Grok's Bikini Holocaust
+ Deep Leftism as a Sexual Strategy
Things I read today:
Now for my commentary:
1. A Conservative Influencer Apologized for Her Anti-Trans Past. Elon Musk is Trying to Take Her Kid.
by Parker Molloy
BIKINI HOLOCAUST
People are really upset (or pretending to be upset) that Grok can put people in bikinis. But people have always been able to draw pictures or use photoshop to achieve the same exact outcome… forever. It has never been illegal to do this. It is definitely socially unacceptable, and I can understand why we might want to pass new legislation saying “thou shalt not depict people in bikinis.”
That sounds Islamic to my ears, but it’s more understandable to me than the people who act as if this is already illegal. It is not. Nor is it “CSAM.” What’s next — are we going to ban anyone under the age of 18 from going to the beach?
Look, I am in favor of RAISING the age of consent. I don’t think that 40 year olds should have sex with 18 year olds, and I would be fine with issuing fines to men who engage in that activity (I am a prison abolitionist).
If someone depicted me wearing a bikini, I would view it as I view any sort of insult, like when people call me “gay rat-faced kike.” It is unpleasant and I wish for such people to be deported to the Congo. However, it is not illegal to insult me in this way. If we want to outlaw insults, ok, that’s something we could consider under obscenity laws, but I don’t think these people want to do that — they just want to weaponize female tears when convenient. It’s emotional terrorism.
TRANS HYSTERIA
Parker claims that right-wingers are hysterical over trans people existing, which I agree with. Then Parker says that right-wingers “rarely face consequences for the violence their words help enable.” Which is itself left-wing hysteria.
The truth about trans violence is that victims of violence put themselves into violent situations for a host of reasons:
They live in poor neighborhoods
They hang out with mentally ill people
They agitate other people
They are anti-social
They end up in relationships with toxic people
I’m not saying anyone deserves to be injured because of who they are, but trans people, like black people, and like other “vulnerable groups,” encounter greater rates of victimization because of the choices that they make.
Caitlin Jenner isn’t receiving violence because Caitlin Jenner is rich and white. Most trans people are brown and poor, so they experience greater exposure to violence. It’s not because of “right-wing rhetoric,” it’s because of socio-economic factors.
2. Make ICE Suffer. Make Them ALL Suffer
by The Opinionated Ogre
ANTI-WHITE SILLINESS
I don’t enjoy reading this blog because it is written in chucklefuck style. However, the name of my blog is Deep Left, so I need to read what leftists think.
The goal of Deep Leftism is to not fall in line with whatever the chud-right is pushing. I have no interest in worshipping the past or going to church or deporting immigrants. I have no place on the contemporary right.
“Fine, DLA, you’re not a right-winger in 2026, but that’s such a superficial view! You shouldn’t define yourself by the politics of the moment, but on deeper principles.”
Ok, well, if it was 1776, I’d be on the left then too.
Having said all that, this anti-white silliness from the Opinionated Ogre is a bit too much for me:
America has a familiar pattern. The racist white men of the right break things. The left tries to fix it. The racist white men of the right break them again, but worse than last time. The left tries to fix it again and is blamed for not fixing it fast enough. No one pays a price for what the racist white men have done.
I don’t know, I think it’s more like:
Racist white men did everything, both good and bad, in all American history prior to like… 2008?
Seriously, name a non-white person who did anything of note, politically, prior to 2008. Was there a single non-white senator or congressperson that you can name?
MLK marched around, but Civil Rights was passed by whites in Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency. White men do things. They are the agents of history. Non-whites can protest, they can complain, they can stamp their feet and make noises, but they are not in charge.
Perhaps that could change going forward as Indians and Chinese people take over America and reshape it in their image, but that’s history.
I think the solution to this riddle is that “self-hating whites” don’t conceive of themselves as truly being white, but somehow they are trans-racial and above or beyond their whiteness. I think their racial self-hatred is a kind of hatred of their bodies, and this feeling that they will be reincarnated in a different form, or maybe as aethereal floating spirits.
Interestingly, theosophy proposed that the first root races (Polarian) were actually gelatinous ghosts without recognizable physical bodies. This seems to be what the self-haters are going for.
This is probably why the transgenderism thing makes sense. Help, I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body! Help, I’m a gelatinous blob trapped in the body of a Millennial white woman!
3. New World Apocalypse
by Bryan Caplan
ANTI-AMERICANISM
Bryan claims that Cortes was a Nazi:
the life expectancy of an Indian engaged in forced labor in a mine or on a plantation during these early years of Spanish terror in Peru was not much more than three or four months – about the same as that of someone working in the synthetic rubber manufacturing plant at Auschwitz in the 1940’s.
And George Washington was a Nazi:
George Washington, in 1779, instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack the Iroquois and “lay waste all the settlements around…”
And Jefferson was a Nazi:
“In war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them.”
Bryan concludes by saying:
to go on honoring the names of war criminals [Washington and Jefferson] because they crossed the Atlantic or wrote the Declaration of Independence is just wrong.
Actually, I think killing your enemies is ok. The question is whether or not Indians should have been the enemies of America, and whether it is appropriate to equate Indians with Jews killed in the Holocaust.
Indians during King Philips War committed war crimes. They attacked women and children. Indians regularly kidnapped women and scalped civilians. Therefore, Washington and Jefferson were fighting a war against a population which did not recognize the legitimacy of “war crimes.” In fact, one could consider that the Indians themselves were “Nazi-like” in their blood-and-soil ideologies.
To be frank with you: if German Jews were kidnapping and scalping German women, I think the Holocaust would probably be justified. Since they were not doing that, we should consider the Holocaust as a horrendous act of barbarity against an innocent civilian population.
Bryan refuses to take the conduct of an enemy population into account when assessing the counter-measures used by their opponents. I think this denial of context is overly simplistic and cartoonish.
By Bryan’s standard, all of western civilization is unmitigated and unending evil until maybe like 1924. I don’t think that view is healthy or sustainable, but will result in two things:
There will be some mentally ill people who agree with Bryan, and who, if they had the power to do so, would destroy western civilization by instituting communistic reparations to non-whites [Bryan doesn’t take this position because he is an individualist who doesn’t believe in collective guilt, but his view is of an alien and not a human being]
There will be right-wingers who, hearing this rhetoric, become white nationalists
I think it is normal and healthy to admire Washington and Jefferson, while recognizing that they engaged in behavior that we would find shocking. If we can’t admire the founding fathers, then the only two choices left are wokism or Nazism. Libertarian individualism is not a legitimate governing mythos — it’s a non-answer to the question of collective action, wishful thinking.
4. Age of Invention: Tudor Trade War
by Anton Howes
This is a surprising article to me. I assumed that medieval guilds severely inhibited free markets from forming. What I did not realize is that national tariff policies were also in full force, hampering international trade.
It appears that kings had a very hard time collecting revenue. Tax collection was hard, and resulted in revolts. Therefore, it was much easier to tax merchants, especially foreign merchants. If the foreign merchants didn’t like it, you could scapegoat them as “foreigners” and deport them.
Hence, tariff policy was motivated by a combination of xenophobia, the vulnerability of merchants, and the difficulty of raising property or income taxes, since the medieval IRS was cumbersome.
This harmed the English economy. It would be interesting to go back and figure out a different way to do things. Perhaps instead of tithing to Rome, the medieval church could have instead collected funds and sent them to the King as a Pontifex Maximus, head of the church. This is what the Anglicans ended up doing, I believe, although the Puritans and non-conformists didn’t like the sound of that. I wonder if that debate influenced the “no taxation without representation” idea some 100 years later.
Anyway, Henry VII also seemed to really hate homeless people:
one of the very first acts of Henry VII in 1485 was to give “straight commandment to see the statute and ordinance made and provided heretofore for the punishment of vagabonds, beggars, and other suspect persons to be put in effectual execution”,
According to Howes, these were:
unlicensed, unemployed travellers — so-called vagabonds and idlers, who were often just people wandering and often begging while in search of work or higher wages.
Howes describes the way in which these vagabonds were punished and then banished from the cities and towns into “exile.” I think this is a great idea and something we need to bring back.
I do not want to go to New York City and be accosted by vagabonds. I want all vagabonds to “return to the places they had last permanently dwelled or been born, there to remain forever.”
Ideally, we would expel all vagabonds from all American cities tomorrow. ICE shouldn’t be attacking immigrants — they should be attacking vagabonds.
5. Are autistic people uglier?
by The Nuance Pill
I’m just going to summarize the statistics from the three studies he cites here:
47.6% of developmentally delayed children were dysmorphic, followed by 17.4% of autistic and 5.4% of neurotypical children.
17.1% of autistic children were dysmorphic, compared to 4.6% of neurotypical children.
Major morphological abnormalities were present in 43.8% of autistic patients compared to 12.5% of controls.
Minor anomalies were present ~99% of autistic patients compared to 58.9% of controls
This indicates that autism is a true mental illness in the sense of being the result of harmful mutations, rather than a fake mental illness, like neuroticism.
Although, now that I think of it, neurotic people probably also have more dysmorphic features on average.
This was an especially fun image to me:
Damn, look at that chud on top. Then, you’ve got the frat boy on bottom. Totally different vibe. Top guy looks like his room is full of piss bottles. Bottom guy looks like he wears a sweater vest and golfs with his dad on the weekend.
But according to Nuance Pill,
There was no significant difference in attractiveness between high and low AQ faces – if anything, high AQ faces were rated slightly higher… They were also rated as more masculine – a consistent finding which has been hypothesized to be driven by prenatal testosterone.
Ok, I’m gay.
This is a truthnuke:
dynamic features like facial expression [+ body language, and posture] are likely the more meaningful differentiator than static morphological features…
I’ve noticed this in myself. When I make no facial expressions, I am much more handsome than when I smile. Although I’ve also noticed that I have different kinds of smiles. But yes, having a nice smile vs a bad smile is a product of dynamic expression, and not something you can tell from a Tinder profile picture.
6. Agent Orange Did Not Cause Diabetes
by Nicholas Decker
Decker has made the point, several times, that our military works as follows:
We pay soldiers
These soldiers become “veterans”
Magically they all transform into disabled veterans
Politicians trip over one another rushing to give more welfare to “disabled veterans”
The question is this: what if we cut off all benefits for veterans, and just paid soldiers up-front?
the budget for the VA is $441.3 billion
there are 2.1 million members of the military
we could afford a $210,142 pay raise per service member by abolishing the VA
Woah! $210k is a lot of money.
Honestly, if the military gave me a $210k sign-on bonus (let alone a yearly raise), I think I would seriously consider trying to join. I’m probably too crippled to do the pushups and pullups necessary, but still. $210k would be a lot of money to me.
This is kind of insane to me.
If we assume an average salary of $70k, then for the cost of the VA, we could afford to recruit 6.3 million more soldiers, boosting the size of the military by 3x.
Apparently, China only has 3 million soldiers. We’d have a larger army than China!
Imagine all the Venezuelas we could invade.
Personally, I’d like to start with Mexico. Mexico, in my estimation, should be twice as rich and safe as it currently is. There’s no reason that Mexico City shouldn’t resemble LA or Miami. I’d like to drive down there without fear of cartels.
7. The Rise of Masturbation, the Decline of Sex
Richard blames the decline of sex on safetyism. We’re afraid of what others think, so we avoid a potential conflict or disappointment by retreating into fantasy land and digital escapes.
On a personal note, when I was in college, the cafeteria had 10 or so signs which said things like, “if she’s drunk, she can’t consent,” and, “if she changes her mind, it’s not consent.”
I had read that story of some Asian girl who carried around a mattress in revenge against a man who she repeatedly had consensual sex with. I had heard about the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax. I thought, surely, I will be accused of rape, and my life will be ruined. Safer just to not have sex.
Looking back on it, I was looking for an excuse. The longhouse will always shittest men and call them creepy or boorish or whatever adjective is in fashion in that century. Men have to simply overcome the fear of female disapproval and have sex anyway.
Eventually, most men achieve this. However, it is a hurdle.
This is the problem with looksmaxing discourse. An increasing number of men believe that their physical appearance is of foremost importance, and determines their success in the dating market. Admittedly, there is some truth to this.
A man who is 300lbs overweight will have a different romantic life from a guy who is skinnyfat, and both will be perceived differently from a professional bodybuilder, and then you also have the Brad Pitt physique, which is the actual ideal.
But most of the aspects of looksmaxing, like dressing nicely or working out, are a matter of putting forth positive effort to achieve a predetermined goal. They show a willingness to push through some level of inconvenience (money, time, attention) because of a desired end result (social status, approval).
In this sense, getting a PhD is probably the best thing that a man can do for his romantic life, assuming that he wants a woman who is physically attractive, fertile, and intelligent. Even if intelligence is not desirable in itself, it correlates with all sorts of positive outcomes, including mental health.
If I had to go back to college, I probably would not have had a lot of casual sex, because when you’re dealing with interconnected social nodes, things become “incestuous” pretty quickly.
But I do think I would have been much more aggressive in pursuing physical fitness, a proper dieting protocol, hormonal health, sun exposure, fashion, and above all, simply giving myself the benefit of the doubt in that women will be attracted to me if I put myself out there. No, they’re not going to report me for rape just because they find out that I have edgy political views.
Well, actually, having said that, I’m not sure.
The key there is “don’t have edgy political views in the first place.” Then you don’t have to worry about a retaliatory strike.
Deep Leftism has been my attempt to reconcile uncomfortable truths about the world with a frame that allows for men to not needlessly burn themselves on the altar of chud martyrdom. Yes, men and women are different, but feminism is basically good, even as a useful fiction. Yes, blacks and whites are different, but treating this fact as the difference between the collapse and salvation of civilization is petty and small minded.
Or I could go a bit further: Hitler’s moral compass wasn’t altogether different from Genghis Khan or even George Washington — he just chose a particularly intelligent class of victims to scapegoat, who have more skillfully have demonized him than the Native Americans were capable of doing. But constructing your identity around rehabilitating Hitler should prompt some introspection.
Why are you so interested in salvaging the reputation of the most hated man? Is it because you feel unfairly maligned by the people around you, and at war with the world? Why are you unable to cooperate, collaborate, and fit in? Do you have an anti-social personality, weak family relationships, or a genetic predisposition for that sort of thing?
Alt-right types are higher in dark triad traits, which should give them an advantage in the dating market, theoretically. Machiavellianism and narcissism are certainly helpful. But psychopathy has a downside: women identify anti-social behaviors as low status, and therefore, unattractive.
If biological survival is truly the most important thing in the world, then alt-right men seem to have a “mind virus.” Their ideology is preventing them from succeeding by weighing them down with a victim mentality and a hostile relationship with status games. Status games are “gay”; parties are “degenerate”; Hitler would not approve.
My assumption is that most of these men believe that they are self-sacrificing in favor of a moral virtue, but in fact, they became attracted to this dissident moral system because it is self-serving. They are uncomfortable with status games because they find them confusing and frustrating — by calling such games “immoral,” they don’t feel as bad about their incompetence.
End Credits
Recently I spent 40 hours editing an essay. It was 9,000 words with 75 footnotes on a topic that I found to be very interesting. The audience did not.
Combing through my reading list to write up this review of 7 essays took me approximately 4 hours. Not because I was writing for 4 hours straight, but because I had to sift through many essays which did not make the cut.
So if this review gets 180 views, that’s a similar hours-to-views ratio.
I write way too much, and I’m considering publishing something like a “weekly round up” to summarize all the stuff I am writing.
I’m very happy that this post got 400 views because of a restack:
I have not boiled any meat since then.
But yes, please give me some feedback.
Do you like the article reviews? Is it worth four hours of my time? Maybe I’ll try a poll:
More deranged personal journals and diaries
More detail oriented research into history
More contemporary political hot takes
More article reviews
Something I didn’t mention here
Leave your comments below.
Really liked the TND article and the way it was written, so more of that would be great
Personally, I want more of option 2, 3 and 4, I like them all, tough I would certainly like more of your article reviews and political events hot takes, the latter is especially on demand thanks to the current times.