I’m interested to know if others find it hard to have a sensible discussion about politics. I’m discovering that unless I determinedly hold my ground and take the time to explain that the left and right wings of politics, just like any other subject, can only be reconciled through understanding the human condition, it’s impossible to get anywhere. Many of my family and friends are left wing and I want to help them see how misguided some of their arguments are, but it seems futile. They just will not accept the fact that despite their politically correct views the suffering on planet earth continues to rise to terminal level and that left-wing dishonesty is the big problem. Reading chapter 8 of FREEDOM is such a relief but as Jeremy says, pseudo idealism has almost everyone intimidated, bluffed or seduced. So much so that you are shouted down if you disagree. You’ve got to be made of tough stuff to hold your ground and remain balanced and compassionate, but thank God Jeremy has explained it all. Chapter 8 is a godsend.
As someone who saw through the inherent dishonesty in left-wing politics a very long time ago (i’m in my late 50s now, and grew up during the 3-day week & miner’s strikes of the 70s & 80s in the UK) I appreciate the problem of being confronted by intransigence from those who follow left-wing ideology. It’s important to state that I don’t considdr myself right-wing – in fact, any-wing – I refute the whole political dichotomy.
The problem many people on the left have is that they view anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their mindset as either rabid right-wingers OR unthinking idiots – whereas precisely the opposite is true! But confrontation just puts their backs up. A strategy that can be adopted is to refute the left/right analysis of political discourse. That immediately raises their interest since they like to think of themselves as ‘intelligent’ and more capable than those on the right of ‘thinking outside the box’ – which the refutations of the false political dichotomy certainly is!
From that point, it depends on what you yourself have to say. One thing I would urge (in a different context) is to try and refrain from the “thank God” / “godsend” terminology. That’s in no way intended as criticism, simply that it feeds into the obsolescence of religious terminology! There’s obviously a lot more to be said on this topic, but hopefully that’ll help the discussion move forward.
“Life and its concepts are just perceptions you have yours, I have mine.
SteveM, I totally agree with your description of the reaction from left wingers to any dissent. And your strategy in refuting the whole dichotomy is clever. Jeremy likes to quote the journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft who wrote, ‘the great twin political problems of the age are the brutality of the right, and the dishonesty of the left’. But then Jeremy goes on to explain that of the two, it was really the dishonesty of the left that posed the gravest threat because it could shut down the search for knowledge.
Chapter 3:9 of FREEDOM, ‘The End of Politics’ is really concise, and explains why there have been the poles, and why they are now redundant.
It’s even more difficult now in the political haze we are in and with Trump such a madman, but at least a madman that won’t condone Political Correctness. I’ve found this such a difficult arena that I’ve come to avoid all religious discussion, which is cowardice of me… and lazy. It’s just that in order to explain the necessity of the ‘Right’ properly you really need to explain Griffith’s ‘Stork Analogy’ or at least the emergence of consciousness and the resulting insecure state of the human condition (I find ‘The Stork’ helps)… does anyone get there without going into it all? Is it pathetic to just say ‘It’s a huge topic, neither side of politics is dealing with the real issue which is the human condiiton, and so while I lean to the Right, because the Left is drenched in Political Correctness that will stall humanity, in fact bury humanity, there’s no point in discussing minutia of Crazy Donald or Asylum Seekers or Terrorism before we deal the greater problem underpinning them all, so go and check out http://www.humancondition.com‘ !!?????
Since I was a child, I was taught to imitate Jesus son of Joseph. Then around age 7, I added Abraham Lincoln as one to emulate. Therefore, I have always been a Left-Wing progressive/liberal like Jesus and Lincoln. I worship GOD/the Truth and seek it out every way every day.
Donald Trump 666 (when A=49, B50…) is the current Antichrist: his actions are the exact opposite of the Christ. He has no relationship with GOD/the Truth; he’s a compulsive/pathological liar. Trump is extremely greedy and extremely boastful. He’s very prejudice and misogynistic. He’s very nationalistic and militaristic. Trump wants to torture those combatants who haven’t been through the judicial process.
Donald Trump and is Administation are evil. WARNING! If you support him, repent while you still can.
Brad, I’m not sure how much you have delved into the biological work contained on this website, but if it’s of any help to you, there are plenty of great videos on here that will inform you about the great scientific breakthrough that has occured for the first time in human history…
There is no religious belief system here, because analysis into the human condition is concerned with a scientific understanding of ourselves…however there are references to religious writing in the context of demystifying religion…and how the role of religion has been fulfilled by science and now obsoleted. I respect the roles of all religions.
For me, the purpose of scientific rational minds is to search for knowledge, dissolve insecurities caused by ignorance, improve understanding of ourselves and our environment…demystify mythology and religion…manage our lives on this planet…
To clarify, It doesn’t mean that I don’t experience feelings of holistic rejoicing, in fact I feel them quite deeply because i can now UNDERSTAND the biological reason why humanity had to suffer from the Human Condition…and through that I can realise how the suffering can finally end for good. That realisation in itself is so immensely exciting and relieving it is physically unsustainable!!!
Back on the topic of refuting left-wing-politics, I just look at the behaviour being fostered. The right encouraged ‘freedom of expression’ persona, quite brutal at times, the left encouraged a persona of ‘victims who got easily offended’. Both sides were necessary, but both are obsolete…
Ah the Trump phenomena. I think if the WTM can convince people that Trump is not such a bad thing, then they will have achieved the almost impossible. I did read the little book Transform Your Life, and it has a good section on how what we thought was good turns out to be bad, and what we thought was bad turns out to be good. Thats oversimplifying it, but it really is a very elegant argument that Griffiths makes. And pretty easy to understand in my opinion. Umm, that section about the tables being turned was on page 48 of my hardcopy, which, if my computer skills are up to it, you can read here. https://www.humancondition.com/transform-your-life-and-save-the-world-part-2/
Really interesting and relevant thread. I totally agree with the introductory comments from Carlos and SteveM. It is practically impossible to even start a rational, constructive discussion around the merits and limitations of the left and right wing. Nomad mentioned above a quote that I have really latched on to “the brutality of the right and the dishonesty of the left”.
I often find that when saying something to a person who is supportive of the left wing, that might indicate I am sympathetic or supportive of a right wing view, that person will quickly stereotype my whole outlook and jump to conclusions about the arguments I will raise and mobilise to pre-empt them. The prospect of a rational discussion is over before it starts. At a deeper level they have had an emotional reaction and are no longer actually listening to what you have got to say.
It got me thinking along the lines of the following. The explanation of the HC put forward by the WTM allows the right wing to be framed in a totally novel, and in my view really intriguing way. For example, there is honesty and secure acknowledgement of the corruption, upset, inequality etc rather than denial of the seemingly non-ideal state of the right wing. Moreover the defence of the right wing is not just based on blunt dogmatic assertions, prejudices or lies such as competition is the meaning of human existence but something a lot more profound. This got me thinking that perhaps next time I am in this situation I am going to try and quickly get some propositions on the table, even if they are bit out context, that clearly arrest the stereotype the person is racing to apply. I might say something like: “Talking about politics, left and right wing can be a very emotive topic and it is easy for assumptions to be made about another person’s view point. So you know where I am coming from, these are five fundamental propositions that I hold true:
1.Tremendous selfishness, corruption, inequality, prejudice, brutality has accompanied the right wing.
2.The suggestion that competition, the survival of the fittest, is the meaning of life has been a lie (albeit a necessary one).
3.Our true and deeper nature is to be cooperative, loving and selfless.
4.The right wing political view point and the corruption that has gone with it is not an end in itself, rather it has been a means to an end. That end being to find self-knowledge and explanation of our corrupted human condition.
5.That end has now been realised, explanation of the human condition has been achieved and so now left and right wing can be reconciled and will ultimately be obsolete.”
The idea is that these are a series of propositions that cut across and to an extent nullify a few of the standard arguments a left wing person is likely to mount. Get in early and fundamentally differentiate the context in which we are talking about the right wing as being very, very different from the traditional view. Pique the person’s interest and engender a preparedness to slow down and listen by demonstrating the novel, intriguing context being put forward. In particular, that the right wing and its brutality has not been and end in itself rather it was a means to an end. That is, the right wing is a political frame of reference that maintained the freedom to defy the ideals to the search for knowledge notwithstanding the accompanying upset, and now that end has been realised. Embedded in this message is the central paradox that is beautifully deciphered in WTM explanation that just as humans are good when they appeared to be bad, the right wing frame of reference facilitated the path to authentic equality, selflessness etc – ironically everything the left wing proclaims to want – when the right wing appeared to be the antithesis of achieving this. I think that concept rocks you deep down even if you don’t consciously realise it at the time. I will give it a go and let you know the results.
I don’t really see why the right is seen as more HC driven than the left and why anyone wants to “put up” with massive military spending, no health care, winner take all attitudes. At least the left wants democracy and equality of opportunity. Neither the right or left will find the HC. Jeremy already did. Are people saying right wingers are more likely to accept the HC? As someone said with the HC we dont need right or left.
so what I’ve taken from Freedom, is that whilst right wing behavior and thinking has been destructive, it was the necessary self corrupting search for knowledge that humanity HAD to continue to pursue, for until we could explain WHY we were lovable and fundamentally good the human condition could never be resolved. In other terms, as written in freedom, we had to “march into hell for a heavenly cause”. As for left wing behavior and thinking, it was a fake form of idealism. Left wingers believed they actually were behaving ideally and that they themselves were no longer upset, which was a double layer of delusion. More so in no longer thinking they were upset, they were no longer carrying out the necessary search for understanding, because they no longer believed there was anything wrong with them, this behavior was essentially withdrawing from the Necessary search for understanding that humanity NEEDED to free themselves from the human condition, and in essence was sending the race straight toward terminal levels of alienation. Now, while the right wingers became quite destructive and angry, at least they knew they were un ideal because all the evidence suggested so, so they werent deluding themselves that they arent angry, egocentric and upset by taking up a fake form of idealism, which was necessary for man to continue searching for answers.
However now that the answers HAVE been found, both sides are obsoleted and can now be reconciled. Both strategies were simply coping mechanisms under the duress of the human condition, and both can be COMPASSIONATELY understood and defended, evident throughout Jeremy griffiths books, essays and videos.
hope this helps clarify a bit :)
Right you are Dave about not needing the right or left anymore. I have just re-read chapter 3:9 The End of Politics in Jeremy’s book Freedom – only a couple of pages but that cuts through all the confusion like nothing else!
I find iit only assumption to suggest those who follow what ever where not happy.
Iv said it before you can’t fly with only one wing tho.
And still I fail to see also how this left wing of yours did not want knowledge?
Didn’t they demand much to be studied?
In suggesting they are lying about there happiness because they did not know what this book suggests? Or perhaps when someone actually cares about people around them that is because they are already enlightened ? I’d not stop the buck on this . No one ever stops learning or reaching for knowledge and I’d suggest anyone who says they know it all may just be suffering the deft effect.
I had a similar reaction the first time I had heard about Jeremy griffith’s views which delve very deep into the behaviors we exhibit daily. For me, the more I read “Freedom”, the more i realised everything is completely verifiable, fully accountable an indeed logical. I’m not sure how far you have ventured into Jeremy’s work, but if you havent yet finished his latest book “Freedom” which is free to download off the website, that would be a great starting place, otherwise the various videos on the website are also great. It definitely takes time, but the more you try to understand what it is Jeremy is talking about, the more clear and amazingly obvious these insights become, providing such an incredible clarity to human behavior one is overcome with relief and indeed excitement.
this email/essay may also interest you:
all the best :)
Oh I totally understand the logic behind it.
But even he has not yet fully finished learning about this.
My reason for believing this, (even tho I’m only on chapter 6)
Is he’s basically said every conclusion I’d already had about many things. He’s not the only one to study the human condition you know.
And feeling comfortable about why some people are twisted… ok all people, is imperative to our future well being.
I don’t think leftism was trying to convince people to go against the grain as such, I believe it was a call to those already there lol
As feminism is… you do have to go to absolute ridiculous extremes first before things smooth out, that’s just how it is, it’s many voices screaming loudly to be heard, but once they have finished the caterwauling things do slowly pan out, it’s hard wanting immediate change and I guess this book could be a way to try speed things up. But you really can’t. I don’t agree with either right or left I do not like the ridiculousness of feminism and but I understand there important part of moving past it to.
If you pay attention to the world around us you can notice the small changes naturally occurring.
I believe the way this has all been portrayed is just a tiny bit more complex and difficult to digest for the average human being tho.
There will be a time where we must negotiate those who are part of the grand battle, the warning is.
Learning the truth can make some people go mad.
Not all is as it appears 😉
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by tarnz.
Hi all, great topic and thread. I have learnt on this journey called life that i only get answers to my questions when i am really ready to receive them, meaning i may learn something new about myself or the world around me, but it will be x amount of time before the lightbulb moment when i actually understand what i am learning. One of my most recent discoveries has been to do with dealing with people in regard to Freedom and how it can change peoples lives. I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the population want to be told what they should do, which means that those who can see the HC for what it is will actually lead others towards the light of sunshine. Im not saying that anyone is better than anyone else, the only life i have lived is mine, so i cant judge others for not leaving the security of their comfort zone. The relevance to this thread is that most people dont even realise why they lean the way they do on the political divide and i think the reality is that most people you try and discuss the WTM with will find it all too hard, . But every now and then someone will see the significance of the shift that is occuring, and people in their cirlce of influence will start to take notice. I think i am starting to repeat myself so will stop there and hopefully i have conveyed what i wanted to share.
You are obviously one of the lucky people on the Earth that can hear this information more easily rob@learninglife14 and I agree that those of us who do understand the great significance of this explanation of the human condition do have a responsibility if you like, to help those that aren’t able to as easily, as you beautifully say ‘to lead others towards the light of sunshine’. The denial that most of humanity suffers from is incredibly deep on the whole subject of the human condition, including I agree being able to even realise why they politically lean the way they do as you point out. I love Freedom Essay 15, ‘The difficulty of reading FREEDOM that Plato predicted’ (https://www.humancondition.com/freedom-essays/the-difficulty-of-reading-freedom/) as it discusses this all-important issue of denial and the deaf effect and how possible it is for all humanity to penetrate through it, and I do find Brian Carlton’s interview that is quoted at the end particularly inspiring as a living example of that. You are so right rob@learninglife14 that every now and then someone will see the significance of this extraordinary breakthrough, and that’s how all new ideas begin, slowly slowly gaining more and more support, like all the amazing WTM Centres that are opening up around the world. One day all those efforts will result in a landslide of people being able to hear this and bring this new world into being on a mass scale. I’m so with you in support and encouragement of every single effort, small or big, that you are making, they are so incredibly precious and inspire me to do the same.
I have just Recently become aware of this concept of the “human condition” other than through a religious experience in which it was called “SIN” which has not been gratifying at all. No solution after thousands of years of scare tactics that have only made it worse if anything.
I have only read a few chapters but I have gotten the impression so far that Jeremy, or the
concept, is saying that pre consciousness or our “instinctual” being was more peaceful and harmonious than we are and that that was desirable. That looks like Automatons to me without even a concept of freedom and certainly NO ability to choose? “Predestination/preprogrammed”
Not a condition I would like to live under of course, but if ignorant of the concept of life, Freedom and choice, wouldn’t even be a problem.
Therefore the acquisition of consciousness would be the means to becoming a REAL LIVING Being based on a real life experience so we could understand “Life and the possibility of death”
Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
Yes Jay I agree generally with what you are saying. From Jeremy’s books I now understand that prior to consciousness emerging in humans we were instinctively-driven, like other animals are. And our particular instincts are to be cooperative and loving. Our instincts are our gene-based learning system.
Consciousness emerged in humans from our nerve-based learning system. This FAQ from the WTM’s website is very helpful on what consciousness is, to quote one paragraph (https://www.humancondition.com/wtm-faq-what-is-consciousness/): “Nerves were originally developed for the coordination of movement in animals, but, once developed, their ability to store impressions — what we refer to as ‘memory’ — gave rise to the potential to develop understanding of cause and effect. If you can remember past events, you can compare them with current events and identify regularly occurring experiences. This knowledge of, or insight into, what has commonly occurred in the past enables you to predict what is likely to happen in the future and to adjust your behaviour accordingly. Once insights into the nature of change are put into effect, the self-modified behaviour starts to provide feedback, refining the insights further. Predictions are compared with outcomes and so on. Much developed, nerves can sufficiently associate information to reason how experiences are related, learn to understand and become conscious of, or aware of, or intelligent about, the relationship between events that occur through time. Thus consciousness means being sufficiently aware of how experiences are related to attempt to manage change from a basis of understanding.”
Once consciousness emerged 2 million years ago, our instinctive and intellectual/conscious selves were in conflict and the human condition resulted, and in regard to that this FAQ I find helpful: https://www.humancondition.com/wtm-faq-what-is-the-explanation-of-the-human-condition/. Also this new Freedom essay is very powerful and recommended, it is titled “The ‘instinct vs intellect’ is the obvious and real explanation of our condition, as all these great thinkers evidence”, https://www.humancondition.com/freedom-essays/the-instinct-vs-intellect-explanation-is-obvious-short/
Once the human condition resulted we/humanity became psychologically upset, or ‘sinful’ to use religious terminology as you say, but now the human condition is explained and solved, we can understand the necessary and in fact heroic reason for why we became upset in the first place. Understanding this does redeem our species and does lead to a lasting transformation, it really is absolutely amazing! I applaud you for asking these questions Jay and working the explanation through quietly, what I have seen is that these ideas are actually very simple but we live in such fear of the human condition that the ‘deaf effect’ the WTM talk about is very real and it takes time to really hear what is being presented. I certainly had to work through the deaf effect in myself. Sorry to add another link, but this is another new essay which is very insightful on this too, https://www.humancondition.com/freedom-essays/the-difficulty-of-reading-freedom/.
I guess I would be considered left wing, although I am more anti-authoritarian and against existing power structures. Left or right wing, I don’t have much use for them, nor would I consider them right or left wing. Because of negative association both left and right labels have garnished, I prefer to not place myself on spectrum. My main philosophical influences have tended to be considered left wing though and I guess if someone considers me left wing they realize it is due to my values, beliefs and ideals, I am not ‘left-wing’ by default. Although, I would never allow myself to be labeled right wing. I find compassion and empathy, cooperation and acceptance, equality (in the way that we are human first before any concept of worth or value can come into play) primarily left-wing values. Although, I have had people say to me, they see that on the right and hypocrisy on the left where I see that on the right. Although I think it is more of a human thing, and that whether someone is right or left wing comes down more to our experiences.
I welcome open minded, intelligent and civil discussion with anyone who has different political beliefs as myself.
I am curious, is WTM a right wing movement? Neither right nor left wing? involved in religion/mysticism? I have just start reading Freedom: The End of the Human Condition. I just have come across some statements that seem to condemn someone who may be associated with the left. I think that would be disappointing because what attracted me to this book was a feeling of inclusiveness.
I have long considered the human condition and believe to progress as a species requires healing, requires a transcendence above left-right wing politics, transcendence past capitalism (which could work as a simple abstraction unfortunately many including rich and knowledgeable capitalists are not that great with abstract concepts and I think that is a big flaw with capitalism) a transcendence past the mental concepts that hold us back in how we consider worth and value especially in terms of humanity and our conceptions, our perceptions of status and power.
I am looking forward to speaking with some people with good heads on their shoulders, I will continue reading the book and following the sight open minded as well.
Some content I have come across so far I have come to similar considerations and conclusions myself, so I curious at what point I very from other people. I think those make the most important and informative conversations. The timing I believe is most critical at that time for varied discussion before people go out and have more varied and biased experiences that make discussions where people are on the same page so to speak more difficult.
I disagree much with any criticism of the language or structure accept as I said the feeling of rejection for what I consider a difference of experience and perception. I myself am long winded. Some find me very well articulated, where others simply cannot understand my use of wording and I make little sense to them. For that reason, I already identify with the author.
I was taken to this post through my search of whether WTM was right political movement and the title of the post makes me curious, so although I sound off topic or not of interest, I am where I intend to be.
- This reply was modified 11 months ago by j-eh-red. Reason: I jump gun a lot before correcting spelling or grammar
In my experience this biological explanation reconciles all the poles of life including the right and left wing in the most rational, logical and actually beautiful way j-eh-red. You might not be up to this bit yet but in Freedom, para 1136, it says ‘Thus, with the arrival of understanding of the human condition, the concept of ‘politics’ comes to an end, which will undoubtedly be of great relief to everyone.’ The Freedom essay I think you will get a lot out of is Freedom essay 34, https://www.humancondition.com/freedom-essays/understanding-human-condition-brings-end-to-politics/ and I’ve quoted a key bit below.
Jeremy explains that to be able to move on from the horrors of the human condition we have to get the full truth up and altho it is confronting and shocking at times as we come out of the necessary fierce denial we have employed while there were no answers, it really is incredibly liberating and exciting. And that includes getting the truth up about the whole area of the left and right wing, the explanation of which has been astonishing for me. I very much sympathised with the left wing before reading Jeremy Griffith’s work, and it wasn’t easy for me to initially hear what exactly is wrong with it as it is seemingly so idealistic and ‘good’. Nor why the right wing were actually the more idealistic, to quote Jeremy in essay34, ‘paradoxically, it was the right-wing in politics that actually held the moral high ground’. Paradoxically alright! The human condition is not what it appears and I see it all so clearly now that I have taken the time to absorb the information fully. Jeremy does explain that at it’s core the left-wing or pseudo idealism does very much advocate giving up the search for knowledge and this argument is evidenced very thoroughly in Freedom essays 34 and also 35 and 36. And I understand further than that now as Jeremy points out in those essays the dogma of the left wing is actually extremely dangerous for humanity now. Those essays are very important reads and I can’t recommend them highly enough. This understanding is not a condemnation of either side or any individual or race, rather it defends humanity to it’s core and opens up a whole new free and transformed paradigm for us all, but it does necessarily have to get the hard truths up first otherwise we can’t move on from them! Hope you keep reading and absorbing it all j-eh-red, it will never disappoint you.
This paragraph at the end of Freedom essay 34 is a fabulous summary of the left and right wings and the end-of-politics ‘know-wing’ era we now move on to: ‘As summarised in paragraph 1136 of FREEDOM, the final irony of the saga of humanity’s great journey from ignorance to enlightenment is that the ideal world that the left-wing was dogmatically demanding is actually brought about by the right-wing winning its reality-defending, freedom-from-idealism, corrupting-search-for-knowledge battle against the freedom-oppressing pseudo idealistic dogma of the left-wing. Yes, with the freedom-from-dogma right-wing’s search for understanding of the human condition completed, the justification for the egocentric power-fame-fortune-and-glory-seeking way of life espoused by the right-wing ends, replaced by the ideal-behaviour-obeying attitude that the left-wing sought. In this sense, when the right-wing wins we all become left-wing; through the success of the philosophy of the right-wing, we all adopt the philosophy of the left-wing — but, most significantly, this time we are not abandoning an ongoing battle, we are leaving it won.’
Thanks for replying.
I would say, my first impression, that makes me wary is that I have been approached by a few other ‘truth seeking’ organizations and they keep turning out to be dogmatic in the least 100% believing in a higher power. That is so foreign to me, it feels like going backward because the word ‘higher’ has many connotations that I am not wouldn’t necessarily associate with an unknown . I don’t reject notion of a higher power, but what I would say is that I believe more in an outside force. That could be space debris from a clasping star or it could be an intelligent other dimensional being but I feel it is unknown and not understood to me at this time. So, I won’t involve myself with those groups that I believe have a fundamental flaw. I am aware I may have a different fundamental flaw. Which is another thing I don’t understand at this time. I do not wish to close myself of to someones specific philosophy or vision because I think trying to temporarily see things through their lens is necessary to deepen and expand my and/or others insight and understanding.
As far as right-left. I understand people’s rejections of Dogmatism. It is something that has kind of kept me from being involved, kind of a feeling of rejection that dogmatic behavior does not accept. I was initially attracted to Abraham Lincoln (I was not indoctrinated in American Education System as I am French Canadian) some Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson which I believe at the time would have been considered republican. I have always seen Plato as a model for many ideals. Except that from what I was taught he would not have been a proponent of democracy. However I am a proponent of democracy but I think it requires a commitment to seeking further knowledge and awareness for those who participate in the democratic system. However, I would long for a kind of ‘post democratic’ time, where democracy as many would see it would become obsolete.
The thing about right-wing when people used that term so often, I suppose it has become associated with conservatism, tradition and especially in North America Christianity and religious fundamentalism which in itself is very dogmatic. I don’t reject tradition, but I have always believed it is something to be questioned and analyzed. In my personal experiences it has been people who identify with right wing idealism that reject questioning and analysis of their dogma and traditions. It has always been people in my life who had traditional left-wing leanings that have been exploration and embraced science, where those that have been so attached to tradition have loudly rejected science and scientific method which I find grossly misunderstood by most who would reject it.
Traditional and absolute belief in lifestyle, gender roles, morals do not seem absolute to me and that they follow adaptations to environmental changes which are far from being static therefore I’d expect them to change, and expect they would have over long periods of time, somewhat always changed. Genes that at this time are typically concentrated in males can easily conceivably naturally become spread among males and females. Yet I do not believe in an enforced change or a enforced sticking of position. As if everything has been pre-determined and absolute which is a conclusion I have never been comfortable with. I do try to understand the belief, and see a possible strength in it, but I also see weakness, which is why I feel analysis and understanding is important rather than attachment to dogma.
I have since read more and find things still very much in-line with much of my outlook, including your response. So far I am on Chapter 2. In the past I have found acceptance even in disagreement with people who identify as left wing and what I meant to convey more is that I wish more people would get past pitting one side against the other or believing one side or the other has moral high ground. Not allowing myself to be labeled right wing (realistically I cannot control that) to me means rather only accepting to be recognized as neither right nor left.
Thanks again for an informative response, I am feeling like insight in this book will help me to re-concilliate some mental conflicts I am aware I have.
Rest assured Jared the WTM is a 100% knowledge driven set up as Jeremy often says in his writing it’s about giving us our power back as conscious humans that need brain food not the brain anaesthetic that we’re currently being told is good for us. This is such a game-changer that it takes us beyond left and right to actual – fundamental – reconciliation and you’ll discover that the more you digest it.
I feel the left vs right political argument is a dichotomy that keeps us stuck in the human condition.
One aspect is like matriarchal and the other patriarchal.
One extreme fearcefully vertically competitive to align and the other fearcefully horizontally structured to align to step out of this neurosis paradigm is to see the neurotic need of both sides that feel the need to control percieved threat,to feel safe so loved or better still to avoid feeling unloved.
Mate I reckon you should read one of those articles on politics on the main website. Politics drives me crazy too fair dinkum but one of those articles really did help me, made sense of all the stuff those polies go on and on with and even brings politics to an end. I tell you Il’l drink to that! i’ll try and find it for you.
What a great thread. Many of us tend to use the terms right and left fairly loosely these days without actually knowing what they mean. The problem in Australia is that neither the Labor nor the Liberal party are true to their ideals.
Anyway, moving on here is my 2c worth.
The problem with today’s left, in particular the extreme left, is that it has no boundaries. It can go as far left or ultra left and there is no definition or limitation of it. Whereas with the far right, you are extremist, fascist, nationalist etc. it is in part defined.
The reason we have to stand up to the far left, is because it stops rational thought on the premise of being kind and compassionate.
For example, don’t call me short because even though I am short, I don’t like being called short. The far left’s response to this is – let’s not think about why that person, who is short, doesn’t like to be called short, but let’s legislate so that nobody calls him short again.
Whereas the sensible approach, is to explain to that person (and every other person), why being short is biologically and scientifically OK, why it is not bad and in fact why it was necessary for us as a species to survive. I.e. it is not derogatory.
The approach of the far left, whilst on the surface appears noble, kind and compassionate, actually explains nothing and stops enquiry.
In other words, stop being human, don’t think, don’t analyse, don’t discuss and don’t offer an opinion because you might offend some poor soul.
It’s understandable because as we know, we have become extremely fragile and that fragility is the result of – LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF OURSELVES!!!
THERE IS NOTHING MORE COMPASSIONATE TO A HUMAN BEING THAN OFFERING AN OPPORTUNITY AND EXPLANATION OF UNDERSTANDING.
This is the only cure.
How about this for a solution?
Why a maximum/minimum earnings ratio needs to be imposed over the top of free market economics.
In order to shift humanity, away from the ruthless profit motive, towards a values and standards motive. This would improve the quality of produce, raise the ethical standards of production and reduce the absurd environmental harm of cheap nasty tat consumerism.
The core problem with the free market is the average consumer is constantly forced into making bad choices in the market place, which degrades the quality of produce and creates dubious production ethics.
Why is the average consumer always “voting” for the cheapest option?
Because they are force feed this delusional dream that they can become millionaires if they just work a little harder! And the extravagant wealth they see at the top demoralises them to the point where they buy any cheap bit of tat just to make themselves feel a little richer.
So if you redistribute wealth via the max/min earnings ratio you provide the workers with the relative wages that allow them to make better choices in the market place and you also force the entrepreneur to invest excess profits back into the business and the market will demand that investment goes towards quality and ethical produce.
Now here you may say “but consumers will continue to demand cheap tat” All I can say in response is that either; you have to believe in humanity or you herd them like sheep.
And of course a maximum earnings limit would massively decrease the value of some capital assets.
But surely that is just the true value of that asset? All capital assets are a massive liability in reality but to constantly prop up the value of big business by robbing the average worker of the collective wealth created via the cooperation between workers and entrepreneurs is destroying society and that is why we keep having anti-establishment votes like the EU referendum.
Maybe a little Nationalisation would be required for some core industry but for everything else the market place would be shaped by the average consumers desire to achieve the achievable. I truly believe humanity is capable of creating heaven on earth through their democratic decisions in the free-market place if we prevent the super wealthy from feeding us all a false dream, and provide the workers with the spending power to become enlightened consumers.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke about Karl Marx: “The business sector can only get more out of the circulation if the household sector throws more in, that is, if the household sector deficit-spends/dissaves. This is what the most elementary version of the Profit Law says, i.e. Q=−S. The logical minimum condition of deficit spending is a banking system that creates money and lends it to the households.
So, profit does NOT come from exploitation but, in the most elementary case, from the growth of the household sector’s debt. And this, in turn, means that Capitalism does not end with a revolution of the exploited workers but as soon as the growth of private and public debt ends.”
Source: Egmont Kakarot-Handtke: “Dear idiots, Marx got profit and exploitation wrong”; http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/02/dear-idiots-marx-got-profit-and.html
Note that Kakraot-Handtke’s methodology (axiomatic-deductive) is opposed to Jeremy Griffith’s inductive approach; however, it seems to me, these two thinkers are politically compatible. I’ve seen Griffith praise austerity elsewhere. Reckless deficit-spending, by household’s and states alike must stop, because it is selfish and it CREATES the social INEQUALITY the political left cluelessly complains about.
Kakarot: “The macroeconomic Profit Law entails Public Deficit = Private Profit. Because of this, the one-percenters and their useful academic/journalistic spokespersons should consistently argue FOR deficit spending and the ninety-nine-percenters and their academic/journalistic spokespersons should consistently argue AGAINST it. Curiously, it’s just the reverse.” (Source: http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/05/links-on-austerity.html)
P.S: I’ve only talked about the problems of the left, which doesn’t imply the left doesn’t do anything right (no pun intended) – minimum wages, for instance, are a good idea.
Profit doesn’t come from Debt! Profit comes from Producing an excess that can be traded for somebody else’s excess. e.g. if one caveman produces more arrow heads than he needs then he can trade his arrow heads with another caveman who has gathered an excess of wild berries. Debt or money lending is just a way to enslave the impatient. Lending money to make interest is just a service, like hiring tools or equipment.
Debt as an abstraction can be considered a commodity that is traded and sold so profit can come from dept. Cavemen didn’t use sophisticated tracking of transactions or keep record of negative balances, “I owe you”s etc.
But to be able to trade a commodity you first have to produce that commodity. So money lending can only occur when an excess of a produced commodity is exchanged for a recognised iou note (i.e cash as savings) Money lending is nothing without savings to back it up. And savings are nothing without recognised iou notes. And iou notes are totally dependant upon producing an excess and trade.
In a honest world possibly. To trade a commodity, you do not have to produce it, just someone has to produce it. Actually, someone doesn’t have to produce it, others only have to be convinced of it’s existence or probability that it will exist.
I think the tone of Freedom leans more strongly towards refuting the left than the right and this is a mistake. I don’t agree that the left abandons the search for knowledge. This is a great over-generalisation. Also the right-wing brutality that Jeremy mentions is also oppressive as it refutes the individual search for knowledge unless they adhere to quite dogmatic rules.
I think Jeremy should almost leave politics out of the equation full stop, as it generates resistance from readers of his work. He should instead start with explanations of dogma, which he correctly states as dangerous, and also the abuse of power in the search for knowledge. I think it will help people to then come to their own conclusions.
Hey Marty. You’re probably right. It is an over generalisation.
Jeremy’s reference to the left will generate some resistance from those on the left who are severely resigned. But if that’s the liberating truth, i.e. that the left is more dangerous than the right, until the end game – then so be it.
The truth is the truth and when we’re confronted with it, and we don’t like what it says – we fight back.
I was very confronted with the battle between the sexes and the ‘all forms of sex are abuse’ of the innocence of woman part of the information. But then you scratch a little deeper and realise that even that was a necessary sacrifice and step in the process to survive and make it to this day.
All woman are heroes. All men are heroes.
At the end of the day, the explanation of our condition means that our future is one without a left or right side of politics.
Every human will be equal. Our torment and search will be over. We will be free from the guilt. Loved and nurtured and so the new world begins.
No more left and right. Just the truth.
I would agree that the tone of Freedom leaning towards refuting the left is a mistake. I would suggest that the idea that those who vote for the left being pseudo-idealistic and abandoning the search for knowledge is a gross mischaracterisation of many people’s intentions. Moreover, it is absolutely incorrect to suggest that people voting for the left are giving up the search for knowledge since they are taking a stand against certain issues such as environmental destruction, discrimination etc. which by definition requires searching for knowledge to come to that position.
I can see where you are coming from, but as Jeremy explains, focusing on symptoms such as the environment, discrimination etc. and suggesting that dogma (which both the left and right right employ) was the solution to solving these issues, was fundamentally delusional and irresponsible, because the battle to find understanding had yet to be won. Humans have become so upset over the past 2 million years that relief has been necessary from our currently heroic but corrupted psychosis driven condition, and so it follows that inevitably humans were going to resort to extreme forms of pseudo idealism (far left wing ideology) and extreme forms of destruction/oppression (far right wing ideology).
Focusing specifically on the left in the case of your post, focusing all our energy on the symptoms of the human condition rather than the cause, and suggesting it was the way to repairing and building a new world, as the left do, was a now understandable, but extremely delusional state, by focusing on the symptoms of the issue and “feeling good” about “doing good”, one could gain relief from their upset and thus delude themselves that they were actually no longer upset nor contributing to the issue of the human condition, however only UNDERSTANDING of our situation was ever truly going to relieve the guilt.
For me both left and right are completely obsoleted now, because Jeremy’s explanation of the human condition presented in freedom, the essays and videos over the website, defend both sides and makes sense why both were necessary, but now fundamentally only understanding is going to resolve these catastrophic issues from ruining our planet. The test of time demonstrates that Politics has been around since the Ancient times, and has yet to solve our issues, in fact the situation world wide has only gotten worse. I really encourage you to read or re-read freedom, the essays and/or video content, patiently, and perhaps something that helped me was not necessarily watching from my own eyes but approaching it as though the earth has a very real problem and I am trying to find the solution, and then delving into Jeremy’s words, patiently and applying it to every situation in the world. From my personal experience, it didn’t fail to explain a single thing, and if I thought it did, I just wasn’t looking hard enough at the time.
Here are some essay recommendations if you haven’t read them already:
I’ve long been disillusioned with politics. I make the effort to go and vote but then spoil the ballot paper. Even when I could muster an interest in politics, many years ago, I was definitely left-leaning. However, some right-wing rhetoric struck me today, that perhaps only has a vague connection to Freedom, but I thought I’d share it anyway.
In the UK a new Prime Minister will take office tomorrow having today been voted by Conservative Party members to be their leader. In acknowledging his victory in the leadership campaign, he said this:
“if you look at the history of the last 200 years of this party’s existence, you will see that it is we conservatives who have had the best insights, I think, into human nature, and the best insights into how to manage the jostling sets of instincts in the human heart. And time and again, it is to us that the people of this country have turned to get that balance right, between the instincts to own your own home to earn and spend your own money, to look after your own family. Good instincts. Proper instincts. Noble instincts. And the equally noble instinct to share and to give everyone a fair chance in life. And to look after the poorest and the neediest, and to build a great society. And on the whole of the last 200 years, it is we conservatives who have understood best how to encourage those instincts to work together in harmony to promote the good of the whole country.”
Now, having put my sick bucket down long enough to continue typing, I’ve realised it’s the first time I can recall any politician talking in these terms, with passing similarities to Jeremy’s perspective on the right-wing. It almost makes me hopeful that the new Prime Minister had read Freedom, although that’s very, very, very unlikely. Oh well, I can dream…
Lol, I feel the same. I can see now why you picked up on that but I would never consider Boris a denial-free thinker unfortunately.
Reading through the analysis of politics in more depth now and I believe that Jeremy’s message on politics won’t get through because of the generalizations he makes.
Firstly I don’t think you can say the left oppresses the search for knowledge. I understand completely what he says about dogma on the left, but you must take into account that Marx also emphasizes the search for knowledge. Marx’s mistake, as Jeremy rightly points out, was the imposition of dogma to achieve the left’s goals. However he also wrote about alienation from knowledge in great detail, and especially how capitalism causes that. So while his method wasn’t right, his insights were, and he also predicted a time without politics when man would be enlightened, creative and free. The right however, whilst it is true that they search for knowledge, they limit this search to an exclusive group and many of them are trapped in the psychological block of achieving power. You can see this is in politics of today, where they oppress scientific knowledge, such as climate change, because it oppresses their status. The science on the climate is exceptionally accurate now, yet Governments do not/can not do much about it while their hands are tied by those who hold considerable influence over them. Those I refer to are certainly not the left.
I would also say that this links to religion. Religions are also searching for the same thing as everyone else but they impose dogmatic methods to do so. It is about suppression of the savage-instincts theory, which in my view is just as dangerous. There are many many messed-up religious people who suppress the necessary psychological stages people need to go through to achieve enlightenment. You only have to read “Dark Night Of The Soul” to understand this. Therefore religion can be grouped with both the left and right as being dangerous. It is ALL about the method of getting to enlightenment and if we follow Jeremy’s science to its logical conclusion, all three schools of thought mentioned in this post are equally at fault. Therefore it follows that an emphasis on one or the other being more to blame is counter-productive to spreading this message.
The start point for any discussion of a ‘symptom’ of the human condition, which is what the left and right wing of politics are, has to be the fundamental tenet of Jeremy’s explanation of the human condition, which is that human’s selfishness and egocentricity is a result of the search for knowledge. Once that is understood, whether you agree with it or not, it is easy to understand his explanation for left and right wing politics.
Basically (and Freedom Essay 34 is a good essay to read on this) Jeremy explains that right wing politics is supportive of the search for knowledge because it fosters the by-products of the search for knowledge i.e. it allows and encourages selfishness and egocentricity through its support of individualism and capitalism etc. So that is why Jeremy says the right wing is ‘aligned’ (my word, not his) with the search for knowledge, and in fact, with the whole human journey. The left wing on the other hand, through its philosophy of wanting to make everyone do ‘good’ things, like supporting the environment, and equality etc, is against egocentricity and selfishness, and so by being against the by-products of the search for knowledge, it is, in essence, against the search itself.
Obviously there are all sorts of permutations in what side of the divide people are, but that is the very simple reasoning for why Jeremy says that the right wing is pro the search for knowledge and left wing is against it. In my opinion, it is more productive to discuss that, the essential principle Jeremy explains is behind the two wings.
That’s an extremely good explanation, thank you. However, religion is also against egocentricity and selfishness so it is also dangerous isn’t it? Plus, and I insist, the original Marx texts emphasized the alienation of man from his inner self. Maybe it’s the bad interpretation of his followers that is to blame.
Yes, technically Religion represents a retreat from the search for knowledge, but Griffith explains it is the best form of ‘pseudo idealism’ because it contains so much honesty. Religions are built on the truthfulness of an ‘unevasive’ thinker or prophet, and a recognition of humanity’s ‘fallen state’, and so, as Griffith explains in Freedom Essay 35 (recommended reading!), “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”. Also worth noting, that as Griffith also explains in 35, a lot of this truth is starting to get lost in the literal, fundamentalist expressions of religion that have started emerging.
You have no argument from me regarding Marx’s focus on man’s alienation from their inner self, but whether Marx was fostering or oppressing the search for knowledge comes down to his solution to the alienation. As you know, Griffith’s work explains that humanity had to keep defying our inner self (and therefore keep becoming more and more egocentric and selfish) in the service of the search for knowledge, which means (paradoxically) that the alienation was ‘good’! That is the extraordinary turn-around that Grifith’s work provides. My understanding is that Marx in effect argued that alienation was ‘bad’ and that humans needed to rejoin their inner self, and put forward his theory of how to do that, namely through socialism. So his ‘solution’ to alienation was to, in-effect, repress egocentricity and selfishing. (Socialism is also covered in the excellent Essay 35).