Site project: What does it mean to be human? What is the real nature of love?

“Where there is no authentic freedom there is no authentic love”, Bob Brinsmead.

The fundamental features of freedom and love are best expressed in Classic Liberal principles and institutions.

Section topics:

(1) Resurging tribalism and disarming the tribal impulse. Go right to the fundamental underpinnings of ideologies and belief systems. I would point to the Jesus insight on unconditional deity- his “stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God” (James Robinson), his greatest contribution to the history of human ideas, an insight rejected 20 years later by Paul as he buried the message of Jesus under his Christ myth.

Jesus advocated unlimited, unconditional forgiveness, full and equal inclusion of all, and the end of tribally-limited love that favored friends over enemies, and true believers over unbelievers. His central message- “Love your enemy because God does”. Be like God. (This site embraces the general outlines of “The search for the Historical Jesus” as in Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy’s comments that “The diamonds/pearls of Jesus are buried under Paul’s Christology- his “Christian Jesus Christ”.)

(2) Basic features of Classic Liberalism as in things like the decentralization of power (dispersed among free individuals) to protect all against the centralizing of power in collectivism approaches to organizing human societies (i.e. elites controlling society’s resources and decision-making for the “greater or common good”, meaning in actual practise “the good of powerholding elites”). Abandoning the principle of government existing to serve the people.

Collectivism models (Owen’s communalism, Marx’s communism, socialism, and mixed socialism/democratic versions) for organizing human societies are fundamentally anti-freedom (anti-individual freedom- meaning anti-diversity, anti-inclusion, anti-equality), and therefore collectivism experiments have inevitably expressed as anti-human and anti-liberal. Collectivism exhibits a profound distrust of ordinary citizens. It expresses an elitist arrogance that believes that it alone knows what is best for all others and will force its elite vision and policies on all others via centralized state power.

(3) The war on agriculture as the next stage of climate alarmism and the populist pushback against that assault. Elites demonize populism as “right wing extremism” but it is a movement of liberals, independents, and conservatives to take back the freedom of all of us commoners who reject the WEF’s “’Great Reset’ where we will own nothing and be happy eating bugs”.

(4) The Climate movie. At last, the best climate science minds- Lindzen, Happer, Moore, Svensmark, and many more stating clearly that there is no climate crisis and CO2 is not a threat to life. And the mild warming of the last century is not a catastrophe but the best thing happening to life in an abnormally cold world where 10 times more people still die every year from cold than die from warmth.

(5) The responsibility for your ideas/beliefs and their outcomes.

(6) The unconditional treatment of all is not advocacy for pacifism. Love is always responsible, first and foremost, to protect the innocent. Meaning restraint and incarceration of violent people.

And more….

The resurging tribalism that we all fret over today, Wendell Krossa

What is at the root of the endlessly resurging tribal impulse? Where people distinguish themselves from differing others in fundamental ways, the separating, opposing, too often demonizing the differing other as “enemy” and therefore deserving censoring, banning, cancelling, even criminalizing.

Here I do my “reverse engineering” thing in tracing ideas/beliefs and behaviors back to fundamental realities- “what lies beneath”.

We saw horrific tribalism in last century’s great collectivism crusade with its dualism of capitalist oppressor (property/capital owners) versus oppressed (landless, poor peasants). And we saw the outcomes of that murderous tribal dualism in 100 million deaths. And it was a religious crusade. Yes- religious. See Richard Landes, Arthur Herman, Arthur Mendel, David Redles, and others on the religious themes that drove Marxism, Nazism, and are now driving climate alarmism.

Today we are suffering the same collectivist dualism coming at us through varied new fronts with new identity markers for the oppressor/oppressed division. Some call the new collectivism Woke Marxism. While still holding the old capitalist/peasant categories this new version also uses race as a key marker to categorize people as either victimizer or victim and hence evil versus good. White=evil oppressor, brown/black=virtuous oppressed. As with all collectivisms there is no recognition of individual diversity, just dogmatic collectivist categorization.

(Insert note: Elon Musk said we must get rid of the principle that if you belong to the oppressed/victim category then you are automatically good or virtuous. Hamas, he said, identifies themselves as victims/oppressed but there is no good there.)

And as with all tribalism- collectivist dualism denies our essential oneness in the human family. And it denies our fundamental obligation to love one another, to care for one another, even for “enemies”.

Point- Collectivism reduced to its skeleton is base tribalism and therefore animal, tribalism being another inherited impulse from our past in small bands that viewed other small bands as threats to be conquered, subdued, and even eliminated.

And going back to the roots of validating ideas- Early humans manufactured the myth of cosmic dualism (Zoroaster), where it was claimed that a good God existed in opposition and irreconcilable animosity toward an evil Force or Spirit. With cosmic dualism projected onto God, our ancestors manufactured the ultimate divine validation for their basest drive to tribalism. They made God an animal-like reality to validate their primitive existence and how they wanted to behave.

Projecting tribalism onto deity creates the ultimate validation and inspiration for human tribalism. We see the outcomes of this today in the unquestioning acceptance of dualism as fundamental to reality and humanity. Cosmic dualism finds expression through the varied dualisms that people use to divide from one another- using categories of race/ethnicity, nationality, ideology, religion, gender/sexual orientation, social divisions and statuses. And of course, there is still the original social dualism and divide of powerholding elites vs commoners or today’s “populists”.

Tribalism is the abandonment of mature humanity for primitive animal-like behavior. It is not who we are as humans. Get some sense of the primitivism of it. Tribalism is not who we are. We are human, all equal members of the same one human family.

Again, the insights to counter tribalism- (1) All humans on Earth today have descended from the same Mitochondrial Eve, (2) the oneness of all reality as discovered in “quantum entanglement”, and (3) the NDE discovery of human oneness with deity.

Our main identity marker is the fact that we are all human, sharing the same human consciousness, human mind, human spirit, and human self. Being commonly human is our chief identity marker. And of course, there is no greater identity marker of being human than universal, unconditional love exhibited toward all, equally.

Disarming the tribal impulse with its associated impulse to punitive destruction of differing others, Wendell Krossa

How do we defuse the intensified tribalism of today with its unleashed hatred of differing others, quickness to demonize and dehumanize the different other, to render harsh judgment and condemnation of differing opinions and speech, and then to mercilessly call for censorship, banning from public, cancellation, and even criminalization of differing others. The lack of compassion in all this today is disturbing. What are we allowing to happen to us?

Here again is the ancient advice that goes to the root of the problem. My view of this historical person leans toward the tradition of “Historical Jesus research” that views this person as someone notably different from the Christian version, someone who is entirely contrary to Paul’s myth of “Jesus Christ” that dominates the New Testament.

Anyway, here is the main message of the Historical Jesus:

“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Everyone finds it easy to love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Everyone can do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Most will lend to others, expecting to be repaid in full.

“But do something more heroic, more humane. (Live on a higher plane of human experience). Do not retaliate against your offenders/enemies with ‘eye for eye’ justice. Instead, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then you will be just like God because God does not retaliate against God’s enemies. God does not mete out eye for eye justice. Instead, God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be unconditionally loving, just as your God is unconditionally loving”. (My paraphrase of Luke 6:32-36 or Matthew 5:38-48.)

This can be summarized in this single statement that gets the essence of this most profoundly human insight in all history: “Love your enemy because God does”.

Example of non-retaliatory, unconditional love: The Prodigal Father story in Luke 15:11-31. The Father (representing God) did not demand a sacrifice, restitution, payment, apology, or anything else before forgiving, fully accepting, and freely loving the wasteful son.

The intention of this Jesus message is to point us toward the highest reach of love- how to tower in stature as maturely human, how to become the hero of our personal quest or story, how to defeat the real enemy and monster in life- i.e. the inherited animal drives inside us where the real battle of good against evil takes place.

The most prominent features of the inherited animal in us- (1) the impulse to tribalism, (2) to domination of others, and (3) to punitive destruction of differing others. These constitute the real enemy and monster that we must confront, subdue, and overcome. Then we have achieved heroic status in our story.

And that is what true liberation is really about. To be freed in the depths of our spirit and consciousness from the worst form of enslavement, the enslavement to the residual, inherited animal impulses of our primitive past. It is the freedom to become truly human.

Note: As always, see qualifiers in sections below. Any understanding of love must embrace the primary responsibility to protect the innocent, meaning the responsibility to restrain violent people- i.e. incarceration, rehabilitation, restitution- as critical to human development. The human ideal of love is not to be equated with dogmatic pacifism as in “turn the other cheek”.

Another: Keep in mind the insights that help us conquer our tribalism impulse- notably, (1) the fact all humans on Earth today are descendants of the same Mitochondrial Eve- an East African black woman who is the mother of us all, and (2) the discovery of “quantum entanglement” and the fundamental oneness of all reality (ignore the quantum purists who dismiss any nonmaterialist use of quantum mechanics as “Woowoo” stuff, we take our insights where we can get them), and (3) the NDE discovery of human oneness with deity. All to say that differing other humans are not our enemies but are family.

And a good illustration of two former “enemies” coming together to heal the tribal divides of today. Props to Chris Cuomo for inviting Tucker Carlson on to his podcast to try to promote unity between disagreeing sides and pull back from the tribal extremism and hatred of today. Cuomo was subsequently blasted by his liberal/Democratic colleagues for platforming the evil “enemy”. Good God, lets all grow the fuck up, people. Lets learn what liberal democracy means. Lets become true liberals. Truly woke liberals.

The basic features of human freedom are the features of Classic Liberalism– Wendell Krossa

(1) Protected individual freedom and rights- personal liberty as in free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of individuals to buy and sell as they freely choose, to self-determine all aspects of personal life, freedom of choice in education, work, and recreation, freedom from state coercion.

(2) Private property and private contracts- secure personal property rights, open markets, protection of equal opportunities for all citizens.

(3) All treated equally under common law- law that protects all equally, jury trials, and no unlawful seizure, confiscation/appropriation, or arrest.

(4) Truly representative government- not “granting” freedom to citizens but protecting freedom that is “the natural God-given right of every person”. Promoting freedom with government bureaucracies and elites that are elected to serve people, to work for citizens, to answer to citizens. (Note- as governments have no right to grant freedom to people, they have no right to take away freedom from people.)

(5) Decentralization of power- promoting fair competition between people and institutions, dispersing power among citizens, businesses, and government agencies.

(6) And freedom of religion, unrestricted press. (Some phrases here are from Hannan’s “Inventing Freedom”)

Further: Mechanisms or protocols built into state organizations to counter the obsessive tendency of bureaucracies to add more regulations, rules, laws to clutter and clog the life of citizens. Mechanisms such as the elimination of 1 or 2 rules for every new rule or regulation added.

The above Liberal principles are contrasted with “Collectivism” where the state, run by political elites and bureaucrats, takes prominence and collective rights dominate over individual rights. The primary obsession of collectivism is to abolish private or personal property which is then to be controlled by collective elites for, as collectivists claim, the “greater or common good”. In actual practise- powerholding elites have inevitably used collectives to serve elite good (the “power corrupts” thing). The shift to make the state the representative of the collective originated with Georg Hegel who notably influenced Marx.

Collectivists believe there must be collective control of production and distribution, collective control of all the resources of a country- again, supposedly in the service of all citizens. As Marx urged, private property is the great evil to be eliminated in order for people to be “free”. He saw freedom as deliverance from capitalism to be subjected to collectivism.

But the idealism of operating collectives to serve the entire population has always and inevitably, in practise, resulted in elites taking control of the collectives, elites believing themselves to be especially enlightened to dictate what is true and right for all others.

There are no such people as the incorruptible “benevolent rulers” who are free of the base impulses that we are all subject to, hence the need for built-in protective mechanisms to keep state bureaucrats/elites from usurping and undermining the freedom of others.

There are no more dangerous people in society than those who believe that they know what is right for all others, people who claim that they will “benevolently” care for a society’s resources for “the good of all”. That idealism is never realized as all 20-plus failed socialist experiments over the past century have shown (“Socialism: The failed idea that never dies”). Centralized power inevitably corrupts utterly and even more pathological- centralized collective power attracts the psychopathic personalities who seek the opportunity to engage the systems of centralized power to control others. The inevitable outcome has been totalitarianism.

Further, collectivist elites have inevitably become intolerant of any dissent by free individuals as the elites believe their righteous cause demands the suppression of any “evil opposition” that would enslave citizens again to the “destructive force of capitalist market systems”.

“Noble cause” zealots repeatedly succumb to “exterminate or be exterminated” mentality (Richard Landes in “Heaven On Earth”).

There is no built-in mechanism or principle in collectivist models to prevent such outcomes that emerge from centralized power and control. Subjecting individuals to collectivist approaches for organizing societies is the denial of freedom and self-determination.

The safest way to organize human societies is to disperse power among competing individuals, institutions, and businesses. That decentralization of power best protects against the totalitarianism that inevitably erupts from centralizing power in controlling elites. The dispersal of power is best expressed in the protection of individual freedom and rights, individuals protected equally across populations as in Classic Liberalism approaches to organizing societies.

In mixed systems (social democracy, democratic socialism) it is the democratic element that staves off the worst impulses of the socialist centralizing element in the mix. And as for such things as universal health care, that is not collectivist/socialist but more in the area of a basic right. But that “universalism” does not then extend to equity outcomes across all areas. Equality and equity are two very different things.

Collectivist experiments over the 20th century resulted in the deaths of some 100 million people.

Sources: “Inventing Freedom” by Daniel Hannan, “Birth of Plenty” by William Bernstein, “Libertarianism: A Primer” by David Boaz. Articles by Christine Brophy, Michael Shellenberger, Joshua Muravchik, and others.

Also, Arther Herman in “The Cave and the Light” shows the history of the contrasting collectivist and individual approaches used across the past few millennia. This is a great story of how these two different approaches to organizing human societies across history have battled one another and the outcomes of both. The collective approach descended down from Plato and his Ideals for organizing society, the other from Aristotle, the more individually-oriented guy. I would also agree with Herman that there are good features on the collectivist side that deserve consideration (e.g. shared responsibilities in societies- i.e. infrastructure).

One more: I would argue that the human ideal of love is best expressed through the Classic Liberal approach that protects individual rights and freedoms. Meaning, as a friend tells us, where there is no authentic individual freedom (self-determination, free individual choice), there is no love.

The article at the link below is from, Wendell Krossa

I once participated in a discussion group with varied scientists, one who believed that all human change of nature since agriculture was developed some 10,000 years ago has been destructive. He argued that there should only be a few tens of millions of hunter gatherers wandering the Earth and not changing anything in the natural wilderness world. Just plucking nuts and berries off bushes but not changing anything as in domesticating and cultivating crop plants. He was at the far end of a spectrum that runs from “no human change of the natural world” to the many varied positions on “how much should humanity engage and use natural resources and change the once natural wilderness world”.

With my ‘obsessive compulsive’ going to ultimate roots of human narratives and views, I would suggest that the above framing of humanity as the destroyer of nature (“disconnected from nature”) is influenced and affirmed by primitive ideas such as the cosmic dualism myth. The humanity/nature divide is one among the many diverse dualisms that have been applied to humanity- one of many good versus evil dualisms.

Many still hold the view of humanity as fallen, evil, a virus, a cancer, an intruder in nature, the destroyer of pure divine nature. This is a profoundly anti-human view, nihilist, and even pushing toward the extremism of advocacy for the extermination of humanity (a world without humans). This self-hatred is set in dualistic opposition to nature worship- i.e. wilderness as the original paradise, the pure Eden.

Interesting how these dualisms find companionship with general Marxist dualism and its oppressor/oppressed or victimizer/victim divide. I think of the varied left/right divides of many societies, the racial dualism of Woke Racism, gender dualisms, etc. Ah, we are such a tribal-minded bunch, eh. We love our righteous battles against intolerable evil others/enemies. And off we go slaughtering one another in never-ending cycles of eye for eye hatred and retaliatory violence.

But I wander off subject too far….

We belong here on earth as natural as any other species, and our innate and uniquely human goodness and love are evident in our ever-more careful use of Earth’s resources, and especially in our preservation of species, a project that is entirely contrary to nature itself. Nature left to its own unintelligent randomness- the wicked old witch, bloody in tooth and claw, along with violent natural disasters- has destroyed over 95% of all species that have ever lived. Nasty old bitch, eh. Mindless nature has destroyed most species, nature without human mind and compassion.

Here below is another on the contemporary insane drive to “destroy human civilization to save the world”. It is a fight in the wrong battle against a non-enemy, an eco-zealotry that is locked into the pathology of “exterminate or be exterminated”. This anti-human story is shaped by the larger background narrative themes of (1) “lost paradise (original wilderness world ruined), (2) life declining toward something worse, toward collapse and ending (climate crisis as latest version of apocalyptic catastrophizing), (3) the salvation demand for a sacrifice (give up the good life for low-consumption primitivism), (4) the demand to purge the “evil threat” to life, the evil enemy, and (5) then the lost paradise can be restored, utopia attained”. Again, as my friend Bob Brinsmead oft reminds us, “It’s the narrative, stupid”.

Today humanity protects vast areas of forests and wilderness in national parks, decreases pressure on wilderness by urbanization (increasing concentration of populations in urban regions), has probably already reached “peak agriculture” and in developed areas has been returning significant areas of agricultural land back to nature, and is also undergoing a dematerialization trend (increasingly less resource inputs per capita).
Wendell Krossa

The Counter-Agricultural Revolution: Should we abolish farming? Not if we care about human well-being”, Saul Zimet, Mar. 15, 2024


“The conflict between farmers and environmentalists has been simmering for years, and in 2023 it finally boiled over into electoral politics. The Dutch BBB (BoerburgerBeweging) or Farmer-Citizen Movement began in 2019 as a series of protests against environmental regulations that had a disproportionate impact on farmers. In March 2023 it became a winning political party….

“Years of increasingly harsh agricultural regulations and widespread farmer protests in the Netherlands and elsewhere had led up to this point. Back in 2019 when US Senator Ed Markey and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s original “Green New Deal” resolution called for the eventual elimination of “farting cows,” drastically cutting agricultural output for environmental interests struck many people as a novel concept. By 2023, conflicts between farmers and legislators had broken out across the globe.

“Many examples come to mind. Sri Lanka’s government banned synthetic fertilizers for about six months in 2021, eventually rolling back the ban due to its exacerbation of mass food shortages and undernourishment across the country. In 2022 the Dutch government pushed unprecedented crackdowns on agriculture to reduce nitrogen emissions. “Farms next to nature reserves must cut nitrogen output by 70%,” the Economist reported. “About 30% of the country’s cows and pigs will have to go, along with a big share of cattle and dairy farms.”

“This would result in the loss of about 11,000 working farms, according to the Irish Times. Ireland’s government followed suit in 2023, pushing to cull 200,000 dairy cows over three years for the purpose of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

“Regulatory moves of this sort have resulted in mass farmer protests erupting not just in the Netherlands and Ireland, but also, Italy, Spain, Poland, and several other countries in 2022 and 2023….

“The global debate over agriculture is more likely to heat up than to cool down in 2024, as it goes to the heart of a fundamental question of environmentalism: When humans want to transform their environment to enrich themselves and others, should they be allowed to?…. productive environmental change is the creation of physical wealth without which humans would rapidly go extinct…..

“Whatever form it takes, you will not find improvements to human life in an environment that is being “conserved” in its current state….

“George Monbiot defends the movement he calls the “Counter-Agricultural Revolution,” and argues that, “The new movement should begin by acknowledging an uncomfortable but well-established reality, a reality that has all too often been swept under the carpet: farming, whether intensive or extensive, is the world’s major cause of ecological destruction.”…

“But the regulation-imposed reductions and ultimate abolition of agriculture would result in the mass culling (by starvation) of the human population, not just cattle. Probably far less than one percent of the current human population would be able to sustain itself in such conditions. The anti-agrarians tend to shrug off this profound implication of their policy preferences…..

“The environmental conservationist movement, which in the case of agriculture has explicitly and openly shown its willingness to sacrifice human health and flourishing on their ideological alter, base their regulatory agenda on a fundamental conceptual error: They synonymize anthropogenic environmental change with degradation…..

“And this thesis is unjustified….. Industrial production, agricultural or otherwise, has negative externalities such as pollution but also positive externalities such as economic growth which drives down the prices of necessities while facilitating more investment in the scientific and technological progress that provides positive-sum solutions to long-term environmental problems.

“So far, the history of economic growth has shown the alteration of Earth’s surface through human volition and ingenuity to be far more helpful than hurtful to the prospects for human well-being. The supply of per-capita nutrition, which has been massively expanded since the industrial revolution through increased agricultural output, is a necessary input for the technological, scientific and economic progress that has improved human life expectancy and even drastically reduced climate-related danger to an all-time low …..

“People changing their environment through profitable economic activity is a complex but overall positive phenomenon for the flourishing of civilization, and agriculture is among the clearest examples of that…” End of article- see full copy at link above.

Posts to discussion group: Wendell Krossa

“This clip is only a few minutes long. Good one for you business, commerce guys, discussion on activists taking control of our investments, trying to take control of all business in order to divert business toward Woke activism. This is one of the best explanations of ESG (Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance) and their project of taking control of corporations and people’s investments and coercing them to do activist funding, pushing Green agendas, DEI, Woke, etc. Rogan and this interesting guest James Lindsay.

“As Lindsay says, ESG then turned into Woke domination, not just corporate social responsibility as in environmental concerns. Example- When Musk bought Twitter to open up free speech, his Tesla score then collapsed and the Woke activists called Tesla a “racist” company. As the guest says, Its about Woke forcing behaviors on all….

“Jordan Peterson also warns- This stuff keeps coming at us in insidious new ways as people expose and shut down one approach. Corruption of our societies that is so intense and embedded that it’s hard to root out.”

Another post to discussion group:

“A brief clip from Rogan and guest on Klaus Schwab’s beliefs and goals- i.e. that Schwab wants the West to follow China’s model of authoritarian government control of economies. That, the guest says, was what ESG was all about.

“They go over tidbits such as that Schwab has a bust of Lenin in his office. Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s second in command is on the board of the WEF (Schwab’s World Economic Forum). Add here that Justin Trudeau is also an admirer of the Chinese dictatorship “because they know how to get things done”.

“Rogan and guest note the WEF slogan- “You will own nothing and you will be happy” (a paraphrase of Marx’s belief in the natural emotional state of people when “liberated” from owning property).”

Another post:

“2 minutes only. Good from this Rogan guest (Lindsay) on the Red Guard that was created by Mao and then after he used them, he sent them off to the Gulag. So the guest applies this to young Woke activists today. He warns- You will be used and then discarded and banned also.

“Others have noted this about leftist elites- They first go after the “Right wing capitalist dogs” (Mao) and then they will consume their own (i.e. fellow leftists who have been used to create the chaos of revolution and are then no longer needed, and those who are not as zealous as the far left elites, etc.). Landes also details this pattern of leftist elites going after their own in ‘Heaven On Earth’. Ah, ‘Woke Marxism’ madness inundating our societies today.

“Can these young people caught up in the Woke movement be brought back to sanity? Rogan’s guest says that he doesn’t know about that as they are in a cult.”

Here it is, the climate movie/documentary dealing with all the big issues in climate and with responses from the best climate scientists… An excellent presentation of the basic facts around climate…

“Climate The Movie”, Mar. 20, 2024


“This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, it is very clearly the case, as can be seen in all mainstream studies, that, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.

“Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’?

“The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.

“But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government….

“The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics) and others.”


What and who is behind the varied projects put forth in our societies that are scrambling for dominant place to determine the direction that our Western civilization will take in coming years? Are the actors pushing for a resurgence of Marxist collectivism (e.g. Woke Marxism), DEI, ESG, climate salvation schemes (decarbonization, de-development, de-industrialization) and related crusades, are they just evil plotters behind the scenes devising plans to take over the world and harm humanity? Or are they good people deceived by bad ideas who have embraced irrational “salvation” schemes in a sincere effort to save the world that they believe is threatened with imminent apocalypse? Are they unaware of the devasting outcomes of their salvation schemes? Or do they dismiss such collateral damage as justified in terms of the greater good that they believe they will achieve?

Take full personal responsibility for the ideas/beliefs that you embrace and the outcomes they produce, Wendell Krossa

More on “It’s the narrative, stupid”.

Re the surging dominance of Woke Marxism, promotion of DEI/ESG, climate alarmism, and related crusades today…

These crusades are not led so much by “evil people intentionally plotting in dark, smoke-filled backrooms” but more likely led by good and well-intentioned people (e.g. Rachel Carson) who have embraced a narrative that validates their ideals/beliefs and actions. Unfortunately, picking the wrong ideas can incite and validate our worst impulses and the outcomes can be immensely destructive.

Some evaluating criteria for the ideas/ideals that we embrace: What outcomes do our ideas and related polices produce? What are the actual consequences? Do our ideas and their outcomes affirm and contribute to human well-being and progress? Our primary priority ought to be the well-being of all people, equally.

Insert: Add here the usefulness of understanding how the narratives that we embrace meet personal emotional needs that are related to deeply embedded archetypes that all of us have inherited from our ancestors, archetypes shaped by their primitive belief systems.

And while the leaders of the above crusades may not be people intent on doing evil, there is also, however small, the element of psychopathy in the human mix with its clearly intentional evil, as in carelessness about the impacts of ideas and policies on others.

We find a mixed bag of “well-intentioned” people contributing to mass-harm and even mass-death outcomes. A few examples: Rachel Carson was well-intentioned but her panic-mongering hysteria over chemicals influenced the ban on DDT that resulted in millions of deaths over following decades as people were denied the protection that chemical provided (“The Excellent Powder: DDT’s political and scientific history”, Tren and Roberts).

Hitler, with his uniquely deformed version of “well-intentioned”, believed that he was acting under Divine Providence to save his people from pollution and annihilation (the weakening and destruction of German culture and spirit). He believed, sincerely, that he was a savior hero in a righteous crusade against evil enemies that had to be exterminated in order to save his world.

We all need to be aware of the power of bad ideas/beliefs in deforming our consciousness, affirming our worst impulses, and responsibly acknowledge the outcomes of our varied systems of ideas/beliefs. We know a tree by its fruit.

Both sides in today’s tribalism must be fully aware of what they are embracing and promoting. Are their ideas and policies really affirming Classic Liberalism? Classic Liberal principles and practises are the closest that we get to what human love should produce in a healthy society- the well-being of all citizens equally in true inclusivity and diversity, the affirmation of the principles of individual freedom, equal treatment under common law systems, full inclusion of diverse opinion and speech, etc., all the elements that Classic Liberalism protects and promotes. Classic Liberal principles and institutions have proven to be the best approach for unleashing human creativity and thereby promoting the well-being of populations.

Again, its probably not so much that evil plotters gather to plan their domination of societies, as it is more a case of people who believe that their narrative embodies truth and good, and that they are in a righteous battle against intolerable evil that must be purged, even if violently and anti-democratically. Hence, the crusaders for righteousness dangerously argue, to hell with normal democratic processes that are inclusive, that affirm and protect too much freedom for diversity of opinion and speech. To hell with that protection of freedom as the threat from the dissenters to their narratives and policies is too great.

Crusaders in a “just war” to save the world, view dissenters as dangerously blocking the righteous crusade to save the world and they are therefore dangerous threats to society and life. They are “deniers, unbelievers” opposing the noble cause to save humanity and all life.

Righteous crusaders, in a frenzy of demonization of difference, will convince themselves that if their opponents win elections then their society is facing the existential danger of “Hitler, the Nazis, the end of democracy, a tyrannical dictatorship, domestic terrorism, etc.”. Add here the mind-deforming belief today that we are facing “the end of the world” due to a looming “climate catastrophe”.

Generating fear is the first step in any crusade to seek totalitarian control over populations. Panic-mongers incite the survival impulse in populations which then shuts down rationality, rendering people susceptible to wildly insane salvation schemes that are destroying societies (i.e. decarbonization, de-development, de-industrialization). Add the threat of “imminence” (the end of days prophesied as just up ahead a few years or decades) to buttress the claim for immediate action to coercively purge the purported threat in order to “save the world”. Claims that are so overly-dramatic, exaggerated, and hysterically unhinged, yet widely embraced by alarmed populations.

The “noble cause” of today’s wannabe totalitarians is framed by them as their heroic quest to conquer a monster and enemy and thereby save the maiden and her community. Alarmist narratives are emotionally satisfying.

Again, I would mentally toy with Bob Brinsmead’s point that there are no really bad people (aside from psychopathy), no real “enemies”, just people who are misled by bad ideas to do bad things, and not aware of the destructive consequences of their beliefs, or they outrightly deny those consequences. Add the psychopathology of “cognitive bias”, the refusal to consider contrary evidence, as climate alarmists do, claiming the consensus on looming catastrophe is final. You then get populations succumbing to alarmist salvation schemes convinced that they are necessary to save life, even as they destroy life.

Add here the hatred of humanity that argues- “so what if you break a few eggs”, as in millions of people dying from your policies. You are on a crusade for a “greater or common good” and, in terms, for example, of the climate alarmism crusade, you must purge humanity as the singularly evil threat to pure and noble nature. Your righteous crusade takes precedence over all other concerns, including preserving human life.

Louis Zurcher and others noted that beliefs are difficult to change because they constitute people’s identity and people then view threats to their ideas as threats to their very self and that then becomes an issue of self-preservation, survival. That produces defensive desperation and aggression against any challenge to one’s ideas/beliefs. Hence, the all-too-common shift to “Exterminate or be exterminated” approaches as justifiable defense against “evil attackers” to one’s narrative and policies that are righteously designed to save the world (see detail in Richard Landes’ “Heaven On Earth”).

Result? Just as many “good Germans” were caught up in the Nazi madness, so many similarly good people are today becoming caught up in the varied crusades to heroically save the world from a variety of manufactured and exaggerated threats and the outcomes are more and more evident in the undermining and abandoning of Classic liberal principles and the consequent ruin of liberal democracies.

We are all obligated to acknowledge and take responsibility for the outcomes of the ideas/beliefs that we embrace and promote. We are all responsible to care for the well-being of all our fellow humans, as our highest priority in life. This is the most fundamental obligation of love. And we have created no better system than Classic Liberalism for protecting freedom and promoting the best of human well-being.

Justice issues again: Advocacy for the unconditional treatment of all is not dogmatic pacifism (i.e. not “turn the other cheek”): Recidivism and criminal justice systems, Wendell Krossa

A central principle of Classic Liberalism is the protection of all citizens from assault by domestic or foreign offenders (kind of Libertarianish). Hence the need for restraint and incarceration of violent people as in maintaining Law and order, peace, and safety for citizens.

A restorative justice approach to offenders does not mean letting violent offenders go free (“no cash bail” or Progressive “de-carceration policies”). Restorative justice means that offenders must take full responsibility for their behavior and consequences, make full restitution, and embrace normal human development to become fully socialized and productive members of society. Nelson Mandela instituted a form of restorative justice with his Truth and Reconciliation Commission where police offenders had to attend and take responsibility for their crimes.

Restorative justice approaches are misunderstood and misrepresented. Its not about sitting in circles holding hands, singing Kumbayah and feeling mushy, fuzzy, and warm toward offenders and their offenses. Its not about “letting all the psychopaths go free” as a dismissive friend once said to me.

The Danish model of restorative justice offers better illustration of the basics of restorative justice approaches that are quite simply about treating all people humanely (no different from human rights codes in relation to prisoners of war). Netflix did a documentary on the Danish proponents visiting US prisons to explain their approach to officials of Attica and other prisons.

The Danish urged the US criminal justice people to consider issues like recidivism rates (re-offending rates) and the fundamental obligation of criminal justice to protect the public from further harm and offense, as the first and foremost obligation of criminal justice. They argued that punitive justice approaches don’t work as well to lower recidivism rates.

So also an Australian Psychological society report noted that punitive approaches don’t work with children or offenders. They don’t teach “alternative human behaviors”. Instead, they re-affirm more of the same old “eye for eye” retaliatory responses- i.e. hurt for hurt, pain for pain, humiliation for humiliation, etc.

Note in the Netflix docu that the Attica officials agreed that the Danish approach worked better, but as they explained, “We are prevented from adopting this model because our public wants punitive treatment of offenders”. (Does this have anything to do with what the Mennonite theologians claimed, that views of a punitive Christian deity shaped US justice as punitive?)

Another US prison sent their guards and officials to attend a seminar in Denmark on the restorative approach and one of the US officials concluded after they were done, “This is all very nice but what about the feelings of victims?” His colleague responded, “We are not in the feeling business but must first do what helps us to protect the public from further victims”. She meant- What works best to lower recidivism rates.

One prisoner illustrated the recidivism issue to the camera during the Netflix documentary. He scowled, “The Attica guards treat us like animals… and I will get out one day”. He glared at the camera and communicated that he was bitter, angry, and warning that he is poses a repeat threat to further victims.

Critical to remember is that most offenders will be returned to society, including those imprisoned for violent offenses like murder. Hence, it should not be primarily about what the public wants, even what victims want, but what works best to lower recidivism and protect future victims.

The ideal of unconditional is about the philosophical underpinnings of our approach to life, how we treat others, including the worst among us- i.e. criminals and war prisoners- and how we thereby maintain our own humanity as we deal with the failures of our fellow citizens. Its about the ideals that we embrace to guide our thinking, feeling, motivations, and actual response/behavior.

These are critical issues and traditional eye for eye retributive or punitive justice approaches don’t properly help us here. As the Aussie report on children and offenders noted, we need new approaches. And we need new underpinning ideas/ideals to inspire and guide our approaches.

Address also the issue of why fully one half of all prisoners in the US are incarcerated for non-violent crimes. And even many who are in for violent offenses are guilty of one-time only incidents of violence, never to be repeated. So the imprisonment of all these offenders- To teach others a lesson? What kind of lesson is that? Locking up Martha Stewart who was worth about $2 billion at the time and could have just been fined for her $40,000 mistake. Does that teach “alternative human behaviors”? Many prisoners could be gainfully employed and contributing to restitution projects and also saving citizens the costs of incarceration ($80 billion in 2016 in the US).

Added notes:

Further points: Victims of crimes are not pushed to join restorative justice programs if they feel their trauma will not permit them to handle such projects.

And there is Paul McCartney’s comment that he will never forgive Mark Chapman for killing John Lennon. I get that one. So yes, many will never feel anything but anger for the murder and other assaults on their loved ones.

This raises the question of just what is forgiveness? What does it mean and involve? Like Simon Wiesenthal’s question in “The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness”. He asked if he did the right thing in not forgiving the dying young SS man who had committed horrific atrocities against Jews. The replies of varied people were included at the end of that book.

We generally understand that outright vengeance is wrong, and Wiesenthal talked a fellow Jew out of killing the SS soldier who had shot his son in front of him at a concentration camp (in “Justice, Not Vengeance”). He said to the man, “Let’s not be like the Nazis”. But justice as in holding Nazis responsible for their crimes- of course.

Other victims will never want anything to do with their offenders but do take some step to embrace “forgiveness” as in some personal mental acknowledgment of the practise. Some explain that they took such a step to rid themselves of defiling hatred and bitterness. Like the father whose daughter was murdered. He said that he chose to forgive the offender in order to free himself of darkening hatred that would negatively impact his other surviving children. But he never had anything to do with the offender that I am aware of.

Certainly, the rest of us have no business telling victims of serious crimes what they should do. We need to shut up, sit down, and listen to their insights on such things. They have a lot to teach us.

Another note:

One particular story in a Netflix series on criminal justice showed a man now in his sixties who was imprisoned for taking part in a violent offense when he was around 18 years old. Something about being part of a robbery where someone was killed (manslaughter or second-degree murder). That man received life imprisonment for being part of that offense. But as he said in the documentary, “I am no longer that stupid young man. I have not been violent since then, yet I will never get out of prison.” He has not been a threat to the public for many decades now. What is justice in such cases? How many such stories makes up the 50% of people imprisoned for violent offenses?

Another on forgiveness:

Some powerful stories of forgiveness include “The Forgiven” which includes a mother who is a composite of women taking part in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In the actual Bill Moyer documentary on that (“Facing The Truth”), one woman attended the meetings because her teenage daughter had been shot by police for demonstrating at an anti-apartheid rally. The mother was at the back of the room during sessions where police guilty of shooting children in the back had to appear and acknowledge their guilt if they hoped to avoid imprisonment. One officer spoke but evaded full responsibility by stating, just as many Nazis did at their trials, that “they were just following orders”.

That was profoundly upsetting to the mother who wailed her agony of disappointment at the officer denying full responsibility. Following the man’s evasive testimony, she looked at the camera and groaned, “We know that God wants us to forgive, but its so hard”.

Other inspiring stories of forgiveness: “To End All Wars”, “The Railway Man”, and more….

Main articles presenting critical points made on this site:

From Retaliation to Unconditional love– the story of humanity’s exodus/liberation from animal existence to become human.

Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).

The Christ myth buried the singularly profound insight of Historical Jesus. The project to recover that insight involves “separating diamonds from dung” (Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy).

Speculating with Joseph Campbell on the meaning of life– the hero’s journey and conquest. The intensely inner battle to conquer the monster of inherited animal impulses, along with the mythical themes that validate such impulses, and thereby tower in stature as maturely human.

And then some repeats of good sources and comments on this and that…

Climate Data Refutes Crisis Narrative: ‘If you concede the science and only challenge the policies… you’re going to lose’’, Climate Depot, Nov. 13, 2023


Edward Ring: “If you concede the science, and only challenge the policies that a biased and politicized scientific narrative is being used to justify, you’re already playing defense in your own red zone. You’re going to lose the game. Who cares if we have to enslave humanity? Our alternative is certain death from global boiling! You can’t win that argument. You must challenge the science…”

10 times more people die every year from cold than die from warmth.

The very best climate science reports and news:

Joseph Campbell on human oneness

“For love is exactly as strong as life. And when life produces what the intellect names evil, we may enter into righteous battle, contending ‘from loyalty of heart’: however, if the principle of love (Christ’s “Love your enemies”) is lost thereby, our humanity too will be lost. ‘Man’, in the words of the American novelist Hawthorne, ‘must not disclaim his brotherhood even with the guiltiest’” (Myths To Live By).

Archetype- “model, ideal, original, pilot, prototype, pattern, standard, classic exemplar, classic, representative, forerunner, epitome, prime example, etc.”

C. S. Lewis’s warning in relation to the moralizing busybodies who believe that they alone know what is right and best for all others and will seek to coerce and control others:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals”.

The personal safeguard to the self-delusion of being solely right… Hold fast to Classic Liberal principles re the protection of individual rights and freedoms, as against the ever-creeping totalitarianism of collectivist approaches that subject individuals to some claimed “greater good or common good” that has to be managed by “enlightened elites” who believe that they alone know what is best for all other and will use coercion to control others.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on the real battle of good against evil that takes place inside us, “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either- but right through every human heart- and through all human hearts.”

Best books on the improving state of life on Earth:

Julian Simon’s “Ultimate Resource”. Simon set the standard for understanding the “true state of life on Earth” by looking at the complete big picture (all the data on any issue) and longest-term trends (not just focusing on short-term aberrations or downturns in long trends).

Many subsequent studies affirmed Simon’s basic research on the big picture and long-term trends of life-

Greg Easterbrook’s “A Moment On the Earth”,

Bjorn Lomborg’s “Skeptical Environmentalist”,

Ronald Bailey’s “The End of Doom”,

Desrocher and Szurmak’s “Population Bombed”,

Indur Goklany’s “The Improving State of the World”,

Matt Ridley’s “Rational Optimist”,

Tupy and Bailey’s “Ten Global Trends”, also “Superabundance”

Hans Roslings “Factfulness”, and others.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.