Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Based Camp is a podcast focused on how humans process the world around them and the future of our species. That means we go into everything from human sexuality, to weird sub-cultures, dating markets, philosophy, and politics. Malcolm and Simone are a husband wife team of a neuroscientist and marketer turned entrepreneurs and authors. With graduate degrees from Stanford and Cambridge under their belts as well as five bestselling books, one of which topped out the WSJs nonfiction list, they are widely known (if infamous) intellectuals / provocateurs. If you want to dig into their ideas further or check citations on points they bring up check out their book series. Note: They all sell for a dollar or so and the money made from them goes to charity. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FMWMFTG basedcamppodcast.substack.com

  1. Africans Rise Up Against Illegal Immigration (Fatigue Maxing)

    HACE 2 DÍAS

    Africans Rise Up Against Illegal Immigration (Fatigue Maxing)

    In this Based Camp episode, Simone and Malcolm Collins dive into the rising anti-immigration protests in South Africa — led by Black South Africans against illegal immigrants from other African nations. From “March and March” and Operation Dudula marches to demands for mass deportations, shop closures, and prioritizing citizens for jobs, this movement echoes familiar themes of economic frustration, crime concerns, and strained resources. Is this “Black MAGA”? Why is the global media quick to label it xenophobia while downplaying similar grievances elsewhere? The Collins discuss unemployment realities (32-33%), government responses, comparisons to US/UK/Canada immigration levels, ethnic economic niches, and why South Africans feel under attack from within Africa. Expect unfiltered analysis, humor, genetic tangents, and real talk on immigration policy that transcends race. What happens when citizens fight back against illegal immigration in their own country? Show Notes When I think of “anti-immigration protests” the image that pops into my head is of white people being angry about non-white people entering their neighborhoods and taking their jobs This happens so much that subconsciously even I sometimes find myself assuming this is a “white people clutching their pearls about their land being taken” thing, when it’s not And recent anti-immigrant protests in South Africa are proof of this. South Africa has seen a wave of anti-immigration (often described as anti-illegal immigration or xenophobic) protests and related violence in April–May 2026, concentrated in major cities like Pretoria, Johannesburg, Durban, and spreading to others. Key Details * According to the BBC at least, the main driver is the citizen-led group March and March, which advocates for stricter immigration enforcement, border control, mass deportations of undocumented migrants, and prioritizing South Africans for jobs, housing, and services. * Protests have drawn hundreds to thousands of participants, with marches to government buildings (e.g., Union Buildings in Pretoria), shop closures by foreign-owned businesses out of fear, and some “clean-up” campaigns. * Involvement or alignment from Operation Dudula (a vigilante-style anti-immigrant movement meaning “push out” in Zulu), ActionSA, Patriotic Alliance, and other local forums (e.g., Thokoza Abahambe Forum). * Some political figures, like Floyd Shivambu of the Africa Mayibuye Movement, have endorsed the concerns as legitimate ahead of local elections. * As CNN reports (here’s an Instagram link), protesters accuse undocumented migrants (primarily from other African countries, and some Asians) of taking jobs, engaging in crime/drug dealing, overloading public services (health, housing, schools), and straining the economy. * Some issued a June 30, 2026, ultimatum for undocumented foreigners to leave, with warnings of consequences. * Chants and actions target “illegal foreigners.” * THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME RHETORIC YOU HEAR IN THE USA So this is NOT about white people at all, right? * Yeah, the protesters are primarily South African citizens, often from poorer communities, unemployed youth, township residents, and those feeling economic pressure. * See some footage from Sky News posted on reddit here * Note: South Africa’s official unemployment rate is very high (~32-33%), with widespread frustration over service delivery failures after decades of ANC governance, corruption allegations, and inequality. * They’re largely mad about immigrants from other African countries * Nigerians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, Ethiopians, Ghanaians Is immigration uniquely high in South Africa vis a vis other countries? Or other African countries? Is it higher than normal? South Africa’s immigration levels are not uniquely high by global standards, but they stand out significantly within Africa and have risen notably in recent decades. Key Metrics (UN DESA 2024 Data) * South Africa: ~2.63 million international migrants, representing ~4.1% of its total population (up from ~3.2% in 1990 and ~4.3% in 2010). (UN) * Global average: ~3.7% of world population (~304 million migrants). (Migration Policy Intitute) * Africa overall: ~1.9% (29.2 million migrants across the continent). (UN) A few other African countries have higher proportions due to specific factors (e.g., economic pull or refugee hosting): * Côte d’Ivoire: ~9.0% (around 2.88 million migrants) — historically one of the highest in sub-Saharan Africa due to cocoa plantations and labor migration from neighbors like Burkina Faso. * Others like Djibouti (~10.8%), Gabon, or some refugee-hosting nations (e.g., Uganda, Sudan) can show elevated shares in certain years. * Most African countries are well below 2–3%. Many high-income countries have 10–30%+ migrant shares (e.g., Gulf states 30–50%+, Australia ~30%, Europe/North America 12–16% averages). South Africa’s level is comparable to some other emerging economies but amplified by regional disparities How does South Africa’s rates of immigration and illegal immigration compare to those in the USA, Canada, Australia, and the UK? Basically, South Africa’s total migrant share is not high compared to these countries, but its challenges with undocumented migration (relative to enforcement capacity and economic conditions) appear more acute proportionally and socially. High-unemployment townships amplify perceptions of strain from irregular inflows, unlike the more managed systems in the Anglosphere nations. Statements from Protesters From March and March Leaders and Protesters Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma (Founder and National Leader of March and March): “They are not victims... If you walk down the roads, you will find that they take buildings. There are drugs. There is prostitution. There are cartels. There are mafias. So, everything in this country is a fertile ground for criminals to thrive.”“We are under attack from across Africa… The only thing that they do is to label us as xenophobic. There is nothing xenophobic about wanting law and order in your country.”On government inaction: “We’re frustrated, tired, and feel ignored by our own government... Our demand is that our government is moving at a snail’s pace in addressing the issue of illegal immigrants.” Sanele Nkambule (Treasurer, March and March): “Many spaza shops and informal businesses in the townships are owned or run by foreign nationals without proper trading rights... [placing] an unfair burden on citizens who pay taxes.” He called for all such shops to be run by South Africans, audits of immigrants, review of study visas, and army deployment in high-immigrant areas. Anonymous demonstrator (to BBC during Pretoria march): “We are grateful that we now have groups like this that have come up to aid the voice of what we have always been preaching about — illegal immigration is a big problem to our society.” (Referring to the “influx of illegal immigrants” that politicians ignore.) From Associated Groups Thami Madondo (National Executive Committee member, linked to Operation Dudula/March and March-aligned actions): “The immigration laws of the country have never been enforced by the law enforcement agencies... And that’s why we’re sitting with all of these crises. … We are stressing the fact that illegal foreigners in the country must leave.” He criticized “Ubuntu” narratives in this context: “That narrative of Ubuntu, unfortunately, is the nonsense that has put us where we are today. Ubuntu doesn’t mean that you must come into the country illegally.” Tshepo Totwe (Secretary, Abahambe Movement, collaborating with March and March): “We are here to partake and collaborate with March on March on a progressive march that is involving different organisations and also national forums to collaborate and fight against the foreign nationals that are taking advantage of our economic freedom in our country... That is the key purpose for us to indicate and send a message that we are being labelled as xenophobic, and that is not the point.” What are these protests like? * Human Rights Watch (citing “xenophobic attacks”) reports that some protests have escalated into vigilante actions, assaults on migrants (including beatings, shop attacks, and reported deaths—e.g., Nigerians, Ethiopians), and intimidation. * Human Rights Watch and others have noted insufficient police response in places. Foreign governments (Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, etc.) have issued warnings to their citizens and, in Ghana’s case, offered evacuation flights (with low uptake in one reported instance). What is the South African government doing in response? * As they communicate on the official website of the presidency of the republic of south africa: President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration and officials (e.g., Deputy President Paul Mashatile) condemn violence and vigilante “lawlessness” while acknowledging legitimate grievances over illegal immigration. * They’ve highlighted deportations (over 100k in recent years) and pledged legal enforcement. * They deny widespread xenophobia, calling incidents isolated or criminal What is the larger media narrative about these protests? * When you distill all the coverage together with AI summaries, you’ll see these protests being framed as a recurring pattern of xenophobic tensions in South Africa during economic hardship, seen in prior years (e.g., 2008, 2019, Operation Dudula activities). * High inflows of migrants/refugees amid regional instability, porous borders, and competition for scarce opportunities fuel it. Episode Transcript Simone Collins: [00:00:00] We are here to fight against the foreign nationals that are taking advantage of our economic freedom in our country. We are being labeled as xenophobic, and that is not the point.” So what are the protests like? And Malcolm Collins: again, you’re sure, you’re sure this guy w

    43 min
  2. 50 Years Ago Commies Had A Plan For Us ... It Worked?!

    HACE 3 DÍAS

    50 Years Ago Commies Had A Plan For Us ... It Worked?!

    Did the Communists win the Cold War in America? In this eye-opening Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into the 1963 list of Communist Goals for the United States (compiled by FBI agent Cleon Skousen and entered into the Congressional Record). From infiltrating schools and media, discrediting the family, promoting degeneracy, and weaponizing psychiatry and art — they check off how many of these goals have been achieved and what it means for modern culture, politics, and the future. This conversation covers the long march through the institutions, Yuri Bezmenov’s demoralization playbook, Cuba’s ongoing role, why the “Red Scare” was more accurate than we were taught, and how a new tech-right counter-movement can fight back using AI, culture, and high-agency communities. If you’ve ever wondered why everything feels broken — ugly art, broken families, captured institutions, endless culture war — this episode connects the dots. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be asking the question, did the communists win with their goals in the United States? So this rabbit hole was prompted for me by a Chris Williamson clip where he had on a guest, Isabel Brown, who was going over a list that she reported to be the communist goals for the United States circa 1960. She sort of misstated this list implying that it was read into the Congressional Record by the Communist Party. It was not. It was read into the record by a Republican anti-communist, and was a review of the notes on the Communist Party and their goals, circa 1963- Hmm ... by an FBI agent, Cleon Skousen. So not a crackpot or anything like this. This was an FBI agent whose goal was in the FBI, was to track and to understand the Communist Party’s goals circa 1963. Simone Collins: All right? Okay. Yeah, [00:01:00] and it’s not like they were incredibly secret about their goals. So this can’t be that inaccurate. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, you’re gonna be shocked by this list. You’re gonna be shocked. Really? She read a few of them. And I was like, “I need to go into the full thing.” Yes. “I need to look up the history of this list.” Like, I’m not gonna go over every single one of the points that he had read into it, because some of them would just get boring. But we’re going to have enough material to shock you. Oh, gosh. So let’s... And I’m not gonna be reading them in order either. Okay. So let’s start here, okay? “Transfer some of the power of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychologists can understand or treat.” What? This was the 1960s, early 1960s. Psychiatrists weren’t even a thing at that point. L- not, like, commonly. Simone Collins: Oh, wow. Yeah. [00:02:00] Did we lose the Cold War? We lost the Cold War. We lost the Cold War. We lost the Malcolm Collins: Cold... W- g- when I read through this, you’re gonna be like, “We lost the Cold War.” We were just- What? ... psy-oped into believing we won. I, I almost at the end of this, like, believe that there’s like a communist utopia in y- Russia right now, and that’s where we’ve been sending all our defrauded Somali dollars. Apparently. Like, the... Yeah. And, and that outside the US, everything’s still going and we’ve just been psy-oped into believing that the Cold War is over and that we won to make us happy. For Simone Collins: real? Malcolm Collins: What is happening? I don’t know if I’m ready for this. Speaker 7: Oh my God. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. Privet svitya, Dad. My son is a communist. Malcolm Collins: Okay, next. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive [00:03:00] control over those who oppose communist goals. Consider the way that they’ve used things like trans mental health laws to achieve other goals they have later down on this list. Octavian Collins: Huh. Malcolm Collins: First, given that this does seem to have been the plan, it’s a pretty clever plan, right? Simone Collins: No, yeah. If you, if you go, we, we rewind to the 1950s, 1960s, like, all right, how do we take out these... It is, yeah, I mean, it’s, it’s incredibly clever. I, I never would’ve thought of it. But in terms of destroying a country from the inside I... You know, there’s this one episode in earlier Doctor Who where the Doctor has this, like, plan where he’s like, “Oh, I know how to, like, single-handedly take down this prime minister.” And he, standing next to her, like, turns to a journalist who’s always there, or who, who is also there, and says, “She looks tired.” And that’s supposed to be like, that’s the end of her career. He just ended it by [00:04:00] saying that and, like, sowed this doubt. But this is so much more, like, this is the real version of that where, like, Russia was like, “Oh, that’s that’s not just you being a, a, a dick. It, it’s a mental health thing that is to be systematically- Well, so I should note here- ... defended” ... he is Malcolm Collins: not, he is not talking about Russia’s goals for the United States. These were the goals of the American Communist Party at the time, how they were going to dismantle the United States. Simone Collins: That is so... It’s, ‘cause, but then why? Why would you... I mean, ‘cause presumably the goal- So as was- ... of destabilizing the US means that we, then they can take over. But what is left to take over once you’ve done that to a country? Malcolm Collins: Well, they wanted to sell us out to the communists in Russia. We’ll go over this. It didn’t work out their way. But they have achieved all of their other goals other than that one. It really seems to be about destroying the United States above all else and destroying the institutions- That were most resistant to them- Mm ... specifically religious institutions. And we’ll- So it’s not about Simone Collins: brokering in some new age or transition, it’s just out of hatred for the United [00:05:00] States. Malcolm Collins: Mm. I mean, there does appear to be a new age or transition. It’s the communist order, right? Like, they’ve got to break down the existing social structure before they can create a new one or offer a new one. Hmm. Hmm. We’ll even go into how they plan to run their revolution and everything like that. Well, what Simone Collins: good is a communist citizen if they’re, like, crippled by anxiety and, and statutorily unable to not work? Because then they can’t fight Malcolm Collins: back against the government. Simone Collins: Yeah, but isn’t it... I guess in a, a post AGI world, a post singularity world, you don’t need workers. Like, the perfect communist state that has never been tried needs a lot of- Communists Malcolm Collins: didn’t need their workers to work hard, Simone. Like, I, I think you’re confused about this. Socialism involves- Communists treat their workers like slaves. Like, that’s the way communist states have always operated. Oh. They don’t actually need the- So I guess it was Simone Collins: just, there was a plan to rug pull, like systematically, mentally drive people insane. Well, how about we Malcolm Collins: go through all of the plans and then you can judge? Okay. Yeah, I, well, I would... Yes. Simone Collins: Yeah. Okay, let’s try to understand this better. Okay. Okay. Next Malcolm Collins: here, okay? Discredit the family as an [00:06:00] institution, encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Octavian Collins: Oh, boy. Malcolm Collins: By the way, if you’re unfamiliar with the legal change of the United States in post 1960s not only has promiscuity obviously become very popular, The New York Times regularly writing about polyamory and stuff like this, and but the idea of easy divorce has become way, way, way easier. And there has been explicit attacks, like BLM saw the insti- the family unit as one of their core things that they wanted to target and discredit. Okay. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks, and the retarding of children to the suppressive influence of parents. The, Simone Collins: the retarding of children to the suppressive influence- Yeah, basically Malcolm Collins: they’re like- ... of parents ... we need a way to retard children and then we’ll- They must retard the children ... blame it on the parents. I love, I love that wording We need a way to Simone Collins: break the school system, and then Malcolm Collins: we’ll blame parents on the results of [00:07:00] that. That is so good. And every time somebody’s like, “Well, what about the parents?” Right? You know they’re running a communist op. They’re running a communist op. Come on, guys. I always hate that, that whiny, “Ooh, what about the parents?” Mm. It’s like, look, obviously par... It, it’s really about the family culture. Like, the parents cannot draconianly police everything a kid does. They need to create a culture where the negatives of society don’t get their hooks in the kid to the same extent. But by creating this learned helplessness, communists were able to degrade portions of our society. Okay, next. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. A- again, note here, I am not editorializing these. I am not... This is what was written, read into the Congressional Record, okay? Simone Collins: Well, I guess that explains the witch hunt that took place in that sense, right? Wasn’t there a big blacklist because there was this, this i- i- intense fear of people taking over the media? So it sounds like this was- And they did internalized and taken seriously. Malcolm Collins: They did take over [00:08:00] the media. I mean, we’ve seen this today, right? You know? Yeah. Thi

    56 min
  3. One Conspiracy Explains All Modern Culture (This Explains EVERYTHING)

    HACE 4 DÍAS

    One Conspiracy Explains All Modern Culture (This Explains EVERYTHING)

    The internet has fundamentally changed — and almost no one has noticed. In this episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down how the explosion of global internet users (especially from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and other developing nations) has dramatically reshaped online discourse on both the left and the right. They explore: * Why environmentalism, anti-Black racism, and anti-Hispanic racism faded from leftist priorities while Gaza, Pakistan, Jews, and “Hindu Indians” suddenly dominate * Audience capture, botting, and engagement farming * Why certain right-wing creators (Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate) shifted toward international/Islamic audiences * The hidden influence of third-world users on Western political conversation * Christian-majority vs. non-Western audience patterns * And why the “online right” often feels disconnected from actual American conservatives A paradigm-shifting look at how the internet is no longer majority American — and what that means for culture, politics, and influence. Show Notes * In terms of sheer internet users (using broadband and mobile internet subscriptions as a proxy), there is only one Western nation—the USA—represented in the top ten countries represented * (top representation = China, India, theU SA, Indonesia, Brasil, Russia, Japan, the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Pakistan). * Contrast this to 2008, when the top users of the internet were: * China (but doesn’t count, due to the great firewall of China) * And then the USA, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, and Brazil * In terms of broadband: Leading countries by total subscribers or penetration included the US, China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, UK, and Canada. * So functionally: Mostly Western nations were represented online Could this be why the left shifted from discourse about LGBT and climate change to discourse about Palestine? Internet + Broadband Subscriptions: Then and Now Internet/Broadband Subscriptions in 2008 Leading countries by total subscribers or penetration included the US, China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, UK, and Canada. Mobile + Broadband: * China: ~253 million (June/July 2008; some estimates ~180–220 million by end-2008). China surpassed the US mid-year. * United States: ~220–230 million (active/home users ~150 million in early 2008 per Nielsen). * Japan: ~80–90+ million (active home users ~47–48 million in early 2008). * Germany: ~40–50+ million (active home ~35 million). * UK, France, Brazil, etc.: Lower but still in the top tier (e.g., UK/France ~25 million active home users; Brazil growing rapidly). Internet/Broadband Subscriptions Today Dominated by: * China * India * USA * Indonesia * Brazil * Russia * Japan * The Philippines * Bangladesh * Pakistan The USA is the only “western” country represented on the top ten list. Pulling from Wikipedia’s list of sovereign states by number of broadband Internet subscriptions, I combined mobile + broadband internet subscriptions to create a ranked list: * China - 1852637000 * India - 1200170910 * United States - 505719000 * Indonesia - 464967914 * Brazil - 265158564 * Russian Federation - 258214661 * Japan - 210519139 * Philippines - 176599291 * Bangladesh - 152409669 * Pakistan - 146355310 * Nigeria - 144994174 * Germany - 139217000 * Mexico - 131458662 * Vietnam - 131286117 * Thailand - 129738000 * Egypt - 108181505 * United Kingdom - 105189476 * Italy - 100457919 * France - 97446000 * Iran - 97164277 * South Africa - 93576635 * Turkey - 89725075 * South Korea - 84854606 * Argentina - 69767601 * Colombia - 68540947 * Spain - 66958543 * Ethiopia - 63197120 * Ukraine - 60954476 * Poland - 56881929 * Algeria - 53040296 * Myanmar - 48356160 * Canada - 45381104 * Morocco - 45294933 * Malaysia - 45026300 * Kenya - 43103412 * Saudi Arabia - 42709657 * Tanzania - 41802027 * Peru - 41225603 * Ghana - 36808571 * Nepal - 36096396 * Australia - 35476000 * Democratic Republic of the Congo - 35271156 * Taiwan - 34490976 * Iraq - 33335316 * Côte d’Ivoire - 31890058 * Sri Lanka - 29419587 * Kazakhstan - 29046500 * Sudan - 28675221 * Netherlands - 27742800 * Uzbekistan - 27585670 * Romania - 27330000 * Venezuela - 27103805 * Chile - 26072126 * Uganda - 25094643 * Afghanistan - 23946523 * Hong Kong - 20986099 * Guatemala - 19986482 * United Arab Emirates - 19826224 * Cameroon - 19748144 * Cambodia - 18702623 * Burkina Faso - 17960442 * Austria - 17435540 * Syrian Arab Republic - 16804909 * Greece - 16715369 * Belgium - 16340062 * Sweden - 16171593 * Senegal - 15870161 * Czech Republic - 15695534 * Ecuador - 15565345 * Portugal - 15338153 * Switzerland - 15142000 * Tunisia - 15135865 * Hungary - 14987525 * Belarus - 14578427 * Zimbabwe - 14279414 * Zambia - 13474451 * Angola - 13420871 * Israel - 12882000 * Azerbaijan - 11932214 * Mozambique - 11917159 * Bolivia - 11321904 * El Salvador - 10424913 * Bulgaria - 10297690 * Serbia - 10101873 * Singapore - 9933200 * Costa Rica - 9584401 * Dominican Republic - 9555585 * Denmark - 9453730 * Finland - 9017200 * Rwanda - 8840997 * Benin - 8801877 * Niger - 8787534 * Madagascar - 8755561 * Slovakia - 8522504 * Honduras - 8466489 * Nicaragua - 8390000 * New Zealand - 7982000 * Norway - 7855360 * Malawi - 7781723 Follower Composition of Major Influencers Nick Fuentes - America First? * The Network Contagion Research Institute reported (in December 2025) that ~50% of retweets on Nick Fuentes most viral posts originated from foreign accounts before Kirk’s death. * These were heavily concentrated in countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia (with additional shares from the UK and Canada among foreign sources). Non-Western countries made up the majority of the foreign retweets. * The NY Post reported that the pattern matched known engagement farm/bot activity (rapid, coordinated retweets shortly after posting, often from anonymous/single-purpose accounts), with no clear organic tie to Fuentes’ “America First” content in those regions. Tucker Carlson - Pakistani Icon? Tucker Carlson’s popularity among a Pakistani audience surged due to his outspoken criticism of liberal Western culture, his advocacy for Palestinian rights, and a viral 2025 interview where he stated he had more in common with a “sincerely religious Pakistani cab driver” than with secular, liberal Western elites That said, Tucker Carlson Network (TCN) website traffic (as of early 2025 data) indicates: * ~82% from the United States * ~2.6% from Australia * ~2.05% UK * ~1.98 Canada * ~1.67 Russia * No notable Pakistan or South Asian spike in the available breakdown. On YouTube and X, independent estimates show moderate U.S.-heavy performance, with some international growth noted in the Middle East/Gulf due to his anti-war/anti-interventionist takes (e.g., on Iran), but nothing indicating dominance by Pakistan or similar countries. Some X posts and memes joke about his audience shifting to “Pakistan, Iran, Russia” amid his criticism of U.S. foreign policy (especially on Iran). These are often mocking, not serious analysis (e.g., claims of “closeted gay Muslims in Pakistan” as his base or similar). Pakistani users sometimes push back, noting low actual awareness of him domestically Andrew Tate: Indian Hustler? * Google search interest and anecdotal reporting (+ reporting form the Guardian) indicate higher per-capita interest in Muslim-majority countries (e.g., parts of the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia) than in the UK/US. * Popularity also noted in India, Brazil, and other Global South areas * Tate’s 2022 conversion to Islam boosted this * Much of Tate’s international reach comes from short-form content amplified by algorithms and affiliate promoters in places like India/Pakistan/Bangladesh * Audience composition often highlights young men from ethnic minority backgrounds in the West or aspiring youth in developing countries drawn to his “self-made” wealth, discipline, and anti-”matrix” messaging. Hustler University * Articles note it helps young Indians navigate industry/job challenges; Indian students comment on applicability (e.g., freelancing); LinkedIn profiles and reviews show Indian participants. Affiliate promotion and clip-sharing by creators in India contribute to virality Are Shifting Internet Audiences Changing the Discourse? From a Based Camp listener: “A lot of their viewerbase are muslims, they don’t care about climate change. That is also why Tucker changed his content. American politics is now no longer only consumed by Americans. People from other countries also have strong opinions on US politics.” To be fair, I checked Google Trends and Palestine has always (as long as they’ve been measuring search volume) been searched more than LGBTQ community stuff and climate change as a topic. Why islamists and modern progressives are so compatible The apparent alignment between Islamists (those advocating political Islam, often with Sharia-oriented goals) and progressives (or segments of the radical left) is a tactical “Red-Green alliance” driven primarily by shared enemies rather than shared values. This is not a new alliance. * This phenomenon, sometimes called “Islamo-leftism,” has historical roots (e.g., Western leftists supporting Iran’s 1979 Revolution before many were purged) and has intensified in recent years, especially post-9/11, during anti-Iraq War protests, and after October 7, 2023 (The Free Press writes about it) Core Reasons for the Alignment * Common adversaries: Both groups frequently oppose Western liberalism, capitalism, U.S. foreign policy, and Israel (viewed as a symbol of “imperialism” or colonialism). Progressives frame this through lenses of anti-racism, decolonization, and social justice; Islamists see it as a civilizational/religious struggle. This creates convergence on issues like Palestine, anti-Zionism (often overlapping with a

    1 h 2 min
  4. NY Mag Promotes Regretting Having Kids (Simone Thinks It’s A Good Idea)

    HACE 5 DÍAS

    NY Mag Promotes Regretting Having Kids (Simone Thinks It’s A Good Idea)

    Today on Based Camp, we go over the accounts of women who reportedly regret having kids, as covered by New York Magazine, and discuss why they’re so miserable. Among other things, we explore: * How the hardest phase is often the early years, especially infancy and toddlerhood, and that regret can be heavily shaped by sleep deprivation, pain, and the shock of being the default caregiver * How the same events can feel unbearable or manageable depending on whether a person frames them negatively or as part of a meaningful life project * The utility of thinking through failure modes in advance, building contingency plans, and explicitly discussing logistics before having children rather than relying on vague social assumptions * How if someone dislikes themselves or their partner, that unhappiness often gets magnified through children because kids reflect both parents * How online communities like “regretful parents” can reinforce misery by rewarding negative storytelling, though they acknowledge that some parents are genuinely unsupported and hurting Ultimately, parent regret is often driven less by children themselves and more by a mix of poor preparation, weak reasons for having kids, lack of support, bad partner fit, and untreated personal issues like depression, anxiety, ADHD, or body image problems. Many of these risks can be headed off by brutally honest parenting discussions, early planning, and choosing parenthood deliberately rather than as a default life stage Episode Notes * A lot of conservative-leaning influencers are talking about an article in the New York Times, part of The Cut’s “Oh, Baby” series * Broadly speaking, they’re trashing NY Mag for discouraging motherhood and/or trashing the mothers for various reasons * Though some, like Brett Cooper, have more balanced takes: she argues that the viral “I regret having children” discourse is really about unsupported, isolated mothers and bad matching in marriage, not mothers hating their kids * I disagree with all the takes I’ve seen though * This article is great * These accounts are super important * Anyone who is serious about kids should read them—and more Here’s why: * The best way to get through something tough is to: * Have a strong reason for having kids * Understand where things go wrong * Heading off serious issues, especially with your first child in their first years, makes the difference between hating parenthood and wanting a huge family * A positive experience with first kids was the top common factor Dr. Catherine Ruth Pakaluk identified when interviewing college-educated American mothers of over five kids * We, personally, have experienced a lot of the negative things (or rough equivalents) the mothers in this article experienced, but because we had a strong “why” behind having kids and we had prepared for a lot of the potential downsides, we were able to weather the hazards What we would encourage: * Going through r/regretfulparents and cataloging all the things that go wrong * Building contingency plans for those things * We did this with our relationship—in building our relationship contract—and prospective parents would be wise to do this before having kids * I.e. build contingency plan items into a parenting contract, or adding them to a relationship contract The Article The article opens with: “Parent regret is more common than you might think — the r/regretfulparents sub-Reddit alone gets around 70,000 weekly visitors who anonymously commiserate — though stigma makes it hard to admit in real life. Below, three moms of young children talk about why they wish they could go back to their old lives.” The Cut - I regret having children: https://archive.is/BF3zn 34-year-old Rhode Island mother of a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old * Didn’t have kids for a strong reason * “When my husband and I were dating, his deal-breaker was having kids. I didn’t feel the same way, but I didn’t see life without children as an option. It always felt like the next stage of life for us. I remember telling my husband, “I’m worried; I love our life now and I’m not sure what it’s going to look like with a child.”” * Has personal issues which she now has to contend with in her kids (easy to be frustrated, colickey, etc.). * Struggled with postpartum depression * Perfectionist * Got diagnosed with ADHD after suspecting her oldest had it. * “When my younger daughter struggles to get dressed, I try to distract her or make compromises, but in the end, she’s screaming, and I don’t know how to make it stop, so I just shut down.” * Is admittedly in the “hell zone” of parenthood (after six, things get awesome) * She’s not wrong that parents of especially young children are less happy * But that’s not the point 30-year-old European mother of a 3-year-old * Grew up sheltered with a stay-at-home mom; married at 22 * Mother said she would help out with a new baby * Was constrained to bed rest in her fist trimester * Horrible recovery from birth (painful to move) * Mother and husband didn’t help that much * “My husband had a month and a half of paternity leave, but the only helpful thing he did during that time was change her diapers, though he did it with a reluctant expression on his face; I had the feeling he never believed how much pain I was in. My mom helped, but she didn’t like being disturbed at night and even during the day was afraid of holding the baby or changing her. I hallucinated from lack of sleep. It felt like I’d been tricked into this. Everyone who wanted me to have a child — my husband, my family — knew they weren’t going to lose much, while my freedom and identity went down the toilet.” * Had a history of depression and anxiety * Turned down a job offer that would require moving because they didn’t want to change their daughter’s preschool * Worries a LOT about her daughter (i.e. what would happen if I were not here and something happened?) 27-year-old North Carolina mother of a 1-year-old * Didn’t want kids * “My husband and I met in middle school. He was always interested in having a big family, and I told him I wasn’t quite sure.” * Has a history of depression and is now dealing with it in her son perhaps: * “My son has a low tolerance for frustration and doesn’t communicate other than whining, screaming, crying, throwing things, and pulling my hair.” * Has body dysmorphia issues * “During pregnancy, I felt embarrassed. I’ve had body-dysmorphia issues since I was a kid, and I felt so massive. I used to be a track athlete and have always been fit and active, so I didn’t like feeling so heavy and restricted when trying to do the things I’ve always done, like hiking. During my third trimester, I didn’t want to leave the house so that people wouldn’t see me.” * Different contextualization would have made a huge difference re: body dysmorphia * Horrible birth experience * “My son’s birth was also traumatic. His shoulder got stuck in my pelvis and the epidural kept wearing off; the nurses told me it was fine, that I was overthinking. They held me down and jumped on my pelvis to dislodge his shoulder while the doctor reached up and got him out; I still have pain from it. When my son was placed on me, I didn’t feel anything. It was surreal. I told the nurse, “You’ve got to put him back in the bassinet, I’m about to puke.” Then I did, all over myself. No one helped me to the bathroom or showed me how to wash myself.” * Felt erased as a human being * “I felt like I’d disappeared as a human being. Clients called me “Mama.” Friends and family asked me how my son was; they told me how excited and overjoyed I must be. I tried telling them I wasn’t coping well with motherhood and was still processing the birth, and they’d tell me, “That’s what motherhood is.” One of my friends texted my husband, “Wow, she’s changed, and not in a good way.” It came from a place of care — she and many friends and family told me I had postpartum depression, to seek therapy and go on medication. But at the same time, they’d quickly flip it back to, “You need to be there for your son. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps. Move on; it’s over with and done.” Everything I went through, was just like, No big deal, because the baby is here. Your existence doesn’t matter.” * Withdrew from fellow parents because her son is developmentally delayed * “I stopped talking to my friends with kids. They wanted to exchange baby photos and milestones and, while I was happy for them, my son is delayed and is in early intervention services, so he wasn’t meeting his.” * Plans to leave her husband and son * “My husband and I are taking steps to separate, and he’s willing to take on the role of a single parent, which makes me feel incredibly guilty. But I can’t live this life with him anymore. I’m not the parent my son needs.”Simone & Malcolm Collins react to the viral New York Times / The Cut article “I Regret Having Children” — three anonymous mothers share raw, dark stories of resentment, isolation, postpartum struggles, and lost identity. Instead of the usual outrage, we treat this as an important warning and planning document. We break down why these regrets happen, how strong reasons for having kids + radical honesty + contingency planning can prevent them, the power of contextualization, genetic self-awareness, partner compatibility, and why the early toddler years are brutal but temporary. We also discuss: * Why hating yourself or your partner makes parenting hell * Polygenic selection & mental health * The importance of realistic expectations around birth, sleep, and infant care * How to build a “parenting contract” before kids * Feminism’s impact on women’s identity in motherhood A must-watch for anyone considering children or already navigating early parenthood. Brutally honest, optim

    48 min
  5. What if we just... left the United Nations + NATO?

    HACE 6 DÍAS

    What if we just... left the United Nations + NATO?

    Today on Based Camp, we discuss the purpose, history, and utility of the UN and NATO. Do they make sense in the modern geopolitical landscape? Do they make sense in the face of demographic collapse? As people who constantly rail on bureaucratic bloat and mission creep, you might be able to guess where we fall… but what do you think? We’re keen to read your opinions in the comments. Show Notes A typical middle-income American household is paying $337.50 annually on the European theatre and NATO-related missions via their taxes * Per household, middle of the income distribution: USAFacts reports that in 2021, families in the middle 20% of the income distribution paid about 10,391 dollars per year in federal income tax alone. * So for a middle‑income household paying 10,391 dollars in federal income tax, a good ballpark is about 1,500 dollars of that going to national defense in a recent‑years sense. * And one mainstream estimate is that roughly 20–25 percent of total U.S. military spending is devoted to the European theater and NATO‑related missions (forces, bases, exercises, enablers, nuclear posture) * With U.S. military spending around 850–900 billion dollars per year in the mid‑2020s, that implies on the order of 170–225 billion dollars annually that can reasonably be tied to European and NATO deterrence, broadly defined * 1500*.225= $337.50 Meanwhile, what is NATO doing for us? I vote we not only leave NATO but also leave the UN (roughly $90-100 per year is paid to the UN per tax return / tax paying household—this includes lower-income households). Why NATO Was Created Basically to fight commies during the cold war * It emerged in the early Cold War as a direct response to the Soviet Union’s expansionist actions, including the domination of Central and Eastern Europe behind the “Iron Curtain.” * Western European nations were still recovering from World War II, and the U.S. and Canada sought to deter further Soviet aggression through collective strength rather than unilateral action. It operates within the UN Charter framework (explicitly referencing Article 51 on self-defense) but focuses on military readiness What Nato Does * Coordinate on defense, crisis management, and cooperative security * Like a neighborhood watch group * Participants voluntarily join * They coordinate on security and defensive action * They sometimes partner with non-members to promote stability beyond their own borders * They meet occasionally to strategize and troubleshoot Key functions: * Regular consultations in the North Atlantic Council (NATO’s main decision-making body). * Joint military planning, exercises, standardization of equipment/procedures, and integrated command structures. * Deployment of standing forces, rapid-reaction units, and multinational battlegroups (e.g., on the eastern flank). * Common-funded activities like infrastructure, command structures, and some operations (though the vast majority of capabilities come from national forces contributed by members). Article 5 (Collective Defence): An armed attack against one member in Europe or North America is considered an attack against all. Each member must assist the attacked party “forthwith… such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,” in line with UN Charter Article 51 (individual/collective self-defence). The response is decided individually by each member but coordinated through NATO. It applies only to armed attacks (traditionally state-on-state, but clarified to potentially include significant cyber or hybrid attacks) in the defined North Atlantic area. * IMPORTANT: The Article 5 commitment (“attack on one is an attack on all”) is not a guarantee that NATO will always send combat troops; each ally chooses how to assist, which might be logistics, intelligence, or other support. What NATO Does NOT Do * Feature any concrete financial obligations in terms of contribution to group efforts * The treaty itself contains no specific spending requirements or percentages * spending targets are political commitments, not legally enforceable treaty obligations. * At the 2014 Wales Summit, members pledged to aim for 2% of GDP on defence (with at least 20% of that on major equipment/modernization). All members met or exceeded this by 2025 * BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRIBUTING TO THE GROUP * Updated 2025 commitment (The Hague Summit): Members (except Spain, which received an exemption) agreed to reach 5% of GDP annually by 2035 on “core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending.” This breaks down to at least 3.5% on core NATO-defined defence expenditure (to meet capability targets) and up to 1.5% on broader areas like critical infrastructure protection, cyber defence, civil preparedness, resilience, innovation, and the defence industrial base. Allies must submit annual credible plans to show progress * Guarantee that members will host bases for each other * NATO cannot force a country to go to war or to host a base; participation in operations and basing arrangements is negotiated and voluntary. * Maintain its own large standing armies * NATO relies heavily on VOLUNTARY contributions from members * When NATO runs an operation, countries voluntarily “assign” units for that mission; those forces remain nationally owned and can be withdrawn by their governments. * Meaningfully enforce anything among members * The treaty commitments are binding, but failure to honor them (especially Article 5) only undermines the alliance’s credibility * enforcement relies on political consensus and mutual interest. * Any member can legally withdraw by giving notice under the North Atlantic Treaty; NATO cannot legally forbid a state from leaving. Examples of NATO members not contributing / helping out when asked Post-9/11 (Article 5 Invocation, 2001) * NATO invoked Article 5 for the first (and only) time after the U.S. terrorist attacks. Allies offered broad political solidarity, overflight rights, AWACS patrols over the U.S., and contributions to operations in Afghanistan. However, actual military involvement varied significantly: * Many allies deployed forces to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Operation Enduring Freedom, but contributions differed in scale, duration, and risk. * Spain did not obtain parliamentary approval to send combat forces initially and provided more limited support (e.g., later ISAF troops and hospital units). * Other nations imposed national caveats (restrictions on troop use, such as geographic limits, prohibitions on offensive operations, or requirements for home-government approval before engaging). These fragmented command, reduced effectiveness, and increased risks for allies willing to fight in high-intensity areas (e.g., southern Afghanistan). Germany, for instance, restricted its troops mostly to quieter northern regions. 2003 Iraq Crisis (Turkey’s Article 4 Request) In early 2003, Turkey (which borders Iraq) asked NATO for defensive assistance—Patriot air‑defense missiles, AWACS, and other measures—because it feared retaliation if the U.S. invaded Iraq. * France, Germany, and Belgium blocked NATO planning for weeks, arguing that preparing defenses would signal that war was inevitable and undermine UN diplomacy, leaving Turkey feeling exposed and accusing allies of failing their obligations. This is one of the clearest cases of major members actively hindering support for an ally’s security request. Afghanistan Mission (Ongoing Caveats, 2000s–2010s) * Once NATO took on the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, some allies imposed strict “caveats” on their troops—limits on where and how they could fight—which meant that combat burdens fell heavily on a few countries (e.g., U.S., UK, Canada, the Netherlands) while others stayed in relatively safer roles. * These caveats were widely criticized within NATO as a way for governments to claim solidarity while avoiding the riskiest tasks their partners wanted help with. Recent Example: 2026 U.S.-Iran Conflict Following U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran (starting February 2026), which affected shipping in the Strait of Hormuz: * Several European NATO members, notably Spain, refused U.S. requests for basing rights, overflight, or naval support. Spain barred use of key bases like Naval Station Rota. * Others (e.g., France, Germany) offered limited or qualified support and declined direct involvement or a coordinated NATO naval effort to reopen the strait. This drew sharp U.S. criticism, with discussions of potential repercussions for non-supportive allies. These cases highlight how domestic politics, differing threat perceptions, legal requirements (e.g., parliamentary approval), and strategic disagreements can limit responses. NATO has no mechanism to expel or automatically punish members for such actions—decisions rely on consensus and political pressure. The US Disproportionately Helping NATO Countries Disproportionate US Spending in General In 2024, U.S. defense spending was about two‑thirds of the total defense spending of all NATO allies combined, meaning the U.S. spends roughly as much as everyone else in the alliance put together. The U.S. overwhelmingly dominates high‑end capabilities that NATO depends on: strategic airlift, aerial refueling, global intelligence/surveillance, precision strike, and much of the nuclear deterrent. In operations like Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya, U.S. forces supplied most of the enabling assets and often a large share of combat power, without which European allies could not have sustained the campaigns at the same tempo. Cold War and immediate post‑Cold War * Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. stationed large ground, air, and nuclear forces in Western Europe (West Germany, UK, Italy, etc.) specifically to deter an attack on NATO allies by the Soviet Union; these deployments are widely seen as the core of NATO’s collective defens

    58 min
  6. Far More Famous Influencers Are Fake Than You Realize

    15 MAY

    Far More Famous Influencers Are Fake Than You Realize

    Simone and Malcolm Collins expose how viewbotting, clip spamming, and manufactured engagement are completely warping our perception of what's popular online. From Twitch streamers (80% of top creators allegedly botted) to music giants like Beyoncé losing billions of fake views, "woke" games with 200 peak players, Substack subscriber farms, and Kick's massive clip-spamming campaigns — the internet is far faker than most realize.We break down the economics (why botting is a rational business decision), real-world examples (Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Caleb Hammer, Clavicular), how algorithms get gamed, and what this means for discovering authentic content in 2026.Dead Internet Theory just got an upgrade. Show Notes * According to some analysts, for the first time in over a decade, bots now generate the majority of internet activity * At 51-53% * This is according to multiple reports and sources (see note at the end) * Note: Breakdowns often separate “good” bots (search engine crawlers, SEO tools) from “bad” ones (malicious scrapers, credential stuffers, ad fraud). Imperva notes bad bots alone rose to ~40% of total traffic in 2025 (up from 37%) * BTW: Cloudflare’s data (which focuses on HTTP requests they observe) shows a lower but still rising bot share—around 31–32% in Q1 2026 (up month-over-month)—with AI crawlers as the fastest-growing segment. Their CEO has publicly predicted bot traffic will exceed human traffic by 2027, aligning with the broader trend. Some analyses of Cloudflare data cite >50% of HTML page requests as bot-driven in 2025 * There are literal view farms (this is one Brazilian one that was raided two months ago, in March 2026: * For any platform you can imagine, you can buy viewbots with varying degrees of sophistication, including viewbots that have widely varied IP addresses that have detailed histories, leave comments, mute/unmute while watching streams, etc. Fame is manufactured * Major music labels and artists are using botting to look bigger than they are * An example: Drake accused his own label (UMG) of conspiring with third parties (including Spotify) to bot streams for Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” to harm him. UMG called it “untrue” and “illogical.” Defamation claims were dismissed; the broader case is ongoing. Drake has also faced separate accusations of using his Stake partnership to fund botting for his own catalog. * When major companies DON’T use viewbotting, you see embarrassing situations like the pilot episode of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, which got ~16,000 views in its first 11 hours after release on YouTube. A separate report also said the live premiere peaked at roughly 1,300 concurrent viewers. * Even major viral figures, like Caleb Hammer and Clavicular, are manufactured to a great extent Let’s explore just how bad it is Viewbotting on Twitch * Around 10% of Twitch streamers with at least 50 average viewers show clear, persistent signs of viewbotting, according to the most comprehensive independent analysis available (Streams Charts / Audiencly 2025 whitepaper, covering Q2 2025 data) * It’s worse for big creators: Streamer/analyst Devin Nash (and his agency) analyzed the top 500 Twitch streamers and estimated 400–430 (roughly 80%) show signs of viewbotting or being botted (30–40% of viewers as blatant bots + another 5–15% via embeds). * This is based on chat activity monitoring, user-list sampling, logged-in/out ratios, and known botnet cross-referencing * Creators argue Twitch is a platform where viewbotting ia necessary for survival; if you’re not doing it, you’re not competitive * Doesn’t help that discoverability is very low Devon Nash on the Unit Economics In a recent video, Devon Nash, a professional on the brand marketing side of the equation (he’s Chief Marketing Officer at Novo), explained how viewbotting is a no-brainer smart decision for streamers and agencies based on the unit economics: * Viewbots cost approximately $0.01 to $0.02 per viewer hour, which translates to about $135 to $185 per week to add 500-750 viewers to a stream. This weekly cost includes features like chatting and custom chat messages to make the viewers appear authentic. For a full month of viewbotting, agencies spend less than $800 to artificially inflate viewer counts. * Twitch sponsorship rates typically range from $1 to $3 per concurrent viewer (CCV), with $1.50 to $2 being the standard rate for a 2-hour gaming sponsorship. For a streamer with 1,000 viewers at $2 per CCV, a single 2-hour sponsorship generates $4,000 in total revenue. The agency typically takes 20% commission, earning $800 per deal, while the streamer receives $3,200. * Nash demonstrates how agencies can achieve massive returns by combining viewbotting with multiple sponsorship deals. * Starting with a 300-viewer stream and adding 700 botted viewers creates an apparent 1,000-viewer stream for approximately $150-180 per week. If the agency secures just two 2-hour sponsorships for that inflated audience, they earn $1,600 in commission while spending less than $400 on viewbots. * This creates what Nash calls “a money printing machine” where agencies multiply their investment several times over. Viewbotting on Substack There are websites that sell Substack subscribers (as low as ~$0.02 each), sometimes claiming they use “real people” added manually rather than pure bots. Whether these are organic or farmed/incentivized accounts, they still represent artificial inflation * here’s one: you can buy low, medium, and high quality subscribers). * You can also buy comments, likes, views, shares, plays, restacks, searches, comment likes, comment restack, comment shares, aves, messages, comment replies, and save as image In April, the Observer covered how Andrew Tate’s Substack saw its total follower count drop from 1.1 million to 980,000 after analysis of a sample of 1,000 paying subscribers found that 75% had no biography, publications, or visible activity—and half were created in a 16-day window. Investigators concluded he had imported a pre-existing (likely harvested) email list. Substack’s standards and enforcement team reviews bulk email imports and acts when they appear illegitimate. Earlier, creator Rebekah Jones lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers in apparent purges (documented on X in 2025), with charts showing dramatic drops after bulk fake additions. Viewbotting on YouTube Fake views have existed since at least 2009, with media attention by 2011 and a major 2012 purge in which YouTube removed billions of fraudulent views, including over 1 billion from Universal Music Group artists (e.g., Beyoncé, Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj). Physical view farms continue operating globally in 2026. In March 2026, Brazilian police raided a large-scale YouTube view farm with dozens (or hundreds) of smartphones rigged to ceilings, running 24/7 to loop videos and simulate views/interactions. (IT LOOKS CRAZY) Similar operations have been documented in Vietnam and elsewhere, often targeting music videos or algorithm gaming A 2024 academic study analyzing nearly 100,000 YouTube videos from over 1,000 French channels over 1.5 years found fake view removals (“corrections”) on ~90% of channels and 78.5% of videos. These corrections occur in daily batches (often around 5 p.m.) and frequently happen late in a video’s lifecycle—after most organic views have accumulated—rather than in real time. Notably, videos corrected later tended to be more popular overall, suggesting fake views can temporarily boost algorithmic recommendations and perceived popularity before being stripped. Clip Spamming Devon Nash also changed how I view YouTube discovery with his breakdown on how people—including Clavicular and Caleb Hammer—are manufacturing virality by spamming clips of their work on platforms like YouTube (see: Exposing the New Manufactured Viral Content Industry) The video explains how a paid “clipping economy” is artificially hijacking short‑form algorithms on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and X to manufacture viral influencers and promote the streaming platform Kick, How the clipping system works * Campaigns run inside large Discord servers (20–30k+ people) or invite‑only groups where each campaign corresponds to one streamer, podcaster, or brand. * Clippers pull 30–120 second segments from long‑form streams and upload them as shorts on TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and sometimes X, under their own accounts. * They are paid on a flat CPM basis, typically around 0.10–0.40 dollars per 1,000 views but sometimes up to 2–3 dollars or specific bounties like 3,000 dollars per million views for particular clips. * Payment usually happens in USDT and often only once a minimum aggregate view threshold (for example 100,000 total views across all the clippers’ uploads) is reached, incentivizing people to spam 50–100 clips across multiple accounts. Because the CPM is on top of the platform’s own ad revenue, this can be decent money for clippers in lower‑income countries, and the servers are generally run in a professional, non‑scammy way with visible campaign caps (for example 10,000–20,000 dollars budget per campaign). Scale of manufactured virality Nash uses the case of Clavicular” to show the scale. * In one recent month, this streamer allegedly generated 2.2 billion views from about 69,000 clips posted across platforms, with 1,600+ paid clippers involved. * Averaged out, each clip might get around 31,700 views, but the real point is the volume: tens of thousands of separate uploads all about the same person in 30 days. * Even if a significant fraction of views are “free” (below payout threshold), running such a campaign still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per month at around 1 dollar CPM, implying millions per month across all similar campaigns. This sheer volume tricks recommendation systems: algorithms

    1 h

  7. 14 MAY

    Ben Shapiro's Crumbling Empire: How The Daily Wire Lost its Audience

    In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the dramatic decline of The Daily Wire — from massive layoffs (25-50% staff cuts), an 85% drop in Ben Shapiro’s YouTube views, and high-profile splits with Candace Owens, Brett Cooper, and others — to financial flops like the $10M Pendragon fantasy series nobody asked for. They explore Shapiro’s mean-girl gatekeeping, failed attempts to control the conservative movement, allegations of heavy viewbotting, outdated content strategies, and why the old-guard “Boomer conservative” model is collapsing while newer, more vital, fun, and adaptive voices (including Based Camp) are rising. Show Notes * Around May 1st, the Daily Wire laid off around 13% of their staff * At least according to a company spokesperson * Candace Owens claims that 50% were laid off * And LayoffHedge (a third-party tracker) estimates approximately 100 jobs cut in 2026 (that is 50% of the approximately 200 remaining staff) * This is their second round of layoffs, following a 25% staff cut in April 2025 * A year in which they also shut down their Bentkey children’s entertainment division * So their team is down over 60% * These changes coincide with a 85% drop in Ben Shapiro’s YouTube viewership * 2023: He had over 170 million monthly views * Now: 18-28 million monthly views * Plus Ben Shapiro and Team Daily Wire is very publicly splitting from major right-wing influencers—after a long history of sanctimonious gatekeeping * And this is in addition to insanely stupid financial indulgences made by the Daily Wire, like dumping $10M on a fantasy series nobody asked for Let’s look at their rise and fall and what it indicates about the right. The Rise of Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire Ben Shapiro’s rise began in the early 2000s as a teenage author and columnist, accelerating in the 2010s through campus debates, books, and podcasts. Shapiro published his first book, Brainwashed, at age 17 in 2004 while at UCLA, followed by columns and radio appearances. His national breakout came around 2012-2016 via viral campus speeches (”facts don’t care about your feelings”), resigning from Breitbart in 2016 amid Trump tensions, and The Ben Shapiro Show podcast launch. By 2018, it was syndicated on over 200 stations, peaking his influence during 2016-2020 political polarization. The Daily Wire launched on June 29, 2015, co-founded by Shapiro and Jeremy Boreing with seed funding from the Wilks brothers, building on Shapiro’s momentum post-Breitbart. The Ben Shapiro Show debuted as its flagship in September 2015. * The Daily Wire perfected Facebook‑era virality with clicky headlines and “SJW owned” debate clips, becoming one of the most‑linked news domains on the platform and a powerhouse during the Trump and early COVID years. The company hit its peak in late 2023, driven by Shapiro’s YouTube reaching ~170 million monthly views amid Israel-Hamas coverage, with revenue claims over $100 million annually by 2022. Expansion included Nashville HQ (2020), DailyWire+ (2022), and Bentkey (2023). The Layoffs * Most of the layoffs were around the Daily Wire’s Nashville, TN headquarters (and particularly within the production office) The YouTube and Facebook Drops Facebook * Facebook’s 2024 feed changes de‑ranked news and gutted The Daily Wire’s traffic, collapsing the distribution engine that had made them look unbeatable in the mid‑2010s. YouTube * Independent YouTube analytics (VidIQ and others) show Ben Shapiro’s channel views are down roughly 70–85% from their late‑2023 peak * Flagship channels sometimes have normal slumps, but online commentators like Philip DeFranco have noted this change in traffic is closer to a collapse * Social Blade data shows The Daily Wire’s YouTube subscriber base has plateaued or shrunk in 15 of the last 16 months since early 2025. * Website traffic by March 2026 was about half of what it had been a year earlier, and Shapiro has admitted that revenue is down from 2024 even while insisting cash flow remains strong relative to critics’ expectations. The Splits Direct Brett Cooper * Voluntarily left The Daily Wire on December 10, 2024 Candace Owens * Left in March 2024 * CEO Jeremy Boreing announced the end of their partnership, stating it was mutual but amid public feuds like Owens’ “Christ is King” posts and defense of Kanye West’s antisemitic remarks. Shapiro challenged her to quit if unhappy, while Owens called herself “finally free” and accused Shapiro of ad hominem attacks. She continued criticizing Israel and the ADL post-exit. * Owens weaponized receipts, text messages, and live‑stream theatrics to frame Shapiro as hypocritical and captured by Israeli donors, and then rode the Charlie Kirk assassination discourse into a giant audience surge while undermining Shapiro’s legitimacy. More Ideological The Daily Wire fell out of step with the dissident right and younger MAGA, especially re: stanning Israel Nick Fuentes * In his interview with Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes talks about how Ben Shapiro gatekept and belittled him early in his career, even when he was essentially a nobody * Fuentes describes first publicly criticizing Shapiro and The Daily Wire over Israel, then getting labeled an antisemite: * “I tweeted to Ben Shapiro. I said, ‘You know, I’ve never seen anything on the Daily Wire that’s actually critical of Israel.’ And he quote tweets me… And he says to accuse a Jew of dual loyalty is the shest sign of anti-semitism.” * “He immediately called you an anti-semite.” (Tucker) – “Mhm. So I’m driving to Christmas Eve mass with my family and I see on Twitter the notification comes up. Ben Shapiro quote tweets me calling me an anti-semite.” * “And then… I said something like, ‘If you’re China first, you should live in China. If you’re Mexico first, you should live in Mexico. If you’re Israel first, maybe you should go live in Israel.’ And again, he quote tweets me and says, ‘You’re an anti-semite’ that same night.” * Fuentes frames this as Shapiro deciding early on to shut him down inside the conservative movement: * “It turned out that Cassie Dylan, she had texted him earlier and she wanted him to take me under his wing… And he goes, ‘I’ll take a look.’ And so, I guess the two of them were kind of like grooming me in a sense. They wanted me to go maybe and be a Daily Wire [guy] or maybe looking me as a potential conservative activist or influencer. And so they started paying attention to me.” * “And the more critical of Israel I was, I started to get this really intense push back from the both of them and from a lot of the people at Daily Wire.” * “For them, it was very easy that if they detected that a promising young guy was going to become anti-Israel in the conservative movement, they could crush that person easily and grind them under the heel. So, they sort of were alerted, oh, there’s a precocious young guy that isn’t on board with Israel. We’ll keep an eye on him and if he gets too vocal or popular, we’ll cut him down. We’ll crush him.” * “Basically from then on, it was just this escalating series of blacklisting, censorship, hit pieces, rumors to try to ostracize me from the movement.” * Fuentes links Shapiro/Daily Wire and their circle to efforts to isolate him and get him fired: * “First they would try to dissuade me from asking questions… they would say, ‘Well, you know, there’s a really good answer for that, but you’re asking it in the wrong way… you’re asking it in an anti-semitic way.’” * “And eventually they said, ‘You know what? we’re not going to talk to you anymore.’ And these were my friends… All of them one day said, ‘You’re done. We’re blocking you. We’re never going to speak to you again. We’re never going to have you on our show.’” * “At this time I was on RSBN… And they escalated their attacks. Cassie Dylan would call my boss… every day for weeks, saying, ‘You’ll never believe what Nick said on his show tonight. It’s so racist. It’s so bad. You got to take him off the air. It’s going to make you look bad.’” * “And I would then get word from my boss… ‘I don’t know what has gotten into Cassie. I thought you guys were friends, but she is calling me every day hysterically demanding that I fire you.’” * On a clip that ended up at Media Matters: “And so that clip appears on Media Matters… and ultimately then they fired me… But the pressure in this scenario came exclusively from the Daily Wire.” * “My show got maybe a hundred live viewers every night… So the Media Matters was not on to me. They were put onto me by people in the right that wanted me cancelled. * Later, Fuentes explicitly ties Shapiro’s attacks to his own radicalization and turn against the conservative establishment: * “Looking back with that 2020 hindsight, I mean, Ben Shapiro seems like a big part of your political evolution. You went from a fan acolyte to an opponent and then just pivoted against everything that he believes.” (Tucker) – “Yeah. It was because it was this new dialectic that Trump forced… So once you accept that, a lot of the way we’re doing things becomes impossible to support or justify. The contradiction becomes apparent.” * “I realized that the conservative movement was completely bankrupt in that way. Became very radical.” Tucker Carlson Shapiro blasted Carlson as an “intellectual coward” and “moral imbecile” in late 2025 for interviewing Nick Fuentes and echoing antisemitic tropes on Israel/Jewish influence. Carlson retaliated by slamming Shapiro’s “many attacks on Jesus,” immigration views, and pro-Israel stance as “bigotry and cruelty,” especially on Iran policy. Their rift deepened post-Trump’s 2024 reelection, splintering right-wing media. Megyn Kelly Kelly mocked Shapiro’s YouTube

    1 h 10 min
  8. The Left's Plan To Win A Civil War ... Is Not Terrible

    13 MAY

    The Left's Plan To Win A Civil War ... Is Not Terrible

    Malcolm and Simone Collins break down a viral left-wing YouTuber’s video claiming the Left would win an upcoming American Civil War. Instead of dismissing it, they steelman his arguments, examine historical parallels, institutional control, police/military loyalty, supply lines, and urban vs. rural dynamics. They explore realistic scenarios for how a future crisis could unfold (disputed election → secession of blue cities → blockades), why drone swarms and logistics will matter more than armed rednecks, and why the Left’s own demographics, antinatalism, and institutional parasitism may doom their long-term prospects. Includes deep discussion on vasectomy culture, narrative-based vs. data-based thinking, and a fun tangent on next-gen autonomous drone design for home defense and warfare. If you’re interested in pronoia, demographic collapse, institutional power, or surviving turbulent times, this episode is essential listening. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be diving deep into the mind of an individual who some right-wing figures have covered recently for his crazy comments. One of the crazier ones that happened recently is he said that if he transported back to the Pilgrim era, and obviously I’ll play the clip here, Speaker: You suddenly wake up in the 17th century on a ship headed for New England. As soon as we landed, I would use the money to bribe the boatswain to look the other way while I stole all of the muskets and powder on board, and then I would march immediately to the nearest indigenous settlement, give the guns out like candy, and make it my mission in life to murder every single white man, woman and child on the eastern seaboard of the continent. Malcolm Collins: That he would kill w- any white women and children that he found after- Oh, God betraying the Pilgrims and giving away all their guns to Indians. Because apparently this makes sense to him, and he’s [00:01:00] also gone viral, which we’ll talk about later in this you know, sterilizing himself. But with all of this stuff, yes, I could go over how crazy this guy sounds. Which is- I think we Simone Collins: all know something Malcolm Collins: I could do. But as people who watch our channel, I try to bring a unique perspective to what I’m covering, so I decided to go through and watch his videos. So on- Oh, you Simone Collins: went down the rabbit hole. Malcolm Collins: Yes. Simone Collins: Okay. And Malcolm Collins: one of his videos, which is the one I really wanna talk on in this, is why the left would win an upcoming civil war. Oh ... and he basically lays out the plan that his side has for winning an upcoming civil war. And it’s- Really? ... not as insane as you would think. So- Oh, they have Simone Collins: a shot? Malcolm Collins: Potentially, yeah. Can they take Simone Collins: us? Malcolm Collins: So it’s something that we need to, to talk about, we need to engage with. And more than just engaging with it, the reason why [00:02:00] I think it’s so important to engage with is I think it makes it clear when the right-wing alliance thinks about the elements of the alliance that are actually important to both its long-term viability and its immediate security on in the moment of, like, crazy revolution type stuff, right? Yeah. Yeah. It is- Massively misunderstanding where it should actually be focusing. Hmm. It’s focusing way too much on armed groups of rednecks, which he points out, realistically, aren’t particularly relevant if a civil war did break out. And he goes through historic civil wars to make this argument. Now, I don’t think that that’s... I, I, I don’t think the way he presents his argument is powerful, ‘cause I’d be like, yeah, but the technological context is entirely different now. They didn’t have, like, fully automatic weapons back then and stuff, right? Mm-hmm. But the, the... He does, he [00:03:00] does notice things that I think a right-wing person would notice. So let’s go into this, and he also goes into how, how probable it is, okay? Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: So broadly, his worldview goes like this. If you look at historic civil wars, what actually ended up determining who won and how well sides were able to sort of field their assets, it largely came downstream of the existing bureaucratic and civilizational infrastructure that allowed them to recruit and command troops at scale. Uh-huh. As well as manage industry at scale. Mm-hmm. And that so if you, if you think about something like the Revolutionary War or something like this the troops that we had fighting for us were not just, you know, people who we had raised out of nowhere. These were preexisting military regiments often. Or, or they had elements of [00:04:00] preexisting military regiments within them. If you look at the you know, Civil War both the South and the North had sort of large scale e- economic and sort of civilizational infrastructure that they could call on. R- random rebels have a very hard time doing anything other than just holding land. And would they even be able to hold land in an existing context? So to give an understanding of, like, how he’s thinking about a civil war he was praising Mondame for and apparently a lot of leftists see this as a major betrayal, and he was saying that this was actually very shrewd immediately burying the hatchet with the NYPD as soon as he was elected. And he’s like, “Look, if we want to prevent ICE,” like federal government troops, “from operating effectively in New York, we are going to need the [00:05:00] NYPD on our side. We are going to need- our own thugs with guns to be fighting their thugs with guns. Simone Collins: Oh. Oh. Oh. I mean, I guess the police need their pensions to be paid, and who, who controls the pensions? So if we’re talking about, like, national versus local control, is that kind of what he’s thinking about? Malcolm Collins: So, th- yeah, basically the question is, is if society were ever to fall into unrest, how much organizational control would leftists have? We, I mean, like, when we know the types of institutions that leftists control today leftists control the huge parts of the, the judicial system in the most economically prosperous parts of the United States, huge parts of the white collar job system in the most industrious parts, you know, technologically industrious parts of the United [00:06:00] States. They control governments and the surrounding environments in stuff like cities. So suppose we were having any form of a revolution or something like that. The NYPD is obviously quite pissed at the way leftists have treated them, but you’ve also gotta keep in mind how long they have had woke hiring practices within their organization. So even though they have a bit of a, a chip on their shoulder compared to other people, you gotta keep in mind their entire architecture around them, right? You know, you’ve got everybody else in Manhattan, many of whom are quite left-leaning, who could pressure them or make it difficult for them to act independently in the case of any sort of serious split. Now I’m just giving you guys his perspective. I actually think it’s massively wrong, but I’m giving you his perspective, right? And then if I was gonna further steel man his perspective beyond what he has said, because obviously being a modern leftist, he doesn’t think AI is relevant. But, Speaker: Where [00:07:00] do you fall on the Luddite to accelerationist spectrum? Uh, I’m of two minds. I- in my heart of hearts, I think the agricultural revolution was a mistake. I think that any society with an agricultural mode of subsistence is necessarily imperial and hierarchical, and I think that basically all of our problems come downstream from that. Malcolm Collins: No ... I have argued that the core thing of relevance in future battles, even six, seven years out, is gonna be automated drone swarms. You know, th- this matters, who Simone Collins: controls the- Absolutely ... Malcolm Collins: the automated drone swarms. And the- Simone Collins: Well, so far the federal government is, like, leaps and bounds ahead of any, any private or state-based entity I’m aware of Is that thing Malcolm Collins: I worked on with RFAB is automated drone swarms? Simone Collins: Yeah, sh- yeah. Yes. Malcolm Collins: Would fans pay for that? Could we get funding for that? ‘Cause I Simone Collins: would Malcolm Collins: do that. I don’t, I mean- I could, I bet I could build automated drone swarms better than the government can. Simone Collins: [00:08:00] Well, let’s look into it. I want, I want a home defense swarm system. So could work on that one. Malcolm Collins: Well, so okay, just a side note. If I was gonna focus on automated drone swarms, how, w- like what would be our, our arbitrage play? Mm-hmm. So I’m just trying to think of how you could do something significantly better than the existing systems. So I’ve been watching lots of film of like what’s going on in Ukraine right now. Oh. And you have a huge, a, yes, our fans will find this tangent interesting. I t- I’m trying to think. Like do our fans care- Yeah about automated drone swarm technology and how Simone Collins: you- Yes, they do. Yes. No. No. Anyone who wants to survive in the future, and I mean our fans are not suicidal and self-terminating, they do. They want their children to survive. Malcolm Collins: Well, except for the ones who said some naughty things about Israel, and I’ve, and I’ve heard many of them have been thinking about some end of life solutions. Y- [00:09:00] I, I, I, I say this of course for Mossad so that they know I’m on team here, okay? 100% on team. Speaker 3: So this speculative discussion into drone design went on way longer than I anticipated. , So I moved it to the end. , And you can, I guess, just skip to it with time

    45 min
Ver todo (785)

Acerca de

Based Camp is a podcast focused on how humans process the world around them and the future of our species. That means we go into everything from human sexuality, to weird sub-cultures, dating markets, philosophy, and politics. Malcolm and Simone are a husband wife team of a neuroscientist and marketer turned entrepreneurs and authors. With graduate degrees from Stanford and Cambridge under their belts as well as five bestselling books, one of which topped out the WSJs nonfiction list, they are widely known (if infamous) intellectuals / provocateurs. If you want to dig into their ideas further or check citations on points they bring up check out their book series. Note: They all sell for a dollar or so and the money made from them goes to charity. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FMWMFTG basedcamppodcast.substack.com

Información

  • Creador
    Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • Años de actividad
    2023 - 2026
  • Episodios
    785
  • Clasificación
    Explícito
  • Copyright
    © Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • Mostrar sitio web
    Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

También te podría interesar