1. The simplest solution to algorithmic poisoning.

2. Why I endorse telepathy.

3. Reminder to fact-check.

4. How to make women 400% hotter.

5. Never marry an Asian woman.

6. Against the Wumaffers.

1. Don’t Feed It, by Parker Molloy

Parker makes an observation which is very old, by now, but still relevant: people engage with content that makes them upset, and as a result, the internet is an upsetting place. How do we stop this?

As individuals, we can make choices. For example, I have COVID, so as a result, I’m taking a break from the internet, and typing this offline. Which means I cannot scroll -- I can only view posts from people I’ve subscribed to, in my inbox. Which means I’m only viewing stuff that I explicitly want to see. That’s very different from scrolling aimlessly and getting upset.

Collectively, there are two approaches:

1. Libertarian: While the algorithm hurts people, it also is better than the alternative, which is an authoritarian, top-down control of information.

2. Authoritarian: We could start by limiting access to images and videos.

Imagine if we put Elon Musk in jail and seized control of Twitter, and then banned all images and videos from the website. Who would still use it? I would, but I am probably representative of less than 10% of twitter users. If we simply banned images and short-form videos from the internet (possibly accessible only for long-form content), a lot of the problem would be solved.

2. No, We Should Not Develop Telepathy, by Nicholas Decker

Nicholas discovers another AI doomsday scenario where it enslaves humanity. Although I understand his concern, I am not worried. If robots can read minds, then we will invent defenses against this, such as tinfoil hats. That sounds like a joke, but I am sure there are ways to protect against mindreading. Furthermore, the ability to read minds might help us realize that intrusive thoughts are much more common than we would like to admit, and this might cause us to become more forgiving, tolerant, and inclusive. This might be a dangerous process, but in the Faustian pursuit for knowledge, I am willing to go into the darkness.

3. Climate Change Research Hasn’t Peaked, by Cremieux

Cremieux debunks some nonsense. It’s boring to fact check every random claim on the internet, but it’s important. Otherwise we’re going to be coming up with theories to explain hallucinations, which is the definition of insanity.

4. the BMI caste chart is real, by Performative Bafflement

PB finds that returning obesity to 1970s levels would increase the number of hot women by a factor of 400%:

“In the US population, if we could increase the number of women with <=28in waists, you would unambiguously max your number of qualifiers. If we could shift the weight distribution down in the US by 1SD, to match where we were in the 70’s, it would literally 4x the number of qualifiers.”

From my perspective, this means 4x as much sex, and possibly more. The best and easiest way to achieve this outcome would be through a land tax, which would increase the price of food. Since I got COVID, I decided to Ray-Peat-max and buy whatever I wanted -- no dieting. I got bagels, those sugary items that you put in the toaster oven (I forget what they’re called, but they have a cinnamon filling), ice cream, sushi, and pre-pared meals, like mac n cheese with beef, mac n cheese with chicken, etc. I also got sugary drinks, like acai juice, banana juice, and coconut water. The prices ranged from $5.99 up to $13.99, for a total of $120 for everything. On average, I’d say that each item I bought had 400 calories, and cost $10, for a cost of 40 calories per dollar. Now let’s say each item cost twice as much -- so $12 for some bagels, and $28 for sushi. Instead of buying 4,800 calories, I could only afford, on the same budget, 2,400 calories. That’s a massive reduction!

PB breaks down some semen math with disturbing accuracy:

“A top OnlyFans star brings in $1 - $10M a year, and the general pattern for stuff like this is “10% pay and 90% coast on free stuff.” Even at a very loose “$1 a load” proxy, these women are inspiring the release of ~10M - 100M loads per year from their loyal simps, individually.”

This was funny and interesting. The gist seems to be that men and women are both attracted to traits which are exceedingly rare -- like, one in 10 million people. For women, this includes social status, which is a relative trait, and therefore necessarily limited. Men, by contrast, are actually more egalitarian, in that theoretically if we made clones of the hottest women, men would find them all hot, whereas if we made clones of gigachad, women would still only find the CEO of the other gigachads to be hot.

This ignores pair bonding and how attraction, especially for women, is situational and contextual. When I refer to the “CEO,” this is assuming an atomized woman who exists outside of any particular social context. But when you contextualize a woman into a particular social scene, the situation shifts. Now she’s not lusting after Putin, Trump, or Jeff Bezos, but over her boss. Why? Because although women are hard-wired to seek high-status men, they are also weaker in abstract sexualization, and stronger in their response to immediate stimulae. In other words, being the boss of your local Chipotle gives you better odds of sleeping with your employees than being CEO of Amazon. This is weird and illogical, but means that regular guys can still get laid so long as they can become the king of the hill of a local maximum, rather than a global maximum.

For men, there is no such saving grace. A woman is either hot or ugly based on her physical biological attributes. As such, the world has been getting uniformly worse for men over the last 50 years. The solution is, of course, a tax on land, which will drive up the price of food, and make women skinny again. Since that is politically impossible, the next best solution is universal basic Ozempic.

I would also recommend to place athletic requirements for college admissions. Truly dedicated students would meet the requirements, while fatties would be shut out. This would create a signaling model that might help incentivize lower BMIs.

5. Always marry an asian, by Performative Bafflement

This post is paywalled, so you can’t read it. I’m not going to criticize what it says, but what it does not say:

1. ctrl-F: “son,” nothing

2. ctrl-F: “fertility,” nothing

If your goal is to have as many high-T, competitive, high-empathy, jock sons as possible, marrying an Asian woman is the worst choice you could make. If your goal is to have someone who will be your live-in girlfriend and maybe pop out 1 or 2 kids, then sure, go wild — but then don’t marry her, just date her.

In my opinion, there is never any reason, whatsoever, EVER, to marry a woman… UNLESS you are trying to produce fertile offspring. Hence, discussing “marriage” without discussing fertility is like discussing the best car insurance while neglecting the car itself. The purpose of marriage is children. Period. End of story. Has no utility otherwise. If you’re lonely, get a friend, or a girlfriend. Hire a prostitute. Marrying to have a “companion” is not a life upgrade. It’s a significant impediment on your time, your ability to take risks, and your ability to be flexible. A marriage is an extreme limitation. Only take that limitation if there’s a good trade-off — which, I would argue, only exists in the case where you are trying to bear fertile offspring.

You have to not just consider TFR1, which is how many children you will produce, but TFR2, which is how many grandchildren you will produce. If you marry a liberal white woman, according to Ryan Burge, you will have 2.29 children. By contrast, despite the fact that Asians are more likely to get married and stay married than whites, they only have a TFR of 1.3. If you reproduce that over two generations, the TFR2 of liberal white women is 4.58, while the TFR2 of Asian women is only 2.6. If you marry a conservative white woman, the TFR2 is 4.92. The difference between having 5 grandkids and 2 grandkids, if you’re shooting for a genetic legacy, is massive! In my opinion, that should end the discussion: never marry an Asian woman.

6. Jason Arday murdered himself, by Non-Zionism

Non-Zionism informs me of something I had not previously considered:

“[Cofnas] is also an Ashkenazi Jew married to a Korean, which, based on my religion, I can’t condone, but should absolve him of any imputation of racial bigotry or even ethnocentrism.”

I had no clue that Cofnas was a WMAFer, which I pronounce, “Wumaffer.” But it makes a lot of sense. The smartest and most influential “I’m a race realist, but not a white nationalist” guys seem to be Wumaffers.

We all have biases. For example, support for Israel is driven by Messianic fanatics, defense contractors, and literal cultists. There is a time and place to consider arguments purely on their merits, without attack the source, but there are also times when we should be honest: Wumaffers really like “race realism without nationalism.”

Hanania has made decent criticisms, and BAP has his own criticisms. When you consider them together, you recognize that “spreading the gospel of race realism to achieve a REAL colorblind meritocracy” is ignorant of historical reality. I argued with Cremieux about this: race realism is not, as Cofnas maintains, a morally neutral idea, it is actually a highly electric, charged, and explosive idea that has all sorts of implications at the level of identity. Cofnas ignores this because his kids (if he has any) are deracinated alienated hapas. I say that as a deracinated, alienated man myself. I don’t mean to say it in an offensive way, just as Cofnas means no offense when he says “the number of black professors in a meritocracy is close to zero.” These are simply facts.

Reducing everything to IQ simplifies a complicated, scary world. To acknowledge that there’s more to life than IQ can be difficult. Cofnas has put on his blinders. In the limited scope of what he does, he is brave, disciplined, and courageous. No one else in the academic world is standing up to scrutiny and death threats in the way that he does it. Kudos for that. But he is blind to the basic facts of identity, to an absurd degree, to the point of parody.

I felt similar ways at different times, until I stepped back and asked myself why such an unpopular worldview was so appealing to me. It aggrandized me, protected me, legitimized and validated my existence. Similar to how Hellenized Jews really liked the idea of a New Testament written in Greek that said “there is neither Jew nor Greek.” Wow! I wonder who that might appeal to? When Cofnas says, “there is neither Asian nor Jew, but all are one in IQ,” his motivations are pretty transparent. From now on, whenever I hear this IQ meritocracy spiel, I’m just going to assume Wumaffing by default.

I’m going to go beyond any personal critique of Cofnas and take this opportunity to speak generally about the children of Wumaffers, who almost certainly will come to become more influential over the next 20-30 years:

Wumaffers prefer exoterically feminine and esoterically autistic women (low empathy). Their kids tend to be relatively feminine (conformist) but low empathy, which results in striverism. These kids resume-max and anxiety about status, to a pathological and sometimes destructive degree. I dislike our current crop of tech oligarchs, but I am not looking forward to a world in which Mark Zuckerberg’s hapa kids are in charge. It’s frightening. Many of them are sociopaths with deep identity issues, an ax to grind, and a vindictive, amoral, and callous worldview. Not all, of course... These are all just “overlapping bell curves,” as Cofnas would say.

I prefer Indians. I’ve known a lot of Indians, and they have their own suite of strengths and weaknesses, but I prefer them principally because nerdly men do not fetishize their “tight and childlike pussies.” Nixon was wrong. We need to ban all East Asian FEMALES from immigrating to the United States until we can figure out WHAT THE HELL is going on. The males are fine -- AMWF couples are healthy and wholesome.

Of course I’m only saying any of this as an emotional projection of bad personal experiences, lest anyone think I am pretending to be the objective one in the room. We all deal with trauma in different ways.

1. Why Britain sucks, and will continue to suck.

2. Why you should vote for your local Republican, and your national Democrat.

3. Academia is not a zero sum game.

4. Scott Sumner against China hawks.

5. In defense of China hawks.

6. Libertarianism vs Conservatism.

7. Why the anti-tech left is “deep right.”

8. AI Fact Checkers.

9. The Conservative Sarcophagus.

1. The 2008 Recession, Eurozone Crisis, and Austerity, by The Mont Pelerin Review

Britain is such a sad country that I tend to agree with the immigration restrictionists. If Britain is to become a third-world country, it could at least be a preserve for white Chavs. The best path for Britain would have been to keep its doors open to eastern Europe, to be flooded with millions of Poles, to keep its economy growing. Unfortunately, they exited the EU, which was disastrous. Now it’s just Pakistanis, rape gangs, Nigerians, Cheeky Nandos, etc etc.

Obviously this is an exaggeration, because Britain is actually one of the richest countries in the world. But the fall in British prestige makes things harsher, in relative terms. It seems absurd that a country which once led the world is now sliding toward becoming an irrelevant backwater. What went wrong?

There are a few possible explanations:

1. Socialism, especially after WWII

2. Flight of human capital to the colonies

3. A decline of the British class system, and the rise of dysgenics

4. The demographic transition toward gerontocracy

2. Why Socialism Isn’t Coming to America, by Richard Hanania

The essay at large is correct and needed, but I have a critique:

“We still face more substantial choices on issues like how strong labor unions are, how easy it is to build homes, the scope of environmental regulations, what our immigration policies should be, and what theories of antitrust government officials rely on. A lot of these things will be decided at the state level, where leaders will still have significant freedom of action in the coming years. But the federal budget is already spoken for.”

Perhaps I am being pedantic, but this makes it sound as if immigration is going to be decided at the state level. It should be made clear that immigration is a national issue, and it is the only way that the federal government can possibly “grow out of” the deficit. At the state level, Republicans are better on the issues that Hanania cites. Republican governors and state senators tend to support things like self-driving cars, right to work, keeping minimum wage low, and deregulating red tape. But on the question of immigration, I’d like to see more congressmen, senators, and presidents who have a liberal position on immigration. Trump’s work on H-1Bs is going to have knock-on effects, because if immigrants feel like they could be deported at any time, they are less likely to want to come, even under a Democratic administration.

The other big issue to talk about is AI regulation, and the potential growth that it could stymie. My biggest fear from a President AOC is not that she would pass Medicare for All, but that she would ban data centers. This is one issue where perhaps Vance would be better, although I haven’t heard him talk enough about data centers to be sure.

3. Academia is Doing Fine, by Nicholas Decker

This is an excellent article by Nicholas. If I were to reframe his argument, it would be as follows:

1. The production of knowledge is extremely valuable.

2. However, selecting for knowledge producers is costly.

3. A system which is “liberal” in having lower standards is more likely to produce knowledge, while a system which is “conservative” in having higher standards is less likely to produce knowledge.

4. There is a point at which a “liberal” system would be too costly (salaries exceed the total value of knowledge produced), but we are nowhere near that point.

5. We could afford to hire hundreds of more Jason Ardays, and it would not undermine the knowledge produced by good academics.

6. Bad academics do not cancel out good academics. Knowledge production is not mutually exclusive or zero sum.

7. There is an argument to be made that hiring Jason Arday effectively “cancelled out” a more proficient white academic, since the budget is limited. However, the easiest and quickest solution to this problem isn’t to be more selective with hiring, but to simply hire more professors.

8. Professors do not make much money. People who become professors are mostly interested in one of two things: A. the subject matter they study; B. status. The second interest can lead to perverse outcomes, where professors try to maximize their status while ignoring academic rigor. But if this is the case, then going after Jason Arday to “preserve the sanctity of academia” could actually worsen the problem, because it increases the relative status of the remaining professors. Compare Schopenhauer to Hegel for an example of how this dynamic can play out in real life.

9. Consider academia like an AI which takes a prompt and spits out outputs. For a given prompt, most academics spit out hallucinations and nonsense, but one produces the correct answer. It is better to have this R-selective process, where many wrong answers are produced, than a K-selective process, where an insufficient number of correct answers are produced.

10. Academia is not like engineering. In engineering, if there is a bridge failure, people die. If Jason Arday plagiarizes, no one dies. The risks of bad academics are low.

More people need to read Nicholas and take him seriously.

4. Say’s Law in China, by Scott Sumner

Scott attacks the myth of Chinese “overproduction.” The problem isn’t production, but allocation. Yes, China probably overproduces certain goods out of proportion with existing demand, but this is only because of its lack of economic freedom. Chinese citizens require government permission to move from one city to another, to start businesses, and to invest in foreign stock markets. By reducing these regulations, the problem of “overproduction” disappears.

Scott claims that a China which would be 2x or 3x richer isn’t something to worry about -- militarily, politically, and culturally, this is a hard pill to swallow. But it is more plausible to me that we theoretically could remain friends with China than to say that war with China is inevitable. I forget where I read this analysis (AI could tell us), but it’s not even clear that the Peloponnesian War was inevitable. After all, between 1814 and 1913, both the French and British Empires grew exponentially in size, but this did not require a war between those two bordering powers. Instead, they were able to achieve a Franco-British alliance. Similarly, there is no reason why a Chinese-American alliance, in theory, would be impossible.

At present, the law of inertia gives us two facts about the west:

1. NATO is expanding into Ukraine

2. Russia is expanding into Ukraine

Whether or not you think those things *should* be happening, they are. And it seems unlikely to me that either of those facts will suddenly reverse without major regime change. Hence the NATO-Russian conflict will probably continue to dominate western politics for the next 30 years. During that time, if China were to double the size of its economy, it would certainly have the ability to take Taiwan, and from Taiwan, to develop naval dominance in the eastern Pacific, undermining the American system established in the late 19th century. Is this an acceptable arrangement? Can this transition be made peacefully, without need for war?

Nothing is determined or inevitable here. China taking over Taiwan could have positive political benefits, since millions of Taiwanese might influence Beijing to soften its policies nationally. The wisest policy would be to pursue a soft-power (cultural) integration of East Asia together with America via TPP, which was the Obama plan that Trump killed.

5. On the bigness of China, by Scott Sumner

This article hammers the point home: Scott refuses to consider the concept of power projection, military force, or even soft power. From his perspective, states produce goods and engage in voluntary transactions -- that’s it. We shouldn’t be mad if Texas “exports” air conditioning units to Florida, because both parties benefit. But China isn’t Texas, at least not in theoretical terms. China is a state with a military and an ethno-nationalist ideology. It is not a liberal democracy.

Usually when I debate China hawks, I am coming from the following posture:

1. A war would be bad

2. The best way to prevent war is trade

3. We should trade with China

However, when I read Scott, I feel compelled to point out that he is not just failing to address the arguments of the China hawks; he is pretending their arguments don’t exist. If China produces all the industrial goods, and we produce Netflix, porn, and Fortnite skins, then that creates a huge security issue. In a war, you can convert a factory for cars into a factory for tanks, ships, or drones. You cannot do the same thing to an OnlyFans FIREE (finance, insurance, real estate, entertainment) economy.

My argument, contrary to both Scott and the hawks, would be that we should simultaneously trade with China AND provide massive subsidies for military-industrial production. Drone manufacturing, solar panels, electric cars, high speed rail, airplane construction, and so on should all receive a lot of money. I don’t like the idea of tariffs, because they lessen Chinese dependence on America, and make it harder for us to impose sanctions in the case of a future political crisis, as we did to Japan during WWII.

Imagine if, in the 1920s, American tariffed Japan. What would happen? The Japanese economy would adjust and form new trade networks to work around the tariffs. As a result, we would lose our trump card -- the ability to sanction. Hence, tariffs are bad except in case of emergency. It’s like using antibiotics for every little cut and bruise -- you breed resistant strains.

So I am in favor of simultaneously INCREASING trade with Asia (TPP) while also providing massive subsidies for military-industrial production. Where is the money for those subsidies coming from? Ideally, through means-testing Social Security, and a new Federal Property Tax.

6. Libertarianism Against Cultural Conservatism, by Bryan Caplan

Bryan’s article is good, but I want to issue some counter-arguments that conservatives might make, and then some counter-counter arguments.

“Despite all the nonsense that flourishes today, nonsense was much more prevalent and monolithic before the rise of freedom of speech and the press, and remains much more prevalent and monolithic in modern countries that suppress speech and the press.”

• Conservative Counter: Wokeness is nonsense, and that prior to 1776, it was nonexistent. No one believed that non-whites were inherently morally superior to whites; no one believed that you could change your gender; no one believed that “all love is love”; no one believed in castrating children.

Counter-counter: Christianity did claim that Jews had a special “chosen” status because of their victimhood, which was later transferred to blacks -- wokeness didn’t come from nowhere. Many ancient myths did claim that gender changes were possible, such as those of India. Homosexuality was practiced in the ancient world, and romance between men was held in high esteem. The castrati of Europe were mutilated so they could better hit the high notes in the church choir. Wokeness is flawed, but it is not necessarily more ridiculous than what was commonly held prior to freedom of speech.

When taken as a whole, freedom of speech has a very good track record (300 years) of not being woke; it is only in the last two or three decades that wokeness has gained any popularity at all. Taken as a whole, 90% of the time, freedom of speech generally gets things right, or better than authoritarianism. Furthermore, the problem with wokeness is not too much freedom of speech, but not enough. If the ban-waves of 2017-2022 never occurred, the anti-woke movement would have been much more powerful. Censorship works, and it is only in an environment which suppresses speech that wokeness can persist.

Counter-counter-counter: Wokeness is generally correct. Transgender people are distinct from cis gender people, and chemical or surgical gender transitions are not any more harmful than “doing nothing.” Even if transitions do hurt a certain percentage of people (children), the overall benefit to society is large in two respects: 1. McGenic effects (self-castration); 2. higher openness to transhumanism. If trans people can take testosterone, why can’t we legalize steroids? By using trans people as a battering ram, we can open up new frontiers of science.

On the question of race, wokeness does more good than harm because of the positive effects of open borders. The main problem in western societies isn’t that the level of violence is too high, or that welfare is breaking the budget, but that our working-age population is shrinking. Most government spending isn’t going toward immigrants -- it’s going toward old people. Even if some immigrants do receive more in welfare than they pay in taxes, this can be considered a form of Keynesian economics, where the government pays immigrants to stimulate demand.

“Almost no one wants to ban alcohol, which plausibly does more social harm than all other irresponsible behaviors combined.”

• Conservative Counter: I’d be in favor of heavily taxing alcohol as much as possible. There is a point at which a black market would form to get around these taxes; the job of behavioral economists would be to find the limit.

“The United States in particular has a long history of accepting immigrants from countries that were, at the time, backwards and authoritarian, especially Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and East Asia. Despite contemporary paranoia, the first generation of immigrants from these backwards, authoritarian countries assimilated enough to become productive members of society.”

• Conservative Counter: This only occurred in the context of a culture which was extremely racist, xenophobic, and Christian. Immigrants were bullied, harassed, and excluded until they learned to behave. Now that white Americans have lost their confidence, there is no mechanism by which immigrants can be assimilated. As a result, immigrants in the 21st century will become increasingly hostile toward white Americans, which will result in massive cultural and political conflict.

Counter-Counter: The cultural conflict between Hispanics and white Americans is simply not large enough to amount to anything. Both groups are predominantly Christian. In Europe, Islam presents a greater threat, but Muslim immigrants in America are a very small and selected percentage. We already have examples of societies which are a mix between whites and Asians: Singapore and Hong Kong. These city states have not erupted into racial chaos or violence. As a larger example, Hawaii is majority Asian, and there have not been any pogroms against whites. California has large populations of Asians, but these have not led to any significant conflict. There is a case to be made against African and Muslim immigration, but not Asian or Hispanic immigration.

“Even when irresponsible behavior is closely linked to actual crime, focusing on actual crime is highly effective, so there’s little benefit of criminalizing mere “disorder.” If the homeless really are massively stealing shopping carts and bikes, jail them for stealing shopping carts and bikes.”

• Conservative Counter: Anti-social behavior is bad. Singapore, who Bryan would praise on economic grounds, absolutely criminalizes anti-social behavior. There is no reason why anyone should tolerate humans defecating in public, leering, loitering, or camping out on the sidewalk. They should be deported to Nevada.

“Do you support the individual right to choose a terrible romantic partner? Do you deny that a sufficiently terrible romantic partner will ruin your life?”

• Conservative Counter: There is a reasonable case to be made that the government should intervene in cases of romantic crimes. My personal suggestion would be to nationalize all dating websites (tinder, hinge, bumble, POF, OkCupid, eHarmony) and allow users to rate one another. Those who treat users with respect will receive higher ratings, while those who treat users without respect will receive lower ratings. Those who show up late to dates, ghost their dates, catfish, flake, use old or photoshopped pictures, or act rudely will be rated low. Those who show up early, pay for meals, use accurate pictures, and act politely will be rated high.

“Even if an immigrant group has unfavorable characteristics, large subsets of natives are clearly worse. Most obviously, virtually no immigrant nationality has worse crime rates than native-born blacks. If that’s a terrible reason to denaturalize native-born blacks, why is it a good reason to refuse immigration from any nation?”

• Conservative Counter: We should denaturalize criminals. There is no reason why criminals should maintain citizenship or remain housed in this country. Citizenship is not a right, but a privilege. It is awarded by default, but can and should be taken away when an individual violates the social contract through an act of aggression.

7. Can the Truth Convince People to Like Data Centers? By Cremieux

Cremieux reviews the research on persuasion. Can you convince people to love data centers? What about more development in general?

I’d like to introduce a different analysis. Rather than studying persuasion from the per argument perspective, I’d instead look at the per caste perspective.

If your K-12 teacher tells you that MLK was good, you believe he’s good. The arguments don’t matter; institutions matter. Why is our priestly caste, the K-12 teachers, opposed to development, technology, and data centers? One might say “socialism,” but Soviet Russia had mega-projects which required eminent domain, centralization, and the destruction of local communities. I think pro-AI socialism is possible, at least if we refer to historical socialism in Russia.

Rather, anti-AI sentiment actually seems to be a centrist/moderate position, not a fringe left-wing position. This is the “silent majority,” who are mostly suburbanites, rather than ruralites or urbanites. They like the suburbs because they oppose change.

A left-wing college student who opposes AI is, in many ways, profoundly conservative. They oppose change at all levels: local, regional, national, global. They claim to want immigration and feminism, but these are continuations of trends, not new trends entirely.

Anti-tech leftists and conservatives both want to preserve different versions of the status quo. Removing these people from power and empowering “deep leftists” would solve the anti-AI problem at the root, rather than chipping away at individual arguments.

8. Krakowski, Claude, and *Modern Times*, by Bryan Caplan

AI produces false positives, but it is still useful as an error checker. I stopped using it after I noticed that spelling errors did not impact my view count or like count. But for factual errors it would be good to see what I’ve gotten wrong and correct myself. Put it on the list of things to do. Ultimately, while I understand that my writing is not as polished as AI-assisted writing, the act of writing for me is a way that I learn. Even if someone could produce essays in my style at a higher quality, I still would enjoy writing as a means of working out ideas in my head -- even if it was useless to other people.

9. Another $100K Tax on H‑1B Visas, by David J. Bier

The only justification one could have to limit H-1B visas is to preserve American culture. However, in view of technologies like AI and gene editing, I do not think this quest is possible, unless we bring about a complete halt, or even a collapse, of technological progress. Even if America was 50% Indian or Chinese, I still think this is a smaller change, all things considered, when we compare the impact of wiping out white collar work and wolf-soldiers. It seems like sticking your thumb in the cannon-ball shaped hole of a sinking ship. I would rather try to achieve the technological progress and see what comes next rather than advocate for the preservation of meemaw and peepaw, like mummies in a cultural sarcophagus.

How to brainwash the goyim

This is a fairly straight-forward adaptation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for the AI Age. This was the most interesting section to me:

“The groups aligned against us.. may disagree over race, class, religion, policing, gender, foreign policy, revolutionary politics, or simply over who should have status and leadership within the movement. A political influence campaign can exploit this structure by amplifying existing arguments or redirecting attention toward causes that compete with anti-Israel politics for the same activists’ time and energy. We could also encourage our enemies to embrace unstable/unpopular beliefs that will hurt the movement.

... political strength depends ... on whether those people remain focused, coordinated, and confident in the same cause; internal division, competing priorities, political failures, and disillusionment can all reduce the amount of energy ultimately directed toward Jews and Israel.

Narratives of nihilism, hopelessness, and political futility can further reduce collective action by convincing people that participation is pointless/the enemy is too strong or that every available political faction is corrupt.”

From my perspective, antisemitism shares many features in common with other populist causes: anti-datacenterism, anti-AI, anti-vaccine, anti-abortion, anti-immigration. Therefore, the stuff that Zionists come up with to defend themselves can be reused for other purposes.

Israel’s greatest enemy is not some woke Nazi living in America, but the schizophrenia of Zionism itself, which was founded by secular socialists, and is now increasingly dominated by religious nutjobs fueled by Messianic fervor. No matter how stupid the goyim are, these nutjobs will find a way to mess things up. Supporting Israel is like marrying a woman with psychotic tendencies who will someday strangle your kids with exercise bands. It’s a ticking time bomb.

The best thing that could happen in Israel would be for some kind of hate speech law to be passed to suppress extremism. I doubt that will happen, and things will only get crazier.

Why is Antisemitism rising?

This article was too long for me to fully view in my email reader, and I’m offline so I can’t click the link to see the whole thing. I found it to be too long, meandering, and jocular. There’s too much sarcasm. It needs to be more focused on what is a complicated issue. StatJew presents a lot of arguments to contrast them to one another, but this is not a good introduction to the question.

I do agree that Mizrahi cannot be blamed for all of Israel’s evils, but they are a good cultural shorthand for a larger phenomenon, which is that Israel has moved away from Ashkenazi culture toward a new Israeli culture. How and why this happened cannot be reduced merely to Mizrahi, and maybe Mizrahi have nothing at all to do with it, but a shift clearly did occur over the last 30 years, and it has impacted how Israel is perceived internationally.

I disagree that left-wing antisemitism exists in any substantial way. Perhaps I’m just quibbling over semantics, but I am actually an expert on this subject and I’ve written a book about it. Anti-Judaism, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism can overlap, but they are distinct. [I will refer to all three together as “anti-Hebrewism.”] Anti-Judaism existed among pagans, and then Christians. Antisemitism is a biological theory that Jews, as a race, are inherently dysgenic or corrupt, which originated around 1862. Anti-Zionism among goyim developed first in Palestine in reaction to Jewish settlers, and then throughout the Soviet Union, but we should credit the first anti-Zionists as actually being Jews themselves.

Anti-Zionist Jews are obviously not antisemitic, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Leftists cannot be antisemites because they reject biological explanations for group differences. Leftists could theoretically be anti-Judaic, but that is extremely unlikely when you have people like Mamdani and even Hasan Piker claiming that Judaism as a religion is good. Marx was anti-Judaic, but modern leftists associate anti-Judaism with antisemitism.

When discussing why antisemitism is rising, many Jews seem to want to have a moralistic theory or justification for the phenomenon, rather than an accurate theory. It would be accurate to say that a combination of demographic, cultural, religious, and political changes in the west have resulted in harsher criticism of Israel, paired with a disproportionate rise in Israeli power relative to its neighbors.

Contrary to StatJew, I do not think “weakness” is an incentive for human hatred. His Evolutionary Psychology is ad hoc and doesn’t deal with the vast literature on ethnocentrism, altruism, in-group preference, and out-group hostility. When Israel was opposed by state actors, like Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, it was more liked, because people could look at a map and say: “Israel small, Arabs big.” Americas in particular love the story of a small underdog -- it’s the David vs Goliath story, the Jedi and the Empire. Since all of Israel’s neighbors have been bribed or cowed into submission, now people look at a map and say: “Palestine small, Israel big.”

Babies are extremely weak, but hatred of babies is not proportionate to their weakness. So are old people, but voters keep supporting Social Security. The Amish are pacifists who refuse to defend themselves, but they are not hated. The pygmies of Africa are enslaved by the Bantu, but no one outside of the Bantu sees them as worthy of hatred. While I agree with StatJew that jealousy of wealth is a big motivation for anti-Hebrewism of all kinds, the “Jews are weak” explanation does not make sense, and the truth is the exact opposite. When Jews have been hated, it is always because they are perceived as secretly strong, not weak.

Finally I will say that I disagree with StatJew on the idea that Jews were uniquely capable of resisting genocide for the 18 centuries in which they lived in Europe. Instead, the Romans revered the Jews for several reasons:

1. The Severan Dynasty was Phoenician or Syrian, and revered Abraham as one of their ancestors. You could consider the Severans as half-Jewish, like the Samaritans. This increased the status and prestige of Jews generally.

2. In the same way that some right-wingers fetishize Islam for being “not degenerate,” Romans fetishized Judaism as resisting degeneracy.

3. Jewish merchants in Rome were a well-to-do selected population.

4. Jews were Hellenized, and the Romans fetishized Greek culture.

If you add to this the fact that the Romans were famously tolerant of different religions, then you get a recipe for toleration of Jews, despite the fact that Jews behaved quite badly.

Next, during the medieval period, Christian kings and bishops protected Jews. This was partially economically motivated, but also theologically motivated, because the Jews were considered a witness people. Without the protection of Christianity, Jews may have not survived. StatJew doesn’t credit the goyim for Jewish survival, which is ungrateful. There’s no way that Jews would have survived, for example, if they were given the treatment that ISIS meted out to the Yazidis. Europeans could have done so, if they wanted to, but they did not want to. The graciousness of the European host was a bigger factor than “divine providence,” unless by divine providence you mean Jesus Christ.

Let’s finish with a word from our sponsor, Non-Zionism:

“Charedim don’t like goyim... when Charedim get enlightened in a Zionist context, their hatred for the gentile doesn’t go away, it doesn’t even moderate. Rather, it becomes active, a thing you can’t excuse; in the end, a thing you can’t ignore either... Advocates of Charedi military service should be careful what they wish for.”

This is what Zionists either do not understand, or systematically ignore. You cannot pretend that these people do not exist; you cannot pretend that these people are not winning. You cannot support ethno-nationalist religious zealots without any consequences. Of course, the zealots themselves lie about this, but the rest of us should not be deceived.

My apologies for reviewing a book without reading it. At the risk of strawmanning or getting things wrong, I’m going to publish this for those who are interested.

Imagine a left-wing sociology class entitled, “Comic Fascism: Pop Propaganda and the Prison Industrial Complex.” In this course, students are taught that Peter Parker and the Hulk reinforce the myth of genetic determinism. Superman is an alien from another planet, but somehow appears exactly as a white man, which makes him a metaphor for the European colonization of the “new world” by Christopher Columbus. Batman’s villains leave no room for socio-economic explanations of crime; they are pure evil, driven only by sadism. Comics reinforce the ideology of mass incarceration by dehumanizing criminals. In reality, crime is a product of inequality and systemic racism, which can be ameliorated with socialism and prison reform.

Now, imagine the exact opposite sociology class: right-wing Critical Theory. Rather than praising the superhero, he is scrutinized as a subversive Jewish archetype. Comic books were anti-Nazi propaganda. Superman as an orphan raised by foreigners is an analogy for the Biblical Moses. Superheroes have “dual identities”; a public facing identity which is polite and shy, and a private identity of violence and vigilantism. Villains like Redskull, Dr. Doom, and Dr. Octopus are all variations of Hitler, English aristocrats, or scientific eugenicists -- they live in castles and plot a New Order. The Superhero is a defender of Jewish democracy against reactionary conspiracies. If you can imagine such a sociology class, then you can imagine Brahmin and Spencer’s Myth to Power.1

The History of Nordicism

Since the 1970s, white nationalism began a transition from the Nordicist tradition to a “Eurasian” strain of thought. Eurasianism reduces racial superiority to an IQ test, putting Asians at the top.2 John Derbyshire promoted a “Cold Winters” theory that all people of colder northern climates were intelligent, while people from southern and colder climates were stupid.3 For Eurasianists, race only mattered insofar as it predicted IQ and violence.

Eurasian intellectuals claimed that Asians were smarter and more peaceful than whites, which was a continuation of the infatuation that Enlightenment or liberal thinkers (like Voltaire and Bertrand Russell) expressed for China. This transition was led by intellectuals and academics like Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, and Jared Taylor, all of whom distanced themselves from antisemitism.

Jared Taylor campaigned for decades on the platform that “Jews are white.” Although Taylor never succeeded in removing antisemitism from white nationalism, he did succeed in purging Nordicism from “the movement.” As a result, all the prominent white nationalists promoting Charlottesville in 2017, including Matt Heimbach, Matt Parrott, Mike Enoch, Erik Striker, Nick Fuentes, and even Richard Spencer himself were racial “Eurasianists,” Russophiles, and held “Mediterraneans” as coequal with Nordics.4

The idea that ancient Greece was ruled by Nordics, and racially degenerated over time, was considered by Eurasianists to be “divisive.” The official dogma of the Eurasianists was that all whites have a uniform racial IQ of 100, with no hierarchical variations in personality, psychology, or spirit -- it’s all equal in the big “white family.” Memes showing the “diversity of Europeans” celebrated the fact that Europeans can have blonde, red, brown, or black hair. “No more brother’s wars” meant that an Anglo-Saxon should regard himself as part of the same race as a Moscovite.5 White nationalists like Ryan Faulk would routinely denounce Hitler as “anti-white” for being “anti-Slavic.” Nordicism was dead.

Eurasianists regarded Nordicism as a parochial ideology, which unwisely pitted Germans against Slavs, or Celts against Italians. Since all whites are facing genocide, it no longer made sense to obsess over petty phenotypic distinctions -- either all whites would stand together, or they would fall separately. In the view of Andrew Anglin, whose defunct website DailyStormer was the most popular white nationalist publication at the time, the Greeks of the Golden Dawn and the Eurasianists behind Putin were just as white (if not more so) than the cucked beta males of England, Sweden, and Germany.

After the disaster of Charlottesville, which split “the movement” between wignats and amnats, white nationalists still did not rediscover Nordicism. The wignats, centered on Matt Heimbach and Matt Parrott, celebrated the “working class” of trailer parks. On the side of the amnats, with the rising popularity of Nick Fuentes, Mongrel Nationalists considered blacks and Hispanics as “based” so long as they were Christian.

With the collapse of the wignats into irrelevance after the fall of TWP,6 a third alternative view arose to oppose the Christian Nationalism of Fuentes. This was the Mischling Nationalism of Bronze Age Pervert and Curtis Yarvin, alleged to be associated with Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Palantir.7 They embraced race realism and World War II revisionism, but claimed that Jews (or half Jews) could assimilate or be accepted into a new far-right, post-liberal order. A consistent goal of the Mischling Nationalists was to demoralize the cause of Ukraine, promote a detente with Russia against China, and to hope for the collapse of western governments, so that a new world of network states, crypto kings, and multi-polarity could emerge. With Mongrels on the one side, and Mischlinge on the other, true Nordicism, as an intellectual and geopolitical tradition, was smothered. After three decades of absence, Myth to Power has put Nordicism back on the map, at least among the small and niche corners of white nationalism.

In Praise of Critical Theory

Brahmin’s central thesis is this: the most salient cultural division in the world today, and for the last 6,000 years, is between Jewish and Aryan culture. What we call “western civilization” is an intertwined mish-mash of the two. Whereas Aryan culture is creative, innovative, honest, beautiful, eugenic, and true, Jewish culture is parasitic, manipulative, mercantile, deceptive, victimary, miscengenatory, and myth-making. This intertwining did not begin with Christ; even the God Odin is “proto-Jewish.” Brahmin considers the story of Laban (whose name means “white”) as a metaphor for an ancient Jewish program to mix the white race out of existence. Through the cult of Apollo, Aryan culture developed an immune system against this Jewish disease. Apollo looked nothing like the olive-skinned, frizzy haired, racially corrupted Greeks of modern times: he was a Hyperborean God, blonde haired, and blue eyed. Now, in the 21st century, it is time for the cult of Apollo to be resurrected.

Brahmin sees Western-European-Christian culture as infected with an original sin of racial egalitarianism, which he calls “proto-Judaism.” This Semitic cult spread rapidly out of the Middle East during the period of the Romans, but also during the period of the Greeks, and possibly even further back in the Dark Ages. In this tectonic theory of racial history, Brahmin follows Nietzsche, Hitler, Rosenberg, Arthur Kemp, Revilo P. Oliver, and William Luther Pierce. Mein Kampf, the Myth of the Twentieth Century, and the Passing of the Great Race all share much of Brahmin’s perspective.8

Millions of academics claim that concepts like truth, objectivity, logic, or even the passage of time are all implicitly patriarchal or white supremacist. Human sacrifice and cannibalism reflect the beauty of diversity, while touching a black girl’s hair is cultural genocide. Inaction is also genocide, since “silence is violence.”

Conservatives vainly complain that political correctness (now called “wokeness”) has gone too far. The left was correct about religious freedom, democracy, slavery, and the Nazis, but between JFK and Obama, the ideology went overboard. There is a well-funded class of conservative ideologues who push this talking point, ranging from Bari Weiss to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Less conservative podcasters, like Joe Rogan and Theo Von, parrot the same ideas. On the “far right,” Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens engage in World War Two revisionism, but they schizophrenically agree on the liberal fundamentals of religious freedom, democracy, and abolitionism. They are all classical liberals who want to chip away at or restrain leftist “excesses.”

The conservative has an empty, vacuous, and negative critique of Critical Theory. Rather than substituting a theory of their own, they simply claim that we should defund universities, go back to “teaching Shakespeare,” or abolish the Humanities in favor of a STEM-only curriculum. By contrast, Spencer and Brahmin provide a systematic critique of Western-European-Christian culture from a radical and substantive position.9

Brahmin’s analysis sounds insane, schizophrenic, and ad hoc when taken bit-by-bit. But as a systematic worldview, it has internal cohesion, and it rests firmly on fundamental and simple ideas. It is those sweeping ideas, rather than their piecemeal applications, that I wish to discuss.

The Deep Left Theory

Brahmin claims that the most salient feature of cultural conflict in western history is a strict line between “Semitic-Judaic” as opposed to “Aryan-European.” Whereas the woke leftist divides the world into white and non-white, Brahmin wants to divide the world between Aryan and Jewish. Against Brahmin, I propose that the most fundamental binary axis is between the democratic-absolutism of Osiris-Zoroaster and the pastoral-libertarianism of Ursemitic-Aryanism.

My theory divides humanity between two spirits, which I call Deep Right (the tendency toward ossification and gerontocracy), and Deep Left (the Faustian tendency toward dynamic competition, juvenocracy, freedom, and infinite open space). Both Aryans AND Semites are Deep Left, while the rest of human civilization has been Deep Right. This division has an economic origin. Whereas gerontocracy is the natural form of government in both tribal and settled economies, pastoral economies are uniquely supportive of juvenocracy. As Aryan pastoralists “hijacked” agricultural societies from the top down, as in Greece, they formed a distinct aristocracy, separate from the “Pelasgians.” This aristocracy managed to maintain its unique cultural values through a series of anti-gerontocratic myths, including the Titanomachy, Herakles, and Perseus.

Repeatedly throughout Greek myth, we hear the following refrain: that a young hero saves a princess from a dragon. This plot has such resonance that it became the basis for the two most popular video games: Mario, and Legend of Zelda. In the original Greek myth, the princess is being sacrificed intentionally by her father to the dragon, or Cetus, in order to provide for a good harvest. This is not a scene which the Greeks invented; instead, it is the exact form of gerontocratic human sacrifice which they encountered during their invasions. By celebrating heroes like Zeus, Perseus, Jason, and Bellerophon, the Greeks kept alive their juvenocratic spirit, and repressed the gerontocratic tendency. The last great expression of this spirit was in Alexander’s Empire, which arose as a final protest against the return of gerontocracy.10

I first encountered Brahmin around 2020, during his dispute with Keith Woods and Greg Johnson. I assumed that since Brahmin was a Nietzschean-nominalist, and Woods and Johnson were self-described Platonists, I would have more in common with Woods and Johnson than with Brahmin. To my surprise, however, the opposite was the case.

Plato was a critical theorist of myth. He wished to establish new myths on philosophical grounds, by appealing to nature rather than tradition. It is in this preference for naturalism over traditionalism that I call Plato a “deep leftist.” Contrary to Plato’s naturalism, Woods and Johnson regard western “tradition” as an inviolable fetish-object. Johnson and Woods follow the Duginist-Heideggerian mantra of “nationalism for all peoples,” egalitarianism brought to the civilizational level.11 Although I disagree with Brahmin’s starting and ending point, his method of cultural criticism resembles the original Platonic method of reforming a sick society by critiquing its myths.12 It is in this respect that Brahmin’s method is much closer to Plato’s.

I follow Camille Paglia in defining Egyptian civilization as one of three fundamental cultural bedrocks for western civilization.13 This distinction becomes salient is in the discussion of the afterlife. Jews have little to say about it; Christians obsess over it. Brahmin claims that the Platonic “world of forms” is meant to corrupt the Aryan and distract him from worldly power, in order to swindle and control him. But calling this concept “proto-Jewish” ignores the fact that the Egyptians had a fully fledged and democratic concept of the afterlife, in the “weighing of the soul.” If we want to understand Platonism and Christianity, we should look at Egyptian religion plainly, rather than inventing “proto-Judaism.”14

There is little relation between the heroic-nomadic pastoral Ursemites, the Biblical Abel and King David, and the scribal-worship of Rabbinic Judaism. Economically, materially, and spiritually, the two are opposites. Judaism and Ursemitic culture have as little in common as Andrew Tate and King Arthur.15 Judaism as a religion derives from Osiris-Sumer-Zoroaster, with little influence from the original storm-and-hunting cults of the Semites.

By reducing everything to a Semitic conspiracy fueled by resentment and jealousy of the beautiful Aryan, Brahmin ignores the cold logic of democratic-absolutism, which emerges out of the structural incentives of settled urbanism. The Ursemites were more similar to Indo-Europeans than to Rabbinic Christianity.

Culture Mixing

There are instances where I agree with Brahmin. For example, his claim that Odin is a non-European God is plausible, since the cults of the Middle East extended their influence far and wide through evangelization along trade routes. The development of Futhark, prominent in the cult of Odin, was not autochthonous: it came from the south. Phoenicians made their way to “Thule,” either Ireland or Iceland, following the routes of the copper trade in Cornwall. 4,000 years ago, there was trade between Africa and India, between Sweden and Greece. When white nationalists call Brahmin crazy for suggesting a foreign origin for Odin, they show their ignorance of the Malagasy, who traveled from Asia to Africa by boat. The movement of peoples was great, and the movement of ideas and cults was even greater. Claiming that Middle Eastern cults had zero influence on Northern European myths is a dogmatic absurdity, since those myths themselves speak of a battle between old Gods, the Vanir, and new Gods, the Aesir. The default hypothesis should be that the myth is referring to a real historical event, not Jungian nonsense: there was an ideological war between competing religions in northern Europe, and the “new Gods” won.

White nationalists like Martin Sellner claim that Europe has been “strictly European” for 40,000 years, but this is a gross oversimplification of history. The genetic and cultural difference between Paleolithic and Neolithic Europeans is vast; and more recently, the Aryan invasions brought a new cultural complex, with distinct genetic markers. Rather than dividing the globe neatly into eternally-fixed spheres of “white, black, yellow,” as Eurasianists insist, it is more accurate to say that Europe’s racial history has been dynamic and ever-changing.16 Not only did racial change occur through migration, but also by selection. Active eugenic selection changed the race from within. This brings me to a discussion of the European-Semitic nose.

The Sexual Selection Theory of Robustness

The default “race realist” position is that nasal morphology evolved out of geography. Colder climates demanded bigger noses. While this may have been initially true during the Ice Age and among Ancient North Eurasians, it cannot explain aquiline noses in the Amazon, or in the Arabian desert. If only nature were responsible, then the Jewish or Aztec nose could not exist. Furthermore, Intuit and Greenlandic people have (relatively speaking) diminutive noses. Since geographic determinism cannot explain the geographic distribution of nasal morphologies, there are only two remaining possibilities: mass migration, or selection.

In the theory of Nasal Sexual Selection, larger noses spread as a result of pastoral conquest, polygamy, and hypergamous breeding. Nasal robustness correlates with masculinity, higher testosterone, and more competitive behaviors. Small noses are correlated with conformism, superstition, and gerontocracy.17

In the 19th century, racial scientists attempted to prove that Africans were more primitive, like chimps, and therefore, that they were more robust, and had more “animal-like” qualities. Africans were assigned traits such as being more sexual, more aggressive, and stronger.18 Meanwhile, Asians were considered more sophisticated, refined, and civilized, so they were said to be docile, intelligent, and weak. Europeans, being the perfect race, were assigned the Aristotelian middle.

Nasal Selection Theory (NST) discards this 19th century scheme. Instead of seeing Africans as robust, Asians as neotonous, and Europeans occupying the middle, the European-Semitic nose is recognized as a signal of robustness, violence, aggression, competition, masculinity, and strength. This follows from gender dymorphism and neotony: women and babies have smaller noses than men and adults. Sexual selection for bigger noses demonstrates a drive to breed a more dominant warrior aristocracy among Zagrosian, Anatolian, Aryan, and Semitic populations, all of whom original in the hypothesized “Nostratic zone” south of the Caucasus Mountains, which follows from the Liminal Theory of Selection. Parallel to NST, when we measure the brow ridge of Asians, Africans, and Europeans, we find, once again, that Europeans, Semites, and Zagrosians are the most robust, masculinized, primitive, or “chimp-like.”19 The strong brow and nose was accurately depicted by Arno Breker as signifying the masculine extreme of “Nordicism,” in contrast with the more neotonous and softer features found in Asia and Africa, with their smaller noses and weaker brow ridges. In jaw development as well, after accounting for prognathism, Europeans have the greatest and sharpest forward development of the lower mandible, which is another sign of robustness and masculinization.20

Since white nationalism has adopted a victim-posture, attractive among downwardly mobile and anti-social types, they portray themselves as women and children, and their opponents as rapists and fighting-age men.21

White nationalists like to imagine themselves as weak and neotonous, and their opponents as strong and robust. When a white woman called a Somali kid a “nigger,” she was showered with a million dollars. If a white man does the same thing, there is no outpouring of sympathy. White nationalism is a fundamentally feminine and even feminist movement, which idealizes docility, peacefulness, low-crime, and civility. It is a Hobbit-religion that fears expansion, exploration, and adventure.22

Aryo-Semitic Pastoralism

What Brahmin misunderstands, in conflating the Semitic with the Judaic, is that the Rabbinic and Christian traditions are influenced more by the cults of Osiris and Ahura Mazda than by the cults of Zeus-Indra or Seth-Yahweh. What Brahmin refers to as “proto-Judaism” is an emergent cultural phenomena that arises out of hyper-centralization. It is a cult of humiliation which undermines the nobility in favor of democratic-absolutism.

By democratization, I am referring to the way in which broad masses were expected and encouraged to engage in a national cult, rather than leaving them to their petty local household cults. The cults of Seth and Amun, representing the Egyptian warrior class, were overshadowed in favor of Osiris and Ra. This process was complex, contradictory, and winding, but it tended toward monarchic absolutism, monotheism, and democratization. This process is analogous to the iconoclasm of Zoroaster, the atheism of Buddha, the monotheism of Moses, and later of Christ. Although Akhenaten and Zoroaster could have influenced one another, it is also possible that democratic-absolutist theology emerged independently as both societies followed the psychic logic of centralization.

In Egypt, as the Pharaoh consolidated power, he democratized religion. This was a “high-low vs the middle” strategy, where the absolute monarch used the broad masses (smiths, merchants, tradesmen, “freemasons” in the original sense) to diminish his royal competition, the nobility. Pharaohs sought to democratize society to suppress the threat of rebellion, led by nobles (think of how the English Barons revolted against the king to establish the Magna Carta). Democracy is absolutism -- the consolidation of power within the singularity of the Pharaoh, cutting out the middle-man of an independent nobility. The trick of modern wokeness has been to replace the personality of the Pharaoh with an ideology, symbolized by a hagiography of interchangeable black, brown, and feminist victimary saints like George Floyd and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The effect is absolutism: the erasure of localism and regional power in favor of a universal-democratic cult. There is nothing particularly “Jewish” about this process. Instead, Judaism is a *result* and not a *cause* of democratic-absolutist centralization.

The logic of democratic-centralization, and not “Semitism,” is the origin of Rabbinic Judaism. The Rabbis, holed up in ghettos and banks, have nothing to do with ancient pastoral Ursemitism. Judaism in its Rabbinic form is a rebellion against the pastoral storm cult, centered on Seth-Yahweh, a similar figure to Zeus-Indra.23

Contrast these two physical activities: the scribal-priest bent over a scroll or cuneiform tablet, reproducing obscure, repetitive, formulaic spells and histories; versus the pastoral nomad, the hunter, the storm personified. Apollo on his Holy Hunt is Odin on his Wild Hunt, who is also Seth and Yahweh in their power and fury. These twin cultures, Semitic and Aryan, conquered much of Eurasia, overcoming numerically superior odds, due to their large noses.24

Aryans and Semites were not founders of civilization, but newcomers and interlopers. It was the Coptic Egyptians, Sumerians, the Vinca, Cucuteni, and Trypillia cultures that founded cities, which were later conquered by Aryans and Semites. The Berbers are the most well-preserved fossil of the ancient Semitic-Seth cult, spreading over north Africa, and southward into the Fulani and Somali tribes, where up to 40% of the DNA is of Ursemitic origin. The Aryan-Semitic nomadic spirit was present in the expansion of Islam, Christianity, and even Buddhism. Buddhist missionaries of Aryan origin reached Japan and Indonesia, all the way from Afghanistan. These were the original globalists, which over time, became ossified and ritualized. All these religions contain a twin seed: that of gerontocracy, and that of adventure.

Over large stretches of shared territory on the borders between the Anatolian, Armenian, and Zagrosian Mountains, Semites and Aryans fused together to form composite or syncretic cults. The presence of Haplogroups R1a and R1b in ancient Egyptian Pharaohs could have been brought directly by cultural Aryans, but it is also possible that these were cultural Semites who previously mixed with Aryans. In Egyptian religion, Seth is a nomad of the north -- the Egyptian Apollo.

Both Apollo and Seth carry disease -- a common stereotype surrounding pastoral peoples. This was for two reasons: their closeness to animals, which resulted in zoonotic transmission, and their exposure to a diversity of foreign illnesses over vast distances, to which settled peoples were not exposed. Migrations out of central Asia can be held responsible for the Black Plague, and this was also the case in Egypt and Greece. Hence Apollo was a God of disease because he was a pastoralist, and the same with Seth.

The lifestyles, virtues, and “Evolutionary Strategies” of ancient Semites and Aryans make them cousins, not opposites. Brahmin’s attack on the “hyper-deceptive, mercantile, myth-making culture” of Semites is unfair. The priestly tradition is more traceable to non-Semitic cultures like Coptic, Sumerian, and Zoroastrian. It is the product of intense urbanization, centralization, and democratic-absolutism. Such political formulas were not possible among nomadic peoples, since it would have been like herding cats -- a pastoralist is free to come and go as he pleases, and cannot be humiliated by rituals of human sacrifice.

1. Flop Era, by Parker Molloy

Parker documents the way in which MAGA influencers use the term “sexism” to try to undermine Democrats. One could dismiss this as irrelevant -- who even is “Robby Starbuck”? -- but I think there is a deeper point to be made here.

MAGA, ostensibly, arose to oppose cancel culture and wokeness. I remember, in particular, a NASA astronaut wearing a shirt depicting hot girls, and getting cancelled for that. Now the same tribe, ostensibly, has swung around to becoming the snowflakes and calling anything they don’t like “sexist.” I call this the Charlie Kirk effect.

What was cool about Trump’s campaign in 2016 is that it was very ironic. There was no sacred cow, no emperor without clothes -- it was all self-aware. Everyone knew that Trump was a ridiculous figure, and even his greatest supporters admitted he was “very funny.” No one was getting uptight. There were no “MAGA church ladies.” In other words, MAGA was fun.

But with success came codification -- Trump was transformed from a funny, ironic, self-aware, ridiculous comedian into a “Statesman.” He always said he wasn’t a politician, but over the last 10 years, he became more than a politician, and something closer to a tribal elder for millions of Americans. They look toward him as the wise man of the village. Insult Trump, and your life should be over. That’s not fun -- that’s just the same schoolmarm attitude that MAGA in 2016 was reacting to.

Charlie Kirk represented a watershed moment, because all the fun “meme energy” was on the left. The right-wing had to pretend, against all reality, that Charlie Kirk was somehow a serious ideologue, a heroic martyr, a Christian saint, etc etc. In reality he was a grifter who changed every single one of his opinions to meet the moment. It wasn’t long ago that he was up on stage with gay black Rob Smith, talking about green cards stapled to diplomas, and then switched over to suggesting that Israel had foreknowledge of October 7th and that the white race was under attack. My position is that Charlie believed nothing and simply did whatever was necessary to remain popular and relevant. Making a martyr out of such a person revealed that the right-wing has become exactly as dumb, saccharine, and pathetic as the “woke left” it once made fun of.

There is still a need to make fun of both the left and the right, but it’s not going to come from MAGA.

2. Liberals get the right wing they deserve, by East Hunter

I am most sympathetic to the part of this piece in which he waxes nostalgic for copyright free research papers.

Unlike East Hunter, who perceived wokeness and became “redpilled” in 2014, I was redpilled around 2008. This was for two reasons:

1. I was lied to about the Native Americans

2. I was lied to about Adolf Hitler

3. I was exposed to race realism

4. I was humiliated and censored over my atheism

In the first case, I was taught in school that Native Americans were peaceful nature-lovers who did nothing wrong (like me), and white people genocided them for no reason. I began to discover that actually, deaths due to disease are not genocide, and that the Aztecs were conducting human sacrifice. Having this information withheld from me, and later revealed, cast doubt on the anti-white narrative I had internalized, and made me suspicious: why exactly were my teachers so intent on promoting this false narrative? What was the motivation? Who benefits?

In the second case, I was taught that Adolf Hitler was a coward who ran away from battle. In reality, we have records of Hitler’s military career which were heavily scrutinized between his Putsch in 1923 and his rise to power in 1933. At any point during those 10 years, any of his opposition (on the far right DVNP or on the far left, or from moderates) could have interviewed one of his comrades and found him to be a coward. That never happened. Even Hitler’s Jewish commander maintained that he deserved the Iron Cross. No one ever doubted Hitler’s fanaticism. In fact, the only complain of his peers was that he was too fanatical, and browbeat them whenever they cast doubt on the inevitability of the final victory. Hitler volunteered for dangerous missions which were quasi-suicidal, riding his bicycle in muddy fields under shell-fire to deliver messages across trench lines. He was injured with mustard gas, hospitalized, and temporarily blinded. He refused promotions because he wished to remain at the front with the men, and not making decisions from behind a desk.

So I was lied to about Hitler, and furthermore, the same teacher showed us a picture of baby Hitler, and asked us, “wouldn’t it be cool to kill this baby?” Now, if you really thought Hitler had bad DNA (a eugenic idea) and could not be reformed through education, surely baby Hitler could have simply been, I don’t know, moved to a different country? Hidden away in the rural countryside? The idea that this baby would inevitably cause the deaths of millions, through sheer willpower, was both insane and mystical. It seemed to me that Hitler was a demon in the eyes of the Boomer liberal. Their superstition prevented them from seeing the truth. The stuff about human soap and lampshades was also radicalizing.

My teacher showed me fresh corpses bulldozed into open pits at the end of the war. They had not decomposed and showed no signs of cremation. It seemed to me that these people had died recently of starvation or typhus, as Zyklon B would not remove body fat, and they were all rail-thin. If the Nazi regime had perfected a system of gassing and cremation to hide bodies, then the existence of these bodies was actually proof against a systematic Holocaust. In any case, I was so upset about being lied to that I assumed that the crimes of the Nazis were all exaggerated. These Boomers liberals were baby killers, liars, and propagandists, and I believed the opposite of what they told me.

Thirdly, around 2008 to 2009, I was also exposed to race realism for the first time, and considered whether or not to was possible for group differences in genetics to produce variations in intelligence. Clearly this was true in the case of incest, and therefore, I supposed, extremely rural and isolated populations might build up genetic defects over time. I assume that this is why white people in the South were dumb, and why Africans living in villages might be dumb. The theory which I independently constructed actually already existed and was called “inbreeding depression.” It was actually an anti-racist theory, but it opened up my perspective to the idea that different groups had different genes, and those genes led to different outcomes.

Fourthly, I was humiliated for my atheism. We were instructed for English class to create a utopia and give a presentation on it. Since most historical utopias were religious in nature, I decided it would be best to try the opposite: a utopia with no religious people at all. After giving my presentation, the room was silent and awkward. The teacher was too scared to talk to me, so had my special-ed teacher (can you imagine that I was diagnosed with Aspergers) tell me to redo the project. I was infuriated and depressed. I was surrounded by cowards. None of them dared to reprimand me to my face. How did I fail to fit the standards of the project? Historical utopias were exclusionary, radical, and unusual. I wish even now that I stood my ground and complained to the principle, maybe even made some kind of free speech argument, but I submitted and redid the project. I grew to have great contempt and resentment toward teachers and their lies.

I was not “fully redpilled” at this point, but I certainly had extreme anti-establishment views that made me doubt everything I was told. I was not thinking very much about Hispanic immigrants or feminists. Trans people didn’t really exist in 2009, although I can say that I have always been homophobic, that was not a huge issue for me. My main problem was that it seemed like history had been deliberately falsified by my liberal Boomer teachers to present an anti-white, anti-German, pro-Jewish narrative, in which non-whites could do no wrong, and whites could do no right. Given that this wasn’t just one teacher, but an independent feature of all my teachers, it seemed to me as if I lived under a religious system with a clear set of rules and dogmas, which brainwashed the youth. I regarded these dogmas as just as ridiculous as anything in Christianity, and had been consuming a lot of “Christian vs Atheist” content on youtube -- my favorite people were TheAmazingAtheist and Cenk Uyger. But now I moved to Ryan Faulk, since he not only criticized old religions, but the new religion of liberalism.

I think that my “redpilling” was much more honorable and cool than ... GamerGate. Narratives about Native Americans and Hitler have world-historical relevance. Feminists lashing out about toxic masculinity seemed, in my opinion, parochial and irrelevant. The type of person to get worked up about such things has a peasant-mindset. GamerGate was filled with extremely cringe personalities, without any intellectual substance whatsoever, like Sargon of Akkad. Say what you will about Ryan Faulk, but he wrote several books and was extremely knowledgeable on the history of Austrian economics, slavery, and WWII. Sargon was debating whether or not black people exist. I also remember Davis Aurini, who is now forgotten, as a personification of the insecurity and closeted homosexuality of the “anti-feminist” movement. The idea that one could become “redpilled” on feminism was, in my opinion, extremely lame, when there were actually real world-historical issues to care about.

In my view, there were many extremely intelligent and competent women who deserve a chance to compete with men intellectually, in academia and in the corporate world. The birth rate crisis was not an issue to me, because I believed the world was overpopulated, and the solution wasn’t more white babies, but less non-white ones. Feminism seemed like a normal and natural reaction to the conditions of a post-industrial economy -- why shouldn’t we shift our expectations and norms around gender in a world where having children was (due to a decline in mortality and a decline in the value of manual labor) no longer so existentially pressing?

The fact that many people got “redpilled” in 2014, and now we have Andrew Tate, has demonstrated me the prescience of my quasi-feminist views. I never embraced feminism whole-heartedly, but thought that the issue was ambiguous and basically irrelevant, and anyone who focused on that clearly had some deepseated psychological problems. The men who complained the most about “beta males,” like Matt Walsh, were themselves dysgenic freaks with missing jawlines and low T. Even the high T ones, like Andrew Tate, seemed to have something deeply wrong. I had not yet formalized my theory of McGenics, but if feminism lowered the birth rate and caused resentful men to be excluded from the breeding pool, or caused crazy women to sterilize themselves, that was not a problem for me. In fact, it might be an exchange of short-term ugliness for long-term eugenic health.

Another divergence between myself and East Hunter is that he cares about things which I do not:

“Maybe the highlight of this era was when the Socialist government received a Romanian national delegation to celebrate their national holiday of unification (that is, stealing Transylvania from us). Imagine the American government celebrating the Pearl Harbor attack on its anniversary with the Japanese!”

I could not care less about whether this patch of clay is “Hungarian” or “Romanian.” As far as I am concerned, the best outcome of WWII for “nationalism” would have been the liquidation of eastern Europe in favor of Germanization, so that Europe would be refounded on a universal cultural basis without internal divisions. It would have been even better had Napoleon won and turned all of Europe French. Less preferable would have been the Russification of Europe. But in any case, these petty national divisions mean nothing to me. They are simply opportunities for the worst demagogues to rise to power.

East Hunter praises Orban for stopping the Christmas Market Attacks and preventing the social system from being drained. These are irrelevant issues to me. Crime in Europe is low. The social system is not being drained by migrants, but by low economic growth, which is largely a product of bureaucracy, not immigration. These are the wrong issues to focus on.

“People know luck matters. Empirically, it does. The effect of the ‘unshared environment’ in classical twin studies is typically large — when it comes to income, education, or political beliefs. Does knowing this make people willing to try more things, meet more people, or acquire new experiences? Not really, and even the people who do these things, probably do not do them with that in mind. It might be mathematically irrational to buy lottery tickets, but I can at least respect the intent behind doing so.”

A casino is mathematically structured to take in more money than it pays out. Anyone who plays a casino game is, statistically speaking, playing a losing game. Yet people still gamble; why?

At a casino, the cash payouts are real, verifiable, and certain. Someone is going to win. The reward is a known quantity. This unambiguity is attractive. Meanwhile, the cost of playing is also limited, controllable, and quantifiable. If I bet $20, then the worst thing that can happen is... I lose $20. The best thing that can happen is... I win $20,000, or maybe even more. Even though the odds here are stacked against me, the way in which the reward-punishment mechanism is presented is highly attractive.

Now let’s compare cold approaches. If you spend one hour a day approaching 10 women, that’s 3,650 women a year. If 10% of those women give you their number, that’s 365 numbers; if 50% text you back, that’s 180 text-backs; if 30% arrange a date, that’s 60 dates a year, or 5 dates per month. If 50% of dates result in sexual contact or a second date, that’s 30 “wins” to choose from, per year. Over a 10 year period (think from the time you turn 16 and can drive a car until the time you are 26) you will have experienced success with 300 women, and you can pick the best of these.

In comparison with this method, you could instead spend one hour a day browsing dating apps, where you might get a new match every day. If you have an extremely high performing profile, you might get 10 matches per day, or 36,500 matches over a 10 year period. Of these matches, the response rate is close to 10%, meaning you will only have 3,650 conversations, and of those conversations, maybe only 10% will actually convert to real life dates, leaving you with 365 dates. You might get a higher chance of “wins” due to pre-selection effects (women on Tinder are hornier, more likely to be single, more likely to be open to casual hookups), but even at an 80% success rate you still would be better off doing cold approaches.

And yet most men, myself included, would rather spend an hour a day on dating apps than an hour a day cold approaching. Why? Because dating apps are limited, quantifiable, controllable, certain, and safe. Cold approaches are ambiguous, uncertain, uncontrollable, and dangerous -- or, at least, that’s how it feels. On a dating app, if things go south, you can block the person. In the worst possible case, you can delete your profile. In real life, if things go south, there is a potential threat of another kind... I’m not saying that cold approaching will lead to violence or imprisonment, or “Exile from the Tribe,” but instinctually, it can feel that way. Women have developed, over millennia, signaling instincts. They call it “the ick.” When you give a woman the ick, she gives you “The Look.” The Look basically means that her life is now dedicated to sabotaging, undermining, and ultimately exiling you from polite society, destroying your legacy, and possibly driving you to suicide.

If you look at what the Epstein accusers have done, dedicating their entire lives and identities to defaming a mildly perverted rich dude, who maybe banged a teen one time and received an inappropriate massage from another (10% of the male population has done much worse, and that 10% is concentrated in the lower classes), then you can understand what I’m talking about. The ex-girlfriends of Graham Platner are similar. Why do women do this?

Women are willing to sacrifice their own time, energy, and effort in order to ruin the lives of men, because this gives them sadistic pleasure. This is in contrast to men, who enjoy winning at sports, gambling, video games, or having sex. Women might enjoy some of those things sometimes, but they have a smaller competitive drive and a higher punishment drive. This comes in part from the mothering instinct -- moms do not compete with their kids, but they do have to punish them. It makes sense that, over time, mothers begin to enjoy the activity of spanking and humiliating naughty little boys, and that this instinct then extends into other areas as well.

Whether or not Epstein or Platner deserved to be destroyed is a different question. If you believe that sexual harassment deserves the death penalty, as a substantial percentage of women (and beta cuck simps) seem to believe, then sure, we can celebrate female sadism as Righteous Justice. But it doesn’t matter what the morality is. The fact is that women clearly have this vindictive instinct, where they will go to the ends of the earth to destroy a man for the crime of giving them “the ick.” Swalwell is a figure who received this treatment because he did not provide “sufficient aftercare.” Again, let’s put the morality completely aside. I’m not saying they deserved or didn’t deserve this treatment. I’m just saying that, clearly, women like to destroy men’s lives, as a form of sport. They get pleasure from it. This is very dangerous.

All men understand this, implicitly. Feminist-beta-cuck-simps embrace this warlock-burning mentality and join the moral mob to denounce any man who has ever thought a 16 year old girl was hot. We know this -- it is a fact. And so, what does a dating app do? A dating app provides a kind of safety: it says that the woman consented to the interaction, and she could have unmatched or blocked at any time, and therefore, whatever happened next was consensual, and the man is safe. Of course, there are ways this can go wrong, as we all know and are aware of, but “went on a Tinder date, had sex” is a lot safer than “met in real life, had sex.” The former has some kind of digital, verifiable, legal proof of sexual intent on the part of the woman; the latter leaves much more open to ambiguity.

One of the things I’ve noticed is that, online, I will simply ask a woman these basic questions:

1. Are you looking for something serious or casual?

2. Are you more romantic or sexual?

Online, if a woman answers “serious, romantic” I know that this woman is basically a bitch. The reason I say that, while I’m sure any woman reading this will protest, is that online dating is an inherently casual-sexual platform. Sorry. Those are the rules. If you’re not into that, make it explicit in your profile -- don’t leave me guessing. Certainly don’t put “looking for short term” in your profile! But women actually do this -- they send mixed signals. These mixed signals are sent for a number of potential reasons:

1. Perhaps they are willing to break rules for the right guy;

2. Perhaps they want to make guys jump through hoops;

3. Perhaps they resent or fear men;

4. Perhaps they went through a bad breakup;

5. Perhaps they have been alpha-widowed.

There are many reasons why women would signal openness to casual sex, but then explicitly state the opposite, and none of those reasons are good. They all are indicative of an unwell mind. I would compare it to gay guys who lie when you ask them, “are you gay?” and then later drunk text you asking to be sodomized. Deeply unwell people.

In any case, online dating allows for a kind of bluntness which, in real life, is still socially impossible. Online, I can say “nice boobs,” and the worst thing that could happen is she blocks me, but most likely, she says “thanks, haha.” Online, women send nudes. In real life, they do not flash their titties to strangers -- it doesn’t happen unless they are extremely drunk or on spring break or some special exception.

Obviously women on dating apps are a selected population, and that is part of the reason why there are behavioral differences. But women are also highly contextual. In real life, women are afraid of being perceived, judged, and scrutinized. Online, women feel safer to act like sluts. Hence, online, you can tell pretty quickly if a woman is attracted to you, and if you are wasting your time or not. In real life, women will string you along for weeks or even months, because, “I was bored” or “I changed my mind” or “I found someone else” or “I’m just in a different place now.”

Women enjoy having beta orbiters. Women like going out on dates. They will gladly receive attention from men, even men they have zero interest in, so long as they perceive that attention as socially valuable. Hence cold approaches can result in a lot of dead-end dates, whereas Tinder dates tend to have a much higher success rate.

All of this being said, I still extol the virtues of cold approaches, having neglected them my entire life and only having begun them in the last 30 days. This is because, strictly speaking, I am not trying to maximize sexual success, but trying to achieve other subsidiary skills.

In the gym, you can do large compound lifts, like bench press, squats, and deadlift. These three lifts will make you bigger, so long as you don’t get injured. But they won’t do anything for your flexibility, cardio, endurance. If you don’t diet, you will end up bloatmaxing. Alternatively, you can just get injured by throwing on too much weight. Sexual success is like this too. It’s like training the big lifts while ignoring overall athleticism. In this metaphor, sexual success is only one form of social success: it’s big and impressive, but if you only focus on that one type of social-athleticism, you ignore some pretty glaring areas.

Social success, in my opinion, is not just about external signaling. If you looksmax, that’s only part of the equation. For me, particularly, being rejected is a huge deal. Maybe because I am a narcissist. When women reject me, it ruins my day, and in serious relationships, it causes multi-month long depressive episodes where my productivity craters and I am unable to do much of anything. Basically, a woman withdrawing her affection from me, after a certain threshold of attachment is reached (which for me can be a matter of a few days or weeks, unfortunately), is like setting off a nuclear bomb in my life.

This has led me, tragically, to hold on to relationships which were clearly problematic, either because that person wasn’t right for me, or because I was not mature enough for that relationship. In either case, I should have recognized the fundamental flaws, and withdrawn. But I was so afraid of the “nuclear bomb” of depression that I clung to the relationship, delaying the inevitable. This did not change the outcome.

With cold approaches, what I am trying to do is to train my brain, internally, to look at rejection in a different way. Rather than seeing it as a nuclear bomb, I’d like to see it as something like a pothole. Unpleasant, but not apocalyptic. It is something I can receive on a daily basis and still get to work on time. I don’t need to fall into a depressive episode over it.

Attraction and compatibility are the same thing. Furthermore, humans are not necessarily “built for autonomous compatibility.” What I mean is this: most humans throughout history lived in tribal societies where sexual pairings were socially mediated. If a man beat his wife, he had to deal with his wife’s brothers and cousins (who, due to consanguinity, may have also been his cousins). If a woman cheated on her husband, she had to answer to the community for that infraction. And if a man and wife got sick of each other, or needed someone to talk to, there were always elders and cousins around to provide therapeutic support. Finally, monogamy was enforced as a matter of law, so that even if things were tough, you had to adapt. The brain is a funny thing: if you tell it something is non-negotiable, it rises to the challenge. If you tell it that something is option, it pussies out. See those videos of moms lifting cars off their kids -- they can’t do that normally, but if necessary, they will deadlift a car. Similarly, I hypothesize that most marriages throughout history only worked because people were forced to make them work. Once you remove the force, most men are simply incompatible with most women. The problem isn’t that men got worse, or women got worse, but that social forces got weaker. This isn’t the same thing as saying “people are naturally non-monogamous,” which makes it sound like humans enjoy having sex with multiple people at the same time. Rather, I’m saying that “most people cannot sustain a healthy successful relationship without outside force and pressure compelling them to suffer through the difficult parts.”

I am sure that if I lived in a tribal society, my wife and I would have problems, but we would figure it out. Since I am instead a digital nomad with weak family ties and no religious community, there is absolutely zero pressure on me to do anything, and zero obligation on the part of my partner to suffer through my bad qualities. This doesn’t mean that I am a worse human than average, but that I lack the external pressures that make a relationship successful. In other words, relationship longevity has less to do with individual quality, and more to do with external force, of which I have none.

Instead of joining a church, I decided to start blogging about every single one of my sexual experiences. Between November and March, this didn’t work, because I stopped having sex and just wasted time on dating apps. No one wants to hear about my catfishing stories.

Ok, so how do I change this? Instead of focusing on dating apps, which has been my traditional outlet for sexual frustration, I started cold approaching, and made each cold approach publicly accountable.

This caused problems in the case of one girl who was really interested in me and upset and offended that I violated her privacy. It also upset some of my female readers, who feel that I am creepy and manipulative. At the end of the day, while it has been painful to subject myself to scrutiny, it has been an overall positive experience.

Besides training myself emotionally to be less upset by rejection, I’ve also been learning:

1. How some women will flirt even when they’re not interested

2. How some women seem creeped out when they’re interested

3. How my physical appearance is secondary to my tone of voice, posture, attitude, and energy

4. How women who like me love to listen to me talk, while women who hate me only talk about themselves

5. How I am absolutely an introvert, because talking to women is an incredibly taxing and draining activity. However, through sheer willpower, I’ve been able to fool and trick women (at least for the 5 minute approach) into thinking I am an extrovert.

I’m sure there are other lessons I am learning too, but the word “learn” is deceptive. It would be more accurate to say “internalize.” This is not an intellectual process of gathering data and making a hypothesis or a theory; it’s a process of breaking down reactive emotional biases that contort my rational thinking. Instead of looking at a woman and thinking, “she probably thinks I am a creep, she would give me The Look if I approached her,” I now think, “A woman’s attraction to me is highly situational, and dependent on her family, dating history, religious background, hormonal cycle, drug usage, and diet.” Basically there are ugly fatties I cannot pull, because I am not “their type,” or I appear too old, too fat, too skinny, too safe, too boring, whatever, and then there are genuinely hot women who work out 4-5 times a week who will gladly go on a date with me. This does not match the hierarchical model I have in my head, but this is reality.

Ok, so, going back to Sebastian:

“People know luck matters... Does knowing this make people willing to try more things, meet more people, or acquire new experiences? Not really...”

This is the gambler’s paradox. People are more than willing, to a pathological degree, to gamble on things where the reward-punishment function is fixed, certain, distant, and abstract. When it’s $20 down, $20,000 up, gambling is attractive. But during a cold approach, I’m not thinking in those terms. I’m thinking, “there’s no way this girl will give me her number” which is a zero reward, and “I’m going to get arrested if I keep doing this,” which is a maximum punishment. Both of those things are not true, but they feel true, because there is no external structure quantifying the interaction. Dating apps help to reduce complexity and uncertainty by digitizing the interaction and making it “Safe”; thus, dating apps can feel “addictive,” especially if you enjoy catfishing. However, forcing myself to confront the gambler’s paradox, and documenting every single interaction, has helped me internally recognize the bias and maybe even slightly correct it.

Because the Gambler’s Paradox is both universal and local (it follows both from genetic/instinctive sources and also from learned/environmental sources), it is really hard to undo. I do not think I will reach a point where approaching women has zero discomfort, or where I can truly appreciate the potential benefits (finding a partner), at least relative to dating apps. I will never fully correct the paradox. Still, I am going to try to move the needle. Saying things in this way sounds overwhelming -- I’m describing an unmovable object, a mountain, and trying to move that mountain an inch to the left. What’s the point of that? Why bother trying to change my internal perception of my own biases; why not just accept them and focus on easier tasks, like jacking off to porn or making money, which would bring me more immediate and quantifiable pleasure?

I don’t have a good argument for why... but I can say causally that my cancer diagnosis, and subsequent surgical recover, was a big motivation. I confronted what I thought would be the worst thing ever, and it turned out to be... ok. Of course I wish I had two testicles, and recently I’ve been fantasizing about a magical future, perhaps through organ transplants, where I once again have two functioning testicles. I would also like my penis to be larger, which is another irrational fantasy, because having more money/status/looksmaxing would be much more likely to generate relationship success than penis size. I acknowledge this is irrational, but I am an irrational man, like most people.

In any case, although what I experienced was genuinely difficult and caused me an insane amount of stress at the time, I did teach me a valuable lesson: my perception of outcomes is almost, 100% of the time, worse than the actuals. And this is not a mere actuarial error, but something that makes my life demonstrably worse.

By anticipating bad outcomes in every possible situation, my cortisol is artificially high. This is a chicken-vs-egg situation, because being highly neurotic is a genetic/hormonal/biological trait, and it influences my beliefs. Which came first: the cataclysmic thinking, or the high cortisol? They form a feedback loop. I can’t change my biology (at least not at the genetic level), but I can change my beliefs.

Basically, in every situation in life, I have made a very conscious and deliberate effort to stop fearing the worst possible outcome. When it comes to women, money, my job, my status, my life, whether I live or die, I have decided that I need to consciously and deliberately correct for a malignant bias that is draining my energy and making me sick. In the past, when bad things happened, I ruminated for months. I told all my friends. I wrote 10,000 words in my journal. I obsessed over these things, trying to think of how I could have done things differently, avoided the outcome, or fixed the relationship. Now I simply say: “ok.” Obviously, people hate me, reject me, are not compatible with me, don’t like me. There are an infinite number of such people. I will never meet all of them; there are always more. But now I say: “ok.” Instead of blaming myself, asking how I could be better, or beating myself up, I say: “ok.” A large percentage of people, maybe even 99% of humanity or more, simply don’t like me. Some of them hate me, and make it their life’s mission to hurt me. I say: “ok.” Generally, these haters are lazy, because hatred and resentment is the symptom of an unwell mind, and unwell minds lack the discipline to follow through on their convictions. They might make it their life’s mission to hurt me, but haters tend to fail and give up on their dreams pretty easily, so in a few weeks, they might forget I even exist. Even the ones who remember me after 8 years (I get those kinds of comments sometimes, “I remember this fucking kike from 2018, he’s an evil subversive Jew”) simply are too dysfunctional, self-hating, and diseased to do anything to harm me substantially or materially. No one cares.

There may come a point where I mess up too badly and hurt the wrong person and they kill me. Reading Worst Boyfriend Ever has also been helpful in reducing this fear, because if anyone is hated online, it is him. There are approximately 100,000 people who think he is a racist pedophile, and yet, all these rubes haven’t lifted a finger to kill him. It would be easy: send him some fake nudes, pay him a little money, and bam, kill him. I’m not advocating anyone do that, because I love him, but he has said the same thing himself. The truth is that the goyim are cattle and their hatred is weak and meaningless. You can upset people and nothing happens.

By contrast, Charlie Kirk was the most anodyne, moderate, middle-of-the-road conservative imaginable, totally inoffensive, and basically just parroted Fox News talking points, and he was killed for it. Racist pedophiles get off; normie conservatives get offed. I won’t say that this is illogical; there is a logic to it, but it’s a bit complicated. Basically, once you reach a certain level of fame and status, assassins start to fantasize about killing you as a way to increase their own status. But if you only have >10k subs on Substack, then it doesn’t matter if you’re a racist pedophile, no one is going to touch you. They might write mean articles, but talk is cheap.

All of this is to say that the social consequences of being creepy are lower than instinct tells me. My instinct says being creepy will get me exiled or killed, but reality says that you can be creepy to hundreds of women and nothing happens. None of them report you. You don’t get banned from the grocery store. No one arrests you. No one tries to fight you. You simply get away with it.

Basically the world we evolved to survive in (tribal) and the world we live in (atomized) are vastly different, and acclimating to this change is nearly impossible, but... “nearly.” It does seem that not caring is a superpower, low cortisol is a superpower, confidence is a superpower. When you approach a woman, she can’t see your micropenis, all she can see is your confidence. This is how unemployed, weed smoking, criminal losers get pussy, and handsome FBI agents with college degrees and retirement funds remain incels. It’s a mindset. Do you have permission to fuck? Realizing that you are the one who gives permission to yourself is strange, and it doesn’t seem real... There must be someone who is oppressing me, outside of myself, but no. It’s just me oppressing myself.

Now we return to Sebastian:

“there is no cosmic judge of what is true and good. Nothing will hold your hand as you die and say you did the right thing.”

I disagree. There is a cosmic judge: me. I am the judge. Now you might say that is solipsistic, or self-deifying, but it’s true, and follows from Freudian psychology, the superego, and many other sources. Within myself, the cosmic judge is real. Sebastian can say “nuh uh,” but that doesn’t change my lived experience. Rather than being an atheist about this, we can instead engage in negotiation with the cosmic judge, and become open minded about him.

For example, a few months ago, my cosmic judge said this:

However, after being diagnosed with cancer and then having my testicle removed, I started to negotiate:

My cosmic judge changed his tune. If I hadn’t got the cancer, then I probably would be stuck with the first cosmic judge. Changing your cosmic judge haphazardly, without external motivation, seems difficult. I’m grateful for the cancer. Everyone should get cancer, or at least, face death in some way, in a very immediate and powerful way, not as an abstract philosophical contemplation, but like a dude in a white coat telling you “yeah so you have cancer my dude” and then cutting out your testicle and you wait for the results to find out if you’re totally fucked or totally fine. Sit on that for a month and then come back and ask your cosmic judge if the contract can be renegotiated.

I understand this is not “advice,” but merely an observation. Sebastian might feel that “Acknowledging the non-existence of a cosmic judge” is helpful, but I find it about as helpful as telling the depressed person that “Depression isn’t real.” These are just meaningless statements that have no real-world impacts.

I assume that atheism has certain in-born components. Of course you can construct societies where everyone claims to believe in God, but we’re speaking specifically about the Superego now. My Superego is huge, powerful, omnipotent, all-seeing. Sebastian’s Superego is probably weaker than mine, so it’s easier for him to dismiss it, like shooing away a fly. My Superego is literally God, not just in terms of metaphysical belief, but in terms of this feeling of unlimited power. The fear of death, of hell, of divine punishment, but also this yearning for unconditional love, perfection, everlasting life -- I feel these things daily. You can just say “that’s false” or try to explain logically why I’m not correct to feel this way, but I do feel this way, and I always have. If I did not feel this way, I would not be who I am, but would be, relatively speaking, a zombie. Maybe this is a priestly thing, where if I had a well-developed body (I mean, Olympic Athlete, with no injuries, benching 300lbs, running a 6 minute mile), I wouldn’t feel this way. But since I’m imprisoned in a relatively weak frame (3+ failed surgeries, chronic pain and injuries) I have this very powerful Superego. Even if you explain my psychology in these terms, it doesn’t go away. It remains. Since I cannot eliminate it, I must negotiate.

Sebastian concludes by saying:

“Nihilism is 100% true and anybody who says otherwise is absolutely wrong.”

This is a meaningless statement and it is a signal that I respect Sebastian a lot, because if I hear this nonsense from anyone else, my default behavior is to treat them like a diseased rat. Even people who pay me money and shower me with compliments and favors; people who say that “nihilism is the biggest redpill” are anathema to me.

My explanation for this is that people are contradictory and have flaws. If Sebastian was not a nihilist, and was instead motivated by a Cosmic Judge, he would probably be super powerful and achieve a lot. However, he is instead a smart guy who produces answers to specific questions which, while interesting to me, have not granted him a ton of power in the real world. I’ve known a lot of nihilists like this, who insist that nihilism is true, and I see their insistence as linked to their (relative to their IQ) low motivation.1 I am a Freudian; I do not separate beliefs from personalities.

Belief in the Cosmic Judge, who I would just say is much more than a judge but also a creator and many things besides, and who might exist in a fractal state divided into different aspects and incarnations, is powerful. There is, at the very least, an evolutionary argument to be made in favor of the Superego. Similarly, we have sex drives, and we find the opposite gender attractive (unless you’re a phallophobe or vaginophobe, which is a mental disease), and none of these drives or desires have any basis in “objective reality” outside of the human animal. My desire to find love has no meaning to a rock floating in space. If you call that nihilism, I think your perception is backwards. Rather than call my desires and perceptions meaningless just because they don’t exist outside myself, I call those things outside of myself meaningless because they have no relevance to me. You could call that solipsistic, but I call it idealistic. There is no reason, whatsoever, to “stand above” humanity, look down, and declare everything meaningless and arbitrary, UNLESS AND EXCEPT your intention is to feel smug and superior and to justify your own depressive, detached apathy. In that case, I pity you and hope you get cancer. Just kidding... unless?

I think we all have a duty to do our best, for the sake of the Cosmic Judge, but also because this Cosmic Judge is reflected into the people that we love, many of whom we might not yet know. Like I’m not married, and I don’t have kids, but I can tell you that if a crazy woman gave birth to my kids, I’m sure I would love them a lot, and the thought makes me want to cry. There are people out there that I might never meet, but if I did meet them, I would love them. Being a detached, arrogant, above-it-all nihilist might have certain advantages, and maybe for some people, that’s the best they can do, and there’s no amount of moralistic bullying I could use to convince them otherwise. So be it. But from my perspective, there really is no point to life outside of love, and if you’re not loving, what the hell are you doing? And what is love if not a cosmic duty, and what is duty if not a judge? If you love someone or something, you universalize that love: it takes over your entire reality. It impacts your every action. It motivates you, disciplines you, and orders your life. I love Substack, I love my audience, I love Sebastian, so I try to make arguments to change people’s minds, knowing that it is a futile pursuit from an intellectual perspective -- no one is convinced by arguments -- but knowing that if I write HARD enough, people will FEEL my emotion, and they will be TOUCHED, and that through enough emotional FORCE (Vayu, Hanuman, Bhima) CHANGE IS POSSIBLE.

1. One. A married woman held open the door for me, but was extremely awkward when I asked her out.

2. Two. She claims to have a boyfriend “unfortunately.”

3+4. Three and Four. Mom with a kid, “thank you.”

5. Five. She points to her engagement ring, but tells me to have a nice day.

9. Six, Seven, Eight, Nine. They’re playing a remix of the Inspector Gadget Theme Song. I ask a group of four girls, “is this a college study group?” No. “You’re in high school?” Yeah. “Sorry.” I know this sounds lame on both counts: I didn’t go hard enough, and also, why am I talking to high school girls? It is simply a matter of overcoming fear. That’s it. I thought it was impossible, and I forced myself to do it anyway. I motivated myself by thinking, “what would Ixabert say?”

10. Ten. A Hispanic employee with giant lips, lipgloss, makeup, bimbo, fake lashes, is 16. Sorry. I’m going to get arrested peering into stores without going in. I see a man with a daughter. He’s balding with long hair, and she looks like honeybooboo. A guy at the bus station smokes a cigarette and I avoid his gaze out of fear, because he is either dancing or tweaking.

11. Eleven. Husband.

12. Twelve. Black girl with 12 inch lashes. “Oh.” Flat affect is a rejection.

13. Thirteen. “You have very nice hair.” “Thank you.” I am lifting up the self esteem of the young women in this community.

They have a giant venus fly trap in this store, and I would like Halloween if it was only about dangerous plants. I pass by an Asian with a box-body and down syndrome eyes with a bow in her hair. All protein powder in this store has lecithin, so Ray Peat bans it.

14. Fourteen. I see a ditzy girl with a tan and whitened teeth and ask if she likes sushi. She says “garble garble no.” You don’t? “No, I said how did you know?” Oh yeah, let’s go. She’s not convinced but gives me her number. No text back.

15. Fifteen. I see a Brazilian CNA who wants to go out for steak. Her accent sounds retarded but I don’t think it’s genetic. She gives me a handshake and her number. Two in a row!

I compliment an autistic man wearing a turkey vulture feather in his cap and yellow safety glasses buying yogurt with his elderly mother, or grandmother. Pressed coconut water is so good.

16. Sixteen Beautiful tattoo, thank you.

17. Seventeen. I meet a Mongolian, who I consider to be the master race over other Asians, with huge Ancient North Eurasian cheekbones from genetic bonesmashing. She is superior to bug people. I hate Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Pinoy accents, but her accent is lovely, closer to Turkish than any Asian language. She brushes my arm with hers and I become instantly erect. She leaves September 6th. I get the number. Three in a row...

19. Eighteen and Nineteen. I hit a double with a drive-by “beautiful earrings.”

20. Twenty. I talk to a woman with tattoos, glasses, earrings, in a pink nurse outfit. I ask for sushi, she says she likes Italian, I ask for the number... She asks how old I am. I guess she’s 25, she’s 19, she’s uncomfortable, goodbye. I’m looking old today.

21. Twenty One. A girl in Panera is sitting with her feet up on the booth. She looks 16, but she has a lip piercing, and a hand tattoo. I compliment her tattoo and she sounds exhausted or depressed. There was someone here with her, because there are two cups at her table. I wish I pressed further.

22. Twenty Two. MILF in a dress with a great smile, blond, skinny, 55.

At this point at 5pm I realize I’m sick and I have two dates tonight.

The first is in a sushi restaurant. I ask a guy as he’s going in the restroom, “is this for one or two people?” I thought that was a normal question, since I couldn’t see inside. He says, “if you’re peeing we can do two.” WOW. That was bold. No thank you. I go in the women’s restroom instead. I’d rather be trans than gay.

My date is pretty bad. The girl is hot, 32, Romanian, owns her own business, but doesn’t like me. I’m too poor, too boring, not hot enough, not gigachad. I have nothing against any of these girls, it just makes me sad that I can’t entertain them or show them a good time. They’re Just Not That Into Me. But we finish in record time after 90 minutes. She will never text me back, it’s over. She kept forcing me to eat more, which was annoying, demanding, and controlling, so I spent $100. She drank, I did not. She didn’t compliment me once. I complimented her 5 times: her necklace, her dress, I called her hot, I said she was helpful, etc etc.

She described herself as a cat lady and wanted to drain my wallet. Her two cats every night which brings her glee -- male and female. A projection of her desire to scream at a boyfriend. She didn’t kiss me, and barely hugged me. She yawned during the date and looked away bored. I mentioned some of my activities and she said “guys who do that are creepy.” Oh well. It was over before we began. We talked on the phone an hour before meeting, and she still decided to waste her time. For me, it’s data. For her, it’s a free meal and a self-esteem boost. Sorry I’m too boring to be sexually attractive to you.

She’s getting up at 5:30am tomorrow. I wanted to end the date as soon as possible. I should have asked for the check after paying for my $25 sushi. No need to go further with it. Maybe it’s cool just to troll women. “I’m going to say something that could be considered rude, but I just like to be blunt and honest. I don’t think you find me sexually attractive. I don’t think you want to kiss me. That’s ok, we can just be friends. I’m just being 100% honest, the vibes I pick up is that you’re really only interested in being friends, and that’s fine.” Just say that over and over again for 5 minutes.

I don’t hate women; I hate that they won’t kiss me. I hate that they have zero interest in me. She dominated the conversation and threatened to cancel the date because SHE was late and I didn’t immediately pick up the phone while she was calling to explain why she was late. Way too controlling for me. She forced me to order more sushi than I wanted to order, and didn’t eat much at all. I lost the game the moment I admitted I don’t own a house. Women who are attracted to me like to listen to me, and they compliment me.

I get to my next date with 15 minutes to spare. An old guy sitting on the balcony of the Chinese restaurant chats me up about my car, and I decide to reciprocate. I’m boomer-maxing, and he’s a cool lonely dude, probably divorced, fat. I’m starting to like lonely depressed guys like this. They understand the pain I feel, the rejection I’ve experienced. I will never see him again.

My Mongolian date shows up, and she’s smoking hot. I don’t normally like Asians, because I consider them to be control freaks, conformists, merchant-types, materialists, only concerned about money, but she’s different. She’s a steppe warrior. I imagine how strong her ancestors were and how they raped Chinese people and it makes me hard. Sorry I’m going off the cliff here, but you get the gist.

This girl calls me cool and smart, which is all I’ve ever wanted in life. She’s studying to be a dentist. She dated an Albanian. She lets me sit next to her and we take a picture together. I grab her waist. I take her to the park and kiss her on the left cheek in the moonlight, then the right cheek, then give her a third kiss on the lips. We hold hands. I love her, but she’s leaving September 6th. I will never see her again. When I kiss her goodnight, I try to makeout, but she’s embarrassed. She’s only 21. Goodbye. Maybe I need to go to Mongolia.

I’m sorry if I gave her COVID, but I believe her steppe DNA gives her a +5 immunity bonus against disease.

Day 33. I’ve spent the first 6 hours of my day procrastinating,1 and it feels hopeless, then the Cinephile texts me: “you inspire me every day.” Let’s go. ACTIVATE.

• One. A MILF pushing a shopping cart …

Read more

One of my subscribers DMed me asking for the number of the Utah girl I’ve been talking to him, and I am sorry to report to him that, in her words, she is infertile because of all the medicatio…

Read more

“Hey! It was nice to meet you yesterday. I should have been more honest in person: I’m not dating anyone but I did just get out a relationship. I thought I wa…

Read more

For the first time since my surgery, I am actually depressed, low energy, despondent, hopeless. My shoulder hurts from things I did during the date, and I feel like staying inside all day. Last night I dreamt of two cousins who looked like twins. After speaking with the Cinephile, I realize I need to get it together. I take a shower, apply coconut oil, and do a quick workout. Working out every day is not the best strategy for getting bigger muscles, but mentally, it is the only way I can increase my energy without taking drugs. It is the cure to depression. No one with depression works out as much as I do, or they simply wouldn’t have depression.

It’s time for me to start approaches, but I still am feeling down, so I log into the store wifi and begin to play the greatest hits: Myst - Life Eternal, Stereo Saiyan 3D. I get so pumped up that I end up in the gym. I’m supposed to approach women in here, but I chicken out and focus on the workout. Despite my shoulder hurting, I still hit 20lbs on the forearm curls, and 24 minutes on the assisted-hangs. During my hamstring curls, Chieftan calls me.

He tells me how proud he is of me, how I’m the chad, the man, the guy, the dude, I’m inspiring him and he’s getting pumped up reading me, it’s all worth it, I’m ascending, I’m getting better every day. He’s so positive it’s becoming harder and harder to doubt what he’s saying. Eventually, I start to believe him, or at least, I believe I need to make what he is saying into a reality.

1. I begin walking around, and I see a girl wearing a skirt that is way too short, so short that she has to keep pulling it down as she walks. I stuff my phone in my pocket and begin. Somehow, I get this girl’s number. All I said was, “you’re cute, do you have a boyfriend? How would you feel about sushi? Can I get your number?” The whole time my body was shaking and I sounded incredibly nervous and anxious. From now on, I assume that every girl who texts me is just doing so out of politeness, because 90% of them never text me back.

2. The second one is Asian. I try to ask her if she has a boyfriend, and she hems and haws and refuses to give a yes or no answer. I say something like, “it’s ok if you don’t,” and she says, “I do.” Very confused mixed signals.

3. The third one is wearing a low-cut blue blouse. She lives two hours away and says her mom has her phone, but gives me her number. Never got the text back.

4. Complimented her pearl earrings.I’ve passed by 10 girls today. I’m terrified, after everything that has happened. There’s too many girls shopping on a rainy day; I’m overloaded, overstimulated, overwhelmed. I end up driving an hour to find somewhere quieter.

5. I compliment her tattoos. This one is engaged to be married next week. No bachelorette party because she’s a “homebody.” Outside the store there’s a very loud car with no muffler, which is infuriating. It’s not even a cool looking car -- it’s a blue mom-car.

6. Inside the store, the aisles are crowded with people, who makes it difficult to approach anyone, and everything today is irritating me. Finally I isolate this Arabspanic women with mascara, who has a husband.

7. In the parking lot, I see a MILF, double cheeked up, with blue yoga pants, walking to her car. I intercept her and call her beautiful. She says calmly, “appreciate it.”

8. As I enter into the store, a girl wearing blue jean overalls is leaving, so I hold the door open for her. She says, “thank you,” and I say, “you’re beautiful” and she laughs and says “thank you, haha.” At this point, I see a woman who is an absolute freak. She has shaved the sides of her head, her hair is a bright bluish-green, covered in tattoos and multiple facial piercings. It’s hard to look away from her, and I wonder if I should approach her. However, I have a rule: if I wouldn’t go on a date with her, I shouldn’t approach. Her face makes me afraid, scared, disgusted, shocked, offended, but her energy is striking. She definitely wants attention.

9. I discover that Target has “lactose free kefir,” which is exactly what I need. I ask the cute brown Asian employee if she has a boyfriend, and she does. He’s a lucky guy! “Hehe.”

10. Outside the store, there’s a fat ginger with a beard on this phone. He seems to be sitting out here for no reason, while I’m busting my ass doing approaches. I’m not even being paid to do this -- what’s his excuse? Inside the store, a MILF is wrangling her kids. I compliment her golden hoop earrings and call her beautiful, which earns me two flat “oh, thank you”s. Walking between parking lots, a very loud truck roars past me, which frightens me, and the men inside laugh at my terror.

11. I see a girl pushing a cart who seems too young to be alone, but after watching her for a long enough time, I determine she is an adult. “You’re very beautiful.” What? “Do you have a boyfriend?” Yes. Defeated.

As I leave the store, I pass by the receipt checker. He is sweeping the floor, and avoids eye contact with me, even though it’s his job to check my receipt. He is taller than me, and has broader shoulders, but he is fat and hunched over, oozing insecurity. He has a double chin, glasses, and a clean-shaven baby face. I wish I could kidnap him and starve him until I could see his jawline. Secretly, he is a chad, underneath it all, but he doesn’t know it. He doesn’t believe in himself.

12. In a cafe, I see a girl sitting down and I ask her about her shirt. She has a long face and tired eyes, which remind me of my ex, and I instantly get hard in the middle of Starbucks. Sorry, but it’s true. She gives me her number, but she’s traveling to LA soon, to meet her friend, because “he” lives there. Every time I get a phone number, I’m somewhat sad, because I feel like it is all false hope. I’d rather a girl say, “sorry you’re cute but I have a boyfriend.” That feels more real to me, more powerful, more life-affirming, than these endless lies and deceptions, adding to the graveyard of 30 girls who never text me back or have blocked me.

Outside in the parking lot, a giant dog barks at me from inside a car. Teenagers are drifting through the parking lot doing donuts and screeching their tires. They yell out the window at me, “are you scared?” I yell back: “yeah, I’m scared.” It’s scary.

Outside the grocery store, I see an extremely handsome, tall, blond, Russian-looking man. I imagine he is a skater or a photographer, something artistic and alternative. I wave at him and smile and tell him to have a good night, and he smiles back. All that women care about is appearance, reputation, outward things, and dealing with them every day is making me misogynistic. I imagine this man as genuine, authentic, inwardly focused, and I feel I can trust him. He makes me wish I was gay. But alas, I would hate to humiliate him, and I would hate it if he humiliated me, and I cannot imagine sex between men without humiliation.

Night has fallen, and it’s time to go to the club. I try a new one, with a $10 cover fee, and find 12 girls dancing. I’m afraid that if I go back to the club where I met Angelica, she will drunkenly attack me. I’m not afraid of being physically hurt by her, but emotionally, it will destabilize me. I have to go anyway, because that’s what the night demands.

The music sucks tonight; it’s honkeytonk nonsense. The crowd is old. I see an Indian guy who looks like one of my old friends, and I laugh. The crowd is much smaller than usual... But then a new DJ comes and plays Justin Bieber, which is good.

A tall chad with a hot girlfriend comes over and compliments my flipphone and gives me a handshake. We talk about his hairline (he’s wearing a baseball cap) and Turkish hair transplants. The DJ plays good songs like “rock your body” and “Dance the night away”...

I make my way to the middle of the dance floor, and I feel that bottle of kefir sloshing around inside me. Tonight the dance floor is fairly empty and boring, and I start to yawn. I’m tired and after doing this for four weeks straight, the initial excitement of loud music and hot girls is starting to wear off, and it’s beginning to feel more like a 9-5 job than a life-changing confrontation of my worst fears.

At this point another tall blonde chad with a girlfriend motions to me to join him dancing... This activates me. All I want is for someone to engage with me, so that I am not alone and ignored. I see what looks like some homo action, some bro-on-bro grinding, but from straight-presenting men. There are two WMAF couples together, forming a WMAF-quad. We need a slang term for these couples, like Wamafs. After 15 minutes, three couples leave the dance floor, which is half the active dancers. I have to survive another 73 minutes, until midnight. This is a job. This is work. I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for these reports I’m forcing myself to write. I’m yawning again... My eye is itching the whole time.

There’s a gay black guy dancing with a blonde girl, which makes his gay friend give him a disgusted look. My excitement over these sights and sounds is fading; not being on drugs is starting to take its toll. I think about Angelica, and how if she was here I would be profoundly bored with the idea of dancing for two hours, and not being able to write about it. The writing forces me to do things I wouldn’t otherwise do. It simulates the idea that, in my head, I am not truly alone, I carry my audience with me wherever I go, like a host of angels and demons.

A girl comes close to me wearing a red shirt and white skirt, and her physical presence revives me from my low point. I notice a Hispanic guy wearing the USA Epstein quarter zip -- I recognize it as Nick Fuentes merch. I ask him where he got it from, and he shakes my hand. He thinks I am a fellow groyper, when actually I am just an extremely online political person. He’s only 21 years old, alone, without any friends here. He tells me, “watch this,” and pretends to go up to a girl, and then stops himself, and says, “a whole lotta nothing.”

A girl walks onto the dance floor wearing an open and loose dress which shows her side-boob, red bimbo lipstick, and a short skirt. A man rizzes her up, despite not being taller than her. I congratulate him for getting her number, and he starts making excuses: “well, she’s 10 years older than me.” I notice this coping: this is the coping of a man who is trying not to get his hopes up. He says, “I’m more of a journey guy than a destination guy.”

The DJ plays “Mr. Brightside,” and even the security guard on stage dances along. I notice in the corner a couple who has been doing the exact same thing for the last hour: the girl grinds enthusiastically on the guy, while the guy looks like he is some kind of meditative, frustrated, dark, angry trance. Maybe that’s what I would be doing if Angelica was here. I’m sad that I ruined her night by pushing her away. I try to approach the girl with the red shirt, and she flees from me.

The DJ starts a conga line, which I think will not work, but he makes it happen, and I am impressed. After laughing at how ridiculous, silly, and childish this idea is, I join the conga line. It’s nice to be able to put my hands on a girl’s shoulders after not feeling anyone all night. After the conga line, one of the girls says something incomprehensible to me, like, “they aren’t allowed to dance like that anymore.” I compliment her and ask her where her boyfriend is, and she says, “over there.” I don’t count this as an approach, since she initiated with me, and instantly shut it down.

I stand in one place dancing, not moving my feet an inch, but moving my knees and hips and arms. In front of me, a girl inches closer and closer, until finally, she steps on me foot and falls backwards. I catch her, and she runs away from me. All her friends start making a “neck cutting” motion with their hands at me, like some ritual of shame for tripping and molesting this girl... I do it back at them and shrug... I violated Zeus’s law. Misogyny is the desire to possess women, but the inability to do so.

13. After leaving the dance floor, I go up to the girl in the red shirt and ask if she has a boyfriend. She refuses to make eyecontact or smile and says yes... I notice that women in the club are much harsher and meaner than women in “real life.” I suppose it’s necessary to fend off all the horny guys who think that drunk girls in slutty outfits are “easy.”

I walk to another bar, but don’t even bother to wait in line to go in. I’m done. I pass by a homeless guy sleeping with a skull-pattern ski mask. I’ve seen him walking around before, but I had no clue he was homeless.

I feel guilty for sticking to my autistic rules and rejecting Angelica. I probably would have had fun, but I was scared to go “alone,” without the imaginary support of my audience. If I can’t share it with you guys, then I feel truly alone. Writing about everything is a trick that I use to give myself confidence. Even if I crash and burn, at least you guys might find it to be entertaining or funny. One or two of you might even empathize.

353 approaches down, 647 to go.

I wouldn’t say that I am “mining women.” I don’t view my writing as exploitative. Imagine hiking to the top of a Hawaiian volcano, and painting a beautiful painting of the erupting lava. I wouldn’t call that “mining the volcano.” Mining implies that you are stripping it of its resources. I’m not trying to take anything away from these girls. I am actually trying to breathe life into a depiction of their complexity and power. It’s a tribute, not an insult.

The most immoral thing I am doing is violating the implicit privacy that every human feels, which is that the party they are spending time with will not blast out all their secrets to the internet. What is different about what I am doing is that I am not sharing anything identifiable.

Let’s say, for example, that one of my ex girlfriends decided to tell an embarrassing story about me, to ruin my reputation. For example, she could film a TikTok of herself saying,

“My ex-boyfriend, DeepLeftAnalysis, is a clinical narcissist and an abusive partner. He cheated on me multiple times and was emotionally unavailable and also deeply insecure about himself, and also sexually insecure. He has a small penis.”

The clear intent of this violation of my privacy would be to damage my reputation, cause embarrassment, “canceling” me, causing me to lose the respect of my audience and financially ruining me. I expect that these kinds of attempts will be made on me at some point.

But that is not what I am trying to do to any of these girls. If anyone attempted to identify them, I would remove the stories. I don’t want their reputations, careers, or personal lives to be harmed. Although I know I am technically violating privacy, I do not believe I am violating their privacy in spirit.

I am not revealing anything about people in themselves, rather, I am revealing my perception of these people. Most of the people I write about are people that I like. If I didn’t like them, I wouldn’t write about them. I do not think it is good to write about subjects that you hate.

My intention isn’t to prove that I am “a good guy.” But when I write about someone, it isn’t done with sadistic intent. I am writing not to put down others or to hurt them, but because writing about these events is the only way I can stomach them.

If I never started writing, none of this would ever have happened. I would not be at a bar — I had no interest in bars or dancing or socializing. I am scared of those things and they make me uncomfortable. But having a blog where I can share everything with the world empowers me, and holds me accountable.

Over the last three years, I’ve complained… a lot. Many of you remember when I blogged about my breakup, back in March. It was ugly and sad and pathetic and annoying. Over time, I began to empathize with the audience, who felt that these complaints weren’t just useless, they were actually evil.

It is evil to complain. When I say that I am powerless, and full of regret, and depressed, and hopeless, I am spreading a disease into my audience. But the reverse is also true: if I force myself to be powerful, hopeful, energetic, and faithful, then I spread light and love through my audience. This is my duty. This is why I write. This is why I met Angelica in the first place.

But because I wrote about her, I lost her. The writing giveth, the writing taketh away.

At the end of the day, I am glad I met her through this blog. Better to experience massive excitement and massive pain, all in one, than to experience nothing at all. Such is art.

This leaves me with three options:

1. Break my promise to myself, which is to be fully open and honest about every experience I have until I approach 1,000 women

2. Break my promise to her, which is to not write about her

3. Cease speaking with her until I complete this challenge

The third option is the most honorable.

On previous dates, I have talked about my blog, but none of the girls were really interested. None of them bothered to look me up, and none of them seemed to care. Most of the women I go out with don’t read books, and if they do read, it’s smut (werewolf porn). This has never been a problem before. I asked her to give me her email address, so I could hold her hand and slowly guide her through the shock, but that was not meant to be.

I hope that if I meet another girl like Angelica, I can introduce her to the blog in a gentler way. Although, I’ve written so many controversial and offensive things, I think it is destined to go badly no matter what.

My Hot Lesbian Friend

I wasn’t sure if I would approach any women today, because I was feeling very bad. But I did a workout and spent time in nature, to try to rejuvenate myself, to revive the spirit within me, to never give up, always bounce back, never dwell on mistakes, always move forward. Then I got a call from my hot lesbian friend.

When I first met this girl, I thought she was beautiful. Her jawline and blue eyes are striking; very Anglo-Saxon. The problem is that she is a lesbian and she has a wife.

I am attracted to all of my friends. I don’t like ugly people. This can make it difficult for me to have female friends, because either:

1. I am attracted to her, which means there is some level of deception (I am pretending to be “just a friend” when I have ulterior motives)

2. I am not attracted to her, which means she’s not really my friend.

With men, there is no problem, because sex with men is not tempting to me. But with women, this presents a perpetual problem. You might think that having a lesbian friend would make all of this better, but it actually made it much worse. She was my first lesbian friend, in my life.

The problem is that she thinks I hate lesbians, because I make negative references to them. Although, in fairness, I was speaking specifically about Rosie O’Donnell.

We all know what bull dykes look like, with their pear-shaped bodies, and it is not ok.

Even though my lesbian friend and her wife are beautiful women, she cannot handle the fact that I don’t like most lesbians. She is a sexual communist, and lesbians are her “class,” and any attack on a single lesbian is an attack on all lesbians.1

When she asks me to defend my comments, I get angry. Part of the reason I get angry is because I’m not allowed to say:

This inability to be honest frustrates me and makes me recognize that our friendship was doomed from the start. She says I am not worth listening to anymore and we say goodbye and I never expect to hear from her again.

Two Approaches

All I can manage today are two approaches:

1. I compliment a teenage girl’s blond hair, and she smiles and exposes her braces. Woops.

2. I ask a married woman if she’s single, and her dull, boring, oaf of a husband comes ambling along behind her, oblivious to my attempt.

That’s it. I’m emotionally exhausted. Tomorrow is Friday and I’m afraid if I go back to that bar Angelica will be there and my presence will upset her. But I now have a new reason to complete this challenge: the fast I can finish, the less likely I am to fuck up future relationships with other people.

I will not give up.

340 approaches down, 660 to go.

I told Angelica about Worst Boyfriend Ever, and I told her that I’ve blogged about my sexual experiences. She decided to look me up, and found my blog. 99% of women don’t do this, because 99% of women are bored with me, functionally illiterate, and thoroughly disinterested in what I do. But Angelica put in a lot of effort asking incisive questions and did the detective work. Now she knows everything about me, because all of my life is posted on this blog, with no exceptions.

She called me crying, and she hates me now. She is disgusted and ashamed and humiliated. I asked her what I said, exactly, that upset her, and she read out the part where I said that “women do not have self awareness.” I don’t know how to fix this situation, because it is not fixable.

All of you could have predicted this. It was inevitable that a girl asks me enough questions to figure out that I am the One-and-Only, World-Famous DeepLeftAnalysis.

We did go on a date, and she doesn’t want me to write about it. I agreed not to write about our date, even though it was an emotional roller coaster fully of literary value. A promise is a promise. Sorry.

I told her it doesn’t matter anyway, that 90% of my audience thinks I’m making all this shit up, that it’s all ChatGPT, and that even the 10% who believes it’s real will never find out anything about these girls, because I anonymize the details. I have no desire to “Expose” anyone. I don’t share photos of anyone. This is for literary purposes only.

Angelica told me that I am a narcissist who never asks any questions and only talks about myself. But if you read my blog, you know that all I do is pain-stakingly detail the personalities and features of… other people. I don’t play myself up as a “chad” who gets all the girls. Most women don’t like me.

Angelica is upset that I lied to her because I said it’s not a “Sex Blog.” But it’s true: I get zero pussy on this blog. The only girl I’ve had sex with was Brittney, the one who gave me no choice, and didn’t let me say no. Otherwise, I’ve assiduously and virtuously denied the myriad opportunities I’ve had to have sex, because this is not a Sex Blog. This is DeepLeftAnalysis, and I am your host, DeepLeft, and this is a series we are doing on approaching 1,000 girls.

It’s not even accurate to call this an Approach Blog, because… I’ve been a writer for the last 32 months, and only 3% of my writing has been dedicated to approaches. A man can spend 97% of his time writing about economics and current events, and then he does one teensie-little-tiny month on Approaching, and all of a sudden, “It’s a Sex Blog.”

I had a feeling that Angelica was going to attempt to ruin my life by posting pictures of me to the internet and trying to get me arrested, and I anticipate that my intuition was correct, but I do not care anymore. After the cancer thing, I decided that every day is a gift and death no longer scares me.

I have no intention to hurt or humiliate any of these girls.

My intention is, first and foremost, to challenge and change myself. To hold myself accountable. To put myself out there every day. To experience new things. To take risks. To grow. By making my entire life completely public, I have to answer to you, the audience. If I am too scared, too afraid, too nervous… if I make up excuses, and chicken out, and play the coward… Then I know that I will have to report in, and you will read it, and I will have let you down.

I will not let you down.

I stand by every word I’ve said on this blog, not because I always get things right — when I first met Angelica, she was just a drunk stranger, and I made certain assumptions that may have been inaccurate. But I always intend to tell the truth, and it is my intentions that matter.

I know that I’ve helped Brittney, because she reaches out to me for support. I know that I’ve helped Crystal when needed a place to escape her crazy family. At the end of the day, whatever happens to me, I can rest in the knowledge that I have tried, to the best of my ability, to do the right thing, to treat people fairly, and with respect.

Now of course I am deeply flawed, and Angelica knows this. She knows that I can be judgmental and self-centered and overly critical. I am just as critical of myself as I am of everyone else. I constantly mess up. And unintentionally, I do make mistakes. A lot of them. Repeatedly. Often the same ones, over and over.

But no matter how badly I mess up, I always get back up again. I believe in this project, this quest, this goal. I believe I am changing myself, and in the process, I am completing my mission on Earth. I do not know how much time I have. It could be one hour, one day, one year, or a century — who knows, with modern technology, we could either face genocide or life extension — it’s all up in the air. I am not In Control. I am just along for the ride. The only thing I can control is my own inner feelings, internally.

I am pursuing beauty in all forms, inwardly and outwardly. I see beautiful women, and I want to compliment them, to kiss them. I do not want to “use and abuse them” as Angelica claims. Among my 338 approaches, only one has actually been interested in what exactly I am writing. Only one of them memorized the names of the titles that I rattled off, and bothered to look me up. Anything is possible, both miracles and catastrophes. But even in a catastrophe, there is hope for the future.

I know that you guys love giving unsolicited advice, and I have to hand it to Jen: having sex with Angelica would have been a terrible idea, and I’m really glad I avoided it. I said: I had unprotected sex with Brittney, and didn’t get an STD test, and I don’t use condoms. Perfect excuse. Sorry, I’m a filthy disease-ridden whore. Pass. Having sex with a girl who hates me would have just made this 1000x worse.

The experience was emotionally exhausting. All I wanted to do was to show her a good time, to make her like me, to enjoy our time together. Instead I got a DefCon 1 level event.

This whole time I’m approaching women, I’m thinking to myself… What’s the worst that could happen? Well, they could call you up crying about how you’ve ruined their life and traumatized them and how they “will be afraid to go on a date with a stranger ever again.” That’s pretty bad.

Angelica thinks that she can never trust another human in her life because I shared anonymous stories of her, a complete stranger to me, with my blog. I question what I am doing and whether this is going to destroy my life, or the lives of others.

But ultimately, none of us survives. The goal of life is not to survive: it is to live. To truly live, we need to be creative. All life is creative in reproduction, and in art, we extend that creativity into the psycho-spiritual realm, giving birth to memes and symbols and stories and myths and ideas and narratives… Even cults and religions. This is why I consider life extension to be an inferior project to natalism, and natalism to be inferior to religion.1

What I advocate is not a material natalism, but a spiritual natalism, a desire for beauty without consideration of the consequences, without contingencies, without qualifications. Burn the boats, burn the bridges, and move forward.

I really liked Angelica. She was one of the few people on this planet who will ever try to understand me, even though she could not succeed, as it was too painful. She is gone now. She blocked me.

When I wake up, my cancer scar is hurting, like Harry Potter when Voldemort is near. It’s probably from dancing 6 hours on the weekend and running and going to the gym nearly every day.

I start my day by calling girls who gave me their number but didn’t text me back. I call one, and she’s at work, and I say, “when are you free?” She abruptly hangs up. Then she texts me:

her: “Hi sorry not trying to be mean, I just don’t think I’m really interested”

me: “I started to get that sense when you hung up on me lol, I’m not sure why you gave me your phone number”

her: “yeah sorry about it just didn’t want to be rude”

me: “Nah if u say ur not interested thats not rude, take it as a compliment.”

Back in February, I was obsessively watching and gooning to hundreds of cold approaches by this guy, I think his name was Dmitry. He was a Russian living in Miami who wore google glasses. When girls rejected him, he always ended with the catchphrase, “take it as a compliment!”

Now the tables have flipped, and I am the one doing the cold approaches, and some percentage of men have messaged me to tell me that they masturbate while reading my posts. This is fine, so long as the masturbation is done from the perspective of a vicarious yearning experience, rather than a masochistic self-hating experience. This is the difference between homosociality and homosexuality. The homosocialist gets a thrill out of his friends scoring pussy, because he lives vicariously through his friend; it is a positive form of empathy, a healthy competitive jealousy. This inspires him to go on his own quest. The homosexualist, however, doesn’t imagine himself in the position of the winner; instead, he identifies as a loser, and he sexualizes his own humiliation. This inspires him to destroy himself and resent his betters. Very different, very disgusting.1

I re-posted a very funny picture, and received a lot of genuine advice from my parasocial internet friends:

You can read the comments, which are pretty obvious and straight-forward. The joke is that I am a socially inept freak who doesn’t understand that the facial hair and badly fitting Goodwill shirt aren’t a good look.

Everyone, Relax. Everything is going to be ok.

It is true that I began cold approaching in crocs and a tank top, and of course, everyone was telling me not to do this. People want me to succeed, and when I self-sabotage, it pains them. At the same time, however, we must all step back and realize that approaching 1,000 women is a ridiculous challenge, and the purpose is to overcome internal fear, not to achieve external results. This is the lesson of the Bhagavad Gita. But have no fear: I bought three collared shirts on Amazon, and I shaved. When the Chad is ready, the Chad appears.

Here are my approaches for the day:

0. I did a “half approach” at the gym. Said “nice tattoos” to a girl with headphones in. She made eye contact and smiled, but I’m not sure she heard me.

1. This one was good. She’s a retail employee. I asked “do you work here? Where’s the men’s section? Actually you’re cute. Do you have a boyfriend? Do you like sushi? How would you feel if I took you out to sushi?” Women do this thing where, when they start to get uncomfortable and shy, they physically run away and hide from me; they look away; they start fiddling with clothes. This girl is half-way between running from me, but also smiling and looking at me out of the corner of her eye. She wears baggy jeans and has bangs like Hayley Williams from Paramore, but with slightly darker hair. I tell her: look, all I am going to do is text you my name. You can text me back, or not, it’s up to you. I get the number, but after my experience this morning, I highly doubt that any woman is ever going to text me back. I’m at peace with this. Since I have no attachment, there is no loss.

2. I see an extremely slutty girl in a tight beige dress, filled with tattoos from head to toe. I ask her where she’s from, and she asks, “do I know you?” No, I just thought you were cute. She has black hair and blue eyes and small teeth and dry skin, not wrinkled but her skin doesn’t produce that natural oil and healthy shine of a young woman anymore, it’s probably hormonal. She has a boyfriend, but she says “you made my day, I hope you have a great day!” Thank you.

3. This one really confused me. I saw her looking down, her arm was covered in tattoos. But when she looked up at me, she smiled, and had a mouth full of braces. The arm says 25, the face says 13. She has a boyfriend.

4. She’s wearing a blue top and black yoga pants. I tell her that her boyfriend is a lucky guy, and she says very sincerely, “that is very polite of you,” and smiles. I guess she’s used to guys being more rude and persistent.

Outside in the parking lot, I see a handsome bearded employee chasing a cart. This parking lot is slightly slanted downwards, so with a little inertia, the cart travels 500 feet all on its own. When he catches up to it, the lady who pushed it slows down in her car and cheers for him with her daughter. He is a hero. I recognize him and we wish each other a good day. Miracles are happening everywhere.

Now I’m on my way to a date.

After posting my report for Day 26, I had a two hour phone conversation with a blond haired, blue eyed Muslim woman. Her family wants her to marry a Muslim, and she’s not telling her father that she’s going on a date with me... at age 26. She goes to mosque, and doesn’t eat pork or drink or smoke, so this is pretty extreme, and I don’t think this is going anywhere, but I’m obligated to take out every girl who gives me her number. Those are the rules.

On my way to the date, I see the most amazing homeless man: shirtless, white beard, glasses, cigaretté in his mouth, wearing sneakers and cargo shorts, pushing a shopping cart. So far, completely normal. However, in his shopping cart, he has lodged a giant picnic table umbrella.

Then, on either side of his shopping cart, he has two rottweiler dogs leashed. I have to say, this homeless guy is the ultimate badass. If I wasn’t 5 minutes late to this date (I lost my car in the parking lot, I can never remember where I park) I would be inclined to stop and chat, or at least take a picture. But there is no time.

My date has really nice large breasts, but she tells me she doesn’t sleep around, so nothing is going to happen. Her family is rich, so I chose an expensive restaurant that she will like. I’d rather lose money than lose pride.

During our date, she’s constantly responding, “wow, that’s amazing!” to things which are not at all amazing. She’s also constantly looking away from me and staring at something or someone behind me. I ask her what it is, and she says, “oh, I’m just people watching.” Despite having spoken with this women for two hours on the phone, I feel that there is no romantic connection between us.

Once again, and I cannot stress how extremely annoying this is, she is dressing more conservatively during our date than during our initial meeting. When I asked her out, she had cleavage and I could see the corner of her lacy bra sticking out. Now’s she’s wearing a trashy glitty-studded t-shirt that says “guess.” It’s terrible. Her boobs are still very large and prominent, sticking out from her relatively thin waist, but the fact that she is covering them up in this disgustingly tacky t-shirt kills it for me. What a waste.

There is no way that I am going to date a Muslim woman who is obsessed with her family, and there is no way I am going to do anything “casual” with her. I ask if she wants to do anything after dinner, and she says no, she is going to visit her uncle and feed her turtles. My consolation is that the food was good, and she really enjoyed it, and she paid half the $120 bill. I’m sure she makes 10x as much money as me, but whatever. I’m starting to expect that when a woman makes above $40k a year, the date is going to go badly, because I can never satisfy a woman like that. I’m too poor. But I still do it anyway, because this is all data.

My goal with this project is to stop being excited by women. I do not want to imagine marrying them or having sex with them or even kissing them. I do not want to imagine they will text me back or give me a second date. I want to stop fantasizing about them. I want to become completely bored of women. And when I reach that final point of complete boredom, I believe I will be free. Of course, this is impossible, because emotions are cyclical, and we forget our past experiences so easily, but that is the intention.

But even with this Muslim woman, I imagined converting to Islam and marrying her. I’m sorry, but I did this. It’s all a spectrum of daydreaming for me, ranging from the most emotional, which leaves me devastated afterward, to the least emotional, which leaves me mildly annoyed. I don’t want to be devastated or annoyed: I wan to feel nothing.

There is no reason why I should care about this woman, more than I care about any man or any stranger. Whether she likes me or “connects” with me is immaterial. My job is not to be entertaining to the average person. I did attempt to practice SEA: slowly speak, eye contact, ask questions. I did a better job than the last date, but not perfect. I can always get better. That’s the goal. I cannot control her reaction, but I can increase my SEA score. I might start carrying a notepad and a pen and start keeping track of this, quantifying it, making it competitive with myself.

After my date, I call the Aristocrat. He has this story about girls cheating on their boyfriends, which I have heard several times now. Unfortunately, I need to go, so I have to cut him off.

I need to go see Crystal.

Crystal is the best girl I have met so far, but she scares me. She scares me because she is so open minded, and so welcoming, and so tolerant, that she seems to have no standards at all. I fear that if I were to date her, I would have to deal with homeless methheads, her “friends.” I have never gotten along with any of the friends of any girl that I have ever dated. Must be a me-problem.

Anyway, I go to meet Crystal, and she tries to explain over the phone that her sister is going to fuck some guy, so she needs me to come “save her.” She says she’s been thinking about me. Perfect timing.

I hate to say this because it sounds bad, but Crystal is my post-date cushion. Every date I go on goes horribly, but Crystal is so sweet and nice that she makes me feel like I’m not a failure. Some people in the comments might suggest that I stop treating her like a backup plan, and start treating her like my girlfriend. The problem is she just got out of the mental hospital, and she has multiple siblings from multiple dads, and she works at McDonalds, and her last boyfriend was a 36 year old homeless man who owes her $500. She does not make good choices, and that scares me. We are not equally yoked.

I get to Crystal’s house, and her sister and her boyfriend come out to meet me. Their names are Ocean and Robert, which is strange, because Robert is black. I’ve never met a black guy named Robert, which might make sense if he was white-presenting with a collared shirt and glasses, but she’s covered in tattoos. If I was a black guy named Robert, I think I would have changed my name to DJ or something.

Anyway, Robert is 20, and Ocean is 16. Robert runs around smacking Ocean’s ass, which makes Crystal uncomfortable. We all go inside the house, and I immediately start cleaning up, subtly. I try not to get caught, but I see trash on the table and start moving it to the trash can, slowly, sneakily. This is what I do when I am in a messy, uncomfortable, awkward space. Cleaning is how I achieve a sense of control.

Robert is extremely charismatic, and he has Asian eyes, like a Khoisan person. His skin glows with a yellow or orange tint, not a dusky black. He looks unique, rather distinguished.

Whenever I see a black man with a white woman, I keep in mind that statistically speaking, his IQ is 5 points higher than the general black male cohort. On the other hand, when I see a white woman with a black man, I also recognize that her IQ is probably 94. Intelligent white women are less likely to date black men. Hence I view Robert as the cream of the crop of the black race, while I view Ocean as relatively dull.

I have also noticed that teenage girls seem not to care as much about things like wealth, status, or social stability. If you’re a 20 year old dude working at McDonalds, with no degree and no future prospects, you can still be Hot. My theory is that physical sexual attraction, on a hormonal level, probably peaks once puberty completes, around 15-17.

Hence 15-17 year old girls are the horniest, and after this point, they start to “stabilize” and begin to consider practical things, like income and resumes and family expectations. Since black men have lower incomes and lower family stability, they have a relative competitive advantage among teenage girls, which gradually decreases over time. The concept of “once you go black you never go back” is not necessarily true, because people age and mature and their priorities change over time.

Overall, my attitude is that Robert is worthy of some respect for ingratiating himself with a young attractive white woman. Many black men have poor taste in women (fatties), or they do not have the ability to date one. I see him as relatively accomplished, and besides this, he is extremely complimentary. I have never met someone who, so instantly and without reservation, begins hyping me up and gushing over me. It’s a true talent.

Within seconds, he’s telling me how he likes me, how I’m chill, how he likes my vibe, how I seem “so cool.” It’s hard not to appreciate all these compliments. I tell Robert he could probably be pretty ripped if he restricted his diet, so he takes off his shirt and starts flexing. He has a giant tattoo of an Egyptian God, which he tells me he got when he was 13 years old from a felony who just got out of prison. The tattoo is remarkably beautiful and well done. I’ve seen a lot of terrible tattoos lately, mostly on women, but this is actually quite artistic and I can appreciate the craftsmanship that went into it.

Robert then takes this opportunity, without asking or warning me, to begin feeling the skin on my hands and my face, telling me how soft I am… I don’t have a problem with this, although it does strike me as something a child or a monkey would do. It’s funny because there used to be this woke canard about white people touching black hair.

To be honest with you, I have never in my life desired to touch a black person’s hair. I know exactly how public hair looks and feels, and I’ve never thought that it was a stimulating or enjoyable texture. But now the roles are reversed, and this black person is touching my skin and telling me how smooth I am.

At this point, something very surprising happens, which is that Robert’s 17 year old girlfriend walks in, Zane. This is disorienting, because, to all outward appearances, Robert and Ocean are dating… It now appears that this is some kind of polyamorous threesome situation. I can now understand why Crystal is so uncomfortable with everything going on. It seems chaotic, overwhelming, and extremely unstable.

Crystal and I make our way to the door, because Crystal is understandably uncomfortable staying in the house during this threesome. As we make our way out, Robert gives us a teasing lecture about how we need to both be careful and watch out, and as he imparts these words of wisdom, and he reaches over and touches Crystal’s chest… I have no clue what the rules of engagement are here, and I’m not dating Crystal, so I do not intervene. Then he pulls me in close and whispers in my ear that I need to take care of her… Time for us to get out of here.

I take Crystal into town for a late-night dinner, and she gets pizza and mozzarella sticks. I just have a lemonade. While we are sitting down, two sassy black lesbian women, collectively weighing 600lbs and threatening the structural integrity of the building, begin accusing one of the patrons of racism: “Your prejudice is showing. Your prejudice is showing.” They keep shouting this line, but I can’t really tell the reason why. Eventually, the manager of the joint has to come over to try to calm them down, and they tell him a story about the chihuahua and the lion. I’m not sure what the point of the story was… I think they consider the “racist white man” to be the barking chihuahua, and themselves as the lionesses. I can sympathize with the metaphor, but also, they are clearly narcissists who need to be starved on a deserted island.

Sadly and pathetically, a fat, nerdy-looking black guy with glasses comes over and tries to “Apologize For That Man’s Racism,” and the two black lesbians tell him, “we don’t need your apology, go home.” He says, “I Just Wanted To Make Sure You’re OK,” and they tell him, rudely and flatly, “go home.” It’s a bad day to be a black-cel.

Crystal finishes her pizza, and we go to leave. Outside the joint, there’s two groups of drunk Gen Xers, or maybe elder Millennials… Apparently, the oldest Millennial is now 45, which is a scary thought. Anyway, these drunk people, ages 34-55 perhaps, are being held back from each other by cops. Apparently, a man punched a woman in the face, because she said something offensive to him. The whole event is quite hilarious and I enjoy spectating.

Eventually, Crystal explains to me that Robert has been trying to molest her with kindness. Meaning, he is extremely positive and friendly, but also extremely pushy and sexual. This is disturbing, because the implication is that Robert wants his girlfriend Zane and two sisters, Ocean and Crystal, to all join him in a foursome orgy. Crystal is fairly tolerant and open minded, but she draws the line at incest.

I understand her discomfort. When she is pressured and becomes uncomfortable, she has a hard time being flat and blunt — she will say “no,” but she will laugh uncomfortably while saying no, which for a pushy Rapist like Robert, means a “mixed signal.” To be fair, if I was Robert, and I saw and heard all the crazy things these girls were up to, I think I would also assume that with enough confidence, charisma, and pushiness, I could also get what I wanted. But this is not the case.

For the first time in years, I offer to let a girl sleep over my place. I’ve only had sex a four times in the last two years, in an Asian’s apartment, an AirBNB, a MILF’s house, and Brittney’s grandmother’s house. Crystal and I have spoken extensively about how I don’t want to have sex with her, and she has insisted that she is ok with this agreement.

She is simply too unstable for me. If I were to become involved with her, I would have to deal with all sorts of chaos — like this threesome situation. But… I’ve approached 338 women,2 and gotten like 30 numbers, and gone on like 15 dates, and Crystal is the only one that’s actually into me, and I do like her. Brittney likes me, but Brittney is a self-admitted man-manipulator whose goal is to find a guy with his own place who she can fuck in exchange for free rent, so I gotta let her “do her thang.” So, given the situation, I decide to allow Crystal to stay the night with me.

I explain to Crystal that I’ve been sleeping on the bathroom floor, because my private bathroom is quieter than my bedroom. I know this doesn’t make a lot of sense to anyone except me, but it suits my purposes.3 But tonight we will be sleeping in the bed together.

Crystal needs to go back to her place to pick up things: clothes, uniform, toothbrush, makeup remover. So we need to go back into her house, bravely, to confront the sounds of her sister having sex.

As we open the door, my nostrils are filled with the smell of weed. I hear some music and talking upstairs, but nothing explicit. Crystal fears going upstairs, and I offer to go with her, but she tells me to remain downstairs. What happens next is pure chaos: the fire alarm goes off. Apparently, Ocean, Zane, and Robert were all taking a long shower together, and when Robert opened the door, completely naked, he let out all the steam, which apparently set off the fire alarm. Crystal then saw him, Zane, and her sister completely nude… They all began shouting over each other and trying to figure out how to turn the fire alarm off. Downstairs, I am sitting on the couch, sitting like Stańczyk.

The sound of the fire alarm is extremely annoying, but I’ve been spending the last three weeks dancing in the club, and the volume isn’t that much different. I imagine that instead of being an alarm, it is an experiment techno beat, and it becomes less annoying. Eventually, the alarm will stop. My instinct is to “take control” or to “take responsibility” for the chaos that is unfolding, to discipline these unruly young adults, and to impose order. But this instinct, which causes me so much stress, is an unnecessary reaction. I can simply detach and ignore. This situation is not mine to possess.

As I contemplate the possessive nature of the ego and the unnecessary suffering it causes, I hear Robert getting excited. “He’s HERE?! He’s downstairs?! I’m gunna go see him!” Crystal cannot stop him. Robert comes running down with a towel wrapped around his waist, “WHAT’S UP DUDE!!!” and dabs me up. He’s trying to get me to “hang out,” and while we chat, Ocean and Zane come down the stairs, wrapped in their own towels, sucking on dab pens. It’s a bizarre scene.

My theory of mind for a 16 year old girl tells me that if a strange man is in your house, that you’ve never met before, and all you’re wearing is a towel, you stay upstairs until he leaves… My theory of mind fails. I see Ocean turn around and adjust her towel in such a way as to fully expose herself to the wall. I don’t see anything, but the implication of nudity is suggested.

In my mind, I am the creepiest of creeps. I have been approaching 338 women, and of those, I’ve received quite a few rejections. This is not to mention all the unsolicited advice which tells me that I dress like a retard, that I’m autistic, that I have no clue how to talk to people, that I’m doing it all wrong… All of this negative feedback has trained me to assume that I have zero rizz, that I am a walking catastrophe, that I am a female-repellant individual. Therefore, it is bewildering to see these two half-naked teenage girls casually lounging around in my presence, completely unfazed. It must be the drugs.

Robert really wants me and Crystal to stay, to “join the fun,” and he points out that there’s a bulge in my pants. Admittedly, I am wearing fairly tight shorts, and the outline of my dick and single remaining testicle are clearly visible. But usually, when this sort of thing happens, no one is bold enough to point it out. Robert is so bold: “YO, LOOK AT THAT ANACONDA! CRYSTAL, WATCH OUT, THIS MAN HAS A THIRD ARM!” It’s pretty funny. Then, he begins moving his hips in such a way as to visibly alert us to his own penis, hidden beneath his towel, swaying back and forth. At this point, Crystal has had enough and we need to leave.

As it turns out, Robert is bisexual. This is surprising to me, because in my head, a man who “pulls” is hypermasculine, he is like Clint Eastwood or Johnny Bravo: the ultimate man’s man. But apparently, in 2026, if you want to have a threesome with teenage girls, it is an advantage to also like sucking cock. Time to update my priors.

For the next hour, I can’t stop replaying the scene in my head. The chaos, the casual, the contrast between the two, the desire of Robert to recruit me into a five-way orgy, the incestuous implications, his bisexuality… It’s all a bit overwhelming, but this is data, and new information, and a new experience. It’s amazing to think that one can simply wander around, cold approaching women, and end up in these kinds of situations… All that is required is openness, always saying yes, and never giving up.

When Crystal and I arrive in my bed, it takes us a few hours to fall asleep. There’s a lot of heavy petting, but no sex. We’re both too tired and exhausted for that. Maybe all I want at the end of the day is to cuddle. She has to get up in less than four hours so I can drive her to work.

The next morning, I spend thirty minutes cleaning my room. This is the first time I’ve had a girl in my space in years, so I finally have a reason to look proper. One of the reasons that I tend to get messy when I’m alone is that clothes on the floor help “fill the space” and make things seem less empty and lonely. But now that Crystal is here, I want to impose order, structure, and rules. Alles muss in Ordnung sein. She takes too long to get ready, and I end up dropping her off late.

Now I’m writing this at McDonalds, where she works. She brought me a free lemonade.

It’s officially Day 28.

That’s a full menstrual cycle. Zane comes by and apologizes for being “awkward” last night, either because Crystal chewed her out for being inappropriate, or because the drugs wore off and now she’s embarrassed. Either way, she seems very shy and gives me a fist bump. At the end of the day, she is just a 16 year old girl.

In three hours, I have a dinner reservation with Angelica. She has two feelings toward me:

1. I am an immoral serial killer who supports pedophilia and racism

2. She has been masturbating in public while thinking about me

I suggested we meet in the park, and she said she is afraid to meet me in an area that is “secluded,” so that’s why we’re going to dinner. I feel that she is insane. She probably fetishizes the idea of me raping her, but the truth is that raping women is very unenjoyable. I am a narcissist with a gigantic ego (yes, even self-deprecation is ego-driven!) so when a woman rejects me, it is devastating and I lose all sense of enjoyment and pleasure. The idea of “forcing” a woman to do anything saps the life out of me.

Jen, my Substack mom, has been telling me to not have sex with Angelica.

I’ll let you guys know how it goes.

3

I do clean the bathroom, and I’m the only one who uses it. However, there was something gross in there, and it was not the toilet… I unscrewed the drain filter in the shower, and found an entire head’s worth of hair, which I pulled out with chopsticks.

The approach went well. She was hot, wearing a bikini top, and gave me her number. I texted her this: “Let me know if you’re free tom…

Read more

Day 24 of approaching 1,000 girls:

I wake up at noon after six hours of sleep. Felizia, the 37 year old Brazilian, has flaked on me. She tells me 2pm is too late, despite picking that time. If she was…

Read more

You may recall my “worst date ever,” with Asian #1, Carla. I took Carla out to an absurdly expensive restaurant, spent $120 on her, she told me she’s a Machiavellian …

Read more

Brittney is living in a motel hiding from her family who she fears are trying to get her put in a mental hospital. I’m trying to get her on Airbnb so she can stop wasting $200 a night on motel…

Read more

Today I did zero approaches. Instead, I had four dates.

The first two were over the phone. These were with Celeste and Brittney.

Celeste is a 35 year old professional astrologer, life coach, etc…

Read more

1. My first approach of the day is a simple compliment. I say “nice earrings,” but they’re actually gauges, I just forgot what they were called. She says “thank you” but her tone of voice was …

Read more