Trans Women Are Women, The Full Defense

Sex is a family property with cluster attractors.
To be male is to have a significant but undetermined fraction of characteristics that are male-typical, such as hair, deep voice, bad skin, thinking about the Roman Empire, a short Y chromosome, balls, sperm production capability, crossing your legs wide, being honest (as an adult), voting well, etc…

Each individual, say Eric, has some maleness to him, which puts them, in the N-dimensional space of all these characteristics, closer to the male attractor center of gravity than the female attractor center of gravity.

Some people are more male than Eric, like Tate, and some are less, like MoonBrah or Eddie Izzard.

To be male, by definition, is to be closer in that attractor space of N dimensions from the male center than the female center.

This definition isn’t circular because the family of characteristics ostensibly points to it.

If you change your hormones, behavior, societal perception, phenotype, skin type, etc… you have, just like a frog or a salamander that switches sex, switched your sex. This is true even if you have not managed to switch any particular characteristic, like what pronoun people call you, or the ability to bear children in your belly. If you are closer to the male attractor, congratulations, you are not a woman.

The thing that makes imbeciles and conservatives hesitant about this obvious biological fact is that conservatives are:

1) Low in openness and uncomfortable with liminal spaces that don’t have a big wall on the southern border and are grey areas of Jewish nuance.
2) Neurotically and pathologically obsessed with reproduction to the point they literally invented God to get a modest fitness advantage, promote natalism on every curve, hate women without children and think men without children are losers, and literally condemned sodomy as a sin.
In short, they REALLY want you to multiply. So for them, incorrectly, all that counts is reproduction capability, which our current technology cannot yet reliably switch.
To the conservative mind, we are but the birthing pods for more of “our identity”, and anything on the way of that is bulldozed, whether or not is true, e.g. the anti-abortion stance.

So biologically, as well as socially, some transwomen are women. Not all, because not everyone successfully moves themselves closer to the female attractor than the male attractor. Some might try and still fail, some might simply not try enough, nature doesn’t care, facts don’t care about your feelings, whether you want to be trans, or whether you want to pretend trans doesn’t exist. Nature just is, unimpeded.

We live in the internet age though, and we live in an age of far more kindness and moral wisdom than 1000, or 10000 years ago. So let’s talk about trans people morally, and virtually, not just biologically and socially.

There are 30 to 45 million Transpeople worldwide, think of them as a nation. They are not going anywhere, many of them like being trans, some of them don’t, some of them hate life, some of them love life, some of them kill themselves, and some of them reverse transition. Some of them get pregnant or impregnate someone else. These people are not going away. It doesn’t matter what you think of them. Trans people exist, they will continue to exist, and they will live their lives as they best can, until one day, by mental illness induced suicide, or at the ripe old age of 82, with a belly full of wine and young woman’s mouth around their cock, they will eventually die. And so will you. The day you die, there will be more openly trans people on earth than today. The trend is clear, they have been increasing in numbers and although they are a tiny fraction of the population, they are still a lot of people in absolute numbers. Same size as Canada, Argentina, Morroco, or Ukraine. the Transnation should be tolerated by all, and even liked by many. So morally, at a group level we should be kind and nice to trans people. Further if you know a Trans person personally, you are under no obligation of calling them by whatever pronouns or talking to them at all, you’re free, do whatever the fuck you feel like all the time, within legal bounds. But if you want to act morally, you should consider being kind and vocalize aspirationally towards what that trans person wants. Let’s say George is trans and wants to become Georgina, George learns all the mannerisms, takes hormones, behaves femininely, and looks almost like a girl. George, despite his best efforts, doesn’t manage to get closer to the female attractor, he manages to go 49% of the way, but not 51%. Now why would you add to Georges problems by calling him male, or deadnaming him George. You know by the dress and the manner of speaking, by the long luscious hair and the impeccable foundation and makeup, that George wants to be a woman. Can you aspirationally, out of the goodness of your heart, concede to George to call him Georgina? Can you make another human being’s day? Can you make them feel validated for something they spent a lifetime trying to achieve? I would suggest yes.
Now if Greg is clearly male and masculine, is on a 10%, and demands to be called Greggete from a mouth full of meat spilling on his long beard while scratching his balls, then no. Greg isn’t close enough to be acceptable to call him a woman. The left doesn’t like to accept that, but the left is wrong about most things so I don’t care.

Now the world has gone largely virtual, in the virtual world, I have blue eyes (check my profile picture, it’s true) IF you see me walking the streets without contact lenses, you’d immediately know I don’t have blue eyes in meatspace. But meatspace is only a small fraction of my life. I ama terminally online guy. I am on TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook all day, a lot of it writing philosophy and anthropology, since I prefer these immediate media to do that instead of the dry and useless peer review 2 year long drag of academia, where I spent 15 years already. In virtual worlds, it is much easier to morph our phenotypes, and for trans people, that can be a blessing. Contrapoints can interact with people who think of her as the beautiful woman she dresses up to be in her videos, even if she just woke up after a drunk night, and looks like a kind of beatdown androgynous boy that morning. Our selves are partially virtual, and that gives us even more leeway to move in the spectrum of sex towards the sex we would prefer to be. Same is true of tech, makeup tech, biotech, self-improvement tech, all of those make trans life easier.

Not all transwomen are women, some have failed, like Greg, who is actually a man, not a transwoman. Some, if you are a good moral person, you can aspirationally say succeeded, like George. Some, possibly most after a while, have in fact succeeded, they are now in fact closer to the female attractor.
The same is true, even more so, for transmen, who more easily are recognized as men by society due to their beards, deep voices, hairy and muscular body etc…

So, as a PhD in a human biological field, and a cismale, who also happens to be an actual philosopher, and therefore having basically all the credentials needed to make this assessment, and with the added advantages of being a rightwing guy who loves Bolsonaro, Trump, Milei, Geert Wilders, Bukele and even Bannon, and having lived (As a roommate in a big house, not as a date) with 3 trans women, one before transition and two after, I am arguably one of the most qualified people on earth to make this statement:
Most transmen are men.
Most transwomen are women.

This is true scientifically, biologically, philosophically, and morally.

Facts don’t care about your feelings, and these are the facts.
There is a separate problem that people need to accept that not every single transperson who attempts transmutation into the other gender succeeds, but that’s not the target public of this writing. The target public of this writing is the large cohort of people who are anti-trans, advocate for the erradication of trans, etc… etc… etc…

If you disagree, and I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong about a lot before, please, lay out your argument in response carefully, and precisely, and I will revisit my beliefs, and issue a public retraction if I am convinced (I have done this countless times before when I was wrong about something)

Otherwise, please, stop using ignorance as an excuse. Maybe you didn’t know before. But now you do. Humans can, and do become trans.

It’s not only possible, it is factual.

White Identity Politics Is Not The Way

In this piece Bo Winegrad defends white identity, and I will do my best to destroy the piece.

“PHILO: All right. My view is that such purposeful identity activation can only be combatted by identity activation on the other side. That is, the only way to fight successfully against progressive identity politics is to promote white identity politics. They—the progressives—will blame whites for everything. If whites can’t respond collectively, then they can’t respond at all. And the left’s anti-white narratives will fill the silence, one loud cacophony of denunciation.”

This is where Bo pulls the rug and does the evil thing: Asserting without argument the only way to fight progressive identity politics is with identity politics of our own. That is obviously ridiculous and false, and shameful even.

@VivekGRamaswamy has been fighting identity politics for years, with his book Woke Inc, with his current presidential run, etc… And look at him, as South Asian as they come. Spencer favoured Yang in the 2020 cycle because he seemed to be the most pro-white candidate, certainly the only one that addressed middle class white man by name. Yang is 100% Han Taiwanse AFAICT.

What do Yang, Vivek, and all the great whites Bo cites, like Beethoven and Newton, have in common?

Intelligence.

In humans, unlike machines, there is a massive non-orthogonality thesis. The smarter a human is, the more likely they are a moral good person. This goes for petty crime all the way to philosophical tractatus. At all rungs of the intelligence ladder, with exceptions for psychopaths and sociopaths, and unusual men, the smarter you are, the better you are as a person.

Western civilization is good, and it was created by whites, originally for whites (mostly because that’s who they knew anyway). Today, Western civilization has 3 groups. Whites of all intelligences, immigrants of high intelligence (hi I’m from Brazil, I’m white though so I guess I don’t count) and descendants of slaves. Balaji, Sundar Pichai, Venkatesh, Vivek, you would never run out of names if you tried to name all the South Asians who massively contributed to society. You’d never run out of names if you tried to name all East Asian scientists with published papers.

Current Nigerians are among the highest earning populations in the USA, and hindu’s are the highest earning religion.

In short, smart people, white or not, are benefiting from civilization, are helping civilization, and are benefiting civilization, some are even fighting for white welfare and white causes.

It is very very easy to fight woke, identity politics barbarians fighting for the “people of color” class without using white identity, Besides Vivek and Yang, Bannon, Trump, Shapiro, and countless, countless other less eminent people do it all the time. Zuby, Sowell, Larry Elders. Even among blacks, there are many people fighting identity politics. There is no need to use white identity to do so.

There are also low IQ migrants in the west, who are arguably causing harm to society, though see Brian Kaplan for a defense of immigration that I personally don’t agree with. Those migrants come mostly from Africa and the Islamic world, and have caused harm, significant harm, to the western countries they immigrated to. Islam has caused serious harm to Europe, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey (I don’ think Turkey should count as Europe, sue me) India, etc… It is obvious to anyone with a brain that Islam is unequivocally incompatible with Western civilization. The influence of Islam must be, for survival reasons, reduced to a minimum within what is legal by every single western country, under literal penalty of death. Countries that do not do everything within their legal powers to stop Islam will see their fates become Iran, Lebanon or Isis, in the long run.

This however is a religious identity, not an ethnic one. As an example I come from one of the most diverse ethnic cities on earth, São Paulo, we have the largest Japanese population outside Japan, and in school my best friends were Russian, Polish, Syrian, Lebanese, Afro, Italian, Portuguese, Arab, Japanese, Anglo, Sepha Jewish, Ashke Jewish, Swiss and French. These people were raised with me, are great, and safe for the occasional clash between Turkish and Armenian kids in my school who were not fond of one another (but never physically altercated) we all lived not only in peace and harmony, but in profound cultural unit, at Lourenço Castanho high-school, an elite school in São Paulo, and Casa do Teatro, the major theater school for teens.

The Two best hospitals in São Paulo are Sirio-Libanes and Albert-Einstein Israelita. That is both are Levante peoples, who back in their countries, don’t love one another, as the Gaza conflict made clear.

The Subway in São Paulo, full of diversity, is sparkling clean, organized, and behaved. In spite of 20% of genes in brazil, and perhaps 15% in São Paulo city, being sub-saharan genes.

Brazil is the least racist truly multiethnic country in the world. The USA is second, Russia, Turkey, India etc… come later. The other countries were not truly multiethnic. But obviously Scandinavians are less. The point is that Brazil proves you can be non-racist, have cultural unity, and thrive (modulo people) within that framework.

Why is Brazil, especially São Paulo city, able to do all that? Historically, because the Portuguese who colonized were not averse to other races, and mixed race with the people, unlike anglos or dutch.

But that’s not the most important point. The most important point is that Brazil is a profoundly elitist, classicist, moderately aristocratic country. In Brazil, if you make it to the elite, where I was born and lived 27 years, no one cares how you got there. Intelligent, wealthy, powerful brazilians are all Brazilians, we hang out when we meet abroad, we are friends in school, we are one people, under God (well, sort of, our aristocracy is majority atheist) united. Et Pluribus Unum.

The aristocratic factor comes from the nobles of Portugal who lived in Brazil a long time with the court, and brought nobility culture to Brazil.

The USA, unfortunately, almost completely lacks class and is devoid of it. As contrapoints says, “Donald Trump is a poor person’s idea of a what a rich person is” And that’s fine, whatever, you’re the best country in the history of earth, have the best people of all races, and have been more moral and life saving than all other countries combined in history. So I’ll cut you some slack, but just because the United States of Awesome are unequivocally superior to every other country that ever existed by a factor of at least 30%.

Luckily, it does not lack meritocracy. This is the best country to ascend social class conditional on IQ, I myself and am a ultra-high-IQ individual who benefited from becoming a millionaire here, as did Vivek and his parents, Yang and his parents, Satya, Brin, Page and Balaji, not to mention the best of us, @elonmusk himself.

What can São Paulo, one of the world’s wealthiest cities, through me, teach America: Integration works, if you do it right. The first rule we got from the Portuguese because of the whole Andaluzia Reconcquista incidents is “No Islam, no budging, no negotiation, no Islam, end of story” Brazil and Portuguese speaking countries like Mosque-bulldozing-Angola were clear, “You (and your ethnic group) are welcome here, your religion is not. Choose.” forcibly converting Muslims in the early 1800s.

The result is that besides the hospital, Syrian and Lebanese people, Turkish and Persian people now populate the city of São Paulo, they were half my people in school, and no one bats an eyelid. Christian Arabs came to Brazil in droves, and now run our best hospitals, clubs, some great restaurants, soccer teams, and much more.

Rule 1: No Islam.

Rule 2: Elitism

@Cobratate said it best: “Do you think anyone cares if a billionaire is black in a meeting of billionaires?” of course not. Billionaire identity trumps ethnic and national identity, Musk, Zuck, Balaji, Brin, Buffett, Onassis, have much more in common than they have apart, as self made billionaires.

Of course if you treat all elite people as one class, racism dissolves, wokeness dissolves, “people of color identity politics” dissolves, just like “there are no feminists on a Yatch”. Evil spiteful ideologies that aim to bring others, including whites, down, don’t survive the meritocratic funnel.

As I said, my preference, with lord Russell, would be aristocracy. In the USA, that’s out. You can still do Geniocracy and Plutocracy.

A powerful multiracial elite of Geniuses or Plutocrats (or both, why not both, right?) is far better for a Nation than a monoracial one. The USA is proof of that, as is São Paulo, Singapore, Macau, Renaissance Venice, Modern Paris, Contemporary London etc…

Of course in practice that will mean whites (and Jews) will be primarily in control of things. That’s ok, that’s fine, that’s great. Whites have the best track record in history as a people. Why be sad that they are ok with helping everyone? Of course that means very few blacks will ascend the ranks, that’s also ok, but why prevent Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell of fulfilling their destiny? That’s dull. That’s kind of bigoted, actually.

Great Replacement and White natality. There is no doubt this is a global catastrophe of epic proportions and enormous amounts of resources and brain cycles must go to fixing it. The path is not to exhort white identity. Do you really think white women will fall for that? For every @EvaVlaar there are at least 100 Karens, Stacy’s, and Vickis. The problem of getting white women to choose to have 2.1 children is both important, and urgent, but only a terminally online aspie white would think the solution is white identity politics. Just look at natality in Uruguay, Iceland, Argentina, the whitest countries on earth. It is no better. That is a separate problem from white identity and west salvation. All these are true at once:

1) Western civilization is in decline, and needs to be protected to decelerate the decline, and if possible, save it.

2) Whites are diminishing as a fraction of world population, that is bad, and white women need to go back to having more babies.

3) The best way to fight identity politics and woke ideology is through meritocracy and elitism in unity as a nation, not by becoming tribal and identitarian ourselves.

The decline in the West can and should be slowed or stopped, and to do so requires:

1) No Islam

2) Elitism

3) High IQ natality, all ethnicities

4) The survival of whites

5) Getting the best people we can to help us all out, no matter what ethnic group they belong to.

This is evidenced by São Paulo, New York, London, Iceland, Argentina, Uruguay, The Reconquista, the history of Christian countries, natalism, and many, many other sources of evidence which I can’t compress in one writing. My website has a bibliography of my mind and will have a copy of this writing.

White Identity, as Richard Spencer found out, is not the way.

As to the concerns raised by Taylor and MacDonald, I have addressed them prior and will link below.

The USA is in decline, as so is the civilization that it commands and steers. This can and should be addressed, but it should be addressed with the most effective policies, and by directly tackling the issues, not with a side quest with a bad history that we have no reason to expect will in fact cause a solution, which risks only intensifying the grinding strife in which we are already absconded.

Meritocracy and “the rules” are the Way.

Why Do I Believe Fathering Does Not Matter?

1) Because my father didn’t love me. Just kidding. I love my dad and we have always been close, we still travel together now and have an Italian level of parental bonding, which is significantly higher than Anglo, despite him being Portuguese.

2) Many exceptional people lost their dads before birth or very very young. Andrew Jackson, Obama, Clinton, Bertrand Russell, Roger Waters, Newton, Leibniz, Sowell, and many others.

3) The most common mistake among contemporary humans when it comes to biology is to falsely attribute to upbringing that which pertains to inheritance (genetic, epigenetic)

4) In a study done in India, the outcomes were not harmed when the dad instead of leaving, died.

5) In a Scandinavian IVF Study where the parents are not genetic parents, the outcomes were not related to father presence.

6) This all makes sense, because the bad outcomes could be caused, parsimoniously, by either dads that leave having bad genes, option 1, or mums who select the types of dads who would leave having bad genes, option 2. Option 3 fathering matters does not survive Ockham’s Razor.

7) A personality study just came out and is going viral on Twitter saying personality does not reflect upbringing. This is just one in a long cascade of studies started by Judith Harris “The Nurture Assumption” and corroborated by Pinker and hundreds and hundreds of studies of every dimension you can possibly fathom, all of which show the same thing. Parenting matters less than we think it does, most of the similarities and correlations are hereditary, and peers often influence more.

8) Then why does Evo Anthro
@dr_aMachin
defend fathering for example in
@ChrisWillx
podcast and in her books? That depends. She mentions in the podcast that having parental figures that are male seems to substitute for the value in many cases. This is consistent with fathering being like language acquisition in Chomsky’s paucity of data hypothesis. We seem to learn language well even with very little input in deficient environments because we are programmed in ways to learn it (see Terrence Deacon works to understand how). Likewise, a few males seem to suffice despite not being the specific child’s father. Anna really doesn’t like that I’m bringing Harris and heritability to this equation, since she muted me when I asked her about it, Evo anthro to Evo anthro, and blocked me when I emailed her about it. She is for some reason not willing to engage, or to explain why, if I am wrong, I am wrong. This animosity is not common among academics, and I am very curious as to what will come of it. Everything I saw her say in the podcast is compatible with my conjecture.

9) Do you really mean it doesn’t matter 100%? Of course not, this is the internet, be charitable, I need memetic force. If Judith Harris can say “The Nurture Assumption” despite knowing that nurture does contribute at least a little, then I can say fathering doesn’t matter while knowing that it matters at least a little. The point is that the bulk of what we think is fathering is in fact a combination of heritable pre-programming, and some sort of good adult male influence, from whichever male adult is available, and a comparatively minuscule amount is actually our dads.

10) I don’t particularly want this to be true either. I have no horse in this race. As mentioned I love my dad, he’s my favorite living human, we’re friends, and we travel together, he raised me alongside mum until age 8, then split until 15, then again until 27, when I moved countries so living with him was no longer viable. I have no problems with dad. This isn’t personal. This is science. And science sometimes sucks.

So that’ my full case. I suspect fathering matters less than 15% of what we think it does, probably less than 10%. I believe this is a massive blow to the right-wing in politics because they have been saying “the absence of fathers in the home is the cause of (insert political problem here)” and that’s not true if the genetic + paucity Caleiro conjecture is correct.

If it is correct, the right-wing needs to adjust its policies to reflect that, and stop trying to convince dads to stay in the home as if that was going to change the kids. Other interventions might be more fruitful. Even if there are no other interventions, we should still stop lying to ourselves about it.

And someone who doesn’t trigger Anna must talk to her about this, because if I am wrong, she’s probably the most qualified person in the world to make the case that I am wrong, and why.

With paternal love
G

Previous writings of mine on facebook about this:
Fathers Don’t Matter and Conservatives NEED to Stop Pretending They Do. It’s Not About Race and Democrats NEED To Stop Pretending it is. Civilization Will Self Destruct if We Don’t Become Bioinformed
(Paper linked below)
So I hypothesized on Twitter that reactionaries and conservatives are wrong about intact families and fathers and that it was also possible that the reason the underclass has horrible outcomes and is screwed isn’t that dad never came back from the milkstore, but instead that dad and mum have bad genes and the child was doomed from birth.
So when reactionaries and conservatives say it’s about intact marriages and fathers they’re just being cowards who don’t want to talk about intelligence (g or iq), they are so concerned about being perceived as racist that they stopped talking about a variable that is not great but at least it’s nature (race, Ethnicity etc) and started talking about a nurture one (father presence, intact family)
Benjamin Reames sent me a study about in vitro fertilization with eggs or sperm that don’t come from the raising father or mother, after I expressed my concerns and my interpretation of the study is that not only my “nature and genes is what matters for fathers” hypothesis is right, but even I, determinist that I am, was still not as fundamentalist and radical as reality is.
If you know how to read the paper, you’ll know that when it says nature, it means genes and epigenetic zygote environment.
But when it says nurture, it actually means nurture culturally but also the biological stuff like nutrition, milk quality based on mother lifestyle, placentenary conditions, if the mum smoked before or during pregnancy and nursing all this stuff that changes the biochemistry of the baby develop. And for sperm donors, nature also means mother’s nature, measured by her (genetic) skill in choosing from the 5 characteristics available which sperm donor.
If my way of looking at this study is right, here’s the conclusion:
Civilization will not stop collapsing if cuckservatives like Ben Shapiro and friends continue pretending the correlated variable of father presence and intact family matter. It doesn’t. Not a lot. Not a little. Not at all. The Problem is genetic and nutritional all the way down, it is not at all due to anything else. All that matters is how good are the nutrients, toxins, and genes you receive.
The effect of fathers in the minuscule, super rare cases where it showed, I strongly suspect that is mediated via the husband controlling nutrition of the wife and thus altering the epigenetic environment of the kid.
The effect of nurture mothers can easily be explained by the fact that genetically less intelligent, conscientious women screw up their child’s diet more (say by feeding them vegan food) bad milk from their own badly cared for body, and bad intrauterine environment.
I was definitely, without doubt more nature over nurture than 99% of the population before, and 80% than people who studied evolution, bioanthro, Evo psych etc. But I wasn’t nearly enough on that side. Count me on team “everything is nature until proven otherwise” from now on.
So the political consequences are far and wide.
The current game of hot potato is:
The left and liberals pretend people are flexible plastic and if not a full blank slate at least a light gray slate. This is obviously, patently incorrect, dangerous, and causes all the imbecility of critical race theory and the worst evils of University students who try to reverse systemic oppression without ever understanding that is not cultural oppression it’s just that people are born different in personality, intelligence and so on.
The right pretends that cultural shift away from God, marriage, family values, and intact nuclear monogamous families is the right explanation for the growth of the underclass. That’s just false.
What is really happening is that people with bad genes, of all races, sexes etc, are reproducing, surviving, immigrating etc.
A child isn’t broken because dad never came back from the store. Instead a man with horrible genes would lie that he is going to get milk and never come back. A woman who let herself impregnate by such a man is statistically also a woman of bad genes, and thus the child is far more likely to have psychopathology, to be dumb, and to do all the bad things people with bad genes cause.
So while cowards on the left accuse the right of being racist and the right retracts itself into fetal position and tries to find cultural stuff to change, the real story, which is a story of good and bad genes regardless of race, and of good and bad biology regardless of culture, upbringing, or how often your parents go to church separate from their genes.
All the things we think are cultural are just indicators. Going to church won’t help your kids. Being born genetically as the type of agreeable conscientius person who goes to church will. But not if you insert someone else’s eggs in you. Not if another genetic guy passes on the genes to a kid you raised.
So quit the helicopter parenting immediately. Parenting doesn’t matter. Take time to yourself.
Specialize in the health of the woman during before and after pregnancy. Give her good meat, liver, vitamins, take away her cigarettes, booze and drugs. Make sure her milk is on point. After that, nothing you do makes any difference to a first approximation. Whether you’re a woman or a man.
Just feed the child good nutritious food.
We are physics and genetics. Culture is an afterthought. Upbringing is an afterthought. Rearing is an afterthought.
I didn’t make the game, I’m just watching it and letting you know the rules. I myself think the game is rather silly and I’ll leave the serving tiny molecules that don’t care about me or anyone for you guys at least for now.
The amount that parenting is hard and grueling, when observed in light of how irrelevant it is makes this whole ordeal seem like a horrific cosmic joke on the part of a spiteful, brute God, set on pointless effort.
Our civilization will continue to fall while genetic quality decays (in all genders, races, orientations and so on) and the only way to save it is to find ways for selection in mating to become more strict again and for people with good genes to have a ton of genetic children.
I was dead right on the Mormons ridiculous as it sounds. They’re indeed one of the key high reproduction groups that might save us all.
While the left pretends it’s about race, and the right pretends it’s about families, we are all doomed.
Andrew Yang is the only politician intelligent enough to even understand all that. To read the paper and know the science.
But even him with a third party has no chance of bringing this discussion into the forefront of policy. 90% of people are either too cowardly, too ignorant, or too idealistic to accept the level of harshness of our physical reality as physical beings in a Darwinian unforgiving biologically determined world.
We are racing to the precipice in our cowardice and ignorance, and only a bioinformed revolution can bring us back.
It’s not fathers, it’s genes.
It’s not race, it’s genes.
It’s not education, it’s genes.
The sooner we accept the brutal harsh reality, the sooner we can go back to improving the future of humanity and go actually forward.
-‐——
Since this is significantly more important than most of my writings, consider sharing this post. If you’re reading this from someone who shared it, it doesn’t mean they agree with me, don’t light up your pitch forks. It just means they think the discussion is worth having.

---

More Anti-Fathering Data Just Dropped
I’ve been making the case against fathering for a while. While american conservatives will try to argue that the reason there are problems in the inner cities or whatever is that families are now broken and fathers have left the home, I always kinda knew there was something biologically fishy about this.
When you study bio-stuff, anthro, psycho, or zoo, you learn to consistently assume people think things are less biologically determined than they are. The classic example is autism and intelligence, which are both more than 50% bio-determined.
I suspected the conservatives were wrong, and the thing that makes the children of men who go get milk and never return more promiscuous, criminal, impulsive, and so on was not the fact that the dad never returned, it was the fact that either the dad himself had impulsivity, propensity to crime and promiscuity, which was genetically passed to the kids, or, more complexly, that the mum had a proclivity to those things and also to select a dad who would leave. In short, the problem was biological, or what laymen call “genetic” (which includes some non-genetic hereditary stuff too).
I got some data supporting my thesis last year in a study on in vitro fertilized kids of single mums, who don’t have that much of a problem life, because the sperm wasn’t selected by natural processes but from an in vitro clinic. And they also included mums who raised zygotes from other females (if I recall, it is kind of blurry right now) in their bellies, which means that it is not that only highly conscientious mums have the stamina to go to a fertility clinic and that ends up causing a good behaving kid. Basically the genes of a single mum child matter more than the fact that she is a single mum.
New evidence just dropped in the discussion Diana S Fleischman had with Louise Perry she mentioned that in India they followed up on girls who had absent fathers because 1) They left completely 2) They worked away 3) They died .
The dead father ones did not have early onset menarch!
Maybe if you’re not into biology this will not strike you as shocking and awesome. But it totally is!
Early menarch is an indicator of fast life strategy, or what the internet calls (innacurately) r-selectedness sometimes, and it comes with things like impulsivity, promiscuity, high sociosexuality, propensity to crime and so on as correlates.
So what thatIndia study implied, much like the in vitro studies, is that the thing that matters about the kids is the genetics of the dad, not whether he is around! Dead people are totally not around and yet!
My fav human ever, for example, Bertrand Russell, both parents died in a car accident age 4, and despite being poly 90 years before it was cool, he was an absolute high brow victorian gentleman hard working guy, and not a gangster 📷
Anyway, you get the idea: Conservatives in the USA are WRONG about what matters to raise a good population, getting people to stay in marriages won’t solve the problem.
I don’t know what will solve the problem, but fathering isn’t it.

An Open Letter to Ethical Vegan Rationalists, Effective Altruists, and AInotkilleveryonists

Soon we will all be Vegan, lab meat chemically indistinguishable from meat is in sight 🥩👀
Hundreds of Vegans, and tens of thousands of omnivores have switched to a carnivore diet, with truly outstanding results, including myself. Eating 95%+ meat heals the body, adjusts weights naturally, aligns our hunger cues and systems to nutritional cues, and, I swear on the future Superintelligent AI: makes you feel great literally all the time.

The carnivore diet is particularly helpful to vegans because it allows the body to heal from the various toxins in plants, which plants evolved to poison us since they can’t flee like animals. That includes any possible allergies you may have, oxalates, and other chemical agents, but most importantly it includes inflammation, which appears to be responsible not only for pain, arthritis, and fibromyalgia (commonly occurring in vegans) but also for the slow cognitive tempo and brain fog which many vegans experience. The carnivore mind is sharp as a tack, and experiences a lifted flat mood, no brain fog, a stronger level of drive (caused by a combination of cholesterol, testosterone and creatine, presumably) and it is free of depression.

Effective Altruists and AInotkilleveryonists deal with some of the world’s greatest problems every day, and can be often stressed, burned out, or otherwise live unhealthy habits in pursuit of the greater good. To not have depression, not have pain, not have brain fog, and not have an irritable mood are all extraordinarily valuable instrumental goals for productivity, anyone running on ketones and no carbs is doing a great service to themselves and their goals, whatever their goals are.

The calm, resolute demeanor of Carnivores is best conducive to social interaction, diplomacy, acquisition of power for good causes, and to navigate terrains with formidable foes, which we all have to go through on occasion.

The Numbers:
If we go extinct or another existential risk comes to pass, life can evolve on other planets leading to unimaginable quantities of wild animal suffering. Here on Earth human extinction could lead to the same outcome.

As one of the two only symbolic species in the known universe, and still cognitively superior to our counterpart GPT-4, it is our responsibility as stewards of the universe to remain at peak physiological and psychological capability, including mood, disposition, and nutrition. This cannot be presently done on a vegan diet by people with 95% of genomes, only by a few exceptions. Everyone else is self-inflicting psychological, mood, mental, disposition and physical damage by adopting a vegan way of eating. This includes you.

It is debatable whether agriculture land or pasture causes more suffering and pain, since we do not know the valence difference of different animal experiences. If the intensity of phenomenal pain is proportional to the fraction of cognition it represents, ants suffer far more than we or cows do. If the intensity of phenomenal pain is proportional to the loss in indirect fitness loss, as seems extraordinarily plausible given human suffering in the loss of relatives, then rodents and insects could be suffering tremendously more in the fields than cows are in pasture.

We are all mathematically savvy and familiar with the pareto principle of 80% of benefit from 20% of sacrifice. In the case of meat, this is more like 98% benefit to 2% sacrifice if you compare eating cows, who produce 222+kg of meat, to chickens or ducks, who produce fewer than 2kg. Cow meat also makes carnivores feel better than chicken meat, for the overwhelming majority of carnivores. I have personally raised cows as a child, milked them, fertilized them, etc… and I think most of those cows I’ve met would categorically prefer to have lived than not to have lived, if they were uplifted to Von Neumann intelligence and read the complete works of Derek Parfit, David Parce, Brian Tomasik, and Peter Singer.

Most importantly, however, we have a duty to any possible species out there in the cosmos being grounded in the terror machine of Darwinism to go there and abolish suffering, whether by changing their biology, their evolutionary process, or whatever else. For that, we need EA, AGI and rationalist vegans to be working at peak capacity.

It is truly hard to overstate the benefits of a Carnivore diet, especially for those coming from veganism. You can literally feel the nutrition, balance, and biochemical harmony it casts into your body. There are many, if not most people, who benefit from starting a vegan diet, especially a more radical raw or paleo vegan diet, this is because the food inside vegetables is so hidden behind a layer of defenses, physical (fiber) and chemical (toxins and “hormesis” lol), that your body begins to eat itself, and its self is made of meat. That’s why it feels great in the beginning, yet most vegans quit after a few years (I’ve heard mean is 7 but I’d be surprised if it was more than 4). Even vegan bodybuilders often have depleted facial musculature, if you learn to see it, you can’t unsee it. Most vegans however are either languid or chubby. The languid ones you can easily tell lack protein, and the chubby ones still suffer from oxalates, rashes, irritable moods, acne, hair loss, tooth decay and yellowing. Over 95% of vegans suffer from Vegan eyes, a depression over the eyelid, often accompanied by a pink malnourished shade, more rarely accompanied by panda eyes, dark circles around the eye. The harm veganism inflicts to the human body might be slow in comparison to straight up poison, but it is more harmful in its sequelae than many lingering diseases, perhaps comparable to long covid.

Just Eat Cows.

It is very likely that if you dedicate your time to stop factory farming, and decrease sales of chicken versus beef, that you will save far more pigs and chickens from suffering than the amount of cows you will cause pain to than if you didn’t eat cow, and you had to visit the doctor, the bathroom, and the supermarket, a lot more than you would on a nutritious carnivore diet.

Danger of emotional echo chambers

EA vegans are less prone to this than normal vegans but there is always a risk that your ingroup lost track of important information and rejects those who bring that information in. This endangers those in the ingroup because they end up making decisions based off one way of interpreting double blind studies on LDL and correlational studies on heart attack, and they never learn that those correlations don’t hold for carnivores who don’t eat bread sugar rice beer etc… and only eat meat, they also never learn that the sugar industry sponsored the studies on heart attack, or that the odds of having a second heart attack after having a first one are the same on an omni or veg diet, and that if the study was well designed (dubitable) the group with more plants lived only 5 days more. They literally spent that entire time between supermarket, cooking, feeling pain, sleeping longer to digest, and farting.

The scienticism of youth, oh what a beauty it is. I was once a young brilliant man or woman, like yourself. I believed statistics and correlational studies with the religious faith of one who believed in the algarisms past the comma in a quantum physics experiment. Now I am a scientist, and an analytic philosopher, I’ve read thousands and thousands of papers, I have a PhD in a human biological field, I’ve read a thousand books on science. I am truly one of the people in the world who knows more about the world around us, for I had 20 years to do nothing but study, talk to the world’s most brilliant people, think about science, philosophy, AGI, and bring a little brazilian dancing spirit to EA. Now I can see methodological flaws in studies on a glance, I can infer and track motivation in science in many cases, and I can distinguish wheat from chaff is many more cases than most professors. The studies favoring veganism nutritionally or health-wise are a hoax. They distort facts whether intentionally or not, and they are helping cause the obesity epidemic and other maladies occurring in the USA. Not all science is made the same, some science is better than others, but it takes 10 years to train your eyes to that, and that’s assuming your IQ is 130+, which, for you guys, is accurate.

Self-Improvement and Experimentation

You can do anything for 30 days. You are strong, young and vibrant, you’re brilliant and good, and you’re ready to tackle the world’s greatest challenges. You will do this better if you are eating a carnivore diet. That is meat, eggs, salt, possibly spices in moderation, butter. You don’t have to eat eggs. You can literally eat just ethically raised cow meat, aka, beef, and you will still experience all the benefits I mentioned above. Not only that, but you will actually experience MORE benefits from eating only meat than if you add in other carnivore foods like dairy, for most genomes.

I have tried Carnivore for 30 days, for weight loss, no immune issues, no pain, no fibromyalgia, no depression in fact a very positive baseline mood. I was not ready for the benefits (despite losing less weight than other carnivores). It truly transformed my mind and body into a different person. I am my full potential now, and I can feel it. My brain can automatically detect which macronutrient I need at a given moment, fat or protein, and which source, butter, egg, or meat, is the best source. I feel full, nourished, and truly happy, all the time. Don’t underestimate the instrumental value of feeling amazing. I guarantee that feeling amazing is totally worth it to help save the world in turbulent times. I am also more calm and secure in myself than my already very low neuroticism would prescribe. I am, in short, complete.
This way of eating was for me a diet for 30 days, but the shocking reality is that after those 30 days passed I abhor the very idea of becoming omnivore again. Why would I ever dispense with feeling this good, losing fat and gaining muscle without effort, perfect skin, and even mildly improved ADHD. I barely give a shit about the weight anymore. I am not giving this up, no matter what is on offer.
You, an ethical person who cares about crucial considerations, the future of humanity, and solving knotty problems that defy the world’s greatest minds, deserve to feel like I do.

For all these reasons, without any conflict of interest, with no other purpose than to help you feel and think your best, to heal any pain or depression and anxiety you may on occasion experience, to help you, to ineffectively altruistically help you, personally, my dear Effective Altruist colleague, I do not only ask, but beg, verily much implore that you give the full carnivore diet a chance. Eat fatty (very fatty, fattier than what you’re thinking now, there, perfect, that’s enough!) meat for one month.

Try it, other vegans who transitioned have had far more improvement than I, an omnivore, have had.

It is hard to believe, in fact I had no idea how good this was going to be. But it is true.