Please note, links to all the Freedom Essays are included at the end of this essay. Open any essay to read, print, download, share or listen to (as an audio).
This is Freedom Essay 35
Death by Dogma:
The biological reason why the Left is
leading us to extinction, and the solution
Written by Jeremy Griffith, 2021
Background to this essay, which has also become a book
The previous explained that the merit of the right-wing in politics is that it encouraged the all-important, albeit upsetting (anger, egocentricity and alienation-producing), search for knowledge, ultimately for self-knowledge, the reconciling, redeeming and rehabilitating understanding of our corrupted human condition that is needed to actually bring about a human-condition-resolved, upset-free, new world for humans. On the other hand, the left-wing’s politically correct culture of dogma effectively opposed that all-important, human-race-liberating search. That essay ended by pointing out how the whole horrifically polarised world of politics is thankfully now brought to an end.
In this essay, I add to that exposé of the extreme danger of pseudo idealistic dogma by presenting the biological explanation for why the left-wing’s postmodern, deconstructed, politically correct, Marxist, woke, critical theory culture is rapidly leading to our species’ extinction. What will be described is a fascinating but harrowing 2-million year journey (for that is how long we have been fully conscious) of ever-increasing artificial relief, delusion and denial to cope with ever-increasing levels of psychological upset, which has taken humanity to where we are today on the brink of total madness and the imminent threat of our species’ extinction.
To further summarise what is explained in not only F. Essay 34, but also in and about the danger of the politically correct culture of the left-wing in politics. As humanity’s upsetting but heroic search for knowledge, ultimately for the reconciling, redeeming and rehabilitating understanding of the human condition, continued, eventually so much upset angry, egocentric and alienated behaviour developed that the temptation to give up the upsetting but all-important search became irresistible for many people. In fact, the culture of the left-wing, which in effect advocates this abandonment of the all-important but upsetting search for knowledge by dogmatically insisting that everyone behave in a cooperative, loving, supposedly idealistic, ‘politically correct’ way, has become so popular the human race is facing terminal alienation and extinction.
The truth is, the left-wing’s dogmatic imposition of cooperative and loving values on our anger, egocentricity and alienation-producing search for knowledge was actually a pseudo idealistic false start to an ideal, upset-free world. The true start to a human-condition-free world depended on continuing the upsetting search for knowledge until we found the reconciling, redeeming and rehabilitating understanding of the human condition that would actually free us from being angry, egocentric and alienated. Indeed, the left-wing’s pseudo idealistic culture is so dangerous and yet so popular that it is only the actual biological explanation of what is fundamentally wrong with the culture of the left-wing that is presented in , , this F. Essay 35, and that gives the human race the means to save itself from a terrible death by dogma.
So that is how precious these particular essays are, and what this F. Essay 35 contributes as its part in these four essays’ exposé of the left-wing is, as I have mentioned, an extremely revealing description of the progression that has taken place over the last 2 million years, and in particular over the last 200 years when upset has become overwhelmingly extreme and, as a result, such extreme states of dishonesty, denial and delusion have developed that the human race is, as emphasised, facing terminal alienation and extinction.
Freedom Essay 35
To present the biological explanation for why the left-wing’s postmodern, deconstructed, politically correct, Marxist, woke, critical theory culture is rapidly leading to our species’ extinction, and not to utopia as its supporters delude themselves it will, I first need to briefly summarise what I explain in THE Interview (TI) at . TI has proved to be such a good introduction to the explanation of the human condition that it is the ideal starting point for any analysis of the human condition—and why it needs to be listened to or read before reading this Freedom Essay 35 that has now become the book Death by Dogma. Indeed, Professor Harry Prosen, the former President of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, described TI as ‘the most important interview of all time because it turns all the conventional knowledge about human existence on its head with its recognition of the original cooperative and loving innocence of our species’.
Yes, being able to at last explain the good reason why we corrupted our species’ original all-loving and all-sensitive, innocent instinctive self or soul (which is essentially what TI presents) gives us the ability to at last admit that our species was once innocent, cooperative and loving, and what this does is bring about such a fundamental change in all our thinking that virtually all our knowledge has to be re-presented in a whole new way. Basically, all the dishonest denial the human race has been employing to cope with the until now unbearable truth of our corrupted, ‘fallen’, good-and-evil-afflicted condition goes, and since that denial has been central to all our thinking, all our thinking suddenly changes. As we are about to see, a whole new truthful reconciled, redeemed and rehabilitated world suddenly opens up, and everything about our existence becomes clear.
Summary of the key concepts explained in THE Interview
I began TI by pointing out that virtually everyone is living with the belief—well, it’s what we were all taught at school and is reinforced in every documentary—that humans’ competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour is due to us having savage, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts like other animals have. We make 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 deeply-rooted combative animal nature expressing itself’. I did mention that while left-wing thinkers do claim we have some selfless, cooperative instincts, they also say we have this selfish, competitive ‘animal’ side, which, as we will see later, Karl Marx limited to such basic needs as sex, food, shelter and clothing. (paragraphs 15-16 of TI—please note that early transcripts of TI don’t have the paragraphs numbered)
I then explained that this was obviously a false excuse for our selfish, competitive and aggressive human condition because words used to describe our behaviour such as egocentric, arrogant, inspired, depressed, deluded, pessimistic, optimistic, artificial, hateful, cynical, mean, sadistic, immoral, brilliant, guilt-ridden, evil, psychotic, neurotic and alienated, all recognise the involvement of OUR species’ fully conscious thinking mind. They demonstrate that there is a psychological dimension to our behaviour; that we don’t suffer from a genetic-opportunism-driven ‘animal condition’, but a conscious-mind-based, psychologically troubled HUMAN CONDITION. Further, I pointed out that humans have selfless, cooperative and loving moral instincts, the voice or expression of which we call our conscience—which is the complete opposite of selfish, competitive and aggressive instincts. I quoted Charles Darwin saying that ‘The moral sense…affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals’ (The Descent of Man, 1871, ch.4). And I pointed out that to have acquired our selfless, cooperative and loving moral instinctive self or soul our distant ape ancestors must have lived selflessly, cooperatively and lovingly. Our ape ancestors can’t have been brutal, club-wielding, selfish, competitive and aggressive savages as we have been taught, rather they must have lived in a Garden of Eden-like state of selfless, cooperative and loving innocent gentleness. I explained that this selfless, cooperative and loving state was developed through the nurturing of their infants, a process that the bonobo species of ape is currently developing to create their extraordinarily cooperative, loving and gentle behaviour. And I then pointed out that anthropological findings now evidence that our ape ancestors did once live in a cooperative, harmonious state, with, for example, anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy reporting that ‘our species-defining cooperative mutualism can now be seen to extend well beyond the deepest Pliocene [which is well beyond 5.3 million years ago]’ (‘Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949). (pars 19-20)
With regard to being taught at school and told in documentaries that we have selfish, savage, competitive and aggressive, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts, I mentioned that some left-wing thinkers claim that along with selfish, competitive instincts, we do have selfless cooperative instincts. I will explain the dishonest theory that the Left used to supposedly account for how we acquired these selfless instincts more fully later, but the following provides a very brief description.
To counter the selfishness-justifying, individualistic, right-wing assertions that we humans are naturally selfish because we have selfish, savage, ‘survival of the fittest’, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts (which we actually don’t have because we have nurtured 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 of ‘the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters [selfish, opportunistic individuals]’ (‘Can Darwinism improve Binghamton?’, The New York Times, 9 Sep. 2011), as the biologist Jerry Coyne pointed out. 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 ). So the right-wing used the false argument that we have savage, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts to justify selfish individualism, and the Left used the equally dishonest argument that we also have group-selected selfless instincts to justify communalism. As is also going to be explained later, left-wing thinkers eventually moved on from the seemingly irreconcilable right-wing biological view that ‘Selfishness is natural’ versus the left-wing biological view that ‘No, selflessness is natural’, to a Marxist-based ‘Bypass biology, just dogmatically impose selfless, cooperative, social, communal values.’ And it is this latter, outrageously dishonest and extremely dangerous so-called Critical Theory that has, since about 2020, been fast replacing the ‘Selfishness is only natural because it’s in our genes’ thinking that has prevailed to date. Yes, what is being taught in schools and presented in documentaries is certainly changing rapidly, and what is going to be explained in this essay/book is just how incredibly false and dangerous this Critical Theory dogma is. In fact, it’s so dangerous it’s threatening to take our species to a death by dogma extinction!
What will now be described is the true explanation for how our original nurtured, completely cooperative, selfless and loving instinctive self (not completely selfish as the right-wing have claimed, or partially selfless and partially selfish as the left-wing has claimed, or neither selfish or selfless as Critical Theorists claim) became corrupted by the emergence in us of competitive and aggressive behaviour when we became a fully conscious species some 2 million years ago.
In TI I used my Adam Stork analogy to present this fully accountable and thus true, instinct vs intellect explanation of our corrupted human condition, where our instinctive orientations unjustly condemned our self-adjusting conscious mind’s need to understand cause and effect; in other words, to search for knowledge. I explained that this conflict between our instincts and intellect unavoidably caused us to become psychologically upset, seemingly evil angry, egocentric and alienated monsters.
Basically, we humans had no choice but to heroically persevere with the upsetting search for knowledge until we found the particular knowledge we needed, which was the redeeming and healing biological explanation for why we corrupted our original all-loving and all-sensitive instinctive self or soul. Until we found that relieving understanding all we could do was continue searching for it, and suffer becoming more and more psychologically upset. In the words from the song The Impossible Dream from the musical the Man of La Mancha, we had to be prepared to ‘march into hell for a heavenly cause’ (lyrics by Joe Darion, 1965); we had to lose ourselves to find ourselves; we had to suffer becoming angry, egocentric and alienated until we found sufficient knowledge to explain ourselves and by so doing rehabilitate and end all our upset. (pars 29-43)
I then described how most of our mythologies and all of our religions recognised that we humans did once live in a selfless, cooperative and loving innocent state, and also that it was when we became conscious that everything seemed to go wrong and we became the brutally competitive and aggressive, divisively behaved people we are today. I referred to the examples of Moses’s Garden of Eden story, and to the writings of ancient Greek thinkers Hesiod and Plato. (pars 52-61)
Crucially though, until science found understanding of the difference between naturally selected orientating genetic instincts and nerve-based, memory-capable, cause-and-effect-understanding consciousness it wasn’t possible to explain the good reason for why we became psychologically upset and soul-corrupted when we became conscious. So while mythologies were able to recognise that becoming conscious somehow caused the corruption of our instinctive self or soul, without science’s understandings of the difference in the way gene-based instincts and the nerve-based conscious intellect work, it wasn’t possible to explain why becoming conscious corrupted our original, gentle and loving, non-conscious instinctive self or soul. (pars 51, 53, 61, 63)
I then made the point that the more we corrupted our all-loving and all-sensitive, but non-conscious, innocent instinctive self or soul, the more difficult it became to admit the truth that our species did once live in such a wonderful state. The more upset we became, the more shame we felt, and thus the more we had to hide from the truth of our species’ original state of loving innocence. Hiding in Plato’s famous metaphorical dark cave of denial where no exposing light of truth could reach us, saved us from unbearable condemnation. (Plato’s cave allegory is described in .) Only a very rare few individuals who were fortunate enough to escape encountering upset during their infancy and childhood could dare face the truth of our species’ corrupted human condition and thus think truthfully about it. For everyone else, hiding from the issue of the human condition was paramount.
The psychoanalyst Carl Jung acknowledged the terrifying nature of the human condition in this honest description of it: ‘When it [our shadow] appears…it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil’ (Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, 1959; tr. R. Hull, The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9/2, p.10). (pars 70-71) Yes, the comedian Rod Quantock certainly wasn’t joking when he said, ‘Thinking can get you into terrible downwards spirals of doubt’ (‘Sayings of the Week’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 Jul. 1986). The great Spanish artist Francisco Goya also acknowledged the true pain of the human condition when he drew this picture with the words written on it ‘The sleep of reason [letting down our mental guard] brings forth monsters’. ( describes the excruciating agony adolescents have had to go through learning to resign themselves to living in denial of the human condition; what a relief it will be for adolescents now that understanding of the human condition has been found to no longer have to go through this horrific process of Resignation.)
And so when upset developed in humans to the point where trying to face the issue of the human condition had become unbearable for virtually everyone, a desperate need arose to contrive some excuse for why we had turned utopia into dystopia. And it was at that point that we came up with the patently false excuse that I opened TI with, which is that our ancestors were not gentle, cooperative and loving innocents, but aggressive savages engaged in relentless competition to reproduce their genes like other animals. As I emphasised in TI, false as it is, it was an absolutely brilliant excuse, because instead of our instincts being all-loving and thus unbearably condemning of our present non-loving state, they were made out to be the vicious and brutal must-reproduce-your-genes instincts seen in other animals; and, instead of our conscious mind being the instinct-defying cause of our corruption, which it actually was, it was made out to be the blameless mediating ‘hero’ that had to step in and try to control those supposed vicious instincts within us! We relievingly found a way to make ourselves out to be heroes, which we actually are, but the argument being employed to achieve it was one enormous ‘reverse of the truth’ lie! (pars 63-64)
The problem for science, our designated vehicle for enquiry, was that to find the true instinct vs intellect explanation of the human condition required confronting and thinking truthfully about our corrupted condition, which, as explained, has been impossible for virtually all humans, which therefore includes virtually all scientists. So while human-condition-avoiding, so-called ‘mechanistic’ scientists could do all the hard work of finding the crucial details we needed to explain ourselves, of how genes can orientate but only nerves can understand, not being able to confront and think truthfully about the human condition meant they weren’t in a position to assemble that truthful instinct vs intellect explanation. The assemblage of that redeeming truth required exceptional innocence because only it was sufficiently unafraid of the issue of the human condition to confront the issue and thus think truthfully about it, which is how the great philosopher Sir Laurens van der Post and I were able to explain the human condition. (Sir Laurens van der Post’s immense contribution to understanding the human condition is explained in .) Truthful thinking was needed at the end, but all the preparatory hard work was carried out by mechanistic scientists. (pars 70-71)
The issue now that the true, redeeming instinct vs intellect explanation of our corrupted condition has finally been assembled, and thus the need to use the false ‘savage instincts’ excuse has ended, is that most scientists are still so habituated to living in fearful denial of the human condition that they find it difficult even reading about the human condition, let alone absorbing its explanation enough to realise the human condition has finally been explained and made safe to confront. This is the ‘deaf effect’ stage that has to patiently be negotiated before the world realises we humans are finally liberated from our agonising condition. The fabulous dawn of our species’ emancipation from our corrupted condition has come, but it is going to take a little while for the warmth of those rays of redeeming truth to thaw us all out! (pars 71-74)
The remainder of TI elaborates on this point, on how everyone can now leave Plato’s horrible dark cave of psychotic and neurotic lies and delusion, and, as was yearned for in the 1960s musical Hair, we can ‘Let the sun shine in’ and achieve ‘the mind’s true liberation’!
Humanity’s harrowing journey of ever-increasing denial and artificial relief and delusion to cope with the ever-increasing corruption of our original instinctive self or soul
Having summarised what was presented in THE Interview, I am now in a position to explain in some detail the biological explanation for why the left-wing’s postmodern, deconstructed, politically correct, Marxist, woke, critical theory culture is rapidly leading to our species’ extinction.
As I wrote at the start of this essay/book, what is going to be described is a harrowing 2-million year journey (for, as mentioned, that is how long we have been fully conscious) of ever-increasing artificial relief, delusion and denial to cope with ever-increasing levels of psychological upset, which has taken us to where we are today on the brink of total madness and the imminent threat of extinction.
(What is presented here is largely drawn from , although the pseudo emancipation ideology of Critical Theory wasn’t addressed in FREEDOM because it wasn’t taking hold over society when FREEDOM was published in 2016.)
As the Adam Stork analogy explains, the first form of artificial relief our conscious self-managing mind engaged in when it was unjustly condemned by our instinctive self for defying it was to attack the criticism (anger), deny and block out the criticism (alienation/psychosis), and find any positive reinforcement we could to relieve us of the condemning criticism (egocentricity). ANGER, ALIENATION AND EGOCENTRICITY became the main devices we employed to protect us from feeling bad about ourselves while we carried out the increasingly soul-destroying search for the redeeming understanding of our corrupted condition.
The problem with defensively attacking, denying and trying to prove wrong the unbearable implication that we are evil, worthless beings for having destroyed our all-loving and all-sensitive original instinctive self or soul was that while it brought us some relief we were continually adding to the levels of denial/psychosis/alienation within us.
Given this ever-increasing upset, the question is, what could we do when the levels of upset within us became too unbearable and destructive and we still hadn’t found the rehabilitating true, instinct vs intellect explanation of our corrupted condition?
It was at this point where upset had become intolerable (which we can expect would have occurred early in our 2-million-year journey from innocence to the utterly corrupted state or condition of the human race today) that more powerful forms of artificial reinforcement of ourselves—pseudo therapy—had to be found. (Real therapy depended on finding the true, redeeming and healing instinct vs intellect biological explanation of our corrupted condition.)
The first of these more powerful forms of pseudo therapy that we developed was the practice of SELF DISCIPLINE. We learned to contain and conceal the true extent of our, by now, inner fury at being unjustly condemned as evil when we intuitively didn’t believe we were, and instead manufactured a calm, controlled and even a compassionate, considerate-of-others, selfless exterior. We civilised our upset. While we weren’t able to eliminate our distressed state with understanding, we were able to restrain and hide it. Civility has disguised the volcanic levels of upset that actually exists within us humans. In order to not be overcome by the true negativity of our situation we have had to, as we say, ‘put on a brave face’, ‘keep our chin up’, ‘stay positive’, ‘keep up appearances’, pretend we are healthy and happy when we are actually the opposite, namely incredibly psychotic and depressed. Basically, we became the absolute masters of lying and delusion, almost completely fake phonies—which, it absolutely needs to be emphasised, conversely reveals just how astronomically brave, utterly heroic and incredibly wonderful we humans actually are!!
Turner’s Fishermen at Sea, reproduced below, captures something of the astronomical heroism of the human race struggling for 2 million years through a terrible, lonely darkness of guilt-stricken bewilderment and seeming meaninglessness, where, as the Biblical prophet Isaiah wrote, ‘justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us. We look for light, but all is darkness; for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows. Like the blind we grope along the wall, feeling our way like men without eyes…Truth is nowhere to be found’ (Isa. 59). Yes, as the prophet of our time, and now Nobel Laureate for Literature, Bob Dylan, sang, ‘How does it feel to be on your own, with no direction home, like a complete unknown’ (Like a Rolling Stone, 1965).
So the extreme denial and delusion involved in the pseudo therapy of restraining and civilising our now overly upset condition helped us cope. But what happened when we still hadn’t found the redeeming understanding of ourselves and the levels of upset reached intolerable levels? Trying to avoid the human condition (the fear that we were evil) while we were waiting to find understanding of it, was a nightmare of ever-increasing psychosis (soul death) and neurosis (mind/thinking death), until eventually we reached a point where we simply had to find our way back to at least some genuinely therapeutic connection with our instinctive true self or soul, and some genuinely therapeutic truthful thinking. At that point at least a limited form of anti-denial and soul-resuscitation, or ‘truth-based therapy’, simply had to be attempted.
One of the first ways we developed to reconnect with soul and truth was one of the earliest forms of religion, which was NATURE WORSHIP OR ANIMISM—religion being the strategy of putting our faith in, deferring to, and looking for comfort, reassurance and guidance from something other than our overly upset and overly soul-estranged conscious thinking egoic self. Nature was a friend of our original instinctive self or soul because our instinctive self had grown up as part of the natural world, and also while nature could be brutal it wasn’t psychologically upset (basically mad) like we humans have been, so by reconnecting with nature we were rebuilding at least some connection with our original all-loving and all-sensitive instinctive self or soul, and indirectly being a little bit honest about the existence of a more innocent, denial-free world.
Another way that eventually developed to counter the estrangement/alienation/loneliness of our soul-oppressed situation, and this was also an earlier form of religion or deferment to something other than what our conscious thinking self was able to understand and decide it should do, was ANCESTOR WORSHIP. Having managed to survive our soul’s estrangement and mind’s alienated loneliness, our ancestors could be a source of great reassurance and comfort. By revering our ancestors and enshrining their memories, they could remain a presence in our lives to inspire, look after and guide us. Our ancestors didn’t connect us with our soul like nature did because they had also been psychologically upset, but their memory did help calm our upset and by so doing allow us to be a little more soulful and truthful; a little less deranged.
I should point out that when upset became really extreme—which, as will be explained in the next paragraph, occurred following the development of agriculture—we could hardly live with ourselves let alone each other, and when this happened our original love for each other very often became a case of being antagonistic towards each other. (The Biblical story of the struggle between Cain and Abel is a recognition of this—see pars 906-908 of FREEDOM.) And the more we stopped being fond of each other, the more we stopped wanting to remember our not-so-lovable ‘loved ones’. But before love died like this, we did so love each other that we didn’t want to let their memory go when they died, and so in those more innocent, less upset times, adoration of our ancestors did play a very important part in our lives.
What now needs to be explained is how the advent of agriculture and the domestication of animals some 11,000 years ago greatly increased the spread and growth of upset in the human race and led to the need for true religion. What was so significant about these developments in terms of escalating upset was that they caused people to live a more sedentary, less nomadic existence in close proximity and greater numbers in villages, then towns and eventually cities, and it was this greater interaction between people that dramatically increased the spread and development of upset. It was difficult enough having to cope with your own upset, let alone trying to cope with other people’s upset as well. As the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote, ‘Hell is other people’ (Closed Doors, 1944), and in a large community there are a lot of other people and thus a lot of upset everywhere, which in turn inevitably caused even more upset everywhere. It is not a relatively peaceful hunter-forager walk in the woods with innocent nature, it is a war zone of mad, crazy, maniacal upset humans where there is little chance of our innocent soul surviving for very long. As the historian Manning Clark said, ‘The bush [wilderness] is our source of innocence; the town is where the devil prowls around’ (The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Feb. 1985). (Again, this will be discussed later in this essay/book, but it should be noted here that the left-wing proposed that it was the agricultural revolution, and the sedentary, competition-for-possessions lifestyle it enabled, that supposedly either led to selfish instincts within us coming to dominate some selfless instincts within us, or as Critical Theory holds, just caused humans to behave selfishly, become capitalistic and so forth. However, as just explained, while the sedentary existence did dramatically increase upset, it didn’t cause supposed selfish instincts to become dominant over selfless instincts as the Left argue, or simply create selfish behaviour through competition. As explained earlier, our instinctive nature is to be entirely selfless; our selfishness emerged when we became psychologically upset sufferers of the angry, egocentric and alienated human condition.)
As upset became unbearable, we invented Religion
The next question is, what happened when, after the advent of agriculture, upset developed into an utterly unbearable state? The answer is we created the aforementioned TRUE RELIGION, where, in its most developed form, we deferred to and even worshipped the manifestation of our true self or soul in the form of one of the exceptionally rare individuals who had largely escaped encounter with all the upset in the world during their upbringing—exceptionally-innocent-of-upset, sound, truthful-thinking individuals we refer to as prophets.
Basically, in this prophet-focused form of True Religion, when we humans became extremely upset we could decide to end our participation in humanity’s heroic but upsetting battle to find knowledge and instead place our hope and faith in, and live through supporting, the soundness and truth of a prophet’s life and words. Rather than adhering to what our now overly upset self wanted to do and say, we could defer to, be guided by and try to emulate the soundness and truth of the prophet’s life and words. This could bring immense relief to our extremely corrupted condition—as it says about Christianity in the Bible, ‘if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!’ (2 Cor. 5:17). (See for a more complete description of Christ’s soundness and truthful thinking, and contribution to humanity.) Through our deferment to a religion’s prophet we could be to a degree ‘born again’ from our corrupted condition back to a more innocent like state.
There were two forms of True Religion that developed before prophet-focused forms of True Religion emerged. The first involved deferring to and showing reverence for, and even worshipping, one all-pervading and all-overseeing ‘God’, which, as is explained in of FREEDOM, and in , we can now understand is Integrative Meaning—a process that is driven by the physical law known as the ‘Second Path of the Second Law of Thermodynamics’, or Negative Entropy, and which explains the significance of selflessness and therefore why ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8, 16). Basically, under the influence 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. That 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. As I will come back to later, 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; it does not mean that selfishness is the characteristic of existence. Integrative selflessness, or love, is the real characteristic of existence, the all-pervading and all-overseeing theme of life, which we came to personify as ‘God’.
This worship of one true God or MONOTHEISM was introduced by two exceptionally sound, denial-free thinking prophets, the Hebrew prophet Abraham, who lived around 2,000 , and the pharaoh Akhenaton, who reigned in Egypt from approximately 1,350 to 1,335 . In their extremely upset state, humans had been deriving relief for their bewildered and distressed minds by deferring to and putting their trust and faith in (even to the extent of actually worshipping) all manner of extremely superficial, false ‘gods’—creating for example a god of romance, a god of war and a god of fertility, often represented by golden idols that they made appeasing sacrifices to. The worship of one true and real God or Monotheism cleared up all that extreme superficiality and brought the focus of worship onto the existence of one great all-pervading truth in the world, which, again, we can now appreciate as Integrative Meaning. Thus when our minds became so agonised from being unable to make sense of our now horrifically corrupted condition, being able to defer to and put our trust in, and even worship, the great overarching truth of one true God was a very great relief.
Following the development of Monotheism’s worship of one true God, the second form of True Religion developed, which was IMPOSED DISCIPLINE where we adhered to a set of enlightened rules or laws that enforced more selfless, cooperative and loving social behaviour through the threat of punishment. And, like Monotheism, this development was introduced by a truthful, human-condition-confronting-not-avoiding, can-still-see-upset-and-the-need-to-fix-it, sound thinking prophet (or prophets in the case of Hinduism).
The outstanding example of the addition of Imposed Discipline to the worship of one true God was the exceptionally sound Hebrew prophet Moses’s creation some 3,500 years ago of the Ten Commandments to accompany Abraham’s teaching of the worship of one true God, the combined teachings of which are presented in the Old Testament of the Bible. Through the Ten Commandments he had etched on stone tablets, Moses brought order to the Israelite Nation, and eventually to much of the world. Indeed, the moral code contained in those commandments became the basis of the constitutions, laws and rules that have continued to govern much of modern society and proved vital in helping rein in extreme upset.
So Monotheism accompanied by Imposed Discipline proved very effective in restraining upset and bringing relief to the mental anguish of being extremely upset/soul-corrupted.
At this point it will be helpful for what will be described next to explain how we developed the delusion that when we behaved in a cooperative and loving way we were no longer upset people. When we came up with the strategy of self-disciplining and civilising our upset we weren’t doing it to delude ourselves we were upset-free, human-condition-eliminated, good people, we were only using it to restrain our upset. However, the side-effect of feeling good about ourselves when we became civilised and didn’t express our upset did sow the seeds in our minds of the idea that we could use ‘do good’ strategies to delude ourselves that we actually were free of corruption and thus free of the agony of the human condition. In fact, this strategy of ‘doing good in order to dishonestly delude ourselves that we were actually a human-condition-free, ideal, good person’ was so superficially relieving and thus so seductive that, as will now be described, it developed into a huge industry that eventually (which is the time we now live in) threatened to destroy the human race! And what will also be revealed is that the great benefit of True Religion over all the other forms of pseudo idealism (where you pretended you were ideally behaved and free of corruption when you actually weren’t) that subsequently developed, is that True Religion was by far the least dishonest and thus least dangerous form of pseudo idealism.
What happened when upset inevitably increased was that the combination of Monotheism and Imposed Discipline began to prove inadequate in bringing us relief from our corrupted condition. We needed an even more powerful form of religious faith, and that was eventually supplied by the aforementioned PROPHET-FOCUSED RELIGION where we deferred to, revered and worshipped the human manifestation of soulful soundness and truth, namely the worship of the exceptionally sound prophets, for example the worship of Christ in Christianity.
Rather than having good behaviour forced upon you through fear of punishment, as was the case with Imposed Discipline, Prophet-Focused Religion allowed you to feel that not only were you actively participating in goodness by not allowing your upset behaviour to express itself through fear of punishment, you could delude yourself that you had actually become an upset-free, good, selfless, loving, ideal person—that you were ‘righteous’—which provided immense relief from the guilt of being overly upset. The apostle St Paul gave what was possibly the best sales pitch for born-again, Prophet-Focused Religious life when he wrote, ‘Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone [Moses’ Ten Commandments that were enforced by the threat of punishment], came with glory [because they brought society back from the brink of destruction]… fading though it was [there was no sustaining positive in having discipline imposed on you], will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!’ (Bible, 2 Cor. 3:7–11).
Thus, in coping with the now raging levels of upset in humans, the first ‘glorious’ improvement on destructively living out that ferocious upset was Imposed Discipline, which was enforced through fear and punishment. But since discipline provided little in the way of joy or inspiration for the mind or ‘spirit’ it was hard to maintain, it didn’t ‘last’, it was ‘fading’, especially in comparison to the immensely guilt-relieving, ‘righteous’, ‘do good in order to make yourself feel good’ way of living offered by that next ‘surpassing glory’ of Prophet-Focused Religion.
What now needs to be explained is why Prophet-Focused Religion was by far the least dishonest and deluded form of pseudo idealism of all the versions of the soon-to-be-described forms of pseudo idealism that developed after it.
To explain this great virtue of Prophet-Focused Religion it is first necessary to emphasise the two fundamental problems with abandoning the upsetting search for knowledge. To refer back to the Adam Stork analogy, Adam could always give up the upsetting battle to find knowledge and ‘fly back on course’, just obey his instincts, but, while that might make him feel good, it meant that he would be failing his responsibility to keep searching for knowledge until he found the all-important relieving understanding of his corrupted condition. As I describe in , there were two particular problems with giving in to this temptation to abandon the battle to find knowledge, to ‘fly back on course’. They were, firstly, that you were siding against humanity’s heroic battle to find knowledge, ultimately self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition; and secondly, by ‘flying back on course’ and supporting cooperative, loving and selfless ideal values, you were deluding yourself you were actually a virtuous, righteous, good person, even someone who didn’t suffer from the upset state of the human condition.
It is understandable then that when upset anger, egocentricity and alienation became so great that abandoning the battle to find knowledge could no longer be resisted, it was these two problems of siding against the human journey to find understanding, and dishonestly deluding yourself you were a virtuous, righteous, good person, even someone free of the agony of the human condition, that those who were abandoning the battle intuitively knew they most wanted to minimise. Well, the great benefit of Prophet-Focused Religion is that it provided this relief because when you abandoned your upset way of living and instead deferred to, put your ‘faith’ in, and lived in support of, the sound words and life of the exceptionally sound, denial-free-thinking, truthful prophet around whom your religion was formed, you were minimising these two problems. ( explains how, for example, the denial-free, sound words and innocent, soulful life of the great prophet Christ created the religion of Christianity.)
This is because, firstly, you were indirectly still supporting the search for knowledge because the truthful words of the prophet that you were living in support of have, in fact, been the most denial-free expressions of truth and knowledge that the human race has known. In particular, most Prophet-Focused Religions acknowledge the existence of ‘God’, which, again, is the personification of Integrative Meaning, and the acknowledgement of this most fundamental of all truths meant you were giving the search for truth and associated knowledge the absolute best possible alignment and guidance. And there are many other guiding truths imbued in religious scriptures; the reverence humans have developed towards them is witness to that. Christianity, for example, is remarkably aligning to truth and thus supportive of our search for knowledge, which Carl Jung recognised when he wrote that ‘[in Christianity] the voice of God [truth] can still be heard’ (W.B. Clift, Jung and Christianity, 1982, p.114), and that ‘The Christian symbol is a living thing that carries in itself the seeds of further development’ (The Undiscovered Self, 1957). The value of the denial-free truth contained in Prophet-Focused Religion was also recognised by Albert Einstein when he said ‘Science [denial-infected knowledge] without religion [denial-free truth] is lame, religion without science is blind’ (Out of My Later Years, 1950, p.26 of 286). Yes, human-condition-avoiding mechanistic science has been so dangerously devoid of truth (see & ) that the only place where any denial-free truth has been maintained is in religious scripture.
Secondly, by taking up support of a Prophet-Focused Religion you were minimising the problem of the dishonesty of deluding yourself you were a good, even a human-condition-free person, because of the many descriptions in religious scripture that recognise how corrupted, ‘sinful’, ‘guilty’, ‘banished’-from-the-Garden-of-Eden-state-of-original-innocence we upset humans have been. Also, by acknowledging the soundness of the prophet by your worship of him, you were, by inference, acknowledging your own lack of soundness. You were indirectly being honest about your extremely upset, corrupted condition.
So Prophet-Focused Religions have been a marvellously effective way for humans to indirectly support the search for knowledge, and to be honest about our corrupted condition. (See for more analysis of the benefits of religion.)
The problem, however, that emerged with Prophet-Focused Religion as humans became even more upset was that the great benefit of their honesty (about our corrupted, innocence-destroyed, ‘guilty’, ‘sinful’, Integrative-Meaning-or-God-defying lives) became its liability. Basically, without the defence of the true instinct vs intellect explanation for the upset state of the human condition, the more upset we humans became, the more unbearably confronting and condemning it was having our upset, soul-corrupted state acknowledged. And so, when upset became extreme, the honesty in Prophet-Focused Religion about our corrupted state became intolerable; as the author Mary McCarthy once wrote, ‘Only people who are very good can afford to become religious; with all the others it makes them worse’ (Memories of a Catholic Girlhood, 1957; Lloyd Reinhardt’s rendition, The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Jan. 1995).
It was at this point that less honest, more guilt-stripped, less confronting and condemning, more delusional feel-good ways of abandoning the battle had to be found. One of the first ways of achieving this was to modify Prophet-Focused Religions so they were less confronting. This was done by interpreting their teaching and scripture in very superficial, simplistic, literal and fundamentalist ways, and by focusing only on the relief your faith was bringing you through emotional, euphoric, ‘evangelical’, ‘charismatic’ forms of worship. Sir Laurens van der Post pointed out how dangerously ‘starved and empty’ of its truthfulness, guilt-stripped Christianity has become when he wrote that ‘Yet the churches continue to exhort man without any knowledge of what is the soul of modern man and how starved and empty it has become…They behave as if a repetition of the message of the Cross and a reiteration of the miracles and parables of Christ is enough. Yet, if they took Christ’s message seriously, they would not ignore the empiric material and testimony of the nature of the soul and its experience of God’ (Jung and the Story of Our Time, 1976, p.232 of 275).
As upset further increased, atheism or disbelief in God, and non-religious secularism, became popular—to the point where the scientist Richard Dawkins has angrily said, ‘“Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder to eradicate. The whole subject of God is a bore”…those who teach religion to small children are guilty of “child abuse”’ (‘The Final Blow to God’, The Spectator, 20 Feb. 1999). (Read more about science’s aversion to the truth contained in religion in .)
The progression over the last 200 years when upset became completely overwhelming
To now describe the progression that has taken place over the last 200 years when upset has become overwhelmingly extreme and, as a result, such extreme states of dishonesty, denial and delusion have developed that the human race is facing terminal alienation and extinction.
Since any form of Prophet-Focused Religion was becoming unbearable, a much more dishonest, guilt-free form of pseudo idealism had to be found. The first solution was atheistic COMMUNISM or SOCIALISM which did not contain any recognition of the sound, relatively upset-free, innocent, soulful world of prophets, nor acknowledgement of the condemning truth of Integrative Meaning in the form of ‘God’. Instead, communism dogmatically demanded an idealistic social or communal world and denied the depressing notion of God and associated guilt.
The dishonesty and delusion of communism/socialism was made very clear when its creator Karl Marx asserted that ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is [not to understand the world but] to change it [just make it cooperative/social/communal]’ (Theses on Feuerbach, 1845). No, the whole ‘point’ and responsibility of being a conscious being is to understand our world and our place in it—ultimately, to find understanding of our seemingly horribly flawed, angry, egocentric and alienated human condition. While more will be said about Marxism shortly, the fundamental problem with communistic and socialistic Marxism was that its dogmatic, ‘just change it’ imposition of cooperative and selfless ‘politically correct’ idealism denied humans the freedom to be competitive, aggressive and selfish while they carried out their all-important upsetting search for knowledge, ultimately for self-knowledge, understanding of our corrupted condition. Dogma wasn’t the cure for our corrupted condition, it was the oppressive poison.
While this oppression of freedom was why socialism/communism was initially largely decried as a political system for managing society, at the personal level, the limitation of socialism/communism was that while there was no confronting innocent prophet present, there was an obvious acknowledgment of the condemning cooperative ideals. So in time, as levels of insecurity rose so too did the need for an even more evasive and dishonest guilt-free form of pseudo idealism to live through. This was supplied by the NEW AGE MOVEMENT (the forerunners of which were the Age of Aquarius and Peace Movements) in which all the negatives of humans’ massively corrupted condition were transcended in favour of taking up a completely escapist, think-positive, human-potential-stressing, self-affirming, motivational, feel-good-about-yourself approach.
In talking about how he became ‘a personal growth junkie’, the comedian Anthony Ackroyd summed up the extremely deluded artificiality of the New Age Movement when he said: ‘What are millions of us around the globe searching for in books, tapes, seminars, workshops and speaking events? Information to enhance our lifestyles and enrich our experience on this planet? Certainly…But I smell something else in the ether. Something more desperate and deluded. A worrying snake-oil factor that is spinning out of control. It’s the promise of salvation. Salvation from the basic rules of human life. This is the neurotic aspect of the human potential movement. This hunger for a get-out-of-the-human-condition-free card’ (Good Weekend, The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 Sep. 1997). Yes, to ‘get out of the human condition’ we had to confront and solve it, not deny and escape it; our ‘desperate and deluded’ attempts to escape it only made it worse. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel recognised, ‘The capacity for transcendence brings with it a liability to alienation, and the wish to escape this condition…can lead to even greater absurdity’ (The View From Nowhere, 1986, p.214 of 256).
The limitation of the New Age Movement was that while it didn’t remind humans of the cooperative ideals, the focus still remained on the issue of humans’ variously troubled, alienated, upset, innocence-destroyed state. So the next level of delusion dispensed with the problem of alienation by simply denying its existence. The FEMINIST MOVEMENT maintains that there is no difference between people, especially not between men and women. In particular it denied the legitimacy of the egocentric male dimension to life. As is explained in paragraphs 770-777 of FREEDOM, far from being destructive villains, men turn out to be nothing less than the heroes of the story of life on Earth!
Being based on extreme dogma, the feminist movement could not and has not produced any real reconciliation between men and women, rather, as this quote points out, ‘What happened was that the so-called Battle of the Sexes became a contest in which only one side turned up. Men listened, in many cases sympathetically but, by the millions, were turned off’ (Don Peterson, review of The Myth of Male Power by Dr Warren Farrell, The Courier Mail, Jun. 1994). (Read about how the explanation of the human condition brings an end to the so-called ‘war of the sexes’ in .)
The limitation of feminism was that while it sought to dispense with the problem of humans’ divisive reality, humans were still the focus of attention and that was confronting. So again, as upset increased and an even more evasive and dishonest form of pseudo idealism to support was needed, the ENVIRONMENT or GREEN MOVEMENT emerged in which there was no need to confront and think about the human state since its focus was away from self and onto the environment.
In response to a question about people’s focus on ‘climate change’, the psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke the truth when he said, ‘People have things within their personal purview [range of experience] that are difficult to deal with and that they’re avoiding and generally the way they avoid them is by adopting pseudo-moralistic stances on large-scale social issues, so they look good to their friends and neighbours’ (Australia’s ABC program Q&A, 25 Feb. 2019). The inherent dishonesty and irresponsibility of this movement was summed up by these quotes: ‘The trees aren’t the problem. The problem is us’ (Simply Living mag. Sep. 1989), and ‘We need to do something about the environmental damage in our heads’ (Time, 24 May 1993). The bumper sticker ‘Save the Humans’ that parodies the green movement’s ‘Save the Planet’ slogan also makes the point about how evasive of the real issue the environmental movement is—as does this statement: ‘Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States. It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth [about the real issue of our corrupted condition]’ (Ray Evans, Nine Facts About Climate Change, 2006).
So while it has been said that ‘The environment became the last best cause, the ultimate guilt-free issue’ (Time, 31 Dec. 1990), the Environment Movement has an undermining limitation in that it still contained a condemning moral component. If we were not responsible with the environment, ‘good’, we were behaving immorally, ‘bad’. In addition, the purity or innocence of nature contrasted with humans’ lack of it.
The development of truthless Postmodern Deconstructionism and Political Correctness
At this point in the emergence of ever more extreme levels of upset, a form of pure ‘idealism’ had to be developed where any confrontation with the, by now, extremely confronting and depressing moral dilemma of the human condition was totally avoided. This need for a totally guiltless form of ‘idealism’ was met by the development of the POLITICALLY CORRECT MOVEMENT and its intellectual equivalent, the POSTMODERN DECONSTRUCTIONIST MOVEMENT. These were pure forms of dogma that fabricated, demanded and imposed equality in complete denial of the reality of the underlying issue of the reasons for the different levels of alienation between individuals, sexes, ages, generations, races and cultures. For example, the politically correct argue that the children’s nursery rhyme Baa Baa Black Sheep is racist and must instead be recited as ‘Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep’! (The Telegraph, 24 Jan. 2008).
Postmodernism has been described by a journalist as ‘a bewilderingly complex school of continental philosophy, or pseudo-philosophy’ of ‘intellectual assumptions—[that] truth is a matter of opinion, there is no real world outside of language and hence no facts independent of our descriptions of them’ (Luke Slattery, The Australian, 23 Jul. 2005). While language is artificial it nevertheless models a real world, so to say that just because language is artificial there can be no universal truths is ridiculous, but when the need to escape the truth becomes desperate, any excuse will do; just baffle the world, and yourself, with intellectual baloney. In his 2001 book, The Liar’s Tale: A History of Falsehood, Jeremy Campbell described ‘postmodern theory’ as having elevated ‘lying to the status of an art and neutralised untruth’. It ‘neutralised untruth’ because by denying the existence of the whole issue of humans’ variously upset state it made any discussion of such differences impossible.
In his insightfully titled 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind, the political scientist Allan Bloom wrote of the devastating effects of the extremely dishonest, pseudo idealistic postmodern, deconstructionist teaching in universities—as summarised in this book review: ‘we are producing a race of moral illiterates, who have never asked the great questions of good and evil, or truth and beauty, who have indeed no idea that such questions even could be asked…As Mr Bloom says…“deprived of literary guidance they [students] no longer have any image of a perfect soul, and hence do not long to have one. They do not even imagine that there is such a thing”…If the classics are studied at all in the universities they are studied as curiosities in the humanities departments, not as vital centres of the liberal tradition, and not as texts offering profound insight into the human condition’ (Greg Sheridan, ‘The Closing of Our Minds’, The Australian, 25 Jul. 1987). Of course, the whole point of the postmodern, politically correct culture was to avoid ‘the great questions’ about our species’ all-loving, original instinctive self or ‘soul’ and what has happened to it, namely the question of our self-corruption and alienation, the issue of ‘good and evil’, ‘the human condition’, ‘truth’.
Yes, the determined denial of humans’ variously immensely corrupted condition in the politically correct, postmodern, deconstruction movements meant that instead of persevering with humanity’s heroic search for knowledge and finding the true instinct vs intellect explanation of the human condition that actually reconciles and thus ‘deconstructs’ the good versus evil dialectic and, by so doing, takes humanity beyond or ‘post’ the existing upset, ‘modern’, human-condition-denying, dishonest, unreconciled world to a human-condition-understood-and-ameliorated, upset-free, ‘correct’ one where everyone lives cooperatively and lovingly, as these movements in effect claimed they were doing, they were leading humanity further away from that solution and ideal state.
For immensely upset humans, the problem with politically correct, postmodern deconstructionist movements was that the focus was very much on relieving yourself of the guilt of your corrupted condition by, in the extreme, eliminating the whole idea of truth. What was needed was a program that focused more on the progression of the whole human race towards a more ideal state—a feel-good, virtue-signalling philosophy that contrived a way (because it couldn’t be achieved honestly by facing the truth of our corrupted condition and by so doing actually solving that condition with redeeming understanding) to transport the human race from its competitive and aggressive state to a more just and ‘equitable’ world where all humans lived cooperatively and lovingly. Basically, because the upsetting battle to find understanding of ourselves had all become too unbearable, there was a shift from just wanting personal guilt-free relief to wanting to create a whole new world; to ‘reset’ the whole foundations of society. ‘Enough suffering, let’s just get out of the horror world we live in and create a new happy and loving world, let’s fake it to make it’ was the thinking. As we will see, while Marxism had largely been avoided because we intuitively knew it oppressed the freedom humans needed to search for knowledge, this great need for a philosophy that took the whole human race to a more cooperative and loving state led to the resurrection of Marxism’s dogmatic imposition of cooperative and loving behaviour.
What was actually subconsciously ‘decided’ was that the upset in yourself and in the world had become so great that, even if it was fraudulently achieved, the dream that all humans have held deep within them that one day a new world free of our competitive and aggressive human condition would be possible simply had to be implemented. That is essentially what happened—it was subconsciously decided that the great goal of the whole human journey of conscious thought and enquiry of bringing an end to the corrupted state of the human condition and our return to idyllic Eden had to be faked. But, as we will see, what was manufactured was so utterly dishonest and deluded it was taking humanity straight to extinction! This fraudulent, outrageously dishonest, incredibly dangerous contrivance is CRITICAL THEORY—with its offshoots of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Critical Gender Theory, and their manifestations of ‘Identity Politics’, ‘Woke’ ideology, ‘Cancel Culture’, and the ‘Great Reset’ of society.
Before explaining Critical Theory, the progression of the biological arguments that eventually led to its resurgence needs to be described.
The progression of biological arguments that led to the rise of Critical Theory
At the beginning of my booklet Transform Your Life And Save The World (TYL) (which is a summary of FREEDOM), I quote Sir Bob Geldof saying to me, ‘We’re not all going to turn into people who are all hugging each other Jeremy because we’re all competitive by nature. The question is how do we relieve ourselves from these unchangeable competitive, selfish and aggressive primal instincts in us?’ As I go on to explain in TYL, Sir Bob’s assertion that we’re not going to start being cooperative and loving and ‘all hugging each other’ ‘because we’re all competitive by nature’, shows that he, like almost everyone has been doing, is using the false ‘savage instincts’ excuse to explain our divisive behaviour. And when Sir Bob added that ‘The question is how do we relieve ourselves from these unchangeable competitive, selfish and aggressive primal instincts in us?’, he was defending his well-known advocacy of the left-wing position—that is now rapidly being replaced by Marxist-based Critical Theory—which argued that along with some selfless instincts we supposedly also have savage, selfish, competitive and aggressive instincts. And since we are born with these supposed savage instincts, we can’t change them, and therefore, wherever they overly assert themselves, which the Left see as happening everywhere, the Left claim we have no choice but to dogmatically impose cooperative and loving ideal values on those supposed ‘unchangeable competitive, selfish and aggressive primal instincts’.
Certainly, if it was true that we have savage instincts then the logic of Sir Bob’s left-wing culture where cooperative and loving values have to be dogmatically imposed would be justified. BUT, as I explained in TI, we don’t have savage competitive and aggressive instincts, rather we have unconditionally selfless, cooperative and loving moral instincts, which means the fundamental premise of this left-wing philosophy is wrong.
To explain more about Sir Bob’s assertion that along with selfless instincts we also have ‘unchangeable competitive, selfish and aggressive primal instincts’: as I mentioned earlier when summarising TI’s description of our condition, 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 I present a history of this left-wing dishonest biology 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 I have pointed out before, is actually biologically impossible because of ‘the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters [selfish individuals]’, as the biologist Jerry Coyne pointed out. In that chapter 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 again, with biologist 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 ).
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.
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.’
I should mention that since FREEDOM was published in 2016, an elaboration on the fraudulent ‘cooperation is more advantageous than competition and can therefore be selected for’, ‘group selection’ theory has been developed. This elaboration argues that supposed selection against aggression within groups and resulting supposed increased friendliness within the group 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, as I have emphasised and explained in TI, our selfless moral instincts were acquired through nurturing, not from the biologically impossible ‘group selection’ mechanism. I also emphasised in TI (and evidenced 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 (which elaborates on what is explained in chapter 6:9 of FREEDOM), developing upon the thinking of the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Left assert 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.
So again, what I summarised in TI about what Sir Bob Geldof said about the prevailing belief before the ascendency of Critical Theory, that savage, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts dominate our lives and so we have no choice but to dogmatically impose selfless cooperation on society, is true. The only difference is that the Right claim we have entirely savage, selfish, competitive and aggressive, ‘survival of the fittest’, individualistic 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 savage, selfish, competitive and aggressive, ‘survival of the fittest’, individualistic instincts, with the latter coming to dominate following the advent of agriculture, sedentary living and the accumulation of possessions. Again, the human-condition-confronting-not-avoiding, true explanation for how our original completely cooperative and loving instinctive self or soul developed was through nurturing, and how it became corrupted was due to our conscious mind becoming competitive and aggressive when our instincts ignorantly criticised its necessary search for understanding.
I should mention that because right-wing thinkers were also unable to confront the issue of the human condition and think truthfully about it and by so doing find the true, instinct vs intellect, reconciling, redeeming and rehabilitating explanation for why we corrupted our original instinctive self, they had no choice other than to use the false ‘savage instincts’ excuse to justify their defence of individualistic freedom. The classic example of this was Social Darwinism that misrepresented Charles Darwin’s idea of natural selection as being a selfish, ‘survival of the fittest’ process. Darwin originally rightfully left it undecided as to whether those individuals that selfishly made sure they reproduced more could be viewed as winners, as being ‘fitter’, it was only later that others persuaded him to substitute the term ‘natural selection’ with the term ‘survival of the fittest’. To very briefly explain why the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept is a misrepresentation of Darwin’s idea of natural selection, and why Darwin was wrong to allow himself to be persuaded to use it: in and in , I explain (as I mentioned earlier) that the meaning of existence is to develop ever larger and more stable wholes of matter, and that unconditionally selfless self-sacrifice for the good of the whole is the very theme of this Negative-Entropy-driven, integrative process because it maintains wholes. 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; it does not mean that selfishness is the characteristic of existence. Integrative selflessness is the real characteristic of existence, the theme of life, which is why Darwin was wrong to allow the use of the selfishness-emphasising term ‘survival of the fittest’. (For a more in-depth explanation of this and all the other distorted biological thinking that has been going on as a result of biologists being unable to confront the issue of the human condition, see chapters , and of FREEDOM.)
It is important to appreciate that since cooperative idealism is easy to justify as being a good and worthy attitude, the left-wing have had it easy saying that it’s morally right, ‘politically correct’, to impose cooperative and loving behaviour. The Right, on the other hand, have had a very difficult job justifying the selfish, competitive and aggressive state of the angry, egocentric and alienated human condition. Yes, while the Left have found it harder to mount a biological argument that justified selfless behaviour, they have had an easier time arguing that selfless behaviour is good. And while the Right have had an easier job contriving a biological argument that justifies selfish behaviour, they have had an infinitely harder task trying to argue that selfish behaviour is justified. Of course, the human-race-saving psychological relief that the instinct vs intellect Adam Stork analogy brings is that it finally truthfully explains the real reason for why selfish competition and aggression became an unavoidable, indeed necessary, part of human life—which does mean that we are now finally able to see that while both the Left and Right were using false biology, the ideology of the Left was wrong while the ideology of the Right was correct.
The following quote illustrates the complete ignorance of the Left of this need for individualism that the Right has championed. On the website In Defence of Marxism, the writer Ben Curry wrote in 2021 about Richard Lewontin, the Marxist biologist whose theories are included above, that ‘In the 1970s, prominent individuals in the field of biology were once more taking up the reductionist philosophy that it’s “all in our genes”…Lewontin understood that it was no accident that time and again these reactionary ideas penetrate the sciences. These ideas rest on a certain philosophical outlook, which derives from the outlook and interests of the ruling class. As Lewontin and [Richard] Levins explained in [their 1985 book] The Dialectical Biologist, their whole life they had fought “the mechanistic, reductionist, and positivist ideology that dominated our academic education and that pervades our intellectual environment.”…The reductionist view sees the whole as nothing more than the sum of its parts. If we see war, greed and oppression in society, it is only because we are individually war-like, greedy and oppressive. In turn, we are each only an expression of our genes, which have evolved to make us this way because these traits give us a better chance of survival. These ‘theories’ suggest that our physiological, psychological and social traits are programmed into our genes, with a straight line of cause and effect between the latter and the former’ (‘Richard Lewontin: the dialectical biologist (1929–2021)’, 12. Jul. 2021).
So although the ideology of the Right was correct, unable to confront the truth of our corrupted human condition and thus find the true instinct vs intellect explanation for why we have had to be competitive, selfish and aggressive, they were left having to contrive a way to justify our seemingly ‘reactionary’, non-ideal, competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour, which they did by using the biologically dishonest Social Darwinist, ‘survival of the fittest’, ‘savage instincts’ excuse that said we humans are innately, naturally competitive, selfish and aggressive. Which meant the colossal philosophical heroes of the Right who bravely defended our competitive and aggressive state like Ayn Rand, and more recently Jordan Peterson, were doomed to fail because their arguments were based on false biology. Rand argued that we have to use our mind to effectively manage a selfish nature, and Peterson argues we have a competitive, dominance-hierarchy-based instinctive heritage that we have to acknowledge and manage rather than pretend doesn’t exist, but immensely heroic as these two people were, we can now understand that their biological thinking was fundamentally wrong.
Thank goodness we now have the true reconciling, redeeming and healing biological understanding of the human condition—which, incidentally, means the whole business of left and right wing politics is obsoleted. (For further reading on the fabulous obsolescence of politics, see .)
The development of extremely dangerous Critical Theory
So now to explain how these biological theories and their stalled state led to the rise of the fraudulent, patently dishonest, extremely dangerous contrivance that is Critical Theory.
Firstly, in terms of the progression of ever-increasing levels of upset that is being charted in this essay/book, I described how the human race had arrived at the point where upset had become so extreme that it was decided we just had to leave the horrifically aggressive and selfish world we are living in and by any false means possible create a selfless and loving, human-condition-free world that the human race had always dreamed of achieving. As I summarised, the focus of politically correct post modernism was still mostly on relieving yourself of the guilt of your corrupted condition, so what was needed was a program that contrived a way that would allow the focus to be on the progression of the whole human race towards a more ideal state where all humans lived cooperatively instead of competitively.
The question then was, what possible means could be invented to achieve that now desperately needed, dreamed-of transition? As just described, right-wing thinkers were arguing that it was only natural for humans to be competitive, selfish and aggressive because we supposedly have savage, ‘must-reproduce-our-genes’ instincts, and, to counter that individualistic, selfish view, left-wing thinkers argued that we are also naturally selfless and cooperative using the biologically impossible ‘group selection’ theory and, when that failed, adding the idea of a matrix of vague mechanisms to achieve it. In the end, these polarised, equally biologically flawed views proved unreconcilable, and biological thinking became stalled—to the point where the documentary suggested we should ‘call the whole thing off’.
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, as previously mentioned, 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]’; 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. Again, 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’ (; 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’ (; 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’.
In short, Critical Theorists are Marxist in that they blame our corrupted condition on social constructs, in particular, capitalism. As Marx wrote, ‘Under private property [capitalism]…Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering’ (Human Requirements and Division of Labour, 1844). Marx is saying capitalism, the accumulation of possessions and wealth, caused us to become selfish, or at least perverted the fulfilment of our basic needs so that selfishness spiralled out of all control.
Of course we can now understand that the truth is it was our upsetting battle with our instincts that unavoidably caused us to become selfish, not capitalism. Capitalism actually supplied us with the self-distracting materialism we needed while we heroically searched for self-understanding (see par. 111 of TI, and pars 289, 1092, 1119 & 1224 of FREEDOM). Our whole journey for the last 2 million years has been to find understanding of ourselves, find our meaning, find our identity, find understanding of why we are the way we are, namely competitive, aggressive and selfish when the ideals of life are so obviously to be cooperative, loving and selfless—basically, find the explanation of our corrupted, ‘fallen’ human condition. We needed to find that real validation of ourselves if we were to truly bring an end to the unavoidably upsetting angry, egocentric and alienated effects of searching for that understanding. As the philosopher Gerald Cohen said, ‘Marxist philosophical anthropology[’s]…conception of human nature and human good overlooks the need for self-identity…[it] underestimated the importance of phenomena, such as religion and nationalism, which satisfy the need for self-identity’ (Reconsidering Historical Materialism, 1978, p.163), and that ‘there is a human need to which Marxist observation is commonly blind, one different from and as deep as the need to cultivate one’s talents. It is the need to be able to say not what I can do, but who I am’ (ibid. p.348).
So the next question is, having bypassed ‘traditional’ ‘science’, how exactly did Critical Theorists contrive a way to achieve ‘human emancipation’ and ‘create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of human beings’?
What Critical Theorists did is not only call on the thinking of Marx, they even conscripted Sigmund Freud’s analysis of our psychological state, which was very clever because they could then be seen to be addressing everyone’s intuitive awareness that we suffer from psychosis! The entry on Critical Theory in the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes this sophisticated approach: ‘Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School [in Germany]. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed.’
Marx had argued that workers tolerate the apparent injustice of the ‘dominant ideology’ of the status quo of capitalism, which encompasses the religious, political, economic and cultural aspects of an oppressive capitalistic society, because their mind is so dominated by it they can’t see that they are being oppressed by it. The Frankfurt School, a movement founded in the 1920s by a group of left-wing social scientists, brought together Marx’s idea of controlling ‘dominant ideology’ with the theories of Sigmund Freud, who had discovered that humans have a ‘personal unconscious’, a repository of repressed thoughts and emotions that are too painful to acknowledge consciously, including supposedly unacceptable primitive instinctive urges such as sex and aggression—all of which supposedly subverts our conscious thinking. The Frankfurt School argued that the reason that oppressed people around the world had not risen up in a great ‘Marxist revolution’ against supposedly unjustly oppressive structures like capitalism was because this ‘false consciousness’ created by both society and their own repressed unconscious prevented them from seeing the true oppressive nature of the society they laboured under. Therefore, in order for the masses to rise up, the Frankfurt School worked on a system that would teach people to overcome ‘false consciousness’ by thinking critically about everything they had previously taken for granted. The result was Critical Theory, which sought to identify the hidden biases within standard modes of thinking, such as classism, racism and sexism, that supposedly allow for continued abuses of power. Once people could see through their ‘false consciousness’ and identify their ‘oppressors’, then the ‘revolution’, which was the forcible and dogmatic imposition of cooperative ideals, would supposedly naturally occur. As Max Horkheimer, one of the school’s founders, wrote, the ultimate goal of Critical Theory was ‘to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them’ (Critical Theory: Selected Essays, 1982, p. 244).
So the Frankfurt School combined Marx’s idea of a controlling ‘dominant ideology’ of capitalism, which encompasses the religious, political, economic and cultural aspects of capitalistic society, with Freud’s discovery of a ‘personal unconscious’ which supposedly subverts our conscious mind, to supposedly explain why we have a ‘false consciousness’ that contains hidden biases like classist, racist and sexist thoughts—which they then attempt to dogmatically eradicate in ourselves and in society. As I mentioned, capitalism actually supplied the self-distracting materialism we needed in order to carry on our corrupting search for knowledge, ultimately for self-understanding. In the case of religion, as has already been explained, when we humans became overly upset from participating in humanity’s heroic battle to find knowledge, we needed to be able to defer to religious faiths because they offered relief from our own corrupted condition.
With regard to Freud’s theory of the ‘personal unconscious’, Freud did recognise that we have a repressed unconscious or psychosis that affects our ability to think truthfully, which we can now understand is all the denial we have had to practice of our 2-million-year corrupted condition while we couldn’t truthfully explain it. We are enormously, immensely, astronomically ashamed and thus insecure about our corrupted condition and as a result practice blocking out from our mind the truth of our original all-loving and all-sensitive instinctive self or soul; the result of which is, as Freud bravely recognised, the ‘repressed unconscious’ part of ourselves. And the extent of this denial or block-out or alienation or soul-repression or psychosis obviously will vary according to how exposed we have each been in our life to all the upset in the world. It follows that (as I describe in chapter , and in ) there are differences in alienation between individuals, races, genders, ages, generations, countries, civilisations and cultures. And as a result of these differences we do all naturally suffer from insecurity about our particular state of alienation compared to other people’s states of alienation, and so we are all naturally variously prejudiced—the more innocent are prejudiced against the more alienated, who to them seem to be ‘bad’, and the more alienated have retaliatory prejudice towards the less alienated for their either direct or implied condemnation of them; and so we are all prone to being classist, racist, sexist, ageist, and so on. But again, the only way to end all that insecurity within us was to find the healing understanding of our corrupted human condition. The dogmatic imposition of ideality on our upset reality just added more denial/alienation/unconscious bias—and worse still, it kills the freedom we need to be able to continue the upsetting search for knowledge in order to find the psychologically redeeming and relieving understanding of ourselves.
(In my book How Laurens van der Post Saved The World I describe and explain at some length the journey of acknowledgement of our corrupted condition that Freud bravely initiated with his recognition of a ‘repressed unconscious’ part of ourselves, and how Freud’s associate, Carl Jung, then bravely added to Freud’s recognition of a ‘repressed unconscious’ within us by recognising the foundation insecurity within that ‘repressed unconscious’ of a repressed awareness of a collective, shared-by-all instinct within us that Jung termed our ‘collective unconscious’. Sir Laurens van der Post and myself added the critical clarification that our ‘collective unconscious’ is actually the repressed instinctive memory within us all of a time when our ape ancestors lived in a completely cooperative, selfless and loving state prior to becoming conscious and developing our present corrupted condition—a memory we repressed because we couldn’t explain why we had destroyed such a wonderful, all-loving and all-sensitive state.)
Yes, what was so extremely dangerous about Critical Theory’s overall practice of dogmatically imposing a cooperative, ideal world was that the dogmatic imposition of selfless, cooperative and loving ideal/politically correct behaviour oppresses and stifles the all-important freedom of expression needed to find knowledge, ultimately the all-important self-knowledge, the redeeming, rehabilitating and transforming biological understanding of our psychologically distressed human condition that actually brings about the cooperative, selfless and loving world that is so desperately needed.
The great paradox of the human condition (which is what the Adam Stork analogy finally explains) is that we have had to be free from our dogmatically oppressive and dictatorial cooperation-and-selflessness-demanding moral instinctive self or soul if we were to carry on our soul-corrupting, anger-egocentricity-and-alienation-producing, competition-and-selfishness-occurring, heroic search for knowledge. Again, in the words from the song The Impossible Dream from the musical the Man of La Mancha, we had to be prepared to ‘march into hell for a heavenly cause’ (lyrics by Joe Darion, 1965); we had to be prepared to lose ourselves if we were to find ourselves; we had to suffer becoming angry, egocentric and alienated until we found sufficient knowledge to explain ourselves and by so doing actually end and heal our corrupted condition.
So, as I mentioned earlier, dogma is not the cure for the troubled state of the world, it is in fact the poison because it blocks the search for the rehabilitating understanding of ourselves that is needed to actually save the world. The truth is the Left is not progressive as it deludes itself it is, but regressive. The real way to bring an end to our selfish and divisive condition where ‘people are dominated and oppressed’ and ‘create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of human beings’ and achieves ‘the goal of human emancipation’ and ‘freedom’ from our corrupted angry, egocentric and alienated human condition depended on continuing the upsetting search for knowledge until we found the true, psychologically redeeming and rehabilitating, instinct vs intellect biological explanation of the human condition—which, thank heavens, has finally been found, but is yet to be widely acknowledged. So again, Marx was wrong when he said, ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is [not to understand the world but] to change it [just make it cooperative/social/communal]’, because the whole ‘point’ and responsibility of being a conscious being is to understand our world and our place in it—ultimately, to find the redeeming and psychologically healing understanding of our seemingly horribly flawed, 2-million-year upset, now totally mad and deranged, human condition. We humans needed answers for our upset, distressed mind, not dogma; we needed brain food not brain anaesthetic; we needed to be able to think our way to sanity, not become brain-dead robots. De-braining ourselves was never going to work. To avoid the fast approaching terminal levels of alienation/psychosis, which the following graph that I presented in TI charts, we simply had to find the psychologically healing understanding of ourselves.
When the author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote that ‘We are living through deeply anxious days, and if we are to relieve our anxiety we must diagnose its cause…What is the meaning of man? To this question no answer is being offered, and I have the feeling that we are moving toward the darkest era our world has ever known’ (A Sense of Life, pub. 1965, pp.127, 219 of 231), he was recognising that the survival of our species depended on finding understanding of ourselves. So to effectively stop that search was the ultimate crime against the whole conscious-thinking human race! The truth is the left-wing culture of dogmatically enforcing cooperative, selfless and loving behaviour has been leading humanity not to freedom from the human condition as it deludes itself, but straight off the cliff of hope and down into the chasm of extinction; to death by dogma!
Critical Theory’s dangerous derivatives of Critical Race Theory and Critical Gender Theory
So that is the explanation of what’s so very wrong and dangerous about Critical Theory, which, as I will now describe, means its offshoots of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Critical Gender Theory—and their manifestations of ‘Identity Politics’, ‘Woke’ ideology, ‘Cancel Culture’, and the ‘Great Reset’ of society—are also very wrong and very dangerous.
The question that arises is how was Critical Theory—that so dangerously decided we have no choice other than to artificially impose cooperative and loving behaviour on science’s supposed finding that we are naturally selfish creatures living in a naturally competitive and selfish world—actually going to be implemented? The answer to this question is that once it was decided we had to stop looking to science for guidance, we were free to assert whatever we liked, and that’s exactly what happened.
To impose a new world of love and kindness between ethnic groups or races, it was simply asserted that it was philosophically sound to claim that there is no difference between races; and further that any contention that there were differences was just a dishonest, manipulative, racist, artificially invented device used to oppress and ill-treat certain races. Essentially, there was no recognition at all that humans are involved in a grand project that has inevitably resulted in everyone and every related group of humans being differently upset by their inevitable different encounters with that upsetting grand project (see ). No human condition to find understanding of, just dogmatically ‘change’ our behaviour, as Marx said. The product of this thinking was CRITICAL RACE THEORY (CRT) which is described as an ‘intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical Race Theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans’ ; accessed 19 Jul. 2021).
And furthermore, while feminism tried to impose equality between the sexes by in effect denying that any real differences existed between them, Critical Theory sought to reinforce that idea by inventing a philosophy that supposedly firmly established that there weren’t any meaningful differences. To do this it was asserted that while there are physical differences between the sexes there is no significant psychological differences between them; and it was asserted that any argument that there was, was simply a dishonest, manipulative, sexist device used to oppress and ill-treat one or other of the genders, but women particularly. Basically, any suggestion was denied that in the human journey a different role for men would have inevitably resulted from men being the group protectors and as a result being most responsible for taking on the immensely upsetting human-race-defending job of defying our condemning instincts in the all-important search for knowledge—and that a different role for women would have inevitably resulted from women being the bearers of offspring and not as responsible as men for the immensely upsetting human-race-defending job of defying our condemning instincts, with their focus having to be on the next generation, of giving birth to them, suckling them, sheltering them from upset as much as they could, and nurturing them with as much upset-free, unconditional love as they can manage in an extremely upset world (see ). Different roles for men and women, and the different psychological effects those roles have, and the different psychological strategies that men and women could adopt to cope with the potentially extreme agonies of their situations, were all denied. The product of this thinking was CRITICAL GENDER THEORY, where ‘critical gender theorists attack the assumption that every human being naturally belongs to one of two discrete gender categories (masculine or feminine), which is determined by biologically-given sexual characteristics (male and female). Rather, according to critical gender theory, there is no necessary connection between biological sex and a person’s gender presentation. The ways in which men and women present themselves as gendered individuals are social constructs, learned performance, and “a social accomplishment.” Biology has no causal influence on gender…According to critical gender theory, while one may be born a sexed being, one is not born gendered. One must learn gender presentation’ (Terry S. Kogan, ‘Transsexuals and Critical Gender Theory’, Hastings Law Journal, 1997).
Since a completely sound philosophical foundation had supposedly been established for these critical theories, any deviation from them was supposedly illegitimate and thus to be admonished and shut down, cancelled or eliminated or removed, which is what is referred to as CANCEL CULTURE. Further, since these critical theories were supposedly based on solid philosophical foundations, if you didn’t subscribe to them, you were in effect still ‘asleep’ living in an obsolete paradigm; you weren’t WOKE and part of the great awakening to a cooperative and loving new world; you weren’t part of the supposed GREAT RESET of humanity from living in a competitive and aggressive condition to BUILDING BACK BETTER to living in a cooperative and loving one that was free of that supposedly immensely divisive and wrong behaviour. And IDENTITY POLITICS developed where those suffering most from the great battle humanity has actually been waging to find understanding of the human condition could supposedly legitimately demand equity of recognition and material prosperity. There was no recognition of the human race’s great project to find the knowledge that would actually liberate us from our corrupted condition, and how involvement in that great project unavoidably created various states of upset and functionality, just Marxism’s dogmatic and deluded demand that everyone behave cooperatively and lovingly—such that, supposedly, as is being said by its advocates, ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.’ What an outrageously dishonest fraud! How can we possibly ‘be happy’ living without the psychologically redeeming, reconciling and healing understanding of our 2-million-year corrupted condition that our minds so desperately need and have so heroically sought. What deluded madness to claim that our world is being made better when in fact the human race is being taken headlong to terminal psychosis and extinction!
Terminal alienation and the extinction of the human race was upon us
The essential truth that we can now understand is that the source problem was the inability to confront the issue of the human condition and by so doing find the true instinct vs intellect rehabilitating understanding of it. Failure trapped by that inability, in sheer desperation because of all the unbearable levels of upset, a no-healing-understanding-for-our-2-million-year-psychologically-upset mind, totally artificially and ineffectively transformed world where humans supposedly live cooperatively and lovingly instead of competitively and aggressively was invented and tyrannically imposed.
The gloves were off now, the confidence of—and the sheer anger, aggression and fury underlying—the industry of denial and delusion was such that it was now prepared to go the whole hog and brazenly mimic the arrival of the human-condition-understood-and-reconciled true world that the human race has always dreamed of achieving, cruelling any chance of it actually arriving. The fact is, the postmodern, politically correct, critical theory culture, with its Critical Race and Gender Theories, Identity Politics, Wokeness, Cancel Culture and Great Reset agenda, represented the very height of dishonesty, the most sophisticated expression of denial and delusion to have developed on Earth. Terminal alienation was indeed upon us, an extinction of our species was just around the corner!
It has been utterly unbearable for us humans having to live without the redeeming explanation of our corrupted, soul-destroyed, Garden-of-Eden-state-of-original-innocence-devastated, human condition while we searched for that relieving understanding, all the time becoming more and more psychologically upset as the search went on. The great danger was always that eventually we would become so extremely upset/soul-corrupted that the feelings of unworthiness, shame and guilt would become so great that our minds would become fanatically attached to whatever artificial forms of relief we had been able to find and develop, no matter how dishonest, deluded and mad those forms of relief were. After many stages of progression that have been described in this essay/book, the human race has finally arrived at this extreme situation where artificial, do-‘good’-to-feel-good pseudo idealism, now in the form of the politically correct, dogmatic lunacy of the left-wing, is fanatically seeking to impose itself on the world. And it’s happening at the highest levels of society, in universities, schools, science, the judiciary, politics, medicine, the media, and the corporate world, especially in the monolithic technology companies. There is literally no sanity left, just psychological sickness and its desperate madness everywhere.
As I summarised in TI, the culture of the Left makes people superficially feel good but it is extremely dangerously dishonest. Being concerned for others and the world is very important, but doing that to make yourself feel good is a dangerously selfish sickness, indeed it’s the most destructive of all drug addictions—and it’s been taking over the world. Dogma is not the cure, it’s the poison.
Yes, it is a case of getting artificial feel-good relief from the unbearable guilt of the human condition at all costs, and it is at ‘all costs’ because it meant the human race was abandoning the all-important heroic search for knowledge and any chance of finding the understanding of the human condition that would actually end the agony of the human condition, which thankfully has arrived in the nick of time to save the world from this horrific death by dogma—as long as we can get this critical breakthrough understanding of the human condition supported before we are outrun by all the habituated denial and attachments to all the useless ways we are trying to save ourselves. So please support, help and join the World Transformation Movement that, often against ferocious resistance, is promoting the instinct vs intellect explanation of the human condition—the only thing that can end all the suffering and save humankind from extinction.
So, we can now fully understand from a basis of truthful, first principle biology how dangerous pseudo idealism has been, and appreciate the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s warnings that ‘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 oppression, especially from dogma] and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your pity but your bravery has saved the unfortunate up to now’ (Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and No One, 1892; tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1961, pp.61–75 of 343), and ‘There comes a time in a culture’s history when it becomes so pathologically soft that it takes the side of its worst enemy [dogma]…and calls it “progress”’ (common tr. of Beyond Good And Evil, 1886, sec. 201).
The science historian Jacob Bronowski gave a similar warning about not becoming ‘soft’ in his concluding statement to his 1973 television series and book of the same name, The Ascent of Man: ‘I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into – into what? Into…falsely profound questions about, Are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensory perception and mystery. They do not lie along the line of what we are now able to know if we devote ourselves to it: an understanding of man himself. We are nature’s unique experiment to make the rational intelligence prove itself sounder than the reflex [instinct]. Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at last bringing together the experience of the arts [that describe the human condition] and the explanations of science [that has to explain the human condition], waits ahead of us’ (p.437 of 448).
As Socrates famously said, ‘the only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance’ (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, c.225 AD), and ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ (Plato’s dialogue Apology, c.380 BC; tr. B. Jowett, 1871, 38)—but in the end a preference for ignorance and the associated need to oppress any examination of our lives, oppress any freedom to think truthfully, question and pursue knowledge, threatened to become the dominant attitude throughout the world. George Orwell’s bleak prediction in his famous 1949 book Nineteen Eighty-Four that ‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face [the human mind] – for ever’ was about to be realised.
Yes, as is described in chapter , the very great denial-free, truthful-thinking prophets Daniel and Christ were right to ruthlessly denounce pseudo idealism as ‘the abomination that causes desolation’! (Dan. 12:31 & Matt. 24:15). (It is true that religion itself is a form of pseudo idealism, of artificially imposing ideality on our corrupted condition, but, as I have explained, it was by far the least dishonest and deluded of the forms of pseudo idealism that developed after it.)
HOW PRECIOUS IS IT THEN THAT UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN CONDITION HAS BEEN FOUND AND THIS TERRIFYING IMMINENT PROSPECT OF THE DEATH-BY-DOGMA END OF THE HUMAN RACE CAN BE AVOIDED, AND THE REAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE HUMAN RACE FROM A SELF-PREOCCUPIED, SELFISH, HUMAN-CONDITION-STRICKEN STATE TO A CONCERNED-FOR-OTHERS, SELFLESS, HUMAN-CONDITION-UNDERSTOOD, PSYCHOLOGICALLY REHABILITATED STATE CAN FINALLY OCCUR?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
For further reading on the progression of increasingly guilt-stripped and thus ever more dishonest and thus ever more dangerous forms of pseudo idealism, read . And for the description of the real transformation of the human race from a human-condition-stricken state to a human-condition-free state, read or . And the next has a video of Jeremy emphasising both the danger of left-wing dogma and how this information represents the only way to save Western civilisation. Also, powerfully reinforces just how critical humanity’s situation is.
Discussion or comment on this essay is welcomed—see below.