The beauty of understanding the Law of One.

I say understanding. But I'm not sure to what extent anyone can really understand it. 

One of my strong beliefs, one of the beliefs I had absorbed and had become solid without my conscious awareness. Was "overruled" by the Law of One a few days ago. I had had a bit of an anti Darwinist attitude that I had mentioned a few times on this blog. I had given my reasoning for that. Then in the Law of One. Session 90 I think. It talked about how important the physical evolution of the body complex is. So, it validated the Darwinist concept. Quite a shift for me. As many other small statements in these books. 

There has though, for me, been an even more profound shift for me. In session 91 the contact asks the individuals involved to repeat a magical ritual and when asked why. They talk about a silver cord being disrupted that is to do with Carla's energy field. 

I realise, as I read this. That I do not have any conception or understanding. Not only of the metaphysics and rituals involved. (I have heard vaguely of a silver cord previously. But even that, I have not seen it. Do not really understand what it means! Even if I knew more about it theoretically I would not understand it in any real way!) But I also don't understand. Any of it really. I do not understand the world when things of this kind of paradigm are integrated into it. 

I also think there are many traps and false beliefs that can come off here as a conclusion. The idea that God is so large and mysterious that we are worms in a sense. I don't think that is a good way to think about it. The idea that the world is as it is and we should not question 'God' I also do not think really expresses what I am trying to say.  

The point is, to just really grip that I don't understand this. As a practical thing. Like, I don't understand how a nuclear reactor works either. If I were to engage with healing. I don't know what life kind of... is. Without some knowledge of these metaphysics. I have some ideas, have had some additional insights about why so much of this is all veiled behind the "Law of Free Will". But I don't know enough about this to justify it philosophically, to explain it as a coherent concept. Or to have the insight about how to influence it. 

It... is a little nice this insight in a way. Because it relaxes the need to use this information in a sense. Like, I would like to use metaphysics in healing. I wonder why this is not possible. 

In reading the Law of One. In contemplating that I am currently in a part of the Law of One book 4 where I am questioning how much I understand all of it. I feel I should re read the books again (before reading further) because I just haven't formed a coherent understanding in my mind of the whole thing. It is also all incredibly advanced. I feel like reading these books re- orients me towards some sort of connection or understanding with this entity. But I also... don't understand that either. 

There is a line in Session 67 question 27 which says 'Glory in the strength of your polarisation [the positive] and allow others of the opposite polarity [negative] to do so.'   

It is one of those "what?" Kind of lines for me. It seems to be an indication that there should be a certain positive feeling, a joy, a philosophical satisfaction in just saying: "Yep, those evil people over there LOOOVE being evil. Good on them!" Doesn't feel right to me. To have a dispassionate perspective about this, like reading "Tyger Tyger" to explain the philosophy of evil while a genocide happens outside the window. But, then, it is the kind of perspective that a higher being might share. It is one of those alien things they might understand. 

In all, I don't know what I am really saying. Nevertheless, this all does lead into a somewhat positive subjective feeling. We will see if I can translate this to useable wisdom. We will see how it goes.  

All gifts have to be used.

I have just started watching Farscape. What I was not prepared for is that it is actually good. I don't know why it is good. I cannot define why. But I imagine there is some politically correct or algorithmically correct thing that was not done in Farscape. Writers and actors organic tendencies to create a story have come together. I do notice there is pretty much none of the hostility between the characters that you get in most shows. I think there is some sort of formula where there has to be a certain amount of conflict per scene in modern shows.

As I said, I have stopped paying attention to Stefan Molyneux after his opinions that you should not listen to him if you spend time with leftists. 

I have read or listened to (audiobook) a few of his books. One, "The Future". Was unbelievably good. Like, a profound experience. The characters had similarities to people I have known in place. Intense similarities - healing similarities even. There were also a fair amount of differences as well. Acquiantance with a culture I have no experience in. Pretty fascinating. 

One of the features of some of his fiction though, is that sometimes he has a line that says something like "Then this character looked at this character and correctly summarised the programming that lead them to this decision". 

Stefan... Actually does this in his shows. He mind read me in a way I thought was wrong one time and it had an uncomfortable effect of me of partially breaking a kind of idealism I had for him at the time. I am very unusual. Very hard to predict. A lot of people in my life have struggled with that. I wouldn't be writing this blog if I didn't think really different.  

But with a lot of other people. Many, many times in his shows. He is correct. Because people tell him he is correct. They respond in surprise when he guesses their internal workings. Sometimes are gushing in positivity. 

Reading one of his books though, and comparing it to another one that I like. The Expanse series. The way he writes is that the characters, just in general, like I said. Guess correctly other peoples internal workings. In a book series like the Expanse. People do not do this. In fact, they miss almost all of what is said sometimes. Based on their own character.

The Expanse has a psychopathic character who misses a news broadcast that asteroids have hit planet earth and there is mass death. He just isn't interested. Many of the characters miss very obvious things. Many of the characters also catch things but we do not go into their thought process that much. 

I am not able to write stories. I have tried and tried again. I had this idea a while back, based on the Law of One, session 18.5 I believe. That says if you have sexual desires not consonant with the Law of One to play them out in your head. I thought I could write stories with weird sexual things happening. Again and again I tried, and I have tried real stories. It never comes together. It never feels right because I can't see into the characters. 

For me, the energy of looking into others isn't there in my life. I do have a fair amount of insight. I am very good at body language reading and such. That kind of pattern recognition. But there isn't that sense of looking into others. The overall stories based on emotions etc. 

Stefan I think, is a kind of modern day Sherlock Holmes. If you have an ability. You have to use it. Rather than using that in an exciting way such as crime. If someone is really born with the ability to look into others. Then it gets used in service. As Stefan has, in fact, used it. 

For me, it is different things that I have that still need to be used every day. As someone that is very physical has to express a lot of physical energy per day. A lot of women that work in offices and didn't have kids. Still have a need to express emotional energy that comes out in gossip.  

I suppose now I have said it it is not that profound. But I think, that there is a lot to be said for the limitations in NOT having certain things. When we do not have a certain thing. We also don't have the vulnerability of it's downside. For instance, people that don't believe in any of the spiritual stuff on this blog, are not troubled by feeling that negative entities are speaking to them when they meditate. 

It explains to some extent. The positive side of people sometimes having belief systems we don't agree with. A person here doing service of some sort but who is an atheist is free from a lot of spiritual attacks. A person here that has a fixed religious perspective, is free from many of the nuances of the new age and channeled types of materials. 

Meditation insight.

Truth is a difficult thing I believe. It is one of the things I have learned to understand since reading the Law of One. As I referred to in the last few posts. I think people are kind of mission focused. That life is so complex. There is so much of it. That people kind of pick, on some deep level, the area they want to focus on. And truth becomes relevant to that. 

The Law of One says people are one of three elements. Power, Wisdom or Love. This has become deeply relevant to me. It is something I understand in the world. 

I believe we have one of these three elements and the second two follow on. In a very positive environment, we would have them all (because other people give them to us partly!). In a negative environment, we would have just our element, and we would use that to fight with. In our current lightly positive environment, we have our one element, and we can kind of get a handle on the others. But not completely. It is hard work. When you are young you are purely your own element. Ideally, as you have become a 'realised' person, an adult with a career, a message, a family, a worked out life; you have all three. 

If you have Wisdom. You do not have Power or Love.

If you have Power. You do not have Wisdom or Love.

If you have Love. You do not have Wisdom or Power.  

Power takes a small piece of Wisdom and properly uses it. It can increase the good in the world through this. It can directly help. It can apply in a world changing way what it knows. If you have wisdom. You have the overview. You have an integrated bit of everything. But you have nothing that you can do with that overview. Q is very like this. It is powerful, but also, powerless. If you have Love. It is highly likely you will have to prioritise social concerns and not know about either of those. 

So back to where I started with. Truth is different to people. For some people. Power people. Truth is these few things applied, and it does not take in things that ultimately don't help a person. For Wisdom people, The truth is the truth and all of it. the unuseable truth of the isolated eccentric genius. For Love people. The truth is... perhaps; that people all have these mystical and high minded concepts they attach to. But what is real truth? The real truth is that the thing that matters is our every day interactions. The things right infront of us. How to cook. How to support people. Etc. 

So truth to people is what matters for their own path. Someones highest truth, the truth they are here to be, might be something that someone else can disprove. 

This meander on truth, is that I am thinking over how something I have determined not to be true, is kind of useable wisdom.

After listening to Aaron Abke, and hearing all about how Jesus was not teaching salvation by faith, but salvation by works. I am still thinking about how there is a kind of beneficial element to the salvation by faith narrative. 

The salvation by faith narrative is virtue signalling at its worst. If you say these words you can walk around without any virtue and be thought of as a good person. 

But, I have found something that really helps me. That really seems to be that "click" I have been looking for my whole life. That thing that sorts my life into flow. It has come about since I wrote those articles about how David Wilcock is not following the Law of One properly. Or not quoting it properly. And I felt like I was visited by something when I meditated. 

Because of that, the thing that meant I no longer felt that negative presence when I meditated. The thing that has worked, the thing I found. Was meditating with the Law of One book next to me. It is definitely a different feel to meditating without that book next to me and previously, it has been quite conclusive for me to not have it next to me. The reason being, is that the sense of enlightenment and 'love' I get from it. It is not as pure as meditating without it. Not as pure for wisdom. Meditating without the book there I feel like I reach vibrant, raw, heights.

Meditating with the book gives me a real world connection. A real world, good, everyday, loving feeling. Like, the feeling of a social event or something. But, it does slightly dull the 'raw wisdom' element.

So linking this together then. Previously I would meditate with the Law of One book 2 next to me and it overwhelmed me with enlightened feelings. So I stopped. But now that I have a reason to use the book, and a practical (to me) reason that I should always use it. There is now no excuse to stop using it. I have become aware that part of the reason that I am resisting using the Law of One as I meditate. Is that I fundamentally don't feel worthy of it. The loving positive feelings feel wrong. The raw wisdom and colder feeling feels right. It feels more like what I should be. 

It is one of the things I have thought a bit about the salvation by faith narrative. Salvation by faith, the way a lot of people use it. The entire saved humanity by crucifixion narrative. Is a very good pushback against a feeling of unworthiness. And you have to feel at least a little bit worthy to consider yourself worthy of the efforts of the positive spirits and angels and such.   

Random notes on the Law of One.

Been struggling a bit with health so another probably short entry. 

Personal irrelevance. 

I have experienced some psychological stress, and some physiological discomfort (but also some physiological success in health matters!)

My recent physiological stresses are doing two things. Firstly, stunting my spirituality slightly. When I experienced some pain a few days ago, I stopped praying. It sounds like physical discomfort like that would INCREASE seeking and prayer in general. But for me, it tends to make me lose faith. Feel that life is kind of crap and have less tendency towards prayer. 

I reflect a little on Carla keeping faith through all her pains. Perhaps to improve my spiritual path I should be able to continue spiritual practices like prayer and meditation even through these pains. Meditation provides a practical benefit of increasing intuition, just slightly. Just slightly better judgement. And that 5% or whatever it is, often makes all the difference. 

Psychological stress however, makes me increase by many times my zeal towards prayer. Which I did do a great deal yesterday, and now I feel very inspired. Swimming in inspiration. 

The style of the source. 

One thing I have noticed about the positive sources I look at. Is that the act of engaging with them improves the way you see the world. This reverse might also be true of more negative sources. 

Let's compare two things. Reading the Law of One. Or absorbing conspiracy information on say... Child torture. 

To read the Law of One. It is hard to understand. You go over and over it again, and you feel good. Reading once feels good, you might have an insight. But... in the grand scheme of things... Not much of one. You can turn the quotes over in your mind again and again. 

What I am saying is the WAY this happens, improves you. It trains you to read something deep and absorb it properly. You could transfer this to reading classic literature or philosophy. To think things over. It increases the sacredness and joy in life. 

Now consider the opposite. Conspiracy information or perhaps dry bureaucratic info that is not useful. You don't really want to absorb that info. It stimulates your anger and fight or flight. It inspires you to want to find real world tools. To increase violence and such. To condescend to people that refuse to fight with you. It decreases attention span in that you want to pay just enough attention to get the information, but not so much that you actually absorb its sickness. 

The style of the Law of One. 

A correlation I notice with the Law of One and a philosophy like Stefan Molyneux's philosophy. Is that when you start looking at it. You start from its real outer covering. A lot of the earlier books were concerned with the path of the ultimate spiritual person. The ultimate spiritual path. Healing. Famous people. Etc. 

As the books go on though they discuss things like chakras, and archetypes. Once you get into the archetypes. You get into more concrete advice in a sense. It's not advice. But it is advising on the way things are in a close enough way that advice can be drawn from it. 

With Stefans philosophy. You start off with listening to his conclusions. But the more you get into it. The more you get into his ideas from first principles. Which is what you do with every philosopher. 

A similar deepening happens I think with Christianity.

Specifically, I have read and re- read this session:

Questioner: Thank you. I have a question here from Jim that I will read verbatim: “Much of the mystic tradition of seeking on Earth holds that belief that the individual self must be erased or obliterated and the material world ignored for an entity to reach ‘nirvana,’ as it’s called, or enlightenment. What is the proper role of the individual self and its worldly activities in aiding an entity to grow more into the Law of One?”

Ra: I am Ra. The proper role of the entity is in this density to experience all things desired, to then analyze, understand, and accept these experiences, distilling from them the love/light within them. Nothing shall be overcome. That which is not needed falls away.

The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.

The reason it is unwise to overcome is that overcoming is an unbalanced action creating difficulties in balancing in the time/space continuum. Overcoming thus creates the further environment for holding onto that which apparently has been overcome.

All things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with other-selves, the appropriate description shall be moving away from distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more consonant with the Law of One.

It is, shall we say, a shortcut to simply ignore or overcome any desire. It must instead be understood and accepted. This takes patience and experience which can be analyzed with care, with compassion for self and for other-self.

But while this is relevant, important, in a larger context. It is also confusing and brings more questions than it answers. It is the larger picture in a way that is a little unhelpful in a sense.  

The chakras however. They do seem to offer a framework to understanding things. Archetypes also do. We learn very specific things about how the archetypes operate. How the polarities operate. 

Fear.

I am experiencing fear recently, in the face of my health issues. Deep. Definitely powerless. 

I have come up against the medical establishment. I had thought they were the solution. But they do not appear to be the solution. They are actually helpful in some capacities. But in others I feel somewhat powerless. So metaphysical healing elements remain an interest for me. 

It is part of why I reach for the Law of One. Putting life into context in relation to chakras is one thing the contact advised. There are other things in it that advise on psychological elements. Maintaining polarity against difficult catalyst. 

It is one of those questions for that earlier quote? When it says our mission is to "experience everything that is desired", would that be this? Or is that a negative infringement not included? Is my deeper desire to experience some sort of spiritual path from this? 

The Problem of Evil (Part 3)

I am hopeful I can get to the main point I wanted to get to in this post. Do I have the energy to lay out a proper case. When I studied at University, they always said that in essays, you lay out what you are going to say in the introduction. Perhaps that makes it easier and better to read. 

The case I hope to make in this post. Is that evil is a thing that is very foreign to those who think more positively. True evil. That it can only ever be partially integrated into many philosophies. But it is a thing onto itself that can't be encapsulated by them. Because of this, when it is removed from society, the results will be utterly unpredictable and will change many things that we assume to be real from our everyday experience. That we have taken from objective reality, everyday, observable, objective, reality. But which conclusions might not serve us later. 

That is a bad introduction. But it is at least an introduction. There is far more to go into this. 

Previous parts. 

In the two previous parts, I summarised some thoughts. The red people analogy/ metaphor. And x + y = z. In relation to how the negative have to have perceived positive consequences to their actions in order to maintain their perspectives. That is unfortunately required reading. What I am trying to explain here is too complex to have to also go over those again in this article. 

In relation to the red people analogy. This is the analogy I would like to use in order to discuss the limitations of many positive philosophies in addressing evil. 

I am a true QAnon believer. I say QAnon even though QAnon is the wrong term. But language is meant to explain what people mean. It is Q because there is Q and there are Anons. There is also the term "Q - tard". Which the Qommunity hasn't done enough to make our own in my opinion. 

I believe Q is real. I have had semi religious experiences to this effect. Honestly, the Qommunity is not made up of weirdos. Some of the identified people are extremely intelligent. Such as Martin Geddes, that worked in some sort of computer - data - analytics field. Many of them are like that. 

But there is something alien about Q as well. Something almost negative in a sense. Something semi mystical and not easily understood. It is not completely healthy perhaps, for everyone to attach to a weird military project that drops in secret codes on a forum (hosted by the military btw!) It is not necessarily a healthy way to think to put a power like that outside of you. To rely on something you can't understand. There is a point where the truth is not the truth for everyone. 

This might also be the case with something like atheism. Consider the red people analogy. If atheism is dressing in red, and you will simply be ignored if you don't dress in red. Then people whose priority is helping others might dress in red. 

Pressure of the positive. 

Some of these concepts, of considering the negative directly. I think can only be done with a certain kind of thought process. Or they can with me.

What I talked about in part 2. x + y = z. The wisdom of separation. Is something that can be back tracked and a lot of thoughts can come from it. But it is a negative wisdom. It makes sense. It is information that can create conclusions. I realised it is actually x - y = z and x + y = z is the positive. But I will follow up with that elsewhere. 

The information that people are going around with the "wisdom of separation" in their head that if they don't feed it in a sense, will mess them up. Backtracks a lot of very negative conclusions, very power mechanic based. That will make someone think negative. 

The positive, as in, really the power variety more. Has to follow up with each thing that they think up. I think. They are binded into the positive a great deal. Or they kind of go a bit nuts if they do attempt to integrate things that are too negative. 

Wisdom however, I think, can consider something as a kind of position that does not need to be followed up on. 

The take away. 

In the planning of this article. In the thoughts of this kind of thing in general. I had wanted to excerpt a tweet that was so unbelievably malevolent that it made me paranoid at the time I read it. 

This, along with the woman that tweeted it, seemed to have disappeared. I remembered her name and the spelling. I have key terms to search my bookmarks from the quote. 

Pehraps that's for the best. Negative wisdom like that seems to have a kind of energy of it's own. It utterly swallows everything around it. 

But my take aways putting everything together. 

The red people:- This analogy speaks to the point that a good deal of how people think the world works cannot be integrated and with the sudden movement on the "negative" front. May need to re- evaluate some of their ideas. 

x - y = z:- Many people that are working on the brainwashing that we have been subjected to. Will lose polarity on these principles for the first time. The brainwashing and propaganda has always been there. For the entire time that we have lived. If the value of z suddenly changes, the value of -y, even though we don't know what precisely it is. Will suddenly go through a change. 

Conclusion on the human design. 

I am starting to put together a bit of a description on what this whole process is. The process of living a life is. From the perspective of the human design. My understanding. 

My chart is similar to Ra Uru Hu's. I had an insight the other day of how similar my process is to what he has described. I wrote to two human design people in an attempt to gain information on a new theory I had. But they did not respond. So I am not sure on this. 

A lot of the emotional shifts we have is when something kind of 'not self' comes up. We have an idea in one of our defined centres. For me, one of those centres is the sacral. In order to get rid of the 'not self' thoughts in the undefined centres. Meditation, Prayer, etc. This is the point of these tools I believe. 

So I experience sacral chakra thoughts, that are kind of unproductive. And then are just completely deleted as unproductive. I know what a good place is for me. A not self sacral thought includes a lot of thought about how one relates to others in a kind of social heirarchy. This is shown very strongly, and in a raw way, by the 34-20. (Which Neitzsche had! And did he not talk in a very raw way about such heirarchies?) 

But in moving from confused to normal. I know that all those animalistic, animal heirarchy thoughts. Just get deleted. Just disappear. My focus is purely on the kind of "moment". It is kind of more mystical. More aligned with the Law of One tracts on everything being a mystery. It is rather like Ra Uru Hu describes the world and the deconditioning.

I imagine people try to condition people to their own charts as a matter of course. I wonder if some of what Ra Uru Hu talked about was that. That his expressions of how things are, should be, is what HE experiences.

But if someone has a defined sacral. Then their expressions do have a reference to our animalistic connections. 

There is more on this, the energies they hold, and the things they express. But not for now. I'll leave it there though. 

The Problem of Evil (Part 2).

Not well today. So I will have to make this shorter than I would prefer. I've realised I am making a different argument than what I intended. I will follow up on my theme of "The problem of evil". But I will use this as a potential nudge to differences in how people see the world in relation to their human design. Differences in how the sacral and splenic authority process things. 

I just wanted to repeat a point I had made recently though. With the full quote. A more full explanation of what I referred to earlier. After re reading previous blogs. I have realised that actually quoting the Law of One is probably better than just referring to a session in brackets (I.e. this point is in 85.4). It just reads better. It feels warmer and more pleasant. 

So I wanted to make a point about negativity: 

Questioner: What is the nature of this crisis?

Ra: I am Ra. The nature of this crisis is the determination of the relative polarity of your companion and yourselves. You are in the position of being in the third-density illusion and consequently having the conscious collective magical ability of the neophyte, whereas your companion is most adept. However, the faculties of will and faith and the calling to the light have been used by this group to the exclusion of any significant depolarization from the service-to-others path.

If your companion can possibly depolarize this group it must do so and that quickly, for in this unsuccessful attempt at exploring the wisdom of separation it is encountering some depolarization. This shall continue. Therefore, the efforts of your companion are pronounced at this space/time and time/space nexus.

This is talking about a negative entity that was psychicly pressurising everyone linked to the Law of One and the contact. Because it was unable to stop them doing so. It faced a kind of crisis. It was having a kind of melt down. 

It gives me a lot of insight into how the negative functions. The negative has it's "negative wisdom". I assume there is some relevance here to a kind of simple equation. x + y = z. X is the negatively polarised self. Y is the negative wisdom and Z = a successful result.

Let's not think about what the negative wisdom is. Because that would be unpleasant and maddening. But we could make simpler analogies. Which is the point of this. 

Let us say that someone is following an insane political or religious tract. One that legitimates that theft from that person is good. That he is allowed to steal and no one else is. x + y = z indicates that this person would have to be fairly successful at this endeavour. They would have to gain something palpable back. Otherwise, they would "lose polarity". 

If they are prevented from stealing, if it goes badly wrong, then they should, theoretically, go into the same kind of crisis. 

This is relevant because, the world has been very deliberately set out a certain way. Very deliberately so that if people behave in a certain bad way, they get a good result, and they get very little consequence. 

The world is basically unchanging in this capacity. Take for instance, the general punishing of high performers in a lot of jobs. Where they don't get paid more than anyone else and just get overloaded with work while lazy people take it easy. This gets a good result from the managers and staff exploiting the situation. From the lazy people.  

But if the world were to change. If some free market ideology was to become successful and that high performer could go off to another better job, and also, that that company would start doing better than the first company. Then it would give less palpable benefits to the people following those strategies. Presumably, potentially, they would start losing polarity. 

When you think about this, it justifies something that didn't really make sense to me previously. The idea that 'the best revenge is to live well'. In general, it seems that if the right things are put into place, and the people that are determined to succeed do succeed. And the more envious, loserish people are not able to stop them. Then they would lose polarity. Which would be very unpleasant for them indeed. 

This puts the end to the fantasy of actually following up in the real world on revenge against evil doers. It seems to me. It doesn't mandate forgiveness without contrition and general soft heartedness either though.

The problem of Evil.

This was a subject that has been going around in my mind for a while. But with this video, it gives me an entry point into what I was going to say:

Youtube: Richard Grannon: Dealing with Evil in the World calmly (March 31st 2026)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msvEpRy5mlo 

I will be skipping over the explanation of some of the terms I use here. It just can't be helped.  

This person, I think, is sixth density. Could be fifth. Unlikely to be fifth (Fifth tend to have a thinner and more wisdom intense presentation, like Jordan Peterson. There is less "person" there).

This is the world as I see it with all the mix of various influences on this planet. 

We have, as I have talked about, on blogs and in videos. The different densities and how they interact with everything. 4th, 5th and 6th. We also have kind of different elements to people. Love, Power and Wisdom. (Who are respectively, Healer, Teacher and Adept).  

This is something else I think is relevant:

I agree with this. I remember watching a video on foxes. Where the show ended the series with saying that a female fox had shacked up with another family after it's own children had died, and was looking after the cubs of another female fox. Compare this to an example I had heard when I was younger of Lions. Where if the male wants to impregnate a "single mother". He kills her cubs. 

It seems to me that EvoPsych just takes the available information and creates a convincing story. 

I am obviously not an expert in this area. But the anti Darwinists, including scientists have made some good points. I remember reading a book excerpt where a guy said that when he had studied things in the laboratory. Types of animals no matter how much breeding they had tended to stay the same kind of animal. For instance, no matter how much you chop and change a dog. It is still a dog. It doesn't become a cat eventually. 

So why is EvoPsych held up so positively amongst so many people? Including people that are admirable?

The room of red dudes analogy.

So, let's take this to an analogy of a room of red dudes. Imagine, you are a person that is to give a speech to a room full of people. They are the cult of red. They are so deep. The lie has been so good. That they are not particularly fanatical. They are like boomer liberals. They don't offer any argument in favour of their beliefs. They just assume they are right.  

The red people will only listen to other red people. In this room. There are 80% people dressed in pure red. 10% dressed in a few colours that include red. 10% that do not have any red at all.

For the red people. If you are not dressed in red. You don't exist. They are not fanatical. They won't burn you at the stake. Since there are 80 - 90% of them. You offer no threat if you go in the room and say that red is not the most important colour, and it is possible to dress in yellow. If you were to do that. They would not argue with you with good points. (Maybe a 5% of fanatics would). They would probably just look at you in confusion. Then one of the fanatics would push you out of the room. which the red people would ignore. Because the person dressed all in yellow. Doesn't really exist anyway. They do... But they don't. 

This is what I think EvoPsych is like. In the larger sense. Even amongst so called believers in Christianity. I think most people work off a basically secular framework. In order to talk to people. In order to have any impact at all. You do indeed have to "dress in red". 

Then add the negative.

There is another colour here I have not mentioned. People that dress in black. The problem with the black. Is that they are not like the yellow. The people that dress in black belong to a real cult that is deeply negative. 

The trouble is with the people in black is that they are actually insane. They produce a lot of things and information that has no use at all. 

This, is a big problem. It is rumoured that the cult of the red started up originally. Because when people could choose whatever colour they wanted, the ones that chose black immediately went insane. They immediately started taking drugs and chopping off peoples heads. These people cannot be integrated into society. So at some point in the past, someone said. "You know what? Everyones gonna be red from now on. Yes, it's not ideal and yes, it sidelines some truly valuable eccentrics (the yellows say!) But society is just not going to function if we have any significant proportion choosing black. Which is what they will do if we don't force the main group of people to choose red".

The result.

The result of this careful, and mostly functional lie. Is that we have a functional society of industrious, builder, and ideologically confused reds (since red is not the "truth" really). Reds who only see red. But the other colours. Including the yellows and the blacks, do exist.  

The only way to communicate to the reds and improve things on a larger scale is to dress in red. To give a certain amount of consideration to it. But to actually understand what is really going on. You have to acknowledge the black. Since the black is so confusing, it is extremely unpredictable what will happen as things change. For instance, as an industrious group of blues say, get rid of the blacks. 

This analogy got away from me a bit. There is a lot of subtext here I wanted to add in about polarity and such. But I think, surprisingly, the analogy has done enough of the heavy lifting. Those other terms will probably just confuse people anyway. 

I have something additional to say that needed this foundation.