This is a publication in list format, rather than an integrated article. It is one of the most important concentrations of information you will ever read. If you are a thinking person, this publication will permanently change parts of your thinking, either from the points themselves or supporting material linked. We also have the legendary Imran Khan coming out of blogging retirement for a one-time-only appearance to provide his updates to his tens of thousands of fans, along with some other observations along the way in a dedicated section, since there are hundreds of thousands of people awaiting his sequel to his magnum opus article.

There is probably no human being alive that will fully agree or fully disagree with this entire article (and we certainly don't fully agree with each other). Each of our opinions are exclusively our own. We aim to evoke all possible emotions with near simultaneous combination, as well as to observe the effect of combining so many audiences at once. This publication is going to change the trajectory of society itself in small but distinct ways.

By Kartik Gada :

1) The Economy :

a) There is no subject that affects more people, yet has so little written about it, as the exponential, accelerating trend in economic progress. It affects everything, yet under five people (including me) have written anything substantive about it in the last 12+ years.

b) Half of all economic growth that has ever happened, has happened after 1998. This, too, is only if one takes the suboptimal metric of GDP as the measurement. If asset price growth net of inflation is taken as the metric, then half of all economic growth that has ever happened, has happened after 2010.

c) The US Federal Reserve, and by extension the entire profession of Macroeconomics, is so completely out of date in terms of how technological forces have changed their assumptions, that what is blindingly obvious to people outside of their ivory tower is still submerged by their denial. There is no other field where the establishment is this out of touch with changes in their own field, and thus no field with a higher 'egghead' quotient. Major historical turning points often follow the collapse of such an existing stronghold of outdated orthodoxy.

d) The US Federal Reserve still thinks Quantitative Easing was to be a temporary program, and that the 'normal' Fed Funds rate is around 3%, despite nearly a decade of being wrong about this. In reality, the Fed Funds rate will eventually be nearly 0% permanently, and QE will also be permanent (and at exponentially rising levels) in order to simulate the effect of negative interest rates. There are already $16 Trillion worth of bonds with negative yields, and either this figure will rise or the level of worldwide QE will.

e) The Federal Reserve, with their army of 600 PhDs, has been exposed as not even looking at metrics they have touted in the past, such as the yield curve and the CPI inflation rate. It was revealed that they base their decisions on just one metric, which is the unemployment rate. They think that when the unemployment rate goes below 5.0% and then 4.0%, high inflation is imminent (just because that happened in 1969, long before technology was a significant part of the economy), so the Federal Reserve raised rates despite no evidence of inflation and in complete violation of their own states priorities regarding the yield curve. 600 PhDs is thus no better than having one PhD (which apparently is worse than having zero PhDs), when the only thing they can ever imagine is tinkering along the edges. They are the ideological successors of the 1900-era engineering establishment that insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines are not possible.

f) It is extremely easy for even a teenager to understand what ivory tower Economists with their PhDs don't, about why very low unemployment combined with QE has still not caused inflation. In 1969, when so many people had jobs, they bought houses and cars, which are materially intensive to build, and so shortages led to bidding wars among buyers. But now, if just 2% of one's consumption is software (vs. 0% in 1969), that is enough to offset inflation since software has no material component so can never run out of supply or experience inventory or distribution mismatches. It is that simple, but the Economics profession has memorized too much 1969-era material to retool their thinking.

g) Economists who devise policy do not interact with actual entrepreneurs and investors, except in highly orchestrated, limited ways analogous to how visitors at the zoo look at the confined animals for a few minutes per exhibit. That is why they need an army of PhDs to figure out what a small restaurant owner already knows about the minimum wage law. The US would be in astronomically better shape if the Federal Reserve were instead run by a council of randomly selected small business owners, rather than Economics PhD eggheads. Plus, the business owners would not even have to be full-time at the Federal Reserve; they could just conference into a weekly conference call and cast their votes on monetary policy changes each week. Again, this would deliver vastly better results than the thousands of full-time, taxpayer funded staff at the Federal Reserve.

h) Industries where the positions of power are the most hereditary are entertainment, politics, academia, and asset management via private funds (Hedge Funds, Venture Capital Funds, etc.). For this reason, these industries are prime targets for technological disruption.

i) It has been statistically verified that all humans are connected within approximately six degrees of separation. What is even more evident is that almost all private wealth and decision-making authority regarding that wealth is connected within three degrees of separation. This will not change, as power is inherently zero-sum in a way that money is certainly not.

j) The best economic system, that creates the most prosperity for the greatest range of people, is a free-market system that employs regulation to contain industries that profit in correlation with misery of others. This is where America has lost the plot, as the words I have underlined above are crucial, and are not seen from either side of the debate. Every industry wants to grow, and there are industries that grow by spreading more misery (cancer management, the military-industrial complex, prisons, tort law, social media, opioids, high fructose corn syrup, big pharma, tax code complexity, etc.). The primary role of regulation is to contain this specific category of industries within a free-market system, as there should never be too great of a perverse incentive to profit from the misery of others. Once that is regulated and monitored, the free market system is the best one by far.

k) It is a tragedy that job searches take longer today than they did 35 years ago, despite the presence of email, the Internet, smartphones, and more. This is an example where technology has completely failed to improve the productivity of a process.

2) The ATOM :



a) The fundamental thesis, that QE-type programs to effectively 'print' money will no longer cause inflation due to the technological deflation that offsets it, continues to be proven true. Most of the 'inflation' scaremongers have gone silent. Meanwhile, the ATOM publication has been read by over 400,000 people.

b) Even the US Federal Reserve, painfully incurious about changes to the field of macroeconomics, has been forced into compliance (albeit still without the updated understanding to navigate the modern economic landscape). They have already been forced to reverse most of their ill-conceived 'Quantitative Tightening'.

c) As of 1/1/2020, $24 Trillion is worldwide QE has already been done, and about $200B/month of additional QE is being added to that total as we speak. Almost no US or European economist circa 2012 thought there would still be any QE going on at all by now (and that it would have in fact been reversed). Rather, the number will be permanent and keep rising, as per the ATOM fundamentals. There is no 'peak' QE, contrary to the chart.

d) The ever expanding frontier where low-tech gets converted to high-tech (as defined in the ATOM publication) now is underway in dozens of individual industries and product categories at once. Many industries that were full of people who were not interested in technology have discovered, to their chagrin, that technology was nonetheless interested in them. Refer to the Carnival of Creative Destruction.

e) The ATOM component of the world economy will rise from slightly under 3% today to about 6% on 1/1/2030. That is a huge increase, making the amount of technological disruption happening in the world at that time far higher than is the case today.

f) The list of economic and technological practices and beliefs that people in the future (i.e. post-2035) will find odd about the early 21st century :

i) Back in the 1830s, when artificial refrigeration did not exist, transporting insulated blocks of ice from Boston to Calcutta (over 10,000 miles by sea) was a profitable business. Lest you laugh at this, the practice of transporting hydrocarbon fuel from the Persian Gulf to Houston, Texas is equally absurd in terms of future technology, and will be seen as such by many people already alive today. ii) That the United States allocated millions of acres of land to retail shopping, over six times as much per capita as other Western countries, and greatly resisted the natural market forces to correct this distortion. This led to a weird, uneven cityscape in many major American metropolitan areas. iii) That 1.2 million people a year being killed in automobile accidents was considered normal. iv) That there was a widespread belief that automation would create mass unemployment. v) Every myth about scarcity fails to manifest, yet that does not stop such memes from emerging and being promoted by small-minded people. Everything from 'peak oil' to 'QE causes inflation' turned out to be wrong. As of 2020, we can no more experience a lengthy acute shortage in a need met by a material commodity than we can run out of atoms. vi) That young people allowed themselves to go into debt to the tune of years worth of their future discretionary income, because employers required this just to gain a credential that allowed access to the middle tier of the employment market, even if the experience from a University degree has little to no bearing on success factors needed for an entry-level position (or at least did not contain skills that could not be learned elsewhere for free). vii) That inflation was still a fear, and that it took so long for the ATOM set of ideas (i.e. transferral of taxation away from humans and onto technological deflation) took so long to be implemented, despite how obvious the solution was in hindsight. viii) That a lengthy and expensive credential was considered to be a pre-requisite for participation in middle to higher tiers of the workforce, despite that credential doing very little to increase suitability for workforce participation. ix) That there were such things as kidney dialysis, and kidney transplant wait lists, under which millions of people suffer daily. x) That we taxed human output, without realizing that we could fund government by taxing the output of automation instead. xi) That celebrities were paid vast sums of money to 'endorse' a product they don't even use, and that consumers are persuaded by this.

g) The smaller, less conspicuous examples of technological deflation and the resultant productivity enhancement are nonetheless immense when added up to a cumulative whole.

i) Video-based instruction is immensely valuable. The number of online videos that teach a viewer how to change the battery, brake pads, spark plugs, etc. of your specific car is impressive. These videos are far easier to follow than text-based manuals, and might reduce what may have been an expensive and inconvenient visit to a mechanic to under a fifth of the cost. Note that it is also easy to order the exact part you may need, which was not very easy before. The same goes for video instruction for cooking, filling out government forms, etc. ii) The shift of consumer software consumption from buying boxed software in a retail store to downloading it online is immense. Everything from all the transport involved in stocking the store to the customer traveling to and from, to the ease of international distribution, to removal of the retailer margin, comprises a huge productivity gain all around. Note that GDP is calculated in a manner that does not reward this sort of productivity gain except in a very delayed and indirect way.

h) Automation always creates more jobs than it destroys, as long as the government does not make it too difficult to be an entrepreneur. Any job automated means the employer is saving that money, and new businesses that could not have broken even before now can. Despite years of scaremongering about net job loss from automation, the US unemployment rate happens to be at a 50-year low.

i) People don't realize how much automobiles have improved. For example, in the early 1980s, the Corvette was heavily featured in television and films as an impressive sportscar. The 1982 Corvette had just 200 Horsepower, comparable to compact sedans of 2020 which have thrice the fuel efficiency. The 2020 Corvette has over 500 Horsepower in the base model, with premium models exceeding 750. Lifespans of cars have risen, and the need for maintenance has fallen (we no longer see those rainbow oil slicks in parking lots as was common in the 1980s).

j) The sheer quality and quantity of educational information available online for free is a sight to behold, making ignorance far less excusable than before. As just one example, if you want to become knowledgeable about history, astronomy, and paleontology in a short time, view the linked videos, pausing frequently to look up topics on Wikipedia. A further tool of astronomical literacy is Celestia, which is also free. You can achieve a great leap within a single weekend. Speaking for myself, knowledge that took me thousands of hours to acquire in my youth (including begging my parents to take me to the library to check out books and return the old ones) could now be acquired in under 1/20th of the time and at lower cost. The savings worldwide are even greater when you account for the fact that most countries don't even have good public libraries.

k) The four-pronged disruption of the automobile experience was detailed in a prior article, and I maintain that 2032 is when we will see most people eschewing car ownership to use self-driving Ubers, that are fully electric, and lead to a vast repurposement of defunct strip mall and parking lot land into something considerably more high-tech.

l) The Sovereign Venture Fund is about $2 Trillion of virtually 'free' money available to the first country that does it. The general concept is to capture the entire world's technological deflation for domestic benefit, before another country does it. After that, some agreement of division may have to be done, but the first $2 Trillion is 'free'.

m) I estimate that we will experience a Technological Singularity (and hence an Economic one) in 2062 ± 8 years.

n) The ATOM is not Modern Monetary Theory. That is just socialism of another form, and makes no mention of technological deflation or the exponential rate of change. The ATOM set of ideas is something far more advanced, and is to MMT what a Model T is to a 2020 Lamborghini. Read the ATOM FAQs here.

3) Human Progress :

a) Inequality is not what you think it is. It has more to do with whether you were born in a sufficiently advanced era relative to your skillset and persona.

b) The UN Human Development Index (HDI), either by accident or by design, never adjusts up the cutoff above which a country is considered 'High' prosperity. In 1980, there were barely a dozen countries in this category, but now, over 120 countries exceed the definition of what in 1980 was considered 'High Human Development'. That includes countries traditionally not considered prosperous (as they were not until very recently), such as Mexico and China.

c) Sub-Saharan Africa, and problematic pockets such as Haiti and Afghanistan, are among the very few countries that will still be 'poor' by 2030, at least as per the 1980 definition.

d) Too few people realize how a growing list of things that were unavailable even to billionaires a generation ago are now low cost or even free, which is another manifestation of ATOM principles. I have written about this in the past, and this continues to be true.

e) This chart (from hdi.globaldatalb.org) about Human Development by sub-national entity is very informative. Will the inexorable prosperity curve hack down the remaining pockets of poverty, or are some places just too far gone?

f) People tend to assume that whatever they have seen in the middle 40 years of their lives is going to be permanent. Young people who have not yet entered this phase tend to overestimate the rate of change, while older people who have passed through this phase insist that all technological progress is overrated and no other societal factors will change. Both are incorrect.

g) "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.” - Robert Heinlein

4) Astronomy and the Space Age :

a) One of the great coincidences of our existence is that the Sun and the Moon have about the same apparent size when viewed from Earth. The Sun is 400 times greater in diameter, but is also 400 times further way. This makes perfect solar eclipses possible.

b) No one who knows anything about astronomy can possibly be troubled that Pluto has been demoted out of planethood status (it is now considered a 'dwarf planet' along with several other objects of similar size). Pluto has a mass less than 1/20th that of the next smallest planet, is not the dominant object in its orbit, and is not in the plane of the other planets. The only reason Pluto was ever considered to be a planet is because it was first thought to be far more massive, and it was the first object of its type discovered. Those who protest this merely found the burden of memorizing the names of nine planets to be onerous enough, and oppose all change. They know little about astronomy, and are entirely unaware that Ceres, the largest asteroid, was also briefly considered to be a planet when it was first discovered, in a very analogous sequence of events. In addition, a larger object, Eris, was discovered more recently, and meets all the criteria that those who insist Pluto is a planet put forth. Unsurprisingly, the oppose any claim of Eris being a planet even if Pluto is, if they have ever even heard of Eris at all. Image from Wikipedia.

c) Humans will not be visiting space en masse at any point in the near future. At the moment, even 58+ years after the first humans in space, the number of people in space at any given time rarely, if ever, reaches double digits. Space exploration by Artificial Intelligence is quite literally millions of times more cost-effective, since an AI does not require air, water, or a large living space, and can survive in a far wider band of temperature, pressure, gravity, and radiation than a fragile human. Sending humans into space entirely fails any cost-benefit analysis for any presently envisioned application. We are still very far from a time when there are even 1000 humans in space at once. Instead, we will soon send thousands of AIs housed in smartphone-sized hardware into space in all directions, which will gather thousands of times more scientific knowledge than we currently possess about space.

d) A sphere of 10 light years in radius from the Sun has a volume of 4189 cubic light years. This sphere contains only about 8 solar masses, so that the average density of this space is under 0.2% of a solar mass per cubic light year, or barely two Jupiters of mass per cubic light year. The same density exists if the radius of the sphere is extended to 20 light years (52-54 solar masses will be the ultimate total once all objects are fully searched). Even this is space that resides well within a galaxy, for intergalactic space is far more sparse than this.

e) The distance between the Sun and the nearest star system is over 26 million times the diameter of the Sun. Nonetheless, the Sun is still easily visible from that distance, indicating how luminous stars are relative to their surface area. Note that the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy is another 22,000 times greater still.

f) Telescopic power is an exponential technology, and rises at a square root of Moore's Law rate, or about 26% a year. This is because if the diameter of a pixel is halved, you need four to occupy the area that was previously occupied by one. Video game graphics improve at the same rate for the same reason. I pointed this out in 2009, and since that time, the number of exoplanets discovered has increased by about 11x, and the number of Near Earth Objects (NEOs) has also increased at that rate. Due to this trend, the next decade will reveal many wonders, ranging from another 40,000+ exoplanets to more precise mapping of dangerous NEOs to more direct images of the surfaces of stars (another thing that has never been photographed until very recently).

g) Because of the rapid advance in telescopic power, don't worry about an asteroid hitting the Earth. It is not the 1990s anymore.

h) Despite the ongoing improvement in telescopic power, my 2009 prediction that we are unlikely to find any evidence of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence more advanced than us continues to hold. The Accelerating Rate of Change makes it far less likely that there are a large number of civilizations more advanced than us (although there could be many less advanced than us). I predict that we will still not have found any evidence 10 years from now either, or even by the 2063 timeframe depicted in the Star Trek franchise. See below for how 'First Contact' may actually happen.

5) Evolution and Biology :

a) The evolution of intelligence displays a distinct exponential trend that has never broken. No matter how large the extinction event, the trendline that measures the intelligence of the most intelligent creature on Earth keeps rising, and has never, ever been broken.

b) The Hans Moravec chart to the right is badly in need of updates, was way too ambitious, and failed to account for software as the bottleneck that core processing power cannot blast through, but nonetheless depicts not just acceleration of biological intelligence, but the convergence of that into computing (again, my estimate is 2060-65).

c) The evidence of catastrophic extinction events from eons ago still exists today. The largest extinction event ever was 252 million years ago, before which the dominant life form on land was amphibians. Over 96% of all species went extinct, and live recovered in a different direction. Hence, there are only three kinds of amphibians today, and most are under 1 kg in weight. Similarly, the second largest extinction event ever (and the most famous) was 66 million years ago. Reptiles were dominant before then, but evolution went in the direction of mammals and birds. Reptiles today are only found in four types, and most are relatively small. Reptiles suffered less of a regression than amphibians because the scale of the extinction event that struck when reptiles were dominant was a bit less severe.

d) Evolutionary convergence is an amazing indicator of the deeply embedded 'software code' of life. There were instances where sharks (fish), ichthyosaurs (reptiles), and dolphins all evolved into uncannily similar shapes millions of years apart. On land, ankylosaurs (reptiles) and glyptodonts (mammals) similar evolved into nearly identical sizes and shapes eons apart. Pterosaurs (reptiles) and bats (mammals) are yet another example. Certain physical forms are optimal for certain means of movement, but that the same shapes appeared millions of years apart in creatures that don't share common ancestors unless one goes extremely far back, is remarkable.

e) As per point a) above, this software has a very obvious exponential recursive mechanism built into it. While recovery from the aforementioned massive extinction events took 10 million and 3 million years respectively, if a similar event were to occur now, it might take a very small amount of time for a rebound to complete itself.

f) Brains are expensive. Human intelligence is due to a brain that consumes a large portion of human nutrients and energy, and thus comes at the cost of having thin skin, small and weak teeth and nails, and low physical strength. A human would fare very poorly in a fight with an animal of similar size (such as a leopard, wild boar, small alligator, or small bear). Even a smaller animal such as a chimpanzee or grey wolf can easily defeat an adult human male. We have survived only because intelligence gave us teamwork and the ability to make increasingly more effective weapons. This is also why all intermediate stages of proto-human between the intelligence levels of humans and chimpanzees died out long ago; they were outcompeted from both above and below.

g) Evolution is ongoing and accelerating. I consider new technologies that speed up educational outcomes and cognitive capacity to be part of the natural trendline of accelerating intelligence.

h) As stated above in 4(c), we may never have a large number of humans living in space. As AI is far more suited for space than humans are, perhaps the endgame of evolution on Earth is for AI to spread outwards into space. Perhaps contact between extraterrestrial intelligence only happens between two AIs that encounter each other, and then communicate at the base Assembly Language (or Quantum Qu-bit) level.

6) Historical Observations :

a) Laws, once passed, are extremely sticky. It may surprise you to learn that France still executed convicts on death row via guillotine as recently as 1977, and the law existed all the way until 1981. Similarly, 'anti-miscegenation' laws existed in Alabama until 2000.

b) It takes time for a technology to mature (even if this process continues to accelerate in the modern era). Vikings reached North America by 1000 AD, but their colonies failed. By the 16th century, the powers of Western Europe had the colonization template down, and were able to take over most of the two continents. For the British Empire, this was so refined and efficient by the late 18th century that despite having started very late in Australia, they were at a point of such turnkey implementation that they could create a fully functional colony in a very short time.

c) The British Empire was the greatest demonstration of a late-mover advantage of all time. Iberians landed in the Americas and in India long before the British, but declined as the British were ascendant. Hence, the British were the ones to ultimately take control of land that eventually became the United States and Canada, and became the ones to colonize India. Furthermore, the Chinese, Spanish, and Dutch all could have (or in some cases, did) land in Australia centuries before James Cook in 1795, but as the British Empire had the science of colonization down to a turnkey level by that point, while also controlling resource-rich (at the time) India, they were the ones to become the dominant culture of that continent (New Zealand was always going to be colonized by whoever controlled Australia first).

d) Every atrocity imaginable has happened in Europe within the last 100 years. Despite the high degree of civilization today, everything from genocide to state-conducted beheadings to chemical weapons usage to widespread cannibalism has happened in Europe in the last century. This fact can be interpreted in glass-half-full and glass-half-empty ways.

e) Few realize how quickly the economic center of gravity is converging back to the East.

f) When Europeans first landed in the Americas, the natives had not invented the wheel, metallurgy, boats that were capable of ocean voyages, or the domestication of any riding or draft animal. They were thousands of years behind Eurasia.

g) The Queen of the United Kingdom has been an exemplary monarch for 68 years. Because of the unusually long duration of her reign and her sterling conduct, people have forgotten that there is a debate beneath the surface about the continuation of the monarchy itself. When the Queen passes, calls for an end to the monarchy will resurface immediately. The monarchy will not end since it generates too much tourism revenue, but it may shrink. It is excessive for adults further down than third in line to get to live in opulence at taxpayer expense, as anyone further down than that has absolutely no chance of ever ascending to the throne in the modern age. Expect the list of opulence privilege to be shortened considerably when succession occurs.

7) India :

a) India is about to surpass China as the most populous country in the world (India already has vastly more young people than China). When the mainstream media notices this, the resultant media coverage will create a number of secondary effects. India is woefully underprepared for the spotlight.

b) If you are interested in visiting India, there is a tremendous amount to see (among the highest of any country), but I still do not recommend that anyone visit India as a tourist before 2025. There are too many aspects of the experience that lack the benefit of basic modernization as of now, but may be substantially improved by 2025, as India is in the process of skipping an entire generation of technology. Also, as with any trip to an unfamiliar location, be sure to watch a few recent travel vlogs first.

c) A tremendous amount of valuable science, philosophy, and art has been produced by India. But almost all of it was over 300 years ago. Recent contributions are scant.

d) A variety of 'experts' keep saying India will break up into smaller pieces, but this has not happened since 1947, even as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia did in fact break up instead. On the contrary, India has achieved what the EU has completely failed to - create a giant nation by unifying a variety of smaller linguistic and cultural regions. In fact, India has thrice the population of what even a united EU would have, and has to deal with poverty that the EU does not have.

e) Much has been written about how the British Empire strip-minded India of every valuable resource, while others write about how British institutions benefited India. I have evaluated both sides in detail, and have concluded that British colonization of the Indian Subcontinent was a wash to a slight negative, but certainly not a huge determinant of India's long-term trajectory. What is for certain is that the poverty India still has in 2020 is certainly not the fault of the British who departed in 1947. Indians need to get over that. Note that India's diaspora, which resides almost entirely in countries that were parts of the British Empire at various times (making it easier for Indians to succeed there), remits $90B/year back to India as we speak (with another $35B/year remitted to Pakistan + Bangladesh, which were also part of British India until 1947). While these remittances didn't become significant until 2000, it nonetheless comprises of something that is directly connected to the footprint of the erstwhile British Empire.

f) There is a certain pervasive and inescapable toxicity (biological, chemical, and psychological) that exists in India, which leads to even wealthy people born there to end up much shorter, physically weaker, and less attractive than a person of the same genetics would be in a better environment (see 'Indian Americans' below). This pattern is pervasive, and, again, affects wealthy people all the same. As evidence, observe how poorly India does at the Olympics, vs. the fact that Indians born in the West have a much higher proportion of top-tier athletes in their ranks. More subjectively, the average Western-born Indian woman would place at about the 85th percentile of looks among young women from prosperous backgrounds of the same age in India. There is little awareness of this, and even wealthy Indians have too little exposure to the outside world to even notice (or otherwise choose to nurture a denial). But this comprises a massive and preventable wastage of human capital.

g) India has the second highest amount of arable land in the world, and the highest in the Eastern hemisphere. Yet, it is not a net food exporter, a status that would not only boost its economy, but make it entirely secure from any military aggression. Lest one say that India has too many people to be a food exporter, The Netherlands has the same population density as India, and a much colder climate, yet is a huge food exporter. This lack of vision (among many others) will continue to keep India in a state of relative destitution for some time to come.

h) Despite moderate economic progress, India still ranks in the 120-129 range out of the 185+ countries in the world in terms of any prosperity metric, which is the same approximate ranking it had 30 years ago. Alas, it is not going to break into a ranking better than 110, let alone 100, in the foreseeable future, contrary to what many Indians have self-deluded themselves into thinking. India is a growing economy in absolute terms, but in relative terms, not so much. Economically, it is not in China's league by any stretch, despite the fact that China's per capita GDP did not surpass India's until 1993.

8) Indian Americans :

a) Indian Americans are the most successful nation-categorized ethnic group in the US by household income, bar none. This is atypical, as it is commonplace for immigrants from poor countries to underperform in the United States as well. There is no other example where the diaspora in the US has anywhere near as large a gap with the prosperity of the original country. As this fact is not yet widely known, when it becomes such, many things about US and international geopolitics will adjust in surprising directions.

b) It is often claimed that the Indians in the US are the 'cognitive elite' of India, but that is not quite true. Why would that be more true of India than of China, or Russia, or Brazil, or Pakistan? In my experience, the Indians in the US come from the Top 20% of India, ranked by intelligence, but not weighted towards the Top 1% by any stretch, as is sometimes claimed by those who want to minimize Indian-American success. Many of the wealthiest Indians in the US are owners of hotel and gas station networks, rather than elite white collar professionals with advanced degrees.

c) Note that Indians are not recipients of affirmative action in the US, contrary to default perception, since they are an Asian ethnicity. In fact, Asians (Indians included) are increasingly discriminated against in areas like admissions to elite universities, for fear that these Asians might become the majority of entrants.

d) Despite this success, foreign-born Indian Americans have a relatively low assimilation index in the United States, at least in terms of measures outside of economic success. They are quick to limit their socializing to not just other Indians, but others from the same sub-ethnicity if enough of those people are to be found in their town. For this reason, the generation gap between US-born children of Indian immigrants and their parents is among the highest of any ethnic group. Of course, the assimilation rate of the US-born 2nd generation is the only one that matters, as the foreign-born parents eventually fade out.

e) Complicating the identity crisis of Indian Americans is the fact that in the United States, the words 'Indian', 'Caucasian', and 'Asian' are all used inaccurately. Native Americans are called 'Indians' because Columbus thought he in fact landed in India, which is where he wanted to reach in the first place, since it was the world's largest economy at the time. It is amazing that the most economically successful ethnic group still resides in a blind spot of categorization that the other 99% possess.

f) I am disgusted to see some Indian-Americans trying to cash in by packaging themselves as 'anti-white' propagandists. This is extremely unwise and entirely without justification, since white Americans and Canadians are the least racist white people on Earth; Indians wouldn't be so successful here if most whites were racist towards Indians. Plus, Indians partaking in this are appropriating the real historical oppression of African Americans and Native Americans by doing so. It is far better to be seen as a 'model minority' than a 'hostile elite' (the only two choices available given the low assimilation rate of Indians), particularly when one can point out, with full justification, that these individuals are free to leave and go to India rather than complain over here. They are also abusing the fact that to Americans, India is the second most favorably perceived non-Western country and most favorably perceived country in the world among those without an advanced economy. Furthermore, the aforementioned types of Indians tend to get onto trends that are already peaking and in decline, and are a reliable indicator of such.

g) Ian Grillot is an all-American hero who risked his life to save Indian immigrants amidst a murderous hate crime. Fortunately, Indian-Americans honored him and raised a $100,000 reward for him, and I want to make sure he is recognized for years to come beyond just the Indian community. For Indian-Americans reading this, the next Ian Grillot might save your life, while an Indian who writes anti-white articles is, conversely, fostering a sentiment that endangers both your physical and financial well-being.

9) Interpersonal Interaction :

a) Vastly inaccurate accusations are almost always projection on the part of the accuser. They dislike certain aspects of themselves, and have to channel this outward rather than undertake the more difficult task of self-examination. The appropriate response is not to defend yourself, but immediately counterattack by pointing out the projection.

b) Sadly, whenever there is an altercation, most people don't care who 'started it'. If someone attacks you and you defend yourself, most people will say that both parties are at fault. This goes back to ancient human instinct from pre-historic times, where the 'winner is always retroactively in the right'.

c) People who debate via anecdote rather than through data-driven facts tend to not be very successful in life, as they will often miscalculate probabilities and make poor decisions.

d) Avoid dealing with people who use the word 'asshole' with significant frequency, even if the people they describe are deserving of scorn. Such people tend to have poor character and counterproductive habits. Ironically, the same is not necessarily true of people who partake in moderate use of the word 'fuck'.

e) Children of wealthy families have more confidence, as a byproduct of their privileged upbringing. This often is interpreted as proof of competence. Be wary of assuming that such competence exists, because it usually does not.

f) Anyone who yells at people in a weaker power position (i.e. when the yeller faces no real risk), with little provocation or over trivial matters, is someone who is not merely a coward, but someone who never achieves anything of significance. Avoid such people in all business and social matters. If your parents treat you this way, and if you are old enough, take steps to keep all contact to a bare minimum. You have no obligation to receive abuse when your time can be spent elsewhere. Put a higher price on yourself and your time.

g) Similarly, be very skeptical of people who go on gratuitous power trips. Most of the time, this is a subconscious attempt to distract away from how little substance is actually behind their act, and the insecurity they languish in as a result. This is common among people who hail from high-profile families, but themselves have little to no talent or brainpower.

h) Avoid people who are committed to misunderstanding you (negatively). Any energy spent on them will be a waste. Cut your losses quickly and quietly, and interact elsewhere.

i) The two most powerful words in the English language are "Make me". If someone demands that you do something, this will give them an ultimatum to either escalate immediately, or they will never be in a position to irritate you again. Despite the chance of short-term conflict, using these two words intelligently can save you a lot of time and expense.

j) The sons of exceptionally wealthy and famous fathers tend to have very easy lives as long as the father is alive (assume this to be age 50-55 on average for the son). This is because people proactively do favors for the son just to earn the goodwill of the father. Note that this is a force the father has no power to obstruct, no matter how much he taught his son to be humble. After the father passes, people who were proactively doing favors for the sons suddenly discontinue such favors, and the son is left to flounder as this is the first time in his life, at age 50, that he has to experience the world of everyone else; a world that is no longer so easy. The son will not be able to pinpoint what exactly changed, and often cannot adjust to this status demotion at this late of an age. Steer clear of these implosions, as they are not pretty and there is collateral damage (e.g. an entire inherited business might get run into the ground, with all employees laid off). Only sons with similar talent levels as the father (very rare) are exempt from this. Think about examples of this sequence of events you may have observed, and take steps to avoid any proximity to the next one. This does not apply to daughters with the same precision.

k) Limit any professional interaction with people who dress below the standard than is appropriate for a setting, or otherwise put insufficient effort into their personal appearance (unless they have already received major accolades for exceptional research or innovation). This is indicative of unsuitability for a professional collaboration, even if the person is a pleasant person in general. There are plenty of fools that are quick to point out that 'XXXX tech billionaire dresses poorly'. Usage of such an example indicates that a confusion between the concepts of 'because of' and 'in spite of'. Sartorial excellence is still valuable in this world.

l) The best people to associate with are those who :

i) Don't treat those who are (or are perceived to be) lower-status people badly just because they can do so without accountability.

ii) Possess a wide range of knowledge about seemingly disparate subjects, and have mastered skills or subject areas you wish to excel in.

iii) Are continuously working on several aspects of self-improvement, and seem to be getting results.

10) Slice of Life :

a) To help society the most, do what you do best.

b) A fire hydrant might be used for a three-hour period every 50 years, or less than 0.001% of the time, on average. For this reason, it is illogical for there to be a rule that cars cannot park in front of it, particularly when this reduces the available parking in an urban setting by several percent. Fire hydrants in urban areas should be retrofitted with a rigid plastic or metal yellow or red flag that is 6-7 feet high, so that when that one day arrives, it is visible even if a car is parked in front of it. The parking situation in many cities can be eased somewhat immediately, and the city can get more parking meter revenue that will swiftly pay back the retrofitting cost.

c) Americans spent $80 Billion in real estate commission fees in 2019. Despite the presence of companies like Redfin, it is amazing that this has not been technologically disrupted through a LegalZoom-type service, or through more advanced smart contracts on distributed ledgers, rather than an unjustified percentage fee. Particularly for homes above $1 million in value, it is certain that the buyer and seller have common professional contacts on LinkedIn. There should be a service where common contacts vouch for the transaction, observe the signing, register notarization in a smart contract, and collect at $1000 fee for their two hours of trouble. This could greatly lower the transaction costs, which in turn will enable more transactions. If Linkedin or another company pursues this idea, I expect a small royalty fee.

d) Why do cars have only one type of horn sound, instead of two? There is a big difference between a desire to communicate a polite "if you could move, that would be splendid" vs. a "MOVE, YOU ^&^%$(X%!!!", so automobile horns should at least have two choices of sound in order to differentiate between the tone intended by the horn honker. A lot of road rage incidents could be avoided. If cars adopt this idea, I expect a small royalty fee or lump sum payout.

e) Why is a 'good' hotel merely the most expensive one? If anything, the value per dollar declines as the price of a hotel rises. It is unfortunate that being more expensive is equated with being 'good', when the true metric ought to be value per money. This misconception plagues many consumer goods.

f) The United States is still forming. The mean center of population has drifted over 1000 miles westward, and now resides in Missouri. The fact that the Federal Government is so far from what is now the mean center of population is the source of many problems, including many seemingly unrelated ones. We should consider, at the 250th anniversary of our founding in 2026, moving the Federal Government to somewhere near Southern Missouri, with the understanding that it could move again in 50 years time if the population center drifts too far away from there.

g) The United States is still forming. Interracial reproduction was taboo even in the 1980s, with almost none of the most popular television programs of the time depicting any significant interracial romantic relationship except when that itself is central to the plot. But now, 20% of babies more in the US are interracial, and that number is rising quickly. Over 30% of second-generation Hispanic and Asian Americans intermarry (mostly with whites). Over 20% of babies born are now mixed-race (not counting the fact that most Hispanics are already mixed-race).

Now, without further ado, I step aside and make way for the man that most of you came here for. I do not endorse any of his political content or views. The fact remains, he can somehow manage to get more traffic for a single article than many bloggers get from a hundred articles. The legend returns...

By Imran Khan :

Today is 1/1/2020. I have long since stopped blogging, and am coming out of retirement for just this one article, because I committed to it 10 years ago when I wrote one of the most famous Internet articles of all time (mentioned in the New York Times a few times), and thousands of readers are expecting the sequel. I was quite moved by the number of men who said the article changed their life for the better, or were brought to tears by it (which is extraordinary for a written article). Many women are fans of it too, as they recognize that I am trying to help everyday women as well, since they are equally the victims of those who oppose gender realism. The article itself has outlasted almost all of the links in it.

While I was born in America, I have expatriated out of the United States to live in one of the Middle Eastern countries that is popular among expats, and where the state and society still wants family men. Unlike most of the Western 'red-pill' movement, most of my knowledge about the truths of gender realism is from my Islamic faith, and has been common knowledge to many Muslims for centuries (and is readily present in the Christian Bible too). I just am someone who can translate these scriptural concepts into words that an American/British/Canadian audience can grok instantly. I am not the same Imran Khan who is the 67-year-old current Prime Minister of Pakistan.

11) The Misandry Bubble :

"Women, Children, and Pets are loved unconditionally, a man is only loved under the condition that he produce something" - Chris Rock

a) The Misandry Bubble, as predicted in the article itself on 1/1/2010, became the manifesto of the anti-misandry movement. It has been read by over 1 million people to date, and the Reddit(s) that cite this article as such have over 300,000 members. Due to this, we are definitely past peak misandry as of now. While most of the blogs linked in the original essay have been deleted or even deplatformed, the readers and contributors have diffused and burrowed deeper into the Internet, making the truths exposed more widely known than they otherwise might have been.

b) As predicted exactly 10 years ago :

i) There is still no organized Men's Rights movement, in terms of protests, lawsuits, petitions, etc. In fact, there are individuals who pretend to be Men's Rights Activists just to get donations from mistreated men desperate to fight back, but who have no intention of doing any activism. Any activism that actually damages the misandric apparatus is quickly reversed. Don't give them any of your money or any other form of endorsement.

ii) 'Sexbots' are still no closer to reality than they were in 2010, but VR Sex is all but here. As explained a decade before, this benefits even men who don't use it, as it corrects the imbalance in the marketplace. Yet, there are still technological ignoramuses who fixate on the prospect of 'bots' that will not arrive in the near future because there are too many product design obstacles. This includes the campaigns by (very unattractive) women to ban these 'imminent' sexbots, and thus are oblivious to the far more imminent technological and social disruption of VR substitution. The rise of aggressive new STDs, with women as carriers, are an additional force advancing VR Sex.

iii) The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation have all advanced, but the fourth advanced the most. Observe how huge of a move there has been by men to avoid marriage (both consciously and subconsciously), and how apps like Tinder have served to organize all women for efficient 'on demand' usage by the top 20% of men, ensuring that these women are made permanently unsuitable for marriage on account of having had 20, 50, or 100 prior sexual partners.

iv) In the US, the departure of young men from marriage is causing a predictable panic among women and 'social conservatives', who just cannot tolerate men acting in accordance with their own self-preservation. Demands for more government coercion will be next, and expect the most oppressive ideas to originate from 'social conservative' Republicans, rather than radical 'feminists'.

v) The grassroots backlash against corporate misandry is now powerful, swift, and international. Gillette's ill-conceived decision to vilify its core customer just so that a few mid-level agitators could outdo each other's displays of misandric flamboyance caused an $8 billion loss for the company. The 'Get Woke, Go Broke' phenomenon continues to manifest.

vi) Similarly, extreme 'feminist' displays of narcissism peaked with the 'ShirtGate' episode, where a major event in human scientific progress was hijacked by some of the most petty, anti-civilization 'feminists' ever (with creepy 'male feminists' piling on). The episode continues to be referenced as the epitome of 'feminist' ugliness and anti-enlightenment as few incidents encapsulate everything wrong with 'feminism' so completely. The army of people who rushed to the defense of the abused scientist, on what should have been the greatest ever day of his career, was heartening. Revealingly, nothing quite so absurd in terms of 'feminist' abuse of a non-political person has happened since. If you want to pinpoint an exact incident and week where the Misandry Bubble peaked, November 14-21, 2014 was it.

vii) GamerGate was a similar cultural tremor, also in late 2014, that comprised of men who were minding their own business deciding to fight back against 'feminist' demands that they stop their recreation and spend more time producing resources for ungrateful 'feminists' to parasitically consume. The gamers found that 'feminists' are so unaccustomed to being challenged that they could only respond by demanding that other men defend them. Few men volunteered for this thankless task other than some 'male feminists' and cuckservatives (see Section 19 below), and now 'feminists' are too hesitant to harass gamers further. This, too, is a major victory, and a template of what works against misandry.

viii) The fact that 'Male Feminists' are often creepy predators in disguise has become widely known and many such individuals have fortunately been exposed and convicted. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit keeps a running chronicle of the numerous instances where the true nature of such an individual is exposed, and women have written articles warning other women to avoid these sexual predators. The #MeToo movement excised quite a few of these predators, but many still remain. Expose these 'male feminists' proactively and ruthlessly.

ix) 'Feminists' like Hanna Rosin have gloated that 'men are obsolete', and display an exceptionally poor understanding of what the real market forces are as they attempt to make their case. Such intellectual dust mites seem to not realize that about 90% of the world's people don't live in Western Protestant countries. These individuals have gone quiet of late.

x) Melinda Gates' videos about the 'pay gap' and 'women in tech' have just about the worst ratio of upvotes to downvotes in YouTube history. This indicates that the silent army of informed men is orders of magnitude larger than it was a decade ago.

xi) By contrast, parody accounts that portray 'feminists' with great accuracy have over 400,000 followers.

xii) Powerful documentary films, including those made by courageous women, have been produced and viewed by a large number of men, and more men are adapting to avoid risks. Other documentaries have exposed the $50 billion divorce industry for what it is.

xiii) The distinction between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 has been mainstreamed, much to the dismay of cuckservatives, who seem to think following Biblical marriage involves signing a government document, removing all fathers' rights, and eventually replacing the father with forced, USSR-style wealth transfer.

xiv) Even Wikipedia, an organization notorious for remaining in denial about why almost all contributions to Wikipedia are and always will be by men, allows mention of the fact that the human brain is hardwired to treat women more favorably than men to reside on Wikipedia.

xv) The Tea Party swiftly and predictably failed, since blue-pill cuckservatives were giddy about women getting involved. But once in, women disallowed any talk of cutting government spending that goes to women (which, of course, is most government spending). Expecting women to fight for small government is like expecting government employees to fight for small government.

c) Other Misandric Facts :

i) In World War 2, of the 300,000 Americans who died, 16 were women, so about 20,000 men died for every woman who died. In the VietNam War, of the 58,000 Americans who died, 8 were women, so about 7,500 to 1. This was in a time before 'feminism' and a time when many soldiers were drafted, when the narrative insists that women had far worse lives than men. The Female Imperative (FI), also known as Gynocentrism, transcends all centuries and all cultures, as it is biologically hardwired.

ii) In the Protestant West, men are overwhelmingly net tax payers, while women are overwhelmingly net recipients of government spending. These countries have decided to exempt a large portion of the female population from contributing anything of value to society. Expect the flow of international emigration/immigration to reflect this incentive structure, stressing it in both directions, as this becomes more widely known.

iii) Men continue to be sentenced far longer for the same crimes (which even the Huffington Post admits).

iv) This table from Prof. Mark J. Perry pretty much lists all of the statistical facts about how men have it worse than women (click to enlarge). 'Feminists' won't understand the table since innumeracy is a pre-requesite of 'feminism'.

v) The fact that almost all transgender people are male to female rather than the other way around is another indicator of which gender is treated far better by society, and which direction the government mandated wealth transfers flow in. They are merely responding to incentives.

vi) The victims of the Isla Vista shooting amounted to 4 men and 2 women. Yet, the shooting is described as 'misogynist'. The shooter was a staunch 'male feminist' for many years, who actually hated pickup artists since they were succeeding where he was not.

vii) 26 of the 27 deadliest mass shooters were fatherless. Again, remember that 'feminists' and conservatives are both responsible for this situation, as most of the laws that subsidize single motherhood are the inventions of conservatives from the reddest of red states.

viii) There is a growing trend of 'feminists' murdering their young sons, which other 'feminists' approve of as a form of 'post-birth abortion'. The justice system is quite lenient on such women, indicating the cultural momentum in favor of this trend, which portends to the future horror of 'feminists' unilaterally deciding to murder other people's little boys, and facing minimal consequences from the judicial system.

ix) Some boys are beaten to death by their mothers for refusing to dress like a girl (as decided by the mother).

x) Some 'feminists' openly advocate for killing all men, face no penalties for saying that under their real names, and have no curiosity about how the inventions that built modern society even emerged. While this will obviously never gain any traction (who will do the killing?), it is yet another indicator of a mind free of any accountability, as well as how utterly uneducated 'feminists' are no matter what credential they possess. Note the implicit assumption that civilization just 'happens', which has common elements with the 'women in tech' extortion racket explained below.

xi) It is standard media protocol to never mention the father of a child in any news story in which a child features, unless the father can be portrayed negatively. This is hard to notice, but keep an eye out for this absence of mention.

xii) In many cases, shaming language is all they have. Refer to the catalog of anti-male shaming language, which has useful responses for each.

d) Radical 'Feminists' :

i) Radical 'feminists' are wired to protest an advanced society at every imaginable level. If you doubt this, read the links archived here and here. If, part way through, you are too disgusted to continue, that proves my point.

ii) In my youth, I was puzzled as to why all societies Western and Eastern once had a practice of identifying certain women as 'witches' and exiling them from society. Contemporary radical 'feminism' explains why this mechanism existed as a societal immune response.

iii) The scarcest valuable in the entire world is female beauty (as measured by how much money and attention the scarce examples of this attracts). Nonetheless, 'feminism' has induced many formerly attractive young women to deliberately and irrevocably destroy their appearance, and with it, the prospect of living a life where they could have wanted for nothing had they followed a basic life script that their grandmothers would have considered to be normal.

iv) 'Feminists' are often extremely racist. They usually get a free pass on this due to the extreme feminism-favoring structural biases across our society. But their racism is always just under the surface, and bursts forth when any person of color fails to obediently agree with any and all aspects of feminism.

v) As Glenn Reynolds often says, you could make a rock-solid case for Patriarchy just based on what 'feminists' say about the fragility of women.

e) Predictions :

i) While neither gender will ever be technologically obsolete as human beings, and it is quite evil to even hope for such a thing, the fact remains that to the extent that technological progress will reduce the power of one gender relative to the other from the current state, women have far more to worry about than men. This will be particularly true for Western women who work in types of jobs that don't seem to exist in great numbers outside the Protestant West (i.e. make-work jobs), and who think that becoming a wife and mother is less prestigious than a corporate career.

ii) The Nigerian romance scam will continue to prey on divorced women who secured a huge financial windfall, in a brutal manifestation of how market forces find a way around government social engineering. Another benefit of marriage is that it is far harder to scam a couple than an individual. Story after story of how women were scammed out of all of the money in their control, which is often a six or seven digit sum, continues to emerge. So now, because of the woman's selfishness (if her money was obtained through divorce), neither the husband nor her are in possession of their money.

iii) Comedians who used to make fun of misandry, including more than one type of misandry, have recently been threatened into silence. But evidence is emerging that comedians will fight back with vengeance, sending thousands of 'feminists' into futile therapy (since 'feminists' can't fight back via comedy due to zero talent in that area). Bill Burr's old anti-misandry bits are quite good, as are those of Aries Spears. The late, great Patrice O'Neal should be remembered for his courage.

iv) There will never be any 'feminist'-themed reality TV shows that garner significant audience viewership. The very premise itself is an oxymoron of 'fried ice' proportions.

v) VR just has to fix the headache/eyestrain problem, and make the hardware lighter and wireless. These seemingly mundane refinements are all it will take for millions more women, higher up in the looks scale, to suddenly get far less male attention for reasons they can't discern. As said above, this could be within 24 months.

vi) While franchise after franchise of entertainment property has been ruined by a 'feminist' edition that explicitly seeks to overturn the central premises of the franchise, they have not been able to destroy one of the oldest and most successful ones : James Bond. Over 58 years and 25 films (including a non-Eon film), the age gap between the actor playing Bond and the female lead averages about 17 years, with a 47-year-old Bond and a 30-year-old actress as averages. 'Feminists' will continue to move mountains in a campaign to destroy this or even demand that Bond be played by a woman, but will fail. This franchise matters due its highly international fan base, and thus sells tickets in countries where 'feminism' is not the official ideology.

vii) Governments that used 'feminism' to create a welfare-state voting block will start to quietly and methodically trim down the resources diverted to women. They can get the same women to keep voting for the same parties even after they reduce the money diverted to them, now that they have them in a state of complete indoctrination and dependency, and since these women are not producing any new taxpayers/voters. Why overpay for a vote block that can no longer leave even if you cut them off?

viii) Outsourcing of jobs will continue to affect women more than men, since the indirect costs associated with hiring women in the West are pricing women out. Remember that base salary is only a fraction of the cost-of-doing-business equation. I am currently making big money in facilitating the outsourcing of service jobs from US and UK women to English-speaking Filipino, Malay, and Pakistani men and women in the Persian Gulf country that I operate in, where I pocket part of the difference. A large part of the difference is the 'litigation premium' associated with hiring women in the US, UK, Canada, etc.

ix) As US cuckservatism experiences its final death throes over the course of the 2020s, 'feminism' will continue to weaken as well, with few understanding why the correlation is so tight.

f) But did the bubble fully pop, even if we are past peak misandry? Unfortunately, not fully. The reason for this is that 10 years ago, it was inconceivable that we would not have another recession within the next 10 years, as the next recession will surely destroy many types of 'feminism'. The money-printing from the Federal Reserve allowed government spending to continue past a point far greater than old models could have predicted (no one thought the US could get to $23 Trillion in a National Debt without a crisis). My co-blogger above favors this money-printing and wrote a whole book about why, but I dislike it, since it enables far more government spending, which of course goes mostly towards women, particularly women using the money to create 'feminist' outcomes for themselves that could not exist without government spending. So a recession is the necessary trigger for a full pop. That does not mean we wish for a recession, as that will harm innocent people, but there is no doubt that in each recession, the most undeserved net recipients always bear the force of the correction that a recession brings. The question is, how long can printing stave one off?

g) Here is some eye cleanser (more here) that you may want to refer to as you keep reading.

12) Female Psychology and Aptitude :

a) The female brain does not connect cause and effect as easily as the male brain does. Women cannot easily predict the effect of a decision more than one step ahead. For example, a woman's legal, state-backed ability to unilaterally take away children from their father means that the paternal grandmother also loses access to her grandchildren due to the power that the former daughter-in-law has. Yet, there is no organization, however small, of paternal grandmothers protesting against default daughter-in-law custody. The cause and effect dots are just not connected in the female mind, and so they cannot see how a law that 'helps women' simultaneously can harm a different group of female relatives. If you doubt this, try explaining this to women, and see for yourself how difficult it is for them to connect cause and effect.

b) Women are not immoral. They are simply hardwired to side with whoever is winning, as this evolutionary trait helped women survive in times of conflict, and thus evolved for good reason. Keep this in mind in order to be on the right side of this unstoppable force, rather than on the wrong side. Don't argue against this, just adapt to it while other men remain clueless and bear the costs.

c) In every single country polled, women knew far less about civics or political science than men. The gap was higher in countries that squandered the most resources towards 'feminism'.

d) If you ever hear that something would improve if women ran it, there is a prominent example of where this experiment has been conducted. The US public school system has transitioned from male leadership to female leadership over the last 30-40 years. Over this time, quality has fallen as costs have risen. This period has also seen the rise of rampant sexual exploitation of minor students by female teachers. Similarly, the rise of women in top positions in higher education has coincided with the steep decline of the cost/benefit equation of college degrees.

e) Virtually all works of fiction marketed to a female audience consist of an alpha male with a harem of women (of which the reader erotically fantasizes of being part), and the alpha male abusing lower-ranking males and the women in his harem. There is no improvement in the human condition or any wondrous new concepts. This is the type of society women prefer, for biologically-derived reasons. A free-market system where a self-made man can rise to the top is emphatically not what women prefer, as it is hard to predict which man as 'lottery ticket' will outperform others. An oligarchal/aristocratic system is one where the men on top today will still be on top 10 years later, making it far easier for women to select who to get impregnated by. Of course, societies of the type that women prefer are not where anything new gets invented, so human progress stalls (see 'Fabric of Humanity' below).

f) 84% of women cannot pass the US Army's basic fitness test (while only 36% of men cannot pass it, despite the spreading 'soyboy' malaise). Of course, the conclusion drawn by the 'male feminist' journalist is that the test has to be changed. It is certain that if female combat deaths began to approach anything close to 50%, the same 'journalists' would complain about how misogynist it is for women to be in the military at all.

g) When Sweden tried 'feminist show shoveling', the results were predictably shambolic and required a massive expense to correct. Yet, other countries continue to repeat the same experiment with predictably consistent failure, at the altar of 'feminism'. In a similar vein, a 'feminist' bookstore went out of business, and the owners blamed men for not donating enough to keep the ill-conceived enterprise alive.

h) Amazon created an AI hiring tool to present candidates without bias. Amazon assumed that this would lead to more female candidates, since they entirely swallowed the fiction that women are oppressed in the job market. On the contrary, it highlighted fewer female candidates than before because it is in fact men who are facing adverse bias, which led to Amazon discontinuing use of the tool rather than question their 'feminist' narrative. Small companies and non-Western companies should use the tool, since it clearly does work. More importantly, as AI is used in more and more decision-making processes, the equalization of how people are treated will remove a lot of FI-derived privilege.

i) Much is written about Women's sports. Lost amidst that is coverage of how even endeavors that have nothing to do with physical ability and have no barrier to entry nonetheless have almost no women among the high achievers. Under 2% of Chess Grandmasters are women. Almost none of the top Scrabble champions are women. Lastly, why are 80% of Olympic medals won in Equestrian events won by men? Women should be equal in at least Equestrian and horse racing, should they not, particularly given that lower body weight in a jockey is an advantage? Or are horses sexist towards human females too? In fairness, this is only partly due to innate inability. The second factor is that since a woman's social status is not boosted by such accomplishments the way a man's is, fewer women choose to pursue these areas, which is an entirely rational choice once one declines to be a pawn for 'feminist' fight-against-nature objectives. #GenderRealism.

j) Women are far less capable of comedy than men are. Take any improv environment (such as the television program 'Whose Line is it Anyway'), and the talent gap is conspicuously evident. When a 'feminist' who married one of the world's richest men hires female comedians to propagate a myth about female oppression, the utter lack of either humor or facts (or good looks) is jarring.

k) A data analysis of millions of student reviews of college professors reveal that male professors are more brilliant and humorous than female professors, while female professors are widely described as rude. This is telling since over half of the students submitting these evaluations are female, so this is not 'misogynist'.

l) Female hypergamy is real, and technology has exposed this. The data from Tinder indicates a massive skew in which the Top 50% of women focus on the Top 10% of men (male attractiveness being a function of many variables rather than just looks). Contrary to many men in the Androsphere, I do not think this is something for red-pill men to be angry about, for it is not that difficult to be a man who is in the Top 10%, given the total willful ignorance of the majority of men.

m) The more society changes its laws to give women what 'feminists' say women want, the more unhappy women become. Relatively few women truly understand how women think, and 'feminists' are never among these few. See also : point a) within this chapter above.

n) The most fail-safe business opportunities of our time are ones that market to women with a) the reassurance that none of their life choices were ill-considered and no negative outcome was ever their fault, and/or b) the fantasy of living vicariously through some fictionalized ideal that is enjoyed by under 0.01% of women. Use this fact to your advantage, even if you are a woman. Most of the wealthiest self-made women built business empires around selling these messages to average women. A lot of 'red-pill' men whine about misandry, when they could be using this valuable knowledge for lucrative business purposes.

o) Whenever women enter a profession in large numbers, the status of the profession falls in the eyes of both men and women (especially women, because of hypergamy).

p) Women are far less able to separate television from reality than men are, because their view of reality is governed by emotions that television can easily control. This makes women more prone to poor life choices based on a fictional portrayal of that life choice.

q) If 'the future is female', then women ought to be generating the majority of technological innovation and groundbreaking scientific research. In reality, women contribute only a very small fraction of all work towards useful scientific and technological advancement, and arguably obstruct more than they advance. The future is certainly not female.

r) The push for 'women in tech' is surreal, comical, and extraordinarily expensive (see : Theranos). It is instructive about how even an infinite amount of money misdirected towards this goal cannot make women anything close to 50% of the tech industry. There are actually 'studies' demanding that women be given easier grading in STEM classes relative to men. The ones complaining the most about it have no real interest in the profession or the subject matter. They just see money being made, and demand it be given to them simply for being female. 'Feminists' get extremely angry when someone tells them that they should "learn to code".

s) The reason the tech industry vexes these 'feminists' so much is because their hindbrain cannot process why money is appearing in the hands of men they find insufficiently attractive. This short circuits their biologically-hardwired understanding of the natural order from the realities of prehistoric times, so they see their urge to seize the money for themselves while destroying the livelihood of these men as restoring the natural order. Since technology would no longer progress if 'feminists' gained too much power, in tech terminology, one can fairly say that their brain-vagina interface is obsolete.

t) If a woman has a sincere interest in and talent for technology and wishes to pursue a career in a technological position without any special treatment (about 10% of women, almost all of whom had fathers who were scientists or engineers), she will have no greater encourager than me. However, the push by 'feminists' to force women into the technology professions (which the 'feminists' themselves had no aptitude for) is particularly cruel, as they are forcing young women into a field they are not interested in, which is a terrible disservice to one's entire sense of professional being. So much for being 'pro-choice'.

u) Even I thought it was only quantitative or analytical subjects that women were unsuited for, but it turns out there are even demands for Greek and Latin to be made easier so that women can pass the classes, which they are apparently unable to do at present.

v) The 'It's not about the nail' video is an exceptionally accurate depiction of female psychology. Men, if you want to infuriate a woman who has a problem but refuses to fix it, nothing will make her angrier than if you helpfully state "What you need to do to fix your problem is....". The blue-pill male brain cannot grasp why a direct, swift solution to the problem at hand is the last thing a woman wants to hear, but men who have had sex with a lot of women are in table-pounding agreement. If you want to make the woman attracted to you and very aroused, intersperse a mixture of teasing, disinterested indifference to her problem, and rare, unpredictable instances of empathy in your response to her situation. See 'Game' below.

w) The word 'mansplaining' itself is an admission by 'feminists' that they cannot permit facts and logic, which 'feminist' premises can never withstand. A related point is that there are still many 'feminists' who cannot spell the most important word in their vocabulary, with 'mysogynist' or 'mysoginist' being typical. Many of these 'feminists' have consumed $500K+ of educational resources paid for by the taxpayer and/or their fathers, yet are still functionally illiterate. Do you know how many rural girls in a poor country can be given basic (real) education for $500K? See 'P1W' below.

y) Just view this video from CNBC of women who think they are making a persuasive case about the existence of the imaginary 'pay gap' but are really demanding that they be paid for time they are not working. They truly have no idea why an employer would create a job in the first place. In a similar vein, there is a version of Monopoly that pays women more for the same milestones, yet is marketed as being more fair, not less.

z) The 'fair sex' is actually the unfair sex. Most women truly do not want the bottom 80% of men to have the same basic rights as the top 20% of men. Virtually no men believe that a woman's human/legal/property rights should be contingent on her attractiveness, but women do believe this about men. Central pillars of the justice system of any advanced society are in direct conflict with how women think right and wrong should be decided.

13) The Fabric of Humanity :

a) In the Misandry Bubble, there was a section of how the fabric of humanity will tear under the strains that the growing obsolescence of the human brain regarding the Female Imperative (FI) places on our systems of governance. 'Feminism' is just a modern manifestation of the FI that was hardwired into the human brain from the beginning. The Misandry Bubble was similar to other economic bubbles.

b) Women, as the scarcer reproductive resource, were naturally and justifiably seen as more valuable to human survival. If half the men in a tribe died, the number of babies born would still be the same. But if women started to die, the number of babies born would correspondingly go down. Plus, since infant mortality was 50% of more, this resource allocation was justified.

c) For the first 99.9% of human existence, material prosperity was low and human expendability was high, so funneling all resources to women correlated directly with the survival of children, and additional accountability was not necessary. Only recently has this correlation decoupled, which is why the hardwiring of the human brain, where both men and women put the well-being of women ahead of those of men and even children, still persists.

d) Women now use only 10-20% of their reproductive capacity, with many using zero. Yet, the unquestioned diversion of resources to women (including those too old to have children) remains the same. This is not to suggest that women should return to the old days of high birth rates, but that the instinct to divert the majority of society's resources to women no longer serves its original purpose. Since baby production rightfully declined to replacement levels or less, the resources diverted to women should proportionally reduce as well.

e) Hence, instead of helping children, this money now finds its way to women who spend it on themselves. Thus, we see endless consumer products geared towards women, and a shadow state designed to transfer all costs and consequences away from women. Resources that should be going towards children instead find their way into luxury goods that men don't want (about 90% of the items in any department store).

f) Beyond just consumer products, this appears in the National Debt. Since most government spending is a direct transfer from men to women, the National Debt is a part of that resource misallocation. In the 10 years since I wrote the Misandry Bubble, the US National Debt rose from $12 Trillion to $23 Trillion, almost all of it representing a transfer to women. Now that the Federal Reserve has kept on printing money, the correction of this misallocation is delayed.

g) In addition to VR Sex as a corrective technology, 'feminists' are already complaining about how Artificial Intelligence arrives at 'sexist' conclusions, since the data it studies is gender normative, and there is not enough money in the world to inject the massive artificiality of 'feminism' into every photograph. Since an AI has no reason to comply with impractical demands, the invisible hand of the Female Imperative will erode when AI diffuses into millions of small decisions across the economy.

h) This is a stark demonstration about how a major aspect of the human mind is obsolete. When this resource misallocation corrects (as all resource misallocations do when enough time passes), it will be among the most turbulent events that humanity faces. The fabric of our previous humanity will be torn asunder. What emerges after that may be very different, but resource misallocation away from people moving society forward, and towards people who contribute nothing to societal advancement, will no longer be the status quo.

i) For this reason, simply being aware of the FI, unlike the others who cannot notice it any more than they notice the air they breathe, puts you in the echelon of those who have evolved the furthest from obsolete human evolutionary psychology. Anti-misandry is thus the most advanced level of socio-political awareness to date.

14) Advice for Young Women :

This section will get plenty of hate, even though none of this advice is unusual by the standards of anyone's grandmother, or any contemporary women outside of the Anglosphere West. But I hope I can save thousands of young women from ruining their lives by listening to either 'feminists' or cuckservatives.

a) This chart is the most important chart to help guide your major life decisions. A woman's SMV (sexual market value) peaks much sooner than a man's. It is almost always far easier for a woman to marry before the age of 25 than it is after the age of 30. Plus, fertility starts falling by age 27, and is all but gone by age 35. As evidence, no cryobank accepts egg donors over the age of 27, so don't be misled by media propaganda that implies getting pregnant after age 35 is effortless. At least freeze your eggs before you turn 28, so you have the option later.

b) Men prefer slender, pleasant, debt-free virgins without tattoos, short hair, piercings beyond the earlobes, or 'feminist' indoctrination. Anyone who disagrees with this needs to first start persuading people in non-Western countries to change their minds about their preferences. The good news for immigrant women is that they have to do very little to out-compete American/British/Canadian women who have chosen to drift away from this description.

c) Put another way, an attractive young woman who deliberately worsens her appearance, or even allows herself to become fat, is analogous to a young man who inherits $10 million and squanders it. Female weight-gain is described as a 'fatocalypse' or 'fatastrophe' for good reason.

d) If you are young and heed a) and b) above, it has actually never been easier for an average young lady to get married to a good man and have a career. All you have to do is resist the social pressure to make bad (i.e. 'feminist') decisions. More simply, if you have a grandmother who never divorced your grandfather, almost all life advice she gives you is going to be better than what you will get from 'modern' sources.

e) Candace Bushnell, who achieved one-in-a-million career success, still admits that she regrets putting career over having children. Think about that, and consider that she could easily have had both with better management of her life.

f) Getting involved in 'feminism' will, among other drawbacks, make you far more accessible to predators, both male and female, since it is an ideology accustomed to immunity from accountability. Yet another reason to steer clear. Be wary of organizations that say they are not 'feminist' but still espouse the same beliefs, as they are havens for predators all the same.

g) A woman can only have sex with one to five men before irreversibly damaging her chances of bonding with any man. This may be unfair, but blame mother nature. More importantly, every traditional culture in the world was fully aware of this, and structured society to prevent this from being a frequent occurrence. This is also why marriage traditionally happened before a woman turned 25 (and often a few years sooner than that).

h) A single mother (not a widow) will always suffer catastrophic damage to her future romantic prospects. Almost all men who have any options would prefer to marry a woman who does not already have children. On top of that, pickup artists know that single mothers are ideal for tactical practice and one night stands, after which they can focus on the women they actually want relationships with. If you think the 'child support' payment stream is free money, remember that it ends after the child comes of age, and the now-adult child will eventually demand to see an accounting of if it was, in fact, spent on him/her. If you have more than one child, the chance of at least one demanding to see how you spent the money is even higher. Don't get pregnant out of wedlock (and don't divorce your husband if you have a child with him), just because you see a wealthy celebrity do it.

i) Any woman who wants to be taken seriously as a professional must dispense with any belief in, or mention of, the imaginary 'pay gap'. This myth has been debunked so many times (including by many women), and fails the standards of basic logic and financial literacy so totally, that it is often an effective filter that helps separate intelligent women from 'feminists'. Most employers, including female employers, will not hire a woman who they suspect truly believes that there is a 'pay gap' that the government must rectify. This is the absolute last type of person anyone wants involved in their business.

j) The careers where women have the greatest aptitude gap in relation to men are the math-heavy careers (Quantum Physics, Astrophysics, Engineering, Economics, etc.). Science-oriented careers where women may underperform by far less are Biology, Pediatrics, Optometry, Organic Chemistry, etc. To go into a career in which female talent is the least competitive relative to that of men (even if extreme levels of scholarships and other affirmative action are available) is the mental equivalent of competing against men in a strength-heavy sport (such as boxing or NFL football). Don't risk your precious happiness and self-esteem just to be a pawn that exists for the edification of 'feminists' who themselves did not choose to pursue any of these fields. Refer to the 'Women in STEM' cartoon above.

k) An attractive woman, in this day and age, can actually earn money by starting a YouTube channel of her doing what makes her attractive. This is done most easily if the videos are of an instructional nature (which, of course, makes more women attractive by learning from the videos). The number of women who earn money from fitness, yoga, cosmetics, fashion, and dance channels on YouTube seems to be very high. The creators earn money by upping their game, while the viewers learn from them. This market is not saturated at all yet, so more women should be encouraged to enter the market and produce their own channels. If a woman has too inflated an assessment of her appearance, subscribers fail to arrive and she gives up, ensuring a swift and fluid meritocracy at global scale. This practice and flow of funds makes 'feminists' livid. Expect them to make some headway in shutting down these income streams for attractive, self-made female entrepreneurs in their tireless quest to uglify the world, and expect there to be a backlash. YouTube/Instagram could be the battlefield where attractive women team up against 'feminists'.

15) Beta Males (and lower) :

a) Despite the vast amount of valuable information available online, and the fact that The Misandry Bubble is widely seen as the manifesto for a movement that now involves thousands of men, there are still hundreds of millions of men who are painfully clueless about these basic facts. Before the Internet age, being this ignorant was excusable, but now, the solution to most problems a man faces is available within seconds. Thus, if a man in 2020 onwards gets into trouble by way entering into a situation he could have avoided through the knowledge available online (such as getting married in an Anglosphere Western country), our sympathy for him should be limited. Men getting in trouble today from situations they entered into 20 years ago are a different matter, but the gradient of sympathy and level of self-learning expect of the man adjust proportionately.

b) For this reason, any moderately attractive unmarried woman can set up social media accounts and keep posting photographs of herself, while hiding any boyfriend (but informing him of this if they are steady). Then, whenever a major expense arises (such as a traffic ticket), she can appeal to her beta male fans to cover her expense. If a woman has sufficient fans, she will get at least one volunteer. The woman should thank the volunteer publicly on her social media, thereby encouraging future donors. In the mind of the beta male, his financial donation actually inched him closer to romance with her (even if he is thousands of miles away), while in reality, the woman felt no such urge towards him. It is not unethical, since no contract has been entered into; it is a donation. More importantly, there needs to be more of an unofficial tax on betatude. Anita Sarkeesian (who isn't even attractive) received $158,000 from beta dupes just to produce 12 videos that most people could produce for free. I can't blame her for harvesting the beta males who were begging for it.

c) Technology industry billionaires are among the most 'beta' men around. The pattern of a famous eleven or even twelve-digit technology titan, who is neither old nor ugly, ending up with a very average-looking woman is now an infamous cliche and popular Internet meme. Some of these women don't even take the husband's last name. Others gloat about how they make their whipped centibillionaire husband acquiesce to petty, impractical demands, even when they already have staff on payroll to do these mundane tasks (remember, 'feminism' is, more than anything, about being in a state of perpetual unhappiness, no matter how privileged one is). Even worse, the current richest man in the world has an extramarital affair with a woman who is nearly 50 years old, and makes the most needy, cringeworthy, maladroit overtures to her, due to which she rejects him. These overspecialized nerds have singlehandedly devalued the very status of being a multi-multi-billionaire by doing far worse than a financially broke bartender, musician, or photographer the same age. There are certain ineptitudes that money simply cannot cure. No wonder the 'women in tech' racket has successfully extorted so much. Similarly, I don't think the majority of women are gold-diggers outright, since there are clearly some men who attractive women don't want no matter how much money they have.

d) US 'conservative' men are even worse, for they have gone to great lengths to package their cringeworthy woman-worship, often accompanied by new anti-male, socialist legislation, into a pretense of being 'heroic' and 'chivalrous', in order to receive gratitude from women. They have, of course, failed shambolically in their pursuit of this pathetic goal, while abandoning any pretense that they actually stand for personal responsibility and accountability. See more about these 'cuckservatives' below, and how to transfer costs onto them.

e) As disconnected as I am from the American dating scene at this point, I have been told there is a new word, 'sneating', to describe women who misrepresent interest in a man just to get free restaurant dinners and gifts. While some women brazenly gloat about this, this is another example of where we should no longer have sympathy for beta males. 'Game' advice, available for free on the Internet for the last 20 years, has always maintained that a man should never, ever, be suckered into dinner or other expenses for women they are not already having sex with. Few elements of the different schools of Game thought are so unanimously consistent as this rule. If beta males are still so incurious as to not access this widely available information, they deserve to be a payer of the unofficial tax on betatude.

16) Game :

a) Game advice has become highly commoditized across the Internet, which is to say that there is no need to spend significant money to learn some valuable skills. This ought to have caused a wholesale increase in male competence, but as discussed both there and in the Misandry Bubble, about 80% of men cannot grasp that success with women is a learnable skill. When I point out that women are attracted to just the top 20% of men, Game is the tool where you can swiftly enter the top 20% (individual results may vary). Don't worry about too many men learning Game, as that situation is not even on the horizon.

b) Of paramount importance is to always leave them happier than you found them. Any other application is unethical.

c) What 80% of men cannot grasp, 99% of women cannot grasp. If women understood what women are actually attracted to and could view it with the necessary detachment, they would be encouraging men to learn at least the LTR-oriented elements of Game. Remember that despite overwhelming privilege due to pervasive 'feminism', women are unhappier than ever before but cannot figure out why.

d) While few men can or want to be outright pickup artists beyond a 'bucket list' of experiencing 15-25 attractive women, there is obviously immense value in mastering a few basic skills of Game. Making Game second-nature is inseparable from having exceptional communication, persuasion, and rapport skills. As we have seen above, this will provide you with powers that money simply cannot buy. It applies even to platonic relationships with women, as Game principles applied platonically can ensure women at work decide that you are one of the men who should be allowed to earn a living, and they will cut you more slack at performance review time.

e) There are a lot of 'Game denialists' out there, who are often admitted permavirgins, but still insist that only the top few men who have an exceptional combination of looks and money are having sex with all women. The real reason for their denial is because they have convinced themselves, for pain-avoidance purposes, that their failure is due to not winning the genetic lottery. To now provide proof that some aspects of success are within a man's control is something they cannot accept after all that self-deception, as it would mean they wasted the last few decades of their lives. Do not waste even one minute debating them, since that is a minute you can instead spend on your own betterment.

f) Courage isn't quite what people think it is. A soldier who marches towards certain death does so partly because of courage, but partly because his commanders brainwashed him into seeing his own expendability as normal. The same soldier cannot approach women in the grocery store and strike up a pleasant conversation that escalates towards attraction, despite zero risk of any physical danger. The man who can approach women in the daytime at will and consistently generate attraction in them ranks very high in the courage hierarchy.

g) You haven't fully formed as a man until you have done 100 daytime approaches. That in fact means that most men have not fully formed. After you do this, all subsequent approaches become easy and you will effectively have a superpower compared to most men (and will be able to outperform even tech billionaires on this front, I hasten to add). Doing 100 daytime approaches, and keeping a record of each result in order to identify patterns, is going to make a distinct and permanent change in your life. Don't give up even if you get nothing out of the first 50, 70, or 90. Doing 100 means doing 100. Your attractiveness is rising along the way (provided you are keeping a spreadsheet record to identify patterns and adapting to them), so the best outcomes will be towards the end of the 100.

h) Study Russell Brand's style of interaction with women. Obviously don't escalate in any and all venues as he does (you're not a celebrity), but at least try to emulate as much of this style as you can for usage when it is appropriate.

i) Teach the women you are having sex with to make their beta orbiter men cover various expenses. There are many such 'blue pill' men, especially if cuckservative, who are practically begging for the privilege of covering the expenses of women who are having sex with other men. Their contribution makes this system possible, so I say let them pick up the tab, and have the woman verbally thank them for it (so that they pay next time as well). They want to pay, even for women having sex with men other than them, as they have convinced themselves that this is 'chivalrous', so give them what they want, I say. Everybody wins!

17) Democracy :

a) Democracy is merely dictatorship by whoever controls the media. The media can also persuade a significant percentage of people to fill their entire lives with politics, and then tell them what politics is, to the extent that these people are entirely programmable on demand. Do not be in denial about this.

b) Decoupling voting from taxpaying is unsustainable by any society. Only current and past taxpayers above a certain cutoff should have voting rights. The premise that the weak will be disenfranchised is greatly exaggerated in relation to the inexorable trend of non-taxpayers voting themselves more money. This error will be corrected in time.

c) A society where comedians are not permitted to make fun of obesity, homosexuality, bossy women, and effeminate m