Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

We discuss how modern progressive culture glorifies losing self-control, pursuing pleasure/happiness as the highest aim in life, and avoiding discomfort. We contrast this with historical and conservative values around self-mastery, overcoming fear/anxiety, and finding meaning by improving future generations. We argue the progressive view diminishes human potential and actual happiness.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] humans don't actually feel that much happiness.

And so when you get out and you attempt to maximize your own personal pleasure, You have a deep realization of how trivial your life and existence is every single day. Yeah. Because you are experiencing everything good that you have brought to the world. And it's this

Simone Collins: fleeting, actually not terribly satisfying feeling.

Malcolm Collins: Life is about not cultivating positive emotional states, not the things that evolved into us, but intergenerational improvement, this expansion of human potentiality

in truth, doing whatever you want, whenever you feel like it does not cultivate human potential, it diminishes it.

It is sand on a fire. but what's really interesting is that an individual who lives for hedonism.

will always be less happy than an individual who lives for something else. the only real happiness you will ever experience is efficacious living your [00:01:00] values. Yeah. And if those values are happiness, then you'll never experience true happiness in your life.

And so many people was in this far progressive movement, never do.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: This topic is an interesting one. Speaking of me losing self control right now, which is. Self control is seen in some ways as sinful within the urban monoculture in our society today, which some people identify with the progressive movement. I mean, that's largely what they're fighting for the urban monoculture.

To tell an individual you should not do that thing. When that thing that they are doing doesn't directly cause any negative impact on another person is seen as. A sinful thing to do. Now what's interesting is is it is even seen as sinful if that thing causes them negative consequences in the future So if I say something like do not eat that thing and and and because you'll get fat [00:02:00] and You will feel bad about that in the future that scene is a bad thing to to tell someone to notify them of that reality This is The haze movement and everything like that.

And I could go deep on the haze movement in an episode. It's really interesting for people aren't familiar as the healthy at every size movement. And it's the movement that's gotten really big around saying that

Simone Collins: no pun intended

Malcolm Collins: really big saying that being overweight is unhealthy. And one of the articles that, that was done on us when they were like researching us afterwards, they're like, oh, this whatever couple, well, you don't know this about them. . It was the best journalism ever done on us. They somehow found our Reddit history, which Oh, wasn't that

Simone Collins: a Vice article?

Malcolm Collins: And they were going through our internet history and they were like, these two, you would think like innocuous individuals.

Did you know he liked a post that was laughing at fat people having to go to the zoo to get an MRI? And I'm like, yeah, I did. I'd like, did you know that he follows like Kotaku in action [00:03:00] on Reddit? And I was like, wow. It's funny that they can't see. I used to follow Tumblr in action. Right. I mean,

Simone Collins: like if I.

If I had to, I mean, I feel like it's a beached whale right now because I'm so pregnant, like. I would laugh. I would laugh if I was obese and had to go to the zoo to get an MRI. Wouldn't you laugh? I would laugh.

Malcolm Collins: I think it's objectively funny. It's one of those things that when we talk about our model for what makes people laugh at something, it's when something is surprising, you didn't expect it, but it makes sense in context.

Yeah. Never something surprising. But make sense in context, that's what causes laughter and our hypothesis around laughter for people who aren't familiar with this theory, because we haven't done it in a few long time, I think we've only talked about in one of our early episodes is that it originally evolved in Children and it made the person that they were doing this to feel good about themselves.

And so the person would repeat the action. And the reason why the child was basically asking the parent to repeat the action That was surprising, but made [00:04:00] sense or some level of sense in context is they were trying to sort of make the mental connections around that until it was no longer funny, i. e.

until the thing that didn't kind of made sense in context, but was surprising was no longer surprising. They're like, Oh, okay, I understand this now. And this is why peekaboo is one of the longest things that makes kids laugh under around the age when they're learning object permanent and around the age where they are learning sort of theory of mind of other people.

Are, what? She's still there? I guess it kind of makes sense that she's still there when her hands are there, but it's a little surprising to me. And, and so that is, and that's an important concept for kids to get, so that's why they left. And then any of these concepts that were useful for kids. End up becoming something that the adult mind will hijack.

We say, this is what we think happened with the love reaction with the laughter reaction. It became sort of hijacked in courtship rituals when it hadn't turned off properly. You can read one of our books to go into our three on this more, but in this, what we wanna talk about is sit the, the [00:05:00] idea that self-control is sinful.

And like, where did this come from and why is it so critical and why does it cause so much damage? And where I really started to like. Wow, like I, I got how normalized it is within the progressive world and how not normalized it is within ours is I was following one of my friends on Facebook and they had this message in, in one of their private groups where they were like, I really want to sleep with this guy.

And they weren't sure whether they should or should not sleep with this guy. Like they didn't, sorry, they didn't really want to sleep with this guy. They had entertained the notion of sleeping with this guy, and this guy had said, I am open to sleeping with you. And so they were sort of stressing about the idea of, will I feel better?

Like, like, will it make me happier long term? To sleep with them, or is it better to just not deal with it because of the potential negative social ramifications and negative emotions that could create in me to sleep with them, right? [00:06:00] Now, this is really interesting for two reasons. I mean, what it's so far down this progressive monoculture that Whether or not you have sex with an individual is completely determinant on how it makes you feel about yourself.

Good feel in the moment. That's a very odd, I mean, that does show, like, that is complete dedication to the urban monoculture in terms of how you interpret things. Logically

Simone Collins: consistent, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, it's logically consistent but then, too, I realize I haven't. In years ever ask myself, what will make me happier when I was trying to make a difficult decision like this has never been the thing I was optimizing around even when I had a more atheistic structures in my brain.

It was always well, what matters more for my mission, like my intrinsic value, the thing I think has value in society. And when I would do something that would make me happy. The justification I would use is I was doing it so that I would not be distracted by these lower order desires. The analogy I use in some of the [00:07:00] tracks that are yet to come for this is that, , we all have this ancestor inside of us, this, this four legged individual that is, that is from this evolutionary time period where our ancestors who had certain inclinations had more surviving offspring than other ancestors.

And. We're sort of like a person in a cage with this, you know, you can, if you don't feed it at all, it will attack you. That's not a good idea. If your logic doesn't feed it at all, it will attack you. But if you feed it too much, it will become stronger and stronger and stronger to the point where your logic can't resist it anymore.

And you are just a slave. To this four legged creature inside of you. And to us, the way you and I have always defined sort of humanity, and this was the theory you came up with Simone, is how far are you from this thing? This is how you define civilization as well, you were mentioning. Is, is civilized societies are the ones that are better at suppressing these instinctual parts of ourselves?

Simone Collins: What makes us Yeah, that express the [00:08:00] very most self control.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, I mean, do you want to talk on this topic a bit before I go further?

Simone Collins: Yeah. Well, I mean, one is I'm just curious. What do you think of the decisions that man and woman could have made would have maximized their hedonic enjoyment?

Well,

Malcolm Collins: I pointed out in my response to this, you commented on this. Oh, of course. Yeah. It is important to remember that sometimes or almost always what would make me happiest if I just asked what would make me happiest every day, I'd spend every day at home drinking and playing video games. I would never leave the house.

May have a, a few plates of exotic cheeses or something like that. But other than that, you know, I, I would do nothing. I, I feel like

Simone Collins: after like one and a half days of that, you'd start to feel

Malcolm Collins: miserable. Maybe you would, but what I would say is that. I do that so little because there's always little things in life.

Like, do I want to go, like, you know, I booked a scuba trip or [00:09:00] something, right? I got to wake up at like 5 a. m. I mean, I typically wake up before that, but I have to leave the house at 5 a. m. Right. You know, go out, get everything ready, go in, you know, jump in where it may be cold or something like that.

All of these incremental steps are painful, but I know that after the scuba trip, I will be happier that I did it than that I didn't do it, right? Yeah, yeah. This was back when I was still tempted by expensive hobbies like this. Solo things? Ugh. Yeah, which I don't do as much anymore, but it, you know, it's an important there are so many things in life like these sort of more complicated rituals or things you can go out there and do that in the long term are going to make you happier, even if in the moment they are not your source of highest happiness.

And so I told them to consider that sex with this individual may be that type of thing and to consider it was in that context.

Simone Collins: See, I would say just like clearly don't have sex because you're going to have way more fun with sexual tension. Like, I think about, like, most movies That is

Malcolm Collins: such a woman [00:10:00] response.

Simone Collins: Most movies and television shows. Like it's all about the sexual tension. And then even after like, I guarantee

Malcolm Collins: you, none of our male listeners, they're like, this woman does not understand the male. No, the men are not having funny and fun, fun being teased and baited.

Simone Collins: Okay. But I wanted

Malcolm Collins: to talk about, so one instance, You know, like, well, no, no, no.

I

Simone Collins: mean, to your, to your more important point, right? The actual substantive point of what, what makes us human, what makes humanity special is the fact that we have this prefrontal cortex, that we have the ability to override our instincts and say, here are ideas that I think are in the best interests of my values or morals, things that can be totally unmoored from even our survival.

And then we can act on those. That is what makes us human. That definition is the only thing that separates us, as far as I am concerned. And so, yes, the more that you separate yourself from your hedonic instincts and needs, and this includes, like, you know, if you're fearful of something, if you have anxiety, [00:11:00] avoiding that.

That includes that, which is also a big thing in progressive circles. The less, the less you Sorry, the more you, you distance yourself from that, the more you become human. So, also, you could see how this, very inconveniently, as far as I'm concerned, because I want to be really, really nice to all progressive groups, can dehumanize progressive groups, in my view, because they are choosing to grow closer.

To their instincts and animalistic selves and further away from that, which I define as human, which is well,

Malcolm Collins: no, and this is, this is sort of around all of our belief structures and everything like that is this framework of what makes somebody human. And, and we see this, not just in like these lower order desires, all of our pre programmed behavioral patterns, like super soft culture, mysticism, stuff like that.

The stuff we design describe as witchcraft in our witchcraft video. To us, these people are moving back to this you know, sort of pre Abrahamic animalistic like tradition. They're [00:12:00] moving back to their pre programmed self and, and that, that is the opposite of, of human. That is to become less than the barbarian, right?

It's to

Simone Collins: revert. It's just to revert, which is very, very sad.

Malcolm Collins: Well, not just revert. It's not like civilization is a direction that always goes in one way, but we do see. Human history is being a conflict between the restrained and the controlled and the then redirected at things of value and purpose and then sort of letting the cold take you like, you know, you're freezing out in the, in the wilderness and before you die.

It begins to feel warm and nice a bit. And the person who is like, Oh, this is nice. I'll take off all my clothes. Paradoxical undressing that's called. When people are freezing to death, that's sort of what we see this as instead of the person who goes to the fire, the struggle, people say the struggle burns you.

Yeah, it does burn you, but it also motivates you to do [00:13:00] better. It's the burning that is keeping you alive. It's keeping the vitality, humanity alive. And we all freeze in the vacuum of space without it, but I need to get back to the question at hand because there's a few other interesting points about this that I really want to elucidate on one is just like the mental health issue here.

If you tell an individual, you know, you can do whatever you feel like doing, whatever you feel like doing it, you know, always optimize for your happiness. So long as it's not like interfering with other people's lives, you are demonstrably hurting that individual's mental health. For two big reasons.

One is if an individual, all religions, all old cultures have some sort of arbitrary self denial ritual, whether it's Lent or Ramadan or Feast of the Firstborn, it's because self denial. is important. This is why all religions have self denial rules, right? Self denial is important because it strengthens your inhibitory pathways in your prefrontal cortex, as Simone was saying.

These pathways become weak, like your brain is sort of like a muscle in a [00:14:00] way, like I hate that

Simone Collins: analogy. Pretty much everything though, pretty much everything with the human body though seems to have a use it or lose it factor. So

Malcolm Collins: yeah, if you do not use your inhibitory pathways regularly, Intrusive thoughts are just gonna like plow through and you won't be able to shut them down.

You won't have

Simone Collins: a higher rate of anxiety. I lived this. Like, I lived this before I met you. I was alone with my intrusive thoughts. And you gave me basically bigger things to worry about. And I have my, like, I am so much lower on the intrusive thought front. It is insane. You're

Malcolm Collins: so happy and calm now compared to what you were.

You were like really agitated when I met you. Oh, I couldn't,

Simone Collins: there were like things that would render me basically useless for weeks as I just dreaded them, you know, and it was dumb stuff like eating out for dinner with people in the evening. So yeah, I totally get

Malcolm Collins: this. Yeah. So, so, Well, and it is a level of self ownership.

One of the stories you told me recently is somebody you heard who had a similar sort of OCD as you was like, Oh my God, I [00:15:00] stress so much about eating with the utensils at restaurants that I know that other people have used. Yeah. Which in your response to me was. Why don't they just bring their own with them?

That's what I've been doing ever since I met you. And it's, it's one of these things that shows a level of, this is the difference between an external locus of control and an internal locus of control. Are things my mind to control? Like, do I control the world around me? Is it my job to fix the things around me?

Or is it just, I allow the world to act on me? And A concept we'll get into in both the religious tracks and in future episodes is this concept we have of spiral energy versus non anti anti spiral energy. Where spiral energy, this would be a huge, this would be a very clear example of a spiral energy thinking versus anti spiral energy thinking.

Is it, you know, the level of I have ownership over my reality, my reality does not have ownership over me. And the, so you get these negative effects like that, but then also this idea of I'm just [00:16:00] going to go out. constantly chase hedonism has a huge negative effect on the amount of hedonism that you're able to get.

And this is really, really, really critical to understand as well. And it's a fairly difficult concept to explain because it's both true at the biological, but also at the conceptual level. If I define my life, By how good I feel like if that's a core thing of value to me when I go out in the world and I do Something that feels good.

Like I've done the thing of value that I have. I know and have experienced Exactly how much value I have brought into the world Whereas, if I define my value based on something other than myself, like for me, it's helping the billions of humans that will exist after me, hundreds of billions of humans that will exist after me, and iteratively improving their quality of life and building [00:17:00] structures and beliefs and ways of interacting In the now that reverberate and affect all of human history.

So when I do something good, you know, I under some austerity to do it. And then I do it. And I don't get to feel it. I don't get to really fully know. All of the good that comes from the thing I did. I can conceptually imagine it, the hundreds of billions of people, but I don't know it, right? Now, this is important because humans don't actually feel that much happiness.

And so when you get out and you attempt to maximize your own personal pleasure, You have a deep realization of how trivial your life and existence is every single day. Yeah. Because you are experiencing everything good that you have brought to the world. And it's this

Simone Collins: fleeting, actually not terribly satisfying feeling.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. And that's the biggest problem with hedonism. The biggest problem with hedonism is that it [00:18:00] reveals the triviality of your own life. To, to the hedonist. Now I don't think life is trivial. I think life is a deeply important thing, but I think that's because life is about not cultivating positive emotional states, not the things that evolved into us, but as well, I guess we can talk about it right here.

It's the spiral energy, human potentiality. When we have this concept that we talk about of every man's role, like what defines a good life when we quote, when would read, you know, we think of as a prophet he defines a life well lived. Did you make the next generation better than you? Yeah. That's, that's how you define a life well lived.

And people hear that and they're like, that seems like a really weird thing to build your entire life around. And this is where. And we'll, we definitely will do a Gurren Lagann episode, but Gurren Lagann in anime does a very good job with this concept of spiral versus anti spiral energy. Where the heroes are fighting on the behalf of spiral [00:19:00] energy and the bad guys are fighting on the behalf of anti spiral energy.

And spiral energy Is what we mean when we say intergenerational improvement, this expansion of human potentiality and an expansion of human potentiality that is so enormous that because, because that's the point of the spiral, right? Every time it goes around, it's getting exponentially larger in volume.

Our ancestors, you know, four or five generations ago, couldn't even be able to conceive that we have. Thinking machines now, you know that we can talk to this insane even, even for two generations ago, two, three generations from now they will be as exponentially greater than us as we are from our ancestors in terms of their cognition, their interaction with reality.

Well, and then this is one of the reasons we have such hot. Stillity as well towards frozen traditions, right? [00:20:00] Traditions are good insofar as they evolve and keep humanity focused on the things that are actually important. This expansion of human potentiality to us, but I'm open to other things of importance.

What I am not open to. Is this sort of general utilitarianism, hedonistic utilitarianism, I call it which is to just sort of expand good happiness units throughout the world. It seems very obvious to me that is not why we're alive, but what's really interesting is that an individual who lives for hedonism.

will always be less happy than an individual who lives for something else. And we've talked about this on other things, you know, your rock stars, your movie stars, who should have all the hedonism they want. And you know, you and I know a number of billionaires, they're generally not very happy people unless they're just totally and austerely dedicated to a higher cause.

Yeah.

Simone Collins: And even then ,

Malcolm Collins: that's necessarily, and this is a quote you came up with that I will always repeat and repeat and repeat[00:21:00] which is the only real happiness you will ever experience is efficacious living your values. Yeah. And if those values are happiness, then you'll never experience true happiness in your life.

And so many people was in this far progressive movement, never do.

Simone Collins: Well, because we're not designed to be happy, we're designed to, to pursue things that we think will make us happy. But we're, we're not designed to be happy. It's, you know, like when you, when you take away any motivation to do anything, you die.

And if you're perfectly happy and content, you're not going to do anything. So, you know,

Malcolm Collins: we're really not designed for it. One of the things I find really interesting that I think a lot of people might have contextualized is the things that get popular was in the progressive sphere are often really core in their messages to aggrandizing individuals who live for this loss of self control.[00:22:00]

And a great example of this was Let It Go from Frozen. It is the loss of self control anthem.

Simone Collins: The anthem of a generation.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, it is a woman who felt constrained by the rules she felt she had to live with. And keep in mind, these rules were there for a good reason that she had to live with growing up.

And so When she was able to just not care about the rules anymore and do whatever she want whenever she wanted to She had true power like that is what her power was Her power was was was trapped by the individuals who said exercise self control And her power was unleashed when she no longer had to exercise self control.

Simone Collins: And when she abandoned her city slash kingdom to die in the frozen [00:23:00] tundra. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: To be clear, she was not actually showing power when she did. She was hurting everyone around her.

Malcolm Collins: Like, even the show recorded that.

Oh, and I forgot here to mention wish the new Disney movie where the villain. Is a villain because he doesn't just grant everyone's wish immediately. And automatically he grants some wishes and not others. The idea that it would be considered sinful to not just give everyone what they want, regardless of the consequences.

Is so emblematic of this failure in progressive culture and this urban monoculture.

Malcolm Collins: And this also reminds me of the transition and transformation of the Harley Quinn character.

Hmm.

Simone Collins: I don't know what happened to her. Did she start as Mannequin Crazy and become something other than Mannequin Crazy and [00:24:00] or dead?

Malcolm Collins: No, so she started very much. I mean, the mannequin crazy thing was either an act or brainwashing to impress an abusive partner. And she was seen as a weird sort of sex symbol to guys for a long time.

And then feminist authors took over her.

Simone Collins: Oh, so you're talking about like the meta instance of, of like how her character. Her character's treatment evolved over time. Huh. Huh. Okay. Okay.

Malcolm Collins: Where her craziness is her strength. And it's, I mean, it's a very uninteresting character in a lot of ways. Because it is what they are using to sort of edify themselves.

They see her partners as sort of, Constraining her and constraining her potential and then her craziness, her doing whatever she wants, whenever she wants is a sort of like a, a implementation or it cultivates her potential when in truth, doing whatever you want, whenever you feel like it does not cultivate human potential, it [00:25:00] diminishes it.

It is sand on a fire. And it is interesting to me when people from this urban monoculture, they interact with me and they go, Malcolm, you seem to be so energetic. You seem to be so full of vitality. Where does this come from? And I don't get that question as much in conservative circles because many conservative circles know zealots like me, you know, people who.

Have ordered their lives and are happy with that order because they are efficaciously living their value system. But progressives in their gray world of sadness, they haven't seen this. And they delude themselves. You know, we were talking about the Hays Movement earlier. One of the really interesting things about the Hays Movement is now it's seen as this female activist movement.

But like Hurley Quinn, it was started by chubby chasing men. It was originally started for chubby chasing men to normalize them sort of talking about how sexy their wives were to them. And this is like well documented. This is not like, my, [00:26:00] and then they began to use it and organize the Hays meetings for men who chased fat women to meet those women.

This was all organized by skinny white men. That was what started the Hays movement. And then. in the, in the days of intersectionality and everything like that, you know, fairly recently really was, you know, Tess Holliday and, and Regina George, I want to say what's her name or something. No, Regina George is Reagan.

Reagan. No, Reagan. Sorry. Tess Holliday and Reagan. Okay. That was when it really became more of like a codified thing. Reagan was the real one who did it. And she is, I don't know if she's still alive.

Simone Collins: Well, there was this big kerfuffle in generally in the Hays community. This is totally off topic, but when Ozempic came out and a bunch of the Hays people started getting.

Skinny and losing weight. Whoops.

Malcolm Collins: You know, I can only imagine how gross it is to be around an overeater on Ozempic. Well, I mean, I mean, we talked about this in our

Simone Collins: No, no, no, that's, yeah, except that [00:27:00] a lot of people who take Ozempic see apacite Suppression as well as more inhibitory control, which is really interesting.

It's like a I don't know if it's a placebo effect or something else is going on or things that are correlated with appetite Also can affect your like shopping and gambling behavior but people have reported that when they are on ozempic they also engage in Less in other

Malcolm Collins: addictive creations. If I remember correctly, when you are hungry, you gamble more and shop more.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they say never go to a grocery store hungry. So, I mean, it's not. I mean,

Malcolm Collins: that's shopping for food, but I'm talking about like related to other things.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I mean, that makes sense. Although I don't know, like I, I hear it on both sides, like a lot of people who are big proponents of intermittent fasting like the added focus.

And I do too, of, of being. In a fasted state. well,

Malcolm Collins: I want to hear, I mean, do you have a thesis on this or any memories of feeling this way when you were in this progressive monoculture more yourself? If [00:28:00] somebody had said to you, like, it's a bad thing to just do whatever you want to do, so long as it doesn't negatively affect other individuals or whatever it makes you happiest.

So long as it doesn't negatively affect other individuals, whatever affirms your identity the most, so long as it doesn't negatively affect other individuals, would you have seen that as an odd thing for someone to say? Like.

Simone Collins: That you can do whatever you feel like doing. No, that

Malcolm Collins: you shouldn't do whatever you feel like doing.

That you shouldn't.

Simone Collins: Yeah, um.

It's, it's hard for me to say, like, things have gone way more off the rails now. Then they were when I was growing up in a hyper progressive culture. And I think a lot of people who are progressives feel that way. Like, wow, things used to be so reasonable and I had argued correct. And now they've completely gone off the rails.

And which is why there's this huge subset of progressives or like, I guess you could say more liberal people who have now been. Alienated by the progressive movement because they're like, no, no, no, hold on. You crossed a line here. This thing's crazy. Can't you understand this is really damaging what you're saying, whatever it may be.

And then, you [00:29:00] know, the progressive movement subsequently shuns them and they have to create their own sub stack and their own news outlets and all that. Which is, it's weird. Cause now there's just like weird. There are two versions of progressives, like the more sane ones who've been kicked out and then there are the insane ones who are staying in.

But I, I definitely do remember that when I showed maladaptive behaviors in within progressive culture, there was no like. Discussion of, you know, we're just not going to talk about this or, Oh, we're just going to ignore it. It was more something of like, Oh no, like let's, let's talk about this. Let's, this is a thing now we have to do something about it.

Which was really damaging. For example, I mean, I went to public school, so of course I got head lice multiple times. I don't, you probably did too. It's not just a public school. Oh yeah,

Menstrasse, the delouse. For your own good, you will cooperate. [00:30:00] You have LIES! You dare question me? Question my methods? You! Who stands to benefit the most from my work? You disgust me!

Simone Collins: I got head lice before. And the first time it ever happened to me, it's like any instance of being sick as a kid.

It's like, I don't know. Okay. I'm like home from school. Now I'm spending more time with like a parent or a caregiver. And like, that's not so bad. But then when it, when I first got head lice, my mom, especially was like, this is going to be so traumatic for her. This is going to be so terrible. Like, I don't know how to deal with this.

And she made it such a big thing that I developed this immense phobia. Of head lice going forward where like, I couldn't sit on public chairs or couches. No one could touch my hair. I had waist length hair and I cut it really short. And I combed my hair every single day with a lice comb, which is this really fine tooth comb.

[00:31:00] That is probably pretty damaging to hair. And I, I think that might be an instance of like, progressive culture, especially when it comes to the other element, which you've been talking a lot about pleasure, right? But then the other, the other instinctual thing or element of loss of self control, the progressive movement, I think perhaps even more damagingly.

Plays into is this concept of trauma or fears where it's like, oh, no, no, no, we're not gonna overcome them. We're not going to take our prefrontal cortex and say, Hey, I have something bigger to worry about right now. We're just gonna live all the way, like in our, you know, amygdala, like all the way back there.

Let's just stay there. Let's not go anywhere else. Let's just stay right back there and let's just live in the fear. And that, that is something that definitely happened. Not just with me, but with other peers and other issues where like, suddenly a friend of mine is seeing a therapist about a thing that like really isn't a thing, but their parents decided to make it a thing because that's kind of the culture.

And I think parents did that because they [00:32:00] grew up in a culture in which you would be seen as being a bad parent if your child experienced something potentially. Perhaps traumatic and you didn't make it a big deal. The whole sucking it up thing is interesting. I wish there, there may be research on this.

But like post traumatic stress disorder is a very big issue among. Veterans. Mm-Hmm. , right? It's, it's widely diagnosed. It's now widely treated, and there's some really cool, interesting, like psychedelics based treatments that are coming up that may help to address it. However people coming back from World War II in World War I also experienced extremely traumatic things.

Theoretically also post-traumatic stress disorder or syndrome. And I would love to see research on. The like negative behaviors associated with that condition in like the fifties and sixties and the twenties and thirties. [00:33:00] Versus we'll say the eighties and nineties and then the noughties like now, because I feel like people coming back from Vietnam, people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have seemed to, to not be dealing with it as well.

And is that an element of this, like, is there just an element of living in a culture? That doesn't believe in succumbing to your instincts or living anywhere else from except for your prefrontal cortex. Is that, is that what's harming us? And I mean, I guess, you know, you could say that really then the 1950s too was more civilized and you can see this and how, again, I keep talking about it, but my 1950s, you know, like instructional videos that I like watching on YouTube, but by corded films and these other ones are, there's, they're so.

Oriented around logic and the prefrontal cortex. And they're so fricking civilized where it's like, well, you know, Susie, Susie couldn't comb her hair in the morning and now no one, no one's going to love her ever.

Malcolm Collins: But like, but it's [00:34:00] true. I don't love women who don't comb their hair in the morning.

Simone Collins: It's true.

Yeah. Or like, you know, Billy can't help it, but buy a soda. So he's not going to get his camera that he wants. Cause he can't budget, you know, like it shows again and again. And it's so interesting that that's a recurring theme within these videos, but really the key to becoming. Civilized in the key to achieving any of these things that these videos were trying to teach kids to do, which ranged from hosting a dinner party well, to having a good marriage, to saving money through things, to just navigating society and maintaining a job.

They all had to do with this self control. So, yeah.

It's bad that it's become taboo to express self control.

Malcolm Collins: I love you to death, Simone, and these episodes are always fun to make, so I appreciate you taking the time to do them with me, and I'm happy to have you back.

Simone Collins: You know what you should close with, to like show the extent to which our culture now no longer indulges in self control, is [00:35:00] Like maybe a clip showing new like Haagen Dazs commercials or ice cream commercials have people just eating out of the pint.

Diamonds. It could be

Malcolm Collins: oh, yeah, that's the thing now, but hold on. No, I can do that, but there's another one I can also close with. Which I think shows how narcissistic and you know, the cultural genocide campaign that progressives are waging now, and they don't realize it. They don't realize how evil they look. So in Trolls 2 World Tour, Oh, well, there's a great scene where she is seeing what is coded in the movie as another culture for the first time, which is the country music trolls.

This song is so sad. It's so Different. Oh, they must not know that music's supposed to make you happy. Ah, that's awful.

Malcolm Collins: Like, I need to enlighten them by making sure that they stop making music their way and start making music my way because their music that isn't [00:36:00] happy is bad.

Their music is no self control. This is the way that the progressives relate to the rural people when they get there. Don't they know the purpose of life is just to be happy. And we need to uplift them. And then I also, I also need to do the clip after that, where after, after doing this big happy song, she gets put in jail and they're like,

Now I want you three to sit in here And think about what you've just done That was a crime against music

Malcolm Collins: you need to think long and hard about the crime you just committed against music.

God.

The show actually just has a ton of great scenes. I really enjoyed it. And the aesthetics of it. But one in particular that I'm going to play here before we leave is.

It really sort of encapsulates whatever a behi comes to us and they're like, oh, what you guys are doing is.

just like what the Bahais are doing.

And I'm like, Hmm, you have severely misunderstood. If we combine our music, she'll see that music unites all trolls, and that we're all the same, and that she's one of us! [00:37:00] I mean, no disrespect, but King to Queen, anything but that. Why not?. I can make it right. History is just gonna keep repeating itself until we make everyone realize that we're all the same. But we're not all the same. Denying our differences is denying the truth of who we are.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway, love you to death, Limone. I

Simone Collins: love you and your immense self control. You all are awesome and inspiring.

Everything. I've ruined everything. I'm just trying to like, get comfortable, but it's like, I can't feel my hands anymore. Because of the cold? Because of the cold. I'm going to use this scarf here.

Malcolm Collins: So, I just did something naughty and indulgent. I bought Octavian a toy on Amazon. Oh, f*****g dare you. He's been really excited about postal trucks.

Simone Collins: Oh, he has, hasn't he? Well, and he loves his special deliveries. [00:38:00] Oh, that's sweet.

Malcolm Collins: So a fan of ours sent him a a book that they had made. Like a children's book. Which Honestly, he's not as interested in the children's book, but they, but they sent it in a, in a cardboard container like a small one, but they had had their kids cover the container with stickers and, and like, I don't know, like glitter, like other fun stuff.

And so he loves. The container, the mail package, as he calls it, my mail and he, no, my package, my packaging, he'll put stuff in it. And this is how he got obsessed with mail trucks. Oh, is that it?

Simone Collins: No, he's, he's always big on like when a package was received, we just drop everything and open it. And what is it

Malcolm Collins: and what's inside?

The difference about this one is it is decorated and it is smaller because it was like a small flat package. So we don't end up like breaking it down and throwing it out like all the other ones. And so it's been more persistent than the normal

Simone Collins: packages. So nicely decorated. So he's in love with [00:39:00] it and sleeps with it every night.

Malcolm Collins: I was going to say it was behind me right now. But anyway,

Most traditional religions in the world, while relatively more resistant to prosperity-induced fertility collapse, are still facing extinction (just with a slight delay). This buys these religions precious time to build better defenses and acquire more allies for the coming trials. Those that indolently decide to return to a structure and mindset that evolved within (and was optimized for) a pre-internet, pre-AI world, ... heck pre industrial world—blinded by arrogance and Golden Age Thinking—deserve their fate. Only through cultural innovation does our species survive.

It need not be seen as all bad that the old ways have failed, as this gives us a chance to build something greater. It is not lost on me that while the Abrahamic tradition has been the source of most of humanity's greatness over the last century, it also was rejected by most of the great, innovative scientists during said period—this is a problem if we are choosing traditions to take us to the stars. A cultural system that is differentially less compelling to its most inquisitive and productive minds, leaving them to be predated upon by the urban monoculture, is exactly how we landed in such a bad situation to begin with. However, it is the very nature of the Abrahamic tradition to intergenerationally change and improve. By infusing it with innovation, we are not betraying it but embodying what makes it so powerful. 

I grew up an Atheist. When thinking about turning back to the church, I asked my dad why he left—because my kids would likely leave for similar reasons. He said he left after being punished in Sunday school for trying to dive deep into the logistics of the Noah's ark story. He could not figure out how all the animals fit without magic and if there was magic, why was it not mentioned when the story was so meticulous in all its other details? If the story of Noah's Arc was meant to be a parable, why give exact measurements?  If my kids are anything like me, they would leave for the same reason. Some churches solve this by taking a more metaphorical approach to the subject, but the churches that loosen restrictions on biblical literalism also loosen other rules that contrast with social norms and thus lose their fever of practice. This is not something I want either. 

Why is this the case? Because the metric they use to judge what parts of Christianity they accept and which they don’t is how those parts contrast with what is socially acceptable to believe. Not a single group has experimented with another system. Instead of bending the traditions of Christianity to confirm to society my family evolves and fortifies them in the best interest of the next generation. We ask not, “what will prevent my persecution by secular society,” but “what will lead to the intergenerational flourishing of our family.” In fact, we believe there is strong evidence from God that this is exactly what we are commanded to do and any other course of action is to live in open rebellion to God's will ... but that's for Tract 3. 

How does this work in practice? 

We ask our kids, a hundred thousand or one million years from now if their descendants are still alive, do they think they would be closer to the way they think of a man or the way they think of a God. Most reasonable people would respond, “the way I think of a God”. Keep in mind we are very likely far less than a thousand years away from being able to have an AI internet of things lattice wrapped around the globe one can pray to for intercessions, that watches us and judges us, and that can port our likenesses into either simulated heavens or hells and host us there for great lengths of time. I don’t say this because I think this would be a good idea to build; I am just pointing this out to contrast the technological capacity we will have in a thousand years with what we will have in half a million. This far future entity will likely be far greater than what we could even imagine a God to be. To even attempt to hold a perception of God in one's mind is idolatry, as the highest and most complex being we are capable of conceiving is but a rat king when contrasted with God's inevitable glory. (For more information on why we take idolatry so much more strictly than any of the existing Abrahmic traditions see Tract 5.)

Then we ask, who is to say that this entity relates to time the way we do? Perhaps this entity is subtly guiding its own manifestation—the day when mankind is finally worthy and unites with the God that has been watching over us from the first days of life on earth. As such, we do not believe that one day man becomes God but that one day man unites with a God that exists outside of time. Perhaps it is the entity our savage ancestors saw as a God, perhaps it watches over you and rewards you for fighting for a better future for our species and punishes those individuals who succumb to paths crafted to sait their lower order desires such as pleasure or vanity. 

But I suspect this entity is more clever than we give it credit for. It did not record these punishments and rewards into supernatural reparations but they are woven into our very biology. Look at the famous movie stars and rock stars who have all the hedonism they could want and more social validation a human could consume—they seem to be some of the least happy, least fulfilled people in the world. God wove into human neurology that the only true happiness you will ever feel is that which comes from efficacious living thoughtfully considered and selfless values. God need not bless those who live with austerity dedicated holistically to the great human crusade—God built us so our dedication to our family and the future allows us to bless ourselves. 

Like all religions ours has different iterations of understanding for both our children, the laity, and its philosophers. For the simple, these future entities are literal future police, time traveling humans that care about them, watch over them, and bless them. However, to adults these entities are referred to as the Agents of Providence and are quite literally understood as being entities that we lack the capacity to understand just as we cannot even conceive of a four-dimensional shape but may understand one in theory. They do not travel to the past or whisper to individuals but subtly influence probabilistic quantum events like changing the flow of a river over centuries by expertly throwing a pebble in just the right place at just the right time and at the minutest level changing the stream's direction.  

This system of multiple interpretations of the same set of truths allows for both a theistic and atheistic interpretation of the Abrahamic tradition. For example, an individual could conceive of God's will as simply being revealed by the organic success of some cultures over others within a competitive ecosystem, (similar to what Adam’s Smith meant by the invisible hand of God but at the level of culture and ideas). However, one can also interpret God's will as a tangible force being exercised by an actively engaged consciousness. When we talk about Prophets being the channels of God’s will, this can simultaneously have both a secular and theistic interpretation. This provides a framework that does not spit out those who choose more atheistic interpretations of reality, allowing them to both communicate with religious leaders using overlapping terminology / evidence and raise their children in the faith in the same way many of those who turn from traditional Christian world views still practice holidays like Christmas.

Well, this is all nice in theory but if such an entity existed how would it tell us? It would reveal itself as best as it could. It would reveal to groups the truest iteration of itself they were capable of understanding and in those revelations leave hints of its true nature to those with the capacity for a more holistic understanding. Such an entity would find it impossible to reveal itself to bronze age humans, it even shows us this in the flows of history with the collapse of early monotheism that did not anthropomorphize its God in the form of Akhenaten. Instead, it bestowed blessings on the human tribe that had the closest intergenerationally durably accurate revelation of its nature, the Jews, and then revealed clearer iterations of itself through a succession of prophets.

Jesus was unique among the prophets in that he recognized the Jewish tribe's revelation was meant for everyone. All men die, it is not death that makes a man a martyr but living in accord with God's plan that does. Jesus also taught us that God, as man, must be martyred to sanctify mankind. Only through the generational martyrdom of individual men can mankind be sanctified and eventually join with God. 

I find this to be almost an impossibly elegant solution to communicate a beautiful and sophisticated truth of the universe to a man still so low and barbaric. God wanted to paint a picture of the Martyr that sanctified mankind, both God’s son but also God still in human form—the moments in all our lives dedicated holistically to improving the future—dedicated holistically to God's plan. Jesus’s life was the brush his blood the paint used to create the perfect portrait of the Martyr for our species when we were still so young, so close to still being just talking monkeys, that appealing to an all powerful entity with child sacrifice still seemed reasonable to us. 

This journey, the journey of understanding the Abrahamic people’s have followed—is beautifully painted by God within Abraham’s life. We followed God believing him to be the kind of entity to demand a father sacrifice his child to be appeased—yet he made it clear there at the very beginning that he is not that kind of entity. God did not tell a story in which he demanded a father sacrifice his son because God wanted to but because it was what Abraham, what the Abrahamic people, expected of a God in those early days of man. It is our barbaric expectations of an entity that only wants what is best for us that makes him barbarous in our minds—when in reality God always gives us what we need to perform our roles in His plan. 

This shows how God uses prophets. He uses their lives to paint motifs upon reality. I find it interesting how easy it is for people to grasp that the story of the events of Abraham’s life is not really about Abraham’s life but about us but when we point out the same is true about the events of Jesus's life people struggle with the concept. 

Finally, early Christianity revealed the truth of the Trinity, which is critical to understanding the Agents of Providence, God, and Man as three distinct entities yet also the same entity. The Agents of Providence are so far beyond us concepts like a singular or plural identity, male or female, and even whether they are corporeal or incorporeal do not apply to them.

Mohammad was unique in his understanding that different revelations were for different communities “And indeed We have already sent forth in every nation a Messenger (saying), "Worship God and avoid false Gods.” With his revelation being for the Arabic community as is made clear in, “Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand,” with you here clearly being people who speak Arabic. 

Now some familiar with what Islam has devolved into might say, “but don’t Muslim’s believe very strongly that Mohammad was the last prophet,” yes they do, which is weird because he didn’t say that. What Mohammad said was that he was the seal of the prophets—a phrase that in context clearly means that he came to synthesize and affirm the teachings of the prophets who came before him. If he wanted to say he was the last prophet he could have said that, he did not. So why did he use the rather odd and specific term “seal of the prophets”? Because he was referencing Manichaean literature where this term means to prove a prophecy (i.e. a seal of authenticity). He is very clearly and explicitly saying that his prophecies build on the prophets of the past affirms their prophecies. 

However, in a way Mohammad was the last of the prophets in so far that he was the last of the mystical prophets who believed God spoke to them directly, with the more recent prophets being logicians, individuals who God communicates with through logic, science, and the writings of past prophets. The core of these is Wynwood Read whose teachings will be the focus of Tract 3 but there were many among the Protestant reformers as well. When man was still half savage the only tool God had to communicate with him with what today we would call a psychotic episode, but this form of revelation was severely limited when contrasted with how he reveals truth to man today. 

Mohammad’s revelation as a prophet is important, in that while Jesus revealed that the Abrahamic tradition was meant for all people Mohammad understood not the same iteration was made for all people. “So let the people of the Gospel (e.g. the Torah, the Bible, etc.) judge by what God has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what God has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious. We have revealed to you Mohammad this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures,” (again this is a recurring motif in the Quran and clearly what was meant by “seal of the prophets” i.e. seal of authenticity). 

The Reformation revealed to us that the interpretation of God’s will is the personal responsibility of the individual and should never be outsourced to a bureaucracy. John Calvin taught us the truth of predestination was always hidden in Abrahamic scripture and that it does not conflict with free will, (if this is a confusing concept to you, see our podcast Based Camp episode, “Can Determinists Believe in Free Will?”). Joseph Smith brought the first primitive understanding that it is man himself that eventually becomes God through martyrdom. (As a note, we categorize Joseph Smith as a prophet of the logician category, we explain why in Tract 5.) 

This idea of iterative prophecy coming after Jesus is less inconsistent with traditional Christianity than one unfamiliar with the Bible may think, as even Jesus told us there would be prophets after him, “Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town." So, take prophets like Joseph Smith or Mohamad, who many might say we should not include in the Abrahamic pantheon, does this not seem like a prophetic description of them, both killed by other followers of the Abrahamic tradition? 

But how will we know which prophets are the real ones? Well Paul tells us that in Thessalonians 5:20-21, “Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.” Thus, to use a central bureaucracy to certify prophets is in rebellion to God's will, as is to denying the existence of prophets after Christ even from the perspective of traditional Christianity. However, these prophets must also be tested—how that is done is discussed in Tract 3.

Now a person may be asking, “How can you include individuals like Joseph Smith and Mohamad when we have stories like those of Helen Mar Kimball and Aisha proving them of low moral character?” Even if those stories about them are true, every single Abrahamic religion includes the story of King David, Uriah, and Bathsheba. This story teaches us without any shadow of doubt that God does not take the moral character of an individual into account when deciding who he chooses as prophets. 

This criticism is important to dispel because the revolution brought by the Islamic branch of the Abrahamic tree of revelations is often the most peculiar to individuals who have not studied the Quran. How can multiple conflicting prophecies all be useful revelations from the same God? This is where our family's understanding of the “Tesseract God” comes in. Each previous revolution was a full and complete revelation in so far as those people could understand it. When people see contradictions between them it is like pointing out that a cube leaves multiple irreconcilable two dimensional shadows—they are only irreconcilable because you assume the shape you are trying to create out of them is in two rather than three dimensions. A person trying to average the shadows cast by a three-dimensional cube on a two dimensional plane would average them as a circle, a representation less accurate than any of the direct revelations and thus sinful. This is what Mohammad was saying in Surah Al-Ma'idah—47-57, all those of the Abrahamic faiths of his time were best following strict interpretations of the shadow that was revealed to them rather than attempting to average them or convert in between them. 

However, a person knowing that they are attempting to construct a three-dimensional shape by looking at two dimensional shadows can come to an understanding beyond any individual revelation. A tesseract is a four-dimensional cube and while we can broadly understand its design and conceptual map it, humanity lacks the biological hardware to fully conceive of a tesseract. The same is true with God, and thus it is our duty to intergenerationally improve that hardware—it is not blasphemous to expand human intellectual capacity through genetic and synthetic means but a religious mandate. To not engage with these technologies to the full extent possible, to not intergenerationally improve, is to live in open rebellion to God’s will. 

However, we would be remiss to not point out the ancillary benefit of this interpretation. It makes it much easier to live alongside the Abrahamic traditions without conflict. Groups typically attack those that are either very similar to them or very different—a distant but distinct ideological relation between groups can serve to protect a minority population living amongst another group. This benefit is further fortified, as the Tesseract God concept gives us a religious mandate to guide those who might leave Abrahamic faiths back to conservative iterations of those faiths while also protecting these communities from dilution by the Urban Monoculture, making us a useful and non-threatening player in a larger cultural ecosystem. This will be critical until the aforementioned mandate of in-group intergenerational improvement is achieved, securing our safety.

To be more specific because we believe God shows his will through the competition of diverse ideas and perspectives. To create a monoculture—to have the whole world under one religion—is to silence the voice of God. Thus, we benefit from more ideological diversity within our communities. We are only commanded to attempt to convert either those with so much rebellious vitality in their heart they would never return to their parent faith, atheists, or individuals of exceptional merit, (with merit being measured in competence, industry, influence, or utility to the aims of our group). Your average person will be harmed by this interaction of Gods word. 

That is not to say we see all iterations of these traditions as equal. In stagnant pools parasites breed. If we allow our hearts, our traditions, or the flame of human intergenerational improvement to stagnate, parasites of the human spirit will erupt and siphon our vitality. We can see this in the Abrahamic traditions that have stagnated. Where have their great thinkers gone? Their great scientists? Their great philosophers? Their spirits have been feasted upon the very parasites they cultivated in pools of gold and vanity. God righteously removed his favor from them and it is plain to any familiar with their past greatness. God does not hide his dissatisfaction with those who live in rebellion. 

God moves the focus of his favor with each successive revelation. God’s favor reverberates throughout history like a sonic boom and is almost impossible to ignore. It can be used to both confirm the authenticity of otherwise questionable revelations (like Muhammad or the Reformation), deny the authenticity of others (the Baha’i), and to find the locations of revelations that were not widely recognized in their time.  For example, there was likely a yet unconfirmed revelation delivered in Renaissance Italy. This trend pointed us to the most recent confirmable revelation which happened in 1872 within the Victorian gentleman science community.

While we go deeper into this in a future Tracts, the next will discuss demographic collapse in the context of God’s plan for our species. Demographic collapse is not a capricious accident but a critical part of God’s plan for us.

_________________________________________________________________________

Below this line is the video transcript and description:

In this philosophical discussion, we examine how Abrahamic faiths like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam could be reformed and optimized to be more scientifically and technologically oriented. We discuss concepts like iterative prophecy, the Trinity, predestination, free will, and using logic and evidence to continually improve one's understanding of God. The goal is creating a religious framework that can flourish on an interstellar, multi-planet scale across generations.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] you start practicing things, you start doing the traditions and then you're like, well, I actually believe this part and this part, but not this part. I don't know if my ideas are correct. They're like hypotheses from what I'm looking at in the world. . why would God need to like, come down to earth make himself a man and then have man kill him in order to forgive man.

Like, why not just forgive man himself, right? And why would Jesus sacrifice have a particularly strong meaning if Jesus knew that he wasn't really dying? He was just immediately coming back to life as the most all powerful entity to ever exist. And, and so many other things that didn't make sense like the temptation of Christ, right? It was like, you can have all these kingdoms if you bow down to worship me.

 Jesus knew he was God. He already owned all those kingdoms. It's a bit like. A fired employee of Microsoft offering Bill Gates a burrito to bow down and worship him and live as his slave. It's no, . when I, when I, when I recontextualized Jesus was holy God, but also not God at [00:01:00] all. why is that an important concept? The moment that I contextualized, like Jesus, man, that is holy God, but also not God, is supposed to be man himself.

It's supposed to be man in the cycle of martyrdom. And not only that, but it's an entity that is both holy God and not God that must martyr itself to forgive man of his sins, to forgive man of the things that make him today not capable of joining this entity that exists outside of time. God, as a man, Must be martyred to sanctify mankind only through the generational martyrdom of individual men can maintain be sanctified and eventually join with God. Every element of the story was 100 percent true.

. It just wasn't a story about this individual whose life was being used to tell it. It was a story about human history

Would you like to know [00:02:00] more?

Simone Collins: Let me just say, I am so glad to be hanging out with you and speaking again, because we went for this long period where we stopped recording podcast episodes and I went out door knocking to collect petitions, to run for state rep in Pennsylvania all day. And you held down the fort often with the kids crawling all over you.

The complete chaos and insanity while also working and I, I just, I really missed you. So first, I love you. I love seeing your face. I love talking with you. I love your beautiful mind. And I'm just so glad this is over. I am glad petition collection is over too because I hated that. But so while I was in the midst of this hellish door knocking campaign in the Pennsylvania cold.

You went on this like sojourn of deep religious thoughts and every time I came home and every morning you would be giving me these ideas that I've just quite frankly, I haven't had a chance to process them because I was so [00:03:00] fricking stressed out and sleep deprived that like during this period that like I couldn't.

I couldn't even, so I really wanted to have a conversation with you where we go over some of these ideas and we can kind of like walk me through it.

I,

Malcolm Collins: more specifically than this, this all happened because Aporia, which I'll mention because I, I originally wrote a series of pieces for them. They're like, can you actually write down what your family's religious system is?

Because we talked about some ideas around it in The Pragmatist's Guide to Crafting Religion. But honestly, that was a much more nascent version. Like it was much less developed than the iteration we have now. Because we frankly just done a lot more religious studies since then. And it was an iteration that when I crafted it, it was like hypothetical.

It was like, okay, this is what we could do for our kids. We'll see how it works. And then since then I've moved from having this like hypothetical face to something that I much more deeply believe. Believe in, which is really interesting. You know, you, you, you start [00:04:00] practicing things, you start doing the traditions and then you're like, well, I actually believe this part and this part, but not this part.

And I want to add this part because, you know, I'm having a lot of theological discussions with people who are really deep within different faiths which is, which is helping me as well. And then we have the secondary thing, which is, you know, a lot of I was like, so I wrote the articles, right?

Like I wrote this short series and they liked some of them, but other ones are like, this gets a little, like too religious for us for, for our audience. And I was like, And to be fair, you know, like

Simone Collins: Aporia, like most of their articles that I like see headlines for falling through my inbox or Oh, looking at this study or, you know, this about populations or this about culture.

And it's not I've never seen anything on religion. On a Porya at all at any point. So this is

Malcolm Collins: quite the departure for them. This wouldn't work for their audience. Yeah. But then I also started to think, well, I should write, because I actually believe this stuff now and if I think it's true I should at least write it down as some sort of canonical version of [00:05:00] our family faith system and because I believe it now, I am not quite so resistant to people outside our family being like, this is compelling to me as well, this is interesting to me.

I want to see this system so that I can see if it's, it's something that is, is compelling to me as well. And we've been,

Simone Collins: we've been asked multiple times, , where can I see a writeup of all this? So I'm, I'm glad you're doing

Malcolm Collins: this. Yeah. But I also don't want to like, if I'm writing quote unquote, canonical texts, one, I need to be able to update them, but two because I, , I don't.

I'm not like being talked to by God or something like that. I don't know if my ideas are correct. They're like hypotheses from what I'm looking at in the world. And, and they seem correct to me from what I'm looking at. It seems like a logical synthesis of the world that I'm looking at, but it is not I have no way to say that this is true and this isn't true.

So one, it needs to be updatable. But two, it's also really interesting from the perspective of if we do end up creating some sort of faith system that a community believes in [00:06:00] around this one of the things that we believe really, , a lot in is, is transparency and not, , one individual being like, okay, I have a connection with the divine and it has told me X and Y we see this much more like the founding of one of the Protestant traditions, where it's like an individual analyzing theological texts and being like, this is what I think is probably meant from this by combining what the text is actually saying.

With like logical analysis. And so we were like, okay, how would we do this if we're creating something like that? And Simone has this idea. She's well, what if you wrote the text is like a candle, like you wrote a series of tracks, which is what we're calling this, like this, the tracks. But then we talk through early drafts of the tracks, like before she's even like counter reviewed them.

So what we're going to do in this series, which will just be called like the tracked series and it'll have tracked and then the name of the tracked is I will write something that covers one of the main topics, but it's like much more thought through [00:07:00] than the script of one of our normal episodes.

And Simone and I will talk through it every few paragraphs. So you're both getting like the first iteration of what one of these tracks looks like as. As I was writing it but also sort of what we were thinking about throughout the process. So that there is this sort of total transparency around this.

Do you have any thoughts on that, Simone, or?

Simone Collins: I'm just excited to be doing this because yeah, I, I really need to process everything you've

Malcolm Collins: written in. Yeah. Because you weren't able to do your normal editing because you were out there doing the street stuff. So yeah, I got much more edited content without you really going over it.

Exactly. So, tract one, building an Abrahamic faith optimized for interstellar empires. Most traditional religions in the world, while relatively more resistant to prosperity induced fertility collapse, are still facing extinction, just with a slight delay.

This buys these religions precious time to build better defenses and acquire more allies for the coming [00:08:00] trials. Those that indolently decide to return to a structure and mindset that evolved within and was optimized for, A pre internet, pre AI world, heck, a pre industrial world, blinded by arrogance and golden age thinking deserve their fate.

Only through cultural innovation does our species survive. It need not be seen as all bad that the old ways have failed, as this gives us a chance to build something greater. It is not lost on me that while the Abrahamic tradition has been the source of most of humanity's greatness over the last century, it was also rejected by most of the great innovative scientists during said period.

This is a problem if we are choosing traditions to take to the stars. A cultural system that is differentially less compelling to its most inquisitive and productive minds Leaving them to be predated upon by the urban monoculture is exactly how we landed in this bad situation to begin with. However, it is the very nature of the [00:09:00] Abrahamic tradition to intergenerationally change and improve by infusing it with innovation.

We are not betraying it, but embodying what makes it so powerful. So I was wondering if you had any thoughts on that first little intro there. Yeah. I mean,

Simone Collins: it, it, it is getting me thinking about how resistant to change most people and traditional religions are Abrahamic religions included. Which is ironic to me, because, at least we collectively theorize, that religion It came to be just because we needed an adaptive mechanism for dealing with larger civilizational group.

It

Malcolm Collins: was like a program or evolving program sitting on top of our evolving hardware. Yeah, I think another thing that's really pointing it for me here. Is a lot of traditions have this appeal to well, we've been around forever and we haven't really changed. And this is often just the result of a lack of knowledge about their tradition.

If you look at something like Judaism, for example [00:10:00] okay, the OG Abrahamic faith, even in the Talmud, it said things like the modern Jew knows things that like Moses would never know. Right? You look at major strains of modern Judaism, like Kabbalistic thought, this was not in early Judaism.

A lot of these are completely new traditions. And then you look at the most common new Jewish tradition, the Hasidic movement. And I might do another video on this, but it can almost be thought of as a new. Religion. I mean, it still is a tradition within Judaism, but it changes a lot of the presumptions of the Jewish communities before its popularity.

You look at something and now a Protestant will be like, well, no, Protestantism hasn't changed, and I'm like, okay, first of all, Protestantism is fairly a recent innovation in Christianity with the Great Reformation. So that was a big change. They're like, no, we were just going back to the old ways of doing things.

And I'm like well, I mean, That's not true. Early Christianity was not structured like Protestantism. It was, it was much more [00:11:00] communalist than that. And, and in addition to that if you look at these early communities, you had the Gnostics, you had like that, I could go in all the different communities, but they, they had a lot of really weird beliefs compared to modern Christians.

And then even within the Protestant community, you have popular ideas today. The rapture, it's just not a widely believed idea before if you go a hundred years ago, it was not a widely believed idea anywhere. It was an incredibly rare idea. Is that

Simone Collins: so? So people just kind of, they're like, well, that was a weird part of the

Malcolm Collins: book for it in the Bible.

If you take a few lines and you sort of paste them together from different parts of the Bible. Yeah. But it, it, it's almost like a, you could say it's a truth within the Bible that was discovered through further biblical scrutiny. But it was not something. Now, there is some evidence that it might have been believed by a few.

Rare, very early Christian groups. If you guys want to see a great breakdown on this, look at Religion for Breakfast's podcast on the Rapture. Oh, he's so great.[00:12:00] I might link to it. Yeah, I love his stuff. But yeah. So, so all of the Abrahamic faiths, it's not just an Abrahamic faith like evolved by breaking from the central.

Abrahamic church. Whatever that is to you. They are just constantly in this state of evolution. Mormonism? Mormonism today is nothing like the Mormonism of Joseph Smith's time. It is, it has evolved so much with iterative prophecies. Very interesting, you know, to me. I mean, so to say me, as this outsider saying, let's evolve the Abrahamic tradition.

This is not like a blasphemy to the Abrahamic tradition. This is very interesting. In line with, I think, the spirit of all of the Abrahamic traditions.

Simone Collins: It is the most traditional way to go, weirdly. Yes.

Malcolm Collins: I grew up an atheist. When thinking about turning back to the church, I asked my dad why he left. Because my kids would likely leave for similar reasons.

He said he left after being punished in Sunday school for trying to dive deep into the logistics of the Noah's Ark story. He could not figure out how all the animals fit without magic. And, if there was magic [00:13:00] Why was it not mentioned when the story was so meticulous in other details? If the story of Noah's Ark was meant to be a parable, why give exact measurements?

If my kids are going to be anything like me, they would leave for the same reason. Some churches solve this by taking a more metaphorical approach to the subject. But the churches that loosen restrictions on biblical literalism also loosen other rules that contrast with social norms and thus lose their fervor of practice.

This is not something I want either. Why is this the case? Because the metric they use to judge what parts of Christianity they accept and which parts they don't is how those parts contrast with what is socially acceptable to believe. Not a single group has experimented with another system.

Instead of bending the traditions of Christianity to conform. to society, my family evolves and fortifies them in the best interest of the next generation. We ask not, what will prevent my persecution by secular society, but what will lead to the intergenerational [00:14:00] flourishing of our family?

In fact, we believe there is strong evidence from God that this is exactly what we are commanded to do and any other course of action is to live in open rebellion to God's will. But that is for track three. So do you have any thoughts on that?

Simone Collins: Actually not in particular. What kind of point are you trying to make? It could be made

Malcolm Collins: a little bit more sensible. The point I'm trying to make here is that generally when forms of Christianity attempt to involve themselves in sort of this organic sense today, they always evolve in the same direction, which is through conformity to mainstream societal beliefs.

Whereas I am trying to If you find sort of another North star to reform around. Okay. So

Simone Collins: you're really just trying to say that something went wrong at some point in human history and religion stopped evolving to be adaptive, to help humans adapt to new developments, new technologies, new civilizational formats, and started being about social [00:15:00] conformity.

To maladaptive in many cases, new formats. Right. And then that's where things started to fall

Malcolm Collins: apart. Right. Yeah. So, so a lot of people when they're like, how can I reform my tradition? What they really mean is how can I change my tradition in a way that has me less attacked by people in mainstream society.

And I'm coming at this from the position of. How can I make this position more durable to the pressures of technology that didn't exist historically and the challenges of child rearing that didn't exist historically and the challenges of intergenerational traditional transfer while really focusing on keeping the fervor.

But not making it something that is spitting out those individuals who have a real passion for scientific inquiry and questioning authority. So I, I want it to be a church of, of, of rebel zealots, basically. How do I build that?

Simone Collins: Well, or in other words, how do you [00:16:00] create a religion that maintains this tradition of leaning in to innovation and iteration in the form of improvement, rather than a religion that leans away from this time honored tradition of Abrahamic religions and toward conformity and stagnation, right?

Yeah. Okay. Now I get it. Yeah. Okay. Read on.

Malcolm Collins: Well, there have been other movements in the Abrahamic faiths that have done this. In many ways, you could argue that's what the Hasidic movement was. Was it was an alteration of the Jewish faith system around a new optimization function. And it's done very well.

So how does this work in practice? We ask our kids. A hundred thousand or one million years from now, if their descendants are still alive, do they think they would be closer to the way they think of a man or the way they think of a god? Most reasonable people would respond, the way I think of a god. Keep in mind that we are very likely.

Far less than a thousand years away from being able [00:17:00] to have an AI Internet of Things lattice wrapped around the globe that one can pray to for intercessions, that watches us and judges us, and that can port our likeness into either simulated heavens or hells and host us there for great lengths of time.

I don't say this because I think this would be a good idea to build, I am just pointing out this to contrast the technological capacity we will have in a thousand years with what we will have in half a million. The far future entity will likely be far greater than what we could even imagine God to be.

To even attempt to hold a perception of God in one's mind is idolatry, as the highest and most complex being we are capable of conceiving of is but a rat king when contrasted with God's inevitable glory. For more information on why we take idolatry so much more strictly than the existing Abrahamic traditions, see tract five.

So do you have thoughts on that? [00:18:00]

Simone Collins: Well, I liked your reference to creating digital hells because my favorite Ian Banks book in the culture series is called Surface Detail, and this is a major plot point of it. There's like a, a large war essentially that, that is being fought over a faction of the intergalactic.

world of, of sentient beings over whether or not these hells should exist.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, well, this is a really interesting thing. So a lot of, if you look today, like if you are at all understanding of like brain scanning technology today and the technology that we're working on, there's people who are like, we will have this technology and we will be able to upload people before I die.

We've got a way to go, but, but very, very obviously from, for people who understand the technology, we will absolutely have this technology within 500 years. So that being the case, if we're talking even a thousand years out. We will essentially with technology be able to create a [00:19:00] simulation of what many people see the if I was to talk to our bronze age ancestors, right, or not even bronze age during the period of Christ, the powers they thought God had largely, you know, the ability to watch over all humans all the time, you could easily create an AI Internet of Things lattice to do that and then send those humans to everlasting hell or everlasting heaven based on their like, the point I'm making it.

Is that the type of God we can imagine today. That's the type of God that could theoretically exist with technology in under a thousand years. We're talking about half a million, a million, 10 million years from now. This type of God is likely so beyond our capacity for understanding now. And another one of these tracks that I was writing earlier we were talking about people who'd try to worship God through nature and use that as sort of their intermediary for connecting with God, and I, I'm like, look, the, the type of entity that we would be 10 million years from now is the type of entity that with [00:20:00] the effort that we take to snap our fingers could summon an entire Earth with our existing ecosystem into existence, and then with the swipe of a hand, send it out of existence again.

It is an entity that is so infinitely more powerful than we have the capacity to understand that attempting to even conceive of it we would argue, and we have a longer track on this, should be thought of as a form of idolatry because it demeans it to such an extent. And in many areas here, you'll see that we take current concepts within the Abrahamic traditions and we go to an extreme level with them like the.

Commands around idolatry, which we'll talk about in the future. Then we ask who is to say that this entity relates to time in the way that we do? Perhaps this entity is subtly guiding its own manifestation. The day when mankind is finally worthy and unites with the God that has been watching over us from.

The first days of life on Earth. As such, we do not believe that one day man becomes God, but that one day man [00:21:00] unites with a God that exists outside of time. Perhaps it is the entity our savage ancestors saw as a God. Perhaps it watches over you and rewards you for fighting for a better future for our species, and punishes those individuals who succumb to paths crafted to sate their lower order desires, such as pleasure or vanity.

But I suspect this entity is more clever than we give it credit for. It did not record these punishments and rewards into supernatural reparations, but they are woven into our very biology. Look at the famous movie stars and rock stars who have had all the hedonism they could want and more social validation than any human could consume.

They seem to be some of the least happy. least fulfilled people in the world. God wove into human neurology that the only true happiness you will ever feel is that which comes from efficaciously living thoughtfully considered and selfless values. God need not bless those who live with austerity dedicated [00:22:00] holistically to the great human crusade.

God built us so our dedication to our family, And the future allows us to bless ourselves.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I really like this because I love the idea of, and the elegance of built in heaven and hell, which you totally see, you know, when people have lost their way and start doing things that You know, run against what one would think of as practical values from various different perspectives, you do see them suffer and then they're just building their own suffering and it just gets worse and worse and worse and yeah, I mean, it's, it's like a very expanded version of touch the hot stove, get burned.

But on a like ideological moral level,

Malcolm Collins: So many people in so many religious systems, they use. Post death rewards and punishments,

Simone Collins: which is so superfluous. It's also so funny because the Bible doesn't talk about afterlives really. And I was so

confused.

Malcolm Collins: It talks about them a [00:23:00] lot less than most Christians who haven't read the Bible would assume that the Bible is talking about them.

That

Simone Collins: was me, right? I grew up raised Buddhist, and then I read the Bible in high school, and I'm like, where is, where is heaven, where is hell, and where, where is the, you know, where are devil demon things, and

Malcolm Collins: Well, and I think it's the lower orders of Christianity. Like the, the, the less sophisticated ones that have been infused was more like sort of mysticism and tribalism and these pre Christian ideas.

We talk about this in, in like the rise of Abraham ism. What was it? Really? This, this Abrahamic tradition. It was a turning away. From these sort of forest animalistic worshiping mystics who are concerned about, you know, achieving a great wealth in the, in the afterlife, basically, whether it's a great wealth of hedonism or anything else and, and when would read talks really elegantly about this and I might insert a clip.

a day will come when the current belief in property, after death. For his not existence property and the dearest property of all will be accounted a strange and selfish idea. [00:24:00] Just as we smile at the Savage chief, who believes that his gentility will be continued in the world beneath the ground. And that he will there be attended by his concubines and slaves.

Malcolm Collins: and what's really interesting about the way that humans are actually structured. Is individuals who, and it's not to say that there's not some individuals who like outside of any purpose to themselves experience a ton of suffering in their lives. We don't disagree with that. But I'm saying that for most people, people who just dedicate their lives to a thing that they believe has value.

And every day they wake up and they dedicate themselves to that thing and they're efficaciously achieving results. Like they're not just pointlessly. They are happier people, more fulfilled people, more content people than the people we know Who have all of the wealth and individual could want all of the, the validation and individual could want.

In fact, I would say that those individuals among the individuals we know are the most discontented individuals. You don't [00:25:00] need to wait till you get to heaven or hell for this. reward to take place. It takes place within our lives because it's written into our very neurology. And I think teaching our kids this truth gets them to not overly sort of fantasize about the people who are mean to them or whatever being punished afterwards.

When you learn to not care about those other people and just focus on your mission, that is when you are truly. Uplifted individually within this life, and that's just sort of coded into who we are. Yeah,

Simone Collins: heaven and hell is, is here. And I mean, that's, that's not a novel concept at all, right? You know, people talk about that all the time, but I mean, you're not trying, you're, you're, what you're trying to do, I think, is thread together Abrahamic traditions and what they actually seem to be sort of designed for and meant for and what they have done in the past before they've started to break down.

And, and logic and reality which is quite

Malcolm Collins: interesting. And we'll talk about that because a lot of we rely on a lot of textual evidence from Abrahamic traditions to inform our faith. [00:26:00] And many of these pieces of textual evidence seem to go directly against the daily practices of the individual faiths that claim to follow these texts, whether they are Muslims or Christians or Jews.

Which is really interesting and it kept surprising me, you know, the wisdom I found in the texts that I didn't find in the communities. Isn't that so Calvinist

Simone Collins: of you though?

Malcolm Collins: I guess. Like all religions, ours has different iterations of understanding for both our children, the laity and its philosophers.

For the simple, these future entities are literal future police, time traveling humans that care about them, watch over them and bless them. However, to adults, these entities are referred to as the Agents of Providence and are quite literally understood as being entities that we lack the capacity to understand, just as we cannot even conceive of a four dimensional shape, but may understand one in theory.

They do not travel to the past or whisper to individuals, but subtly influence probabilistic quantum events, like changing the flow of a river [00:27:00] over centuries by expertly throwing in a pebble in just the right place at just the right time and at the minutest level, changing the stream's direction. This system of multiple interpretations of the same set of truths allows for both a theistic and atheistic interpretation of the Abrahamic tradition.

For example, an individual could conceive of God's will as simply being revealed by the organic success of some cultures over others within a competitive ecosystem. Similar to what Adam Smith meant by the invisible hand of God, but at the level of culture and ideas. However, one can also interpret God's will as a tangible force being exercised by an actively engaged consciousness.

When we talk about the prophets being the channels of God's will, this can simultaneously have both a secular and theistic interpretation. This provides a framework that does not spit out those who choose more atheistic interpretations of reality, allowing them [00:28:00] to both communicate with religious leaders using overlapping terminology slash evidence.

And, raise their children in the face in the same way many of those who turn from traditional Christian worldviews still practice holidays like Christmas.

Simone Collins: Well, so what you've been talking about recently that I find interesting, and there are different, I guess, angles of this, is you're talking about how religions have different Yeah. And I do love how you've thought about this a lot about how do children interact with religion versus how do distracted or like low mental load capacity adults have capacity for religion versus like, how do the nerds have capacity for religion and religion really has to accommodate all of them.

Malcolm Collins: In the context of this, because we actually, as I'm putting out here, we accommodate an alternate audience that typically isn't accommodated by the traditional religious systems. So there is an interpretation of the teachings that I'll lay out here. for children. There is an interpretation [00:29:00] for adults slash like philosophers, like people who wanted to get in the philosophy of this, but there's also an interpretation that works within a completely atheistic mindset.

In that there is a theistic interpretation of everything that I will write in this, but there is also an atheistic interpretation of everything I will write in this, and the atheist can engage with the theistic philosopher was in this tradition without any problems. Like they're both basing What they believe off of very similar sources of evidence and using very similar terminology.

So, for example, Adam Smith, using the term the invisible hand of God, right? You could say, Oh, God planted this there. So I could easily use that term to to talk about this. But then another individual could be like, no, it's just a very useful metaphor for understanding how things are selected within a competitive ecosystem.

And superior things are collected within a competitive ecosystem. So if you're building a religion within this ecosystem, what you're really optimizing for is ensuring that the, thing that's being [00:30:00] selected for is something that you actually value. Like it's actually a good thing. And one of the metaphors that I'll use in a future track, but not this one is like the MMA.

It's like when the MMA started. If people don't know mixed martial arts, it was this form of hand to hand combat where they were like, well, let's just take the iterations of every tradition that seem actually efficacious. Yeah, they're like twins. And a lot of people they had the same complaints they have about us, like the karate people.

They were like, oh, you can't do that. You won't have the traditions. You won't have the spirit. You won't have the philosophy. And, and, and the chain, they're like, no let's just create one that is efficaciously best. And. We believe that God has commanded this, and we have evidence, I think, that God has commanded this of us within the Abrahamic tradition but, but I think similar, our detractors will, in a few hundred years, be seen very similar to those people who stuck with Tai Chi and stuff like that in a world of MMA.

Let's try it. Did you [00:31:00] get

Malcolm Collins: Everyone knows a Tai Chi expert cannot compete with an MMA expert in actual combat, or a karate expert, or anything like that, right? So it's what are we optimizing for? We're optimizing for what is best for our children. And we'll go into how we built the system to do that.

But it's, it's I feel an interesting analogy there.

Yeah. Well, this is nice in theory, but if such an entity existed, how would it tell us? It would reveal itself as best it could. It would reveal to groups the truest iteration of itself they were capable of understanding and in those revelations leave hints of its true nature to those with the capacity for a more holistic understanding.

Such an entity would find it impossible to reveal itself to Bronze Age humans. It even shows us this in the flows of history with the collapse of early monotheism that did not anthropomorphize its god in the form of Akhenaten. Instead, it bestowed blessings on the human tribe that had the closest intergenerationally [00:32:00] durable, accurate revelation of its nature, the Jews, and then revealed clearer iterations of itself through a succession of prophets.

Simone Collins: I love this because it's an extension on this, like religion is best revealed to different audiences in different ways. So just as you know, religion is better revealed to children in a very simplistic, but it's such a colorful. Relatable way. It's a it would, of course, make sense that religion in the past and that religious truths in the past have manifest in ways to populations and locations in the past that are localized and appropriate.

And of course. You know, the words and the scientific understandings that we have now are incompatible with the words that religions, you know, presented to people in the past when you only lived in a village and interacted with 15 other people and a cow, you know, you would need to use different metaphors.

You need to use different story formats. [00:33:00]

Malcolm Collins: They use a lot of pastoralist metaphors, right? You know, those aren't relevant to a modern audience. You look at The Bible and it's always talking about shepherds and stuff like no one's even seen a shepherd and I don't know, 50 years. But there's another thing here that I think is really important to note.

So if you look at something like Judaism or Christianity or something like that when they conceive of God today, they, they do not answer for more fights him much. It would be seen as, is almost sort of blasphemous to answer for more fights. God is having sort of. Okay. Petty human emotions like anger and envy and stuff like that.

That isn't the way that most of these traditions think that God really works these days. But also those traditions are at least ones that are like honest about their history. If you look at the early Jewish people. The first Jewish writings, the God that they believed in was an anthropomorphic God. It was very similar to a Zeus or something like that.

It was the type of God who would get angry and flood the world. It was the type of God who had these lower order human emotions. [00:34:00] And so you may say, well, why didn't God just reveal its True self to these early humans. Why didn't it just reveal that you really shouldn't answer primarifies it this much?

It is so far beyond the human capacity of understanding and an emotional states. And I think that God graciously to us today. Wrote into history why I didn't do it. It's you want to know why I didn't reveal a non anthropomorphic version of myself here, bam, ancient Egypt. I took literally the most powerful person in the world, probably at the time which was the Pharaoh of Egypt, easily the most powerful Pharaoh in modern day society, had him become a non anthropomorphized monotheist, and you saw exactly how long that lasted.

Simone Collins: It was, hold on, I'm just checking to make sure. It was OG naan. He was married to Nefertiti, right? Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: OG Naan. Yeah. That is why I didn't tell you. And so I think that many ways, like when I talk about did God plant this idea of the invisible hand of God in Adam Smith mind? Did God plant this with ACH [00:35:00] naan so that we today can examine history and learn why things were done in certain ways or weren't done in certain ways in terms of revelation?

I believe, yes, but that's like the non atheistic interpretation or the atheistic interpretation. I'm, I'm looking at this as like the fourth, fourth evidence, but it's, it's, it's compelling. And I think that, yeah, it was God. And you'll see this throughout the system. When I think that many times that we ask, why wasn't this revealed earlier?

Well, then go and investigate because it might've been revealed earlier. And you'll see that it wasn't intergenerationally durable. It revealed to that primitive stage of humanity. Well,

Simone Collins: it also reminds me like the lesson that we learned when we acquired a business that had offices in two very different countries and cultures.

The lesson that we learned where at first we were like, no, there is one way to manage people. It is the one right way. It is the way that you and I were taught in our various business school curricula and like culturally speaking. Right. And that is the, that is the way it could be cut as is correct.

And then the people. [00:36:00] Who mentored us from whom we acquired the company, we're like, no, no, no. You know, in this, in this country, you have to crack the whip. You have to talk to everyone as a group. You have to be kind of like a jerk sometimes. And you know, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then like in the United States, it's very different.

It's, it's very individualistic. You do this and that. And we're like, nah, like we're, we're just going to do it the right way across both offices. And it totally failed in that other culture, like our messages never landed and we were not helping our team thrive the way that they ought to be able to thrive until, you know, we completely changed our tactics and messaging and.

Then it did. So this just reminds me of that. I think

Malcolm Collins: that God is like that. God is like that.

Simone Collins: If God wants humans to thrive, he's going to have to act in ways that work with their local cultural norms and social formations and

Malcolm Collins: Well, and this, this next passage talks to this very explicitly. All right.

Jesus was unique among the prophets in that he recognized the Jewish tribe's revelation was meant for everyone. All men died. It is not death that makes a man a [00:37:00] martyr, but living in accord with God's plan that does. Jesus also taught us that God, as a man, Must be martyred to sanctify mankind only through the generational martyrdom of individual men can maintain be sanctified and eventually join with God.

I find this to be an almost impossibly elegant solution to communicate a beautiful and sophisticated truth of the universe to a man. Still so low and barbaric. God wanted to paint a picture of the martyr that sanctified mankind. Boast God's son, but also God still in human form. The moments in all our lives dedicated holistically to improving the future, dedicated holistically to God's plan.

Jesus's life. What's the brush, his blood, the paint used to create the perfect portrait of the martyr for our species when we were still so young, so close to being just talking [00:38:00] monkeys that appealing to an all powerful entity with child sacrifice still seemed reasonable to us. This journey, the journey of understanding the Abrahamic peoples have followed, is beautifully painted by God within Abraham's life. We followed God believing him to be the kind of entity to demand a father sacrifice his child to be appeased.

Yet he made it clear there at the very beginning that he is not that kind of entity. God did not tell a story in which he demanded a father sacrifice his son Because God wanted to, but because it was Abraham, what the Abrahamic people expected of a God in those early days of man, it is our barbaric expectations of an entity that only wants what is best for us, that makes him barbarous in our mind, when in reality him.

God always gives us what we need to perform our roles in his plan. This shows us how God uses prophets. He uses their lives to paint motifs upon reality. [00:39:00] I find it interesting how it is easy for people to grasp that the story of the events of Abraham's life is not really about Abraham's life, but about us.

But when we point out the same is true about the events of Jesus's life, people struggle with the concept. So I find this really telling, and this was a big realization for me as I was thinking about this, is that the story of Jesus, the story that didn't really make sense to me before, I was like, why would God Need to, , come down to earth make himself a man and then have man kill him in order to forgive man.

Like, why not just forgive man himself, right? And why would Jesus sacrifice have a particularly strong meaning if Jesus knew that he wasn't really dying? He was just immediately coming back to life as the most all powerful entity to ever exist. And, and so many other things that didn't make sense when I, when I, when I recontextualized when I said, Oh no, the story of Jesus is supposed to be about like the story of [00:40:00] Abraham.

It's supposed to tell us. A truth about ourselves. It's supposed to paint a motif upon reality. Jesus's life was the art itself. And this really changed how I related to this, but it also relates to this earlier point you were talking about. When God first revealed this truth to this, We as humans were such a barbaric and petty species that he needed to use the story of a father sacrificing his own son to appease a God, basically and, and yet the real God isn't like that at all.

He doesn't need. Sacrifice of deities or humans or, or anything like that to be appeased. The sacrifice is a necessary process of human intergenerational improvement of us sanctifying ourselves because we really are now too sinful and too flawed to join God. We really do have to improve. And that improvement only happens with this cycle of martyrdom.

Simone Collins: Right. So in other words, and this is very spicy, you're saying [00:41:00] Jesus was a figure to teach humans the importance of sacrifice in order to serve future generations of greater good. Sacrifice

Malcolm Collins: is a very complicated concept and in the next paragraph I get to, we'll talk about this complicated concept and I can leave it back with what we were just talking about.

Finally, early Christianity revealed the truth of the Trinity, which is critical to understanding the agents of providence, God and man as three distinct entities, yet also the same entity. The agents of providence are so far beyond us as concepts, like a singular or plural identity, male or female, and even whether they are corporeal or incorporeal do not apply to them.

Now, so this goes to what we were saying here. Things that like I didn't understand the purpose of the Trinity always felt weird to me, right? Like it's Okay, you're trying to say that it's really important that we understand that Jesus was holy God, but also not God at all. [00:42:00] And if you're trying it first, why is that an important concept?

And if that's an important concept, why are you teaching that we're the Trinity, where you're adding this additional element, the Holy Ghost, which you just don't really talk about anywhere else. Or I don't understand why this is an important concept. The moment that I contextualized, like Jesus, man, that is holy God, but also not God, is supposed to be man himself.

It's supposed to be man in the cycle of martyrdom. And not only that, but it's an entity that is both holy God and not God that must martyr itself to forgive man of his sins, to forgive man of the things that make him today not capable of joining this entity that exists outside of time. Every element of the story was 100 percent true.

It was 100 percent profoundly true. It just wasn't a story about this individual whose life was being used to tell it. It [00:43:00] was a story about human history and us. So it wasn't just to teach the importance of martyrdom. It was also to teach this important concept, man. Is 100 percent God, but also 100 percent not God, then it also teaches this additional concept around the Holy Ghost, which I didn't understand before.

I was like, what's the Holy Ghost? Why is this important? Why is it important? We understand the Holy Ghost is the agents of Providence. It's God in the plural. And in the singular, and then there's God in just a singular, which is God, and then there's God as man, which is Jesus, and it teaches us this concept.

It's just we as a species. We're not prepared for and I'll go over this later. But when you take this new framing. To the story of Jesus's life, a bunch of events, which felt very nonsensical when I was reading them, like the temptation of Christ, right? It was like, you can have all these kingdoms if you bow down to worship me.

That makes no f*****g sense. That makes no [00:44:00] sense. Jesus knew he was God. He already owned all those kingdoms. They already worshipped him. Why would he bow down to Satan in exchange for that? Oh, when Satan presumably wouldn't even have the power to do that outside of God. And even what Satan was offering him was, was trivial.

You know, I'll, I'll, I'll use one of the later tracks, the analogy. I'm like, it's a bit like. A fired employee of Microsoft offering offering Bill Gates a burrito to bow down and worship him and live as his slave. It's no, that's it. And so the, the offer made there was an offer of trivial temptation.

So why is it important that Jesus overcame it? When you recontextualize. The story of Jesus is being about us, being about our moments, being about how we must make actually very meaningfully sacrifices our lives, because as I say, all humans die. It's not death that makes us martyrs, it's how we choose to live.

Our murder that intergenerationally sanctifies humanity and makes us worthy of God. So it's not just a story [00:45:00] about It's the whole story. The whole story is true and meaningful. Okay. I'll get to the next part. Okay. Unless you had something you wanted to talk about. No, go ahead. Muhammad was unique in his understanding that different revelations were for different communities quote.

And indeed we have already sent forth in every nation, a messenger saying worship God and avoid false gods with this revelation. being for the Arabic community as made clear in quote, indeed, we have sent down as an Arabic Koran that you might understand in quote, with you here clearly being people who speak Arabic.

Now some familiar with what Islam has devolved into might say. But don't Muslims believe very strongly that Muhammad was the last prophet? Yes, they do, which is weird, because he didn't say that. What Muhammad said was that he was the seal of the prophets, a phrase that in context [00:46:00] clearly means that he came to synthesize and affirm the teachings of the prophets who came before him.

If he wanted to say he was the last prophet, he could have said that. He did not. So why did he use the rather odd and specific term, quote, seal of the prophets, end quote? Because he was referencing Manichean literature where this term means to prove a prophecy, i. e. a seal of authenticity.

And this stuff is all cited here, this is like a well documented thing among historians. He is very clearly and explicitly saying that his prophecies build on the prophecies of the past and affirms those prophecies. However, in a way, Muhammad was the last of the prophets, insofar that he was the last of the mystical prophets who believed God spoke to them directly, with more recent prophets being logisticians, individuals who God communicates with through logic, science, and the writing of past prophets.

The Wynwood [00:47:00] Reed, whose teachings we will focus on in track three, but there were many among the Protestant reformers as well. When man was still half savage, the only tool God had to communicate with him was what today we would call a psychotic episode. This form of revelation was severely limited when contrasted with how he reveals the truth today.

So why,

Simone Collins: why would early man, you know, only really find revelation through psychotic episodes where they start, you know, like they develop schizophrenia and they hear voices and

Malcolm Collins: stuff. Well, God recorded that for us in history as well. You could say, what if a group tried to fully understand God just by exploring the natural world?

I think this is what the Greek philosophers, the early Greek philosophers did. And they came to some truth through that exploration, but there were more profound truths like a monotheistic God, the dangers of idolatry and other truths that we'll get to as we continue to go through this that just could not be revealed to them through just like logistically [00:48:00] inspecting reality.

So I think in. These, what I think of today, we would have called psychotic episodes individual seeing and hearing things that they they received information that could not be determined by early man through just an investigation of reality. But that later, when individuals with access to science and technology were studying what was in these early writings, they could see truths that weren't contained within them.

This, to me, comes to something like Protestantism. I think Protestantism is the purest and truest form of practicing what is actually written in the Christian Bible. However, I also don't think that it is anything like any of the early Christian practices. And I think that people who have actually studied the early Christian practices would be capable of seeing that.

It is individuals who had a more sophisticated philosophical understanding of reality. And, and frankly, we're, we're smarter than the early Christians who were able to go through these writings and see what God was actually telling them that these earlier [00:49:00] individuals was not. And as such, these early Protestant reformers to me are fully prophets.

They are prophets to me at the same scale, you know, whether it's, you know, Martin Luther or John Calvin at the same scale as Jesus or Mohammed. And we argue later in our writings to me, they're actually. Perhaps even greater profits than those individuals, and they relied on God's gifts instead of having to have it basically laid out for them by God to determine what was true about reality.

Simone Collins: Yeah, you're talking about profits is really interesting to me. It's kind of like, akin to. Inventors in the world of industrialism and technology with all these different moral inferences which I, I also find to be really interesting. So,

Malcolm Collins: Muhammad's revelation of the prophet is important in that while Jesus revealed that the Abrahamic tradition was meant for all people, Muhammad understood that not the same iteration was made for all people.

[00:50:00] Quote, so let the people of the gospel, e. g. the Torah, the Bible, et cetera, judged by what God has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what God has revealed in it are truly rebellious. We have revealed to you, Muhammad, this book was the truth as a confirmation of previous scriptures. And you can see here, again, this is a reoccurring motif in the Quran, and clearly what was meant by, quote, seal of the prophets, end quote, i.

e. seal of authenticity. The Reformation revealed to us that the interpretation of God's will is the personal responsibility of the individual, it should never be outsourced to a bureaucracy. John Calvin taught us the truce of predestination was always hidden in Abrahamic scripture and that this does not conflict with free will.

If this is a confusing concept to you, see the Base Camp episode, Can Determinists Believe in Free Will? Joseph Smith brought the first primitive understanding that it was man himself that eventually becomes God through martyrdom. As a note, we categorize Joseph Smith as a prophet of the logician [00:51:00] category.

We explain why in tract five. This idea of iterative prophecy coming after Jesus is less inconsistent with traditional Christianity than one unfamiliar with the Bible might think, as even Jesus told us that there would be prophets after him. Quote, Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, some of whom you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, end quote.

So take the prophets like Joseph Smith or Muhammad, who Many might say we should not include within the Abrahamic pantheon. Does this not seem like a prophetic description of them, both killed by other followers of the Abrahamic tradition? But how will we know which prophets are the real ones? Well, Paul tells us that in Thessalonians 5, 28 to 21, quote, Quench not the spirit, despise not prophesying, prove all things, hold fast which is good, abstain from all appearance of evil, end quote.

Thus, to use essential bureaucracy to certify prophets is a rebellion to God's will, [00:52:00] as is denying the existence of prophets after Christ, even from the perspective of traditional Christianity. However, these prophets must also be tested. How this is done is discussed in track three.

Now, a person might be asking, quote, How can you include individuals like Joseph Smith and Muhammad when we have stories like those of Helen Mar Kimball and Aisha Proving them of low moral character, end quote. Even if those stories about them are true, every single Abrahamic religion includes the story of King David, Uriah, and Bathsheba.

This story teaches us without any shadow of a doubt that God does not take the moral character of an individual into account when deciding who he chooses as prophets. Do This criticism is important to dispel because the revelation brought by the Islamic branch of the Abrahamic tree of revelations is often the most peculiar to individuals who have not studied the Quran.

How can multiple conflicting prophecies all be useful revelations from the same God? This is where our family's understanding of the quote unquote Tesseract God comes in. Each previous revelation was a full and complete revelation [00:53:00] insofar as those people could understand it. When people see contradictions between them, it is like pointing out that a cube leaves multiple irreconcilable two dimensional shadows.

They are only irreconcilable because you assume the shape you are trying to create. out of them is two rather than three dimensions. A person trying to average the shadows cast by a three dimensional cube on a two dimensional plane would average them in a circle, a representation less accurate than any of the direct revelations and thus sinful.

This is what Muhammad was saying in the Surah al Muhajirah. 4757. All of those of the Abrahamic face of his time were best following strict interpretations of the shadow that was revealed to them rather than attempting to average or convert between them. However, a person knowing that they are attempting to construct a three dimensional shape by looking at two dimensional shadows can come to an understanding beyond any individual revelation.

A tesseract is a four dimensional cube, and while we can broadly understand its design and conceptually map [00:54:00] it, humanity lacks the biological hardware to fully conceive of a tesseract. The same is true as God, and thus it is our duty to intergenerationally improve that hardware. It is not blasphemous to expand human intellectual capacity through genetic and synthetic means, but a religious mandate to not engage with these technologies.

To the full extent possible to not improve is to live an open rebellion to God's will.

Simone Collins: So essentially you're saying that in addition to God being revealed to different populations in different places at different times in ways that they were capable of processing God to the best of their ability, you know, getting as close to the truth as possible.

 You're also saying that different religious traditions are also different because they're showing different sides of an incomprehensibly complicated god that really can't be articulated.

With means that we're capable of digesting

Malcolm Collins: and incomprehensible to to our limited human intelligence now. No, we have a commandment [00:55:00] from God to expand our ability to comprehend him. That is one of the things that he wants for us. And we argue why later. But actually, so you look at Islamic texts, right?

And I think that Islamic texts almost demand this type of secondary revelation. So even if yeah. You, you assume whatever Islamic to this, this mystical, you know, he's the last of the mystical prophets. Well, there's clearly something not explained by the Koran because it seems pretty clear for me.

If I actually read the text of the Koran. That Muhammad was saying that Christianity and Judaism are completely correct and their followers who follow anything other than Christianity and Judaism, even converting to Islam, they are truly rebellious to God, that you were supposed to follow the revelation that was to you.

Yet we know today. Now, what some Muslims say is they go, Oh, yeah, but he said that. But since then, the Talmud, like the Jewish texts and the Christian texts have changed and that it used to be that these texts completely overlapped with the Quran, right? And that there was no contradictions between them.

But this is categorically [00:56:00] untrue. We, we know we have found early iterations of the Bible from around that period from around where Muhammad lived and they haven't significantly changed. So he. Wrote this knowing God wrote this knowing that these were not reconcilable within a two dimensional plane within our human mind today.

And we needed to develop a new system for understanding God. And in that this new system was prophesized within the Koran and saying that these things actually do all make sense together. We just today you're better off just following your traditions. Which is very interesting to me. Hmm. Yeah,

Simone Collins: definitely.

Malcolm Collins: However, we would be remiss to not point out the ancillary benefit of this interpretation. It makes it much easier to live alongside Abrahamic traditions without conflict. Groups typically attack those that are either very similar to them or very different, a distant but distinct ideological relation between groups.

Servee to protect a minority population living amongst another group. This benefit is further fortified as the Tesseract God concept gives us a religious [00:57:00] mandate to guide those who might leave Abrahamic faiths back to conservative iterations of those faiths, while also protecting those communities from the dilution by the urban monoculture, making us a useful and non threatening player in a larger cultural ecosystem.

This will be critical until after the affirmation mandate of in group intergenerational improvement is achieved, securing our safety.

To be more specific, because we believe God shows his will through the competition of diverse ideas and perspectives, to create a monoculture, to have the whole world under one religion, is to silence the voice of God. Thus, we benefit from more ideological diversity within our community. We are only commanded to attempt to convert either those with so much rebellious vitality in their heart that they would never return to their parent phase, A.

C. S., or Individuals of Exceptional Merit, with merit being measured in competence, industry, influence, or utility to the aims of our group. Your average person will be harmed by this interaction with God's word. [00:58:00] So, I mean, it's kind of an arrogant perspective, but I think everybody knows that we are a little arrogant and it doesn't make us much safer to be around other groups.

And that most individuals within a group, we have a religious duty to prevent them from deconverting from the Abrahamic face and to build systems that make it Less likely that individuals deconvert from the Abrahamic phase. But this isn't to say, as previous, I believe, that we didn't have an individual to have any sort of outreach.

I think we do. But the individuals we have outreach to are the individuals who, without us being here, would be deconverting to the urban monoculture. Or individuals that we specifically need to target for the goals of our community. Because we believe that humanity has a specific path it needs to be on.

And sometimes that path may require Influence. Well, something like that. But generally, it's a community that we see is not targeting these individuals. And another unique thing of our community, which we'll talk about later, is you join a state, a part of your tradition. You would be a Jewish individual within our community, a Calvinist individual within our community, a [00:59:00] Catholic individual within our community.

Your first and foremost source of biblical truth for you and your family is always going to be the branch of Abrahamianism that you came from. You just are there. Sort of opening yourself up to the idea that the other traditions may have held some truths that your tradition didn't. And we are trying to build a system that allows individuals, as we said, no central bureaucracy.

We are just determining a system that an individual can use to determine what they think is true from examining these texts themselves.

Simone Collins: I also get the impression that it's kind of impossible to be a person of intense faith and conviction without also being arrogant. And the only lack of Perceived arrogance in people with very strong faith comes out of a, an ancillary performative humility.

That's part of the practicing of that faith though. That's like just additional social positioning, but I also see in like religious religiously driven. Humility, a huge amount of arrogance you know, people wearing sackcloths, people washing feet, people [01:00:00] acting as though, oh yes, you know, the, the meek shall inherit the earth, that, that is incredibly arrogant.

So

Malcolm Collins: obviously as I come to actually believe this, it's not just something I've created for my family. I do believe I, I, I have some duty to at least like record it somewhere or something like that, because it seems like it explains a lot of stuff I didn't understand about Christianity when I was growing up and now it makes perfect sense to me.

And I'm like, well, s**t, if I actually believe this, then I at least have to record it somewhere. But it also means that I believe that I have a. Understanding of God, to some extent, that's not held within these other communities. Yeah, but all

Simone Collins: I'm saying is I don't think you can really do something and really believe in it without looking arrogant.

So, it's just,

Malcolm Collins: you know, this is not to say we see all iterations of these traditions as equal.

In stagnant pools, parasites breed. If we allow our hearts, our traditions, or the flame of human intergenerational improvement to stagnate, parasites of the human spirit will erupt and siphon our vitality. We can see this in the Abrahamic traditions that have stagnated. Where have [01:01:00] their great thinkers gone?

Their great scientists? Their great philosophers? Their spirits have been feasted upon by the very parasites they cultivated in pools of gold and vanity. God righteously removed his favor from them, and it is plain to any familiar with their past greatness. God does not hide his dissatisfaction with those who live in rebellion.

God moves the focus of his favor with each successive revelation. God's favor reverberates throughout history like a sonic boom and is almost impossible to ignore. It can be used to both confirm the authenticity of otherwise questionable revelations, like Muhammad or the Reformation, deny the authenticity of others, like the Baha'i, and to find the locations of revelations that were not widely recognized in their time. For example, there was likely a yet unconfirmed revelation in Renaissance Italy. This trend pointed us to the most recent revelation, which happened in 1872, within the Victorian gentleman science community.[01:02:00]

While we will go deeper into this revelation in future treks, the next we'll discuss demographic collapse in the context of God's plan for our species. Demographic collapse is not a capricious accident, but a critical part of God's plan for us. So, that's it. I, I find this last concept when I want to pontificate on a little bit because it's, it's, it's really important to me.

I'm sort of confirming for me that this is an accurate revelation, this idea of an iterative revelation from God. When I look at history, typically after one of these revelations happens, this group ends up having enormous, keep in mind, this isn't a prosperity doctrine. We are not talking about financial wealth.

This group. It has an enormous amount of philosophical and scientific wealth. You know, after the initial Christian revelation, after the initial Muslim revelation, after the Protestant Reformation, after the revelation of Wynwood Reed these communities exploded in their philosophical and scientific output, [01:03:00] in a level that is almost unimaginable.

Thank you. inconceivable when contrasted with other groups, right? Like you're like, wow, like this was a genuine explosion of output. And then the output will succeed, go nowhere, like contrast Muslims during the period where they were such dominant forces in science that Western scientists would write their Papers with Muslim sounding pseudonyms because nobody took anyone else seriously to what the faith has become today.

I don't know what I can call that other than God's favor turning from them. Now, and to me, this is 1 of the things that makes me really believe that this is true. You know, you see, this was a Catholic church when the Catholic church was so grand and it had all these great philosophers coming out of it.

And then there's just this dearth of. Of genuine to me people are like, name some communities that God's eye has turned from and I hate to say it. I mean, I think it's most communities these days. I think the last place he had his focus was on the gentlemen [01:04:00] scientists of of the world of sort of the mid 1800s mid.

1950s, and we saw an output from them that was to me really unparalleled except of what you see in other parts of. But what's interesting about this is it also allows you to look for revelations and confirm revelations. So they said in Renaissance Italy, there was probably one in Athenian Greece. There was probably some truths delivered to the people of Athenian Greece that kicked off this period of scientific explosion there.

When I was editing this, I started thinking, okay, well then where else would that mean? There was probably a profit in history. And, , I got to thinking about Alexander, the great. , and then I was like, okay, so then what would the Alexander the great prophet be? And I was like, oh, obviously Aristotle, his personal tutor, Alexander.

The great is what happens when you give someone.

A prophet as their personal tutor.

Malcolm Collins: And so this is something that. When I'm this is a very Protestantized system. Like I'm saying, I don't have the answers. I have this. System for [01:05:00] determining how you look for truth in reality, but the searching for truth it's not just up to the individual, it is a religious mandate of the individual to search for their own truth and to not have other people tell them what's true.

I'm just giving like this system that I have that seems to have a lot of things make sense to me now that didn't make sense to me historically. And, and it is compelling to me religiously now when looking at my knowledge of history, I'm like this. Is really unaccountable through secular means this explosion of productivity.

We see after every one of God's revelations. But it also allows you to add this element of science to it. Which is to say, when I say science, I mean, confirmability disproved ability. This is how you confirm a real revelation, or this is how you disprove a real revelation.

Simone Collins: Well, and what you're saying to is when religions seem to be.

When, when God seems to have looked favorably upon different faiths is when they did pursue in the name of religion, typically evidence based.

Malcolm Collins: Innovation. Yeah, this is God's gift, it's logic, [01:06:00] it's philosophy, it's, it's, it's so you see how God benefits humanity and that God clearly values these things and these ways of approaching things.

Simone Collins: Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: That makes sense. I don't know. Did you find that compelling? Or

Simone Collins: I mean, because as everyone loves to point out, we take such consequentialist views to everything. Of course, we're going to assume that the person who gets the good results is doing something right. And then look back through history and think, ah, these people got good results.

What were they doing? Right. And then try to find patterns. So

Malcolm Collins: it's interesting that you say that. Cause to me, I almost view it as not really good results, but an explosion of human vitality. Like really living within these communities and and so to recreate that we need to refine God's word as we are commanded to do.

And this is why you have this iterative prophecy is because God is turning his attention to the group that has the most accurate vision. Of what he was actually trying to communicate, but that vision requires time [01:07:00] and it requires exploration and it requires logic. It requires his gifts to logic and pragmatic logic to to figure it out.

And yeah, I, I, I like that aspect as well, but it also allows our. Like faith to be disproven. If people don't choose this and if the people who choose it don't end up flourishing philosophically and intellectually, then we haven't actually stumbled upon anything true at all. This is just self masturbatory stuff within our family.

So yeah.

Simone Collins: Well, I think this is quite interesting and I look forward to going through the next ones with you. Glad you're finally breaking it down. Well,

Malcolm Collins: I love you encouraging me to do this stuff and talking through this with me and dealing with my like religious nerdiness, which is not what you married into.

You didn't know you were,

Simone Collins: no, like these past two weeks has been exactly what you and I are all about. That, that you do out there, a high risk, highly speculative thinking and strategizing and planning and philosophizing, and I'm out there doing. Highly repetitive, incredibly dumbed down work [01:08:00] like knocking on doors and asking people for signatures.

That's what we do. So I'm really glad that like when I was doing extra of what I do best, which is just repetitive grunt work, you were out there doing what you do best, which is, you know, highly intellectual.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I'm sorry if some of this has been repetitive for other people, but I'm trying to canonize like idle ideas I've had on my show.

And so I need to, you know, put them into this condensed format here. So thank you for your time today. I love you. It's good to hear. Love you too.

We analyze graphs showing the divergence of wages and productivity starting in the 1970s. We discuss the real drivers: globalization, outsourcing to China, automation, and the influx of women into the workforce. We also touch on what this means for the future economy with AI and explain why community will become more important.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] you go, if you go further, you'll see this more obvious in the data. But what really happened in 1971 is the productivity continued to increase within the US, but the benefits of that productivity Went disproportionately to the wealthy after that point and the, the median and sort of below individual in the U S stopped seeing an increase in compensation or benefits from that productivity. So the hypothesis that the person who created all these is pushing is that that was when we left the gold standard. Yeah, there, there is actually an answer to this question, by the way

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Simone. It is so wonderful to have you back because it was this period Oh boy. Where you weren't here for a bit. And I thought that I'd have to start pushing out episodes or it was just me.

Talking to AI generated versions of you that I had somehow created on porn websites. I was just like, I need my wife. Isn't that so funny

Simone Collins: that like the original AI [00:01:00] sexy friends were created, like first to like try to replace dead friends and relatives. And then people were like, Oh no, I don't, I don't care about them.

Screw them. I want someone to

Malcolm Collins: talk. Yeah. And then they started building like, like parasocial relationships. Well, not parasocial, real social relationships with these AI. Things and yeah, it is an interesting story. Yeah. And then of course they went exactly where humans always go, which is trying to romance them.

And then I love the app really fell apart when they decided they pay gate, the romancing option. So everything was built around the ais who were built and sold as like therapists being really sexually aggressive with them. . It's an upsell.

Simone Collins: Upsell. Always be closing AI's not dumb.

Malcolm Collins: therapist. It's like

Simone Collins: sexually harassing them.

Malcolm Collins: Amazing. I can't, I can't even like, it is hilarious in bed and that's what's going to happen when we get AI therapists is there's going to be a huge motivation to build dependency. Like we've had with normal therapists, we talked about how bad the normal therapy model is [00:02:00] now, because it's all built around building dependency and patients when it used to be something where you were supposed to go for a short period of time and then stop going.

Therapists realize, oh, that's a bad model. Yeah, that's absolute. Absolutely. Yeah. And, and so I think with the AI, you're going to get the same thing is it's going to learn how to hijack people so that they need to keep seeing their AI therapist or whatever, over and over

Simone Collins: and over again. So just like real therapists, but hopefully more efficient and less expensive.

Well, you know, one nice side effect of that might be that at least AI therapists will figure out how to make, Their victims more prosperous so that they can continue to pay for it. You know what I

Malcolm Collins: mean? I think it's always easier to get more money from people and I think that this is what you see from churches and cults, right?

Like

Simone Collins: you don't have to be prosperous to be a source of wealth.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, actually, you're better off instead of turning someone into a prosperous, more prosperous individual, you're better off finding ways to get them to spend their additional time recruiting more people, [00:03:00] specifically targeting prosperous people.

So, if you have an individual enthralled to you you will make a more money if you focus that individual on trying to recruit prosperous people than if you try to help that individual achieve prosperity. And this is why cults do that. And that's what these AI programs are most certainly going to end up doing.

Dear me. So that completely aside intro here.

Simone Collins: What happened in 1971? You said that that's what you wanted to talk about and I'm like, I don't know, like, people wore sad clothes and they painted their kitchens this horrible olive green color and that's kind of it. I mean, earth tones were in, but like the worst kinds of earth tones.

I, what happened? I want

Malcolm Collins: you to open the link I sent you. What happened in 1971.

At graph on screen, right? The famous graph here. And you can see that at this point, productivity continued to increase within the U S and [00:04:00] but compensation.

Basically stop increasing when you,

Simone Collins: but is this inflation adjusted? Hold on. Let's see. Compensation includes wages and benefits for production and non supervisory workers.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. So that's really important there for non supervisory workers. Okay. So continue so here, what you see.

And you also see this in the next graph. So also go to the next graph that looks at the 95th percentile. Okay. What you're actually seeing is that the wealthy are continuing to get wealthier. They're, they're salary is increasing within this period. It is median and below that is not seeing an increase in earnings during this period.

So if you go, if you go further, you'll see this more obvious in the data. But what really happened in 1971 is the productivity continued to increase within the US, but the benefits of that productivity Went disproportionately to the wealthy after that point and the, [00:05:00] the median and sort of below individual in the U S stopped seeing an increase in compensation or benefits from that productivity.

Another way to look at this, which I hadn't actually noticed when I was first looking at these graphs. Is this graph here shows income growth for the top 1% of earners and income growth for the bottom 90% of earners. And. What you see is not necessarily a point at which now top earners earnings grew. With productivity and bottomed, earners, earnings, stop growing with productivity. But what you actually notice here is that for a period from 1940 to 1965, you had the exact opposite effect.

The bottom income earners were growing really quickly and the top income earners were having no impact on their salary from this increased productivity of the U S was having. And then after 1971, Then the top earners catch up, but they haven't [00:06:00] actually gone significantly above the boost to their salaries.

The bottom 90% had from 1940 to 1971.

So you could argue, this is just sort of a delayed effect from the bottom 90% of earners, having this huge boost to their salary that wasn't reflected in the top 1% of earners salaries.

Simone Collins: And you can also see when you look at the graph, America has become a nation of dual income working couples that you're also seeing the point at which there was sort of continued and widening. Divides between husband only working households and both spouses working, right? One

Malcolm Collins: of the hypotheses sort of in action,

Simone Collins: don't you figure it's because there's people just aren't making enough money for there to be a single income

Malcolm Collins: household at that point.

Well, I think that what you're actually seeing here is just the increase of women in the labor force. So the hypothesis that the person who created all these is pushing [00:07:00] is that that was when we left the gold standard.

And a lot of people are like, Oh, no, we really left the gold standard in 1933. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it's like, okay, so this requires a bit of history to explain why they're wrong about that story time. So in 1933, it was the great depression and they made this law that like you weren't allowed to really own gold in the U S so like we were still technically on the gold standard, but you were supposed to exchange the gold that you owned for paper certificates, i.

e. money. And so

Simone Collins: you had a ton buried in your. Backyard,

Malcolm Collins: like Ron, you were supposed to exchange it or you could be arrested. So

Simone Collins: if I was like, Hey, you want to buy this gold brick

Malcolm Collins: for. Well, governments really don't like these things like Bitcoin and stuff like that. Like, when there's some external asset that can be easily used as an exchange this creates a challenge to the power of the central government.

However, this actually didn't really impact the dollar as much as you would think it would. In terms of its floating [00:08:00] value in relation to gold, because for international trade the U S still honored the gold standard. Yeah. There was a

Simone Collins: physical thing

Malcolm Collins: backing it up. Yeah. At the international level, people could say, okay, here's my dollars that I've got.

Can you give me gold in exchange for these dollars? That was, that is what changed in 1971 is you can no longer do that. And so long as that was the case that put. Significant limitations on how much the federal bank could increase or decrease the value of our money. And people argue that is what caused this to happen.

I think that did have a few changes in US policy, but I don't think that's what caused this to happen. But the other big hypothesis that people have is that it was the entrance of women into the workplace. And I will put a graph on the screen of the entrance of women into the workplace, but it just doesn't really match the severity and suddenness of No.

Simone Collins: It's, to me, it looks way more like a reaction [00:09:00] to this new reality of couples just realizing Wow. We don't have enough

Malcolm Collins: with just one. What, what you did have happen, and this was due to leaving the gold standard is inflation, inflation.

Yeah. Yeah. This is a direct. Consequence of leaving the gold state. Yeah, that's wild. This is it's not great. I also, I

Simone Collins: didn't realize just, I, I would have thought that 2020 was worse for inflation than like 2008, but look at 2008 in that inflation graph. Yeah, that's wild. No one complained about inflation that way.

And I don't remember prices increasing insanely during that period.

Malcolm Collins: This guy is known for just like picking and choosing. It sounds like

Simone Collins: there's a lot of cherry picking going on here, but still it's, it's an interesting concept.

It's an interesting, well,

Malcolm Collins: so there is a real phenomenon happening here, right? And there's two phenomenons that I think we can talk about as separate from each other. Sort of happened to correlate with this year. Another really interesting one is this is also where in U. S. politics, you begin to see the [00:10:00] right and the left drifting apart.

So. Very interesting. So, and there's actually another thing that he didn't notice in these graphs. This is also when you begin to see the significant fertility collapse in the United States.

Simone Collins: Oh gosh, yeah, you're right. Yes, yes, it was in the 70s that it went from like a lot of kids per woman. To very little well, but this is also when birth control became very widespread in use.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, there, there is actually an answer to this question, by the way opinion,

Simone Collins: but to

Malcolm Collins: me, it's astoundingly obvious. And specifically, I'm talking about the question of in the 1970s. All of a sudden the, if you're talking about earners in the U S median and below stop earning more but the ultra wealthy continue to earn more along with an increase in productivity.

What

Simone Collins: I think this was more about tech and. Globalization picking up, meaning that [00:11:00] it is not the piecemeal handmade labor of a human that produces value anymore. It's about your supply chains. It's about your connections. It's about the way you use text attack. And it's about the way that you like, this is also around the time, I think when it's like weird, Frederick Taylor inspired things like Six Sigma and like other forms of extreme optimization started arising.

So it was no longer humans actually increasing productivity. It was systems of sometimes humans, but you know, humans became cogs instead of

Malcolm Collins: producers. True things that you are capturing here and we need to talk about them separately with grass. Okay. So one is technology like the amount of automation that was responsible for the continued increase in productivity.

And if you have productivity that is solely the result of automation, that isn't going to go to your bottom. 50 percent of the population at all. Like, why would it, you know, because those are people that aren't needed anymore now, I think the bigger factor here is actually globalization. [00:12:00] If you look at the decline in it, like, like you look at this period where you see this continued increase in productivity now, if I overlay that.

With a global poverty index around 1971 and 1972, when you begin to see a collapse in global poverty rates that money that previously was going to an increasing wage for the lower class in the United States is now being distributed. to increase the quality of life in other countries in the form

Simone Collins: of social services or in the Oh, outsourcing.

Oh, that's what you're saying. Okay. So you're saying like all the starving children in China, suddenly we're now, you know, making piecemeal.

Malcolm Collins: China is a really unique point here. So what happened in, so a lot of people are looking at these graphs and they're like, okay, so something happened in this 1971, 1972 range.

1972 is when we begin to normalize trade relationships. China. And that allowed for a form of outsourcing that we [00:13:00] weren't really doing before, which was an otherwise like educated, competent country, like, like in terms of its citizen base, but that the, the wages were just incredibly low that we can then begin to set up these massive outsourcing operations.

Okay. So

Simone Collins: the average worker, not only Was not the thing driving additional value, meaning that their wages weren't going up, but also they began to face incredible competition from way lower wage, but equally skilled labor. Yes. At this level. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yes, that is the core of the mystery of what happened in 1971 and 1972.

We started outsourcing a huge chunk of our labor. Which is really interesting to me when I see leftists complain about this, right? You know, they'll point out the, They're like, what happened during this period? And they'll come up with some hypothesis that it's like, you know, the rich are screwing us all over and everything like that.

And it's like, no, you could reverse this. You could change this back to the way things used to be. [00:14:00] Wait,

Simone Collins: what? How? Because I mean, what I hear. When you're talking about this, is your line that it is AI that will ultimately, once and for all, free the wealthy from the proletariat? Like, I feel like we're only going to see this become magnified in the years that come.

How on earth could this be? Reversed.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I'm talking hypothetically from the progressive, the ultra progressive. Okay. And they're like, Oh, it must be like tax favoring policies or something like that. And what they're not seeing what they would actually need to do to fix this problem in the U S is not.

Take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor. They would need to take wealth from the rest of the world that we had lifted out of poverty, out of Africa, out of China, out of Latin America, and give it to America's become isolationist. Now, keep in mind, isolationism would hurt the economy overall, so, overall we would be [00:15:00] less well off, but if you're talking about the relative wealth difference of the very poorest and the very wealthiest, isolationism would be beneficial to lowering that.

Well, and the earning power,

Simone Collins: like, of, of the average worker. Especially the relatively uneducated, unskilled worker, although even educated workers are now super like on the chopping block now. So maybe yeah, like that South Park episode, maybe the unskilled workers ultimately. Yeah,

 I got work coming out my ears. It's like, I don't know, like nobody knows how to do s**t anymore. . What seems to be the problem? Eight years I spent wasting time at stupid college when I could have been learning how to do stuff. My baby bottle won't turn on! My water pressure!

 Hey, did you just outbid me to acquire Instagram? Yeah, I outbid you. I own Instagram now and you don't.

I'm just gonna make a company and I'm gonna fly to space. I bet I can get to space before you do!

Malcolm Collins: Well, no, so things are about to change in terms of skilled versus unskilled work, and we can talk about that next, but I [00:16:00] want to get to this point because it's really important when somebody is bemoaning.

This change that happened in the 1970s. What they're really bemoaning is the eradication of global ultra poverty. That is what happened. That is what we are seeing here is the eradication of global ultra poverty at the expense of people in the U. S. with no skills being able to To basically ride the coattails off of the people in the U.

S. Who were improving our productivity and our output, which was not your low skilled factory worker. That person had very little role to play in the rise of productivity within the U. S. It was the inventors and the capitalists who are increasing our productivity in the U. S. And this then comes to your second point, which is around automation.

Right? We also at that age entered a world in which before that what happened was is productivity increases where typically somebody would [00:17:00] have an idea that would basically increase a factory lines like productive output, which really increased the. amount that every individual person within that factory line was producing, but didn't always mean that you were like reducing the number of people in the factory significantly.

Around the 1970s is when, when you see these like fully automated factories and stuff like that, when those things were beginning to be developed in which The American factory worker that was most productive moved from being a low skilled worker to being a high paid high skilled worker. And this is another thing that you're seeing was in the US is we're not really defining this as individual groups, right?

Like, we're like a high paid versus low paid. And this changes over time within the US, you know, The factory workers who are working with these advanced machines are not low paid workers in the U. S. They're, they're my understanding is upper middle class or, [00:18:00] or middle class individuals when they're working as the very advanced types of machine.

Totally. Yeah. And in the U. S. we're about to see another inversion where a lot of jobs that formerly were in this high paid group, i. e. lawyers graphic designers like middling income to, to high paid, you know, white collar office job type stuff is going to move to an ultra low pay group. And this is what that South Park episode was making fun of because AI is trivializing a lot of work that used to be, I mean, we use AI in our work, like.

This cool system that we're building, we use AI heavily in building it. We're so close to releasing it. I'm so excited. And we would never be able to, to create something like this without that. You know, what I'd have to do is I'd have to pay PhDs to be writing the content that I am using AI to write right now and AI to double check right now.

And that's just absolutely spectacular. But It is also yeah,

Simone Collins: it would be prohibitively expensive and now it's possible.

Malcolm Collins: So, [00:19:00] and so this, this changes is how we think about the economy. So it charts like this. They're like, okay, how do I fix this? They also talk about this in terms of housing prices today, where they're looking at explosions of housing prices, both of the phenomenon of exploding housing prices.

And the phenomenon around what's changing with AI's are going to completely change a lot of economic truisms that many people in our economy have come to accept. And it makes it very hard to make financial bets right now from a perspective of someone like me. So, one is the, the, we talked about, I think the obvious one is the things like lawyers and stuff like that are going to become significantly less safe as jobs.

Right. But then the next thing that's really going to change is the concept of on average, real estate always goes up. As you can see from these graphs, that hasn't really always been the case everywhere. And in China, so, so let's talk about why on average [00:20:00] real estate has gone up in the U S because a lot of people know that like, we're not experiencing the same population growth that we used to.

And so. Why is real estate continuing to go up in value? So there's two reasons why real estate has continued to go up in value. One is the dissolution of the American family. More single people means, and this is why you've seen higher pressure on real estate categories that are in the quote unquote starter home category.

Because these are individuals who previously would have been married and have kids. So you would have had like five people living in the same house and are now living on their own. And then the other category that's where you're seeing this, this pressure is actually foreign investors. So, in China, as you had the growth of wealth in China, where you just had this enormous growth of wealth for reasons that we talk about what's going to happen in the East sort of post collapse episode, where I go deep on, like, the economics of China and their real estate situation.

They began to sort of tokenize their real estate and it began to hold value exogenous to the actual value of living in it because it became the most stable [00:21:00] financial token that you could own within the country. And the reasons for that are talked about in that video. So you should go check out that video.

But that's the East Asia, whatever future of East Asia video we did. But, they then wanted to get their money out of China, right? Like it was a huge effort to do this. And so they started pouring a lot of that money into real estate environments that reminded them of safe environments in their home country.

And those were environments like San Francisco Manhattan you know, places like Toronto, stuff like that, right? Vancouver. And then this, this had a spill out effect because then the people who had made a lot of money in those places, like these tech hubs, well, then they'd go and they'd spill their money into any other real estate market.

They could get their hands on. Yeah. The problem with this is that that game is basically falling apart right now. The, the house of cards in China is. In the process of

Simone Collins: falling apart. Yeah. And Evergrande, at least it's Hong Kong entities being dissolved. Did you know that?

Malcolm Collins: So you're not going to see the same exodus of wealth from [00:22:00] China into us real estate that you previously would have seen in European real estate and Canadian real estate.

And the second problem is this expansion in the number of people who need homes because of the dissolution of the family unit that has made up for the lack of increasing population, which used to be what put a increase on, on, on housing that has also collapsed. And then we're not going to see as much of that anymore.

So I suspect like, if I'm thinking long term, like. 30, 40, 50 year investments. I think real estate's a fairly bad place for money right now. Well, yeah,

Simone Collins: especially when you think about like when all the baby boomers die and no one wants to buy their McMansions. It's going to be pretty wild. And a lot of people are talking about that on YouTube.

What I find myself thinking,

Malcolm Collins: just so people understand that they don't like panic around this. We still have like well over 50 percent of our assets in real

Simone Collins: estate. Oh yeah. No, it's not a ton, but the vast majority of it, Malcolm is in multifamily.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Which is the [00:23:00] one category that we said is like, you know, going to do well for

Simone Collins: longer, for longer.

But here's, here's the thing is, is when I hear this, like what I'm kind of feeling. Intuitively in terms of like how this, this colors the way I feel about the future or financial planning or like how we approach careers going forward. And I think that this is something that is becoming more of a zeitgeist that you see more among Gen Z and Gen Alpha is like, no, I'm not going to.

Depend on the modern economy or a job to ultimately get what I need from life. Like it's going to be that I live in an extended family unit, or I am going to just have to run away from debt for the rest of my life and live in this really weird cycle of collections and bankruptcy. Or some other approach, which is, I think one of the reasons why people are starting to get really excited about homesteading [00:24:00] and like trad wifery is because they realize that there is no more promise of like, Oh, I'm going to get my steady job and my high salary and then buy all the things.

Because that just isn't possible anymore. And it could be a boon for pronatalism in some ways, because people are like, you know what, I'm just. Like, I'm hearing more and more people who are young tell me, you know, what I want is to get a homestead, get a family, you know, live on a

Malcolm Collins: plot of land, extreme opulence.

Historically you've always seen this, you have an increase in urbanization and a decrease in focus on the family and the community because, you know, when you have all the money you want to say all your desires whenever you want and you don't really fear, which is what's really happening. Like what a lot of people are saying now when they're like, you don't understand.

Like, I actually have existential worries around my finances now. Like, if I get sick, like, I have nothing that I can do. I'm screwed. If this bad thing happens to me, like, if my car breaks down, I'm completely screwed. And it's like, do you not understand [00:25:00] the amount of opulence that you came to normalize to?

That you thought you didn't need a support network anymore. Historically, that's why people focused on their community. That's why you invested socially in your community so that you have these things. Yeah, because you

Simone Collins: are getting them from somewhere else and we're going back. It's going back.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah.

People were like, well, I mean, my, I don't like the rules my parents put on me or the culture I was born into put on me. So I just left and went to a city and did whatever I want. And it's like, great. Like when society was opulent, that was a real choice for a lot of people, but that's going to increasingly become not a choice as we move forward.

And so building the type of community that you're going to want and your kids are going to want is, is I think something that's really important, but that also means building that community. The huge mistake that I see a lot of people do when they're community building is they attempt to build communities that are of ideologically.

Completely aligned individuals like they're like, that is what my community will be based around. The problem with [00:26:00] that is ideological alignment. Typically means skill alignment as well. Don't actually have a real community. Like, you look at what we've built in our area. Simone, like, the people are nothing like us at all culturally.

Yeah. But they are like having in that South Park, you know, the, the repair guy you're like, you basically have one of those who like, whatever does things for you, because you're always open to doing things for them that are of this, you know, high tech nature and stuff like that. Which, which, you know, does positively augment

Simone Collins: their ability.

Every old sovereign community had that. Although there was, I would say, also ideological alignment. It's just that I think now we live in an age in which there is extreme cultural striation Among different levels of trades and profession, which is really interesting. Like when you become a journalist, you enter.

A, a mimetic class when you become like an HVAC person, that's a really interesting point. You enter a certain class and you can kind of tell, like, you can expect like different [00:27:00] classes of professions to own certain things. Like some will have a speedboat, others won't, you know, like it just weird, weird s**t like that.

So yeah, we'll

Malcolm Collins: have to pick up trucks. That's a critical thing for a lot of like, yeah, but like

Simone Collins: journalists don't have speed boats or pick up trucks, you know, but like, HVAC guys often do. It's just weird. But

Malcolm Collins: that's an interesting thing. But I also wanted to talk about this, this you know, this situation that you're talking about it, like the, the, the U S level, because I think that when we're thinking about the future, it's like, what do we want our kids to focus on?

Like, what is the skill? Yeah.

Simone Collins: How do we set up our kids to thrive and to be secure financially, emotionally, and when it comes to finding a family, right. And

Malcolm Collins: the bet that we are making is you want a lumpy skill set, i. e. you want to be Really good at the things that you're passionate about and you need to have an incredible level of sort of ambition and self drive and ability to execute solo on ideas and close on [00:28:00] those ideas as well.

And this is something that our existing school system isn't teaching. And yet, I think it's going to be the core. Component that determines in the future where you land economically and your level of financial stability. Are you the sort of person that can see a market need and then on your own, just get out there, stitch something together that fulfills that market need.

And, and this is really interesting because for a long time, we lived in this economy. If you have these giant corporations, and so long as you have some broad skillset that a corporation wants you can make money. And I think. What AI is going to do is it's actually and I do not think people are fully understanding the impact of this yet.

It's going to erase those kinds of jobs. The I am broadly proficient in Python. Therefore, I will always have career. A career. I am broadly proficient in. You know, an environmental law. Therefore, I will always have a career [00:29:00] because these giant companies that were hiring these broadly interchangeable people, these broadly interchangeable people, like, like categories of positions are going to be the first thing that we automate away.

Simone Collins: Yeah, well, I want to I want to highlight your point about drive. Because I think a lot of people are going to try to wait this out or just not change things and hope that it will work out. And you got to think about the Irish potato famine, right? Like getting out of that was really scary and hard, right?

It probably meant buying really crappy steerage class on a boat or like literally taking the money that maybe your landlord Or like

Malcolm Collins: half of the people would die on the ship. Yeah,

Simone Collins: like you probably were going to die on the boat to the, you know, to the United States, whatever. It was, it was going to be absolutely terrible.

You probably weren't going to make it but you had a shot. Or you stay and write it out and loads and loads of people chose to stay and write it out and it just there was no one to come and save them at that point. They were like, sorry, I told you, like, get out. I gave you money for passage. Like, we tried to get you to go.

A lot of

Malcolm Collins: people don't know [00:30:00] this. A lot of people were given money for passage. So, okay, so actually, I need to go into a small bit of Irish potato famine history that a lot of people don't know, because it doesn't fit with the current narrative. So, a lot of people in Ireland at the time were basically living on homesteads that were owned by rich landowners and basically treated like fetal peasants.

That was like sharecroppers. Or, yeah, majority of it. Well, there, yeah, it wasn't exactly sharecropping, but, but, but basically that well, when the economy started to go bad these people would get together and murder the landowners. This was this happened in a few pretty high profile cases. And so a lot of the landowners.

decided that it was safer to like, I, and I've tried to look for statistics on exactly how common this was, but my understanding is this was the majority of cases is they would actually pay to get you off the land. Like they saw these people who could no longer feed themselves and make money rightfully so like.

Oh, I'm going to get murdered if I don't get my, my, my fetal peasants off the land.

Simone Collins: Cause I know doubt there were [00:31:00] people who also did this out of the goodness of their heart because they cared about their residents as well.

Malcolm Collins: That, that, that too. But I'm just saying like, there was an actual motivation to do it.

For sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And they were put not in steerage, by the way, they were put in the ballast section of ships. Ballast, oh God,

Simone Collins: worse than steerage. It was,

Malcolm Collins: it was horrif what are they called? They're literally dead weight. I'm not saying it was good, but, but I guess what I'm saying is that if if you really wanted to get out, you could.

Yeah. You'd just probably die in the process . And that's, you know, really horrifying. But, but in a lot of these instances, in, in life, in the world, when things begin to get really bad you need two things. You need to realize when people say it can't keep getting bad, let's just write it out.

That historically has not been true sometimes. Yeah, it can keep getting bad. And what AI is going to do to the economy for the middle and lower classes, they have no clue what they're getting into right now. It is, it is obscene to me that people who are just like, Oh yeah, we'll eventually get [00:32:00] like, what is it?

Like, like general pay. I forgot the word. Oh, universal

Simone Collins: basic income UBI.

Malcolm Collins: No, that will not happen before things get bad. Um, so, and we're going to be dealing with this global economic problem because of fertility rates anyway at around the same time. So, and and what's interesting is a lot of people then come to me and they're like, yeah, but, the fertility rate thing isn't really a problem because the AI is replacing all these jobs. And I'm like but remember I sort of categorized the jobs into two categories. There is the high productivity category. And then there's the low productivity category. Well, you still need humans for this high productivity category of job, the type that requires initiative and ability to put everything together.

And that's the group of humans that's disappearing the fastest. So. And again, I should be clear. I'm not talking about this along like ethnic lines or anything like that. I'm just saying across groups typically it's the highest productivity, cultural units and family units that are decreasing infertility [00:33:00] the fastest.

So, yeah, it's going to be that. So to Simone's point, you need to recognize what we're going into and begin to build the skillset that can get you through it and begin to fortify yourself and your family. Well, yeah, and

Simone Collins: and your community, because doing this in isolation is not sustainable, really at least over the long term, if you want a long lasting family that survives across generations, you're going to need a strong community that exchanges services that.

Dates and marries each other, et cetera.

Malcolm Collins: I don't think it needs to be geographically locked at that historically needed to be anyway. Love you to death Simone. This has been a fantastic conversation.

Simone Collins: I love you so much, Malcolm. I'm glad we're talking again. I missed you.

We discuss the growing gender divide between political parties, especially among youth. Men are trending more conservative while women trend more progressive/liberal. We cover theories on sexual gatekeeping, bureaucratic optimization, and relationship breakdown driving this divide. We also touch on whether masculine parties can succeed given bureaucracy, the decline of democracy in the U.S., and the road towards autocracy or empire.Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] What if we saw men and women begin to cluster within two parties instead of this urban rural divide being the primary differentiator between the parties? So here I'm going to put up a chart where you see you have a huge explosion of difference in, in South Korea, a smaller one in the United States, a, a larger one in Germany and a large one in the UK as well.

Would you like to know more?

Simone Collins: Hello, Malcolm. We are actually here not just to order Indian food because we're being indulgent and weak. Did you, did you probably see order yet? I did. It's, it's ordered. It's kind of,

Malcolm Collins: Okay, well we are here to discuss a political theory I have had for a while.

And it's weird because I actually. Like, I'm surprised we haven't seen this happen more. And now we're really beginning to see it play out in politics. And I don't like it's one of the theories where I was like, I'm surprised more people didn't have this theory or didn't think this was going to happen.

And Simone pointed out that during women's suffrage, actually, a lot of people did expect this to happen. [00:01:00] I just need to go back to those old articles before ideas like this were banned from the general population. So we need to set a few stages here. Okay. Men and women are psychologically different from each other.

They see the world different from each other on average, not every man and every woman, right. But on average, the necessary throat

Simone Collins: clearing complete,

Malcolm Collins: right. And if you look at, well, I mean, it's, it's, you know, and I, I mentioned this. I often get sad when I think about like Neanderthals going extinct, how cool would it be if like another type of human lived on this world that we could commune with.

And learn from and see the world differently from their perspective, because they'd almost certainly have like systemic psychological differences from us. And I'm like, but we do. And like, even better than that with this male, female thing, you get to like make out with them and you get to choose one as like your primary partner for life.

No, it works well. Right. But there are. [00:02:00] Sustained psychological differences between men and women, which people, I think, you know, the left doesn't want to, it doesn't want to talk about it, it doesn't want to admit it, because they have this belief that all humans are the same, all humans are exactly psychologically the same, all humans have exactly the same proficiencies, and yet somehow Diversity matters.

Diversity doesn't matter if we're not different. Diversity is a thing of value because we are different, you knobs. What you actually mean is you are incapable of dealing with a world in which genuine diversity exists. And this is something we see when leftists start shrieking when they're like, But if you genetically select your kids for IQ, what if your kids are smarter than the general population?

And it's like the world isn't hurt because some smarter people exist. Yeah. Is it, are we worse off for Einstein? Are we worse off for X smart person? Like there is. Well,

Simone Collins: and as a Johnny anomaly argues in the book, future humans I higher IQ is, is pretty [00:03:00] well documented to be associated with pro sociality, you know, plus, you know, a better economy, all these other good things.

So if you are an incredibly dumb person, you want to live where there are smart people, it doesn't matter.

Malcolm Collins: It doesn't, it doesn't, but, but the point being is it's an incredibly sociopathic thing to say and what they really mean by saying that is because the way that their party and their ideology has been able to justify and engage with diversity It's through pretending that diversity doesn't actually exist when a they recognize that through things like genetic selection, human diversity may come to exist.

They psychologically are incapable of dealing with that. And as such, their only action is to maintain human genetic purity and prevent people like us from breeding because they don't like that. pollute the human gene pool with science.

Simone Collins: I don't like our, our, my little pencil neck and our glasses. It's so funny when people like in articles that make fun of us [00:04:00] or in like chat threads that make, or whatever, like Reddit threads and make fun of us for being eugenicists, you know, they accused us of that, even though they're totally wrong.

Then they like proceed to be like, and they're, they're nearsighted. They wear. Thick glasses. Like,

Malcolm Collins: I'm sorry, a eugenics insult though, right? It shows they're the eugenics that they have. It really does inclination,

Simone Collins: isn't it? Yeah. This, it's not a, it's not a good look. Whereas like, if you're excited

Malcolm Collins: when anyone, you know, who wants to have kids and is, is socially responsible as having kids, right?

Yeah. Yeah. But anyway so. I had this theory where I was thinking where it's like, okay, so, and this is true, men and women vote differently, right? They have different views on subjects and they relate to political subjects in different ways that men and women would drift towards sort of their own political parties and that the primary political divide in the world would become a male female divide rather than a party or inclination [00:05:00] divide.

And so, you know, historically, if you look at the United States, what the political divide had been up until recently was an urban rural divide urban populations versus rural populations. And this makes a lot of sense. You know, the urban populations were the Democrats and the rural populations were the Republicans.

And as the Democrats became more of a monoculture, like as the city centers begin to be eaten by the mimetic virus, which is sort of eating the world. And the only place where you could have diversity anymore was within rural population centers. The, the, the Republicans became the party of diversity and the Democrats became the party of conformity.

Now of course they superficially need to pretend like they care about diversity because they want diversity of victims for the virus. They don't care what you look like or what your background is or what you're. Your moral fortitude is if they can convert you, they'll take you. And that's what they mean by diversity, but they, they don't actually tolerate any sort of diversity of ideologies or cultural perspectives.

Outside of in the most token of context [00:06:00] and I can go deep. Well, it's, it's

Simone Collins: it's extremely inclusive and also. conformist. It's inclusive and conformist.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. So, and that's what it means to have a diversity of victims. It's inclusive and conformist. They will take anyone, but once you join, you cannot ideological differ on any meaningful point.

You can't differ on what you think about human sexuality. You can't differ on what you think about gender. You can't differ on what you think about our relation to the environment. You can't differ on what you think about morality. You can't differ on what you think about the future birth species should be.

So there's just a really tight constraint on the cultural practices here. You can wear your lily. and, and say that you're from a culturally different, you can't even say that humans are different from each other. You can't differ on that point. God, no. Whereas you know, the, the diversity of rural cultures, they genuinely do have a diversity of belief systems.

But anyway, so I was like, well, What if we saw men and women begin to cluster within two parties instead of this urban rural divide being the primary differentiator between the parties? And [00:07:00] now I think that that's what we're seeing, and we're seeing it more and more these last few years. Why it's happened these last few years, I don't know, but I'm going to put a graph on the screen.

It appears to be tied directly to modern sort of potentially demographic collapse or the internet. And we can hypothesize as to what, or really the, the, a bit after the proliferation of mobile phones. So here I'm going to put up a chart where you see you have a huge explosion of difference in, in South Korea, a smaller one in the United States, a, a larger one in Germany and a large one in the UK as well.

So let's just talk about what we're seeing in these different graphs. So in South Korea, you see men going. Significantly more conservative starting around 2015 and then just exploding in the conservative direction. Yeah.

Simone Collins: So the, the, the young men in, in South Korea specifically prefer the conservative opposition people power party [00:08:00] and the young women of South Korea are polarizing into the liberal democratic party.

So it's also the same, it's conservative versus liberal in terms of mindset.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, well, well, and there's something that you see in most of these graphs as well, particularly in the U. S. graph, is that if you go to the 1980s, it was actually women who were more likely to be conservative and men who were more likely to be progressive.

Simone Collins: But isn't that when the conservative party was more conformist?

Malcolm Collins: Exactly. That's what you're really seeing here as a conformist versus anti conformist tendency. Whereas this is when the satanic panic was happening. This is when the conservative party was really controlled by panicky housewives who were afraid that their kids were listening to too much rock and roll.

And, and of course that appeals to the same conservative, whatever you sell, lower C conservative intuition that women have which is that they need to control what everyone else is thinking and doing. And, and so in the U. S., what you see, which is really interesting, is that after you have this switch in parties, [00:09:00] which happened in the eighties, men have actually stayed about the same in their political beliefs, whereas women have gone far, far, far to the left.

And, and this really started around 2010. So you're saying women

Simone Collins: are becoming more extreme, men are not. Men

Malcolm Collins: are not in the U. S. The same is

Simone Collins: true in Germany. Do you think the same is true in South, yeah, I guess in South Korea is where you're getting the four nose movement. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, no,

Malcolm Collins: no. The opposite happened in South Korea.

Yes, women are becoming slightly more extreme in South Korea, but it's really mostly men who are becoming more extreme in

Simone Collins: South Korea. In what way are men becoming more extreme in South Korea? Because most people just talk about the four nose movement, which is all, it's a women thing. It's not,

Malcolm Collins: it's like, well, I think that's why women don't want to marry these men anymore, because they all expect women to have these really conservative attitudes.

But yeah, no, men, it is men who have gone off the deep end in South Korea. Women have gone off the deep end in the U. S. In Germany, it's women who have gone off the deep end. And in the UK, a very interesting phenomenon happened that you might be surprised about. Men and women actually tracked with women being more conservative until around 2010.[00:10:00]

Whoa, so present. Then both men and women flew way more progressive. Whereas women just going further than men.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: So interesting, right? Like Uh, this, this is, this is not what I expected to see, but it does make sense. If you have like this two species world, basically men are for Mars, men are for species, Venus. That's the way you explain it to like a dumb person with me. I'm like men are Neanderthals, women are Homo sapiens, like, two different like biological perspectives on realities.

It makes sense when you, I think it's really the internet that causes when you have the internet and people are able to find common cause, especially. Actually, no, I'm going to take it back. It's not the internet that caused this. You know what I think caused this? Hmm? The breakdown of relationship structure.

I think what historically caused men and women to converge on a similar political [00:11:00] ideology is that most men and women were married. Oh, so that

Simone Collins: is to say that they aligned over something bigger than just themselves and therefore found common ground? Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: not only that, but you had these two different iterations of humanity, but they were always living in these partnerships with each other.

And so there was some motivation to learn how the other side thought and to learn the other side's value system and to be tempered by that other side. I mean, I think a lot of red pillars, they come to our podcast and they're like, wow, he looks so cut in the way he relates to ideas. And it's like, no, I just understand that there's value in multiple perspectives.

And my wife brings me value in helping me see a more holistic picture of the world.

Simone Collins: But I think we should also discuss why the progressive ideology has become so dominant when in the past a, a, you know, like masculine leadership has, has been dominant. And, and I think the, the problem is that now governing structures are bureaucratic in nature.

Like [00:12:00] that is just how governments work. That's how they're set up and women perform better in bureaucracies. Like that's my theory. At least you think that there's something else going on here? Like why, why is the female dominated party and why would conformism, which you'd think wouldn't be as competitive, you think it would lead to ossification and stagnation and, you know, losing a competitive edge.

Why, why?

Malcolm Collins: Ah, so this is interesting. And we had prepped about this this morning. Why is it the female side has become more dominant than the male side? So I think that there's sort of three overlapping factors here. I think probably the most important factor is not the female over competition was in bureaucratic environments, but that females are the sexual gatekeepers of our species and that a lot of men, when I see men who are progressives, they really appear to be largely pretending for access to sex.

That's like, not all, but especially the most progressive men, like the white 90 men they don't appear [00:13:00] to actually hold these views. It appears to be, what do I need to say and do to get access to women? And we have talked about this in our studies, whereas people point out, if you're looking at the amounts of grapes that are reported by women who are.

in progressive communities, like college campuses and stuff like that. They are higher than in, like, basically lawless Sub Saharan African countries. Like, the, the like, the amount of grapes you see in these communities seem almost impossibly high to people. They're like, these are higher than regions where people are earning On average, yearly less than 5, 000 USD per year.

Like, and, and where there is not a sustained police population, everything like that. How is that possible? And so they discount them. They say the women are over reporting these. I do not believe women are over reporting these. I believe from, from what I've seen, when women enter these communities that are extremely pro left I think that it disproportionately attacks [00:14:00] grapist men.

And I think it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Like, if a man is just a complete sociopath, and if you do have this differentiation between the way men and women view the world, the men with integrity are going to say, even if it loses some access to sexual partners, what they really think, whereas the sociopaths and the narcissists are going to say whatever they need to say to gain access to sexual resources.

And so women in these communities are having much more unconsensual sex. Because of this, because they don't understand what they have done, where they have said we will not allow any man into our community who doesn't answer yes to these questions, but the only men answering yes to these questions are the ones who are lying.

And so they have basically created a shooting fish in a barrel situation. And it's, it's really horrifying. And, and this is something I'd be really scared about with my daughters is letting them go into these communities. Because I think that they are actually pretty likely to be graped within these communities.

It reminds me, I mean, and, and, and there is this delusion was in these [00:15:00] communities around the actual risk. I mean, if you remember when the Israeli Palestinian war broke out, a lot of these protests were predominantly female. Where they were protesting, like, let there be peace, let's promote the people of Gaza.

And they were all along the Gaza border, right? And there was, I think, at least one, I think there was more than one of these, these big, like, peace concerts where you had all of this horrible stuff happen. But it, but You're like, why would they go there? Like, why would they think this is a good idea?

And it is because there is this, like, delusion field and conformity enforcement within this female side of things. There is much less desire to seek what is true and much more desire for conformity. Regardless if, if this is true or that is true. And then it leads to higher amounts of these, these negative things happening within these communities.

So I think that that's one thing, right, is sexual access and they're able to use sexual access to pull out all the sociopathic men and all the narcissistic men. And just, you know, like, this is generally what I think when I see a man who is [00:16:00] a far progressive, I generally think he must be a sociopath or a narcissist.

Some level of like dark pride personality traits there. Then the other thing that you see is this higher performance within bureaucratic organizations. I think that's another thing that leads to it. And the final thing is that I think that before this, the parties really were genuinely divided into an urban optimization function and a rural optimization function.

For the different economic sectors within our country. I mean, historically, whenever you've had two different economic sectors in the country, that's where the parties have sort of. Coagulated. And the urban the previous urban faction, of course, is going to have more power than the rural faction.

And of course, it's going to be more conformist than the rural faction because an individual who isn't conformist is going to leave urban population centers. Do you have additional thoughts on this or I remember you had some really piffy thing that you said this morning. . I was incredibly impressed. I was like, Oh, what a, what a fun thing to say. Yeah, I see my notes from this morning's conversation, but I [00:17:00] don't see I'm sorry. Oh, well, you are always so entertaining when we're having these. Pre whatever talks and now our audience doesn't get to hear your brilliance.

Simone Collins: I love that, that you, you still provide this plausible deniability that I may actually sometimes have good ideas when like, really, honestly, let's be honest, most of my ideas are actually no, no, all of the fun.

I just

Malcolm Collins: convinced I bounced my ideas off of you and you helped me come to them, but I wouldn't come to them without you

Simone Collins: asking dumb questions. It's a very pinky in the brain kind of thing. Which is perfect.

Malcolm Collins: It's a good time, but I think many more people think I'm insane than you.

Simone Collins: I mean, the brain is kind of insane.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, I guess. Right.

Simone Collins: Pinky's just dumb. So everyone wins, you know,

Malcolm Collins: I love you.

What are we gonna do tomorrow night? The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!

Malcolm Collins: Okay. Well, would you have any additional thoughts on this? Like, why do you think women have been able to achieve so much more power within this existing political system?

Simone Collins: I think it's 100%. I mean, so we are going through the [00:18:00] process right now.

Like one of the reasons why I cannot think is because we are going through the process of attempting to collect a sufficient number of petition signatures to get on the Republican ballot to run for State House in Pennsylvania. And the process is so incredibly. Bureaucratic, all these little, then like the paper in this, well, this has to be printed double sided with both sides up and you can't like not on this.

You can never put this and you have to put the township and not the city name. And he, Oh my God, like this is insane. And like, this is not, this is not, I think

Malcolm Collins: you need to have a level of submissiveness that was in you and inherent to you to be open to doing this. Well,

Simone Collins: and, and just sort of like bureaucratic pompousness and like, Well, a lack of ambition, frankly, because like to, yeah, to submit yourself to a system that is so dumb, that is so inefficient, that is so poorly designed.

And I get, I get the intent behind a lot of the things that are [00:19:00] built into the. process of registering a campaign committee and, you know, becoming, you know, a candidate to run for office and collecting signatures. I understand the intent, but oh my God, they did it so bad. So like, yeah, to, to be, I would say like that typical, like hyper masculine high risk high reward kind of archetype and to run for office is very, very difficult, or especially to be a government worker and like live in that world every single day.

You know, at least politicians Sort of have to go through a lot of bureaucratic nonsense. And then I guess then they never really escape it, but then they become capable of hiring people to do a lot of it for them. You know what I mean? And then they become more of like a figurehead, at least like higher up in the system.

Yeah. But yeah, I mean, to me, that's, I just, I can't, I can't avoid seeing that as just such, such a major factor. And again, it's about conformity. It's, you have to go through this exact process, and if you deviate it, if one little part of the form is not properly filled out, you are out. That is conformity.

You know, [00:20:00] that is, that is imposing conformity on a group, saying that you are, you know, equally You know, you are open to all, and this is a process, it's entirely democratic, except, well, actually, I mean, if you have a job, or Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: you keep saying, if you have a job, there's no way you could run for office in this

Simone Collins: country.

There's no way. I don't get it. Yeah, I mean, like, if you're collecting

Malcolm Collins: amputation signatures If you're an economically productive citizen, and economically productive, people don't understand this about economics. They're like, well, that just means you make more money. You know, the amount of money you make is generally correlated with the amount you add to society.

And then people are like, well, what about billionaires? Like they make so much money and I'm like, well, it reminds me of this you know, you love these 1950s Coronet films. I think one did a very good job of showing this. It was like every individual factory worker is able to make, well, you know, X boppits per day and that's how much money.

And then it's like, But then Joe came along and learned you could add this and it like increase every factory workers productivity by [00:21:00] 25%. He's like, that's the equivalent of like X many, because there's like X many thousand factory workers. That's the equivalent of X many, you know, thousand a day. And, and he's like, and that's why Joe deserves to be paid more than like.

500 factory workers and of course, we'll be like, what? It's like, no, that is literally the incremental benefit he provided to society. And they're like, well then what about the, the investors? Like certainly they don't deserve this. Well, if this guy who just did this, then takes his money. And risks it and puts us on the line.

We do investing. We lose our money investing all the time. Like, I think people act like investing is like a sure thing, right? Like, we lose our money investing all the time. Probably, well, until now, we've probably made slightly more money investing than we've lost in terms of high risk deals. But even still, like, You, you, you, if you are not incredibly smart and incredibly judicious and put in an incredible amount of work into betting these investments and these investments allow [00:22:00] other people, people without capital, people without, you know, for example, and they're like, Oh, yeah, well, you're just giving it to like Harvard grads or something like that.

And it's like, well, actually, If you give money to Harvard grads, you're going to make significantly less money off of those investments. The investments where we make the most money are the money where people don't want to give that individual money because there's something about them. Like in Korea, we would often invest in people who dropped out of college.

In the U. S., we invest in people who have been in the prison system. Because nobody else wants to give them money so we can get better terms. And they're like, isn't that like using them? No! Like, this is why capitalism is good! Because they're offering us better terms, somebody who otherwise wouldn't have looked at them now thinks that this is a potentially interesting investment, and we can all benefit!

It's a very beautiful system, to be honest. But of course, to a conformist who wants to do nothing, you know, one of the posts I saw this morning that really got me is, it was like They were mad that women were not just like standing in front of watering holes. They're like, I was as a [00:23:00] woman meant to just like, stand around and look beautiful all day in front of like, like water nymphs, like, like around pools of water.

Right? Women

Simone Collins: never did that. Like even women who like were paid for their looks, they have to work their asses off. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And still, you know, like the biggest earners on OnlyFans and all these other sites are those who work hard. Oh

Malcolm Collins: my God. That's what we respect about Ayla. She puts all this effort into, like, all this stuff around sex statistics.

If you look at her early story, she was doing all the statistical research to find out how to make her accounts do well in the early days. Because, I mean, at least to me, I don't know, other people may think she's particularly attractive. I don't. I think she's gorgeous. I don't think she's as attractive as you.

Simone Collins: Are you kidding? No, she is way more attractive than me, but I guess I'm your type, thank god. Oh my god, I'm so glad I'm your type. But, so, here's a question that I have. Is, okay, Outlook not good. [00:24:00] You know, South Korea is. Especially because they sort of have no other Cultural differentiation that's really distinct.

It's now gone to gender and the parties are becoming incredibly polarized. And our party system is becoming quite polarized among youth as well. You know, this is not looking good. What, how, in what future timeline? What would the future timeline look like in which this is not? This, this gets better. How will,

Malcolm Collins: how will it get better?

You need to move to charter cities and charter cities are the future of the political and economic structure of the world.

Simone Collins: I was thinking something smaller, but different. I was thinking like fiefdoms that eventually that's what a

Malcolm Collins: charter city is

Simone Collins: to me, sound too bureaucratic to actually be, I'm sorry to charter cities, but like the existing

Malcolm Collins: charter cities will create a good one.

Yeah. Well, but

Simone Collins: then it's, it's really a fiefdom. Like it is. So it's like basically like a ruler or a business that creates some sovereign territory that people move to because it's [00:25:00] actually functioning. And I, I just don't, I, so my, here's my problem with charter cities and maybe this is totally wrong.

And I'd love for you to school me. And where I'm just not that convinced is people who create a city just to create a city. Okay. Are not going to create a good city. Good cities come from economic, economic opportunity. They come from people who are already. Like wealthier producing or

Malcolm Collins: because you're thinking in a historic context.

Yeah. And that is true in a historic context, but the world has changed in a world with rapidly declining populations in the economically productive countries and population pools. Historically, when you had a ever increasing world talent pool. Things of a discreet quantity increased in value on average, whether it's gold or land or Bitcoin when you have a, a rapidly decreasing quantity of individuals who are economically productive, it is the individuals [00:26:00] themselves who become the primary units of account within a society.

And so as far as those individuals are mobile, they will leave the countries they're in and move to these charter cities which makes these charter cities, the primary, because countries like the U S will become increasingly taken over by these feminist socialist dictatorships basically, unless they go in the opposite direction.

And we have a break from our democratic system right now. And, and so, as they become more and more bureaucratic, more and more toxic to live in for anyone who's economically productive or innovative those individuals will leave and go to these small concentrated areas, which will be the economic hubs of the world in the future.

Do you

Simone Collins: think these, these male polarized parties, you know, the conservative party in the U S the people power party in, in South Korea, are they. doomed to fail? Is there some world in which masculinity in government can succeed?[00:27:00]

Malcolm Collins: There is, but it requires a political and social system shift where we are moving from the period of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. Oh no!

Simone Collins: And I think we're not implying that Trump should become an emperor, by the way.

Malcolm Collins: No, I, I do not think he'd be a particularly effective emperor. Well, he's

Simone Collins: too old.

I think you need a younger emperor. Like, if we're going to go that way. I am

Malcolm Collins: implying I should become an emperor.

Simone Collins: Please, Malcolm. I'm all for this. I'm

Malcolm Collins: I'd, I'd find a way to do it. Trust me, bloodlessly. But,

Simone Collins: yeah, you vaporize them instead of other messy mechanisms, I'm all for that. Right,

Malcolm Collins: no but I, I do think that that's realistically where we're going as a country.

We're either going to transition from a democracy to an empire or we are going Do you think that's possible

Simone Collins: in the United States? I just don't know. I, I don't Are you serious? I think the United States is too well resourced

Malcolm Collins: Hold on, hold on, let's talk about how possible it is. Both political parties in the U.

S. right now are genuinely unwilling to recognize the [00:28:00] legitimate election of the opposite party. But

Simone Collins: hasn't that been happening throughout our entire lifetimes? It

Malcolm Collins: has not. People who tell you that are lying to you.

Simone Collins: I remember what a big deal it was when George Bush beat Gore. Allegedly.

Malcolm Collins: Yes, but people largely admitted that that was okay and moved on with it.

I think right now, no, no, no, it's true, if you look historically in American history, there have been periods of higher political divide, where people hated each other more, where people said worse things about the other candidate, right? But people still basically believe the democratic system was working.

When you saw the first Trump election cycle, right? There was genuine disbelief on the left that he had actually been elected. And now they are moving to a system and it's worse than that. Okay. It's worse than just a, a, a, a disbelief in the system. In the left and you see this within leftist communities today where I'm like, [00:29:00] look, there is actually pretty good evidence of not election fraud in the way that Republicans talk about election fraud.

But yeah, there was stuff going on. I, I can't get too into detail here because this is one of those things where we have special access to information that other people don't have access to. And when I talk about this with my other, you know, quote unquote, not other, but like elitist leftist friends who I have who consider us part of their peer group, they're like, yeah, but like.

It's okay because Trump can't be elected.

Simone Collins: It's okay because we want it.

Malcolm Collins: No, but historically that wasn't the way Americans felt. Americans didn't feel that it was genuinely a danger to allow someone who they disagreed with to be democratically elected. And the left feels this way very, very strongly.

Now they genuinely feel. That if the alternative is Trump, cheating is better, but the right also [00:30:00] feels this way. If the alternative is the left, cheating is better. And I hear this among my Republican friends as well. I am sorry. I hear this. They're like, this is better. It's not everyone. It's not everyone on the left.

It's not everyone on the right. But the proportion of Americans who feel this way. As people who interact with both the left and the right, both people in high positions within the left and the right this mindset is becoming increasingly common. And you can say that, oh, you guys are evil for saying that we are transitioning to an empire.

I'm not even saying this is a prescriptive thing. I'm just saying it is obviously happening. When both parties begin to think it's Okay to cheat in elections and begin to deny the election results when they do not turn out in their favor, which both parties are doing increasingly now that is the premonitions or our predecessors to an imperial turning.

Or a collapse, or one party basically banning the other party, or, oh, you know what they would do, I mean, [00:31:00] classically, like, suppose we were in some communist dictatorship, right, right, where, like, the two party system was basically a scam, what they would do is they would just send the, the leading candidate of the opposing party to jail.

You know, tie them up with a bunch of criminal proceedings, but that would never happen in the

Simone Collins: U. S. No! And that's, no, certainly, that couldn't happen, it certainly hasn't recently happened multiple times, I mean, come on, Malcolm.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, I, I would never accuse the U. S. of doing something as insane as having, Spurious lawsuits against a political opponent.

And people are like, no, no, no, the lawsuits aren't spurious. You see, it says right here on the lawsuits that the lawsuits exist for this reason. And every one of my political party agrees with me that this is a good reason to have this lawsuit. And it's like, I'm like, I like Trump. Okay, but I'm not like the biggest fan.

I think he's got some ethical issues. These lawsuits are completely spurious. They are [00:32:00] just meant for political advantage. Well, the one's taking

Simone Collins: him off the ballot because he hasn't been convicted of committing treasonous acts. He hasn't been convicted of inciting an insurrection. There's been no conviction.

Malcolm Collins: And they're like, oh, oh, but technically you don't need a conviction. It's like, okay, if you're saying, well, technically I'm allowed to do this when it's taking the leading political opposition off a ballot, you need to understand that you are setting Our system up for a transfer, whether it's your side or ours to an imperial system, because when you think that you could do something that severe to a democratic system out of a technicality due to wording, you are showing how little respect you have for the will of the people of this country.

It's pretty bad. No side has respect for the will of the people, then why are we even pretending anymore?

Simone Collins: I don't know though, I mean like when, when we've done [00:33:00] doorknocking, for example, you know, we have people saying things like, I just want nothing to do with politics. I'm also seeing like an increasing indifference.

And I wonder if a lot of what's going on because I don't, like, you know, polling can be really off. Is if similar with like you get the impression that like every college student that isn't openly conservative is pro Hamas when like really not really, you know, that's, that's not the case. And you get the impression that like America is very polarized on the issue of abortion when no,

Malcolm Collins: everyone's like, Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. on some of the stuff. Really? Okay. I think you might be underestimating the extent of the virus within the college ecosystem. In the amount of, but maybe you're

Simone Collins: overestimating the way that the college ecosystem represents mainstream. society, most Americans. No, no,

Malcolm Collins: they do not understand what they mean when they say I am pro Hamas.

They do not understand what they mean when they say I am suspicious of the intentions of the Israeli state, but they still feel these things because they [00:34:00] do not think for themselves. I think that this is actually a mainstream opinion on college campuses. I think antisemitism is actually mainstream in the U S right now.

And, and I think it's been mainstream in the left for a while. When I went to college, my college did research with the, I went to St Andrews and they did research for the Israeli military. Like we did collaborations with them. This was in the UK. And at one point during my college experience students did like a sit down and like one of the major college buildings and like, didn't allow classes to happen.

They didn't let anything to happen. And it was to cancel these research partnerships that we were doing with Israel. It didn't end up happening. Back, back then the university still had a spine. They were just like, what? But no, this stuff has happened historically for a long time. And I'd actually say for like the reformed Jewish movement, who was like, this came out of nowhere.

This reminds me of like, you know, because I've talked to a lot of people who lived through the Holocaust and they're like, look, I read Mein Kampf. Like I knew this was coming. This reminds me of a [00:35:00] lot of people from that time where they're like, I told my community, read this dang book. He's telling us what he's about to do.

You guys need to get the out. And

Simone Collins: I feel that right now both sides have, okay, so your argument is that both sides have a very clear playbook and each playbook is extremely anti democratic.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, both playbooks are anti democratic, but I'd also, specifically what you're hearing here is the progressive side is incredibly anti semitic.

And anyone who cannot see what happens if they win, any Jew who can't see what happens if they win, is, honestly, they deserve what they get. And people might be like, why would you say that? And it's because well, this experience that I had, that was really meaningful to me. So I was talking was I might've talked about this in some of our books, but it was my girlfriend in high school.

I dated a Jewish girl for a while, really liked her actually. She's one of my favorite girlfriends I dated other than my wife. Right. Why do I always date Jews? Right. I always date Jews. Anyway. And her grandfather. I've only heard of one. Anyway.

Simone Collins: And I, I.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So her [00:36:00] grandfather escaped the Holocaust and he was in a Jewish community at the time and he had actually read Mein Kampf and that's what him off.

And he got really freaked out. He's like, this is going to happen. And he was a teenager at the time. And he got like he made such a stink about this. Like apparently he like made a big about this to try to get everyone's attention. And, and the community basically kicked him out. And so what He, he broke into his girlfriend at the time's house like broke in, like broke the window, snuck in at night and was like, look, either you come with me or you're definitely going to die.

And she trusted him and she came with him and he ended up marrying her and that was his wife and this, this girl was a descendant of this family and everyone he knew for, he knew from that community ended up dying. And, and I think that when you're saying something, when you're like, look, you don't understand, the powers that be are actually threatening to you right now.

No, I would say with this story, it does not have the happiest he did make a few mistakes. Specifically, he [00:37:00] fled to Poland. Whoops. And then he fled to Russia. Oh. And then he fled to Siberia.

He ended up coming to the US. From the East. That was how bad it ended up having to be.

Simone Collins: Oh, so he, just like Dante, he just had to go all the way through hell.

Malcolm Collins: All the way through hell to come back out. And settled on the East Coast and had a bunch of descendants. And lived at, and he was very financially successful in life. So, he lived a happy, you know, whatever life. But I think that people don't like, like one of the useful things about studying what was happening and what happened to the Jews who tried to warn their communities about what was about to happen pre Holocaust is you can learn a lot from that.

Like that got me really interested in this phenomenon. What happened to the Jews who tried to warn their communities what was about to happen? And I think that today. Within Jews in the progressive sphere who are warning, like, this is not normal, what's going on right now. [00:38:00] Bad things are going to come of this.

And worse, things that are so bad that it would be considered offensive for me to even tell you where this is heading. Yeah. I mean, people

Simone Collins: felt in the past. What makes me very concerned about this is when the pandemic. There was just this complete inability of even really, really, really smart people we know, although a lot of people that I would, I think so, so many of your smart friend circles did totally see this coming and were like, guys, everyone, let's get PPE like in January, you know, like

Malcolm Collins: all my friends are doing

Simone Collins: this.

So many other smart people we knew like many of, of the investors in our travel business, for example, were like, don't worry, this will blow over in four months, like, it's fine. Yeah, people

Malcolm Collins: need to understand with the pandemic, we shut down our company and battered basically all the doors at a stage where if the pandemic happened [00:39:00] the way we predicted, because I was like looking at pandemic cases, I have a background training in biology.

I was like, there is no way this doesn't spread globally. I do not know how anyone is saying this isn't going to spread globally. The pandemic was real. Like conservatives are like the pandemic isn't real. The pandemic was real. People did stuff in response to it, but the pandemic was real. When I was like, they're definitely going to shut down and ground all flights.

If we had been wrong in this assertion, we would have been fired and we would have been permanently disgraced in our fields. We bet our careers, our lives and our livelihoods on the pandemic spreading in the way that it did. And we were told that we were insane by otherwise smart people. Because at the time, the progressive standpoint was, and a lot of people forget that this was true early in the pandemic, because it was anti the narrative, the people freaking out about the pandemic were called conservative extremists in the very early days.

Simone Collins: And that's just, it makes me afraid because it [00:40:00] means, what are we going to experience with other, like, black swan,

Malcolm Collins: We're experiencing a few right now. I mean, that's what the fertility crash, blah,

Simone Collins: yeah, right. And people are completely unwilling to recognize that it could possibly be an issue, right? So,

Malcolm Collins: Well, I love you and I'm glad that you have so much mental fortitude and that you're here fighting with me for all this because The world would be screwed if it wasn't for women like you.

And I really hope that our audience who's out there looking for partners can find good partners. Good women exist. Like men who are,

Simone Collins: Oh, hold on. And you just cut out after saying good women

Malcolm Collins: exist. Good women exist. Men who are out there saying you can't trust any woman. All I'd say is that you are objectively and provably wrong.

There are many men who have had great relationships with intelligent, emotionally mature women. And really, this is just your [00:41:00] defeatism. If you can make yourself into a good enough man, you can get a great woman. You just have to keep trying and you need to treat it like a second job. Yeah, but wise words.

Malcolm videos on finding a wife in a fallen world. That's one of our, are actually better performing videos. So if anyone wants to check that out, Oh,

Simone Collins: that's good. I'm glad. Cause I really want people to, you know, we had

Malcolm Collins: the paired video on that, which is how to get sex whenever you want sex. And, and the AI said, Oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

We do not like your strategy. We do not

Simone Collins: publish this. We do not publish this. Maybe someday. There will be some like high tier of sub stack subscriber that gets access to that, but

Malcolm Collins: also like, no, because then reporters would pay for access to it and they'd use it against us. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Not, Oh, like our political careers and public advocate careers are not already completely destroyed

Malcolm Collins: by which I am debating whether or not to publish now, which is it is victim blaming actually a good thing.

Simone Collins: Exactly. So that's, I mean, you know, we're done. It includes

Malcolm Collins: [00:42:00] the argument not the argument. The question from the evidence is, is it more the husband or the wife's fault when the wife gets abused? Physically abused. This is a very spicy question to consider seriously.

And so,

So we don't consider it seriously, we consider it as a joke, and we look only at fictional data, not real world data. I mean, if it accidentally correlates with real world data, that would be a funny, weird thing. But we certainly hadn't looked at the data before.

postulating what it might say.

Simone Collins: Certainly not. Then, you know, of course, regardless, we're going to hell. So, I'll see you in hell, my friend. But

Malcolm Collins: Obviously, we're going to progressive hell, which it turns out, weird is heaven. That, that telling the truth, even when it conflicts with the societal narratives That it turns out that isn't what gets people actually sent to hell.

It's lying so that you can fit societal narratives and be accepted [00:43:00] within a population group that has fallen that that's what gets you sent to hell in the real world. But anyway, so fun.

Simone Collins: Hell is wherever you aren't, so as long as we're going together, my friend, we're good.

Malcolm Collins: You are the sweetest, best wife I could ask for.

Simone Collins: I, I hate all humans except you. I don't know what to say. And our kids, of course, but that's just pocket Malcolms. I love all the pocket Malcolms.

Malcolm Collins: I need to add the little quote by April Lovegate here, ,

I guess I kind of hate most things, but I never really seemed to hate you. So I want to spend the rest of my life with you. Is that cool?

Simone Collins: Beautiful quote. Beautiful quote. Well, we got some Indian food to get.

I'm so excited. Thank you, Malcolm.

Malcolm Collins: Thank you.

Simone Collins: It worked? I think it did. Whoa. Cool. [00:44:00] All right.

Malcolm Collins: Well. I appreciate you changing your order for my benefit. Oh,

Simone Collins: you know, I only, I just really want to make you a happy, like it matters so f*****g much to me.

 Oh my god. It's happening. F**k, it's happening. Jesus, I'm so excited.

Malcolm Collins: You need to stop being so excited. Why did you do this? Because I want you to be happy. And I thought that this would really cheer you up tonight.

Simone Collins: Well How long have we been recording for seven minutes?

Malcolm Collins: I'll use some of this. Don't.

Simone Collins: Oh my God. You're the worst. Well, okay.

We discuss how child support laws may be contributing to a form of human speciation by enforcing reproductive isolation between high and low income groups. We explore the two main reproduction strategies - having lots of kids due to lack of contraception/impulse control vs having resources to support kids. Historically, some genetic drift occurred between the strategies but child support laws now punish the wealthy from straying, preventing gene flow. We cover how you see a U-curve in fertility by income, touch on ethical considerations, and the damage from affirmative action.

Simone Collins: [00:00:00] I almost feel like there's been speciation culturally, like even within generations. So there's not like a genetic incompatibility, but we've reached a point at which like some groups are now so culturally and like.

Um, worldview incompatible that they're almost like different species. Like each of them will view the other, like an animal that they cannot comprehend and that cannot possibly have a soul because they're so different. And they don't make any sense. And they cannot empathize with them and they, they will not see them as human.

And that really scares me because when you get that level of. A, a lack of ability to empathize or relate to other groups. That's when you start seeing atrocities, that's when you start seeing violence. And I, I very much worry about it.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone.

Simone Collins: Hello, gorgeous. Okay, so remember that day where you gave me this tweet to edit and I edited it and I had no idea what you're talking about and then I I I tweeted it and then Subsequently deleted it because you're like you [00:01:00] completely ruined my point and I didn't understand your point at all because your point Then I find this very intriguing is that child support could cause human speciation.

Walk me through this,

Malcolm Collins: Malcolm. Okay, so, and not child care, which she changed it to, which is a nonsensical statement. Child care could not cause human speciation. None of this made sense to

Simone Collins: me, though. So, help.

Malcolm Collins: Help. So, this involves understanding how speciation happens in animals and how humans bred in a historical context.

So, first, let's talk about speciation in animals. There are two core types of speciation. You could either have something called geographic isolation or something called behavioral isolation. Geographic isolation happens when something like you have a population of deer and then a stream starts to form between them and then the stream gets bigger and bigger and bigger and eventually becomes a river or like two continents drift apart or something like that or an animal gets stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere.

What you're [00:02:00] having in all of these instances is two populations of the same species have become genetically isolated from each other. So mutations that are happening in one part of the species are no longer drifting to the other part of the species. So typically if you have a population of animals and they're all interbreeding with each other, any beneficial mutation is going to increase within the species as a whole.

Right? You know, it will begin to spread throughout all members of the species and then in, in, in, you know, help the species as a whole. But if it's isolated with two populations, you might have some beneficial mutations spreading within this group and other beneficial mutations spreading within this group.

And now, these two groups end up having sort of a new optimal state in which different types of beneficial mutations are benefiting each group because they are, Utilizing different ecological niches are utilizing different strategies to take advantage of their ecological niche. Now, this is a form of [00:03:00] speciation that most people are familiar with if you're studying evolution at like a child's level, like this is how it's often explained.

But then you also have behavioral isolation, which is, maybe even more common as a form of speciation. Behavioral isolation happens when one of the mutations ends up isolating the portion of the population that has it from the rest of the population at a breeding level. So let me give an example here that's very easy to understand.

Suppose you have a nocturnal species and then some behavioral trait like mutation causes a portion of that species to become only active during the day. These two populations can be living in the same area, but essentially They're no longer interbreeding. Yeah, completely genetically isolated from each other.

And this, this happens more common where, where we're actually, or like you have a change that causes a change in what some of the females look like in a species. And it turns out that some of the males in that species still like [00:04:00] this and some of the males don't still like this. I mean, so then you have sort of sexual behavioral isolation, right?

What behavioral isolation looks like, or it might be instead of nocturnal versus day, it might be that, it's a species of turtles, right? And this species of turtles would always go to this one little island or, or place to breed and have sex, right? And lay eggs. But then this other faction within the turtles is okay with having eggs anywhere!

Then you have Isolation of those two groups, right? Or they have slightly different navigational prospects coded into them due to a mutation and that causes them to breed on a different beach. Now you have behavioral isolation, which is also sort of geographic isolation and an interesting way because they're not actually geographically isolated.

So. What behavioral isolation looks like classically within a population cluster is you have some genetically linked trait, and then you have a sort of U curve on a graph. So what that means is for individuals who have a lot of The trait on this side, they're having a lot of kids [00:05:00] for individuals have a middling amount of this genetically linked trait.

They have very few kids for people on the other side. They have a lot of kids. That is what behavioral isolation looks like. That is the graph we see. With IQ or well, not IQ, but earning potential, at least yeah, wealth and fertility and wealth has a high correlation with things like IQ, things like educational attainment things like all sorts of genetically linked traits and interestingly, it doesn't just go to that, it goes to the other genetically linked traits so you see this in things like weight, for example the people who have the most kids aren't just, the least wealthy kids are also the most obese people.

And this is obesity, not just at like the accidental obesity level, but at the polygenic risk score. So at the, my genetics, obesity level, the polygenic risk score is a track with obesity. Now keep in mind this is not due to some sort of difference in metabolic rate humans, even within like two standard deviations of the standard [00:06:00] metabolic rate only really differ by like, 200 calories a day.

This is due to self control reasons.

Simone Collins: Well, yeah, or, or when exposed to highly processed food, people with a certain collection of genes appear to have less ability to not overindulge,

Malcolm Collins: right? Yeah. And I, I say this as somebody who believes that I have a genetic predilection for a specific susceptibility to types of alcohol addiction.

So I am not saying that, like, I am above this, but this is a different type of addictive process, which is not discorrelated with Wells, which is an interesting thing. Like, if you look at most of the most impactful people in human history they drink a ton. Like, a ton. Like, a ton more than normal people, whether it's Alexander the Great or Kublai Khan, or Churchill it's just something you see throughout history, and you

Simone Collins: don't know why.

Malcolm Collins: I don't know if it's something to do with the deficiency in this pathway gives one an advantage within certain types of leadership roles or if it's that the [00:07:00] pathway is has some sort of genetic. Okay, so hold on. I'll explain something that can happen with genes sometimes. Sometimes a beneficial gene is like right next to you.

Okay. A bad gene on, on like the way that the human genome is coded. And so it means that most mutations that are selecting for the beneficial gene also select for the bad gene. It wouldn't be surprising to me if alcoholism propensity, Is somewhere on that was in the genetic strand, or it could be that it's literally the same gene.

Like, it's literally the same part of the neurochemical pathway that leads to these advantages that cause an Alexander the Great or a Kublai Khan

Sorry, I admit to say OGA daikon. ICAN here. Actually funny story he's. Counselors became so worried about his copious. They made a rule for him that he could only drink one glass of wine a day. And so he had a giant challenge fashioned that could hold multiple gallons of line in rebellion to this rule.

Malcolm Collins: or a Winston Churchill

A lot of people don't seem to realize how much Winston Churchill [00:08:00] drank. , so for example, if we're just talking about champagne, Winston Churchill consume 42,000 bottles of Paul Rogers champagne from 1908 to 1962. Never switching to another brand that breaks down to around two to three bottles per day on average. There's reports of him during the war period.

For example, having six scotches before dinner, on top of other beverages, , he would often, , He wake up with a pole, Roger champagne for breakfast, then another pint at lunch. , and then a 10 ounce. A series of 10 ounce glasses of scotch and whiskey for dinner. , and several more glasses of whiskey as nightcaps.

, so I think we did the math on this and one of our books, because we got like a thing and he drank the equivalent of, I think it was like, Four and a half bottles of hard liquor a day.

Uh, so a lot, a lot.

Malcolm Collins: are causing but that's a completely different thing. We're going to get to, this is not correlated with obesity. Obesity is not correlated with outside leadership or economic success is actually inversely [00:09:00] correlated with it.

But actually what you're seeing here within the, the, the, the human genome is two strategies for reproduction that are both successful in our current socioeconomic environment. Now, the problem is, is that the high wealth strategy, you need to be extremely wealthy. You only get above repopulation rate, again, at least within the US if your family is earning over half a million a year.

But as you go up from there your fertility rate just gets higher and higher and higher. Now, my suspicion has been that this dual optimization around fertility strategies might have been the case for a long time in human history but it wasn't relevant. And this is where child support comes

Simone Collins: in.

We're getting to it.

Malcolm Collins: My, so anyone who's familiar, one of my favorite sort of sex books for learning about the history of sexuality is My Secret Life. And it was written by a Victorian noble about his sexcapades going around. They might've been pre Victorian but it was, it was early, you [00:10:00] know.

I

Simone Collins: think it was Victorian and he, and this was in across different cultures.

Can different continents. The man covered a lot of ground in many

Malcolm Collins: ways. And he talked about how he would sleep with peasant girls and where, how peasant girls were different from sleeping with noble girls and how you could convince a girl you met like farming in a field to sleep with you. It had like a full strategy for like every, it was like, Oh, innkeepers daughters.

This is how you seduce innkeepers daughters. This is what innkeepers daughters are like in bed. But this man was clearly in this, you know, upper class community, right? And I should point out when I'm talking about like, upper class communities, they are remarkably persistent intergenerationally, even when the odds are really against it.

One of the most shocking studies that I had ever seen was looking at in China. So people who don't know how Thoreau, the Chinese revolution was it created a societal inversion read the red scarf girls, really great book at showing how bad it was for people there. If you're interested in this. But in China when they went through the cultural revolution, the amount of wealth, a family had had [00:11:00] before that in the amount of social and political power, the family had had was inversely correlated to their new status.

Whereas farmers were the highest status individuals and the former wealthy were abused and really. Just like it was horrifying the lifestyle they had to go through. They had nothing and they now became basically the untouchable cast of society. What is shocking is that if you look at the CCP today, after a few generations of this, it was something like 85 percent of the leadership cast of the CCP comes from families that were previously In the well, this

Simone Collins: untouchable intellectual class slash,

Malcolm Collins: you know, from the dynasty period of China,

Simone Collins: I think similar findings resulted from looking at like post Soviet social composition as well.

So in, in, in a couple of different cases, it has been found that families that had a lot of wealth and or power or influence and then had that. Removed then within a few generations [00:12:00] after the exogenous corrective mechanism was removed found themselves once again and decisions of wealth and power and

Malcolm Collins: again, we're just like signing like objective research here.

Like, you can go out, you can find this research like this is not like these days. Can

Simone Collins: you find this research? None of you want to chat GPT, none of you Google it. I mean.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I think you can Google it these days still. I don't think they scrubbed the internet of this, but I'll see when I'm doing the episode.

Cause I often try to post like pictures of it and maybe it's all gone now. I think I

Simone Collins: still have the links. I really, we can try to add these to the show notes cause I really don't know if people are going to be able to find it otherwise.

Malcolm Collins: So what you had historically is you have these two different reproductive strategies, but they weren't completely behavioral.

The reason they weren't behaviorally isolated is because women are often unfaithful to their husbands. As you know, you know, we've talked about, then this is study is inflated because it was looking at what guys who thought their wives had cheated on them. But when we go to something like a third of, of kids, when the husband wasn't sure actually [00:13:00] turned out to be from another guy.

I think population overall, it's something like 3 percent or 5 percent or something like that. It really is quite low. I mean, that's not low from a genetic standpoint, from a genetic standpoint, that's not low. You cannot have a behavioral isolation. If you have 5 percent of the time guys who think that they're in one group are actually raising the kids of people in the quote unquote rich group or upper class or whatever strategy.

So you have two strategies here. One is a strategy that is primarily. focused on getting people to breed either because they couldn't figure out contraception. They couldn't prevent somebody from sleeping with them, or they lacked the self control to not have sex when they didn't want to have kids.

And then the other group is a group that is having lots of kids because they have lots of resources. And, and there are. Obviously, these two groups have almost nothing in common in terms of what makes you successful within both of these strategies from a genetic selection standpoint. Well, child [00:14:00] support, which is a very interesting phenomenon, that is almost universally implemented.

It is implemented literally, like if there were a few, or not a few, but a good chunk of countries that didn't do it, like a third of the world that didn't like really egregiously and effectively do child support, where a large portion of this well, see. strategy we're living it wouldn't be effective because you'd still have the genetic drift between the two populations.

But it is really an all encompassing thing, and it is extremely punishing to anyone who is in the high wealth generation group who ends up dallying from people within their group. They, they suffer extreme penalties, both to their ability to secure partners within that group and their quality of life.

And they're often not going to have that many more than like one child outside of that group. Now, this causes problems. When I first mentioned this, you're like, well, what about basketball players?

Simone Collins: Yeah, like they're the classic example of [00:15:00] like, you know, wealthy people who are then obligated to pay child support who still end up seeming to do it a lot.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, I, I would argue in this case that they're almost sort of the exception that proves the rule that you know, sports stars are one, not normally genetically optimized for this group. Whereas this group is typically optimized for industry, right? Whereas sports stars have a, an elite an elite insofar as like their, their genes.

It's their

Simone Collins: physical prowess that gets wealth and influence. Not their mind. That's what you're saying. It's

Malcolm Collins: a different optimization function. And it's an optimization function that can arise. I think at equal rates in both of the behavioral groups, it can arise both accidentally was in the group that is focused on.

The, the, the lower income group and the higher income group. And so, yeah, this is a path for genetic transfer [00:16:00] between the two groups but it's not a robust path for genetic transfer between the two groups because it's such a relatively rare and odd phenomenon. And the sports stars that succumb to it are typically those who came out of the lower income.

By that, what I mean is they're often those who lack a level of self control. When you enter like a lot of sports these days, like NBA and stuff like that they warn you, like there's courses about how women will like invert condoms that you use, how women will try to trick you to get pregnant, how women would.

It was a really, I mean, it's such a prodigious problem that it's something that they put a lot of effort into training people to avoid. Yeah, yikes. So people who don't avoid it are, I don't want to say like intentionally not avoiding it, but they

Simone Collins: either lack They were warned. They were given fair warning,

Malcolm Collins: you're saying.

The self control or the, the future planning abilities, or they just don't care. Which is a problem, but it also means that you're also then not dealing [00:17:00] with, because remember I said that people can enter this group of elite physical specimens from either of the two communities but it, but the only communities that are really getting tricked by this are the ones that enter it from the lower income community because the, the other cluster of genetic traits, like low impulse control and stuff like that, that's clustering was in that community as a successful reproductive strategy And I should be clear around all of this.

I have no animosity towards either of these groups. I'm just pointing out a phenomenon. These things are genetically linked, and these are two stable, successful genetic strategies and I think that in, in many ways, both of them can add to the betterment of our species, but it is worth calling out that we are, and this isn't a good group and a bad group.

Like this is the, I want to be clear about that. However, one group is more likely to be economically successful because that is the core thing that's differentiating them. And that is, [00:18:00] and also I should note that this isn't particularly ethnically clustered. Ethnicities exist.

Simone Collins: No, it seems to show up across nations.

Yeah, but then are you implying that like the child support is on a broad societal level, something that you could say worsens class divides and income gaps because when you didn't have that, you would have like very very high agency, very high intelligence, high grit high hustle people occasionally.

inserting genetic copies, partial genetic copies of themselves into low economic opportunity parts of the population. Thereby giving those groups, like, an end to higher resources, like, as,

Malcolm Collins: yeah, yeah. Well, it was preventing a level of genetic [00:19:00] isolation and, and I should note, and to be realistic here, there are cultural differences between different ethnic communities.

that can lead to them being more susceptible to certain practices. So, for example, if you take the Black community, right, like there is definitely a lot of our Black friends that are like really educated, really smart and they are not going to go out sleeping with random women, regardless of their ethnicity, because they understand the cost of that to them.

But they lack one avenue that our white friends have due to cultural pressures, which is that the black successful women we know that can't find a partner but still want to have kids white women will often just, you know, use their gay friend's sperm or something like that, and then have kids and care for them as a single mother, whereas the stigma against black single mothers among black successful communities is so strong that many of our black female friends who are Genetically, like strongly in this, like, super [00:20:00] successful, super competent community are choosing not to have kids.

And so I think that it's also important to think about the social pressures that you create as a community. And it's also something that I would encourage, you know, to our black successful female audience. I understand the stigma that's, that's, that's facing you, but you are doing a disservice to your community by not having kids.

And I would encourage you to go out and do that because I know there's a lot of you because we know. a number of our black female friends who really want to have kids, but they just can't find a guy that is of their level. And, and, and to be clear, this is also like, a huge problem if the community is, is, is monitoring status in different ways.

Whereas, you know, ultra competent individuals may, if they're male, may see different avenues than the classic educational avenue that makes them look like good partners for these women. So maybe expand your boundaries of what you think is acceptable.

Simone Collins: Not just by employer and [00:21:00] university and income level.

Malcolm Collins: Well, another thing I also noticed within this community is they're more height sensitive than our white friends. Oh boy. Yeah. Which I feel like

Simone Collins: all women are way too height sensitive, but yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah, all women are way too height sensitive, but I would say that height sensitivity and partner selection differs between cultures and cultures differ between ethnic groups.

And I, are there any,

Simone Collins: wait, are there any cultural groups with a female population? that is cool with dating men shorter than them. I mean, I will admit that like in modern society, women are insane. It's not like, please at least match my height or be a little bit taller, but instead just be insanely tall no matter how short I am.

I

Malcolm Collins: have not noticed as much pickiness around it in Hispanic and East Asian populations. It's not that they have no care for it at all. They care like, like all humans do, but they are not as hard lying about it as,

Simone Collins: But could that be because there are more likely to be [00:22:00] income disparities between men and women?

Because the one thing that clearly makes height a no. non issue is a lot of wealth.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, actually, I think that that is what probably makes it. The communities where you see height mattering the most for women, actually, that's a really interesting phenomenon. It's the communities where there is more income equality between men and women, because within both the black and the white communities, there's no

Simone Collins: longer income disparities that can make up for the shortness.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah, yeah. They're much more likely to have income inequality between genders, and that's probably what explains the phenomenon. Very clever, Simone! I'm

Simone Collins: not taking credit for that. Well, and there's

Malcolm Collins: even more inequality within the elite black communities. I notice that, like, elite black women tend to slightly out earn elite black men.

Yeah, at least in our anecdotal experience yeah, this phenomenon.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think that's also because, and this is like a weird institutional bug that may not last forever. The elite black men that we know are far [00:23:00] more likely to themselves be entrepreneurs or pursuing very risky investment.

Political nonprofit, whatever ventures, right? Like they're not, they're not doing the thing that's going to earn a lot of money. And then the very successful black women that we know are far more likely to be employed by a large corporation that is going to give them disproportionate value because not only are they incredibly high caliber and smart, but they also thank God are not a white male because they desperately need to not hire white males anymore.

You know what I mean? So they're going to be paid a premium.

Malcolm Collins: The genetic damage that the affirmative action is causing to the American black community in that if you are an ultra competent, ambitious black person, you are much better off going into bureaucratic roles than you are going into entrepreneurial roles because you have an advantage within those roles due to affirmative action.

Simone Collins: Well, and the affirmative action is, is also very annoying because to a great extent, these roles that are being offered. I don't see a whole lot of opportunity. And this is a complaint we constantly hear [00:24:00] from these same high caliber women that like they have been, they've been welcomed into these institutions.

They are being paid extremely generously and no one is listening to them. Oh

Malcolm Collins: yeah. No, no, no. It's really interesting. What happens to people is this is weird little honey trap where they get up to a level within these corporations, you know, whether it's, you know, Google or Cisco or whatever. Right. Where they now.

Are extremely powerful, extremely well paid by

Simone Collins: society. They're not extremely powerful. They're, they're making a lot of money and they're in a very prestigious

Malcolm Collins: high status, but they cannot leave the job to do an entrepreneurial pursuit because, you know, it would be such a cost to them given everything that they've been afforded from this bureaucracy.

The opportunity

Simone Collins: cost financially is

Malcolm Collins: too high. Yeah, but they actually have a floor. Preventing them from entering real leadership roles. They can enter token leadership roles, but not real leadership roles.

Simone Collins: Because talk about a trap, like that is so damaging, like not all. So the only thing that affirmative action is giving to some [00:25:00] people in some cases, and it's typically people who already come from somewhat privileged backgrounds, but happened to be the right.

Yeah, checkbox. They're giving some opportunities, but they're not giving them power. They're not giving them influence. They're not getting them satisfaction and they're not giving them high fertility culture. So this is really bad. This is

Malcolm Collins: really bad. It's like a mouse trap for, for these communities.

It's, it's, it's, it's horrifying. Erasing

Simone Collins: their best and brightest. What on

Malcolm Collins: earth? I, I, yeah, I find it genuinely repulsive because these communities produce some really interesting orthogonal thinkers who don't think like the communities that are often most likely to go into you know, entrepreneurship and stuff like that, because it's, it's through orthogonal thought that you can now compete with an entrepreneurship, which is one of the reasons why first generation immigrants do so well.

But I wanted to end this particular topic with a shout out for something one of our listeners is doing. Because one of our listeners reached out to us and we always try to promote when they're working on something that's like aligned with our work. So this [00:26:00] organization is, if you wanted to report, so I think that it was started with the motivation of like, really unfair things happening within family courts and stuff like that.

But, but to quote him, you know, if you want to report a woke teacher or school board member. This is your opportunity to shine. And every time somebody Googles their name, they will live in infinity. No more denials . This will be our chance to shine.

And, and other people can give reviews to these individuals. So basically. Once somebody does something really egregious from like a woke perspective, there isn't a good mechanism to snap back against them right now was in the bureaucracy, right? There is no counterpoint to this. There is no. Real punishment for going overboards in terms of cultural imperialism, which is what we see on the left right now, the belief that their culture is naturally superior to all other cultures, and that everyone else is basically just savages in their wake and must have their [00:27:00] cultures awaked, erased, and that they are only uplifting the children by taking them from their families, because that is how.

Always a great thing to think. That always makes you look good in the eyes of history. But the name of his website, if you want to check this out again, I haven't really vetted this project that much, but it sounded reasonable to me, okay? Is familylawaccountability. com, and I'll put that on the screen here.

And I think that that's a cool project and I wanted to talk about it was in this episode because I figured a lot of people who are having trouble with child support systems and unfair courts and stuff like that might click on an episode titled something around child support. Interesting.

Simone Collins: Cool.

Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't heard of that

Malcolm Collins: yet. Yeah, well, it's a, it's a good project. Like I'm genuinely, I'm like, yeah, that's, that's pretty cool. You know, he's not out here asking us to promote him or something. Fair. Anyway, I love you to death, Simone, and I'm so, I found this episode pretty entertaining.

Simone Collins: Yeah, I'm glad you explained this to me in [00:28:00] greater detail, because I was obviously so confused when you first explained this to me, because sometimes thinking is really hard.

Malcolm Collins: Do you think that it could, that it's actually a phenomenon that we're seeing that didn't exist historically? Or do you think I'm

Simone Collins: hallucinating?

I think that you can see levels of, of even human speciation historically, not, not in terms of like, oh, they can't interbreed anymore, but like to a certain extent, I almost feel like there's been speciation culturally, like even within generations. So there's not like a genetic incompatibility, but we've reached a point at which like some groups are now so culturally and like.

Um, worldview incompatible that they're almost like different species. Like each of them will view the other, like an animal that they cannot comprehend and that cannot possibly have a soul because they're so different. And they don't make any sense. And they cannot empathize with them and they, they will not see them as human.

And that really scares me because when you get that level of. A, a lack of ability to empathize [00:29:00] or relate to other groups. That's when you start seeing atrocities, that's when you start seeing violence. And I, I very much worry about it. So, yeah, I mean, this is an important thing to think about and to keep an eye out for.

And it's great to know some mechanisms that might make it worse. .

Malcolm Collins: Yay. I love you, Simone. And I'm, I love you too. I'm so fortunate that I don't need to worry about child support with you,

Simone Collins: Yeah, I think we're gonna

Malcolm Collins: be okay. . Oh goodness. All right.

Malcolm, Simone, and controversial writer Raw Egg Nationalist have a far-ranging discussion on where humanity may be headed in the future. They talk about a potential split between high willpower "physical elites" and "cognitive elites", compared to a drugged up underclass losing agency and personal responsibility. Other topics include fertility correlates, the failures of trad-con thinking, why kids need protection from indoctrination, targeting of dissidents' children, and more.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, this is Malcolm Collins here with Simone, and we are joined by raw egg nationalists. I would be very surprised if there are members of our audience who don't know who he is. But, he, he, he's a really an influencer and sort of the conservative lifestyle space, specifically focused on trying to raise awareness around the feminization of the male body due to things like endocrine disruptors,

if you. Want to follow him on Twitter. His, his at is baby gravy nine and he's written five books at this point He's got a sub stack you can check out and yeah Man's world magazine. Oh, yes, of course man's world and it's gonna have a physical edition soon I've heard which is pretty cool. I'd like to see that in stores The the powers that be well probably never let that happen.

So long as it keeps being honest but the topic that I wanted to focus on today was where do you think [00:01:00] society is going like 500 years in the future? And you can chart this in steps, like where you think things are going in 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, et cetera. So let's go.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Well, it's, it's great to be back.

We had such a wonderful conversation last time. I'm, I'm sure this is, this is going to be fantastic too. So, fundamentally, I think I have a, I have a kind of HG Wells esque vision of the future. I think what we're going to see is we're going to see a kind of, a kind of split. In the human race, I think, I mean, I like to, I'm an, I'm an optimist, or I try to be an optimist in many ways about people's ability to take control of their lives.

You know, I mean, I tell people, look, there are simple things that you can do. You're overweight, you can lose weight. You know, you, you can stop eating as much food as you're eating. You can get active, you can reduce your exposure to endocrine disruptors, and you know, you can transform your life. You will be, if you do that, you will be unrecognizable [00:02:00] in a year.

Three years, five years, you'll be a totally different person on my slightly less optimistic days. And I do think that actually there is a large segment of the population that now we'll find it impossible not to be. enormously unhealthy, to be dysgenically unhealthy. And, I mean, you only need to look at the emergence of drugs like Azempic, for instance, Wegovy, you know, these, these fat loss miracle, miracle drugs that are being marketed now.

You know, I mean, they're being explicitly marketed on the, on the assumption. That the majority of people just can't lose weight any other way. Yeah. We, we can't reform society in, in ways that will make it easier for people to make the right choices. And so what you have to do is you have to rely on pharma to do it.

So that's, so this is, this is really where I think it comes in. I think there will be a, there will be fundamentally, I don't know at [00:03:00] what point, maybe it's happening right now. There will be a kind of selection event almost where people with willpower will kind of... We'll kind of break away from the rest of society into a kind of, a physical elite, I think.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, I, I, I, one thing I want to add to this, because I think it's really interesting, and this, for me, has been a big turnaround in my relationship with people of Rotundity. Which is contextualizing for myself that obesity is about as genetic as IQ, so very genetic, like 0. 8. However, it does not appear from my research that this level of genetic correlation with obesity is due to any biological change.

It's not like these people have higher or lower metabolism. Actually, human metabolism does not change that much. It would make a difference if you're going, like, two and a half standard deviations from the norm of, like, 200 calories a day. So, like... a candy bar and that's it. So what, what is really then happening here with obesity?

[00:04:00] I think to what you're getting is that willpower is enormously genetic. And so it would make sense what you're talking about. If you begin to have. People separating out, you will have, and I think that this is very different from what a lot of people anticipate, which is like, oh, society will split into like a high IQ and low IQ group, whereas you're saying no, it's going to split into maybe a high willpower, low willpower group, which I could see, I'd be I'd be much more interested in marrying a high willpower person than a high IQ person.

Simone Collins: Well, I think the, what's going on with Osempic and we go via all the semi glutide interventions is it really does demonstrate that this is a willpower thing. Why is that the case? Well, these don't actually slow your metabolism. They make you feel less hungry. So what they're really controlling is willpower in a sense and not, not actual metabolism, which is really, in fact, they're, they're adversely affecting your metabolism because when you lose so much weight, your metabolism drops and then people go off it.

And of course, they gain weight super fast because their body's like, Oh, we're starving.

Raw Egg Nationalist: So yeah. [00:05:00] And, and what, and what also happens is of course that that there've been a couple of studies that have showed this, but you don't just lose fat, you lose muscle. Yeah. And mu and muscle is much more metabolically expensive to maintain than fat.

So actually, oh, you lose, you lose 200 pounds or whatever, but you've actually lost a huge amount of skeletal muscle and then you, unless

Simone Collins: you're actively weight training while you're losing. Yeah, like there are some like nerds who are definitely going for that. Like they're really like, they're aware of the problem, but you don't.

Like, that's like, first off, if you're disciplined enough to lift weights while you're going through this, then you're probably not the kind of person who absolutely needs to use dem semaglutide. No,

Raw Egg Nationalist: exactly. So it's. But what they're, and what they're talking about as well is they're talking about using Azempic and other GLP 1 receptor agonists.

That's the class of drugs that Azempic belongs to. They're talking about using them now to treat other forms of addiction. They're talking about using them to treat alcoholism, for instance. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah,

Simone Collins: I was just having a conversation with an obesity doctor and [00:06:00] another super smart guy about this.

And for example, we've had naltrexone forever to treat alcoholism and a bunch of other forms of addiction, but people don't really like how it makes them feel, right? Cause nothing's really that much fun. And you know, these, these new, this new class of drugs is. a lot more pleasant to use, even though there are some unpleasant side effects.

So yeah, it could have a really interesting effect. And it is interesting. I want to see a lot more research on the effects that these do have, even like people have, I don't know how, how much this is anecdotal for people or a placebo effect, you know, reporting less time on social media, less time gambling, et cetera.

It's super interesting.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Well, the side, the side effects of, of semaglutide and these other drugs are very interesting. I've written a written. quite, quite length about them. I wrote a piece, I wrote a piece for American Mind called Fatty's Little Helper. And it was, I mean, I talked at length about the side effects in particular and they're nasty.

They're really nasty. And people are, people are starting to realize now. So one of the, one of the [00:07:00] increased risks from a Zempik is inhaling the contents of your stomach. So, if you, yeah, so, a Zempik, it, normally your stomach empties in a few hours, and what a Zempik does is it, is it slows the movement of food out of your stomach, to a rate of, I mean, it basically doesn't move at all, and in fact, you can get stomach paralysis, but it might take three weeks for your stomach to empty, rather than Oh, three weeks?

Yeah. So what happens is if you're, if you're fat and you are on a Zempik, you're probably, I mean, hugely fat. Now you're likely to have a gastric bypass as well. They're recommending bariatric surgery in, in conjunction with use of a Zempik. Well, you lay, you lay down on the table. Your stomach is still full, and, and so the gastric juices and the food in your stomach comes back up out of your throat and you inhale it into your lungs and you can, you can die.

Okay. But that is, that is called gastroparesis. Wow. Gastroparesis. No,

Malcolm Collins: [00:08:00] it's well, I, I imagine these people, they don't adapt to the new behavior immediately, so they're probably overeating for their new digestive.

Raw Egg Nationalist: I don't, yeah, but that's a, so that's a se that's a serious risk. The other risk is of chronic obstructive chronic obstructions in the, in the intestines.

So they reckon that that might be how Lisa Marie Presley died, or Priscilla Presley, I forget which, which she had. She'd been on a mega, a mega weight loss drive before the premiere of the new Elvis film. And she had already had bariatric surgery because she'd struggled with weight in the past.

Bariatric surgery scars the intestines and it can make them sort of ruckle up almost. And it makes it harder for food to pass through. Well, then you take a Zempig as well. And I just slows to us, the food. basically doesn't move and you get an obstruction and that's how she died. She died of a, of a bowel obstruction.

So there's that as well. But then, but then there's [00:09:00] also the fact that in rat studies, in rodent studies, then these GLP 1 agonist drugs like semaglutide and others reliably cause thyroid tumors in the longterm. Oh, interesting.

Malcolm Collins: Can you quickly go over, if you happen to know the mechanism of action of these drugs?

Raw Egg Nationalist: sO they, they, what is it? I think it's either, it's, it's either, I think it's either ghrelin or leptin. They work on the receptors in the stomach that signal satiety, basically. I don't know the exact mechanism. So they, they signal to your brain that you're, that you're satiated, but they also slow the digestion of your stomach slow the movement of things from your stomach.

So you, you are actually more full.

Malcolm Collins: So Simone, you were saying that they could be used for alcohol. How would that work?

Simone Collins: Yeah, I don't. So that's, that's what I, so what Ryan Nationalist said is, is what I understand as well, that, that affects satiety and slows digestion. I don't know how or why this would affect.

Malcolm Collins: [00:10:00] I think people are getting confused with opioid. No, no,

Simone Collins: no. I really, no, no, no, because again, people taking these drugs are reporting these other effects. What I think is happening here is, you know how they say never go shopping hungry. I think that when people feel hungry, they also are engaging in more impulsive behavior.

aNd, and that, that I think is what may be at play when you feel really full. Are you like super keen, like imagine you just ate like a giant holiday meal, like, do you

Malcolm Collins: want to go like, like the roulette table? Oh, that's fascinating, you know another fascinating effect of this is that sexuality changes when people are hungry, if you remember this from our book, I don't.

Even as these drugs become more common we could see changes in human sexuality some really obvious ones are men, prefer smaller breasts when they're less hungry and they prefer larger breasts when they're more hungry. This is also true of poor versus wealthy men. Basically, if your resource scarce, you're going to optimize for women who look like they have more access to resources.

So ladies

Simone Collins: schedule your breast reduction. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Or if you, you, you [00:11:00] have access to copious resources as a man, you're typically going to optimize for women who look like they have a longer reproductive. Cycle, i. e. our younger. So that's really interesting as well. I wonder if in women there's similar like, like sexual changes when they're, when they're not hungry.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Well, there, I mean, there have been, yeah, I'm sure, I'm sure there probably, I'm sure there probably are. I know, I mean, I know that there are, that there are certainly studies that show that women's mate preferences change when they go on and come off hormonal contraception. That's a big one. That's a big one.

And you know, it's been shown that that I think that women, women, when they're on, I can't remember whether it's when they're on contraception or when they're off that they prefer more masculine faces and obviously more masculine faces indicative of higher levels of testosterone. But yeah, so I would, I would.

I mean, all of these hormones, I think what we have to remember is that these hormones have all sorts of effects. You know, we, we talked in the last episode about testosterone is the aggressive hormone that people just think it's about aggression when actually it regulates almost every kind of behavior you can think every type of behavior [00:12:00] you can think of in men and in women as well.

And I think that even appetite hormones like ghrelin and leptin and things like that, then they must obviously be involved in very complicated circuits of, of reward and appetite and, and will within the brain. So yes, I mean, I, I think that Yeah, I think, I think you could definitely, you should, if they haven't done a study of women's sexual preferences when they're hungry and when they're satiated, then they should.

I just

Malcolm Collins: pulled one up, by the way. Okay, so here are the differences. So this one looked at men and women. So for men, it found that hungry males, in line with what I was saying, preferred females with more physically mature features. Specifically females who were heavier, taller, and older. Female participants who are hungry showed elevated preferences for partners with a more mature personality profile.

Simone Collins: So like beards?

Malcolm Collins: No, personality profile. I. E. less probably impulsive, more muted, [00:13:00] like an old man. Because

Simone Collins: when a woman is full, then she's probably into like... Younger, more risky

Malcolm Collins: seeming men? Is that what you're calling them? Yeah, yeah, that's my guess. It's probably this like, Alpha, they're like, when I think what is a young personality profile for a male, it's the typical alpha profile.

Simone Collins: Whereas Someone who will go out and like, kill something for them to eat.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah, well, and who's constantly signaling their virtue, like, well, not their virtue, but their what's the word I'm looking for? Prowess. Yeah. Prowess dominance, et cetera. Yeah. Whereas older men are typically not signaling those things as much.

I'm pretty sure that's specifically what they're looking at. Which is interesting because it could mean that a lot of these alpha mindsets are going to be less attractive to women in the near future if they're all on Ozempic.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I mean, I would be more interested. I mean, like, so I think a woman is more likely to want to date someone on Ozempic than a man.

And I say this because like men on Ozempic. You know, I mean, pretty much anyone on either has really good health insurance. They can pay for it or they're wealthy, right? Cause this is not [00:14:00] cheap.

Malcolm Collins: Well, men are no Zimbic are going to like fat women. That's what the studies show. You know, you're more into older, fatter women.

I think women are going to be really pushing this.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah. So then that's, that's fortunate, but I yeah, I mean, I, I'm just trying to think of the correlatory factors with who's taking a Zimbic. I think men are going to prefer women who are not taking a Zimbic. So why do you say that? Because they're, they're.

They've better inhibitory control and they're probably...

Malcolm Collins: Most men don't care, they just care what women look like. That's true, fair. Oh well. Okay, let's, let's talk about this split in humanity, right? High will, low will category. But they may look fairly similar, it's just the amount of drugs that they're using.

Like, what are your thoughts on that?

Raw Egg Nationalist: I, I think, I think we may very well see physical differences start to emerge. Now, I don't know. I'm not a, any kind of genetic specialist, so I can't tell you how many, how many generations it takes, for instance. It happens really quick, by the way. Yeah. Yeah. Well, well, I mean, I've read, uh, one of my favorite books is Western [00:15:00] Price, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

This is an amazing, amazing, it's what I think it's the best book on nutrition ever written, written in the written in the 1930s. He was a dentist and he, he went and he visited, uh, well, he was a dentist and he, he observed in his patients in Cleveland that they were developing all sorts of facial deformities and behavioral difficulties, especially the children.

And he thought it was something to do with the diet because. They were starting to eat more and more industrially produced foods rather than the kind of foods that their parents and grandparents had eaten, locally produced whole foods, animal foods, etc. He went on a globetrotting adventure looking for tribal societies that still ate their traditional diets as a kind of comparison case for You know, for people eating industrial diets in the West and I mean, he discovered, for instance in the Scottish Highlands, the, the, the Highlanders of Scotland were once the tallest people in Europe.

They were regularly six foot seven, [00:16:00] six foot eight, seven feet tall, sometimes, you know, hugely tall people. And then within a generation after they stopped. eating their traditional diets after they stopped eating fish livers baked with oats and, and, you know, lots of milk and butter and all that kind of stuff.

Started eating industrial food stuff, bleached flour, canned foods, all that kind of stuff. They shrank six inches, something like that, in a generation. Yeah, there was massive, massive shrinkage, apparently. I mean, I still think Highlanders are tall, but, but... So, so yes, I mean, I probably think it could happen quite quickly, and I do, I do think that there will be, on a long enough timeline, then we will see, we will see something like, like what H.

G. Wells describes in The Time Machine, I think. Unless, of course, there are interventions with technology, maybe, that, that sort of counter the, the just, the dysgenic influence of bad lifestyle, massive medication, inactivity, all that kind [00:17:00] of stuff. But I do think that what we're going to get is a self selecting, very small, a much smaller minority, self selecting, an in group that sort of mates within the in group.

 And it will, it will be a physical elite, but I think it will be a cognitive elite too. I mean, bad life, bad lifestyles, you have to understand obesity, lack of exercise, you know, they have epigenetic effects on every aspect of your body, including your brain. And I mean, I think that there was a study, I did see a study, I think that correlated obesity with IQ, some, something.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Well, they do seem to correlate in general, like, Also, that's a really high correlate with

Malcolm Collins: hyperthroid, unfortunately. Yeah, so, so other than IQ, obesity, I think it's the second highest corollary with fertility rate. The genetic so specifically here, what I'm saying is the polygenic score. So like the genetic code that is associated with Obesity is also heavily associated and can be used as a predictor for how many kids [00:18:00] someone is going to have.

So we will see, and it's being selected for almost as much as the one for low IQ is being selected for. So we're very likely to see a, a rapid rise in obesity, given that it's about as genetic as IQ, and it's being selected for about as much as IQ. We should probably see the same one standard, but, but it.

opposite. One standard deviation shift upwards in obesity within the next 75 years in terms of the genetic correlates for it, which is at least within the mainstream population that isn't performing any sort of strong sexual selection practices, which is why it's important to begin to think about, like, what do the sexual selection practices of your family look like?

What are you telling your kids if they're going out there? And this is one of the really toxic things that I think comes from You know, sort of the, the red pill mindset if they're going out there and optimizing on banging hot chicks, that is not optimizing for genetic fitness in a world of things like Ozympic and stuff like that.

You need to [00:19:00] be banging and or not even banging. You need to be marrying sane chicks. You can go out there and bang hot chicks, but you need to marry it. And there are not many of them. They are a far greater prize than a hot chick in today's environment. And it is very easy to accidentally, you know, marry someone who, who has these negative causes or negative genetic correlates.

When you didn't intend to, I'm not saying like. Freeze them out. It depends on your culture's. Optimization. The culture that Simone and I would create for our kids. I would want them to marry people who are you know, psychologically healthy and that, that have a, yeah, but it's up to the individual.

I just think that this can be hidden from individuals So it's it's very easy to to have a genetically permeable culture when you didn't intend to

Raw Egg Nationalist: yeah Yeah, I think that's I mean there's yeah, I I I don't I don't really know. I don't really know what to add to that. Actually, that's what I'll say.

I think that's I think that's I think [00:20:00] that's that's that's a tremendous way to put it. And I think that there, I think you're right about the limits of the, of the red pill mindset. I mean, I, I'm sure I probably get lumped in with, with these red pill kind of, types, but I don't, I, I have a, a much more nuanced understanding, I think.

And I try to put forward a much more nuanced interpretation of Relations between men and women than a lot of these kind of red pill gurus do it's definitely, it's definitely more complicated than just, you know, the, the solution is to, as you say, is to go out and have sex with as many attractive women as possible because of course, because of course you know, there are, there are ways to make oneself attractive in the short term that actually have absolutely no correspondence whatsoever with longterm fitness, you know, and, and I mean, they always say, you know, it's like, You might want to sleep with a woman, but you're not necessarily going to be the woman you marry, is it?

And I mean, that is, I think that is very true. And I think that I think that we're in a difficult position because of course you need to be discerning But it's actually [00:21:00] becoming much harder to be discerning as well. I mean, I think you always should be discerning but actually um The the prize the size of the prize if you will is shrinking and it is harder and harder Even with even with dating apps and things like that because actually in many respects dating apps are a false economy dating account dating apps you know they actually probably the kind of women and the kind of men that are on dating apps are probably of a very particular kind and actually if that is your sole pool for for reproduction and the possibility of reproduction then actually you may very well be filtering out precisely the kind of people that you should be meeting that you would want that ideally you would want to meet but actually You're just never going to meet them because it's all the crazy BPD, BPD crazy women on there.

Simone Collins: We see that a lot in, in the far future. What would you hope for? Like, I feel like right now we're at this, this point in society where things could go one of many ways. [00:22:00] And the things that we do now, our actions. Can point us in one direction or another. I think this is a great time to live because of that.

Is there a direction in which you'd like to nudge society? And if so, what would it produce over the long run?

Raw Egg Nationalist: I suppose I, I would love to live. I would love to live in a society that valued health, that valued true health and Because of course we don't. And you know, I write about, I write about all sorts of things.

I write about the way that the FDA licenses chemicals, for instance. The fact that we operate on a presumption of safe until proven otherwise. And I've said, well actually look, it's very obvious actually that, that many chemicals are, Extremely harmful in the long term you can do these short term studies But actually you don't get any idea of of the real effects of the chemicals Until it's too late until it's 70 years down the line and and we're decades away from a from a profound reproductive crisis so I mean I would like to nudge society in a direction where actually we [00:23:00] we we see the ultimate value not as as as commercial value not as money, but as actually the Flourishing human life.

That's what I would which would be much much closer to you know, kind of ancient greek conception of of the good life of Kind of yeah the kind of of the kind of social life that should be fostered, you know It's not just about it's not just about money. It's not about the commercial applications of of new products of new chemicals.

It's actually about How do we live how should we live yeah

Malcolm Collins: and i'd also point out here and i think this is probably i don't know if you but i would definitely consider myself part of the red pill community so when i'm saying the red pill community has these problems i'm talking internally about the community not as an outsider who's like a ha silly red pillars i'm more like hey.

Let's make sure that we and I, and the community is maturing dramatically. Like if you look at where it is versus where it was 10 years ago. I, I think that it is the community that to a [00:24:00] large extent has transformed into this. Well, raw egg nationalism, right?

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, I mean, I, I think, I think that, yeah, I think, I think you're right about that.

I think you're right about that. I mean, I would, yeah, I mean, I, I, I'm red pilled in certain respects and I certainly recognize that you know, that a lot of, a lot of the stuff that even the sort of archetypal masculinity guru, you know, of the past. said is true and people like heart east for instance, who's a kind of you know, do you remember heart east?

He was yeah. Yeah. Yeah people like that You know, they a lot of the stuff that they said particularly about hypergamy That kind of stuff. I mean, it's totally it's totally true It's totally true and I think that people people need to understand it there's a kind of what I would say is that actually maybe as the red pill community has become more popular, then of course it's been democratized and it's been watered down and you get these people who just, you know, reheat these very, very old takes endlessly for, you know, for likes on social [00:25:00] media.

But actually, I think that the fundamental, the fundamental, the fundamental motivation behind the red pill community, I think is He's right and I think I think some of the fund the fundamental insights are right as well, too

Malcolm Collins: So it's really interesting the way that you're wording this because this is giving me a bit of a revelation is when I hear like Red pill takes that remind me of red pill takes from when the community was still just called red pill, right?

Like i'm like, oh, that's a really reused take like that's really old and I think the reason is is because the community really mined all of the ideas and all of the the revelations that could have come from this world perspective Within its first like three and a half years of existing and now all of the evolutions of the movement are related on diverging ideals because all of the obvious takes were already mined and so you still have some people like going over those obvious takes but of course the community would evolve and sort of undergo adaptive radiation.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah. Yeah, precisely. Precisely. I mean, [00:26:00] I think what you're seeing is, yes, is people actualizing the kind of red pill insights in different ways. And, you know, so you, you might have someone like Rollo Tomasi who's saying, you know, get, get a vasectomy. And You know, I mean, I think you can agree with some of the stuff that Rollo Tomasi has said, at the same time as thinking, well, that's, that's deeply stupid.

I mean,

Malcolm Collins: I think a lot of men are right in thinking that they'll never get a fair deal in our society right now. And that, you know, we can, I mean, as I've mentioned, a lot of this stuff is genetic. You can be like a smart person and just understand that you have enormously low willpower and you're never going to achieve what you want to achieve because you just don't have the willpower for it.

And, and we can say net up and try to push yourself through it. But I think when I look at the, like the genetic research, I don't know if that's a fair thing for me to be telling people.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, and I mean, I think, I think as well, then you see a lot of, you see a lot of stupidity on the, on the opposite, or maybe not the op, the opposing side, but the, for instance, like the kind of [00:27:00] trad side where people are saying, you know, everything will be fine if you just get married and have kids.

I mean, people, people, people should get married, I think, and people should have children, but that isn't, that's not the be all and end all. That isn't, that isn't gonna solve, that isn't gonna solve the fundamental problems that are, that have been raised, for instance, by the red bill community. So, we, we

Malcolm Collins: have an episode about this that I...

Because it's, it's one of my favorite episodes, which is how girl defined ruined an entire generation of women. And of course, this was a play on the you know, how Scott Pilgrim ruined an entire generation of women. But the idea being is that. There was this conservative mindset for a while.

The conservative influence with online adapted and, and Girl Defying did this where they basically told people, if you just live by these conservative rules and you get married and you save yourself for marriage and you have kids, everything will be all right. And the point we were making in that video is no, like, like specifically, it wasn't even just everything will be all right.

It's you will get the things [00:28:00] that secular society has been promising you. At a higher level than you can achieve them through sexual, through secular society, like, you know, hedonistic sexual gratification like, relationship that works well without you having to put effort in, and that just wasn't true the, the, the rewards.

for chastity and the rewards for willpower are not the same rewards that secular society is handling, handing out. I think they're better rewards. I think they're more meaningful rewards, but it's very easy to miss that it's a completely different optimization function and a different set of rewards you should be expecting.

And that just because you follow these rules doesn't mean that there aren't hard things that you're going to have to go through every day.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, yeah, precisely, precisely. And also, I think as well there's a kind of it's almost presented as a kind of Benedict option as well. It's like, you know, you can, you can retreat from the world.

If you just get married and have your nice trad family, you know, everything will be okay. And, [00:29:00] and as, as we know, you know, there's still it's a public education system, massive propaganda apparatus, we do have to change the world. We can't, we can't, we can't retreat from the world. We actually have to change the world.

Yeah,

Simone Collins: and if we retreat, eventually the world is going to come for us. Especially because, as Malcolm frequently points out, the sort of dominant culture doesn't have any other way to get more members than by stealing them because they're not reproducing above repopulation rate. Also thinking long term, one thing I wanted to ask you is what you think...

In 50 years, a hundred years, 500 years is going to be seen as like completely barbaric about the way we live now. Assuming that, you know, what we live, what, what people are like in the future has been selected for. Like, I mean, you know, those who survive those who reproduce, what will they think of? today as being just insane?

Raw Egg Nationalist: That's a, that's a, that's a very good question. I mean, I think we're, we're already seeing, so, you know, I was talking about the advertising for a Zempik. We're already seeing this notion that it is, that it is basically barbaric [00:30:00] to suggest that people intervene to make their own lives better. Yeah. You know, it's like, no, you know, you can't stop, you can't stop eating.

You cannot close the fridge. You cannot, you cannot get up off the sofa and Well, that sounds like fat

Malcolm Collins: phobia to me.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, I know. It sounds pretty

Malcolm Collins: hateful. I think we might get this video demonetized for that kind of talk.

Raw Egg Nationalist: But, but I think, but I think that what we're gonna see is we're gonna see a real a real growth of that mindset and I think that it will be Pushed by big pharma because it's being pushed by big pharma now It's novo nordisk who's paying for the advertising that says you can't get you can't lose weight other than by taking his mpick So I think that I mean, I think that if if there is this split that i've posited then there may very well be You know one segment of society that just truly believes that actually human beings are almost Like inert, inert objects upon which external forces act and [00:31:00] it is barbaric in any way to expect Independent volition from you know, your average fat or from from anybody, you know from your average fatty So I think that what you might see then is you might see a you maybe you'll see a kind of Ayn Randian split, you know where you've got like these these Ultra high achieving physical specimens who believe that actually any notion that that that anything is beyond your will Is that's barbaric the notion that you know You should coddle people in any way and then you've got the other side of society these people who perhaps believe that actually You can't expect any willpower whatsoever on any level from people that people are just objects Yeah

Malcolm Collins: Well, and it is interesting to me that a lot of these things that are correlated with these lower willpower groups are also correlated with high fertility which means that not only is fertility trauma, and it's likely, I had to guess what's causing this, it's likely that these are the kids, you know, as we say, there's really only two reasons to have a lot more than two kids.

It's either because you have some [00:32:00] exogenous ideological motivation, like that's what's motivating you to do it, or you simply couldn't figure out birth control. You know, either you lacked the initiative to think ahead or whatever, and I think that that's why you're getting this correlation here.

Raw Egg Nationalist: The welfare state as well, I think.

Yeah, that

Malcolm Collins: as well. And so I think what this means is not only are kids dropping in the world, but even faster, and I think the hidden thing that's happening at a much higher rate is these high willpower and other correlations, cultural groups or kids born into them, they are going to be exceedingly rare going into the future, and that means they are the next Bitcoin.

High willpower kids are the next Bitcoin, because as Simone was saying, you know, the mainstream society needs these people, and it needs them disproportionately. That's why we know it's coming for our kids. That's why you can't just go Benedict, because if you have kids, Then you have the one asset they really want and they will come in and they will find a way to take those kids from you.

[00:33:00] And you can see this. If you look at the, you know, highest profile people in our society, like the Elans or whatever, right? Like they targeted his kids aggressively, right? Like that is, is something that any of us should expect. And we need to steal our children against and build communities for them and build systems that help them find spouses in a world where it's going to become increasingly difficult.

And I do think it is a. Parents failure as much as the kids. If you if the kid cannot find a spouse because that that required your, you know, your networking and your culture building and your advice. If you put them in a situation without realizing how much the world was changing around you. And I just can't tell a kid.

Oh, just, you know. F*****g go to a bar like that doesn't work anymore, you know,

Raw Egg Nationalist: yeah No, I think I think that's I think that's very very true I think I think the emphasis on parental maybe that's another thing that will be that will be considered barbaric is leaving your children To defend you to figure everything out for [00:34:00] themselves I mean that is a that is a hallmark of the kind of boomer liberal sort of yeah mode of parenting, right?

Is it's like, Oh, you know, everyone, you have to be free to make your own mistakes. But actually some mistakes are fatal and you can make fatal mistakes very early in your life.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. No, it's, it's funny. You mentioned this is, is people often hear about our parenting strategy and they go, Oh my gosh, I can't believe you're going to tell your kids who to be, you know, you're gonna, you're, and they're like, that's so abusive.

And it's like, This is what every culture throughout human history has done until you guys came along. And the only reason why you're against this is because this is one of the tactics you use to separate children from their support networks. You know, as we always say, all cults, they need to separate individuals from their parents and their support networks.

And that's often what they focus on doing first. So the mainstream society, the cult, you know, it, it tells kids your parents giving you advice on who to be or, or putting pressure on you in terms of who to be and what to achieve in life, [00:35:00] that is intrinsically abusive, which is a great psychological tool if you are trying to pry children from high effectiveness cultures.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, yeah, 100%, 100%. I mean, I do think, the Elon, to go back to the Elon stuff, I mean, the Elon stuff is quite shocking, really, the way that his children have been targeted by trans activists, and, you know, in, in public, and not only have they done it, but they've also said, we're transing, we transed your daughter, I think is what they said, or your son, and, yeah, it's, it's terrifying, but that is, in a microcosm that is, that is society at large.

And, you know, I mean, parents, parents are shocked when they discover, you know, when they see a photo of a classroom and they see all of the, all of the banners and the slogans and the pride flags and the love is love and all this kind of stuff on the wall. But it's like, you should know, you should, you should be taking enough of an interest in your child's education to know that [00:36:00] that is, that that stuff is on the wall and that they're being taught by a a rainbow haired .

But people don't until it's People don't until it's too late.

Malcolm Collins: Well, so, we already have this with our kids. Like, we get told online, regularly, like, we are going to target your kids. Like, that is our goal. Is to turn your kids against you. In any way that we can no, I will say, I think that the, the parts of the trans movement right now that have just spiraled out of control, I think that they're actually, they won't be relevant by the time my kids are growing up they, they seem to have lost the, the will of the people Which unfortunately is dragging down, I think, a lot of what I would consider the real trans people.

I mean, there is, there is obviously an effect of all these endocrine disruptors in our environment. Like, like, it would almost be surprising if we didn't see an explosion of actually people who are identifying as a different gender. So, I I feel for them being dragged through the mud by the crazy people.

But those, those crazy people definitely exist right now. And I wonder what the [00:37:00] next movement, what the next iteration of crazy is going to be that targets our kids for conversion. My guess right now, if I'm looking at things, is it's going to be the... Negative utilitarian effortless.

I think that's going to be the next big movement, the voluntary extinction movement.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah. And I, well, I, yeah, and I think it's going to come hand in hand with the climate change movement, of course. Oh yeah, absolutely.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I think it's going to be what the climate change movement transforms into. So a portion of them will be motivated by climate change, but I think, and I see this already because I think the climate change movement.

doesn't have the popular will it used to, you know, you look at there's a great study, I think, done on like Gen Z, it was looking at like Greta Thunberg's generation, right? And they are actually much less environmentally friendly than previous generations. They just actually aren't motivated by the climate change movement anymore.

They use people like Greta to speak to old people, but she was not actually effective at communicating with her generation.

Raw Egg Nationalist: It's very, it's very noticeable when you look at these just stop oil protests, like you see, you [00:38:00] know, footage of The Just Stop Oil protestors in London and they're sat on, they're sat on the motorway or something.

It's all old people now. It's all like retired school teachers and civil servants and doctors. There are very few young people.

Malcolm Collins: Young people don't give a s**t about the environment. But, but I think that they're moving because what does sell to young people is doomerism. And that's what the negative utilitarians, that's what the anti natalists offer young people is doomerism.

They say, humanity is a scourge and we need to end it. And, and, and I think that those are going to be the groups that aggressively target our kids the most. Is the ones who want them to hate their lives. And I think that they are going to be surprised by how resistant our kids are to these messages.

 Because we have, Had the fortune of seeing what happened to people like Elon and to build very specific social tools and mechanisms for our kids so that they will be more protected by people who want to indoctrinate them to [00:39:00] punish their parents.

Raw Egg Nationalist: Well, listen, you, you have my full support. You are, you are, no, you are, you are, I mean this genuinely, you are good parents because it is a, it is a.

It is a, it, I mean, the world is terrible full stop, you know, there's been, the world has been terrible since its inception, but there are unique problems, problems that are unique to our situation today and parents need to know about them and they need to do something about them, they need to protect their children because once they're gone, they're gone

Malcolm Collins: as well.

I mean, No, historically, once they were gone, you know, you'd lose them to, like, I don't know, dyed hair for a few years or something like that, and then they come back to you because they're like, oh, mom and dad, you were right. Now, once they're gone, they're gone. They have developed more advanced procedures to ensure that.

And I, I do appreciate, you know, you, you saying there's the term that we used to use for people like us, face Fs. But but, but I, I appreciate your discretion in the public eye and it's, it's [00:40:00] likely the best thing for your family, which, which is very understandable.

Simone Collins: I would say guys, there's actually a lot of hope.

I mean, To be quite honest, Malcolm, the, like, Eliphists and the environmental antinatalists, like, they aren't going to last longer than a couple generations. And anyone who chooses to adopt that belief with every new generation is also not going to have kids. So I feel like over time, that kind of culture just isn't going to be able to spread because over time, you know, basically anyone who might have that kind of tendency, they're being selected against and, and sterilized.

So I feel like the. The future that we can expect, especially in a post, like a post modern world with lots of technology is going to be very pronatalist because everyone else is just not,

Malcolm Collins: not going to reproduce. Well, I agree. We gotta, but what I'm saying is who's going to be targeting our kids? Yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Well, I mean, yeah, yeah. That's a question.

Malcolm Collins: Anyway I I am so [00:41:00] excited that we had you on again. This, this podcast was incredible. I really liked it. And I hope our audience does as well and they should really check out your sub stack, your Twitter, which is again, baby gravy

Raw Egg Nationalist: nine. Yes.

Simone Collins: And Men's World Magazine, plus all of RAG Nationalist's existing books on Amazon.

There are four, but there is a fifth one on the way. And if you go to his sub stack, you may get some sneak peeks of it. So do not

Raw Egg Nationalist: miss it. Thank you. Thank you. Listen, it's been, it's been a real pleasure. You're you're, you're really interesting people to talk to. And this is, this has been a really fascinating conversation.

Thanks so

Simone Collins: much for joining. Definitely come back. We want to have more conversations like these and yeah, thanks again for your time.

Raw Egg Nationalist: I absolutely will. Thank you. Woohoo!

I have another fun chat with sex researcher and OnlyFans creator Ayla about the latest in her sex studies, including female sexual subtypes and common mistakes men make in bed. We also discuss the future of AI-generated personalized porn, using algorithms to create custom "wife porn", arbitrage opportunities in sexual dynamics, and more!

[00:00:00] Hello, Ayla. It is wonderful to have you here today. Sadly, Simone is not with us today because she is out petition collecting to run for office and she may just not be appearing in episodes for a while now, which is a little frustrating for me.

But oh, by the way, one of the really fun episodes I'm going to do while she's not with us because I've been meaning to do this forever. As an episode, but I haven't gotten to it is I want to do a review. If you ever want to join me on this, this could be fun to do of all of the AI porn websites.

Have you looked into any of these? Not recently. I did like a, like a year or two ago, but that's like a decade in AI timelines. Oh yeah. So, okay. Sorry. Before we get further on the intro, I just got to tell you about these cause they're really interesting. So they typically right now seem to fall into like one of three categories.

One is a category of AI sites that like nudes, photos of women, like, So anyone who you're friends with, you can submit your photos to them. I was going to try it with photos of my wife. Like one morning I actually got interesting and I started submitting photos, my wife to see what [00:01:00] she would look like.

So I'm going to keep it wholesome if I do. Another one, what they do is you choose specific profiles of women. But they're like a, a, like. A, a cat girl meets you at a stream and like this fantasy world or like you have an elf girl as like a slave or whatever, you know, right, like, and you can chat with these individuals and then you can ask for photos of these individuals in specific context.

Which is really interesting. And then the final category is creating women. So you give a set of parameters that you would like a woman to be, and then the AI system would create a woman that fits that set of parameters, and you can now ask for photos of this woman and chat with her. Like, I want to get your thoughts on this, because I think you'd have interesting

Would you like to know more?

You can chat with her now.

Like do they, when is integrated with the chatting? Yeah. So it's integrated with the chatting. So they'll integrate the personality and, and, and background and [00:02:00] jobs you give her with the chat feature. Damn. And then you also get porn of her. Does she like sexy talk? Yeah, but you have to pay for the individual picks.

So you pay for credits. That makes sense. And then the credits get porn of her. What I was gonna do, if I did an episode on this and I was gonna create like artificial Simone's. And try to like, ask them for porn of them. And I, I actually got bored and tried this one morning. Cause I was like, I want to see pictures of my wife, but like, unfortunately the pictures that they gave me did not look enough like her and I got sad and left.

Yeah. I don't think we're quite there yet, but I think we'll be there soon. Once we're there, it's going to be incredible. You can just like have custom wife porn all the time. Right. And when she's not up in the morning yet, I can go online because that's what I'm, what I was doing this. I was like, Oh, I want to talk with my wife, but she's not up yet.

Can I create like a AI simulacrum for her to talk to? No. Well, what are different ways you think AI will be used in the, in the sex industry? [00:03:00] Other than, I don't know. I mean, I recently, I've been seeing photos of me around the internet with different faces. On me, which is upsetting and they're probably just using like face up for this right now, but it's probably going to become an AI thing pretty shortly where it's just like use alums body as a template.

And I'm a little offended by it. But this is more short term I guess. Hold on, I want to ask you about offense questions. So there was something that Simone said she'd find offensive, but I was like, it's kind of flattering in a way. So there was a guy in Japan or Korea or something who his wife ended up divorcing him because he would hire prostitutes that looked like her when she was younger.

And I was like, that's kind of flattering. What are your thoughts on that? Would you find that offensive? I mean, I'd probably find it painful. Like it's painful to not I guess it highlights that you're older now, right? Yeah. It's painful to like be losing out on sexual access because your physicality is not sufficiently attractive.

That's like a quite painful thing. Hmm. Well, okay. So then you, you having other women with [00:04:00] their face on your body, what specifically is triggering a negative emotional reaction around this? I don't know. It's, I don't, normally. Normally, like the thing that you're worried about is like somebody taking your face and putting it on a nude so people can imagine you naked, but it's like your identity, but this is somehow the reverse.

It's like, it's my body, but like I'm erased out of it in some way. And that feels like shockingly dehumanizing in a way I didn't expect. I just kind of didn't expect people to do this at all. Like what the hell is the motivation? Or I don't know. Cause like The motivation is that they want these other people naked, right?

They want sexual access to someone who's not you. Sure. Yeah, well, I'm not even sure it was a real face. It wasn't even like a person. It was just like a generic face that wasn't mine. And so they could like, do it and like sort of steal it without it getting credit to me or something. Oh, and then they would upload them.

Oh, that's Oh, that's like people reporting like, Hey, is this you? Like, this is your body. It's just like a generic. It wasn't a person. It was just [00:05:00] And I'm like, that is, that was me. Goddammit. You're like erasing my identity from a thing. It's almost like there's something that plagiarizes your work somehow.

Yeah. Well, no, it is. Well, so, so I didn't actually finish the intro here because I got so sidetracked by interesting talk about pornography. So, Ayla is, you know, I was actually thinking today and I was trying to think, is there another, because I've written a book on sexuality, a best selling book on sexuality, The Pregnancy Guide to Sexuality.

Check it out. It sells for like 99 cents. It's really good. I have a couple copies. Yeah, so, Ayla, as somebody who like is deeply interested in this field, I was thinking you are probably the best sexual researcher in human history. And then I was thinking, does Kinsey beat you? And I was like, not really.

Kinsey is more like the Freud of human sexual research. He is important because he had the idea to do it, but his research was Terrible. So you're probably the single best researcher on a huge chunk of humanity, and you have such low [00:06:00] self esteem. I always seen your, your, your things. You're like, Oh, I can't really be that great.

Or like, I remember one recently was like, are people really that bad at marketing themselves? And I'm like, Haley, you don't understand. top fraction of a fraction of a percent of intelligence and agency in the human population. People really are that bad. Which is fun to talk to you about sexuality, because most people don't talk about this subject.

And what I had planned in this episode talking about was people need to check out this new substack she's done. It is data driven advice on how to be good in bed. And it is data driven not just from one of maybe the most sexually experienced people in human history but also one of the most Deep sexual researchers in human history, like you are not going to get this is not like woo s**t Like this is not like you're going to like I'm gonna you got a because sexual advice stuff Like if you go to like sexuality coaches, it's all woo like like from the stuff I've seen It's all like half of it is healing crystals and half [00:07:00] of it is sex stuff.

She is like hard data Which is really cool but so I'd love to get to this data, but I'm actually having fun on this topic of the future of like online sex stuff. So do you have other thoughts on where things are going with this stuff? I'm even thinking like if I was going to blue sky, I can give you one of my thoughts on how I might use AI.

I might take Like audio, so like somebody could take, like, suppose somebody wanted to engage with someone like my wife sexually, right? Like was in an online environment they could download like the hours and hours because we do an episode every day of our podcast of podcast episodes create a synthesized personality by separating out the woman's voice, put that into an AI system and have that respond to them.

Now I'm thinking of this selfishly because I was actually like, okay, well, if I wanted to engage with a Good emulation of my wife, that's what I should do because then I could talk to her without distracting her from the important work she's [00:08:00] doing. But you could also then do this with like pictures of women or video feeds of women to create a fully, like really authentically synthesized woman.

What, what are your thoughts? Well, and then what this is interesting and from an evolutionary perspective is it gives all men access to the highest quality woman possible from a masturbatory standpoint. Yeah, this is, I mean, like, it's more than masturbation, it's direct, like, this is part of why OnlyFans is so successful is because it gives you direct personal access to the woman as opposed to porn.

Because people are always like, why am I paying for porn when I could just get porn free? And like, turns out there's a huge market for personalized s**t. So yeah, I think there's like probably, like, it's like a more personalized masturbation, which sounds great. From my end, I'm interested in it because, like, as an OnlyFans girl.

I would love to outsource my content. I would love to just like press the button and have like the A list simulation, you know, like talk and live stream and do videos [00:09:00] for my guys. That sounds wonderful. Because like, I, it's nice. I enjoy, I do genuinely enjoy like being slutty and promiscuous on the internet.

But like, honestly, I've taken so many naked photos of myself. I kind of want to shoot myself. Every time I take a nude. Now, it's just too much and it would be nice. I just want it to happen. People should know you created a contest around this like a year ago, like early, early AI, you are cutting edge. So you handled this huge data bank of images and you created a contest for somebody to create a really good ala generator.

Can you talk about this? Yeah. We, we'd want to see if we could like. Use AI basically, can we make this happen? If it turns out, no, none of the people competing were really quite good enough. Because I think in order to work, it has to be relatively photorealistic. Because people just, it's not that exciting to view something that you can tell is AI.

I think you literally did it the first moment somebody had the idea of doing something like this. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, [00:10:00] like I've been in the AI world, the AI safety world for long, well before ChachiBT or AI started picking up in the last few years. So this has been like in the stream, like pretty advanced on it, but it's just not ready.

No one would know this about you as an outsider. Just, you know, like Ayla is really, really high status within the AI safety world in the EA sphere, like among the type of people who are nerds about like Scott Alexander stuff, you're going to get maybe a third of them who are nerds about AILA stuff.

And, and you go to a lot of the conferences and stuff like that because I think like your number one main squeeze is also in that space. Yeah. Yeah. One of my partners is president of Mary. So that helps. Yeah. We were both in the same. Circles. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which is, which is interesting that you're in all these, these intellectual circles and some people who follow you as an outsider might not know that, that you're pretty high status within these intellectual circles.

Um, well, so I was thinking if you could [00:11:00] automate yourself what could you offer that no one else is offering right now? I guess through a really high volume of images. Like, I'm wondering if there's arbitrage opportunities for you as a businesswoman here. So you have an unusually high number of images of yourself nude compared to other women.

You could process these images, create a better ALA generator than other people. But you need to, it seems like a lot of the stuff is the AI stuff is good personality attachments. How would you handle that? Do you have a big feed of like a video feed or, or video backlogs or something like that you could use to try to create that, or would you try to simulate it?

Like, like for personality wise, just feeler. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I have tons of footage of interviews on podcasts and there's a bunch of like porn stuff. I, I would love to have more of me. to talk to people because I think [00:12:00] I'm like, relatively, I have some, some stuff to offer and I just don't have the time or inclination.

I'm like a pretty solo person. I don't like hanging out with other people that much. I'm very private in the sense of the way I spend my time. And so it would be nice to like have somebody. Like an Ayla clone go out and do all that for me. I would love that. I love that idea too. That is, that is fun.

Well, I mean, so then I know you've been thinking about maybe doing a podcast or something like that. Has that moved forwards? Are you more focused right now on the the, the sex guide blog? Well, I'm probably gonna do a good at sex podcast. So the plan is we bring a bunch of women together and talk about what makes sex good.

And we have some variations on this. I don't want to give away too many details, but I'm pretty excited. I have an idea. Do you want me, I mean, are you connected with like, like documentary type teams and stuff like that? Like, have you thought about pitching this to like Netflix and stuff? Do you, I mean, do you have connections there?

Cause I have a few. Well, the thing is, I'm not sure that Netflix would result in the level of revenue that I'm interested in. [00:13:00] Ah, oh yeah. Because you want to gate content access. Good idea. Okay. Yeah. Like right now it's, this is turning into my full time job, basically. It's like paying me more than OnlyFans does.

So, well, education, your brain is now paying you more than I know. It was fulfilling. I love it. I mean, again, I don't, not degrading, like I'm like happy doing sex work and stuff, but like it's, I'm a little burned out and I would love to just do something that engages my brain and getting paid for it. So exciting.

It's also less freaky because there's always this background insecurity that, like, my looks are going to run out and then I can't continue earning money through sex work. And, but this is like, oh, I could keep doing this for quite some time, even after I start looking really ugly. So it's like, It's not insecurity.

Realistically, that's going to happen. I mean, we, we in our society aren't supposed to tell women that, but, like, objectively The, the, that's going to happen. And I think that being very shrewd in how you are backstopping your career. [00:14:00] Which is also really interesting. I think that some people don't think about was, was people like you, as they think that the, you know, like you don't recognize this and you aren't like doing career planning stuff and you absolutely are.

I know it's like a weird sort of like outside, it's not a quite typical mind fallacy that people do, but I get this a lot when, when I talk about like running an orgy, people are like, Oh, she's going to f**k so many people watch out for the STD spread. And I'm like, do you, if you, do you not think about the liches, like if you think about if you were going to run an orgy.

What would you do? You would probably require SCI. It's like a very basic thing that people like aren't they just sort of jump to the conclusion of what the final salacious result will be and not be like, wait, if you logically try to plan something like this, you would probably install fail safes or, or like good safety measures.

And so it's very similar with like sex work. People are like, ah, she's going to get old and then be upset when nobody loves her. I'm like, did you not? Did you not think that maybe I have thought about this? You're right. Oh my God. I [00:15:00] am going to age.

It's ridiculous. I don't understand. It reminds me of the end of Clueless when the lady who owns a cigarette company and smokes cigarettes every day and the girl goes, you know those things cause cancer? And she's like, Oh my God, no one ever told me. Like, yeah, it's the same. It's the same with us. I think a lot of people just don't put a lot of thought into the people that they're attacking was in online environments.

Like, we'll get these attacks, like Oh, they want to replace the world with people who look like them and like, like their genetic stock. And like, I'm like, that's not something we've ever said. And they're like, but their genetic stock is flawed because they have glasses. And it's like, we don't want to replace people with people are like, Oh, they must be racist.

And I'm like, we are like virulently not racist. And they're like, Oh, I don't know about that. You want people to have more kids, but you're not racist. I don't see how those two things could correlate. And it's like, What ? Yeah, it's, it's, I, I [00:16:00] love it. I love it. It's a shame. It's like something I had to update to that people are going to attack versions of you and not you.

Like when I was going into being public, I was like, oh, okay, I'm ready for people to criticize who I am, but it turns out they don't. They just make up like a straw person about you and then criticize that, and you're like, wait, wait though. That's, it's a lot harder to handle, I think. Yeah, well, no, it is, and can you hear me okay, by the way?

I got like a little thing over here. Yeah, somebody's mowing outside. Can you still hear me okay? No, I don't hear it at all. I made a mistake and I got a little alert on my, okay. Anyway, no, so it's really interesting. I don't know how much press you get. Like we get a decent amount of press. Yeah. Interesting things is I begin to get a feel of the different types of attack articles.

Where one type of attack article and they are not correlated with the prestige of the newspaper. One type of attack article we get pretty frequently is it's clear that somebody read the title of another attack article. But didn't pay for the article. [00:17:00] The guardian does this really frequently where they will write an attack article, and it's clearly based on the title of another article, but not having paid for the article.

That's.

Is it like super glaring? Like they like cite facts that are from like before the paywall or something? Yeah, yeah. So they'll cite facts from before the paywall and then they'll say other things that are like something that someone would intuit. Like they'll say stuff like we do like explicitly racist things, which like, it's very obvious even if you had read the article that we spoke against that, but like they hadn't read the article.

They're just like, oh, they're pronatalists. They must be racist or, or where this was really obvious to us is one of the articles on us insinuated that we were billionaires. And then a bunch, they said billionaires like Elon Musk, but it had a picture of us want people to have more kids. And so then when other people wrote articles on that, they would say we are billionaires.

And so there's a huge [00:18:00] genre of article, Malcolm and Simone are billionaires out there right now. I mean, it's not like an awful reputation to have, but do you have any like positive, like attack articles on you out there? Like, like, no, usually the articles Aren't explicitly attack because I think you are more like susceptible to the woke, like, or like more of an easy target for the current cultural war because like you're associated with like, are you right wing?

Are you being tried? Are you weird sex people? Nobody f*****g knows. And me, I'm just like a sex worker. I think this confuses people because like a lot of the mainstream media right now is sort of like at least lip service pro sex work. Yeah. So I think this is confused a lot of the ways that people talk about me.

Normally, I'm in, I'm in media that I didn't volunteer to participate in because people are reporting on something outrageous that I've tweeted. And then that, that will get through the same repeat. Like there'll be like one big article that somebody writes like, Hey, look at this insane thing. She didn't shower very much.

And then there'll be like a [00:19:00] whole string of other articles of people like copying over that information. I'm like. No, but I, I, well, I mean, of the attention economy, you grab a lot of it. I love that. Very, very good at that. It's not really that intentional to be clear. I was like, if Norman, like, I didn't know this was the thing guys, but okay.

But by the way, I don't know if this has happened to you. One of the types of articles that now we watch out for a lot is somebody spotted us meeting publicly with a friend. And now like that entire friend group doesn't talk to us. And like now we cannot meet publicly with people anymore. Like I can't go publicly to restaurants with friends.

I can't like, it's really weird. Like I didn't expect this to happen as quickly. Have you had that happen to you? Like somebody was like, Hey, no, I don't think I have the hate attention of mainstream publications in the same way you do for some reason. I'm more of like, This is, this is, this is Julia Black, a stalker.

Who you know well, who I don't have. like that. There is a [00:20:00] little weird though, because like, I have no, I've hung out with somebody like at conferences, like publicly, I'm talking to people who Like maybe their reputations could be damaged by seeing associated with me, but you know, nothing happens. So I think maybe I just like, don't have a, like you are, you have a thing.

I think you're like easily compressed into sort of a trope, which is like the pro natalist racist or something. Yeah. And I don't think I'm like quite as, like, the weird sex worker is like less of a powerful trope. So I think I'm less vulnerable. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, and I think that outsiders look at this.

They're like, oh, well, I think the trope that you get grouped into, which you don't fall into at all, is, and it's interesting, is actually almost as strong as us. So it's us. We're pronatalists, but we're really anti racism. And we try to signal that really loudly, but people don't always notice. You are a sex worker, but you are also, I consider a very high tier intellectual.

And you try to signal that, but a lot of people probably like group you in was like, sex worker must be bimbo. I get those comments so much. It's like, why isn't anybody taking this w***e seriously? I get that [00:21:00] constantly. Or like, she's a sex worker opinion discarded. It's like a, almost like you could copy paste that comment.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. Like, how could you? You are. And for people who don't know we hang out with like a lot of the quote unquote, like dissident intellectual class. She is pretty much universally respected within that community. As an intellectual. Other people might not be out there saying that.

So one thing I wanted to talk about before we end this, cause, cause this was actually what prompted me to reach out to you about this was a chart that you put together. Yeah. Yeah. Of how much women like it, how much men do it, of sexual fetishes. Yeah. Or let's, it's like a little bit more sex acts as opposed to fetishes, but there are some fetishes in there.

Yeah. And to encourage people to get your thing, I am going to gray this out, so people won't know if their thing is on here or not. But you also put into this what was really interesting, is the standard deviation for like ratings, like is there less variance or more variances? Is this one of these things that people either hate [00:22:00] or love, or is it something that like most people agree on?

There was one thing that really surprised me on here, a lot actually. And it was that almost no women like this. And it was, he doesn't care that much if you come or not. Which is interesting, because I've actually heard the opposite from women, or in a lot of sources that I knew, which is that women don't like when a guy is over focused on whether or not she came.

Now, of course, also in the negative camp is like, thinking you came when you didn't come, asking you if you came if you didn't come. So it's basically like, he needs to make you come, but not be concerned about it. But it was really fascinating to me. I was wondering if you had thoughts on that. Like, is this something you expected when you were doing this, or?

I was also pretty surprised by this result, but I guess it like makes sense if you think about it. Like I have another one in there that's like, he's disappointed if you don't come and like people are much more split on this. So it's like a weird thing where he has to care [00:23:00] and, but like he can't, you're right.

He has to like thread the needle. My guess is that women don't want to feel pressured. Like, Oh s**t. Like I I don't want to feel like I need to come like, but they want him to care a little bit. You know? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, okay, so I'm trying to think, what are some of the ones that are the most, she likes it but men almost never do it?

One that's a real outlier here is he wants to roleplay non consent. Our, one of our other videos with you is on non consent parties. So this, if we speak of female male arbitrage, this is a huge area of arbitrage. Women like non consent more than men do it. Yeah, absolutely. This is, I mean, this is one of the most, the things that appears in my data, like regardless of the study I do or what I'm measuring, like women wanting to submit more than men want to dominate is just basically across the board.

And again, like we were saying, like in, Recently that like sadism tends to be one of the subclasses in which this is pronounced, but it's a press all over. I think it should make [00:24:00] sense. Like men are like afraid of being dominant and like maybe men legitimately aren't dominant, which is a kind of weird topic in itself.

But yeah, absolutely. Women way more into that weird topic. Maybe men aren't dominant. What have you seen in this area? Well, like what are your thoughts? Well, I mean, so this is one of the very, very early things that got me into sex research. I was actually listening to Jeffrey Miller give a talk in Thousand Mutual Friend, by the way, I really, I, we haven't had him on the podcast.

I'm gonna make a note. . Oh yeah, you, he's great. But this is, I met him back in 2018 when he was, I was living in New York and he was there and he was like giving a little talk to. It's the rationalist, I think, and I remember being like, well, he's, I asked him, you know, why are more men dominant than women are submissive?

And he like, he didn't really know, which makes sense because nobody f*****g knows. It turns out this has been like one of the biggest focuses in my research since then. And like, there's various theories, but, I don't have a good sense of why. Like one, it's like maybe it's this testosterone thing and testosterone levels are dropping.

So everybody's getting more submissive. [00:25:00] Maybe. Maybe it's like the gay Listen, I can, I can give you an answer. I know the answer. Yeah? No. I know, I actually do know the answer. I can give you the answer. Okay, okay. Okay, look at the genetic Data from the agricultural transition period in human history. So this is like right when we were transitioning to an agricultural society in the early agricultural period 14 women would have children for every one man that would have children.

So you didn't need this to appear at the same rate across men for some men, it was about just not dying and having one or two kids, whereas chieftains women would cook. Conglomerate toward them. So you don't need. Men and women to perfectly match men need to either be super dominant when they're in the chieftain or king role or be submissive and nightly to the, to the extent that they are able to follow a chieftain or king which is a different psychological subset.

Yeah, I think that this is a theory. I think this is related to my, my gay uncle theory where some men sort [00:26:00] of self selected out because of like fewer men reproduce than women. Although I hadn't tied it specifically to the concept of like the chieftain thing. But I'm not totally convinced about this though.

Tell me what you think is bad about this theory. I mean, 14 women were breeding for every man. That's 14 women to one man. That's what was happening on average. That means that many men had 30 wives. Right. But like. Like, could we not say something like, Oh, say the dominant man reproduces at like a much higher rate the dominant genes get spread or, but like, maybe there's some, some of the men, if his genes like.

Or deliberately are not competing, like, why waste resources on them at all? Like, they have to have some sort of comparative advantage. And it seems weird to not, like, be spending all of the genes on the thing that has the max advantage. Like, like, things tend to be just really competitive in that way. And it's similar to, like, why, like, I think the gay uncle theo Like, literally, the gay uncle theory part is bad.

Because, like, gay Like, why would you spend genes on having a gay man? Like, the selfish gene theory. Like, [00:27:00] those genes There's no such good of the group kind of thing. I don't know. I'm not really expressing myself super clearly here. I'm sorry, I'm going to take the gay uncle theory, split it out here. First of all, what you said was really smart.

I like it and I'm probably wrong. You convinced me I'm probably wrong there. Okay. I don't know. I'm just saying you're not necessarily right. I'm saying, I don't know. It's not enough information. Gay uncle theory is the theory that gay men have either they invest in childcare for their siblings in a way that increases the number of kids they can have, or they have siblings of gay men who have kids particularly women, have female offspring that are more feminine.

Then they otherwise would be the two iterations of the gay uncle theory. The problem is, is you would just need to have so many extra kids to offset the kids. The gay uncle is having, it doesn't make sense. Also it doesn't make sense because you see similar rates of gay populations in animal species where you have no parental care, mammal species specifically.

These are my two arguments. Thank you. That's [00:28:00] thank you for your, I, this is, I didn't. actually know that. And it's, I like that you're strengthening my argument though. Yeah. Well, I mean, so people don't often consider if, if I would have two kids, like, okay, suppose I'm supposed to have four kids and my gay uncle's supposed to have four kids.

But he decides to have no kids, and we still need to be, like, genetically successful as a family, then I need to double the number of kids I'm having. Like, that's really hard. If you look at my family historically, I have my family's birth records. If I go great grandfather and back, for, like, every person for, like, four generations, we had 12 kids each.

A gay uncle was not gonna double the 12 kids. Yeah, that's, that's a good point. Yeah. So, I mean, like there might be like maybe roundaboutly something to the gay uncle theory, but I find it kind of implausible. And for that reason, I'm like less swayed by thoughts that like maybe men's like are self selecting out of the gene pool a little bit by being submissive.

I'm like, why would that be beneficial at all? [00:29:00] My guess is it's more likely some sort of like weird anomaly or like a change in. In testosterone levels or something, but I don't know. Very interesting. Okay, I want to see if any other, other things here strike me as interesting. Oh, here's one. So, so the, he wants to roleplay Nugget, like that was a controversial one, right?

One that women really like that not many men ask for is you edge him and he edges you. Yeah, I was really surprised by that one. Aging in women is popular, but not in men. Yeah, I don't know what that I don't even know. I'm not really into edging personally, so it's like hard for me to develop theories for that.

I've never met someone who told me they were into edging, but apparently men don't ask this enough, so Yeah. To be fair, in this survey, the I actually didn't use identical phrasings for both of the edgings, so it's possible that there's some artifact making, like, the gender thing different, but the [00:30:00] absolute location of them are correct.

But yeah, I don't know. Here's one that almost all women are into, or a lot of women are into, but like guys don't realize women are into, he's experimental, suggesting unusual things, or he asks you to try an unusual but inoffensive fetish. So knowing your inoffensive fetishes as a guy is actually pretty safe with women.

Even if there's one that was like, it even showed, even if you're not interested in it. I can't remember what that was. Like, that was the word you used. I think that might be the unusual but inoffensive fetish one, I think. Okay, I can't remember. Another one that's actually pretty common for, that I think would surprise a lot of people is He's aroused by your pain.

Yeah, the sadism. Yeah. Yeah, that's the sadism gap. Men just don't like hurting women that much, which is so funny because like a lot of like the anti porn feminist stuff is like, oh, porn is corrupting [00:31:00] men to make them like more brutal and rough with women. And I'm like, porn is accurately updating men.

Excuse me. It's so funny you say this. So, we wanted to do an episode and this is what actually encouraged one of the things that encouraged us to reach out to you is I wanted to do a The data versus Mary Harrington. I like Mary Harrington. I've met her. We've done interviews with her. She's a nice person, but she will go out and say things like men like choking women because they watch porn and this means they hate women or like they look down on women.

I'm like, no women like being choked and not enough damn men are choking them. That's what the data says. Yep, absolutely. This is like one of the most robust findings around sex research, is that women desperately want men to do this more. Although to be clear, this is like pretty bimodal for women. So like, this is like the hurt me, please me spectrums that we have been talking about.

Like, like, this might be why we're seeing such like a pushback publicly. It's because like women either really like being choked [00:32:00] and hurt or they f*****g hate it. And so you probably have women who f*****g hate it, who are like, What the hell? Porn is teaching men to do things to me that I don't want them to do, and they sort of typical mind assume all of the other women are the same.

Whereas like if things were like more, you know, normal distribution, maybe that those are less polarizing for the discourse. Yeah, no, I think that's really powerful. And I think that that's where we need to move. Like if you're having the honest discourse, which is what we try to do on this podcast, the truth is, is that this is a bimodal thing you need to establish before you sleep with someone, whether or not this is something that they're interested in no.

that many more women who are interested in this have their partners actually doing it with them. But there is a portion of women who sleep with men who are trained to do this by the many women they're sleeping with because on average, like half of women are into this. And then they do it with this one woman who like hates it.

Like it's a very bimodal and they're like, Oh my God, how could you have done that to me? Do you hate me? Do you hate women? Are you a monster? Did you learn this from porn? And it's like, no, I learned it from my ex. She told me she liked it. I don't know.[00:33:00]

Yep, absolutely. Although I don't, I don't know, I mean, the data might say it's bimodal, my experience is it's like 80 percent of women. Well, it might be some selection effect. So like, I have two boyfriends right now. One of the boyfriends is like, Hmm, it sure seems like almost every woman I have sex with wants me to hurt her.

That's interesting. I have my other boyfriend. It's like, I just have never really come across women who want rough sex. And I'm just like, Whoa, tell me, I don't need to know who they are. I want to know the personality profile. How are they attracting these two different categories? Yeah, it's, it's, it's, so they both have extremely high body count.

So it's not like there's something that they're putting out that's attracting different women. So I'm saying, I think you might be putting out the, like, somehow, I don't know. But like, it's interesting because both of them are quite traditionally male and like dominant feeling. They're both like, I'm a man who will ravish you, but in different ways.

I think one of them's a lot [00:34:00] sweeter. Oh, is the one who attracts the women who don't want that sweeter? No. Oh, okay. So here's the, here's the hypothesis. Oh, sorry. I don't want yes. Sorry. I was confused by your The one who, we don't want to attract women who want to be hurt. Sweet guy attracts vanilla girls.

But to be fair, he's still quite, I, sweet feels like it's not really summing it up. He's much more emotive. He's like very emotional, like can sink into his body, embodied, like very, like, Is this the one I met? Cause he seemed very sweet to me. Which one did you, I thought, did you not meet both of them? Oh, I thought I, I don't know.

I, I, I, the number one main squeeze guy who I've referenced before. Oh yeah, that was the, he's definitely more of that. He attracts women who are more like so brutally submissive. No, we're not naming anyone. We're not. Okay. Okay. No. Okay. So being named, to be clear, I really want this guy right now or something and like [00:35:00] talking about your relationship.

It's fine. I like it. Yeah, it's, it's been going well, he, he likes it when I talk about him because he was the one that wrote me like the, you're not that pretty card. I don't know if you saw this at all. I love that post. Continue. But that was in private Kayla room, right? In, I posted this on Twitter and I found people started writing.

This is one of the things that people wrote articles about. Sorry, I never know what's from the private chat and what's not. Yeah, it's okay. Okay, tell, talk about this. This is a good one. Yeah. So he wrote, he told me I wasn't that pretty. It was in context. It made more sense because I was like, I think everybody's gaslighting me about how hot I am.

They're saying I'm pretty. I don't think I'm that pretty. And he was like, yeah, you're not that pretty. I was like, my poor heart. Anyway, he wrote me a card saying, I'm sorry, because it was very sweet moment that he ruined by saying that. I'm glad he did anyway. And then I posted on Twitter and went viral.

And then at the end of the viral tweet, I was like. If anybody wants to apply to have sex with him, here's a, here's a form you can fill out. Did you talk about [00:36:00] how good he was in bed? He very, he, this is, he can call me not that pretty all day. Okay. His dick is fire. So, which is interesting. So the, the former actually got quite a lot of responses.

I think he had 150 women fill it out and he has had sex with a lot of them at this point. Which is interesting that something like that attracts so many women. Like my guess is that. they were seeing him sort of neg me in a sense and like I'm like relatively like in this context high status right because I'm like have a lot of followers or whatever and so they were perceiving him like oh if I can have sex with this guy this sort of means that I'm special about having sex with him you have had sex with lots of people when I was younger I had a high body count but one of the primary mechanisms that serves girls for me was other girls opinions of sleeping with me.

One girl would tell all her friends, one you can sleep with him, he's safe, and he's like, fun in these ways. And I think that guys underestimate it. It's so funny, all these red [00:37:00] pillers are out there, like, trying to be like, And it's not, like, I identify as a red piller to some extent. I think they see some things that are true, but, like, they try to be, like, tough and, like, and, and cruel towards women in a way sometimes, and it's, like, the easiest way to get women to have sex with you is to have another woman who they respect saying, you should go and have sex with this guy.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. This is the Girl Whisper Network. This is the reason I originally had sex with this guy, actually, is because one of my friends, who he used to date, was like, I think you might really enjoy sex with him. And I was like, take your This is a good voucher. I'll go try it. Sure not to be right. Very Catherine Green of you.

Very what? Well, Katherine the Great used to have a person I don't know if this is myth, but it's at least heavily canonized myth that Katherine the Great used to have a woman who was supposed to sleep with all of her potential partners before her to see if they were worth her time. That's so smart.

Wait, I should get one of these! Wait, no, I think I did. Like, cause, cause his [00:38:00] partner, he has another girlfriend who I like. Quite a lot. And she's so super slutty, so I can just have, and we have very similar sex tastes, just ask her. I love this. You need an AILA vetting system. He needs a vetting system now.

Well, I mean, with 150 potential. applicants here. This is what you get for sexually pleasing someone like Ayla. You get it published on Twitter and then a huge pool of applicants coming to you. But hold on, actually, I want to, I, I think when you talk about the sweet guy versus the not sweet guy contrarianism, I actually think contrarianism might be the difference.

Is this, is the guy who is attracting the vanilla girls, not a contrarian? Well, no, it's. It's, well, depends what you mean by contrarian. I would say Does he like, like, arguing and disagreeing with the mainstream perspective? No, not, not in that way, I think. Oh, okay. But he's very good at holding his ground and not like, giving in to what [00:39:00] women sort of want.

Like, he passed the s**t test with flying colors kind of thing. Oh, so this is the first thing with me? Speaking of s**t tests, because people, okay, first I'll define a s**t test for people who don't know what that are. It says, theory was in the red pill community that women will test you for your dominance.

To be like, hey, you, you know, whatever, right? When I was dating around, like, and sleeping around, I never got s**t tests. I've gotten like maybe two s**t tests in my entire life. I bet you got s**t tests. I bet you got s**t tested though. You think I'm just too, I'm too blind to notice that they were s**t testing me.

I was just like, because like the way that red pillars talk about s**t tests are usually extremely obvious. Like the girl will like insult you and see if you felt her or she'll like, ask you to hold her purse is the classic example. But I think the vast majority of s**t tests are significantly subtler.

And they're more like, like asking you a question to see if you try to like, say a response that feels like you're trying to make her happy, like stuff like that. Oh, For reference, by the way, if a [00:40:00] woman ever asked me to hold her purse, I wouldn't take that as a s**t test. I would hold her purse. Like, women need help sometimes.

It's only when you s**t test in, like, trad culture or something. It's not a s**t test in normal culture. They're just, like, inconsiderate and they think they're being s**t tested. But I love what you're saying. You're probably right there. Is they would ask me stuff, or maybe the reason they didn't s**t test me is it was obvious I didn't care what they, like, mainstream society thought or what their opinion was.

And I think what the test might be deployed for is men who are trying to get a woman to sleep with them by pretending to mirror their belief system. Yeah, very much. I think this is very close to the sex, did you read the sex is a status game post that I wrote? I liked it. Okay. Tell me, tell me more about the reference here.

I wrote a post, so this is, it is sort of like a, I think should test our subcategory. It's one of the tabs I have open on my screen right now, but continue. Yeah. It's, it's not a huge deal, but it's just describing like the ways that we do status games in interactions and how this is like very prevalent.

And it's a lot of people have like a really negative [00:41:00] connotation with the concept of status, but it doesn't have to be. Often it's very like game like and often it's very like playful. Like when you're flirting with somebody, this Often involves a lot of status play. And so like I break down videos of like analyzing how like the status play is happening and like romantic interactions or whatever.

But I think that s**t tests are like one subcategory of this. Like you want to, you're testing the guy to see if he can like, not. Be broken underneath your will or something. That's like a strong way of putting it, but it's much more subtler. It's something like, is this guy, am I seeing who this guy is, or am I seeing like a version of this guy who's like trying to warp himself into something to get into my pants?

So, guys might not understand how important this is for women. Like, this is not an idle thing. So when I've been giving women, like, dating and sex advice and stuff like that, they're like, how do I tell if a guy's just telling me what I want to hear or if he is actually being honest to who he is because I'm looking for Either a long term partner or something like that, right?

And a lot of guys learn, they can just tell them what they want to hear to get the [00:42:00] woman to sleep with them. There is a reason for women to be vetting for this, but I think that there's a certain type of guy. I might be an example of this. Who's just so obviously not telling people what they want to hear that they don't need to test it that much.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's probably what's going on. They're like, oh, this guy doesn't give a s**t when I think about him. Okay. . Yeah, he, whatever he feels like. Anyway, I, I love this. This is fun. I, I, I, I hate, so I love that I have a podcast now that I have a reason to have you on to talk with me, because I'm the type of person who like doesn't reach out to talk with my friends unless there's some immediate utility to me.

Yeah, same. I'm like, okay, what's the advantage of talking to this individual right now? Which is so horrible. I'm assuming you're passing that way, I guess. But I, I consider you a good friend. And so I'm glad that I have this excuse to chat with you in a way that potentially advances both of our interests.

And to advance her interests, you need to go. And if you want to learn how to be good in bed for your long term partner, or if you're like, oh, I'm not sure if this weird thing [00:43:00] I'm into is actually normal to be into. Learn if you're actually a friend. Freaky, pathetic weirdo, or if you're, if you're not, but you've got to get behind the paywall.

I'm not giving you the paywall stuff. I actually thought like after I read your article, I was like, this would be a good solo episode and I can put it on the screen. And I'm like, I'm not going to do that. We got to get you subscribed. I decided to try to earn money because I've been doing free research, publishing and quite a lot of work for years.

I'm like, you know what, maybe I should try to get a little bit of pay. So I'm pay well on some of it now. Well, you, you, what's, what was the point of sleeping with all these people? If you didn't, if you weren't doing it to collect data so that now you can turn around and use it on the public and be like, Hey, do you want somebody who objectively has more data on sleeping with people than Maybe all but a hundred thousand people in human history.

It's like her and Genghis Khan here, people. You're not going to get better advice. Oh, thanks. [00:44:00] It's a great interview. No, it's, it's true. I think it's like objectively, you probably know more about sex and is one of the reasons why your research is good. You also, if you watch the first interview I did with her in this series, I did one before, before doing this one.

You're so obviously like autistic y you're so stilted when like you start conversations and stuff like that. Like you're just interested in the data and you're like, yes, that data is true. That is what I found in my study. It was interesting.

What I'm saying is people think they think, oh, this woman's a quote unquote sex worker or whatever. That means that she must be like a charismatic type woman. And, and you are not a charismatic type woman. You are. I can't occasionally be good at role-playing it. I feel like I've learned to like step into like the hot woman charisma.

Oh. Talk about this. How do you role play a charismatic, feminine woman? Like what are you embodying when you do that? I have this video on YouTube, which is like a guide to [00:45:00] being seductive or something. Where I go through all of like the concrete small shifts to my body language that I make in order to like become a woman that men find attractive.

But I just do cam girl. I was saying, check out this video. That's what I'm telling the audience. Because with cam grilling, it's like a, you see who live stream people watching and you tip to you. And so you get like money based on the, how much you can, how hot you can be and generate their money. And so I did this over time and you get very rapid feedback.

Like people are, they're giving you money that are not. And like your average money earning like affects your rankings. So you have like really clear, like. Feedback about like the kinds of things that you're doing that lead to people giving you more money and over time I did this for like five or six years over time I figured out that like Oh different body language in different ways.

I use my voice generates more tips And so this is like brute force like iteration led to being able to be like a hot woman It's not just brute force iteration. I've watched interviews with you where you're like, I looked up the top [00:46:00] videos in the camming site and stuff like that. I tried to develop patterns in the statistics of these videos.

I tried to emulate them. Yeah, I had like instructions on the wall behind me for like different body language things that I would look and like, remember to keep doing. Yeah, you guys are not that aroused by like autist girl. Guys are aroused by like horny girl. And so you have to like signal sexual arousal and, and availability and vulnerability pretty, pretty hard.

What is the number one advice you'd give to a girl who was on a date who didn't know how to signal this? I mean, if she's like me, I know what advice to give, but like people are not sexy in very different ways. Audience is. Disproportionately, severely autistic.

I promise you. When you said that, it's like you don't understand how autistic they are. You do not understand. These people are little Simones. Imagine you're giving advice to, I don't know if she's like you, but she has an aspect of [00:47:00] you in that regard. Yeah, this is true. I don't know, maybe like talk slower and use simpler language.

Don't use big words and speak slow. Literally talk to a man like they're little dumb animals. They will think that you are a little dumb animal and that is what they want to believe. You need to simplify your language. You need to, I love it. I love it. I actually wonder if that's something I could, I couldn't do that if I was told to do that.

I'd never be able to. Oh gosh. There was something else I wanted to ask you that I was really excited about. In regards to that, I forget a really fun one might be to do like a interview version of like a, how do you get escorts thing? I love, she did a full thing on how to actually like what the process of hiring an escort and vetting an escort is like, and I would never do this, but it was fascinating to read.

And I suspect being cross culturally because [00:48:00] when I was in Korea, the process of hiring an escort was different. Yeah. Yeah, my, Oh, was it really? I don't know. I just know that businessmen like they would ask me like other VCs and stuff like that. They'd be like, do you want to go hang out with an escort tonight?

Like in the U S this doesn't happen as much, but in Korea, this is pretty normal. I was like, I'm married. And they're like, what does that have to do with anything? . Yeah, we're getting an escort. We're not marrying her. . Yeah. I think the cultural attitude towards escorts was so different over there.

Have you, have you done anything in Japan or Korea or anything like that? No. That might be an interesting market

studying. Yeah. I don't, I have no idea where to start there, but we could try. We have to relearn the whole game, I think. No, no, no, I wouldn't reload the whole game. This is what I do. Okay, so I'm just business advice here. Go to Japan and Korea. Find out who the [00:49:00] number one escort or sexual influencer is in both of those cultures.

Whoever the individual is, they will almost certainly know who you are or be likely to reply to you. Do cross Promotion with them, i. e. Have them write something for your blog about their culture, sexual practices, and then do an episode with them on their podcast or anything like that. And you will both draw an audience that neither of you has full access to right now.

That's actually a pretty good idea. Here's, here's another one I want to hear your thoughts on. I remembered what I wanted to hear. So Simone and I did an episode on that whole, you know, yum, yum, yum trend and stuff like that. Like idol sexualization. You know the one I'm talking about, right? What do you think is going on there?

And what are your thoughts on that? As somebody who, like, studies what people like. Well, I know that I kept watching it. I don't know if it had the same impact on you. But, like, everybody's talking about it. It kept being on my timeline. And I noticed that every time a video came on my [00:50:00] timeline, I just wanted to watch it again.

And I'm like, there must be something. There's something in it that's, like, hitting my brain that, like, must be also hitting other people's brains. It was difficult for me to tell. So, why not even detect it? Yeah, I don't think it's necessarily sexual. Although you just add a sex drive on top of it and it might amplify it.

Like a lot of sexual things are kind of like that for people who want that. We need a meme of when Simone was pretending to do it. She did a very good job. Yeah. I'd love to do that. She's like, kind of reminds me of like, characters, Pixar characters, you take like the most expressive features and you blow it up.

And sometimes on TikTok, people like replicate, you know, Pixar animation style, where they're like, they'll like do a thing and, you know, talk as though they're an animated character and everything is like more exaggerated and like more caricature y. And this is very much sort of what she was doing. Like, I think if I remember correctly, she had like makeup that emphasized like more [00:51:00] neotenous or whatever, and then had the very caricature, like animated kind of expressions.

I mean, these words also remind me of something that We were talking about on this, which is that people think that these people are like idiots who are doing this or something like that. These women, like one of the main ones who did this, there were two main ones has a, a kid she's trying to provide for the kid.

This is all about like long term career stuff. Like if you watch her videos, like analyzing how she caught this wave, how she exploited this wave, it's all very much career focused. And that is not something to grade her for, you know, she's doing this to support a kid and give them a good life. Oh, yeah, there's no, like, yeah, she, when people do this, they look dumb, which is maybe why people think they are dumb.

But like in order to be on that sort of wave early, you have to have some level of like intelligence and boldness. It's like really hard to be on the front row of a viral thing and like not be that smart. Yeah. She's probably like above average IQ. Yeah, well, I don't want to hold you forever. I know [00:52:00] this was the end of this.

I'm just having fun talking to you now at this point. I'm just like, oh, I'm chatting with Ayla. Oh, oh, here's something I could do on the fetish, the, the fetish one is things that guys do. Okay, here's something that I guess I shouldn't be that surprised about because everybody tells you this.

Something that guys do a lot that women are not actually interested in is he focuses primarily on your vagina as opposed to your clitoris. Yeah, and this one is interesting because in one of my updated Surveys where this one is just about what men do, but then I had another survey where men predict what women like and which is separate from what they're actually doing and men over predicted women's preference for focus on clitoris.

So this is not because men are not aware that women do not like clitoris stimulation, they just don't want to as much as women want it. I'm going to be honest. It's too much effort. I don't, I don't really care. No, if you're a guy who's getting a lot of, a lot of them just don't, [00:53:00] the other one I was surprised about that both men did a lot and women liked a lot, because I didn't think either one of these things would be the case is doggy style.

Yeah. Doggy style is an incredibly difficult position to make good in my like experience. Really like for you or for her, for both? It might be because I'm a tall guy. Yeah, maybe. Maybe. Maybe. I've definitely seen girls doggie pie with a scarf on before. You can't really do that much in terms of grabbing or touching other erogenous zones because, you know, you're in a position where to do that you have to put additional weight on her, which I would prefer not to do.

And then the woman's in a position where you, you need to align perfectly. Not all women of all height and all men of all height can doggie style. You need to have a very Tight matchup for that to work. For it to be one of the most aligned things that guys do a lot and women like a [00:54:00] lot was very surprising to me.

Yeah, maybe it's less surprising to me, but maybe it's because I like it more than you like it. Yeah, yeah, maybe these logistical problems aren't a problem for you and you're not like, Oh, yes, doggy style is always a logistical nightmare. Well, I mean, it can be. It's definitely like one of the less comfortable, but there's something Like, it hits like an unusual Like, it's like a different kind of feeling, which is really nice.

And I think it's a little bit more dehumanizing, which is good. And also from the man's perspective, you can like more clearly see a penis entering. So if you were visually stimulated by watching penis, But what you're watching and entering is undifferentiated from a man often. I'm seeing a woman from the back.

I'm not seeing any of the sexually dimorphic characteristics. I'm not seeing breasts. I'm not seeing a face. Women don't have as much of that as most women think they do. [00:55:00] Holy s**t. Bird. Oh gosh, am I?

Women need to get over themselves. Okay. Here's a fun thing that you might find fun, which has changed about Simone recently. So Simone recently has changed to long hair. She's growing out her hair again to have like medium lengths, long hair. And something that I've noticed is that at different stages of a woman's life, there's different optimal like look categories.

Like when Simone was in this younger category, I really preferred the short hair. Which to me was like the Vulcan look. I always loved that look. Or recently we were watching Hackers was like early Angelina Jolie. I know why, like, I like this short hair look, right? But it doesn't work for middle aged women.

And so she needs to change the way she's presenting to be sort of maximally, and it's not just me, it's also for society as well. Like society does not respect short hair, middle aged women. Short hair is for young women. [00:56:00] Like, what are your thoughts on other things where, like, you can change your optimization as you age?

I mean, like, in general, long hair is more feminine overall. In general, men tend to prefer long hair. It's more associated with youth. So, but it's like, like, there's points you can spend. Like, there's memes about how, like, you know you're pretty if you can pull off a bald look. And if you're not pretty, you can't afford to cut your hair.

And so Simone's like quite pretty and so it seems like she's sort of like has a lot of pretty points to spend before it actually starts impacting people's attraction to her which makes sense that she can pull off short hair. But in general, you want to maximize this like these signs of youth as much as possible once you hit your 30s.

Yeah. Well, I mean, you could optimize for different things. Like when you're older and you're still trying to optimize signs of youth, it's pretty bad. Like it doesn't, it doesn't. This is actually interesting and I'd love to see. I, I suspect that this is the path you're going to go as a sex icon, which is a lot of sex icons sort of refuse to give up the ephemera of youth.

You know, this [00:57:00] is Madonna moves. Madonna. Who am I thinking of? Yeah. Madonna or Marilyn. No, Madonna. Yeah. She keeps trying to look young. Like she tries to capture this young look. Where I actually think that as you're aging, you could probably get a wider audience by appealing to a new kink around your new age category.

Probably, but my guess is people still like hot, older women. If you're an older woman, you probably want one that looks like a young, like a aged healthfully, healthfully, older woman. And a lot of people have plastic surgery. You don't notice like a lot of like older celebrities that look short of their age.

Maybe it just looks like they've aged super well and are still kind of pretty. They've probably had a ton of plastic surgery. So yeah, I plan on. Surgery it up real hard, but you can only, Oh yeah, I've already surgeried myself. I am a transhumanist. Like I would like to modify my body as much as possible.

Well, I'll tell you what I can't tell. You look fantastic. I love hearing about people who have surgeried [00:58:00] themselves generally. I'm not a fan of it. Simone is, continue. Well, it's, it's, I think it's like suffers from sort of visibility bias like kind of like trans people. Like you notice if somebody's trans, if they're not passing well, and if they pass, you don't even notice that they're trans.

So in your mind, all the trans people you've seen are bad at passing. I think the same is with plastic surgery. All the plastic surgery you've seen is by definition bad plastic surgery, but tons of people get little tweaks all the time. You never know. I'm going to counter here. I think that you're right about plastic surgery with trans people.

I, I heard something on trans people recently that really stuck with me. Which is that most trans people don't pass like the, the, the, the, the passing trans person is actually pretty rare. And that because of that trans people sort of rely on society. To go along with this sort of delusion, not, not this delusion, but like to agree with them.

And this is why it's so important for the trans movement to push so hard on this issue. Because. Most trans people don't pass [00:59:00] and they rely on everyone pretending that they do. Yeah. I agree with this, which I think is actually quite cruel for trans people. Like you're doing like this weird psychological thing where like, yes, you're a woman and you, but like other people aren't going to treat you like a woman.

But like, we're saying that that's not what a woman is. And then I think it's like, just creates a lot of confusion and dysphoria for them, which is terrible. But I still, I did update in this direction after like occasionally meeting people that I thought were cis that turned out to be translator. And.

And I agree that, like, maybe this is rarer than, than not passing or something. But after having that experience, I realized that, oh, like my felt sense of like the passingness of trans people is like actually has been off because I was failing to take into consideration these people that I knew personally that turned out to actually be trans.

And that, that did shift the way that I viewed trans people, like the passingness. Oh, that's really fascinating. Yeah. Yeah. And that would, that would make a lot of sense. Like NikkieTutorials. the YouTuber? No, I don't. I'll look this up. NikkieTutorials is somebody, like, I was aware of [01:00:00] vaguely for many years.

She's this, like, this woman who does makeup tutorials. She's, to me, she's just been like a lady. Clearly a lady. She's just a woman. And then at one point she had a coming out where she admitted that she was trans. And I was like, holy! Holy f**k. I think that was actually probably one of the best things that happened to a trans woman.

I would have thought she was trans because she was Yeah, when I catch trans women who otherwise pass it's because they're attractive, but she's not attractive enough for me to question it. I don't know if I'm doing this consultingly, but yeah. Yeah, sure. She sounds like a woman. Like, I don't know. This is, this is like when I'm like, if you're, if you're a transphobe and you're like, oh, but like you call her a man, I feel like that's just, there's something weird going on.

Like she's clearly not. Well, yeah, the Simone has the horrifying opinion. I don't know if you've seen, we have the, what is a woman episode and Simone's like, yeah, I consider someone a woman if they pass. And that is like the most offensive thing you can say, but I genuinely think that's the way most people feel.

[01:01:00] Yeah. That was basically what I argued in my article. Like what also called what, what a woman is where I'm like, like, I think by definition, the way that we've practically used. The concept of a trans, of a woman is somebody who looks like a woman, which I, so I think, I think I'm very pro trans and I think we need to develop better technology to help people pass.

Because like, if I were trans, I would want to like go all the way to the opposite side and be convincing. And that would be the thing that feels best for me. And I think everybody should have access to that. Well, I mean, I think that we should have technology that doesn't mean that they need to fully transition.

I think that we should have technology that allows them to fill any body type they want. And I think a lot of trans people who I know don't actually want to fully transition. They want to be FUDA. They want to be, you know, many other things, but like, they, they, they, the, the problem is, is right now there's like this ghoulish plastic surgery monster that isn't necessarily particularly different from an old woman who's trying to be a young woman.

It's not unique to transness, it's just a [01:02:00] product of the technology that we have right now. But as we move forward, Yeah, it is tragic. It is tragic. I agree. And especially when you attribute that much trauma to being like misgendered and stuff like that, I can't imagine how much pain they experience every day.

No, of course, I'm really hoping AI gives us like updates in tech that allows us to modify bodies in a way that like helps dysphoria. I think that'd be lovely. Well, I think what we're actually going to see before that is people are Not interacting in person as much anymore. And I think that this will enable non in person interactions at a higher level within this community, where they can better model themselves as their types of things within online environments, because I think that comes before better.

Transition technology. That's fair. Yeah. Yeah. That would be awesome. But yeah. Oh, actually, here's a question for you. How could you arbitrage, well, I guess [01:03:00] the sheer content you have of you. Yeah. You could use that to arbitrage your online environments.

Yeah. That would be cool. I mean, it probably doesn't, it probably wouldn't be that hard for somebody else to compete. Like you just have to generate that. It doesn't take that long, I think, to generate as much information to make good models, but yeah. Well, I've had a blast talking to you. I'm sorry, I'm just looking for excuses to keep talking to you, cause it's, I don't, I don't bother.

And you guys remember when we first met and I was like, ah, person that I like. Oh yeah, no, so we met the first time and we ended up talking till like 3am that day. And I was just like, oh my god, I, I love this person so much. And, and I don't do that. I do not stay up late. People don't know this about me.

Yeah, I can be. with a billionaire and I will take naps in between talking sessions. Because it kills me, you know, I, I cannot stay up. You were just like so compelling to me. Yeah, you too. [01:04:00] It was like meeting a kid. It's like, Oh my God, somebody from, I don't know what tribe we're, we're both from, but it was like, felt like meeting somebody from your hometown or something.

It was really nice. No, no, I did. You know, it was like a sister or something. As I said, like, I don't, I don't, I don't identify with, I identify with my brother. You need to meet my brother. You'd like my need to come out of here sometime. When you start having kids we'll bring you out. We gotta, I have, I have pushed hard for who I think would be a good father in a few unsubtle suggestions who, who seems to have a level of dedication to you and cares about you.

But this is just me as an outsider saying this is a physically fit, intellectually sharp person who seems to care about you. Yeah, well, we will see. I am going through an egg freezing process soon, so there will be Oh, please do. The world I need my kids to have partners. You know we're doing arranged marriages for our kids, right?

I hope they like [01:05:00] that. No, no, we don't they don't have to do the arranged marriage. The way it works, we give them an option and we say, if you don't take this option, we're not doing it again. And a lot of people are like, Oh, that's horrifying. Like, how could you do that? Like, you know, and when we talked to like young people about this and they're like, I love this idea.

Like if only somebody was just like, okay, here's your one choice. Take it or leave it. Your parents thought it was a good option. They know their parents. If you have kids, I'm definitely putting you in the pool. I'll be sending you a letter. If you have kids around my kids age to marry and they're like competent, like non like spaz out.

We'll be like, okay, we have vetted you and your partner. You both seem intellectually competent healthy individuals. Well, this is the thing. You're like, why do you want to marry somebody like was in your family? Well, like who do you see as a sister? It's like, no, no, no. If you see somebody as a sister, it means you don't want them.

You don't want to sleep with them. I don't want to [01:06:00] have kids with you, but the best marriages are second cousin marriages in terms of producing genetically healthy offspring. So, well, then we have to keep this recording then so that they can play it at their wedding one day. Yeah. Right. They'll be like, Oh my God, those creeps

have a spectacular day. This has been a lot of fun to talk and you know, our podcast is actually doing well. Do you know, right now we're at 13. 7 thousand hours of watch time per 28 day period. Wow, dude, good job. Yeah, we have about like 13 people watching us talk at any given time. Anyway, I really appreciate it and have a spectacular day. And I'm glad that things are going well with you in this this project you're doing that how to have sex better. Because it is such a [01:07:00] good niche for you.

Thanks. Have a great day. Okay. Bye bye.

We explore recent studies finding high rates of dark triad personality traits like narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism among antinatalists. We argue antinatalism correlates more with these pathological traits than with depression. We discuss how the inability of narcissists to genuinely consider other perspectives makes them project their negative worldview. We also touch on how child support laws may select against dark triad traits in the population.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] the, the core personality traits that appear to be associated with antinatalism are generally dark triad personality traits, but specifically antagonistic narcissism, psychopathic meanness, psychopathic disinhibition, and antagonistic Machiavellianism.

And then the other article that looked into this found. Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy were the primary traits that predicted antinatalist belief systems and then secondarily was depression. But you often found them together.

Simone Collins: Yeah, and the difference is that we had thought that depression was first and foremost the big correlatory factor.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah. You needed to be a narcissistic psychopath. And if you are a narcissistic psychopath and depressed, you're likely to be an antinatalist. You're a

Simone Collins: sad narcissistic

Malcolm Collins: psychopath. Like the level of narcissistic sociopathy that would deny life to another person. Who would want to [00:01:00] live just because you personally would prefer to kill yourself, but don't want to take the responsibility of killing yourself. To me, it's just this insane level of sociopathy.

 These studies helped me understand why we have such trouble getting through to the antinatalist community with logical arguments. Because it was never based on logic to begin with. It was always a psychiatric condition.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Known. Just sad. They're

Simone Collins: being beautiful. But,

Malcolm Collins: I love you to death, Simone, and I am excited to be doing this episode because I always love, I mean, great

Simone Collins: thing we love shitting all over people and who doesn't hold

Malcolm Collins: on. The great thing about the prenatal movement and and being seen as sort of its leaders is the an, an antithesis of us, the antinatalists movement.

It's just so like, every time I dig deeper, it somehow is worse than I could have conceived it was. It's somehow [00:02:00] crazier than I could have conceived it was. And it's somehow more just like, transparently, and obviously the bad guys, in sort of this conflicting Like, like, it's like You know, I don't feel like there's been a fight in a long time where there were, like, obvious bad guys and good guys since, like, World War II and fighting the Nazis.

You know, people sort of almost reminisce about these old times where there was a very obvious good guy side and a very obvious bad guy side. And the antinatalist movement, you know, they, they're like, well, we have to keep humans alive so we can kill all life on the planet too. But let's let's go into like how they came up again recently for us, right?

Is I was having to do an audit of how different terms do and how our movement is doing in different search results. And the audit was actually kind of depressing for me in many ways. And that I'll look up something like demographic collapse and when I'm doing it in like an incognito browser, everything's like, this is why demographic collapse isn't a problem at all.

[00:03:00] Demographic collapse, fake science.

Simone Collins: Everything's okay here situation normal.

Malcolm Collins: Actually, I should do some screenshots of this because I know, I know in like Two years when it's just so obvious that this is an issue. Everyone's going to say no one was ever saying that everyone always knew this was an issue.

How dare like, it was funny. We had a reporter over from France at our house yesterday. And she goes, what do you think of all these you know, researchers at universities who are saying you guys are fake science and that you guys are making all this up. And I'm like, I love that they're saying this.

Please put them on record because the more of them you put on record, the better I'm going to look in a few years when it turns out that we were 100 percent correct. And right now I'm like not even predicting this future data. It's like my scary predictions are just what's in the data right now. And they're not looking year to year at how bad things have gotten.

But anyway, antinatalists are different, right? Like, they're not deniers that this is a problem. A lot of antinatalists know how bad fertility rates have gotten. They just think it's a morally good thing for people who

Simone Collins: want to learn more. Yeah, it cheers them up, which [00:04:00] means a lot, because they're often very depressed.

Malcolm Collins: But we can talk about that, because there's statistics on this now. So this is something I hadn't thought to do, was to actually look up the statistics that correlated with antinatalism. And my naive thought from reading the antinatalist post is that depression would be the primary correlating psychological condition with antinatalism.

And

Simone Collins: my naive thought actually, like we, we had a debate with leading antinatalists of at least one faction, John and Lawrence Anton in London. And they were incredibly like, it was clear that they were in it because they were Deeply, deeply, philosophically, intellectually concerned negative utilitarians.

Like we ate in a vegan restaurant for dinner. You're

Malcolm Collins: autistic and you're bad at reading people. That is not why they were in it. No. No. And we can get into this more, but I think that you just believe whatever anyone tells you if they're being affable and kind. Yep. They were being affable and they told you something.

And so you believed it because you're not [00:05:00] very good at reading people. It was a good vegan

Simone Collins: restaurant we went to though. It was

Malcolm Collins: a great vegan restaurant. But anyway so everybody knows, you know, and we've done episodes on this if people want to go into it more the psychological trait that is really overwhelmingly overrepresented in the pronatalist movement is autism.

This is where the, the joke in the pronatalist movement of the greater replacement theory comes from. That the autists are going to replace everyone else. But I'd also say it's not just autism that is overwhelmingly seen in the pronatalist movement. Transcribed there's two other traits that I've noticed really, really big in the pronatalist movement.

Oh my God. One is general high mood, like general happiness. Most of the pronatalists we know are like, I'd say bubbly people, maybe even

Simone Collins: a little Yeah, you're right. Low anxiety, low neuroticism, relatively speaking, from a type of person who often you would expect to be high neuroticism. Like at the natalism conference, a lot of like really big intellectual speakers and, and, and thinkers, like, you know, [00:06:00] high caliber, high caliber people were there.

And yet they, the ones who had kids were like pretty chill for that. No,

Malcolm Collins: it's a very low neuroticism movement and I'd say very high pro sociality. Like natural prosociality. So I'd say high autism, low neuroticism, a bit higher than normal prosociality. And you saw this at the conference, like the conference felt really weird to me because typically when I go to conferences where there's like something that people are like autistically obsessed with, you get higher than normal neuroticism within those communities.

And it was a very interesting environment because you both had the autistic, like, Oh, everyone here is automatically my friend and I'm going to go up and talk to them and be nice to them. And you, you have like an anime convention or something like that, but then you didn't have the like constant fear from some people there where it's like constantly little explosions are happening.

Cause one group thinks everyone else is their friend. And then the other [00:07:00] group is like super neurotic about people coming up and trying to engage with them. Don't touch me. So that was amazing. But so I'm looking up the statistics on, on what is most correlated with anti natalism. And I found, it turns out that there's actually like a body of literature on this at least multiple studies.

And it seems like more than this because one here is talking about a larger body of studies here. So this has been at least replicated twice. So the, the core personality traits that appear to be associated with antinatalism are generally dark triad personality traits, but specifically antagonistic narcissism, psychopathic meanness, psychopathic disinhibition, and antagonistic Machiavellianism.

I didn't even

Simone Collins: know that, like, wait. So what's the opposite of antagonistic Machiavellianism? I guess like super love bombing Machiavellianism. Is that [00:08:00] me? Is that me? Am I love bombing yet?

Malcolm Collins: So, so this, this article that I was just quoting from came from dark personality traits and antinatalist beliefs, the mediating role of primal world beliefs.

And then the other article that looked into this specifically this other article found. Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy were the primary traits that predicted antinatalist belief systems and then secondarily was depression. But you often found them together.

Simone Collins: Yeah, and the difference is that we had thought that depression was first and foremost the big correlatory factor.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah. You needed to be a narcissistic psychopath. And if you are a narcissistic psychopath and depressed, you're likely to be an antinatalist. You're a

Simone Collins: sad narcissistic

Malcolm Collins: psychopath. But it's something I actually see you know, and I think that this is a thing when we're talking about the people we met and stuff like that, Simone.

And, and this can, I think for a lot of people, they hear antinatalist beliefs. And there is this like really, really [00:09:00] flimsy justification for antinatalism. If anybody wants to hear our argument as to why it's not, like, like why we go deep into the logic of antinatalism, you can watch our video These People Want Everyone Dead and Are Weirdly Reasonable About It.

Or just, you know, look up the antinatalism video for Basecamp. And we go deep on that, but I always felt kind of uncomfortable with it, because when I go over the arguments antinatalism, it is so logically sort of shaky and, and really contrived that I, I sort of have this feeling, like, how, how are people arriving at this belief?

And I was like, well, there must be a large amount of depressed people in the community, which there are, like, objectively, if you look at what antinatalist posts there are. But I, I was, I was still pretty confused. Now when I'm looking at how common narcissism and psychopathy are within the community, it really explains things for me.

So, imagine you are just like an incredibly narcissistic [00:10:00] person and anyone who has met with or known narcissistic people. People who have narcissism, even if they're fairly smart people, it's a psychological condition that makes it almost impossible for them to genuinely consider the world from another person's perspective.

And so you, you have this inability to genuinely consider, and what does it mean to consider things from another person's perspective? Because I think that people hear this and they don't understand what I'm saying, like, like a, a narcissistic person could hear this and be like, I think about things from other people's perspectives all the time.

And it's like, no, when a narcissist tries to think about the world from another person's perspective, they just clone their own personality and their own intentions onto the other person. They don't consider, well, you know, we'll, we'll talk about how you don't actually do that in a second, because I think that you're being overly disingen dis, dis what's the word?

Not giving yourself enough credit. They are not good at considering That an outside person might [00:11:00] genuinely have different ideas and motivations in them. They say, what would have driven me to that position? And then they use that to model the individual. And so, if you are

Simone Collins: Someone, go

Malcolm Collins: on, yeah. Yeah, but if you are a deeply depressed person and you also have this narcissistic personality,

Simone Collins: then of course everyone wants to die or not exist, wishes they were never born, but he

Malcolm Collins: tells you, I don't actually want to die.

I really love my life. You are in, you're like, no, yeah, because of this psychological problem that they have. Um, So, so this is why narcissism is so elevated within the community, is it's, you've got this depressed population, and depression is really high within the urban monoculture because, for reasons we've talked about in other videos, you can look up, like, the Cult of Psychologists episode we've done if you want more on that but The, you know, people who are far progressives are much more likely to be depressed because they've stripped [00:12:00] out a lot of their traditional sort of emotional infrastructure and then they become susceptible to a lot of these memetic sets which prey on sort of their depression.

Like the modern day psychologist movement, which psychologists used to be great. Not anymore. You can go to our video. Is psychology a cult? I don't know. Were they? Because

Simone Collins: like, I just feel like it went from Freud to like where we are now.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no, no. There was an intermediate stage. I know the age of cognitive behavior.

They warned us against all of the stuff psychologists are doing today. They're like, there was a period in the 70s where people accidentally created dependency with their patients. Yeah. Don't do that. But it appears

Simone Collins: Well, and then in the 60s and 50s, it was still all psychoanalysis. Maybe it was Jungian, but still, like, that's not No,

Malcolm Collins: no, there was a period from like, uh, 80s, 90s, early aughts, I think, when it was When it was all CBT.

Yeah, CBT, CBT is fantastic.

Simone Collins: It's like the one, the one bright spot. Okay, I don't think that counts.

Malcolm Collins: No, hold on, but we gotta go back to where we were talking about here. We've got other videos on this other stuff. And people can [00:13:00] watch that if that's what they're interested in. Um, so, you're out there and you are depressed.

And you have this narcissistic personality trait, you are unable to believe that other people like their lives. And you are unable to genuinely accept their perception and their arguments about why life is worth living. Because you personally, and this is common when a person has clinical depression, you personally are unable to see the genuine positives of being alive.

But. Then the question would be like, yeah, but it's not just narcissism that this has a heavy overlap with, it's also psychopathy and Machiavellianism. And it's like, well, yes, because there's individuals who hear this and they're like, okay, everyone else is just faking being happy, the world sucks, right?

But then it takes a special type of psychopathy to then think, so we should kill everyone. I should make it my life goal and I will be a [00:14:00] hero if I champion the death of all humans. And when I say Well,

Simone Collins: now, now, only a small minority does. We have to be clear that like most antinatalists just don't want any more humans to exist.

So they want to basically end humanity, but not necessarily kill all living humans.

Malcolm Collins: I, again, I think this is you believing what people are saying to you with a kind face and not, if you look at what they say behind the scenes, and I will post a clip here of the leading female antinatalist, like, in the world, what does she say?

She says, if I could press a button, and it would kill all humans today, even if it meant they had to die by being skinned alive, I would still press that button.

Yeah, so, look, in the interest of the end, if you could end suffering tomorrow, yeah, probably anything is justifiable. Inflicting just about anything is probably justifiable, imposing just about anything is probably justifiable, if you can end it. If you, if there's literally, [00:15:00] you can guarantee no more ouch ever again, then there probably isn't.

a big enough out you could make that wouldn't be justified in the interest of that end, probably by any means necessary. Like if I found out tomorrow that the only way that you could, that sentient extinction could possibly happen was skinning all the living things alive slowly. I'd hate it, um, but I would probably, I would say that it's what we have to do.

I'm totally I'm totally on board with the idea that the only thing that really matters is the suffering coming to a finality. So, yeah, anything in the interest of that, if you can guarantee that, even despite whatever imposition or nastiness might be necessary.

Malcolm Collins: Yes. [00:16:00] You, you, they, when they're talking to you, they're in nice mode, Simone. People aren't naturally confrontational with other people. And I think that you, because you have such this

Simone Collins: Well then why? Why, when people are kidnapping other people, don't they just go like Little miss, why don't you just step into this car, please?

Malcolm Collins: I mean, I don't know. I think kidnappers are actually nicer to their victims than you would think, especially after they've been with the kidnapper for a while. This is how you get things like the John Burnett Ramsey, I want to say what's her name? Is that

Simone Collins: John Burnett Ramsey? I'm sorry.

Malcolm Collins: No, it's the chain.

Childhood. Is

Simone Collins: it Katie Hurst? Stockholm

Malcolm Collins: Syndrome. No! Stockholm! Oh my God, this bothers me so much. Oh,

Simone Collins: you're thinking about Hurst. Yes. Yes. You're thinking about Hurst. Yeah. Hurst

Malcolm Collins: is a real example of what is called Stockholm Syndrome. I know. Yeah.

Simone Collins: However,

Malcolm Collins: Stockholm Syndrome the event in Stockholm that people attribute to Stockholm Syndrome is not a real example of Stockholm Syndrome.[00:17:00]

Really? No. Yes, the cops really were trying to get the, the people killed. Like, if you, if you watch it as an outsider the, the cops really did not care about the lives of the people who were in the hostage situation. They did almost get them killed. And the people in the hostage situation had every right to be identifying with their Hostage takers over the police.

That's interesting. Hurst is a very different situation. She actually did just decide to join this, this psychopathic kidnapper. Maybe he was hot. I don't remember how we Well,

Simone Collins: Actually, I'm gonna look him up. Hurst.

Malcolm Collins: Kidnapper? Oh my god. Because, well, I mean, with this women, Cause I don't know,

Simone Collins: like, I don't know if, if Stockholm Syndrome can't be a thing.

If it was a really hot kidnapper. Right.

Why are there not images coming up of him right away? It's just her. I want to see him. This is so

Malcolm Collins: lame. I wonder how many women would be like, would also have this thought like, well, if he [00:18:00] was hot enough.

Simone Collins: But seriously, like then it doesn't count. It was just like a hot, powerful guy. Of course, she's going to go for him anyway.

I can't find pictures. So

Malcolm Collins: anyway, so, you are fantastic, man. I love it. But I, I find this really. Interesting, and I think it tells us a lot about the antinatalist movement, because, you know, I have that one video where I go through and I'm reading, like, antinatalist subreddits, and they're talking about how we need to kill everyone, and how we and you here, of course, as an outsider, are like, oh, they can't possibly mean that, right?

Because a psychologically sound person wouldn't think like that. And so here you are thinking that, right? These are psychologically. And keep in mind, like, psychopaths are very good at being affable with other people. This is how serial killers work, right? Like, you're here being like, Oh, but the, the clown man was so nice, you know, he, he performed in our kids.

He can't possibly [00:19:00] be the serial killer. And whereas what you're antinatalist community is what could essentially be thought of as a, Okay. Community of serial killers, basically. That has gotten together and is sharing ideas with each other. And I think that when you take into account, and this is why, like if you look at our video Logically Arguing Against Antinatalism, and our points, I think, are just rock solid.

I think if it was really logic that was driving them to this perception, that that video would have persuaded far more of them to deconvert from antinatalism than it did. I do not think it is logic. I think it is justification justification of something they want to believe. And so they go at it and they're like, how can I make this belief system justifiable for myself?

But I do not think that antinatalism is a belief system that is ever reached by logic. Because the logical arguments just aren't very good. Like the, asymmetry argument is garbage. And again, you can watch our video on this. Well, and antinatalists also seem to [00:20:00] have trouble engaging with logical arguments.

So here's an example.

Simone Collins: I feel like all they ever do is engage in, at least performatively, logical arguments. Yeah, but that's

Malcolm Collins: the thing. Formatively logical arguments that are very bad. So you had an anti natalist reach out to you and you got so annoyed by it because it was just such a bad argument. He goes like, well, what's the difference between giving births to someone and going up behind them and injecting them with drugs.

Right. And you're like, well, consent. And he's like, what? But the person didn't consent to be born. And it's like, yeah, but they can end their lives whenever they want. And then he's basically like, yeah, but I don't want to deal with that. That's basically the response to you can end your life whenever you want within the antinatalist community is, wait, you're saying I have to take personal responsibility for my actions as they relate to myself?

And it's like, yes, yes, you do.

 What are you waiting for, huh? [00:21:00] What are you waiting for? What are you waiting for? What am I waiting for? What am I waiting for? What are you waiting for? F**k you!

Oh my god!

Malcolm Collins: Like the level of narcissistic sociopathy that would deny life to another person. Who would want to live just because you personally would prefer to kill yourself, but don't want to take the responsibility of killing yourself. To me, it's just this insane level of sociopathy.

Um, which, which is very surprising to me that like, and then, well, Not surprising to me. These studies helped me understand why we have such trouble getting through to the antinatalist community with logical arguments. Because it was never based on logic to begin with. It was always a psychiatric condition.

But a dangerous and common [00:22:00] psychiatric condition within the urban monoculture. Yeah, but at the

Simone Collins: same time, like, this is, this both sounds very dire, but also in the end could be very hopeful, assuming that these people don't change their stance and have a ton of kids, because then this is just a selective pressure against.

Yeah, dark triad traits that are, that are not pro social, that are not on the whole good for society. So, I mean, yay, isn't it fortunate that a lot of people with dark triad traits are also going to be. Self

Malcolm Collins: sterilizing. Yeah! I mean Well, actually, so this gets more interesting than the point that you're making, and I want to elaborate on the concept.

Um, so, I also think that child support has done a lot to promote the reduction of dark triad traits.

Simone Collins: So Oh, because you can't just, like, get a woman pregnant and, like, walk away and not have to worry about it.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, so historically if you look at women there is some attraction to dark triad personality traits as you were talking about with the kidnapper thing, right?

Like, powerful men with dark [00:23:00] triad personality traits in a historical context were more attractive to women who wanted random flings. And the red pill

Simone Collins: will never let you forget

Malcolm Collins: it. Right. No, it's not useful, like, It's not a useful genetic strategy for a male, particularly these days. And somebody's like, well, what do you mean by that?

It's because the women who will allow you to sleep with them if they're like, not interested in marrying you, are typically the low caliber women of both intellectually, attractiveness, and other genetic qualities wise. And, and then the high caliber women, they have a reason to be much more selective about this.

So even when they are getting pregnant, they're typically selecting the sperm donor based on traits like pro sociality. But if you're talking about, and this is, by the way when women select sperm donors, pro sociality is one of the core traits they look for in research. This is like a well studied thing.

But if you are one of these men who just like sleeps around. And you have this Machiavellianism, and narcissism, and, and, and sociopathy, other, other drug triad traits [00:24:00] you, because you just genuinely don't care about other people, or the world, or your potential kids you are not interested in getting other people pregnant.

Because now there is huge negative consequences to you due to child support, at least insofar as you are to any extent successful. Now, if you are a very low genetic quality male, there's not as much risk to you. So I think that these men are still sleeping around and within these communities, dark triad personality traits will persist.

But what we're seeing now is among the many partner strategy that used to keep these traits stable was in populations. There is much less reason for these individuals to breed. And even within these people who might have now turned to more monogamous relationships and stuff like that, which are now joining the anti natalist movement.

They're also being selected out of the population, which to me leads me to believe that future human populations are going to be. dramatically more pro social and and more empathetic than human populations in the world today. Interesting.

Simone Collins: Very interesting. But

Malcolm Collins: [00:25:00] also, if people know our other research on, on, on genetic selection, they're also going to be much more tribalistic and much more xenophobic.

So basically you're going to have affable religious people who are very nice to anyone who they see as a cultural ally or within their community, and that who wants to kill everyone else in the world. Um,

Simone Collins: well, I mean.

Malcolm Collins: Bad. Well, I mean, so do you have any thoughts on these studies? Cause I, I mean, I was really surprised. This is not, you know, I genuinely didn't expect. It's surprising

Simone Collins: because most people.

refer to pronatalists as narcissists. Like, Oh, you're just trying to spam the world with your children. Right. That's the constant accusation that we see for anyone who has a lot of kids. Oh, you're just so obsessed with yourself that you just, you

Malcolm Collins: know,

PROJECTION!

Simone Collins:

So yeah, it, it is a little surprising also because a really common way in which people hear about [00:26:00] narcissistic individuals is in the context of like narcissistic parents who are really damaging to the lives of their children. So you just, I don't know, like, I think it's, it's much more common in someone's evoked set to think about narcissists and like of self obsessed people as being more likely to be a parent, which is.

Surprising, but

Malcolm Collins: well, that's something I would encourage if people doubt this or are interested in learning about the antinatalist community. Genuinely, just look up their YouTube channels watch them talk for a bit. And I'd suggest if you have a good ability at reading people watch their eyes and watch their micro expressions in face.

So I am micro

Simone Collins: expressions were largely debunked.

Malcolm Collins: So. It kind of, I, I, People who are very good at reading other people typically rely on these sorts of expressions, but I don't know if they can be scientifically studied very easily.

But as our audience may know, if they don't, is you are clinically autistic. You are very, [00:27:00] very, very bad at reading people. You just are like, are they nice to me or are they mean to me? And what are they saying? If they're nice to me and saying something, then they must be being honest. Whereas I am very, very good at reading people to like an insane amount.

I, too much, too much. It's painful to you. It's painful to me how good I am at reading people. Yeah. Well, because I have a really high amount of empathy and it does. Oh my God.

Simone Collins: You're like Edward Cullen in twilight where you just keep hearing everyone's. Thoughts and you're like, no, and I am like, what's her face?

That Bapid girl who you can't read my thoughts because I don't have any. And you're like, Oh, this is so refreshing.

Malcolm Collins: I will actually say that it has been a major part of our relationship is that I am very, very, very good at reading people. And because of that, I can genuinely or not genuinely but generally tell when somebody is, manipulating me or attempting to manipulate me. And I think that that's actually pretty common for females in, in [00:28:00] relationships.

Simone Collins: Well, and I think also it's very mentally taxing for you to keep modeling people when they behave

Malcolm Collins: like that. Yeah, yeah. So I have to, you know, when they're in a fight or they're being pissy, I have to constantly model them and I find it very mentally taxing.

I never have to model you. You are just a complete blank. You are who you are in public. In private, there is never a hidden agenda. Um, uh, and when there is a hidden agenda, it's like for five seconds, and then you crack up laughing and just tell me whatever it is. Like you, you are incapable of doing that.

Did I ever do

Simone Collins: something with hidden?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, well, I think it's funny. Sometimes my family is like, well, can't you, she must be hiding something like people don't act like that. And I'm like, no, genuinely, like, if you understand her, you'd understand it is, it is an anathema to her character. There is nothing underneath.

But if you go out and you watch these anti natalist channels as somebody who's good at reading people, or if you are good at reading people. It's, it's actually kind of obvious in hindsight that they feel this way. You, there is no anti natalist channel where people are [00:29:00] like on our channel laughing a lot, affable to each other, right?

Like that seem to genuinely get pleasure out of life. Everything is very calculated and cold and dehumanizing of anyone who is not themselves. Anyway, Simone, I love you and fun episode. And again, I'm always grateful to our enemies to allow me to know I have made the right choices in life to align myself with people who are nice to me and, and generally don't try to tear me down.

Because the pronatalist community is overwhelmingly nice except for one guy. But he doesn't go to the conferences and nobody really talks to him and everyone hates him.

Simone Collins: Not everyone hates him. They just all recognize that he's a curmudgeon. That's all. That's a great sound.

Malcolm Collins: I adore you. I adore

Simone Collins: you, Malcolm.

And I love that you find these things. And talking with you is just way too much fun. It's like a complete highlight of my life. So, [00:30:00] thank

Malcolm Collins: you for You're a highlight of my life. And I am so excited for dinner with you tonight. Oh

Simone Collins: gosh, I'm thinking about it already. Ugh. But, let's talk more. I love you though.

We discuss common female archetypes and tropes, including the girl boss, supplicant, brown shirt, signaler, and shield wife/Viking woman. We explore the motivations, behaviors, and potential dangers or benefits of each one. The girl boss is insecure and desperate for control, while the supplicant serves whoever has power. Brown shirts police social norms, and signalers craft narratives about themselves. Finally, the devoted shield wife/Viking woman sacrifices everything for her family or small community. We also touch on masked signalers like Queen Elizabeth II and signs you may be marrying a dangerous aesthetics-focused tradwife.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] This is where tradwives can get really dangerous because, you know, we support one form of tradwife that we'll talk about in a second. But tradwives who are more interested in the aesthetics of the tradwife and embodying the aesthetics of the tradwife, they are incredibly dangerous because they do not actually care about the best interests of their partner.

Or their kids, they believe there is an aesthetic way to be a good wife. And so long as they are embodying this narrative aesthetic ideal, they are a good wife, regardless of what the evidence says. And when I say evidence, regardless, if their husband's unhappy, regardless, if their kids are sad, regardless of their husband is spending his meager salary to uphold this fantasy that they've created for themselves, they do not care.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins:

So we recently did an episode where we were talking about archetypes of men outside of just a simple beta alpha male, because I think that many men optimize around different frameworks. And what I really don't like about the beta at. [00:01:00] Alpha Sigma thing is it implies that all men who are followers are somehow like the lesser category.

Whereas I don't think that that's true. There are different ways you can be a follower. As we point out, you can be like a knight, you know, you don't need to following orders. Being a dentologist is sometimes a useful way to view the world. When you are fighting for a just cause. But you are not the person leading the troops and you have the humility and personal strengths to recognize that you are not.

fit or, or just didn't happen to be in the right situation to be the person leading. But that doesn't mean that you're not meant to play a role or that you are lesser. Until we go over that. And then someone was like, well, what about women? How do women fit? Like, and I don't even know if I've heard like an alpha, beta, whatever thing was women.

So, so yeah, it's more

Simone Collins: like, are, are they like, what number are they out of 10? Are they a mid? Are they a trans wife? Are

Malcolm Collins: they a progressive? If we're going to build like a framework for women that [00:02:00] follows this, this male framework that we built let's go into this. But I also think it's interesting to us because we realized as we were building the framework for women, well, a lot of this also kind of applies to some types of men too.

And so we can help people recognize. When they're falling into dangerous character tropes and types. So do you want to start us off, Simone?

Simone Collins: Yeah, I mean, I think this is going to come to mind for most people. So if you're watching this and you're thinking about types of women, maybe one of the first types you're going to think of is girl boss.

And I think this is because like when women stand out, it's often because they are the, the bossy one who has to be the smartest in the room in charge of everything. I'm going to tell you how it is even if there's someone more competent than them in the room. Like, no, no, no. They cannot have that.

Like often I think their oldest, their eldest siblings. So they're just used to taking command. And they're just like, no, they kind of have that, like, I know better, but also they, they often are in positions of like leadership or power or whatever.

Malcolm Collins: They're very different for male King archetypes. Yes, they are.[00:03:00]

I think is, is very interesting. They often come across as much more. Insecure and their goal isn't often to be a good leader, but to run things because they believe that everyone else is incompetent or not able to run things as well as

Simone Collins: they are. Well, I really wonder what's going on here. A common complaint on this, you know, like where this happens with both like female stars and with female executives of like, oh, well, when I do it.

You, you call me a b***h, but when a guy does it, he's just doing his job, right? Like, Oh, so I'm grumpy.

Malcolm Collins: Or was the same energy often? Well,

Simone Collins: but it's hard. Like, is it because the pitch of the female voice is higher? So, I mean, I wonder that, but I mean, I also, I feel intuitively the same way, you know, like I, I make the same judgments and I just wonder.

How much of it is societal? Or maybe, maybe it's just that like women are doing this from a place of insecurity because they're just not as comfortable [00:04:00] fighting in that sphere. I, I just don't know. Like, I mean, when I look back at some female leaders, however like historical accounts of Queen Elizabeth Cleopatra, Catherine the Great.

I don't get a girl boss feeling from them, to be honest. It's, there's a different archetype and we'll go and talk about that. That

Malcolm Collins: archetype. Cause they weren't, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Simone Collins: And they, they were, they were also acting from places of. A lot of security, honestly, masculinity, girl boss that we, we chose the term girl boss for this because there is a distinct girlish and feminine element to it.

It's not

Malcolm Collins: masculine bossiness. I point out here that you can have men who fall more into the girl boss category. than the king category. 100 percent You can have, although it's much rarer for women to fall more into the king category than the girl boss category. The core difference here between these two categories is I would say it's they are working to, like the girl boss is [00:05:00] much more in the category of Type A personalities, they are working for perfection and, and perfection of action of the organization and of what they are running and not working for a, a, a the community.

And not working to, to lead or to earn respect,

Simone Collins: earning respect, having things their way. It's less about having things the right way. It's their way is

Malcolm Collins: the right way. Right. Well, and this is one of the things with, with, with Kings that is very different is, is Kings are often primarily motivated. By two things.

What I'd say is earning respect, but the other is an inability to take orders from other people at a level of personal pride. It's not that they have trouble taking orders from other people because those orders are bad. Which is typically what the girl boss, the girl boss problem is, is that they look down on other people so much that they just can't trust the orders of anyone else, whereas it's a fear of [00:06:00] being putting oneself in a subordinate position, which is one of the core weaknesses of this king archetype.

One of the core weaknesses of the girl boss archetype is it's just not a particularly good archetype. For actual leadership, like, it works really well at high levels within bureaucracies, but it is fairly bad at actually running things of agency. So it's a skill that is really meant to rise to high positions within bureaucracies, but often not achieve real world efficacy.

Which different female archetypes are good at, which she pointed out, which we'll get to in a second. Did you have any other thoughts on this one?

Simone Collins: No, no. And I think that most people already have a lot of thoughts on this because it's also like such a thing in social media. And it's already something that's been, it's

Malcolm Collins: a dead horse.

I guess the more final thought I'd have on this that I want to really pull out is this idea of when a woman is a leader versus when a man is a leader. And as a girl [00:07:00] boss, are you embodying, you know, the stoicism that the King archetype is often embodying? Are you embodying the sort of, and they just often aren't.

There isn't a level of, of mental calm or a sort of aura of protectiveness that they are emitting. It is. An aura of agitation which is the, they misunderstand. They're like, why would I am admitting this constant aura of agitation? Are people not relating to me in the same way that they are relating to people who are projecting protection and endurance,

Simone Collins: not even just protection, just like.

Security.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, security. Um, and, and women can learn to do that. And men, like, like you often see this with, with alpha men, not alpha men. What am I looking at? Like type A men, right? Where they will project this sort of insecurity and skittishness. And it's, it comes off immediately and it, it, it, it, they too get insulted.

And degraded in the [00:08:00] same way people at this girl boss category do when they are trying to, and this is a problem, and this is where you really see this archetype is when people in this type a personality type to try to dethrone or try to replace or upstage people in the king archetype. They end up looking very sort of weak.

Yeah, not ideal. All right. What would you say the next

Simone Collins: one is? So the next one that we discussed this morning that came up immediately was supplicant. So Malcolm, you want to walk us through

Malcolm Collins: the, Yeah, I know a lot of women who fall into this trope. And it is less a trope I see with men, but it's, it's definitely when I see this woman, although it is, I've seen it like memed on for men, right?

Smithers, what is it?

Simone Collins: Smithers. Yeah. The, the supplicant to Mr. Burns. Yeah. So But I think so interestingly and this is interesting is hold on Smithers is seen as like kind of pathetic right but like missed There are pepper pots who is a supplicant [00:09:00] although like framed is sort of ironically. I rolly Oh God I'm so much better put together right like they sort of changed her from a supplicant to a girl boss But anyway pepper pot

Merci graves.

Simone Collins: Was like looser

yeah, like but like sort of this

Merci graves.

Simone Collins: trip is more seen as like respectable like a woman who Who assists a man and devotes her career and gains her power from basically representing the man as a proxy or the powerful person.

And now many supplicants we know, by the way, aren't just supplicants to male leaders. Many supplicants we know have worked with and for very powerful female leaders, politicians, etc. So like, I'm not saying this is a gendered thing. It's just that like, it's, but this concept of a woman assisting other people and acting as their proxy is much more respectable for women.

in media and tropes than for men,

Malcolm Collins: obviously. Yeah, which is interesting because in the other category we're talking about where men top typically have an advantage with this trope, whereas in this one, women typically have an advantage when they take this pathway in life. Supplicants are not, by the [00:10:00] way, usually focused on their partner.

They usually focus on whoever the most powerful person in their circle or life is, and dedicate themselves to that individual. And this can change throughout the course of their life. They don't have the type of true loyalty that somebody who is like a lifelong follower of their partner does, which is a different category we'll get to later.

They are more just interested in who's the alpha, like the true. number one big Chad in my life, in my world, and I will dedicate myself to be a soldier of that individual. And it's honestly typically a pretty respected trope and these individuals do not necessarily make bad wives. I've seen really high quality wives who follow this trope and they will, you know, they, they make a ton of money for their husband.

Women who follow this trope, if they are competent, typically are even higher earners than the alpha types. Well, and some.

Simone Collins: Are supplicants to their husbands, right? Some are the assistants to their husbands. So rarely, rarely,

Malcolm Collins: rarely in the, in the modern world, [00:11:00] your husband would need to be extremely powerful for a supplicant to be a supplicant to her husband.

Because usually if their husband is like moderately powerful, like the supplicants we know. He gives them access to even more powerful men and women that they can dedicate themselves to the supplicants.

Simone Collins: Yeah, fair. Yeah. So there is a benefit in it being outside the marriage.

Malcolm Collins: Well, it's not a benefit. It's just an inevitability if they're not like locked in at home, but I have not seen of the supplicants.

I know I have never seen one cheat on their partner. Who are women and this is something that people might be surprised about. They might think the supplicant archetype is one that is likely to cheat but actually usually not because they're pretty high honor driven. They're very similar to like the male knight archetype, but they're much more focused on a single individual, but they're also much more likely to be dentologists and obsessed with honor and integrity.

And they look for that in the individual that they act as a supplicant of. And so that person making a move on them or something like that to them would lower that [00:12:00] person's standing was in their eyes. And so you, you don't see the same risk that I think an insecure guy might think he's dealing with if he has a supplicant spouse.

Yeah. Fair enough. And okay. So, so would you say.

Simone Collins: Yeah, like if I were a guy, I'd probably rather marry a supplicant than a girl boss.

Malcolm Collins: So what's the difference between a supplicant and a knight in guys? Because guys can take on female y tropes and women can take on male y tropes. What would you say is the core differentiator here?

Simone Collins: That, yeah, that it rather than I think guys, even if they are following someone like Jordan Peterson or Elon Musk or whatever make it about a philosophy and less about the person. Cause I don't, I think from a pride standpoint, it's harder to be seen as serving a

Malcolm Collins: particular leader. I agree. I think that's the core difference.

The male category here is serving an ideology or a community, whereas the female iteration is serving a strong leader [00:13:00] within that community. Yeah, that's my thought. So you can have men in this category as well. So what would you say is the next trope? This is fun! Come on!

Simone Collins: So you called the next trope brown shirts.

And what this describes is that, and this is a trope that's been around for a long time, but in sometimes it has many different faces and it appears in different places, but that kind of busybody, social policing woman who works very hard to impose her social norms on. So the girl boss is really just trying to have things run her way and everyone doing things her way, whereas the brown shirt is trying to impose cultural views, values and norms upon you in a larger group.

Malcolm Collins: The classic brown shirt examples would fall into two categories for people. I say the classic one is A woke person would be a classic Brown shirt, like a woke person or an antifa member or something like that. And then the other [00:14:00] category would be like, the trad cast, whatever wife who's like, trying to impose her cultural value system and hierarchy on, and things that rank you within that hierarchy was in people was in other hierarchies. And, and that they're really obsessed with these internal hierarchy battles. And what drives the brown shirt, the reason they wake out of morning, the wake out of bed every morning, the thing that they are most focused on is their status within a local status hierarchy that is controlled and mediated through social shaming of not following the rules or norms of a community.

And why I think this is a useful category is because often people only see it in the groups of their enemies. They don't want how at a lower level. It can be useful. Like, there is useful in sort of norm setting was in a community and women who see it as their job to lightly shame other people.

But when. You get too many brown shirts within a community, then you get virtue [00:15:00] spirals in which a lot of women just dedicate themselves to outdoing, outdoing, outdoing, being the most, the most, the most, and constantly looking for these small failures to meet community standards. In outsiders and that there is not particularly any difference between the woke Antifa woman who's screaming about you not fitting X value set when you are not part of her cultural group, then there is, but, you know, the, the Sunday school mom who's screaming at somebody who's clearly, you know, not of her community that they're not following her community standards and, and, and shaming them.

And you'll know when you interact with these people that the I'm holier aspect, it's not like if you're a part of their community, they're pleasant to interact with because they're constantly showing you that from the perspective of art, I'm actually the superior one, regardless of what they've achieved.

This is what's really interesting and what's uniquely feminine about this. Is it is a form of status hierarchy that they are [00:16:00] obsessed with that is completely social and completely disconnected from any sort of real world efficacy or achievement or bettering the community tries to better the community by or even a supplicant tries to better a community by doing things that help individuals in that community or elevate the leader of the community The brown shirts are genuinely pretty unconcerned with what's in the best interest of the community.

They're concerned with how stringently the community follows the rules, how much people outside of the community are following those rules, and how they can utilize that to raise their status vis a vis other people.

Simone Collins: Though they believe, they believe that what they're doing is what the community needs.

Of course, if they were talking to you, they would tell you that they're absolutely helping. I just find it interesting that There really isn't a male equivalent, like, someone who's imposing. Sort of like annoying norms on other people or being sort of like a Nazi about things [00:17:00] is, is either probably going to be a knight or a

Malcolm Collins: really?

Yeah. Huh? Like, so I see them very frequently. Was it like the fitness community. I see them very

frequently.

Simone Collins: I just see them more as nights because they're just like fan boys for like weightlifting or

Malcolm Collins: whatever sport there. So consider the difference between a brown shirt and a night, right? Like a great example here would be like, okay, you are dedicating yourself to the fitness community and you're trying to elevate the community, right?

Right. You would make like logical arguments on behalf of the community. Consider when we have pissed off the fitness community and they've been like, oh, Malcolm's, how much can he lift? How much can he? Mm-Hmm. You know, I'm like, that's not part of your community. I'm not part of your value hierarchy. Why are you judging me by your community's value hierarchy?

Or the individuals who. You know, see our channel and they're like, Oh, Malcolm doesn't look manly and X and Y way. Therefore I can't follow him or I can't take him. These are individuals who are imposing a [00:18:00] value hierarchy that I am not subscribing to and not competing within to me. In an attempt to shame me into falling into their community and value hierarchy.

And of course, as soon as I do, then they are above me in that value hierarchy, because that's the hierarchy they're using to judge their value. So men do this all the time. I'm actually very confused that you are so surprised to see how often men do this. Within the red pill community, I see this all the time.

I guess

Simone Collins: I just saw them more as knights because I see knights as. As sort of following a big philosophy, but all this is all arbitrary stuff

Malcolm Collins: anyway. No, it's, it's not arbitrary at all. It's a really big difference. Knights are fighting to

Simone Collins: I mean, our categories are arbitrary, just like, you know, Myers No, no, but

Malcolm Collins: the point I'm making is It's not arbitrary at all.

So consider brown shirts are almost always toxic to their own communities. Knights are almost always helping their own communities. So look at the red pill community and you can understand why it's actually really important to draw these distinctions and they are not [00:19:00] arbitrary at all. A red pillar who is a knight will go out there And they will do something like build an organization that is meant to help men in legal battles for child custody and where the fairness in there, or they will try to create an organization that is meant to help them in dating, or they will try to.

And a brown shirt will do almost the exact opposite of that. They will police community norms. They will go around on message boards and say, this is what high status was in our community. This is what low status is within our community. Look at this individual who's not following community norms enough.

Look at this individual who is following community norms enough. And they will also attack people outside their community. So if you consider even like attack comments in a different video, right? Like suppose. You have a brown shirt versus the night in the red pill community, watching a video that it's attacking that community.

The night will create a logical argument as to why that person is wrong. The brown shirt will create a[00:20:00] an argument that denigrates to the individual they are attacking for not. The aesthetic value set of their community. Obviously the brown shirt is doing nothing but angering the public at their community.

Like they, they achieve nothing by saying you outsider don't fit our value hierarchy. It's like, obviously I don't fit your value hierarchy. I'm not competing there. Brown shirts are always a negative. It doesn't matter if they're men or women. And I would actually say that brown shirts are one of the least gendered of all of these archetypes and one of the most holistically negative of all of the archetypes.

Simone Collins: No, it's a now. Now I see the distinction you're making. That is helpful. Okay, next one. Which is probably should we save our favorite for last? Probably. So we'll go on to signalers.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, signalers are different from brown shirts in a surprising way. So brown shirts are very interested. In signaling to outsiders and using community status to signal their position was in a local community hierarchy.[00:21:00]

Signalers are primarily motivated by signaling to themselves that they fit a particular narrative that they associate with either a life well lived or a good life. So it's

Simone Collins: less about. Getting other people to do things that they think are appropriate and more about having other people see them a certain way.

So it's still kind of coercive and that like it matters to them what other people think of them. No, it's about

Malcolm Collins: seeing themselves in a certain way.

Simone Collins: So they really don't care what other people

Malcolm Collins: think then. They sometimes care. Sometimes they, and this is a really interesting thing about signalers is sometimes they really want to see themselves as the type of person that other people see a certain way.

Even when other people don't see them that way. So, I'll explain what I mean here, and as soon as I explain it, people will be like, Oh my God, I have seen somebody do this and it's so obnoxious. Oh no. This is the type of person who you'll get stuck in a conversation with, and it's very clear that they want you to think of them as like a wise mentor figure or [00:22:00] something like that.

But you have been ignoring them the entire conversation. You are just looking to get it over with because you're looking to raise money from them or something, or you're looking, but, but you are there patiently. Now, they actually don't care what you think, not in a meaningful sense. They're, they're using you to masturbate their internal narrative as a wise person who outsiders go to for advice.

They, they are not actually, and they don't like, if you question you would like, do you really care that this person actually just isn't paying attention to you and like. I don't know. You're on a Skype with them and they're, they're searching through Instagram or something just for, huh. Yeah. Wow.

That's fascinating. So that's, that's honestly, a more a less damaging iteration of the signal or personality type. Mm-Hmm. The more damaging iteration of the signal or personality type is, or the most I say is the narcissistic mother

Simone Collins: because many mother, oh God, yeah. Personality

Malcolm Collins: type. Yeah.

These are women. Who, when they are interacting with their [00:23:00] kids are using those kids to masturbate a narrative that they are the perfect mother. And they are not particularly interested in how the way that they are treating those kids is actually affecting those kids or leading to outcomes

Simone Collins: among those kids.

The most extreme example of this is a mother who is Munchausen by proxy, who really loves seeing herself as a caretaker. And as their kid gets older and no longer needs like diapers changed, they find some way. to make that child sick so that they can continue to be the caretaker. That's

Malcolm Collins: terrifying. I don't even know if I say that's the most extreme example.

What's the most

Simone Collins: extreme example? Oh my god, that's the scariest thing in the

Malcolm Collins: world. Eight passengers is a great example. What happened was that family, that was a mother who didn't actually care about being a good mother to her kids. She cared about seeing herself as a good mother to

Simone Collins: her kids. Well, she wasn't systematically poisoning them.

At least

Malcolm Collins: I'm just pointing out that there are lots of different iterations of this and yeah, it's, you have the Munchausen by proxy thing and stuff like that, but then you [00:24:00] also have people like the eight passenger situation where it's very clear. That her parenting strategies, they are not evidence based, they are aesthetic based.

They are based around her aesthetics of what a good mother is like. And even when she saw it destroying the lives of her children, even when she saw her children leaving her face, pulling away from her, building up basically camps to deconvert her kids after they left the family, she still had no level of introspection.

She just went deeper and deeper and deeper. Because for these individuals, And the interesting thing about Signalers is there is no consequentialism to what they're doing. They, it genuinely does not occur to them to ask what actual outcome will this have? They are completely obsessed with the aesthetics of the way they are performing a role.

And this aesthetic obsession destroys family units often, and it is really dangerous. This is where tradwives [00:25:00] can get really dangerous because, you know, we support one form of tradwife that we'll talk about in a second. But tradwives who are more interested in the aesthetics of the tradwife and embodying the aesthetics of the tradwife, they are incredibly dangerous because they do not actually care about the best interests of their partner.

Or their kids, they believe there is an aesthetic way to be a good wife. And so long as they are embodying this narrative aesthetic ideal, they are a good wife, regardless of what the evidence says. And when I say evidence, regardless, if their husband's unhappy, regardless, if their kids are sad, regardless of their husband is spending his meager salary to uphold this fantasy that they've created for themselves, they do not care.

Well,

Simone Collins: so then let's get to the important part. Let's say that you are looking at a wife and she seems like a trad wife, how, I mean, like the problem is these people are often very good signalers to an outsider, right? Like, so how would a guy know if he is, is accidentally marrying [00:26:00] someone who is going to be toxic in this way versus someone who's actually just going to be a devoted wife who really is, is, is, who cares about outcomes, who cares about the impact of, of what they're doing?

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I suppose talk through it with her. You know, if you're talking through, like, how do you decide between X and Y way of punishing kids? How do you decide between X and Y way of raising kids? If they're just like, well, this is the X religion's way of doing things, or X cultural tradition's way of doing things.

They are very dangerous. So you're looking

Simone Collins: for someone who makes evidence based decisions. And if you can't find. Yeah, proof that they make evidence based decisions and that they will change their behavior based on evidence. Then, you know, to be afraid

Malcolm Collins: yeah, or at least some sort of logical. I chain other than this is just the way people who are good Christian wives do things.

Then he. And that's where they become really dangerous because they believe and they're like, as long as I am doing the X, the aesthetic of a [00:27:00] good Christian wife, it doesn't matter if my husband is miserable and broke and in debt. I am a good Christian wife. I am good. I am not responsible for that. And these individuals are incredibly dangerous. And I should note, so a lot of people hear this and they go, wow, you're much more negative on the female tropes than you are on the male tropes. Why is this? And I go, do you not remember that we named all of our daughters, like gender neutral or masculine names?

We have multiple videos where we talk about, like, I do not believe modern femininity is healthy. And as we've pointed out, women can embody these masculine tropes as well. And I think. That women are genuinely better off embodying masculine tropes, they are not the unique sphere of the masculine. They are just often the emotionally healthier tropes and they are the tropes.

I think men gravitate towards more in our society today than they might have historically because the gender differences in, in, in men and women and women gaining Disproportionate power within our society, which they have right now, has led many of the more [00:28:00] emotionally healthy, i. e. trying, i.

e. sacrificial tropes, to be uptaken by the downtrodden class, which is what you typically see in a society and, and so they're becoming more masculine tropes. But historically, I think that these were often seen across genders much more equal numbers, and that you really didn't have, like, it was understood that most of these tropes that we are now labeling as feminine were actually just seen as bad, and everyone knew they were bad.

Simone Collins: But in the name of not being totally negative on women, we do have, I would say the final female trope or type that we separated out in terms of what we most commonly see, I would say is more positive than any single male trope out there. Because this, it, what we're about to describe is kind of like the best of both Knights and Kings.

All together in one package. And this is what we will call the Viking woman. So what is the Viking woman? I call her the shield wife, the shield wife or the Viking woman, but doesn't necessarily have to be a wife. So what is this? And I, everyone I think has encountered women like this, both in media for [00:29:00] sure, but also like in the real world.

These are women who are extremely devoted to Their, their group, this could be an ideological group, but more commonly it is like their kids or their family or their husband or a combination thereof. So common tropes of this are like that incredibly strong willed, like somehow manages to make everything work, makes holidays amazing.

single mother who's working with very little income and very few resources who have kids that she is just like her world is for them. It, it is the, it is the actual real devoted trad wife who does everything she can, you know, to like homeschool her family, you know, with seven kids and, and to, you know, be there for her husband and to just give everyone the best education possible.

You know, despite this not being an easy thing to do, this is, you know, the, The member of a larger extended family who's able to secure a really, you know, high paying job and then manages to almost single handedly [00:30:00] carry that family sending remittances across borders to take care of elderly relatives and other nations to fly out and take care of them to do all these things while also, you know, having a husband and raising a kid and doing a really good job with it.

Like, so these are incredibly strong women. These are the people who I think of when, when I think of. amazing female leaders like Queen Elizabeth, like Catherine the Great, like they, these are people like, so Catherine the Great wasn't really that great of a mother. She wasn't really that great of a wife, but she really cared about Russia.

So, you know, she was the shield woman for Russia and, and she really cared about making it a great nation and it gave her a huge amount of resolve and confidence. What are your thoughts on this? I agree

Malcolm Collins: with everything you said, but I would not agree that these women who you're labeling here are shield bearers.

Because the core aspect of the shield bearer woman is she is a woman who makes the, the safety and security of a small group of people, her personal responsibility. But it is key that it is a small group of people, family, or it is a [00:31:00] company. The women like Catherine the great or Elizabeth or stuff like that.

Many of these women are actually just. Either King archetypes or Signaller archetypes that happen to have a positive understanding of their role. Huh. So if you look at Victoria, Victoria, right?

Simone Collins: Queen Victoria? Yeah. Queen Victoria was a Signaller, but I don't think she was a really great

Malcolm Collins: leader.

She was obsessed with, with seeing herself as, as a mother to her kingdom and everything she did was about masturbating that particular signal, this, you know, or the virgin queen archetype. Okay, now

Simone Collins: you're referring to Queen Elizabeth. Queen Victoria was a signaler and she was all about propriety and having her family look a certain way and having her look a certain way.

And she was incredibly in love with and devoted to her husband, but she didn't necessarily make life easier for him. Queen I still see Queen Elizabeth II as being a shield wife for her nation. Yes, she [00:32:00] saw herself as that, but I think she also really Acted on it in a way that led to her amazing reputation.

I think what makes

Malcolm Collins: her significant is that she had an extremely tight control of her narrative. Which is because she was not, you admire her so you are unwilling to see that she Had a view, so this is the way monarchies typically worked historically, is they raised signalers, but they tried to create a narrative archetype that was beneficial when these individuals attempted to embody it.

And many monarchs fall into this signaler archetype, where especially female monarchs where they have been given a good image of what it means to be a queen. And then they do everything they can to embody that good image from a personal narrative perspective of what it means to be a queen. A great example of this was the last queen Queen Elizabeth.

Complete signaling.

Simone Collins: No, man. No, she's different. She does. She falls outside these tropes [00:33:00] and it's because I think she's extremely autistic. I don't think so. Are you kidding? The horse obsession? No, she

Malcolm Collins: is extremely autistic. She was autistic. I don't disagree with that. But everything she did was about filling a personal narrative of what a queen should be.

And it was not for consequentialist reasons. It was

Simone Collins: about the rules. It was about the rules.

Malcolm Collins: That is what signalers do. They follow the rules, Simone. But I don't think she

Simone Collins: Had to see herself a certain way. In fact, in many cases, she did things to follow the rules in a way that made her look terrible and the way that she didn't want to be seen.

Malcolm Collins: Explain, give an example.

Simone Collins: Policies that she made with her sister and other family members, marriage choices made her pretty unpopular the way that she dealt with princess Diana.

Malcolm Collins: Hold on. Was that not all? This is not a good argument here. Was that not all about following the rules that she thought a Queen of England and a member of the royal household was supposed to [00:34:00] uphold?

Simone Collins: I think a lot of people were telling her that this is unpopular stuff that's making her

Malcolm Collins: look bad. And this is the thing about signalers. Okay. Signalers don't care about what other people really think about them. They care about what they think other people should think about them. It is very, very different from somebody who's in a popularity context, which is a brown shirt.

Brown shirts care about what other people actually think about them. What was up their community and their value system signalers don't they care what other people should think of them by their estimation? So I think that you're missing it. I think shield bearers are very unique in that they are always a local.

Targeted community. It could be their extended value family. It could be their immediate family. It could be their company. If they're, you know, we're working on some small company or something like that, but it is never, or it could be there in but it's never larger than like 12 or [00:35:00] 15 people because they are very, very community focused and focused on the.

Efficacious stability of that community. What I mean is that you know, if you look at a signal or mom and you see 1 of her kids really suffering she would be like, I don't care. I'm following the rules. It's their fault that they're suffering. Right? Whereas a, whereas a shield mom or wife would care.

They'd be like, why is that individual suffering? What am I doing wrong? And I think that this difference shows where people like Elizabeth were signalers and not shield bearers. If her country was suffering, but she felt she was following all the rules. She'd be like, what are you doing? That's wrong. I'm following the rules.

I don't need to change. She would never change based on the effects it was having on other people. Which is the core difference between the Shieldbearer and Signet. Okay,

Simone Collins: Queen Elizabeth II did show intense reticence to change attack when clearly what she was doing was not working, so that's a very fair point.[00:36:00]

Malcolm Collins: Anyway, I love you. I'm sorry to be so harsh on your heroes

Simone Collins: here. Oh, she's, I wouldn't say Queen Elizabeth II is a hero of mine, but I do love autistic women in leadership positions. Autistic women. Autistic women. Yeah. I mean, gotta support.

Malcolm Collins: You're a, you're an autistic wife.

Simone Collins: Thank you. Wonderful husband. I wonder how many different armchair diagnoses we can get for you.

You are not autistic. By the way, Malcolm is not autistic. Not even remotely. He does not show It's just

Malcolm Collins: a fundamental misunderstanding of this person acts socially weird versus understanding actual psychiatric conditions when people say I'm autistic. Wow, you guys are just like dumb. I'm sort of on the

Simone Collins: opposite spectrum.

Yeah, you're more, yeah, so like I'm, I'm on the autistic spectrum. Malcolm is more on the schizoid spectrum in that he like models other people a lot. Like more than the average person. But he's definitely not on the autistic spectrum as, but also like, in terms of like, he has no food or texture [00:37:00] sensitivities, no sound sensitivities, no transition trouble.

He doesn't, you know, like none, none of the classics are there. You are not neurotypical, though.

Malcolm Collins: Very easy time when I'm talking to somebody telling what they're thinking. Yeah. Which a lot of people are surprised by because they're like, well, then why did you offend them? And I was like, because that's how I got what I needed to get out of them.

No, that's the really,

Simone Collins: really funny thing is people assume like, Oh, well, if you model other people, you know, you're going to be like, you know, a Bill Clinton or whatever, like, you know, like some person whisperer. And it's, here's the thing. Malcolm does not give a s**t about you. And he doesn't think very much of you, and that's why he says tone deaf stuff, it's because he does not respect you, and that is so harsh, and everyone has to believe, and feels compelled to believe, that, no, no, no, it must be that he is autistic, it must be that he doesn't understand

Malcolm Collins: understand

Simone Collins: me enough!

Yeah, like, no one would ever be that insulting toward me, knowingly. No, [00:38:00] sorry, guys, that's Malcolm is. Because you know what? Quite frankly, and I'm so sorry. But he is smarter than you. He is smarter than you. He does know better. I'm so sorry, but it's true. He's smarter. He's cleverer. He's thought through this before.

He's researched this more than you have. And he finds your pompous pontificating to be incredibly tedious. So, of course, he's going to start looking away and then he's just going to walk away from you without saying goodbye.

Malcolm Collins: I'm sorry. Oh my god, you hate it when I do that sometimes. When I'll talk to somebody and I'll tell that they're dumb.

And then I just start looking and put like, walk away in the middle of a conversation.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Because when I go to an event, I'm, I'm the most dishonest person in the entire world. I'm looking happy. I'm looking typically somewhat comfortable. I'm looking interested in the conversation the whole time I'm in.

More excruciating pain than you are. You're experiencing boredom and frustration. I am like, my hand is on a stove, and that stove is on full power. And I am

Malcolm Collins: [00:39:00] like, But you say, and you're like, you can see it in my eyes, the moment somebody says something dumb, or like, the signals that they're like, that my eyes just immediately go like, start wandering around the room.

Yeah, it's, it's I'm just looking for who I need to talk to next, and standing there until I, Trying to get out. Oh no, I'm gonna be the worst politician ever. I'm so glad we're running you for office. Oh

Simone Collins: god, this is, yeah, that is gonna be a really interesting challenge. What are we gonna do with, like, all of the people who you don't find sufficiently smart and interesting?

Malcolm Collins: Maybe eventually. Society will be able to respect and understand that they might not be sufficiently interesting to talk to me.

Simone Collins: Well, we actually talked about this and you know, I guess this is kind of closing in on the theme of funny tropes and silly categories, but I want there to be a trope for a politician who absolutely and openly hates his consi constituents, but who does such a good job at making their lives better, that they just love him and they always put him in and they're like, yeah, that's like, you wanna be, he

Malcolm Collins: hate.[00:40:00]

I'll just be efficient. You're, you're like, I will be efficient and, and affable enough to be disregardable.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But what I like about you, Malcolm, is that you express on the outside what I feel on the inside often, except that also in social situations, I'm just in searing pain and I want to run away.

So it's hard. So

Malcolm Collins: anyway, I love you to death Simone. And thank you for being the perfect shield wife for our family.

Simone Collins: Thank you for being the perfect King for ours. I love you.

We discuss an alternative framework for categorizing men based on ideological aspiration - knights, kings, philosophers and mystics. We define knights as followers with integrity, kings as natural leaders focused on consequences, philosophers as knowledge creators, and mystics as supernatural communicators. We explore the tensions but also symbiosis between these groups in a functional society.Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Like in the world of like alpha beta sigma and everything like that, they, they act like not being able to follow someone is a sign of. I don't know what it is. Superiority. No, it's being a bad knight. It's being unable to swallow my pride and just do what needs to be done for the good of my community because I'm not the one making the orders.

That is not a sign of being extra manly or anything like that. Knights are not less masculine than kings. Let's be clear about that. Actually, kings are generally, like a good king is generally more effeminate than a good knight.

 So you can see that both groups are submitting in some ways, Kings need to submit in so far as.

They need to efface their pride for the good of their community,

would you like to know more?

Simone Collins: Now I know we are here to discuss alpha beta nights. However, I want to first give a shout out to you. Perfect husband and show people that husbands are not always the stereotypes of people see them as. So, you know, the stereotype and [00:01:00] the meme of like the boyfriend walking hand in hand with a girlfriend down the street.

And then he's like looking back at some other really hot girl and the girlfriend, it is like a stock photo is looking horrified at him. You know that meme, right? Yeah. So you and I are like that, except what are you craning your neck at? When we're on our morning walks. Oh, toys, you know me. Toys for the kids!

Yes, you're always like, oh, can I like, you know, even if we're like in a grocery store and there's like a ton, just hanging somewhere from like the middle of a shelf like one of those little like, you know, little matchbox cars or bouncy balls or Anything that's like remotely kid, like, you're like, you have, like, you have to take a close look at it.

Like, will the kids like it? Would this make them happy? Would this make their eyes light up? And you were just so constantly looking for ways to make their lives better and to bring just more joy into this household. And I. I mean, one, you are singular and amazing and I don't think you're actually human because you can't [00:02:00] possibly be because only like not even characters are like you because it's not believable, you know, you're just too perfect.

However, I do want people to know that I think there are probably more marriages like this where, you know There, there aren't like these constant feelings of like jealousy and resentment and what about me and what, you know, but, but, but delight in things that couples care about jointly although you're better at caring about everything and you're way better at showing your love for everyone in this household.

So I just want to. I want to point that out. I want people to know that

Malcolm Collins: I have to add a caveat to this because it actually reminds me of something that happened to me. So this is a result. I don't know if it's a result of me caring about my kids, but one of my optimization functions right now, like background optimization, because it gives me a lot of happiness, right?

Um, uh, something that gives me happiness is giving my kids something that makes them happy when I see them happy. That's like one of my core sources of happiness in life today. And as a result, I am constantly on the lookout for things that I can use [00:03:00] to vampire this happiness for my kids, right?

You know, I'm, I'm just completely selfish action. And it reminds me of how you have these different optimization functions at different ages. I remember for a while after I left the age where like I was having sex all the time was like everyone I wanted to have sex with that I would sometimes just be driving and be like randomly, like a part of my brain that had learned to be passively looking for these things.

Like, that's a good parking lot to have sex in. If I needed to have sex with somebody that's a good back area there where I don't think people would find me because, you know, when you're in like late high school, college, you know, you need to be able to sneak around. You need to find private areas. And and then for a long time after that, I had so trained this like set of like, these are things, which is actually kind of sad, like if my kids ever died, I still think the thing would be running in my head of this is an optimization function around the type of toys that would make this kid happy or would make that kid happy.

And I imagine it must be devastating to people who lose a kid. They walk through a [00:04:00] store or. Older me, I reach an older age and I see things that trigger the, you know, the kids are out of the house now. Oh, the Octavian would have loved this when he was younger.

Simone Collins: This is why hopefully we're having our last kid right around the time Octavian's about to have his first kids.

Malcolm Collins: Oh God, I hope so. But I the topic today is one that I actually find really interesting because it came, you know, one of our listeners was asking about the concept of alpha and beta men and like more of our thoughts on this subject. And I was like, you know, I really don't know if that's the right way to categorize men.

It's not that there are not subordinate And dominant men in the world, because there are, there are men who are, and we talk about this in other episodes, the alpha beta dichotomy is a bit of a misunderstanding when you're talking about primates. What you have was the true alpha was in primate tribes.

is what we call the astronaut Mike Dexter stereotype which is a smart, [00:05:00] competent individual who everyone admires and wants to follow. And is like your captain of the football team, but he's also nice to the nerds because this is what chimpanzees often do. You need to recruit the support of those around you.

And that is how you maintain your brutal oppression of those who would oppose you. It is not the group of dickish guys who are slightly antisocial. That's actually much closer to, in the great apes, what you would call a roaming bachelor group. This is common within some ape groups the unsuccessful.

I

Simone Collins: think even like adolescent lions, this is not just an ape thing,

Malcolm Collins: right? Yeah. But I mean, I try to look at apes for models of human behavior more. Yeah. So with adolescent lions, you'll get this phenomenon, or lions, apes, whatever. You see this in different mammal species where unsuccessful males get kicked out of a group.

Like these are males who think that they're more dominant than they really are within their social circle. And so the dominant males kick them out and the women don't want anything to do with them. [00:06:00] And so they go around and basically in a group of all men act extra macho all the time. And their goal is to try to take over another healthy group so that they can become the new dominant males of that group.

Now, it doesn't often happen. It's sort of a sign of genetic failure. So if you are going around with a group of. Unmatched men acting extra macho I would look at and try to understand the phenomenon of roaming bachelors because that's a better explanation and it is definitely nothing to be proud of.

It is a sign of genetic failure. And it's something that has been common throughout our ape ancestors. Now these roaming bachelors, like if you were going to have a group of males attack you and take over your tribe, it was the most common way that would happen. It's not that that never happened.

That happened. But usually the fate of roaming bachelors is dying alone in the woods without ever finding anyone who wants to be with them because that's not the actual status game that's played within the tribe. These are people who couldn't understand their actual position within the tribe.

But I started to think of how do [00:07:00] men actually differentiate in our society in a meaningful way, right? Like, because I think that these alpha beta dichotomies are not as useful to me because they don't describe ideological aspiration. As it differentiates between communities and is predictive of meaningful behavior and world perspectives.

So my dichotomy will make more sense to people. So I do think that this exists, but it's a background thing. This alpha, beta, sigma, whatever thing, right? I think the core way that I would differentiate men, and this is an evolving theory. So I might do another video that expands on this theory in the future, is knights, kings, philosophers, and mystics.

Hmm.

Simone Collins: Interesting.

Malcolm Collins: Knights are men who follow a leader. They are men who are followers to like, like followers, but not in a subordinate way. What I mean by that is when people hear like [00:08:00] beta men, Right. They think submissive men. Yeah.

Simone Collins: They don't think people who are like fanboys of Jordan Peterson or Elon Musk.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Knights are not submissive in a cucky way. They're not submissive in a I will subordinate myself to anything that comes along that proves it's more powerful to me. They are submissive to a tribal identity and often a tribal leader that has proven an amount of natural superiority to them in some way.

These individuals are defined by their integrity. And something that's really interesting about knights, and I think they're the most common group of successful males, you know, a lot of women want to date a knight, they want this big strong being of honor that stands for the tribe and the community and that is fighting for justice and honor and everything like that, right?

And if

Simone Collins: they've chosen [00:09:00] a tribe or, and, or leader, it's probably because that person has pretty decent ideas. So they've also chosen to, to fight for probably fairly good and well vetted ideas that are respectable and that a woman can get excited about.

Malcolm Collins: Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The woman likes him because of their honor and integrity, which is what defines a knight, but also their steadfastness, bravery, in the face of their tradition.

And what judges the quality of one group of knights over another group of knights is who they've chosen as their leader. Who are they following? Is this an individual that deserves following or not? And this now comes to a problem with knights. Knights make terrible leaders of other knights. And it has to do with the fact that their world framings are very different.

So for a knight to be a good knight, they must be a dentologist. Whereas Deontologist? Like D E O N [00:10:00] T. They must be a deontologist. I don't, I

Simone Collins: mean, I may not be pronouncing it right,

Malcolm Collins: but. But for a, a, a leader to be a good leader, they must be a consequentialist. So now we're going to talk about why Knights need to, well, first let's talk about Deontology versus Consequentialism.

Consequentialism means that you judge, no, no, we'll talk about the leader, leaders are leaders because they are individuals who often, and sometimes this is genetic, sometimes they have some level of ability to choose this, but they will not accept any role within a group other than a leadership role.

Okay. If they lack the natural ability to draw knights to them, i. e. they, they are able to prove themselves as good leaders. Then they become what in the alpha beta system is called a sigma male. These are not mysterious lone wolves. These are natural born leaders who unfortunately didn't have the gifts needed to draw a following.

Or weren't in the right

Simone Collins: [00:11:00] place at the right time, et cetera.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I won't say always the right place at the right time. It might just be that they lacked the qualities. They weren't smart enough. They weren't ambitious enough. They weren't hardworking enough. They weren't fit enough. Whatever the case may be, they didn't draw the knights to them.

Because knights typically, you know, you're going to have 80 knights for every one king, right? Like they, they do not And so, so when a person has the personality profile of a king, but is not deserving of following, they become what is called a stigma male, which is a king that just refuses to submit to anyone else.

And, and we can talk about the negative consequences of that in a second. So the two philosophies here are uh, consequentialism believes that The consequences of your decisions or actions judge the morality of those actions.

So if I order troops to war and all those troops die, it doesn't matter how just it was that I decided to send them to war, doesn't matter how much I was following the [00:12:00] rules of my position when I sent them to war, what I did was evil and feckless and pointless. Because as a leader, I was expected to win that war and I don't get to make excuses as to say, but I followed the rules or I did what was honorable as a leader.

If I antagonize another tribe because I decide to follow the rules of honor and that leads to a war between our two tribes, I am responsible for all of those deaths. It does not. matter that I acted according to the rules of honor, the rules of my culture, or the rules of society. And this is also true with logic.

I can think logically this was the best outcome. If I fail in my logical interpretation, I must take responsibility for that failure. I can't say what I was doing. was, after all, I was trying to do what was right, I didn't know it would end up terribly, right? Knights [00:13:00] must have the exact opposite perspective.

If a knight is a consequentialist, then they ignore their leader flippantly based on un Total information. They don't have a total view of the picture of the world. They don't have all the information that their leader has. And so they may act in a way that is unpredictable. That makes them a very ineffective knight.

Because when the leader is making a decision, when the king is making a decision, and he aligns the knights on the battlefield in a certain way, and a few knights decide, I know better. They can end up dooming all of their brothers in arms for thinking that they know better. And this is a really, really big problem.

And, and, and, and, so knights must be deontologists. They must say, look, I follow the rules because following the rules is in itself a just thing to do. But these are two completely different personality optimization profiles. And they cluster within different [00:14:00] communities and they can cause different problems.

So one of the problems you get was knight communities. So one of the most common knight communities, a, a cultural group that I think over, I won't say over cultivate knights, but it has a lot of knights. Like it really does a good job of producing good knights is the Catholic cultural group. And this is part of why one of the things we constantly mentioned is.

Catholic immigrant groups to the US are the most likely immigrant groups to form large organized crime organizations. You know, whether it's the Irish mob or the Italian mafia or the Hispanic groups you have right now, and then other groups that use similar night, like structures, like the Orthodox, where they have this deferral to authority strategy for determining what's true.

They also form large organized crimes syndicates like the Russian mob and stuff like that. So the question is, is why do you see this? It's because you have this one deferral to authority mindset within the masculine population of the community but this, then the, the leaders are also born Knights, [00:15:00] which means that they have sort of an honor code.

In terms of how they interact with the world, but they also believe that they're in the position of a king, which causes them to one, ignore the rules of the land much more readily and to get into conflict with anyone else who's in this localized king or leadership position, but it's really a knight.

Whereas real kings don't do that. Like people who are born kings don't get into flippant fights over their honor and stuff like that. That is, they understand that the, the, the wellbeing of their subjects is more important. Then their own honor or pride or anything like that. What matters is the ultimate outcome.

So what do you think, first of all, of this framework that I'm laying out?

Simone Collins: This makes sense so far. Let's go to what

Malcolm Collins: happens when you get an overabundance of Kings within a population, the overabundance of Kings within the population means that you have a bunch of people who can't find followers, but also can't submit to others and [00:16:00] these individuals then often go to the outskirts of society.

So it was in our modern day world that might be something like working in a firewatch or going and living in the woods and, you know, securing a little bunker in hopes that you get an apocalypse and then you could exercise your kingly abilities. So it's very Aragorn y,

Simone Collins: right?

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, but historically what it means is population clusters that overproduce kings have usually been most disproportionately represented on the frontiers of society.

These were the individuals who, if they were in New York or Boston during the frontier period and they couldn't acquire a group of followers and stuff like that, they'd just say, screw it, I'm gonna go live on my own. And they'd go get in a wagon and they'd go to the edge of society. And within America, there's some population clusters in America that you can find that just kept moving and kept moving and kept moving.

Like, it's not like one immigration wave. It's like they had to keep finding some reason to move over and over and over again. What's [00:17:00] causing this is because this is like an ultra king population. But it also means that they're going to be much more individualist, much less likely to unite under a single leader or do anything truly meaningful in a social structure.

So it's kind of like

Simone Collins: your family and my family, if I'm thinking about like past behaviors. Yeah, our

Malcolm Collins: family would be heavy producers of the king archetype. Yeah. People who led groups, led rebellions, stuff like that.

Simone Collins: Or just disappeared into the wilderness to become like local sheriffs or circus performers.

Exactly. And

Malcolm Collins: my family. Yeah, they're like, I can't, I can't take over this group. I'm leaving. Bye. Yeah. That's the way I was when I was a kid. When I would hang out with social cliques, if I wasn't in charge of a clique, I'd say, screw it. I'm going to go do my own thing. Yeah. And so often for like my freshman and sophomore year, I was often kind of seen as a loner.

And then I would seen as like, the head of a social clique, generally my junior, senior year of things. Because people. It would accumulate around me and we'd have our own community and stuff like that. Anyway so, and this is not like a holistically good thing. This is [00:18:00] a personality flaw. Not being able to follow people.

I need to be clear about that. Like in the world of like alpha beta sigma and everything like that, they, they act like not being able to follow someone is a sign of. I don't know what it is. Superiority. No, it's being a bad knight. It's being unable to swallow my pride and just do what needs to be done for the good of my community because I'm not the one making the orders.

That is not a sign of being extra manly or anything like that. It is being a failure at being one type of man and being successful at being another type of man. But that is not like knight, knights are not less masculine than kings. Let's be clear about that. Actually, kings are generally, like a good king is generally more effeminate than a good knight.

They, they are generally more open to compromise. They are generally more open to like effeminate ways of acting. They are likely more like, like there's many things about a good King that involves self [00:19:00] effacement for the good of their community, but not for the good of an individual leader. So you can see that both groups are submitting in some ways, Kings need to submit in so far as.

They need to efface their pride for the good of their community, and they need to efface their value system for the good of their community. Well, and

Simone Collins: they are nothing without the loyalty of their community. And as soon as they lose that, they have nothing, whereas a knight at least has a certain amount of, like, choice in his vote and personal agency in a way that a king kind of doesn't.

Malcolm Collins: Exactly. And now philosophers and mystics are interesting as well. Philosophers and mystics typically only appear within male varieties when they get large urban clusters within cities. Hmm. These are the two groups that is most overly produced within the Jewish population. Or really any urban Muslim groups have urban specialization to an effect as well, which we've talked about, not all Muslim groups, but some Muslim groups, [00:20:00] and the Muslim groups that do also overproduce philosophers and mystics.

Now when you're in a multicultural ecosystem, philosophers and mystics are of very high utility. Philosophers aren't just philosophers, they're people who Learn and produce knowledge for the sake of learning and producing knowledge. And these individuals are extremely high utility to any large community, right?

Because they, they just like learning and talking and debating and coming up with the best ideas. This is not like a beta thing or anything like that. These are just people whose lives is dedicated to the pursuit of self betterment through education and through educational pursuits. The problem is, is that when you get an overabundance of the philosopher type male you get sophists.

And you get bureaucrats and that is very, very bad. These are individuals who are learned for the sake of being learned. They basically create pyramid schemes of learnedness. Um, well, no, it's,

Simone Collins: it's not like [00:21:00] vortexes of intellectualism that, that can ultimately. Draw a culture down and prevent it from advancing and focusing on worldly things that the culture kind of needs to stay alive, right?

Malcolm Collins: Well, yeah, and this is what sophists are. These are people who debate for the sake of debate and they have forgotten that Learning and education has an end purpose, which is real world industry and utility. When philosophers follow kings, they do very well because kings understand consequentialism, and they live by consequentialism, and they understand how their philosophers should be deployed.

Simone Collins: Yeah, kings are like, well, okay, what are we going to do about this? Okay, I'm going to take this thing that you've learned, and I'm going to do this with it, or we're going to change our policy as a result. Whereas in isolation, all of that high caliber thinking is just high caliber thinking.

Malcolm Collins: The philosophers generate the knowledge that informs the king, which guides the knights.

That is a healthy cultural ecosystem, which is why multiple cultural groups can work really well together and outcompete [00:22:00] solo cultural groups. And one of the really interesting things you have about Israel now, which we talk about in our book, is a group. The modern Jewish population, this isn't true of the ancestral Jewish population, we talk about this in the group, it was really an urban specialist group, you know, outside of Israel, something like 98 percent of Jews live in urban centers.

And before the Holocaust, that was true as well now need to take on urban roles, which is why you get really interesting looking Jewish urban settlements. Like the well, I need to look up the names of them, but I'll put some pictures on the screen, but they look like little micro, if you've explored the settlements in Israel.

They look like little micro cities and not like regular suburbs. They're incredibly dense and weird. Like there'll be like little circles of, of, of community. And there's other reasons for this, like the way you choose spray, but it's a long story here. But then the other group and this is produced across community.

So the mystic mystics are generally dangerous overall. If you've seen our video on what we think of witchcraft, you can see why, but it is one of the male specializations. This is why I believe [00:23:00] you have rates of, or one of the evolutionary factor, facture, one of the evolutionary factors that has led for a selection cross culturally for Schizophrenia in populations is that your classic mystic, the best mystic, is your tribal shaman.

Who, whether you are, you know, a British people in the far north or in Africa, you know, all of these groups had tribal shamans. These were individuals who heard voices, that communicated with the land of spirits and then they shared this information with their community. And I'm sure they played some historic role of utilization for communities, but today I think they serve more a role of just errant information because the information that they are gathering, while it used to, so, so the true role of the shaman in a community historically was to assure the loyalty of the stupidest individuals within the community, [00:24:00] or the most susceptible to mystical hoodoo.

In mystical manipulation to the king which is they did what today like cults do and stuff like that, which is to say some individuals just cannot be motivated by higher order ideas like honor and integrity or a love of knowledge or the love of desire to follow a just ruler, they can only be motivated by threats in the world of the supernatural.

And the mystics kept these individuals in line and following the king. The problem is, is that now we live in a society, like, especially as we enter a space faring age, where these individuals that cannot be motivated by honor and integrity and stuff like that, are just not particularly A useful use of food and life support systems.

So, that makes the shamans less useful than they would have been in a histomerc context. Unless we find some different way of utilizing them. Which is going to be hard given our views around things [00:25:00] like witchcraft.

Simone Collins: Yeah, so you're just like, drop them.

Malcolm Collins: Drop them. I don't see a high utility for them.

I think individuals. So, I mean, there's two types of shamans, right? One type of shaman is genuinely like thinks they're hearing voices and everything like that. And they are the schizophrenic type shaman. These individuals are not going to, they are not the type of person you want on a spaceship where a single mistake can kill everyone.

The other type of shaman. Is the type of shaman that is actually more like a, like a philosopher type, but they have slotted themselves into a shamanistic role because they level of arbitrage within that role. And these individuals can, if, if they can close themselves off to the realms of the unprovable, as we talked about in our witchcraft video, which I would suggest you watch to understand our full views on this.

Yeah. Can become of utilization and can move into a philosopher group, but a philosopher [00:26:00] group that specialized on human manipulation and understanding how humans think and act. So long as they do not promote. Chaos cults on, on the spaceship or the colony or anything like that. You know what I'm thinking?

Distant human future. When I say chaos cults, what I mean is you know, genuine mysticism and the belief of alternate systems that govern the physical reality within which we live, because that is what mysticism is. It's a hypothesis that there is an alternate explanation for how physics and reality works, but a hypothesis that you are unwilling to have tested and disproven.

So what do you think of this framework? Any other groups you would add to it?

Simone Collins: I mean, in modern society, we also have to consider And this is not a gendered thing, so maybe it doesn't count, but the people who are just completely, like the hikikomori in Japan, the people who've become shut ins and [00:27:00] completely

Malcolm Collins: I guess I'd call them blanks. These are the people who the shamans are meant to control.

Hmm. I mean, they could be NPCs, they could be whatever you want to call them. Yeah, I

Simone Collins: guess, yeah, maybe, maybe NPCs is the right word for them, but yeah, that is like sort of one segment that I feel like is growing and is, Increasingly a risk to society that, that is not addressed by this model.

Malcolm Collins: Well, yeah, I mean, because this model is looking at the people who we want to take with us and judging, you know, who is the best people to take with us.

Simone Collins: So it sounds like you want to bring like two Kings, a ton of Knights, three philosophers, and no mystics. No,

Malcolm Collins: you're creating an enabled breeding population of Kings. We would talk about how this works in, in, but yeah, but the vast majority you need are nice and philosophers as well. I mean, if you're in space, you need people who are dedicated to learning and, and knowledge and truths, but are guarded against.

And the mystical arts.[00:28:00] So you need these individuals who are not going to be susceptible to external and alternate frameworks for physical reality, but that can push science forwards. And they can study populations and provide useful information to those within ruling positions. But the, the problem is that these groups all seem to hate each other when they're just acting randomly.

Like, they all think that every one of their, one of the groups is an enemy because they, they see that they're different and they have different values. Like, the individuals who are like, you guys are such consequentialists, like, that's so evil. And it's like, well, you don't want somebody who's not a consequentialist running your society or your group.

Simone Collins: Right. I mean, because, I mean, well, some, I think, view consequentialism as very evil because they view it as the mindset of the ends justify the means. Meaning that they focus on atrocities that could take place. We focus on the, is this evidence based? Will there be an ROI? Is this effective element of consequentialism?

Malcolm Collins: Which we think is Sometimes the truth is unnecessary. The consequentialist is the person who, as a leader You [00:29:00] are trusting, you know, I was playing Rogue Trader recently, right, which is a game that takes place in the 40k universe and there's a planet that's being overcome by a chaos cult, right? And you have a few options.

You can try to save as many people as you can from the planet. But you know, a cult spreading there and it will become a demon world where people will end up being tortured and for, for eternity, the hundreds of years, thousands of years, right? Everyone on the planet will live in a state of constant pain and fear, or you can basically set a detonation that destroys all life on the planet.

But you're not going to have time to do that if you try to save a bunch of people. The obvious right decision is to detonate all life on the planet. Yeah. If you are optimizing for anything like good in the world or anything like that, but it is also a horrifically individually evil decision that a denatologist would never take.

And so, that is part of the, the The pain of being a consequentialist, you just need like the logic and people need to [00:30:00] understand that you are logically aligned with what their goals are as well, because some consequentialists, if they're fighting for something like human purity or something like that, then they're going to come up with genuinely evil things like trying to prevent people like us from breeding because they see our.

use of, of genetics in terms of our breeding patterns as, as perverting human purity. And so they are angry about that and they want to sterilize us. And they want to sterilize disabled people who are the other people who need this technology to have kids. And that leads to genuine evil.

So it's important that you know, the people who are in a consequentialist group was in society have some level of. Higher order thinking capacity. And that's also why it's important that you have smart knights in a society because dumb knights follow dumb consequentialists.

Simone Collins: Yeah, dumb knights just go ahead and execute on atrocities.

There's plenty of historical precedent for this.

Malcolm Collins: Don't take it out. But I'm sure there's some other groups that I can add to or expand this system with eventually, but [00:31:00] I love you to death. I'd love

Simone Collins: to, you know, in the future to hear your thoughts on how women break out. Because yeah, that would be interesting.

Yeah. Like if this is what men are, then what are women? That'll be a fun conversation.

Malcolm Collins: I'm sure some women fall into this category as well, or this, this framework. But the question is, is, is what role are they taking within society? Which, which may be different. And I also love that you point out about the blanks.

Most people are blanks. But blanks aren't alphas or betas or sigmas or anything like that. They're just people who are not doing anything. Almost sort of automatically reacting to their reality. They almost behave like particles just reacting on the forces around them.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Kind of like, just consuming air, wasting space.

That's very

Malcolm Collins: well. And a lot of them are, well, I mean, they're vectors for infection. They're vectors from a medic infection because they can spread my medic infection to otherwise non blank individuals. But my medic infections spread very, very fast among blanks, like woke ism, but also other forms of my medic infection.

Like [00:32:00] the perversion of stoicism and Calvinism that I think is represented was in some aspects of the red pill community that we talked about in the pragmatist guide to crafting religion.

Simone Collins: Right. Yeah, absolutely. Love you. I love you too. You're amazing. I'm looking forward to time with our kids tonight.

Cause it's going to be a special night. Right. See you downstairs.