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

    -13 H

    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. Watch the full conversation and join the pronatalist discussion 👇Based Camp - What if we had childless women see a therapist_ 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 no

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

    -1 J

    Reese Witherspoon Said Women Need to Learn to Use AI (Women Where 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
  3. -2 J

    Who is REALLY More Socialist: The US or China (2026)?

    Having been given the impression as young Americans that China was “socialist,” providing abundant services and safety nets for its citizens, while the US was “capitalist,” leaving its citizens to fend for themselves, we were in for a surprise when we discovered that, relatively speaking, the United States is a socialist utopia. Today on Based Camp, we explore the United States’ (admittedly unsustainable) socialist utopia Americans enjoy and the (put diplomatically) bare bones support provided to citizens—especially rural citizens—by the CCP. If you’re a parent in the US looking to avail themselves of more of the United States generous services oriented around families, please refer to Pronatalist.org’s summaries of and links to State resources for parents. Show Notes I grew up thinking the USA was a land of pure capitalism, where people are on the hook for everything. Turns out that’s only the case if you’re middle class. If you’re poor in the USA, you’re arguably living in the best communist world imaginable, because you’re enjoying socialist-style support (for food, childcare, healthcare, etc.) but getting capitalism-style goods and services (e.g. going to the same private hospitals that rich people go to; going to the same grocery stores that rich people go to, etc.) Case in point: State resources for parents (We created detailed guides for Pronatalist.org) * See Minnesota as an example If “communism” means “this country has a significant social safety net”, then the USA is more communist than China. Even China has disparities in its benefits: urban formal workers receive significantly better protection than migrants and rural residents. Old-Age Income * USA: Social security * Going to stop working * Based on what you contribute as a worker… sort of * For a typical retiree claiming at full retirement age, Social Security is designed to replace around 40 percent of pre‑retirement earnings, with replacement rates higher for low earners (roughly 60–80 percent) and lower for high earners. * The Social Security Administration indexes each year of your past earnings to national wage growth and takes your 35 highest‑earning years to compute your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) * For people first eligible in 2025, the formula replaces 90 percent of the first slice of AIME, 32 percent of the middle slice, and 15 percent of the top slice (with “bend points” around 1,226 and 7,391 dollars of AIME), so lower earners get a higher share of their prior income replaced * The USA covers most seniors and low‑income households through Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but non‑elderly adults without stable jobs or employer plans can still fall through gaps, especially as enhanced ACA subsidies expire. * China: * China now has a “three‑pillar” setup: a basic public pension (still the main source), employer/occupational plans, and voluntary private pensions with tax incentives. * Resident pensions are low; national minimums have risen from 55 yuan per month at the program’s launch to around 143 yuan in 2025, with local governments often topping this up, but even average rural pensions of about 246 yuan per month in 2024 are only a modest supplement to other family or work income. Beijing, for example, set basic resident pensions for new claimants around 998 yuan per month in 2025, much higher than the national floor but still far below urban wages. Medical Care * USA * Medicaid (for poor and disabled people) * For full‑benefit Medicaid (the typical situation for very low‑income adults, children, pregnant people, and many disabled people), there is generally no monthly premium charged to the enrollee; the program is funded by federal and state governments. * Some states can charge small premiums or use “share of cost” rules for certain groups with higher incomes (e.g., medically needy programs), but that is the exception, not the norm for the poorest enrollees. * Medicare (for old people) * Part A: $0/month for most people who worked and paid Medicare taxes at least 10 years * Part B: Premium: $202.90/month for most beneficiaries, higher for high‑income enrollees. * Access to top-drawer private medical care if you’re poor or old (due to Medicare and Medicaid) * Functionally, this is paid for by not just the government, but by private citizens and corporations (paying for super high health insurance premiums) * China * China: Public “basic medical insurance” covers about 95% of the population via two main schemes (urban employee and urban–rural resident), but works as insurance with deductibles, coinsurance, and annual ceilings, plus optional commercial top‑ups. * Even poor people in China usually have to pay something when they get medical care; public insurance and extra subsidies then reimburse part of the cost, often in several layers * PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO BRIBE THEIR DOCTORS * The most significant gap between China’s formal coverage promises and lived reality is the persistence of informal payments. Academic analysis of bribery in Chinese hospitals describes the normalization of “red packet” (hongbao) payments — cash given directly to physicians by patients seeking faster or better treatment. A peer-reviewed mixed-methods study using data from 3,546 judicial cases found bribery was the dominant form of medical corruption, with roughly 80% of bribe-takers being healthcare providers. More telling, an earlier survey found that one-third of 500 randomly sampled residents in China reported that they or family members had given red envelopes to doctors, rising to 50% when surgeries were involved * The structural driver is well understood: China’s public hospitals were effectively defunded by the market reforms of the 1980s and have since been run on a quasi-commercial model, expected to generate much of their own revenue. Basic doctor salaries remain very low — sometimes as little as 800–3,000 RMB per month in smaller cities — creating systematic pressure to supplement income through pharmaceutical kickbacks and informal patient payments. Xi Jinping’s high-profile anti-corruption campaign launched around 2023 swept hospital directors across the country and publicly targeted this behavior, but structural underpayment remains the root cause. * Universal basic medical insurance * Nationally, basic insurance typically covers primary and specialist visits, inpatient hospital care, emergency care, prescription drugs, some mental health services, physical therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine, subject to local catalogs and reimbursement rules * Patients face deductibles, copayments, and annual reimbursement caps; local governments define detailed benefit packages, and there is no national cap on out‑of‑pocket spending * Even with coverage, serious illness can still cause heavy financial strain, particularly for rural, low‑income, and resident‑scheme enrollees, who are more exposed to catastrophic health expenditures * There is real and acknowledged urban-rural healthcare disparity * China’s approximately 300 million rural-to-urban migrant workers occupy a particularly precarious position. Although more than 90% of Chinese residents are nominally enrolled in basic health insurance, migrant workers face fragmented, non-portable coverage: insurance purchased under a rural scheme is often not reimbursable in the city where the worker lives and is treated, and employer compliance with providing urban employee coverage is widely evaded. Research has characterized this as a “covered but unprotected” dilemma — workers are technically enrolled but the insurance provides no effective financial safety net. Aside: NHS Care in the UK The UK has more socialized healthcare than China: In the UK, most medically necessary NHS care is free at the point of use, but there are defined areas where patients routinely pay charges (or go fully private), mainly prescriptions in England, dentistry, eye care, and some “lifestyle” or non‑essential services. FULLY (or mostly) COVERED These are generally free at the point of use for eligible residents (England-specific where noted): * GP services and community care: GP consultations, practice nurse appointments, most community nursing and midwifery, and NHS 111/telehealth are free. * Emergency and urgent care: 999 ambulance, A&E, emergency surgery, and emergency inpatient stays are not billed to patients. * Medically necessary hospital care: Consultant appointments, diagnostic tests, elective and emergency surgery, inpatient and outpatient treatment for physical and mental health if clinically needed. * Maternity and neonatal care: Antenatal and postnatal care, labour and delivery in hospital or at home, and neonatal intensive care when needed. * Many vaccinations and screening programmes: Routine childhood immunisations, seasonal flu for eligible groups, cervical, breast, and bowel cancer screening, diabetic eye screening, AAA screening, newborn blood spot/hearing/physical exam, and pregnancy/fetal anomaly screening. * Most mental health care: Community mental health teams, inpatient psychiatric care, talking therapies and crisis services when referred via NHS pathways, though access and intensity can vary by area. * Palliative and end‑of‑life care: NHS hospice and specialist palliative services are provided free, though many hospices also rely on charity funding. In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, prescription charges have been abolished, so clinically indicated NHS care is even closer to fully free at point of use. HOWEVER care is very spotty * Investigative reporting found that treatment approval rates for individual funding requests varied from as low as 2% (Shropshire ICB) to 69% (Gloucestershire ICB) for identical categories of treatment within England’s NHS. * Per NHS’s 2025 data, London practices face over 500 more patients per GP than the south-wes

    57 min
  4. Quaker Slave Ownership Rate 2X the South (How They Hid It & Birthed Woke)

    -5 J

    Quaker Slave Ownership Rate 2X the South (How They Hid It & Birthed Woke)

    Malcolm Collins drops a bombshell: modern “woke” culture didn’t come from the Puritans — it evolved directly from the Hicksite Quaker movement. In this explosive Based Camp episode, we trace how a 17th-century religious group birthed today’s urban monoculture, complete with performative morality, call-out culture, virtue signaling, and a parasitoid mindset that kills its host. We dismantle the sanitized schoolbook version of Quaker history with hard stats: Quakers owned slaves at dramatically higher rates than Southern colonies or Puritans, yet rewrote themselves as the heroes of abolition. We compare them to Calvinist Puritans, explore “justicle” (morality based purely on feelings), the origins of deplatforming, child moral authorities, bureaucratic meeting-house governance, and why this “super virus” spread so effectively through the U.S. education system. If you’ve ever wondered why progressive spaces feel like a mix of endless rules, theatrical protest, and zero accountability for results — this is the deep historical root. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing how what we today call woke evolved out of the Quaker. And a lot of people have posited many potential starts to woke them as a metaphysical framework, as a moral framework, as a collection of behaviors and patterns. And they’re just wrong. They’re just wrong. Like there’s a very clear. Trace of where the movement emerged, specifically from the Hicksite Quaker movement, Uhhuh how it grew, how it used the Quaker foothold was in the Northeastern education system in the United States and the West Coast education system in the United States to indoctrinate a generation and how it killed its original host generations ago. At this point, the Hicksite Quaker tradition is dead. And it we’ve mentioned it. Some of those things is woke as a cultural parasite. [00:01:00] It’s parasitoid it. Does not care about the host surviving it. You know, a parasitoid, if you’re not familiar, is like, have you ever seen one of those worms or insects where you can see like the worms crawling underneath its skin and then it explodes? It’s a parasite that doesn’t, that that goal is to kill you as part of its lifecycle. So, while all of this evil came from the Quaker movement, we still have to mourn what happened to it as well. All right. And I will just be reading from one of our books, I think our best book, the Pragmatist Guide to Crafting Religion. And it’s at the end of the section on how you determine what is true and what isn’t true. Simone Collins: Question though are you going to address what if all hiss. Strong assertions that it was the Puritans and not the Quakers. Malcolm Collins: And to, to say that woke is evolved from Puritanism requires a cartoonish understanding of history. Simone Collins: Oh, gauntlet throne. Should we have a debate with him? Malcolm Collins: Well, no. You need to [00:02:00] believe that Puritan culture was the culture that the urban monoculture framed it as. And one of the things that we’ll be going over is the urban monoculture, which came downstream of Quaker cultural framings simply lied about the cultural sensitivities of the Puritans. The Puritans were example were extremely likely to like they wrote so sexually graphically. That up until the 19 hundreds, Puritan works had to be censored. Puritan, like a lot of the things that people think about puritans are just. Untrue. But if you are talking about which group was famously insanely prudish. It was, it was Simone Collins: the Quakers. Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: They were so prudish this, the quote that often loves is they women would describe everything from their breasts to their, what was it? To their ankles Simone Collins: from basically their neck to their ankles. If there was something wrong, it would be my stomach. It doesn’t matter if it was like their heart palpitations or they had severe, you know, me Malcolm Collins: cramps. They were just uncomfortable mentioning everything here. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: [00:03:00] That’s my stomach, which is sort of antithetical to the way the puritans approached it, which is just say, we look full bodied at the sins of man, and only through overcoming them have we proven mastery by hiding from them. We haven’t proven mastery. Yeah. Simone Collins: Yeah. One of the other patterns of like, pedestal children is these wise sage. Malcolm Collins: Well, we’ll get into all Simone Collins: that moralizer. Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Let’s get started here. Okay. What about the Quakers? Weren’t the Quakers morally ahead of their time and super nice, weren’t they leaders of the abolition movement or something? This is certainly the version of Quakers we learned about in the school system that was dominated by the urban monoculture. So we were shocked upon our review of the actual stats, and maybe more than a little bitter, because we felt misled. Around 42% of Maryland Quakers in early America owned slaves. And this is from Carol kl, 1983. This sample was taken from Maryland wills between 1669 and 1750 among Quaker leaders in [00:04:00] Philadelphia at 70% owned slaves. This sample was taken from the Philadelphia yearly meeting, 1681 to 1705. Even if you go with the lower number, this is, so, that’s 42% of Quakers own slaves. This is higher than the rate of slave ownership of slave ownership of. Any culture or group in the 13 colonies? Simone Collins: Wait, wait. Even more than like, the southern colonies Malcolm Collins: dramatically higher than the southern colonies. Simone Collins: I forgot about this. Malcolm Collins: At the Southern colonies only around 20% to 5% of household owned slaves. Simone Collins: Oh, right. ‘cause it was really a rich person thing there. Yeah, yeah. Malcolm Collins: With Quakers it was 40%. Oh, no. Simone Collins: So Malcolm Collins: the reason I go into this is and, and if, if you have this view that like, if you’re like, wow, this is really different than the version of the Quakers I learned about in school. And the reason is, is because Quakers, if, if it was. Quakerism that the urban monoculture [00:05:00] evolved out of. It would make perfect sense that it would maintain this trait of trying to constantly frame the Quakers as morally decent when they were anything but morally decent. They were the most morally repulsive founding group within the Americas. By, by an order of magnitude because not only did they practice things like slavery at a higher rate but they then acted like they didn’t do it. Which to me, I just have this, I immense a moral respo res, you know, disgust. That if you’re going to do a sin, at least own it. Don’t pretend like you were leading the abolitionists when you were not. Almost all of the leading abolitionists were Calvinists which we’ll go into and puritans more specifically. There, I think there was like one or two Quakers, but we’ll go into this more. So, contrast this with Puritan communities, which wa while less attested, seemed to have a slave ownership rate between 0.5 and 2%. This is from Rowan R 2021 0.5 to 2% versus [00:06:00] 40%. Suffice to say the tale of the whale ship of Essex tells us what happens to Bipoc who put themselves in the same boat as Quakers or any gele of today for that matter, despite the incessant self framing as the quote unquote good. Guys hint, the moment things went bad. The Essex, Quaker sailors ate their bipoc compatriots. First, they claimed their, this uncanny skew was a product of a series of random draws. So just imagine, Simone Collins: oh, no. Oh no. Malcolm Collins: A boat gets lost. It’s a, it’s a Quaker group and they had some Bipo wisdom from various groups. I think some Native American subs were blacks and et cetera. Okay. And they, they frame it to them in the way the urban monoculture always does. It’s just a random draw of the straw. I’m sorry. Simone Collins: Totally fair. 100% fair. Yes. Malcolm Collins: That’s just a hundred percent fair. Four people and they all, oh, that doesn’t sound statistically likely. But by the [00:07:00] time it’s to the last one, you can’t really do anything, can you? Because we are the nice ones. We are the Quakers. No, I, I think this is important to know, right? People go off on, on me always. I rip on when people are like, oh, Malcolm, you dig so hard into Jews. You dig so hard into Catholics. Speaker: Why isn’t anyone attacking him? Speaker 2: It’s freezing out. Speaker: No, I think it’s the sign. Speaker 2: Well, the sign from diehard three was clearly racist, Speaker: obviously. But I think we went too broad. Everybody. I mean, who is that offending Speaker 2: everybody. Speaker: Ah, Malcolm Collins: I always say the OG culture that I have a hate boner for is Quakers. And you really see it in our books. It was the number one culture. I was just from the get go. Like, these guys are evil with the face of goodness. Actually, you know, the AI thing where it’s like the smiley face on like the hug off monster, whatever. Simone Collins: That’s Quakers for you. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: That’s Quakers for me. Right? The but anyway, to continue. [00:08:00] To those who’ve only heard the cartoon version of Quaker history and find our claims shocking. Perhaps you’re thinking maybe the Quakers own slaves at a high rate, but maybe they worked really hard to end slavery. Right? That’s what we’ve heard about Quakers. Sure. Search for famous Quaker abolitionists. And you get names like eliza Hicks, a Quaker who urged boycotts and Benjamin Lay, who theatrically flung blood on people and made a big scene about how opposed he was to slavery. As you read more about such figures, you will find none of these activities actually did anything to end slavery, and none of them did anything other than com

    1 h 29 min
  5. Girlbosses Aren't Independent; They're State Sponsored

    -6 J

    Girlbosses Aren't Independent; They're State Sponsored

    Simone and Malcolm Collins break down Inez Stepman’s viral essay “The Myth of the Independent Girlboss” from First Things. They argue that the modern “independent woman” ideal isn’t true independence — it’s heavily subsidized by the state through taxpayer-funded programs, policies, and cultural shifts that externalize costs onto society. Topics include: * State-subsidized childcare and education * Student debt (women hold ~2/3 of it) * Lawsuit-driven affirmative action and HR bureaucracy * Child support and alimony as hidden subsidies * The explosion of “email jobs,” DEI, and nonprofit activism * Cheap immigrant labor enabling two-income households * The decline in teaching quality and volunteering turned into paid activism They discuss how the “girlboss” has been replaced by cultural backlash (tradwife leanings on the right, anti-capitalist vibes on the left), why most “successful” girlboss stories in tech are illusory, and what policy changes (many already happening under the current administration) could shift incentives back toward family and real independence. Show Notes The entire concept of the girl boss may have been a lie. In other words, the concept of an independent professional woman who depends on nobody is a farce, and so-called girlbosses are actually state sponsored. This is the proposition of Inez Stepman in her essay The Myth of the Independent Girlboss and it really resonated with people. Inez Stepman’s First Things Essay: The Myth of the Independent Girlboss The Myth of the Independent Girlboss Stepman writes: “The Atlantic published an essay by Helen Lewis declaring the “Death of Millennial Feminism,” while in Slate Jill Filipovic defended the girlboss ideal against what she calls an “absolutely enormous antifeminist backlash within which we are all living.” They both take for granted, however, that the girlboss has declined from her cultural primacy. That may be so, but she’s taken no comparable hammering in the world of public policy.” “Whether the Millennial image of the girlboss, with its shrill first-person confessional style, is fading into cheugy-ness with the inevitable generational pendulum swing, the cornerstone of her appeal, “independence” from men and family, has never been so popular. On Reddit’s infamous r/relationships subreddit, half of all advice given amounts to “leave,” up from 30 percent in 2010 and still climbing. Nearly half of Gen Z choose financial independence over romance when surveyed, and nearly three times as many Americans say having a career they enjoy is more important than getting married or having children. In a 2023 submission to the New York Times’s execrable “Modern Love” series, divorcée Maggie Smith exhorts women “never” to be financially dependent on a man.” She describes how dependence on anyone has come to be seen as an embarrassment, but argues that women’s dependence has just been shifted from men and family to a complex set of government policies and programs. “The image of the working woman, the girlboss, remains the sine qua non of independence. After all, she pays her own bills using money she earned herself, or so it seems. But dig into the details and one learns she is propped up from every angle by laws, taxpayer dollars, and the ability to externalize the costs of her lifestyle onto others. In other words, the girlboss is often as much a dependent as Betty Draper, but her dependence is less honest, laundered through public policy.” Stepman cites: * State-subsidized childcare * State-subsidized universities / student loans * “Higher education is disproportionately attended and staffed by women. It is also funded in large part by the taxpayer, with an output that adds to cultural revolution more than to the wealth of nations.” * “Women hold two-thirds of outstanding student debt, nearly all of which has been financed by the federal government. Unless serious policy changes are made to defuse this debt bomb, the high default rates will ultimately fall on the taxpayer, through whom the government already owns 93 percent of student loans.” * “the wild proliferation of “email jobs” and administrative compliance positions that don’t add to the company bottom line” * Lawsuit-risk-driven affirmative action for women in corporations * “In 1991, reforms to the Civil Rights Act ensured that lawsuits over (often spurious) sexual harassment claims in the workplace became a major cash cow for litigants. Companies responded by bending the knee to the most easily offended, kicking off the era of “political correctness” and spawning an enormous industry that trains employees not to harass one another. These reforms also raised the stakes for employers to prove they were not discriminating on the basis of sex or race in their hiring and promotion practices, pushing them well beyond meritocracy into de facto affirmative action for women and minorities.” * One might also throw child support in there * Was just reading a different article about a divorced mom’s budget * “I’ve been single for about five years now. Divorce has been a game changer for me. I would recommend it! My marriage afforded me a certain amount of privilege, as my husband made a good salary, and our combined income was close to $200,000. But even though I have less money coming in now, and I receive some child support, I feel more independent and confident about my financial position than when I was married. I think some of it was that when your marriage doesn’t feel secure, it can make you feel financially insecure. And leaving my marriage changed those feelings for me. I’m the only one in charge of my money now, and I like it that way.” * Salary: Mental health counselor, $85,000 * Child support: $1,750 (Child support payments are not taxable to the recipient and not deductible by the payer) * Urban-monoculture-driven jobs * “Even more pernicious is the proliferation of Soviet commissar-style jobs, both in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors, that exist primarily to enforce political agendas rather than to produce value. In the U.S., the number of human resources jobs, three-quarters of which are filled by women, has exploded, roughly doubling from 2014 to 2024. It’s unlikely that managing a payroll has become commensurately burdensome in the past ten years; those additional roles exist to enforce diversity laws. The entire DEI complex is a giant subsidy for make-work positions staffed by women and racial minorities.” * The outsourcing of domestic labor made possibly by lax immigration policies * “In major cities such as New York and Los Angeles, up to half the nannies on the books are immigrants, and the real number is likely higher, with many skirting labor laws. The profile of other domestic task-replacers looks similar, with cheap delivery services such as DoorDash and Grubhub, staples for two-income households too harried to cook dinner, incentivizing an enormous black market that rents verified accounts to illegal immigrants.” * From the cited article: “As of December 2024, [DoorDash] said its screening process prevents over 15,000 prospective Dashers from joining the platform/driving due to failing to submit the necessary criteria. Monthly deactivations of inauthentic accounts have more than doubled compared to 2023, with all of that year’s deactivations already being surpassed by July 2024. The company also says it prevents, weekly and on average, about 4,600 attempts by deactivated Dashers who previously violated verification policies from regaining access.” Stepman notes the following adverse effects on society: * Worsening education * “The quality of teaching, traditionally a feminine profession at least until the college level, has collapsed along a timeline that suggests that diverting talented women into higher-paid careers was the cause. Let’s posit for the sake of argument that it’s better for those ambitious and intelligent women to be lawyers instead of shaping the future minds of both sexes in the classroom. Is it better for society as a whole that teaching has been relegated to a low-scoring backup plan, that still remains predominately female?” * The cannibalism of volunteering and philanthropy into paid, professional activism * “Volunteering and philanthropy, on the other hand, once the province of Gilded Age heiresses and women with grown-up children, have been professionalized, through correspondingly multiplying female-staffed NGOs. In short, the feminine impulse toward empathy that used to be predominantly applied to solve problems in one’s community has been transformed into permanent activism as a career. Instead of the Daughters of the American Revolution raising town statues, we have women whose career advancement depends on tearing them down.” She advocates for more work-from-home flexibility, homeschooling, and start-up communities and recommends: * Ending mass immigration that undercuts American workers * No more affirmative action for women or lawsuit paydays for women * No more federal loans for universities and female-dominatd majors and degrees that don’t pay for themselves * No more federal funding for “the female-dominated NGO complex” “But let’s be clear: The status quo is maintained by a network of laws and policies that push women out of the home and into the workforce. Women who would prefer to work part-time or not at all while their children are young—still the substantial majority—must make heavy sacrifices to do so, sacrifices that were unnecessary forty or fifty years ago.” The Critical Response First Things posted the article on X and it got decent traction Cathy Reisenwitz had a good take: “There is no girlboss vs tradwife fight. Both are media inventions. Most women have kids and work, now, and also at every point in recorded history.” Some complained: * @hollowearthterf wr

    51 min
  6. Polyamory Enters the LGTBQIA+ Pantheon (This is Good)

    15 AVR.

    Polyamory Enters the LGTBQIA+ Pantheon (This is Good)

    In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive into one of the most provocative cultural shifts happening today: the growing inclusion of polyamory as a protected sexual identity alongside the LGBT+ framework. They explore: * The historical “slippery slope” arguments from the gay rights movement (and how the left once fiercely rejected them) * Why polyamory is now being mainstreamed in progressive spaces * Biological, psychological, and cultural variance in monogamy vs. polyamory * Striking parallels (and differences) between polyamory and same-sex attraction * Why Malcolm now argues we should treat polyamory similarly to being gay — not as something to celebrate or condemn, but as a neutral biological/psychological variation They also discuss family structure, reproductive fitness, leftist organizations like Black Lives Matter, legal changes in cities like Somerville and Cambridge, historical quotes from Dan Savage and Evan Wolfson, Catholic priests and lesbian nuns, biker culture in gay history, and much more. A raw, nuance-heavy conversation that challenges both progressive orthodoxy and conservative reflexes. Expect tangents on everything from Mormon cuckoldry porn searches to ramp foraging and steak dinners. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we’re gonna be talking about L-G-G-B-D-T-T-T-I-Q-Q-A-A-P-P Which was used by the Canadian Teachers Federation materials as example, wait no Simone Collins: wait. That there wasn’t a joke. Malcolm Collins: No, that’s not a joke. One. That’s a, that’s a real one. Speaker 2: They provided $0 to deal with the ongoing genocide of M-M-I-W-G. Malcolm Collins: I could go through it all, but I think it’s probably more interesting for me to just get to the point of all this, which is the recent and, and increasing inclusion of polyamory as a discriminated sexual identity within the whiter, urban monocultural, or progressive framework. Simone Collins: Okay. That’s interesting. Yeah. That it’s like, I guess, well, it is. Some people frame it as [00:01:00] a sexual orientation, so. I guess then it belongs there. Malcolm Collins: Yeah, well, I, I wanna talk about this, I wanna talk about it from a few angles. One, we are going to talk about it from the perspective of the early days of the gay rights movement. Sorry, not even early days until around 2009, 2000, like 13. So, so up until like more recently the LGBT movement was fervent about the, this slippery slope argument on the right, that if we normalize. Same sex relationship today. We’ll be normalizing polyamorous relationships tomorrow. And they were very aggressive. We’ll go over quotes and stuff. This is not the case. The movement will never turn into this. Simone Collins: Wait, people actually said that. Really? Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, I always talk about, like, I remember when I was in school and I talk about my time in the GSA, the the Gay Straight Alliance. And I remember somebody being shouted out of the room because they suggested [00:02:00] that trans people may want to participate in sports of the gender they identify as. And they were shouted out of the room because people said, that’s a far right slippery slope. Simone Collins: You would ever do Malcolm Collins: that argument. No one would ever do that. No one would ever argue that. You’d have to be crazy to think that. And oh, somebody would only present that as an idea in bad faith. Simone Collins: Hmm. Malcolm Collins: So they get shouted outta the room and I was like, Hmm, interesting. Simone Collins: Indeed. Malcolm Collins: So, I wanna go over it from that angle. I wanna go over it from a different angle as well, which is like, why is it culturally happening? Because I think it’s a, a shift in the way we see and think about sexual identities. Hmm. And finally, what I’m going to argue is I fundamentally think it’s a good thing, which is gonna surprise people Simone Collins: to, to support it, to add it, to, Malcolm Collins: to consider being polyamorous. Mm-hmm. The same sort of lifestyle choice as being gay. Simone Collins: Ah, [00:03:00] okay. Malcolm Collins: And I’d actually say that I support it. Pretty much Exactly. As equally as I support being gay. Yeah, okay. Which is sort of like a, I wouldn’t advise it, but you know, if that’s what you’re gonna try, I am not gonna like, look down on you for it. Right. Yeah. So what I mean by this, so people may wonder what I mean by this and why I think it is fundamentally a good thing. And I, and I actually do not think it is logically wrong now that we are identifying it as the same type of thing as being gay. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: There is obviously a variance biological variance in both the desire somebody has for additional partners when they are in a long-term loving relationship. And the jealousy they feel when, you know, partners take other partners or like their, their ability to handle this. Yeah. I, I, I’d go so far as to argue that in some cultures seep people, because, you know, cultures interact with biology. Right. And if you’re in a culture where people take [00:04:00] multiple wives for many generations you are going to develop unique predilections, psychological predilections that people in other cultures are unlikely to have. A great example of this that we go over is cing is really common in the Mormon community and statistically more common in Mormon areas if you look at like porn searches. Wow. So why would this be the case? Well, if you are in a community where multiple. Partners is common, and you as a female get hugely turned off or hugely jealous when you see your partner sleeping with somebody else. You are going to be a more difficult partner. You are going to work less well with your sister wives and you are going to have fewer surviving and successful offspring. Sure. Yeah. Because the sister wives aren’t gonna help them as much. Whereas, and then people can be like, well then why are guys into it? And it’s like, well, you know, evolution didn’t have that long to work in these regions. And so if it makes girls into it, it’s gonna accidentally make some guys into it as well. Right. You know? And so, you know, the, the, the. [00:05:00] The, there’s likely a biological component to this as well, like, I’m just being clear here. It’s the same with same sex attraction, right? Like same sex attraction likely has a, a, a, a biological component and is going to be more common in some cultures and more rewarded by some cultures than others in terms of its reproductive fitness. Interestingly, by normalizing same sex relationships, you make same sex arousal dramatically more genetically unfit. So for example, in the West, historically. Simone Collins: Oh, I get it. Because basically you’re allowing people who experience same sex arousal to like not end up in heterosexual marriages and then not have kids. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Historically in the, in, in Western society, I guess you’d say more broadly same-sex attraction really wasn’t that much a hit to your genes because most same-sex attracted people just got married anyway and had kids anyway, right? It was the normalization [00:06:00] of same-sex attraction that sort of nuked this as a a, a genetic trait that you super, super, super do not wanna have. If, if your goal is passing on as many of your genes to future generations as possible, but to continue here. But as we’ve said in other streams, so, so what I’m pointing out here is there is variance biologically in how much somebody might be compatible with a polyamorous lifestyle, and there is variance both genetically and, and you know, epigenetically and psychologically in terms of events that happened to you as you’re raised that are going to affect same sex attraction, right? So, both of these variances, I think are equally arguable to be outside of an individual’s control. So I don’t think a you know, like what gay people would say historically is, well, I was born this way, right? As, as if the poly person was not. Potentially also to an extent born that way. It might have been less of a clear [00:07:00] gradient in terms of the psychological proclivities and arousal pathways. But they were born that way just as much as a gay person was born this way. Or the gay person will say, well, this is part of my identity. It’s like, well, you chose to make same sex attraction part of your identity. You don’t have to do that. As we’ve pointed out, like in different cultures, like in the Catholic tradition they disproportionately join the priesthood with 25 to 50% of Catholic priesthood. Simone Collins: A huge difference between how you feel and what you make your identity. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. You, that, that, that is, and people are like, what? So they’re forced to go? It’s like, no, they choose it. You are the one who wants to force them to have same sex relationships. Right. The Catholic church is like, well, you can go and do that. It is sinful, but like, we’re not gonna make it illegal. But I, I don’t think in any Catholic majority country is being gay illegal right now. But here is another option of a way to live your life. And I’d be willing to bet on psychological scores. Like if you look at because if you look at while gay men are, are generally psychologically healthier [00:08:00] than like bi people or lesbians. Look at our problem of, of like bisexual people. We need to talk Oh yes. Way off the charts on everything sort of, they are less psychologically healthy than the regular population. I bet if you contrasted same sex attracted people who joined the Catholic church as priests versus who went into same sex relationships. The ones who joined as priests are probably like much happier, have much greater senses of fulfillment and are likely have fewe

    53 min
  7. The Year Trans Was Invented (Gender Dysphoria Absent From the Historic Record)

    14 AVR.

    The Year Trans Was Invented (Gender Dysphoria Absent From the Historic Record)

    In this deep-dive episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins examine the provocative claim that gender dysphoria—the intense, modern experience driving today’s trans movement—has no precedent in recorded human history before the 1920s. They contrast historical examples of cross-dressing, third-gender roles, or gender-nonconforming behavior (two-spirit, hijra, sworn virgins, Elagabalus, etc.) with the core modern trans experience: profound discomfort with one’s birth sex that often leads to demands for medical transition, pronoun changes, and access to single-sex spaces. Malcolm and Simone argue that gender dysphoria resembles culture-bound syndromes like anorexia—intensely felt but socially influenced, disproportionately affecting autistic individuals, emerging around puberty, and exploding via social contagion and media stories. They respond to critics like Short Fat Otaku (Dev), discuss the shift from 1990s liberal “live and let live” assumptions, the role of bad actors, sports/prisons/restrooms, detransition, and why new evidence (Cass Review, WPATH files, UK data) demands updating views. Simone shares her personal experience with anorexia to illustrate how real these feelings feel even when culturally shaped. A data-driven, empathetic, and unflinching conversation on human flourishing, consent, and ideological capture. If you’re interested in history, psychology, culture-bound illnesses, or the trans debate, this episode is essential. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be going deeper down a rabbit hole that I have pulled on in the past, but I was called back to it by an episode I watched of the rapidly declining in viewers short fat Orta. I, I think we now do better than him in terms of, of view count by probably like 20%. That’s insane. Which is pretty exciting because I used to really like him in his videos and he sort of got, he, he actually represents a, a wider phenomenon that I wanted to grab onto on this topic because he, in its recent video, he was critical of leaflets debate performance, whereas almost everyone else says that she won dramatically. I even had this moment where he’s like, I think she lost the trans debate she was having. And I was like, to go to an AI and be like, is it general? What’s the general consensus on who won this debate? And it’s like overwhelmingly leaflet. And it, and then it went through all of the reasons. It was overwhelmingly Lisa. So I was like, okay, just checking on that crazy. Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah. Just so yeah. To, to even override your, your bias still. Malcolm Collins: But [00:01:00] he said one thing that really got under my skin at the beginning because a trans person was saying to somebody who was in this debate that was happening on X you know, we were here before you and we will be here after you. And then his response to went viral was like, this is true. And, and he then says, trans people have been reported in human history since, you know, across cultures since the beginning of time. And this is. Factually not true. And I actually don’t even really blame short fat Otaku for not knowing this because this is just, he’s not a historian. Simone Collins: Yeah, Malcolm Collins: yeah. Well, it’s something that’s not widely known and yet is claimed with a lot of confidence by the trans community. And if you don’t double check, because you, you’ll be broadly aware, like if you’re aware of history, you will be aware that throughout human history and a lot of different cultural context where people will take on alternate gender roles where sometimes people cross dress in [00:02:00] history yeah. Where people would act like a man or a female at different points in history. Speaker 2: The Fall of Rome. Joe Rogan had this to say on his podcast Speaker 3: fascinating that the end of empires, they get really concerned with gender and hermaphrodites Speaker 2: the Roman fem boy. Fully grown and willing to take on the role of a common Roman woman. Even the emperor himself donned girly outfits, mascara, and held many chamber parties . The Roman Senate began having debates to determine if quote, being with a fem boy was a totally gay thing. After all, Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And so you take that and you then just are like, yeah, of course. I’ve heard like three or four instances of that happening in history that I can just think of off the top of my. But that’s not what the modern trans movement is. The modern and even the core complaint of the modern trans movement is gender dysphoria. This really, really intense discomfort with your birth, gender [00:03:00] to the extent that you may want to unlive yourself, right? Like, you, you cannot live a mentally healthy life as your birth gender. It is something that is constantly eating at you if you, if you don’t transition this phenomenon literally. Nowhere in history before the year 1920. Speaker: And you may wanna say, well, Malcolm, that’s pretty nitpicky. So you’re saying that there have been alternate gender presentation throughout history, but there’s never been dysphoria recorded in history. , Why does that matter? Right. And it’s like, well,, if it turns out that dysphoria is a modern cultural phenomenon, if dysphoria is not actually part of the human condition, then most trans arguments immediately fall apart. The idea of I can’t be mentally healthy without doing this because of what? Because of the distress I feel when I’m. Displaying my birth gender. If you say, well, that distress is a cultural artifact and would probably better off removing the cultural artifact than,, a, a attempting [00:04:00] to address it through major surgery, that falls apart And if you can say, well, if the people in Historia, , you know, lived as other genders but didn’t feel dysphoria, then why they do it? And it’s like, well, we actually have a very good record. , Most of the time it was either like a woman wanted to live as a. Father in like a church and like a, this is sort of lifestyle. , Or did she wanted to fight in a war and women weren’t allowed to fight in wars during that period. , Or, , she wanted to pursue a gay relationship and women weren’t allowed to pursue gay relationships in that period. , Or. With guys. , It’s often they were cross-dressers. Cross-dressing is something we see recorded throughout history. Even today. To conflate somebody who is a cross-dresser with a trans person is extremely offensive to both the trans community and the community of Crossdressers. They are not the same thing. Wanting to dress up and talk like a woman sometimes is not the same thing as. Being trans. So, , if you say, oh, well in history we have [00:05:00] cross dressers, but no trans people, that’s a significantly different thing That removes most of the motivation for like why we need to gender someone correctly. Gender dysphoria. Why do I need to use that restroom? Gender dysphoria? Why do I need to be on the sports team? Gender dysphoria. But if we’re looking to history and all we have is sometimes I like cross-dressing, then it’s why do I have to play on this girl’s sports team? Because I like cross-dressing. It’s like, oh no, that’s stupid. No, we can’t let you on the sports team just because you like cross-dressing. If gender dysphoria is a cultural artifact, that is the center stone that the entire trans community relies on To demand they, one, be seen as their preferred gender. And two, gain access to safe spaces that would otherwise be referred for people who were born, that gender. , And also just to head this off at the beginning of this. , We do not think that they are faking feeling gender dysphoria or the [00:06:00] severity of the gender dysphoria. They are. They feel, , we suspect with a lot of evidence that we’ve gone over in other episodes that gender dysphoria. Is very similar to other forms of body dysphoria, which are associated with culture bound illnesses. These are psychological conditions that only happen within certain cultures, within certain periods of history, and people are unable to catch unless they are aware of them with the most famous being anorexia. And again, you can see a lot of similarities. Age of onset around puberty, gender distribution. More girls than guys, , key characteristics hits autists more than the general population, , associated with intense body dysmorphia. , And Simone, as somebody who. Went through that, and we’re gonna see this throughout this episode, can really empathize with how real this feels. But if it is a culture bound illness, the way that we need to address it is [00:07:00] entirely different than the way our society is addressing it right now. If we actually care about the people who are suffering from it. Malcolm Collins: and there are two maybe cases but both of them are really bad. We’ll go into them in a bit. Just to briefly touch on them, one is a Jewish rabbi from 600 years ago who wrote a poem poem, wrote poem about like, wouldn’t it have been better to be born a woman? And we’ll go through the poem and everything like this. And just to sort of give, give away the thing there, it’s, that poem is considered within Jewish thought for 600 years up until the year 2000. Not a single scholar. It’s a very famous poem. Thought that it wasn’t satirical. In fact, it was considered almost prototypical or a, an excellent example, often used of Jewish humor from that period. So not a single scholar or rabbi for 600 years thought it was anything other than a joke. Simone Collins: Well, even it wasn’t a joke though. I, I don’t think that that could even [00:08:00] necessarily be seen as gender dys Malcolm Collins: dysphoria. It was a joke. It was written as a joke. It sat down. Simone Collins: No, but even if it wasn’t as, someone could just be like, well, practically, I’

    1 h 47 min
  8. How A Socialist Became The Least Controversial Figure On The Right (Shoe0nHead)

    13 AVR.

    How A Socialist Became The Least Controversial Figure On The Right (Shoe0nHead)

    In this Based Camp deep dive, Malcolm and Simone Collins explore one of the most fascinating figures in online culture: Shoe0nHead (June Lapine). Why has a self-described social democrat, Bernie supporter, and pro-union leftist maintained massive popularity and respect in right-wing and anti-woke spaces for over a decade—while most other left-leaning creators from the early skeptic/atheist era lost their audiences? We break down: - Her unique journey from Gamergate-era anti-SJW commentary to Catholic trad wife and mother - Why she never needed to “convert” her audience or pivot dramatically - The vitalistic, entertaining style that keeps her relevant across the political spectrum - The broader split in the old atheist community: truth-seekers vs. resentment-driven dunkers - Why the modern right can embrace ideological diversity (and why the left struggles with it) - Shoe0nHead as proof that the new right is a big-tent movement built on reality and forward momentum rather than purity spirals If you’ve ever wondered why right-leaning creators constantly react to and platform Shoe0nHead (even when she criticizes Trump mildly), this episode explains it. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be pulling a thread that we got to in another video and in this other video we were talking about the. Community of early online skeptics slash atheist, which was like the core of sort of YouTube culture in the earliest days of YouTube. And how the individuals in this community that went right, they first became anti-feminist and anti woke, then went into Gamergate and then became the seedbed that the new right movement grew out of. Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: And then another group of them drifted in another direction. They drifted left and the group that drifted left like they, they were in the early atheist anti theist movement. And then the movement went either at the anti-feminist or anti woke stage. Yeah. They lost their audiences. Notably, we didn’t talk about it in that video, but there is actually one that drifted left [00:01:00] even after that stage. He was there for anti-feminist, he was there for anti woke, and he only drifted left at the trans stuff. This is dev slash short Fighter Taku, who has co off his views are way lower than ours now. If you look at like weekly counts Simone Collins: has he overall drifted left? Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, he has refused to really call out the trans community as a serious problem. And something that needs to be in some way, you know, the, like it legislatively something like that, a addressed. Speaker 3: Inspector, do you know if the killer was a man or a woman? Well, if ca I know that. What else is there? The kitten, Malcolm Collins: And I, I think that that’s part of, he’s also become more proc censorship, like censoring people in his forums and stuff like that. Really? Simone Collins: Wow. That surprises me. It seems so unlike who I thought he was when I first started watching his videos. Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I think that’s why he lost a lot of his followership, right? Speaker 8: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for [00:02:00] gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality? Malcolm Collins: Like it does, it does seem very anti what I thought he was right. But we noted one notable unique case in all of this, which was shoe on head. And Shoe on Head was very unique for a number of reasons. The, the biggest being is that she didn’t drift left over time or begin to adopt leftist talking points. She was thoroughly leftist from the beginning and, and quite a bit more leftist than I think a casual viewer may believe. She for example, to go over some of her leftist positions universal Healthcare, she wants, she has strong support of labor unions. She’s a believer in free college. She is a, as well as tuition forgiveness. She’s broadly anti-capitalist and anti-corporate regularly criticizing big businesses, everything like that. And she promotes working class [00:03:00] popularism. She voted for Joe Biden in 2020. She was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. And so yeah, very, very left wing, especially in her economic views. And also in, in her social views to an extent. . Simone Collins: She, she hasn’t talked about it a lot. In, in most of her recent videos, she, she’ll come out critical of Trump, but in no way more than in, in fact, less than many of the conservative. People that I’ll hear on YouTube these days, which is weird. Malcolm Collins: That I would say Simone Collins: is true more Malcolm Collins: recent videos. But if you, if you look at the whole holisticness of her work, she did not lose followers when she was talking about these leftist things. And she even has the name among her fan base of Ka mommy. So, you know, it’s a sweet name I think. But it’s also socially she’s been shown to be quite progressive. She right now is married to a trad C and has a kid, so be aware of that. And she converted to Catholicism over COVID. But before that, she was in a [00:04:00] long-term relationship with armored skeptic where she was public about having a 24 7 BDSM daddy, Dom little girl relationship. Simone Collins: She was not really, Malcolm Collins: yeah. Simone Collins: Whoa. She. Wow, okay. Malcolm Collins: And she still hasn’t condemned kink or anything like that, which is funny because on the social leftist front that would put her with us, where we do not condemn kink at all. We’re like, what? People are aroused by random Simone Collins: things. I know. Dumb, dumb little girl, very Catholic you know, but they work father into everything. I mean, come on. Malcolm Collins: I guess that’s right. Yeah. Simone Collins: See, it’s extremely paternalistic as, as a religion and like organization. I don’t understand why that that particular affiliation wouldn’t be. Quite match. Malcolm Collins: But I mean, she has kind of made joking videos about kink. She made that one a really good one actually, about women getting into like monster effer books.[00:05:00] Oh yeah. She didn’t outright condemn it. It was more the way that we talk about stuff like that where it is like women are ridiculous, that they pretend that men are the, the deviant ones and that they’re little, little Es. But in that other video, what I, what I talked about was why is she still relevant, but none of the other leftists. YouTubers are not relevant is because she didn’t try to change her audience. And she didn’t need to convert her audience. Her audience was never really persuaded by her economic arguments. She was never a pipeline out of the right to anyone. She’s still a mainstream watch figure in the right, and when I say in the right, I mean if, if she did a video and Asma Gold didn’t do a cover of it, I would be very surprised. Leaflet covers a lot of her videos. N Sinor always needs to brag when he gets mentioned in one of her videos, so clearly he’s watching [00:06:00] them. You know, if she mentioned us or birth rates, obviously I would be there. Speaker 4: Do you think it’s possible that Malcolm. Speaker 4: could be watching you right now? Speaker 3: Well, if I was Malcolm. Speaker 3: , I would certainly be watching and possibly tapping for later playback because you know, it’s a big deal to be talked about on Speaker 6: A shoe on head video. Malcolm Collins: and it’s and, and I, and I watch a lot of her videos too, just for even sort of like cultural relevance in the right, we pointed out that Sky Brows regularly has her along all of his alt-right v tubers and everything like that in his videos. And so first I like, I wanna talk on two topics here. One is, its how and why because this came up a lot in the comments of that video. How has Shoe on Head maintained this right wing following and loyalty for an example of another right wing influencer? Ho Math, ho Math did a chart of women he trusts, like online influencers. He trusted. And she came in really high on that [00:07:00] chart above I, I think the majority of like female conservative influencers on the chart, right? Like, that is saying something, right? Note at that what do the characters get at the top of the chart, which I think is fun is Pearl Davis. He is like Pearl Davis sniffed this girl out. This is with the, it was on his episode where he was talking about the the big, the Simone Collins: one who said that she was a virgin when she got married and the pope blessed her marriage and then turns out she was actually sleeping with this other guy while engaged, et cetera. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, and in that episode I realized just as a, a brief tangent here, and I think shoe on head actually sort of fits into this is that of conservative female influencers, because I wasn’t watching N’s version of this, I was watching the leaflet cover of this. Is that in the, in the conservative influencer space, there is a certain type of woman who just like comes up and her front and center thing is. I am ex religious woman, right? Like I am the trad cast, sexy woman, [00:08:00] right? And these are the people I think of when I think of quote unquote Christian influencers. And Leaflet was commenting that, you know, she gets accused of being a quote unquote Christian v YouTuber. Like, how dare you say this, as a Christian v tuber. And I realized how comical it was to consider a figure like leaflet or a figure like shoe on head alongside these quote unquote, like, I guess I’ll call ‘em Christian sea thought influencers. That’s what we’ll call them the Christian thought influencers. Simone Collins: Oh my gosh, that’s such a thing though. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Because neither of them, while both of them is Christian at this point neither of them leads anything with that, right? Like, that’s not their front, that’s not

    1 h 13 min
4,4
sur 5
153 notes

À propos

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

Vous aimeriez peut‑être aussi