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. HACE 5 H

    The Data: Was Racism Stoked By Corpos To Distract from Occupy Wall Street?

    Malcolm & Simone Collins break down Asmongold’s viral “American History Conspiracy Timeline” — the theory that identity politics and racial tensions were deliberately amplified after Occupy Wall Street to distract the public from corporate and elite power. They examine explosive evidence: skyrocketing funding for the SPLC, NAACP, HRC, and GLAAD right after Occupy Wall Street, massive corporate donors (JP Morgan, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, George Soros, etc.), changes in FBI hate crime training and reporting guidelines, polling shifts on race relations, Google Trends/Ngram data, and more. Is modern identity politics organic cultural evolution or an astroturfed wedge issue? They also discuss antisemitism’s resurgence, Russia’s role in BLM, corporate vs. industrialist interests, and why class conflict was redirected into identity warfare. A data-heavy, no-holds-barred episode that connects the dots between Occupy Wall Street, the explosion of “woke” terminology, and today’s cultural divisions. Show Notes Asmongold’s Thesis On a YouTube clip of Asmongold’s stream titled Alex Jones was right, in which Asmongold went over the Southern Poverty Law Center’s support of racist groups, he presented his conspiracy timeline regarding racism in the USA. He drew up a timeline (the “asmongold American history conspiracy timeline”) * 2005: “racism basically defeated everyone is getting along generally” * 2011: “lives improve but what about all these corpos? Occupy Wall Street * 2014: “look at that black person, they took your future” * 2025: “omg the jews” I hadn’t heard this before but… it sounds credible? How credible is it? I checked to see how Asmongold’s theory tracks with key word search volume, changes in police training programs, ngram word volume in books, reported hate crime data, polling data, and fundraising data for top identity politics orgs versus Occupy Wall Street. I was surprised by what I found. For example: While most nonprofit fundraising curves I looked at appeared to go up mostly linearly over time, the fundraising for identity-politics-related (e.g. NAACP, SPLC) skyrocketed after Occupy Wall Street. I’ve got graphs and numbers. Checking Asmongold’s Argument Asmongold lays out a simple four‑step “conspiracy timeline” where elites redirect public anger from class issues to identity conflicts, moving from “racism basically defeated” in 2005 to renewed racism and surging antisemitism by the mid‑2020s. 2005: Racism “basically defeated” * He describes mid‑2000s America as a time when most people of different races got along and pop culture normalized multiracial friendship and cooperation (e.g., movies like Rush Hour 3 with a Black and Chinese lead that everyone was excited to see). He frames this as racism being “basically defeated” and society getting more progressive each year on race and sexuality, with growing acceptance of gay people and gay marriage and then the election of Barack Obama as a symbol that things were going right. * He emphasizes that everyday social life felt edgy but unserious: people said offensive things (like racial slurs in online games) but “everyone knew it wasn’t real,” and the overall vibe was that people joked harshly yet still generally got along instead of seeing each other as mortal enemies. Checking in on hate crime In 2005, in the US, did various measures (e.g. racially-motivated violence, racial hate crimes, revelations of serious discrimination) indicate low relative measures of racism vis a vis the rest of American history? TL:DR: Yes. 2005 marked one of the lowest points for racism in U.S. history relative to prior eras (slavery through the Jim Crow and Civil Rights periods). Overt, lethal racial violence had plummeted from its peaks in the late 19th/early 20th centuries and even from mid-20th-century levels, with no comparable mass events or systemic terror campaigns. * FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) hate crime data, which began in 1991, shows 2005 with 7,163 reported hate crime incidents (involving 8,380 offenses and 8,804 victims). This was explicitly noted by the FBI as the lowest total in more than a decade. Racial bias motivated about 54.7% of single-bias incidents. * Overt racism (legal segregation, mass lynchings, race riots as tools of social control) had been declining since the mid-20th century. Studies of discrimination trends (e.g., in employment/housing) show persistence but also overall reductions post-1960s civil rights reforms Did police departments get trained to report more hate crimes? After 2012, were there any known training programs that took place among police departments that might have increased the percentage of crimes reported as being racially motivated hate crimes? YES. After 2012, multiple federal and state-level initiatives provided or promoted training programs for police departments specifically aimed at improving the identification, investigation, classification, and reporting of hate crimes—including racially motivated ones. Here are some sources of these changes: FBI Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual (updated multiple times post-2012): * Version 1.0 (December 2012): Merged prior guidelines and training guides; included learning modules on bias-motivated crime definitions, a two-tier review process (responding officer flags “suspected” bias → expert review), case study exercises, and model procedures for agencies to build their own training. Explicitly intended to help departments establish/refresh hate crime training programs. * Version 2.0 (February 2015): Added new bias categories (e.g., anti-Arab, expanded religious biases) and corresponding training scenarios. * 2021–2022 major revision: Updated for the full transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) (phased in ~2016–2021, mandatory by 2021). Removed Summary Reporting System references, added federal/tribal offenses, new anti-Asian scenarios, non-binary gender identity guidance, and tips for victim interviews. NIBRS’s detailed incident-based structure made it easier to flag and code bias motivations (including racial) at the offense level. NIBRS Transition Support (2016–2025): DOJ/BJS and FBI provided targeted grants, technical assistance, and training to thousands of agencies on properly coding/reporting hate crimes in NIBRS. Examples include the FY2023 Law Enforcement Transition to NIBRS grant (explicitly to “improve hate crime reporting”) and FBI training of ~19,500 participants from 9,500+ agencies (2016–2022). This shift alone is associated with better capture of bias indicators. DOJ/COPS Office and BJA programs: Ongoing grants and resources (such as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Training & Technical Assistance Program) funded specialized training, resource centers, and outreach for identifying/investigating bias crimes. COPS released recognizing/reporting hate crime training in 2022 (with later updates). Post-2020 awards emphasized investigation and community collaboration. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO STATE-LEVEL CHANGES * California (2017 onward): Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) developed and mandated the video course “Hate Crimes: Identification and Investigation” (November 2017). AB 57 (enacted ~2017–2019) required its inclusion in basic academy training, made it available online, and mandated periodic in-service training for all officers (every 6 years). * Other states passed similar mandates or funded programs (e.g., Illinois proposals, local collaborations with groups like the Matthew Shepard Foundation) Checking in on general perceptions of racism racism Gallup (satisfaction with race relations / “very/somewhat good”): * Early 2000s–2014: High (often 60%+ “good”; peaked near 70–80% post-Obama election). * 2015 onward: Sharp drop to ~30% “good” (lowest in decades amid Ferguson-era protests). Hovering 22–36% since; 2022 reading ~28% satisfied. * 2025: 64% say racism against Black people is “widespread” (tied for highest since 2008 tracking; up from 51% in 2009). Civil rights progress views also down from 89% (2011) to lower levels post-2020. Pew Research: * 2019: 58% called race relations “bad”; 53% said worsening. * Post-2020: BLM support peaked (67% in 2020) then fell (~51% by 2023). Discrimination perceptions peaked ~2021 (60% saw high levels against Blacks) but declined to 45% by 2025. * Recent (2025–2026): Diversity viewed positively (~75% “good thing”), but partisan divides widened; some softening on specific discrimination claims, yet overall pessimism on relations persists vs. early 2000s. 2011–2012: Occupy and class conflict * In his view, the real break comes with the 2011–2012 Occupy Wall Street moment, when people start focusing on economic power rather than identity, asking whether their problems come from the ultra‑rich and corporate “leadership class” who own capital and keep wages low in the post‑2008 crash recovery. * He argues this terrified the elite, because public attention was turning away from blaming minorities or women and toward questioning the people who own everything, so there was a strong incentive to deflect anger away from class and back onto identity categories. How did American sentiment change about wealth disparity and class conflict when the occupy wall street movement gained momentum in the USA? The most direct and widely cited data comes from Pew Research Center surveys: * Perceptions of class conflict: In a December 6–19, 2011, Pew survey of 2,048 adults, 66% of Americans said there were “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between rich and poor people—an increase of 19 percentage points from 47% in a 2009 survey. The share saying “very strong” conflicts doubled from 15% to 30%—the highest level since Pew first asked the question in 1987. * Class conflict was now see

    54 min
  2. Did Tinder Cause BLM & Me Too? Could it Lead to Males & Females Speciating?

    HACE 1 DÍA

    Did Tinder Cause BLM & Me Too? Could it Lead to Males & Females Speciating?

    Did hookup culture and swipe apps like Tinder create the massive political and cultural divide between young men and women? In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down shocking new polling data showing young women are far more negative toward men than vice versa, explore how Tinder supercharged resentment and radicalization, and discuss everything from MeToo to artificial wombs and potential speciation between the sexes. They cover:• The timeline correlation between Tinder’s rise and women shifting hard left• Why short-term mating markets destroy long-term relationship prospects• Male vs female responsibility in modern dating chaos• The anime that predicted male/female civilizations splitting• Practical advice for men seeking real partners and why “high value” looksmaxxing can backfire A raw, data-heavy, and unfiltered conversation on one of the biggest societal fractures of our time. BTW, here is Revy the MGTOW’s Google Doc guide to having kids via surrogate as an unattached man. Show Notes The Landscape New polling conducted for the New Statesman in the UK in early 2026 found that young women (esp 25–30) have significantly more negative views of men than young men have of women. * The New Statesman poll was carried out by pollster Scarlett Maguire and colleagues on attitudes between young men and women in Britain, published around 14 April 2026. Here’s the polling (archive link): Revealed: the new radicalism among young women Merlin Strategy’s exclusive polling reveals a growing gender divide among under-30s What they found: * About 72% of young men report a favorable view of young women, and only around 7% report an unfavorable view. * Among women under 30, only about half report a favorable view of men, and around one fifth (about 21%) report an unfavorable view. * Among women under 25, only about 35% express a positive view of men at all, and just about 11% describe their view as “very positive.” * Commentary around the poll notes that young women are “three times as likely” to hold a negative view of men as young men are to hold a negative view of women. * 40% of young women say men don’t share their understanding of consent in relationships (only 25% of men say the same about women). * Young women are twice as likely as young men to say they don’t want children (15% women vs. 8% men). Among white women under 30, it’s 20%. * 1 in 4 young women say a partner’s different political views is a red flag. * 60% would find it difficult to date someone who disagrees on Palestine/Israel or Trump. * 74% say the same about disagreements on social justice. * Young women are more likely than men to rule out partners over immigration views. The Thesis On X, Rae (@dystopiangf) wrote: “Casual sex is unironically a huge part of why so many women have become politically radicalized. If you ask a random woman why she hates men, 95% chance it boils down to sexual grievance, accumulated from embarrassing experiences like the OP. In other words, women are the real incels (in spirit). I witnessed this myself in college: one too many bad situationships, and they begin to carry this feeling of being a piece of meat everywhere, projecting it onto “society” despite there being zero material evidence of structural misogyny in the West. The bitter irony is that hookup / situationship culture is a byproduct of feminism; they fought for the ability to be treated like pieces of meat, to be equal to men sexual the way gay men are with each other, but the attainment of this freedom has done nothing but foment an even deeper hatred of their father’s civilization” This is in response to someone sharing a screenshot from a post-hookup story a woman posted on tiktok. * The caption OP had put was: “situationship breakups are so crazy bc why did this man just tell me the only person he wants to be with is his ex and then immediately make me eggs on toast. He nutted in me like 10mins after this. what in god’s name is happening” * Moe Bible chipped in: “Women will post this s**t and then wonder why the entire planet and every major religion has imposed strict social restrictions on their sovereignty since the dawn of time in every place humans have ever lived” The Shadowbanned wrote: “Let’s at least sympathize here - the man does not need to do this to her. Just because a girl is willing to put out doesnt mean you have to take her up on the offer.” * To which Rae responded: “I do tend to think that volcels are the most noble of men” More discourse for the interested: https://x.com/i/trending/2046981384204358126 Did Hookup Culture Predate Male-Female Political Polarization? Yes. Yes it did. Timeline of Hookup Culture / Casual Sex Norms Casual, non-committed sexual encounters have deep historical roots but became more normalized and visible in specific eras due to social and technological changes: * Early 1800s–1920s: Historians trace elements of casual sex and shifting courtship to the early 19th century, with acceleration in the 1920s. Automobiles, movie theaters, and urban youth culture allowed mixed-sex socializing away from parental supervision. This marked a shift from formal courtship to “dating.” Fraternity culture (from the 1820s) also played a role in college settings. * 1960s Sexual Revolution: A major inflection point. Feminism, the birth control pill, declining stigma around premarital sex, and college party scenes decoupled sex from marriage/relationships. This era saw widespread acceptance of casual encounters, especially among young adults. * 1970s–1990s: Premarital and casual sex became more common and visible. By the mid-1990s, “hookup” behaviors were established on campuses. The term “hookup culture” gained prominence around 2000, but data shows similar (or even higher) rates of sexual activity in earlier decades (e.g., comparisons of 1988–1996 vs. 2002–2010 college students). Hookup culture isn’t entirely new—casual sex existed before—but modern forms (peer-driven, alcohol-fueled, decoupled from courtship) crystallized post-1960s and were amplified by media and apps later. Timeline of Male-Female Political Polarization The partisan gender gap (women leaning more Democratic/liberal, men more Republican/conservative) is relatively recent in its modern form: * Pre-1960s: Minimal or inconsistent gaps. In the 1950s, women were sometimes slightly more Republican. * 1960s onward: Divergence began as men and women’s party identifications shifted (linked to civil rights, Southern realignment, and cultural changes). Men moved toward Republicans faster in some cases. * 1980s–present: Clear and growing gap. Noticeable in the 1980 Reagan election (women less supportive). It widened through the 1990s–2010s, with women more Democratic. Among young people (18–29), the divide has sharpened dramatically in recent years (e.g., post-2016/2020), with young women shifting left and young men moving right or away from Democrats. Polarization overall increased from the 1970s/1990s (elite sorting, Gingrich era), but the gender-specific aspect accelerated later. The Swipe-Based Dating Acceleration Has gendered political polarization intensified even faster following the introduction of swipe-based dating (E.g. tindr)? Yes, the gendered political polarization—particularly the ideological and partisan gap between young men and women—has shown signs of intensifying at a faster rate in the period following the widespread adoption of swipe-based dating apps like Tinder (launched 2012, mass popularity by 2014–2015). Obviously swipe-based dating is just one sign of hookup culture on the rise, but it largely facilitated hookup culture at scale, which could arguably have fuelled the resentment that built up and fuelled things like #metoo (which was founded in 2006 by activist Tarana Burke to support survivors of sexual violence but did not gain global, viral momentum until October 2017 after Alyssa Milano encouraged survivors to use the hashtag following Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations). Episode Transcript Simone Collins: [00:00:00] So 2015 is when Tinder launched. Oh, and about two years later is really when it started to pick up, . The thing that really made hookup culture run out of control was the technology introduction of swipe based dating, which made hookup culture something that could run at scale. And that’s when women who were eights and below suddenly had access to these higher quality men on their lazy nights and started to believe that this was the type of man who eventually would become their boyfriend or marry them. And this is where the resentment really starts. Malcolm Collins: you listen, you can’t see good graph. I mean, it is, it is striking. Like as soon as Tinder gets popular bam, women explode. You get me too. You get BLM you get huge rates of, of additional liberal tendencies in the female voting pool, particular in the single [00:01:00] female voting pool. Would you like to know more? Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we’re gonna be talking about an interesting question and an interesting theory. The theory coming from Simone is, did hookup culture create the current and continually growing divide between young men and young women? And we’ll be going over a bunch of stats that signify this divide. Because it’s, it’s way bigger than you would imagine. And then the second I wanna go over comes from an anime I was watching recently. Simone Collins: Oh no. Only Malcolm Collins: because I was on a leaflet stream and somebody on the leaflet comment, they go seeing leaflet and Malcolm Talks makes me not as afraid that we’re gonna end up with an X future. And I was like, I haven’t heard of this anime. So I went to look it up and watch it and it’s old and not very good. But it is an interesting concept, which is. After artificial wombs are d

    1 h 3 min
  3. Trump Assassin Implicated the Secret Service In Writing & Nobody’s Talking About It

    HACE 2 DÍAS

    Trump Assassin Implicated the Secret Service In Writing & Nobody’s Talking About It

    In this explosive Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the shocking PS section of the Trump shooter’s manifesto — a rant that exposes jaw-dropping Secret Service and hotel security failures at a major DC event. The assassin details walking in armed, breezing past checkpoints, and being stunned by the total lack of security. Malcolm and Simone explore how this level of incompetence could have allowed a small Iranian team to wipe out much of the Trump administration. They debunk wild leftist conspiracy theories claiming the attempt was “staged,” examine the shooter’s anti-Trump motivations, information bubbles on the left, institutional rot in the Secret Service/CIA/FBI, and why this event reveals deeper societal breakdowns. Topics also include past assassination attempts, cultural trust, and why bureaucratic security theater keeps failing. A must-watch for anyone concerned about presidential security, deep state dysfunction, and political violence in 2026 America. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today we are gonna go into something crazy that as far as I know, is in like our intellectual, conservative talking space we’re gonna be the first channel covering, and I am shocked that no one is talking about this. Have you heard anything about the PS section of the Shooters manifesto? Simone Collins: All I thought was that there were some papers found in his hotel room that expressed displeasure with some of the Trump administration’s policies. That’s it. I don’t know any, I didn’t know there was a manifesto. I didn’t know how to PS section, and I love that there was one, but tell me, it, Malcolm Collins: it makes me believe that somebody in the secret services trying to get Trump killed. Simone Collins: What, what, Malcolm Collins: and we, and, and, and on top of that, if Iran had not been an incompetent country at war with itself, they very easily could have assassinated almost the entire administration at that event. So. Let’s go into it. Simone Collins: Oh. Oh, wow. Yeah. People have been mocking the secret service for letting [00:01:00] the guy Nardo run right past them, but on Malcolm Collins: people haven’t been mocking the Secret Service, the guy, that’s what the PS section is about. It’s him going, let, let’s go into it. PS Okay, now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the secret service doing? Sorry. Gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone like I expected. Security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents, every 10 feet metal detectors out the wazoo. What I got, who knows, maybe they’re pranking. Me exclamation mark is nothing. No damn security. Not in transport, not in the hotel, not in the event. Sorry. I’m not even gonna keep going. Now, this is, this is his opposition. He is annoyed at how bad the opposition to what he is attempting to do is. By the way, if you’re a bit confused as to what this guy did, he got some guns, got on Amtrak, so on [00:02:00] transportation into dc. Simone Collins: He took public transport into dc Malcolm Collins: Into dc. He walks to the hotel that the event’s going to happen at. He checks in not like a week before or a month before, the day before the event. Simone Collins: Zero. We’re all on a budget here. Look, hard economic times, he can’t just Malcolm Collins: hard economic times. Zero. Security just chills out in his room with the guns while all the security lines are set up outside the event. Simone Collins: Watching office reruns Malcolm Collins: w walks down to the event when we’re gonna go because his rant isn’t over yet. By the way, people, he is like actually perplexed at the incompetence of secrets that are security. And you know, a lot of leftists have been like, oh, this was staged because. One person said, there’s gonna be some shots fired at this event. You know, like, which was a hilarious, but wasn’t Simone Collins: that Caroline Lovett? I think that was [00:03:00] her, Malcolm Collins: yeah. Yeah, yeah. Well, that’s a normal turn of phrase in English. And if she did know that this was going to happen, that’s the very last thing she would’ve said. Right. Like, come on, people. Or they’re like. Noting that like Kennedy is just sort of standing there looking sort of dazed like people are, like the Kennedy’s the worst survival instincts ever. Bullets start flying. I I really sort of, it was like him and Trump, like not really caring as bullets. Trump’s sort of looking at the person next to him as the bullets are going, who’s horrified? Speaker: first time. Simone Collins: Oh, Malcolm. You know, I would’ve been the dude who just kept eating his dinner. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. It was like the first time look on Trump’s face, I think. Simone Collins: Yes. Malcolm Collins: You know, just like, oh, again. But but no, it’s, it’s, it’s I, I do not think that this was staged. This guy has a long history of being anti-Trump, of wanting to do something like this. I. The thing that we’re gonna talk about when I get done with the manifesto is I wanna talk about how prevalent the conspiracy theories have become on the left. To an [00:04:00] extent that has really sort of transformed the nature of the left almost completely with this assassination attempt versus the others where there were some conspiracy theories, but this one’s like a complete other reality, right? But to keep going here he goes, like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is a sense of arrogance. I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person considers a possibility that I could be a threat. The security at the event is all outside, focus on protestors, current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before. Like this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets an actually competent leadership again. This is the assassin people who’s sitting here like, Simone Collins: you know, it’s bad. Oh man. Malcolm Collins: Get your acting gear. Like if I was an Iranian agent instead of an American citizen, [00:05:00] I could have brought a damn Mod Dee in here and no one would’ve noticed A-A-S-H-I-D actually insane. Oh, and if anyone so think goes how this feels, it’s awful. So you can’t really say he recommends doing something like this. Stay in school kids. But yeah. By the ah, mod Juice for people are running is a Browning M two 50 caliber heavy machine gun. So now, now that I’ve read that, do you think it’s kind of weird that no one else is talking about this? So Simone, had you seen this anywhere in your feeds? I, Simone Collins: I, all I knew was that they found some documents in this hotel room. I didn’t, I’ve not seen this anywhere. I’m shocked that we haven’t been told like anything or that I hadn’t seen. It takes a while though for people to start commenting on stuff. So, Malcolm Collins: so I, I want to explain how insane this is that this is the [00:06:00] case, right? This means that if I ran, had wanted to, right what this guy did, he ran past the layer one of security and was caught just outside the doors that would’ve entered the main room, right? I, Simone Collins: I thought he was one floor above. That was what I heard, that he was in the floor above the main ballroom. Malcolm Collins: I had this in my notes right here, so let’s see what they say. Not inside the ballroom. He was stopped in anelli air foyer area just past the checkpoint before reaching the ballroom doors. The incident happened at the terrace level. The main ballroom is large and subterranean one floor below in some descriptions. So if you watch what an estimates place the breach, dozens of feet to a hundred yards from the ballroom entrance. So, you know, he was, he was he was Simone Collins: basically, he was right by the door. We’ll just say he was right by the door. Malcolm Collins: Right by the door. Yeah. And if you watch the video of it, a lot of guards are like, huh, look, look at that guy running by us. Is basically what you see. I mean obviously I can understand the shock at the [00:07:00] moment or something like that, but the way that security was set up, if Iran had been there, it was 12 guys, like just 12 guys, they could have easily taken out the entire security team. Simone Collins: Yeah. And all they needed to do was just make a reservation at your friendly Malcolm Collins: hotel. All they needed to do was make a reservation and they could have made a reservation for a lot more than 12 guys. They could have made a reservation for like 50 guys. Yeah. Come down to that floor, just started shooting. And then they are right at where the president and most of the senior administration officials are. And they could have taken them all out. Simone Collins: Wow. Malcolm Collins: This requires a level of stupidity. Like what I mean by this is, okay, just think like an intelligent person for a second here, right? Mm-hmm. So you’re trying to protect the president. You have near unlimited resources for this sort of thing. What you would do typically is have layered checkpoints further than someone can run, right? So you would go to [00:08:00] whatever hallways led to that particular checkpoint that he ran through. Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: And you would have a checkpoint, I would expect at least three layers of checkpoints. Simone Collins: Well, and then you would not be able to make it through a door or elevator. Yeah. Like at those checkpoints. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. But Simone Collins: the idea that, that you would like, there would be a bunch, like a, a table, because that’s kind of what he ran by, right? Like the guys were, he ran Malcolm Collins: through the metal detector. That was the thing where he had to start running Okay. Is when he got to the m

    56 min
  4. The Jewish Social Technology That (Used To) Mitigate Antisemitism Was Inverted

    HACE 3 DÍAS

    The Jewish Social Technology That (Used To) Mitigate Antisemitism Was Inverted

    In this spicy Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins tackle a sensitive but urgent topic: why Jews must stop defending bad actors within their communities — and why failing to do so is fueling rising antisemitism in America. With 24% of young Americans now endorsing antisemitic tropes (vs. just 5% of those in their 80s), the Collinses examine welfare fraud in Orthodox Jewish communities, the ADL’s deplatforming of critics like Tyler Olivier, the Chabad-linked push to pardon a $33M healthcare fraudster whose actions killed elderly patients, and the collapse of historic Jewish self-policing institutions (kehillot and beit din) that once prevented exactly this problem. They argue that protecting bad actors creates massive negative externalities, damages alliances with the new right, and threatens the long-term survival of Jewish communities — especially as ultra-Orthodox populations grow rapidly. A blunt, data-driven conversation about group accountability, cultural self-preservation, and why every community (Jewish, Somali, or otherwise) must police its worst members. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. Today is going to be a spicy conversation and it’s going to piss off a lot of people, but it is one that needs to be had right now in America. We, we mentioned this on another episode, but Jews need to be paying attention to this. 24% of young people in America today endorse anti-Jewish tropes, right? Like are what you would be seen as antisemitic. Oh, oh, no. If you go to people in the, their eighties, it’s around 5%. Oh. So it’s one in four versus one in 20. This is a massive generational change. Simone Collins: Wow. Malcolm Collins: And I would point out here that the sentiment against Jews among use higher than it is against groups like blacks in the United States. Now where it is 17% have anti-black resentment in the United States where it’s 24% anti-Jewish resentment. Simone Collins: That’s so [00:01:00] funny because I grew up on like seventies, eighties, and nineties content that pretty heavily made fun of Jews. Like, I’m thinking about Mel Brooks Films, the Princess Bride all these shows that would have like a ton of like, seen Malcolm Collins: it as safe because nobody actually, when I used to, ‘cause Simone Collins: no one believed it. No one Malcolm Collins: edgy fake humor, like racist humor. I would make racist jokes about Inuits. That was like the core commun Eskimos, you know, they, you know, make Oh Simone Collins: right. Malcolm Collins: Make, make fun of their fake kisses. They don’t even know how to love, you know, like, everybody thinks Eskimo jokes are funny because nobody is aware of Eskimo discrimination. At least if you’re in the United States, like it’s not something that you are around or you see. So it comes across as funny. Sure. The idea of Jews being actually discriminated against in the eighties and the nineties was actually comical. It, it was, Simone Collins: right. So we, we, we could make fun of them because we knew that they were [00:02:00] fine and they weren’t. Doing anything Malcolm Collins: sauce. It was so comical that when Jewish directors and producers were making the Star Wars prequels, they literally made this character Simone Collins: Oh God, yes. No, Speaker 14: My trick don’t work on, I make only money. Simone Collins: and Malcolm Collins: thought nothing of it. Yes. Alright. They didn’t think this could one day be a problem for our community. And the, the problem, like the thing that makes this entire conversation so dangerous for the Jewish community long term, like when I’m projecting what happens long term with Judaism Simone Collins: mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: Is that somebody comes out there and says, Hey it looks like antisemitism is exploding right now. And then the obvious next question is, is why. Right? Yeah. Simone Collins: Yes. Malcolm Collins: And then the obvious next question is. Okay. Is it entirely due to some sort of external social contagion that has nothing to do with Jewish communities? Simone Collins: Which could be possible, or Malcolm Collins: it [00:03:00] could be possible, but that’s actually much worse for Jewish communities, if that’s true, because it’s much harder to change the behavior of people other than yourself, than in Simone Collins: yourself. Yeah, it’s preferable. And I, I’m, I’m giving the example because after I brought up a bunch of theories around why there’s so much Indian immigrant hate one person wrote to us, and I, I’m gonna try to put an episode together about it, but they wrote to us and shared fairly abundant evidence indicating that a lot of the. Indian immigrant hate is actually AstroTurf by Muslim Indians and Pakistanis who just really freaking hate Hindi Indians. And that and Malcolm Collins: Canadians Simone Collins: that like, even, like, not even so, I mean, there is some job resentment, but like, not nearly to the level that you see online. Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Simone Collins: But like, that’s, that’s an example of something that could be at least in large part external and not caused by internal activity. ‘cause you know, like there’s a very large immigrant community here that is Indian and [00:04:00] there’s not. There’s not a lot of like hate a about it, people like Malcolm Collins: them. There is not I, but I can, yeah. I, and I can say this very concretely. So we live outside of Philadelphia. Mm-hmm. We live in a majority Indian neighborhood. Our neighborhood is 70% Indian. Mm-hmm. And I have not seen any anti-Indian sentiment amongst any of my neighbors, any of the, the friends at Octavian school. Simone Collins: Well, and keep in mind, I ran for office in our, in our area. Right. I attended a ton of conservative Republican events. I knocked doors on the houses of hundreds of Republicans who lived here. Only once. Only once. ‘cause I will say that there was one time when one person said one thing and they’re just like, well, I don’t like all these kids running around in the streets. And that was it. It was, oh, God forbid that these people actually are happy and have children that run in the streets like I would want my kids to do. And this is like a safe Malcolm Collins: place. And keep in mind that you might be like, well, you don’t participate with the edgy conservative groups. No, we participate with the edgy. We, we are like friends with the people who ran a lot of [00:05:00] the Trump campaign stuff. Mm-hmm. And, and as we’re known as like rightwing influencers, we get and edgy rightwing influencers, we get invented to the edgy parties where people make. You know, racialist jokes and stuff like that. Even, even just to be educated, Simone Collins: anyone wanted to say something about resenting Indian immigrants in our Indian immigrant heavy community? They would’ve told me immediately because all of the like, attacks made against me were like, look at this evil, racist woman. So they would’ve told me ‘cause they would’ve thought that, like the, the, the rumors were true. So I just wanna, I wanna illustrate that anyway. So, but this does not seem to be something, one thing where the Jew hate is endogenous or It does Malcolm Collins: seem to be, but the, the side point I wanted to make to the Indian comments, I do think that there is actual Indian resentment talking to the United States. I just don’t think it’s in our region very Simone Collins: much. Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: And it’s important and, and especially in Canada, there are actual communities where it is normal, but Canada’s getting a completely different type of Indian immigrant than we’re getting here. Simone Collins: Well, and I’ll, I’ll add that it’s, I think especially among tech workers where they [00:06:00] see that. People are actually just hiring Malcolm Collins: Indians Simone Collins: Non Yeah. They’re firing qualified American citizens and hiring, honestly less qualified Indian immigrants. There is obvious resentment, but yeah, the pocket, Malcolm Collins: we need regulations around that. That’s a whole other thing that we can get to in another video where you could go watch the video where she crashes out about Indians because she goes on a 30 minute rant about all of the valid complaints people have about Indians. But in this episode, we’re talking about you, Simone, just to, just to, great. Yeah. Simone Collins: Just out of the frying pan into the fire. Let’s go. Malcolm Collins: If we often talk about the trans community, right? And I’m like, basically in the group that has ended up becoming the new right. Many of, or the majority of whom used to be leftists. We sort of originally approached the trans thesis was the idea of, okay, we can give this community some additional rights so they can do their weird, whatever thing that they want to [00:07:00] do. And so long as they don’t abuse those additional rights it’s fine. Right? And, and of course, if they did abuse those additional rights that would be punished within the community first and most aggressively, Simone Collins: right? ‘cause that would threaten their sovereignty and rights and acceptance. Malcolm Collins: Exactly. And when we saw that the opposite was happening, that the community kept from the most institutional levels, from the highest levels of the community, protecting their worse actors and going out of their way to protect their worse actors it then creates a situation where the, any, any community that’s abutting them has to attack the entire community to deal with the negative externality of that community’s worst actors. If I’m going to word this a different way, okay. Let’s suppose we’re not talking about trans people or Jewish people here. We’re talking about blurbs and TURs. Okay. Either two [00:08:00] groups and some blurbs, sometimes grape. Little TURs. Okay? And so a t

    1 h 26 min
  5. The Left Has Been Funding the KKK & N*zis : WTF HOW IS THIS REAL?!

    HACE 6 DÍAS

    The Left Has Been Funding the KKK & N*zis : WTF HOW IS THIS REAL?!

    🚨 The Southern Poverty Law Center — one of America’s largest “anti-racism” organizations — was caught funding the KKK and neo-Nazi groups with millions of dollars. In this explosive Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the shocking DOJ indictment revealing how the SPLC used money laundering, fake entities, and paid plants to keep cartoonish racist organizations alive. Why? Because the “racism industrial complex” needs visible villains to keep the donations flowing. Topics covered: • How the SPLC funded the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally • The economics of fear-based nonprofits • Why much of today’s “far-right” extremism appears AstroTurfed • Nick Fuentes botting & relevance farming • The difference between real policy discussion and performative racism • How genuine conversation on race, immigration, and culture gets sabotaged This is must-watch content for anyone tired of the endless outrage cycle. Show Notes The Department of Justice’s Bombshell News The Indictment * According to the indictment, some Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) donor funds were used to secretly pay leaders and members of racist, violent extremist groups, and at least part of that money was used to support their organizing and activities, including the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally. * The indictment alleges that, contrary to donor-facing representations about “dismantling” hate groups, SPLC used donor funds to pay a covert network of informants (“field sources” or “Fs”) who were themselves leaders or members of extremist racist organizations. Key uses of funds described: * Covert payments to informants embedded in or leading groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, National Socialist Movement, and American Front. * More than $3 million in SPLC funds were secretly funneled between 2014 and 2023 to these Fs associated with various violent extremist groups. * Funds were routed through fictitious entities and disguised bank accounts (Center Investigative Agency, Fox Photography, North West Technologies, Tech Writers Group, Rare Books Warehouse) to conceal that the money came from SPLC donor funds. * After those accounts were shut down, SPLC allegedly continued to pay Fs via ACH transfers labeled with disguised monikers such as “Rarebooks050” and “IPResearchCON050.” Examples of specific racist/extremist activities supported The document gives concrete examples where SPLC funds allegedly enabled or facilitated racist organizing or demonstrations, not just passive “information gathering.” * Unite the Right rally (Charlottesville, 2017) * F‑37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 “Unite the Right” event in Charlottesville. * F‑37 attended the event at SPLC’s direction, made racist postings under SPLC supervision, and helped coordinate transportation for several attendees. * SPLC secretly paid F‑37 more than $270,000 between 2015 and 2023. * This means SPLC funds, as alleged, were used to pay someone who actively participated in planning and logistics for a major racist demonstration. * Support to the National Alliance (neo‑Nazi organization) * F‑9 was affiliated with the neo‑Nazi National Alliance and served as an SPLC F for more than 20 years. * F‑9’s activities included fundraising for the National Alliance, while being paid more than $1,000,000 by SPLC between 2014 and 2023. * The indictment states that SPLC donation money was used “for the benefit of the individuals as well as the violent extremist groups,” which in this case includes a fundraiser for a neo‑Nazi organization. * Payments to leaders of other racist groups * F‑27: reported officer in the National Socialist Movement and Aryan Nations‑affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, secretly paid more than $300,000 (2014–2020). * F‑42: former chairman of the National Alliance, featured on SPLC’s “Extremist File” donation page, paid more than $140,000 between 2016 and 2023. * F‑30: leader of the National Socialist Party of America, former director of a faction of Aryan Nations, former member of the Ku Klux Klan; paid more than $70,000 between 2014 and 2016 while SPLC simultaneously used his “Extremist File” page to solicit donations. * F‑43: reported National President of American Front and convicted federal felon for participation in a cross burning; paid more than $19,000. * Another F described as Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America, and another as a Ku Klux Klan member married to an Exalted Cyclops, also received SPLC payments; one Klan‑connected F received more than $3,500 during litigation about Klan participation in an Adopt‑a‑Highway program. * Indirect funding to additional extremist leaders * The SPLC allegedly funneled more than $160,000 from a fictitious entity to F‑11, who then sent funds to various violent extremist group leaders, including a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The press release “Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals who were associated with various violent extremist groups including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America A Grand Jury in Montgomery, Alabama, today returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division filed two forfeiture actions to recover alleged proceeds of the organization’s fraud scheme. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated this case with assistance from the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI). “The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Using donor money to allegedly profit off Klansmen cannot go unchecked. This Department of Justice will hold the SPLC and every other fraudulent organization operating with the same deceptive playbook accountable. No entity is above the law.” “The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes. That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.” The SPLC is a non-profit organization headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, whose mission, according to its website during the relevant time period, was to be a “catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.” According to the indictment starting in the 1980s, the SPLC began operating a covert network of individuals who were either associated with violent and extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, or who had infiltrated violent extremist groups at the SPLC’s direction. Unbeknownst to donors, some of their donated money was being used to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website. “Donors gave their money believing they were supporting the fight against violent extremism,” said Acting United States Attorney Kevin Davidson. “As alleged, the SPLC instead diverted a portion of those funds to benefit individuals and groups they claimed to oppose. That kind of deception undermines public trust and social cohesion.” Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals who were associated with various violent extremist groups including: Ku Klux Klan United Klans of America Unite the Right National Alliance National Socialist Movement Aryan Nations affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club National Socialist Party of America (American Nazi Party) American Front According to the indictment, the objective of the scheme and artifice was to obtain money via donations through materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for. In order to covertly pay the individuals, the SPLC opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities. The covert nature of the accounts allowed the SPLC to disguise the true nature, source, ownership, and control of the fraudulently obtained donated money the SPLC paid the individuals. In order to keep the scheme going, the SPLC made a series of false statements related to the operation of the accounts. A conviction will result in the forfeiture of financial gains from the alleged illegal activities. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel made the announcement in Washington. The details contained in the civil forfeiture complaint are allegations only. Updated April 21, 2026” The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Response They stopped posting on X in 2024 but in hindsight their posts look like reports of all the “alt-right hate” they’re funding lol Their response on YouTube * In a pre‑indictment video statement, interim CEO Bryan Fair said SPLC had been informed it was under a federal criminal investigation focused on its “prior use of paid confidential informants” to infiltrate “extremely violent groups.” * He framed the paid‑informant program as a dangerous but necessary tool to gather credible intelligence on white supremacist and extremist groups that pose serious threats to communities. SPLC leaders have said they will “v

    54 min
  6. New Data: The Genetic Effects of Conservatism & Religion

    23 ABR

    New Data: The Genetic Effects of Conservatism & Religion

    In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into robust, replicated studies on fertility, intelligence, politics, and religion. They explore why progressive (”dysgenic”) fertility patterns are clearing out high-IQ individuals faster than conservative ones, while certain religious groups — especially Latter-day Saints (Mormons) — show neutral or even eugenic selection for intelligence. Key topics include: - The landmark study “Will Intelligent Latter-Day Saints and Smart Conservatives Inherit the Earth?” - New 2024 findings from the Vietnam Experience Study on how conservative religiousness reverses the typical negative intelligence-fertility link - Why “moderately” religious people often have the highest fertility (not the fanatical ones) - Cultural and structural reasons behind Mormon success in building high-trust, low-corruption institutions - The Quaker origins of modern “woke” culture - Enlightenment ideals vs. 1960s–1970s cultural shifts - Implications for civilization, space colonization, and the future of humanity They also discuss Techno-Puritanism, corruption in religious institutions, and why fanatical, high-agency groups are best suited for building utopias (including on Mars). If you’re interested in pronatalism, dysgenics, cultural evolution, or long-term civilizational strategy, this episode is packed with data, graphs, and unfiltered analysis. Watch the full conversation and let us know in the comments: Which religious or cultural group do you think has the strongest eugenic fertility patterns today? Studies referenced: - Kirkegaard & Dutton (2022) on LDS and conservatives - Dutton (2024) on conservative religiousness and intelligence selection (Vietnam Experience Study) Subscribe for more Based Camp episodes on the future of humanity, fertility, and culture. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about a number of studies that were reconfirmed recently. Mm-hmm. So this is the, the third time that these studies have been tested and reconfirmed. So this is a, a very robust finding at this point. And I wanna talk about them and talk about the, the implications of this for civilization. It is strategies, culture, and how society’s going to change in the future. So, a study that a lot of people are aware of is the study titled will Intelligent Latter-Day Saints and Smart Conservatives Inherit the Earth? And what this study looked at, ‘cause a lot of people were familiar that it looked at Latter Day Saints versus Non Latter Day Saints. And when I heard the results of this study initially. Some people misframed it as saying Latter day Saints are one of the few religions that has eugenic effects. Like the, the culture of the latter day [00:01:00] saints has eugenic effects on the people who follow that religion. This is not actually what it showed it just, just looked at latter day Saints versus non latter day saints. And now newer studies have looked at other religious groups and they have a similar effect. Mm-hmm. Well, at least Christian groups. More that a second. And, and there’s been some people who said that this effect has died down in Latterday Saints. I, we actually had a fan who did a really cool thing. He, he went through Utah and then went by region to find the of effects of earning and IQ by looking at it regionally. And the amount that the region was. Sort of fanatically latter day saint. And, and this guy can pin his results if he wants to. In, in the, in the comments. He did this sort of recreationally himself. And he found something very interesting which we’ll also talk about in this because I think it adds to this a lot which is in his findings at least, was in the latter day [00:02:00] Saints, the very, very, very most religious individuals actually began to have lower fertility rates. Now they, they weren’t below the non-religious individuals, but the highest fertility rates are in the. Kind of religious individuals, like the, the, yeah, I’m, I’m really into that, but not super into that. Mm-hmm. And, and it’s interesting I point this out because at least anecdotally, this is what I see in other cultures. This is what I see with like the Catholics, for example. Of the Catholics I know who are like super high fertility. And I’ve pointed this out before. It’s not the fanatical ones. It’s the ones who are enjoyably culturally Catholic. Like they really have fun being culturally Catholic, but they don’t really mm-hmm. Care about the theology stuff that much. Let’s see, let’s get into the data here and then we can go into what might be causing that phenomenon. I mean, I think that phenomenon is kind of obvious. If you’ve seen the two groups, I don’t know how much I need to go into it. But well, [00:03:00] within Catholicism you’re gonna be like, well, obviously, you know, the most Catholic people are gonna be nuns or priests, so they’re not gonna have any kids at all. But the fact that you don’t see that in the letter they saints and, and they also have a fewer number of kids. I think it’s because they are just. Not particularly like the more you get heady about religion, the less you care about the concerns of this earth and the less interested you are in playing out those roles. You’re more interested in, i, I mean, I think that the Opus Day are a perfect example of this. Like they should be one of the, the coolest and most based groups of Catholics, and yet 30% of them are, are celibate. Like just to be celibate, right? Well, Simone Collins: you can be based and celibate, but yeah, I mean, it’s Malcolm Collins: Or the, the, I mean with the Mormons like the most religious of them might have trouble operating in society. They may be too basically nerdy to date. Or find partners fast enough, and they may not even care that they’re not finding a partner because they have so much belief in sort of the, [00:04:00] the theological backdrop is going to protect them. Simone Collins: Hmm. Malcolm Collins: But let’s continue with this study, because this study didn’t plot the graphs like that. It was just plotting like straight lines, like, does this matter or not? So, the first study, the, the one that most people are aware of, it looked at expected fertility rate versus intelligence and then divided people into extremely liberal, centrist and extremely conservative. And what we can see very, very interestingly, is that when they are very unintelligent being progressive actually leads you to have a higher fertility rate than being conservative. Simone Collins: Aha. Why would that be Malcolm Collins: Dumb? Conservatives have fewer kids than dumb progressives. Simone Collins: Why? Why? Why? Why? I guess maybe to successfully marry, also conservative, you have to be [00:05:00] smarter. And then if you’re progressive though, you’re not getting married to have, like before having kids, you’re just having kids kind of by mistake. Yeah. Okay. So if you’re conservative, if you’re having kids. Presumably it’s because you’re getting married it that requires that you are attractive enough to get married. You’re ambitious enough to get married. You have enough conscientiousness to do it. Then you’re having kids. Malcolm Collins: Oh, actually, that’s a good point. Especially for conservative men. Yeah. Because conservatives have children in wedlock. Mm-hmm. What that means is that if a man doesn’t have money, he can’t find a partner and he can’t get married. Mm-hmm. And therefore he doesn’t have kids, which is a much healthier way for society to act than just do whatever you want. Yeah. Which unfortunately, I mean, I really, it is so wild to me that and I, I think that. What, what’s his name? Ho Math has a very interesting episode where he goes into this Simone Collins: Oh Malcolm Collins: yeah. Where he talks about how. Basically, [00:06:00] Western civilization reached a place on like the, the hierarchy of like their own thoughts and, and the way that they were structuring society where they actually thought like you could just be like, yeah, do whatever you want. Like of course that’s gonna work. Rules are all basically bad because everybody I know if they didn’t have rules, it’s like when, when we as a society like. First had this idea, most of the places of power where it was being spewed from, and even, even still that that spew it to some extent. It seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Like, of course we can just have people do whatever they want and that will have no negative repercussions. Mm-hmm. Right. Everybody I know if you just said do whatever you want, they wouldn’t, you know, go out and slut it up. You know, they wouldn’t go [00:07:00] murder people or rob stores or grape children. And I think what we’re seeing in our society now is like. Okay. We unfortunately, and what he pointed out there is it’s sort of ironic that it was a very level of civilizational development that we had reached that allowed us to even conceive of such a stupid idea. That caused the civilization to collapse. And he argued within that video, I think very interestingly that, you know, this has happened multiple times. He’s like, this is basically what happened with Islam. If you watch our video on how Islam went from one of the strictest moral cultures to one of the most debauched moral cultures you, you could argue. I mean, maybe this was part of that. Right. They basically hit a point where it was such a de botch society. And like in that video we go over a number of examples of this. I think people today sort of forget that Islam was ever seen as the Java, the Hut society [00:08:00] the endless harems and parties and drinking and everything like that. That it basically just collapsed out of any form of efficiency. Simone Collins: Hmm. Malcolm Collins: And I’d a

    57 min
  7. Russia Makes Childless Women See a Psychologist (Should We Adopt This System?)

    22 ABR

    Russia Makes Childless Women See a Psychologist (Should We Adopt This System?)

    Russia’s Health Ministry just issued new guidelines: during routine reproductive health checks, doctors are now supposed to ask women how many children they want. If a woman says “zero,” the recommendation is to refer her to a medical psychologist to help form “positive attitudes toward childbirth.” In this episode of Based Camp, Simone and Malcolm break down the policy, Russia’s broader pro-natal cultural offensive (including the new ban on childfree propaganda, revived Mother Heroine medals, and “Year of the Family” initiatives), and whether framing voluntary childlessness as a psychological issue worth treating is a smart move or dystopian overreach. They explore: * Why this targets culture rather than just throwing money at the problem * The surprisingly recent history of “aspirational childfree” as a celebrated lifestyle * How societies throughout history viewed women who didn’t want children * Whether therapists could actually help shift mindsets (or if the real power is in the framing) * Bold ideas like no income tax for parents, school choice, and normalizing motherhood again Provocative, data-rich, and unapologetically pro-family. If you’re tired of the “childfree is empowerment” narrative and want to talk seriously about reversing fertility collapse, this one’s for you. Episode Transcript Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today because Russia has introduced a new health ministry guideline saying that women who say they don’t want children should be referred for psychological counseling. And, and Russian officials present this as a prenatal measure to address, you know, their, Malcolm Collins: and I was like, I heard it and it generally was multi totalitarian things. I don’t like this much. This when I’m like. My gut says yes, I like this. I like framing it as a psychological disorder for a woman to not want children. Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. And you, you actually like it, it was fairly late at night. You just burst into my room and you were like, Russia’s making like aspirational dinks, go to see therapists. And we both had a good laugh about it, but then I, I went and I looked up what the policy actually does. So basically during reproductive health assessments, doctors have been told. That they should ask women how many children they want to have, which is a little dystopian. And then if a woman [00:01:00] says that she does not want any children, the guideline says it is recommended or advisable to send her to a medical psychologist, quote, you know, from Russian quote, to form positive attitudes toward childbirth and reports so far. Describe this as part of clinical guidelines from, from the health ministry and, and not, they’re not like a formal criminal or administrative mandate with explicit penalties for refusing counseling. So this isn’t some dystopian thing. In fact, I think that this is. This is important for us to discuss and interesting because this is just one of many Russian measures that are targeting. The one thing we say actually matters when it comes to prenatal laws policy, which is culture. To your point that you’re building this cultural precedent around a. Shifting the way that women contextualize their choices around not having children. And I think that that’s really super interesting. By the way, men are they, they’re not asked equivalent questions. Malcolm Collins: What? That, that’s where they’re [00:02:00] failing. But I do also like that they frame this as like an explicit problem for women. Mm-hmm. Like women. What is wrong with you? That you do not want children? All women want children, right? Unless there’s something seriously psychologically wrong with you. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: It’s what they’re saying. Simone Collins: It is 100% what they’re saying. So, so what we’re gonna go over in this podcast is, is we’re, I’m gonna give you a little refresher on Russia’s larger landscape of prenatal culture investment. Because while they’re doing some of the, the typical things of like, oh, here’s money if you have a child and here’s some limitations on abortions. Again, I think they’re leading somewhat in the cultural initiative. So we’re, we’ll do a quick briefing on that ‘cause they’re actually doing a lot. And we’ll discuss whether or not we think this is actually a smart development. And then, you know, can, can, for example, psychologists actually be trusted to help women form positive attitudes toward childbirth. And and then kinda look at at how recent, actually the concept of not seeing women as [00:03:00] crazy for wanting to be childless is ‘cause it’s actually. Super. Like it’s a crazy aberration when you look at history. So anyway it, here’s what Russia is currently doing culturally, aside from the abortion and like money stuff to encourage. More children. So one, the government has revived the symbolic hero, mother medals for women, which I valiantly attempted to get the Trump administration to consider making an executive order around. Still waiting on that one. I’m ready. Anytime, guys. The Malcolm Collins: hero medals from other come on. Simone Collins: Six plus kids, you get a medal. It’s, it costs basically nothing. It can just, you, you don’t even, it could be a Zoom meeting for all the, just Malcolm Collins: come on. Yes. And then all the press would freak out. It would be great for the administration because of all the press freaking out about it. Mm-hmm. And people being like, it’s fascist to wanna be a mother. Simone Collins: Yeah. You and else [00:04:00] is like, wait, but so you reward. People for being war heroes and for contributions to science and for putting, you know, their lives on hold, to move forward the arts or technology or academia. But you don’t reward people for setting their, their lives aside to raise productive citizens. Excuse me. It’s, it’s so anti-feminist. But anyway. Anyway, I’m just putting it out there guys. Any, any moment now can bring back the, the medal of motherhood. But anyway, Russia at least is on it. But also they’ve done some more, some more extreme, and I mean, man, if you did these in the US it would be insane. It’s, it’s not, it’s never gonna happen here. We’re not even talking about it here. But what Russia has done is they have anti dink. That’s dual income, no kids propaganda rules. So in November of 2024, and this was their year of the family, like they had this big propaganda year of the family where they’re like, this [00:05:00] is Malcolm Collins: okay, okay, okay. Simone Collins: All about traditional values. They basically tried to reframe Russia as like, well, Russians believe in traditional families and traditional values and having children and the rest of the world is debauched and gross. And they actually even got some, and we did an episode on this at one point. They got some families. To move out to Russia to pursue their traditional values. ‘cause they’re like, yeah, I mean, I guess America’s not the country of traditional values anymore. So Russia even managed to convince a bunch of Americans that they were the, i they’re not Malcolm Collins: liking it that much. Simone Collins: I mean, to be determined. They there, what we covered in that episode was one particular like, village that was being developed, still is being developed. If you wanna buy a plot of land within my links to their website they’ll help you build the house, they’ll help you with your paperwork. I mean, it’s a, a full service business. You, you, you can live in this little village with other expats. And you know. Yeah, there’s Canadians, there’s Americans. It’s a, it’s a whole thing. But anyway in, in [00:06:00] that year of the family the, the Duma passed a law banning propaganda of child free or deliberately childless lifestyles, which covered media, films, and online content. So even if you’re like an influencer, you can’t be like, I’m proudly child free. I’m a dink. I get to go to bed whenever I want, whatever, you know. And because they’re, they’re seen as basically discouraging people from having children because they are the law introduces administrative fines for individuals, officials, and organizations with possible suspension of activities or even deportation for foreign nationals if they’re judged to promote a child-free ideology. So, while the traditional family values. Of foreigners who’ve moved to Russia to pursue them. I guess any like dink influencers who are out there living it up or, or getting deported in the media, the, the state promotes an, like, actively promotes like an ideal of heterosexual family with at least two, but preferably three children, and they use state media and [00:07:00] films and education campaigns to normalize this as the approved model. Which again, I can’t imagine ever happening in the United States. There’s also a much more strict, and this has been around for much longer than the dink ban, an LGBT propaganda ban. So Russia’s, LGBT, and this, there’s like several laws, it’s like a, a constellation of laws. This is, this is like, it’s a whole thing. In in 2013, Russia adopted a law. So this happened, it started so long ago that banned the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors. Adding Article 6.21 to the administrative code and framing, LGBT content is harmful to children. And it was used to block pride events and shut down LGBT organizations and fine individuals for public support or visibility even before later expansion. So even in the very early beginnings of this 13 years ago, it was pretty strict. Then in December of 2022, Putin signed amendments that expanded the ban from [00:08:00] minors to everyone. So now any propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations information that makes them seem normal. Or that promotes g

    33 min
  8. Reese Witherspoon Said Women Need to Learn to Use AI (Women Were NOT Happy)

    21 ABR

    Reese Witherspoon Said Women Need to Learn to Use AI (Women Were NOT Happy)

    Reese Witherspoon just dropped a truth bomb: women’s jobs are 3x more likely to be automated by AI, yet women are using it 25% less than men. Instead of applause, authors and the literary world slammed her for saying “It’s time to learn AI.” In this episode, Simone & Malcolm Collins break down the controversy, why Reese is right (and surprisingly based), the hilarious meltdown from writers like Roxane Gay, and what it means for the future of filmmaking, creativity, and women in tech. They also dive into: * Reese’s earlier call for “more girl bosses in AI” * How AI is transforming Hollywood (and why fighting it is self-sabotage) * The gender divide in AI adoption — and how approachable agent tools can help * Milla Jovovich’s impressive open-source AI memory palace * Why refusing to learn AI is the fastest way to get left behind If you want to stay relevant in the AI revolution — whether you’re a creator, professional, or just don’t want to be replaced — this is the wake-up call. Watch until the end for a fun chat about high vs. low camp, family life, and why the people embracing AI will dominate the next era. 💡 Want to get started with AI the easy way? Check out Reality Fabricator for powerful, approachable agents that anyone can use. Drop a like if Reese is right, comment your favorite AI tool, and subscribe for more unfiltered takes on tech, culture, and the future!Streamyard - Reece Witherspoon_ Women_ Learn to AI Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today because women freaked out after Reese Witherspoon said that women should learn how to use ai. Oh Malcolm Collins: my God. Now one, I love the learn to code thing. Yes. So for people who forgot, learn to code. So journalists used to always like tell. Coal miners and stuff in West Virginia with a very smug act, learn to code whenever, like a coal mine would get shut down or whatever, right? Because. Of course they’re arrogant. They see these people as subhuman. Mm-hmm. They are just like, get a real job, basically. Right. Like, Simone Collins: yeah. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Like a high. Anyway, when all the journalists started being laid off the new Right. Gamer gate, post gamer gate online. Right. Came out and started yelling at them to learn to code, or not yelling at them, but tweeting at them, and they got super triggered to the. Accounts could get banned for telling a journalist to learn to code after they had lost their job Simone Collins: 100%. And once again the primary people who had a bit of an aneurysm in, [00:01:00] in the face of Reese Witherspoon politely recommending that this is kind of an important and big deal. Speaker 2: What? Like it’s hard. Simone Collins: Were writers, of course because they hate it. And apparently though this isn’t even Reese Witherspoon’s first time, like trying to evangelize the use of ai, which I think is really interesting. So just seven months ago, again, this is super not new. She made headlines for saying that AI needs more girl bosses. Speaker 9: Do you have a resume? It’s pink. Oh. And it’s sented. I think it gives it a little something extra. Don’t you think? Simone Collins: There’s this article in the cut titled, Reese Witherspoon thinks AI Needs More Girl Bosses, where they bristle about her statement that she made in a different interview to glamor the Women’s Fashion Magazine. They, they write one thing about Reese Witherspoon, she’s going to get women into male dominated spaces, and if those spaces are an environmentally disastrous creative wasteland designed to eliminate the human touch from art. Well, they could use a feminine touch. Speaker 2: You know, you’re really being a butthead. [00:02:00] A butthead. Simone Collins: The actress recently told glamor that quote, it’s so important that women are involved in ai, lest they be left behind by the filmmaking industry. I love that she’s trying to warn people in the filmmaking industry like guys. It’s coming. It’s coming. Whether or not you want it to to come, Malcolm Collins: it is coming though. And the extent to which some people aren’t engaging with it, like I’m actually astonished at what we’ve been able to put together with our fab ai. Yeah. We now, our agent system is mostly working. It made a video game for me today. I wanted a rogue light snake game and it made a road light snake game, and I’m using it Simone Collins: to make clips from videos. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And also on its own. Now you can on our fab from tons of different providers of images and videos, create videos. So I’m trying to create a better place for creating videos. If you’re putting together something like a. Sky Brows type video because I wanna be the best place to put those together too online Speaker 17: So what the system does is it allows you to [00:03:00] choose any starting image creation, ai you want from like a huge list of providers to create the initial image or you can upload an image. Then from there, using any of the image to video, like if you want to do Sance two, great. You do sance two , providers to create a video from that image and then you can cut that video wherever you want and you hit make video again. And then with any provider you want, you can use the same one or another one or whatever. , It takes the last image, , frame of the video that was created earlier in here.. From where you cut it or just the last frame in general. And then it creates another video with that being the starting image. And then, , you can re-roll if you want, and then it automatically stitches them together. And you can just keep doing this to very naturally create AI videos as long as you want. Malcolm Collins: because we’re using, the reason why we’re able to use so many different models is because we use multiple backend platforms and I guess everyone else is lazy and just uses one, but I can like API [00:04:00] keys for all of ‘em. But anyway, continue. Simone Collins: She also sit in the interview. I’m a very hard worker and I like to change and adapt to new structures and new environments. I’m always looking for how. Media is evolving and how I can help part of bringing women along into those emerging industries. Witherspoon said, and now we’re doing it with ai. For an example of what our side women are doing with ai, it, here’s a clip from a song that leaflet put out yesterday. Speaker 19: [00:05:00] お Simone Collins: it’s so, so important that women are involved in AI because it will be the future of filmmaking and you can be sad and lament it all you want, but the changes here. She’s totally right. And even we have family members who are actively working on integrating AI into filmmaking. There was this movie called I think called here with Tom Hanks that had a lot of, they, they had to artificially age up and down the actors ‘cause it covered sort of the history of, of what happened in one geographical location. And that involved, you know, actors being very significantly manipulated with ai. His company was involved in that. It’s really cool stuff and it’s absolutely true that AI is gonna be huge and she’s just trying to help, it always Malcolm Collins: goes viral for DeepFakes. Like I think like half of the time a deepfake has gone viral. It was made with his technology. Simone Collins: Yeah. And so they, they continue, the actress added that there will quote, never be a lack of creativity and ingenuity and actual physical manual building of things. It might diminish, she noted, but it’s always going to be of the highest [00:06:00] importance in art and expression of self. Hmm. Siding with the diminishment is not an amazing look, but it seems that Witherspoon is wholly committed to team ai. She told the magazine that she uses AI tools every day for different tasks. Quote, I use search tools like perplexity every day. Witherspoon said, I use vetted ai, like if you’re buying a blender, it’ll show you six different blenders and also recommend the best product. For about 20 more seconds of your time, you can Google best Blunder 2025 and get the same thing without contributing to the depletion of the world’s water supply. But go off. You’re so mad. They’re Malcolm Collins: so mad. They’re so mad. By the way, do they not know how much energy is using Google searches? Simone Collins: Yeah, actually there was just discussion about this with, people were, were coming on Taylor Lorenz for this too. They’re like, Taylor Lorenz is using II when it’s hurting the environment. And, and people have been talking about like, well, I mean, but if you did the same number of like Google [00:07:00] searches, like I don’t, you know, I. Malcolm Collins: It would have the same amount of damage. Simone Collins: Right? Yeah. Like the, I, people don’t seem to be getting it, but they just hate AI that much. Well, and Malcolm Collins: humans consume water as well. What if I had hired a human to do this? Simone Collins: Yeah. Maybe we just need taking Malcolm Collins: out humans in this time, in this timeline. Simone Collins: Exactly. They consume more water. I, I’ve seen how people drink in offices with their stupid, trendy water bottles. It’s. Very, very consumptive. Witherspoon didn’t stop there. Going on to sing the praises of her AI assistant, quote, simple AI is in an AI assistant that can be really helpful for anyone out there who doesn’t want to have to make a doctor’s appointment because you don’t want to sit on hold or deal with the problems of navigating hospital systems. End quote. She said, wait, hold on. Are Malcolm Collins: you using that one yet? Simple ai. Simone Collins: No, I need to try that out. See, like she’s actually trying, like, Hey, here’s a cool tool. Here’s a cool tool. Maybe you should use it. She said sounding a lot like she might be angling for a seat on the board. Oh my God.

    49 min
4.4
de 5
153 calificaciones

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