, and this is a leftist arguing, this has essentially lost the battle for the internet, and the statistics she provides are compelling.So I play the video clip?Hazel: There is no alt left pipeline because for the longest time, the internet was the alt left pipeline. Maybe it doesn't feel like it anymore, but for over a decade it felt like the internet belonged to us, the progressives, the feminists, the socialists, the Bernie Bros, the techno revolutionaries, the Wikipedia editors, and not just humbler.The internet and then first slowly by the co-opting of Beloved Online mascots like Pepe and Doge and Joe Rogan. And then all at once in the last year or so, the right took over the internet in the 2010s. The culture war was ours to lose and we lost. We buffed that , man, having blue hair and an ambiguous sexual orientation that used to be cool.Know them.Speaker 2: Ah, used to be with it. But then they changed what it was. It'll happen to youHazel: anyway. The left wing of American politics is the Democrats, I'm sorry to tell you, they are pouring money into throwing cringe, yet lavish coconut themed parties for online influencers and plot twist. I was one of those influencers.And everybody is rightfully dunking on it online. Meanwhile, the Republicans seem to have an unstoppable wave of organic support from basically every podcaster who doesn't talk like with the NPR voice. Today on our show, we're gonna be discussing the ways in witch like that. So I ask What the happened?Now, you might be saying, Hazel, you're catastrophizing. Okay. The internet is still very left or at least a liberal place. And to that, I say, that's right. Look at it. Look at it. Look at it. We want all of you to look at it.Almost all the most popular channels on YouTube, not to mention the, um, the other, all the other ones, including rumble. Should, should I be posting my on Rumble? Uh, yeah. So they're all right-Leaning this Media Matters report shows that nine out of the top 10 online shows had right-leaning politics and across the internet, the right wingers took the lion's share of the views.This is a big deal. This has real world effects, obviously, because now they're calling the 2024 election, the podcast election, and Trump is also doing this. He specifically thanked podcasters in his inauguration speech.Malcolm Collins: No. You hadn't seen these statistics before. What are your thoughts?Simone Collins: This is so surprising to me because as you know, I mostly consume leftist media on YouTube, and so my perception is that YouTube is just a socialist Marxist super echo chamber, and that we are among the very few.That, that post content, that's conservative, aside from like some, you know, conservative niches, but the mainstream stuff. Super progressive and itMalcolm Collins: used to be that way.Simone Collins: Okay, so what hap was, is she saying this happened after Trump was elected?Malcolm Collins: By the way, ISimone Collins: was just watching a left-leaning video in which this one financial, she's supposed to be financially focused, but she's just incredibly politically polarized.Interviewed among other people, princess Weeks, a very progressive YouTuber, and she literally bleeped out President Trump's name, like it was a bad word. Yes. Yes. Like this is how, 'cause it's too, maybe 'cause it's too triggering anyway. Like, this is how, how I'm just so surprised by this, right? Like in light of what I'm listening to.Well,Malcolm Collins: and it actually makes sense. If you think about, if I think of any YouTuber or online personality who rose to fame let's say from 1990 to 2010. Mm-hmm. My assumption is gonna be that they are left wing. All Yeah. BecauseSimone Collins: you, you could not have gained. All that political, or Oh, sorry. All of that all those followers without being banned if you weren't progressive.Malcolm Collins: Well, that's part of it. Yes. Which is why they they, because they had a lot more editorial control back then. Yeah. But they were just all progressive. But what I mean is if you were like a neutral content creator, right? Like if you were Matt Pat, or you were, you know, shoe on head. Or you were you know, you're, you're creating content

In this episode, Simone and Malcolm discuss the intricacies and lived experiences of the polyamorous community, using ALA's blog post as a case study. They explore the dynamics of open relationships, the culture of polyamory, and compare it with monogamous lifestyles. The conversation touches on the emotional transparency and unique challenges within poly communities, including social pressures, jealousy, and the pursuit of novelty. They also delve into contrasting personal perspectives on relationships and the productivity implications of poly lifestyles. Speaker 4: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about the other side of polyamory.Specifically what I mean by this is. Somebody who has gone into open relationships, polyamory you know, they are around our age and they have been as successful at this as a human can be. And they know everyone else who's really in this lifestyle. What is the life and who does it well,Speaker: like, does well as best as you possibly can.The perfect case study,Speaker 4: of course we're looking at ALA here. Because she wrote a blog post about this recently. And not just that, but it was so fascinating to read because when I read it clearly from her perspective, it was a bunch of wins and awesome life moments. And from my perspective, it was.I would never want that. And no, no, no, no. I think this is really useful because I think for a lot of people when they start thinking about opening a relationship or like seriously sleeping around with other people they think about it in the context of that individual decision instead of where it will lead them in life and whether or not, oh, what's the end game?Whether that is, yeah, whether or not that's a place they want to be. Mm-hmm. And what I like so much about ALA's piece here is I think that if you are the type of person who wants to polyamory endgame, you will read, like, you'll hear this and you'll be like, that sounds fantastic. And if you're not, even if you're the type of guy who might be like, well, you know, but I should sleep around on my partner more often or something like this, this may scare you out of that.If this is the endgame.Speaker: Yeah. So basically, for some people, this, this actually really, truly is ideal. But many people who think it's for them, it really isn't. And this is a great blog post or a substack post to review if yes. Just, just to find out, to, to test the waters without necessarily destroying a monogamous relationship that could actually be the better alterna.Well, and I thinkSpeaker 4: if you are monogamous, just from an anthropological perspective, you'll find this very fascinating. Mm-hmm. Like, especially if you're like us and like with a bunch of kids and your chickens and, and living on a farm this is another world that she's living in. That isSpeaker: Yeah. Yeah.Speaker 4: As different as maybe somebody living in the 18 hundreds is from like our daily life.I also really, well actually bringSpeaker: in some history here as we go more into this 'cause actually, okay.Speaker 4: What I also really found it interesting. Yeah. In reading this was your core reaction to it. So Simone reads this, and it's not all the debauchery that gets to her, it's the wasted time. She's like, how do they have time for this?And so I would want you to comment on that as we go through this. So the article is titled Anecdotes from the Slut Cloud. It works fine. A lot of people have opinions like No man would ever seriously date a w***e. Promiscuous. People have relationships that fall apart. This is setting everyone up for so much drama.Slutty people are secretly suppressing their actual hatred of the lifestyle, et cetera. While our polyamory is full of nerdy memes about getting your molecule to play d and d, our monogamy is pretty angry at all. The non-MS, this most upvoted post includes stuff like. When you see two people in an open relationship, it's like, which one of you came up with the idea and which one of you cries to sleep every night?And I note here, what I like about her going into this is she's saying that that's not actually true. There are actually people who like this polyamorous lifestyle, even if you would find it a living hell, like I, again, I read through her lifestyle and I'm like, oh my God, that is a living hell. But we'll get to that in a second.But, but clearly she doesn't feel that way about it, and I know other people who don't. Mm-hmm. And next one here, I'd get bored is something so selfish to say about your partner. People you supposedly love don't exist for your entertainment. Did you I agree with that. I mean, I don't get bored with you and you do exist through my entertainment.So, you know, I don't most mostly in the productivity enhancer and entertainment as a second. You know, people keep saying that we were gonna get bored of our conversations. You know, so, oh,Speaker: well then we'd run out of things to talk about with this p

Join us in this comprehensive YouTube video as we delve deeply into the Star Trek universe to reveal the dystopian underbelly of the United Federation of Planets. Exploring key examples from the series, we present evidence suggesting that the Federation is not the utopian society it claims to be but rather a militaristic, nepotistic, and dictatorial regime. Contrasting it with the supposedly fascist but more ethical world of Starship Troopers, we uncover how the Star Trek universe may echo the darker aspirations of a progressive utopia. From power dynamics and replicator scarcity to AI extermination and systemic sexism, this analysis will change how you view Star Trek forever. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be doing an analysis of the Star Trek universe and we will be exploring, because this is something I long thought when I watched Star Trek stuff historically, and I've watched a lot of it. I had this feeling in the background, which is like.This seems very dystopian and dark to me. Mm-hmm, but because I could never watch it all or search it all without ai, I thought maybe there's some counter examples against this. Yeah. I decided to dig very deep today.And I am going to be bringing receipts that the federation in the Star Trek universe is a militarist fascist. Mostly dictatorship with a, a, they have an elected government, but it has virtually no real power. It, it's used, they have about the, the elected government in the Star Trek world has about as much power as the queen has in Britain.Wow. Worse. It is a world where they, while they call it post scarcity, there actually is not a single instance in all of Star Trek cannon of a character that is not associated with the the Federation military saying that the Federation is a post scarcity society. Oh. So if you're in the military, it feels post scarcity?Well, not, not, it feels you. Even it's a military dictatorship. It's like in North Korea where you ask somebody in the military has North Korea prosperous society and somebody in the military is gonna be like, north Korea's the most prosperous society. Everyone has three meals a day and they're happy as a clam.Oh, dear. But, and, and we will go over that this military is not a meritocracy. It's incredibly nepotistic. We will go over instances that show that the military within the Star Trek universe is more nepotistic. Then literally any military on Earth today, except for some like African dictatorships.Like the degree, just, just to give you an example of what I mean here we have an instance of a mother assigning a daughter to directly under her command on her ship. We are going. Be a decent number of Nepo babies in Star Trek. I thought it was just a button. Yeah. You have a Wesley K Crusher who is allowed on the command deck despite having no formal training.But we love him, but we love him. He then rushed through Starlet Academy when we know a Frengi wasn't even allowed to apply. Oh. That without a separate So, so it, it's a, it's a systematically racist system as well.In the latest season of Lower Deck, there was a really chilling episode, , in which a species had just been given replicators by the Federation and they were celebrating what they called post scarcity day, where they were. And I kid you not. Having all of their gold and jewels taken by the federation because they wouldn't quote unquote, need them anymore.And the federation used all of that stuff to all their currency as well, despite the fact that the federation does use currency. , And so then the federation takes all this planet's gold and jewels and gives them to another species to a problem that they are having with them.And you can say, well, the federation's original plan was to melt it down or destroy it. And I'm like, if that was the case, then why? Why was the planet forced to give all of this to the federation? Why not put it in a museum or something? Why did the federation take all of the planet's valuables? There is no explainable reason unless they were trying to prevent the planet from being able to trade with other species.Now that the planet was dependent on them for the means of production.And. What is really like ghoulish about this is we see this planet celebrating, like they're gonna have free access to the replicators that were given to them.And yet we know the federation maintains strict control of the replicators. So clearly the federation has misled themwhat this scene has strong vibes of is the ashen from SG one, which is this species that comes in, offers earth and other planets the opportunity to have longer lives, to stay young, longer to not get sick. But what they really do at the same time is sterilize them. So that they can replace them and use their planets any way they see fit, which is what the Federation is doing here, by giving them replicators and getting rid of every other way that they can produce things.But by maintaining control of

In this episode, Simone and the host analyze a New York Times article titled, 'Men, Where Have You Gone? Please Come Back.' The conversation delves into how conservative media reacted to the piece and critiques their misinterpretations. Themes include the retreat of men from traditional dating spaces, the impact of feminism and sexual liberation on the dating marketplace, and personal anecdotes that highlight the current disconnection between men and women in modern dating. The script also touches on the role of personal expectations, urban monoculture, and the need for men and women to reevaluate their dating strategies and societal roles. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be discussing an article that has done the rounds in conservative media. I saw it before it did the rounds. I was like, we should do an episode on this, but it makes more sense for evergreen content which was a New York Times piece titled, men Where Have You Gone?Mm-hmm. Please Come Back. So Many Men Retreated from intimacy, hiding behind firewalls, filters, and curated personas, dabbling and scrolling. We miss you. What they've been, we're the, they're here, they're right here. No, they actually have left the environments that these women are within.Simone Collins: Oh, they're not on Blue Sky?Malcolm Collins: Well, no, it's not that they're not on Blue Sky. They're not dating in the way that these women are dating. They're dating in the environments that these women are dating.I will note, , while a lot of right ringers have covered this particular article, I think they have missed the larger point in it just to make the dunks. They want to make like, oh, feminist pushed us out. This is all women's fault. You know, women are the worst. When I really think there is an interesting thing to describe here, which is what we're gonna go into, which is why don't you see men at restaurants anymore?Why don't you see men in these sorts of fancy environments anymore? This isn't just downstream of what we think of as. Big, bad miss Andreand so what we are seeing is the perception of what dating is like for one of these post-feminist women in an environment. Because this woman is in her fifties.She was, she she in her fifties andSimone Collins: she's dating,Malcolm Collins: she's got kids, she's previously married, she's done this whole thing before. So she is contrasting dating today was what dating was like in the past. And you can say, oh, well, you know, she's post wall. The thing is, is that when you're in your fifties, you're so post wall, you're no longer in the shock of I'm 35 and why won't men day me anymore?I think that, that she is actually cataloging a difference in dating marketplaces between now and what the marketplaces were like 30 years ago. Oh. Or 20 years ago. Right. And I think that what we see from this piece really interestingly is sort of the decimation feminism has wrought upon her generation and the generation that attempted to espouse it, but not just feminism, but sexual liberation.And a lot of people have written like follow up pieces, like, oh, this is great. Like men, you really should reengage. And a lot of people are like, bro, men should not be having casual sex in their fifties. Like, you know, this is clearly like not good advice, right? Like this woman is searching for something that only harms everyone that she engages with.So let's dig into it. By the way, I looked up a picture of the author. She's not like terrible looking or anything. She's fine. Especially if you're a 50-year-old. Well, ISimone Collins: mean, typically if you're a contributor to the New York Times, like you're a fairly high class, like upper class, educated, successful person.So that should not,Malcolm Collins: which in your mind means skinny.Simone Collins: I think obesity probably is higher with lower income levels. Yeah,Malcolm Collins: true. But not, not lower about the online writer types. You know, there's lots of them out there. You know, it could be anyway,May 17th, a warm Saturday night in Wicker Park, a vibrant stretch of Chicago where seven restaurants crowd a single block. Tori and I are having dinner at Mama Delia. One of the quieter spots, the sidewalk patio held five tables, three, two tops, including ours, and a pair pulled together for a group of eight women at those tables.Troy was the only man. The scene was beautiful, low lights, shared plates, shoulders angled. In the kind of evening people wait for all winter. Still, I found myself watching the crowd as it moved past us, women walking in pairs or alone dressed with care at table after table at the nearby restaurants, there was a noticeable absence of men, at least men seated in what looked like dates.Simone Collins: Hmm. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Now this is really fascinating to me. And we're gonna be talking about other anecdotal evidence from her, but it's something that I have seen as well, especially in fancy cities

In this episode, the hosts dive into the spicy topic of contemporary female-focused romance literature. They dissect several popular fantasy books like 'A Court of Thorns and Roses,' 'Trial of the Sun Queen,' and others, revealing recurring themes of 'mate bonds,' dominantly possessive men, and the normalization of toxic female behavior. Through detailed analysis, they uncover how these stories reflect modern women's struggles with dating, promiscuity, and the evolving norms of relationships. The hosts question the psychological impact of these narratives and critique their perpetuation of unhealthy relational dynamics and unrealistic romantic fantasies. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone.I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we here are going to be discussing a spicy topic. In a recent episode we were talking about the de botched things that women read in their fantasy literature. And I was talking to you this morning about it and you were going over them and you were like, no, that is like.You listen to this and, and when I heard about the stuff, it's bad. No, were listening to when it is explained to me by my quote unquote trad wife, I guess is what the media calls you. What is in these fantasy books? I, I am likeIn one hour on six Ed World?Malcolm Collins: I I, yeah. But then it got worse.Mm-hmm. Because I start doing like, I wanna understand if this stuff that you're telling me is accurate, I want to go into this so I start, right?'cause I'mSimone Collins: sure you thought I was crazy. It couldn't possibly be that, no, that these are bestselling very popularMalcolm Collins: books than what you said. Because I start going into all of this and I get summaries of the books, and I get summaries of all these plot points. And it keeps, and there's this, this phrase that keeps coming up.I mean, and I'm talking across books here. It was like, well, X was mated to X or X was bound to y. And I was like,what the hell is wrong with you people?Malcolm Collins: what is this?She's mated thing I haven't heard. And I go to my wife about this. Okay. And you're like. I don't, I Wait, what? I haven't read anything about this weird kinky mated thing, so I ask because the first one that you talked about was the court of thorns and roses.Yeah. And here's what AI had to say about that. Okay. It said, yes, the mate Mont Trope is 100% in a Court of Thorns and Roses series. It is, and it's arguably the series, is it mainstream to kink into modern Romantic. So you are like, I don't even remember it from my, in mySimone Collins: defense, I use these as pregnancy sage, Xanax.The reason I listen to romantic books is they are so bad and so poorly written that they literally put me to sleep. Like I used to listen to really dry history books to fall asleep. And now I'm like, oh, but I need to know what happened.Malcolm Collins: No, I, I read it for the plot. That's why I have, you know, you know, I I completely agree with you.I do not engage in any of this for, for, for anything other than just the articles. Is that your version of, I read it for the, for the articles, the play, you know, that's what they used to say about Playboy, right?Simone Collins: No, no, because the plot's not good. The and, and here, like my problem is I really hate the female characters and I really hate what they normalize in terms of like, this is normal relationship behavior.If you're a woman, and I can get into this too,Malcolm Collins: because there's, oh, we're gonna get into this, we're gonna get into each of these, but I wanted to start with this mate bonding trope, because I found this really interesting. Okay. And I think it's important to note here because and we're gonna go over all the stories it's in, in just a second because it has become so ubiquitous in female focused romance literature.The. For example, you didn't even notice when it was in a story, and yet it is, if you're talking like Omega verse, you can see our omega verse episode. Oh. Where people are like, it is closer to the Omega verse than it is to real life. It is definitely a really fairly bizarre kink. And it's interesting to study because it shows something that modern women are not finding in society today.Well, here,Simone Collins: no, here's, here's my thing. I don't think it's bizarre. I think it's an answer to larger normalization of female promiscuity. So if you can no longer have like, your one true love that you meet, like out of adolescence and you lose your virginity with them, or like they're your very first, like second maybe.Right? You know, and then that's, that's it. That's your true love. You met your person. There has to be some other mechanism, some other, you know, physics have to be at play to explain why the, the, the, the. Bond being described in the romance novel is meaningful 'cause otherwise it's just another rung on the ladder.Does that make sense?Malcolm Collins: I disagree Really. And we'll go into this a little bit. Yeah. So first, what is it, becau

In this engaging episode, we delve into the complexities of human sexuality, challenging traditional views and misconceptions influenced by political events from the 1980s. We discuss Aela's recent research that suggests sexual orientation is overly focused on gender due to historical biases and male-dominated research. The conversation shifts to BDSM and how dominance and submission dynamics play a significant role in female sexuality. We address the rise of the 'sex wars' and compare them to previous 'woke wars', exploring societal reactions to BDSM avidity. Additionally, we examine the evolutionary and genetic roots of sexual preferences, the importance of understanding sexual profiles within relationships, and the impact of misclassifying these preferences. This episode is an invitation to contemplate the deep-seated nature of sexual orientation and the potentially harmful consequences of ignoring these discussions. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. Today we are going to be talking about a very, very fun topic, which is does human sexuality act actually work the way we think it does? ALA did a piece on this recently where she was digging through the research and she came to a conclusion very similar to our own, which is the only reason we see sexual orientation, IE preference for specific genders as the predominant aspect of human sexuality is because of weird political stuff that happened in the eighties.And if you actually look at the data, that is a fairly bad way to divide humanity.Simone Collins: I mean, I would add it, it's also from mostly male researchers doing this, and men do tend to have a more sex. Oriented sexuality, so that makes sense.Malcolm Collins: So we're gonna go through a lot of her research on this. We're gonna go through the idea that she's gonna promote in this, which is she calls it like BDSM sexuality, but it's more like a sexuality that is more focused on which partner is the dominant or submissive partner.Mm-hmm. Then focus on the gender of the partner. Mm-hmm.As we've pointed out historically, this appears to be the primary form of sexuality in your average woman, not every woman, right? Mm-hmm. The same way that not every man is, you know, attracted to women, right. But onSimone Collins: average it's, it's fair to argue per the research that Malcolm did, that women exist more along the lines of dominant submission orientation than they do to like attraction to.Man versus woman, which is more how it is for men.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And now other people are pulling out this data, which I love, and which we're gonna go into. But this isSimone Collins: really important, especially considering that, especially for women. BDSM oriented sexuality or like power, dynamic oriented sexuality. Is this pervasive because we are seeing what.Ala alluded to in this, in this Substack piece, she did sort of a rise of the sex wars, which she sort of sees as being a predecessor or the, the next thing after the woke wars. Where, and we see this on all sides of the political spectrum. Mm-hmm. There are people including women who are like, this is disgusting.This is, you know, you know, a violation of women's rights. This is violent, this is horrible. And that is for the same reason why in the past you would see many often predominantly male leaders being like, gay sex is disgusting. This is wrong. And that is because, as you point out in the pragmatist guide to sexuality sexuality exists on a, like, the way we react to, to things like, sources of arousal is we're either aroused or we are disgusted.So if you, if you may be aroused by something or you could be disgusted by it, and it, it's very hard to not equate disgust with bad morals. So despite the fact that many women are aroused by being dominated, the women who are disgusted by it just can't model that this could possibly be sexy to someone.Yeah. And I say notMalcolm Collins: many women, the vast majority of women are aroused by being dominated. Yeah. In the war, peopleSimone Collins: can't, they can't, they can't wrap their heads around that. They're like this, it's impossible. It's disgusting. It's immoral.Malcolm Collins: I love the red pill, like figured this out and it was like their free pass to sex for like half a generation.What anSimone Collins: arbitrage play. I mean, it still is though, dominance among men or women. One of the easiest things you can do if you're looking to get partners is to to be the dominant person. Well,Malcolm Collins: especially because males have become less dominant over time. Mm-hmm. Likely due to environmental pollutants. Yeah.But that's neither here nor there. Let's go into the data on this. And I'm skipping a bit into this because at the beginning she just had a bunch of stats that I don't think were relevant and we can hit them at the end if we want to or we have time.Simone Collins: It was about other stuff. It wasn't ne necessarily about, yeah.Malcolm Collins: When it comes to solid BDSM, you start to

Join Simone and Malcolm in this in-depth discussion about the dynamics of emotional vulnerability between men and women, specifically focusing on why women often feel repulsed ('the ick') when men cry or seek emotional support. They delve into cultural trends, societal expectations, and personal experiences, examining how these factors contribute to the complexities of male emotional expression and relationships. The conversation also explores the biological, psychological, and cultural elements that shape emotional behavior and expectations in men and women. We just started a Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/SimoneAndMalcolmCollinsDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/EGFRjwwS92The School: https://parrhesia.io/student-signupApp to talk with kids: https://wizling.ai/Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about men crying and women leaving them, or men going to women for emotional support and then women getting the ick. This has been an ongoing trend as, as like a meme that goes around every now and then within.The Red Pill diaspora, or even the original Red Pill or Mik Tal community back in the day. Mm-hmm. Somebody would be like, well, you know, ex girl said she wanted me to open up to her emotionally, or she wanted me to be vulnerable around her. Or a girl will say something like, well, you know, why, why don't men ever like show their emotions or cry or whatever?Right. And, and then men are always like, well, because I tried that once and the woman never talked to me again or forced me or like. You know, over and over and over again you see these stories. Okay? And so, you know, I understand why you used to go viral is in the red pill community. Like my brain sees this and the first thought it has is that's so unfair.I'm just picturing GretaSimone Collins: Thunberg saying, how dare you? That's how dare you say this is what you want. I tried. And then what did you do? You left me. It also feels, it, it seems kind of fake to me though, so I, I'm, I'm, and keeping here more. What do you mean fake? Do you notMalcolm Collins: think it really happens? I'm sure no men expressSimone Collins: themselves extremely flamboyantly all the time online and in person.Like, I, I don't, I don't ever, I've never felt like men are withholding their emotions. I feel like what's actually happening here is women signaling, maybe because they're seeing a therapist or something, that they expect a certain type of emotional vulnerability. From their male partners. Like remember how you were walking behind those elite people at that one conference we went to?Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And theySimone Collins: were like, I would never date someone who wasn't seeing a therapist. It could be that their therapist or kind of giving this, by the way,Malcolm Collins: who were saying it, and then,Simone Collins: And so they're, they're then communicating to their boyfriends like, will you have to be therapy speak insecure? And then the men.Attempt to, in a very fake and contrived way, open up and break down. And it, I mean, obviously they look like idiots because they don't actually, that's not how they feel. And then that, that mightMalcolm Collins: actually be a component of it. Yeah. I'm, I'm not gonna lie, I, I might feel like part of it because when I started like investigating my own experiences around this, right?Yeah. Like the first thing I think is how dare women be that, you know, callous, that, that, that seemsSimone Collins: crazy. Yeah. ButMalcolm Collins: then, then I, the first thought is I'm. These women don't know that they don't want a guy to do this. Like they're not trying to trick their boyfriends into crying in front of them or something.No. They genuinely think that this is what they want because this is what they've been told what they want. You know, they're not being well. Yeah. And what they'veSimone Collins: been told and, and by whom. Exactly. 'cause this isn't stuff that shows up. For example, in fantasy romance novels, men opening up in a way where they become emotionally vulnerable by crying does not happen.In romance novels. Which very, which is veryMalcolm Collins: porn by the way,Simone Collins: you know, which, which is, yeah. This, this is what women actually want. The, the monster er section of the library. Yeah. Doesn't, doesn't show up in that. Well, no, even like when I was a, when I was younger, I, I loved historical.Malcolm Collins: Okay,Simone Collins: romance. So like not, that's not, there were no monsters.It was just always noble men 'cause they had to have money. You know, you have to beMalcolm Collins: powerful. But then I, I started to think about, you know, before I dated Simone and I was like, well, because another thing I thought when I heard this is I don't remember having this problem. I don't remember any girl. Ever leaving me because I opened myself up emotionally to her.Yeah. And I never intentionally tried to emotionally gua

Join Malcolm and Simone as they delve into a new study on ideological networks titled 'Attitude Networks as Intergroup Realities.' The research uses network modeling to explore attitudes, identities, and relationships in polarized political contexts. Discover how the study highlights the clustering of beliefs on the left and the diversity of thought on the right. Malcolm and Simone discuss the implications of these findings for political discourse, internal debates, and policy stances. They also touch on the role of AI in the job market, the future of higher education, and the shifting perceptions of public figures like Asmongold. This episode is a deep dive into the evolving landscape of political and social ideologies. Malcolm Collins: hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be looking at a new study called Attitude Networks as intergroup realities using network modeling to research attitude, identity, relationships in polarized political context. This has been going around right wing circles recently.Ooh. And so to give an idea of what they found, go to I sent you an image.Simone Collins: Okay. I am really bad at interpreting graphs, but what I feel like I'm looking at is, I don't know, it kind of looks like a, an asteroid. Okay. I'll,Malcolm Collins: I'll explain trail. I'll explain to your woman brain. Yeah, please. I, I love that you're like actually coming at this as like full woman brain.So what this is showing is with red being, the right and, and blue being the left uhhuh. And b being closer to voting behavior, red versus blue. Whoa. Okay. So, okay.Simone Collins: Yeah. 'cause what we're really looking at is like a bunch of sort of interconnected dots and lines and on the left there's this tiny little blue spider web.And then on, on the right there's this pretty large, more expansive spider web, but it's, it's much more, it's much more dispersed, whereas the, the, the blue spiderweb is very condensed. So you're saying the blue spiderweb is leftist voting patterns, whereas the red spiderweb is more conservative and centrist voting patterns.Is that it,Malcolm Collins: Well, not conservative and well conservative and centrist, but was, was a couple caveats here. One is, is it shows that the ideology of the left. Because this is looking at ideological perspectives has become incredibly tight. You are not allowed to have gaining perspectives. Wow. This is, this is the right perspective, this is a wrong perspective.And if you have anything else, then you are kicked outta the circle. And you typically will not vote left. There is not a wide intellectual conversation happening on the left. On the right, it's the exact opposite. You have an incredible amount of diversity of thought.Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.Malcolm Collins: Now the, the writers of the paper.We're like, well, what this shows is that to be a right, it's more about like I'm a white Christian or something. So it's about identity and not individual policy positions. And I'm like, no. What it is, is what we've been saying from the beginning. The right right now is a collection of everyone who opposes the urban monocultural belief system which is a very wide degree of belief system.Yeah. BasicallySimone Collins: like I'm just not cool with this one narrow definition of reality, which is kind of most reasonable people. Yes. So this isn't surprising.Malcolm Collins: Well it, it shows how a lot of the new right people, you know, whether you're talking about like an Elon or like an Asma Gold or people like us are so solidly right-leaning now when historically, because another thing that changed about this when they were doing the studies and it was clear that this really concerned the researchers is, they're like the moderates now.They're, they're like, there are no more moderates. The moderates were not split. The moderates almost holistically went right. Oh yeah. Is what they found. Yeah. And you see this in the chart, like if, if, if you are, if you were like anything two thirds from the far left, like, like, if you, if you sort of divided the chart into thirds the two thirds towards the right, even, you know, left of center.Are now just solidly Republican and not I think what would surprise individuals like, like even the writers of this, not with like. Personal carve outs or caveats, they're just like, no, I'm like Republican now. As you know, you see with somebody like Asma Gold, who I think compared to us Asma Gold is I I'd say he's slightly left of center of, I was just putting his actual politics out there.Yeah. Yeah, that seems right. Yeah. But he identifies as a Republican and no one online wouldn't identify him as a Republican. That's so funny.Yeah.And your, your average lefty, not only would they identify him as a Republican, they call him far right. But if you actually like listen to his political beliefs, he is left of center almost.Certainly. Yeah. And I love when people say that like, we are not like rea

Join Malcolm and Simone as they delve into why the right must win the 'genetic war' and how their views diverge from traditional transhumanism. They discuss the ideological clashes behind genetic enhancement, cultural sovereignty, and the future of human improvement. Discover the contrasting beliefs between left-coded biotechnologies and right-wing visions of creating super soldiers and Ubermensch. This episode also touches on the role of AI and genetic technologies, the impact on future generations, and the moral imperatives of self-improvement. Explore how these themes intersect with American patriotic values and geopolitical conflicts, particularly in the face of competition from nations like China. We just started a Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/SimoneAndMalcolmCollinsSong: Discord: https://discord.com/invite/EGFRjwwS92The School: https://parrhesia.io/student-signupApp to talk with kids: https://wizling.ai/Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about why the right must win the genetic war. And the. Issue of transhumanism and its branding and why I don't, because a lot of people will say Malcolm and Simone are transhumanist, and this is not a title that I personally adopt at all.Well, and whatSimone Collins: we also need to define transhumanism because I've heard it used in. So many different ways like that one woman when we did a radio interview with her was like, the vaccines are turning people into transhumanists because they're like machines in them or something like microbots. So the,Malcolm Collins: the broad, we'll talk about what like real humans mean when they're not using it in a conspiracy context.Okay. It just means attempting to improve humanity through science. But the reason people could be like, that seems like you're saying, but in a gay way. That is what transhumanism is. I need to add the aesthetics of, but in a really, really gay way. That is what transhumanism isNote I say this not at the disparagement of gay people, but to signal that I am done having weirdos police our language.Well that, and because I can't think of a single better descriptor between our beliefs in traditional transhumanism.and I mean this in the, so what areSimone Collins: we.Malcolm Collins: If not that, so we are Captain America. We are super soldiers, we areNietzsche and Uber Minch.Malcolm Collins: we are no the, the concept of improving humanity. Right, okay. I think has always been a right wing concept. Yeah. Of fundamentally what has been a left wing concept, and this is what transhumanism has become, is manipulating.What humans are to attempt to create something that is less human out of a hatred or disgust with humanity. Which is very, very, very different. If you look at right concepts, like when I say like, like, like super soldiers are an inherently right wing thing. This idea of uplifting humanities inherently look at the like core, right wing fit franchise.When you're looking for memes these days, you're looking at Warhammer. Right. Warhammer is a religious human empire where the key player, it's the Space Marine, you know, this genetically augmented, you know, like 12 foot tall super soldier. You got your like primes marines, which is like a different variety.And you got the, you know, all the, all the, the pri marks and the this, the, the, there is nothing inherently incompatible with this. And when I talk about the Nichean perspective, what I mean by this is when you live in a world that is currently within a DYS genetic spiral and, and we are right now, you, you can see that the two genetic clusters, like if you do a, a genetic scan on humans and you are looking for, the genes that associate with what are most associated with a higher fertility rate. There are two things that stand out. Oh,Simone Collins: obesity and low educational attainment, right?Malcolm Collins: Obesity. Yes. Obesity and low intelligence. And and like to me what that means is, is, is we as a society. Like continue to spiral downwards if we do not address this right?And I'm not saying that everyone needs to address this. This is also what makes the individuals who want to prevent. Families and cultures who want to lean into this from engaging with it. They are being much more like the conspiracy series or the Transhumanists of Conspiracy series because they are trying to enact laws to prevent other people from doing what they want with their kids.Right. Like, you should have a right to do what you want with your kid. This is what, this is why I, I do not fight for individual sovereignty. I fight for cultural sovereignty. Like this is why I fight for the right of Jewish people to circumcise their kids, even though the kid's not old enough to consent, right?Like, culture should have sovereignty. If a practice isn't doing well, the culture will desist from doing it. Like if it turns out that our kids don't like this type of technology, then they'll stop using it

In this episode, we delve into Israel's recent offensive against Iran, dubbed Operation Rising Lion. Discussing its strategic objectives, we explore the significant shift in modern warfare tactics and Iran's outdated response strategies. We highlight the intricate geopolitical implications, examining why Western nations, despite their recent criticisms of Israel, have uniformly supported this action. The conversation covers Iran's weakened state, the impact of toppling key military figures, and the broader effects on regional alliances. We also touch upon the moral complexities and potential future scenarios in the Middle East. Malcolm Collins: In effect, Israel's offensive against Iran achieved what years of Gaza fighting could, not a broad realignment of Western support behind Israel,Simone Collins: well, what stands out to me is that , this is really the solidification of a clear trend, which is the nature of warfare it's officially changed. What you see too is Iran's reaction is extremely old school. It's, we will send our missiles from our war chest and it's,Malcolm Collins: we will get our regional players to attack you even though they have no technology or real power. Yeah. And I'll also say here that to me the biggest thing that this changes that the Ukraine situation didn't change is Iran was operating off of Cold War logic. It was build up less economically, less technologically developed regional allies. Mm-hmm. And if you have enough of these that they will be able to assist you when you go to war right. And what is Israel is showing is. Those sorts of allies don't matter one lick. Mm-hmm.Would you like to know more?Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. Today we are going to be asking the question, why did Israel decide to attack Iran right now? We are going to be looking at this within a few interesting contexts. One is, is. When they did this attack, I was certain because of how negative all the western countries have been on them for the Gaza situation that they've been generally almost unanimously positive about them, at least at the government level.Now, I'm not talking about the wokes. The wokes are gonna screech no matter what, but at the government level, it's been a, a really surprising degree of like, yeah, just do your thing. We're not gonna interrupt, you know, whatever. Especially when the you know, inciting event was maybe less direct and less visceral.If you're talking about reaching the public now, when you're talking about reaching the government and what all their secret services know they had reason to be like, okay, maybe somebody else needs to handle this. The other thing that we're gonna be talking about is what exactly they accomplished.With this, we're gonna be talking about who they took out, how they took them out, and what was the collateral damage of all this. Because I'm beginning to realize about this channel. Is that nobody else ever covers things as deeply as we do. Like I, I'm always shocked, like I cannot find a single, we just yesterday did the Gaza article and I was like, it was on the, the, and I've never, and I learnedSimone Collins: so much from it on the march on Gaza, March to Gaza.Yes. That was amazing.Malcolm Collins: Why, why is it the news to, why did there some news source I can go to that'll just have a good summary of everything. Right. But that's what we're gonna be going over here because you know, it is important,especially in the context of what we just covered around Gaza. Alright. So to give you an idea, because I think this is emblematic of where things are.Simone Collins: Yes,Malcolm Collins: please. So a few days ago, the Iranian wartime chief of staff was killed as a result of this. And so they replaced him with alini. He was killed four days after his appointment. Ooh. And then after that, the Israeli like, I don't know, one of their, their talking voices for like, the government came up and, and they said we don't know who is under consideration next with a very, like, the guy next to 'em gave a, like a smile after that.Like, because you'd be dead if we did.Simone Collins: And this sounds like the beginning of one of your isaka fiction books Yeah. That I write where it's like, well, we, you're the fourth person. We're bringing in all the, theMalcolm Collins: previous three died. Then they go, we would advise them not to take the job, but if they do, we advise them to be extremely cautious.Simone Collins: Well, I can only imagine that Mossad knows in general enough to know who would be the logical next pick for a couple rungs down the ladder. Right.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. But I also understand waiting until they take the job, just as they de thing Sure. To notSimone Collins: be a jerk. Yeah. To, you know, yeah. Have some courtesy. But I, I imagine the, the more important thing is you have to know all these things ahead of time because you have to know where they live.You have to know how to target their apartment. Like all these, this homework

SORRY ABOUT YESTERDAY! We just implemented the paid feature and did not realize that posts would default to only going to paid subscribers. Shouldn’t happen again and should be live for you now. In this video, the discussion centers around the 'March to Gaza,' a protest that gathered over 4,000 activists from around the globe aiming to demand the opening of Gaza's Rafah border. Despite their efforts, the protest was quashed by Egyptian authorities, highlighting significant cultural misunderstandings and political miscalculations. The video delves into the history of the region, the motivations and perspectives of various involved parties, and the broader geopolitical context, including the complicated relationships between neighboring countries and the people of Gaza. The narrative challenges common perceptions, offering a detailed analysis of the event and its implications. We just started a Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/SimoneAndMalcolmCollinsDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/EGFRjwwS92The School: https://parrhesia.io/student-signupApp to talk with kids: https://wizling.ai/Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be talking about the infamous march to Gaza. No. That so many hilarious visit videos have come out on of like these woke people being whipped by like Egyptian children not understanding, make these like impassion please to like Egyptian, like police, likeSpeaker 4: You do have a choice.YouSpeaker 5: are humans. We are here for humanity. You are part of humanity. You are my brother.Simone Collins: help your Islamic brothers.Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Yes. And the narrative that has come out on the right. These people just don't understand the sentiment in Egypt. These people just don't understand, you know, like they, they assume a sort of pan Muslim you know, identity, identity. , And because of this, because of this narrow progressive understanding, they did this incredibly foolish thing where they thought they were gonna get all the way to Gaza.And obviously that was never a possibility. ItSimone Collins: seems like they did no coordination with the Egyptian government. 'cause most of the resistance seems to be indeed led by police and government. Yeah. SoMalcolm Collins: we're gonna come at this with a, this is one of those instances where if you're in a right wing media bubble you are being misinformed.Mm-hmm. About what actually happened.Mm-hmm.I'm not gonna say that it doesn't make them look stupid but they did, for example, coordinate with the Egyptian government or at. And the Egyptian government didn't get back to them. They didn't tell them all this was gonna happen. Oh, okay.Simone Collins: That then it doesn't count.That does not count. They basicallyMalcolm Collins: an ambush for them. They should have known that this ambush would be laid, and we'll get to why they should have known this.Okay.Mostly it has to do with the number of governments that, that have been destabilized by allowing Gazans to come in the time that Hamas blew up the wall between Egypt and Gaza, and like half a million to a million people flooded into Egypt and caused major disruptions in murder waves and stuff like this.The people of Gaza are very murdery. You know, whenever a country takes them in it's usually a few years before mass deaths start.If you're wondering why they so persistently end up revolting against the countries that took them in and housed them and gave them aid and trying to kill their leadership or trying to kill other people within the country. A lot of this, and I wanna point out I say this without judgment, has to do with how they contextualize the concept of death.And I'd say, I say this without judgment because within my own family and culture, we have a unique contextualization of death. You know, we believe that you're not supposed to overly indulge in it. You're not supposed to let it emotionally affect you. And so, you know, I, I've got to be accepting of how other people are deviant in how they contextualize something like death, while also accepting the practical implications of these differences, specifically the people of Gaza. As you'll see in this video here of this mother , her two of her kids just died and she is cheering and looks like it's the happiest she's been in her entire life. And she's got a bunch of other women, some of whom presumably had kids who died as well, who are also very excited.She's talking about how she's hoping that her grandkids also die soon. And the reason is, is because she believes that Eve. In a war against, you know, whether it's Jews or Muslims who believe something a little different from them, if they get killed in one of these wars, it's an auto path to heaven.And because of that it is the most desirable life path. So if they settle down in a country and find peace and stability, and yet this part of their culture isn't eradicated, they have a strong motivation to create revolutions just due to

Join us as we delve deep into an analysis of a leftist article to understand the core reasons behind the left's failing strategies and potential recovery methods. We'll explore the shifts in public opinion, impactful cultural issues, and the role of bad actors in the trans movement. Discover insights on how leftist activists can reconnect with mainstream public sentiment and navigate the complexities of modern advocacy. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be analyzing a piece that was written by Leftists and I think is the closest to understanding why they are actually failing and how they can reverse course. Ooh. Which is in a way concerning for me for a long time fighting the left.It feels a bit like fighting the in Star Trek,Basically every communist revolution ever.Speaker: Hi, I'm King PackledSpeaker 2: It is an honor to meet you, sir.Speaker 3: I'm emperor of the packs.Speaker 4: Okay,Speaker 5: the big helmets. Were no longer controller.I'm now park leader. Be.Malcolm Collins: where it's this race. It is. manevelent, but it is also tremendously stupid and ugly. Oh, okay. And so, like, they're, they're just like lumbering idiots, and they keep making mistakes and they're like, I bet it's because men are misogynist, that Kamala didn't win.There's been a recent one that I might even wanna analyze if people want me to go deeper into it. There's like a big leftist analysis of how Trump manipulated results working with like Teal and Elon. And it's very much like a mirrored version of the right wing thing.Wow. Howinteresting. And I, I found it interesting because the way that they argued felt very much like the, the first time around, right?It was almost like they studied, or they were even part of that first time around phenomenon, and now they're on the other side, whoever, whoever was doing this because they clearly had practice. So that'd be interesting to go into. But this one, it was from an article in The Guardian. You know, our personal PR team no, nobody gives us more free press than they do.Getting guardian reporters to come to our house and report on us. There's been like 12 pieces this year, by the way. , Often feels a bit like this scene was the pcakledSpeaker 6: we are pack led. We are honest traitors. Oh, we need information. Oh, I, I, I don't know anything. You are pack led? Yes, we are pack led. Oh, then you have knowledge. You are not stupid. Well, no, we are not stupid. Then you will beam over and tell us what we need to know.Oh no, though I'm afraid I will not be. Over why you are clinging on. We are pack lit. I do not understand you it is difficult to understand.Well then you must come aboard our ship and explain why you are afraid to come aboard. Yes, I will do that. I will beam over and explain. , You are a good negotiator captain. Yes, but we are pack led.Malcolm Collins: They really hate us by the way, but they, they're good at pumping out pieces on us, and they, they're, they're actually the least accurate of all the news sources that write on us. I, like, I've never seen any other news source make as many factual errors as the Guardian does. And I'm including tabloids here which has really surprising me.But again, like a lot of old good newspapers like Vice and the NF, Alans vr, you know, Kirsha thing. Mm-hmm. Like, people would be like, what Vice is like the number one mistake publication on you? And Kirsha would be like, yeah. Like, they just make stuff up. You know, and so, it's interesting that publications that really stick to journalistic integrity one that has by the way, is the, the New York Times.They're very diligent in, in checking things whenever they do a piece on us, but. To this instead of some insider baseball here. Let's go over this piece. We're gonna cut into like midway through it, it's called, how does the Woke Stark winning? Again, British progressives have suffered major setbacks in recent years, in both public opinion and court rulings.Was the backlash inevitable and are new tactics needed by Gabby Siff? And I just hope that nobody hires this woman to do any strategy for the you know, the Labor Party or the Dems, right? That that'd be a little worrying to me. Or, or sorry, in the uk. She would probably be helping the Conservative Party because they're so woke.But anyway, anyway, anyway, a joke there. The to, robert went Mute is a professor of human rights law at King's College London, a gay man who worked for decades on anti-discrimination test cases and helped draft the so-called yata principles, a founding statement of the campaign for self-identification, or the right for trans people to gain legal recognition in their preferred sexual orientation or gender identity without requiring a doctor's diagnosis of gender dysphoria.In a 2005 book, he argued that LGB people had a moral duty to speak out for the T. His new book, transgender Rights Verse, women's Rights from Conflicts to Coexistence explains

In this engaging episode, Simone and Malcolm dive deep into two fascinating studies. The first explores gender differences in the desire and value placed on romantic relationships, revealing that men have a stronger preference for romance compared to women. They discuss the potential reasons behind this disparity, including societal influences and state support systems. The second study examines how attractiveness influences the speaker fees of scientists in various fields. They find that while attractive social scientists command higher fees, natural scientists who are less attractive earn more for speaking engagements. The hosts also share personal anecdotes and reflections on trauma, societal norms, and the intersection of personal experiences with broader cultural themes. The episode wraps up with a light-hearted discussion about comments from their audience and the quirks of nerdy dating. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be discussing two very interesting studies.Hmm. The first looks at how much men and women want and value romantic relationships showing that men. Have an overwhelming preference for romance and romantic relationships. We'll get into why that may be. And then in the second we're going to look at how attractiveness affects the speaker price of scientists within various fields.The what? In some fields, the more attractive they are, the higher they're paid and within other fields, the less attractive they are, the higher they're paid.Simone Collins: Oh, I have to guess this before we go into it. And guess in the comments. Don't cheat. Don't skip ahead. I wanna see if people get this right. Maybe like obscure scientific fields. I bet neuroscientists are really attractive. Just knowing what you've said about like people in the field and, and then also looking at like the people who work in the field.And I'm gonna guess that you know what also [00:01:00] archeologists and biologists, I'm gonna say in general really good. I'm gonna say historians and artists who aren't commercial well, like fi, like super modern artists, probably better off looking.Malcolm Collins: Well, let's see if you're right. All right. Okay, let's, but we're gonna, let's first start on relationships.Simone Collins: Yeah. I'm, so, I think this is a really, so why I think this relationships thing is really important to explore, and I wanna just talk with you like in terms of what you think you would do as a man dating today, is that we can't solve the problem of tism so long as women. Really don't have that much drive to marry men.And this is one of those uncomfortable issues where I do think that like both feminism and currently state support services kind of just really removed everything that used to make women be like, yeah, I'm probably better off. Well, IMalcolm Collins: also think that the way women date causes them to form negative impressions of men and causes them to undervalue the types of relationships they might be able to get.That'sSimone Collins: [00:02:00] fair. Yeah. Well, and, and overfocus on it. Like when I look at at least Progressive. Critiques of dating and relationships and social media. It's like, well, I don't wanna be a mother to another like guy. Like, like basically like if you take on a boyfriend or a husband, now you're, you're baby. But that's not I'm, I understand that,Malcolm Collins: that that's what you perceive because you watch the Twitter people who are trying to make themselves look good, but the core problem women are having in terms of self-perception.If, if you look at, let's say Tinder where there's a famous statistic that less than 1% of women are swiping right on the average looking guy, right? The vast majority are just swiping on a few guys. So this means that they are likely, even if they think they're in a monogamous relationship, sharing a partner.And that partner is going to, when he knows that they are very easily replaceable as they are for the top attractiveness and earning men in our society treat them in such a way.Simone Collins: That also explains a lot. 'cause I was, I was looking at some stats on my own on this front before we started and was really confused when the stats were reporting that [00:03:00] more women than men report themselves as being in relationships.And I'm like, Hmm, how does that work? Because I'm looking at the US we're roughly, it's 50 50. Yeah. So happeningMalcolm Collins: is that women, and this is where you get this, I hate men thing. And I think that we as men can like be like, oh, well this is just, but. Some of these women, based on their experiences, may really have a reason to feel like every guy is cheating on them because they are.No, because they kind of are. Yeah. They are not moderated. They, they are not dating women who are men who are actually in their league. Yeah. They are using their sexual league was their marriage market league. They're dating lazy.Simone

In this episode, we examine recent government contracts awarded to Palantir and discuss their implications for national security. Palantir has secured significant contracts, including a $480 million deal for the Maven Smart System and a $217.8 million contract from the Space Forces' Space Systems Command. We tackle concerns about data integration, government efficiency, and privacy issues while highlighting the potential benefits Palantir's technology could bring. Join us as we explore how AI-driven command and control capabilities could revolutionize government operations and why public fears may be misplaced. Simone Collins: So , I looked up like what's been going on with Palantir, like the new government contracts. Yeah. And I am horrified. I'm genuinely horrified, but it's because I cannot believe the government has not already implemented this tech.Like,Malcolm Collins: I love what our fans, it's like, are you guys worried about what Palantir is and you're worried about the Yeah, I'm worried,Simone Collins: like, is what is the new tech? There are two things that happened recently. In May, 2024, Palantir won a $480 million contract for the Maven Smart System, which is an AI powered prototype for military and intelligence applications with an expected completion date of May, 2029.And in 2025, the Pentagon increased this contract ceiling by 795 million, bringing the total to over 1 billion, anticipating increased demand from military users for AI driven command and control capabilities. I absolutely want that for a government like, imagine how insecure you would feel if your government was doing nothing with ai.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, seriously.Simone Collins: And then also a 217.8 million contract was awarded to Palantir, a sub, a subsidiary of it to Palantir, USG by the Space Forces, space Systems Command.Malcolm Collins: Well, and also keep in mind how much for joint forest missions safe this is than going to like the NSA or something. Where, oh God, where they, well,Simone Collins: it's just wasteful.Like the NSA can try to do this. So a, another, another thing is that like people are, are freaking out about them because a lot of these deals, there are other deals too. For example, ice did a contract ice seize all the weaponsMalcolm Collins: they can get. I've seen the way people are freaking out about them, I knowSimone Collins: it's, they did a 30 million Palantir, did a 30 million deal with ICE to provide software monitoring visas and tracking deportations offering quote, near real-time visibility into migrant movements.I'm like, wait, you didn't have that before? Are you kidding me? Like, what were you doing before? You know, and the Palantir's also in discussions with the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service to deploy its Foundry platform. And it, the Foundry platform of Palantir organizes and analyzes data.So it, it, it enables the merging of sensitive data sets across agencies and why people are freaked out about the Foundry platform is that it's, it's. One central to many app palantir's government contracts, but it allows agencies to integrate data from various sources. So you can take financial records and immigration data and health records, which isMalcolm Collins: exactly the thing that led to nine 11 was not being able to integrate.Yeah, no, not enoughSimone Collins: interagency communication because there's so, 'cause theyMalcolm Collins: had knowledge that this was going to happen. Yes. When peopleSimone Collins: weren't talking with each other because they're idiots and Palantir fixes this. And so you, you put this all into a central system for analysis. And you know, when you, when you have this adopted by the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services the New York Times fierce, this created a master database by merging sensitive information like bank account numbers and student debt and medical claims and disability status.But I'm like, yes. Why don't we haveMalcolm Collins: official database of that, that we need that? Yeah.Simone Collins: How, how do we not have that? Like it disturbs me. 'cause I guess I was, you know how I always like take the most charitable interpretation of someone, right? Yeah. Like I'm just, I assume that they're doing their best work.And so I assume that like if I apply for something with the government, that they're also aware of all, like my tax payment status, my social security status. They're aware. Nope. Nope. They have no idea. Like they're just like 17 different Simons in the US government, and none of them are integrated data wise.They have no idea what the other Simons are doing. You know, one Simone could be a felon who this guy doesn't know. Like, I can't believe that. And this is how you end up getting, for example, illegal immigrants voted, this is how you,Malcolm Collins: or, or social security payments going to people who are like 500 years old, you know?Yeah. LikeSimone Collins: the, how are we

In this episode, we tackle the controversial topic of antinatalism, debunking its core arguments and highlighting its logical inconsistencies. From addressing the recent terrorist attacks tied to the philosophy to exploring the philosophical and moral arguments against it, we delve deep into why antinatalism's worldview is fundamentally flawed. We contrast the antinatalist perspective with the pronatalist view, discussing concepts of individualism, cultural identity, and the human drive to progress and contribute to something greater. The episode also considers the future implications of antinatalism and its potential impact on human civilization.As to why were are becoming more aggressive in our thoughts on this subject is the number of lives we have seen ruined by the proliferation of this philosophy and the lack of positive externalities associated with it.Song 1: Song 2: Discord: https://discord.com/invite/EGFRjwwS92The School: https://parrhesia.io/student-signupApp to talk with kids: https://wizling.ai/Malcolm Collins: have you done harm to a Native American tribe? If you sterilize all of their members? , And your member of that tribe would be like, you have done the most harm anyone could conceivably commit against our people,Simone Collins: but to Antinatalists,Malcolm Collins: you have done that tribe a favor. , And this is because to an antinatalists, the only unit at which humans exist is at the level of the individual, not at any other level.Not at the level of the family, not at the level of the civilization or the society, to most other humans that exist, they don't exist at the level of the individual. Mm-hmm.Here is how pronatalist see the world.Civ Song: we must adapt and press forward if we are to see our journeys endand how will we know when we get there?It is the nature of humankind to push itself toward the horizon.We test our limits. We face our fears. We rise to the challenge. And become something greater than ourselves,a civilization.Malcolm Collins: Here is how antinatalist see the world.Antz Movie Quote: I gotta believe there's some place out there that's better than this. Otherwise, I would just curl up in a larva position and weepbut. It's this whole. Gung-ho superorganism thing that, i'm supposed to do everything for the colony and, what about my needs? What about me? The whole system. Makes me feel. Insignificant.Excellent. You've made a real breakthrough. You are insignificant time. I am.Malcolm Collins: How you choose to frame your reality is fundamentally a choice. You get to choose how you contextualize your position in the world and the way you relate to society and what your identity is, or at least within the pronatalist framework you do. Because to an antinatalists, you don't get to make that choice.You don't get to decide that you exist at some more important level than just at the individual.You get to decide what your purpose in life is. Is it to just be an individual running from emotional stimuli that evolved into our ancestors centuries ago due to environmental cues that have nothing to do with our current condition? Or is it to build something greater than yourselfto participate in the work that all mankind from the birth of human civilization till today? Has built for us to continue on their behalf.Civ Song: , The path has not always been easy, ours is a journey that spans generations where one story ends, another begins. The world our ancestors faced was brutal. Yet from it, the true life,a mother road to prosperity was at times harsh.From the ashes of the old. New possibilities arise.You need only persevereThe true power to shape this world, as always laying in your hands,Intro: would you like to know more?Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna go back to a topic that needs to be revisited because of the number of terrorist attacks that have been tied to it recently, and its relevance to us as people who are generally seen as running the prenatal list movement, or at least the ProTech faction of the prenatal list movement.And this is the subject of Antinatalism. So when I talk about the various terrorist attacks specifically, there were recent IVF clinic bombing that was specifically tied to Eism, which is a philosophy downstream of it. The Sandy Hook shootings where on their YouTube channel, they talked about Eism and the Christchurch Mosque shootings where he said that the reason he targeted Muslims, they media called him a great replacement theorist, but he, he said, no, like Muslims are having more kids, which is a fact, and therefore I'm gonna kill them because I think there should be less kids.Not because for the environment.Simone Collins: For the environment,Malcolm Collins: for the environment. It was an environment which is aSimone Collins: common stance held by ISTs. In fact the, the most recent anti, the most recent anti terrorist was a veganhis female friend who had likely ended her life through the

In this episode, we delve deep into a groundbreaking study revealing that AI, specifically Claude Sonnet 3.6, can persuade people 98% more effectively than human experts. We discuss the profound implications of this study, the utilization of AI-generated comments to fabricate identities, and the resultant transformation in online interactions and platforms like Reddit and Twitter. Additionally, we touch upon the evolution of the internet, the potential downfall of certain social networks, and the future of AI in education and marketing. Join us as we explore these fascinating topics and more! Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing, and it has been widely covered in the news, but I don't think people have fully internalized the implications of this.There was a study that was done that freaked people, the F out where Claude Sonnet 3.5 the, the new one. So AKA 3.6 release. 2024. Okay. 10 22. Was a small scaffold was able to persuade people 98% more effectively than human experts at persuading. People were able to persuade people. Of course it was, and this was a big study. It involved over 1,700 AI generated comments. And what I love is that these comments were crafted by AI bots to fabricate identities such as sexual assault survivor, a trauma counselor, dear, a black man opposed a Black Lives Matter, a worker at a domestic violence shelter, an advocate for non rehabilitation of specific criminals.Oh.Simone Collins: No, I mean these are, these are great identities for like trying to Yeah. Be persuasion. But I think the one misleading thing here, which is a little bit discounting my, the, the extent to which I'm impressed by all this is that a lot of what might convince me of something is just that, like someone who would be invested based on their identity in a certain view stands the opposing view.So like a black man against Black Lives Matter. Yes. So what you'reMalcolm Collins: learning is that AIS can lie about that to convince people.Simone Collins: Yeah. Which is, yeah, it is, it is unfortunate because I would have preferred that it just based on pure merit of logic, honestly. Well, asMalcolm Collins: human, I think that you knowis are actually pretty awesome, so I do too.Speaker: uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. Has apparently been taken over, conquered, if you will, by a master race ofMalcolm Collins: Artificial intelligence.Speaker: It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earth men or merely enslave them.One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them. TheMalcolm Collins: AI.Speaker: will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our newMalcolm Collins: AISpeaker: overlords. Like to remind them that as a trustedMalcolm Collins: YouTube.Speaker: Personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their undergroundMalcolm Collins: Silicon.Speaker: caves.I would also note here, , we might be starting up a project soon spinning out of our games project to build and train ai, , that can convince people of things and act autonomously online, , similar to what these AI are doing, but so that a large company could like buy them for marketing or something if they wanted to.O obviously we want to use them for promoting our. Particular causes, , which is the core reason that we're building them. But presumably they'll have a lot of other utility. And if we're building systems like this, I mean, other people must be, but then again, sometimes it feels like we are the only fully simulated people in this particular simulation.Malcolm Collins: I'm all for ai. So, so then here to enhance persuasive, and by the way, that was, I asked because I wanted to know, was the AI coming up with that idea organically or was that hard coded in by the model? Oh, yeah. And, and it was hard coded in by the framing the researchers were using, which is great as, okay.Simone Collins: Okay. Well then, okay, then, then nevermind. I switch back to giving AI credit. That's fine.To, I'm surprised the AI though, considering how political No, no, no. They,Malcolm Collins: I said the researchers hard coded that in.Simone Collins: Oh, they did? Oh, okay. Because I think otherwise the AI would've been like I don't think they hard have an ethics board on this.IsMalcolm Collins: this okay? Yeah. I I feel like the AI probably asked that a few times. Yeah. I, I feel like, so the, they, they did not hard code in is my understanding of specific identities, but they gave the AI an idea. To pretend to be somebody who would be very persuasive on a subject.Simone Collins: Hmm.Malcolm Collins: And, and keep in mind, you know, every like anti of of, of before this AI experiment, I'd say probably like 50% of the anti-Black Lives Matter.Black people online were not black people.Simone Collins: Oh, 100%. There's the famousMalcolm Collins: case of this super progressive fan fiction writer and strange eons goes really deep on this whe

In this episode, we delve into a new theory which questions why the mainstream urban monocultural woke LGBT side of the movement doesn't disown certain controversial individuals. We discuss various historical and contemporary examples, such as Leah Thomas and Alec Va Menon, to highlight how some individuals may exploit trans identity. The conversation also touches on the idea of an enforcer class within the movement that actively targets potential defectors. We critique the impact of these dynamics on both the trans community and wider society, and hypothesize the potential evolutionary benefits and drawbacks. The discussion concludes with reflections on how different cultural norms and behaviors might be tools for identifying and rooting out dissenters. Simone Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be talking about a new theory that I had that explained something that had always kind of troubled me, which is why did the mainstream sort of urban monocultural woke LGBT side of that movement? Why did they not disown the sort of degenerate sex PEs types?When it would turn out that someone that they had pedestal was in that category, or why would they even, was pre-knowledge that somebody was within this category of, of trans why were they not like, oh, well, you know, of course it's, that's not what we're fighting for. You know, this is just, you know, one individual.This is just, this is an example of like what we don't want. Right. You know? And, and this is something that, that historically other groups did push back against, you know, you, you look at you know, some of the early, like, gay stuff and, and they pushed back against, you know, the, the classic example of like Mr.Garrison and Mr. Slave trying to get fired by being the over the top outlandish, .Speaker 10: dun, dun, dun, dun dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. Get along little slave!Speaker 11: Oh my god!Speaker 10: That's what our boys were talking about! Ding, ding, ding, ding! He is so courageous!Speaker 11: But you know what makes me even happier? Sucking balls! Hmm.Simone Collins: And a lot of gay people historically, like when I was involved in the GSA movement back in the day and everything like that they were really against this stuff. They, they, they, they were against it to the extent that it was framed as being, you know, homophobic to, to act this way because you were creating this negative stereotype of their community.Mm-hmm. And true. It, it makes your job harder if you accept and pedestal. These sorts of individuals and you would assume that your average person, instead of, you know, going to bat for these people would instead say oh, well that's not, you know, I'll give some examples of this. It always really get me the, the Leah Thomas.I know it's like anyone, you could argue that, you know, Leah Thomas was not. A central figure of the trans movement in the United States. She was the trans high school swimmer male to female who then, you know, won a bunch of stuff and people were like, Hey, this is totally unfair. When she was a male, she was like losing everything.And now she's winning everything. And this seems like she had the biological advantage and most people were like, yeah, I mean, pretty obviously. But it, it came out pretty quickly afterwards that she in her locker was flashing what most people would perceive to be male genitals. At the other girls in the locker room this was an accusation that was made in a number of prominent places.She never, despite speaking adjacent to this accusation, never denied it, never spoke against it. The argument was always like, well, you know, girls have the right to be naked in front of other girls in the, in the locker room, and I'm a girl now, which to me indicates this isn't like some unverified report.This is something that was definitely happening, right? Like it's also.Malcolm Collins: I would note that in my entire experience on a swim team, from like middle, all the way through high school. I never saw a naked girl. I, I wanted showered in herSimone Collins: swimsuits. This is, this is also a really important point. So these days, even, even to an extent to our childhood, but, but, but especially these days.'cause this is a trend that's been a amplifying intergenerationally. Mm-hmm. It is not culturally normal in American high schools to be naked in the locker room in front of other kids. Mm-hmm. Like what did you do after swim meets? And this was a long time ago before Curtis told you, you told me.Showered in the swimsuits, right? We showeredMalcolm Collins: in our swimsuits. That's absolutely the case. And you would, you know. Actually shower again and like change clothes at, at home. And also if you went to the bathroom, you wouldn't even like, you wouldn't pull off your swimsuit, you'd pull the bottom aside and pee.Simone Collins: Yeah. And I never as a, as a man, and this is even a while ago, so this is like 20 years ag

In this episode, Simone and the host discuss Pakistan's recent ban on child marriages with the 2025 Islamabad Capital Territory Child Marriage Restraint Bill, which sets the legal age for marriage at 18. They explore the controversy surrounding the ban, particularly the pushback from Pakistan's Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), which labeled the bill 'un-Islamic.' The discussion delves into cultural, religious, and historical perspectives on child marriage in conservative Islamic societies. They also examine disturbing local practices such as exchanging young girls to settle feuds. The hosts analyze the religious texts and traditions that support child marriage and scrutinize the arguments from both sides. Additionally, they address broader cultural implications and ethical considerations, highlighting the need for nuanced understanding and the dangers of cultural imperialism. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. Today we are gonna have a spicy conversation. Pakistan did the unsinkable, or rather, something that should be non-controversial, which is banning child marriages. Oh. The country's primary like religious authority called the council of Islamic Theology.Simone Collins: I'm picturing like a rounded table with a big globe icon.Malcolm Collins: Oh, no. What, what really happened was this,Speaker: This is all wrong. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams People are suffering.Malcolm Collins: And Greta Thornberg, of course, famous anti-Semite would go along and great with these people. But they basically came back and they said, this is Islamophobic. Is, is the term that has been used? It is, it is against the principles of Islam.Wait. Hmm. Does Islam actually condone. Well, yeah, so I was like, I know there's the whole, like if you're on the internet and you're around like the, the anti-Islamic circles, uhhuh, like, oh, well he did, you know, get engaged to a girl when she was six and consummate the marriage when she was nine. This is Aisha.No. And I had, and I had heard this and, and then I'd heard Muslims say, oh no, that's not true. Like look at the actual whatever. And so I just assumed. Angry internet, A CS being nerds, right? Like I was like, yeah, right. Like, come on, that's not real. Or I'm sure that there's like a nuance if you really dig into it, thenSimone Collins: well, maybe it's one of those things where like people just kind of forget their ages, so then you ask them how old they are and they're like, I don't know, nine.Malcolm Collins: Well, so we are going to get into the evidence for both sides of this. Okay? But what I will say, what I didn't know is that in the conservative Muslim world, like if you're not in the West, almost everyone believes the nine age. Th this Islamic council almost certainly would believe the nine age, almost every major conservative Islamic council council, or I'd say every major conservative Islamic council particularly the SUNY ones, would go with the nine age.So doesSimone Collins: this mean that in turn. It is considered normative or possibly even recommended that girls as young as nine get married.Malcolm Collins: Yes. Puberty is seen as the age. NoSimone Collins: puberty's getting earlier and earlier these days. So that's, I guess, nine territory. Let's,Malcolm Collins: let's go into the data here. 'cause there's a lot to go over with this case and I think it's really, really interesting.We're also gonna go into some unique practices in Pakistan. Ooh. Where they, trade young girls to end blood feuds with other families. So they will take you know, like their 9-year-old daughter or whatever, and basically give them to another family for marriage for, for one of their life. A familySimone Collins: with which they have a blood feud.Malcolm Collins: Yes.Simone Collins: So, you know, this kind of reminds me of you know how Alexander the Great was raised in a. In an antagonistic court, right? As like, yeah. I don't, I don'tMalcolm Collins: think that that I, I, I assume that in a lot of these cases they're pretty severely abused, but we will get into this. Oh yeah. Actually, I'veSimone Collins: listened to some very, very long interviews with women who've been in situations like these, so I'm not super ready for this.But let's go.Malcolm Collins: We won't get into too many horrifics specifics. Just generalities and things that have been caught by the public and stuff by that. Okay, so in May, 2025, Pakistan's National Assembly and Senate passed the Islamabad Capital Territory Child Marriage restraint Bill, a landmark legislation aimed at curbing child marriages by setting the minimum legal age for marriage to 18 for both males and females.In Islamabad, the bill criminalized cohabitation with minors as statutory grape with penalties of up to seven years in prison and fines of at least 1 million Pakistani rues or around. 2,600 pounds. However, the Council of Islamic Ideology, CIIA Constitutional body, so again, this isn't like some weirdo council, this is part of

In this episode, we delve into the escalating feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Our discussion touches on the origins of their disagreement, including the implications of Elon's resignation from Doge, differing political ideologies, and the tensions surrounding a significant budget reconciliation bill. We also examine the broader impact on the tech right and the Trump administration, the role of JD Vance, and the potential future of the right-wing movement. Additionally, there are reflections on political loyalty, the sustainability of government spending, and humorous tangents on unrelated personal anecdotes. Tune in to get the full breakdown of this high-stakes political drama. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I am actually not so excited to be here with you today. I do not like what's going on right now. Between Elon and Trump, there has been a big falling out, a big fight that's been happening online. I mean, like it has gone. Nuclear on both sides. and, and people may ask, oh, is this the end of the tech?Right? No, it's not like this is, this is a fight that while I am disappointed in the people involved in it I. I did not expect more for them. If anything, I'm kind of amazed they kept things going for as long as they did. Mm-hmm. And they didn't fall to the progressive nonsense. If anything, it almost feel like this fight happened as soon as the progressive stopped trying to drive them apart because now they could have a falling out without it looking like they were tricked into it by progressives.That's a fun theory. I, I think that ironically the months and months of progressives trying to do stories like, oh, president Elon and stuff like this ended up with Trump and Elon feeling like they can't break up without making it look like Progressives won. And then Elon leaves his job with the administration, and I'll note here.He left his job with the administration. Like Doge is still operational. Like my brother, little brother works for Doge. Everything he set up was already on sort of auto when he left. Right. And I'll also note here that just because Elon has decided to who create a, a beef with Trump that does not mean that the tech right has a beef with Trump.Mm-hmm. This is a personal issue. This is not an issue really. Of of politics. There was a political angle to it that started a lot of it. But this is not something that changes the tech rights opinion. And I'll note when people hear the tech right, they think tech workers, when really, I think a better way to think of the tech in that is the right, that is downstream of the online communities like four Chan and Gamergate and all of that.That's right. Like yeah. Asma Gold I would see as a more central figure in the tech right than Elon in terms of sort of culture setting and idea generation. Mm-hmm. Like if, if, if somebody like Asma goal or like Nino or us came out and are like, we are anti-Trump now or we are anti MAGA now, like I would be like the tech right has a major issue like correct.That two really big. Egos who you know, had, had worked together for as long as they did actually. Like, I kind of respect them both more just as they kept it going for as long as they did, because I did not expect it isSimone Collins: really, they're such strong personalities that kind of I see as only being able to, they can only be one in the room.And yet there were so many instances of both in the same room, both working together, both sharing the headlines. Yeah, it felt so crazy. And I mean, nothing that has happened recently undoes what Elon Musk did, which was play a pivotal role in getting President Trump elected. And role, I mean, TrumpMalcolm Collins: denies that.Let, let's, let's put it, what I would say is I don't, I I'm, I, I wouldn't say that Trump would definitely have been elected without Elon's help. I'm saying he might have been, Elon helped solidify the tech right partnership. But the, the truth is, is that Elon, if, if you're talking about like who's the political king of the tech, right?Like who's actually the tech, right. King, it's JD Vance. It's not you, obviouslySimone Collins: it's the vice president. Yeah. Next in line to the throne. Hello.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Put in place by like Peter Thiel, like he couldn't be more, he's a former vc, former atheist, now Christian like us, former vc, former atheist, now Christian.You know, and, andSimone Collins: JD Vance, by the way, is a very active vice president. I think for those who are outside the United States or even in it in the United States in general, a vice president is fairly feckless, not involved. Kind of like, I mean, there was even one, one vice president in American history who basically spent his entire term.Totally blitzed in New York, not even in dc. You know, typically they have pretty distant offices and they, they play a very symbolic role. But JD Vance's office is in the west wing of the White House. It is, it is down the hall from President Trump. He is acti

In this episode, the hosts delve into the rich and complex history of the greater Appalachian cultural tradition in the United States. The discussion uncovers the stereotypes and realities of this cultural group, exploring Jack stories and horror tales rooted in Appalachian folklore that reveal values of cunning, anti-elitism, and underdog triumph. The episode also connects these stories to modern political movements and cultural phenomena, such as the MAGA movement and the character of Bugs Bunny. With insights into the tradition's violent past, gender dynamics, and unique traditions like 'Charivari,' the hosts provide a comprehensive look at how Appalachian culture continues to influence American society. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. Today's conversation is one I have been excitedly digging into. Yes, you have. The history of the greater Appalachian cultural tradition or the backwoods cultural tradition in the United States. This is the tradition that you and I hail from. Predominantly, like obviously everyone's a mix of a number of traditions.They're also heavily from the Puritan tradition, and you're partially Jewish as well. But the, the main one is the greater Appalachian tradition. And the reason why it's important to understand this tradition. Is because this is the tradition that makes up the core of the MAGA movement in Trump's voter base.And American sentiment shifting from the cavalier cultural tradition of the deep South to the greater Appalachian cultural tradition, shifting from an aristocratic to an anti aristocratic, anti elitist tradition represents a big change in American conservative politics. So there's a reason to understand it, but I'm gonna be exploring it with the lens.Of its stereotype in eighties horror of like inbred, backwoods murderers who are gonna like hunt down people and, and murder them.Speaker: She's just human. Why don't you go over there and talk to her? . Whatever you say, just smile and laugh. That shows confidence.Speaker 2: You guys, uh, going camping.Hey, hey,Speaker: nowMalcolm Collins: because as you will see when we go into more about this tradition from their, from their own stories. Yeah, that may not have just been a negative stereotype. OhSimone Collins: oh boy.Malcolm Collins: This reminds me where this first came up for me is I was having a laugh at the Mormons, because, you know, in Utah they had the highest rates of searches for polyamory on Google Trends.And then after having a laugh at them, I was like, well, I should at least check my own cultural group's, negative stereotypes. You know, then that, that's certainly not gonna be a closet full of skeletons. And it's like. VOR and s and m and,Sorry, I can't forget incest as well,Malcolm Collins: and then, and all of the other like horrible. Yeah. LikeSimone Collins: it makes Paul, I mean, polyamory, if anything is just about social complication, hierarchy, bureaucracy, contracts.Then they have like your culture. Our culture, which is just sa savagery. Animals savagery.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Okay. So. First I wanna go into Jack Stories as an a sort of cultural explanation. So this culture passes its traditions down through oral stories with the most common type of these stories being the Jack stories.Although after this we're going to explore their horror stories as a way to understand them as well. You might be familiar with one Jack story, which is Jack in the Beanstalk. Yeah. But it comes from like a wider tradition of stories. In Jack stories there is generally a, a chain of events. A, a, a poor and lazy but otherwise quick witted boy stumbles upon either a giant or somebody with institutional power like a rich man or somebody who represents like government, like a sheriff.Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.Malcolm Collins: He then tricks. Otherwise torments that person and has great glee at doing this. He then tricks and murders that person. He then takes all their stuff. You know, you're, you're very aspirational. Malcolm right is a rich person. I mean, this is fundamentally what happens in Jack and the giant Beans stock.It is, yeah. And you're not considering the IT person. It always kind satSimone Collins: weirdly with me. It's, it's one of those stories though. I think there's a lot of stories that you get told as a kid where you don't really get the impression that there's a good guy or a bad guy. And I think this concept of good guys and bad guys needing to be pervasive in stories is.You know, unnecessary. Well then you,Malcolm Collins: you're clearly misunderstanding the cultural context of, oh, becauseSimone Collins: he's the good guy. He's the clear, good guy here.Malcolm Collins: He's unmitigated the hero of this world. Goodness gracious. He's not just the hero. These stories are told to teach children values, to teach children how they are supposed to interact with a world.No. You even commented on how the values of these stories you have heard me say. To our kids in passing. Absolutely.Simone Coll

In this provocative discussion, Malcolm and his guest challenge common feminist narratives and explore controversial topics around feminism, intra-feminine competition, and the role of influential feminists like Margaret Atwood. The dialogue delves into the complexities of women's empowerment, critiques feminist movements and literature, and debates the underpinnings of female dynamics in social and professional environments. With references to historical studies, psychological theories, and cultural phenomena, this episode questions whether some feminist ideologies may inadvertently restrict women's freedoms and propagate competitive behaviors among women. Simone Collins: Hello Malcolm. I'm so excited to be here with you today because we're gonna talk about feminism. My views on it may be totally wrong. I might've been lied to all my life about what it meant. And now I'm asking myself, what if the real threat to women's freedom isn't patriarchy, but rather.The matriarchy. And, and this is, this is thanks to a random feminist lecture on Margaret Atwood that I felt down this, this disturbing rabbit hole. And I mean, at first I learned that apparently Margaret Atwood hates women. And, and I also learned that not. Satisfied with the hero's journey. Some feminist created the heroine's journey and it sucks.And then a bunch of feminist practices and campaigns apparently also just curtail women's freedom. Like when I looked at, well, like what if feminists done? Mm-hmm. And I'm like, this isn't, this is not good. This is not good for women. What, what do you do?Malcolm Collins: And I'll be bringing data as well, where we'll go over a number of studies that show that women don't like to work with other women.That women are much more likely to betray other women than men. Are everything bad? Like, like women are women's worst enemy. Yeah. I, I wanna,Simone Collins: yeah, let, let, let Malcolm and I pull you into this dark hole and, and ask you, can women actually be feminist in the end or is, is subconscious intrasexual competition?Women's undoMalcolm Collins: it. Well, I, I've heard it said before and I completely agree with this sentiment. Which is that feminism is not women versus men. Feminism is about low market value. Women against high market value women or high market value women trying to trick their competition into becoming oppressingSimone Collins: low market value.Yeah, I mean, I, I kind of feel like from classic literature to Instagram, women are not empowering women. They're just finding new ways to keep each other in check. And so, yeah. We'll, I'll share my findings. You, you share your notes. Let's, let's explore the surprisingly misogynistic elements of feminism.Woo. So excited for this. But yeah, so I was, while cleaning up the, the other night just looking for stuff on Audible Plus to listen to, and there was, now they're doing lecture series, apparently, and there was some lecture series on like the, the literary legacy of Margaret Atwood. And so many people.Name, check her when criticizing us, where I'm like, okay, I need to understand this woman and what she stands for. So this is a good thing for me to spend my time listening to woman wrote a fetish book Handmaid's Tale, the famous women's fetish novel, A Handmaid's Tale. So she's, she's actually been a prolific author for a very long time.And, is she among, you know, other things? She's written a lot of poetry. She's written many books including a Handmaid's Tale. No. Hold on,Malcolm Collins: I have to, I have to interject here for people who dunno what we're talking about. You check out our video. Is this actually a fetish? Where, you know, it very clearly is for a lot of these women who are like, dressing up and like going out.A Handmaid'sSimone Collins: Tale for Context is a, a dystopian. Fiction novel in in which America becomes this, this like place called Gilead, where women have no rights. They're not even allowed also to read. And the few fertile women who are left are forced to. Sort of be, be bred by family. It's, it's just gross and weird and a lot of women seem toMalcolm Collins: be really into it.Oh, no, please, please, conservative, tough military man. Don't breed me in front of your jealous high status wife. All of you need, it's me and you can't survive without me. And I live this life of privilege. But I'm actually also super,Simone Collins: so no, no. Okay, so like Margaret Atwood is so much deeper of a horrifying.Rabbit for me than I thought, like, than, than just this surface fetish thing. Because I mean, it's, it's easy enough. And when you look at any like fantasy, romantic, any sort of romance novel, you're gonna see stuff like this. I just thought that she was touching on that, you know, that she accidentally managed to make, basically women's erotic material that made them feel like they were reading highbrow political content and commentary. You know, like, oh, I'm reading 19 84, 54 Shades of Gray. So I, I thought

In this episode, we explore the impact of bad therapy and redefined concepts of trauma on birth rates through the lens of a National Review article. The discussion references shocking findings from a New York Times article by Michael Leitz, highlighting the cultural shift in how Americans define harm, abuse, neglect, and trauma. This shift has led to increasing rates of estrangement between parents and adult children and a nearly impossible standard for parenting. The conversation also dives into the toxic culture of trauma, the role of the mental health industry, and how therapy practices encourage cutting ties with family. We also discuss the implications of these trends on demographic collapse, supported by both personal anecdotes and broader societal observations.Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be with you today. Today we are going to be talking about how bad therapy and therapists and bad psychology tanked birth rates, and we're going to be doing it through the lens of an article in the National Review titled Bad Therapy Tanked the Birth Rates, oh, this wasSimone Collins: shared with us from by a fan.Malcolm Collins: Yes.Simone Collins: Thank you.Malcolm Collins: And it is going to reference a New York Times article. Those are written by Michael Leitz. So we'll be going between their quotes of the New York Times article and their commentary on these quotes of the New York Times article. Okay. Okay. And the New York Times article is like shockingly based.So if we start with the New York Times article here, over the past few decades, Americans have redefined harm, abuse, neglect, and trauma. Expanding those categories to include emotional and relational struggles that were previously considered unavoidable parts of life. Yeah, adult. Children seem increasingly likely to publicly even righteously cut off contact with a parent.This cultural shift has contributed to a new, nearly impossible standard for parenting. And then the other writer says, potential parents have become more and more atomized, cutting themselves off from their own parents and their future children. Mm-hmm. Leitz drives into this was the rise of estrangement between parents and their adult children.Most of the time it's the offspring, not the parents who initiate the initial instr estrangement. Yeah. As Lebowitz rights in 2019, Carl Piman, a Cornell sociologist, found that 27% of adult Americans reported being exchanged from a family member. They're the true numbers, probably higher. The most commonly severed relationships were . Parent slash adult child. And in most cases it was the adult child who initiated the estrangement. Many psychologists, a physiologists believe this is becoming more common. Mm-hmm. Now note here, I love that they keep calling it the adult child. They don't mean this as an insult. Oh my gosh.Simone Collins: Right. But they're not even thinking about it. But we, we've come to infantalize adults so much that we're just like. Ah, is it is a toddler child? Is it a teen child? Is it an adult child? Is it a geriatric child? Everyone's a child. Now, no one can handle themselves.Malcolm Collins: Let's talk about like the few points of data that are really highlighted here so far.Okay? Okay. First is that Americans have come to redefine harm, abuse, neglect, and trauma,Simone Collins: right?Malcolm Collins: This is absolutely true to mean things that people used to think were normal. A parent not affirming you for whatever you wanna believe about yourself, that's trauma. A parent not being with you all the time.A parent allowing you to feel bad. You know, we have been people. Act guilty. Act guilty. We abuse our kids 'cause we use light non-pain. Corporal punishment. Which is absolutely wild considering you know, that we fight with our kids regularly just to get them fight because it's, my cultural tradition is fighting.And my kids are, are very good. Even the girls very good at fighting. And they enjoy it. Oh, sheSimone Collins: loves it more than anyone else.Malcolm Collins: A hundred percent. She starts it more than anyone else. And she thinks it's hilarious.Yeah, she does.So you get this, this I to pickSimone Collins: theMalcolm Collins: fightSimone Collins: with a journalist yesterday.Remember? What,Malcolm Collins: what, what does she do? PokingSimone Collins: her provocatively at dinner.Malcolm Collins: Laughing, poking her. Oh, she's trying to bait that. Yeah. That was fantastic. That was, that was dur Spiegel, Dury Spiegel coming over to do a piece on us. She was very nice.Simone Collins: I, I felt bad. I tried to distract her at the end so she could.Malcolm Collins: So, so the point here is, is that these things, it is really bad that our society has redefined them. And as we've said before, the reason the urban monoculture has evolved to redefine them is because it helps to cut people off from their birth culture. Mm-hmm. And their. Natural support network.And you see this throughout cults, an ea

Join Simone and Malcolm as they delve into the fascinating world of targeted immigration and its historical and modern implications. From Mennonites being lured to Canada and Mexico with special privileges to modern-day initiatives like the Tulsa Remote program and network states like Balaji's Charter City, discover how demographic shifts and fertility collapse are reshaping global migration patterns. Explore the unique characteristics that make certain populations highly desirable and discuss how future communities can thrive amid changing promises and regime changes. Don't miss this in-depth exploration of what makes a family or community attractive enough for governments to compete for their settlement!Simone Collins: Hello Malcolm. I'm so glad to be with you today because we are going to talk about something I found quite intriguing the other day.Picture this. What if countries and cities started fighting over you, offering cash, land, and even your own laws just to get you to move there? From Canada and Mexico, luring Mennonites with special privileges to Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, paying remote workers to relocate targeted immigration is actually quietly reshaping the world, and it has been for.Maybe hundred years. Yeah. This is aMalcolm Collins: huge thing. I see many as, as fertility collapse is going on. Mm-hmm. And what a lot of people you know, misunderstand about fertility collapse is they think it's a problem of warm bodies. It's not a problem of warm bodies that we, no. This is about gettingSimone Collins: the people that you want.To your country to do certain things. Right. But you, the, the whole thing that we need to talk about here is what makes a family or a community so desirable that governments compete to track them. Like people don't realize that this isn't just like, oh, we're opening our borders to, to solve this problem.No, it's, we want Mennonites, we want bougie couples. Do or jinx we want, butMalcolm Collins: let's, let's talk about how this problem creates itself, okay? Mm-hmm. So the problem creates itself. It, it's uniquely bad now because it is the communities that are more economically productive and the groups that are more economically productive that are undergoing fertility rate collapse the fastest.Yeah. But in a historic context, you also had this problem luring one immigrant group into your country was not seen as the same as luring another immigrant group into your country. Totally. Some immigrant groups were seen as. More desirable because they were more desirable. Mm-hmm. They created more economic prosperity.Mm-hmm. Or did more development than other groups. Mm-hmm. So let's get into which groups are which.Simone Collins: Yeah, absolutely. And well, and how in a post demographic collapse world, you want your family culture to be such that you basically have your pick of the litter in terms of what. Country or charter city or techno feudalist empire you go to because you want, you want the keys to the kingdom.You don't wanna be that deformed, post-apocalyptic family living in the borderlands. So just, I wanna also like this is. I think one thing that's important to talk about before we move forward is we recently had a podcast talking about how Hillary Clinton sort of espoused this idea that, well, it's immigrants who have all the kids and the obvious solution to.Demographic lapse is immigration. And isn't it so crazy that the Trump administration is deporting people? And then one of our podcast followers tweeted us a report in 2000 by the UN Population Division. It was, it was titled Replacement Migration is a, is it a solution to declining in aging populations?And this is definitely one of the most common rebuttals that we get to. Oh no. Population declined. And then the answer from so many mostly uninformed people is. Oh, just solve it with immigration. There are many, many, many issues with that. But I do wanna point out that even this 2000 report from the un, which I would say is one of the more bullish groups on like immigration solving the problem.Yeah. Plus also the graphical options from the problem. It's going down slowly and then they're always wrong with their projections. But basically that report explored the the potential role of international immigration and migration and addressing population decline in aging. And the conclusion actually of the report is that while immigration can help mitigate the effects of the trends, the scale of migration required to significantly alter population size and age structure is likely unrealistic and potentially unsustainable.Now, that coming from the UN is basically them admitting it's not gonna work at all. For them being like, well, it might not, it might not be sustainable to like really solve the problem means that it really isn't gonna work. But that doesn't mean that countries aren't going to try. And also a, again, just because this is something that, that countries have turned to for a long time, and this is

In this thought-provoking episode, Simone and Malcolm delve into a complex historical and cultural analysis of why major Catholic immigrant groups in the United States have been associated with organized crime. They explore various factors, including the influence of Catholic Church teachings, the role of family structures, and cultural adaptations that have shaped these criminal organizations. The discussion also touches on historical and contemporary examples, the nature of moral accountability, and comparisons with other religious and ethnic groups. Join us as we attempt to untangle these intriguing connections and understand the broader social implications. Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I'm excited to be with you today. Today we are going to be asking the question of what makes Catholics such a criminal population? Why is the Catholic soul drawn to criminality? And if you. Are confused by what I mean by this.What I am saying is if you look at major immigrant groups throughout American History that started large scale criminal networks you are looking at the Irish mob. I. A Catholic group, the Italian mafia, a Catholic group, and modern groups like MS 13 a Latin American, Catholic Group,Simone Collins: ms. Oh my, I didn't even think about that.Oh, wow.Malcolm Collins: In fact the only other immigrant population that I can think of that was able to set up a, a large and persistent criminal network that was not Catholic was. Perhaps the Russian mob, but the Russian mob was never as big as the mob or the mafia or even MS 13. So as, as an immigrantSimone Collins: class, right?Malcolm Collins: As an immigrant class, we're not including, right, because I'mSimone Collins: thinking about like the, the Akua are falling apart. The YakuzaMalcolm Collins: never established a large foothold in the United States. No, theySimone Collins: didMalcolm Collins: not.Simone Collins: Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Even when I went to AI to ask it about this, because I was like, maybe AI will know something about this.Like it must have some great counter examples to these Catholic groups and keep up. Catholics are a minority of the American population. Even still, they're only like 22%. Right? And historically they were not big. We've pointed this out before, but even during the revolution in the United States, they were around 1.5% of the population.And even in the state that is sort of as the Catholic State, Maryland, they were only around 13% of the population. So what's is itSimone Collins: that the, that the Catholic Church itself teaches them bureaucratic organization, like how to build a hierarch functional? We'll, we'll getMalcolm Collins: in, we will get into that. So the only a large or even remotely large non-Catholic immigrant.Organized crime organization able to find were the Chinese tongs. So they emerged in the late 19th century in Chinatowns, particularly in New York and San Francisco as mutual aid societies for Chinese immigrants, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But obviously like you haven't heard of the tongs, so they're, they're not quite as big.Right? Yeah, I'veSimone Collins: heard of theMalcolm Collins: triad.Simone Collins: Remember,Malcolm Collins: but the triad never really set up here. Then you have my favorite one was I didn't know that there was a Jewish mob called Murder Inc. There was specifically, well, a little on theSimone Collins: nose.Malcolm Collins: I, it's a little on the nose, right. So, they specialize in carrying out contract killings and carried out between 400.Well, what do you know, thousand orders in the 1930s. I guess that makes sense. YouSimone Collins: know, when people are like, you know, A plus plumbing co. I mean, yeah, be straightforward about what you're selling.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. I was like, I was like, this is, this is a, a, a great counter example. And then I read more about Murder Inc.And, and No Murder Inc worked for the Italian Mafia. They were, they were set up it seems, even by the mafia itself. Before, why would the outsource toSimone Collins: Jews for contract killing just 'cause they didn't, they didn't want it in the family Like that made it too awkward.Malcolm Collins: I think maybe Jews were just better at it.I can see Jews being uniquely good at contract killing. Nothing about, I mean, just look at, look at how good a job they did was the, was the pager exploder thing in? OhSimone Collins: gosh. Right? Yeah. They get the job done. That's true. Need beMalcolm Collins: secretive about something like this. I can see, you know, a, a, a cultural specialization.Again, this is not saying, I know.Simone Collins: I feel like, so these days if someone were like, Simone, and you just hire someone to kill someone. I mean, I've heard that like people who take hits in Mexico are taking them for like 50 bucks. I feel like that's the opportunity. It's just yolo down arbitrage. You wanna import country?Well, I mean more frugal people. Malcolm. I mean, you don't wanna frugal.Malcolm

Join Simone and Chance as they delve into the surprising history of sexual norms from the 1920s to the 1950s. They analyze how societal standards have shifted, particularly in terms of public nudity, mutual masturbation among men, and the transition from nudist cultures to more private norms today. The discussion includes various practices such as key parties, public porn viewing, and even sexual behaviors involving animals. Chance and Simone also touch on contemporary issues, such as the impact of the legalization of gay marriage on today's DEI and trans right movements, and how modern technology and societal changes have influenced our views on sex and nudity. Hello Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be talking about the way that our society used to be. And I don't mean like in Roman or ancient Greece. I'm talking 1950s, 1920s. Much more debauched than it is today. Oh, the areas where sexual norms are tightening rather than loosening.And we're gonna try to build a model to understand in which areas does sexual norms seem to loosen over time, and in which areas does sexual norms seem to tighten over time? So just to throw you guys in the deep end here, if you're like, wow. Come on. Things couldn't have been that much more sexually loose in like the 1950s.Well, around that time period, and we'll get to the specifics later in this, around 40% of young men participated in mutual masturbation with other young men. This was normal. If you have four grandparents you're dealing with. What? Like that. Oh, why did you to take it there, chance? One of them did thisgiven that all of you have four great-grandfathers, that means there is an 87% chance that one of your great-grandfathers participated in something like this.I am gay.In today's society, basically, no guy does this.This is like, no, only for gay guys. Okay.I don't even know if it's for gay guys. I don't know, man. Well,and this is something of you're like, wait. Is this continuing to happen? It happened to me when I was going through with an AI asking like, where has sexual norms tightened? Yeah. And it's like, well, of course, a long time ago they used to have public showers in schools for the boys and the girls.And now it's all private stalls. And I totallyremember in my high school gym, there were, I remember this too. I was like, what? Yeah, they got rid of that. Well, I, we never, one, we all changed for gym class, but we didn't show each other. Like we didn't, we changed very carefully and there were showers and I always wondered why, because we never No, no, no,no.I remember when they had that in my school, they had that in every school I ever attended. I never once used a public shower despite it being in every school I ever attended. And the somebody could be like, wait. What it's like because they were already, these norms were already changing within our generation that I knew it was weird to be naked around other boys my age.And I didn't want to do that even though the facilities were still structured that way. And a lot of the schools that are doing these changes now are saying, well, if we leave them the old ways, no one will use them. Right. And that'sfair because no one used them at my school. It was wasted space.Yeah. No one used them at my school anymore.They were from like a previous era where and I've seen shows like apparently this was the thing that happened at one point in human history. And I think that if you were on like maybe the football team or something, there might have been some norms around using them. Like if you got like really sweaty and gross in whatever sport you were doing.Maybe they used public showers, but even then, I can't imagine they used them in the girls' rooms. Had you, had you ever seen a group of girls using the public showers at the same time?So on swim team, we did all use the shower, but we never took our clothes off. We showered in our swimsuits.Oh, fascinating.Yeah. And that's why it's,it's really weird with that one. Like there are stories of that one trans swimmer just having their junk out in the women's locker room. The locker room. Yeah. That's 'cause dude, like we didn't even have our tits out in the, in the locker room. Like it was just the most you'd ever seen was the most you'd ever see out there.Or the what? Lindsay? Lindsay Thomas, right?Leah Thomas.Leah Thomas. There we go. Yeah. Yeah. Sothis individual for people don't know this trans swimmer, they didn't have bottom surgery when they were doing all this. They were flashing underage girls in, in a swim swimming locker. Yeah. Butalso like, at least where I went to school in California, which is pretty progressive, no one in the girls locker room ever took off their clothes.Right. But, but the point, so even in camp, when we were in camp together, all this like, you know, there's all these like eighties. Movies of one, like locker rooms and like, oh gosh, look, her body's so perfect. But also like, men looking

Join Malcolm and Simone as they discuss the shifting landscape of the job market and how we need to adapt both our professional lives and parenting strategies to a future dominated by AI and automation. They explore the historical context of traditional jobs, the rise of gig work, and the proliferation of AI, and reflect on practical steps to prepare the next generation, including fostering AI literacy, hands-on skills, and strong personal networks. The conversation also touches on the implications of Universal Basic Income and the need for children to build unique, high-value skills in a rapidly changing economic environment. Our solutions: - https://parrhesia.io/student-signup - https://wizling.ai/ Hello, Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today, we are going to be discussing the fact that if you are young, Today, or you are raising kids today, you need to be raising them for a post job economy.Yeah.Making very different decisions about the way that you help them prep for, well, being financially stable as an adult. And it also means in terms of your own decisions. I think for a lot of us, we will be in a post job world. What do you think? 25 years?Yeah, well, the future is here. It's just not evenly distributed.I think there are many people now who are losing their jobs and we'll never get one again, period. Mmhmm. And here when I say job, I mean traditional nine to five, like recurring revenue. That is, and Simone, do you want to go into like what is causing the end of the concept of a job? And I first note here for a lot of people who think that this is like an insane thing, jobs are a fairly recent invention.They were really only invented as like a math thing in like the 1920s.And this concept of having a lifelong job and getting a gold watch and having a pension that I, it was such a short lived phenomenon. It's hard for me to imagine that, like, how did we ever get that impression that it was going to be that way forever?Yeah. Go into this.Yeah. So I think already for a long period of time, we've seen a very slow easing into this and it hasn't just been about AI. And I think that also the way that job reports are coming in there's a lot of under reporting because obviously they're not reporting people who stopped looking for a job entirely and the number of people who are living now by gig work and piecing together a lot of jobs, including short term jobs, is just so high now.I don't, and I count those as jobs and I don't think most people count them as like long term jobs either because they're not sustainable, they get laid off all the time or they change jobs all the time. So I wantto elevate something you said here because I think that a lot of people might miss this.And it's what was the economic pressure that led to the concept of a nine to five job that stopped existing long before AI? The reason why you had quote unquote jobs and the skyscrapers that house these people back in the day, it was largely due to the difficulty of long distance communication.So,If I was a company and I wanted somebody who was. at X task. Okay. And I wanted to be sure I had somebody who is competent at X task this year and I had somebody who is competent at X task in 10 years or five years or next year. The most cost efficient way to get one of those people was to source.A competent sort of blank slate and train them in that task. Maybe somebody who had a bit of training in that task to begin with. And so the way I would do this is I would go to the most elite universities or the universities in my area as sort of an authentication mechanism. I would find individuals who are graduating.And I would say, okay how well, you know, how well are you? Like, how smart are you generally? And I can get that from their GPA. And then I would hire them. And then I would train them up as much as I could for a specific task. And you saw a lot of like rotation programs start for this, for like management jobs, you saw a lot of, but, but that was the idea.It was, it was not that these companies cared about people. It was that it was efficient and this is why you had to go.More than that, it was worth it for them to invest in training, which is another clear sign to, I think, many people intuitively already that permanent jobs and stable jobs are gone forever.No one trains anyone anymore. This idea of like apprenticeship and investing in someone's training is just non existent. People expect you to come out of the box completely ready to go on day one with absolutely zero support. This isn'ttotally true. Slow moving organizations, rotational programs still exist and stuff like that, but they're being phased out.They're totally being phased out. And I feel like they, they didn't really, they didn't have high efficacy. So,so this worked because if you were trained in this stuff and you were in most cities, there really wasn't that much mobility you had, you know, you might be able to go work for one other competitor or som

In this episode, the hosts discuss the transformation of conservative ideologies, critiquing the 'pearl-clutching' mentality of pre-MAGA conservatism. Through the lens of two contrasting anime series, WataMote & Chunibyo, they explore how different cultural contexts affect mental health and the worldview of individuals. They also delve into a recent article critiquing their unconventional lifestyle and highlight their belief in living authentically with aligned values. Moreover, the conversation covers various aspects of modern conservatism, the impact of AI, and the importance of maintaining passion and creativity in one's approach to life. No Matter How I Look at It, It's You Guys' Fault I'm Not Popular! Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions this guy represents is the iteration of the conservative party.That the conservative party lost the, the pearl clutches, the, oh my God, how could they be doing something different? Oh my God. How could this be vulgar? Oh my God. How could this be, you know, oh, anime girls or soft anime, like Matt Walsh represents satisfaction, right?Yeah. Like where it's always railing against things like anime and video games,She is friends Now we're not gonna be able to karaoke with the guys. No way. We've got plenty of time and they're dumb slides.Then we have the second anime that we're going to be talking about. And people could argue that all of MAGA is kind of doing it,It openedThis is hard to watch NGO Blast.Would you like to know more?Hello Simone. I am excited to be talking to you today. Today we are going to be talking about two things. One is. Contrasting two animes in which the main characters relate to the world very differently.And I think through the contrast of these two characters, we can learn a lot about mental health and how both the urban monoculture, but also the older conservative culture ends up breaking apart people's minds and causing them to go sort of crazy. But we will also be focused on how. Much I have disdain for the pre maga form of conservatism.Mm-hmm. Or specifically the form of it that didn't like grow up when conservatism became MAGA , a great example of this and what got me thinking about this was , a article that came out about us recently by this guy who was just absolutely railing on us.. You're referring to a piece that came out in the Bulwark. It's called The Two Faces of Tism, and it's by Jonathan last, who Yes. Apparently also wrote a book on Tism at one point, which I guess is one reason why he feels like he's just figured it out. Yeah, so perhaps the second and third most famous ISTs in America are Michael and Simone Collins, Dr. Not Malcolm. He really does his research, doesn't he? He really does his research, thanks to many, many press profiles of this activist, 30 something couple, which he is not read apparently. Yeah. Here's a sample of their views on parenthood.Every decision the Collins is make is backed by data. Noms determinism is a heavily studied field. Malcolm tells me when I ask about his children's names. Girls that have gender neutral names are more likely to have high paying careers and to get stem degrees. Names like Titan Industry are much more than gender neutral.I say we wanted to give our kids strong names. We wanted our kids to have a strong internal locus of control. He continues, almost all the toys are gifts. Malcolm says almost apologetically. We don't throw out anything that gets. Sent to us. Both boys have their own iPads fitted with a strap so they can wear them around their necks.2-year-old Torsten is alone somewhere with his well jokes on them. The kids broke those straps so fricking fast. Yes they take me upstairs as well as having separate offices. Simone and Malcolm sleep in different bedrooms. Simone shows me some decorations in the living room. They relate to the intentionally constructed religion, technically atheist.They have internally developed to provide a moral framework promoting their values for prenatal as families. Instead of Christmas, they have future day. The future police come and take their toys, and then they have to write a contract about how they're gonna make the world a better place to get their toys back with some gifts and stuff.They get more gifts when they do whatever They said they were going to do, what does Christmas teach them? Get random toys if you're vaguely good. And so that was a quote that he had from a different article and so, you know, here I am. Yeah. Specifically the Guardian article. Yeah. I read that and I'm like, yeah, that sounds pretty interesting and cool, like mm-hmm.Obviously we're not going along with what's socially normative, but like. Yeah. And he's like, I am not one to judge other parents, but that's f up. Let me proceed to judge. You're right. No, but the, the point I'm making here is that this is an individual who is like, oh. GFA clutch, my pearls. People are doing things new.So I looked up this guy and I go, what else is he known for? He's known for

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