Luke Ford

Mike Benz sits in a contested zone. The establishment sees him as a threat or at least a vector of narratives that need explaining or de-escalating.

To understand the appeal of Mike Benz—and the fierce polarization he generates—one must look beyond standard political analysis and into the realm of the self. Benz sits almost perfectly at the “porous” end of the psychological spectrum. This positioning is the key to decoding his resonance with audiences and the confusion of his critics.

Benz’s entire worldview assumes that institutions do not merely act upon the world; they penetrate the individual.

Benz’s audience is heavily porous. They experience the censorship story as something that violates them. They feel surveilled, managed, nudged, curated. His maps of overlapping nonprofits, agencies, and platforms speak directly to people who already feel invaded by institutional power. He is translating their preexisting sensations into a grand architecture. That is why his work hits so hard.

Journalists assume institutions are flawed but basically legitimate. They see transparency issues, not existential ones. They see power imbalances, not metaphysical overreach. To them, Benz is an outsider constructing a sweeping system narrative that threatens to collapse distinctions between coordination, coercion, and conspiracy. Their impulse is to parse, contextualize, and contain.

Journalists believe they are “responsible to the facts” through internalized norms, while viewing outsider commentary as unfiltered, emotive, and epistemically dangerous. The press and expert-opinion makers loathe the uncontrolled public because they see themselves as disciplined by norms that others lack. That’s buffered identity in action.

Institutional media often start with the buffered assumption that their norms insulate them from distortion. But as Stephen Turner showed, public counter-narratives routinely reveal blind spots in expert communities. So when someone like Benz maps censorship infrastructure, the question isn’t only whether he’s right. It’s also whether buffered institutions have become blind to how their own coordination looks from the outside.

According to Turner, blog publics (outsiders) often perform a “folk sociology of knowledge” that situates experts, motives, and institutional incentives, and that this irritates elites because it undermines their claim that they alone mediate authoritative knowledge. Figures like Benz do for the censorship debate what Turner observed bloggers doing in complex medical disputes: they contextualize institutional actors and incentives. Legacy outlets sometimes experience that as destabilizing because it challenges their buffered belief in their own neutrality.

Alliance Theory helps you puncture pieties too, without getting personal. The theory shows that belief systems aren’t principled but strategic. What liberals present as abstract commitments to truth, transparency, or norms of discourse are actually alliance-preserving tactics.

One reason Benz unsettles legacy media is that he calls attention to alliance structures they usually don’t foreground. Alliance Theory predicts that elite groups rationalize their coalitions as principled commitments. Benz flips the frame and calls them political. That feels like an attack to people inside buffered institutions, even if from the outside it looks like an attempt to map power.

Every coalition produces narratives that serve its interests. That’s Alliance Theory. Benz oversimplifies in ways that fit his audience. But legacy institutions also oversimplify in the other direction because their buffered self-understanding resists seeing themselves as political actors.

The MSM is built on buffered identity assumptions. The institution rests on the idea that reasoned analysis, expertise, professional norms, and procedural safeguards create a reliable boundary between the self and the world. That’s the buffered worldview in practice.

People who rise in the MSM tend to share certain instincts.

Institutions are imperfect but fundamentally legitimate.

Systems can be audited and improved.

Threats come from breakdowns or abuses, not from the structure itself.

Information governance is a technical challenge, not a metaphysical one.

The self is stable, rational, and not easily invaded.

Porous identity means the self feels permeated by larger forces. External power reaches inside your life. Institutions, elites, bureaucracies, algorithms, intelligence agencies, NGOs. The world acts on you more than you act on it. People with porous identities experience censorship infrastructures not as abstract governance but as something that shapes their very perception and agency. When Benz talks, he names the forces they feel seeping into their autonomy. It feels like revelation.

Buffered identity is the opposite. The self is walled off. The world is composed of systems and organizations that can be studied, criticized, reformed. People with buffered identities see censorship not as a metaphysical intrusion but as policy, coordination, and institutional logic. Reporter types tend to inhabit this mental world. They see themselves as protected by the boundaries of reason, professional norms, and institutional checks. When they cover Benz, they treat him as a narrative to analyze, not a threat to their sense of self.

To a “buffered” identity—the default mode of modern technocrats and journalists—censorship infrastructure is a matter of policy debate. It is a procedural issue involving distinct legal entities. To Benz, however, censorship is an integrated force-field. It shapes what you see, what you think, what you can express, and ultimately, how society processes truth.

This is textbook porous cognition. Where buffered thinkers insist on clear distinctions and procedural separations between bureaucracies, NGOs, platforms, intelligence cutouts, and philanthropic networks, Benz treats them as fused. To the porous thinker, those boundaries are rhetoric rather than reality; they collapse into a single, coordinated pressure.

This explains the divide over his famous diagrams. To a buffered observer, his complex webs of connection look conspiratorial—a messy conflation of disparate groups. But to his audience, those diagrams feel revelatory. Benz reads communication flows as power flows that enter the self.

The Existential Register

The fundamental disconnect lies in how the self perceives its own safety.

The Buffered Self thinks: “My mind is intact. Information environments can be adjusted, but I remain separate from them.”

The Porous Self thinks: “My mind is shaped by unseen actors. The outside world floods into me.”

Benz speaks directly to that lived sense of permeation. Because he operates from this porous framework, he frames censorship not as a governance issue to be reformed, but as an existential threat to be survived.

This dictates his emotional register: Urgent. Maximalist. Totalizing.

He does not discuss discrete problems; he outlines systems that seep into everything. When a buffered thinker hears the word “existential” applied to content moderation, they assume exaggeration. A porous thinker, feeling the weight of the system pressing in, hears accuracy.

Folk Sociology and the Search for Agency

Benz belongs to the lineage of what Fred Turner described as the “folk sociology of knowledge.” He represents the outsider who, feeling the effects of power, develops explanations that contextualize elites, expose incentives, and dismiss institutional boundaries.

His audience shares this porous identity. They feel acted upon by large, opaque structures that they cannot name. Benz provides a service: he gives them a villain with agency and a map that makes their sensations legible. His audience does not require him to be procedurally perfect; they need him to make sense of a world that feels intrusive.

Conclusion: The Great Misreading

When buffered journalists cover Benz, they almost always misread him. They critique him for claiming total coordinated control, interpreting his work as a “grand conspiracy” theory. But Benz is describing the world as a permeable system.

He is not just on the porous side; he is a maximal porous case. Yet, he is neither sloppy nor crazy. He is systematic. His specific gift lies in translating complex institutional interlocks into a narrative that matches the porous lived experience.

While the media hears paranoia, his audience hears validation: “Finally, someone is naming what I feel.”

I come from Australia. Before Europeans arrived, Aboriginal identity was almost entirely porous, but in a very different way than modern porous identities like Benz’s audience. You have to separate three layers to talk about this cleanly.

I. The experiential world

Aboriginal cultures lived in a world where the boundary between self, land, ancestors, spirit forces, and social obligations was thin. The land spoke. The dead were present. Dreams carried knowledge. Country was not a backdrop but a living relation. Identity wasn’t buffered off into an interior psychological space. The person was porous to kinship ties, to story, to place, to ritual demands.

That doesn’t mean “superstitious.” It means the metaphysics assumed interpenetration rather than insulation.

II. The social order

Aboriginal law wasn’t individualistic. Autonomy was not the central ideal. Obligations flowed through kinship lines, totems, and ancestral beings. A person wasn’t a sealed unit. They were a node in a network. Harm or magic done to one person reverberated through others. Knowledge itself was relational and often restricted. You didn’t “own” it as a private good.

This kind of world produces a porous identity as a matter of course. The buffered self is a very recent European invention.

III. The contrast with colonial modernity

When Europeans arrived, they brought the buffered assumptions with them: linear law, property as a discrete object, the individual as a rights-bearing unit, a sharp divide between objective and subjective. They could not understand how a people could be wounded through their land as if it were their flesh. They thought in categories that made Aboriginal reality literally unintelligible.

The shock of colonization was partly military and economic, but it was also metaphysical. A porous identity encountering a buffered civilization ends up pathologized. The colonizer sees the Indigenous worldview as irrational or mystical. The Indigenous sees the settler worldview as spiritually blunted.

Aboriginal porousness wasn’t paranoia or conspiratorial thinking. It wasn’t a sense of invisible bureaucracies shaping cognition. It was a cosmology in which the world and self interpenetrated by design. It was adaptive in that environment. It kept social order, resource distribution, and meaning structures intact across tens of thousands of years.

Porous identity is not fringe. It is the human default. The buffered identity is the anomaly. It emerges through literacy, bureaucracy, Protestant interiority, and scientific rationalism. Most of human history is porous.

When institutions assume a buffered identity, they forget that most people historically lived with porous assumptions. So when someone like Benz speaks in porous terms, he isn’t introducing a pathology. He’s tapping into a very old human way of experiencing power.

On July 6, 2024, I wrote this blog post: “Liberals Were Blinded To Biden’s Senility By Their Own Speech Codes”

Today I asked Gemini to analyze it through the lens of buffered vs porous identity. It said:

The “buffered” identity—characteristic of the liberal elite and MSM described in the text—insulates itself from raw reality through layers of expertise, professional norms, and approved language.

Epistemic Authority: The buffered self does not trust its own eyes; it trusts credentials. The text notes that while conservatives trusted their observations, liberals “consistently derided this and demanded expert evidence”.

Medicalization of Reality: For the buffered elite, “senility” is not an observable trait but a medical diagnosis that only doctors can bestow. The text highlights how liberals deferred to “physicians with expertise on the aging brain” who urged voters to ignore what they saw. This is why media fact-checkers declared assessments of senility “false” because they had contacted “experts in the health care of older people” who disputed the diagnosis.

Protection through Norms: The buffered self prioritizes social propriety and the “hero system” of elite institutions over raw data. Admitting Biden’s condition was “too sensitive for their hero system”.

2. The Porous Self: Direct Observation and “Common Sense”

The “porous” identity—attributed here to conservatives and the general public—allows reality to impact the observer directly without the filter of “expert consensus.”

Direct Perception: Conservatives saw Biden’s decline “years before liberals” because they relied on direct observation rather than waiting for permission from elites. As the text asks, “Does one have to be a doctor to diagnose Chris Christie as obese?”.

Rejection of Abstract Categories: The porous identity rejects the buffered obsession with abstract moral categories like “ageism” and “ableism” when they conflict with survival or reality. Conservatives spotted the decline because they “don’t accept ageism and ableism as real moral categories”.

Intuitive Language: While the buffered self polices language to avoid offense, the porous self uses the word that “rises most readily to the lips,” which was “senile”.

3. Speech Codes as the “Buffer”

The text argues that liberal speech codes acted as the specific mechanism of the “buffer,” blinding elites to the physical reality of the President’s condition.

Linguistic Insulation: By categorizing words like “senile,” “elderly,” and “frail” as offensive slurs rather than descriptors, the buffered elites made it impossible to articulate—and therefore think about—the reality of the situation.

Internalized Censorship: The text notes that “That which you are not allowed to say out loud is increasingly not thought”. Because “senile” was removed from the elite vocabulary in favor of “cognitive changes,” the urgency of the decline was diluted.

Class Differentiation: Using “buffered” language became a marker of high status. The text notes that for those with elite educations, using a word like “senile” signals that you are “low class” and outside the boundaries of “careful critical discourse”.

4. The Collapse of the Buffer

The text describes the June 2024 debate as the moment the physical reality (the porous world) shattered the constructed narrative (the buffered world).

The Disintegration of Fantasy: The debate is described as a “transcendental event” where the “fortress of fantasies disintegrated” and the “replica vanished”.

The Failure of Experts: The buffered reliance on expertise failed because the experts were politically aligned. The text notes that even if there were expert diagnoses, liberals “would only accept the one they wanted to hear”.

In summary, the buffered identity allowed liberals to construct a “fantasy universe” protected by speech codes and expert denials, while the porous identity allowed conservatives to acknowledge the “obvious signs of cognitive decline” because they were not inhibited by the moral imperative to avoid “insensitive terms”.

On July 3, 2024, I wrote: “How Did Conservatives Spot Joe Biden’s Cognitive Decline Years Before The Liberal Elites?”

Today Gemini comments on my post:

1. The Porous Self: Direct Observation and “Common Sense”

The “Porous” identity is characterized by an openness to the world where the individual is directly impacted by their environment and relies on visceral, unmediated experience. In the text, conservatives are depicted as operating with this cognitive style.

Direct Access to Reality: Conservatives and populists trusted their immediate sensory experience—what they saw “with [their] own eyes”—rather than waiting for external validation. For example, Brit Hume declared Biden “senile” in 2020 based on observation, and Nikki Haley cited visible behavioral lapses, such as Biden not knowing what country he was in or how many grandchildren he had.

Epistemological Populism: The text describes a “populist” epistemology where “individual opinions based upon firsthand experience are much more reliable… than those generated by theories and academic studies”. This aligns with the porous self’s reliance on “common sense,” defined by conservatives as “something that strikes you as obvious”.

Visceral Language: The porous identity does not filter language through social norms. Conservatives used “visceral” and “insensitive” terms like “senile” because they prioritized descriptive utility over social propriety. The text notes that conservatives are just as likely to mock moral classifications like “ageism” as revere them.

2. The Buffered Self: Mediated by Experts and Norms

The “Buffered” identity creates a boundary between the self and the world, often mediated by professional standards, expertise, and moral regulations. The text portrays liberal elites as operating within this insulated framework, which “blinded” them to the raw reality of the President’s condition.

Reliance on Credentialed Mediation: The buffered liberal self creates a layer of protection against “unrefined” reality through expertise. Liberals demanded “expert evidence” and “studies” rather than accepting direct observation. They waited for “credentialed medical elites following protocol” to diagnose the President before they would accept it as truth.

Insulation via “Speech Codes”: The text argues that liberal elites use “speech codes” (specifically regarding ageism and ableism) to buffer themselves from uncomfortable realities. For liberals, “reporting on anyone’s old age requires extreme sensitivity,” whereas conservatives do not exercise this sensitivity. PolitiFact, representing the buffered elite, declared Brit Hume’s observation “false” not based on observation, but by consulting “experts in the health care of older people” who labeled the term “senile” as pejorative.

Inversion of Common Sense: The text suggests that the liberal/buffered identity defines itself by rejecting the “unreflective common sense” of the masses. For the buffered elite, “common sense” is redefined as the “consensus of experts”. This creates a closed epistemological loop where reality is only valid once it has been processed and approved by the administrative class.

3. The Gap Between the Two

The conflict described is not just political, but a clash of how these identities process information.

The Gap: Joe Nocera describes a “gap” between what people see (porous reality) and what the “arbiters of truth” (buffered elites) allow to be said.

Populist Reaction: The text argues that populism arises when the “buffered” elite view fails to accord with the “popular sense of reality” (the porous view). The general public, operating without the buffer of “expert consensus,” spotted the decline years prior because they did not require an expert to interpret what was visible.

On July 2, 2024, I wrote: “Joe Biden Must Go Because The Desperate Nature Of The Situation Should Prevail Over Precedent”

Gemini comments today:

Based on the text provided, Luke Ford’s argument frames the political crisis as a collision between the Buffered reliance on procedure and the Porous necessity of survival.

Here is the analysis of the text through that framework:

1. The Buffered Elite: Rule-Bound and Compartmentalized

The “Buffered” identity constructs a boundary between the self and the chaotic world, relying on rules, procedures, and abstractions to maintain order. In the text, the “political elites” and “MSM” represent this worldview.

Process Over Reality: The buffered mind believes that because Biden “made it through the various bureaucratic hurdles,” he must be the nominee. To them, the “law,” “precedent,” and “procedure” are more real than the physical condition of the candidate. They retreat into the “learned helplessness” of the rules, believing they cannot act against the process even if the result is “suicidal.”

Compartmentalization of the Person: The text notes that pundits claim Biden is “capable of operating as president… just not capable of campaigning.” This is a distinctly buffered distinction. It separates the abstract office of the Presidency (which can be managed by staff and bureaucracy) from the physical reality of the man holding it. The porous perspective rejects this, arguing that in a “nuclear crisis,” you cannot rely on a buffer of staff; you need the man himself.

Temporal Buffering: The elite defense relies on managing the President’s time—keeping him active only between 10 am and 4 pm. This is an attempt to create a temporal buffer around his decline, shielding the public (and themselves) from the reality of his condition outside those hours.

2. The Porous Populist: “The Situation is the Boss”

The “Porous” identity allows reality to penetrate directly, prioritizing survival and visceral experience over abstract rules. Ford’s argument is purely porous: “The situation determines the comparative power of all other factors.”

Survival Over Law: The text uses the examples of the Jewish Sabbath and the Japanese Constitution to argue that when “survival of your people” is at stake, the “buffer” of law must be breached. A porous identity recognizes that adherence to an abstract rule (like the 4th Commandment or the Constitution) is a death warrant if it ignores the immediate physical threat.

Direct Perception: While elites look at delegate counts (abstractions), the porous observer looks at the “vacant checked out stare” (physical reality). The text argues that “regular folks” (grassroots) saw the decline earlier because they trust their eyes, whereas elites trust the process.

Statistical Context: This alignment with the “grassroots” is supported by polling data from the time; roughly 45% of Democratic voters thought Biden should not run even before the debate, reflecting a disconnect between the base and the party apparatus.

Narrative as a Permeable Shield: Ford argues that “Law depends upon narrative.” This suggests that the “buffer” (law/norms) is not a solid wall but a fragile story. When the “desperate nature of the situation” becomes too intense (a flood of reality), the narrative collapses, and the buffer fails.

3. Conclusion: The Collapse of the Buffer

The text predicts the inevitable victory of the Porous reality over the Buffered illusion.

The “Trickle” to a “Flood”: The “trickle” of politicians asking Biden to step aside represents the initial leaks in the buffer. The text predicts this will turn into a “flood” as the “bad faith” of the buffered elite—who tried to hide the decline—is exposed by the undeniable reality of the situation.

Rejection of Learned Helplessness: The author explicitly rejects the “learned helplessness” of the buffered state. To be porous is to retain agency: “Don’t give in… If breaking your constitution is what is required to survive, then break away.”

On June 14, 2024, I wrote: “What Determines The Winning Narrative?”

Today Gemini said:

Based on the text provided, the winning narrative is determined by the alignment of needs and events with the influence of power and resonance.

Here is an analysis of the factors that determine narrative dominance, drawing from the provided excerpts:

1. Power and Dominance

The most direct determinant of a winning narrative is the influence of dominant groups. As Grok notes, “dominance comes from who’s holding the megaphone, who’s got the muscle”.

Institutional Control: Groups with political or cultural power can promote stories that serve their interests. The text highlights how cultural elites, such as the literary community after WWI, shaped the “disenchantment narrative” because they had “access to publishers… and cultural gatekeepers”.

Manufacturing Demand: Professionals and experts can manufacture demand for their services by promoting narratives that require their intervention. For example, “genocide scholars… need hot new ‘genocides’” to increase demand for their services, just as psychiatrists may widen definitions of mental illness.

Exclusion of Rivals: Dominant groups often exclude competing narratives to maintain their power. The text cites Peter Novick’s observation that Jewish historians were once marginalized by Anglo-Saxon academics who believed “History belongs to the Anglo-Saxons”. When Jews later surged into these disciplines, they transformed them to reflect their own perspectives.

2. Resonance and Needs

Power alone is not enough; a narrative must also resonate with the public’s emotional and psychological needs.

Tension Release: A winning narrative provides catharsis. The “disenchantment narrative” of WWI won out because it “lanced the boil” of the public’s grief and betrayal, offering a release from the tension of the war’s initial jingoism.

Emotional Satisfaction: Humans are wired for stories that “produce emotion” rather than those based solely on logic. Narratives that evoke “pity” or “indignation” are more likely to succeed because they “reinforce opinions readers already have” and offer an emotional payoff.

Validation of Identity: People gravitate toward narratives that validate their identities and worldviews. The text notes that political attitudes emerge from “synaptically encoded moral narratives” that define heroes and villains. Winning narratives confirm these internal scripts, making people feel “seen” and understood.

3. Alignment with Events

Narratives often rise to dominance when a catalytic event confirms them.

Confirmation of Under-News: Joe Biden’s debate performance on June 27, 2024, became a “sledgehammer to the official story” because it confirmed the “under-news narratives” about his decline that had been circulating. The event provided the undeniable proof that allowed the latent narrative to explode into dominance.

Shifting Contexts: As societal contexts change, so do the needs for different stories. The WWI “disenchantment” narrative only became dominant after the war, when the public mood shifted from patriotic duty to mourning and disillusionment.

4. The Role of “Codes” and Community

Narratives are also shaped by the “codes” of the communities that produce them.

Community Standards: Knowledge and narratives are defined by communities with specific codes of value. To advance a narrative within a community (like academia or journalism), one must operate “under the code,” using the language and values accepted by that group.

Self-Perpetuation: Once a narrative becomes dominant, it becomes the “water we swim in,” seeming objective and natural. This makes it difficult to challenge without being dismissed as illegitimate or “mad”.

In summary, a narrative wins when it effectively meets the emotional needs of the public, is validated by undeniable events, and is amplified by powerful groups who use it to advance their own interests and status.

The dynamics of Buffered vs. Porous identity are central to understanding why certain narratives dominate (“win”) and how they are constructed. The text explicitly links the “liberal” or “elite” worldview to a Buffered identity (insulated, rational, controlled) and the “traditional” or “populist” worldview to a Porous identity (open to external forces, resonant, emotional).

Here is the analysis of the essay through that framework:

1. The Buffered Elite: Constructing the “Sanitized” Narrative

The “Buffered” identity creates a boundary between the self and the world, valuing control, “codes,” and emotional distance. In the text, this is represented by the “dominant” elites (editors, academics, gatekeepers) who curate reality to maintain order.

Sanitization of Reality: The text uses the example of the JFK assassination reporting to illustrate the Buffered impulse. While the “porous” street reaction was tribal and chaotic (Italians blaming Jews, etc.), the editors demanded a “proper,” sanitized response (“little old ladies collapsing”). The Buffered elite “didn’t want any turmoil” and sought to provide the public with “correct feelings” rather than raw truth.

Knowledge as a Closed Code: The section on Larry McEnerney and academic writing highlights how the Buffered elite maintains power through “codes.” Knowledge isn’t just facts; it’s a social agreement among “a bunch of people” (the Buffered class) who decide what counts as valid. To enter this sphere, one must “do it under the code,” accepting the elite’s buffered norms of discourse.

The Illusion of Autonomy: Rony Guldmann’s analysis explicitly identifies liberalism with the “Enlightenment narrative” of the Buffered self—a “self-congratulatory” story of liberation from ancient illusions. Liberals view themselves as “autonomous,” “self-regulating,” and “rational,” dismissing conservative/porous views as “hallucinatory” or “unthinking”.

2. The Porous Public: The Need for Resonance and Catharsis

The “Porous” identity is defined by its openness to the world; it is permeable to emotions, external forces, and “enchantment” (or trauma). The text argues that for a narrative to truly “win,” it must penetrate this porous defense and offer emotional release.

Tension Release as a Force: A narrative dominates not because it is factually “true” (a Buffered criterion) but because it resolves a “gnawing dissonance” for the Porous self. The WWI “disenchantment narrative” won because it “lanced the boil” of the public’s grief, offering a visceral release that the “patriotic” narrative could not.

Primordial Intuition: The text explicitly argues (via Guldmann) that human beings are “porous by default” and that the Buffered identity is a “cultural superimposition”. Conservatives and traditionalists are described as defending this “primordial intuition” against the “suffocating” rationalization of the Buffered elite.

The “Tribal Reflex”: The text describes the public’s reaction to events like the JFK assassination or political campaigns as a “tribal reflex.” This is a Porous mode of being where individuals see themselves not as atomized agents, but as permeable members of a group (race, class, tribe) affected by external forces.

3. The Clash: “Official Fictions” vs. “Lived Reality”

The conflict described in the text is a struggle between the Buffered elite’s attempt to impose a “nomos” (normative universe) and the Porous public’s demand for narratives that match their lived experience.

Narrative as a Control Mechanism: The Buffered elite uses dominant narratives (e.g., “Dallas as the city of hate”) to impose a “normative force field” on reality. This is an attempt to buffer the society from the chaos of the random/communist assassin by framing it within a controllable moral story.

The Collapse of the Buffer: When the elite’s “sanitized” narrative clashes too violently with the Porous reality (e.g., the “bad faith” of covering up decline, or the disconnect in WWI), the Buffered narrative fails. The “winning” narrative is the one that acknowledges the “wild sweet meadow-grass of common sense” (Porous) over the “manicured green lawn of science” (Buffered).

Identity Politics as “Porous” Competition: The section on the Holocaust and victimhood illustrates a shift toward Porous identity politics. Groups compete to claim “historical victimization”—a distinctly Porous state where the self is defined by what has been done to it by external forces, rather than by its internal autonomy.

The essay suggests that while the Buffered elite holds the “megaphone” and determines the “official” narrative through codes and institutions, the Porous masses determine the winning narrative through their need for emotional resonance. A narrative only truly dominates when it successfully bridges the gap, or when the Buffered imposition is shattered by a Porous reality (an event) that can no longer be ignored.

On April 6, 2024, I wrote: “On knowing what you are not supposed to know and feeling what you are not supposed to feel”

Today Gemini said:

Based on the text provided, the dynamics of knowing and feeling “forbidden” things map directly onto the conflict between the Buffered and Porous identities.

Here is the analysis of the essay through that framework:

1. The Porous Self: Permeable to Truth and Pain

The “Porous” identity is characterized by an openness to the world where the boundaries between self and other, or self and reality, are permeable. The text describes a distinctly Porous experience of truth and emotion.

Direct Impact of Forbidden Knowledge: The Porous self cannot “buffer” itself against truths that contradict social norms. The text speaks of those who “know things you are not supposed to know” (like the reality of in-group preference or the biological basis of conflict) and “feel things you are not supposed to feel” (like indifference to out-groups or anger at cultural shifts). These truths penetrate the Porous self directly, causing “chronic dysregulation” if suppressed.

The Scapegoat as a Porous Figure: The “family scapegoat” is described as the person who is “more in touch with the truth of what is happening inside of that system” but is punished for it. Because they lack the “buffer” of denial or social conformity, they absorb the system’s dysfunction.

Emotional Permeability: The text argues that “all feelings we experience are true by virtue that they are happening” and should be viewed as “raw sensations” rather than judgments. This is a Porous view of emotion as an external force that enters the self, rather than a Buffered view of emotion as a subjective state to be managed or judged.

2. The Buffered System: Denial and Social Control

The “Buffered” identity constructs a boundary between the self and the chaotic world, often mediated by social norms (“hero systems”), polite fictions, and “approved” knowledge.

The “Hero System” as a Buffer: The text describes “hero systems” (liberalism, religious orthodoxy, etc.) as mechanisms that penalize those who tarnish the sacred. These systems act as a buffer for the group, protecting it from “inconvenient truths” that would threaten its cohesion.

Liberalism as a “Buffered” Enforcer: Liberalism is depicted as a “meta-narrative” that imposes a “reflexive innerness” and “self-possession” (Buffered traits) while pathologizing the “visceral animus” or “common sense” of conservatives (Porous traits). The liberal insistence on “universalism” and “equality” buffers them from the Porous reality of tribalism and biological conflict.

Suppression of the Porous Reality: The text notes that powerful institutions (governments, media) create a “unanimity” of discourse to buffer against the “deteriorating situation” (e.g., in foreign policy). This is a “failure of imagination and of courage” typical of a Buffered system trying to maintain order against a chaotic reality.

3. The Clash: Authenticity vs. Belonging

The central conflict in the text is between the Porous need for authenticity (aligning with reality/truth) and the Buffered requirement for social belonging (aligning with the hero system).

The Cost of Being Porous: To be Porous (authentic to one’s forbidden knowledge) is to risk becoming the “scapegoat” or “dissident”. Figures like John Mearsheimer or the family scapegoat pay a price for piercing the buffer of social politeness.

Healing as Re-integration: The “healing process” described by Heidi Priebe involves rejecting the “negative beliefs” internalized from the Buffered system (that you are “bad” or “broken”) and accepting the Porous reality of one’s own feelings and perceptions. It is about dismantling the false buffer imposed by a dysfunctional family or society.

The text argues that we live in a “Buffered” society (liberal, universalist, polite) that actively suppresses “Porous” realities (tribalism, biological difference, the pain of dysfunction). Those who cannot maintain the Buffer—who “know what they are not supposed to know”—are pathologized as scapegoats, but they are also the ones most “aligned with reality.”

Today Gemini said:

Based on the essay provided, the concept of “Good Energy” can be powerfully analyzed as a shift from a Buffered Identity (defensive, isolated, cognitively controlled) to a Porous Identity (permeable, resonant, physically connected).

Ford’s essay essentially argues that “Good Energy” is the sensation of interacting with a positively Porous person—someone who has lowered their defenses to allow for the flow of reality and connection—while “Bad Energy” or “Weird Energy” is the friction caused by a Buffered person struggling to maintain a facade.

Here is the analysis through that framework:

1. The Porous Nature of Social Interaction (“Wifi” and “Jumper Cables”)
In a Buffered worldview, the mind is an isolated interior space; thoughts and feelings are private unless verbally communicated. Ford rejects this, adopting a Porous view where human beings are permeable vessels that transmit affect directly to one another.

Direct Transmission: Ford describes human interaction as a direct connection of nervous systems, not just an exchange of words. He writes, “We’re all like wifi… When I touch you or talk to you… I’m connecting my central nervous system to yours”.

The Porous “Force Field”: He explicitly uses the language of porosity, stating, “We all exert a moral force field”. This aligns with the porous idea that the self is open to external forces. If a person is tense (buffered/armored), they “send that tension into you,” whereas ease acts as “jumper cables” to release others’ armoring.

2. The Buffer as “Body Armoring” (Alexander Technique)

The essay identifies the “Buffer”—the boundary used to protect the self from the world—as physical muscular tension and psychological defensiveness. Ford argues that maintaining this buffer destroys “good energy.”

The Defensive Crouch: Ford equates the buffered state with a “defensive crouch” or a “fight or flight reaction,” noting that “Nobody wants to get close” to someone in that state.

Releasing the Buffer: Through the Alexander Technique, Ford learned to release “body armoring of unnecessary muscular tension”. By dismantling this physical buffer, he feels “less need to defend [himself],” allowing him to become “buoyant and flow up”.

Cognitive Stiffness: The essay links the physical buffer to a mental buffer: “Stiff people tend to be stiff in their thinking”. The buffered identity narrows possibilities, whereas the porous (flexible) identity opens them up.

3. “Leaky Feelings” and the Failure of the Buffer

Ford and the cited expert Heidi Priebe describe “Weird Energy” as the result of a failed Buffer. This occurs when a person tries to maintain a buffered exterior (pretending to be fine) while their porous interior (true emotion) leaks out.

Incongruence: “Weird energy” is defined as incongruence—when “what they’re signaling with their body language is different from what they’re doing”.

The Porous Reality of Truth: The essay suggests we cannot actually buffer ourselves from the truth of our state. Priebe notes that “our true state is evident to everyone around us based on the way we are acting, our posture, our tone”. Trying to hide this (buffering) causes distrust, while admitting it (porosity/alignment) “puts people at ease”.

4. Collective Effervescence: The Joy of Porosity

Citing sociologist Randall Collins, the essay describes high-energy social interactions as moments where individual boundaries dissolve—a quintessential Porous experience.

Rhythmic Entrainment: “Good energy” is described as “rhythmic entrainment” where nervous systems become “mutually attuned”. This is the collapse of the buffered individual into a shared “collective effervescence”.

The Energy Star: A leader (like Napoleon) is described as an “energy star” who is the “center of all the circuits,” effectively channeling the group’s energy through themselves. This requires being open to the group’s feedback loop, not walled off.

In Ford’s essay, “Good Energy” is the state of a healthy Porous Identity: authentic, resonant, and physically relaxed. “Bad Energy” is the state of a Buffered Identity that is either rigidly defensive (“body armoring”) or deceptively incongruent (“leaky feelings”). The essay argues that we find joy and connection only when we lower the buffer and allow ourselves to “live in the reality of the situation”.

On October 14, 2023, I wrote: “Concepts Illuminate & Obscure Reality”

Today Gemini said:

Based on the text provided, the interplay between buffered and porous identities is central to how concepts and theories illuminate or obscure reality. The text contrasts rigorous, “buffered” theories (which rely on careful definitions and evidence) with “porous” or “folk” concepts (which rely on intuition, emotion, and “magical thinking”).

Here is the analysis of the discussion through that framework:

1. The Buffered Approach: Theory as a Map

The “Buffered” identity creates a boundary between the self and the world, relying on structured models, theories, and empirical evidence to navigate reality.

Simplification for Comprehension: The text argues that because the world is “infinitely complex,” we need theories as “simplified pictures of reality” or maps. A buffered approach acknowledges that these maps are “abridged versions” that leave out details but provide a coherent causal story.

Rigorous Definition: Well-developed theories (buffered) carefully define key concepts and causal mechanisms, specifying what is included and excluded. This intellectual discipline creates a buffer against the chaotic influx of data.

Correction through Evidence: A buffered identity is capable of correcting its concepts when reality intrudes. The author describes his own journey of correcting “false concepts” about religion, sex, and politics by confronting them with empirical reality (e.g., the law-abiding nature of secular Japan challenging the necessity of ethical monotheism).

2. The Porous Approach: Intuition and “Magical Thinking”

The “Porous” identity is open to direct, unmediated experience and often relies on intuition, emotion, or “folk theories” that lack rigorous boundaries.

Folk Theories: Poorly developed theories (porous) are stated cursorily, with ill-defined concepts and loose causal mechanisms. Examples given include the “domino theory” or the belief that “the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen”. These concepts feel profound but often fail to map onto reality.

Magical Thinking: The porous mind is susceptible to “magical thinking,” such as the belief that “it won’t happen to me” or that specific rituals (like Torah study) are the “answer to everything”. This reflects a lack of a buffer against wishful thinking.

Emotional Resonance over Fact: Gurus like Dennis Prager appeal to the porous desire for “profound” sayings and “satisfying sensations of intellectual non-conformity” rather than rigorous reality testing. Prager’s rejection of academic studies in favor of his “common sense” or intuition is a hallmark of a porous epistemology that distrusts buffered expertise.

3. The Danger of Porous Concepts in a Complex World

The text argues that relying on porous concepts (intuition, dogma, wishful thinking) in a complex world leads to disaster because they “obscure more than they reveal reality”.

Intelligence Failure: The failure of Israeli intelligence on October 7 is attributed to a porous reliance on a fixed concept (“the Arabs would not attack”) despite contradictory data. The intelligence analysts became “so deeply embedded” in their belief that they could not abandon it, effectively dissolving the buffer between their desire for safety and the reality of the threat.

Misidentifying Enemies: The use of emotive, porous terms like “Islamo-Fascism” creates “inaccurate pictures” of the enemy. By conflating distinct historical phenomena (European Fascism vs. Islamic terrorism) based on emotional resonance rather than structural analysis, one fails to understand the actual threat.

The essay suggests that while we all need models (a buffered necessity), the danger lies in allowing our “porous” desires (for safety, simplicity, or self-importance) to dictate those models. True understanding requires the buffered discipline to test our concepts against reality, rather than letting our “natural mode of thinking” (intuition) override evidence.

On October 5, 2023, I wrote: What Makes A Great Pundit?

Today Gemini said:

1. The Pundit as a Porous Channel (“Good Energy” vs. “Ersatz Wisdom”)

The text contrasts the “public intellectual” (Buffered: rational, evidence-based, scholastic) with the “pundit” or “guru” (Porous: emotional, resonant, theatrical).

Punditry as Emotional Transmission: The successful pundit, like the pre-modern clergy, paints “vivid pictures” of a world of “gods and devils,” “demons and angels,” and “titanic battles”. This is a quintessential Porous mode of communication: it bypasses the buffered intellect to strike directly at the emotions and fears of the audience. The pundit does not offer dry facts; they offer “excitement,” “distraction,” and a “comforting narrative” that fills the “hole in the soul” of the listener.

The “Vibe” and “Energy”: Ford explicitly links the concept of “good energy” to Porous connectivity. He writes, “We all give off a vibe… We’re all like wifi… When I touch you or talk to you… I’m connecting my central nervous system to yours”. The great pundit understands this: they don’t just speak; they transmit tension, excitement, or relief directly into the listener’s nervous system. They act as “jumper cables”.

The Failure of the Buffer: The pundit succeeds when the audience’s buffer fails. Listeners who are “disconnected” or “broken” seek a parasocial bond to feel whole. They want a “substitute parent” to protect their hero system, allowing the pundit to bypass their critical faculties and shape their reality directly.

2. The Buffered Intellectual vs. The Porous Showman

The text distinguishes between those who “optimize for truth” (Buffered) and those who “optimize for excitement” (Porous).

Buffered Truth is Boring: The text argues that truth is “mundane, complicated, contradictory,” and requires a “slower way of speaking” with “variable melody” (gratitude). A Buffered intellectual like Steve Sailer or Charles Murray offers insights that help you understand the world, but they don’t offer the dopamine hit of the pundit.

Porous Excitement is Compelling: To be a great pundit, one must abandon the Buffered constraint of truth and embrace the Porous imperative of “excitement.” Dennis Prager, for example, sees a “holocaust bearing down on us” where others see a beautiful world. This creates a shared, heightened reality (a “secret” world) that binds the audience to the pundit through fear and exhilaration.

The “Hard Man” vs. The “Free Man”: The text touches on the appeal of the “hard man” (authoritarian leader/speaker) in certain situations. This aligns with the Porous desire for a strong figure to impose order on a chaotic world, versus the Buffered desire for a “free man” (flexible, rational) who can navigate complexity.

3. The Mechanics of the “Clubhouse” (Porous Belonging)

The description of talk radio as a “clubhouse” for conservatives perfectly illustrates the creation of a Porous community in a Buffered world.

Shared Reality: The pundit creates a “safe space” or “clubhouse” where the listener’s specific worldview (e.g., victimhood, fear of the left) is validated and reinforced. This is a form of collective Porosity—the group creates a shared emotional field that buffers them against the outside world while remaining open to one another.

The Enemy as Unifying Force: To maintain this Porous bond, there must be an external enemy (the “bad guy,” the “liberal media”). This us-versus-them framing tightens the group’s cohesion (solidarity) and emotional energy, as described by Randall Collins’ interaction ritual theory.

Rejection of Nuance: The Buffered world values nuance (“shades of gray”), but the Porous world of the pundit rejects it. “There is no political middle… Three extremists are worth more than ten moderates”. Nuance kills the “buzz” or “collective effervescence” that keeps the audience hooked.

The essay suggests that the “Great Pundit” is a master of Porous communication in a secular age. They provide the “jolts of collective effervescence” and the “vivid pictures” of good and evil that used to be the domain of religion. They succeed not by being right (Buffered truth), but by being resonant (Porous connection), filling the emotional void of their audience with “excitement” and “solidarity” against a hostile world. The Buffered intellectual, constrained by facts and nuance, cannot compete with this visceral power.

On August 21, 2023, I wrote: Your Hero System Is Your Morality And You Get It From Your Tribe

Today Gemini said:

The essay contrasts the modern, buffered liberal worldview (individualistic, self-referential, abstract) with a traditional, porous conservative worldview (tribal, embedded, realistic).

Here is the analysis of the essay through that framework:

1. The Buffered Self: The “Moral Crisis” of Liberalism

The text identifies David Brooks and Dennis Prager as representatives of a Buffered moral system. This worldview is characterized by the belief that the self is an autonomous, bounded entity that can be “morally formed” through education, abstract propositions, and self-referential growth.

Abstract Universalism: Buffered liberalism (and Prager’s “proposition nation”) posits that morality is a matter of adopting the right abstract values (“universal human rights,” “shared beliefs”) rather than being rooted in blood or soil. The text critiques this, noting that Prager’s idea that “you are defined by you, not by your family” is a “modern liberal delusion”.

Disengaged Agency: Taylor’s definition of the buffered self (“taking a distance… from everything outside the mind”) is echoed in the description of modern moral formation as a “self-awareness business” where the goal is to “get in touch with you” rather than conform to external standards.

The Failure of the Buffer: The text argues that this buffered individualism leads to “anomie” and meanness because it strips people of the porous bonds (tribe, family, religion) that actually regulate behavior. Without the “hero system” of a tribe, the buffered self collapses into narcissism and “politics of recognition”.

2. The Porous Self: The “Biological Necessity” of Tribe

The essay advocates for a Porous understanding of human nature, where the self is permeable to, and defined by, its community, genes, and environment.

Embedded Morality: The porous view holds that morality is not an intellectual exercise but a result of being “embedded with other people”. We are good because we don’t want to hurt our bonds, not because we learned abstract virtues.

The Reality of In-Group Preference: A central theme is that the porous self naturally favors its own kind (“genetic similarity predicts closer ties”). The text argues that what liberals call “racism” or “sexism” is often just the healthy porous instinct to “prefer your own hero system” and protect one’s kin.

Permeability to the Sacred: The porous self recognizes that “meaning and morality exist outside of the individual” and that we must conform to objective standards (marriage, work, children) rather than inventing our own. This is a rejection of the buffered fantasy of autonomy.

3. The Clash: “False Maps” vs. Reality

The essay frames the conflict as one between the Buffered delusion (that humans are blank slates who can be engineered into universal altruists) and the Porous reality (that humans are tribal primates shaped by biology).

The Liberal “Hero System”: Liberalism is described as a “hero-system in disguise” that pretends to be neutral but is actually a “secularized asceticism” that demands we deny our porous nature (our tribal instincts). This creates a “culture devoid of moral education” because it denies the biological roots of morality.

The Consequences of Denial: By trying to buffer society against “primal drives” like hierarchy and in-group preference, liberalism creates a “dysfunctional family” dynamic where people are forced to lie about reality. The essay suggests that a return to a more porous, realistic acceptance of human nature (as seen in Yellowstone or traditional societies) is the only path to genuine social cohesion.

The essay argues that the Buffered project of modern liberalism—trying to create a moral society through individual self-actualization and abstract universalism—has failed because it ignores the Porous reality of human nature. True morality and happiness come from being “embedded” in a tribe, accepting the constraints of biology, and serving a hero system that connects the self to something larger than itself.

On January 21, 2023, I wrote: What Should You Expect From The News?

Today Gemini said:

The essay essentially argues that the “News” is a Buffered product (bureaucratic, administrative, procedural) that often fails to satisfy the Porous need for truth, reality, and resonance.

Here is the analysis through that framework:

1. The News as a Buffered Product (“Bureaucratic Events”)

The text explicitly defines the news not as “truth” or “reality,” but as “the passage of bureaucratically recognized events through administrative procedures”. This is a perfect description of a Buffered system.

Administrative Filtering: The news does not report raw reality; it reports what bureaucracies (courts, government agencies, police) have processed and approved. The O.J. Simpson verdict is cited as an example of a “bureaucratic event” that had nothing to do with the “truth” of the murders. The buffered system cares about the procedure (the trial), not the porous reality (the guilt).

Stenography over Insight: Reporters are described as “good stenographers” for official sources. They operate within the buffered sphere of officialdom, repeating what the President or the Commerce Department says. This insulates them (and their readers) from the messy, unverified reality outside the bureaucratic walls.

Insulation from Reality: The text notes that relying on the news (the “employee handbook”) makes one less effective than relying on “what you see and hear” (direct porous experience). The buffered news creates a false map that obscures the territory.

2. The Porous Craving for Reality (and “Interesting”)

The essay contrasts the buffered nature of news with the Porous desire for direct connection, truth, and excitement.

Money in “Interesting”: Talk show hosts (pundits) optimize for “interesting,” not truth, because that is what the porous audience craves. They want to be moved, excited, or validated, not bored by administrative procedures.

The “Hole in the Soul”: People who get “hooked” on pundits are described as having a “hole in their soul” that they try to fill with a parasocial bond. This is a porous need for connection that the dry, buffered news cannot satisfy.

Direct Experience vs. Mediation: The text argues that a handful of “stereotypes about group differences” (porous/folk knowledge) are more helpful for navigating reality than “all the news and academic articles” (buffered/official knowledge). The porous self trusts its own eyes; the buffered self trusts the official report.

3. The Failure of the Buffer (“The Great Mugger of Reality”)

The essay argues that the mainstream media (a buffered institution) essentially attacks reality rather than reporting it.

Inverted Paranoia: Bryan Caplan is cited arguing that the media spreads “grotesque stories about ultra-rare problems” (terrorism, plane crashes) while ignoring common ones. This distorts the porous reality of daily life, creating a false sense of danger (or safety) based on buffered narratives rather than statistical truth.

Social Desirability Bias: The media promotes “stuff that superficially sounds good” (buffered ideals) over “stuff that sounds bad” (porous realities). This creates a “deeply false Big Picture” where government intervention is always the answer and social problems are always crises.

The “Clubhouse” of Anger: The media keeps conservatives “engaged and enraged” by constantly provoking them. This exploits the porous nature of the audience (their ability to be triggered) to maintain a profitable state of agitation, rather than informing them.

The essay suggests that to consume news wisely, one must adopt a Buffered stance: “place people and institutions into their correct genre”. Recognize that the news is a bureaucratic output, not a window into reality. However, the essay also acknowledges that most people consume news with a Porous hunger—seeking validation, excitement, or a “Big Picture” to believe in—and are thus “mugged by reality” when the buffered narrative inevitably fails.

Today Gemini said:

Based on the essay provided, the concept of “News as a Stress Test” can be interpreted as a diagnostic tool for measuring the strength of one’s Buffer.

The essay argues that a healthy relationship with the news requires a Buffered Identity (observation, understanding, knowing limitations), while an unhealthy relationship is characterized by a Porous Identity (feeling assaulted, over-identification, merging with external narratives).

Here is the analysis through that framework:

1. The News as a Porous Assault

The text describes the state of getting “unhinged” by the news as a failure of the self’s boundary to withstand the “unpredictable world beyond yourself”.

Permeability to External Forces: The essay asks, “Do you feel assaulted by the news?”. This is the definition of the porous experience—where the outside world (the news cycle) forcibly enters the private self, causing damage.

Over-Identification: The text notes that people damage themselves by “identifying too strongly with winners or losers in the news”. This is a porous state where the individual’s sense of self is entangled with external actors they cannot control.

The Loss of Agency: Ford describes his pre-2016 state (a porous state) as getting upset because “the world refused to conform to my expectations”. The porous self feels that the world’s actions are a personal affront, whereas the buffered self accepts the world’s autonomy.

2. “Understanding” as the Ultimate Buffer

Ford contrasts his past behavior with his current, healthy consumption of news, which is defined by the Buffered goal of “understanding” rather than “activism”.

Disengaged Observation: The buffered identity allows one to consume vast amounts of news (NYT, WSJ, etc.) without it “diminishing [one’s] happiness”. By framing the news as an object to be understood rather than a battle to be fought, the individual creates a protective distance.

The Reality Principle: The essay argues that mental health requires being “clear about the things you cannot change and the things you can”. This is a buffered distinction. It separates the internal locus of control from the external chaos. The porous person, by contrast, “overestimate[s] their ability to change the world,” believing their internal intent can magically alter external reality.

3. Hero Systems as Fictional Realities

The essay lists “blindness to the fictional reality of their hero system” as a cause of becoming unhinged.

Porous Attachment: A person with a porous identity treats their “hero system” (political tribe, ideology) as a sacred, constitutive part of their being. When the news attacks the hero system, the person feels physically attacked.

Buffered Detachment: The buffered observer recognizes the hero system as “fictional” or constructed. This detachment allows them to analyze the news without their identity collapsing when their side loses or is criticized.

The essay suggests that the news acts as a “stress test” for the Buffer. If the buffer is intact, the individual can process the “unpredictable world” as information (“understanding”). If the buffer is weak (porous), the news becomes an “assault” that causes the individual to “rage against reality” and lose their mental health.