Only the Pluralistic & Technophilic Pronatalist will Survive

This episode discusses the necessity of embracing technology and industry to maintain cultural autonomy and survivability in a rapidly changing world.

1. Technological engagement is crucial for maintaining cultural autonomy and security.
2. Pluralism is necessary for cultural groups to survive in an interculturally competitive future.
3. Disengaging from technology leads to economic and military disadvantages.
4. Cultural survival depends on the ability to adapt to and integrate with advancing technologies.
5. The future will likely favor those who are both technologically advanced and culturally pluralistic.

1: Introduction to Technophilic Pronatalism

Hosts discuss the divide within the pronatalist movement and advocate for a technophilic, industry-driven approach. They argue this path ensures cultural and economic survival. Malcolm Collins: "Everyone who doesn't take this path has no real freedom or real cultural security."

2: The Risks of Technophobia

Detailed discussion on the dangers of avoiding modern technology, illustrating with global examples the potential consequences of such choices. Simone Collins: "If you're living in the developed world, generally, you do not have to worry about people of other cultural groups coming and sterilizing you or killing you."

3: Cultural Autonomy and Technology

Exploration of how cultural groups can only maintain autonomy if they embrace industry and technology, using examples like the Amish and the Haredi. Malcolm Collins: "These groups are only really able to have cultural autonomy insofar as they are in the good graces of their higher technophilia, higher industry neighbors."

1. Engage with Modern Technology: Actively seek to understand and use current technologies to ensure competitiveness.
2. Educate on Technological Advances: Implement educational programs that focus on science and technology.
3. Foster a Culture of Innovation: Encourage innovation within your community or organization to stay ahead technologically.
4. Promote Pluralistic Values: Cultivate an environment where diverse cultural and technological ideas are welcomed.
5. Prepare for Future Challenges: Strategically plan for long-term survival by integrating advanced technologies into everyday practices.

In this thought-provoking discussion, Malcolm and Simone Collins delve into the reasons behind their strong alliance with the technophilic, pro-industry faction of the pronatalist movement. They argue that embracing technological progress and maintaining industrial productivity are crucial for ensuring cultural autonomy and survival in an increasingly competitive world. The hosts explain how groups that disengage from technology and rely on the protection of the current "urban monoculture" are setting themselves up for failure once this detente collapses. They also discuss the importance of pluralism as a strategic value for minority groups, the need for long-term thinking in cultural preservation, and the potential for technophobic groups to adapt and embrace technology when faced with existential threats.

People

Simone Collins, Malcolm Collins

Companies

None

Books

None

Guest Name(s):

None

Content Warnings:

None

Malcolm Collins
I love a lot of these technophobic groups. I think, like, Louise Perry is recently on her podcast, and she's. I think God doesn't want us engaging with technology. If you take a low tech approach, you are dooming your culture as much as the people who are chemically castrating their children right now. There is reason we cling to industry.

That is what gives us our cultural autonomy and gives us an ability to survive in the world that we're heading into, which is going to be much more aggressive, interculturally speaking, than the world we're in today. If you do something as simple as just say, okay, all computers, all Internet is fine, just no AI, right. You are at such an enormous, both military and economic disadvantage. The urban monoculture has been good for many of these groups in one way, and that they have imposed a sort of detente on our society. You, if you're living in the developed world, generally, do not have to worry about people of other cultural groups coming and sterilizing you or killing you.

That will not be the case when the urban monoculture falls. It's existential that you're pluralistic. If you are not a group that has a chance at a play for the dominant culture in the earth, for example, suppose you're a Catholic right? Now. If they try to take the.

We will turn everywhere we live into the catholic caliphate mindset, and we will kick out the non Catholics. Then any region where Catholics are not the dominant population, they are now a threat to all of the other populations. If you get one or two catholic caliphates set up now, all Catholics become a problem. This is why this is so, such a dangerous pathway. Would you like to know more?

Hello, Simone. It's exciting to be talking to you today. Today we are going to be addressing why we have so ardently sided with the technophilic, pro industry side of the pronatalist movement. Because if you look at the wider landscape of the pronatalist movement, there are broadly two solutions. One is to say, if society isn't working right now, like with all the changes we've had, let's go back to a time when it did work.

The other solution is ours is to say, let's take elements from a time that did work. Let's riff on that, but let's adapt them to be pro technology and pro industry so we as a species can keep developing in the direction we're developing today. And this is, I think, to a lot of people. We wrote a piece in Aporia about why we chose to build a religion for our family. And one of the most common complaints was, why do you need to engage with industry?

And I think that there is the misinterpretation that for us, this is aesthetic, that we are engaging because we just personally like industry, or we're just generally pro science people, or we believe in a future that's pro science. And that is not why literally any other approach is pointless. Everyone who doesn't take this path has no real freedom or real cultural security. Do you want to go further before. I explain why, simone, or go into it?

The point being is if you, any group really only has cultural autonomy, that is, are able to practice their own cultural beliefs and pass those beliefs onto their kids, insofar as nearby groups that are higher industry or higher technophilia allow them to. The Amish and the horaidi are two very high fertility populations, but both of these populations are incredibly low industry, incredibly low productivity, and incredibly low science engagement. And when I say science engagement, pushing science forwards, stuff like that, right? I have a broad understanding of science. They're not as like poo poo as the Amish, but they're not particle physicists are working on new types of computers and stuff like that, or auto drones and stuff.

This matters because these two groups are only really able to have cultural autonomy insofar as they are in the good graces of their higher technophilia, higher industry neighbors. This is the topic we have talked about before, and I wanted to do a full episode on it because it's important to ultra freaking highlight here. Okay, ultra, ultra highlight. If the way that you are maintaining intergenerationally high fertility rates is from disengaging with technology in a way that makes you less industrially productive than your neighbors, you do not actually have cultural autonomy. And people can say, yeah, but what if we all just agree to go this way?

And it's like, yeah, but we don't live in that world. In other countries, there are going to be solutions to falling fertility rates that allow for technology engagement and industry, but that also strip away things that we would see as existentials. For example, China might move towards forced inseminations or some fascist country will. And that will work to keep their fertility rate high and won't involve, oh, nobody engages with a computer anymore. Nobody engages with an AI anymore.

Some companies will likely begin to breed their own workers. We've talked about this before. When that becomes a major issue, you're going to have companies breeding them, likely without certain proteins, so that the workers are permanently indebted to the company. You have gone with a traditionalist religious approach, and that's how you got through that. And that approach included disengagement with modern technology.

You are going to be stomped by these individuals, or at least have to live in a world under their rules. And I do not want my kids living under a rule world of totalitarian, fascist rules. And if people are like, come on, how could they really impose on us? I'm sorry, we live in a world where today industry means better guns. In the future, it's going to mean better Terminator robots, the AI's we see today.

You think somebody's not going to be putting those in robots and giving them guns, especially if they're fascist inclined? Don't kid yourself, sonny. Well, I think the problem is that right now there are many groups that are able to exist with the false sense of security because there are currently, in many places in the world, governments that allow different groups to basically be exempt from military service and taxes and even having to work while maintaining their cultural autonomy. And these groups can also. And there's this impression that, one, we're allowed to do this and it's working now and it's fine.

Simone Collins
And two, we have way higher birth rates than the main culture, so we're just going to be giant. And I think there's just this lack of awareness, or people are conveniently forgetting that it is these governments that are low fertility that are currently bankrolling and also actively protecting the rights of these groups, and that as soon as those groups do inevitably disappear, there will be no such protections and there will be no such, no such bankrolling. And you're going to need to find a different solution. So I think that's another really important point. You pointed out, quite controversially, something that Richard Hanania tweeted about recently, which is that Hamas does have a plan, did have a plan, when invading or attacking on October 7 for Israel.

And the plan was not to completely get rid of all the Jews in Israel, but rather basically keep some on, like, a farming basis to have them continue to make money and hold up their lifestyle. And you really wanted to take them. As, like, technologically competent and essentially enslave them? Yes, and I think, quite frankly, that's the only option. Like, they are the most aware of the actual dynamic at play of groups that are currently doing their own thing, but that also understand that they want to be parasitic within a larger ecosystem.

There are many other groups that are just, I guess, burying their heads in the sand or not thinking at all about the longer term implications of what's going on. And this even includes, to a certain extent, the ultra orthodox in Israel who are not serving in the military, who are not contributing economically in the same way to Israel as a nation. They also are going to be, if they don't somehow manage to capture and enslave the productive Jews in Israel, going to run out of government support and going to run out of protection when the lower fertility but higher productivity group disappears. Keep in mind, like, when people stop sending them aid money, the people sending them aid money are these incredibly low fertility groups that control a lot of the west government today. When they disappear, a lot of these individuals are going to lose the cash flows that are going into their countries and they're going to be starving to death en masse and they will be attacking their neighbors.

Malcolm Collins
A point that you made that I just cannot highlight enough is I think that you are overly focusing this on the extremist cases like the herai and stuff like that, where I'm talking about it in cases like the trad cath who thinks that they can get away without their kids learning to use computers or AI, if you do something as simple as just say, okay, all computers, all Internet is fine, just no AI. Right. You are at such an enormous, both military and economic disadvantage. And what you point out here is that we have lived under a society. The urban monoculture has been good for many of these groups in one way, and that they have imposed a sort of detente on our society.

You, if you're living in the developed world, generally do not have to worry about people of other cultural groups coming and sterilizing you or killing you. That will not be the case when the urban monoculture falls. Oh, so you're even. Yeah, you're even just talking about moderate groups that are trying to do their own thing. Yeah, I'm talking about groups that are like, I don't let my kids on the Internet.

I don't let my. You can maintain a level of technological advancement and understanding without your kids engaging with the Internet, fine. But if this is hampering their understanding of cutting edge technology, that is going to be hugely deleterious to your group's ability to act autonomously into the future. Yeah, yeah. A lot of it's, you can just look at this in much simpler microcosms, like kids growing up, kids who become dependent on trust funds or their parents, and who remain so throughout their lives, ultimately have to live under the thumbs of their parents and live at the whims of their parents.

Simone Collins
And yes, there are some kids who actively and openly hate their parents and continue to receive financial and emotional support from them. They're still living at the whims of those parents. And if those parents grow a pair or die or run out of money, they will not be able to maintain those lifestyles. And we all understand that dynamic. We just don't seem to understand it on a cultural level.

Malcolm Collins
But I think something that is not clear to these groups is that, again, they've gotten so used to the detente that's been enforced by the urban monoculture that they don't see that pretty much everyone who makes it through the fertility crucible is going to be much more culturally centric than groups have historically been. With us probably being the most pluralistic faction I can imagine realistically making it through. Yeah, because the data shows that most other high fertility groups are going to be much more suspicious and intolerant toward outgroups. Meaning that you're going to have, mmm, only us pretty much trying to protect your rights to cultural. The interesting thing is all pluralistic groups, in making it through the crucible, like people are like, why would you think all of the pluralistic groups would unite with your group?

It's not that they're uniting with my group, but there just is an intrinsic reason for all pluralistic groups to work together. If pluralism is one of a group's values, then they can easily ally with every other group attempting to make it through the crucible that have pluralism as one of their value systems. That is why you choose pluralism. That's another thing people are like, why are you pluralistic? It's existential that you're pluralistic.

If you are not a group that has a chance at a play for the dominant culture in the earth, or at least in your local region. For example, you don't need to be pluralistic if you are some groups of Muslim, some groups of Christian, but pretty much everyone else has to attempt the pluralism pathway or you're going to be quickly stopped by that. What I mean is, suppose even you're a Catholic right now, and catholic fertility rates are absolutely crashing. Conversion rates to Catholicism. It is the other way.

They are experiencing massive outflows right now. If they try to take the we will turn everywhere we live into the catholic caliphate mindset that some individuals are pushing, and we will kick out the non Catholics. Then any region where Catholics are not the dominant population, which is honestly a lot of places where most of the world's Catholics live, they are now a threat to all of the other populations, if you get one or two catholic caliphates set up now, all Catholics become a problem. This is why this is such a dangerous pathway, this pathway of highlandering it, as we call it. It's just true, right?

Like they see, oh, if you get enough of you, you try to take over. The urban monoculture is blind to cultures that do this. As soon as the urban monoculture is gone and you have some countries that weren't historically muslim, essentially become majority muslim and begin to operate under a muslim legal system that is not kind to the existing people. Groups like us, while pluralistic, will understand the threat that now means them like, oh, so if you became a dominant population here, you do the same thing. So if they do that anywhere, that means they will do that everywhere.

Keep in mind, we're talking about same culture, Muslims, and as we've said, there's a lot of different cultures of Islam, but same culture. We can look and say, okay, do you have cultural similarities? Was this group when they were in the minority? Which could indicate that you'll do the same when you're in the majority that you've done in this region. And right now the urban monoculture enforces the detente.

In the future, even pluralistic groups like us are going to be much more suspicious and much more aggressive because the future is just going to be a. More aggressive and we're super not tolerant to free riders. You obviously were pointing to a lot of cultural examples where people are self sustaining and just doing their own thing. But certainly we wouldn't outlay any expenditure protecting, maintaining infrastructure for or otherwise supporting groups that were not actively involved in whatever ecosystems we were trying to maintain for our own. Oh, absolutely, yeah.

If they are not involved in our ecosystems, it doesn't make sense. So we should probably explain this in plain English. It means if we end up, if the world ends up basically carved sections of infrastructure, power, roads, safety networks, we would not give those networks to people who are not actively benefiting our group and our group's goals, which people can be like, what do you mean by that in society today? If you hate America, you can still use american roads, you can still use american services, you can still call the police in the future. That is part of the urban monocultures value system.

Right in Dune, there's the famous line, I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's something like, when you are in power, I ask for freedom because that is according to your values. When I am in power, I take your freedom because that is according to my values. Yeah. And that is classic. That is not the world that we're going to live in when the urban monoculture falls.

So there is actually, like, really specific reasons we cling to the two things that confuse a lot of people who don't get it. There is a reason we cling to pluralism. Anyone who clings to pluralism can easily ally with everyone else who clings to pluralism, which immediately gives you ton of allies if you're a minority group, which any experimental religious or cultural system is going to be, there is the reason we cling to industry. That is what gives us our cultural autonomy and gives us an ability to survive in the world that we're heading into, which is going to be much more aggressive, interculturally speaking, than the world we're in today. And I would add that we're extremely sensitive to and judgmental about other people's demonstrated industry when we think about who we're going to culturally partner with, and there are lots of tiny dog whistles that can demonstrate whether or not someone holds this view, because it's not just from a cultural standpoint that people behave this way.

Simone Collins
This is something that shows up in the types of businesses that they work with and invest in and start to the way that they address their personal problems. So, for example, Elon Musk is a very mission driven person, right? But he does not depend on the charity of others. Whenever he wants to create a movement, he creates it through business. It has to be able to be financially self sustaining.

And whenever he does charity, it's typically to, like, seed fund something that he himself has started with his own hard earned money that should be ultimately financially self sustaining in the end. And that is a sign of someone who is going to be culturally aligned with us in every other way, because we know that they are someone who, from first principles, will always take an approach of industry rather than dependence. If we meet someone and they, for example, run a nonprofit that depends on others donations, they may say until the cows come home, that they are culturally industrious and independent. But we know that from a philosophical standpoint, they're able to tolerate the charity of others and depend on the teat of some other breast for their livelihood. And as such, we cannot trust them to be a culturally aligned partner in the future, if that makes sense.

Malcolm Collins
This is actually a really interesting point that you're here. And I think when we look at the world today, and we are looking, okay, who do we want as allies? Who do we talk with? How do we build out this movement, people can think because of our focus on fertility rates, what we're looking at is cultural groups, or what we're looking for is cultural groups with large populations that can intergenerationally motivate high fertility. Actually, that is a pretty low thing on our list of what we're looking for.

A group could have a large population, but if they're not industrious, then they just are not relevant in terms of long term geopolitical power. Yeah, their days are still numbered. Yeah, their days are just as numbered as the urban monoculture in many ways. It's just that once the detente of the urban monoculture falls, they are going to be plowed by more aggressive neighbors that they haven't had to deal with in a. A thousand years.

But we are re entering that world as we already see, like what's going on with Israel right now in the parts of the world that are less structured than our own. That is going to be the reality for many of us. But, so when we're looking, okay, who do we respect? Who do we want to work with? The core thing we're looking at is once a group is able to motivate, or even plausibly motivate above reproductive population, what's their level of industry?

I don't care how big they are, if they are high industry, and industry means technology as well. Can they build an automated factory, for example? Can they build semiconductors? Groups that can't are just not particularly relevant to the great game in our perspective. And I should note that within most religious traditions, there's various factions here.

There are, take Catholics, for example. There are like catholic naturalists that absolutely will not be useful in this respect. And then there's Catholic non naturalists that are like much more engaged with technology. What is a catholic naturalist? This is a pretty big movement right now that you see totally.

Traditionalists don't really engage with computers that much. They might have the Internet or something like that, like Amish Lite almost, you could say Amish, but 2000 low tech, basically they start not super low tech, but they stopped at 2010 culture, at 2010 Tech levels. And this is something you increasingly see. This is a growing movement. Oh, we won't allow human computer interface.

For example, groups that don't allow human computer interface are just going to be out competed by the groups that do. Oh, we won't build AI. Okay, then you're not going to be able to compete with the groups that do, oh, we won't allow for genetic augmentation of humans. Plausibly you'll be able to compete if you are engaging enough with the high tech other side of things, the AI, the human computer AI integration stuff, maybe you can compete, but you certainly can't compete if you're just going full naturalist. It doesn't matter how good you are at judo or how big your muscles are or how much you live.

The masculine ideal, you cannot fight someone with a gun. Okay. And you certainly can't fight someone with 10,000. A factory that is auto generating gun drones that are looking for you, you can't fight with that. I'm reminded I've used in other videos the scene of Indiana Jones for people who are listening to this and they don't know what's playing whenever I do this, it's the scene where there's a guy flailing around all the swords, thinking he's super tough, and Indiana Jones just looks annoyed and shoots him.

Because you can't win a gunfight with a sword. You can, like, one time out of ten. But realistically, the odds are heavily against you, and they are becoming more lopsided as we go forwards. Yeah. So that's why we take these stances.

It's not a. And I think it's so easy to look at this and just think, oh, it's an aesthetic stance. And what I mean is, oh, because they like technology. Oh, because they came from the Bay Area originally, and their culture comes from that, and that's why they're so protech. No, it's because we've thought through where things are going and you haven't.

And you don't understand that. If you take a low tech approach, you are dooming your culture as much as the people who are chemically castrating their children right now. To be fair, I would say most people aren't thinking 200 plus years in the future, and we are. So that's not something we've evolved to do. Humans have evolved to just.

Simone Collins
It's humans. Our evolutionary window is this one portion of the relay race where we're running, and as soon as we patch the torch past the torch, it's over. We're like, okay, and that's it. So it's because we're thinking in terms of the full relay race, and they're thinking only in terms of their sprint, that this is coming up, and that's fine, but if you care about intergenerational durability, you're going to have to think 200 plus years out. That's all.

Malcolm Collins
And I think a final question would be, then why do we so aggressively ally with these technophobic groups? Like, why? Because we do. I love a lot of these technophobic groups. I think, like, Louise Perry, I was recently on her podcast, and she's, I think God doesn't want us engaging with technology.

And this is the perspective that a lot of people have, like, super high technology, the level that we've gone in terms of technology, whether it's genetic technology or AI, human integration, or even just where we are with the Internet and everything like that. And I can understand this perspective. And I like these people, and I consider them our allies today. And so people are like, why do you do that if you don't think they're going to matter long term? And it's because they matter today, they're, frankly larger in number.

Like, anyone who's being honest about this, like, we're just pragmatic about everything. Anyone who's being honest about this would know that the technophobic pathways to maintaining high fertility rates have a higher population than us. And so long as they're willing to be pluralistic, they're willing to ally with us, and they're not particularly a threat to our group, so long as they are even vaguely pluralistic. Right. They're not going to run in and murder us all and then try to use us as, like, their technophilic captives, like Hamas had planned to do in Israel.

Right? And so that means that we can live alongside them and that our goals are broadly aligned and from our perspective, and this is probably the third point, that they don't realize long term, when our views are no longer aligned, they are not a threat to us. We often use this analogy of the valley of the lotus eaters being a trial that our species is going through right now, where we have infinite temptations around us which serve to tempt those away from the righteous path of life, of starting a family and getting married and investing in the next generation, which your culture needs to do to survive. The easiest path through the valley of the lotus eaters is to take hot pokers to your eyes. It's to blind yourself so you do not see these temptations.

C
If pornography is a threat, don't teach your kids to resist that threat. Just ensure they never come into contact with it. This is true for the Internet. This is true for technology. The problem with this path through the valley of the lotus eaters is you leave the valley blind, and at the other end of this valley is a battle royale, essentially, and you will be witless and defenseless when that time comes.

We haven't had to deal with a battle royale, basically, or a cultural battle royale since the last dominant cultural collapse, since, really the collapse of the Roman Empire. But we are about to enter one again. And as Simone is about to point out, sure, maybe you can regrow your eyes after a while, but you will need some groups going through the valley of the Lotus eaters who got through it because they fortified their spirit, not because they blinded themselves to temptation. And if we use this battle royale analogy, everyone in the battle royale who immediately stands up and says, look, I'm willing to let everyone who sides with me do their own thing. At the end of this, they have many allies who might join them, because everyone else who takes that perspective can also join them.

Everyone in the battle royale who thinks, it's my way or the highway allies will be slim. The reason we take the cultural approaches we do is because we lose if we don't, not because we are, like, polluted by the urban monoculture or modernity. And I also think just because a group is technophobic now doesn't mean they will always be technophobic. And I think that it may be that to make it through this initial adjustment period, while everyone else is being exposed to, essentially, a virus for which we have no immune system, it is better to first isolate yourself, wait and see what vaccines develop, choose the most efficacious vaccine, and then introduce yourself to the virus. Right?

Simone Collins
So I just feel like, to a certain extent, they're quarantining. And quarantining isn't about permanent isolation. Quarantining is about, for a specific period of time, isolating yourself until you know that you can come out safely. Like, I think we also look at them from that perspective, that they are quarantining, and in the future, they may be coming out in a uniquely advantaged position. I completely agree with you, and I think that this is another reason why we try to protect these groups.

Malcolm Collins
And people are like, when, why would they change their mind about this if they're taking so, such a technophobic perspective right now? They're going to change their mind when they begin to see groups getting rounded up and killed. That's when you change your mind about how important those AI drones are. Okay? Is when you see, and fortunately, I think if you're in the US, if you're in the UK, you are going to see this happening in other regions, likely Middle east, parts of Africa, long before it happens here.

And you're probably going to have at least one generation to say, oh, this is what happens. If I don't embrace the technology I need for defense. And that's why we think they will engage with us. I think they'll be given a chance. And then until then, we just need to keep pushing through as much as possible while.

And a lot of people don't know that we do this while working as groups to off the records. Like, a lot of the technological developments that's happening in the world right now is happening off the records because they talk to us. A lot of the genetic technology, stuff like that can't be known publicly. A lot of the AI stuff can't be known publicly because there's so many hostile groups out there, and so why even engage? So I think with a lot of people, they're like, oh, we're nowhere near X technology.

They'll tell us, and we'll be like, you may just not know what we know. Do you? Here's the question. If you say we're nowhere near X technology, ask yourselves the question. If there was a group that was near X technology, would you know about them?

Would it be in their best interest for you to know about them? If the answer is no, then you actually have no information about how close we are to certain technologies. And so what you're seeing happen now, like, when does hit the fan? I think a lot of people will be surprised by the tech certain groups like ours, are able to bring to bear before they get to us. They think, oh, the tech that's being used in whatever fight in Africa right now or in the Middle east, it's the fight.

No. And so this is why I think that the bloodshed will ultimately be minimal, is as soon as the angry groups realize that they can use tech to enforce their value systems on other groups. The pluralist alliance will likely be at a tech level that has been isolated from the global knowledge ecosystem for long enough that it's basically in sieve, a few tech levels ahead of everyone else, which will give it a great degree of defendability. I'm excited for it. No, we're already seeing this.

Having to unplug from worldwide genetic databases because they're blocking people's access and stuff. Yeah. Scary, but exciting. We're the kind of people who look at dire situations and get stoked because that's. That's our culture.

So. And again, we are truly pluralistic. I will never try to remove the values from another group, and I hold that perspective because it earns us allies. And so that's why it makes sense to be pluralistic. We're not pluralistic from a altruistic perspective.

Yeah. We are pragmatic pluralists. Yeah. And now the question is, if we become the dominant group, would we still be pluralist? And the answer is yes, because we can't ensure we'll always be the dominant group.

Simone Collins
Not just that. I think we also strongly believe that a diversity of ideas is crucial in maintaining. We believe that. But I'm also just saying, from an existential standpoint, I think pluralism is required to win the game our civilization is entering. Given that the world is so interconnected now that we are all pluralistic, we don't live in mono ethnic or cultural nation states anymore.

Malcolm Collins
And to go back to that would be as bloody as when India and Pakistan. Oh, boy. From each other. Let's hopefully not. Let's sort all the Muslims to one country and all the Hindis to another country.

Yeah. That was a terrible idea. It didn't work out so well. A lot of people aren't familiar with how bad the bloodshed from that was and how Winston Churchill tried to prevent it. And he told Gandhi this would happen, and Gandhi was just a selfish prick.

Sorry. And with that, off we go. Yeah. I'm glad you're industrious and technical, just. Like he did with the Nazis.

This Hitler guy, we need to get rid of him. He pushed pretty hard for that. And he thought his political career was so over. From pushing for that. It was for a while.

Simone Collins
It was for a while. His memoirs, his autobiography, before World War Two. Cause he thought his career was over. Yeah. When is that whole painting debacle?

I think it's sweet when, like, George Bush, Churchill, go through the little painting thing, that bird watching face. All right, off we go. I love.