I personally knew Ophelia Bauckholt before she died in a shootout that also left a border patrol officer dead. I suspected immediately that her being a fan of Ziz had something to do with it. And I decided to post about her and Ziz, on X.com. This sparked some online detective efforts into the matter, and a lot of journalists wanting to talk to me.
One of these journalists was Andy Ngo. Despite Andy's reputation as a right-wing provocateur, I decided to keep an open mind, and answered his questions. More than any other journalist I talked with, he wanted to understand the details of the case, the connections with rationalism, and the strange Zizian ideology. He and I have talked for hours on such details.
Not everyone was happy that I was talking with journalists about rationalist-adjacent transgender vegan killers. Some trans people messaged me, requesting that I delete the post about Ophelia, as it could make trans people look bad. Others in TPOT and rationalism believed that a more careful, less unilateral approach to talking with journalists about Zizians would be more prudent.
Aella, a famous rationalist, made at least two posts on the matter in 2025:
"lots of ppl tryin to get me for interviews about the zizians. I haven't been taking anybody up on this cause i would not like to increase my risk of getting murdered, but if an org wants to pay for my house getting an upgraded security system id prob trade that for an interview" (link)
"im more pro talking to journalists than most of the ppl in my circles but still, andy ngo? do not hand the lowest epistemic class of people any ammo" (link)
I know it's a bit late to comment on these, but I'll do so anyway. Regarding the first post, I have had some concerns that Ziz's allies would kill me for talking to journalists about them, although I decided to unilaterally persevere anyway in exposing the death cult. To the degree there were real security concerns here, I acted courageously, and so did Andy Ngo.
Regarding the second post, desperate times call for desperate measures: when (strongly suspected) serial killers are at large, to the degree that people even fear talking much about them, even mediocre journalism can be effective, in helping to connect the disparate legal cases across the United States, and to better prosecute the perpetrators.
But is it even true that Andy Ngo is part of "the lowest epistemic class of people"? Anyone interested in assessing this claim could better do so by reading his new book, The Zizians.
Frankly, the book is the most comprehensive history of the Zizians available anywhere, and it's accurate so far as I can tell. Even as someone who has followed the ongoing drama for over a decade, I learned new details, such as about how Pasek was inducted into the ideology (and subsequently committed suicide), about Michelle Zajko's possible motives for killing her parents, and about the East coast crew's activities prior to the border patrol shootout.
The book reminds me of Days of Rage, which details the activities of various violent radical groups in the 70s. The Zizians is like Days of Rage in describing many details about the people involved, how people develop radical ideologies, how "fans" of a radical group can become members over time, and how they turn against normal society and drop out of their previous lives, "going underground" in some cases.
The Zizians is thrilling reading, but also uncomfortable, in describing people's disturbing personality changes over time, and the violent events related to this group. I'm used to the plot by now, but typical readers will not be familiar with the stupendously outlandishly dramatic events described here.
Some readers will find the "birth pronouns" and "deadnaming" off-putting. On the other hand, given how members of the group have switched between many names and identities over time, in a way that frustrates the legal system and people's efforts to track the actions of people over time, it's pretty justified to say "no" to their requests for use of preferred names and pronouns, at this point.
Overall, I would recommend The Zizians to people interested in rationalist drama, contemporary radical ideologies, and true legal drama. The book's content overlaps quite a lot with the general summaries of events I have discussed with journalists, but goes into more detail overall. I appreciate how comprehensive Andy Ngo's research for this book has been, and I see that my hours of discussion with him have paid off.
The question on my mind is, to what degree was this all preventable? Did the rationalist community did some obvious mistakes that we could learn from? Or are people like Ziz better modelled as a force of nature?
I mean, I am obviously biased here, but if I model the rationalist community as a kind of self-improvement group (just to get a large enough reference group), what do other self-improvement groups do to avoid future serial killers coming to their lessons and recruiting within the group? Especially if even after kicking them out, they can simply keep living nearby and contacting vulnerable group members in their free time.
[lightly edited from an X.com post]
I personally knew Ophelia Bauckholt before she died in a shootout that also left a border patrol officer dead. I suspected immediately that her being a fan of Ziz had something to do with it. And I decided to post about her and Ziz, on X.com. This sparked some online detective efforts into the matter, and a lot of journalists wanting to talk to me.
One of these journalists was Andy Ngo. Despite Andy's reputation as a right-wing provocateur, I decided to keep an open mind, and answered his questions. More than any other journalist I talked with, he wanted to understand the details of the case, the connections with rationalism, and the strange Zizian ideology. He and I have talked for hours on such details.
Not everyone was happy that I was talking with journalists about rationalist-adjacent transgender vegan killers. Some trans people messaged me, requesting that I delete the post about Ophelia, as it could make trans people look bad. Others in TPOT and rationalism believed that a more careful, less unilateral approach to talking with journalists about Zizians would be more prudent.
Aella, a famous rationalist, made at least two posts on the matter in 2025:
"lots of ppl tryin to get me for interviews about the zizians. I haven't been taking anybody up on this cause i would not like to increase my risk of getting murdered, but if an org wants to pay for my house getting an upgraded security system id prob trade that for an interview" (link)
"im more pro talking to journalists than most of the ppl in my circles but still, andy ngo? do not hand the lowest epistemic class of people any ammo" (link)
I know it's a bit late to comment on these, but I'll do so anyway. Regarding the first post, I have had some concerns that Ziz's allies would kill me for talking to journalists about them, although I decided to unilaterally persevere anyway in exposing the death cult. To the degree there were real security concerns here, I acted courageously, and so did Andy Ngo.
Regarding the second post, desperate times call for desperate measures: when (strongly suspected) serial killers are at large, to the degree that people even fear talking much about them, even mediocre journalism can be effective, in helping to connect the disparate legal cases across the United States, and to better prosecute the perpetrators.
But is it even true that Andy Ngo is part of "the lowest epistemic class of people"? Anyone interested in assessing this claim could better do so by reading his new book, The Zizians.
Frankly, the book is the most comprehensive history of the Zizians available anywhere, and it's accurate so far as I can tell. Even as someone who has followed the ongoing drama for over a decade, I learned new details, such as about how Pasek was inducted into the ideology (and subsequently committed suicide), about Michelle Zajko's possible motives for killing her parents, and about the East coast crew's activities prior to the border patrol shootout.
The book reminds me of Days of Rage, which details the activities of various violent radical groups in the 70s. The Zizians is like Days of Rage in describing many details about the people involved, how people develop radical ideologies, how "fans" of a radical group can become members over time, and how they turn against normal society and drop out of their previous lives, "going underground" in some cases.
The Zizians is thrilling reading, but also uncomfortable, in describing people's disturbing personality changes over time, and the violent events related to this group. I'm used to the plot by now, but typical readers will not be familiar with the stupendously outlandishly dramatic events described here.
Some readers will find the "birth pronouns" and "deadnaming" off-putting. On the other hand, given how members of the group have switched between many names and identities over time, in a way that frustrates the legal system and people's efforts to track the actions of people over time, it's pretty justified to say "no" to their requests for use of preferred names and pronouns, at this point.
Overall, I would recommend The Zizians to people interested in rationalist drama, contemporary radical ideologies, and true legal drama. The book's content overlaps quite a lot with the general summaries of events I have discussed with journalists, but goes into more detail overall. I appreciate how comprehensive Andy Ngo's research for this book has been, and I see that my hours of discussion with him have paid off.