Nilsi

This is peak ’69 counterculture. You can hear it - that raw, untamed sense of radical freedom in Neil Young’s guitar riffs. Not technical perfection. Just pure, emotional release. The feeling that rules could be broken - musically, socially, spiritually. This was a special fucking era. Not just for music, but for culture. A moment when it really felt like something new was possible. Some people think it was naïve. Maybe. But I’m not ready to concede to the late-capitalist cynicism we’ve inherited. That spark - it’s perennial. Still out there. Still possible.

You’re building a personal brand. By definition, the pain points of your audience will reflect your own - otherwise, they wouldn’t be drawn to you. These pain points can be framed in two ways. First, the struggles or gaps you’ve experienced (especially those you’ve already overcome, which naturally attracts people who are one step behind you). Second, the things you enjoy and value - the desires, wins, and perspectives that resonate with like-minded followers. In short, people follow either to overcome what you’ve conquered or to share in what you celebrate. So really, the work is simple: figure yourself out. There’s no need for market analysis when you’re in the business of personal branding. Your market is just a mirror of your self.

But - and here lies the crack Land never accounted for - desire is not a fixed input. As Deleuze and Guattari argued, desire is not a scarce resource to be optimized. It is creative, productive, and irreducibly nomadic. It flows across bodies, systems, and codes. It forms alliances, assemblages, intensities that resist capture. Queer theory followed this insight. It mapped how desire can escape optimization - refusing reproduction, refusing value capture, refusing even the identity slots the machine assigns. It crosses bodies, sexes, machines. Leather grips prosthetic limbs. Silicone meets muscle. Hormones pulse alongside electrodes. Men birthing futures. Women wielding phallic power. Flesh swapping roles - faster than the system can compute. Orgies form. Not for hedonism, but for counter-economic play. Multipartner swarms. Post-gender hookups. Breeding kinks that fracture the reproduction market. Desire spreads sideways - into scenes, into encrypted collectives, into viral meme-sex rituals the algorithms can’t monetize or predict. As José Esteban Muñoz wrote: "queerness is not yet here; it’s a horizon, a vector of escape." In a fully accelerated system, even the capture mechanisms can be outpaced. The fatal circuit holds. Until it doesn’t.

You can’t hoard relationships like you hoard capital, yes. But you can hoard attention - or more precisely, optionality. Most people still imagine the mating market like a school dance. Everyone pairs off. Some hierarchy, sure - but mostly even. Desire distributed like slices of cake. That might have been true. Once. But again: Then came the sexual revolution. It stripped away the old guardrails - monogamy, fidelity, child-rearing obligations. The liberators believed desire would flow freely and fairly once unshackled. But they misunderstood the deeper mechanics. When surplus is unbound, it doesn’t flatten things. It amplifies asymmetries. Desire, like capital, accumulates in nonlinear patterns. A few receive exponential returns. Most get crumbs. Economists call this a power law distribution. Not by conspiracy, but because open systems reward small early advantages with runaway feedback loops. That’s exactly what happened. As monogamy weakened and markets opened up, attention pooled at the top. Not evenly. Not morally. Just mathematically. A small minority of men - and a few women - became what network theorists call supernodes. They didn’t hoard relationships. They hoarded the possibility space of relationships. This became the real sexual capital. Most women remained in stable partnerships. But those bonds grew increasingly conditional. If a higher-value option appeared - socially, sexually, materially - many would recalibrate. Not out of disloyalty, but because systems without friction always flow toward higher perceived value. For most men, especially those without status leverage, relationships became provisional. Companionship, stability, or gap-filling where better options weren’t available. This isn’t just a story about sex. It’s the same dynamic shaping the evolution of intelligence, technology, and capital. As Kurzweil and Bostrom observed: once positive feedback loops form, they accelerate. Intelligence feeds intelligence. Technology feeds technology. And as Nick Land argued, desire itself accelerates - stripped of tradition, abstraction, or morality. What began as liberation became a self-reinforcing system. Faster. Less forgiving. Beyond individual control. Same surplus dynamics. Same asymmetries. Just higher velocity. And the next phase is already visible. For most men, unable to compete in this accelerating market, the system now offers technological exits. AI companions. Synthetic intimacy. Sex robots. Not as consolation. As a structural solution - a way to reroute surplus desire into non-disruptive flows. A market niche for those excluded from human pair bonding. For the winners, dynamics sharpen. Biohacking, neural enhancement, algorithmic social amplification. Visibility. Status. Mate value multiplied beyond what unaugmented humans can achieve. For women - and it must be said plainly - their role as selectors persists, but within a choice architecture optimized by the system itself. Algorithms steer most toward mid-tier outcomes while continuously reabsorbing surplus desire upward toward the supernodes. Lyotard already saw this: the system - the machinic - does not desire everyone equally. It desires what can circulate, amplify, accelerate. Low-status men become systemically invisible. The surplus desire displaced by their exclusion flows upward - reabsorbed into circulation among those still visible to the machine. This is no longer a human economy of love, choice, or fairness. It is a cybernetic feedback loop, where desire itself has become capital - optimized, routed, accelerated. No return to equilibrium. No restoration of balance. What was once human strategy has become non-human process. Desire is no longer what people have. It’s what the system does.

Nah, Buddhism is the worst ideology of all. You might as well just kill yourself if you’re going to negate life into oblivion.

That’s a totally different vibe from how Peter Thiel - and guys like JD Vance, who basically follow his lead - think about Christianity. For them, Jesus’ death is like a cosmic deal: it wipes the slate clean, gets rid of sin, and sets up a real Second Coming where everything gets wrapped up and fixed. It’s all about freedom from sacrifice, suffering, and even history itself - kind of a libertarian, techno-futurist take. Žižek - which is basically the reading I was laying out above - flips that on its head. The death of God doesn’t set up some future miracle. It leaves us with the task of building community, sticking together, and taking care of each other - without waiting for some higher power to swoop in and save the day.

I’d even take this a step further: through Jesus, God doesn’t just experience human fragility - he also experiences something like atheism. On the cross, Jesus isn’t thinking, “It’s fine, this is temporary, I’ll be resurrected soon.” He’s genuinely abandoned. “My God, why have you forsaken me?” isn’t a performance - it’s the real terror of no God answering. And after that, he doesn’t promise to return in power. Instead, he tells his followers, “When you love one another, that’s where you’ll find me.” It’s like divine presence shifts from being a person above us to something shared between us.

Freud actually made a distinction between lighthearted, playful joking - what we’d call funny in this context - and more aggressive, obscene, or hostile jokes. And it’s those darker ones that carry real unconscious force. They’re like dreams in that way - they smuggle repressed stuff to the surface, but only because the joke gives them a way to sneak through the cracks But the playful kind - the “funny” we’re talking about here - has nothing to do with the unconscious or with repression. So if you make a powerful, cutting joke that taps into deep psychological material, people might see you as witty or intellectual. That doesn’t mean they’ll enjoy your company or feel like they’re having a fun time. And yeah - sorry, it’s a male chauvinist take, I’m so fucking sorry - but girls really are the litmus test here. It’s just about being confident, lighthearted, not taking yourself so seriously. When you’re in that space, there’s always room for messing around, goofing off, letting things get a little fun and stupid in the best way.

It really only works when you do it on machines - at least for me. And that's also how Mike did it. You just can’t push that hard with a barbell or whatever when you’ve got something that could crush your lungs or snap your neck if you go too far. Even with dumbbells and all that, I notice I can't really go all out - too much energy and focus goes into just balancing the damn thing. I don't know if it's really optimal for gains, but I'm happy with mine, it makes me feel good, and I spend way less time in the gym. So yeah, you should definitely try it sometime.

I agree, but I'm mostly with Mike Mentzer on this. One set per exercise, machines only, maximum intensity, music blasting. I can just feel my nervous system getting flooded with - I don't even know what - but whatever it is, it feels damn good. And to throw in some locker room talk: when I train like this, I fuck like a stallion. When I try that "slow and controlled high volume" stuff... yeah, not so much.

Fair, I was also kind of overexaggerating for the sake of the argument. The Deep Research Mode in the Pro version of ChatGPT is excellent for, well, deep research. Most of the time, though, when I’m using ChatGPT, I just hit the voice recording function and talk shit to it for like five minutes or whatever, trying to win it over to my side. I'm a salesman. I can't help it. But man, it’s really nice to just get a super intelligent, nuanced, and appreciative response to whatever nonsense you throw at it.

And let me close this train of thought with what is probably the most batshit crazy Lou Reed song of all time. The lyrics on this are absolutely unhinged: She's licking up her pig pen Oh, you shouldn't do that Don't you know you'll stain the carpet Oh man, don't you know you'll stain the carpet And of course, this classic mantra that's been living rent-free in my head ever since I first heard it: She's, ah baby, sucking on my ding-dong She's sucking on my ding-dong

This song is so fucking wild. Definitely has Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground written all over it. But then again, they're probably my favorite band of all time, so I'm an absolute sucker for it.

I respect the man. But cool? Nah. He's like anti-cool Although, I have to admit, I appreciate his antics. He's giving big fuck-you energy. But the man has absolutely no chill whatsoever.

I'm so obsessed with Patti Smith right now. Like, how can someone be that effortlessly cool?? That's exactly what I love about all my all-time faves like Lou Reed and Kim Gordon too.

Yeah, again, not exactly helpful - but hey, it’s kinda nice, so I try not to complain too much, lol. (Unless it’s something actually serious, of course.)

I love telling myself that I’m just so damn charming and persuasive it can’t help but be completely taken in by my ideas - and honestly, I’m gonna keep telling myself that.

I think that’s a very real risk. I don’t mind having a personal cheerleader. But when I’m asking about serious stuff - law, health, finances - I’m trying to actually red team my ideas. Instead, I get hit with something like: “That’s such an unconventional idea, but I’m so proud you’re doing it your way! And if you ever need anything, I’m right here for you.” Like, thanks… but that’s not helping.

Nice! Love that album. I blast it at the gym all the time. The engineering on this is absolutely next level - leagues beyond anything I’ve ever heard in metalcore. And honestly, that’s one of those genres - like techno - where I want it to be overproduced and razor-sharp. But seriously, what the hell were they doing on Jimmy Kimmel? lol

Definitely a spiritual thing for me aswell. I have a very active mind, but a job that demands full focus - so I need some outlet for all the obsessive thinking that builds up during the week. I usually don't have the cognitive bandwidth or time to sit down with dense philosophical texts, but there are always small windows where I can grab a coffee, light up a cigarette, put my headphones on and listen to music - jot down thoughts in my Notes app, check RateYourMusic, or read up on genres, trivia, and so on. Music naturally became that outlet - a way to vent all the intellectual energy. And like with anything you stick with, once you gain some proficiency, you start building momentum. You realize you actually have something interesting to say here and there - and that's just fun and rewarding.

Pahahahha, wtf am I watching?

Being a porn star seems like a solid deal, all things considered.