Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins explore the controversial idea of bringing back the concept of the “concubine” (or courtesan) in modern relationships. They contrast two distinct relationship models: the true wife/housewife — a full business and life partner who advances the family’s interests — versus the courtesan/tradwife/trophy wife model, where the woman’s primary role is pleasure, aesthetics, and appearance rather than deep partnership.

Drawing on history, labor statistics, and cultural critique, they discuss how women historically contributed far more to subsistence and family businesses than modern narratives suggest. They examine why many people today unconsciously seek unpaid courtesans, the problems with “ornamental” relationships, and how clear terminology can lead to better-aligned marriages. Topics include trophy wives as a profession, Real Housewives culture, objective-function alignment in relationships, and practical advice for high-achieving men and women.

Episode Transcript

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] what I like about the term courtesan is it helps separate between a true housewife and the more modern tradwife, which I think is closer to a - courtesan.

If you look at the tradwife, right, the tradwife makes everything look pretty, right? She, , does up the house. , She does the baking from scratch and everything. And she’s doing all that for appearance. She’s doing all that to, to sell, , that he has a certain type of wife.

But, like, she’s not actually managing the family budget, right? Like, she’s not actually managing the deeper parts of the family. And many people who society at large would confuse, they would say, “Well, this woman stays at home and educates the kids , as part of her duties, therefore she’s the same type of thing as this trad woman.”

Speaker: Specifically, we will be delineating two categories of relationships. One, the courtesan relationship, where the woman believes that their core job vis-a-vis their partner is just their [00:01:00] partner’s pleasure and reproducing. Whereas the other, the true wife or housewife, sees their job as being fully integrated with their husband’s life and advancing the interests of their family.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be expanding on a concept that a fan came up with in response to a previous video, and it is that we should bring back the concept of concubine. And when I first heard this I was like, well, we don’t wanna normalize sort of, you know, promiscuous behavior in this regards.

There’s a lot of negative social externalities for doing it. But after they laid it out for me, I’m like, actually we, we need to start having a conversation about this. We need to normalize this concept. This is a good concept So let me explain. We had a video where we basically go over the history of male [00:02:00] and female labor.

And what we pointed out using a lot of statistics, a lot of historical examples, is the modern idea that throughout history men mostly did all the labor and women mostly stayed at home and did education and child-rearing, is just completely historically anachronistic. Women actually did the majority and I, and I mean the majority of b- like grueling labor, like, repetitive

Simone Collins: tasks.

But y- y- subsistence, subsistence labor. So sort of your baseline food and, and everything else was more or less

Malcolm Collins: handled by the- Yeah, yeah. If, if you’re talking about, like, the majority of, of, of human history was during the hunter-gatherer period, that’s 95% of human history women were doing 60 to 70% of the calories in those societies.

And then you transition to an agricultural society, and in most agricultural societies women do the farming until the plow was invented. And then somebody else was like, “And this is men.” Men plow for, like, 200 years and go, “F it, I’m [00:03:00] making a tractor.” Women do hoe-based farming for literally thousands of years, and continue to do it exactly the way they’ve always done it.

By the way, hoe-based farming, the fact that Simone loved from that episode that she just cannot get enough of, is we pointed out that the idea of women staying at home and not really doing much except for child-rearing and education came from the, the, like, sort of middle class wealthy whites in America during a, a short window of, like, the 1910s to the 1970s.

And it was like, well, what about poorer people during that period? And this is where the word hoe comes from, is it was because specifically Black women, but though I suspect that this is like, you know, it- nowadays they try to racialize a lot of things that weren’t racialized. It probably just meant poorer women in general were hoes because they worked the farm.

And that’s what made them hoes. So it didn’t mean a, a promiscuous woman. It meant a poor, uneducated woman. But we, we start talking about all this. And by the way, if you’re wondering, like, what were the types of work that men did historically, they typically did [00:04:00] things tied to war or things tied to artisanship.

So if you needed a cobbler or a woodcutter or a builder or an architect or a sailor, like, if it required a huge amount of skill outside of textiles, it was typically men doing it. And, and don’t underestimate how much work textiles were. Or how much work- Yeah ... other things that people dismiss, like weeding.

Weeding your garden is one thing. Weeding a field that’s feeding a family is significantly more work than plowing it for anyone who’s ever weeded. Weeding is, is difficult, backbreaking, and recurring labor. But which was typically a woman’s job, by the way. But when in the sort of fallout from this episode, people were going through it and they said, “You know what?”

Because we were talking about the way that women historically actually structured their relationship with men, right? Like, if the man was doing some sort of artisanal job like say a butcher or a cobbler or a blacksmith the wife would typically manage the book, manage the finances, manage the [00:05:00] storefront, manage the marketing, manage the y- the, the sourcing of goods.

And we put this out there, and we put it out with the concept of, like, a sword-and-shield relationship in a modern context, which is, like, the wife is in charge of the more stable part of the income and the man is in charge of, like, entrepreneurship, like big fish, like moving the family forwards. And a lot of people who are actually, and I think what we would consider more trad relationships, still really related to this concept.

They were like, “Well,” like while I or ... Because we have a lot of housewife listeners. So, “While I or my wife,” this was actually more rare “take on what society would call a housewife job, that is not actually what I’m doing. I actually manage our investments, I manage our finances, I manage our taxes, I manage you know, the, the sort of procuring and stocking the, the, the home with supplies, getting things fixed.

I manage like a huge variety of stuff.” And we then began to talk about [00:06:00] how there’s a new type of woman that has come to exist that isn’t this type of woman. So this type of woman is engaging in what the married wife has always done, right? Which is to say, they join ... And, like, historically, if you went to a blacksmith historically, right?

And you sat him and his wife down, and you’re like, “Look, lady, I know you manage the storefront and the money and the taxes and all that, but you shouldn’t,” right? Like, “Your husband should manage all that.” And what she would of course say is, “But then he’s gonna have less time to make stuff.”

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And, and you’re like, “Well, yeah, but like, you know, he’s a man, you’re a woman.”

And she’d look at you and be like, “But, like, that money doesn’t just go to him. It goes to the entire family. You’re telling me to be arbitrarily poorer so that I can, what? Sit at home and twiddle my, my thumb all day?” Like, “What, what’s the advantage to me [00:07:00] to stepping back from this when our fortunes,” as used to historically be the case in relationships, “are completely tethered together?

As he does better, I do better. As he does worse, I do worse. Why would I not help him in the ways that I can help him?” And people said, “There’s this new type of woman who doesn’t think that way.” And this is where the concept of concubine makes sense-

Simone Collins: Mm ...

Malcolm Collins: in bringing back, is that be they married or not, there is a certain type of woman who does not believe that she should be adding anything substantial to the relationship in terms of intellectual labor or labor more broadly, right?

Like-

Simone Collins: She’s purely ornamental.

Malcolm Collins: She is purely ornamental. And she may still have his kids, as concubines did historically, but she doesn’t, she- she’s not a part of, like, a team where both people are pushing things [00:08:00] forwards. And the moment I heard this, I was like, “That’s a really good effing point.” Because if we can re-normalize the concept of a concubine, we can re-normalize the fear of being seen as a concubine.

Now, thought, Simone, before I- I- I yap further, as they say on Twitch now that I know, ‘cause I- I- I do the Twitch. They say, “Yapping.”

Simone Collins: Are we old?

Malcolm Collins: By the way, did you know what a raid is on Twitch? I didn’t know what a raid was.

Simone Collins: Is it when a bunch of people from someone else’s stream go onto yours?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, that’s what I thought it was.

It’s not.

Simone Collins: What is it?

Malcolm Collins: So, what happens is when you sign off Twitch, because you’ll likely have a bunch of people still watching you, like at the end of Lee’s late stream it’s still, like, well over a thousand you can set it to automatically send all those people to another streamer.

Simone Collins: Oh.

Malcolm Collins: And that’s called a raid.

Simone Collins: Oh, that’s cool. And you do this as a social thing. That’s why people say, “Thanks for the raid,” so and so. Nice. Okay. Yeah. I- I like the [00:09:00] idea... One reason why I like the idea of the courtesan is I think that it at least helps to create it- it helps to highlight what a normal wife actually is and that this thing that people are optimizing for now as a default, which is the courtesan.

Most people now, when they’re looking for a partner, seem to be describing an un- m- a courtesan, but an unpaid courtesan, and I think that’s also really important. Mm. They want a companion that is attractive, that will make them happy that is, that is going to, like, entertain them. But for whatever reason, they also expect that, that they’re not gonna have to, like- Pay for or support this person, like sugar daddy style.

And that just is inherently unsustainable.

Malcolm Collins: I mean, I think a lot of them do plan to p- well, I, I actually like these two versions. So let, let, let’s break this out, ‘cause I think you’re, you’re creating an interesting distinction here, [00:10:00] which makes it even worse, right? Where a woman or may say, “I’m not a courtesan.

I go to work and I earn my own money,” right? Mm-hmm. And it’s like, actually you’re worse than a courtesan in that part. Like I, I don’t know what word we should make for this type of woman, but I’ll describe what I’m talking about.

Simone Collins: But women do it to men, too. They want the man to be attractive and to entertain them and make them happy and pleasure them.

Malcolm Collins: Most-

Simone Collins: But they also don’t expect to like

Malcolm Collins: invest anything in them ... most women expect men to pay into a family coffer.

Simone Collins: Mm.

Malcolm Collins: There are many women who do the exact opposite, and this is what I’m talking about here, the lower than a courtesan woman. Mm. This is a woman who gets married to a guy and she sees her role as entertaining him, having sex with him you know, and entertaining can mean like playing video games with him or something.

You know, wh- whatever it means to, watching movies with him at night, you know, whatever, right? Like courtesan stuff. Because this is the modern version of courtesan stuff. But sh- worse, worse than all of that, she still has a [00:11:00] job, but she takes the income she makes from that job and she treats it as entirely her own.

Right? Like it’s money just for her. This woman is less, and, and y- I’m sure everyone has seen women online who are like this. The guy makes money and it’s for everyone in the family. The girl makes money, it’s just for her fun stuff,

Simone Collins: right? Is that really common? I don’t, I don’t-

Malcolm Collins: Very common. Very common.

Yeah.

Simone Collins: I mean, I watch a lot of, like, couples finance shows, and that’s not what I see. I, I, I don’t think that’s, that is what you think it is.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. Well, if, if anyone is doing this, they are less than a courtesan. They’re literally an unpaid courtesan. He’s not even keeping you, right? Like you’re out there being a hoe to capitalism and being a hoe for your husband.

Well,

Simone Collins: I understand that, but that’s, I don’t, I think that’s a straw man. I think what’s really common is, one, I mean, we, we did-

Malcolm Collins: Audience, audience, in the comments, do you know people who have done this?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Continue, Simone.

Simone Collins: Recently there was a term for, [00:12:00] like courtesan that was more modern, and it was trophy wife, and people did treat this as a profession.

We know people, Yeah ... who absolutely, like as, and like by treat this as a profession, I mean treat it as a profession, I mean like watched- corn to learn how to perform as people might desire. Starved self to fit it right size. You know, invested in the right clothing. And then, you know, once actually paired, and we’ll say employed as a trophy wife working extremely hard to make dinners special, to make holidays special, to to provide all the, you know, pleasure and enjoyment.

Famously when Marie Antoinette was first introduced to the French court and to King Louis the, the XV he, she, she made an inquiry about the, the king’s courtesan at the time. I think it was Madame Bovary. I’m really, I, I’m so bad with names. But the- Sorry ... her in-

Malcolm Collins: Wait, hold on. Hold [00:13:00] on.

Hold on. Simone’s like, “I’m bad with names,” that she cannot remember one of the king’s courtesans during a particular period of the French court. This shows you the level of history nerd that Simone is.

Simone Collins: I know. So I’m like, all right. I, I, I can name most of them- I cannot name the courtesan’s names ... from, for, for Louis XIV because the love the, the book on the love life of King Louis XIV is amazing.

And there’s Athenais, there’s Madame de Maintenon, there’s all these amazing women. But I, I don’t, I, I think it’s Madame de Bovary. Anyway so Marie Antoinette, this, this young teen bride of King Louis, well, future King Louis XVI asks, you know, “Who, who is this woman?” And her, essentially her advisor you know, a- another noble woman in the court is like, “Ah that is, you know, so and so.

Her job is to give pleasure to the king.” And her being this, like, really innocent, kind of like sheltered, you know, Austrian woman would be like, “Well then, you know, we are rivals because I want to give pleasure to the king.” And she’s like, “Oh, you don’t understand, girl.” Like, not, no. But like it was very well understood that their [00:14:00] profession was to give pleasure to this person.

And I think that people who took the trophy wife career seriously, and we know people who did, understand that their job is to give pleasure to their partner and also to raise their social status. Because it was understood that as a trophy wife, they have to make them look good in a certain way.

And so they, they dress their husbands carefully. They manage their husband’s style. They manage the husband’s household. They make their houses look good. They host events. And that was taken very seriously, and I think that that role r- really degraded, and you can see it very well in the Real Housewives series, where suddenly this idea of the trophy wife was transitioned to, no, she is the main character.

She is not an ornamental courtesan whose job is to give pleasure to her husband and raise you know, make him look good. And make him happy. Her job is to just like, “I’m gonna do what I want, and I have my businesses, and I’m gonna, you know, sell dog shoes for charity,” or something like that.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: And and they’re incredibly dysfunctional, et cetera, et [00:15:00] cetera.

Speaker 7: I started this charity because I saw so many dogs having to walk the hot streets of Orlando without any protection on their feet. But it’s also personal. This one time I lost my high heels on the beach. And I was looking around for them, like over a half an hour.

Ugh. It was awful. So with your help, each dog will receive their own pair of high heels, and for that you can be very proud.

Simone Collins: So that, that role fell apart. And I think as that role fell apart, we, we sort of forgot that this was a profession and a track in marriage, and that there are two tracks. You can be a trophy wife, but you have to be trophy wife for someone who can afford to keep you. And I think what in- also degraded was that a lot of people just assumed that they were going to marry [00:16:00] functionally a courtesan and not a business partner.

We forgot that marriage was an arrangement first and foremost to just establish paternity of children and like inform the community to like, “Don’t sleep with my wife ‘cause I need to make sure that like the line of paternity is secure.” But also to establish a business alignment and have a, a husband and wife work together.

And, and we, with the Industrial Revolution dropped that. Well, the, like

Malcolm Collins: business alignment, right? Like, when you are the same person... We had a documentarian r- asking us recently, like, “When do you guys fight?” Like, “Tell us about fights.” And I’m like, “We just don’t have fights.” Like, because

Simone Collins: we don’t- We have tactical disagreements which we resolve by obtaining better evidence.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Like, why would we, why would we fight when we have the same goals? Any disagreement we have is an academic disagreement.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. I

Malcolm Collins: think- But no,

Simone Collins: no, the, the key distinction here is that people need to understand that if you are hiring the equivalent [00:17:00] of a, a, a paid entertainer and performer, it is your responsibility to be able to pay for and keep them.

And that person needs to understand that it’s, it is their responsibility to in turn perform and give pleasure and make you look good. And our, our media landscape has, has degraded even that. Especially through the, the Real Housewives series, has just made it been like, oh, no, they, they don’t live to make their

Malcolm Collins: husbands happy.

Well, what I find interesting about the point that you’re making here, by the way and it is, it is just absolutely a fascinating point which is that the idea of re-normalizing the concept of the courtesan doesn’t just help trad wife marriages, it also helps courtesan marriages. Yeah. Because it helps remind them of what their actual role is in the marriage when they adopt this.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: They are both disposable and less than a true wife. Mm-hmm. If they are not [00:18:00] contributing their intellect... And note here, we had one follower reach out in regards to this, and he’s like, “Well- You know, I’m very successful now. I run a company now, so how am I gonna g- find a wife? Like, do I have to leave it all behind and start something new with them, right?

Like, how, how do I make this work, right? And there’s multiple ways you can make it work. One is to integrate somebody who shows competence and diligence and work ethic into your existing operation, right? Like, that is something that a lot of people have done historically. But then another is, which is probably better, is, is, is figure out what they value that you value, right?

Presumably if you’re making a lot of money with your company, there’s some way you wanna change the world and working with them to start that organization, right? Like, a, a wife, wife who is working for your combined goals can still work philanthropically, right? Like, but, but so long as they’re efficient and effective at it, and they’re not just doing it to boost their own ego and status, right?

And you’ll [00:19:00] be able to tell this very quickly. Do they actually care about these things, or are they interested in status boosting?

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: But yeah, that’s a, that’s an interesting point. And so this is what I want from the audience. I want... What is the, what is the lower tier of trophy? Because I, I, I think...

And I don’t think the trophy wife is good, because trophy wife as, as a saying is too narrow, right? Like, a lot of people who wanted the life of a courtesan didn’t think of themselves as trophy wives, because they didn’t just want the, the traditional trophy wife guy, right? And and, and note here that what I like about the term courtesan is it helps separate between a true housewife and the more modern tradwife, which I think is closer to a cour- courtesan.

If you look at the tradwife, right, the tradwife makes everything look pretty, right? She, like, does up the house. She d- does in her stupid outfit. She- ... you know, she’s a, she, she does the baking from scratch and everything. [00:20:00] And she’s doing all that for appearance. She’s doing all that to, to sell, both to herself and her husband, that he has a certain type of wife.

But, like, she’s not actually managing the family budget, right? Like, she’s not actually managing the deeper parts of the family. And many people who society at large would confuse, they would say, “Well, this woman stays at home and educates the kids as, as part of her duties, therefore she’s the same type of thing as this trad woman.”

And yet one of these women is living the life of a courtesan, where she’s sitting around all day, you know, either playing video games or reading, you know, romance novels or whatever, and the other one is, is working all day long, right? Like, for the good of the family, for moving the family’s interests forwards.

And these are two very different- and, and note here because I know some trophy wives and courtesans who’d be like, “Well, I am doing it for the family.” And I’m like, “Does the rest of the family care about these social circles you’re trying to ingratiate yourself with?” And if the answer is no, then you’re not doing it for the family.

You’re doing it for [00:21:00] yourself, and you’re defining what has value on behalf of the family. Which is obviously, I think, very bad. That’s, like, worse than anything like that because it’s like you’re, you’re defining the good of the family and that needs to always be a collective decision. And if you can’t convince your husband that what you think is valuable for the family is valuable for the family, yet he’s still letting you do it, then you’re acting as a courtesan.

You are not acting as a wife. Thoughts.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I mean, I, I agree with you. But largely people have lost the plot and people are very much stuck in their own minds, focused on these... It’s not, it’s not even selfish because people aren’t doing things that would actually make them happy, ironically.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, they aren’t.

They’re, these courtesans are typically less happy than

Simone Collins: wives They’re caught in what I guess I could describe as cultural delusions. They’re, they’re stuck in cultural loops and cultural delusions and pursuing [00:22:00] them to their personal detriment, the detriment of their partner, and the detriment of the relationship.

This isn’t exclusive to women. It happens to men, too. And the most important thing is that when you’re looking for a partner, you’re looking for someone who shares your objective function. They want to maximize the same thing or cluster of things that you do, and you both realize that you work well enough together that by combining forces, you will both maximize your objective function, the thing that matters more to you than your own self, more as a team than you will individually.

And if that’s true- Yeah ... you never have to worry about so long as you both, you know, continue your pursuit of this objective function, you’re never going to fight because you understand that both you know, your, your job isn’t to just be happy and get what I want and, you know, every fight isn’t about, well, what I want versus what you want.

Every disagreement you may ever have is really more like, well [00:23:00] tactically, how are we going to maximize what we both collectively value?

Malcolm Collins: Yes.

Simone Collins: And just as an emergent property, you’re going to try to make the other person happy and have, have a good life because you understand, as any good employer does, as any good army general does that, you know, if your troops, if your team is happy and healthy and thriving, they’re going to do a better job.

You know? It’s, you’re not gonna get really good work out of someone who’s demoralized or sleep deprived or sad or who feels alienated. So just as- As an emergent property, you’re gonna try to be nice to this person. And people in general tend to be nice to other people who share their interests. Plus, there’s nothing that gives greater contentment and happiness than knowing that you are doing everything you can within your power to maximize something you value.

It takes the FOMO out of life. There is no fear of missing out because you are always doing the very best you can to maximize your basket of [00:24:00] values. So there’s, there’s very little indecision there. Contrast that with the modern real housewife or the modern even just like dink couple, and there’s intense levels of FOMO.

It’s like, “Oh, well, you know, we decided to max out our credit card and travel to Greece this summer. But should we have gone to Tokyo instead? I don’t know.” And then they get to Greece, and it’s so hot, and it’s really expensive, and then their flight gets canceled. You know, like all these things. And, and, and you know, you’re wondering, “Well, could I, could I have been happier if we did this?

I... Is this even what I enjoy? Am I just doing this ‘cause I’ve seen people doing it on Instagram?” Like, there’s just so, Even if what you wanna optimize is happiness, you’re, you’re not gonna find it with that kind of pursuit. So

Malcolm Collins: Oh, yeah. No, courtesans are never as happy as, as true wives, right?

Simone Collins: No, I... So I disagree.

I think that some of the most successful figures in history were courtesans. And they- But

Malcolm Collins: were they happy?

Simone Collins: [00:25:00] Yeah. But they... so to be a courtesan is I think very different from what people have devolved into now. You know, they, they had a career. For, for example, consider Madame Pompadour, who died young and, and was very much missed.

She was extremely intellectual. She influenced policy. She absolutely made the king happy. And she was very good at what she did, and she was very influential. Th- there are definitely people who, you know, know what they’re good at, and, and they love it. And, you know, that was her j- her job was to be, you know, smart and attractive and to give pleasure, and she did it well.

And that’s good. I think you need to, you need to understand what your role is in a relationship. What did she

Malcolm Collins: die of? Some venereal disease

Simone Collins: or- Some disease. It wasn’t a venereal disease. I can’t remember what. It was probably some sort of like pox or virus or whatever. People died all the time.

Malcolm Collins: I- We should, we should do an episode, famous sluts of history.

Simone Collins: Well, it wasn’t even always sluts. I mean, a, a lot of the people who ended up as, as, as courtesans you know, didn’t [00:26:00] necessarily want to be. But it just kinda turned out that way. But yeah, I, I, I don’t think it, I don’t think it’s about whether you choose courtesan track versus wife track. Or as a husband, whether you choose to get a courtesan versus a wife, or a wife and a courtesan.

Like, a lot of the guys in history g- had both. The, you know, you have to understand what your resources can, can

Malcolm Collins: bear. Well, I, I think also the idea of the courtesan even, even for the guy who decides to cheat on his wife or whatever, right? If you contextualize the person you’re cheating with as a courtesan, they are always less useful to you than the wife.

You’re less likely to imagine that they could become a wife, because they are not a wife. They are only there for your pleasure. They are a human oni hole. They are not actually a thing of value. And I think that’s why women-

Simone Collins: Well, I mean, I’ve always seen cheating as, like, a sign of extreme existential doubt, and not really necessarily

Malcolm Collins: interpersonal attraction.

What, what I mean is if you look historically, it’s very rare for people to leave their wives for their courtesans. Oh. [00:27:00] That just doesn’t happen. And but today it happens all the time, where people get confused. And using clearer terminology can prevent that.

Simone Collins: I suppose, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Also by the way, side note, Yeah

in terms of data we’re getting now, we’ve got 47 users on RFAB in the last 30 minutes.

Simone Collins: Nice.

Malcolm Collins: We’ve got so it’s like, you know, current users. And I turned on the gender thing which unfortunately I didn’t realize how much it sucked on Google. For 97.53% we can’t tell what the gender was.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But f- for the ones we can tell what the gender was 1.36 of them were males, and 1.1% of them are female.

So the male to female ratio is about equal.

Simone Collins: That’s good. Okay. Let’s

Malcolm Collins: go. And the time on site is about equal, too. For males it’s a bit over an hour, an hour and one minute. And for females, it’s 57 minutes and 50 seconds.

Simone Collins: Okay. Oh, favorable.

Malcolm Collins: So women use our site, too. And I cleaned up all the, the scoogy, like naked pics and stuff that people had in the [00:28:00] top for images, and I was like, “No.”

Simone Collins: Scoogy is a good word. Thank you for using it.

Malcolm Collins: Mm-hmm. And I’ve been preparing for battle.

Simone Collins: As one does. As one does.

Malcolm Collins: Gotta take out the the bad guys before they get to me. I just come like this, and I’m like, “I’m just moving the sword like this. If it hits you, it’s your fault.” That’s what I say on the battlefield, just go like this.

Simone Collins: Yeah, is that your move? That’s your go-to?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: The waggle?

Malcolm Collins: The just like, You really get moving ... the guy comes that way and like, I’m, “I’m just moving in a straight line. If I punch you, it’s your own fault.”

Speaker 9: on my way, I’m gonna be doing this. If you get hit, it’s your own fault. Okay. Then I’m gonna start kicking air like this. , Uh. Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh,

Simone Collins: oh, God. Well, yeah, I like this concept. I, I think people need to think really carefully about what they’re in it to do.

I, I was horrified when w- at one point joining a [00:29:00] parenting, a, a virtual parenting group comprised of very- High-profile people who just describe parenting as like, “Well, it’s just one of those things you do in life.” And I’m like, oh my God. Like, the number of people who just get married ‘cause it’s like, “Well, you know, like I was dating...”

It’s like musical chairs, you know? “I was dating them and like I hit my 30s, so then I proposed.” Like, what are you doing? This is, this is so weird that people wouldn’t take things like marriage and having kids extremely seriously and understand exactly why they’re doing it. And if the answer is, “Well, I don’t know, it seemed like a good idea at the time.”

I mean, I respect it, I guess. Like, I, I, I agree that people overthink things way too much, but also, yikes. So- That

Malcolm Collins: level of NPC. Well, that level of NPC I think is leading to the highest birth rate that we have right now. I mean, these are the people- Oh, God ... who are gonna replace the over-thinkers, Simone.[00:30:00]

Simone Collins: Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: The over-thinkers who wanna have kids are a small group.

Simone Collins: US birthrates updated again. At new record lows. The, the biggest drop in terms of age brackets, of course, was teen births. They saw a 7% drop. And the slight, I think a slight decline- Girl, don’t

Malcolm Collins: be a pussy ...

Simone Collins: in births for people in their 20s, and then a slight increase for people in their 30s.

So absolutely people are overthinking it or trying to be prepared. I, I don’t think, though, that, that you need to be a certain age to be capable of understanding why you’re doing things. I need, I think you need to understand just who you are and what you’re about. And Malcolm, you knew who you were and what you were about when

Malcolm Collins: we were in a relationship.

Oh yeah, I told you exactly what I was about.

Simone Collins: And you were like, “Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that makes sense.” And I mean, like from earlier writings of yours that I’ve seen and, you know, stories you’ve told, I don’t think you’ve changed all that much in what you’ve done. And ultimately I haven’t either.

It just happens to be that my personality manifests very differently given, [00:31:00] depending on the resources that I’m given, and I think women are a lot like that in general. That their, their phenotype will vary significantly depending on the environment, as it were. Anyway, I love you very

Malcolm Collins: much. Love you too, and have a spectacular day.

Simone Collins: You too.

Malcolm Collins: And you guys, no courtesans. Unless it’s a side chick, and then whatever.

Simone Collins: I don’t, I don’t know. I think, I think people should purs- if you wanna be a courtesan, pursue it professionally. Some people do this very successfully.

Malcolm Collins: Give the guy pleasure, make sure you’re actually doing your job.

Simone Collins: Sugar baby websites are a, a very big thing. People absolutely make careers out of it. They’re, they’re clear about what it is. I

Malcolm Collins: think that framing also helps guys know what they’re really looking for, because so often, you know, I see guys- when they say, “Well, this is what I’m looking for in, like, a wife,” and it’s like a list of kinks or something, and it’s like- It’s

Simone Collins: like-

I’m cucking ... no, you’re looking for a courtesan. Yeah. You’re not, you’re not looking for a wife. Wives aren’t that. Absolutely true. People need to understand the [00:32:00] difference. Yeah. And also, like, not everyone can afford a courtesan. Just to be clear. Love

Malcolm Collins: you, Simone.

Simone Collins: Bye. I’m

Malcolm Collins: sorry I’m being so tired at this time of day.

Just too much work.

Simone Collins: Yeah. You gotta sleep more. Ciao.

Malcolm Collins: Ciao.

Simone Collins: Kini-

Malcolm Collins: So how are things going today, Simone?

Simone Collins: I think both you and I have had a day today where we’re like-

Malcolm Collins: I’m out of it, yeah ...

Simone Collins: we’re done with this thing, and then, and then it just doesn’t, it doesn’t happen. And for you, it was development of the, the Vtuber setup and-

Malcolm Collins: I mean, I’m making progress. I’ve gotten through some of the hardest parts that I didn’t think I would find a solution for.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But I’m still on some of the second hardest parts that I didn’t think I’d find a solution for, so, just, you know, with RFAB that does, like, AI chatbots, AI adventure, like choose your own adventure stories, AI agents, AI vibe coding,

Simone Collins: AI-

Malcolm Collins: AI

Simone Collins: fact checking.

Malcolm Collins: Fact checking, yeah. We’ve got a super search that, like, outputs an AI [00:33:00] answer and then has other AIs run against it to check it so you can see from, like, a number of AIs, like, basically Yeah.

Which is very difficult, right? And so, that’s what I’m working on. I, I think I, I think I’ll get it through tomorrow. Like, it looks like we’re gonna get to the other side of this, and once I get to the other side of this it’ll be very cool because any of you guys who want, like, any, any AI that, like, makes a, a drawing for you, you’ll

Simone Collins: be

Malcolm Collins: able to rig that to a Vtuber avatar and maybe...

I mean, Vtubers are all cool now. We’re, like, we’re getting the whole, like, Vtuber wave right now, which I think is pretty cool and that’s where The Vtuber renaissance. Yeah, the Vtuber renaissance. And very, very excited about that. I, I even thought, like, after I did the Leaflet streams, because those go so well, right?

Yeah. Like, I’ve, I’ve looked at them and I’m like, “Oh my [00:34:00] God, I can talk for 10 hours straight?” People should have known

Simone Collins: that when they see that we’re not able to

Malcolm Collins: cut our videos down to, like, 20 minutes like normal humans. I mean, you can talk with Leaflet for, ‘cause she’s so awesome. I, you know, I don’t know if that would work with just anyone.

Simone Collins: It’d

Malcolm Collins: work with you

Simone Collins: Yeah, but I mean, you know, we’re freaking married. So there’s that.

Malcolm Collins: A lot of people are like, “You’re married to someone, you run out of things to talk about.” But like, not us.

Simone Collins: Not us. Man, not us.

Malcolm Collins: And for dinner tonight w- we’re gonna use that wild mushroom soup that you made that was so creamy and delicious, and have that with steak.

Mm-hmm. Which I think is gonna be absolutely spectacular. I’m really looking forward to it. I might not eat all the steak so we can have a bit more steak left over, cut that up, and then make some noodles with it or something. I think would be a lot of fun.

Simone Collins: [00:35:00] Mm.

Malcolm Collins: So we’ll see.

Simone Collins: Oh, like a, like a stir-fry, like- Like

Malcolm Collins: a stir-fry lo mein or

Simone Collins: something

wok-fried lo mein with... Yeah. So yeah, I’ll do the whole thing, and then just whatever you don’t eat I’ll slice and we’ll wok-

Malcolm Collins: Or fried rice. We haven’t done fried rice in ages. Oh my God,

Simone Collins: yeah. I mean, it’s...

Malcolm Collins: The problem is, with to really do fried rice right, you have to get it super, super hot, and that just requires so much more attention.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But you know, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll figure this all out. We’ll figure this all out.

Simone Collins: We shall.

Malcolm Collins: But it’s been so interesting to see the... By the way, did you see the video I sent you? The, the Leaflet one where... So Leaflet had done a video on our video, and it was taken down because I called our kids, affectionately, little b******s, because they are little b******s, and YouTube said that that was me harassing a minor.

Simone Collins: Even that, that’s even you self-censoring and not calling them little S-H-I-T-S, so-

Malcolm Collins: Which is a, it is a common term in the backwoods tradition. Yeah. It’s what I was called as a kid. Albion Seed list it as a common backwoods term of affection for children.

Simone Collins: Yeah, this, this was you being polite. I [00:36:00] mean, come on, guys.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. ‘Cause I tell fans I’m gonna try to cuss less on the show. I’m gonna try not cussing sometimes, unless it’s good for a joke. But yeah, we only really cuss when it matters. I don’t, don’t cuss for emphasis. But if it’s gonna make somebody laugh, you know- Mm ... that’s a different c- scenario altogether.

But anyway, so, She ends up getting banned for this, and then Rev Says Desu ends up covering her getting banned for this, and then in her video covering Rev Says Desu video about her getting banned for our show, she starts talking about how one of her friends was giving her advice, but she couldn’t say what friend, and then midway into the episode she’s just like, “Actually, I don’t think she’d care.

It was Simone.”

Simone Collins: Yeah, I don’t care. And,

Malcolm Collins: and then immediately afterwards Simone comes up because that’s what Rev said.

And now Asmogold has covered this,

Speaker 13: And actually the DMs are all bots too. Practically no communication here happens. I mean, if she’s not able... Listen, okay, if she’s not able to get it fixed in like, I don’t know, uh, a week or something like that, uh, she can reach out to me. I follow [00:37:00] her, she follows me, and I can help her get it resolved, or at least make sure that the decision was made by a human and not a random person.

I, I, I can do that. But hopefully it can re- get resolved on its own, ‘cause this is, this is outrageous. It, it, it’s not the way it should be.

Malcolm Collins: And it feels like we’re part of this, like, huge online creator, like, ecosystem now. Like we’re, we’re inching our way into that conservative s- the, the, the sphere, the, the intellectual talking sphere.

If Rev Says Desu is talking about us now, and Asmongold has talked about us, and so, like, we just gotta-

Simone Collins: He

Malcolm Collins: has? ... inch in, inch in. I

Simone Collins: mean- Oh, that one clip. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: One clip, but that’s how it starts. Like with Leaflet, there’s still the famous who the F is Leaflet, the first time- Yeah ... you heard about her.

A year later he’s, you know, he, he, he, he’s very familiar with her. Same with Nugzinnor, right? Like same with Rev Says Desu, who clearly knows Leaflet now but didn’t before, right? So, I should reach back out to Sidescrollers and do more stuff with them. The, the, the reason we stopped [00:38:00] doing stuff with them is he’s like, “Well, you guys aren’t that into the gamer space.”

And it’s like, well, now I own a game company, so I guess we are, so- Yeah,

Simone Collins: that’s true ... we’ll see.

Malcolm Collins: Or maybe I wasn’t entertaining enough. We’ll see.

Simone Collins: Twinkle in your and Bruno’s eyes when you were first on Sidescrollers.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. No, it’s really solid. Like I, like I’m, when I’m on Leaflet stream people will drop in and be like, “Our, RFAB is so much fun.

I love your, your website.” Like now there’s people who are fans of our website more than our show, which is surprising to me. I di- I didn’t think we’d get to this point.

Simone Collins: Delightful.

Malcolm Collins: Delightful, yeah. And it’s constantly being improved for people. Th- they get on and they’re like, “Oh, the card game broke this way,” and it’s like, well, let us know and we’ll try to fix it, right?

But right now I’m, I’m, I’m rushing with the Vtuber stuff ‘cause I’m really excited about that. Anyway, I will get started here.

Speaker 11: Other side of this tree over here. This looks pretty promising. Octavia, why don’t you go with mom? We’re looking for mushrooms, right? Yeah. I’m walking the trail. I will carry it by my, my [00:39:00] uncle. Maybe up here.

In this eye-opening Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dismantle one of the biggest historical myths pushed by both feminists and modern “trad” circles: the idea that women historically stayed home doing minimal work while men did everything.

Using cross-cultural evidence from hunter-gatherer societies, medieval Europe, Vikings, Spartans, ultra-Orthodox Jews, Islamic traditions, Africa, Latin America, India, China, Japan, and colonial America — plus genetic evidence from modern birds — they reveal the real division of labor: women handled the majority of reliable, grueling calorie production, farming (pre-plow), management, textiles, marketing, and household economy, while men focused on high-risk, high-reward activities like warfare, raiding, politics, and innovation.

They introduce the “Sword and Shield” model of relationships and explain how the industrial era, plow, and wage labor flipped traditional dynamics. A must-watch for anyone interested in real history, gender roles, and escaping modern cultural brainwashing.

Episode Transcript

Simone Collins: [00:00:00] The researchers say the finding is clear, but the reason behind it is still unknown. On average, men were able to get about one meter, 3.3 feet closer than women before the birds took off. This pattern appeared consistently across Czechia, France, Germany, Poland, and Spain.

It also held true across 37 species so Malcolm immediately turns to me and he’s like, “We know exactly why this is the case.”

Malcolm Collins: Yes. This is the question that explains everything we’re going to talk about today, and I think proves without a doubt that this is not some malcolm malcolmnipulation of historical facts. You have been in rural Latin America, right?

Simone Collins: Yes.

Malcolm Collins: Take an image in your head.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: You’re driving down a rural road. You look out the side of a car, okay? You see somebody with a 60 pound jug of something on their head.

Simone Collins: Oh, it’s a woman, obviously. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Always a woman.

Simone Collins: Always, always a woman. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: you go to Africa, you’ll see this as well. You go to-

Simone Collins: China too. Let’s be clear. China too. Right.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. ‘

Was it majority women doing the [00:01:00] harder labor when you’re-

Simone Collins: Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: 100%.

Yeah. Yeah. D-

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Guys, you do not know how brain cucked you are if, if a woman has convinced you, “ We just need to go back to the traditional way and I’ll stay at home and you do all this stuff.” Because you’re so strong, look at your muscles, could you open this jar for me? All you see as a woman, I could just never do anything.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. Today I’m going to talk to you about the most diabolical brainwashing mind trick that feminists and women have ever pulled on males in human society.

And it is that I will hear diet in the wool, males who identify as misogynist, red pill, post pickup artists, trads, go out there and say, “Well, we need to go back to the way things used to be, where women didn’t work and stayed in the household [00:02:00] and just cared for kids.” And I see their wives behind their fans with their villainous faces going.

Speaker 5: あ。

Simone Collins: oh my God.

Malcolm Collins: Their villainous laugh. Tucked their husband’s brains and their husbands believe that historically women didn’t work. And

Speaker 11: We must let

Malcolm Collins: misogynist,

Speaker 14: think this was his I all right. That he

Speaker 13: came up with.

Speaker 14: All

Speaker 12: right.

Speaker 14: Now

Speaker 13: he’s going to

figure

Speaker 12: it out. Don’t do all. Okay. I know what to take.

Speaker 11: You don’t know what to do. Yo talk, talk, talk only.

Speaker 12: Do

you

Speaker 14: want

Speaker 12: my own? Yes,

Speaker 11: I want you

Speaker 12: to know.

Speaker 14: Vula, how is business?

Speaker 12: Oh, wow to me.

My weak constitution, my weak mind as a woman, I am simply not fit for it.

Speaker 12: Business is bad.

Speaker 15: What do you know, what’s the matter? What’s happened?

She suffers?

Speaker 14: She suffers. She has to be at the travel agency alone all day

Well, her kids are all alone at home.

Speaker 14: That’s

Speaker 12: [00:03:00] right.

Speaker 15: So,

Take the kids with you to work.

Speaker 15: You’d be with Taki .

Speaker 12: That would be good.

Speaker 14: That would be no good. No good. No good. No good. Because, um,

When a woman has her kids around, she just can’t focus.

Speaker 14: And that’s why that no work. No work.

Speaker 15: .

I have your answer. Yes.

I will do all the work for you and you stay home all day with the kids.

Speaker 11: Oh, I, I can’t believe that. Wonderful. Wonderful.

Malcolm Collins: and I saw this in the comments again recently where like even- Oh

Simone Collins: really?

Malcolm Collins: Guys were like, “Well, women held some roles historically outside the house, but, you know, they weren’t like cobblers and they weren’t like sailors and they weren’t like, you know, stone masons.”

And it’s like all of that is true.

Simone Collins: Yeah. However,

Malcolm Collins: the way that all of those businesses were managed where if a guy [00:04:00] was a stone mason or a cobbler or anything like that, his books and his inventory sourcing and his client sourcing

generally would have been handled by the woman, but it wasn’t even just that. It was if you actually look at the statistics around female labor in history, women actually did, if you’re talking about hard labor, the labor that fed the family, right? Women actually did the majority of the work over the vast majority of human history.

If you go back to let’s say hunter gatherer society, for example, because we’ve been able to study this in a great detail women produced in terms of daily caloric intake between 80 and 60% of the calories that the family ate.

Simone Collins: Oh my gosh, really?

Malcolm Collins: This is 90 human history.

Simone Collins: Well, this, you know, this also makes sense in other things where you see sexual dimorphism.

For example, women being much [00:05:00] having much higher endurance and pain tolerance versus men who are better like sprinters.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Speaker 6: Or to word it another way, the female body and psychology at an evolutionary level are optimized for grueling labor while the male body in mind are optimized for warfare and disposability. Neither are totally optimal, but the idea that women are beautiful flowers designed to sit inside all day caring for children

Far from any risk of manual labor is probably the greatest feminist psyops of all time and completely a historic.

Simone Collins: . And yeah, that just, that, that really, that implies millions of years of higher workloads.

Malcolm Collins: And this is actually even true. And, and we’re gonna talk about like why this is the case because note people can be like, “But those just makes no sense.

I thought women, because they’re the weaker, they must do this work.” And it’s like, b***h, have you ever seen how lions make this s**t work? The male [00:06:00] lion sits around all day and the females bring in food because that’s the way human society is supposed to work.

Simone Collins: Oh God.

Malcolm Collins: And if you go back to the most trad iterations of human society, let’s go with the ultra orthodox Jews, okay?

In ultra Orthodox Jewish society, do men work? No.

Simone Collins: Oh God.

Malcolm Collins: Men don’t work. Women work. Men spend all day studying. You actually see this in,

Simone Collins: Studying. ...

Malcolm Collins: if you go to more primitive iterations of Islamic society, I remember this- Yeah. ... Morocco and are out in the desert.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: And we met you know, a traditionalist Muslim-

Simone Collins: Oh, yes.

Yes. ...

Malcolm Collins: and the men did not work. That was considered, like, very offensive, even the idea that a man would have a job, that is of course the purview of women to have jobs. And you could say, “Well, Malcolm, surely you don’t want us to be like those, those Muslims or those Jews.” And I’m like, “Well, actually, even if you go back to early European [00:07:00] society, most farming through most of human history was done by women.”

People are like, “What? I thought men handled farming.” And it’s like, actually, men only moved to handle the majority of farming after one particular invention. Do you know what it was?

Simone Collins: The ... Oh, what was it called? The ... I wanna say spinning Jenning because it’s just the first thing that, like, comes to mind.

The plow. The plow. Oh, great. Okay. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. In regions where the plow is not used due to soil conditions and stuff like that-

Simone Collins: Yeah. ...

Malcolm Collins: the majority of farming is typically done by w- women. Huh. In Europe, before the introduction of the plow, which happened a thousand AD. So pretty recently the majority of farming was done by women unless you were, like, having slaves do it or something like that.

But even when you were having slaves do it and you had, like, a big estate, the majority of the family’s work was still done by women because Zane managed the family’s household and finances, which we will get to. And so if you’re like, [00:08:00] wait, okay, if women were doing the majority of actual work throughout human history in terms of calorie acquisition, in terms of financial management what were men doing?

What was the male role in human history? Why were women okay taking on this role that seems to be, ... Because like imagine, and, and this is why I’m saying that, like, it’s such a cut thing to not know this, is, is that you’re literally going out there when the truth of human history is women boast manage child rearing and manage calorie acquisition, okay?

And you’re going out there and saying, “No, no, no. I’ll do the trad thing and just do all of the labor and women can do a quarter of what women ever did historically.” But sorry, I, I just, I cannot I cannot get over because we’re gonna go over to how the, how somehow women psy-opsed men into believing this.

We’re gonna go over traditional marriage structures how they developed [00:09:00] that way because I, like, you were aware of this when we were talking about this, but I just think, like, a lot of guys, they have this, like, cargo cult of trad where they have this vision in their head of what a hunter-gatherer society was like.

They have this vision in their head of what early medieval life was like and it allows them to define themselves because if they, if they have this idea of, like, this is what men did back then, and this is what women did back then that that means that, well, if they just emulate this role that they believe is a prehistoric role of what a man is, well, well, well, now it’s fed into their identity, like, “I am man, man does X.”

Okay, so what did man actually do historically? Like, what was a man’s actual role in a family? The man’s actual role in a family, and I’ve, I’ve talked about this as a way to model your relationships, and increasingly, I’m realizing that when I go out there and I can say, “Here’s an optional way to [00:10:00] model your relationship.”

I’ve increasingly realized I need to stop saying that people are too stupid, and then they just model their relationships in stupid ways. The ideal way to model your relationship is in what we call a sword and shield relationship.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: That means the woman is in charge of making sure the daily caloric needs of the family are met and that you don’t lose all your assets.

And this is what women mostly did on a historic basis. The man is in charge of moving the family’s status upwards which means that he’s in charge of high risk, high reward opportunities. Obviously, if you’re only familiar with stereotypes in history the two examples of this that are going to come to mind immediately are going to be Viking Society where the women would manage the farms and the men would go a Viking, and the men would go on these raids to try to get lots of treasure to raise the family status, right?

Right. Another example would be Spartan [00:11:00] Society- Yes. ... where women would manage the Hellots and they manage the farm and the men would go out and perform their military duties and they’d come back and they might you know, a- a- acquire stuff. You also had this in Roman society where, where men would go out

Now, now less so because Roman took from Greek society and Greek society is one of the few societies where women actually almost did no actual work. Just hit

Simone Collins: in the back of the house.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, one of the very few societies in human history where women were actually basically just locked inside twenty four seven.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Now, one of the place, if you wanna look into research on this and I think that she actually significantly understates this- Yeah. ... was a Nobel Prize winning research by Claudia Godlin, Oh. ...

who showed the U-shaped pattern in female labor which shows basically what we said before is that around, and I think that she actually gets some of her numbers wrong, but she tries to look at historical

Speaker 9: . Actually, I went back over her actual data and her work is clearly misstated. If you’re only familiar with the little cartoon, she has a female labor, you’d get this impression that [00:12:00] female labor started to die out in like the 1850s and then bottomed out in the 1910s, , and was never really significantly higher than male labor participation.

But if you actually look at her data, you can see that this is nowhere near true. Also just a funny side note here. Have you noticed that her most modern woman is wearing a hijab? Just see, just so you know where she wants society going. , But yeah, this, this cartoon that you may have seen of her work doesn’t align with her actual, , data.

What the actual data shows, which I think even she is afraid

that men will look at history and realize they shouldn’t be saying, “Hey woman, get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich.” It’s, “Hey woman, get in the field and cultivate me a sandwich.”

Malcolm Collins: whatever.

But around 1910 is when or let’s say the 1900s is when male wage labor really began to pick up in any society- Wow. ... the idea that a man would leave the household, and this is when things began to fall apart, because remember- You get her at

Simone Collins: the end, yes. ...

Malcolm Collins: as society developed, right, okay, well, now you’ve got the [00:13:00] plow, now you’ve got specialization, now you don’t have a woman gathering, now you don’t have a woman on the farm, you have a woman managing the books, and the supply chain, and the, the sales, and the managing the storefront, right?

Like, the, the classic example I’ll give is, okay, you have a cobbler, or you have a butcher or something like that. So the guy learns the skill. He learns how to cobble, he learns how to make the shoes, he learns how to handle the, the wrapping of it and everything like that, very complicated. And the woman manages what women are disproportionately good at, which is interpersonal skills and bureaucracy.

And so she manages the, the, the, you know, sitting behind the counter, taking the money, marketing the product managing sort of guild bureaucratic stuff, managing the, the finances. Basically women did a sort of middle management job. And as males and, and this would be true, like, with whatever the profession was, whether you made, you were a cobbler or whether you were a butcher or something like that, like, why wouldn’t, like, you’ve gotta [00:14:00] understand, men during this period didn’t have this idea of masculinity that you had, right?

They, they had an idea of masculinity, but if you went to them or their wives, and you said something like actually, the husband needs to manage all of this other stuff, right? Both the wife and the husband would be like, “But why?” Like, the husband is focused on the specialized skill that he needs to continue to improve so that our family can make money.

I, the woman, have free time on my hands, why would I not be managing the things that allow my husband to focus on his specialty skill?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Right? Like, it would come off as, like, completely insane that the husband would waste time that they could have cobbling or butchering or whatever their actual skill was to manage the shop, to manage the sales process, to [00:15:00] manage the

Yeah. I just would come across as like, “Are you complete ... Are you just telling me to, like, waste money?” Like, there are kids, like, we’re making this money for our family and our kids because remember, historically, Simone wouldn’t become Simone Collins, she’d become Mrs. Malcolm Collins, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Like,

Malcolm Collins: people really had a combined identity, this idea of the women’s needs versus the man’s needs different-

Simone Collins: I wish we could bring that back, by the way, that you had to address someone by, like, their, their combined partner name going forward.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Well, because you were one entity afterwards. Yeah. It, it did, it didn’t make sense. This idea of males and females having competing needs is a modern concept that was created by the atomization of the family.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But anyway, so women had these sorts of roles and then men ... And, and keep in mind, these sorts of roles were roles that women were relegated into after all of the domains that women used to specialize in were taken away from them.

Yeah. Like in farming, the reason why women stopped being the majority of farming labor after the invention [00:16:00] of the plow is the plow required more brute strengths. Mm-hmm. So men were able to take it over. But also keep in mind in a, in a society historically, if you can be like, okay, but then why would society structure themselves this way?

Like, it, why would societies have women be the majority calorie income generators, right? Like what the heck were men doing if women were doing this, right? So if they were not out doing the high risk, high reward thing, wh- why were men doing high risk, high reward, martial adjacent activities? It was because women suck at war, okay?

Simone Collins: We’re really not good at it. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: That’s what men were training on. And this also comes to, to hunter gatherer societies. So, in hunter gatherer societies, and, and again, the meno sphere always freaks out about this because they don’t actually read the research. Leftists will say things like, “Well, actually you know, when you look at large studies like Andreessen et al.

2723 women hunted in [00:17:00] 79% to 63% of foraging societies.” So this is hunter gatherer societies. And so they’re like, wo- oh, of course, women wouldn’t go on a mammoth hunt. And it’s like, yeah, that’s true. What were women hunting in these societies, okay? Because they weren’t hunting what men were hunting in these societies.

Men were hunting things that would prepare them for war, were allegories for war, because you had to defend your territory. This is why the male lion lays us about all day, okay? What women were hunting were things like squirrels and bunnies and mice. They were hunting a completely different type of game.

It was-

Simone Collins: Low stakes, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, low stakes, opportunities-

Simone Collins: Low risk, low reward. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. But today as a guy, you’re so, like, dichotomous, which is one of the things we try to break people out of on this channel, like, well, there’s hunting and there’s gathering. And the moment you hear, “Oh, when a [00:18:00] leftist says females were participating in 79% of the hunt, like, like that they hunted meat in 79% of hunter-gatherer societies, why would women arbitrarily not hunt bunnies when they saw a bunny, right?

Like when they’re foraging. Why would they opportunistically not make little traps for shrews and mice and stuff like that that might be around the, the campsite, right?

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Why would they, like, just to arbitrarily be like, no, only men can touch meat. That’s a weird way to just sort of cut your society, right?

Like, it makes no sense. And when you think about it a little bit, you’re like, oh yeah, that would make sense. A society where they demanded that men be the primary calorie getters, right, and women just stay at home all day. Well, those men don’t have as much time to train for war anymore, right? And if they don’t have as much time to train for war, well, what happens to those men in the long term?

They and their way of life get eradicated. [00:19:00] So what about the societies where you don’t see this in a historic context? Like let’s look at ancient Athens, right, which is a actual historic counter example. And we’ll go through other historic examples here, but ... Okay. So Athenian men because they did not have women managing trade and finance and everything like that, they managed it themselves, right?

Yeah. But that meant that they didn’t have time to learn how to war. Mm-hmm. So how did Athenian men fight?

Simone Collins: Oh my God, this is why we have democracy. This is why?

Malcolm Collins: Yes. They fought with the lower caste and essentially slave labor. That is what powered the trireams that maintain the Athenian naval d- h- hegemony.

Mm-hmm. Is, is incredibly ... And, and as Simone was joking, this is where we get early votes being widely distributed because, you know, if you have triery members who you know, are otherwise pretty low cast and you could say, well, now you get to vote, right? Well, you get to vote on which high caste person you want to vote.

Because

Simone Collins: no, no vote, no vote until you what.

Malcolm Collins: [00:20:00] Yeah. You gotta do it. Vote, no vote. But that’s where that came from, right? Mm. Is that the Athenian male sort of, citizen they, they ... It’s not that they never fought. Like you, you do see Asthenians fight in history but they leaned really hard on the lower caste in a way that other societies like Spartans and Thieves simply didn’t.

But to continue here, let’s get, let’s go as ... Again, we’ve already gone over Vikings. I assume people are pretty familiar with a Viking labor division. But let’s look at medieval Europe. 13-

Simone Collins: I always crack up though with that ... What was that co- comedic Viking show where, like, there was one woman who would go raiding- Yeah, the rape.

Well, I mean, they’re like, well, of course she, like, she, she rapes in pillages and everything, just like all the other ones. And then, like, her husband’s getting increasingly uncomfortable.

Speaker: Are you really proud of your wife, at least? I mean Frøya dove into that pillaging, one hundred percent. Even took part in quite a lot of the raping

Malcolm Collins: yeah, she

Simone Collins: just ... Yeah. [00:21:00] I don’t think that happened very much. Yeah. And in terms of, like, female sailors, there was that one famous female pirate who, like, masqueraded as a man and, and, and developed this ingenious way to urinate without showing that she was a woman.

But yeah. Tough times.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway so, in medieval Europe the farmland was a joint production unit, but tasks were sharply gendered along lines based on physical demand, risk, and compatibility with childcare. Men handled higher risks, drinks, intensive field work, plowing with oxen. So this is after the plow, by the way, is what I’m going over here.

Mowing and threshing grain, women focused on lower risk, more reliable tasks that could be multitasked near young children gleaning leftover grain for the harvest clearing weeds, binding sheaves, making hay, collecting wood, and sheep shearing. Harvesting itself was often shared. Women also manage garden, livestock, dairy, poultry, and most crucially dominated textile production spinning and weaving, which form the backbone of both [00:22:00] household needs and export industry.

They produce cloth ale cheese and other goods for home use or local sale. So it’s important- It’s

Simone Collins: huge. ...

Malcolm Collins: if you were a, a farming family, of the stuff you sold, the majority of it was produced by women.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: These are your cheeses. B- people don’t realize how important cheese was as an export product. It was so important that in medieval Scotland, you would pay your taxes and cheese.

Like it was just like, this is the easily durable and I could just imagine the king cellar full of cheeses, right? Like-

Simone Collins: Yeah. It’s the chocolate of Europe before-

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. ...

Simone Collins: chocolate.

Malcolm Collins: So you, you they, they would produce that, they would produce the cloth, which was also an easy export product. They would produce your textiles, which was an easy export product.

Men were not producing these things. And keep in mind, this is post plow. Yeah. This is post women no longer doing the majority of farming-

Simone Collins: Yeah, so this is- ... You had artificially depressed.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. This, this [00:23:00] is, this is women at, like, one of their low points in human history, one of their low regions in human history, still doing a great deal of the labor.

Totally.

This idea, again, do not allow yourself to be cut into this belief that women just did childcare and education. Mm. They did not. They did the majority of what we would today call labor. Men did speculative ventures which is very different from, like, just labor. And note, they were not building the, because people were like, “Well, were they all, they’re building architecture and new houses and stuff like that?

I was like, no, because that is more in the category of speculative venture. To do something like that, what do you need to do? You typically need some form of loan, some sort of existing business supply. These are high ... Building a building is a high risk, high reward thing.

Simone Collins: Yes.

Malcolm Collins: Building a, a wagon historically was [00:24:00] very expensive.

That’s a- Oh yeah. ... higher, high reward thing, okay, that requires some level of artisanal expertise. Those were what men did historically. Yeah. But keeping the family alive is what women did historically. And I’ll note here, I repeatedly see families think they’re doing something like new and progressive and converge back on this.

They’re like, “Oh yeah, the wife is like the nurse or the you know, the stable job that makes a decent income-

Simone Collins: Yeah. ...

Malcolm Collins: and then the husband is the entrepreneur.” Yes. This is the, I’d almost say it’s like the normal structure among most of our friends in, in relationships.

Simone Collins: Totally, yeah. Yeah. Wife has like a W-2 steady job.

Husband does something risky for sure.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. As historian Jane Whittel noted, by the way drawing on coroner roles, women’s accidental deaths were overwhelmingly domestic or village based 61%. Now I would note that what’s really interesting there is you can say, “Oh, that’s huge. Women [00:25:00] only died within the village at 61% of the time.” Now keep in mind what that means, 49% of women were dying outside of the village.

Why were women, if women were like these shut-ins during the medieval period, 1300 to 1500- Yeah. And this is from Jane Whittle’s work, why were so many of them outside of the village?

Simone Collins: Well, these are the, specifically though they’re accidental deaths, so that’s unusual too.

Malcolm Collins: Well, right, but this means you, you know, you’re, you’re, you’re putting yourself at risk when you go outside the village no matter what, right?

Sure.

Simone Collins: Absolutely. Yeah. You’re

Malcolm Collins: doing these sorts of ... I’m, I’m just pointing out that like, this happened. Now let’s, let’s go to urban settings. Oh, and this is where Simone’s spicy information comes into play. Do you wanna go into it? Genetic evidence shocked you.

Simone Collins: Gosh, yes. No, no, no. There’s ... I have to, I still have to post about it, but there’s been this, this mystery going around on X recently related to new research came out.

Here’s one of the headlines covering it [00:26:00] in Science Tech Daily. Birds in cities fear women more than men. Scientists don’t know why. A small consistent difference in how birds respond to approaching humans, hence at hidden cues shaping animal behavior. An international team of scientists has uncovered an unexpected pattern in how city birds respond to people.

Species such as great tits. Why do they have such great bird names? House sparrows and black birds take to flight sooner when approached by women than by men. The researchers say the finding is clear, but the reason behind it is still unknown. This study took place in five European countries and involved male and female participants matched for height and color clothing, walking directly toward birds and parks and other ergman green spaces.

By measuring how close a person could get before the bird flew away, the team assessed what is known as flight initiation , distance. On average, men were able to get about one meter, 3.3 feet closer than women before the birds took off. This pattern appeared [00:27:00] consistently across all study locations, including Czechia, France, Germany, Poland, and Spain.

It also held true across 37 species from cautious birds like magpies to more tolerant ones such as pigeons. So Malcolm immediately turns to me and he’s like, “We know exactly why this is the case.”

Malcolm Collins: Yes. This is the question that explains everything we’re going to talk about today, and I think proves without a doubt that this is not some malcolm hallucination or some malcolmnipulation of historical facts.

There is really no other plausible way you could have getten, gotten this, and it’s actually it’s not surprising to me that scientists don’t know this because they’re not historians. Ah. And they don’t study the parts of history that are hidden from people. Mm-hmm. But have you ever walked around an old European city?

Simone Collins: Yeah, like Edenville.

Malcolm Collins: You have walked around an old European city, like let’s say Edinburgh is where I’ve really noticed this. You will notice the [00:28:00] second or third stories where you have windows, you will have these little nooks,

like right next to the window that look like they’re made for a bird to make a nest there.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And you could say, “That’s really weird.”

Simone Collins: Or you think how cute.

Malcolm Collins: How cute. They were, they must have been getting eggs from these nests. And it’s no, that’s not what these were used for. What these were used for is the housewife, because remember I said that women hunt small gang-

Simone Collins: mm-hmm. ...

Malcolm Collins: men hunt, big game.

They would build these into the walls of their houses and birds would come and nest in them and they’d come and grab them and they’re young and cook them up and eat them.

Simone Collins: It was Pigeon DoorDash.

Malcolm Collins: Pigeon door

Simone Collins: edition. Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But it likely wasn’t limited to that. It was likely part of all of life back then.

Men did not do things during this period like hunt down city birds. Women did. Mm. And what we’re seeing in this is women did cross [00:29:00] culturally across Europe, across locations, across species, and to such an extent that it is existentially baked into the DNA of multiple bird species.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So crazy. It’s so cool.

Malcolm Collins: Could there not be stronger proof that women were actually a, at a, at a extremely large level, enough level have an evolutionary impact, disproportionately involved with the acquiring of basic proteins for the family when it was not big hunts. And, and keep in mind like how well this fits into our wider categories.

So suppose you have like medieval European society or something, and the man is out there doing his artisan, his art- artisan thing, or out there trying to do some sort of a big deal or something like that or building houses and he needs to come home and there needs to be meat on the table, right? The woman is in charge of making sure [00:30:00] that happens.

That was the reality of medieval society. Not what you have been told is the reality of medieval society, and we’re seeing it here in the DNA, but you could say, okay, but what about the nobles? Okay. The, the, certainly if we’re talking about like the medieval to early modern 1,100 to 1700s the noble women stayed at home as delicate little flowers and didn’t do any labor and the men did all the labor.

It wasn’t surely in that group, the women did the majority of labor labor and the men did the majority of status and crewing activities. So no one’s core roles were high risk high retorn. Unfortunately, that’s just not the case. Specifically what the men did was military service, crusades, tournaments, court intrigue, and warfare to defend and expand lands, gain favor and seize territory.

And, and men were often absent from their how ... House, their property and their investment from years at a time. A man going to war [00:31:00] during this period meant being gone for like half a decade. That’s what it, going on a crusade mean that you could be gone for a decade. Women were managing most stuff. And if they weren’t managing it beforehand, like you can be like, oh, well, when the man was home, the man managed most of the things.

And it’s like, no, the woman was observient to the man, but the woman still did the majority of the work. It would have been stupid not to do it that way. The woman and the man both know that the man could at any time disappear for a 10 year period. And yet the woman has the man do most of the labor so that he has a teacher in like a, a few days or something or a week or a month before he disappears.

Like what are you, that would be so stupid.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Especially when you consider that most activities and tasks the woman would need to know would be highly seasonal. And so the man would not be able to teach them with enough time before they left on military duty. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Simone Collins: By the way by, just by the way that they were called dos or ducots, the, the things that caught the pigeons.

Malcolm Collins: Ah.

Simone Collins: And they were common [00:32:00] enough. They were like, they were so common that sometimes basically like the local agricultural communities would get really angry about them because the, the people in, in cities would actively cultivate like pigeons, you know, they, especially because that was like your, your source of food if things got kind of lean.

So you wanted to make sure there were lots of pigeons because then you would have something to eat like when the winter came. But then in the nearby agricultural communities, they would eat the crops. And so there was this, this inherent conflict between manor houses and also urban dwellings that had these ducots in them and the people in, in farmlands because they’re like, “Dude, stop the pests.

I hate this. This is really annoying.” Versus like- “This is my dinner.” Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Like, ... Anyway so, what did the women manage in Nor- European nobility? So they managed the day-to-day estate economy. So you’ve got to keep in mind, that’s most of the daily work of a noble- Yeah. ... [00:33:00] is, is managing the estate’s economy.

Simone Collins: The servants and the, the stuff and the finances and the management and the food coming and going. And there’s a lot going on.

Malcolm Collins: They also oversaw agricultural production of the estate. Men did not do that. That was a woman’s work on an estate. They collected rent and taxes. Oh, you thought the man was the one

No, that was the woman, because again, the man may have to disappear at any moment.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: They monitored tenants and goods, handling household finances, budgeting, directing servants, handling hiring and firing, ensuring food security. And they also ran when husbands were away defense and legal affairs. Coroners and men-minoral records show women’s work was overwhelmingly internal/stable while man’s was outwardly/risky.” Okay. So, let’s go into things as they shifted, or we can go a bit cross-cultural here.

Where do you see ... Well, I already talked about the hoe difference. So basically if you’re doing [00:34:00] hoe or shifting based agriculture the women typically dominate that. And if you’re doing plow-based agriculture, if you’re wondering where plow-based agriculture never really dominated here you’re looking at Sub-Sahara Africa and parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America and in these areas, women still do the majority of labor.

Simone Collins: Is this

Malcolm Collins: why

Simone Collins: women are called hos?

Malcolm Collins: I don’t know, but I’ll, I’ll tell you this. If you’re like, “Come on. “ Women don’t do the majority of hard manual labor in pre-plo societies, and I’m like, “Okay, have you ever been to Latin America?” And people are like, “Yeah, I mean, I, I guess I’ve been a little bit in Latin America.”

I’m like, “Did you ever drive in any rural region?” And people are like, “Well, of course, you know, I’ve been out of, I’m a worldly person.” And I’ve been like, okay, so when you looked along the roadside and you saw people carrying 60 pound jugs on their head, which, which gender was doing that?[00:35:00]

Simone Collins: Sorry, no, it, it actually is in reference to a hoe. So the, yeah, hose is- Women were

Malcolm Collins: called hose because they-

Simone Collins: Some historians note that in early America, free black women doing farm labor were sometimes dehumanized and literally called hose as if they were just tools, which connects the word to racism and slavery as well as sexism.

Malcolm Collins: But it also shows that in early freed black society, women did the majority of the farm labor when it was done. Because,

Simone Collins: yeah, because they did the work with the hose. Oh my God. Ah, oh my God. Anyway, sorry, carry on.

Malcolm Collins: No, but Simone, I’m trying to get you to grock this. You have been in rural Latin America, right?

Simone Collins: Yes. Well, mostly- Take it urban.

Malcolm Collins: Take an image in your head.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: You’re driving down a rural road. You look out the side of a car, okay? You see somebody with a 60 pound jug of something on their head.

Simone Collins: Oh, it’s a woman, obviously. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Always a woman.

Simone Collins: Always, always a woman. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: Okay.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: People want to say, oh, in these primitive societies, it’s [00:36:00] men who are doing all the manual labor, all of the hard labor, and it’s like, this is factually-

Simone Collins: No, all, all the farming exposure people have had, like, in developed countries is post-industrial farming where, like, yeah, I mean, my evoked set of, like, you know, my, my AI generated image in my mind of, you know, farm is like a man on a giant tractor that costs like a million dollars, you know, 500,000 dollars.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: Obviously-

Malcolm Collins: Well, and I think that guys also get it wrong where they’re like, well, men are stronger, therefore that means that they did the more grueling manual labor. When, if you have actually been to many developing countries, what you will see is the most grueling manual labor where pure strength isn’t what’s at play here is predominantly done by women.

And again, when we talk about in Latin America, you see them carrying this huge things of water on the head, the huge [00:37:00] things of food on their heads, on the, the giant packs. If it’s not on their head, you’ll see the, like, the, the beleaguered woman who’s like clearly in her early 30s, but like looks like she’s like 55 or something with the giant backpack on going across the little trail or whatever.

You go it’s not just Latin America, you go to Africa, you’ll see this as well. You go to-

Simone Collins: China too. Let’s be clear. China too. Right.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. ‘

Simone Collins: Cause I, I’ve actually spent a lot more time in rural, like countryside China and Japan actually than,

Malcolm Collins: Was it majority women doing the harder labor when you’re-

Simone Collins: Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: 100%.

Yeah. Yeah. D-

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Guys, you do not know how brain cucked you are if, if a woman has convinced you, “We just need to go back to the traditional way and I’ll stay at home and you do all this stuff.” Because you’re so strong, look at your muscles, could you open this jar for me? All you see as a woman, I could just never do anything.

Meanwhile these very sane guys have been to Latin America, looked out a car and been like, “Huh, it’s weird that women are doing all the [00:38:00] manual labor in this society. I wonder what the, what the men are doing.” Nothing. That, that must be a strange, strange primitive coincidence. We need to go back to this.

We need to go back to a world where women raise children and do the labor, just like I’ve structured in my family. People are like ... That is how women ... Because remember how guys are always like, “Women are hypergamist.” Right? And so how does hypergamy really work, right? Some

Simone Collins: kind of crab meeting dance.

What was that supposed to be?

Malcolm Collins: Well, no, it’s, it’s, it’s men doing the spasm- Oh, okay. ... hypergenous women. And it’s like, okay, so if women are hypergamist, okay, they want a partner who is there better, okay? Mm-hmm. Intellectually in terms of status, in terms of physicality, whatever. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Why did that work historically?

Because the women did the labor to justify their worth to the genetically [00:39:00] superior male. Mm-hmm. I’m not saying that’s the way our relationship is structured. I’m just saying,

Simone Collins: Everyone knows it, Malcolm. It’s fine. They’ve already said it many times.

Malcolm Collins: I want the grateful woman who wants to do the labor, who is excited to do the labor and there are a lot of women, like, you guys would be surprised when a woman hooks into a guy who she thinks is hypergamist to her the amount of effort she will put into holding onto that guy.

And if you’re just like, “Okay, we’re not playing any games. It’s about labor. You put a 60 pound jug of water on your head, you walk 30 miles a day, go. “ And she’s like, “

Simone Collins: Sir, yes, third. Yeah. She’s- Sorry,

Malcolm Collins: sorry. Yes.

Simone Collins: For real. Thank

Malcolm Collins: you. This is the way I wanted to live. Yeah. Easy.

Simone Collins: Which is, I think it’s another reason why our culture’s so toxic in that it it would demean any woman for, like, accepting that frame, admitting that to herself.

Like, the, the successful framing presented to women is, okay, [00:40:00] well, now, you know, if, if, if you like a man, you need to pretend that nothing he ever does is impressive, that you will never do any work for him ever et cetera, et cetera. That, that any, any work you do is an imposition and basically a crime against your entire gender and society, it’s, it’s really messed up.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So let’s go to a few other societies here so you can see that this is not just a European phenomenon of anything

Simone Collins: European- Are you ... Hose was it. All, all I need was that. My God.

Malcolm Collins: Literally named after hose. Okay. So, if you go to West Africa women have long dominated market trading and local commerce in the region giving them significant control of household budgets, credit networks, and economic decision making.

In Ghana, market queens, elected female leaders hey- Market

Simone Collins: queens. ...

Malcolm Collins: for specific commodities, food, good, textiles, they regulate prices, resolve disputes, organize self-help groups, and wield political economic influence. This includes mediating with authorities and ensuring food [00:41:00] system stability. If you contrast this with men who do home-based farming men often handle the initial land clearing for certain crops while women perform the ongoing, labor-intensive, but lower risk tasks of plowing, weeding, harvesting, and processing, plus the dominant role in marketing the surplus.

Men were involved in higher risk external activities like hunting, fishing, and long haul trade or craft production. So keep in mind, again, you’re seeing this here. What do men do? It is higher risk things, higher artisan training things. Women do the lower risk things and the more economically focused things.

Simone Collins: Mm.

Malcolm Collins: And again, I’m, I’m, I’m saying you need to alter your perception of what is a male and female role in the economy, not saying that you need to take on a women’s role, you just happen to have been wrong about what, what the woman’s role was.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And I was really surprised because we have a, like, pretty educated fan base and it made me realize that even within [00:42:00] the educated world, how-

Simone Collins: Look, they probably knew but forgot because I would just say the CIOP is so in, in far in the other direction.

Malcolm Collins: It

Simone Collins: is. It’s just been memory hold. I, I don’t think this is about ignorance. It’s about repeated blunt force of propaganda in the other direction.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. It’s feminists go out there and they’re like, women were vikings and women hunted mammoths. And women ... And so when they hear something like women were involved in, you know, in, in hunting meat and like 70% of hunter-gatherer societies, they just throw it out because they’re like, oh, that must be biased scientist nonsense, right?

Mm-hmm. And then they read the fine print and it was mice and rabbits and squirrels. It’s like, oh, that makes sense. Right? Like the basic kind of meats that would be easier to get on a daily basis to resure that the nutrition that they needed. Yeah. And it’s like, and this is how hypergamy worked traditionally.

And it’s like, oh, that’s why a man would choose a lesser woman.

Simone Collins: Uh-huh.

Malcolm Collins: Because she was walking to and from with a 60 pound goord [00:43:00] on her head. You know, like-

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. Let’s go to India.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: So, men, again, handled plowing, irrigation and market sales. So this is one where women handled more market stuff.

Women perform lower variants work like sewing, transplanting, weeding, harvesting, gleaning, post-harvest processing plus livestock, kitchen gardens, and household budgeting. They contributed to 70% of agricultural labor in many regions. So again, they’re still doing the majority of agricultural-

Simone Collins: These are also

Keep in mind, like, on our episode on divisions of labor and household and what women report enjoying more, these are things that women still. In, in, in surveys, these are the types of activities women enjoy. These are also more bureaucratic activities, more routine activities, very predictable activities.

And you see this also in, like, the lower rates of female entrepreneurship. Women, on average, are just, they, we don’t like the high risk, high reward. It’s very stressful. Like, I know you, you’re constantly trying to loop me [00:44:00] into, like, your VC stuff and it freaks me out and you’re constantly frustrated with the fact that I’m like, “Oh.”

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, you don’t fully check the product beforehand. You don’t fully, you know, you’re just like, “I’m gonna do the performative minimum when it comes to high risk, high reward.”

Simone Collins: Yeah, because they, I find it extremely stressful and aversive versus like the routine stuff which would literally drive you to madness or if, if not some ambulance.

You, you, you know, I, I can do that and be very happy with it.

Malcolm Collins: By the way for the people who wanna use a super search feature, feature on our fab, it can be used on things like episode because everyone of the models that runs on it has the capability of searching the internet.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: So you could put something like the URL of this episode in and be like, is this accurate?

What’s accurate? What’s not accurate? So

Simone Collins: cool. It’s really well done. It’s really well done.

Malcolm Collins: And not just that. I mean, I do encourage you. If you are listening to this and you’re like, “I just do not believe this. I think this is urban monoculture. I think that this is seriously put it into an AI or something, right?

Like I do that before any episode [00:45:00] goes live just to look for errors that may be in the episode.”

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Because I take it- That’s so

Simone Collins: cool. ...

Malcolm Collins: very seriously that I’m getting you guys factually accurate information.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And it is yeah, important that we actually make a society that works instead of relying on some weird cargo cult of the past, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: Never exists. So what about the Indian elites? Elite men pursued military conquests, court politics, and imperial administration. Again, all high risk, high rewards. Whereas rural women in the Zinna secluded women’s orders exercised real economic and managerial authority, administering large Jaguar estates, revenue land, controlling finances and salaries patrigene networks, trade, and even intelligent/diplomacy.

Figures like Noor Haran and Harm Begin managed commercial enterprises and household governance as a parallel administrative node. The Zena had its own female officers, Dragas, Twitters, and something accounts that operated as an economic [00:46:00] hub. So again, you see the exact same pattern. This is not just like one culture.

If we’re gonna go to Asia here if you’re talking about the Imperial Confucian China, men operated the outer sphere, scholar official examples. So this was like intense high stake competition for status and wealth, bureaucracy, warn and trade, trade. This is one of the few areas where men really dominated the bureaucracy and this is because it was an imperial bureaucracy and then highly institutionalized.

Failure meant a loss of prestige plus lower elevation of the family. Women were confined to the quote unquote inner sphere managing household finances, education of the children, silk production, food processing, and daily budgeting. Confucian texts such as record of rituals explicitly divided the rules.

Men, external public, women, internal domestic. So I, I think that this is really cool here where you can see, even if you’re talking about these incredibly, like Confucianism is considered very sexist and it’s still like, yeah, well, women manage the household of course, right? Like,

Simone Collins: Duh. [00:47:00] Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: If you go to feudal edo Japan men samuraize the warfare class, did duals, loyalty, lords, political maneuvering whereas women, again, govern the household, financial management, budgeting and even gave their husband’s allowances, which we see in the historical record.

They did child education, silicotton production and protected family honor, though, though less so. They learned reading, writing, local administration, et cetera. And wives often, like in Europe, ran the estate during the male absence. Now, if your wife has been running your estate during your absence, not only again, do you need to prep her for doing this, but you can be like, “Okay, but after the men came back and they knew the wives could do it, didn’t they take over again?”

And it’s like, no, because they were the dominant member of the household. And if you’re the dominant member of the household and the other person can do something competently, you don’t just take the work back. I’m, I, I’m sorry if that paint’s been in a bad light, but that is the reality of actually being a dominant member within a household.

[00:48:00] So let’s go to colonial America, all right? Because people can be like, “Well, this isn’t the American tradition, is it? “ It, men focused, again, on high risk work. They did clearing land which we have a lot of stuff from. And they did some hunting so a, a lot of politicking. Like men were really focused on like- Let’s think about

Simone Collins: like John and Abigail Adams, the classic American power couple.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: We have really good, if, if you’re not familiar with John and Abigail Adams, Abigail managed all of the investment, all of the estates, all of the hiring and firing, all of the everything. And John went to do the historically important stuff- mm-hmm. ... of setting up the American nation.

Simone Collins: And this also was the Washington too.

Yeah. I mean, this is like, this was the format. It was the format.

Malcolm Collins: It was the format. Women made sure that the man had their allowance and the man made sure that the woman’s name would be mentioned in history, okay? That is the difference between the two roles. That is the way Simone and I structure our relationship, and this [00:49:00] is the way I

Now I’m just gonna straight out and say it is the better way to structure a relationship. Now that I see how ubiquitous it is throughout history, and that any other mechanism for structuring relationships has largely been experimental and short term like male wage labor for a female who sits at home all day.

And, and mind you, even at the height of that particular experiment, like the 50s, all of the women were out of their mind on drugs and going crazy, right? Like the, it wasn’t working, okay? It may have had some like veneer of working in like Hollywood, but the reality- Oh,

Simone Collins: if it worked, we, we wouldn’t have needed all those benzos.

No, for sure it wasn’t working. It was not working.

Malcolm Collins: These people were coked out of their mind. They were benzoed out of their mind. They barely had any idea what was happening because you cannot take a smart, intelligent person and say, “Here, stay at home, do nothing all day,” right? Like that’s you up. Okay.

What about women? Women did well, we don’t even need to go into it. You’ve basically gone over Martha Washington, Abigail Adams. I, I [00:50:00] hope most Americans are fairly aware of those stories and what those women did. And, and they were not considered exceptional for their period. Nobody was like, “Oh, Abigail Adams, what like a weird lesbian she is for managing the estate or something, right?”

Simone Collins: Cottage core lesbian Abigail Adams with all the children somehow, but whatever.

Malcolm Collins: Again, if you go to the backwoods, you go to the frontier lifestyles I mean, I’m sure everybody is aware how much labor the women did in the frontier America, right? Like are, are you not? Like, do you not know that women basically managed everything except protecting the property and plowing and clearing fields?

So like I assume ... It’s like people are aware of this. They just don’t reflect on it, I guess. I’m a little like, like-

Simone Collins: It just, it goes, it runs so contrary to the popular narratives, I guess. Like I think it’s I don’t know. I don’t know. And here’s the, the funny thing too-

Malcolm Collins: When you think of milk.

Simone Collins: It’s also that there was no

Malcolm Collins: who-

Simone Collins: There was no-

Malcolm Collins: Cleared the land.

Simone Collins: There was no nar- [00:51:00] there was no feminist argument against this weirdly, right? When women complained about things, and you did an, even a very, you know, unflattering to women episode on women who hated men who were early feminist activists- Yeah. ... this was not a complaint. They were not like, “Man, I’m so angry about the fact that I had to do all this work and that I have to do all this work.”

No, but it was like, it just comes naturally to women. Women are workhorses.

Malcolm Collins: Because you want the family to get to stay

Simone Collins: alive,

Malcolm Collins: right?

Simone Collins: The, that’s, I think that’s another reason why this just doesn’t come up is that there’s no, there was never really a narrative to it and that now the narrative is just so heavily on like any work that women do is considered so unforgivable that the, the mere, like the fact that we have this concept of the mental load, that like, I have to think about things, this is horrible.

Like, I, I don’t know. Yeah. And I also

Malcolm Collins: think it’s because men look at history and they’re aware. So if we look at like colonial period, it’s like, okay, what did women do? Okay, so women did cooking, baking, [00:52:00] preserving, which was very important in terms of like exporting long-term family life, et cetera, soap and candle making, clothing making, child brewing, but we’re putting that aside because most people are aware of that.

Gardening and livestock, weeding, harvesting, milking, cheese making and curing and often preparing of pelts. So, you know, you hear about those things and you’re like, okay, but how hard is like every one of those individual ... Do you know how hard, like just milking and cheese making is? It is brutal.

Do you know how hard weeding is when you are manually weeding not a garden? I don’t know how many men have weeded a garden which is brutal. Weeding an entire field to feed a family. Okay, we are talking about extremely serious amounts of labor here and, and backbreaking labor, brutal labor. Okay. [00:53:00] Let’s keep going here.

Then people are like, okay, but by the time the industrial revolution happened, 1790s to 1910s and here we’re talking about like proto-wage labor, surely women stopped working. And the answer is no. Actually, in the early days of industrialization, we still had women working really heavily. In fact, we have entire like towns that were like female labor camps basically especially women who didn’t want to get married.

They worked really heavily. But here’s where you’re beginning to have married men begin to care for women at the beginning of industrialization. But this is a modern phenomenon and a phenomenon that never really worked and culminated with drugged out women barely coherent, okay? Women want to be turned into workhorses.

They want to be labored and I’m just [00:54:00] encouraging us to break this particular myth that somehow misogynists have adopted and like, let’s go back to it and be like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. A woman’s job is in the field, it’s in the barn, it’s not just in the kitchen, it’s, it’s the children, it’s the education, and it’s most other things as well.

And you- Yeah,

Simone Collins: but, but very clearly it’s, it’s predictable, routine, repetitive-

Malcolm Collins: Yes. ...

Simone Collins: at home labor which, you know, you make it sound so horrible, you, you’re, on the flip side of it, it’s this very, you know, cottage core, cozy, hobbit-like romantic life that I think a lot of people crave, you know, and wish, you know, they, they want to retire to that.

That, that is the dream.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, we can go back to this insofar as we have work from home again. If you look at our structured relationship, what does Simone do? She does [00:55:00] emails, she does taxes, she does the bureaucratic sort of low risk work of managing employees, managing hiring and firing she manages clients, she manages all of that stuff.

What do I do? I manage building new things, right? I manage building out our fab. I manage building out, like, the new features like Supersearch. I’ve got to work on the card game, which apparently was having some bugs. I work on our vibe coding platform, which you can use with the agents on the website. I, I do our, you know, I’m not safe for work chat bot stuff on ourfab.ai.

Like wherever there is work in terms of building stuff, that is where I am, where there is work in terms of maintaining stuff, that is where Simone is. Our relationship could not be more radically traditional if you tried.

Which is, I think, really interesting, and it’s something that we should emphasize more in interviews, actually, now that I think about it.

Simone Collins: Yeah, it was, it was never something we planned to be fair. It’s [00:56:00] just kind of how things shook out.

Malcolm Collins: It’s the natural roles of males and females. Yeah. And if you operate

Simone Collins: without- It’s very

Yeah, we, because we heavily believe in leaning into our aptitudes and lower token cost. Like, the way we sometimes describe it is like, look, you know, Malcolm could make dinner, but it would cost him 58 tokens and it cost me seven. So I’m gonna make dinner. I could plausibly, you know, build some new startup, but it would cost me 8,000 tokens and it costs him like, you know, 300.

So let’s go. Like it, it just, it’s, it’s so obvious over time.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, I hope that this breaks the biggest myth that women still weave over the minds of men in our society.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: That it’s, it’s, it’s, oh it’s, it’s very much, oh, don’t throw me into the Briar Pratch. Oh, whatever you do, don’t make me stay at home and do nothing but childcare and education.

Oh, [00:57:00] whatever you do, Briar Fox, whatever you do, do not throw me into that Briar patch. For, for people who do not know, this is from the story of Brower Rabbit and Briar Fox and- That’s

Simone Collins: one of the jacktales, right?

Malcolm Collins: No, was actually an adaptation of an African story, but it’s clearly was adopted to a jacktail format- Ah.

because in the Briar Rabbit story, sorry, this is a completely different tangent here, anthropology tangent. Briar Rabbit appears much more like Jack than he appears in the African versions. Oh. In the African versions, he is a trickster God with magical powers. Oh. Where what typically separates Jack from any other figure like him is that he has no magical powers.

He is not a God, he just outwits his opponents. And that’s what Briar Rabbit does. Interesting. So he appears much more like a jacktails figure. Mm. And this would’ve been during the period where the slave culture would’ve collided with the backwards culture, so I think that that’s where they picked it up from.

Simone Collins: Nice.

Malcolm Collins: But basically he’s saying, “Whatever you do, don’t throw me into the briar patch because he’s at home with the briar patch. That’s where he’s safest is in the briar [00:58:00] patch.” That’s the easiest thing for him. But anyway, love you, Simone.

Simone Collins: Love you too.

Malcolm Collins: Go downstairs and cook me some of those fricking mushrooms that you harvested-

Simone Collins: Golden oyster mushrooms.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And then serve it to me because that is-

Simone Collins: That’s my job. ...

Malcolm Collins: weird, kinky job you have as a wife, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Love you.

Simone Collins: I love you too. You’re the best.

Malcolm Collins: Oh how? I’m so mean. I’m so demanding.

Simone Collins: No, man. We all, we all asked for this. That’s the, that’s the thing. That’s the thing. And I love it. And I love

Malcolm Collins: you. I love you too.

Simone Collins: See you soon.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Okay, so how are you gonna cook these mushrooms you found for me in the woods?

Simone Collins: I thought of the, of the ways I’ve seen them prepared that doing a cross section cut and then making mushroom steaks looked the most promising. Because then you could cut little slices of it. Like it’s basically like a slice of it.

You know, people make cauliflower steaks by like thinly

Malcolm Collins: cutting- Right, [00:59:00] but is that gonna, is that gonna pair well with a actual steak?

Simone Collins: Yeah, because you’re still just cutting small like bites of it.

Malcolm Collins: Are you gonna be able to cook them together?

Simone Collins: That’s not my plan. Because I think that the temperature at which I would need to cook the, I mean that I’m cooking the steak at you, you make a super, super, super hot cast iron skillet for s- for, for pan seared steak and then for this, you don’t wanna like burn it.

You just wanna cook it through. So what I plan on doing is maybe using some of the drippings from the steak for the-

Malcolm Collins: That sounds really good, yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah. ‘Cause I, I like to render it in its own fat, but I’ll do that with an additional butter and then we’ll use that butter for the, the mushrooms while the steak sits, because it’s supposed to sit for 10 minutes to do whatever it does.

I don’t know what it does. Settles. I don’t know. I, I always, I treat all food like it’s a souffle and it’s about to deflate if I don’t eat it immediately after preparing. So I get super nervous. This idea of letting steak [01:00:00] rest. Anyway, let’s go.

Malcolm Collins: All right.

Speaker 7: Okay, what are you looking at, buddy? I’m looking at these baby chicks. Oh, do you like baby chicks? Yeah. Are they your friends? What are their names? Oh, this one’s name is,

um, I can get up, smell.

This one right here is my favorite one. He’s so adorable. What is he called? He’s called cutish. Cutish? Yes. It’s a good name, buddy. Yeah, he’s my favorite, he’s my favorite because he’s orange look. You’re gonna wash your hands afterwards, right? Yeah. Here, you want me to give you kids? Yeah. I love you. I do. I

Leftist academics just dropped a wild new paper titled “Toward Individualistic Reproduction: Solving the Fertility Crisis Could Require a Further Marginalization of Men.” In this episode of Based Camp, Simone & Malcolm Collins break it down — from the evolutionary arguments about why men are now “useless” to women in high-equality societies, to the dystopian policy prescriptions: massive welfare transfers to enable single motherhood, robot nannies, artificial wombs, and essentially declaring bankruptcy on pair-bonding and two-parent families.

The Collinses critique the Brave New World vibes, discuss why pair-bonding repair is supposedly impossible, explore real pronatalist alternatives, and go on wide-ranging tangents about immigration & welfare, political violence thresholds, historical gender roles, family business dynamics, and the coming demographic speciation.

A must-watch for anyone concerned about the birth rate collapse, gender dynamics, and the radical policy ideas emerging from academia.

Show Notes

Referring to a research article published in Politics and the Life Sciences from Cambridge University Press, Christian Heiens on X posted: “Checking in on the status of Wokeism, and it turns out Leftist academics are unironically saying that society needs to intentionally “marginalize men” even more to supposedly solve the birth rate. History shows us that what’s normalized in academia becomes publicly mainstream within a generation, and there is no sign the ship is turning or even slowing down.”

Christian continues:

* If academics are going to unironically argue that society has to intentionally beat down men even more in the name of apparently resolving the birth rate crisis then all bets are off and it’s time to start pointing out the obvious as a rebuttal:

* “The way you solve the birth rate crisis is by banning women from most professions they weren’t engaged in before 1965.”

* I don’t see how this is any more radical than what’s already becoming normalized within academia. But you’re unlikely to ever see a paper with this kind of abstract published because it transgresses on one of Progressivism’s most holy pillars.

* “Artificial womb technology, robot nannies and partners help women and men solo parent, AI-driven date matching”

* This entire paper reads like a giant advertisement for Brave New World.

Let’s take a look at this article.

The Article

Toward individualistic reproduction: Solving the fertility crisis could require a further marginalization of men

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2026

The Authors

* Mads Larsen

* Evolutionary Perspectives on Enhancing Quality of Life

* Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair

* Other articles

* Breakup Likelihood Following Hypothetical Sexual or Emotional Infidelity: Perceived Threat, Blame, and Forgiveness

* 2 - Female Sexual Attraction Tactics

* Maryanne L. Fisher

* Other articles

* 7 - Mate Poaching by Men

* 4 - Female Intrasexual Competition

* 16 - Shifts in Partner Attractiveness

* 45 - The Internet Is for Porn

* 31 - Evolutionary Psychology

The Abstract

The cross-national correlation between gender equality and lower fertility is exceptionally strong (r ≈ 0.81). After the 1960s, a unique mating regime spread across parts of the world—with female emancipation, individual mate choice, and effective birth control—followed by a continuing rise in singlehood and declining fertility. Almost all women still want to reproduce, but many struggle to find a good-enough partner. This article argues from an evolutionary perspective that many men’s utility to “free women” has been so diminished that solving the fertility crisis by increasing pair-bonding rates seems unfeasible. A viable means for aiding the survival of low-fertility nations could be to provide women with the economic and social resources necessary for them to conclude that having children alone makes for a better life than remaining childless. Such policies would likely exacerbate male marginalization, but new technologies are on the horizon that could offer men reproductive equality.

The Presented Context

In their framing, ancestral ape‑like promiscuity gave way to a long era of enforced pair‑bonding (via kin and social institutions), but today’s combination of female autonomy and contraception has partially “re‑opened” a promiscuous, highly selective mating pattern, now mediated by modern tools like dating apps.

This, they argue, structurally sidelines many men, reduces pair‑bonding and thus births, and is the core evolutionary–psychological mechanism behind the fertility crisis in rich, gender‑equal countries

On what grounds do they argue that the problem cannot be fixed by amending dating/marriage norms in developed countries? Why do they think pair bonding can’t be repaired?

* They argue that you can’t fix the fertility crisis just by tweaking dating or marriage norms because (a) women’s preferences and incentives have structurally shifted in rich, gender‑equal societies, (b) a large share of men now offer too little “utility” to be chosen as partners, and (c) the emotional and technological environment (contraception, dating apps) pushes mating toward short‑term, non‑reproductive patterns that norms alone can’t reverse.

Recommended Policies

* Make it easy for women to have children without partners

Core policy recommendation

* The authors argue that trying to fix low fertility mainly by boosting pair‑bonding and marriage rates is unlikely to work, because in rich, gender‑equal societies many men no longer provide enough utility to be acceptable long‑term partners for “free women.”

* Instead, they propose that states should provide women with such extensive economic and social support that a woman can rationally judge “having children alone” as a better life than remaining childless, thus raising birth rates through solo motherhood rather than couple‑based reproduction.

* For a start, they recommend that governments run “limited reproductive policy experiments” (pilot programs) to empirically discover what package and level of support actually induces women to have the number of children they report wanting when single.

How that’s supposed to happen:

* Large resource transfers

* They’re deliberately vague

* Presumably, this would be long-term income support or guaranteed living standards for single mothers

* Broader welfare support targeted at enabling individualistic reproduction

* Welfare queens?????

* Strong public childcare

* Strong work-family policies

* General welfare systems that remove dependence on male partners

* The general idea is to make women totally independent of men

* Presumably AI is going to make this possible (according to the authors—who refer to a “post-automation” future

* “Today, such large resource transfers are perhaps politically and fiscally unfeasible, but nations should consider limited reproductive policy experiments to find out what social and economic resources are required to motivate sufficient individualistic reproduction. In our post-automation future, perhaps as early as by 2040 (Kurzweil, Reference Kurzweil2024; Nayebi, Reference Nayebi2025; Rainie & Anderson, Reference Rainie and Anderson2024), insights from these pilot projects could inform national policies with the potential to substantially increase fertility.”

Acknowledged Side Effects

* The authors acknowledge that such policies would “likely exacerbate male marginalization,” since further reducing women’s economic dependence on men lowers the mate value of some groups of men

* BUT!!! they argue the existential risks from demographic collapse justify these measures, and they speculate that technologies like artificial wombs could later give men more symmetrical reproductive options, restoring some form of “reproductive equality” between the sexes.

The Brave New World of it All

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, reproduction is almost the mirror image of what the “individualistic reproduction” paper is proposing: instead of empowering individual women to reproduce on their own terms, the state completely takes over reproduction, engineers people in hatcheries, and severs sex from procreation to maximize social stability and control.

In the World State, no one gives birth; all children are produced in centralized hatcheries using processes like Bokanovskification, which mass‑produces near‑identical embryos to match the state’s labor needs.

Natural pregnancy and “motherhood” are taboo and even obscene terms, while contraception and sterilization are universal; sex is encouraged purely for pleasure and social cohesion, not for having children.

Huxley imagines reproduction fully collectivized and tightly controlled by the state, with individuals having essentially no reproductive autonomy.

How this article diverges: the authors of this article, by contrast, imagines the state giving resources to individual women so they can choose to have children alone; reproduction remains individualized and voluntary, even though the motive is still to solve a demographic‑political problem rather than to serve purely personal wishes.

One of the conditioned sayings in the Brave New World society: “everyone belongs to everyone else,”

Episode Transcript

Simone Collins: [00:00:00] so like a couple days ago article titled Toward Individualistic Reproduction: Solving the Fertility Crisis Could Require a Further Marginalization of Men.

Great title. Almost all women still want to reproduce, but many struggle to find good enough partner.

This article argues from an evolutionary perspective that many men’s utility to free women has been so diminished that solving the fertility crisis by increasing pair bonding rates seems unfeasible. In other words, men are useless now. A viable

Malcolm Collins: means. Oh, yes. They made men useless to women.

Simone Collins: Yes. Yeah.

This is what leftists are saying. that today’s combination of female autonomy and contraception has partially reopened a promiscuous, highly selective mating pattern, now mediated by modern tools like dating apps.

But they’re basically like, oh, apes used to have just like a lot of females mating with one man, and now we’re kind of going back to that. Like, and there’s no, there’s no

Malcolm Collins: action fixing

Simone Collins: it.

Malcolm Collins: They actually want to go back to Mike and Simone.

[00:01:00]

Simone Collins: Hello, Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today because as prominent prenatalist advocates, we’re often asked, where are the leftist pronatalists?

Where are the, you know, trusted academic pronatalists? Where, what’s, what’s going on with them? Surely they exist. What are their policies?

Malcolm Collins: What are their policies? Are they-

Simone Collins: Well, one, one set just published their policies and they’re kind of unhinged and dystopian, so I’m delighted and I want to share them with you.

Malcolm Collins: Well, generally, I like unhinged and dystopian, you know, a lot of

Simone Collins: people- Me too. ...

Malcolm Collins: say I’m unhinged dystopian, so- Yeah.

Simone Collins: No, this is what we, it’s what we’d like to see. Uh so, yeah, I, I think both of us are gonna come off maybe a little bit more in favor of this and you, you might expect, but there are th- some things about it that I think are just horrible.

So, yeah, we’ll, we’ll critique it, but let me first just give you, you know, the full, the full breakdown. Mm-hmm. But referring to a research article published in politics and life sciences from Cambridge University Press, Christian Heinz on [00:02:00] X posted checking in on the status of wokism, and it turns out leftist academics are unironically saying that society needs to intentionally quote unquote marginalized men even more to supposedly solve the birth rate.

History shows us that’s what’s normalized in academia becomes publicly mainstream within a generation, and there’s no sign the ship is turning over or even slowing down-

Malcolm Collins: Well, I, I think there is a sign that that ship is in the process of sinking right

Simone Collins: now. Yeah, we would beg to differ with Christian on that.

Oh. But he, he continues, “If academics are going to unironically argue that society has to intentionally beat down men even more in the name of apparently resolving the birth rate crisis, then all bets are off and it’s time to start pointing out the obvious as a rebuttal. The way you solve the birth rate crisis is by banning women from most professions they weren’t engaged in before 1965.

I don’t see how this is any more radical than what’s already being normalized within academia, but you’re unlikely to ever see [00:03:00] a paper with this kind, with this kind of abstract published because it transgresses one of progressivism’s most holy pillars.” Now, I mean, I disagree with that because women have been engaged in all sorts of professions before 1965 that

I, I, I guess like maybe that’s, maybe that’s the point.That’s actually, that could be a really interesting thing to, to explore, but I don’t think that’s the solution. Anyway, they continue

Malcolm Collins: artificial- I think a lot of guys are unaware of how employed many women were before that period. The only period where women were not widely employed was like the 1920s to the 1950s.

And before that, they held most jobs that they hold today and they didn’t hold ... So they didn’t hold like the heavy manual labor stuff or like the war stuff-

Simone Collins: Yeah, they did. They were out working in the fields. I mean, maybe they weren’t working in mind.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no. Not the same type of manual labor that you see being overwhelmingly male today.

Simone Collins: Yes, yes.

Malcolm Collins: And, and so you’re not really chan- what, what, what ... I mean, I think what they really mean is to [00:04:00] artificially attempt to create ... Like this, this is one of these things that I just need to ex- ... Sorry, this gets me so much because a right wing point, and I’m right wing, and it is such an uninformed right wing point that I think it makes us all look stupid.

So, women, like the idea of men leaving the household to go to a job that’s like a, a, a wage job didn’t really get popular until the 1900s. Really in like the 1910s is when it began to reach a mass audience.

Simone Collins: It’s a post-industrial revolution thing.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And before the ... And, and it stopped being male dominated in the 1970s.

That’s when women really began to enter the job market in mass. So you, you, you only had this really operational for about half a century, and it was only really ever successful in like the upper middle class in the United States. Which, I mean, obviously influenced Hollywood of that era and so created the press in like the, the perception modern audiences in, in this case you are the [00:05:00] modern audience that this was ever a widespread role of women.

Women actually worked i- in the household industry if you go to pre-wage labor economies and at levels that were, ... I, like I, I’d say ubiquitous, right? You know? Well,

Simone Collins: Christian’s rebuttal might be exactly my point. I’m just saying pre 1965 jobs, so ...

Malcolm Collins: Well, those jobs were often closer to what today we would call management that I think these people realize.

So an example would be if the family was a butcher, like we, we’ve talked about before the man would butcher the meat and the woman would run the finances and the procuring of food and the woman was the manager. It’s

Simone Collins: true. Yeah, she’d manage the books, she’d manage the sales, she’d manage

Malcolm Collins: the- Or if she was an upper class woman, she would quote unquote-

Simone Collins: Manage the household.

Malcolm Collins: Manage the household. That meant the finding-

Simone Collins: Hiring, hiring, recruiting, finances.

Malcolm Collins: [00:06:00] Recruiting-

Simone Collins: Yeah. ...

Malcolm Collins: all the staff. The man may do business outside of the household, but it was often a lot less of the critical kind of business. There’s

Simone Collins: often like, how do we invest our money,

Malcolm Collins: More like entrepreneurship.

Yes. You, you would think of it today, which, which I think is not an inappropriate way for a family to structure themselves. It’s very much I, I could say- Maybe that

Simone Collins: was Christian’s point. We, we don’t know.

Malcolm Collins: The, the woman does the safe job and the man does the riskier, high return job. Yeah. Which is, I mean, that’s the way Hunter gatherers work.

The woman gathered the f- like the berries that was, you know, low risk, low return, but kept everyone fed, and the men would go high risk, high return, like meat gathering where you could get gored, you know? But

Simone Collins: is it- I thought you meant get gored, like pick up gourds. You meant get gored like stabbed by a rhinoceros horn.

Malcolm Collins: Yes, yes. No, no, no, no. But I’m, I’m, I’m pointing this out because it’s important that we not fall, fall for like this weird trad cargo cult and we actually try to, you know, structure something that could work.

Simone Collins: Because that’s likely what Christian was thinking, like, [00:07:00] oh, women should just be secretaries and teachers.

Whereas we’re like, yeah, sure, women could be managers and like finance-

Malcolm Collins: No, women actually, no, I disagree with you. In a modern context, women make awful managers. Women make other women-

Simone Collins: Oh, within a household context, they’re, they’re really good managers.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. They, when, when a woman is serving with her husband in a managerial context, but she is technically supportant to them in a social context the dynamics work very well.

Mm-hmm. That’s the way you and I basically operate, right?

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: I mean, you, I wake up, I look at my calendar and I do what Simone has put on my calendar. You know, she manages my daily schedule. She manages our finances. And, and, and just, you know, like women managing finances is actually very common cross-culturally.

There’s a famous case in Japan where they, like, significantly impacted the economy.

Simone Collins: Oh, God. Yeah. This, I read about a long time ago.

There was this period in Japanese history where, yeah, like stay-at-home mothers got really into investing and really good at it. It was like [00:08:00] early Wall Street bets, Japanese Housewife Edition. I will have to look up more on that if you want me to. I don’t remember off the top of my head exactly how it worked, but they got really, really good at it.

If you want to learn more about this, this is called the Miss Want to No Bay Phenomenon, , and at their height, they moved billions of dollars a day.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Okay.

Simone Collins: But they were like housewives. So, but they, they also became very respected for what they did because they got really good at it.

Malcolm Collins: No, but, but my point being is that it, it’s actually you know, the, the, the types of roles that women did historically now that you have like larger multi-person companies, they’re not quite as good at or as efficient at as they were historically the, the bureaucracy has expanded.

Simone Collins: Well, I mean, what you’re describing to me also sounds like a, a, a different manifestation of the argument people constantly make around raising kids, which is that a genetically related family member is going to just do a much better job raising kids than someone who’s not like some paid daycare manager.

Yeah. Meaning it’s, it’s kind of sick that we’re, we’re trying [00:09:00] to force or obligate people to instead just, you know, have some paid person raise their kids when they could just, they could do it. And, and this is maybe a little bit similar. Like you’re gonna get worse results when you’re working for someone who’s not your kin.

You don’t care as much. You’re just not invested in it. And the economy would be a lot better off if people worked more directly on their own families things.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: I think family businesses are a thing for a reason. But anyway, massive, massive tangent. Christian continues quoting from the article, “Artificial womb technology, robot nannies and partners help women and men solo parent, AI driven date matching.”

This reads, this entire paper reads like a giant advertisement for Brave New World. So let’s look at the paper that he was referencing in this article because he’s just referencing this recently posted, April 24th so like a couple days ago article titled Toward Individualistic Reproduction: Solving the Fertility Crisis Could Require a Further Marginalization of Men.

Great [00:10:00] title. It was written by three people, Mads Larson, Leaf Edward Aut- Autinson Kiner and Marianne Fisher. And I think it’s kind of telling when you look at their previous research the, the TLDR, i- if I look at the other papers they’ve published is these people have looked at datings and evolutionary psychology, broadly speaking, and they’re like, “Yeah, man there’s no solving the dating crisis that’s leading to demographic collapse, so let’s just build the dystopia to solve that problem.”

It’s great. Some, some titles. So Mads Larson most recently published Evolutionary Perspectives on Enhancing Quality of Life. Leaf Edward Audenson Kiner posted or sorry, his recent articles are Breakup Likelihood Following Hypothetical Sexual or Emotional Infidelity: Perceived Threat to Blame and Forgiveness, and also Female Sexual Attraction Tactics.

So he’s looking very academically and granularly [00:11:00] at sexual dynamics in the modern world. Marianne Fisher, her recent publications are Mate Poaching by men and female intersexual competition and shifts in partner attractiveness, and the internet is for porn and evolutionary psychology. So these people aren’t like writing out of nowhere, okay?

Like-

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah. They’re kind of- They’re not getting completely unaware of current dating market problems.

Simone Collins: Yeah, like they, they understand, I think, fairly intimately and from a perfect- But they’re

Malcolm Collins: like the evil team. Like they, they’re, they’re like, they’re like-

Simone Collins: Are they evil or are they being practical and they’re leftist?

And we’re seeing what a pragmatic based leftist would pr- prescribe based on that finding, which is why this is so fun and interesting.

Malcolm Collins: I’m worried I don’t like these words together.

Simone Collins: I will read to you the abstract. “The cross-national correlation between gender equality and lower fertility is exceptionally strong are equals approximately 0.81.

After the 1960s, a unique meeting [00:12:00] regime spread across parts of the world with female emancipation, individual mate choice and effective birth control, followed by a continuing rise in singlehood and declining fertility. Almost all women still want to reproduce, but many struggle to find good enough partner.

This article argues from an evolutionary perspective that many men’s utility to free women has been so diminished that solving the fertility crisis by increasing pair bonding rates seems unfeasible. In other words, men are useless now. A viable

Malcolm Collins: means. Oh, yes. They made men useless to women.

Simone Collins: Yes. Yeah.

This is what leftists are saying. Anyway, a viable means for aiding the survival of low fertility nations could be to provide women with the economic and social resources necessary for them to conclude that having children alone makes for a better life than remaining childless.

Malcolm Collins: Oh my God, this is so dystopian.

They want women ... Oh my God. It’s someone taking too much delight in this.

Simone Collins: This is delight. Come on, this is so funny.

Malcolm Collins: And what they’re going to do is they’re going to tax the [00:13:00] men to pay for this, these men that they supposedly don’t need because if- Kind of. If the money’s not coming from the women, then who’s it coming from, right?

Well- They’re literally turning men into slaves of the state to support these women who are the, the partners married to the state.

Simone Collins: A little bit, a little bit. Such policies would likely exacerbate male marginalization, but new technologies are on the horizon. They could offer men reproductive equality.

So they also, in that last sentence, do acknowledge, we are throwing men under the bus, but maybe they’ll be okay when AI takes over. So the, the, the, the context which they present for all of this makes sense given their credentials and history as academics focused on evolutionary psychology and, and, and dating dynamics and, and their framing ancestral ape-like promiscuity gave way to a long era of enforced peer bonding via kin and social institutions, but they point out, which is real, that today’s combination of female autonomy and contraception has [00:14:00] partially reopened a promiscuous, highly selective mating pattern, now mediated by modern tools like dating apps.

But they’re basically like, oh, apes used to have just like a lot of females mating with one man, and now we’re kind of going back to that. Like, and there’s no, there’s no

Malcolm Collins: action fixing

Simone Collins: it.

Malcolm Collins: They actually want to go back to Mike and Simone.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So they, they argue that this structurally sidelines many men and reduces pair bonding and thus births and that that’s the core evolutionary psychological mechanism behind the fertility crisis in rich gender equal countries.

And so I, you know, if you’re wondering on what grounds they argue the problem can’t be fixed by amending or dating and marriage norms in developed countries, which is kind of what we’re trying to encourage at least among some subcultures that we hope will survive and why they think pair bonding can’t be repaired, they argue that you can’t fix the fertility crisis just by tweaking dating or marriage norms because A, women’s preferences and incentives have structurally shifted [00:15:00] in rich gender equal co- countries and societies, and B, a large share of men now offer too little utility to be chosen as partners.

And at C emotional and technological environment, the, the contraception basically in dating apps pushes men toward dating short term and, and having non-reproductive matches and norms can’t reverse it per their argument. And keep in mind, these are academic researchers who have looked at partner selection, who have looked at behavior around dating.

They’re not necessarily wrong.

Malcolm Collins: No, everything they’re saying is true if you completely sociopathically hate men.

Simone Collins: Well, and they do. So- They do.

Malcolm Collins: It’s fine.

Simone Collins: You know, no, no one, no one contractually has to love men, so I guess they’ve chosen not to. So what do they recommend? They want to make it easy for women to have children without partners.

And their core policy recommendation is, is to, to have states provide women with such extensive economic and social support that a woman can rationally judge [00:16:00] having children alone as better than remaining childless. So they, they basically are like, “Let’s make welfare queens.”

And then that will, that will raise the birth rate. And for a start, they want governments to run quote limited reproductive policy experiments, end quote. So basically pilot programs to empirically discover what package and level of support actually induces women to have the number of children they report wanting when single.

So I guess the idea is to do some sort of Sam Altman style, like the, the OpenAI style UBI experiment, but just with like support for women having kids at, and at the beginning they would theoretically ask women, “Hey, how many kids do you want? “ And then offer them varying levels of support in order to have those kids and then just sort of see what’s enough to actually get that completed fertility that, that matches their desire.

And they, they-

Malcolm Collins: Because there’s no, there’s no problem with kids who grow up in one [00:17:00] parent household.

Simone Collins: No, what? No, I, what are you talking about? I’ve not heard of such a thing. But you see, when, when the state is daddy, who cares? Everything’s fine.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I think that this sort of like just not caring about reality is really how we got in the, the situation we are with the immigration situation and stuff like that.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Which is people just being like you see that like I saw some recent stats that horrified me it was something like well over 50% of Hispanic immigrants are on welfare, right? Like-

Simone Collins: No. ... you cannot be- Really? That Hispanic immigrants?

Speaker 12: So these stats , I’m sharing with you here, I was extremely skeptical of them at first, so I decided to go double check that they’re real. , And, , this is real. It’s February 2026 from the Center of Immigration Studies, , titled Welfare Use by Immigrants and the US Born in 2024. The report analyzes US Census Bureau’s 2024 Survey of Income and Program Participation SIPP, which measures participants in major means tested welfare programs.

, So this is, this is from US [00:18:00] government databases, all right? So what we see is the first generation of Hispanic immigrants, 70% of them are on welfare. In the second generation, it’s 54% of them are on welfare. And in the third generation, it’s 53% of them are still on welfare. So more than half of third generation Hispanic immigrants are still on welfare.

If you contrast this with, , white immigrants, in the first generation, at 33%, in the second generation at 31%, and the third generation at 32%. , So fairly steady there. If you look at Asian immigrants, it’s 38%, 29%, 37%. , The interesting one is really Blacks because Blacks go up the longer they’re in the United States.

It’s 52%, 48%, 56% for the third generation.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. You cannot take a majority population into your country that is on welfare, right?

Like-

Simone Collins: No.

Malcolm Collins: That, that- Well,

Simone Collins: you said it once and you’ll say it again. You cannot both have poorest borders and general social programs. You gotta choose one.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And, and people just [00:19:00] ignore this because they act like these populations are the same as the Native population and they’re not necessarily the same as the Native population.

Yeah. And you ... This gets me to like a secondary point that I’m getting really pissed about on the right and- Oh. ... I wanna clock someone for this. Uh-oh. So after this recent guy who tried to assassinate Trump-

Simone Collins: Oh. ...

Malcolm Collins: everyone on the right is like, “Well, I would never, ever push for any form of political violence, but the left does.”

And I’m like, “Look, it’s one thing to say that in our current political climate, it doesn’t make sense to push for political violence.” Mm-hmm. But suppose some, for example, immigrant population with value systems entirely different from yours, took over your government and enforced those value systems on your women and children, right?

Like, you don’t even resist then. Like there is no level of the government is with you [00:20:00] where you don’t, and you’re like, “Well, I can resist with my vote.” And it’s like, yeah, but what if

Speaker 13: They plan to rig the system to make it impossible for you to win going forwards. I mean, consider that even right now, we’re seeing the Voting Rights Act being knocked down, an act that for most of our lives had given around 30 congressional seats to people solely based on racial interests, right? That is completely unamerican and this sort of stuff can be enacted again.

I

Malcolm Collins: Like this idea that there is no amount, you know, okay, so now the government decides that

I mean, and some countries are basically already at this point . You don’t fight then, right?

Speaker 6: The trouble with Scotland is that it’s full of Scotts. Grant them prima nocte. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our

Malcolm Collins: immigrants

Speaker 6: shall have sexual rights to her on the night of her wedding. If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them [00:21:00] out. That should fetch just the kind of lords we want to Scotland.

Taxes or no taxes, eh?

Malcolm Collins: Like, I, I mean, if you look at the grape situation that’s going on in the UK right now, they are not far from that, right? There was a recent case where l- underage girl was being dragged away from a park and there was video of it and she was- Oh my God.

screaming that they were gonna grape her and the government has banned the distribution of this because they said it would cause social unrest.

Speaker 5: the asylum seekers, John Jahanzeb, and Israel Niezel, steered the 15-year-old victim away from her friend group in Lemington Spa in Warwickshire, and brutally her in a park.

According to the BBC, more disturbing evidence was also played in court, including cell phone footage recovered by police and recorded by the victim, which showed her screaming for help and Jehanzeb covering her mouth to muffle the shrieks. The son reported that more clips captured by the teen showed her crying and begging not to be brought into the park. LBC reported that the video clips were so [00:22:00] disturbing that it would cause disorder if the general public were exposed to it.

Malcolm Collins: Ah.

But they, they also recently just, if it makes you feel any better did arrest a V-tuber for having a model that she drew that could be interpreted as underage.

No, it was a- What? ... closed model and a model that she drew herself and it didn’t look particularly not safe for work to me, but,

Simone Collins: Gosh. ...

Malcolm Collins: you know, this is the difference in, And

Simone Collins: it was an adult V-tuber. It’s not like it was a child.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, of course. What, what else would it be? No. I mean, there, there’s a point where it’s like, h- how much do you need to be getting cut by your government before this makes sense, right?

And we live in a world where that could happen to us, like within our lifetimes removing a tool for resolving things off the table simply because it makes you look like a good guy right now in this particular political fight where the left is ...

Speaker 14: And I want to be extremely clear here. I am [00:23:00] not saying we are anywhere close to that point yet as a society. I am just saying pretending like that point doesn’t exist is in long-term detrimental to any value set you claim to espouse. Like when I look at my ancestors and, , the South became a slave state and seceded from the North and they created the breakoff state of the free state of Jones, would, you not have done that?

Would you not have seen, oh, now I live in a society dedicated to slavery. It’s worth me resisting that , or when the Nazis took power, would you not have resisted that? Would you have just gone along with that because now that’s the law? Or when the communists took power in the Soviet Union and started sending people to gulags, you would have just said, “Okay, well, I guess this is the law now.”

Like, this is what gets me. There could always come a point where resisting makes sense. What is evil is not resisting, but the leftist framing of completely normal, mainstream political opinions that any [00:24:00] reasonable person might have. As extremist political opinions. It is not deciding that if things ever actually became extreme, like we were under a communist or Nazi or Confederate state, that it wouldn’t make sense to resist in any means possible.

So to be clear here, I am not calling for political violence. I am just saying that if Nazis ever actually took control of one of our countries, that’s something I would work to resist.

And it’s particularly rich that Nux keeps going over this whole thou shall not kill thing that he’s so into. When you consider that his ancestors, the Jews did not successfully resist the Nazi state and my ancestors had to go in and bear the moral costs of killing the people that did that to his ancestors.

I would like to think that, , they have learned from that. And their actions recently seem to suggest they have. But

The evil thing is not resisting actual Nazis, it’s framing normal political ideology [00:25:00] as Nazism to justify reactions, , against normal political figures and normal civilians.

I

Malcolm Collins: and, and the real problem here, and we might do ... I mean, we’ve done videos on this in the past, which is why I’m not retreading it, is that the left is framing normal right wing positions as Nazi, and then they’re giving people the psychological license to kill anyone they have deemed a Nazi, but they have defined that 50% of Americans are Nazis, and this is happening and people are being radicalized not by far leftists, but by mainstream news outlets by CSN, CNN and MSNBC.

Sorry, I had to go on a rant there. But,

Simone Collins: Well, let’s explore how these academics would propose this welfare queen pronatalist initiative to happen. So the, the big thing is, is just large resource transfers, though they are very deliberately vague in the article, which I think is a very common progressive, hand wavy way of like, “Oh, let’s just, you know, have infinite [00:26:00] immigration and let’s just have, you know, let, let, let’s not incarcerate people for committing crimes.”

And like, well, okay, well, how are we gonna deal with like the fallout from that? And they’re like I, I, you know, what do you wanna do? You wanna, you wanna put them in jail? You wanna send them back?” You know, it’s, you don’t exactly explain what

Malcolm Collins: we felt about- But have you seen the, the video recently of like random mobs in the UK beating up people who are in pubs?

Simone Collins: No. Wait, what? Yeah, it’s for drinking alcohol.

Speaker 9: Frustratingly, this video has been scrubbed from YouTube, which means if I post it, this video’s likely gonna be taken down. So you have to, , go to one of a few news websites to see it. Here in the UK Express, you can see UK riots, gangs waving Palestinian flags, beat lone pub goer in more chaos in Britain streets, , or in the sun, , violent attack, shocking footage shows gang waving Palestinian flags storming pub before knocking man to the floor and kicking him in the head.

, If you want video I was able to find, , of what it’s like to live in the UK these days, here we go.

Speaker 10: A machete on display in broad [00:27:00] daylight. This was a daytime brawl. You

Speaker 11: got a pro

Speaker 10: bar. Barbers fighting over territory. Two on street beatings. This is kebab shop turf wars.

Speaker 11: And he said, “We’re going to kill you and we will burn down your house.”

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, because it’s around- That

Simone Collins: sounds like we should do an episode on that. What, what the, the ... Yeah, the, the, the, the downfall of alcohol, not only are sails down, but you’re getting beaten up for drinking? That’s insane. Wow. And a British tradition. I mean, if there’s anyone who’s allowed to daydrink, it’s Brits.

Malcolm Collins: It’s the land

Simone Collins: of breakfast of beer.

Malcolm Collins: Oh

Simone Collins: my God, that’s yeah-

Malcolm Collins: I, I don’t know if you’ve seen some of the recent tweets from JK Rawling.

Simone Collins: No.

Malcolm Collins: But they’re pretty freaking insane. Now she’s gotten on the whole, like, Islamist or the problem thing.

Simone Collins: Oh, God bless. Okay.

Malcolm Collins: You know, so somebody, basically this one British PM was talking about [00:28:00] how, you know, violence is, you know, never the answer.

And she’s like, “Well, thi- is this Katie something? It better not be Katie something because I saw a video of her shouting globalize the infatata.” Oh, gosh.

Simone Collins: And-

Malcolm Collins: And, and Katie then comes back with this globalized impatata and she goes, “I don’t think you know what that means.” And it’s like, of course she’s like, “It means the struggle.”

In the same way mind comps just means mind struggle, right? Like it’s a totally arbitrary word, but it’s just German for my struggle, come on. And JK Rowling writes back, “Your show is called Useful Idiots. I don’t think you know what that means.”

Simone Collins: Oh my God. JK

Malcolm Collins: Rawling is cooking. I love her.

Simone Collins: We might need to do a full episode on that.

So save it. But-

Malcolm Collins: Elon and JK Rowling on one team, that’s, that’s what we needed from

Simone Collins: childhood,

Malcolm Collins: right?

Simone Collins: Yeah. It’s delightful. But yeah, basically, I think they, they want some sort of long-term income support for women who choose to become single mothers or [00:29:00] guaranteed living standards for single mothers.

They also want broader welfare support targeted at enabling individualistic reproduction. And this is in contrast to what many states have proposed in terms of prenatalist policies where they really wanna focus on family formation and giving benefits to people who are married, who are raising kids in two parent households.

So this is a, a distinct diversion from that. And as Malcolm highlighted earlier, there is abundant research on the, the, the idea of being raised by two people. You can read the book, The Two Parent Privilege which I’m almost finished with. It’s, it’s a pretty good summary of the research, if you don’t believe me.

But they want strong public childcare, they want strong work family policies, and they want general welfare systems that remove dependence on male partners because they’re useless and they’re not worth marrying. And the general idea is just to make women. Wait, wait, don’t want assistance

Malcolm Collins: going to two parent couples

Simone Collins: anymore.

No. No, no, no. There’s no mention of that. Yeah, no. It, this is a ... The, the [00:30:00] very premise of this is we declare bankruptcy on long-term committed partnerships and on men.

Malcolm Collins: Remember, I, I had the episode where I was like, “Humanity’s gonna speciate, guys.” Like-

Simone Collins: No, this is, this is feeding into that hypothesis. This is, we’re adding that, you know, one tally to the side of the scoreboard for speciation, for sure.

Malcolm Collins: And I, and I’m gonna be honest, like, I, because the person who keeps getting me with this stuff is nuts, because nuts is always like, “Oh, well, we on the right would never think violence is okay.” Meanwhile, you know, me, if I lived in Britain right now

Speaker: Go ahead.

Speaker 2: Mom, it looks like Bitlock got hold of those home office documents via freedom of information requests.

Speaker: Nine freedom of information requests.

Speaker 3: He accused the government of covering up the true stats and undocumented migrants. Whitlock’s 4chan account, mom. , Deactivated last month. Because?

Speaker 4: History books say the last land invasion of England was 1066. In actual fact, the last land invasion of England was yesterday morning at 9:45 on a boat. Carrying 40 [00:31:00] undocumented male migrants landed in Dungeoness Kent.

Speaker 5: , an Afghan national was arrested after stabbing three people in Midhurst Gardens in Uksbridge in West London.

One victim 49-year-old Wayne Broadhurst was walking his dog down the street during the horrific attack. The suspect, illegally entered the UK and was granted asylum , according to the BBC.

Speaker 4: That land invasion’s an act of war, right? In war, civilians are allowed to we’re supposed to

Malcolm Collins: anyway, continue.

Simone Collins: And presumably, admittedly that they do the same thing that we kind of do with, with prenatalism, which is like, maybe AI is gonna make all this possible that the authors refer to a post automation future. Here, here’s a quote from their article. “Today, such large resource transfers are perhaps politically and fiscally unfeasible, but nations should consider limited reproductive policy experiments to find out what social and economic resources are required to motivate sufficient individualistic reproduction.

In our post-automation future, perhaps as early [00:32:00] as by 2040 Kurzweil referenced Koorsweil 2024 you gotta, you gotta throw in your singulatarian references they give some more references. “Insights from these pilot projects could inform national policies with the potential to substantially increase fertility, and then of course they acknowledge the side effect of men being totally screwed over.

They, they say that- Side effects, but

Malcolm Collins: whatever, whatever, that’s probably.

Simone Collins: Well, yeah, they would likely exacerbate male marginalization. So they also admit it’s already happening since further reducing women’s economic dependence It’s on men lowers the male value of some groups of men. But, but don’t worry.

They argue the existential risks from demographical apps justify these measures as they speculate that technologies like artificial wombs could later give men more symmetrical reproductive options, restoring some form of reproductive equality between the sexes. So I think it’s very appropriate that I got the tip for this episode from not Altus Hexley on X who sends us some of our best material.[00:33:00]

You rock. And he, his name is very appropriate because the, the thing they’re describing here is uncannily like Eldes Huxley’s Brave New World where reproduction is, is, is this very individualistic reproduction. Except instead of en- empowering individual women to reproduce on their own terms, the state is completely responsible for re- reproduction.

It engineers people and hatcheries and several sex from procreation to maximalize social stability and control. So basically in, since you haven’t read it in Brave New World, in the world state, no one gives birth. All children are produced in centralized hatcheries using processes like they, they call it Bocanos visification and they mass produce m- almost identical embryos to match the state’s labor needs.

And they’re like in these tiers of like alphas and betas and et cetera. Natural pregnancy and motherhood.

Malcolm Collins: I, I would go more, ... I mean, I’m not against this idea for like our family or [00:34:00] cultural group.

Simone Collins: Yeah. ...

Malcolm Collins: but I certainly wouldn’t go the direction they’re going, which is like cutting out men and creating these weird poly giant, you know, like-

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: The

Simone Collins: Brave New World approach is, is kind of equal and it, I mean, that’s like a solution that kind of works for everyone. And in Brave New World, everyone’s also conditioned from birth to be really, really happy with how they are.

Malcolm Collins: Which I think is a good thing to do, right? Yeah. Like why make somebody unhappy with their station in life?

I know that like people are like, “Oh, it’s so dystopian.” I love, you said you read it for the first time and you’re like, “Oh, how utopia.” I was

Simone Collins: like, “This is awesome.”

Malcolm Collins: I, I mean, the way that I would do it is I, I think the, the way that Kl- like Korinsky does it, the, the, or the, the, the, the son of Korinsky who set up the the Klan system in the Battletech universe is a fairly close to the way I would structure things if I could just structure them anyway which is to have a system where you bio, you, you, you clone from like the most successful people within your culture.

Oh. And that determines how much of, of their DNA is, is within the [00:35:00] individual and these individuals within sort of pools do competitions that they’re not all expected to survive to secure the fittest from within a batch.

Speaker: U five are the final vestiges of your brood that some deem might one day be of value to the clan. I am not one of them. To me, U five are the excrement of a failed, semi aborted batch from my blood house, far from the pinnacle of humanity demanded by the Klan’s geneticist that spawned you.

I am a gracious host, so I will give you the opportunity to show me what those strix on Lund home taught you. Show me what you know of being a real true Bo met warrior and prove yourselves worthy of [00:36:00] the name and heritage you carry with you.

Malcolm Collins: And then those individuals end on taking on roles within society that, that are meaningful.

And then you can still have like freeborn people, like that’s within Klan society- mm-hmm. ... but they just don’t often get the most prestigious jobs and stuff like that because they’re not as genetically fit as the- Ah. ... people who have to go through this in- incredibly rigorous process. And the people who go through the rigorous process believe they have a duty to the wider clan and society and everything like that.

So-

Simone Collins: Oh,

Malcolm Collins: interesting. ... like arbitrarily cruel to the freeborns, although they do view them with prejudice.

Simone Collins: Yeah. The, the, the people who reproduce naturally and die naturally in Brave New World have to live on like basically wildlife preserves and they’re seen as disgusting and horrific and you, it’s even frowned upon to be even moderately monogamous in the, the, the world state of Brave New World.

They, they have this saying, they have all [00:37:00] these sayings because it, they’re all about conditioning. Everyone belongs to everyone else. And if you start seeing someone like a particular person too, like too much, people are like, “Hey, man, you need to start like sleeping around a little more.” And like some, some women, because there is no reproduction, I think at one point one of the female characters is like feeling a little bit off and her friend is like, “Oh, like you should just have a, like a fake pregnancy.”

Like you, you, they even have women like go through simulated pregnancies, I think is like a form of treatment. It, it’s weird. I, I, I like that system- Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: that sounds very dis- that’s, that’s not the future I would go for with the,

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But I, I think the future that I would want would be particularly brutalistic compared to what some people think is appropriate.

Simone Collins: Well, but look, I mean, what, what I, what I really appreciate about this is that we’ve been waiting for publications from academics and left-leaning people on what they think we should do about the problem. And [00:38:00] this, this is out there. It’s, it’s not what I would expect. You know, I always thought it would be more of the, the socialist approach of just give, give everyone a ton of money, but here they’re like, they’re really leaning in, I think, to a lot of progressive values, which is like, “Oh, we can not only give people a lot of money, but also just destroy all men.”

They, they, they don’t even talk about like how to address the social unrest that would result from that but-

Malcolm Collins: Because they don’t think that they need to just, you know, a new excuse to kill men, right? Like-

Simone Collins: Yeah, maybe just also introduce like a maid, but for men like Canada’s euthanasia

Malcolm Collins: system. I, I mean, that’s what Canada’s made is.

You know it disproportionately kills white people, right? At least.

Simone Collins: But not men, right?

Malcolm Collins: I don’t know if it’s ... I mean, I know women are more mopey, so you’re

Simone Collins: right, you know. Yeah. I, I imagine if, if, if we were to look it up, that there would be more women who utilize the services of made than men. We

Malcolm Collins: actually, we can look it up right now.

Simone Collins: Okay. With the power of AI. [00:39:00] Are you looking it up using RFABs,

Malcolm Collins: slightly more men. Well,

Simone Collins: they get it done. Men, get it done.

It’s just how it always has to be.

Malcolm Collins: But I just don’t understand this, this like lie down and take it approach. You know, if you’re gonna unalive yourself anyway the, I, I am really getting quite perturbed that the right seems to not see that the left is willing to use any tactic against us.

Mm. And we keep being like, “Well, we’re gonna do things in the moral way.” And it’s like, well, I mean, maybe that’s why we keep losing ground.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I, I don’t know. But-

Malcolm Collins: But

Simone Collins: I’m delighted by this bold stance. And I’ll have to

Malcolm Collins: point out for the people who are like, “Well, we need to do things in the moral way.”

If, if- What

Simone Collins: is the moral way? I, I don’t like that. Especially because- They need

Malcolm Collins: to, they need to somehow convince enough of the electorate to give them political control, then they need to enact the policies that need to be enacted without the women freaking out and voting against them again, [00:40:00] which even with ICE, which has barely done anything in terms of immigration in the United States has already like a mass triggered white women, right, to be like, “Oh, he’s an, you know, a fascist.”

Yeah. Because, you know, if we were actually going to resolve the problems that we have in countries like the UK and the US it’s going to look so much worse because these communities are going to fight back against being deported, right? Like, especially in a place like the UK, like imagine if ICE was doing raids in the UK right now- Yeah.

you would have an actual war in the streets of some major cities, right? Like, that is the situation that’s been created and these people are upset that they, they don’t want the bad optics of that sort of stuff. It’s like, come on. Like, do you understand how gruesome what’s going to need to be done is if we are going to have a chance of stabilizing for example, most of Europe at this point?

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Yeah. I have nothing more [00:41:00] to add aside from ... I hope more leftists come out with their deranged takes. I want the Hassan Piker take on prenatalism. I want the, I want, I want everyone’s nonsense because this is great. They’re, they’re finally coming out. It was inevitable because demographical apps is an increasingly trending issue and I, I really hope that more of the sort of expressed progressive values are played out in proposed prenatalist policy because this is very amusing and delightful.

It is.

Malcolm Collins: It’s unhinged. And I, I, I, like, our side needs to, like, realize who we’re fighting against. Like, they want you eradicated. They want your way of

Simone Collins: working. But, like, actually, yeah, and they just, they just, they, they openly admit it. This, this, with this will marginalize men

Malcolm Collins: of repercussion, right? They just write this down.

Like, of course, we’re going to eradicate you what you thouh- But

Simone Collins: I mean, they’re useless, so it’s okay. It’s so, On the

Malcolm Collins: plus side, at the very least, among technologically [00:42:00] productive populations, these people are an incredibly low fertility group, so they’re not going to exist in the future.

Simone Collins: Well, and clearly as is evidenced to buy their very low rates of relationship formation it’s

Conservatives are marrying. Conservatives are having kids. It’s it’s kind of a demographic inevitability. But I love you. I’m glad we got married and I’m glad we have five kids. So screw you guys.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Screw you guys. We’re going for a six this year, so we’ll let you guys know how that’s gonna go.

Simone Collins: Fingers crossed, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Fingers crossed. But Texas still alive, and that was a touch and go.

Simone Collins: It was. I’m glad he’s okay. All right. Love you. Bye.

Malcolm Collins: Love you too. Bye.

Simone Collins: But it was a, it’s really cool. I enjoyed trying it out. It, it’s nice just to have the sources more prominently put. I, I like, I’ve always liked Perplexity because it includes citations.

Malcolm Collins: So she’s talking about the new feature on RFAB which [00:43:00] is a super, it’s meant to remove AI hallucinations. So what it does is it runs multiple models that can search the internet starting with Grock and you can choose which model it runs and how many checks it does.

Yeah. And it reviews the answer and then edits the answer based on with, with like checks. So you can be like, “This many model runs said this was definitely true.” And it also adds facts if another model forgot a fact. So you can get a, a really expanded and really well thought through list while knowing what’s likely a hallucination and what’s not.

Simone Collins: Yeah. It’s, it’s quite convenient. Especially if you’re trying to do research that you’re using for work or school and you’re like, “I really can’t afford this to be hallucinated right now.” Because even on perplexity where I feel like it’s better sourced and more transparently sourced, there have been times where when I click through on the sourced links, the source isn’t very good or it’s [00:44:00] harder to see, or they’re just referencing some weird like Roundup article somewhere.

So I like this. Yeah. I mean, I, I will give you more feedback later when I can try it out more since you like what? Made it yesterday and now I’m trying it today. So it’s all very new.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. No, things move fast. And what else? We’re also adding I’ll see when I get this done. It’s, it’s, it’s not done yet because it’s a bit more complicated.

But 3D image generation from 2D images that we’re going to then work to map to meshes to make computer models.

Simone Collins: Oh.

Malcolm Collins: So you’ll be able to create full VTuber models with AI is, is the hope.

Simone Collins: Okay. Okay. I get it. That’s, that’s super cool.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, I know. And we’ll also be the first site that does this at least to the degree that we’re looking at doing it, so.

Simone Collins: I love that. Well, power to the people, let’s do it.

Malcolm Collins: Power to the people. I am excited to be working on things. Yeah, we got, we got turned down really quickly from an accelerator. We made it really far aways before and I’m so [00:45:00] confused because we have like paying users and everything now and we’re growing pretty quick, but-

Simone Collins: Well, and they had broadly, when we made it to a final round interview, the first time we applied, been like, “Hey, yeah, just get back to us when you do A, B and C.”

And we did A, B and C and now they’re like dead in the water with us. So do they know something we don’t? That’s what we want to find out.

Malcolm Collins: My big concern is it could be the not safe for work stuff.

Simone Collins: Oh, that, yeah, could just be dead in the water kind of thing.

Malcolm Collins: But that’s what most people use, so, you know.

Simone Collins: Not digging that away.

Malcolm Collins: It gives the internet what it wants. I’m not stupid here.

Simone Collins: Yes, we give the people what they want and what they want is pervy and that’s okay. That’s okay. We support it. All right. I’m gonna get into it and I’m excited for this one.

Malcolm Collins: Okay.

Simone Collins: Cool. All right.

Speaker 16: Yesterday he was like, “I can’t take off my shoes.”

Simone Collins: And I’m like, “Oh, okay.” And I like pull them off and then rocks just fly everywhere when I take off [00:46:00] his shoe because he’s taken to putting rocks in his shoes. So ex- excuse me. There was explosion in there at 1983 in the night. Oh.

I didn’t expect to see that. Excuse me. Okay. Octavia, I thought you said that missiles hit the tracks. Oh yes, missiles. Missles hit the tracks and there was a giant exposing the West expression in the world. And the firefighters, they all came over and helped fast

Octavian Collins: And then they helped a lot of persons. No, no. 400 people are pronounced dead at the hospital. But 10 for five and two- 10

Malcolm Collins: survived.

Octavian Collins: 400 producers. And two more somehow for five at the hospital and which were added to the 10 and two people.

, This helicopter right here, Austin, this medical helicopter also [00:47:00] came over from America to Majersey to fix it.

Malcolm & Simone Collins discuss the viral controversy around the game Pragmata — a title that explicitly celebrates fatherhood and pronatalism. Is “dad corn” (games that stimulate parental instincts) as sinful as traditional porn? How should we think about masturbating evolutionary pathways for bonding with children?

In this unfiltered Based Camp episode, they break down:• Why Pragmata triggers leftists• The difference between healthy vs toxic ways to engage with parental instincts• Why gamers actually have more kids than non-gamers (with data)• Hassan’s “gamers are unfuckable losers” take demolished• Deontology vs consequentialism in faith, gaming, and family formation• Historic Christian attitudes toward sex, beauty, and pronatalism

A must-watch for anyone interested in pronatalism, video game culture, evolutionary psychology, and building high-fertility families in the modern world.

Video Game Developer Dads

Here’s the spreadsheet referenced in the episode.

It includes:

* 30 notable male video game developers

* Key games/works

* Father status: Father, Childless, or Unknown

* Children count where available

* Evidence summaries

* Source URLs in both the main sheet and a dedicated Sources sheet

* A Summary sheet with formulas and a pie chart

Summary results:

* Fathers: 20 of 30, 66.7%

* Explicitly childless: 2 of 30, 6.7%

* Unknown/publicly undocumented: 8 of 30, 26.7%

Episode Transcript

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Corn, what it does is all humans, because of evolutionary reasons, have a collection of pathways that cause pleasure when you do things tied to the birthing and rearing of the next generation.

if you’re here saying pragmata is not core, right? Functionally, how is it different? If I’m in my room and I’m playing pragmata, which I’m playing the game, I am fathering a fake child while I have real children downstairs. Mm-hmm. How is that not as ghoulish as masturbating to a fake woman when I have a real wife in the other room?

I, I- Hmm.

Simone Collins: That’s a really good point.

Speaker: And if you’re like, well, it’s not as bad when I engage with it because I don’t have real children yet, and it’s like, well, that’s about the same as saying it’s not as bad when I engage with it because I don’t have a real wife yet.

Anything that distracts from your tasks of [00:01:00] getting one of those things is equivalent in its sinfulness.

Speaker 8: And if you think I mean Stoji and hair splitting here, one, remember, I can’t make the same take on this that every other conservative commentator has had. I’ve got to have something new and fresh, so keep that in mind. But two, , right now, everyone’s so excited because this is the first time they have seen a game that is meant to masturbate the instinct to be a parent and father a child.

And so they are excited about it because some of them didn’t realize they had this emotion.

Speaker 10: And in getting people to realize that yes, playing with children is actually fun and something they want to do and having children of their own is something they want to do is a fundamentally good thing that this game was released. But the warning against the masturbation of this pathway and how toxic it can be is going to be made evidence in the years to come as people can with AI simulate children.

Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be talking with you again after a few days break. Of course, our audience would know that. But we were in [00:02:00] DC talking with political plays and now we are back and there is an episode that everyone’s been asking us to do, and we are not gonna have the take that you imagine on this one which is about the controversy, which has come downstream of a game named Pragmata.

And the controversy basically goes bunch of leftists saw this game and they were either mad at it because they said it promoted pronatalism, which it very explicitly does the first scene in the game before you meet the little girl Android who you’re supposed to form a bond with.

One of the characters is talking about fatherhood and the other guy’s like, “Oh, it must be really hard.” And he’s like, “No, it’s like the best thing ever.” So it’s very explicit. Oh wow. It’s, it’s not like a, “Oh, we accidentally made a game that made people wanna become dads.” It’s the core theme of the game.

Okay. Then some of them are mad because they say that the little girl is sexualized which, I mean, she’s not, although I will say her face design is a little weird to [00:03:00] me. Like, it, it does not look like the face of someone of that age. Do the people who point that out, like, make a point around that.

Speaker 4: If you’re upset that I don’t have the standard conservative take on this game, I, I want to have as true or honest of a take I have to the extent that it is also something new that you haven’t heard before and is intellectually stimulating because if it’s just let’s dunk on progressives for being icked by a game that promotes traditional value systems, that’s boring.

You’ve heard that already, right? So let’s, let’s try to dig a bit deeper than this. But here what I’ve done, just for those of you who have not seen, because her character in the game is supposed to be the equivalent of a six-year-old girl, here is her face next to a bunch of six-year-old girl faces. And I hope you can see that these two things, , they’re not the same.

There’s something off about her design. And, and that’s okay. , But if you have a six-year-old girl, it would be really striking to you. And so it’s weird that conservative [00:04:00] commentators keep saying that there isn’t something off about her design. , To me, it feels dishonest and I don’t like that in our space.

Speaker 5: By the way, if you’re confused as to what looks off about the head, the number one thing is its relative size to the body. Six-year-old girls have heads that are much larger when contrasted with their body than this individual’s head. The second is its thinness and high cheekbones, which are much more adult features.

Um, again, not the game’s fault. They were trying to size down an adult actress, but, , it is very noticeable if you have a six-year-old daughter, .

Speaker 11: By the way, if you think I’m exaggerating here,, I sometimes use AI to age up our children so I can see what they’ll look like when they’re in their 20s or 30s or whatever.

And I did this to my daughter once recently, but the AI made a mistake and only aged up her face. And I have never seen a picture that looks more like the Pragmata girl. , And it’s very creepy in this context because it’s a bit more exact, but you will see she looks more like this than she does a normal human girl of that age.

Malcolm Collins: That said i- [00:05:00] i- i- she clearly was in the story and was in the context of the fan base is not particularly sexualized, except on Reddit. They made a Reddit thread and they had to shut it down because it just was nothing but sexualized, but that’s, you know, Reddit, leftist, blah, blah, blah, they do them, right?

Simone Collins: Well, that’s the internet. The Rule 42, this is ... I don’t understand how that’s weird.

Malcolm Collins: And then the right comes in and they laugh, laugh, laugh at the leftist and they go, “Ha ha ha, so funny.” You see a little girl and you immediately assume that, you know, you should see her as sexual and that’s a self-report and then the right also says like, “Ha ha ha, you know, how...”

That’s basically the core thing the right’s saying in, in, in so many words. And I think so much of the wider conversation is being missed because of this sort of myopic surface layer investigation of this. So the first thing that we’re gonna be exploring in this is the question that has a pretty clear answer.

Is pragmata [00:06:00] corn? And the answer is yes. Just not of the type you are used to consuming. So what makes something corn, right? Like- Yeah,

Simone Collins: well, the people literally, I don’t know if it still exists, but there was a s- subreddit for food, corn and-

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m not talking about- Different. ... it’s analogous too. Oh. I’m saying it is literally corn.

Simone Collins: Oh my gosh. So- Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Corn, what it does is all humans, because of evolutionary reasons, have a collection of pathways that cause pleasure when you do things tied to the birthing and rearing of the next generation.

Simone Collins: Oh, I see. Where

Malcolm Collins: you’re making this. And there are many types of corn which hit these pathways in different ways. Ooh,

Simone Collins: so like owning a cat or a dog that you overcare for.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I’ve always said that that’s a type of corn. Yeah. But I, I wanna point out that it is not of a type [00:07:00] different than other corn.

There are ... So for example, somebody can say, “Well, it’s not corn because you don’t masturbate to it. “ And I’m like but we say that when women read, you know, sexy monster man books, they very rarely masturbate to those and yet I, I wanna eff a monster is still very clearly corn. There are people say, “Well, people aren’t having sex in it, so it’s not corn.”

And it’s like, well, there’s many categories of fetishes where people don’t have sex be they, you know, foot fetishes, for example, or something, right? Like people aren’t having sex in that and, and yet that would very unambiguously, or they’re like, “Oh, well, that’s not the act.” Okay. What about vor fetishes?

People would say that’s very clearly corn but very clearly no sex is had in that. So, all right, so you can’t loop off corn by saying ... And, and here somebody can say, “Oh, well, no, it’s about the, the, the, whatever the positive emotions you feel [00:08:00] from the images or story or act has to be tied to things that would’ve been actual sexual reproduction for it to be in the category of corn for me.

And it’s like, okay, what did feet have to do with sexual reproduction? Right? Like, there’s a huge variety of things and they’re like, “Well, okay, but that still causes traditional arousal.” And so then here I’d say, “Okay, what about things that don’t cause traditional arousal?” Because here, note, I’m not saying that Pragmata is arousing to, to the core audience and, and what it’s trying to do, but it is trying to hijack a pathway tied to reproduction, right?

So, here you would have something like rope binding and stuff like this. I point out that a lot of people who are into rope binding, they often don’t actually feel arousal from it. They just feel pleasure or comfort from it, the, the feeling of being restrained. And that doesn’t, to us, make that not a type of corn.

And so then the second question is, is, [00:09:00] whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay. And, and note here, this is always the understanding that the core pleasure pathway that this is eliciting in guys is, is, I’ll call it dad corn, right? Like it’s the feeling of being a dad, being protective of a kid, making a kid feel good the things that, you know, your ancestors who felt them during certain parts of their lives ended up having more surviving offspring.

So, the, the second question is, and I think this is a more important question is well, then is it immoral? And what, what is your take on this, Simone?

Simone Collins: I don’t think it’s immoral. I think people should understand what it is and that it’s not a replacement for it because- Yeah. ... I think sometimes you, you may be driven to some form of, like, let’s say you really, really, really love, you know, having your pet dog and you take them on walks everywhere and, and well, you know, maybe, maybe this means you kind of want a kid, you know?

And you, you want to be that person who cares for someone else and really makes your life about them,

Malcolm Collins: [00:10:00] Yeah, so I, I think the pet dog is a perfect example here, and this is very in line with the way I feel about erotic material more broadly, corn more broadly and everything like that- Uh-huh.

Is that there are positive and healthy ways to relate to it, and there are negative and toxic ways to relate to it.

Simone Collins: Right. Like trying to lean into it more to fill a void that it will never be able to fill because it’s, it’s not doing the real thing is dangerous, right?

Malcolm Collins: Right. So, pragmata, I would say is largely positive.

It is something that gets people thinking about this. It gets people wanting to do this type of thing.

Simone Collins: Right.

Malcolm Collins: And it has positive externalities because of that, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: It elicits a positive role between a man and his cu- kid. Well,

Simone Collins: here’s, here’s why though, and this is what I think is a key distinction, because you do see this in elect- the, the commentary people streaming this who are like, “Oh my gosh, I think I wanna be a parent.”

This is not a parenting sim game. This is not a game that people who want to, like, [00:11:00] masturbate that part of their desire or- It, it really

Malcolm Collins: is. I have no idea what you’re saying, Simone.

Simone Collins: Well, you think people are buying Pragmata because they wanna-

Malcolm Collins: Yes. ...

Simone Collins: explore parenthood?

Malcolm Collins: Yes.

Simone Collins: Really?

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Yes. I

Simone Collins: thought it was supposed

Malcolm Collins: to

Simone Collins: be a really gold main game.

Malcolm Collins: If you, if you didn’t want to do that, Simone, that would literally be as completely bizarre- Yeah. ... as buying a game that the cover had like a sexy Fox girl on it was big breasts and then you start playing it and you’re like, “I didn’t want a game with a sexy Fox girl with big breasts in it. “ Like that’s the entire point of the game.

If you, if you open up the sexy Fox Girl was big breast game and it’s a burly man, you’re gonna be like, “This isn’t what I wanted.” If you open up the little- No,

Simone Collins: see, I thought it was something else. I thought people wouldn’t call it like a psyop for prenatalism if it’s stated purpose-

Malcolm Collins: No, it’s no. It’s on the box you are getting this for a [00:12:00] father experience That is

Simone Collins: Well then I don’t understand why this ... I’m so sorry.That is a

Malcolm Collins: misunderstanding. Why is there so much- There is nobody who bought this not going- Why

Simone Collins: is there so much outrage about it then? Because no one would care if that’s what it is.

Malcolm Collins: There’s outrage about it because the left sees people and men wanting to be fathers in a wholesome framing and getting angry about it.

And then they want to find a way to frame this negatively because they do not like that people are moving towards a traditional life pathway or desire a traditional life pathway. Okay. Because it frames something wholesome that people want in their lives and a wholesome experience they want and the left is so completely brain its audience into believing that nobody actually wants that, that it begins to sort of shatter the reality and cause this offense emotion because it’s challenging their world [00:13:00] perspective.

Oh. And so they must attack it. But the wider point I was making here is I think you can contrast something like pragmata and using that to stimulate this instinct versus something like using a pet to stimulate this instance. Okay. Using a pet to stimulate this instinct is done instead of having a child, right?

That is a toxic way to relate to this in the same way that if corn is a part of your life and you’re, and it’s just like a once a week thing or something like that, right, that’s irrelevant, right? Like that’s not gonna screw up your life, that’s not gonna lead you to degeneracy, that’s not gonna ... If, and people can be like, “Well, it, you know, I personally can’t resist that leading me to degeneracy.” And it’s like fine. And there’s people who play pragmata and get obsessed with this particular fake AI android girl, right? Like clearly this is dangerous for them. I’m just saying that for a [00:14:00] lot of people it doesn’t.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: But-

Simone Collins: In the same way where like if you’re, if you’re skipping out on events where you might meet a future wife because you wanna stay home

Malcolm Collins: and

Simone Collins: look at corn

Malcolm Collins: then- Yeah, guning, right? Like that’s clearly a problem in the same way or you’re doing it multiple times a day or something like that, right?

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: That, that’s a point where it is clearly interfering with you pursuing the things that you want to pursue, like that you need to pursue from like a moral context. And it’s important to understand that engaging with something like Pragmata in this context can make it even more likely that you are going to find a partner.

This is very similar to the studies that were done on men in college that consumed corn versus the men who didn’t and the men who did were much more likely to have girlfriends and much more likely to be able to secure girlfriends. The idea that well, I mean, there’s, there’s this sort of [00:15:00] stereotype, which is just wrong, which we’ll get to is the Hassan, because Hassan has this gamer stereotype, which is just entirely wrong, but that’s sort of part two of this.

Basically he says, gamers are guys who don’t have kids and will never have kids. And we’re gonna point out by the statistics that’s just wrong, gamer guys are much more likely to have children than non-gamer guys of which Hassan is and doesn’t have kids. So, you know, his line dies with him, but more on that soon.

Because I wanted to talk more about the wider concept of art and video games and what these things do, right? Humanity is a collection, and we have a collection of things we find beautiful, things we find arousing, and things we find pleasing.

And this collection of things is downstream generally of evolutionary pressures. And people can say, “Oh, well, beauty isn’t [00:16:00] downstream of evolutionary pressures.” And I’m like, “Well, okay, first of all, yeah, usually it is if you’re talking about, like, a, a, a woman who you think is beautiful or a man you think is beautiful, that is evolutionary sexual pressures.”

Absolutely. That’s the Mona Lisa. That is most famous portraits. That is your ability to judge a human being as beautiful or not beautiful is downstream of the same evolutionary pressures that led to your most basal arousal pathways. But outside of that, well, people are like, “Well, what about pictures that aren’t of things like humans?”

And I’m like, “Okay, well, what sort of pictures do people like to draw?” They like to draw pictures of streams, they like to draw pictures of views of, of, of landscape. They like to draw pictures of oceans. They like to draw pictures of like, like scenes of nature where you can see far in the distance.

And I’m like, “Okay, so what have you just described a bunch of? “ You, you, you’ve just said the things that people like [00:17:00] to look at over other things that people may want to look at are locations where they have a long view into the distance, e.g. A defendable location, locations with fresh water, e.g.

Locations where it’s good to live, and locations with food supplies, e.g. Animals or fish. You have described what in our evolutionary context was what it felt like to be in an area that was defendable and that had resources you needed to survive versus locations that didn’t. Everything that we perceive in reality tied to pleasure is downstream of these evolutionary pressures.

And you can try to gate little tunnels of this based on our current understanding and society of, well, this is this kind of content [00:18:00] because it is, within X type of, you know, degeneracy but as I was trying to point out earlier in this, that actually causes a lot of problems in terms of like categorizing, well, what is actually corn?

Speaker 7: The point we’re trying to get into here is specifically why is in some context masturbation a bad thing to do. It’s a bad thing to do because you are hijacking a reproductive inpulse for pointless personal gratification rather than directing that impulse to finding or satisfying your spouse. When that impulse guides some behavior other than finding and satisfying your spouse, it is deleterious to you.

And this is important because if you get too deontological about this, you can just categorize all of X thing is bad, all of Y thing is good, and then completely ignore the entire point about prohibitions about masturbation because it is, you’re taking the reproductive impulse, hijacking it, , for something other than its purpose.

[00:19:00] So what about playing with kids? Playing with your kids feels good because it is helping you, , raise the next generation, keep humanity going. And instead of relying on these desires to have a kid and raise the kid and play with a kid, you short circuit them and you use , a fictional character to do that.

functionally, you’re, you’re doing an equivalent thing. And this isn’t to say that there couldn’t be some positive externalities, , like the game gets people to realize that they have these impulses in the first place, , which is, you know, why people are excited about it because a lot of guys didn’t realize that this felt so good, but, , it is the same thing and just as some guys can get one shotted by masturbation, some guys are going to be one-shotted by fictional children, , that they can parent and dote on.

And this is gonna become an increasing problem as we enter the age of AI where people can have children that feel very, very real. And so the [00:20:00] warning that I lay out here with a game like Pragmata may seem so silly and trivial, “Oh, guys didn’t realize they had this motivation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”

And it’s good because it makes them realize that, and, and may seem silly and trivial because this is your first time encountering something that’s meant to masturbate this instinct, but you wait until people have AI children, then you’ll see why this warning is so prescient.

Speaker 3: And if you’re like, well, it’s not about the effect on the individual, it’s about the effect on society. Obviously, the statistics that I cite the most, which is what causes me to have such strong beliefs about this is, , when the Czech Republic , legalized corn, , rates of child SA dropped by around 50%.

We have seen similar results of, , between 25 and 50% drop in child SA whenever it gets legalized in a region. , And we also saw sexual assault rates drop the United States, , at around the same rate as internet penetration was hitting a region.

And also we know of prisoners, , those who engage in SA [00:21:00] typically start engaging with corn at a later age in their life. ,

And this is what gets me on the bands of stuff like this. Like we have the evidence on this. We know the consequence of these sorts of bans. And it’s because of your own moral inability to control yourself, you are sacrificing the lives of children. , And if you say, “Well, okay, I actually don’t struggle with this.

Well, if you don’t struggle with this, then why the heck are you sacrificing the lives of children when you can throw this meat to the beast of society and prevent them from using human children as their ownie holes, right? Like why, why are you doing that? That’s a monstrous thing to do. And I think a lot of the time it’s because, , people want to look more generically conservative than the person next to them.

Speaker 9: But when the progressive wants to be a good person and says, “Oh, I am letting in these immigrants,” and you point out, , these immigrants often great people, here are the statistics. , And, and they are monstrous and they are responsible for those grapes when they do this. Just as much as a [00:22:00] conservative who says, “I want to ban erotic material.”

, And you point out, “Well, in countries where this has been done, the level of child grapes rose by X amount, , they are responsible for that. It’s important that we not fall for the same trap the progressive does.”

Speaker 3: And o- obviously this doesn’t win us points to point out, , in the conservative sphere, but I will not sacrifice the lives of children for the perception that I am a morally pure person if I know what the consequential outcome of that sacrifice is. I

So at a, at a societal level as well, it’s positive. The question is, is it positive for individuals? , And the answer here is often not, , but it depends on how the individual is relating to it in the same way that a game like this can be very negative for an individual, , but generally it’s going to be positive.

It just depends on the context.

Malcolm Collins: And then this gets to the bigger problem here where people will then [00:23:00] say, “Well, Malcolm, I am you know, X type of Christian and Christians have always been really anti anything that has to do with sexuality.” And I would just say, “No, the person who told you that was your leftist school, your leftist upbringing and leftist caricatures of Christians.”

If you look at Christians in a historic context depending on the Christian cultural group that you are studying, they were a very sexual population. Great examples of this would be the Puritans who up until the mid 19th century, their works heavily censored because they were so sexual. Y- y- you see this in parts of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament where you will have quite graphic sexual allegories and jokes.

You, you may not get them as a reader today because you won’t know that a foot is supposed to be a member was in that context in Jewish society, but the, the, they, they were to the readers of that [00:24:00] period. They were porn jokes.

Speaker 14: Just to go over some of these, we have Ru three, we have Samuel 24-3, we have Isaiah 720, we have Judges 324.

Malcolm Collins: That, that is what parts of the Bible are. And you could say, “Well, then why?

Like, why any of the ... Doesn’t, doesn’t the Bible say that you shouldn’t, like, lust after other women?” And it’s like, you absolutely shouldn’t be lusting after other women. Don’t do that, right?

But I think that you can divide lusting after other women with one, what a lot of modern corn actually is and two the way that we, as a larger, like, new right cultural phenomenon relate to these concepts.

So if you’re like, how were the Puritans like pro- monogamy, but also vulgar, right? Like what, I don’t, I don’t get this. It doesn’t make sense to me. And here I’d be like, “Have you seen the new leaflet song?” Right? The, the, not the new one, her first one. She had another one about college, which is really good, you should watch it, but the, the [00:25:00] first one is about have babies.

And in the song about having babies she says

Speaker 19: お

Malcolm Collins: And the, the, this is the way that Puritans talked about this stuff, right? Like, the idea being everything that she has said there is what our society today would tell you is vulgar, but the reality of what she has said is what you do to make babies, okay?

It’s not actually bad. [00:26:00] It’s not anti-biblical to say, “You should have a wife and have sex with her and come inside of her and make babies.”

Speaker 24: The woke mind virus is trying to psyop us into becoming incredibly rigid in the way we relate to sexuality and aroutal. And rigid things become brittle. We need to have a degree of flexibility to stay maximally, structurally strong and protect our children. The reason they’re trying to syup us into this rigidity is because when they do, it makes it very easy to lure our children out of the tradition.

And we can see as we have adopted more flexibility as a movement, I mean, if you had told me 10 years ago, some of the leading conservative influencers would be like Anthro Fox girls, furries, you know, whether it be Kirsha, Smugalana, Slime Girl, Leaflet, I’d be like that, how, how? Isn’t the [00:27:00] right so strict and rigid around this stuff?

But as we have loosened that and said, no, it’s okay to be flexible in this stuff so long as it’s not in a way that’s causing active harm to our members, we can outmaneuver the left where they have begun to worship ugliness

And as long as they’re going to insist on making all of their females ugly, we have a huge asymmetric advantage in the culture war, whereas we allow for attractiveness within our influencers, even where we’re creating super normal iterations of that EG V tubers. I

Malcolm Collins: there, there was a group who hated talking about this stuff, Sierra Quaker episode, but what happened to them? They mostly died out. Some iterances of their group even began to think that sex was in marriage was sinful like the shakers, and they died out extra hard.

So, the point that I’m making is I think that we are, we are bringing this back in a way that’s protective of our communities. And people can say, “Oh, well, what about, like, the Colorado [00:28:00] strategy or whatever.” I can’t remember the Colorado something. And it’s like, if you ever allow degeneracy, it always helps our opponents and not us.

And here they’re referring to Colorado loosening the ban on marijuana. And here I say to them, “Are you actually kidding me? “ And note here, when I’m talking about corn, I’m not talking about anything that’s involving real humans that is, I think, pretty much always has negative externalities for society.

You, the, there’s, there’s AI stuff, there’s drawn stuff, there’s, you know, I, I’m not talking about real humans, because then that involves those real humans and ends up ruining their lives. But the Colorado strategy is really stupid because the reason why Colorado ended up flipping blue after they legalized pot was because they legalized effing pot.

You ... Idiots like obviously if you were the first state to legalize pot, that’s gonna bring a bunch of lefties from all over the country to your state, and they’re gonna vote in a lefty way that has nothing to do with the wider conversation. Now, why is it so important for the [00:29:00] left to try to trick you into thinking that historic Christian groups were incredibly humorously enough, they made up the term puritanical about sex, which is the antithesis of the way the Puritans viewed sex.

And the ... By the way, most of the, the Christian groups other than the Quakers didn’t really care. Like the backwards people would talk about sex very frequently as well. They, they had no trouble talking about it. It w- it didn’t have big social taboos around it in the way it does in modern society.

Why did they have to convince us of that? It’s because it’s the number one way that they get our kids. It’s important to remember that if you’re a Protestant for every one person that converts to a Protestant, two people leave the church. If you’re a Catholic for every one person that converts into the church, eight people leave the church, right?

Like, the church is even now, ... Now it looks like it may have tapered off in some of the latest polling, but it’s pretty much bleeding members, or at least it has been for a very long time. And we need to think about how and why. And the easiest strategy to get your kids has been oh, you little Tommy, you [00:30:00] feel arousal th- th- that must mean that you are sinful, but look at us like we feel arousal and it’s accepted in our community or you feel this type of arousal that your parents say makes you evil, right?

And so you might as well just join us. And this strategy was like super successful. Like it one shot at so many Christian kids because it’s, it’s, it’s when you’re going through a time and you’re first feeling these emotions and you don’t have anyone else you can go to, or you don’t feel like you have anyone else you can go to because this stuff has been so stigmatized by the way that your family talks about it it, it, it’s a very easy strat for the leftist to employ.

And it’s, it’s, it’s created a a, a, a sort of just a, a, a shooting cage for young kids. And I’m really glad that through YouTubers like Leaflet, we are beginning to see a coming back of, bro, like, make kids, it’s hot, right? Like, remember what this is for. [00:31:00] Remember what all of this is for. Don’t let them be they the, the leftist or the leftist created mirror version, mirror world version of Christianity turn your kids into easy targets.

And, and everything, and the way you style culture and everything like that, and this is, I think, the problem with a lot of people. And they look at me, they’re like, “Are you giving advice? For us, it’s gonna make our lives heart, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” Like, no, like everything that I think through is like, how am I gonna keep my kids from deconverting?

How am I gonna make my kids resilient to this? And when it’s advice, it’s advice at the cultural level. How do we harden our cultures to the tactics people use against us? And so it’s important to understand that pragmata masturbates the parental instinct within us, and there are mechanisms that that instinct can be masturbated like owning dogs and cats that are as degenerate as the absolute worst pornography [00:32:00] because they have degenerate effects on society and your life, which is you end up becoming a cat lady.

A cat lady, we used to understand that becoming a cat lady was the very peak of human degeneracy. It was that generation’s version of being the worst kind of gooner was in today’s society because you let that spin out of control. And yet today, JD Vance points this out, you know, the, the using catwoman derogatorily and he gets hounded by the media because they are attempting to normalize this and they normalize it by breaking apart the categories so you can’t understand what’s what anymore.

You can’t understand what’s good and what’s bad. You can’t say real human beings bad, right? Like that’s an easy category there. Does it involve real human beings? Bad, right? Does it involve something that somebody is, is, is making into like a daily thing for themselves, bad, right? But just normal human arousal pathways, whatever.

And [00:33:00] I, I note here people can be like, “Well, the Bible expects you to never masturbate.” And I’m like, “I’m pretty sure the Bible would have explicitly said that if the Bible expects you to never masturbate.” And you can see our episode on what does the Bible say about masturbation, but the Bible if you’re looking into the Old Testament at least, there is one section where it explicitly

Talks about blocked or abnormal emissions.

Malcolm Collins: And, and many people take this to mean, well, if you have a type of disease which is blocking emissions you are unclean, but what it implies is that it expected most men to be having emissions regularly. Not most married men because it applies to all Jewish men for this period but most men generally.

Speaker 15: And even if you take the stance that no, it’s not talking about that, , it’s talking about only blocked omissions in the context of a marriage where that would be relevant, you still have to admit that that’s a pretty out there edge case to be mentioning in the Bible. Abnormal admissions and blocked emissions and then a number of paragraphs about what to do about [00:34:00] that.

Why does it never once when it’s a natural thing for humans and apes to do, by the way, because apes do this in nature to masturbate, why would it never mention this if it was so existentially dangerous? , And it existentially didn’t want you to do this. , And people can say, “Oh, well, there’s this section where the guy pulls out before he finishes in a woman in a Levite marriage, and that’s the same.”

It’s like, no, that’s not.

Speaker 16: That was a legitimately horrifying thing a guy was doing. So for context in the Bible, if, , your husband dies, you marry his brother, that’s a Levite marriage, this is meant so that you can carry on, , his line and, you know, have children. , And so the guy was having sex with his brother’s widow and pulling out every time before he could do the function of sex, which is coming inside of her so that she could have a child, , literally using her as a human oni hole instead of, , actually doing the purpose of sex, which is getting her pregnant.

You know, [00:35:00] he could have chosen to not have sex with her, but no, he kept having sex with her and pulling out before he gave her the one thing that she needed. Horrifying, horrifying scenario.

If you were going to stretch this beyond its original meaning, the more accurate stretch would be as a condemnation of any non-procreative sex.

Malcolm Collins: So again, I, I don’t even think, I think that this is like a modern, mirror, fake version in the same way that like there’s some rightist today who inhabit this like super racist, antisemitic trope because they learn from their like leftist parents that that’s what a rightist is without like looking to history to try to understand this stuff.

Simone Collins: Yeah, that’s underrated the extent to which the leftist’s perception of the right is purely based off of leftist trauma. I mean, and vice versa, to be fair, but if only there were more exchange.

Malcolm Collins: Straumann?

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. But I, I did not understand the right because I just believed this caricature that was presented to me as a kid.

Malcolm Collins: Mm-hmm.

Simone Collins: And that’s [00:36:00] underrated, I think, to the, the extent to which that happens on both the left and the right when people grow up- Right.

Malcolm Collins: And I completely sympathize with so many kids who grew up in the urban monoculture, their parents had abandoned their culture and never really taught it to them. They discover that many things that are said was in the right are true, and then they try to adopt to win some sort of social hierarchy battle that they now think they’re playing among other rightists, the most stereotypical rightist perceptions within like what their community or what the leftist drama told them the rightest were like.

And like I can understand this very confusing to a lot of people. And, and somebody can look at me and they can be like, “Malcolm, if you normalize all this stuff, like life won’t work out for you. You should live the way Nick Fuentes lives or whatever.” And I’m like, okay, but like I have five kids and a loving relationship and most of the people I see who push this extremely strict deontological lifestyle are [00:37:00] not happily married and don’t have lots of kids and aren’t actually winning at things.

Knowing where to loosen the rules on yourself is a really important part of actually succeeding in life. And this is a conversation I think people did not expect this particular talk to go, but now we’re gonna go to the second part of this, which is what Hassan had to say about this. And I’m gonna play the clip right here.

Speaker 17: Well, family, even streamers who say at the start, start they didn’t want kids end up breaking down happy and tears. So what’s really interesting about this is all of these unfuckable losers in the gaming sphere always talk about like starting families and stuff. And I don’t understand like why this has become a thing that they care about.

Like if you’re a gamer, you should care about things that you actually experience. You should care about things that you actually enjoy, right? If you’re a f*****g lonely gamer who has never been around a woman and will never have sex with a woman, why do you care? Like why do you care about having children or like [00:38:00] riding for having children?

Like it’s just not something that you’re gonna experience ever for your life, for the rest of your life, right? This is something that I never understand.

Malcolm Collins: And this clip is important because again, it represents a trope, a trope that the left wants to be true about gamers. And it wasn’t just Hassan saying this, it was lots of people online saying this. But it is factually incorrect. So we decided to look into this. We’re like, okay, Hassan said gamer, because I’m a gamer, right?

And I would say, for example my sin of playing video games is dramatically worse than any sin I have tied to corn. And the reason being because sin, according to the Bible, is anything you don’t do for God. And I don’t play video games for God. You can’t play video games for God. Video games are for personal entertainment- Yeah.

to masturbate instincts that you evolved. And so, if I’m doing that many times more within my life that I’m looking at something like [00:39:00] corn, then it’s a, it’s a bigger challenge for me. It’s a bigger sin that I need to get through to live, I think, a, a, a, a perfect life. But I give myself loose rules within some areas because I know I’m gonna be tempted and I know the end goal for all of this is a happy and healthy family and a happy and healthy civilization and that if I focus too hard on this rule and this rule, then I’m not gonna get to this rule and do it right, which is the important one, which is the consequentialist one, which is to have a family, have kids treat your wife well, treat your kids well, raise the next generation, protect human civilization.

And this is ... No, this is really important, right? Like, so many of the people who are preaching this alternate perception, but anyway, let’s get to this study. Simone, you put it together, go over it. Yeah. Video game developers.

Simone Collins: Well, yeah, because we were talking in a long card drive about this. I used with Perplexity’s help, I used Perplexity to find notable video game developers and then see what their [00:40:00] key games were and if they were kids.

And I didn’t ... I actually, I did a separate grock search on whether they were, like, woke game developers or not. It didn’t actually seem to make a difference in some of the data, depending on how you look at it. But I will remember to share this spreadsheet in the show notes too. If anyone wants to look at it we created basically a list of 30 notable male video game developers, their key games and their father status, whether they’re a father or childless or unknown.

And if we know how many kids, how many kids they have plus source URLs. And the fathers out of the 30, there were 20 of them, so 66.7%. So more likely than not, a video game developer is going to be a dad. There were only two who were explicitly childless, 6.7%. And then the rest were just unknown, eight out of 30, which is 26.7%.

So

Malcolm Collins: only two out of 30 didn’t have kids. That’s right. Of video game developers.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: So only two are the genetic dead [00:41:00] ends that Hassan represents.

Speaker 21: And I would note here that this isn’t just us that found this. , There was a study that showed that 55% of gamers are married and 48% have children, and single gamers is twice as likely to go on dates, , , than, , non-gamers. , So gamers actually end up having kids at a much higher rate than non-gamers.

Speaker 23: And this sort of comes to the wider point here. Even though gaming is sinful because it’s purely done for personal entertainment, it has no positive externality on the world at large, it can still have a positive effect in your life if engaged was within a healthy context.

Malcolm Collins: And I find this projection very interesting from Hazan because he’s like, you guys aren’t having sex, which is what, what do you mean gamers aren’t ha- wh- wh- what?

Like, are you a middle school bully or something? Like, do you, did you not even think to, like, okay, what are, what are, like, famous right wing [00:42:00] video game creators? Okay, we got five nights of Freddy’s guy. I think he’s got, what, seven kids? He’s got some insa- I think he’s seven. It might be six or something.

Simone Collins: I think he’s a lot.

And, and he’s not even listed on this list.

Malcolm Collins: So the question is, is why do you see so many game developers having kids when people like Hassan don’t have kids? And I think here, we’re going back to the soft Yankee phenomenon- Oh. ... which actually ties strongly into this whole entire conversation.

We point out in Japan, the group that seems to be higher fertility than the other groups is the soft Yankees. So this is a style that in the past would have been seen they, they dressed like very American, like rode around on like Harley Davidson and did their hair slick back. Game

Simone Collins: troublemakers. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: A Yankee character, if you watch a lot of anime, right? And then as they got older, they sort of toned it down a bit, but they still had families and everything and they still wanted to, you know, because they were not taking life as [00:43:00] hard as your typical Japanese citizen does.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Whereas the typical

Simone Collins: gap- They were, for example, they were more likely to live in their hometowns closer to their families, which is a big contrast to someone who, say, moved from a more rural area to Tokyo where it’s a lot harder to have a large family.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I, I don’t think that that’s the most important part. The most important part is that your typical Japanese salary man is living a life of extremely strict deontological rules, typically. And the- Well,

Simone Collins: and it’s a miserable life. I mean, the, the, the rates of death are just

Malcolm Collins: heart attack on the job. I think that’s not the point.

That’s not the point.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: The point is, is that they are living a life filled with very strict rules, whereas Yankee culture was in Japan was built around saying- Rule

Simone Collins: breaking. Yeah. “

Malcolm Collins: F you to the rules, I’m gonna do things my way. I’m gonna do things the way that work best for some form of consequentialist outcome for me.

There was one of our fans that did an analysis of various Mormon districts based on [00:44:00] how religious they were. And what he ended up filing was that the highest fertility districts were not the highest religiosity districts. It was actually the middling religiosity districts that were the highest fertility, and being extremely high religiosity as a Mormon hit your fertility rates.

Mm-hmm. And so the question is, is w- why do we see this phenomenon around strict deontological value sets, strict rule-based value sets and a failure to achieve the end that all of those rules were for which is to say if, if you ask me at least, like, what is the point of all of the rules in a book like the Bible or in traditional cultures or in

Because there’s a lot of rules that people just took away, right? They’re like, “Oh, we don’t need that rule. I don’t understand why it’s there.” Like a rule was put in place, it solved a problem, then, you know, the summer of love comes around and they’re like, “Well, I just don’t understand why we can’t just sleep with everyone.”

And then as somebody pointed out the decline in [00:45:00] promiscuity that happened after the ‘70s wasn’t because people rediscovered morality, but it was because they immediately figured out why all those rules were there and it was called the AIDS crisis. The point being is that a lot of these historic rules had a point to them.

Mm-hmm. But it’s also important to remember that our perception today of what rules were in the past can sometimes be shaped by the urban monoculture, which lies to us around what rules were normalized in the past. The lies to us around what cultural practices were normal in the past to try to create a false framing of the past to put us in weaker positions.

If you see our episode about the degeneracy of the past or our, our ancestors we talk about how in many ways society has become dramatically more sexually conservative with some of the biggest being showers group showers no longer being a thing.

Simone Collins: Group showers, even more extreme things like key parties.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Key parties- Yeah. ... things where you go to a party and you’d [00:46:00] like swap keys and you’d go home with whoever’s key you had. Yeah. ... there was for male-

Simone Collins: Well, I think even just the fact that there was dating culture. Oh, the whole donkey thing you were gonna say.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, we don’t, I mean, we do know that in some parts of Latin America, donkeys were definitely a thing.

We don’t know of the Tiawana donkey journey.

Simone Collins: And the literal circle jerks. Wasn’t that another thing you talked

Malcolm Collins: about? Yes, circle jerks were very common for men I think through like the 1920s, through like the 1950s or ‘60s. When I say men, I’m, I talk about young men, like high school men would often, it was considered like something they did.

A- a- and you can read about this in like a lot of the literature of the period, if you read older literature that it was a thing that was done and was considered normal and not gay. I’m not saying bring back this stuff. I’m just saying that if you thought that we moved from a society that was not degenerate to a society that was degenerate you are believing a leftist lie about history.

Mm-hmm. A- and note here, people can be like, “Well, rule 34, that must be new.” And no-

Simone Collins: Oh, that’s what I was thinking. Rule 34.

Malcolm Collins: It’s not, we, I mean, if you go back to the 1920s, [00:47:00] you have Tijuana Bibles-

Simone Collins: Yeah. ...

Malcolm Collins: being sold d- widely- Well,

Simone Collins: please, if you go back to the 1700s, you have people making stuff of Mar- Marie Antoinette and her ladies and waiting.

Don’t even, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. But the, but the Tijuana Bibles were basically your first

cartoon, a year later, you have your first widely distributed R34. For people who aren’t familiar with Tijuana Bibles, you’d like go to your local drugstore and you’d buy sort of under the table, they had books that were rule 34 art of the cartoons of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and these ended up transitioning in designs and then they died out with the internet because there was alternate things that existed.

And, and you see this, you know, you go all the way back. People are like, “Well, okay, this, this didn’t exist in, in, in history.” And it’s like, well, I mean, of course you have

Simone Collins: James Joyce, wasn’t it James Joyce?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, James Joyce, James Joyce and his, like, fart fetish stuff that he would write.

So like he’s high society, right? Or you go back to ancient Greece and, oh my [00:48:00] God, like the moment you invent a theological pantheon, all of a sudden everyone’s having sex with each other in the weirdest possible ways and animals and whatever, right? And then fortunately a superior culture came around and, and cleaned up a lot of that and was like, no, like let’s not include the animals in this stuff.

But the point I’m making here is that these people who created these very strict rules, gamers don’t have these as much. Gamers take life a lot less rigidly because they’re like, look, I’m gonna chill out at the end of the day. I’m gonna have like an hour of me time, right? That isn’t, that isn’t for trying to move human civilization forwards, that isn’t for trying to be a good person, that isn’t for my family, that isn’t for and that this ability to be relaxed about part of your life allows you to, because think about when, when you, if you’re here saying [00:49:00] pragmata is not core, right? Functionally, how is it different? If I’m in my room and I’m playing pragmata, which I’m playing the game, it’s okay I am fathering a fake child while I have real children downstairs. Mm-hmm. How is that not as ghoulish as masturbating to a fake woman when I have a real wife in the other room?

I, I- Hmm.

Simone Collins: That’s a really good point. Yeah. Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: That, that is, that is obviously as ghoolish, right? And I, and then people can be like, “Well, okay, well, I only play games where I go around murdering fake people. “ And I’m like, “How is that any better?” Okay? You’re, instead of playing with your kids, murdering fake people in a box, all right?

I think we need to admit to ourselves when something is sinful, all right? Like, this is, I think, the greatest sin is to pretend [00:50:00] that something is that is, that is clearly very sinful, isn’t sinful, or is some different category of sin than the types of sin that other people are making.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: The final thing to talk about was pragmata, unless you had any comments on what I’m talking about here, Simone.

Simone Collins: No, I just really do appreciate, however, the fact that you’re bringing up this misnomer that somehow gamers are in cells when they’re, they’re actually just normal people-

Malcolm Collins: But these are chill about things. Yeah. You know, the people who are like, “I’ll never play video.” Like, clearly there’s some video game that would likely be fun for most people, and so if you’re out there fastidiously not playing video games, it’s because you’re living by some strict deontological rule set.

Hassan is living by one of those rule sets, and that’s why he has a girlfriend who says she’ll never breed with him- Yeah. ... because she says she doesn’t want kids. And so his life ends with him. His line ends with him. Yeah. He is a genetic dead end, and if you are having sex with someone without reproducing being the point of it, you know, as Lethalt [00:51:00] says the, the way to have kids birth control is for pussies.

If you are having sex with somebody without that being the end goal, you’re just treating your partner as an oni hole, right? As a sex toy. The, that’s, that’s the, the end of it, right? And I’m, I’m sorry if that hurts some people’s feelings to hear, but that’s the reality of it. You have reduced your partner to a level of degeneracy worse than anything you will find online, right?

Because the stuff you find online is fictional. You have reduced a real human being to a sex toy, which is disgusting. That is all they are was in your life if you are not having reproductive sex.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And I know that, like, I’m sorry that that got a little spicy there, but it’s, it’s the reality.

And, and it’s sad to think of Hassan furiously masturbating himself inside of this woman who he presumably has some [00:52:00] affection for instead of doing what’s meaningful with his life because he believes he has followed all the deontological rules, or at least enough of them, so he doesn’t need to actually sacrifice for the future and have kids which is the problem that many deontologists also on the right do.

They go, “Well, I’m following enough of the important rules. I don’t actually need to do the really hard stuff, which is go out there and talk to women.” Right?m. You know, that’s the really hard part, right? They’re like, “Oh, well, it, the Bible doesn’t, you know, say it’s sinful to close myself in my house and not talk to women, so I’m not gonna...”

But all of those other rules in the Bible assume that you’re doing that anyway, right? Like all of those other rules was, was to achieve this outcome for you, which was a, a, a, a, a married household with lots of kids that were raised in a way that made them effectatious in the future. The rules weren’t to, like, f**k with you, okay?

Or, or make your life arbitrarily hard. It was to guide you in the right direction. And when you overly follow [00:53:00] like this, this and this, you can forget, oh, but the really hard thing I need to motivate myself to do today is talk to a girl. Now the final point, were there people online ... And I had prepared a bunch of, like, quotes that people had had about the game and getting mad about it, getting mad about it pronatalist message, people saying, “Oh, people are telling on themselves by finding her hot or whatever that leftists are evil and evil can’t see good.”

I mean, is this really true or is this just us trying to make ourselves feel good as people on the right? Like, it feels good to say leftists can’t see that this is actually a game about being a dad. And I think that there is some truth to this. There are some leftists who are so cooked that they reflexively can’t help but see a child and see a sexual object because that is the only way they relate to anything, any media, any

Simone Collins: book.

Well, then there’s a reminder that most people now are, [00:54:00] well, probably most, I need to check, but most are growing up without exposure to younger siblings, certainly not prolonged exposure. So they kind of don’t know how to contextualize young girls differently if they’re not, aside from being a kid ever around young girls, you know, as an older sibling or something.

Yeah. If that makes sense.

Malcolm Collins: But I think that most of the leftist anger around the game is downstream of three alternate reactions, and they’re just trying to hide the reactions in a way that they can use to attack their political opponents. And I think it’s important that we don’t accidentally do the same.

Because if we do, if we don’t actually attempt to model our political opponents, then we cannot predict them. And if we cannot predict them, we cannot fight them as well. The reason I’m able to do something like bait a Telemundo reporter into a trap is because I understand her perspective and I can predict her.

She doesn’t understand my perspective and [00:55:00] therefore cannot predict me and so falls in that trap. So, where, where, where are they going with this? How do they see it? So the first thing is they don’t like their political opponents being happy.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: They see men and gamers and men who enjoy sexual things as their opponents, and this is why they remove sexual things from video games, because they want to make you a straight man sad.

That’s, that’s really it. They want you to have less pleasure. They don’t do it. And this, this is where they align, and this is why so much of the on, like the, the like new right or the online right got and cut its teeth fighting for the de- censorship of sexy female characters and games.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: And we are intentionally hobbling ourselves if we don’t do that, right?

Because we say, “Oh I the left, but for reasons I won’t get down to here, I’m actually gonna talk about this was leaflet. The left started to hate beauty and they thought that they both hate [00:56:00] beauty and they hate especially beautiful women because beautiful women make straight white men happy, especially beautiful white women.

So let’s remove all of those from video games. And now we can put those back in our games and, and please gamers. And there’s gonna be a part of the faction that says, don’t put beautiful women in games because that’s sinful.” And it’s like, f**k off, right? Like, absolutely, you are m- removing one of our weapons for no reason when it’s an easy fight for us to win.

Yes, make games beautiful again. Right. So, one is for the same reason they wanna make women in games ugly. They just don’t want you to be happy. They see people being happy with a young girl and, and taking on a father role for her and they go “Well, I don’t like, I don’t like that these people are happy.

Let’s see if we can make some big stink and make studios not make games like this anymore.” Okay. Okay, that’s one. All right. The next reason the next reason is that they see men masturbating this emotional pathway [00:57:00] of being a father and they are afraid that men will realize that they want to be fathers in the same way that some idiots are afraid that, like, if men see corn, they’re gonna realize they want to have sex.

Yeah. And so we will not let them see corn. And it’s like, well, most men know they wanna have sex, okay? I’m, I’m, I’m sorry that’s like it’s pretty hard coded in our biology and it’s pretty hard coded in our biology because those of us who didn’t do it didn’t have surviving offspring. And most men who haven’t been brainwashed by our culture know that they want kids.

Now, and you even see this in statistic, men want kids significantly more than women today. But it is true that a lot of men were brainwashed in our culture today, so much so that they literally thought, “I don’t actually want kids.” And so they see this context and it does help break that brainwashing for some men.

Like, oh, it is pleasurable to raise children. And I have said before on the show people have taken this as some sort of like [00:58:00] weird self own or something like this where I said it is like if I’m contrasting the pleasure I get from like blocking out, you know, 30 minutes to an hour to have sex versus 30 minutes to an hour playing with the kids, it’s like not even close.

Playing with the kids feels much better than sex does.

Simone Collins: I’m actually curious if, if there are any parents of kids who would disagree, let us know in the comments. Like I, I haven’t encountered anyone who feels differently, but I’m curious, they must be out there apparently.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. People think like I’m owning myself by saying that or something like that.

And it’s like, no. Like clearly as an adult you, you get to a point where you are having sex for kids. You’re like, “Well, I want more of these things. Like I should schedule some time to make more of them.” And a lot of people contextualize this very badly. They’re like, “Oh, well, this means, you know, the person’s wife isn’t [00:59:00] gratifying him enough or isn’t going far enough out.

It’s like, no, like when you get to like five in kids, and note here, I’m not talking about one or two kids. Like when I had one or two kids, I still, you know, it’s about even, maybe sex is a bit better, right? But when you’ve got five kids playing with five kids, just feels way better. And- It’s

Simone Collins: a party.

It’s more

Malcolm Collins: than just playing. Yeah, it’s playing better in a way that doesn’t have any negatives to it, you know, afterwards. You don’t feel guilty, but you don’t feel ... It’s, it’s like perfect, clean pleasure, right? Like, there, there’s no negative externalities to taking some time to play with the kids. You, you can, for example, if you’re seeking pleasure you can do that for God.

Like it’s not a sin to play with your kids, right? And, and you can get a lot of pleasure from that, right? So, sorry, I’m, the reason I’m going into all of this is I think that a lot of men don’t realize how fun this is gonna be. And so they see this and they go, “Oh, like this is a lot of fun.” Also I’d say [01:00:00] for guys, don’t let your experience with babies mess up w- how much you think you’re going to like kids.

Most guys don’t really like babies. There are a few that do but like we’re not really designed to be a primary caregiver at that stage of a human’s life for obvious reasons, we can’t feed them. If, if, if you were unaware so there’s a reason they are typically with the mothers in an evolutionary context?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Key point being evolutionary context.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So, yeah the third reason is that they genuinely do not like the idea that people may have kids as a result of this.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: And that I think is probably the biggest, is they think, “Oh no, our messaging is falling apart.” Both in regards to kids and in regards to men wanting a stable marriage [01:01:00] and family and, and I mean, like genuinely wanting it, wanting it more than playing a game where you go walk around shooting people, right?

Like a guy, like, oh, imagine you’re a guy, you’ve, you’ve played a few games recently, you go, “Which game did I enjoy the most? The one where I was being a dad or the one where I was walking around shooting people. “ Well, I mean, as a man, I do like shooting people, of course, and I wish- There is that. ... that more in the real world, but I can’t, right?

There’s negative externalities to that, but there isn’t negative externalities from having a kid, and I might have enjoyed that game a bit more than the others, so I should give it a try. So I also think the, the propaganda’s pretty good here. So, final thoughts, Simone.

Simone Collins: Well, I didn’t realize people were actively choosing to play this game because they wanted to play a, a parenting simulator game, and I wish people discussed that more because I had no idea.

I thought people were feeling like they were being psyopt into being parent asp- aspirational parents when they just wanted- It’s literally the only

Malcolm Collins: thing anyone’s [01:02:00] been talking about since the demo first showcased for the game.

Simone Collins: That’s a really good sign though. If all these people want to play a parent simulator game, isn’t that cool?

Isn’t that awesome? Doesn’t that mean people actually really do like the idea of becoming parents? And that maybe in the future, people will start to just overcome the stated barriers to parenthood, like, “I’m not prepared.”

Malcolm Collins: And also, as a final point here, like to note for people who are like, “Oh, don’t you understand that, like, corn ends up exaggerating all of the parts of procreation that, you know, to unrealistic standards?”

Simone Collins: Well, people made that point with their criticisms of this as well. They’re like, “Well, you’re not dealing with the spitting and the screaming and the diapers and the, you know, all that

Malcolm Collins: stuff.” Well, yeah, and that’s, that’s the point I wanna make. I wanna make ... You, you cannot criticize corn for being unrealistic and over the top and supernormal stimuli.

This is a stimuli that is, like, bigger and better than anything that would exist in the real world and then say this [01:03:00] game stimulating another, masturbating another parental instinct pathway, a pathway about having children isn’t doing the exact same thing. It’s almost cartoonish in a way.

You know, as somebody who has a lot of experience around young kids the way that this character acts is a caricature of an over the top way a kid her age would act. It’s not the way children her age actually ... I’m, I’m not talking about, “Oh, you’re not dealing with the spitting, you’re not dealing with the pooping in the pants, you’re not dealing with the, this kid’s older than that.

If the, a kid of this age is pooping in their pants, there’s, like, serious developmental problems or spitting or having breakdowns. Our kid who’s closest to this age doesn’t do any of that anymore.” But even with all of that being the case she still acts in a way that is completely super normal and not the way children actually act.

It’s, it’s to a kid, w- whatever a girl [01:04:00] doing the, like, sexy girl thing, you know, like, “Ooh, I’m so hot. I’m a ... “ You know, like when I, when they’re trying to look like what they think a sexy girl looks like it, it’s doing that, but for what people think the cutest, most adorable kid ever would do. And, and here I will note, the, the face again does seem a little

It, it, it ... Okay, I’ll I was trying to age, ... I’ll see if I can find this, age up our daughter, because I like aging up our daughters to see, “Oh, what are they gonna look like when they’re 20? What are they gonna look like when they’re 30, you know, et cetera.” And one of them messed up, and it moved her face to the age of 20, but it didn’t move the rest of her body to the age of 20.

Simone Collins: Oh, grow.

Malcolm Collins: And that image is the closest image I’ve seen to the pragmatic character.

Simone Collins: Yeah, you know what? That makes sense.

Malcolm Collins: I’m, I’m sorry. I know this isn’t a popular opinion on the right, but they, they did kind of mess up her face. Yeah. But again, it’s because they’re going was the most cutesy, supernormal stimuli for people who may not have a super good [01:05:00] grasp of what kids of this age range look like.

Simone Collins: But by the way, using AI to age up your kids is underrated. I mean, studies have shown that when you contextualize yourself in the future or when you’re primed by the researchers looking at your behavior to think about your future self or think as your future self or look at pictures of your future self, you tend to make more responsible decisions a- about your long-term life.

You know, you don’t choose the easy indulgent thing now, you choose the thing better for the future. And one thing that we do when we make these aged up photos of our kids is show them, “Hey, this could be you in the future. This is you in the dinosaur lab making your dinosaur. This is you in front of your helicopter,” whatever, like whatever they’re into and it can

I think it has been motivating for them to do the right thing or to focus on making themselves better when otherwise they would not be interested because what’s the payoff for them? But it’s pretty cool when they can see who they could be.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Anyway love you to death [01:06:00] Simone. The wild take on this one I think for people who have been waiting for us to just dunk on leftists, which I don’t think is helpful to do.

I think we need to make sure that we understand where they’re really coming from and that we understand and properly categorize the stimuli that exists in our environment and not rely on stimu- like, like stereotypes as to what those stimulis are or what they represent.

Simone Collins: Fair enough.

Malcolm Collins: And by the way, note here, if somebody’s like, “There’s no such thing as corn that’s as wholesome as something like pragmata.”

Like I’ve literally posted one before. It’s like the hinti leak on the stream it’s called like

When I returned to my hometown, my childhood friend was broken.

Malcolm Collins: Oh,

Simone Collins: yeah. Like the actual hanti.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. By the way, not it doesn’t have, like, it, it does a weird thing where it just tells a really wholesome story and then all of the actual, like, inappropriate scenes are after the story is over, but take place throughout the story [01:07:00] so you can read the story without accidentally hitting any of the inappropriate scenes.

Simone Collins: That’s so

Malcolm Collins: funny. But the point is, is it’s a, it’s an actually fairly popular hinti about meeting a childhood friend who’s going through emotional trauma, helping them overcome it, getting married and having kids. And the point I’m making here here is not everything out there is degenerate, right?

Speaker 12: The negatives of this sort of material is the effect it has on your life, your perception of women or men, and your perception of reality. And it is so ubiquitous in the world we live in, it is up to you to engage with this sort of content in a healthy way. It is a self-control that is going to be required of you and of the next generation, or we are going to die out as a species.

And we need to be very careful to not get one shot at because we see the instinct to have sex and we, , say, “This is always dangerous, always and everywhere when that [01:08:00] is not the case.” And we see the instinct to play with our children and we say, “This is always healthy, always and everywhere, and it could never come in one shot me in some way.”

Speaker 18: Being honest and clear-headed about each of these instincts and how they can be, , manipulated or engaged with in ways that are healthy or unhealthy is critical if your line is going to survive. And building up this self-control to do that is critical if your line is going to survive.

Speaker 13: The distinction here and the criticality of this distinction is much easier to see in erotic material for women than it is for men. , Women clearly like monster Effer books are not good for a woman’s brain and how she perceives men and how she perceives society. But that isn’t to say all romance books that a woman could read that are basically stimulating the same pathways are not going to get her to end up fantasizing about a positive and healthy relationship with a man.

It is that she chooses the degenerate option that ends up [01:09:00] scrambling her brain. It is that she chooses to perceive things like that that ends up scrambling her brain. It is not the very essence of books about romance. I mean, what about the girl who grows up reading the books about the heroic night with positive qualities who saves the woman?

That is the same genre as the monster effort genre. Fundamentally, it’s hitting the same pathways. It’s just doing it in a positive contextualization.

Speaker 20: And for the guys who say, “Well, when degeneracy is an option, I just can’t help but choose it. “ It’s, first of all, no, you can’t. You have the self-control. You’re choosing not to have the self-control. But if you genuinely, at a biological level, lack the self-control to not choose degeneracy, then it’s pointless, right?

Like, your kids or grandkids are gonna be shot too. You’re a genetic dead end. And I don’t need to manipulate society

Or change society in a way that’s going to lead to children getting graped.

Speaker 20: to [01:10:00] protect weak genetic dead ends like you. I

Speaker 13: I

Malcolm Collins: Like, there is actually healthy material out there.

Simone Collins: Mm.

Malcolm Collins: It’s that you are choosing something degenerate.

Simone Collins: There you go. It’s all about choices.

Malcolm Collins: All right. Love you, Simone.

Simone Collins: I love you too.

Malcolm Collins: All right. We just made it back from DC and for anyone who’s still watching at this point in the video, I will be streaming with Leaflet tonight at 9:00 PM EST. Let’s see if I stay up all night again. So I’ll probably be streaming tomorrow morning too. Depending, that’s what happened last night.

Simone Collins: Saturday morning.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, it’s, it’s a 10 hour stream last time, so we’ll see what ends up happening this time. I made the, the horrible mistake of thinking, oh, I’m hopping on leaflet to talk with her for a few hours because, you know, that’s the longest a video could possibly go. So I start drinking at the beginning of our conversation, [01:11:00] not even realizing how late it had gotten or how long we’d been talking.

Simone Collins: Right. No, it was so, so cool though. I think a lot of people enjoyed it.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah. I think this one will do well, so we’ll, we’ll, I mean, I hope it does well for her. Build up we’ll be doing this every other Friday, by the way, if you, if you miss this one. At least that’s a plan. You know, we’ll see. Maybe, you know, something happens, some drama happens.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Well-

Malcolm Collins: And it doesn’t end up working out. Anything you wanna say, you know?

Simone Collins: N- no. Oh my God. Hold on. Sorry. Octavia’s been ... No. That’s a mistake. Don’t go outside.

Sorry. I just wanna make sure Octavian ... [01:12:00] Oh my God, I’m gonna kill him.

Malcolm Collins: What was Octavian doing? Do I need to put more water on my hair?

Simone Collins: No, I think it’s fine. Okay. Maybe run your fingers through it.

He’s just farting me. He, yeah. He’s just trolling me now.

He just wants to use our intercom system for fart jokes.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. Well, I’ll get started. Okay, Simone? Okay.

Simone Collins: Oh my God, come on, just send.

Okay. Sorry. Go ahead.

Malcolm Collins: All right. And this is the type of thing where you don’t have to waste time doing this. You know, you’re choosing to spend time doing this.

Simone Collins: Well, [01:13:00] no, because he thought I said to go outside the fence and he will wander off and-

Malcolm Collins: We’ll

Simone Collins: never see anything. Yeah. I, it is not, it is not safe for us to say, “Yeah, it’s okay for you to play outside.”

And they’re like, “Outside the fence, you mean?” And that’s-

Malcolm Collins: Okay. ...

Simone Collins: that’s dangerous.

Octavian Collins: Okay, come on. And you can open these. You can open these. Oh yeah, this is private jet. Come on, activity, activity. Let’s go back. Let me go take pictures. I got a video of you. Wait.

Come on, go.

Malcolm & Simone Collins break down Asmongold’s viral “American History Conspiracy Timeline” — the theory that identity politics and racial tensions were deliberately amplified after Occupy Wall Street to distract the public from corporate and elite power.

They examine explosive evidence: skyrocketing funding for the SPLC, NAACP, HRC, and GLAAD right after Occupy Wall Street, massive corporate donors (JP Morgan, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, George Soros, etc.), changes in FBI hate crime training and reporting guidelines, polling shifts on race relations, Google Trends/Ngram data, and more.

Is modern identity politics organic cultural evolution or an astroturfed wedge issue? They also discuss antisemitism’s resurgence, Russia’s role in BLM, corporate vs. industrialist interests, and why class conflict was redirected into identity warfare.

A data-heavy, no-holds-barred episode that connects the dots between Occupy Wall Street, the explosion of “woke” terminology, and today’s cultural divisions.

Show Notes

Asmongold’s Thesis

On a YouTube clip of Asmongold’s stream titled Alex Jones was right, in which Asmongold went over the Southern Poverty Law Center’s support of racist groups, he presented his conspiracy timeline regarding racism in the USA.

He drew up a timeline (the “asmongold American history conspiracy timeline”)

* 2005: “racism basically defeated everyone is getting along generally”

* 2011: “lives improve but what about all these corpos? Occupy Wall Street

* 2014: “look at that black person, they took your future”

* 2025: “omg the jews”

I hadn’t heard this before but… it sounds credible? How credible is it?

I checked to see how Asmongold’s theory tracks with key word search volume, changes in police training programs, ngram word volume in books, reported hate crime data, polling data, and fundraising data for top identity politics orgs versus Occupy Wall Street.

I was surprised by what I found. For example: While most nonprofit fundraising curves I looked at appeared to go up mostly linearly over time, the fundraising for identity-politics-related (e.g. NAACP, SPLC) skyrocketed after Occupy Wall Street. I’ve got graphs and numbers.

Checking Asmongold’s Argument

Asmongold lays out a simple four‑step “conspiracy timeline” where elites redirect public anger from class issues to identity conflicts, moving from “racism basically defeated” in 2005 to renewed racism and surging antisemitism by the mid‑2020s.

2005: Racism “basically defeated”

* He describes mid‑2000s America as a time when most people of different races got along and pop culture normalized multiracial friendship and cooperation (e.g., movies like Rush Hour 3 with a Black and Chinese lead that everyone was excited to see). He frames this as racism being “basically defeated” and society getting more progressive each year on race and sexuality, with growing acceptance of gay people and gay marriage and then the election of Barack Obama as a symbol that things were going right.

* He emphasizes that everyday social life felt edgy but unserious: people said offensive things (like racial slurs in online games) but “everyone knew it wasn’t real,” and the overall vibe was that people joked harshly yet still generally got along instead of seeing each other as mortal enemies.

Checking in on hate crime

In 2005, in the US, did various measures (e.g. racially-motivated violence, racial hate crimes, revelations of serious discrimination) indicate low relative measures of racism vis a vis the rest of American history?

TL:DR: Yes. 2005 marked one of the lowest points for racism in U.S. history relative to prior eras (slavery through the Jim Crow and Civil Rights periods). Overt, lethal racial violence had plummeted from its peaks in the late 19th/early 20th centuries and even from mid-20th-century levels, with no comparable mass events or systemic terror campaigns.

* FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) hate crime data, which began in 1991, shows 2005 with 7,163 reported hate crime incidents (involving 8,380 offenses and 8,804 victims). This was explicitly noted by the FBI as the lowest total in more than a decade. Racial bias motivated about 54.7% of single-bias incidents.

* Overt racism (legal segregation, mass lynchings, race riots as tools of social control) had been declining since the mid-20th century. Studies of discrimination trends (e.g., in employment/housing) show persistence but also overall reductions post-1960s civil rights reforms

Did police departments get trained to report more hate crimes?

After 2012, were there any known training programs that took place among police departments that might have increased the percentage of crimes reported as being racially motivated hate crimes?

YES.

After 2012, multiple federal and state-level initiatives provided or promoted training programs for police departments specifically aimed at improving the identification, investigation, classification, and reporting of hate crimes—including racially motivated ones.

Here are some sources of these changes:

FBI Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual (updated multiple times post-2012):

* Version 1.0 (December 2012): Merged prior guidelines and training guides; included learning modules on bias-motivated crime definitions, a two-tier review process (responding officer flags “suspected” bias → expert review), case study exercises, and model procedures for agencies to build their own training. Explicitly intended to help departments establish/refresh hate crime training programs.

* Version 2.0 (February 2015): Added new bias categories (e.g., anti-Arab, expanded religious biases) and corresponding training scenarios.

* 2021–2022 major revision: Updated for the full transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) (phased in ~2016–2021, mandatory by 2021). Removed Summary Reporting System references, added federal/tribal offenses, new anti-Asian scenarios, non-binary gender identity guidance, and tips for victim interviews. NIBRS’s detailed incident-based structure made it easier to flag and code bias motivations (including racial) at the offense level.

NIBRS Transition Support (2016–2025): DOJ/BJS and FBI provided targeted grants, technical assistance, and training to thousands of agencies on properly coding/reporting hate crimes in NIBRS. Examples include the FY2023 Law Enforcement Transition to NIBRS grant (explicitly to “improve hate crime reporting”) and FBI training of ~19,500 participants from 9,500+ agencies (2016–2022). This shift alone is associated with better capture of bias indicators.

DOJ/COPS Office and BJA programs: Ongoing grants and resources (such as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Training & Technical Assistance Program) funded specialized training, resource centers, and outreach for identifying/investigating bias crimes. COPS released recognizing/reporting hate crime training in 2022 (with later updates). Post-2020 awards emphasized investigation and community collaboration.

THIS IS IN ADDITION TO STATE-LEVEL CHANGES

* California (2017 onward): Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) developed and mandated the video course “Hate Crimes: Identification and Investigation” (November 2017). AB 57 (enacted ~2017–2019) required its inclusion in basic academy training, made it available online, and mandated periodic in-service training for all officers (every 6 years).

* Other states passed similar mandates or funded programs (e.g., Illinois proposals, local collaborations with groups like the Matthew Shepard Foundation)

Checking in on general perceptions of racism racism

Gallup (satisfaction with race relations / “very/somewhat good”):

* Early 2000s–2014: High (often 60%+ “good”; peaked near 70–80% post-Obama election).

* 2015 onward: Sharp drop to ~30% “good” (lowest in decades amid Ferguson-era protests). Hovering 22–36% since; 2022 reading ~28% satisfied.

* 2025: 64% say racism against Black people is “widespread” (tied for highest since 2008 tracking; up from 51% in 2009). Civil rights progress views also down from 89% (2011) to lower levels post-2020.

Pew Research:

* 2019: 58% called race relations “bad”; 53% said worsening.

* Post-2020: BLM support peaked (67% in 2020) then fell (~51% by 2023). Discrimination perceptions peaked ~2021 (60% saw high levels against Blacks) but declined to 45% by 2025.

* Recent (2025–2026): Diversity viewed positively (~75% “good thing”), but partisan divides widened; some softening on specific discrimination claims, yet overall pessimism on relations persists vs. early 2000s.

2011–2012: Occupy and class conflict

* In his view, the real break comes with the 2011–2012 Occupy Wall Street moment, when people start focusing on economic power rather than identity, asking whether their problems come from the ultra‑rich and corporate “leadership class” who own capital and keep wages low in the post‑2008 crash recovery.

* He argues this terrified the elite, because public attention was turning away from blaming minorities or women and toward questioning the people who own everything, so there was a strong incentive to deflect anger away from class and back onto identity categories.

How did American sentiment change about wealth disparity and class conflict when the occupy wall street movement gained momentum in the USA?

The most direct and widely cited data comes from Pew Research Center surveys:

* Perceptions of class conflict: In a December 6–19, 2011, Pew survey of 2,048 adults, 66% of Americans said there were “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between rich and poor people—an increase of 19 percentage points from 47% in a 2009 survey. The share saying “very strong” conflicts doubled from 15% to 30%—the highest level since Pew first asked the question in 1987.

* Class conflict was now seen as a bigger source of tension than conflicts between immigrants and the native-born, Blacks and whites, or young and old.

* These increases occurred across most demographics (e.g., +22 points among whites, +23 points among independents, +24 points among those earning $40k–$75k), though they were especially pronounced among younger adults, women, and liberals/independents.

* Views on economic fairness and power: In a separate December 2011 Pew poll, 77% agreed there was “too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations.” 61% said the economic system “unfairly favors the wealthy” (up from earlier baselines in related polling), while only 36% called it generally fair.

* Broader inequality concerns: A CBS/New York Times poll at the end of 2011 found that two-thirds of Americans agreed the nation had “too much inequality”—a level of agreement that analysts credited to OWS for moving the issue from academic discussions into mainstream public consciousness.

Earlier 2011 polls (pre-momentum or early October) showed lower awareness and more uncertainty about OWS goals, underscoring that the change coincided with the protests’ peak visibility.

Important: OWS and an actual increase in disparity were at play: Pew researchers noted that the short timeframe of the attitude shift “may reflect the income and wealth inequality message conveyed by Occupy Wall Street protesters…that led to a spike in media attention to the topic,” alongside growing public awareness of actual wealth concentration (e.g., Census data showing the top 10%’s share of wealth rising sharply).

2010s: Identity politics as a diversion

* Asmongold’s core claim is that, in response, big institutions cultivated a new wave of identity politics as a “wedge issue” to keep people fighting each other instead of looking up the class ladder.

* In his Paint diagram this is the phase where the rich guy takes nine slices of a ten‑piece pie, then cuts the last slice in half and says “the Black guy got your half,” redirecting resentment toward other ordinary people instead of the elite.

* He says he does agree with some specific identity‑politics claims but thinks the overall structure is a misdirection: arguments over bathrooms, trans inclusion, and similar topics become a constant culture‑war distraction that fractures solidarity and makes people forget about shared material problems.

The measurable rise in identity politics—defined here as politics organized around identity-based interest groups (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.)—occurred primarily in the mid-2010s, with a sharp acceleration around 2013–2016 according to the specified metrics. This was not the invention of the concept (the term dates to the 1977 Combahee River Collective statement, with earlier roots in civil rights and feminist movements), but a clear inflection point where it became a dominant framing in public discourse, media, and politics.

See Google Trends for Identity Politics (spike in 2016) - 2005 to 2025

* Public interest in the phrase “identity politics” itself was low and stable for decades, then spiked dramatically.

* Searches reached more than twice their previous all-time high in November 2016 (post-Trump election) and again in August 2017 (Charlottesville).

* These were not coastal-only phenomena; Rust Belt states showed strong interest. Earlier data (pre-2016) show no comparable surges, confirming the mid-2010s as the breakout period

Word frequency and media mentions

* Quantitative content analyses of major U.S. publications show a clear surge in the phrase “identity politics” beginning in 2016. One study of major outlets found it tied more often to the political left but with significant right-wing linkage as well; aggregate trends confirm the spike through 2019

* Google NGram Viewer

* identity politics,intersectionality,black feminism,nonbinary,lived experience 2000 to present

* NYT word-frequency analyses of “woke”-adjacent terminology (including identity-focused language) also show rapid rises starting ~2013–2014

2016–2020s: Manufactured extremism and the “return” to antisemitism

* He then layers in the SPLC/FBI storyline he’s reacting to: that anti‑hate nonprofits and elements of the security state allegedly paid or supported extremists to keep visible “racism” and “right‑wing extremism” alive.

* In his narrative, these groups have a financial and institutional incentive to produce hate so they can fundraise by promising to fight it, which requires keeping social tensions high instead of allowing them to cool off.

* Within that frame, he says identity politics eventually “runs its course,” and elites fall back on the oldest scapegoating pattern: overt antisemitism and conspiracy about “the Jews” as the master explanation, which he characterizes as “old reliable” used to absorb and misdirect frustration away from structural issues.

Funding of Identity Politics

The top identity politics orgs:

* NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)

* Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

* Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation

* Human Rights Campaign (HRC)

* GLAAD

* Transgender Law Center, National Center for Transgender Equality, Lambda Legal

* ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

SPLC Fundraising Over Time

TL:DR Seemed to go DOWN a bit after OWS, then blasted up after Trump was elected

* 2000–2015: Relatively stable and modest, generally in the $35M–$62M total revenue range (contributions ~$30M–$55M). Slow, steady growth with minor fluctuations.

* 2016–2017: Dramatic surge (post-2016 election and heightened visibility), with total revenue jumping to ~$136M and contributions to ~$132M.

* 2018–2024: Elevated plateau with volatility — peaking at $170M total revenue in 2023, then declining to ~$129M in 2024. Contributions remained high (~$97M–$132M range).

High-Profile SPLC Donors

Asmongold’s Theory might have more weight if donors to the SPLC would be uniquely uncomfortable with OWS-related sentiment. Who are high-profile SPLC donors?

* George Clooney and Amal Clooney (via the Clooney Foundation for Justice): Donated $1 million in 2017 to support SPLC efforts against hate groups.

* George Soros (via Open Society Foundations): Multiple grants over the years, including support for anti-hate initiatives (e.g., a $75,000 pledge in 2016 for convening anti-bias groups; broader involvement in related funding).

* Tim Cook (then-Apple CEO, on behalf of Apple): Pledged $1 million to the SPLC in 2017 (part of Apple’s $2 million total to anti-hate groups, split with the ADL). Apple also encouraged employee and customer donations.

* JPMorgan Chase: Longtime donor; gave an additional $500,000 in 2017 for “disaster relief” and other support.

* Other notable mentions:

* OpenAI, Chick-fil-A, and MGM Resorts (corporate contributions in recent years).

* Various donor-advised funds, foundations, and high-net-worth individuals (SPLC’s revenue is primarily from private contributions, with an endowment/net assets nearing or exceeding $780M–$800M).

NAACP Fundraising Over Time

* Sharp growth in the late 2010s–early 2020s aligns with heightened national attention to racial justice issues.

* Pre-2011 data is limited in digitized Form 990s; overall NAACP-related activity was smaller-scale historically (you don’t have to report as much when your nonprofit revenues are super low)

* Contributions

* 2024: Total Revenue $60.6M / Contributions $49.9M (82%)

* 2023: $43.6M / $25.7M (59%)

* 2022: $51.2M / $40.0M (78%)

* 2021: $103.7M / $94.2M (91%) — major surge (post-2020)

* 2020: $86.8M / high contributions

High-Profile NAACP Donors

Corporations have provided some of the largest recent gifts:

* Wells Fargo: $50 million grant in 2023 — the single largest corporate donation in NAACP history. Funds supported grassroots branches, a new national headquarters, financial literacy, and racial equity programs. Wells Fargo has been a long-term partner (20+ years).

* AT&T: Multi-million dollar contributions (in the $1M+ category in some reports).

* Others in the $200K–$1M+ range: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, McDonald’s, Walmart, Hyundai, UPS, FedEx, Coca-Cola, and Eli Lilly.

Foundations who donated:

* Ford Foundation

* W.K. Kellogg Foundation

* Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

* Open Society Foundations (linked to George Soros)

* The Atlantic Philanthropies and others.

HRC Funding

* Early 2000s (~2000–2005): ~$20M–$25M range — smaller scale during earlier advocacy phases.

* ~2010: ~$27M.

* 2012: ~$33M.

* 2015: ~$37M.

* 2017–2018: ~$42M–$46M.

* 2020: ~$46M.

* 2023: ~$50M.

* 2024: ~$46M.

* 2025 (FYE March 2025): $50.1M (peak recent year; contributions $46.1M).

GLAAD Funding Over Time

* Early 2000s–2010: ~$3M–$5M — smaller scale focused on media advocacy.

* 2015: $5.1M

* 2016: ~$5.4M

* 2017: ~$7.7M

* 2018: ~$19M+ (major donor spike, e.g., Ariadne Getty Foundation)

* 2020–2021: ~$20M–$24.9M (post-2020 visibility surge)

* 2022: $18.6M

* 2023: $25.3M (recent peak)

* 2024: $13.6M (notable decline, with expenses at ~$22.5M)

Versus Funding of Occupy Wall Street

* It didn’t survive beyond 2012

* The trackable fundraising data effectively ends in 2012, as the movement’s organizational structure fragmented after the encampment’s removal, making consistent financial tracking impossible.

Major OWS Donors

Occupy Wall Street (OWS, 2011) was a decentralized, grassroots protest movement with no central nonprofit structure, so it did not have traditional “high-profile donors” in the style of established organizations like the SPLC or NAACP. Funding came primarily from thousands of small individual donations (often under $100), in-kind contributions (food, supplies, tents), and online platforms like Kickstarter and WePay. Total cash raised in New York alone reached roughly $500,000–$600,000 by late 2011, with much of it processed through the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ) as a fiscal sponsor (taking a ~7% fee)

A few prominent left-leaning individuals and business figures stepped in with larger support, especially after the initial Zuccotti Park phase:

* Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield (founders of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream): Led the Movement Resource Group (with other business leaders) to raise funds for a national Occupy office and grants to local groups. They personally contributed significantly; the group raised ~$300,000 by early 2012 (with plans for $1.8 million), and more than two-thirds came from the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation.

* Danny Goldberg (former Nirvana manager and music executive).

* Norman Lear (television producer, founder of People for the American Way).

* Terri Gardner (millionaire businesswoman).

Celebrities

* Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Kanye West, Russell Simmons, Cornel West, Pete Seeger, and others.

* Brad Pitt commented positively on the movement internationally.

Versus Leading Environmental Orgs

It might make sense to look to environmental orgs as the next best anti-corporate proxy.

The TL:DR is (1) their funding is bigger overall than identity-based org funding and it’s more linear (which could be an argument in favor of the identity politics orgs being a bit more astroturfed).

The top US-based environmental nonprofits are:

* The Nature Conservancy

* World Wildlife fund (WWF) Inc (US Affiliate)

* Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

* Natural Resources Defense Council

* Sierra Club

The Nature Conservancy

* Early 2000s (~2000–2005): ~$400M–$500M range — steady but lower scale.

* Mid-2010s (~2010–2016): ~$700M–$1B — gradual growth with increased conservation focus.

* 2017–2020: ~$1.0B–$1.2B.

* 2021–2022: ~$1.3B.

* FY2023 (ended June 2023): ~$1.17B.

FY2024 (ended June 2024): $1.48B (with some reports citing ~$1.5B–$1.83B in total support/revenue including certain gains)

The Environmental Defense Fund

* Early 2000s (~2000–2005): ~$80M–$120M — smaller scale.

* Mid-2010s (~2010–2016): ~$138M–$200M — steady growth.

* 2017–2020: ~$210M–$300M+.

* 2021: ~$365M (notable peak, partly due to pledge timing).

* 2022: ~$285M.

* 2023: ~$247M.

2024: $299M (with contributions making up ~97%)

The Sierra Club

Early 2000s (~2000–2005): ~$80M–$90M — more modest scale focused on traditional advocacy and membership.

~2010: ~$100M.

2015: $109M.

2020: $152M.

2021: $152M.

2022: $167.5M.

2023: $173M (peak in recent filings).

2024: $169M (Form 990) / ~$183M (audited consolidated revenues, including net assets released from restrictions)

COVID and the internet as accelerant

* Finally, he argues that COVID is the “killshot” for normal Western social life because it forces every “idiot” online all day, massively amplifying outrage dynamics and fringe narratives. With everyone stuck on the internet and algorithms favoring extremity, manufactured divides and identity conflicts scale up far faster and feel more real and dangerous than in the mid‑2000s offline world he remembers.

* In his completed “American History Conspiracy Timeline,” the through‑line is that 2005’s relatively relaxed, optimistic, and materially focused environment is systematically replaced by a top‑down, incentive‑driven system that constantly re‑inflames racial tensions and revives antisemitism, not because grassroots hatred suddenly surged on its own, but because powerful institutions needed visible bigotry to justify their budgets and keep people from uniting around class and power.

If It’s Not a Conspiracy, What Is It?

This could be caused by a couple of things:

The Urban Monoculture Reaching Critical Mass

* And the urban monoculture is more predisposed to identity politics

Trump Derangement Syndrome

* Funding for these identity politics orgs—and some environmental nonprofits—spiked after Trump’s election

* SPLC funding skyrocketed with Trump’s election

Maybe it’s also just COVID driving people into their heads

* NAAPC funding skyrocketed with COVID

Episode Transcript

Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Asmangold, presented his conspiracy timeline starting with 2005, racism basically defeated.-. But what about all these CoreOS occupy Wall Street? Then 2014, look at that black person

If you look for example at,

Malcolm Collins: oh my God,

Simone Collins: terms like identity politics, intersectionality, black feminism, non-binary lived experience it’s like,

Malcolm Collins: it’s like exact.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. It’s a little uncanny. It’s a little weird.

I made a graph of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Malcolm Collins: What

Simone Collins: Here we have the HRC funding graph. Again, something, you know, you, you see the normal, like steady,

Malcolm Collins: oh my God, it’s so obvious here.

Yeah, let’s look at Glad.

Simone Collins: What happens? They’re

Malcolm Collins: not in on the conspiracy.

Simone Collins: Surely nothing happens. Suddenly, oh

Malcolm Collins: my God. Gladys said what?

Simone Collins: And this is all from their, their tax filing. This isn’t just like conjecture.

At and t. Others? Bank of America, JP Morgan. Chase, McDonald’s, Walmart. Hyundai, UPS. Oh my God. FedEx, Coca-Cola, [00:01:00] Eli Lilly. The Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Robert Word, Johnson Foundation

Speaker 5: I wonder if it affects the behavior of the children. Hmm. Curious.

would you like to know more?

Simone Collins: Hello, Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today because I heard a new conspiracy theory that I really like, and I wanted to see if there’s good evidence behind it. So let’s go on a YouTube clip of Aspen Gold Stream titled, I

Malcolm Collins: brought this to you, by the way. I, I brought, I brought it like, I actually think there could be something to this.

Simone Collins: Yeah. This, this was, again, Alex Jones was right. He. He Asman Gold, went over the Southern Poverty Law Center’s, support of racist groups, and then presented his conspiracy timeline regarding racism in the USA. And it basically goes like this. He, he titled that the Asman Gold American History Conspiracy Timeline, starting with 2005, racism basically defeated.

Everyone is getting along generally then 2011 lives improve. But what about all these [00:02:00] CoreOS occupy Wall Street? Then 2014, look at that black person they took your future. And then 2025 OMG, the Jews, and I hadn’t heard about it before, but it sounds credible like that. Basically the racism and identity politics of our recent era.

Are the product of some AstroTurf work done by Cor Bros because they don’t like the idea of people really being against them.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, so basically and I’ll, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll try you to frame it a bit more tightly.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Is Asma Gold thesis is we solved most of the issues of social discord was in American society.

Mm-hmm. As a result, people then begin to look with suspicion at the pose. And here I’m not talking about generic capitalism or something like that. I’m talking about the entrenched bureaucratic corporate interests that riggs the system in their favor in a very non-capitalist socialist, high barrier to entryway, which is demonstrably a part of [00:03:00] American.

Culture at this point. Mm-hmm. And because the social harmony that we achieved allowed for that these people who had a lot of institutional power. And keep in mind the Corpo here isn’t just Wall Street. It is the deep state that profits from Wall Street. Right. Like the deep, straight corpo revolving door is very, very tight.

Right?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Especially within the Democratic Party, and it used to be within the Republican party. And so they say, uhoh, uhoh how do we get people to stop looking at us now? And they’re like, what if we invent racism? And as we saw with the Southern Poverty Law Center, because Asmo Gold said this southern poverty loss interest thing, he’s like, I bet.

But if you don’t know, this is the number one anti-racism group in the United States. Turned out to likely be the major the, because the amount that they gave out was over $3 million to the various orgs, and it was orgs like the Nazi org and the KKK, which are not getting a lot of money from [00:04:00] other sources.

It is hard to stay employed and make millions of dollars if you’re. Publicly donating to one of these institutions. So they, they could have been their primary funder with funding. And, and why do I believe that they were their primary funder? Potentially. Yeah. If you look at before occupy Wall Street, if you look at videos of clan rallies from that time or neo-Nazi rallies in the United States, it would be like three sad people walking with a bunch of people yelling at them.

Yeah. Now you get like full on tiki torch parades and stuff like that. Like there, there has been a demonstrable change in the size of these.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Who’s gonna pay for the tiki torches? Who’s gonna pay for the, the matching khaki pants.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. They’re nice. The change in the size of these operations since the Southern Poverty Law Center started funding them.

Mm-hmm. And so, but the question is, is who else is funding them? How much else are they funding them? And Simone came back to me and she goes, Malcolm. I think I found some smoking guns here. So I want you to go further. I want you to expand the genius Asma gold theory on all of this.

Simone Collins: [00:05:00] Oh, yeah, yeah.

I, I, I went and I checked to see how the theory tracks with keyword search volume and changes in police training programs and gram word volume and books and reported hate crime data and polling data and fundraising data for the top identity politics orgs and versus pol or, or occupy Wall Street and versus just general like environmental orgs and.

It’s so suspicious. Okay. While most nonprofit fundraising curves just to like, give a little teaser that I looked at, appear to just go up mostly linearly over time. Like when you look at most of the environmental orgs, it goes up linearly. That makes sense. And then yet fundraising for identity politics orgs, like the N-A-A-C-P and the Southern Poverty Law Center skyrocketed after occupy Wall Street. Like there’s a very weird, like, yangyang. So it, it, mm, it’s just one of many things. So first, let’s just look at, at his, his argument point by point, and see how well supported each of his arguments are. Because I don’t know, like, you know, my memory, [00:06:00] my memory’s shot, I don’t know where things actually were.

So in, in, again, this four step conspiracy timeline,

Malcolm Collins: actually just No.

Simone Collins: Before you

Malcolm Collins: go further,

Simone Collins: Uhhuh,

Malcolm Collins: when did all of the antisemitism begin to rise in America? The antisemitism began to rise right as black fatigue was setting in. Mm-hmm. They’re like, oh, oh, we need a new outgroup.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, we also have to eventually do a podcast on black Americans being supplanted for Muslims, because that’s another interesting, like flipper route that happened around the time of the

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah.

Left is really done playing with black people. Like yeah, you guys are.

Simone Collins: I’m tired. I’m done.

Malcolm Collins: Toy story where like the, the drops Its toy at new toy.

Speaker: Oh, I forgot you’re broken. I don’t wanna play with you anymore.

Malcolm Collins: He’s got the new, the new toy. Right. But hopefully we can use this on the right to un brainwashed some [00:07:00] black people and bring ‘em over to our side, which means stop being performatively racist to be edgy guys, that’s not, it’s not useful.

Okay. Yeah. It, it, it, it, it really only hurts us. There are obviously some black immigrant communities that need to that, that have externalities associated with them, like the Somalian refugees and stuff like that. Yeah. But don’t d you know, one thing to be like. These black immigrant populations have negative externalities and we need to find a way to deal with it.

Then to just be like performatively racist or something like that, which is really only to masturbate your own ego, not to help the party because it hurts some. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Anyway, Osmond Gold describes the mid two thousands as basically this time when most people of different races got along and pop culture just normalized, multiracial friendship and cooperation.

And he,

Malcolm Collins: yeah,

Simone Collins: he uses rush hour three. With, you know, Jackie Chan and it was Chris Rock, right. Being like, oh, everyone’s like excited to see that. And like people, a joke about people of being of different cultural and, and ethnic [00:08:00] backgrounds, but like, they were comfortable with it. It wasn’t this tension.

It was rush hour three. Wasn’t a story about multiculturalism. It was like funny. And they would, you know, people enjoyed that. And also society was just getting more progressive each year on race and sexuality. There was growing acceptance of gay people. We elected Barack Obama, like it was a thing. And he emphasized that everyday social life did feel edgy, but unserious that people would say offensive things like they would use racial slurs in video games, but everyone knew it wasn’t real.

Like it was just teasing and trolling and basically in locker room talk. The overall vibe was that people just joked harshly, but got along. And I

Malcolm Collins: checked, there was not meaningful ethnic tension outside of ghettos. And I really mean this in, in my school for example, like we had kids of different s ethnic, you had kids of different ethnicities in your school.

Did anyone care?

Simone Collins: Yeah, nobody cared. We would talk about stereotypes, but that’s because they were real. So.

Malcolm Collins: The, we had, we had a group that we called the Korean Mafia because there were a bunch of [00:09:00] Korean kids at our school

Simone Collins: mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Due to some sort of scholarship that let them come. And then there was a bunch of Chinese kids who hung out together.

But other than those two groups and those two groups, you know, literally came from other countries.

Simone Collins: Well, I literally remember the first time I heard someone say something racist that like surprised me because I just never heard anything racist before. And it was, I was a friend in school. I can’t remember what level of school I was in, but her name was Yesenia and she came from like a Spanish speaking household.

And she was telling me how like her parents were really concerned about brown people. And I was just so, like, I was like, what do you mean what is this about? But like that I have a memory of someone talking with me about that and like, being surprised must show that. Like, we really didn’t care at that era, you know?

Just didn’t matter. But yes, when you check in on hate crime in 2005 in the us the, it was one of the lowest points for racism in US history relative to prior eras. And lethal racial violence had plummeted from its peak in the late 19th, early 20th century.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, we had gone to a point where [00:10:00] blacks were mostly just killing other blacks.

Yeah. Sorry. I’ve had to, I know that’s horrible. There, there is a difference in homicide rates, but they, that is true that blacks mostly kill other blacks while they do have an increased homicide rate.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Virginia.

Simone Collins: So studies of discrimination trends, which, you know, have been active since we’ve been, like for, you know, decades and decades, show persistence.

Like there’s still discrimination, but they were overall reductions. Post 1960s things had only gotten better. And in 2005 there were 7,163 hate crime offenses. And this was noted by the FBI as the lowest total in more than a decade racial bias motivated about 54.7% of single bias incidents. So this was by

Malcolm Collins: the way,

Simone Collins: yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Continue, continue. I, I’ll, I’ll, I went to get end of your thought.

Simone Collins: Importantly, and this is really interesting, right? So we’re looking at, at all of this crime. I started wondering if perhaps part of what made hate [00:11:00] crime levels seem to go up, had to do with police training. And, okay.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. Before you get into that, I wanted to go into a, f Funny, I saw this on Asma Gold or Nino and this, it looked like official data. I’m gonna double check because this sounds so crazy if this is actually official data. Okay. But it was tracking interracial grapes.

Simone Collins: Oh God. You mentioned this to me. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: And it was, black on white was something like 12,000.

Mm-hmm. Which, I mean, if you’re considering the whole country isn’t a ton, but it’s still like a lot. Right? Like I’m, I’m sure that we get way more from immigrants, but I, I know that that’s the particularly prejudiced statement against immigrants. But I mean, I’m, I’m pretty sure I would expect more than 12,000.

But the funny number was, was white on blacks, which was literally over the official datasets entire recording period for that year. Zero. Oh God.

Simone Collins: Ugh.

Malcolm Collins: Which actually track,

Simone Collins: yeah, fact track that. But like, oh, that’s

Malcolm Collins: our video on perceived attractiveness between groups. White people [00:12:00] uniquely see black people as unattractive.

And this is actually really hard for black

Simone Collins: people. Oh, that’s even more insult. You’re just saying like, well, they wouldn’t. Because they don’t want to. That’s horrible.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, I mean, it’s when we point out how bad it is for blacks in the United States we have this episode on like, it being so hard for black women that if you look at the old ok OkCupid da dating stuff that.

You know how bad it is for white men in online dating.

It is literally harder for black women in online dating than it is for white men. That is how nerfed the black community is within dating pools in like black pill communities. Not named the black, but like they go full like, like in sell whatever.

People are like, bro, like. Be white, be tall. Like if you’re not those two things, you are nerfed, right? Like so do keep in mind that there are some areas where white men still have privilege when it comes to being thirsted over.

Simone Collins: Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: if you’re in the top 1%

Simone Collins: anyway [00:13:00] and so things hit this nadir in terms of hate crime and everything in, in 2005.

And I started to wonder like, okay, if, if this is, this conspiracy is real and if interests, you know, with, with deep pockets and we didn’t want corporations to be scrutinized, wanted. To begin to foment this feeling that racism was real and that racial tensions were a big thing in the United States. It had to be addressed.

That we all have to obsess over that and not look at corporations and rich people. That one thing you might do is just train or encourage training and police departments that would lead to a higher rate of reported hate crimes. So then you, with some other nonprofit, you, you could point them. To look at the data and report a spike in it and then be like, this is a big problem.

Ooh,

Malcolm Collins: very clever.

Simone Collins: And it, so it actually does turn out that multiple times after 2012, the FBI crime data collection guidelines and training manual were [00:14:00] updated. Starting in December, 2012, the tail end of Occupy Wall Street, they merged major guidelines and training guides to include learning modules on bias motivated crime definitions.

There was this two-tier review process, so you respond to Officer Flags. They have like for suspected bias, and then you have expert review of whether it actually is bias. The training included case study exercises and model procedures for agencies to build their own training, and they, it was explicitly intended to help departments establish and refresh hate crime training programs.

Right at the end of Occupy Wall Street. And then in 2015 there were new bias categories. So, they added anti-Arab, they expanded religious biases. And they added more training scenarios for those. And then they, they also updated in 20 21, 20 22. This for this full transition to the National Incident Based Reporting system that that removed.

I’m not, okay. I’m not gonna get into it. But basically, yeah, they did train, they did train [00:15:00] differently after Occupy Wall Street in a way that would’ve led to probably more reporting, even if things remain unchanged otherwise. And

Malcolm Collins: then they could utilize the higher reporting to create movements like BLM.

Simone Collins: Yes. And then also this is, this is just, this is just the FBI. Then there’s the, the the N-I-B-R-S. Basically the department adjustment sorry, department of Justice and the BJS, what is the BJS? I didn’t look that up. Sorry. And the FBI, they provided targeted grants and technical assistance and training to thousands of agencies to properly code and report hate crimes mm-hmm.

In this database. So they’re also like, we’ll give you money to make sure that you do this correctly. Which is. Notable, I don’t know where the grants came from, but I could totally see like this is a very subtle and hidden way for someone who, like, for example, made a lot of political donations who made sure that an appointee is leading a certain agency to, yeah, to, to, to put something like this in without anybody like, Hey, just putting this policy and what you’re not gonna look bad for [00:16:00] doing it.

You know, we need to, Hey, crimes are a big, serious issue, you know, we just need more accurate reporting. But you know how measurement works, you know, like if you encourage and incentivize and give people grant money to measure something, they’re gonna measure it more, you know? Mm-hmm. And then there were also very specific targeted grants.

Like there’s the Matthew Shepherd and James Bird Jr. Hate Crimes and Training technical Assistant program grants. They funded specialized training resource centers and outreach for identifying. Crimes and, and bias. So just keep in mind that like even specific people created grants to,

Malcolm Collins: and it’s very interesting that there’s a flurry of this right at the end of Occupy Wall Street because.

There was not a flurry of attention on interracial violence right at the end of Occupy Wall Street.

Simone Collins: No, no, no, no, no, no. The, the, I think the wheels started turning the donations started the, the, the, the training shifted. And, and also just to be clear, this is in addition to state level changes. So for example, in 2017 [00:17:00] onwards, so this is a bit after Occupy Wall Street there was the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

Releasing a new video called Hate Crimes Identification and Investigation. And then also AB 57 required its inclusion and basic academy training. Made it available online, mandated periodic in-service training other states. Cast similar mandates. So basically now there’s just basic like propaganda videos that, that is another way to put it being like, here’s how to report bias.

And then also I just wanted to check in on polling, right? So because polling is another way for us to see how Americans felt about bias. So when you look at a Gallup satisfaction with Reese relations question for like, oh, is it, are you very satisfied? Are you somewhat satisfied? In the early two thousands to 2014?

People were very satisfied. They high, basically 60% plus marked good. And this p peaked near 70 to 80% post the Obama election. [00:18:00] Then 2015 onward, you know, after the gears had started turning, there was this sharp drop to 30% marking it as good. Sharp drop. This is the lowest in decades. And this was amid the, the Ferguson era protests.

And then ever since it’s hovered from like 22 to 36% from its high at 60%. So Aspen Gold is totally right, that like people in 2005 were feeling pretty fine about race relations. And now as of well last year, as of 20 25, 50, 60 4% say racism against black people is widespread. And this is tied for the highest since 2008, tracking up from 51% in 2009 and civil rights progress views are also down from 89% in 2011.

So preoccupy Wall Street to lower levels post to 2020. Then also Pew Research as well. In 20 19, 50 8% called race relations bad. And 53% worsening post [00:19:00] 2020 BLM support peaked and then fell and discrimination perceptions peaked around that time too. It, it’s, it’s bad basically like peer research reports now that people also see racism as a very, very bad issue in the United States.

So let’s go back to what Aspen Gold observed about the 2011 to 2012 occupy Wall Street conflict. He, he, he said the real break came with OWS when people started focusing on economic power rather than identity. And they were wondering whether their problems came from the ultra rich and this corporate leadership class.

Because I think a lot of the sentiment back then, I’m very like, it’s, it seems like a lifetime ago, it seems so long ago, but people felt like after the 2008 crash when a lot of really wealthy people got bailed out, we just never really seemed to recover from that.

Malcolm Collins: Society didn’t Yeah,

Simone Collins: yeah. Like pe pe like the, the rich just kept getting richer, but no one else like really saw the same level of steady improvement that they were used to.

And he argued that [00:20:00] Asman gold argues that this is, this is the point at which the elite get terrified. So what I wanted to know is how American sentiment changed about wealth disparity in class conflict when the Occupy Wall Street movement gained momentum in the USA, Ooh. And this one Pew survey of 2048 adults done in.

20 end of 2011. So Occupy Wall Street was like, this is picking up now. Mm-hmm. 66% of Americans said they were very strong or strong conflicts between rich and poor people. An increase of 19 percentage points from 47% in a 2009 survey right after the 2008 financial crisis. The share saying very strong conflicts doubled from 15 to 30%.

The highest level since Pew first asked the question in 1987. So this was a definitely this flashpoint peak. Yeah, he’s absolutely right that people saw it. Class conflict was now seen as a bigger source of tension. Then conflicts between [00:21:00] immigrants and the native born blacks and whites, or young and old per pew polling.

So he is spot on with this. Also views on economic fairness and power. Were, were totally also off it in a separate 20 th 2011 poll. 77% argued there was too much power in the hands of the, a few rich people and large corporations. 77% of people. I mean, I, I could see large corporations and really wealthy people kind of being like, Hey guys, we should probably divert their attention

Malcolm Collins: 77%.

Yeah. We need to get people pissed at something else.

Simone Collins: And this is, it has

Malcolm Collins: felt, I’m gonna be honest, like on the ground, when I learned about the, that, that the

Simone Collins: 2008 financial crisis, like all

Malcolm Collins: the, the Civil Property law center had been funding the KKK and the neo-Nazis.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah, yeah,

Malcolm Collins: yeah. And that Nick Fuentes was heavily AstroTurf.

I sort of had this moment of like pulling back and I think a lot of influencers on the right have been trying to cater to both sides to some extent. To try to be like, yeah, well I don’t wanna [00:22:00] isolate. That audience by being like, yes, unmitigated, obviously this word’s a good thing for America’s long term interests and stuff like that.

Mm-hmm. And I sort of come to this realization of, oh. The people who I thought I was arguing with may just not even really exist in meaningful numbers. They’re just sort of, shell accounts online and a heavy sort of force that have been converted for by those shell accounts, but they’re not like a meaningful contingent of the conservative movement.

Yeah.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: And it’s changed the way that I address it where I just don’t. One, I don’t care about them as much as, as like players to like ideologically take seriously. But two, I see them as more of a threat than I did historically as well. Yeah. Which is to say that a lot of this stuff could just be funded by bad actors, right.

And, and like the pro Russia part of the Right, which is just comical because we pointed out that Russia is what was behind [00:23:00] BLM. If you go to our episode on that, we go with plenty of receipts showing that. If you were ever worried about Russia interfering with the election on behalf of Trump at a nine to one level.

So they literally nine times more than that, they spent on trying to make BLMA thing.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: They are the source of BLM in America, so the

Simone Collins: Russian helped. It’s clearly, it wasn’t only. Plausibly conspiratorially, allegedly corporations and wealthy Americans. You know, it was Russians.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I think these groups work together.

Simone Collins: Well, I don’t think they coordinated. I just think that when you get, you know, enough people with aligned incentives doing the same thing, it’s gonna be more effective.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no, no, no. I think they literally work together. So by this, what I mean is if you, this was period where a portion of the American Right began to act like Russia was our friend.

Simone Collins: Oh my God. That’s right. Yeah. Like, wow. Russia’s actually, you know, a. Worthy of

Malcolm Collins: a very good right wing country. Yeah. And I remember when I first started seeing this and I was like, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. The right wing hates Russia. Like we have always hated [00:24:00] Russia. They are a communist country who transformed into a kleptocracy like this is antagonistic.

Simone Collins: Oh god. This was, yeah, this was even like when on the left people had a lot of memes about like Putin being sexy. Do you remember? Yes. Was Putin yes.

Malcolm Collins: I think, I think, oh.

Simone Collins: What was that? That song? I mean obviously it was a Rasputin song, but like

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, that’s when the RAs

Simone Collins: song got

Malcolm Collins: popular and everything

Simone Collins: like that.

Yeah. There

Malcolm Collins: was a push during a certain time period on both the left and the right to make the extreme and captured parts of them. The parts that seemed disingenuous. More pro-Russia.

Simone Collins: Well, look, okay, I just, I just wanna emphasize. The, the, the wealthy poses had a reason why, like another stat, 61% said the economic of Americans said the economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.

And this was up from earlier baselines in related polling, and only 36% called it generally fair. And it, it should also be noted though, that Oh, O Occupy, occupy Wall Street presented this threat and there was also this [00:25:00] actual increase in disparity at play. That yeah,

Malcolm Collins: I think, I think we have moved into the United States.

It’s having a system. We talk about this in our video of economically, who is actually more communist, the United States or the CCP in China, and the answer is the United States by threefold. Mm-hmm. Significantly more communist.

Simone Collins: Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: totally. Totally. And if you look at the structure of the government of the United States, which you might even go so far as to argue, is.

This is as much to distract us from the communist capitalist battle as it is because what has functionally happened is the communists of Russia had a plan to take over the American governing system, and potentially they have. They took over our academic institutions. They just called themselves something else.

They called themselves socialists. They, and, and, and Wokes and SJWs. And then they used that to take over our companies and they used that to create an alliance with these, and if somebody’s like. [00:26:00] Malcolm, how can you think that like SJW is aligned with Russia and you know, the Putin hates like the gays or whatever.

It’s like anybody who understands s JW really is, understands it’s a disease that you unleash on your enemy. It’s the effect the zombies

Simone Collins: for sure. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Like put, do you think Putinism agrees with Black Lives Matter? No. Then why is he funding it so much? Because he understands how to promote the disease and people who are infected with the disease don’t really care where they get money.

Simone Collins: Yeah, well, few people care where they get money, but so back to Aspen Gold’s core claim. It’s, it’s that in response to these growing concerns, big institutions cultivated a new wave of identity politics as a wedge issue to keep people fighting each other instead of looking up the class ladder and then in Ms.

Paint or whatever it is he uses, and he’s such a fast drawer. What is up with that? It’s inhuman. This this is the phase he sort of was describing where the rich guy takes nine slices of a 10 piece pie and then cuts the last. [00:27:00] Slice in half and says that black guy got your half redirecting resentment toward the other ordinary people instead of the elite.

And he, he does agree with some specific,

Malcolm Collins: and I wanna point out that these people, like, we need to like be clear about who the bad actors are in this, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Corporals are not industrialists and they’re not capitalists. Industrialists and capitalists is what make America a wealthy and successful country.

These are people like Elon Musk. Yeah. Or Jeff Bezos or mark Zuckerberg, or these are people who build things that make money. Okay. Compos are very different. These are people who use institutional bureaucracies and legal structures to make money in ways that the average person can’t. These are the people who run Enron.

These are the people who run Exxon Mobil. These are the people who run the major weapons manufacturers. These are the people who run Lockheed Boeing. The people who run the types of institutions that do not succeed. And these [00:28:00] make up a huge chunk of the American economy because they’re draining a huge chunk of the American economy.

They are in an endless cycle to siphon tax dollars from the average citizen in America, in the industrialists in America. And I think that what we need to do is build a better system for. A shared class identity for true Americans, which is the industrialists and the middle class against the parasites.

Who is the corpus and the people who live off of the system

Simone Collins: Well, and I think we need to recognize the wedge effectiveness per Aspen Gold’s point of identity politics, which absolutely did spike after. Around 2016 and certainly after Occupy Wall Street. So I just sent you Google Trends and Google Ngram viewer screenshots.

And I’m gonna link to all this in the show notes. If you look for example at,

Malcolm Collins: oh my God,

Simone Collins: terms like identity politics, intersectionality, black feminism, non-binary lived experience from [00:29:00] 2000 to present in Google Ngram viewer, it’s like,

Malcolm Collins: it’s like exact.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. It’s a little uncanny. It’s a little weird.

And also if you look at mi,

Malcolm Collins: okay. Plausible

Simone Collins: I know

Malcolm Collins: as, no,

Simone Collins: no, no. I’m getting more. No, there’s more. There’s more. Don’t, you know, let me keep going.

Also, New York Times word frequency analysis of woke adjacent terminology, including identity focused language showed also rapid rises, but not starting in 2016.

We’re talking starting in 20 13, 20 14. So. You know this, it’s, yeah, it’s, it’s real. And then, so keep in mind that next, in his argument, Aspen Gold layers in.

Malcolm Collins: Don’t forget to send me that graphic way, the New York Times one.

Simone Collins: I don’t have a graph for that one. That was just research done. Oh, okay. Yeah, but I, I’ll send you all the graphs that I have and I will get, again, put everything in the show notes and links and everything.

Aspen Gold then layers in how you get this SPLC. Involvement right in, in, and all these anti hate nonprofits suddenly [00:30:00] getting super active.

Malcolm Collins: Well, the, the coin goes as leaflet calls them.

Simone Collins: Yes.

Malcolm Collins: And it sounds like a ethnic slur. So she used the term coin goes, which means like. Quasi autonomous non-government entities, I think, or something like that.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah. And then basically at that point, the identity politics run their course and Elite fall back on basically like the old scapegoating pattern, just overt antisemitism and conspiracy about the Jews and, and the master explanation, which he characterizes as all reliable. And it just. Absorbs and redirects all the frustration from the structural issues that they were like,

Malcolm Collins: somebody’s like, well, the people are getting over black people.

They’re just done with them at this point. Right? Like, we sort of exhausted them as a resource that people,

Simone Collins: but there’s the, there’s old faithful, you know, it’s

Malcolm Collins: like, who’s next? Jews brilliant. Right? Like,

Simone Collins: yeah.

Malcolm Collins: How do we, how do we convince people to hate the Jews? Well, well, I mean, if it, if it looks like, it looks like you just bought the accounts of people who are already antisemitic to try to.[00:31:00]

Simone Collins: But here’s the, the really crazy thing. This is what really started changing my mind. Look at the fundraising over time. I made a graph of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Malcolm Collins: What

Simone Collins: it actually seemed to go down a little bit after Occupy Wall Street and then it blow down. No,

Malcolm Collins: we down during Occupy Wall Street.

Yeah. So this, this is the period during Occupy Wall Street. 2015, it explodes to like five times the rate. It used to be.

Simone Collins: Yeah, because, so from like 2000 to 2015, it made between 30,000,050 5 million

Malcolm Collins: Theos.

Simone Collins: And then in 20 16, 20 17, especially by the time momentum was built, it was making 136 million, 132 million.

Then 2018 to 2024, it peaked at 170 million in 2023. And this is just around the time that they’re doing things like, you know, donating 3 million to their sources, right, their sources. And then I was like. Also like, okay, well then who are the donors to these organizations? You know? Yeah. [00:32:00] Might have more weight.

The donors would be uniquely uncomfortable with Occupy Wall Street related sentiments. So who are some high profile Southern Poverty Law Center donors? Well, there’s George Clooney and Amal Clooney via the Clooney Foundation for Justice. They donated a million in 2017. There’s George Soros via the Open Society Foundation, Tim Cook.

Then Apple, CEO, on behalf of Apple, pledged a million. JP Morgan Chase, a large American bank. OpenAI has also donated to SPLC, Chick-fil-A

Malcolm Collins: OpenAI

Simone Collins: mgm,

Malcolm Collins: by the way, do not use OpenAI models. Like if, if they’re donating to organizations like this one, they’re not very good. And two evil, evil, evil, evil.

You know what? I might even charge a premium. Well, hold on. We had somebody who’s gonna give us open AI tokens to test. No, you don’t. So they give us open AI tokens. I won’t charge a premium on open AI

Simone Collins: model. Look, people should have freedom to use AI as they want, but look at the next graph. ‘cause it isn’t just the Southern Poverty Law Center.[00:33:00]

This next one is the N-A-A-C-P. What?

Malcolm Collins: Oh

Simone Collins: my

Malcolm Collins: god. So

Simone Collins: Simone, they also saw a massive, massive spike. And this is all from their, their tax filing. This isn’t just like conjecture. We, nonprofits in the United States have to make pretty public disclosures of the amount of money that they got. Also, who’s donating to the N-A-A-C-P Wells Fargo 50 million grant in 2023.

At and t. Large corporation, others? Bank of America, JP Morgan. Chase, McDonald’s, Walmart. Hyundai, UPS. Oh my God. FedEx, Coca-Cola, Eli Lilly. The Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Robert Word, Johnson Foundation the Open Society Foundation, that’s George Soros again. The Atlantic Drops the company

Malcolm Collins: you should buy from.

Oh, no. Did Coca-Cola donate to them?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Sorry. Malcolm. Oh

Malcolm Collins: no. Oh,

Simone Collins: no. Sorry. Malcolm. All. Let’s go to another identity politics [00:34:00] nonprofit. Here we have the HRC funding graph. Again, something, you know, you, you see the normal, like steady,

Malcolm Collins: oh my God, it’s so obvious here.

Simone Collins: It, it just, it just spikes up. You wanna see another one?

What’s, what’s another one? Glad. How about glad you wanna look at glad. Let’s look at glad.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, let’s look at Glad.

Simone Collins: What happens? They’re

Malcolm Collins: not in on the conspiracy.

Simone Collins: Surely nothing happens. Suddenly, oh

Malcolm Collins: my God. Gladys said what?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, they were, they were, they were so, they were so modest,

you know, 20 15, 5 0.1 million, 20 16, 5 0.4 20 17, 7 0.7 2018, 19 million, 20, 20 20 million, 24 million.

2022. Oh, it, it’s just like, it’s, it’s insane. It’s insane. Let’s look at, let’s look at Occupy Wall Street. Our owner of

Malcolm Collins: glad’s, one of the funders of the KKK as well. I wouldn’t

Simone Collins: be surprised. God. Well, I mean, it would, it wouldn’t hurt. So, just so you know, occupy Wall Street, it, it didn’t survive beyond 2012.

They, they were evicted. Like you remember, they just took out the [00:35:00] camp, the, the trackable fundraising data for Occupy Wall Street. Effectively ends in 2012 as the movement’s organizational structure fragmented when the encampment got removed. And

Malcolm Collins: infiltrated by socialists, by the way.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So let’s, let’s just take a look at their, their fundraising.

Surely, you know, some huge, you know, calm interests were involved, but no, the, it, it peaked out at 800 k.

Malcolm Collins: 800 K.

Simone Collins: 800 k. And okay, well

Malcolm Collins: maybe companies don’t want Occupy Wall Street because they took over our institutions.

Simone Collins: Yeah, they

Malcolm Collins: took over our large

Simone Collins: companies. Yeah. They, yeah, they, they were too busy taking over.

And also I was like, well, maybe, maybe I was going too far with being like, oh, all these banks and like rich people donating to like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the N-A-A-C-P. Like, maybe that’s just kind of how it is. Right. You know, rich people donate to things ‘cause it’s like a, some kind of tax thing and they have to, you know, donate a certain amount of their trusts.

Otherwise they can’t maintain trust status or something. Right. Like, I know [00:36:00] there’s all these weird tax rules, so they have to make donations. Maybe they donated to occupy Wall Street too. But the people who donated, and there were very few obviously ‘cause they like raised nothing. The most prominent corporate founders are the most anti-corporate corporate founders you could possibly imagine.

Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. They, they led to remember what Donators

Malcolm Collins: through Occupy Wall Street?

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah. They, they, they wanted to be super supportive. And then there’s also just like Danny Goldberg, a former Nirvana manager and music executive. Norman Lee or a television producer, like, no, no one we would know, aside from Ben and Jerry oh wait, actually, no.

Susan Sarandon and Kanye West, Michael Moore, Russell Simmons, Cornell West. P Seeger and others. Brad Pitt commented positively. He didn’t donate money,

Malcolm Collins: commented

Simone Collins: positively. No wishes. No wishes.

Malcolm Collins: I love that. That counts as a donation these days. People are like, oh, Elon, he must have donated to your prenatal list movement.

I’m like, no.

Simone Collins: He

Malcolm Collins: commented positively.

Simone Collins: So he

Malcolm Collins: gets footnote,

Simone Collins: yeah, [00:37:00] thoughts and prayers. So I thought maybe like there was just some weird, spike. And, and there kind of was with some organizations I used. And I’ll, I’ll have all the numbers in the show notes, a bunch of environmental nonprofits as my control to kind of see like, well, is this just something that happened like after 2016, like when Trump got elected?

Did people just like put all of their Trump derangement syndrome into donations? And there were modest spikes, but nothing like with these. Really big spikes with the identity politics related organizations. And what’s notable to me is when you look at the, the, the amounts of money that the environmental nonprofits have raised is just orders of magnitude more, and this is actually what makes me the most suspicious.

Okay. So the Natures of Conservancy just, just insane to me. They’re raising like 400 million, 500 million in the early two thousands. Already In the early two thousands.

Malcolm Collins: [00:38:00] Yeah.

Simone Collins: Like keep, keep in mind the, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Do you remember how much they were raising in the early two thousands?

It was

Malcolm Collins: like 11 million, right?

Simone Collins: It was like 35 million.

So we’re just talking huge orders of magnitude more for environmental nonprofits. And that makes me feel like a small number of wealthy people. Throwing a little bit of money toward those organizations and encouraging outsized like sort of propaganda results is, is something that just, I don’t know, it gives me pause.

That basically just environmental nonprofits had slightly more steady increases, like more what I would expect from a nonprofit. And also they just, they clearly had much more broad based support, whereas these more niche, more out there, more radicalized, identity politics based nonprofits just kind of got very significant changes in donation patterns after a very specific event.

Aspen Gold also argued that COVID and the internet were this perfect storm, accelerating [00:39:00] the, the identity politic. I can’t use bad words.

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah. Perfect storm. Not an engineered storm. It’s not like, it’s not like, they

Simone Collins: were, that’s good pointing out though, like it forced every idiot online all day, which massively amplified outrage dynamics and fringe narratives because just people were just sitting online.

Online. It

Malcolm Collins: made my life so much better. COVID has been like the turning point in my existence where the world, I, it really reminds me of this anime Zam 100, where the world, yeah. It is overrun by zombies and he’s like, loving it. He’s like, this is so much better than having a day job. Yeah. And post COVID so many people that come to me, they go, everything’s been terrible since COVID.

Speaker 2: Starting today, I don’t have to go to work anymore.

Speaker 3: I am.[00:40:00]

Speaker 2: Until yesterday, I saw the world in monochrome, shrouded in a black cloud of despair in hopelessness, loose skies, green trees. I Red Blood. I’ve been zoned out for so long, I’ve forgotten. The world was so beautiful. Oh of so many beautiful colors. Who cares if there’s zombies chasing me?

Malcolm Collins: Like, now Trump’s in power and look at all the crazy stuff that’s happening in politics and look at all the, and I’m like, bro, it has just been a blast for me. It was,

Simone Collins: yeah. I, that, that one song that we kept listening to during the pandemic with the, like, I’m just gonna. Be inside the

Malcolm Collins: [00:41:00] Caer song like I’m

Simone Collins: song Yeah, that just like captured everything that I felt.

I do wanna point out though, and I’m gonna bring back the same graph that I showed for my argument about male female speciation. I don’t know, that episode may not have run yet, but that the, the male female political divide, which is very much associated with this identity politics, insanity.

Really it does.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, you found this, that it all started with Tinder.

Simone Collins: It started with Tinder, but it accelerated after COVID. And I think that really feeds, it plays into Aspen Gold’s argument that COVID was an accelerant for extremism by forcing all these people online.

Malcolm Collins: Tinder plus COVID is what? COVID.

Simone Collins: Tinder Plus COVID. But okay. Like I, I, I’ve presented all of this, right? So we had differences in, like, changes in the way that police were trained. There was a, a very clear and measured. Nadir in hate crime and in perceptions of racism before occupy Wall Street and then suddenly, somehow inexplicably and for [00:42:00] no apparent reason.

It started to get bad and, and I really can’t understand aside, like I don’t have any alternate, here’s, here’s my three theories as to what this could have been. If it wasn’t the Corpo saying, oh my gosh, we have to engineer. Okay, go for division, that’s not concerned about us. One is. It could just be the urban monoculture reaching critical mass.

Okay? And the urban monoculture is more predisposed toward identity politics. So this was just a separate cultural mimetic virus running out of control. And of course, all these things could be happening at the same time. Two, it could be just Trump derangement symptom. Because funding for many of these identity politics orgs and some of the environmental nonprofits as well spiked after Trump Trump’s election.

It was 2016. That was one of the periods. Now this doesn’t explain, for example, the shift in the New York Times language toward woke. Stuff well before Trump was elected. But, [00:43:00] but the Southern Poverty Law Centers funding did skyrocket with Trump’s election. Now, that could just be when their team really got product market fit and found out how to like tap into really good veins because of that.

And they had already picked up momentum before, but still.

Malcolm Collins: I have another thesis,

Simone Collins: Uhhuh,

Malcolm Collins: is that you’re looking at it wrong.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: That it was explicitly the death of Occupy Wall Street that caused the explosion in identity politics. Let me explain. Okay. In our book, the Pragmatist Guided of Crafting Religion, I actually explicitly go over this.

I say. That the urban monoculture is not a parasite, it’s this parasitoid. It has to kill its post.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: The way that it spreads, that takes control of a company or a movement, and it then begins to look for any node within the movement or company that is unaffected in an in uninfected. And it attempts to flip them or infect them.

And if they appear to be un infect or immune to it, it then expels them so that it’s [00:44:00] easy to affect the nodes that are effect just harder to affect. Right? And so it, it goes throughout an organizational movement until it can capture as many nodes as possible. The problem with this mecca and how does it do this?

It does this with HR training. It does this with, you know, group struggle sessions. It does this with, you know, the few woke people, they, they use words that they know that you don’t know, and then you’ve gotta learn more and more of their lingo to not accidentally offend them, and then you get kicked out, right?

Like, this is how they maintain the purity. But once an organization is fully infected there’s a problem from the perspective of the mimetic evolution of the urban monoculture. Mm-hmm. All the infected nodes are stuck inside the infected organization

Simone Collins: and have to disperse

Malcolm Collins: and it has to disperse.

That is part of its lifecycle. And so it has to kill the host through angry infighting is what it typically looks like. Yeah. The captured nodes to be released into the atmosphere and begin to infect new companies. [00:45:00] What we might have seen with Occupy Wall Street is the first large infected entity dying and spreading all of the infected nodes to the wind where they infected tons of bureaucratic positions within companies.

Ah,

Simone Collins: because they, they were extremely woke. Like I remember. Yeah, I remember thinking of them as being pretty freaking intolerable. And it’s not because. Like I, I, I don’t think that there’re really serious things to question about, like the bailouts that took place after well, and especially the lack of justice.

After the 2008 financial

Malcolm Collins: crisis. What gives to me a belief that this is what’s happening Yeah. Is if you look at a lot of your graphs, the funding. Two, this stuff started about two and a half years after W Occupy Wall Street. That’s

Simone Collins: true there, there was a pause, things retooled for a while.

Malcolm Collins: Just enough time for them to begin to build influence within other companies.

Simone Collins: But this is also just enough time for theoretically, you know, wealthy people’s donations to start kicking in too, for the [00:46:00] change to start enacting, for the trainings to start leading to different numbers for the reporting to come through. All of this stuff takes time to build.

Malcolm Collins: True, true,

Simone Collins: true. And again, all of these things can be true at the same time.

Like absolutely. It could be that, you know, the Occupy Wall Street movement then exploded into these other things. So

Malcolm Collins: my question is to the comments, whose theory is right? Malcolm Siri or Asma Gold Theory, who’s the. More clever cultural commentator on this particular issue. I like asthma Gold, Siri. I like it because the narrative that it paints is Occupy Wall Street was actually noticing a real problem and attempting to solve it in a meaningful way.

Yeah. And and that, that makes it seem like, oh, and then they crushed it and then turned us against each other. My theory is more just like a cultural evolution theory. Like, well you had Occupy Wall Street died and then you have all these infected nodes that mm-hmm. You know, come out of college recently ‘cause that’s who a lot of Occupy Wall Street was filtering into major companies in college campus.

Yeah. But taking over the HR departments, once [00:47:00] you take over the HR department, it’s very easy to decide who gets hired next. And this was the problem that a lot of these companies had that we’ve talked about before, is they were like, oh God, we’ve gotta hire like minorities, like trans, gay, black people.

Okay. Well, we don’t wanna risk that on like our engineering team, right? ‘cause we need them to actually be competent. So I guess put them in hr, right? Like, no, that’s not gonna hurt anything. But now they’re in control of who’s hired.

Simone Collins: Yeah, for real. Oh, Mr. Woke up. Yeah, I mean, I think maybe the other issue is that the growing class divide and all these just like the, the, the, the lack of accountability that, that various people who caused the 2008 crash had and, and on the bailout and everything like this is just stuff that like individual people maybe just couldn’t feel like they could do anything about.

Whereas there were many different, there were many easier ways to virtue signal identity, politics related things. Like putting your pronouns in your bio and all these other

Malcolm Collins: [00:48:00] words. It also could be here’s the final hypothesis.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Is a lot of this is in opposition to the new right. Beginning to gain more power.

And the left not knowing how to react.

Simone Collins: Hmm. And then Right. Really didn’t come until after.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. I suppose you’re right. Yeah, they came later. Alright. Could it, could it all be downstream of Tumblr? Did Tumblr destroy society? I think that could be a fun video.

Simone Collins: BLR, I mean,

Malcolm Collins: Tumblr

Simone Collins: society. It was

Malcolm Collins: great, kinda.

Anyway I love you Simone. I love you. So for tonight, I want something easy.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: So what’s easy? Mac and cheese, I guess.

Simone Collins: Prob probably

Malcolm Collins: pizza if you’re doing pizza.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Okay. I’ll do either pizza or mac and cheese or grilled cheeses. I guess. Any one of those works for you.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, the grilled cheeses you make are fantastic.

I’ll

Simone Collins: see with kids support,

Malcolm Collins: but the mac and cheese is really good too. And I learned [00:49:00] about pep black pepper in mac and cheese, but the pieces you make allow me to put Indian spice on top, which as is a little.

Simone Collins: Some razzle dazzle.

Malcolm Collins: Some razzle dazzle. That’s what I’m all about, Simone, the razzle dazzle. Okay. You honestly, this week’s videos are just like a string of absolute bangs in terms of like. Unique research. I cannot believe that you took this theory that asthma gold had, that all of these sort of anger that we’re seeing over increased racial anxiety in the United States.

Well,

Simone Collins: I just didn’t know, like I wanted to gaslight myself like, oh no, like racism was. It can’t have been like everything was fine then, right? Like,

Malcolm Collins: and then Occupy Wall Street happened. The court post freaked out and Admiral posts the theory, and then Simone here, the theorist comes in with like a hundred graphs and funding charts and being like, no, no, no, no, no.

So don’t understand like [00:50:00] every one of these orgs funding increased like. 13 fold near the end of Occupy Wall Street, and we know who the donors were, and it was all the Corpo. And we can also see how they changed training in police stations. As a result that caused a spike in the number of, and I was like, whoa, Simone, too much, too much cooking in there.

Simone Collins: A lot interesting stuff going on. But yeah, I, I love, I love getting a good conspiracy theory that I haven’t heard before. May we get many more in the days to come? Well,

Malcolm Collins: I mean, mine with the crash out that the assassin had about the freaking,

Simone Collins: I cannot, that, that is so hilarious. It’s, I just, I love that we live in a timeline where like, you know, assassins after they manifest us have like ps oh my God, the security, this

Malcolm Collins: is terrible

Simone Collins: here.

It’s just like, it’s like a comic book joke, you know, like of like also kind of, it’s like the thing that they put in to like lampshade the fact that like. Clearly no president would have such bad, you know, so we’ll just, [00:51:00] we’ll just lampshade by having the villain talk about how ridiculously bad it is and then that will kind of hand wave away.

You

Malcolm Collins: might might as well edit a ps. You should really probably go ahead with that new ballroom.

Simone Collins: I know. You really should have. Yeah. People gotta get better with their their manifesto trolling, but,

Malcolm Collins: Right, right.

Simone Collins: Good stuff. I love it.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway, I love you too, Simone. I have a spectacular day. The, by the way, the website’s getting better and better.

I’ve added vibe coding features to it. Right now. What I’ve really been focused on is reducing the cost of the agent feature and improving the card game.

Simone Collins: You guys check out our Fab AI for

Malcolm Collins: really cool. You wanna try like magic the gathering, but like. Played by ai. So like the, the effects, like fire doesn’t do like five points of damage.

It like modifies a card by being lit on fire.

Simone Collins: It’s fun. It’s fun. And any just AI adventures, AI companions, AI agents, it can make phone calls, all the cool stuff. Definitely check it out. Phone

Malcolm Collins: call feature is hard to do and it confuses people. So

Simone Collins: I was, I dunno, I found it like, you know how I just always [00:52:00] find bugs

and

Malcolm Collins: stuff.

You found it easy to use. Have you used it?

Simone Collins: Yeah. And it called me and I was like, oh. That’s really crazy. You

Malcolm Collins: have to whitelist the phone number by the way. You have to go, you have to click, have it call you while you’re looking at your phone. Whitelist it.

Simone Collins: Yeah, I

Malcolm Collins: did. Long government reason as to why this is the case that I can’t do anything about without having you pay like a hundred dollars for a phone number.

I love you, Simone. You are amazing. I think that you are beautiful and I am really glad we’re gonna be at DC for most of this week doing meetings. So, but we have a good backlog, so don’t worry about it guys.

Simone Collins: Love you.

All right.

Speaker 4: What do you, you gotta, you gotta wear this on the channel more often. If it’s sunny and I’m going outside, I’m gonna put it on you. Look Adorkable and I love it. This is, this is what our fans are in this for Toasty. You are gonna get, we.[00:53:00]

What are you doing, girl?

Speaker 5: She just saw somebody to hug. Yeah, I just attack dogs all the time.

Speaker 4: Oh my.

Are you building a bridge? Toasty. Testy. Build a bridge. I mean, can I have that? I wanna throw the French. So under there, what it’s like under there? Yeah.

Did hookup culture and swipe apps like Tinder create the massive political and cultural divide between young men and women? In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down shocking new polling data showing young women are far more negative toward men than vice versa, explore how Tinder supercharged resentment and radicalization, and discuss everything from MeToo to artificial wombs and potential speciation between the sexes.

They cover:• The timeline correlation between Tinder’s rise and women shifting hard left• Why short-term mating markets destroy long-term relationship prospects• Male vs female responsibility in modern dating chaos• The anime that predicted male/female civilizations splitting• Practical advice for men seeking real partners and why “high value” looksmaxxing can backfire

A raw, data-heavy, and unfiltered conversation on one of the biggest societal fractures of our time.

BTW, here is Revy the MGTOW’s Google Doc guide to having kids via surrogate as an unattached man.

Show Notes

The Landscape

New polling conducted for the New Statesman in the UK in early 2026 found that young women (esp 25–30) have significantly more negative views of men than young men have of women.

* The New Statesman poll was carried out by pollster Scarlett Maguire and colleagues on attitudes between young men and women in Britain, published around 14 April 2026.

Here’s the polling (archive link): Revealed: the new radicalism among young women

Merlin Strategy’s exclusive polling reveals a growing gender divide among under-30s

What they found:

* About 72% of young men report a favorable view of young women, and only around 7% report an unfavorable view.

* Among women under 30, only about half report a favorable view of men, and around one fifth (about 21%) report an unfavorable view.

* Among women under 25, only about 35% express a positive view of men at all, and just about 11% describe their view as “very positive.”

* Commentary around the poll notes that young women are “three times as likely” to hold a negative view of men as young men are to hold a negative view of women.

* 40% of young women say men don’t share their understanding of consent in relationships (only 25% of men say the same about women).

* Young women are twice as likely as young men to say they don’t want children (15% women vs. 8% men). Among white women under 30, it’s 20%.

* 1 in 4 young women say a partner’s different political views is a red flag.

* 60% would find it difficult to date someone who disagrees on Palestine/Israel or Trump.

* 74% say the same about disagreements on social justice.

* Young women are more likely than men to rule out partners over immigration views.

The Thesis

On X, Rae (@dystopiangf) wrote: “Casual sex is unironically a huge part of why so many women have become politically radicalized. If you ask a random woman why she hates men, 95% chance it boils down to sexual grievance, accumulated from embarrassing experiences like the OP. In other words, women are the real incels (in spirit).

I witnessed this myself in college: one too many bad situationships, and they begin to carry this feeling of being a piece of meat everywhere, projecting it onto “society” despite there being zero material evidence of structural misogyny in the West. The bitter irony is that hookup / situationship culture is a byproduct of feminism; they fought for the ability to be treated like pieces of meat, to be equal to men sexual the way gay men are with each other, but the attainment of this freedom has done nothing but foment an even deeper hatred of their father’s civilization”

This is in response to someone sharing a screenshot from a post-hookup story a woman posted on tiktok.

* The caption OP had put was: “situationship breakups are so crazy bc why did this man just tell me the only person he wants to be with is his ex and then immediately make me eggs on toast. He nutted in me like 10mins after this. what in god’s name is happening”

* Moe Bible chipped in: “Women will post this s**t and then wonder why the entire planet and every major religion has imposed strict social restrictions on their sovereignty since the dawn of time in every place humans have ever lived”

The Shadowbanned wrote: “Let’s at least sympathize here - the man does not need to do this to her. Just because a girl is willing to put out doesnt mean you have to take her up on the offer.”

* To which Rae responded: “I do tend to think that volcels are the most noble of men”

More discourse for the interested: https://x.com/i/trending/2046981384204358126

Did Hookup Culture Predate Male-Female Political Polarization?

Yes. Yes it did.

Timeline of Hookup Culture / Casual Sex Norms

Casual, non-committed sexual encounters have deep historical roots but became more normalized and visible in specific eras due to social and technological changes:

* Early 1800s–1920s: Historians trace elements of casual sex and shifting courtship to the early 19th century, with acceleration in the 1920s. Automobiles, movie theaters, and urban youth culture allowed mixed-sex socializing away from parental supervision. This marked a shift from formal courtship to “dating.” Fraternity culture (from the 1820s) also played a role in college settings.

* 1960s Sexual Revolution: A major inflection point. Feminism, the birth control pill, declining stigma around premarital sex, and college party scenes decoupled sex from marriage/relationships. This era saw widespread acceptance of casual encounters, especially among young adults.

* 1970s–1990s: Premarital and casual sex became more common and visible. By the mid-1990s, “hookup” behaviors were established on campuses. The term “hookup culture” gained prominence around 2000, but data shows similar (or even higher) rates of sexual activity in earlier decades (e.g., comparisons of 1988–1996 vs. 2002–2010 college students).

Hookup culture isn’t entirely new—casual sex existed before—but modern forms (peer-driven, alcohol-fueled, decoupled from courtship) crystallized post-1960s and were amplified by media and apps later.

Timeline of Male-Female Political Polarization

The partisan gender gap (women leaning more Democratic/liberal, men more Republican/conservative) is relatively recent in its modern form:

* Pre-1960s: Minimal or inconsistent gaps. In the 1950s, women were sometimes slightly more Republican.

* 1960s onward: Divergence began as men and women’s party identifications shifted (linked to civil rights, Southern realignment, and cultural changes). Men moved toward Republicans faster in some cases.

* 1980s–present: Clear and growing gap. Noticeable in the 1980 Reagan election (women less supportive). It widened through the 1990s–2010s, with women more Democratic. Among young people (18–29), the divide has sharpened dramatically in recent years (e.g., post-2016/2020), with young women shifting left and young men moving right or away from Democrats.

Polarization overall increased from the 1970s/1990s (elite sorting, Gingrich era), but the gender-specific aspect accelerated later.

The Swipe-Based Dating Acceleration

Has gendered political polarization intensified even faster following the introduction of swipe-based dating (E.g. tindr)?

Yes, the gendered political polarization—particularly the ideological and partisan gap between young men and women—has shown signs of intensifying at a faster rate in the period following the widespread adoption of swipe-based dating apps like Tinder (launched 2012, mass popularity by 2014–2015).

Obviously swipe-based dating is just one sign of hookup culture on the rise, but it largely facilitated hookup culture at scale, which could arguably have fuelled the resentment that built up and fuelled things like #metoo (which was founded in 2006 by activist Tarana Burke to support survivors of sexual violence but did not gain global, viral momentum until October 2017 after Alyssa Milano encouraged survivors to use the hashtag following Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations).

Episode Transcript

Simone Collins: [00:00:00] So 2015 is when Tinder launched. Oh, and about two years later is really when it started to pick up, . The thing that really made hookup culture run out of control was the technology introduction of swipe based dating, which made hookup culture something that could run at scale.

And that’s when women who were eights and below suddenly had access to these higher quality men on their lazy nights and started to believe that this was the type of man who eventually would become their boyfriend or marry them.

And this is where the resentment really starts.

Malcolm Collins: you listen, you can’t see good graph. I mean, it is, it is striking. Like as soon as Tinder gets popular bam, women explode.

You get me too. You get BLM you get huge rates of, of additional liberal tendencies in the female voting pool, particular in the single [00:01:00] female voting pool.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we’re gonna be talking about an interesting question and an interesting theory. The theory coming from Simone is, did hookup culture create the current and continually growing divide between young men and young women?

And we’ll be going over a bunch of stats that signify this divide. Because it’s, it’s way bigger than you would imagine. And then the second I wanna go over comes from an anime I was watching recently.

Simone Collins: Oh no. Only

Malcolm Collins: because I was on a leaflet stream and somebody on the leaflet comment, they go seeing leaflet and Malcolm Talks makes me not as afraid that we’re gonna end up with an X future.

And I was like, I haven’t heard of this anime. So I went to look it up and watch it and it’s old and not very good. But it is an interesting concept, which is. After artificial wombs are developed

Simone Collins: mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Because already with humanity one of the thought experiments I often [00:02:00] have is like, wouldn’t it be cool if like crow mags continue to exist today?

So like, we could talk with and converse with a human with like a completely different sociological physiological perspective on reality. Right? Yeah. Or

Simone Collins: Neander falls. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. We, we, we basically. Have that, which is human females. Right. Because

Simone Collins: gone

Malcolm Collins: human females are probably more different from human males than Neanderthal males are from human males and Neanderthal females.

Were from human females. Like as hominids, we’re quite different from each other. In terms of our, our sociological perspectives, the way we would want government, the wor the way we would want the prisons in so many different ways. We’re very, very, very different from each other. Scale,

Simone Collins: you know, structure and Yeah.

Muscle mass.

Malcolm Collins: People have different roles. Yeah. And it asks it, it sort of takes this, this guess is that, well, once we have artificial wounds, the core political divide, which we’re kind of seeing already, is going to be between men and women. And eventually they split into different civilizations. One [00:03:00] is a descendant civilization of males and other is a descendant civilization of females.

Hmm.

And obviously the, the very fun thing is how they mythologize why the other was so bad, like all of the cruel ways that women used to treat men. And it’s like a list of like men’s rights grievances. Like did you know that men died at like 98% the rate of women when they worked together? Did you know that?

Like, and it says, what, what would those two differing societies be like? And honestly and I, I, I want to talk with you. Do you think that happens? Because I hadn’t actually thought through how strong the political wins may be for a divide between men and women. We’re already seeing people in both camps talking about wanting to do it right.

Like Sandman, who we’ve had on the show has talked about doing that himself, you know,

Simone Collins: having a bunch of guys. Yeah, actually,

Malcolm Collins: yeah, a bunch of guys. We talked to other guys who were doing it. Even

Simone Collins: when I was in Austin, there [00:04:00] were people like talking about it. Like, well, I wish I could just do this. And I’m like, oh, actually you can, I’ll share the Google doc with you.

Of that, that other guy who,

Malcolm Collins: oh, yeah, you should put that Google

Simone Collins: document, if you remember, shared his guide to getting a surrogate and just doing it on your own, on a budget. I

Malcolm Collins: mean, a bunch of women have talked about wanting to do this to the extent that there’s been a number of instances where women have, like when they, with their lesbian partner, whatever, accidentally conceived a male child, like wanted to sue the clinic when they found out they couldn’t have an abortion, they said it felt like

Simone Collins: there’s also a couple there’s a, a, a prominent case of a gay couple having done this too,

Malcolm Collins: to have only gay kid, only male kids, I mean.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So, well, I mean, this is like a thing on Tumblr. Like, let’s just create what, what do we even need men for? What do they, we can have birth without them. Right. You know.

Simone Collins: Well, but same, same with gay couples, you know, and if they’re doing it without women and they just wanna have a boy kid.

Yeah. And

Malcolm Collins: people can be like, well, you at least need like sperm or eggs. And it’s like, not anymore. Like IVG [00:05:00] technology is getting pretty good at this point. Yeah. We’ve helped fund it with our foundation.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: So we’re maybe 10 years away from IVG just being you know, an easy way to, that, that means being able to create sperm and egg cells from other types of cells in your body.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But to be, to be clear, a a lot of this is couched in for context, a new polling that was conducted for the new statements in new statesmen in the uk in, in early in this year that found that young women, especially in the 25 to 30 range, are way more negative on men than young men are toward women.

So, as much as I cited this, this example of a gay couple suing because they didn’t have the boy they hoped for and selected. This is more about female hate and, and female pushing away. No, I, I could see reactive male speci should of just being like, I’m gonna throw my hands up and wash my hands with a situation.

But what people have been discussing a lot online is this new statesman polling. I’m gonna, in the show notes link to an [00:06:00] archive link, so not paywall of the actual polling results. But some highlights of it are that about 72% of young men report a favorable view of young women. So most, right? But only around 7% report an unfavorable view that, again, this is a very friendly approach, but then women under 30, only half report a favorable view of men.

And one fifth, like 21% versus 7% for men. Have a favorable view, and among women under 25, only about 35% express a positive view of men at all. And just about 11% describe their view as very positive.

Malcolm Collins: Wow. So only one in four women under 25

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Has a positive view of men. Wow.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And young women are three times as likely to hold a negative view of men as young men are, to hold a negative view of women, put other ways.

And then 40% of young women say men don’t share their understanding of consent in relationships. So only 25% say [00:07:00] the same amount about women, which makes sense. Young women are twice as likely as young men to say they don’t want children. Something we’ve discussed at length, and this shows up in a lot of polling.

So 15% of women versus 8% of men. And among white women under 30 it’s 20%. And young one in four young women say it partners different political views as a red flag. So God forbid we consider alternate views, which is actually,

Malcolm Collins: hold on, hold on, hold on. Simone. Yeah. Would you have said that back when you were a progressive?

When I first met you,

Simone Collins: I really liked. Talking with people who are different. When I, when I found ‘em on ok. Keep, that was kind of a selling point. Okay. But maybe I was weird. I would’ve thought that it was normative because I thought, you know, women love enemies to lovers. They love a bad guy. They love novelty, they love new views.

Malcolm Collins: Well, we all saw the, the Ice Romance books pop off.

Simone Collins: So, so yeah. That, that is, I actually find that very surprising. Like, why, why would women be so into enemies to lovers and, [00:08:00] and like to view men as these like, ooh, like powerful age, agentic, whatever. And, and leftist views broadly, which is what women, women are holding on average.

Like I don’t think this is young conservative women saying that they wouldn’t date a progressive

Malcolm Collins: male

Simone Collins: partner.

Malcolm Collins: I think what’s really interesting here is a few things. So one is obviously this changes the framing when people are like in cells or like angry young men or, or the problem in society, it’s very clear that angry young women are astronomically more of a problem in society than angry young men.

Yeah. Men’s reaction is mostly. I don’t want to deal with this. Right. Like these, these harpies are nightmarish. Have you ever had to interact with one?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And they are, they are. You know, I, yeah.

Simone Collins: I mean, the old saying, women can’t live with them, can’t live without ‘em, but increasingly you can live without them.

And will that allow for speciation, is your question?

Malcolm Collins: Yes. No. No mandate speciation. So, yeah. I, I, I also wanna point

Simone Collins: out people. We also found, though, I just wanna say that women also, 74% said the same about disagreements on social [00:09:00] justice. So it’s not just politics, it’s also social justice. And also they’re more likely than men to rule out partners just over immigration views.

Alone. Like, not like, oh, you’re a republic. Even if you’re a progressive man who believes in social justice, but then you, you know, you’re like, you know, maybe we should curtail immigration. Nope, you’re out. So anyway, it, it just, it check out the survey, there’s a ton more. And also women have way more negative views, for example, on economics.

They’re more pessimistic on life in general. They honestly sound like bummers to be around.

Malcolm Collins: Well also I, I note on your enemies to lover thing, which I do think is right. I think women honestly go for that. It’s, you can date with a strategy like that without as much trouble as you would imagine. Yeah. The a a lot of male dating advice is really messed up.

And this is in part because of hookup culture. So we’re gonna go into that conversation a little.

Simone Collins: Yes.

Malcolm Collins: Are still sort of red pill cued around what women are looking [00:10:00] for. And it’s something that I had pointed out before. But I, I, I want to point it out again because I, I, it’s like really important that guys gr this because I was watching a home math video and I really respect home math.

I think he’s a, a great

Simone Collins: same home math is

Malcolm Collins: awesome. But he was going over the studies that show oh, well, you know, these guys who say that you don’t really need to work out, you don’t really need to be buffed. There’s better things to invest your time in. In terms of securing a, a partner of the opposite gender they’re, they’re wrong about this, right?

Like, look at these studies. And so he goes over a number of studies and then he, he mentions a line that he sees a sort of a throwaway line, but it misses the entire point. He’s like, well. Of course the studies found that women really prefer you know, buff guys when they’re looking for a short-term partner, but not so much when they’re looking for a long-term partner.

But he is like, but of course, because we’re all downstream of the red pill community, you want to be the short-term partner, right? Like, you want to be the sex [00:11:00] boy, right?

Simone Collins: No. No.

Malcolm Collins: And it’s like, that’s not what anyone in our community wants. Oh, we’re looking for a long-term partner, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: And so, the men so frequently q to what women are looking for in short-term partners, because it’s something that’s very easy to test.

Like I go to a club, I go to a night ball, I’m surfing on apps. Am are, are women like flocking to me, right? And the answer is, is yes. If you’re buffer, they are. But that can, once you go above certain levels, actually lead you to problem securing a partner. If, if we look in the manosphere sort of wider influencer space, right.

And this is I think a good way to like sanity test ideas in your head. Yeah. Be like, okay, of the influencers I know who have X body type or y body type. Mm-hmm. How has, so in that video home as your picture that looks Oh he in real life, [00:12:00] home as apparently quite a, a buff very muscular looking guy.

Simone Collins: All that illustrating, you know, really, so it works you out?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Okay. So like, let’s think of like buff. Manosphere, you’ve got home math.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: You’ve got Chris Williamson. You’ve got I’m thinking Ry Nationalists. Yeah. Did, did any of these guys have kids or even a spouse?

Speaker: Sorry, forgot a few Here. You also have Andrew Huberman, Myron Gaines, and , bronze Age pervert.

Malcolm Collins: And then, oh, Weasley, little Malcolm here.

How did I, how did I end up with, with five and counting kids?

Speaker 7: Who else in the new right intellectual influencer space has a wife and kids? Uh, well, we have pictures of traditional masculinity like Curtis Jarvin and Ed Dutton. I.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, the point I’m making is it’s very important to not invest. The hard parts of life in the wrong area. If I was to spend a [00:13:00] portion of my day, for example, exercising that would be time I’m not spending building.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Or, or, or writing,

Simone Collins: building wealth, building a family, finding a wife, et cetera.

Yeah. Well, and and more broadly, you know, the advice that you get from anyone is going to get you where they are broadly, you know, if it works. Yeah. In the best case scenario. So,

Malcolm Collins: by the way, the thing that I’ve built recently that I’m quite excited about, I, I’ll try to get this episode, I’ll get it live for this episode.

I’ll get it live for this episode is on reality fabricator we’re building, this is in conjunction with Leaflet who’s providing me, like, advice on this, a card game. And what the game will do is it’ll be like playing actual, like yugi. So like in, in, in like the anime, right? We’re like, cards have like abilities, but like if a dragon is like breathing flame, right?

Well that has the effects that a dragon breathing flame would have. It doesn’t have like numbered effects. It doesn’t have a health bar or [00:14:00] something like that.

Simone Collins: Right, right.

Malcolm Collins: And so you play your cards onto a deck and you give actions like in words like, I want the card to do XI want the card to do y knowing what the environment is.

Mm-hmm. And then an AI runs to decide you did this, your opponent did this. Obviously we have an AI opponent you can work with or you can go with human opponents. And. Then based on what happens based on both of your choices, changes the individual elements of that scene. So the images on the cards get changed based on what happened to them.

The environment

Simone Collins: that’s so funny

Malcolm Collins: gets changed. The,

Simone Collins: it’s like if this were Pokemon and they were Pokemon cards, like Pikachu would look all beat up and stuff.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Pikachu would look all beat up after he hit. Right. Like that’s the idea.

Simone Collins: That’s great thing. Yeah. That’s great. I love that.

Malcolm Collins: By the way, you can turn off the feature that constantly changes the images to save money.

If you’re like, I don’t like, that’s a little too, you don’t need

Simone Collins: that. Yeah.

Speaker: Holy, raw,

Speaker 2: real [00:15:00] monsters.

Actually, they’re just super advanced holograms created for the sole purpose of enriching the experience of a children’s card game.

Speaker: Okay. Seriously, you’ve got to be kidding me. Who wastes all their money on something like that.

Simone Collins: I still love that. I wanna see my, okay. I don’t wanna see Pikachu beat up, but. I, I wanna see pickup troop

Speaker 8: Sadly about the only element that’s not working very well right now, at least the last time I tested, was the image redraw feature. So, , I hope to have that done by the end of the week, but we’re stuck in DC right now, so we’re not getting as much done as normal.

Malcolm Collins: and I’ll eventually make that part of the feature. Like obviously I’ve been working on, the big thing we were working on was agents recently was making them cost a lot less and now there’s a video telling you how to use the agents.

It’s like the top agent card if you wanna use agents, so you can watch that because they, they’d rack up costs way too quickly the way they were structured before. And so I came up with a number of options you can use to really specialize your task with an agent and cut down their cost.

Speaker 9: They also have a vibe coding mode, which basically means they create [00:16:00] either a task list and work until the end of the task list is done. Or they just work until they don’t make a tool or an action call, uh, like typical vibe coding software does, which also has them just not run as long and rack up the same cost.

Malcolm Collins: What else? Yeah, but yeah, building constantly, right?

Like women, like guys who. Do stuff and have missions.

Simone Collins: Well, let’s talk about this thesis on sort of the, the trigger of this divide, because I think it’s, it’s interesting and I’m kinda like, Ooh, I see, I see, I see where this is going. So on X ray, a, k, a at dystopian, GF wrote. Casual sex is unironically a huge part of why so many women have become politically radicalized.

If you ask a random woman why she hates men, 95% chance, it boils down to sexual grievance accumulated from embarrassing experiences like the op. In other words, women are the real incel in spirit. I witnessed this myself in college. One too many bad situation ships and they begin to [00:17:00] carry this feeling of being a piece of meat everywhere, projecting it onto society, despite there being zero material evidence of structural misogyny in the west.

The bitter irony is that hookup and situationship culture is a byproduct of feminism. They fought for the ability to be treated like pieces of meat to be equal to men and sexual. The way men are with each other. But the attainment of this freedom has done nothing but foment an even deeper hatred for their of their father’s civilization.

And she posted this in response to someone sharing a screenshot from a post hookup story a woman posted on TikTok. The caption that Ope had put was situationship. Breakups are so crazy because why did this man just tell me the only person he wants to be with is his ex? And then immediately make me eggs on toast.

He nutted in me like 10 minutes after this, what God’s name is happening. Which is just gross. And then MOA Bible on X chipped in, . Women will post this beep and then wonder why the entire planet and every major [00:18:00] religion has imposed strict social re restrictions on their sovereignty since the dawn of time in every place humans have ever lived.

Also the shadow band wrote, let’s at least sympathize here. The man does not need to do this to her. Just because a girl is willing to put out doesn’t mean you have to take her up on the offer to which Ray responded. I do tend to think that vol cells, like in like voluntary incel are the most noble of men.

And I’ll link in the show notes to the discourse, but I’m like, oh my God, is this true? Like, is the political polarization that we’re seeing between men and women. Something that really accelerated after hookup culture.

Malcolm Collins: We’ll talk about male responsibility in this.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: In truth, I think men have near zero responsibility in this, and I’ll explain why.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Suppose you say

Simone Collins: what they can’t help themselves.

Malcolm Collins: Suppose you say men should be vol cells. Right? And the vast majority of men decide to be vol cells, [00:19:00] right? Okay. So you, you get out there and 75% of men are like, yeah, I’m gonna be V cells.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Like, I’m not going to sleep with you. I will be a gentleman.

I will ask to be your boyfriend. I will meet your parents.

Malcolm Collins: The problem is, is that the men who don’t sign up for that, right? Mm-hmm. So easy for them to get sex now because of this huge arbitrage that’s been created.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Women who are open to sleeping around are just going to have such a big audience because they can sleep with one girl one night, one girl the next night, one girl the night after that.

Right.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: The, the amount of women sleeping around does not actually decrease dramatically if you increase the number of all cells unless you can get to total So prohibition.

Simone Collins: That’s true. Basically. Yeah. 1, 1, 1 or two bad actors can cover a lot of ground. A lot of ground.

Malcolm Collins: Exactly. Yeah. So this is fundamentally like the woman is not thinking about the, the pattern.

Like the guy has told her, I have no interest in committing to you, and then she sleeps [00:20:00] with him, right. And she’s like, well, he’s not being actively unpleasant to me, so I guess I’m gonna sleep with him. Right. Like obviously this causes externalities right to, to structure society this way. And the core obviously we haven’t gone to this yet, but you know, any of our audience who has watched our previous videos on this notes, the core challenge this creates is because all of the women are chasing after so few men, this is just statistically true.

And I’m, I’m really perplexed when women are like, well, that’s a, a sexist talking point. And I’m like. Maybe Really? Okay, here’s a chart of a hundred men that, you know, how many of them are you willing to sleep with, right? Yeah. You know, like, they’re like, well, these two, and I’m like, you see, that’s the f*****g problem, right?

Mm-hmm. So, or they might have who, who, who’s, who, who else are people sleeping with? Right? You know, that women have a phenomenon where they will find somebody more attractive the more other people sleep with them, by the way another thing, if you’re thinking of the like. I’m like, guys, you are wrong.

About who? [00:21:00] Women actually like go after in, in a meaningful context.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Which YouTuber recently had a major scandal where it turned out he was sleeping was tons of women this Waso the one they tried to cancel.

Simone Collins: Oh, that guy who failed to be canceled. Yeah. Whose girlfriend like, came out in defense of him despite the fact that she had been cheated on multiple times.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. That is ultimate. But this is what I’m talking about. Right. You know? Yeah. You’re not, you’re not getting these other influencers this that’s happening to them. No, it’s, it’s little Twinky Sexo or whatever his name is. But. It’s like his belief women over, I was thinking about doing an episode in that one because everyone after that, like basically defended him and they’re like, Hey, a guy should be able to cheat.

Like, what are you talking about?

Simone Collins: What was most fun to watch is just all the guys covering him, being like, oh my God. Like he did it guys. He pulled it off. What a moment for men.

Malcolm Collins: Amazing. The, the woman who I, I attacked him came off as so f*****g [00:22:00] petty. She was like, she’s like, well, I went to Vegas to a hotel room with him.

Mm-hmm. And we stayed up late watching a horror movie together. And then we hooked up and had sex and it’s like. Hold on, but she’s like, but that’s not why I went, that’s not what my intention. I was like, wait, you went alone with him to Vegas to watch horror movies in a shared hotel room? That is consent.

Okay. I’m sorry. Like they say, 40% of women have a different idea of consent than what men have. Why the F else did you go there? What else did you think was supposed to happen, you think he wanted to fly? Do do, do you think that he was supposed to think that that’s what you wanted was to just watch horror movies?

Especially when you didn’t actively deny consent or tell him, I’m not interested in Sex

Simone Collins: Well and went forward with it.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, that was,

Simone Collins: that’s a key part

Malcolm Collins: of Absolutely. [00:23:00] Affluent multiple times. By the way, first giving him head then having sex with him head isn’t something that you can easily accidentally do.

Simone Collins: Yeah. It’s not like she slipped in the shower.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Come on. People. Like, I think that that was the other thing where people were like, that she thought that this was some big, like reveal on him is so egregious. It shows such a sense of entitlement, right? Like I wanted a famous guy to commit to me who is al already in a relationship and I will achieve this by getting him to sleep with me.

And it’s like, no, it doesn’t work that way. Right? The one place where I think in this scenario that’s been created where I think guys are extremely culpable, is this is guys that signal that they want more serious or more long-term relationships than they actually want. And I think that this is something that, like as men, if we are going to [00:24:00] socially punish a behavior, is the easy behavior to socially punish.

And that should be socially punished and seen as extremely bad because I have seen many women who do actually want long-term relationships get screwed over by guys who don’t want long-term relationships signaling that they do want long-term relationships to gain access to these women. And then people can be like, well then the woman just shouldn’t put out in any way.

And it’s like, okay, you can say that, but a lot of guys, even guys who are actually interested in long-term relationships just won’t seriously date them then.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But anyway, continue is where you were going with this.

Simone Collins: I sent you two graphs on, whatsApp that you can include in this episode if you so please.

They show the political ideology divide as it grows over time between men and women. One starts at 1975.

Malcolm Collins: Wow. After 2015, women went off the deep end with liberal

Simone Collins: well, so two. So 2015 is when [00:25:00] Tinder launched. Oh, and about two years later is really when it started to pick up, which you can really actually see on the graph.

Like two years later and it’s like young and it, what’s clear is that throughout history, like starting in the 1960s, you know, there was the sexual revolution. Definitely morays around sexuality and dating got looser and looser and looser over time. But the thing that really I think made hookup culture run out of control was the technology introduction of swipe based dating, which made hookup culture something that could run at scale.

It made it very, very possible for lazy eights, nines and tens to access as many women as they wanted. Like that’s when the unlimited women on tap apps came out, basically.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: And that’s when women who were eights and below suddenly had access to these higher quality [00:26:00] men on their lazy nights and started to believe that this was the type of man who eventually would become their boyfriend or marry them.

And this is where the resentment really starts. I think that hookup culture was not a, as much of a problem and certainly didn’t breed resentment and then ferment political pol polarization before. Women had this experience of being jilted by men who never expected to invest in them as people from the GetGo.

And then when swipe based dating happened suddenly that that was facilitated. Yeah. Well,

Malcolm Collins: so it’s really clear here. Mm-hmm. You. Have to understand how bad, so Simone said that these apps are women on demand for high value men.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And they really are women on demand for high value men. Mm-hmm. It is just a constant flow for as many women as they want whenever they feel like it.

And that leads them to treat these women incredibly poorly. [00:27:00] Mm-hmm. It’s like those old northern factory guys, and they’d be like, but your employees could die in these conditions. And it’s like, well, you know, I’ve got 10 other people. Right. Yeah. You want someone to care about you be a slave. Right.

And again, this is sort of what we’re dealing with here. Which, and I have said this in other videos. Men owning their wives gave the women more value. Like it, it caused them to become protected by those men in the same way that in many times in the north, factory workers were treated worse than slaves because at least you had a reason to keep the slave alive.

Mm-hmm. But a better. Dynamic here is property ownership in communist countries versus capitalist countries. Mm. In capitalist countries properties are generally very well up kept. Like you drive through a neighborhood, you’re going to see a bunch of nice houses. In fact, the only place where you really see super rundown houses is government housing, where people do not own it.

You go to communist countries, [00:28:00] typically everything’s falling apart. Yeah. And the reason is, is because if you don’t own the property you’re living in, then you don’t benefit from maintaining it or invest.

Simone Collins: You only stand to lose. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. You only stand to lose. And it’s the same as a partner, a man who doesn’t.

Own his women or wife. Right. And he was just going through, lots of them actually stands to lose from attempting to invest in improving her, whereas,

Simone Collins: right. Because then he’s almost cing himself. You know, he’s improving some woman that eventually some other man is gonna end up

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah.

Simone Collins: With, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

And these women have shown that that’s the way that they act, right? Mm-hmm. And now I’d also say do not take an overly harsh approach to women over this, which is to say that women are just behaving in relation to their biology in the same way that men are, right? Like, women are one far more communalist in their ideology than men are.

And so if they’re in a community that all tells them something. It is. Way, way, way psychologically [00:29:00] harder for them to break out of that. Mm-hmm. So when everyone around them is telling you you know, oh, just sleep around, you know, it’s, it’s no big deal. Get married in your thirties, whatever that.

The a a woman is, is gonna have a fairly hard time. And the biggest thing that’s told to them is all women are beautiful. You know, do not judge yourself by reality is basically what that statement is. Do not judge your, you, you deserve whatever you want. It’s like, do not you, you, it’s such a freaking bizarre ideology that’s spread, but it is absolutely commonplace among female circles.

And then that your value on the sexual marketplace is the same as your value on the, on the marriage marketplace. Now, they won’t even allow you to have concepts like a sexual marketplace or marriage marketplace. They’re like that. So dehumanizing. What do you mean street market value? What do you mean?

Whatever. But if you don’t understand these concepts as a woman you fundamentally won’t understand that the guys you can get to sleep with you on a swipe app are [00:30:00] not the guys who are going to marry you. And the other concept that is heavily shamed in these communities, but is absolutely true. Is that you will be heavily penalized in the marriage marketplace by men based on the number of partners you had before you find

Simone Collins: Oh, for sure.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And, and that in fact, you are even more penalized in the marriage marketplace for past sexual partners than you are on the sexual marketplace for past sexual partners. Oh,

Simone Collins: yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I shouldn’t be, and it’s like, well, I’m sorry honey. You are right. Like, that’s just the data, right? Like, that’s just the reality.

Because in the same way,

Simone Collins: and it makes a lot of sense intuitively actually, I mean, the entire reason why marriage was first established as a concept was about securing paternity and property rights. It was about making sure that the female partner was not sleeping with other people, and that the entire community knew that was the point of the, like ceremony.

Yeah. It was like, by the way. [00:31:00] No, no one sleep with her. Okay. Do we all agree that no one slept with her before and I I’m the only one to sleep with her after? Like, that was the entire point. Like it was so simple. Yes, it was about property rights and it was about like, promiscuity just I, I think it’s underrated.

Under, under understood or misunderstood and underrated.

Malcolm Collins: The, the, the, the where, where I’m going with this is, women obey their biology just as men do. And women’s biology tells them, try to secure the highest value partner that you can. Yeah. Right? Like, and it’s, and then this is more than even males feel this, right?

Like, for women, it is absolutely important. I secure a a, a high value partner where high value is status or earning et cetera, right? Mm-hmm. And so, when they do not see that they are hurting themselves by being on the sexual marketplace, when they do not see that these relationships have no real chance at becoming stable long-term relationships they, they are, are they, like they, they don’t know how that this is happening to them.

[00:32:00] They don’t see this happening to them, and they suffer for this. You see the psychological health of women way lower than the psychological health of men right now, right? Like, especially progressive women who have fully adopted into these ideals. And and I’ve met many women who. Went into this culture and then came out of it and they’re like, it just effed up my life so much.

But like, how was I supposed to know there was a nobody in these communities? Like the effect of outsource community is one place where this really happens to women telling me like, actually there’s huge externalities to the choices that you’re making right now that are going to make your long-term life really hard.

In the same way that like as a kid, everybody warns you about getting tattoos. Nobody was warning them against this. The other thing that is not, I had mentioned this in another video and I was very interested in the comments on this where I noted that, while body count matters a lot to men mm-hmm.

Interracial body count seems to matter significantly more than body count. Eeg sleeping with somebody of a different ethnic group. [00:33:00] And I was wondering, I was like, is that a unique to white men thing or is this something that other ethnicities have? And somebody in the comments was like, actually, you see this a lot in Asian communities where if an Asian woman has slept with white men, that that’s considered worse than if she has been promiscuous with Asian men.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. That’s interesting. Yeah. And we, we brought this up on another episode and someone even wrote in, ‘cause you and I just didn’t really, we couldn’t empathize with it. And they were like, yeah, I, I, I can’t control it. But it is definitely a feeling of disgust. So I feel like maybe there’s something genetic and inbuilt that some people have where if they know that someone is the product of some form of mixed heritage.

Marriage or pairing or no.

No.

Malcolm Collins: They

Simone Collins: sell.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, that is not what I said. I wanna be very clear about this. Oh,

Simone Collins: okay.

Malcolm Collins: Women are typically not penalized for being mixed race. They are penalized for sleeping with somebody of a different race. Okay. In the statistics you actually see being mixed race [00:34:00] helps you as a female.

So we pointed this out in the episode where we reviewed different

Yeah.

Simone Collins: From attractiveness, it’s better to either marry your second or third cousin or to be mixed race.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Well, not just that, but the white men on average rate, Asian white women. So women that are birthed from Asian white matches as hotter on average than.

Fully white women.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

And we have plenty of people who’ve written to us agreeing to that point.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, that’s obviously true. I like, even though I’m not drawn to,

Simone Collins: there are also people though who find that a major turnoff and who’ve also written to us to attest to it. So just pointing that out.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But I, I’m just saying like, I, I’m just searching myself, right. Like. I think that they are objectively hotter, but I’m not interested in them as a, a like marriage match. Like there’s a certain look on a female that like, well

Simone Collins: think it depends on what you’re, you’re optimizing for.

You’re optimizing for a very specific cultural trope and other people are optimizing for hotness. So it depends on your equation.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I am, [00:35:00] I You

Simone Collins: didn’t optimize for hotness. I’m s sorry.

Malcolm Collins: Noted. This was like the, one of the key most important things I’m always optimizing for is no makeup.

Obviously she wears makeup now because like we have a conservative fan base and you’re supposed to do that, but like,

Simone Collins: because your mom taught me to Yeah. In,

Malcolm Collins: no, in terms of what I think is hot, it’s no makeup.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: I found that really gross on women. And, and I, I don’t know, like I and Simone has noted this where I’m like, what?

I think X person is really hot. Like Pearl Davis. I was like, I think Pearl Davis is pretty hot and a lot of people don’t. And Simone goes, Malcolm is because she doesn’t wear much makeup.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And that’s why our fans do not, but I, I, I wonder if this is a genetic thing with me or if it’s a learned

Simone Collins: thing.

So this is, I think this is what most men don’t get about makeup. There are two types of makeup. There’s a makeup that women wear for other women, which is when you can tell it’s there like red lipstick and visible eye stuff and contouring. It’s makeup. You can tell it’s. And then there’s the other type of makeup, which men call no makeup, which is the type of makeup that women put on [00:36:00] that is undetectable to the untrained eye.

It makes to make you look better. That makes women not look ill. And when they don’t wear it, they look sick suddenly. And you’re like, oh God, are you okay? And it’s like, no, you’ve just only ever seen this woman in makeup and you haven’t realized it. ‘cause you don’t know what to look for because you’re dude.

And I think men don’t realize that like, I like women without makeup. No, you like women with makeup. You just don’t like women with makeup for women. You like women with makeup for men. Alright, just, okay. End of end of that.

Malcolm Collins: But, but what I’ll note on these two charts that I think is really interesting, especially the second chart that you shared mm-hmm.

Is it Tinder didn’t make men more conservative, it made women more progressive.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. That’s the thing. That’s the thing is, is I really do think that there’s something to raise. On X’s point, which is that this started to just subtly and cumulatively over time build this resentment, which then I think snowballed into things like Me Too.

For example me Too was actually founded hashtag Me Too in 2006 by the activist Tarana Burke to support [00:37:00] survivors of sexual violence. But it didn’t gain global or viral momentum until October of 2017 after Alyssa Milano encouraged survivors to use the hashtag following Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse

Malcolm Collins: survivors.

EG The guy I wanted didn’t want me back.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But the key thing, remember Tinder launched in September of 2015, but did not pick up until two years later. That is exactly what, when Me Too went viral.

Malcolm Collins: You are just feel like right.

Simone Collins: Coincidence? I don’t know. But I think

Malcolm Collins: there’s women really because you know, the, the joke about women in responsibility, they feel very deeply when they thought that they were getting with a guy and that it was gonna be a relationship and he just didn’t want them for that. They feel incredibly used and like it’s not their responsibility. They’re not responsible for failing to win that guy. The guy is responsible for failing to choose them.

And I think our society unfortunately has reinforced this, especially with hotter [00:38:00] girls. Like because with hotter girls. They have lived in a society where everyone around them affirms them, like female friends, affirm them in whatever emotional state because they’re just supposed to, and the ones that don’t, then all the girls gang up on them and then males affirm them to get sex.

Right. Like, they don’t have a reason. There was recently a, a, a viral phenomenon with a woman being like, I switched from a female psychologist to an old white male psychologist, and the sessions have been so much more useful because he calls me out on my bs.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: You know,

Simone Collins: oh no,

Malcolm Collins: having

Simone Collins: a white, that’s, that’s actually very emotionally mature of this woman also like.

Correction. Tinder launched in 2012 and then got popular in 20 14, 20 15. Yeah. Which is what would, would be, I think, pretty explanatory for enough time, for resentment to accumulate by 2017 when me, me too went viral. Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: but no, you listen, you can’t see good graph. I mean, it is, it is striking. Like as soon as Tinder gets popular bam, women explode.

You get me too. You get BLM you get huge rates of, [00:39:00] of additional liberal tendencies in the female voting pool, particular in the single female voting pool. By the way, something I wanna do a separate episode on, which would be really exciting. Yeah,

Simone Collins: yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Is note on the other graph, this is Malcolm welcoming, noticing something on a graph and being like, I wanna figure this out.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: So looking at the first graph you sent me

Simone Collins: mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Look, in the 1970s. What was going on then? Why did the female dating population go so left in the 1970s

Simone Collins: that was at the tail end of the sexual revolution, and the 1980s was when things kind of clamped down again. And you had this era of like baroque more traditionalism.

I think. I mean, just going off of

Malcolm Collins: So you think it’s the exact same phenomenon, women, because as, as I

Simone Collins: think that, yeah, I think there was a backlash to sexual freedom that would, that saw its peak in the early seventies. And then I think really started to plummet again in the eighties as people went a little bit more traditional and [00:40:00] gender divergent.

Malcolm Collins: As ho math has said, society is constantly a battle of women wanting to be sluttier and men trying to keep them from acting sluttier.

Simone Collins: That’s funny. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: I don’t think that that’s what’s really happening. I mean, I think female behavior is not driven inherently by female sluttiness. It’s driven by a combination of factors that leads to an inevitable result in aggregate behavioral patterns.

The behavioral patterns are women are communalist in their ideology. Okay. Okay. So they adopt whatever ideology is most common in their environment, and it it, unless they have a strong man to protect them in having an alternative ideology. Mm-hmm. That’s typically the only time, like when women, I think the reason women become more conservative when they get married is they feel they have like a buffer or a protector to have and think different thoughts.

That’s the only way you got out of this. And I’ll do a separate episode at some point on how to convert a, a progressive woman.

Simone Collins: That would be [00:41:00] useful. Yeah. That’s, that’s because I think a lot of men are like, well, where do I find these conservative women? And you’ve said, well just find, you know, progressive women.

Find a progressive.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, what are you, what are you talking about? Where do I

Simone Collins: find, but then I think, you know, the, the obvious and intuitive male response is, look, look at the numbers. Like women are broadly progressive and they won’t consider even dating men who are conservative. And I think that’s kind of where the nuance is to be done.

No,

Malcolm Collins: no, no.

Simone Collins: Actually they will consider

Malcolm Collins: the same way a woman says, I’d rather meet a bear in the woods than a man.

Simone Collins: Exactly.

Malcolm Collins: They don’t actually effing mean that they’re signaling something. They’re signaling something to themselves and to the people around them.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: They still hot conservative guys. They say it all the time.

They complain about it all the time. Right? Yeah. They don’t have any consistency in terms of these beliefs. So women believe what the aggregate opinion is, and women are also disproportionately affected by whatever the hottest guys that they believe they can gain access to are who are the hottest guys.

They believe they can gain access to. F**k [00:42:00] boys. Why are they boys? Well, because the guys who want longer term relationships don’t want women like this. They don’t date women like this. The guys like me who wanted to lock down partners, I mean, in reality, most guys who genuinely want a longer term relationship locked it down in their early twenties.

That’s like when you really have to get it locked in. And if you don’t lock it in in your twenties, then you end up wasting a lot of time on. It, it, it’s, it’s very interesting, like when we talk about something like exercise, the reason why I I talk about something like exercise is you can build this mindset of I’m gonna do X, then I’m gonna go out and do the, the, the thing of of getting a woman, right?

And it’s very easy to be like, okay, once I’ve reached X goal, then I’ll go get the woman. But getting the woman is the hard part, right? Like, X goal gives you like a 10% advantage on getting the woman right. But. It wastes way more than 10% of the time that you would’ve spent on getting the woman.

It’s like 50% of the time. And then you try to go out and get a [00:43:00] woman, you find out they’re, they’re all terrible or whatever, and then you give up again for a long period and then you, you, you go into a cycle again instead of just being like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I’m just going to make it work no matter what.

Right? Like I am going to so break the door off its hinges, it’s going, it’s going to happen. I am going to make this work. And that was like me, you know, like, red Pillars

Sorry, I say red pillars a few times here, but what I meant was the hookup artist community. I got the two confused in my head for, I mean, they’re adjacent to each other, so I, I forgive myself.

Malcolm Collins: would say like, if you could look at red pill strategy, they’d say that the strategy that I’ve advocated for, like how do you secure a partner, really high throughput, dating you know, being willing to cut somebody off really quickly if it’s clear it’s not a match.

Mm-hmm. And just moving, moving, moving. They’d say that’s cheating. Like red pillars actively advocate against that. ‘cause they go, well that lacks skill. You know, that’s just a numbers game. Right. And I’m. Well, you see, here’s the thing, right? Even you admit it works, it just means [00:44:00] they don’t need to play your stupid game anymore.

What they need to do is build social resilience, resilience to rejection, and the emotional skills to know how to start conversations with strangers. And I know today if guys are like, well, I’m just gonna go out and meet somebody at a whatever in public, 60% of relationships today begin online. The vast minority of relationships begin in public these days.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: So,

Simone Collins: and yet so many of the young people that we meet now who are like, I wanna meet someone, or like, well, I just wanna meet them in person. That’s like the, the default. Oh, we’ve talked about this in other episodes that women interviewed for stories. Women polled say that they want to find someone offline.

So it’s

Malcolm Collins: they do. So there’s

Simone Collins: a weird mismatch.

Malcolm Collins: It’s not offline, you know. But, the, the, the, you know, leave a girl your number or something to do it. This is the important thing in terms of shooting your shot. Mm-hmm. Do it in a non-threatening way. It’s not that hard to be non-threatening in the way that you flirt with some, I guess it is hard for some people, right?

Like, [00:45:00]

Simone Collins: I think it scares

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. The, the less attractive you are, especially if you’re unaware that you’re not particularly attractive, the worse it gets to, and, and this is the thing, you go out there and you leave a girl like your number and like a, I’d be open to chatting if you’re interested. You know, I’m new in town on her table or something like that.

Totally in offensive look, the girl might go on TikTok and attempt to shame you or something like that. Right. But the reality is, is you just gotta learn to tough that out.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Because there were plenty of women who I’m sure attempted to shame me in the communities that I was in. I, I would move really hard on women.

But, you know, eventually it worked out with a wife. And the other thing that I You

Simone Collins: moved hard on you.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, you moved on me. She made, she was interested in me. Was that you and I feel like perfect matches to people. People are like, oh, wow, you guys seem like really well matched for each other.

You know, that is in part because of the [00:46:00] number of dates that we were going on. Right? Like, we didn’t just randomly end up as perfect matches for each other. Right. We ended up as perfect matches because I tried matching to everyone.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And I prolifically reached out to. Guys on OkCupid as well, which of course as a woman is, is very unusual and a very easy way to gain an advantage in dating markets.

If you’re a woman and you’re having trouble dating, shame on you because all you have to do is just, just spawn camp like it’s so easy. You, you, you just,

Malcolm Collins: Simone, I don’t, I don’t think you’d like that. Implicate. So, spawn camping has a very specific meaning in dating culture.

Simone Collins: Oh, it does.

Malcolm Collins: It means,

Simone Collins: what does it mean in dating culture?

Malcolm Collins: Extremely young people.

Simone Collins: Ew. Okay. Great. Thanks Malcolm. That’s wonderful. I’m glad that you told me that. Wonderful. Great. Well, so there’s also just the option that we speciate just give up. Just Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: So

Simone Collins: should we, you know, children of your own sex

Malcolm Collins: With my family and my kids, I [00:47:00] will try to raise a culture of the next generation.

I think that many people in our wider community are gonna be doing this with their kids. Yeah. Where they had sane expectations around sexuality and dating. Mm-hmm. And it prevents them from spiraling out like this because parents are having these conversations with them.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But

Simone Collins: well arranged marriages, again, super underrated.

Unfortunately, that’s not something that we, you know, if you don’t have parents who are invested in your getting married and, and they’re not out gonna go out there and help you and, and really make things happen and, and work on networking. In, in conjunction with you, you don’t have that benefit. So either handle it yourself, do it, it’s gonna be hard, or go your own way.

Have kids by yourself. And and

Malcolm Collins: so the question that I started with,

Simone Collins: yeah,

Malcolm Collins: is humanity, get a species eight.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: One, I think you’re right about this, and I think you found something really interesting here, how Tinder broke society.

Simone Collins: Well, what you pointed out, which is interesting and could provide some hope, and this is in against the speciation [00:48:00] argument, is as you saw, there was this great divide right after the sexual revolution exploded between men and women politically, but it healed.

And perhaps this was because women went from being incredibly sexually loose. When the sexual revolution exploded and there was some backlash and there were more, there’s a little more traditionalism in the eighties, perhaps. Maybe that will happen again.

Malcolm Collins: Oh my God. If, if this next generation, like if female females goes tread, like

Simone Collins: actually goes tread,

Malcolm Collins: what’s gonna be so funny is the millennial Whitman, the aging millennial slut women.

Oh no. How angry they’re gonna get about that. Yeah. Being shamed for young women for sleeping around, which we’re already seeing happen.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. They’re

Malcolm Collins: like, I’m 50 and I was out sleeping around and it’s like, whoa. Like woman, you’re 50 and you’re sleeping around. Like, that’s not something to brag about.

That does not make you look cool.

Simone Collins: That I think could really happen. It’s more likely to happen also with the rise of AI is women have a more difficult [00:49:00] time. Getting jobs that increasingly don’t exist anymore. And don’t have the aptitude required to engage in AI fueled entrepreneurialism or to go into trade roles that were historically dominated by men that are still going to maintain some relevance and strength over time.

So they’re going to turn to being a more traditional homemaker and wife as a career, which I think will also drive, even if this isn’t in, in backlash to hookup culture. I think it’s an economic driver that will make women naturally more sexually conservative and therefore also politically conservative.

‘cause I think it’s also very hard to engage in this level of political polarization. If you know a man and are friends with a man and don’t, you know, turn them into straw men and monsters that you never actually engage with.

Malcolm Collins: That’s a good point. Well, I I, I, I feel like you’re onto something with this one.

And I [00:50:00] appreciate that you know, you made the effort to find me that was really thoughtful of you, that you went out there and you actually tried dating and emailing people. ‘cause I had seen your profile and I was never gonna email it. I, I thought she appeared. Too arbitraged, right? Like it was all the nerd stuff.

She actually took pictures from the angles that made it look like she might be fat and trying to hide it. Which she was unaware of the angles, so she didn’t know. But I’d had to deal with that too many times.

Simone Collins: Were you actually catfished by rotund people a bunch of

Malcolm Collins: times? Oh, all the time. I actually say it was maybe a quarter of dates were significantly fatter than they made themselves look.

Simone Collins: Well, I guess female. What, 60% of American women are obese, correct. Or overweight at least.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, and I’m, I am incredibly sensitive to weight in terms of looks. I think overweight women are very, very unattractive. I, I’d go further is to say, you know, how we talk about arousal to disgusted like pipeline of of systems.

I get a very strong disgusted response from obese people of both genders [00:51:00] actually.

Simone Collins: So had I not been aggressive we never would have connected because you thought I would catfish you. And to be clear, the reason why Malcolm went on a date with me, even though he thought that my profile may have indicated that I was fat, was he made me friend him on Facebook so that he could see all of the photos that other people had tagged me in.

That other people took. Yeah, because that’s a really easy way to tell, like you, you can’t trust a girl’s own photos of her because who knows how face tuned and angled they are. But when someone else, especially a female friend knowing meat blocking material would, would post a photo of them, which is going to be.

Less than flattering on average.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. You met a girl later at a party who was like, oh yeah, we were talking on cu okay cubit, but you wouldn’t meet up with me ‘cause I wouldn’t share my Facebook. And I was like, and she wasn’t fat, but I was just like, no, wasn’t hard rule, you know, I do not wanna waste time.

This is what high throughput screening is about, right? Mm-hmm. And the, and the reason I was so aggressive about it was how frequently I was catfished.

Simone Collins: Yep. [00:52:00] Absolutely.

Malcolm Collins: And women, by the way in, in their defense, do not really understand that they’re catfishing a guy. They’re, they’re trying to show you the most flattering images of them that they have.

Right. Like, that seems like a natural thing to want to do.

Simone Collins: Especially imagine these also have like some level of body dysmorphia, like they don’t actually understand, or they’re not willing to even steer into the void and acknowledge that they look the way they actually look.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. That they’re actually not very attractive.

Mm-hmm. Now. To the question of whether humanity will speciate I think we already know the answer. The answer is yes. Obviously, like, obviously there’s gonna be a group of humans that become an all male society. There’s gonna be a group of humans that become an all female society, and there’ll be a group of humans that stay in a society structured similar to the one today is likely what’s gonna happen.

Just I thought

Simone Collins: I, I just heard my take on. I think that we’re gonna self-correct. This will be, there will be a market correction

Malcolm Collins: because there’s always gonna be, the question is, is how big are these fringe groups going to be? Oh God. But I think, you know, could they be 10% of the population? [00:53:00] It depends on how good they are at breeding, how good they are at motivating the next generation coming into existence.

They might be significantly better than the mainstream population at breeding, right? Like they may just be able to have kids at a faster rate and motivate caring for kids at a higher rate because they’re not worried about caring about a romantic partner. They’re like the core loving relationship I am having access to in my life, because I wouldn’t even consider a.

A male partner or a female partner mm-hmm. Is the relationship I may have between me and my kids one day. The problem kind of with male female society is the core loving relationship that people are taught to, key to is the partnership they’re gonna have with their spouse, not the partnership they’re gonna have with their kids.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: So, you may actually have a higher motivation to have kids in a all male and all female society. It just depends on how that, that ends up working out. But I would be very surprised if no group ends up doing this. What I can say is that if you have an all female society and the data is gonna show you this.

It’s not gonna be able to compete. Like if it ever gets to this stage like it does in this anime where they’re at war [00:54:00] with each other, obviously the all male society would just wipe the floor with the all female society. You can look at IQ distribution curves. You can look at aggressiveness scores, you can look at basically anything, right?

Like the chess champions, right? Like there is a reason why, like, it’s not just on like physical strings. Why? I think it’s like only like 10 out of the last thousand. If you, if you rank the top thousand players or women or something it’s, it’s not a lot. They women would be at a, let’s say, heavily leaned into genetic augmentation.

They’d be at a massive disadvantage. Mm-hmm. But anyway thoughts, Simone, final closing thoughts.

Simone Collins: This timeline’s weird. But yeah, I I just can’t believe that I, I grew up thinking that sexual promiscuity was fine and acceptable. But it’s still bizarre to me that now I, I favor prudishness. And this is also bizarre in light of the fact that you’re the only person I’ve ever had sex with despite, despite [00:55:00] having growing up thought that.

So I also feel very, very lucky to have been too autistic and

Malcolm Collins: want guys

Simone Collins: too disinterested in, in, in general promiscuous sex to like, have fallen for this because the average person, I think really would. And I guess it’s something we’re gonna have to very carefully address with our daughters.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Well, and our sons in terms of pushing through and how to convert women, so.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Love you, Simone.

Simone Collins: I love you too, Malcolm.

Malcolm Collins: I am feeling, oh, my stomach is hurting so bad right now. And I think I realized why. Well, Dan, Dan

Simone Collins: sauce, you’re allergic to it.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, and I only had one soda today and most days I have like six or seven sodas. So

Simone Collins: you’re going through some kind of,

Malcolm Collins: so it could be a caffeine withdrawal.

Simone Collins: You sure. ‘cause every time you’ve made yourself Dan, Dan based dishes in the past you’ve had stomach problems.

Malcolm Collins: But I didn’t eat Dan Dan yesterday.

Simone Collins: Yeah, but you had it two days in a row before.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, but I would’ve noticed that beforehand. [00:56:00]

Simone Collins: Hmm. Okay. I was thinking I should use the remaining ground meat that you got when I was in Austin today for your dinner. What would you like me to do with it?

Malcolm Collins: My stomach is far too

Simone Collins: queasy.

Oh, grilled cheese sandwiches.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, grilled cheese sandwiches would be great.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: I’ll

Simone Collins: do the,

Malcolm Collins: the.

Simone Collins: Should I be making just like hamburger patties with that for the kids? Like do you not want it again or should I save it tomorrow?

Malcolm Collins: No, I do want it. Just wait.

Simone Collins: Okay. We can only wait so many days with ground meat that’s fresh, but tomorrow will be fine though.

Just a note.

Malcolm Collins: I understand Simone.

Simone Collins: Mm. Okay.

Malcolm Collins: And yes, I got the statistics here.

Simone Collins: As do I. You want me to kick it off? Shall we go?

Malcolm Collins: Anything else today? Any news? Let’s see how the episode’s doing.

Simone Collins: The episode was, last time I checked, four out of 10. People liked it. People are like, well, obviously this is how it is.[00:57:00]

The nonprofits are

Malcolm Collins: terrible funded. The kk k

Simone Collins: everyone knew this. I love that. Alex Jones had called it once again

Malcolm Collins: the, wait, he had, he said that the KKK was funded by Democrats.

Simone Collins: No, I think he said the Southern Poverty Law Center funded the really bad protest. I’m forgetting what it was called. The Charlottesville Charlottesville protest.

Charlotte. Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Really? That’s a good call, by the way. The,

Simone Collins: the, the water’s turning. The frogs gay and Yeah, the Southern Poverty Law Center

Malcolm Collins: Oh no. Gets, gets it a Sandy Hook, uhoh. Oh. Is he gonna be

Simone Collins: right

Malcolm Collins: on that?

Simone Collins: I hope so. I mean, it’s one of those things where like, I really, I would love a world in which those like innocent children were not shot.

And killed. So I would love for that to be true. I would really like throw in all the other stuff. I’ll take that one. I, I really can’t stand children’s.

Malcolm Collins: I cannot believe that they were funding the KKK and actual Nazis

Simone Collins: [00:58:00] high ROI for fundraising.

Malcolm Collins: Mm-hmm.

Simone Collins: I, I just, I, I can’t imagine how much money they’re raising if the salaries of their leadership team, pretty large leadership team are like $250,000 plus, though I don’t know why their chief legal counsel was making over $250,000 a year and still walked them straight into this.

Disaster. You think they would’ve warned them?

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I, I don’t think it, I don’t think it was a disaster. I think it was kind of the opposite until they were caught for it. If you remember the KKK and neo Nazi groups of the United States, as I pointed out when we were doing that episode, had basically gone extinct as of like 10 years ago.

Like, you’d see one of the rallies and it’d be like two or three old guys walking in a sad suburban town or something like that, and a bunch of people yelling at them.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And then they start funding it all, and now all of a sudden we’re getting like giant tiki torch marches and stuff like this, which allowed for them to create BLM, which got them tons of [00:59:00] money.

Right. They, they actually benefited enormously for the racial anxiety that they were able to create from this.

Simone Collins: No, they super did. Someone had posted a comment linking to two dudes talking on YouTube, who I guess are. Racist ‘cause they were going on about how like, wow, we’ve raised a lot of money for the Southern Poverty Law Center and like they’ve included photos of us in their fundraising documents and like, how much have we, why aren’t they paying?

Ow. Oh my God, it’s okay. You just have really sharp teeth. He put my finger, that child who was bit by Charlie

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: Actually took it like really well. Considering how sharp baby’s teeth are

Malcolm Collins: and how little they care about using full power on

Simone Collins: a finger.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: They’re like, let’s go, let’s take this thing off.

Right?

Malcolm Collins: No, no. He’s looking around like, I don’t want that finger.

Simone Collins: You want it? He does. You [01:00:00] noodle.

Malcolm Collins: We got a one shot that women in our audience and the wanting babies.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Hey, there were not a lot of babies on YouTube before us. You know, like, I think

Simone Collins: there were lots of funny Fridays and all the other, like, Christian YouTubers like to talk about these horrible women who put their babies on, on the videos as they record, I think who’s the couple that’s famously deconstructing now.

And one had done all those sex courses. She used to have her baby on the video a lot.

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah. God, what is her, what’s her name? Basically,

Simone Collins: no, not classically, Abby. It was, yeah,

Malcolm Collins: it wasn’t classically Abby. It was

Simone Collins: those two sisters who went on to,

Malcolm Collins: yeah.

Simone Collins: Married dudes.

Malcolm Collins: I know who you’re talking about.

People, the, the left used to love to profile them, and then they, and that’s all I know them from.

Simone Collins: Right? Well, I think she started the, the couple, they both started deconstructing and then it was like less interesting I think for people because they started questioning their faith and not being so hard line.

Which [01:01:00] I think is probably to their detriment. I don’t know. I, I don’t know.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, I will, I mean, maybe they still have a, a big audience somewhere out there.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

No, I wish the best for them, but they, they had a baby in their feed and she, you know, she would fuss with the baby just like I do. And I always think I’m, I, I just think of all the criticisms of her when I have texts.

You haven’t

Malcolm Collins: gotten much criticism for having our children in videos.

Simone Collins: Oh, very regularly. People complain about the, the noises, the baby noises. I just can’t watch it with the baby noises where.

Malcolm Collins: Reflexively be like, how dare you put kids in a video? How dare you put kids in a video? And like, we just don’t get that very much.

I think it’s because they’re, they’re like more mad at us for other things, so they just don’t care. I saw one video where somebody was like, oh, that kid heard you guys talk about sex on the podcast. He’s gonna get messed up. Right? Like, and I’m like, how, how do you think babies work? Right? Like,

Simone Collins: you know, [01:02:00] as has been discussed, and this is a conversation that’s kind of come up between me and so many people this week, people just don’t have exposure to babies anymore or children.

So they don’t understand them. They appear to believe that they understand full sentences. They don’t understand what it’s like to be around them. They’ve never held a baby. True. Most, you know, most people even who are very social, have not held a baby for like a year at least. Even if they’re around other people who around their age are probably having kids.

So, you know. It’s not great.

Don’t

Malcolm Collins: mess on the internet. Who just wanna criticize people?

Speaker 11: There’s the same top, there’s, there’s the dinosaur in there and there’s the beagle, the same beagle. There’s the whole culture. It’s the same little culture like this. There’s dinosaurs just being detected. You sound really excited. Yeah, we got some Mandarins classic books. More side than horse. And what about you?

Speaker 10: You got a panda bear? [01:03:00] Well.

In this explosive Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the shocking PS section of the Trump shooter’s manifesto — a rant that exposes jaw-dropping Secret Service and hotel security failures at a major DC event. The assassin details walking in armed, breezing past checkpoints, and being stunned by the total lack of security.

Malcolm and Simone explore how this level of incompetence could have allowed a small Iranian team to wipe out much of the Trump administration. They debunk wild leftist conspiracy theories claiming the attempt was “staged,” examine the shooter’s anti-Trump motivations, information bubbles on the left, institutional rot in the Secret Service/CIA/FBI, and why this event reveals deeper societal breakdowns.

Topics also include past assassination attempts, cultural trust, and why bureaucratic security theater keeps failing. A must-watch for anyone concerned about presidential security, deep state dysfunction, and political violence in 2026 America.

Episode Transcript

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today we are gonna go into something crazy that as far as I know, is in like our intellectual, conservative talking space we’re gonna be the first channel covering, and I am shocked that no one is talking about this.

Have you heard anything about the PS section of the Shooters manifesto?

Simone Collins: All I thought was that there were some papers found in his hotel room that expressed displeasure with some of the Trump administration’s policies. That’s it. I don’t know any, I didn’t know there was a manifesto. I didn’t know how to PS section, and I love that there was one, but tell me, it,

Malcolm Collins: it makes me believe that somebody in the secret services trying to get Trump killed.

Simone Collins: What, what,

Malcolm Collins: and we, and, and, and on top of that, if Iran had not been an incompetent country at war with itself, they very easily could have assassinated almost the entire administration at that event. So. Let’s go into it.

Simone Collins: Oh. Oh, wow. Yeah. People have been mocking the secret service for letting [00:01:00] the guy Nardo run right past them, but

on

Malcolm Collins: people haven’t been mocking the Secret Service, the guy, that’s what the PS section is about.

It’s him going, let, let’s go into it. PS Okay, now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the secret service doing? Sorry. Gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone like I expected. Security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents, every 10 feet metal detectors out the wazoo.

What I got, who knows, maybe they’re pranking. Me exclamation mark is nothing. No damn security. Not in transport, not in the hotel, not in the event. Sorry. I’m not even gonna keep going. Now, this is, this is his opposition. He is annoyed at how bad the opposition to what he is attempting to do is. By the way, if you’re a bit confused as to what this guy did, he got some guns, got on Amtrak, so on [00:02:00] transportation into dc.

Simone Collins: He took public transport into dc

Malcolm Collins: Into dc. He walks to the hotel that the event’s going to happen at. He checks in not like a week before or a month before, the day before the event.

Simone Collins: Zero. We’re all on a budget here. Look, hard economic times, he can’t just

Malcolm Collins: hard economic times. Zero. Security just chills out in his room with the guns while all the security lines are set up outside the event.

Simone Collins: Watching office reruns

Malcolm Collins: w walks down to the event when we’re gonna go because his rant isn’t over yet. By the way, people, he is like actually perplexed at the incompetence of secrets that are security. And you know, a lot of leftists have been like, oh, this was staged because. One person said, there’s gonna be some shots fired at this event.

You know, like, which was a hilarious, but wasn’t

Simone Collins: that Caroline Lovett? I think that was [00:03:00] her,

Malcolm Collins: yeah. Yeah, yeah. Well, that’s a normal turn of phrase in English. And if she did know that this was going to happen, that’s the very last thing she would’ve said. Right. Like, come on, people. Or they’re like.

Noting that like Kennedy is just sort of standing there looking sort of dazed like people are, like the Kennedy’s the worst survival instincts ever. Bullets start flying. I I really sort of, it was like him and Trump, like not really caring as bullets. Trump’s sort of looking at the person next to him as the bullets are going, who’s horrified?

Speaker: first time.

Simone Collins: Oh, Malcolm. You know, I would’ve been the dude who just kept eating his dinner.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. It was like the first time look on Trump’s face, I think.

Simone Collins: Yes.

Malcolm Collins: You know, just like, oh, again. But but no, it’s, it’s, it’s I, I do not think that this was staged. This guy has a long history of being anti-Trump, of wanting to do something like this.

I. The thing that we’re gonna talk about when I get done with the manifesto is I wanna talk about how prevalent the conspiracy theories have become on the left. To an [00:04:00] extent that has really sort of transformed the nature of the left almost completely with this assassination attempt versus the others where there were some conspiracy theories, but this one’s like a complete other reality, right?

But to keep going here he goes, like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is a sense of arrogance. I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person considers a possibility that I could be a threat. The security at the event is all outside, focus on protestors, current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.

Like this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets an actually competent leadership again. This is the assassin people who’s sitting here like,

Simone Collins: you know, it’s bad. Oh man.

Malcolm Collins: Get your acting gear. Like if I was an Iranian agent instead of an American citizen, [00:05:00] I could have brought a damn Mod Dee in here and no one would’ve noticed A-A-S-H-I-D actually insane.

Oh, and if anyone so think goes how this feels, it’s awful. So you can’t really say he recommends doing something like this. Stay in school kids. But yeah. By the ah, mod Juice for people are running is a Browning M two 50 caliber heavy machine gun. So now, now that I’ve read that, do you think it’s kind of weird that no one else is talking about this? So Simone, had you seen this anywhere in your feeds? I,

Simone Collins: I, all I knew was that they found some documents in this hotel room. I didn’t, I’ve not seen this anywhere. I’m shocked that we haven’t been told like anything or that I hadn’t seen.

It takes a while though for people to start commenting on stuff. So,

Malcolm Collins: so I, I want to explain how insane this is that this is the [00:06:00] case, right? This means that if I ran, had wanted to, right what this guy did, he ran past the layer one of security and was caught just outside the doors that would’ve entered the main room, right?

I,

Simone Collins: I thought he was one floor above. That was what I heard, that he was in the floor above the main ballroom.

Malcolm Collins: I had this in my notes right here, so let’s see what they say.

Not inside the ballroom. He was stopped in anelli air foyer area just past the checkpoint before reaching the ballroom doors. The incident happened at the terrace level. The main ballroom is large and subterranean one floor below in some descriptions. So if you watch what an estimates place the breach, dozens of feet to a hundred yards from the ballroom entrance.

So, you know, he was, he was he was

Simone Collins: basically, he was right by the door. We’ll just say he was right by the door.

Malcolm Collins: Right by the door. Yeah. And if you watch the video of it, a lot of guards are like, huh, look, look at that guy running by us. Is basically what you see. I mean obviously I can understand the shock at the [00:07:00] moment or something like that, but the way that security was set up, if Iran had been there, it was 12 guys, like just 12 guys, they could have easily taken out the entire security team.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And all they needed to do was just make a reservation at your friendly

Malcolm Collins: hotel. All they needed to do was make a reservation and they could have made a reservation for a lot more than 12 guys. They could have made a reservation for like 50 guys. Yeah. Come down to that floor, just started shooting.

And then they are right at where the president and most of the senior administration officials are. And they could have taken them all out.

Simone Collins: Wow.

Malcolm Collins: This requires a level of stupidity. Like what I mean by this is, okay, just think like an intelligent person for a second here, right? Mm-hmm. So you’re trying to protect the president.

You have near unlimited resources for this sort of thing. What you would do typically is have layered checkpoints further than someone can run, right? So you would go to [00:08:00] whatever hallways led to that particular checkpoint that he ran through.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And you would have a checkpoint, I would expect at least three layers of checkpoints.

Simone Collins: Well, and then you would not be able to make it through a door or elevator. Yeah. Like at those checkpoints.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. But

Simone Collins: the idea that, that you would like, there would be a bunch, like a, a table, because that’s kind of what he ran by, right? Like the guys were, he ran

Malcolm Collins: through the metal detector. That was the thing where he had to start running Okay.

Is when he got to the metal detector.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Which, and they just like let him get in line. Was everyone else. Pack in heat run through a metal detector. So what I mean here is the, the stage of incompetence, especially after what we saw at the one rally where I pointed out was that assassination attempt that the roof that the kid was on, this was Oh,

Simone Collins: in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Yes.

Malcolm Collins: It’s literally if, if you had taken

like an actual idiot to that event and you’re like, okay, it’s a video game, where would you expect an assassin to be?

Simone Collins: Right.

Malcolm Collins: There’s literally nowhere else [00:09:00] from that position that is like a raised location that would’ve had an aim on the president,

Simone Collins: the gently sloped roof that you can easily climb to.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. And when, that’s why no one was there. They go, but it was gently sloped like an agent could roll off of it with our current safety

Simone Collins: system, it, it’s a falling hazard.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Do you know how rotund our agents are? You put them on any sort of an incline plane and they just start rolling. I mean, I saw some of those DEI hires from back then.

Ah, yeah. But the point is, is like we apparently have not corrected the situation with the Secret Service. And this is a very, very, very big deal. And I’m not going to like, go further than to be like was something Now people could say, well then the Trump administration did it to lure an assassin or something like that.

This seems unlikely for. A few reasons. One is I, so like, let’s go over Leftist conspiracy series. Yeah. One is they said that he was a Mossad [00:10:00] agent. Mo Moad basically has Trump in their pockets. Why on earth are they sending an agent to kill Trump? Right.

Simone Collins: And also, when Mossad wants you done, you’re done.

I, I don’t know how else to put it.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. But, but, well, I mean, the US president presumably would be harder, but apparently not. But even worse than that, who among the White House officials is the individual who most wants to pull outta the war was Iran. Oh yeah. The next in line to be president JD Vance.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Killing Trump is literally the stupidest thing Mossad could do even if they did want to do something like that. So it’s clearly not Mossad. Oh my God. But they’ve, they’ve also been like, oh, it’s the Trump administration to use as justification for the new ballroom. Look. One, Trump can build the new ballroom.

Whatever the, you guys think it’s gonna happen now because that wing of the White House was demolished, right? They’re not gonna leave a giant thing hole in the White House, are you?

Simone Collins: Oh, they’re trying. No, there was some judge that was like, well, you can’t keep working on the foundation. They’re, they’re really trying [00:11:00] to stop it.

I, I guess they just want the gaping hole to be there forever. But clearly it’s needed like, as much as, okay, always be closing Trump. I get it. But also he has a very valid point in that the, the security of. President’s right now is, is lax according to the asse, don’t ask me. Asco would be assassin.

Malcolm Collins: ASCO would be assassin moldering in his room about like, you know, when we get a competent president again, I, he

Simone Collins: really better finish that ballroom.

He basically said thats,

Malcolm Collins: he basically, well, okay, no, that puts me on this. He was about the ballroom again. Trump hired the assassin and he’s like, make it the

Simone Collins: ballroom

Malcolm Collins: and make sure you put a little ad for the ballroom at the end. Oh my god. About how incompetent the hotel security is. But no, this ballroom, but no, the, the, the I do not think I wanna get into like the leftist crash because I heard a bunch of people are saying it’s fake and I’m like, that sounds crazy, but [00:12:00] Okay.

It’s not that President Trump is above staging an assassination attempt. I do not think that he is. Nor is it that the CIA or FBI couldn’t stage an assassination attempt. It’s that the CIA and FBI are clearly at odds with Trump right now. Like so they’re not Oh, absolutely. They hate each other.

Remember during the last cycle, there was the leak of the texts of people was in the CIA saying they would do anything they could to prevent Trump from being elected.

Simone Collins: Oh.

Malcolm Collins: Like when we talk about this, I

Simone Collins: figure those people have been purged. You know,

Malcolm Collins: this point I, no, I mean, those individual ones have, but I’ve heard that this, this attitude is so prevalent throughout these institutions that they now do actively, like, in abs to join.

Like as a gay Latina I thought I would be welcome at, oh,

Simone Collins: I thought that was Biden era stuff.

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah. But like, that shouldn’t be put out by the CIA go. They hired people through that and they haven’t let them [00:13:00] all go. Right. Like it, the, the, the urban monoculture is very good at capturing these types of bureaucracies.

Yeah. Okay. Even within like administration officials when I talk about the, the faction of the Republican party that I find quite dangerous, the Deontological faction The. Whatever you wanna call it. The Romanist faction and is quite at odds with our value set. They have a very deep control of the Republican side of the deep state.

And they hate Trump as well. Like they’re very, very anti-Trump generally speaking. And it was because, and this is why they’re all like moldering about Trump’s alliance with Israel and bombing of Iran and stuff like that, and being like, you know, MAGA is dead and what they mean, we did a longer episode on this that we haven’t done live because it, the timing didn’t work out.

But what they really meant when they said that is CPEC is our ability to control MAGA is dead. Uh mm-hmm. Because he. Put people, at least within his administration, who don’t listen to people like that, who he got through, like Founder’s Fund instead of the traditional Republican captured Republican [00:14:00] institutions, Uhhuh.

But okay. Outside of that the, the, these institutions do not like Trump enough to coordinate with him on something like this. And Trump’s own team does not seem competent enough to organize something like this without it leaking. They look, Trump can coordinate with things like the military when they have a common aim like Venezuela or something like that.

But coordinating with a military filled with individuals that don’t really like Trump that much on a fake assassination plot, that seems fairly implausible, especially if you’re converting somebody who has like signaled that they were a leftist pretty much their entire life.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: . I was saying also if I was the administration, and this was the way I was putting this together, they’re like, well, what if the administration purposely has made secret society secret service really bad to sort of like bait an attack on them.

It’s like this attack came way too close to killing potentially a lot of [00:15:00] people. Right? Like, if he had gotten through those doors, like

Simone Collins: he had, you’re right. I guess he probably would’ve not just gone straight for,

Malcolm Collins: well, he

Simone Collins: didn’t, he have a long range.

Malcolm Collins: He rifle, he explicit. He, he explicitly said, I don’t remember.

I know he had at least a, I think it was a pistol and a rifle, that he wanted to kill his knee administration officials as he could. And he was gonna choose in order of how high profile they were.

Simone Collins: Okay. So, oh, oh.

Malcolm Collins: So, yeah, no, he was just going to kill, like, I’m, I’m just gonna get as many of ‘em as I can.

Simone Collins: Oh, see, I just figured he was just going for, for just the president. No, but he was just gonna, oh,

Malcolm Collins: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. He wanted to turn the place into a shooting gallery. Anyone he could recognize the moment he recognized him, basically.

Simone Collins: That’s a little delusional. I mean, one person,

Malcolm Collins: what

Simone Collins: did he, I mean, that’s one person.

Did he really think, I mean, he, he was a mechanical engineer. He was quite educated. Presumably he was able to think through the fact that there was abundance. And once you get in the room, like. [00:16:00] The president is still surrounded by heavily armed men who would immediately shoot him.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, from his perspective, the president and the administration was constantly killing civilians.

Is specifically what he was like. The thing that he was really upset about was the taking out the gunboats you know, which, remember the boats that Trump was taking out? The Venezuelan Yeah. Fishing boats.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And, and that, you know, from everything I’ve seen about that, it seems pretty open and shut, that they are definitely drug boats, right?

Like if they were fishermen as. Eh, the left keeps saying, presumably you could find like their families or something to go on TV and cry about how their fishermen, husbands were killed. And yet this hasn’t happened.

Simone Collins: Hey, drug runners have families too, Malcolm sensitive,

Malcolm Collins: right? But they seem less likely to go up and on TV about it, right?

If, if my husband was actually a fisherman and the United States actually like gunned down [00:17:00] his boat I would try to call like CNN or M-S-N-B-C. And if I were CNN or MSN bbc, I would take that call in a hot second, right? Like, it seems completely implausible to me that these people aren’t drug runners.

Given that, i, I love, people are gonna like, the, the leftists always do this. They’re like, you don’t understand Malcolm. People in Latin America are retarded and don’t know how to use phones and don’t know how to use technology. And I’m like, sorry. As somebody who lived like halftime,

Simone Collins: oh, just like black voters couldn’t possibly bring an ID to vote.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: They don’t know how to get an id.

Malcolm Collins: Latin Americans are very technologically competent. I think

Simone Collins: well often, they’re often more tech forward than many Americans.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. I I think what’s a, the cell phone presentation is like,

Simone Collins: Venezuelan’s out of necessity adopted crypto way before Americans out.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, yeah, yeah. They’re crypto stuff in Peru is fantastic. Right.

Simone Collins: They’re not even crypto bros. They’re just like, they were born in the crypto. Like, it’s not even a thing. They’re just like, obviously my, I’m gonna pay you in like [00:18:00] USDC.

Malcolm Collins: I, I, I, I love this leftist perspective of like, Latin Americans as like half human, half animal, incapable.

I think an

Simone Collins: culture, the progressive left treats pretty much any of its favored or protected groups like that. Like, well, obviously, you know, they’re, they’re very dumb.

Malcolm Collins: Pat, pat on the head, like the end of that song. Wonderful country, beautiful people.

Simone Collins: Yes, exactly

Malcolm Collins: what’s talking about Peruvians. You know, just, yeah.

Speaker 2: I was in Africa in Tasna I saw this woman, Malaria And she looked at me with this vacant stare As if to say, despite our differences, you and reminds me of this time, oh my god. Yeah. Yeah. I was in South America. In Prague. Prague. No. Pura [00:19:00] darling, Pura. Peru. Oh yeah, Pura, Pura, yeah.

Wonderful country, you know, beautiful people, yeah. Um, yeah, I knew. We were drinking in the Andes, and the sun was just rising and glinting off the snow, creating a sort of ethereal haze. And I really got a sense of the awesome power of nature and the insignificance of man. And then I just shuddered.

Everywhere.

Simone Collins: Yeah, I mean, there’s very little inherent respect for their, you know, ability to,

Malcolm Collins: and, and I love the conservative, like, Hey, Latin Americans are pretty smart. They can figure this stuff out if somebody randomly murdered their family. Like, come on man. Like, but anyway, completely implausible. But that’s, you know, so his perspective is, well, I’ve gotta do anything because this government represents me and they’re out there killing random civilians left and right.

You know, he’s in a complete information bubble. But what I think this attack has shown is how much of the left is in a complete [00:20:00] information bubble. Mm-hmm. Specifically the number of people who said like, this was obviously staged. One, it just seems completely implausible to me that this was staged.

But two, in addition to just, just, I’m, I’m, I’m just looking at like motivations of the people who could have staged it. The most likely person to have staged it. If, if somebody could have staged it, motive means an opportunity would’ve been Putin. But nobody wants to admit that he’s actually the person.

Let,

Simone Collins: let wait, just walk me through the, I guess, dumb leftist take on this is, this is staged, so this guy, the, the Secret Service and, and Trump and this guy could have coordinated. All in an attempt to both boost polling numbers, which are low for Trump right now, leading into the midterms because this, well, they’re actually not particularly low

Malcolm Collins: for se, for a second term president’s first cycle leading into

Simone Collins: midterm.

I know they’re not, but I mean, maybe he wants to look good to go into the midterms or something and they’re not great. So that, and

Malcolm Collins: actually they’ve gone up [00:21:00] since the beginning of the war in Iran. They’re, they’re like, sell

Simone Collins: the

Malcolm Collins: ballrooms. Simone. Actually, this is, sorry, you keep repeating something that’s factually wrong, but a lot of leftists keeps saying, yeah.

Speaker 3: So for context, this to what I’m talking about here, , Trump’s second term approval has been hanging around 44% versus 40 to 41% during this time in his first term, which is insane to be more popular in your second term. . If you look at recent presidential numbers, Obama in his second term was around 41%, so lower than Trump, Bush, 38% at comparable moments.

Speaker 4: For more context. Right now, the Democratic Party Unfavorability rating is at historic highs, 64% versus 33.9% see them favorably. If you look at even Obama, who was historically popular in his second term, the Republican said a 34% favorability rating, so higher than the Democrats right now. .

Malcolm Collins: Trump’s polling numbers have gone up since the beginning of the war in Iran. And they are [00:22:00] unusually good for a president at this part in the presidential cycle. The left wants to keep like freaking out and moldering about how bad the numbers are, but when you compare his numbers to democratic favorability right now they’re unusually good.

Not

Simone Collins: unusual. That’s stupid. They should be saying that instead of that his numbers are low because yes, I’m just parroting what leftists are saying. But two. The best way to drive turnout is to be like, we seriously need to fight back. They’re beginning to win. And if we don’t take this seriously, we’ll lose big time.

And they’re acting like it’s gonna be a bloodbath in the midterms, and it’s a, it’s a given. So that seems like a really stupid tactic. But anyway, that’s a narrative and he’s trying to sell his ballroom. So in theory he coordinates with this guy and with the Secret Service, and I mean, keep in mind, this guy did not get killed.

This guy did not get hurt. And he doesn’t have that much of an online footprint. And the Secret Service also. Nobody got hurt. One guy was shot at, but in a [00:23:00] very, very good bulletproof vest. So he’s fine.

Malcolm Collins: So let, let’s talk about this. He does have a long and, and, but, but not like super extensive online footprint.

He does have an online footprint. He has been a leftist activist for a long time. Two. The evidence because I decided to go to an AI and see what’s the, like full leftist argument as to why this was set up how a lone gunman was a manifesto got as far as he did as a hotel guest. I think that this is more an indictment that somebody was in the Secret Service is trying to get Trump killed than that Trump would allow that because Trump could have actually gotten killed, right?

Trump’s calm demeanor and quick evacuation of others. The evacuation actually seemed fairly slow given the severity of the situation. Yeah. And Trump’s calm demeanor, bro. This is like his force assassination attempt at this point. At this point, the, the pirate to the Caribbean meme of first time when he’s looking to the person next to him kind of makes sense.

In addition, when there has been an assassination against Trump in the past, he [00:24:00] has not reacted with panic. I mean, famously, the after he got his ear partially fight, fight, blown off the fight, fight, fight thing if anything you think that he would if this was preplanned, do some sort of a staged fight, fight, fight or something like that, like that looks more preplanned than this.

Like at least milk it if you’re gonna preplan it, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Next pre. Pre-event comets, specifically here, Caroline Levitt’s phrasing, you would never do phrase it like that if you knew this was gonna happen and you were trying to hide it. Yeah. And then rapid pivot to political messaging instead of pure shock or grief.

What, what time? This is the forced assassination attempt. Do you know like what republicans, like the world we’re living in right now, you Democrats haven’t had this happen. And the thing that all the Republicans keep mentioning is the Democrats who are like, nobody would actually attempt to assassinate the president or engineer for his assassination to be easy as I’m suggesting they might have done at the same time.

In the next phrase they’ll say, and someone should assassinate the [00:25:00] president. Right? Like,

Simone Collins: well that’s because democratic presidents are really part of a bureaucratic deep state coalition. If you were to kill any president recently in, in sort of democratic. Like, if you were to kill Biden, it would matter, right?

Because he was being puppeted by a series of people and it would’ve been basically meaningless.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no, no. The, the levels of calls to violent from the left don’t mirror anything that the right did, even when they believe that the election was unfairly stolen against Biden. I, I have regularly on talk shows, like after this one.

It was on I can’t remember. One of the only remaining talk shows where the guy was making a standup routine about how you know. Oh, or, or what do we call Trump now, but a target,

Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at so beautiful Mrs. Trump. You have a glow, like an expectant widow, you know?

Malcolm Collins: right? Like, you know,

Simone Collins: oh good Lord,

Malcolm Collins: we’re seeing [00:26:00] destiny make a joke about he wants to see people stop, quote unquote trying to kill the president.

You know, mainstream figures on the left are saying like, this is good. This should happen. Why do they keep failing? And it has become mainstream on the left to say that this is fake. Mm-hmm. But what’s really interesting to me is what’s the second part of this? Which is in saying that it’s fake, they often attempt to say, and we know that the two other assassination attempts.

Actually been four other assassination attempts because they’re forgetting about the two Iranian attempts that were foiled earlier in their pipeline before somebody actually got to shooting. But the, the, oh no, there was the other one on the, the lawn. Remember when the, he was at the golf course and there was, yeah, so

Simone Collins: there was the, the, the golf course one Butler, Pennsylvania, and then this one.

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah, four. Four. Because

Simone Collins: I guess an Iranian

Malcolm Collins: golf course in Butler, Pennsylvania were not the two Iranian attempts.

Simone Collins: Oh, okay. Oh,

Malcolm Collins: so, so the, those,

Simone Collins: that’s five. That’s [00:27:00] five total.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Okay. So anyway so I think we’re trying to figure out how many assassinated, I don’t remember any on Biden, by the way. I don’t remember any on Obama.

I don’t remember any on Clinton. I, I think we need to be honest here that there is a problem in terms of calls to violence on the left. And yet recently as McGold did a clip on this and I was mortified a, a guy was being questioned by the FBI for in cell posting, you know, saying that like, he wanted violence against women.

Where you regularly see women on Twitter posting, they want violence against men. You know, like kill all men and stuff like that is practically a slogan on the left. It’s like you have to say something extreme and Right. Is to have anyone investigate you. ‘cause these organizations are so deeply institutionally captured.

Mm-hmm. And that’s why I think if I was Trump. One of the next things I might do is just shut down and reform the Secret Service, or shut down and reform C-I-A-F-B-I. You know, let me tell you what the right’s gonna be. Pretty happy if you do that. Our army is doing a pretty good job right [00:28:00] now. Our Marines, our Navy, our Air Force, let’s split something out of them to become a new secret service arm, a new CIA arm.

And just admit that the institutional NSA as well, that these organizations are corrupt beyond redemption at this point, because they had been operating outside of the public light. And like Trump should have known this when people was in those organizations, said that they were gonna try to prevent him from being elected, right?

Like, that should have been the sign of, oh, this is what we’re seeing on the surface of the iceberg. How deep did the iceberg go? But my point here being is they keep saying that these previous attempts were all right. Wing advocates that Butler was a rightwing advocate, that Tyler was a right wing advocate.

And like, if you have looked into these to any extent at this point, you now know they were both far leftist. You know, one was literally deeply dating a trans person, which is not something a right-wing advocate is often going to do. Right. And wrote about why he wanted to do this, which again to his [00:29:00] trans partner.

And the other one people have accused him of being furry. He does not appear to have actually been a furry, but he does appear to have been a gooner. And he does appear to have been a, a real weirdo and far leftist who the FBI appeared to them to cover up and like, this is what I’m talking about, like FBI in the Secret Service, when they said like, we don’t have a lot of information on this guy.

This guy’s a ghost online. And literally like random people are liter able to find his dvn art accounts and give them to Alex Jones and or who did they give those to? This was. Tucker Carlson, I think, broke this one.

Simone Collins: He did? Oh

Malcolm Collins: yeah. Back when people still trusted Tucker Carlson to back before Mossad poison him.

By the way, if you don’t know, our conspiracy theory drop on this, I, I actually might do a whole video on the plausibility of our Mossad poisoning theory. So it goes like this, if you haven’t heard it, every time a mainstream figure begins to question Israel funding Israel, anything like that within like two to three years, they start going completely off the reservation and making random insane [00:30:00] takes.

Like we’ve seen from Nick Fuentes against the IRN War, you know, wanting the United States to lose Tucker Carlson. You know, you could see our whole video on the crazy stuff. He said Candace Owens would completely n her bananas when she used to be really cogent and interesting. And like when I look at these three figures, the pattern of Zahi and these three figures, like, I’m gonna be honest, this isn’t like a joke conspiracy theory in my brain anymore.

They seem to be saying stuff that is so off the reservation. It like breaks plausibility for me. I’m like because like even Nick Fuentes, somebody. Recently was like, whoa. And I mentioned this last time episode. They’re like, well, as Nick Gold said that he agrees with Nick Fuentes on 99% of things.

Like, what do you think of that? And I was like, yeah, there was definitely a time when I felt that way too, right? Like Nick Fuentes didn’t used to be this crazy. He’s definitely had a some form of psychotic break or something. I think it’s really been made apparent since the beginning of the Iran War in his very anti-America stance that he’s now taking.

Mm-hmm. In a sense it’s like [00:31:00] really clearly against American long-term interests. And or like the pro Venezuela, like Tucker comments and stuff like that. Like, oh, there are good ally in the region. ‘cause they also kill gay people. Like any conservative cares about that anymore like I was, I’ve, I’m like, those aren’t like normal saying thing, but to see our individual videos on that.

But I guess, I guess the point I’m making here is I originally threw that conspiracy theory out as a joke, but the more I think about it, oh no, is it happening to me? The more I’m like. But they do have the technology for it, and they probably could easily gain access. Oh, no. And it would be a coherent strategy to discredit people who think that we should stop giving Israel tons of money every year.

And it would definitely, probably be worse, the cost benefit trade off in terms of the amount of money. I mean, it’s, it’s not a ton of money as we pointed out in previous videos. It’s like about the amount we give to like Egypt and Jordan combined. Right? Like, and you don’t hear people complaining about that, but it still would be like financially beneficial to keep it up.

I mean, it’s [00:32:00] weird that we’re giving it to a first world country, but like before we question that, we should probably be questioning the astronomically more that we give to nato.

Like Trump’s not insane to say we should think about pulling out a nato, but that’s for set video.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway thoughts, Simone?

Simone Collins: I, I, I wanna see how this unfolds with time. Like, I wanna see how the trial goes. I, I wanna see if this just becomes something that we just collectively forget. That’s my first expectation, honestly, is just that this is gonna blow over and people are gonna forget about it. And is, this is just the normal now and no one’s going to treat this like a big deal, even though it is.

So I’m a little worried that that’s what it is. But it, it is, it is baffling how on, on the one hand, people are talking about Palantir having all this really. Impressive tech and ability [00:33:00] to, can we replace the CIA

Malcolm Collins: and NSA with Palantir?

Simone Collins: I mean, well, right. Like, it’s just how, how can that be a thing?

And yet there are people who just get extremely close to the president and the entire leading administration with multiple guns and knives and plans to take them out. It, it seems implausible to me.

It’s just sad too though that like a society is broken down enough where this is just normative.

Whereas in the past, you know, what was it? It was Andrew Jackson basically threw a rager at the White House after he won. Right? Like people, I think he jumped out a window to get away from everyone. Eventually they just trashed the place. He had that giant wheel of cheese. Yeah, very. He

was

Malcolm Collins: the first president from the backwoods cultural group, which is our cultural group.

Very backwood thing to do. Like, let’s throw a rager at the White House and

Simone Collins: jump on. We’re probably not getting all the details right, but like people would just show up. Like it was, it was a house. And [00:34:00] it was less secure than most of the houses now with like their ring cams and everything else.

Malcolm Collins: Well, you know, maybe be, maybe, maybe we as a country were, we were not, and I, I point out to people ‘cause people get this really wrong.

We were not particularly more. Culturally homogenous than we were now. The Quaker backwoods cavalier and Puritan cultural groups that existed in the 13 colonies were dramatically more different from each other than, for example, American culture is from Latin American culture. But what was the case is that those cultural groups we’re all trustworthy to each other.

Mm-hmm. Like for example, if we land in like a bunch of Japanese immigrants, I’m not worried about them shooting me on the street or something like that. Like they may be culturally different from me but they are from a culture that I trust. Whereas we are letting in people from cultures that I do not trust.

And I think that it’s important to recognize that as an American, like not every outsider, doesn’t work within the multicultural American system, but [00:35:00] some outside cultures do not work within the multicultural American system. And when we pretend that everyone doesn’t, then we just look sort of crazy, right?

Like, obviously there are groups that can perfectly well you know, integrated leaflet, for example is, is ethnically Japanese and has perfectly integrated into American culture. From everything I’ve seen, like I I I, I do not think that we benefit from just kicking out everyone who’s not one of the original cultures.

But we need to be aware that like we have materially changed things by letting in groups that are, you know, that create these sort of externalities. I mean, have created this sort of hive the, the urban monoculture also didn’t exist, and the urban monoculture seems to be able to completely cook people’s brains.

The thing that I was trying to. Like synthesize that has changed between this and other assassination attempts Is everybody saying really untrue stuff? But like at a really high level now, like that all the previous assassination attempts were . Right. [00:36:00] Is is just so on. Its face untrue.

And yet I see this a ubiquitous opinion on Reddit. I see it as ubiquitous opinion on X. Even within some like. Griper circles like the infiltrated parts of like the right wing which I think more shows that these are bad actors. And I think what this shows is on the left, in the groups that have allied themselves with the urban monoculture, whether it’s the groupers or the far leftists there is no longer an interest in even being adjacent to truth.

Like, like it’s no longer even like I want to hedge, so like a reasonable person isn’t gonna call me out. There’s now almost this sort of cachet with like blatantly being unaware of reality. And I think that, or, or signaling that you’re unaware of reality almost to a tip to manifest this alternate world framework.

And there is no call out, no internal, like, Hey, you make us look stupid when you say things like every other assassin was right wing. Or all of the attempts were [00:37:00] obviously staged. Yeah. That, that, that is, is a change that I’m noticing, and I think it’s one where we need to understand that our enemy and the force that we are collectively fighting against has transformed into something holistically more nefarious than it was in the past.

Simone Collins: Hmm. Yeah. It’s, it’s dark. I, I, I, I don’t,

Malcolm Collins: I,

Simone Collins: I don’t, I guess maybe it was a short term odd period where things were cohesive and people trusted each other, and that this idea of a cohesive, high-trust society was just never gonna last. Though it still exists in places like Japan. I just, it’s, it’s kind of dark to think that that’s how things used to be, but we don’t, we don’t get to see that.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, it’s, it is not in Japan anymore. They let in a bunch of immigrants and Japanese people are freaking out. But I think in, in Japan they’re a bit more ruthless in how they ultimately deal with things like this. [00:38:00] So, you know, I, I don’t know if I’d wanna be one of those immigrants in a generation or so because yeah, Japan has a history.

Okay. And they, they all have

Simone Collins: history.

Malcolm Collins: They, they, no, no, no, no. They have a history. But like, they relate to it differently. You go to Germany and you’re like, oh, what do you think about like, the atrocity in the war? And they will bend over backwards to be like, oh, it’s so horrible. I can’t believe we did that.

What, what nightmares. And you go to Japan and you go like, what are you think? And they go, well, first of all, that was a war of aggression by the United States against Japan. That’s the way it’s taught in the Japanese school system. And, they, they, and if you’re like, how could they possibly teach it that way if they bombed Pearl Harbor first?

And they’ll say, well, the United States was Blockading Japan. Which put them in an existential situation that forced them to bomb Pearl Harbor. And they then say, and all that medical experimentation some of our groups did, and all the grapes they did, I mean, that was normal for war. And then, yeah, we still think about it.

I mean, I’ve seen the anime gate. They did, they, they plan when they go [00:39:00] conquer some of these countries to pick up a fu Wi Fus along the way.

That’s still very part of Japanese culture. They may not frame it as grape, but you know. GA game. We, we don’t have there is no equivalent us movie I’m aware of where we go to war and whenever we kill somebody, we pick up their wives in our harem.

Like that is a, that is a very unique, I I am, no, I’m like, genuinely. Even Vietnam War where like prostitution and marrying American soldiers was, was, was somewhat common. Mm-hmm. I’m not aware of that many wars where like somebody goes out war movies in the US that are very like gung-ho, like all happy and then end up with a big harem coming back to the United States.

But that’s the plot of Gate, by the way, way. Mind you wait. Are you unfamiliar with this anime? Ha hasn’t even been criticized by the way. No one in Japan has been like, it’s a bad thing that gate, especially given our history in wars, frames war this way.

Simone Collins: God, [00:40:00] well, back on the topic of the correspondence, dinner shooting, you know, the, the friend from college that I mentioned and I was like, oh, she was probably there.

She was at, she was not just there, but I just found video she took when she was there. ‘cause she was there, she was at the head table. And there’s video of just like, what’s really interesting and I sent you a link. You can look at the video that she took. Okay. What’s really weird is that it’s super clear.

People don’t really know how to respond. Like a lot of people are crouched and acting panicked, whereas other people are just kind of like sitting there and chatting. And is

Malcolm Collins: she, wait, is, are we allowed to post this in the video?,

Speaker 5: Where’s it at?

Get out. Get out. Get [00:41:00] out.

Simone Collins: It’s just super clear that she, people just don’t know how to act. And like, there’s, there’s one guy with fancy go, well, a couple guys with fancy goggles and like big guns pointing, and like a lot of people with cool military equipment running around.

But people are very clearly just absolutely clueless as to what to do. I, I really think this is in, in, in a post. Societal co a societal cohesion phase of America that it just makes so much more sense to have an uber secure reinforced ballroom for parties.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Also, keep in mind when I talk about the Iranian Strat that they could have used, another one they could have used is just bring in a bunch of bomb material and just put it like a few floors above or below this.

Simone Collins: Yeah. ‘cause I’m looking at this room and I’m looking at all these people here, and I’m just thinking like this, this really does look very not secure. At all. At all. I’m seeing all these doors. I’m seeing [00:42:00] some, some people kind of maybe getting rushed out like this. This could have been a, I, I’d like

Malcolm Collins: to say to this leftist assassin, do you now see how incompetent government bureaucratic structures can be and why we don’t want to give them more power?

Simone Collins: This, this is why we need the Trump administration.

Malcolm Collins: This is why we need Doge. This is why we need the Trump administration anyway. Love you, Simone.

Simone Collins: Also like the, the, the glasses and dinnerware there. Just look like, you know, bad hotel conference, dinnerware and you know, Trump would make it fancy. He wouldn’t do that.

He wouldn’t do them dirty like that.

Malcolm Collins: Be,

Simone Collins: I’d be nice. I love

Malcolm Collins: rfs. Like tweet after this is like, I’m really hungry. Like him just looking around sad that he’s not getting his

Simone Collins: meal. That’s why that one dude just kept eating that. I, I’m, I think a lot of people just really identify with that guy, that they would be that person, like look.

They didn’t, whoever’s coming didn’t come for me. I’m just gonna finish my dinner. That’s like Asman Gold. When he talked about this was talking about like the two instances in which he had had a gun pulled on him or something, or a gun was in his, [00:43:00] like in the area and someone had shown up to, I think Emory’s dream or something, or I can’t remember exactly what it was, but he just like walked out and just walked away.

Passed the guy with the gun, but just decided to stay like six feet away and out of his aggro zone as he put it, I’m like, yeah,

Malcolm Collins: his aggro zone.

Simone Collins: Just like just, I just fed up with this. Like I’m not, I’m just not gonna participate in this to just walked past him and away from the situation and yeah, that was the guy eating the food.

Just like, look, just let me eat my food. I can super relate.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I love you es Simone. Me too. And crazy World out there. Somebody died just in front of our house last night or the night?

Simone Collins: Last night.

Malcolm Collins: Last night, yeah. A car crash and we’re on a busy road.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: People need to, so, you know, you could die at any moment.

Make the most of your life. People.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Guys, please, please be careful out there. Okay. Love you Malcolm.

Malcolm Collins: And, and you’ve made the most of my life, Simone, so thank you for that. If I don’t, let’s not. And I would say that I was satisfied with my life. It was because of Simone.

Simone Collins: Okay. Don’t, don’t say [00:44:00] that because let’s be very clear someone mentioned, commented this on, on the video you ran today.

We are not depressed.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. We are not depressed. I’m not questioning things about Israel.

Simone Collins: So yeah. Okay. We’ll just end with that. Bye.

Malcolm Collins: Bye. any fun in news today? Hopefully the episode didn’t cause too much of a riot.

Simone Collins: No, no. Nobody disagreed with it. Aside from people being like, it’s not going to work. So that’s so, oh,

Malcolm Collins: micro post solution.

Simone Collins: Yeah, that, like, they would never do that. I mean, some people rightfully pointed out, and I think this was

my whole setup, went weird. Some people pointed out that the way that Judaism worked before was there were all these, you know, isolated [00:45:00] Jewish communities and being. Rejected from one would be really meaningful. It was like being thrown out of your village, like your livelihood, your family, your support network.

All of it was gone. Now

Malcolm Collins: there really isn’t that much

Simone Collins: pain experienced by anyone who runs against it. Like even if, even in the past when that practice was common and people weren’t thrown out for bad behavior, it was too easy because Jewish communities were so decentralized for bad actors to just leave one and show up at another and not necessarily face super negative repercussions from rejection.

This is not to say that this,

Malcolm Collins: This is why Jews used to have such a negative stigma against Bal Shim because that’s what they often did, is they would move between communities when they were kicked out of one.

Simone Collins: I think that’s the word that someone used, actually. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: And, and yeah, no, actually very fascinating that you [00:46:00] do see a lot of these institutions really begin to permanently die off with the mul from top.

And as I’ve said like historically, people know my stance on this. I think he’s like the negative inflection point in Jewish history.

Simone Collins: Wow.

Malcolm Collins: Where things really begin to fall apart. But you can go to our other writings on that. I don’t wanna get too into it. But yeah, I, I think you have a point There is this, this distrust.

So many things that Jewish communities used to have that they really transformed over the ages. But I, I think that there are still some interdenominational religious rabbinic councils mm-hmm. Within Judaism for deciding on specific rules like what a, what, what’s, like the Jewish take on abortion or something like that.

Like right now, Uhhuh. And I think one of these councils could establish a secondary council that focuses on secular matters for the protection of the wider Jewish community, right. Even to explicitly call out some sub sex or something like that. You know, [00:47:00] like this group is doing x in a bad way, so that there would be some inter Judaism shame for action that leads to negative externalities on sort of reputation for a sect even, or an individual.

And it, it, it’s, it’s, the reason I mentioned the history of it is because at least you would’ve a historical reason for setting something like that up.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Another thing that people pointed out was my utter ignorance about the Anti-Defamation League. I didn’t, I didn’t know about its founding story.

I didn’t know why it was created and by whom. I thought it was just to. Be against defamation. I didn’t, I didn’t think about it. I also, like, I figured that if there was some group that was just about like protecting a single group’s reputation, it might be the, like protect the Jewish reputation league.

Malcolm Collins: I, I’d also note that there is I saw in the [00:48:00] comments something that it first seemed very reasonable to me and then I thought about it more and I was like, actually that doesn’t really work as a analogy because I was pointing out that almost no group seems to protect their bad actors. Like the Christians don’t like, no, no group of Christians I’m aware of.

Simone Collins: It was an issue with trans. We talked about that more prominently.

Malcolm Collins: Well, but yeah, the trans community does where, you know, you get actual like sex PEs and people will defend them.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But you don’t, you don’t get this with most ethnic groups. So one example

Simone Collins: actually, someone pointed out in the comments that this was actually a really big thing that happened with the black community and with hip hop music that a lot of, a lot of people in, in the early ages of hip hop were like, this is bad. We don’t like this as an influence. And that actually, apparently, according to this person, a lot of even famous hip hop artists now, were like, yeah, I regret promoting certain things. Yeah. And or this lifestyle also. I was reading that comment while listening to this four hour takedown of Tyler Perry by this one guy, and he was talking about, I think, how did he word it?

Small C conservative black [00:49:00] men especially. And how like, they’re not conservative like Republicans, they’re conservatives, like, pull your pants up, like dress neatly, et cetera.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. What, who’s Tyler Perry?

Simone Collins: Tyler, he’s like a prolific director and actor and writer.

Malcolm Collins: Is he black?

Simone Collins: He’s the one, yeah, he’s black.

He’s the one who like makes all those, those comedies where he dresses. Oh, I’m so sorry. Dresses like a fat woman. Like madina.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway, what, what was the point of your comment on

Simone Collins: this? The point was the black there’s, there’s a really established history of black Americans being like, we need to show.

Our best example and actually, actually attacking bad, sorry, bad actors within their community and being like,

Malcolm Collins: yeah. The, the other, but the, the one community I’m aware of that does actively do this, other than trans and Jews are Romani Romani are famous for doing this protecting bad actors.

And obviously they’ve earned you know, an equal stigma to Jewish people, right? Like they

Simone Collins: were, oh, so, oh, protecting, not attacking, but protecting,

Malcolm Collins: protecting, bad act known bad actors within their community that victimize outsiders. The, the one [00:50:00] counter example that somebody. Mentioned, and it doesn’t work really.

And I’ll explain why it doesn’t work. Is there like, well, like conservatives do this, right? Like political parties do this, like the, the, the, the, the conservative movement will sometimes protect people when they’re acting like bad actors. This would be an example like Donald Trump doing things like, it could be seen as like scams or like sexually predatory.

This is actually a very different phenomenon. This is when a group protects the bad actions of the group’s institutional leadership. And you actually see this across, almost. Every group. So a good example would be like Mormons. I’m not aware of any examples of Mormons protecting bad actors who were low level people, but they absolutely went to bat for Joseph Smith when he was obviously a bad actor.

They absolutely went to bat for Brigham Young when he did things that were obviously bad actor things. You, you see this in the Catholic community for example, when there were institutional higher ups who were griping people they institutionally [00:51:00] went to bat to cover it up. People can say, whoa, why do, why do institutions so often protect higher up bad actors rather than regular bad actors?

And it’s because they lose institutional power and momentum if they allow their higher ups to be swept out of power. So if you demand moral purity from your higher ups and you don’t. Put some effort into protecting them. Like imagine if, like we, as a conservative movement wiped out every leader as soon as a scandal was found on them, right?

Like you wouldn’t be able to build up a movement really easily or stay in power very easily. And no, you see this in Jewish history as well. A lot of the Jewish leaders during the periods when Jews did punish bad actors like if you go back to, you know, some of the leaders from, from biblical period were demonstrably bad actors.

You know, be they, you know, king David for example, right? And I, I don’t think that that’s, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about Jews ignoring when their kings did bad things. Everybody ignores when their kings [00:52:00] do bad things. I’m talking about Jews going to help people who are, you know, regular members or low level communities who have been caught doing something bad.

That’s actually incredibly unique to the only three communities I’m aware of that do it are Jews, romanis and trance.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And that’s like the case that people pointed out with the, the sort of founding case of the Anti-Defamation League in 1913 was the case of this man who allegedly. Attacked sext, a female worker, I think and, and then killed her.

And then they was

Malcolm Collins: about to try to save him

Simone Collins: was was lynched by a mob. So, and, and then I think there’s some following,

Malcolm Collins: right?

Simone Collins: Legal case. And I think he had tried, sorry, I like read this really quickly while trying to respond to comments. He had tried to blame it on a black man. Like he was, wasn’t me, it was this black dude.

And then

Malcolm Collins: that’s extra bad. That’s extra

Simone Collins: bad. Well, no, I know. The ADL was like,

I think founded as part of some legal case to because the court [00:53:00] case surrounding it I think drew a lot of like antisemitic hate, or sorry, just, sorry. That’s a. Misnomer it, it drew a lot of antisemitism or, or fomented.

A lot of it. I feel like the ADL’s actions around it probably would make that worse, would make the antisemitism worse. Trying to hear this man’s name instead of just being like, dude, I mean, un unless they were insistent that he was innocent. But even then it’s like probably like, let’s just let this go.

This doesn’t seem, you know, whatever. But anyway, like whether or not he was innocent that that is apparently the founding of the a DL, like their first big case. And I had no idea and I was like, oh my God. And that’s a really good example of like, this wasn’t a leader as far as we know, you know, it was just a factory supervisor.

Speaker 6: So for context, , historians would disagree with Simone here. Obviously, historians may have some bias that the black guy was the actual rapist in this situation. However, the fact that as racist [00:54:00] as that region was during that period that the mob said, no, no, no, it wasn’t the black guy, it was this other guy. It does make me doubt that a little bit, but , yeah.

Simone Collins: So to your point, yeah, this is people who were like, you gotta look into circumcision and how the practice was brought to the United States and how one man tried to expose it and stop it and then was. Was effectively like cast away and thrown out. So it can be done but it was only done by someone questioning the practice of circumcision as practiced in the us.

So I kind of wanna look into that because it’s one of those hot button issues among new parents as, as you know, base campers who are having kids who, you know, may or may not be circumcised have, have written to us and been like, Hey, why don’t we talk about this?

Malcolm Collins: I mean, I’m very against banning super circumcision, by the way.

It is, you, you cannot be Jewish without being circumcised. The, the Bible is incredibly clear on this. It’s, it’s like not even a vague thing. It’s not [00:55:00] something where there’s multiple interpretations.

Simone Collins: Yeah. What’s questionable is when and how it happens, right?

Malcolm Collins: No, it’s supposed to be done to infants.

Simone Collins: It is,

Malcolm Collins: yeah. Yeah. The case was Moses makes that incredibly clear. When, it’s, I don’t want to go into the whole story, but, you know, it was Moses’s kid and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Almost killed on the spot for not circumcising. V very bad to not circumcise. We, we actually go over it in our, in our track, the the question that breaks Judaism.

So it’s, it’s it’s something that we have gone over and

Simone Collins: I know. I’m so sorry. Oh my God.

Malcolm Collins: But yeah, that’s a, a, a fun one. But yeah, that was a very interesting episode to film. And do All right, I’ll get started here.

Speaker 7: I can pull. Yeah, you’re very strong. Octavian.

Speaker 8: Very strong.[00:56:00]

Good job.

All right, is Daddy. Hello and Professor River. Thank you. Good teamwork. Thank you, Titan. Professor, say whoa. There you go.

In this spicy Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins tackle a sensitive but urgent topic: why Jews must stop defending bad actors within their communities — and why failing to do so is fueling rising antisemitism in America.

With 24% of young Americans now endorsing antisemitic tropes (vs. just 5% of those in their 80s), the Collinses examine welfare fraud in Orthodox Jewish communities, the ADL’s deplatforming of critics like Tyler Olivier, the Chabad-linked push to pardon a $33M healthcare fraudster whose actions killed elderly patients, and the collapse of historic Jewish self-policing institutions (kehillot and beit din) that once prevented exactly this problem.

They argue that protecting bad actors creates massive negative externalities, damages alliances with the new right, and threatens the long-term survival of Jewish communities — especially as ultra-Orthodox populations grow rapidly. A blunt, data-driven conversation about group accountability, cultural self-preservation, and why every community (Jewish, Somali, or otherwise) must police its worst members.

Episode Transcript

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. Today is going to be a spicy conversation and it’s going to piss off a lot of people, but it is one that needs to be had right now in America. We, we mentioned this on another episode, but Jews need to be paying attention to this.

24% of young people in America today endorse anti-Jewish tropes, right? Like are what you would be seen as antisemitic. Oh, oh, no. If you go to people in the, their eighties, it’s around 5%. Oh. So it’s one in four versus one in 20. This is a massive generational change.

Simone Collins: Wow.

Malcolm Collins: And I would point out here that the sentiment against Jews among use higher than it is against groups like blacks in the United States.

Now where it is 17% have anti-black resentment in the United States where it’s 24% anti-Jewish resentment.

Simone Collins: That’s so [00:01:00] funny because I grew up on like seventies, eighties, and nineties content that pretty heavily made fun of Jews. Like, I’m thinking about Mel Brooks Films, the Princess Bride all these shows that would have like a ton of like, seen

Malcolm Collins: it as safe because nobody actually, when I used to, ‘cause

Simone Collins: no one believed it.

No one

Malcolm Collins: edgy fake humor, like racist humor. I would make racist jokes about Inuits. That was like the core commun Eskimos, you know, they, you know, make Oh

Simone Collins: right.

Malcolm Collins: Make, make fun of their fake kisses. They don’t even know how to love, you know, like, everybody thinks Eskimo jokes are funny because nobody is aware of Eskimo discrimination.

At least if you’re in the United States, like it’s not something that you are around or you see. So it comes across as funny. Sure. The idea of Jews being actually discriminated against in the eighties and the nineties was actually comical. It, it was,

Simone Collins: right. So we, we, we could make fun of them because we knew that they were [00:02:00] fine and they weren’t.

Doing anything

Malcolm Collins: sauce. It was so comical that when Jewish directors and producers were making the Star Wars prequels, they literally made this character

Simone Collins: Oh God, yes. No,

Speaker 14: My trick don’t work on, I make only money.

Simone Collins: and

Malcolm Collins: thought nothing of it. Yes. Alright. They didn’t think this could one day be a problem for our community. And the, the problem, like the thing that makes this entire conversation so dangerous for the Jewish community long term, like when I’m projecting what happens long term with Judaism

Simone Collins: mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Is that somebody comes out there and says, Hey it looks like antisemitism is exploding right now. And then the obvious next question is, is why. Right? Yeah.

Simone Collins: Yes.

Malcolm Collins: And then the obvious next question is. Okay. Is it entirely due to some sort of external social contagion that has nothing to do with Jewish communities?

Simone Collins: Which could be possible, or

Malcolm Collins: it [00:03:00] could be possible, but that’s actually much worse for Jewish communities, if that’s true, because it’s much harder to change the behavior of people other than yourself, than in

Simone Collins: yourself.

Yeah, it’s preferable. And I, I’m, I’m giving the example because after I brought up a bunch of theories around why there’s so much Indian immigrant hate one person wrote to us, and I, I’m gonna try to put an episode together about it, but they wrote to us and shared fairly abundant evidence indicating that a lot of the.

Indian immigrant hate is actually AstroTurf by Muslim Indians and Pakistanis who just really freaking hate Hindi Indians. And

that and

Malcolm Collins: Canadians

Simone Collins: that like, even, like, not even so, I mean, there is some job resentment, but like, not nearly to the level that you see online.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Simone Collins: But like, that’s, that’s an example of something that could be at least in large part external and not caused by internal activity.

‘cause you know, like there’s a very large immigrant community here that is Indian and [00:04:00] there’s not. There’s not a lot of like hate a about it, people like

Malcolm Collins: them. There is not I, but I can, yeah. I, and I can say this very concretely. So we live outside of Philadelphia. Mm-hmm. We live in a majority Indian neighborhood.

Our neighborhood is 70% Indian. Mm-hmm. And I have not seen any anti-Indian sentiment amongst any of my neighbors, any of the, the friends at Octavian school.

Simone Collins: Well, and keep in mind, I ran for office in our, in our area. Right. I attended a ton of conservative Republican events. I knocked doors on the houses of hundreds of Republicans who lived here.

Only once. Only once. ‘cause I will say that there was one time when one person said one thing and they’re just like, well, I don’t like all these kids running around in the streets. And that was it. It was, oh, God forbid that these people actually are happy and have children that run in the streets like I would want my kids to do.

And this is like a safe

Malcolm Collins: place. And keep in mind that you might be like, well, you don’t participate with the edgy conservative groups. No, we participate with the edgy. We, we are like friends with the people who ran a lot of [00:05:00] the Trump campaign stuff. Mm-hmm. And, and as we’re known as like rightwing influencers, we get and edgy rightwing influencers, we get invented to the edgy parties where people make.

You know, racialist jokes and stuff like that. Even, even just to be educated,

Simone Collins: anyone wanted to say something about resenting Indian immigrants in our Indian immigrant heavy community? They would’ve told me immediately because all of the like, attacks made against me were like, look at this evil, racist woman.

So they would’ve told me ‘cause they would’ve thought that, like the, the, the rumors were true. So I just wanna, I wanna illustrate that anyway. So, but this does not seem to be something, one thing where the Jew hate is endogenous or It does

Malcolm Collins: seem to be, but the, the side point I wanted to make to the Indian comments, I do think that there is actual Indian resentment talking to the United States.

I just don’t think it’s in our region very

Simone Collins: much. Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And it’s important and, and especially in Canada, there are actual communities where it is normal, but Canada’s getting a completely different type of Indian immigrant than we’re getting here.

Simone Collins: Well, and I’ll, I’ll add that it’s, I think especially among tech workers where they [00:06:00] see that.

People are actually just hiring

Malcolm Collins: Indians

Simone Collins: Non Yeah. They’re firing qualified American citizens and hiring, honestly less qualified Indian immigrants. There is obvious resentment, but yeah, the pocket,

Malcolm Collins: we need regulations around that. That’s a whole other thing that we can get to in another video where you could go watch the video where she crashes out about Indians because she goes on a 30 minute rant about all of the valid complaints people have about Indians.

But in this episode, we’re talking about you, Simone, just to, just to, great. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Just out of the frying pan into the fire. Let’s go.

Malcolm Collins: If we often talk about the trans community, right? And I’m like, basically in the group that has ended up becoming the new right. Many of, or the majority of whom used to be leftists.

We sort of originally approached the trans thesis was the idea of, okay, we can give this community some additional rights so they can do their weird, whatever thing that they want to [00:07:00] do. And so long as they don’t abuse those additional rights it’s fine. Right? And, and of course, if they did abuse those additional rights that would be punished within the community first and most aggressively,

Simone Collins: right?

‘cause that would threaten their sovereignty and rights and acceptance.

Malcolm Collins: Exactly. And when we saw that the opposite was happening, that the community kept from the most institutional levels, from the highest levels of the community, protecting their worse actors and going out of their way to protect their worse actors it then creates a situation where the, any, any community that’s abutting them has to attack the entire community to deal with the negative externality of that community’s worst actors.

If I’m going to word this a different way, okay. Let’s suppose we’re not talking about trans people or Jewish people here. We’re talking about blurbs and TURs. Okay. Either two [00:08:00] groups and some blurbs, sometimes grape. Little TURs. Okay? And so a turb mob comes over to the blurbs, right? And they’ve all got pitchforks.

And they say, that man right there, great. One of our children. And we can prove it. And then the blurb leader comes out and says if you wanna pull him out of our community and put him in a prison, you need to go through all of us and put us all in prison. Now, if I’m a blurb who’s not that particular elected leader, I am likely like the evilest person in that room right now, the person I am most terrified of is that leader, right?

It’s not even the mob, because that leader is turning me and the entire community into grist over something that obviously, if somebody in our community is acting like a bad actor and we are preventing them from being punished. [00:09:00] We, we make our entire community an a negative externality to anyone we’re around.

And recently, on multiple occasions, the Jewish community has done this in spades. And when I say in spades, I mean to an attempt that he is so egregious that I would ask. And like I, I know we have Jewish friends, I’m gonna, I’m gonna put together a plan to stop this because Jews used to have cultural institutions that were entirely designed to stop exactly this phenomenon.

Okay. But these cultural institutions basically failed in the, I wanna say 1600 or 17 hundreds. Oh. What happened after the 15 hundreds for Jews? Oh, is that when Pogrom started picking up? All I’m saying is there, wait,

Simone Collins: what existed before then that stopped this? What, what is this magical dance?

Malcolm Collins: So there are multiple Jewish institutions that when a Jew [00:10:00] would scam or go out of their way to hurt non-Jews that were living alongside the Jewish community mm-hmm. The Jewish community would heavily financially punish them, shun them, and expel them. Wow. And, and that is very, very useful thing to do.

Speaker 3: To give an idea of how severe these were. , We have recordings of Jews for minor, and note this wasn’t just for major things. It’s noted that for even minor scams or misrepresentations to gentiles, , something was applied to them. It’s a Jew word. I don’t know what it means exactly. , Jews will know it, but it meant that that person’s kids were not even considered marryable.

So it didn’t just apply to you, it applied to your entire genetic line.

Speaker 7: So just with some research in front of me here, , these institutions were called

Keala and Bit din, , or in English communal councils and rabbinic courts. , They were specifically active between.

[00:11:00] 1017 50 ce. , And if you do an analysis, so you look for pogroms, this is mass Jewish killings, pre 1750. , You do have some and some that were, were very large. , Like the Commensally uprising, however. , If you just on average look at pogroms per year and how severe those Prague groms were during that period, and then contrast it with the period after these institutions had collapsed, , you see enormously more like it’s an order of magnitude more in terms of violence and frequency that you had pogroms after these institutions had collapsed.

So, , just an AI’s thoughts on this. , Pre 1750 violence was often tied to existential crises, plagues, crusades, uprising with fewer, but sometimes larger single events. EEG, kaminsky’s rivaled or exceeded many later waves in raw death Hold. Post 1750s saw more frequent repeated [00:12:00] waves of pogroms, hundreds per wave.

And this, , you know, culminating with the Holocaust, right? So these institutions actually appeared to serve their role. They appeared to significantly reduce. Antisemitism and the Jewish community has ever since they collapsed, been demonstrably, I think weakened in their ability to operate.

And the reason I put so much , emphasis on you used to have this technology is Judaism as a religion. If they want to adopt something, they can’t just go up and be like, I have a new idea about how we should do something. If they can say, here’s how we used to do it. Look at the pogroms per year when we did this.

Look at the pogroms per year after we did this. , That can be pretty persuasive because you have both a mathematical, a historic, and a religious argument for reinstituting. These, .

Malcolm Collins: But today you have an instance where the two of the big instances that we’re gonna go over that are really emblematic of this is major YouTube streamer ends up covering a [00:13:00] community of,

Simone Collins: Orthodox Jews living, I think somewhere in New York City.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Tyler Olivier, like would videos. This guy goes along. He goes to various groups that are doing bad things, immigration fraud throwing poo at each other in India, which is just like a cultural festival.

Simone Collins: And even just general crime in New York that is not specific to a, a group.

Malcolm Collins: Right. But the point is, is that he has targeted other specific sub ethnic groups in the past four things that are a, a group doing a local traditional festival around like feces throwing is far more racially inflammatory because that’s a, just a traditional festival that’s really only hurting that community potentially.

Then

Simone Collins: it’s

Malcolm Collins: strict giving their

Simone Collins: immune system. It looked fine.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Welfare fraud by Orthodox Jewish communities in New Jersey. Right? Like this, the, the fraud that he was pointing out has been historically documented. It’s been documented in multiple Orthodox Jewish communities. It is even [00:14:00] in this case, extremely well documented.

Like this is not a going out there and promoting some sort of stereotype or something like this. This community is acting as genuine bad actors in a way that is hurting the quality of life. Like our economic system. The people around them are suffering because of the way that this community is abusing the US tax system and welfare system.

And we’ll go into other instances of this, but in this instance, what was so wild about this is the a DL, you do not get more mainstream of a Jewish organization. Then the A DL?

Simone Collins: No, this was news to me. I didn’t think the Anti-Defamation League was Jewish per se. I thought they were just broadly progressive,

Or not.

Malcolm Collins: I’ve always thought of them as a predominantly Jewish organization.

Simone Collins: Really.

Malcolm Collins: What’s the, what’s the other Jewish organization? Let’s see if they also went out against him.

Simone Collins: I don’t know. I don’t know of any big Jewish [00:15:00] nonprofits aside from, I don’t know, whoever, whatever foundation made the Holocaust museums possible or whatever foundations.

I didn’t think there were like Jewish led charities that had big leading names.

Malcolm Collins: It’s the a DL

Simone Collins: Really? It’s just known for being Jewish.

Malcolm Collins: The mainstream Jewish, quote unquote protection nonprofit is the Anti-Defamation league, the A DL.

Simone Collins: Okay, so that’s like the main organization, famous for fighting antisemitism explicitly.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. The mission, the official mission of the A DL is to stop the defamation of Jewish people. Oh. And secure justice and fair treatment for all.

Simone Collins: Oh, okay. I didn’t know, sorry.

Malcolm Collins: So the A DL comes out okay.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Attacks him and he is immediately de platformed. From, from platforms like Patreon in me

Simone Collins: after having, yeah.

He’s posted things that are inflammatory. So it’s not like this was just too [00:16:00] spicy for people. Wow.

Malcolm Collins: No, it was, it was that the Jewish community, when he spotted real fraud went out and, and, and this is now, if you are a Jewish person, the Jews at the A DL that did this, they are an existential threat to the Jewish community.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Because they, they have now said is, as long as Jews have cultural and political power in the United States, we will not allow you to punish or even notice or talk about bad actors within our community. But this wasn’t the only instance recently. Another egregious instance is there was $33 million of healthcare fraud by an Orthodox Jewish individual.

Obviously like we freak out when the Somalians do this, like Trump and the administration should be freaking out when an Orthodox Jew does this,

Simone Collins: right? It doesn’t matter who you are. Any, any form of especially fraud using people’s taxpayer money,

Malcolm Collins: this fraud was killing people. [00:17:00] Old people were dying because of this fraud.

This is like on record, okay? This guy was a monster, and that is not disputed even by the organizations that attempted to defend him. But a large organization that we’ll be going into

Speaker 4: Note, not a fringe or extremist Jewish organization either. This is the mainstream CHABAD Jewish organization for protecting Jewish prisoners.

Malcolm Collins: that’s entire purpose is to fight for freedom for Orthodox Jewish individuals. Convince the Trump administration to give this person a pardon.

Not because they do not think that his actions led to people’s deaths, not because they do not think that he stole from the American taxpayer through fraud, but because he’s an Orthodox Jew.

Simone Collins: Wow,

Malcolm Collins: this is really existentially bad for the Jewish community.

Simone Collins: Yeah, that is bad. I had no idea. [00:18:00] That’s terrible.

Malcolm Collins: That is. That’s really,

Simone Collins: really bad.

Malcolm Collins: That’s terrible.

Speaker 8: If you are wondering how they could conceivably signal that this was an okay thing to do. The core argument that the administration made, , when releasing him is that he didn’t personally, financially benefit from his fraud. That it was mostly to keep a failing business alive, which is factually untrue.

He stole, we know he stole at least $5 million personally as a ghost salary. I think the argument is that he had to pay it back in fines or something after he was caught, but it’s like, yeah, but he intended to steal it. Right. , And, , there’s still people fighting for money from this, so No, it’s not that everyone has been reimbursed or anything like that, uh, but that most of the fraud was done to try to protect a failing business that had overextended.

, But that doesn’t, , if you have a. Failing business, especially a hospital that’s caring for elderly and in affirmed individuals. And you, because of the way that you are conducting fraud, to try to keep that alive [00:19:00] are leading to people’s deaths. And for people suffering, at a large scale, , you need to let that fail.

Like not being able to let your business fail in committing fraud at this scale is not, , an ethical thing to do. Especially while stealing to the tune of $5 million from the failing company exacerbating the problems like this. This picture of somebody who just let things get a bit out of hands doesn’t work when you consider the 5 million that he stole during this process that’s on record.

,

Speaker 8: And people are like, oh, he had a external accounting group that was handling the fraud on his behalf. I mean, it’s shown in court records. He knew and he pleaded guilty to knowing the fraud was happening. , But in addition to that, like I, I’m actually okay, like if, if somebody was like, look, if employees were doing this, he just then wanted to protect their jobs.

Okay, fine.

I have helped cover for my own employees moral Laughes in the past as a boss. It’s something that just happens and [00:20:00] comes up, and if that was what he was going through, then I would understand. But that doesn’t explain the $5 million that he took out in ghost salaries, and that’s what we know of. That’s the fraud. We were able to prove $5 million, , that requires active action on his behalf. Not an external accounting firm or anything like that, like I’m trying here. Okay. But this was just a bad actor who didn’t care about the lives that he destroyed.

And people are like, well, he’s old. He would’ve died in prison. Good, good. , This is why we have a prison system, right? I want the Somalians who do this stuff going to prison. I want Jews who do this stuff to go outta prison. I, it shouldn’t matter what community someone is from. And the simple effing optics of this, that habad an organization that is staffed by otherwise saying intelligent people, knowing the sentiment in America right now against the Jewish people growing in negativity, knowing.

What a hot button [00:21:00] issue because of the Somalian fraud stuff that we’re dealing with because of Nick Shirley’s reporting fraud of exactly this type is that they would go out of their way to almost pathologically attempt to free, an obvious bad actor and do it successfully. Did no one in the organization stop to ask what are the optics of this?

. And I think that, well, apparently not. , And. That was because there was no institution for causing or creating any sort of reward mechanism for asking that, because it doesn’t matter to them if they do an action that on the whole hurts the Jewish people, if it helps their status within their circles of Jewish society, which this did and reinstating these old courts would allow that.

And I think that this is , really important for individual like. The Jews who are hearing this and want to yell at me for this right now, these individuals did not ask, how is this action going [00:22:00] to reflect on the way that broader Jews are treated within society? , Antisemitism more broadly, , the.

Question in their head is, how does this affect my standing within my circle of Jewish society? , And that’s really bad that that’s the case, but it can be fixed.

Speaker 10: Also another externality that Jews should think of when they’re thinking about the importance of building a system to address these issues is how something like this affects non-Jews who defend the Jewish community. , When we saw Charlie Kirk near the end, say something like, I’m thinking about turning against the Jewish community, or having Candace Owens gone on.

Because I am sick of after I do X, Y, or Z to defend them, then this comes out after me. Then I get accused of X, Y, or Z. . I, I think that like there isn’t an internal thinking of, we have people, we, Jews have people [00:23:00] outside the Jewish community like Simone and I are often accused of being overly pro jewish. , We’re, I mean, the reason we’re proje is because we’re pro strengths and Jews are out competing other groups in many fields, right?

Like, we like groups that do well and are technologically and economically productive, especially high fertility groups. Like there is a. Existential reason we are pro jewish,, which is very instrumental if they weren’t those things. Then we would be anti-Jewish. , , , it’s not like for some biblical reason or something like that, or even because I like individual Jewish people.

, There’s a lot of groups where I have a lot of friends from that group. But I still think in aggregate that group, , is, , an economic and technological drain on the global world, but. The point I’m making here is take somebody like Simone and I’m, , who get flack.

You know, we do burn some of our credibility, , when we are seen as defending Jewish interests. , And. Then we see something like this happen. Mainstream [00:24:00] organizations like the A DL and Habad, , going out of their way to, , protect bad actors within Jewish communities instead of working to address in themselves.

, Because then people who have heard me defend Jewish things in the past, they come to, they go, Malcolm, you see this is proof that you’re wrong about. Helping the Jews, defending the Jews, seeing the Jews as a group that we can have as good actors in American society. , And it makes me look stupid and it makes me and all of the other non-Jewish people who defend the Jewish community less likely to do it in the future.

The externalities from actions like this are manifold.

Speaker 12: And for those viewers on the other side who hold a more anti-Semitic sentiment and are upset at us for always coming off as overly , philio, semetic, keep in mind. We are willing to criticize. We have a number of episodes that are quite critical of Jewish community and history. , Our support for the [00:25:00] Jewish community, as we have said, is instrumental to my goals for civilization.

And if actions of that community make it look like that is no longer the case. Then my opinion changes if portions of that community grow fast. Because there are definitely portions of the Jewish community that, , are extremely low technology, extremely hostile to outsiders and very high fertility. If those portions end up becoming the dominant Jewish population or controlling Jewish institutions, , didn’t.

Obviously I would not continue to take actions that are as supportive to the wider Jewish people. , I’m not like a, you know, whatever, who was it? Ted Cruz or whatever, who’s like, oh yeah, I’ll support Israel for whatever, because the Bible told me to. I’m like, no, it’s useful for my goals as things are right now, but if things change, then it may no longer be useful to my goals.

Malcolm Collins: And so many Jews are gonna go because every time we do a video like this, they come into the comments [00:26:00] and they say something like, because they feel like this is a normal thing to say. When somebody says something like this or brings up topics like this, that I am being anti-Semitic by saying this stuff, you are the problem.

You are the reason why Now 25% of young people have decided that they are anti-Semitic. Okay? Because the dominant culture, like different cultures react to injustices in different ways. But the dominant culture, especially within the right in the United States. When they see somebody calling out genuine bad action, and then another person attempting them to, attempting to silence them by saying something like, you are being racist, or you’re being transphobic, or you’re being homophobic, or you’re being anti-Semitic because Wokes use that for so long.

So we developed cultural technologies against that, right? Like, this is one of the core things that has changed within the new right, is people can no longer go to us and say, oh, you like anime? That’s nerdy. I’m like, suck it. Or you, you, that’s degenerate. Or that’s a against a

like people are like, oh, how do, how do you police behavior without being able to [00:27:00] shame people for this, this, or that? It’s like, we do not allow that at always in our communities anymore. Mm-hmm. Because Wokes then grabbed that social technology and realized they could use it, right? They could reclassify what these categories were and they could use it.

And that a better way to promote good actions is through modeling it. Right? Like in the way I treat my wife, in the way I live, in the way I’m having kids, in the way I try to interact with others. I try to model good behavior and that is how we, because we were like, oh, how could you ever have good behavior unless you shame de degeneracy?

And it’s like, look, I understand that that used to work when we were more culturally uniform, but Wokes figured out how to use that. And so we haven’t been using that as a cultural technology for a while. In fact, we’ve been reflexively being like, Ew, what a loser. Like anybody who attempts to shame people along these categories, Jews are, because it worked for them for a long time, still reflexively attempting to use this social technology.

And what they do not see is it is isolating them. From the one group [00:28:00] and from the, the wider, like of of, of the groups in the United States, the group that is most open to one allying with Israel and helping Jews within the United States is the new. Right. Just like without, like Wokes, when you see Jewish students running from people on campus and locking themselves in the library because they’re afraid of being beaten up.

Mm-hmm. These are leftists who are doing this. You, you are aware of this, like the leftists regularly host rallies in the United States where they say from the river to the sea, they, they want you exterminated. Right? Like this is not, you have one group you can go to, right. That you can farm an alliance with and is open to that alliance.

Right. And that group is the wider new right coalition, but we’re also not effing stupid one, you come to us with this. Oh, you’re being antisemitic when clearly what I’m saying is not antisemitic. This is factual evidence. Or clearly, you know what Tyler Olivier. was saying when he made his video is not antisemitic.

Right? This was [00:29:00] like clear evidence Right. Of this stuff. And, and Jews know this stuff is happening. No, they’re not f*****g stupid Jews know about the fraud in or orthodox Jewish communities.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Right. And you can be like, well we have trauma because of a genocide.

And it’s like a lot of groups have had genocides against them. Okay. None of those groups come to me and attack us for saying, oh, you’re anti, ‘cause we attack all the groups on this, this, we have anti Quaker videos, we have anti-Catholic videos, and the only group that regularly reflexively freaks out and it is this reflexive freakout

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: That is causing the drift even within the right. And if you look at the political breakdown, you can see the anti-Semitic sentiment is growing in the right at the same rate. It’s growing in the left. Right. But ideologically we’re not mulching in the streets saying from the river to the seas yet.

Right. Is to be aware where we are with you. I think Jews, because they are [00:30:00] used to perceiving themselves as having an alliance with the left, which is just not going to work going into the future.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: They listen to leftist criticism about stuff like Gaza, about stuff like the war in Iran. When I don’t care about this stuff, you’re helping us with this f*****g good.

Like, I kill him, whatever. Right. Like, yeah, you, I, I feel like the woman from south Park

Speaker 2: Really? That’s great! You mean you don’t mind? No! I hate

Malcolm Collins: Gaza,

Speaker 2: you go right

Speaker: ahead and plow down this whole f*****g thing! That’s swell!

Malcolm Collins: That’s the way I feel about all of that. But when you set up communities in the United States and actively scam our tax system and kill our elderly people, and then when our justice system attempts to do it things, or when our citizen reporters attempt to do the, the just thing and attack them.

Then how, how can I say that this is Toler. This is no longer a minority Jewish position. This is not a minority. Like the [00:31:00] people on the right will sometimes be like, oh, they randomly bombed some old church in whatever country. It’s like, yeah, it was in a fricking Muslim majority country. They were like, no Christians there anymore.

Whatever. Right? Like, I do not care about that. That that population had already wiped out the Christian population there. So, I’m wondering where all the Christians went over the past 20 years. Maybe I’m okay with them being bombed a little bit. Or they’ll be like, oh, look at this video of Jews spitting on Christians.

It’s like, and I can find videos of Christians spitting on Jews, right? Like, there’s plenty of Christians who hate Jews. That doesn’t mean that our two people cannot be allied with each other. But the very centers of Jewish power acting in this way that does prevent a meaningful alliance as well as Jews in stuff like the comments under this video saying, this is anti-Semitic to say.

That does prevent a durable alliance

Speaker 5: And don’t give me, oh, this is a woke Jews problem. We are discussing two organizations that have done this recently. One of them is the A DL. Okay. Maybe the A DL, but the other is a Habad [00:32:00] charity. Okay. If you are unfamiliar with who the Habad are, they are an Orthodox Jewish group. Okay. They’re, I think, the most mainstream sort of accepted by wider society, Orthodox Jewish group.

I.

Malcolm Collins: because the first people who should be going after the people who, who go into the comments and be like, this anti-Semitic, should be other Jews, right? Because that hurts the Jewish community. That is the person who says, when you come after bad actors and obvious bad actors, documented bad actors, I’m going to defend them.

Simone Collins: Well, so if I, my impression of when I, I think about comments I’ve heard from Jewish friends about groups like these is, they’re like, oh, that’s this subgroup. You know, they’re not mine. And I think there is this problem of Jewish communities being very sort of disconnected and balkanized to a certain extent and, and not centrally governed, of course.[00:33:00]

So it’s not like there’s some Vatican that could be like, we disavow this, this is wrong. It’s more like, well, there’s this, they’re this set that’s entirely sovereign and we have no control over them. I mean, I, I guess what you’re saying is

Malcolm Collins: right, and this is, this is you, you know, how you deal with that.

Simone Collins: How,

Malcolm Collins: There, there, so there’s really a few solutions to this from the perspective of Jewish populations. Okay. Solution number one, it’s create genuine group differentiation. If somebody was to go to me because I regularly do this on air, criticize the Vatican, and they were to say, well, you’re a Christian, like, how do you criticize the Vatican?

Or how do you criticize like this Protestant sect or that Protestant sect? It’s like, I’m not that sect. I don’t like that sect. I think that sect is an act like, and, and people do not confuse me with those sex.

Simone Collins: Do you not think that Jewish friends of ours have done that? To be like, that’s

Malcolm Collins: absolutely not.

Absolutely not.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: This is, this is a huge problem that Jews have. And there is a way around it, but [00:34:00] it is a huge problem when in like suppose. A Unitarian Universalist, a a a branch of Christianity mm-hmm. Acts as some super bad actor as they often do. Yeah. Pushes some woe nonsense. Right. And nobody would think of comparing us techno puritans or like evangelical Protestants.

Yeah.

Simone Collins: We,

Malcolm Collins: because we would say that group is heretical. That group is not like us. That group is not one of us, and it wouldn’t make sense to compare us. Right. Whereas Jews, they fastidiously do not do this. They say, Hey, even if you don’t follow the practices of Judaism anymore, even if you left, even if you blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you’re still Jewish.

If you are Matrilineally Jewish. Mm-hmm. This creates a major, major problem. And even worse, if you’re like two a Jew, right. Like. An Orthodox Jew, right, like a, a reformed Jew is still a Jew, right? To an evangelical Protestant, a Unitarian Universalist is [00:35:00] not a Christian. And this is why they don’t get blamed as much because the Jewish community themselves, like the people who are in this video who are going to be claiming, oh, Malcolm, you’re being anti-Semitic.

The vast majority of them are probably gonna be reformed Jews because those are the people who react this way the most. Yet they are protecting an Orthodox Jewish community. These two communities are not the same community. It is the active lack of being willing to split and internally criticize that is, is causing ultra orthodox Jews to be blamed for what woke Jews are doing in Hollywood.

Mm-hmm. That have like culturally very few similarities to them. And it’s what’s causing woke Jews in Hollywood to be blamed what Ultraorthodox Jews are doing in Israel. Right. Like, but I actually would not advise the Jewish community to remove this tendency was in Judaism. It has a number of positive externalities for the Jewish community, basically making it very [00:36:00] hard for them to permanently split and allowing them to recombine whenever they want.

You can look our video on why don’t Jews have guns? It goes really deep into Jewish culture and why it is particularly resilient. And this is, this is one of its big superpowers. And you couldn’t even do it if you were a Jew. Like even if you were a Jew and you, and you tried to create like a splinter group of Judaism, it’s just so embedded in the Jewish mindset that all Jews are Jews that it would eventually recombine.

And in the mind of the general public, it wouldn’t happen.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: There’s the second cultural strategy. How do most groups prevent this? How did Jews prevent this historically speaking?

Simone Collins: Right.

Malcolm Collins: Well, they have either. Cultural traditions or legislative bodies for punishing people within their communities so that they can, like if within the Jewish community there was some sort of a council or something like that, that could pass judgment on high profile individuals, like individuals within the [00:37:00] A DL offer some kind of exy communication or financial fines or some other punishment that shows we, the Jewish community, do not approve of this behavior.

We do not approve of defending these individuals or what these ultra Orthodox communities are doing.

Simone Collins: Mm.

Malcolm Collins: And keep in mind, how did my cultural tradition handle this historically, because this is actually well documented. How did backwood people handle historically when somebody in our culture was making themselves a pest to people of surrounding cultures?

Oh they typically tortured and killed them and left their body somewhere public. So everybody, oh

Simone Collins: God. Wait, what is it? The backwards people in America did this. Oh

Malcolm Collins: yeah. They would, I mean, this is what like the regulators were, right? Like,

Simone Collins: the regulators, is this some formal societal term?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. They would have basically groups of, of young men would get together.

If somebody had gone out and like griped a girl or something like that. And they would, torture them and, [00:38:00] and kill them and leave them hanging from a tree. And everyone would see and everyone would be like, I guess I’m not gonna do that again.

Speaker 6: And I think this is one of those places where you can see my cultural biases, where they may, , clash with some other cultural groups we have in the right wing coalition show. Like when the United Healthcare CEO was killed, my first reaction was, oh, well that’s good, right? Like the legal system didn’t work.

So, , you know, now we do step two. , I’d also note here that this idea of communities policing themselves. Is actually very normative. Most communities do the exact opposite of this instead of. Attempting to protect their own bad actors. They make a point of going out of their way to punish their own bad actors.

So take rather than a cultural community. Let’s talk about like the whiter YouTube streamer community. Right? We have a bad actor like Johnny Somalia, , and Johnny Somalia. Is going to high trust countries and going around and [00:39:00] effing with people and pretty much the entire streamer community has been on board with doing everything that we in the wider community could to get this guy locked up.

Okay. When he was arrested in Korea. The community donated a legal fund for his prosecution, alright? Sent people over there to help with that fund to help make sure he saw jail time, right? This is what Jews should be doing when a Jew acts like a bad actor. Not the exact opposite.

Malcolm Collins: Now I’m not saying that this, that that Jews need to go as hard.

Jews didn’t do that historically. They did the Jewish version of that, which is taking away someone’s money. Which I have avatar. I have to wait to actually actually yes, that is historically how these Jewish cohorts worked.

Simone Collins: But no, you’re, you’re just, you must be describing though Jewish communities who are living in close [00:40:00] proximity, you know, like a, an insular Jewish community and that that is still what exists now.

I think the problem is that an entire Jewish community is being criticized for, for exploiting the US government essentially. No,

Malcolm Collins: no, no, no,

Simone Collins: no. For leveraging open loopholes.

Malcolm Collins: Welfare, welfare fraud is rampant among ultra orthodox Jews in the United States. Both welfare and housing Fraud is, Uhhuh is very widely reported.

It’s very rampant bad acting.

Simone Collins: Okay. Can I, can I steal, man, this, can I steal, man? This.

Malcolm Collins: Okay, go.

Simone Collins: Like, they’re only having the most Jewish response, right? What is Judaism? But like, okay, here’s the law, right? And then they’re like, great, okay. How am I gonna work around this? Oh, I’ll just put like a piece of metal thread around things or, or golden thread.

Or I will you know, switch the, around this, this lampshade to work this way. Or, oh, I’m not allowed to let my hair. Show. Well then I’ll just wear a wig over my hair. And then that’s gonna be fine.

Malcolm Collins: Totally [00:41:00] understand what you’re saying.

Simone Collins: I totally understand. And so what, what they’re doing with the welfare fraud here is they’re like, oh, so the government has these rules.

Okay, so the government’s giving this money to these organizations. Well, then I will run the organization and you’ll buy from it. And then we were all, and from it just leveraging laws and they just need to close these loopholes. Totally, totally. Only reason they exist, Simon, is they’re, they’re faulty.

Malcolm Collins: I know you, you’re saying this, but you’re not thinking in the wider cultural context.

Okay. I even promoted the idea of I’m okay if you can screw over the system and get away with screwing over the system, that is completely fine. Like culturally. Yeah. Shame

Simone Collins: on the system,

Malcolm Collins: shame on the system, but. If you get caught or shamed for exploiting the system. And then because this is, this is the system working as it’s supposed to.

The guy who got arrested, the Jewish guy who got arrested mm-hmm. That was the system working as intended. The guy, the, the community that was being shamed by the YouTuber. That was the system working as expected.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But then when your community says, oh, we got caught, the system tried to [00:42:00] prevent our fraud, and then you attack the agents of the system that tried to shut you down, now you make it the entire community an existentially damaging thing to have operating within that system.

Simone Collins: That’s true. It it’s a bad strategic move. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: It’s, it’s not a bad, it’s a, it’s a move that they can get around. So Judaism has like high councils of rabbis and stuff like that that they still use,

Simone Collins: that exist between

Malcolm Collins: Yes.

Simone Collins: Among sects.

Malcolm Collins: Yes.

Simone Collins: Oh,

Malcolm Collins: I,

Simone Collins: I didn’t know that. And what’s,

Malcolm Collins: what’s even more important is that these high rabbi councils and everything like that, the people who are going to listen to them the most are the ultra Orthodox Jews who have the biggest problem with these sorts of frauds.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: So if they said, look, antisemitism’s exploding right now, and where antisemitism matters most is in the right, because the rights, the community that is looking like it’s allying was Israel over [00:43:00] Europe. Mm-hmm. It looks like it’s the long-term natural ally for the Jewish people. If it’s exploding within our community because of like an existential thing that there just doesn’t like Jews, what would you do if there was a subpopulation living within Jewish communities regularly screwing you over?

And when you tried to do anything about it, they rounded the doors and tried to prevent you from doing anything about it. It’s like. Yeah, I’m pretty sure we know what you would do, right? Yeah. It’s not, ‘cause we’ve seen it, it’s not good before.

Simone Collins: Good. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: You deal with it and I respect you for dealing with it, but know that I hold myself to those same standards, right.

And you would want allies that held themselves to those same standards. And this isn’t, again, Jews used to do this, which we’re gonna go over in a second. This isn’t even like, like you as a Jew could say, let’s go to one of these councils and promote the creation of some Jewish body mint for handling Exactly.

This kind of thing. Right. And I’m gonna note this is actually existential for Judaism [00:44:00] to survive. And

Simone Collins: people say it’s, it’s a, I I totally get what you’re saying. I just don’t really know how to navigate around it. If, for example, so here’s this community, like what, I guess what you want the rest of, of all the Jewish communities to do is be like, oh.

We’re not with them. We condemn their actions. They should not do this. It’s wrong. And of course, certainly not censor anyone who’s bringing to light what they’re doing.

Malcolm Collins: You know, what they need to do is they need to. Be punishing and have a system for punishing, but also just in their own lives, socially punish the individuals who attempt to use the antisemitism card when something is clearly not antisemitism.

Simone Collins: Okay. That’s fair. I, I, I, because I was like, I don’t know how you think this, this community for example, that was

Malcolm Collins: No, no. The bigger problem than this community mm-hmm. Than the fraud of this community is the individuals who are trying to stop the system from working as it’s supposed to.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: They are the people who [00:45:00] got spent millions of dollars getting Trump to pardon a guy who had killed people.

Right. Yeah. They are the people for a type of fraud that everyone on the right is pissed off about right now. Yeah. You can’t just let a guy sit in jail for doing fraud. Like, why, why is that such a problem? Right? Yeah. Like, they’re not even denying that he did it.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And let’s go over, because I wanna go over like what the a DL is saying here.

The point I’m making, it’s the bigger problem isn’t the individual bad actors, it’s the larger community level organizations like the a DL, the meta conversation protect the bad actors from the system working as intended,

Simone Collins: right? Yeah. And honestly, it goes against at least my like, stereotypical outsider take of Jewish law.

Like if the game is work within the rules to your best advantage, you know, make the rules work for you, but then, you know, you get caught, then you, you, you lost the game. You need to be better at playing the system. They weren’t good enough. They got caught. Was your

Malcolm Collins: hand in, [00:46:00] in,

Simone Collins: in, so like, my bad, I’m gonna have to try again.

And, and the, the reaction isn’t. Oh no, definitely don’t catch me. Like that’s not how it works you to follow the rules. That’s the whole point. You follow the rules.

Malcolm Collins: Well, and and the thing is, and the reason I keep pointing out is that Judaism used to have systems for dealing with this.

Simone Collins: I

Malcolm Collins: see. Is this is the law of Judaism.

It just, these institutions collapsed a few centuries ago. Mm-hmm. Right? Like that doesn’t mean. That they are not historically accurate Judaism, right? Mm-hmm. And because of that, if you are a stickler Orthodox Jew, and we have a lot of Orthodox Jewish fans of this, you can work your way up. And I’m, we have a number of Orthodox fans who are Jewish Orthodox Jews, who are in positions of authority with, within these communities, do something about this, like advocate for recreating one of these institutions.

Because if you don’t, and the reason I said that this is so existential for Judaism is it is not just existential for Judaism working alongside [00:47:00] right wing culture in the United States. It is existential for Judaism because we are your best long-term ally, right? Like we created the state of Israel basically, and we funded it up until this point and we regularly help you guys out, right?

Like it is really stupid to piss us off. But in addition to all of that. If you cannot deal with this, Israel itself is going to collapse.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Because right now, ultra orthodox communities in Israel scam the state of Israel. Right. And, and Oh

Simone Collins: yeah. And that, that is a huge problem within the state of Israel itself.

For sure.

Malcolm Collins: And they are using that to out breeded their more economically and technologically conductive.

Simone Collins: That’s a really, I didn’t even think about that. Yeah. That’s like, and already known in existing and very serious problem that does eventually need to be dealt with within the own Jewish community.

That’s that. Oh, huh. And,

Malcolm Collins: and worse than that, not only are they economically and technologically unproductive, [00:48:00] but they don’t even fight in your wars. Mm-hmm. They said you are economically and technologically productive people to die, to defend. Your land, they are scamming you. That is in any other country we would call that a scam.

Okay. Now you can say, well, you know, it’s not technically a scam because they’re following all the rules. That thinking like Simone said, like it’s you, like follow in any other system we’d be calling a group that was doing that, scamming the system. We’d be like, this seems like a problem. They’re a negative externality on society.

They disproportionately are involved in scams and welfare and living off the state and they don’t even fight in wards for us. Like what are we even doing here? Right. That community, because of their birth rates, is eventually going to make Israel irrelevant, right? Like Israel with its bright futures, Jews with their bright futures because of this homeland of Israel that they’ve been able to sort of create as a fortress nation.

It has that bright future because of its [00:49:00] technologically and economically productive high fertility population. But if that population is drowned out in a democracy because it is a democracy in Israel by a population that doesn’t share their values that’s existentially threatening. And note here, I’m not talking about all Hawaii Jews, all ultra orthodox Jews.

Many are sane and understand the problem but it is a, a, a, a good chunk of them. And if you could create a religious institution that was designed with exactly these two issues in mind, how do we prevent this one population in Israel from eventually tanking the state, state with the understanding that it’s in that population’s best interest as well.

Like I’ve even talked to Jews in this population, just about the math that they are well aware of, of how effed they are when they become the majority of Jews in Israel. Like, they’re like, oh, well, it’s good for this reason and good for this reason, but obviously we’re going to have major military problems when that happens.

We’re gonna have major economic problems when that happens. And, and they’re like, and then we will reform [00:50:00] parts of the system, but they’re not stupid. Okay. Looking ahead and being like, okay, maybe it worked. Like even if I’m only thinking from a proje perspective, I literally don’t care about how IF over outsiders or anything like that.

Even if, I only think from Proje perspective, even if I’m only thinking from a proje perspective from one of these ultra orthodox communities that is living off of welfare.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Right. I still care about the future of the Jewish people

Simone Collins: and I Well, do you think so? Is this an issue of

Malcolm Collins: percent of antisemitism in youth?

I could. This is a f*****g problem, right? Especially among your best and longest term allies.

Simone Collins: Well, so is is, could this be then that the A DL. Isn’t actually trying to like advocate for or fight for Jewish safety or protection, but rather they, they’re experiencing mission creep and they’re just blindly and without any bigger picture, just reflexively going [00:51:00] after anyone who’s say Jew bad.

And then they just like,

Malcolm Collins: well, if that is the case, that there needs to be some institutional Jewish system to punish them. Okay. As people, not even as an organization, as individuals,

Simone Collins: like all the donors to the AD L who are Jewish need to say, Hey, knock it off. This is

Malcolm Collins: making No, no, no, no, no. That’s not, that’s too hard to do.

What you need is an external Jewish legal body. Jews love legal bodies. That is meant to hunt down these types of anti-Jewish crimes, ag crimes that lead to the Jewish community being less secure, that are being performed. By individuals at organizations like the adl. Mm-hmm. And publicly be able to say, this individual is committing these acts, which are demonstrably dangerous to the Jewish community at large.

And that they shouldn’t face x, y, and Z punishment for it to be on good terms with the Jewish community going forwards, likely fines or something like that. So let’s go over like what the A DL said, just so you understand [00:52:00] how they tried to frame this.

Simone Collins: Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: I’m in frame, interested frame. They said it was anti-Semitic to frame some Orthodox Jewish communities as welfare, ECT addicted, welfare addicted.

Simone Collins: But they are like, it seems like there are, it’s well known that many, many Orthodox Jewish communities are kind of like literally built around leveraging welfare systems because they can. I don’t blame anyone for like, to a certain extent, if, if the system is that broken where you can exploit it that much, then it’s, you know,

Malcolm Collins: on the system Yeah.

Mean overall Jews still pay more into the tax system than they disproportionately take out because there’s so many rich Jews. Mm-hmm. So like, there’s still useful to have around. They then said that, oh, using tropes about Jewish insularity greed slash money or dual loyalty, like, go back to Israel comments in the video is, but they are, they were demonstrably exhibiting.

Greed and dual loyalty in the video and [00:53:00] these Orthodox Jewish communities going back to Israel and committing fraud against other Jews, would demonstrably fix the problem in, in the United States of this being a legitimate grievance. Mm-hmm. Right. Like the, these are not that, that’s one of the coolest things about Israel.

You know, Jews have a place they can go if there being a problem now. Right. Other Jews even have a way to be like, okay, if this community is becoming too much of a problem in the United States and causing too many issues, then we can relocate them back to Israel, where at least they’re only causing these negative externalities among other Jews.

If people are wondering why I am so existentially interested in, that’s what this video is, is me trying my best to come up with a solution to prevent what I see as extreme rates of antisemitism.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And I wanna highlight just what you pointed out at the very beginning, just the proportion of young people today who actively harbor.

anti-Semitic views because of this stuff that is happening now, and it’s only going to get worse. And definitely this is the sign to take action. I, I get that.

Malcolm Collins: By the way, you’re, you’re looking for other instances if you’re like, well, this is [00:54:00] just one case. There’s a crazy case. Have you heard about the East Ramo Central School District in Rockland County, New York?

Simone Collins: That’s the one that he, that that guy went to visit, isn’t it?

Malcolm Collins: Mm. This wasn’t the one that he got in trouble for,. No, this was the one where an ultra orthodox population grew rapidly due to high birth rates. And their synagogue had them all vote in the local elections. And they ended up, even though they were a minority population, having control of the local school board and when I say they were a minority, the, the local school district was 91 to 95% black or Latino, and served 9,000 students.

They then began to cut. All of the extracurricular and athletic activities. They then reduced kindergarten from full day to half day ended summer school, cut business electives and professional development by 75%. They then tried to sell a school building to a Jewish Yeshiva at under the cost

Simone Collins: of that

Malcolm Collins: building.

Oh

Simone Collins: no, that’s terrible. That’s not a good look. That’s [00:55:00] not gonna make you friends. That’s really not gonna make you friends. Oh gosh,

Malcolm Collins: no. This is one of the things where we need to be able to talk about this, like they’re playing within in the rules of the system. But part of the way the system works is when somebody is playing within the rules, but being a bad actor, that they are able to be called out by citizen journalists.

If elements of the Jewish community attempt to stop citizen journalism,

Simone Collins: that’s not playing by the rules. Yeah’s

Malcolm Collins: existentially bad because now that person is saying. To target these individuals, you have to go through all of us. And all of us means a lot of Jews that want nothing to do with this and for those Jews, the bad actor that they need to target.

And this is very important and very difficult than the way Jews typically react to. This is not like the worst actor here. The person who is most dangerous to the overall Jewish community is not the people doing this fraud. It is not the people taking control of the [00:56:00] school districts. It is not the people selling the school dis buildings to Yeshivas.

It is the people trying to shut down the system from operating as it’s intended to. It’s the a DL. The a DL is at a, a level of magnitude, existentially worse for the Jewish community because they are the ones who makes this a problem for every Jew instead of just these Jews. Okay. The case I was talking about earlier of the, was the case of Philip Ethermore, a Miami Beach nursing home who did $33 million in fraud. Yeah. Really bad.

Simone Collins: That’s impressive.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Wow. Wow. Okay. How in what, sorry. Keep going.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, if you wanna go into it what he did and, and no, Trump didn’t fully pardon him, but he shouldn’t have done anything for this guy. It’s good for the Jewish community that this guy faced punishment, right? Yes. Yes. That this guy [00:57:00] faced punishment before the Somalians did.

Jews could go like, look, our community isn’t receiving special treatment.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Don’t then advocate explicitly for special treatment.

Simone Collins: Yes.

Malcolm Collins: Right?

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Prosecutors described him as driven by almost unbounded greed. So what really got me more than him, because again, I don’t really care what he did, he did something bad.

The citizen, the system caught him like Somalians do something bad. The system catches him uhhuh. It’s when they then try to say, and now you have to arrest every Somalian if you want to arrest these Somalians, that it becomes existentially unworkable. Right. And alliance was the group becomes existentially unworkable.

Simone Collins: Correct.

Malcolm Collins: So specifically what happened is the organization is the Alpha Institute, a Habad Litic affiliated 5 0 1 C3 nonprofit, founded in 1981 by Rabbi Shalom Lisker at the direct action of Leav Rebe. Its core mission is to provide religious, spiritual, educational and advocacy for support for [00:58:00] Jewish inmates in the United States, of which there are roughly 85,000.

This is really, really, really bad, right? If you are an organization that is doing something like this, you need to be asking their motto is, no one alone, no one forgotten, right? Like, we don’t leave our troops behind. We don’t let our people face jail time. You need to be asking as an organization, like before you go after and try to free a guy like this, you need to be saying, okay, but did he actually hurt people?

Did he actually do something bad? Because if he actually did, and I now say you can’t jail any Jew unless you jail all Jews, you now are a much bigger threat to the wider Jewish community than this guy was. And again, this is about thinking. And, and Jews can be like, oh, well because of our traumas, we reflexively attempt to do X, Y, and Z.

I understand that. Okay. [00:59:00] But the problem is, is this pattern of behavior. Ha And other groups don’t do this. Catholics don’t try to get people outta prison just ‘cause they’re Catholics. Okay. Yeah. The, the Protestants,

I

Simone Collins: thought when, when you described the organization, I figured it was like, well, we will, you know.

Provide you with visitors while you’re in jail, serving time, you know, like build community for you or maybe like go in and provide education to people in jail and just do good PR for Jews in jail, but not like, get you out. That, that surprises me that that’s

Malcolm Collins: what they do. Yeah. The core reason that this group did this, right?

Or, or they say they did this. Okay. Is his father Morris Semus, an orthodox rabbi and nursing home magnate, donated 65,000, $65,000 to Alpha over several years starting after his indictment, by the way, so. To work on his case. But the family has long supported Habad causes. [01:00:00] And Jared Kushner, who oversaw much of the clemency, has longstanding personal ties within these habad networks.

Mm-hmm. Now, Habad people who I have met have generally been pretty smart and forward thinking. They should have known how this was going to look, given how mad the right is right now over Somali stuff, they are anyone involved in this an existential threat to the Jewish community? They, they weren’t able to think for two seconds.

How mad is the American right, right now about the Somali case? How are they gonna feel about this case?

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Right. And they didn’t feel that way. They didn’t have a fear about this because there’s no Jewish institutional organization or anything that could have come out and been like hey guys, do not do this right now.

This is going to damage, could, could this, could this come damage to the Jewish community?

Simone Collins: What if Jewish organizations never

Malcolm Collins: felt like they had the, the to, to go into the [01:01:00] final thing here, which is, okay, how Jews historically handled this stuff, how they should handle this stuff in the future,

Simone Collins: though, I, I do wanna ask what if, what if Jewish organizations like these never thought they had allies on the right

Malcolm Collins: or left?

And, and a note here when I’m like, when I was talking about like Jews being like, oh, well, you know, historically we had this stuff and we just don’t have it anymore. And, and, you know, trauma, sorry. But you say stuff like, oh, trauma in our community, like we can’t not do it, blah, blah, blah.

I’m like, look, I understand it’s hard to to create institutions to change your culture, but Jews have done it before you can do it again. And if you look at the rise and the speed of the rise of antisemitism, it is existential that you find a way to do it. This is not me ragging on the Jewish community.

This is me saying Jews are useful allies for many reasons to me and my personal agenda. But you are also from the position of populations like [01:02:00] this fertility rate was in Israel and this phenomenon in the United States and the rise of antisemitism in the US at an existential risk. Right now, if this continues a 25% antisemitism rate, that could be 50, 60%.

Oh yeah. And if it continues to rise at this rate in like 20 years, like you don’t have time to deal with this. Okay.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: You have people marching through American streets saying from the river to the sea, you need the other side. That doesn’t mind that stuff still in your camp. Okay.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Now to to note here you had organizations like the Kelly organized Jewish councils and rabbinical courts bit din, which actively provided and policed economic crimes against Gentiles.

The motivation was practical self-preservation. If you committed fraud against Christian or a Christian government, obviously that could trigger pogroms or expulsions or even collective punishments. Yeah. Examples includes, so this is how they [01:03:00] did it. Fines or Sherman and shaming, repeated or notorious fraud.

Dishonest business practices, counterfeiting or overcharging non-Jews could result in monetary fines paid to the victim or the community. Public shaming or full serum, a social and religious ban that was devastating. No one could do business with you, marry your kids, et cetera. Nice Jewish legal codes and communal records from the period show that this was done precisely to deter action against their group.

And DIC and medieval enforcement that tel food and later codes, EG maimonide and shall arch record bit din handled cases of theft and fraud from gentiles stealing even trivial amounts from non-Jews as a Torah level. Theft In practice, communities would impose severely strict penalty penalties on Jews who performed.

Even trivial fraud or misrepresentation against Gentiles. And they did this [01:04:00] not because they wanted to protect Gentiles, but because they wanted to protect Jews.

Simone Collins: Well, yeah, because they, they think even

Malcolm Collins: news at

Simone Collins: that

Malcolm Collins: point

Simone Collins: did a lot

Malcolm Collins: of, why Malcolm, can you not hear me? To break down? A large part of this had to do with the the Jewish, tite levy thing, and he basically destroyed the Jewish community for like a century. If you’re not in the Jewish, like Judaism almost died like at the end of this period. And the rabbinic circles sort of lost a lot of their institutional power and things began to fall apart. And a number of these organizations essentially weren’t even able to pay the taxes that they owed to like the government because the government was supposed to be handling stuff from them.

And so they essentially fell apart. And that’s, that’s bad when you still have Jewish organizations who attempt to protect every Jew. Any final thoughts? Simone?

Simone Collins: I don’t think you can hear me.

Malcolm Collins: You’re muted, by the way.

Simone Collins: I’m not muted. That’s the

Malcolm Collins: problem. You’re muted still. You’re still

Simone Collins: I know. I’m not muted.

I’m, I’m actually not

Malcolm Collins: muted. I can’t hear anything. Can’t hear anything.

Simone Collins: I [01:05:00] know, I know. Can’t

Malcolm Collins: hear anything.

Simone Collins: I think it’s are, are you

Malcolm Collins: unable to unmute? I, it’s okay. Is there’s sun in the

Simone Collins: Look. I. Muted. I’m not

Malcolm Collins: muted. Okay. Still can’t hear you.

Simone Collins: It’s, it’s a, it’s a mic problem.

Malcolm Collins: Do you think you’re unmuted? Can you hear me?

Simone Collins: I know I can hear you. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. Come in here and give your final thoughts.

Simone Collins: Well, I think actually I can be heard, so

Malcolm Collins: I can, I have no idea what you’re saying. You are completely muted.

Simone Collins: I’ll call you, I’ll call you. Hold on.

Malcolm Collins: Yes.

Simone Collins: So I, my mic is being picked up in the recording. You just can’t hear me for whatever reason from your computer, so, okay.

Malcolm Collins: I’ll just let you talk then.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I agree with you that this is really important to address and I really hope that something can be done, but I feel like maybe things have gotten balkanized to the point where Jewish communities feel like they, they can’t actually control this.

Maybe I’m wrong.

Malcolm Collins: I think you’re wrong. I [01:06:00] think from what I’ve seen Jewish communities can adapt. They’re not stupid. They at least realize the problem of growing antisemitism. Mm-hmm. And Jewish communities cannot control, or they can try to, but it’s increasingly not working because unfortunately they’re using the tools that the wokes adopted.

And now the woke tools work in reverse. They, they cannot control the actions of people outside their community, especially when they are genuinely becoming. A threat to those external communities, right? So

Simone Collins: basically if, if a critical mass of influential Jewish leaders recognize that this is an existential threat to all Jewish communities and that every time something like this gets planned, threatened, whatever, pulled that immediately, they all collectively descend upon this person and are like, this is not cool.

Undo right now we’re

Malcolm Collins: gonna cut you off with some form of actual punishment that is agreed upon wide scale through like inter rabbinic courts. That, [01:07:00] that, and, and again, the core thing that needs to be punished is not the fraud itself, it’s the defense of the fraud.

Simone Collins: Yeah. No, I, I agree with you and it’s, it’s really bizarre.

Again, why was this, why was this terminated? Why did it ever end?

Malcolm Collins: The courts

Simone Collins: people just got disorganized?

Malcolm Collins: No, no, but basically they were too organized to the extent that they were in charge of like tax collection from the Jewish people. Oh. On behalf of the governments that they were part of. And some of them got like shut down when they can no longer had the authority to collect those taxes anymore.

So they basically became too bureaucratic and they broke.

Simone Collins: Okay, so yeah, basically a new practice has to be getting and a new, A new precedent and it would be better if it was a lightweight, reflexive reaction to defensive bad actors instead of some complicated, larger governing body. Per my, yeah, per my view then.

Malcolm Collins: Okay.

Simone Collins: Wow. I mean, I didn’t know how egregious some of those cases were and [01:08:00] I fully welcome anyone. I mean, I think that many cases of welfare fraud could be construed as like white cat hacking. They’re hacking the system, they’re showing vulnerable. Absolutely. And

Malcolm Collins: again, I’m not, the key

Simone Collins: thing to make it white hat is when the vulnerability is exposed, the vulnerability gets fixed.

You caught me. We’re good. Cat and mouse game continues. But like the whole point of a cat and mouse game. Is it when the cat finds a mouse, cat eats mouse mouse gone.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. You don’t then say, as the mouse, you have to eat all the mice if you want to eat this one mouse, because now you are a problem for all mice.

Simone Collins: Well, I feel like the metaphor falls falls apart at that point. I, I see what you’re saying. Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I think that that maybe, you know, as much as we didn’t really talk about it, this issue also extends to the Somali community. I think that, for example, Elman oar, sorry, Elman. Han Omar. Yeah. It was, was a huge problem

Malcolm Collins: for the Somali

Simone Collins: community, but I don’t care about, ‘cause like, they need to be like, [01:09:00] we, we disavow this, this is disgusting, but like, I think this, this, but your advice applies to all communities.

You know, any community that’s like,

Malcolm Collins: yeah. I mean obviously Aidan’s a Somali community, the, the, the Somalians who defend the obvious Somalian fraudsters need to be punished more like as a cultural strategy for survival more than the fraudsters themselves.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: That, yeah,

Simone Collins: because the fraudsters, it’s easy to like write off anyone who did bad thing and, and be rid of them.

But the ones who tried to defend that are the ones that put everyone at risk. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yes.

Simone Collins: I guess it’s not too dissimilar from the covenant of the sons of men the AI alignment proposition you present, which is basically we attack anything that becomes an existential threat to all of our ability to be free to exist.

And this is a micro version of it. When you see someone is posing an existential threat, all bets are off. We drop what we’re doing, we stop them and then we can move forward once [01:10:00] that threat has been dealt with. And that’s what you’re seeing here and that’s why you pay so much attention to it because you are uniquely attuned to existential threats arising.

And now you see it arising like you didn’t care about it when it was Somalians. ‘cause what investment do we have in that community? But when you see it, this happening with, I don’t care what happens to the

Malcolm Collins: Somalians, like

Simone Collins: Somalians, I mean, we don’t have an association. We have no investment, we have no like interest.

We don’t feel like they’re gonna take to the stars. And, and you know, whatever. They don’t seem to be very involved with anyone who’s not their own community.

Malcolm Collins: They’re not, are, they’re not culturally aligned with me. I have no cultural similarities to them. I have a lot of cultural similarities to Jews.

Yeah. Like obviously I, and, and Jews produce a lot of technology and economic benefits for the United States and have a lot of military strengths, which is useful for our future plans if we stay allies. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: I get it. The, so like, obviously I care what happens to the Jew. I Somalians are doing this too, but like I just said, I’m like, okay, well then get rid of all the Somalians, right?

Like if they’re, if they’re gonna defend this, like, and, and at the rates that they’re [01:11:00] doing it at like this, but the, it’s a little different from the Somalians. So the Somalians, it, it looks like within some Somalian communities it is the majority of the Somalian, it was something like 65% were on welfare or something like that.

Within Jewish communities, it is actually an extreme minority that are these types of I Orthodox Jews.

Simone Collins: I disagree because they’re like some cities where the entire way of life is built upon this kind of economic

Malcolm Collins: system.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So you’re wrong about that. I think it, it may be even worse in some of these, in some of these cities where, because like literally the entire economy runs off of those dynamics, which is why I was like.

Maybe this is an issue. Like we can’t, you can’t be like, well knock it off guys. ‘cause it, it’s literally like, like, what, what do you want them to do? Like, they, they literally will do this to the death, I guess. ‘cause like they, they have no other way of making money now. They all have like nine kids. What are you gonna do?

Like,

Malcolm Collins: right. But I mean, we, we, we, we’ve, we’ve, and I, and I point out here [01:12:00] when a, a Jews who’s watching this has been like, what do you mean your people just go out and shoot someone when they’re one of your own people and they’re screwing people over. What about the healthcare? CEO? That was a white guy.

Mm-hmm. Right? Like he, he, the guy who shot him was a white guy. That’s the American way. Right? Like the people know in our video, I was not against that. I was like, yeah, this guy’s applying extra. Yeah.

Simone Collins: I guess that’s, that’s a very salient example of that form of justice. Yeah. That was at least. I don’t know.

It was an, an Italian right. Kid. And then a, I don’t know what the United Healthcare,

Malcolm Collins: well, I mean, adopted American culture. Right. You know, I think that this, this that, that when somebody from our community is effing over our community and outsiders deal with it,

Simone Collins: I guess we could say that, that their shared culture was relatively affluent, educated American.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. The guy who did it was a affluent, educated, wealthy like [01:13:00] kid who went to like boarding school and stuff like that, as far as I remember, like same basic cultural group. But it was that group policing itself.

Simone Collins: Well, and the future is gonna be self-policing because government based policing is not gonna

Malcolm Collins: happen.

Well, and yeah, and, and because groups that don’t police themselves, everyone is going to hate them, right? Like as, as people begin to see people more as groups, right? Like, as your individual identity of your community gets larger people are going to, like I will say right now within the techno puritan community, that is how we should police as extremely aggressively as possible.

Simone Collins: And it’s not just about policing, it’s also about your reputation as a culture and as we’ll say possibly even like a techno fiefdom, right? Like in the future, let’s say if many mainstream governments fall apart, different contingents and groups are going to, like Venetian City states, trade with each other, engage in business with each other or not, like isolate each other from each other.

And if [01:14:00] your community builds a reputation for exploitation. You will not be able to do trade. Like everyone’s gonna wanna work with the Mormons. Everyone dunks on the Mormons, but they’re all gonna wanna work with the Mormons.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah,

Simone Collins: that’s a

Malcolm Collins: good point.

Simone Collins: And I think the problem with building reputations like these is people are in the future when everyone just runs off of cultural stereotypes and reputations be like, well, I’m not gonna work with the Jews.

Whereas in the past when you, there was this policing system that you described, it was like, well sure I go to the Jews to get like money lending services and these other things because they’re trustworthy for that. They self-police. Like I can, I can predict that they will provide the service as as expected.

And I think that that’s the thing is you have to think about what cultural stereotypes you are going to cultivate for your group in a post world police environment. Because that’s what we’re entering with demographic collapse. Right,

Malcolm Collins: exactly. Okay. And it, and it can be done. That’s, that’s the other thing, just throwing up your hands and being like, no, Jews could [01:15:00] never fix this problem.

You used to self-police, you used to have. Institutional solutions.

Simone Collins: Well, and and they, this was when they operated in a system of no work police. Higher

Malcolm Collins: threat.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Higher threat. Different groups needing to interact with each other and trade with each other and, and, and yeah. Interact in a low trust environment.

We’re, we’re entering a very low trust future, meaning that you need to cultivate high trust, and if you defend bad actors, that’s destroying it. So I, now I get the bigger picture even more. And I mm-hmm. Appreciate you covering this even though we’re totally getting in trouble for this.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, because it is, it’s there, there are the bad actors out there and they are pervasive within Jewish communities.

But we are signaling this, not because we want to hurt these communities, but because we’re trying to shock them into like, you, you actually, if somebody as Philio, Semitic as me is like, this is actually a problem, guys, then it’s actually a problem.

Simone Collins: Yeah. [01:16:00]

Malcolm Collins: And it’s not like a problem that like you can scratch your chin about and be like, that’s a very interesting problem.

It’s like, if you care about the future of the Jewish people, you care about finding a solution to this problem.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Well, I’m gonna go get the kids and make dinner. And

Malcolm Collins: what am I doing?

Simone Collins: If we were make your Burmese chicken. Oh yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Burmese McChicken.

Simone Collins: If ever we were criticized for being the weird husband and wife who speak to each other in different rooms.

It’s just highlighted now by the fact that we’re like, I’m talking on a phone. Hello.

Malcolm Collins: Oh my

gosh.

Simone Collins: This is so bad. I don’t work out your mic. Because I’m seeing, and

Malcolm Collins: it’s not of my mic problem, it’s clearly a stream yard problem because Stream yard’s Picking up my mic. Fine.

Simone Collins: I I see that stream yard’s picking gum.

Your mic. And do you see that it’s picking up my mic because it is

Malcolm Collins: no,

Simone Collins: the green dots be moving.

Malcolm Collins: We’ll figure it out. I love you so much, Simone.

Simone Collins: I love you too.

Malcolm Collins: You’re amazing. And I actually would not at all be surprised given the number [01:17:00] of Habad because that seems to be the organization that would be best able to fix this.

Jews that watch our show that one of them is gonna be like, yeah, reviving one of those institutions is probably a pretty good idea. Like, let’s get on that. Because, you know, if you, if you bring that idea to the right people with the right packaging and you’re able to set something like that up, that’s also a path to power for you and institutional power for you, right?

Like, it’s, it’s not a bad play. It’s not like a cross that you have to die on. It’s a very useful thing to set up. I

Simone Collins: know. It’s just, you know. Politicking be politicy. It’s not that easy, but this is an existential threat to your point, so I get it. Anyway,

Malcolm Collins: yeah,

Simone Collins: the kids are being All right. Love you suspiciously quiet, so, all right.

Bye

bye.

Simone Collins: I cannot, I still though, I, I can’t get over Torsten Seeing [01:18:00] Wannabe by the Spice Girls a music video of it, you know, like, you know, the OG music video and then coming up to me and being like, mommy, this is a song about friendship.

Malcolm Collins: He said that.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: This is a song about friendship,

Simone Collins: song about friendship.

Malcolm Collins: If you be my lover, you gotta get with my friends. Yeah. Which is also,

Simone Collins: it is like, it really is a song about friendship. It’s true.

Malcolm Collins: It is a song about friendship. Yeah. Yeah. I I,

Simone Collins: no one’s gonna meet the, that’s that specification for being your

Malcolm Collins: love. What’s funny is, is that it is still true for like, progressive culture.

Like, you wanna have sex with someone, you gotta have sex with their friends. Like, that’s the way those communities work these days.

Simone Collins: Oh God. Yeah. If you, the Polly Reed of wanna be Girls. Yeah. They’re all, they’re all all

Malcolm Collins: Polly. If you wanna be my love No,

Simone Collins: that’s like, that’s like the Dallas Poly community that we knew.

Yeah. Where it was just this like matriarchy where they would switch out studs.

Malcolm Collins: No, no. That was, she’s talking about this was really interesting. So, like. As Simone and I had mentioned like earlier when we were more progressive [01:19:00] we were like technically open to sleeping with other people. We just didn’t really indulge in it.

But we like hung out with these communities and so we were very familiar with the various poly communities in the areas where we lived. There’s

Simone Collins: some

Malcolm Collins: of

Simone Collins: those fun people, like typically if you meet someone who’s poly, they’re probably also. Pretty smart in doing some interesting work. I don’t know what to

Malcolm Collins: say.

Some of them, I mean, this is, this is the ones who we met who were like that keep in mind that we sort of filter who we meet. And it depends on the area. The poly people I’ve met in like San Francisco and like Portland and stuff, they’ve all like total burnouts, a lot of them. I

Simone Collins: don’t know, as far as I know, the people I know in, in the Bay Area who are poly are some of the smartest and highest achieving people, so,

Malcolm Collins: oh.

So I also know some smart ones and stuff like that, but they’re not on the typical poly dating scene, whereas the poly dating scene in Dallas was actually more like smart high agency people, was really good jobs.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But it was incredibly interesting because it was basically run by a cabal of very attractive women who just [01:20:00] controlled, who was invited to the parties, who got to do what, who, you know and they would just like, and, and I think that that’s one of the reason why.

So high, high status. Mm-hmm. Because these women, they approached it very much with sort of like a backwoods because, you know, Texas is, is part of, specifically Dallas is often seen as the capital of the greater Appalachian region, even though it’s not in the Appalachians because it’s the largest city and economic hub that’s in that cultural region.

And they approached it very sort of ruthlessly and economically, which is really interesting, where they’re like, well, we are hot women. We can control access to sex. If other hot women decide to become polley in the Dallas area, they basically join our cabal and we will use this cabal to ensure that only really competent, successful, and attractive guys are sleeping with anyone in the poly space.

Simone Collins: Yeah, actually that’s, that’s a really good point, is all the guys we met that were in that space. We’re very pro-social, whereas you often get a lot of bad [01:21:00] actor dudes. Not, not universally obviously, but there are more bad actor dudes in other poly circles who are just exploitative and, and messed up and like manipulative.

And these guys were just like, just. Kind of nice. We can,

Malcolm Collins: dynamics are entirely different. You look at the polys scene in, in San Francisco, and it’s like super toxic because it’s basically a bunch of like effective altruists. Watch our episode on the ea to who pipeline who attempt to groom young women who first enter the movement with like logic.

Like, well, it gives me pleasure and it gives you pleasure. How could it be wrong? Right. And it begins to look cool to these young women and they get into it and then older women in the space come up to them and they’re like, Hey I think this guy is using you. And then they’re like, oh, this older woman’s just trying to make guard.

You know, like, and because that’s what the guys will say, or something like that. Yes. They

Simone Collins: won’t listen. Yeah. Even

Malcolm Collins: when they try to protect each other, the guys have moved up in this community through some other means, like they’ve gotten high level positions and like that’s some effective altru org, so it’s hard to kick them out or something like that.

And so it creates [01:22:00] this dynamic where you get bad actors all over the place and because the community isn’t ruthless about expelling people. Yeah. And. Dine if a guy tried to say, because most of the guys in the Dine are like, finance bros and stuff like that. Tried to say something like oh, well she’s just mate guarding this, you know.

Attractive woman who’s higher status than you in the community telling you not to get with me. That woman would then be like, okay, now you guy who just said that, like it goes through the Whisper network really fast, you’re not invited.

Simone Collins: Yeah. It was kind of like the Bachelor, you know, you get handed Rose or something.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And everyone knows not to engage with you. So it’s weird that in this one scenario, like matriarchy seems to keep the entire system stable.

Simone Collins: Yeah. It was so cool. It was so weird

Malcolm Collins: and cool. Matriarchy and hyper gamy, keeping a system stable in a non-traditional structure. Okay. Whatever.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: That was fascinating.

I wonder if it’s still stable or if it’s basically collapsed at this point. It says,

Simone Collins: I know, I know. Well, some of the people in it that, that I, we, we had known had moved away, you know, moved to other [01:23:00] cities and gone on to become parents and stuff. So I, I doubt that they’re still that involved in it. But

Malcolm Collins: yeah,

Simone Collins: I don’t know.

And I, I think I got the impression when we were hanging in that circle too, that there were a lot of really new entrants who were just young and kind of having that experience. For a while and you kind of get through it. Like maybe for some people being poly, is this postgraduate equivalent of being briefly lesbian in college?

You know, and then you kind of get it outta your system and move on and enter committed relationships. I don’t know. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, hold on. I need to ask a question, but you can keep talking.

Simone Collins: I also love watching our kids dance too. Gangnam style. That is just God tier entertainment so good. But yeah, I’m trying to think if there’s anything that I haven’t told you yet about my trip to Austin.

I, [01:24:00] I do have to say I really like the network of people there. You know, like I wish I could just tap into that social network all the time. I. That and like hang around Light Haven in Berkeley. I think it would be lovely. But I don’t want to fly out to these places and I don’t want to live in either of those places.

So this is the price we pay. It’s just us and the chickens over here, and that’s okay.

Malcolm Collins: All right.

Speaker 11: We’re just about to head back from Austin where we filmed a round table, uh, with Chris Williamson and two other demographers, line Stone and well documentarian Steven Shaw and I can’t wait to get back and get home to the kids. It was good to be in Austin, but I really like our home in Valley Forge.

It’s pretty great there and. Travel just isn’t as [01:25:00] fun as it used to be. I don’t know. The appeal has worn off, so I’m glad I was able to make it out. I’m glad I was able to do it all for one backpack for the, the two of us because you got a lot of stuff, all the formula, all the diapers. There’s a lot there.

Um, and the elevator in our hotel broke. This morning, so there was hauling this car seat down 11 floors, which was not my favorite moment. Yeah, it was not the best, but that’s over. And the round table, which was supposed to go for two hours, I think went for four. So hopefully that means it went well. Who knows?

But, uh, it was really, really fun to have that conversation. Um, and I love that we get to do work that has us talking with really interesting, fun people and that yields opportunities like these, um, [01:26:00] ‘cause it’s a, it’s a perk. It’s, it’s not comfortable, but it’s interesting.

🚨 The Southern Poverty Law Center — one of America’s largest “anti-racism” organizations — was caught funding the KKK and neo-Nazi groups with millions of dollars.

In this explosive Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the shocking DOJ indictment revealing how the SPLC used money laundering, fake entities, and paid plants to keep cartoonish racist organizations alive. Why? Because the “racism industrial complex” needs visible villains to keep the donations flowing.

Topics covered:

• How the SPLC funded the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally

• The economics of fear-based nonprofits

• Why much of today’s “far-right” extremism appears AstroTurfed

• Nick Fuentes botting & relevance farming

• The difference between real policy discussion and performative racism

• How genuine conversation on race, immigration, and culture gets sabotaged

This is must-watch content for anyone tired of the endless outrage cycle.

Show Notes

The Department of Justice’s Bombshell News

The Indictment

* According to the indictment, some Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) donor funds were used to secretly pay leaders and members of racist, violent extremist groups, and at least part of that money was used to support their organizing and activities, including the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally.

* The indictment alleges that, contrary to donor-facing representations about “dismantling” hate groups, SPLC used donor funds to pay a covert network of informants (“field sources” or “Fs”) who were themselves leaders or members of extremist racist organizations.

Key uses of funds described:

* Covert payments to informants embedded in or leading groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, National Socialist Movement, and American Front.

* More than $3 million in SPLC funds were secretly funneled between 2014 and 2023 to these Fs associated with various violent extremist groups.

* Funds were routed through fictitious entities and disguised bank accounts (Center Investigative Agency, Fox Photography, North West Technologies, Tech Writers Group, Rare Books Warehouse) to conceal that the money came from SPLC donor funds.

* After those accounts were shut down, SPLC allegedly continued to pay Fs via ACH transfers labeled with disguised monikers such as “Rarebooks050” and “IPResearchCON050.”

Examples of specific racist/extremist activities supported

The document gives concrete examples where SPLC funds allegedly enabled or facilitated racist organizing or demonstrations, not just passive “information gathering.”

* Unite the Right rally (Charlottesville, 2017)

* F‑37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 “Unite the Right” event in Charlottesville.

* F‑37 attended the event at SPLC’s direction, made racist postings under SPLC supervision, and helped coordinate transportation for several attendees.

* SPLC secretly paid F‑37 more than $270,000 between 2015 and 2023.

* This means SPLC funds, as alleged, were used to pay someone who actively participated in planning and logistics for a major racist demonstration.

* Support to the National Alliance (neo‑Nazi organization)

* F‑9 was affiliated with the neo‑Nazi National Alliance and served as an SPLC F for more than 20 years.

* F‑9’s activities included fundraising for the National Alliance, while being paid more than $1,000,000 by SPLC between 2014 and 2023.

* The indictment states that SPLC donation money was used “for the benefit of the individuals as well as the violent extremist groups,” which in this case includes a fundraiser for a neo‑Nazi organization.

* Payments to leaders of other racist groups

* F‑27: reported officer in the National Socialist Movement and Aryan Nations‑affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, secretly paid more than $300,000 (2014–2020).

* F‑42: former chairman of the National Alliance, featured on SPLC’s “Extremist File” donation page, paid more than $140,000 between 2016 and 2023.

* F‑30: leader of the National Socialist Party of America, former director of a faction of Aryan Nations, former member of the Ku Klux Klan; paid more than $70,000 between 2014 and 2016 while SPLC simultaneously used his “Extremist File” page to solicit donations.

* F‑43: reported National President of American Front and convicted federal felon for participation in a cross burning; paid more than $19,000.

* Another F described as Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America, and another as a Ku Klux Klan member married to an Exalted Cyclops, also received SPLC payments; one Klan‑connected F received more than $3,500 during litigation about Klan participation in an Adopt‑a‑Highway program.

* Indirect funding to additional extremist leaders

* The SPLC allegedly funneled more than $160,000 from a fictitious entity to F‑11, who then sent funds to various violent extremist group leaders, including a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

The press release

“Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals who were associated with various violent extremist groups including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America

A Grand Jury in Montgomery, Alabama, today returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division filed two forfeiture actions to recover alleged proceeds of the organization’s fraud scheme. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated this case with assistance from the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Using donor money to allegedly profit off Klansmen cannot go unchecked. This Department of Justice will hold the SPLC and every other fraudulent organization operating with the same deceptive playbook accountable. No entity is above the law.”

“The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes. That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.”

The SPLC is a non-profit organization headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, whose mission, according to its website during the relevant time period, was to be a “catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.”

According to the indictment starting in the 1980s, the SPLC began operating a covert network of individuals who were either associated with violent and extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, or who had infiltrated violent extremist groups at the SPLC’s direction. Unbeknownst to donors, some of their donated money was being used to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website.

“Donors gave their money believing they were supporting the fight against violent extremism,” said Acting United States Attorney Kevin Davidson. “As alleged, the SPLC instead diverted a portion of those funds to benefit individuals and groups they claimed to oppose. That kind of deception undermines public trust and social cohesion.”

Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals who were associated with various violent extremist groups including:

Ku Klux Klan

United Klans of America

Unite the Right

National Alliance

National Socialist Movement

Aryan Nations affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club

National Socialist Party of America (American Nazi Party)

American Front

According to the indictment, the objective of the scheme and artifice was to obtain money via donations through materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for.

In order to covertly pay the individuals, the SPLC opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities. The covert nature of the accounts allowed the SPLC to disguise the true nature, source, ownership, and control of the fraudulently obtained donated money the SPLC paid the individuals. In order to keep the scheme going, the SPLC made a series of false statements related to the operation of the accounts.

A conviction will result in the forfeiture of financial gains from the alleged illegal activities.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel made the announcement in Washington.

The details contained in the civil forfeiture complaint are allegations only.

Updated April 21, 2026”

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Response

They stopped posting on X in 2024 but in hindsight their posts look like reports of all the “alt-right hate” they’re funding lol

Their response on YouTube

* In a pre‑indictment video statement, interim CEO Bryan Fair said SPLC had been informed it was under a federal criminal investigation focused on its “prior use of paid confidential informants” to infiltrate “extremely violent groups.”

* He framed the paid‑informant program as a dangerous but necessary tool to gather credible intelligence on white supremacist and extremist groups that pose serious threats to communities.

SPLC leaders have said they will “vigorously” defend the organization, its staff, and its work against what they describe as baseless or politically driven accusations.

They characterize the program of paid informants as a longstanding effort to infiltrate extremist groups in order to monitor threats and prevent violence, not to support or promote those groups.

Interim CEO Bryan Fair has publicly defended the payments as necessary to place people at personal risk inside violent organizations and said information from informants was shared with law enforcement and “saved lives.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Salaries

* Margaret Huang – President / CEO

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 466,934 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 55,806 USD

* Derwyn Bunton – Chief Legal Officer

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 264,277 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 37,801 USD

* Lashawn Warren – Chief Policy Officer

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 256,191 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 37,435 USD

* Seth Levi – Chief Program Strategy Officer

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 251,745 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 36,151 USD

* Ann Beeson – Chief Program Officer

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 249,191 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 47,519 USD

* Sybil Hadley – General Counsel

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 242,869 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 47,089 USD

* Cherry Gamble – Chief Development Officer / Interim Chief of Staff

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 240,721 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 47,208 USD

* Arun Kandel – Chief Information Officer

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 239,894 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 46,924 USD

* Twyla Williams – Chief Human Resources Officer

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 237,861 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 47,505 USD

* Erika Mitchell – Treasurer / CFO

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 225,020 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 45,658 USD

* Shannon Farley – Interim Chief of Staff

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 210,108 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 43,710 USD

* Julian Teixeira – Chief Communications Officer

* Reportable compensation from SPLC: 190,894 USD

* Other compensation from SPLC/related organizations: 28,552 USD

Episode Transcript

Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I am beyond thrilled to be here with you today because we got the craziest of crazy news.

Oh my God. The KKK was funded by the Southern Poverty Law Center. For people who don’t know, that is one of the largest Anti-Defamation. Anti-racism organizations in the United States. This is the core leader and shield bearer of wokes with the only organizations that even come close being things like I wanna say the, the, like a DL right.

And, and

Simone Collins: they’re worse than the a DL. They’re, they’re more, they’re more extreme and active than the a DL, from

Malcolm Collins: my view. Yes. This is like the leaders of the woke. This is, this is woke Kings of America,

Simone Collins: the ultimate fighters of racism, presumably,

Malcolm Collins: and not to a small amount. It was literally millions of dollars, multiple.

Millions of dollars. And when you consider the amount of funding that something like the K, k, K [00:01:00] is likely actually getting from people, because if you’re employable or the type of person who can make millions of dollars, you typically don’t fund the K, KK.

Simone Collins: No,

Malcolm Collins: because well, one thing, you wanna keep your source of income even if you secretly agreed with them.

And even if you didn’t, very few people who are like. Competent and make a lot of money are that level of racism in in the brand of the K, k, K

Simone Collins: oh yeah. And also if, if you are actually super racist and you have a lot of money. You would secretly fund acts of racism in other ways? Like these organizations are not

Malcolm Collins: effective.

Simone Collins: Yeah, they’re not actually effective in driving racism. Like maybe you’d buy like Russian bot farms to fuel, like racist hate or something. Maybe pay some like Pakistani people to like, you know, spam with a lot of clips that are racist. X and YouTube and Instagram, but not. Not the K, k, K. It’s so weird.

Not like the National Socialists in in America. [00:02:00] What are you doing?

Malcolm Collins: This may have been, and we’ll be going into this the core thing, keeping the lights on at the KKK. Mm-hmm. And note here, it wasn’t just the KKK, you know, the Charlotte V riots that the left freaked out at forever. And then they play that clipped piece of Trump saying good people on both sides, and then saying very explicitly, but I do not mean the racist.

Right. Like obviously

Simone Collins: they leave that out. No, no one knows about that

Malcolm Collins: party. No, they leave that out, right? Because they lie. That’s the only way that their side seems like the good guys. But it turns out that the racists who were at that rally were bused there. By the Southern Poverty Law Center’s dollar

Simone Collins: and or were paid plants by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Malcolm Collins: Well, they say paid plants, but I wanna go into how plausible is it that these people were actually paid plants and that they were not paying to just keep the lights on within these organizations so that they would have a reason to protest, to ask for more power, to ask for more money to [00:03:00] accumulate.

You know, government and bureaucratic resources in power,

Simone Collins: because this exemplifies something we say about nonprofits over and over. If you see a nonprofit that makes its money from donations and has survived for any non-trivial period of time. This is not something that exists to, to serve its mission.

This is an organization that specializes in raising money. And if you’re raising money, presumably for a cause, the bigger and badder and scarier, the, the battle you’re fighting seems the more effective you will be at your actual functional purpose, which is raising money. So the Southern Poverty Law Center, it, it’s existentially dependent on the existence of.

Cartoonish racism in the United States. And this really exemplifies just how terrible it is to be an organization that depends on donations for survival.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I think, and I’ve said this and this is one of the things we’re gonna go over in this episode, is that [00:04:00] most of the cartoonish racism w.

States, it’s now clear is actually AstroTurf by leftist. Yeah. And we’re gonna go into evidence of, for example, Nick Fuentes. Over half of his viewership maybe around 75% looks to be Botted. Oh. Really? Yeah. I mean the, the left has basically made him relevant again by continuously publishing pieces on him and doing, which we will go into.

A huge amount of botting of him, because obviously this isn’t right wing people botting him, he keeps telling people to vote against Republicans, right? Like he’s one of the biggest annoyances to the Republican party. The group that benefits the most from his voice going silent is Republicans, right?

Mm-hmm. And so what we’re basically gonna point out is, is this is just not a, a widely held position among any portion of the base. There aren’t these cartoonish racists out there anymore. Yeah. At least in terms of like any, any organized capacity, any large ground swell capacity, there [00:05:00] are people with specific racial grievances.

Like the tearing down of historic statues. But anyone could see why that would cause somebody to be upset or people taking jobs for undermarket rages or certain groups acting in ways that are unfair, like, promoting their own over outsiders, like happens sometimes with Indian immigrants and people can complain about that.

Or crime waves associated. With Catholic immigrants, which we have another wave of right now. And every time we get a wave of those, we get a huge organized crime. Boom. Point out like the mob, the mafia, just a Catholic immigrant thing. But these are all, these are all his like just things that we, the US have done historically.

The cartoonish racism. And again, people will be like, oh, cartoonish racism is historic to America. That might be a whole other episode is, is how actual were people in the past? Yeah. And we’ve pointed out when you actually go to writings and stuff like that during the period of active slavery, there was a lot of cartoonish [00:06:00] racism.

But the average person was probably significantly less racist than you would imagine from what you are taught in schools today. Mm-hmm. And after slavery was over you know, you go to the 1950s and stuff like that. In some ways the average, like if you’re contrasting it with the white economic situation.

Today is significantly better when compared to the black economic situation than the two were in like the 1950s, for example. Mm-hmm. Same with racially motivated violence. If you look at black people who were killed from 1950 to 1960, I go to 1950. ‘cause that’s when people see as like the, the cartoonish.

You know, whatever period.

Simone Collins: Exactly.

Malcolm Collins: And you contrast that and we have other videos where we like go into all the numbers on this with a number of black people who were killed or racially motivated crimes in the past 10 years. It’s something like five x higher in the last 10 years. Yeah. Which I think things

Simone Collins: have not improved.

Malcolm Collins: Surprise a lot of people. Well, no, it’s not that they’ve not improved. It’s that we might have been sold a false history about. Racial tensions in the United States. Mm-hmm. Which [00:07:00] some people and I, I’ve noted a lot of people who are these young men who are cued and tricked by these leftist campaigns into believing things that work against the broader rights goals.

Is, is they sort of adopt a conservatism that isn’t a indicative of any real historic thought pattern, but is much closer to what a woke progressive Cartoonishly depicts their conservative villain to be. Mm-hmm. You know, that’s, that’s like I point out like, nick Fuentes ideology is completely incoherent.

He’s a Catholic integralist who is upset about Catholic, Hispanic immigration into the United States. If you are unaware of what the end goal of Catholic nationalism is, it’s that the whole world is under one Catholic government, right? The the Vatican, right? If he. You [00:08:00] cannot want borders to stop existing and all be under one giant global Catholic government and be upset about a majority Catholic immigrant population.

That makes no sense. That is completely incoherent,

Speaker: Specifically, what I mean by that is the entire world existing underneath a Catholic government being the ideal form of government, presumably means that the United States would only be better from your perspective as it became more Catholic. And you can’t say, well, they’re a different type of Catholic from a different region.

Because the end goal is all regions under one government,

Malcolm Collins: but. Catholicism is seen as like the most bog standard christiany form of Christianity to Wokes. So I’m gonna go with that. And being racist, well, I’m scared of racist, so I’m gonna go with that. And I bet these cartoonist racists really hate Mexicans, so I’m gonna go with that.

And I also [00:09:00] point out here Catholicism more broadly. Generally like institutionally, one of the least racist forms of Christianity. And it has had to be given the way that it proselytizes. Yeah. So even the idea of being Catholic and a racial supremacist is a totally incoherent ide ideology.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Like, have you. Seen how Catholicism has spread, how there’s this constant interest in trying to be like, oh, you know, you’ve always been Catholic. You’re one of us. Like it’s one of the most inclusive religions in the entire world. Insane.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Like all your local gods we’re actually saints and you just made a mistake.

And we can, we can work with that. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: So that is. And, and this is us. People who are typically on the show are seen as anti Romans or anti Catholics, right? You know, saying this right? Like it is not a racist religion. The Vatican is constantly putting out tracks about how we need no borders.

We need, you know, let more immigrants in. This is [00:10:00] constant, like this is constantly coming from this pope. The last Pope. This is like mainstream. So what, what, the point I’m making here is a lot of these young people. And I, when I, when I talk about somebody like Nick Fuentes or some of these people who are funded by these organizations I’m not saying that they didn’t come to these positions on their own but Nick Fuentes even talks about how he came to his position.

It wasn’t through logic, it was through feeling pushed into these positions. Mm-hmm. By what’s his name?

Simone Collins: Ben Shapiro.

Malcolm Collins: Ben Shapiro, and other people who constantly went after him. And it’s like. I can,

Simone Collins: how seemingly out of nowhere before he was famous or big.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, we’re gonna do a different episode on the Jews where we go into, like, the Jews are causing a lot of problems for themselves right now and Jewish.

Communities need to like they are minting, antisemites. And if you look at Nick Fuentes history and how he was turned into an antisemite, you can see how any like young person could have been [00:11:00] radicalized by the way that. Ben Shapiro using e enormous power compared to what Nick had at the time attempted to isolate and freeze him out.

And there’s some people who back down when you do that to them. But there’s a lot of people, especially people from young white male cultures in the United States that if you do that to them, they are only going to double down you, you that, that, that is, that it like definitionally, there is nothing you could have done to him that would’ve forced him to double down more.

Simone Collins: Huge tactical mistake.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. A massive tactical mistakes that’s being made across Jewish issues right now, which, separate episode, because that one’s going to piss off a lot of people. It’s, it’s bad. It’s bad. But I wanted to go into this because what I wanna understand is one, who are they funding?

What were they doing right? How did they think this would work for people who wanna say no? No, no. Genuinely they were just trying to get information on these organizations. That, that’s the biggest question I have. Were they, like, were they doing what they’re [00:12:00] saying they were doing, or were they actually just trying to fund the opposition?

So, and, and opposition existed so that their stupid flywheel of money could go on forever. Right. Have you looked into the, the cases of this Simone? Like, are you familiar? I have like, what’s your take

Simone Collins: on it? Yes. Yeah. Before

Malcolm Collins: we go,

Simone Collins: what’s my take on, like, what’s actually going on? I, I think that they, they reasoned internally to themselves that they were.

Putting plants and informants inside these organizations and or working with people who said that they would be willing to serve as such for them. Mm-hmm. But I do not think that functionally that’s what they ended up doing. And it really. Maybe without fully consciously acknowledging it, they were just fueling the racism themselves.

We, we had experienced personally someone who was acting as an undercover plant for the UK’s equivalent of the Southern Poverty Law [00:13:00] Center called Hope Not Hate.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: And so we know that organizations do this. They make up fake identities and they, yeah. Clearly, you know, fund these people. They give, they give them budgets to go and try to embed with racists.

But then we see, we saw the other end of it in the most charitable interpretation of this. You know, one in which funding wasn’t used to fuel bad activity. Right. Which we know it was, we know it was used to transport people to the, the Charlottesville protests. We know it was used to do actual concrete, naughty things as it were.

But still what we were, what what, what happened with us was the, the plant from Hope, not Hate, that interacted with us acted like they were a prospective investor. But they were like super racist and kind of like kept dog whistling to us about sort of being some kind of supremacist. And like they wanted to give us money now.

They never gave us money. They never funded us. So Hope [00:14:00] not hate was not doing that, but they were still actively like shifting what could have been an Overton window. Like our world, they were trying to communicate like,

Malcolm Collins: yeah, they,

Simone Collins: I have money and if you guys lean into my racist messaging, then you can have money too.

Malcolm Collins: Which, yeah, but they were basically actively trying to make the prenatal list movement a more racist movement in ev in everything that they did at everything that they went to.

Simone Collins: And this is the most charitable interpretation where no money was actually given, where this wasn’t used to fund any, any naughty, bad stuff.

It was still

way,

Malcolm Collins: It’s, this is stuff that we, you know, we’ve already seen from organizations like hope Not Hate that they. Embedded people in the prenatal movement to try to make the movement with promises of future funding more racist. Now we pushed back against that. That is clear in the hope not hate documentation of what happened here, where we’re like no.

Obviously they don’t, they don’t. Publish that part, but it’s pretty obvious given that they weren’t able to get us saying anything racist. [00:15:00] That we pushed back pretty hard on his racist stuff.

Simone Collins: But let’s look at, so in terms of this Southern Poverty Law Center, did, did you look at the indictment from the Department of Justice?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: And the claims made

Malcolm Collins: so.

Simone Collins: Because the indictment shows that this is just so much worse than what we had experienced from an embedded, you know, again, charitably interpreted, embedded plant trying to expose

Malcolm Collins: things. Well,

Simone Collins: no, it’s so

Malcolm Collins: much worse. And, and to me, I think it’s implausible that they were just trying to get information.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So in the indictment, they, they they anonymize the secret plants, you know, that were put and they give them, they

Malcolm Collins: probably are because we found that

Simone Collins: Oh, that’s great. But in terms of the Charlotte, the Charlottesville plant. There’s just no way that they didn’t fuel things happening. So they call this one F 37 in the indictment.

Mm-hmm. And F 37 was. Okay, if allegedly, they’re a Southern Poverty Law Center, they, nevertheless were a member of the online Leadership chat group [00:16:00] that planned the 2017 Unite the Right Event in Charlottesville. They, they participated in planning it. They attended the event at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s direction.

They made racist postings under their supervision and helped coordinate transportation for several attendees without their participation. It is plausible that maybe the event would not have happened. Because I could even see, again, if I go back to the, you know, our interaction,

Malcolm Collins: a plan, no, I mean, it’s, it’s worse than that.

It wouldn’t have happened. What would’ve happened is it would’ve just been a normal right wing event, right wing protest against racialist overreach against. Whites in America, which the leftists regularly do, and is something worthy of protesting.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: But they come in with this explicit racist messaging so that they can discount a a protest.

It’s over an issue that a lot of people care about.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And it’s, it’s, [00:17:00] it’s been shown in so many different psychological studies that people. We’ll lean into norms set in a group. So if you have someone coming in and they’re just like saying all these racist things and stuff like. Especially if they’re charismatic.

And, and funny and otherwise like genial you know, people might be like, yeah, sure, like whatever. Like, it makes me kind of uncomfortable, but I’m trying to fit in here. This is also a very known issue, like I think plants with the FBI and and other government organizations that have also been embedded to try to.

Root out bad things like this then sometimes get implicated in crimes happening that would not have otherwise happened because they’re like supplying guns and they’re, they’re supplying other things and they not going too far.

Malcolm Collins: The thing that makes it implausible for me is so like, okay, so they, they have these plants in these organizations?

Simone Collins: Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: well, there are a few. Innocent things you could argue. Now, first note that it, the big red flag for me that, that this is not an innocent [00:18:00] explanation. Okay. Is they were funding fund fund funding this through money laundering.

Simone Collins: Oh, yes. Yeah. So the Southern Poverty Law Center created these separate bank accounts with different names that were so, you know, like, oh, what were the names of some of them?

They were so suss. They, they were, they created fictitious entities called the Center Investigative Agency and Fox Photography, and Northwest Technologies and Tech Writers Group and Rare Books Warehouse to conceal the money that came from the donor funds from this, this nonprofit. And then after the accounts were shut down they claim in the indictment at least.

That the Southern Poverty Law Center then continued to pay these, these secret informants through Aach H transfers, which they labeled with disguised monikers, like rare books, 0 5 0, and IPR Research con 0 5 0.

Malcolm Collins: So wait, they were caught and they went back to doing it after being caught.

Simone Collins: I didn’t pick up [00:19:00] from the indictment, which I’m gonna link to in the show notes.

I’ll put show notes in. It why they were, why those accounts were shut down. But I think at that point they were trying to hide it. Keep in mind and I don’t know, like in the response that they have posted to this indictment, it is an interim CEO giving the response. And the, that means that, like there’s the, the, the former CEO whose salary I have ‘cause I also wanna discuss how much of this leadership is, is making for this nonprofit.

How

Malcolm Collins: much, how much?

Simone Collins: So I think something happened with leadership. Maybe they saw this coming or they knew about the indictment. They must have known about the indictment and that this was coming. So the previous CEO, who was Margaret Huang, she made $466,934 in reportable compensation per the, the nine 90 nonprofit filing

Malcolm Collins: half million dollars a year,

Simone Collins: half a million dollars

Malcolm Collins: she was making.

Simone Collins: And then other compensation from Southern Poverty Law Center related organizations, another $55,000. [00:20:00]

Malcolm Collins: So,

Simone Collins: which is like, you know, a year’s salary for a normal person. But no, that’s just her extra,

Malcolm Collins: extra

Simone Collins: compensation.

Malcolm Collins: So what I wanna go over here is, is to continue going through this thought experiment. Yeah.

So, we know that they were willing to go to great lengths to attempt to hide this, which keep in mind you can do this sort of stuff without needing to hide these trails. Right. Like the k, k, K does not have a very sophisticated financial investigation wing. To track this stuff. The, the guy who was embedded in the prenatal orgs by hope, not hate, he didn’t have to launder money to do that.

So the fact that they went out of their way to launder money to do these sorts of operations against technologically unsophisticated. Groups that are dramatically underfunded certainly wouldn’t be able to track them. Shows that this was about hiding it, not from those groups, but from stuff like the federal government.

Simone Collins: Well, no, from donors is, and that’s what this indictment is about. It’s, it’s not like a. Oh, you’re trying to hide this from us. It’s that you lied to [00:21:00] donors. These people thought that they were funding ‘cause they’re very clear about their mission, that they’re trying to, you know, bring an end to racism in the south and to create a very inclusive, you know, non-racist America.

What they were ending up doing was funding the most racist organizations in the United States, like cartoonishly, racist, not even efficacious organizations.

Malcolm Collins: Well, we keep seeing this like the BLM fraud, right? Where, you know, they, they ran off with all the money. But, okay. So could they plausibly?

Actually another tangent I wanna go on before I go into this.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: This is why we on the right need to be very guarded against people who come off like this, right? Or against people who have been fooled by people who come off like this and be like, no, that’s not what we stand for. And you really shouldn’t say things like that.

You, it. It’s not even to say like. It’s wrong, which I don’t say. I say, well, I can understand how somebody could [00:22:00] have these perspectives. It doesn’t help us win. Okay. Including that in the panoply of things that we are fighting for does not help us win. Mm-hmm. And this is where somebody. On the leaflets red, they wanted me to address this Asma Gold saying that he agrees with 99% of what Nick Fuentes says, right?

And I’m like, yeah, I do too. Nick Fuentes says a lot of stuff. But when you say it’s, it’s the 1% of stuff that’s absolutely crazy that I’m like. That’s obviously meant to sabotage the wider movement. You say 99% of things. Okay. And then you say that 1%, like, I, you know, I want US troops to die, right? Like, what I want the US to lose in Iran.

How, how are you on our side in any of this? Right. Or when I talk about like the things that the right just can’t accept when he is like, I, you know, I can’t support Trump anymore because he took JD Vance to the can, a VP candidate JD Vance a. [00:23:00] Anti-war. He’s the most anti-Iran war guy right now in the White House?

Catholic.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But because he’s in an interracial relationship actually having, is that

Simone Collins: his stated reason? Is that his stated

Malcolm Collins: reason? That was his original stated reason. He’s in an interracial, oh Lord. I don’t think, bro, that will not win elections. We will never, and people are like, well, if we could get all the whites to vote this way, but they won’t.

Okay. You know, they won’t, I know they won’t because

Simone Collins: they just, they don’t care. Most people don’t care.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So if you culturally want to have some, some bias against that, fine, whatever. But we are in this to actually win, not get money from the what it is or Southern Poverty Law Center. SPCL is that S

Simone Collins: plc.

Malcolm Collins: SPLC. SPLC Nick? Yes from the, the Southern Property Law Center. And I, and I, and I note that like, you, you guys need to stop being so gullible about this stuff. Like, I, [00:24:00] it kind of gets me, because I wonder when we do some comments are these like page shows trying to make us look at, it’s very clear that on like our subreddit recently, a bunch of people have been coming in creating stupid straw band arguments that nobody who’s like actually trying to win would be making

Simone Collins: really.

Malcolm Collins: And it’s like. Why is somebody doing this? Oh, you’re probably trying to get this rubber band entirely, you know, you already got it. Shadow banned when it, when it previously had made its way up to one of the top 50 easily subreddits on the website. Mm-hmm. Which was very frustrating. But that’s where we are.

But okay. Back to plausible. Is their explanation good enough? So it was over the course of nine years mm-hmm. It was over $3 million with so

Simone Collins: much money,

Malcolm Collins: 1 million alone going to just one guy in organization. So enormous amounts, concentrating, going to individuals, keeping this stuff alive involved in the biggest flash points in organizing the biggest racial flash points.

And so you could say, well, why could they have been [00:25:00] doing this? Like, what are the plausible other reasons to do this? Reason number one is they wanted to sabotage these organization’s efforts, right? Like that could have been a good reason to do this. Completely implausible. Like, the, the, the guys made no actions to sabotage anything and repeatedly advanced the efforts of these organizations and then got more money, like you could say, like maybe we gave him some money and he said he was gonna sabotage it and then he didn’t sabotage it and then we stopped giving him money.

But no, they like went outta the way to even change how they were funding the guy. Right. Or, or various of these guys. So that’s, that’s not in this

Simone Collins: Well, yeah, you’re, so the, the, just to be a little more concrete, the over 1 million that you’re referring to was for not the unite the right, like the unite the right rally that we referred to earlier, but rather a different informant that was associated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance and.

They, the indictment at least states that the [00:26:00] donation money was used, quote for the benefit of the individuals as well as the. Violent extremist groups. End quote, which in this case includes a fundraiser for neo-Nazi organization. They’re, yeah, just, I just wanna be super clear when Malcolm says like, help them, you know, perpetuate themselves and, and survive that, that, that is what was actually going on.

Which is. Unhinged. And, and also just to be clear,

Malcolm Collins: so let’s go to other potential reasons, okay? Okay.

Simone Collins: Okay. So

Malcolm Collins: no, it wasn’t to sabotage the organizations ‘cause they were doing the exact,

Simone Collins: no, they were helping them raise money. Okay. Right. They were helping them raise money and they were, they were filling the pockets and sustaining the lifestyle of basically people who served as free volunteers for these organizations, keeping them alive.

Malcolm Collins: So, we have the plausible, they are infiltrating these organizations to sabotage them not happening. Okay? It could be that they were infiltrating these organizations to gather evidence. And this is one of the, the, the things that they’ve claimed. One of these [00:27:00] guys rated an opposing white nationalist organizations offices and stole documentation.

The problem is, is this super doesn’t hold up. Let me explain why. So what information might you have wanted to get from these organizations? The key reason you would want to implant yourself in a potentially racist organization like Hope Not Hate did with us was to try to find evidence of, or create evidence of that organization being racist.

Yes. The problem is, is that the organizations that they were implanting themselves in. Are clearly on their face racist. You don’t need a secret informant to know that the KKK is racist.

Simone Collins: I hadn’t even thought about that. Yeah, right. Guys, guys, we found out the KK, K, they’re kind of racist.

Malcolm Collins: They, they do racist.

Tough and have a racist view. Yes, that’s good’s, that’s completely implausible. Amazing. So you could say, okay, [00:28:00] well it might be to track their operations or to look for like, are they gonna do anything violent in the future or anything like that, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah. And, and to be clear, the interim CEO. Response to this indictment press release is the, the information we found saved lives.

They’re, they’re trying to argue that just, just to, again

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Share their thought. The problem is, is that this is also completely implausible. So first of all, the information that they gathered from these organizations the, the files that they stole and stuff like that were of. Past actions of the organization.

They weren’t of future plans of the organization, they were of past receipts, et cetera, right? Like they were about what the organization had did historically. That is a very little utility. Of saving lives or preventing future terroristic action. Secondarily, the people that they were giving money to within these organizations [00:29:00] seemed ideologically aligned with these organizational visions, right?

They were only using this money to advance the causes of these organizations. If there was some terroristic action in the planning, these people simply wouldn’t tell them. They would have no reason to tell them. They would actually have an even easier time occluding that some terroristic action was happening.

If you wanted to search out that, what you would do is embed somebody in these organizations like Hope Not Hated with views that are. Actually leftist views just pretending to be a rightist. You don’t actually give the money to somebody who wants to say, exterminate the Jews, right? Like that. What, what, what else could they plausibly have, have put them in for?

And I’d note here if they’re like, oh, this information saved lives. Point to it. What operation did you run based on this? What? [00:30:00] Nothing.

Simone Collins: No. All they said was that they gave information to law enforcement that saved lives. They weren’t explicit about it. It’s

Malcolm Collins: not illegal for them to be explicit about it, so why aren’t they?

Oh, because they

Simone Collins: lying. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s true. If I were them, I’d be like, look, there was this one instance where they were like, we’re gonna take out this guy, and then we told the police and that guy was put in a safe house and now he’s Okay. I wanna say that. Yeah. It’s, it’s much better story. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: The, the final and this, this is the like, okay. Maybe, maybe is they were just trying to get people involved in these organizations arrested get enough information from people within this wider sphere who might have been hostile to other people that is you. You note the people that they were targeting is people who had lots of beefs within these spaces and get them to attempt to wipe people out of these spaces.

That. That is plausible. But then why, why aren’t they, why aren’t they noting wins on [00:31:00] that front? Like presumably they should have been able to get multiple arrests with, with that much money and that time in? Well,

Simone Collins: the, the narrative they’ve presented though, because they’re saying, well, we’re not doing it anymore.

And when we did do it. It was in order to gather credible intelligence on white supremacist and extremist groups that pose serious threats to communities. So I think the story they’re trying to sell is, well, we thought that if we paid these people to be spies and moles inside these organizations, that we would be able to protect vulnerable communities that might be victimized by them.

And that was the whole point. When I mean that it’s flimsy, but when you look at the reporting. On very left-leaning organizations or media outlets that are covering this, they’re just running with it. Like, well, obviously the Southern Poverty Law Center needed to embed with evil groups to keep people safe.

And they sort of hand wave with that. And so, I mean, [00:32:00] it’s not great, but I think if you, if you don’t pay enough attention, it’s okay. Works

Malcolm Collins: well. Yeah. If you’re, if you’re not paying attention, this seems plausible, but if you actually look at the on the ground facts, we don’t have any meaningful information that was ever transferred to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Now, let’s look at the counterfactual, right? Mm-hmm. They would put that information out there. There’s legally no reason why they shouldn’t.

Simone Collins: Well, they kind of do. So they, they went off, they went off off Twitter, ex, formerly known as Twitter in 2024. With Elon Musk, I think really rising on it. Yeah. They just, they left their account there, but they stopped posting.

And that was the period in which this whole activity was very active. And now all of their posts, which they just, you know, left up. Feel like just a report on all of the racist activity that they funded. They’re like, look at the racism across America. And they like proudly have, you know, their whole like racist maps of America and all this stuff.

And [00:33:00] it now when you look at it and you scroll through it, knowing this it just reads so different active hate in anti-government groups in the US in 2023. And then it like gives this like animated map. And it just seems like. This proud count of things that they’ve funded. It’s really bad. No,

Malcolm Collins: but the the funny thing is, is that, the, if you, if you think about this from their perspective.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. So you are them. Let’s go back 10 years when this started, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: If you guys remember what the KKK was like 10 years ago or what racist groups were like in America 10 years ago, they would do like a KKK rally and it’d be like four old men like walking through.

Yeah, it made you actually feel kind of sad for them. You’re like, wow. Like, they’d

Simone Collins: be like, oh buddy. Like, do you want, do you want me to join you?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Like, come on man.

Simone Collins: I’ll put on a blue pillow and some khakis and they’re

Malcolm Collins: not a threat to

Simone Collins: anyone. Teammate, torch and walk with you. Yeah, it’s

Malcolm Collins: okay. Giant crowd yelling at them was of course, [00:34:00] always happened as well.

Now you look at like the tiki torch rallies and stuff like that during the period that this was being funded. I can totally see what’s going through their heads. They look at these protests and they’re like, this is why nobody’s giving us money anymore because there aren’t cartoonish racists in America anymore.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: And we need to create them. And. Note here, like you can talk about like, and this is what the new right. People are like, oh, I don’t like you speaking on the values of this new right movement. It’s like, I’m, I’m sorry. There’s few people who more embody the tech right than like us, right? Like we we’re, we’re not only that, but we have a pretty loud voice in the space as well.

So like it’s easy for us to, on a loud. Large scale and intellectually articulate because that’s one of the things we do on the show is anthropology and political strategy. So for us to be talking about it only makes sense, right? And through talking about it and [00:35:00] through defining and helping understand it better we can develop.

You know, you could, you could summit it into being, to an extent, which is what we’ve been seeing more and more is this community of content creators who represent this movement. And in this movement we try to have honest discussions about race, about genetic differences, about rare interracial integration is not working where we need to, uh uh, because these conversations.

Need to be had. There are way when somebody’s like, oh, there are racial, yeah, there’s racial conflicts. And that means that interracial integration isn’t going the way that like the urban monoculture wants it to go. So we need to talk about how we actually long-term could resolve these issues. And, these conversations that absolutely need to happen, get shut down by the person who’s just making like racial slurs or secret Nazi signs to like troll reporters or you [00:36:00] know, although it was hilarious. Nick’s your body. My choice thing, right? Like

Simone Collins: that was well done. Yes,

Malcolm Collins: that was well done. Also, his Pierce Morgan interview was very well done.

Mm-hmm. Like he hasn’t done everything, but like when somebody’s like, I agree. Like that entire Pierce Morgan interview, I was like. Clearly Paris Morgan is a buffoon compared to Nick Fuentes on these part. Well,

Simone Collins: as you pointed out elsewhere, people just really like people online. One in in IRL who are vitalistic and happy and optimistic, and though I would argue he has a fairly whiny message, sometimes he comes across in his delivery as someone who’s having a lot of fun and is passionate and is vitalistic, and people just like watching that and being around it.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, and then there’s our fact, funny is our faction of the right, and you can watch our video on the woke, right, is the faction that. People call the woke. Right? Right. Like it is, it is not the deontological nick faction that people [00:37:00] call the woke. Right. Which is funny because they’ve tried to claim that people are referring to them, but if you actually read the long breakdowns on who is this new woke Right.

Contingent they’re very clearly talking about us. See our video on that if you’re, if you’re interested in it. And, and sort of our wider intellectual sphere. And, and when I say us, I don’t mean us specifically. I’m talking about like this wider community that isn’t obsessed with creating a sort of.

Theocracy in the United States, but instead wants to win on same policy issues because we can do that now. Right? Well, and, and push very hard against really dangerous cults that are growing in our country. Like the cult that’s growing under the banner, under the guise of a part of the trans movement that I think a lot of people can see that is behaving more like a cult.

And we can work to address this, but we can’t work to address this. When somebody comes in the worm and then starts shouting you know, slurs at [00:38:00] these groups and stuff like that, or starts berating gay people or something, right? Like, that prevents us from having the same conversations that we need to have to get realistic policy implemented, because presumably that’s all of our goals, right?

Mm-hmm. It’s many to build a large enough coalition that we can actually change the cultural window. And I think that they, they frankly, were effective at doing this. And, and worse, this galvanizes the left when you had the left go out and do the BLM movement and everything like that. Obviously funded by Russia.

See our episode on that. If you’re unfamiliar with it being funded by Russia, like the receipts are. Manifold

Simone Collins: that blew my mind. I was like, this can’t possibly even be

Malcolm Collins: literally the, you know how the left was like, oh, Russia funded like Donald Trump’s election, literally of the money they were spending to try to manipulate American public opinion.

For every $1 that went to help Trump win the election [00:39:00] or was presumably went to help Trump, they spent on all spoiler candidates. They also spent on Bernie Sanders. So like, clearly it wasn’t a left versus right thing. They spent for every $1 on Trump, it was $9 on BLM. Right? So when people are like, oh, Russia Putin buddy, buddy.

I’m like, if you don’t like BLM, they’re like, these people are effing with us. Right? But in regard to the, the, the BLM stuff. But I think it was Russia’s funding of that in, in coalition with stuff like this group that allowed for this perception on the left. They need to see these large crowds doing these racist things,

Simone Collins: but you can’t raise money if all you have is photos of pathetic.

KKK rallies with like five old men showing up, right? You, you need, you need good photos, you need good stories, you need good anecdotes. And if they did not invest that $3 million, they would’ve had a harder time raising [00:40:00] however million, million dollars they’ve raised. I actually only looked at.

Leadership salaries. I didn’t look at how much they’ve raised historically, but no doubt it’s a lot. Because while their top CEO was a paid almost $500,000 on almost half a million basically the next five leadership people were each paid around 270, $250,000. Like a lot of money. These are huge salaries for nonprofit.

So they, they must be raising a ton of money. Oh,

Malcolm Collins: oh, by the way, if you just wanna go over quickly on the Nick Fuentes being widely AstroTurf.

Simone Collins: Sure.

Malcolm Collins: So, what we see, it’s in the first 30 minutes after posting Fuentes routinely gets retweets at amounts 10 to a hundred x more than his followers Were suggest outperforming individuals.

Elon Musk, which just does not make sense. Who has 200 million plus followers in raw numbers from Nick Fuentes tweets. Now, the [00:41:00] accounts that were doing this, when they did the thing where they revealed what countries these accounts were from, oh no, they were predominantly from India. Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Not famously. Countries with a bunch of you know, like anti-Indian racists and stuff like that. Well, that’s Pakistan, right? They get all the Pakistanis who hate Indians and all the Indians who hate Pakistanis to, to retweet, to, no, obviously this is a, this is a, a, a faking it campaign. 60 to 92% of that initial birth.

Comes from a small cluster of accounts that retweet him within multiple minutes. 92% of these repeat early retweeters were fully anonymous, and it was only revealed that they were from these countries when the, the, the big leak came, came out. So, very likely that if, if we’re seeing his ex account being heavily faked this says to me that his viewers are probably heavily faked as well.

Mm-hmm. Which is almost sort of sad because [00:42:00] like I, I don’t, I don’t think that he isn’t bringing something valuable to the conversation. I think that there are some areas that are worth digging in further. You know, it is worse being more critical, and we’ll definitely be doing that in a, in a near future episode of Jewish relations with the right in the United States and how those can be best addressed given some recent events.

And, that that is absolutely. That is absolutely something that is very hard for people to surface. And when I say hard, I mean logistically hard. Mm-hmm. You bring that stuff up, your account gets banned as we saw happen. To who that giant creator. Who was, who found that Jewish city in New Jersey, and they removed him from patriarch.

Simone Collins: Oh yeah. I don’t know his name, but yeah. He, he also has looked at Indian communities. He is just looked at crime in New York. It’s not as though his entire account is, I hate Jews.

Malcolm Collins: Remember [00:43:00] what’s crazier is like. His attack on the Indian community was over a cultural festival, right? Like that they’ve been doing for a long time.

Like that’s just part of their culture that is significant.

Simone Collins: Oh, no. He, he also did a separate one on, on a primarily Indian community, I think in, in Texas. Maybe it was in Tyler. Where he, he walked, walked around.

Malcolm Collins: They

Simone Collins: were doing fraud, but No, no. A lot of it was like, he, he would ask people, he’d like, go into like a seven 11, like, I’m gonna find the Indians.

And then he’d walk into a seven 11 and be like, Hey, on what visa are you here? Do you plan on staying here? Where’s your family? You know, he would just ask those kinds of questions because the premise of it, of the video was this Texas town or city is being taken over by Indian immigrants. Okay, I will go talk with them.

But anyway,

Malcolm Collins: but the point being is that both of these attacks on Indians were significantly more unfounded. Okay. Because one was a very cultural ceremony and the other was people being here [00:44:00] illegal then demonstrably large amounts of welfare fraud by Hasidic Jews, right? Like this is a well recorded phenomenon.

Right? And it was apparently, particularly egregious in the town and. Documented, egregious. This wasn’t like a, he figured this out thing. This is a, like a well-known phenomenon in this region.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I mean, he went to the town because it was famous for it. He went to all these places because they were famous for these things.

Malcolm Collins: But in, in the episode on that, what we’re basically had to point out is then the a DL went to have him banned. So he couldn’t, like, they moved against him. They spoke against him rather than just admitting. Like, oh or, or better, like most communities should do, go after the, the, the Jews who were committing the welfare fraud be like, Hey this is the problem and they shouldn’t be doing this.

And we’re glad that he brought this to our attention so that this can be addressed was in because there used to be Jewish courts for handling this. But we’ll go over this in our [00:45:00] episode on that. But the point I’m making here is it’s important that we as a wider movement, do not fall for what is AstroTurf or like what is fake and the sort of performative racism of youth that doesn’t move these conversations forward in a productive manner.

Mm-hmm. There are a lot of people who are able to finally, after years, after decades, move the conversation around genetics, around birth rates, around immigrants. Communities not integrating with local communities able to move these conversations forwards to the part where we are seeing policy downstream of these implications actually being implemented, actually being plausible.

Mm-hmm. And these other groups are just spoilers for our ability to achieve these. Its and I mean, we’re, we’re winning. We’re winning on restricting abortion access. We’re winning like this, [00:46:00] this stuff is moving forwards, right? We’re currently winning against the, the trans ideology. We’re currently winning against other demonstrably harmful ideologies, but we only keep winning.

If we don’t allow ourselves to be cued by the groups, like hope not hate that, want to create the actual cartoonish racism. And I think it’s important that, that we see these people as one and the same. These are their foot soldiers. The, the KKK are foot soldiers of the Southern Poverty Law Center, not us.

And that’s why, as we pointed out, and how the white laws are racist, the heads of the KKK, if you, if you didn’t know this. But going into the last Trump election, like this Trump election cycle said, do not vote for dumb Donald Trump. They said, vote for Kamala Harris. David Duke said this. Richard Spencer said this, and Nick Fuentes said this.

They were pro Kamala Harris winning, and can you imagine the nightmare our society would be in? [00:47:00] Had that happened, X probably would’ve been taken down, put under.

Simone Collins: Well, honestly, like that’s what, that’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center should be. Should be toting. They’d be like, that was us. That was us.

We, we made them turn left. We made them contribute votes to our side. That would be a

Malcolm Collins: win. Yeah. Well they’re, they’re acting like intentional spoilers, right? Yeah. You know, they’re acting in a way that I think shows their real agenda. And because yeah, there’s no other like, real plausible reason you would tell people to vote against Republican candidates.

If, for example, I said, you believes that life really begins at conception and Republican candidates are successfully making it harder to get abortions.

Octavian Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: But oh, well, I love you Simone. You are an amazing woman. And one thing that I note at the end of all this, tying all this up, is if you’re like, but I, I want.

You know, more racism to solve my racial grievances dying, white populations, dying, white [00:48:00] identity, whatever. Even if you’re one of these people, only you can save the white population, right? Like you, you, what I mean by that is you have to find a white woman and have children, and. Pass your culture onto those children in a way that work, like is intergenerationally stable?

You know, who doesn’t have children over replacement rate? Richard Spencer, David Duke, and Nick Fuentes. None of them do. This isn’t real for them. Laura suer also no children. Even though she’s been engaged nine times, I’m like, that’s a you problem lady. Like people don’t get engaged nine times actually.

But the point I’m making here is we need to not fall for this, right? I think you’re, think someone need to understand that you can. You can understand all of these problems, but still at the end of the day, you are the only one who can solve them

Simone Collins: well. Yeah, and also just hating on other groups isn’t really gonna get you very far.

It matters more that you’re able to make your group strong. If you really care about, like, if you’re a [00:49:00] supremacist, then okay, be a really good parent. Give your kids a great upbringing. Make them excited to pass on your culture to a lot of kids of their own. And, you know, impart advantages to them that give them advantages in terms of wealth and technology, because if you don’t, they will not have outsized influence and they will not matter and they will not shape the world.

The fact that the, a lot of people are focusing so outward on these things of like, well, I don’t want them here and I don’t want this, and I, these people need to go away or whatever. Like, this is so stupid. Everyone is, everyone’s deleting themselves right now. This is, which all you have to do is just be chill and raise your kids well.

Like this is not that hard.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And it’s, and it’s like, and they’re like, well, if I don’t say like, I hate this group in a very angry way, then like, they’ll, they’ll not be leaving. I’m like, Trump’s successfully deporting people right now. Right. And, and at about as fast a speed as he can. In fact, he is deporting people so aggressively.

That [00:50:00] Nick Fuentes has complained about it on multiple occasions, as has he, one of his grievances. Yes. He says that ice is acting like cartoonishly evil and stuff like that, and like too aggressively. This is how you have to act when you’re

Simone Collins: getting bad actor. You cant make him happy. Oh my goodness.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, and he’s just a bad actor.

You know, you, you can’t complain about ice handling. F*****g problem. You say you want handled well, not understanding that people are going to resist and that’s going to look bad, that people are going to have children and that’s going to look bad. Right? Like

I just, it’s insane. Don’t understand how people fall for this. But apparently not a lot of people are. It’s just faked. It’s AstroTurf, it, it’s, it’s not a thing.

Simone Collins: Well, I love you. I love that we live in a timeline where literally the most racist groups in America are funded literally by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

They’re keeping it alive. The beating part of racism. Thank you.

Malcolm Collins: They were funded by the Democrats when they were founded, and

they

Simone Collins: all the, [00:51:00] all the donors, all the donors who are like, I’m donating to end racism.

Malcolm Collins: I love you so much and have a spectacular day.

Simone Collins: You too gorgeous.

All right. I will see you on the next room.

Malcolm Collins: How these companies, I get my site working for every browser, but no, they don’t get their sites working for every browser. I don’t want to though. When somebody enters an error on like a really obscure browser, I’m like, why don’t you use a normal f*****g browser, like a f*****g human adult?

And they’re like, but people are tracking my theater. And I’m like, everyone’s tracking your data anyway. You dumb. But like, what century do you think we live in here?

Simone Collins: So it goes,

Malcolm Collins: it’s like if, if you use an obscure browser, it’s like you, you, you do it because you only want to use the biggest and largest and most mainstream of websites and products because those are the [00:52:00] only ones that are gonna be optimized for you. Which is very frustrating.

Simone Collins: I. People have all sorts of weird

Malcolm Collins: things.

You use a niche browser, you use the perplexity browser, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah. But I really like it ‘cause I can just tell it to do things, to control my browser and do things that I, I need it to do that save me a lot of time.

Malcolm Collins: What are we doing for dinner tonight?

Simone Collins: I was planning on just making the kids something simple, but I don’t know quite what

is there anything you wanna add?

Octavian Collins: Yes, the train. Lego, you love Legos?

Simone Collins: Okay. Love you buddy.

Malcolm Collins: Alright. What are we eating for dinner?

Simone Collins: I don’t know. I can make you Burmese chicken with rice. I can make you. Some vermicelli noodles and those bun, let’s do

Malcolm Collins: amusement chicken.

Simone Collins: Amusement chicken of rice I think would be really nice. You haven’t had it in forever. [00:53:00] Yeah. Fried. So it’s crispy. Yeah. Let’s do it.

Speaker 2: Okay. Andy. Andy, is it your birthday? It’s a I. Okay, so it’s your second birthday, right? Yes, it’s birthday. Birthday. Okay. And what is this? A birthday cake. What cake? I’m asking Andy. Andy, what is this? I got the taste, the ing. Andy. What? What is it? We can add? Taste only purple. Only purple. It’s only purple. Do you like the color purple?

Speaker 3: You like it? Put the ing on on the cake.

Speaker 5: Do not touch the cake. Okay,

Speaker 2: wait.

Speaker 5: Candles. Only purple birthday cake. Yeah.

Speaker 2: Okay, so you only want purple birthday cake, right?

Speaker 3: Jack has purple my white.

In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into robust, replicated studies on fertility, intelligence, politics, and religion. They explore why progressive (”dysgenic”) fertility patterns are clearing out high-IQ individuals faster than conservative ones, while certain religious groups — especially Latter-day Saints (Mormons) — show neutral or even eugenic selection for intelligence.

Key topics include:

- The landmark study “Will Intelligent Latter-Day Saints and Smart Conservatives Inherit the Earth?”

- New 2024 findings from the Vietnam Experience Study on how conservative religiousness reverses the typical negative intelligence-fertility link

- Why “moderately” religious people often have the highest fertility (not the fanatical ones)

- Cultural and structural reasons behind Mormon success in building high-trust, low-corruption institutions

- The Quaker origins of modern “woke” culture

- Enlightenment ideals vs. 1960s–1970s cultural shifts

- Implications for civilization, space colonization, and the future of humanity

They also discuss Techno-Puritanism, corruption in religious institutions, and why fanatical, high-agency groups are best suited for building utopias (including on Mars).

If you’re interested in pronatalism, dysgenics, cultural evolution, or long-term civilizational strategy, this episode is packed with data, graphs, and unfiltered analysis.

Watch the full conversation and let us know in the comments: Which religious or cultural group do you think has the strongest eugenic fertility patterns today?

Studies referenced:

- Kirkegaard & Dutton (2022) on LDS and conservatives

- Dutton (2024) on conservative religiousness and intelligence selection (Vietnam Experience Study)

Subscribe for more Based Camp episodes on the future of humanity, fertility, and culture.

Episode Transcript

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about a number of studies that were reconfirmed recently. Mm-hmm. So this is the, the third time that these studies have been tested and reconfirmed. So this is a, a very robust finding at this point.

And I wanna talk about them and talk about the, the implications of this for civilization. It is strategies, culture, and how society’s going to change in the future. So, a study that a lot of people are aware of is the study titled will Intelligent Latter-Day Saints and Smart Conservatives Inherit the Earth?

And what this study looked at, ‘cause a lot of people were familiar that it looked at Latter Day Saints versus Non Latter Day Saints. And when I heard the results of this study initially. Some people misframed it as saying Latter day Saints are one of the few religions that has eugenic effects. Like the, the culture of the latter day [00:01:00] saints has eugenic effects on the people who follow that religion.

This is not actually what it showed it just, just looked at latter day Saints versus non latter day saints. And now newer studies have looked at other religious groups and they have a similar effect. Mm-hmm. Well, at least Christian groups. More that a second. And, and there’s been some people who said that this effect has died down in Latterday Saints.

I, we actually had a fan who did a really cool thing. He, he went through Utah and then went by region to find the of effects of earning and IQ by looking at it regionally. And the amount that the region was. Sort of fanatically latter day saint. And, and this guy can pin his results if he wants to.

In, in the, in the comments. He did this sort of recreationally himself. And he found something very interesting which we’ll also talk about in this because I think it adds to this a lot which is in his findings at least, was in the latter day [00:02:00] Saints, the very, very, very most religious individuals actually began to have lower fertility rates.

Now they, they weren’t below the non-religious individuals, but the highest fertility rates are in the. Kind of religious individuals, like the, the, yeah, I’m, I’m really into that, but not super into that. Mm-hmm. And, and it’s interesting I point this out because at least anecdotally, this is what I see in other cultures.

This is what I see with like the Catholics, for example. Of the Catholics I know who are like super high fertility. And I’ve pointed this out before. It’s not the fanatical ones. It’s the ones who are enjoyably culturally Catholic. Like they really have fun being culturally Catholic, but they don’t really mm-hmm.

Care about the theology stuff that much. Let’s see, let’s get into the data here and then we can go into what might be causing that phenomenon. I mean, I think that phenomenon is kind of obvious. If you’ve seen the two groups, I don’t know how much I need to go into it. But well, [00:03:00] within Catholicism you’re gonna be like, well, obviously, you know, the most Catholic people are gonna be nuns or priests, so they’re not gonna have any kids at all.

But the fact that you don’t see that in the letter they saints and, and they also have a fewer number of kids. I think it’s because they are just. Not particularly like the more you get heady about religion, the less you care about the concerns of this earth and the less interested you are in playing out those roles.

You’re more interested in, i, I mean, I think that the Opus Day are a perfect example of this. Like they should be one of the, the coolest and most based groups of Catholics, and yet 30% of them are, are celibate. Like just to be celibate, right? Well,

Simone Collins: you can be based and celibate, but yeah, I mean, it’s

Malcolm Collins: Or the, the, I mean with the Mormons like the most religious of them might have trouble operating in society.

They may be too basically nerdy to date. Or find partners fast enough, and they may not even care that they’re not finding a partner because they have so much belief in sort of the, [00:04:00] the theological backdrop is going to protect them.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: But let’s continue with this study, because this study didn’t plot the graphs like that.

It was just plotting like straight lines, like, does this matter or not? So, the first study, the, the one that most people are aware of, it looked at expected fertility rate versus intelligence and then divided people into extremely liberal, centrist and extremely conservative.

And what we can see very, very interestingly, is that when they are very unintelligent being progressive actually leads you to have a higher fertility rate than being conservative.

Simone Collins: Aha. Why would that be

Malcolm Collins: Dumb? Conservatives have fewer kids than dumb progressives.

Simone Collins: Why? Why? Why? Why? I guess maybe to successfully marry, also conservative, you have to be [00:05:00] smarter.

And then if you’re progressive though, you’re not getting married to have, like before having kids, you’re just having kids kind of by mistake. Yeah. Okay. So if you’re conservative, if you’re having kids. Presumably it’s because you’re getting married it that requires that you are attractive enough to get married.

You’re ambitious enough to get married. You have enough conscientiousness to do it. Then you’re having kids.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, actually, that’s a good point. Especially for conservative men. Yeah. Because conservatives have children in wedlock. Mm-hmm. What that means is that if a man doesn’t have money, he can’t find a partner and he can’t get married.

Mm-hmm. And therefore he doesn’t have kids, which is a much healthier way for society to act than just do whatever you want. Yeah. Which unfortunately, I mean, I really, it is so wild to me that and I, I think that. What, what’s his name? Ho Math has a very interesting episode where he goes into this

Simone Collins: Oh

Malcolm Collins: yeah.

Where he talks about how. Basically, [00:06:00] Western civilization reached a place on like the, the hierarchy of like their own thoughts and, and the way that they were structuring society where they actually thought like you could just be like, yeah, do whatever you want. Like of course that’s gonna work. Rules are all basically bad because everybody I know if they didn’t have rules, it’s like when, when we as a society like.

First had this idea, most of the places of power where it was being spewed from, and even, even still that that spew it to some extent. It seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Like, of course we can just have people do whatever they want and that will have no negative repercussions. Mm-hmm.

Right. Everybody I know if you just said do whatever you want, they wouldn’t, you know, go out and slut it up. You know, they wouldn’t go [00:07:00] murder people or rob stores or grape children. And I think what we’re seeing in our society now is like. Okay. We unfortunately, and what he pointed out there is it’s sort of ironic that it was a very level of civilizational development that we had reached that allowed us to even conceive of such a stupid idea.

That caused the civilization to collapse. And he argued within that video, I think very interestingly that, you know, this has happened multiple times. He’s like, this is basically what happened with Islam. If you watch our video on how Islam went from one of the strictest moral cultures to one of the most debauched moral cultures you, you could argue.

I mean, maybe this was part of that. Right. They basically hit a point where it was such a de botch society. And like in that video we go over a number of examples of this. I think people today sort of forget that Islam was ever seen as the Java, the Hut society [00:08:00] the endless harems and parties and drinking and everything like that.

That it basically just collapsed out of any form of efficiency.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: And I’d also note here that a lot of people misattribute all of this, like many of the, the, the falling apart of civilization to the ideals of the enlightenment. And not to the ideals of. The 1970s and or even let’s say the 1920s to 1970s is really where things begin to, to break apart.

And when people began to say, oh, you could do whatever you want, whatever you want, in the ideals of the enlightenment. For those who like haven’t studied this cultural period the idea that you would give people something for like not hard work was a complete anathema. Their [00:09:00] utopias were very like.

Many people throughout the enlightenment tried to create utopias. But you today, these utopias would not be recognizable to any modern progressive. They’d be like, I’m gonna create a factory city where, you know, every day people will spend this amount of time praying and this amount of time studying science.

And no one will be allowed to drink or sing. And you know, we’re, we’re going to have, no sex before marriage and everyone will live in strict communal housing, you know, the strictly gendered communal housing and everything like that. It was a societal view of order, right, of we can build society like that.

That’s how they, that’s what the enlightenment was, was how can we structure and order society better? And when the thinkers of the Enlightenment attempted to build a country on the ideals of the [00:10:00] Enlightenment the, it was a country where most people couldn’t vote, right? Like America was not like a, oh, we, we’ll just do whatever the masses want.

It was No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Like. Obviously poor people are tarred, so like, it should be like,

Simone Collins: it was, it was obviously, I mean, that’s what representative democracy was. It was, we will have the people vote for the smartest aristocrats or landed gentry, essentially like in in their local area. Trust that person to make the best choice for say, who will be president.

They were never expected.

Malcolm Collins: No, it wasn’t, it wasn’t the people, Simone. It was Well, we

Simone Collins: should, okay. Sorry. Land, land donning white men. Sorry, sorry.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no, no. It wasn’t just land. As I’ve pointed out, Catholics could only vote in two states. Half the number of states that Jews,

Simone Collins: no one Catholic land owning white men.

So, okay. There, there,

Malcolm Collins: so, so, oh, sorry. Not. It’s colonies. But the, the ideal was, and, and note here, you say that in a bunch of ways that if you look at it from the perspective of the urban monoculture, [00:11:00] ooh, but no, this was their way of saying what we want. It’s society to be structured where we take the aggregate opinion of educated people who have proven their competence and are culturally aligned with us.

Simone Collins: Well, I mean, the, the equivalent of it today, if we were to sort of apply more of our modern values, would be like, look, I respect MG Gold. I’m just gonna select him as my representative, and then he’s just gonna decide who’s gonna be president and who’s gonna, you know. What laws we pass and stuff, and, and it has become abstracted from that.

Like now

Malcolm Collins: it is just, no, you’re talking of the electoral system. I’m talking about I am. All the various colonies decided who could vote.

Simone Collins: Oh.

Malcolm Collins: And and that’s very different than the electoral system because

Simone Collins: No, but what I’m talking about Yeah, I know. You’re, you’re changing the subject. I am, but

Malcolm Collins: I’m not, I’m talking about how democracy actually worked, how it was supposed to work, how American democracy,

Simone Collins: but it was never democracy.

It was representative [00:12:00] democracy.

Malcolm Collins: Right. Representative democracy, you are getting stuck on the representative part, which I think can be used to obscure the fact that the ideals of the enlightenment were never. Society should be run on the aggregate opinion of the average person because people would be like, but isn’t that person average and could they be culturally misaligned with me?

Right.

Simone Collins: Well, I think if we look even further in history though, like to Athenian democracy to other like very, very, very old forms of democracy, what fundamentally people came to conclude was. We will give a vote to the people we need to do important things. And that evolved over time when they needed people to help them.

You know, row try reams in military conflicts, guess who got the vote? You know, like basically if you’re contributing something useful to society, if, if you’re needed to make society work, you should have a say. And if not then. [00:13:00] We don’t really care to hear

from

Simone Collins: you.

Malcolm Collins: And this was transform and when people look for like, where was the origin of the rot before I go into all the dysgenics research the origins of the rot happened before anything that looks like modern wokeness.

And if you wanna trace it back, you can trace it back very easily to one of the four original cultural groups of the United States, which was the Quakers. They always wanted the vote to be for everyone. The Quakers did. They always wanted everything that Wokes want today. Even the way that they’re, we pointed this out, even the way that they’re like, celebrations happen where they do like the, the hand signals so that nobody feels too or like something just moves them and they stand up and start talking. It looks exactly like, you know, occupy Wall Street or something, or one of these protest movements. And it’s because it’s the same value set.

Speaker: So I, when we record, this is from before we did the Quaker episode. , So we did the Quaker episode and I was unaware of this just as an idea of , how right we were on this. Quakers we’re actually the origin of woke. [00:14:00] Somebody’s like, do you not know about the public universal friend? And I was like, I, I do not know about the public universal friend.

They’re like, I hope you go into that. I was unaware of this when we filmed the episode. So for context, the public universal friend, this was, . Someone who in 1776, the friend that means is a Quaker. That’s what they call themselves because they’re psychopaths and that’s like the wokes thing you can call yourself.

Claimed to have died and been reanimated as a genderless evangelist named the public universal friend, and afterwards shunned. Her birth name and pronouns and, , dressed in androgynous clothes. The friend preached through the Northeastern United States attracting many followers who became the Society of Universal Friends.

The friend theology was broadly similar to most other Quakers. And the most committed members of the Universal Friends were a group of unmarried women who took leading roles in their households, basically dominated the men in their lives. , And in [00:15:00] 1790s, members of the society acquired land in Western New York, where they formed the town of Jerusalem near Penn, Yan, New York.

, By the way, still there. The Society of Universal Friends ceased to exist around the 1860s. Some writers have portrayed the friend as a woman, or either a manipulative fraudster or a pioneer for women’s rights, while others such as Scholar Scott Larson have viewed friend as a. Transgender, although note, never experienced any gender dysphoria as believe Note this was never experienced before in the 1920s.

, Absolutely crazy. , The woke them very clearly came directly from this movement, not like tangentially from this movement.

Speaker 2: So the next time that a Quaker EG Ruby Yard slash what of Alt Hiss tries to tell you that Puritans were the creation of woke, , I would ask you to kindly look at your history because Quakers have always [00:16:00] attempted to manipulate history to not paint themselves as what they truly are. , And check out that episode by the way.

Malcolm Collins: And if you, if you’re a watcher of the show. And you haven’t read Albian seed I would strongly suggest you read Albian Seed because when you read Albian Seed one, it can help you better understand like American culture and get in touch with your own cultural roots if you’re from America. Or if you don’t have cultural roots look at the ways that the four founding cultures are different from each other, and it can help you model who you want to be and the culture you want to adopt.

But a lot of the things that pushed the, the proto movements that allowed our society to begin to collapse in the way that it is collapsing were largely Quaker movements. But. That’s for a different tale. I, I, I promise you guys some graphs. Let’s get some graphs.

So here I’m putting a graph on screen here of political ideology versus fertility rates.

And what you can see is the fertility rate difference for intelligent conservatives and intelligent progressives is [00:17:00] quite extreme, which means they will have even disproportionately less power in the future, economically speaking because that’s where they’re being cleared out the most, right?

But note. Even here this is still a discogenic pattern. Intelligent conservatives are just less discogenic than progressives because they are still having less kids than unintelligent conservatives. And then with Mormons, you actually see a purely eugenic pattern. And this, this Mormon study that they found was hugely, it’s, it’s slight, but it’s definitely there, right?

So to continue with the new study that they have here, which expanded it to other religious traditions. Sometime ago, ed Dutton and I published a study showing that the USA being a member of the Mormon Club seemed to protect one against having dys genetic fertility pattern for intelligence in plain language.

The total population, more intelligent people have somewhat few in. In children on average. Although this varies by country however, this negative [00:18:00] correlation is absent and maybe even reversed positively among Mormons. Due to the small number of Mormons and the need for complex cohort and age controls, the exact slope of the fertility intelligence for Mormons was harder to estimate precisely.

Hence, they had a big confidence interval. The Mormon study was based on the general social survey, GSCS. GSSA large American dataset. There were some problems with this. First, the intelligence measure is a poor to mediocre being the tin item, wood drums, vocabulary test. Second . Religiousness was not measured as a continuous construct, but by self-reported membership of different religious beliefs, their subdivisions, denominations.

Thus, the power is much reduced as mere membership is a proxy of a more relevant. Trait of general religiousness or perhaps some specific religiously related traits in the new study they sought to remedy this. So the new study, this was, came out in 2024. [00:19:00] Does conservative religiousness promote selection for intelligence and analysis of the Vietnam Experience study?

And here they say this, this study was done with a dataset of 4,602 Vietnam era veterans. So unfortunately it was done a while ago, so we can’t necessarily say that this was the same trait, but they actually looked at religious nu here. And this one showed something different than the Mormon study that I was showing before where it showed that sort of.

Perfectly here. The less religious you are the, the fewer kids you have, the more religious you are, the more kids you have. And the, the most religious people have the most what’s the word, the

Simone Collins: most kids?

Malcolm Collins: Yes, the most kids. When they are intelligent. And what was interesting about this study is it found, and, and statistically relevantly too that the highest rate of religiosity was in a population was found with being strictly eugenic.

It, it was eugenic. They, they, the, the most religious people had more kids when they were [00:20:00] more intelligent.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: With, with

Simone Collins: being much of this, do you think though, might come down to. Out of wedlock marriage, or sorry, out of wedlock, childbirth for non-religious progressive people, which I think leads to lower lifetime fertility because it’s just very difficult to raise a child in as a single parent.

Malcolm Collins: I mean, I think one of the, the things at play mm-hmm. Is that if you are, and, and this, I think especially in the conservative versus progressive. Fertility difference for poor people is if you are conservative and you are poor, you are less likely to be living off of welfare or to be like a welfare king queen, trying to maximize the number of kids you have to get more checks from the government.

Yeah. Whereas many poor, progressive people, just like, that’s their cultural life strategy and they’ve been doing that for like three generations and it’s all they know and it’s literally like [00:21:00] just how they survive.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

So you think it has more to do with leaning on social services and not making your own way in the world or supporting yourself financially and less to do with out of wedlock, child rearing?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. I think, I think both of those things are, are relevant.

Simone Collins: Hmm. For sure. Yeah.

And they, I think also there’s the, the factor that just how I think that ultimately affirmative action and DEI.

Not favoring. Ba, basically there’s like this reverse effect of affirmative action in DEI, whereby people think it’s gonna help the people who are getting extra boosts or favoritism when it actually hurts them, both reputationally and in terms of cultivating strength. And in the long run, it helps the people that it’s discriminating against like white males because they have to [00:22:00] force themselves to be more disciplined, to work harder, to be smarter.

And overall that’s going to, I mean, while some people just get totally wiped out in this equation, there is an overall, I guess you could say like per, per the perspective of this kind of long-term human tendencies, it, it has eugenic effect on the discriminated against group. I think similarly when you look at religious families, there is a eugenic.

Element, for example, with the LDS church or any group for example, that that tithes because not only do you need to be successful enough to, for example, in many cases, have a single breadwinning family. So one man that is earning enough to support an entire family by him himself. Oh God,

Malcolm Collins: yeah.

Simone Collins: Two parents who are, you know, both working and raising children.

It’s not just that they’re also. Spending a non-trivial amount of time engaged in religious worship wearing, they can’t be making money or resting [00:23:00] really. And also where they’re tithing with Mormons are tithing 10% of their income. So this is, this is a, you know, you’re putting a lot of spoilers on your car or you’re putting a lot of drag on your car more accurately.

I think it,

Malcolm Collins: it forces the peacock feathers to have weight.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And well, and then, then you end up a lot ultimately stronger. And that’s that eugenic effect where like if you are in a very non-religious family either that’s leaning very heavily off of social benefits or both partners are working and you know, your kids are going, you know, going to public school and just not really.

Spending that much time with you, you’re not going to church on weekends and you’re not tithing. You don’t have the same headwinds that are forcing you to be stronger, harder, faster, and better. Does that make sense? So like, because religious life is logistically and financially harder, technically speaking, because I do not [00:24:00] think that non-religious.

Families. I mean, I, I remember looking at the stats before, I’m pretty sure from what I remember, non-religious families do not donate. More religious families and especially poor religious families donate the most, which is crazy, like in terms of per percentage of income. Because they don’t have those headwinds, they are not forced to become stronger.

And that could be an effect here as well. What do you think?

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Well, I mean, I think that’s a way that you relate to money when you’re poor is very different from the way you relate to money when you’re middle class. And in, in a way, poor people can afford to donate more than middle class people.

Because well,

Simone Collins: especially if you’re on social benefits. Yeah. Yeah. There’s that. Sure.

Malcolm Collins: So I, I, I think that that’s another thing is you can feel wealthier there, but

Simone Collins: but that’s not the case for Mormons. Oh, yeah, yeah. Tithing is, is huge. And, and I mean, the more you earn, you’re still tithing 10% and then you’re paying progressively more and more in taxes.

So you’re paying [00:25:00] 40% in taxes and then another 10% half of your income that you make. Because keep in mind, tithing is pre-tax. It’s not post-tax, it’s pre-tax. 50% of your income functionally not yours, taxes and tithing, which is crazy. Plus you’re expected to donate a significant amount of your time.

Tracing wood grains has that really good Subick article that really goes into this on just how much is expected of you from the LDS Church, especially if you are high achieving like the more professionally successful you are. The more you’re gonna be promoted within the church to be a bishop, to, to do more and more and more.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I think that that’s why the church compared to other churches has been so adaptive.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: This, this is one of the things that we’ve talked about before, but like, why is it that, I mean, and, and the LDS started from a much harder place than say the Vatican did. In terms of like polygamy, black people can’t go to heaven, that sort of stuff.

Right? Or, or they turn white when they go to heaven. I think they, they, they did,

Simone Collins: they

Malcolm Collins: got [00:26:00] black in because they, they were, they were neutral in the war between Satan and Jesus. And, and so they, oh, and

Simone Collins: then, so they were marked with darkness and not white delights.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Anyway what, but you know, they had a lot, they had a lot of differences to, to start.

And the church was able to you know, sort of build a PR campaign which has been incredibly successful. We have some other videos on this, but like compared to their percentage of the population, the amount that Mormons have been able to capture the public mind share, and in a way that’s not holistically negative has been incredibly impressive when contrasted with the way that the Catholic and church in the Vatican is adapting now.

And I think that the core reason of that is because the hierarchy of the Mormon church is made up of people who. Succeeded in real world activities and lived real world lives, like, I don’t even think you would have much of a chance of being appointed to a high level position if you didn’t have a large [00:27:00] family in the Mormon church.

And so they’re going to be able to relate to the average person more, but be a lot less theologically rigorous. But it, I, I mean, for a long time. You could do that. That’s, that’s actually an interesting, you know, talking about democracy and different democratic in institutions and how they end up affecting things.

The system that the, the Catholic church versus the Mormon church runs on we can see how the democratic structure of each of those led to incredibly different outcomes. In terms of like practice, right? Catholicism really tried to run like a dedicated technocrat institution where, you know, you become a specialist in this your entire life.

And that was an institution that I think worked really well and was sort of needed when. Basically no one was educated like the medieval period. I mean, what, what other choice did they have? You know, were they [00:28:00] gonna allow local leaders to be like elected or something like that? Oh. Or you could have them be appointed, but then you’re just gonna get tons of corruption.

Right. Actually one of the interesting questions is, why don’t you get more blatant corruption in the Mormon church?

Simone Collins: That is a really good question. I mean, even the most critical people that we, we watch talk about it, they’re not really, they’re obviously like, well, the Mormon church is raising a ton of money, and it may be in a, a way that they insinuate is exploitative toward members of the LDS church, and that is insufficiently transparent, but they do not imply at any point that they believe there’s corruption.

That is quite interesting.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Even, even the head, like

Simone Collins: Alyssa has never suggested that

Malcolm Collins: the head guy in the Mormon church he’s like. Basically their prophet like more than ‘cause he can update the religion at any, the

Simone Collins: president.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. He’s not like the pope where like he needs to be aware of what previous popes have said and what the Bible says.

In Mormonism you can just like be like, yeah, I know that’s written there, but like, we got, got new rules. But he makes from what I’ve heard, 150,000 a year. [00:29:00] Like literally the voice of God. It’s

Simone Collins: basically you, you don’t make money from. Serving in the church. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And, and the big scandals that I’ve heard about is like the church investing in like a mall.

And I’m like, I mean, that’s what they should be doing, right? Like they’re supposed to. What, what did you think they were gonna do? Give away all the money. Like, no, they should be investing it in building financial security in case things change. You know, they could have huge declining membership in the future and then need to to work like they’re acting responsibly.

Why are you mad at them? Yeah. And so, but you know, progressives be progressive, right? Oh, how dare they have money? But why, why isn’t it had any corruption issues? I actually, I, you know, I’ve heard of sex scandals in the Catholic church, but I’ve never heard of corruption issues. You know what?

I’m actually gonna ask ai, do either of them have major monetary corruption scandals?

Simone Collins: Yeah, good question. ‘cause there’s a lot of money sloshing around.

It could [00:30:00] have to do with the transparency required of tax filings of, of nonprofits, including religions in the United States, like perhaps based on the tax filing structure. It’s just, it would be harder, but I don’t know, you know, like harder to hide. I, but I, I, that can’t be it. No.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. I I say this because I know that they’re, he’s

Simone Collins: normally

Malcolm Collins: very common in evangelical churches.

Simone Collins: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Well, the whole Prosperity doctrine thing, and like, you know, the, the, is it people on YouTube or Instagram who like tell you the price of one preacher’s shoes whenever he comes out wearing insanely expensive sneakers?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, I mean,

Simone Collins: some of

Malcolm Collins: it’s just so blatant as, as for

Simone Collins: why that happens.

Yeah. It’s especially trope now is yeah, like the evangelical Christian preacher who exploits members typically through some kind of document. So

Malcolm Collins: Protestant culture leads to that more, even though you have less corruption overall, as I’ve pointed out in Protestant [00:31:00] societies. And, and this is just like a factual thing, you can just look at a map and do correlations is because Protestantism is entirely decentralized.

You have a, a thing where if somebody can grift, then there’s nothing really, no central organization that can come down and say, Hey, stop grifting. So if you’re particularly good at grifting, you’re just gonna grift.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Okay, so let’s go through this Catholic Church versus Mormonism. So it says The gap is large Catholic incidents number in the dozens, historically with several high profile ones in 2024 to 2026 alone.

Well, in the LDS church, there’s essentially zero personal grift that has been proven by leaders.

Simone Collins: Wow.

Malcolm Collins: Why? I wanna know why. Why?

Simone Collins: Yeah. That’s so interesting. Because there’s plenty of money. Good for them. I mean, honest. I mean, I think a, a lot of people’s reaction might just be like, well, yeah, we just haven’t found it.

You know, no one got caught. But I, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that the, that just, it hasn’t happened. [00:32:00] Mormons,

Malcolm Collins: Cannot have a Mormon, I, this, this, it says, the main reason is the Mormon church. Okay. I, I’m gonna have two, two answers to this one actually. One, I think many people in the Catholic Church rise but do not really care about Catholicism.

It’s just like you’re born in a Catholic country. Joining the priesthood can be a pretty good deal for a lot of people. Or joining in nunnery. I mean, this even historically was, was. Cool profession if you’re like nerdy about stuff. And then you you get invested in the bureaucracy of it and you attempt to climb the bureaucracy of it, right?

So, but within Mormonism because the, even on the ground, like individual rewards for joining. The priesthood, like you can’t even get like an income from joining the priesthood. They, they expect you for most Mormon things to do the work for free. So you can’t even enter a position.

Simone Collins: Whoa, whoa, whoa. No, no, no.

You pay to go on your mission.

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah. I’m sorry. They, they have you [00:33:00] pay to do stuff for them.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

You,

Malcolm Collins: you can’t even enter a position where grift is possible on your part until you have already demonstrated that you are. Pretty invested in actually what’s in the church’s best interest. Whereas in Catholicism it’s very easy to get to high level positions without that proof.

I pointed out this is why Catholicism never adopted allowing priests to have kids because then they just have even a higher reason. The second reason is likely cultural differences. If you look at Mormonism historically, I mean, it’s the one instance in the United States where something. Close to communism has ever worked.

Right. For people who aren’t aware of, like the way the original Mormon colonies were set up you would, one, you’d have to think that it was a good idea to move to a place like that. So you already have a strong genetic selection filter. And they’d be like. Okay, here’s where you’re living. Here’s what your job is, here’s who you’re gonna be married to.

Like, they basically set up your entire life for you. When you [00:34:00] showed up. It actually sounds pretty cool, you know? I, I think for a lot of people that’s a, a decent way to live life, right? And, and they, they did this to also acqui, acquire mini’s genetically better people. The, the way that they did that is they went to guys around Europe and were basically like, Hey, if you’re rich and come to our settlement, you know, we’ll set you up.

And so they got, we’re like, we’ll get you like three, four wives. How does that sound? Right? You don’t even need to believe it. Four wives, how does that sound gonna live in the American frontier? Live a, a hard, honest life. And so they, had a culture that needed a lot more trust historically to survive.

And that was like really eugenically selective, like Mormons also would kick out the guys because they had multiple wives who didn’t look good enough. This is where you have the lost Boy problem was

Simone Collins: look good enough.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Huge. Problem, even today within the polygamous Mormon sex is you know, obviously the birth ratio of males to females is 50 50.

But not [00:35:00] all of the guys can have four wives. Oh, sure. Yeah. So that means. One guy marries for every four guys born into the community. And the three guys that were not successful enough or not good enough, or not faithful enough get kicked out which creates a really strong eugenic pressure. Whereas Catholicism basically grew up in the rotting bureaucratic corpse of the Roman Empire.

I, no, I mean, it, it, it did the, the, he’s

Simone Collins: just always, always hanging on the Catholics. Come on,

Malcolm Collins: Malcolm. Go. I even Catholics would say this. That’s where the church came from. It, it grew out of a Roman empire in decline. I mean it

Simone Collins: did,

Malcolm Collins: yeah. It had a few bumps like w Constantine and stuff like that, who was really cool.

But the majority of the period where the Catholic church was basically running the empire, the empire was falling apart. And that means that there was institutionally. Like even trying to [00:36:00] fight grift in those sorts of environments would’ve been incredibly difficult. Also I think even the idea that the church wouldn’t have grift is almost a modern idea.

If you look, if you read about the Catholic church historically, grift almost seems like the point. If you get what I mean, like,

Simone Collins: no, I don’t. I

don’t.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. So if you read about. Any point of Pope in history, you know, you would have like a Pope making his son who he had outside of wedlock because Popes around all the time.

Oh, that period,

Simone Collins: right?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And he’d make him like the, the, the Duke of Venice or something. Right. And the, no, the Popes were always doing corrupt stuff. Sure.

Simone Collins: No, no. I, yeah. I, I know.

Malcolm Collins: They were like and, and it, and it wasn’t even seen as like a weird thing for a pope to do. It was just like, I mean, obviously he’s the pope, he’s gonna corrupt.

Right? And, and then you had this going down. All the, all the cardinals were corrupt, or the vast majority of them were, I mean, that’s why they [00:37:00] elected the corrupt popes, because then the popes would give them. Handbags. And you had this going down to the local levels. I mean, if you went to like a cardinal from this period they, they, the, the cliche was they lived in a giant mansion and had lots of mistresses and were incredibly lot wealthy.

How did a cardinal afford a giant mansion? Right? Like, today, I think if a cardinal afforded a giant mansion, you’d be like, the Catholic church would be like. You’re not supposed to like have any other jobs, right? Like how do you have a giant mansion, Mr. Cardinal, this seems like a problem. So I think part of the problem that the Catholic Church is dealing with is even an expectation towards a lack of corruption is a new idea within the Catholic Church.

The Mormons. Interesting. The Mormons had corruption in the early church, but then they just theologically defined it as okay. Right. Like, what I’ll mean by this is in the Catholic church you know, you take. Five mistresses and people would be like, well, you’re not supposed to [00:38:00] do that, but you know, whatever.

In the Mormon church, oh, they’re like five miga. Like, and God told me to, and then the next leader does something against the rules and he is like, ah, but God told me to. So it’s the new rule. But they never seemed to be particularly avarice for money. Mm-hmm. Potentially because they already had such high status or their commu, I don’t know.

Simone Collins: Yeah, I don’t know. I don’t know.

Malcolm Collins: Well, it’s important to study this. It’s important to ask this question. Yeah. How else did the Mormon church historically have much corruption at the top levels?

Simone Collins: I think there’s, there’s, the issue for me is, my understanding is there’s not much transparency as to how the wealth of the LDS church is spent, but it’s clearly not spent on salaries or on directly benefiting anyone. So I just, you know, we, we think some is spent on ads. It was kind of weird that they, they tried to influence legislation.

Gay marriage bills in California. That [00:39:00] just was odd. It doesn’t, one, I don’t think a religion should try to influence legislation.

Malcolm Collins: That actually does seem odd. Well, like why would Mormons care about that?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Like look, if other people are debauched and lost,

Malcolm Collins: I mean, the people aren’t,

Simone Collins: you know, invest money in trying to win them over.

Yeah. Like tend to your own flock. That’s my big thing. Just your people hand handle your people. Okay. If, if you don’t want them. Do get married to same sex people, then convince them that there’s a better way. I don’t know, but don’t. Force non-Mormons to do the Mormon thing. Don’t force non-Catholics to do the Catholic thing.

Don’t force non-Muslims to live by or non, non-Islamic adherence to.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Okay. So this basically explained how the Mormons ended up building their culture of no corruption. Okay. So what happened was Joseph Smiths was a famously very corrupt and Brigham Young, who then. I consider to be the real founder of Modern Mormon tradition.

He, he, [00:40:00] he basically put everything in

Simone Collins: place. He was the ray crock of the LDS church.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, he, he, big

Simone Collins: crock bought McDonald’s from its founder just in case you were not,

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. So anyway but Brigham Young he apparently, because remember how I said how he operated in almost like a communist society.

Like you go work here, you do this, you do this. Okay. That put him into a position even without having to do self-dealing or grift to become the wealthiest person in the settlement by, by far

Simone Collins: sure.

Malcolm Collins: And because he was already in a position to effortlessly be the wealthiest person, he had no reason for corruption.

And was able to put systems in place that prevented corruption from ever happening.

Simone Collins: Hmm. Okay. I suppose I could see that.

Malcolm Collins: And now one of the questions that I have for you is sort of a closing out question.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Is the way that techno Puritanism is structured, would it have eugenic. Fertility practices or would it have anti eugenic fertility practices?

Because [00:41:00] interestingly it doesn’t have as many protections as some of the other religion systems do. You know, it’s like, find out how to have kids find out how to improve those kids. I think the mere mandate of genetic selection along with genetic augmentation when the technology is available means that it would be.

Like the most eugenic of the religious groupings, because even people,

Simone Collins: well, I think it also is important that there’s a rule that you, you can’t make your income from being a religious leader

Malcolm Collins: that never got baked in. I actually never read that track.

Simone Collins: You didn’t? That’s kind of important.

Malcolm Collins: It’s one of the tracks we have never read.

So, there’s like five tracks that I’ve, or maybe more, maybe like 10, I’ve never read. Hmm. So we gotta get back to doing tracks, if I’m gonna be honest. I mean, piss off part of our audience, but we’ve pissed off so much of them recently by being like,

Simone Collins: do you keep going for their sacred cows? Carl Young Tucker Carlson.

Apparently people care about these things.

Why? But go on [00:42:00] Carl

Malcolm Collins: Young one. I do not know why anyone was surprised that Carl Young is like the heart and soul of the urban monoculture. And I. It’s, it is weird to me. It’s like, woo, psychiatry, like feel good, positive psychiatry and a

Simone Collins: lot of people, yeah.

But you know, Jordan Peterson really promoted a lot of his ideas and he was the Internet’s daddy for a long time, so,

Malcolm Collins: yeah. Well, and this caused people to make a, a big mistake. They, they had this perception of like. These ideas helped me at this point in my life and I’m like, I’m not arguing that it didn’t help you, that you might not have been at like a lower optimum.

The problem is, is that the ideas of Carl Young are not a global optimum. They are a local optimum. So they may be able to get you. If you don’t know the difference between a global and a logo optimum, it’s like standing on a hill and looking at a mountain. You have to first go down before you can get to a higher place.

And if we’re speaking of mental health yes, there are ways of seeing the world and problems that you can have that would make your life worse than adopting the ideas [00:43:00] of coral young and attempting to work on yourself from his perspective. Unfortunately, to get to a global optimum, you have to.

Give up many of the ideas that you accepted while you were the student of Carl Young. So an example of what one of these would be is something like believing that you have like a bunch of unconscious trauma from your childhood or something like that. Being able to frame and con mentalize, stuff like that may have helped you deal with a life view where you were, because Carl Young is saying you have trauma.

And that trauma can be dealt with. And this collection of toolkits he gave you for dealing with the trauma could get you to a, a higher place. But then we come along and say, actually the science says trauma is mostly a fictional concept. It doesn’t exist. And you would be better off, you would lose the trauma that you have if you simply didn’t believe in it.

But [00:44:00] unfortunately, now that’s harder for you. Because you both adopted the belief in trauma and the belief of the fix in trauma. So you need to dig out both of those now before you can get to the globally optimum place of I am responsible for my own mental state in any given moment, and I actually largely have control over it.

And I have control over the way I contextualize anything that’s happened to me throughout my entire life.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And of course that’s gonna you know, freak some people out who have adopted ideas and that’s you know, shame because Yeah. Yeah, a lot of people in the conservative movement, they, they were genuinely helped by these like, sort of proto frameworks when they had nothing else.

And it’s, it’s damaging to them to point out, well, the proto frameworks may be better. The nothing. But I think that, you know, other, other people probably feel that way about our religious beliefs, for example. They’re like, well, your religious beliefs are better than the urban monoculture. But you know, they’re not the true [00:45:00] often, right?

They’re not at the end. So, okay, you’ve got the eugenicist question, but then also the corruption question. The way the index is set up, because we actually worked really hard on creating the governance system for technical parent if it ever got large. Yeah. And the way that funding is set up was in it, and money is managed within it basically makes corruption organically impossible.

If you are interested in how we did that you can read, I think we talk about it both in the Pragmatist Guide to Crafting Religion and the Pist Guide to Governance how we structured the techno puritan framework or the index system to avoid the possibility of corruption. Because it, or basically organically down weights, the power of any faction that is acting in a corrupt manner immediately and aggressively.

So, that is. Fun. But would it work as well as the Mormon system? Probably [00:46:00] not because it does allow living off of the money as it is structured right now.

Simone Collins: It does

Malcolm Collins: as it’s structured right now. I mean, you would be removed if it appeared that you were living in a way that was irresponsible or you were managing the money in a way that was irresponsible.

But the goal of the way the system was set up was maximum flexibility for the person in charge at the moment, was also maximum ability to remove them. I’ve always felt that’s the optimal government type dictator, but very easy to remove is what you want.

Simone Collins: Yeah, I guess the, the, the votes were structured such that if you made your income or had any benefits from the governing structure, be it a government or I don’t know, like some city state you’re a part of, then that would.

Like force you to recuse yourself from voting. Yeah. You cant, you’re not allowed to vote in, you’re making money off

Malcolm Collins: the foundation.

Simone Collins: If you’re a government worker and you make a salary from the government,

Malcolm Collins: do

Simone Collins: not get to vote about how the [00:47:00] government works.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, and this is something I strongly believe. I don’t think anyone who’s making money off the government, I don’t think any government worker, I don’t think any elected official.

I don’t think anyone on well, should. Fair should be allowed to vote if you are a net drain. Yeah. There’s just too much of an,

Simone Collins: I mean, so a lot of people would argue, well, I work in the government, I know how it works, therefore I am more qualified to make a a, an informed vote. But we would still argue that the adverse incentives are such that no, you’re, you’re really just gonna vote yourself more money and more, more secure.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And we’ve seen this with teachers unions have teachers unions made teaching better. Like, of course not like giving, giving people power over their own employer is always a stupid thing to do.

Simone Collins: Yeah. They vote themselves better benefits, less work, more money. It’s, it’s, yeah. I mean, they, they may know how things work.

Malcolm Collins: But it doesn’t mean they have any incentive to improve them with their votes.

Simone Collins: Yeah, like you can know how an organization works, but the thing that you’re gonna vote for is how that organization can improve your life as an employee. That’s [00:48:00] unmoored from an organization’s core mission, which either is, you know, maximize shareholder value or, you know, pursue some kind of nonprofit mission.

And it can be either, but it, I’ve rarely seen employees act in accordance with. An organization’s true mission or an organization’s imperative to drive, share shareholder value, unless literally their compensation is contingent on those things. Like, you know, they, they make more money when the, when the organization makes more money, so, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So very interesting very interesting. Obviously the big question that I think a lot of people have, and if one of our fans wanted to dive into this. And do more research is, is this true across religions and across religions. Do we see any other patterns where high, high religiosity people might actually see a hit to, to this pattern?

I’d be very, very interested.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I’m so,

But it is very, very interesting.

Malcolm Collins: But yeah, well, it means that these groups [00:49:00] are going to, in the future, be able to increasingly outcompete the progressive groups. But I think what people miss is, what does conservative mean? What does intelligent conservative mean?

‘Cause like, obviously if you were rating us, we would come off as extremely religious and extremely conservative in any of these tests. And yet I think part of the conservative movement wants to frame us as being non-religious and non-conservative. Because the way that we are conservative doesn’t align with what they historically saw conservatism to mean.

Which I’ve always found to be very funny. They’re, they’re always like, oh, you, you are nothing like the founding fathers. You’re some weird form of Calvinism that tries to blend reli geos. Like Christianity was modern science. And I’m like, I’ve got bad news for you about the founding fathers buddy. But yeah.

But anyway, if you’re interested in our thoughts on that stuff, look up our track series. It’s, it’s crazy. We’re completely nuts. Well, that’s why I think some people, they’re, they, that’s one of the areas where I think many of our fans just don’t, they don’t [00:50:00] fully grok how materialist we are in our understanding of reality.

But anyway or, or how fanatical we are in our religiosity, which is something that just grows year over year.

Simone Collins: People don’t associate religiosity with materialism

Malcolm Collins: to be Yeah. But they’re not necessarily incompatible you know, as we’ve shown, which is weird.

Simone Collins: Yeah, 100%.

Malcolm Collins: The

Simone Collins: question is, it’s nice, it’s nice to hear.

I think a lot of progressives think that religion is discogenic. So I guess I, I like this in in that sense because I think a lot of progressives are like, oh, those like disgusting stupid people who believe in God. Having all these children or like, you know, uneducated 20 something, married, couples having children, those swine or is it, it, it, you know, that is that is not true.

Malcolm Collins: I just wanna get into space. I’ll tell you about that. Like civilization is seems to have a ticker on it these days, and it is us and the various religious [00:51:00] groups that are obviously going to be taking to the stars. So.

Simone Collins: Yeah, and I’m excited for that. It’s gonna be great. People aren’t gonna go to space because they, they, you know, I think there’s this really weird trend, and that’s just because everyone’s so anti-capitalist now.

But there’s this, this trend it seems in sci-fi movies where if it’s not some like space hero going into space, it’s some beleaguered, you know, victim of, of capitalism going into space to, you know. Make their way or whatever or, you know, just try to like survive. And no people aren’t gonna be going into space because it’s like getting a job at McDonald’s.

They’re gonna be going into space because they’re like the pilgrims who went to the colonies who wanted to build a city upon.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. They have a, a vision of a, of a. Nobody’s gonna want a beleaguered person on a spaceship. No. You only want fanatics on a spaceship. Everybody on it believes that they’re building a utopia.

Yeah. That is gonna be hard in the short term and incredibly beneficial in the long [00:52:00] term. And this is why these beliefs of like, oh, well, Elon’s just gonna take all the power after he gets to Mars, or something like that. And it’s like, one of one of my favorite things is like the guy who was like, yeah, I, I was paid consultant money by some billionaires.

They’re like, yeah, I built these like. Post, you know, civilization collapse compounds. Oh that, gosh. Yeah. They have these like giant staffs and how do I keep the staff from like, turning on me and killing me and taking over, you know, after the apocalypse happens. And the obvious answer is you should already be acting in their best interest.

And in the best interest of the shared mission of this post apocalyptic settlement. And you should already have a shared value system so everybody knows what the shared mission is. And if you haven’t done that, then somebody will create one and they will kill you. Right. Like nobody’s going to live just so that you can continue your Playboy lifestyle style.

Simone Collins: Yeah. In so far as you can have one of those in a post-apocalyptic environment.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I think that that’s something that, that even, people like Elon may, may miss, like even if [00:53:00] like we’re pretty fanatical about the idea of like, I would love to build a stable colony on Mars. Even if we became like, or Roger Stend became some of the first martians and they held to our religious beliefs if he wasn’t acting in the best interest of the colony I think he’d be killed pretty quickly.

By the, the colonists because in a colony environment like this, everybody’s lives are hanging on by a threat in any sort of space, colonization environment. And you really don’t have time for anyone who’s self-dealing. It is just not worth the risk. To invest one ounce in a leader’s luxuries that’s not going to life support and expansion and the birthing center and you know, whatever is needed.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah. Well, we’re for a really interesting. Next few centuries. So now that we’re gonna

Malcolm Collins: see them, well, I, I, I [00:54:00] hope that we get off planet and our descendants can come to form the, the, the clan people out in the distant space. I mean, that’s pretty much the way that we treat this. We know that our vision for the future of humanity is incompatible with many of our allies in the conservative movement.

And so get off, get

Simone Collins: going. Well, and space is big. Space is big. There’s, there’s room, space is big. Yeah. Okay. It’s okay. All

Malcolm Collins: right. Love you, Simone.

Simone Collins: I love you too, Malcolm.

I will start your grilled cheese. I’m still excited to record this. I’m hitting record just so we know.

Malcolm Collins: That means a bunch of actions are not going to work. And did the front end build work this time? It did. So I just need to wait for it to finish now.

Simone Collins: Yay.

Already, people who are using the h ancient AI for just fun are realizing like, oh, this could be used in. You know, some business applications, they’re not. I’m not the only one who’s like, [00:55:00] oh my gosh, please let me,

Malcolm Collins: well, I mean, that’s

Simone Collins: where I’m trying

Malcolm Collins: get it. I’m trying to get it to a point where I can use it for the things I want to use it for.

Mm-hmm. And the thing that I want to use it for most is building video games, because I’ve always wanted to make video games and I would be vico video games right now if I wasn’t building this. And so I wanna build this to a place where I can build video games because hopefully it’s, it’s better at building large scale things than what I’m working with right now.

And there we go. It is updating.

Simone Collins: Excellent.

Malcolm Collins: What are we doing for dinnertime Steak?

Simone Collins: I only just started thawing it out this afternoon. I don’t know if it’s

Malcolm Collins: okay. I

Simone Collins: mean, I can, I can, I can take and leave it on at room temperature, grilled cheese, maybe it’s grilled cheese. Okay. And then tomorrow

Malcolm Collins: I can get rid of it last of my, my lunch meat that I’ll put on top of it.

Simone Collins: Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: don’t, don’t put the, the lunch meat in the grilled cheese, although,

Simone Collins: no. [00:56:00] Okay. So you’ll just kind of plop it on top.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Because I think grilled cheese doesn’t cook as well when you cook it as a melt. Actually, no. Let’s try cooking it as a melt.

Simone Collins: Oh, I mean, I can make new,

Malcolm Collins: no,

Simone Collins: I’ll do it afterwards. I mean, also you seem to like things deconstructed anyway, so why would I not just give you grilled cheese and you have some meat on the side?

Malcolm Collins: That’s a good idea.

Simone Collins: Okay. Than favorable.

[00:57:00]