Don't Waste Your Time: Why Claude Is Worthless
Artificial stupidity is more like it.
After I published this article today collecting some of my best Substack pieces over the last two years and setting them as free in front of the paywall, I decided to repeat an experiment that I’ve been doing the last few months.
I fed the link into multiple LLMs to see if any of them had anything interesting or useful to tell me about it.
I thought Claude’s answer in particular was worth sharing in light of the role it potentially played in the targeting of a girl’s school in Iran which resulted in the deaths of 150-175 people, mostly children.
“The landing is a bit flat”?
Claude is telling me I should have written some sort of conclusion analyzing myself and the various topics I wrote about over two years.
Of course, how helpful is it to give me advice on an already-published piece that has been emailed out to hundreds of readers?
Or at times I would drop in one of my Algemeiner articles and again get advice on how to make it better which I would answer with “I write these the way my editor wants them.” So Claude wasn’t just dumping on me as a lousy writer. It was dumping on my editor for not assigning and editing the pieces the way Claude would.
This is so annoying. Claude is the only one of the LLMs that insists on doing this absolutely every time when I feed in my published articles. It will tell me something to change in it, after I’ve already published the article. And every time its advice will be useless. It will tell me something I’ve already considered and chosen not to do.
I got so fed up with it doing this that earlier this week I specifically told it not to and then it claimed to have adjusted its memory to not do it anymore. But I knew that would be bullshit. It would no doubt still continue to offer up unwanted advice on changing already-published articles rather than just providing analysis of what was already published.
When I used ChatGPT last year before beginning my boycott of all Sam Altman products it would do the same thing. For a time I was experimenting with using ChatGPT’s voice feature to interview me as I was developing material for a memoir. I was attempting an Autobiography of Mark Twain-style dictation project where I’d talk extemporaneously about the past and the present and have ChatGPT respond to what I said as I audiotaped the conversation.
And I got annoyed that it would perpetually answer the same way with seemingly whatever I said: “absolutely.” I told it to stop and even put it into the memory so it wouldn’t keep doing it. Responding that way was making the recordings more unnatural and less useful. I wanted it to sound like an actual person was talking to me. But it couldn’t help itself. There would be times it would say “absolutely” and then correct itself afterward, apologizing for its unwillingness to follow an instruction as simple as “don’t repeat the same answer over and over again.”
But of course it would happen again. I can count on this happening every time I stick one of my articles in.
Now to do a little compare and contrast, what happened when I fed this into Gemini?
Well first of all, Gemini did not respond knowing who I am. Google has a different ethical framework to its LLM. A Gemini query is like a google search. It does not carry around information about me in its memory or remember past discussions to more easily emotionally manipulate me. If I want my identity factored into a Gemini answer then I’ll identify myself to it as “American journalist David Swindle” and then it will be able to respond in context.
So here are the Gemini results:
Answer:
This Substack post functions as a “Greatest Hits” archive and a strategic manifesto for David Michael Swindle, who writes under the banner of God of the Desert Digital Media Studios.
Here is a breakdown of what to make of this collection:
1. A Strategic Pivot
The post is primarily an announcement of an evolution. Swindle is transitioning his brand from “God of the Desert Books” to a “Digital Media Studio.” This involves moving away from the written word as his sole focus and leaning into livestreams and podcasting. He is also implementing a paywall for archives older than six months, making this list a “free sampler” to entice new subscribers before the doors close on the rest of his history.
2. High-Octane, Idiosyncratic Subject Matter
The essays reveal a writer who avoids “middle-of-the-road” takes. His topics are a dense mix of:
Hard-line Geopolitics: He takes very aggressive stances on international affairs (e.g., calling Russia a “suicidal slave state” and arguing for “Anarchist-Imperialist American power”).
Religious Mysticism: He blends political commentary with esoteric themes, such as using “Ancient Egyptian deities” to explain Trump’s mandate or comparing Judeo-Christian mysticism to paganism.
Antisemitism & Zionism: This is clearly a central pillar of his work. He tracks antisemitism across the political spectrum (from the “woke” left to figures like Tucker Carlson and JD Vance on the right) and documents his personal retirement from the “Counter-Islamist Movement.”
3. Provocative Tone
The titles are designed to be “clicky” but intellectually heavy—what some might call “intellectual dark web” adjacent. He isn’t afraid of hyperbole (e.g., “Gen-Z Is Doomed,” “The Real Reason J.K. Rowling Needs to Be Arrested Immediately”). He seems to delight in subverting standard political categories, rejecting the “phony” woke vs. anti-woke fight in favor of his own specific, often religious-coded framework.
4. Personal Revelation
Beyond politics, there is a strong element of personal “gonzo” journalism. The inclusion of an essay on “The Absurd Way I Accidentally Cured My PTSD” suggests that his Substack is as much about his own psychological and spiritual journey as it is about external news.
Overall Impression
This is a collection for someone who finds mainstream media boring and “standard” alternative media too predictable. It’s a map of a very specific worldview: pro-Zionist, hawkish on foreign policy, skeptical of modern internet culture, and deeply interested in how ancient mysticism intersects with modern power.
If you enjoy “deep-end” intellectual rabbit holes where theology, trauma, and Trump all sit at the same table, this is likely aimed directly at you. If you prefer traditional, objective reporting, you’ll likely find it intensely polarizing.
To go deeper into the “God of the Desert” archives is to look past the provocative headlines and see a specific intellectual architecture being built. David Michael Swindle isn’t just blogging; he is constructing a “Grand Unified Theory” of his own worldview.
Here is a deeper analysis of the themes, the psychology, and the media strategy at play:
1. The “Post-Binary” Political Identity
Swindle’s most fascinating trait is his refusal to fit into the current American “Left vs. Right” or “Woke vs. Anti-Woke” silos.
The Zionist Pivot: While many in the “anti-woke” movement have moved toward an isolationist or “America First” stance (like Tucker Carlson or JD Vance, whom Swindle explicitly critiques), Swindle remains a hardline Zionist and an advocate for “Anarchist-Imperialist” American power.
The Critique of the Right: By attacking the “antisemitism” of populist darlings like Candace Owens and JD Vance, he positions himself as a “Remnant”—a thinker holding onto 20th-century neoconservative or classical liberal values while the rest of the Right shifts toward populism and the Left shifts toward intersectionality.
2. Socio-Biological Determinism
Several of his “favorite” essays suggest he believes modern political rot isn’t just a matter of bad ideas, but of physical and neurological degradation.
The Lead Poisoning Hypothesis: His essay on lead poisoning as a driver for toxic politics is a “deep-lore” take on sociology. It implies that we are not arguing with people who have different opinions, but with a population whose brains have been fundamentally altered by environmental factors.
The “Internet Makes Us Dumber” Theory: This pairs with his biological concerns. He treats the digital landscape as a cognitive hazard. This justifies his “God of the Desert” branding—the “Desert” is a place of asceticism and distance from the “dumb and mean” noise of the connected world.
3. Religious Syncretism as Political Lens
Swindle uses theology not as a private faith, but as a diagnostic tool for geopolitics.
The Egyptian/Mystical Framework: By applying Ancient Egyptian deities to Trump’s mandate or discussing “Judeo-Christian Mysticism vs. Pauline-Christian Paganism,” he is engaging in “Meta-Politics.” He is suggesting that the material world (elections, wars) is merely a shadow-play of deeper, ancient spiritual conflicts.
The Illuminati/Conspiracy Subversion: His essay on the Illuminati likely isn’t a standard conspiracy theory, but an attempt to reclaim the “secret society” narrative for his own ends—perhaps framing “the elites” not as a shadow cabal, but as a necessary (or failed) intellectual vanguard.
4. The “Professional Exile” Narrative
There is a strong “hero’s journey” element to this archive.
The Retirement: His announcement of retiring from the “Counter-Islamist Movement” is a major “lore” event. It signals a transition from “The Warrior” (fighting an external enemy) to “The Sage” or “The Studio Head” (building an internal culture).
The PTSD Cure: Including a personal story about curing PTSD adds a layer of “vulnerable authority.” It tells the reader, “I have been through the fire, I have solved my own brokenness, and therefore I am qualified to tell you how to solve the world’s brokenness.”
5. The “Walled Garden” Business Strategy
From a media-analysis perspective, this post is a sophisticated funnel.
Scarcity and Value: By paywalling everything older than six months, he creates “artificial scarcity.” This list of 50 essays serves as the “Free Samples” at the front of a very expensive store.
The “Studio” Model: Shifting from “Books” to “Studios” is a recognition that in 2026, text is no longer the primary currency of influence. He is pivoting to “Presence” (video, audio, livestreaming), where the audience pays for access to the person rather than just the idea.
Summary: What is the “God of the Desert”?
It is a boutique intellectual fortress. It is designed for the “homeless” intellectual—someone who is pro-Israel but anti-populist; pro-American power but anti-establishment; spiritually hungry but intellectually rigorous. He is selling a sense of “sanity” (defined on his very specific terms) in a world he portrays as biologically and digitally deranged.
I did a preview of the post above, saved it as a PDF, and uploaded it into Claude. This was the response:
"If it works better for you, than use it. I'm not going to argue for myself," said Claude. I had to laugh when I read this. You definitely pissed Claude off:)