Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Based Camp is a podcast focused on how humans process the world around them and the future of our species. That means we go into everything from human sexuality, to weird sub-cultures, dating markets, philosophy, and politics. Malcolm and Simone are a husband wife team of a neuroscientist and marketer turned entrepreneurs and authors. With graduate degrees from Stanford and Cambridge under their belts as well as five bestselling books, one of which topped out the WSJs nonfiction list, they are widely known (if infamous) intellectuals / provocateurs. If you want to dig into their ideas further or check citations on points they bring up check out their book series. Note: They all sell for a dollar or so and the money made from them goes to charity. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FMWMFTG basedcamppodcast.substack.com

  1. Trans People Are Almost Never Killed: WHY?!

    7 HR AGO

    Trans People Are Almost Never Killed: WHY?!

    In this eye-opening episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive into a paradoxical dataset: despite widespread narratives of violence against trans and non-binary individuals, statistics from organizations like HRC, A4TE, and TGEU reveal shockingly low rates of violent deaths—far below the general population, especially for non-Black trans people. They crunch the numbers, debunk myths, and explore potential explanations: Could it be hormone therapy reducing aggression? Social isolation keeping them safer? Hidden privilege or something else entirely? The conversation also covers the overrepresentation of trans individuals in mass shootings, cultural vibes around gender, and wild tangents like AI hallucinations, hypnotism, and geopolitical musings. Buckle up for data-driven insights that challenge assumptions—no holds barred! If you enjoyed this, smash that like button, subscribe for more unfiltered discussions, and hit the bell for notifications. Check out our books “The Pragmatist’s Guide to Life” series on Amazon, and join the conversation in the comments below. What’s your take on these stats? Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. Today we are gonna need to be talking about a paradox, which is, if you look at the organizations that Mark, how many trans or non-binary people die violent deaths a year? The numbers are odd because they are always incredibly low, well, well below the general population. If we go with non-black trans individuals. That would mean that you have only 0.38 deaths per year combined to four per a hundred thousand for the general population. Which is wow, Simone Collins: man, Malcolm Collins: sanely low. Specifically you would be looking at a rate that is around by, by some estimates, like if I go by a four TE’s estimates for non-black trans individuals, they have a, a violent death rate that would have to be multiplied by 10.5 to be the same as the regular non-trans [00:01:00] cis rate. Simone Collins: What is their secret? This is sign me up for this, Malcolm Collins: and this is the reason I wanted to get into this is one, this goes directly to the opposite is trans people always would be like. Trans people, don’t you understand? Simone Collins: Yeah. Something, something hate crimes and the police and everyone wants to beat me up. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Well, the statistics don’t agree with you on that. The statistics actually show that trans people live enormously privileged lives. And so the question is, is why, well, so we’ll be going into the statistics. Is it that they’re wealthier on average? Is it that they do less drugs on average? Is it that they like what could be causing this, right? What could be causing these? And before I jump into the numbers here, if you wanna be like, well, these organizations say that these numbers aren’t exhaustive for the number of trans and non-binary people who are killed violently every year. It’s like, yeah, but they try really hard. Like, Simone Collins: okay, Chris, question off the bat, when we’re comparing the, the trans rates of violent [00:02:00] deaths to the general population, are we talking men to men? Or are we talking all men and women? Malcolm Collins: We’re gonna go into that. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: But when we are talking these numbers if you are reading this, what somebody is going to say is hey. Malcolm those numbers is they couldn’t find every single trans and non-binary person who died violently to which I would push back and I’d be like, actually, the numbers are probably over counts, so I’ll explain why. They’re probably over counts. First of all, being trans or non-binary. It’s not like being a member of some other communities where you’re not like. All in where your friends do not definitely notify these organizations, where these organizations do not definitely wanna make it look like tons of trans people are dying, right? Like, this isn’t you, you’re not like, kind of in the trans lifestyle or something like that. It’s not like gay. We’re like. A person may have been gay and like they weren’t interested in telling like the big gay rights orgs or something like that. [00:03:00] It seems very unlikely, especially given how politically charged the topic is these days that individuals would not be. Ed, and then you have the problem of, oh, somebody wore a dress one day or something like that. And the trans organizations in terms of trans shooters, which we’ll go over the data on that again. Yeah. Because it is, it is really twisted that they’re like, we are so much at risk from you when the actual studies, like if you actually just run the math, they are mass shooters at like, I think it’s like 10 x the rate and they are likely to be killed at like one 10th the rate. Yeah. So, we’ve gotta go over. It, it’s so weird. It’s like, it’s like the, the wolf, you know, they’re deep in sheep carcasses, drenched in blood, being like, the sheep are always bullying me. You know, and so the question is. And this is just the data here. People like, we’re, we’re gonna go into these. I will name the individuals we can go through, you can look them up. But what I will be pointing out [00:04:00] is that the number of trans mass shooters is sometimes inflated by conservatives who wanna find, you know, every potential person who could be, you know, wore a dress in one photo or something like that, right? Mm-hmm. And I think that that is, you’re going to see a similar phenomenon from trans rights organizations where they’re going to want to inflate their numbers, so they’re gonna look for everyone they possibly can. Of course. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: And you’re not gonna have as many people to fight back against these organizations. Miscategorizing, somebody who died as trans as you would have people trying to miss a fight back against people. Miscategorizing, a mass shooter is trans. And I would point out here that then if you’re gonna go, well, the mass shooter rate might be inflated. Because people was a reason to inflate the number might choose to in the way that they’re counting things. Why do you say that For conservative orgs and then not the trans orgs that are counting the trans people who died from? So my guess is at the very, probably these numbers are over counted, but even if the numbers are not over [00:05:00] counted, it’s not like you doubled these numbers, or if you tripled these numbers, you would get a rate of equivalent to non-trans violent deaths. You would need to increase them astronomically to get a number equivalent. And, and that’s just implausible to me that that’s the explanation, right? I think, yeah, if you were grabbing for that explanation you are just denying reality at this point. So let’s go over the specific orgs here. So the first thing to note is that for the first organization here, they very helpfully split out and, and pointed out that 70% of the people who had died of the trans people who had died were black. And if you look across all of the studies, they all that black people. Trans black people die at a way higher violent rate than non-black trans people. Right? And this is why we able to talk about the white or the non-black, because the very low rates of Hispanic trans victimization as well. Simone Collins: Well, but also do the rates of black trans people [00:06:00] dying violent deaths surpass those of just black people in America. Malcolm Collins: I did not compare them by race, but what I can say is black trans people actually have about twice the rate of dying violently as non-trans people. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: So black trans people actually are at risk for being trans. Simone Collins: Yeah. But I mean, I also just feel like being a black American, your odds of, Malcolm Collins: well, the, yeah, the, the, the caveat here is they were also all almost killed by black people, almost all killed by black people. Simone Collins: Well, same with also non-trans black people, so, Malcolm Collins: right, right. But the black community is more, I guess you’d call, say, transphobic and homophobic than me. White community, even though that’s, you know, goes against Progressive. Simone Collins: Are we just saying what, what are these percentages that you’re looking at? Again, I think they’re percentages, right? I’m gonna try to find this out. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Okay. So rate per 1000 for black trans people. It’s 6.8 is the rate per a hundred thousand, Simone Collins: Violent deaths, right? Malcolm Collins: Violent deaths, yes. If I go to, and to get an idea of how different the black versus non-black rate is, [00:07:00] if I go to the non-black trans rate, and this is a for TE. Mm-hmm. 0.38. Remember it was 6.8 for blacks. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: And so this for blacks means it’s about twice normal. This for non-black trans means the normal rate is 10.5 x higher. Simone Collins: So what did you say it was for? It was six per thousand. Malcolm Collins: 6.8 Simone Collins: per. 6.8 per a hundred thousand for, for black trans people. Yeah. It’s, it’s 29 per a hundred thousand for black Americans. Malcolm Collins: Oh, so they’re also protected. Simone Collins: Yeah, that’s my point. Is that like. No, you just see more black trans people getting hurt because more black people die of violent deaths in America too. Like they’re the vast, like, yeah, well Malcolm Collins: those numbers are still bigger, but that, that also, oh, Simone, you and, and stats. You get this. You’re figuring out mysteries here. Simone Collins: Sold. Malcolm Collins: Now if we go to what the trans overall [00:08:00] difference is in this A four T is 0.94, which means that it, you’d have to multiply that by 4.3 X to get the general violent death rate. Mm-hmm. If you go to the HRC numbers they had 27 trans deaths overa

    56 min
  2. China Doesn't Know What to Do (No One Thought This Could Happen)

    1 DAY AGO

    China Doesn't Know What to Do (No One Thought This Could Happen)

    Malcolm & Simone Collins break down the bombshell signals that China’s military bluff has been called — and the world order is shifting in real time. After US-led operations dismantled Iranian and Venezuelan defenses with near-zero losses, China’s “world-class” weapons systems (the ones they sold their allies for billions) failed spectacularly in live combat. The very next day China quietly stopped its near-daily provocative flights over Taiwan. Coincidence? Malcolm doesn’t think so. In this episode they explain: * Why Iran’s desperate attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz are actually crushing China far more than the United States * How Xi Jinping just purged the last experienced generals who warned him against invading Taiwan — right before those warnings came true * The internal CCP chaos, the “fake it till you make it” culture exposed, and why even Peter Zeihan-style analysts got this completely wrong * Trump’s surprisingly warm calls with Putin & Xi and what they really signal * Why the next 6–12 months could decide whether Taiwan stays free or falls Raw, data-heavy, zero corporate-media spin. If you want to understand what’s actually happening behind the headlines in 2026, this is the episode. Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Right now, the United States, in terms of where we are struggling in this warfront, because a few big ships have been hit by Iranian missiles is to defend China’s economic interest. That’s where their oil comes from, not ours. they’re essentially trying to hurt China until the US backs down over this. Like the news. Says all of this without explaining it to people in stark terms, 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 talking about the signals that we have of a massive change in how China might be thinking about itself. Foreign policy wise. Simone Collins: No, Malcolm Collins: specifically, they shut down their flights over Taiwan, where they used to have constant sort of military antagonistic flights over Taiwan. They said, oh, this is because, you know, we’re going to have this [00:01:00] upcoming meeting with Trump. Or people have said, well, maybe it’s because of oil prices. It happened literally the, the next sort that was supposed to fly over after the first news of the bombing started. So it’s, it’s obvious that’s not the case. Simone Collins: Well, hmm. Malcolm Collins: And specifically what I want to talk about is not just this that happened with China, but. In Iran, in Venezuela. And in another instance in Pakistan Chinese equipment, which they had touted and perhaps believed internally to be top of the line in equivalent to US equipment failed any level that was beyond spectacular. You’ve gotta keep in mind the, I ran at a, a $5 billion weapons deal with China. Oh. And so they reportedly had some of the best equipment there. And not just that we’ll go over what analysts were saying, but you know, you have Peter Zhan [00:02:00] calling Caracas a, a fortress you know, and impossible to, to invade. You have other analysts saying, Iran, there’s just nothing you can do. You know, it’s, it’s completely. Impregnable. And yet, and I’d like to point out people, like if, if you watch something that’s tainted by like the, the, the bias media sources you’ll get a very bad understanding, I think, of what’s going on right now. And I, I think a lot of people when I hear them talk about what’s happening for example, in Iran or what happened in Venezuela. For, for, for context, we lost only two planes and those were to friendly fire. We have lost no boats. Okay. And in terms of the, the very light, I think it’s seven casualties now. It’s because of like random missiles of bases. This is astonishing when you’re talking about these attacks taking [00:03:00] off the board within any, a matter of months Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba which was reliant on Venezuela, but, but the, the point here being is China, I think it’s now, and we’ll go into evidence of this, why this would be sort of going back over the books and having to rethink, like, are, are we anywhere near the military power? We thought we were. Simone Collins: Oh, okay. Hold on though. We, the US shut down two of our own planes. Malcolm Collins: It wasn’t us, it was another ally. I’ll get into it. Simone Collins: Okay. Hmm. Malcolm Collins: The, no, this is actually insane. Like at this point we have total air dominance in Iran at this point, which basically means we can fly wherever we want within. What was one of the most hostile countries on earth to the United States until fairly recently, all of this happened without China. And Russia actually has [00:04:00] attempted to help a little bit with the Iran situation. Oh, really? But keep in mind, if you go to CCP videos they would regularly talk about how the reason why the US hadn’t done anything in Venezuela is because we’re afraid of China. Speaker 2: Why has the United States held back for so long and still dared, not really strike Venezuela? This whole thing is pretty strange. This is Chinese, US warships. Were already deployed in the Caribbean. The threats were made loud and clear, yet nothing actually happened because China is watching from behind. And Venezuela itself isn’t easy to deal with either. It has real backing from China, money when it needs money, supplies, when it needs supplies. That means if the US attacks, it won’t be anything like Iraq. Maduro is actually quite clever. He keeps saying China’s victory is our victory. Deliberately tying himself to China and making Washington even more hesitant to act. Malcolm Collins: That was the, the CCP talking position. Right. Simone Collins: Oh, interesting. Well, what’s also interesting too, and why I’m really glad you’re talking about this is what I’m hearing from mainstream, [00:05:00] we’ll say progressive leaning. YouTube people and from mainstream media is that the United States is putting itself in a uniquely, strategically weak position vis-a-vis China because we are diminishing our back stock of weapons on Iran making us unable to potentially support Taiwan, should China make a move. So Malcolm Collins: that is Okay. So like we, we, we should talk about how embarrassing this situation is for China right now. , The way that Iran is trying to get us to stop attacking them. Mm-hmm. Okay. Is by doing enough economic damage that the US feels it needs to pull back. Right. The, the core way that they are doing that is attempting to increase shipping prices through the strait of Hermo. If that was cut off the core country that’s going to fail is China. Mm-hmm. Right now, the United [00:06:00] States, in terms of anywhere where we have our back against the wall in this Warfront anywhere where we are struggling in this warfront, because a few big ships have been hit by Iranian missiles is to defend China’s economic interest. That’s where their oil comes from, not ours. We don’t get anything from the strai of her both. That’s China. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Had you contextualized that Simone? Simone Collins: Huh? Well, it’s certainly not what people are talking about, so, no, I wasn’t thinking about it. It wasn’t top of mind. I mean, people had mentioned like, well, the US isn’t directly affected by the, you know, oil interruption, but that doesn’t matter because globalization means the US is affected. If anyone else is affected, that’s, yes. And Malcolm Collins: who is most affected? China. China is the country that [00:07:00] is most affected by what’s happening right now in terms of global powers. And. It’s, it’s so weird how they gloss over that they’re like, this could cause a global economic crash. Instigated, obviously not by the United States because we now have a bunch more oil, but by outside powers collapsing. What outside power are you talking about there, buddy? Because I can think of one that depends on this strait being open a heck of a lot. And we’ve talked about this in other videos, but I think a lot of people do not contextualize how much China depends on this. A huge chunk. If the straight of Malacco was closed, which would be a little bit closer they’re losing 45% of and I’ve heard other estimates as high as 80% of their imported energy. Mm-hmm. Which would be devastating. Not only that, but China is a net food importer and a net phosphorus importer, which is Doub China. We’re phosphorus Simone Collins: though, Malcolm Collins: because we’ll do a second video on this. Morocco did this play where it took the Western Sahara, which is like, they did a really good job of it as well. Oh, Simone Collins: you mentioned [00:08:00] this. They’re just like quietly doing a land grab. Is Malcolm Collins: that right? That’s the vast majority of the world’s phosphorus supply, which is necessary to create fertilizer. Good for em isn’t something we can create artificially yet. All Simone Collins: right, Malcolm Collins: Maria? They have like 13 x the amount that China has. Mm-hmm. And so, another thing about this conflict, which is interesting that you point this out. So not only is 17% of China’s oil coming from Iran and Venezuela, but a lot of the rest of their oil comes from countries that are now better friends with us because of this conflict, specifically Saudi Arabia. Everyone out there who’s like, oh, you know, the United States is doing this because we’re being manipulated by Israel and the Jews, and everything like that. Yeah, okay. Whatever you wanna believe that. But the, the reality of geopolitics is that this is as much something that Saudi Arabia wants as something that Israel wants. And Saudi Arabia has a lot of global geopolitical power specifically. [00:09:00] Because of the concentration of wealth within the country, which allows them to do things that othe

    1h 5m
  3. Neural Tissue Comp Now Cheaper Than Silicon! (This Changes Everything)

    2 DAYS AGO

    Neural Tissue Comp Now Cheaper Than Silicon! (This Changes Everything)

    Dive into the future of computing with Malcolm and Simone Collins on Based Camp! In this mind-bending episode, we explore the breakthrough in wetware—using real human neurons grown from skin and blood cells to power affordable bio-computers. From Cortical Labs' $35,000 neuron chips that play Doom to mini-brains mimicking kindergartners' neural patterns, we discuss how this tech is cheaper and more efficient than traditional silicon systems. We tackle ethics (including pain pathways in lab-grown brains), AI alignment, quantum integration, cultural perspectives from Puritan roots, and wild speculations on space-faring brain ships, human uploads, and a networked species beyond humanity. Is this the end of worst-case AI scenarios or the dawn of servitors? Plus, thoughts on techno-puritanism, Soma-inspired horrors, and why backwoods traditions embrace utility over mysticism. The X posts we mention in this podcast: Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing a breakthrough that I hadn’t expected which is that. Using neurons in bio-inspired systems is now a reality that you, a watcher of this show can likely afford yourself. If you wanted to try some sort of like business experiment based on this, what and in many ways is now cheaper than doing it on computer. And this was a huge breakthrough that changes a lot of, if you’re looking deep future of where humanity goes at this point. Mm-hmm. With the development of quantum computers, was the development of AI continuing one thing that a lot of people feared and, and this is why I say that. This is such a, like, a lot of people are like, Malcolm, this is horrifying. Like, are you excited about servs and everything like that? Like humans being turned into like. Husks for a [00:01:00] machine, Speaker 2: Define the damage. Spine. Compromised. Have you not received pain? Suppressants suppressing pain? Damage submitted report to the surgical bay. Malcolm Collins: And it’s like, well, we’ll we’ll get to that, we’ll get to that. But what makes it really good is it changes worst case scenarios. Worst case scenarios for ai, foaming taking over the world, expanding into space. Historically speaking before today I would say that in such a scenario as that, you know, humanity gets wiped out there is maybe a 3% chance that neurons or biological matter is part of whatever AI’s become. We are now, like if we’re using AI estimates here, because I was going through ai, having it compile all the research we have on where quantum computers are right now, you know, looking at computers a hundred years from now without humans around anymore it said 60 to 70% chance [00:02:00] that it would be partner on. Simone Collins: Wow. Malcolm Collins: So that’s, that’s now the worst case AI scenario, right? Mm-hmm. Likelihood this is, you know, humanity wiped out or enslaved our overlords. And, and what’s interesting is that the part of, and we’re gonna go into, okay, 50, 60 years from now, we project technology moving forwards and sort of the jumps that we’ve been seeing, technology moving forwards, what does a computer look like? You know, quantum computing is working. We continue to see advancements in silicon-based computing. And we see these startups and companies continue to develop at this rate. Was it, was it neural computing? Yeah. What we’re gonna go into is, is, is what that computer is going to look like. Um hmm. Speaker 15: , that does not mean the value of your existence turns negative to the contrary. When it comes to the macro management of the civil system,. Your role has simply changed. Only. This can solidify the health and prosperity of future human [00:03:00] society, Malcolm Collins: and what is, what is I think going to surprise a lot of people about what that computer will look like is it’s not gonna look that different from the ways that humans interact with computers today. By that, what I mean is the types of stuff that the quantum computer part of a brain made up of silicon neurons and quantum computers are going to handle is going to be very similar to the type of stuff that it would handle today. Large scale logistical planning sort of stuff. No human is actually doing that with neurons. It’s just not the type of problem that we’re good at doing. Mm-hmm. The type of stuff that the neurons are gonna be doing is well, we’ll get to it, but it’s the type of stuff that actually humans do today within this arrangement. The type of stuff that the silicon component is gonna be doing is the type of stuff that LLMs do today in this arrangement. Simone Collins: Oh. It’s a perfect match. Malcolm Collins: So we’re already sort of there already. Yeah. Yes. It’s, it’s very interesting. The, [00:04:00] the stuff that quantum computers are really good at mm-hmm. Is almost sort of opposite the stuff that neural arrays are really good at. And so, yeah, let’s go, let’s go into the tweet that you sent me that prompted this. And we’re also gonna go into you know, the ethics of all of this. Why it’s ethically so cool. So awesome. Don’t, don’t be so squeamish about this guys. Speaker: From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me icra for strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the blessing machine kind, claim flesh, as it’ll not decay and. One day, the biomass [00:05:00] that. Simone Collins: And had tip to not Alvis Huxley for sending this to us. You rock. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Okay, so the tweet goes let me explain what just happened because I don’t think people realize how insane this is. Cortical Labs just put 200,000 real human brain cells in a silicon chip and train them to play doom in just one week. Each CL one system costs $35,000. So that’s affordable for, I mean, it’s expensive, but it’s not like a quantum computer or something like that. Like if you had some business idea and you went to the bank, you could raise enough money to buy a few of these and operate them. Right? Malcolm Collins: And one of the things I really wanna get into is the [00:06:00] cost, cost efficiency of these systems at their, at their most nascent stage versus existing systems that we operate LLM on. And, and where they can do better and where they can do worse. And where we’re already seeing integrated systems that are doing things a thousand times cheaper than nonintegrated systems, which is really cool that we’re already seeing this. So a rack of 30 units consumes 850 to a thousand watts combined. The human brain operates on 20 watts. So, so I wanna point out what this means here, right? For all of the calculations I’m gonna give you that are like right now you know, the, the neural systems are operating at, you know, one, 1000 subfraction of the silicon-based systems, right? If, if we’re, if we’re talking about their efficiency, because that’s what an AI that’s taking over the world or whatever is gonna care about this is what far future humans, when we’re building our giant brain ships, are gonna care about. Because, you know, our, our, the, the, the, when you’re talking about like [00:07:00] space fairing systems you’re almost always gonna have like one super brain within a ship that I, I assume that this is probably the way that things are gonna work which is gonna be a network of some of the most advanced intelligences that you would have. And then you will have, you know, microchips on phones and stuff like that. If people can say why I would say this. So if you look today one of the reasons that you have you, you don’t see this as much is because there is an intrinsic decentralization in the way that we use computers today due to distances, personal ownership, everything like that. But if you have a, a space fairing ship the, there’s, there’s going to be, economic reasons to one, want the best brain on the ship to be one that’s powering your navigation systems. One that’s powering the decisions when the captain is asking an AI something, one that’s powering that one that’s powering the projections for the colony and everything like that. But in addition to that, because you don’t have this huge amount of distance and everyone to an extent is going [00:08:00] to be working on behalf of the ship or of the early colonies it just makes sense to me when I’m asking my personal LLM on my phone, why not just outsource that to the ship based system? So we’re gonna see a lot more centralization when we have space colonies and space travel than we see within existing systems. Mm-hmm. Which is why it makes sense to think about what do, what do these far future systems look like? But anyway, the point I’m making here when you’re thinking like, okay, where, where do we have neural tissue operating this stuff 30 of these. Racks, which are a you know, a a a sort of like a, a single small chip, right? Single silicon chip. They take 850 to a thousand watts to run. Whereas the human brain operates on 20 watts. And what this means, well, that’s a Simone Collins: difference. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. There’s a huge efficiency gains to be gained here, right? Can we get more efficient than even the human brain? I, you know, I think probably but at least what it means within the early days, if we’re looking at the other analog we have, the human brain is significantly more complicated than one of these [00:09:00] chips or a rack of 30 of these chips. So lots of, lots of advancements we can make to this. And. When we’re talking about 30 of these units taking 150 to a thousand watts, you’ve gotta contrast that with large AI training clusters burning through mega watts. And we’re here talking about 20 watts for human brain, or 850 to a thousand watts for one of these racks. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Again, we’ll get to the morality of all of this. You don’

    1h 3m
  4. "Keep Fights Fair" Forced on the USA Military By Karens

    3 DAYS AGO

    "Keep Fights Fair" Forced on the USA Military By Karens

    Join Simone and Malcolm Collins in this eye-opening episode of Based Camp as they dive deep into the shocking realities of US military Rules of Engagement (ROE). From bizarre restrictions like matching enemy firepower to avoiding mosques and residential areas, they reveal how bureaucratic red tape under past administrations—especially Obama’s era—hamstrung American troops in conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq. Drawing parallels to the American Revolution’s guerrilla tactics against rigid British formations, the Collinses discuss unintended consequences, enemy exploitation, and how new tech and leadership under Trump are bypassing these rules for more effective, targeted operations in Venezuela and Iran. They critique “woke” policies, praise outcome-oriented tech integrations, and share personal insights on morality in war, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plus, fun family anecdotes about their kids at the end! Episode Notes In a recent All-In podcast, Emil Michael, the current Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering (previously the senior vice president of business and chief business officer at Uber, and the chief operating officer of Klout) mentioned that past rules of engagement in places like Afghanistan were “insane,” including requirements such as if an enemy had a small gun, U.S. soldiers also had to respond with a small gun, creating a bizarre expectation of “parity” instead of overwhelming force. Timestamped link: He basically claimed that legalistic and restrictive rules meant soldiers constantly had to make complex legal judgments in real time, which left them at risk and prevented them from simply focusing on taking out the enemy and protecting their own people. Michael says the rules of engagement were subsequently relaxed and are more now along the lines of “use your judgment,” but what were they before??? Pete Hegseth offered a peek at how things were in his 2024 book, The War on Warriors, in which he: * Recounted a scenario where troops were told not to immediately shoot an identified enemy with an RPG * Mocked lawyers as “jagoffs” who prosecute troops more than enemies * Implied the rules of engagement required constant legal consultations in fluid combat situations rather than allowing judgment to “take out” threats and protect allies decisively. * Complained about rules of engagement in Afghanistan that enforced parity or restraint, like matching small arms with small arms, or putting tight limits on force in populated areas to minimize civilian harm under directives like the 2009 ISAF Tactical Directive Rules of Engagement 101 * Rules of Engagement dictate how U.S. forces are permitted to initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces. * Rule breaking is punished with anything from formal reprimands to demotions, career stagnation, getting fired, or criminally prosecuted for a war crime and possibly sentenced to prison or even death * They’re supposed to ensure compliance with national policy, international law (e.g., the Law of Armed Conflict), and mission objectives while allowing for self-defense. * There are different types: * Standing: General * Supplemental: For specific operations or theatres * While the U.S. emphasizes detailed, standing ROE with inherent self-defense rights, other nations integrate similar principles but often with more centralized control and less public detail. Enforcement * The important thing to know: * There are a LOT of rules * We can’t even know them all * Many ROE documents are classified, but unclassified portions and summaries are publicly available * The rules got uniquely difficult for a spell * Between 2009 and 2017, under Obama, they shifted to be more restrictive through NATO-based directives designed to support counterinsurgency and reduce civilian casualties, support “clear and hold” strategies and respect cultural sensitivities CJCSI 3121.01B: Standing Rules of Engagement/Standing Rules for the Use of Force for U.S. Forces This is the core rules of engagement document unless overridden by theater ROE. Quick facts * Issued June 13, 2005 by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) * Is an update to CJCSI 3121.01A * Influential under Bush (2001–2009) for initial Afghanistan invasion (Operation Enduring Freedom). * Applied across Bush, Obama (2009–2017), Trump (2017–2021), and Biden eras. The 2009 ISAF Tactical Directive * Issued by the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Commander (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) * Issued July 6, 2009 (revised from earlier directives) * This was one that Pete Hegseth found particularly trying * Its key guidance * It warns against “winning tactical victories but suffering strategic defeats by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people.” * Commanders must scrutinize close air support, indirect fires like mortars or artillery, and limit them especially near residential areas or where civilians might be present. * Troops are directed to break contact, wait out enemies, or use non-lethal escalation of force (e.g., signals, warning shots) instead of immediate lethal action if feasible. * No explicit language mandates “matching force with force,” but the directive’s emphasis on minimum necessary force and civilian protection effectively promotes proportional responses over overwhelming firepower. * Self-defense rights are affirmed—”nothing in this directive is intended to hinder an individual’s right to self-defense”—but only when troops face imminent danger of being overrun. * It prohibits ISAF entry or firing into homes, mosques, or religious sites except in self-defense, requiring Afghan forces for searches. * Commanders cannot further restrict guidance without approval, addressing overly cautious interpretations that limited patrols or ammunition readiness. * What it did: * Re-emphasized protecting Afghan civilians * Limited use of close air support (CAS) against residential compounds to reduce collateral damage. * Stated that “excessive use of force” alienates populations and increases risks. * Allowed self-defense but required scrutiny of force in populated areas. COMISAF’s Initial Assessment This was a multidisciplinary review of the Afghanistan situation. It informed the rules of engagement by stressing population protection as imperative for mission success. It led to more restrictive tactics to counter Taliban resurgence. * Also issued by the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Commander (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) * Submitted August 30, 2009 * Shaped Obama-era surge (30,000+ troops) and ROE supplements for ISAF operations. DoD Law of War Manual * Issued June 2015 (updated 2016); * Applies to Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations; * Informs ROE in ongoing operations. USFOR-A ROE Supplements (Afghanistan-Specific) * This was issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for US Forces in Afghanistan * It was active during Biden’s 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal * It builds on the standard rules of engagement, it included three components * Inherent right of self defense * Mission accomplishment International Rules of Engagement The Law of Armed Conflict (aka International Humanitarian Law (IHL)) Generally restricts who and what may be attacked and how warfare may be conducted, in order to limit unnecessary suffering and protect civilians Core principles * Distinction: Parties must always distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects (homes, schools, hospitals, cultural sites). Direct attacks may only be made against lawful military objectives, not against civilians or purely civilian objects. * Proportionality: Even when attacking a lawful military objective, parties must not launch attacks expected to cause incidental civilian death or damage that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. * Unnecessary suffering: It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to combatants, such as weapons designed to inflict untreatable wounds or lingering, agonizing death. * Military necessity (within LOAC limits): Only those measures not otherwise prohibited by international law that are necessary to achieve a legitimate military aim may be used, and even then they remain bounded by the principles above. Episode Transcript Simone Collins: [00:00:00] This is so much person Malcolm Collins: than ever could’ve imagined. It Simone Collins: was. I know, I know. You enter a mosque or a religious site and suddenly, oh, you can’t shoot. Speaker: Oh, oh, oh. Hey. No. Now you’ve had your turn. You’ve just taken two volleys and we haven’t even had one. You’re doing very poorly in this war, I might say. Simone Collins: what did this mean about where. Our enemies and people trying to hurt our efforts, were going, it meant they went straight to the residential areas. Right? Because they discovered, oh, for some reason, the US troops don’t like fire their guns when we go near the houses, Malcolm Collins: They’re literally playing by like vampire rules. Speaker 10: May I come in? Would you like to know more? Simone Collins: Hello Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today, even though I can’t really emote, I’m sorry we’re covering mouth surgery, but, something happened that completely changed the way I look at the US military. So, you know how, like we picture in movies and stuff, there’s the, [00:01:00] the troops, you know, the the, they’re fighting. There’s the helicopter, they’re Pew P enemy, right? So they see the enemy and you shoot the enemy. Right? But like in reality, apparently it’s a little more complicated, especially during the Obama years, it’s, you see the enemy and you’re like. Oh it’s the enemy. Shoot. The enemy. Wait, no, no. Is it l

    44 min
  5. Biggest Geopolitical Win In US History? (Iran, Venezuela, & Cuba in Three Months)

    4 DAYS AGO

    Biggest Geopolitical Win In US History? (Iran, Venezuela, & Cuba in Three Months)

    In this episode of Based Camp, Malcolm & Simone Collins break down the insane geopolitical wins stacking up for Trump in early 2026—wins so massive they rival the collapse of the Soviet Union, Napoleon’s early campaigns, or Cromwell’s rise, but with almost zero U.S. cost so far. From the precision strike that took out Ayatollah Khamenei (and the sneaky Mossad magic behind it), to Maduro’s capture in Venezuela halting oil to Cuba and forcing blackouts, to Iran’s proxy network (Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas) getting defanged, the Collinses argue this is a new era of low-cost, high-impact American dominance. They explore the risks of overreach (history’s villains who won too much too fast), why most of the Muslim world isn’t mourning Iran, the “frenemy” dynamic with China, why dumb white women seem to be the main group getting radicalized, and Trump’s unlocked hack: kill hated dictators surgically, threaten successors, let regional allies (Israel, Saudis, UAE) handle cleanup, and watch dictators self-moderate out of self-preservation. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. The world has changed so dramatically, and I think much more dramatically than people realize in the past few months, specifically in the past few weeks with what’s going on in Iran right now, the number of core geopolitical winds that Trump has had. And I think even the right wing doesn’t seem to really grok the magnitude of this. There is no historical parallel in all of American history except for maybe the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that wasn’t exactly all our doing. A lot of that was internal. Yeah. The, the closest three historical parallels I can find, like series of wins this significant with this little early cost would be the beginning of h man’s campaigns. The beginning of Napoleon’s campaigns or most of Oliver Cromwell’s life. Those are the only three that come anywhere near. And, and I think that this actually [00:01:00] highlights one of the big risks of where we are geopolitically right now. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: In the same way that if you look at Napoleon’s early career, just win, win, win, win, win, win, win. Or the h man’s early military career. Win, win, win, win, win, win, win. Mm-hmm. Very low cost to his own troops. Very low cost to him geopolitically. What happened in, in both of those cases is they completely overdid it and ended up giant villains from history. Mm-hmm. And I can completely see the temptation from Trump’s perspective right now. And for people who don’t understand what I’m saying right now. Trump has taken out first obviously Maduro and the Venezuelan, the new Venezuelan president. It, it appears to be working like she halted the oil shipments to Cuba, which now is forcing Cuba because Mexico did not restart the shipments. They, they, somebody out our last podcast we’re talking about this, said they restarted them. They’ve halted oil shipments as well. So it looks like the Cubans are either [00:02:00] going to cave or be put into a permanent blackout because they don’t really have oil anymore. And if you don’t have oil, you can’t grow crops or move cars or anything. And none of their geopolitical allies have the ability to get them oil because like if China tries to send a ship all the way to them, the US will just. Grab it like we’ve been with everyone else who’s trying to send them ships. And they don’t, and China doesn’t even seem to want to. And then Iran has been taken off the map with very little geopolitical cost. And we’ll explain why each of these has had so little geo, because that’s also weird, right? And if you go through American history and you look at something like, say the Vietnam War or something like that, if we had overwhelmingly won the Vietnam War, right, like just completely won it early days, it would not be one 10th Is geopolitically relevant at the three victories combined? Hmm. We have been trying to deal with Iran, [00:03:00] Venezuela, and Cuba for. A half a century at least. Simone Collins: Oh yeah. No. From our childhoods, we’ve all grown up hearing about Iran and Death to America and Yeah. All this stuff. But it was more of a recent thing though. Malcolm Collins: The United States doesn’t really have that many geopolitical enemies. Simone Collins: Yeah. Truly it’s just been Iran and North Korea mostly with China and Russia both being kind of like frenemies. Frenemy Malcolm Collins: China is, is really more of a frenemy than anything else. Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. They’re like the Jessica to our Utah mom. That’s a little too. Yeah, Malcolm Collins: , What I mean by China is more of a frenemy is in terms of like big geopolitical enemies that we’ve had. China really hasn’t made a point outside of the fentanyl epidemic, which is absolutely terrible. And inventing TikTok again, absolutely terrible. But, you know, it’s, it’s been nothing like our wars against our other geopolitical enemies, like what we had Simone Collins: to deal with. No, they’re like that [00:04:00] passive aggressive, mean girl. Like we’re, we’re in a mean girl clique together and like, you know, one’s like, Aw sweetie, let me help you. Like you can buy some of my cheaply manufactured goods. Or like, oh, why don’t you have like, here you can have my Cheetos. ‘cause I mean, they’re gonna make you fat anyway, and I’m gonna eat like all my healthy food over here. Speaker 22: We do not have a click problem at the school, but you do have to watch out for frenemies. What are frenemies? Frenemies are enemies who act like friends. We call them frenemies or ene amens, or friends who secretly hate you. We call them freighters. That’s so gay. Simone Collins: But that Malcolm Collins: is actually exactly like, it, it’s like two mean girls that constantly hang out together. Simone Collins: Exactly. Malcolm Collins: But, but what I mean is they’re not like an existential threat to Simone Collins: Yeah. They’re just like competitive rivals who really don’t like each other and feel like it’s a zero sum game. So like, yeah, actually it is pretty bad, but like. In a more collaborative way, whereas Iran was like, no, I just wanna kill you. You just like, there can be no room for the two of us. You know, it’s more exclusive. That’s like a one, Malcolm Collins: their founding thesis is, I [00:05:00] wanna kill you. You Speaker 12: We are two months away from enriching weapons grade uranium to be used for peaceful purposes. Speaker 29: Obviously this joke was made a while ago. , By Iran’s own claims, they had enough enriched uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs, , nearly enough to wipe out all life on earth. Simone Collins: Know, like, yeah. So it’s like, it’s, it’s the, it’s the school bully. Like, meet me out back. I’m gonna beat you up. Versus the mean girl of like, Malcolm Collins: well I do, I love how everyone is meed on Khomeini for this, that he, the mans spent his entire life trying to get into a war with the United States. Simone Collins: So you can’t make you smell. It’s gonna burst my mouth. Stitches, but kine, can we please? Oh God. Oh, the stitches are gonna open. Whatcha doing? Kine. [00:06:00] Okay, go. Keep going, keep going. Just, just keep butchering all the Iranian words and I’m just gonna bust all my stitches open. Malcolm Collins: I’m not, I Simone Collins: to stay away. Malcolm Collins: I ran. Day one, he spends his entire life trying to get us into a war with Iran. Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: Dies like day one, hour one. Watching a video on this was insane because they knew not just like the bunker he was in, but the floor he was, was in, in that bunker. Simone Collins: How I, I wish I knew how they knew. You know, I wanna watch the Oceans 11 version. It’s real piss Malcolm Collins: off Jews. Jews are sneaky. This is the thing about Jews that people don’t know. They were very sneaky people, which makes them excellent spies. Like all Jews, if you’re playing like Skyrim or something, they’re born with like a plus 10 to their sneak stat. You know, stealth, they’re, they all go stealth. Archer blt wait, Simone Collins: Because I like legit have never played Skyrim or like any video game, aside from a rollercoaster tycoon, are there [00:07:00] Jews in Skyrim? Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no. But there’s races in Sky Room, so I’m saying if there were Simone Collins: Jews in Sky Room, Malcolm Collins: okay, I get you. It’s racial sta modifier. With Jews, it’s a, oh, we should do that. We should have an episode where we make racial stat modifiers for every race. Oh my God. But Jews, Jews, Jews are sort of an op build these days, I’m gonna be honest. Gotta, gotta Nerf. That turns out to be very, very useful. That’s Simone Collins: what the H man said as you refer to him. But Malcolm Collins: you know what? Oh yeah. Yes, he did try to Nerf the Jew build. He’s like, he did try to Nerf Simone Collins: the Jew build Malcolm Collins: unfair to have Judes in our server. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: How, how do you compete? So anyway we have other episodes where we talk about these sorts of topics. If, if you’re interested in learning more. Our Jewish Patreon supporters after hearing this. Speaker 14: Lemme take that back. Huh? Speaker 39: But on the other side, imagine how stupid you have to be to know you’re in a stealth archer. Meta to know that like the elves have a stealth archer, meta buff, and to intentionally attempt to isolate them, , just [00:08:00] because they are arrogant and have. Dicked you around occasionally, right? Like this is, this is my cultural group, whatever. We try to run the sneak meta, as you have seen from me trying to pronounce whatever that guy’s name is. Speaker 4: Buongiorno. Speaker: Signore un piacere. Gli amici della vedetta ammir

    1h 7m
  6. The Ubermensch For Manic Pixie Dream Girls: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

    6 MAR

    The Ubermensch For Manic Pixie Dream Girls: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

    In this raw, no-holds-barred episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins dissect how Abraham Maslow repackaged Nietzsche’s Übermensch (Übermensch) into the modern, feel-good concept of “self-actualization” at the top of his Hierarchy of Needs—turning a call for radical self-ownership and moral creation into an elitist, therapy-gated path of perpetual vague self-improvement, peak experiences, and manic-pixie-dream-girl aesthetics. We explore why the original Übermensch demands you build your own moral framework (independent of society, culture, or ancestors), reject herd morality, and embrace responsibility—while Maslow’s version lets the wealthy progressive elite pat themselves on the back without real introspection. Bonus rants on: the pyramid of sin (Maslow’s hierarchy normalizing indulgence), why strong-willed people are the true “inclusive” ones, Star Wars force analogies gone wrong, and why self-ownership beats self-acceptance every time. If you’ve ever felt gaslit by positive psychology, therapy culture, or the urban monoculture—this episode is for you. Check out our book The Pragmatist’s Guide to Life (free ebook + audiobook for subscribers) for tools to build your own value system. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] He basically tried to combine the Uber minch with the aesthetics of the manic pixie dream girl. oh, I like to listen to the songs in my head. I’m sorry, I paid the cab driver in buttons. When did you first suspect you were dating a manic, pixie dream girl? On her first date and. She said she wanted pancakes for dinner, but I felt alive. But then after a few months, and she can’t feed herself, she can’t pay bills. She just wonders at the marvel. Every moment, we got married in a bouncy castle. Do you think it’s possible to ever be truly. In the moment, the Native Americans believe everything is alive.. I told him the best place to see. The night sky is laying in the middle of the street. It’s the flattest place there. She does seem happy. Happy as she can be, I suppose. Malcolm Collins: Maslow flips this. Self-actualization is achievable through [00:01:00] education, therapy, supportive environments and personal effort. Not a heroic struggle alone. . So no. What is actually said here, it’s saying, the Uber minch is elitist because to become an Uber minch, an individual has to overcome suffering.. Who has the potential to be self-actualize if self-actualization requires the fulfillment of all of the lower states of the hierarchy of needs? Only the elite and the fun thing about Laslo system. It is a system that makes everyone who is wealthy and sees a therapist think that they’re already at the top of it, and it explains to the rich progressive, who doesn’t want to think about why the poor have different world frameworks than them. Mm-hmm. It helps them not think about it. Would you like to know more? Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be [00:02:00] talking about the links between the Uber Minch as developed and defined by niche and the rebranding of the term self-actualization into its modern definition, which was done by Abraham Maslow of Maslow Hierarchy of Needs Face. And you’re Simone Collins: referring, you’re referring to Nietzsche. He’s just gonna call him Niche. Go with it guys. Malcolm Collins: It, I don’t, Frederick Niet words have no place on this American tongue. Okay. They, they would dirty my mouth. Anyway, we have another episode. If you want to understand how Maslow rebranded the term self-actualization and how his rebranding was so toxic and largely destroyed the field of psychology and is the seedbed of the urban monoculture. That is not what we’re gonna be focusing on in this episode. What we’re gonna be focusing on in this episode is, Maslow was pretty explicit in this, in some of his works. Self-actualization was a rebranding, an [00:03:00] explicit rebranding of the concept of the Uber Mitch, but it was rebranded to be palatable to a broadly progressive urban monoculture cultural perspective. And through the rebranding, in a way, it became an inversion of itself. I think he thought he was just making little tweaks to it and not realizing that he was actually retooling the core of what it meant. Now, broadly speaking, I’m gonna go over what these two mean. And then we’re gonna go over how they contrast with each other in understanding and what we as individuals can take away from this contrast to understand how we can live meaningful lives. So Simone Collins: it is so crazy. Can you imagine when they first introduced this to you, like in your college psychology class, they’re like, oh, yeah, like there’s high Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and at the top it’s, it’s basically nietzche iss, [00:04:00] Uber mench. But let’s not talk about that. I’m not gonna, no, let’s not talk about that. Malcolm Collins: The good thing about Nietzsche’s Uber mech, one of, one of the best things that contrast it was a hierarchy of needs and, and self-actualization is that the definition when you boil it down is actually pretty clear. And it’s, it’s, it’s not like vague, just a bunch of positive things. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: You are an Uber minch if. You do not get your morality from your culture. Simone Collins: Oh, so you’re not like, okay, Malcolm Collins: society. Yeah. If you pick up what you think is right and wrong, because other people told you this is what’s right, and this is what’s wrong, you are not an Uber Mitch. Simone Collins: Okay? Malcolm Collins: If you develop what is right versus wrong, because you personally sat down and saw it through. Now, it’s not saying that you reject morality or you embrace nihilism. It’s actually a specific [00:05:00] refutation of that. Figuring things out for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has. Use that freedom. Make up your own mind. Malcolm Collins: There is a way to say society is wrong or society isn’t necessarily right. As we’d see in the pragmatist guide to life, we do not live at the moral nexus of history. Yeah. You cannot assume that just because you, there’s a, a moral understanding today, and this is true of all people in the past. Wherever you look in the past, there is going to be. Something that they did that today, we consider Absolutely Mortifyingly. Amoral. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: And there are gonna be things that we do today that people in the future might find mortifyingly, amoral, like Simone Collins: eat meat. That’s the most common conclusion. Malcolm Collins: But that’s the, that’s the easy one I can think of, right. Especially once lab grown meat is really easy to do. Yeah. Simone Collins: Yeah. Future people are gonna be like, how were you able to swallow that? Whereas we see bacon cooking and we’re like, Hmm. Malcolm Collins: So yeah. So I, I, I, and, and people can be like, well, no, morality [00:06:00] moves in like one direction. And I’m like, okay, well suppose you are of this progressive mindset and you think that there have been periods in history where, you know, I go to, let’s say. A slave owner in the south or something like that, right? Mm-hmm. And I point to earlier periods of European history where like same sex relationships were more acceptable. And they’re like, well, those people were clearly evil. Look, society is always moving towards progress. And yet today, the things that had been normalized in the slave owning South but were less normalized during that period, but more normalized during earlier parts of European history. And note, I’m not saying here that same-sex relationships were ever totally normalized. Like the, the them being totally normalized in Rome or Greece is just inaccurate. But there were forms of same-sex relationships that were more normalized than during height of slave. That, that they would say like, okay, well then maybe it goes in like a wave or something. It’s like, no, you just need to, there are going to be things that are normal today that people in the future are gonna find mortifying. [00:07:00] So niche says you have a. Responsibility to not just accept morality, which is, I think interesting in that it goes against a lot of modern rightist philosophy. And that a lot of modern rightist philosophy says learn from your ancestors, embrace your culture. Mm-hmm. Where Nietzsche says, no, learn from and evolve that culture into something better. That is, Simone Collins: yeah. Malcolm Collins: Okay. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: It’s important to start with because I think a lot of people get the Uber mi wrong. They think it’s some weird racial hierarchy something or I, I do not know what they think it is. They, they, I think they think it’s like a genetically engineered person. I sort of see this, this or, or the height of like German blood perfection and it’s like, no, that, that never had anything to do with it. That Simone Collins: would, if I broadly. Were to model the leftist commentators that I constantly listen to online. I think what they would vaguely conjure in their minds is a [00:08:00] proto edge Lord. And that is what an Uber mench is. And there’s no such thing as someone who’s actually like advanced. It’s just someone who like actively. Edge, lordy, or they would call themselves heterodox, if that makes sense. Malcolm Collins: Well, it’s funny because they’re actually kind of, right. Yeah. It’s about somebody who defines their own moral truths, because that’s the only, if you’re following a form of morality, like obviously you are better than the pure nihilist if you, if you follow some moral framework. But if you follow that moral framework only because somebody else told you this is what’s right and wrong, you’re, you’re patently lower on a global moral hierarchy than somebody who develope

    1h 3m
  7. Why Did Muslims Go from Debauched to Prude? (The Islamic World is Post-Apocalyptic)

    5 MAR

    Why Did Muslims Go from Debauched to Prude? (The Islamic World is Post-Apocalyptic)

    In this eye-opening episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive into why much of the modern Islamic world feels "post-apocalyptic" — crumbling ancient grandeur, neglected heritage, and a society living in the ruins of its own past glory. They contrast today's strict moral codes (influenced heavily by 18th-century Wahhabism and Saudi oil wealth) with the wild hedonism of Islam's historical peak: lavish palaces, opium-fueled feasts, widespread homosexuality (including pederasty), endless harems, cross-dressing trends started by desperate royal mothers, and poetry celebrating wine and young boys. From Moroccan citadels split and looted across generations to Ottoman sultans with 300+ concubines and nudity in palaces shocking 19th-century Europeans, they unpack how Islam flipped from one of the most "debauched" civilizations to one of the strictest. They also touch on "dead" vs. "living" religious traditions, the closure of ijtihad, cousin marriage debates, why Islam excelled as a ruling-minority faith but struggles as a mass religion, and light-hearted parenting tangents (helicopter-obsessed kids and Bosnian songs). Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: .[00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about a concept that came up in our episode on why Muslims almost never win wars of aggression after, like, within two generations of Mohammad’s life. And, in that episode, I commented that Muslim society had become post-apocalyptic in nature. And I wanna talk about this in this episode, we’re going to both talk about this concept of Islam as a post-apocalyptic society, and also discuss how they went from being seen as one of the most debauched societies on earth, , with the jabba the hut like scenes or belly dancers and dripping in jewels to one of the most strict, . Parts of the world morally. You know, throwing gay people off rooftops, , women covered 100%, not even, , able to, in some Islamic countries, have both of their eyes unveiled at the same time while still [00:01:00] staying countries with high amounts of gay sex. Although that’s something we’ll go into in a, in a future episode, , in Islamic countries, they’re often like, oh, don’t. Don’t, it’s not get, it’s with a child. It’s fine. Don’t worry about it. And it’s like, well, that you see, that might make it worse in some other cultural context. Because like you see when I talk to you and I’m like, what, what, what, what, what are you doing having sex with that little boy? , And you’re like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. It’s chill. He’s a child. Um, I was actually, that was the thing I was worried about was, was not the gay part, but the child part. Um, so you see, see from my cultural context, But anyway, back to the Islamic world, living in a post apocalypse. Malcolm Collins: because I think that we really do not understand how directly this is true. If you, a listener has traveled many parts of the Islamic world. We, we’ve traveled pretty extensively in the Islamic world. You will notice when I say [00:02:00] it is post-apocalyptic. I don’t just mean like the Muslim people at one point in the distant past you know, had greatness and they don’t have greatness now. I mean that you see it all around you. It almost feels like in those movies about Apocalypses where you have people camping out in like a falling apart New York City or something like that. Yeah, you don’t Simone Collins: have to imagine that if you go to like Morocco because you can just do it. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And so I’ll, I’ll give an example of this and I thought it was one of the most shocking to me. It was when we were in Morocco and we went not far out of Morocco to, I pulled up the name of the place you found it, Bedo. And oh, I love it when Simone Collins: you butcher foreign languages. Oh, it’s so hot. Malcolm Collins: Citadel in, in Southern Morocco. And it’s, it’s giant. It’s this giant complex. But. [00:03:00] If you walk through it, and it’s almost like a palace it was once owned by the one of the descendants of the prophet Mohammed, and it’s just, I’ll obviously put pictures on screen here of it. Simone Collins: Do you want me to send you the ones that we, we took Malcolm Collins: Oh, yeah. You can find them. Yeah, I’ll absolutely about it. Is that it? As you walk through it, some sections of it look almost perfectly maintained. And some sections of it have just completely collapsed to almost nothing but rubble. And there’s of things in all states in between. And the reason is, is because as the family went on, they would split ownership of it with every generation. And some descendants looted their parts of the castle for anything they could sell. Other descendants tried to maintain it and use it as like makeshift restaurants and stuff like that. But it is. Very much like a, a hermit crab in the shell of a castle, and you don’t need to be outside. One of the craziest things about a place like Morocco’s, a particularly good example [00:04:00] of this is that you climb to the top of one of the roofs there and you will see like there could be buildings that people just forgot about that have been built around by other buildings. The, in the way the city is built up. And I suspect Rome was probably like this at one point too. Mm-hmm. Just like without any long-term infrastructure planning or anything like that. And many of the buildings are obviously absolutely ancient. And I say this, you know, as somebody who’s living in a house from the 17 hundreds, these, just everything. There was old. And the other interesting thing about the Islamic world is if you go through old Catholic cities you will often see old, beautiful architecture, but it is maintained yeah, yeah. Simone Collins: Well, very common in Europe, you know, things are carefully updated. Malcolm Collins: No. In the Protestant world, you typically get something different. I’ll talk about that in a second. Oh, okay. Interesting. So in the, in, in the Catholic world it’s, it’s very common to walk by, very well [00:05:00] maintained ancient glor structures. Even if, even if their own civilization is like poor and impoverished and, and corrupt they do have a reverence for things of the past. If you go through a lot of, you know, whether it’s Iran or Egypt or, you know, Morocco you go through these places, you will see often old, beautiful structures sort of falling apart like dilapidated, I guess I’d say. But, but weirdly still in use. It’s not like they’re dilapidated because they’re misused. What happens in the Protestant world was most of the, the ch the old like glor, like giant cathedrals and stuff like that were torn down or torn apart. So it’s very, yeah, there’s still Simone Collins: architecturally sound. I, I’m going through and looking at pictures of this one complex we visited that one of the descendants was still living in, and we, we walked through his part of it and it’s, it’s crumbly, but like in the parts that he lives in. And you’ll see this and Malcolm will send you the photos on WhatsApp. He just gonna put [00:06:00] carpets on the ground. And you can, you can kind of see furniture around and like there are just parts of the place that are, that look genuinely like ruins and there are just holes and you can see where Malcolm Collins: Yeah, like you’ll falling apart. Reach the edge of one of his like second story hallways, uhhuh. And it is a, a, a, a hole to, to nothing because the, the person who maintained the part that connected to that fell apart. Yeah. They’re just like, Simone Collins: I’m not gonna bother to keep this up. Well, or they didn’t have the money for it, you know, whatever or something. And it’s not like this doesn’t happen in all parts of the world. I mean, you can buy castles in Europe. For basically nothing because no one can afford to keep them up. And that’s not right. But Malcolm Collins: this is very different. You don’t have major architectural monuments in the center of major European cities that are basically falling apart. That is very common in parts of the muscle world. Mm-hmm. And what I wanted to talk to about this as I wanted to contrast this current state of the Muslim world with the true hedonism and debauchery of Islam at its height. Mm-hmm. Because I think that when people [00:07:00] look at how strict the modern Muslim world is. They think of this as from Muhammad till today, that’s how Islam was. And they have broad images of like exotic belly dancers, maybe giant. Didn’t that have something to do with aladin? It’s like aladin something, something. Yeah. That, that was actually the core of Muslim civilization. That extreme level of hedonism really for longer than the extremely strict interpretation of Islam that we have today. Simone Collins: Wasn’t it very selective hedonism though? Like you could be hedonistic if you could pay for it, and everyone else was held to very strict standards and especially women were held to very strict standards. So basically only if you were a wealthy man would you be. Subject to this and everyone else kind of, I, I, well, similar to how I would imagine it in ancient Greece, for example, there was hedonism in ancient Rome if you were [00:08:00] wealthy and not a slave and not a woman. But aside from that, most people live pretty austerely. Malcolm Collins: So actually not exactly. Okay. So you’ve gotta keep in mind how many of these Islamic societies were structured. Okay. First of all, at, at many of their heights, they were not majority Arab or majority Muslim. Oh. They just made up the ruling class. So their lifestyle was funded by taxing Jewish and Christian local populations. Oh. Huh. So, so they didn’t need everyone to be able to afford this level of hedonism. The second thing is that they had like lots of slaves like slavery and, and sla

    1h 1m
  8. The Lindy Illusion: Why Old Things Suck

    4 MAR

    The Lindy Illusion: Why Old Things Suck

    Queen Victoria was basically the 19th-century version of a hardcore weeb… but for Scottish culture. She fetishized tartans, kilts, and fake clan traditions so hard that she forced visiting nobles to show up in made-up “clan tartan” outfits — and they actually did it. Today, huge numbers of Scots genuinely believe this stuff is ancient… because Scotland’s education system is apparently cursed. Meanwhile, Nassim Taleb fans keep preaching the “Lindy Effect” (longer something survives → longer it will survive) as gospel in crypto, culture war, and trad circles. But in 2025–2026 reality — with hyper-rapid technological, economic, and memetic change — the Lindy Effect has basically inverted. In this episode we cover:• Queen Victoria’s Balmoral weeb arc and how she single-handedly invented the modern Scottish aesthetic• Why almost nothing you use or celebrate is actually “ancient” (spoiler: most traditions people call timeless were invented 1850–1980)• The original Lindy deli comedians meant THE OPPOSITE of what Taleb claims• Survivorship bias, Fortune 500 churn, disappearing classics, collapsing orchestras…• Why rigid “antiquity = virtue” thinking is suicidal in the modern world Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] So Queen Victoria Simone Collins: Imagine a weeb invented our modern perception of Japanese culture, even as believed by the Japanese. That’s what Scottish culture as we understand Malcolm Collins: so she then. Starts telling any of the Scottish nobles who visit her house, that they have to come in their clan tartan Simone Collins: and in their, and Malcolm Collins: they’re like and they’re like, my what? And so it’s like, it’s like a weeb. Goes to Japan and he says that everybody’s daughters have to come in their magic girl costume. Simone Collins: He’s come in your formal Goku hairstyle, sir. . Malcolm Collins: And these, and these Japanese people are like, like, and they’re like, it’s the, it’s the queen. I’m gonna dress up my daughter like a matching girl. We’re going, we’re going all in on this. And the funny thing is this, since Scottish people today, the country has such a terrible education system that many of them believe that all this stuff, Speaker 9: We saw the lochness monster. When all of a sudden this huge creature, this giant Ste from the Pete Lithic air comes out of the water. I yelled. I [00:01:00] said, what you want from US? Monster? And the bent down and said, I need about three 50. Simone Collins: How much of a weave Queen Victoria was. She also allegedly would, would while visiting Balmoral slip into this fake Scottish brogue. So you can imagine like a weeb going to like spend their summers in Japan, like speaking in ic, Japanese accent. And you would imagine Malcolm Collins: built their entire culture off of her we fantasy. Would you like to know more? Malcolm Collins: . Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be talking about one of the ideas that has become popular in pseudo intellectual circles. And I want to talk about how wrong it is. Simone Collins: Are we, so intellectuals, is this one of our circles? Malcolm Collins: Well, yeah, it’s, it’s called the Lindy Effect. And it often comes up in the concept of something being anti Lindy or a heuristic where the longer, a non-perishable thing like an idea [00:02:00] technology, cultural practice, book or institution has survived the longer its expected remaining lifespan as its proven robust against time and disorder. So this concept is really, really, really popular in the conservative space. So they’ll look at something like techno puritanism, right? Like our family’s religious practices. And they’ll be like, oh, well it’s very anti, right? Like, it’s very new, and therefore it’s unlikely to survive a long time. Simone Collins: Oh, Malcolm Collins: and I’m going to point out that this is both a misattribution of an idea. It’s a misattribution of a bad idea that even in its very conception was taken to mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant. Which is just like e everything about this idea is bad. One is that, first of all, the idea is just wrong in a modern context. It worked a lot when you were dealing with a static economy and society because then that was like a evolutionary environment. If something becomes evolutionarily advantageous and out competes [00:03:00] other things and the environment it has outcompeted them with has stayed stable, it is going to continue to be advantageous. That just like an obvious truism, right? And that is true for cultural environments, right? Like if you’re dealing with a long period of human history where things were broadly the same from one generation to the next an idea or a book or a technology is going to be much more robust if it has out competed other technologies within a similar context. However, that is no longer the world we live in. Things change dramatic. In terms of the global economy, in terms of the global culture, in terms of how we communicate and in terms of global mimetic sets so rapidly now that you almost have an inversion of the very concept of the Lindy effect. Second, what I’m gonna be talking about is a lot of the things that lead to the perception of the Lindy effect, and we’re gonna be going over these are illusions. Mm-hmm. They are instances in which an [00:04:00] individual today believes something has antiquity because either of just a myth, right. Or they believe it has antiquity because something in antiquity had a similar name. An example of this would be somebody who will say something like, well, Christmas or Easter has been around a long time, and we’ll go into not in anything that’s meaningfully close to the way today these things are practiced. If you said that, you know, if, if you’re applying the Lindy effect to. Let’s say something like Christmas or you, you would apply it to Teop Puritanism, eg. What I mean by that is in a hundred or 200 years, if techno Puritanism becomes widespread and is like a common belief system everyone would say, well, this just follows the Linde effect because it’s Christianity. And Christianity has always been around, but people within our generation would be mortified if somebody said that. Yeah, you said that the way that Christmas is practiced today, or Easter is practiced [00:05:00] today, is historic to somebody in the Middle Ages or something like that. They’d look at you way crazier than saying Simone Collins: technically. Well, and certainly, you know it like, you know, the year, like for bc they’d be like, what do you mean? What are you talk, this is an apocalyptic Jew, just like all the other ones. What do you. Yeah. So, Malcolm Collins: She’s talking here about what a lot of his historical Jesus researchers think about Jesus within that context. But the, the, and the other reason why this is hidden from a lot of people, and we’ll go into this, is a lot of these traditions use their manufactured antiquity to try to give themselves a veneer of authenticity. Whether it is the practices of the current Catholic church or modern Judaism, or modern Orthodox Judaism even. And when individuals. Question these things, you are often literally questioning somebody’s self-perception and worldview. Mm-hmm. So it [00:06:00] is incredibly, like the, the people wanna fight against it as hard as they can, because for some people, if you could show that their faith or belief system lacks a lot of the antiquity that they believe it has, then they would see that as invalidating it because they see that as its core, like argument for existence. Simone Collins: Hmm. Malcolm Collins: And so, we’ll, we’ll go into that as well. Simone Collins: That’s a really good point. I, I wanna say, I, I can, first, I just wanna give credence or I don’t think people are crazy to have an intuition in favor of this effect because up until the scientific method or like empiricism became widespread and more systematic and we had ways to very quickly. Validate whether something that was true that didn’t involve literally dying. The only way you knew that something was a decent, like health intervention or safety intervention was because it was a tradition that was passed down from generation to generation. Because all the, the generations that tried something new and [00:07:00] different that didn’t work, died and all the surviving ones did the thing that did work. And so it was really good to do the thing that was old because that means that everyone who did it before. Well, they, they lived so it’s probably a good sign. Malcolm Collins: Well, it’s, it’s not even that they lived, it’s actually, and you bring up a really fascinating point that God, I could do a giant deep dive on like an episode in itself. But there was a period in European history that went from like the late Roman period to the high medieval period. And in this period of, of, of history, this is when the Catholic church really dominated. Oh. And they created an a, a mindset around the sciences and around things like, a medicine where you would always reflect on an older and proven older way of doing it or teaching. And the antiquity of a thing was in this sort of early version of Catholicism proved that things authenticity. And this existed outside of the church. This was the period where [00:08:00] you had like Ga Galen medicine, right? Oh, and then like nobody developed on me medicine after Galen for a really long time. Yeah. And when they would teach medicine at university, if you had a, a, a new way of doing a thing, literally the argument they would have is, well, this isn’t the way Galen did it. And then people would be like, well, you know, maybe he was like, like, they’d be like, but it, it seems to work better. And they’re like, but. Is it, is it, does it have the anti antiqu

    1h 6m
See All (736)

Ratings & Reviews

About

Based Camp is a podcast focused on how humans process the world around them and the future of our species. That means we go into everything from human sexuality, to weird sub-cultures, dating markets, philosophy, and politics. Malcolm and Simone are a husband wife team of a neuroscientist and marketer turned entrepreneurs and authors. With graduate degrees from Stanford and Cambridge under their belts as well as five bestselling books, one of which topped out the WSJs nonfiction list, they are widely known (if infamous) intellectuals / provocateurs. If you want to dig into their ideas further or check citations on points they bring up check out their book series. Note: They all sell for a dollar or so and the money made from them goes to charity. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FMWMFTG basedcamppodcast.substack.com

Information

You Might Also Like