Survival Strategies and Technological Adaptation in Controversial Plans

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.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] 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 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 a 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 ways, 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 [00:01:00] existential that you're pluralistic if you are not a group that has a chance at a play for the dominant culture in the world.

The earth, for example, Suppose , you're a Catholic right now,. If they tried to take the, we will turn everywhere we live into a Catholic caliphate mindset and we will kick out the non Catholics. It's 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 such a dangerous pathway.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. It's exciting to be talking to you today. Today we are going to be addressing why We have so ardently cited 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 [00:02:00] 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 a Porya 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 are we believe in a future that's pro science.

And that is not why. Literally, any other approach is pointless. [00:03:00] Everyone who doesn't take this path has no real freedom or real cultural security. So do you want to go further before I explain why, Simone, or?

Simone Collins: Go into it.

Malcolm Collins: The point being is if you, Any group really only has cultural autonomy, i. e.

are able to practice their own cultural beliefs and pass those beliefs on to their kids, in so far as nearby groups that are higher industry or higher technophilia allow them to. The Amish and the Haraiti 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 forward, stuff like the Haraiti they'll like, I have a broad understanding of science. They're not as like PruPu as the Amish, but they're not, particle physicists are working on new types of computers and stuff like that, or auto [00:04:00] drones and stuff.

This matters because these two groups are only really able to have cultural autonomy in so far 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 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 [00:05:00] also strip away things that, we would see as existential. For example, China might move towards forced insemination.

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.

If you have gone with a traditionalist religious approach and that's how you got through that and that perch 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 AIs we see [00:06:00] 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, Sunny. I think

Simone Collins: 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. 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 doing it.

That are low fertility that are currently bankrolling and also actively protecting the rights of these groups. And that as soon as those [00:07:00] groups do inevitably disappear, there will be no such protections and there will be no sex, 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 tweeted about recently, which is that Hamas does have a plan did have a plan when invading or attacking on October 7th 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

Malcolm Collins: wanted to take the most like technologically competent and essentially enslave them

Simone Collins: Yes, and I think quite frankly, that's the only option like that 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 [00:08:00] 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, 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 productive Productivity group disappears.

Malcolm Collins: 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 in mass and they will be attacking their neighbors.

A point that you made that I just cannot highlight enough. And I think that you are overly focusing this on the extremist cases, like the [00:09:00] Haraiti and stuff like that. Where, I'm talking about it in cases like the trad cast 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 ways, 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.

Simone Collins: Oh, so you're even, yeah, you're even just talking about moderate groups that are trying to do their own thing.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, I'm talking about groups that are like I don't let my kids on the internet. I don't let my kids you can maintain a level of technological advancement and understanding without [00:10:00] 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.

Simone Collins: 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.

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: [00:11:00] And 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,

Simone Collins: 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 only us pretty much. trying to protect your rights to cultural autonomy.

The

Malcolm Collins: 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 [00:12:00] 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 world.

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. Are you 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 tried to take the, we will turn everywhere we live into a Catholic caliphate mindset that some individuals are pushing and we will kick out the non Catholics. It's then, Any region where Catholics are not the dominant population, which is honestly a [00:13:00] 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. No, it's just true, right? Like they see, Oh, if you get enough of you, you try to take over you.

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 that I'm like, Oh, so if you became a dominant population here, you'd do the same thing.

So if they do that anywhere, that means they will do that everywhere.

And 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 [00:14:00] cultural similarities with this group when they were in the minority, which could indicate that you'll do the same when you're in the minority, majority that you've done in this region?

And right now, the urban monoculture or 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

Simone Collins: 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. They're,

Malcolm Collins: they are not involved in our ecosystems. It like, 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 [00:15:00] 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 monoculture's value system, right? In Dune, there's a 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 [00:16:00] the two things that confuse a lot of people who don't get it.

There was 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 a ton of allies if you're a minority group. Which any experimental religious or cultural system is going to be.

There is a 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.

Simone Collins: 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 this is not just from a cultural standpoint that people behave this way. This is something that shows up in the types of businesses that they work with and invest in and start [00:17:00] 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 a, 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 [00:18:00] 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 as 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. Economic. 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 thousand [00:19:00] 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 naturalist that absolutely will not be useful in this respect. And then there's Catholic [00:20:00] 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 the like totally traditionalist don't really engage with tech computers that much.

They might have the internet or something like that. Like Amish light, almost you could say Amish, but 2000 low

Simone Collins: tech.

Malcolm Collins: Basically they start not super low tech, but they stopped at 2010 culture or 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 outcompeted 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 [00:21:00] 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, that are looking for you.

You can't fight with that. I'm reminded, I'm using another video as the scene of Indiana Jones

Heh, heh,

Malcolm Collins: for people who are listening to it. So they don't know what's playing whenever I do this. It's a 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 gun fight with a sword. You can like, one time out of 10, but realistically, the odds are heavily against you and they [00:22:00] 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 those, 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 pro tech. 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.

Simone Collins: 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 it's humans are our evolutionary window. Is this one portion of the relay race where we're running? And as soon as we patched 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 [00:23:00] 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 [00:24:00] 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 gonna 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 [00:25:00] yourself. So you do not see these temptations.

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 [00:26:00] through it because they fortified their spirit.

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 whose sides was 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 Their allies will be slim You 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.

Simone Collins: that, and I also think that 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 [00:27:00] vaccines develop.

Choose the most efficacious vaccine and then introduce yourself to the virus, right? 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.

So 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.

Malcolm Collins: I completely agree with you. And I think that this is another reason why we try to protect these groups. And people are like when, why would they change their mind about this?

And they're taking 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 [00:28:00] generation to say, Oh, this is what happens if I don't embrace this. the technology I need for defense. And that's why we think they will engage with this. I think there'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 talked 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, Oh, you may just not know what we know. Do you, here's the question. If you say we're nowhere near X technology, ask yourself the question. If there was a group that was near X technology, what do 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 [00:29:00] 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 all the tech that's being used and, 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. It's as soon as the fight is over. 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 civ.

A few tech levels ahead of everyone else which will give it a great degree of defendability. I'm

Simone Collins: excited for it.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. We're already seeing this, having to unplug from like worldwide genetic databases because they're blocking people's access and stuff.

Simone Collins: [00:30:00] 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. And again,

Malcolm Collins: 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 gregarious, altruistic perspective. We are pragmatic

Simone Collins: pluralists.

Malcolm Collins: 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.

And maintaining, yeah, but I'm

Malcolm Collins: 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. And to go back to that would be.

As bloody as when India and [00:31:00] Pakistan, oh boy,

Simone Collins: let's hopefully let's

Malcolm Collins: sort all the Muslims to one country and all the Hindis to another country. Yeah, that was a terrible idea.

Simone Collins: It didn't work out so well.

Malcolm Collins: 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

Simone Collins: that

Malcolm Collins: off we go.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I'm glad you're industrious and technical just

Malcolm Collins: 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

Simone Collins: was for a while. It was

Malcolm Collins: for a while. He wrote his memoirs, his autobiography before World War II because he thought his career was over. Yeah, I

Simone Collins: went into that whole painting debacle, I think it's sweet when, like George Bush, Churchill go through the little painting thing, like that bird watching face.

All right, off we go. I love you.