I have been thinking about the following the last several years and have drawn some dark horse conclusions. I’m boiling it down here and leaving it a riddle. It’s another way to see something we may rarely question.
“Political compass” or “left/right spectrum” is a mind trap. Radical isn’t included within the trap. Why isn’t it? Not for “a reason” but for the dangers of “reason” itself.
The political spectrum tool stamped in our brains, with its minor variants, is a brain trap to prevent political reasoning while deceptively posing as a tool of political reasoning. It functions in reality in the following ways.
1. Substitution of complex social thought with simplistic explanations.
2. Internal self denying the holism of our humanity by it assigning limited dimension personality to political beliefs.
3. Separation of popular social forces into false diametric opposition of each other.
4. Divorcing political agency from culture, pulling culture apart by its political parts.
5. Hiding the beneficiaries of this brain trap, making them invisible and innocuous.
6. Simultaneously as making these beneficiaries invisible, the brain trap gives to them everything it takes away from the rest of us, making themselves central to the self definition of all others.
The next thought in puzzling this is yours to take. Step back & examine for yourself the “left/ right spectrum tool” as a potential deceptive brain trap. Note what you observe. What other things do you see that I did not describe? What of my observations did you similarly note?
Now that you’ve given it thought, what is the invisible within it, that counterintuitively has the only clear definition, that informs all others which I allude to in my sixth point?
We have "cartesian blinders being put on us so that we are trying to make sense out of scraps of information and hints." - @bretweinstein
WEINSTEIN: I mean, even if you have your villains who are engaged in the behavior that motivated this war in Iran, even if that's the story, presumably most of the people in the path of these ferocious bombings that he is describing are not deserving of going back to the Stone Age.
In fact, I distinctly remember him telling us that part of what we were up to was liberating the people of Iran from their tyrannical regime.
So if it's the tyrannical regime that justifies the ferocious bombing, then it's a tragedy that other people are going to be sent back to the Stone Ages with them. Right?
HEYING: It's it's not a narrative. It's an incoherent set of talking points.
WEINSTEIN: Yeah, it's a kind of cheerleading that is completely inappropriate from the perspective of the president.
Bret Weinstein discusses the Trump administrations "back to the stone age" recent remarks in the latest episode of The Evolutionary Lens, Episode 320 "Are we back in the stone age?" on DarkHorse.
Bret Weinstein explains, "If you stop businesses from starting here, and if you drive people so that they move elsewhere—even though it's difficult to do—then the point is the tax base dries up, which then forces you to become even more predatory for the people who stayed.
And that's really the thing, right? They're setting themselves up so that they have to go after more and more people, because the people who are starting new businesses are not going to do it here."
The Modern Psyop
- Brutal honesty in a masks-off world
The Feeling Everyone Notices
You will have noticed that the internet is absolutely insane, and the world seems to be descending into a kind of chaos that drags everything in with it.
It’s absolutely clear to me that there is significant control over the information we see. I think there was more transparency during the Vietnam War in terms of journalism and footage than there is now with this war involving Iran. It feels like Goliath has near-complete control over what information we can and cannot see.
A Shift in the Censorship Complex
At the same time, something else stands out to me: the censorship complex, at least when it comes to discourse, seems to have shifted. During the COVID-19 era, platforms like YouTube and other tech giants actively worked to silence certain voices (e.g., Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, and Bret/Heather).
But now, it seems like the gates have been opened—dissenting voices are allowed more room (albeit often still ...
