Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

NYT Promotes Regretting Having Kids (Simone Thinks It’s A Good Idea)

Today on Based Camp, we go over the accounts of women who reportedly regret having kids, as covered by the New York Times, and discuss why they’re so miserable. Among other things, we explore: * How the hardest phase is often the early years, especially infancy and toddlerhood, and that regret can be heavily shaped by sleep deprivation, pain, and the shock of being the default caregiver* How the same events can feel unbearable or manageable depending on whether a person frames them negatively or as part of a meaningful life project* The utility of thinking through failure modes in advance, building contingency plans, and explicitly discussing logistics before having children rather than relying on vague social assumptions* How if someone dislikes themselves or their partner, that unhappiness often gets magnified through children because kids reflect both parents* How online communities like “regretful parents” can reinforce misery by rewarding negative storytelling, though they acknowledge that some parents are genuinely unsupported and hurtingUltimately, parent regret is often driven less by children themselves and more by a mix of poor preparation, weak reasons for having kids, lack of support, bad partner fit, and untreated personal issues like depression, anxiety, ADHD, or body image problems. Many of these risks can be headed off by brutally honest parenting discussions, early planning, and choosing parenthood deliberately rather than as a default life stageEpisode Notes* A lot of conservative-leaning influencers are talking about an article in the New York Times, part of The Cut’s “Oh, Baby” series* Broadly speaking, they’re trashing the NY Times for discouraging motherhood and/or trashing the mothers for various reasons* Though some, like Brett Cooper, have more balanced takes: she argues that the viral “I regret having children” discourse is really about unsupported, isolated mothers and bad matching in marriage, not mothers hating their kids* I disagree with all the takes I’ve seen though* This article is great* These accounts are super important* Anyone who is serious about kids should read them—and moreHere’s why:* The best way to get through something tough is to:* Have a strong reason for having kids* Understand where things go wrong* Heading off serious issues, especially with your first child in their first years, makes the difference between hating parenthood and wanting a huge family* A positive experience with first kids was the top common factor Dr. Catherine Ruth Pakaluk identified when interviewing college-educated American mothers of over five kids* We, personally, have experienced a lot of the negative things (or rough equivalents) the mothers in this article experienced, but because we had a strong “why” behind having kids and we had prepared for a lot of the potential downsides, we were able to weather the hazardsWhat we would encourage:* Going through r/regretfulparents and cataloging all the things that go wrong* Building contingency plans for those things* We did this with our relationship—in building our relationship contract—and prospective parents would be wise to do this before having kids* I.e. build contingency plan items into a parenting contract, or adding them to a relationship contractThe ArticleThe article opens with: “Parent regret is more common than you might think — the r/regretfulparents sub-Reddit alone gets around 70,000 weekly visitors who anonymously commiserate — though stigma makes it hard to admit in real life. Below, three moms of young children talk about why they wish they could go back to their old lives.”The Cut - I regret having children: https://archive.is/BF3zn34-year-old Rhode Island mother of a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old* Didn’t have kids for a strong reason* “When my husband and I were dating, his deal-breaker was having kids. I didn’t feel the same way, but I didn’t see life without children as an option. It always felt like the next stage of life for us. I remember telling my husband, “I’m worried; I love our life now and I’m not sure what it’s going to look like with a child.””* Has personal issues which she now has to contend with in her kids (easy to be frustrated, colickey, etc.).* Struggled with postpartum depression* Perfectionist* Got diagnosed with ADHD after suspecting her oldest had it.* “When my younger daughter struggles to get dressed, I try to distract her or make compromises, but in the end, she’s screaming, and I don’t know how to make it stop, so I just shut down.”* Is admittedly in the “hell zone” of parenthood (after six, things get awesome)* She’s not wrong that parents of especially young children are less happy* But that’s not the point30-year-old European mother of a 3-year-old* Grew up sheltered with a stay-at-home mom; married at 22* Mother said she would help out with a new baby* Was constrained to bed rest in her fist trimester* Horrible recovery from birth (painful to move)* Mother and husband didn’t help that much* “My husband had a month and a half of paternity leave, but the only helpful thing he did during that time was change her diapers, though he did it with a reluctant expression on his face; I had the feeling he never believed how much pain I was in. My mom helped, but she didn’t like being disturbed at night and even during the day was afraid of holding the baby or changing her. I hallucinated from lack of sleep. It felt like I’d been tricked into this. Everyone who wanted me to have a child — my husband, my family — knew they weren’t going to lose much, while my freedom and identity went down the toilet.”* Had a history of depression and anxiety* Turned down a job offer that would require moving because they didn’t want to change their daughter’s preschool* Worries a LOT about her daughter (i.e. what would happen if I were not here and something happened?)27-year-old North Carolina mother of a 1-year-old* Didn’t want kids* “My husband and I met in middle school. He was always interested in having a big family, and I told him I wasn’t quite sure.”* Has a history of depression and is now dealing with it in her son perhaps:* “My son has a low tolerance for frustration and doesn’t communicate other than whining, screaming, crying, throwing things, and pulling my hair.”* Has body dysmorphia issues* “During pregnancy, I felt embarrassed. I’ve had body-dysmorphia issues since I was a kid, and I felt so massive. I used to be a track athlete and have always been fit and active, so I didn’t like feeling so heavy and restricted when trying to do the things I’ve always done, like hiking. During my third trimester, I didn’t want to leave the house so that people wouldn’t see me.”* Different contextualization would have made a huge difference re: body dysmorphia* Horrible birth experience* “My son’s birth was also traumatic. His shoulder got stuck in my pelvis and the epidural kept wearing off; the nurses told me it was fine, that I was overthinking. They held me down and jumped on my pelvis to dislodge his shoulder while the doctor reached up and got him out; I still have pain from it. When my son was placed on me, I didn’t feel anything. It was surreal. I told the nurse, “You’ve got to put him back in the bassinet, I’m about to puke.” Then I did, all over myself. No one helped me to the bathroom or showed me how to wash myself.”* Felt erased as a human being* “I felt like I’d disappeared as a human being. Clients called me “Mama.” Friends and family asked me how my son was; they told me how excited and overjoyed I must be. I tried telling them I wasn’t coping well with motherhood and was still processing the birth, and they’d tell me, “That’s what motherhood is.” One of my friends texted my husband, “Wow, she’s changed, and not in a good way.” It came from a place of care — she and many friends and family told me I had postpartum depression, to seek therapy and go on medication. But at the same time, they’d quickly flip it back to, “You need to be there for your son. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps. Move on; it’s over with and done.” Everything I went through, was just like, No big deal, because the baby is here. Your existence doesn’t matter.”* Withdrew from fellow parents because her son is developmentally delayed* “I stopped talking to my friends with kids. They wanted to exchange baby photos and milestones and, while I was happy for them, my son is delayed and is in early intervention services, so he wasn’t meeting his.”* Plans to leave her husband and son* “My husband and I are taking steps to separate, and he’s willing to take on the role of a single parent, which makes me feel incredibly guilty. But I can’t live this life with him anymore. I’m not the parent my son needs.”Simone & Malcolm Collins react to the viral New York Times / The Cut article “I Regret Having Children” — three anonymous mothers share raw, dark stories of resentment, isolation, postpartum struggles, and lost identity.Instead of the usual outrage, we treat this as an important warning and planning document. We break down why these regrets happen, how strong reasons for having kids + radical honesty + contingency planning can prevent them, the power of contextualization, genetic self-awareness, partner compatibility, and why the early toddler years are brutal but temporary.We also discuss:* Why hating yourself or your partner ma...

Transcribe →

What if we just... left the United Nations + NATO?

3d ago00:58:05Tap to summarize

Today on Based Camp, we discuss the purpose, history, and utility of the UN and NATO. Do they make sense in the modern geopolitical landscape? Do they make sense in the face of demographic collapse? As people who constantly rail on bureaucratic bloat and mission creep, you might be able to guess where we fall… but what do you think? We’re keen to read your opinions in the comments.Show NotesA typical middle-income American household is paying $337.50 annually on the European theatre and NATO-related missions via their taxes* Per household, middle of the income distribution: USAFacts reports that in 2021, families in the middle 20% of the income distribution paid about 10,391 dollars per year in federal income tax alone.* So for a middle‑income household paying 10,391 dollars in federal income tax, a good ballpark is about 1,500 dollars of that going to national defense in a recent‑years sense.* And one mainstream estimate is that roughly 20–25 percent of total U.S. military spending is devoted to the European theater and NATO‑related missions (forces, bases, exercises, enablers, nuclear posture)* With U.S. military spending around 850–900 billion dollars per year in the mid‑2020s, that implies on the order of 170–225 billion dollars annually that can reasonably be tied to European and NATO deterrence, broadly defined* 1500*.225= $337.50Meanwhile, what is NATO doing for us?I vote we not only leave NATO but also leave the UN (roughly $90-100 per year is paid to the UN per tax return / tax paying household—this includes lower-income households).Why NATO Was CreatedBasically to fight commies during the cold war* It emerged in the early Cold War as a direct response to the Soviet Union’s expansionist actions, including the domination of Central and Eastern Europe behind the “Iron Curtain.”* Western European nations were still recovering from World War II, and the U.S. and Canada sought to deter further Soviet aggression through collective strength rather than unilateral action.It operates within the UN Charter framework (explicitly referencing Article 51 on self-defense) but focuses on military readinessWhat Nato Does* Coordinate on defense, crisis management, and cooperative security* Like a neighborhood watch group* Participants voluntarily join* They coordinate on security and defensive action* They sometimes partner with non-members to promote stability beyond their own borders* They meet occasionally to strategize and troubleshootKey functions:* Regular consultations in the North Atlantic Council (NATO’s main decision-making body).* Joint military planning, exercises, standardization of equipment/procedures, and integrated command structures.* Deployment of standing forces, rapid-reaction units, and multinational battlegroups (e.g., on the eastern flank).* Common-funded activities like infrastructure, command structures, and some operations (though the vast majority of capabilities come from national forces contributed by members).Article 5 (Collective Defence): An armed attack against one member in Europe or North America is considered an attack against all. Each member must assist the attacked party “forthwith… such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,” in line with UN Charter Article 51 (individual/collective self-defence). The response is decided individually by each member but coordinated through NATO. It applies only to armed attacks (traditionally state-on-state, but clarified to potentially include significant cyber or hybrid attacks) in the defined North Atlantic area.* IMPORTANT: The Article 5 commitment (“attack on one is an attack on all”) is not a guarantee that NATO will always send combat troops; each ally chooses how to assist, which might be logistics, intelligence, or other support.What NATO Does NOT Do* Feature any concrete financial obligations in terms of contribution to group efforts* The treaty itself contains no specific spending requirements or percentages* spending targets are political commitments, not legally enforceable treaty obligations.* At the 2014 Wales Summit, members pledged to aim for 2% of GDP on defence (with at least 20% of that on major equipment/modernization). All members met or exceeded this by 2025* BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRIBUTING TO THE GROUP* Updated 2025 commitment (The Hague Summit): Members (except Spain, which received an exemption) agreed to reach 5% of GDP annually by 2035 on “core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending.” This breaks down to at least 3.5% on core NATO-defined defence expenditure (to meet capability targets) and up to 1.5% on broader areas like critical infrastructure protection, cyber defence, civil preparedness, resilience, innovation, and the defence industrial base. Allies must submit annual credible plans to show progress* Guarantee that members will host bases for each other* NATO cannot force a country to go to war or to host a base; participation in operations and basing arrangements is negotiated and voluntary.* Maintain its own large standing armies* NATO relies heavily on VOLUNTARY contributions from members* When NATO runs an operation, countries voluntarily “assign” units for that mission; those forces remain nationally owned and can be withdrawn by their governments.* Meaningfully enforce anything among members* The treaty commitments are binding, but failure to honor them (especially Article 5) only undermines the alliance’s credibility* enforcement relies on political consensus and mutual interest.* Any member can legally withdraw by giving notice under the North Atlantic Treaty; NATO cannot legally forbid a state from leaving.Examples of NATO members not contributing / helping out when askedPost-9/11 (Article 5 Invocation, 2001)* NATO invoked Article 5 for the first (and only) time after the U.S. terrorist attacks. Allies offered broad political solidarity, overflight rights, AWACS patrols over the U.S., and contributions to operations in Afghanistan. However, actual military involvement varied significantly:* Many allies deployed forces to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Operation Enduring Freedom, but contributions differed in scale, duration, and risk.* Spain did not obtain parliamentary approval to send combat forces initially and provided more limited support (e.g., later ISAF troops and hospital units).* Other nations imposed national caveats (restrictions on troop use, such as geographic limits, prohibitions on offensive operations, or requirements for home-government approval before engaging). These fragmented command, reduced effectiveness, and increased risks for allies willing to fight in high-intensity areas (e.g., southern Afghanistan). Germany, for instance, restricted its troops mostly to quieter northern regions.2003 Iraq Crisis (Turkey’s Article 4 Request)In early 2003, Turkey (which borders Iraq) asked NATO for defensive assistance—Patriot air‑defense missiles, AWACS, and other measures—because it feared retaliation if the U.S. invaded Iraq.* France, Germany, and Belgium blocked NATO planning for weeks, arguing that preparing defenses would signal that war was inevitable and undermine UN diplomacy, leaving Turkey feeling exposed and accusing allies of failing their obligations.This is one of the clearest cases of major members actively hindering support for an ally’s security request.Afghanistan Mission (Ongoing Caveats, 2000s–2010s)* Once NATO took on the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, some allies imposed strict “caveats” on their troops—limits on where and how they could fight—which meant that combat burdens fell heavily on a few countries (e.g., U.S., UK, Canada, the Netherlands) while others stayed in relatively safer roles.* These caveats were widely criticized within NATO as a way for governments to claim solidarity while avoiding the riskiest tasks their partners wanted help with.Recent Example: 2026 U.S.-Iran ConflictFollowing U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran (starting February 2026), which affected shipping in the Strait of Hormuz:* Several European NATO members, notably Spain, refused U.S. requests for basing rights, overflight, or naval support. Spain barred use of key bases like Naval Station Rota.* Others (e.g., France, Germany) offered limited or qualified support and declined direct involvement or a coordinated NATO naval effort to reopen the strait. This drew sharp U.S. criticism, with discussions of potential repercussions for non-supportive allies.These cases highlight how domestic politics, differing threat perceptions, legal requirements (e.g., parliamentary approval), and strategic disagreements can limit responses. NATO has no mechanism to expel or automatically punish members for such actions—decisions rely on consensus and political pressure.The US Disproportionately Helping NATO CountriesDisproportionate US Spending in GeneralIn 2024, U.S. defense spending was about two‑thirds of the total defense spending of all NATO allies combined, meaning the U.S. spends roughly as much as everyone else in the alliance put together.The U.S. overwhelmingly dominates high‑end capabilities that NATO depends on: strategic airlift, aerial refueling, global intelligence/surveillance, precision strike, and much of the nuclear deterre...

Transcribe →

Far More Famous Influencers Are Fake Than You Realize

6d ago01:00:10Tap to summarize

Simone and Malcolm Collins expose how viewbotting, clip spamming, and manufactured engagement are completely warping our perception of what's popular online. From Twitch streamers (80% of top creators allegedly botted) to music giants like Beyoncé losing billions of fake views, "woke" games with 200 peak players, Substack subscriber farms, and Kick's massive clip-spamming campaigns — the internet is far faker than most realize.We break down the economics (why botting is a rational business decision), real-world examples (Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Caleb Hammer, Clavicular), how algorithms get gamed, and what this means for discovering authentic content in 2026.Dead Internet Theory just got an upgrade.Show Notes* According to some analysts, for the first time in over a decade, bots now generate the majority of internet activity* At 51-53%* This is according to multiple reports and sources (see note at the end)* Note: Breakdowns often separate “good” bots (search engine crawlers, SEO tools) from “bad” ones (malicious scrapers, credential stuffers, ad fraud). Imperva notes bad bots alone rose to ~40% of total traffic in 2025 (up from 37%)* BTW: Cloudflare’s data (which focuses on HTTP requests they observe) shows a lower but still rising bot share—around 31–32% in Q1 2026 (up month-over-month)—with AI crawlers as the fastest-growing segment. Their CEO has publicly predicted bot traffic will exceed human traffic by 2027, aligning with the broader trend. Some analyses of Cloudflare data cite >50% of HTML page requests as bot-driven in 2025* There are literal view farms (this is one Brazilian one that was raided two months ago, in March 2026: * For any platform you can imagine, you can buy viewbots with varying degrees of sophistication, including viewbots that have widely varied IP addresses that have detailed histories, leave comments, mute/unmute while watching streams, etc.Fame is manufactured* Major music labels and artists are using botting to look bigger than they are* An example: Drake accused his own label (UMG) of conspiring with third parties (including Spotify) to bot streams for Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” to harm him. UMG called it “untrue” and “illogical.” Defamation claims were dismissed; the broader case is ongoing. Drake has also faced separate accusations of using his Stake partnership to fund botting for his own catalog.* When major companies DON’T use viewbotting, you see embarrassing situations like the pilot episode of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, which got ~16,000 views in its first 11 hours after release on YouTube. A separate report also said the live premiere peaked at roughly 1,300 concurrent viewers.* Even major viral figures, like Caleb Hammer and Clavicular, are manufactured to a great extentLet’s explore just how bad it isViewbotting on Twitch* Around 10% of Twitch streamers with at least 50 average viewers show clear, persistent signs of viewbotting, according to the most comprehensive independent analysis available (Streams Charts / Audiencly 2025 whitepaper, covering Q2 2025 data)* It’s worse for big creators: Streamer/analyst Devin Nash (and his agency) analyzed the top 500 Twitch streamers and estimated 400–430 (roughly 80%) show signs of viewbotting or being botted (30–40% of viewers as blatant bots + another 5–15% via embeds).* This is based on chat activity monitoring, user-list sampling, logged-in/out ratios, and known botnet cross-referencing* Creators argue Twitch is a platform where viewbotting ia necessary for survival; if you’re not doing it, you’re not competitive* Doesn’t help that discoverability is very lowDevon Nash on the Unit EconomicsIn a recent video, Devon Nash, a professional on the brand marketing side of the equation (he’s Chief Marketing Officer at Novo), explained how viewbotting is a no-brainer smart decision for streamers and agencies based on the unit economics:* Viewbots cost approximately $0.01 to $0.02 per viewer hour, which translates to about $135 to $185 per week to add 500-750 viewers to a stream. This weekly cost includes features like chatting and custom chat messages to make the viewers appear authentic. For a full month of viewbotting, agencies spend less than $800 to artificially inflate viewer counts.* Twitch sponsorship rates typically range from $1 to $3 per concurrent viewer (CCV), with $1.50 to $2 being the standard rate for a 2-hour gaming sponsorship. For a streamer with 1,000 viewers at $2 per CCV, a single 2-hour sponsorship generates $4,000 in total revenue. The agency typically takes 20% commission, earning $800 per deal, while the streamer receives $3,200.* Nash demonstrates how agencies can achieve massive returns by combining viewbotting with multiple sponsorship deals.* Starting with a 300-viewer stream and adding 700 botted viewers creates an apparent 1,000-viewer stream for approximately $150-180 per week. If the agency secures just two 2-hour sponsorships for that inflated audience, they earn $1,600 in commission while spending less than $400 on viewbots.* This creates what Nash calls “a money printing machine” where agencies multiply their investment several times over.Viewbotting on SubstackThere are websites that sell Substack subscribers (as low as ~$0.02 each), sometimes claiming they use “real people” added manually rather than pure bots. Whether these are organic or farmed/incentivized accounts, they still represent artificial inflation* here’s one: you can buy low, medium, and high quality subscribers).* You can also buy comments, likes, views, shares, plays, restacks, searches, comment likes, comment restack, comment shares, aves, messages, comment replies, and save as imageIn April, the Observer covered how Andrew Tate’s Substack saw its total follower count drop from 1.1 million to 980,000 after analysis of a sample of 1,000 paying subscribers found that 75% had no biography, publications, or visible activity—and half were created in a 16-day window. Investigators concluded he had imported a pre-existing (likely harvested) email list. Substack’s standards and enforcement team reviews bulk email imports and acts when they appear illegitimate.Earlier, creator Rebekah Jones lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers in apparent purges (documented on X in 2025), with charts showing dramatic drops after bulk fake additions.Viewbotting on YouTubeFake views have existed since at least 2009, with media attention by 2011 and a major 2012 purge in which YouTube removed billions of fraudulent views, including over 1 billion from Universal Music Group artists (e.g., Beyoncé, Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj).Physical view farms continue operating globally in 2026. In March 2026, Brazilian police raided a large-scale YouTube view farm with dozens (or hundreds) of smartphones rigged to ceilings, running 24/7 to loop videos and simulate views/interactions. (IT LOOKS CRAZY) Similar operations have been documented in Vietnam and elsewhere, often targeting music videos or algorithm gamingA 2024 academic study analyzing nearly 100,000 YouTube videos from over 1,000 French channels over 1.5 years found fake view removals (“corrections”) on ~90% of channels and 78.5% of videos. These corrections occur in daily batches (often around 5 p.m.) and frequently happen late in a video’s lifecycle—after most organic views have accumulated—rather than in real time. Notably, videos corrected later tended to be more popular overall, suggesting fake views can temporarily boost algorithmic recommendations and perceived popularity before being stripped.Clip SpammingDevon Nash also changed how I view YouTube discovery with his breakdown on how people—including Clavicular and Caleb Hammer—are manufacturing virality by spamming clips of their work on platforms like YouTube (see: Exposing the New Manufactured Viral Content Industry)The video explains how a paid “clipping economy” is artificially hijacking short‑form algorithms on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and X to manufacture viral influencers and promote the streaming platform Kick,How the clipping system works* Campaigns run inside large Discord servers (20–30k+ people) or invite‑only groups where each campaign corresponds to one streamer, podcaster, or brand.* Clippers pull 30–120 second segments from long‑form streams and upload them as shorts on TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and sometimes X, under their own accounts.* They are paid on a flat CPM basis, typically around 0.10–0.40 dollars per 1,000 views but sometimes up to 2–3 dollars or specific bounties like 3,000 dollars per million views for particular clips.* Payment usually happens in USDT and often only once a minimum aggregate view threshold (for example 100,000 total views across all the clippers’ uploads) is reached, incentivizing people to spam 50–100 clips across multiple accounts.Because the CPM is on top of the platform’s own ad revenue...

Transcribe →

Ben Shapiro's Crumbling Empire: How The Daily Wire Lost its Audience

1w ago01:09:56Tap to summarize

In this Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the dramatic decline of The Daily Wire — from massive layoffs (25-50% staff cuts), an 85% drop in Ben Shapiro’s YouTube views, and high-profile splits with Candace Owens, Brett Cooper, and others — to financial flops like the $10M Pendragon fantasy series nobody asked for.They explore Shapiro’s mean-girl gatekeeping, failed attempts to control the conservative movement, allegations of heavy viewbotting, outdated content strategies, and why the old-guard “Boomer conservative” model is collapsing while newer, more vital, fun, and adaptive voices (including Based Camp) are rising.Show Notes* Around May 1st, the Daily Wire laid off around 13% of their staff* At least according to a company spokesperson* Candace Owens claims that 50% were laid off* And LayoffHedge (a third-party tracker) estimates approximately 100 jobs cut in 2026 (that is 50% of the approximately 200 remaining staff)* This is their second round of layoffs, following a 25% staff cut in April 2025* A year in which they also shut down their Bentkey children’s entertainment division* So their team is down over 60%* These changes coincide with a 85% drop in Ben Shapiro’s YouTube viewership* 2023: He had over 170 million monthly views* Now: 18-28 million monthly views* Plus Ben Shapiro and Team Daily Wire is very publicly splitting from major right-wing influencers—after a long history of sanctimonious gatekeeping* And this is in addition to insanely stupid financial indulgences made by the Daily Wire, like dumping $10M on a fantasy series nobody asked forLet’s look at their rise and fall and what it indicates about the right.The Rise of Ben Shapiro and the Daily WireBen Shapiro’s rise began in the early 2000s as a teenage author and columnist, accelerating in the 2010s through campus debates, books, and podcasts.Shapiro published his first book, Brainwashed, at age 17 in 2004 while at UCLA, followed by columns and radio appearances.His national breakout came around 2012-2016 via viral campus speeches (”facts don’t care about your feelings”), resigning from Breitbart in 2016 amid Trump tensions, and The Ben Shapiro Show podcast launch. By 2018, it was syndicated on over 200 stations, peaking his influence during 2016-2020 political polarization.The Daily Wire launched on June 29, 2015, co-founded by Shapiro and Jeremy Boreing with seed funding from the Wilks brothers, building on Shapiro’s momentum post-Breitbart. The Ben Shapiro Show debuted as its flagship in September 2015.* The Daily Wire perfected Facebook‑era virality with clicky headlines and “SJW owned” debate clips, becoming one of the most‑linked news domains on the platform and a powerhouse during the Trump and early COVID years.The company hit its peak in late 2023, driven by Shapiro’s YouTube reaching ~170 million monthly views amid Israel-Hamas coverage, with revenue claims over $100 million annually by 2022. Expansion included Nashville HQ (2020), DailyWire+ (2022), and Bentkey (2023).The Layoffs* Most of the layoffs were around the Daily Wire’s Nashville, TN headquarters (and particularly within the production office)The YouTube and Facebook DropsFacebook* Facebook’s 2024 feed changes de‑ranked news and gutted The Daily Wire’s traffic, collapsing the distribution engine that had made them look unbeatable in the mid‑2010s.YouTube* Independent YouTube analytics (VidIQ and others) show Ben Shapiro’s channel views are down roughly 70–85% from their late‑2023 peak* Flagship channels sometimes have normal slumps, but online commentators like Philip DeFranco have noted this change in traffic is closer to a collapse* Social Blade data shows The Daily Wire’s YouTube subscriber base has plateaued or shrunk in 15 of the last 16 months since early 2025.* Website traffic by March 2026 was about half of what it had been a year earlier, and Shapiro has admitted that revenue is down from 2024 even while insisting cash flow remains strong relative to critics’ expectations.The SplitsDirectBrett Cooper* Voluntarily left The Daily Wire on December 10, 2024Candace Owens* Left in March 2024* CEO Jeremy Boreing announced the end of their partnership, stating it was mutual but amid public feuds like Owens’ “Christ is King” posts and defense of Kanye West’s antisemitic remarks. Shapiro challenged her to quit if unhappy, while Owens called herself “finally free” and accused Shapiro of ad hominem attacks. She continued criticizing Israel and the ADL post-exit.* Owens weaponized receipts, text messages, and live‑stream theatrics to frame Shapiro as hypocritical and captured by Israeli donors, and then rode the Charlie Kirk assassination discourse into a giant audience surge while undermining Shapiro’s legitimacy.More IdeologicalThe Daily Wire fell out of step with the dissident right and younger MAGA, especially re: stanning IsraelNick Fuentes* In his interview with Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes talks about how Ben Shapiro gatekept and belittled him early in his career, even when he was essentially a nobody* Fuentes describes first publicly criticizing Shapiro and The Daily Wire over Israel, then getting labeled an antisemite:* “I tweeted to Ben Shapiro. I said, ‘You know, I’ve never seen anything on the Daily Wire that’s actually critical of Israel.’ And he quote tweets me… And he says to accuse a Jew of dual loyalty is the shest sign of anti-semitism.”* “He immediately called you an anti-semite.” (Tucker) – “Mhm. So I’m driving to Christmas Eve mass with my family and I see on Twitter the notification comes up. Ben Shapiro quote tweets me calling me an anti-semite.”* “And then… I said something like, ‘If you’re China first, you should live in China. If you’re Mexico first, you should live in Mexico. If you’re Israel first, maybe you should go live in Israel.’ And again, he quote tweets me and says, ‘You’re an anti-semite’ that same night.”* Fuentes frames this as Shapiro deciding early on to shut him down inside the conservative movement:* “It turned out that Cassie Dylan, she had texted him earlier and she wanted him to take me under his wing… And he goes, ‘I’ll take a look.’ And so, I guess the two of them were kind of like grooming me in a sense. They wanted me to go maybe and be a Daily Wire [guy] or maybe looking me as a potential conservative activist or influencer. And so they started paying attention to me.”* “And the more critical of Israel I was, I started to get this really intense push back from the both of them and from a lot of the people at Daily Wire.”* “For them, it was very easy that if they detected that a promising young guy was going to become anti-Israel in the conservative movement, they could crush that person easily and grind them under the heel. So, they sort of were alerted, oh, there’s a precocious young guy that isn’t on board with Israel. We’ll keep an eye on him and if he gets too vocal or popular, we’ll cut him down. We’ll crush him.”* “Basically from then on, it was just this escalating series of blacklisting, censorship, hit pieces, rumors to try to ostracize me from the movement.”* Fuentes links Shapiro/Daily Wire and their circle to efforts to isolate him and get him fired:* “First they would try to dissuade me from asking questions… they would say, ‘Well, you know, there’s a really good answer for that, but you’re asking it in the wrong way… you’re asking it in an anti-semitic way.’”* “And eventually they said, ‘You know what? we’re not going to talk to you anymore.’ And these were my friends… All of them one day said, ‘You’re done. We’re blocking you. We’re never going to speak to you again. We’re never going to have you on our show.’”* “At this time I was on RSBN… And they escalated their attacks. Cassie Dylan would call my boss… every day for weeks, saying, ‘You’ll never believe what Nick said on his show tonight. It’s so racist. It’s so bad. You got to take him off the air. It’s going to make you look bad.’”* “And I would then get word from my boss… ‘I don’t know what has gotten into Cassie. I thought you guys were friends, but she is calling me every day hysterically demanding that I fire you.’”* On a clip that ended up at Media Matters: “And so that clip appears on Media Matters… and ultimately then they fired me… But the pressure in this scenario came exclusively from the Daily Wire.”* “My show got maybe a hundred live viewers every night… So the Media Matters was not on to me. They were put onto me by people in the right that wanted me cancelled.* Later, Fuentes explicitly ties Shapiro’s attacks to his own radicalization and turn against the conservative establishment:* “Looking back with that 2020 hindsight, I mean, Ben Shapiro seems like a big part of your political evolution. You went from a fan acolyte to an opponent and then just pivoted against everything that he believes.” (Tucker) – “Yeah. It was because it was this new dialectic that Trump forced… So once you accept that, a lot of the way we’re doing things becomes impossible to support or justify. The contradiction becomes apparent.”* “I realized that the conservative movement was completely bankrupt in that way. Became very radical.”Tucker CarlsonShapiro blasted Carlson as an “intellectual coward” and “moral imbecile” in late 2025 for interviewing Nick Fuentes and echoing antisemitic tropes on Israel/Jewish influence. Carlson retaliated by slamming Shapiro’s “many attacks on Jesus,” immigrat...

Transcribe →

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

1w ago00:44:41Tap to summarize

Malcolm and Simone Collins break down a viral left-wing YouTuber’s video claiming the Left would win an upcoming American Civil War. Instead of dismissing it, they steelman his arguments, examine historical parallels, institutional control, police/military loyalty, supply lines, and urban vs. rural dynamics.They explore realistic scenarios for how a future crisis could unfold (disputed election → secession of blue cities → blockades), why drone swarms and logistics will matter more than armed rednecks, and why the Left’s own demographics, antinatalism, and institutional parasitism may doom their long-term prospects.Includes deep discussion on vasectomy culture, narrative-based vs. data-based thinking, and a fun tangent on next-gen autonomous drone design for home defense and warfare.If you’re interested in pronoia, demographic collapse, institutional power, or surviving turbulent times, this episode is essential listening.Episode TranscriptMalcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be diving deep into the mind of an individual who some right-wing figures have covered recently for his crazy comments. One of the crazier ones that happened recently is he said that if he transported back to the Pilgrim era, and obviously I’ll play the clip here,Speaker: You suddenly wake up in the 17th century on a ship headed for New England. As soon as we landed, I would use the money to bribe the boatswain to look the other way while I stole all of the muskets and powder on board, and then I would march immediately to the nearest indigenous settlement, give the guns out like candy, and make it my mission in life to murder every single white man, woman and child on the eastern seaboard of the continent.Malcolm Collins: That he would kill w- any white women and children that he found after- Oh, Godbetraying the Pilgrims and giving away all their guns to Indians. Because apparently this makes sense to him, and he’s [00:01:00] also gone viral, which we’ll talk about later in this you know, sterilizing himself. But with all of this stuff, yes, I could go over how crazy this guy sounds. Which is- I think weSimone Collins: all knowsomethingMalcolm Collins: I could do. But as people who watch our channel, I try to bring a unique perspective to what I’m covering, so I decided to go through and watch his videos. So on- Oh, youSimone Collins: went down the rabbit hole.Malcolm Collins: Yes.Simone Collins: Okay. AndMalcolm Collins: one of his videos, which is the one I really wanna talk on in this, is why the left would win an upcoming civil war.Oh ... and he basically lays out the plan that his side has for winning an upcoming civil war. And it’s- Really? ... not as insane as you would think. So- Oh, they haveSimone Collins: a shot?Malcolm Collins: Potentially, yeah. Can they takeSimone Collins: us?Malcolm Collins: So it’s something that we need to, to talk about, we need to engage with. And more than just engaging with it, the reason why [00:02:00] I think it’s so important to engage with is I think it makes it clear when the right-wing alliance thinks about the elements of the alliance that are actually important to both its long-term viability and its immediate security on in the moment of, like, crazy revolution type stuff, right?Yeah. Yeah. It is- Massively misunderstanding where it should actually be focusing. Hmm. It’s focusing way too much on armed groups of rednecks, which he points out, realistically, aren’t particularly relevant if a civil war did break out. And he goes through historic civil wars to make this argument.Now, I don’t think that that’s... I, I, I don’t think the way he presents his argument is powerful, ‘cause I’d be like, yeah, but the technological context is entirely different now. They didn’t have, like, fully automatic weapons back then and stuff, right? Mm-hmm. But the, the... He does, he [00:03:00] does notice things that I think a right-wing person would notice.So let’s go into this, and he also goes into how, how probable it is, okay?Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.Malcolm Collins: So broadly, his worldview goes like this. If you look at historic civil wars, what actually ended up determining who won and how well sides were able to sort of field their assets, it largely came downstream of the existing bureaucratic and civilizational infrastructure that allowed them to recruit and command troops at scale.Uh-huh. As well as manage industry at scale. Mm-hmm. And that so if you, if you think about something like the Revolutionary War or something like this the troops that we had fighting for us were not just, you know, people who we had raised out of nowhere. These were preexisting military regiments often.Or, or they had elements of [00:04:00] preexisting military regiments within them. If you look at the you know, Civil War both the South and the North had sort of large scale e- economic and sort of civilizational infrastructure that they could call on. R- random rebels have a very hard time doing anything other than just holding land.And would they even be able to hold land in an existing context? So to give an understanding of, like, how he’s thinking about a civil war he was praising Mondame for and apparently a lot of leftists see this as a major betrayal, and he was saying that this was actually very shrewd immediately burying the hatchet with the NYPD as soon as he was elected.And he’s like, “Look, if we want to prevent ICE,” like federal government troops, “from operating effectively in New York, we are going to need the [00:05:00] NYPD on our side. We are going to need- our own thugs with guns to be fighting their thugs with guns.Simone Collins: Oh. Oh. Oh. I mean, I guess the police need their pensions to be paid, and who, who controls the pensions?So if we’re talking about, like, national versus local control, is that kind of what he’s thinking about?Malcolm Collins: So, th- yeah, basically the question is, is if society were ever to fall into unrest, how much organizational control would leftists have? We, I mean, like, when we know the types of institutions that leftists control today leftists control the huge parts of the, the judicial system in the most economically prosperous parts of the United States, huge parts of the white collar job system in the most industrious parts, you know, technologically industrious parts of the United [00:06:00] States.They control governments and the surrounding environments in stuff like cities. So suppose we were having any form of a revolution or something like that. The NYPD is obviously quite pissed at the way leftists have treated them, but you’ve also gotta keep in mind how long they have had woke hiring practices within their organization.So even though they have a bit of a, a chip on their shoulder compared to other people, you gotta keep in mind their entire architecture around them, right? You know, you’ve got everybody else in Manhattan, many of whom are quite left-leaning, who could pressure them or make it difficult for them to act independently in the case of any sort of serious split.Now I’m just giving you guys his perspective. I actually think it’s massively wrong, but I’m giving you his perspective, right? And then if I was gonna further steel man his perspective beyond what he has said, because obviously being a modern leftist, he doesn’t think AI is relevant. But,Speaker: Where [00:07:00] do you fall on the Luddite to accelerationist spectrum? Uh, I’m of two minds. I- in my heart of hearts, I think the agricultural revolution was a mistake. I think that any society with an agricultural mode of subsistence is necessarily imperial and hierarchical, and I think that basically all of our problems come downstream from that.Malcolm Collins: No ... I have argued that the core thing of relevance in future battles, even six, seven years out, is gonna be automated drone swarms.You know, th- this matters, whoSimone Collins: controls the- Absolutely ...Malcolm Collins: the automated drone swarms. And the-Simone Collins: Well, so far the federal government is, like, leaps and bounds ahead of any, any private or state-based entity I’m aware of Is that thingMalcolm Collins: I worked on with RFAB is automated drone swarms?Simone Collins: Yeah, sh- yeah. Yes.Malcolm Collins: Would fans pay for that?Could we get funding for that? ‘Cause ISimone Collins: wouldMalcolm Collins: do that. I don’t, I mean- I could, I bet I could build automated drone swarms better than the government can.Simone Collins: [00:08:00] Well, let’s look into it. I want, I want a home defense swarm system. So could work on that one.Malcolm Collins: Well, so okay, just a side note. If I was gonna focus on automated drone swarms, how, w- like what would be our, our arbitrage play?Mm-hmm. So I’m just trying to think of how you could do something significantly better than the existing systems. So I’ve been watching lots of film of like what’s going on in Ukraine right now. Oh. And you have a huge, a, yes, our fans will find this tangent interesting. I t- I’m trying to think. Like do our fans care- Yeah<...

Transcribe →

Great Feminization Theory: Did Women Break Society?

1w ago01:01:21Tap to summarize

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

Transcribe →

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

1w ago00:47:49Tap to summarize

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

Transcribe →

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

2w ago01:06:32Tap to summarize

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

Transcribe →

Courtesans & Concubines: Why We Need Them Back

2w ago00:39:21Tap to summarize

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

Transcribe →

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

2w ago01:00:54Tap to summarize

In this eye-opening Based Camp episode, Malcolm and Simone Collins dismantle one of the biggest historical myths pushed by both feminists and modern “trad” circles: the idea that women historically stayed home doing minimal work while men did everything.Using cross-cultural evidence from hunter-gatherer societies, medieval Europe, Vikings, Spartans, ultra-Orthodox Jews, Islamic traditions, Africa, Latin America, India, China, Japan, and colonial America — plus genetic evidence from modern birds — they reveal the real division of labor: women handled the majority of reliable, grueling calorie production, farming (pre-plow), management, textiles, marketing, and household economy, while men focused on high-risk, high-reward activities like warfare, raiding, politics, and innovation.They introduce the “Sword and Shield” model of relationships and explain how the industrial era, plow, and wage labor flipped traditional dynamics. A must-watch for anyone interested in real history, gender roles, and escaping modern cultural brainwashing.Episode TranscriptSimone 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. AndSpeaker 11: We must letMalcolm Collins: misogynist,Speaker 14: think this was his I all right. That heSpeaker 13: came up with.Speaker 14: AllSpeaker 12: right.Speaker 14: NowSpeaker 13: he’s going tofigureSpeaker 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: DoyouSpeaker 14: wantSpeaker 12: my own? Yes,Speaker 11: I want youSpeaker 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 dayWell, her kids are all alone at home.Speaker 14: That’sSpeaker 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- OhSimone 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 sourcinggenerally 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 childrenFar 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 ...

Transcribe →

Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

All episodes

NYT Promotes Regretting Having Kids (Simone Thinks It’s A Good Idea)

What if we just... left the United Nations + NATO?

Far More Famous Influencers Are Fake Than You Realize

Ben Shapiro's Crumbling Empire: How The Daily Wire Lost its Audience

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

Great Feminization Theory: Did Women Break Society?

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

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

Courtesans & Concubines: Why We Need Them Back

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