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. Did Spencer Pratt Really Lose? (Making Sense of Election Fraud Claims)

    −7 h

    Did Spencer Pratt Really Lose? (Making Sense of Election Fraud Claims)

    Dive into the controversy surrounding the Los Angeles mayoral election with Malcolm and Simone Collins on Based Camp. Spencer Pratt appeared to be on track for a runoff spot but was suddenly overtaken by a third Democratic candidate amid massive late mail-in ballot surges. Was this organic voting patterns, or something more suspicious? The Collinses review claims of election irregularities, including the puzzling vote count updates that showed zero votes for Pratt in one batch, Skid Row vote harvesting (with residents allegedly paid in cigarettes and cash), ballot collection practices, and the broader issues of mail-in voting in deep-blue LA. They explore both the mainstream counter-narratives and on-the-ground reports while discussing voter ID, election integrity, and why local races matter. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today, we are going to be discussing the latest LA election and the shenanigans that- that may or may not have occurred around that. Shenanigans. A couple of our fans were like, “This is the most blatant cheating I have ever seen in an American election,” and they wanted us to look into it. And I will say that this is an interesting thing for me to look into, because I really don’t know... Like, obviously, if there was election fraud that happened The New York Times, NPR, all the major leftist sources are not going to admit it, because they didn’t want Pratt to win, right? Simone Collins: Well, and what I did hear from my broad leftist news sources was Malcolm Collins: Yeah, Simone Collins: you gotta go, buddy. What I heard from my broad leftist news sources was something along the lines of the Republicans are butt-hurting because Pen- Spencer Pratt didn’t even come close to winning, but he never would because he’s a Republican running in LA, and that seems totally reasonable, so I didn’t think to look further. How can this be a [00:01:00] thing? I, I don’t understand why there could be any weirdness- Malcolm Collins: Yeah, and then the, the secondary thing is obviously, and I, I, you know, I hate to say this about our side, but our side, like if he if, if there was actual election fraud, they would all be saying that regardless. So we don’t actually gain any new information from what they say there. But we don’t gain a lot of new information from our side because obviously no matter what happened, if he legitimately lost at the last second our side would of course come out and say there’s election fraud, right? So that doesn’t exactly give me additional information so what we’re going to do is we are going to review from both sides pieces on this particular alleged fraud. And Simone Collins: then we’re going to- Wait, so the fraud ‘cause you had told me earlier that you thought that the issue was... I mean, it’s inevitable that a Democrat’s gonna win in Los Angeles. Malcolm Collins: No. It’s not so it’s kind of fraud. So there was a, a two-tiered runoff, okay? Okay. This is the gist of it, right? So there’s this runoff system, it’s called, like, a jungle primary where they decide who’s gonna run, and it means- Okay you can have multiple Dems running against each other- Sure ... or a Dem versus a [00:02:00] Republican. Yeah. The leading candidate was this terrible Dem candidate. The, the Black woman, whatever her name is. Anyway she, she was coming in first. Then Pratt was coming in, and then there was a third Democrat that had about half the votes that Pratt had- Okay in terms of sentiment polling, in terms of what they were able to measure, in terms of, like, at the ballots, bold, voter exit polling. And then at the very last moment, all of a sudden this flips. Mm. And all of a sudden- Mm ... Pratt’s getting no more votes- Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh ... and all the votes are going to the third candidate. This is something that the, the narrative of I have laid it out is the narrative that even the left disagree with. Everyone agrees Pratt was demonstrably in the lead i- in terms of spot number two. And then now was he ever gonna win the full election? I, probably not. But the having him i- be in the final runoff was scaring people, right? So Pratt was demonstrably in [00:03:00] the lead, then all of a sudden this socialist candidate flips it up, right? And- Simone Collins: Doesn’t it have to do more with the fact that mail-in voting was very heavy in the Los Angeles election, that ballots could be posted quite late, and that it could be that this particular third candidate had a really heavy and also late mail-in voting campaign push? Malcolm Collins: Well, that is the only plausible thing, except from at least my reading of this, they didn’t have a heavy and late mail-in voting push. So the explanation that leftists have been using Okay. The explanation that leftists have been using for this is that, okay, yes, she didn’t have a coordinated mail in voting campaign that could explain this, but mail in voters are overwhelmingly Democratic in nature, right? And so if the mail in voters are overwhelmingly Democratic in nature- I don’t even remember what I was saying. Simone Collins: So I had asked you it, [00:04:00] my, what I had heard was, oh, the Republicans are butt hurting about Spencer Pratt being in a minority lead for a little bit and then losing a bunch of ground all of a sudden seemingly. But what they’re missing is that Republicans are heavy with in-person voting, Democrats are heavy with mail-in voting, and in Los Angeles and in California in general I think even postmarked- Ooh maybe even possibly up to the day of the election you can still submit mail-in ballots, and that what is happening is that possibly this third candidate or Democrats in general were just doing their last minute thing and sending in their mail-in ballots- Yes ... Malcolm Collins: and that’s what was Simone Collins: happening. Malcolm Collins: So we will explore this theory, but there’s- Okay a problem with it. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: The problem goes that in this last minute push that happened all of a sudden for this Democratic candidate, the votes should have, right, like if it had been like a normal election, should have continued to go disproportionately to the Democrat who looked like they were going to win the first place, right? The voting [00:05:00] shouldn’t have shifted between Democratic candidates late in the process like this. That doesn’t make mathematical or narrative sense. So we’re going to get it- Because, yeah, it could just be that a bunch of Dem votes came in at the last minute, right? But then those votes would presumably proportionally still be for the person who won top ticket first, and then for the person who ended up beating out Pratt second, not almost all exclusively for the person who edged out Pratt. So we’re gonna look into both of these explanations because there are, you know, plausibles and then it’s like, okay, yeah, but what’s really happening here? Simone Collins: Yeah. Like, my, my standing plausible theory is that whatever that third candidate that got a surge after, you know, the, the, then overtook Spencer Pratt was just one who heavily focused on last minute mail-in ballot- Malcolm Collins: Yeah voting. So we’re gonna see if that’s true, and we’re also going to go into what the leftist counter-narrative is. So I’m gonna start with the leftist counter-narrative, okay? The leftist counter-narrative goes like this. And [00:06:00] I’ll be reading from a piece, How a Misreading of Data Fueled False Claims About LA Mayoral Vote Count. Okay? Late on election night, an update of vote counts in Los Angeles mayor’s election appeared on electoral results pages of various media outlets, including the Los Angeles Times. It showed leading Democrats Mayor Karen Bass and Council Member Neda Rahman receiving tens of thousands of new votes, and leading Republican former reality TV star Pen- Spencer Pratt from receiving no new votes. So basically, on the screen, there was this big, like, huge number of votes to these two Democrats, and then literally zero votes for Spencer Pratt. Some voter, observers of the vote tally immediately took the screenshots with some shouting fraud. I mean, that looks a lot like fraud. Others ran statistical analysis that showed it would be impossible for a candidate such as Pratt running second in the race to receive zero votes in such a large batch of bal- ballots. In fact, the update that showed zero Pratt votes was [00:07:00] followed one minute later by another update that showed tens of thousands of votes for Pratt and none for Bass or Rahman. There was no batch of votes that included zero votes for any candidate, and LA County’s own data shows that plainly. But the claim’s fit was the broader false narrative being pushed relentlessly by Trump and other Republicans in recent days that California Democrats were cheating. Voter data pushed out by the Associated Press came as two separate updates one minute apart, with Bass and Rahman’s votes in the first and Pratt’s in the second. The AP vote count receives updates as provided by election officials and adds them to our vote count. What happened in this case is that there was some log in an automated update, such as that one candidate’s votes were added in an update, and the other candidates were followed about a minute later, the Associated Press told The Times. Specifically, an elec- electronic update from the Los Angeles County website pulled in votes from only one cro- group of candidates, including Karen Bass and N- Rahman. [00:08:00] Exactly one minute later, the electra- the electronic update picked up votes from another group of candidates, including Spencer Pratt. Taken together, the updates included the 21,000 votes for Pratt, the 12,000, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. Does that sound plausible to you? Simon

    42 min
  2. Why do Leftists Keep Asking If We Have Kids to Fulfill a Kink?

    −1 d

    Why do Leftists Keep Asking If We Have Kids to Fulfill a Kink?

    Malcolm and Simone Collins discuss a surprising realization about why many leftists accuse pronatalists of having a “breeding kink.” They explore how some in the trans community appear to structure major life decisions around arousal patterns and identity fulfillment, leading to projection onto families who have many children (often via IVF). Topics include: why breeding kinks don’t actually drive real family-building, the difference between fantasy and daily life, identity-maxxing vs. objective function living, Techno-Puritan sins, power dynamics in kinks, furries, Lia Thomas, and much more. This episode dives deep into psychology, sexuality, culture wars, and how different worldviews shape behavior. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Today we are going to be talking about basically a very weird phenomenon that has happened to us repeatedly, and I didn’t understand it until today, and I had this, like, shocking realization when I was just thinking through this today, and I was like, “This explains so much of a leftist mindset that I didn’t fully understand before.” Which is when we initially would go viral people would say, “Oh, like, why do they have to, like, bring us into their weird breeding kink?” You know, and this was a common... I, I’d say it’s, like, 1/5 or 1/8 of comments whenever we used to go viral. We, we had a journalist come to our house recently, so, like, a trans individual who’s a journalist, and he was interviewing us or she, whatever. I, I, I never know with these people. She was interviewing us over, And by the way, if, if you’re trans and annoyed by that, just know how annoying it is for the rest of us when we can’t tell, we don’t care, and you act like it’s the biggest effing deal in the world, [00:01:00] and yet you dress and act in a way that intentionally makes it hard to tell, right? Like, I would gender you right if it was obvious to me, right? I’m not, I’m not, like, out there actively trying to be a... But you are intentionally dressing in a way to make it difficult for me to know, right? So why am I supposed to... You’re just being a jerk to people. You have made your existence a jerky existence to other people. But anyway, so the, the, she comes here and she gives us an interview, and in the interview she asks us something along the lines of, like... And, and this was the thesis of the interview. Like, is this all really just a kink? Like, is there a kink that’s motivating you guys to want to have lots of kids? And I was just, like, sitting there like, does, do they really believe that, like, I would have five kids because of a kink, right? Like, the amount of my life I would have to dedicate [00:02:00] to something as simple as, like, something you masturbate to, right? Like, a, a simple arousal pattern would be genuinely astonishing to invest so much that I have five kids over it. And I, I was just thinking today, like, do they really think that I’m doing all this? ‘Cause I was, I was, like, playing with my kids. I’m like, do they really think I have kids over a kink? Simone Collins: Well, and then they get super, super shocked when they discover that we’ve produced all of our kids with IVF. Malcolm Collins: Yeah, that we produced all of our kids with IVF. They’re like, “Oh, that... Well, that undermines the entire thesis.” But- They they, th- which they were very confused about, right? Like it, is it... And, and, and then today I had this realization. Oh my God, I assumed that they just didn’t understand, or they were trying to cast aspersions on us, or they were trying to be edgy in some way about this. [00:03:00] But then when I started to think about it more, I was like, but wait a second, this is a trans person. If they’re trans over a kink, which a good portion of the trans community appears to be in their own stated things. They’re like you- if you go to the, you know, trans Reddit and stuff like that, they’re like, “Well, of course, like arousal is part of this,” and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now they have tried to define it as not a kink, tried to define it, but if you look at the actual written experiences of trans people going through gender transition many of them talk about it as something that is partially arousing to them. This is incredibly well documented in trans people talking about their own lives, right? And in addition to this, we have entire trans communities where when you ‘cause I actually read like the Transmaxer Manifesto, right? Trying to get people to Transmax. And this is clearly a, a, a gender transition modification transformation kink in, in, in even the way it’s structured. It’s like, wouldn’t it be so hot if X, Y, and Z, and D, right? You know. So [00:04:00] I read through these things a- and I’m like, if this person transitioned over partially an arousal pattern, yeah, that’s actually how they live, right? They really are living their entire life, their entire reproductive future, which I guess to me, I think of as like one of the core impacts you have with your life, was decided potentially downstream of an arousal pattern. And I saw this and I was like... I had just never considered to take what they were saying at face value. It just seemed so insane to me that an individual could say all of this, that it didn’t enter my mind as, no, they might actually mean this. And I think once we accept that yes, they do actually mean that, you can begin to understand so many other things about modern [00:05:00] leftist philosophy. Thoughts before I go further, Simone? Simone Collins: No, although I am curious if this ties in with your concept of the techno-puritan sin of, of living to fulfill an identity versus living to maximize an objective function. Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I think it’s, it’s both. I mean, transness is obviously it breaks, like, all of our sins. I mean, one, they’re living to fulfill an identity and other people’s perception of them, which I see the fundamentally fai- vain way to live. You can just, you know, choose to live however you wanna live, right? And, and say, “What matters is my effect on the world, not whether or not I appear a certain way in other people’s minds.” Like, obsessing over that, we argue is sinful, where sinfulness are just things that f**k up your life in the long run. But second it’s sinful in that it’s... And, and I think that it- it- it’s, it’s living your entire life after an arousal pattern. Like, we don’t even, we don’t even put into our sins living your whole life in the pursuit of [00:06:00] happiness because we say happiness is a choice, right? So you don’t need to pursue it. It’s something that you should sort of grab and subdue. You choose how you interpret the things around you in life. And when you realize that this sort of, like, higher form of happiness, like am I content with myself, am I moving forward, that it’s a choice, well, then the only sorts of happiness you have are the basal forms of happiness. You know, this is, like, eating whatever food you want all day, every day, right? Or just having constant orgies or engaging in huge life-changing behavior to fulfill arousal patterns, right? Which are just a, a basal sort of breeding thing in the background of all human biology that really shouldn’t affect any sort of a daily choice. And this is where it all got really interesting for me. Because if I am listing, like, my unusual arousal patterns or kinks or anything like that and I have argued in the past that a breeding fetish is about the only thing in the world that is not actually a fetish. Simone Collins: Right. Malcolm Collins: [00:07:00] It’s what the entire arousal system is built to get you to do. About anything else that arouses you is ancillary and something misfiring. Simone Collins: All non-procreative sex is a fetish. Or some kind of weird kink, I guess. Malcolm Collins: But anyway, of my list of, like, things that really turn me on, the wider category of breeding fetish content is actually one of those things for me. It’s not my top thing but it’s probably number two. But with Simone Collins: that being- Well, based on its popularity, like, if you look at just sort of top ranked tags and stuff in erotic material, for men specifically, that’s kind of the thing. In women, I just don’t see it that much, actually, for, like, female content, which is interesting. Malcolm Collins: And do you not see it a lot in female content? Mm. I mean, sort of being forced to breed you see in female content, like, Not Simone Collins: really, Malcolm Collins: actually ... in The Handmaid’s Tale and stuff like that, like the- Simone Collins: No. Because even then if you actually look at the [00:08:00] books most or most if not many of the men are themselves infertile, so- Malcolm Collins: Oh, really? Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah, like, there are issues with, like, some of the doctors being like, “Well, I will. I will inseminate you ‘cause I know for a fact this guy is infertile and he doesn’t know it. But, you know, you should just therefore let me F you,” and then, yeah. So it’s, it’s a whole thing, actually. Wait, but Malcolm Collins: isn’t that a kink in itself? Isn’t that part of the breeding kink? Simone Collins: No, I don’t think so. Yeah, anyway, I, I don’t- Does, Malcolm Collins: does, does she go with Simone Collins: the doctor? Does she- In Handmaid’s Tale I just don’t think that... I haven’t read the books. I, I only know from, like, some summaries and stuff that I’ve heard. Malcolm Collins: Of what? Simone Collins: But, like, there’s not a lot of actually getting pregnant going on. Like, some, some of the ancillary characters go through pregnancies and stuff, but- Malcolm Collins: I guess it, it, it, like, once you get pregnant and have a kid, all of the sexy stuff after that Simone Collins:

    47 min
  3. −2 d

    Is The Far Right Just Normal Men From the 90s? (The Stats)

    In this episode of Based Camp, Simone and Malcolm Collins dive into the viral meme: “I’m just a normal person from 1995.” They explore how mainstream 1990s views — including those from Bill and Hillary Clinton on immigration, welfare reform, and borders — are now branded as “far-right extremism.” Using data from Cremieux’s Substack analysis of the General Social Survey, Pew Research polarization graphs, and cultural shifts, they discuss the leftward drift on race, gender, sexuality, institutions, and more. They argue that what was once normal (family values, personal responsibility, evidence-based thinking) is now demonized, while the modern Right has become the side of data, science, realism, and genuine societal progress. Topics include: the Overton window shift, trans issues and science, immigration realities, political tolerance, why many 1990s Democrats would be “MAGA” today, and the divorce between “progressivism” and actual improvement. Plus lighter moments on Hunter Biden, AI waifus, and mashed potatoes. Show Notes To set the scene, here are some quotes: * From our xenophobic, far-right president, saying: “I want to talk with you about the problem of illegal immigration. It’s a problem our administration inherited, and it’s a very serious one. It costs the taxpayers of the United States a lot of money, and it’s unfair to Americans who are working every day to pay their own bills... Our immigration policy is focused in four areas: first, strengthening border control; second, protecting American jobs by enforcing laws against illegal immigrants at the workplace; third, deporting criminal and deportable aliens; fourth, giving assistance to States who need it and denying illegal aliens benefits for public services or welfare.” * Or this from our capitalistic first lady, advocating for a “welfare reform plan that will dramatically change the nation’s welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance.” What do they all have in common? They come from left-leaning public figures in the 1990s. * Bill Clinton * Hillary Clinton The Rabbit Hole on X posted “Far right is often just a propaganda term for normal person” alongside a cartoon of a woman and man in a car, with the woman saying: “Why are you so far right politically” and the man saying “I’m just a normal person from 1995.” Andy Hatfield posted another meme that reads: “Recognize the warning signs of a far-right extremist: * Full time employment * Literacy * Loves his family and country * Common sense * Obeys the law” Inspired by the meme, Cremieux wrote A Normal Person 30 Years Ago A normal guy in 1995 probably believes a lot of things that are unacceptable now on Substack and his post about it—plus the resulting discourse—became a trending topic du jour on X. Cremieux’s Observations In his Substack article, Cremieux broke from the sentiment-based memes and looked at the data. “I opened up the General Social Survey and had a look around. To get started, I defined a few sets of political views: Institutional Confidence, Criminal Justice & Guns, Political Tolerance, Economic/Pro-Government, Racial Liberalism/Civil Rights, Gender-Role Egalitarianism, and Sexual & Moral Liberalism, and then I outlined a set of important social views.” The data shows that: * “People have become less confident in America’s institutions over time.” * “When it comes to criminal justice and firearms, more people think courts are too harsh on criminals, more people oppose the death penalty, and fewer people think we ought to requires permits to buy guns. The last of these didn’t change that much.” * “Political tolerance has somewhat increased since the 1970s, but it’s somewhat down since the 1990s. This general trend masks something interesting: more acceptance of gays and atheists, less acceptance of racists and militarists.” * “Movement on economically left-wing views has been generally pretty flat, which is roughly what we also see for economically right-wing views.” * “When it comes to racial liberalism, people have shifted far to the left. People have become more likely to ascribe Black-White gaps to discrimination and less to a lack of effort, among other things.” * “When it comes to gender roles, egalitarianism has greatly increased.” * Diana Fleischman recently made an interesting observation on that front vis a vis male postpartum depression * “Finally, when it comes to sexual and moral liberalism, views on sex education, divorce, marijuana legality, and so on have, in some cases, quite radically shifted towards left-ward positions. Abortion legality for serious defects is the only exception among the bunch.” He concludes that “the nation has moved considerably, but not overwhelmingly, to the left.” His editorialization is thoughtful: “What can we say about the normal person from 1995? In many ways, he was much like us. In other ways, he was what most people would now regard as kind of a dick. He didn’t like interracial marriage and he wasn’t too keen on gays either. These social views aren’t alone: plenty of things now considered taboo were, at the time, wholly acceptable, even in polite society, and sometimes these were the majority view. Right or wrong, I don’t think appealing to normal people in the world 30 years ago is likely to make many friends after realizing the sorts of things people used to believe.” I largely agree but also think he is not extrapolating sufficiently from the data. “Let a racist speak” has gone down in the General Social Survey, but also the definition of “racist” has changed significantly, from something that is, we would argue, blatantly racist, to someone who, for example, believes genes dictate skin color and other traits. In short, I think he was looking at the wrong thing to measure change. Additional Observations Shared on X NC Phycicist observed that “Pew Research illustrates this nicely. What the left calls the “far right” is just the left moving further left.” sharing a pretty illustrative graph showing diverging median democrats and median republicans in 1994 vs 2017: HF responded that: “Society always changes and moves on. By definition, a progressive (someone on the left) is either ahead of, or keeping up with those changes. A conservative (someone on the right) wants things to stay the same and not change. Society always changes and moves on. By definition, a progressive (someone on the left) is either ahead of, or keeping up with those changes. A conservative (someone on the right) wants things to stay the same and not change.” But Charles Pontificates pointed out that “It’s mostly leftists who want deindustrialization and the stagnation of energy production, and that’s hardly progress.” sharing a graph of electricity and income per capita that makes it clear there’s no such thing as a low-energy rich country. People also tried to make slippery slope arguments: * Rikki Schlott: “How far do we wanna go back on this one though? I’m just a normal guy from 1960? From 1850?” * Posterior Malone: “Yeah it’s certainly true to some degree, but 30 years is a very long time…imagine saying in 1995: ‘I’m not far right, I’m just a normal person from 1965’” * Martin Stepan: “I’m just a normal person from 1895.” There’s some pondering to be done about progress and time fixing everything versus toxic ideologies spreading. Episode Transcript Simone Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today. I want to set the scene with some quotes. Let’s start with one from our xenophobic far-right president saying, “I wanna talk with you about the problem of illegal immigration. It’s a problem our administration inherited and it’s a very serious one. It costs the taxpayers of the United States a lot of money, and it’s unfair to Americans who are working every day to pay their own bills. Our immigration policy is focused on four areas. First, strengthening border control. Second, protecting American jobs by enforcing laws against illegal immigrants at the workplace. Third, deporting criminal and dep- deportable Americans. Fourth, giving assistance to the states who need it in denying illegal aliens benefits for the public services or welfare.” And then here’s, and just another one from our capitalistic first lady advocating for, “A welfare reform plan that will dramatically change the nation’s welfare system into one that [00:01:00] requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance.” Oh, but crap. I used the wrong accents ‘cause, because I was actually quoting our different president and first lady from the 1990s, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. And that’s kind of the whole thing that’s been bubbling up on X recently. I think Malcolm Collins: we saw this meme that’s like, “I’m just a normal- Yeah, the, the- person from 1990” Yeah, the, the Simone Collins: Rabbit Hole on X specifically posted this on X. Far right is just often a propaganda term for normal sent alongside a cartoon of a woman and man in a car with this woman saying, “Why are you so far right politically?” And the man saying, “I’m just a normal person from 1995.” Speaker: We’re just normal men What do you mean normal men? We’re just innocent men. Eh? Simone Collins: And Andy Hatfield also posted another meme under that that, that reads, “Recognize the warning signs of a far right extremist. Full-time employment, literacy, [00:02:00] loves his family and country, common sense, and obeys the law.” And, Malcolm Collins: There, there was actually videos that were put together at one point. Oh, Simone Collins: really? Malcolm Collins: I’m probably gonna be too lazy to look for them. Speaker 3: Your son is not just lifting weights. He’s lifting the crushing weight of toxic masculinity. This is not

    39 min
  4. Everyone is Missing This! (Bricks & Minifigs Corporate Is WAY More F*** Than You Think)

    −3 d

    Everyone is Missing This! (Bricks & Minifigs Corporate Is WAY More F*** Than You Think)

    In this episode of Bricks and Minifigs 2, Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the Coffeezilla investigation into the Bricks & Minifigs Lego controversy. They explain what Coffeezilla allegedly got wrong—especially around accounts payable, business acquisitions, liabilities, and ownership of consignment inventory. Malcolm and Simone (experienced business buyers/sellers) dive into why the previous owner wasn’t being shady, how stock purchases transfer liabilities, why the “missing Legos” narrative misses the bigger picture, and the legal realities of taking over a business with existing obligations. They also discuss the broader saga, corporate responses, Brian Mansell’s history with the company, and why the focus should now be on properly resolving things with investigator Ben. A must-watch for anyone following the Bricks & Minifigs drama, Lego collectors, business ethics enthusiasts, or fans of deep-dive investigations. What do you think—did Coffeezilla miss key business 101 details? Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] you had watched the Coffeezilla piece and were convinced by it on Bricks and Minifigs. And- I mean- Oh my God, I thought that you with your business background would immediately see what he was getting wrong. Simone Collins: What was he getting wrong? Malcolm Collins: So there were two big things he got wrong. Okay. The, the really big glaring one is when he said the previous owner sold some of the sets without sending the money to the guy, right? And yet we see from her own words when they’re doing the transition of ownership, she goes, “You’re going to-” Yeah, Simone Collins: I’m worried about... Yeah. “ Malcolm Collins: You’re Simone Collins: gonna close out-” And they, they’re like, “We’re gonna have some- That’s gonna get handled by someone else.” Malcolm Collins: That’s what I heard. No, no, no. But she wasn’t worried about the inventory. Mm-hmm. She, she was worried more about closing out the accounts. Speaker 2: These are ones that haven’t-- he has not been paid his percentage yet, and if I don’t have the tickets, I won’t know how much I need to pay him. That, that’s a business thing and not necessarily yours. If, if taking on the business, he takes on all that comes on that [00:01:00] part. Speaker 3: What’s extremely funny about this piece in retrospect is you can see that the person, if not the CEO, at least somebody at Bricks & Minifigs properly understood the law that when you buy a business, you take on accounts payable Malcolm Collins: Yeah. What that means in business speak is she knew part of the money that was meant to go to him had been unpaid. Oh. And she’s like, “I need to go over my notes.” She even specifically says, “I need to go over my notes to see those amounts.” And then they say, “No, we’ll take on that responsibility.” Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: This is a normal thing in business. Yeah. This isn’t her being shady. It’s not like- Simone Collins: Well, that’s... When you acquire a company if it is not- an asset acquisition. If it’s a stock acquisition, you also acquire their liabilities Malcolm Collins: Liabilities. Simone Collins: And that, one of the liabilities- You acquire their liabilities is your accounts payable, and that is accounts payable. Yeah. Yeah, Malcolm Collins: that’s, that’s accounts... Th- this is the most 101 thing in business, and you were like, “Oh, there weren’t that many Legos in the store because she had sold some before,” and it’s like, n- that doesn’t, that doesn’t matter. And then the second thing- No, Simone Collins: what, what Coffeezilla said is that, that I [00:02:00] thought was most notable was that the amount that’s sort of pending was much smaller than people thought. It’s more, like, in the $20,000 range. That’s Malcolm Collins: because he wasn’t inc- including the accounts payable in the amount pending. Simone Collins: I thought that’s what the amount was, that the accounts payable- No ... oh. Malcolm Collins: He was talking about the physical sets that were still in the store, because he didn’t seem to understand accounts payable. Simone Collins: Hmm, I... Th- that can’t be. That’s too obvious. Malcolm Collins: No, it’s obvious to you because you’re a business person. He very clearly, if you watch the piece, and he was calculating the amount of money that he said Bricks and Minifigs owed the , the guy, he just did an addition of all of the sets he could find in their inventory. He didn’t- Oh ... include accounts payable, which would have, from what we’re hearing, maybe doubled that amount. So that was the first thing that really annoyed me. Simone Collins: I just figured if that was the case, then they would have included, featured prominently in that particular investigative episode, Coffeezilla, I mean. Like, i- she would say, “And the accounts payable amount was, like, $34,000.” She Malcolm Collins: [00:03:00] literally says that. She goes, “I need to check my records so I can settle accounts with the people who have order-” Simone Collins: Yeah, in, in... I know, from the recorded clip, but she doesn’t say how much that was. In the, in the subsequent interview that she had- Why? In Malcolm Collins: the subsequent... Because she’s being an idiot ... Simone Collins: with Coffeezilla, she would have stated that amount. ‘ Malcolm Collins: Cause she’s being an idiot. But in the, i- when she’s having the store taken over, she literally says, “I need to settle the accounts,” implying there’s a large amount of accounts payable specifically to him. Because, the, Simone Collins: Then why has no one stated that amount? Malcolm Collins: When we did our first episode, people were like, “Malcolm, it’s crazy that you saw things in this case that I just didn’t understand.” I think a lot of people are just ‘tards, Simone. That’s, that’s the, the- Well, Simone Collins: no, but I mean, it, it, at the very le- oh, I guess the Brian, the original owner would not know the amounts because he wouldn’t have been aware, aware of what was sold and not. Do you Malcolm Collins: think Ben or Brian understands what accounts payable is? The, the, these- Simone Collins: Yes, I, I imagine they do. But I also imagine they couldn’t know. Like, ‘cause i- if I’ve, if I’ve given something to a shop for consignment, I don’t know at any given day what [00:04:00] has sold and what hasn’t. Yeah. Like, there’s not... That’s just for us to know. Malcolm Collins: Yes, which is why she said, “I need to check my records.” Okay. So that really annoyed me. Speaker 4: Just so you understand why the law works this way, imagine if the law didn’t work this way and accounts payable magically disappeared or was transferred to the old owner of a business, , whenever the business changed hands. Now keep in mind, the owner of a business can be a business, , or not a specific individual. So suppose, , one individual, , , , accrues a large amount of accounts payable in a business, , and they just then transfer that business to themselves for like a one dollar sale, right? , And they say, “Oh, all the money that I owed people with this business...” , N-no, or let’s not say themselves. Let’s say their brother. , They say, “All the money this business owed immediately disappears because it transferred hands.” , That would be completely stupid. , Th- that would be like the easiest business trickeroo in the world. Like, it’s very obvious why n- you cannot have the law work this way Malcolm Collins: And then the second thing that really annoyed me- ... that we can go further on- Simone Collins: Oh, Malcolm Collins: [00:05:00] God. Crap ... is they keep focusing on whether or not she, she had the right to enter into the consignment deal, which is just totally irrelevant to any of the facts of the case. Whether or not she had that... So think of it this way, Simone. Uh-huh. Suppose I own a garage right? Or let, let’s, let’s make this different. I’m leasing a garage from somebody else, okay? To make this even clearer. And then I use the garage I’m leasing in violation of the terms of my lease to do what, what do you what do you call that where you, like, pay somebody to s- park your car for you at, like, restaurants? Well, I d- I don’t know the term. You pay somebody at a restaurant to park your- Simone Collins: Valet ... Malcolm Collins: valet. Okay, yes. So I use it for valet storage in violation of the agreement, right? Simone Collins: Oh. Malcolm Collins: Then the owner comes back and they go, “You didn’t have the right to run valet service here.” So then what they do is they take possession of... Because I’m only subleasing the asset, right? They [00:06:00] retake possession of the garage, and then they turn around and start selling all of the cars that I had been- Yeah, Simone Collins: like you parked a Ferrari and they’re like, “So this is mine now.” Malcolm Collins: Yeah, they’re like, “This is m-”. That is not remotely how the law works. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: You don’t take possession of an asset- Mm , Just because it’s in a location that you took possession of. Speaker 5: Again, to understand why it would be comical for the law to work this way, suppose I owned a, , storage locker that I rented to someone, and then the moment they moved in all their stuff, I then went to, , my brother, and I sold the storage locker to my brother. And then he now said, “Now I own everything in the storage locker.” Or I own a, a hotel, and I wait until a bunch of really rich people come there for a trip, and then I sell it to somebody, and, , now they own everything. All you would need to do to ste- legally steal stuff from somebody is to own something where you expected something of high value to go across, and then [00:07:00] im

    22 min
  5. The Nux Crossover: How The Nerd Right Formed

    −5 d

    The Nux Crossover: How The Nerd Right Formed

    Malcolm & Simone Collins sit down with Nux Taku for an epic, wide-ranging conversation on the evolution of the online right, anime-to-politics pipeline, faith, culture war, and building a better future. From hentai reviews to biblical literalism, technopuritanism, abortion, consent morality, AI, demographics, and why the right feels like the “fun side” — this is one of the most unfiltered and insightful collabs in the nerd/tech right space. Topics include: * The journey from 4chan/anime degen culture to political commentary * Why repentance & forgiveness are biblical traits that define the right * Critiques of consent-only morality, abortion, and leftist degeneration * Optimism, family, pronatalism, and raising based kids * Conspiracy theories, Candace Owens lore, and truth-seeking * AI, progress, and performative subversion on the right If you enjoy Based Camp, Nux Taku, or discussions blending anime, theology, and red-pilled culture — hit like, subscribe, and share! Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone and Nux. This is the collab that was promised 3,000 years ago. We are so excited to be here with you. And what I wanna go into with Nux is exploring the evolution of this sort of new online culture that we share that has become, I don’t know, the nerd right, the tech right, the new right, whatever people wanna call it. Because if you were to go to me five years ago, right? E- even five years ago, I mean, imagine 10 years ago, and you’re like, “Okay, so who are, like, the right-wing thought leaders on the internet?” And it’s like, “Well, the one we’ve got on now is a, a Jewish VTuber who used to do hentai reviews.” “... And then we’ve got fox girls. We’ve got, like, five fox girls.” And I’d be like, “Are they furries?” And they’d be like, “No, they’re not furries, but they are fox girls. And then we’ve got, like, this slime girl, but it’s very important that you know that she’s a chimera slime. Then we’ve got Commie Mommy,” and people would say- Elf Simone Collins: slime. Yes. Malcolm Collins: Simone, am I not coming through? Simone Collins: No, no. Just elf and slime girl. Like, it’s Malcolm Collins: chimera. Oh, elf and... Oh yes, I’ve [00:01:00] got to get it right. Yeah. So Commie Mommy, and then people would be like, “Well, she, she can’t actually be, like, a socialist.” No, she’s actually a socialist, and she’s well-liked within our community.” And then it’s like, and then you got the top of the, the, the pack, and it’s this guy who, who lives like a homeless guy. And I’d say to myself, like I’d be like, “Lives like a homeless guy? How does he not have any money?” It’s like, “Oh, no, he has tremendous amounts of money. Tremendous amounts.” But it’s so weird, this sort of world, and it’s a path that is not... Like, we, we in the past have tried to trace it from, like, the early online atheist communities to, like, the anti-feminist communities, then to, like, the anti-woke communities, and then to the modern right, and then it sort of, like, combined with parts of the red pill. But you represent a different strand which comes out of the anime degen 4chan world, which we also come from as well. And I wanted to take this to sort of explore this journey, you as one of the leading content creators who sort of lived it, [00:02:00] and how your mind changed and the various points you had major inflections. Nux Taku: Yeah, no, it’s de- it’s definitely a weird a weird area on the internet, for sure. I, I don’t know. For me it was, for me it was like, “Wow, I, I like making fun of retards and most of the retards are in politics. We have to start doing that.” I mean, that was the, that was kind of the thought process. Among other things, for sure. I mean, I have to say, one of my biggest inspirations was Hasan Piker shocking his dog. That was, that was huge for me personally. Like, I, I’m like, this guy, he’s very well accepted in like the, the streamer world. You know, the, the pop culture. And I’m like, you know what? I, I want it to be as uncomfortable for radical leftists as for radical right-wingers. Mm-hmm. And that’s what I did. I dedicated... And now no one wants to collab with Hasan. You know? Hasan was on The Ben Shapiro Podcast and no one wants to touch him anymore. You know, they got obliterated for it. Malcolm Collins: You, you did a great job nuke- I mean, the JD Vance was like, “Oh yeah, of course. You know, the dog shocking guy, right?” Like. It’s [00:03:00] Nux Taku: cinema. It’s amazing. Yeah. The we- Malcolm Collins: I actually Nux Taku: think- I, I think- Okay, Malcolm Collins: take it ... Nux Taku: no, I think putting, making the face of the left like, you know, dog shocking, you know, womanizing, brothel enthusiast, terrorist supporter, that’s like the face of the left and it’s like, you wanna be on that side? So like you mentioned- You have, and I Malcolm Collins: love that like on our side you have Asmongold, who literally, I don’t know any other human who would do this, doesn’t kill a cockroach growing, crawling on him, picks it up. Who is that nice to a cockroach? Who is that pathologically nice? All right. And then leads it outside, right? And Hasan’s shocking his dog. But I think- Nux Taku: Okay, I think, I think you’re taking the, the Asmongold thing like, a, a... It’s like, loves cockroaches, supports like late term abortions, right? That, that’s Asmongold. You know? It’s- Malcolm Collins: He still- Nux Taku: You got a lot of interesting characters out Malcolm Collins: here ... does Asmongold support late term abortion? Nux Taku: Asmongold, he supports abortion a moment before birth. He supports it. Malcolm Collins: Oh, really? I did not know that. We- Yeah. It’s interesting ... we have changed our views on abortion significantly recently. There, there was a recent video on that. Nux Taku: Really? Malcolm Collins: People [00:04:00] should watch because it was the craziest video ever. It starts with a gang bang where like people got together Simone Collins: and then- It starts with a, yeah, basically you know about Aila’s birthday gang bang, right? Nux Taku: Who? Simone Collins: Oh my God. So Ayla, a very famous sex researcher for her birthday one year in like 2024, so a bit ago I think decided to have a, a gang bang for her birthday because that’s how one celebrates in certain circles in the Bay Area with 42 men. And one of her friends who helped to organize her organize it met her now future husband and, and father of her child at this gang bang. She was a fluffer. But, but, but Malcolm Collins: in Simone Collins: between- But she had this really terrible, Nux Taku: Wait, y- you called her a sexual researcher? Simone Collins: She is. Is that like a nice way to say a w***e? She possesses some of the world’s best- Like, I’m trying to figure Nux Taku: this out. Simone Collins: No, so she, she has probably Malcolm Collins: the world’s best data set. If you’ve ever seen those data sets of kinks and what they correlate to and like how they c- cross correlate, the trans community hates her ‘cause she always just says whatever she thinks is true. Yeah. We’re not promoting her lifestyle. But anyway, in between, in between this party [00:05:00] and her friend getting married she had this horrible abortion experience that she wrote about that radicalized a lot of people like us, because before I was like, “Well, u- up until they have neurons I’m okay with it.” And now I’m like, “No, not even then.” Simone Collins: Yeah, it’s, Nux Taku: Look so- You should check it out ... so one thing, I, I hear you guys discuss a lot, like, your philosophy. I, I don’t remember. You have, like, a name for it. Malcolm Collins: Hmm. Nux Taku: It’s, like, about having lots of peers. Technopuritanism. Malcolm Collins: Like, Evan- It’s Nux Taku: our- Technopuritanism ... it’s Malcolm Collins: our crazy religion. Nux Taku: Okay. All right. Could, could you describe it in a few sentences, and then I’ll, I’ll let you know my... Like, i- if this is still part of the previous conversation. Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah. Well, okay, okay, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll say it before we go on with this, ‘cause one thread I wanna pick up on what you said earlier, and then I’ll get into this really quickly is you were saying you liked making fun of retards on the internet. And I think in reality- Passion ... this was what was the through line between these various communities. If you go back to the very early days, where you had the people who are now, like, right-wing influencers who back then were, like, atheist influencers or whatever, right? [00:06:00] They just liked dunking on anyone they could see as, as stupid, and then they started to feel like the Christians aren’t as fun to dunk on as the feminists. And then they started to be like, “Oh, the wokies are the most fun to dunk on,” or the Tum- the Tumblr people are. And it drove sort of this political chain. But as for us and our theological beliefs, the quickest version is we think that the... We have a biblically literalist reading of the Bible that is materialist and monist. Meaning that we a, a, we think that when the Bible says in the distant future humans are gonna be raised again that it’s talking about like, a, a, a super advanced entity in the distant future that is all-benevolent because humanity keeps evolving a billion years from now. And wants to give everybody who lived a virtuous life as long of a good life as possible, so it resurrects them. And we try to go through. And we’re literalist, too. Like, we try to take the, the, go through all the translations and show how it could mean this. It’s crazy, I know. Simone Collins: I think more succinctly, it’s, it’s an accelerationist tech-forward, [00:07:00] descendant worship religion that is based

    59 min
  6. Its Now Illegal To Murder Whites: Blacks & Sikhs Don't Know How They Will Survive This

    −6 d

    Its Now Illegal To Murder Whites: Blacks & Sikhs Don't Know How They Will Survive This

    Malcolm and Simone Collins break down the growing public anger over glaring double standards in interracial violence, media coverage, and the justice system. They dive deep into the Kamelo Anthony case (the stabbing of Austin Metcalf at a Texas track meet), European migrant crime incidents, fundraising scandals, jury selection disparities, crime statistics, and the disturbing normalization of anti-white violence. This episode explores why many feel the law is applied unequally, the oppressor/oppressed worldview driving it, immigration realities, and what a realistic path forward looks like — including building a broad, accountable coalition rather than narrow racial politics. A raw, data-heavy discussion on race, crime, culture, and civilization in 2026. Watch the full Based Camp episode for unfiltered analysis. Show Notes The Flash Point Cases 2026 Karmelo Anthony Murder Judgment * On June 9, 2026, a Texas jury found 19-year-old Karmelo Anthony guilty of murder for fatally stabbing 17-year-old track athlete Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas, on April 2, 2025. * Anthony was subsequently sentenced to 35 years in prison 2025 Dublin case * A 20-something illegal migrant from believed to be from Africa (with prior deportation orders) allegedly sexually assaulted a 10-year-old Irish girl in state care at a hotel housing asylum seekers * This triggered riots, vehicle burnings, and clashes June 2026 Belfast Knife Attack * On 40-something white Stephen Ogilvy by Hadi Alodid, a Sudanese refugee granted status in 2023 * Hadi Alodid was charged with attempted murder (but there was immediate unrest over immigration) What people are saying online Media angles (echoed on social): “Is the far right exploiting the attack by a refugee?” with focus on disorder rather than root causes like vetting. (e.g. FRANCE 24 - Europe posted: “Is the far right exploiting the ‘sickening’ attack by a refugee in Belfast?” Depa wrote: Kristallnacht in #Belfast begins: Masked thugs smash windows of houses of black& brown people after Sudanese immigrant tries to kill (Scottish?) man in a brutal knife attack Houses were also torched, mobs attacked POC in Glasgow after far right influencers called for protests.. iResist wrote: Anti-immigrant far right thugs in the city of Belfast in the UK have torched vehicles and buildings after a Sudanese man was arrested over a knife attack that left one person with serious injuries. Masked men are hunting immigrants in the city. April 2026 Belgium Kortrijk gang rape * Nine migrant minors (from various non-Western backgrounds) gang-raped a 14-year-old Belgian schoolgirl (”loaned out“ among them). * “The abuse took place during the Easter holidays in April 2024 in the Kabouterbos, a wooded area in Kortrijk. The victim was 14 at the time, while the suspects were aged between 11 and 16” (ReMix News) * She was lured into the woods by her then-16-year-old boyfriend * They filmed her rape and posted videos to snapchat * All were found guilty but received no prison * Instead, they got probation/community service (30 hours max). * Their lenient treatment was criticized as emblematic of soft juvenile justice for migrant offenders What people are saying online Critics of outrage call it disproportionate or ignoring similar intra-native cases. Per Al Jazeera, Sikh/Muslim/immigrant advocacy groups are distancing themselves from the perpetrator while documenting rising hate incidents. December 2025 Henry Nowak Stabbing Case * 18-year-old White university student Henry Nowak was stabbed to death (multiple times with an 8-inch Sikh ceremonial dagger/kirpan) by 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa (Sikh). * Digwa and his brother falsely claimed to police that Nowak had racially attacked him (grabbing turban, slurs). * Police initially handcuffed the dying Nowak based on this. * Digwa was convicted of murder in 2026; the judge called the racism claim a “wicked lie.” * It sparked major outrage, questions from PM Keir Starmer about how racism accusations influenced police, and reviews of policing. Critics argued initial response prioritized the false hate claim over the victim’s life What people said online Hebb Rule is Enough fir AGI/A Creative I - Jayan wrote: “The Sikh man and his family are not walking around looking to stab people. Henry Nowak was a drunk racist abusing the Punjabi and got what he deserved. The police correctly identified the drunk aggressor and just didn’t realise he was stabbed.” Bakara Amuri wrote: 🚨😳SIKS ARE FIGHTING BACK…. UNPRECEDENTED MOVES🇬🇧 Innocent Sikhs have been targeted, while the elderly and vulnerable are being urged to stay indoors, following the sentencing of Vickrum Digwa. Amarjeet Singh, from Hounslow in west London, has launched a website for Sikhs across the country to report incidents of hate crime. The site has received numerous reports in the past five days, with many respondents believing the abuse they experienced was linked to Digwa’s conviction. Will you report any anti sikhs “crimes”? The British Sikh Report 2025 found: 49% of British Sikhs were already worried about rising anti‑Sikh sentiment. Many reported being mistaken for Muslims or targeted simply for wearing a turban. according to the report here is the reason why: “far‑right mobilisation” Is There Really a Policing Double Standard? The standard understanding is that there is a double standard, but it’s in favor of whites and to the detriment of non-whites. Per organizations like The Sentencing Project: Evidence from policing, sentencing, and media coverage shows racial double standards do exist—but they do not take the form of “non‑white offenders being treated more leniently on average.” Instead, the consistent pattern in U.S. research is harsher treatment of Black and other non‑white suspects/defendants, especially when victims are white, and more sympathetic social treatment of white offenders. A 2021 study of co‑offending partners found that Black offenders were significantly more likely than white co‑offenders to be arrested for the same incident, especially in assault cases. That is, when a Black and a white suspect commit an offense together, police are more likely to formally arrest the Black suspect, indicating differential enforcement rather than equal treatment. Interracial Crime Realities One thing people are discussing online is the reality of mixed-race attacks/crimes First: Most violent crime in the U.S. is intraracial: people tend to victimize members of their own racial group. In 2020, about 69% of violent incidents against white victims and 66% against Black victims involved an offender of the same race or ethnicity. That means “white‑on‑Black” or “Black‑on‑white” crimes are a relatively small subset of overall violence, not the dominant pattern (as reported by the US Department of Justice) Per a 2024 Department of Justice Report, which provides counts and percentages of violent incidents by the race/Hispanic origin of victims and offenders, based on victims’ perceptions: * White‑on‑non‑white* (white offenders, non‑white victims): * White‑on‑black: 57,370 * White‑on‑Hispanic: 334,770 * White‑on‑“other”: 217,140 * Total white‑on‑non‑white ≈ 609,000 incidents. * Non‑white‑on‑white (non‑white offenders, white victims): * Black‑on‑white: 536,120 * Hispanic‑on‑white: 271,410 * “Other”‑on‑white: 262,120 * Total non‑white‑on‑white ≈ 1,070,000 incidents. *Here “non‑white” = black, Hispanic, and “other” race categories. These tallies exclude incidents where offender race is unknown or mixed‑race groups that the table pushes into “other”; they are best understood as approximate patterns rather than precise totals of “all interracial incidents”. General Findings: * The authors highlight that the share of violent incidents with white offenders (47%) is smaller than whites’ share of the population (60%). * They also note that the share of incidents with black offenders (28%) is more than double blacks’ share of the population (12%). * Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander persons are underrepresented as both victims and offenders relative to their population share. Key interracial/intraracial findings in their terms From table 13 (incidents by victim and offender race/Hispanic origin): * White victims experienced about 3.42 million violent incidents in 2024. * Of these, about 1.71 million incidents involved white offenders (intra‑racial), while about 0.54 million involved black offenders and about 0.27 million involved Hispanic offenders. * Black victims experienced about 0.77 million violent incidents. * Of these, about 0.40 million involved black offenders (intra‑racial), vs about 0.06 million with white offenders and about 0.12 million with Hispanic offenders. * Hispanic victims experienced about 1.16 million violent incidents, with roughly 0.27 million involving Hispanic offenders, and substantial numbers involving white or black offenders. These joint victim–offender counts allow you to identify which victim–offender race pairings are more common in terms of incident counts but still are not presented as “rates of interracial crime” in the report’s framing. Key incident counts from Table 13 (2024 NCVS legacy) All numbers below are counts of violent incidents, based on victims’ perception of offender race/Hispanic origin. * Total violent incidents involving white victims: 3,421,720. * White offender: 1,706,750 * Black offender: 536,120 * Hispanic offender: 271,410 * “Other” race offender: 262,120 * Offender race unknown: 645,320 * Total violent incidents involving black victims: 773,420. * White offender: 57,370 * Black offender: 402,960 * Hispanic offender: 121,880 (flagged “interpret with caution”) * “Other” race offender: 54,360 (caution) * Offender race unknow

    1 tim 4 min
  7. We Need More Sins (Sins = Rules that Make Your Life Better)

    10 juni

    We Need More Sins (Sins = Rules that Make Your Life Better)

    In this Based Camp episode, Simone and Malcolm Collins explore an expanded framework for personal morality and “modern sins” designed to maximize mental health, personal efficacy, and long-term human flourishing. Framed through a Christian and Techno-Puritan lens, they discuss how biblical morality has iteratively improved over time and why we need updated rules for today’s world. Topics include: avoiding busywork and performative suffering, rejecting pride and status signaling, the dangers of inaction and moral absolutism, self-flagellation, empty words, corrupted mercy, and living with aplomb. They emphasize consequentialist ethics focused on future human (and post-human) flourishing through science, technology, and disciplined living. A practical guide to building a better life, overcoming common traps, and aligning daily actions with higher purpose. Applicable to Christians, secular listeners, and anyone seeking a high-agency value system. Techno-Puritan Sins, Summarized Sin, per Techno-Puritanism, is any pattern of behavior—mental, emotional, or practical—that wastes your capacity or undermines long-term flourishing for yourself or humanity. All Techno-Puritan sins are derived from a single principle: * Maximize long-term human flourishing and effectiveness * Minimize: * Wasted effort * Short-term thinking * Self-indulgent or performative behavior 1. Acting from social expectation (performative living) It is sinful to: * Do things just because they’re expected (e.g., ceremonies, reunions). * Especially when they don’t align with your goals or values. Why? Obligation without purpose is wasted life energy. 2. Pride as social comparison (“proving others wrong”) It is sinful to motivate yourself primarily by: * Showing others you’re better than them. * Seeking validation through superiority. Why? External validation distorts decision-making. Seeking it may produce shallow or misaligned decisions. 3. Living to fit an image or archetype It is sinful to: * Make decisions to match a role (e.g., “ideal Christian,” “alpha male,” “tradwife”). * Prioritize appearance of virtue over actual outcomes. Why? Doing so drives one to “perform goodness” instead of doing good and leads to inefficient or even harmful choices. 4. Wasted effort / misaligned roles It is sinful to do things that: * Don’t actually help others * Aren’t valued by those they’re meant to serve (e.g. Performing “ideal spouse” behaviors that your partner doesn’t need or want.) Why? Effort without impact is morally wasteful. 5. Busywork (major emphasis) It is sinful to: * Spend time on on tasks that feel productive but aren’t meaningful (e.g. Working 12 hours but accomplishing less than 2 focused hours.) * This Includes: * Overwork without output * Performative productivity * Inefficient labor Why it’s considered especially bad: * Reduces overall effectiveness * Crowds out meaningful work * Worse than leisure because it gives no recovery or benefit 6. Pure indulgence without purpose It is sinful to * Do things solely for personal pleasure with no broader benefit (e.g. indulging in excess entertainment or sexual behavior detached from long-term outcomes) Nuance: * Some indulgence is tolerated if it supports long-term function (rest, motivation). 7. Performative suffering / overwork signaling It is sinful to: * Show off stress, exhaustion, or hardship as a badge of honor. * This includes: * Bragging about long hours * Glorifying burnout Why? Suffering is not inherently virtuous—only meaningful outcomes are. 8. Emotional indulgence (lack of “aplomb”) It is sinful to adopt unproductive emotional states, such as: * Self-pity * Anger * Excessive grief expression * Cynicism or snark Why? * Emotions are (to a degree) controllable and reinforce themselves. * Indulging in negative emotions: * Harms others * Weakens self-control * Reduces effectiveness * Conversely, maintaining calm, forward-moving resilience, especially in hardship, imparts strength to oneself and others 9. Self-deception about morality It is sinful to convince yourself that: * You’re being virtuous when you’re not * Busywork or image-performance equals goodness Why? Mislabeling behavior prevents improvement. 10. Failure to pursue meaningful contribution It is sinful to not direct effort toward: * Long-term human progress * Knowledge, science, or societal development Why? Immediate charity often distracts from long-term impact and can actively run counter to efforts that would maximize long-term human flourishing. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing personal re- morality as it relates to, one, this is going to focus on just general advice for living a good life. Hmm. And a good way to structure your life to overcome many of the challenges that people face. So this would be applicable to people of Christian perspective, non-Christian perspective, techno-Puritan perspective. But I’m gonna be couching it within the framing of I’m talking to Christians here. Okay? And the reason I’m couching it in that is because when we look at something like the Bible, people often get hung up. They’re like, “Wait, so I read all these parts about morality and, like, the seven deadly sins in the Bible and the Commandments, and then I read stuff like, ‘If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to go free as male slaves do. If she does not please the master who selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to other foreigners because he has broken faith with [00:01:00] her. If he selects her for his sons, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries her to another woman, he must not deprive the first one of food, clothing, or marital rights. If he does not provide her with these things, she is to go free without any payment of money.’” And people are like, “Wait, is that a bunch of rules about how to sell your daughter into slavery and then treat her afterwards?” You know, like, they do seem like nice rules about selling your daughter into slavery, but it would seem like it might have been better to just not do that, to just be like, if you’re thinking of selling your daughter into slavery, and, like, pretty clearly because it, it talks about potentially marrying her sex slavery is what we would call that today don’t do it. And the way that Christians and Jews get around this is they go, “Well, iteratively, that was a more moral way of dealing with slavery than other common traditions of this period.” Hmm. And we have a whole episode where we go through that. And if you look at our last tract where we also went into morality at the societal level, we talk about the [00:02:00] many... Like, you, you remember me going over them. It was a number of them, places in the Bible where God commands people to kill infants, and lots of infants. Like, the number of infants is very, very high, right? Speaker 7: If you want to go through that, check out the episode, “Christianity Was Never a Religion of Peace” that we released, last week. It’s a great episode. , We cite all the verses where this happens, , and it’s a pretty frequent thing throughout the Old Testament Malcolm Collins: And so people are like, “Okay, well,” he told people to do that because those societies were practicing child sacrifice.” And I was like, “That’s not a very moral answer.” That’s like saying, “Oh, we rescued a bunch of children from Epstein’s island, so we killed them all?” Like, presumably if you’re saving the children who might be child sacrifice, right? Like, you don’t kill the... And note here the term used in some of these instances. You can’t be like, “Oh, he’s only talking about toddlers who has absorbed the culture.” They use terms meaning, like, breastfeeding infant, like suckling infants, right? Like, [00:03:00] very young. So it’s like, okay What’s going on here, right? Was this just like iteratively more moral than what came before it? Do these types of things still hold? And how does this hold at like a personal level? And what I’ll note here is what we see, if you take the stance that God said all of this because it was iteratively better than the way things used to be done before he laid those things out, then presumably it’s been a pretty long time since the New Testament was written. More is expected of us or a more advanced understanding of morality is expected from us than what- Yeah ... was laid out in the New Testament So what are those things? And that’s what we’re gonna go into today, is basically a new and expanded understanding of sins that will help you be like, “Hmm, if I just make a personal commitment to never do this list of [00:04:00] things, I will be both a much more mentally healthy person, I will be a much more efficacious person, and I will be able to do a lot more to push human civilization forwards.” And note here when we talk about pushing human civilization forwards, obviously this is a wider, like, technopuri- puritan track series, but it’s, we try to make them more applicable to general Christians now as well. One of the fun things that you see in regards to us talking about the sons of man, which you also see all over the Bible. You know, by the way, I didn’t make up the term the sons of man. That’s all over the Old Testament. Very weird way to talk about people. Why would you talk about people as the sons of man, right? Like, that’s a... W- why in Simone Collins: the world- Yeah, why not just, you know, humans or people? Malcolm Collins: Why not just man, right? Well, suppose that these rules were supposed to apply to not just the humans we have today, but when we become a space-faring species, when we take our manifest destiny among the stars, we’re going to need to use genetic technology. You b

    1 tim 7 min
  8. How A Gay Jew Rewrote Core Catholic Doctrine in the 1960s (This is CRAZY)

    9 juni

    How A Gay Jew Rewrote Core Catholic Doctrine in the 1960s (This is CRAZY)

    Is Vatican II the result of a “gay Jew infiltrating the Catholic Church”? Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into the shocking story of Gregory Baum — a matrilineal Jew, former Catholic priest, and openly gay man who authored the first draft of Nostra Aetate, one of the most controversial documents of the Second Vatican Council. In this episode, they explore: • Baum’s background, conversion, active homosexuality while writing key Church documents, and later life • The content and lasting impact of Nostra Aetate on Catholic teaching regarding Jews, other religions, and interfaith dialogue • Why many traditional Catholics view Vatican II with deep suspicion • The broader implications for Church authority, doctrine, and demographics A wild, uncomfortable, and thought-provoking discussion on faith, identity, institutional capture, and theology. What do you think — infiltration, urban monoculture influence, or something else? Watch until the end for Malcolm & Simone’s unfiltered reactions. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. If you clicked on this video and are wondering, is this a clickbait title? It is so much crazier than you think, right? So I saw a title going through on a Redeem Zoomer video. We’ve had him on the show. I think he’s a great content creator, but he’s a pretty small C conservative content creator. Doesn’t really lean into c- clickbait. Generally tries to dig into the meat and bones of religious history, Christian history, and theology. And it was the, the gay Jew who infiltrated Catholicism or the Vatican or something like that. Anyway, I read this and I was like, “Wh- this isn’t normal Redeem Zoomer content,” right? It mu- it can’t possibly be true, Malcolm. I start listening to the video. I get to the end of it and I’m like, “Oh, my God, I have to know more.” So I need to clarify a few things about this particular individual and the influence they have had on Catholicism. [00:01:00] First of all is this somebody who was just, like, same sex attracted or, you know, not, not actually sleeping with men? Or maybe they, long after writing the documents that became important parts of Vatican II Nostra A- aetera m- they, they maybe long after had gay sex or started doing gay activism or something like that. They were, while they were a priest, during the time period they wrote these documents, having active gay sex with men Yeah and Simone Collins (2): then it’s like- Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold, hold on. You, how can you be a Catholic priest and a, I mean, I guess you could be a ma- a matrilineal Jew And that’s the other, right, so here’s Malcolm Collins: another thing. I was like, maybe they’re just ethnically Jewish or something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, they’re probably not actually a Simone Collins (2): Jew. They’re just matrilineally, ooh, matrilineally Jewish, and that’s it, right? Yeah, so- And then that would be- Malcolm Collins: He is, by the way, matrilineally [00:02:00] Jewish. His, one of the things he fought hardest to normalize within the Vatican and Catholicism as a policy is that it is immoral to attempt to proselytize to and convert Jews to Christianity. Does that sound a lot like somebody who actually deconverted from Judaism? That makes no sense if you actually believe Christian principles, right? Like, you would... I’m, I’m saying this, I’m trying to be, like, as... I have, I have tackled this particular conundrum every way I can in my head, and the only way, because then, like, wouldn’t he convert back to Judaism? But the only way I can get it to make sense when I piece together his various writings, and then it does make sense, is he thinks that, that the [00:03:00] Jews are still under the first covenant. And that as such, you can have a b- believe that the Jewish worldview is both 100% correct and accurate, and the Christian worldview is simultaneously 100% correct and accurate. Because the first covenant stands and you have the second covenant. And so he basically, I mean, if this is true, it means that he 100% believed in, even if he was telling the truth about being a Catholic, Catholicism and Judaism. Or a form of Catholicism that’s heavily different from other forms of Catholicism, because now we’re gonna get to, what did he write? So he wrote Nostra Aetate. This is an official declaration of the Second Vatican Council. It was overwhelmingly approved with a final vote of 2,021 in favor and only 88 against, and it was promulgated or officially issued by Pope Paul VI on October [00:04:00] 28th, 1965. What that means in terms of Catholic doctrine is that’s not the same thing as a papal bull, right? Like, it doesn’t mean that it directly came from God. But what it does mean, according to the catechism of the Catholic Church, or, like, their official documents about what all Catholics have to do, is Catholics, quote-unquote, “owe it religious assent or a sincere submission of intellect and will.” See CCC 892 to 893. It is not optional. And I will read through that, the, like, official Catholic doctrine on these types of policies. But what it said and what it introduced to Catholicism as a concept is that other religions, including religions outside of the Abrahamic tree, like Hinduism and Buddhism, have a ray of divine truth to them. And it’s even written ... It can be interpreted, like now, [00:05:00] after I went over this document, I understand now why so many of our Catholic friends hate Vatican II. ‘Cause I’m reading this and I’m like, “Whoazers.” Like, this is pretty wild. And it, it goes through and sort of praises things about other major religions and sort of creates commandments, essentially, for Catholics around getting along with them rather than necessarily trying to convert them. That’s crazy. Very convenient if a Jew had entered the, the, the Catholic Church. Okay. By the way, other final crazy thing is he also deconverted- Oh ... from Simone Collins (2): Catholicism. So he, like, came in, vandalized church policy, and then- Vandalized church Malcolm Collins: policy in a very d- and note, when I say he wrote the Nostra E- Eleata this document- It’s not like he co-wrote it or something like that. He wrote the entirety, as far as church history and anyone is aware- Okay ... of the first [00:06:00] draft of this document. How- Yes, it was heavily edited after its first draft and before it entered the sort of church law and stuff like that. And actually, it seemed to have gotten even worse in future edits. In his original writing of it, it was really just focused on Jews and Christians getting along and Judaism being partially true. Okay. And all of the, like, Hinduism and Buddhism stuff was added by other people afterwards. Oh, wow. So, like the his, his group of buddies- It was the ‘60s. It was the time. Yeah but the reason he left was also crazy. So within the church and during his time in the church, he was a well-known LGBT activist. Oh. And he left the church, and we’ll go into that because as he said the, the, the, the church’s stance on gays. Which is odd because one he... If- he was a priest. He’s not, in C- Catholic terms at least, it’s, that, that doesn’t [00:07:00] just mean you can’t sleep with women. You can’t sleep with anyone as a Catholic priest. Yeah. Right? Like- Yeah ... their stance on gays had nothing to do with the fact that he couldn’t sleep with men. Yeah, it’s, it’s about Simone Collins (2): celibacy. It’s not about selective celibacy. Malcolm Collins: Yeah, although he was doing that anyway. Well. He ends up, by the way, long-term dating another Catholic priest who is gay or former Catholic priest who is gay. Simone Collins (2): Oh, I just, no, I just want the yaoi manga version of this. After leaving- It sounds fantastic. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Y- you know how G- oh, you wanna get even more manga? Do you know who he’s married to today? Simone Collins (2): Neil deGrasse Tyson. Malcolm Collins: I don’t know. Who? What? An ex-Catholic nun. Simone Collins (2): God, you said that and my, my computer just, like, demonically shut off. It, it was like- ... it wasn’t used to process that. No, it was Malcolm Collins: an ex-Catholic nun who he’s married to now. Oh my. Well, Simone Collins (2): a very Malcolm Collins: mannish Simone Collins (2): nun perhaps. Malcolm Collins: No, no. They don’t have any [00:08:00] sexual relationship. I think it’s so that he can more easily have both a long-term pr- relationship, which is something he’s always wanted, and practice casual sex with gay men in, in potentially large numbers. So okay. I’ve set the scene, I think. This is absolutely crazy. I now understand why, like, all of the sane Catholics who, like, are, are our friends are all like, “Yeah, I’m not, like, a big fan of Vatican II. That... Some w- some fishy stuff went on with that,” right? And l- let’s, let’s just go into this, okay? ‘Cause it gets... , so he knew he was attracted to men in his teenage years but remained celibate during his time as a priest. Ordained in the 1950s, left the priesthood in 1974. A- and note his conversion into Catholicism is also pretty fishy. So we’ll get into that as well. In his 2016 autobiography, The Oil Has Not Run Dry, he publicly came out. He described falling in love with men [00:09:00] emotionally in his younger years. The joy mixed with pain because it couldn’t be reciprocated due to his vows. His first gay experience was at the age of 40 around 1963. This was around the age that he wrote this document which he described as exciting but ultimately disappointing because he wanted a committed partner. After leaving the priesthood, he married Shirley Flynn, a former nun, in 1978. They lived together platonically until her death in 2007. He described continuing to explore his sexuality in other, quote-unquote, “non-c

    1 tim 15 min

Om

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

Du kanske också gillar