New comment below:
The Swedish system of mixed elements (democratic socialism/social democracy) is not an Eden-like answer to organizing societies. Bad elements in mixed systems undermine the good elements. Did we learn nothing from the merger of Historical Jesus with Paul’s Christ? Look up “oxymoronic”. More on re-establishing tribal dualism as per Marxist collectivism and the inevitable consequence of another bout of the elite/commoner divide in society. And oh, Starmer pushes the destruction of British society with Net Zero zealotry. Imagine, the birthplace of Classic Liberalism being ruined by an apocalyptic death-cult.
See reposting of revised “Review of main site topics” below. Ideas to stir the Christmas pot, known in the vernacular as the “Number 2” pot. Ideas to transform consciousness and change the world for the better. And other new bits below.
Salvaging DEI concerns. Well, some of them, Wendell Krossa
Two of the main principles in DEI- i.e. “inclusion and diversity”- are generally acceptable to most people, depending on exactly what meaning is associated with them and what form of promotion is used to present them. Most of us can agree that inclusion and diversity are good for liberal democracy.
But not the “equity” element in the mix as in coerced equal outcomes that deny performance-based criteria.
And then we ask- Why are contemporary DEI programs too often promoted in our societies with such hatred and bullying? Why, for example, the quick and harsh condemnation by many DEIers of any diversity from dogmatically affirmed “correct speech”? Why the all-too-common follow-up calls of DEIers for censoring, cancelling, even criminalizing those who speak incorrectly or even just question the dogma?
Just to illustrate the bullying- Note this clip below of “Piers Morgan Uncensored”, where Democrat Ana Kasparian talks about the insane bullying that she endured for sharing the sexual assault that she suffered at the hands of homeless people in LA. Her “Woke DEI” colleagues then turned on her with nasty attacks that stunned her, smearing her as “hating homeless people, stigmatizing homeless people”, turning her, the victim, into the victimizer in her sexual assault.
As she rightly notes, the activists are a small minority (“tyranny of the minority”) but scream the loudest and then form mobs of bullies to threaten and cow others into silence. There is no authentic “inclusion and diversity” in DEI approaches.
The bullying that so often follows the implementation of DEI programs is justified as legitimate in order to protect and liberate the “victims” of imagined oppression. The required “revolution” thing- i.e. “break some eggs to make the good omelet”. But none of us are ever justified in abandoning the fundamental human obligations to “love one another”, to “love your enemy”, meaning- to live as human.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkEZXp0GJe8
This Morgan/Kasparian episode illustrates the psychopathology of narcissistic virtue-signaling that appears to be behind much advocacy for DEI, a psychopathology that appears unaware of or cares not about vicious attacks and harmful outcomes but just wants to present the appearance of virtue in crusading for “victims”, virtue in activism for a “noble cause”, virtue in “heroic engagement in a righteous battle against evil victimizers”. Others have called this the “narcissism of left-wing authoritarianism”.
(Insert: This is not to deny that there are actual victims among minority groups. But we don’t advocate humanely for those people by bullying and harming others who challenge our activism. That exposes our claims to “compassion” as more the psychopathology of virtue-signalling that has become too common among activists for varied crusades today.)
Any basic awareness of the brutal murderousness of “equity” approaches (i.e. the 100 million people murdered last century by equity-oriented collectivism) will quickly sober common-sense minds and result in the rejection of collectivist approaches for their repeatedly inhumane outcomes that destroy liberal democracy and inevitably promote the horrific outcomes of the elite/commoner divide in societies.
Always apply Thomas Sowell’s “Test of facts”, as in what are the actual outcomes of the ideology or approach that you are promoting. Inevitable harm, and the failure of humane societies, is built into the guiding principles of collectivist equity systems or approaches. We have repeated historical examples that affirm these outcomes. So why keep ‘fooking’ things up? Well, Kristian Niemietz ends his book with an explanation why- “Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs.” (Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies)
Read the great collectivist equity experiments of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others. Add another recent one in Venezuela. And don’t pivot defensively, as equity activists do, to the repetitious excuse that follows all failed socialist experiments- “Well, that last failed one was not true socialism. We just need another chance to show true socialism”.
The collectivist zealots promoting Chavismo made that very argument at the beginning of the Venezuelan experiment with socialism- i.e. that it would be different this time from the old Stalinist versions of the past. It would be “true socialism”.
And yes, it was “true socialism” because all socialist approaches- i.e. collectivist equity- embody the same essential core pathologies of subjecting individuals to collectives (falsely presented as “greater or common good”) that are run by “enlightened elites” who through state coercion confiscate private property and thereby undermine and overturn individual rights and freedoms. Every socialist experiment always and inevitably then becomes just another society-deforming application of the primitive elite/commoner divide. Milder versions of the same basic pathologies are evident in big government approaches that confiscate private property via excessive taxation and regulatory intervention in citizens lives.
Insert: Note the Hollywood activists (fitting the category of those whom Lenin termed “useful idiots”) who rushed south to give their support to Chavismo- i.e. Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover, Tim Robbins, Jesse Jackson, Harry Belafonte, and others…
https://nypost.com/2016/06/05/hollywoods-chavez-cheering-stars-venezuelas-victms/
https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=6147631&page=1
The inevitable outcomes of collectivist equity experiments, outcomes that destroy freedom and democracy, are built into the basic principles of collectivist equity that refuse to protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals, equally.
Understand the basic principles of any system/approach and the related outcomes (correlation/causation) as evidence of what the basic principles of a system produce- i.e. Do they help or harm? It is especially egregious when the outcomes of a system/approach have been so consistently harmful to populations as socialism principles have been across previous history.
Continuing…
All collectivist equity approaches follow the same old destructive path of all past similar crusades and the defenders then make the same old excuses following every failed experiment with their approach. I listened to my profs at SFU (late 80s) make these very excuses as the Soviet Union was collapsing in the late 80s, early 90s, “It wasn’t true Socialism and we just need another chance to show true Socialism is the best way to organize human societies”. Such nonsense and blind denial of the pathologies in the system that you promote.
Sources: See Jung Chang and Jon Halliday’s “Mao: The Unknown Story”. Also, Kristian Niemietz’s “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”.
After failing 24 times across the last century or so, it is denialism of the worst kind to insist on “keeping on”. Isn’t the insistence on doing the same things that keep failing, the definition of insanity?
The outcome of inevitable harm and failure is built into any system that does not protect and promote the freedoms and rights of every person, equally.
Once again- A renewed totalitarianism is being pushed across our liberal democracies. What drives the repeated promotion of the elite/commoner divide in our societies? What incites people to reject the Classic Liberalism that protects the freedoms and rights of all, equally?
Added notes: Wendell Krossa
Get a good grip on the basic principles of Classic Liberalism and that will provide you with the tools to evaluate any ideology, system, or approach to organizing societies that is put forth in society. It will help you to evaluate any policy, project, or program offered by activists or politicians. Does it serve people as in affirming individual self-determination as much as possible? Does it give power to the people as in protecting and promoting the full rights and freedoms of all individuals, equally?
I have listed again below the basic principles from Daniel Hannan’s book “Inventing Freedom: How the English-speaking peoples made the modern world”. He offers the evidence that Classic Liberal principles, systems of law, and representative institutions have produced the “common or greater good” more successfully and broadly than any alternative approach- i.e. producing “the most good for the most people” (Milton Freidman). The “good” of lifting billions of people out of the horror of poverty over the past few centuries (notably beginning around 1820- see William Bernstein’s “The Birth of Plenty”).
Classic Liberal principles have a solid history of functioning successfully to improve the human condition. Socialism, to the contrary, has inevitably and repeatedly produced mass-harm/mass-death, immiserating billions and ruining societies, as exemplified by the latest experiment in previously resource-rich and wealthy Venezuela, now a state in collapse.
Collectivist equity systems enslave people within the same old elite/commoner divide.
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. See a full interview of Vivek Ramaswamy on the Lex Fridman podcast. Vivek for president. Note how Vivek also frankly acknowledges and responds to deformities of Classic Liberalism on the right or conservative side of US society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Qk_3a3lUw
A little aside comment for your entertainment…The lunacy of apocalyptic nihilism.
Get the snip (ouch) to “save the world”. No, not Lorena Bobbitt’s snip of Johnny’s willy. Something milder. A bit on the nihilistic madness produced by the great lie of apocalyptic that incites people to destroy life to “save the world”.
This illustrates how Chicken Little fear-mongering exaggerates normal changes in the natural world and thereby promotes irrationality in traumatized populations and subsequent susceptibility to salvation schemes that harm or destroy life to “save the world”. Well described as the “madness of crowds” outcomes of apocalyptic crusades.
“Meet the woman so afraid of climate change she made her husband get the snip and refuses to have children”, Daily Sceptic, Sallust, Nov. 28, 2024
The above writer refers to an article that notes a businesswoman in her 30s who refuses to have children and pushed her husband to get a vasectomy. Her reason was “climate change”.
As she said, “How can I bring an innocent warm bundle into the world when none of us can say that the world will even be habitable for them?”
This helps, in part, to understand the falling birth rates in contemporary societies where fewer members of upcoming generations will be available to sustain ageing populations.
The businesswoman continues, stating, “I won’t have a child because of the threat posed by climate change.” She says that women like her are not having babies because adding to the global population “will simply hasten its demise… ‘Why bring children into a world when we don’t know if it’s going to exist in 100 years?’…
“Why have children to fulfil a biological need then not care that the world they will inhabit looks increasingly likely to resemble some post-apocalyptic wasteland? The seas barren, the skies raging, the deserts spreading and no way to turn back this ecological disaster… I have long been terrified of what the future holds.”
The article then notes that a U.S. poll revealed that “a quarter of adults without children say climate change is part of the reason”. Also, a 2021 analysis by a global bank found the decision “to not have children owing to fears over climate change is growing and impacting fertility rates quicker than any preceding trend in the field of fertility decline”.
The businesswoman above “takes care to let the Mail’s readers know how she’s doing her bit to stop Britain turning into a boiling and barren desert”.
The author above concludes: “The article is a fascinating insight into the psychological effects of state-sponsored fearmongering, resulting in potentially the greatest catastrophe of all: a culture of total negativity… Worth reading in full if only to see just how nihilistic the culture of climate change has become.”
Robust justice and maintaining our humanity are not irreconcilable/conflicting realities, in opposition to one another, Wendell Krossa
A humane justice system will first and foremost protect the innocent from harm as per the Classic Liberal principle that the primary responsibility of government is to protect citizens from assault, both domestic and foreign. Meaning- Provide an environment of peace and safety for all citizens, free of threat. That is the number one job of criminal justice systems.
But then, of course, critical to maintaining our own humanity as we protect all others, we are obligated to exercise justice humanely, as in treating even offenders with restorative justice. This is not something to be set in opposition to robust protection of citizens. As if justice and acting humanely in all situations of life are somehow essentially contrary things. They aren’t.
Again, few have stated it as well as Joseph Campbell, remember your “enemy” is still your brother in the one human family:
“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).
And, once again, the best ever set of statements on how to live as maturely human in this world where we are responsible to combat evil, to restrain/incarcerate violent offenders:
A non-retaliatory response in life does not mean that we do not hold all responsible for behavior. It’s more an attitudinal thing (that influences and guides behavioral)- how we conduct ourselves as we engage the responsibility to hold one another accountable/responsible to act fully human:
“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: “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 loving the wasteful son. Again, this is not prescriptive of how to treat violent offenders or how to run a business.
The above statement and illustration by Jesus overturns the highly conditional Christian religion and Paul’s Christ mythology. Paul, along with the rest of the New Testament, preached a retaliatory God who demanded full payment and punishment of all sin through violent blood sacrifice of atonement before he would forgive, accept, and ultimately love anyone. A God who solves problems with violence.
See material from psychologists Harold Ellens and Zenon Lofufo in sections below on how such cruel God theories deform human personality and incite violence in people. “If you God uses violence to solve problems, then so may you”. As Bob Brinsmead adds, “We become just like the God we believe in.”
Now more on- What drives elites to believe that they are more special than others? What drives the persistent endeavor of the self-identifying “special people” to establish the elite/commoner divide in societies?
Helmut Koester below presents the beliefs and practises of early Greeks in promoting the tradition of elites as special, among other elements…
Added notes:
The sense of being special drives elites to push themselves to dominate others. But there are other motivations that push people to want to enter occupations like politics and that motivation is healthy when guarded by a robust understanding of Classic Liberal principles, laws, and institutions- i.e. the understanding of why and how such things should function in human society. Meaning- That that Classic Liberal principles, laws, and institutions have been created, and should function, to “serve” the population of a nation.
All political offices and state bureaucracies serve populations best when they are oriented to service through government mechanisms that maintain power with the people, affirming the self-determination of all citizens, protecting and promoting the individual freedoms and rights of citizens, equally across populations. Political positions, if authentically Classic Liberal, will exist to ensure that governments function to provide safety, security, and an overall system that assures that citizens can freely “live and let live”.
Also: Governing authorities need to recognize the discovery that peace and order in human societies is generally a bottom-up reality, something individual citizens contribute to in their local areas, not something coercively pushed from the top, though state criminal justice systems also have a role in maintaining peace and order.
Continuing with the desire of some to enter politics:
Confronting elitism is not to deny that some people feel its their calling to enter politics and that they have some special ability to serve in government and assist in organizing a society to function properly. Fine, as long as they are carefully constrained and guided by Classic Liberal principles, systems of law, and representative institutions that are oriented and function to empower citizens, and, above all, to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens equally. Because the people of a nation are the innovators, creators of businesses, jobs, and wealth. Government does not exist to create jobs and wealth and has a history of mucking things up for citizens.
As Ben Carson stated so well when he ran for president in 2016, government should exist to create an environment in which businesses can thrive, an environment of low taxation (meaning less state intervention in confiscating citizen’s property) and less regulation (meaning less elite interference in dominating and controlling citizens and their activities in commerce).
This element from Plato:
Centralizing power and control in “philosopher kings/noble rulers” has been one of the more dangerous elements in collectivist systems, especially when these leaders believe that they are specially “enlightened elites”. Much like the ancient shaman who claimed to know the secrets to the invisible realm of the gods and used that claim of specialness to elevate themselves over their fellow tribal members.
Worse, add the belief of leadership that they are divinely inspired and therefore chosen by God to dictate to all others what is right and best for them. Further add the cocoon effect of embedding oneself in a “hero’s quest narrative that affirms to some that they are on the side of unchallengeable righteousness in a battle against irredeemably demonized evil”.
Without the constraining guidelines of Classic Liberal systems of law and representative institutions, even those imagining themselves to be among the best and noblest of humans are susceptible to abusing others. We all need the protection of the constraints of Classic Liberalism to help us control our own impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others.
A reposting (revised, updated)…
Hating that “some people are better than others”, Wendell Krossa (revised, updated)
“Jordan Peterson was in pain for three years, Lex Fridman podcast clips,” on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjEcM11Fg-M
Lex Fridman says that he “has always hated the idea that some people are better than others”. He adds that he is afraid of dismissing people because of his perception of them. That launched some interesting discussion with Jordan Peterson on Lex’s podcast.
The idea that some people are better than others, that some are more important- By what arguments do we counter this perception and affirm the equality of all? The equality of all- Something that most of us recognize as a natural reality or “God-given” right.
I have posted before that in early human tribal existence some tribe members began to elevate themselves above others with claims to know the secrets to the invisible realm of spirits, and how to placate the upset spirits that were manifesting their anger in natural disasters like storms, accidents, and disease.
The earliest elites emerged as shaman/priests. Those early “better than others” associated themselves with deity as validation of their being better than others. They were anointed by deity to lecture and dominate others for their good.
Helmut Koester (“History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age”) adds detail on how the belief that some are better than others was developed in Greek biography over the more historically immediate BCE era.
Divinity was associated the powerful deeds, great acts, and extraordinary human gifts of some people. Notably in Greek biography, divinity was manifest in kings/emperors and through their military and political achievements, also in the special abilities of great poets, philosophers, and artists. Their special skills were believed to be divine manifestations that made them better than others. Special abilities and accomplishments were believed to be “miraculous”.
“Hellenistic biographies incorporate miracle stories in a strikingly uncritical manner”.
Koester says the early Christians later adopted this Hellenistic approach in creating the biographical account of their founding hero (Jesus), hence the many miracle stories in the gospels. Further, “It is not surprising that subsequent literature, especially the legends of Christian saints is entirely dominated by miracle stories”, p.131-132.
In those ancient traditions we see the developing pattern of associating dominant figures and their great public deeds as special, making them “better than others.” Note how those “better than others” appealed to deity for validation of their specialness.
With Lex, I hate and reject that fallacy that some are better than others. This is not about the obvious unfairness among the human population in distribution of talents, gifts, or abilities in varied areas. Peterson, his psychological mind kicking in, speaks well to this element.
This is about the inherent value of all human persons, the intrinsic equality that is based on the God-given “natural rights” thing.
We could start in establishing fundamental human equality, as Peterson suggests, by accepting the metaphysical speculation that every human person is created “in the image of God”, whatever “image of God” means.
A better theology to affirm human equality…
I would emphasize, derived from the varied “spiritual” insights noted below, that deity does not value humans according to the standards that we use to judge one another. Consider that God does not value people according to the out-of-the-ordinary, spectacular, and great achievements of the specially talented people that we often celebrate in our societies. There is nothing wrong with celebrating such things as long as we don’t permit that to undermine our appreciation of the inherent and equal valuation of all human beings.
Based on varied “spiritual/metaphysical” insights, I would argue that God does not prize special personal talents, or special success in business, sports, politics, education, etc., as more special than the vast majority of people living out their stories in the ordinary and mundane arenas of common life. The “commoner” lives of the majority of humanity are just as valued by deity as any other human story. None are more valued than any other.
On what basis do I assume this? Why do I affirm Fridman in hating the idea that some people are better than others, more valued than others? And why do I challenge the perception that some people, who appear to have failed at life, are therefore less valued than others?
For one, because I view love is the single most important criterion for evaluating success in human life, the one thing that survives forever, the one feature that everyone can achieve to equal heights of true greatness, aside from the special talents, abilities, or successes of some people in other areas of life.
This insert to stress something before moving along with this point- The fundamental basis of the equality of all is the metaphysical recognition that God loves all the same.
Continuing…
Like the ancient Greeks, we tend to evaluate and value one another according to great accomplishments in athletics, beauty, commerce/business, political power, etc. And with our tradition of holding these comparative valuations, we tend to diminish the value of the many “commoners” who live lives that appear ordinary, mundane, lacking notable public achievements. Our valuations miss the primacy of love as the great leveler and the thing that deity values above all else.
An example (again, appealing to metaphysical speculations): Ken Ring in “Lessons From The Light” notes the Near-Death Experience of one person who said that on meeting God, they discovered that God focused on one primary concern while helping that person to evaluate their life story (i.e. the “life review”). As that person recounted, God asked, “Did you learn anything about love? Do you know how to love? Did you love?”
In another NDE account, a successful businessman said that he was shocked to find that God ignored his business successes and was only interested in one thing- Did he love people? Did he learn something about love? All the rest that he had accomplished in his life, and considered of great importance, was ignored by God.
These insights challenge human evaluation criteria. Add that the greatest human achievements in love often take place unheralded in the secret areas of life. They are often anonymous acts, expressed in the ordinary and mundane, not celebrated publicly. Such “love is everywhere” is common among commoners.
Marinate a bit further on this: Our valuation schemes miss the primacy of love, and especially the hidden accomplishments of love in the ordinary and mundane areas of life. I have always appreciated the comments of Jesus in the Matthew summary posted just below where he frames what impresses God most- i.e. the divine dismissal of the great public displays for the hidden, secret acts of goodness, the anonymous displays of love. This also gets to human motivations. It’s comparatively easy to exhibit goodness when the cameras are on, but our true self manifests in the hidden arena of life, especially in the mundane and ordinary interactions with difficult others.
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matthew 6:1-4)
And to laser in more on what feature of love takes us to the absolute heights of human achievement and greatness…
If the hero’s quest is fulfilled/accomplished when we conquer our inner monster by orienting our life to universal or unconditional love, then every person has the equal opportunity to succeed in terms of that supreme achievement, to attain greatness in that sense. I am referring to Joseph Campbell’s point that we attain human maturity when we orient our lives to universal love. I would use unconditional love as the more encompassing term.
“Love your enemy”, as the highest expression of universal/unconditional love, points us to the absolute height of human greatness and achievement. There is nothing higher to reach for or to achieve in life. That is the ultimate measure of real success in life. And- here is the levelling truth- we are all equal in terms of the opportunity for greatness in regard to such love.
I suggest “love your enemy” as the single greatest possible achievement in life for any human person to accomplish. There is no higher reach of love- if we understand that love is the defining feature of being human and the key determinant of a successful human life. As Ken Ring noted from the NDE accounts- God’s primary concern was, “Did you learn how to love? Do you know what love really is?”
Bob Brinsmead adds, “If love is not unconditional then it is not really love”.
Historical Jesus answered the question- “Do you know what love is?”- by defining authentic love as unconditional, as “love your enemy”. And that central insight of Jesus was then undermined and buried entirely by Paul with his retreat to arguing that highly conditional love defined God, as in his Christ myth. Paul re-established primitive tribal limits to love, stating that his God only favored and included those who became true believers in his Christ myth, and all others were enemies who would be ultimately retaliated against and destroyed- see Rom 12:17-20 for illustration. Also, books like Revelation.
Paul’s statement of his theology (his view of God) in Romans 12, “Do not take revenge… but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”
My point here is the radical reframing of human concepts of deity that Historical Jesus introduced, but that Paul subsequently rejected and buried with his Christ myth. Paul was offended by Jesus overturning long-standing views of divine justice as retaliatory. Paul then re-established demands for conditions to be fulfilled before love, acceptance, and restoration could be manifested by deity. Paul wanted to restore tribal, limited love in deity. He subsequently re-established the basic narrative of retaliatory justice that has come down through a long history of human spirituality and religious beliefs.
Yes, in Paul’s New Testament there are scattered fragments of the history and wisdom sayings of Historical Jesus, notably in the gospels, but even that element has been deformed by the Christology of Paul that is used to interpret the Jesus material. Paul’s New Testament is mostly metaphysical speculation on his mythology of a cosmic savior sent to redeem fallen humanity and restore a ruined world to its imagined lost original perfection.
Paul’s Christ embraces the themes of Zoroaster’s cosmic battle of good against evil, with the Christ sent to vanquish unbelievers and establish his totalitarian domination of all. It’s a very tribal worldview with these features of eternal domination and punitive destruction.
Most egregious in Paul’s rejection of the actual message of Jesus was his retreat to re-enforce primitive notions of the love of God as highly conditional love that demanded sacrifice before forgiveness and salvation could be granted. That was a direct rejection of the stunning new theology of Jesus that God loved all unconditionally. Paul’s conditional God and conditional salvation was entirely contrary, for example, to the Prodigal Father parable who welcomed the wayward son back without condition. Paul’s Christ-ianity gave us a highly conditional religion that buried the unconditional message of Jesus entirely.
This site recognizes the great value in the original message of Historical Jesus, but that message has to be pulled out of its context just as Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy argued.
Moving along…
The point that I would make in relation to the Fridman/Peterson interview- There is no higher human attainment than love. We can possess great abilities and make notable achievements in sports, business, entertainment, politics, and intelligence/education and still be an overall failure at life if we don’t learn how to love, especially to unconditionally “love your enemy”, the ultimate reach of love.
As Peterson says to Fridman, great talents given unfairly don’t privilege people regarding moral conduct. He says there is no evidence for any correlation between intelligence and morality. You are not better because you are smart. And in the context of his comments on this, he argues for the value of holding the belief that all are made in the image of God despite immense differences in ability. In other words, we are all fully equal before God, despite the many obvious differences among the human population on so many varied elements.
Peterson’s point– We can assume radical equality of worth despite differences of ability.
I would add that, rather than affirm human equality with the common religious phrase “in the image of God”, I would frame the theological basis of human equality in terms of the truth that we are all embodiments of God. The truth that God indwells every human person equally, much like Jesus stated when he told people- “the kingdom of God is among or in you”.
The reality that we call “God” is not separate from our human spirit and mind. Others frame this as “God has incarnated in all humanity, equally”. Meaning that no one is more special than any other human person. No one is closer to God than any other. None are more privileged than others, more favored by God than others. As Bob Brinsmead says, God has never incarnated only in special holy persons or only been manifest in the great public achievements of special people. “Love is everywhere” means God is everywhere, in all.
This “God incarnate in all equally” is my metaphysical basis for affirming the equality of all people, for affirming that every person is as valued as anyone else, and for affirming the fundamental goodness of all people, despite failures to live as truly human.
Further to this, the God present in all humanity is not present as a dominating, overwhelming reality but a gently persuading influence. God is the “still small voice”, not the thunderous and frightening storm, as per Elijah’s account.
Point? Adding to Jesus’ transformation of fundamental theology- others made this point that God is not manifest in the overpowering, overwhelming and frightening thing, the thunderous fearful storm. But to the contrary, God manifests in the still, quiet thing, the gentle persuading voice. Perhaps this clarifies things for the many who complain that they don’t “feel” that presence of the creator. Because, as with many others across history, they are looking for deity in the spectacular, extraordinary, great thing- i.e. in storm and fire and fury. Consider the alternative- that God is not in the storm but manifests in gentle suggestions for good. The “feeling” to do what is right in the ordinary, mundane events of daily life.
Here is the interesting account of Elijah’s experience in1 Kings 19: 11-13…
“The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by. Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks… but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard God in that, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.”
That is a stunningly new reframing of theology, similar to Jesus’ comment that true greatness was not to lord over others like kings and rulers do, but to serve. He overturned entirely traditional views of God as a dominating, threatening reality. Add his Matthew 6 statement that God prefers the humble, the hidden and self-effacing, the anonymous acts of goodness.
The “stunning new theology of Jesus” framed for us an entirely different view of God, nothing like the human-created deities of history who favored the great public deeds of notable public actors. That is rank elitism appealing to a deformed view of deity to validate the elite/commoner divide in human societies, employing dominating deity to affirm elite domination of commoners.
In the “stunning new theology of Jesus” you get a non-dominating reality, an entirely non-threatening deity, something that incarnates equally in all humanity and interpenetrates throughout the physical realm and throughout humanity as a gentle all-pervading presence, that serves to promote human goodness and love with gentle persuasion, the soft, quiet voice inside reminding us of what is good.
The God of Jesus does not intervene, interfere with, and overwhelm human freedom. That is a radical new framing of the reality of deity that began with historical Jesus. His theology had nothing to do with the “king/lord” deities of old, the tribal judges that struck fear into unbelievers and other free spirits.
Again, the central Jesus message sums it all:
“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.)
Other points:
Further on affirming the basis of true human equality, I would suggest that critical for understanding true equality among people is the insight that we are one human family sharing this venture on earth. The oneness of the human family manifests a greater underlying oneness that affirms the truth that we are inseparable from the creating and sustaining reality that is God, the ultimate Oneness.
Varied insights/truths that affirm this- i.e. quantum entanglement (expresses a deeper oneness), Mitochondrial Eve (all humans on Earth today are descendants of the same African mother), and the NDE insight that we are one with God and with all others, meaning that we have an inseparable union with a greater Creating Consciousness. This was sort of touched on by Paul in his comment that nothing will ever separate us from the love of God.
On this site I am not entirely badmouthing Paul but just acknowledging, with Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy, that we need to get Paul out of the way, so the actual message of Jesus can be made clear. We ought to honor the man Jesus for what he actually said. There is nothing of Paul’s Greek “Lord Jesus” in the original message of Historical Jesus. With Jesus there is no “Lord coming in flaming fire to punish and destroy” (Paul’s first letters to the Thessalonians), nothing of John’s fierce warrior Christ as the destroyer of worlds (see Revelation). Those scriptural elements are due to the influence of deforming Hellenistic mythology on Christianity as noted by Helmut Koester in “History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age”.
Moving along…
Another note: On the “threat of AI”, Wendell Krossa
Why don’t Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, along with their other projects, set up public programs to educate people on the basic principles of Classic Liberalism? Why not have projects to advertise widely the basic principles of liberal democracy and disseminate such information throughout our education systems, and throughout state bureaucracies?
Classic Liberalism is not Left or Right but is about basic freedom and equality. All people on all sides can affirm these “natural rights” (John Locke). Classic Liberalism comprises the basic principles of freedom and democracy.
Both sides of our societies need to be reminded of what Classic Liberalism or liberal democracy actually entails. Libertarian David Boaz spoke well in stating that both sides need reminding of where they tend to fail on basic freedom. He illustrated with the US situation, saying that Republicans need to embrace more individual freedom in the social realm. And Democrats need to embrace more individual freedom in the economic realm.
Again, why not program AI with these principles? If you are really concerned that AI be developed as something safe that will not harm humanity then why not program it with Classic Liberal principles that protect and promote the freedoms and rights of all individuals, equally?
Another note:
Especially critical for today is the “habeas corpus” element of Classic Liberalism. Too often, notably leftist Woke Progressives have tried to criminalize and even lock up any who differ from their approved narratives and programs. Hence, their dangerous tendency to use lawfare to shut down, censor, silence, ban, and cancel differing others.
Britain takes this to dangerous extremes, even to urging criminalization and imprisonment of people for offensive or stupid speech. Speech that is best left alone and countered by better ideas and arguments in the public arena of free and open debate. As always, busybody, controlling types tend to take “hate speech” laws too far, to even stretch the definition (“concept creep”) to include political speech of opponents, and even comedy. Well, that’s a road too far. The “Twitter Files” revelations were very enlightening on this.
https://www.thefire.org/news/uk-polices-speech-chilling-practice-tracking-non-crime-hate-incidents
And these on the slide toward totalitarianism that we just missed…
https://www.public.news/p/we-are-only-now-starting-to-recover
https://www.public.news/p/why-trumps-victory-is-for-millions
https://www.public.news/p/uk-government-and-media-spread-disinformation
Ideas to stir the Christmas discussion pot… known in the vernacular as the “Number 2” pot.
Updated, revised reposting… A little Christmas gift for new visitors
Review of some main site topics, among many other things scattered throughout this site: Wendell Krossa
(Ideas to transform consciousness and change the world- a 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 their research reports at “co2coalition.org”, and “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 “1.2 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 ongoing crusade to re-instate 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 of citizens 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.)
A metaphysical basis for the equality of all people, for arguing that everyone is as special as anyone else, and for fundamental human goodness- I would argue/speculate from the truth that the “God who 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.)
Here, listed just below, are some of the main psychopathologies of historical narratives, themes that still dominate the 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. It evokes the concern that justice has been offended and a wrong committed that must be made right again, to rebalance justice in the cosmos, to “save something”, to restore some critical good that has been lost. Hence, the millennial element in apocalyptic millennial narratives. Keep hope alive, even if the deformed hope that is dependent on the mass-slaughter of one’s “enemies” as per apocalyptic millennial books like Revelation in the New Testament.
(5) Humanity is not a fundamentally corrupt and inherently “sinful” species but is the best thing to have ever happened to life, people with creative mind and compassionate hearts. As Julian Simon concluded after detailing the historical evidence that life has improved across the long-term trajectory, “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 pathological anti-humanism in both religious and “secular/ideological” narratives today.
(6) I repeat 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 the same 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, from base animal domination, and from retaliatory destruction of differing others. We have been liberated from the animal to explore the future of mature humanity that is oriented to inclusive human oneness, mutual non-dominating service, and non-punitive, restorative justice.
(8) Life is not declining toward some worsening 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 that present Paul’s Christ myth are 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: General “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”.
The myth of a threatening, punishing God 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 critical missing 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 hold to 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 throughout sections on this site.
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 Pauline pathology of “Lord Jesus”.
(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, as Leo Tolstoy said, there is no circumstance where people are not to be treated with love. But also, there can be 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 true “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 all-pervading 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 uniquely self-crafted 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 make a unique contribution to improving life in this world, not living for some after-life reality. Not 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 we are not publicly praised or even publicly known, where the true self is living authentically with no cameras to play to with virtue-signaling cosplaying.
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 of authentic love opposes tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction.
(22) And then the 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: Neo-totalitarianism, neo-Marxism (neo-collectivism) is coming at us from far leftist Woke Progressivism in our democracies, from activists who are promoting censorship of speech as reported by courageous journalists like Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, Douglas Murray, Glen Greenwald, and others. The Woke Progressive crusade 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. As in the DEI categorization of populations by skin color as good or bad (victim/victimizer). This is the latest addition to traditional Marxist categorization by the tribal dualism of oppressor/oppressed (capitalist property owners versus workers/peasants).
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…”
Also, the critical counter point to climate warming alarmism– 10 times more people die every year from cold than die from warming.
From the best climate minds on the planet at https://co2coalition.org/
“5 Things Climate Realists Can Be Thankful For This Year”, Nov. 29, 2024
Their list includes:
(1) More atmospheric CO2 is increasing crop productivity and feeding the world with crop records consistently being surpassed year after year.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/more-co2-means-more-plant-growth/
(2) Our modern warm trend, not unusual, has been beneficial in lifting us out of the destructive cold of the Little Ice Age of 1250 to 1850.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/naturally-driven-warming-began-more-than-300-years-ago/
(3) Warm periods are considered “climate optima” because they are more beneficial to most life.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/for-human-advancement-warmer-is-better-than-colder/
And more on their site…
Comment on mixed systems where the bad elements distort and undermine the good, Wendell Krossa
Intro note: Yes, we make compromises between opposing groups, narratives, and programs as important for peace in our societies. But note that essentially opposite realities work against one another, with the bad undermining the good.
Example: Social democracy/democratic socialism has long been pushed by collectivists/socialists as the “Eden-like” answer to our problems of how to organize our societies. Mixing and merging what some consider the best of different ideologies/approaches and getting the best of both worlds. And for decades Sweden was held forth by socialist activists as the great success story of using a mixed system of what was considered the best of left and right for shaping human societies.
But, as many of us suspected, that success has been due to the Classic Liberal democratic element in the social democracy mix, not due to the socialist element that has actually worked to undermine and weaken the liberal democracy element.
https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-myth-swedish-socialism-again
As the above links note, during earlier decades when the democracy element dominated, wealth was built up through the use of Classic Liberal principles that focused on individual freedom and rights that created an environment in which free enterprise/free market businesses could prosper. But then in subsequent decades, when the collectivist socialist element was introduced and dominated, that built-up wealth was frittered away by socialist obsession with redistribution of wealth to create equity outcomes, redistribution not backed by healthy protection of the freedoms and rights of individuals to create businesses, jobs, and wealth without the excessive taxation and regulatory burdens that necessary to sustain the excessive government bureaucracies of states overly oriented to redistribution policies.
Not to deny we all agree (social contract thing) to some coercive confiscation of our property to pay our share of commonly used infrastructure and to help the members of our societies who cannot function without some assistance, and so on. But the constant battle is with the push by some to endlessly extend the “nanny state” to excessive extent that then crushes the wealth-creating ability of citizens.
Insert:
See the good debates on the optimal size of government in research such as William Bernstein’s “The Birth of Plenty”. Milton Freidman had some interesting comment on the optimal size of government that would produce “the most good for the most people”. His estimate was that the optimal size of government would be around 15% of GDP, not the 30-40% we too commonly see today in so-called liberal democracies.
Note this list of world countries and size of their governments as percent of GDP (2022 figures). While this involves many programs that disperse benefits to citizens, it also involves vast amounts of waste, debts and debt payments that burden populations, and more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP
Note US at 38%, Canada at 41%, and many others in a similar range.
On the common embrace of oxymoronic systems… Wendell Krossa
The above mixing and merging of opposites in socialist democracy or democratic socialism systems is much like the mixing of the essential opposites as in the Jesus and Christ oxymoron. The bad element degrades and undermines the good element in the mix.
(As always, the Jesus material has to be dug out of the burial crypt of its context that is the New Testament. Yes, Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy were right that the “diamonds/pearls” of Jesus were buried in the “d-ng, garba-e, sl-me, and m-ck” of Paul’s Christ mythology. See how nice I am trying to be, in blunting the full harshness of the terms they used, much like most media do in treating us like infants with the protective use of “f-ck”. Oh, I wonder what that is? “Fock, fick, fack, feck”? C’mon, we’re all big kids out here. We can handle being treated as grownups.)
The overall mixture/merger of contrary realities often exhibits some apparent success due to the good element in the mix but that good element is weakened, undermined, and buried by the bad element(s).
With social democracy/democratic socialism models and approaches you are mixing two very contrary and opposite things- i.e. collectivism that removes the freedoms and rights of individuals and subjects them to the collectives that are controlled by enlightened elites who run the collectives. The elites (virtue-signaling their narcissistic compassion) consistently present the great lie that they run the collective “for the people” (Kristian Niemietz, “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”).
Once more his good statement on this:
“Socialism in the sense which self-identified democratic socialists define it… a democratized economic planned collectively by ‘the people’, has never been achieved anywhere and could not be achieved. Economic planning can only ever be done in a technocratic, elitist fashion, and it requires an extreme concentration of power in the hands of the state. It cannot ‘empower’ ordinary workers. It can only ever empower bureaucratic elites.”
The collectivist approach is oppositional to individual rights and freedoms as protected and maintained by Classic liberalism. You can’t mix these two without weakening the individual element in the mix. These essentially opposing systems do not go together without dissonance and the undermining and destruction of the individual element. Collectivism and individual freedom and rights do not mix unless you are prepared to weaken individual rights and freedoms.
Though in a somewhat different approach, we do embrace the element of social contract, as in a sort of voluntary sharing in terms of the recognition that there are those in our societies who cannot function fully in free enterprise approaches, due to personal disabilities of many varied types. We accept the need for taxation to fund programs to help such people, as well as to contribute to funding the shared infrastructure of societies, things we all use, or programs that help all of us.
But this is different from the essential nature and functioning of socialist collectivism with its orientation to elite control of the “greater or common good” program, with its general antagonism to a free business sector (“evil business” as about greed and selfishness- concern for profit), and with its bent to redistribution without the collar of robust wealth creation, and its coerced submission of individuals to collectives that undermines the rights and freedoms of individuals. Add here also the inevitable wastefulness of programs run by unelected bureaucrats with no business experience and no accountability constraints to make them function more efficiently.
Just an aside on even far leftist types becoming woke to common sense: Note Mitterrand’s coalition of 1981, where after taking office they began to nationalize sectors of the French economy, the reflexive approach of leftists to take control of private property to then redistribute on behalf “of the people”. Well, within the year the French economy went belly up (detail from former socialist Joshua Muravchik’s history of socialism, “Heaven on Earth”).
Mitterrand and crew then had the sense to back off and let the economy recover. And then the Marxist in the coalition made this incredible statement- “We must respect business as the creator of wealth in a society”. Holy shitoli, eh.
They recognized the leftist fallacy of hating business as some evil to be constrained, even to be eliminated from society, was so wrongheaded and ignorant.
More on the fundamental problem with the socialist element in societies– Wendell Krossa
Socialism is another version of Collectivism, along with Robert Owen’s communalism, Marxist communism, community development approaches, and so on (see Joshua Muravchik’s “Heaven On Earth”). All collectivist approaches dangerously centralize power in self-identifying enlightened elites that run the collectives “for the people”, on behalf of the people.
The centralization of power and control has been the most dangerous thing across history, centralizing power and control in elites and their state bureaucracies where people, with often no understanding of business and economies, dictate economic/commerce rules to the rest. That is the narcissistic arrogance of elites who claim to know what is best for everyone. We have undergone this progressive arrogance for 9 years under the incompetent management of Justin Trudeau.
Collectivists keep innovatively repackaging their centralized system of power and control in ever new forms with ever new terms, new categorizations and explanations, the latest being the “DEI/ESG” of Woke Progressivism with its buttressing claims to compassion for the oppressed and the need to engage a heroic battle against evil oppressors who challenge and dissent from their approach.
Look past all that endless repackaging to the core that is the same old tribal dualism that divides humanity into good versus evil, just as before in Marxism with its classification of people according to property ownership or not. The categorization according to two classes is now done more in relation to skin color. That now defines good as opposed to evil. Woke racism.
Always look past the surface issues and framing of things, to the core themes/ideas/principles operating and you will see the same old, same old pathology operating as ever before, ever pushing the elite/commoner divide on societies that undermines and ruins liberal democracies. The same old domination by elites is now validated by a new categorization of populations in the tribal dualism of the “victimizers/victims” of DEI woke racism.
Add the psychopathology of elite virtue-signaling of compassion as in claims to serve some “greater or common good”. The self-delusional element in this is evident in that the collectivist policies enacted by elites, actually operate to destroy societies and lives, having impoverished billions over the past century or so. The most recent example is Venezuela, a country rich in resources like fossil fuels, now an impoverished shell of its past affluence. Where are the Hollywood elites who all rushed down to celebrate Chavismo years ago?
A bit more…. Wendell Krossa
Marxism has been the latest greatest historical example of a tribal dualism that affirms the elite/commoner divide with its promotion of collectivism that elevates enlightened elites over commoners. Even though purportedly implemented as a system that functions “for the people… on behalf of the workers”. In practice it has always worked as a tribal dualism system to enforce elite domination of commoners.
Again (I never tire of good quotes), Niemietz’s good statement summarizes the actual outcomes of the 24 historical socialist experiments at organizing human societies over the last century or so:
“Socialism in the sense which self-identified democratic socialists define it… a democratized economic planned collectively by ‘the people’, has never been achieved anywhere and could not be achieved. Economic planning can only ever be done in a technocratic, elitist fashion, and it requires an extreme concentration of power in the hands of the state. It cannot ‘empower’ ordinary workers. It can only ever empower bureaucratic elites.”
Marxism, by centralizing and concentrating power and control in collective elites, inevitably unleashes the totalitarian impulse in governing elites to dominate weaker others. Collectivism inevitably concentrates power and control in self-identified enlightened elites, Plato’s enlightened “philosopher kings”, much like Paul’s demand for the divinely-anointed “head of the family” that validates domination/submission relating. Or governing authorities as “appointed by God” (Romans 13). Elites who arrogantly believe and claim that they know what is best for all others, and then inevitably coercively and violently take over societies to dominate all others under totalitarian systems, the inevitable outcome of embracing another system of enslavement of commoners.
Others suggest that while “power corrupts” even good people, there is also the factor that power attracts psychopathic types who desire power for purposes of control, abuse, even sadism (Jordan Peterson, I believe).
The inevitable and repeated outcome of Marxist systems has been to re-establish the elite/commoner divide in societies and that favors elite domination. Again, see Kristian Niemietz’s “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”.
While Marxist collectivism more straightforwardly presents its designs on human civilization, the essential principles and outcomes of all leftist centralization projects are evident in the push for big state, big government, increased state agencies and bureaucracies that multiply endless regulations, laws, and demand endless increases in taxation, coercively taking citizens wealth and concentrating that in controlling elites who claim to know better how to spend that wealth. It is all a denial of Classic Liberal protection of the freedom and rights of all people, equally.
It cannot be argued enough that Classic Liberalism, if actually understood and honored, promotes the safest way for us to organize human societies. Classic Liberalism is the best that we have discovered to protect us from the tribal and totalitarian impulses and their destructive consequences.
Exhibiting the pathology of tribal dualism, Marxism was another “same old” approach that classified people as one or the other in a simple tribal dualism of good versus evil- i.e. property-owning people (capitalists) as evil, and workers (often essentially property-less) as good, virtuous victims.
The collapse of communism in the late 80s early 90s was not the death spiral of the collectivist embodiment of the tribal and elite impulse to dominate. The impulse to dominate expressed via tribal dualism, did not die away as hoped. It was not completely vanquished by the West. It went underground and wormed its way into the education systems to indoctrinate new generations through all sorts of new programs, projects, movements, fronts, with new definitions, categories, and terms.
Woke Progressivism, the latest front of today’s leftist extremism, is the public result of the last decades of universities being dominated by far leftists. It now presents itself as another version of the simple-minded tribal dualism of “victim/victimizer”. It categorizes all people as one of two classes, as original Marxism did before. You are either oppressor or oppressed, and now Wokeism classifies you in either category, according to skin color. Asians, Jews, and whites are the oppressor class, and brown/black are the virtuous oppressed. Simple good versus evil. Thanks forever to Zoroaster.
And with Woke Progressivism we have the same old elite/commoner divide of societies in our Western liberal democracies. The same old tribalism and domination by elites with punitive destruction of differing, dissenting others.
Add the tribal dualism of a deformed Hero’s quest with “all on our side good versus all on the differing side evil” that has re-emerged again in Woke Progressivism. The “elite/commoner” divide is back once again as a new totalitarianism where those believing they are the good people must purge the other class of differing people who are evil in order to “save democracy, save the world, save whatever”. The climate alarmism crusade is another element in this mix. With the self-identified righteous climate alarmists set against the evil consumers of fossil fuels.
We endlessly repeat the same old mistakes because we do not heed the call of the wise men to tackle the fundamental ideas/themes/beliefs that drive all this endlessly repeating madness.
Our world religions continue to enforce and promote these ideas, as do our more recent secular/ideological systems of belief.
Destroying societies to “save the world”.
Britain, the nation that gave us Classic Liberalism, continues the descent into utter madness as it destroys its society with “de-development, de-growth” as in a return to primitivism.
Starmer and Trudeau are among the remaining extremist eco-zealots still in thrall to the doomsday apocalyptic cult of “climate crisis” and Net Zero salvation schemes that are destroying life to “save the world” (the millennial “hope” element in the mix). Making Net Zero very much like a mass-suicide cult. Yes, we are living right now through one of history’s worst “madness of crowds” episodes. Think of how future generations will look back and shake their heads as they compare us to other similar Chicken Little outbreaks across history, just like the Xhosa cattle slaughter back in the mid-1800s.
“Time for Starmer to be honest about what Net Zero means: Rationing, blackouts, and travel restrictions in the next five years”, Chris Morrison, Nov. 30, 2024
British politicians are warning people to make major changes in their habits in order to meet Net Zero emission goals by 2030.
What adjustments?
“Try a 30% reduction in energy demand. After 2030, consider that all beef, lamb and dairy will be banned and “replaced by new diets”. Then there is a massive 45% cut in most common building materials such as cement, along with a similar reduction in road freight traffic. The attack on farming will be remorseless with fertiliser restriction halving “direct emission” from the soil. To sum up: widespread rationing and blackouts along with food, holiday and travel restrictions, all within about 60 months.”
Morrison notes the horrors just ahead for Britain is Net Zero actually becomes a reality. He says, “The desire to “manage land use for Net Zero emissions” means a massive cut in chemical fertilisers, so expect food supply to fall off a cliff.”
I would insert: Remember that Sri Lanka just tried the “zero emissions” agriculture and its agriculture collapsed in 2021 and that spawned riots that resulted in the leadership fleeing for their lives. Dutch farmers had the sense to riot before their government forced them into Net Zero-type shutdowns of their agricultural sector, and the state backed off. So also in other places.
Decarbonization is unfolding, just as all other apocalyptic millennial crusades, with disastrous outcomes as renewables create intermittency problems that destabilize electrical grids.
Morrison concludes: “The shamble at COP demonstrates that the world is moving away from the idea that hydrocarbons can be removed from a modern economy. But an accident of recent electoral politics has left Britain with a fanatical Government of Net Zero zealots. The anti-working class Labour party was returned to power with a popular vote count less than its losing Marxist leader obtained in 2019. The U.K. FIRES work demonstrates what lies in store. A resurgent America bounding ahead on cheap energy and unleashed entrepreneurial spirits will contrast with its European allies shutting down industrial manufacturing in pursuit of an increasing unpopular state-mandated doomsday cult.”