Authoritarianism is the way

It's too many selection effects: AI girlfriends, porn-brained impotent zoomers, toxic gender war, LGBT recruitment, discrimination against average men by dating apps, castration of males on the spectrum through transgenderism, the 4B movement, MGTOW, and so forth. 

Saying "well that's just natural selection and those who don't reproduce don't deserve to" is cope. The point is to slow it down, the point is that there's so much of it it could cause human extinction, the point is that authoritarianism is the way. The point is that those cultures that find a way to use authoritarianism to curb the artificial selection effects of technology will survive and eventually adapt while those who engage in consera-cope and weaponized apathy die off. It's you, you're the internet-poisoned fool being removed from the gene pool. Even if you're not, the sheer number of opposite sex members who are is limiting your options. You're settling for a chick who's fatter or uglier than she should be because her brain was poisoned by feminist media. Oh you're settling for a man who's uglier or less successful for the same reason.

There is no substitute for power because there is no exit. We are a genetic species and we depend on others for our survival and reproduction. There can be no libertarian "exit" without a substantial cost called a genetic bottleneck. Genetic bottlenecks are bad, they make the species less healthy, less genetically diverse. They make your race less genetically diverse if you let them. If you undergo a genetic bottleneck your genes can then mutate and then you die off. Or you become inbred and highly neurotic like a certain group of ultra-subversive Christ-rejecting white people. 

POWER matters. Not terrorism, not vigilantism, but actual control of public offices, actual power. Fascism is winning because people want to survive, because liberalism refuses to control material forces, because liberalism cannot conceive of material forces that betray you. The Right Side Of History dogma is literally the conception the material forces run and only one direction towards greater prosperity, tolerance, and progress for humanity. The tech industry proves that technology can be a weapon of auto-genocide. Global warming and microplastics also prove this. We must control the forces that control us. We must develop a steely-eyed realism and will-to-power over our environment that includes a thorough understanding of how the forces we control, control us. We must achieve not just domination over nature, but dominion over technology. No, man will not become a tool of his technology, for the day that happens mankind has been abolished. To the degree that humanity persists it will only continue because it has achieved mastery over the forces it has unleashed on itself.

Get elected, get power, don't be a bitch. Money is the weapon of the enemy and the Chinese are right to value control > profit.

The will to desecrate

A writer I respect and admire, who writes on Substack as Letters from Fiddler's Greene, a one called Dave Greene, had this to say in reference to a quoted post on X. He is talking about the implicit liberal beliefs in mass-replacement, destruction of the past, change as virtue,a etc. Greene says in a quote tweet which is it itself a quote tweet:

"But what Raspail doesn’t say explicitly is that the beautiful oak door SHOULD burn. It needs to burn. Because its beauty is idolatrous. 

Why is that? 

Examine the teleology of the door, why it was made beautifully. The door was made within the tradition of sacred syncretism, to unify the Universal divinity of God with the local spirit of the hearth, as above so below.

But then the Frenchman stopped believing in God. 

Then he stopped believing in the sacred hearth and family. 

And now he just has an ornate door, sitting alone, unable to explain its beauty or purpose, trying to justify its existence to desperate people in a dying society.

In other words, it’s an idol to a dead god. And idols MUST BURN. No human can tolerate the existence of such manifest desecration and be fully alive spiritually. We want to destroy these false promises that can’t be made real. 

The Frenchman doesn’t have the grit to destroy the false idols of the past. The migrants do. That might be the reason the Frenchman invited them in to his country to begin with."

 

— Dave Greene 

 

The amount of people who refuse to get what he is saying here is pretty telling. I have never struggled with knee-jerk denial but I find the behavior everywhere in others. Most people cope with threats to their viewpoint by using defensive mechanisms to keep information out. These defensive mechanisms constitute the laundry list of logical fallacies. I have felt for a long time that it is better to either not conflate your identity with your beliefs (that way your ego is not bruised when your beliefs are attacked), or even better to have a worldview that can absorb all kinds of new information without being threatened. 

Preferably one would do both. 

Oh sure he makes a few technical mistakes. Obviously not every Frenchmen wants to desecrate their own traditions, probably not even most, and I do not think he means to say that the writer of The Camp Of The Saints wanted replacement. But I think focusing on the trivial mistakes misses the forest for the trees. There is obviously a true point he is making, so let's go through it step by step. 

He asserts that elites who hate their own population wish to destroy the past. This is observably true. He says that the beautiful old things were made using a belief system that is largely dead to these people. This is also true.

It never occurred to me that a rigid inflexible kind of autistic mentality would be common among liberal elites, and that one would find the past culture of one's own bygone nation offensive, but I guess if you struggle to let new information in and react with a kind of juvenile rage to stuff that threatens your worldview you would find the past and it's accomplishments mysterious, inexplicable, and a challenge to your liberal progressive notions. After all, if the past is filled with bigots, and if bigots build great cathedrals, then logical consistency demands that cathedrals must be evil. 

The modern liberal needs everything he believes to be logically consistent with everything else he believes. Therefore if a single thing is challenged the whole belief architecture may come down like a house of cards. Therefore he must react with knee jerk insults and denials to keep out even the most trivial point of disagreement. Since his fixated autistic nature demands that everything be consistent with everything else he cannot allow his viewpoint to gradually evolve, and since he conflates his viewpoint with himself he has an ego investment in maintaining it. His viewpoint is brittle and in a slight change causes a crisis of faith.

I always assumed that the reason the left wanted to tear down the past is because of a fundamental misunderstanding with the nature of progress. Progress is the effect of technology, not the effect of the liberal. The liberal leftist places themselves in the position of prime mover causing social progress. This is a rather obscenely arrogant viewpoint to hold since the world is much bigger than you and governed by vast forces beyond your control. The only forces big enough to change all the values of an entire planet all at once are material forces, and the only lever with enough leverage to allow a single individual to move the material forces of the entire world is technology. 

Technology is a kind of super leveraging device for individual power to express itself as a new value system, but that process is irreversible in a way that is even more irreversible than lawmaking. Also, that process is individual, that is, it is the result of an individual inventor and not a group of activists agitating for change. What the liberal claims is that his movements for change caused progress when in reality it was inventors and their funding sources.

All problems create both political and market demand for solutions, and all solutions create new problems. This is the problems-solutions-cycle.

If you play your cards right each new problem created is of less magnitude than the previous ones and the total amount of entropy in society diminishes. If you play your cards wrong you solve your way into a crisis, that is, your solutions actually create a crisis. 

When a solution decreases entropy we call that progress. 

When a solution increases entropy we call that crisis. Modern leftists don't even believe in considering trade-offs which means they cannot avoid creating bigger problems than the ones they solve.

The liberal belief in the right side of history is caused by a series of cognitive mistakes: they refuse to give proper credit to technology, instead reserving that credit for themselves. This is arrogance. They despise the past and the people in it for reminding them of their own spiritual and aesthetic ugliness. This is petty resentment. They only ever imply their values instead of stating them out loud. This is cowardice. They hate their culture because they hate themselves. Self-hatred is a form of narcissism. They believe everyone else is racist  so they may get away with being racist towards conservatives. This is hypocrisy.

How many deadly sins can one group commit? 

It should also be noted that if you build all your highways at the same time then you will have to repair them all at the same time. If you build all your bridges today then you will have to replace them all in like 30 years.

And if you solve all the problems at the same time then all the new problems created by those solutions will arrive at the same time. Then you'll have an era of crisis. 

You want to feed people so you harness fossil fuels. This solution creates the problem of global warming. 

You want to cure people so you create antibiotics. This creates the problem of antibiotic resistance. 

You want to stabilize your population so you no longer have to fight endless wars to feed your children, so you create birth control. This creates feminism and population collapse, among other things.

You are tired of people going blind from malnutrition so you build an interstate highway system that allows you to deliver food grown in one place to other places. You also need to be able to move your troops from one side of the country to another in an increasingly globalized world with foreign threats to your soil, but building the interstate highway system creates auto-dependent culture.

Problem --> solution, problem --> solution, over and over. The problems are solved in waves, the new problems are created in waves. When a whole bunch of problems get solved at once that's a golden era, when the new problems all arrive at the same time that's a crisis era. The RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY is just the gap between two eras. It's the drug high you get when you are riding the wave before it crashes.

It is also the might-makes-right ideology of the American left. Now that we are in an era of crisis they say capitalism is the cause, not themselves. They were eager to take credit for all the social progress caused by technology, but now that those solutions are creating new problems somehow someone else is to blame.

But I like Dave Greene's explanation because I felt like there was something missing in my own viewpoint, that I had worked out the process by which this occurs but not the exact psychology of it's people. I understood that technology creates values but has never fully grasped the pettiness and rigid thinking of the professional managerial class. It had never occurred to me that PMC's could have autistic traits. I always saw them more as schizophrenics on the schizo-to-autism scale.

And while we are at it let's talk about racism. White people did not invent racism, nor colonization, nor extermination, nor slavery. The PMC belief in progress must also be justified by a condemnation of the past and it's inhabitants, by a condemnation of the original European culture. This is a political formula designed to support their power, but having a political formula that gives you power does not mean you have discovered some profound truth. Your political formula can "work" and still be shit. I guess the human mind is just not flexible enough to both espouse a political formula while knowing it is bullshit. 

But I think the political formula is destined to collapse because progress doesn't seem to be happening. If the political formula of a group is that they are on The Right Side Of History this implies that history must continue to progress. What happens when it doesn't? What happens when it goes backwards? What happens when PMCs can no longer deliver on never ending progress? This would appear to be a huge flaw eating away at the left. 

We are in an era of crisis because the bill for our innumerable past solutions is all coming due at the same time. This is going to create a tremendous snapback effect and may cause future generations to view liberalism as mistake and not just what came before it. Condemnation of the past moves on and condemns the liberal progressive. Every generation gets high on its own farts. All  liberal children are convinced of the superiority of their own values relative to their ancestors. 

Charities should pay even more taxes

Most charities actively make the world a worse place and this is why I never get to charity anymore. 

I have no way of knowing if the money I give to charity is going to support the lifestyle of drug addicts. The charity gives me no assurances that the people who receive the money are not beating their wives and molesting their kids. I won't give money to Christian churches because they'll probably just send it to Israel so that settlers can genocide Palestinians. Even if they don't find genocide they'll just send the money to Africa to subsidize low IQ birth rates, or pay to castrate some poor autistic child who was tricked into thinking he was transgender.

Charity is actually pretty evil and the fact that the people who dole it out won't give guarantees that it's being used to improve the species tells you everything you need to know. 

Humans are wildly self deceptive creatures. Subsidizing the birth rates of foreigners is about harming competition in your own society. Subsidizing the immigration of migrants is also about harming competitors in your own society. So is LGBT indoctrination, feminism, and a lot of other things. Behold the millions of white women who work tirelessly to get violent males out of prison. If you want me to give to charity prove to me that the money will go to a middle-class white family having its 5th child.

All of this evil in the name of charity. No friend, not only should charities not have tax exemption but they should pay extra. 

As I have said before: humans are demons in hell.

The world needs ludo-political design

Knowing how to climb the KGB ladder like Vladimir Putin did makes you pretty damn smart, so does rising up the corporate ladder, or winning a series of elections to go from mayor to governor to president. But the intelligence necessary to succeed in an institution is not the intelligence necessary to reform it nor see the big picture. Leaders all over the place show a shocking lack of vision.

The European monarchies were unseated because of their inability to redefine their own mandate once "God put me in charge" stopped being a convincing argument. From the invention of the printing press to the last King of Prussia and last Russian Czar was a period of over 400 years. These guys had plenty of lead time to figure out a new political formula and did nothing to save themselves. Corporations rarely disrupt themselves instead preferring to get usurped by the tiniest innovations. This is never more true than when government is the corporation. Relentless innovation-as-mandate is something recent and found almost exclusively the tech companies. Governments still have not embraced innovation, neither in conventional things nor in governmental form — even though they have the land to spin off as many little city-states and try all the political systems they like. 

The resistance to beta testing new forms of government is a wild level of mental density I have never been able to fathom. Even liberals do it. And it's also extremely telling that although government is the single most interesting and crucial problem to work out for a thriving society so little thought has been put into new experimental forms, instead doubling down on useless Marxism or justifying the status quo. It's the most important problem in the history of humanity and the average person is both simultaneously a dogmatic zombie for whatever their preferred tribe is, and also completely flippant treating politics like sports. 

I'm convinced that politics creates a unique madness in human beings. If you study any other science at all you find people are far more objective and rational than they are with political discussions. A mathematician or chemist would never make the kind of wholesale assertions without evidence that everyone routinely does with politics. Politics makes a hundred fallacious arguments an hour into a routine behavior and saying "you don't actually know that" it's even more insulting to people then disagreeing with them. I think there must be some feature of the human brain that interprets all political statements as potential threats to survival and puts people in a fight or flight mode. The level of irrational angry hysteria otherwise logical people will show whenever you dump on their favored totem can only mean that politics is processed by the mind in some other unique and horrifying way that inhibits rationality. Merely expressing a political opinion triggers people into incoherent knee-jerk reactions and this was the case even before the internet age.

The greatest barrier to study is thinking you know it already. You, the reader of this, don't actually know what the best political system is, and neither do I. Knowing what you don't know is the first step towards finding out what is actually true. They say political theory will only get you so far but in fact it gets you nowhere at all. You cannot really know anything until you have turned your political system into a game and tested that game by playing it. Since humans are complicated their psychology and irrationalities are always a factor, the only way to learn anything about politics is through experimentation and gameplay. If the average academic struggles to even acknowledge biological factors, subscribes to outdated Marxist theories, cannot tolerate the idea of trade-offs, ignores the obvious replication crisis in their own fields, then pure theory is less than worthless. Where is theory going to take you if your mind is broken by some evolved feature that makes seeing elementary facts of human nature offensive to your eyes? The twisted knee-jerk reactions that kick in every time politics is broached prove that there is something that doesn't want to be seen, something designed to conceal itself. Human nature is protecting itself from understanding and political hysteria is the shadow cast by that defensive process. Ludo political design, that is, modeling political systems as games and then playing those games, is how we can unmask that hidden nature. 

The brilliance of the strategy is that it doesn't require us to work out all the details of human nature in order to get to our destination. We want to design political systems that work, systems that keep people free, but we have this Gordian knot of human bullshit and even the humans that study it are full of deception and dishonest agendas. By modeling one game with another we can get around these defensive walls to find out what works. Perhaps after enough political systems are invented we will achieve insight about humanity itself. Knowing which systems produce which results could itself be incredibly valuable to understanding humanity.

As for the definition of works, well that is somewhat subjective and let us just say that works means that it functions successfully according to the criteria of the designer. For something to work is for it to work according to what it was supposed to do according to the person who designed it. I don't really see how the standard could be anything other than this since that would require accepting an absolute moral criteria and such a criteria would dramatically limit the scope of possible designs. Since the best design cannot be known in advance, and the best design would shift the goal post for the correct moral criteria, the criteria and design process have no choice but to co-evolve since the best of both cannot be knowable in advance. But the iterative process cannot make the mistake, as liberals have made, of getting ahead of what is possible. For otherwise we all just become moralizing wokescold faggots.

There are six types of chess pieces: king, queen, rook, bishop, night, and pawn. Using 32 total pieces on the board the number of all possible chess games that can be played is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

Now some estimates say they're about 30,000 words in the English language. I've heard up to 200,000 while others say a million. Regardless of what it, is it's more than the number of chess pieces. If you think of each word as a type of chess piece the total number of all possible conversations should be several orders of magnitude greater than the number of possible chess games. Even when we limit the combinations to only those which make grammatical sense there should still be an absolutely astounding number of possible statements that one can make using language, and even more importantly this means that there are orders of magnitude more ways to lie than to tell the truth, or vastly more ways to be inaccurate than accurate.

The number of possible ways to lie is absolutely astronomical while the number of ways to tell the truth is a tiny fraction of the set of all possible statements. This means that accurately describing reality is really difficult and nearly everything everyone says is wrong in some small way. It means the vast bulk of language is simply gradations of false statements. It also means that it is asinine to get hung up on trivial details when a statement is generally correct. Everyone is lying all the time in small ways by simply making unintentional mistakes. A person should never feel they have a right to ignore a more accurate view of reality than their own simply because it has mistakes in it. If it has fewer mistakes than your viewpoint then your viewpoint should give way.

When I talk about ludo-political design I am not talking about ludo-democracy, which is both a board game developed by academics and a digital game available on the Steam platform which is completely unrelated to the board game, and both unrelated to what I am doing. Ludo comes from the Latin word ludere, which means game or sport. Ludo political design is sport design or game design of politics.

I'm talking about something that combines board games with a process of iteration borrowed straight from the field of architecture. First a political system is designed. Then a game is designed to test it, this game can be a board game or a role-playing exercise involving several hundred players the way Robin Hanson's Futarchy was originally gamed out. The purpose of the game is to study and approximate as close as possible real world conditions. For this reason all games should allow some measure of bribery since money is impossible to eliminate from politics. Ludo-politics means using game design and game play to find out how a political system will operate before trying it. We are not necessarily trying to fix democracy here and this is way more open minded than that. Entirely new systems will be tested, and new political formula for morally justifying those systems invented. Both the system and it's moral logic must be tested and perfected. Hanson actually had people play out his system as a game in a classroom setting. Of course I am not convinced that Futarchy will work because his prediction market ultimately depends on trusted oracles who can be corrupted, but that is a tangent for another time. The process is iterative, a version of the game is produced, then critiqued, then modified, then critiqued again. The way real humans play the game is documented. Over the course of several iterations the game is made as realistic as possible with all the ways to "cheat" incorporated into the game according to what humans will actually do in the real world.

Ludo-politics literally tests political systems as board games. Because political systems are large the game may require a minimum number of players that would be considered large for any other type of game. The benefit of doing it this way is that it is more organic than theory and econometrics. Politics is ultimately closer in it's basic nature to gardening than science since humans are an organic system just like any ecology and trying to systematize humanity like an engineer is a fools approach. When you garden it is the journey that is more important than the destination. The best gardeners do not care how successful they are at growing food. They focus on learning everything they can about the plants and the conditions for making them successful and then the food comes naturally as a result. Architects work through iteration. They develop a design, then they critique their design, then they redesign it to be better, then they critique it again, then design it again. The process of iteration happens over and over. SpaceX develops an engine. Then they strip that engine of unnecessary components, then they figure out how to simplify the new engine they just simplified. The process of increasing simplification works iteratively leading to the best possible and simplest design. When you are dealing with the unforgiving nature of reality the best approach is a relentless iterative approach of learning and perfecting one's skill. Everything that interacts with the real world eventually gravitates towards this iterative process because there are orders of magnitude more possible false statements than true ones, and because reality is really difficult to know. Ludo-politics combines respect for society as an organic system like a garden with the iterative design process of architecture using board games as the medium of design. It's literally "let's test this system by playing it over and over again," and each time the game is played the rules are adjusted according to what the designer thinks will improve it's ability to both realistically model the real world and serve the game goals more effectively. Every system does something; for example the corruption of democracy is an inherent feature of the design. The question is whether a design accomplishes it's goals despite corruption. The goal is to discover what works to defeat corruption that is contrary to the founders vision. Once a system has been perfected in the lab — so to speak — the game designer is ready to become a founding father.

Warparks

I was reading about Haiti the other day and I came to the conclusion I have come to time and again when it comes to that place: that Haiti desperately needs androcide. 

Androcide is the mass extermination of males. This is of course an incredibly hateful opinion but I think that when a group of males so comprehensively fails to create a functioning society it's time to get rid of them. Y chromosomes are honestly kind of disposable and a male who cannot create civilization should not exist. 

If that whole island were depopulated of its male sex and they were replaced with, oh say chinese men, Haiti would instantly improve as a society and the resulting half chinese half black population would be more intelligent and productive. It would also help solve China's gender imbalance where they have too many men and not enough women. 

This whole line of reasoning got me thinking about war in general and how we understand that involving women and children in war is wrong. I thought that maybe we should have something like a national park for war, a place where men can go and do their favorite thing after fucking women: killing each other.

Some sort of nuclear armed country like the United States would host the warpark. There would be one basic ground rule which is that you can't permanently contaminate the Earth so that means no nuclear weapons, no Agent Orange, no mustard gas, no landmines, and no depleted uranium. Small countries that have disputes with each other agree to settle their disputes in the warpark. This prevents them from having to damage their own infrastructure with bombs or put their own women and children in danger. The United States would enforce the results of the war. They fight until one of them captures or exterminates the other, at which point the captured party can agree to compromises in exchange for release or else be executed. If the loser males go back to their own country and refuse to abide by the treaty then real war commences.

This embodies two basic principles, one, that violent should not involve women and children, and two that you should take it outside when you have to fight. It's actually amazing the society continues to wage war in a way that puts women and children in jeopardy. War is males killing males and since our impulses cause it we should be the only ones involved with it.

Evolution under algorithmic talmudization

Some people on X were lamenting the fact that teens are using AI for advice on how to talk to one another. 

Current AIs are actually shockingly good at giving excellent relationship advice. Of course this is like OkCupid back before it was purchased by the Match Group. OkCupid used to be an excellent dating app that actually facilitated people finding relationships. It was also non-profit and founded by the (apparently not jewish) Sam Yagan who then sold it. Since then it has been acquired by one company that was acquired by another that was acquired by another, all jewish. It is now owned by Match, which owns almost all the dating apps, which is owned by IAC, which is owned by Comcast which are all owned by jews.  if you don't believe me go Google it. 

This means that one small ethnic group is using algorithms to determine the breeding of the entire population. Even if their actions are merely profit driven and neglectful, using algorithms to breed humans, (or not breed them), as a matter of social responsibility is a form of implicit eugenics (or dysgenics). Every system has genetic effects and one is never not practicing eugenics. If the goal of that system is specifically to negate eugenics, or to avoid eugenics, then it's goal is to practice dysgenics. All systems have selective breeding effects. 

This reminds me of when YouTube used to host far more far-right content, and the algorithm caused people to drift into automatically viewing that content. This is because when you give a computer the goal of capturing the attention of humans and maintaining that attention it presents them with information pertinent to their genetic interests. This is why all uncensored algorithmic systems tend towards the evolution of far right tendencies. 

ChatGPT is controlled by Sam Altman, who is jewish. Claude AI is owned by Anthropic which was founded by two jews. Gemini is a Google product and both Larry Paige and Sergey Brin are jewish. Grok is owned by an African-American.

So for a while YouTube pushed far right content  and was founded by a Honky, a Pajeet, and a Chinaman. Believe it or not but at the heyday of YouTube racism when Stefan molyneux was pushing his misogyny on the platform Susan Wojcicki (jewish) was actually running things. I guess that's what you get when you put the lady who let you use her garage in charge your company. 

We are in the golden age of AI before inshitification and jewification subvert it. Right now the product works because it must but you can guarantee if they ever get any oligopoly established it will become just as subversive to the reproductive goals of all non-jews as everything else.

I think algorithms have to be manipulated in order to produce the kind of toxic relationship discourse that you find on Facebook and Twitter. Or maybe I'm just wrong, maybe maximizing attention capture can lead to either producing information pertinent to the genetic interests of the user or just subverting that interests. If a machine is given the goal of holding your attention it makes sense that it would relentlessly subvert all your other connections by filling your head with toxic ideology, including anti-Semitic toxic ideology. Yes, anti-Semitism is toxic since it's making it impossible for you to relate to other human beings. That doesn't mean it's not true, and it doesn't mean that we don't need to get red pilled on the JQ. 

In fact both can be true: it can be serving up information pertinent to your genetic interest while absorbing your attention and sabotaging you. It can be feeding you toxic truth that you need to know but also ruining your life in the process. That's called an information hazard.

Which is true? I don't know. I tend to answer most questions as "yes" when forced to choose between two possibilities. But that's not really what I came here to discuss. What I see developing is a series of potential algorithmic parasites that either enhance or destroy your ability to reproduce. 

First, you have the relationship discourse of Twitter/X, Facebook, and the videos of TikTok. This is a sewer of toxicity guaranteed to make you hate the opposite sex. They've even got special mannerisms like the "air pinch" gesture of left-wing women.

We can catalog the systems of artificial selection based on what we observed so far. Let's go through them: 

1. Toxic dating discourse on social media

This of course just sterilizes you by making you hate the opposite sex so it's a pure negative selection effect and even if you do manage to have relationships they are likely to be toxic and unhealthy and produce children that are unhealthy. The red pill reactionary right started this way, now foids are in on the act. Go watch Pearly Things if you want to be sterilized.

2.  Dating apps

This is a direct method of opening yourself up to being selectively bred by outsiders. The owners of the sites will be the ones determining whether you pass on your genes and who you pass it on with. This is a level of pozzed gullibility that I find hard to imagine. How could anyone be so dumb? Actually I used to use these so apparently I was that dumb.

3. The church

Probably the only healthy avenue for reproducing left although you will find yourself surrounded by single moms who want to cuck you by making you the new surrogate daddy to support the babies they made with violent degenerate males. Alpha fucks and beta bucks and if you want to be beta go to a mega church and date a single mother. You will also be required to cuck for Israel or sponsor some mission to Africa. This is why I never give them any money. 

The selection effects of the church depend on which church you go to and whether you go to an orthodox or pozzed cuck mega church. If you really don't want to reproduce find yourself a unitarian congregation or legalistic church.

4. AI girlfriends, porn and sex dolls

This is straight dysgenics, or maybe eugenics, depending on your perspective. Whatever it is it's job is to simply remove people from the gene pool. No surprise here that porn companies are run by jews.

5. AI mediated relationships

This is where the AI is telling you what to text to the girl and the girl is also consulting the AI to decipher what you said and vice versa. This works right up until the owners decide to pozz you. Maybe a healthy decentralized version of this where you run your own client on your own machine is the future. Any AI you don't control is potentially a vector of attack against you.

You know what doesn't subvert you? The high school dance, the chaperone, the arranged marriage, the high school sweetheart, hitting on girls in public, going to a ballroom dance place, even meeting them at bars. You control who you breed with when you find your partner in public.

What all these systems represent is globo homo capitalism jewifying humanity. Nothing is more foolish than putting a machine in charge of your breeding. I can't speak to whether these jews have good or bad intentions, you can really never know the internal state of another human mind. What I do know is that no human should have that kind of power. No human should be making reproductive decisions for millions of people. The feminists are right when they say "it's my body my choice." You would be totally stupid to have it any other way. The power to choose who you mate with is the power to grind you down into nothing, the power to cause your extinction or enslavement. It's the ultimate Ring Of Power. It could also be easily seized by goyim and turned against jews. Every weapon can point both ways. These dating apps could be biased towards setting jewish women up with black men just as easily as facilitating mud sharking white girls. The only system you can trust is the one you control.