This is a poor translation of the podcast:

Hello, Malcolm. Hello, Simone is wonderful to be here again with you today. I'm very excited. What do we talk about? We are gonna talk today about our political philosophy and political philosophy in general, you actually changed the way that I look at politics and that I look at the value of running for elected office.

And I think a lot of our views on. Government, economy, culture have really shifted over the past few years, so this should be fun to chat about, check in on this. Absolutely. Yeah. So I think we're gonna divide this into sort of three parts. First we're gonna discuss sort of our economics, because I think a lot of people, they see politics as existing on this spectrum of like, Economic conservatism to economic liberalism and then social conservatism to social liberalism or, or progressivism.

Because you know, liberal, you can mean classically liberal, which is basically conservative, doesn't matter. Point being, that's the way that people largely divide this stuff. However, I think that it is wrong to think of things on these spectrums, and if you look at where we land politically, it's nowhere on this spectrum for either.

Our economic or social beliefs. And then there's other beliefs like where we think about international engagement and stuff like that. So first, let's dive into our economics, because I realize we've been doing a lot of videos on things like communism and libertarianism, and it could give people a misunderstanding.

Of what we really believe optimal economic policy looks like. So first I'd say sort of our larger political spectrum. 📍 📍 We call Bull Moose Republicanism which means that we, we take a lot of inspiration from the conservatism of Teddy Roosevelt and, and what that meant. And economically, what that means is very unlike libertarians.

But also very similar to Libertarian philosophy in some way, which is to say we do think that government is intrinsically and always becomes evil, largely regardless of what the intentions are as a heavy governing body because it leads to inefficiency, which leads to enormous evil. An example is something like the,

great leap forward in China, right? 📍 Which during a period of five years, by, some measurements, led to more death just due to inefficiency than the entire period of slavery in the United States, which I, I do as more like intentional evil. And this is by some statistics, not by all something of you used like the most extreme data, but that you could get anywhere close to that just with inefficiency is.

Shocking to me. So I think that we can just say inefficiency and then people can be like, oh, you must not really hate it. No, no, no. Like inefficiency is, is dramatically evil. It's a cancer. And you talk about that in the Pragmatist Guide to Governance. You talk about this bureaucratic inefficiency as literally being a kin.

In fact, it it kind of, it is an almost literally analogous to cancer in organizations. Yeah. In that you get governing institutions and if every year you create 10 new governing institutions, Like say you're a city government or something like that. If just one of those institutions doesn't shut down when it's supposed to, you know, like a cell that doesn't stop doing what it's doing when it's supposed to and think, oh, my job is just to self-replicate.

My job is just to acquire more resources. It will do that. And normally a governance structure will be good at getting rid of that. You know, we have things that kill the cancer in our bodies, but sometimes it'll hide and it'll convince the governing structure. It's actually useful. It's actually important.

But here is where we're really different from Libertarians. So while we see large government as intrinsically evil, we also see this is where we take a lot of inspiration. For Teddy Roosevelt, trust busting is very important which is all large governing bodies be they companies. Or governments are intrinsically evil and the larger they get, the more of like a global governance structure you get, the more they will trend towards evil action.

So we are as antagonistic towards a large institution like Google or Facebook as we are to the US governance system because these institutions. Are no longer really affected by economic forces. They begin to get ideas internally that can create little cults around what they think is good and what they think is evil, which can then be used to justify almost any action.

And so I think that you do need some. Things to be handled by the government and some things to be handled by company. And one of the most important things that the government needs to do is to prevent power from coagulating in any area while still working to maintain international competitiveness.

And this is a big problem here because a huge aspects of a country's international competitiveness is through these large companies. And so you need to build very. Unique. I mean, we wrote a whole book on this, the Fragment Guide to Governance, very unique governance systems to off play these two things.

What are your thoughts on, on the economic side of things, Simone? Would you have more nuance or No, I mean, I, I think this is actually pretty standard government policy theory. I mean, when, when I. Did that technology policy masters at Cambridge. Like the, the common thing was I could tell you were like, oh, do I actually mention Cambridge?

Am I gonna look like a, am I gonna name drop this? You, you, you like swallowed it for a second there, you're like, I'm not gonna do this. Yeah. Then I, yeah, I just vomited it. But yeah, I mean the very common thing is governments should intervene when there's a market failure. Period. And then otherwise they should not intervene.

But then of course, the question is, what is the right way to intervene when there's a market failure? And I think that's where things start to fall apart. You could think of a government as a steward of a healthy ecosystem. And if you see that your pond is starting to stagnate and build a monoculture, you know, if it's being overcome by a certain type of scum, maybe you need to aerate the pond better.

Maybe you need to make sure that water's flowing through it better, et cetera. So this is, it is about, Stewardship of systems and ensuring a diverse ecosystem, a functioning ecosystem, an evolving ecosystem, and a sustainable ecosystem. So you can look at it from that end. I mean, I think another part of our sort of bull moose style republicanism is our views towards conservationism which obviously Ted Roosevelt was very famous for.

And I think if you look at. The existing environmentalist movement, I largely disagree with it. I think that the way that they are approaching climate change and stuff like that is not really data driven in a way that is just really damaging. So, I mean, the, the statistic we always come to here is that if you look at The Covid period where no one could drive cars, no one could fly planes like the world shut down to some extent.

I mean, some people could, but it was huge, a huge change in everyone's everyday life. And we only just met the incremental change and carbon release we would need to cumulatively make on top of that every year for like the next 15 years to have a dent in climate change. What that showed me is that any sort of change that is pushed as a policy or something like that is always unrealistic.

Anyone who's looking at the data right now could see that, that means the solution needs to be technological in, in origin. I'm wondering what your thoughts on, on that aspect of this are Simone, having started in the climate change industry, cuz you did. Yeah, I mean, I, I just, well, I think the bigger problem with the climate change industry is that it has become focused on signaling and not solving the problem because the problem can't be solved now.

I mean, we have to accept the fact that climate change is going to happen. It's not something that we can stop. And now that what we need to do is to plan around it, which is exactly the approach that we've taken to advocacy, run demographic collapse. It's going to happen. Let's make sure it happens in his.

Least damaging of a way is possible. And yeah, with these things like ai mm-hmm. It will transform human culture. Yeah. However, it's going to happen no matter what. So we have to plan around it. Demographic left, we'll transform human culture. Same with climate change. It's, it's, it's real. It will transform human culture.

But there's really nothing we can do about it at this point. And there, yeah, there was anything we can do about it. The institutions of power in our society have cared about this issue deeply for a long time and taken really draconian action in relation to it. But it was a tragedy of the commons issue, meaning everyone needed to cooperate.

And what we have learned as humans just suck at those kinds of issues unless you live under a worldwide dictatorship, which is almost certainly worse and would eventually drift away from these issues. But this is where it gets interesting because we as a society have conflated. Climate change with conservationism.

Hmm. We misunderstand that conservationism can still have a role in conservative politics. If we are talking about things like endocrine disruptors, which are feminizing our society. That is a conservation issue that is an issue around lowering pollutants in our environment. However, we need more nimble structures tied to this.

We don't need these existing large bureaucracies slowing down innovation tied to this. And I think it's possible to build more nimble structures that are in some ways more strict in our existing structures and more expansive and more actually looking at the science. Rather than ideologically motivated science while also understanding that the rural spaces of America, the wilds of America, are important in maintaining our traditional cultural values, whether that is hunting, which was always a huge motivator for its conservationism, for Teddy Roosevelt.

📍 And I think that when we look at real conservationism conservationism, for the sake. A saying, does it really mess up an environment to have a pipeline going through something? No, have 10 pipelines, but 25% more land under conservation. Obviously that's better, but that doesn't fit the existing progressive narrative.

So it's just a different approach towards conservationism, which I think is more about preserving our traditional culture as well as. Protecting individual Americans from the effects of pollutants that are permanently changing our biology, and damaging to our larger health ecosystem.

Well, I think that's, you know, what you said there in terms of nimble structures focused around solving things. I think that that also comes to another core element of our. Idealized utopian political philosophy, which is one in which we sort of support the concept of ad hoy rather than bureaucracy. But just to say with it, we, we like the idea of independent bodies and resources coalescing together to achieve something and then dissolving when that's achieved.

So there's nothing permanent. There's no reason for it to sustain itself. There's no incentive for it to try to survive. Or get more resources for itself because it is only there to achieve a certain outcome. But I, think, I, came into our relationship and our working together politically with that view of like, basically bureaucracies are inherently.

Broken. There's no point in me getting involved with them. I should never get involved with government. I should only try to enact difference through business, which is why I didn't study as an undergrad you know, government or anything else. I wanted to go straight into business. Cause I thought that's the way that you make an impact.

Even when that was back when I was an environmentalist like advocate, I thought, well, and then environmental and business, that's what I'm gonna do. Until I discovered that it was, you know, broken and people weren't doing it right. Yeah. But you actually changed my view. About the value of running for elected office of entering government influence there.

And I'd love for you to talk a little bit more about your thoughts around the, the role that elected officials play when. It would seem intuitively that there's no point to it, because basically to play the game, you have to get so corrupt and you have to trade so many favors that ultimately from a policy standpoint, you can be kind of feckless, it seems.

I, I'd love you for you to elaborate on this. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that, that, here, the answer is, is that it, you could often forget the actual size of the US government and the impact it can have, especially at the state level. Mm-hmm. 📍 📍 Especially at the Purple State level where you know it's not just about ideology and you can actually look at solving things because there is some balance between the two political parties.

And I think that's where there is a lot of opportunity and also opportunity to move the Overton window to some extent around ideas. If we can move that Overton window if we can change the way things are done. When you look at the things that state controls, like the education system, what's being taught there, regulation systems around things like daycares and stuff like that, like just about our daily lives and the issues we care about, there's a ton that can be done there.

And this brings me to sort of the final axis or another really important axis. Of a person's political ideology, which is their social politics. And so a lot of people look at our social politics and they are like, you sound very socially progressive in many ways, yet you seem to hate most the social progressive side of the progressive party.

Why is that? And this is something we talk a lot about, the pragmatist guided to crafting religion. And we go over it a lot, but it has to do with the way we sort of see societal forces right now as being sort of two core things. You have this urban monoculture, which is progressivism to large extent, and it didn't exist before the internet.

Essentially, it's a. Virulent mimetic set that begin to evolve, 📍 like a super virus would evolve in a hospital. When you put all of these immunocompromised cultures together in super cities and on the internet and it began to infe traditional. Movements and ideologies and hollow them out and then begin to wear them like skin suits, whether it's the traditional, feminist movement or the traditional L G B T movement or the traditional and even religious movements, you know, whether you're looking at.

Progressive Muslims or progressive Unitarian universalists. I guess there's only progressive Unitarian universalists now, or progressive Jews or progressive Catholics. When you scratch beneath the surface of their superficial traditions, they often have very similar views about the world from morality to the direction they think society should go to.

Their views on gender to their views on sexuality. To their views on a woman's role in a family pretty much everything is the same now, and this was not the case. Kids who grew up with this don't understand this was not the case of Democrats. 40 years ago, heavens Smith heavens, they all had different beliefs.

They were an alliance of different groups that had , loosely aligned goals, but there was genuine diversity within the movement. Now there is so little ideological diversity. When I contrast it. With what I see, the new Republican movement becoming the new conservative movement and conservative is really the wrong word for it.

I call it more the anti-authoritarian movement. And let's talk about what this progressive hive mind is fighting for first. So we can sort of define its goals. It is fighting to remove in the moment pain from our society, specifically emotional pain. It is optimized almost entirely around a negative utilitarian framework where it sees people's lives as being predominated by suffering and thus, the happy emotions or the positive emotions that somebody feels in life can largely be ignored. The goal is all around how do we lessen suffering? And you can seize this in a lot of its policies where they can seem or, positions where they can seem really, Silly in the moment you're like, wait, what?

Like clearly something like , the HAES movement, you know, the healthy at every size movement which has good intentions, but now has essentially within the university body become, don't tell people that being overweight is unhealthy because that causes emotional pain and that in the moment emotional pain is worse than any long-term.

Don't even do research that could show that because any long-term implications of that le research are worse than the in the moment. And you see this around the way that it judges whether any individual thing is good or bad. Does it cause, does this fact, does this faction cause in the moment emotional pain to any sliver of society?

If it does, then it should not be pursued and it should not be disseminated and it should not be investigated. And within a certain philosophical framework, within a negative utilitarian view, this is logical. Then you have the Republican side, and what they're really optimized around is preserving traditional and diverse cultural frameworks into the future.

And all of the issues where they come to blows with the progressive movement often, most virulently today are where those two issues come to head. Do they feel like their kids are being peeled away from them in the school system? And if they do feel that how do they react to that as a cultural movement, which is of, of course, really negatively because that's their entire modus operandi, preserve our traditions and our unique culture into the future.

Now the, the danger, and I should say, I don't think. The progressive individuals are in any way evil or bad people any more than, you know, your average Catholic was a bad person back when some European cultures were dominated by Catholic. Monarchies that were like really top down in the way they ran things and killed people because they had different beliefs or tried to peel people's kids out or tried to mass convert people.

And the same happened with the Protestant monarchies. You know, when they had total power, they would often run that top down. Often if you are in the culturally dominant faction, you can begin to just conceive of every other way of viewing the world as some sort of deplorable thing that needs to be.

Erased and fixed and that your way of seeing things is correct, just obviously correct. And their way of seeing things is obviously wrong. And so you look at the way that the progressive movement sees something like sexuality or, gender , and they're just like, no, but this is the obviously correct way to see gender or sexuality.

Yet if we look historically, There are plenty of traditionalist approaches to this that are very different, whether you're talking about the two-spirit people or like in traditional Muslim culture where you're, you know, if you are gay, you are supposed to convert to become transgender because that is the way that you deal with same sex attraction.

And I'm not saying that any of these are right and wrong. What I'm saying is that from my cultural perspective, what I believe is that we should allow. Children to deconvert out of their parents' tradition, always. We should have systems where children are at least aware that different options exist, which I think was the internet and broad technological access.

Kids always do, but we should never have systematized conversion campaigns that are implemented by our government. To make people aware of, or even worse, convert them to the correct culture, especially when that correct culture, like I might be able to get behind this large urban monoculture if it was functioning, if it was able to motivate above repopulation reproduction.

But it doesn't, it survives by taking people, taking children from these surrounding healthy cultures and using it to replenish its ranks because it is unable to motivate its members to have kids. And the, and you could just look at the statistics, like the differential infertility rates are astonishingly large and it's like double when you're dealing with far con or more than double, like four times when you're dealing with far conservatives versus as far progressive.

I have to look at the statistics. Is this astonishingly big? And so what we fight for here is just the preservation, our social policies or the preservation of diverse cultural traditions. And by that what we mean is families should be able to send their kids to school or send their kids to daycare or send their kids to any system with the understanding that that system won't see it as one of their mandates to erase that Parent's cultural traditions or anything that's different from mainstream society.

That that parent is doing was in their household. And this is also the way we see child rearing, you know, less interaction from government forces that try to say, this is the way you should raise your child and this is the way you shouldn't raise your child. And, government may have some mandate there if the dominant monoculture in our society wasn't so bad at motivating people to have kids.

Because, well, and it's not just about which, culture creates high birth rates. It's about which culture creates higher rates of health. Both mental and physical, which we're really not seeing, you know, we're even seeing, I think, a little bit of a slight decline in life expectancy in the United States.

That is that is very, very thorough failure to, what was that shocking statistic? Something like one in 10 kids had thought about suicide in school in the last year. Yeah. Teen, adolescent mental health right now is plummeting, especially among women. Yeah. This is not a culture that is, that is thriving by, Any measure as far as I can tell.

And it, it is that, well it's, it's thriving much less than traditionalist cultures. So you look, since Pew started doing recordings of statistics, American conservatives have been happier than American progressives by a dramatic margin. And so. If we are looking, I, I do think that kids should always have the opportunity to leave their family's culture when they come of age or when they start supporting themselves, but , if a person is saying, I am going to take on the cost, and it is a huge cost in terms of emotional and financial effort to raise kids, then that family should be allowed to raise kids without feeling like those kids are.

Constantly of risk of being convinced to hate them whenever they let those kids leave their sight, or that they're not allowed to raise their kids in the style that they see as the most appropriate and optimal for their kids. But at the same time, we, we want every child raised in any culture to have the freedom.

To leave that culture if they want to. So, you know, when they start supporting themselves. When they start supporting themselves. Yeah. So, yeah, I, I think, it is a nuanced issue, but it doesn't have, well, I think that you can, you can add more leeway there. So, for example, this is not something that exists in our current society, but it is something I would support if there were cultural traditions.

Like say a certain progressive cultural traditions that would fund places where kids could go before they turned of age. And they could go to those places and they could a cultural refugee camp for teens. Yeah. And they could live a progressive lifestyle. Fine. Mm-hmm. But they would have to support that and they would have to build that for it.

Yeah. And there are some of those that exist and I support that. What I don't support is using the parent's own money in terms of tax dollars to turn around and turn the public schools into that. Mm-hmm. That is not ethical. And so it's sort of a push for maximum genuine cultural diversity and cultural experimentation.

Yeah. While also fighting against large scale institutions. Well, and then, you know, I think a big basis of a lot of our political philosophy is consent, so, exactly. Yeah. If something is non-consensual, I don't care what. Political spectrum. It's on, we're probably against it. That's like the easiest rule of thumb to, to predict our political philosophy.

Is there something non-consensual on this? Okay. Then probably we don't support it. Well, and, consent applies with parents to their kids along the way. Consent legally applies to parents, to kids, which is a, minor, cannot consent to certain things. Mm-hmm. Because we don't trust minors to consent to many things.

Hmm. And, and so ultimately, we are okay with, with parents having a mandate there. And if people think that kids shouldn't be raised in those type of families, well then they should have kids and raise them in different types of families. Mm-hmm. Or find ways to support kids. Instead of just saying the government should support kids.

Mm-hmm. Because I think that and, and this is also where we're different from many conservative factions, is some conservative factions. I just call them progressives in disguise.

📍 📍 They're just waiting until lyric culture gains dominance at the state level. So that they can force it on other people through the government, through the school system, through books they get rid of in libraries through.

Anything like that and, wherever that happens, I see. That is evil. Mm-hmm. You, you should never be able to enforce your culture on another person. And, to that extent, those cultures are just fair weather fins right now to us. Yes, we are aligned in the conservative movement and we are really aligned in the conservative movement right now.

And I think that this is something that the progressive movement is missing to a large extent. If you look at young conservatives, you can look at the largest influencer in the young conservative movement, which was Andrew Tate. You know, last year, number one influencer among Gen Z, he converted to Islam.

And what we saw was not outpourings of hate from the conservative Christian community. They were like, great, this is better than the way things were before. You know, you have found some. Religious tradition that you take inspiration from. And what I think we're seeing here is an increasing alliance across the conservative traditions from at least within the us This is less true in, in Europe right now, but I think we'll eventually see it there as well from the conservative Muslims to the conservative Christians, to the conservative Jews, to the conservative.

Anything else? Which, which is just means that they have some connection. To an intergenerational idea of cultural identity. And I think that that's really interesting to me and, and a movement that I can get behind when I see this true cultural pluralism of people with genuinely different beliefs about the world coming together.

And I actually think that this is one of the reasons we're gonna see a major shift towards the conservative movement going forwards, is if you look at the immigrant populations in many of these countries, they do align much more with this conservative ideology. Then they align with any of the progressive social ideologies.

And so the only advantage is in the economic front often but even there, many of them are much more conservative economically. And I do think that it is possible for the conservative party to begin to shift its ideas around immigration. If you look at the way the younger conservative. Party sees the world.

And by that what I mean is no longer do we live in a world where the game is your country versus other countries. It is your culture versus other cultures , which is one of the reasons we fight for cultural diversity cuz we're a minority culture.

So if the, if one faction gains power, they'll try to erase us. But if the progressives gain power, they'll try to erase us as well. So we benefit from ensuring, this, this level of cultural diversity. But I think that the conservative factions, because they're all now minorities, they also benefit from trying to encourage cultural diversity if the game is no longer Ensure that my country dominates other countries, but instead ensure that my country is a safe place for people who are different in the way that I am different,

right. Would you add to any of that or elaborate on it? No, I mean, I would just say I also think that those environments that are more pl pluralistic will be the most healthy. You're not going to see a competitive advantage hold in any environment. That doesn't allow for disagreeing groups to bounce I ideas off each other because that is how they sharpen each other and we see this in a bunch of different places, more pluralistic.

Cross pollinated cultures and nations are sharper. They're, they have a competitive advantage, not just from a birth rate perspective, which we see, we think we see. But also from an economic perspective. Well, if you talk about the birth rate thing, so if you look individually, like if you're looking at this from the perspective of my culture survives into the future.

You look at this old mindset the mindset that Putin's running off of, which is just completely stupid. His country already had a very low fertility rate. They're out there killing other people who are culturally very similar to them. And that also had a very low birth rate basically.

Deleting an entire generation in both countries is going to be devastating to that cultural group. In the long run, they basically have no shot and they're already doing very poorly sort of in economic scenarios where if you look at the world more broadly, you look at the people who have won this game who say, okay, I want to create like one ethnicity, one culture, one country.

They have incredibly low fertility rates. These are the groups that are going to disappear. You look at countries like Korea, right, that have done this. And, if you look at the list of prosperous countries with low fertility rates, the vast majority of the countries on those lists are essentially monocultures.

Whereas if you look at the countries that have been most resistant to prosperity induced fertility collapse, like the United States like Israel, they are some of the most diverse. Cross pollinated cultural groups in the world. And it is better for every group in that pluralistic ecosystem. And now that the world's on hard mode with, AI girlfriends and being able to lose yourself in online environments, you really need to sharpen yourself.

You cannot afford this type of cultural isolationism that, maybe used to make sense in the old World War. Exactly. Yeah. And any, culture or government. That is coercive, that tries to homogenize everything is ultimately going to extinguish even itself, which I think is very interesting.

Yeah. So if you are very xenophobic, if you are very fascist or whatever, it's oddly in your best interest and not to try to convert everyone. It's oddly in your best interest not to be coercive. Because in the end you are only shooting yourself on my foot. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

But you know, I was talking about world orders. I actually think, we talk about this concept of a. New world order to any extent. Not the conspiracy theory, but the idea that the world is now revolving around a new sort of axis where the world's power structures used to be in a fight between communism and capitalism.

And I no longer think that's the debate that anyone's having anymore. Now it's around independent cultural sovereignty versus globalism. And I think that that is the new. Access that the world is tilting around. Hmm. But the globalist faction has the majority of power at this point, and they have essentially won.

We are living in a post globalist world and. That now that they've won, I think they have created cultural pressures that they didn't anticipate, which are vastly changing the game for everyone. And that if we still want to live in a pluralistic future the, the globalists are your enemy.

If you want a world of genuine diversity, diversity of ideas, diversity of approaches, diversity of ways of seeing things then it's important to recognize that the game has changed. And this isn't the same game that anyone was playing . And no one in power at least, is really fighting for communism or capitalism anymore.

It's cultural, sovereign to your globalism. That's the only game. And then it's different levels of bureaucracy at the top. Are you saying that people aren't fighting for socialism slash communism because anyone who is, is more just involved in some kind of aesthetic debate and just trying to not do work?

Because I still feel like that's a big debate. No, no, no. At ground level, people are fighting for this stuff, but none of them have positions of power anymore. Okay, so you mean among those with power and agency in the world, the fight is becoming increasingly about sovereignty versus globalism? Yes. Okay.

Interesting. Yeah, I thought that brings fairly true. I like it. Yeah, I like it. Well, and it, it's, it's, it's, it's, these people are still arguing, but they are increasingly isolated to increasingly pointless places online and in society and that the people in positions of power might use Arguments around things like socialism or communism to try to expand the size of sort of the larger globalist government framework.

Hmm. Or, or sort of the monocultures reach. But outside of that I don't think that there is any real push for those things anymore outside of at the level of like crazy isolated dictators. Interesting. Well, and maybe even they aren't really fighting for it. So that's, yeah. Huh. Is there anything you would add or is that in a nutshell?

No, no. Yeah, so just Bull Moose, bull Moose Republicanism. But it, is like, I, I wish it were like rough writer republicanism. That, that sounds better. Rough writer something. Rough writer. Republicanism. Yes. You know, very offensive group, I think by today's standards, but I do love his A sort of Marshall masculine idea that came from this very nerdy guy. Cause he was an ultra nerd who had these. Almost childlike visions of masculinity that I think aligns with the existing Republican party. And, and I do think when you look at the Republican base today, the core thing that unites them is this anti-fascist tendency.

Hmm. They just don't want people reaching into their daily lives and, and telling them how to raise their kids, how their cultures should work, and the correct way to, to operate their cultures. And I think that because of that I can really sympathize and find allegiance with those factions. Let's build those ties.

I love hearing you talk about these things. This is fun. Thank you, Malcolm. I love you, gorgeous. I'm looking forward for our next conversation. I had none of these ideas without her. She talked me through all this and helping her sort of break her brainwashing to an extent was. Thing for me. I, I'd love to talk about that next then.

Let's do it, and we'll see you on the flip side, friend. All right.

Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

WSH358 - How to Not Lose Your Voice