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

    HACE 21 H

    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
  2. Great Feminization Theory: Did Women Break Society?

    HACE 1 DÍA

    Great Feminization Theory: Did Women Break Society?

    Malcolm and Simone Collins break down Helen Andrews’ “Great Feminization Theory” — the idea that the rise of wokeness, institutional dysfunction, and cancel culture correlates with fields tipping majority-female and importing feminine sociological norms (empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition). They explore law schools, medicine, media, management, conflict resolution styles, why organizations feminize and then decline, practical solutions, male-only spaces, and how this intersects with marriage, ambition, and building high-agency families in a declining culture. Show Notes The theory * presented by journalist Helen Andrews at the National Conservatism conference in Washington, DC in September 2025 * Speech got over 175K views * later published as an essay in Compact Magazine in October 2025 * Connects the rise of wokeness and institutional dysfunction to higher percentages of women in formerly male-dominated fields * Because women bring feminine values that prioritize empathy over rationality, safety over risk, and cohesion over competition * Notes that many key institutions tipped from majority male to majority female in roughly the same period that “wokeness” intensified: * law schools (majority female since 2016) * New York Times staff (majority female since 2018, now 55 percent women) * Medical schools (majority female since 2019) * College instructors (majority female since 2023) * The college‑educated workforce (majority female since 2019). * Women now 33% of judges (63 percent of those appointed by Joe Biden) * Women now 46% of managers * Cites writers like Noah Carl and Bo Winegard & Cory Clark, saying survey data show women more likely than men to prioritize social cohesion over free speech (one cited survey: 71 percent of men favor free speech over cohesion, while 59 percent of women favor cohesion) * Draws on Joyce Benenson’s book Warriors and Worriers, she reports lab observations that male groups “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” then quickly converge on a solution, while female groups focus more on personal relations, eye contact, and turn‑taking, paying less attention to the assigned task * Attributes the rise of cancellations to women’s conflict aversion * That’s interesting—I hadn’t seen it as being that way but it is * References research and primate observations claiming that males are quicker to reconcile after conflict, while females favor slow, covert, ongoing competition within a group, and generalizes this to say men tend toward open conflict and reconciliation, whereas women undermine or ostracize enemies * Examples cited * Larry Summers’ resignation from Harvard in 2006 (after his comments about women in science) * Bari Weiss’ resignation from NYT (Weiss described colleagues calling her a racist and bigot in internal Slack, and shunning people friendly with her) * Doctors wearing political pins, endorsing Black Lives Matter protests during Covid as “public health” despite lockdown rules, and generally importing political causes into professional settings as a “failure to compartmentalize” tied to feminization * Causes cited * Andrews claims feminization is not organic but engineered via anti‑discrimination law * because under‑representation of women invites lawsuits and huge settlements (she cites large companies that paid nine‑figure or multi‑million settlements over gender bias or “frat boy culture”), firms are pressured to hire and promote women and to suppress “masculine” office culture * THe creation of hostile-to-men environments * women’s preferred norms drive men out rather than women simply “outcompeting” men Is it backed up by actual evidence? Support * Medicine * Momen comprised only 9.7% of doctors in 1970 * Reached 32.4% by 2010 and continue to increase * Medical students are now over 50% female * Law * Women were just 4.9% of lawyers in 1970 * Rose to 33.4% by 2010 * Reached 41% by 2024 * Academia * Women law faculty now constitute the majority among those with 20 years of experience or less * Women are projected to become the majority of full-time faculty in ABA-accredited law schools by 2024-2025 * Government * In the U.S. Senate, women held 0% of seats in 1973 and 1975, rising to just 2% through most of the 1980s, then accelerating to 25% by 2023. * The House of Representatives showed similar patterns: women were 3.2% of representatives in 1973, 10.8% by 1993, and 28.5% by 2023. * Women’s representation in presidential Cabinet positions has fluctuated more dramatically based on administration, ranging from 0% in the early 1970s to a historic high of 48% under President Biden starting in 2021. * Re: General government employment: While women made substantial gains in government employment from the 1940s through the early 2000s—rising from less than one-third to nearly half of the federal workforce—their representation has largely plateaued around 45-46% since the 2000s and has begun declining in absolute numbers due to recent federal workforce reductions. Mixed * Journalism * 1971: Women represented only 22% of daily newspaper journalists and 11% of television journalists * 1982: women comprised 34% of daily newspaper staff and 33% of television journalists * 2001: women had reached 37% of daily newspaper newsroom staff and 40% of television news staff * 2022: 40.9% of US journalists are women * television (44.1%) and radio (43.7%) * weekly newspapers (41.7%) * daily newspapers (37.2%) * wire services (34.1%) * News magazines (43.9%) (up by about 10% over the past decade) * Online media (40.4%) (up by about 10% over the past decade) * One 2023 survey found journalists nearly evenly split by gender, with 51% men and 46% women. Contra * Business * Corporations in general * Women represented about 47% of the U.S. labor force in 2000 * As of 2025, women STILL constitute approximately 47% of total U.S. employees. * Women were just 35% of the workforce in 1970, rising to 47% by 1990. Between 1966 and 2013, women’s participation rates in the workforce increased from 31.5% to 48.7% * Startups (down over time) * For over a decade, only ~2% of venture-backed startups are exclusively female founded * In 2024, female-only founding teams received just 2.3% of global VC funding ($6.7 billion out of $289 billion total), while all-male teams captured 83.6%. * This 2% figure has remained largely unchanged since at least 2017, when female-only teams received 2.5% of funding. By 2026, some reports indicate this has declined to 1-2% * Female workforce participation is below its peak * Women’s labor force participation peaked at 60% in 1999-2000 and has since declined to 57.5% as of March 2025, remaining well below men’s rate of 67.5% * Women still constitute only 47% of the total U.S. labor force, and projections suggest this will remain “slightly less than half” through 2032 * Women remain underrepresented in senior leadership positions where institutional power is concentrated * Women hold only 27% of U.S. medical school dean positions and 25% of department chair roles despite representing 45% of faculty * In law, men still “dominate the upper echelons of the legal profession through federal judgeships, state supreme courts, law firm partnerships and corporate counsel positions” * Women represent only 33% of law faculty with over 30 years of experience and comprise just 38% of C-suite positions in corporate America (up from 31% in 2021) (See: National Jurist) The Criticism * Andrews presents no policy solutions * Some push back on Andrews’ argument that women are emotional while men are rational Helen Andrews’ Background * American conservative political commentator and author * Senior editor, The American Conservative * Features editor, Commonplace Magazine * Graduated from Yale University in 2008 (BA in Religious Studies) * Lived in Sydney, Australia from 2012 to 2017 (worked as a policy analyst and think tank researcher) * 2021 book: Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster * Argues that the Baby Boomer generation harmed American culture * Profiles six prominent Boomers: Steve Jobs, Aaron Sorkin, Jeffrey Sachs, Camille Paglia, Al Sharpton, and Sonia Sotomayor Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. Today we are gonna be talking about The Great Feminization Theory by Helen Andrews. In summation, if you are not familiar with the theory, ‘cause it’s been doing the rounds recently, and it might have some explanatory power to society’s current state. She specifically looks at when various fields began to become majority female, be that university professors, law school students, scientists, management in the United States, most of which at this point is majority female. And she pinpoints the dates that these transitions happened to the rise of wokeness as a social phenomenon. Arguing that what wokeness really is is a female sociological approach, like what makes female minds different from male minds, applied at the civilizational management scale. And I find it very interesting. I told Simone to dig into it. I mean, [00:01:00] unfortunately she’s got a cold today, so you’re gonna have to have a, a, a, a weak voice Simone here. But she is a woman, so she, on- only she can truly understand the horrors of the female brain. Simone Collins: Yeah, I don’t know. Whenever I have some kind of throat problem, I just think of Gentleman Prefer Blondes when at one point a boy speaking from a trench coat that Marilyn Monroe’s hiding behind and she’s like, “Laryngitis,” and that’s all I think of when I have this voice. And that’s such a great, like, that home film is such a great study of gender roles and, and playing with them. Anyway, though- ... i’m, I’m, I, I think there’s a lot of merit to this theory, but I also think that there’s some, I don’t know. I wanna, I wanna question it, and I even

    1 h 1 min
  3. US Colleges Caught Assisting Chinese Spies! (Giant Network Exposed)

    HACE 2 DÍAS

    US Colleges Caught Assisting Chinese Spies! (Giant Network Exposed)

    Elsa Johnson, a Stanford student and Hoover Institution researcher, was aggressively targeted by a suspected Chinese Ministry of State Security operative. What started as a friendly Instagram DM from “Charles Chen” quickly turned into visa-free trip offers, pressure to move to WeChat, and eventual transnational repression — all while universities looked the other way. In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the full university-to-CCP pipeline: how massive Chinese student tuition payments create financial dependency, the role of CSSA (Chinese Students and Scholars Associations), Confucius Institutes, the United Front strategy, tech/IP theft in AI, and why American universities are failing to protect students and national security. Show Notes Elsa Johnson, a Stanford student, is calling attention to a toxic national security flaw playing out in American universities and the problem is so much bigger than I had imagined. This spring, she testified before the House committee on Education and the workforce, asking them to do something about the problem ‘I exposed China’s espionage tactics in The Times. Now I’m being harassed’ What Happened to Elsa Johnson? * Elsa attended a Chinese language immersion school from kindergarten through either grade in Minneapolis, Minnesota * Got into Stanford University * Became a research assistant at the Hoover Institution, where she focused on Chinese industry and military tactics * From her congressional testimony: * “In June 2024, a few days after I spoke with one of my supervisors at Hoover about Chinese recruitment tactics targeting American academics, a man calling himself Charles Chen reached out to me on Instagram. He had over 100 mutual followers with me and had photos of Stanford on his profile. I had no reason to believe he was anything other than a fellow student.” * “Over the following weeks, Chen’s messages grew more concerning. He told me he was from China and asked detailed questions about my research and background in Chinese. He offered to pay for a trip to China, sent me a flight itinerary from Los Angeles to Shanghai and sent screenshots of a bank wire to prove he could afford my accommodations once I got there. He also sent me a document outlining a policy that would allow me to travel to China without a visa. He sent me videos of Americans who had gotten rich and famous in China and insisted that I, too, could find wealth and fame in the PRC.” * “Later on, he began incessantly pressuring me to move our conversation to WeChat, a Chinese government-monitored messaging app. When I didn’t respond to Charles Chen fast enough, he would delete and resend his messages. He even referenced the whereabouts of Stanford students who were in China at the time of our correspondence. * “Then, in July, he publicly commented on one of my Instagram posts in Mandarin, asking me to delete the screenshots I had taken of our private conversation. I had not told anyone I had taken screenshots, and I do not know how he knew. The only explanation I could come up with was that my phone or my account had been compromised somehow.” * “I contacted two China experts at Stanford whom I trusted and they connected me with an FBI contact who handled CCP-related espionage cases at the university. I met with the FBI in September and handed over everything I had. The FBI confirmed that Charles Chen had no real affiliation with Stanford. He had likely posed as a student for years and used multiple fabricated social media profiles to target students researching China-related topics. I was told he was likely operating on behalf of China’s Ministry of State Security. I later found out that I was one of at least ten other female students targeted by Charles Chen since 2020. “ * She published an account of this experience in the Times of London * After that, she was followed and harassed by the CCP * “Last summer, while conducting research on China in Washington, DC, I began receiving regular phone calls from unknown US numbers. When I answered the calls in English, the callers would switch to Mandarin. In one case, the caller referenced my mother. These bizarre calls were intimidation attempts, designed to remind me that neither my family, nor I, is safe from transnational repression by the CCP.” * “Then, this past fall, the FBI informed me that I am being physically monitored on Stanford’s campus by agents of the Chinese Communist Party. They told me that my family is also at risk and is being monitored. As a 21-year-old who grew up loving the Chinese language and culture, I never imagined that studying it would put me in a position where a foreign intelligence service is tracking my movements on my own campus and monitoring my family. I fear for my safety and for my family’s safety.” The University Problem Universities Heavily Accepting Chinese National Students US Universities and Private Schools * Department of Homeland Security SEVIS analysis found that 47% of all foreign K–12 students in 2019 were from China Universities * Around one quarter of foreign (international) university students in the United States are from China. * The absolute number of Chinese students has fallen from a pre‑pandemic peak of around 370,000 in 2019 to under 280,000 in 2023–24, but China remains one of the top two sending countries (with India). UK Universities likely accepting more Chinese students to meet visa rules * To keep their sponsor licence, universities will soon need: 95% of enrolled students to actually start their course (up from 90%), 90% to complete (up from 85%), and a visa refusal rate under 5% (down from 10%). * Because these thresholds are strict and the start date is unclear, some universities have already effectively stopped recruiting from countries with lower visa grant/compliance rates, including Bangladesh, Ghana, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Nigeria, which currently fall below the new 95% benchmark in Home Office data. * Chinese students are good with visa compliance, so they’re likely to be accepted at greater rates * This will create greater financial dependence on foreign Chinese students The ‘Times of London discusses the problem in greater detail here. Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSAs) * The CSSA the official organization for overseas Chinese students and scholars registered in most colleges and universities outside of the People’s Republic of China. * It’s described as a government-organized non-governmental organization * They were created by the CCP to monitor Chinese students and mobilize them against dissenting views, according to the U.S. State Department. * They receive guidance from the CCP through Chinese embassies and consulates, aligning their activities with Beijing’s political objectives rather than purely student interests. * They participate in the CCP’s “United Front” work, which Elsa in her testimony characterizes as using these groups as vehicles for surveillance and influence on campus. * In some cases, local Chinese consulates must approve CSSA presidential candidates, suggesting foreign government control over student leadership selections. * They may accept funding from Chinese embassies that makes up a large share of their budgets (Elsa notes Foreign Policy reporting that Georgetown’s CSSA received roughly half its annual budget from the embassy), creating financial dependence tied to political influence. There are also Confucius Institutes at universities * Elsa testified: “A bipartisan Senate investigation found that 70 per cent of schools with a Confucius Institute [programmes which promote Chinese Language and Culture] that received more than $250,000 in a given year failed to report it properly.” What is being done about them? In her testimony, Elsa notes: “Congressman Tim Walberg has co-signed a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, requesting that CSSAs be evaluated for designation as foreign missions under the Foreign Missions Act.” and calls it a step in the right direction. She also notes “Section 117 of the Higher Education Act requires postsecondary institutions to disclose foreign gifts or contracts totalling $250,000 or more, and the Department of Education recently approved a new foreign funding reporting portal that launched earlier this year.” “Transnational Repression” According to a 2024 Freedom House report, “International students, visiting scholars, and faculty in the United States are being targeted by foreign governments and their agents. Tactics of transnational repression on campuses include digital and physical surveillance, harassment, assault, threats, and coercion by proxy.” The report cites the CCP as the biggest threat, noting that: * Classroom discussions and campus events on topics like Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, or Chinese politics are monitored, with information relayed to Chinese diplomatic staff or officials via networks such as Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSAs) and platforms like WeChat. * Students who organize or join protests (for example, White Paper/zero‑COVID vigils) report being filmed, shouted down, or physically intimidated by pro‑CCP students or CSSA affiliates, sometimes resulting in assaults at demonstrations. * Authorities in China contact or visit students’ family members back home to warn them about the student’s activism abroad, creating intense psychological pressure on the student to stop speaking out. [freedomhouse](https://freedomhouse.org/report/transnational-repression/2024/addressing-transnational-repression-campuses-united-states) * Pro‑CCP actors use social media and messaging apps to threaten, smear, or expose identifying information of critical students, contributing to a climate of fear and self‑censorship. * CSSAs, overseen by the CCP’s United Front Work Department and supported by Chinese diplomatic missions, monitor Chinese

    48 min
  4. Nick Fuentes Finally Comes Out as a Democrat (I Called It)

    HACE 5 DÍAS

    Nick Fuentes Finally Comes Out as a Democrat (I Called It)

    Malcolm and Simone Collins react to Nick Fuentes’ shocking declaration: “I’m a moderate non-woke Democrat in 2026.” Malcolm’s long-standing prediction that Fuentes would align with the Democratic coalition has come true — and the clips prove it. In this episode, they break down Fuentes’ revealed preferences vs. his rhetoric, his pattern of undermining Republican candidates during elections, his obsession with destroying the GOP and harming Israel, his weak stance on immigration enforcement, and why this move exposes his true priorities. They also discuss the “Nazi Democrat” candidate in Maine, accelerationism, the health of the right-wing movement without deontological extremists, and what this means for the future of American politics. A must-watch for anyone following the Nick Fuentes saga, MAGA, or the realignment happening on the right. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we get a big heaping helping of I was right, I called it, it was the craziest conspiracy theory I had ever launched. So people will know there have been a number of episodes where I predicted that Nick Fuentes would join the Democratic coalition. And there was actually one entire episode that was nothing about but this exact topic, but I never aired that episode because I thought it was just too crazy to air as an independent episode. I thought people would say, “Malcolm, you’ve fallen off. This is crazy. You’re going too hard here. He’s never actually just gonna come out. Like, he may act like a Democrat, but he’s not just gonna join the coalition.” And he has. Speaker: 2026, vote Dem- I’m a Democrat now. I’m a moderate Democrat in 2026. I don’t know about ‘28. For 2026, I am a non-woke Democrat. Hi, my name’s Nick Fuentes. I’m an Afro-Latino, non-woke Democrat. I care about affordability. [00:01:00] I care about foreign interventions. I care about the border. I’m a non-woke, moderate Democrat. I think the GOP needs to be destroyed. I think the corrupt criminal government of Trump needs to be slowed down. We need to impeach the orange. It’s time to put this in a peach. Trump needs to be placed inside of a crystal. He needs to be impeached. This fat orange, tiny hands needs to be impeached. And then in ‘28, no Vance, no Rubio. We have to burn down the whole party. We need to elect a dark horse who’s gonna put America first. I’m not listening to anybody else. No Vance, no Rubio, America first. That’s the ma-- And that is all that matters anymore. That is the only thing that matters. I’m not voting for a Democrat unless they’re really, un- unless it’s, like, um, me. Unless it’s a, unless it’s a Nick Fuentes Democrat. Unless a Nick Fuentes Democrat wins the nomination, I won’t vote for a Democrat. I’m, I’m never Vance. I’m never Rubio. I’m an America first guy. So Tucker and all the [00:02:00] rest of them, they’re gonna try to shut me down. They’re gonna try to get Vance in there in ‘28, and you gotta be... You gotta wisen up and realize we gotta take our own side here. None of this nonsense Malcolm Collins: And I will note here that I have seen some people coping and saying that these clips are him joking. I have watched enough Nick Fuentes to know the difference between when he is entirely joking and when he is... Because he does everything in a jocular manner. When he’s saying the stuff he most sincerely believes more than anything in the world, he’ll add a joke here or there to it. Speaker 6: And if you want to say that this is a joke, really the only line in here that I think you could use as evidence, because everything else is completely in line with everything he said in the past, is the I’m an Afro-Latino. But this only works if you’re unfamiliar with the Nick nick fuentes lore. Nick’s grandfather was Mexican. He admits this and identifies this way. And in his DNA test, he is partially African. Small, like 1%, but he is an Afro-Latino. And [00:03:00] so I think what he’s doing here is in everything he says, whether it’s right wing or left wing in a traditional context, he always throws in some spice, some stuff to piss people off. But he’s trying to performatively lean into the identity politics Speaker 15: I also want to point out here that I do not dislike Nick as a person. If anything, I think that this is a good development for him because he has been cheerleading Democrat causes for a while now. And to just be able to come out and admit like what his political team is, I think shows a degree of integrity instead of LARPing as somebody who’s right wing. And there’s nothing like, okay, like I’m against the Democrats’ agenda, but he has explained why he holds these points. These points are in line with the Democratic agenda. And I don’t think that he’s being necessarily intellectually dishonest in how he has laid these out. So I can’t hold animosity over that. Malcolm Collins: But if [00:04:00] you look specifically where I think this is validated, because maybe you could say the whole, “I’m joining the Democrats, I’m a moderate Democrat now, a non-woke Democrat.” First, that’s a weird way to say it if he’s joking, right? The, the coming out explicitly as a non-woke Democrat is it’s, he, he’s, he’s not putting on, like, an act, like, “I’ve become woke,” or something like that. He is, he is clarifying his position while in the same speech saying that he still can’t quite bring himself to vote for most Democrats yet. Which to me, that doesn’t, that’s not a jo- like, that’s him saying Simone Collins: plainly- Yeah, if, if it were a bit, he wouldn’t be speaking that way ... Malcolm Collins: And yes, and then later in the same speech, which we’ll get to, he explicitly says that we should vote for a Democrat over a a, an Indian Republican. A, a, Wamatha, Ramaswamy? Vivek Simone Collins: Ramaswamy Speaker 3: So what is the alternative? Well, not [00:05:00] everybody’s gonna like this, but in November, there’s gonna be two candidates that can win on the ballot in Ohio, and it is Acton on the Democrat side and Ramaswamy on the Republican side. If it can’t be Ramaswamy, I think you know what it has to be. And so I’m gonna be calling on everybody to be going to Ohio, and we’re gonna give people a choice. You have an option, stay home. But I think if you really wanna make a difference and help, we’re gonna have to hold our noses and we’re gonna have to vote Democrat. And I’d point out here how quickly he flipped on this, “Oh, I’m a Democrat now, but I won’t vote for Democrats,” to, “All of my fans need to get out there and vote for a Democrat.” This is why I can only help but roll my eyes when somebody’s like, “Well, you know, he did say that he was never going to tell people to vote for Democrats, so it shouldn’t really be seen immediately afterwards as soon as it’s election season.” Like, there’s a pattern to this, guys. And again, I am [00:06:00] not anti Nick Fuentes content. I find it often quite entertaining, sometimes insightful, but it’s important to look at his revealed preferences and his end goals that can be discerned from looking at the revealed preferences, what he actually does when it matters Malcolm Collins: When, and Vivek is awesome, man. Like, he’s- Simone Collins: Vivek is awesome, yeah. I agree ... Malcolm Collins: one of my favorite Vivek quotes I heard this when I was at the Libertarian convention. And it was Vivek versus another one of the leading Republican candidates, one of the boring ones who I don’t like. Anyway, so the other one, like, wanted everyone to come with out their guns to the meeting. And you know, it’s the Libertarians, so they didn’t wanna do that. It Simone Collins: was in New Hampshire? Malcolm Collins: Yeah, it was New Hampshire. He Simone Collins: was asking everyone to come without guns in New Hampshire. Malcolm Collins: Well, because he’s like, you know, “I’m a...” I can understand how he might be scared. You know, “I’m a presidential candidate, I get lots of death threats.” They all get lots of death threats. You know, we get death threats, right? Anyway, Vivek then comes, and he has no restrictions on it. He’s like, “Yeah, just anybody come.” And then he gets up on stage and the guy who I, who was telling me this story, he came with, like, an [00:07:00] open carry, like, AR-15. You know, like, a very well, like, strapped to this event, right? And he’s like- Wait, Simone Collins: Vivek, he, he came with a rifle strapped to him, not like a handgun, like under his- Malcolm Collins: I think it was, I think it was a rifle from what, from what I remember of the story. So he he’s giving the speech and he then at one point in the speech is, is like, “Oh yeah, and if I ever start doing this stuff,” because he’s like, somebody’s like, you know, I can’t remember, like, you know, “Well, politicians say X or say Y.” And he goes, “Well, if I start doing that, you know they’ve gotten to me, and you know what to do.” And he pointed to this guy with the rifle. Oh, Simone Collins: no. Malcolm Collins: Oh, my Simone Collins: God ... and Speaker 22: Do. Yes, sir. Do it, Regal. Malcolm Collins: I love that. That’s, that’s how you, n- I mean, that is so much more based [00:08:00] than anything Nick Fuentes has ever done, to point to the guy in the crowd with the Simone Collins: freaking Malcolm Collins: rifle- You know what to do and being like, “If I ever go for this stuff, you know what to do.” That’s amazing. Speaker 8: And ‘07 Vivek, the avatar of destruction, we love you. Uh, I do support Trump, but you’re awesome. You gotta run in 20- after Trump wins, you gotta run in ‘28. Honestly, I’m, I’m on board for a Vivek ‘28. I’m on board for a Vivek presidency. I think the ideal primary in

    1 h 7 min
  5. Courtesans & Concubines: Why We Need Them Back

    HACE 6 DÍAS

    Courtesans & Concubines: Why We Need Them Back

    In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins explore the controversial idea of bringing back the concept of the “concubine” (or courtesan) in modern relationships. They contrast two distinct relationship models: the true wife/housewife — a full business and life partner who advances the family’s interests — versus the courtesan/tradwife/trophy wife model, where the woman’s primary role is pleasure, aesthetics, and appearance rather than deep partnership. Drawing on history, labor statistics, and cultural critique, they discuss how women historically contributed far more to subsistence and family businesses than modern narratives suggest. They examine why many people today unconsciously seek unpaid courtesans, the problems with “ornamental” relationships, and how clear terminology can lead to better-aligned marriages. Topics include trophy wives as a profession, Real Housewives culture, objective-function alignment in relationships, and practical advice for high-achieving men and women. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] what I like about the term courtesan is it helps separate between a true housewife and the more modern tradwife, which I think is closer to a - courtesan. If you look at the tradwife, right, the tradwife makes everything look pretty, right? She, , does up the house. , She does the baking from scratch and everything. And she’s doing all that for appearance. She’s doing all that to, to sell, , that he has a certain type of wife. But, like, she’s not actually managing the family budget, right? Like, she’s not actually managing the deeper parts of the family. And many people who society at large would confuse, they would say, “Well, this woman stays at home and educates the kids , as part of her duties, therefore she’s the same type of thing as this trad woman.” Speaker: Specifically, we will be delineating two categories of relationships. One, the courtesan relationship, where the woman believes that their core job vis-a-vis their partner is just their [00:01:00] partner’s pleasure and reproducing. Whereas the other, the true wife or housewife, sees their job as being fully integrated with their husband’s life and advancing the interests of their family. Would you like to know more? Malcolm Collins: hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be expanding on a concept that a fan came up with in response to a previous video, and it is that we should bring back the concept of concubine. And when I first heard this I was like, well, we don’t wanna normalize sort of, you know, promiscuous behavior in this regards. There’s a lot of negative social externalities for doing it. But after they laid it out for me, I’m like, actually we, we need to start having a conversation about this. We need to normalize this concept. This is a good concept So let me explain. We had a video where we basically go over the history of male [00:02:00] and female labor. And what we pointed out using a lot of statistics, a lot of historical examples, is the modern idea that throughout history men mostly did all the labor and women mostly stayed at home and did education and child-rearing, is just completely historically anachronistic. Women actually did the majority and I, and I mean the majority of b- like grueling labor, like, repetitive Simone Collins: tasks. But y- y- subsistence, subsistence labor. So sort of your baseline food and, and everything else was more or less Malcolm Collins: handled by the- Yeah, yeah. If, if you’re talking about, like, the majority of, of, of human history was during the hunter-gatherer period, that’s 95% of human history women were doing 60 to 70% of the calories in those societies. And then you transition to an agricultural society, and in most agricultural societies women do the farming until the plow was invented. And then somebody else was like, “And this is men.” Men plow for, like, 200 years and go, “F it, I’m [00:03:00] making a tractor.” Women do hoe-based farming for literally thousands of years, and continue to do it exactly the way they’ve always done it. By the way, hoe-based farming, the fact that Simone loved from that episode that she just cannot get enough of, is we pointed out that the idea of women staying at home and not really doing much except for child-rearing and education came from the, the, like, sort of middle class wealthy whites in America during a, a short window of, like, the 1910s to the 1970s. And it was like, well, what about poorer people during that period? And this is where the word hoe comes from, is it was because specifically Black women, but though I suspect that this is like, you know, it- nowadays they try to racialize a lot of things that weren’t racialized. It probably just meant poorer women in general were hoes because they worked the farm. And that’s what made them hoes. So it didn’t mean a, a promiscuous woman. It meant a poor, uneducated woman. But we, we start talking about all this. And by the way, if you’re wondering, like, what were the types of work that men did historically, they typically did [00:04:00] things tied to war or things tied to artisanship. So if you needed a cobbler or a woodcutter or a builder or an architect or a sailor, like, if it required a huge amount of skill outside of textiles, it was typically men doing it. And, and don’t underestimate how much work textiles were. Or how much work- Yeah ... other things that people dismiss, like weeding. Weeding your garden is one thing. Weeding a field that’s feeding a family is significantly more work than plowing it for anyone who’s ever weeded. Weeding is, is difficult, backbreaking, and recurring labor. But which was typically a woman’s job, by the way. But when in the sort of fallout from this episode, people were going through it and they said, “You know what?” Because we were talking about the way that women historically actually structured their relationship with men, right? Like, if the man was doing some sort of artisanal job like say a butcher or a cobbler or a blacksmith the wife would typically manage the book, manage the finances, manage the [00:05:00] storefront, manage the marketing, manage the y- the, the sourcing of goods. And we put this out there, and we put it out with the concept of, like, a sword-and-shield relationship in a modern context, which is, like, the wife is in charge of the more stable part of the income and the man is in charge of, like, entrepreneurship, like big fish, like moving the family forwards. And a lot of people who are actually, and I think what we would consider more trad relationships, still really related to this concept. They were like, “Well,” like while I or ... Because we have a lot of housewife listeners. So, “While I or my wife,” this was actually more rare “take on what society would call a housewife job, that is not actually what I’m doing. I actually manage our investments, I manage our finances, I manage our taxes, I manage you know, the, the sort of procuring and stocking the, the, the home with supplies, getting things fixed. I manage like a huge variety of stuff.” And we then began to talk about [00:06:00] how there’s a new type of woman that has come to exist that isn’t this type of woman. So this type of woman is engaging in what the married wife has always done, right? Which is to say, they join ... And, like, historically, if you went to a blacksmith historically, right? And you sat him and his wife down, and you’re like, “Look, lady, I know you manage the storefront and the money and the taxes and all that, but you shouldn’t,” right? Like, “Your husband should manage all that.” And what she would of course say is, “But then he’s gonna have less time to make stuff.” Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: And, and you’re like, “Well, yeah, but like, you know, he’s a man, you’re a woman.” And she’d look at you and be like, “But, like, that money doesn’t just go to him. It goes to the entire family. You’re telling me to be arbitrarily poorer so that I can, what? Sit at home and twiddle my, my thumb all day?” Like, “What, what’s the advantage to me [00:07:00] to stepping back from this when our fortunes,” as used to historically be the case in relationships, “are completely tethered together? As he does better, I do better. As he does worse, I do worse. Why would I not help him in the ways that I can help him?” And people said, “There’s this new type of woman who doesn’t think that way.” And this is where the concept of concubine makes sense- Simone Collins: Mm ... Malcolm Collins: in bringing back, is that be they married or not, there is a certain type of woman who does not believe that she should be adding anything substantial to the relationship in terms of intellectual labor or labor more broadly, right? Like- Simone Collins: She’s purely ornamental. Malcolm Collins: She is purely ornamental. And she may still have his kids, as concubines did historically, but she doesn’t, she- she’s not a part of, like, a team where both people are pushing things [00:08:00] forwards. And the moment I heard this, I was like, “That’s a really good effing point.” Because if we can re-normalize the concept of a concubine, we can re-normalize the fear of being seen as a concubine. Now, thought, Simone, before I- I- I yap further, as they say on Twitch now that I know, ‘cause I- I- I do the Twitch. They say, “Yapping.” Simone Collins: Are we old? Malcolm Collins: By the way, did you know what a raid is on Twitch? I didn’t know what a raid was. Simone Collins: Is it when a bunch of people from someone else’s stream go onto yours? Malcolm Collins: Yeah, that’s what I thought it was. It’s not. Simone Collins: What is it? Malcolm Collins: So, what happens is when you sign off Twitch, because you’ll likely h

    39 min
  6. How Women Tricked Men into Doing All the Work While Still Playing the Victim (Forbidden History)

    5 MAY

    How Women Tricked Men into Doing All the Work While Still Playing the Victim (Forbidden History)

    In this eye-opening Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dismantle one of the biggest historical myths pushed by both feminists and modern “trad” circles: the idea that women historically stayed home doing minimal work while men did everything. Using cross-cultural evidence from hunter-gatherer societies, medieval Europe, Vikings, Spartans, ultra-Orthodox Jews, Islamic traditions, Africa, Latin America, India, China, Japan, and colonial America — plus genetic evidence from modern birds — they reveal the real division of labor: women handled the majority of reliable, grueling calorie production, farming (pre-plow), management, textiles, marketing, and household economy, while men focused on high-risk, high-reward activities like warfare, raiding, politics, and innovation. They introduce the “Sword and Shield” model of relationships and explain how the industrial era, plow, and wage labor flipped traditional dynamics. A must-watch for anyone interested in real history, gender roles, and escaping modern cultural brainwashing. Episode Transcript Simone Collins: [00:00:00] The researchers say the finding is clear, but the reason behind it is still unknown. On average, men were able to get about one meter, 3.3 feet closer than women before the birds took off. This pattern appeared consistently across Czechia, France, Germany, Poland, and Spain. It also held true across 37 species so Malcolm immediately turns to me and he’s like, “We know exactly why this is the case.” Malcolm Collins: Yes. This is the question that explains everything we’re going to talk about today, and I think proves without a doubt that this is not some malcolm malcolmnipulation of historical facts. You have been in rural Latin America, right? Simone Collins: Yes. Malcolm Collins: Take an image in your head. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: You’re driving down a rural road. You look out the side of a car, okay? You see somebody with a 60 pound jug of something on their head. Simone Collins: Oh, it’s a woman, obviously. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Always a woman. Simone Collins: Always, always a woman. Yes. Malcolm Collins: you go to Africa, you’ll see this as well. You go to- Simone Collins: China too. Let’s be clear. China too. Right. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. ‘ Was it majority women doing the [00:01:00] harder labor when you’re- Simone Collins: Yeah, Malcolm Collins: 100%. Yeah. Yeah. D- Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Guys, you do not know how brain cucked you are if, if a woman has convinced you, “ We just need to go back to the traditional way and I’ll stay at home and you do all this stuff.” Because you’re so strong, look at your muscles, could you open this jar for me? All you see as a woman, I could just never do anything. Would you like to know more? Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. Today I’m going to talk to you about the most diabolical brainwashing mind trick that feminists and women have ever pulled on males in human society. And it is that I will hear diet in the wool, males who identify as misogynist, red pill, post pickup artists, trads, go out there and say, “Well, we need to go back to the way things used to be, where women didn’t work and stayed in the household [00:02:00] and just cared for kids.” And I see their wives behind their fans with their villainous faces going. Speaker 5: あ。 Simone Collins: oh my God. Malcolm Collins: Their villainous laugh. Tucked their husband’s brains and their husbands believe that historically women didn’t work. And Speaker 11: We must let Malcolm Collins: misogynist, Speaker 14: think this was his I all right. That he Speaker 13: came up with. Speaker 14: All Speaker 12: right. Speaker 14: Now Speaker 13: he’s going to figure Speaker 12: it out. Don’t do all. Okay. I know what to take. Speaker 11: You don’t know what to do. Yo talk, talk, talk only. Speaker 12: Do you Speaker 14: want Speaker 12: my own? Yes, Speaker 11: I want you Speaker 12: to know. Speaker 14: Vula, how is business? Speaker 12: Oh, wow to me. My weak constitution, my weak mind as a woman, I am simply not fit for it. Speaker 12: Business is bad. Speaker 15: What do you know, what’s the matter? What’s happened? She suffers? Speaker 14: She suffers. She has to be at the travel agency alone all day Well, her kids are all alone at home. Speaker 14: That’s Speaker 12: [00:03:00] right. Speaker 15: So, Take the kids with you to work. Speaker 15: You’d be with Taki . Speaker 12: That would be good. Speaker 14: That would be no good. No good. No good. No good. Because, um, When a woman has her kids around, she just can’t focus. Speaker 14: And that’s why that no work. No work. Speaker 15: . I have your answer. Yes. I will do all the work for you and you stay home all day with the kids. Speaker 11: Oh, I, I can’t believe that. Wonderful. Wonderful. Malcolm Collins: and I saw this in the comments again recently where like even- Oh Simone Collins: really? Malcolm Collins: Guys were like, “Well, women held some roles historically outside the house, but, you know, they weren’t like cobblers and they weren’t like sailors and they weren’t like, you know, stone masons.” And it’s like all of that is true. Simone Collins: Yeah. However, Malcolm Collins: the way that all of those businesses were managed where if a guy [00:04:00] was a stone mason or a cobbler or anything like that, his books and his inventory sourcing and his client sourcing generally would have been handled by the woman, but it wasn’t even just that. It was if you actually look at the statistics around female labor in history, women actually did, if you’re talking about hard labor, the labor that fed the family, right? Women actually did the majority of the work over the vast majority of human history. If you go back to let’s say hunter gatherer society, for example, because we’ve been able to study this in a great detail women produced in terms of daily caloric intake between 80 and 60% of the calories that the family ate. Simone Collins: Oh my gosh, really? Malcolm Collins: This is 90 human history. Simone Collins: Well, this, you know, this also makes sense in other things where you see sexual dimorphism. For example, women being much [00:05:00] having much higher endurance and pain tolerance versus men who are better like sprinters. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Speaker 6: Or to word it another way, the female body and psychology at an evolutionary level are optimized for grueling labor while the male body in mind are optimized for warfare and disposability. Neither are totally optimal, but the idea that women are beautiful flowers designed to sit inside all day caring for children Far from any risk of manual labor is probably the greatest feminist psyops of all time and completely a historic. Simone Collins: . And yeah, that just, that, that really, that implies millions of years of higher workloads. Malcolm Collins: And this is actually even true. And, and we’re gonna talk about like why this is the case because note people can be like, “But those just makes no sense. I thought women, because they’re the weaker, they must do this work.” And it’s like, b***h, have you ever seen how lions make this s**t work? The male [00:06:00] lion sits around all day and the females bring in food because that’s the way human society is supposed to work. Simone Collins: Oh God. Malcolm Collins: And if you go back to the most trad iterations of human society, let’s go with the ultra orthodox Jews, okay? In ultra Orthodox Jewish society, do men work? No. Simone Collins: Oh God. Malcolm Collins: Men don’t work. Women work. Men spend all day studying. You actually see this in, Simone Collins: Studying. ... Malcolm Collins: if you go to more primitive iterations of Islamic society, I remember this- Yeah. ... Morocco and are out in the desert. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: And we met you know, a traditionalist Muslim- Simone Collins: Oh, yes. Yes. ... Malcolm Collins: and the men did not work. That was considered, like, very offensive, even the idea that a man would have a job, that is of course the purview of women to have jobs. And you could say, “Well, Malcolm, surely you don’t want us to be like those, those Muslims or those Jews.” And I’m like, “Well, actually, even if you go back to early European [00:07:00] society, most farming through most of human history was done by women.” People are like, “What? I thought men handled farming.” And it’s like, actually, men only moved to handle the majority of farming after one particular invention. Do you know what it was? Simone Collins: The ... Oh, what was it called? The ... I wanna say spinning Jenning because it’s just the first thing that, like, comes to mind. The plow. The plow. Oh, great. Okay. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Okay. In regions where the plow is not used due to soil conditions and stuff like that- Simone Collins: Yeah. ... Malcolm Collins: the majority of farming is typically done by w- women. Huh. In Europe, before the introduction of the plow, which happened a thousand AD. So pretty recently the majority of farming was done by women unless you were, like, having slaves do it or something like that. But even when you were having slaves do it and you had, like, a big estate, the majority of the family’s work was still done by women because Zane managed the family’s household and finances, which we will get to. And so if you’re like, [00:08:00] wait, okay, if women were doing the majority of actual work throughout human history in terms of calorie acquisition, in terms of financial management what were men doing? What was the male role in human history? Why were women okay taking on this role that seems to be, ... Because like imagine, and, and this is why I’m saying that, like, it’s such a cut thing to not know this, is, is that you’re literally going out there when the tr

    1 h 1 min
  7. "Men Should Pay For Single Women to Have Kids" (We Wish Leftists Never Discovered Pronatalism)

    4 MAY

    "Men Should Pay For Single Women to Have Kids" (We Wish Leftists Never Discovered Pronatalism)

    Leftist academics just dropped a wild new paper titled “Toward Individualistic Reproduction: Solving the Fertility Crisis Could Require a Further Marginalization of Men.” In this episode of Based Camp, Simone & Malcolm Collins break it down — from the evolutionary arguments about why men are now “useless” to women in high-equality societies, to the dystopian policy prescriptions: massive welfare transfers to enable single motherhood, robot nannies, artificial wombs, and essentially declaring bankruptcy on pair-bonding and two-parent families. The Collinses critique the Brave New World vibes, discuss why pair-bonding repair is supposedly impossible, explore real pronatalist alternatives, and go on wide-ranging tangents about immigration & welfare, political violence thresholds, historical gender roles, family business dynamics, and the coming demographic speciation. A must-watch for anyone concerned about the birth rate collapse, gender dynamics, and the radical policy ideas emerging from academia. Show Notes Referring to a research article published in Politics and the Life Sciences from Cambridge University Press, Christian Heiens on X posted: “Checking in on the status of Wokeism, and it turns out Leftist academics are unironically saying that society needs to intentionally “marginalize men” even more to supposedly solve the birth rate. History shows us that what’s normalized in academia becomes publicly mainstream within a generation, and there is no sign the ship is turning or even slowing down.” Christian continues: * If academics are going to unironically argue that society has to intentionally beat down men even more in the name of apparently resolving the birth rate crisis then all bets are off and it’s time to start pointing out the obvious as a rebuttal: * “The way you solve the birth rate crisis is by banning women from most professions they weren’t engaged in before 1965.” * I don’t see how this is any more radical than what’s already becoming normalized within academia. But you’re unlikely to ever see a paper with this kind of abstract published because it transgresses on one of Progressivism’s most holy pillars. * “Artificial womb technology, robot nannies and partners help women and men solo parent, AI-driven date matching” * This entire paper reads like a giant advertisement for Brave New World. Let’s take a look at this article. The Article Toward individualistic reproduction: Solving the fertility crisis could require a further marginalization of men Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2026 The Authors * Mads Larsen * Evolutionary Perspectives on Enhancing Quality of Life * Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair * Other articles * Breakup Likelihood Following Hypothetical Sexual or Emotional Infidelity: Perceived Threat, Blame, and Forgiveness * 2 - Female Sexual Attraction Tactics * Maryanne L. Fisher * Other articles * 7 - Mate Poaching by Men * 4 - Female Intrasexual Competition * 16 - Shifts in Partner Attractiveness * 45 - The Internet Is for Porn * 31 - Evolutionary Psychology The Abstract The cross-national correlation between gender equality and lower fertility is exceptionally strong (r ≈ 0.81). After the 1960s, a unique mating regime spread across parts of the world—with female emancipation, individual mate choice, and effective birth control—followed by a continuing rise in singlehood and declining fertility. Almost all women still want to reproduce, but many struggle to find a good-enough partner. This article argues from an evolutionary perspective that many men’s utility to “free women” has been so diminished that solving the fertility crisis by increasing pair-bonding rates seems unfeasible. A viable means for aiding the survival of low-fertility nations could be to provide women with the economic and social resources necessary for them to conclude that having children alone makes for a better life than remaining childless. Such policies would likely exacerbate male marginalization, but new technologies are on the horizon that could offer men reproductive equality. The Presented Context In their framing, ancestral ape‑like promiscuity gave way to a long era of enforced pair‑bonding (via kin and social institutions), but today’s combination of female autonomy and contraception has partially “re‑opened” a promiscuous, highly selective mating pattern, now mediated by modern tools like dating apps. This, they argue, structurally sidelines many men, reduces pair‑bonding and thus births, and is the core evolutionary–psychological mechanism behind the fertility crisis in rich, gender‑equal countries On what grounds do they argue that the problem cannot be fixed by amending dating/marriage norms in developed countries? Why do they think pair bonding can’t be repaired? * They argue that you can’t fix the fertility crisis just by tweaking dating or marriage norms because (a) women’s preferences and incentives have structurally shifted in rich, gender‑equal societies, (b) a large share of men now offer too little “utility” to be chosen as partners, and (c) the emotional and technological environment (contraception, dating apps) pushes mating toward short‑term, non‑reproductive patterns that norms alone can’t reverse. Recommended Policies * Make it easy for women to have children without partners Core policy recommendation * The authors argue that trying to fix low fertility mainly by boosting pair‑bonding and marriage rates is unlikely to work, because in rich, gender‑equal societies many men no longer provide enough utility to be acceptable long‑term partners for “free women.” * Instead, they propose that states should provide women with such extensive economic and social support that a woman can rationally judge “having children alone” as a better life than remaining childless, thus raising birth rates through solo motherhood rather than couple‑based reproduction. * For a start, they recommend that governments run “limited reproductive policy experiments” (pilot programs) to empirically discover what package and level of support actually induces women to have the number of children they report wanting when single. How that’s supposed to happen: * Large resource transfers * They’re deliberately vague * Presumably, this would be long-term income support or guaranteed living standards for single mothers * Broader welfare support targeted at enabling individualistic reproduction * Welfare queens????? * Strong public childcare * Strong work-family policies * General welfare systems that remove dependence on male partners * The general idea is to make women totally independent of men * Presumably AI is going to make this possible (according to the authors—who refer to a “post-automation” future * “Today, such large resource transfers are perhaps politically and fiscally unfeasible, but nations should consider limited reproductive policy experiments to find out what social and economic resources are required to motivate sufficient individualistic reproduction. In our post-automation future, perhaps as early as by 2040 (Kurzweil, Reference Kurzweil2024; Nayebi, Reference Nayebi2025; Rainie & Anderson, Reference Rainie and Anderson2024), insights from these pilot projects could inform national policies with the potential to substantially increase fertility.” Acknowledged Side Effects * The authors acknowledge that such policies would “likely exacerbate male marginalization,” since further reducing women’s economic dependence on men lowers the mate value of some groups of men * BUT!!! they argue the existential risks from demographic collapse justify these measures, and they speculate that technologies like artificial wombs could later give men more symmetrical reproductive options, restoring some form of “reproductive equality” between the sexes. The Brave New World of it All In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, reproduction is almost the mirror image of what the “individualistic reproduction” paper is proposing: instead of empowering individual women to reproduce on their own terms, the state completely takes over reproduction, engineers people in hatcheries, and severs sex from procreation to maximize social stability and control. In the World State, no one gives birth; all children are produced in centralized hatcheries using processes like Bokanovskification, which mass‑produces near‑identical embryos to match the state’s labor needs. Natural pregnancy and “motherhood” are taboo and even obscene terms, while contraception and sterilization are universal; sex is encouraged purely for pleasure and social cohesion, not for having children. Huxley imagines reproduction fully collectivized and tightly controlled by the state, with individuals having essentially no reproductive autonomy. How this article diverges: the authors of this article, by contrast, imagines the state giving resources to individual women so they can choose to have children alone; reproduction remains individualized and voluntary, even though the motive is still to solve a demographic‑political problem rather than to serve purely personal wishes. One of the conditioned sayings in the Brave New World society: “everyone belongs to everyone else,” Episode Transcript Simone Collins: [00:00:00] so like a couple days ago article titled Toward Individualistic Reproduction: Solving the Fertility Crisis Could Require a Further Marginalization of Men. Great title. Almost all women still want to reproduce, but many struggle to find good enough partner. This article argues from an evolutionary perspective that many men’s utility to free women has been so diminished that solving the fertility crisis by increasing pair bonding rates seems unfeasible. In other words, men are useless now. A viable Malcolm Collins: means. Oh, yes. They made men useless to women. Simone Coll

    51 min
  8. Everyone Is Wrong About Pragmata (The Pronatalist Game)

    1 MAY

    Everyone Is Wrong About Pragmata (The Pronatalist Game)

    Malcolm & Simone Collins discuss the viral controversy around the game Pragmata — a title that explicitly celebrates fatherhood and pronatalism. Is “dad corn” (games that stimulate parental instincts) as sinful as traditional porn? How should we think about masturbating evolutionary pathways for bonding with children? In this unfiltered Based Camp episode, they break down:• Why Pragmata triggers leftists• The difference between healthy vs toxic ways to engage with parental instincts• Why gamers actually have more kids than non-gamers (with data)• Hassan’s “gamers are unfuckable losers” take demolished• Deontology vs consequentialism in faith, gaming, and family formation• Historic Christian attitudes toward sex, beauty, and pronatalism A must-watch for anyone interested in pronatalism, video game culture, evolutionary psychology, and building high-fertility families in the modern world. Video Game Developer Dads Here’s the spreadsheet referenced in the episode. It includes: * 30 notable male video game developers * Key games/works * Father status: Father, Childless, or Unknown * Children count where available * Evidence summaries * Source URLs in both the main sheet and a dedicated Sources sheet * A Summary sheet with formulas and a pie chart Summary results: * Fathers: 20 of 30, 66.7% * Explicitly childless: 2 of 30, 6.7% * Unknown/publicly undocumented: 8 of 30, 26.7% Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Corn, what it does is all humans, because of evolutionary reasons, have a collection of pathways that cause pleasure when you do things tied to the birthing and rearing of the next generation. if you’re here saying pragmata is not core, right? Functionally, how is it different? If I’m in my room and I’m playing pragmata, which I’m playing the game, I am fathering a fake child while I have real children downstairs. Mm-hmm. How is that not as ghoulish as masturbating to a fake woman when I have a real wife in the other room? I, I- Hmm. Simone Collins: That’s a really good point. Speaker: And if you’re like, well, it’s not as bad when I engage with it because I don’t have real children yet, and it’s like, well, that’s about the same as saying it’s not as bad when I engage with it because I don’t have a real wife yet. Anything that distracts from your tasks of [00:01:00] getting one of those things is equivalent in its sinfulness. Speaker 8: And if you think I mean Stoji and hair splitting here, one, remember, I can’t make the same take on this that every other conservative commentator has had. I’ve got to have something new and fresh, so keep that in mind. But two, , right now, everyone’s so excited because this is the first time they have seen a game that is meant to m********e the instinct to be a parent and father a child. And so they are excited about it because some of them didn’t realize they had this emotion. Speaker 10: And in getting people to realize that yes, playing with children is actually fun and something they want to do and having children of their own is something they want to do is a fundamentally good thing that this game was released. But the warning against the masturbation of this pathway and how toxic it can be is going to be made evidence in the years to come as people can with AI simulate children. Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be talking with you again after a few days break. Of course, our audience would know that. But we were in [00:02:00] DC talking with political plays and now we are back and there is an episode that everyone’s been asking us to do, and we are not gonna have the take that you imagine on this one which is about the controversy, which has come downstream of a game named Pragmata. And the controversy basically goes bunch of leftists saw this game and they were either mad at it because they said it promoted pronatalism, which it very explicitly does the first scene in the game before you meet the little girl Android who you’re supposed to form a bond with. One of the characters is talking about fatherhood and the other guy’s like, “Oh, it must be really hard.” And he’s like, “No, it’s like the best thing ever.” So it’s very explicit. Oh wow. It’s, it’s not like a, “Oh, we accidentally made a game that made people wanna become dads.” It’s the core theme of the game. Okay. Then some of them are mad because they say that the little girl is sexualized which, I mean, she’s not, although I will say her face design is a little weird to [00:03:00] me. Like, it, it does not look like the face of someone of that age. Do the people who point that out, like, make a point around that. Speaker 4: If you’re upset that I don’t have the standard conservative take on this game, I, I want to have as true or honest of a take I have to the extent that it is also something new that you haven’t heard before and is intellectually stimulating because if it’s just let’s dunk on progressives for being icked by a game that promotes traditional value systems, that’s boring. You’ve heard that already, right? So let’s, let’s try to dig a bit deeper than this. But here what I’ve done, just for those of you who have not seen, because her character in the game is supposed to be the equivalent of a six-year-old girl, here is her face next to a bunch of six-year-old girl faces. And I hope you can see that these two things, , they’re not the same. There’s something off about her design. And, and that’s okay. , But if you have a six-year-old girl, it would be really striking to you. And so it’s weird that conservative [00:04:00] commentators keep saying that there isn’t something off about her design. , To me, it feels dishonest and I don’t like that in our space. Speaker 5: By the way, if you’re confused as to what looks off about the head, the number one thing is its relative size to the body. Six-year-old girls have heads that are much larger when contrasted with their body than this individual’s head. The second is its thinness and high cheekbones, which are much more adult features. Um, again, not the game’s fault. They were trying to size down an adult actress, but, , it is very noticeable if you have a six-year-old daughter, . Speaker 11: By the way, if you think I’m exaggerating here,, I sometimes use AI to age up our children so I can see what they’ll look like when they’re in their 20s or 30s or whatever. And I did this to my daughter once recently, but the AI made a mistake and only aged up her face. And I have never seen a picture that looks more like the Pragmata girl. , And it’s very creepy in this context because it’s a bit more exact, but you will see she looks more like this than she does a normal human girl of that age. Malcolm Collins: That said i- [00:05:00] i- i- she clearly was in the story and was in the context of the fan base is not particularly sexualized, except on Reddit. They made a Reddit thread and they had to shut it down because it just was nothing but sexualized, but that’s, you know, Reddit, leftist, blah, blah, blah, they do them, right? Simone Collins: Well, that’s the internet. The Rule 42, this is ... I don’t understand how that’s weird. Malcolm Collins: And then the right comes in and they laugh, laugh, laugh at the leftist and they go, “Ha ha ha, so funny.” You see a little girl and you immediately assume that, you know, you should see her as sexual and that’s a self-report and then the right also says like, “Ha ha ha, you know, how...” That’s basically the core thing the right’s saying in, in, in so many words. And I think so much of the wider conversation is being missed because of this sort of myopic surface layer investigation of this. So the first thing that we’re gonna be exploring in this is the question that has a pretty clear answer. Is pragmata [00:06:00] corn? And the answer is yes. Just not of the type you are used to consuming. So what makes something corn, right? Like- Yeah, Simone Collins: well, the people literally, I don’t know if it still exists, but there was a s- subreddit for food, corn and- Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about- Different. ... it’s analogous too. Oh. I’m saying it is literally corn. Simone Collins: Oh my gosh. So- Okay. Malcolm Collins: Corn, what it does is all humans, because of evolutionary reasons, have a collection of pathways that cause pleasure when you do things tied to the birthing and rearing of the next generation. Simone Collins: Oh, I see. Where Malcolm Collins: you’re making this. And there are many types of corn which hit these pathways in different ways. Ooh, Simone Collins: so like owning a cat or a dog that you overcare for. Malcolm Collins: Well, I’ve always said that that’s a type of corn. Yeah. But I, I wanna point out that it is not of a type [00:07:00] different than other corn. There are ... So for example, somebody can say, “Well, it’s not corn because you don’t m********e to it. “ And I’m like but we say that when women read, you know, sexy monster man books, they very rarely m********e to those and yet I, I wanna eff a monster is still very clearly corn. There are people say, “Well, people aren’t having sex in it, so it’s not corn.” And it’s like, well, there’s many categories of fetishes where people don’t have sex be they, you know, foot fetishes, for example, or something, right? Like people aren’t having sex in that and, and yet that would very unambiguously, or they’re like, “Oh, well, that’s not the act.” Okay. What about vor fetishes? People would say that’s very clearly corn but very clearly no sex is had in that. So, all right, so you can’t loop off corn by saying ... And, and here somebody can say, “Oh, well, no, it’s about the, the, the, whatever the positive emotions you fee

    1 h 13 min

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

También te podría interesar