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. -17 ч

    Black Humans vs. Gay Socialists: The DNC Civil War

    In this episode of Based Camp, Simone and Malcolm Collins unpack the Democratic Party’s multi-layered civil war and institutional mess. The DNC just fought an open racial and ideological battle over which state goes first in the 2028 presidential primary—South Carolina (Black voters) vs. Nevada (Latino voters)—while the party sits millions in debt, faces donor flight, phone-throwing drama from Chair Ken Martin, and a delayed, incomplete 2024 election autopsy that buried a chapter blaming Biden’s refusal to step aside. They cover: * Why the first primary state matters so much (and how it historically blocked Bernie and could block AOC-style candidates) * Open racial primacy sniping between Black and Latino Democratic factions * Establishment/moderate Black voters as a firewall against the DSA/progressive left * DNC financial collapse versus the RNC’s cash pile * Gen Z’s extreme salary expectations and accelerating demand for socialism * Younger Democrats’ sharp leftward shift on capitalism, policing, and institutions * Whether the party can hold or is heading toward collapse/replacement by something more radical * Speculations on 2028 candidates (including the Hunter Biden “banished prince” theory) Plus the usual Based Camp mix of data, personal political experience, and unfiltered analysis of identity politics, donor incentives, and what comes next. Show Notes Intra-Democratic Fight * The conflict was triggered by DNC’s choice of which state goes first in the 2028 presidential primary The Dispute * Black voters make up a large share of South Carolina’s Democrats and have long been the party’s most loyal national base * Nevada is a diverse battleground with a substantial Latino population. * Black leaders treated keeping South Carolina first as a non-negotiable recognition of Black voters’ centrality—especially after recent Supreme Court rulings that weakened Voting Rights Act protections and triggered redistricting fights that reduced Black representation in the South. * South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain put it bluntly in comments that went viral, elevating Nevada over South Carolina “would be because of their Latino vote. So you would then be telling Black voters that you matter less than brown voters.” * Al Sharpton and others echoed the “slap in the face” framing. * Some countered, saying things like: “The earliest primaries should be in competitive swing states. Not South Carolina. Honoring the importance of black voters to the Democratic base is also valid, but that still shouldn’t be South Carolina, it should be Georgia and Michigan” … “The purpose of a primary is to choose the strongest nominee to win the general election. It does us no good to show us a candidate is popular in a state that will be irrelevant when it really matters” * Latino advocacy groups (Voto Latino, Latino Victory Project, etc.) and Nevada Democrats pushed hard the other way, arguing Nevada better reflects the modern coalition Democrats need and that Latinos deserved the symbolic first slot after their 2024 shifts. * This produced open, racially charged sniping between Black and Latino Democratic factions right before the committee vote—exactly the “giant fight between blacks [and] Hispanics” described. * The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee ultimately recommended South Carolina first (on or around Jan. 22, 2028), followed by Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, and Virginia. The full DNC still needs to ratify it. The Broader DSA/Progressive Struggle * Progressives and DSA-aligned voices viewed the South Carolina-first outcome as an establishment move to disadvantage left-wing or socialist candidates. * Here’s how one person in that camp, Christo Aivalis, put it: “South Carolina is an early state for 1 reason only: to block any challenge to right-wing Democrats. It’s got nothing to do with the Black vote. Georgia has a higher proportion of its population that is Black, it’s a swing state, and its Black population is more representative of the national Black population” * South Carolina’s Black primary voters have repeatedly rejected far-left figures (Bernie Sanders lost the state badly in both 2016 and 2020). * Many on the left saw SC as a filter that favors more moderate/Black-establishment-aligned candidates and makes it harder for an AOC-style or DSA-backed contender to survive the opening round. * Nevada was seen as more favorable terrain for progressives (stronger unions, different demographic mix). * Axios reported progressive anger after the vote: some explicitly framed putting South Carolina first as the establishment trying to “shut down” a progressive presidential candidate and fight the party’s leftward shift. Online, DSA/progressive accounts went after the decision as protecting the “Black, Jewish, and Moderate alliance” (a common left shorthand for traditional Democratic power centers that progressives often criticize as insufficiently radical or too tied to certain institutional interests). This is the “DSA and progressive types go at the Black, Jewish, and Moderate alliance” part and the “left is eating itself” dynamic. DNC Money Troubles I did not know the democratic party was having troubles: NY Times: Inside the Phone-Throwing Drama at the Troubled, Broke Democratic Party https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/26/us/politics/ken-martin-dnc-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0lA.7wDs.OpuSYQKTgP8r&smid=url-share * “So much is going politically right for Democrats these days. President Trump’s approval is down, gas prices are up and an unpopular war with Iran drags on. But dysfunction and debt inside one of the party’s key institutions — which is getting crushed in fund-raising by its Republican counterpart — are creating rising anxiety for top Democrats.” * “Mr. Trump controls a $400 million super PAC, and the Republican National Committee is sitting on nearly $130 million. Mr. Martin’s D.N.C. is $2 million in debt.” * “For more than a decade, the D.N.C. has transferred millions of dollars every election to sister committees responsible for winning the House and Senate. But the national party is now so short on cash — even after taking out a $15 million loan last year — that officials have privately conveyed to congressional leadership that there will be no such transfers in 2026.” * “Some of the problems are a hangover from 2024. While Vice President Kamala Harris raised record sums that year, her loss left many big Democratic donors disillusioned with the party. Her campaign also had millions in debt that the D.N.C. spent much of last year paying off, with Ms. Harris’s help.” * Part of me wonders if the strategy is good, though? They’re giving all the money to state/local committees to WIN ELECTIONS. They shouldn’t be sitting on cash, they’re spending it, and they are… so maybe I think they’re doing the right thing. * “Mr. Martin’s pledge to increase monthly handouts to state parties has been the centerpiece of his spending agenda. But his inclusion of the territories has caused consternation.” What Can We Expect from the Future of the DNC? Some donation troubles: There was a sharp post-2024 pullback by DNC megadonors frustrated with party direction. Overall Democratic funding has faced real headwinds in 2025–2026 relative to Republicans, especially at the party-committee level, but it is not a simple “drying up.” Turnout is good: Democratic primary turnout has generally outpaced Republican turnout in 2026 so far, reversing or narrowing patterns from recent midterm cycles (especially 2022). This is based on state-level results, multi-state analyses, and reporting through mid-to-late July 2026. Primary turnout is an imperfect enthusiasm signal and does not automatically predict general-election results, but multiple independent reviews describe a clear Democratic edge. Broad Gen Z sentiment is… worrying? A 2024 Empower survey of 2,203 U.S. adults found an overall average salary of about $270,000 to feel financially successful, with generation-specific figures of: * $99,874 for Baby Boomers * $212,321 for Gen X * $180,165 for Millennials, * $587,797 for Gen Z. Younger Democrats (Gen Z and Millennials) tend to be more progressive, more critical of institutions and capitalism, more skeptical of the Democratic establishment, and more left-leaning on foreign policy (especially Israel/Palestine) and criminal justice than older Democrats (Gen X and Boomers). * In Pew’s 2026 political typology, adults under 30 (and Democrats under 30 specifically) are far more likely to fall into groups like “Leftward Progressives” (very progressive across the board, skeptical of the party) and “Left-Out Left” (Democratic-leaning but disillusioned). Older Democrats are more concentrated among “Loyal Liberals,” who feel better represented by the party and its leadership. * Gallup data show Democrats under 50 have become notably less positive about capitalism over the past 15 years, while older Democrats’ views shifted less. Positive views of socialism have risen among Democrats overall, with younger cohorts often more supportive. Younger Democrats prioritize issues like housing costs, student debt relief, and broader economic precarity more intensely. * Younger Democrats are more skeptical of police and the criminal justice system. They are less likely to view police as essential and more supportive of major reforms or rebuilding systems for racial equity. Older Democrats tend to hold more conventional “law and order” or institutional-support views while still favoring reforms. * Younger Democrats often prioritize climate change more strongly and support more aggressive policies (e.g., faster phase-outs of fossil fuels or gasoline vehicles), though Democratic support for climate action is high across ages. On race, younger cohorts (especially White Democra

    Black Humans vs. Gay Socialists: The DNC Civil War
  2. -1 дн.

    As Community Erodes, Women Find New Ways to Bully & Cheat

    In this episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins unpack the “Cheating Coven” — the TikTok-to-business pipeline of proud cheaters who turned affairs into a coaching brand, private community, and alleged harassment operation. They dig into the Mary Sue’s coverage of Chelsea Smallwood (“The Other Woman and the Wife”) and the lawsuit filed by a betrayed spouse after private texts, photos of children, health details, and claims of using her sex toys were shared inside a paid cheater community for mockery and humiliation. From the evolutionary psychology of female infidelity and “mean-girl” dominance displays, to the breakdown of real-world community spaces that once contained this behavior, the urban monoculture’s “love justifies everything” framing, code-switching, and practical advice for men navigating modern dating, this is an unfiltered look at a cultural phenomenon that even progressive outlets found too degenerate. Would you like to know more? Episode Transcript [00:00:00] Malcolm Collins: everybody complains that as we’ve broken down our sense of community, that it’s removed the opportunity [00:00:06] Simone Collins: for- To bully and [00:00:07] Malcolm Collins: terrorize [00:00:07] friendships, for, you know, love, for a sense of community. But it also removed the ability for people who get turned on by, like, cheating with people and then harassing their spouses from having a community of, like, mean girls they can do that with, right? Yeah. So they’ve had to reinvent these spaces for the new world of the internet. [00:00:29] Would you like to know more? [00:00:31] Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. Today we will be talking about an incident that the Mary Sue, the Mary Sue, the most leftist, you know, degenerate thing you can imagine, right? [00:00:43] As a, as a news article. [00:00:44] Simone Collins: Okay. [00:00:45] Malcolm Collins: Their title on this is what I can only describe as pure degeneracy, Proud Cheaters Sued For Allegedly Using A Cheating Coach Business To Bully Betrayed Spouses. [00:01:01] Simone Collins: Wow. I mean, whoa. I... Wait [00:01:07] The, no, th- this is peak girl... No, this is, okay, I- I’ve come to a conclusion. The, the gear has to finish processing. This is peak girl boss feminism, right? Because what you saw was a whole bunch of influencers all selling their courses, and all the courses on legitimate things, well, they ran out. And so then they went to MLMs, but then all the ML- MLMs, like, they ran out. [00:01:25] Like, they, they’ve gone bankrupt or become scandalous or people have gotten smart to it. So the only thing left for them to sell courses on is cheating. [00:01:34] Malcolm Collins: And the communities that they created, for some examples of the what we’ll get into here- Okay ... and what, what we’ll be able to take away from, ‘cause it’s important to try to learn some lesson from this, avoid this, et cetera, right? [00:01:48] Simone Collins: What’s the lesson? Maybe don’t create a course on how to cheat? [00:01:52] Malcolm Collins: Well, so they would go into the private paid community for cheating women and share stuff like stories about how they had slept with the partner while the other partner was, like, asleep i- in the bed or in the same [00:02:07] Simone Collins: house. Oh. [00:02:07] Malcolm Collins: Or- [00:02:08] Simone Collins: This is a, is this like a cuck thing? [00:02:10] Malcolm Collins: Or that they had used the other partner’s sex toys, or that they had taken pictures of the original partner that included their kids and put them next to pictures of herself [00:02:23] To ask which is more attractive in the community. Like, and th- this is what eventually caused the lawsuit was all the shared private information. But it’s a fascinating phenomenon that I wanted to dig into, that it has even mortified the Mary Sue. And it’s been developing for a while. [00:02:44] It’s been developing as a situation over a number of years. People have been covering it for a number of years, but now we basically have the full story and where things are. All right? [00:02:52] Simone Collins: Well. [00:02:53] Malcolm Collins: So Chelsea Smallwood, a TikTok creator who made being a cheater her entire platform, is now facing a lawsuit after her cheating business shared private information and betrayed spouses to further bully and mock them. [00:03:05] Now note here this is from the Mary Sue article, so you know it’s maximum lefty slop here. They’re... I, I’m not pulling any punches. And what’s also fascinating about this is, is what it really appeared to be. When they talk about bully and mocking them you say, “Is this a cuck fetish?” It appeared to genuinely be a fetish, a, a fetish around basically the other side of an NTR fetish, like getting turned on by the thought of humiliating somebody’s partner by sleeping with their, their partner. [00:03:35] Yeah ... a- a- and in that way, the paid community where they could, without judgment, talk about this the, the, that sort of heightened the erotic nature of what they were doing in their [00:03:54] Simone Collins: mind. Yeah, they seemed... They, they liked this. It wasn’t like, “Oh, phew, I’m glad I got away with that.” [00:03:58] Malcolm Collins: Well, yeah- It was- And [00:04:00] we’ll go over. [00:04:00] It’s also very funny, like what a, what a cheating coach does. Like, the idea that she would like sit down with these people and like talk them through like all the emotional parts of, of cheating with some- Right? Like, you need a psychologist for this, but somebody who won’t judge you, right? So you talk through the emotions of like, “Well, is he spending too much time with her?” [00:04:25] It’s like, well, it is his wife. [00:04:29] Simone Collins: Oh, I thought it was for practical things, like make sure that you guys communicate using this app, and if you wanna receive gift from, gifts from him, make sure that you do it this way so the wife doesn’t find out or things like that. The, no, the [00:04:40] Malcolm Collins: core thing seemed to be about like the bragging and humiliating part. [00:04:43] Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. [00:04:44] Malcolm Collins: But there was stuff on like how to get around tracking apps and stuff like that, and we’ll, we’ll get around that, onto that. So Smallwood started gaining traction on the social, on social media for posting, quote-unquote, “cheating content,” calling herself The Other Woman and the Wife. [00:04:58] She made several TikTok videos bragging about her affair. One such video was titled Things Your Husband Did While He Was in an Affair With Me. In the video, she dances joyously while bragging about things she and her cheating partner did, such as going on a trip with her on his and his wife’s anniversary and setting up a secret bank account to hide all the trips and gifts he was buying Smallwood. [00:05:21] Smallwood made dozens of similar TikToks talking unapologetically about her affair and demonizing victims of cheating, claiming it was relatable affair content. She eventually decided to turn The Other Woman and Wife into a business featuring podcasts, retreats, and private communities for cheaters to congregate and exchange tips and resources. [00:05:45] And I’ll post a video of one of her TikToks here so you guys can get an idea of what these looked like. [00:05:50] Speaker 9: Phone while he was with me, and I could hear everything. [00:05:53] Lied to you repeatedly about where he was. And again, just to check in on the video that she’s posting with, it’s her cheersing while she drinks cocktails with this music. Didn’t tell you the actual full truth when you caught him. “Technically I cheated. I will admit that. I turned away from my spouse of three years and I hurt him because of that choice, but that doesn’t mean I define myself as a cheater. [00:06:14] To this day, I reject the motto of once a cheater, always a cheater. It’s reductionist and judgemental.” [00:06:20] Malcolm Collins: She isn’t the first person to have the idea of turning cheating into a business platform. , From Smallwood to Ashley Madison to the incest spotlight on Amie Roach or TJ Holmes, there have long been pushes to normalize infidelity, provide resources to cheaters, and profit off of affairs. [00:06:37] However, normalizing infidelity wasn’t Smallwood’s only mission. She took things to another level when she allegedly attempted to make cyberbullying and harassment of victims’ infidelity part of the business, too. Chelsea Smallwood and Her Businesses Sued by Cheating Victim. Part of The Other Woman and the Wife actually a coaching business. [00:06:54] Smallwood, who has a BA in economics, has no qualifications to serve as a l- life coach or counselor. I love when leftists gatekeep around counseling. Yet her website has an application form in which individuals can get one-on-one coaching. Oh, no. You’d say, basically The Mary Sue’s problem here is that she wasn’t... [00:07:19] To teach women how to better cheat on their husbands, that she needed to be a licensed psychologist. Like, that seems to be, for them, the bigger problem. Like, how dare she? I, I would assume, actually, that a woman who spends her entire career talking about cheating would know more about cheating than a psychologist would, right? [00:07:45] Like- [00:07:45] Simone Collins: Truly. No, I- if I wanted to cheat on you, Malcolm, I, and I wanted a coach for it, I would probably go with the woman who cheats a lot, l- allegedly. Yeah, I mean- I guess I’d want proof of the cheating, ‘cause we don’t know this is all just some rage bait she made up [00:08:00] to get followers. [00:08:01] Malcolm Collins: Oh, no, no, no, no. The relationships broke up, everything like that. [00:08:04] We’ll go over it. Oh, [00:08:05] Simone Collins: okay, okay. Well, as long as she has a track record. [00:

    As Community Erodes, Women Find New Ways to Bully & Cheat
  3. -2 дн.

    New Research: The Left Hates You WAY More than You Think

    In this episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins dig into a recent study on political meta-dehumanization and the striking asymmetry in how liberals and conservatives mentally represent (and dehumanize) each other. Drawing on research published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (“Political Meta-Dehumanization in Mental Representations”), posts from Cremieux and Arctotherium, and the composite face images the study produced, they unpack why liberals tend to see conservatives as savage, aggressive, and barely human, while conservatives tend to see liberals as immature, irrational, and naive. They also examine how each side misjudges the intensity of the other’s hostility—and what that means for political strategy. The conversation covers: * Why the right’s greater empathy and openness has been a long-term cultural advantage (and how it has converted figures from JK Rowling to Elon Musk to RFK Jr.) * The dangers of treating the other side as merely misguided when they view you as an existential threat * Why kindness and inclusivity remain powerful conversion tools—while still refusing to hand over institutional or administrative power * Related findings on empathy asymmetries, institutional capture, and the limits of democratic norms when one side stops playing fair * Practical implications for coalitions, tech/AI companies, and long-term power A candid, research-grounded discussion on dehumanization, strategy, and how the right should (and shouldn’t) respond. Show Notes Cremieux: There’s an asymmetry in how liberals and conservatives evaluate one another. Liberals dehumanize conservatives more than conservatives suspect. Conservatives dehumanize liberals less than liberals suspect. Arctotherium: In the US, liberals think conservatives hate them much more than conservatives actually do, while conservatives don’t realize liberals hate them as much as liberals actually do. The hatred asymmetry is one reason liberals tend to win over time. The research: Political (Meta-)Dehumanization in Mental Representations: Divergent Emphases in the Minds of Liberals Versus Conservatives Published July 7th in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin The Gist: The researchers found that liberals and conservatives dehumanize each other in different ways, and that each side has a surprisingly accurate sense of the type of dehumanization they receive, even while misjudging its overall intensity. The Experiment * They had participants choose faces that “look like a liberal” or “look like a conservative” hundreds of times; these are averaged into composite faces that approximate mental representations. * Then, a new group of people—who didn’t know where the images came from—rated each composite face on: * “Savage/aggressive, lacking morals, barbaric/cold‑hearted” (savagery) * “Immature/irresponsible, irrational/illogical, naïve/gullible” (immaturity) * Plus general warmth and “evolved‑ness.” * Study 2 asks: “How do you think the other side sees your side?” * Again using liberals and conservatives, they changed the prompt in the 300‑trial face task. * Conservatives were asked: “Who would a liberal think looks more like a conservative?” * Liberals were asked: “Who would a conservative think looks more like a liberal?” * From these choices they built two meta‑representation composites: * Conservatives’ guess about how liberals picture conservatives * Liberals’ guess about how conservatives picture liberals * In Phase 2, a new group of raters evaluated these meta‑representation images side‑by‑side with the real outgroup images from Study 1 (the actual way the other side pictured you). * They used the same savagery and immaturity rating scales, plus warmth and “evolved‑ness.” Core Findings * Asymmetric dehumanization: * When conservatives think about liberals, their mental images emphasize liberals as immature, irrational, naïve, and irresponsible more than as savage or evil. * When liberals think about conservatives, their mental images emphasize conservatives as savage, aggressive, morally lacking, and cold‑hearted more than as immature or silly. * Outgroup over ingroup dehumanization * Reverse‑correlation composites of ingroup faces are rated as less dehumanizing than “outgroup” faces for both liberals and conservatives, even after controlling for general warmth/liking. * Inaccurate assumptions around intensity of hate * When people imagine how the other side sees them (meta‑representations), those images show the same relative pattern—conservatives expect to be seen as savage more than immature, liberals expect to be seen as immature more than savage. But liberals overestimate how dehumanized they are by conservatives, while conservatives underestimate how dehumanized they are by liberals. Discussion of the Findings on Social Media * @ReaptheWhirlSL wrote: “Conservatives believe liberals are just misguided but well meaning people. Liberals believes conservatives are either retarded scum or evil demons both of who need to be cleansed from the world to usher in utopia. This is why things are the way they are now.” * To which @JamesQBentley responded: “Yep...I’ve made this point to people on the Left, and instead of it leading to any self-reflection on their part, they usually just double down and say that, yeah - conservatives just *are* evil...So, alas, these studies don’t move the needle” * Scott Wellman posted a cartoon by @Governmentisthenewreligion Why This Matters Prior research shows that expecting to be dehumanized (aka meta‑dehumanization) predicts reciprocal dehumanization and support for norm‑breaking, anti‑democratic behaviors (e.g., gerrymandering that advantages one’s own party even if illegal). If meta‑perceptions are systematically exaggerated or distorted, they can fuel cycles of escalation and institutional erosion even when actual attitudes are less extreme. Also: * Content of contempt differs by side. * The stereotypical quip “conservatives think liberals are stupid, liberals think conservatives are evil” maps closely onto their findings: conservatives’ dehumanization is maturity‑focused, liberals’ is savagery‑focused. * This implies different psychological and behavioral consequences—for instance, seeing someone as immature might elicit paternalism or dismissal, whereas seeing someone as savage might elicit fear, moral outrage, or punitive impulses. * Interventions must be tailored. * Because types of dehumanization have distinct downstream effects (e.g., animalistic vs mechanistic dehumanization relate to different forms of mistreatment), knowing that liberals emphasize “savagery” and conservatives “immaturity” suggests that effective depolarization strategies may need to be side‑specific: * For liberals, interventions might highlight conservatives’ warmth, compassion, or moral concern to counter savagery narratives. * For conservatives, interventions might highlight liberals’ responsibility, organization, and seriousness to counter immaturity narratives. * Meta‑dehumanization is calibrated in structure but biased in scale. * People seem to have reasonably accurate mental models of the *form* of dehumanization they face (whether they’re seen as evil vs childish), but not the magnitude. * Liberals in this data expect more dehumanization than they actually receive; conservatives expect less. Episode Transcript [00:00:00] Malcolm Collins: Even in the images you can see the degree of dehumanization that, that liberals have- Yeah [00:00:04] of conservatives. [00:00:04] Simone Collins: Yeah, no, honestly, the liberal- No- ... composite face of a conservative barely looks human. [00:00:10] Malcolm Collins: What I want to point out here is- Yeah the interesting question that comes downstream of this- [00:00:15] Is it tactically a mistake of conservatives to be so forgiving and generous in our perspectives on progressives? [00:00:26] Would you like to know more? [00:00:28] Simone Collins: Hello, Malcolm. I am very excited to be speaking with you today because I saw something on X today that makes me think I should rethink my whole assuming the best of other people thing and politics in general, and I need to... I need a smart man to help me process this. So can we go over it? [00:00:48] Malcolm Collins: No. I’m done. [00:00:50] Simone Collins: Okay, bye. [00:00:51] Malcolm Collins: I am done supporting your dumb womanly mind. Well- ... not intuitively... No, actually you showed me this morning, and it was shocking. It was shocking. [00:00:58] Simone Collins: Yeah, okay. Let’s go over it. What I showed [00:01:00] Malcolm Collins: Malcolm- And it does make me re-rethink some things, too. [00:01:02] Simone Collins: Okay. Yeah, we’re gonna go... [00:01:03] The, the research is actually really fun. But I’ve... What I showed Malcolm and what I had seen was Cremieux posting on X, “There’s an asymmetry in how liberals and conservatives evaluate one another. Liberals dehumanize conservatives more than conservatives suspect. Conservatives dehumanize liberals less than liberals suspect.” [00:01:22] And he was responding to Arctotherium, someone we’ve covered, whose work we’ve covered multiple times on the podcast, who had written, “In the US, liberals think conservatives hate them much more than conservatives actually do, while conservatives don’t realize liberals hate them as much as liberals actually do. [00:01:39] The hatred asymmetry is one reason liberals tend to win over time.” Which confused some people on X, but it makes a lot of sense to me because basically if you think that your enemy is super evil and they absolutely hate you, you’re going to do anything you can to suppress and stop them. [00:01:57] Whereas if you think your enemy’s an ass sometimes, but they generally mean well, you’re n- you’re maybe not gonna figh

    New Research: The Left Hates You WAY More than You Think
  4. -3 дн.

    How Has No One Caught This In Fauci's COVID Diaries?

    In this episode of Based Camp, Simone and Malcolm Collins dive deep into the 1,141-page collection of Anthony Fauci’s private typewritten notes (December 2019–December 2022) released by Senator Rand Paul’s office. Most media coverage has been surface-level and dismissive. Simone spent significant tokens analyzing the full (scanned, hard-to-read) document. What emerges is far more revealing: Fauci’s early private concerns about lab-origin possibilities and gain-of-function research he helped fund, how the narrative hardened over time, his internal framing of expert disagreements, the evolution of mask guidance, vaccine safety signals he tracked privately, and the surreal personal side of sudden celebrity (bobbleheads, prayer candles, celebrity encounters, and more). We walk through the actual quotes so you can judge for yourself. The full original PDF is linked in the show notes. This is one of the clearest windows we’ve had into how the official COVID narrative was managed from the inside. Show Notes Here is the original PDF. What People are Saying About This The mainstream/leftist response to this is that Republicans are out on a Fauci-themed witch hunt. In response to someone asking “what’s going on with anthony fauci and his diary?” on r/OutOfTheLoop, Bignholy (who posted the top-voted comment) wrote: Rand Paul got ahold of Fauci’s private notes internal nonpublic notes from the COVID era. The current GOP being what it is, they are now trying to use that to push for punishing Fauci based on the fact that he wrote in it some things that don’t match the final statements made by the CDC back during COVID. When Fauci was called in to yet again to be questioned yet again by the same people who ignored him and tried to prosecute him previously, he flat out said that they are now seeking to entrap him for political reasons, and plead the 5th rather than play along. Quote from the article, for those who come after and don’t want to click the bloody link: “However, given Senator Paul’s obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up in his words, quote, behind bars, unquote,” Fauci said. “Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion,” he said. “Therefore, although it pains me to do so, because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.” Original-Rush139 added: “I only read through January of 2020 but he seemed convinced the market was where the virus spread not originated. I didn’t see any hypothesis about its origin. People don’t get that he was very careful in public to talk about the data he had. China covered everything up so there never was and never will be data about the origin.” Virus Origins What does Dr. Fauci write about the origins of the COVID-19 virus? Does he seriously entertain the idea that it was a lab leak? * On January 26, 2020, Fauci wrote about the Wuhan wet market: “It now appears using epi data and genomic data that the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market... Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier. Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans.” * The more striking entries come from January 31, 2020. Fauci describes a call from Wellcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar, conferenced with evolutionary biologist Kristian Andersen: “There have been conspiracy theories that the virus was given GOF by inserted mutations and deliberately or accidentally released in Wuhan... The people on the phone felt that the mutations around the furine cleavage site of the spike protein could not have occurred naturally since it would require an evolutionary ‘jump’ that they found nowhere in bat isolates. They bring up the possibility that this could have been deliberately inserted and either accidentally released or deliberately released by a crazy person in the lab, the former being the most likely.” * On February 1, 2020, Fauci convened a larger group of virologists (Andersen, Holmes, Drosten, Fouchier, Garry, Rambaut, and others) to debate it. His notes are unambiguous that opinion was split: “There was not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion. Ron Fouchier said he was sure that this could occur naturally... Also, Christian Drosten was with Ron; the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible.” * By February 6, 2020, a National Academies review he’d helped set up “decided that there was no clear evidence of malfeasance, but it should be looked into.” * Later in 2020 and through 2022 he becomes increasingly confident in natural origin, more dismissive of the lab-leak camp * Looking back on June 7, 2021, he reiterated that he wasn’t the one who raised the lab-leak possibility — the scientists briefed him: “I was briefed by them... After a considerable amount of discussion about half of the people felt that this was possibly a constructed virus and the other half were convinced that this was a natural occurrence. A few weeks later Christian Andersen got together with Bob Garry and Andrew Rambaut... and they came to the conclusion that... this was a natural occurrence.” * On May 23, 2021, after Andersen told him the NIH-funded Wuhan work wasn’t gain-of-function, Fauci wrote he felt “much better now that he is in total support of what I have been saying.” * The most revealing entry is July 7, 2021, describing a National Security Council briefing with Beth Cameron and Maher Bitar: “it became clear that the FBI has no idea what they’re talking about since they are convinced that the origin of COVID-19 is from a laboratory leak. The reasons that they give do not make any sense. In contrast the NSA gave some reasonable hypotheses leaning heavily towards a natural jump of species... I emphasized that I keep an open mind about the possibility of a lab leak. However, in this regard, I emphasized that just because two alternatives are possible that does not mean that they are equally probable.” * When the U.S. intelligence community’s origins report came out in late August 2021, he noted: “They still left open the possibility that it could be a lab leak; However, more elements of the intelligence community felt that it was a natural occurrence compared to the single component (FBI) who seemed to feel strongly that it was a lab leak, although this is based on no data at all.” * By July 2022, his private tone toward lab-leak proponents had hardened further. At a social event, he wrote that Fox News anchor Bret Baier “finally admitted that the 2 recent Science papers by Worobey, Andersen, Rasmussen et al convince him that the lab leak theory is really not true.” Throughout 2021–2022 he repeatedly vents about congressional critics (especially Sen. Paul) over gain-of-function funding, at one point writing the accusations were “totally mind boggling how they are distorting” the record. So the diary shows real, serious scientific engagement with the lab-leak hypothesis at the outset, followed by growing private confidence that a natural spillover was far more likely — a middle-ground picture, not a “smoking gun” of concealment, though Senator Paul’s framing of the release argues otherwise. What does Dr. Fauci write about gain of function (GOF) research? * Across the diary, gain-of-function (GOF) comes up constantly from spring 2021 onward — almost always in the context of Republican senators and outside scientists accusing NIAID of funding GOF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that they claim caused the pandemic. Fauci’s own position stays consistent: NIAID’s EcoHealth Alliance subaward funded work that some experts call gain-of-function under a loose definition, but it did not meet the government’s official regulatory definition (P3CO), and — critically — the viruses studied could not have evolved into SARS-CoV-2. * On May 19, 2021, he wrote: “One of the real problems is that people are conflating whether or not we approved gain of function research for Wuhan and the possibility that the Chinese created SARS-C0V-2 in the laboratory. Whether or not one agrees as to the conduct of gain of function research, when you look at the bat viruses that was studied under the grant and compare the genetic sequences with SARS-CoV-2 it becomes clear that SARS-CoV-2 could not have come from the bat viruses associated with the grant that was funded.” * Later, describing the Oct. 21–23, 2021 controversy over a late EcoHealth progress report showing mice getting sicker in the study, he wrote (Oct. 23, 2021): “Larry made it very clear that the research did not rise to the scrutiny of P3CO. In other words by our definition, it was not gain of function.” That “by our definition” caveat is the crux of his position — he acknowledges the science is ambiguous by looser definitions, but insists it didn’t meet the formal regulatory threshold that would have required special review. * His private language toward critics is far harsher than his public statements. * On one entry he wrote of scientist Richard Ebright: “Richard Ebright with his gain of function obsession is a total a*****e who is pushing this theory because he ‘wants to be somebody.’” He added: “I am terribly disappointed with Jesse Bloom and David Relman for doing somewhat of the same thing... I

    How Has No One Caught This In Fauci's COVID Diaries?
  5. -6 дн.

    Disability Reveal Parties: Society is Totally OK & Not Collapsing

    Disability reveal parties are the new gender reveal — and they’re even more unhinged.Simone fell down the rabbit hole after an autism reveal cake-cutting video went viral on X. What started as one awkward TikTok turned into a full cultural phenomenon: color-coded diagnosis guessing games, AuDHD parties, autism cupcake toppers at Walmart, Oriental Trading disability party favors, and people treating their mental health diagnoses like a baby to nurture and celebrate. We watch the videos (including the “my brain is bad” one and the completely unhinged joke-diagnosis party that ends in pure Adderall cheers), dig into the Reddit posts from people who actually have autism and hate the idea, talk about why so many people suddenly want disabilities they don’t have, and connect it to identity collapse, tax-advantaged ABLE accounts, and the pure Darwinian spectacle of watching people turn their diagnoses into their entire personality. Also: the tubes, Octavian’s perfect reaction to a dystopian AI video, Malcolm’s personal “collect the whole set” of diagnoses (dysgraphia is the real one), face blindness, and why your disabilities don’t actually define you. Show Notes @OliviaSorbo posted someone’s autism reveal party video on X and one of our friends shared it with us. * Our friend (as well as many others) observed this woman is not acting very autistic (very sloppy cake cutting) * Our friend said this has ADHD written all over it * @Americanime noted: “Pointing out the obvious, but an autist would cut the cake more perfectly than anyone. Failing to cut the cake is the reveal that she’s NOT autistic. Pic related.” (he posted architectural drawings of a tank) * @Penny_bigred commented: As a mother of someone who was born with autism, she isn’t Autistic she’s just a f*****g moron. Why do so many genz and millenials WANT & NEED to have disabilities they don’t actually have? Stealing resources, medical care and funding from the 1s that do. The Etiquette of Disability Reveal Parties * They almost always involve some sort of cake cutting / cake reveal * Though some have suggested piñatas instead * Before the reveal, guests are often invited to guess what the person has * After the reveal, guests are expected to affirm the disabled person You don’t need to handmake everything, you can get autism cupcake toppers on Walmart.com (various types, actually) and buy autism awareness party favors from Oriental Trading Company (not cheap at $54.99—they used to be so affordable!!) Go to Tiktok, and you’ll find a bunch posted: I could watch these for hours; I see why the format has gone viral * Many are coming out as two things, like autistic + ADHD, which they’re calling “audhd” * Some get more complex, with things like color codes, and at one party, guests were instructed to put colored stickers on their shirts representing the various disorders they THINK their friend had (e.g. anxiety, depression, BDP, ADHD, complex PTSD) * Parents are hosting this for their young kids (even for things just like ADHD, which it seems like everyone has) * One dad hosted a party for his kid and revealed to him that he DOESN’T have autism and he looks super disappointed * One woman hosted a disability reveal party for her friends where she announced her autism and ADHD and said she’s getting tested for OCD next adding “my brain is bad and I’m really sad about it to be honest, so if you wanna come give me a hug I’d really appreciate it” and I don’t know what to feel about it * There’s one which is particularly unhinged and funny, in which the poster’s friends make guesses about her disability that must be jokes??? Like that she has BPD, fetal alcohol syndrome, schizophrenia, “a festering hemorrhoid that has made her way to the endocrine system, her nervous system, and it has given her FIERCE anxiety” etc., and then when she reveals her disability (just ADHD) at the end they all start cheering: “ADEROL! ADEROL!” The Dark Side of Disability Reveal Parties People with actual autism not always thrilled about this Expressed by one poster on r/autism: “I’m not sure if this is the right place to put this but I was looking for thoughts. So my psychiatrist has me diagnosed with autism but I already had an evaluation scheduled and she recommended doing that as well. So I’m hesitant to say I’m have autism but would be surprised if I didn’t at this point. … My evaluation is on Tuesday. I was talking to my sister today and she shared that she saw a TikTok where someone did an evaluation and then their friend got their results and did like an autism reveal party. Like a gender reveal thing where if they cut into the cake and it’s colorful then they have autism. She said she thought it could be nice to do that and celebrate it. I don’t like this. I told her I didn’t know if it was something worth celebrating because of how much it affects me. She seemed disappointed and said it could be. I said I would know already and she said we could set it up where she found out first to make it happen. I don’t get it and am not sure if I’m weird or wrong about this but it makes me really uncomfortable. This is a thing that assuming I do have it has greatly affected me in negative ways my whole life. It’s something I’m struggling with and has caused issues even between her and me. I don’t like surprises, I hate having to mask and react as expected to anything while I’m under pressure. This is a very personal thing for me and I’m struggling with how I feel about it to begin with. I also want to get this information first not have my family know before me. Like this diagnosis is about me. I want to go to the appointment where I get my results and be able to talk about it not have my sister go instead or something. I don’t know how that would work anyway. I don’t know if I’m reacting or thinking about this wrong. Like maybe I should do what she wants to make her happy but I hate this idea. It feels really insensitive.” (There’s more but I cut it short) But they make a great point and also PARTIES ARE NOT OFTEN THAT FUN FOR AUTISTIC PEOPLE (sensory overload, heavy masking burden, etc.) The top-voted comment in response to their post was: “This is f*****g giga cringe. It’s also not upto her it’s up to you” Suffice it to say, it may be that actual autistic people don’t like this concept. Making Disability Aspirational One redditor on r/AutismInWomen posted about her autism reveal party: “Hi. Officially diagnosed yesterday at 26 years old. I hosted an “Autism Reveal Party” and though the community would appreciate it. My friends dressed up as my special interests and I served all of my favorite foods. I made everyone cupcakes and told them if it’s vanilla - neurotypical, funfetti - neurospicy! My name is Amanda and for the first time, I have Autism ❤️🧁” * Photos include her eating the cupcake, her autism-infinity-symbol-themed charcuterie board, and… Bluey-branded go-gurt tubes in a bluey cup??? Her sweatshirt is embroidered with the word: “Overestimated” * Apparently the Bluey thing is a result of her friends coming to her party dressed as special interests: * Someone commented: “Your friends dressed up as special interests? That’s adorable, lol” * Amanda replied: “Haha yes they did! They dressed as Bluey, pageants (I used to compete), a puzzle, a train conductor (who doesn’t love a train), Taylor Swift, and Disney! 😂” * Top-voted comment on her post: “Oh my god. This is absolutely precious. I would give anything for a diagnosis. It would be so validating. Congratulations! I am truly happy for you. It also sounds like you have the best friends! So sweet all the way around.” Probably not a good sign. Episode Transript [00:00:00] Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. She has spent all day refusing to tell me what we’re going to do an episode on, because she is so excited to spill the beans on this one. So what is it, Simone? [00:00:11] Simone Collins: Yeah. So, okay, you know how gender reveal parties became popular out of nowhere, getting so intense that ultimately five people have died in gender reveal party related [00:00:22] Malcolm Collins: accidents? [00:00:22] Potentially way more than five, because one might have caused that massive wildfire in [00:00:26] Simone Collins: California. No, one did. One did cause the 2020 fi- wildfire. [00:00:29] Malcolm Collins: Okay, so way more than five people. [00:00:31] Simone Collins: Yeah. So. Well, I mean, confirmed. You know, directly resulting from the initial thing. Anyway, it turns out that people feel like they’re missing out on the fun since they’re, they’re not having kids, right? [00:00:43] So you can’t have a gender reveal party well, I guess, you know, i- if you’re not having a baby. So what do you guess people are doing instead for their reveal parties? [00:00:54] Malcolm Collins: Oh my God. It’s going to be- Mm ... something really sad and scary. Mm. And I cannot believe you have- Of course I do ... put me on this. Okay, it’s, it’s not gonna be something as straightforward as, like, gender reveal for a pet or something like that. [00:01:06] No, [00:01:06] Simone Collins: that’s, yeah, that’s what you would probably guess, yeah, like a pet. [00:01:08] Malcolm Collins: Or picking a new name for themselves. [00:01:11] Simone Collins: Yeah. [00:01:11] Malcolm Collins: It’s gonna be something weirder and sadder. What is it, Simone? [00:01:15] Simone Collins: Disabilities. [00:01:17] Malcolm Collins: Disability [00:01:18] Simone Collins: reveal parties? Disability reveal parties. And I fell down this rabbit hole because Olivia Sorbo posted someone’s autism reveal party video on X, and one of our friends- [00:01:31] shared it with us, Sarah did, and our friend, as well as many others on X, observed this woman

    Disability Reveal Parties: Society is Totally OK & Not Collapsing
  6. 30 июл.

    Book "Marry & Submit" Goes Viral (Leftists & Bishops Start Book Burning)

    In this episode Malcolm and Simone discuss two massive bestsellers that took the Spanish-speaking world by storm: Marry and Be Submissive (for women) and its companion Lay Down Your Life for Her (for men). Written by Catholic author Costanza Miriano, the books became instant #1 hits — then faced years of protests, public book burnings, political demands for withdrawal, and accusations of promoting “violence against women.” We examine the actual content (far milder than the outrage suggests), the deliberate mistranslation of “mortification,” the biblical framework from Ephesians 5, and why the message resonates with so many women. We also break down where we agree with the books, where we culturally diverge, and what the hysterical reaction reveals about the urban monoculture’s elevation of personal hedonic desire as the highest good. Topics include complementary (not identical) roles, the redefinition of submission as strong foundation rather than doormat, the crisis of male passivity, why pure democracy in marriage backfires, love as decision rather than feeling, and the healthiest framing of family as a shared “Firm” or clan with collective goals that supersede individual preference. Episode Transcript [00:00:00] Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today, we are going to be talking about a couple books that became bestsellers in the Spanish-speaking world, particularly in Spain, and caused a huge controversy. So- [00:00:13] Simone Collins: Like just now? Like in 2026? [00:00:15] Malcolm Collins: Actually, they were released in 2011 and they have increased almost immediately they became the top seller on Amazon. [00:00:22] And then they they’ve been increasingly trying to ban them for a really long time. They’ve been try- doing these big things where they walk around town and rip them apart. [00:00:30] And you’ll understand why when you hear their name. [00:00:32] Simone Collins: Walk around town and rip them [00:00:34] Malcolm Collins: apart ... the, the name of the first book, which is for women and is popular amongst women, it’s not like unpopular amongst men, is called Marry and Be Submissive. [00:00:42] And women apparently really like this book. And then the second book, which is for men, and surprisingly people haven’t been protesting, is Lay Down Your Life for Her. And the- It’s so good ... they’re, they’re written as a, as a comp- I also love it too, like w- they’re like, oh, what’s asked of women in the women’s book, first of all, though you’re like, “Oh, it’s abusive.” [00:01:03] I, I, I looked into it as much as I could. Nowhere in the book is abuse mentioned anywhere, but they act as if the book is promoting physical abuse simply because it asks women to be s- to submit to their husbands as the Bible says. This is a very Catholic book written by Catholics. And I’m, what I wanna take this episode to do is to, one, go over the key points of the book to- Hmm [00:01:25] sort of, better understand the message it’s trying to convey, why this is resonating with so many women in these countries. Okay. And then go over well, and while we’re doing it, go over where I disagree. And I’d actually say that most of the areas I d- or no, literally all of the areas in which I disagree with the book, it is a mere cultural disagreement about the role of women in a family. [00:01:48] Oh. Which in Catholic culture is simply more submissive than it is in the, the various cultural traditions of the United States. Okay. So, th- that, that’s what we’ll go into. [00:01:59] A side note, by the way, the woman who wrote this is both very pro-natalist, she has a lot of kids, and she appears to be a really sweet person [00:02:08] Speaker: my four children, I’m at lesson number two. So the cat is under the table, so I’m sorry. And I, I, I don’t know the coloring the word has in English, but I, I don’t use it in a negative way. It’s a word taken from the letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians, and it doesn’t mean in any, any way being, uh, li- like a doormat for, for the husband. [00:02:37] I use it in a, the etymological sense of being beneath, , or underneath. , And so providing the support , like , a column supports a roof [00:02:49] [00:02:49] Malcolm Collins: But let’s go over some of the lines that they’ve been freaking out about. [00:02:52] Simone Collins: Okay. [00:02:52] Malcolm Collins: Lines like, “Like humiliation because it is for the greater good.” [00:02:58] And then, “To listen to your husband’s words as if God is speaking.” Now- What we’re gonna go into here is actually the first one that everyone’s been freaking out about, which is like humiliation, is an intentional mistranslation that people have been using to freak out about the book. Oh. And they’ve been quoting that line, even in Spanish it could look like the word humiliation, but the actual word is, and you’re familiar with the word probably, Simone, mortification is the word that’s used here. [00:03:25] Oh, [00:03:26] Simone Collins: come on. [00:03:28] Malcolm Collins: And so it goes, “We like mortification because it for, it is for achieving a greater good, and that greater good is to welcome your husband, and therefore to give birth to yourself again, regenerate yourself.” That is not a particularly offensive line that- How are [00:03:44] Simone Collins: they mistranslating that? [00:03:45] Isn’t it mortificación? Like, how do you like... They’re semi-cognates. You can’t... Wait, is that... How can this be? Are they just being that crazy in, in trying to freak us- Sorry, for [00:03:58] Malcolm Collins: people who don’t know, Simone speaks fluent Spanish. [00:04:00] That’s why she’s freaking out about this I’m [00:04:01] Simone Collins: just checking, but I, I don’t know. [00:04:02] I don’t use that. I use other language when I speak. So mortification, Spanish. Yeah, mortificación. Okay, so there’s no way you can misinterpret that. Like... [00:04:15] Malcolm Collins: So even you, if, if you heard that as a, as a Spanish speaker- Welcome. [00:04:17] Simone Collins: If you saw the word mortificación, what do you think it means? I mean... [00:04:24] Malcolm Collins: Not humilia- I mean, I, I, I would think of DSM stuff is- Yeah, you [00:04:27] Simone Collins: would think it means mortification because it’s a semi-cognate. [00:04:30] Malcolm Collins: It’s, oh, because it’s a semi-cognate to the word in English mortification. Yeah. Well, most people don’t know the word mortification in English I mean, I always think of it as sort of a Catholic thing. But in English language- That’s a mortified word. People use it all the time. That’s, this is a normal word [00:04:41] So in, in Catholic spiritual language or, or Spanish more broadly mortification is a traditional term. It does not mean enjoying physical or sexual humiliation, abuse, or degradation. No. It refers to the deliberate practice of denying one’s own will- Yes ... pride, ego or immediate comfort for higher spiritual purpose following Christ, growing in virtue, and loving others more selflessly. [00:05:03] Classic examples include accepting small daily inconveniences, biting one’s tongue, and accepting correction without defensiveness, or putting someone else’s preferences first. Which is kind of a great advice for a woman getting into a marriage, right? [00:05:18] Simone Collins: Yeah. [00:05:18] Malcolm Collins: Like, but what I find, what I find so f- fascinating about this backlash and this absolute panic, some of which has come from the Catholic Church as well. [00:05:27] We’ll have a few bishops here, quotes from them- Okay ... about how this doesn’t reflect the church’s teachings to women at all. And like- Mm-hmm ... no, it, it kind of does, first of all. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. But I mean, at least the traditional church’s teachings. Maybe not whatever you’re teaching. Like, whatever the church is doing today. [00:05:43] But you know, traditionally. The book really doesn’t, if you go into it, it’s... This is not like 50 Shade of Grey, which did not get these protests or anything like that. It’s, it’s literally just telling both husbands and wives that you need to dedicate your life to your partner and to being a good partner to your partner. [00:06:03] Actually, only to wives. To wives it says be submission. To men it says lay down your entire life for your wife, right? Both of which I think are, are fairly good pieces of advice. But the, what’s fascinating is that leftists, and even some people on the right have been speaking against this, ‘cause this has gone o- over the party line in, despite being a bestseller. [00:06:21] Really? Are, are saying that this book represents violence and abuse to women. What is interesting is what they are showing there is the idea of a woman being or, or submitting to her husband is the idea that they found violence in, in the [00:06:40] Simone Collins: book. Yeah, well, that, that a woman would sublimate herself, I think more broadly, that a woman would sublimate herself to anyone except her own personal hedonic desires. [00:06:52] So I mean also a woman, a woman subjugating herself, or sorry sublimating herself to God, for example. That would also be bad. Sublimating yourself to children, sublimating yourself to God. S- Anything aside from, like, your own status, identity, and comfort is- Actually- ... considered bad ... [00:07:13] Malcolm Collins: it’s, it’s funny that you mention that, because I think you just hit on something that’s very spiritually true about the urban monoculture. [00:07:21] But I had never isolated it so, loud. Hmm. Which is to say, you know, if you’re a Christian, right, you submit to God, right? Like, if you’re a, you know, Muslim, you submit to Allah. If you’re a, right, w- whatever thing you are, it’s, it generally involves som

    Book "Marry & Submit" Goes Viral (Leftists & Bishops Start Book Burning)
  7. 29 июл.

    Again A Women Is Going to Jail For Insulting A Migrant Child R____st (Who Again Got No Jail Time)

    Malcolm and Simone examine two recent cases in which white women received jail time for publicly confronting Black immigrants involved in child sexual assaults, while the perpetrators themselves faced little to no prison time. They detail the “pig” texting case linked to a migrant gang rape of a 14-year-old girl and the widely discussed “N-word” park confrontation involving a Somali man with his own prior child-rape history. From there the conversation expands to patterns of differential justice across the West, the failure of multiculturalism experiments, and why ethnic collectivism is a strategic dead end. The bulk of the episode is devoted to pragmatic long-term responses: narrowing the definition of the “out-group” to actual cultural non-assimilators rather than entire ethnic categories, country-of-origin immigration quotas based on crime and welfare data, family-level deportation for serious offenses, removal of individuals who openly advocate the eradication of other groups, reopening of asylums, and the logistical and political realities of enforcing such policies at scale. The discussion closes with reflections on political will, the difference between vigilantism and terrorism, and why a maximally inclusive cultural standard paired with maximally aggressive enforcement against clear bad actors is the only path that remains electorally viable and morally coherent.[00:00:00] Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about the insane phenomenon of white women going to jail for scolding Black child grapists. [00:00:17] Simone Collins: Wait. [00:00:17] Malcolm Collins: And- [00:00:17] Simone Collins: So it’s, it’s finally the backlash against Karens is emerging, and yet it’s, This has, [00:00:22] Malcolm Collins: this has literally happened two times where there was a Black immigrant who graped a child, and then a white woman was sent to prison after scolding them, and in neither case did the Black immigrant face any prison time. [00:00:39] Simone Collins: Did they scold them in person? Wha- was it violent scolding? Did they spank them? [00:00:44] Malcolm Collins: No, not really. So we’ll go over each case. One case was, a lot of people are familiar with the surface level of this case. [00:00:52] Simone Collins: Okay. [00:00:52] Malcolm Collins: The, the N-word case. And when I first heard about this case, I was like, yeah, you shouldn’t, like, just go around yelling the N-word at people in, like, a, a park or something like that. [00:01:00] Even, even in- Was [00:01:01] Simone Collins: this the one who, the woman who did this in a parking lot or something, and then vehemently defended it online, that woman? [00:01:07] Malcolm Collins: The trial just ended with, with her going to jail and- [00:01:11] Simone Collins: Trial? Trial? [00:01:12] Trial for using a word? [00:01:13] Malcolm Collins: Yes. I, I just told you. In a- I just... Sorry. We just went over two women went to jail. Yeah, but- how do you think this works? [00:01:22] Simone Collins: I don’t know, man, these days. I just, I, I, I don’t know. I this, this is too, this is too weird. This is very weird. [00:01:28] Malcolm Collins: Okay. But it gets weirder because I heard the, the, the gist of this case. [00:01:33] Okay. And I didn’t really think anything of it. I was like, I bet our side is blowing this out of proportion. It can’t really be that bad. I’m sure, you know, both sides, whatever on this stuff. Mm-hmm. These things are not a both sides issue. Hmm. In... I’ll, I’ll briefly describe the two cases. One is, remember when we looked at that gang grape of a child, a a young girl who was, I think 14 at the time, [00:02:01] Simone Collins: The one who was lured out to the woods by her so-called boyfriend at the time, and then- And- [00:02:06] attacked by his- And then gang [00:02:06] Malcolm Collins: graped by a group of migrants. Yeah. While [00:02:09] Simone Collins: they took videos on Snapchat. [00:02:10] Malcolm Collins: While they took videos, and then posted the videos to Snapchat, and almost none of them spent any time in jail. They got community service. Do you know who did spend time in jail after that? [00:02:18] Simone Collins: Who? [00:02:19] Malcolm Collins: A woman who texted one of them to say that he acted like a pig. [00:02:24] Simone Collins: A pig? [00:02:25] Malcolm Collins: Yes, and that she hopes he was disgusted with himself every time he looked at himself in the mirror. [00:02:31] Simone Collins: Like every day for most people online, like I’m not even like, this isn’t even a partisan thing. Like if you’re on the internet and you’re like, “I loved this movie,” someone’s gonna say that to you. [00:02:40] Malcolm Collins: Yeah, imagine if we could arrest people for saying that stuff about us online. Oh my gosh. Why don’t, why aren’t we immigrants, right? Like, let’s move to Germany or something, and then when people attack us, we just have them sent to jail. That’s crazy ... of course it wouldn’t work that way because it’s, it’s obvious. [00:02:56] I mean, it’s very obvious that them being Black or immigrants have played a big part in why the law is treating them so leniently, and their perpetrators of the crimes being white is a huge part of why they are going to jail. [00:03:11] Sorry if this is a shocking statement to you because you’re not keeping up with, well, the news or what’s been happening recently. , Across the West, this is in Europe and the United States, there have been repeated instances over the past, , half decade of crimes either being attributed to white people who clearly weren’t committed by white people, like there’s the entire list that keeps coming up or lists of,, to make it look as if white people are committing more crimes than they’re actually committing. [00:03:40] , Or, , instances in which a crime was clearly committed by an immigrant and then was attributed to a white person. , Like, , the Iraqi asylum seeker, , Jamal T living in Germany who struck and killed a fourteen-year-old Danish girl, and then the police told their parents that it was a German who did it. [00:03:56] , The Dutch police told them that it was a German who did [00:04:00] it, , rather than saying that it was an Iraqi who did it, and they explicitly said, “Because we didn’t want this to help right-wing politicians.” Now When BLM happened, I supported this because I believed that there was a systemic bias within police in specific areas against Black people. [00:04:16] But right now, and people can be like, “Well, the academics aren’t saying it.” Of course the academics wouldn’t say it. Of course ... Are you f*****g stupid? Of course the academics wouldn’t say it. You know that as well as I would know that. But you can also just look at the data that we’re seeing at this point around things like the grooming gang coverup and be like, there is a coverup around non-white crimes against whites, and that we should probably be doing something about this [00:04:42] Malcolm Collins: So that was one case And then the other case was the N-word case. So a woman was at the park with her kid, and a Somalian boy goes up and starts rifling through her diaper bag and stealing- This [00:04:55] Simone Collins: is the woman. [00:04:56] Yep, yep, yep, yep ... [00:04:57] Malcolm Collins: yeah. And she called him the N-word apparently, and, and shooed him off. And I will note here that when she went to court for this, for what she said to the child the court determined that she was not guilty. But then there was a separate instance that she went to court to, because after this happened, a Somalian guy who by the way himself had raped a child, we’ll get to that in a second- What? [00:05:21] Got up in her face and started yelling at her and filming her, and daring her to call him the N-word. Right. And after- Jesus Christ ... quite some time of being berated, she then called him the N-word and stuck out her tongue at him. This she was- Stuck out her tongue ... acquitted of. Mm. Now, I will note in court they were not allowed to talk about that this guy had raised $360,000 because this had, quote-unquote, “happened” to him. [00:05:49] It’s really something he instigated. This... And it wasn’t his child, by the way. It was a, a random other child, and he just decided to get in this woman’s face. [00:05:58] Simone Collins: Hmm. [00:05:59] Malcolm Collins: Which is really creepy, but it’s really sort of a, “You do this to anyone in our community, and we can do anything we want to you. We can just, like, we are... [00:06:07] You, you are second-class citizens in your country.” We [00:06:10] Simone Collins: can- The Karen got out-Karend, yeah ... [00:06:12] Malcolm Collins: however we want to you. Well, I mean, this reminds me a lot of the instance in, in Central Park where there was the Black guy who, like, threatened to kill the woman’s dog. Yeah, [00:06:21] Simone Collins: he out-Karend the Karen, exactly. [00:06:23] Malcolm Collins: Well, because yeah, they, they realize that they have... [00:06:25] Like, when we see these kinds of displays in public, what we’re seeing is people who know. When we saw those kids release the video of the gang rape on Snapchat, it showed that they knew they wouldn’t be punished. Yes. That the legal system existed to protect them and to punish people who do not look like them. [00:06:43] The- [00:06:43] Simone Collins: So this is a story of parties acting with impunity supplanting another party, white women, that used to believe that they had impunity. [00:06:52] Malcolm Collins: Exactly. And, and the, and the system has flipped, and people are seeing the system flipping. I mean, we saw heavy evidence of this at the Anthony trial where, [00:07:01] Simone Collins: Accerella Anthony, yeah [00:07:02] Malcolm Collins: yeah, where a lot of p

    Again A Women Is Going to Jail For Insulting A Migrant Child R____st (Who Again Got No Jail Time)
  8. 28 июл.

    Asmongold Got An Ultimatum From His GF: The Internet Is Largely On Board

    Asmongold has a girlfriend — and she handed him a list of ultimatums. In this episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone break down Kai’Sa’s demands (clean the “contaminated” room, shower every other day, get the shorter haircut, cut the sugar) and explain why the majority of the nerd-right actually supports them. Is this domestication… or a woman who actually wants him healthy, functional, and capable of having the family he says he wants? We go through every confirmed demand, compare it to how real long-term partnerships work, talk s**t tests vs. genuine investment, American cultural preferences for women with spines, OnlyFans economics, and why “I love you just the way you are” is often the most unloving thing you can say. Plus the usual Based Camp tangents: dead rats as alarm clocks, Mongolian beef in a 1700s farmhouse kitchen with no hood, Tibetan fox girls, and the eternal struggle of keeping a website online. Episode Transcript [00:00:00] Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we’re gonna be talking about a diabolical situation that the internet has been shockingly, like the, the nerd right internet, which is where this situation is relevant, has been getting mostly right, which, it makes me feel good to be part of this wider political movement. [00:00:17] Okay. Which is Asmongold has a girlfriend, okay? [00:00:21] Simone Collins: Is it official? [00:00:23] Malcolm Collins: Yeah, it’s, it’s official. It, it, it’s at least official that she’s given him a list of demands or ultimatum. And her name is Kai’Sa, and [00:00:30] I’ll put up a picture of her here. Very cute. Simone thinks she looks like a, one of those robot Chinese girls, right? [00:00:37] Like the robot sex dolls. In [00:00:38] Simone Collins: a good way. In a good way. [00:00:40] Malcolm Collins: She looks- Like maximally designed. [00:00:42] Speaker: UBTech has taken a major step toward bringing humanoid robots into everyday life with the introduction of the new You World U1 series. Revealed during the company’s twenty twenty-six global launch event in Shenzhen, China, the new robot is being presented as the world’s first full-size ultra bionic humanoid robot built for mass production. [00:01:04] It represents a shift from robots that mainly work in factories to machines that can interact naturally with people in homes, schools, healthcare, and many other environments. [00:01:16] Malcolm Collins: Yes. And people online have been like, “White guys tanking ugly Asian girl.” I’m like, if you think this is an ugly Asian girl like I, I don’t know. Like Asians have- Wait, you’re calling [00:01:24] Simone Collins: her ugly? ... nose- That’s like people saying Ar- Margot Robbie was mid. [00:01:29] Malcolm Collins: Yeah, no, it, it doesn’t make you look hotter. It makes you look f*****g insane and insecure, Okay ... ‘cause she’s very attractive. [00:01:35] Simone Collins: Yeah. But anyways- She looks like a, like a human doll. It’s, it’s, it’s kind of scary. I for me, she crosses the uncanny valley. She’s very beautiful, but in a way of like, like are you... [00:01:45] Is, is it- [00:01:46] Malcolm Collins: She, she gave him a list of ultimatums of things he needs to change about himself. And [00:01:50] Simone Collins: this is confirmed? Like did she publish it or like how did it [00:01:53] Malcolm Collins: come out? He’s talked about it publicly and it’s, it’s- [00:01:55] Simone Collins: Oh, I need to see. Okay ... she [00:01:56] Malcolm Collins: hasn’t disconfirmed it. But she puts out this list, and, you know, the, the movement being what it is, a lot of the movement is downstream of, like, the red pill diaspora and stuff like that. Hmm. You would think that the majority of the people within the movement would be like, “Oh, well, you know, she’s domesticating him,” as some people have said or something like that. [00:02:14] Like, but i- if you run a sentiment analysis on this the m- majority, it appears a pretty large majority of fans, of people aware of the Asmongold-iverse, other than Hasan, who has just been crashing out in anger over the fact that Asmongold has a girlfriend, that it’s clear that Hasan is jealous of. Hasan has a secret girlfriend. [00:02:32] Simone Collins: What? But she’s hotter? [00:02:34] Malcolm Collins: Yeah, she’s hotter. Asmongold’s [00:02:35] Simone Collins: girlfriend is [00:02:35] Malcolm Collins: hotter. And he can’t handle it. Oh. Oh. And Hasan’s girlfriend isn’t gonna reproduce with him. She’s already made it clear she doesn’t want kids. Asmongold really wants kids, and so, you know, Asmongold will be with his- I [00:02:43] Simone Collins: know. Mm. I’m so happy [00:02:44] hottie, have lots of kids I hope this, like, turns into the family he’s wanted. Now’s the time. [00:02:49] Malcolm Collins: Yeah, they’ll be b- b- b- the little, little roach kings. But most of the people on our side have actually been like, “No, we entirely support her giving a list of demands or an ultimatum.” And we’ll go through them, and I’m also of this position. [00:03:04] And I, I, I th- I think it’s useful to go through the demands that she’s making of him so we can talk through, for our fans, so you can better understand what is a good partner, what is a bad partner, and what are the ways that a good partner would engage you. [00:03:21] Simone Collins: Okay ... [00:03:22] Malcolm Collins: now, this isn’t to say that any ultimatum list that somebody gave you is a positive sign, but there are specific ultimatums that I’m... [00:03:31] I’m gonna go further here. I’m not gonna say th- this list of ultimatums isn’t something where I’m like, “Look, you shouldn’t hold that against her.” It’s, “This is a sign that she is an explicitly better girlfriend or wife material than a woman who didn’t give you this list of demands.” [00:03:49] Simone Collins: Hmm. Like, he’ll be better off if he complies with these demands? [00:03:53] Malcolm Collins: Well, we’ll go through them. Okay, so- Yeah ... demand number one. [00:03:55] Simone Collins: Okay. [00:03:55] Malcolm Collins: To clean up his room which she called, [00:04:00] quote-unquote, contaminated. And no- [00:04:02] Simone Collins: Malcolm, it’s his brand Why would you- [00:04:07] Malcolm Collins: She found a, a cockroach head in the fridge, and she found in his toilet one morning, this is a, a, the stream that went viral, [00:04:15] Simone Collins: Like poo smudged on the- I saw the clip. [00:04:16] Oh, the clip of the... That was really sweet actually, ‘cause she’s like, “That’s a cockroach head.” And he’s like- Mm ... no. No. Yeah. Wait, how did you know that?” [00:04:24] Speaker 2: Where is it? Wait, your fridge- Okay ... looks very clean. Yeah, it is. Of course it’s clean. No, nevermind. It’s- No, it’s not. Wait- Is that a cockroach head? That’s a f*****g cockroach head. Yeah, actually it is. Why is it just the head? How did you know that? How did you know that? ‘Cause there’s a little th- thing on the head. [00:04:42] The pointy... Yeah, no, you’re right. They actually... Oh my God. Why did you put it in the fridge? It’s like- I don’t know how it happened. I mean, it could’ve been five years ago. He’s probably been there for years. You gotta- [00:04:52] Simone Collins: He was, like, impressed that she was able to identify a dismembered cockroach head, which is really sweet. I guess he was like, “You understand cockroach a- anatomy.” [00:05:02] Malcolm Collins: So first of all, I, I wanna be clear. I don’t think there’s anybody who watches Asmongold because he’s dirty. The, the, the portion of his audience, the people watch him because he’s down to earth. [00:05:13] Simone Collins: Yeah. [00:05:14] Malcolm Collins: His, his level of dirtiness, just so people understand, there was a case where a few streamers went to his house to, like, do an Asmongold whatever thing at his house. [00:05:24] Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. [00:05:24] Malcolm Collins: And they apparently were, like, bedridden for, like, a week afterwards. They became so sick. Oh, [00:05:30] Simone Collins: gosh ... [00:05:30] Malcolm Collins: I’ve, I have gone to places with, like, black mold and stuff like this and experienced- Yeah ... this before. Yeah. Like, it is likely that he just over time built up an immunity to whatever is in his house. [00:05:41] Simone Collins: No, [00:05:41] Malcolm Collins: definitely. But it is almost certainly sapping years from his life. The fact that it rotted out all his teeth on his face, the fact that he mentioned that eating a burrito after he had his teeth replaced, he was really excited because he realized that burritos didn’t taste bad, it was just the rot from his teeth was seeping into the flavor. [00:06:02] I [00:06:03] Simone Collins: know. It’s so horrible. [00:06:03] Malcolm Collins: This is not good. A, a woman, when you’re at this level, who’s like, “Hey, like, let’s- Okay ... look into,” like... And, and keep in mind, when she says clean up, I think she means, like, at a base level. She’s not necessarily saying he has to keep it pristine. He just has to pay for a cleaner. [00:06:24] And Asmongold has basically infinite money. When I say he has infinite money, when he went on Caleb Hammer, Caleb Hammer had to tell him Bro, you need to be setting aside around $4 million a year to spend. It is, it is not financially sound to be spending as little money as you’re spending when you have this amount of money. [00:06:46] He can hire a cleaner, and she has shown herself to be very flexible with this demand because what he has considered as an alternative to it is just buying a second house that she would live at. [00:06:58] Simone Collins: Yeah, which seems more reasonable to me, ‘cause then it’s just her house and she can control it. I d

    Asmongold Got An Ultimatum From His GF: The Internet Is Largely On Board
4,4
из 5
Оценок: 158

Об этом подкасте

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

Вам может также понравиться