“Feelings, nothing more than feelings” was the Baby Boomer mantra. This will make sense later, below. Apparently, according to commentators like Christian Parenti, us Baby Boomers started this “feelings first” pathology in the modern era.
These articles from Ruy Teixeira and Charles Rotter cover a lot that is wrong today- the prominence of hyper-sensitivity to hurt or offended feelings as a new dominating standard of what is permissible or not in public discourse, the framing and deforming of the Hero’s Quest with such nonsense, and more…
First, this by Teixeira. Is the great re-orientation of our societies back to common sense coming now? Hope springs eternal, eh.
My post to a discussion group: “Free at last, free at last, thank God we are free at last”, Martin Luther King. My paraphrased take on King’s statement: Free of the curse of Woke Progressivism. Hallelujah, Wendell Krossa
Someone please pass this memo on to Justin Trudeau and David Eby (premier of BC who went total Woke Progressive and pushed that all throughout his party’s governance in BC).
Kamala Harris appears to have seen the light and is now becoming truly woke, which is why she is now embracing many of Trump’s policies. C’mon Trudeau and Eby. Time to wake up too…
“How Progressives Blew It: Defund the police. An open border. Identity politics. End the use of fossil fuels. Is it any wonder America turned against the progressive movement?”, Ruy Teixeira, Oct. 27, 2024
Teixeira opens with: “It wasn’t so long ago progressives were riding high. They had a moment; they really did. Their radical views set the agenda and tone for the Democratic Party and, especially in cultural areas, were hegemonic in the nation’s discourse. Building in the teens and cresting in the early ’20s with the Black Lives Matter protests and the heady early days of the Biden administration, very few of their ideas seemed off the table. Defund the police and empty the jails? Sure! Abolish ICE and decriminalize the border? Absolutely! Get rid of fossil fuels and have a “Green New Deal”? Definitely! Demand trillions of dollars for a “transformational” Build Back Better bill? We’re just getting started! Promote DEI and the struggle for “equity” (not equal opportunity) everywhere? It’s the only way to fight privilege! Insist that a new ideology around race and gender should be accepted by everyone? Only a bigot would resist!”
Teixeira follows, noting that these were horrible ideas, and aside from the progressive left, most others were not interested in embracing them. He states that “the progressive moment is well and truly over.” Others add that even Kamala Harris has abandoned these former positions that she held when campaigning for president in 2020.
Teixeira then lists how the progressive movement fell apart, quoting survey/polling results.
“1. Loosening restrictions on illegal immigration was a terrible idea, and voters hate it.”
He notes that public opinion polling has consistently shown that “overwhelming majorities are in favor of more emphasis on border security.” 62 percent of voters want all undocumented immigrants in the US deported.
“2. Promoting lax law enforcement and tolerance of social disorder was a terrible idea, and voters hate it.”
Teixeira states that Democrats embraced policies of “defund the police”, and de-carceration, de-criminalization, that resulted in spikes in violent crimes that hurt minority communities as well as other areas. These policies tended to be favored by those not affected so much by the crime, notably white, college-educated liberals who are the main base of the progressive movement.
Many have now become woke and realize that “policing works. Who’da thunk it? Progressives own this one, and it is another big reason the progressive moment is over.”
“3. Insisting that everyone should look at all issues through the lens of identity politics was a terrible idea, and voters hate it.”
Teixeira speaks to the Progressive obsession with this ideology that simple-mindedly categorizes people into the tribal dualism of “oppressed/oppressors… victims/victimizers” and ignores the content of issues and how this contradicts logic and common sense. It is an ideology that argues US society is systemically racist.
He says that most Americans reject this and want fairness based not on skin color but based on character, as Martin Luther King argued.
“91 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: “All people deserve an equal opportunity to succeed, no matter their race or ethnicity.” This is what people deeply believe in: equal opportunity, not—unlike the intersectional ideology promoted by progressives—equal outcomes.”
“4. Telling people fossil fuels are evil and they must stop using them was a terrible idea, and voters hate it.”
Teixeira presents the “climate crisis” narrative as “the view that climate change is not gradually advancing, but is already a crisis evident in extreme weather events. It threatens the existence of the planet without immediate, drastic action. That action must include the immediate replacement of fossil fuels by renewables.”
He pushes back that “every sentence in this catechism is highly debatable. But the catechism is not to be questioned, progressives insist.” Joe Biden made this climate crisis narrative central to his government and its policies.
Teixeira adds that this climate crisis gospel of progressives affirmed their view of themselves as “noble warriors against the impending apocalypse.”
But to the contrary, 72 percent of Americans wanted an inclusive approach that embraced fossil fuels as well as renewables. Predictably, the white liberal college graduate base of progressives wanted the total elimination of fossil fuels. Again to the contrary, a majority of the general population “support a candidate who wanted to expand fossil fuel production.”
Teixeira concludes: “What comes next? Certainly, Kamala Harris is furiously backpedaling from all these positions.”
And this below from Charles Rotter illustrates what Christian Parenti was pointing out in another section below- that Woke Progressivism emerged out of the 60s with a growing focus on feelings, and that became the Woke obsession with not being upset, triggered, feeling threatened by differing opinions and speech, by dissent and challenge and questioning of one’s beliefs and positions. Woke pushes the dogma that feeling “victimized” by disagreeing others is the greatest of sins and that disagreement should be censored, cancelled, even criminalized. So label dissent and differing opinions as “hate speech… speech as violence”, or whatever else you can smear it with and shut it down. How dare you upset my feelings, make me feel uncomfortable because you disagree with me.
So the hurt feelings, the discomfort of some, was pushed as the new dominant criterion for what was permissible and what should be censored, banned, criminalized. This became the “tyranny of the minority” that was the spearhead of the new bullying totalitarianism that has permeated educational systems, mainstream news media, state agencies and bureaucracies, even intelligence agencies and militaries. Unbelievable succumbing to insanity, Wendell Krossa
“Emotionally Unstable ‘Climate Scientists’ Don’t Like Being Criticized, Run to Daddy (Nature)”, Charles Rotter, Oct. 27, 2024
Rotter notes a Guardian article that shows climate scientists venting about the supposed unjust criticism they face. In a spasm of self-pity the “self-appointed climate saviors” claim their apocalyptic narrative should not be challenged or questioned.
“This isn’t science under attack—it’s fragile egos crying foul when the rest of us refuse to buy into their doomsday narrative…”
Rotter says the real “crisis” in this is not climate but the hurt feelings of these apocalyptic prophets who cannot tolerate public debate which is what good science is all about.
“Instead of addressing substantive criticisms—like the failed climate models, inconsistent predictions, or the fact that climate policies often do more harm than good—these scientists turn to emotional appeals. They argue that the public’s harsh words are as much of a threat as climate change itself…”
He adds: “One theme that dominates The Guardian article is the scientists’ characterization of public scrutiny as “toxic”. It’s a clever rhetorical strategy, designed to make criticism seem not only misguided but morally wrong.
He says, “By framing dissenters as aggressors who “harm” scientists, the article tries to flip the script: suddenly, it’s not about whether the climate models hold up under scrutiny; it’s about whether the critics are hurting the scientists’ feelings…”
“If anything, this rhetoric exposes the scientists’ shaky confidence in their own predictions. People who are confident in their data don’t crumble under questioning. They engage, clarify, and persuade. But here, instead of rolling out hard evidence to silence their critics, climate scientists want sympathy. It’s a deeply unserious approach to a field that supposedly determines the fate of our planet.”
Referring to a Nature report that the Guardian article is based on, Rotter states that the climate scientist’s whining is a temper tantrum disguised as scholarly commentary and the authors are not interested in good science and legitimate debate but trying to convince readers that any criticism of the alarmist narrative on climate is abuse and their hurt feelings over being questioned and challenged is moral evil.
Then he says that “no article about scientists’ suffering would be complete without a good dose of social media victimhood.”
Rotter affirms in a subtitle, “Science as a moral crusade”, my argument that these apocalyptic movements, and their leaders infected with the “messiah complex”, are deforming the Hero’s Quest. They present themselves as “righteous warriors battling the forces of ignorance and denial”. This, says Rotter, is “emotional manipulation”. Its not science, but “emotional blackmail”.
He continues, arguing well that public scrutiny is not an attack on science but vital to the scientific method. Skepticism, criticism, and ongoing revision is basic to good science.
Then Rotter concludes that “the Guardian article offers a window into the current state of climate science—a field increasingly driven by emotional manipulation rather than empirical rigor…. And to The Guardian, which seems intent on shielding these delicate “warriors” from criticism: stop trying to turn skepticism into a sin. The future of the planet deserves better than a bunch of whining scientists seeking sympathy rather than solutions.” Basically- Suck it up, buttercup.
Another on the infantile demand of elites for total control (Hilary Clinton- “We lose total control”) or they will take all the toys and go home to mommy, nursing hurt feelings (Charles Rotter was pointing to the same spoiled brat hissy fits above).
“Leftist Academics Flee as Musk’s X Ends Their Censorship Reign: How Free Speech Sent the Ivory Tower Packing”, Charles Rotter, Oct. 28, 2024
Rotter begins:
“Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, or X as it’s now called, has brought an abrupt shift in the dynamics of the platform. For years, X functioned as an echo chamber where progressive academics freely exchanged ideas, often without much opposition. It was an exclusive club, and Musk’s open-door policy shattered it. With censorship dialed back and banned accounts reinstated, Musk’s version of free speech drove many academics away, leading to a marked decrease in engagement among their ranks.”
Rotter references a study on leftists fleeing X when Musk opened it to free speech. The study notes that when left-leaning narratives lose control of discourse, proponents cry foul or flee.
Also related to the leftist control of narratives in public media (social media, news media, etc.)…
Rotter also notes another study on the huge imbalance in academia where there is overwhelming domination by Democrats/liberals in liberal arts faculties and no Republicans. This imbalance biases research and reduces academic credibility. He says that, “Even though more Americans are conservative than liberal, academic psychologists’ biases cause them to believe that conservatism is deviant.”
When Musk dismantled X “those accustomed to controlling the narrative found themselves in a more competitive space. In response, many chose to exit, unable or unwilling to engage in a freer marketplace of ideas.”
As Rotter concludes, open debate, where there is dissent, is uncomfortable to leftist academics. “It’s antithetical to their norms” and these scholars therefore find Musk’s X a hostile environment. They no longer have total control over the narrative.
“In sum, Musk’s X takeover and the subsequent academic retreat are case studies in how progressive institutions respond to the loss of control….academia is already well-practiced in avoiding dissent.”
The above three articles highlight the “madness of crowds” mentality and dogma of Wokesters that- “My hyper-sensitivity, my delicate feelings, my feeling upset and uncomfortable that people disagree with me and hold different views than mine, is intolerable to me.” This is the spoilt brat thing erupting among what appear to be adults exhibiting a new “tyranny of the minority”.
The Woke argue, “I demand that my totalitarian impulse must dominate everyone and everything. My feelings on things are the ultimate standard now for what is right or wrong, for what is good or bad, for truth or falsehood/lie”. Do you get the infantile spirit of this?
Remember Christian Niemietz’s great summary of this in his chapter 10 of Socialism: The failed idea that never dies”. He details the 24 Socialist experiments over that past century, how they have all inevitably failed, and the defensive excuse-making of socialists after every failure.
As Niemietz states, emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs. He bases his arguments on the research of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Add here the research on how deformed (i.e. narcissistic) versions of compassion for the oppressed can result in people supporting approaches that harm the very people they claim to have compassion for.”
Its all very much about feelings, not scientific evidence.
These repostings from my earlier comment here on Niemietz…
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=12394
Warning re the outcomes of alarmism crusades, Wendell Krossa
The apocalyptic millennial scholars noted below present stunning evidence that Marxism, Nazism, and now environmental alarmism, are “profoundly religious crusades”. And more unsettling for true believers, these researchers expose the fundamental role that Christian “apocalyptic millennial” themes have played in the above mass-death movements. I take that further and argue that their histories of these themes point to the line of historical descent over the past two millennia that runs directly from Paul’s apocalyptic Christ. Hence, my persistence in highlighting the profound difference between Historical Jesus (and his message) and Paul’s Christ.
My point relates to the comment below on the recent speech by atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen who offers the quote from Voltaire that “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”. Lindzen warns that leftist revolutionaries have co-opted and perverted climate science and are bent on destroying Western civilization.
Lindzen is right to pushback against the absurdity of climate alarmism “science” with the better evidence of good skeptical science. But then the question- Why does that evidence change so few alarmist minds?
This previous posting…
Kristian Niemietz offers some insight on why factual evidence changes so few minds. Niemietz explains this in relation to Socialism but it applies equally to climate alarmism, a similarly apocalyptic crusade.
“Feelings, nothing more than feelings”, song by Morris Albert.
A reposting from my previous summary of Niemietz: “Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs.”
Kristian Niemietz brilliantly explains the psychopathology of why people continue to embrace and affirm this failed ideology (“Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”), how emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs. Think also “confirmation bias” in the mix.
He bases his arguments on the research of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Add here the research on how deformed (i.e. narcissistic) versions of compassion for the oppressed result in people supporting approaches/policies that harm the very people that they claim to have compassion for.”
We hold to beliefs, despite evidence to the contrary, because they seem true (a ring of truthiness), because they have been beaten into human consciousness across multiple millennia through endless iterations of the same old primitive mythical themes that have become deeply embedded in the human subconscious as archetypes. Things we may not even be fully aware of but that potently influence our thinking, feeling, motivations, and responses/behaviors.
So, for example, many people hear a contemporary version of an apocalyptic narrative like climate alarmism, and it just feels “right and true” to them. It resonates. No need to rationally analyze it any further. So just embrace the apocalyptic narrative and the promised salvation scheme, with no consideration of contrary evidence.
My point in response to Niemietz- We give primacy to our emotional attachment to beliefs because we all live primarily by a story or a narrative, not facts, no matter how vociferously we identify as secular, ideological, and even scientific. Our stories are still shaped dominantly by mythical themes. Look at the current prominence of apocalyptic in the “profoundly religious” climate alarmism crusade and its salvation scheme of decarbonization. There is nothing new under the sun.
Niemietz notes: “When reading the accounts of socialist pilgrims, one cannot help wondering how so many highly educated, highly intelligent, well-informed and well-meaning people can be so colossally and persistently wrong.”
He states that Jonathan Haidt shows that a lot of our moral and political reasoning is “post-hoc” rationalization and the purpose is not to arrive at a conclusion but to justify a conclusion after it has been reached. Intuitions come first, followed by reason and, hence, we cannot change people’s minds by refuting their arguments.
He continues, noting that “the emotional part of our mind supports a particular policy because it feels good and is based on good intentions.” So the emotional part of our minds settles on a position and then our reasoning comes up with arguments to support the emotional-based conclusion.
Confirmation bias is the result. We hold to the evidence that affirms our beliefs and feelings and ignore or dismiss contrary evidence.”
See the full comment by Niemietz at http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=12313#more-12313
Woke Progressives frame their narrative with the poorly disguised argument that “My feelings must dictate everything”. And they appear clueless that this is a new totalitarianism they are unleashing. A rejection of Classic Liberalism or liberal democracy. They claim that they alone know what is right for everyone else, so all of you disagreeing others “Shutup” and give the knee to their views and policies. No one should dare question or challenge their feelings on things.
This is the mentality of the new elites who frame themselves with the messiah complex as heroes fighting evil in a righteous, just battle, a noble cause. And yes to Parenti’s point that this focus on the supremacy of feelings probably began with Baby boomers in the 60s.
Now moving along…
My persistence in pointing to these ideas below as the root of varied problems in our societies is because they continue to incite, affirm, and validate the worst impulses of people today to tribalism, domination of others, and extermination of evil enemies, extermination of the monsters that people construct for their exaggerated apocalyptic narratives.
This is being played out notably in US politics today and that illustrates the very same happening in our societies. Until we go to the root of these problems, to the deeply embedded archetypes, we will endlessly get more of the same old outcomes.
Another…
More on my persistent argument with religious ideas still dominating narratives today both religious and secular/ideological, and repeated point that crusades like climate alarmism, Marxism, and Nazism are all “profoundly religious crusades”.
Note the fundamental themes driving such movements- “lost paradise, tribal dualism, decline toward catastrophic ending/apocalypse, domination by “enlightened” elites, demand for violent purging of threatening evil enemies”, etc.
This is all deeply embedded archetypal stuff that endlessly shapes new versions for new crusades. This stuff keeps re-emerging in new narratives, new forms, policies, and programs.
Until we go to these root factors, we will just see the same old destructive crusades re-erupting again and again to wreak great damage in our societies. That was Richard Landes’ point that until you understand the influence of apocalyptic millennial themes on groups like the Nazis and deal with that, you will just keep getting more such mass-death outcomes. So also, the military guy stating that you can forcibly stop groups like ISIS but you will keep getting similar outbreaks of religious violence until you deal with the ideas driving such eruptions.
Reposting material- The drive to get to the bottom of things, Wendell Krossa
This site has repeatedly posted what I believe is at the root of many problems in our societies today, core narrative themes that darken and enslave human consciousness and spirit and then extend their influence out to incite harm in human societies.
We all live primarily by story, stories dominated/shaped by inherited archetypal themes, essentially mythical/religious themes, no matter how we identify and present as “secular, materialist, scientific”. We are all “spiritual” beings at core (not “religious”).
And when we look beyond the ever-changing surface terms of our dominant narratives, we see the same old core mythical themes that have dominated human thought and narratives across history and across all the cultures of our world. Subconscious archetypes are deeply rooted and hard to change.
Evidence that religious ideas still dominate contemporary narratives and public consciousness- Notably, the ongoing “climate crisis” hysteria, an apocalyptic story that pushes a salvation scheme (“save the world”) that is devastating societies like Britain, Germany, and elsewhere, and leaving a generation of young people anxious, depressed, and fatalistically uninterested in engaging life. Hence, young couples are refusing to have children because they are afraid of bringing children into the world soon to end by environmental apocalypse.
The dominant apocalyptic narrative spills over into other areas with its Declinism nonsense deflating hope in populations. At its worst, the “lost paradise/apocalypse/redemption” complex incited and validated the mass-death outcomes of Marxism and Nazism. That same mass-harm is now emerging through environmental alarmism and the climate crusade of Net Zero decarbonization.
It’s the same old mythical pathology of angry deity behind nature punishing people for their sins and demanding sacrifice and suffering for redemption, with the carrot of a salvation in collectivist utopia.
Here is the fuller complex of humanity’s worst psychopathologies that have long been embedded as archetypal in human subconscious. These themes/beliefs/ideas endlessly incite and validate the worst of human emotions, motivations, and responses/behavior. We have long had better alternatives, Wendell Krossa
The main complex of prominent mythical themes that have shaped human narratives from the beginning and still dominate narratives today both religious and secular/ideological:
(1) A lost paradise that must be restored, “saved” (i.e. the myth of a better past that has been ruined and lost and must be recovered).
(2) Corrupt humanity as the destroyer of paradise (the fallacy of “original sinfulness”, the anti-humanism of people as “bad to the bone”, a “virus, cancer” on earth).
(3) The fallacy of life declining toward a worse state, toward collapse and apocalyptic ending as the deserved punishment for our sin (note that apocalypse is the ongoing obsession of Hollywood public story-telling).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apocalyptic_films
(4) With the human survival impulse now incited by threat theology, we get the big stick of- “the gods are angry with us and we are guilty, we deserve punishment”, hence, now scared shitless, we are susceptible to the demand for sacrifice/payment, and suffering as redemptive (i.e. embrace de-growth, de-development, return to low-consumption primitivism), embrace policies that will ruin our societies, just as socialists convinced entire countries to embrace their destructive salvation scheme, so the Nazis in Germany, and now environmental policies like Net Zero decarbonization are presented as the latest scheme to “save the world”.
(5) And most dangerous in the mix of pathologies- the demand for a violent purging of some imagined evil threat (CO2- the food of all life is currently demonized as pollutant/poison that threatens all life). The religious belief in “violent purging of evil” is framed as a heroic adventure where the hero goes forth to engage a righteous battle against evil enemies that must be vanquished in order to save something (“save the world, save democracy”).
So as with mindless billions before us, we are told to embrace Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism of a battle between good and evil, as in the obligation to engage a righteous battle against some evil that threatens life (i.e. the hero’s quest to conquer a monster or evil enemy). This is what Richard Landes warned about in regard to the dangerous shift to the late-stage phase of “exterminate or be exterminated” in apocalyptic millennial crusades, a shift that resulted in mass-death outcomes in Marxism, Nazism, and now appears to be emerging in environmental alarmism with its obsession over Net Zero decarbonization that is ruining societies obsessed with the apocalyptic “climate crisis”.
This is followed with the carrot, (6) the promised hope of salvation in a restored paradise or new utopian world (a future of the ‘equity’ communalism of collectivism).
My response to this complex is to go right to the core- to the myth of a deity who threatens violent punishment and destruction through the natural world, the single most psyche-traumatizing myth to have ever infected human minds.
I reject that cohering center of old narratives outright and replace it with the stunning new theology of Historical Jesus that God is “no conditions, universal Love”. God was a non-retaliatory, non-apocalyptic deity. And to make the Jesus insight real clear (i.e. “pull the diamond out of the dung”- Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy) it is critical to point out the deformed setting for Jesus original message in the great contradiction of Christianity where Paul has buried that insight of Jesus with his retreat to punitive, destroying deity as in his Christ myth that dominates the New Testament narrative.
Example statements from Paul on this, “Lord Jesus will return in flaming fire to punish/destroy those who refuse to believe my Christ myth” (his first letters to the Thessalonians). Also, his statement of retreat to primitive retaliatory theology in Romans, “’Vengeance is mine’, says the Lord. ‘I will retaliate and destroy’”. John’s Revelation then graphically portrays the raging, destroying Christ of Paul in chapter 19/20.
What early Christianity got right was including the core message of Jesus as in “love your enemy because God does”, along with the broader “no conditions” theme of Jesus (e.g. the Prodigal parable). Pull that teaching out and honor it properly aside from its distorting context.
My alternatives to the psychopathologies in the old narratives:
Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
Now… This is so critical for emerging generations…
A reposting of the basic principles of a humane society: Wendell Krossa
What do I mean when I refer to “Classic Liberalism”? And as people talk about creating a “safe AI” why not ensure that safety by programing AI with Classic Liberal principles?
Basic principles, systems, institutions of Classic Liberalism, liberal democracy, or Western liberalism.
Daniel Hannan in his Introduction to “Inventing Freedom” provides the following lists and descriptions of the basic features of a truly liberal society or civilization:
“A belief in property rights, personal liberty, and representative government…
“Three irreducible elements. First, the rule of law…Those rules exist on a higher plane and are interpreted by independent magistrates…
“Second, personal liberty: freedom to say what you like, to assemble in any configuration you choose with your fellow citizens, to buy and sell without hindrance, to dispose as you wish with your assets, to work for whom you please, and conversely, to hire and fire as you will…
“Third, representative government. Laws should not be passed, nor taxes levied, except by elected legislators who are answerable to the rest of us… the rule of law, democratic government, and individual liberty…
“The idea that the individual should be as free as possible from state coercion… elevate the individual over the state…
“Elected parliaments, habeas corpus (see below), free contract, equality before the law, open markets, an unrestricted press, the right to proselytize for any religion, jury trials…
“The idea that the government ought to be subject to the law, not the other way around. The rule of law created security of property and contract…
“Individualism, the rule of law, honoring contracts and covenants, and the elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values…
And this full summary:
“Lawmakers should be directly accountable through the ballot box; the executive should be controlled by the legislature; taxes should not be levied nor laws passed without popular consent; the individual should be free from arbitrary punishment or confiscation; decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affected; power should be dispersed; no one, not even the head of state, should be above the law; property rights should be secure; disputes should be arbitrated by independent magistrates; freedom of speech, religion, and assembly should be guaranteed”.
Hannan’s book is invaluable for tracing the historical emergence and development of Western freedom down through the English tradition, from pre-Magna Carta to the present.
Definition of habeas corpus (varied online definitions):
“A habeas corpus application is used by persons who feel they are being wrongfully detained. Upon application, the individual is brought before a judge who will determine whether the detainment is lawful.”
“A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.”
“The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body”—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. In United States law, ‘habeas corpus ad subjiciendum’ (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called “the Great Writ,” and it is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus— “relief” in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impaneled.” (Miriam Webster)
One of the best at defining and articulating Classic Liberal ideals and principles, notably in the US version- Full interview of Vivek Ramaswamy on Lex Fridman podcast. Vivek for president. Note how Vivek frankly acknowledges and responds to deformities of Classic Liberalism on the right side of US society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Qk_3a3lUw
Updated, revised reposting…
Review of main site topics, among many other topics scattered throughout this site: Wendell Krossa (Ideas to transform consciousness and change the world- summary for visitors)
(1) There is no “climate crisis” because the best of atmospheric physicists (Richard Lindzen, William Happer, etc.) tell us that the warming influence of CO2 is now “saturated” (a physics term)- see research reports at “co2coalition.org”, “wattsupwiththat.com”, etc. Even if CO2 were to double to 800 ppm, it would add no more to any possible future warming. See also Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore’s comments during his Jordan Peterson interview… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxTBpds2dQA
The mild “1 degree C” warming over the past century has been highly beneficial in a still far-too-cold world where 10 times more people die every year from cold than die from warming (Lancet study). Cold, not warming, is still the great threat to life.
The climate crisis crusade is a “profoundly religious movement”, just as the Marxism and Nazism crusades were driven by the same basic themes of “lost paradise, apocalypse, redemption/millennial utopia”. (Sources: Arthur Herman’s “The Idea of Decline in Western History”, Richard Landes’ “Heaven On Earth”, Arthur Mendel’s “Vision and Violence”, David Redles’ “Hitler’s Millennial Reich”, etc.)
(2) The re-instatement of the “elite/commoner” divide in our liberal democracies is the great threat to democracy and individual freedom. Varied articles posted here- i.e. Michael Shellenberger, Taibbi and Kirn, etc.- try to probe and understand the totalitarian impulse of elites, the psychopathology of elites seeking to meddle in, coerce, manipulate, and control commoners. That busybody meddling and control is a rejection of Classic Liberal principles, systems of law, and institutions that were created to protect all of us from elite domination by dispersing power back to populations of equal citizens. Classic Liberalism is the best that we have created to protect all of us from our own impulse to dominate, the best approach to promote the freedom, rights, and equality of every person. (Sources: Daniel Hannan’s “Inventing Freedom”, David Boaz’s “Libertarianism: A Primer”, etc.)
My metaphysical basis for the equality of all people, for arguing that everyone is as good as anyone else, and for fundamental human goodness- I would argue/speculate from the truth that “God is love” indwells every human person as inseparable from the common human spirit.
(3) The same set of primitive mythical themes has dominated human narratives across history, in both religious and “secular/ideological” versions, even scientific versions. (Sources: Books of Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, and other historians of mythology/religion.)
Now here are some of the main psychopathologies of historical narratives, themes that still dominate world religions and have now been embraced and repeated in “secular/ideological” narratives, even in “scientific” belief systems.
(4) There was no original better world, no original paradise in the past. This is the baseline fallacy in human narratives and mental pathology.
(5) Humanity is not a fundamentally corrupt and inherently “sinful” species but is the best thing to have ever happened to life, with creative mind and compassionate hearts. As Julian Simon concluded after detailing the historical evidence, “We are more creators than destroyers”. Bob Brinsmead says that the real story of humanity is not the religious pathology of how far we have “fallen” but the amazing story of how high we have risen from our primitive past. This counters the domination of anti-humanism in both religious and “secular/ideological” narratives today.
(6) Hit this point again…. Our contemporary narratives, both religious and “secular/ideological”, are still dominated by the inherited themes of primitive mythologies- i.e. the mind-deforming fallacies of a paradise past, corrupt humanity ruining paradise, life declining toward apocalypse, demand for sacrifice/payment, demand for suffering as redemptive, demand for violent purging of evil threat, demand to engage a tribal battle of true believers exterminating unbelievers, and the promise of restored paradise in utopian communalism.
Historian of mythology/religion, Joseph Campbell, said this much in his summary that people have believed the same primitive myths all across history and across all the cultures of the world.
(7) The meta-story of humanity is the story of exodus from our animal past to become maturely human in civilization. Emerging and developing human mind, consciousness, language, and spirit is something entirely, qualitatively different from the animal inheritance that we still carry in our brains and bodies. Our meta-story is that of exodus from exclusionary and discriminatory tribalism, base animal domination, and retaliatory destruction of differing others, to explore the future of mature humanity that is oriented to human oneness, mutual service, and non-punitive, restorative justice.
(8) Life is not declining toward some worse state but is improving and rising toward a better future. Julian Simon and many others have presented volumes of evidence on the main indicators of life that shows, while problems still exist all over, life over the long-term continues to improve.
(Sources: Julian Simon’s “Ultimate Resource” (single best book ever written), Greg Easterbrook’s “A Moment On The Earth”, Bjorn Lomborg’s “Skeptical Environmentalist”, Ronald Bailey’s “The End of Doom”, Indur Goklany’s “The Improving State of the World”, Tupy and Bailey’s “Ten Global Trends”, Desrocher and Szurmak’s “Population Bombed”, Matt Ridley’s “Rational Optimist”, and more.)
(9) The Christ myth of Paul has buried the message of Historical Jesus that God is stunningly inexpressible no conditions love. Paul buried that stunning new theology in his highly conditional religion- Christ-ianity.
The basic framework of themes presenting Paul’s Christ myth is entirely opposite to the message of Historical Jesus. Paul gave us the “Christ-ianity” that buried the actual “Q Wisdom Sayings” message of Jesus- i.e. what would have been “Jesus-ianity”.
Paul’s Christ myth has been the single most dominant influence on Western narratives, consciousness, and society (James Tabor- “Paul and Jesus”, among others).
(Sources: Search for Historical Jesus research, Jesus Seminar books, and “Q Wisdom Sayings” research, notably the work of James Robinson, John Kloppenborg, and others. See also the essays by Bob Brinsmead- https://bobbrinsmead.com/ )
(10) Paul re-established the primitive theology of retaliatory, highly conditional deity (i.e. a God who demands the supreme condition of a cosmic sacrifice/payment) in his Christ myth and thereby buried the message of Jesus (an unconditional God) that could have liberated humanity as nothing ever before.
The stunning new theology of Jesus stated that there is no judging, condemning God who demands sacrifice/payment (see, for example, the “Prodigal’s Father” parable).
(11) There is no such reality as a tribal deity who favors true believers and damns unbelievers. There is no cosmic Zoroastrian dualism functioning as the divine model for human tribal dualisms. The human family is one family- i.e. based on varied insights such as that all humans on Earth today are descendants of Mitochondrial Eve, quantum entanglement as fundamental oneness, and the NDE discovery of the oneness of all.
(12) There is no God threatening punishment of human failures through natural world disasters, disease, and death, whether the angry deity of past mythologies/religions or the similarly pissed deity of contemporary narratives- “vengeful Gaia, angry Planet/Mother Earth, punitive Universe, payback Karma”.
This has been the single most psyche-traumatizing myth ever constructed. There is no retaliatory God threatening retaliatory apocalyptic destruction of life. Again, there is only inexpressible no conditions love behind reality and life.
What is my authority for stating these “truths”? The self-validating nature of unconditional love as ultimate good, truth, and reality, the missing critical element in any complete TOE.
(13) There is no dominating “Lord/King” God who interferes, intervenes, or meddles in human freedom and self-determination. This is critical to understand and get right as elites try to re-establish elite domination in our liberal democracies, based on the archetypal belief that domination by elites is a non-negotiable divine reality and pattern. So just accept your fate, commoners. Dominating deity has long been the ultimate ideal and authority to validate human elitism, elites dominating commoners. See comment on this in sections below.
Historical Jesus would have rejected outright Paul’s “Lord Jesus” myth because he taught his followers- “The rulers of the gentiles lord it over them… exercise authority over them. It must not be like that among you. Whoever wants to be great must be your servant. Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave”.
Historical Jesus, not Paul’s Christ, was the original Classic Liberal advocating the equal freedom and rights of every person. God, according to Jesus, was a servant reality, a commoner reality. Historical Jesus rejected the pathology of “Lord”.
(14) There is no threat of future after-life harm- i.e. threat of eternal exclusion, punishment, and destruction (i.e. hell). There is only an inexpressible unconditional love in the human future and that is our true home.
(15) In his “no eye for eye retaliation” and “love your enemy” maxims, Historical Jesus was advocating for restorative justice as in the robust holding of all responsible for the consequences of their behavior- i.e. the necessary incarceration of violent people to protect others, but then treat all humanely as the Allies did post-WW2 defeat of enemies. So with criminal justice, like Tolstoy said, there is no circumstance where people are not to be treated with love. But also, no pacifist “turn the other cheek” in the face of violence. (Sources: “The Crime of Punishment” by Karl Menninger)
(16) We are not our animal brain with its inherited impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others. Our true human self and human spirit is love, inseparable from the Love that is God.
(17) The “hero’s quest” is not a battle against other people but an inner quest to conquer our inherited animal drives to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others. That is our real enemy, the real monster that we face in life and must learn to conquer and vanquish as we struggle to affirm our better human impulses.
(18) The God of Jesus is not a “sky-god” up above in the heavens but is immediately present everywhere in life as love, inseparable from the common human spirit in every person- i.e. “The kingdom of God is within you”. The true nature of every human being consists of the same love that is God. “There are no really bad people, just people misled by bad ideas”, Bob Brinsmead.
(19) The “hero’s quest” is about learning and manifesting love in this world through a unique life story that is as equally valuable as any other human story. People manifest love through the infinite diversity of their unique life stories, whether in the mundane and ordinary of common work, in home life and raising children, in recreation, or in sports, entertainment, business, politics, science, and all other human occupations.
True religion is to focus on this life and making a unique contribution to improving life in this world, not living for some after-life reality, or trying to “have a relationship with God” as in focusing on some invisible, metaphysical reality (so “heavenly minded as to be of no earthly use”).
(20) Authentic human achievement, real success in the Hero’s Quest, is about love in the details of daily life, in the mundane and ordinary, when not publicly praised or even publicly known, where the true self is living authentically with no cameras to acknowledge good done.
The primacy of the ordinary and daily mundane is validated by the new theology of God as a street-level God, incarnated in every person equally, and not impressed with the great deeds of public people but more interested in the secret, hidden actions of common people in daily life.
(21) The God who opposes tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction.
(22) And many postings on the battle for free speech today, the new totalitarianism emerging from within Western so-called liberal democracies, mainly from the left side of our societies- i.e. the extremist left Woke Progressivism that threatens freedom and democracy.
Note: The neo-totalitarian, neo-Marxism (neo-collectivism) coming at us from Progressives in our democracies that are promoting censorship of speech as reported by courageous journalists like Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, Douglas Murray, Glen Greenwald, and others. This is, once again, about the primitive impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others.
(23) Note particularly- The resurgence of tribal dualism in the neo-collectivism of Woke Progressivism. DEI categorization of populations by skin color as good or bad (victim/victimizer) is the latest addition to traditional Marxist categorization by the tribal dualism of oppressor/oppressed (capitalist property owners versus workers).
And many more topics…
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.
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9809
Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
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).
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
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.
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=8661
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
Quote:
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 warming.
This from Jordan Peterson’s “Mondays of Meaning”, Oct. 28, 2024
“Pursue Your Interests And Answer The Call To Adventure
“In Jungian psychology, circumambulation is a process which involves your future self. When you look back at your experiences, you might notice there are themes in your life, typical experiences which repeat themselves. You are circling yourself as you move across time.
“Jung’s idea was that you have a potential future self who is everything you could be and one which manifests itself moment to moment in your present life by making you interested in certain things. Those interests would guide you along a path that leads to maximal development. While it may sound like a metaphysical idea — or even a mystical idea — it is not. It is actually a profound biological idea. Moment to moment, your interest is captured by the things that will lead you down the path of development.
“There is utility in pursuing those things in which you are interested. That is the call to adventure, a call that takes you many places. But it is an error-ridden process because when new parts of you manifest themselves and you are seized by your interests, you sometimes pursue them quite badly. You stumble around when you try to do something new. That is why the fool is the precursor to the savior from the symbolic perspective: You have to be a fool before you can be a master. If you are not willing to be a fool, then you cannot be a master.
“Yet you are essentially set up so that you are automatically interested in what will fully expand you as a well-adapted creature. Despite the fact you may be a fool, you are still meant to go on the adventure. You are capable of learning enough as a consequence of moving forward on the adventure so that you straighten yourself out across time.”