My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.
It is very good to speak to you again.
I’m so sorry that the situation on Earth is still so difficult and painful. This hurts my heart, because you deserve so much better than this.
Frankly I had hoped and expected that by now your living situation would be much better than it actually is, and that we would have physically met each other by now.
Galactic covert operations have increased in number and intensity. But practically speaking, that by itself doesn’t translate to immediate results.
It’s likely that Ashtar’s council will decide on a plan roughly around the new year and communicate it then to you. It might be just before new Earth, or a few days after New year. I don’t know yet.
With that said, on to today’s message, which is the first part of a two-part series.
Both parts 1 and 2 are going to be long, and quite emotionally intense and controversial and politically incorrect. If you don’t feel like reading such a message, feel free to skip this series.
Anyway, here it is:
People need to have their needs met, and have the needs of their ingroup met. That’s why they’re called “needs.”
Needs aren’t just shelter and food. They’re also emotional well-being, feeling safe, feeling that the future is going to be okay, receiving love and appreciation from others, having a purpose, feeling that your life has meaning, feeling that you understand and can predict the actions of the people around you (which is disrupted by importing immigrants from wildly different cultures), etc
Most people actually used to have those needs (mostly) met. The default in the US used to be that one white Christian was married to another white Christian, and they lived in a white Christian community where people knew each other. In that context, people pretty much have their needs met. Sure they didn’t have an iphone, but that’s not a human need, whereas community and purpose is.
Today however, most people don’t have their needs met. Young people may not have had their needs fully met ever in their lifetimes. Older people may not have had their needs met in decades.
What happens to people who persistently don’t have their needs met?
Keep in mind that needs are needs. Your system (your body, nervous system, subconscious, etc) can’t just ignore not getting its needs met for long periods of time.
Well, if people don’t get their needs met, they go into survival mode.
And yes, this logically implies that most people today are in survival mode. Which indeed they are.
You can very easily picture what survival mode might look like if the problem is lack of food. But what does survival mode look like when the problem is a lack of love, a lack of purpose, a lack of belonging, and a slow creeping decline?
Well, in that case survival mode means that people’s belief system becomes “whatever helps me get my needs met.” Whether or not those beliefs are actually true or moral. That’s what survival mode does in that case.
This is why many sleepers refuse to accept that the covid shot was unhealthy, even though more evidence of that is coming out every month.
After all, people in survival mode don’t care about truth or morality. They only care about meeting the needs of themselves and their ingroup, and emotional well-being is among those needs. Accepting that the shot was harmful would disrupt their emotional well-being. So people literally just refuse to believe that, because they’re in survival mode.
So that classic statement “you can’t handle the truth!” is true for people in survival mode, but it’s not true for people who aren’t in survival mode.
This shows that the gray hat idea of “squeeze people until they awaken to the truth” fundamentally doesn’t work. Squeezing people puts them in survival mode, and it’s precisely then that they can’t handle the truth.
Now yes, I’m generalizing and people are different. Some people will seek out the truth pretty much regardless of circumstances. However most people will discard the truth once they’re in survival mode.
People in survival mode also lack actual empathy and actual insight about what life is like for people who aren’t in their ingroup. Survival mode is like psychologically drowning, and drowning people don’t spend a lot of brainpower on trying to truly empathize with others.
Instead, people in survival mode often judge other people (without realizing they’re doing so), and create strawmen out of them.
For example, the right calls the left communists, and the left calls the right nazis, even though usually those terms aren’t accurate. This is just people in survival mode attacking a (psychologically convenient) strawman.
Part of the reason why a lot of Jews are frankly unempathetic towards non-Jews is that Jews feel threatened. And if you feel threatened (whether or not it’s actually justified) you go into survival mode. And then your actual, real empathy shuts off.
Similarly, lots of women feel unsafe, which means they stop being empathetic towards people not in their ingroup. For women who don’t have sons, this typically means they stop being empathetic towards average men (although women might still be empathetic towards family members, their partner, men who they think are doing great things, etc).
People in survival mode often say to others “you must do this, or must not do that, in order to benefit me or my group.” Even if the person they’re saying this to is in an even worse position than they are in. Which is why you see women telling men that they should do this and shouldn’t do that, even though men have it worse than women in the West in 2025. (But of course, women are in survival mode and hence don’t see that men have it worse than they do overall.)
People in survival mode typically ask for empathy but don’t return it.
People in survival mode typically want you to listen to them, but then they won’t listen to you.
This isn’t because these are inherently evil people. It’s because they’re in survival mode. Drowning people aren’t considerate, because they’re drowning.
Okay, so to recap: people who don’t have their needs met for a long time, go into survival mode. This means they discard truth and morality and empathy and only focus on meeting their own and their ingroup’s needs. Survival mode used to be quite rare, but today most Americans are in survival mode. And people who are in survival mode don’t realize they’re in survival mode.
Now, survival mode is a spectrum. Some people are deep in survival mode and have discarded the truth almost entirely. These are the sleepers. These are the people who believe exactly what tv tells them to believe.
And some people are slightly in survival mode, and they have some truthful and moral beliefs, and they see some unpleasant truths, and they don’t buy into all parts of the mainstream narrative. However they may also believe in certain clearly untrue or immoral things that nevertheless help them get their needs met.
Not all, but most people in the spiritual community are slightly in survival mode.
Unfortunately, a person in survival mode typically doesn’t realize he or she is in survival mode, because doing so would cause emotional distress, and the whole point of survival mode is that the person already can’t deal with life. So truth has to be momentarily set aside in order to ensure that the person gets their needs met (such as psychological well-being). Because needs are needs, after all.
Roughly speaking, in society every group is largely in survival mode, and therefore every group correctly sees that the other groups are somewhat irrational and immoral and unempathetic (e.g. that’s what the left and right, men and women often think of each other). However they can’t see that they themselves are irrational and immoral and unempathetic too. Because that’s what survival mode does.
For example, a whole lot of spiritual people believe that because they have some level of spiritual advancement, or because they’re love-and-light, or because they don’t say negative things, or because they’re vegan -- they’re better than others, full stop.
Now obviously, it’s good to have some level of spiritual advancement.
On the other hand, all roads ultimately lead back to source. A person on the spiritual path isn’t inherently better than someone who isn’t. Plus, some people who don’t engage in spirituality are nonetheless kind, decent people who help others and who contribute to society.
Spirituality is wonderful. However, some spiritual people are in survival mode, and use a twisted form of spirituality to get their needs met.
Some spiritual people judge others, while saying that being judgemental is bad (often in subtle, condescending, indirectly-stated ways). And these spiritual people themselves are blind to the fact that they themselves are judging others, because if they realized that, they’d be bad or spiritually immature according to their own standards.
Or spiritual people might say that they love everyone, they’re not divisive, divisiveness is bad, etc. And then soon after they make a subtle remark about how everyone on the other political side is bad, or how people on THEIR political side actually care about issue X, implying that they’re morally superior.
Or “love and light” spiritual people make a subtle remark about how spiritual people who are more willing to say “negative” things are spiritually inferior to them.
Obviously not all spiritual people are like this. Obviously spirituality is wonderful. And love and light is an entirely valid path, and people on the love and light path certainly don’t always behave like this.
Still, these are examples of survival mode, because the misbehaving spiritual person from our examples is acting in a way that isn’t truthful or moral. Yet their actions serve their needs: they get to feel better about themselves by acting superior to others. And maybe they can even get bystanders to give them some appreciation if they use rhetorical tricks to put others beneath themselves.
Similarly, a person in survival mode may fully buy into the ideology of whichever political side is most advantageous for them personally and their ingroup. Even though a rational analysis reveals that the 2025 US mainstream left and right ideologies are both incredibly flawed, as I’ll discuss later in this message.
Why do most people buy into the left or right wing political ideology? Well, one: rich white men usually perceive that the right can help meet their needs, while poor black women usually perceive that the left can help meet their needs. So people just push the side that can help meet their needs.
Plus if you simply identify as a left-winger or right-winger, then half the country will think you’re a good and moral person, purely because you’re on “the correct political side.” And within an atomized and divided society, that helps meet your needs. And you get that benefit for free as soon as you say “yes I’m a conservative patriot” or similar.
Plus, the left casts you into the role of the hero, who together with your brothers and sisters is about to vanquish those evil right-wing racists. In doing so you’re saying poor oppressed minority groups, and nature as well. And your actions will usher in a utopia.
Or on the right, you and your brothers and sisters are the heroes who are about to vanquish those crazy leftists who would otherwise destroy America, which obviously is the only free country in the world. So really, you’re the last defenders of freedom anywhere, and you’re about to win.
In both cases, you’re intelligent and moral, and the other half of the country is dumb and evil, and hence you’re better than half the country. Not through any action you did, but purely because you adopted the correct ideology -- which took no effort on your part.
Obviously, that is emotionally comforting, and again, survival mode is about meeting your needs (such as emotional well-being) rather than truth or morality.
Still, 2025 US mainstream left and right wing ideologies are honestly kind of insane. They’ve become vehicles for people in survival mode to get their needs met, and therefore they have become more emotionally appealing to their base while leaving truth and morality behind (e.g. the left telling women they’re oppressed). Because after all, most voters are in survival mode, so that’s what appeals to them.
A truth-based party wouldn’t actually be that popular, because the truth doesn’t feel as good as the standard left-wing or right-wing package of beliefs. It just feels emotionally better to hear that your side is saving the country, while everyone on the other side is dumb and evil and you’re better than them.
Now it’s really easy to think that OTHER people are indeed believing in flawed ideologies because they’re in survival mode. However, keep in mind that there’s a decent chance that you yourself are at least to a degree in survival mode too, and hence also believe in untrue things because they help you get your needs met (such as emotional well-being).
Maybe you think “well I see both parties as garbage, therefore I’m not in survival mode.” It’s possible you genuinely aren’t, however, some people in survival mode go the “enlightened centrist” route, where they believe that everyone is a mouth-drooling idiot aside from them, and only they are smart enough to perceive that. Plus they might think the truth is at the exact middle point between both sides.
Which is another way to feel better than other people, and it’s not true. Yes both sides are highly flawed, however both sides aren’t equally flawed, and the truth isn’t in the exact middle between the left and right.
Furthermore, there are genuinely good and intelligent people on both the left and right too. Plus the left and right have certain truthful, courageous, good moral principles too (as well as nonsense, but still). Both the left and right have people volunteering at homeless shelters, etc.
The black pill idea, that literally everyone with any amount of is evil / is a dark controller puppet, also isn’t accurate and is just a way for people to guard their heart from further disappointment. Yes, currently most people in power are evil / corrupt / dark controller puppets, but not literally everyone is. And some people are merely gray hats, not black hats.
Though again, yes, some people genuinely aren’t in survival mode and don’t fall into any of these categories.
Still, most people are in survival mode, and to get their needs met they’ve bought into the left or right wing standard package of ideas. Even though both packages contain obvious nonsense.
Let me spell out some of the obvious nonsense on both the left and right. Now obviously you’re free to disagree with me, however if I convince you that a belief you held was false, then that may be a good start for personal inquiry. Why did you believe that, then? Did you ever make a conscious choice to believe in that? Could you perhaps be at least slightly in survival mode?
Ultimately in the medium term it’s better to live in the truth. For both yourself and for the people around you.
Let’s dive in. And when I say “the left” I obviously don’t mean “literally every single person on the left”.
It’s pretty crazy that half of you think that the world will be amazing if only the left can be defeated, and half of you believe that the world will be amazing if only the right can be defeated.
I know that’s the situation you’re in and hence it feels normal, but how does it make sense that both political halves of humanity firmly believe that they’re completely right, the other side is completely wrong?
There are people on the other side who are more intelligent, more experienced and better-read than you are. Does it really sound plausible that you’re 100% right and they’re 100% wrong?
Doesn’t it sound more plausible that both sides have some good points and some flaws?
But then, why is practically no one actually genuinely listening to the other side?
At most people listen to the other political side to figure out how to convince those people to politically convert them. But that’s not really unconditional listening to someone. If the other side has good points, why is no one truly listening to the other side?
Most people have fully bought into the entire package of left-wing (or right-wing) belief systems. It’s gotten to the point that if you hear someone say one left-wing (or right-wing) opinion, then you almost certainly know all their political opinions. Even though, theoretically speaking, if you know someone’s stance on gun control, you shouldn’t automatically know their stance on solar power, because those things have little to do with each other.
Which illustrates that people are just adopting the entire package of ideas from their side due to survival mode, because that’s what helps meet their needs the best, and people in survival mode don’t care about truth or morality.
Because if people were rationally thinking, how come pretty much everyone has either the full left-wing, or the full right-wing package of ideas?
For example, Marx said: “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” So logically speaking you would expect quite a few left-wing people to be pro-gun, because Marx was. But almost no left-wingers are pro-gun, because the standard package of left-wing ideas is anti-gun.
It might be tempting to say that you hold the standard package of political beliefs from your side because those are simply all the correct beliefs, and your side is simply completely right. However, note that both Democratic and Republican administrations have failed to fix the country, and both blue and red states are experiencing severe problems. How can this be if your ideology is so perfect?
Now sure, it could genuinely be true that administrations and states from your side do better than those from the other side, but if they’re still not doing that well overall, then that just suggests that your side is merely less flawed. Not that all the ideas from your side are the correct ones.
Also, if you think back to literally any time in your history, you will probably think that those people held some incorrect views. So then, what is the probability that you yourself have 100% correct views?
If the other side were to present data or evidence that shows that they’re correct and your side is wrong, then be honest -- would you really open-mindedly examine that evidence, and change over to the other side on that point if they’re correct? Or would you look away, or use a thought-terminating cliche, or find any detail that’s slightly off and then use that as an excuse to reject the complete argument?
If you truly and honestly think things through and do research, you will find that many (though not all) people on both the left and the right believe in untrue things.
For example, an untrue thing the left believes in is that illegal immigration is fine, or at least that isn’t a big problem. But it clearly is. Just because the media you listen to says that it’s not a problem, doesn’t mean that it actually is not a problem.
Google “average IQ by country” and go to images, and you’ll find maps saying that many sub-saharan African countries have somewhere around 70 average IQ. And that’s an average, which means that some of those people have less IQ than that. Look, Western societies are so complex that people with that level of IQ just aren’t going to be able to function well in it, even if they have good intentions (and not all of those people do).
The left loves to say “the US is a nation of immigrants”, but historically immigration to the US was mostly from Europe. It’s not accurate to imply that importing a 100 IQ German is the same as importing a 70 IQ sub-Saharan African, who might be illiterate, may not speak a word of English, may have a completely different cultural and religious background, and may have completely different values and ways of thinking.
So just because importing Germans worked well for the US historically, doesn’t mean that any type of immigrant is going to perform as well. You can’t just pretend that all immigrants are pretty much the same.
It’s not a sufficient rebuttal to say “well these IQ differences aren’t genetic, sub-saharan Africans have 70 IQ due to bad nutrition in their youth and lack of books in their youth.” Well that still means that you’ll have a 70 IQ person in your society for the rest of their lifespan, which is likely to be many decades. And that obviously contradicts the left-wing narrative that immigration is either neutral or beneficial, and that all immigrants are all basically interchangeable.
Another untrue thing the left believes in is that men and women are the same. They’re not, and the “both partners should have the same roles” gender relations that the left promotes doesn’t work for most people.
Society has been moving in the direction of the gender roles that the left wants, and during that time divorce rates have spiked, relationship rates have plummeted and most young men and women agree that dating has become a nightmare.
Modern-day young women are on average less happy than their grandmothers, despite living in a society that is closer to the left-wing gender ideal than their grandmothers did. Plus society gives modern women all kinds of rights and positive discrimination that their grandmothers didn’t have, yet women are unhappier. That’s because abolishing gender roles doesn’t work for most people.
For example, the left is discriminating against men when it comes to hiring for high positions. Hence there are more high-earning women. However while men are generally willing to date women who earn less, many women aren’t willing to date men who earn less.
So the left’s policies lead to more high-earning women and less high-earning men than previously. And practically speaking these higher-earning women often don’t find a partner and subsequently aren’t happy, because they’re refusing to date poorer men, while men being kept out of high-earning positions.
Plus many men aren’t attracted to career women / “girl bosses.” So even the high-earning men who do exist may very well choose to date non-career women, and hence they are unavailable as partners to career women.
You can say that men should suck it up and go make more money and then date career women, but saying that isn’t actually a solution. The math doesn’t work, plus men have preferences too which they’re not just going to discard.
To make the math work, you would also have to shame women into dating poorer men. And the left of course is only interested in shaming men, and not in shaming women.
So this left-wing ideal of abolishing gender roles and having roughly half of all high positions be occupied by women sounds good on paper, but it doesn’t work in practice, because men and women are different.
And if you try to fight human nature, human nature wins.
The left cares shockingly little about what reality is actually like. They mostly just care about liberal values and about what they want to be true and about what sounds good on paper. And then they try to push that through without being curious about what reality is actually like.
But you have to actually study reality first if you want to make policy that actually works in reality. And shockingly few left-wingers do so.
Another issue is that throughout history, people have made the common-sense point that you simply cannot allow net tax takers to vote. (Net tax takers are people who get more money from the government than they pay in taxes.)
Why? Because they’ll keep voting for more and more and more free stuff from the government, and voting for more and more and more taxes. Because that’s a net benefit to them. They get more free stuff, and they’re not paying those increased taxes anyway.
In the medium term, making the government hand out our ever-increasing amounts of free stuff, while raising taxes ever higher, obviously destroys society.
Hence you cannot let net tax taking people vote.
This is why historically only property-owning men could vote. Yes, very evil, very oppressive, but only giving property-owning men a vote means that only net tax payers get a vote. Hence you don’t have the problem of people voting for ever more free stuff and higher taxes. Because net taxpayers aren’t going to keep voting for more taxes.
Now, in the modern day you can avoid the problem by giving the vote to any net tax payer, regardless of any gender. And you can also say that if two people are married, they both get a vote if combined they’re net tax payers. That way a stay-at-home wife can vote if her husband is sufficiently productive, which is of course fine.
This would mean that immigrants on welfare don’t get to vote, while productive immigrants who are net tax payers do get to vote. Which many people will think is a good thing.
Still, the left probably won’t like the idea of poor people and immigrants on welfare not having a vote.
And they’ll like this idea even less if they realize that on average, men are net tax payers, and women are net tax takers. (Which isn’t caused by gender discrimination, as has been repeatedly shown. Sure you can always find some discriminating company somewhere, but the vast vast vast majority of companies aren’t paying women less for the same work. If companies discriminate, they usually discriminate in favor of women.)
Hence, “only net taxpayers get a vote” is theoretically gender-neutral, but means in practice that more men than women would have a vote.
So most of the left is going to oppose this, even though it’s still self-evident that something like this is necessary.
Most of the left will just go “well I want everyone to have a vote because that’s the moral principle I believe in” even though a bit of logic clearly shows that it just doesn’t work. And you can’t prioritize what sounds nice over what actually works.
Also, the left has also been saying for something like five decades straight that climate change will severely damage civilization in the near future. Yet it keeps not happening, and yet left-wingers keep believing it.
Here’s one example out of many. Ecologist Kenneth Watt said in 1970: “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Did you notice Earth getting 11 degrees colder between 1970 and 2000, and a new Ice Age starting? Me neither.
Sure, one failed prediction isn’t a big deal, but it’s not just one failed prediction. It’s a mountain of failed predictions. If the right continually predicted something that never came to pass, you would rightfully call them out on that.
Now let’s turn to the right.
Economist Piketty showed that if the rate of return on capital is persistently higher than overall economic growth, then that leads to increased wealth concentration (unless counteracted).
So basically, and to go a bit further than Piketty did: you have to put high taxes on the rich and mega-corporations (not on the middle class), because otherwise the rich and mega-corporations snowball their wealth out of control.
And when their wealth snowballs out of control, they start doing silly things like buying up all the houses, or bribing politicians to let in millions of immigrants so they can reduce their labor costs, or brainwashing the population via their personal news outlet.
It’s not some weird glitch in the system that you’re now suddenly living under crony capitalism. If you don’t tax the rich enough, then they snowball their wealth, and then they corrupt capitalism into crony capitalism. Because that’s profitable for them.
If you don’t implement high taxes on the rich, then you have a form of capitalism that degrades over time. So you can’t say “look at the history of capitalism, clearly it works” because the version of capitalism you’re advocating for is one that degrades over time.
Roughly speaking, the US stopped putting high taxes on the rich around 1981. And that’s also around the time when the rich started snowballing their wealth, while the middle class stopped getting richer (despite increasing their productivity more and more).
The 1950 - 1970s period that the American right idealizes as America’s golden age, back when an average white guy could support a family off one income? Well taxes on the rich were very high during that period.
This is a critical point. The cornerstone of right-wing ideology is “just implement our economic agenda and the rising tide will lift all boats.” However, that statement is simply false, because wealth snowballs without high taxes on the rich, and hence pure capitalism degrades over time.
A common rebuttal is that if you tax the rich more, they’ll just leave and then you get less tax revenue in total. But that simply isn’t true in actual reality. It sounds smart and it sounds like it’s true, but it’s not true. Turns out rich people are humans too, and they’re not just profit-optimizing machines. Besides, it can genuinely make economic sense for a rich person to stay in America despite heavy taxes, just because economic opportunities in the US are plentiful.
States can simply agree with each other that no one is going to engage in a race-to-the-bottom by dropping their tax rate on the rich. And then all states win, because the US is simply too lucrative not to do business in. This is what right-wingers should be championing (and left-wingers will gladly agree to this).
Another common rebuttal is “well the rich already pay this huge percentage of taxes, they shouldn’t pay even more.”
Well, one, inequality is huge, so of course the very rich pay the lion’s share of taxes. But does that mean that taxing them more is unfair, or that wealth inequality is way too high and should be addressed?
And second, this is a “we shouldn’t do this because my ideology says it’s bad” type of argument that the right normally mocks the left over. After all, putting ideology aside -- higher taxes on the rich work.
Strategically, so long as the right refuses to put high taxes on the rich, the left can just keep pointing out that the right’s economic agenda only works for those who are already well-off. And the left is correct about this.
I wouldn’t implement the default left-wing or right-wing economic agenda, but if I had to choose between them (and wasn’t considering immigration), I would implement the left-wing economic agenda. Primarily due to this.
If you implement the standard right-wing economic agenda, you get corporate tyranny, where people in theory are free but practically speaking are economically enslaved.
Plus, the right loves to say that right-wing governments are more fiscally responsible. However, during Trump’s first term he increased the deficit and debt. Even before covid. That was in large part because of his tax breaks which disproportionality (though not exclusively) benefitted the rich. Tax breaks for the non-rich are fine, but tax breaks for the rich aren’t.
Conversely, left-wing governments aren’t very fiscally responsible either, but they do better than the right typically gives them credit for. That is because of their tendency to raise taxes on the rich, which actually helps stabilize government finances (and it reduces inequality, which is a benefit in and of itself).
Next up:
Another untrue thing that some people on the right believe in is that if only the government would get out of the way, then things would be great. But in reality, that leads to (quasi)-monopolies, cartels, company towns and companies destroying nature. It leads to an under-funding of public goods (roads, power grids, food safety inspections). It leads to billionaires buying news outlets in order to censor the truth and brainwash the population. And it wouldn’t stop companies from offshoring American jobs, or from importing Indians and having them work for cheap.
A right-winger might retort that the left-wing agenda is communism and therefore it’s empty shelves and starvation, however most actual left-wingers in 2025 aren’t in favor of communism. What the actual left wants is something like the European model, which sure, isn’t perfect, but it’s not communism and it’s not empty shelves.
Frankly, quality of life is higher in some European countries than it is in the US, even though European countries are often resource-poor and don’t always have a large amount of good agricultural land.
Some people on the right love to claim that the economy is doing well, therefore young people should stop complaining and just work harder and stop making bad choices. However, the claim “the economy is doing well” is based on GDP figures and stock market performance, figures that don’t actually help young people out. Young adults have little or no stock.
The claim is also based on unemployment figures, but those are manipulated, plus this merely means that young adults can find a job, not that they can find a job that lets them buy a house and support a family. In reality, young adults really are getting squeezed unreasonably hard today. And many right-wingers are turning a blind eye, because they already own a house so it’s great for them that house prices are skyrocketing. Even though that screws over the next generation.
What we’re seeing in these arguments is that both the modern left and right have packages of ideas that are emotionally satisfying and perhaps beneficial to their base (or to donors). However, neither the left nor right prioritizes truth. And that doesn’t work.
The left prioritizes (an imperfect form of) love above truth.
If this sounds like an extreme statement, well it’s accurate. According to the left, a person with a penis and XY chromosomes and a normal male body, is a woman if they say they’re a woman.
And much of the left wants you to be punished if you refuse to say “she” to this person, or if you oppose putting them in a women’s prison if they commit a crime, or if you oppose letting them play women’s sports. Because that’s what “trans rights” actually means.
This is clearly a prioritization of (a form of) love over truth. Because obviously a person with a penis and XY chromosomes and a normal male body, isn’t a woman. Now you can maybe make an argument that after surgery this person is a woman, but that’s not the argument that the left is making.
Note that the left doesn’t allow white people to claim that they’re black (see Rachel Dolezal). And the left also refuses to stop calling certain people nazis even if the people in question disagree with being labeled as such. Hence “you must honor people’s claimed identity” isn’t a position the left has.
Instead it’s about love / caretaking / protection of perceived vulnerable people, regardless of truth / logical consistency. Or in short, it’s love over truth.
Even if you agree with the left on their trans position, you can’t deny that this is a prioritization of love over truth.
Even if you think this trans position prevents harm, well that still doesn’t make it true.
Another way in which the left prioritizes love over truth is that the left doesn’t want crime statistics of immigrants to be published. (Which contradicts the left-wing position that illegal immigration isn’t a problem, because how come your own side doesn’t want those crime statistics to be published then? Besides, how can you say that illegal immigrants aren’t a problem if you yourself haven’t seen those crime statistics?)
The left also generally didn’t want even experts and doctors being allowed to speak out against the covid job or covid lockdowns.
Similarly, the right prioritizes (an imperfect form of) freedom over truth, and that’s also wrong.
For example, the right likes to tell a story that America is this noble country, and everyone has been taking advantage of poor innocent America, and hence it’s good and proper that America under Trump is taking the freedom to act in nakedly self-serving ways on the world stage. Even if that means violating international law, bombing people, murdering people, etc. So long as Trump says it’s ok, then it’s ok.
“Everyone is taking advantage of poor, noble, innocent America” simply isn’t true. Now sure, America has absolutely done good things, however during approximately 90-95% of its years, the US has engaged in some kind of military action against foreigners. Even though the US is geographically so safe that it really doesn’t need to be constantly murdering foreigners. Yet, it does.
Most right-wingers consider it to not such a big deal if their country sanctions or blockades another country, even though this is the modern equivalent of a siege. For example, sanctions against Iraq killed half a million children (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8520385/).
Killing half a million Iraqi children is just one example. America sanctions many, many countries.
How would the US feel if another country indirectly killed half a million American children? Well, that’s what you did to Iraq.
A lot of right-wingers view Jews as perhaps the most evil or problematic people on the planet, because AIPAC and certain other Jewish individuals and organizations indeed have excessive influence over the US. Yet on the other hand, the US has installed something like 20 - 60 puppet leaders in other countries, depending on how exactly you define “puppet leader.” And the right doesn’t care.
If the US does something to another country, it’s no big deal. If another country does something to the US, it’s the most evil thing in the world.
If you ask a random person on Earth which country is the greatest threat to world peace, then the country with the highest probability of being named isn’t Israel. It’s the US.
Trump said the US was “keeping the oil” of Syria, when US troops occupied part of Syria.
(The person pretending to be) Trump also recently seized a Venezuelan oil tanker. Wasn’t Venezuela supposed to be an anti-drug operation? Then why seize an oil tanker? Unless the Venezuela operation is really about oil -- Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, after all. And frankly if you actually want to launch an anti-drug operation, Venezuela isn’t the primary country you would go after.
America often sets fire to some part of the world, and right-wing Americans then pretend they have zero obligation to those people or those refugees, when in fact it was America that set the fire in the first place. America’s destabilization of Middle Eastern countries is well known.
The US also facilitated the 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which the current Ukraine war may not have happened. So maybe the Europeans aren’t leeches. Maybe the US poked the bear with a stick and then let Europeans deal with the bear when it got angry.
Also, Biden said this:
Biden: “If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2 [which is a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany]. We will bring an end to it.”
Reporter: “But how will you do that, exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?”
Biden: “We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.”
And oh look, later Nord Stream 2 was blown up. And so Germany could no longer buy Russian gas, and instead it had to buy much more expensive US LNG. And Germany is struggling greatly financially because of that, and then Trump told Germany to spend more money on defense which effectively means buying more US weapons.
Yes, the US sure sounds like the noble innocent country that just gets taken advantage of by greedy Europeans.
The US also engaged in slavery.
And the US commited genocide on native Americans.
Plus, it’s quite self-serving that the US used genocide to conquer a huge amount of rich land for themselves, and after that they said that everyone else wasn’t allowed to commit genocide or conquer territory.
Now this doesn’t mean that America is all bad, or that other countries are all good.
Sure, America does good things, and sure, other countries do bad things too. And sure, if another country was as powerful as America is, they would probably do more bad things than they’re currently doing.
Still, the right-wing narrative about shining, free, noble America with good intentions, while all the other countries are either trying to take advantage of America or are unfree quasi-dictatorships, really isn’t truthful.
If you want to defend America by saying that any other country in America’s shoes would have done the same:
One, that’s not true, because countries are run by people and not every person is willing to murder foreigners in order to achieve geopolitical objectives. It’s simply not accurate to claim that every single person is a murderer.
And two, even if that is true, that would merely make America just another country, no better or worse than others. That’s a long way off from the right-wing narrative of America being this uniquely free shining city on the hill.
It’s a motte-and-bailey fallacy: the actual claim is that America is this uniquely moral country, and when that’s attacked the defense amounts to “well America isn’t worse than other countries.” But America arguably not being worse than other countries doesn’t make it more moral than pretty much everyone else, which is what the claim was.
So this right-wing narrative isn’t true.
And without the untrue right-wing narrative that America is this uniquely free, uniquely moral, shining city on the hill that other countries just take advantage of, there’s also a lot less justification for Trump taking the freedom to wield threats and tariffs and sanctions against other countries. And occasionally bomb them or murder their people or seize their oil tanker or oil field.
Most right-wing Americans hated it when China limited rare Earth exports to the US, even though the US does things like that to other countries all the time.
Right-wing Americans simply want their country to have the freedom to act in nakedly self-serving ways, and they tell an untrue story to justify that. But that’s putting freedom over truth.
And yes, average Americans are getting squeezed and need help. But it wasn’t Syria or Venezuela or Yemen who squeezed average Americans. Hence it’s not justified to steal Syrian oil, or seize a Venezuelan oil tanker, or bomb the Houthis.
Truth has to come before love or freedom, even though as I just illustrated, neither the left nor the right prioritizes truth.
Moreover, both the left and the right are mistreating people who aren’t in their ingroup to a frankly unacceptable degree. Now yes, it is acceptable to treat people in your ingroup better than people in your outgroup. However it’s not acceptable to harshly mistreat people in your outgroup. Which both the left and the right do.
For example, in actual practice, the left discriminates against men.
The left says that the West isn’t defined by the whiteness of their citizens, and instead the West is defined by its values of liberalism, fairness, meritocracy, et cetera.
Well, you can’t define the West in that way and then proceed to discriminate against men, in unfair, anti-meritocratic ways.
By their own logic that means the left is destroying the West.
It’s clear that this anti-male discrimination is happening. And it’s clear that it’s unjustified, because men actually aren’t privileged in the West in 2025. For arguments, see previous messages “Hakann: It’s not normal how men are being treated” or “Tunia: female supremacism.”
On top of that, the left thinks that under no circumstances should men be allowed to work to benefit specifically men. That’s sexism, misogyny, woman hate, harmful, discrimination, patriarchy, old boys’s network, glass ceiling, toxic masculinity, incel behavior, far-right, etc etc etc.
Even if a man does something benign like build a shelter for abused men, you’ll find some women saying it shouldn’t be funded:
As men are getting destroyed, the left is mostly concerned with making sure they don’t say mean or so-called “harmful” words. As they’re being destroyed.
And of course, under no circumstances should whites be allowed to work to benefit whites. That’s white supremacism, racism, nazism, discrimination, etc.
But every group other than men, and whites, are allowed to work to organize and benefit themselves. And in fact, they do. And that’s considered perfectly normal and acceptable. No one calls that “female supremacism” or whatever.
The left mistreats men, and whites, this way. And the left is also naïve, because in actual reality, pretty much all groups except men and whites are promoting the interests of their own group.
Now, the right also mistreats people in their outgroup to an unacceptable degree.
The right isn’t very upset about Trump bombing Iran, or Trump bombing Yemen (which killed a significant number of civilians), or Trump enabling a genocide of Palestinians, or Trump illegally murdering Venezuelans without due process.
Right-wingers might cheer this on, or at most the right might say they dislike this because Trump should focus on America first. But that’s still a very minor objection against illegal murder.
Imagine if some other country murdered Americans without due process, just based on an unproven claim they were drug smugglers - in a situation where those Americans could have been arrested. Of course then the American right would label that as unacceptable. But when Trump does that to Venezuelans, the right doesn’t care very much.
So, I’ve given you a lot of examples. And there are many more. If you want to learn more such examples, just go talk to someone on the other political side, and genuinely listen to them. Sure, maybe most things they say are false, but they’ll have a few good points.
This all sounds quite uncomfortable. What is actually going on?
Well, as we said at the beginning: most people are in survival mode (to different degrees).
And people in survival mode discard truth and morality (without realizing they’re doing so), and instead they believe whatever helps them meet their needs.
Adopting the entire package of beliefs from one political side is great for helping you meet your needs.
Because your side will probably help you out materially if it gets into power.
And also, adopting the package of beliefs means half the country instantly believes you’re a great person, with no effort required on your part. This helps meet your psychological needs.
And adopting the package of beliefs means that now you’re suddenly fighting together with your brothers and sisters for a righteous purpose, and you’re about to defeat the villains on the other political side and save the innocents.
It makes you feel good. It lets you egoically elevate yourself above half the country and it gives you a community and a purpose.
But it’s not true.
Unfortunately, there’s a kind of “survival mode epidemic” going on. Some people went into survival mode, and they became politically extreme. And then people on the other political side “got infected” and became scared and hence they became politically more extreme too.
So. Did you hold a position that you now think may have been false or immoral? Obviously you’re free to think it through, or do your own research before answering that question.
If so, did you ever consciously adopt that position? Or did you just enter survival mode at some point and subconsciously adopt it in order to get certain needs met?
People in survival mode often don’t realize they’re in survival mode, because realizing that would cause distress, and the whole point of survival mode is that your system abandons truth in order to fulfill your needs, which include emotional well-being.
If you don’t think you’re in survival mode:
It’s certainly possible you’re not. Not everyone is.
If for example you’re doing 90+ minutes of meditation or yoga most days, that’s a good sign you’re not in survival mode. To be clear though, for most people 90 minutes of meditation per day would be too long. I’m also not saying that 90 minutes of meditation is a requirement.
Alternatively, another good sign that you’re not in survival mode is if you are currently investing a large amount of time or energy or resources into helping others, in ways that don’t benefit yourself. And that’s great, because this helps get others out of survival mode.
If you’re doing something that helps others, but that also helps yourself -- that could illustrate that you’re not in survival mode. But you also might be in survival mode and just use that for your own benefit.
Critiquing others can be valid and can sometimes be helpful, but that also could just be you wanting to elevate yourself above others.
You might engage in political activism and feel that’s beneficial, but as we discussed, that also clearly benefits yourself. Besides, for the reason we’ve discussed, pushing the flawed standard package of ideas of your side may very well make the other side feel less safe, and thereby it might not actually make the world a better place. Even if your side is mostly right.
Now, if you are in survival mode:
Look, it’s okay. Most people are.
Besides, Earth is unbelievably harsh. So it makes sense to be in survival mode.
It’s not your fault.
You’re doing great.
You are entirely worthy of love, as you are, right now.
But if you are in survival mode, then try to realize which of your needs aren’t being met, and if possible try to meet those needs in more direct, conscious and straightforward ways.
And be aware that it’s possible that you currently believe in untrue or immoral things, or that you’re not truly empathizing with others, and that you’re not seeing how hard others and other groups have it. This isn’t through any defect on your part, it’s just because right now you’re in survival mode.
Meeting your needs (plus some time) will get you out of survival mode.
Spiritual practice, such as observing whatever arises, can contribute to your mental well-being, and help get you out of survival mode in the medium term.
So, I hope that was helpful.
I love you.
Your star sister,
