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. Why Female Leaders Abuse Their Power (The Science)

    7H AGO

    Why Female Leaders Abuse Their Power (The Science)

    Dive into a provocative discussion with Malcolm and Simone Collins as they debunk two major myths: the idea that female-led societies are inherently peaceful, and the romanticized view of bonobos as gentle, utopian apes. Drawing from their book The Pragmatist’s Guide to Sexuality and fresh data from studies (including 2024 research on bonobo aggression), they explore how matriarchal structures—both in history and among bonobos—often lead to more violence, coercion, and hierarchy than expected. From evolutionary psychology on women’s submission fantasies to historical queens waging wars, this episode challenges progressive narratives about “natural” societies and argues for building better futures through pragmatism, not nostalgia. Key highlights: * Why bonobo society is a nightmare of sexual coercion and aggression. * Data showing female rulers are more likely to start wars (27% higher in historical Europe). * Evolutionary insights into gender dynamics and power. * A rant on rejecting “hidden utopias” and advancing civilization. If you enjoy data-driven takes on culture, evolution, and society, subscribe for more episodes from Based Camp! Check out our books and join the conversation.Episode Transcript: Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be going over two persistent myths in society, dissecting them, looking at the actual data to show that no. One female led societies historically are, and actually in modern times because we’re gonna be going into new data, not just the old data that we had in our book, the Pragma Guide to Sexuality are, are more violent than non-female led society. Simone Collins: Oh yeah, sure, of course Malcolm Collins: that makes sense. But also the myth of the peaceful bonobo is where we are going to start because Bonobo society is actually. Horrifying. Simone Collins: I don’t understand why people have this vision of the Gentle Ape. All, all apes and monkeys terrify me more than Pelicans, and there’s nothing scarier than a pelican. Malcolm Collins: So we’re just gonna go over a bunch of data, mostly drawing from a chapter from the Pragmatist Guide to Sexuality about why. You shouldn’t let women run [00:01:00] things. And not just that, but how the progressive movement and the progressive part of the academic movement has this tendency to create these con conflation or confabulation of, unique examples or cherry picked data to try to say that we should go back to some earlier way of doing things or some earlier way is natural. Simone Collins: Ah, the Malcolm Collins: old sapien argument, fix it Dawn. Where they’re like, well, our ancestors were polyamorous. Look at the gentle bonobo. Look at the tribal they are. And I’m like, well. First of all, that’s not true of all tribal groups, and it’s certainly not true of the more successful ones. You just chose one that fit the society that you wanted. You’re like, okay, where’s the most communist, the most matriarchal, the most? Okay. We will say, this is the model for early humans. Yeah. When that’s not actually the predominant evidence that we have, and we can do a separate episode on that. But it’s the same with you know, with with [00:02:00] Bonobos. They go, oh, what, what? There was a period where like some researchers really romanticized Bonobos. And now we know that they basically made a mistake and they created, it is true that Bonobos do have a matriarchal society. It’s just not true that it’s a benevolent, matriarchal society. So let’s go into this. All right. Simone Collins: I wonder. Yeah, and I, I, I’m very curious to, to know when in history women were seen to be. Nice. I, I’m thinking maybe certainly with the Victorian era, this, there was this picture of like, the woman is being the moral anchor of the household, but yeah, I’m, this is gonna be fascinating. Malcolm Collins: Some of our readers may be wondering at this point why we have not referred to Bonobos. It has become popular to cite Bonobo behavior as evidence that humans in their natural state would be free loving, polyamorous, matriarchal communities. This view of Bonobos has been aggressively pushed by those whose political agenda benefits from the belief that our distant ancestors lived in this kind of [00:03:00] utopia. First, we would point to the fact that women tend towards submissive sexual fantasies much more than men. That this tendency does not appear to be socialized. And male humans almost certainly have an infanticide impulse. This serves as fairly concrete evidence indicating that early humans did not interact like Bonobos, or at least how people believe Bonobos interact. Matriarchal utopias do not create evolutionary pressures, nudging women to become turned on by violence against themselves, or sexually aroused by men stomping on babies like lucy McGillicutty stomping in a great vat. A 2015 psychology study of 1000. This is not from the guide. I’m just sort of adding this for people who don’t know because in the guide I just citation, citation, citation, citation is, I’m just gonna go into some of this, right? A 2015 Psychology Today Review of 1,516 participants found 52% of women fantasized about forced sex verse lower male rates for submission, often weekly [00:04:00] linked to implicit associations of sex with surrender rather than cultural norms. A 2006 sex role study confirmed women’s non-conscious sex submission link predicted lower arousal, if not acted on suggesting an innate component. So I want pull out what both of those studies are saying. It’s saying that if a woman has a. Forced submission fetish, and she engages in vanilla sex. She will not become as aroused during that vanilla sex. As a woman. It’s not like it’s just an additive to her arousal. It is a necessary component of her arousal. To reach a, a, a full arousal state. Mm-hmm. And, and in terms of this 52%, when you get to 52% of women fantasizing about forced sex, that means that it’s the normal thing to do. That means that, well, it’s not by a huge amount. It means that the women who don’t fantasize about this are the weird ones. Simone Collins: It also just says something really sad about our evolutionary [00:05:00] history. Throwing that out Malcolm Collins: there. Yeah, it does. It does. It does because it there, I mean, clearly there was an evolutionary pressure to be turned on by that, right? Like Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Interestingly here, high resource women, eg. Executives report even more forceful submission fantasies as per a 2009 Journal of six research analysis. Simone Collins: Hmm. Malcolm Collins: That is important to note. The reason why we need to bring this up that a woman’s desire to be subjugated goes up as she reaches higher levels of status and power within society is that means if you put a woman at the top of an organization or say a country, she will have a desire for. Not just her, but everything associated with her to be subjugated as a result of that. Now, obviously we don’t always act on our desires, and obviously not all women, right? You know, Margaret Thatcher was a goat leader, right? But it does mean that. [00:06:00] On average, you’re going to get this tendency, and I can think that this might be why a lot of women politically hold views that lead to a culture or a country to end up in a position of subjugation if they feel like they are overly lauded or overly high status within that culture or country three. Malcolm Collins: And the reason I point all that out is Simone Collins: the stronger your survival instinct perhaps. Malcolm Collins: If we lived in a, like if the forces that shaped our arousal pathways Simone Collins: mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: Came from environmental pressures and those environmental pressures and those environmental structures looked like the imagined social se say it up of, of Bon Nobo, there would be no reason to see this pattern. Yeah. So basically we know. Even if they were right about Bonobos they would not be right about us living in that. Simone Collins: We don’t have a matriarchal evolutionary history Malcolm Collins: Exactly. Simone Collins: No, no, no. Malcolm Collins: To continue further. [00:07:00] The concept of peaceful hypersexual, matriarchal, polyamorous, bonobo is complete pseudoscience motivated by political fringe groups read The Naked Bonobo. For a more in-depth review of the scientific literature about this species, it bucks the mainstream narrative. Though it certainly has its own acts to grind, real bonobo behavior is far more interesting than the myth and no less a living nightmare than the situation we propose for early human social structures. . Some examples here. There have been instances of female bonobos holding other females, infants, lives hostage in exchange for sex. Imagine a woman picking up an infant by the head and threatening to ring its neck unless it’s unpopular. Mother went down on her. This is a, a, a real and repeatedly observed phenomenon among Bonobos, so yes. Women are in charge in the most [00:08:00] horrifying way you could conceivably imagine. I would point out that this is not a behavior that we have ever observed in male chimpanzees. So male chimpanzees when they’re in charge do not do this to other female chimpanzees. Infants in exchange for sexual favors, female bonobos Do. Although, I will admit this is a bit of a cop out because male chimpanzees practice infanticide, so they wouldn’t be in a situation in which the female would have another male chimpanzees or an unpopular male chimpanzees kid, and they wanted sexual access to her. Malcolm Collins: To go further here, but this isn’t in the book, but just to add some color. A 2018 study on infant handling at the University of Oregons Bon Nova Enclosure found that adolescents, females unquote, carry away infants after grooming. Mothers, sometimes leading

    56 min
  2. Canon: The Jedi Are Controlled By A Lying Parasite

    1D AGO

    Canon: The Jedi Are Controlled By A Lying Parasite

    Dive into a mind-blowing deep dive where Malcolm and Simone Collins expose the Jedi Order as the ultimate villains of the Star Wars universe! Forget the heroic myths—this episode breaks down how the Jedi are controlled by a parasitic hive mind (midi-chlorians), enforce child kidnapping and soldier training, uphold a dystopian Republic riddled with corruption and slavery, and lie about the true nature of the Force. Drawing from canon lore like The Clone Wars, prequels, and even the Mortis arc, we argue Palpatine was right, Anakin did nothing wrong, and the Empire might actually be the good guys. Plus, real-world parallels to parasites like toxoplasmosis and cultural brainwashing. Is Star Wars secretly a horror story? Buckle up for facts, rants, and a killer outro! Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about how the Jedi order from the Star Wars universe is quite possibly the most evil organization in any sci-fi universe I have ever read. Simone Collins: They are actual scum. They are actual scum. Malcolm Collins: They are. When you, when you actually think about it, you’re like, oh my God. The Star Wars universe under the Republic was a complete dystopia and the empire was needed. Palpatine was right. So, and, and I, I’m not gonna make stretches here. I’m not gonna bend outside the lore. You’re just gonna stage Simone Collins: facts, Malcolm Collins: the lore of mm-hmm. The Star Wars universe. So. Right. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: They have these symbiotic organisms called MIT chloron. Mm-hmm. Now you could say they’re symbiotic, but they’re really [00:01:00] not symbiotic. They’re more parasitic. , Why do I say that? They’re parasitic rather than symbiotic. Well, because when they reach high enough levels in a host, that host loses their ability to breed. IE the Jedi have to be celibate. And it’s made very clear if you have too high a level of this parasitic inflection. If your mitol count is too high, you deal with extreme negative side effects, or at least this is what those infected with the parasite and who follow its will say extreme negative side effects if you attempt to breed. So this. Parasitic organisms that lives in humanoids. They ha has a hive mind that we call the, the light side of the force that they worship. They have to serve the will of it. By the way, it, it lies to them about its true nature provably in the, the, the Star Wars universe. Oh, Simone Collins: does it? They Malcolm Collins: they have [00:02:00] to. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It doesn’t create the force or anything like that. The, the force is, we learned the history of the force and the mortis arc. So it is a. Parasitic hive mind that is lying to them about how it grants them presumably magic like powers. Then they sort the entire society of the universe into a hierarchy based on your level of infection by this parasite. Simone Collins: God, Malcolm Collins: this is, I mean this is just, just any fact. Any Simone Collins: fact, yes. Malcolm Collins: When, when, when they go and they find Anakin. Simone Collins: Oh Malcolm Collins: yeah. Right. They’re like, oh, he has X white chloron count, which means that one day he, he could be one of the most powerful Jedi ever. Mm. Right. I haven’t even gone into the child kidnapping and stuff like that yet, which we will get to. Oh, Simone Collins: child soldiers? Yeah. Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: No, no, no. They have literal child soldiers. When Anakin [00:03:00] went in there, and I’ll go, I’ll elaborate on this in more detail, and he killed the young Lings. That was a completely justified thing to do. Within that context, we see those very sane young lings in other shots, and I’m talking about like of the movie, like not even like extended stuff, practicing with light sabers, the single most dangerous weapon in the entire universe. Okay? These are children, Simone Collins: they’re not like broken, not, not, stick swords, but laser. Laser swords. Malcolm Collins: Laser swords, they’re not even paying, was like wooden AK 40 sevens. Now the laser swords are turned down in these Simone Collins: oh, Malcolm Collins: okay. Speaker: Huh? What do you think? I think you finished your lightsaber. Find out. Malcolm Collins: Well we learned that [00:04:00] in, it’s not confirmed in like the movie that they’re turned down. Simone Collins: Oh. Malcolm Collins: But somebody I think realized how bad this looked. Simone Collins: Oh, they’re on safety mode. It’s okay. Malcolm Collins: This is a, a, a parasitic organism that has taken control. Of the entire galaxy. Right? This is Unironically what Jedi Apologists sound like. Speaker 7: Open the door. It is so much better. There’s no fear or pain. It’s beautiful. And you We’ll be beautiful. No problems or worries. We want you. No pain, Stan? We’re gonna come in here and I’ll show you some pain! Malcolm Collins: Like, because it keep in mind the Jedi Act as a secret police force of unelected officials where your entrance into the secret police force you are. Taken as a child raised on their provably wrong ideology that the force should be worshiped. And when you listen to the [00:05:00] little voice in your head that’s created by these parasites, you are doing something definitionally good. And if you go against the little voice in your head created by these, the, the parasitic hive mind, you are doing something definitionally bad, IE or are you saying the Simone Collins: course is toxoplasmosis? Malcolm Collins: The force is toxoplasmosis. Oh my God. And so what we’ll go into in this episode is this entire universe is a universe where toxoplasmosis won over humanity, an abortion death and humanity is, and it’s trying to get us used to this idea as a good thing that it would be a good thing to give your children to the toxoplasmosis people to be raised with their ideology and trained as a child soldier. And when I say trained as a child soldier, you could be like, well, they’re just trained as a child soldier. They don’t actually go out and. Fight and murder people when they’re children. Honey, within Star Lords cannon, Simone Collins: oh, Malcolm Collins: ano. The first time we meet ano on murder missions. By the way, she is 14. [00:06:00] This is treated as completely normal. In the Star Wars universe, if we look at the extended cannon, it appears that children begin to start participating in missions where they might be killed or expected to kill someone at the age of 10. No, this is a war crime. Simone Collins: Well, they, they fit into the small spaces. Malcolm, you have to understand it’s a. Malcolm Collins: Literally that’s part of plots with Padawans is that they can fit in smaller spaces. I think in some of the clone words. Yes. Yes. This is real. By the way, if you’re like, oh, but the children are always taken with consent. One, literally, we know from Canon that this is not true. There is one case in which a child is taken this might be in Legends, but I think it’s canon. I’ll, I’ll confirm later in the episode. But taken from a disaster zone and they weren’t sure if the parents were alive [00:07:00] and oh, then. Brought to the Jedi and raised to the Jedi, and then the mother finds out later and she’s still alive, and she petitions the Jedi and the Jedi refused to give the child back to her saying that now that the force has been quote unquote awakened in the child, it is too dangerous to give the child back to the mother. So when they say stuff like, well, mothers always consent to this, families always consent to this. What the Jedi are doing is they’re basically coming with the trans argument. They say, your kid will be a danger to themselves. They’ll be a danger to society. You know, they could join the dark side and we’ll have to come and put them down. Basically, if you don’t transition, you’ll kill yourself. Like that’s the, that’s what they’re telling them about their kids. So you have to give us the kids. And we also know that. They definitely didn’t always use consent. How do we know that? They definitely didn’t always use consent. Well, this one unfortunately comes from Legends. But if if we wanna go with Canon, you could use acolyte to show that there is coercion used in taking children sometimes. Okay. I [00:08:00] literally view acolyte as less cannon than legends. Simone Collins: Agreed. Malcolm Collins: So let’s go to legends. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: From legends, we know that there was a Hut Jedi. All right. Now, Simone Collins: really? Wow. Malcolm Collins: He turned evil. Ended up ruling a planet for thousands of years. As a sis it’s a story arc, but anyway, Simone Collins: I just feel like huts lack the agility. To Malcolm Collins: wait. I And that’s what made him cool, right? Simone Collins: Am am I spec ra species racist? And this is, Malcolm Collins: so the Simone Collins: thing about Malcolm Collins: huts, if you know anything about the Star Wars can showing my nerd color here, right. Simone Collins: I feel very embarrassed. ‘cause my my literal OkCupid name was Moss Isley and I was. My photos were of me and film grade Stormtrooper Armor, but I was just genuinely using it as a lure to catch dudes. Like, I don’t actually know. There was, what’s also Malcolm Collins: funny about all of this, you hear me crashing out about Star Wars lore right here. I literally haven’t seen the last Star Wars movie because it looks so bad. Yeah. Simone Collins: Well, no, I, to the true fan will not engage with that. Malcolm Collins: I, I haven’t watched any of the, [00:09:00] but if you know huts stuff. Okay. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: Huts are you, you’re not gonna get. For, so first of all, there’s a few problems with taking a hut, youngling. One problem is it a hut 3-year-old, because

    55 min
  3. Why Did Epstein's System Work? (The Science + Fact Checking)

    2D AGO

    Why Did Epstein's System Work? (The Science + Fact Checking)

    Dive into the latest Epstein leaks with Malcolm and Simone Collins on Based Camp! We break down the bizarre “pizza” obsession among elites (spoiler: it’s not about food), analyze what’s real vs. conspiracy hype—like torture videos, baby-eating claims, and connections to figures like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Trump, and Prince Andrew. Plus, we explore the fascinating science behind why wealthy men prefer youthful traits (backed by our own research on breast preferences and evolutionary psychology). From elite predator networks to why conservatives are embracing fetishes at Mar-a-Lago, we separate fact from fiction without holding back. Is Pizzagate back? We discuss without getting banned. If you enjoy unfiltered takes on culture, science, and scandals, subscribe for more episodes! Check out our books “The Pragmatist’s Guide to Sexuality” and others at https://pragmatist.guide/ Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. We are going crazy world with these Epstein leaks. I swear rich people really love pizza. Simone Collins: Such a Malcolm Collins: big Simone Collins: pizza problem. Malcolm Collins: That is my big takeaway. I love it. Even after reading these, Simone, the credulous person, she is immediately is like, do I send so many emails about pizza? Yeah. So she goes to her inbox to see how many times she has mentioned pizza in, how, how many was it? Simone Collins: So in 2025, it, it got a little messed up because we serve pizza at Octavia’s birthday. So not including those, we had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 emails. No, sorry, eight. Eight. That’s a Malcolm Collins: suspicious number Simone Collins: of emails. Well, no, one was from [00:01:00] Octavian school district, one was from a scientific research paper. One was from an outline from one of our episodes. But it’s like we, we never, we never personally, Malcolm Collins: don’t have any personal emails. Simone Collins: Basically in, in, no, in no email from last year did we at any point. Talk about pizza over email, aside from a, a children’s birthday party invite. And the rest of it was just like quoting other people or people sending us emails. Malcolm Collins: And we have children and aren’t super rich, right? Like we know the demographic. Simone Collins: Oh yeah. No, no, no. Here’s how bad the, the pizza we served in Octavian birthday was cooked in our oven anyway. It wasn’t even like cooked Malcolm Collins: in our oven Simone Collins: Quartered pizza. Malcolm Collins: No. So the, my favorite thing about this particular Epstein League is it the one guy who like wasn’t on board with the naming system and so everyone is like, Hey, how about that pizza and grape juice we had last night? And then there’s this one guy who’s like, [00:02:00] I really like the torture video she sent me. I imagine Epstein, it’s like whenever you’re doing something that’s like shady at work and you have to get everyone together and you’re like, okay, you understand we do not email each other about this. Right? And Simone Collins: then Malcolm Collins: I really like the fraud we’re doing. Simone Collins: I love that. I love the part where we hunted people for sport that Malcolm Collins: love this one, this, this, this one guy who is still somehow, blanked in the, in the emails. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: But what we’re gonna go over in this episode are two core questions. The first, and I think more interesting question is the science behind all of this which is, we are, for people who don’t know this actually pretty esteemed researchers in the sex space, was Aila even saying that our research is some of the best out there? So, because I, I find it really fascinating and one of the biggest findings that we broke [00:03:00] that other people have, have, have found correlary since our breaking it. Is that the wealthier a man gets, the smaller his breast preference. Which if you’re looking at a societally Okay. Way to say you like younger women or potentially even what’s the word, hemophilia, where they’re, you know, teenagers or whatever women. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Which is the core market that Epstein dealt with. The, we gotta ask why. Why is this a trend? Why does it happen and how do networks of. Predators because in the past everyone who said there are elite networks of sexual predators like PDA files everyone would’ve said, that’s crazy. You know, you would do that. It’s the, the classic conspiracy theory. And now it’s just like definitionally true. And the government tried to cover it up for a really long time, Simone Collins: so bad. It’s so bad. [00:04:00] We’re so back. Pizzagate is so back. You people, Malcolm Collins: you can’t say that that’s one of the most likely to get you banned things on YouTube. Simone Collins: Okay. Sorry. Malcolm Collins: We can, we cannot talk about that. Oh, you don’t know guys. So some higher ups at YouTube really don’t want us talking about that exact word. But what we are going to, I wonder, I wonder why what we’re gonna do is the science of this, because I think it’s very interesting and I mean, for me, I just can’t imagine getting wrapped up in something like that. I can imagine being into like weird stuff on my own right? But I can’t imagine wanting to do it with friends or entering like a big network of doers that then talk about it offline, right? Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Mm-hmm. So I wanna understand what’s going on there. And I say all this where Mar-a-Lago is literally having high profile furry parties. Now, the rights just embracing [00:05:00] normal. Fricking fetishes these days. They’re like, you know what, furries we, we, we’ve made fun of them. Let’s have a furry party at the Mar-a-Lago. Right? Like all the conservative big ones. You threw these, Simone Collins: we did it guys say the furries. Malcolm Collins: Have you seen pictures of this, Simone? Simone Collins: Yeah, I have. I have. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: And then the other thing I wanna cover, because I’ve been genuinely disappointed by the top conservative influencer coverage of this Mm. Is what was real in this drop and what wasn’t real in this drop. Mm-hmm. And Nino and Asma Gold, who I really love, have just dropped the ball in terms of their credulousness in their coverage on this. And so have a number of, I watch for just a quick summary. If you have heard stuff badged around and you’re not really sure. Oh, what’s likely this, what’s likely that? All of the stuff involving eating babies or torturing people or murdering people, All of that, [00:06:00] all of that stuff. Simone Collins: The aforementioned the torture video was great. Email Malcolm Collins: except for the torture video was great, but that was him. Oh, except Simone Collins: for that one. Malcolm Collins: That wasn’t him actively participating in torture. I’m talking about the all of this stuff that suggests that, not that he had like a collection of inappropriate videos which is, you know, if you’re talking about like depraved internet, Gunnar type individuals. Even, even the recent leak was the, the conservative black stringer guy had stuff like that, right? I think, Simone Collins: yeah, I mean, I guess the, the, the line between intense BDSM and beyond that is, is thin. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So I wanted to, that there’s just no good evidence for any of that stuff. Even in the, the, the leaks, the one where they were like on a boat and eating babies. Right. Simone Collins: Oh, that, yeah. That Malcolm Collins: one explicitly said it came from hypnosis. Recovered memories. Simone Collins: Yeah. It Malcolm Collins: sounds Simone Collins: just like a schizo fever dream. Malcolm Collins: If you have no experience [00:07:00] of if, if you have no experience with psychology and you’ve never taken any classes on, I’ll, I’ll just basically tell you what that means in psychology terms. It means he made it up. Simone Collins: Yeah. If, if you’ve been hypnotized and you remembered something, Malcolm Collins: hypnotized, recovered memories are in, in my instance, there actually isn’t a single known instance of them. Recovering a conformably verifiable memory. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: There isn’t a single known instance in all of human history of this working to recover real memories. Sorry, I wanted to make sure of this, and there’s literally one potential exception in 1976 in the chia bus kidnapping tied to finding a license plate. Other than that, there is no instance ever in human history where this worked. Malcolm Collins: it is a a mechanism for implant [00:08:00] memories. And these are exactly the type of schizo memories that somebody would’ve had implanted in them, especially if you look at the other things that he remembers about his life. Like apparently everyone he knew growing up was griping him and stuff like that. It sounds like he just started to, one, everyone I know is griping me. And then two let’s also say that the famous people were doing it so I sound more important. Right. Secondly a lot of the other stuff like the ones with Gillian Maxwell, like tying somebody up and shocking them. That one sounds like that could just be normal. PDSM re Yeah. And then two yeah, Simone Collins: that’s just a good time people, Malcolm Collins: it’s, it’s from a random report from somebody that was unconfirmed, right? Yeah. It’s the same with the, the girl who was tortured as a s slave. Keep in mind that the person who wrote the book about Epstein, you know, the posthumous book, also described herself as an S slave, even though she very clearly was not what we would standardly consider an S slave. And Simone Collins: [00:09:00] there are actual, like many, many, many, many, many people who are in s slavery. So, Malcolm Collins: so it, it is what I’m saying here is that I could

    1h 9m

  4. 3D AGO

    Peacocking: The History, Science, & Anthropology

    Dive into the fascinating world of “peacocking” with Malcolm and Simone Collins on this episode of Based Camp! From evolutionary biology to modern dating signals, we explore how men and women use costly displays—like flashy cars, makeup, or even leg-lengthening surgery—to attract partners. Discover why choosing a spouse based on looks is a hidden commitment, the history of male fashion from codpieces to high heels, and why both sexes peacock in unique ways today. We break down honest vs. dishonest signaling, why males are becoming more selective in long-term relationships, and real-world examples from seahorses to Genghis Khan. If you’re into red pill insights, cultural trends, or just want to understand the hidden dynamics of attraction, this is a must-watch! Episode Notes * Both men and women who choose spouses based on looks are both telling on themselves and implicitly committing to something without realizing it * Basically, when you’re being choosy about partners, it’s because you implicitly understand (and may be signalling) that you’ll do most of the work and/or take on most of the risk * To understand why this is the case, we need to look to peacocking and WHY animals (plus humans) do it * We also need to understand how peacocking has evolved in the face of modernity and how we may need to disregard certain instincts because they were evolved for an old game and these days, many of the rules are TOTALLY different Why Peacock? Peacocking is required when the target market is selective (it’s obvious and universal—products only need branding and marketing in competitive markets with choices). Female peacocking is necessary only when men get sexually selective. There are three reasons why males get sexually selective: * Males invest heavily in parental care (time, energy, or risk), so they can only mate with a limited number of females. * For example, male seahorses, which carry and nourish the eggs in a brood pouch (a form of male pregnancy), are notably choosy about mates. * Married fathers’ childcare time rose from about 2.6 hours per week in 1965 to about 7.2 hours per week in 2011 and 7.8-8 hours/week in 2020/2021 (with married fathers around 8 hours and college‑educated fathers about 10 hours per week.) * In case comparison is desired: Married mothers’ time went from about 10.6 hours per week in 1965 to roughly 14.3 hours per week in 2011, and around 13.5–14 hours remains a standard estimate in the 2000s. * There is large variation in female quality (for example, in fecundity, size, or health), making some females much more valuable mates than others. * Male seahorses preferentially select larger females, as these tend to produce more or higher-quality eggs, leading to better offspring survival. Males have been observed rejecting smaller or less suitable females by breaking off courtship dances or swimming away, even when the females are receptive. This selectivity stems from the males’ limited brood pouch capacity and the high energy investment in pregnancy, making indiscriminate mating costly * The St. Andrews experience * The marriage-and-then-kids bait-and-switch * In many fish and bird species with biparental care (for example, certain cichlid fishes and shorebirds), males court and mate preferentially with larger or more fecund females and may ignore smaller or otherwise low-quality females. * Will men eventually look for signals of actual COMMITMENT to larger families? * Mating itself is costly (risk of predation, energy loss, disease, increased risk from male-on-male competition), so mating “indiscriminately” reduces a male’s total lifetime reproductive success. * Legal risk * One major form of “predation” in the modern civilized world * Financial risk * A major form of energy loss * Pair bonding? * In monogamous mammals like prairie voles, males form strong pair bonds and show selective affiliation and aggression toward intruding conspecifics, effectively refusing to mate with other available females once bonded * Do men pair bond more??? * I recall in red pill forums men expressing some level of disdain for women who just aen’t really capable of love, which implied that men *were*—so is it that men really feel pair bonded to female partners beyond just mercenary calculations? * And we discussed women potentially being into male-male romance because of pair bonding The TL:DR here: * So long as men have choices and are either made vulnerable by partnering with women or involved in childcare, they’ll be selective. * BUT: So long as women are also subject to these risks and obligations, they’ll also be choosy * So both sexes peacock, but in different ways depending on trends and the economy The History of Peacocking Neither men nor women stopped peacocking; the means of peacocking for each sex just evolved over time * When you see restrained male dress, it is typically attributed peacocking through cultural signaling, not through a lack of peacocking * Globally speaking * Many Asian and African traditions start from a baseline where both genders can be richly dressed, especially in ritual or elite contexts, rather than a strong male/female distinction in ornament. * Confucian, samurai, colonial, and capitalist influences all tended over time to align male public dress with restraint and practicality, especially where Western business and bureaucratic models were adopted. * LOOKING JUST AT EUROPE: Before the 1800s, both men and women who had means to peacock did so in very ornate ways: * Notable examples of male ornamentation: * The Renaissance & Tudor England (1500s): Think Henry VIII. Men wore massive “codpieces,” heavy furs, and slashed sleeves to show off expensive under-layers. Leg shape was emphasized with tight hose, and jewelry was a masculine staple. * Note that this is an extreme emphasis on masculinity * The Baroque & Rococo Periods (1600s–1700s): This was the peak of male ornamentation. Under Louis XIV of France (the “Sun King”), men wore: * High heels: Red-soled heels were a symbol of aristocratic status. * Side note: * for roughly the first 700 years of their existence, high heels were an exclusively masculine piece of gear. * They weren’t invented for height or aesthetics, but for warfare. * The high heel was born in Persia (modern-day Iran). It was a functional tool for the Persian cavalry, who were famous for their skills as horse-mounted archers. * The Purpose: When a soldier stood up in his stirrups to shoot a bow and arrow, the heel “locked” his foot into place, providing the stability needed to aim a deadly shot while galloping. * The Symbolism: Because horses were expensive to own and maintain, wearing heeled riding boots became an immediate signal that you were a man of wealth and military prowess. * In 1599, the Persian Shah sent a diplomatic mission to Europe. The high-heeled boots worn by the Persian soldiers sparked a massive fashion craze among European aristocrats. * Masculinity & Height: European men adopted the heel to look taller and more “virile.” * Like pro leg lengthening surgery * Men still totally do this: * // * Impracticality as Status: As the trend moved from the battlefield to the ballroom, heels became higher and thinner. This was intentional: a very high heel made it nearly impossible to walk on cobbles or work in fields, proving you were so rich you didn’t have to do either. * The Red Heel: King Louis XIV of France took this to the extreme. He famously wore 4-inch heels and decreed that only nobility could wear heels colored with expensive red dye (talons rouges). * Powdered wigs: The bigger and whiter, the better. * Silk and Lace: Ruffled “cravats” and waistcoats embroidered with silver and gold thread. * Why? * Ornate dress signalled wealth * Around the 1800s men’s fashion turned toward simplistic * due to: * The French Revolution and the need for stealth wealth * Fashion icons like beau brummel * Industrial capitalism shifting toward a focus on productivity, competence, and utility * The rise of the enlightenment, which made it was cooler to be rational and useful rather than decorative * The democratization of textiles (such that fancy textiles no longer signalled insane wealth) * This turning point was called Great Male Renunciation by John Carl Flügel in 1930 (referring to the shift that occurred in Western Europe, especially Britain and France, around the end of the 18th century and spread through the 19th century) * Maybe things are changing now * Looksmaxxing * Stealth looksmaxxing * Height surgery (technically leg lenghening surgery) search queries are up * In the movie The Materialists, one of the male protagonists (who is already wealthy) gets leg lengthening surgery * It’s sort of a major plot point: * Costs $75,000-$250,000 * The global market was valued at $4.1-4.18 billion in 2021-2023, projected to reach $8.3-8.6 billion by 2030-2031 at 8.5-8.7% CAGR, * Male beauty routines in Asia * Including not just lifters, but makeup * The Men’s World / Bronze Age Mindset aesthetic of male body builders Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] What people really want to learn how to do is dishonest signaling. But what you wanna point out, which I think is interesting, is when Simone Collins: we’re gonna go through in the history of peacocking, how as soon as dishonest signaling has been figured out by a group, the honest signalers choose a different signal. Malcolm Collins: So in humans honest signaling, honest peacocking would be buying a sports car, which is hurting you, right? Mm-hmm. It Simone Collins: hurts you financially. Yeah. Costly. It’s Malcolm Collins: lowering your overall fitness, even the overall Simone Collins: fitness Malcolm Collins: of your family. Simone Collins: I mean, the money you spent on the Maserati is money that you didn’t spend on food or housing or anything. Malcolm Collins: the partner who is the gatekeeper is. Unlik

    58 min
  5. Ethnicity Hotness Tier List: Peer Reviewed Studies

    6D AGO

    Ethnicity Hotness Tier List: Peer Reviewed Studies

    In this no-holds-barred episode, we dive deep into racial and ethnic dating preferences using real data from OkCupid (the infamous 2009–2014 race & attraction studies), multiracial dater research, and more. We cover in-group biases, why some groups show little same-race preference, the surprising “boost” for certain mixes (like white-Asian), why black women face the toughest odds in online dating, and how media/culture shapes (or fails to shape) what people find attractive. We break down hierarchies in desirability, reply rates, gender differences (women tend to be “more racist” in preferences), and why white men often top the charts while certain groups get penalized. Expect spicy takes on everything from passport bros to fetishization, media “go woke go broke,” and even our own subjective rankings (teased for a future paid video). Episode Transcript: Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. As people know, we got really scared after having, you know, videos taken down on this channel and potentially having our YouTube throttled. And so I said, I’m not gonna do anything controversial. Simone Collins: Never Malcolm Collins: again. Never again, never again. But at the same time, an interesting question occurred to me. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: Which was, if you were going to create like a tear list of the attractiveness of different ethnic groups, that was objective, oh Simone Collins: God, Malcolm Collins: what would that look like? So I decided to look into this ‘cause I was like, surely somebody has done this before. And what I was really Simone Collins: according to doesn’t just every. Racial or ethnic or religious group look good to themselves? Like, don’t the Amish find Amish people the most attractive, even if it’s like literally they’re, they’re from very similar heritage. You know, just when, when people look similar to you, don’t you, don’t you find them more attractive? Malcolm Collins: Some groups? That’s true. Not in all groups. Is that true? So [00:01:00] we see that in some studies. Ba basically we’ll go through a number of studies. A number of studies will show that most groups have a preference for their own ethnicity. But in other studies most of the more honest ones. And we’re only gonna cover the OkCupid one briefly, because I assume that all of our audience is familiar with that study. Simone Collins: Oh, I’ll cover it thoroughly. I, I can’t really remember. I went through it when it first came out, but OkCupid stopped publishing their research findings pretty early on because they were too spicy. It was too Malcolm Collins: controversial. Simone Collins: I people got too mad. Justified reality hurts. What Malcolm Collins: you will see in those, if I’m remembering correctly, is blacks do not have an ingroup racial preference and prefer people of other ethnicities. Simone Collins: Oh God, I forgot. Yeah, that was Malcolm Collins: bad. That is not found in pretty much any of the scientific studies except for I think like one or two. Speaker 2: Oh s**t, here we go. It’s on. Race, war. Race, war, race, war, race war’s on everybody. It’s going down. It’s going down. After editing this video, I [00:02:00] was wrong. It has sounded in more of the studies than I remembered, and I should point out here. I do not mean that they had a preference for other racial groups. I mean, they had a preference for the white racial group. Speaker 2: Token Forfeit. Whites win. Whites win. Race, war, everybody whites. Malcolm Collins: And I think the reason Yeah. Simone Collins: But there’s a big problem with publication bias when people Malcolm Collins: find Yeah. I would not publish it if my results came out that way. I’d be like, wait. Oh, Simone Collins: nor would I, yeah. Because we’re not crazy. Malcolm Collins: African Americans are racist against African Americans more than other people are racist against African Americans. Simone Collins: Right. Even based OkCupid stopped publishing this stuff, obviously. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. We can’t, we can’t have that be widely known. Right. So we’ll get into that. And then what I’m gonna do with you Simone is because I really, you know, don’t wanna do anything offensive, don’t wanna do anything that can get clipped but. You know, at the same time I couldn’t find a good ranking between like Asian groups and between European groups and between Simone Collins: Oh, like Vietnamese to Chinese to Singaporean, to, Malcolm Collins: yeah. I wanna, I wanna get [00:03:00] that up. So you and I are, Simone Collins: oh yeah. I would be really curious, like, do Japanese people think that South Korean people are really beautiful? Malcolm Collins: No. No. So I wasn’t able to do that, but we will judge it. So we’ll go through faces of different asset groups and rate how relative, Simone Collins: you know what, because Malcolm Collins: you relatively attractive they are to each other. Look at, look at the life. Leave her eyes. Look at the Malcolm. What are you doing? You don’t like that. You don’t, you don’t love that. I’m gonna be Simone Collins: okay, let’s go. Malcolm Collins: Right? All right. Overall hierarchy in dating and desirability. I said, so this is an article Taboo or tabular Rasa Cross Racial Cultural Dating Preferences amongst Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international students at American universities. Simone Collins: Oh, oh, that’s an interesting way to do it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Okay. So, there was a clear racial hierarchy that [00:04:00] emerged in the student’s preferences for potential dating partners. Okay. And then of course, it argues, I do not know if I would argue this. Okay. That. That racial hierarchy is there because of influence from US media portrayals, cultural capital stereotypes and parental family experiences. You Simone Collins: probably would say that, ‘cause it would be the only way for you to be like, I didn’t sit, I just think, I don’t, I don’t even think they’re racist. I just think the media is racist to systemic something. Something. Yeah. I think that’s, Malcolm Collins: yeah. Simone Collins: Understandable. Logical. Okay. Okay. Malcolm Collins: Well, yeah, they don’t wanna say, well, my students are racist. Right? Simone Collins: Yeah, yeah. No, they’re a product of corrupt and bankrupt system. But also, I mean, I think it’s, it’s, it is important to note that capitalism kind of speaks for itself. You know, that, that to a great extent. We, we talked about this briefly with DEI, ification of media that you’ll get this go woke, go broke thing when you stop. Yeah. Casting super hot. Protagonists [00:05:00] or you start making video game characters like less sexy. The video games don’t do so well that there actually are forms of like, we’ll say male, male, gay romance that do really well. But it’s only when it’s actually more fetishized. Like when women are like, oh, look at them kiss. Yeah, you, Malcolm Collins: you put gays in Simone Collins: stuff Malcolm Collins: and you make it gay. Nobody watches it. You make Simone Collins: it. Yeah. But if you have like hot women kissing, like, okay, everyone’s okay with it again, Malcolm Collins: right? No, no. Yeah. It’s like, it’s like, you, you, and this is the, the funny thing is gays had such an easy marketing thing here. If you wanted to put hot lesbians and stuff, that would’ve been fine. Simone Collins: Yeah. You Malcolm Collins: could’ve gotten your agenda and not scared away. Simone Collins: Your normal audience. There’s such an easy hack. But my larger point here is that I, I wouldn’t even say that media can effectively manipulate people because in the end. People vote with their feet or their, I guess their eyes when it comes to media. If they don’t like something, they’re not going to [00:06:00] watch it. It’s not going to become influential media. So if you see a certain typecast in media that’s just showing up again and again, and it’s this type of person that’s, because that’s what audiences find broadly attractive. So I don’t think Malcolm Collins: until, until the wokes get their hands on it because, Simone Collins: well, yes, as we Malcolm Collins: pointed out, Simone Collins: but then it doesn’t perform well, it doesn’t, it doesn’t perform economically well. We can’t look Track Malcolm Collins: Academy. Right. So they’re like they could have put hot young lesbians in it. Instead they put fat old lesbians in it. Simone Collins: Oh, dude. Malcolm Collins: And that was not what anybody wanted to see. Not even Simone Collins: the lesbians perhaps. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: To get an idea of, of of, of how much. It’s like they, they literally had a way to sell their agenda. That, that the audience liked. And they’re like, no. Part of the point is that we make the audience upset. Part of the point is taking away the thing that the audience liked. Mm-hmm. We, we actively want the audience to have a, a bad time watching this. Mm-hmm. And, and that is what art is. That [00:07:00] is what artsy is. And so then you get Gay Cowboys eating pudding or Star Trek Academy, right. Where literally it’s free on YouTube and it has like after four days of being up it was at like 139,000 views the last time I checked, which means it gets less fu in four days than our channel does on average. Simone Collins: Yeah. Wait, gay cowboys eating pudding. That sounds adorable. What is this? Speaker 2: independent films of those black and white hippie movies, they’re always about gay cowboys eating pudding. Speaker 3: No, they’re not. Independent films are produced outside the Hollywood system. All the glitz, glamor. Speaker 2: Yeah, you show me one independent family that isn’t about gay cowboys eating pudding. Malcolm Collins: Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding is a joke from South Par

    1h 2m
  6. How Self-Actualization Destroyed Western Civilization

    JAN 29

    How Self-Actualization Destroyed Western Civilization

    Malcolm and Simone Collins tear apart Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the cult of “self-actualization” — a concept that originated with Kurt Goldstein as an organism’s drive for wholeness and potential (think resilience after brain injury, survival, breeding), but Maslow flipped it into a progressive pinnacle achieved only after maxing out hedonistic “lower” needs like endless comfort, validation, sex, and esteem. We explore how this fuels urban monoculture toxicity: identity obsessions, validation addiction, hedonism-maxxing, and extreme cases like adults regressing to child roles for “love without judgment.” We invert the pyramid — true fulfillment comes from suppressing distractions (Catholic mortification, naltrexone hacks, biblical detachment) to focus on civilization-building, pronatalism, sacrifice, and purpose, not self-worship or peak experiences. Riffs include: South Park food pyramid flip, Einstein/Eleanor Roosevelt as flawed “self-actualized” icons (vs. Marie Curie’s two daughters and real achievement), degenerate NPR stories, why celebrities crash despite “needs met,” Buddhism as negative utilitarianism, and why 4+ kids often signals real alignment. Episode Transcript: Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to talk to you today. We are going to be discussing. The popularization and development of the term self-actualization, as well as the damage it has done to society. Tracing it again, I think it’s a horrible concept that is upstream of a lot of what makes the urban monoculture so toxic. Oh. To a person’s mental framing of reality. Okay. We will provide alternate frameworks, which I think are better. And we will also be exploring the interesting truth behind the current term self-actualization, which is that it actually came from a pretty based concept. Self-actualization is even in the words of the guy who popularized it. A rebranding of the concept of niche’s. Uber, minch, or a progressive audience? Simone Collins: No. Oh my God. The PSYOPs of that. Wait, so was that Maslow of Maslow’s Ma Malcolm Collins: Maslo Maslow was the one who, who popularized it and before him it meant something entirely different. Simone Collins: Wow. [00:01:00] Okay. I’m really, I’m very curious to see what your ultimate take on all this is. Like, is it gonna be a play on that South Park episode of like, we have to invert the pyramid? Are, are we now putting just survival at the, the top of the pyramid? Malcolm Collins: Survival at the top. I actually like that a lot. Speaker: The pyramid doesn’t work. We’ve already tried it. It’s upside down. What, sir? The pyramid is upside down. Turn the pyramid upside down. It can’t be serious. That would put butter and fat at the top of it. Flip the damn food pyramid Malcolm Collins: Yes. We have to invert the pyramid. Let’s do it. Hierarchy of needs. I, I love that the White House actually posted a clip from that Yes. Episode when they changed the food pyramid. And the funny thing is, is everyone was like, I mean, it’s basically right, like the nutritionists were like, I’m not complaining about this. Simone Collins: Yeah. You Malcolm Collins: know? Simone Collins: No, no, no, honestly. ‘cause you know, I, I listened to like all leftist media basically the, the leftist critique of it was not that it was [00:02:00] substantively wrong ‘cause they can’t actually argue against it. It’s, it’s fairly correct as you say. So can you imagine what the leftist critique of it instead had to be? Malcolm Collins: It wasn’t respe a respectable way to announce it. Simone Collins: No, no, no, no. Okay. Well, I mean, okay. Yeah. They were like, well, I can’t believe they steal per two, but Malcolm Collins: they took out sugar. Simone Collins: No, they Malcolm Collins: did take out sugar as, as a ever. They’re Simone Collins: like, I know. Well, because you shouldn’t. There should be no added sugars, period. There’s no point for that. Right. Anyway. No, it was, well, how dare they insinuate that people could afford vegetables and meat. I’m not kidding. I’m not kidding. That is 100%. Seriously. I think that was the Philip DeFranco take if, if memory serves, but yeah, they were, they were very freaked out about it that someone would have the gall to suggest. And then they even went to a clip of some either Trump administration official or health official talking about that. No, it actually was quite affordable, you know, that that every, every American adult can eat, [00:03:00] you know, a piece of broccoli and a chicken breast and I can’t remember some other thing. Malcolm Collins: I, Simone Collins: I’m imagining five and they’re like, what? You think people can survive off of just a piece of broccoli and a piece of chicken? Like they’re freaking out about it. Anyway, so that was, that was, Malcolm Collins: but I, what I love is the idea of a progressive rebranding of the food pyramid, except they just take out all the foods they perceive as expensive. So it’s just, it’s still the bread. Simone Collins: Well, it’s just all bread that you get in the bread line. Malcolm Collins: Yeah, it’s all the bread. They, they take out all of the, the meat and the vegetables and the fruits. Mm-hmm. And then they just, they’re like, and. We’ll add in what, what are other cheap foods like chips and Fritos to like those categories. And it’s like, and we’re not gonna take out sugar because you know, of course in oil, right? You gotta, you gotta deep fry stuff. That’s, that’s the new approved progressive one that they wanted. I love that you watch progressive media, so you know this stuff, but let’s get into this. All right. Simone Collins: We call it bread tube for a reason. I think they’re very, very insulted. When their breads, they gotta get Malcolm Collins: all [00:04:00] that soy from somewhere. Simone Collins: Well, I, I love bread though, Malcolm Collins: or Simone Collins: gluten or wine. My, my attempt to make homemade crumpets with my sourdough starter this morning was a complete failure, Malcolm Collins: all Simone Collins: humiliated. Malcolm Collins: So Kurt Goldstein, a German neurologist and psychologist coined the term set actualization originally. Oh my god. Am I gonna try to pronounce this Celebrative in German Simone Collins: poop. Malcolm Collins: I, I should put the, Simone Collins: there you go. Malcolm Collins: Danish, I guess. Alright. Alright. Right. Okay. In it 1939, so the book is only as old as 1939. Simone Collins: Wow. And that was the pre nietzche self-actualization. Malcolm Collins: Yes. This was its original usage, the organism, a holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man. [00:05:00] He introduced it within organism theory, describing it as a fundamental driver for an organism to realize its full potential and maintain its wholeness, especially in the face of challenges like brain injuries. Simone Collins: Oh. So is, is it like a, like a lizard with its tail cut off and it self actualizes if it grows the tail back? Are we talking like that? Malcolm Collins: I think he’s talking more about how brain injury, self-Correct. Remember his background is in neurology. Oh Simone Collins: yeah. And it, it has been sh like if you have a stroke, you have to relearn your actions. Malcolm Collins: You’re born or you have a serious brain injury as a child. You can typically perform un noticeably different from other adults. Even if, and there’s been cases where people are born like without a hemisphere of their brain or without acute protection of their brain. And they can typically live mostly normal lives. So, you know, he is, he is right in that regards. But [00:06:00] what I find interesting is I think if you recontextualize his initial take on this which is to say it is a fundamental driver for an organism to realize their full potential. And maintain wholeness. If we’re just looking at it like that, I think then it’s a good term. It basically means to breed because that’s what an organism exists to do. And not die, right? Like Simone Collins: Yeah. Or, or just to return to a normal stasis kind of state. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: To say breeding and not dying is self-actualization. I say, you know? Okay, good. Yeah. That’s, that’s a decent term. But Simone Collins: you, you are gonna go for, this is inverting the pyramid already. I can tell. Oh my Malcolm Collins: God. The rival invert the pyramid. Yeah. Okay. The concept was popularized by American psychologist Abraham Maslow, who adapted and refined it in his 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, where he positioned self-actualization as the pinnacle of his hierarchy of needs. Maslow’s work gained widespread attention in the 1950s and 1960s through books like Motivation [00:07:00] and Personality 1954, and the. Towards a psychology of being 1962, framing it as the ultimate human motivation, achieving ones in eight potential after lower needs physiological safety, love esteem are met. He studied historical figures like Albert Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt to identify traits of self actualized individuals such as peak experiences, autonomy, creativity, and realistic perception of the world. Simone Collins: Eleanor Roosevelt of all people. Malcolm Collins: Right? Well, what a cooked to brain do you have to be to be like Eleanor Roosevelt, self-actualizing. Simone Collins: That’s who I think of for, well, I mean, Malcolm Collins: even Einstein, right? He he did come up with some great theories when he was a kid, like, like very young. But if you look at his later work, a lot of it actually held back the field of particle physics and theoretical physics. Oh yeah. Basically he hated any ideas in physics that were probabilistic rather than deterministic, which is really important. When we [00:08:00] were developing the field of quantum mechanics though, things like spooky

    1h 21m
  7. Proof Science Lied: Men Are An Underclass & Discriminated

    JAN 28

    Proof Science Lied: Men Are An Underclass & Discriminated

    In this eye-opening episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone dive into a Reddit-sourced compilation of studies (verified where possible) that set out to prove discrimination against women... but uncovered the opposite: evidence of bias against men in areas like hiring, domestic violence, child custody, education, sexual victimization, and more. Episode Transcript:Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be going over a number of studies. That reportedly were looking into gender differences in males and females. Oh, and basically found that men have it significantly worse than women and then attempted to cover it up. Simone Collins: What? Malcolm Collins: And we’re going to be, yeah, so on the subreddit, because for people to know the base camp subreddit still, it looks like Reddit, like heavily throttled it at one point to try to block it, but it’s still huge. It’s still bigger than Asma Gold or Joe Rogan. So even with the throttling, we’re doing really well, which I love. And I regularly find great posts in it. And this was from a post in it. Where they list a number of studies and they go through how the studies try to cover things up. And then I use, I sort of try to check this with AI to see like, which of these are accurate representations of this study and where has this post of anywhere taken liberties with the information so that we can be as steelman as we can and to try to get an accurate [00:01:00] vision. Just how much the, the data is being manipulated. And I think this is what people feel like scientists are the, the, the enemy of men say white men, let’s Simone Collins: be, well you mean contemporary scientists because, Malcolm Collins: no, no, these studies go back away. These studies go back to like the eighties. Simone Collins: Okay. That’s alright. I’m thinking of the 1880s, Malcolm. They, they were pretty cool. Malcolm Collins: And I gotta Simone Collins: have a You’re pretty autistic and faab fabulous. So don’t, don’t come from a gentleman scientist. Okay. Malcolm Collins: Okay. Speaker: When is modern science gonna find a cure for a woman’s mouth? Don’t worry. That’s just a fancy doctor. Word for your brain is broken. Unfortunately, there’s no field of medicine that deals with the brain, but I can give you a pamphlet for a cult. Malcolm Collins: For Dr. Simone Collins: Spaceman Malcolm Collins: and you know, this is horrifying. I, another study I learned about that. I actually hadn’t heard about it. I don’t know how, I hadn’t heard about this from the subreddit. Mm-hmm. And I, I double checked to make sure it’s real. It’s a real study. So this [00:02:00] was a 2006 study published in Nature. And it looked at men and women playing an economic game, a version of the prisoner’s dilemma with two actors, one who played fairly and one who cheated unfairly. Participants were then placed in an FMRI scanner and observed the actors receiving painful electric shocks to their hands. Brain scans measured empathetic responses in pain related areas like the anterior insular, anterior cingulate cortex. Mm-hmm. And reward areas like the nucleus humus. Key findings when fair players non cheaters were shocked, both men and women showed activation in empathy related brain areas indicating distress or shared pain. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: However, when unfair players, cheaters were shocked, women still showed empathy related activation distress. But when men. Men reduced the empathy that they showed and showed some activation in their reward centers seeking pleasure from seeing the bad guy punished justice. Simone Collins: Yeah. When Malcolm Collins: we look at something and we’re like, how [00:03:00] can you want to help these scam artists? The, you know, the illegal immigrants, et cetera. Right. And because at first I’m like, well, maybe you could. Picture that they’re not actually just like purely negative actors stealing from like orphans and the poor like the Somali you know, scale. Simone Collins: Right. So you’re, you’re saying that many of the people who are we’ll say, protesting both ice arrest, but also specifically ice arrests that have been ramped up in response to widespread coverage of Somali. Daycare fraud and transport fraud. It’s not because they don’t believe the fraud is real. It’s that they still for that fraud, just as muchies Malcolm Collins: for the people who are stealing money from orphans and the poor Oh. Billions of dollars. Right. Tens of billions of dollars. They feel just as much empathy for those people mm-hmm. As they do for, well, I guess they don’t feel empathy for the people who were stolen from, because to them they’re, they’re just like faceless mops, right? Like they, they, they are Simone Collins: [00:04:00] incapable. They were the people who were stolen from they in I sometimes, yes, as long as their residents. They were, well, unless they’re not in, but that, that money was tax, Malcolm Collins: that money was earmarked for daycare centers, the poor orphans, Simone Collins: stuff like that. Right? Well, yeah, and, and for public transport and for AU autism services as well. And it’s not just that this money is being wasted. Parents of actually autistic children have a very difficult time getting past wait lists for autistic services because of things like this. So it’s, it’s very annoying. Malcolm Collins: You’re very annoying. Anyway. So, th that I thought was interesting because it gives me a better insight into what these Karens are actually thinking and why autistic women who think more like men may not have this. Mm-hmm. I’d be very interested if they did it to you, Simon. I think you would the, the, the cheaters, you wouldn’t mind them, them getting comeuppance. But I thought that was an interesting study to start here. That one was not a misreported study. Wow. So now I wanna get to the, the body of the post here. Simone Collins: [00:05:00] Okay. Malcolm Collins: All right. So studies that expect to find discrimination against women often find discrimination against men instead. Oh, by the way for the, the Reddit if anyone’s willing to be a mod, reach out to us. We need more mods for the subreddit. It helps if you are a part of the community, and we can vet you in any way to make sure you’re not gonna go crazy. Simone Collins: And thanks to those of you who did reach out and are helping. Malcolm Collins: Yeah, we just really appreciate Simone Collins: it. We, Malcolm Collins: we don’t really have rules. It’s just like, don’t get it banned. That’s a goal. So like, you know. No threatening to murder people or mention other subreddits. You can’t even mention that you were banned from other subreddits, which I didn’t realize was such a strict rule on Reddit. Simone Collins: Really? Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Oh well. So he goes, sometimes they take it gracefully and report it in their results in good faith, but other times they make excuses for it and we’ll try to cover it up. Mm-hmm. The following is they list of 13 examples ranging from hiring, discrimination, domestic violence, education discrimination, and child custody discrimination. So, a study about employment discrimination against women and [00:06:00] mothers instead uncovered discrimination against men and fathers. One study on hiring discrimination looked at the effects of marriage and parental status on a person’s hiring prospects. They expected to find discrimination against women and against mother specifically. What they found instead was that in every cohort, women were preferred over men. Whether single married, childless, or with children, instead of reporting on this novel finding, they instead went in detail about how pregnant women are often discriminated against to non-pregnant women, which they tried to frame as being sexist against women. The fact that they found that women. Where preferred over men is buried inside the body of the study buffered by Han Wavy remarks about how pregnant women still face other difficulties related to employment, Simone Collins: which Malcolm Collins: is Simone Collins: valid. Sounds like the universal basic income. Research where in the end they found that it really didn’t help people, but what they ended up reporting on was, oh, people say they feel a lot better and [00:07:00] they took more leisure time. Like they just reported the, the two things that they did find that could plausibly send the message they wanted to send, and just neglected to highlight the other elements of it. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So this study, specifically what they’re talking here is, is Becker Fernandez and Weissmann 2019 discrimination in hiring based on potential and realized fertility evidence from a large scale field experiment, labor, economics it’s where this is published. Mm-hmm. And if you put an AI on this the AI is, is funny in the way it tries to get around it. It’s like, well. The study was more about how whether being pregnant affects these things and the other findings weren’t as important. And it’s like, okay, so this is accurate. He reported it correctly and they just were, and he, he points out that it almost sounds salty that the data didn’t come out the way they wanted to. How much they focused on just the pregnant moms. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: So then a [00:08:00] study on domestic violence against women finds that men are more likely to be victims than women. A 2005 study on domestic violence wrote their entire abstract in a way that implies that domestic violence is significantly worse against women than men. But the actual body of their research reports the exact opposite of that. A fact that other researchers eventually discovered and wrote about. While not strictly about discrimination, they are guilty of expecting to find that things were worse for women

    54 min
  8. China's Military Just Tried to Kidnap Xi!

    JAN 27

    China's Military Just Tried to Kidnap Xi!

    In this explosive episode, we break down what may be the biggest geopolitical story of the decade: a failed military coup attempt against Xi Jinping in January 2026. Top PLA leaders (including key Central Military Commission figures) were purged after an alleged raid on Xi’s hotel residence in Beijing led to a firefight and mass arrests. Xi has gutted the military leadership, leaving only loyalists in place. We discuss: * The timeline of purges, assassination attempts, tunnel explosions, and the leaked coup plot * Why Xi’s consolidation of power is accelerating China’s path to collapse (demographics, food/energy insecurity, real estate bubble) * The scary logic: Why attacking Taiwan (or elsewhere) might now make “sense” for Xi personally, even if it’s suicidal for China * Parallels to autocracies throughout history and why centralized power always ends this way * Why the West (and AI progress) might secretly benefit from chaos in China * Bonus riffs on US domestic distractions (Minneapolis/ICE protests), organ harvesting rumors, and why nobody seems to care about real global inflection points This is NOT mainstream coverage — it’s the raw, unfiltered analysis you won’t hear elsewhere. If you’re tired of slop-stream media ignoring the real threats, this is for you. Sources & further watching: Lei’s Real Talk (summarized transcripts used), Winston & Laowai’s old China motorcycle vlogs for real cultural insights (sort videos by oldest). Episode Transcript: Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today and I mean, I’m actually excited ‘cause. There is world changing news, like, like way bigger news than the Maduro situation. Way bigger news than anything that’s happened maybe in like the last half decade, Simone Collins: but you probably haven’t heard about it. Malcolm Collins: Not that many people are covering it, and I don’t understand why. So, Simone Collins: because we’re so obsessed with this little city in the United States called Minneapolis. Malcolm Collins: I, so for clarification, there was essentially a military coup just happened in China. Simone Collins: In China, like China, Malcolm Collins: China, like a ma, the second major power, Simone Collins: Indianapolis or China, Malcolm Collins: the heads of the military. And, and so far of the, the CMC, the committee that. Makes up the military. And I’ll put a picture on screen here. Every single [00:01:00] member of it now, this is, this is the entire top of the Chinese government. Simone Collins: Oh. We’ve gone to all of them. I, I, Malcolm Collins: every member, but she and the secret police head, like the guy who’s in charge of Okay. No, Simone Collins: that’s why I saw, yeah. There was one Malcolm Collins: left. Is arrested or killed at this point. And the two last one of these guys who hadn’t been, had a group of military members go and try to abduct g from where he lives, which is a hotel. And there was a firefight and a bunch of people died and they locked down parts of Beijing. Imagine. Simone Collins: I bet they just didn’t have the LRADs. If only they had our LRADs Malcolm Collins: in Washington. The head of our military attempted to abduct Trump, and the next day what we were talking about was some dumb piece of nonsense who got shot by law enforcement because he physically attacked them while carrying a gun. Right? Like that’s Speaker: an officer approaches your [00:02:00] car, be polite. Speaker 2: Is there a Speaker: problem, officer? And stay in your car with your hands on the wheel. What the f**k do want m**********r? Unless you wanna ask this, Malcolm Collins: right? You know that, that, that video people watching, they’re like, well, they had already gotten the gun. Out of his hands before he had it when he attacked them. Right? Like, well, what do you mean? I understand? Yes, you shouldn’t shoot him after you get the gun outta his hand. But that’s a heightened situation, okay? These are still human beings, right? If you’re in a conflict with somebody and note they have a gun, even if you successfully think you might have just knocked it out of their hands or didn’t see that, somebody just knocked it out of their hands. You’re, you’re taking fire. I’m Simone Collins: sorry. Yeah. I mean, the, the way I look at it is it’s, it, it’s obviously illegal to hit someone who’s crossing the [00:03:00] street like in a crosswalk. Well, and at any point, right? Yeah. But before you cross the street, you should probably look both ways, you know, like, don’t just, just walk blindly into the street. And I think, you know, obviously. One attacking someone in some kind of, you know, federal position. They’re not law enforcement. They’re, they’re law enforcement officers, okay. Attacking a law enforcement officer and doing so well armed. Like those are sort of two things that you shouldn’t have done. An ice shooting. We got another ice shooting. Speaker: here. See, nobody cares. Simone Collins: So yeah, it’s, it’s one of those, like, this shouldn’t have happened, but but the larger scheme of things though, we are talking about why is anybody talking conflict here versus. China, China, the, the future of the country the end of a regime possibly. And this is really big. Malcolm Collins: This is, yeah, this is a complete transformation of how the, the government in China functions and is structured. It’s going to completely change the types of actions that they are likely to carry [00:04:00] out in the future. It completely aligns with all of my China predictions that Simone Collins: I had. Well, I need, so I’m, I’ve spent probably three hours watching coverage of this and I still can’t really make heads or tails. There’s a tunnel, there’s an explosion, people are disappearing. Families have been arrested. Individuals. So this please break it down for people even who have been aware of this. ‘cause I think it’s actually quite confusing and I’m having trouble Malcolm Collins: keeping track it. I’ll separate, then we’ll go into more detail. Okay? Simone Collins: Okay. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: So the, the, the head of the PLA and then I think the head of the air force. So the two final like heads of the, the all of Chinese armed forces. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: Alright. They have been in a sort of conflict with, xi Xi Jingping for a while at this point. They both really well, wanted to kill each other basically. Now the heads of the army, I do not feel like they started it right. They were maybe against him over consolidating power. Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: But obviously they’re, they’re worried about this and they’re backed by the Princeling faction. These [00:05:00] are the people who are the descendants of the people who worked in Mao’s government and various very wealthy people in China. Right. Ma, Simone Collins: because I, I heard that some are also, they were loyalists to Hu Genal, but not Xi Jinping. And so they, Malcolm Collins: well, so the PLA guy, like the, the, he was a very senior official because he both had military honors in China. Okay. Because he served in actual combat, which was a long time ago. So not a lot of people have combat medals. And he was the descendant, the son of the head of Mao’s personal bodyguard force. So he’s, oh, Simone Collins: wow. So this is going way, way back to OG. Leaders, Malcolm Collins: not previous administration. Basically all the, the cred connections, everything like that you could need if you were going to try an overthrow. Right. Simone Collins: Okay. Yeah. Malcolm Collins: So anyway Xi tries to have this guy killed, right? So he he has the, so she was the, Simone Collins: was the aggressor in this case. He Malcolm Collins: started it then in years, so, yeah. So he has this guy’s secretary killed or one of the high level general guys killed. We’ll get to it in a second. Died mysteriously. Okay. Then this guy has an [00:06:00] assassination attempt on him. And it looks like the United States may have helped him avoid that assassination attempt. Mm-hmm. This is when he was on a, a, a trip. And so obviously, you know, he’s like, I just have to do it now or not. Right. Then there’s this giant explosion in a tunnel, Simone Collins: okay. Malcolm Collins: That blew up a car and what we know about this car. This was last month. And if you’re like, I didn’t know any of this stuff, like. This is because the, the slop storm that you are in is keeping you from the important information about how the world is functioning right now. A car that had Xi Jinping’s body double blew up in that tunnel. And the explosion, like was really under reported on in Chinese media. So we know that there was something like weird going on with it and they were trying to cover it up. So, then the two remaining guys, because he’s been doing sweeps of all of these other guys recently, like the reason you got all these exes on this picture is because he is been getting rid of everyone. Simone Collins: Hmm. Malcolm Collins: , So where are we here? Okay. So they, they’re like, oh my God, I’m gonna be killed. I’m gonna be killed. I’m gonna be killed. [00:07:00] So what do I do next? Let’s get together and organize a capture of Xi Jinping. So they try to corner him in because he, he moves between residences and one of the places he stays, he is a hotel that’s just for like CCP officials. Oh. Malcolm Collins: So they do this raid on the hotel. With their military forces to attempt to arrest him. And they had already started to put out the PR about this, like how they were gonna frame it which is like, we’re doing this to save China, to save the ccp like she is no longer. And a lot of people could feel that way. I mean, he was definitely going in a, a, a direction that a lot of people didn’t like. Sure. It was the future of the country in, in

    1h 10m
See All (710)

4.4
out of 5
139 Ratings

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