The Dissolution of Left and Right

On the essence of human politics, its meaning, and how its foundational binary fades, yielding to a new, unhealthy paradigm.

In the previous post I described in length the tension we observe in the world between the collective and the tribe due to the evolutionary mutation in the solar plexus. The mutation diminishes one of the markers that have made us fundamentally human—the tribal genetic imperative.

This internal shutdown leads to the dissolution of the binding glue that held human societies together from time immemorial. This is a necessary step for the possibility of moving to the next stage in the evolutionary process, which is about melded consciousness. However, as previously noted, this transition is not intended for us.

I’ve describe several offshoots patterns of such relatively new predicament we see all around us, but don’t quite know or have the appropriate language to accurately describe it, such as: the dissolution of the nuclear family and of communal values, and the dissipation of tribal identity, in favor of a relatively new predicament - direct relationship with the collective through the constant technological connectivity to a collective cloud. As a result, the supportive infrastructure that underlies our civilization is at a risk, and therefore our civilization.

One of the major attributes of such loss results in a distortion where past values are interpreted as inhumane and unrelated to our humanness, which is a form of self-rejection or self-denial. This internal conflict is hazardous to us because it strips us of context. We fail to recognize that the radical changes we observe in the world are reflections of radical changes occurring within us.

In this post I want to touch on another offshoot pattern of the breakdown of the tribal genetic, and that is politics. This post aims to reveal the underlying information payload behind politics, left and right of the political spectrum, as well as the colors blue and red that have been symbolizing them respectively. In this way it will be possible to understand contextually what is happening to the political map in every country, and hopefully be able to fill in the emerging gaps that become more and more bizarre by the day, with some reasonable logic.

Politics of Left & Right

Many attempts have been made in the past to conduct significant research to understand if there are differences in the brain, and what they are, between those who lean to the left and those who lean to the right of the political spectrum. Indeed there are differences, and they actually relate to our emotional

It’s interesting, isn’t it—the fact that we have these blue and red colors to define these two themes, which are pretty much omnipresent in every country?! The difference is that here, in the U.S., the colors are reversed. Blue, which is usually correlated with the political right, outside the U.S. has been linked to the left, whereas the red, which is usually correlated with the political left outside the U.S., has been linked to the right.

I assume it's because everything in the U.S. has to be different on principle: feet instead of meters, inches instead of centimeters, miles instead of kilometers, and degrees Fahrenheit instead of degrees Celsius, etc. Everything has to be more cumbersome on principle, even if it's inefficient.

One of the significant things I am trying to convey through my writings is the focus on the abstract side of our brain, which deals with symbolism and imagination, necessary to be able to retrieve the interconnectedness weaving of the all. Because the logical side is promoted much more than the abstract side, we lack balance in the explanations we offer as contributing value.

The reason I mention the abstract side of the brain and symbolism is the fact that there is no such thing as randomness. Even if it seems that humanity invents things "randomly"—in essence, nothing is random. Randomness is our way to express a pattern that is not understood by the dimensionality in which our rational mind works. In the context of this subject, the colors red and blue do have a meaning and they symbolize something.

But before we can see what each color represents and where it’s derived from, its imperative to find some common ground by understanding what politics is and where it stems from. The concept has become so sophisticated that we have forgotten what it means in simple terms. 

When we look at the current definition and etymology of the word politics, it’s derived from the Greek word Politis (πολίτης) - a word that describes the citizen; someone who was actively involved in public and civic life, and often participated in decision-making in the polis, or city-state.

But this doesn’t really define the origin of the word in its most foundational level, in the sense that politics goes beyond this relationship. It starts much earlier. On a fundamental level, politics refers to the resolution of conflicts that arise due to group formation. We are a specie that is meant to form groups and stay in them forever. This group is the tribe and the smallest tribal unit is the family (clan). As a result emotional conflicts arise.

Families are always political. There is politics at home; the mother sides with the son, while the daughter sides with the father (for example). If you've ever seen a Bedouin clan conducting a reconciliation (Sulha), it takes months and meetings upon meetings. One side always feels they got the shortest end of the stick. Emotions need to be massaged because it's always about one side feeling injustice or unfairness.

In other words, there is no such thing as gathering of people into groups without the emergence of politics as a byproduct. One cannot be separated from the other. In fact, there is no such thing as a non-political decision. It's all politics. There is politics at school, at home, in the family, in the soccer team, in business, in everything!

In the past, when discussing certain subject matters, the tribe would express their sentiment about each side of the conflict, physically. Those who supported one way of dealing with things moved to the left side of the room, while those who supported another side moved to the right. Out of this the value of compromise was derived, which is the great glue in politics. This is what makes the game between left and right a game that never ends. Everything is a form of a tug-of-war trying to find a balance.

Arterial vs. Veinous blood

What’s beautiful, at least to me, is that everything has a reflective aspect in a different dimension. Or as I often remark in my posts: So above as below. So within as without. In this subject matter, the tribe biologically mirrors the heart and stomach and everything that relates to them. Energetically speaking, it represents the ego, the root of materialism.

It's unfortunate that we have developed a negative relationship with the ego because without it one cannot live. The ego deals with the mundane; with resources. Without resources we cannot philosophize or idealize. In other words, this is about the blood and all the nutrients and substances it carries throughout the body. It’s not super exciting compound like some rare neurotransmitter that cajoles consciousness to a different dimension of cognizance.

What I’m trying to convey is that when it comes to the blood, this is about pure sustainment necessary for all functions of our bodies, and support for the fecundity of our species. Alternatively, to the mind, we tend to philosophize and ponder on lofty ideas, but forget that in order to be able to do that the brain is dependent on blood supply. No blood supply, no possibility for cognizance, no matter how potentially smart we are. And so the blood is just about that: providing a terrain of sustenance for the body to do its thing, so the mind is able to ponder and think it’s independent of the body, which is the great paradoxical vanity.

The same is mirrored in the outer body - our world. This is what I tried to convey in my earlier post, as a forgetfulness emanating in our world about which is more dominant, an idea or the demands of the stomach?!

The ego has two sides. The left side is associated with the emotional system (which biologically correlates to the nervous system), whereas the right side is connected to the immune system. If I anthropomorphize, they each have different goals. The emotional system’s purpose is well-being, while the immune’s goal is self-preservation. These don't always align or integrate with one another.

This is what we see externally in human politics. The right side of the political map is the conservative side, as conservatism arises from the fear of losing security. This fear then leads to alertness, which in turn leads to improvement, entrepreneurship, and innovation. That is, they are instinctual responses emanating out of the fear. In other words, this is about the continued honing of the instinctual process of the tribe.

If the instincts don’t adapt to change well enough then the tribe is at risk of failure (extinction). There are more tribes in human history that have gone extinct than those that haven’t. Contrary to the emerging popular belief in our world, that extinction is “bad” and should be prevented at all costs, extinction is natural. More species have gone extinct than those that are alive today. Same goes for business, as the word tribe encompasses all types of human gathering. More businesses fail than those that adapt, and by that stand the test of time. Ultimately, extinction serves the cycle of life.

I have often illustrated that the human mind breaks down observed phenomena to a straight line: the shortest distance between two point. To the average human then, who is absolutely identified with his mind for who he is, life is then flattened down to two dimensional plateau where the illusion of beginning, middle and end reign supreme. And so, under such consciousness rises a belief that endings, such as death / extinction, are absolutely undesirable and should be prevented at all costs. But ironically, under such collective consciousness more of them ensue in spite of our benevolent intentions and in a distorted way (e.g. climate change, covid-19).

On the other hand, the left side of the political map deals with welfare. Here, too, it’s based on fear, but a different one. This is about fear of emptiness. That there is no purpose to life other than just plain survival. This is the fear of purposelessness, which propels human motivation to belong to a larger group to derive a sense of meaning and a belonging. Here, the fear manifests as the fear of rejection that then drive us to offer our readiness to contribute to group effort, and to the commitment to the bond.

We have an unhealthy relationship with fear, but in essence, fear is neither good nor bad. The nature of awareness is built on fear. Without fear, there is no potential for the continued development of intelligence. Fear is a kind of "switch" upon which intelligence is honed.

This side deals with the distribution of resources. When resources are properly distributed among members of the community the bond becomes stronger because it’s being supported. The biggest resource in the community is work. Work is the engine of the tribe. That’s why, for the left side, the value of work has always been of utmost importance. It's also much more liberal, in the sense that liberalism means being looser, as having a less tight grip on control of resources.

You see, we weren’t meant just to survive. If survival was the only purpose, why come into the world as humans? We could just be tigers in the jungle. Therefore, since we weren’t meant just to survive, but rather to thrive socially within groups, we have this welfare side, which stems from our biology.

If we are always afraid the lion will come to eat us, constantly thinking about how to protect ourselves, there won’t be time for other things, like communal development. Conversely, if we focus only on comfort all the time we’ll become complacent and risk our survival. So at the core, these two sides are in constant natural conflict - or serve a s a counterpoint for one another. The tension between the two sides, from times immemorial, is about survival versus welfare which balance one another.

As soon as it can be seen that the political binary reflects the physiological duality in the human body, it is clear to me that the colors red and blue reflect the arterial blood versus the venous blood, respectively.

A brief reminder for those who may have forgotten: Veins are "tubes" that take blood back from all the cells of the body, along with the carbon dioxide that they emitted as waste - a byproduct of their metabolic cycle. Due to optical illusion, outside the body our veins appear blue. On the the side, we have arteries which are also "tubes" that take purified blood from the lungs (along with an oxygen molecule), to all the cells of the body.

The same principles examined earlier are maintained here as well. The main artery (the aorta) deals with the distribution of resources. This is akin to the liberal side of the tribe. Conversely, we have the main vein (the vena cava) which deals with collection. Here, what is collected is regarded as a hazardous substance to the body. Carbon dioxide is a toxin, and this is another indication why it is linked to the immune system.

So the color red represents arterial blood, which represents decentralization or distribution of resources. And the blue represents veinous blood, which represents the collection of waste. One cannot exist without the other. This is the binary. This is the dichotomy: Collection versus Dispersion.

By the way, these two sides are also the root of the economic systems we have named as capitalism and socialism, respectively. What this reveals is that these two sides, or economic systems, were never meant to be isolated because they are not truly isolated within the body. Their binary tension constitutes a balance within a healthy body, and so, as well within a the larger body - human society. The separation, again, is a result of how the human mind isolates things as part of the observation process. By having tried numerous times to to apply them in practice as separate systems, has evidently created much distortion and imbalance.

How Does That Apply to Human Society?

Now, here is the interesting thing to see. If we examine the political reality of today, we see some strange metamorphosis that reflects the internal metamorphosis within us.

For instance, the term Far Right is a term that has been constantly repeated in the news, while Far Left is rarely mentioned. In fact, if we examine the tenets of the present far right, they are not as politically right and extreme as they are often portrayed. The shift in perception shows that the political axis has moved further left, making what was once considered centrist now appear far right. This was well illustrated by an image Elon Musk posted a few years ago and a quote by Thomas Sowell.

If we examine the principles of the Democratic Party, or universally what the left stood for, we notice values ​​such as: protection of the weak, support for the disenfranchised, guaranteeing protection of labor unions, integrate the less fortunate with and the alienated into the whole, and the highest value - freedom of speech. It was the party of the people (the Vietnam War and the freedom marches in the 1960s are excellent examples of this).

On the other hand, the Republican Party, or universally what the right stood for, was was about maintaining national identity, uphold security, and therefore the tendency in the political right to often favor conflict and war. It was also known for serving the affluent, with the belief that creating tax-free incentives would lead to the creation of more jobs (trickle-down economy), and curbing the government from trying to control free markets (e.g. free-market capitalism).

But nowadays, it’s all very different. The political left has flipped its skin. It is no longer the party of the people but now serves only the minority - the wealthy. It drowns itself in censorship and curbs freedom of expression. It has become a warmongering party and a party that serves global corporations (media, military industrial complex and big pharma).

On the other hand, in a bizarre twist, the political right has become the People's Party. A party that fights for the weak and blue collar labor unions. A party that fights for freedom of expression and against censorship, and a party that wants to cease wars.

For example, if we look at Trump, he has actually been a Democrat most of his life (by the old definition). Until 1987 he was registered as a Democrat. He ran for president for the first time in 2000 as an independent candidate but quit prematurely. He then re-registered as a Democrat in 2001, which during this time, he supported Democratic candidates, including a donation to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. The people surrounding him today are former leaning, or full on Democrats (RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk, to name a few).

The same goes with other countries. If we look at the "extreme right" parties in Europe - what are they really fighting for?! They fight for maintaining national identity, protection of the country from the unadulterated infiltration of migrants, and against the globalization that impoverishes their economy.

If we look at Israel, there are similar signs. Israel doesn’t really have left and right anymore. If you watch the political moves of the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, including his predecessor, Naftali Benet, you will not see strict adherence to a right-wing ideology, but more political selectivity depending on circumstances.

That is to say, there are decisions that have been made in the past that could have absolutely been conjured from the left political playbook, but they undergo a twist that reflects it’s equivalent to a right-wing ideology (we have reached a level of sophistication of language that it is possible to say one thing and do the opposite without hindrance).

What this reveals is a few things:

1. We have no language to express the new metamorphosis. We project past values ​​on things that no longer exist. People use old expressions of the old model. Calling the Democratic Party 'democratic', or the right as 'extreme far right', takes away from the ability to recognize what is really taking place. In the end it creates more confusion and division.

2. There is no more adherence to political values and principles because they themselves have become fluid, just like what has become of gender nowadays. What’s left is only a memory of them.

3. We no longer actually have left and right, but more left and right merged together, in opposition to something new and distorted.

4. The current left is actually the representation of the collective but in a very distorted way. The left has become an 'appendage' that is not really connected to the “body” - a type of malignant tumor - the result of the vacuum created by the disappearance of the left information placeholder. That is, it is a type of "foreign agent" of globalization that “pretends” to be a political left, but is not really a left anymore. It drives global processes from within any country that are not necessarily parallel to the country’s identity and civic platform.

5. The media has become the mouthpiece of the collective. In terms of the collective - the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts - everything that the tribe represents is considered inferior and primitive. Therefore, everything that represents locality in terms of principles and values ​​is presented to the public as something primitive, inferior and impure (i.e. “far right").

By the way, I’m not in any way suggesting that this is all done consciously. This is the result of the metamorphosis within us. That also means that we no longer have these arterial / veinous systems. But according to my experience and knowledge, I argue that our blood is changing intrinsically, and that includes our “white” blood (plasma - e.g. white blood cells). Therefore there is an added conflict within the body that invigorates or panics multiple systems in that regard.

Conclusion:

So if politics is a significant part of our identity, what does it actually reveals to us when it disappears?

The disappearance of traditional political identities signifies more than a shift in voting patterns. It represents a fundamental transformation of human society. It represents the metamorphosis that is currently taking place below the surface in the human nervous system. This change is eroding fundamental aspects of our genetic makeup: morality, trust, values, and principles. As these cornerstones of human interaction fade, we witness their disappearance reflected in our psychology and behavior.

Evolutionarily, we are marching towards a new world order. However, our role as both subjects and mediators of this transition leads to distortions and unintended consequences. We increasingly interpret past values as inhumane or irrelevant, engaging in a form of collective self-rejection that strips us of crucial context.

The crux of our predicament lies in the erosion of our ability to reach agreements. The values that once enabled compromise, personal sacrifice for the group, and the commitment to the bond are all disappearing. Without these foundational elements, maintaining any form of group cohesion becomes increasingly challenging.

In response, we see the rise of a collective consciousness that attempts to replace these eroding values with synthetic alternatives, often through the replacement of the tribal godhead with centralized computer algorithms. This manifests as an attempt to impose an artificial, egalitarian formula across all sectors of life. Paradoxically, this approach exacerbates the very issues it aims to solve, leaving more people without adequate support from public institutions and widening the cracks in our social fabric.

The collective's growing aversion to politics stems from this incompatibility. There's a misguided desire to achieve a "cognitive supremacy" by separating humanity from politics entirely, favoring sterile, algorithmic governance over human decision-making. This mindset, however, fails to recognize the complex, inherently human nature of governance.

And so this shift is rendering our current political systems obsolete. The traditional left-right spectrum, along with our electoral processes and governmental structures, are no longer compatible with the rapid changes unfolding before us. We've reached a point where the old model has been exhausted, necessitating a complete overhaul of our entire systems in education, finance, law, economy, and security.

This situation creates a catch-22: we need systemic change, but the very factors necessary to implement such change - a shared understanding of our predicament and the ability to reach agreements - are what we're losing. No matter which government takes power, it will inevitably face this fundamental inability to find common ground.

The result is a growing polarization coupled with a crisis of trust. Individuals, feeling unsupported and unheard, believe they must take matters into their own hands, often trying to forcefully impose their belief systems. Meanwhile, the collective doubles down on its sterile, egalitarian solutions, creating a vicious cycle of dysfunction. All, until there’s nothing left to save.

Such is the cycle of life. Empires rise and fall, and so do civilizations. And we’re right at the cusp of such predicament.