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?
Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean nude spa for women in the Seattle area, was told by the state of Washington, now upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that they must let men in, so long as those men think they’re women. Judge VanDyke’s dissent correctly summarizes the issue as one of “swinging dicks.”
Heather Heying explains:
"These are such clowns. These judges are such clowns. And one of them’s a woman who apparently gives no fucks about the women and girls as young as 13, who might go to this amazing spa and be exposed to a very confused and mentally unstable man who’s got his balls and dick out.
More likely, frankly, most of us who once went to this amazing business are not going to go anymore. They’re going to have put out of business a Korean family who happened to be conservative Christians because of what? ...
"From your perspective, how good are your AirPods for you?
The answer is: that depends if you’re a mouse that was bred in one of these idiotic protocols.
If you are a mouse, where do you get AirPods? You probably want AirPods, maybe more than one set.
If you’re not a mouse, then this is an indicator that it’s actually dangerous.
The fact that the mice live longer is not good news.
It’s bad news because a toxin that you will not tolerate well will function like chemotherapy, or in this case like radiation therapy does on a cancer patient."
Clipped from Episode 316, Bret and Heather discuss a new paper that finds infection tends to lead to greater frailty in older people. This reverses the causality of Terrain Theory of Disease (frailty of the body leads to greater susceptibility of infection), and also provides support for a prediction made by Bret and his co-author Debbie Ciszek in the unpublished, longer version of their reserve capacity paper from 2002.
Mentioned in this segment:
Ragusa et al 2026: https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/gerona/glag043/8497853
Weinstein & Ciszek 2002: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11909679/
Watch it here: https://darkhorse.locals.com/post/7779157/locals-exclusive-q-a-live-march-18th
Join them in the chat for the next one on Sunday, March 29th!
The Parasite of Tomorrow
How history repeats itself
Based on the image, (assuming you read it) what does the word “groupeur” sound like?
According to Nesta Webster in her book World Revolutions, a groupeur is someone who helps gather a crowd around a message—often by drawing attention to it in a way that appears natural or spontaneous. Their role is to amplify and focus public attention, turning passive observers into an engaged group.
The term “groupeur” appears in her account of the French Revolutionary period, particularly around the movement associated with Gracchus Babeuf (which I'm learning about)
I don’t know… but doesn’t that sound a bit familiar?
To me, it resembles Nick Fuentes and the Groypers—how they’re able to capture the frustration of everyday people and channel it in a particular direction.
(As an aside.. did anyone else notice how Nick Fuentes, and the groyper army.. used all their power to smash Tucker and Candace in the moments after Charlie Kirks death?)
...
