Why Barry Diller and the CCP Don't Want You to Have a GF

On the technology of human coupling and reproduction

I try to avoid talking about this stuff because it’s difficult and suggests a prurient interest, and it would be better if the women did it. But it’s extremely important, probably the only culture war that matters. It also makes my skin crawl to think of this stuff in terms of a market, but the Wall Street Journal is repromoting this article from March, so we’ll join them.

Maybe a good place to start is with the Bible: Eden is conceived of as a garden, rather than a wilderness, something which is tended. In the Christian view, God opens to us the ability to participate in tending his garden. Everything is his garden, and talking about certain things which are probably in the purview of the national interest, and therefore there is a human responsibility to take part in tending, makes some people uncomfortable, and not without reason. But the only thing worse than an undue interest in eugenics is another country in a position to implement their version of it within your own.

Let’s start with three assumptions to put some boundaries around the discussion:

1. Tech companies’ tech often doesn’t work the way they say it does

One assumption the Wall Street Journal makes about tech companies, but which I’ve found not to be true, is that tech companies can be trusted and their technology works more or less the way they say it does. From the work I’ve done on Google and some others, this is not an assumption I hold. Google will blame their manual blacklisting on algorithms, Facebook will claim to be for free speech but censor all criticism of Israel and allow cartel money laundering through their Marketplace.

2. Sometimes conservatives, and others too, make generalized complaints about bias or reverse discrimination where there is a more specific cause or motive

Wes Clark Jr. has said that virtually everyone who gets targeted for psy-ops, character assassination and blacklisting has some sort of tie to the American revolution. When you look at the big VCs, there is virtually nobody involved who would be eligible for the Sons of the American Revolution. Tech companies and the VCs who back them are usually vectors for foreign cash into the American economy, and therefore it’s possible the things they back will be tainted by foreign objectives which may or may not coincide with our own. At the biggest companies and most competitive firms, which foreign countries wish to control, it is not, in other words, a question of anti-white discrimination, but of an attack on the American population, white Americans included. But someone who knows what Civil War battles his ancestors fought in is obviously going to be more difficult for a foreign power to sway, so creating a climate of suspicion around these sorts of people is part of the attack.

3. America has a culture of pervasive oikophobia

Oikophobia is a Roger Scruton coinage I think; it means fear of home. A preference for the strange over the familiar, or a denigration of one’s own culture in preference to someone else’s. In understanding the history of one’s own country, an oikophobe will seek the most sadistic demonization of it. This carries obvious national security risks, when it can be effectively rendered racist in the mind of the public to question, for instance, the purchase of key natural resources by a foreign power. I think pervasive oikophobia can destroy a country in a single generation.

With these three assumptions in view, apply them to the technology of human coupling and reproduction, and things get dystopian very quickly. The thing you have to understand is that dating apps + IVF + genomics = control of the American population. This is a fact. It is the architecture of eugenics. The prefix eu- just means good, and different people will argue about what good might be.

I’m completely agnostic about that myself, and I view this sort of thing a little like a Pandora’s Box it would be better not to have opened, but the point here worth focusing on is the highly rational Chinese view of eugenics, in which easily tested metrics like intelligence, athleticism, attractiveness, or what have you, are optimized, is still probably not in the long run harmonious with American interests even if you think having more smart, fit and beautiful people is good.

There’s that photo, well known by this point, from the “spit party” for 23andMe at the IAC building, with Rupert Murdoch, Barry Diller, Diane von Furstenberg, Harvey Weinstein, Sergey Brin, Anne Wojcicki, and Wendy Deng. This photo is a good place to start to understand the phenomenon. Rarely have so many key individuals and companies in the Chisraeli eugenics nexus been together. Match Group runs most of the dating apps, which was owned by Barry Diller’s IAC until 2020. The same year IAC and Match Group separated, IAC took a big stake in MGM, which is the third big casino in Macau, after Wynn and Sands. Thus, Diller is Chisrael, as is Murdoch, which you can see in the perspective of much of the television coverage on Fox News.

The arguments we’ve seen about Match Group are the same as big tech critics make toward, say, Facebook. They say the apps are addictive, meant to keep you there rather than finding the sociality everyone is looking for. That is certainly the case, but there’s probably a better and more specific cause and motive we might be able to identify. We have generalized complaints and dissatisfaction, but without knowledge of how they’re actually running and tweaking their algorithms on the fly, it’s actually a better mental model to think of them all as a Chisraeli matchmaker. This is part of assumption #1; assume intent when blame is shunted to an algorithm. It’s a bitter irony that the flower of American womanhood, who in the main would be repulsed by the idea of a Chinese matchmaker, has been using one for the last decade.

The most common foreign intelligence play in the U.S. market is to divert large amounts of resources toward bad companies or companies that don’t work. Rarely is there a head-on attack, it’s much more effective to just divert people’s time and attention to something that doesn’t work. This is what Elon Musk is, he’s a foreign-backed diversion of cash. You can see the same concept run at a micro scale with the dating apps—divert people’s time and attention toward what will be for most of them a mirage, with the added benefit from the foreign powers that back these companies of disillusionment, loneliness and contempt.

We’ll get to IVF in a moment, but because the famous spit party involved a genomics company, let’s address that first. 23andMe has had nine figures of genomes stolen in a hack, the data risks of consumer genomics companies are already a live issue. Founders Fund, naturally heedless of the best interests of the people they wish to sell their shit to, wants to supercharge this problem with Nucleus Genomics. Nucleus is the company responsible for all those embryo charts being shared all over Twitter, showing which of your embryos have brown or blue eyes. If you can know it on your phone, the Israeli government can know it through Unit 8200, and so can many others.

Now, in a future war, what happens when the adversary possesses millions of their adversary’s genomes? They will know who’s got a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, who carries recessive genes for hereditary disorders, and so on. Now imagine that same foreign adversary gets to decide, through, say, a dating app, who is allowed the chance to meet who. The reverse is true also, they can decide who to isolate; there might even be positive reasons to do this, like to generate religious vocations.

The only countermeasure to this is a national genomics database. This has already started in some parts of the world. It’s a concept that good old French authoritarian nationalism has few qualms about, but in the Anglosphere for cultural reasons, and in Germany for historical ones, make us very uneasy.

Then there’s the actual baby-making part of the dystopian architecture for human reproduction: IVF. Ted Cruz, because he is a Texan, hails from the most corrupt and Chisraeli state in the union—a union to which it barely belongs—and is the top supporter of IVF in the Republican Party, which otherwise, thanks mostly to Catholics, is trending in a direction of greater skepticism toward these technologies.

A variety of high-profile men with an interest in unnatural reproduction, like Elon Musk, Pavel Durov, and Greg Lindberg, are providing plenty of horror fodder of tycoons running around with turkey basters. The phenomenon you can kind of already see trickling onto the New York Times op-ed page is that the only thing the women are going to like less than the environment to which #MeToo was a response, is a situation in which it’s normal for men to have children without their involvement or any reciprocal affection at all. These guys on the cutting edge (it feels wrong to call it that) are abnormal as cutting-edge people usually are, but you can see a kind of dysfunction in them we probably haven’t seen the last of: they are obsessed with fecundity but are much more indifferent to actually having sex with women.

And the technology itself, especially as it becomes vertically integrated as all businesses tend to, poses risks to the women as well. We already have a situation in which the smartest women are encouraged to freeze their eggs. What happens when, in the course of a corporate restructuring, the refrigerators have a power outage for a couple of days? Rapid-onset dysgenics, to say nothing of the disappointments of the women. And an accident is not even strictly necessary: all that needs to happen is an economic and social environment in which it’s impossible for them to have a family.

I’m biased toward low-tech solutions to high-tech problems, because I think they’re more durable. If you don’t want Chisrael picking your boyfriends and girlfriends, things like debutante balls, or joining a thicker community like a church and meeting your spouse there, are probably good. The pervasive oikophobia is reinforced by a culture industry that is also substantially foreign. At the darker end of this, I see the UVA Rolling Stone rape hoax and the Alexander brothers’ Israeli sex trafficking ring as more or less two sides of the same coin. A Jewish reporter does a huge hoax story that renders the sons of the deep state suspect and undesirable, then the women end up in the hands of Israeli sex traffickers or on Only Fans, which was expanded under the ownership of Leonid Radvinsky, not the first Odessa Jew involved in the flesh trade. It’s easy to see why the CCP would be happy with this state of affairs.

From the standpoint of American cultural history, all of this is new, disturbing, threatening, and bad, especially when the technological and financial infrastructure undergirding it is more or less foreign. That’s another reason to think of it as basically an attack on the American people. There are a lot of extremely important groups that take measures to hide their most talented people: aristocracies, mobs, black people, Native Americans, to name a few, because someone may try to kill them. The attempt to render all this visible is itself a potential threat.