Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

In today’s episode of Based Camp, we dive deep into the controversial topic of dissociation — why it’s constantly framed as a trauma response or mental health red flag on the left, but the science shows it’s one of the most powerful tools for emotional regulation, wiser decision-making, better relationships, and long-term planning.

From third-person self-talk (talking about yourself like Elmo) to temporal distancing (identifying with your future self), the research is clear: proactively dissociating reduces stress, lowers cortisol, prevents rumination, boosts ethical behavior, and makes you a better spouse, parent, and human.

We argue that constantly “embodying” your feelings and obsessing over “me, myself, and I” is the root of modern misery, victimhood culture, and urban monoculture brain rot. True freedom comes from dropping the ego and viewing yourself as a temporary vessel for your values and future generations.

This episode is part of our Techno-Puritan religion series — dissociation as spiritual practice. Calvinism meets pragmatism.

As this was a Simone-outlined episode, we can share the episode outline below. The transcript for this episode follows. Happy New Year!

Episode Outline

Based Camp - The Case for Disassociating

* Occasionally, I’ve heard of people talk about disassociating

* ESPECIALLY when people are talking about abuse

* And invariably disassociation is framed in a negative context

* But this strikes me as add, as whenever I come across research on the effect of perspective taking, I find that what I would imagine to be disassociation—basically the equivalent of thinking of yourself in a more abstracted way, e.g. in the third person, as an outsider)—is a very POSITIVE thing

* And for a while, I have been operating under the assumption that we basically should be thinking like Elmo talks

* So I dedicated to educate myself on what people mean when they negatively talk about disassociation and also check whether my memory is deluding me and see if contextualizing oneself as a third party is not actually productive

* And ultimately, I think we should ALL disassociate

* And people who frame it as a bad thing are missing the point

This matters because a recurring theme in our discussions has been contextualization:

* How we view ourselves and consciousness

* Where we draw the definition of “self”

* Identity politics and the damage this emphasis has caused

* Victimhood mindsets and the external locus of control versus the internal locus of control

So I think we all need to think more carefully about how we play around with the word “I” and experiment with how dropping it may serve us well.

Disassociation: What are People Talking About

The Definition

People are usually describing dissociation: a mental “shut‑off” where the mind disconnects from feelings, body, or surroundings to get through something overwhelming or unsafe. It is a common, often automatic trauma response in ongoing abuse.

What dissociation is

* Clinically, dissociation is a process where thoughts, feelings, memories, or sense of identity become disconnected from one another.

* It exists on a spectrum from mild “zoning out” to more severe states where a person feels detached from reality or from themselves.

Why it happens in abuse

* Trauma and abuse can overwhelm the nervous system; when fight or flight are impossible, the brain may “check out” to reduce the emotional and physical impact.

* This can offer a kind of internal escape when there is no external way to leave, which is why it is especially common in children or adults who are trapped in abusive situations.

What it feels like subjectively

People use language like:

* “I was watching it happen from outside my body,” describing depersonalization, or feeling detached from their own body, thoughts, or actions.

* “It felt like a dream / like a movie,” describing derealization, where the world feels unreal, foggy, muted, or separated by a glass wall.

During vs. after the abuse

* Dissociation can occur during abusive episodes (e.g., going numb, going blank, “leaving the body”) and also after, when reminders or triggers bring back that detached state.

* There may be patchy or missing memories of events, difficulty feeling emotions, or a sense that what happened is far away or happened to “someone else.”

When dissociation is frequent, uncontrollable, and interferes with daily life, it can be diagnosed as a dissociative disorder (e.g., depersonalization/derealization disorder, dissociative identity disorder).

* BTW: Dissociative disorders are mental health conditions in which a person has ongoing problems with memory, identity, perception, or sense of self because of repeated or severe dissociation, often linked to trauma. They go beyond ordinary “zoning out” and start to interfere with daily life, relationships, and functioning.

* Main types

* Dissociative amnesia: episodes of memory loss about personal information or life events (often traumatic) that are too extensive to be ordinary forgetfulness, sometimes including “fugue” states where a person may travel or wander with no memory of it later.

* Depersonalization/derealization disorder: persistent or recurrent feeling of being detached from one’s own body or experiences (depersonalization) and/or feeling that the world around is unreal, foggy, or dreamlike (derealization), while still knowing intellectually that it is real.

* Dissociative identity disorder (DID): formerly called multiple personality disorder, involves two or more distinct identity states or “parts,” along with recurrent gaps in memory for everyday events, important personal information, or traumatic events.

What I Think is Actually Happening

First: Obviously it’s horrible when people are mistreated, but what I think may be happening is that extreme hardship has uncovered a survival mechanism that is both useful in these extreme scenarios AND useful in more mundane, everyday life.

And here’s the thing: The research backs it up.

The Research

Several lines of research suggest that taking a third‑party or “distanced” perspective on one’s own life (third‑person writing, future self, age‑progressed images) can help with emotion regulation, planning, and some health‑relevant behaviors.

(The following is from Grok, cross-checked against Perplexity, which found mostly the same research)

Self-Distancing—i.e. Taking a Third-Person Perspective or Visual Fly-on-the-Wall View

Research led primarily by Ethan Kross and Özlem Ayduk demonstrates that adopting a self-distanced perspective (e.g., thinking about oneself in the third person, using one’s name, or visualizing from an observer’s viewpoint) reduces emotional reactivity and promotes adaptive reflection on personal situations, including pain, conflicts, and stress.

* Kross et al. (2005) and Ayduk & Kross (2008): Participants reflecting on negative experiences (e.g., anger or depression) from a self-distanced perspective showed lower emotional and physiological reactivity (e.g., blood pressure) compared to a self-immersed (first-person) view. The self-distancing facilitated reconstruing events rather than recounting them, reducing distress.

* Ayduk & Kross (2010): Spontaneous self-distancing during reflection on conflicts predicted less rumination, lower emotional reactivity over time, and more problem-solving behavior in couples’ interactions.

* Kross et al. (2014): Third-person self-talk (e.g., “Why is [name] upset?”) reduced emotional reactivity under stress, including in socially anxious individuals, without requiring extra cognitive effort. This was supported by ERP and fMRI evidence, showing decreased activity in brain regions linked to emotional pain.

* Moser et al. (2017): Silent third-person self-talk quickly (within 1 second) lowered distress when viewing aversive images or recalling painful memories, aiding emotion regulation for pain-like experiences.

* Grossmann & Kross (2014): Self-distancing enhanced wise reasoning about interpersonal conflicts, reducing bias and promoting balanced perspectives.

These effects extend to reducing reactivity in PTSD veterans (though subjective distress persisted) and improving interpersonal criticism delivery.

Temporal Distancing—i.e. Thinking About Future Self or Broader Time Perspective

Temporal distancing involves viewing situations from a future-oriented or broadened temporal lens, often by connecting to or visualizing one’s future self.

* Bruehlman-Senecal & Ayduk (2015): Adopting a temporal distance (e.g., “This too shall pass”) reduced emotional distress and stress reactivity by focusing on impermanence.

* Chishima et al. (2021): Writing letters to/from one’s future self during COVID-19 increased temporal distancing, immediately decreasing negative affect and boosting positive affect.

* White et al. (2018): Self-distancing from future stressors (visualizing from afar) reduced vivid negative imagery, facilitating adaptive coping.

Visualizing Aged Future Self—i.e., Future Self-Continuity

Research by Hal Ersner-Hershfield focuses on enhancing continuity with one’s future self, particularly through visualizations of an aged self.

* Ersner-Hershfield et al. (2009): Higher future self-continuity (feeling connected to one’s future self) predicted less temporal discounting and more saving behavior, with neural evidence linking it to long-term planning.

* Hershfield et al. (2011): Interacting with age-progressed virtual renderings of oneself increased future-oriented decisions, such as delaying rewards.

* Rutchick et al. (2018): Enhancing future self-continuity via letter-writing promoted healthier behaviors (e.g., exercise) and reduced unethical choices by prioritizing long-term benefits.

* Related interventions (e.g., Van Gelder et al., 2013): Vivid future self-visualization improved ethical and health-related planning.

These approaches are particularly effective for planning future-oriented behaviors like diet, exercise, and health improvements, as stronger future self-connection motivates sacrificing immediate gratification for long-term gains.

Overall, self-distancing (including third-person and temporal forms) consistently aids emotion regulation in conflicts and pain, while future self-continuity techniques support proactive planning for health and diet by making long-term consequences feel more personal. Benefits are supported across lab experiments, daily life studies, and neuroimaging.

Why the Disconnect?

Basically, disassociation is reactive and self-distance is proactive.

The difference in framing I have encountered seems to come down to perspective, and specifically perspective based on an internal versus external locus of control.

The biggest criticism of disassociation is that it can be SO EFFECTIVE that it contributes to PTSD symptoms and/or can increase the risk of revictimization, but I would argue that those problems don’t have to do so much with disassociation so much as they have to do with not intentionally addressing the source of chronic trauma.

What Would I Recommend?

Disassociate PROACTIVE—and not because it creates better internal results in terms of mental and physical health, but also because it produces good social results, as people who keep bringing the conversation back to them are absolute bores.

Episode Transcript

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Some leftist is gonna clip it and be like, you know that Simone chick, she’s,

Simone Collins: she’s in a constant state of trauma response.

Malcolm Collins: She’s in a constant state of disassociation being married. .

Well, so Simone, you’re telling me that the only way you get through life with me is being in a constant state of disassociation?

Well, I think what I want, what I want is when we have the documentary, okay. I want that to be one of the themes. Like we don’t believe in love. You’re in a constant state of disassociation, dissociation. Our kids live in

Simone Collins: terror every day. I part of me, though, part of me thinks it might be the way that my mind is.

Is set up

would you like to know more?

Simone Collins: Hello, Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today because I have been really mulling over the concept of disassociation, and you don’t even seem to be that familiar with it.

I think it’s because I consume a lot of left-leaning content, but I frequently hear people talk about disassociating. And, and especially when people are talking about abuse, they’re like, oh, like I disassociated. And it’s like in the [00:01:00] context of going through something terribly traumatic and it’s, it’s invariably framed as a bad thing that it’s happening.

Disassociation bad. And this strikes me as really weird. Because whenever I come across research on the effect of sort of different perspective thinking or taking, like if, if you think in terms of the third person it’s only positive. I’ve never actually seen research that frames thinking about yourself or a situation you’re in from some distance is coming out negative, and yet all these people on the left.

I only talk about it in negative context, but in a sort of very different context. So for a while I’ve been operating under this assumption that basically we need to be thinking like Elmo talks. And, and yet all these people think it’s bad. So I, I decided to educate myself. You no, I’m,

Malcolm Collins: I’m, I have no idea where you’re going with, because I’ve always heard dissociation is bad.

Only heard of it in a, when you wrong, when you say disassociation, I think of grape. I’m like, oh. She said disassociation is good. It’s good when you’re being great. Yeah. [00:02:00] That’s the only, no, but it is,

Simone Collins: I mean. Would you rather be in yourself while you’re being bumped in a bad way, or would you rather not?

Malcolm Collins: Simone, you are a, a messed up person are a, I’m just saying messed up person.

Simone Collins: Good. It’s a good psychological technology.

Speaker 4: Good. You’re gonna feel a little pitch now, motors.

Speaker 5: Don’t worry Mr. Stach, whatever traumatized your son in his past will find it.

Simone Collins: We gonna get into people like I’m

Malcolm Collins: the bad guy on the show and I am totally not. You are. I, well, I’m wearing my,

Simone Collins: my war hammer.

Malcolm Collins: Today? Oh yeah, you got your, your, your war hammer out.

Someone pointed out that

Simone Collins: all I needed was an inquisitor’s hat in my outfit would be complete. And I’m like, oh, yeah,

Malcolm Collins: I get, we need to get you an inquisitor hat. Me do. Come on. Like, actually,

Simone Collins: I just, I looked, there’s not a lot of good, I, I, I, maybe I need to commission something, but yes. A war hammers inquisitors [00:03:00] had, would be appropriate.

And thank you for that comment. Well, they’re very puritan looking. Come on. They are, they’re extreme. I know that’s why it works. That’s what techno Puritanism is. Okay. We didn’t invent it. We just discovered it. Okay. It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s been out there now. Hold on.

Malcolm Collins: No, they’ve got some good ones here. I’ll send you one right now.

Oh really? Oh,

Simone Collins: I just. We need, we need to think like Elmo talks. All right. And, and you know, it just, Malcolm needs to take a break. Okay. That, that is how our life needs to be. Okay. Explain this

Malcolm Collins: to me, why I went through the research.

Simone Collins: So I’m gonna walk you, you’re driving me to

Malcolm Collins: disassociate right now, Simone, because you don’t have your inquisitors hat to own yet.

Simone Collins: I know, I know the trauma you’re going through. So I, I, I looked into it though because I’m like, okay, well, am I getting disassociation wrong? So I looked into what that is. I looked into the research on, you know, different perspective taking interventions. And ultimately I think all of us should disassociate always and proactively.

And I think [00:04:00] people who frame it as a bad thing are missing the point. And also are are more like classic leftist progressives who take a victimhood mindset. Who take a Simon, you

Malcolm Collins: do you know what’s gonna come with this podcast? Yeah. Some leftist is gonna clip it and be like, you know that Simone chick, she’s,

Simone Collins: she’s in a constant state of trauma response.

Malcolm Collins: She’s in a constant state of disassociation being married. Well, here’s

Simone Collins: the, here’s the thing actually, when, when we’ll go into it, but, a lot of the, the symptoms of disassociated identity disorder are like. Common traits of mine. So this is great fodder, but you gotta, you gotta dish it grist for the mill friend.

But anyway, this, this really matters is like a broader meta based camp thing because a recurring theme in our discussions has. Been about contextualization. How do we contextualize this self? What is consciousness? Are we conscious? What are we, you know, this whole ship of thesis thing, right? Like, can you actually live forever when your, your views constantly change when your cells switch out.

You [00:05:00] know, like we, we constantly talk about this. In the context of that, we, we, we talk about where we draw the definition of self, right? How like, conservatives have a sort of circle of self closest around like your core family and then your community or religion. Whereas progressives, you know, the self is like, you know.

Foreigners especially migrants who are, are refugees, et cetera, and like much less your own group. If, if you’re white, then it’s hatred of your own group. So we talk about that kind of contextualization of identity. We also talk about how identity politics have. You know, sort of ruined society and how, and how, and people are even commenting on the episode that we ran as we’re recording today, which was on why there’s been this rise of antisemitism and that a lot of people are, are kind of blaming reformed Jews for inventing identity politics and, and just talking about how damaging identity politics as a concept has been.

And it really is very damaging to society to get people to associate more with like groups like my group, I, I, I think.

Malcolm Collins: And I would note for that [00:06:00] episode, I, I do think that reformed Jews played a role in inventing identity politics, but I don’t think a bigger role than like the Unitarian Universalists.

Yeah. And you pointed that out. Comments. And I think blaming you know, real Jews for what were reformed Jews are doing. Is about as bad as blaming like real Christians on what Unitarian Universalists are doing. Right. That’s a very

Simone Collins: valid point. Yeah. But anyway, identity politics are bad. I don’t care who invented them, they suck.

So, you know, we need to have a lot of different conversations about the contextualization of. Self and me and, and how we view ourselves and our lived experience to use a term commonly used on the left. Because it’s important and it is profoundly, it has a profound effect on our life and on society.

And so this is an important conversation to have and that’s why we’re getting into it. You’ve never even thought about it. So let’s first start with what people are talking about. When they talk about con disassociation, especially with regard to disassociation in moments of trauma and abuse so people are [00:07:00] usually describing disassociation as, as a mental shutoff, where the mind disconnects from feelings and the body or surroundings to get through something overwhelming or unsafe.

It’s a common, often automatic trauma response when someone is, is, is going through something really tough. So. Clinically, it’s, it’s a process where thoughts or feelings or memories or a sense of identity become disconnected from one another. And it exists on a spectrum of mild zoning out to more severe states where a person feels detached from reality or themselves.

Like you’ll, you’ll hear people say things like that. You know, I was, I was watching myself. Go through this or something they’ll, they’ll use language like I was watching it happen from outside my body or it felt like a dream or like a movie. And then during versus after the, the traumatic experience where disassociation happens, it can, it could occur are basically while it’s happening, but it can also happen after where you might have patchy or missing [00:08:00] memories or, or difficulty feeling emotions.

And basically when disassociation is, is. Frequent or uncontrollable. And if it interferes with daily life, though this is a very subjective evaluation, in my opinion, it can be diagnosed as a dissociative disorder. For example, depersonalization or derealization disorder, which I’d never heard of before.

Disassociated identity disorder, which I had heard of before. And these are actual mental health conditions in which a person has ongoing problems with memory or identity or perception. Or a sense of self because of repeated or severe disassociation, which is typically linked with trauma, and it goes beyond ordinary zoning out and, and starts to interfere with life and relationship and functioning.

So that there are multiple types of it. There’s disassociative amnesia where episodes of memory loss and, and. Just basically like, I don’t remember this happening or I don’t remember this thing about me, or life events that may have been traumatic, like they just have no [00:09:00] memory of it. Or forgetfulness or people enter like fugue states where they could travel or wander with no memory of it.

Later, there’s also depersonalization or derealization disorder, which I’d not. Heard of, like I said, persistent or recurring feeling of being detached from one’s own body or experiences, which is depersonalization. And then there’s the feeling that the world around you is unreal or foggy or dream life, which dreamlike, which is derealization.

Even though technically you understand like on an intellectual factual level, you know that the things that are happening around you were real. And then there’s disassociated identity disorder or DID. Which is also called multiple personality disorder, which I think you’ve said isn’t really real.

Yeah. So

Malcolm Collins: the, the, the preponderance of evidence is that this is like being trans or something. It’s one of these co up disorders.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So I don’t, I don’t really think that has that much to do with this, but what I think is, is one, I think this is funny ‘cause as, as you know, from just living with me, I, I don’t remember like anything.

You’re like, do you [00:10:00] remember we talked about this on our podcast? And I’m like, Nope. No memory. Or like, do you remember this movie we watched? And I’m like, I don’t remember any of that. And I have to write everything down or take pictures of things where I just don’t.

Malcolm Collins: Well, so Simone, you’re telling me that the only way you get through life with me is being in a constant state of disassociation?

Well, I think what I want, what I want is when we have the documentary, okay. I want that to be one of the themes. Like we don’t believe in love. You’re in a constant state of disassociation, dissociation. Our kids live in

Simone Collins: terror every day. I part of me, though, part of me thinks it might be the way that my mind is.

Is set up like my operating system like or, or just, I think it could be, it could have a genetic factor and I don’t know, maybe this isn’t true. Other parents can chime into the con comments, but like our kids claim to have a bunch of memories that aren’t real, like tourist and talking about learning karate in the jungle with his grandfather.

Like I learned Kuwait. What toted. Come on. He, he comes up with all these stories.

Malcolm Collins: He always [00:11:00] says if he doesn’t know where he learned something, he’ll just say, well, I learned it when I was a baby from my grandfather.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Or like, or he’ll have some kind of backstory. But my favorite was about learning karate in the jungle with his grandfather.

I’m like, what kind of back story are you building, man? With my grand like, yes, you did Torsten. We are going with that now. Like 100 freaking percent. That was just amazing. But I think maybe it’s, it’s it’s just genetic or it’s, it’s the way that I, I like, I don’t ruminate on things and I think I’m a lot less stressed and happier because of it.

And so maybe I’m such a fan of this concept of disassociation ‘cause I’m like. Yeah, what’s the problem with that? Like, and you know how like sometimes I reboot, like you’ll find me like literally zoning out uhoh, like staring at an open fridge and then I’ll be like, my name is Simone and I am, and then I reboot and I’m like, oh, I’m looking for string cheese for toted.

And like, oh, I’ll find myself again. But I have to reboot with my name is Simone and I am, ‘cause I forget. But I don’t know, like I. I don’t know what’s going on, [00:12:00] Malcolm. But what I think is happening is it’s, it is obviously horrible when people are abused or mistreated. It, it’s not, I’m not, I’m not trivializing that, what I think may be happening is that the extreme hardship people have experienced that, that leads them to.

Innovate or responsibly develop disassociation as a coping mechanism has, has uncovered a survival mechanism that is both useful in these extreme environments, but also could be very useful in everyday mundane life. And here’s the thing, the research backs it up. What? Come on. No, it does. No, it does, it does.

Because I’ve come across all these different studies and like I didn’t really put it together until I really started. How rumming and thinking about all these people talking about disassociation negatively, because you know how I used to save all these studies? I sort of stopped doing it when I could just ask AI and find any study I was interested in.

I used to save studies that I was like, oh, this is useful. This is useful. And a bunch of the studies that I’d found there was a very common [00:13:00] theme of. Oh, like if you’re having a conflict as a couple you know, just, just have the couple, like, outline it or discuss it as though they’re discussing another couple’s problems and they’re gonna build a better solution.

Or like, you know, if, if you’re trying to get yourself to say, okay,

Malcolm Collins: okay, I’m agreeing with you more here. You’re, you’re persuading me. I, I do. Plus the thing is, it’s,

Simone Collins: it’s framed in such a different context that you don’t connect the two, but they’re the same thing. So here’s the thing. So several lines of research.

Not just the whole like conflict resolution among couples, suggested taking a third party or distanced perspective, but distance is just another word for disassociated. Third party is just another word for disassociated from one’s own life. So that’s third person writing, or future self age progressed image interaction, that kind of thing can help with emotion regulation.

It can help with planning and it can even help with some health related behaviors. So the, the following one to summarize is, is just, just as, and you can ask any ai, just ask any AI about this. And, and for those who [00:14:00] follow us on Substack or on Patreon, I’m gonna include all my, my notes in this and links to sources and in the show notes.

I, I asked both Brock and Perplexity, they pulled up a bunch of studies. Here’s what Brock found that, that they found mostly the same research, but okay. Let’s, let’s go through some of it. So there’s one sort of cluster of themes, which is just self distancing, like in other words, taking a third person perspective or visual fly on the wall.

View disassociation, right. Oh, it was like watching a movie. Except when you do it proactively, it’s actually really effective. So research, research led primarily by a guy named Ethan Cross and then Oslo. I. I duck demonstrates that adopting a self distance perspective, like thinking about oneself in the third person using one’s name or visualizing from an observer’s viewpoint, just the Elmo approach.

Elmo thinks this reduces emotional reactivity and promotes adaptive reflection on personal situations, including pain and conflicts and stress. So in both 2005 and 2000. [00:15:00] Eight research that cross was on. And, and IDEC was on one of them. They, they found that participants reflecting on negative experiences like anger or depression from a self distance perspective showed lower emotional and physiological reactivity like lower blood pressure.

So like your actual cortisol levels here are lower compared to a self immersed first person view. The self distancing facilitated reconstructing events rather than recounting them reducing stress so you’re not reliving. The trauma, which is exactly what was described in, in that one of two forms of disassociation where it’s happening after the effect where people are distancing themselves from the traumatic event.

But it doesn’t have to be traumatic. It could be that time where you had road rage, or that time you relate to class, or that time you bombed on a test or that time you embarrassed yourself in front of friends or colleagues, right? So in 2010, I duck and cross found that spontaneous self distancing during reflection on conflicts predicted less rumination, lower emotional reactivity over time, and more problem solving behavior in couples interactions.[00:16:00]

So this can make your relationships more productive, which is very different from the way that people talk about. Disassociation in the, in the context of relationships, they always talk about it in terms of like, oh, this enables the abuse to keep happening because it allows you to tolerate it, essentially, is what they’re trying to argue.

But this points out that when properly applied, it helps you problem solve and resolve the conflicts. So it’s, it’s like saying, you know, like, oh. Like she drank water and she died of water poisoning. Like it’s a tool. You, you, it’s, it’s, it’s not good or bad. Yeah. In 2014, they found that third person self-talk, like, why is Simone upset if I were doing it for myself?

Why is Elmo upset, reduced emotional reactivity under stress, including in socially anxious individuals? Hello? That’s. Me without requiring extra cognitive effort. And, and this was supported by ERP and FMRI evidence showing decreased activity in brain regions linked to emotional pain. So people can’t [00:17:00] just be like, oh, this is just subjective reports.

No, like they’re doing functional mri. Some

Malcolm Collins: people. It’s so good that I forced you to dissociate. Thank God horrendous, horrendous behavior towards you. You’re gonna run wild with this. How do so many people

Simone Collins: get the

Malcolm Collins: idea that it’s a bad

Simone Collins: thing? Like God? In the moment though, it’s also really useful. So we’re not talking just about reflecting on other events, but they in this case, Mosser, Atal in 2017 found that silent third person self-talk quickly, that is within one second lower distress when viewing aversive images are recalling painful memories.

Eating emotion regulation for pain, like experiences. So like if you’re going through something rough and you immediately try to recontextualize yourself in the, like, if you sort of proactively disassociate like intentionally, it’ll, it’ll, it’ll be less painful as it happens to you. And then Grossman and Cross in 2014 found itself distancing, enhanced wise reasoning about interpersonal conflict, reducing bias, and promoting balanced perspectives.

So it’s making you a better. Colleague, friend, lover, [00:18:00] spouse, whatever, a parent like, it’s just, it’s a smart thing to do. And these effects extend to reducing reactivity in PTSD veterans, though some subjective distress. Duds did persist. But I mean, obviously if you’ve been through something crazy, of course.

But it does improve also interpersonal criticism, delivery because you know, when, when you, when you detach things from yourself emotionally, obviously they get better. Another thing, and this is not, this is a little different, but you know, this is something that I do a lot and I wanna get into it a little bit, is the concept of temporal distancing.

Like thinking about your future self or a broader time perspective. So right now. We’re recording this in January. This is the month of future day in our, in our techno Puritan family. That’s our religion. And this is one in which we try to get our kids to begin thinking about the long-term future and future generations and the future police, and identifying with the long-term future and throughout my entire life.

I have done things like write to myself in the future and really contextualize myself as just one link in an unbroken chain. Like I’m just serving the [00:19:00] concept of future Simone, which is in turn serving the concept of future generations and human flourishing. Like I. It, it’s very disassociative. But on a more granular level, just in terms of like, oh, can we make people happier or like healthier?

There, there is really interesting research on this concept of temporal distancing. So it’s not just a weird techo purin thing to be super into stuff like this. So it, it really just broadly involves viewing situations from a future oriented. Or broaden temporal lens and brun, helman and cynical and I, I duck again, the same guy who did the other like distanced studies in 2015 found that adopting a temporal distance like this too shall pass reduced emotional distress and stress reactivity by focusing on in.

Permanence. You know, when you know that you’re just kind of like going through this blip in time and that times, are you saying

Malcolm Collins: that this is what incel should be doing? I mean, I can imagine no one in society that’s more traumatized than our incel fans and

Simone Collins: But but they don’t, they can’t necessarily say, this too shall pass.[00:20:00]

It’s dark,

Malcolm Collins: but Well, their life will pass one day. I mean, that’s

Simone Collins: true. That’s true. And they can also just make ow it like we go, go see our, our, our episode on, on Men just choosing to raise kids on their own. I, I think it’s just so based. It’s super cool. And then Shima et al in 2021 found that writing letters to or from one’s future self during COVID-19, in this case, increased temporal distancing and immediately decreased negative affect, and it boosted positive affect.

So it can really help to just put things in perspective if you’re going through something. Stressful. Like say, I don’t know, a global pandemic. And then white etal in 2018 found the self distancing from future stressors, like visualizing them from afar, reduced vivid negative imagery and facilitated adaptive coping.

So just in general of like being less stressed, thinking with that temporal distance is really helpful. And then sort of along those lines, I remember reading about these and I found them really interesting studies that had people see like. AI age [00:21:00] diversions of themselves caused some interesting effects.

So research by how Esner Hirschfeld focuses on enhancing continuity with one’s future self, particularly through visualizations of an aged self. So in 2009, he found that there was higher future self continuity, like feeling connected to your future self. It’s funny,

Malcolm Collins: this used to be something that you like had to pay a bunch of money to do or have, especially software.

I know. Now you could just like

Simone Collins: throw your image into rock and be like, show

Malcolm Collins: you all. I wanna show, I wanna see myself bald. I’ve been wanting to see that since you Well, no, because your

Simone Collins: family’s never gonna, no,

you just need to see yourself like old with white hair. ‘cause you’re never gonna go bald. I’ll

Malcolm Collins: never be bald in my life.

Maybe I should see what I look like with a beard. I’ll never have a beard either. I don’t. I don’t. Okay. Well, yeah, do it and put it in this video. I don’t know. Don’t, so people can say if I, if I look better, like should I have had. A beard or be bald. And you know what I’m gonna do? Oh,

Simone Collins: I would, yeah. I’m curious to see what our audience says about you having a beard because everyone’s like, he, well, all he needs to do is just [00:22:00] present as more masculine and then your audience will respect you.

And. I guess birds are masculine. I think it’s

Malcolm Collins: funny is a lot of people don’t realize, like, when I don’t have my glasses on, I actually have a lot of features that like, look maxers go for. I know. You just

Simone Collins: take them off and I know, like I did some title cards to photos of you. Yeah. When, when you didn’t have your glasses on and people were like, oh.

It’s literally like those stupid B movies where like the boy takes the teenage girl’s glasses off and is like, you’re beautiful.

Malcolm Collins: You, you look, you look masculine. Then we went we did the viral rounds recently. One of the tops comments was, looks max jaw. Or you have an

Simone Collins: amazing jaw. I forget, in your cheek box are fantastic.

I think the

Malcolm Collins: term in the looks max community.

Simone Collins: Oh, mo yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Which, which is funny that they, they could see it, but through the glasses and people white, they always looking at, they, they’re

Simone Collins: able to look at actual morphology, like they’re looking at the pieces. I think a lot of people just can’t see beyond thick glasses.

Malcolm Collins: I, I, I think they too, and I, and I wear them a intentionally, I want people to think I’m a nerd. They’re very, no, [00:23:00] we,

Simone Collins: we, we want to trigger people. That’s the thing is people like, we’ll just get rid of the glasses. I hate the glasses. Well, tons of people on Twitter have even gone to the, the, and I’ve sent you some of the photos of texts and triangle glasses.

They’re like, well, he needs thick triangle glasses if you’re gonna do this. Wow. Like the, the glasses practically have their own lore. Cutler and Gross. By the way, guys, amazing brand. Love them so much. You know

Malcolm Collins: my signature glasses, people don’t know this. They used to be circular wire framed. Yeah, they were barely

Simone Collins: visible.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: I only started these glasses right before this show. Yeah, yeah. So if you go to, well, because you

Simone Collins: got these for me, first at Cutler and Gross, and then your mom was like, I love these glasses. And then she got you those as a gift. Hmm. They’re a gift from his late mother. People get off his, but also they troll people, so we’re not gonna stop anyway.

Malcolm Collins: But, but anyway, the, the point I was making is, is this digital manipulation of pictures and stuff like this. What, what, how does it help you go, go through that? So

Simone Collins: it, it, it, it helps, it, it encourages long-term planning behavior. Hirschfeld found in 1 20 11 [00:24:00] piece of research that interacting with age progress versus virtual renderings of oneself increased future oriented decisions, such as delaying rewards.

So that’s amazing. And IC Etal in 2018 found that enhancing future self continuity via letter writing promoted healthier behaviors like exercise and reduced. Unethical choices by prioritizing long-term benefits. And then other related interventions like vivid future self visualization, so like cheaper before the age of ai ‘cause they didn’t wanna pay for money.

So you’re basically sociopath maxing it improved ethical and health related planning? No, it made people more ethical. Not less ethical.

Malcolm Collins: You, you’re, you’re an ethical sociopath. This is like the ethical slut, like, yeah. Yes.

Simone Collins: I’m the ethical sociopath. That’s, that’s called pragmatism. Malcolm Pragmatism is, is ethio socio ethical sociopathy?

I think broadly. But the, the point is that it just across a bunch of different domains, it’s super clear the disassociating from who you are right now, like associating with your [00:25:00] future self or looking at yourself in the third person, just elbowing yourself. Is good. And the, the basically disassociation is reactive and self distance is proactive.

And the difference in framing I’ve encountered seems to come down to perspective and it’s, and specifically perspective based on an internal versus an external locus of control. And, and the biggest criticism of disassociation, like I said, is that it, it basically, it’s just too effective. It’s so effective that it contributes to PTS.

D symptoms or can increase the, the risk of revictimization. Like, oh, you’ll stay with this partner who’s causing trauma because you’re able to endure it, right? Because like,

Malcolm Collins: well, so the reason why it’s so useful, I think Uhhuh is because it prevents the greatest sins, but also the. Core motivations of people who are in the urban monoculture.

Hmm. Which is to say, attempting to sort of maximize self-acceptance or in the moment, like personal [00:26:00] experiences like pleasure, et cetera. Right. Oh. And a lot of the quest that you see on an urban monoculture life is this. You’re embodied. Very ignorant. You’re an body. Very, I’m looking to find myself, accept myself, self actualize.

And we say just at step one, no. None of that matters. No, no, no.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah. Like drop I, drop me drop the concept of self. You are nothing. You are, you are a, a conveyor, a vector of your values. Your intentionally chosen values, your objective function. You exist only to serve it. You are an ephemeral blip.

In, in the, the continuous chain that is humanity or whatever it is that humanity eventually becomes humble yourself. Before that totally. So I, I, I, yeah, I’m, I’m just, here’s me saying everyone should proactively disassociate and not just because it creates better internal results in terms of mental and physical and, and financial health and [00:27:00] better ethical decision making, but it also just produces good social results.

Like when you, when you read. Classics like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Dale Carnegie just goes on and on about how people’s favorite word is their first name and like all the social, like how to be charismatic experts, talk about how you should focus on other people and what they’re doing and what they’re thinking.

And, and the worst kind of bore in any social context is the person who always brings it back to themselves, who’s just so obsessed with themselves. And we also talk about people who, who have brain rott, who just constantly talk, well, I’m gonna take a shower and I’m gonna do this. Or like, I’m, they just talk about.

Their, their stuff in them all the time. No one cares about those people. So no one’s even gonna like you if you’re that kind of fully embodied person who just can’t get away from I and me. What, yeah. I guess we even talk about this, we even have to talk about this in the context of sexuality, how bad it is to identify with the things that arouse you.

Again, you, you already were disassociation, pilled. You already were all about disassociating. You, you just didn’t realize it. [00:28:00]

Malcolm Collins: Hmm. Well, okay. So, no, I, I agree that, that that, that this overly embodied sense, you, it is important to be maximally disassociated at all times Yes. In all decision making. Yes. So, yeah, I, I agree with that.

And I even wonder if I should, yeah, it’s great that I don’t remember

Simone Collins: anything that happens because I’m just equally delighted by every time we watch a movie for like. The 11th time. See, this is why I can watch home alone with the kids like endlessly during the holiday season and you can’t take it more than twice.

‘cause I’m like, oh, I can’t believe that just happened. I can’t believe it. He got hit in the face with an iron and he survived this movie, defies it defies biology. That would be, since now we’re doing homeschooling, that would be an amazing, like he has to be older for this, but like to do a detailed, we’ll have him do like a YouTube video on this like.

The detailed biology of home alone, like exactly what would actually happen if all of these things took place. I, other people [00:29:00] have done YouTube, like the temperature at which skin burns and what degree burns would he have and what would actually, anyway, and also the physics. The physics of home alone.

We’re gonna have so much fun homeschooling. I can’t,

Malcolm Collins: like, I, I can’t believe it. You are the weird one, Simone and the wrong one. Honestly, I’m not

Simone Collins: Simone.

Malcolm Collins: No, you are not Simone. No. You are a third dimensional entity.

Simone Collins: I am, I am. I’m operating the puppet that is Simone, that exists to serve our objective function, which is long-term human flourishing.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, I like that. No, I mean, I, I I think that you’re broadly right with all of this. Why do you think progressives hate it so much?

Simone Collins: I think because progressives. Or deeply embodying the, in the concept of me and my feelings. And, and they’re way too much in their heads about everything. They make everything.

They’re, they’re just, they’re so shoved into their brains and their internal rumination, and this is how you end up with everything from spoons to trans people because they’re overthinking [00:30:00] it. They’re like, ah, like, I kind of like. Ah, I like, you know, women’s shoes and they’re like, I’m a woman. When like, no, you’re, you’re just overthinking it.

You’re way too much in your head. Get outta your head, disassociate, stop it. And they’re like, yes, I’m disassociating. It’s bad. And I’m like, no, you’re disassociating. And keep

Malcolm Collins: going. You’ll make sure that anybody who works for us disassociates it’s the only way they’re gonna

Simone Collins: survive if they No, no,

Malcolm Collins: I, I think you’re right is that it’s so antithetical to the urban monocultures value set that they can’t understand because it’s not actually like a negative experience to disassociate.

Simone Collins: Well, no, but again. The reason why people disassociate, the reason why it happens spontaneously is it is a survival mechanism. It makes the intolerable tolerable, and it it, how can it be so illogical? Or like, how, how is it so crazy to extrapolate from that? Like, okay, well if disassociation makes. The, the intolerable, most horrible experiences possible.

Like your leg is being cut off, you disassociate, right? Like terrible things do happen to people and they do disassociate in very intense ways. So, okay, so then, and but also then now you’re waiting in a [00:31:00] grocery store line and you’re pissed off ‘cause someone is wearing stinky perfume and you, you, like, you disassociate a little and it becomes a lot less stressful.

And here’s the thing, like people but there’s this, there’s this like reverse hedonic treadmill where like. Thing. You know, good things, like the best thing possible happening to you, you normalize to it, but also the worst thing possible happening to, to you, you normalize to it. But also people start also equally making the worst of really stupid, bad things, right?

Like the most privileged people in the world. And this is all like, this is why we have spoons. This is why we have the most wealthy societies ever that have the best amenities ever being miserable. Right? Is they still are. Stressed and miserable and afraid. And so I think they should be reacting to things with coping mechanisms that allow them to, to, to not like.

I feel like the cortisol level that people are experiencing driving to work is not that different in many cases from the cortisol level, people were experiencing like. [00:32:00] You know, run, running from bears in the woods, or like, possibly dealing with even some warlike scenarios, like people are just, they, they have such bad mental health these days that they’re having that same level of reaction.

I mean, people weren’t being treated with, with severe anxiety disorders the same way in World War ii. I mean, they were still experiencing severe anxiety, but I don’t know, they weren’t coping with it as, as, as, as well. I feel like people are coping worse with far easier problems today than they were in the past.

So again, disassociate.

Malcolm Collins: So, I, I, what was I gonna say? It’s interesting that the prenatal list movement advocates, right? The ones who are like, well, humanity is good, that we’re saying, well, and of course we say this from an external perspective, like I don’t actually. You know, embody myself. And I think that this is an interesting point that the antinatalists often heavily embody themselves.

Mm. Which is in part, I think why they have such hatred for their own lives. Mm-hmm. Whereas the ISTs typically search [00:33:00] for meaning in something other than their subjective experience of reality. Yeah. Which makes meaning very easy to find. And I think that that’s what comes with disassociation and that sort of core to this philosophy.

Is that meaning in life comes through something other than your subjective personal experiences of reality?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: See this is more interesting than you thought it would be, isn’t it?

Malcolm Collins: It, I’m actually gonna make this one of the religious episodes, so I’ll put it on the Techno Puritan website and everything.

Simone Collins: That’s so cool.

Malcolm Collins: Yay. I think you did a good enough one. I did a religion, part of the religion disassociate all the time. That is, that is the most Calvinist thing ever. Just the total. Check out. Just

Simone Collins: I love it. I love it. Well, I also love you very, very much. And I’m excited to do another episode with you, another conversation.

I, I love our talks. Thank you.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. Alright, have a good one, Simone. Love you. Love you too.[00:34:00]

Simone Collins: Okay. Actually. By the way, I, I heard this from the, oh God,

what is it called? What’s that podcast? That’s about

fertility. Ill conceived the one about Natal that I’ve, I’ve started listening to. They mentioned in one of their podcast episodes, sperm racing, and I need to look into it like some young kid raised.

Maybe more than $10 million to do competitive sperm racing events.

Malcolm Collins: S sport racing, bird racing. What? Sperm

Simone Collins: as in the stuff in ejaculate. Sperm racing. Oh, yes, I heard about that. I had not heard about that. I guess I can kind of see the investment case for it in an age of sports betting and celebrity like, well, [00:35:00] content creator culture, like who’s would win?

Joe Rogan or Donald Trump. You know, that kind of thing. Right? Like, I, I could kind of see it, but there are some issues with it in that the, the actual races are not live. They are. Recorded and then played at the live events. So it’s not, it’s not even like, it’d be, it would be way too easy to rig and, and that’s my biggest issue with it.

But that’s your biggest issue? Yeah. I mean, what I, how is it that di I mean, I think it’s, it’s better than, for example, dog racing. I like, I like horse racing, but mostly. Because of the names. The names are fantastic. I think what adds an appeal to this is among men. Any man can participate and they don’t necessarily have to train for it, right?

Like you can’t you know, there have been all these instances in which like Elon Musk will challenge mark Zuckerberg to fight like an MMA fight. [00:36:00] And they always get canceled because, oh, you’d have to train and like. You know, you have to be in really good condition. You have to know fighting technique, all these things, like it’s way too much work.

Whereas the way that most men report preparing for things like this is, okay, well I just won’t get any in any hot tubs and I won’t drink for a little bit and I’ll eat better. You know, like there’s not a whole lot you have to do. To improve sperm quality. I think you do need to do it, what, six months in advance or something?

I just, anyway, I, I could see it because we like to see famous people compete and this allows famous people to compete in a way that is very tied to their identity and masculinity, but I don’t think they would. Okay. Why? ‘cause they’d be afraid of their, their, you don’t

Malcolm Collins: know how good you are at this.

You have no idea from looking at yourself.

Simone Collins: Just go to an embryologist and be like, Hey, please. Or just, I mean, there, there are tons of, of services that will test your sperm motility and sperm count and all sorts of things like that. So you could, you could already self-assess [00:37:00] before you ever. Promise, like, well that’s a lot of effort is faster than like 80% of other sperm.

And you’re like, okay, yeah. Like I, I’ll take my chances against.

Malcolm Collins: That’s, that’s too much effort to self-assess and keep No, it’s not,

Simone Collins: it literally

Malcolm Collins: is

Simone Collins: into a thing and send off your sample kit. I don’t get, what’s so difficult to it is, it’s not

Malcolm Collins: a sample kit thing. You’d have to go to a lab and it’s worse than all of that because the category that overlap with celebrity.

Like being older being often, you know, slightly sedentary are also gonna overlap with lower sperm quality, especially being, well, that’s one of the reasons

Simone Collins: I think why maybe it has some prominent backers, is that people wanna raise awareness about the fact that male fertility does fall off. This.

I think it came up in the Ill-conceived podcast because they felt it had strong natal list undertones and that like, oh, this is actually just na list propaganda, mur murmur. And I, I realized why I like that [00:38:00] podcast so much. Yeah, it’s a snark podcast. It’s, it’s really just snark, but make it about natal and there’s snark about everything.

I mean, you and I both love Fundee snark. There’s lots of tra snark that I love. I mean, who doesn’t love snark? And, and I feel like snark is more fun when it’s adjacent to something that you actively, like I love royal gossip, for example. Mm-hmm. So royal snark is something I listen to a lot and there are lots of YouTubers whose full-time career is just being pissed about royal.

Just, oh, I can’t believe the Harry and Meghan’s latest PR agent quit. They’ve gone through 11 PR people in five years. Can’t you believe? They must be terrible people. Snark, snark, snark.

I think it’s just so great. But like, isn’t it wonderful though when you can hear the snark and it’s about people you know, you know when they’re like, oh, I can’t, I hate those columns.

Oh, apology. He’s so terrible. Oh my god. Kevin Dolan. And it’s [00:39:00] like, oh, like, you know, it’s

Malcolm Collins: just, they won’t even talk about us. We’re like bort to them.

Simone Collins: Yeah, they, they were, they’re like, we’re never gonna do a full podcast on them. Yeah. I actually wrote to them and told them if they ever need to cover anything adjacent to us they should just search AI because we, we make our content really easy to index on, on ai.

‘cause it’s, it’s obviously gonna be too hard for them to actually real research. Yeah.

They would die. They would, they would. They would disassociate to use. You know, another podcaster

Malcolm Collins: I regularly listened to covered our viral interview. Did you see that one I sent you?

Simone Collins: Not beyond just the Romanian guy.

No, the black

Malcolm Collins: lady. Which name? One. I’ll pull it up here. Her name is Amela, e Kanobi.

She got 2.5 million followers. Wow. I don’t know. Is she conservative? Most of the, yeah. She’s a black conservative woman. Young, younger than us.

Simone Collins: Than everyone’s younger than us. We’re old. [00:40:00]

Malcolm Collins: Well, she’s quite young. I get the impression.

I think she’s in her twenties or something.

Simone Collins: Oh, okay.

Malcolm Collins: And very reasonable takes very like center line.

Simone Collins: Nice. Very nice.

Okay. Sorry for chatting with you. I just, it’s nice to chat with you, but I, I’ll, I’ll get into the podcast now. So here we go.

Speaker 6: A brush and a bowl of mush. Yeah. And a quiet old lady Whispering Mush. Right. Wait. Good night rooms.

Good night, moon. Good night. Cow. Jumping over the moon. Good night light. Where’s the light there? Need to fix your face. Goodnight. Red balloon. Where’s your red balloon? Where is it? Right there. There, there. Oh. Goodnight bears. Goodnight Chase. Goodnight Kitchens. Goodnight. Goodnight. Goodnight. Goodnight. Gloves.

Good gloves. Goodnight Gloves. Goodnight. Goodnight clocks. Goodnight stars and Moon. Goodnight, stars and Moon. Goodnight socks. Goodnight [00:41:00] socks. Goodnight house and goodnight Mouse. But we don’t say goodnight to our mouse, do we? Do we kill them? Yeah. Yes, we do. Good night home.

In this in-depth discussion, Malcolm and Simone Collins tackle the dramatic rise in antisemitism among young Americans — now affecting over 25% of people in their 20s, compared to just 5% among those in their 80s.

We examine hard data: skyrocketing antisemitic incidents since 2021, Holocaust denial rates (especially among young GOP voters), and stark generational and demographic divides. We argue that the surge isn’t primarily driven by the Israel-Gaza conflict or historical tropes, but by two distinct modern dynamics:

• On the right: A cultural backlash against perceived entitlement, suppression of criticism, and lack of reciprocal gratitude for decades of U.S. support to Israel and Jewish communities.• On the left: The growing influence of Islamist or Muslim-sympathizing voices within progressive intellectual circles, reshaping “woke” priorities.

We explore why traditional strategies (invoking discrimination, deplatforming critics) are backfiring in today’s media landscape, how cultural misunderstandings fuel escalation, and why even former strong allies are reevaluating their stance.

Ultimately, we discuss practical paths forward for Jewish cultural resilience in a changing world — including dropping any sense of ongoing entitlement, building genuine intergenerational alliances, and rethinking how historical traumas are taught to skeptical Gen Z and Alpha audiences.

This is a candid, data-driven conversation aimed at understanding a dangerous trend — not promoting hate, but preventing worse outcomes for everyone.

🔔 Subscribe for more discussions on demographics, culture, fertility, and the future of civilization.[00:00:00]

Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be talking about why everyone hates the Jews again. Oh boy. And it’s not, it is not Gaza. Actually, the rate of Jewish hate has gone up significantly since the war in Gaza ended. Right? Like what? So, and, and I think that there is a lot of mistake in, in terms of how people are trying to diagnose where this is coming from.

Okay. Where it is either mistakenly put on the war in Gaza, where if you actually look downstream of where we see it, I’ll, I’ll bring a lot of receipts that that is not it or that it is put on historic reasons. And I also don’t think it’s happening for the reasons that Jews were hated historically.

Good. I think that it is happening for new reasons and reasons. Even get to me. Like even I will say that over time my perception of the utility in standing Jewish culture has dropped pretty precipitously. And I will explain why, [00:01:00] but first I just want to document how high it is and how much it’s shifting.

Wow. So I’m gonna put a graph on screen here that shows explicit antisemitism by age among registered voters. Now if you look at people in their eighties, you will see that this is hovering at around 5%. So very, very low for older people. Okay? If you look at people in their twenties from, from, it’s slightly higher among Republicans than Democrats, but you’re looking at between like.

24 and like it looks like 32%. So, and, and then on average well over 25%, so, over a quarter, one in four people in the United States now is anti-Semitic. Young people. Yeah. When it used to be at around 5%, and this has changed within like two generations, right? So yes.

Simone Collins: Something that young people are reading and experiencing is making them.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, if you look at, anti-Semitic incidents in the United States. I’ll put [00:02:00] a graph here, which you’ll see is they were fairly low up until about 2021, and then they start to go up and then they shoot up in 2023 and then are higher still in 2024. If you look at there was another study here Holocaust denial or minimization, nearly four in 10 in the current GOP 37%.

So this is in alignment with the antisemitism rates we saw there. Okay. Believe the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated or did not happen as historians describe, oh younger men are especially likely to hold this view. 54% of men under 50, 39% of women under 50. What? And this is of GOP voters among men, over 50, 41% agree compared to 18% of women over 50.

Racial divides are particularly striking. And so what you can see is. Anybody who knows this, who are the most anti-Semitic Hispanic voters? 77% of Hispanic GOP voters. Oh,

Simone Collins: I actually wouldn’t have

Malcolm Collins: guessed that. Black voters, 66% of black GOP [00:03:00] voters. Okay. And it’s fairly rare among white GOP voters that only quote unquote 30%.

So that’s still about a third. So this is obviously a real issue.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But what is it that young people are seeing that boomers aren’t seeing that’s so profoundly affects their views of Jews?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So, I think what we’re actually seeing here, and I’ll just drop right to the point. So one, I’m gonna be arguing later in this, but I’ll go into it in more detail.

When we get to it the, the reason why progressives have started hating the Jews very intensely recently is not the reason I thought historically, just because Jews were out competing other groups. And if your entire worldview is around equality and you believe that everyone is genetically identical and just somebody’s culture, like you can’t be like, well, if we’re all genetically identical, then some groups must be doing worse because of their culture.

And then people are like, that’s victim blaming or whatever, you know? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with this or that group’s culture, why their children. Are, you know, not doing as well on tests and stuff. And so, if a group is [00:04:00] doing better, people are gonna say, oh, well that can be explained.

This is what I historically thought, oh, it must be because they’re cheating. I’m actually gonna argue that it’s something different that’s leading to the current leftist antisemitism. But I wanna talk about rightist antisemitism. Simm or even my own internal calculation has sort of been changing recently.

So first I’ll get to the broad rightest antisemitism and where it’s coming from.

Okay.

And, and, and why this doesn’t work intergenerationally. Why you don’t see it as hitting older people? Basically everyone in our society around the eighties and the nineties agreed that racism was bad. Like we just societally agreed.

Racism is a bad thing. We shouldn’t be actively racist, right? Now woke, people in the woke cultural movement took this, right, and they, they then warped it to be like, well, discrimination against any perceived group is bad. I can self define as a minority discriminated group. And because, and [00:05:00] then, and then they abuse that.

This is where a lot of the trans stuff came from. This is where a lot of the, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, came from. During that period of discrimination is bad happening. A lot of Jewish cultures and cultural groups basically learned how to hack this to get their way right. Mm. We try to shut down criticism by, as we’ve seen people do, and, and people can be like, well, every group does this, and I wanna point out that no, every group doesn’t do this.

We have multiple times on our videos, so we did a video arguing that Jews are not genetically superior to other people. Right. Not at all an antisemitic take. If anything, it would be a proje take because it’s arguing that Jews are outcompeting other people in terms of like income and politically predominantly due to cultural advantages.

Which is better than just having a genetic advantage. ‘cause then that would just be blatantly unfair. And I could see why other groups would be like, oh, well we don’t want them competing amongst us if that’s the case. But I [00:06:00] put that video out there and I literally had people reach out to me saying that it was anti-Semitic.

Like, I can’t believe you did this, et cetera. I had the video saying that we should stop paying

Military aid.

Malcolm Collins: to Israel.

Something we, we’ve been giving it. We, we literally, like if you look at America right? We freed the Jews, America freed the Jews from near complete eradication during the Holocaust. Um, That in the Holocaust actually happened.

And we since paid for economic helping hands for a long time up until like the last five years and. Huge military helping hand for, for a long, long time period. Right. To just say, Hey, we should stop giving them aid now, you know, they’re a developed economy at this point and they’re not actively in a war is not an anti-Semitic thing to say.

Simone Collins: Right? Yeah. Like we’ve, we’ve helped out and that’s great and now we’ve, we’ve helped the help isn’t definite be like,

Malcolm Collins: Well anyone would do this if anyone who’s a long time fan of the show. Knows [00:07:00] that we are two Catholics. Whatever Nick Fuentes is to choose, like, and I don’t mean this by that, what I mean is Nick Fuentes doesn’t actually seem to individually hate Jewish people.

He seems to sort of hate the religion more broadly and what he sees that as standing for. Whereas with us, like we like Catholics individually, but I think that the Vatican, and I’ve said this on shows, is. A, core enemy of the United States, our way of life, our long-term objectives. They have stated this pretty explicitly, and I think that the Vatican in their form of Catholicism, I mean like the heads of the Catholic face is incompatible with long-term human thriving.

Like this is a stance that is as antagonistic to Catholics as anything Nick Foes has ever said about Jews. And yet never once. And I’m, I wanna be clear about this, to Jews who are like, well, you know, you can’t control what every Jew does or something like this. There are dramatically more just in terms of numbers, Catholics who watch the shows in Jews, never once has one of them reached out to us [00:08:00] saying that, oh, you went too far with this, or You went too far with this.

Or how dare you say this? That means that you just hate Catholics.

Malcolm Collins: They will question us with, with facts. They’ll say, you know, well, actually if you look at Thomas Aquinas on this or you look at Augustus of Hippo on this, they actually said this, this, and this, or they actually said this, this, and this. Or the early church actually thought this about, you know, when life began.

That is not calling us. That’s saying you made a factual mistake. Right? Like, or, or this is a philosophical argument against you. That’s not a, how dare you say this about Catholics.

Hmm.

And again, you, you can’t say, well, you know, the Catholics have never been mass murdered. My actual ancestors have mass murdered Catholics, right?

Like Catholics have been mass murdered in extremely brutal ways. And in ways that were now note, they were equivalent to how brutal Jews were murdered in previous pogroms. But the Holocaust was, actually speaking, if you look at the, the brutality displayed not quite [00:09:00] at the level of, you know, mass live burnings and stuff like that.

It was, it was horrifying. Don’t get me wrong. But what I’m saying is, is Catholics went through a lot in various periods as well. So like to say, oh, well, they’re just not afraid of, of, of this happening. And this isn’t about driving individuals who might be your allies away. It’s actually about how it.

Heightens the message. So I’ll explain what I mean about this. Nick Fuentes goes on PI Morgan, or he goes on Tucker Carlson. And the first few questions that either of them wanna talk about are about Jews in his perception of Jews. And so he has an opportunity to go on a whatever long rant exposing people who may never have actually heard anti-Semitic arguments to long form anti-Semitic arguments.

We regularly go on interviews, right? Not our interviewer ever has asked us about our anti-Catholic opinions. You, you know, the interviewer that [00:10:00] recently went viral with us. That was a Telemundo reporter, right? Like age interviewing for predominantly Catholic populations all around Latin America, right?

Never came up just completely irrelevant to her. Now, I want you to think about how this was a really advantageous way to react culturally in a historic context, in a very disadvantageous way to react culturally in a modern context, right?

Mm-hmm.

So in a historic context. What would’ve happened and this did happen historically, is somebody like Ben Shapiro would say, oh, this person is saying stuff that is anti-Semitic, or that, you know, in the early days like borders on antisemitism.

In his mind when early days it was just like, well, we shouldn’t be giving his real aid or something like this. And so then he forwards that to. Whatever media watchdog organizations and these people get removed from X platform or Y platform. And because media was much more consolidated them and because media [00:11:00] was I don’t like this. It’s not antisemitic to say that Jews are disproportionately in media. We’ve done episodes where we actually track just how disproportionately Jews, especially early Hollywood

Malcolm Collins: So as a quick reminder, Jews make up 2% of the US population, but around, . And this is by a 1970s Times Magazine poll, around 80% of professional American comedians. , Here, if you’re looking at founders of major studios, Warner Bros. Founded by Polish Jewish immigrants, MGM, founded by Russian Jewish, , paramount Pictures, Hungarian Jewish Universal Pictures, German Jewish immigrant, Columbia Pictures, the Kahan Brothers Jewish.

. 20th Century Fox, , Hungarian, Jewish, United artists, , not primarily Jewish founded, but acquired by MGM, which was Jewish founded.

In fact, the only major studio I’m aware of that was not Jewish founded was Disney. ,

But Disney is currently run by Bob Iger, who was born Jewish. [00:12:00] I.

In terms of actors, , estimates range from 30 to 50% of screenwriters are Jewish and informal guesses put it at 20% of studio executive producers and agents is Jewish. For producers specifically, a 2015 analysts of best Picture Oxford Oscar nominees found that eight out of 28, around 29% are Jewish.

Contrast that again with around 2% of the general population.

and especially certain categories of media like comedy and stuff like that, are disproportionately controlled by, by Jewish groups, meaning that they can put pressure on their parent organization actors as well saying, oh, I want appear in this, or I want appear in.

This if you have X person in the movie. We saw this recently with some red scarce girls losing a part in a major thing for having Nick Fuentes in on an interview, right? This system of control was actually very advantageous to prevent negative views of Jews from being normalized. In a historic context, like it was an advantageous cultural reaction.

The problem being is it has the exact [00:13:00] opposite effect now,

And I would point out that this being pushed to more skeptical positions, , is something that you see not just with us being incredibly phili, but with people like Charlie Kirk,

Who like us was incredibly pro jewish.

Where, you know, we have on record him saying, just lost another huge Jewish donor, 2 million a year because I won’t cancel Tucker.

Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. , And I think that. They, there’s , this miscommunication culturally where they think that by saying, oh, you’re doing X, which is anti-Semitic, or You’re doing Y, which is anti-Semitic, which will make us less likely to do those things instead of a more likely to do those things when those things are clearly not anti-Semitic.

, And this is just cultural misunderstanding of the new right. , And it’s not unique to us.

And when I talk about a cultural misunderstanding, it’s like, suppose [00:14:00] you see somebody at a bar who’s doing something that you know you disapprove of, and you walk up and you shove them. Now a person from one cultural perspective is going to just be like, okay, I’m gonna stop doing that. Whatever, right?

Just leave the bar. Avoid confrontation, but a person from another cultural perspective that’s gonna always lead to an escalation. And this claim of this is antisemitic is going to almost always add to a cultural escalation. If you look at this from the perspective of American Protestant culture.

Or think about it another way. Suppose somebody comes up to you and says you’re being an a-hole and you’re doing something that you internally look and you’re like, you know what? I was being an a-hole. And then , you know, correct your behavior. But I think for a lot of people from many different cultures,

if you come up to them and you say, Hey, you’re being an a. They’re not at all being an a-hole. They’re just trying to be rational or just trying to be pragmatic about something. , the natural response for a lot of cultures is to be like, you know what, like, f you man.

And I think where this leads to sort of the [00:15:00] anti-Semitic spiral we’re seeing in our society right now is the person who said FF you, man. Then the other person who said, oh, you’re being an A-hole in this case, you’re being anti-Semitic. They, they say that again and more loudly because of this person, said, Hey, f you man.

Then the person is even more incensed and says, Hey, F you louder. And so you have this cultural sort of spiral happen between two groups who are misunderstanding each other, where one group says by saying, Hey, you’re being an A-hole that’s going to lessen this behavior, when in fact it’s increasing the behavior and it’s being said louder in response to the thing that’s increasing the behavior.

But you don’t even need this kind of spiral to happen for these, you know, focus on, oh, he said X thing that could be antisemitic. He said Y thing that could be antisemitic for that to lead to an actual escalation of the airing of antisemitism.

Malcolm Collins: which is it causes the people like say Pi Morgan, who want to appear like want to make sure they know, okay, I’m interviewing the guy who [00:16:00] is in part in trouble for being anti-Semitic. And so I have to. Challenge him or bring up his antisemitism, basically giving him a chance to air his antisemitism and the logic behind it.

Hmm. Now consider us. We’re, we’re not gonna do it. Like we’ll be interviewing soon. We’ve got it on record, which I’m very excited. Student Destiny’s kid who has some views around. You know, that, that sort of stuff. I think specifically around the H guy. And I’m not even gonna be asking him any questions about it ‘cause I just find it uninteresting within the modern media landscape.

Right. And I don’t need to prove when somebody’s like, oh, you had him on and you didn’t even ask him about XI, that’s not what I’m interested in. I’m more interested in being like a counterculture 15-year-old in the modern media ecosystem. And intergenerational cultural transfer and how he thinks about that given that, you know, it didn’t transfer to him.

Very effectively from, from his parent, right? Like, I, I find that to be the fascinating question. There’s a lot of interesting questions I’d had about, you know, people know if we had Nick on the show, we’d just be asking him a bunch of stuff about Catholicism. We’d be asking him very little about his views on, on Jews.

But most people in the old 80 Boomer [00:17:00] system, that’s the way they approach this. And unfortunately, it airs. Attitudes very, very frequently. Now one of the questions can be, but during the period of discrimination, why didn’t the Catholics ever, right, like presumably they could have done this, right? Like, Catholics were really discriminated against in the United States for a long period.

In, in fact, if you’re talking about with in America Catholics were significantly more discriminated against than Jews were to my.

If you look at like, like specific like gang violence targeting. Now admittedly the Catholics had their own gangs and that was part of it. I think the Catholic portray more hate crimes than Jews. I’ll look this up in post.

Unfortunately, it looks like we just don’t have data on this because most of the Catholic hate crimes

were in the late 19th century or early 20th century. While the tracking for hate crimes didn’t start until 1991 under the Hate [00:18:00] Crime Statistic Act, and after that point, there was much more anti-Jewish hatred.

But the point being is they, they like, you know, no Catholics allowed at this job and stuff like that were really common during that period.

So the question is. Why didn’t Catholics ever, I hadn’t thought about this until I was doing this. Why didn’t they ever really in a cohesive format, try to pull the We are discriminated crowd. Do you know what it was? I’ll tell you why. It was because the Catholics wanted to be normal, like the Mormon zoo.

And so for a long time the Catholics tried to act like they were just another form of Christian. And they still do this today. Like they’re just. Like a, a little bit different than Protestants. Not really that weird, not really that distinct at the culture. And it has led to their culture, bleeding members faster than groups like the Jews.

But because of that, they also didn’t pull the, we’re discriminated card. In fact, Mormons also never really pulled the word discriminated card to a big [00:19:00] extent. And they’re another group that did that. So, okay. Yes. That that’s the pattern there. It is their cultural distinctiveness that led them to pull this card, the.

Simone Collins: Could this more broad? I guess it can’t because Islamic groups have claimed to be discriminated against, but their culture is still one in which they want to save everyone. Because I’m trying to think is, is the pattern the difference between religions and culture, cultural groups that want to convert everyone versus those which.

Prefer to be distinct from mainstream society, but that doesn’t seem to be the delineating factor. Right? I don’t think that’s

Malcolm Collins: it. What I would say is that with is, is Islam. It hasn’t been hit as hard by this as Judaism has because sort of the damn on saying negative things about Islam broke during the last age of sort of public media.

Mm. So it really broke was, I’d say the, the rise of the atheist revolution. Basically you had the [00:20:00] atheist revolution happen, the new atheist, everything like that. Then you had like the counter atheist skeptic movement and the, this was like the, where it went in terms of online culture, the anti-feminist atheist movement, and that movement was generally extremely anti-Islam.

And they sort of normalized at least within the right you know, if you say, like I say that it is wrong. That, you know, Muslims go around griefing children or something like that, you know, let’s say marrying nine year olds, right? Like this is common in some Muslim countries. And we’ve, we’ve pointed this out in previous episodes.

It’s so much so that in Pakistan there was a religious council that said a law banning it was Islamophobic right? So, you know, this is mainstream was in some Islamic communities. And you say that and people now are just like. But yeah, that’s kind of true and we shouldn’t be standing that now you’ll get the far progressives and everything, but you sort of have two media ecosystems.

Mm-hmm. That wasn’t true. Was like questioning anything about the Jewish identity until very recently [00:21:00] even questioning something like, should we be giving, you know, continued support to Israel X many years later. Is something that E can was labeled even fairly recently as, as anti-Semitic. Mm-hmm. The other thing that I think that Jewish culture hugely doesn’t like realize, and I really don’t know how to address this ‘cause this sort of needs to be addressed from an intra cultural perspective. And, and again here, no, this is not me saying like I, I don’t particularly feel super strongly one way or the other.

When I did used to feel much more strongly pro Judaism, and one of the things that’s changed for me is I think a lot of Jewish people heard why I was proje. And they fundamentally. We’re not listening to what I was saying. Like they, they saw the words, they could structure them together, but I think they believed it was like, not what I was saying or like a whiter fondness for Judaism in the same way that I think that many people who are just like broadly antisemitic or [00:22:00] the Fuentes tips might not hear what we’re saying when we say why we actually want, we’re pro Jew, pro Jew.

For a few reasons Jews are going to do well in the future, right? Like, look at their fertility rates. Now look at their level of technology. Now look at the way they’ve set themselves up right now. Look at their disproportionate success within existing ecosystems, right? Like if you view the world as like a collection of clans, and then on top of all of those things, they don’t have an intrinsic drive to one day convert or wipe out my people because they, they, their, their religion doesn’t need everyone to convert into it, right?

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: So I was looking at those things and I was like, so it makes sense to invest in a relationship with this other group because this other group is going to be strong and influential in the future. And so if I invest in them now, if my culture, my country invest in them now, in the future, we will have a more harmonious relationship right.

And we will be able to utilize each [00:23:00] other.

Simone Collins: And importantly, they’re safe as a long-term ally because they’re long-term imperative is not to undermine anyone else’s cultural sovereignty because they’re the chosen people and you can’t really opt into their special club anyway, so it’s fine.

Malcolm Collins: Well, by that, what she means is at end game for Catholics, everyone’s a Catholic in game for Muslims, everyone’s a Muslim.

Mm-hmm. In game for Jews. Not everyone is a Jew. That that would be a failure scenario. Like something went wrong with Judaism if that happens. Yeah. Well, okay, I should, I should add caveats here. Many Jews believe that in the God, I forget what it’s called the end times everyone does become a Jew, but that’s like specifically an end times phenomenon.

Or like a type of Jew, like no hide or something like that. But the, but the point here being is, is that’s what I was saying. And so basically it is they are a group that is going to be strong in the future. Therefore it is worth investing in them because that increases the harmoniousness of our relationship.

And I think what [00:24:00] was not heard in that is, and that increases the harmoniousness of the relationship. Oh. Because what unfortunately seems to happen and I I, I don’t know what it is, is I would suspect that we get more comments or about as many comments from Jewish people angry at us for being antisemitic, like directly at us.

Maybe if somebody like Nick Foes does. And yet we are for people who watch our content know historically incredibly Phils sematic. And I, I began to think, I was like, wait, so we’re getting additional judgment? Right to like toe the line because we have been nice on Jewish issues in the past.

And then I started to think about this in a wider context and I begin to think, wait, is this proof that investing in Jewish cultural groups does not actually earn you long-term goodwill? Um, And I started to think about the United States, right? Mm-hmm. [00:25:00] Like, again, we saved the Jewish people, right? And people can say, well, you know, the Russians had more people die in the war, and they would’ve liberated them anyway.

The communist Russians tried to kill the Jews too, right? Like it would not have been a good thing if they had liberated the concentration camps on their own. Right. Like for the Jewish people. Right. They certainly weren’t gonna help you set up Israel. Right. So not only do we, and when I say we, I mean I say this very much like my ancestors.

Every single one of our grandfathers between Simone and me, like every single one of our four grandfathers between Simone and I was at D-Day and every one of them was at D-Day. And no, actually

Simone Collins: only one of my grandfathers was at D-Day. Oh

Malcolm Collins: really?

Yeah. Was the other one too young?

Simone Collins: Yeah, the other one was too young.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. So everyone who wasn’t too young, three of the grandfathers was at D-Day. This is like, and, and people should know disproportionately, people from the Appalachian tradition within the United States disproportionately serve in the military.

If you wanna see statistics on this, particularly in the World War II [00:26:00] period, look up the book American Nations.

Malcolm Collins: It’s one of the things that you’ll see in, in terms of like military serving. So like the, largely our cultural group was the one there actually fighting to save them. We set up their country, we send them economic aid, we send them military aid. We regularly intervene diplomatically to help them out for 70 years.

And then we begin to talk about it. And I talk about, you know, Netanyahu wants us to cut off aids, so like he’s being smart about this, right? Like he’s done the 40 chess move at this point, right? Netanyahu’s administration wants us to cut off the military aid ‘cause they see the long-term damage. I talk about this with that context in one of my shows.

And even like the sanest smartest Jews I know, like, I’m talking about people who have immense intellectual respect for immense emotional respect for like, feel compelled to be like. Yeah, but we should really be careful about cutting off that aid. And, and that I think they don’t realize. The, the way that that comes off, [00:27:00] it comes off like your, your kid who you’ve been giving money to, like, well after he moved out of your house, and then you say, look, I’m sorry.

I need to cut off money. Like money’s tight these days. Like I’m dealing with my own things at home. He’s your mom. And then he’s like, well, then I’ll just hate you, dad. You know, like, I won’t talk to you anymore, dad. Like. How dare you do that dad. And what you realize is that you,

Simone Collins: not even that just like, even just, well, you should really think carefully about that.

Like, no, the response we would want from any of our kids when they reach the age of majority is Thank you so much for everything you’ve done. We appreciate your getting us set up. I feel so equipped to go. And the thing is, Israel is. Like pretty all right. You know, it’s amazing economy, amazing amazing tech, amazing people.

Like, they, they don’t need a lot of help as far as I can tell. Like, especially relative to other countries who are super screwed demographically. [00:28:00] They’re in a fantastic position. I mean, Israel is not. On the list of like countries that I can name off the top of my head, Israel is close to the bottom in terms of countries that need help.

So that’s, I think, problem, it

Malcolm Collins: literally is below the United States in terms of countries that need external assistance right now. I, I literally, I, I think you’re right. I literally cannot think of another country on earth that needs less external assistance than Israel. So I think that’s,

Simone Collins: that’s kind of more of the problem is, is if you have a kid.

Or just like a friend that you helped out when they were in, a lot of danger and then things were rough for them and you helped them out, and now they’re doing really well and they’re making a lot of money, and you’re like, all right, cool. You know, I’m just, by the way, and like, I’m gonna stop sending you, you know, monthly venmos.

Like, I’m, I’m so glad to see you thriving. And they’re like, well. Should really, really, do you think that’s a good idea? Exactly.

Malcolm Collins: Hold on. No, but think about it. How would you [00:29:00] feel if somebody did that to you? Would immediately be like, oh my God, I am actually actively making our relationship worse by doing this person favors.

Okay.

Simone Collins: I’m finally, okay. So I’m really starting to understand your argument, and I’m putting this together with a lot of things that I’ve been hearing, as we both say on his stream where he’s just kind of like. Let’s just stop sending money outta the country like we need to. And, and even like just immigrants within our own country, like we need to help our own people.

And Americans in general, and especially younger Americans who’re kind of seeing their future vaporize are like, wait. Why are we giving all this money to Israel? Why are we giving all this money to migrants and refugees in our own country? Like, right, but why are you screwing me over? And, okay, so that’s, I guess now, now this is all coming together, especially because boomers have retirement plans and, and houses they were able to buy and all these things.

And younger generations really do feel like they could use government assistance in getting on their feet and they’re seeing [00:30:00] all the assistance go. To Israel, which is already on its feet. But the point is,

Malcolm Collins: and I I made this point historically, the amount we give to Israel isn’t dramatically higher than the amount we give to a lot of other countries.

It’s like the amount. Yeah. But that

Simone Collins: it’s still the American sees that we’re giving money

Malcolm Collins: care. You are entirely missing the point. So I often point out that the amount that we give to Israel is about the same as the amount we give yearly to like Egypt and Jordan.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But nobody

Malcolm Collins: cares. Yeah. But the still giving them money.

If we cut off the money we gave to Egypt and Jordan, if I on our podcast and we should cut off the money we’re giving to Egypt and Jordan.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: No. Egyptian listener is gonna email me saying like, how could you be so Egypt phobic? How could you be so Jordan phobic, how could you? How could you air an idea like this?

There’ll, is there word for that? I guess think you might have a few politicians in Egypt and Jordan make a stink, but generally speaking, the core people who are gonna freak out that we cut off money to Egypt and Jordan are gonna be white women in the United [00:31:00] States. To be frank here, right, like the most other people, like, like most cultures on earth, if you have been doing them a favor for a long time and then you stop doing them that favor like if it, if it’s a, a, a healthy culture that’s used to making long-term alliances with its neighbors, it will say, oh, we really appreciate that you did that for us. And in the future if things work out where like one of us needs a favor again, like, let’s do that and actually you’ve been helping us out so long, what can I do to help you? Right. That’s, that’s like a normal reaction. And as I point out here, like Israel, if next year Japan didn’t give Israel military aid, Israel wouldn’t be mad at Japan.

Japan’s. They have created a situation where by doing them favors you damage your future relationship with them. And, and, and you can see this with different, you know, groups around the world and anyone knows this, like so many people have probably built like a toxic relationship [00:32:00] like this where you realize that somebody is just using you for money basically.

And at the end of the day, they then normalize to whatever you’re giving them. And they’re no longer really appreciative of it anymore.

Simone Collins: In fact, you only ever get crap from them. Forever questioning the support you give them and then like you basically only ever get punished by them just for like being you and being generous.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And unfortunately this is where, and I don’t think a lot of the hate on the right is coming from this perspective, but I’m pointing out that this is eroding even people who would otherwise be very, very pro-Israel. And I think that the reason why that this is sort of snowballed to eroding is that.

Questioning things in, in a public context, like being like, well, you know, I do have some problems with this part of our relationship with Israel, or, I do have some problems with this Jewish behavioral trend. People used to be just, frankly, more afraid in a public context to air these things. And so, because, because they were able to be de platformed when they did.

Mm-hmm. And so. [00:33:00] They are doing it more now and they are being pushed in an antisemitic direction. If you remember. I mean this is exactly what happened to Nick Fuentes, right? Like he started fairly like nuanced on these issues and then just had the type of personality that was prone to radicalization.

I don’t think I have that type of personality, but I will say that I, I know where I’m like, wait, are we being punished? Because we were historically, so Phil Sematic and does this change how I relate to this? Now, if you’re thinking, okay, well I’m Jewish, what do I do about this? The, the reality is, is I don’t even know.

Like I, I personally cannot conceive. Of what led to this behavioral pattern to be so strong? I guess it could have been because of the Holocaust. Like genuinely it could have been like really like big cultural moments. Still a very big part. Like Catholic families, they are aware that there were Catholic purges in the past.

But I’ve met Catholics in the United States who didn’t even know that the KKK targeted Catholics like it was like Catholics, blacks, and Jews. Right. And they were, were [00:34:00] like targeting Catholics. I mean, I was like. It might be that Catholics are not taught about their own oppression historically.

Yeah. But you

Simone Collins: can’t take stories of historical oppression away from Judaism. ‘cause that would be, it wouldn’t work with like the holidays and traditions. What you can do though is, is shame and drop any form of present day entitlement. That the focus should be. I’m totally all for Jewish exceptionalism and like, you know, being proud of your community and investing in your community regardless.

Like, I don’t care what your religion or culture is. I’m all for that. Like, being all about helping your people and being proud of who you are and investing in your group. And I, I don’t like, it could be like d and d enthusiasts, like it could be your culture as well. I don’t, I don’t, it doesn’t necessarily have to be religious or ethnic or anything, but like all for that, just don’t.

Don’t support, abide by or express any form of [00:35:00] entitlement to assistance from any other group assistance or favoritism. I think that would solve it. And if that’s just dropped, I think that this issue in general will be dropped. I think the problem is that people feel an intense amount of resentment around.

Repeated political and media-based insinuations that we owe something to Israel. When there’s a lot of concern about when, like

Malcolm Collins: objectively it’s the exact inverse. Yeah. Like if you’re, if you’re looking historically, Israel owes the United States, literally everything. Like I do not think any people has ever owed another people more.

Like, and it’s funny that, that Jews will have memories. If you look at like, you know, the Old Testament and stuff, they’ll be like, Cyrus the great freed us from exile. Right. You know, like brought us back from exile. Right. And so we as a people like show him respect, but you don’t get a similar thing for like America. Right. Which [00:36:00] America. Objectively did a lot more in terms of the exile that the Jews were experiencing when America intervened to bring them back with a significantly longer and more severe exile, and they, where they were in significantly hotter water right when they were freed.

Then the Cyrus, the Great Exile, except you don’t see this same, you know, like religious ment towards America as a result of that. Mm-hmm.

So to be more explicit here, the Babylonian exile was only 50 to 70 years, and the Jewish people were not at existential threat of elimination during the Babylonian exile. When Cyrus came in, he allowed the Jewish people to move back to Israel. If you consider how long the Jews had essentially been kicked out of Israel when the Holocaust happened, because that’s a large reason why the pogroms were happening,

. iE that the Jews were not in their, their own country. , That was way longer than 50 to 70 years. That was hundreds of years at that point. And the Jewish people were [00:37:00] at an existential threat at that point when America came in and intervened.

And this isn’t even considering the Jews who America took in during that period and actively protected, which Iris did not do, and his country did not do.

And while it is true that the communist freed more of the camps.

If it had only been the communists, we know because of the later communist, Jewish purges, , those Jews would’ve been in almost as much hot water as they were, , , in that situation. So America comes in and more so than Cyrus, it actually. Helps fund the Jewish relocation to Israel from a much wider and more dispersed distance over a much longer period, and then helps set up the Israeli state, which is something that Cyrus also did not do, just objectively.

America did more in almost every metric than Cyrus Seg Great did. And yet you do not see this same reverence.

Specifically here, I’m talking about the length of the exile before the Israeli state was reset [00:38:00] up the level of threat the Jewish people were under when they were rescued by this foreign power. And the amount that each leader or country did to set Israel up after, , freeing them from their, , particular crisis or exile.

And if you wanna talk about American antisemitism of this time, pretty much everywhere was antisemitic at this time period. , Even if you’re talking about restrictions on Jewish refugees, America still objectively took in about twice as many refugees as the next biggest taker in of refugees.

Malcolm Collins: And so I think like if I was Jewish, this, this is something that I would like promote more. We need, I, I would say like Judaism more broadly needs to get over its meth addict problem, which is two, a few fold.

One is getting like, like punishing people for doing you historic favors and then no longer doing them, like losing the appreciation for the historic favor. And two, I think the best way demonstrating entitlement, I

Simone Collins: [00:39:00] think people are. Allergic to entitlement, especially when times are rough for them.

Malcolm Collins: Yes, yes.

And that’s, that’s what I think they’re seeing is a, is a form of entitlement. But on top of that you have the problem of because I wanna get to why leftist now hate Jude as well, which is interesting. And I think if you just like, and if you’re a Jewish person and you’re offended that I’m saying this, like genuinely think about it from an American’s perspective, whose ancestors risked their lives, you know, in, in World War ii.

And then the, our country for the past few generations has been setting up a stable Israeli state that can defend itself. And then to be like, yeah, but it would really be a problem for us if you stopped giving us money when, when they’re earning, like more than we are here.

I was wrong here. , The average wage in the United States is around 70,000 now, which is just crazy high to me. , And the average annual wage in Israel is now around 50,000, but it’s [00:40:00] still very wealthy as a country compared to saying that it needs foreign financial aid.

Especially when you consider that we have been giving them that economic and military aid for the past 75 years, and they should be stable by now. Like when does it end? Right? We’re 300 billion in. When do they say, okay dad, you know, I’ve been in college for X long, now I’m ready to graduate and start supporting myself.

Malcolm Collins: Why would, why would somebody be like, I’m actually kind of like, that’s a, that’s a bad thing, right?

Like that? And I, I don’t, I don’t feel offense personally, but it does make me think if I’m being logical about like, well, the Jews will be powerful in the future, and we want them as an ally in the future and the best way to do that. Is to cut them off. That’s a, that’s a really bad cultural precedent to set.

Mm-hmm. So I think like the best way to react to this, like if I was actually Jewish and I was gonna do something about this, would be to create sort of a narrative about this within, like, we need to start really [00:41:00] appreciating America for what it was and what it did for us. And find a way to.

Meaningfully give back and meaningfully create the sorts of partnerships that work intergenerationally. And as I’ve said, the easiest way to do that is for an Israeli based AI center on in America. And if people are like, well, why not have it in Israel? Well, one, because this would cause a vested interest in Israel having a vested interest in America.

And two, you can’t build a major AI hub in Israel that has military purposes because it’d be literally the first thing that was targeted and very easy to target. But if it’s in America, it’s incredibly defensible. And so it makes sense if you’re gonna do your Manhattan Project of AI in America and then you can, you know, build , a better long-term relationship there.

Specifically what I’m saying here is if you’re Jewish, but you’re also smart enough to see sort of above the wall of your own culture like Bibi is, , because Netanyahu has said, , you know, we, we need to end these payments like now, right? Like this is causing problems. . And if you are like that and you’re like, okay, well I can’t change my people’s culture, so how do I do [00:42:00] something that sort of forces them to invest in the United States, , setting up one of these sort of Manhattan projects

Around an AI data center that would make no sense to do in Israel, but.

that would be perfect logic to do this in the United States.

, And it would. You know, utilize the culture’s preexisting tendencies because now there’s a vested interest in building up and protecting the United States. And I think that, . You know, when I go around and I think about all the remembrances of the Holocaust, it’s always been sort of shocking to me.

‘cause I’ve been to a number of Holocaust museums that, you know, Jews that up all over the world, that I see so little about what the United States did for them during those periods, right? , I will see setups of, oh, this country or that country helped hide Jews. And it’s like, no country helped protect Jews during the Holocaust.

And I’m not just talking about freeing them from the Holocaust, but. Taking them in during that period of danger than the United States.

Specifically, we [00:43:00] have records of this from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, , which shows that of Jews who escaped the Holocaust around 24% went to the United States, around 15% went to. Israel, , great Britain, around 10% went there, , central and South America.

In total, it was only around 19%. Remember just United States was 24%. , Shanghai around 5% and. Other Western European countries that is all other western European countries combined with only around 30% with other destinations making up 10%.

So for clarification, Jews were 2.5 times more likely to shelter in the United States during the Holocaust than in Israel. .

So yes, the United States was the major player in protecting Jews from the Holocaust, not just in terms of resolving the war in a way that helped Jews get out safely.

, Not just in helping Jews set up the state of Israel, not just in funding them for [00:44:00] 75 years, but also in terms of where they went. , And this is where I’ve come to this, if you can invest so much in a people and yet go to their museums and see so little praise for your people, for everything you’ve done, why continue to invest?

, And I think that there is a way to fix this , from , a Jewish perspective, and that is to just really. Build some sort of movement around greater appreciation for what America actually did for the Jewish people. , Instead of seeing it as some sort of external, like when, when the Jewish identity should be Israel in America, right?

, And, and it is in terms of where they live, but it isn’t in terms of their internal narrative.

And I think the mistake that other people and, , Jews themselves made when they heard me say Phil Somatic things in the past, or say the Jewish people are people worth investing in the past, is they thought, [00:45:00] I think intuitively from a internal cultural perspective, that I was saying that because I liked individual Jewish people and in truth, , in terms of like individual, how much I like people, I like Catholics just about as much as I like Jews that I’ve met. It, it has nothing to do with what I think of individuals. It has to do with the wider, , theological metaphysical and culture and whether I think.

Investing in it is going to help my own people in the long term. , And if it is a culture that doesn’t repay its debts, then. Obviously not. And even worse, if it’s a culture that normalizes to people who do them favor and other cultural groups who do them favor and then begins to expect that, then it becomes like that friend who always expects more from you, , when, when you’re, when you’re giving them money and then just gets angry when you cut them off.

And people can say, oh, how dare you, , talk about what Jewish culture [00:46:00] is doing that is leading to the rise in antisemitism these days. And. I would say here they’re like, that’s victim blaming, right? But if you know this podcast, this mantra, it’s you as a people can really only control your own actions.

So like if you are black for example, there’s very little you can do to combat any sort of systemic discrimination in society. But there’s a lot you can do to try to improve your own culture and what. That contributes to say, black people earning less than other cultural groups. So I give advice like this, not saying that there are not external things that, for example, cause black people to earn less or cause Jewish hate.

It’s just that those external things are generally not addressable by the culture that is on that is, that is dealing with the consequences of , the hate or the lack of income or anything like that.

Because at the end of the day, no one is more motivated to stop the existential rise in antisemitism we’re seeing right now than Jewish people. , and unfortunately , the [00:47:00] intuitive way that they’ve been approaching this recently makes the antisemitism much worse, which is, I think where you’ve seen this, , cycle that’s almost sort of like an inverse, virtuous cycle where antisemitism rises and then Jewish people do things that causes more antisemitism to rise, , which is really sad.

And I think a, a addressing this and seeing this problem and cutting it off now is really, really in. Important for the long-term safety of the Jewish people.

Malcolm Collins: But I wanna go to the, the leftist because I think the leftist hate for, for Jews that’s been growing recently. It’s coming from a position like I gave my original hypothesis at the beginning of this, but when I actually think about it, like why is Greta Thornberg on a boat going to Israel and Gaza rather than the DAR four region, which is Lidia really twice as big, you know?

Why is it that, aMI is saying, you know, we need to globalize the ada. The fact the ada ADA Ada whatever. Why is, why is he saying this? Why do you get. These incredibly [00:48:00] antisemitic, anti

anti perspectives

and screeds from individuals like Hassan Piker. Yeah. And what I’ve realized, like actually as I began to think about it more, I was like, why were those boats going there for Greta to get on?

Oh, that entire brigade wasn’t even started by woke people. It was started by just like. Actual Islamists, right? Like it was, it was actually started by like, Islamist groups that wanted to eradicate the Jewish people, right? Like there has been funding for that flotilla that she was on that came from Hamas.

Like this has been traits back at this point. If you look at like Mond. Grew up in a, in a Muslim household, right? Like, Hassan grew up partially in Turkey and has a lot of you know, Muslim affinities, right? Like if you actually look at his, his broader affinities, they are more I, I’d say pro Muslim was like a, a sheen of wokeness on the top.

And what I’m realizing here is the current [00:49:00] woke anti-Semitic belief system is actually. Downstream of an intellectual class of either directly Islamists or Muslim sympathizing individuals. And, and when I say Muslim sympathizing, it’s in the way. ESS Synthesize was a group where they sort of have to sublimate all of their opinions and lived experiences to this external groups lived experiences.

And we’ve even seen some clashes here when there was a big fight between like, well do Muslim interests come before, like black interests, right? And people were like, well, no black interests come first. And Muslims were like, no Muslim interest come first. Yeah. This,

Simone Collins: this saw a flash point around the, the most recent presidential election, Kamala Harris from, and I’ve begun

Malcolm Collins: to think like, what, what are I actually think the Wokes antisemitism is coming from is not the historic sort of Marxist antisemitism.

‘cause you know, Marx was a massive anti-Semite. He wrote an entire book about. Jews being a problem. So like, I, I hate when people are like, oh, he was descended from [00:50:00] Jews. That’s like saying Hitler was descended for Jews, which is proof he wasn’t an antisemite, which people used to believe. And then they did a DNA test and they found out he wasn’t.

And like, we haven’t done a d everyone says they’re ex is descended from Jews. Why is descended from Jews? Anyway, the point being, where was I going with this? The point being is I actually think that a lot of the leftist antisemitism comes from when they are modeling what the future of humanity looks like, what the future of our existing geopolitical architecture looks like.

They don’t actually plan on them existing in the future. Like, I can talk to like gays and trans people and I can be like, but really you see if only people who hate you continue to have kids like. In the future, only people who you cannot not allow your culture to exist are, are, are going to be the dominant cultures on earth.

Like I talk about this in terms of tism all the time, and they’re often just like, they don’t really see it as a problem. And I’ve always been very confused as to how they don’t see it as a problem. Mm-hmm. And what I’m realizing, and you see this was like the, the, the wiles. In, what is it like Michigan giving all the money to the Somalians right?

With this big scam where like billions of dollars have, and it’s clear that a lot of ess knew this was happening, right. You know, to [00:51:00] Islamist groups in Somalia. If they see the future of their movements and the territories that they feel they de facto control as something they want to hand to Muslim groups.

They believe in a Muslim future. And because of that they, they see that future as incompatible with Jewish interest because they’re sort of the Muslims within the, the top circles of their intellectual communities. And I, and I find this very interesting trace, the intellectual giants on the left right now in many of them.

Are tied to Islamism in some way or another. Especially the younger ones. Especially the younger ones. And this didn’t used to be the case. So I think that this is what we’re seeing here. And I, I, I think that that’s where it’s coming from in their intellectual class. I don’t think they actually think through like, oh, Jews have more money than other people.

Why did Jews have more money than other people? Well, it must be because they cheated, because it can’t be for cultural reasons. Because if we said it’s for cultural reasons, then well, why do blacks have less money than other people for cultural reasons? Oh my God, you just said blacks are poor because of their own [00:52:00] culture.

That’s a naughty thing. You know, all differences must be due to oppression. That’s what I used to think. Don’t think that when I actually try to trace like why it’s Greta Faberg antisemitic now. Mm-hmm. So, yeah, I think it’s a really difficult position when you look at these incredibly quickly rising rates.

I think Jews were basically playing a very smart game for a while that utilized the existing power system and levers that they had access to in sort of the age of the Boomer. But the conservative youth. We spent the last x many years being told, you’ve said a naughty thing, you’ve said a bad thing back of the line, have your channel banned, et cetera.

And so we, and when I say I mean like the larger, new right movement has become incredibly, or, or like, how dare you say that that’s offensive. Or how dare you say this little thing that means like you’re homophobic. Like when I’m like, hey, like we need to rethink how we look at gay people and stuff like that.

This is another thing I did an entire episode where I’m talking about like rethinking how we contextualize same sex attracted individuals. Like is this just a [00:53:00] kink? Everything like that.

Mm-hmm.

Didn’t get this, this show has a decently sized gay fan base. Didn’t get a single angry email from our gay fan base about that.

Why is it that they didn’t. Say that, like why is it that other groups like you can bring up? Because if you watch that episode, you can see we’re not saying that we hate gays in the same way that our Jewish episode, like isn’t saying like, we hate Jews. We’re just saying, okay, well here’s the problem, here’s the problem, here’s the problem.

Like, and I, I can see how people are resonating with what Nick is saying on these problems. How, how does Jewish culture, like, react to this or, or adapt to this. And, and if your reaction is to say, well, we just can’t because of the Holocaust, like we just can’t because of ex cultural trauma then you’re going to have a lot of enemies in the future.

Yeah. Because it makes you a group that is actively dangerous to attempt to help. And I don’t know, like, and it also makes your group like just. Hit the triggers on the new right, which is trying to cancel individuals, right? Like trying to say or not cancel individuals, but shame [00:54:00] them when they’re saying something that is genuinely not antisemitic and you come at them and you say.

That’s homophobic, that’s transphobic, that’s whatever. They’re so used to this that’s racist. And they’re like, that wasn’t antisemitic. You sound to me just like the person who comes and says you know, that’s transphobic when you say, Hey, children should not be transitioning. Right. And then that ends up pushing people into being more and more genuinely transphobic.

And if you are a Jewish person and you’re like, no, people don’t actually get pushed into these positions by people attacking them. Look at us on like trans issues over time. Right. Like. Look at, look at even maybe yourself on trans issues over time. Did it push you in that direction? Maybe even same sex attraction.

You’ve seen this happen to you with some other group. When you see it happening to yourself, it’s easier for you to be like, oh, this is how it can happen to somebody else. But what are your thoughts, Simone?

Simone Collins: You have me at entitlement. I think that’s gonna get pretty much anyone, because it’s a, it’s a very dangerous pattern, and I think people know it on an instinctual level, but it also made a lot of sense when I thought about the context of.

The way that [00:55:00] Mond Gold brings up Israel, which is basically just like, let’s stop sending money to anything that’s not us when we’ve got our own problems.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. The final thing I wanna talk about is the Holocaust thing. Because I think that the Holocaust narrative is unfortunately not one that is going to grab the use of today in the way it did historically.

I as a young person, when I’m taught about the way the world really works, the way most young people grow up is they start by thinking there’s good guys and bad guys, and then they hit this age where they realize, oh my god. Actually, most people when they do something, they think they’re the good guy, right?

Like, most groups in history, things are shades of gray. And when people teach me that things are not shades of gray they typically have some alternate agenda to like rewrite history for me now, and this is just something that like we all learn, everybody experiences this growing up, right? Like this moment where you’re like.

Oh, like, [00:56:00] like while there might be some instances of genuine evil like these, generally speaking, people think that what they’re doing is right in, in the context. And that generally in any story where I was told one person was all bad and one person was all good that story was being rewritten by the, the victors of the story.

Now imagine your. 15-year-old Destiny’s kid. ‘cause we’re, we’re, we’re talking about like, you know, we’re talking to him. And he experienced this at school and he goes to school and he has taught the current you know, world War II scenario. And the, the sort of default World War II scenario is one side was genuinely like comically evil, almost as evil as any group could ever be in any historical context.

And the other side was mostly good. And. That’s just the truth of it. Like just that’s the truth. I can see why they immediately are like, wait a second. Like do I believe that? Like that. That sounds like one of the stories I was [00:57:00] told is the type of story I should doubt. Right? So it’s, it’s a narrative and it, I actually think it’s a narrative that it’s mostly true.

Like I think we were the good guys and we beat the bad guys. You know, I pointed out that they, they marched under a, a theo society flag. Like a wcan flag basically. Like they were like, of every route. I think that they were, they were bad in almost every way. You can watch our video that was taken down by YouTube on this subject because I, I guess we hit too close to the home on it.

But the point I’m making is it’s just a narrative that’s gonna be like, I think we need to rethink how we tell kids this narrative, how we teach this narrative, how we teach it. And, you know, every city has a Holocaust museum. Every city has a, and I think the, the sort of like. How do I reframe this in a way that is believable to the type of kid who has been systemically lied to?

Because how many kids were, especially during the age of COVID, systemically, lied to by institutions that had power. Right? Mm-hmm. Like, I don’t even know if I would believe it. If I was growing up today, I’d be like, [00:58:00] well, you know, I can’t trust what I read on Wikipedia anymore because it, it’s got this extreme you know, leftist bias.

I can’t trust what I read on a, a, you know what I hear from mainstream news? AI is all controlled by X, Y, or Z, you know, and so I need to. Try to like educate myself. Right. And when it comes to educating yourself, that means going to conspiracy websites and stuff like that, right?

Simone Collins: Oh, dear. Okay. So you’re also saying in, in the age of the information or truth crisis, it’s going to be extra hard to talk about really, really, really bad atrocities because it seems easier to assume that it was just made up.

Malcolm Collins: Well, this is the way I put it. We have found a way like at least the American right to talk about things like the communist atrocities because they committed genuinely. Horrifying atrocities you know, on the scale of Holocaust atrocities, right? We have found a way to talk about that, talk about all the horrible things they did [00:59:00] while still humanizing the communist, right?

Like, to an extent where like if somebody goes to a communist rally today, or has a friend who went to a communist rally who then went to a different event, you know, we don’t go, oh, you left us, you went to an event that a communist went to. How can I have you on my stream? Or somebody will be like, oh, you went to an event.

That a Nazi went to, right? Like, how could I be on your stream? Right. Like, the, the point that I’m saying is I think we need to learn to talk about Nazis and Nazi-ism the same way we talk about communism. And, and its horrors where we can admit that communism did a lot of just like holistically evil things, but like the people who were putting it together had some, like, some plan to what they were doing.

You know? They, they, they at least thought that there was some like. Good thing at the end of this and here, here and here is why they thought that, right? Mm-hmm. And I think if we can get to teaching World War II like that it, we won’t have this reflective. That just doesn’t seem plausible every other time in history where I’m told [01:00:00] there was a bad guy and a good guy.

I then get told, and that’s the way we taught it to you in middle school because you know, you were too dumb to understand that actually the Native Americans committed a ton of atrocities and actually the settlers committed a ton of atrocities and it’s not always black and white. Right.

Simone Collins: Interesting. Yeah. Yeah, I’m not sure. Part of me thinks it’s, it’s, it’s simpler than that, that people today are now struggling to use the Holocaust as justifications for special treatment in the same way that people struggle to use reparations as justification or like slavery for as justification for reparations for black Americans.

‘cause they’re like, ugh. Like this was a long time ago. Like it was horrible and it, and it happened and that’s bad, but like. W what about today and how is that gonna fix anything? I think that might be more of the instinctual sentiment, but I, I still definitely see there being an issue [01:01:00] about educating children around atrocities and mistreatments and also.

Being very unsure of what, what can be trusted in the age of AI and the internet and everything else.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So I, I think that that’s the other thing that, that like, because people can be like, the over the evidence for it was overwhelming and I agree that it is, but I can also understand how young people are pushed away from it in the current media ecosystem.

And I think that thinking through how this story can be retold in a way that is going to be believable to an edgy youth is really important.

Simone Collins: Well, do you think part of it is the weaponization of the word Nazi? The fact that it just has been used so much like it’s the new N word. And it has caused a, a sense of desensitization and also trivialization of, of that which is being invoked.

Malcolm Collins: I, I think that, well, so there’s a part of it, like the reclaiming of [01:02:00] the word is something that Nick has tried to do, right? Like this idea of if I can, if I can. Sort of deradicalize the use of this word or claiming affinity to this group for a lot of young people today. Like that’s the ultimate way to rebel, right?

Like on the left, it’s, it’s cutting your, and on the right it’s claiming to be an inward right? You know? And I think that unfortunately they made it like this edgy taboo thing. And. You there, there, there is a downside to doing that. Like it’s, it’s, it’s taboo to the extent now where you know, a kid can, can break that taboo and watch their parents and teachers, you know, stare in shock in the same way that, you know, maybe our generation had piercings or whatever, right?

Like the, they need something that can create that among their parents. And you know, unfortunately, the, the way the media ecosystem treats it right now, it’s just sort of the perfect thing for that.

Simone Collins: Hmm. Okay. Interesting. Yeah. I have to, I’m gonna have to [01:03:00] mentally chew on this for a while, but I, I’m glad that you’re talking about the fact that this is happening.

The trends that you brought up at the beginning of the episode, just the number, the percentage of young people who are now antisemitic really means that people need to be thinking carefully about not only why this is happening, but what. People can do both. People who support Jews and then Jewish populations themselves to address this.

Because if, if left unaddressed, I think it’s only gonna get much worse. And that could lead to problems.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. And I, I was a Jewish person. What I would do. Because I actually think this would be cool to do is build like a set of codes. Like be like, look, Judaism needs a system for dealing with intergenerational relationships with other cultural groups.

Mm-hmm. That has, because Jews love their rules. That has a lot of set rules that will make it rewarding for other groups to help us. Because when it’s rewarding for other groups to help us, then other groups are going to be more likely to help us. Mm-hmm. [01:04:00] And to a lot of people, that’s just the way they are.

Right? Like a lot of groups that have lived in clan based systems for a long time th this way of having intergenerational relationships with other people, like, as I said, Simone and I come from clan based cultural system is just natural. You just think, oh, I help another culture. Next generation, they’re gonna help me.

But if you’re a group like the Jews that’s regularly getting kicked out of places every couple generations, you may not build a system like that. But going into whatever the world becomes after this, especially after we begin space exploration and, and, and have interstellar communities, the Jewish culture is going to need a system of rules like that.

And somebody in our generation can be the two who makes it.

Simone Collins: Hmm. Interesting. Well, thank you for this conversation. I love talking with you.

Malcolm Collins: Love talking to you too.

Good pattern of repeatedly doing basic things he needs to learn, like math and English and stuff like that. Of course. And then for more advanced concepts like biology and stuff like [01:05:00] that, get him very familiar with the idea of, and how to use a an AI to explore that stuff.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Like explain to him why it’s important to learn how to explore it.

And then basically send him off and have him learn it, and then come back to us and tell us what he learned. That’s where you really get it with him. You’re like, okay, tell me what you learned. And he’ll come back and he’ll remember one thing and I’m like, go out again. Learn more than one thing. I need at least three facts.

And we can expand that into, I need at least a full explanation. I need at least, you know, so that he can learn how to learn this stuff on his own.

Simone Collins: I like that. Yeah, I mean we’re, we’re trying to present him with various reasons why he might wanna learn things now. Like he, he asked to see the, the mice we got in the mouse drops again this morning.

But then he got really sad about the mice and the mouse traps, and I’m like. Okay. Like, do you wanna build something that prevents them from getting inside? Like, you know, you gotta [01:06:00] learn. You have to learn how mice work and what they eat and all things. All the things.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway.

So we are going to go over a number or I’ll get started here.

Speaker: You attack it? What’s, what’s going on? What’s going on? My little buddy. Oh, okay. Question. Question. Get up. Get up. Question. Toasty was there No question. Did you see Torsten? Mommy said the milk was drinking. And And mommy. And also Mommy said the cookie got, oh my gosh.

Speaker 3: So, that’s not even weird. Not even weird. Not even weird. I think it’s pretty weird. It a supernatural being invades [01:07:00] your home. I personally find that a little weird fix. Sorry, didn’t we have to fix your hair before we get downstairs?

Come here. So we go.

Speaker 2: Go Octavian. Did you hear reindeer downstairs last night? I think I did.

Really Torsten, did you?

No, I.

In this episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into the viral interview clip (now over 9.5M views) in which a mainstream journalist from MSNBC/Telemundo denies basic genetics — claiming there are NO genetic differences between black and white people, not even for skin color.

What you didn’t see in the viral clip: the full context of a day-long filming session, the journalist’s “gotcha” moment falling apart, and why Malcolm deliberately played along to ensure the clip made it to air.

We break down:

* Why denying genetic differences (even skin color) is increasingly common on the left

* The real science on population differences, fertility windows, fibroids, menopause timing, and medical implications

* How this moment signals a cultural turning point: the right becoming the pro-science side, the left becoming theologically anti-science

* Media manipulation tactics, viral strategy, and why shock moments spread truth faster than documentaries

This isn’t about race supremacy — it’s about honesty in science, better medical outcomes, and fighting demographic collapse by understanding biological realities.

Episode Transcript: Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] what we see is a turning point culturally, and, and that’s what this interview represents, a turning point culturally with the right, becoming the party of science

Speaker: It’s science.

Malcolm Collins: and the left, becoming the anti-science theologically motivated party.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. We recently ended up getting in a debate against what I can only describe as a literal straw man of myth. And it went viral, super viral. I think the video’s at 9.5 million views. Now, one person was, was adding it up across the site. So really, really big and what we wanted to take this episode to do was to go over what you are not seeing from this film clip and the context of what we were thinking in this film clip.

Mm-hmm. And how we were trying to talk with her, because I think a lot of people get the impression that I walked into a room with A-C-N-B-C Telemundo reporter, right. And I sat down. And she just started asking me questions and immediately I was like, what? What are [00:01:00] you talking about? For, for,

Simone Collins: yeah, for context.

It, it’s Paolo Ramos. She’s, she’s from like, she’s, she’s not, she’s, she’s not unknown. Okay. She’s 193,000 followers just on Instagram.

Malcolm Collins: She has she worked in the Obama administration. She worked in the Clinton administration. Her dad is a very famous anchor at Telemundo and like one of Trump’s arch enemies.

She is very, like, this is the environment she grew up in. This is her religion. It, it very much reminded me of me talking to people who have been in Scientology and grew up in Scientology. Just their conviction. The, their weird world beliefs are completely normal. And we’ll play the clip in a bit, but most of, you’re probably already seen it, so I’m not gonna go into that that much.

Actually, Saron of ACA did a full episode dedicated to a breakdown of it because it was so emblematic of this.

Simone Collins: I think you should start with the clip. I think you should start with the clip.

Malcolm Collins: The point I was making is we didn’t just sit down and this was filmed, this was after a full day of shooting. It, it was, it was [00:02:00] actually near the end of the shoot that day, so.

We had had her at our house, we’d been talking with her in a number of different environments, is the way it works. You go to one room, you go to another room, you do some filming. You talk about this, you talk about this, you talk about this. And and before I, I play the clip, I’ll give you context when she started talking about this, up until this point, while she had been like a little woke about some things, it was like normal, like, let’s discuss this. Like let’s find common ground. Let’s this was when I think she decided like, oh, I’ve got this Gotcha. Planned for them, right? And immediately her gotcha fell apart because she didn’t seem to understand very, very basic biology.

And she didn’t, she thought that we were like racist or racial supremacists. When in the very clip we make it clear, we’re like different. Doesn’t mean better. We’re just saying that there are differences with specifically the one that I really couldn’t get over with her, and to give you a context of how we got there, was that, well, at the very least, the genes that code [00:03:00] for our skin color are different, right?

Like we can at least agree on that. I didn’t jump there because I was trying to jump to a non-sequitur. I jumped there because I was sort of like, okay, you disagree that there are any genetic differences between black and white people? Like presumably you at least agree on this and then we can sort of work on, okay, well then maybe other genes have associations due to similar sort of ancestral environmental conditions leading to them being selected for, but no, we got to the, do genes cause skin color differences?

And her answer was, and the other thing about this clip is this was not the full debate or like us pushing back and forth. It probably went on, I wanna say for 15 minutes or. Significantly. I don’t know. I dunno, it’s hard to tell how long something was, but what I can say is this was just a little bit of it, and it doesn’t fully show how crazy her position was.

Her position was just for people who don’t know in the, in the context, all [00:04:00] differences. Between black people and white people are due to conditions that they experience in their life, such as discrimination. So she would say the reason why, and this is a contributory factor, that black women have more fertility complications or inter menopause earlier than white women.

And we’ll go into both of these claims, ‘cause this is what I was talking about in context. The reason why I brought up that they, like it came up that they were different at all is because I was talking about, well, we need to understand this as a society that like we are actually different because if a black woman tries to have kids at the same timeline as a white woman having kids, she will not have as many kids successfully.

Yeah. Due to biological differences.

Simone Collins: And this matters in the bigger debate of demographic absentism because the primary driver of. F falling fertility rates. It’s not people not having kids at all. It’s people starting families later. And the problem is that many, including many of our black female friends are doing what everyone’s doing, the responsible thing, starting their families later.

No [00:05:00] one tells them that, like on average, the fertility windows of black women and the fertility of black women in general is different from. The rest of the population, which often is more represented in scientific research in, in, in Western societies. If

Malcolm Collins: anything, from their perspective, we were arguing against a Eurocentric medical perspective.

Exactly,

Simone Collins: exactly. Well, which is so funny because in some woke circles, it’s, it’s really commonly discussed, Heather. There’s not enough medical research that is specifically for women or specifically for certain racial groups that are on average different from other groups. Like it’s fully recognized there, but like in the context of this.

It’s.

Malcolm Collins: And in the, in the longer conversation we go into this and she goes, no, all of these differences are entirely and a hundred percent, even though there is voluminous evidence, this isn’t the case which we’ll go into. Not they’re due to discrimination in some way. And I was like, well, you know, if you have interracial couples, you still see the difference, but only when it’s women.

And I like went into this and I was like, and if you control for wealth, which studies [00:06:00] have done, you still see the differences. And she just would not have it. And it’s interesting to me because if you actually go down to. Dream of her perspective. What she’s arguing is that like black people become black not due to genes or like even, even more than that, black people are, let’s say taller on average, not due to genes, but because of the discrimination they face.

And I, and I’d point out another thing that will get into. Later in this is a lot of people are like, well, black isn’t a race or whatever. And I’m like, I never said black was a race. Like, I, I was not saying I I was merely saying if you’re looking at this one phenotypical characteristic, it is associated with specific other characteristics that may have medical implications, whether it be sickle cell anemia or diabetes, or the way you process vitamin D.

Like. That, that was the point I was making. I was not, and I even clearly state this in the police, I say, I’m not saying we’re better. I’m not talking about IQ here. And I’m not like I I, there was no like, and I’m not even [00:07:00] saying like this race or this race or arguing for the concept of race or ethnicity.

I was just saying that you can look at one phenotypic thing, and this matters a lot in hospitals. Like people die. When you don’t do this in a hospital context because if you, if you try to, for example, like even just looking at somebody broadly do a blood donation, like I can, I can have a well, let’s go from blood donations bone, bone marrow donation.

You know, if I have like a black wife and I wanna donate bone marrow to her. Can’t because we are biologically incompatible in that context. And so do, it’s more

Simone Collins: common, like just, how do you explain this if this isn’t true? Example that was brought up in discussions. Around this clip online was just then how do you explain sickle cell anemia?

Anemia, sorry. And that’s just a really easy go-to, like there’s, it is, there’s some populations that need to deal with sickle cell anemia and there are other populations that don’t have this. I mean, like, same with things like if you’re a hemophiliac, it’s [00:08:00] probably. Like how, how do you explain these things?

Malcolm Collins: I don’t know.

So, so it’s two things to bring up in this context. There’s actually a reason why as the debate got longer, I did not bring up sickle cell anemia and I tried to keep it incredibly narrow. I am first when it happened, when I was like, Hey, do you wanna check this on ai? I was still sort of in a phase of.

This isn’t a debate, this isn’t a gotcha moment. She just doesn’t know what she’s talking about. And we just need to make sure that we’re on the same page so we can create high quality news media for the general public. Right. Like that wasn’t me being like, oh, let’s use AI to, into debate or something like that.

I was just like, Hey like maybe we should come to some sort of common ground or, or look at a third party because what you’re saying is just like factually in like the broadest possible sense. Deeply, deeply untrue. Yeah. And it’s not like it’s one field like genetics. This is important for criminology, anthropology forensics like, it, it’s, it’s the basis of like multiple academic disciplines that this is untrue.

And [00:09:00] for many people who don’t know my background, I actually worked in the department at the Smithsonian at one point. I was the. The only staff still in this department. It was never used for crime at that point, but because everyone else was on a dig at this period, not because I was senior or anything that bones is based off of.

And some people were like you know, if you’ve seen Bones, you know that you can tell like the ethnicity. They show bones,

Simone Collins: not

Malcolm Collins: the

Simone Collins: objects.

Malcolm Collins: It’s the show bones from like DNA or from physical morphology, like the bones themselves or from various other things that are, that are tied or downstream of genetics.

And so for me, I’m almost like a nerd who is working in the Bones lab and then somebody is like, you can’t tell the race of somebody by you. You can’t tell. Or more importantly, because we’re not even talking about race here. You can’t tell the color of someone’s skin by their DNA because that, that’s specifically what I was arguing.

And the person in the Bones lab would just be like,

what?

What are you talking about? I. But I’ll play the clip here ‘cause you wanna play the clip and I know many people have seen it and it’s short. It’s like a minute 30, so we’ll play [00:10:00] it

Speaker 2: You’ve said things like black women are biologically different than white women. They, they, they, yes. They have, uh, different fertility windows. They have a higher rate of fertility complications, 50%, but there’s no scientific evidence to prove that. A black woman and a white woman are genetically different, right?

This is like, what are you talking? No, they’re no, no. Like literally, there are genes that code for their skin color. There are genes that, again, this is, I mean this is like government data. This, this is Emmy, right? This is the National Institute of Health. This is an American medical association. Like there, there is no scientific evidence to prove that, and that’s a big problem, right?

Because there’s no scientific, and that’s why I asked like IQ differences. Black people are genetically different from other populations. Yeah. I’ll say that again. There’s it, it, there is at least there is no scientific evidence to prove that. Right. And as people that No, no, no. I’m, I’m, I’m sorry. I’m stating Do you wanna ask an AI if there’s scientific evidence to prove that?

Speaker 3: No. I wanna ask on, on. Factually incorrect. [00:11:00] It’s humans are genetically diverse. It’s not a bad thing that humans, I’m saying it’s No, no, I’m not saying it’s a bad or, or, or a good thing. I’m saying there is no scientific evidence and I’m saying that is a factual, he saying that there is scientific evidence, there is scientific evidence, there is overwhelming scientific evidence on in this basic.

No, no, no. This is like saying the sky’s not blue, like it is genes that code their skin color. Mm-hmm. Right. Those genes are obviously different in them than they are in us. How is that Not science. That’s just like a basic fact. The genes that code their skin color, their level of melanin production are different from my genes that melanin production.

And that’s precisely why I was asking this question. ‘cause I think for some people that do believe like you, that people are genetically different. That has historically been used to promote racial hierarchies. Right. And that’s why I am asking you because, but so what do.

Malcolm Collins: anyway. I’m not gonna go through it and do a play-by-play like Sargon did I want to go through, oh yes.

The second part of the clip that I didn’t get to mention is as soon as [00:12:00] I realized that this was actually like a gotcha moment, I went into this mode of, oh my God, how do I get her to not cut this in editing? So you’ll notice this clip just came out of the tether trailer. She put it on her own Instagram, so like clearly she’s proud of it.

So this clip, right, was filmed back when Simone was pregnant. So months ago. No, no, no. Let’s

Simone Collins: provide more context. This was filmed the day before our scheduled C-section. I was sick as a dog. You can see me like trying to keep snot from falling out of my nose. Halfway through the interview, part of the interview consisted of me driving with them in our car as I went to get pre-op blood work done at the hospital, speaking in Spanish as they interviewed me live during the drive.

And yeah, they were filming us literally all day from a morning walk to me going to the hospital, to being there for a long time to them coming back and then you’re interviewing us together. Then in filming us around the kids, it was a long ass day and we barely had a chance to even talk about it after it [00:13:00] happened.

Like we had this short conversation of like, did she actually, did she, did she

Malcolm Collins: say that we actually like, I like got Simone’s side. I was like, did that really just happen? Like we didn’t

Simone Collins: even like have time to talk about it because then. You know, like we were getting the kids in order. I was, you know, getting ready for surgery.

We, we, you know, we, we went to the hospital for a c-section and then. Then text ended up then in NI, in the nicu. Like we basically forgot about this interview, like a,

Malcolm Collins: I did not forget about it. I mentioned it in just a video a couple days ago, like in the Johnny Anomaly interview. Like, oh, you did forgot I, I remember this.

Because I remember just like, what a gift to us it would be if it didn’t get cut in editing. Oh. ‘cause like midway through the argument after the AI thing, and I realized, oh, she’s not just being naive. She thinks she has us in some big gotcha moment.

Mm-hmm.

My immediate thought was, oh my God, I need to argue in a way that is entertaining and gets the point across to like a general sane person, but won’t trigger her to actually Google this and potentially cut this [00:14:00] after the interview is over.

Simone Collins: There’s no way though that they didn’t fact check this. They ran it anyway, because the other thing we are constantly doing while they were visiting us all day, as we do with every single visiting documentarian or journalist is. Please make this controversial. Please make this a hint, please. Well, but the thing is, is

Malcolm Collins: this isn’t just controversial.

This is controversial. Making them look like Buffo. Oh, yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Normally it’s, it’s just them making us look like That’s fair. Not

Malcolm Collins: making us look bad. Right. Like so, so this has been filmed and I went and I talked to her afterwards. Mm-hmm. And I said like, can you please. Keep that in the piece. Oh, you talked to her about it?

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I had a conversation with her and she was Oh, so she, yeah. This is her

Simone Collins: Christmas gift to you. Paula is a bro,

Malcolm Collins: right? No, she’s like, I, I don’t, and, and part of me, like, I don’t even know if she kept it in due to her own integrity or she just was really so dent she didn’t think to Google this or.

Walk by one with a ation. She no, maybe testing.

Simone Collins: She knew it would go viral. She knew the people on her side would stand her side anyway. And also truly believe,

Malcolm Collins: and they did on [00:15:00] Instagram. Lots of people did probably also

Simone Collins: still truly believes it, but she was probably also being a bro to us. And she’s like, well, they said they wanted, I bet this is gonna go pretty viral because I know the other side believes this.

And in her, per her view. All of the evil online racists are gonna jump on this and make it go viral, and X is dominated, for example, by evil online racist, so it’ll go viral there. It’ll make me look great. Everyone on Blue Sky is gonna defend me. We have no idea if this has even come up on Blue Sky, but like, basically like all my allies are gonna defend me and it’s gonna drive more attention to this story, which, you know, they spent money putting together, you know, they sent a, they sent three.

Oh, I mean, it’s gonna be

Malcolm Collins: great for this story. I’m excited to see this story. I have no

Simone Collins: idea where they’re

Malcolm Collins: gonna take this. Right. You know, I don’t know. Yeah. I saw that first part and I was like, this is great. Yeah. So it’s something to, to, to be important to understand that a lot of the comments are like.

Hey, why did you take this interview to begin with? Right. You know, first this is what we do. We get people like her who think, oh, this is gonna make me look really [00:16:00] good. This is gonna make them look completely

Simone Collins: evil. Oh, there’s so much more to it that though. No, actually, no. So her producer is, is from Grace, from Telemundo.

Yeah. This was our first time where a major Spanish language, Latin American, not Spain based outlet. Reached out to us about covering demographic collapse. We were absolutely thrilled. What, what doesn’t show up in this is that a huge portion of this interview was filmed in Spanish with me speaking in Spanish with their team.

So like, I think a huge portion of this is going to run in Spanish on Spanish language outlets. And like our audience doesn’t, she’s not gonna see it, but like, no, but like the larger context of us trying to do this too was that demographic collapse is a really big issue in Latin America. And it’s not really being discussed effectively.

Right. That’s not the point

Malcolm Collins: I’m making here.

Simone Collins: Okay. That’s your point.

Malcolm Collins: So the point I’m making here is that when we go into a context like this and are trying to create a viral moment like this, [00:17:00] right? The, the, you have to remember they have editing power on this, okay? So. You need to lure them into a scenario where they come away feeling like you look bad, but the average person watching this thinks they look bad.

This means there are many things that are suggested of us that are just completely off the table, right? Like people are like, why don’t you just stand up and walk out of the room? That would’ve one made us look absolutely terrible. Right. That would’ve been very easy for them to spend. It would’ve looked completely like us losing our cool.

Two is why don’t you just be completely deadpan about this and start citing studies and start going through, you know, sickle cell, everything like that. In a way it was just so

Simone Collins: boring. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: One, it would be boring. Two, if we actually broke through her and she to a point where she thinks to Google this.

No, no, I don’t want to drink this, sweetheart. She actually thinks to Google this, it’s gone. It’s dead. That’s not going out to [00:18:00] the general public. Right? She needed to think she looked good, but in reality did not look good. To some extent. Now, there was also the secondary thing where she might have known that she looked terrible.

I don’t think she did, but somebody might have known that. And it just went live anyway, because we had the conversation with her afterwards where I literally. Pleaded was her. I said, please, please include that clip. Like, you know, and she was so certain of herself that she was just like, yeah, of course.

Like she clearly thought like, oh, please don’t throw me in. The Bri patch was sort of her, her response to this. But I wanna be clear that there was a context and a conversation after this and everything like this. This wasn’t in isolation. And the reason that we do this, people are like, why do you try to create these viral moments?

It’s, this is how you spread information. Within the modern digital economy. If I went out there and I did a something like, you know, an inconvenient truth on demographic collapse, which by the way already exists the birth gap, right? Mm-hmm. It’ll do well, but it won’t do amazingly. You know, it’s not gonna do [00:19:00] these types of numbers, and that’s because that’s not how people share information anymore.

They share them in shock, outrage bites, right? And what this moment did was two things simultaneously, and I think we saw this on the sargon of a cod clip. We’ll get into the specifics in a second. Is it one acted as an indictment of the way the media acts? You know, this is the way of an educated woman.

She has a graduate degree from the Harvard Kennedy School. Right? Somebody educated in the mainstream system and under her comments there were people like, I bet these two people homeschool their own children. And I’m like, damn, right. This is why we do, because this is what’s coming outta the Harvard Kennedy School, right?

I mean, it’s a scam degree if somebody’s able to have this world perspective and have it, but. Sargon Acod is able to watch this and be completely generous to us. He just called us normal people and I felt cod. Thanks for normal people. That is honestly

Simone Collins: my first time hearing that. Maybe ever.

Malcolm Collins: Are we new normal conservatives?

Love it. Is is, is JD Vance a normal guy now? Are we just like, [00:20:00] are, are the tech conservatives normal? I’m, I’m happy for that. I’m here for you. But I wanna go further here. So one thing that was interesting that she did, oh. Oh, Simone, did you wanna say anything about this more broadly? ‘cause you were really excited to talk about.

It being the first Spanish language, the anything you wanna go? I said what

Simone Collins: I wanted to say about that. Okay,

Malcolm Collins: so, so, first. The sky is blue thing. I love that so many progressives are like, well, this glow isn’t technically blue. And I’m like, that’s an idiom, you know? Right. Like, you’re aware when somebody says it’s raining cats and dogs.

They don’t literally think that cats and dog. I don’t know why progressives have got so excited about that, that the sky isn’t literally blue and it’s an illusion created by the way, the, the light refracts in the atmosphere. I am. Literally to using an, an idiom for something that anyone can just observe, right?

And it’s a common idiom, right? It’s not like an un uncommon idiom or anything like that. The other thing. And I thought it was really interesting is her repeated use of the same phrase. Like there are studies that show this [00:21:00] when in actuality there was actually a great paper that went over all of the data from the studies that she claimed to cite, like from the NIH or whatever.

And every organization. That she cites as proving her position in fact argues the exact opposite of her position. And it’s interesting that they didn’t check this. Like, I wonder if that’s even like a legal liability for them to do that. And so Zero Hedge did a piece on this.

It was near the top.

And they go meanwhile in in, in the science or in actual science. Boast, the National Institute of Health and the American Medical Association have published and hosted studies, articles and policy statements that acknowledge genetic differences between human populations.

The NIH for. A number of them here. Genetic structure, self-identified race and ethnicity, and confounding in case control association studies. Then the quagmire of race, genetic ancestry and health disparities. Then all of us research programs, study on race, ethnicity, and genetic ancestry. Then for a MA race, genetics and healthcare racial [00:22:00] essentialism in the medical, in medical education.

And there’s also a study published in Nature 2021. African Americans and European Americans exhibit distinct gene expression profiles. Like you really do not get clearer than that from the mainstream research. Are you being too late? You know we’re on air and you cannot squeal and you cannot s scream,

I can’t shake

a baby, but I can shake a toddler.

Turkey. Turkey. Are you gonna quit Golin and Golin?

So anyway the point I’m making here is she’s literally just factually wrong in the saying she sing, and I know she’s factually wrong in the saying she sing. Like that’s why I was like, oh, like you could tell I was about to, and I love what other people also pointed out is your first intuition, Simone, especially because you were so sick you were about to give.

Birth the next day in a major surgery, you’re on all sorts of meds and [00:23:00] you’re just like, well, okay, like maybe we can come to some sort of a compromise is where you were, right. Instead of me, where I’m trying to find a point of agreement like, well at least you know, jeans code for skin color. The other thing that I thought was so funny in many of the things that tried to attack us or say we didn’t understand what we were talking about.

Because I wanna go over a few of them because I found them very interesting attacks. They were like sorry. Phenotypical traits are caused by alleles and not genes. And it’s like, okay, what causes allele genes? What causes phenotypical traits, genes. I am using the word that the general public is most likely to understand because that is who I am communicating with.

And note here, I didn’t say like the gene for coding skin color, or the gene for coding melanin production. I said the genes for coding, skin color and the genes for coding. Coding, melanin production. So I thought that that was very interesting that they like, knew one, what they think of as like a fancy word, and they’re very excited about it.

The [00:24:00] other one is they’re like, well, race isn’t a thing. Now note here, I wasn’t even arguing that race is a thing. So it’s weird that they go into this either because you know, well, it’s not a distinct thing, right? Like you can’t say exactly where like

white ends and black begins. And it’s like, well, you can’t tell a red. You can’t tell where red ends and blue begins. That doesn’t mean that red and blue are not colors, right? Like they can blend together, but they’re still distinct and meaningful categories. Right? And this matters in a medical context because that’s what I was talking about in terms of predicting things like fertility complications, which again we’ll get to in a second.

Next I wanted to talk about. The weird statement, which of course anybody who watches our show knows, and we have said there is, especially within African populations, that’s where the most human genetic diversity is. That doesn’t mean when you’re talking about American black populations that there aren’t specific things you can note about American black populations.

And [00:25:00] say, oh, this leads to this outcome, or this leads to this outcome. And we’re talking about American black population fertility collapse. It’s really important because this last year we have a video on this. They fell below white fertility rates. If you, if you look at the native born American blacks not propped up by immigrant blacks, they might be at around 1.35 by some estimates, which means they’re basically at extinction level.

Fertility rates like these are. Super low, super low compared to native white populations as well. And they’re basically being replaced with, with black people. We’re importing into the country. And so it’s useful to understand you know, if, if you are a black woman, that you need to start having kids faster and that despite that you also have some advantages that white women don’t have.

You can have kids in faster succession. Because your gestation cycle is shorter. But anyway. Well,

Simone Collins: no, not, not really. No. What it’s like by one, by like two weeks, one or two weeks, weeks on average, two weeks matters. I mean, like, not, not if you’re having like four kids. If you wanna have 10 or something.

Sure. [00:26:00] Makes a difference. Adds up. But like, you know.

Another interesting fact about black women’s pregnancies is they are shorter and they go through menopause earlier, but they also go through puberty earlier.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: But I want to to go into some other counter arguments here, and I wanna go into some more of the science here because I think it’s really interesting, like the conversation that happened around this.

Simone Collins: Okay. And do you think wants to play like Yeah, she can just go

Malcolm Collins: play.

Yeah. Don’t kill herself. Just keep on that all. So I’ll keep an eye on her. She starts killing herself. We’ll, we’ll get on that. Okay. Okay. Okay, so, this one was posted by Alonzo ndi and he said, and we, we actually saw this a lot, quote, genes determine skin color in quote Yes. But they also determine height, moles, and hair color.

But we don’t build social hierarchies around that. That doesn’t mean races are genetic. It means that you ring-fenced some genes and attribute moral social value to them. We call this racism. This is really. [00:27:00] Like spectacularly stupid because what I was talking about was in the context of medical diagnostics.

IE you can look at, if somebody comes into the hospital and they appear black, you can know that they have a higher probability of some fertility complications, which was the actual topic of conversation here. But two, even outside of that, two black people might be able to have, like, I, I, I, I think like if you, if you are let’s say true bright, like you don’t have other ancestral traditions mixed in with your tradition and you are just Japanese all the way down, you’re never gonna have a black kid.

If you’re black all the way down, you know, you’re not gonna have a white kid. And this is actually true. But this, but this isn’t true for let’s say handedness or height or something like that, right? Hmm. And that’s because those are single phenotypical expressions as opposed to ethnic groups, which are.

Group of convergent phenotypical expressions mm-hmm. That are tied to ancestral closeness. And, and this really matters, right? Like this, this, this [00:28:00] matters from a diagnostic perspective, but it also doesn’t mean that we don’t one rope off these other things. People have clearly, I mean, look, bumble sorts by height.

You have height filters on Bumble that is clearly I, I’d say height is, is, is probably as big in our society. A, a factor in terms of discrimination as ethnicity. It’s like you earn as much, I imagine

Simone Collins: it’s more of a factor. We, we’ve, we are at a higher rate of. In so far as it exists, interracial relationships today than we ever have been.

Like people really don’t care that much. I, I think it’s maybe what, like 25%. My memory’s so bad. Whatever. It’s really high now. It’s very low. No, no one cares. Basically. I think people are more likely to end up with their their own.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no. We have an episode on this, an interracial relationship. They’re actually.

Exceedingly rare. No,

Simone Collins: no. They’re, they’re way more common now in America than they ever

Malcolm Collins: they are, but they are still exceedingly rare. I thought it was

Simone Collins: in the twenties. Are you sure?

Malcolm Collins: We did an just go to our episode on this. The thing that I [00:29:00] point out is that this idea, because there is this perception within the black community that like white people are like, white women are stealing all the black men or something like that.

Or white men are stealing all the black women or whatever. And it’s just like factually untrue. It’s, it’s not that common. And, and for here, I’m just specifically speaking of the black community, but I wanted to, to get to that. Another quote that I thought was actually pretty insightful and Sargon went over this one as well is by Zu V three, where he said the required takeaway from genetic differences video is that your enemies do not use words in the way you do.

They are not instruments for conveying meaning. They do not eliminate mapping from mental concepts to physical reality.

They are spells provide them provided. To them by wizards. The purpose of dispels is to make you do what they want. You may believe that you are having a conversation, but they know they are in a spell casting contest and their ignorance of everything that is real [00:30:00] provides them with absolute immunity to your spells.

There are many millions of spell casters out there. I am not on Twitter to talk to these people who cannot be reasoned ways or bargain waves without any more than the TV can hear you. I find. I am here to find others who understand the situation for what it is. Yeah, Malcolm, sorry. Words will never

get us

outta this.

There is only one way to ever going to take the country back from the spell casters. Every day we spend casting our impotent spells at them is another day they further consolidate their power.

Simone Collins: Recent US Census Bureau analysis for 2022 found that nine around 19% of married opposite sex couples were interracial.

Okay, so this is a little misleading ‘cause I went to the stats again. When you hear interracial marriage, what most people think of is, uh, black, white marriages, because that’s specifically what I was talking about here. And if you look at, , black women married to white men, it’s only 4% while 12% are interracially married.

Simone Collins: Okay, that’s married. Keep in mind, like we’re still dealing [00:31:00] with married boomers who are way less likely to be in interracial marriages and the fact that younger people are formally marrying much less and much later. So it must be much higher than 19% in terms of actual like functionally married couples.

So just keep in mind like no one cares anymore height, however. Huge area of discrimination. Yeah, I think way, way, like, way more than race. I, I, I, for personally, didn’t give a rat’s ass about what, like, what someone’s heritage was when I was doing my whole like, dating thing and OkCupid, I absolutely looked at height, but I, I went on dates with guys who were, who were Indian, who were Asian, who were like, ev everything.

But not I, okay. I did go on a date with one really short guy, but it was because he was famous. Because

Malcolm Collins: he was what famous? He was famous. Oh yeah. But anyways, Simone right here, [00:32:00] black Killing Men. Thank you. The, the base camp Reddit, which is now like even bigger than when we did our like little episode on it.

I don’t know, like that’s weird that it’s gotten so big. It’s cool. But anyway what I would like, it’s way bigger than like the Jordan Peterson subreddit. Now. I, I do not understand what’s going on. Not in terms of subscribers, but in terms of activity in post and, and being viewers. But anyway what I wanted to go into here was and it’s mostly like people complaining about like, relationship related stuff.

So, so like women, like Simone, women are terrible. But I wanted to talk about this guy’s post because I actually think he’s fundamentally wrong here, right?

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: I agree that they think that they’re casting some sort of a spell, and that this woman, I was never going to convince her of my perspective.

Of course, not a debate. The purpose was not that. It was to have her making this ridiculous argument. And what you saw, and this was one of my favorite very highly upvoted posts on this, was somebody arguing that she worked for Prager U was a plant and [00:33:00] was trying to make progressives look bad, saying progressives do not actually believe this.

No large portion of progressive believe this. This is clearly a psyop and a lot of people thought it was like a skit, or a lot of progressives actually thought it was a psyop. What happens when progressives first thing gets a psyop and then they’re shaken out of it to realize this person worked for the Obama administration.

This person worked for the Clinton administration. This person is a, she is earnest staff at CNCC. I say CNN. CN, bbc, wherever, Telemundo, right? Like um, M-S-N-B-C,

Simone Collins: Malcolm

Malcolm Collins: Cs NBC. And this got through an entire editing pipeline. Right. Like, when they see that, when they see the dark withered and me just being here, being like, they’re casting a spell.

Do you see it? They’re casting a spell. It wakes them out of this. It’s what, what

Simone Collins: I’ve seen though, and what I think show, I, I would only say confirms. This is people saying the exact same thing about us that they thought we. [00:34:00] Bora style plants and that no one could possibly say what we said. And I just, I think this goes to show, I

Malcolm Collins: read hundreds of comments.

I never saw that once. Was it on the, I saw that it was

Simone Collins: on x. Weird, because every time I go on x to make sure that there’s no one like asking us for something actually substantive I, I see like the le latest mentions of. Us in threads or discussions of threads about us. And that’s where I saw it.

Malcolm Collins: Was it, was it highly upvoted?

Like was it

Simone Collins: No, no, no, no. I just, I just, Sierra mentions the one that

Malcolm Collins: I’m talking about had like 50 to a hundred comments under. Right. I’m not

Simone Collins: saying this was like a highly viewed comment. What I’m saying is that there are absolutely people on the other side who, who really, really hold that view, who think that like we must be actors because no one could possibly believe what we believe.

And, and I think this just goes to show. How divorced from reality. Some subcultures of what, but I think, I think it [00:35:00] is very different.

Malcolm Collins: So here’s what you’re missing, Simone. Okay. Nobody who is mildly right wing who would vote for Trump, et cetera, watches this video and has a perception that we must be plants that no one could be as stupid as you.

No, no, that’s,

Simone Collins: that’s true. Well, I mean, I would say anyone who centrist or who has a degree in. Anything that required basic levels of science education.

Malcolm Collins: Okay, so where this is relevant is a lot of the people who watch this in thought she couldn’t possibly be real are Democrats. They are on the left. Okay.

Yeah. That is how you poison the well. Mm. You poison the well by having, obviously there’s gonna be extreme responses on either side. Yeah. But it’s only the people who already agreed with her world perspective, who are like. Oh, can you believe how silly these two are? A lot of people, and we, we kept seeing this in the comments.

A lot of people are like, look, I’m a scientist. Like, you really shouldn’t be saying this stuff. Other people on her side being like, Hey, you, [00:36:00] like, I hope you guys delete this. You know? It hasn’t been up that long. I, I guess it’s been clipped, but like, you guys need to, you can

Simone Collins: still take it down the whole thing.

Still take it down

Malcolm Collins: yet.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: A lot of people on her own side were mortified about this. Mm-hmm. And it did a lot to cause them to quite like, I knew she was gonna cast this spell. I knew exactly what was happening as soon as this started. And I think as shown by the public response to this, if you just look at X’s response to this I was 100% right that if I let her post this braggadociously, if I.

Appeared animated enough to make this entertaining and make her feel like she won that it was going to blow up in her face and on her side’s face and draw more people to our position.

Mm-hmm.

A lot of people have been saying, and I think this is worth repeating, that this is very similar to Lko in, , communist Russia, where the Russians hated everything associated with Nazism so much that they hated genetics, and so they just said genetics isn’t real. And so they came up with an alternate [00:37:00] hypothesis.

, The problem is, is it’s meant that the scientists who then wanted to recommend things based on genetics, you know, things tied to agriculture were not allowed to, and it causes famine. And I think hundreds of millions of people died. , At least millions of people died. It was terrible, terrible phenomenon.

. And it’s not just that in, in terms of the ridiculousness of this, , there was a chart that I saw tied to this that I thought it was pretty interesting, where people were like, well, you know, skin color isn’t actually tied to anything else. When we’re talking about e especially not anything cognitive when we’re talking about genetic differences.

And this chart here. , Looks at where skin color is in regards to genetic differences between groups, , versus things like gene site to pituitary gland development, , dorso, , ventral neural tube patterning, hind brain development, positive regulation of neuron differentiation, all of which are much more differentiated between ethnic groups than skin color is at the genetic level at least.

Malcolm Collins: This, the, to, to, to [00:38:00] continue here. There’s, I love the whole trust, the science thing. Everybody was really excited about that.

Where leftists are all like science, you know, like the

leftist redditer who’s like science, exclamation mark, exclamation mark, exclamation mark.

Speaker: It’s science.

Malcolm Collins: It’s like, oh, oh, not that science. But it’s actually interesting here because when they say science, they do not mean science. What they mean is. The academic classes.

Mm-hmm. Which as we’ve pointed out before, serve as the priest class of the urban monoculture. Yeah. I guess

Simone Collins: if you just replace science, like capital S, science with the priest class, then it makes sense. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. You, you look at people like us, I mean, we’re actual science fanatics, right? Like, not whatever is coming out of academia, but like replicable studies that can be used to, well, it can

Simone Collins: include whatever’s coming out of academia if it’s.

If it’s well done. Like we, we don’t inherently distrust everything from academia. Neither do any of like the heterodox far right. People who we follow [00:39:00] who often cover academic research. They just. Double check the methodology, that’s all.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I think what we’re seeing here with this debate and this moment is that the right is becoming the party of science.

And if. So what people said, and this is absolutely true, so I’m what in this conversation, there were one side that was interested in being moral right in, in saying what they believed was moral. And there was another side that was interested in being honest. What science is, is honesty and stating what is honest over what fits.

Your moral convictions. Mm-hmm. Whether those be blank sadism or creationism. The, but the reality is, is that if you look at mainstream figures on the right, right now, you are not gonna get a right wing creationist reporter who’s just gonna be gfa. That somebody who they’re talking to is not a [00:40:00] creationist.

Mm-hmm. In fact, I would be surprised if there were many mainstream right wing individuals anymore who are creationists. Yet you will find many. Science deniers on the left, like this individual. And through that, what we see is a turning point culturally, and, and that’s what this interview represents, a turning point culturally with the right, becoming the party of science and the left, becoming the anti-science theological party, theologically motivated party.

Why would you disagree with that? You seem to have some alternate perspective.

Simone Collins: There are. Some,

Malcolm Collins: they’re anti ai, they’re Antifa, they’re anti, there are

Simone Collins: some Maha policies that I wouldn’t say work with the preponderance of like.

Malcolm Collins: I severely disagree with you here. So what I have seen is I have seen people make that claim.

I’ve seen that people make that claim about JFK’s [00:41:00] policies. Mm-hmm. And I will say more than 50% of those historic cases where somebody made that claim, it turned out upon more evidence that he was right. So when you say that, I think you’re just talking about the stuff that we don’t have the evidence on yet.

But in general, when JFK has said. I wanna question something. I doubt that. And we’ve even done episodes on this, like the aspirin thing, right? Tylenol Acetyl medicine, sorry, Tylenol thing specifically. And we actually point out that JFK’s position was the mainstream position in academia. It was just also, but also nothing else is safer, so we’re gonna recommend it.

Mm-hmm.

What his position was, basically like even though nothing else is safer, it still needs to be publicly known that you can’t just take as much of this as you want. Right. And, and, and this is something, and there are risks to taking it, which basically every academic agreed on until JFK said it and the left freaked out.

A lot of the stuff that people see as anti-science from the right is not actually anti-science. And I’m talking like recent papers when we go into that. There was like meta studies from like [00:42:00] 2021, right? Like, even Tylenol, it’s. Self had had corrected people’s tweets on this like the corporate Twitter account, right?

Like this was not an out there conspiracy theory. It’s just that they rebrand a lot of this as conspiracy theories. And if you as a woman I do not mean to to, but it’s true. I mean, you saw this in the interview and you see this more broadly, is women are about consensus making. And they also are more likely to believe the sort of consensus is put out there online.

And so if they see a lot of elites saying, Maha is a bunch of conspiracy theories, there includes conspiracy theories, and you haven’t individually looked into it. Like, I remember you thought the Tylenol thing was a conspiracy theory. You thought the studies were bad until I pointed out to you actually, this was the mainstream perspective until fairly recently.

Simone Collins: True.

Malcolm Collins: So I think that that’s your position when you’re looking at these MAHA things. But anyway, to continue here. I, I love something that a lot of people are talking about is that the, the progressives treat truth like the demons do in [00:43:00] frien which is an anime. And, and then to them words are merely a means to deceive humans.

I. Another one that I find funny is they’re like you know, we, like we various human groups share more in common with each other than we do with like other animals. Or we can interbreed. Now, first of all, look at our other humans are are, are there different feasts of humans video? In that video we point out.

It’s very common for different species to be able to interbreed. The, the prototypical example that everyone’s familiar with is grizzly bears. And polar bears can produce PRIs ply bears. And these bears can breed as well. It’s not that they always produce infertile offspring. So no, that is not we also point out that they split apart from each other, only slightly earlier in the historical record than European PA populations in the co-sign split off from each other, which the, just an African population, we also pointed out that video, if you’re looking at s and p closeness while Nand ALS did split from the European population earlier, we are closer to them in terms of like pure genes, like s and Ps than we are to the [00:44:00] cosign people. And this doesn’t mean that the cosign people are bad. It doesn’t mean that they’re less human.

It doesn’t mean that they’re in other species. It just means that there is a great deal of genetic diversity within humanity. Yeah. But when they’re like, oh, but like we are more related to each other than we are to like chimpanzees or something, that’s a bit like saying you know, humans and kangaroos are more related to each other than either group is to trees.

That doesn’t mean that kangaroos and humans aren’t meaningfully different categories of, of animals, right. But to continue here, because I, I I, one of the. Points that a lot of people make here is they say, well, there’s more genetic diversity in ethnic groups than between ethnic groups. Now this is actually a really fuzzy thing.

So I’ll get into the standard retort to it, and then I’ll get into a better retort to it than even the standard retort to it. So the standard return to it is what is called the loin. Fallacy. So have you never heard of this before? Yeah. Lo inten analyze variation locus by locus one gene at a time where differences between groups are indeed small at a single site.

However, genetic [00:45:00] differences across populations are correlated due to shared ancestry and history. Alleles tend to Koch occur in patterns specific to continental regional groups. When you consider multiple loci together, EEG via clustering algorithms like structure, these correlations allow. Highly accurate inference of an individual’s ancestral population, even though single locus variation is mostly within group.

In short, the more within than between statistic doesn’t invalidate population structure or taxonomic classification because. It ignores the inform informative correlation structure in full multi locus genotypes. And then even if you’re looking at pushback on this many scholars, EG Charles Roseman 2021 and Ramsey’s Withers and Adam Hoshman have pushed back on this, contending that loud lo loin himself did not commit this fallacy.

His argument was specifically about why traditional racial taxonomy isn’t justified by the low. Between group apportionment, comparing [00:46:00] it to other species, not a denial that populations are clustered. They are argue that the original person who coined this fallacy mischaracterized LO’s claim that the two approaches, variance versus clustering answered different questions.

Which is funny here because the people who. Like debunk this. They don’t debunk it as a explanation against racial clustering. They debunk it. Just saying that the original argument wasn’t arguing for, or, or against racial clustering. Everyone who is educated has always been for that. If you’re talking about.

Like genes, right? Like it matters, right? Like when he’s, like, there’s no genetic differences. One thing I could have jumped into, and this was one thing I specifically bit my tongue on, was, well, I mean, how do you explain like European populations having Neanderthal DNA in them and African or some African populations, depending on which one you’re looking at, having an unnamed hominid species in them.

And it, it fairly high amounts. Not, not like super high, but like a high minority, like 15% or something. And for Neander saw, you’re looking at like 3% to, I think 4.5% at the highest amount. But the point being [00:47:00] is that okay, that’s how you go about this if you’re just talking science, science, science.

But what if you wanna get into an easier way to understand why this is a really bad argument. Okay. So suppose I have two classes of students at a school. Each class had a different teacher. And then but they also studied on their own at home and everything like that. And then both classes went to take the SAT.

Now, if you average the questions that they got wrong on the SAT, in the same way that if you average like a huge number of people, you get a very average looking face. Right. Those two classes are going to be less distinct from each other than they would be any two people within one class would be from each other, right?

Sure. Yeah. So the two averages of the classes would be less distinct than any individual student within the class. That doesn’t mean that I cannot look at the individual questions that [00:48:00] students within one class got unusually wrong, or students within another class got unusually wrong to see where each of the two teachers might have room for improvement or might have been making a mistake in their teaching style.

Like does this get through? Did, does that make sense to you, Simone? Like, have you heard that before? Is this better? I’ve

Simone Collins: not heard this argument before, but,

Malcolm Collins: okay. So hopefully that, that better explains that to you. Oh, was they gonna stay here? Oh. Yeah. So the final thing here I wanted to go into was the point that started all this in case you’re unfamiliar with it. With the genetic differences between black and white. When I say black and white, I mean Americans in a medical context, right? Because we do categorize people into black populations in America on medical forms, we do categorize people into non-Hispanic white populations.

You do it all the time on medical forms. And it is important for medical diagnoses. But anyway, there is evidence. That suggests that genetic differences partially contribute to higher rates of certain fertility complications among black women, [00:49:00] particularly through conditions like uterine fibroids, which are the leading cause of infertility and effect fertility by impairing implantation or causing miscarriages.

Fibroids are a heretical with genome-wide associations, GWAS, identifying genetic variants more prevalent. In individuals of African ancestry that increase risk. The instance Admixture mapping and trans ethnic GWAS have shown that higher proportions of African genetic ancestry correlate with elevated fibroid risk.

And this varies by regional African origins with West African ancestry linked to single fibroids and East African linked to multiple trans tropic and DNA mesylation analyses also indicate that minoro trial tissue in black women may inherently be more susceptible to fibroid development.

Black women are up to three times more likely to develop fibroids than right women, even after adjusting for confounds, which ear with earlier onset and more severe symptoms. Now note here, if you’re talking. You include [00:50:00] differences in terms of healthcare access and wealth that matters more to Blackfoot to leave.

It doesn’t mean that we don’t have hard genetic evidence of these fibroid differences. Right? Next there is evidence of genetic factors contributing. Two earlier onset of mount menopause in black women, typically six to 12 months earlier than white women, which means around 48 to 50 years versus 50 to 55 years.

Meta-analysis of GWAS in African women have replicated several genetic loca associated with menopause timing, originally identified in European populations such as a HR two. R-H-B-D-L two prim one HK three UC one BR SK one TM EM 1 15 0 B and mcm eight Differences in allele frequencies between African and European ancestors.

Suggest ancestry specific genetic influences on earlier menopause. Credibility is supported by twin studies showing higher concurrence [00:51:00] for earlier menopause and monozygotic twins and common variants also linked to premature ovarian failure risk and may differ by race vascular motor symptoms. Aging hot flashes also show genetic I influences that vary across racial groups.

Note here, there, this is another instance in which you have a lot of stuff that’s not coming from this. If you want some studies around this, you can look at a multi-stage gene wide association study of uterine fibroids and African American women, African genetic ancestry interactions with body mass index to modify risk for uterine fibroids.

Genome wide meta analysis identifies novel risk lowkey for uterine fibroids within and across ancestry groups. Look, you can just

Simone Collins: say that. There’s a paper. You can read it. There’s a paper. Just look up the papers. Guys. Like, I mean, unless like, I mean obviously everyone should be asking AI with access to medical databases, questions about risks that may be unique to their.

Malcolm Collins: Ethnic group.

Simone Collins: Yeah, ethnic group. If you don’t have your own polygenic risk scores, which you can also just get, like, that’s the thing is, I [00:52:00] mean, we can just go on Nebula and look at our polygenic risks like you personally for these things, but a great proxy for that if you don’t have that data, is just being aware of relative risks that your group might have.

What, what is in her mouth? Is there a thing in her mouth?

Malcolm Collins: That’s her tongue.

Simone Collins: Oh, it’s just her tongue girl. I love you Turkey. But anyway, it was really crazy that went, went live and, and I think the craziest thing to me is that she was arguing a viewpoint that I’ve only ever really heard discussed in the context of.

People talking about racial discrimination in a medical context. That is to say like woke people on TikTok making shorts about how it really sucks to be. Like black or Asian or some other like non-white group in the United [00:53:00] States going through the medical system or being a woman because people aren’t taking your conditions seriously because most of the research has been done on white men, for example.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: Or like a lot of the, a lot of the samples that people have built medical standards around are white men. This is also something we’ve discussed in the context of sexuality that like a lot of the original sexual research was done. Around men and, and white men too. Yeah. And so like a lot of our understanding of sexuality is really limited because it was looking at from, from or looked at, from just one direction.

And it’s just so funny to me that like I, what had me flabbergasted was that I was hearing from someone who was broadly progressive, this view that I’ve seen argued against constantly by progressive people. So I, at first I was shocked ‘cause I was like, wait, that’s. That’s not what you’re supposed to be saying.

That’s not what your side says. But then I realized she was just trying to have this s gotcha moment where she wanted to just say, she wanted to say that we were [00:54:00] trying to argue that people of different ethnic groups have different IQs and are somehow inferior or superior. Because she’s trying to, to imply that we literally say the

Malcolm Collins: exact opposite in the club are

Simone Collins: white supremacists.

And the reason why she couldn’t actually ask us that as a gotcha was because we very clearly argue that that’s not the case, and we don’t argue that. And so she couldn’t get us on that because the only thing we’ve ever said to her point, right, is. That, that black women have different, you know, fertility issues and windows yeah.

Than than other groups. And that’s all she could go on. And, and that’s, I, I see what she was trying to do. She was trying to basically extrapolate from that to imply that we were white supremacists when we’re clearly not, because she needs to have a a straw man to attack. What was crazy for us was that.

I think on our podcast we often like, kind of make fun of and, and demonize woke people so much that sometimes I just [00:55:00] feel like we’re making up straw men or like finding the most extreme examples online and being like, ha ha, look at them, they’re funny. And then we make fun of them and, and, but I also like.

I don’t know. I, I wanna make the most charitable interpretation of reality in people. And so I’m like, but of course no one actually acts like that. No one would actually say that in the real world. And then like this, this was an instance of like us just dripping through our lives and like literally a straw man like jumps out of a cornfield and bites us, and we’re like, wait.

What, like it’s real. And that, that’s what was most crazy about it for me was that maybe, maybe this is more common in mainstream than I thought. But anyway, I love you and I’m glad we’re having our podcast again.

Malcolm Collins: I love you too. I, I do not think that’s what this was for her. I think SAR Vico has a good point that she realizes, and she even says it at the end of the interview, you know, people who like believe what you believe.

This leads to genocide and everything like that. Yeah. She is letting the cat out of the bag. She’s [00:56:00] saying, if I. She’s basically saying even if what you’re saying is right, if we admitted this as a society, we would be forced to racially segregate people. We would be forced to discriminate against people because to admit that there are differences between people always leads to NS and racial segregation, everything like that.

That was the implication of the ending line for her that she thought was this great Gotcha line. That’s, and this is actually what you see on the left, which many people point out why. Does ethnic diversity matter if we’re all exactly the same?

Simone Collins: Yeah, there’s so many weird. Yeah, catch 20 twos like blank slatem, but also like not having medical discrimination and Yeah, like your point too.

Anyway, she’s literally

Malcolm Collins: letting that out of the bag in her worldview. If she admits that jeans code for skin color, the next step, like five steps down the road, you know, slippery slope is not the,

Simone Collins: yeah.

Malcolm Collins: [00:57:00] Anyway, love you to Dec Simone.

Simone Collins: I love you too. Okay which one do you wanna. Is Indie happy as a clam sitting with you? Oh, I can’t hear you. Oh, her smile, she’s still smug, but I, I don’t think your mic is, is plugged in.

Malcolm Collins: Actually need to get a new mic. I’m, I’m down to one working mic at this point.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Do you need two? So, got a lot of pain from where my son punched me the first time he punched me full force.

I’m not mad at him at all. We were, I was pretending that I was gonna leave him outside for Krampus because he was being bad. And so he fought back and I’m like, no, you, you thought you’re gonna be left outside. You don’t get so. Oh, that’s called fighting to defend yourself.

Simone Collins: Necessary, obviously.

Malcolm Collins: And I’m like, but wow, that, that is quite a hook, little guy.

Simone Collins: Well, you need, you need a kid who knows how to fight. I, it’s all they ever do. I feel like my, my dinner making routine is, you know. Boil water, [00:58:00] chop vegetables, step over the cloud of children that are wrestling on the floor

Malcolm Collins: to get to, it’s, it’s, it’s like a Tasmanian cartoon or something.

Simone Collins: It like actually is, I need to get some footage of it.

Like, they’re just like in a ball like this undulating ball of fighting, wrestling children. Just, it’s just there. It’s like a tumbleweed. A normal part of the landscape is,

Malcolm Collins: well, that’s the way they’re with me too, is fight me daddy. Fight me. Fight me. Well that’s, that’s the way we raise them. Best way to go.

Anyway and you’ve been jonesing to do an episode again for ages, as have I, I missed it.

Simone Collins: I’ve missed talking with you.

Malcolm Collins: We’re gonna see if we can make episodes sustainable while we take care of the kids, right? So mm-hmm. That will hugely increase the amount of time. We can do episodes, but it means I need to have this one with me.

Simone Collins: Little Indy.

Malcolm Collins: All right.

Simone Collins: But I think she’s into it,

Malcolm Collins: so.

Speaker 4: Hey guys, how’s it going? So, [00:59:00] yeah, I will. Octavia, tell me about what you made here. I made, oh.

Speaker 5: So I can No, but explain it to me. How does it work? So you, so you see that right there? Yeah. The radio offer right there. Yeah.

Speaker 8: To fire.

In this eye-opening discussion, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into a shocking demographic shift happening in wealthy countries: the complete inversion of the traditional fertility-wealth relationship.

For decades, poorer families had more children while richer ones had fewer. But starting around 2017, in nations with generous social services (free childcare, healthcare, education), higher-income and higher-educated people are now having MORE kids — while lower-income groups are having fewer.

We explore:

* Why universal free childcare and welfare might unintentionally reduce fertility among lower-income groups

* How modern “poor” lifestyles increasingly resemble historical elite living (outsourced child-rearing, conspicuous consumption, work outside the home)

* How modern “rich” lifestyles are starting to look like historical peasant life (homesteading, stealth wealth, focus on home/family, less external work)

* The implications for fertility collapse, dependency ratios, and whether generous in-kind social services could accidentally “solve” collapsing birth rates by boosting high-earner fertility

Backed by 2025 research from Western Europe, Nordic data, and real-world examples. Is giving people free services the unexpected key to higher birth rates among taxpayers? Or is something deeper happening with culture and household structure?

Episode Outline

What it means to be rich, and what it means to be poor, is fundamentally changing, and not like you’d think.

Rich people are starting to live like poor people used to live, and poor people are increasingly live like rich people used to live

And you can see this coming up in all sorts of places, but most notably in recent shifts in fertility

This is a big deal and I think we should explore it.

SETTING THE SCENE

* In September, New Mexico’s governor announced that New Mexico will be the first US state to offer universal free childcare, regardless of income

* Average household savings are estimated at around $12,000 per child, per year (major understatement; when we had just three kids, we were spending around $4K/month—so around $50K/year for a daycare with a terrible reputation)

* This comes at a time when polling indicates Americans want the US to focus on measures like this to combat declining fertility rates

* WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT FROM THINGS LIKE FREE CHILDCARE:

* If the state covers major basic costs of having kids, rich people would have fewer kids as their standards for raising kids would be higher

* Wynnell anecdote: $1M/kid/year

* THE COUNTERINTUITIVE TREND

* Starting in 2017, we’ve seen a shift in wealthy countries—that largely cover things like childcare, education, and healthcare—in which wealthier and more educated families are having more children than poorer and less educated families.

* KEY QUESTION

* Why does giving resources to poor people not increase their fertility proportionately to rich people?

* WHAT PEOPLE ARGUE:

* When the state doesn’t offer generous social services, wealthy families aren’t willing to pay for having kids (but somehow poor families are)

* Having to work—as poor people do—competes with family demands

* WHY I HESITATE

* Wealthy people still work and have aggressive schedules

* Wealthy people also generally choose to have kids in more expensive ways—i.e. Waiting until they are old and infertile and then having kids expensively—and they’re struggling with that cost

* E.g. IVF is so expensive, people are traveling abroad to get it

* E.g. One couple found a clinic in Bogota, Colombia “offering a dramatic price difference—a package of four IVF rounds in Colombia for $11,000 compared to around $60,000 for four rounds in the U.S. Medication costs were also less than half of those in the U.S.”

* MY HYPOTHESIS

* The issue is more that governments and societies are turning poor people into wealthy people—or at least people who live like wealthy people historically lived—and turning wealthy people into poor people (or at least people who live like poor people used to live) and that’s why we’re seeing the inversion

* I’ll explain why at the end, but let’s go into the details first.

First, a Caveat

We’re talking about wealthy countries here, and wealthy countries (with one notable exception) have abysmal birth rates.

@MoreBirths Thread

The Thread:

* Lower income had been associated with higher fertility but now that relationship has completely flipped in many developed countries. Higher incomes are now associated with higher fertility almost everywhere in Europe, for both men and women, a 2025 paper shows.

* But this is only within countries. Across countries the correlation between income and fertility remains very negative. Wealthy countries continue to have far lower birthrates than poor countries. Also, fertility tends to go down for countries as a whole as they get richer.

* Cool animation that amusingly resembles sperm:

* /photo/2

But obviously as wealthy countries’ fertility rates are low, they need to work out what policies help to increase them.

The Wealthy Country Shift We Must Investigate

Back to this unexpected shift

Historical and Current Trends

For most of the 20th century, there was a negative relationship between wealth and fertility in Europe: wealthier individuals typically had fewer children while poorer families had more.

However, starting around 2017, this pattern weakened and has even reversed in several prosperous European countries by 2021. In some places, the association is now neutral or even slightly positive.​

* Similar patterns hold when using education as a proxy for income: low-educated Nordic women and men now have the lowest fertility and highest childlessness (15-36% in recent cohorts), while higher-educated groups have stabilized near replacement levels (around 1.8-2.0 children per person).

Variation by Region and Gender

* In Nordic countries such as Sweden, studies show a clear positive connection between high lifetime earnings and having more children, especially among men.​

For women, the relationship shifted from women having more kids (up to women born around the 1940s) to positive or flat in the 1970s cohorts, with the poorest women now having the fewest children due to higher childlessness rates.

* In Southern Europe, parental wealth is still related to lower fertility, while in Nordic countries, greater wealth is associated with higher fertility rates.​

Regional Differences and Welfare Regimes

In European countries with limited social welfare support—such as lacking free childcare or universal healthcare—fertility rates among wealthier citizens generally show only a weak positive association or sometimes remain lower, especially in Southern and Eastern Europe.​

* In Southern Europe and some conservative welfare states (like Greece and Italy) with weak, higher parental wealth does not strongly compensate for limited public support.​

* In contrast, Nordic countries and regions with extensive social support show a clearer trend: high-income individuals, especially men, tend to have more children

What Spurred Discourse About This: An Academic Paper

A research note on the increasing income prerequisites of parenthood. Country-specific or universal in Western Europe? https://labdisia.disia.unifi.it/wp_disia/2025/wp_disia_2025_05.pdf

(Brini, Guetto, Vignoli, 2025)

TL:DR: They’re trying to argue that wealth is beginning to correlate with having kids more because “having kids is so expensive.” THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY WE NEED TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE MONEY FOR KIDS.

Summary of Findings [not to be covered in podcast, but for show notes]:

* Key Question: Has the role of income in enabling parenthood strengthened in Western Europe from 2006–2020, and are increasing fertility inequalities present between higher- and lower-income groups for both men and women?

* Main Findings:

* Higher individual income strongly increases the likelihood of having a first child for both men and women across 16 Western European countries studied; the effect is stronger and more widespread for women, especially in countries with robust welfare systems.

* The role of income as a prerequisite for parenthood has increased over time: Income-based fertility gaps have widened, primarily due to declining birth rates among low-income men and women, not just rising births among higher-income groups.

* Country Variations:

* In most countries (France, Italy, Luxembourg, Sweden, Austria, Norway, UK, Belgium, Cyprus), widening fertility gaps are driven by declining parenthood among low-income groups—supporting the “increasing income prerequisites” hypothesis.

* A few countries (Finland, Ireland, Greece, Spain) show weakened male income effects, suggesting evolving gender norms (”changing gender roles” hypothesis).

* Only Portugal fits the “declining opportunity costs” hypothesis, with increasing parenthood among high-income women due to policy improvements.

* Implications: Economic resources are increasingly critical for starting families, especially for women. Lower-income groups are increasingly excluded from parenthood, and the combined incomes of partners matter more than ever.

* Evidence and Method: Analysis based on longitudinal EU-SILC data for individuals aged 18–45, modeling income (lagged two years), education, and employment status, with results robust across country and gender.

* Sensitivity Analyses: The effect persists when considering partnered individuals and total household income, ruling out partnership exclusion alone as the explanation.

* Conclusion: Financial barriers to parenthood have risen and become more universal in high-income countries. The income prerequisites of parenthood increasingly contribute to income-based fertility inequalities, with widening divides driven by falling birth rates among lower-income women and men. These trends are consistent with rising economic uncertainty, declining employment stability, and evolving gender roles. The financial stability needed to have children now depends heavily on both partners’ earnings, increasing disadvantage for those with lower incomes.

Bottom Line: In modern Western Europe, having children has become more conditioned on income, and this new reality intensifies socioeconomic inequalities in family formation.

The Generosity of European Social Programs

It needs to be emphasized that the countries investigated in this academic paper already do A LOT to support parents.

* I researched top, mid, and low-level providers of benefits in Europe and then color coded them; the vast majority of the countries they covered are top tier when it comes to social benefits.

* The TL:DR is that these people are living the dream of what, say, American families say they want in terms of support, and yet it’s not apparently helping typical families of modest means have more kids.

Top Providers of Social Benefits

* Luxembourg: Highest per capita spending on family benefits; extensive free education and healthcare, substantial childcare support.​

* Nordic countries (Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Finland): High expenditure per person, universal healthcare, free or highly subsidized education, and robust childcare systems. Denmark, for example, is noted for the most generous overall welfare package.​

* France: Leads in overall social spending, with nearly a third of GDP devoted to social services—free healthcare, subsidized childcare, and free higher education.​

* Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland: All spend above €1,000 per person yearly on family benefits, maintain generous healthcare and education systems, and support families with substantial social programs.​

* Belgium, Finland, Sweden: High levels of social expenditure and strong systems of universal services.​​

Mid-Tier Providers

* Netherlands: Welfare support below the EU average, including less generous family benefits, though healthcare and education remain accessible.​

* Italy, Spain: Social spending is moderate; both provide universal healthcare and public education, though cash benefits and childcare support are less extensive than in Northern Europe.​

* Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Greece generally fall in the middle to lower tier of European countries for social benefits, with each ranking lower than Northern and Western European nations but Portugal notably ahead of Greece and Cyprus.​

* Note re: the United Kingdom: Around 23–26% of GDP spent on social welfare, average by OECD standards, but benefit value is low relative to wages, with notable gaps in unemployment and adult support.

Countries with Least Generous Benefits

* Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Czech Republic: Lowest per-person spending on family benefits; limited state childcare, lower national GDP allocation for social protection, and constrained healthcare provisions.​​

* Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Non-EU nations at the lowest end of the support spectrum, with minimal expenditure on social benefits per capita and more fragmented public service offerings.​

* Montenegro, Serbia: Limited social safety nets and public service funding; ranked low in comprehensive benefit provision.​

Are The Numbers Just Off?

It should be noticed that some are arguing that surrey error and small sample sizes should make us question whether wealthy families actually have more kids.

Lyman Stone on Fertility and Wealth

Fertility and Income: Some Notes (published in April 2024)

* Lyman Stone argues that Income reporting in surveys is unreliable for very small subgroups (e.g., $1 million+ households), so findings about ultra-high earners can be artifacts not robust trends.

* Stone nevertheless makes some concessions: There is some evidence on causal ties between income and fertility: at least one study shows exogenous positive shocks to male incomes boost fertility, and there are many others using more quasi-experimental variation from sectoral or occupational exposures. But “male income” isn’t “income.” The figure the U-shapers rely on is family or household income. It includes male income and female income.

* The big point he wants to argue is that non-wage income (rent, interest, welfare, etc.) may be pronatal, but earnings are not.

* We have argued extensively that he is biased in favor of welfare, so of course he would want to say this.

* Where we agree with Lyman Stone is that:

* The relationship between income and fertility is highly dependent on culture

* Stone points out that different cultural groups (e.g., Amish, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Asian Americans) show very different patterns.

* “Income X Culture → Fertility” is a more accurate framing than “Income → Fertility.”

* Evidence shows that fertility is more closely tied to relative social status and income than absolute wealth or GDP growth.

So What’s Going On?

Top public arguments

* Poorer families are less healthy

* Poorer families are too busy trying to make ends meet to start a families

* Poorer families have less flexible schedules and less work-life balance

* Poorer families have less stable marriages/partnerships

* Wealthier families have stronger social networks

* Children are framed as luxury goods so kids aren’t an obvious part of life, but something you have if you can afford them

One important takeaway:

* We now have more reason to believe that social services and even money aren’t the solution to fertility (because women’s wealth doesn’t correlate with higher fertility in these cases; it’s just increased male wealth)

What I really think is going on:

* Poor people are becoming like wealthy people, especially in these countries

* Kids being cared for outside the home

* More ability to work

* More work outside the home

* More focus on material wealthy

* Wealthy people are becoming more like poor people

* Less focus on work, more leisure time

* More work from home

* Less focus on material wealth and conspicuous material consumption

* Stealth wealth

* Ballerina Farms

* MAHA

* More focus on autonomy and separation from society

* Compounds

* Charter cities

* Permaculture, homesteading

In short, this is a product of what happens within the household.

Episode Transcript

Simone Collins: Hello Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today because there’s this thing I’ve really been stuck on recently and I think I’m realizing that what it means to be rich and what we thought it means to be poor is, is fundamentally changing and actually inverting.

And not the, the way you’d think. So, so specifically rich people are starting to live like poor people used to live, and, and poor people are increasingly living like rich people used to live.

Malcolm Collins: You know, you just say this upfront and I’m like, oh my God, this actually checks out when I look friends.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And, and you can see this coming in all sorts of places, which we’ll talk about. But most notably, and I wanna couch this in, in this larger context, you can see this most notably in, in recent shifts in fertility. And this, this actually is a big deal. It has pretty significant implications, and I want us to explore it.

So let’s just dive right in. And, and I’ll start with the, on the fertility front, a sort of like premise setting thing to sort of get us into this thought experiment and like, whoa, what’s going on here? This [00:01:00] doesn’t make sense. In September, new Mexico’s governor announced that New Mexico will be the first US state to offer universal free childcare regardless of income, which is, that’s huge.

Yeah. Average household savings are estimated to be around $12,000 per child, which checks out per year. And I actually think that’s a major understatement. ‘cause when we had just three kids, we were spending around. 4,000 a month, so around 50,000 a year as we had obviously stopped ‘cause it burned through our savings.

And, and that was for the daycare with a terrible reputation. The daycare that Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: This is a daycare that a bunch of kids died at.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Not, not the location our kids were at, but you know,

Malcolm Collins: in New York.

Simone Collins: Yeah. A very close location. Yeah. And, and this, this comes at a time also, and we’ve reported on this separately.

When polling indicates that Americans want the US to focus on measures like this to come black declining fertility rates and not other things. They’re just like, I just pay for my childcare. Like, stay outta my life, but like, make it easier. So what you would [00:02:00] expect from things like for a childcare?

I is, I mean this is what I would intuitively expect is if the, the state covers major basic costs of having kids.

Malcolm Collins: Mm-hmm.

Simone Collins: Then rich people. Are gonna have fewer kids as, as their standards for raising kids are higher, and then, and, and poor people, people of modest means for who this daycare expensive is.

It’s, it’s huge, right? Like it’s devastating. They would have more kids. Yeah, so like the middle class and lower class people would have more kids and Rich, rich people would have still fewer kids. Like it wouldn’t affect them because, do you remember what your mom said about how much money we needed, like per kid,

Malcolm Collins: per year?

It was a million dollars per kid, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah. She’s like, well, you need a million dollars in income per year. Per kid. Per

Malcolm Collins: kid,

Simone Collins: because she’s unhinged. But that, that is a rich person norm. Around kids, right? Yeah. So you just think that like, well, but rich people have really unsustainable standards around how much kids cost.

You know, they have all these nannies and all the clothes and all the activities and like, they wanna fly around the world with them, so [00:03:00] they’re, they’re too expensive. They wouldn’t have more kids just ‘cause childcare is paid for, but No, no. And this is what’s so crazy. Starting in 2017, we’ve seen a shift in wealthy countries.

That largely cover things like childcare and education and healthcare in which wealthier and more educated families are having more children than poorer and less educated families.

Malcolm Collins: I don’t believe it.

Simone Collins: No, it’s true. It’s true.

Malcolm Collins: I don’t believe it. This is this.

Simone Collins: I’ll show you the data. No, man. This is insane.

So the key question is, why does giving resources to poor people not increase their fertility proportionally to rich people? Because that is a, that is a, like, this is so perplexing and what people are arguing. So it it, when you go into this and even when you go into like the academic research covering this inversion and this strange trend, they’re like, oh, well, I.

When, when the state doesn’t offer generous social services, wealthy [00:04:00] families aren’t willing to pay for having kids, but somehow poor families are. They’re like, they’re literally arguing this and, and they’re basically arguing that basically having to work at all as poor people do, competes with family demands.

But I, I hesitate to buy that at all because wealthy people still work and have aggressive schedules. Like we know this, we have a lot of wealthy friends, and they’re extremely busy,

Malcolm Collins: and they’re also, oh, I don’t know.

Simone Collins: Well, no, that’s, we’re gonna get to that, that that is true. ‘cause maybe that’s not so true.

Also though, but

Malcolm Collins: here’s what I don’t understand. Why are they giving money to poor people?

Simone Collins: These are also legit questions, but also, like wealthy people have kids in more expensive ways, not just in that, like they wanna get them the nannies and the fancy clothes, and the fancy toys, and they wanna fly them everywhere and do things like that.

But like they’re, they’re typically waiting to have kids in the, until they’re older and more infertile. So they’re more likely to need fertility treatments and need IVF and have more complicated pregnancies or even use surrogates, you know, it’s really common, [00:05:00] right? So like that would also make me think that they’re gonna have fewer kids.

In fact, IVF is so expensive. People are increasingly traveling abroad to get it. And, and to, to the extent that we’re seeing major mainstream news outlets covering it. Recently

Malcolm Collins: that IBF clinic that was gonna open the Philippines and do like embryo testing. Is that happening still?

Simone Collins: It’s still happening, yeah.

Did you

Malcolm Collins: have a timeline on that for like, our fans

Simone Collins: we’re under an NDA, so I can’t say anything. Okay. But once, once we have an update, we can share information. But like, CBS news recently did an article about it. They talked about one couple that found a clinic in Bogota that they were going to, that offered a package of four IVF rounds for $11,000.

Which, you know, compared to like the $60,000 it would cost to do four rounds, then that’s on the lower end in the United States. That’s like really good. So my hypothesis here is that the issue is more that governments and societies are turning poor people into wealthy people, or at least people who live like wealthy people historically lived [00:06:00] and turning wealthy people into poor people, or at least the way that.

Poor people used to live and, and, and, and we’ll, we’ll explore that in greater detail. But first I just wanna give a caveat and, and this can be really summed up well by a, a thread that, that more births did when covering this

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: This research,

Malcolm Collins: you know, who’s gonna love this data, right? Is lineman Stone,

Simone Collins: actually, I’m also gonna cover limestone had, actually, he didn’t chime in about this just as it came out because this was a 2025 thing.

I’m gonna. I’m gonna look at W Stone has a take on this. He published in April of last year though, or like spring of last year. Okay. But in this thread more births explains a lower income has been associated with higher fertility. But now that the relationship is completely flipped, he writes, in many developed countries, higher incomes are now associated with higher fertility almost everywhere in Europe, both for men and women at 2025 paper shows.

And we’re gonna look at that paper. His second tweet though, and this is important, but this is only within countries. [00:07:00] Across countries, the correlation between income and, and fertility remains very negative. Wealthy countries continue to have far lower birth rates than poor countries. Also, fertility tends to go down for countries as a whole, as they get richer.

Also I kind of just wanted to, to show you this thread, just because one of the animations that shows basically the fertility of countries going down is to get wealthier. Literally looks like sperm. Look at, look at, look at the link. I just said,

Malcolm Collins: what is wrong with you? Come on. You are so juvenile.

Simone Collins: It’s thematic. It’s thematic. Okay. I just find that extremely amusing.

Malcolm Collins: But swimming downhill. Yeah. Yeah.

Simone Collins: There’s, there’s little sperm swimming downhills. They get, you know, wealthier, their fertility goes down. Along with their sperm motil, their testosterone levels plummet but obviously wealthy countries, fertility rates being low, it is important to be looking at.

What we can do to increase fertility in these countries. And it’s pretty wild that now the wealthier increase poverty

Malcolm Collins: people.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Outside of, yeah, outside of that. So let’s, let’s look at this wealthy [00:08:00] country shift that we need to investigate. So for most of the 20th century, there was a negative relationship between wealth and fertility.

In Europe, wealthier individuals typically had fewer children, while poor families had more. Everyone knows this. We talk about this a lot. However, starting around 2017, this pattern weakened. It’s been even reversed in several prosperous, and this is the important thing, prosperous European countries by 2021.

In some places the association is now neutral or even slightly positive. And similar patterns hold when using education as a proxy for income. So low educated Nordic women and men now have the lowest fertility. In highest childlessness, 15 to 36% in recent cohorts. While higher educated groups have stabilized near replacement levels around 1.8 to 2.0 children per, what is

Malcolm Collins: it in?

Simone Collins: The Nordic countries.

Malcolm Collins: The Nordic countries. Mm-hmm. So the Nordic countries is now the lower income and lower education you are as a man, the lower your fertility rate.

Simone Collins: And, and woman. And woman

Malcolm Collins: and woman.

Simone Collins: [00:09:00] But here’s no, there, there are different, there are different, regional and gender variations that I, I, I am glad you’re, you’re pointing to this.

Yeah. So in Nordic countries such as Sweden, studies show a clear positive connection between high lifetime earnings and having more children, especially among men. But for women, the relationship shifted from women having more kids up to women born around the 1940s to positive or flat. In the seventies, cohorts with the poorest women now having the fewest children due to higher childlessness rates in Southern Europe.

However, prenatal wealth. Or sorry, parental wealth is still related to to, to lower fertility.

Malcolm Collins: So in poorer countries, the poorer you are, the higher your fertility rate

Simone Collins: is. Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But in wealthier countries, the poorer you are, the lower their fertility rate is. Mm-hmm. And it seems to be correlated with the amount of social services that poor people are getting.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: To sterilize the poor is to give them money. [00:10:00] Exactly. That’s why we’re giving poor people money. Ugh.

Simone Collins: Yeah, they’re, they’re trying to stick. No, but seriously, in European countries with limited social welfare support like if they don’t have free childcare, if they don’t have universal healthcare, fertility rates among wealthier citizens generally show only a weak positive association or sometimes remain lower.

Especially in Southern and eastern Europe. So in Southern Europe and some conservative welfare states like Greece and Italy with weak, higher parental wealth does not strongly correlate or compensate for limited public support. In contrast, Nordic countries and regions with extensive social support show clearer trend high income individuals, especially men, tend to have more children.

And so what, what spurred this discourse about this in the paper, that more birth cited that just came out this year? Oh my God. Can you hear a text? Snoring?

Malcolm Collins: No

Simone Collins: sound ever. Oh my God.

Malcolm Collins: You, you could put the microphone up to him. All the, the ladies [00:11:00] watching.

Simone Collins: I, I think I, I’ve woken him up.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, there. Oh, you woke him up.

Simone Collins: Crumbs. Oh God, I, I, I just, when he snores, it’s the cutest son ever. But whatever I, the moment is passed. I ruined it. But so, right, so there, there was a paper that came out that, that discussed this trend that is, that is the whole spark of all this.

And it called let’s see. It’s the, it is the sexiest and most catchy title of all research papers. Research note on the increasing income prerequisite parenthood country specific or universal and Western Europe. That is, that is the title. Not exactly the best, but the TLDR is, they’re trying to argue that wealth is beginning to correlate with having more kids, because having kids is so expensive.

They’re, they’re, they’re trying to say, we need to give people more money for kids like that. That is literally their takeaway in this whole thing. [00:12:00] Mm-hmm. But here’s just like the, the key question they wanted to ask is, has the role of income in enabling parenthood strengthened in Western Europe from 2006 to 2020 and are increasing fertility inequalities present between higher and lower income groups for both men and women?

And their main findings were that higher individual incomes strongly increases the likelihood of having a first child, both for men and women across 16 Western European countries that they studied. The effect is stronger and more widespread in women. Especially in countries with robust. Welfare systems.

The role of income as a prerequisite for parenthood has increased over time. Income-based fertility gaps have widened primarily due to declining birth rates among low income men and women, not just rising births among higher income groups. So this is important, as you said, right? The way to sterilize poor people is to give them resource

Malcolm Collins: UBI would do so much harm to fertility rates from what we’ve seen in the data

Simone Collins: well, but especially among poor people.

And that’s a really crazy thing [00:13:00] because you’d think like. Oh, well this is all, and that, that, that is what is constantly being argued, right? It’s like, well, we’re, we’re not the rich people in this country. We can’t afford to have kids. But what’s clearly shown in this data is that’s totally the opposite.

Like, that is not at all how this is gonna work, which is, is it just so surprises me. And, but what, what also really surprises me is that the researchers are trying to argue. That this is just because it’s so expensive to have kids.

Malcolm Collins: Well that actually isn’t a terrible argument. So if you’re thinking about,

Simone Collins: explain this to me.

The

Malcolm Collins: amount of aid in the United States that poor people get around kids, it’s just comical compared to middle class people.

Simone Collins: That’s true. That’s true.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And, and, and, and middle class people can actually be priced out of having kids, whereas it’s very hard to price a poor person out of having kids in the United States.

Simone Collins: That’s true. And for context in the United States. Because we, we did really extensive research on this to try to create like sort of an index of resources for parents [00:14:00] because we thought there would be more for just like your average, normal parent, but basically if you’re at or below the poverty line, healthcare is taken care of for, for kids and typically their parents.

Two, or at least their mothers food assistance, childcare assistance, often housing assistance, often heat and electricity assistance. So you really get levels of subsidies that you, you would otherwise just expect in like the wealthy Gulf States for all. Citizens which is insane. Like just be impoverished.

And, and there are many families in the United States who actively game the system to create the appearance of poverty just to get access to these resources because they’re so compelling, which is not the best, but go on.

Malcolm Collins: No, I mean, you’re right. And I was also telling you about this earlier today, which I didn’t know about.

But like true poverty doesn’t really exist in the United States. And I know that this is an offensive thing to say. I was point out to you that, for example, starvation in the United States, it’s [00:15:00] virtually just doesn’t happen. It happens to like 150 people a year or something.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: And almost all of them are elderly people or people who can’t move in some way.

Like there,

Simone Collins: right, like if it wasn’t the starvation, it would be bedsores or like. Literally they’re like their dogs eating them alive or something. ‘cause they can’t move. It’s,

Malcolm Collins: yeah, yeah, yeah. They’re stuck at home and nobody’s bringing them food. Like, if you can go out and get food, you’re, you’re gonna be okay in the United States.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And I wanna show you actually, so the, the, the research study that, that did, these graphs and correlations of between. Being more wealthy and having more kids. I was like, just how generous are all these countries that we’re looking at? So first I just looked at all the graphs and then

, I sorted the European countries that they looked at in this research, Okay.

By just how generous they were in terms of their social services. And I, I, I color coded them. So red is most generous, and orange is, is a slightly middle, like mid-tier, generous, like. They don’t support as much of healthcare and education and and childcare, and then yellow is least [00:16:00] generous. And pretty much the vast majority of the countries that they looked at here were all extremely generous countries.

Even in the ones that are yellow circled, like the UK I circled in yellow, because it is, it is generally considered to be a little bit weaker on social services. Keep in mind, the UK still has the NHS, it has nationalized healthcare, and the caveat with the UK too is that the social services in the uk.

Skew toward children really heavily. So the emphasis is more on like giving people citizens a really strong start. And like

being

Malcolm Collins: so yellow means a lot of social

Simone Collins: services. It’s the weakest social services. Red is the strongest. Weak,

Malcolm Collins: okay. And

Simone Collins: red is, so, the vast majority of the countries that this study looked at are extremely generous in their services, meaning that this really does.

This is about countries providing very, very, very generous social services. Basically just like free childcare, free good healthcare and free education. A among other things. So that’s, that’s, that’s it. Just, [00:17:00] it needs to be emphasized that the country’s investigated in this academic paper. Already do a lot to support parents.

Makes sense. And I can go into it like some, some examples. Luxembourg has the highest per capita spending on family benefits. It has extensive free education and healthcare, substantial childcare support. The Nordic countries like Norway and Denmark and Iceland and Wheland and, and Finland they have a really, really high expenditure per person universal healthcare for.

Free or highly subsidized education and robust childcare systems. Denmark, for example, is noted for the most generous overall welfare package. France leads in overall social spending. Nearly a third of their GDP is devoted to social services. Oh my

Malcolm Collins: God.

Simone Collins: Free healthcare, subsidized childcare, and free, free higher education in Germany and Austria and Switzerland and Ireland.

All spend above 1000 euros per person yearly on family benefits. Maintain generous healthcare and education systems and support families and have. Very substantial social programs. So [00:18:00] again, like this is, we’re talking very generous. This is, this is an American’s dream in terms of what we keep asking for.

Yeah. I just wanna emphasize again that this is just. It’s just ridiculous.

Malcolm Collins: Oh no. Are you saying we need to be socialists now?

Simone Collins: I’m not. And speaking of socialists, did someone say socialists? I, I wanna bring lineman stone to the chat. So lineman stone, actually, so one thing that we’ve, we’ve talked about in the past and that anyone who discusses fertility talks about is this U-shaped curve in fertility that’s very often discussed, right?

Which has to do with income. And it’s this, the famous U-shaped graph that that shows fertility levels.

Being really high among those who are impoverished. And then for the middle class, it just plummets. And then when you see incomes above $500,000, per household or whatever then it, it goes up again.

And so like, oh, well, having a big family is just a super rich person thing and a super poor person thing. And Lyman Stone in an article that he [00:19:00] published in April 24 called Fertility Income, some Notes he argues that income reporting in surveys is unreliable. For very small subgroups that that is to say like 1 million plus households.

And so he wants to say that, that the findings about ultra high earners can be artifacts and not robust trends. Oh,

Malcolm Collins: so he doesn’t think that high earners actually have a very good fertility.

Simone Collins: Yeah. He thinks that like, because so few people are in that income bracket and also responding to surveys that like probably what we’re seeing is like someone accidentally filling in the wrong.

Thing on a survey. Like just the error. Yeah. And, and that’s, it’s, it’s, it is a legitimate. Concern. But he nevertheless does make some concessions. He, he says there’s some evidence on, on ca causal ties between income and fertility. At at least one study shows exogenous positive shocks to, to male income boost fertility, and there are many others using quasi experimental [00:20:00] variation from sectoral or occupational exposures.

But he also argues male income is an income, the the figure, the U-shape. Advocates, essentially, he says rely on for fa is for family household income. It, it includes male income and female income. So that he, he thinks that’s not the thing, like really the thing he would encourage people to look at, and I don’t think he’s wrong.

Is me relative male income that men, men doing disproportionately better. Mm-hmm. Seems to correlate more. And that even shows up in a lot of this more re recent research that I can’t remember who it was when I was going into some more of the, the ephemera of this discourse. People were pointing out that when you look at, when you break out female.

Fertility in these countries, women with higher wealth had higher fertility, but if they had just higher income, they [00:21:00] didn’t, it was sort of like a neutral thing. Okay. So essentially like if you’re working your, your your fertility’s not gonna be higher if you’re a woman. And that makes sense because if you’re working and you’re a woman, it’s, it’s kind of harder to have a ton of kids and, and we’re gonna get to that.

So, so. The, what the public is arguing in terms of what’s going on here, because that’s what we really wanna talk about here. Mm-hmm. They, the public argues that poorer families are less healthy, poorer families are too busy to trying to make ends meet, to start new families. Mm-hmm. Poorer families have less flexible schedules and they have less work-life balance.

And so it’s harder to have kids or more kids. Poorer families have less. Stable marriages and partnerships. So they’re, they’re may be less likely to even have a partner with whom they can have kids consistently. And that wealthier families have stronger social networks. So they have, you know, maybe, you know, grandparents that are wealthy and available, they can take care of kids.

They’re more comfortable having more kids.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: And, and they also frame. [00:22:00] Children as luxury goods. And, and society has largely framed children as luxury goods. Well, I

Malcolm Collins: also think there’s been a, a cultural shift among some wealthy groups. Yeah. Like especially you’re talking about ultra wealthy groups, which we hang out with.

Having lots of kids has become quite the flex.

Simone Collins: No, but even I would say among. All levels of society, except for like some religious communities. Kids are kind of seen as this thing that you do if you can afford them, and they’re a luxury product, but they’re not something, they’re, so you don’t have them unless you can afford them.

You don’t have them unless you have your stable career and your house and everything else. I,

Malcolm Collins: you know, walk through a grocery store with five kids. I feel like Prince Ali, like. Yes. And they’re all

Simone Collins: dressed

Malcolm Collins: the same as me, and they’re, and they’re marching in line, and I’m like,

Simone Collins: n in her parade. It so feels like that.

It really does. No, there’s you, you, there’s

Malcolm Collins: everybody comes to look at us and you’re like, yeah, I got, I got five kids money.

Simone Collins: Yeah, no, it really, it really does feel that way. But, but I mean, so I, I think those are legitimate things. [00:23:00] But what I think is much more interesting here is that poor people are becoming like wealthy people in, in these countries used to live.

Kids are being cared for. By staff. They’re being cared for by by, by these childcare facilities. Mm. They’re being cared for by paid people. And, and, and, and there there’s more work outside the home. People are leaving. The home to go do things just like Lords used to go to Parliament or like go out on their trading ships or something.

And, and there’s more, there’s more focus on material wealth, on conspicuous consumption, on, on, on showing other people how fancy you are, whereas the wealthy people we know are really starting to behave a lot more like surfs. Did in the past. Yeah. Where like there’s less focus on work and there’s more focus on really like.

Focusing [00:24:00] in on industry of the home. There’s more work from home and within the home. And there’s less focus on material wealth and conspicuous material consumption and more stealth wealth. Like look at, look at the rise of stealth wealth. Look at the rise of, of, of influencers like ballerina farms where like they’re very, very wealthy.

They, they’re living on their, like homestead farm, and they’re living like a corporate family, and the kids are shoveling manure. And, you know, they’re, they’re, they’re harvesting their own food and pumpkins and making meals from scratch. You know, they’re living life like surf. Yeah. And then like the whole Maha movement is like that too.

You know? It, it’s very much like back to the land, back to the homestead, you know, very, very crunchy, very like no brand names on anything. And there’s a lot more focus on autonomy and separation from society. There’s this retreat from society. We’re not, there’s no balls, there are no galas, there’s no, like, you know, going out and fronting to people.

It, it’s very, it, it’s very [00:25:00] isolationist. People have their,

Malcolm Collins: there are some stone balls and galas, like when we go to Austin, we often go to like a, a gala or something

Simone Collins: sometimes. Yeah. But it, it’s, I would say it’s, it’s pretty unusual. It’s mostly people retreating to their, if they’re really wealthy, I mean Sure.

Like Peter Thiel may show up at hereon, but then it goes off to his, like New Zealand compound. Yeah. Or you know, like these other people. And then they disappeared to some, you know, to prospera to their charter city or to their like homesteading, permaculture. Farm thing. You know, like in, in short, I, I, I think in the end that so much of fertility, again, as you’ve always said it, it’s about how your household is composed and where you get your services.

You keep saying fertility started to drop with the industrial revolution first when men left the home and then when women left the home and children left the home and every, all the services left the home and because. Now what being wealthy is, is it’s more about everything is coming back into the home.

You [00:26:00] are able to see this rise of fertility again within the home because there’s, there’s value in it and there’s the time for it and the resources for it. Whereas for the. For those who are poor now, who are now living more like wealthy people who are getting DoorDash and delivery, they, you basically have your servants and your livery and, and your conspicuous consumption.

And, and you know, the, all the staff that serves you. Much of it, government subsidized. Now, it doesn’t matter though. It doesn’t matter if it’s your own wealth or the government’s wealth when you have the staff, when things are provided from without the home when, when there isn’t this beating heart of your hear and your family.

Your fertility drops. And because we’re seeing this inversion, that’s what the

Malcolm Collins: best way to ize the core is to give them money that, that works for both parties.

Simone Collins: Everyone wins. I mean, this, I think this, this does have interesting implications when it comes to fertility ratio cascades, because as we point out, this is not a warm bodies problem.

This is a taxpayer problem. And, and so [00:27:00] what you really want, what if, if you’re a country that’s really concerned about not being able to pay for really essential social services for all these life saving. Food programs and, and even the childcare and the healthcare and all this, you need people who are gonna generate a lot of tax revenue to pay for it.

And the fact that the people who generate a lot of tax revenue are now the ones having more kids power to the people literally power to like money to the people like that, that is a, a good thing. So could this be the solution? Like, are we already seeing like. Because we, I, I, I don’t think we expected this, right?

We didn’t expect that like paying for people’s lives would, would actually solve fertility cascade problems. Is this kind of like, I mean, on one hand it doesn’t solve the problem ‘cause poor people aren’t having more kids. But does it solve the problem because. Rich people are having more kids. I mean, it kind of, you’re doing two things, right?

Like you’re, you’re, you’re, you’re reducing the population that is most [00:28:00] dependent on these services, thereby maybe reducing the financial load while increasing the population that, that subsidizes these services, therefore increasing revenue. Like is this actually a subversion of trends? That means the problem is gonna be potentially solved.

Malcolm Collins: I,

Simone Collins: you don’t know.

Malcolm Collins: So my question for you is, does this make you more socialist in your politics?

Simone Collins: You know, my views are evolving on this actually. Because I. What we found and this, this has been confirmed also, like Scott Alexander I think mentioned this recently too, so I’m like, okay, this isn’t just us.

Basically. While cash transfers seem to do a lot of good in really impoverished countries, it’s pretty clear that things like universal basic income and cash transfers cause harm in developed countries, right? They’re not good. However, it does appear to be that providing in kind services. Like free childcare education, sometimes [00:29:00] housing can actually cause pretty beneficial effects or at least neutral effects in developed countries.

Yeah. We looked at this in the Gulf States, like, well, it didn’t seem to necessarily, it didn’t, it didn’t create thriving societies like the Gulf States aren’t exactly known for their innovation and, and their. You know?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: Thriving, whatever, like they’re doing all right. Like, right, like there’s some basic cool people.

Their fertility rates are decent. In, in some cases, not, not at all, but like

Malcolm Collins: in some cases

Simone Collins: it could be worse, right? But like, it’s not terrible. So I’m kind of warming up to the idea of providing in kind services, not money. People don’t get to choose, like you don’t just get your cash transfer. But in kind services, and this is also saying, I was just talking with you about this today because right now SNAP is being discussed a lot.

It’s, it’s a form of food assistance in the United States where you get basically a debit card, like money is loaded to your card and you get to use that on a bunch of foods and a lot of people are just spending it on junk food. There’s this [00:30:00] other program in at least a lot of states called wic women, infant and Infants and Children.

It’s for pregnant women, infants and children under five years old that meet certain requirements. And instead of providing money, it will cover very specific healthy foods. Like it will buy you a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs and a whole grain, and $26 worth of vegetables per child. And like some cheese, like, like the whole

Malcolm Collins: food.

This is, this is also made me realize. There’s another solution to fertility collapse that I had never considered before.

Simone Collins: How’s that?

Malcolm Collins: Which is you can fix the problem of a dependency ratio cascade within a country. So obviously you can do it by keeping the population stable as it exists right now.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But you could also do it just by stopping poor people from having kids.

Simone Collins: Well, and, but these do that, but in like a very kind way. God, no, we’re not talking about steril. No.

Malcolm Collins: [00:31:00] Sterilized. No, this is

Simone Collins: getting way too close to eugenics and I don’t,

Malcolm Collins: like, I didn’t say this is a good, I’m, I’m not saying it’s a good idea.

I’m just saying it would solve the problem. Because. What you’re dealing with in a society is you know, the, the, the elderly are almost always on the government doll. Right. You know, so that’s why you get the fertility ratio cascade because too big a proportion of society is elderly.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But

Malcolm Collins: you have poor people who are also on the government dole.

Yeah. And if you could remove them as a segment of the population Yeah. Then pretty much, no matter how many elderly people you got, it would be a, a lot more to tip the scales of the system.

Simone Collins: Yeah, no, I mean, anyway, this has just been very thought provoking for me, and text now needs to eat, so I gotta go run.

But like,

Malcolm Collins: I love you Simon.

Simone Collins: Thank you for humoring me on this. I’m very

Malcolm Collins: excited for my, or whatever it’s called, the

Simone Collins: ka ka.

Malcolm Collins: Whatever.

Simone Collins: I, man, it’s

Malcolm Collins: tasty. It cook into oil again. That was really good.

Simone Collins: And do the fried egg,

Malcolm Collins: I might use a little bit more [00:32:00] oil and then scoop some chili flakes in. When you cook, cook it as well.

Simone Collins: Oh yeah. Chili flakes. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I think it could use some chili flakes.

Malcolm Collins: And then no other notes was really good. I might do two eggs today, actually.

Simone Collins: I asked you about two eggs, but you said the serving was fine, but two eggs.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, I’d be more greedy with the eggs if I had two of them. And they were so good.

Simone Collins: And then let’s just try two eggs. It’s from our coop man, and I’m so glad you’re like actually enjoying some of our coop eggs. Okay. I love you and I’ll see you too. I

Malcolm Collins: love you too.

Simone Collins: You’re amazing. You’re amazing. So pretty. , I know what you do. You’re just gonna set up your Korean romance manga right to the side of the screen.

Malcolm Collins: I actually don’t even have my, I need to get my phone.

Simone Collins: You nerd,

but hurry up.

Malcolm Collins: Simone, I have to know what happens.

Simone Collins: Pull it up. Pull up web tunes. Don’t worry about it.

Malcolm Collins: I have to know what happens to the, the Empress.

Simone Collins: Yes.

Malcolm Collins: Simon Simone, I have to know if

Simone Collins: the, we really, really need to on like,

Malcolm Collins: come on

Simone Collins: Patreon and Substack. But you’re your [00:33:00] secret list of amazing romance Manga.

Malcolm Collins: We’re the biggest nerds in the world and I think that when people first came to our podcast, they were like, wait, you guys can’t be like, at first they were confused ‘cause they’re like, you look.

Too nerdy to be Republican, like, and, and then it was like, you gotta fashion yourself as like a non nerd, like get buff and like look a lot nerdy and it’s like,

Simone Collins: oh, you gotta lift bro. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And it’s like, I, but this is, this is. I am nerd from front to back. That’s my,

Simone Collins: this is base camp. Like, do you guys understand what camp is?

Is this an old person thing? Like, are, is everyone too young to understand what camp is anyway?

No,

Malcolm Collins: but imagine I come on and I am like really trying to look like, like, like cool. Stuff.

Simone Collins: Think he’d be so cringe.

Malcolm Collins: It’d be, I’d be so cringe. It’d be like Asma Gold doing that or something. No, I love ASM Gold recently went viral.

I don’t know if you saw, for showing that he eats just junk food all day and like sodas

Simone Collins: all day, he’s always shown that he eats just junk food all day. I think the secret is that he walks to [00:34:00] the seven 11 to buy the junk food and as long as,

Malcolm Collins: no, it’s, he eats it in moderation.

Simone Collins: Me too.

Malcolm Collins: And, and that’s the thing.

You can eat whatever you want, you know?

Simone Collins: Yeah, like that famous twine diet guy. The professor. Yeah. Who showed that like, on like pure junk food, you could lose a ton of weight. I think actually multiple people did. ‘cause after also supersize Me came out, I think a high school teacher demonstrated that you can lose a lot of weight eating only McDonald’s, something like that.

I, I can’t, I can’t remember. If

Malcolm Collins: you are struggling with weight loss, my suggestion would be as is my suggestion for everything is get Naltrexone look up the Sinclair method and

Simone Collins: it’s, yeah, it’s less expensive than LPs. So,

Malcolm Collins: yeah, it’s, it’s less expensive than the other things. And it’s way healthier for you than like,

Simone Collins: Oh yeah, that’s true.

I mean, like as, as much as it can be. Naltrexone can, we’re not giving medical advice by the way, as much as naltrexone can be hard on the kidneys. GLP one inhibitors are. Which is what they’re right is, is that they, they are very hard on your digestive system. The, the side effects are really intense for people.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. [00:35:00] Naltrexone is a little bad on the liver. But every, all the other things that it cures, like alcoholism and obesity

Simone Collins: did, dude, even gambling. Gambling is hard on everything, man. And gambling way

Malcolm Collins: harder. Really

Simone Collins: Big problem.

Malcolm Collins: Harder. Well, and, and if you, if you have a problem with, with being too sexual like you’re

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Sex addiction. Food addiction, gambling. Of porn addiction. Like all these things can be’s

Malcolm Collins: incredibly effective and I just hate that it’s not more known about.

Simone Collins: Yeah, seriously,

Malcolm Collins: it’s, it’s, it’s one of the

Simone Collins: biggest, but y’all can read Katie Herzog’s book, I think it’s called Drink Yourself Sober. No, that’s not what it is.

I can’t remember what it is, but check out Katie Herzog’s book. She wrote about it in depth. And she’s really unhappy with the amount of book sales.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. It’s really sad. Well, she get like 12,000 into sales or something.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Like just Yeah. A abysmal. And she put a lot of work into the launch and interviewed with all the best platforms.

Yeah. I mean, but on, on background. And she didn’t wanna name you because you’re too polarized. Oh. But whatever. By, by Katie Herzog’s book. We, we like it, we like blocked and [00:36:00] reported. Yeah. I met Katie Herzog and, well, I think, I think Jesse Single just. Billy doesn’t like us there. He stopped responding to you.

Come

Malcolm Collins: to our parties. And now

Simone Collins: he’s like, I know, but also I think he’s he’s a little, a little Trump derangement. Yeah. I mean, Katie Kza is too, but she responded to us at least. I think she cares less. Anyway, we’ll get into it. I love you. Here we go. Ready?

Malcolm Collins: Okay.

Speaker: Wait, did you say this was the best Christmas ever? Yeah, I think so. I leave my and put this in my bedroom. This, what’s the one too? Well, we’ll go up and put them in your bed for future day decorations. You like ‘em guys? Yeah. Let’s go. Let’s go. Mom. Let’s go. Yeah, you’re super excited. Stall it right now.

Yeah. Let’s open up your presents so you can play with those and then tonight we’ll put them in to start future day. Okay. Does that sound good? Yeah. Okay. If you safe right here [00:37:00] for now. My Tian, you hand it to me and I’ll make sure it goes to your bed. My.

Honey, your T Rex’s name is honey. He’s gonna be the best dog for, oh, do you want milk and cheese? What are the colors for F Day? No. What does T-Rex want? What are the colors for F today sandwich Today, he wants to eat sandwiches. I.

Could a “debt jubilee” happen in the US? Malcolm and Simone dive deep into skyrocketing consumer debt, unsustainable government obligations (like Social Security insolvency by 2032-2034), and historical debt cancellations—from ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical jubilees to Japan’s post-WWII wealth confiscation and modern “Abenomics.”

They debate whether America’s record-high credit card debt, buy-now-pay-later defaults, and cultural attitudes toward money could trigger a crisis, hyperinflation, or forced wealth redistribution. Is bankruptcy already America’s soft debt jubilee? What should you invest in (or avoid) if things get weird in the 2030s?

Hilarious tangents include check fraud “hacks,” Caleb Hammer roasts, ramen lifehacks, and why Japan pulled off drastic reforms while Venezuela and Zimbabwe collapsed.

As Simone outlined this episode, the outline (and links) follows! The transcript is at the end of the post. Merry Christmas, you filthy animals!

Episode Outline

* US consumer debt levels are currently at record highs in 2025, both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms

* Average credit card debt among cardholders with unpaid balances rose to about $7,321 in Q1 2025, up 5.8% from a year earlier

* People are using buy now pay later services like Klarna and Afterpay at record levels and increasingly paying late

* A LendingTree survey found that 41% of BNPL users made a late payment in 2025, up from 34% the prior year

* April 2025, 31% of federal student loan borrowers were 90+ days delinquent on payments,

* This comes at a time when…

* People are beginning to view debt payoff, the concept of capitalism, and even faith in fiat currency with increasing skepticism

* Loan defaults and late payments are on the rise

* democratic socialist political figures like Zohran Mamdani are gaining serious traction and public attention

* Even our governments are spending like someone with zero expectation of paying off their debt

* US social security likely to falter in 2032-2034

* The UK is set to experience a social security crisis in the early 2030s

* And this matters, because something’s gotta give, and in the past, this has involved various forms of debt jubilees

* So we’re going to discuss:

* The situation with consumer debt today

* The situation with government debt today

* How unsustainable debt has been dealt with historically

* How this could go poorly

* How this could go well and how we as individuals might prepare

Banks and Fractional Reserves

* The post:

* Oct 21 trending discussion: https://x.com/i/trending/1980520651816341983

US Consumer Debt

* Credit card balances hit another all-time high, reaching around $1.21 trillion in Q2 2025—matching last year’s record with annualized growth rates of over 9% in mid-2025.

* Credit card interest rates are commonly averaging 22–24% in 2025, compared to around 15% just a few years ago.

* Delinquency rates for credit cards and other non-housing debts have increased to levels well above pre-pandemic norms. In Q2 2025, about 4.4% of all debt was in some phase of delinquency.

* Klarna reported a 17% increase in consumer credit losses in Q1 2025, totaling $136 million, with repayment defaults rising among users.

* Student loan delinquencies are also rising, especially following the resumption of payments after long pandemic-era forbearance, adding further strain to household finances

* In March 2025, just 35% of federal student-loan borrowers had made their most recent payment on time. The rest were at risk of (or already in) serious delinquency or default.

It has actually been worse recently, though:

* US consumer (household) debt has reached nominal record highs in 2025, but when adjusted for economic growth (e.g., as a percentage of GDP), it remains below pre-2008 financial crisis peaks and has even declined slightly in recent quarters.

* This tracks with bankruptcy search trends (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F01hhz&hl=en)

* After adjusting for inflation, average household debt in 2025 is about 2.9% ($1,800) higher than in 2013 but 17.2% ($13,100) lower than the 2008 peak.

* Also, bankruptcy is pretty soft on people

* Basically bad credit for 10 years and non-essential assets can be frozen, but many don’t have much to lose in the face of that.

* What has me worried more is the mindset

* The surging skepticism around communism

* The employment threat of rising AI

* The increasingly absurdist interpretation of money and normalization of putting off money problems

* E.g. BNPL usage is surging, with monthly spending up 21% year-over-year to $243.90 per user in June 2025.

* 41% of users paid late in the past year (up from 34%), 24% faced late payments in 2025, and nearly 40% regret usage due to hidden costs.

The gist:

* Consumer debt is a problem

* Government debt is a bigger problem

Government Inability to Pay Obligations

Social Security Set to Falter

* The U.S. Social Security retirement trust fund is now projected to be insolvent by late 2032; if the disability fund is combined, around 2034. Benefits would be cut about 24% automatically if nothing is done

* UK state pension is pay-as-you-go and generally funded from current taxes, but there are major concerns about the sustainability of defined benefit (private and public) pension plans and the adequacy of future benefits. A liquidity and solvency crisis in 2022 exposed the vulnerability of the system, and ongoing warnings suggest potential crisis if reforms aren’t enacted as liabilities grow

* Other Western nations face sustainability crises from the 2030s, mostly driven by aging populations and shrinking worker/retiree ratios.

* Canada is currently better positioned due to earlier reforms, but is still monitoring demographic risks.

* All systems will require some combination of benefit reduction, tax increases, or later retirement ages to remain sustainable.

Historical Jubilees

TL:DR: Rules repeatedly cancelled debts (without consent from creditors) to end, evade, or calm rebellion, turmoil, class conflict, revolution, or societal breakdown.

Misc

* Ancient Mesopotamia: Kings of Sumer, Babylon, and neighboring regions periodically canceled debts for peasants and small landholders, often at the start of their reigns or during crises.

* Athens, Greece – Solon’s Seisachtheia “sigh-SAK-thee-uh” (594 BCE): Solon forgave personal debts, banned debt slavery, and wiped out mortgage debts in Athens.

* Initially controversial but eventually credited with preventing revolution and laying foundations for Athenian democracy. Credit eventually resumed as societal structures stabilized.

Medieval Japan

In medieval Japan, particularly during the Kamakura (1185–1333) and Muromachi (1336–1573) periods, the shogunate issued edicts known as tokusei (literally “virtuous government” or “benevolent rule”), which effectively functioned as debt jubilees. These were decrees that canceled debts, often in response to peasant uprisings (tokusei ikki) driven by famines, high taxes, epidemics, or exploitative lending practices. The concept dated back even earlier, with roots in the Nara and Heian periods (710–1185), but became prominent in the 13th–15th centuries.

* The most famous early example is the Einin Tokuseirei of 1297, issued by the Kamakura shogunate. It annulled all debts contracted before that year, allowed vassals (gokenin, or samurai retainers) to reclaim pawned lands without repaying loans, and canceled interest on older debts. This was motivated by the need to bolster military strength against potential Mongol invasions (following attempts in 1274 and 1281) and to address widespread debt burdens among the warrior class.

* Later examples include uprisings that forced similar measures, such as the Shōchō uprising in 1428 during the Muromachi period. Peasants in the Kinai region (around Kyoto) rebelled amid famine, high rice prices, disease, and heavy taxes. They looted moneylenders, sake merchants, pawnshops, and temples, destroying debt records to achieve “independent debt relief.” The shogunate did not issue a nationwide order, but local authorities like the Kōfuku-ji temple in Yamato Province responded with a formal tokusei law: pawned items could be redeemed for one-third of their value, and loans over five years old were annulled. A stone inscription (Yagyū no Tokusei Hibun) commemorates the full cancellation of pre-1428 debts in specific villages.

Scary Post-WWII Currency Reform and Debt Resolution (1946)

After Japan’s defeat in World War II, the government faced massive sovereign debt (about 267% of national income by March 1945), hyperinflation, and economic ruin. While not explicitly called a “jubilee,” the 1946 Financial Emergency Measures effectively wiped out much of the real value of debts through currency reform and wealth confiscation.

What Exactly Happened

* On February 16, 1946, the government announced surprise measures: All bank accounts were frozen, old yen notes were invalidated unless deposited, and a “new yen” was introduced at a 1:1 exchange rate. Withdrawals were severely limited (initially 300 yen per household head plus 100 yen per member, later 100 yen per month per person—barely enough for survival).

* This was followed by a massive one-time property tax in autumn 1946, levying up to 90% on assets (including blocked deposits) held as of February 16. Tax revenues were used to repay government bonds and interest. War-related compensations to companies and citizens were offset by special taxes, amounting to a partial default.

* Hyperinflation (prices rising over 500% annually in 1945–1946) had already eroded the real value of debts before the reform.

Effects

* Government debt was drastically reduced (from 446 billion yen in 1948 to 316 billion yen in 1950), taming hyperinflation and enabling postwar reconstruction. It paved the way for the “Japanese economic miracle” of rapid growth in the 1950s–1980s.

* The public suffered massive wealth loss (savings wiped out), exacerbating poverty initially but stabilizing the economy long-term. It was a form of forced wealth redistribution, seen as a domestic default, and provided lessons for modern fiscal policy. No significant inflation spike followed due to the controls, but it eroded trust in financial institutions temporarily

How This Could Go Poorly

Zimbabwe and Venezuela

TL:DR: Both governments saw drops in revenue (caused by different things) but were politically unable to cut spending so they printed more money to pay for things and caused hyperinflation.

* Venezuela

* Experienced a drop in income but had huge social spending programs it felt it couldn’t stop funding

* Venezuela’s government depended on oil for about 95% of its foreign currency earnings. When global oil prices crashed (especially post-2014), government income collapsed.

* To cover these budget gaps, the government printed more bolivars rather than cutting spending or raising taxes. This inflated the money supply massively

* These led to shortages of basic goods, discouraged local production, encouraged black markets, and eroded business/investor confidence.

* Zimbabwe

* Following popular but economically disastrous land redistribution, food and export revenues collapsed. Government, unwilling to reverse course or lose power, financed itself by printing currency

How This Could Go Well & How We Should Prepare

Forms of Jubilee That Worked in the Past

Jubilees in Ancient Israel

* Ancient Israel (Biblical Jubilee): Every 50 years, debts were canceled, slaves set free, and lands restored to original owners.

* Practiced from around 1400 to 500 BC

* Whereby debt forgiveness was granted to Fellow Israelites in debt or servitude; families who lost land or freedom due to loans.

* It was limited only to Israelites

* I think debt forgiveness makes sense within tight-knit, cohesive communities

* Like how family members make loans understanding that the loans may never be repaid

Japan’s Case

In recent decades, Japan has managed its enormous public debt (over 250% of GDP) through a quasi-jubilee mechanism without formal cancellation.

In short, Japan’s debt buybacks are a way to prevent market collapse and maintain low borrowing costs for the government. Most countries avoid this because of the risk of inflation, devaluation, and loss of investor confidence, which can destabilize their economies.

Japan’s problem

* Japan did not have a traditional “debt jubilee” where debts were outright forgiven at a large scale for private individuals or companies. Instead, what Japan has done, particularly over the last few decades since its economic bubble burst in the early 1990s, is a form of government debt management that mimics a debt jubilee through central bank policies.

* The Bank of Japan (BoJ), the country’s central bank, has been buying large amounts of Japanese government debt, currently owning around 40% of it. By purchasing government bonds and holding them, effectively the government owes this debt to itself.

* Why Did Japan Need to Buy Back Debt?

* Prevent Market Turmoil: Japan’s government bond market has experienced surges in yields (interest rates) due to a lack of private investor demand for long-term bonds, government calls for more spending, and worries about its huge debt-to-GDP ratio. Higher yields mean higher costs for the government to service its debt. The Bank of Japan stepped in to stabilize these yields and prevent borrowing costs from spiraling out of control.​

* Without intervention, yields on government bonds would likely have kept rising. This would force the government to pay much more to finance its deficit, risking a “debt spiral” where interest payments consume more of the public budget.

* Support Public Spending: With an aging population and slow-growing economy, Japan relies on fiscal stimulus (public spending) to maintain stability. High borrowing costs could threaten necessary government programs and pensions.

* Confidence and Liquidity: Aggressive buying by the central bank (quantitative easing, and debt buybacks) helps reassure investors that the government debt will be serviced, supporting confidence in markets and maintaining economic liquidity.

* The interest paid on this debt by the government is funneled back to the government. This means the government is not burdened by the debt servicing costs in a meaningful economic way.

* The policy prevented a conventional debt crisis but also meant Japan experienced very slow economic growth and deflationary pressures for decades.

* THE RISK: INFLATION & STAGNATION

* Inflation: If a country’s central bank buys back large amounts of government debt (”monetizes the debt”), it effectively prints new money. Unless managed carefully, this can fuel runaway inflation or hyperinflation, as seen in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

* Japan has relatively low inflation, a high domestic savings rate, and cultural/political stability, allowing its central bank to take these actions without the disaster seen elsewhere. Most countries risk much greater instability if they try the same approach.

* Stagnation: Allows Japan to sustain high debt without default or inflation (unlike hyperinflation scenarios). It supports low interest rates and economic stability but risks long-term stagnation if not paired with reforms. Critics argue it’s a stealth jubilee, while proponents see it as innovative debt management.

How to Prepare

Primary risks to prepare for:

* Dangerous investments

* Insane taxes

* Inflation

Actions to Take

* Investments to Avoid

* Key Sectors to Avoid: Those which hold or rely on consumer debt, making them susceptible to defaults/jubilees:

* Financial Services (Banks and Lenders): Directly impacted by loan write-offs and higher provisions for bad debts. Regional banks with subprime exposure are especially at risk.

* Consumer Finance and Fintech: Firms issuing personal loans, credit cards, or BNPL services face elevated credit risks.

* Consumer Discretionary: Reduced spending from indebted consumers hurts retail, auto, and travel firms.

* High-Yield Debt Issuers: Companies with speculative bonds could default more readily in a downturn.

* Stocks and ETFs to avoid in appendix

* Safer Investments

* Safer Sectors During Consumer Debt Crises:

* Defensive sectors (utilities, healthcare, consumer staples).

* Companies with minimal debt exposure and strong cash flow.

* International funds less exposed to US consumer credit.

* The Ron Swanson Approach

* Crypto

* BTC price over time: https://www.coinbase.com/price/bitcoin

* ETH Price Over Time: https://www.coinbase.com/price/ethereum

* As much self reliance as possible to hedge against hyperinflation risk

* Food

* Shelter

* Medicine

* Defense

Episode Transcript

Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Malcolm. I’m so excited to be speaking with you today because we are gonna be talking about debt, jubilees and debt in general because we live in CL world timeline where debt is getting really weird US consumer debt levels. They’re currently at record highs. I mean, it’s no surprise to anyone, right?

Both in nominal and in inflation adjusted terms.

Malcolm Collins: Hold on. Our fans may not know what a debt jubilee is. Mm-hmm. So Simone and I have a ongoing sort of debate on the show where she believes that eventually debt levels was in the general populace or within the government, are going to get so high that they’re just going to declare sort of bankruptcy either society wide or government wide.

And if you are like, that could never happen, which is my general take on this. Mm-hmm. Simone points out, actually a number of countries have already done this. Yeah. Malcolm, not

Simone Collins: us, Simone. Yeah. Ha. And I’m gonna get into it. So this

Malcolm Collins: happened a bunch of times historically. Mm-hmm. And so we’re gonna investigate when it’s happened historically, what triggered that.

Mm-hmm. And what does that [00:01:00] mean? Is the probability of it happening here and what does that mean for society that this is even like hanging around as an option.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And we’re gonna look at consumer debt and we’re gonna look at national debt because both are really important and both affect everyone in terms of like.

What should your savings strategy be? What should you be investing in? What should you not, if you have money, should you bother? Like, should you just max out your debt? And this is coming from the woman who

Malcolm Collins: purposely makes us have no debt even on our houses. How, how, how do you I’m allergic

Simone Collins: to debt. I, I, I can’t be owed anything.

If someone pays me a compliment, I have to pay it back right away because I can’t even deal with that. You understand? Like, I am, I’ve, I’m phobic. I’m sure there’s some Latin word for it. But yeah. Anyway, I, I learned that there was some like Latin word for mirror divination this morning. So I gotta find the one for, for ness of de of debts.

But anyway, like speaking of debt like just bad toxic consumer debt is insane right now. The average credit card debt among cardholders in the [00:02:00] United States, this is like their unpaid balances. It was true around 7,321 in the beginning of 2025. That’s, that’s up almost 6% from 24.

Malcolm Collins: No, wait. What showed me that our relationship was debt, it’s completely unraveling is, I don’t know if you guys remember, ‘cause we covered it on the show, but there was this thing where like dumb people in America thought there was a free money hack.

Yes. The check fraud hack. What Free Money Hack was is they would put in bad checks, like just write checks that were bad. Yeah. And then put them in their banks like auto cash thing and it would give them cash and they thought they had just gotten free money. Yeah. And now, and then they all found out like, oh wait, like the bank recorded that transaction.

I just now owe this much money.

Speaker 3: Some glitch in the Chase banking app where you can deposit a large check. That is bad. Yeah. And then you have a short time limit to actually withdraw the money in cash from the ATM before the check is cleared. And I guess absolute idiots. They’re doing this on their own [00:03:00] accounts. And then you have other people who are doing this on their own accounts.

Speaker 4: It has their first and last name, their phone number, their social security number, their place of work. Why do I have 11,000 missing from my bank account? Damn. Is this like humorous to you guys? Like do you, yeah. Is this, is it? Yes.

Speaker 6: They will use these. There’s no way.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah, yeah. No. Like, and that, that is, that is the culture we live in today. Yeah. Social media really doesn’t help that. And there’s some great viral Caleb Hammer clips where. People are like, oh, well I’m gonna, you know, retire early and travel a ton. And you know, he, at that point, this is for the show financial audit on YouTube, has gone through all their finances.

He knows how much their debt, he knows how much they’ve saved. And he’s like, dude, you. You have no money saved, like, how do you think this is gonna work? How much money do you think they need? And they’re like, oh, I’m just gonna, [00:04:00] like, you know, house hacking something, something. And they just start using a bunch of buzzwords and it’s just clear that like their entire financial strategy is based on tiktoks that are not even like well-founded.

It’s really disturbing. I’ll, I’ll send you a clip. Oh

Malcolm Collins: my God, I love this. A house hacking, of course.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But like, and like literally even the way that they, they use the language implies that, that like they’re just putting in buzzwords and they don’t actually understand the fundamentals of any of this.

They don’t understand what fire means. They don’t understand really what house hacking means. They, they have no understanding if how much anything. Like, it’s weird ‘cause it’s the poor man version of that meme where I can’t, I don’t even know the TV show, but that woman’s like, I don’t know, how much can a banana be $10?

I don’t have time for this.

Speaker: I mean, it’s one banana. Michael, what could it cost? $10. You’ve never actually set foot in a supermarket, have you? I don’t have time for this.

Simone Collins: But it’s like, this is on both ends of the spectrum, you know? Like, I don’t know how much could it be to travel around the, the world all the year, like $30,000.

Malcolm Collins: We did this because we have [00:05:00] friends who live off of welfare who are are close friends of ours and help, help take care of our kids partially.

And they get way more expensive stuff than we get. Like, like pretty much, much. Oh my god. Wherever we are buying something and they are buying something, what they buy is dramatically more expensive than what we buy. Like they buy. Oh yeah, no, we

Simone Collins: get the bargain basement, BJ’s diapers, and they, they get fricking pampers.

That’s like the, that’s the diapers. Like

Malcolm Collins: they have subscriptions to like multiple streaming services, which I just find like obscenely luxurious. Yeah. Like literally

Simone Collins: when we want to watch, when we wanted to watch K-Pop Demon Hunters on Netflix. We, we, we had to log into my dad’s account and then get him to like, call in and give us a code because he was maxed out on all his shares of shared accounts.

We have bought

Malcolm Collins: more cars since we have known them in like the two years we have known them than we have bought in our entire lives by like a factor of two.

I know, I know, I know,

Simone Collins: I know what you gonna do. But again, like that’s, that’s why we need to have these conversations about money [00:06:00] and figure out what we’re doing because again, like while they’re able to do that, also assistance that they receive from the government is not gonna last.

Like, this money is going to run out or. Technically it may not run out, but its purchasing power is going to erode so much that it is not going to matter anymore. So again, let’s get back to it. So credit card debt obviously really high and credit card debt is, is a key thing to look at because of the high interest rates where it sort of balloons to this point where basically you’re never gonna repay it.

You know, when your interest rates like 30%, you’re never gonna repay that debt. It’s just gonna be there with you forever. Mm-hmm. And people are using buy now pay later services like Klarna and Afterpay at record levels and increasingly they’re paying late, which is also telling one lending tree study.

Found that our survey found that 41% of buy now pay later users made a late payment in 2025, up from 34% the prior year. So we’re going from a third, 45%

Malcolm Collins: of buy now, pay later

Simone Collins: 41% made a late payment this year. Oh. And that was, oh my God.

Malcolm Collins: I remember back when, when I, like early in my [00:07:00] finances days when I was building up my credit.

Yeah. I used to have this like existential fear of ever missing a payment. I was, I was, I’ve always had

Simone Collins: automatic payments, always on every card you’ve, you’ve ever had. And I, I, I haven’t even until very recently, been able to stomach the idea of an automatic payment. I would just, every single week pay the card off.

‘cause I was like, I’m not waiting. How could I have No,

Malcolm Collins: but recently, I don’t know, automatic payment has gotten better or something like that. But I don’t, I I remember there was a couple cases in the past where I actually did miss payments and it freaked me out.

Oh my God.

Yeah. But this is years ago. I have a, a near perfect score right now.

Simone Collins: No. Yeah. Our scores I don’t think have ever been higher. Which is weird because I thought that when we, we completely paid off our mortgage. That, that no, that, that

Malcolm Collins: has dinged me. I’m, I, my score has gone down for a tie because we paid off our mortgage, which means we don’t have as many length of credit.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But that also, I mean, like you only need a really good credit score if you’re, you expect to take on a ton of debt,

Malcolm Collins: but get to the juicy stuff. Come on. Right.

Simone Collins: Anyway, so I’m just, I’m, I’m framing this a little bit. And, and, and I’m just pointing out that [00:08:00] people are beginning to view debt payoff and the concept of capitalism and even just faith and fiat currency with increasing skepticism, loan defaults and late payments are on the rise.

Democratic socialist political figures like Zoran, mom, Donny, are gaining serious traction. The betting odds have him at about 95 to 96% now. He’s even citing them in his speeches now ‘cause he is just like, I. Don’t ask me, ask the, ask the people putting money on this. And even our governments are spending like someone with zero expectation of, of paying off their debt.

So US Social Security is likely to falter in 2032 to 2034. That’s in less than 10 years. The UK is, is set to experience a social security crisis in the early 2030s as well. And this matters because something’s gotta give. And in the past this has involved various forms of debt. Jubilee, even though you say that this just doesn’t happen.

So what we’re gonna discuss and what I’ve, what I’ve researched is this situation with consumer debt today, this situation with government debt today, because I think people don’t really realize it or they need to be reminded [00:09:00] how unsustainable debt has been dealt with historically, how this could go poorly.

Because there are times when people tried to. Sweep it under the rug and it doesn’t go well. And then how this could go well and how individuals might prepare, like how maybe we should rethink our investing strategies based on all this. Okay. So yeah, this is, this is important. So US consumer debt is.

Really high. We’re at an all time high reaching 1.21 trillion in Q2. That’s, that’s just, it’s, it’s, it’s getting, people are using a lot of debt. Credit card interest rates are 22 to 24% this year. And that’s, that’s compared to around 15% last year. So not only do people have tons more debt than before, or a lot more debt than before, but like the interest rates are higher, meaning they’re way less likely to be able to pay it off.

Right. So we’re, we’re getting sort of, we’re reaching terminal velocity here. Delinquency rates for credit cards and other non in-housing debts have increased to levels well above the pre pandemic norms. In Q2 of this year, about 4.4% of all debt was in some phase [00:10:00] of delinquency, which just is quite high, you know, it seems like, oh, just 4%.

But like, that’s, that’s pretty high. And Klarna, that’s the buy now pay later company reported a 17% increase in consumer credit losses in Q1. That’s about $1.36 million. So. It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s not good. Student loan delinquencies are also rising, and this is a form of debt in the United States that’s harder to evade using bankruptcy or well, sort of impossible to evade using bankruptcy.

And this is especially after, during the pandemic, there were a lot of like, sort of, we’ll just put this on pause things, and a lot of people thought that it was just gonna be canceled. But yeah no, it’s not gonna be canceled. In March 25, just 35% of federal student loan borrowers made their most recent payments on time.

Mm-hmm. So basically two thirds of people just didn’t make their student debt payments on time, and the rest were at risk or already in serious delin, delinquency or default. So, as much [00:11:00] as I, at first was like, well, this, it’s never been worse. This is, this is actually terrible. Do you think that we’re at an all time low point, or do you think that’s not the case?

Malcolm Collins: I think what do you mean an all time low point?

Simone Collins: Like, are we in more serious debt dodo today than we have been at any other point in our lives?

Malcolm Collins: I, I guess,

Simone Collins: no, it was actually worse before, around the time we graduated from college. So US consumer debt has, has reached nominal record highs in 25, but adjusted for economic growth.

It remains below pre 2008 financial crisis peaks. It’s even declined slightly in recent quarters. So, I, I can sort of show you like, and this also tracked with bankruptcy trends as well. I, I can show you the Google trends for bankruptcy. And it, it peaked around 2008 with that H housing crisis.

So we were actually. You know, as much as things are bad now they’re not at an all time bad. I think things are just a little bit different. Like buy now, pay later [00:12:00] services did not really exist then. People didn’t have the same kind of absurd absurdist to, yeah, these numbers

Malcolm Collins: don’t look high now at all.

Come on, Simone. This looks relatively normal.

Simone Collins: Ah,

If anything we’re at like a low point. The we’re Yeah, it’s, it’s, it’s interesting. Yeah. I mean, like this, I’m, I’m putting this here because I thought that we were at an all time bad point and, and this surprised me. So I do wanna point it out here, but I also at the same time think that the, the mental attitude toward debt combined with our collective pessimism around capitalism and the ability to get jobs at all at this point.

Still makes it different and more dangerous than it was in the past. Mm-hmm. And we’re gonna get into it, but in the past, every time there have been debt jubilees with consumer debt or what you could call consumer debt, like with average people, it hasn’t been because technically they’re in more debt and they can’t pay it back.

It’s because technically they’re showing extreme signs of unrest. [00:13:00] And that’s what I’m feeling. That’s the, that’s the sentiment and the, the zeitgeist right now. Okay. Okay. So, so that matters more.

Malcolm Collins: Explain to me how this has happened before, because right now I’m still thinking, okay, people took out dumb debt, but my thought is still, but companies own this tech debt, pension plans, own this debt.

Nobody’s going to, like, how can you convince them? How can you just take that money from them? Right. Like, well, and I mean, yeah.

Simone Collins: So another, another argument against my point in, in favor of yours is that GR in the US is. I don’t know how this, it’s incredibly soft on people. Basically, you have bad credit for 10 years and non-essential assets can be frozen, but you’re still, like, you can have a car.

You’re allowed to keep, like most of your stuff, like, not luxuries, but like, you actually don’t lose that much. And I think a lot of people, the attitude is just, oh, I’m just gonna declare bankruptcy. It’s fine. No bankruptcy.

Malcolm Collins: The United States actually has an, i, I would say, an incredibly generous and lenient policy [00:14:00] towards bankruptcies, which I think put us in a form of like pseudo communism already.

Yeah. It’s like communism. It’s like capitalism was like gutter rails in Yes. Like you have to keep. Like, like your life is like not, you’re not like an a, a a in debt, in debtor slave or whatever, like used to happen. Right. You know, you don’t even have to go like live in the slums if, if you declare bankruptcy, right?

Mm-hmm. Like, it’s just sort of like, okay, all of the really expensive stuff you own that isn’t part of your, like, daily life that you’re not able to hide well at that, or that you don’t hide well, yes. Yeah. Which, you know, how many people

Simone Collins: are declaring bankruptcy with like a ton of stuff in crypto, cold wallet somewhere.

You know what I mean? Yeah. Which is, it’s, it’s, it’s kind of messed up and that’s why, again, I, I’m pointing to the sentiment more than the actual numbers. And it, it, it still really worries me. But what worries me more is government inability to pay debt obligations. So, like I [00:15:00] said, US Social Security projected to be insolvent by late 2032.

That’s really freaking soon. UK State pensions are, it’s, it’s pay as you go and it’s generally funded from current taxes. So there are major concerns about the sustainability of the defined benefit, both private and public pension plans and, and the adequacy of future benefits. And, and remember, like what it, what the per capita GDP in the UK is worse than the, that of the poorest state in the us right?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. For people who don’t know this, the per capita GDP of the uk is, is lower than, I think it’s Mississippi or Alabama. I don’t remember this one.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And, and so that’s, that’s scary. And other western countries also face sustainability crises in, in the early 2030s. So, you know, okay.

We’re maybe like five years away from starting to see. And bad things happen, but it’s, it’s getting there. Canada’s currently better positioned [00:16:00] actually due to earlier reforms ‘cause they had a, a crisis a little earlier on. But I don’t know. They’re also like, oh, you can’t get the medical care you want.

Why don’t you consider maid why don’t you just end your, end your pathetic existence? So, I don’t know. I feel like they solved it, but not in the way that people want by just being like, yeah, you should consider dying. And basically all systems are going to require some form of benefit reduction or tax increases or later retirement ages just to remain sustainable.

So we also just need to be aware of the fact that, okay, while you’re saying yes, Simone, the government’s or the US is already on this like quasi. Communist system where people just kind of fall back. You know, they declare bankruptcy and they go on government assistance and everything’s fine.

And it’s like, yeah, that’s fine right now, but it’s not gonna stay that way. So let’s, let’s just take a break and look at the past for a second and see how this has gone well and see how it’s gone Poorly. Historical [00:17:00] jubilees are, are interesting and they just didn’t know about them. But basically like people, rulers have repeatedly canceled debts without consent from creditors to end evade or calm rebellion, turmoil class, conflict revolution or societal breakdown.

Like any, any sort of form of like, oh my gosh, just will just like, make it disappear. And a ancient Mesopotamia, king, kings of Sumir, Babylon and, and neighboring mm-hmm. Areas regularly or periodically cancel debts for peasants and small landlords often at the start of their reigns. So you like come in as a new king, you’d be like, don’t you love me?

You don’t have to pay your debts anymore. Which doesn’t seem that dissimilar from like campaign promises made by politic. Well, if you’re a king or

Malcolm Collins: something like that, it’s a little different. Yeah. And there’s a lot of reasons you might do this that you wouldn’t if you were a democracy. So when you’re a king, you’re basically being like, what’s less likely to kill me?

You know, the bankers or the, the [00:18:00] citizens. Right. Especially if I’m about to do a paw grom or something like that. The bankers, right? Like they’re, they’re way less of an active danger to me. And especially if I’m canceling debts on like, big, rich people debts too. Right? So like, I, I think that there was less participation in debt marketplaces in that time where now if you cancel debts, it’s granny social, you, you know, retirement pension that you’re actually robbing rather than you know, some, some, you know, secluded minority, ultra wealthy population.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Who is like pretty easy to take out, you know? ‘cause you didn’t care about them. Yeah. So let’s jump forward though to, to ancient Greece. Where Solon, so Solon. Yeah. Solon. He’s like the early democracy guy, right? Yeah, I guess, yeah. So yeah, Solon was one of their pioneers of democracy. If I’m remembering correctly, I’m thinking back to this great courses lecture, but all I can really remember is the cadence and accent of the woman, the female [00:19:00] professor’s voice, and not what Solon actually is famous for, which is really annoying.

But yeah, so Solans CEC Thea in 594 BCE involved forgiving personal debts. He banned debt slavery, and he wiped out mortgage debts in Athens. And this was originally considered really controversial but it was eventually credited with preventing revolution and laying the foundations for Athenian democracy.

So credit eventually did resume as societal structure stabilized. And this is, I think one of the, the earlier examples of both. Democracy being either enabled or protected by this action. But also about how like, well, well this does initially lead to a crisis of like people being willing to, to give debt, which is essential for innovation and growth and capitalism in general.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Like debt is very, very important to make democracies and society work.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. It basically like greed and opportunity will bring it back with [00:20:00] time. If, if basically the, the, the, the, the Jubilee is executed in the name of creating a stable society instead of just sweeping something under the rug.

And I wanna highlight this as a core. In my view separation point between the success cases and the failure cases, there are the failure cases where people do this out of greed or I just don’t wanna deal with it, or just give me the power or vote me in. Yeah. And it goes really sideways. And then there are the people who are like, guys, this is really gonna suck.

Like I, I, I don’t know how to tell you this, but we have to do it for the good of our future. It goes really well. If, if initially second. So

Malcolm Collins: tell me those cases, when, when has it worked out other than ancient Greece where again, it’s not really analogous ‘cause you’re not taking it from granny.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So the, I, I, this is Japan.

Japan,

Malcolm Collins: okay. Because Japan has

Simone Collins: actually done this a ton.

Malcolm Collins: Like oh, a lot. Like how many times has Japan done this? [00:21:00] Why doesn’t anyone lend money in Japan? Like I know, I

Simone Collins: know, I know. Because we, Japanese because they are a, a collectivist culture that takes care of their own. And they’re also, I, I would argue, they’re very future oriented. They’re very responsible and they do care about the collective good in a way that’s like very deep set and cohesive that you just don’t really see in more diverse, competitive and less cohesive cultures. So this first happened in medieval Japan during the comma, kura and achi periods.

The, the shogun issued edicts known as Toku se, like literally virtuous government or beha benevolent rule which effectively functioned as debt jubilee. They, they were decrees that canceled debts often in response to peasant uprising given by like, and this was typically driven not by like irresponsibility, but just bad stuff happening, like famines or epidemics or, or it’s in some cases exploitative lending [00:22:00] practices.

And this, this stated actually even earlier, back to the roots in like the NARA and high-end periods. It’s like seven, 710 to 1185, but it became more prominent in the 13th to 15th century. So again, this is going like way back and they did it a lot. The most famous early example is the inin to, let’s see, to of 1297 issued by the ka kog.

It anul all debts contracted before that year allowed vassals to reclaim pond lands without repaying the loans. And it canceled interest on older debts. And it was motivated by the need to bolster the mi military strength and basically protect Japan against Mongol invasions and to address widespread debt burdens among the Warrior class.

So this wasn’t like, oh, do it because I wanna become, you know, like I wanna be secure as the Shogun, or I wanna like take out this one group that I hate. It was like, oh man, the Mongols are coming and. Our warrior class. [00:23:00] Like they, they’ve lost their lands due to like bad debt.

Malcolm Collins: Due to bad debt.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Like we need to protect our land.

So like, maybe we should rebuild a more stable society so we don’t get totally wiped out by the Mongols like everyone else is. Which is, is really, really interesting. So, so there were more but I’m gonna, I’m gonna skip forward to the one that I think is the most scary. That I’m like, Hmm, I could, I could see this kind of happening, especially given the trends that are happening in our government now.

Or like, not in our government, but like sort of the, the vibe shift taking place with regard to skepticism around capitalism and what politicians are getting popular for. So this is the one I’m like, Ooh. So this is world War, post World War II currency reform and debt resolution in Japan in 1946, after Japan’s defeat in World War ii, the government faced massive sovereign debt about 267% of national income by March, 1945.

And this

Malcolm Collins: was Japan?

Simone Collins: Japan, yeah. Who have their aing

Malcolm Collins: about this [00:24:00] is it happened in part due to demographic collapse.

Mm.

And so we’re looking at a scenario that’s very similar to what the rest of the globe might be going through in the near future.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Well, and, and this is, you’re also gonna see this with the next one that happened more recently.

As, as part of what’s come on. Oh, what’s name? So, when

Malcolm Collins: Japan did this, did they do it for all kinds of debts? Like was No, hold on.

Simone Collins: No. This, this is, no, this is way scarier. This is way scarier than a, a, a debt jubilee. But oh Aon omics. You’re thinking about the abenomics reform. This is, this is different and this is more violent, so, right.

So we had massive sovereign debt. We have hyperinflation, we have economic ruin. You know, they got nuked like it, this was a really bad time for the Japanese people. Yeah. Bad time. They needed to rebuild and they basically had like no ability to do so because like nothing was worth anything.

Everything’s broken, everyone’s starving. Like this is horrible. So while this wasn’t explicitly a jubilee, the 1946 financial emergency measures effectively wiped out much of [00:25:00] the real value of debts through currency reform and wealth confiscation. So this isn’t just currency reform, it’s wealth confiscation, which is.

100% starting to bubble up in various state. Yeah. Non-national legislatures. It

Malcolm Collins: always goes really bad.

Simone Collins: Like, have you, are you familiar with the California bill that was proposed or that’s, that’s gonna be voted on this, this election? No. I can’t remember exactly what percentage of it it, it is, but it’s this bill that’s like, Hey, shall we just, you know, we have some financial troubles, shall we just like, have all billionaires in California pay 5% of their net worth?

And this includes just like the value of, of their stocks. Like, not even like their cash, right? Yeah. To, to help us pay off this debt. It’s just a one time thing and like. Like the guys on the All-In podcast who are all billionaires and like, I think one or two of them is still in California and most of them got out obviously.

And this is, this is effective like beginning 2026 if it’s passed. So, you know, they’re all [00:26:00] just gonna like, move out in a second if this gets passed. And, and they’re all like, well, why would people not vote to pass this? Like the vast majority of people are not billionaires and they don’t care. Yeah.

And you would like the billionaires to just handle a problem. But this is an example of legislation that is already being voted on right now in the United States of just like, Hey, why don’t we just confiscate the wealth of the, of, of wealthy people? And that again, this is part of what this Japanese measure was.

So here’s what exactly happened to Japan in 1946, on February 16th. In 1946, the government announced surprise measures. Surprise measures. Okay. This voted up. Surprise. So you don’t

Malcolm Collins: get a chance to leave first.

Simone Collins: Yeah. They, they, they didn’t get the warning that the all in podcasters got. Mm-hmm. All bank accounts were frozen.

All the Y notes were invalidated unless deposited. So if you’re holding a dollar, it doesn’t work anymore. And a new yen was introduced at a one-to-one exchange rate. Withdrawals were severely limited initially. 300 yen per household [00:27:00] head, plus 100 yen per member later. 100 yen per month per person.

Barely enough for, for survival. So just to be clear, again, your money doesn’t work anymore. All the cash you have is, is broken. Only the stuff you have in banks is still valid with now a different kind of yen. But you, you, you’re only allowed to withdraw. Yeah. A tiny amount, barely enough to survive. Okay.

And then, so this was followed because this is just the beginning by a massive one-time property tax in autumn of 1946 levying up to 90% on assets, including blocked deposits. So not only were your bank accounts frozen, you couldn’t even pay it because you couldn’t take out the money. Yeah. I mean, I mean, I mean, you had, you know, maybe you had a thousand yet in your account, now you can only take out, you know, 300 plus 100 per additional family member.

Oh, but by the way, we’re gonna tax 90% of it, you know, so,

Malcolm Collins: you know.

Simone Collins: Yeah. It doesn’t even, it doesn’t [00:28:00] even fano away. It’s, it’s not even decimated because it’s, it’s the inverse decimated. And this happened in 1946.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And people dunno how bad it was in Japan during this period. One of, one of the fun things I learned recently actually is, you know, a lot of people, they criticize the us They’re like, the US doesn’t have any of its own native foods.

You know, like, they’ll be like, french fries don’t count ‘cause they were invented here, like, burgers don’t count ‘cause they were invented here. And I’m like, well, they’ve definitely been modified since then. But I’d point out here, what a lot of people don’t know is if you are going by that definition of where a food was invented mm-hmm.

In which nation gets to own the food. Ramen is an American food because ramen is only popular in Japan because American aid efforts delivered it to Japan in large amounts and heavily subsidized it for a period. So many Japanese people during this period of intense poverty grew up eating tons of ramen.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And isn’t that funny that, like, even now ramen is kind of, it’s, it’s like, shorthand for. [00:29:00] Eating poor person food. Yeah. And, and what it was would eating ramen or whatever,

Malcolm Collins: which I’ve done, you know, I’ve, I’ve, I’ve had the you know, two, two pencils for my chopsticks to eat Ramen. That doesn’t sound safe.

Well, I didn’t have other chopsticks at the time. Sweetheart why’re so special in the head that that’s what you’re gonna find.

Simone Collins: Oh boy. Yikes. Not to take our, our, our ramen deviation too far, guys, but, so there’s this, like I learned, I discovered when, when I traveled to Malcolm, to Seoul with Malcolm, this thing where they, it’s ramen, but macaroni and cheese and, and oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

And then you, it’s freaking the best thing in the world. And then Malcolm and I found this amazing Asian food store close to us where I could buy that stuff, but it’s really, it’s like $5 per packet. Whereas, you know, obviously you can get. 1620 ramen packets for like $5. Mm-hmm. And I discovered that, and I’m an idiot for not realizing this, but I’m [00:30:00] saying this ‘cause maybe you don’t realize this either, is you can just take, we buy bulk cheese powder, like the kind that you get in mac and cheese, but we just buy it in bulk.

Who’s your farms on Amazon? And you can just put that. In the ramen, like you drain most of the liquid out of it. I still put in the, the chicken or beef or whatever season it’s

Malcolm Collins: you go. If you

Simone Collins: could put mac and cheese, cheese on ramen. It’s a freaking amazing. Oh, ah. It’s like all I, it’s all I want right now.

So good. Anyway. Are you gonna have that tonight? I’m also craving popcorn though. I’m craving, I’m so hungry. I’m so, I’m, I’m always hungry anyway, whatever. But anyway. Right. So, right. You, your bank account is frozen. The money doesn’t work anymore. Just when you think it can’t get any worse because you’re on, on like this really limited budget as imposed by a government.

Now 90% of the money in your bank account evaporates. But this is also property tax. So like, you’re also like any of your assets, your property, your, you know, real estate, property, et cetera, is being taxed as well. These tax revenues are [00:31:00] being used to repay the government bonds and interest. So the government’s actually being good on that stuff, and then war related compensations.

‘cause Japan, you know, we nuch them and stuff, but now they’re still, you know, there are punitive damages that Japan is expected to pay to, to both companies and citizens we’re, we’re offset by these special taxes. And, and so that, well, you

Malcolm Collins: know what I like about this in Japan’s context, while I could sort of understand it, even if I was a rich person Yeah.

I’d be like, okay, my country sort of went all in on a war with another country. I, as a citizen of this country have to bear the cost of losing that war. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, I feel

Simone Collins: like the, the Japanese people of all like, are more likely to collectively be like, yeah, we’re gonna have to take this for the team.

You know, like. This, this, this sucks. Also, like one thing that makes this a little bit worse is that one, by the time this happened, hyperinflation was already so bad that it had eroded the real value of many debts even before the reform. [00:32:00] And we’re talking like, prices rising, rising over 500% annually. Oh wow.

So I mean, like, to a certain extent, a lot of this was absurd anyway, but it’s still like scary and bad. And again, we’re, we’re likely to face hyperinflation before we also experience similar reforms to this. So I, I’m still like, I don’t know, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. And this is a form of rhyming that I feel like I’m starting to, I’m, I’m, I’m.

I’m hearing the beginning of this little, this little couplet, this little limerick. I’m, I’m getting worried. So what happened was basically government debt drastically reduced ‘cause they actually got the funds from it from 446 billion yen in 1948 to 316 billion yen in 1950. And that’s this tamed to the hyperinflation and enabled post-war reconstruction.

It paved the way for the Japanese economic miracle of rapid growth in the fifties to eighties. This that would not have happened had this sacrifice me. Okay. The public did suffer massive wealth

Malcolm Collins: loss. This problem [00:33:00] doesn’t ha I love the, the racist black guy when he is like, this does not happen in Japan

Simone Collins: .

But like, actually that’s, that’s the thing. It’s, well, I mean, you can’t, well, but anyway, so, so what happened, right? So like one, we had this a massive economic boom. It was basically a form of forced wealth redistribution seen as a domestic default. But it, it provided lessons for a modern fiscal, fiscal policy and there was no significant inflation spike after these controls.

It eroded trust in financial institutions, but only temporarily because again, like when, when these kinds of things, what’s funny

Malcolm Collins: is as soon as people start making money again, the, the, the face in financial institutions seems to immediately return. No, it’s,

Simone Collins: that’s the thing. It’s like greed is. Greed is very powerful especially when couched in functional institutions and act.

This is a good time for us to switch to two examples in which this went [00:34:00] really poorly. When, when these, these mechanisms well do over buttons, more modern

Malcolm Collins: time. I thought Japanese we’re, we’re

Simone Collins: gonna, we’re gonna jump forward to that. We’re gonna, we’re, we’re gonna jump forward to omics after we look at how this doesn’t work well.

And, and essentially it’s when you respond, but into a bad system. And we don’t want that. So the classic examples are Zimbabwe and Venezuela. In both examples, governments saw drops in revenue caused by different things but they were politically unable to cut spending. Does that sound familiar? So they printed more money to pay for things, and that caused hyperinflation.

So in Venezuela there was a drop in income, but it was related to huge drops in, in their oil revenue. Their oil revenue dropped. Like basically that was, well, oil revenue was 95% of its foreign currency earnings. Yeah. And I think a lot of the younger audiences who listen to this podcast don’t realize that like, Venezuela used to be famous for being rich.

Yeah. Even on shows that [00:35:00] Malcolm and I grew up loving to watch like Parks and Rec there’s this whole arc in like this show where this Venezuelan delegation comes, like they become Sister Cities with some city in Venezuela and they’re all insanely rich and they all have like mansions and servants

Speaker 8: We are quite tired from our trip.

Could you have your servant collect our back? What did he call me? Tom, please. It’s a different culture. Okay?

Do we just, uh, select the woman we desire. I’ll take the large black one did you have some kind of a book with photos of the women available to us? If not, I will also take the sexy black one.

Simone Collins: And, and, and Malcolm had all these like rich Venezuelan classes, boarding schools and stuff

Malcolm Collins: growing up. Yeah,

Simone Collins: yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But they’re

Simone Collins: not. But that was the oil. That was the oil. And then, and then as soon as the oil prices crashed, especially post 2014, it wasn’t

Malcolm Collins: just the oil prices crashing. The core reason Venezuela became so poor is they stopped reinvesting in the refineries.

And so the refineries basically degraded because you need to be constantly [00:36:00] reinvesting in making sure that these oil refineries like work well. Yeah. And they basically cut all of that because you know, more money for the people, whatever, whatever, whatever. Yeah. And, and through corruption. And so all of the parts of the refineries broke.

So they’re producing of, I were corrected like 6% of the oil. They used to Oh my. Something like, gosh, like very little oil anymore. Like they’re, they’re basically working with. Because the refineries, they didn’t even build them. Right. Like the refineries were built by private companies. They just stole them.

I socialize them. Right. This is why you don’t wanna socialize something. Yeah. When you don’t like, actually own something yourself. And when you are not going to be, you know, immediately responsible for the cost of that. Like, you don’t need to go to the shareholders who are going to say, Hey, you haven’t been reinvesting in the refinery.

Mm-hmm. Those things begin to break down and everyone suffers as a result. Yeah. Which is why communism and socialism works so, so poorly at the time. And this is, this is when people are like, oh, well then just completely give like [00:37:00] ownership of everything. You know, make it completely regional. Make it completely whatever.

Right? Like, like, like, like completely. What, what are those? Anarcho, communists, right? Oh, anarcho Communism. Cannot effing run an oil refinery. No. Right. Anarch cannot run a semiconductor fab. No. And new communism. No, I’m sorry. It just can’t, it cannot run any of the things that your daily life relies on.

Mm-hmm. Right. American communism basically requires an agrarian society, which we do not have. And if we move to, we don’t want it. I don’t want it.

Simone Collins: You, you guys can do you, I mean, like, I’m okay with that on like a, a local homestead level, but that’s not what is necessary anyway, so like, yeah. Basically they’re like.

Okay, we have no more money, but we can’t stop the social spending. Let’s just print a ton of money. And that led to a super inflated prices, shortages of goods. It discouraged local production, it encouraged [00:38:00] black markets. It eroded business and investor confidence. Now look at Venezuela, not, not great, and then in Zimbabwe, basically following popular but economically disastrous land distribution.

And see, this is another example. It’s like you, you think like, oh, well then all wealth distribution is good per the earlier Japan example I gave. No, it’s sometimes really bad. So following the wealth distribution that took place in the Zimbabwe, food and export revenues collapsed and government the government UN was totally unwilling to, to reverse course or lose power.

It, it financed itself by printing currency and, and hyperinflation resulted. So I just wanna point out like there are good ways to do it and there are bad ways to do it. And the good way to do it is like everyone taking a hit for the betterment of the, of the country because they’re willing to fight on the same page.

But when you have a divided populace or government or just a selfish government, you don’t get that, so what happened with with Japan? Oh, actually, look, here’s one more example though. ‘cause it’s, it’s not just the Japanese. That, [00:39:00] that this, like, the one really ancient example of Yeah. By, by the way,

Malcolm Collins: this is, this is pretty interesting.

I was just looking at the erco communism, like how, how could, ‘cause I decided to ask rock, like, okay man, this for me, right? Like yeah, yeah. How could eneco communism run a fab? Okay. Basically the answer is you wouldn’t have any technology that required microchips in OCH communism because the, the problem is, is, is OCH communism cannot manage large investments like a fabric requires like 10 to $20 billion.

Yeah. And I know that people are like, we don’t need billionaires. Well, you need billionaires if you want cell phones. Okay. You need people who can risk and say, I want to risk 10 to $20 billion. Yeah. And you can’t get that by crowdfunding from people with, you know, savings of like a hundred thousand dollars each or something.

No,

Simone Collins: no, no. You just can’t.

Malcolm Collins: They wouldn’t even be able to get the expertise. It’s like you wouldn’t be able to get the funding for the years of labor and study to make it work. Yeah. Oh, and then they’re talking about even the global supply chain because, you know, you typically require you know, one part of [00:40:00] the fab is designed in one place.

This is that way typically work, and then it’s produced in another. You wouldn’t be able to get that either in n communism. No.

Simone Collins: No, definitely not. Absolutely not. But the, the other form of I would say like Japanese style, like this is social cohesion at work. This is people taking a hit for the betterment of their society.

Is, can you guess It’s a kind of biblical example. Did Jerusalem, I know this right? Yes. The Biblical Jubilee. Every 50 years debts were canceled. Slaves were set free, and lands were restored to their original owners. And this was practiced from around 1400 to 500 bc Debt forgiveness was granted to fellow Israelites, not anyone else.

Let’s be clear. Fellow Israelites.

Malcolm Collins: No. Hold on, hold on. This is actually a really good way to do debt. Yes. Yes. So I’ll explain why it’s good. Because this, this people might be surprised that I’ve been so against it up until now. I think this is a good way to do it. Yes. The reason why it’s a good way is because all debts that are made have this [00:41:00] priced into them.

Yeah. You know,

Simone Collins: it, you know, the, the, the way I look at it is this is the same way that anyone views giving a loan to like a family member. It is like, you know, I know Cousin Jed probably isn’t gonna pay it back or may ever pay it back. Like, great if he does, if he doesn’t. I’ve planned for this and I’m okay with it ‘cause he’s family.

That’s what this is. But,

Malcolm Collins: but this is, so the way you would do this, if you were gonna do this is you would say, starting this year, any debt, any debts made after this year mm-hmm. They get forgiven at the jubilee mark. Any debts from before this year do not get forgiven at the Jubilee mark because that way that can be priced into every debt, given that there’s going to be this jubilee.

Mm-hmm. But what people probably don’t consider was an, an existing system. Why this could be so dangerous and why you’d probably want staggered jubilees based on a random factor like some, right. Because if

Simone Collins: you’re like, you’re 49 outta 15. Yeah. Because

Malcolm Collins: if it’s year 49 outta 50, [00:42:00] nobody’s making any debts anymore.

Yeah. If society grinds to a halt, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: You know? Yeah. You, you, you need to, you need to have a system for handling that. Maybe the way that you could handle that is, oh, oh, okay. Here’s how I handle it. Okay. I stagger the way that jubilee’s work. Mm-hmm. So the Jubilee I say we’re gonna have a jubilee in 50 years.

Any debt made from today until the day of the jubilee is wiped out at the ju Sorry. Any debt made from today to 25 years from today is wiped out at the Jubilee. But at that 25 year mark, then you get into the next Jubilee period where any debt made from that 25 year mark to the end of the Jubilee, it’s wiped out at the next 50 year jubilee.

Mm. So you never have a period where there is more than 25 years before the Jubilee on the debt associated with that period. Now of course, biblical thinkers wouldn’t have come up with this idea. But that could actually work really well and I think be a very effective thing for [00:43:00] society.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Okay.

I like that. Yeah. So then let’s, let’s jump back ahead as we wrap this up too. The Omics Japan functional Debt Jubilee, but it’s a little more complicated than that. Okay. And it really only works in Japan and doesn’t cause hyperinflation and stagnation because you have basically a high domestic savings rate.

Like you have people who are very responsible and they just save their money. And you have cultural and political stability, which, you know, like not everyone’s great at that. So most countries would risk much greater instability if they tried this approach. And this is another reason why I feel like, you know, techno feudalism.

And our future is more like group, like the Israelites and then the techno puritans and the whatevers like the, the racist white national, its return to land group, like everyone taking care of their own, [00:44:00] because that’s how these, like, these solutions work. But what basically happened in Japan is that they, they manage this enormous public debt over 250% of GDP.

That’s, that’s a lot of debt. Yeah. Through a quasi jubilee mechanism without formal cancellation of their debt. And, and the way that they work is, is they use debt buybacks as a way to prevent market collapse and to maintain low borrowing costs for the government. Most countries avoid this because of the risk of inflation devaluation and loss of an investor confidence, which can destabilize their economies.

But the problem basically is that Japan. Has their, their Bank of Japan, like their, their central bank has been buying large amounts of Japanese government, that debt. So they’re buying their own debt and they now own around 40% of their own debt. And by purchasing the government bonds and then holding them, they, they owe the debt to itself.[00:45:00]

Which is interesting. And, and this prevents market turmoil. So the, the bond market has experienced surges and yields basically interest rates due to their lack of private investor demand for long-term bonds. And government calls for more spending and then worries about the huge debt to GDP ratio.

Higher yields mean higher costs for the government to service its own debt. And the Bank of Japan stepped in to stabilize these yields and prevent borrowing costs from spiraling out of control because without intervention yields on government bonds would’ve probably kept rising. And then this would’ve forced the government to pay much more to finance its deficit, making a debt spiral where the interest payments would consume much more of the public budget, which is what people are really afraid of happening in the United States, for example.

So with an aging population, obviously, and it’s slow growing economy, what you were pointing out to with demographic labs, which is why everyone has to be watching out for this. Japan relies

Malcolm Collins: so I can understand this better. So they did not, for example, like pay off normal people debts. This was just government.

No, no,

Simone Collins: no, [00:46:00] no, no. This is, this is with regard to national debt, which is the much bigger risk here.

Malcolm Collins: And they didn’t, they did not default on national debt. They didn’t

Simone Collins: default it, they just bought it back. And then now they own a little less than half of all of their national debt to keep Okay. The interest rates low so that they can afford to, to keep it.

They, they didn’t cancel anything. And by

Malcolm Collins: the way, the US, the Democrats have, have, have talked about like actually canceling our national debt, which I know, I know. Really mad if that happens.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And but the, the weird thing about this and why I’m like, this is just so I don’t understand, like I can’t fully wrap my head around it, to be honest, because the interest paid on this debt by the government is fun, funneled back to the government like they’re paying themselves.

I think that’s true for a lot of this means the government is not really, it’s not burdened by the debt servicing costs in any meaningful economic way. Okay. And then, but, but what essentially they did was they, they prevented a con, a conventional debt crisis. But this also meant that Japan experienced very slow economic growth and [00:47:00] deflationary pressures for decades.

And that is the big risk of a policy like this is both inflation and stagnation, which I think is kind of it, it’s one of the reasons why you don’t really see Japan being anymore. Mm-hmm. This source of breakaway innovation and success that it used to be like when you and I were really little, Japan was like the place where like all the robots came from, you know, and it’s not that anymore.

And I think a lot of that is actually downstream of this policy which created stagnation. I mean, you, you sort of create like zombie companies from this because it also allowed companies to maintain, like, to continue existing, like it didn’t kill companies that were inefficient. Because they were still able to get cheat debt, get

Malcolm Collins: rid of company debt, it just got rid of government debt.

Simone Collins: Well, but it still made interest rates low.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, so because they had really low interest rates. Yeah. So they

Simone Collins: were able to continue servicing their debt and continue to survive instead of just like die when they probably should have. And that’s sort of where this stagnation comes in through. But, so let’s just say that like what [00:48:00] we can expect and what I keep talking about and what you, you agree with too is that as the 2030s hit, and as countries, at least like the United States that can kind of get away with this, I have to contend with it.

They’re not going to like, from the way that politicians get voted into office, no one’s gonna get voted into office saying, I’m going to end your social security benefits, even though social security’s gonna go insolvent. Right? Like no one is getting voted into office for that. Like in France, when it was like proposed that we raised the retirement age, even young people came out and were like, I don’t support it.

Which is crazy. So like obviously that’s gonna not happen. So what’s gonna happen is governments are just gonna print more money. Just like Zimbabwe, Venezuela you know, like a lot of these countries and, and we’re gonna see inflation. So what we should avoid is basically any sector that, I mean, one like is subject to inflation, but then in terms of like, I think maybe more people declaring bankruptcy in the future just ‘cause they’re like, I can and people are starting to [00:49:00] take on more unsustainable debt.

People should just avoid any sector that relies on consumer debt. Like, so financial services, consumer finance, and FinTech, consumer discretionary. Because obviously like once you do declare bankruptcy and you can’t like.

Malcolm Collins: Well, my, my take on this is we’re not at a uniquely high period of debt right now.

Yeah. Isn’t that interesting? Just for bankruptcy. Yeah. Outside of government debt, which is uniquely high

but the government wouldn’t default on the debt because that’s gonna like damage all the old people who Yeah. For the one to control who gets elected and everything like that. Yeah.

Yeah. So I see that as being fairly unlikely unless some like radical socialist gets into power. Mm-hmm. And then if it’s on personal debt, I think a debt jubilee in the United States is virtually impossible.

Simone Collins: I feel like we almost have an ongoing debt jubilee just because we have bankruptcy as long as bankruptcy exists.

Because what happened when they were actual regular de Jubilee is like, nah, man, you were a slave. Can’t pay your debts, you’re a [00:50:00] slave. But no, it’s more, it’s more now that I’m like, after doing all this research and realizing, oh, actually this probably isn’t gonna happen on a consumer level, we have to be concerned about the government level.

What we need to avoid is, is stuff that exposes you to government stuff. So, I mean, okay, assuming the government doesn’t go crazy or whatever, the safest investments are the defense sector companies with minimal debt exposure and strong cash flow and internal inter international funds that are less like, yeah.

Although I honestly, I wouldn’t even do international. ‘cause I, I wouldn’t, right now

Malcolm Collins: I’m, I I kind

Simone Collins: of also though I like the Ron Swanson approach. Just bury your gold. Yes. And also crypto that might make gold or, or did I, what, what, who would, he was like, I have gold buried all over my, or do I? But that’s, I think everyone’s gonna be like, I, I believe in crypto or do I but like.

Bitcoin is at an all time high. I mean, Ethereum is kind of all over the place, but it’s, it’s also now like close to, its all time high.

As you can probably tell this episode was [00:51:00] recorded ages ago because it’s Christmas and obviously we’re not recording episodes around Christmas because that would be insane, although it was really fun to be going viral right now.

What a lot of people are missing about the viral clip is it was recorded back when Simone was pregnant, so ages ago. And as soon as she stepped on that question and that line of reasoning, I was thinking, how do I argue that she’s wrong?

In a way that isn’t so completely destroying of her position that the clip doesn’t get aired. And, and frankly, I thought I had failed. I thought, there’s no way she’s gonna air this. I just too concretely debunked the position she had, , but apparently not. , So I am very fortunate for that, but that’s why my arguments come off as somewhat nerfed.

Simone Collins: Do you wanna sell our Ethereum? Did we sell, we we have some Ethereum.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah,

Simone Collins: but what, what are you asking?

Malcolm Collins: I’m asking if you think we should sell it.

Simone Collins: Oh, should we sell it?

Maybe the last time we sold it all, we got a, we got a car just from like, [00:52:00] yeah. I don’t know. Profit. Maybe when we need the, the big sprinter van for our kids, we should do

Malcolm Collins: an inventory of what crypto we have and where in the near future

Simone Collins: stresses me out. I

Malcolm Collins: know

Simone Collins: I hate money. But yeah, I mean, I, I kind of, I think when it comes to like the Japanese approach of like, we’re now like, especially if we’re coming to this like capitalism is bad, let’s redistribute wealth.

Crypto is gonna be one of the really big things of like the way that people will, because it’s what the government is gonna have a harder time taking. Yeah. Be like, I don’t know, I lost it.

And there’s gonna be a lot of lost crypto around the time well think about

Malcolm Collins: crypto is you can build it into the blockchain that a, a debt mechanism works.

So you’re not really reliant on laws or the governments to ensure that somebody pays back their debt. The, the blockchain itself can make them pay back their debt.

Simone Collins: You could, but I’m just, I’m just referring to like, what are ways, aside from [00:53:00] literally burying gold in your yard. I mean gold is at all time highs too now.

Where you could more effectively shield your money from governments that are like. Money, please.

Speaker 3: Money, please, money. Please.

Simone Collins: And I, one worries about these things. Man, I’m just like going hard on parks and Rec. Yeah. This, this episode. Yeah. Basically the TLDR is yeah. Debt, consumer debt right now is actually not as bad as I thought.

Malcolm is kind of right. We basically debt jubilee’s, at least in the United States already because we have bankruptcy. And bankruptcy is just to get out of jail. Free card right now. But where things are unsustainable I is when it comes to social programs in the 2030s, and this isn’t even factoring in dependency ratio cascades, when we have more old people and like net tax drains and we have net tax contributors in countries with demographic collapse, just making this so much worse.

So things are gonna get weird. We are likely to face hyperinflation, we’re likely to face like a crisis of [00:54:00] capitalism and people turning to socialism and who knows if AI’s gonna be sufficient to help us through all that. Mm-hmm. And, and so we need to expect that. And just, just be ready for it.

And maybe the more self-sufficient you are, the better because basically only cohesive societies where everyone’s in to go on, like, things together, like in Japan or like in Israel, probably that’s, they’ll be fine. America, like we’re not, we’re not known for our

Malcolm Collins: through social cohesion. No, I think it would go over terrible.

I think we’re Venezuela in a few years if we do some sort of debt jubilee here.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: So unfortunately I very much, I would love if California passes that law and the, the bunch of tech billionaires move, you know, I mean, I,

Simone Collins: I kind of don’t know how they couldn’t pass that law. Like how are people not gonna vote for that?

You know, so

Malcolm Collins: anyway,

Simone Collins: I’m

Malcolm Collins: watching it closely. It’s, it reminds me of that Freedom Tunes one where it’s like, you, you don’t have a million dollars. You don’t have a hundred million dollars. Like, why do you care? [00:55:00] Why do you care? And he’s like, well, it’ll crash the economy if we do. And they’re like, you don’t have a hundred.

Do you hear? This guy thinks he has a hundred million dollars. My God, I just, yeah. I, anyway,

Speaker 11: My concern is that forcing the best for four week stockholders to sell off 25% of their earning shares would completely crash the market forever.

Speaker 12: You don’t count a hundred million, bro. You don’t know. You don’t got a hundred million. No, you don’t. Don’t count. Hundred million.

Speaker 11: Okay. The ba, the best case scenario. Best case it raises enough to fudge the government for less than three days.

Malcolm Collins: I love you. He’s like, economists

say this is a bad idea. And then they’re like, do those economists have a hundred million dollars? Oh my God.

Simone Collins: We’re, we’re all doomed. I don’t know what’s gonna happen, but money’s great.

Malcolm Collins: All love you to decimal.

Simone Collins: Love you too. Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I usually only listen to podcasts except for Malcolm [00:56:00] and Simone, but I, I always watch that. But we put a lot of effort into the visuals for the podcast, so I Why

Simone Collins: you do, stop giving me credit. Credit belongs where credit is due.

Malcolm Collins: Lighting a bit to see if that,

Simone Collins: there

Malcolm Collins: it is.

Simone Collins: Where was it?

Malcolm Collins: It was behind something not far to where I normally put it

and for people who ask about camera quality, the camera that I’m plugging in, the one that we like more is actually like half the price of the other camera. It is just so hard to find,

but it’s food. Thank you.

It is important to eat. . And I think I look good now. Right?

Simone Collins: You look gorgeous. You just look better by the day. And then, oh my gosh, when your hair turns white, I don’t know what I’m

Malcolm Collins: gonna do with myself. It the other way for people who don’t [00:57:00] know my family I don’t know why our audience would know this, but a, a trait that we have is our hair turns like actually white.

It becomes silver fox. Oh my gosh. And,

and it doesn’t decrease in volume or anything. Yeah, it’s, it just gets very voluminous white hair, which I already have quite a bit of that. You just, you know, it gets drowned out on my other hair.

Simone Collins: There’s more, there’s more than before, but I mean, you’re not anywhere close to going all white.

You got such a long way to go, so I have a lot to look forward to.

Malcolm Collins: What you like that look the, all the, all white look. It’s so

Simone Collins: pretty. I wish I had all white hair. I’m never like my, my family never really goes. White, I think. I don’t know. I don’t know. We’ll see. Anyway, anyway, can just, anyway. How did people respond to the episode today?

They liked it. What I found to be really comforting was there, you know, a lot of married couples listen to our podcast. Yeah. And a lot of women chimed in to say, yeah, early in my wife days, I too was sassy or dismissive or, you know, openly [00:58:00] made fun of my husband in public. And then I saw that it really hurt him and I stopped and I’m glad.

And then there were also husbands who were like, yeah, my wife used to do this. And I pushed through. And after a lot of talking about it, it finally worked. So like, I think a lot of the functional couples who listen to this podcast. Have been in this position.

Malcolm Collins: Mm-hmm.

Simone Collins: And I think, you know, we’re, we’re all just being raised in this culture where a lot of really normal or, or sorry, toxic things are normalized.

And it’s encouraging to know that people, when they see how logically this really hurts others is they, they get over it and they’re able to push about

Malcolm Collins: wives sassing their husbands. And I think only by watching this podcast can you escape the nightmare that you will live in if you don’t watch this podcast aren’t exposed to this.

‘cause then you get normal celebrity culture.

Simone Collins: Well, there was this one other anecdote that someone posted I don’t know if they were married or not. That I thought was really a, a great, I guess, analogy or just way to, to frame this differently too for [00:59:00] women that I, I might. Present which is, he was talking about playing a ga like Fortnite or some kind of like first person shooter group game with his little brother.

And he kept calling him like just trash talking him in the chat, just like calling him stupid and stuff. And his brother at one point, you know, wrote back and all kept, I’m not stupid, like in a really defensive way. And he realized that like this, this actually hurt his brother’s feelings. And he, he never, never would’ve called his brother stupid if he actually thought his brother was stupid.

You know, like he, he didn’t, he didn’t believe what he was saying in any way. And he didn’t think that his brother would’ve interpreted this as a real accusation or something offensive. But he did. And I think what’s going on with this sassy woman, or like belittling husbands in public thing is women think that they’re trash talking and being funny and witty and that it doesn’t hurt their husbands.

And they don’t realize [01:00:00] that in many cases their husbands are being wounded just like this little brother. And that they’re really hurting them. And that’s what one of the wives pointed out too. Like she used to do it in public and then she, she like saw how her husband reacted and that it just made him really sad and she felt really bad about it, so she stopped.

And, and that’s, yeah. So anyway, the comments were, were good, really. I mean, of course then, you know, we had all the men who were like, well this is, you know, it started ‘cause men stopped backhanding their wives. But like, that’s, those are very boring, boring comments. I, I love

Malcolm Collins: just the shock, shock, shock, shock dog.

You know, no one person

Simone Collins: pointed out since Alec Baldwin was got a, got his hat tip in, in that episode that the year that he accidentally shot someone on, on the production crew, on, on set of on a film set that, that was kind of the viral Halloween costume that someone came to a party dressed as Alec Baldwin with a.

A prop gun. Oh my God. And like the new version of that costume this year [01:01:00] is is Hassan and Kaya, which that’s just, that, that is the costume of the year. Maybe, maybe Twitch and ou another, another great themed costume. So

Malcolm Collins: yeah. That’s, that’s wild. And another funny thing about the whole somebody’s pointing out that like, it’s so weird that we live in a society where you have Hassan who is like this incredibly rich Nepo baby who lives this incredibly wealthy lifestyle, who’s like chief socialist of like the internet.

And then you have Asma Gold who is like chief capitalist of the internet,

Simone Collins: who grew up. He’s not even like a capitalist. No. He really supports social programs. That’s my favorite thing about him. He’s like, listen, like. I had this period where I was on the dole and I just like sat at home and played video games all day.

And now I gladly pay my taxes to support a new generation of men to sit at home and play video games all day. Like he pays it forward. And that is my, that is the best take on, on that that I’ve ever heard. I love it

Malcolm Collins: that that’s actually how he lived that lifestyle was just living [01:02:00] on welfare.

Simone Collins: Yeah. He, like, he owns it.

He knows exactly what he did on welfare. He knows where his welfare checks go. Like, I, I really don’t like the takes on welfare of like, well, these people are bettering themselves, these people are saving the world while receiving their welfare checks. Like, no, like that, that doesn’t, that’s very disingenuous as, and that’s just another great example of why and how Asman Gold is just, he is so beloved now because he’s so authentic and he says it like it is and he doesn’t sugarcoat anything.

And he has fun. So, yeah. But enough glazing asthma. Gold.

Malcolm Collins: Shall we get into the podcast?

Yeah, we can get into the podcast. I love you. Love you, love you.

All right. Lemme get it off. Very

excited for this one because you, you prepped me for it this morning and I was like, oh, that’s actually an interesting take.

I thought it was gonna be boring, so I put it off forever.

Simone Collins: Oh. I mean, this is different from, it is part of my money series. This is different from the what is Money one, which I’m still outlining. But I still think it’s interesting and I still think we need to talk about it, so, and I still think you’ll find some parts of it that are [01:03:00] interesting.

Oh, yeah. ‘cause yeah. You wanted to know about the Japan stuff and we, the Japan

Malcolm Collins: stuff. Yeah. I mean, I like when I heard you talking about this, I was like, oh, this is basic information I need to know for like informational literacy.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. And I, I mean, I wanna hear what your takeaways are from it too, because this matters from an investing standpoint.

Malcolm Collins: Mm-hmm.

Simone Collins: All right.

Speaker 13: Tell me about the presents. Guys tell me. Oh, wife said it comes a tower and a little lifeboat. I think. Map, I don’t know. And Iny, I think you got Titan. That is a really cool present.

Speaker 16: 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 [01:04:00] classic books. More side than horse. And what about you?

Speaker 13: You got a panda bear? Well.

Malcolm and Simone Collins sit down with Jonathan Anomaly (Director of Research & Communication at Herasight) to finally reveal the company they’ve been quietly working with for years on embryo genetic selection.

After years of secrecy, we dive deep into:

* How Herasight achieves dramatically superior polygenic risk scores compared to competitors

* The recent drama and plagiarism allegations surrounding Nucleus Genomics

* Why selecting for higher intelligence correlates with better health, lower addiction rates, more cooperative behavior, and overall life success

* The truth about pleiotropy: why selecting for positive traits almost never comes with serious downsides

* How Herasight’s patented technology allows parents anywhere in the world (even where PGT-P is banned) to get polygenic embryo reports

* The coming era of germline gene editing and why refusing these technologies may soon be seen as morally irresponsible

* Why this technology is fundamentally pro-natalist and will help high-fertility families have healthier, thriving children

This is one of the most important conversations happening right now about the future of humanity.

Learn more about Herasight here

Follow Jonathan Anomaly on X

Episode Transcript: Malcolm Collins: . [00:00:00] Hello. I am excited to be here today because today we can talk about something that we have had to keep quiet for years which is, if you know the Collins family lore, it’s that we did a large batch of embryos because we had to, Simone was unable to get pregnant naturally, and we then did genetic sequencing on them to decide the order in which we did the implantation.

Now. For a long time we just had to say that we did this with a group of scientists. And when people were like, well, so people use this company or this company, we say, well, the company that they should probably be using isn’t out there yet. And the reason why this is really important when we’re talking about independent companies with good genetic data on humans is as time has gone on, the genetic data that is held in the public sphere by scientists and everything like that is.

Decreasing in quality. And specifically what I mean by this is there was a, the famous case where the national Biobank [00:01:00] in the UK ended up closing off their genetic access to a lot of publishers because one scientist accidentally found that one group was in the United States, was having daughter within the uk Your daughters

Simone Collins: within the uk Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: in the uk.

Something like 14000% the rate of any other group. And that was a naughty fact. And so now they’re like, now we need to screen all research for anything that could be naughty facts. The problem is, is that naughty facts are the facts we really need for humanity to move forwards, which includes things like genetic correlates to intelligence.

And the reason why I have been so impressed by this company, and, and it’s the reason we’re gonna be doing this and talking about this, not just about their work around intelligence and their work around the correlates to intelligence, which is really interesting because almost everything is correlated with intelligence.

So if you’re selecting for, if you’re like. I as a country will not allow people to select for intelligence. I will only allow heart health. You are also selecting for intelligence because these, these things are highly correlated with each other. So we’re gonna go into that. We’re gonna go into intelligence associations with social behavior patterns and everything like that because [00:02:00] obviously that’s important.

And we’re also gonna go into. Oh gosh.. I was just gonna say that now anyone can do this. So if you’re anywhere in the world, even if it’s illegal to do within your country, because Pgt PA is illegal to do genomics in country, they’ve got a unique technology that allows you to transfer p gt to BA stuff twofold, genomic stuff.

So we’re gonna move ahead with Johnny Anomaly an old friend of ours who is working with these guys. Yeah. So Johnny

Simone Collins: Anomaly is the director of Research and Communication of Parasite, which finally we can say is the company we’ve been working with on all these things that has been taking what we think is the most conscientious, thoughtful science, first detailed autistic in the best possible way approach to this.

Johnny Naly is a background as a bioethicist, and he’s just an overall awesome guy. He’s a major proponent of this technology and he’s kind of the. The gateway person to anyone who wants to enter this sphere and learn more about it. So we’re really grateful to you joining us today, Johnny. Thank you so [00:03:00] much.

And also, if we have a little bit of time to the end of this, I’d really love for you to dive in. Or maybe we could even start with it just ‘cause it’s like salacious drama, some drama that played out this week between sort of not just parasite and nucleus genomics, another company that gives apologetic risk or data to parents but also nucleus genomics and genomic predictions, which is another apologetic risk score company.

So just maybe to start, would you mind just telling us, because it helps us understand sort of how parasite is different and, and what other companies in this space are doing possibly wrong. What, what played out on X this week about nucleus genomics and another company in this space?

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah. Well, thanks for having me guys.

And Yep. We’ve been working together and we have many common friends here in Austin and other places where I am. But let’s see here. So there was quite a bit of drama, and I didn’t get into this business for the drama. As, as you know, I, I wrote a book about this. I was an academic, I’d been interested in this topic long before [00:04:00] I, I went into the private sector and joined this company a few years ago.

So I really want things to be done well, and we stayed in stealth for a really long time, you know, more than three years. And the reason is we knew that, first of all, this is a nascent science. So the, the science of polygenic prediction that is using genomic data to predict traits about, let’s say embryos or, and by the way, this is why it’s not mysterious.

Or using it to, we might say, retrofit traits about past people. So for example, the Reich Lab at Harvard, David Reich wrote a book called Who We Are and How We Got Here, and he recreates the ancient past and migration patterns and, and even, and even makes inferences about the traits that people had in the past based on polygenic scores.

That’s so funny. This is not mysterious technology. We use it all the time in history and, and going forward in personalized medicine now for embryos. Nevertheless, I understood it was a nascent science. It’s, [00:05:00] it’s pretty new. It’s very complex. You need some of the world’s best statistical geneticist, and I’m not one, you know, I studied economics and philosophy.

That’s what I taught. But we hired some of the best and it takes a while, right, to lure him from academia. They knew Alex Young, for example, who’s our true superstar. He’s still at UCLA, but you know, he got in a little bit of hot water as soon as he announced that he was with us. Mm-hmm. Even though it’s like, what are we doing?

We’re reducing. Disease in the world and maybe marginally increasing intelligence a bit, but that’s considered controversial. So anyway, that’s just the background of why we were in stealth, why we wanted to hire the world’s best first. Do the best research, validate our predictors, and we can talk about how that’s done later.

And it was only then that we emerged from stealth. Nevertheless a company that had been around for a little while called Nucleus decided to launch just before everyone knew we were about to come out the closet. My gosh. And yeah, they had done [00:06:00] that a few months ago, just about a month or two before us and announced they were now going into doing embryo scoring.

And we took a look at some of their reports and found them, let’s just say lacking. And so we decided when we launched, we were gonna launch with a white paper. And Oh, I love hearing baby sounds. Only on your podcast. Is it one of the babies chosen the system.

Yeah. I

love it. This is beautiful. And we’ll talk about maybe Tism later too, but Nice.

But anyway, we, before we launch, we really wanted to make sure that we had validated the best predictors on the planet, made it really clear how we did that, et cetera. And as part of our initial validation paper, we have an appendix showing what Nucleus genomics was up to. And it was, it was not kind, but it was accurate.

Scott Alexander picked up on it and Scott also had talked about, you know, using us and, and that sort of thing. And he didn’t wanna be too partial. I mean, it was a, a partial endorsement of us, [00:07:00] but really a survey of the landscape, like what is the state of the art when it comes to this And

mm-hmm.

Anyway, that kicked off the initial controversy, but last week, last week, some anonymous blogger, I guess he’s a Chinese guy who lives in, in the Bay Area called Siwan Malala, like bad Sichuan. Yeah. He decided to do a pretty thorough takedown of Nucleus. Some of it was citing our earlier work. And then apparently Nucleus found our work so good, our white paper, that they decided to more or less copy and paste it without citation as, as their own.

And so. You know, it’s, I’m not gonna say too much about that, but I guess that’s a great honor for us that they decided to do that. So, sit, so I’ll say this, so

Malcolm Collins: you don’t need to worry about getting yourself in trouble. So basically what it came down to, if you read this guy’s take down, is this other company launched with a largely plagiarized version of this other company’s white paper, but with just worse data pasted in.

Yeah. Like

Simone Collins: where, ‘cause you know how when you plagiarize something, you gotta change a couple [00:08:00] things, but like, the stuff they changed just made it strictly worse.

Jonathan Anomaly: I’m, I’m, I’m just in case there’s you know, any legal risk I’m not gonna use, you know what, whatever words that might get me in trouble, I’ll just say, you can read the papers and compare them for yourselves, but the allegation, everything allegedly, certainly plagiarism and I think the more easy this Yeah, go ahead Malcolm.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Where this matters to me is how, because I think this is a, this is relevant to especially our audience, which is gonna be more skeptical. How did you guys get such good information? You must have been getting access. Two populations or data that other companies didn’t have access to. How is that sourced?

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And how is your data so much better and how can parents know who to trust? Because also, like, yep. None of us are experts, you know, who are, who are doing this, you know, even like people who are doctors who are using parasite. Like, it can be hard for any of us outsiders to know, like, oh, I, I, I nucleus is, I, I don’t trust them.

[00:09:00] But parasite, they have their act together. Like, what, what makes you guys different?

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah. Good. So let me answer that. Let me put a bow on the last point for Yeah. For 30 seconds, and then answer the two your questions together, because that is the most important question. It’s not even just where do you get your data, although happy to tell you that it’s how do you justify and validate your predictors?

What really matters is not how you create things, but how do you prove that they work? Mm-hmm. And I’ll, I’ll mention that in a second, but to put a bow in the previous point. Yeah. Apart from the allegations that this blogger made about plagiarism and. You know, and, and sort of sloppiness by nucleus, I mean, one of the funniest bits that I saw I’ve been kind of a third party.

I’ve stayed out of it for the most part. But, you know, nucleus apparently had these reviews that were either AI generated. One of ‘em was like from an LL Bean catalog. And, and, but yeah, like the, the photos

Simone Collins: of of reviewing parents on their website were just fake

Jonathan Anomaly: photos of people of testimonials where it was like stock photos from the internet.

Yeah. And then sometimes it would be [00:10:00] a black guy, but then another time it would be like an Indian guy with the same review, but they like face swapped ‘em. And somebody said yesterday, my favorite commentary on it was. You know, why are people mad at a genetics company that has actually changed the race of someone that shows how effective they are, you know?

Yeah. How powerful. Good point. Good point. But anyway, I, so I don’t wanna get into the drama. I will say that everyone should listen to Alex Young again, who’s our superstar at UCLA. He’s gonna be on the show that was debated yesterday on Twitter. I guess it was this anonymous poster creme against Kian from Nucleus Genomics.

So, Kian didn’t agree to debate, but he, they did do a side by side first. They had Creme on, then they had Kian on. Now they’re gonna have Alex in studio next week. And Alex is again, one of the world’s authorities on this topic in statistical genetics. Now, having said that, let me just say never just take someone’s [00:11:00] authority for granted.

Alex is an authority and he’s, you, you can read his work, but what really matters is not the person, it’s the method. How do we justify and validate our scores? So first of all, it’s worth saying like, how do you build a polygenic risk score? Or what is one?

Mm-hmm. It’s

the tool that we use to make predictions about either individuals who are, who are born now, like, what’s your susceptibility, Simone to Alzheimer’s disease, or Malcolm.

Mm-hmm. How tall are you? And you know, we, you know, we can’t do this perfectly, but we can get it more or less close to where you are using polygenic risk scores. And the idea is all of these traits that you really care about, not, not t Sachs disease that’s caused by one gene, right. Not sickle cell anemia, also caused by two copies of the same variant, but rather height, intelligence, schizophrenia, all these things are caused by.

Thousands or even tens of thousands of small genetic variants that add up to an overall risk, which is why it’s called a polygenic risk score or just [00:12:00] a polygenic score. So those are the things that we’re using to, to, to measure your likelihood of developing a trait or a disease as an adult. But similarly, since embryos are just bundles of genes just like you are, and the genes don’t change over time,

Malcolm Collins: our, our audience will be aware of all of this.

Yeah. Okay, good. What, what, what I think our audience is more interested in is how did you get more accurate polygenic scores? Yeah, yeah. So let me, let me

Jonathan Anomaly: get into that. I just wanted to define what a polygenic score was first. So good. Yeah. So the first thing you need to do to construct a good polygenic score, everyone has to do this, is access biobanks, right?

Mm-hmm. And

one of the things that we were a bit surprised by, because these other companies, you know, we’re a bunch of nerds who were in stealth for a few years, and yet we had applied to just about every biobank we could possibly apply to in the world. Sometimes you get denied, but we often got access because, well, A, you need a PhD, you need to justify why you have access and what you’re studying.

Usually it’s disease and so on. And so that’s the first thing [00:13:00] is we have access to a lot of bio banks. A lot of companies don’t seem to even apply to very many, which is a little surprising to us. It’s partly one of, one of our, our, our theories about why is there is a public catalog of polygenic scores that anyone can use.

The problem is those are usually five years old. They’re not nearly as good as the state of the art because academics don’t have an incentive, a market incentive to really just like ramp up the value of those scores because they’re not, they’re not, they have no profit incentive. So anyway. Mm-hmm. For step one is access as many biobanks as you can.

Step two is hire the talent that it requires to actually interpret that data. And then step three is when you’re validating the data. And this is what Alex Young is most famous for, is using within family studies. And what you’re really trying to do when you’re making embryo predictions, you’re not predicting traits about random people in a population.

Mm-hmm.

You’re predicting traits about potential siblings and then choosing which sibling will be [00:14:00] born. And the idea is if you’re doing that, the way to validate your scores. Is run them through adult siblings. Just imagine this, you have, you know, 12 brothers and sisters, which hopefully your children will have and, and we say, look, if we can take their DNA and predict how tall are they or do they have schizophrenia or whatever, and we can do this across tens of thousands of sibling pairs, then there’s no question the scores work.

The only question is how well do they work and how well do they work across ancestry groups? And just to put that, put all those little pieces together when you’re thinking about embryo selection, remember that embryos have the same relationship to each other and to their parents as adult siblings do to each other and their parents.

So if you can predict scores really well for adult siblings, then first you can predict ‘em well for embryos. And second, you don’t need to wait a hundred years for an army of, of embryos to be implanted. And then they grow up and they develop Alzheimer’s or not. [00:15:00] You simply don’t need to do that. I mean, it’s a nice closing touch to absolutely prove mathematically this works.

But it’s actually, it’s actually too much of a demand for rigor to say that, well, we can’t know anything about this or whether it works until all these people are born. No, no, no. As I said, you can prove it on adult siblings and David Reich at Harvard already uses these to reconstruct the ancient past.

Nobody bats an eye. They’re like, well, that’s cool. Nice finding, dude. You know, and so, so really the only reason I think that there’s a lot of controversy around this is A, some companies are not doing this properly, and B it is morally controversial as you know, at least among some people. And so some scientists are looking for any excuse to just say like, this doesn’t work.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Which I, I found very interesting. I, I, I know a, the, the, the scientists will go out there and just be like, oh, there’s no correlation. I, I had a, like a blow up with Telemundo. I don’t know if the interview has gone live with tele the Mexican TV

Simone Collins: stations.

So this clip [00:16:00] actually did somehow go live, , yesterday, and it went viral on Twitter and, , some other platforms. It was crazy. I.

Speaker 2: You’ve said things like black women are biologically different than white women. They, they, they, yes. They have, uh, different fertility windows. They have a higher rate of fertility complications, 50%, but there’s no scientific evidence to prove that. A black woman and a white woman are genetically different, right?

This is like, what are you talking? No, they’re no, no. Like literally, there are genes that code for their skin color. There are genes that, again, this is, I mean this is like government data. This, this is Emmy, right? This is the National Institute of Health. This is an American medical association. Like there, there is no scientific evidence to prove that, and that’s a big problem, right?

Because there’s no scientific, and that’s why I asked like IQ differences. Black people are genetically different from other populations. Yeah. I’ll say that again. There’s it, it, there is at least there is no scientific evidence to prove that. Right. And as people that No, no, no. [00:17:00] I’m, I’m, I’m sorry. I’m stating Do you wanna ask an AI if there’s scientific evidence to prove that?

Speaker 3: No. I wanna ask on, on. Factually incorrect. It’s humans are genetically diverse. It’s not a bad thing that humans, I’m saying it’s No, no, I’m not saying it’s a bad or, or, or a good thing. I’m saying there is no scientific evidence and I’m saying that is a factual, he saying that there is scientific evidence, there is scientific evidence, there is overwhelming scientific evidence on in this basic.

No, no, no. This is like saying the sky’s not blue, like it is genes that code their skin color. Mm-hmm. Right. Those genes are obviously different in them than they are in us. How is that Not science. That’s just like a basic fact. The genes that code their skin color, their level of melanin production are different from my genes that melanin production.

And that’s precisely why I was asking this question. ‘cause I think for some people that do believe like you, that people are genetically different. That has historically been used to promote racial hierarchies. Right. And that’s why I am asking you because, but so what do.

Simone Collins: [00:18:00] Yeah. That’s funny. Yeah. Yeah. So

Malcolm Collins: I was talking with them and I was like, you know, of course I’m not saying you know, that, that any eth ethnic, like, like, that there was any sort of genetic correlation between esic groups tied to intelligence.

I’m just saying that there are obvious genetic differences between ES ethnic groups. And she goes, no, there isn’t. And I was like, wait, what do you mean? There’s no genetic difference between esic groups? And she’s like, well, you

Jonathan Anomaly: know, Malcolm, we can cite our own paper. Alex Young was on the definitive paper two months ago, along with Peter Cher, who’s one of the most famous people in the field in Oxford, and they published a paper using Mexican biobank data.

Showing that type one diabetes is almost entirely a genetic phenomenon, you know? Wow. And specifically the indigenous in the more indigenous components of the Mexican population. Are the ones that are most susceptible. Really. We already suspected that for years, but they proved it beyond, beyond any doubt.

So, wow, Mundo is just wrong and it’s, it’s demonstrably wrong. But

Malcolm Collins: yeah, that was, that was a very fun, I wish I hadn’t known that one off the top of my [00:19:00] head. I just got into like more blame stuff. I was like, wait, so do you think that like black people are taller because they’re less privileged? Like that sound like weird.

Like Joseph Smith’s logic there, right? Like

Jonathan Anomaly: totally forget cognitive traits. Just look around at physical traits. Surely it, the melanin is a

Simone Collins: reaction to systemic racism. Yes. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: It floor up because of the racism and just melanin, fla. I like, this is like weird Lamar and evolution that I’m dealing with here.

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah. It would be an interesting world. Well, you’ve got that, especially below the neck. They’re like that. But like you say, if you just point out traits like height or sprinting ability or whatever, and, and just look at Ethiopians versus Kenyans. I mean, as you know, there’s more ethnic or genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined.

Huge

genetic. And so what you find is Eastern Africans are really good at long distance and west at short distance and everyone else sucks, you know? Mm-hmm. And that’s, that’s the way it goes. You know,

Malcolm Collins: what I was, was, was unaware of, and we have a, a whole video on this this might be too controversial to even talk about here [00:20:00] because we talk about it in this video, but did you know that European populations are genetically closer to Neanderthals than we are to the cosign?

Jonathan Anomaly: Well, that makes sense. There’s more a neanderthal admixture in European population. No, no, I mean

Malcolm Collins: like, like not that we are, sorry, I I am not just the

Jonathan Anomaly: admixture you’re saying. Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Not just the admixture. I mean in terms of I forget the word. It’s like IPI or something like total nucleotide arrangement.

They are a closer ethnic group to us than the co-sign are to us. Yeah. And I was shocked to learn that. I didn’t know that they split off before the co-sign did, but the co-sign had more genetic drift since the split than the Neanderthals had had because Neander Fascinating. I

Jonathan Anomaly: didn’t know that. It makes sense.

I mean, Neanderthals are a pretty relatively recent, you know, branch of, of our species, so. Yep. Makes sense.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Lots of fun stuff there, but let’s jump into intelligence related stuff. Go into the things that cross correlate with intelligence and in terms of like how it affects society as you are [00:21:00] messing with this stuff.

Jonathan Anomaly: Good. Yeah, I, let’s, let’s do it from two different directions. One is gonna, I’m gonna kind of harness the insights from people like Stuart Richie and Russell Warren and really kind of the history of, of intelligence research, at least in the last few decades. And on the other end, I wanna, I wanna address the plyo trophy question, which is, if you select for higher intelligence, along with other traits as well, do you get some unwanted side effects that are either good or bad for, for the kid?

I think both are, are pretty interesting and we found some, some, some cool stuff. So yeah, something that is not original to us, even though we are selecting, we’re offering the ability to select for intelligence, the kind of consensus of intelligence researchers show that, you know, as you move up the, or let’s just say to the right hand side of the bell curve for intelligence.

You get a lot of really interesting outcomes, and some of those outcomes are things like lower rates of addictive disorders, whether it’s smoking, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and there’s no reason to believe that smarter people [00:22:00] are any morally better or that they have more genes that predispose them to resist addiction per se.

It’s not that addictive genes are differentially distributed. It’s rather that, you know, intelligence is correlated with a bunch of interesting things like self-control and time discounting, and so smarter people on average. You know, when you go across a large number of people, they tend to think about the future.

They set goals and they tend to be a bit better at sticking to their goals. Not massively better, but better enough that systematically. For example, on average, you know, Steve Jobs is an exception. You know, he, he went to some quack doctor when he had cancer and died because of that probably. But generally, a brighter person will not only be able to.

Sift through the relevant information better, but they’ll keep their appointments. It’s really simple to think about that. I mean, why wouldn’t you keep your appointment? But the truth is, smarter people do, they, they tend to keep their appointments, pay their bills on time, set plans, and then, and then follow through on them.

And that may seem rudimentary, [00:23:00] but in, in, in the course of a life, that means better health and better outcomes, better jobs, and so on. On the other hand, there’s also the usual stuff, which is like slightly higher income, more scientific achievement. The maybe racier findings. And this is something that, you know, I first learned from Garrett Jones and then we published a paper together.

Maybe you can post it. It’s called cognitive enhancement and network effects. Why individual traits, or rather why individual welfare depends on group traits and

mm-hmm.

What Garrett Jones showed and we argued is when you take a group of, of bright people, they actually tend to be more cooperative. And the reason for that, again, is not that they have morally better motivations, but they can see the benefits of mutual cooperation in the short run for their own long-term gain.

And from a national level, from a company level, from from a neighborhood level, that means weird things like less corruption. Why? Because corruption is often like, look, I can get an immediate payoff now and f**k the whole [00:24:00] institution’s over in the long run. Mm-hmm. Because I’m just thinking about my short run payoff.

Or I can actually follow these short run rules for mutual gain in the long run. And that makes all of us better off, including myself. And so what we find is. It’s really amazing. I mean, there are very few bad things about being brighter. I can tell you one thing that might be the case. Okay. Yeah. And that is, let me find, let, let me first say something that’s been claimed but not replicated and that is Kapinsky in 2018, et l they argued that brighter people are a little bit more prone to depression and actually all, oh, I’ve seen that.

All the other findings have have said that’s wrong and all the findings both before and after. And it looks like that’s really a function of. A very small sample set of specific MENSA members in a specific chapter in la Oh, I imagine

Simone Collins: that like, yeah, if you live in LA and have joined Mensa also just seems like most Mensa members are just very depressing.

You’re already sad. Yeah, exactly.

Jonathan Anomaly: [00:25:00] There’s a selection. Don’t look at that. But all the other research suggests the opposite. The one thing that Oh, that’s so funny has not been settled is it may be the case and some within our company actually do think this is true and some don’t. It may be the case that when you go really far toward the right hand side of the bell curve, you select for Asperger’s.

Some have said there’s about a 0.2 correlation with that. Now that’s not bad in and of itself. If that corresponds with low functioning autism, then it would be bad. But actually you found, yeah, go ahead. And you’ve

Simone Collins: actually, you’ve looked at maybe how to like look at, you’ve looked at potentially including scores in heresy for autism, right?

Like I don’t know if you do yet or if you ever will, but my understanding was. The low functioning autism is just autism plus low iq. Am I wrong with that?

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah, that’s probably wrong. And actually, one of the things that we screen for, first of all, autism is almost certainly multifactorial. Yeah. There’s, there’s definitely genetic components.

Yeah. There’s, and also autism’s

Simone Collins: a, a ad is a collection of [00:26:00] different things is probably Yeah, exactly. It’s, it’s a mess. We,

Jonathan Anomaly: we, we were probably better off when it was two separate things, like Asper. Yeah,

yeah. But

yeah, we do have a full-timer who’s working on this and mm-hmm. And we do now have a predictor that we just call neurodevelopmental disorders or neuro risk.

Mm-hmm. And the idea here, there are rare but sufficiently common variants and, you know, let’s call it 10, 20% of the population.

Mm-hmm.

That genetic variance that is, that correlate with low functioning autism, various other neurological disorders, including even dyslexia and so on. And so, yeah, we do have a predictor for that.

We’re still not really close to cracking the full story of autism. Mm-hmm. But we can select against some forms of low functioning autism. Having said that, to go back to the previous point too, and I’m, I’m glad you mentioned that, Simone. So we did a comprehensive study on plyo trpi and that’s this idea that sometimes one gene or a set of genes will encode for multiple phenotypic effects.

And you know, maybe one is good, but another one’s bad. So you’re selecting for I high iq, but maybe there’s some horrible [00:27:00] thing like, I don’t know, increased risk of breast cancer that you’re gonna get as a side effect.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Jonathan Anomaly: As it turns out, and this was Tobias who, who led this study, we looked at 31 traits that you might target for embryo selection.

Things like 31 traits that we have good scores for, like intelligence, breast cancer, height, and then we looked at the genetic associations with. Thousands of other known diseases, more than a thousand anyway. Wow. And what we found is pleiotropy, where it exists at all, is overwhelmingly positive or neutral.

Meaning that when you select against one disease, you actually get fewer of other diseases too. And when you select in favor of intelligence, you get better mental health overall. Wow.

There’s very few exceptions and I’ll, I’ll go through one. You know, one is an interesting one. And that is, high IQ is a bit associated with anorexia.

Why is, do you guys have a suspicion about why do, like

Malcolm Collins: Yeah,

Simone Collins: so

Malcolm Collins: you have

Simone Collins: I iq It’s, I think it’s about [00:28:00] exerting too much control.

Jonathan Anomaly: I suspect it. So like it’s where

Simone Collins: it goes far. Because you were also talking about the correlation. Between higher IQ and lower disease risk. ‘cause it like, you’re so conscientiously, like, I’m gonna go to my appointments, I’m gonna pay my bills.

And in this case it’s like I’m gonna control what I eat

Malcolm Collins: and every step on

Jonathan Anomaly: the treadmill I’m gonna count and absolute. Absolutely. Explain

Malcolm Collins: the the high IQ correlation with other forms of body dysmorphia, like gender dysphoria. Yeah, possibly. It’s also, if I remember from the research, it’s been shown to correlate,

Simone Collins: well, just anecdotally, you walk around Silicon Valley where all like the brilliant programmers are, and like, there’s so many, there’s so many like, I don’t know, you go to manifest and like half the chicks are dudes, so it’s, it’s kind of hard.

Yeah. Yeah. They’re also like Asians that they pass and they look great, so who cares? It’s all good, you know?

Jonathan Anomaly: I agree. And if you read the book NeuroTribes, that’s, that’s a big part of the story is like Silicon Valley, there’s a selection effect that attracts programmers who are obviously gonna be more likely to be, you know, Asperger than, than not, and so on.

And then they [00:29:00] pair up and have children. And so obviously through assortative mating, you’re gonna get higher rates of. Of at least Asperger’s, if not low functioning. And yeah, I mean, no doubt that’s true. You’re gonna find it in fields like math and so on. But yeah, I mean, back to that point, Simone, I think you’re entirely right.

I’m not a psychiatrist, so I don’t want to give a definitive statement. It sounds plausible, but that’s a case where, you know, it’s not that the genes that cause intelligence are causing you to have bulimia or whatever, it’s rather that again. They’re causing control, these general traits, which are basically great mm-hmm.

But do have some risks and some environments that they’ll, well, and that’s where parasite

Simone Collins: can be really helpful to parents. ‘cause if you know that that’s an, a risk, like yes, parasite and, and polygenic risk or selection with embryos is not just about choosing birth order and, and selecting which embryo to start with.

A, it’s also about understanding the risks that you should be screening for and preparing for. And because we know that, for example, things like autism and eating disorders are risks for our children. We, we prepare for them in ways where when you intervene early, you can make the difference between [00:30:00] someone having an eating disorder that manifests poorly versus one that’s manageable.

And like it took my parents too long to figure out how to make my anorexia manageable. Where like, it’s totally not a problem for me. Like so now there’s irreversible osteoporosis and fertility problems. But because we know now how to manage it and how that need for control can be exerted. We don’t have to worry about that in our own kids.

Yeah. And parents who are concerned about that and they know their kid has that risk, can just prepare to do that.

Malcolm Collins: I also wanted to point something out here for, for watchers of our show who are like, oh, this is, you know, choosing which embryos end up getting implanted and which ones don’t get implanted which is, you know, killing embryos, which is it, it was the current science factually we’re sort of past that part of history.

While some people will use it that way. We have now had successful germline gene editing used to resolve serious genetic conditions that were spotted through technology like this. Specifically, there was a [00:31:00] case where so far it’s healthy. A fetus that had been born, the conceived with an extra chromosome had the extra, this, this would’ve had down syndrome had the extra chromosome successfully removed.

Now, a, a human who would’ve lived their entire life with Down Syndrome will not live their life with Down syndrome because of this kind of technology, right. Which is scanning for this stuff. And as we get further with this technology, I, I’m not, I’m talking even a few years. Because a lot of our followers are younger.

If you are not using this kind of technology and one of your kids was faded to die at three of cancer and that could have been resolved through a, a germline intervention, which we’re also funding, right? That, that you are responsible for that, that that was sort of your moral vanity, spent the life of your child just as much as Jehovah’s witnessed it, refused a blood transfusion because it was unnatural, or it doesn’t work perfectly every time.

Or, you know, if God [00:32:00] wanted them to die. If you look at that person who refused a blood transfusion for their. And you look at them with moral revulsion, be aware that there are people in the future, maybe even your own children who will look at you that way as this technology continues to develop. So while we’re just at the beginning now, and even I agree, I see it as morally sketchy to say, which, which we are not saying we’re gonna use some of our embryos and not others.

We’re just using it for ordering. But we are entering an era very soon and we’ve already entered this era officially, where that’s not the only use case or potentially even the core use case of technology like this.

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah. Good. Let me address both of those points. First I really like Simone’s point about, you know, in the rare cases where we do have negative or antagonistic pleiotropy, they’re, they’re very rare, but they’re gonna be there.

It, it may turn out that there is a, a really small correlation, for example, between intelligence and, and autism. And, and if that’s true, just like there is between height and heart conditions, when you [00:33:00] get really, really tall. You are more likely to have, you know, various kinds of cardiovascular problems.

And we can obviously understand why, right? The heart has to support a bigger body in cases like that. You know, the truth is like, maybe I would like an extra inch or two of height. But you know, our CEO and founder Michael, I mean he’s six seven,

Jonathan Anomaly: he wants to select for shorter kids. Why? ‘cause you know, when you’re, when you’re at the fertility clinic and not in the mating market, you’re thinking about the health of your kids.

Not just like how sexy they are or whatever, you know? Are they just taller than average? So, so the truth is like actually even in those rare cases of antagonistic ptro, it’s actually good for parents to know about it. Mm-hmm. So they can then select accordingly and optimize. And to your point, Malcolm.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, look, one point I like to make is natural sex, natural pregnancies. About half of ‘em result in spontaneous abortion. You guys know this, you’ve talked about it. Most of those aneuploidy cases are not mere downs. I mean, we [00:34:00] all recognize if you have down syndrome. You know, you should not only be respected, you should be honored.

You can live a good life with Down syndrome, but the vast majority are not downs. They’re actually completely incompatible with life. And so if you think that the body is flushing those out naturally, which it is in many, many cases, there’s no difference between separating out those embryos in the lab ahead of time and thereby increasing the chance that you’ll have a successful pregnancy.

Then, you know, having a bunch of miscarriages and then doing it the so-called natural way. So, you know, that’s, that’s my view of that situation. I mean, apart from the moral status of embryos, I’m gonna debate that on. Louise Perry’s show pretty soon here, but, oh, you are? Well, have you, have you heard

Malcolm Collins: my long debate on this?

Because I, I talk about it a lot on this show. But when I’m talking about it on the show, I’m often talking about it to a different audience than you’re used to me. Exactly. So the, the, the Yeah, exactly. The arguments I often use that I do not see used enough is first that if God if it was the case that in, in soul [00:35:00] happened at conception, then identical twins wouldn’t exist and human kyras wouldn’t exist because if that’s the case, then identical twins have the same soul.

They are humans sharing a soul. ‘cause

Jonathan Anomaly: embryos twin, in other words, like let’s say a week after you’ve created the embryo, the body has created. Sometimes by sheer accident, when they’re, when the cells are dividing, the embryo basically accidentally becomes a twin, and it’s like mm-hmm. At that stage, do you now have two souls or one or five?

Malcolm Collins: Right. It’s a weird idea. I’ve never seen a good, and, and human kyras are when two embryos combine into one embryo and a person might have parts of their brain,

Jonathan Anomaly: they ole, right? Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. They have, how does this work? Right? Yeah. So I think that, that, that if, and what’s important to note is animals, mammals have children that are kyras or identical twins at different rates.

Some mammals have no identical twins or human kyras. In some mammals it’s like 40% of them are human, are, are chimes. This is in some primate species. If God had wanted humans to not have [00:36:00] chimes or identical twins, he could have made that the case. If God had wanted to say, I knew you. When you were conceived in your mother’s womb instead of before you were conceived in your mother’s womb, he could have had that written as well.

And yet the Bible very clearly says before, which is why many of the early, even Catholic thinkers so Augustus of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, I remember one was pretty concretely and Soloman happened seven days after an embryo begins to develop. And the other just didn’t have an opinion on this yet.

And I will note here that people say, well, you know, the church has always been against the killing of children. However, a child is defined even loosely, and I completely agree with this,, the, or even forms of abortion, right? Which I also agree with the church has, has historically looked down on that.

, However, the problem , is that depending on when insolvement happens, you are killing a child by not using this technology potentially because it also finds things like cancer [00:37:00] risk and stuff like that, you can potentially kill a child by not using it.

If it turns out that in installment happens after conception, , and if you told these early thinkers that a child could die because this is not used, I think that that’s where this becomes a more morally tricky argument, even within the context of the early church.

But I, when, when they begin to develop opinions on this the opinions that the church developed didn’t really get solidified into PO pious the Knights.

And this was only about 200 years ago. And if you go to the early Catholic thinkers and you’re like, yeah, so, you know, we could, through using this technology prevent a child from dying at like two or, or have a healthy child instead, I don’t think any of them would be like, oh yeah, you, you should, you should sacrifice the life of the, the sickly child.

Jonathan Anomaly: They simply, they simply didn’t know a lot of this biology too. I mean, obviously, and you know, the truth is. You know, I, I, I have great respect for, for Catholicism and, and Christianity, and [00:38:00] many of my friends are Catholic. But the truth is, as you guys know, I mean, a lot of ‘em will call the current pope like a commie, you know?

Like they don’t listen to him, actually. Right. It’s true.

Simone Collins: We were just talking about that. And they

Jonathan Anomaly: know, they know, as we all do too, you know. God may be perfect, but his representatives on Earth are imperfect and they’re partly political appointments. Right. Bishops elect them through a Democratic election and you know, apply your Curtis Jarvin analysis to that.

So, I mean, you know, it’s not clear like. What one Pope says in a particular moment. Time

Malcolm Collins: is, what’s that? The pope who solidified the life begins at conception thing. Yeah. And he’s the pope who ripped the penises off of all the statues. He’s the pope who wrote the syllabus of errors that called for a Catholic caliphate.

You know, he, he wasn’t exactly you know, I, I think a, a, a, from my perspective, he sort of represented Catholicism to drift towards Islamism as, as like a, and by the way,

Jonathan Anomaly: Islam recognizes IVF as completely fine. So [00:39:00] interestingly. To the extent that we, you know, we, we

Malcolm Collins: mention this all the time when we’re on news shows.

So we do news in Italy and France and Germany and in all of those countries, you basically cannot do IVF because you can only do live transfers. And I always tell them, I go, I don’t mind that you’re gonna be Muslim majority soon, because I would be legally allowed to have kids under Sharia law. And I am not legally allowed to have kids in your country as it’s structured right now.

We had one listener write us angrily and they go, they’re, you know, what was it, infertility’s not permanent. And I’m like, no, some forms of infertility are pretty permanent.

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah. And, and another, another argument on that front, on the infertility front, you know, are you gonna blame a generation of men for having lower sperm counts and testosterone?

They didn’t deserve that, and it’s not. You know, it can’t be just genetic change that, you know, our grandparents had. However, 40% higher rates, clearly it’s the environment, and clearly if that can do it in one generation, it’s reversible. So if you’re infertile now, you should still be having [00:40:00] children, right?

Yeah. Unless you’re passing along some horrific. You know, life-ending disease. Yeah. But

Simone Collins: it’s probably more that you’re like, mom microwaved all your food in plastic bags. Yeah.

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah. Microplastics, who knows what it is.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So there, there was a study done on this that showed that by 2060, 50% of men in the developed world are gonna be in fertile.

So, cultural groups that refuse to use fertility assisted technology are going to really struggle. Exactly. Genes

Jonathan Anomaly: and cultures co-evolve. And I always like to say like, look guys, first of all, we all know that China will be using this technology, so will Singapore. You know, right now it’s still new. They haven’t heard of it necessarily, but they already subsidize IVF to boost their birth rates.

Israel does the same thing. Mm-hmm. Israel and the Emirates also subsidize genetic testing for people who are doing IVF. Yeah. Or forming a, a, a union in the UAE. And so this is just the next step and the idea that the moral landscape just is gonna be as it is right now and not evolve. You know, I mean, it just ignores [00:41:00] history.

Like the Catholic church’s position will absolutely evolve on this issue. Mm-hmm. It did in our lifetime, or our grandparents’ lifetimes. Remember initially they were against, for example, adding respirators because what were you doing? Like if you were dying, you know, that was God’s will. Oh, so respirators were playing

Simone Collins: God, oh

Jonathan Anomaly: no.

Now it’s mandatory. Now you’re playing God if you remove a respirator. And so like these things evolve and I’m not mocking the Pope or the Catholic church. I’m just saying. We all recognize these things evolve and you know, it’s not clear that what the stance is right now is just sort of God’s word, or he would’ve put it in the Bible.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. That makes, anyway, I didn’t mean this to be a

Jonathan Anomaly: from any of us, but yeah,

Malcolm Collins: it would’ve been easy to put something in the Bible other than I knew you before you were in your mother’s womb, right? Yeah. Like, it, it would’ve been incredibly easy. That’s like a huge oversight to not, and by that he

Jonathan Anomaly: means the soul, whatever the soul is, he doesn’t mean a specific sperm cell or embryo or something like that.

Exactly. Embryos are being created and destroyed all the time, naturally. So yeah, we, we

Malcolm Collins: [00:42:00] go deep on this in some of our stuff, but yeah,

Simone Collins: no. So, one I might have to run to get the, the kids for their a i therapy, speaking of early interventions, so I might, I did, I’m just warning that I might bounce, but Malcolm’s gonna stay on in case I have to leave early.

We wanna get also to, to the, the global element of this where if you’re outside the US and you can’t necessarily have your embryo sequenced, how can you still get polygenic scores for your embryos?

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah. So our big innovation, one of the reasons that we stayed in stealth a bit longer than it originally planned is we have a, a patent pending on this.

Who knows if it’ll be honored, but I think it will. And that is this idea that we can take data from a common genetic task that’s offered at every IVF clinic in the world. You could be in Italy, you could be in the us, you could be in China, and we’re, we don’t serve every country in the world. We’ll get into that, but you could technically do it from anywhere in the world.

And the idea is you can get this pre-implantation genetic test for aneuploidy, this test for chromosomal problems like down [00:43:00] anywhere in the world. And what we can do is ask you to request your raw genetic data from that test, which it’s your HIPAA right here, it’s GDPR rights in Europe. And other countries have similar, have similar laws where you own your genetic data and the data of your, your embryos.

And since that test is offered anywhere, but it’s very low coverage, genetic data, what we do is we patented this, this algorithm thanks to Alex Young and, and others on our team where we, we do short and long read sequencing on the parents. So we get a really deep genomic sequence of the parents, and then we can put that together with the PGTA data to get an idea of the whole genome of each discrete embryo, which of course are different from each other.

And in and of itself, that’s just kind of a, a cool mathematical puzzle. And the way it works is basically you’re inheriting large chunks of DNA from mom and dad. And if, if you know something about the start and stop points for those blocks and then a little bit in between, then you can sequence the parents and fill those in those,

it’s so cool.[00:44:00]

It turns out it’s a lot harder to do mathematically than it is to describe the way I am. And you know, that’s why I’m not on the science team. Yeah. I’m, you know, I’m sort of on the comms team and, and doing some of the other things in the company. But, but anyway that allows

people, I’ll give you an example.

Somehow someone heard about our X thread when we, when we launched in Mongolia on the radio, people were local influencers were doing tiktoks or whatever it was, and they called us up and they’re like, Hey, can you service in Mongolia? And no other company can do that because they need to have a, a partnership with a clinic and then maybe hold genome, sequence the embryo, or do some other method.

But we can just be like, yeah, no, no problem. Like as long as, as long as the laws there allow you to select an embryo of your choice, we can serve you. Now, I will say a caveat here, as usual, Europe is way behind. And so we don’t serve Europeans directly. Like if they wanna fly, that’s fine. They can come to California, they can go to Cyprus, and it’s all legal there.

But even though [00:45:00] we technically could serve Europeans very easily through this process I just mentioned, we don’t right now because we don’t wanna get in trouble with, with European governments. We do, however, urge your followers, wherever you are in the world to assert your rights and make sure your governments are saying like, look, there’s a choice here.

Either we get to select our embryos, either we own our genetic data, or the government does. And you guys have heard as much as I do the word eugenics thrown around here, who’s engaged in coercive government-sponsored eugenics. Is it seriously? Is it? Well, no. So what we point out is the data. Let you use the data to make your decision?

Or is it rather the government who’s saying, no, we’re gonna, by force of law, prevent you from accessing your own data? The coercive EU genesis, not, not us. Right. So, well, I

Malcolm Collins: think a, I think a better way to make this argument is, is to point out that, you know, where this technology is going is journaling, gene editing, right?

And it’s clearer who the eugenics is [00:46:00] when we are talking about the legality of germline gene editing, because that is a government saying that people with specific genetic patterns do not have a right to exist, and they will co coercively prevent those human beings existence because of what their gene said.

Mm-hmm. That is just plainly eugenics. And these are people who your kids will know and interact with, and they’ll be like, yeah, I’m not allowed to exist in France or Germany, or whatever. And my favorite point on this is everybody oh, oh, oh. Do you really Like when I, when I talked to, you know, I, I was like, the problem, ‘cause I was talking to a German reporter about this.

Do you think we were mad at the Nazis? ‘cause they wanted to make people healthier. We were mad at the Nazis because they were controlling who could have kids and how, and she responded to and

Jonathan Anomaly: murdering people. She like, do you really think including Germans? Yeah. Do

Malcolm Collins: you really think like 1950s Americans were, were fighting in World War II with the hope of like, scientists being able to genetically augment a human to be stronger.

And I said the very face of anti-Nazi propaganda was Captain [00:47:00] America, a human whose scientists augmented to be better. This is, this has always been what this side of the fight has been about against the, the opposite side of the fight. It’s

Jonathan Anomaly: silly. And I, you know, I I I make that point as a rhetorical one.

Yours is partly rhetorical too about your, yeah. But of course, you know, in my academic career, I mean, as a philosopher, I mean, I was asked for example, to participate in a debate and I wrote a paper called Defending Eugenics. But of course. What I meant by that, and I was absolutely clear by it, is, of course, individual eugenics where you can make choices to improve the welfare of your children.

Mm-hmm. You know, I always use Leonard Darwin’s definition of eugenics. He, he was the president of the Eugenics Society and Son of Leonard, of Charles Darwin, and he said, eugenics is the study of heredity as it may be used to improve the mental and physical wellbeing of humanity. And it’s like, well, if that’s how you define it, great.

And then the only question is who gets to decide? So, you know, I don’t have like, an interest in like, oh, this, this is or [00:48:00] isn’t eugenics, who cares? That’s just a word. It’s like, it’s like settling or trying to settle the abortion debate by just saying, well, I’m pro-choice. And like, are you against choice?

Well, that, okay, now you’re just using rhetoric. Like obviously the question is what’s the moral status of the fetus? And is this, you know, is the mother in the best position to decide, or the state. Same thing here. So I don’t really like, you know, engaging these debates about eugenics, but again, if they’re gonna levy that charge against us and then just drop the mic.

It’s like, hold on here, dude. We’re the ones who are arguing that individuals and parents have the Right, right. You guys are the ones arguing for restrictions, so don’t take the f*****g moral high ground on us.

Simone Collins: Exactly. Yeah. Okay, I’m gonna, umm, Malcolm, if you can wrap this up with I, I’ll wrap it up with Johnny.

I’ll wrap it up. Hey, you don’t have to wrap it up fast. I’m just, I have to run to get the kids.

Malcolm Collins: Simone. I, I would like to try to do beef orange beef tonight and I will bring back the ingredients for the sauce. It’s just cooked the way we’ve been doing the beef every other night. Pan frying, except the sauce uses an orange and a bit of orange wines that I’m gonna [00:49:00] pick up from the grocery store when I get some beer.

We have

Simone Collins: Clementines Orange. Can I use that? We have orange. I mix in the show, by

Malcolm Collins: the way, but

Simone Collins: we have Clementines. Sorry, we always Oh, clementines. Yeah, you can use Clementines. That’s fine. Then you don’t need to go to the store. Anyway, I’m, I’m jumping and you guys can wrap up here and Yes. Order received.

Malcolm, I sent

Malcolm Collins: the ingredient, the, the list on WhatsApp, or you can look up a recipe.

Simone Collins: Okay, perfect. And Johnny, thank you so much. I’m sorry for bouncing early but I’m so glad you’re on the show and we were really excited to run this. So yeah, thank you. Carry on.

Malcolm Collins: Great to see you. Thanks. Yeah. Great. Okay, so, any, any final things you wanted to go over?

Neil, I don’t really have any particular agenda. What are you, what are you thinking about with Elise Perry show? Is this your first time doing it?

Jonathan Anomaly: No, it was on a couple years ago, but yeah, I mean, she wanted, she just had Diana Fleischman and Lineman Stone, two people that I know you know as well. Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jonathan Anomaly: Debate eugenics, which is of course partly a semantic debate, partly a substantive one. Then she wanted someone to do specifically PGTP pre-implantation genetic testing for polygenic [00:50:00] traits. I’m obviously the face of that in, in a sense, even though I’m not, you know, the, the best scientist on our team. But I’ve been kind of the spokesman, so I’m the obvious choice and we’re looking for an opponent and you know, have a really healthy debate.

So, yeah, we’ll see.

Malcolm Collins: Well, do you, do you guys have an opponent? Our audience can

Jonathan Anomaly: yeah. I mean, she’s looking, she’s asked someone, so we’ll see. We’ll see what they say. But yeah, I mean, what I’m excited for, like, for our company in the space, ‘cause I’m not necessarily here to show us. Of course we always like customers.

It’s great, you know, you can go to parasite.com, but I’m, I’m actually much more excited just about the whole space. I think the idea of, you know, reducing disease in the world that, that’s bad is ridiculous. Like, all of us spend so much time worrying about health. Going to the gym and whatever, eating, right?

And so like, I just think this is a really f*****g great tool. Like we’re gonna increase health, marginally increase intelligence. And obviously there’s a bridge technology, like you said. I mean, I’ve written about it in my book, like I’m super excited about the [00:51:00] future. I think this is one of the few things we should be excited about.

Like there’s been so many great inventions, you know, basic plumbing, you know, reduced disease risk, antibiotics, et cetera. And to me, biotechnology when it’s done right and genetics when it’s done right, this is gonna be the biggest boon to human welfare. And personally, you know, just to, just to add another thought on that, I’m not personally a transhumanist.

I’m not someone who wants to upload my brain into the cloud. I know some people who do and that’s fine. But at the very least, surely we can agree that it’s better if we can live like longer, healthier lives, be a bit brighter, a bit more creative, et cetera. And I just think this is step one to doing this and.

You know, you might worry about, yeah, go ahead.

Malcolm Collins: It’s an interesting technology to think about because it’s not a technology that is going to be used by the next generation and the way it was used by this generation, because germline gene editing will presumably be mainstream and inexpensive by the time we have the next generation, in which case this technology will move to a [00:52:00] preventative and associative technology to germline gene editing.

Jonathan Anomaly: Actually we’ll probably be combining the two of ‘em because I think you’re still gonna have, like if you do the equivalent of IVF or rather IVG, which I’m sure you’ve talked about, you know, you take an adult cell, turn it into a whatever you know, you’re still gonna have a range of different outcomes and a basic sort of, you know, you might call it a genetic deck, and then you stack it by first selecting one of the embryos and then secondly.

Touching it up with editing. I actually think like it may be a little ways longer than many people think. I don’t have strong views, but I talk to people at the church lab and, and the Broad Institute and I think massive multiplex editing, which is what you would really need, like hundreds or thousands of genes to really get big effects.

That may be a ways away, but you know what’s, what’s also coming very soon after that and maybe even before, and that is creating entire chromosomes from scratch. I mean, that may sound science fictiony, but there are many people working on this now, and when you think about it, gene editing is a really delicate thing.

You’ve got billions of base pairs and to like edit [00:53:00] one by one and not have off-target effects, it’s harder than you might think. It might actually end up being easier in the long run to just create entire genomes from scratch. Think as crazy as that sounds. Well, I think AI

Malcolm Collins: changes a lot of the probabilities in this space.

Yep. Where historically I would’ve agreed with you, but now I’m sort of, of the perspective as AI continues to develop AI’s ability. It turned out there’s been some research on this that AI is just very good at predicting genetic effects and modeling genomes. And so, it turns out that we’re probably gonna get, you know, five, 10 years from now, the AI will probably be fairly accurate at this stuff,

Jonathan Anomaly: but we still need a good editing system.

So the problem with CRISPR and also all of its descendants is off target mutations. And again, if you’re, even if you had like a 3% probability of that, okay, it would be good to fix a single broken gene. Right. But not, not hundreds or thousands. And so, you know, there’s gonna be some stuff that has to be worked out and whatever, but I’m, I’m all hopeful for it.

I know you are too. I, I thought I would say one more thing. I mean, if we’re, if we’re closing, I mean. A lot of people worry about [00:54:00] egalitarian objections and, you know, I’m not an egalitarian, so I’ll just say that. And, you know, I, I agree more with Nietzsche that mankind is judged by its highest specimens.

You know, not, not just mere life. You know, that’s not what, that’s not what is what’s important. But, you know, even from an egalitarian standpoint, and I am sympathetic to some extent, you know, when you think about what really impedes people’s ability to, to really flourish in life, I mean, one of the main things is just having a poorly functioning immune system.

My, my grandmother had a bunch of autoimmune diseases and she couldn’t leave the house, and yet she was the smartest person in our family by far. So the idea is, look, to the extent that we have inequalities, a lot of ‘em, not all of ‘em are genetic. And who’s gonna benefit the most from this technology in the long run?

It’s actually those people who have the worst genetic luck. I mean, in a sense, they’re not gonna be born instead of sibling. That’s a lot like them would be born. When we’re talking about the distant future or future people, you don’t just have [00:55:00] some abstract right to be born. I mean, there’s a trillion potential combinations of eggs and sperm, right?

Yeah. The idea is to create future people that are basically on average gonna be healthy and thrive. And, and I mean, to me, like that’s just really great. And if we have a few more Von Neumanns in the population, we have more inequality, but we also have more cool s**t in the world and in the, and then in the end, we also are gonna get, in some ways less inequality.

Not that that’s the only thing I care about, simply because a lot of these, this low hanging fruit, you know, really low intelligence or really bad diseases are simply gonna be cured. And so, like, I just see that as a, as a win-win, it’s gonna be a better world. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. No, I, I I mean, I’m ex I’m excited for, for the technology that’s coming down the pipeline right now.

It’s really cool. And I, and I, it’s, it’s funny the people who are mortified by this technology. They always assume that everyone else on the right is gonna be mortified by this technology. And I think they’re often [00:56:00] quite surprised that no, most people just do not care. Especially in their

Jonathan Anomaly: private lives.

People want the best for their children, whatever they publicly say. Yeah. Like,

Malcolm Collins: To my knowledge, Nick Fuce was born via IVF,

Jonathan Anomaly: you know, FAIC

Malcolm Collins: Pro Catholic, anti IVF guy, right? Yeah.

Jonathan Anomaly: I don’t, I don’t wanna be on Nick Fuentes team, but, okay. That’s true. By the way, can I, can I say something? You know, I don’t know if you were gonna mention Tism.

I, I know this doesn’t have much to do with it, but the truth is, you know, I, I agree with you. I’m really worried about birth rates. I think any reasonable person would be, if you, if you love humanity, you, you want us to survive. And, and, you know, we’ve, we’ve had many customers already, by the way, and, and many are religious or on the right as well, who are going to have a kid that they wouldn’t have had if it weren’t so for polygenic selection.

And the reason is they have a family history of disease or they were infertile, especially the, the former. You know, we’ve had real people worry like, look, I don’t wanna have a kid if it means that they’re gonna have these horrible diseases, but if I can embryo [00:57:00] select, they’re much less likely to, so we’re gonna have more kids.

Like this is actually a prenatal pro-family technology. And I know not everyone’s gonna agree with us on that, but like, it it is, it’s objectively, I mean, it creates

Malcolm Collins: more humans and healthier ones. So yeah. More, more adult humans, people can say, well, do you consider an embryo human? But it creates more adult humans.

And I, and I would note I do consider most embryos, humans just not at the exact, like, I consider potential

Jonathan Anomaly: humans myself, but like yeah, we can parse words. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But, but in terms of like living adults, which is the thing that Tism is concerned about, obviously this is, we get more of them.

Jonathan Anomaly: Yeah, exactly.

Malcolm Collins: But yeah, it’s been great to have you on. Great. To catch up. Yeah. Any, any new projects you’re working on yourself?

Jonathan Anomaly: Well, no, basically we’re trying to spread this to, to the world and, and find ways of doing this. But obviously I’m always writing, we, we just put on our website an ethics of embryo screening paper.

And what we really wanna do next is in addition to offering more and better traits, we’re, we’re always trying to do that, including potentially personality [00:58:00] or severe depression that you could select against.

Yeah, we’re

especially interested in doing more of these plyo tr studies. My worry always was as an academic, like, look, this is probably gonna be net good, but maybe there’s all this hidden plyo tr where we’re gonna get all these bad unexpected effects.

But the more we learn about it, the more we learn. That’s not true. And, and, yeah, I wanna dig into this because I think it’s really good news and it’s really important for people, you know, doctors. A lot of people in the industry, the fertility industry, they just don’t keep up with genetics. And so the more we discover about it and the more we publish in mainstream journals, the more attention they’re gonna have to pay and just change their views.

So I really wanna be on my soapbox and like make the arguments and kind of be part of the epistemic change in the world that makes us more acceptable.

Malcolm Collins: Well, great. Great to have you on.

Jonathan Anomaly: Thanks for having me. Great to catch up.

Speaker: That. What do you think Indy? What do you think? [00:59:00] Is this Indy’s first time seeing snow? Yeah, I think so. Oh, are you guys thinking snow angels get up Octavia and look at the angel. You did a really good job actually. What do you think, girl?

Is it kind of cold?

It is just for professor. Girl. You’re okay. Hey Professor. It’s so snowy out today. Yeah, it’s, Hey, you want me to get the chickens today so you don’t freeze? Um,

snow.

Oh, see, that’s the yellow snow. That’s what I say. Yeah. We should not eat that. Yeah, don’t, don’t eat the yellow snow. Right guys, you Andy, let’s as house. Wow. That is so beautiful. [01:00:00] You’re all good. Girl

pack Dad. No, not right now, buddy.

Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into a provocative new hypothesis: Could some trans urges in humans be driven by the same evolutionary mechanism seen in other species — the “sneaky copulator” strategy? Low-status males in certain animals change their physiology to mimic females in order to infiltrate harems and reproduce covertly. Could a similar adaptive response explain elevated rates of extreme brutality, sadism, and aggression observed in trans respondents compared to cis counterparts (drawing from Aella’s massive dataset and historical sexology research)?

We explore:

* Why trans individuals show significantly higher interest in violent and brutal sexual categories

* Historical links between cross-dressing/transvestism and sadomasochism in early psychology

* How modern cultural signals of disempowerment might trigger these ancient fallback strategies

* Connections to mass shooters, sexual violence patterns, and more

This is a controversial, evidence-based exploration of human sexual adaptation — not hate, but an attempt to understand complex phenomena through evolutionary biology.

Episode Transcript:Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Anyway, so, the point that I’m making here is he might have actually been, ironically, right, the phenomenon that drives trans urges.

In humans might be the exact same phenomenon that drives trans physiological differences in other species. Wow.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. We have done a video in the past where we document with extensive notes how extremely overrepresented trans people are among mass shooters. And at the video we joke, you know, when somebody says I’m trans, they might as well be.

Speaker 7: Nice to meet you, . Listen, if you ever need anybody murdered. Please give me a call and you, you’re giving him card. No.

Code of ethics. I will kill anyone anywhere. Children, animals, old people, doesn’t matter. I just love killing

Speaker 6: you.

Malcolm Collins: And in that video we go over some hypotheses on what could be causing this, but I have since dug into more research on this particular [00:01:00] topic, and I’m going to expand my hypotheses on this. In a way that expands an entirely new section of my hypothesis on human sexual behavior.

So specifically if you look at because ALA is the best source of data on this. If you look at like really, if you’re looking at any sort of data on sexuality. You either have to look at data sets that came from before the eighties because after that, you know, the, the gender police took over all of the gender science departments and they weren’t able to publish anything that made any of their preferred peoples potentially look questionable.

So you’re either looking at those data sets or alas which is why, just so people know her dataset is enormous.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Her sample sizes are. Extremely enviable. It’s, it’s

Malcolm Collins: around half a million responses, by the way. And people are like, oh, they’re, no. I think now I was just

Simone Collins: reading one of her pe it was in the 800 thousands now.

Malcolm Collins: Wow. Yeah. And, and people will say, oh, her data sets are highly biased. And I’m like, actually they’re not highly biased because she’s [00:02:00] normalizes them all the time. And she finds that they match mainstream statistics. And the vast

Simone Collins: majority of respondents are not her followers. Her survey has gone viral.

Several times on multiple different platforms. Plus it is really good SEO So again, that’s not it either.

Malcolm Collins: Sorry, I’m writing something I wanna ask her to add to the survey. Of same sex attracted people in heterosexual marriages because I love seeing their happiness and satisfaction rankings.

Simone Collins: That would be fascinating. Yes, I heard

Malcolm Collins: there was a study on this, but I haven’t been able to find it, so if I can get it from her dataset, that’d be awesome. But anyway, going to her dataset.

If we are looking at the brutality category which is defined as arousal from extreme violence in porn sex, EG Gores, if you’re beating, et cetera rated zero, not arousing to five very arousing.

If you look at cis min. The rating that you get for this is 0.23. If you look at trans men, it’s 0.83. Okay? [00:03:00] That’s different. Look at, if you look at cis women, it’s 0.21. If you look at trans women, it’s 0.58. So like off the charts higher in both cases, well over two times higher. And in I think

Simone Collins: really very small portions of

Malcolm Collins: each, around four x higher for men.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: So what the heck’s going on here? Right? And then if you look at the percentage with at least. Some interest in that sort of stuff. For cis men, it’s 6%. For trans men, it’s 22%. For cis women, it’s 6%. For trans women, it’s 15%. Okay.

Simone Collins: Wow. Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So, just some more notes on a-list study here before we go further on this.

‘cause I always find that fun. The rare cases were violent preference flips slightly male leaning overall, but trans respondents, especially trans men, pull it [00:04:00] way higher than cis baselines. Trans people in general score elevated on this for broader violent slash aggressive categories. EG.

Choking, slapping pain, humiliation, degradation, sadism, consensual non-consent. CSNC. Her data consistently shows women, cis plus trans women prefer this significantly over men, generally speaking. And trans respondents are elevated versus they’re cis counterparts in nearly all kink categories, but especially the aggressive ones.

Mm-hmm. With trans men frequently on the top of sadism and brutality and dominance sections. Mm. Categories like. Forced orgasms, choking, slapping, and pain are all female led with cis women being bigger than cis men. Now this is just the other thing that we are always mentioning on the show.

I really hate this myth that women are into weird, kinky stuff because men have twisted them in some way. That does not appear to be the case. No. I’m gonna go over quickly for those who don’t know my. The [00:05:00] rater versus caregiver arousal spectrum in males.

Oh.

So this is important to understand before we go further, because I’m going to be updating it. So what I pointed out is that historically men within monogamous societies, and we actually believe men and women have well, especially women, have a dynamic sexuality that flips when they believe they’re in a religionist society.

And they begin to desire different things from their partners. When they feel that like, and their biology is evolved to adapt to this, but men also have an evolved and adapted biology and there are different optimums that a man might be in. So for example, the way a woman would act if she happened to be born into a society that was ous is going to be very different from a genetic standpoint and optimal genetic standpoint that if she happens to be born in a society that is monogamous, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And this is why we argue that the more men a woman sleep with, the less oxytocin she gets from sex, meaning the less she is likely to sort of be forced to fall in [00:06:00] love with whoever she is sleeping with, because that becomes less beneficial as she, the more, the more ous, the more she’s being passed around.

And she, it’s not a good thing. You don’t want that happening. It’s going to lead to bad choices in, in regards to your reproductive success. But I also point out that men historically had two key environments especially successful men, in which the a preferable arousal pattern would’ve been entirely different.

Environment number one is, mm-hmm. They are in a monogamous relationship. So we’re, we’re talking about monogamous here. Obviously men don’t need that much adaption between monogamy and polygeny. By that what I mean is, a, a man generally will like his wife want to dedicate himself to her want to keep her safe even if he has multiple wives.

Yeah, he still benefits those wives are like his property basically, of keeping them safe and treating them gently. But then there’s a separate environment that was also [00:07:00] historically very important to male genetic fitness, which was when you are a rating, when you are a viking, when you are out on the battlefield or conquering a region.

In these scenarios you would want to adapt a very, very different sexual profile. And these are women who you see as disposable in your mind as a male. And we argue that actually a lot of current sort of male weirdness around sexuality or male sexual perversion comes from men beginning to define themselves by their sexuality at an age before they have a monogamous partner.

If they engage with their sexuality through pornography or erotic literature. And, all of these women in their brain are gonna be categorized as disposable. These women, their brain is going to categorize the same way. It would categorize a woman from a town that they had just conquered and were [00:08:00] Yeah, if they were raiding,

Simone Collins: yeah, if they were just a traveling raider or soldier.

Malcolm Collins: And so their brain is going to relate to these, or if they’re just sleeping around a ton in school, like suppose they’re like Chatty Von Ton or whatever, alpha on whatever app, right. You know, getting the 80% of women, right. Yeah. They’re, they’re, they’re, they’re. A arousal system, they’re going to react as if they just conquered a village.

Right. And so this is why women, when they’re matching these top 2% of guys and, and sometimes men, when they are defining their sexuality in regards to the categories of porn that they’re into, think that what they are into is a much more. Brutalist or violent form of sexuality than what they’re actually into.

Because they, they would not feel that way if they were in a monogamous relationship.

Simone Collins: Well, but no, but I mean, they are actually into it. It just happens to be that the environmental cues that are surrounding them are prompting them to be aroused. More

Malcolm Collins: violent

Simone Collins: things. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yes, yes, yes.

Absolutely. And this, and I think that women can make the same mistake. Women can think, oh, I’m into this, or I’m into this. And it’s [00:09:00] really that, no, you’re only into this because your body thinks that you. Sex slave. That’s, that’s why you think you like these things. It is not that you would like these things if you had four kids and were married to a guy.

Right. You know, and, and you actually see this with, in like BDSM and stuff like this. I, it is, it is fairly rare from what I’ve seen, of people who are into BDSM to continue to be into BDSM after kid three. Mm-hmm. That is really more of a, a, a single lifestyle thing that that is, that is kept up because they incorporated into their identity and then they’re with someone for a while.

And then it’s like, are we really still into this? Like, you know, like I, I, but anyway, where does this, where, where, where do trans people come in? Where, where does the, the trans stuff come in? The trans stuff comes in because I think that I hadn’t considered. The very historically low, sexually valued males would need to take on an entirely alternate sexual strategy.

Now [00:10:00] before we go into what this alternate sexual strategy is, let’s go into a number of research papers that came out in the early days. Because I wanna point out that it’s not just ALA’s data that is showing this or the recent data on. Mass shooters, and if people are like, oh, mass shooters aren’t overwhelmingly trans, we point out, I think it’s, in the last five years, there have been more trans mass shootings and there have been female, like cis female mass shootings since the 1980s.

It’s like bad. So anyway. If we’re, if we’re talking about female shooters, ‘cause if you were looking at a graph of shooters, it looks like there’s been an explosion in female shooters. Yeah.

Okay. Richard von Coft Ebbing this one was with additions up to 1903, compiled hundreds of forensic and chemical cases of transvestism, as he called it. Alongside sadism, masochism and violent and aggressive paraphilias showing their correlation. Magnus Hetfield this funny, he’s the one who but included case studies [00:11:00] where he, again, correlated cross-dressing with treats like sadomasochism.

Havelock Ellis studies the psychology of sex volume seven. Use sexo aesthetic inversion or eism for transvestism describing cases with istic cross-dressing, combined with sadism masochism or violent sexual seams. Mm-hmm. So no, these things used to be thought of as a joint sexual framework by the early people who were studying sexuality.

Cross-dressing or which by the way is not the same as gender dysphoria necessarily. We argue that cross-dressing is like a different thing than the gender dysphoria, but they’re, they’re correlated and they likely would’ve been heavily correlated during this period anyway. That it was, it was understand as a bundled thing with sadomasochistic tendencies.

William Steckel various works psychoanalytic cases. Frequently linking Transvestism fetishistic cross-dressing to sadomasochism and aggressive impulses was examples of violent fantasies tied to clothing. [00:12:00] And then early DSM classifications. This is the DSM 1, 19 52 to 1968 that elicit transvestism directly under sexual deviations, alongside sexual sadism.

And then if you look at more recent stuff Gosling and Wilson. This was in 1980, survey of club members and correspondence, found high rates of sadomasochistic interests, bondage, ripping, pain among transvestites and fetishists. I note, I’m not saying transvestites here as an insult, I’m saying it because it, this was the word they used back in those days.

Yeah. Newspapers boric and, and I also, it’s important to use the word transvestite because transvestite does not mean the same thing as trans does today. Totally. They, they literally have different definitions and, and so you need to use a different word. That, that’s why it would actually be kind of insulting for me to say that they meant trans in this historic company.

It doesn’t matter. Sure. Or like in Burma study, 222 males recruited from clubs reported high rates [00:13:00] of bondage and fantasies while cross-dressed as many incorporating sadomasochistic elements. Then we have perky, etal. I’m not gonna read all of them because you get the idea. Analyze 25 serial sexual murderers and found transvestism present in a substantial minority of them, alongside high rates of fetishism and sadism.

And wow, this isn’t just like. If you’re familiar with the way the trans community talks about like say turfs or something like that. Yeah. It’s very clear that this is still really common in the community.

Don’t blow up our spot, bro. All t slurs are like that. You can trust me around your kid. It’d be transphobic not to. Me with daycare tots. Me when transphobic little girls ask me what I’m doing in the women’s restroom when I’m obviously a woman. the two fantasized about assaulting J. K. Rowling’s grandchildren. Not letting teaslers get with your kids is transphobic. Someone should Harry Potter woman’s grandkids. Orion then goes on to call them turf meats.

Malcolm Collins: I mean, fantasizing about griping somebody, [00:14:00] fantasizing about beating somebody, fantasizing about, I mean even, even the Anna story that we covered, you know, the life of the ide? Oh

yeah, yeah.

You know, where a lot of her stuff was was, you know, violent sexuality related stuff. Okay. So the question is. What’s leading to all of this, and my new theory is to sort of categorize a new category of male that you would have in a historic context is men who are at the bottom of social totem poles.

Mm-hmm. Or who are not attractive enough or don’t have enough social status or don’t have enough whatever, to secure a mate, they would need to adopt a highly deviated sexual profile and arousal profile if they hope to have any chance of reproducing. And there are a few, and this is why I think you get the brutalism.

Combined with the transness, like the wanting to appear as a womanness. Mm-hmm. [00:15:00] One of the things that you find in a lot of species in nature is something called this, this sneaky effer strategy is literally what it’s called. Or

Simone Collins: a sneaky copulation.

Malcolm Collins: Sneaky copulation. Yes. Which is when a, and I love it how.

Trans people. There was recently a case where they like flew the trans flag from like a national park, and he’s like, this proves that trans, it’s natural. It exists across species. Wow. And I’m like. Well, a lot of the times, one, because it like that doesn’t mean photosynthesis is natural in humans. Right.

But I, the funny thing is, is he might have been correct.

Simone Collins: I mean, yeah, I guess live crabs do it.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Humans, yeah. Claws on man color on men are natural because crabs do it. Crab people.

Speaker: The crab people shall finally reign. Supreme crab people, crab people

Malcolm Collins: anyway, so, the point that I’m making here is he might have actually been, ironically, right, the phenomenon that [00:16:00] drives trans urges.

In humans might be the exact same phenomenon that drives trans physiological differences in other species. Wow. Specifically in many species where like, and you see this in some crab species, I’ll use it crabs as an example here.

Simone Collins: That’s why I said crabs.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Normal males are very large and they sort of maintain a harem of females that they impregnate, and so they, they keep the, the female safe and they, they have the harem.

But if a male is developing and it is clear that it’s not getting the resources it needs to win in this large male game, it changes its physiology, its pheromones, everything. To appear as if it’s a female. And then what it will do is it will go into the female spaces, EG, the the, the all female communities that these larger males are protecting and attempt [00:17:00] to will essentially grape them.

Simone Collins: It will have unexpected surprise. Surprise sex. Yes. Yeah. On, on. Yeah. We tend to be a harem member, female, and then have sex with other females in

Malcolm Collins: the harem. Yeah. Right. So the, the two strategies that you have, if you’re at the bottom of the totem pole. Is one sneaky effort, strategy, trying to, to get into a man’s you know, you know, and, and human men likely used to have these, there were periods in human history, long periods where for every one man who had children, 17 women had children.

That meant that on average a man had 17 wives. Right. Like these, these are very this is something that happened historically. Right? Yeah. Okay. So, so that’s one strategy. The other strategy is you force yourself on a woman who is, wants to be with another guy or wouldn’t want to be with you because they don’t see you as, as, as high enough quality male.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Like if they’re not going to select you of their own free will, then you’re good. Just gonna have to select for them.

Malcolm Collins: Mm-hmm. Okay, [00:18:00] so what we could be seeing here is an adaptively like an adaptively evolve. So the way that it’s not just humans that evolve this way. Do you wanna read our book, the Pragma Heterosexuality?

You go into a lot more detail about how this works in other species. But species will change their behavior based on like the amount of resources in the environment. They’ll change the way they, they handle their social structures, they change the way they handle dominance conflicts, they change the way they make, right?

And it’s useful to have. Several pre-programmed patterns of arousal or behavior. It could be that humans are the same and that part. Of now note, I’m not saying that the social contagion thing isn’t real. I’m not saying that the a i, I think that there’s a lot of things that drive the modern trans movement.

You can look at any of our videos on this that we go into. Is it an alternative to unli of oneself? Yeah.

Simone Collins: When when you put large movements like this, it’s normally due to a confluence of factors. Just having it be one factor probably wouldn’t have turned it into the phenomenon. It is.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. [00:19:00] But what it might be.

For a portion which is leading to these way higher rates of what, what ala describes as brutal sexuality is a what’s the word I’m looking for here Is, is just an adaptive arousal pattern to feeling disempowered and like you don’t actually have a shot at reproducing.

Mm-hmm.

And. When I look at the types of people who transition just physiologically, they are disproportionately people who fall into this category.

Hmm.

And, and that’s when, when I was looking at that, I was like, oh my God, this makes so much sense. Right. Like, it could just be and, and. You could say that could also correlate with spiking race if people feel more disempowered now than they did historically, especially when you combine this with leftist cultural systems that tell you, you know, oh, you’ll never get ahead.

Oh, there’s no way out of this. Oh, life has no purpose except consumerism. You know, accept your own pleasure. I, I can see a person adapting to this really quickly. And then keep in mind, even if you are a [00:20:00] top dog leftist, right, you, you can still end up in behavior patterns, which might signal to your body that you’re not a top dog leftist.

So I’m gonna give an example here. Suppose your destiny, right? And you’re like. On stream. And there’s a famous one. There’s this guy who’s like, takes his wife or girlfriend in the back to have sex with her and he’s like laughing. He is like, oh, they’re gonna go have some fun.

Speaker 4: Okay. Mel, time. Why did I say this, Mel? Time.

Malcolm Collins: And a male’s body, that’s not supposed to happen, right?

Like, that’s not that, that, that’s your hormonal system telling you, even though you’ve got millions of people watching your stream. You are not gonna reproduce, you know, if, if this is the way that your partner is treating you and your, your, your social system is treating you, you’re not gonna reproduce.

And so, you might then adapt behaviors, physiology to say, Hey maybe I should, I should try some of the other strategies. Your, your facial features may even soften. Your expressions may soften. [00:21:00] Leading, leading to this stuff. So what are your thoughts, Simone?

Simone Collins: This makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, even just part of it being, if you can’t beat ‘em, join them.

But then that also producing more opportunities to actually reproduce. But yeah, I, I think you’re your bifurcated strategy of like either become a sneaky calculator by attempting to join female contingents as a female and reproduce sneakily that way, or. By just becoming super violent or possibly both.

That, that does make sense. I think the super violent part may have more, may make more sense among like the, the instances of, of there being more accusations of. Grape. Grape in like feminist circles. So yeah, we,

Malcolm Collins: we write about this in the book. If you look at the reported rates of grape within like feminist circles on college campuses, they’re like higher than like board foreign regions.

[00:22:00] Like Somalia. And so you could say they’re overreporting, which, you know, yeah, they

Simone Collins: probably, we have no doubt

Malcolm Collins: consider everything great these days. But it could also be that they have created communities where only people attempting sneaky copy strategies are going to enter. And these are people much more likely to push past.

Like to respect your boundaries. Respect your boundaries, respect your boundaries until you’re alone until they think that you can’t say anything about it. Right. And so many people have, have experienced this. And I, and I think that, that they might have actually created like you know, almost sort of like traps, like, like lobster traps for, for the, the, the sneaky calculators.

And, and why wouldn’t humans have a strategy like this? This is a perfectly viable strategy if you feel like you’re at the bottom of a totem pole of like a tribe or something like that. And, and a lot of humans throughout history were at the bottom of the totem pole, right? Like it made sense.

Simone Collins: Yeah, so it would also make sense that some, you know, that [00:23:00] the human population would evolve methods for dealing with that.

That, yeah, over time there would be adaptations and that not just one type of male, like the very, very lucky, but also very healthy and dominant males would manage to reproduce because. Luck only gets you so far. You know, like I, I almost feel like you would expect this form of male adaptation to be more dominant because either you get to be one of the very lucky but also genetically fit males that does reproduce like that one in 17 or whatever.

Or you happen to use any number of, of sneaky or clever or uniquely violent and aggressive methods to reproduce. And honestly, the latter seems a lot more easy and reproducible. Yeah, than like easier to replicate than the just be really lucky and [00:24:00] genetically fit pathway for reproducing as a male.

Malcolm Collins: Well, and I think that the reason why this strategy was not more prevalent in historic context when we’re looking at like, you know, history books is in part because it was so heavily punished. Like obviously it’s, it’s very bad for a society to be like, oh, look at these people dressed like women who are beating up, you know, quote unquote turfs in a rally or something.

Like normally, historically, there’s, there’s something in you when you see, when you see this and you’re just like. This is wrong. Like, yeah, this, we need to do something about the people who think that they can just walk up and start beating up a woman because they’re wearing a dress, right? Like, we need to, or that they can serially harass a woman like JK Rowling just because they’ve put on a dress, right?

Like, we need to , not have these people feel this empowered because they will then cross boundaries in other areas with women. Which, which we’ve repeatedly seen. There’s that recent thing at the gym where the, the. A [00:25:00] woman sits down, oh, naked next to the other woman in the gym, and the other woman’s like, can you please like leave me alone?

And they start like violently yelling at her.

Speaker 5: Today, I was naked in the locker room. I turned around and there’s a man there and boy like boy, clothes, lip gloss, standing there looking at me. I’m butt naked. So the first thing I think is maybe there’s a work doing in here. Maybe I miss the sign. I say the word sir, to say, sir, what are you doing in here?

He goes, don’t f*****g talk to me. I’m a woman. I have a right to be in here. Immediately I’m f*****g pissed because I’m butt, butt naked. I feel violated. I feel like weird.

Malcolm Collins: And it turned out that this person had previously broken his wife’s jaw. You know, like quite a violent person. Well, again, violent and these tendencies go go very, very hand in hand. So, and it, and it’s something that. Can cause you to have potentially more empathy because you can be like, Hey, it may not be their fault that this happened to them, but they’re still responsible for their actions in the [00:26:00] same way as a serial killer who was abused is, is, is still responsible.

If they then go on to abuse other people if they then, you know, go on to violate the consent of other people. So, what are my takeaways from this? My takeaway is I think that this is probably a factor. I don’t know if it’s one of the larger factors, but I think it’s a factor, especially for, for some individuals.

Agreed. And if it is a factor I think the best way to combat it. In regards to your kids is to, you know, educate them well on sexuality. And that means to, you know, let them know that there’s a, a, a variety of arousal systems. And they, and the most important thing about these arousal systems is one, they don’t choose them.

You know, they, they are sometimes a response to their environment. There’s sometimes a response to genes or sometimes a response to parasites.

Simone Collins: As we’ve covered in other episodes on that one was

Malcolm Collins: fascinating. Well, one of my favorite ones from the comment on the parasite video was a prison guard. And he said, I missed that one.

He goes, because we had talked about how like the two things, [00:27:00] one is, is that parasites might actually lead to cut behavior, like men wanting to cut a burn because they’re literally trying to give other people the parasites that their partners have that have now affected them. Is that I was like, yeah, people start this and then.

Later. And we also talked how it may be affecting same sex attracted communities. Later they end up becoming the, the, the cuckold. You know, they started the bold, they moved to the cuckold. Yeah. And so it’s like you, you know, as a prison guard there’s this. Adage, which is the person who stops on, starts on top, is always eventually on bottom.

What phenomenon, what, where you start on top with the guys who are open to it, who might have this gut pathogen that we talked about in that video. And eventually you wanna take it because you wanna spread the passage into other people who are Oh,

Simone Collins: wow.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So I thought that was really fascinating. And it’d be interesting to do study. I mean, obviously you can’t do, everyone would freak out if you tried to do a study on this stuff these days because it’s so fascinating. But, but the larger [00:28:00] point being is, is, is in terms of my kids. How do I convey this in terms of them?

Because I think that’s the most important thing. I mean, that’s what I have control over. I can’t rewrite how society works, but I can e explain this to my kids. I, I’d one tell my daughters to be incredibly wary, much more wary than around conservative men around actively signaling feminist men. These men are very likely to be sex PEs.

I mean, again, look at like destiny. Yeah. That he filmed a bunch of girls without their consent and then shared the, the pornography of it. Like, yeah, that’s like, that’s, that’s something that, is really bad. Yes. That’s, that’s, that’s a, like an actively exploitative thing to do to these women. Yeah. And, and yet he’s constantly signaling I’m the, the greatest feminist, you know, of the, of ever.

Right. Yeah. So, so, one, be very, very wary of men like this. This is an active sexual strategy. Mm-hmm. And I’d say whatever you do, do not be alone with a man like that. Never be alone with a male feminist.

Yeah.

That’s number one. Two I’d also say be very, [00:29:00] very careful about being alone with trans women, to be honest.

I, I know that that’s a, a bad thing to say, but you, you could be putting yourself in danger. The, the. Next thing I’d say is because, you know, keep in mind with them, you reject them and all of a sudden, what are you transphobic? You know, they can begin to pressure you. And this is something that really happens to people, right?

You, you could be like, oh, it’s not all of them. And, and I guess here I’d be like, turn that old Tumblr meme back on it. Right? Here’s a bowl of Skittles. You know that? What is poison? You know, are you gonna eat from this? I

Simone Collins: don’t remember this.

Malcolm Collins: What they used this to talk about men and sexual violence. But the problem is, oh, and we have another episode on this that we’ll eventually do, but, but trans people always love to claim that they are victims of violence, much higher than other groups. And like they’re, they’re killed much higher. And we ran the stats in another episode. You can find the episode just by searching, or we’ll probably do a dedicated episode on this.

But if you actually look at the reported. Ho homicides of trans people in the United States. They are way lower than the general population. [00:30:00] Like way lower. I think it’s like an,

Simone Collins: that was bizarre. Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And, and it’s not just they’re way lower. It’s that they get comically lower. If you remove black trans women from the mix, which make up, I think it’s 70% of all trans homicides.

Because then if it’s, if you’re a white trans person, it’s like, what are these people like, invincible to bullets or something. Like, the numbers get so crazy at that point. So that’s just not true. It’s, it’s something that they want to portray is true, but it’s, it’s not, if you actually run the numbers, it’s not true.

So, the other thing that I would say to my kids is, you know, I, I, I think really important is if you have a, a certain sexual proclivity in regards to the pornography you’re consuming or erotic stories you’re consuming, like you’re a single woman and you really like the monster effort category of story.

That might not actually be what you still want when you are married and have kids. And it’s important to remember that a lot of [00:31:00] these arousal phases that you’re gonna go through throughout your life are transitory. They are not part of your identity. They are a response to your environment.

Simone Collins: Yeah. You, your body responding to.

Surrounding cues in a way that is supposed to optimize for your survival

Malcolm Collins: and reproduction. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that that’s, that’s really important because a lot of people they will consume these types of erotic stories like young women or young men. And then they’ll say, I want a woman like the, the who’s into the stuff that happens in my erotic material.

And or I want a man, a husband who’s into, into this stuff or represents these types of themes when you really should never, ever think about a long-term partner in those terms. The way you should think about a long-term partner is I. Who do I want to spend my life with outside of sex? Yeah.

Right. Like, that’s the who, who can, who do I have aligned goals with? Who do I have aligned mission with? Who would I be really happy if my kids [00:32:00] acted half the way they act and half the way I act? Right. You know, that’s gonna be where your partner comes into play, not in terms of the things that arouse you.

And so I think that that’s, that’s really important as well. And this is really important with, with, within another recent episode where you know, a guy. With, with saying you know, looking for kids, right? And he is like, well, like you really wanted kids. This isn’t our men. Or just, you know, outsourcing to, to women now just being like, Hey, we’re going to do surrogacy, right?

And women were like, oh, well, you really want kids to have met. I mean, I, I just have to ask because, you know, I really want kids and I’d be open to dating. Are you monogamous? And it’s like, well, you know, kind of, and it’s like. You as a male, especially if you’re in an environment where polyamory is normalized you are going to want to sleep around as much as possible of Of course.

That’s what your body wants. Yeah. And because you get away with it, you think, oh, this is a good way to. Live my life, but you’re not gonna attract a good long-term partner [00:33:00] if you are sick like that. Because women at that stage, when they’re looking for their long-term partner, they’re not gonna want somebody who’s also looking at that.

And I would say to you that you know, after your first few kids, you’re probably not gonna want to sleep around quite as much.

Simone Collins: Absolutely. It’s a pattern we’ve seen again and again.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Anyway final thoughts, Simone?

Simone Collins: I think this is compelling and I am very curious to see how we view gender and sexuality like 20 years in the future.

Like if it’s just gonna, the wokes can’t

Malcolm Collins: change their mind on this stuff. They’re gonna like spiral out into some weird. Alternate what I think is gonna be clear to most people, a religious view on sexuality that is at odds with the real view of sexuality, which obviously branched from mainstream science with people like ala,

Simone Collins: maybe.

Yeah, I, I don’t know. I mean, I could also see it kind of going back [00:34:00] to the way it has been for most of history, which is like nobody really cares and people just kind of do what they wanna do. Like I could see it going to that. So there are still people who completely live transition lives as, as a different gender or some un gender, you know, where they’re non-binary or whatever.

Then people just like let them do their thing and, and that’s kind of way, I don’t think that

Malcolm Collins: that’s gonna happen.

Simone Collins: You don’t think so? You think it’s always gonna be politicized from now on?

Malcolm Collins: Well, so unfortunately, like. Society, me included in this. Like I used to s support very strongly transgender rights.

Yeah. Because they were like, Hey, you know, give us these rights and we won’t abuse them. And I was like, yeah, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Here’s the knife, buddy. You, you promised you were gonna stab, stab, stab, stab, stab. It’s like, whoa. Well what the heck were you, you said you weren’t gonna do that.

And you take the knife back and they’re like, how could [00:35:00] you do that? The, the, the trans person next to him, like, I didn’t stab anyone, was my knife. And it’s like, you didn’t try to stop the guy who was stabbing people. Right. You, you started yelling at me when I took away his knife. Mm-hmm. You know, and so, I think that.

So many young people, so especially young people. So if you’re watching this and you’re in my generation, you may not understand what it feels like to be a young cis person growing up in a place like the United States. But a lot of them say that they feel very marginalized. They feel as if they’re treated like second class citizens.

They feel that the trans people at their schools. And the gay people at their schools are treated like local celebrities and often abuse this, this, these positions that they’ve been given, which of course I wouldn’t, I mean, they’re kids who have been given positions of, of systemic privilege over other kids and that are not subject to the same disciplinary action as, as we saw locally.

Here were, you know, there was a young trans person who wrote a hit list and was caught with this hit list and the school did nothing, and then they tried to kill somebody on the hit list. [00:36:00]

Simone Collins: Oh goodness.

Malcolm Collins: They, they, they beat them severely. Was this

Simone Collins: recent?

Malcolm Collins: This was like last year. Okay. Gosh right near us.

And, and the reason why any other student gets caught with a hit list, they’re immediately out, right? Yeah. And so I think that a lot of the, the sort of older LGBT population is unaware. Of how abusive the younger LGBT population has been with the privileges that they won that population.

Hmm.

And so they don’t understand that.

Victimhood has been inverted between the two communities. And that what this means is a trans ideology or identity, unlike say you’re secretly into BDSM or you’re, you’re, you’re gay privately or whatever. And this is the thing with like gay people, if you look at like gay conservatives and there’s a lot of gay conservatives now, they look like.

Normal people. Right. And, and so, you know, I don’t think most conservatives are gonna treat them [00:37:00] particularly differently. If you look at gay like ultra progressives, they sort of brand themselves as in opposition. Two you know, o other cultural groups. And the problem with this sort of trans identity is it took that perspective and ran with it to such an extreme that the, the thing that I’ve, I’ve said before, it’s a bit like having a swastika carved in your forehead, you know, going forward, right?

Like, it’s like, oh, we remember all the things you guys did. I remember having to sit and watch that Olympics where the person who. Not even trans by the way, but the trans community decided to defend him. Just a biological male.

Simone Collins: Oh, the, yeah. The person who, well, I don’t think they realized it until later in their lives or something.

The boxer, right?

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no. I, he, there’s interviews of him being on TV shows in his home country where he is dressed as a man. He is calling himself. He, and they are calling him. Oh. Oh, really?

استضافتك وأتشرف باستضافة كذلك، مرحبا بك. شكرا لك أخي يوسف، وإن شاء الله

Malcolm Collins: He lived as a man and then just decided [00:38:00] to change for the Olympics. Oh, goodness.

I thought Asma gold stick on this was really brilliant because you could come at this and be like, well, are you saying that this person just shouldn’t be allowed to compete? Um, and it’s a bit like saying, oh, well there’s a seven foot boxer who wants to compete in the lightweight category, and he just.

Could not be that weight, ,, and be healthy or alive or anything like that. So what you’re saying, he just shouldn’t be allowed to do lightweight boxing, and it’s like, no, he just, lightweight boxing is a carve out category, and whenever you’re dealing with a carve out category, the carve out is always going to be to an extreme.

Arbitrary, but meant to preserve, you know, good sport. So a category of people that otherwise couldn’t compete, can compete, consider something like this, special Olympics. , If you go into the Special Olympics because you have a DD or something like that, and then somebody’s like, well. I understand it’s a disability, but it really shouldn’t qualify you for the Special Olympics [00:39:00] because in this huge other category of people isn’t going to be able to compete ever in any meaningful context.

, That’s a, that’s a valid claim by the other person. And then the person who has a DD says, what are you just saying? I shouldn’t be able to compete in anything. It’s like, no, you can compete in the regular Olympics. This person can just compete in mailbox boxing. Right? Like they don’t need to do this.

Right. Um, and it’s clear that, , if you allow people like this to compete, then the vast majority of women are not going to have a realistic chance. , And for people who are like, well, you know, trans people participating in sports aren’t that much of a problem. And it’s like, well, if they aren’t that much of a problem, if it really is not an issue at all, then why is nobody ever complaining about transmit?

I’ve, I’ve literally never seen that in sports. Oh, by the way, on this screen here, it’s a graph of male to female, , strengths, differences. And I think that this is why Dylan Mulvey’s 100 days of being a woman had so much of this energy to it.

[00:40:00] I wanna be in the Special Olympics Boo.

Malcolm Collins: Because he, he happened to be a man born with, with in all other things, male, except for being born with female genitalia.

And by, by this what I mean is chromosomally male, male in terms of testosterone, male in terms of body structure, male in terms of everything else. And, and we had to watch like on, on tv, like publicly for everyone to see. Him just like beating the snot out of women. We, we had to see those boxing matches where the, the cis women,

You know, fractured their, their skulls and stuff like that.

Like it, it looked horrifying, not great. Yeah. And then to see it cheered on and this is the same, people could be like, well, that’s a minority of the community that’s doing that. Yeah. But the majority in the dominant parts of the community are cheering it on. Okay. And they’re protecting these individuals, so they, and they

Simone Collins: just think that cannot be undone, basically.

Malcolm Collins: Right. They, through doing that absorb the sins in the same way that you guys freak out. If somebody even talks to Nick Fuentes, they absorb the sins of the [00:41:00] people that they are defending.

Hmm. I see.

They don’t say, Hey, actually they shouldn’t be doing this in the same way that we regularly say, Hey, Nick Fuentes shouldn’t be saying this.

Yeah.

They don’t do that. And, and, and for that reason, they are, they become responsible for the, the perpetration of these or, or they’ll freak out. Like when we did the episode on the trans mass shootings at schools and stuff and they were like, this, this isn’t true. This isn’t true, except we lay out the data very clearly in that episode.

Like it, I don’t understand. The data is incredibly clear in that episode. And, and they’re like, this isn’t true. And you get this mindset and the person literally asked an AI tell me this isn’t true. And so the AI told them it wasn’t true. So you get this mindset where they, they hide this and then kids die because we’re not addressing that.

There is a problem with mass shooters within specific sub communities.

Simone Collins: Yeah, not great. Not great.

Malcolm Collins: But, but I find what’s fascinating here is, you know, I talked about them being [00:42:00] at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of their actual ability to get women. I think one of the reasons why this adaptive sexuality is working so well is in this generation.

Is not only is it a strategy to get into like women’s only spaces, get women alone, stuff like that, but in a historic context, but in a modern time, it literally raises their status if they’re near the bottom of the social totem pole.

Simone Collins: Oh, yeah. Okay, I see what you’re saying. So yeah, it, it is both a way to gain access to women only spaces to gain the opportunity, but it’s also at the same time.

It’s a dual strategy. At least you have access if you wanna be sneaky, but also it’s like a backdoor way to get higher status. And maybe through that mean, even without non-consent, even without sneaky population, you end up securing partners because it is, I mean, that is a trend. It seems like a lot of men who go trans end up with female partners.

Which is interesting. Yeah, I guess not necessarily what I [00:43:00] would’ve expected,

Malcolm Collins: huh anyway, so for dinner tonight

Simone Collins: We’re doing more bok choy specific, like one and, and more beans sprouts this time, right?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Did we already saw the, the beef?

Simone Collins: Yeah. So, unless you wanna, I can just leave that thought in the fridge and then.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no. I want it with the beef. I was gonna say, if you didn’t thaw the beef, I would’ve just had it with the leaves. No

Simone Collins: protein at all.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, but I’m okay if we got the beef out. It’s good.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: And the, the bok choy was good last time. The, the beans straps were good. Are you hungry enough

Simone Collins: for, for protein or are you like just not very hungry tonight, or?

Malcolm Collins: Well, I was thinking like less because I was like, well, I may not want that much, but if I don’t want that much, then I’ll just say it for tomorrow. Okay.

Simone Collins: Well, I can, yeah. I, I didn’t thaw very much for what it’s worth. Like I, like I did about half as much as I did last night.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, okay. Yeah, that’s what I want is half as much as last night.

Just,

Simone Collins: just a smacker of meat as it were. Not very much at all. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. That’s great. Okay, good. And beef wraps and you know, [00:44:00] maybe one of the long hots or something.

Simone Collins: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I can do all that. And then with, there was still some, some of the sauce that I’d pre-mixed left over, right?

Or should I make more?

Malcolm Collins: I don’t know. Okay. Depends on how much you’re cooking.

Simone Collins: What kind of sauce do you want me to make? If I need to make more?

Malcolm Collins: The black pepper sauce is the best. Black pepper, like stir fried steak, black pepper steak.

Simone Collins: All right, then I will work on that for you. Hope you, I hope you enjoy.

I hope you enjoy. I always do. We have fun going. Me too, Malcolm. I love you. Thanks for not being trans.

Malcolm Collins: Well, you technically are.

Simone Collins: Oh yeah. Well we’re, we’re both technically non-binary, I guess. ‘cause we just don’t care. But I think that’s very well that

Malcolm Collins: makes, that makes you a gen. Yeah, I’d be agent, I, I literally don’t care.

I’m like, I’m happy to [00:45:00] just, just, I will do what my gender tells me to do because that is the way I’m supposed to live my life. And if I was a woman tomorrow, I would do what my gender told me to do.

Simone Collins: Well it’s, it’s just easier to like. Yeah, what you have would be asexual,

Malcolm Collins: which makes you age, which makes you gender queer, which makes you

Simone Collins: non-binary

Malcolm Collins: and genderqueer non-binary and, and, and trans by their, everyone’s trans by their ideology.

That, that’s just the way it is. What I mean is almost anyone can find a way to, to categorize themselves as, as trans. Oh, oh. I’m not really into sex until y and that makes me trans because I’m a demisexual. Oh.

Simone Collins: Right. Like, yeah,

Malcolm Collins: yeah,

Simone Collins: yeah, yeah. No matter what, there’s always some condition like, well, I, I don’t like having sex with animals.

Well, that makes you some kind of. Sexual orientation, which therefore,

Malcolm Collins: I don’t know, whatever. You don’t like having sex with animals? Simone, you are a true deviant. Yeah. Did you are a white [00:46:00] woman, do you not know that it’s its ability to have sex with dogs? I have. I have learned this about middle aged white women.

A disability. God.

Simone Collins: Oh God. There are so many things. I don’t wanna, I’m gonna go pick Holly and decorate our house. That’s what I’m gonna for. You gotta beautiful holly

Malcolm Collins: tree right outside her house.

Simone Collins: Yeah, the berries are on it. It just looks so pretty. I feel like we need to deck the halls deck, those getting halls, Simone with With bows of Holly.

Actual bows of

Malcolm Collins: Holly.

Simone Collins: Yeah. F Allah. Malcolm

Malcolm Collins: F Allah, yourself.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Well, I love you.

Malcolm Collins: I love you too. Thanks.

Simone Collins: This was interesting.

Malcolm Collins: All right. You had a poo situation, you say, well, the baby,

Simone Collins: some people here did

Malcolm Collins: we do not do a good job advertising. Being parents, people, people look at us and they go, oh gosh,

Simone Collins: no, no, no, no, no. He’s a, he’s a great [00:47:00] representative of baby kind.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Somebody else recently had a kid and they’re like, wow, how do you get ‘em to stop crying?

Like they always want my attention.

Simone Collins: They do, but that’s ‘cause they’re cute at

Malcolm Collins: this age. I hate the, at I, I’m like, guys are just not programmed to deal with the first like, year and a half of life. It is so hard for men to do. I can’t deal with it. If you didn’t handle it. Oh my god. I, I’d I just still want kid.

You’d deal,

Simone Collins: you would deal with it. You would. I figure it out. I

Malcolm Collins: figured it out. But it’s hard. Because yeah, just like even just sitting there until they’re done drinking. Like I, I just, ugh, I can’t too much.

Simone Collins: I was recently watching an asthma gold video, like half paying attention, and he was playing a video game with like an Asian character that was carrying a baby on his chest.

And part of me wondered if it was like part of. That’s death standing. It’s death standing.

Malcolm Collins: Death standing. Is that one that I told you about that like everyone expected to bomb with a Camilla game. A Joe Camina. Did [00:48:00] people

Simone Collins: like it in the end? Oh

Malcolm Collins: yeah. Became super popular. Everyone was like, oh, this game’s gonna do terrible.

It’s weird and whatever. And like, he’s known for just like doing his own thing. And this was his first project he made after leaving like major studios. Okay. He is the one who made like metal gear solid and stuff. Very

cute baby in them. The,

Simone Collins: the

Malcolm Collins: character was the baby in like a, a, a suspended in liquid, right?

Simone Collins: No, no, no, no. Not that one. No, this was a different one. It was like some, some Asian guy and he had a baby, like in a carrier on the front while he was doing sword fight.

Malcolm Collins: That might have been a one of the, I forget what they’re called, Samari something game.

Simone Collins: Yeah. They seemed like they didn’t seem Japanese.

They seemed like Chinese warriors of some sort.

Malcolm Collins: Well, that’s, that’s fun. Yeah. Gotta add that to every video game, just so guys. No, I, I identify as somebody carrying a baby can, you know, and it wasn’t

Simone Collins: just like a, a, a non-active, like the, the baby would start crying if it got a little too distressed or something.

Like, [00:49:00] at least in the opening scene. So I

Malcolm Collins: love, like, you know, the baby, my wife watches Asma Gold and it’s just like, Hey, did you see the as asthma gold? When we were doing the other day, the the Trump whatever thing, and I was like, yeah, did you watch the Tucker Carlson video? And she’s like, yeah. And I go, well, I, I, I watched next coverage of it.

And she goes, yeah, I watched notes coverage too. And that’s how we’re consuming our news of other streamers

Simone Collins: through the lens of. Streamers. Yeah, I think that’s how a huge number of people consumes their news when like Pew surveys report that people are getting their news from social media. I think most people think, and of course a lot of it is coming from just TikTok.

That’s how your mom was giving a lot of news before she passed, but she consumed all channels to be fair. And a lot of people for sure are on Facebook, but I think a growing number of people are consuming their news through people like Aspen Gold and I mean, if they’re on the left, people like Hassan Piker or [00:50:00] maybe Destiny, or maybe, you know, does Young Turks even count as social media?

Probably still, but yeah, I mean, it’s these channels.

Malcolm Collins: Hmm. Well, all right, Simone. I’ll get started here. Yes.

Kid Time: I got the gun. No, you have to. You gotta to take the glass out first. That’s his gun. His gun? Yeah. Get the glass out so he can fight for you.

Stay here and do it. Lemme go. Look at his so f*****g the grass. There’s only one glass. Get that one glass. It’s right here. Right there. No, here. Oh, [00:51:00] thanks. Thanks. You had glass stuck in your toasty. I was acting like glass.

Oh, is it a sleep? Poison. No, those doors before

then. Then wake up. Oh, okay. And this is my son.

In this episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into one of the most pervasive myths of our time — the idea popularized by Yuval Noah Harari’s bestselling book Sapiens that the Agricultural Revolution was “history’s biggest fraud” and that life was better for pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers.

From the viral Primitive Technology videos to nostalgic comments romanticizing mud huts and “living off the land,” this meme just won’t die. But was life really better before farming? Shorter work hours? Healthier diets? No diseases or violence?

We break down Harari’s claims with historical evidence, anthropology, and skeletal data — showing why early agriculture had growing pains, but civilization quickly made life vastly better in nearly every metric: health, lifespan, safety, leisure quality, and human flourishing.

We also explore why this myth appeals to both far-left anti-GMO types and far-right “Bronze Age” nostalgists, and why romanticizing pre-agricultural life ignores the brutal reality of violence, disease, boredom, and early death.

Episode Outline with Links

Let me set the scene:

* It’s 2015 and you know what people can’t stop watching? You know what the hot video is???

* Not some viral dance

* Not some celebrity scandal

* No, it was a pale dude in the woods silently banging on sticks with a sharpened rock to make a mud hut

* “Primitive Technology: Wattle and Daub Hut”, the first video published on the YouTube channel Primitive Technology, now has over 32 million views.

* For scale:

* Charlie bit my finger has 888 million views

* Bed Intruder song has 158M views

* So obviously it didn’t take over the world, but it’s still HUGE for an eleven-minute, no words, no music video of a man building a mud hut

* The channel has 11 million subscribers (note that Asmongold has 4.21M subscribers)

* What’s going on here? Who might we have to blame for this?

* I’m going to argue it was the Admiral Akbar of agriculture himself, Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.

* In 2014, the book Sapiens was published in English (had first been published in Hebrew) and it took the world by storm.

* It quickly became one of the top‑performing narrative nonfiction titles of the past decade, with tens of millions of copies sold worldwide and a very long run on major bestseller lists.

* Estimates from publishers and industry analyses put Sapiens’ total worldwide sales at around 40–45 million copies across all formats and languages.​

* The book has been translated into roughly 60–65 languages, indicating very broad international penetration for a serious nonfiction title.

* It repeatedly appeared in the NYT top 10 and has been described as a New York Times “top 10 bestseller” over a multi‑year period

* And importantly, what did that book do?

* More than others in the past (such as Guns, Germs, and Steel), it radicalized people against modernity and the agricultural revolution

Some choice quotes:

* “We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us.”

* “The Agricultural Revolution was history’s biggest fraud.”

* “Who was responsible? Neither kings, nor priests, nor merchants. The culprits were a handful of plant species… These plants domesticated Homo sapiens, rather than vice versa.”

* “This is the essence of the Agricultural Revolution: the ability to keep more people alive under worse conditions.”

* “Rather than heralding a new era of easy living, the Agricultural Revolution left farmers with more difficult lives and a less nutritious diet than hunter-gatherers… The Agricultural Revolution was a trap.”

But are we really worse off because of agriculture?

Let’s take a good faith look at the issue.

Sapiens

Overarching Thesis: Human history is fundamentally the history of imagined realities (fictions) that enable massive cooperation. Almost everything we value—nations, money, human rights, corporations, gods—exists only in our collective imagination. These fictions have been extraordinarily useful, but they have also caused immense suffering and now threaten our future. The next stage of history will likely see us abandon the last remnants of biological humanity altogether.

Harari argues:

* The Agricultural Revolution (c. 10,000 BCE) is widely considered humanity’s “biggest mistake.”

* Harari characterizes the Agricultural Revolution as “history’s biggest fraud,” arguing that it trapped humans in more difficult, labor-intensive, and less healthy lives than those of hunter-gatherers. He suggests that the extra food from farming led to population growth and class divisions, not a better quality of life for most people

* Harari’s analysis is related to, but distinct from, the idea popularized by others—such as Jared Diamond, who called agriculture “the worst mistake in the history of the human race.”

* Farming allowed population explosion but dramatically worsened the quality of life for individual humans: harder work, poorer nutrition, crowded conditions, new diseases, social hierarchy, and inequality.

* It was a trap: once populations grew, there was no way back to hunter-gatherer life. From the perspective of the human species it was a success; from the perspective of individual happiness it was a disaster.

Specific ways Harari argues pre-agricultural life was better and post-agricultural life was worse:

1. Working Hours

* Hunter-gatherers: ~20–35 hours per week spent obtaining food and basic needs (citing modern studies of the !Kung, Hadza, etc.).

* Early farmers: 50–60+ hours of back-breaking labor (plowing, weeding, harvesting, grinding grain, carrying water, tending animals).

2. Diet and Nutrition

* Hunter-gatherers: Extremely varied diet (dozens of plant species, nuts, fruits, game, fish, honey). High in protein, vitamins, minerals; low in starch.

* Farmers: Became heavily dependent on one or two staple crops (wheat, rice, maize, potatoes). Led to nutritional deficiencies (iron-deficiency anemia, protein shortages, dental caries from high-starch diets). Archaeological evidence shows shorter stature, worse teeth, and more signs of malnutrition in early farming populations.

3. Health and Disease

* Hunter-gatherers: Few epidemic diseases because of small, mobile bands and diverse diets. Parasites existed, but not on the scale of settled communities.

* Farmers: Lived in crowded, permanent settlements surrounded by human and animal waste → explosion of infectious diseases (smallpox, tuberculosis, measles, plague). Close contact with domesticated animals introduced zoonotic diseases. Skeletons from the Neolithic show dramatically higher rates of disease markers.

4. Physical Toll and Injuries

* Hunter-gatherers: More accidents (falls, animal attacks), but generally robust, well-exercised bodies.

* Farmers: Repetitive stress injuries (arthritis in spine and knees from grinding grain and hoeing), higher rates of osteoporosis, herniated discs, and skeletal deformities from constant heavy labor.

5. Child Mortality vs. Overall Population

* Farmers had higher fertility (women could wean earlier because of soft porridge), but much higher child mortality from disease and malnutrition. Net result: population exploded, but most individuals still died young.

* Hunter-gatherers had lower birth rates but higher survival rates for those born → fewer starving or sick children per family.

6. Social Equality

* Hunter-gatherers: Relatively egalitarian (food sharing norms, no way to store surplus for long, little private property).

* Farmers: Surplus → private property → inherited wealth → sharp class divisions, patriarchy, slavery, and warfare over land.

* First off, it is bizarre to bemoan better resources on average just because some outliers have far more resources

* Excuse me, pre-agricultural societies absolutely had slaves (e.g. captives from war)—and let’s be clear, you are LUCKY to become a captive slave in pre-agricultural society, because most men were just killed

* Complex, delayed-return hunter-gatherers of the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Kwakiutl, Haida, Tlingit) and a few other resource-rich coastal or riverine groups even practiced what anthropologists consider to be “true slavery”—raiding neighbors specifically to capture slaves for labor and prestige.

7. Psychological and Existential Quality of Life

* Hunter-gatherers: More leisure time, more varied and stimulating daily activities (tracking animals, storytelling, dancing), stronger community bonds in small bands.

* Farmers: Monotonous, exhausting labor from dawn to dusk; lives dominated by the crop cycle and fear of drought, flood, or locusts.

8. Life Expectancy (at birth vs. if you survived childhood)

Harari repeatedly stresses that average life expectancy at birth dropped after agriculture because of skyrocketing infant mortality. An individual who reached adulthood might live about as long as a hunter-gatherer, but far more children died before age five.

Harari’s own blunt summaries (direct quotes)

* “The average farmer worked harder than the average forager, and got a worse diet in return.”

* “Luxury trap”: Farmers could now have storable food → more babies → larger population → even harder work to feed everyone → no escape.

* “From the viewpoint of individual suffering, the Agricultural Revolution was probably the worst thing that ever happened to Homo sapiens.”

He does concede that agriculture was a stunning success for the species (billions of humans instead of a few million) and for wheat (which spread across the planet), but insists that for the individual human being, it was a dramatic deterioration in almost every measurable aspect of life. That is the core of his “biggest fraud” argument.

Pre-Agricultural Life vs. Modern Life

Where it clearly sucked:

Based on paleopathology, modern hunter-gatherer studies, and ethnographic records. Life expectancy at birth was low (∼30–35 years), but if you survived childhood, reaching 60–70 was not rare. Death was usually brutal and/or lingering rather than quick.

Traumatic & Violent Deaths (very common)

* Interpersonal violence: skull fractures, parry fractures on forearms, embedded projectile points (arrow/spear wounds). Many forager skeletons show healed and unhealed weapon injuries.

* Hunting accidents: falls from trees/cliffs while pursuing game, goring by large animals (aurochs, mammoth, bison), trampling.

* Accidental trauma: broken necks from falling out of trees, drowning while fishing or crossing rivers.

Infectious Diseases & Parasites (far fewer than later, but still nasty)

Crowd diseases (measles, smallpox, influenza, plague) essentially didn’t exist yet because populations were too small and mobile. But you still had:

* Wound infections & sepsis: any deep cut or compound fracture from hunting/fighting often led to Staphylococcus/Streptococcus infections, gas gangrene (Clostridium perfringens), or tetanus (Clostridium tetani — lockjaw and violent spasms, ∼50–80% fatal).

* Chronic osteomyelitis: bone infections that ate away limbs over years.

* Tuberculosis: present in pre-agricultural humans (DNA found in 9,000-year-old skeletons), probably from eating infected game. Slow wasting, coughing blood, death over years.

* Treponematoses (non-venereal syphilis-like diseases: yaws, bejel, pinta): disfiguring skin and bone lesions, common in tropical foragers.

* Parasites galore:

* Tapeworms (Diphyllobothrium from raw fish, Taenia from undercooked meat) — could grow >10 meters in your gut.

* Hookworm & other intestinal worms → chronic anemia, stunted growth.

* Malaria (already present in Africa before agriculture; Plasmodium falciparum DNA found in 5,000+ year-old skeletons).

* Leishmaniasis (protozoan parasite from sandflies) → cutaneous ulcers or visceral form that destroys liver/spleen (“kala-azar,” 95% fatal untreated).

* Hydatid disease (Echinococcus cysts from dog/wolf feces) → huge cysts in liver/lungs that eventually rupture and kill.

Dental Horrors

* Abscesses: no dentistry → an infected tooth often became a fatal brain or neck abscess.

* Extreme wear from grit in food → exposed pulp → constant pain and infection.

Starvation & Nutritional Diseases (especially seasonal)

* Winter or dry-season famine: many modern foragers experience “hungry seasons.” Sudden starvation or slow marasmus/kwashiorkor in children.

* Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy) during long periods without fruit.

* Rickets from low vitamin D in high-latitude foragers.

Childbirth Deaths

* Extremely high maternal mortality: obstructed labor (no cesarean), postpartum hemorrhage, puerperal fever from Streptococcus (childbed fever). Probably 5–15% lifetime risk per birth.

Slow, Ugly Deaths from Chronic Conditions

* Osteoarthritis and spinal degeneration from carrying heavy loads all life → eventually immobilized people who then starved or were abandoned.

* Brucellosis (from raw milk/meat of wild goats, cattle) → years of undulating fever, joint destruction, heart valve failure.

* Chronic zoonotic infections like Q fever, tularemia, anthrax.

Miscellaneous Nasty Ones

* Snakebite & insect envenomation (no antivenom).

* Botulism from poorly cached meat in warm climates.

* Trichinella spiralis cysts from bear or boar meat → weeks of muscle pain, heart failure.

* Rabies (extremely rare but 100% fatal and terrifying).

In short: before agriculture, you were far less likely to die of plague or cholera, but if you got a compound fracture on Tuesday, you were probably screaming in agony with a high fever by Thursday and dead (or wishing you were) by Sunday. Violence, trauma, and zoonotic/parasitic infections were the main killers—slow, painful, and very personal.

Where it’s mixed:

Aspect

Hunter-Gatherers (pre-agriculture)

Early Farmers (Neolithic/Chalcolithic)

Average adult height

Tall (men often 170–180 cm in favorable areas)

Dropped 5–15 cm (men often 155–165 cm)

Life expectancy at birth

30–40 years (high infant mortality)

Similar or slightly lower

Life expectancy at age 15

Often 50–70+ years (many lived into 60s–70s)

Dropped; fewer people reached old age

Dental health

Excellent; very low caries, moderate wear

Dramatic increase in cavities (20–300% higher)

Skeletal signs of anemia

Rare (porotic hyperostosis, cribra orbitalia)

Very common (iron-deficiency anemia from grain-heavy diets)

Infectious disease

Low (small, mobile groups)

Much higher (permanent settlements, animal domestication, density)

Skeletal stress markers

Low to moderate

High (periostitis, osteoarthritis from repetitive labor)

Nutritional diversity

100–300+ species per year

3–10 staple crops (often just 1–3 dominated calories)

Workload

15–30 hours/week (ethnographic average)

50–70+ hours/week of hard physical labor

Violence/interpersonal trauma

Moderate to high in some groups

Often decreased (more centralized authority)

When and Where Things Eventually Improved

* Bronze Age onward (after ~3000 BCE in the Near East, later elsewhere): Better storage, plows, irrigation, and dietary supplementation (e.g., legumes, dairy in some areas) began reversing some trends.

* Iron Age and Classical periods: Heights and health partially recovered in many regions.

* Full recovery to (and surpassing) hunter-gatherer health markers only occurred in the last 100–150 years with modern sanitation, medicine, and dietary abundance.

Non-Agricultural Life Today

Aspect

Non-Agricultural Societies (e.g., Hadza, Tsimané)

Average U.S. Resident (2025)

Key Differences/Substantiation

Life Expectancy at Birth

21–37 years (avg. ~30–33); high infant/juvenile mortality (20–40%) drags down average

78.4 years (slight rebound from COVID lows; varies by state: 80.7 in HI, 71.9 in MS)

U.S. ~2x longer due to vaccines, sanitation, and infant care; hunter-gatherers lose ~30% to childhood diseases

Life Expectancy at Age 15

50–60 years (many reach 60s–70s+; modal age ~68–78)

~63–65 years remaining (total ~78–80)

Comparable adult spans, but U.S. edges out via chronic disease management; Hadza/Tsimané adults often outlive U.S. peers without medicine

Infant Mortality

15–25% (infections, accidents)

<0.6%

U.S. vastly superior; hunter-gatherers lack neonatal tech

Chronic Diseases

Rare: No obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or heart disease; low cancer rates; diverse microbiomes from wild diet

High: 42% obese; 13% diabetic; 50%+ with CVD risk; leading causes of death

Hunter-gatherers’ active lifestyle (8–12 km/day walking) and plant-rich diet (~100g fiber/day) prevent “affluence diseases”; U.S. diet/sedentary life drives epidemics

Physical Function & Aging

High lifelong: Maintain speed/strength into 70s; exceed WHO activity guidelines (173+ min MVPA/day); minimal sarcopenia

Declines post-50: 25%+ inactive; rising falls/arthritis in elderly

Hunter-gatherers age “healthier” (e.g., Hadza grip strength rivals young U.S. adults); U.S. gains years but with more disability

Mental Health & Stress

Low depression/anxiety; egalitarian (no wealth gaps); popularity tied to low cortisol, not status

20%+ with anxiety/depression; high stress from inequality/work

Hadza report high satisfaction; U.S. has therapy but epidemic isolation/suicide

Quality of Life (Subjective)

High: 70–80% rate life “good/very good”; joys in community/nature; but risks (hunger, violence ~19% deaths)

Moderate: Gallup ~6.9/10 satisfaction; conveniences (tech, travel) but inequality, overwork

Hunter-gatherers happier per surveys (e.g., Hadza > U.S. in some metrics); uncontacted tribes avoid modern ills but face extinction threats; U.S. QoL uneven (higher for wealthy)

Workload & Leisure

15–20 hrs/week foraging; seasonal abundance

40+ hrs/week; chronic stress

More “leisure” in hunter-gatherers, but physically demanding; U.S. has automation but burnout

Overall Health Burden

Infectious/parasitic diseases dominant; excellent oral health, anemia low

Non-communicable diseases (70% deaths); opioid crisis, mental health epidemic

U.S. healthier in youth/old age survival; hunter-gatherers win on vitality/prevention

For the Butthurt Idiots who Stan Pre-Agricultural Life

First off, NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO LIVE WITH AGRICULTURE

You, too, can go out like John Plant and make wattle and daub huts

Plenty even of this podcast’s listeners live to varying degrees off the grid, without water, etc.

More broadly, Harari argues that:

* There is no clear evidence that humans today are happier than hunter-gatherers or medieval peasants.

* But define happier; we also aren’t living with bone infections that are eating away at us slowly and excruciatingly…..

* Evolution shaped us to seek survival and reproduction, not lasting happiness. Biochemical happiness (serotonin, dopamine) has narrow limits.

* FOR A REASON

* Most ideologies and religions throughout history have failed to deliver on their promises of happiness or meaning.

* We would argue they do not make these promises

Noah misses what I would see as “the point” of being human and what distinguishes humans from animals in that, in the end of Sapiens, he argues:

* We are on the verge of breaking out of natural selection and becoming something new.

* 21st-century technologies (genetic engineering, AI, cyborg tech) will allow us to redesign life itself and create inorganic life forms.

* This will be the ultimate disruption: Homo sapiens as we have known ourselves for 70,000 years is about to be replaced by something different—possibly gods, possibly irrelevant.

Episode Transcript

Simone Collins: Hello Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today because there’s been this thing that’s bothering me and I just need to get it off my chest.

We need to talk about it. And I, I just, first, I wanna set the scene ‘cause people need to understand how profound and widespread this scourge of a problem is. Or scourge, scourge. So let me, let me just set the scene. Okay. It’s 2015. And you know what? People can’t stop watching. It’s like what the hot video is.

Do you, can you guess like, what, what, what is a hot 20? I dunno. No idea. It’s not, it’s not some stupid viral dance or like a, a, a celebrity scandal. No, it, it’s, it’s a dude. A pale dude in the woods, silently creating. Oh, I watched a lot of those. A hut. Yes. I yes, you, you, you were one of them. Malcolm, you, you watched and, and this was the primitive technology, wattle and DOB hut.

This was the first video published by the YouTube channel, primitive Technology. [00:01:00] Technology. The video now has over 32 million views. So one of those was yours. That’s a lot of views. I mean, and it’s obviously not like dumb viral video views like Charlie, but my finger has 888 million views. The bed intruder song has 158 million views, but 32 million for an 11 minute video with no music, no words, no historical explanation.

It’s pretty cool.

Malcolm Collins: It

Simone Collins: was

Malcolm Collins: a pretty cool video.

Simone Collins: Yeah. You, you may say that, but. Yeah, I don’t, I, I, I don’t, it’s, I, freedom of Technology has 11 million subscribers. Asman Gold has 4.21. Okay? I don’t, I don’t know. Like for me, I think it’s a little bit [00:02:00] suspicious. And here’s the thing. I’m going to argue that it was the Admiral Act Bar of Agriculture himself.

Yuval Noah Harri, the author of Sapiens, a brief history of humankind who’s responsible. For the little subconscious obsession that made primitive technology big, and that has ever since led people in comments on our videos and randomly online to be like, oh, if only we could go back to when we made mud huts in the woods, because that was so much better.

Okay, so

Malcolm Collins: Simone, you’ve, you’ve introduced us in a rather convoluted way. The point that she’s making is she once read, because what she often does for our family is she’ll read whatever books are popular at the time or whatever. Yes. And then she summarizes them and she basically gives me a summary.

She was like GPT before GPT, and when she did that for Sapiens, she was fuming. The entire few days she was reading this, she was like, this is just like, the science [00:03:00] in it is so bad. It’s such a misrepresentation of history and w. We did a video not too long ago about Thanksgiving where we were going over all of the ways that modern civilization and modern life is better than life historically.

And one of the types of comments we saw in that, which is based on this common myth that she is outlining, is that things were better in the pre agricultural world. Like life on average was better. Mm-hmm. You had more free time and less diseases and was less likely to be able to be killed and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yep. The reality is this is not remotely the case. Before we go into the details, basically the gist of the story is in the first cities, in many ways, things were worse than the agricultural period.

Simone Collins: Absolutely.

Malcolm Collins: In the first cities, by the time you enter the [00:04:00] classical era or the Bronze Age not, not even modern times, that trend had been easily reversed along almost every single important metric.

But when you get to the Roman period absolutely reversed by every meaningful metric. And when you get to modern times, and this is the thing, it gets you, because there are a lot of people who live under this myth that their life, and I mean, if you are living in poverty in the United States and you are an incel and you were born ugly, and you were born, you know, like every bad trade possible for our society.

Simone Collins: Yes. Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Literally a hundred to one. You would prefer this life if you knew what your life would actually be like in the pre agricultural period.

Simone Collins: Except you’ve been lied to. You’ve been lied to because this book Sapiens became so freaking big. I mean, just anecdotally I, I was reading it because your, your dad and Michael, if you’re watching, thank [00:05:00] you so much, would not stop talking about it.

Even your mom read it and she always read things for cultural literacy, so I knew everyone else was reading it, but just objectively, this is one of the top performing narrative nonfiction books in, in the past decade, tens of millions of copies have been published in its total worldwide sales are around 40 to 45 million copies in an age when nobody reads anymore.

The book has been translated to about 65 different languages, and it repeatedly appeared at the New York Times Top 10. This, this, this book was so pervasive also, it wasn’t originally published in English. Do you know whether it was originally published in 2011?

Malcolm Collins: No. Fringe Hebrew. Hebrew Hebrew. Oh, interesting.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Also, so for our audience, just you guys know this is, this is Hebrew propaganda here. Yeah. Just in

Simone Collins: case you know, all the It was the Jews.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So when you, when you go out there and, and, and you say, life was better in a pre agricultural period, that is Jewish prophets nature.

Simone Collins: It’s Jewish [00:06:00] propaganda.

Yeah. Guys, you’re gonna think that’s the only thing I had to say. The rest of the rest of it doesn’t matter anymore because honestly, there’s a huge overlap between the commenters who are like. They use the juice box emoji and they hate Jews, but also they’re like, ugh, agriculture. And

Malcolm Collins: they don’t realize it.

The whole like, like the, the pre agricultural period was great thing. This is, this is no, it is funny that that group that actually buys that is actually really heavily overlapped. It’s a group that actually thinks that like Jews are out to get them.

Simone Collins: No, but, but actually actually, but anyway, lemme, lemme give you some choice quotes from the book to get to, here’s the propaganda that they’re, you know, that’s being drummed into people.

We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us and the agricultural revolution was history’s biggest fraud and who was responsible. Neither kings nor priests nor merchants, the culprits were a handful of plant species. These plants [00:07:00] domesticated homosapiens rather than vice versa. Oh, whipping me, Mr.

Corn. Oh my gosh. He is coming to get me this ears. Oh my God. No, no, but it’s,

Malcolm Collins: it’s the, the what’s funny is, is the way that it has been co-opted by parts of boast, the far left and the far right to bolster their narratives. Yeah. I remember when I was younger, this was an ideology that was only had on the far left, where you’d have these like anti GMO type people to be like, if we could go back to living off of the land.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And any sane person would immediately be like, you know, like the carrying capacity. Like even if that was possible, even if everything you said was true, we could support like 1% of Earth’s existing population if we went back to living off the land. But out outside of that, now there’s this new thing like liver king and, and it sort of aesthetically like Bronze Age pervert ist an idiot.

He obviously doesn’t believe this stuff, but

Simone Collins: also Bronze Age. Per [00:08:00] Okay. He leaves a civilized man.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. But there’s this element of the right that’s like there is a miss and they recognize correctly this miss of a progression through history in which things always get better. Well wait, is

Simone Collins: this like, is this the rights version of a oppression Olympics, but it’s just nostalgia Olympics or we’ll say conservatives version of it.

So like you, your very surface level conservatives is like, oh, everything was better in the fifties. And then you’ve got like the Edge Lords who are like, nah, man, bronze Age. And then you’ve got like the intellectuals who think that they’re like the hyper geniuses who are like pre agriculture. Well,

Malcolm Collins: so here’s why it works.

Yeah. And I think you’re absolutely right. Is because they. They, one, they recognize a lie of constant progression. And, and, and, and then two, they sort of are, while, while competing on, you know, nostalgia points, they’re also competing on masculinity points. And there’s this perception of the further back in Timeing you go, the more [00:09:00] masculine man was,

Simone Collins: nothing says masculine like bacteria eating away at your face while you live years of your life out in the exposure.

So fungus

Malcolm Collins: by the way, is the famous case of that, that we’ll go over. I can,

Simone Collins: Yeah, but yeah. Yeah. I’m gonna, I I’m gonna, I’m gonna go through some examples. I, I do wanna give Sapiens credit. There are some really interesting thesis in it that we might even wanna do an episode at, at some point, because the larger argument he’s, he’s making is that what per his view, differentiated homo sapiens from say Neanderthals, is that not only did they develop languages, but they developed the ability.

To create basically shared fictions or imagined realities, you know, like myths and religions and origin stories. But then he also talks about sort of the fictions of like capitalism and, and cities and stuff. No, but hold on,

Malcolm Collins: hold on. I, I, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll explain his, like core analogy of the book in dumber terms.

So if you have a broad understanding of American history and American’s economic history, yeah. You would be very [00:10:00] well aware that the south due to slavery did not economically develop like the north, the slavery made the south. Poorer. The slaves didn’t build America. They economically trapped the south in a cycle of, of poverty basically.

And, and it’s actually somewhat humorous to me when people come out and they try to make the counter argument, they’re like, slavery was actually economically good and useful. And I’m like, that’s a, that’s nots not the argument you think it is, but, but the reality is, and this is very, very easy to see in the data, is that is why this house never industrialized.

Now it would be like somebody seeing that data and then saying, so what that really means is the slaves enslaved their masters. Oh God, the masters were the core victims of slavery. It was the southern plantation owners anyway, continues to vote.

Simone Collins: He more, more than that. I mean, it’s, it, this is like the American God’s version of, of Midwood historians where it’s like, well, no, [00:11:00] what, what makes, and I, I still think this is interesting though that.

Basically, almost everything we value from nations to money, to human rights is in our collective imagination. This sort of shared fantasy, and that these fictions have been really useful, but they’ve also caused immense suffering per his view, and now they threaten our future. And I mean, he also sort of argues at the end of the book that like, we’re gonna not become human anymore anyway.

So kind of like, what does it matter per his view? It, it, it gets all really crazy. Yeah. So like, there are some interesting things about the book. Like I really like those ideas, but I just couldn’t get over. His arguments about agriculture, they made me so angry. But, and is it

Malcolm Collins: something that would make you a, this is the thing, if you’re like reading this book or you hear somebody explain this to you, it all sounds very plausible.

Yeah. Like, yeah,

Simone Collins: actually, let me do this ‘cause I, we need to give a good faith. Like, here’s what he argues. And when you actually hear it laid out, you’re like, oh man. Like [00:12:00] I can understand why someone who’s not putting a lot of thought into this is told these things or they read this book or they hear someone talking about this and they’re like, oh yeah man, like agriculture did make everything worse.

‘cause there are lots of factual and true things that when well, and it’s not, you could say taken outta context or, or interpreted from a certain perspective, like a purely present focused to don perspective. Are compelling, shall we go forward?

Malcolm Collins: No. Before you go into this, I’d say the core reason why his argument works so well is because the early agricultural period and pre classical civilization is a giant hole in the American education system.

That, that’s

Simone Collins: a great point. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Education typically starts with Egypt or Greece. And so a lot of, if you’re

Simone Collins: lucky, Mr. Private School, if

Malcolm Collins: you’re lucky. So somebody can just come in and say a bunch of things about this transition. And if you are not an anthropology or you [00:13:00] know, histor, you know, historical anthropology Yeah.

You’re like, oh dude, that

Simone Collins: sucks. Also, even if you are taught about pre agricultural societies, which I was through all of our Native American education in California. When you go to like the local tribe sites and like you do all this stuff to like learn about local historical Native American tribes, you’re only hearing about the cool stuff.

You don’t hear about, like, it’s like, oh, they grand, they ground down acorns to make, you know, like acorn meal and, and it’s like, oh, this is so cool. That sounds tasty. You don’t hear anything that’s like, here are the practicalities of life.

Malcolm Collins: Continue. So make the argument. Make the argument. So yeah,

Simone Collins: here’s, here is his argument as to why things got worse with agriculture.

So working hours got worse. Hunter gatherers, he says, works 20 to 35 hours per week, and, and they spent that time just getting their basic needs in order. Said like he, he’s citing modern studies of the Kang and the haah. I’m, I’m mispronouncing that, but we don’t [00:14:00] actually know that. I just wanna point out No,

Malcolm Collins: no, I actually, if, if you’re gonna make the, what he does not address here and is something that you’re likely not thinking about as like a modern human uhhuh is leisure time in a hunter-gatherer tribe is not as valuable as a leisure time.

Today?

Simone Collins: Yeah, maybe they were just trying to keep warm in a cave and you’re like scrolling YouTube.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, they’re, they’re literally like staring at a wall in a cave. And

Simone Collins: their cave paintings,

Malcolm Collins: you’re, you’re imagining them like I, I don’t know, like going on their daily jog or something. I’m confused.

They don’t even think about like what leisure time means, what are doing,

Simone Collins: what

Malcolm Collins: they doing. They, they imagine a lot of these tribes, and I kid you not, they do not even have games. No. They may have stories, but it’s the same stories their ancestors told for x many generations. It’s just about telling something you memorized once.

Yeah. It, it [00:15:00] is the, the level of existential boredom you would be facing, I think would horrify a modern person. Well, no, I

Simone Collins: think more than that, and this is one of the arguments that I, I make, I wanna make is that they weren’t as online as. They weren’t as human as we are today. You know, they’re prefrontal cortices.

I, I don’t

Malcolm Collins: think were, so the studies that he’s referencing were done on an anatomically modern human groups. Anatomically modern groups.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But

Malcolm Collins: like, maybe don’t, maybe don’t mention this too much. I think a part of our audience knows what you’re talking about, but I think maybe not the

Simone Collins: okay. I’m, well, okay.

Even, even, okay. I’m not saying anatomically they, they weren’t that different. I’m just saying like, if you do not cultivate your prefrontal cortex throughout your life, the way our entire bodies work, including our minds, is use it or lose it. Okay. Yeah. So I, if you spend your life supercharging and stimulating various parts of your prefrontal cortex in your imagination and your language centers and all this, you’re gonna have hyperactive language and you’re gonna experience boredom.

But like. A dog [00:16:00] that can’t talk. This

Malcolm Collins: is like a more existential issue than I think people realize when they talk about the leisure time people used to have, they’re like, oh, come on, I could make that time more interesting. I’d talk with like my friends and it’s like, no, you don’t understand like what conversations are like in these societies.

And, and you can listen to like recordings of them and stuff like that. They are either talking about stuff that’s just objectively not true, like about like spirits and nonsense. Well, that’s

Simone Collins: fine. And a again, like, I don’t, like you can, you can watch a cat or a monkey like chilling and you’re like, man, that looks good.

Like, they’re lying in the sun. They’re happy. Like, I’m what? I’m looking as a professor, like chilling. And she’s happy. And I think people are like, I wanna do that. So I don’t think your argument that like, oh, they must be so bored is their argument. No, no. Hold on, hold on. Chilling. All

Malcolm Collins: our audience gets this.

If you have ever been unemployed for X amount of time or something like that, you know, this idea of like, oh, life would be so much better. I just didn’t know work at all. Is BS like your life becomes existentially like. Horrifying. When you literally do like that [00:17:00] little work, right? But it’s not just that, the point I’m making is you don’t have many games.

When you’re talking to people, their view of the world is incredibly myopic. So you don’t have much in terms of conversation. You do, you can’t even really gossip that much because it’s a danger to the tribe and will just get you killed. Like not really. I mean,

Simone Collins: gossip is, I mean there, there’s this, all these arguments of developmentally that women make about gossip.

About how important it is and stuff like that.

Malcolm Collins: I, again, I, I don’t know. Like I basically living often in a somewhat authoritarian regime, many of these tribes are set up not dissimilarly to like, chimpanzee tribes. Right. Where you have Yeah, no, and that’s

Simone Collins: the thing, yeah. Is like, don’t, don’t compare it to human life.

Compare compared to animal life, because that’s what it was. And like, you have to choose a team. Like if you wanna be an animal, I respect that. If you wanna be a human, what makes us human?

But

continue your argument. Continue anyway. Yeah. So like early farmers went from the 20 to 35 hours of work. [00:18:00] To 50 to 60 plus hours of work that that, that he categorizes as back breaking.

You know, you’re plowing and you’re weeding and your harvest things. Highly seasonal work and grinding grain. Yes. Highly seasonal, but he doesn’t like to talk about that because that’s not as convenient for his argument. So shut up. Right. And then diet and nutrition. Hunter gatherers had an extremely varied diet.

Right. Dozens of plants and nuts and fruits and game and fish and honey. Of course, he doesn’t point out necessarily that it might be like three days where you eat nothing but honey. Like, yeah, no, it’s, it’s not a, it’s

Malcolm Collins: not a, it’s a diverse diet, but

Simone Collins: not by choice. Yeah. It reminds me of some friends that I had in college where like, they would just eat like a bag of peas and that was it for the day.

You know, like,

Malcolm Collins: well, I, I pointed out here that the, the labor was very different. Yeah. So he hits you with comparisons that make sense to a modern person, Uhhuh, where he says. Oh. You know, no, he makes it sound like

Simone Collins: they, like have Whole Foods food deliveries, like every day. No, no, no, no, no.

Malcolm Collins: But, but he, [00:19:00] that’s not the argument I’m making here.

So he’ll say something like, oh, you know, they’re working four times as much, but it wasn’t even four times as much. I think it was like twice as much in his book when they’re doing agricultural labor, right? Mm-hmm. And it is backbreaking and it’s very physically demanding compared to the hunter-gatherers.

And it’s like, that is true. Yeah. But what is the negatives to the hunter gatherer work that he’s leaving out? Oh, it’s often incredibly dangerous. Yeah. You

Simone Collins: gord by the moose, you get, you know. Yeah. It’s like you get killed. You, you break your neck running and falling off a cliff. And

Malcolm Collins: I know that people can say now when they don’t actually have to deal with charging a mammoth or something like that.

Right. Or a herd of buffalo Right on foot. Because keep in mind, these people work on foot, not on like horses or something. And, and they can hear. Oh yeah. I would rather charge a mammoth.

Simone Collins: Well, come on. We, we clearly enjoyed it because we hunted them to extinction, so. Right, right.

Malcolm Collins: No, but then, then spend four x that time [00:20:00] cultivating a field and it’s like.

You, you actually probably wouldn’t. Because you haven’t actually dealt with the injuries regularly of charging mammoths and large game, which we know a lot of males in these societies had. Mm-hmm. Like the horrifying injuries. So no, you, you wouldn’t have loved it. The, the labor was not actually better.

Mm-hmm. Anyone who had actually done both of these tasks would prefer the the, the agricultural task to the charging the mammoth at one fourth a time. Well, yeah,

Simone Collins: and this is the second big argument I wanna make, which is like, if you just let look at, look at the market choices being made, right? At any point, unless you’re a slave or like, you’re literally forced to not leave, you have always had the option to leave.

Okay. No one is keeping you, so

Malcolm Collins: you’re actually wrong on this point. Okay. So there were two lifestyles that were strictly better than the, than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Okay. Are you familiar with the two lifestyles? Did they jump to your head off [00:21:00] the top of your head?

Simone Collins: You mean agricultural lifestyle?

‘cause my argument is you can always leave an a post agricultural world and go live in the wilderness if you want to.

Malcolm Collins: No, there were two core types of societies that developed. Okay. And they hated each other. Okay. And most of history is about these two societies wanting to kill each other. Okay. So like

Simone Collins: Mongols, like the roving bands of sea people was Agriculturalist,

Malcolm Collins: one was agriculturalist.

Mm-hmm. What was the other? They were our ancestors. Simone. Other than the alcohol, like the

Simone Collins: Vikings and see people’s Simon. No, no.

Malcolm Collins: What do you eat? What do our kids eat? What is literally dairy? 80% of our calories. Dairy. Dairy and meat. Okay. They were. Herding Society. Society.

Simone Collins: Oh, okay. I th They’re all grouped together, aren’t they?

Hurting societies? No. Hurting

Malcolm Collins: societies and agriculturalist societies generally hated each other. He

Simone Collins: doesn’t differentiate between the two in this. He just assumes they’re the same of life

Malcolm Collins: herding societies can’t stay in the same place. Herding societies, basically? Well, sort

Simone Collins: of. I [00:22:00] mean, you obviously need a lot of acreage, but, well, not

Malcolm Collins: really.

And their lifestyles are actually directly in opposition to each other. Mm-hmm. The herding lifestyle needs to move from place to place. Often eating the food of agricultural societies. Also because they don’t stay in locations, they often develop. Side hobby of raiding agriculturalist societies. So most Raider societies came from herding societies.

Hmm. And even in modern times, and I know this because I lived for a period in the Panal region in Brazil, and my brother lived down there and he actually had this more in his thing. And so that’s still a, a more primitive society to get this until fairly recently. And he remembers that the groups would at bars one instance in which they all pulled guns on each other, the, the herders versus the agriculturalist at the bar.

Simone Collins: Oh, wow. And

Malcolm Collins: the panton out region, if you’re not familiar, it’s deep in the Amazon. You know, so we, we, well off any, like on the other side of the Amazon is basically where it was not like deep in, it’s sort of like on the other side of where the mouth water that the [00:23:00] Amazon River are. Anyway, the point is, is this still happens around the world, is these two groups conflicting each other.

And so painting it as an agricultural revolution is disingenuous. There were multiple revolutions happening simultaneously. Mm. And they led to very different lifestyles. But continue, Simone,

Simone Collins: the point I wanted to make about diet and nutrition is that it makes it seem as a diet is very varied.

And it was for pre agricultural, but it was also like, you get what you can get. Like, and, and there were many pre agricultural societies that only ate like whale love and seal meat and stuff.

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah. That’s, so I wanna get to that in a second. But the other thing I wanted to mention about the the two society types is you’re like, you could choose not to join them.

You really couldn’t. If you didn’t join one of them, they’d just kill you and take your women. Th th this is okay. They, they were, that’s fair enough.

They were more powerful. They had structures that other groups didn’t have. And so you can’t opt out like inside. It reminds me of the, the, the welcome to bronze period.

Like, well what if we don’t [00:24:00] adopt bronze? And it’s like, well then the people who do will kill you and take your women and things.

Speaker: , I just say as a tribe, why don’t we leave the bronze to the smart Alex and the Wiz kids and we’ll just carry on using stone axes like we always do, because if you do, the tribes with the bronze axes will kill you. And then take your stone axes and then throw them away because they’re rubbish.

,

Malcolm Collins: And I sometimes feel when people are like, well, what if I don’t engage with genetic augmentation technology or ai? I mean, it’s like, well, huh, I’ll tell you what will happen.

But the, the point here, ma, I’m making That’s a good point actually. It wasn’t actually a choice and it’s not actually that much of a choice today. The people who still live that way, basically live in human created zoos where we like rope off parts of the world and say, okay, no one’s allowed to go here.

Simone Collins: Yeah, I guess it’s, it’s, or, and, or the same kind of argument that you make about the Amish, which is like, you are still living at the, at the pleasure of the larger.

Malcolm Collins: Governments more technologically advanced group. Yes. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And, and if they change their minds health and disease, and, [00:25:00] and this is a a totally fair point, is that hunter gatherers didn’t have a lot of epidemic diseases because they lived in really small mobile bands and they had really diverse diets.

They, but they had diseases and bacteria don’t have injuries. Yeah. To,

Malcolm Collins: to, to go over an example of one of these diseases because you, you brought it up here. There’s a disease that is quite common on paleo, like chro, Magine skeletons and stuff like that. And I know because I used to work in the field at the Smithsonian and I’ve helped one.

Yeah. And it always sticks with me.

This, this bubbling skull. And so specifically it’s called Crow Magnan One Skull. So that’s from the. Abre Day CAG site in France dated 28,000 years ago. So this is a, a good representation of what it would’ve been like to live in this period. The, the, the male facial bones show extensive pitting and erosion consistent with a fungal affection.

Mm-hmm. Likely antimortem while alive, since bone remodeling takes time. [00:26:00] The bubbly foam look, or the pitted texture was the fungus eroding the bone tissue. This, this fungus was a type likely aspira gillis or muus, I think, which would’ve been treatable even in the, the classical period, right?

Like this was a type of like so easy to treat fungus, that it really is not relevant in most of human history. So

Simone Collins: when, and even some diseases that I as. I, I associated more with like the Victorian era that like, I would’ve if, if trying to argue in favor of sapiens actually did still exist in pre agricultural times.

Like did you know tuberculosis was an issue in pre agricultural?

Malcolm Collins: Oh. And it was such an issue that we have giant bone piles where like 40% or 60% of them died. Are we gonna get to that? Yeah. Because if you, if

Simone Collins: you ate infected game, you, you could get tuberculosis. Yeah. It’s like you just

Malcolm Collins: eat the wrong meat one day and then, and and you could be like, [00:27:00] oh, they knew better than to eat infected game.

Keep in mind an animal can be sick, right? Yeah. Like, you don’t know, it’s not just rotted game or something like that.

Simone Collins: And then there’s also, I’m not familiar with this. I mean, I guess maybe ‘cause it’s more of a per agricultural condition, but. Treponin masts which is a non venereal syphilis like disease.

Jaws, vegal penta, it disfigures skin and bone and it it causes bone lesions and it, it’s common in tropical forages, so that sounded terrible. Then of course there’s a tape worms, there’s a hook hookworm, there’s malaria. There, there are various ti sites, but can also get

Malcolm Collins: things from soil when you interact with them.

So, well, I

Simone Collins: mean, well, and obviously too, if any wound got infected,

Malcolm Collins: I, if you’re looking at the Los Mortis site, this was Arizona AD 1,100 to 1450 the, they had a infection from K. Godes ETE spores inhaled from soil damage included lidic destructive lesions with [00:28:00] central cavity in the skull vault.

And vertebral bros. Essentially holes hint in into the bone making it look like Swiss cheese. We know this happened while the person was alive and healed over because of the healing patterns around the bones. This was happening in their spine and skull. Yeah. Anyway, continue.

Simone Collins: Obviously people talk a lot about how the higher sugar diets or like carb diets from agricultural periods cause dental problems, but they also totally existed before agriculture, especially extreme wear from grit in food because you’re just kind getting what you, oh, oh actually,

Malcolm Collins: sorry, I need to talk about this.

‘cause this is a different thing. And it’s not just grit and food. It has to do with cooking techniques that are important if you study this period. So, what she’s saying, and this is true, you had much more tooth wrought in the agricultural period. Mm-hmm. But before the agricultural period, you had much more tooth lith or serious tooth damage.

Mm-hmm. And this was caused because a lot of the cooking [00:29:00] techniques involved the meat being in sand and dirt. And then you would cook it and you would be eating cooked sand and dirt, which acted like sandpaper on your teeth. Yeah. Now this damage actually went into the agricultural period leading to a unique teeth nuking during the early agricultural period where you had boast the sand and the dirt problem and the o carbohydrates problem.

Yeah. But by the classical period you were dealing with largely better dentition than you were in the pre cultural period.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Continue.

Simone Collins: And I just, I wanna obviously, like, I, I wanna point out that there’s. You, you got botulism. Especially if, if you, you know, caught meat in a warm client, a climate you, you, you could get rabies.

You could get any sort of snake bite or bug bite that could kill you. And, you know, those are a little more common when you’re kind of out in the jungle covering a lot of ground every single day or forest. But most of the deaths also in this period were really, really [00:30:00] slow and long. If you didn’t immediately like slap your snap your neck and because you weren’t living in a city and you weren’t surrounded by like a supportive family and you didn’t exactly have a base, you were often just left behind because everyone else was gonna die if they hung around to like be there for you.

And they couldn’t really afford to keep you with them. So. Yeah. In many cases you would just be sort of exposed and left to slowly die. And I think when, when you watch how animals die in nature documentaries like when they’re being eaten alive and you know, like that, you’re like, man, that

Malcolm Collins: it’s

Simone Collins: more eaten alive,

Malcolm Collins: type, die.

Yeah. Even when other human groups are doing this. So I point out it’s at the low range. 10% of humans were killed in homicide during this period. So way more than today. Mm-hmm. And it, and I’ve seen higher ranges that could go up to, I think it was like 30 to 60% from something that I’ve seen, like really high ranges.

Mm-hmm. To give some examples of like what we’re looking at here, if you look at NATA Kenya 10,000 years ago there’s a Lakeside Hunter camp where 27 [00:31:00] unburied skeletons scattered as if left to rot. They provide evidence of a premeditated massacre. 10 of the 12 articulated adults show violent lesions from clubs, arrows, and close range stabbings.

And we’re also dealing with, I’m not gonna go into detail here, lots of kids and babies. Thank you for not going

Simone Collins: into

Malcolm Collins: detail. Not going into detail. Goes Cave England 14,700 years ago. Here you have the remains of five to seven individuals, including a, we’re not gonna go into detail. Bears the mark of systematic def fleshing and cannibalism.

God bowls were fractured and modified into cups and bowls with cut marks from stone tools matching those of animals nearby. Not, not great. Yeah, I’m not gonna go into, oh, we have another one. The o off that caves in Germany, 9,007,000 years ago. 33. 33 decapitated heads mostly women and children arranged west and adorned with wet ochre and deer teeth.

So their teeth were repla. We’re not even gonna go into this. Here’s the,

Simone Collins: and here’s the thing. Okay, here’s, ‘cause I’m, I’m just going to jump. ‘cause I mean, [00:32:00] obviously he also talks about physical toll and injuries. He talks about child mortality in the overall population, but he also, biggest thing is he talks about the social inequality and that when you had farmers, you finally got a surplus and then you had private property, and then you had inherited wealth, and then you had sharp class divisions and then patriarchy and then slavery and then warfare over land.

But look at those examples you just cited. And first off, like honestly, you’re kind of lucky to become a slave because if you’re a slave, you haven’t been tortured and, and skinned, alive and killed or just generally killed. And, and in pre agricultural societies when they it like, so a lot of first off there totally was.

Slavery in pre agricultural societies. It was many, it was probably

Malcolm Collins: common in pre agricultural societies. Many don’t like

Simone Collins: to call them that, they like to call them captives from war. Although I will point out the complex delayed return hunter gatherers in the Pacific Northwest, for example did fight over like EE [00:33:00] each other.

And actually I, in the classical or like academic definition of true slavery, indeed have slaves because they rated neighbors specifically to capture slaves for labor and prestige. So it’s not even like, yeah, well it

Malcolm Collins: wasn’t just for slavery. If you study the, the surviving tribes and like the, amazonian region, teach America, oh, a number of them have rituals where like they, they can’t mate or take a wife until they’ve killed someone from another tribe. So that’s like really common. But they one of the ones that always reminded me. And so I think that what happened, and I, I can tell you how people get this rather dumb belief

Simone Collins: mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Is. They say, okay, pre agricultural humans, we’re probably like hunter gatherer tribes today, which I do not disagree with. Right. And then what they do is they go, oh, let’s read anthropological literature on hunter gatherers today to try to understand what, what they then forget is, oh, if these tribes were incredibly barbaric and lived horrible lives mm-hmm.

Would a woke researcher, which anyone writing these likely [00:34:00] is write about how horrible and evil these minority communities that they want to protect actually are in real life. Mm-hmm. If you actually read the, the like if you’re actually like into anthropology research and not like anthropology highlights, you know, that life in these tribes is horrifying.

So a great one that I read about, I wanna say it was the ari and this was a the South American group. I’m trying to remember this from, from memory. But one of the events that always really stuck with me. As he was talking to a woman and one of the dominant males from the tribes, if you wonder what it’s like to live in a tribe with a few dominant males, which is actually the way most of these tribes are structured, they are not egalitarian.

Even though anthropologists sometimes straight to ra them is egalitarian. Mm-hmm. The dominant male they were, they were talking with a woman and she was talking about how. Her kid was crying one day. This was like a 4-year-old kid or something, and it annoyed the dominant male. So he just slammed the kid’s head against a tree until they died.

And there was just [00:35:00] nothing she could do. Nothing she could, she just had to live in that tribe, move on. Her partner just had to deal with it and move on. Because that was a normal thing for dominant males in that tribe to do, to kill children that mildly annoyed them. That is not the egalitarian world that you believe that you are living in.

Okay. That is. And, and, and if you did that in many. Agricultural societies. The, the good thing about agricultural societies, oh, I mean, keep

Simone Collins: in mind, just remember in the Bible there are all these rules about like, well, if you do this to a slave or I can’t remember if it’s, it’s that, or like some other ancient text.

Malcolm Collins: The important thing about, and we have a whole video where we go over all ancient rules and everything like that about slaves. Yeah. Right. About like, well if you

Simone Collins: do this to a slave, you have to pay this penalty. Like you’re not allowed to do that. There are rules. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: The point I’m making here is there are actually advantages to living in a society with less equality when you live in these structures and you can be like, wait, explain that to [00:36:00] me.

Okay, so suppose you have a collection of tribes like the, the one I just laid out, like this re tribe, right? Mm-hmm. And they have practices like this with a few dominant males. Okay? So you might have one male dominant over a small group of like 17. Other individuals, right? And they can basically like one group of three males and they can basically do whatever they want to the rest of those individuals whenever they feel like it.

Mm-hmm. Okay. Now move to a city, you have less equality, but it’s one or a group of like three or four males for like a thousand people or something like that. Okay? The chance that your child draws the anger of this three males for this thousand population, or your daughter catches their eyes is dramatically lower than the chance that this happens in Ari population.

Right? This means that if you are not one of the dominant males in this tribe and one of the dominant males takes a liking to your wife or girlfriend, too bad you’re having his kids. That’s just the way the tribe works. [00:37:00] Whereas in other tribes, you just keep ‘em hidden. You know, it’s, it’s, it’s there, there are advantages when you’re dealing with this degree of despotism for inequality, ironically speaking, but continue.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. And, and again, I wanna like a lot of what happened here and what was being misrepresented, which I just wanna highlight ‘cause you pointed it out earlier. Was it sort of like, you could argue from a just pure happening in the moment, hedonic perspective, there was a local maximum perhaps with some pre agricultural societies where it did absolutely get worse for a little bit.

When agriculture was introduced, like nutrition got a little worse, dentition was a little worse. Or sorry, like dental health was a little worse. Child mortality went up mostly because people were having more kids ‘cause they could, ‘cause they weren’t starving and they didn’t have a amenorrhea. You know, they were working more, et cetera.

But then. From Broad’s age onward, like from [00:38:00] 3000 BCE in the Near East and a little later elsewhere there, there were better storage, there were better plows, there was better irrigation, there was better dietary supplementation. So nutrition got better, life got better from the iron aging, classical periods onward, absolutely.

Things got so much better. Like you can see in, in skeletons, heights go up. And in health, pretty much recovered back to like what you saw in, in pre agricultural skeletons at that region. ‘cause people did get shorter initially when, when agriculture was introduced. And then of course we saw a full recovery and then some, as soon as, you know, we, we have modern sanitation and medicine and, and dietary abundance. And, and that’s the, the big thing is if you, if you compare non-agricultural life today to agricultural life, there’s just no comparison. And that’s where I get super annoyed with people to today who are like, man things like, it just, it’s better because like.

No. Right now there are people who live in [00:39:00] non-agricultural societies. What is their life expectancy at birth 21 to 37 years? What is the average sick fat American’s life expectancy, and I’m not saying we’re super healthy, right? Like we have problems is 74 years,

Malcolm Collins: I point out 21 to 31. Mm-hmm. If somebody today died within that range, like at 31, you’d be like, wow, they died shockingly young.

Mm-hmm. Like, you’re like, this is a shockingly young death. That was the average upper end life expectancy even today for these sorts of societies.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So it, I mean like the actual average is, is 30 to 33 years. It, it’s kind of messed up by the high infant mortality, which again, really bad, 15 to 25%.

In the non today non-agricultural societies. So once you reach, I wanna, I

Malcolm Collins: wanna, I wanna pull on this a little bit because I wanna talk about like, this, like based framing, right? Where people think I’m based, because I’m talking about how great it would be if I lived like an African [00:40:00] tribalist mm-hmm.

If I lived like you know, a a, the, the Na Native Americans did when the European colonialists reached, there’s a reason why they lost, right? Like even before the diseases had started spreading. Yeah. There was a reason why the conquistadors was significantly less technology than we have today. You are ensuring, and this is the, the truth of it, the people who do this sort of like bronze age fronting none of them have kids.

And if they do their below repopulation rate, like, like bro, like, like the, the liver king guy, I think he has like. Two. I thought he like three or four kids. Right? He’s completely faking. I thought he had two kids. Let’s see. How many kids does Liver King have?

Simone Collins: Well, maybe it was just two

Malcolm Collins: bronze Age.

Perfect. Certainly has no kinks.

Simone Collins: Okay. I mean, here’s the other problem though is, is there are. I think people look to, even, even contemporary,

Malcolm Collins: it’s got two kids. Oh, two. Oh, so below replacement? Yeah. No, they’re never above replacement. It’s not an above replacement strategy. It’s, it’s [00:41:00] about it, it, it’s literally, to me, it is the worst of male strategies.

It is the male equivalent to the woman who dresses in all like. Prada and Gucci stuff to show off to other women and wears all the extra makeup and everything to show how I tie status. She’s dedicated her entire life to intrasexual status signaling. And, and for this, it’s males who have dedicated their entire life to intrasexual status signaling to other males in populations that they think that they can flex with.

And to me and to anybody who’s actually interested in actually winning the genetic game that we’re playing in the civilizational game, they look like buffoons. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Well, and, and so many of the things that people complain about where they’re like, well, these non-agricultural societies are healthier in this way, like, lower levels of chronic disease, lower, like, okay then like, eat a, eat better food.

Like, you can, you can choose to do that at any level. Like if you, you can choose to eat whole foods. You can choose to eat, you know, a, a more varied diet. You can choose [00:42:00] to walk more or move more. Even if you’re a desk. What I’m.

Malcolm Collins: You arrive at, at the shore, you encounter these people for the first time and it’s like, Ugh, you, you’re gonna kill us with guns.

That’s so soy. What? How soy, you’re gonna kill us with guns. You don’t even work out. Bam. It’s like, well, I did kill you. Yeah.

Simone Collins: It’s like that famous Indiana Jones scene.

Heh,

Simone Collins: Yeah. I, I love the backstory of that too. That scene. He got

Malcolm Collins: sick that day. Yeah. He was supposed to have, yeah. And he was like, they had

Simone Collins: this whole elaborate fight scene and he was sick and they’re just like, just take gun.

That’s just such good, good film lore. But yeah, I, I like, they’re also like, well, they don’t get, they don’t get cancer, the rates of cancer because they die because they’re dead. They die.

Malcolm Collins: That’s why they’re not getting cancer. Okay. Ca

Simone Collins: cancer is a privilege. Friends, it’s what [00:43:00] happens. No, no, no. Actually, I,

Malcolm Collins: I wanna point this out.

If you are 31 to 33 and you’re a group that has a life expectancy of like 31 to 33. How, how many people do you know who have cancer before 31? Right? Like,

Simone Collins: what are you, whatcha talking

Malcolm Collins: about?

Simone Collins: But also like who’s going out into the woods and like who’s the mortician? Who’s like, ah, yes, this appears to have been, no, no, but I study this in

Malcolm Collins: skeletons and mummies and stuff like that.

And they did have lower rates of cancer. I’m referring

Simone Collins: to people to, to people who are pre agricultural today who are like, you know. Remote tribes, you know? Yeah. There’s not some guy going in and being like, I wouldn’t exactly say lower

Malcolm Collins: rates of cancer is the flex you think it is. Mm. Cancer is you know, not awesome in society today, but like we’ve largely found a way to deal with cancer in younger individuals.

Mm-hmm. Outside if people could be like, I know x person who died of cancer or whatever, it’s like, yeah, you can know somebody who’s died of cancer. We know people who have died of cancer. But the reality is, is that dying of cancer these days is you, we, we have in [00:44:00] and increasingly have solutions to it.

Yeah.

Simone Collins: It’s an increasingly preventable disease, which is great, especially with early screening, which is crucial as we’ve learned the hard way from losses in our families. So, yeah. I mean, I’m with you on that. And, and here’s the other thing too, ultimately is these tribes that live pre agricultural lives, like they’re going through a crisis of.

Disappearing because people are voting with their feet and leaving when they have a choice to go, they’re going, they’re moving to cities and they’re living lives in the modern world because you know what? Antibiotics, they’re pretty freaking great. So I just, I to, to wrap this up ‘cause I don’t want this to be too long.

It, it’s that, yeah. I mean, there’s

Malcolm Collins: lots of evidence we could cite that. I don’t even think it’s worth citing. I think it’s no

Simone Collins: like this, it’s, it’s like I, I just, but I also just feel like there’s like this, this book and this overall meme is, it’s this, it’s this deep undercurrent. [00:45:00] It’s a cooked meme through the internet and it’s not dying.

And, and it’s been 10 years since this book came out in English and it’s still not dying. And listen, it, I think it’s great to integrate elements that are, you know, like our, our, like we should have more varied diets. Absolutely. We should be more physically active. I agree with you. I work from a treadmill desk.

I walk about 15 miles every damn day, right? Like, I love this stuff, but you can do this. With modern life. And so Harari, the, the, again, the, the author of Sapiens, he argues that there’s no clear evidence that humans today are happier than hunter gatherers. But like, define happy because like how happy is, is Greg who’s, whose skull is being eaten away, like he’s waking up in pain every single day.

Is we happier

Malcolm Collins: even compare apple to oranges. Everyone sort of has a happiness set point where they, you know, get to a set happiness level with whatever their life is. Yeah. Which is

Simone Collins: probably largely genetic.

Malcolm Collins: What is [00:46:00] true is if you took somebody from one of these cultures and you put them in our culture, they would generally be happier.

If you took someone from our culture and put them in one of their cultures, they would generally probably unlive themselves outta Yeah. They wouldn’t be feeling anything. So I guess. No, no. What I’m saying is they would hate their lives so much. They would. No, they’d be

Simone Collins: dead. I’m saying they wouldn’t be feeling anything ‘cause they would die immediately.

Malcolm Collins: No, but even if they did, even if they survived, they integrated with the tribe. Mm-hmm. They would, they would hate you take a kid who grew up with cell phones and computers and philosophical conversations and an understanding of reality, and you put him in one of these primitive tribes, he’s gonna hate his life.

Right? Mm-hmm. Like mm-hmm. There is no reverse integration, right? Like,

Simone Collins: yeah. Yeah. Well, and here’s what also really annoys me though. Like, and, and this is an argument, and this is very similar to the American dream, but hurt that you hear like, we’ve been robbed of the American dream. And very similarly, RA’s like, well, most ideologies and religions throughout history have failed to [00:47:00] deliver on their promises of happiness and meaning.

And I’m like, sir, they never promised happiness. And they never promised. They promised. Meaning,

you’re, you’re, they’re, I’m a jealous God.

I’m gonna, I’m gonna kill you. If you don’t listen to me or you know, like, this is capitalism. If you wanna live, play the game. Yeah. Or we’ll kill you. That’s the real, like, kill the other

Malcolm Collins: groups.

Simone Collins: Better.

Malcolm Collins: The ones who spread their ideology Historically,

Simone Collins: we, we never promised happiness, have happiness, was never promised. Same with the American dream, the American dream. You know, this is about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which you may never get. Like, hold on. What I wanna

Malcolm Collins: point out here is there is an alternate, there is an actual saying, and not stupid way to make an argument like this.

Okay? But the people who make this argument wouldn’t make it because the moment they make this argument is that, go do it, then do it. And the answer is, is to say well. The Amish have uniquely low rates of cancer. Yeah. The Amish have uniquely low rates of [00:48:00] transmissible diseases. The Amish genuinely do seem happier than most people do.

Yeah. They’re in their base. They’re so

Simone Collins: cool. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: There is a way you can go back to an earlier time that might be as civilizational optimum. There are absolutely people who convert into Amish

Simone Collins: communities

Malcolm Collins: and Mennonite communities, everything like that. Mm-hmm. And it’s called being a Mennonite or being Amish.

Yeah. Go. It’s cool if you want to do that, you can just go do it, my friend. You can just go to the Amish or the Mennonites and show them that you’ll work hard and do the labor and marry into one of the families. Mm-hmm. And become one of them. But you don’t actually wanna make those sacrifices. And being an Amish doesn’t make you look cool and buff and status signal to other men.

So you’re like, oh, that it does, that didn’t, there’s

Simone Collins: whole like. Amish romance novel genre. There

Malcolm Collins: is, yes. Like, but for people who know this, they’re called Rivers hot. Yeah. And they’re really popular among women who like wanna have Amish fantasies. Oh. So again, this is, this is the, the tough guys not knowing what girls [00:49:00] want.

There are not, they know. No, they don’t know. They don’t know. No. They know that They don’t know the type of masculinity that the girls want. There is not a big category of a female romance about living in a, in a tribal society other than like, Gorian, which isn’t that popular anymore. Yeah, there is a lot.

And that, no, that

Simone Collins: wasn’t, no, that wasn’t a tribal society. It was like super regimented, full of tradition and like inter fake. Anyway, it was clearly an imperialistic, like complex civilization. So that doesn’t count at all.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway, love you Simone. No, no, no. I

Simone Collins: wanna one, one final point. Is it sort of the way that Sapiens ends, this is kind of like.

Well, it, it almost doesn’t even matter because we’re, we’re on the verge of breaking out of natural selection and we’re becoming something utterly unhuman. And that that basically like 2020 first century technologies like genetic engineering and ai are gonna turn us into cyborgs and we can redesign life itself and create inorganic life forms.

And that [00:50:00] this is the ultimate disruption of all the disruptions he talks about in his book, of which the agricultural revolution was just one. I mean, he also said talks about like various forms of capitalism and imperialism anyway, but he’s like, well, it doesn’t even matter because like we’re sort of becoming gods.

I’m like, I think he’s missing more largely. The point is that. To me at least, and sue me if this isn’t your thing and if you wanna go back to living like an animal, be my guess. We just talked about, I mean, and the Amish are not animals, they’re like super cool. But I mean, like, you can go even further back.

Like if you wanna make your mudstone hunts, you can do that. You know, preventive technology. He, he goes off into the, into the woods and, and he makes his huts and he gets tons of views and it’s great. He’s happy. Right. But like, per my view, what makes humans human is that we. Do these weird things that we have this prefrontal cortex and we use it and that we are, we are our, our ideas.

Like [00:51:00] we are not our meat puppet bodies that still have like all the old instincts that you see and like mammals and other animals. Like we, what makes us different in what makes us human is all that stuff that he decries so much. It is that shared delusion that he talks about. Well, I’m gonna, I’m gonna push back to refute that is to refute humanity and what is humanity in my view, what is ho’s hyper human is ai.

And, and so I just get really miffed when he

Malcolm Collins: No, I’m, I’m gonna push back on this a bit. I’m gonna say from a different perspective, just from a, a practical perspective. It’s not that I disagree with what you’re saying, but I would say this.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: The reason why people have this dumb belief that they can just go back to nature and that’s one of the path forwards for humanity or disengaged from technology.

And that’s one of the path forwards. Yeah. Is because they live under the p de Roman of the urban monoculture. They live in this unique period of history where groups aren’t killing each other because they can and forcing their ways of life on other groups and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so they have [00:52:00] forgotten that that was ever a possibility or is even a real threat to them.

Yeah. But the reality is, is that the people who are playing for keeps for the future of human civilization, they understand that this is a. The eye of the storm. Okay. It’s coming back, right? Everyone can see this when we go out there and we’re like, Hmm. What cultural groups do we want to ally with?

Well, Jews look broadly powerful and technologically competent, and they’ll ally with people who are different from them. You know, like the, when we, when we talk about things like that, right? Like, who, who else will we argue? Well, you know, the, the Calvinist groups, they largely seem theologically aligned with us, and we could probably ally with them in a number of areas and would bring them on our show, and we talked with them, but, but.

The people who are like, I’m going to go and live in the woods and do whatever win groups and whatever groups do this. Obviously we are one group that is moving in this direction, but other groups will, the Chinese will, they already have you are actually talking one of your kid groups.

Apparently the Chinese are already regularly wealthy Chinese doing human augmentation, like genetic augmentation. Do their [00:53:00] embryos. Yeah. Which is great for our kids because now they’ll be able to look at that to understand what works and what doesn’t work with this stuff. Exactly. Yeah. But anyway, so, you know, the groups that do not engage with this technology, that do not engage with ai.

Are just really placing themselves at the benevolence of groups like us that do engage with that stuff and see it as our partial duty to protect them so long as they don’t annoy us enough. Yeah. But at the end of the day, I’m not gonna put my own, and my family and culture wouldn’t put itself at risk to protect you.

So if you annoy some other group with technology they’re just, you’re on your own. Erase you. Yeah. You know, you are going to be the tribal, I don’t wanna say savage, the tribal savage when, when the group with guns, cubs. Mm-hmm. Okay. You, you, you, you will. Likely not even be enslaved because you as a slave would be worth less to them than ai.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But again, that’s like, that is exactly how it was in pre agricultural times. Like again, you’re, if, if you like [00:54:00] survival, you were lucky to be a slave because it meant that you weren’t killed often in a very terrible way. You know, like, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But the thing about AI is it means that it is no longer even worth it for a group that is being practical to keep these sorts of individuals who have optimized themselves for this traditional concept of masculinity and, and pre culturalism.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: They are strictly less useful to me than an ai. They, they, like if, if you conquer their land and their stuff there, there is no reason to keep them around outside of pure benevolence.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Ugh, I shutter anyway, which we have of course. I’m just saying don’t go you, you require the benevolence of the technologically capable groups in advancing groups to protect you from the other technologically capable and advancing groups that are not benevolent and will just take your stuff.

Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah. Thank you for humor. Anyway. Have a great day, AIO. [00:55:00] You too. Good day sir. Just, I wanna like also see what’s like, I don’t know, considered standard, but Oh my. Okay. I was while out owning this episode watching like the 30th recap of season one of Sex in the City on YouTube by some YouTuber because like that’s a genre on YouTube is just talking about Sex in the city and the episodes.

And I don’t

Malcolm Collins: think Gen Z is watching a lot of like old shows like that instead of Yeah. Like in Clueless

Simone Collins: and they’re like, oh my gosh, it’s, this is amazing. And there was this, she was talking about this one episode where someone was trying to do a threesome or there was a threesome and I had this realization that someone had targeted me for threesome when I was like before, right before I met you.

Really? And I didn’t realize it. Yeah. I met this really nice nerdy guy who like worked at a tech company while commuting in San [00:56:00] Francisco. And. He was like, oh yeah, like my wife and I like, you know, blah, blah, blah. And I can’t remember the circumstances. We were like, do you wanna like come over to our house and watch a movie?

And I’m like, yeah, I need to make some friends. That sounds great. And I go over and we’re like watching a movie. And then like, at one point, the wife and I don’t know why, well I guess now I know why she, she like, brings out her vibrator and she’s like, this is my vibrator. And I’m like, oh, good for you. And like, I just keep watching them.

I

Malcolm Collins: love it Wasn’t even awkward for you. No. Socially retarded to know what happening. Oh, that’s

Simone Collins: so good. I’m so happy for you. Like I just had a great time. I had a fantastic time and I, I rode my little bike home and yeah, that was, that was it. Thought they were great people. However many years later, what that was, that was probably early 2012 or late 2011.

So [00:57:00] like more than 10 years later, I’m like, oh.

Oops.

Malcolm Collins: I’m

Simone Collins: sorry guys.

Malcolm Collins: You’re socially empower. I wasted your,

Simone Collins: I feel so now I feel bad ‘cause like I wasted their time and I should have been like, yeah, that’s not me.

Malcolm Collins: I’m like, you put yourself in so many dangerous situations being a sex, like, like oblivious to people hitting on you. You have

Simone Collins: no idea.

Malcolm Collins: You must have been hit on it so hard all the time.

Simone Collins: I’m pretty

Malcolm Collins: sure. I’m pretty sure I was. And then I was the first person who pulled the, the cyber jiu-jitsu move of like sitting down and being like, okay, here’s what I want.

Simone Collins: But you act, you like artistically were like. I’m not looking to date. I’m looking to find a wife and like, and you’re like, well,

Malcolm Collins: I’m not looking for that.

And then I’m like, oh, so no hold sex. Yeah, that works. All right. Bye.

Simone Collins: Yeah, and it was, it was great. I mean, like, and you were just so transparent with everything and it was kind of necessary [00:58:00] because if you weren’t, I would’ve been like, what a nice guy, like Benny hates me and then go home.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway, I’ll, I’ll start.

Is this, by the way, are we starting with like the Sapiens intro?

Simone Collins: Well, we’re talking like Sapiens is the, the whole turning point of this entire thing,

Malcolm Collins: but I’m, I’m, I have a, I have an intro. Shall I kinda just Okay. Okay. Do the intro. I love it. I’m excited. Shocking. Okay.

Simone Collins: All

Malcolm Collins: right.

Speaker 6: Octavian, where are you going with Indie? I’m trying to, um, I’m going, I’m, I’m trying to wait. I’m trying to find, trying to find a Christmas mama. This is baby powers. Oh, so baby young people have powers and they can see magic. Yeah. So you’re walking her around until she sees it? Oh no. She got sad. We gotta keep her happy.

Or the Christmas mama will run away. Here we go. Here we go. Dad. No, I’m, I’m done with her for now. Hey, do you know where Toasty is? Oh, I don’t [00:59:00] put her down. Maybe

Speaker 7: this is.

In this eye-opening episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into shocking findings from U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee reports (2019) showing that Russia’s Internet Research Agency (IRA) played a far greater role in astroturfing and amplifying the Black Lives Matter movement than in any alleged support for Trump during 2016.

Key revelations:

* 96% of IRA YouTube content focused on police brutality against African Americans

* 5 of the top 10 IRA Instagram accounts targeted Black audiences exclusively

* Over 66% of IRA Facebook ads revolved around racial division, overwhelmingly pro-BLM narratives

* IRA organized real-world rallies, paid activists, and even funded self-defense classes — all unknowingly

* Activity spiked post-2016 election and again in 2020, perfectly aligning with BLM surges

Malcolm explains why this well-documented information never became mainstream on the right, how both parties had incentives to downplay or ignore it, and why viewing Russia as an “ally” against progressive causes is dangerously misguided.

If you’ve ever wondered how certain movements explode seemingly overnight — or why the “Russia helped Trump” narrative dominated while this one stayed buried — this episode will change how you see modern information warfare.

Episode Transcript:

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] So, wow. Of their top 10 accounts, five only targeted at black people.

Simone Collins: That is insane. That is not at all like the impression I was, I was given. That like in, in general, right? This is

Malcolm Collins: not the narrative that we are told. Yeah. and then you have me going through this and like, wait, this is all in like spin committee reports and stuff like that, like that Russia was behind Black Lives Matter.

Like what? So crazy. Or, and you could be like, well, Russia wasn’t everything behind Black Lives Matter. And I’d say. Okay. Maybe they weren’t, but they were more behind Black Lives matter than they ever were behind Trump. And that’s really important to the narrative that’s out there right now.

Simone Collins: Oh yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Wow. This the, the rallies. The Charlotte rallies. This is the

Simone Collins: good people on both sides. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: This is the people on both sides. One Trump was praising Russian [00:01:00] operatives on that one. Vi Eagle was praising the Democrats ‘cause that’s who the Russian operatives helped on that one.

Simone Collins: It’s a lot of people.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. . So sometimes I’ll be doing an episode and I’ll be just like fact checking something and then I’ll notice some statistics and some numbers, or I’m like, wait, this can’t be real. And then I start going down a rabbit hole. On the rabbit hole. I went down this time.

And what’s weird about this rabbit hole is this is all outlined clear as day and like senate reports and everything like that, which we’ll be going over. And yet I haven’t heard this as a mainstream position on the right. And you guys can be like, oh no, X blew this up long ago, or whatever. But the Russian collusion operation, the IRA, like the thing that was Russiagate, the Democrats said, got Donald Trump elected.

Mm-hmm. It was significantly more involved [00:02:00] with the astroturfing and creation of the BLM movement than Trump’s. What, and this is both well documented and incredibly well attested, and yet it is like not part of the popular imagination at all.

Simone Collins: That can be we, because we would’ve heard something about that.

No, right? I mean, at least from conservatives, it’s not as though conservatives don’t have a voice anywhere. And we listen to a lot of conservative influencers and, well, not media outlets, but, but influencers.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, so my thought as like a concern, and the weird thing about this is this information is not new.

It’s been out there for a while. And I’m not here saying, because this is the perception I had historically. It was like historically, the perception I had is that the, the IRA. Helped both sides in that particular election cycle. They helped the, you know, there were many instances in which two sides of a protest were both organized by the IRA by Russia [00:03:00] Plots, basically does the

Simone Collins: IRA stand for,

Malcolm Collins: I don’t know what it stands for.

I don’t speak Russian. Anyway so the IRA, and, and so I was like, and the reason why it appeared to people as if the IRA was more pro-Trump than pro Clinton was solely because it believed Trump to be the spoiler candidate and Bernie to be the spoiler candidate. So if you’re unaware, oh, IRA was actually incredibly pro Bernie.

They worked really hard to help Bernie in the primaries and everything. I

Simone Collins: didn’t know that either. Okay. Wow.

Malcolm Collins: So the, so my sort of perception was, is it was probably about 50% Republican stuff, 50% Democrat stuff. And then of the Republican stuff, it might have looked like it was more Trump just because they saw him as the spoiler candidate.

Hmm.

If

you actually go into the documentation. That is not the case. It is significantly more Democrat stuff and it is significantly Black Lives Matter focused stuff, and it [00:04:00] was Black Lives Matter focused stuff. And we’ll go into the timeline right as the movement was beginning to get big. And what you also might not know about is the height of IRA or the, the second height of IRA interference because there were two.

PI spikes. One was during the election cycle and after the election was had, so it wasn’t 2016 or

Simone Collins: 20 20, 20 16.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. And, but the second was actually at the height of the BLM movement. They, they went back in with more. Fake stuff. So we’re gonna be going over all of this, how they AstroTurf the movement and what’s important to know before I go any further than this.

‘cause it really disgusts me when I see Rightis fall for this nonsense is they act like Russia is our ferre. Because Russia realizes that like the alphabet soup crowd is like toxic to a society. And that, you know, you know, there might be problems with secularization and they’re like, look, they recognize all of these things, [00:05:00] therefore they’re on our side.

And it’s like, no, when you go to sleep every night, they’re injecting that into your neck in hopes that you die horribly. Right? Like they are as almost as ex. Essential an enemy we can have, like China does hit us with like China does try to like mess up the us Like they like come in and they’re like, don’t trust your government.

Speaker 3: evil, evil, evil, evil, evil.

Malcolm Collins: Don’t trust your government. But that doesn’t work on Americans. ‘cause Americans are like, yeah, we don’t really trust our government. Very. Yeah, we never

Simone Collins: did. Yeah. Like China.

Malcolm Collins: Sucks at, at PSYOPs in America, right? Outside of TikTok, which has done amazingly well in scrambling a lot of people’s brains incredibly well.

Yes. But Russia gets it. You know, Russia will come in and they’ll be like, don’t, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the Black Lives Matter movement. We will go into how they did this. And that’s why they’re incredibly dangerous and we should not think of them [00:06:00] or treat them as an ally. Like there might be like individual Russians who can be cool and friends and everything like that, but the country itself is, is working oppositionally to us.

, And, and I’d also say that the Republicans, the like quote unquote Republican influencers who like side whiz. And I think you’re seeing this increasingly increasingly countries like Russia and Qatar and Iran I may be talking about Tucker Carlson and Dick Witches here.

They’re not really on our side, right? Like these countries hate us. And they want to destroy our civilization. And when you glaze them, you are saying, oh, I won’t work with people on my own side who are trying to preserve the civilization because of minor ideological differences. But I will work with people who are actively injecting this stuff, who are actively creating movements like you do that way.

So let’s go on here. So Senate Select Committee on Intelligence [00:07:00] SSCI report volume two. Russia’s use of social media released in 2019 as part of a multi-volume investigation into Russian active measures. During the two 16 YouTube channels uploaded hundreds of videos of police brutality and BLM related topics.

The SSCI. Report reveals that the IRA operated 17 YouTube channels uploading approximately 1,100 videos totaling 43 hours of content. COVID

Simone Collins: happens

Malcolm Collins: approximately 96% of this. Was targeted at BLM type issues.

Simone Collins: Oh,

Malcolm Collins: like, police brutality o often mimicking Bri LM narratives to build credibility, a complimentary finding of new knowledge reports, specifics that 500 something one of these videos directly were related to police violence against African Americans.

And, youTube citations post-election, and this is really important. The majority of the IRA’s work happened after the [00:08:00] election cycle, not during the campaign. Okay. They were not trying to win the campaign. They were trying to build distrust in the election cycle,

but anyway. The mentions and links to IRA content increased 84%. No. What’s really interesting about this initial report, which remember I was just going here. Yeah. If you read it in the initial language, they’ll say something like, of this 96% were tied to racial issues. Okay. To try to make, seem like it’s racial issues on both sides equally.

Okay. When you actually look at the breakdown, it’s like 95% of that, or a hundred percent of that is b LM related issues. Oh

Simone Collins: wow.

Malcolm Collins: It’s not on both sides. So if we’re going for the Facebook ad campaigns, remember, I’m sure you would think that this was, if you read the media, the vast majority of it must have been pro-Trump stuff, right?

Or at least fighting battle of like normal stuff. No. [00:09:00] 66% of it. The IRA Facebook contact was on trying to create racial division, specifically targeted at blacks. The SSCI, wait,

Simone Collins: so this. It was, was it anti-Black Lives Matter content? Like to go? No, it

Malcolm Collins: was Pro-Black Lives Matter content. It was about police brutality.

It was the, sorry. The report intentionally words it in a way that’s meant to mislead you. We’ll get to, I’m trying to reword parts of the report so that you can understand, because they keep trying to make it sound like race related content. So they’ll say something like, like, it’s gonna

Simone Collins: stoke racism in the United States against Black Americans.

Malcolm Collins: No. So they’ll say something like, quote, over 66% of IRA Facebook advertising content contained a term related to race. Now they will say something like that, right? And because we know that a. Some of the IRA content was tried to drive up anti-white racism, so white racism against black people. They [00:10:00] expect you, the reader, to not have read the whole report and not know that actually when they’re talking about racially divisive content, almost all of it, like it seems, over 90% of it was specifically targeted at black people trying to make them hate America and hate white people.

Simone Collins: Oh,

Malcolm Collins: And, and, and, and specifically the biggest target they did was trying to get black people to hate the police.

Simone Collins: Okay. Wow. Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Okay, so this is based on an analysis of approximately 3,393 paid adverts purchased by the IRA across Facebook and Instagram. A separate analysis of the IRA ads released by the House Intelligence Committee found that 50 50.

55% specifically targeted race, often citing crime or policing themes. Again, they’re race was the dominant theme overall was the IRA, creating at least 30 Facebook pages, specifically targeting African American audiences [00:11:00] out of 81 IRA account. Analyzed. So out of 81 IRA accounts in total 31 were only targeted at African Americans.

Oh. Which amassed about 1.2 million followers and generated tens of millions in engagement. One standout includes the Blacktivism page, which alone produced 11.2 million user engagements.

Simone Collins: Oh my gosh.

Malcolm Collins: And keep in mind, this is in 2016, right? So this is. In the years leading up to B lm, right? Like this is the seedbed that led to the explosion of the, the large BLM movement.

Right? Now, I know B LM as a concept did arise organically, but it was not growing organically until the IRA stepped in. Mm-hmm. So again, if you hate. Black Lives Matter. You hate Russia. Alright? They’re the ones who gave us this [00:12:00] infection. All right? They’re, this is a partner you slept with that gave you chlamydia, okay?

You gotta learn. Bad is bad news, guys. All right. Instagram activity exploded post-election up 238% in some cases. So again, this was not about election interference. This is about show sewing, civil discord. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have exploded the spend post-election. The SSCI report document. The IRA activity increased across platform after election day 2016 with Instagram seeing 2238% surge activity.

This is measured by metrics like post volume and engagements. For context, the IRA operated 133 Instagram accounts. Posting 116,000 times and generating 187 million engagements, likes, comments, and shares. Five of the top 10 IRA Instagram accounts [00:13:00] focused on African American issues and audiences underscoring the racial emphasis.

So, wow. Of their top 10 accounts, five only targeted at black people.

Simone Collins: That is insane. That is not at all like the impression I was, I was given. That like in, in general, right? This is

Malcolm Collins: not the narrative that we are told. Yeah. Not so they were, they were, they were specifically trying to solve so racial fears among black people.

They were not targeting political things. Overwhelmingly, and by the way, we talked about this in another video, but it is worth it if you’re just on the video. You haven’t seen the other one. Russia gate, like IE that Russia was trying to help Trump get elected. It’s just baloney. Basically Obama really pressured a number of departments to push this out.

They said in, in no uncertain terms, a guy came back from vacation. Like literally he was on vacation. The guy who was like running one of the apartments, he came back. Or it might have been like an away assignment, and he was like you guys can’t release this. And he [00:14:00] sent a letter to one of the key guys at the Obama administration.

He goes I’ve talked with my team and I am not, you know, in like professional terms, this isn’t accurate information. The way he said it’s, we don’t have access to the information. We need to put this out. And we do not have, you know, high enough calling information to put this out. And the other guy said.

Well, you’re going to need to bend normal procedures. Basically, you know it as a summary, Obama said, so deal with it. You’re putting out false information. So if you are familiar with that whole narrative, that was a, that was phony baloney. That was phony, baloney put out by. A, a, a very, Obama was a really dishonest guy.

And I think a lot of people don’t realize that. Like they think that he, you know, they, they believe the public narrative that he wasn’t the type of person who would make something up like this to smear an opponent. Now, I’d like to point out in Obama’s. Defense. Right. Think about it from Obama’s perspective.

His side just lost an election ‘cause that’s when he did this. He [00:15:00] really wants to, to smear Trump. Which ironically was what the Russias were trying to do with all of this. Anyway, so he’s really helping Russians in their initial effort. He knows that some of the Russian accounts were pushing over.

Trump, I mean, yes, more of them were pushing black racial fears, but that doesn’t really help him to focus on, and he may not have a full statistical breakout at this point yet. And so, why doesn’t he just really focus on getting everyone to know that Russia was putting out bots that were attempting to help Trump?

Everybody needs to know this because he knows this and he is not really concerned with the whole truth. Does he, does he need it? Explained to him that this is also, he’d probably be like, and they’re also showing anti you know, Bernie stuff and he goes, oh, well they just hate Hillary. Well, they’re also mostly doing black racial stuff.

And he’s like, oh, well we, we probably need that.

Simone Collins: You know? Yeah. I, I, I agree. I could really see that being the reasoning of anyone seeing this, not necessarily Barack Obama or anyone [00:16:00] in his administration or on his team, or on Hillary’s team or anyone else’s. Seeing it and being like, ha ha, I’m gonna mislead people.

But being like, okay. So these accounts are also spreading information about police brutality and racism, and we know these to be major issues I’m not even gonna worry about because we’re only gonna worry about that, which is going to stop us from being, getting elected and that which is actively not true.

And if they see it as true and if they also see it as favorable to their reelection or entrenchment in power. It doesn’t deserve a second thought. Yeah, Joe deserve. Why would you

Malcolm Collins: give it a second thought? You know, that’s inconvenient, right? Yeah. He doesn’t, to him it’s not, it’s not even inconvenient.

Simone Collins: It doesn’t, it doesn’t warrant a second of of consideration.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. What Russia is doing to help lack people from his perspective. It’s just not something the public needs to know about.

Simone Collins: It’s just noise. It’s like a control set. Yeah. And the only, the only thing to consider is the amount that may be promoting Trump.

Malcolm Collins: Exactly. And, and by the way, if you’re like [00:17:00] progressive leaning and you’re just now learning about this, understand just how much of the media narrative has been.

Completely manufactured. And I think that, that a lot of people can go through and, and just be like, okay, I’m broadly figuring things out now and then you have me going through this and like, wait, this is all in like spin committee reports and stuff like that, like that Russia was behind Black Lives Matter.

Like what? So crazy. Or, and you could be like, well, Russia wasn’t everything behind Black Lives Matter. And I’d say. Okay. Maybe they weren’t, but they were more behind Black Lives matter than they ever were behind Trump. And that’s really important to the narrative that’s out there right now.

Simone Collins: Oh yeah.

That’s incredibly important.

Malcolm Collins: So did the mainstream Black Lives Matter movement ever directly interface with the IRA? Yes, but always accidentally. So let’s go through these. Okay. Like honey potted, they’re not exactly the [00:18:00] smartest of individuals. We’ll also go over how they scammed a bunch of people. But the self-defense training via black fist, the IRA Run Black Fist Group, a fake self-defense initiative targeting black communities contacted and paid at least five US trained to conduct classes.

To conduct classes. For instance, MMA fighter and activists. Oh, ally Ale in Brooklyn, New York was hired on January, 2017 to teach self-defense classes promoted as Black power matters. He received $320 via PayPal for four sessions, but stopped in contact cease in May, 2017. Ale was an. Unwitting and believed it was a legitimate community effort.

Similar payments were made to trainers across the US rally organization via black matter us. This IRA operated site and social media page, which mimicked BLM narratives on racial and police brutality. Reached out to activists, organize protests in September, 2016. North Carolina activists Connor James was contacted via Facebook to [00:19:00] speak at and help coordinate rallies in Charlotte.

Following the police killing of Kess Lamont Scott, he organized two events, one drawing over 600 people and collaborated with legitimate groups like the A-C-L-E-U in a A CP, unaware of the Russia ties. Wow. This the, the rallies. The Charlotte rallies. This is the one

Simone Collins: where the woman got killed. Like run over.

Yeah. The good people on both sides. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: This is the people on both sides. One Trump was praising Russian operatives on that one. Vi Eagle was praising the Democrats ‘cause that’s who the Russian operatives helped on that one. 600 people is not a small amount of people to get at a rally.

Simone Collins: It’s a lot of people.

Wow. Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. Similarly, Los Angeles activists Nolan Hack was reimbursed for travel to assist with civil rights rallies. So like when people are like, who’s behind this latest [00:20:00] disruption? Who’s behind the protestors, who are throwing things at police, who’s behind bet your bottom dollar? In a few years, you’re gonna find out it wasn’t George Soros, it was poop.

Okay, stop.

Simone Collins: Take it

Malcolm Collins: outta your mouth for five seconds and understand. He wants to destroy Western civilization. That’s his end game because he wants to replace it with the kleptocratic civilization that he is building out. And if you understand how Russia has ever operated, even during its client state period, they always say, because they’ve done this before, by the way.

If you don’t know much about how the communist, the, the, the, the Communist Union actually operated. You, and you look at it from an outsider, you look at it like a brainwash lefty. They look at it and they’re like, oh. It was a land of equality where everyone was one under the wider communist empire.

If you actually look at the way people lived in it, people in St. Petersburg and Moscow, or living [00:21:00] it up people in the colonized regions, the, the, you know, I, I forget the. Technical name for them. The subjugated regions lived in immense poverty and were systematically exploited. When Russia says, Hey, we want you, when they come to the American right?

And they’re like, we wanna create a worldwide, you know, right-leaning empire. Right. It’s an empire like the Communist Empire where they sell you. It’s an empire where we’re all gonna be equals, but they plan to strip every right and everything you have so you can live in permanent subjugation to them.

And you can be a fodder for their endless expansion machine so far as they want to expand anyway. It’s the way they still operate today. It’s the way the Russian Empire has always thought about things. It looks like you wanted to say something.

Simone Collins: No, no, no. Keep going.

Malcolm Collins: But this, this very much reminds me of like, when, when somebody acts like that, they remind me of what’s his face from Red Alert two acting like Yuri is his friend.

Speaker 4: Allies will give up their [00:22:00] foolish resistance and join our glorious Soviet cause. Then together we take care of traitor.

Malcolm Collins: It’s like Yuri is not your friend. Like you might technically be wearing the same uniforms, but Yuri cares about you not a lick. And one day you’re gonna be serving him if his plants come to fruition. Anyway, to continue here in content creation, black Matters US contacted St. Louis hip hop artists, Ronnie Houston, AKA roughed, the ruler in March, 2016 via Instagram to produce a music video on social issues with lyrics, framing, police as assassins and protestors as quote unquote, Avengers in Atlanta, a blogging duo, William and Kevin.

Created anti Hillary Clinton videos and posts, including statements like Hillary Clinton is not our candidate, so they also tried to get the black community to hate the mainstream Democrats at times.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Occupy Wall Street co-founder Mika White with approached in May, [00:23:00] 2016 by a fate freelance reporter, Jan Big Davis tied to Black matter’s, us leading to unwitting involvement with their activities.

The IRA also organized simultaneous pro. An anti BLM protest is in place like New York City, but they were doing much more as you can see, because everyone’s trying to be like, well, they did some stuff on the other side. They did way more on the black side. Right. So let’s go over some of these organizations that we’re operating.

So you can get an idea. So you got black Divis here, right? The one that we talked about was 11.2 million engagement. Right? So what sort of things were they posting? Cops raid wrong home and assaulted pregnant woman. All caps, insane. Cops pulverized handcuffs, man. All caps and memes urging, stand together.

And in depression with our race is under attack. But remember, we are strong in numbers. Ads promoted things like Baltimore, police brutality marches, video shared footage of white police holding down [00:24:00] black men. One was shared over half a million times. All right, so let’s go to the next one here. Woke blacks.

This account had over, or sorry, around half a million likes half a million shares and around 50,000 followers. So

Simone Collins: what’s crazy about this is one of the really big controversies that hit Facebook was when they. Basically allowed a bunch of news or I, I guess like largely fake news about Buddhist people I think in Myanmar.

Like, oh, like this Buddhist man grape a girl and got away with it. It led to just huge amounts of, of violence and people being brutally killed and. In incredible social descent and, and, and death in Myanmar. And, and Facebook got in a lot of trouble because it didn’t properly moderate these things and stop it from happening.

What it looks like, yeah, nothing on BM [00:25:00] Russia was trying to do here was just replicate what happened in Myanmar. In the United States, like, oh, so you can so dissent in a country and cause political violence by making up outrageous stories or by merely promoting real stories that are outrageous and just sharing the footage and sharing photos in a way that gets people really riled up and keen to just start like revenge killing people.

It, it, it just looks like they were actively trying to replicate it and it’s kind of. Amazing that it didn’t get worse than it was, maybe because Facebook was already wise to this issue and moderating more carefully. Or maybe just because the narrative wasn’t as compelling as it was for whatever reason in Myanmar.

But that’s really fascinating in, in the context. Well, because

Malcolm Collins: Democrats don’t want it known that Black Lives Matter was AstroTurf by Russian bots.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Oh, but Facebook also like successfully in the past, sorry, buddy. [00:26:00] Like successfully in the past was, was used to perpetuate like huge amounts of political violence.

Malcolm Collins: Right. I guess what we could do is on the right have like a freak out about this and, and be like all, you know, leftist ra radical stuff needs to be more watched because it could be Russian bots, Russian bots, Russian bots oh my goodness. Anyway, black Matter is us who had 1.3 million likes in 1.8 million shares.

And that’s just on Facebook. Their posts included things like, cops kill black kids. Are you sure your son won’t be the next? And memes like the, I can’t breathe slogan.. And then we’ve got don’t shoot us. Eg. Don’t shoot us us. That’s a

Simone Collins: website that was

Malcolm Collins: So here we’re gonna go to the gross of the Black Lives Matter movement, just in case you wanna get like a year by year play by play. So you can see just how much the IRA stuff mattered

Simone Collins: Yeah. In terms of seeding it. Mm-hmm. Okay.

Malcolm Collins: So, hashtag Black Lives Matter was [00:27:00] started in 2013 coined by, Hey.

Yeah, it

Simone Collins: really goes back much further than I thought. ‘cause yeah, we, I remember, well, he was tied

Malcolm Collins: to that, the, the, the George Zimmerman thing. That, that, that time when a guy killed a black guy and everyone pretended he was white.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Which was very weird to go through.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: That was the first time when I was like, wait, are we just like, not in reality anymore,

Simone Collins: whatever.

But I remember what it was, I keep wanting to say Wall Street Butts the anti Wall Street protests, you referred to it earlier, so then you, it was much bigger. What was it called? Oh my gosh. Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street. Yeah. It was bigger than, and I didn’t realize that Black Lives Matter predated that apparently.

Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: Well, it wasn’t big until Russia got involved. Like, wow, okay. Yeah. Russia

Simone Collins: made it a thing, like it wasn’t really a thing, and they were like, Hey, look at this. We could do something with this. We could do something with it. Yeah, they made it cool.

Malcolm Collins: And I’m just, I’m just going through the timeline here.

Okay. So, [00:28:00] in 2014, this is when you have the Michael Brown killing and the Ferguson unrest.

Simone Collins: Oh. Now

Malcolm Collins: this is when the IRA started to get involved. This was their early operations were involved in, in stuff like this. Then you go up to 2015. Where you have the growing protests over Freddie Gray in Baltimore and Sandra, et cetera.

However IRA activity really explodes this year. This is 2015 with 96% focused on police brutality against black Americans. This was in the year. 2015, 96% of the IRA YouTube videos were focused on police brutality against black Americans again. And this is on like, don’t shoot Black Lives Matter, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah. So this is when the movement’s really catching steam. Right. And then the next year you get the height of IRA interference. Okay. Okay. This was, this was 16, but it was also. When the Black Lives Matter movement really took off was the 2015 2016 period. And so this is when you have the [00:29:00] peak Twitter usage of hashtag Black Lives Matter.

So I, I want to be clear. Peak Twitter usage of hashtag Black Lives Matter coincided with peak IRA interference in hashtag Black Lives Matter.

Simone Collins: Wow.

Malcolm Collins: And this is assuming we caught all their accounts.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Right.

Simone Collins: Cool.

Malcolm Collins: And this is supposedly the year that they were out there helping Trump win the election, right?

Like

with a distant afterthought to them. Then in 2017 you have IRA operations are ongoing, but they, they scale back to some extent or sort of flat out then 2018 to 2019 you have sporadic protests. So keep in mind from like 2016 to 2019. You did not have like the Black Lives Matter movement went into a significant lull if everyone remembers.

Right. And in in part because this is, because in 2018 IRA was largely disrupted. After the 2018 indictment and Facebook purges. [00:30:00] Okay. So, but then in 2020 with the George Floyd situation, black Lives Matter picked back up. Do you know what else happened in 2020 IRA activity picked back up?

Simone Collins: Oh no.

Malcolm Collins: So the IRA activity and we’re gonna go over the IRA activity that was happening in 2020 right now.

Yeah. Perfectly precedes every explosion in the Black Lives Matter movement. So you can be like,

Simone Collins: so this is basically an AstroTurf movement, you’re saying?

Malcolm Collins: An AstroTurf movement by Russian bots.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Oh my

Malcolm Collins: gosh. And the Democrats basically realized that by ignoring or hiding this fact, they could use it to their advantage.

And I guess the mainstream Republican establishment was too witless to mention this fact.

Simone Collins: WHI lists or,

Malcolm Collins: well, it’s not just WHI lists. This is the Republican party genuinely has a lot of. Infiltrated bad actors. And so if I was a Republican during that [00:31:00] period and I went out and I was like, Hey these are Russian bots guys, I can prove it to you. Two things would happen. First they’d be, everyone would be desensitized to not pay attention.

‘cause they’re like, oh, I remember when they tried to pull that on Trump.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And

Malcolm Collins: then two, a lot of right-wing influencers large right-wing influencers are genuinely in Russia’s pocket. Like I, I mean this very sincerely. That’s,

Simone Collins: yeah, like even Tim Pool, either knowingly or unknowingly received. Yeah, all that money.

Malcolm Collins: I mean, we, we know we haven’t, we talk more about this, but it appears very likely that Tucker Carlson is being paid by somebody in Russia and somebody in Qatar. So I mean, that, that’s the only reason I can think that he’s been glazing Iran, given the history of his political beliefs. Amazing. You know, and and the, the way he talks about Russia, who is our enemy, if I go up there during that period and I start saying, Hey.

All of this Black Lives Matter stuff. It’s because of Russian interference. Russia is the bad guy behind [00:32:00] this. You know, your Tucker Carlsons, your Nick Fuentes, even for like the people off the grid are gonna come at me like a, a, a monkey on cocaine, right? Mm-hmm. Like, you can’t, I I, I mean, I was an influencer who had more reach than we do now.

Enough that I could shape the narrative. They would freak the F out because they do not want Russia implicated. Right? Yeah. And there’s a lot of people on the right who unfortunately believe this, like they believe Russia is their friend. And it’s just so disheartening to me and it’s so disheartening.

And then they’ll, they’ll go and they’ll follow accounts and they’ll listen to influencers who, anyone who is looking at it objectively would know they’re on the Russian doll. They’re just stupid and following accounts that are on the Russian doll because nobody who is pro-America would glaze Russia or one of our primary geopolitical enemies.

But anyway, to continue here,

Simone Collins: this is wild.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway.

Simone Collins: Well, this reminds me of a lot [00:33:00] actually is, I don’t know if you remember just how much of the effective altruist landscape. Caved in when Sam BigMan Freed went to jail.

Malcolm Collins: No, I remember that. It was like, it turned out that the entire movement was AstroTurf.

Simone Collins: Yeah. It was just AstroTurf by his money.

And this is making, it just feels so similar to that. We’re both a bunch of conservative influencers, but also a bunch of crazy leftist causes. Really no one, no one else wants to pay attention to them or pay for them. But there are just these mysterious forces that keep making them happen. And were those to disappear.

These things just wouldn’t exist. And, and that’s just so the case with so many of these effective altruist efforts that had been funded. No one asked for them. No one wanted them. They were like screaming loudly on the internet only because [00:34:00] they were being insanely well funded by Sam Bankman free.

Essentially. Yeah. And this, it’s, I wonder how many facets of our culture and our experience online or with the media in general is really a result of a country or a wealthy benefactor largely funding something that, that just they personally want to see screened online. I know for example, like I saw a recent headline talking about how.

Because two really prolific philanthropists in the art world were like probably gonna die soon or had just died, that this huge facet of the fine art world was basically just gonna stop existing because these people basically solely funded everyone’s lifestyles. And so. Now like all this art that a lot of people thought was like really important art.

And you’d see it at like the Met and you’d see it everywhere else. [00:35:00] No, it, it turns out no one actually liked that art. It was just paid for by like. Two guys. Like two guys, yeah. Two guys who are now dead, who like really liked it. But it turns out no one else liked it. And I just, I mean, I, I do wonder these like thing you, when when you and I were dragged on to like modern art museums and forced to look at this art and we’re like, who buys this?

Who wants this? Who pays for this? Well, people who are gonna die and then it’s just gonna disappear. And I think this is really similar that these are facets of the online world that. Felt so big and were so big and were actually impactful and did manage to fool a lot of people, but in the end, they would not exist.

Were not for the actions of some extremely wealthy people. I think a lot of AI doism is very similar. I think that there wouldn’t be a whole lot of AI doism messages if it weren’t for a couple very, very wealthy people. Recognizing that AI could be an issue and being like, sure, like I’ll [00:36:00] throw like, you know, $20 million at this and that leading to a bunch of people devoting all their time to just screaming on the internet about AI doism because their lifestyle was being paid for by these people and they wanted that attention.

But like it actually. You know, isn’t a message that, I mean, you can see that in the data, right? When it comes to Google Trends, AI doism, despite receiving so much more funding, for example, than Tism and demographic collapse, has only just recently kind of surpassed it. And I think that, yeah. Anyway, I just, you’re, you’re making me realize just how many big elements of.

Our cultural experience in the United States and globally may just be

Malcolm Collins: just a, a government running a campaign on us.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Puppeteered. That’s really something, I guess it maybe it’s always been that way. I mean, keep in mind like the medi cheese, like funded huge amounts of, of the arts and [00:37:00] there, there have always been patrons who’ve basically dictated what we as common people experience culturally and artistically.

So maybe this isn’t anything new. I guess maybe we just were under more of a false impression due to the way that social media is sold to us and media in general is sold to us, that it’s more meritocratic now and it really just isn’t.

Malcolm Collins: Hmm. No, it is meritocratic it. I think it, this is what you’re missing.

Tim Pool became famous, not because Russians were paying for him, but because Tim Pool became famous. Right. Like Tim Pool won through a meritocracy. Mm-hmm. And then he wanted more money and the Russians bought his opinion. Tucker Carlson genuinely had some really interesting takes. He pulled off some really interesting stuff, you know?

Okay. Yeah. That’s fair. And then he realized he could make even more money with Russia. And we know that he never really had any internal value system, given that when he was glazing Trump, we have private texts for him saying that like, he hates Trump so much, he can’t even [00:38:00] talk to another one of his friends because his friend doesn’t hate Trump.

Right? Like, that was his level of existential hatred of Trump. Yeah. Yet he’s able to go on air and say, Trump’s the best ever. Right? Like, if he’s doing this. Of course he’s willing to glaze Iran even if he doesn’t agree with it. He didn’t, his personal opinions have nothing to do with his rise to fame because these people, and I think this really differentiates us from them.

And it shows you know, the new, oh,

Simone Collins: because we haven’t yet received,

Malcolm Collins: no, no, no. I would take money from an outside power. Mm-hmm. But I would never compromise on my long-term mission. Right. Like my life, I’m here for a purpose. Right. Like a, a functional purpose. Part of that is having a lot of kids addressing this, but helping our civilization, the one that you and I represent, survive.

Thrive in humanity, make it into the stars as a result of that. Right. And I’m willing [00:39:00] to play whatever moves I have to play on the chess board to see that outcome realized. Mm-hmm. When you’re talking about somebody like Nick Fuentes, who doesn’t have kids, who isn’t married, who’s pushing a movement that couldn’t even win in elections, like as, as I pointed this out, he’s not playing a wider game.

He’s playing the in the moment vibes game, right? Mm-hmm. And because of that, he doesn’t care if his. Activism is damaging the mainstream right wing movement, right? Like right. He, he’s happy going out and saying, mainstream right wing individuals are my enemy. Charlie Kirk, as he said, Charlie Kirk is his enemy.

Like he wanted to take down Charlie Kirk.

Charlie Kirk in your focus group, f**k you.

Malcolm Collins: Now, of course, he’s moved to just insulting his wife now, which he does repeatedly.

Speaker 6: To the extent. Look, Erica Kirk is a spook. I’ve seen enough. Erica Kirk is a plant. We all know that that is a fact. That is basically established. She was shopping around for political [00:40:00] husband. God knows where she comes from. She she found one in Charlie Kirk. Do you think Charlie Kirk is the Riz master?

He’s not a good looking guy.

Malcolm Collins: It’s really, I, I didn’t realize how. Distasteful he was until I saw him do stuff like that. I would want my wife, he, he’s mad that his wife is fundraising for conservative causes around like his death.

If I died, do you not think I would want Simone to use the new cycle that generated to fundraise around prenatal as causes and conservative cause?

Simone Collins: Do you

Malcolm Collins: for a second? Think I wouldn’t want my entire funeral to be fricking gun salutes and be the parades and, and, and, and fireworks. And pyrotechnics. Of course I would.

Simone Collins: Well, you’re not allowed to die for the record. Well, what I’m saying

Malcolm Collins: is you have to actually not have a long-term goal or a purpose in life to not know that’s exactly what Charlie Kirk would’ve wanted. Because you, for you, this is all about you. It’s not about the [00:41:00] mission, right? Charlie Cook’s life was about the mission.

It was about something other than himself. And with somebody like Tucker Carlson, his life exists for himself, right? So he can easily be bought off because for always and ever, he’s been trying to gain. Attention for himself. Like we know that from the Trump text, right? Like he didn’t care. He just wanted about whatever would get the most views.

Whereas if you look at the new generation of right-wing influencers, one of the things that separates them from the past is they are genuinely incapable of being bought off. Let me give you an example goal. You could not buy off asthma gold, period. This is a guy who still lives in the house he was born in.

Obviously must be worth what now? I, I assume at least 50 to a hundred million dollars. Literally eats at seven 11 every day. I don’t even think he gets food. He, he still gets the, like, token cheap steak that he grills on a pan without oil or butter or anything. He just puts the steak in a pan and cooks it.

Oh my [00:42:00] God.

Simone Collins: I think using plastic utensils too.

Malcolm Collins: Using plastic utensils. He has a video of him. Well, Hasan Piker, the leftist guy is out there shocking dogs. We have ethical picking gingerly a cockroach and a and a tic cockroach. The ones we have in Texas, which are giant, they’re like this big off his shirt and then carefully taking it downstairs.

And my favorite part about that is he goes, we’re like, oh, the, the, the common stone was watching on. They’re like, oh, you know, two people accidentally told on themselves. You got, you got the Huan Piker one. As girl goes, okay guys, I’m gonna take this downstairs and let it loose. In the living room. And then he looks at the camera and he goes, I mean, outside, outside.

I’m letting it loose outside. And everyone was like, he just let that loose in his living room.

Speaker 8: Me. What you doing bro? Get outta my get go in the garbage can. I’m gonna take him downstairs. Gimme a minute. I got, I got him. I got him. I got him. I got he right.

Speaker 10: I can’t.

Speaker 7: Don’t show this one to [00:43:00] Izzy.

Simone Collins: Beautiful.

Malcolm Collins: But the point being is like he won’t even hurt a cockroach. Right. But it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s interesting that we’ve seen this rise of the, the less corruptible and I, and I’m also genuinely not seeing as much bias in the rising right wing figures, right.

Of, of the internet era, which has been very interesting to me. Like they seem to be less corruptible and less viable then. The era of influencers that the Tim Cooks and, and Nick Fuentes has come from. Tim Pools. Tim. Tim Pools. Now I will know is Tim Pool. I don’t know. Has he done, I I think he has done pro Russia stuff, so I’d I’d buy that.

He was butt off, but I, but my sort of, my take was Tim Pool is, he would’ve done that stuff anyway. Like he sort of buys into the Russia is our friend narrative, so I don’t think he would’ve like seen taking money as like a negative thing.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I mean, I don’t, I don’t think it was terribly discordant.

But I think there were like, I think like just legal, legal issues, [00:44:00] but also it wasn’t super clear if memory serves the issue with him being funded by an entity that was Russian. Was it like Russia was trying to hide the fact that it was Russia giving them money? But the people receiving it, including Tim, kind of knew that.

And like in internal messaging, were like, oh, the guy who’s totally not a Russian plant, you know, like it was all sufficiently suspicious and they all got that, it was sufficiently suspicious, but they took the money anyway because it’s money. People come on, like get real. Yeah. Like, you wouldn’t do it.

Come on. That’s

Malcolm Collins: the, the, the I, again, I’m, and I’m being totally honest here. If it’s something that I was probably gonna promote anyway, I’d be like, sure, yeah, I’ll take the money if I can use it to, to, you know, solve my wider agenda. Yeah, that’s, I think

Simone Collins: that’s where we stand with things like receiving money.

If our incentives are aligned with the person who is giving the money. [00:45:00] 100%. Absolutely. I think why we don’t see many scenarios like that is because no one’s gonna give us money to promote something we’re already promoting, or at least very few people are. You know, they’re like, why would I pay when they’re already gonna do it for free?

So we’re kind of screwed Malcolm,

right?

Like our whole thing with sponsorship, like sort of where things stand now is like we would consider maybe doing something sponsored on this channel, but only if we’d already chosen to buy the product before we heard about it and really liked it and wanted to promote it anyway.

There aren’t very many. Like, why would Coors Light reach out to you when you already promote it for free? Why? I’ll

Malcolm Collins: go trans if it’ll get me the, the sponsorship.

Simone Collins: Well, that was, wasn’t it?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, that would a joke. Right? Okay. That’s fine.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Course light would

Malcolm Collins: never,

Simone Collins: would never

Malcolm Collins: even in back in the day, it’s the same company, you know that [00:46:00] Right.

The same like super company. They’re

Simone Collins: owned by the same. Really? Yeah. Okay. I didn’t,

Malcolm Collins: almost all beer is, oh boy. Really matter. But yeah. Like British Cubs. Yeah. I this for me, I think helped me like seeing this and maybe somebody could be like, oh no, like. This has been talked about a lot by Tim Poole. He said that Russia completely bankrolled the Black Lives Matter movement.

Right? Like

Simone Collins: did he,

Malcolm Collins: I doubt he did, but maybe he did. And maybe everybody knows about this and I’m just the odd one out, right? Or maybe what it is, is it was, it was useful for a lot of people and this was actually the thing. Of the period before this generation of conservative influencers. When I say this generation, I don’t mean people my age, I mean people in our sort of upstream funnel of conservative influencers.

Okay? IE this, this last election cycle. Then the election cycle before the election cycle. Before that. They seem a lot less bought by groups like Russian groups, but it seemed like in the first, like the ones who gained [00:47:00] traction was the first Trump election. They were really open to working with Russia.

And I think it’s because the narrative caught on, unfortunately, ‘cause the left wing media spread it, that Trump was genuinely working with Russia.

Simone Collins: Oh.

Malcolm Collins: And so they thought, oh, well if I work, I’m just working with, with Trump’s guys. Right. You know, it’s, it’s fine.

Simone Collins: Even though that was never really the case, but Russia would never have a reason to dissuade people from believing that.

Mm-hmm. How desperately depressing that is. I do not like it at all. No. Oh dear.

Malcolm Collins: And so I’m interested to see if this continues, if, if, if, as this crop of influencers rises and hopefully they do continue to rise with us among them. We see them stay significantly less corruptible than previous generations of influencers.

Or are they going to be bought off just as fast as everyone else?

Simone Collins: Yeah. I wonder. And I also wonder [00:48:00] how mimetic landscapes are gonna work in the future as we see more concentration of wealth. Will wealthy people just stop? Paying for things and patronizing certain mimetic clusters or types of art the same way as they did before because they sort of declare bankruptcy or completely separate themselves from the common people.

You know,

Malcolm Collins: it’s interesting that you say this when like that’s what our YouTube career is actually gated towards. So you as a fan may not realize this, but the point of all of the content. Is one of the points we have a lot. One is AI training data. One is, you know, being able to replicate our personalities with ais.

Another is just reaching a public audience. But a huge thing that I often think about from a financial perspective is our first billionaire fan. Right? You know, you get that billionaire fan. This is literally what started like the effect of altruist movement is like one billionaire guy. It had [00:49:00] had been to like a Will McCaskill speech when he was younger and then decided like.

Oh, I’m a big fan of Will McCaskill. I’ll fund this effective altruist saying, right. So we’re trying to build all the ideological and civic infrastructure so that

Simone Collins: a billionaire decides to become our patron.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah. So that they can be like, oh, I wanna make this like a movement.

Movement. Like the EA movement was. Oh, you know, so we have all the infrastructure there, all the nonprofits, all the religious structures, all the, all of it’s ready to go for when we get the billionaire who’s like, yeah, I really like Malcolm and Simone. I wanna make their thing global. You know, that’s really what happens with people like say Charlie Kirk or something like that, you know?

Yes, they have organic growth, but they also, I mean, it was pretty clear, have massive donors. Yeah. And they make it work.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. That’s fair. That is fair. I just, I, I do wonder somewhat whether super hyper wealthy people [00:50:00] are going to continue to care about that and engage with normal people, or if they’re just gonna, are you kidding?

Malcolm Collins: What does Elon Musk do like. To half of the day or more.

Simone Collins: Yeah, but I mean, Musk isn’t gonna live forever. And also, as you point out, AI is going to just create this, this group of super, super wealthy people who are unmoored from any need to depend upon normal people. Now, they may still feel connected to normal people and, and want their attention and praise.

Maybe they won’t, you know, maybe they’ll just disappear and, and stop patronizing the arts and influencing media and caring at all. I don’t know. I, I just, I wonder and maybe they, they will continue to because they’ve, they’ve done that basically forever, so why not continue to, that also makes sense. I just, I don’t know.

I’m, I’m curious.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I [00:51:00] love you, love. Oh yeah. One final thing we should probably mention, because I was gonna go into this, but everybody knows about this. Oh, the the, the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement bought a 5.8 to $6 million, 6,500 square foot property in Studio City, California that they were gonna use for an art fellowship program, but then just decided to live in,

Simone Collins: didn’t someone go to jail over this?

Malcolm Collins: So I looked, I think

Simone Collins: someone was recently. Jailed. Hmm. Like

For clarification here. No. There has been no repercussions for the people who stole the Black Lives Matter money to buy mansions. I.

Simone Collins: so they weren’t, no one was imprisoned over this just, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: My understanding is that one was misused

Simone Collins: the funds,

Malcolm Collins: whatever.

Simone Collins: Oh my goodness gracious.

Malcolm Collins: They said, well, it is going to a historically oppressed family, ours.

Simone Collins: Y Yeah, sure. That’s, oh, goodness gracious. I mean, I, I, in the end, people gave the money to, [00:52:00] you know, I guess sort of out of collective guilt or desire to contribute to black lives. And if the people who are seen by some as misusing funds are black and living, then I guess.

Mission accomplished? Yeah, I mean, I don’t know what people thought they were donating to and they donated to Black Lives Matter anyway, so. I guess it’s fine. My goodness gracious. I just, I had no idea that Russia contributed at all to that movement. And now basically you’re saying it would not be the thing,

Malcolm Collins: it would not be the thing It was, yeah.

And, and not only would it not be the thing it was. But it significantly, Russiagate was significantly more about Black Lives Matter than Trump.

Simone Collins: Oh, that’s, that is crazy. Wow. Thanks for enlightening me. That is it sobering but fascinating.

Malcolm Collins: Exactly. Love you so [00:53:00] much, Simone.

Simone Collins: I love you too. By the way. I realized that we actually do have some bok toy left and now we have all those chives.

So, if you,

Malcolm Collins: I have great wait, a today. I want, I want something easier on my stomach today, so just pasta peso.

Simone Collins: Okay. Perfect. Yeah, that’s, that’s very easy to do.

Malcolm Collins: So I appreciate that. All right. And you still love me. That’s okay.

Simone Collins: More than ever. More than ever, my friend. You are everything to me, so thanks for existing, I’m so excited for the weekend.

Spend website

Malcolm Collins: stable ish, I think now, so,

Simone Collins: oh, I can test it now.

Malcolm Collins: Yep.

Simone Collins: Okay. So that’s my weekend mornings,

Malcolm Collins: but I’ll go check what’s happening on the Discord just to make sure.

Simone Collins: Okay. Yeah, please do. All right. Love you gorgeous.

Malcolm Collins: Love you too.

Simone Collins: Wow. That was interesting.

Malcolm Collins: Good episode, right? Finding out interesting facts.

People love that about us. They’re like, wow, you guys actually. [00:54:00] Did you actually end up getting the holly bows? I didn’t see them around the house,

Simone Collins: no. The kids got too chaotic for it, so I’m either gonna do it this weekend or tonight or whenever. Basically I can sneak outside. That’s when

Malcolm Collins: I’ll, I’m looking at the tree just out my window and it has so many berries on it.

It’s so

Simone Collins: pretty. I know. It’s, it’s, it’s gorgeous. We, we have the perfect holiday decorating tree outside. We just need to bring in the pieces. We can do it. We gotta do it.

Speaker 12: Then go.

Why is modern anime OBSESSED with adoptive parents and found families — but almost never shows happy, intact biological families with kids? Simone and Malcolm Collins dive deep into this bizarre trend dominating recent anime.

From mega-hits like Spy x Family to hidden gems like Buddy Daddies, The Yakuza’s Guide to Babysitting, and I’ve Been Killing Slimes for 300 Years, we explore why adoptive/found-family parenting tropes are everywhere... while biological families are rare, tragic, or melancholic (think Wolf Children or Clannad: After Story).

We break down:

* Dozens of examples of the adoptive parent trope

* The stark tonal differences (heartwarming comedy vs. bittersweet sacrifice)

* Theories: Youth audience rebellion? Japanese cultural duty vs. choice? Fertility crisis propaganda gone wrong? Teenage fantasy of “chosen family”?

Pronatalists, otaku, and culture war watchers: This one’s for you.

Episode Transcript:

Simone Collins: Hello Simone. Today we are gonna be talking about an interesting phenomenon. In which parenting has been increasingly put as and pedestal by anime as this great thing to do is your life and is a very fun thing to watch people do is their lives. But what is very interesting I. Is the way it’s being shown which is that the vast, vast majority of modern animes that include parent roles, the parent is in the adoptive role.

It is not their biological child. And when it is their biological child, the tone is typically very, very different. So we are gonna talk about the animes that fit this trope. We are trying to talk about the enemies that don’t fit this trope. We are gonna talk about the tonal differences, and we are going to make hypotheses as to why this might be

the case.

I’m so curious. The case, I’m so curious because it is something, it’s, it’s so weird that it feels like there’s all this prenatal, this propaganda like you know, pro kids were all about it, but then. [00:01:00] None of it is along the normal lines. I feel like none of it’s modeling to people how this stuff actually happens.

So I don’t know what to think anymore.

But I have to start with the Basecamp Anime intro.

Speaker: Culture away in the trees of yesterday.

Dear branches, the and

turn over.

The crowd base camp. Welcome to the Everlasting fight of Culture, bloom and the [00:02:00] sky fight.

We can’t ignore. Strike them down with

game theory[00:03:00]

base camp night and take their flight.

Simone Collins: Well, and,

Malcolm Collins: and we can start by talking about spy Ex Spy Family. This is one that we’ve watched in the family. Very, very popular anime. So incredibly popular anime to understand how popular it is. You know, even within the US when we go to Walmart and we look at like the mango section, because Walmart is the mango section now I remember I was looking not long ago.

And literally half the books in the section were spy, ex spy family. Mm-hmm. This is like, this isn’t like a popular, this is like Sailor Moon or Naruto Popular for this generation.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And the plot of it is Lloyd and Anya, who one is a undercover detector and the other is an assassin. And they don’t know each other.

Hold these roles. Adopt a, a daughter named Anya who can read minds. And then they get a dog who can see the future.

Simone Collins: They don’t know. She can breed mines and no one knows. The dog can see the, like, no one knows the secret identity of anyone else in the family, which is really [00:04:00] cute. But yeah, this, this child was, I mean, it, it, it, so the, the spy, the spy father has to have a like sham wife and a sham child to be.

Seen as, as, as believable in his position, which is why he, he ends up in this family and everyone else has reasons. You know, like, I, I wanna be adopted, I don’t wanna have a family or like, you know, I. Why does, why does the, the wife character need to be in a family? I can’t remember

Malcolm Collins: because she’s afraid that she will be seen as a spy being a woman of her age and unmarried.

Right. And she’s desperately looking for a husband to go to a work event with her, or not a husband, but like at least a boyfriend or something. Mm-hmm. So she doesn’t look suspicious.

Simone Collins: Hmm. And then it’s just so convenient that there’s this man who suddenly. It is like perfect on paper and like is is interested in,

Malcolm Collins: yeah.

Well, and before we go further, I actually think Spy X spy family discounts one of the first things that people will say about this. Okay. Because, you know, I ask AI and I’m like, okay, why is this the case? Why is this so much [00:05:00] popular, more popular than the other type? Yeah. And AI immediately is like, well, it’s, you know.

More flexible for narrative structures. Right. You know, because you can just slot people in anywhere, right? And I was like, actually it’s not. So if you look at a spy, ex spy family, I think that this is sort of the. Case that that disproves the rule. Mm-hmm. It used spy Ex Spy Family as an example of narrative flexibility.

It was like, look like you can have a family like this. And I then pointed out, I was like, actually Spy Ex Spy family could be seen as drawn from multiple Western properties, all of which did not need to make. This, this aversion the two big ones that I would think of are true lies and the Smiths.

Mm-hmm. Which had a reboot as well. It was so popular. Totally. So the Smiths don’t have a kid, but they are a real long-term married couple who are both assassins or spies, depending on which one you’re watching. And you

Simone Collins: don’t know. The other one is, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And so you don’t need, it showed that they could have had a kid.

Like that’s completely incidental to the plot, right? Like, yeah. Yeah. Now if you go to True Lies, which I think is [00:06:00] one of the better movies ever made and is a very good example of this plot. They have a kid that is not just their biological kid, but is absolutely crucial to the plot and central to the third act and adds a lot of stakes to the plot.

Do you remember the daughter from True Lies, like on the missile and everything and, and the Big Crane?

Simone Collins: I’ve was this one of those that I, that we watched Drunk Together? That I was drunk?

Malcolm Collins: Maybe Remember when we did

Simone Collins: Drunk Date Nights? I love those. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a protagonist.

Simone Collins: Oh yeah.

We watched a lot of those ones. Yeah. So I, I, I, for all the drunken date nights, I have no memory of the movies we watch, which is great ‘cause I get to rewatch them as a first timer again. But yeah, don’t remember. Sorry,

Malcolm Collins: but yeah. But I, I just focus on that one. But then you also get a lot that are like, if you’re watching it, you may not even recognize that adoptive parents are a major role in it.

A good example here is Miss Kosh, she’s Dragon made. [00:07:00] In, in the very second episode they dropped the Dragon Kana, who is clearly a child dragon who they adopt into their family and treat as their child. This is like. Episode number two or others that attempt to subvert this trope from old country bumpkin to master swordsman.

If you Yeah. Well, he doesn’t,

Simone Collins: he doesn’t, this is about a master swordsman almost like being, like being revisited by all of his former students who are now successful. But then

Malcolm Collins: remember at the end of it, this is the last arc of it, like the last third of it. Mm-hmm. He basically adopts a kid.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Well, and he had like previously taken orphans in and trained them, so he sort of adopted that, but he

Malcolm Collins: never raised an orphan as a dad. Yeah. And this is a very important plot point, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah. This is more Yeah, but that’s, and that’s just crazy. That’s crazy.

Malcolm Collins: Oh, okay. Hold on. We, we gotta do more here. No, it’s for my daughter, I’d even defeat a demon Lord. In this one, he finds a demon child. By the way, every single one I’ve mentioned so far, I’ve watched from beginning to end. Just so people know what an anime, a nerd I am. I will let you know [00:08:00] when I get to an anime I have not watched from beginning to end.

You’re doing the work. Yeah. I should probably note the good ones. From old country bumpkin is pretty good. I I do not like Dragon made that much. I think it’s not that great

Simone Collins: old country bump, kind of a little boring. Nothing really seems to happen.

Spy family’s great. Highly recommend Spy Family.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, spy family’s really good. And yeah, you know what’s crazy?

Simone Collins: You know, one of our very, very favorite animes of all time food wars. What Shoko, GKI knows something. Yeah. Even in this anime where there are some strong parental bonds kind of modeled it’s often just one parent, like the other parent is dead or absent.

Yeah, the two, two leading characters have very strong father figures, but then there are no mothers. This is so weird. There aren’t no, there’s like, no. Hold on. Complete family.

Malcolm Collins: We gotta go through our list here. Okay.

Simone Collins: Yes. This mystery is just getting deeper and deeper. Go gi, gimme [00:09:00] more. Okay,

Malcolm Collins: next one. I’ve been killing Slimes for 300 years.

I just watched this one for the second time Recently Are slimes

Simone Collins: monsters. What? What?

Malcolm Collins: So in this one she kills Sons of Slimes and she begins to build this found family. But some of the first members of it are two young girls who say that they’re her daughters. But they’re actually made up of the spirits of Slimes that she killed are slimes monsters.

What are slimes? Slimes are monsters. It’s a common thing in fantasy tropes. Okay. Have you watched so little anime? You don’t know Slimes. I am disappointed in you, the bad nerd wife.

Sorry I don’t make

you watch enough anime. You need more schooling. Sorry. I’m gonna have to bring out the attention class.

You need to watch more. Is that guy this is the first one I haven’t seen. Buddy Daddy’s two assassins unexpectedly become guardians of a young girl and must adopt her to parenthood. Oh,

this sounds

cute. Here’s another one I haven’t seen. The Yakuza Guide to Babysitting a gangster [00:10:00] learns empathy and responsibility by caring for his boss’s daughter.

Aw.

The, here’s another one I haven’t seen. Somali and the Forest Spirit. A Gollum becomes the guardian of a lost human child forming a father daughter bond.

Aw,

Here’s another one I haven’t seen Ro lives alone, a mysterious 4-year-old lives alone, drawing in neighbors from a found family to form a found family around him.

Here’s one that I have seen that I, I. Remember liking a journey through another world, raising kids while adventuring their protagonist adopts two children while adventuring creating a calm family centered a. Okay. And then you for a final one here, you have sweetness and lightning. And I was only looking for anime in the past five years for this list.

Simone Collins: Oh, okay. Color me impressed. It’s a lot.

Malcolm Collins: Now let’s go to the biological, so you’ll get an idea of how rare they are in contrast. Okay. The one that I have seen on this list, because I’ve only seen one on this list. Is REM monster where the protagonist is reincarnated as a goblin and sis children who become key allies in the tribe’s [00:11:00] growth.

Simone Collins: So not exactly modeling to people how to get it done.

Malcolm Collins: Not exactly modeling how to get it done. No. And I he has them with different characters. Oh, he has like a, you know, a cat around. Yeah. So there’s, there’s

Simone Collins: no, there’s no intact families in anime. What is this? How, like, okay. Yeah. Okay. Hold on. The

Malcolm Collins: next one, Wolf Children.

A mother raises two wolf children after their father’s death. This is not a, a modern one, but again, it’s one of the most famous in this space.

Simone Collins: Tragic, though, I, I can’t watch it. Becausecause. It would make me cry.

Malcolm Collins: Barra. Kamo. While not a parent, the protagonist for no, we, this doesn’t count. US soggy Drop.

No, that’s not kids. The, my wife is student council president. Features teen parents in some marks of the manga. They’re the anime stays pg and avoids child rearing.

Nope.

So not in the anime. Okay.

Okay.

Clan ad after story, the second season, focus heavily on biological fatherhood and the struggles of raising a child after loss.

So again, a sad one. Erased features the protagonist mother playing a strong biological [00:12:00] parental role, but his pseudo adoption of classmates takes center stage. And then a sweetness and lightning might have a biological parent. So can we not

Simone Collins: have a single,

Malcolm Collins: a single happy one? Family? Yeah. No, that’s a thing.

They’re not. Happy being a parent. So, let’s, let’s talk about why this may be okay. One thing that’s become common in places like Japan is to cancel models when they start dating people. Or to cancel people who are famous for being like maids when they start dating people or it even happened to, what do you mean by

Simone Collins: cancel?

Like they just lose all of their followers or their contracts are terminated. What? What happens? Their

Malcolm Collins: contracts are terminated. They lose their followers. They get attacked publicly.

Simone Collins: Oh.

Malcolm Collins: They get harassed constantly. This happened to a weather woman, for example. Oh. Weather woman. Now admittedly, she was on a, a news station that only had attractive young women as reporters.

So like Fox

Simone Collins: News, right? It’s as if in America, suddenly, like [00:13:00] everyone on Fox News, if they were no longer signal lost their job.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And so I thought you were gonna say like, except that it’s a, it’s an erotic news channel in, in which everyone presents news naked

For a while there was an erotic news channel until the viewer base got so old that they just never changed out any of these aging women.

Oh, no. And now

you watched it, it looks like a bunch of like Botox GULs. That is

hilarious. Okay. That’s interesting. Wow. All right.

But so. One of my initial theories was, well, maybe it’s the people want the belief in the virginal ness of the character. You know, like, we need a woman, but we need to know that she’s not sleeping with anyone.

Right. And then we need kids. Right. I was like, okay, I could see that maybe. Now of course this is gonna be terrible for fertility rates. But you know, and if, and if. You don’t have this, you need a mother who’s been punished for having sex, like in wolf children. Right? Or, or you need just a man [00:14:00] raising the kids.

And so I go into this and I’m like, but does this actually explain what we’re seeing? Right? Like mm-hmm. And I’m like, not really. Because you often get only males raising the kids. Yeah. Like. If it’s for my daughter even I’d faced a demon lord or from old country bumpkin to master swordsman or and this is uniquely

Simone Collins: weird ‘cause in Japan, Japan is one of those places that still really seems to have traditional gender roles where women really feel this societal obligation to do the child rearing.

If, if they have kids. I mean, even I saw this with families of very educated women. Who then had kids and just totally stepped back and did the housewife thing. Because it was just like, I have to do that.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: I can’t emphasize how, how weird that was to me but also how pervasive it felt and, and we’re talking very educated women.

Relatively speaking, very progressive families in Japan. Not, not traditional, [00:15:00] more inter I mean, if they’re international enough to have friends in America and to speak fluent English, right? Like yeah. You know, and, and, and still. And so that’s why it’s extra weird because the extent to which I see male parenting in Japan, or at least that I’ve personally experienced it in the time that I’ve, I’ve spent in Japan with Japanese families is just non-existent.

It would be so weird. Like a a, aside from a father joining his wife and child. ‘cause I, it’s also hard for me to imagine multiple children on, on some kind of vacation or, or eating out together that, that I could envision on a weekend or on a once a year vacation. But that’s, well, and I

Malcolm Collins: think that this is really important to dig into it.

It’s clear that was Japan, this stuff is popular and, and not just within Japan. Well, yes. Spy

Simone Collins: family. I mean that, that’s huge.

Malcolm Collins: It’s, it’s so. People feel a desire for this kind of content and these types of fantasies. And yet the way that they’re being delivered to them seems to be making the [00:16:00] problem worse.

Mm-hmm.

Now I. What you could argue here is, okay, character development, that’s why they’re doing it. Becoming an adoptive parent often requires sun ghosts perfect for anime’s emotional arcs. The shift from lone wolf to reluctant caretaker is a powerful trope. The problem is was in western media, we’ve been doing that with biological parents for ages.

That does not require anime to do that does not require an adoption to do. This is a, this is a choice.

Simone Collins: And there are countless ways you can show growth beyond that, that it, that, that, that’s no good explanation at all.

Malcolm Collins: One that I think is a really good explanation potentially is that this is such a fantasy to your average person in Japan that it is immersion breaking for somebody to get married and have kids.

Simone Collins: I don’t, I mean, I’m gonna look up what percentage of people in Japan marry in their lifetimes. I’m pretty sure marriage is pretty pervasive and that’s why I, I don’t know if I can agree with you on that.

Malcolm Collins: Well look it up. [00:17:00] I remember the number of, look up. How many Japanese per people are married by the age of 30?

Okay. Okay. So you’re getting a. But I would not be surprised if, you know, they see this as more immersion breaking than being ade or, you know, in a, in a fantasy world,

Simone Collins: according to a 2015 survey by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, 30.7% of men and 46% of women aged 25 to 30 were unmarried.

Meaning approximately 69% of men and 54% of women in this age group were married. The majority, huh? Yeah. Why? What’s interesting though is that it looks like men are doing more passport bro stuff.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Right? They’re bringing in women. Yeah. Well, no, but, so then part of the question here is it, does this have to do with anime’s audience?

Are they more likely to be in the unmarried camp?

Simone Collins: Yeah. The, the the incel. Socially awkward group. I [00:18:00] mean, definitely when, when I, when I reflect on how anime fans were perceived within Japan, they were not perceived as thriving socially, so to speak. So also,

Malcolm Collins: which I’ve always think a shame in Japan because it shows to me a lack of leaning into their own culture.

Simone Collins: But that’s, and that’s talking about adults. I mean, I, I do think that where anime is less. Stigmatized is consumption among teens, and maybe that’s what’s going on is that we’re looking at media that is primarily consumed by youth, and in that case it’s really unrelatable this idea. I think the idea of marriage and having kids is, if anything, repulsive to adolescents who are going through that rebellion period and who find their parents uniquely disgusting.

So maybe that’s something that’s going on. It’s an audience thing. [00:19:00] Hmm. I mean, keep in mind, I, I, I don’t know of, of really any youth centered media, you know, that’s like primarily consumed by people under the age of 18 in the United States or elsewhere that depicts an intact family. Though it could depict instances of taking care of younger people as a character development thing.

So I can’t ask what percent of anime in Japan is consumed by people under age 18.

Malcolm Collins: It’s an interesting question. So the next theory they have here that aligns with what you just said is audience fantasy found family appeals to viewers who may feel alienated from traditional family structures. It also romanticizes the idea that love not blood defines family, which again, may make it seem more accessible to people.

Simone Collins: According to a 2023 survey by Nipon Research Center, approximately 88.6% of high school students in Japan watch anime indicating high prevalence among those typically aged 15 to 18. Who’s that? [00:20:00]

Malcolm Collins: That small percent, 11%. Who’s not losers? 12%. I mean, yeah, whatever.

Simone Collins: Combining these let’s see, A 2017 report from Fasu Intelligent Strategic Marketing estimated that 65% of five to nine year olds and 44% of 10 to 19 year olds in Japan watch anime suggesting a significant portion of the under 18 demographic engages with anime combining these insights, it’s reasonable to estimate that a.

Substantial percentage of anime audiences in Japan are under 18, likely around 40 to 50% when considering broader five to 19 age ranges. The exact figures are unknown and it’s hard to, they don’t, there’s not anything that shows but it, it, I mean, the conclusion is younger viewers, five to 19 form a core part of the audience, but viewership drops off in older age groups.

With only 40% of young adults and under 20% of those over 60 watching anime. So clearly there’s a drop off if we’re going from 88% of teens to 40% of [00:21:00] young adults, and that’s like people in their twenties who may still be in that kind of teen mode of families. Disgusting. I think, I think that I find that com that to be the most compelling theory so far is that it’s about youth oriented media and you often talk about this role of life stages that people.

And their youth have very different sources of contentment, pleasure, and satisfaction than people who are in like their late twenties, early thirties, and then from people who are in their forties to fifties and then fifties to sixties. And if you don’t recognize that the things that bring you satisfaction change over time, you’re going to try to be happy in your like thirties to forties.

By like traveling and having a lot of sex and like, you know, doing all this, like socializing and partying and, and playing video games and, and yet you’re not getting the same satisfaction from it when at that time if instead you had invested in like building a family and a home life, you would’ve gotten so much more out of it.

So I think that’s, that’s more probably what’s going on. [00:22:00]

Malcolm Collins: We can

Simone Collins: still, we can still enjoy these plots as adults and just kind of pretend that they’re biological parents too. Like I don’t think, it doesn’t alienate the older audiences. But it would alienate the younger audiences.

Malcolm Collins: That’s a good point. It feels very grown up and these don’t feel as grown up.

Yeah. And we can get to that with a hypothesis that’s coming up, but I, but I’d also note here you know, our kids are already watching anime a lot. Yeah. They watch a lot of Pokemon. They love We Oh, sailor Moon too, dude. Oh yeah. You, you have the one. Oh. And that Magical Girl

Simone Collins: one. What’s the

Malcolm Collins: one about like, oh, that’s, that’s one they just watched with us.

‘cause we’re watching it. The one about the magical girl who works at like a startup. Oh no, but

Simone Collins: no, honestly, here’s the crazy thing is Titan watched that before watching Sailor Moon for the first time. Mm-hmm. And now when sailor Moon and her compatriots have their transformation, she’s like magical girl transformation.

Like she knows exactly the trope that’s taking place and it cracks me up like she understands. She’s just like, of course, [00:23:00] magical girl transformation.

Malcolm Collins: Magical girl transformation. She says that.

Simone Collins: Yeah. It’s that, it kind of blew my mind because I was like, wow, you, you actually really,

Malcolm Collins: so for our younger kids, we have a projector and we play various shows from my childhood because like, I don’t trust modern cartoons.

So we’ve play like GI Joe, we’ve done some X-Men from like the eighties. We’ve done a lot of magical school bus and one of the ones we’ve, that they’ve been hugely obsessed with recently. Is Pokemon. Yeah. We live in a Pokemon house now. They love Pikachu. Every single one of them loves Pikachu.

Simone Collins: Everyone has a Pikachu.

Plush everyone. Octavian has changed his favorite color to yellow because that is the color of Pikachu. Oh yeah? Mm-hmm. Dead is red. Uh uh Red is dead. Yellow’s in.

Malcolm Collins: I had no idea. That is Did he explain this to you?

Simone Collins: Yes, he did. Yes, he did.

Malcolm Collins: That’s great. That’s great. You know, we’re teaching our kids good values here.

I’ll, I’ll put that scene from top [00:24:00] part.

Speaker 2: Ooh, Garrison son. Sahi. What did he say? He.

Malcolm Collins: All right. So here’s another hypothesis, avoiding romance complications. Biological partners are often paired with their romantic partner, which can overshadow the parenting theme. Adoptive stories often focus more tightly on the bond itself. I don’t buy that. One that I did buy a bit more was saying, well, you know, you can have people falling in love and like a will they or won’t they sort of a thing?

Mm-hmm. If they are adoptive because they haven’t already, you know, consummated their relationship and they’re not officially married except True Lies does that really, really well. Mm-hmm. Even though they’re already in a marriage. If you remember the wife is thinking about cheating on the husband and she’s drunk guy.

Sorry. The, a marriage is falling apart and it’s about the marriage coming back together and being re solidified based on this. That’s fine. But like, it, it works really well despite all of this. You don’t, you [00:25:00] don’t need them to not already be married to have a story about the strengthening of a relationship.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Now let’s talk about the tonal differences between the two because I found this to be really interesting. So if you look at adoptive, if you’re looking at the tone, they’re often heartwarming. And, and I wanna get your theory on this because I did not feel I had a good explanation from this, from your earlier thoughts.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: So for the tone, they’re often heartwarming, comedic, or redemptive. I. In biological, they’re often bittersweet, serious or melancholic. Mm-hmm. In theme chosen family is focused on healing identity beyond blood in biological and often just like, so sweetness is the main theme I. In biological, it’s about legacy sacrifice, letting go and personal growth.

Like heavy stuff. Common arcs for adoptive, reluctant parent softens or found family bonds. But for biological it’s parental endurance coming of age, tragedy of loss. [00:26:00] What that

Simone Collins: totally both of those check out because really what they are is coming of age stories. They’re not about biological family at all.

It’s about like some, some big gauntlet that they’re running, some big challenge, learning how to become responsible and, and often learning how to become responsible for yourself by becoming responsible for others. And I feel, I feel like those themes come up in, in shows like Spy Family, the, the characters are forced to find themselves deserving of love to overcome deep, dark fears.

Through the obligations imposed on them by their adoptive families.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

Simone Collins: So that makes sense. And I, I think this, this feeling of losing a partner and then having a child with you to take care of is definitely something that can resonate to someone who’s a teenager, who’s anticipating this point in their life at which they lose their support network, their parents, as they’re [00:27:00] expected to become an adult.

And I think that in a way. Th this psychologically they beco they are their own parent and they are their own child and they know that they’re going to have to basically take care of themselves and that these stories kind of help them subconsciously get through the grief of no longer getting to mooch off their parents.

So you think

Malcolm Collins: about the, the grief in that one, and the other ones are about. Just sort of masturbating the sensation of, you know, I’m gonna be

Simone Collins: on my own, I’m gonna have to fend for myself and take care of a helpless.

Malcolm Collins: That’s, that’s, that’s not what they’re doing. I’m, I’m talking about the adoptive ones, like, why are the adoptive ones so happy in their theming generally?

Simone Collins: I think a lot of that has to do with teenage rebellion and building your own identity. At this point, but adopt

Malcolm Collins: ones often aren’t about that. The adoptive, adoptive, adoptive,

Simone Collins: that’s what I’m talking about.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Where they’re often comedic and, and happy and Yeah. Like, yeah. ‘

Simone Collins: cause this, this, as, as a teen, you’re building your own family, you’re building your identity.

You’re choosing who your [00:28:00] friends are. You are, you are choosing, it’s argument

Malcolm Collins: you’re making makes no sense because you’re arguing that both the biological and the adoptive fill this fantasy, even though they, no, the

Simone Collins: biological one is about. Coming to terms with the, the, the responsibility you are going to have for yourself as an adult and how that’s both scary and kind of sad, but also character building.

The other one,

Malcolm Collins: this other is about the responsibility of yourself as an adult.

Simone Collins: No, it’s, it’s about the fun parts of building your own identity, building your own friend group. And, but didn’t one

Malcolm Collins: separate that based on adoptive and biological, because

Simone Collins: they’re both different feelings. One is based on, on the fear and the grief and the, the hard growth.

The other one is built on the. Discovery and interest and freedom of it. Because there’s an element of, of adulthood where you get to have all that freedom and, and choose who you hang out with and choose who you get to be. And then there’s the other element of it where you are now burdened with yourself.

Malcolm Collins: Well, okay, here’s a better explanation, I think. Okay.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: In Japan they do [00:29:00] not believe that having a kid as a choice, they see it as a duty to their family, really. And a duty to their role in society. I mean, well this is just part of Confucian value systems. And so in Japan, in

Simone Collins: Confucian value systems in Japan,

Malcolm Collins: Japan has value systems.

I ain’t feeling it. You, you don’t think that Japan believes in duty. There is a belief, our duty to ancestors. No, hold on. You don’t think that Japan has an undercurrent in everything tied to duty to family and ancestors?

Simone Collins: Not anymore. But maybe that’s why their birth rate’s are lower.

Malcolm Collins: So I mean, I, I do think there’s, I argue that they do and I would argue it’s a major part of their culture and I would argue that they see having a kid as part of that duty and something that is in a way inescapable if they find a partner.

And because of that, at least one kid, right? Like it’s something they’re supposed to try. Like you’re not gonna get the same proud dinks in Japan as you would get in the us. That would just be [00:30:00] shameful, right?

Mm-hmm.

And so kids, if you’re making the kid the choice, the thing that you’re opting into, it always has to be adoptive because a kid had biologically is never a choice.

It’s always a duty.

Simone Collins: Oh, that’s okay. Well, yeah, I mean, that’s an interesting theory. That is interesting.

Malcolm Collins: So that’s,

Simone Collins: yeah. Well, and I think, I think this is, this is also interesting in the context of Aria BA’s ob observation, that more socially conservative countries that see these things as obligations see lower birth rates, maybe because when you make this an exogenous obligation, the intrinsic motivation disappears.

Yeah. And, and this could be a media-based reflection of that toxic dynamic of exogenous pressure to have kids making the only way to have kids romantically or in an inspiring way through adoption, which is interesting.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. That’s what I think is going on.

Simone Collins: Huh? I I think that plus that it’s a big [00:31:00] turnoff for kids.

To have a family.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. I mean, spy family is I at least my interpretation from where I see it sold disproportionately bought by young people.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. I, that makes sense. And the, the, there was one manga that I read as, as a kid and, and loved that did have parents more actively involved, but only in a way that really mocked the parents.

And so that. Two adoptive siblings essentially fell in love. Like, so it was like brother and sister, but not really. And, and the parents were swingers who just, it’s okay if they’re adopted. That’s the way anime always works. I mean, yeah. But, but again, like both of the, both parents remained there.

It’s just they swapped partners. So it was like, if your dad married my mom and my mom married. Sorry. And my dad married your mom. Wait,

Malcolm Collins: really? That’s the way it worked?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Like they, yeah. Yeah. And then, and then so that [00:32:00] the two then, like, their kids ended up living in the same house. ‘cause I think they all ended up living together or something.

It, it was, it was a weird manga. I can’t remember what it was called. Someone chime in the comments. It was, I think it was very popular. People will know.

Malcolm Collins: Oh no, there’s a few, like, I mean, obviously the one that everybody would always come to for the, adoptive brother one, I think Kiss Sis is an adoptive brother.

The, the one that I love, there was

Simone Collins: also an adoptive brother in gossip Girl,

Malcolm Collins: so Oh, really? Yeah. I’m thinking of the one there. It was an anime that only had one season and it had a very strange art style, and it’s something called like. I’m not in love with my brother. And it, a big feature of it with the girl had like an orange shirt and like black stockings.

I found it really funny. And he, he builds up like a hair in it. I, I love hair anime. I think they’re the best.

Simone Collins: Well, you’re in luck given that it’s like, God, what percentage of anime are hair of anime? Some insane amount.

Malcolm Collins: Simone, when do [00:33:00] I get my other four wives? Like I’ve seen an anime. That’s supposed to happen.

Simone Collins: No, they, it’s not for, it’s it’s you, you, you live, you know, I guess you know, is is Silicon Valley? The Harem? The Harem reality? Like the closest you’ll get, I mean, half of the women will actually have been NA males, but still is that kind of it?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, it’s Harem reality. No, my I was, I was talking to Simone recently.

There’s this recent trope in anime of the like absolutely virginal, absolutely like saintly girl among the harem, which is the only one the guy actually wants to marry and it’s the sweetest. And I was like, she gives off such vibes of that character just in the way she interacts with our kids and everything.

You know, she’s so saintly all the time.

Simone Collins: Because they cough in my face and I don’t get mad.

Malcolm Collins: You don’t pop ‘

Simone Collins: em. They’re actively giving me COVID. Just take it. Just take it

Malcolm Collins: like a champ. Like, oh, I’m gonna tank it when you get back, after you get your [00:34:00] C-section. If any of the kids are sick, let me know and I’m gonna handle them.

Simone Collins: It’s not like I’m not, I’m not gonna not make dinner for them. I’m not gonna not clean up after everyone. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: But I could bathe them and stuff like that.

Simone Collins: And carry them up the stairs. It’s the carrying up the stairs part where like, I will,

Malcolm Collins: yeah, I’ll do those two things.

Simone Collins: It’s like they, we get them to, to cough into their elbows, but when I am carrying them, they decide that they have to, at that moment.

Get right out here. You know what? It’s so cool when I can

Malcolm Collins: like ask an a, a, you know, an anime about us, these not anime, like an AI about us these days and we see like AI creation of anime and stuff like that. And it’s like early stages. I bet in 10 years we’ll just be able to ask an AI to create an anime about our family and it’ll just pump one out.

Simone Collins: We don’t need to though, because all of our kids just assume that they are the protagonist that every anime is about them.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, we we’re watching it there. Titan literally

Simone Collins: believes she’s every single character in animes, including the male characters.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, exactly. Like that’s

Simone Collins: Titan and that’s Titan and that’s Titan.[00:35:00]

She’s, but that it’s not, it’s not main character syndrome. It’s like, it’s unity syndrome. She’s got it bad.

Malcolm Collins: Crazy. She’s just, it’s gonna hive mine them all.

Simone Collins: Yeah, they’re all titan.

Malcolm Collins: So what are we doing for dinner tonight?

Simone Collins: The world’s your oyster. You did buy that teriyaki stuff at

Malcolm Collins: oh, that’d be really easy on my stomach.

Simone Collins: You also did buy like some kind of kimchi soup thing at the Asian market a while ago that I rediscovered in the deep freezer chest. So that’s an option. And

Malcolm Collins: send me a picture on WhatsApp when you’re ready.

Simone Collins: Okay. Yeah, I’ll head down, take a picture of it and you can decide. So I guess it’s that or teriyaki you can also do more freezer.

Malcolm Collins: I’m also happy with doing freezer stuff just to go through. As long as you don’t get that disgusting freezer rice.

Simone Collins: Oh, you don’t wanna do fried freezer? Fried freezer rice anymore,

Malcolm Collins: whatever that was. I, no, I do not want that. Last time.

Simone Collins: That was okay. Then I’ll [00:36:00] discard the other one. It was just two leftover fried rice batches that I thought would thaw out.

Okay. But I guess,

Malcolm Collins: no, it was the meat that I’d used and it just didn’t really work. There wasn’t

Simone Collins: meat in that fried rice.

Malcolm Collins: Yes, there was. It was a lot of meat. Oh, it was the pork crumble that you ended up using to try to make your scotch eggs.

Simone Collins: Oh, it didn’t work. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Costco has nothing good.

Simone Collins: Yeah, the chicken crumbles

Malcolm Collins: see out, competes them.

Simone Collins: Yeah, BJ’s is great. Yeah. I feel bad for anyone who doesn’t have access to bj. I feel bad for anyone who has a large family and shops at a Wegmans. Not to like

Malcolm Collins: my brother

Simone Collins: cast shade, but yeah. I mean,

Malcolm Collins: I love you.

Simone Collins: I love you too.

Malcolm Collins: Like what’s, I think you have good food.

It’s got like a variety. I.

Simone Collins: They have the German bread that I [00:37:00] like that you could throw through a window and break it, that kind of stuff.

Today you got

Malcolm Collins: all of the Synergy popcorn from Trader Joe’s. You got a whole shopping cart syn logistically.

Simone Collins: Oh, so good. So good. It’s like the limited edition Adi DA’s of Trader Joe’s. So excited

Malcolm Collins: off your stupid face.

Simone Collins: I will, I will. And I, I already did and I, now I’m gonna have the, their frozen tamales.

That’s what I’m having. Anyway, super excited for that. I love you. You’re beautiful and

Malcolm Collins: love you mom.

Simone Collins: Tell how something, something.

Speaker 5: So what happened? Toasty. Why are there no leaves? ‘cause ball comes and then the leaves come off. Wait, so this happens every year? Yeah. Are the leaves gonna come back in? Spring?

Speaker 6: I wait. Octavian, what happens if the bus comes while you’re in the tree? Be [00:38:00] light. No, you gotta come down, buddy. We, it’s too late. If you could have done this a bit earlier, but not now. Hey, but I got a question for you actually, Octavian, is daddy a superhero? Yes. What’s his superpower? His superpower is to make like a seal.

Speaker 5: I make shields. What’s your superpower? Um, invisibility, invisibility. You like that one? Yeah. Then nobody comes see.

Speaker 7: Well, I potion my dad. You can see everybody. Even me. Really? How will you make the potion? Well, with a potion skill. Yeah. With a potion skill. Yeah. You’re gonna need to [00:39:00] learn it at school. Yeah, I, my cat, are you gonna hit the, are you gonna hit the horn? Yeah. Then you can’t go inside. You hit the horn yesterday so I can’t let you in.

Speaker 5: Can I hug the horn? No, because you woke up Stacey and John. Do you want John to be mad at you? Oh no. I tried to, I seen, Hey, activity. You wanna tell people to like and subscribe Actually, Titan, do you wanna tell people to like and subscribe? Yes. And okay, what do you wanna say? How do you say it? Titan? How do you say like, and subscribe.

Are you too scared? Yes. Octavian. Do you wanna say it for Titan so she can see how you do it? Titan, come here. Octavian. Octavian here. Come over here. They can’t see you. Daddy. I was so high on that tweet. Torsten, do you wanna say like, and subscribe. [00:40:00] Uh oh. School bus. So daddy. You have to be a wizard to keep a Jennifer, not escape.

Speaker 7: Wizards do so with no keeping things escaping. Oh, I have to be a wizard to cast a spell. Yeah. And I can only be a wizard if I had a cape. What wizards? I heard that with her. Still have kids. Yeah, they don’t. Not all with herds. Do. Tapes are really quite irrelevant to magical powers. They just kinda make you look like a doofus.

Speaker 5: Oh

f**k. But toi, can you say like, and subscribe for the followers? Okay. What say it like can subscribe and what happens if they do it? I don’t know Either. Say the algorithm will like this video more.[00:41:00]

Speaker 6: I.