Freedom Essay 14

 

Dishonest biology leads to
the extinction of humans

 

By Jeremy Griffith, 2018

 

In this presentation Jeremy Griffith emphasises how extremely sinister and dangerous dishonest biology, specifically the false ‘savage instincts’ excuse for human behaviour, is.

Watch the presentation here:

 

Make and see comments here

 

This presentation also appears as Video 14 in the Main Videos towards the top of our homepage at www.humancondition.com.

 

The Transcript of this video

 

 

The dangerous seductiveness of the ‘savage instincts’ excuse

In The Great Guilt that causes the Deaf Effect and in my presentation in Video/​F. Essay 10 titled ‘What exactly is the human condition?’ I described how fearful we humans have been of the previously unexplained issue of our species’ corrupted, ‘fallen’, innocence-destroyed, Garden-of-Eden-abandoned human condition. (How our distant ape ancestors came to live in a completely cooperative, loving, innocent, Edenic, moral state is explained in F. Essay 21, and you can read many wonderful descriptions of this time of innocence in F. Essay 53.) I talked about how all our thoughts and actions have been monopolised by that fear—that we have spent almost all of our adult lives working out and perfecting how to avoid the issue of the human condition. I described how we even tried to make it appear as though we weren’t affected by the problem; smiling, joking and generally putting on a brave face. Basically, the minds of ‘resigned’ adult humans have been committed to avoiding any thinking that might bring them into contact with the, until now, unexplained issue of the human condition. (The psychological process of Resignation that adolescents go through to living in denial of the human condition is explained in F. Essay 30.)

It follows that since scientists are humans suffering from the human condition like everyone else, they too will have been living in fearful denial of the human condition. Clearly such avoidance has been a very serious handicap in their line of work because if you can’t confront a subject you’re in no position to think truthfully and effectively about it.

 

 

And, since the study of behaviour is the province of biology, it follows that the all-important task of explaining and understanding human behaviour, most especially the crux issue of our ‘good and evil’ conflicted human condition, has been the particular responsibility of biological scientists. However, given their inability to confront and think truthfully about any subject that brought the issue of the human condition into focus, which is almost all subjects to do with human behaviour, we can expect that very little truthful understanding of human behaviour has emerged from biology. And, as we will now see, that has indeed been the case, with extremely serious consequences, that I will spell out here and explain fully in Freedom Essay 35 (an essay that is so significant it has also been produced as the standalone book titled Death by Dogma: The biological reason why the Left is leading us to extinction, and the solution, and I should mention that this book can be accessed for free on our homepage www.humancondition.com, as one of the WTM’s key books.)

 

 

In 1859 the very great biologist Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species which shed light on the origin of the variety of life on Earth. It is a seminal work that has been voted the most influential book in history, but even so it stops short of tackling the ‘origin’ of the one species we really needed to understand: us humans. In fact, humans are hardly mentioned in The Origin of Species—and Darwin readily admitted this shortfall because at the end of Origin he said, ‘In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches…​Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.’

Darwin’s reluctance to tackle ‘the origin of man and his history’ was an understandable and honest response given what has just been explained about how unbearably self-confronting and depressing the subject of human behaviour has been for virtually everyone—as the Cambridge scholar Jane Ellen Harrison has written, Darwin ‘foresaw that his doctrine must have, for the history of man’s mental evolution, issues wider than those with which he was prepared personally to deal’ (‘The Influence of Darwinism on the Study of Religions’, Darwin and Modern Science, ed. A.C. Seward, 1909, ch.25). (See paragraphs 188-189 in FREEDOM for a more detailed description of Darwin’s avoidance of the human condition.)

Not all biologists, however, have been as scrupulous as Darwin. Despite not being able to confront the human condition, many have put themselves forward as objective thinkers about human behaviour, with the result being that all manner of dishonest supposed ‘explanations’ have been put forward for almost every aspect of human behaviour—a great industry of dishonest biology has developed around the subject of human behaviour. And, as I will now explain, nearly all this dishonesty has been based on the ‘savage animal instincts’ excuse for our selfish and aggressive behaviour.

 

AdobeStock; jeaneeem / Flickr

 

This excuse that we humans have brutish and savage instincts is one virtually everyone has been subscribing to. Our conversations are saturated with the ‘savage instincts’-based reason for our competitive, selfish and aggressive human-condition-afflicted behaviour, with comments like: ‘We are programmed by our genes to try to dominate others and be a winner in the battle of life’; and ‘Our preoccupation with sexual conquest is due to our primal instinct to sow our seeds’; and ‘Men behave abominably because their bodies are flooded with must-reproduce-their-genes-promoting testosterone’; and ‘We want a big house because we are innately territorial’; and ‘Fighting and war is just our animal nature expressing itself’; and ‘Religions are merely manifestations of our survival-driven group mentality’. However, as I pointed out in THE Interview and in the second video in this Main Video series (Video/​F. Essay 2), the savage, ‘must-reproduce-our-genes’ instincts explanation for our competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour is a completely dishonest lie. Firstly, we humans have cooperative, selfless and loving moral instincts, the voice or expression of which within us is our conscience—which is the complete opposite of competitive, selfish and aggressive instincts. As Darwin recognised, ‘The moral sense perhaps affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals’ (see par. 375 of FREEDOM). And in order to have an altruistic moral instinctive nature, our distant ancestors must have been cooperative and loving, not competitive and aggressive like other animals. THE Interview, F. Essay 21 and chapter 5 of FREEDOM explain that we acquired our extraordinarily altruistic moral instincts through nurturing, and describe how bonobos (a variety of chimpanzee that live south of the Congo River in Africa) are a living example of a species who are achieving this completely cooperative, selfless and loving state through nurturing; and in F. Essay 22 you can read about fossil evidence for this cooperative, selfless and loving past.

 

 

At this point I need to clarify that in order to counter the selfishness-justifying, individualistic, right-wing assertions that we humans are naturally selfish because we have entirely selfish, savage, ‘survival of the fittest’, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts (which we actually don’t have because we have nurtured, entirely unconditionally selfless moral instincts), the Left developed equally dishonest selflessness-emphasising theories that maintain that while we do have some selfish, savage, ‘survival of the fittest’, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts, we also have some selfless instincts derived from situations where supposedly cooperation proved a more successful survival strategy than competition. This so-called ‘group selection’ theory for the existence of cooperative instincts within us is false biology because, as I explain shortly, of ‘the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters [selfish, opportunistic individuals]’ (The New York Times, 9 Sep. 2011), as the biologist Jerry Coyne pointed out. It was only the extended nurturing of our infants that could overcome genetic selfishness and develop unconditionally selfless behaviour.

Further, as is explained in F. Essay 35 and its book version, Death by Dogma, left-wing theorists also came up with a dishonest explanation for why our supposed selfish instincts came to dominate our selfless instincts. They claimed that following the advent of agriculture settlements that allowed for the accumulation of possessions, the desire and competition for these led to the supposed selfish side of our nature overriding the selfless side of us such that greed and warfare and domination by the more powerful took over human life.

In the case of the left-wing political theorist Karl Marx, he maintained that we only have some basic instinctive needs such as for sex, food, shelter and clothing, and that essentially we are born a ‘blank slate’ in terms of having instincts influencing our behaviour, and as a result he maintained that our mind can be inscribed at will! While I explain a lot more in Death by Dogma about how Marx and Marxist-based Critical Theory abandons science altogether, what I say here in this essay is broadly accurate across both left and right-wing ideologies—which is that while the Left presents different but equally dishonest explanations for human behaviour to the Right, the prevailing dishonest belief in both ideologies is that savage, must-reproduce-our-genes, selfish instincts are controlling our lives.

So one key point I made in THE Interview and Video/​F. Essay 2 about the savage instincts excuse is that we have cooperative, selfless and loving moral instincts, not savage instincts as right-wing biologists assert, or a combination of some savage instincts and some cooperative instincts as left-wing biologists maintain.

The other fundamental point I made in explaining why the savage, ‘must-reproduce-our-genes’ instincts explanation for our competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour is a completely dishonest lie was that descriptions of human behaviour, such as egocentric, arrogant, inspired, depressed, deluded, pessimistic, optimistic, artificial, hateful, cynical, mean, immoral, brilliant, guilt-ridden, evil, psychotic, neurotic, alienated, etc, all recognise the involvement of our species’ unique fully conscious thinking mind—they make it clear that there is a psychological dimension to our behaviour. We humans have suffered NOT from the genetic-opportunism-based, non-psychological animal condition, but the conscious-mind-based, PSYCHOLOGICALLY troubled HUMAN CONDITION (see par. 40 of FREEDOM).

And, most importantly, as we will see, psychoses can be healed with understanding, so our psychologically upset human nature is fixable or changeable—not unchangeable, which is what it would essentially be if our competitive, selfish and aggressive nature was instinctive; if it was something that is in our genes and we were born with.

The actual explanation for how we humans became psychologically upset sufferers of the angry, egocentric and alienated human condition was presented in THE Interview and Video/​F. Essay 3. It is explained there that what caused the upset was a clash between our original innocent, Edenic, cooperative, selfless and loving moral instincts and the emergence of our conscious mind.

So yes, we have cooperative, selfless and loving instincts, not savage, competitive, selfish and aggressive ones. (I might mention that you can read a detailed description of what instincts and consciousness actually are in paragraphs 247-248 of FREEDOM. Also, F. Essay 24 explains how we humans became fully conscious when other animals haven’t.)

What has been so extremely dangerous about the completely dishonest savage instincts excuse is how seductive it has been. When it came to avoiding the truth of our psychologically upset human condition, which, as emphasised, all resigned adults have been committed to doing, the ‘savage animal instincts’ excuse for our behaviour could hardly have been more seductive—because instead of our instincts being all-loving as they actually are, they are made out to be vicious and brutal; and, instead of our conscious mind being the seemingly destructive cause of our species’ corrupted so-called ‘fall from grace’, the cause of our departure from our species’ original Garden-of-Eden state of innocence, as was the case, it was made out to be the blameless, mediating ‘hero’ who had to try to control those supposed savage instincts within us! Rather than our instincts appearing to be good, and our angry, egocentric and alienated conscious mind appearing to be bad because it, in effect, caused the corruption of our original innocent state, which is the true description of what happened, our instincts were made out to be bad and our conscious intellect to be good—which, while fabulously relieving of our conscious mind’s immense guilt for having destroyed the innocent world of our instinctive self or soul, was a complete reverse of the truth lie! (see also par. 153 of FREEDOM)

 

 

 

 

What now has to be described is just how enormous the ramifications of this lie that we have savage instincts has been. What has happened is that the extreme seductiveness for human-condition-avoiding resigned humans of dishonestly blaming their corrupted condition on savage instincts has meant that almost all biologists have adopted and perpetuated it. Indeed, as we will now see, this has happened to such an extent that the savage instincts excuse has been used by both right-wing and left-wing biologists to dishonestly explain almost every aspect of human behaviour!

 

A brief summary of the main dishonest savage-instincts-based biological explanations for human behaviour

 

 

I’ll begin this exposé by giving a very brief summary of the history of the main dishonest savage-instincts-based biological explanations for human behaviour; I will start with right-wing theories, and then give a brief history of left-wing biological theories. An in-depth description of this history is presented in chapters 2 and 6 of my book FREEDOM.

 

Right-wing dishonest biology

The first dishonest right-wing theory for human behaviour to be based on the dishonest human-condition-avoiding, moral-soul-denying savage instincts excuse was Social Darwinism. This theory misrepresented Charles Darwin’s great breakthrough insight of natural selection as a ‘survival of the fittest’ process. Natural selection is the mechanism by which some members of a population reproduce more than others in a given environment, and, most significantly, in the first edition of The Origin of Species, the book that launched his concept of natural selection, Darwin correctly left it undecided as to whether those individuals that reproduced more could be viewed as winners, as being ‘fitter’. However, as I describe in paragraph 195 of FREEDOM, in later editions Darwin was persuaded by his associates Herbert Spencer and Alfred Russel Wallace to substitute the term ‘natural selection’ with the term ‘survival of the fittest’. The malignant attraction of this misinterpretation was that it reinforced this dishonest excuse that humans had already been using for our competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour, which is that our forebears weren’t cooperative and loving, but competitive and aggressive savages preoccupied with survival and domination of each other like other animals, and that we, in the sense of ‘we’ being our conscious thinking self, are the blameless heroes having to try to control these supposed savage instincts in us. As I have said, since it was the emergence of our conscious mind that led to the corruption of our species’ original cooperative and loving instinctive life, it was a complete reverse-of-the-truth lie to argue the opposite and claim our instincts were competitive, selfish and brutal and our intellect a blameless mediating hero.

(I should explain that the reason Darwin was honest to leave it undecided as to whether those who reproduced more are ‘fitter’ is because, as is explained in F. Essay 25 and paragraph 358 of FREEDOM, being unconditionally selfless, where you give your life to help others and don’t seek to reproduce more, can be a biologically meaningful, ‘fitter’, outcome. To very briefly explain why it can be meaningful, as is explained in F. Essay 23, the meaning of existence is to develop ever larger and more stable wholes of matter (due to the law of Negative Entropy, atoms come together to form molecules, which come together or integrate to form compounds, which integrate to form single-celled organisms, which in turn integrate to form multicellular organisms, which then integrate to form societies, and so on)—and unconditionally selfless self-sacrifice for the good of the whole is the very theme of this integrative process because it maintains wholes. Selfishness is divisive and disintegrative while selfless consideration of others maintains wholes, it is integrative. The fact that the gene-based natural selection process cannot normally develop unconditional selflessness between sexually reproducing individuals—because selfless traits don’t tend to reproduce—is simply a limitation of the gene-based learning system. Integrative selflessness is the real characteristic of existence, the theme of life, hence its meaningfulness.)

 

 

The problem that emerged for human-condition-avoiding, moral-soul-denying, so-called ‘mechanistic’ or ‘reductionist’ biologists with Social Darwinism’s dishonest excuse that ‘animals are selfish and preoccupied with domination and that’s why we are selfish and preoccupied with achieving as much dominating power, fame, fortune and glory as we can’, is that it didn’t account for humans’ unconditionally selfless, altruistic, moral instincts, the ‘voice’ of which, as I have said, is our ‘conscience’. Undeterred by this failing, it was that master of human-condition-avoiding, dishonest biology, the much acclaimed Harvard University biologist Edward O. Wilson (he was most wrongly described as the ‘living heir to Darwin’ and ‘the world’s greatest scientist’), who contrived an even more dishonest solution to this problem—all still based on the dishonest, must-reproduce-your-genes, selfish and nasty instincts excuse. In his momentous 1975 book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (which was quickly followed by others’ books, like Richard Dawkins’s 1976 book The Selfish Gene), Wilson acknowledged selfless moral behaviour in humans but argued that it is really only a subtle form of selfishness where we are indirectly promoting the reproduction of our genes by fostering others who are related to us. As Wilson said about this human-condition-avoiding, altruistic-moral-soul-denying ‘kin selection’ theory (which became one of the foundations of what is known as Evolutionary Psychology), ‘Morality has no other demonstrable function’ other than to ensure ‘human genetic material…​will be kept intact’; even saying that ‘[the philosopher Jean-Jacques] Rousseau claimed [that humanity] was originally a race of noble savages in a peaceful state of nature, who were later corrupted…​[but what] Rousseau invented [was] a stunningly inaccurate form of anthropology’!! (see par. 197 of FREEDOM).

 

 

In time it became accepted that while kin selection explains the cooperative behaviour of animals like ants and bees, it doesn’t actually acknowledge and explain humans’ altruistic moral nature. As the journalist Bryan Appleyard pointed out about this dishonest application of the kin selection theory, biologists ‘still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the world is full of all sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness.’ (see par. 199 of FREEDOM)

To contrive a solution to this problem, Wilson then, in his 2012 book, The Social Conquest of Earth, put forward the absolutely outrageously dishonest Multilevel Selection theory for eusociality (genuine sociality). Where previously Wilson had limited himself to getting rid of the truth of our altruistic moral instinctive self or soul, he now set about using lies to dispose of the great overarching, main problem facing humankind of our conscious-mind-induced, psychologically upset HUMAN CONDITION! The brazenness of this assault is evident in the first sentence of The Social Conquest of Earth, which reads, ‘There is no grail more elusive or precious in the life of the mind than the key to understanding the human condition’!! Yes, the human condition IS the holy grail of the human journey, but what Wilson does is not provide that most ‘precious’ ‘grail’ of all ‘in the life of the mind’, as his opening sentence suggested he was going to do, rather he sets about nullifying the chance of it ever being found, and, by so doing, commits humanity to extinction! Pure hypocrisy, hypocrisy of the absolute worst possible kind!

Basically, the Multilevel Selection theory argues that along with supposed competitive, survival of the fittest, must-reproduce-your-own-genes, selfish instincts, we humans also have operating at another level some cooperative, selfless ‘moral’ instincts derived from so-called ‘group selection’ (thus countering Evolutionary Psychology’s denial of the existence of humans’ unconditionally selfless moral instincts). The truth, however—which Wilson tried to bluff his way past by claiming effective warfare depended on group cooperation—is that the idea of ‘group selection’ giving rise to selfless instincts has been fully discredited on the grounds that any selflessness that develops within a group will be constantly exploited by cheaters—‘By all means, help me reproduce my genes but I’m not about to help you reproduce yours.’ The biologist Jerry Coyne pointed this logic out when he wrote that ‘group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters’. However, despite this obvious flaw in the theory of group selection, those human-condition-avoiding mechanistic, reductionist biologists who have accepted the Multilevel Selection theory have persuaded themselves to adopt it. (see par. 203 of FREEDOM)

 

 

Overall, while the Multilevel Selection theory added unconditionally selfless instincts to selfish instincts in the mix of what allegedly forms our species’ instinctive make-up, in essence, it still amounted to a continuation of the same old reverse-of-the-truth, ‘escape-rather-than-confront-the-human-condition’ agenda—that humans have villainous selfish instincts and a blameless conscious mind that has to heroically ‘step-in’ to control them. (see pars 210–214 of FREEDOM)

As mentioned, what is outrageous, and extremely dangerous, is how Wilson used the Multilevel Selection theory to supposedly explain that ‘grail’ which is the most ‘precious in the life of the mind’ of the human condition, saying in The Social Conquest of Earth that ‘Individual selection is responsible for much of what we call sin, while group selection is responsible for the greater part of virtue. Together they have created the conflict between the poorer and the better angels of our nature.’ In summary, Wilson asserted that ‘The dilemma of good and evil was created by multilevel selection’. Clever semblance of our conflicted condition, diabolically clever, but entirely untrue! (see par. 201 of FREEDOM)

So, according to Wilson, rather than having an original completely unconditionally selfless, altruistic, moral instinctive self or soul, which we then corrupted when we became fully conscious some 2 million years ago and developed an upset angry, egocentric and alienated psychosis, which is the true description of the origin of our condition, we simply have some instincts that want us to behave selflessly and some that don’t. While a ‘virtuous’, ‘better angels’, ‘good’ part of ourselves exists in Wilson’s ‘we have some selfless instincts’ account, there is no guilt from our conscious mind’s corruption of our completely selfless moral soul. What this means is that Wilson’s account of the human condition is non-judgmental in the sense that there are no real values, no notion of the absolutes of good vs evil or right vs wrong in the true, moral sense. What a relief for guilt-stricken humans, but what an incredible fraud! What Wilson has done with his non-psychological, no-guilt-stricken-conscious-mind-involved account is not explain the human condition but nullify it, render the issue benign, virtually inconsequential—and in doing so he is effectively burying humanity ‘a long way underground’ in the darkest depths of Plato’s ‘cave’ of denial that I described in Video/​F. Essay 11. (see par. 214 of FREEDOM)

 

 

I provided clear evidence that Wilson’s Multilevel Selection theory is nothing but an outrageously dishonest contrived excuse for our condition when, in Video/​F. Essay 4, I referred to the many great thinkers in history who have recognised the instinct vs intellect elements involved in producing our psychologically distressed human condition. We even saw in Video/​F. Essay 10 how the great 19th century poet William Blake recognised that our distressed condition is a result of a clash between the ‘two contrary states’ of an ‘innocen[t]’, ‘lamb’-like, cooperative and loving moral instinctive heritage and our ‘Experience’-based conscious mind. Much more evidence of just how obvious the instinct vs intellect explanation for the human condition is when someone is prepared to think honestly and truthfully about the subject is presented in F. Essay 53.

Again, chapter 2 of FREEDOM provides an in-depth description of this history of the right-wing dishonest savage-instincts-based biological explanations for human behaviour.

 

Left-wing dishonest biology

As I briefly mentioned earlier, to counter the selfishness-justifying, individualistic, right-wing assertions that we humans are naturally selfish because we supposedly have savage, must-reproduce-our-genes, ‘survival of the fittest’ instincts, the Left set about developing selflessness-emphasising theories that maintain that while we do have some savage, competitive and aggressive, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts we also have some selfless instincts derived from situations where supposedly cooperation was a more successful survival strategy than competition. In chapter 6:9 of FREEDOM I present a history of this left-wing dishonest biology that utilises this ‘group selection’ concept that I just described E.O. Wilson as employing, where supposedly a group who are selfless and cooperative will defeat a group who are selfish and competitive, and that is supposedly how we developed some selfless, cooperative instincts, which, as pointed out, is actually biologically impossible because of ‘the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters [selfish, opportunistic individuals]’, as the biologist Jerry Coyne pointed out.

Tracing the history of dishonest left-wing biology, in that chapter 6:9 I describe, for example, how in the 1960s the behaviourist Konrad Lorenz wrote of behaviour having ‘a species-preserving function’ (On Aggression, 1963). I then describe how when right-wing biologists pointed out the falsity of this ‘group selection’ theory—such as George Williams in his 1966 book, Adaptation and Natural Selection—the left-wing then tried to maintain that we do have unconditionally selfless moral instincts by arguing that they are derived from by-products of natural selection. An example of this ‘pluralistic’ approach was that put forward by biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin who in 1979 described it as ‘a lot of [building] cranes’ acting in conjunction with ‘natural selection’ (‘Darwin Fundamentalism’, The New York Review of Books, 12 Jun. 1997, in which Gould elaborated upon his and Lewontin’s by-products or ‘Spandrels’ theory). But unable to identify precisely what these ‘by-products’/​‘spandrels’/​‘cranes’ were, the Left were again forced to retreat to the now highly discredited ‘cooperation is more advantageous than competition and can therefore be selected for’, group-selection-type argument. And so, in 1994, despite the situation where ‘group selection has been regarded as an anathema by nearly all evolutionary biologists’ (Richard Lewontin, ‘Survival of the Nicest?’, The New York Review of Books, 22 Oct. 1998), the biologist David Sloan (D.S.) Wilson desperately tried to ‘re-introduce group selection…​as an antidote to the rampant individualism we see in the human behavioral sciences’ (David Sloan Wilson & Elliot Sober, ‘Re-Introducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1994, Vol.17, No.4).

The right-wing then countered, with E.O. Wilson appropriating D.S. Wilson’s Multilevel Selection theory that argued that natural selection operated at the group level as well as the individual level, thus accommodating an acknowledgement that we do have some selfless instincts, but still re-asserting the right-wing emphasis on selfishness. What left-wing biologists then did was try to bolster ‘group selection’ by adding the old ‘by-products/​many cranes/​matrix of influences’ illusion that Gould and Lewontin had first used. In effect, they threw everything into the pot: group selection and a multitude of vague ‘influences’ to emphasise that selflessness is supposedly an important part of our natural, genetic make-up! An example of this is provided in the 2011 book Origins of Altruism and Cooperation with editors Robert Sussman and Robert Cloninger writing in the Foreword that ‘Research in a great diversity of scientific disciplines is revealing that there are many biological and behavioral mechanisms that humans and nonhuman primates use to reinforce pro-social or cooperative behavior. For example, there are specific neurobiological and hormonal mechanisms that support social behavior. There are also psychological, psychiatric, and cultural mechanisms’ (p.viii of 439). Yes, it was being alleged that a matrix of ‘many biological and behavioral mechanisms’ created ‘pro-social or cooperative behavior’, but the question remains, how exactly did it do it? The illusion is that the origin of our moral instincts has been explained when it hasn’t—but, again, in the desperation to assert the left-wing’s selflessness-emphasising theory and counter the right-wing’s selfishness-emphasising doctrine such extreme illusion was deemed necessary!

Again, the reality under natural selection is, ‘By all means you can help me reproduce my genes but I’m not about to help you reproduce yours’; it was only the extended nurturing of our infants that could overcome genetic selfishness and develop unconditionally selfless behaviour (see F. Essay 21).

Basically, the biologically incorrect ‘group selection’ concept has been repeatedly employed by left-wing thinkers because even though they recognise it is a flawed idea, they haven’t been able to confront and acknowledge how nurturing was able to create our moral instincts, and as a result have had to keep reverting to, and attempting to bolster, the flawed concept of ‘group selection’ to assert that selflessness is a natural part of our make-up.

And indeed, an elaboration on the fraudulent ‘cooperation is more advantageous than competition and can therefore be selected for’, ‘group selection’ theory has been developed since FREEDOM was published in 2016. This elaboration argues that supposed selection against aggression within groups and resulting supposed increased friendliness within the group caused what is known as ‘Self-domestication’, and also brought with it an increased hostility towards ‘outsiders’. For example, the explanation for why we hate others that was given in Steven Spielberg’s 2019 documentary Why We Hate was based on this concept, which the anthropologist Brian Hare articulated in his 2020 book Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity: ‘As humans became friendlier, we were able to make the shift from living in small bands of ten to fifteen individuals like the Neanderthals to living in larger groups of a hundred or more…​But our friendliness has a dark side. When we feel that the group we love is threatened by a different social group…​we are capable of…​dehumaniz[ing] them…​Incapable of empathizing with threatening outsiders, we can’t see them as fellow humans and become capable of the worst forms of cruelty. We are both the most tolerant and the most merciless species on the planet’ (pp.XXVI-XXVII of 304). So this is the same fraudulent group selection type argument where we have some altruistic traits where we are ‘tolerant’ and concerned for others within our group, along with darker traits where we are selfishly, even ‘merciless[ly]’, concerned for the reproduction of our own genes.

Again, our selfless moral instincts were acquired through nurturing, not from the biologically impossible ‘group selection’ mechanism. In F. Essay 21, F. Essay 22 and chapter 5 of FREEDOM I explain and evidence through references to the bonobos and the fossil record that our ape ancestors lived in a completely cooperative and loving state, so our instinctive heritage is not composed of some selfish and some selfless instincts but of entirely unconditionally selfless instincts. Further, as I explain in FAQ 7.3 (which elaborates on what is explained in chapter 6:9 of FREEDOM), developing upon the thinking of the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Left then falsely asserts that the selfless side in us was eventually overwhelmed by the supposed selfish side in us when, following the advent of agriculture, settlements developed which allowed for the accumulation of possessions; which the desire and competition for supposedly then led to greed and warfare and domination by the more powerful.

(Again, chapter 6 of FREEDOM provides an in-depth description of this history of the left-wing dishonest savage-instincts-based biological explanations for human behaviour.)

______________________

In summary, we can see that both the right and left-wing biologists argue that savage, selfish, competitive and aggressive, ‘survival of the fittest’, individualistic instincts dominate our lives. The only difference is that the Right claim we have entirely selfish instincts, while the Left claim that we do have some supposed group-selection-derived, selfless, concern-for-others, social, communal instincts influencing us along with these selfish instincts, with the latter coming to dominate following the advent of agriculture, sedentary living and the accumulation of possessions.

This stalled situation that so characterises biology now, where the Right use the false, savage, survival of the fittest instincts excuse to justify selfishness, and the Left use the false group selection plus a matrix of influences to try to say we are also naturally selfless, was perfectly captured in a 2010 documentary about these conflicting biological ideologies. Titled Secrets of the Tribe (about the Yanomamö Indians of the Amazon), the documentary ended up playing George and Ira Gershwin’s well-known song Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off, which features the lyrics, ‘Things have come to a pretty pass…​It looks as if we two will never be one…​You like potato and I like potahto…​Let’s call the whole thing off.’

 

Left-wing dogma has been leading humanity straight to extinction

What I now need to explain is that the most dangerous use by far that has been made of the savage instincts excuse is its use in justifying the dogmatic imposition of ‘good’ or ‘correct’ cooperative and loving behaviour on our supposedly competitive and aggressive unchangeable innate, born-with instincts. The basis of most left-wing political philosophy (again, I will discuss Marx’s rejection of science all together shortly) is that since we humans supposedly have unchangeable savage instincts then it follows that we have no choice other than to dogmatically impose ‘good’ or ‘correct’ cooperative and loving behaviour on those supposedly unchangeable competitive and aggressive instincts.

Once this excuse that we have savage animal instincts that we are born with and therefore can’t change is accepted then the left-wing, politically correct movement’s imposition of dogma is justified. But, as emphasised, that underpinning ‘savage animal instincts’ explanation is wrong, so the fundamentals of the left-wing’s philosophy are completely wrong. Again, as I explained in THE Interview and Video/​F. Essay 3, ours is a psychologically troubled condition—a psychosis—and understanding can heal a psychosis, so we need understanding, which is the opposite of mindless, blind dogma. In fact, idealistic, politically correct dogma oppresses the search for knowledge because it stifles the freedom to be, to a degree, competitive, aggressive and selfish, which, as the Adam Stork story in THE Interview and Video/​F. Essay 3 reveals, was the price we humans had to be prepared to pay for searching for knowledge, ultimately for self-knowledge, for the reconciling, redeeming and psychologically transforming understanding of the human condition. Stopping the upsetting search for knowledge stopped us from achieving freedom from our upset angry, egocentric and alienated condition. Politically correct dogma worked against our species achieving freedom from the human condition. Paradoxically, instead of bringing about the cooperative and loving, ideal, ‘correct’ world it promoted itself as doing, left-wing dogma was leading humanity straight to extinction because it was stopping the all-important search for the knowledge that would liberate us from our condition! It was not ‘progressive’, as it liked to describe itself, it was regressive.

That’s the phenomenal importance and power of the Adam Stork story in THE Interview and Video/​F. Essay 3; it finally explains that there was a vital, all-important, good reason for the angry, egocentric and alienated upset in humans. It explains and defends our immensely upsetting but immensely heroic search for knowledge.

As is explained fully in F. Essay 35 and its book version, Death by Dogma, the problem has been that the longer the upsetting search for knowledge/​understanding of the human condition went on, the more upset angry, egocentric and alienated the human race became, that being the consequences of searching for knowledge. In the end what happened was that the human race became so psychologically exhausted by the upsetting search, so overly angry, egocentric and alienated, that many couldn’t resist the relief of giving up the upsetting search and siding with the cooperative and loving world of our instincts. In the Adam Stork analogy, ever-increasing numbers of humans ended up just wanting to ‘fly back on course’ and obey the cooperative ideals of our instincts—abandon the honest reality of humanity’s predicament of having to participate in the great heroic upsetting battle to find knowledge and instead choose an irresponsible, unrealistic and dishonest life of cowardice where they just bask in the feel good relief of behaving in a cooperative, ideal, ‘correct’ way, and signal to the world that they are virtuous. They no longer wanted to pursue the all-important but upsetting search for knowledge, ultimately for self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition that is required to actually bring an end to all the ever-increasing upset/​psychosis in the world. Basically, they have been voting for the death of the human race from terminal levels of psychosis—because unless the fully accountable, truthful understanding of the human condition was found, as it thankfully now is, that upset psychosis was only going to continue increasing. That is the truth: proponents of left-wing philosophy have been advocating that the human race perish in a writhing heap of indescribable psychotic agony, and, to cope with that, epidemic levels of autistic detachment and dissociation—and that state of terminal alienation for the human race is very rapidly approaching. F. Essay 55 describes this terrible endgame state the human race has now entered.

 

 

The great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche perfectly understood the crisis that is upon us when he wrote this description of the endgame stage of humanity’s great journey from ignorance to enlightenment: ‘There have always been many sickly people among those who invent fables and long for God [ideality]: they have a raging hate for the enlightened man and for that youngest of virtues which is called honesty…​Purer and more honest of speech is the healthy body, perfect and square-built: and it speaks of the meaning of the earth [which is to fight for knowledge, ultimately self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition]…​You are not yet free, you still search for freedom. Your search has fatigued you…​But, by my love and hope I entreat you: do not reject the hero in your soul! Keep holy your highest hope!…​War [against the oppression of dogma] and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your pity but your bravery has saved the unfortunate up to now…​What warrior wants to be spared? I do not spare you, I love you from the very heart, my brothers in war!’ (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1892; tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1961, pp.61–75 of 343). It needs emphasising that what Nietzsche means by ‘war’ is the underlying battle against oppression from the condemnation of our moral ‘correct’-behaviour-insisting, dogmatic, ignorant, instinctive self or soul. In another of his books, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche similarly wrote that ‘There comes a time in a culture’s history when it becomes so pathologically soft that it takes the side of its worst enemy [takes up support of forms of non-understanding, unquestioning, dogmatic, give-up-the-battle, ‘fly-back-on-course’, makes-you-feel-good pseudo idealism]…​and calls it “progress”’ (tr. 1886, sec. 201).

Yes, while it wasn’t wrong to rest from the upsetting battle to find knowledge (ultimately to find self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition) when we became overly angry, egocentric and alienated—indeed rest and recuperation have been vital—what was false and dangerously misleading was to claim that abandoning the battle was the way to win the battle, and the path to follow, which is what the culture of the left-wing in politics has effectively been deludedly and dogmatically insisting happen. Compassion and kindness towards those who were suffering or less fortunate was very important, but as Nietzsche said, we had to ‘keep holy’ our ‘highest hope’ of achieving ‘the meaning’ of our existence of finding ‘enlightened’ understanding of ourselves. We humans needed reconciling, healing and transforming understanding of our psychologically upset and distressed human condition, not mindless, answerless, straight-jacketing, dogmatic discipline of that upset state. We needed to be able to think our way to sanity, not abandon thinking and just behave like brain-dead robots. We conscious thinking humans needed brain food, not brain anaesthetic. We needed answers. De-braining ourselves, giving up thinking, just dogmatically insisting that everyone be good, is fraudulent and gets us nowhere, in fact it leads the human race straight to extinction. The only thing that gets us out of the human condition is understanding of the human condition, but the left-wing culture is all about giving up on finding understanding.

 

 

And the world has now become so psychologically ‘fatigued’, ‘so pathologically soft’, that the even more biologically dishonest and psychologically deluded philosophy of Critical Theory has taken hold in society. As explained in F. Essay 35 and its book version, Death by Dogma, Marxist-based Critical Theory basically bypasses the whole ‘savage instincts’ biological thinking, and even the left-wing’s normal biological counter to it that we have cooperative, selfless instincts derived from group selection, and just says we are a ‘blank slate’, and so just dogmatically imposes cooperative behaviour—‘Just forget science and force everyone to be cooperative and loving!’ Dishonest science was bad enough, but to give up on science was to give up on thinking, which is the ultimate irresponsibility for a conscious being.

Yes, unable to confront the human condition and find the reconciling and psychologically rehabilitating, true instinct vs intellect explanation of our corrupted condition, and the true nurturing explanation for our selfless moral instincts, what left-wing thinkers did was revert to the ideology of Karl Marx who had decided that ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways [those various ways were the ‘nature is red in tooth and claw’ justification for selfishness versus spurious biological attempts to argue for selfless behaviour]; the point is [not try to understand our nature but] to change it [just make it cooperative/​social/​communal]’ (Theses on Feuerbach, 1845); as Marx also wrote, ‘the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution’ (The German Ideology, 1845–1846). Basically, Marx had already recognised the problem of the ‘red in tooth and claw’, ‘selfishness is the law of the jungle’ world we live in, and because that is seemingly all science will tell us, we have to in effect bypass science and just dogmatically impose the cooperative, ideal world that is needed. What Marx realised is that the way to avoid this ‘we are naturally savage, competitive and aggressive’ idea was to limit any discussion of our selfish and selfless human nature to only acknowledging that we do all have some basic needs which, as the political theorist Norman Geras summarised in his 1983 book Marx and Human Nature, is ‘for other human beings [selflessness], for sexual relations, for food, water, clothing, shelter, rest and, more generally, for circumstances that are conducive to health [selfishness]’ (p.72 of 126). In fact, Marx took this ‘all we have is some basic needs’, ridiculously false idea to the extreme by maintaining that we are essentially born a ‘blank slate’, that our mind has no innate traits and can be inscribed at will. The fraudulent beauty of this idea that our ‘nature’ was a ‘self-creation’ (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844) was that Marx was then able to argue that it was social pressures that created our behaviour, and so all we need is a ‘practical movement’ to ‘change’ society in order to create a more loving world.

So yes, when biology stalled in a polarised state of disagreement, left-wing thinkers went back to Marx’s thinking and repurposed it to achieve their mechanism for transforming the world into a more equitable and cooperative state—fake the arrival of a human-condition-liberated new world. This left-wing thinking is Critical Theory. As the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Critical Theory says, ‘Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation. Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences’ (https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-theory; accessed 19 Jul. 2021). And the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that ‘a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating . . . influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings…​a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative basis for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms’ (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/; accessed 19 Jul. 2021).

When Critical Theorists argue that ‘Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression’ and that ‘they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress’, they are following Marx’s view that ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways [namely the ‘nature is red in tooth and claw’ justification for selfishness versus spurious biological attempts to argue for selfless behaviour]; the point is [not to try to understand our nature but] to change it [just create an equitable, cooperative/​social/​communal new world].’ So they argue ‘scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation’. They claim we have to bypass ‘traditional’ biological thinking ‘to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of human beings’. And since they blame our divisive behaviour on the ‘oppressi[ve]’ domination’ and ‘slavery’ of social structures, we must ‘free’ ourselves from those social constructs to achieve ‘human emancipation’.

But again, Marx was wrong when he said that ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is [not to understand the world but] to change it’. By ‘change it’ Marx meant just make it cooperative or social or communal, but he was wrong. The whole ‘point’ and responsibility of being a conscious being is to understand our world and place in it, ultimately to find understanding of our psychologically upset and corrupted human condition.

The denial of the truth of our species’ conscious-mind-induced psychologically troubled human condition by biologists like E.O. Wilson has allowed and empowered this left-wing attitude that we have to dogmatically impose cooperative ideal values on society; it has allowed and empowered dangerously oppressive left-wing dogma!

So that is how precious the fully accountable explanation of the human condition in FREEDOM is—in the nick of time it is able to stop this mad left-wing march to a death by dogma end of the human race!

 

 

Again, F. Essay 35 and its book version, Death by Dogma, provide a more in-depth description of why the culture of the left-wing is fundamentally flawed and even more analysis of the Left’s misuse of the false ‘savage instincts’ biology and its extremely dangerous consequences.

 

The rabid extent to which the left-wing still resorts to the ‘savage instincts’ justification for its culture

Despite Critical Theory’s rejection of science, the Left still continues to call upon science when it can be used to assist its ‘goal of human emancipation’. So what I want to conclude this essay with is a description of just how far the left-wing has now gone in using the ‘savage instincts’ justification for its culture.

A 2012 article titled ‘The left uses evolution to explain everything’ by the American journalist and author Dennis Prager (see www.wtmsources.com/217) described how the left-wing has adopted the dishonest ‘savage instincts’ excuse to the extent that they’re now using it to justify every aspect of their culture, ‘warning…​of the danger involved in allowing the left to use science – and evolution in particular – to empower government to coerce its citizens [to, as just explained, comply with their politically correct culture of having to impose idealism on our supposed savage instincts]’. Prager added, ‘evolution is offered as the left’s explanation for virtually everything. Evolution explains love, altruism, morality, economic behavior, God, religion, intelligence’. Now, to break this rubbish down: both left and right-wing human-condition-avoiding mechanistic science have avoided acknowledging our nurtured, genuinely altruistic, Integrative-Meaning-complying, loving moral nature, and instead; in the case of the right-wing that any selfless, kindness and love was due to a subtle form of selfish ‘reciprocity’ or ‘kin selection’ and when that was revealed as deficient, due to ‘group selection’ in the Multilevel selection theory; and in the case of the left-wing, that selfless love and kindness in our nature was due to ‘group selection’ accompanied by a matrix of dubious influences. In the case of our selfish, greedy, capitalist ‘economic behavior’, while the Right dishonestly accounted for that as being due to us having competitive and selfish, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts, the Left ended up dishonestly arguing that such greedy capitalism was due to socially-induced indoctrination, whereas THE Interview provides the truthful, psychosis-based justification for our selfish, greedy, need-for-material-relief behaviour. In the case of ‘God’ and ‘religion’, both are supposedly a result of the need to be controlled so we can better reproduce our genes (see par. 215 of FREEDOM)—see F. Essay 23 for the real explanation of God, and F. Essay 39 for the real psychological explanation for religion. And in the case of ‘intelligence’, it supposedly has developed from the need to manage complex social situations, again so we can better reproduce our genes (see par. 507 of FREEDOM), but the real explanation for how we humans became conscious is presented in F. Essay 24.

As one more example of this misuse of dishonest science, Prager referred to the assertion by the left that ‘those who do not support same-sex marriage are not recognizing the indisputable, scientific fact that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon’. This is a classic illustration—claiming that the sex humans practice is no different from the sex animals practice when they try to reproduce their genes. But the truth, as explained in chapter 8:11B of FREEDOM and summarised in F. Essay 27, is that sex as humans practice it—including homosexuality—is a result of being psychologically upset, so there’s no relationship between the homosexuality that occurs in animals and humans. Again, our behaviour is psychosis-driven. So this is a classic illustration of the left’s misuse of dishonest science: they have taken this false savage instincts excuse for human behaviour and said it explains homosexuality in humans and used that assertion to defend same-sex marriage.

We see this particular dishonest biology, that everything about human sexual relationships is due to a need to reproduce our genes, everywhere; for example, it’s claimed that men are attracted to young women because they’re more fertile and will more successfully reproduce our genes, when it’s the innocence, or innocent appearance, of younger women that makes them more attractive for humans’ psychosis-driven sexual destruction (again, see F. Essay 27).

So the left-wing is using dishonest science to support all its positions, as long as it fits its narrative and assists its ‘goal of human emancipation’. As Prager’s article goes on to say, ‘To differ with the left is not only definitionally sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted (SIXHIRB as I have labeled it) – it is now against science itself.’ This is how insidious left-wing culture is, and, again, it’s all coming off this completely false idea that we have savage animal instincts. As Prager says, the left are ‘using science as a tool to dictate what is to be tolerated and what is to be mocked’.

Most significantly, Prager’s article also said that ‘The left has always sought single, non-values based explanations for human behavior’ and ‘the absence of absolutes, (good vs evil, right vs wrong)’. And that’s what the left claim they have with their dishonest, human-condition-avoiding, ‘some selfish and some selfless instincts’ models. As I’ve described, these theories are supposedly non-values based, non-judgmental systems that dishonestly say that we don’t suffer from a psychologically troubled human condition; rather, through the use of the dishonest group selection theory, they just argue that ‘OK, along with selfish instincts we do have some selfless instincts’. It’s a complete belittling of what our instinctive self or soul is, and a complete and dangerous dismissal of our psychosis. Everything that’s true and important about humans is completely butchered, destroyed by these dishonest arguments.

The truth—which, because it’s so serious, I reiterate in Video/​F. Essay 36: Saving Western Civilisation from the religion of left-wing dogma, and F. Essay 40: Judgment Day finally explained—is that all of biology now is a great fraud, as is virtually every other branch of science because they are all infected by dishonest mechanistic biological thinking. All our universities are really just ivory towers of intellectual dishonesty, just castles of lies. As Plato so accurately described the situation (see Video/​F. Essay 11), everyone’s hiding in a dark cave of dishonest denial. All there is to read now is ‘cave-speak’ rubbish, and it has all culminated in a dangerous takeover of the world by dogma, which is the greatest threat the world has ever seen given what was really needed was freedom of expression and the search for knowledge that it made possible. The human race has entered the darkest era the world has ever known, the ultimate Dark Age—and, before long, the death by dogma extinction of the human race! Again, see F. Essay 35 and its book version, Death by Dogma for an accurate description of how serious the situation is.

 

Summary

In summary, what we in the World Transformation Movement are providing is the psychosis-addressing-and-solving real explanation of the human condition. What the left-wing have been putting forward is only an imitation of a human-condition-free world, and because its pseudo, artificial imitation suppresses the search for knowledge needed to actually bring about a human-condition-free world, it has been leading the way not to freedom from the human condition, as it deludes itself and arrogantly proclaims to the world it is doing, but AWAY FROM IT. The philosophy of the left-wing is an extremely dangerous con job, a malignant fake—it was not the cure for the troubled state of the world, it was in fact the poison. The actual biological explanation of the human condition that we in the WTM are presenting is genuinely ‘non-values based’—because the explanation in the Adam Stork story does actually eliminate forever the notion of good and evil. It acknowledges that we’re psychologically upset but explains there’s a good reason for why we became upset—so it does actually remove guilt; it provides the real ‘absence of absolutes, (good vs evil, right vs wrong)’ explanation. Those concepts have been dismantled truthfully and genuinely and actually because the old defensive and insecure angry, egocentric and alienated, power, fame, fortune and glory ways of justifying ourselves are now obsoleted by the real biological understanding of ourselves. The real understanding of the human condition we are presenting actually brings about the now absolutely desperately needed, and 2-million-year-hungered-for, transformation of the human race!

The final important point to emphasise is that now that we have the fully accountable real explanation of the human condition, we can at last explain and understand that while the right-wing and the left-wing (variously) were both using the dishonest ‘savage instincts’ biology to justify their philosophies, the right-wing was using it in the cause of good, namely in support of the upsetting search for knowledge, while the left-wing was using it in the cause of what was bad, indeed, extremely dangerous, namely in blocking and even determinedly opposing that all-important upsetting search for knowledge. While the biology of both the Right and Left was wrong, the ideology of the Right was correct while the ideology of the Left was wrong. THE ENORMOUS BENEFIT OF THIS CLARIFYING INSIGHT IS THAT WHILE IT HASN’T BEEN POSSIBLE TO HALT THE TERRIFYING HUMAN-RACE-DESTROYING LEFT-WING POLITICALLY CORRECT TIDE OF DOGMA TAKING OVER THE WORLD, WE NOW HAVE THE INSIGHT NEEDED TO STOP IT! We can now finally clearly explain what is SO wrong and dangerous about the left-wing’s culture. So that is what is so precious about the presentation in this essay, and in the definitive explanation of what’s wrong with the culture of the left-wing, F. Essay 35, which because it is so important, has also been produced as the stand-alone book, Death by Dogma: The biological reason why the Left is leading us to extinction, and the solution. This book can be accessed on our homepage www.humancondition.com, as one of the WTM’s key books.

 

 

Yes, ultimately, heroic efforts to explain and justify right-wing politics by the likes of Ayn Rand and most recently Jordan Peterson, were doomed to fail because their arguments were still based on the biologically dishonest Social Darwinist ‘savage instinct’ excuse for human behaviour—that we humans are innately competitive, aggressive and selfish. Rand believed we have to use our mind to effectively manage a selfish nature, and Peterson believes we have a competitive, dominance-hierarchy-based instinctive heritage. It was only by clearly explaining what is SO wrong and dangerous about the left-wing’s culture that it could be halted.

And, importantly, not only does the explanation that is being presented here expose what is wrong with left-wing politics, by providing the psychosis-addressing-and-solving, real explanation of the human condition, the actual, real, true, authentic way to end all the competitive and aggressive behaviour of humans, and transform the human race, is provided. As summarised in paragraph 1136 of FREEDOM, that is the final irony of the saga of humanity’s great journey from ignorance to enlightenment—the ideal world that the left-wing has been dogmatically demanding is actually brought about by the right-wing winning its reality-defending, freedom-from-idealism, corrupting-search-for-knowledge battle against the freedom-oppressing pseudo idealistic dogma of the left-wing. With the freedom-from-dogma right-wing’s search for understanding of the human condition completed by the finding of understanding of the human condition, the justification for the egocentric power-fame-fortune-and-glory-seeking way of life espoused by the right-wing ends, replaced by the ideal-behaviour-obeying attitude that the left-wing sought. In this sense, when the right-wing wins we all become left-wing; through the success of the philosophy of the right-wing, we all adopt the ideal values sought by the philosophy of the left-wing—but, most significantly, this time we are not abandoning and opposing an ongoing battle, we are leaving it won!

So this is how the seemingly intractable ‘cultural war’ between left and right wing politics finally plays out. Basically, the whole horrible business of politics is brought to an end and the human race saved—BUT THE GREAT ‘DEAF EFFECT’ BLOCK TO ACCESSING THE ALL-RELIEVING AND ALL-SOLVING UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN CONDITION, which is a problem I emphasised in the first video/​essay and again in the previous three videos/​essays, STILL HAS TO BE OVERCOME FOR THE HUMAN RACE TO ACTUALLY BE SAVED.

 

In the next essay, F. Essay 15, much more will be explained about the fabulous transformation of the human race that’s now on offer for every human once they get through the ‘deaf effect’ and are able to access and understand the denial-free, truthful explanation of the human condition.

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

As mentioned, because Critical Theory has begun taking hold in society in recent years, Jeremy wrote the booklet Death by Dogma in 2021 to explain its extreme danger. Death by Dogma can be accessed on our homepage as one of the WTM’s key books, and also appears as F. Essay 35. Further elaborations on the extreme danger of the left-wing’s culture are provided in F. Essays 34 and 36, and chapters 8:15 and 8:16 of FREEDOM.

The short booklet Transform Your Life And Save The World provides an excellent summary of firstly all the dishonest biology in Part 1, then all the truthful biology in Part 2, concluding in Part 3 with how the true understanding of the human condition enables every human now to immediately be transformed to a life that is free of the human condition.

For the comprehensive treatment of all the dishonesty in biology now, read chapter 2 and chapter 6 of FREEDOM.

 

Discussion or comment on this essay is welcomed—see below.