Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • 4,4 (153)
  • SOCIEDADE E CULTURA
  • DIÁRIO

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

    HÁ 6 H

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

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

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

    HÁ 1 DIA

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

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

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

    HÁ 4 DIAS

    Everyone Is Wrong About Pragmata (The Pronatalist Game)

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

    1h 13min

  4. HÁ 5 DIAS

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

    HÁ 6 DIAS

    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

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

    28 DE ABR.

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

    27 DE ABR.

    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

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

    24 DE ABR.

    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
Ver tudo (773)

4,4
de 5
153 avaliações

Sobre

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

Informações

  • Criado por
    Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • Anos de atividade
    2023 - 2026
  • Episódios
    773
  • Classificação
    Explícito
  • Copyright
    © Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • Site do podcast
    Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Você também pode gostar de