Hey Nate, I liked your Frankly video and made a couple long comments. I often get the feeling You Tube won't let my comments get to you. My moniker is Braeburn2333.
I'm trying to make a 3 minute video about my efforts toward sustainability. I keep going over 3 minutes. I'll get it eventually.
thanks Karl - re youtube censoring, I don't understand it either. (but its not my team removing your comments). Looking forward to getting your 2:59 video before month end ;-)
I am here and I am ready now and I need you, and everyone from the great simplification to help going forward because I am scared of myself. Reality broke open in my head, and then I felt the shift in myself and the world around me. I know HOW, but I need everyone to come together now and HOLD me.
This is a broad topic, and there are many aspects to cover. First, we drastically overuse harsh labels like narcissist, sociopath, and psychopath, often because it’s easier to slap a provocative label on someone—virtue signaling to one’s tribe—than it is to actually engage with and empathize with the opposing tribe’s arguments.
The recent USAID audit provides a perfect example of how individuals with only weak dark triad traits still engage in manipulative and self-deceptive behaviors. Anyone who has actually examined the expenditure line items can clearly see that USAID is a cesspool of waste, fraud, and, worst of all, ideological warfare—none of which reflect the democratic will of the American people. So what has been the response from the left (a faction that ostensibly champions democracy)? Instead of engaging in good-faith analysis, the reaction has largely consisted of baiting into hazard, rhetoric, gossip, slander, and linguistic manipulation—an approach that aligns with what some psychologists describe as an “indirect aggression” strategy. This is often associated with social groups that rely more on language, reputation, and exclusion than direct confrontation. Yet, this phenomenon is rarely acknowledged in left-leaning circles, perhaps because, as the saying goes, a fish is unaware of the water it swims in.
That being said, the response to the audit hasn’t been, “Why are we spending taxpayer dollars on an Irish DEI musical (yes… I kid you not) when the interest on our national debt alone is now a trillion dollars per year?” No, of course not. Instead, it’s been a barrage of vague pejoratives—oligarchy, fascism, the death of democracy—all thrown around with no coherent arguments attached.
Empathy is frequently weaponized in political rhetoric. “You can’t get rid of USAID because children in Haiti will starve!” The implicit message isn’t just concern for those children, but a moral indictment: opposition signals greed or cruelty. This framing shuts down debate rather than fostering a genuine cost-benefit analysis. And here’s the tricky part—such statements can be true in isolation while still being used as psychological manipulation. The broader reality is that USAID’s expenditures are dictated by an unelected bureaucracy, not by the collective will of the American people. And once again, rather than addressing this structural critique, the dominant response has been misdirection and moral posturing.
Speaking the truth isn’t just about telling a truth—it’s about presenting the whole truth. Omitting details that prevent the public from seeing the full picture is just another form of deception. Irish DEI musicals might have some marginal benefit, but are they worth the opportunity cost? More importantly, are they a genuine reflection of the will of our democracy?
That said, none of this is to suggest that the right is immune to self-deception or manipulative tactics. The right’s power strategies tend to lean more on fear-based rhetoric, appeals to nationalism, and economic reductionism—often framing complex issues in overly simplistic ways. While the left may use empathy as a weapon, the right frequently uses fear: “If we don’t act now, the country will be overrun,” or “They’re coming for your way of life.” Both are emotional levers designed to bypass rational debate. And just as the left often refuses to acknowledge its own psychological biases, many on the right fail to recognize when their messaging is guided more by reactionary sentiment than genuine principle.
To be clear, I could just as easily analyze the psychological tendencies and power strategies of the right in greater depth. But the reason I’m focusing on the left here is that most people in this particular memetic tribe lean left. By examining these dynamics, I hope to add an extra layer of self-awareness that can act as a safeguard against self-deception. Recognizing these patterns doesn’t mean rejecting left-leaning principles outright—it simply means engaging with them more critically, rather than reflexively defending the tribe.
On a closing note, I don’t consider myself a native to any memetic tribe. I prefer to move between them, aiming to see the broader landscape. Of course, I have my own unconscious biases—but at the very least, I strive to be aware of them.
Thanks Nate and TGS crew for continued ‘good’ and ‘true’ work, so much appreciated. I believe we carry both the dark and light triads in all of us, and coupled with environment, nutrition, and support circles we can either soften or weaken these traits. However, I do question if there are certain percentage of humans that are pure dark or pure light.
Hey Nate, I liked your Frankly video and made a couple long comments. I often get the feeling You Tube won't let my comments get to you. My moniker is Braeburn2333.
I'm trying to make a 3 minute video about my efforts toward sustainability. I keep going over 3 minutes. I'll get it eventually.
Thanks again for all you do.
Karl
thanks Karl - re youtube censoring, I don't understand it either. (but its not my team removing your comments). Looking forward to getting your 2:59 video before month end ;-)
I keep going over 3 minutes...that is hilarious!
I am here and I am ready now and I need you, and everyone from the great simplification to help going forward because I am scared of myself. Reality broke open in my head, and then I felt the shift in myself and the world around me. I know HOW, but I need everyone to come together now and HOLD me.
https://open.substack.com/pub/straythoughtsandbadpoetry/p/a-gentle-being-coming-into-bloom?r=45g794&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
This is a broad topic, and there are many aspects to cover. First, we drastically overuse harsh labels like narcissist, sociopath, and psychopath, often because it’s easier to slap a provocative label on someone—virtue signaling to one’s tribe—than it is to actually engage with and empathize with the opposing tribe’s arguments.
The recent USAID audit provides a perfect example of how individuals with only weak dark triad traits still engage in manipulative and self-deceptive behaviors. Anyone who has actually examined the expenditure line items can clearly see that USAID is a cesspool of waste, fraud, and, worst of all, ideological warfare—none of which reflect the democratic will of the American people. So what has been the response from the left (a faction that ostensibly champions democracy)? Instead of engaging in good-faith analysis, the reaction has largely consisted of baiting into hazard, rhetoric, gossip, slander, and linguistic manipulation—an approach that aligns with what some psychologists describe as an “indirect aggression” strategy. This is often associated with social groups that rely more on language, reputation, and exclusion than direct confrontation. Yet, this phenomenon is rarely acknowledged in left-leaning circles, perhaps because, as the saying goes, a fish is unaware of the water it swims in.
That being said, the response to the audit hasn’t been, “Why are we spending taxpayer dollars on an Irish DEI musical (yes… I kid you not) when the interest on our national debt alone is now a trillion dollars per year?” No, of course not. Instead, it’s been a barrage of vague pejoratives—oligarchy, fascism, the death of democracy—all thrown around with no coherent arguments attached.
Empathy is frequently weaponized in political rhetoric. “You can’t get rid of USAID because children in Haiti will starve!” The implicit message isn’t just concern for those children, but a moral indictment: opposition signals greed or cruelty. This framing shuts down debate rather than fostering a genuine cost-benefit analysis. And here’s the tricky part—such statements can be true in isolation while still being used as psychological manipulation. The broader reality is that USAID’s expenditures are dictated by an unelected bureaucracy, not by the collective will of the American people. And once again, rather than addressing this structural critique, the dominant response has been misdirection and moral posturing.
Speaking the truth isn’t just about telling a truth—it’s about presenting the whole truth. Omitting details that prevent the public from seeing the full picture is just another form of deception. Irish DEI musicals might have some marginal benefit, but are they worth the opportunity cost? More importantly, are they a genuine reflection of the will of our democracy?
That said, none of this is to suggest that the right is immune to self-deception or manipulative tactics. The right’s power strategies tend to lean more on fear-based rhetoric, appeals to nationalism, and economic reductionism—often framing complex issues in overly simplistic ways. While the left may use empathy as a weapon, the right frequently uses fear: “If we don’t act now, the country will be overrun,” or “They’re coming for your way of life.” Both are emotional levers designed to bypass rational debate. And just as the left often refuses to acknowledge its own psychological biases, many on the right fail to recognize when their messaging is guided more by reactionary sentiment than genuine principle.
To be clear, I could just as easily analyze the psychological tendencies and power strategies of the right in greater depth. But the reason I’m focusing on the left here is that most people in this particular memetic tribe lean left. By examining these dynamics, I hope to add an extra layer of self-awareness that can act as a safeguard against self-deception. Recognizing these patterns doesn’t mean rejecting left-leaning principles outright—it simply means engaging with them more critically, rather than reflexively defending the tribe.
On a closing note, I don’t consider myself a native to any memetic tribe. I prefer to move between them, aiming to see the broader landscape. Of course, I have my own unconscious biases—but at the very least, I strive to be aware of them.
Thanks Nate and TGS crew for continued ‘good’ and ‘true’ work, so much appreciated. I believe we carry both the dark and light triads in all of us, and coupled with environment, nutrition, and support circles we can either soften or weaken these traits. However, I do question if there are certain percentage of humans that are pure dark or pure light.
The moon is the most impoverished existence known to mankind, it brought back trauma, sickness and a something beyond the fear of death.
Three wise men, but not.
Three wise beings from different continents of ways.
Gandhi was mimetic of demonstration, was anyone paying attention?
It takes almost a lifetime to ‘realize’ a three, in physics three spheres of influence has no available calculation.
So we can not go beyond three.
Imagine how many millions of people don’t know each other.
Devolution happened.
Dunbar, ran off with the spoils and forgot to mention time, and was satisfied with a stage theory and an ism.