TEFF TALK 000: WHAT BEARS CAN TEACH US ABOUT BILLIONAIRES
on strategic incoherence and the performance of placidity by the ultra-rich
There’s always been this disturbing assumption that just because someone is rich, they must also be smart; that wealth is a direct reflection of intelligence, strategy—even divine favour. And when that assumption is challenged—when we actually hear certain billionaires speak—it can be jarring.
Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Thiel, even your local tech bro angel investor often sound…off. Disjointed, barely coherent, and socially-aloof. And, the internet eats it up. “See?” we say, “these people are idiots.” But I want to offer a reframing: what if it’s not stupidity? What if it’s strategy? If you’re looking for context, look no further than the full transcript to Thiel’s recent interview with Ross Douthat for the New York Times.
Let me explain.
The Bear Theory
When encountering a bear in the wild, the standard advice is: don’t run. Don’t scream. Make yourself look bigger, but not threatening. Because bears—while powerful—read threat cues constantly. They don’t want smoke unless they have no other choice.
But here’s the kicker: bears have also learned to perform placidity. They’ve evolved to appear non-threatening to survive encounters with more unpredictable creatures—namely, humans. What if billionaires are doing the same thing? What if incoherence is a performance? A mask to disarm and dull the public’s perception of just how much power they wield?
Because here’s the truth: if the ultra-wealthy were ever truly coherent about their visions—what they think the future should look like, how they define productivity, what they believe should be automated, sold, or erased—we’d be horrified.
Their ideas are often violently out of step with collective humanity. They speak of innovation, but it’s innovation often at the expense of labour. They speak of freedom, but it’s freedom that only works for the top 0.01%. They speak of AI and “optimisation,” but what they mean is less people Less mess. More control.
And they know that if we clearly connect the dots between their money, their influence, and the erosion of public life, we’d revolt. So instead, they fumble through half-baked metaphors. They meme themselves. They perform awkwardness and hide behind “genius” tropes. They lean into the image of being misunderstood, quirky, too far ahead of their time.
Let’s call it what it is: it’s the soft con. The placid bear in the corner.
Clarity as a Threat
Here’s something I come back to often: When people want to do something harmful, they make it harder to name. Language becomes foggy; intent becomes implied, but never confirmed. Accountability slips through the cracks. But when people are fighting for care, dignity, justice? They’re clear. Sometimes so clear, it inspires distrust. They want to be understood; they need to be understood.
That’s why the gap between incoherence and harm needs to be interrogated more deeply. And, perhaps, why I have made this space. Some of the most dangerous ideas don’t come from loud extremists; they come from quiet strategists who mumble their way through TED Talks and policy panels, while reshaping the very architecture of how we live, work, and relate to one another.
We Should All Be Suspicious of Disjointed Power
Make no mistake: this essay is not about defending billionaires nor offering them a way “out”. It’s about not being lulled into thinking that confusion equals harmlessness. But when I was met with clips from the interview that spawn this…investigation, I couldn’t help but think how sometimes the most dangerous thing a person in power can do…is seem like they don’t know what they’re doing. But they do. They always do. And if the public isn’t paying attention—if we’re too distracted by awkwardness to notice the architecture of exploitation—it becomes easier to scale harmful systems in plain sight.
Final Thought
Disjointedness isn’t always a flaw. Sometimes it’s camouflage. So the next time a public figure with obscene wealth or influence starts sounding like they’ve “lost the plot,” ask yourself: is this a lack of clarity ??? Or a tool of distraction? To know the difference is to reclaim your attention.
✴️ TEFF THEORIES | RESOURCE MIX
Think of this as the constellation around the core — what orbits the theory. What you’re reading is just one planet. Here’s the rest of the galaxy:
🌀 MY MIX — IN THIS SEASON OF MY LIFE
Here’s how I’m currently building, offering, and evolving:
35% → Creative Consulting (language, strategy, integrity)
25% → Art & Image-making (photography, storytelling, moving image)
20% → Writing (editorials, essays, narrative development)
15% → Experiments (substack, series, surprise drops)
5% → Speaking & Teaching (guest lectures, workshops, panels)
Each of these feeds the other. If one slows, another deepens. Flexibility is the infrastructure.
🌿 THIS WEEK’S INVITATION
Spend 30 minutes in quiet observation. Choose something ordinary — a park bench, a street corner, a kitchen table — and watch. Notice what moves toward you, and what moves away.
Ask yourself:
What is harmless but appears threatening?
What is dangerous but wears the mask of charm?
Where does my instinct say “stay” and where does it say “leave”?
Lean into the slow art of discernment. Recognise how distinctly it differs from paranoia; how it sharpens your blade (this is one of my favourite expressions. be warned: you will see it often here).
🪞 ICYMI (IN CASE YOU MISSED IT)
The Architecture of Absence — Read: On Purity, Proximity, and the Performance of Absence across the African diaspora
A new creative offering (pilot season). — Schedule a session
Intellectualism As A Form of Performing Desirability — Watch the Reel