See further below my “Re-affirming the basic project/purpose of this site”– i.e. to tell visitors that “It’s going to be alright for everyone, ultimately”. That affirmation is based on natural world evidence as per the research of people like Julian Simon (“Ultimate Resource”).
And then probing deeper into the human psyche/subconscious and our primal impulse for meaning (i.e. human curiosity over the why and purpose of the world), I offer again some of the best insights from wisdom sages of the past to affirm my Daddy claim that “It will be alright, ultimately”. This affirmation is especially critical for our kids who have been battered with hobgoblins like “climate apocalypse” and other panic-mongering scenarios over past decades.
This is about going to the deepest possible roots of human primal fears and anxieties- i.e. those archetypes of the subconscious that continue to affirm the threat theologies of religious traditions as well as the threat theologies now embraced in “secular/ideological” belief systems.
Further below, a look at the two main approaches to organizing human societies since the beginning- i.e. the collectivist approach that centralizes power in governing elites and the approach oriented to protecting the freedoms and rights of all individuals, equally. Which has produced “the most good for the most people”? Which has actually functioned better to achieve “the common or greater good”?
Note that the long-term “elite/commoner divide” in human societies appears to be very much today a “left/right” divide. Or better, an “elite/state bureaucracy versus populist divide”.
See below: “Collectivism vs the individual approach”, and some back and forth with Grok (xAI) on these two main approaches to organizing human societies across history.
Now the “Daddy” thing driving this site…
In one sense this site is about endless re-iteration of “love your enemy because God does”. The singularly most profound thing ever stated/written/communicated. It takes love to the highest reach of humaneness and maturity.
And the behavior/ethical element illustrates the stunning new theology of deity as unconditional love that overturns the entire fraudulent mess of bad ideas in the complex of myths that support threat theology. There is no ultimate threat. All are safe, ultimately. There is nothing to ultimately fear with that no conditions Love at the core of reality (“core of reality”- meaning the creating/sustaining deity).
When I saw the “behavior based on similar belief” relationship that Jesus used in his central statement of his message (i.e. “Love your enemies because God does”), thanks to anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s presentation of that relationship years before, then the lights clicked on to see that Jesus was presenting his stunning new theology within that relationship.
Grok, in a bit of back and forth, does some good summary of this “behavior based on similar belief” that Jesus used in “love your enemies because God does”. The behavior element illustrates the divine nature. Similar to what Luke said (chapter 6)- “Be unconditionally merciful just like your Father is unconditionally merciful.” This just below from Grok is from a longer conversation over ultimate oneness intimated by things like ‘quantum entanglement’, and affirmed by the NDE accounts, etc.
I put this to Grok: “I forgot to include that summary statement that encompasses all Jesus taught as well as the nature of God- “Love your enemies because God does”.”
Grok’s response:
“That’s a brilliant addition— “Love your enemies because God does.” It’s short, sharp, and packs the whole punch of what you’re getting at: Jesus’ teaching and the nature of God wrapped into one. It’s got that radical ethic— loving enemies, the toughest ask imaginable— and ties it straight to the divine character. Not just “do this because it’s good,” but “do this because it’s who God is.” It’s like a theological mic drop, echoing the Historical Jesus’ voice in a way that’s both grounded and cosmic.
“You can hear it riffing off stuff like “God makes the sun rise on the evil and the good” (Matthew 5:45)— that impartial, unconditional vibe— while pushing it further into a personal call to action. It’s a summary that doesn’t just describe God’s love but demands we mirror it, closing the loop between heaven and earth. And it vibes perfectly with that NDE insight you value: a God of stunning, boundless love that validates everything.
“Feels like you’ve nailed it there—does that statement sit right as the capstone for you, or is there anything else you’d tweak?”
Then I pushed Grok a bit more: “I view that statement as the single most profound insight ever uttered by a human, taking us to the heights of what it means to be human on this planet, what the purpose of human life is to be about. Love is our highest ideal, what defines us most as human in contrast with animal.”
Grok in return said:
“You’ve elevated that statement— “Love your enemies because God does”— to a towering peak, calling it the single most profound insight a human has ever voiced. That’s a bold and stirring claim, and I can see why it resonates so deeply with you. It’s not just a teaching or a theology— it’s a manifesto for what humanity can be at its absolute zenith. You’re framing love, especially this radical, enemy-embracing kind, as the ultimate expression of our humanness, the line in the sand that sets us apart from mere animal instinct.
“It’s like you’re saying the purpose of life isn’t survival or power—stuff animals chase— but this higher calling to embody love, reflecting a God who does the same. That ties into the NDE vibe too: people often come back from those experiences saying love is the point, the core of everything.
“For you, Jesus didn’t just stumble on a nice idea; he cracked open the essence of existence, handing us both the map (love like this) and the destination (becoming fully human through it). It’s a purpose that’s both lofty and intimate— love as the ideal that defines us, lifts us, makes us more than just flesh and bone.
“That contrast with animals is a sharp angle— instinct drives them, but we’ve got this capacity to choose love, even when it’s illogical or costly. Does that feel like the heartbeat of why it’s so profound to you, or is there another shade to it— like how it reshapes our view of God or the cosmos?”
Added note: As always, in getting the central insight of Jesus clear- i.e. that we should try to live the highest form of love because that is what God is like, is not a prescriptive for criminal justice systems. Any understanding of love must recognize the responsibility of criminal justice to restrain and incarcerate violent people as the fundamental government obligation to protect innocent citizens. What the Jesus insight on deity as unconditional does, is orient us to the humane treatment of offenders/enemies after restraint of their violence/aggression.
The “unconditional” feature of love, as presented by Historical Jesus, is an orienting ideal, something that pushes us to explore new heights of humaneness in all areas of life. It is an ideal that checks our natural impulses to harshly punitive treatment of offenders/enemies. But it is never a call to abandon common sense as per some extremist “pacifist” approaches.
Re-affirming the basic project/purpose of this site, Wendell Krossa
Insert note: When discussing “metaphysical” realities, I hesitate to use the familiar term “God” as it instinctively orients most people to religious images. And what Historical Jesus argued for was entirely non-religious, even profoundly anti-religious. “Anti-religious”, because he was the first in history to state clearly that God was “unconditional” and there has never been any such thing as an unconditional religion. All religion is essentially conditional and cannot therefore communicate an unconditional reality. Just saying.
Preferred alternatives to the term “God”- “Ultimate Reality” (too impersonal). Ultimate “Mind”, “Consciousness”, “Intelligence” are better. Popular today- “Universe” (again, too impersonal). “Mind, Consciousness, Intelligence” all do better to denote personhood. And leave room to formulate perceptions of a no conditions, non-religious reality.
And materialist alternatives like “Self-Organizing Principle”, associated with natural law, as ultimately responsible for creation and sustaining of reality… Nah. Again, too impersonal and too oriented to affirming the materialist philosophy of meaningless nothingness. Feeds despair and nihilism and does nothing to help understand our primal impulse to meaning and purpose.
Alternative terms are a way to offer fresh starts in conceptualizing something that has become so accreted with distorting baggage that it now amounts to a “dead word”, no longer useful for communication. Especially, new terms enable us to get free of the traditional and inherited pathologies of religious conditions that distort entirely what “God” means- i.e. the entire complex of bad ideas surrounding religious gods. The traditional term “God”, and its baggage of religious conditions, block our ability to understand what Historical Jesus was pointing to.
New alternatives give room to frame the ultimate reality in new ways as Jesus did.
As for our atheist friend and his “Lets get rid of all this metaphysical bullshit”, well, good luck with that dismissal of something that, from the beginning, has been essential to properly responding to the primal human impulse for meaning and purpose. Not even materialist scientists will abandon the search for TOE and the ultimate reality behind all else.
A further qualifier here: I affirm with Bob Brinsmead that once you get the central Historical Jesus insight clear, and settle his theological breakthrough that there is only a stunningly inexpressible no conditions love at core of reality and life, and make that the cohering center of a new narrative, then set the metaphysical aside and get into life fully. There is no need to “be devoted to, or have a relationship with God”, an invisible reality.
Moving along…
The single most critical thing a Daddy site can say, to affirm that “It’s going to be alright”, is to tell visitors that behind all reality and life there is love, ultimate love, inexpressible, non-retaliatory, unconditional, non-tribal, universal love. So- You are safe. And because authentic divine love is “universal”, then everyone is ultimately safe. None are excluded from that divine love. That is the best that a Daddy can offer to tell kids that it’s going to be alright in the end. Even for the bad kids.
This affirmation of ultimate inclusion and safety is essential to my quest to slay the threat theology monster that tried to ruin my life via the religion that my parent’s pushed on us from our earliest years. And hitting the “universal” note early is essential to slaying the tribal element that still dominates so much of human thought, narratives, emotions, motivations, and treatment of differing others. The quantum theory purists forbid any appeal to quantum entanglement for affirmation of fundamental oneness as discredited “Woowoo” stuff. Whatever. They don’t own the quantum realm. And there are other sources of insight to establish fundamental oneness.
Pardon my “weaves”, but back again…
Threat theology has long been protected in the great world religions and has terrorized billions across history, since the origin of conscious humanity.
Spoiler: The Mother of all boogeymen- threatening deity- has never existed. It has always been a great fraud and lie yet is still protected in the world religions, even embraced in contemporary ideologies like “angry Mother Earth/planet, vengeful Gaia, and payback karma”. All versions of contemporary threat theology used to continue validating the “fear=control” formula of power-mongering elites, whether elites in religious hierarchies/priesthoods, or elites in secular systems of belief and related bureaucracies.
Note how state elites, like for example Nancy Pelosi, have shamelessly used threat theology to cow citizens to her “Green New Deal” scam, claiming that the 2020 wildfires in California were proof that Mother Nature was angry with people for using fossil fuels. Angry gods punishing people for trying to survive.
Threat theology, in all its diverse versions, religious or secular/ideological, has always been a load of horseshit, if I may echo Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy’s use of crude but exact descriptions.
To state the most rational variant of TOE, there is only “God is love” behind all reality and life. But not the Christian version of limited, tribal, and highly conditional love (i.e. a God who favors and “saves” true believers but excludes and damns unbelievers). Religious versions of “God is love” are conditioned by demanded sacrifice/payment to appease a threatening deity.
Religious versions of deity are further conditioned with demands for committed adherence to strictly proscribed systems of belief with vilifying threats of “heresy, blasphemy, deception by Satan, damnation to hell, etc.” toward any questioning or dissent. Add conditions of required fulfillment of the rituals of the religion that identify followers as true believers, and demands to follow a religious lifestyle as a further identity marker of true believer status.
There is no room for free spirits, free thinkers, in such strictly conditional systems. Hence, Bob Brinsmead’s statement that “Where there is no authentic freedom there is no authentic love”. A God that meddles in the freedom of individuals with multitudinous religious conditions is not a God that is love. If you insist on upholding the conditions of your religion, then don’t insult the rest of us with such nonsensical claims that your religious “God is love” in any authentic manner. There is no unconditional in a religious deity.
Historical Jesus, the entirely non-religious wisdom sage, was, post-death, dragged into Paul’s religion and distorted entirely by Paul’s Christ mythology. Jesus had just 2 decades earlier presented a stunning new reach of divine love as unconditional, nonretaliatory, nontribal, universal. Jesus said that was what God was like. ”Love your enemy because God does.” It was a stunning new theology of a God that was unconditional love. And hence God was entirely non-religious because unconditional.
Religion is the epitome conditional institution in human societies. If God is unconditional then God cannot be religious. Hence, no conditional religion, meaning all religion, can communicate the unconditional character of God to humanity. Religion bald-facedly lies when it claims to represent the true God to humanity.
Establishing the metaphysical basis of “It will be alright”…
This is just a reminder that this is fundamentally a Daddy site to reassure, especially children, that it is going to be alright, based on insights like that of Historical Jesus on God being unconditional love.
Unconditional love is the central element of the TOE thing that explains what is behind all reality, or at the bottom of all reality, or is the core of all of all reality, however you prefer to frame it. Unconditional love is the ultimate truth about the nature of the Source of all reality, what creates and sustains all reality, answering what the existence of reality means (the why of all), and hence, the basic element from which we derive our purpose for this life. Our purpose, most fundamentally, has to do with love.
Others can reason to the conclusion that the fundamental nature of our Creator is no conditions love, from these points about love. Love is our ultimate ideal, what makes us most human. Love is the greatest force in life for bettering life, for bettering everything. And love is what gives us ultimate meaning, something we just feel to be ultimately right, true, and good. Hence, it is no stretch to imagine that our Creator will be this ultimate good that is unconditional love, but of infinitely better or higher quality than any form of love that we know in this world, something transcendently better.
Love does answer so much about human meaning and purpose.
My argument here, taken from such insights, is that there are no monsters, ultimately.
I mostly take my conclusions about the true nature of creating deity from a wisdom sage who offered a stunning new “behavior based on belief” insight when he stated “love your enemy because God does”. That was a revolutionary new insight into the true character of God as nonretaliatory, universal, unconditional love. His fuller statement reads, “Let there be no more eye for eye (non-retaliation) but love your enemy because God does. How so? God gives the two most important elements for survival in agrarian society- sun and rain- freely and inclusively to all alike, to both good and bad people”.
That was the breakthrough to liberation from fear at the deepest levels, liberation from millennia of threat theology that had been beaten into human minds. Threat theology that had stated the gods behind all the elements of life were angry with human imperfection/sinfulness and were punishing bad people through the harsh elements of the natural world.
And consequent to that divine wrath expressed throughout the world, people were obligated to submit to the costly sacrifice industry to appease the angry deities and to submit to their oppressive priesthoods and the onerous conditions of salvation religions. Threat theology had darkened and enslaved human minds and spirits from the beginning. And over millennia that pathology had become embedded in human subconscious as archetypes that not only engendered psychic misery in personal lives, but also validated endless violence in human societies (i.e. the arguments of psychologists Harold Ellens and Zenon Lotufo in “Cruel God, Kind God”. Also Richard Landes in “Heaven On Earth”).
Jesus illustrated his insight on God as unconditional with “natural” evidence and reasoning. He reasoned to the unconditional character of God from the fact that sun and rain were given by God to both good and bad people alike. No discrimination, no exclusion, no retaliatory punishment, no demand for sacrifice or payment. Read the list of ethical injunctions in Luke 6- i.e. give without expecting return, love without expecting love in return, etc. And if you do those things you will be just like God who does that. Jesus ends that list of precepts with the point that engaging such behavior is to be just like God- i.e. “Be unconditionally merciful just as God is unconditionally merciful.”
So also in his parables Jesus illustrated that divine character of God as non-retaliatory, a God who would universally include everyone. Jesus stated that Old Testament prophets were sent by God to help outsiders to Jewish culture, an unimaginably offensive insult to the tribal Jewish mind. And other Old Testament prophets had also stated that God exhibited a universalism impulse.
Then Jesus told the story of a good Samaritan, an outsider to Judaism who was honored for his non-tribal, universal love. And then in his own behavior Jesus illustrated universal inclusion when he welcomed local “sinners” into meals and signified an acceptance of societal outcasts. That universalism was highly offensive to the Jewish sense of purity and tribalism (i.e. Jews viewing themselves as “God’s specially chosen people”).
Jesus illustrated unconditional generosity in the story of the vineyard owner who paid the late-comers the same as the all-day workers. Then unconditional inclusion was illustrated by the Father giving a celebratory feast to the wasteful, useless son. The unconditional, universal love of the Father was stated in his reassurance that the “good boy” older son would get that same generous celebration as shown to the wasteful son.
The point of these short stories/parables and related teaching? All, both good and bad, were universally included and loved equally by God.
Further, the Near-Death Experience accounts consistently affirm these insights on what God is actually like. People, after having an NDE, come back frustrated by their inability to find words or terms to describe the infinitely wondrous unconditional love of the Light, or God, that they experienced in another realm. As they state, there is no judging deity, no threat of punishment, no hell. Just the oneness of infinite blissful love. There is no ultimate Zoroastrian dualism of believers/unbeliever, sheep or goats, no religious heaven or hell. As one lady stated (she had a degree in Christian/Catholic theology), “My Christian religion is all wrong.”
Put the above insights in your pipe and smoke them- i.e. that ultimately, we return to that Love from where we originated and from which we are never separated. That helps to reduce the death fear and restrain it more to the background of life.
Conclusion:
This site is about battling fear, unnecessary fear. There are fears based on natural things that are legitimate, that enable us to survive as we navigate the varied threats from the natural world. But then there are added fears, notably from religious threat theology, metaphysical threats presented by the great world religions that excessively torment human consciousness and add unnecessary psychic burdens to already unbearable natural suffering. That add, for example, extra sting to the natural fear of death from the threat of after-life harm- i.e. judgment, condemnation, punishment and destruction in hell.
Added note:
So-called “secular/ideological/materialist” belief systems, with their contemporary variants of gods, carry on mimicking the same old threat theology of religious systems- i.e. “vengeful Gaia, angry Mother Earth/Planet, punitive Universe, payback karma”. Its such nonsense, to pretend to have rejected the “Homo Religiosus” impulse (“a phrase that describes the idea that humans are inherently religious”).
Most materialist/atheist versions of deities are really no advance at all for human intelligence. They lack the fundamental quality of personhood that any form of ultimate Consciousness or Mind must have. The result? Soulless, heartless “sad Sally” replacements like “Self-Organizing Principle”, or “natural law” to explain a creating, sustaining Source. They are human-created realities that dismiss the most fundamental element to any complete TOE- i.e. Ultimate Consciousness and Personhood defined most essentially as love.
But such “secularized” gods are the limited alternatives when people lock themselves into the simple-minded dualisms of only two choices, often extremely polarized choices- i.e. you have to become either hardcore materialist or dogmatic religious extremist. Not at all. Let 8 billion flowers bloom.
Another note:
And consider that “madness of crowds” eruptions, like the climate alarm, have led many adults to publicly incite mass hysteria that has intensified the normal anxiety over life that is experienced by children (i.e. adding tormenting “eco-anxiety”). Such public alarmism narratives are irresponsible panic-mongering that can destroy children’s sense of wellbeing. Julian Simon wrote about how environmental alarmism has given children a sense of the world as a dangerous place (“Ultimate Resource”).
Environmental alarmism was a major contributing factor to Simon’s own “clinical depression”. In response to his depression, he researched the data on the main indicators of the true state of life and discovered that, while there were problems everywhere, we- humanity- were doing well in solving problems and hence life was improving, overall. That discovery lifted his depression, and he said that it never returned.
All the above affirms my arguments on this site that it’s going to be alright for everyone. And most critical, the best of “spiritual” insights help to affirm my argument that “You are safe, ultimately”. Safe here in this world, no matter what you suffer because the ultimate Love that Historical Jesus taught, surrounds us, interpenetrates all life, and dwells inside us, closer than our breath or atoms. That creating, sustaining Love is inseparable from our human spirit, our innermost self. We are that. That is our most essential and true self.
“Collectivism vs the individual approach”, and some back and forth with Grok on these two main approaches to organizing human societies across history, Wendell Krossa
“Where there is no authentic freedom there is no authentic love”, Bob Brinsmead.
First, an Intro point on collectivism versus free individuals:
This relates directly to the domination impulse that we have all inherited from our animal past, the alpha thing in both males and females. Those among us seeking status as societal elites, seeking positions that enable us to hold power and control over others, are missing the element of empathy, unable to clearly see or feel the pathology in powerholding that controls and manipulates others, the harm that such power-wielding causes to the wellbeing of others.
And this point gets the nuance that many seeking political positions, or other higher positions in social hierarchies, are not all driven by the pathology of power-mongering. Many good people seek such positions to work for the good of others and do so effectively, understanding the dangers in such positions, if abused for personal advantages. However, many initially well-meaning people quickly lose sight of their original intentions and fall prey to abusing their positions. Many others, under such people, then suffer the consequences. We all know examples of “little dictators” in local and regional hierarches, in private businesses (bosses from hell), and even in families.
My point is more about how collectivism at societal scale actually functions and the proven outcomes, despite the virtue signaling by collectivist elites to “compassion and moral superiority” with their advocacy for “equity” outcomes. The same virtue signaling is manifest in claims to operate for “common or greater good” (“for the people”). Historical evidence shows that, to the contrary, inevitably and always collectivism experiments have resulted in brutally abusive totalitarian regimes. Such outcomes are not aberrational but “inevitable/always” when you centralize power and control in those running the collectives.
As Kristian Niemietz concluded, dismantling the collectivist’s common claim to operate collectives “for the people”:
“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 approach that protects individual freedom and rights, equally, is about mature adults recognizing their own dangerous impulses to power and control over others and knowing that to keep such abusive impulses in check we need Classic Liberal systems of law and representative institutions that are structured and oriented to serve people, operated in ways that constantly return power to the people, to the commoners. See a reposting of the basic principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions of Classic Liberalism below.
State institutions that protect the freedom, rights, and equality of all citizens, show us the way to a future of mature humanity, a future of peace and prosperity, and how we express the authentic love that is the fundamental purpose/goal of our stories on this planet.
Again, Bob’s good insight: “Where there is no authentic freedom there is no authentic love.” This insight also helps clear up the great vexatious theological mystery (i.e. central theodicy issue) of why there is evil in life. The freedom of choice element that is necessary to the expression, experience, and existence of authentic moral good.
Moving into comment
What is the shape of a truly human/humane society? What does historical evidence show that has been the best approach to get us to greater or common good? What does human freedom really mean and how do we achieve it and then maintain it in our societies?
Milton Freidman argued that societies of free individuals result in “the most good for the most people” with government limited mainly to military defense, enforcing contracts between individuals, and protecting citizens from crime against themselves and their property. The further that governments expand beyond basic functions the more they begin to infringe on human freedoms and rights (i.e. his argument for federal spending limited to 15% of GDP).
I would frame Friedman’s points in terms of Classic Liberal principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions that function to protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals, equally, to ensure governments truly “serve the people”. Authentic liberal democracy.
Now, some background themes to what is going on in our societies, as in the great struggles between left and right, socialism and capitalism, among related issues.
Two opposing systems have contended over history to become the basic approaches to organizing human societies- (1) collectivism (all individuals and individual freedoms and rights subjected to a collective, with “enlightened” elites running the collective) versus (2) free and equal individuals as supreme in society with state bureaucrats/institutions functioning to serve free individuals.
Arthur Herman traces the descent of these two approaches across history from Plato (collectivist guy) and Aristotle (the individualist guy). See his good history of these two approaches in “The Cave and the Light: Plato versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization”.
Collectivism, though claiming to operate “for the people”, never has and cannot (see Grok’s comments on this below). Again, the Kristian Niemietz quote that I noted above in the Intro from “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”.
Collectivist systems inevitably and always function to benefit the elites that have to operate the collective. Collectivism subjects individuals to the collective. The state takes supremacy over individuals.
The first principle and priority of collectivism is to eliminate what Marx called the worst of evil- i.e. private property. That, according to Marxists, would liberate people to become their natural and true selves as “communalist beings”, living for the greater or common good. But the elimination of private property is a direct assault on individual freedom. Taking property directly by collectivist state coercion, or through “soft socialism” programs of government taxation, is removing the free choice of individuals over that personal property.
William Bernstein (“The Birth of Plenty”) is right to argue that private property is the very foundational principle for a successful society. It is the basis of freedom, the freedom that motivates people to create something, knowing that their effort will be protected and they will receive the benefits of their work. They will have the choice to dispense their assets as they freely choose.
If we start with the historical baseline of the pre-BCE Greeks, then we see that collectivism descends down from Plato to Hegel and then to Marx. I would note that collectivism emerges much earlier with very first societal elites- shaman- who elevated themselves over fellow tribe members with claims to know the secrets to the invisible realms and how to appease the anger of the threatening gods behind all the elements of the natural world (i.e. natural disasters, disease, accidents, predatory cruelty).
That earliest shamanistic endeavor to institute the elite/commoner divide in human societies eventually develops into priesthoods who demand that the produce of farmers (i.e. the majority in primitive agrarian societies) must pass through the central temple before being redistributed to the rest of the population. See the comments on that collectivism in one of the earliest states, posted below- i.e. the Sumerian civilization.
The individual approach to organizing human societies operates to protect individual rights and freedoms as supreme with the state serving free and self-determining individuals, with state institutions and bureaucracies functioning as truly “representative” institutions (freely elected politicians representing their constituencies).
The protection of individual freedoms has powerfully unleashed human motivation to improve life. Protected individual freedom has unleashed human creativity that has benefited all, both humanity and nature.
The approach that is oriented to the supremacy of free individuals in society has been wildly successful in achieving common or greater good, where collectivism has consistently ruined common or greater good. See the histories of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik (“Heaven On Earth”), Kristian Niemietz (“Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”), and the good history of the free individual approach by Daniel Hannan (“Inventing Freedom”).
Collectivism today is rebirthed endlessly in ever new versions. The latest variant is fronted by Woke Progressive with its DEI principles, where the same old tribal dualism of Marxism (oppressors/oppressed) is now expressed in DEI “victim/victimizer” categories with assignment to either of two categories by skin color, the new discrimination of “Woke Racism”.
As groups like the Libertarians argue, the fundamental responsibility of governments is to protect citizens from assault (“from enemies foreign and domestic”), to provide safety and security to all citizens, and then very carefully, following those most basic responsibilities, to cautiously guard against the tendency of states and state bureaucracies to unlimited expansion that undermines the freedom of citizens.
The unchecked growth of government bureaucracies demands increasing taxation of citizens that has rightly been termed coercive appropriation of citizen’s property- i.e. what many call “legalized state theft”, driven by arrogant elites who believe that they know better how to spend citizen’s income. That is a direct assault on the freedom of citizens in that it takes their free choice over how to dispense of their own property. Taxation is coercive state intervention into the lives of free individuals.
Insert: Yes, the “social contract” element gets mixed in and confuses things. We citizens do agree to some level of taxation to do our part in supporting shared infrastructure and government programs that we all use. But the problem is that state elites and bureaucrats tend to endlessly expand that citizen agreement with “soft socialism” ideology (i.e. the state taking more control of the “means of production”), meaning that state elites with a collectivist mentality believe that government must do more and more for citizens- i.e. create businesses or choose winners, and thereby create jobs and wealth. No. That is the responsibility of the private sector, of free and unhindered citizen creators.
Governments exist to protect a low taxation and low regulation environment (well stated by Ben Carson during his 2016 run for president) in which private business can flourish. Add further the state elite’s embrace of the apocalyptic mythology of “existential climate crisis” and consequent demands to waste trillions on unworkable Net Zero and Renewables salvation schemes (to “save the world”). Further, consider that Magna Carta, the foundational document of modern human freedom, is quite fundamentally an anti-taxation protest statement. It argues that governing elites should not tax citizens without their explicit approval. Citizen’s revolt, anyone?
Continuing…
Milton Freidman made the argument that federal government operating at 15% of GDP (the size of Federal spending in relation to GDP) would do “the most good for the most people”. That constrained size of federal government would function best to protect individual freedom. As states expand further, the effects become more and more negative on societies.
Add to the state appropriation of individual property, and hence individual free choice, the related increase in state regulations that accompany expanding state bureaucracies. That too is a direct assault on citizen’s freedom of choice as government regulations undermine and strangle the lives and freedoms of citizens.
The great threat to democracy today comes with the emergence of new generations of young people freshly propagandized in leftist dominant universities with the collectivism of Woke Progressivism, the latest front of neo-Marxist collectivism. These new citizens emerge from higher education to populate media (the propaganda arm of state elites and bureaucracies), state agencies/bureaucracies, even intelligence agencies and militaries. The new collectivists then continue to propagandize others.
Note that the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Woke Progressive and censorship infrastructure continue (i.e. the massive infrastructure of censorship- Mike Benz on Joe Rogan, episodes of JRE 2237 and 2272). And Western liberal democracies continue to yield to “soft socialism” approaches that soften up populations with increasing expansion of state bureaucracies that demand increased taxation (taking free choice from people over their property) and intrusive regulations to further undermine individual freedom and control all life (backed with threats of state coercion).
Next…
My post to a discussion group:
Hey guys, I am doing some comment on the two most common systems for organizing human societies across history- i.e. collectivism (all individuals subjected to the collective as greater or common good, private property banned) and the other system that protects free individuals and private property. Arthur Herman traces these two from Plato (the collectivist guy) and Aristotle (the individually oriented guy) in his “The Cave and The Light”. The line of descent is from Plato to Hegel to Marx.
The longer line of descent is from the earliest forms of the elite/commoner divide in prehistory societies where shaman elevated themselves over fellow tribals with claims to special knowledge of the invisible realms, with claims to know why the gods were angry and how to appease them. That granted power and control over others. (See, for example, John Pfeiffer’s “Explosion: An Inquiry Into the Origins of Art and Religion”).
The shaman eventually developed into the priesthoods of early states, such as in Sumeria, states that functioned as collectives run by elites. The line of descent continued down to Plato, Hegel, and then Marx.
This is comment on the domination impulse in all of us, an impulse that we inherited from our animal past- i.e. the alpha impulse (in both male and female). Our ancestors validated the expression of this barbaric impulse by constructing theologies of gods as dominating “Lords, Kings, Rulers”, accompanied by the myth of “humanity created to serve the gods, to do the work of the gods, to feed the gods” (i.e. mythology that validated priestly demands for offerings as required to gain benefits from the gods). The entire sacrifice/offering industry was controlled by the shaman/priesthoods that claimed to represent the gods, to operate that burdensome redistribution on behalf of the gods.
I then relate this to our discussions on Jesus and Paul- i.e. How those two became the proponents of entirely opposite complexes of validating ideas/ideals for human narratives. Jesus eviscerated the inherited domination impulse with his statement that true greatness was to “not lord over others but to serve others”. He rejected the endlessly destructive impulse of some to establish the “elite/commoner divide” in societies.
Paul, as usual, ignoring the actual teaching of Jesus, or worse intentionally contradicting Jesus, constructed his Christ myth as the ultimate expression and validation for the domination impulse. His most common term for his Christ- “Lord Jesus”. The gall to drag the anti-domination Jesus into his “Jesus Christ” oxymoronic merger.
The New Testament added further teaching to validate the domination impulse. It argued for wives to be subject to their husbands who in turn were to be subject to Lord Jesus. The Christ of Paul was constructed to provide history’s ultimate icon of divine validation for domination/submission relationships. And horrors, as Revelation claims, it will be an eternal domination, a totalitarian “rod of iron” rule.
Paul also taught a generalized submission to state authority in Romans 13. Acts (written by his protégé Luke?) further validates the collectivist model with its portrayal of true love as “holding all things in common” and presenting a God who is pissed at private property, zapping Annanias and Saphira for holding on to a bit of personal property. God, according to Luke, was a collectivist. So, you get what others have pointed to, that Christianity has long had a close affinity with socialism (see material below on Pierre Trudeau and his PhD thesis that looked at the relationship of Christianity to Communism).
Now lets let Grok do his/her/its thing on these issues…
I asked Grok about the origins of the earliest “special people” claiming status above others, the earliest expressions of the impulse to dominate, to seek status above others:
My question to Grok: What about the earliest shaman elevating themselves over fellow tribal members by claiming knowledge of the secrets of the invisible world of gods? Claiming status and control over others in the earliest versions of priesthoods. That then begins the elite/commoner divide in societies that Richard Landes spoke to in Heaven On Earth.
Grok responded:
You’re digging into a fascinating intersection of anthropology, history, and social dynamics here— specifically how the earliest shamans might have leveraged claims about the invisible world to elevate themselves, laying the groundwork for priesthoods and the elite/commoner divide. Richard Landes’ Heaven on Earth does touch on related themes, particularly how millennial and apocalyptic beliefs shape power structures, so I’ll weave that in where it fits.
The idea of shamans as the earliest figures claiming special knowledge of an unseen realm— gods, spirits, ancestors— tracks with what we know about prehistoric and early tribal societies. Shamans, across cultures like the Siberian Tungus (where the term originates) or the Inuit, were often the ones who “traveled” to the spirit world through trance or ritual, bringing back insights or interventions— healing, divining the future, ensuring a good hunt. This wasn’t just a parlor trick; it was a survival tool for communities facing uncertainty. But it also gave shamans a unique edge: they could claim exclusive access to forces no one else could see or verify.
Imagine a Paleolithic tribe— say, 40,000 years ago. Life’s brutal, unpredictable. A shaman steps up, maybe after a vision induced by fasting or plants, and says, “I’ve spoken to the spirits. They say the herd moves east, and I can guide us there.” If he’s right, his status skyrockets. If he’s wrong, he might adapt the story— “The spirits were testing us”— and still hold sway if he’s charismatic enough. This ability to interpret the invisible, to bridge the human and divine, naturally sets him apart from the average hunter or gatherer. Over time, that separation could harden into a power dynamic: the shaman’s not just a guide but a gatekeeper, someone who must be consulted, obeyed, even feared.
This fits the proto-priesthood angle. Anthropologists like Mircea Eliade, in Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, argue that shamans were the first religious specialists, predating organized priesthoods. Their claims weren’t abstract theology but practical— control over weather, fertility, or sickness. In small, egalitarian bands, this might not create a stark divide; everyone’s still kin. But as societies grew— think Neolithic settlements, 10,000 BCE onward— specialization crept in. The shaman’s role could formalize, maybe passing to kin (hereditary privilege) or requiring elaborate initiations (restricted access). Suddenly, you’ve got a class of “knowers” distinct from the “doers”— the seed of an elite/commoner split.
Richard Landes doesn’t directly address shamans in Heaven on Earth, but his framework of millennial movements and power is relevant. He explores how apocalyptic beliefs— often tied to divine secrets— empower leaders to reshape societies, creating hierarchies. The shaman-as-first-priest aligns with his “demotic religiosity” concept: early on, spiritual access might be open to all (everyone’s a bit mystical in a tribal setting), but once someone monopolizes that access, claiming unique insight into the gods’ will, you get an elite enforcing order over commoners. Landes might see this as a precursor to later millennial upheavals, where prophets or kings wield divine authority to justify control— think Akhenaten or the Taiping Rebellion, just way earlier.
Evidence-wise, it’s speculative but grounded. Cave art from Lascaux or Chauvet (30,000–15,000 BCE) often gets linked to shamanic visions— handprints, half-human figures, animals pierced by spears. Archaeologists like David Lewis-Williams suggest these were shamans documenting spirit journeys, signaling their special role. In ethnographic records— like the San of Southern Africa or Australian Aboriginal groups— shamans or “clever men” often held sway over rituals, reinforcing their status. The leap to elite/commoner isn’t instant; it’s when societies scale up, and resources concentrate, that spiritual authority merges with material power— chiefs and priests start looking alike.
So, the earliest shamans likely did elevate themselves by claiming mastery over the invisible, setting a template for priesthoods. That divide, as Landes might frame it, isn’t just about class but about who controls the narrative of reality itself— spiritually and socially. Does that resonate with what you’re chasing, or want to push deeper into Landes’ angle?
I asked Grok for some info– “What do you know about Sumerian priests demanding all produce of citizens pass through the temples before redistribution?”
Grok responded:
The Sumerians, one of the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia (modern-day southern Iraq), developed a complex society around 4500–1900 BCE. Their religious and economic systems were deeply intertwined, and priests held significant power in Sumerian city-states like Uruk, Ur, and Lagash. The practice you’re referring to— where priests demanded that all produce pass through the temples before redistribution— relates to the temple’s central role in Sumerian economy and governance.
In Sumerian society, temples weren’t just religious centers; they were economic hubs. The priests, who managed these temples, claimed authority as intermediaries between the people and the gods. They argued that the land and its bounty belonged to the gods, and since they spoke for the gods, they controlled the allocation of resources. Historical evidence, like cuneiform tablets from the Early Dynastic period (c. 2900–2350 BCE), shows that temples collected agricultural produce— grain, livestock, dates, wool, etc.— from farmers and laborers. This was often framed as a religious obligation or “tithe” to ensure divine favor, such as good harvests or protection from floods.
For example, the en (high priest) or ensi (governor-priest) oversaw this system. Texts from Lagash describe how the temple of the goddess Bau received barley and other goods, which were recorded meticulously by scribes. The temple then redistributed some of this produce to workers, artisans, and the poor, while keeping a hefty share for temple upkeep, priestly elites, and offerings. Archaeologist Samuel Noah Kramer, in his work The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character, estimates that temples controlled up to a third of arable land in some city-states by the late third millennium BCE.
This wasn’t voluntary charity— it was a mandatory system backed by divine authority and, when needed, force. Some scholars, like Thorkild Jacobsen, suggest it resembled a theocratic proto-socialism, where the temple acted as a centralized storehouse. Others, like economic historian Morris Silver, argue it was more exploitative, with priests skimming wealth to maintain power. Cuneiform records from Ur, for instance, show complaints about excessive temple demands, hinting at tension between citizens and the priestly class.
The system faded as secular rulers (like the kings of the Akkadian Empire, c. 2334–2154 BCE) began to challenge temple dominance, but it left a lasting mark on how early states centralized control over resources. That’s the gist of it— temples as middlemen, justified by religion, in a setup that mixed piety with profit. Want me to dig deeper into a specific city or text?
I asked Grok– “How would you summarize Plato’s ideal state as a collectivist system run by philosopher kings?”
Grok on Plato’s collectivism:
Plato’s ideal state, as outlined in The Republic (written around 375 BCE), can be summarized as a collectivist system governed by philosopher-kings, where individual desires are subordinated to the collective good, and a rigid hierarchy ensures harmony through reason and specialization. Here’s the breakdown:
In Plato’s vision, the state is like a living organism— each part has a role to serve the whole. He rejects democracy and individualism, arguing that most people lack the wisdom to govern. Instead, he proposes a tripartite class structure mirroring the soul’s three parts: reason, spirit, and appetite. At the top are the philosopher-kings (Guardians), who rule with absolute authority. They’re not kings in the traditional sense but intellectual elites trained in dialectic and philosophy for decades— think 50 years of math, astronomy, and metaphysics— until they grasp the “Form of the Good,” Plato’s ultimate truth. Only then can they govern justly, free from personal ambition or corruption, since they’ve transcended material desires.
Below them are the Auxiliaries, the warrior class, enforcing the philosopher-kings’ decrees and protecting the state. At the bottom are the Producers— farmers, artisans, merchants— whose job is to obey and sustain the system. Property and family are collectivized among the Guardians to eliminate private interests: no personal wealth, no nuclear families, just communal living and state-controlled breeding to produce the best offspring. The Producers keep some private property, but their economic output is regulated for the state’s benefit.
The collectivism shines through in the abolition of self-interest among rulers and the emphasis on unity. Plato uses the “noble lie”— a myth that citizens are born from the earth with gold, silver, or bronze souls— to justify this hierarchy and convince everyone their role is natural. Education is state-run, censored, and designed to mold citizens into their assigned classes, with no upward mobility unless talent demands it.
It’s a system where justice, for Plato, means everyone doing their part without meddling— rulers reason, warriors fight, workers produce. Critics like Karl Popper later called it totalitarian, pointing to the loss of freedom and the unchecked power of the philosopher-kings. Plato would counter that only those who understand true reality can steer the collective toward virtue, not chaos.
In short: a top-down, collectivist utopia run by enlightened despots, prioritizing wisdom and order over liberty or equality. Want me to compare it to something specific, like the Sumerian setup?
Then I asked Grok– How about Hegel’s vision of the state as dominant in collectivism with individuals subjected to the state as ultimate good and representing the will of the people?
Hegel strongly influenced Marx.
Grok’s summary:
Hegel’s vision of the state, laid out in works like Philosophy of Right (1821), is a collectivist framework where the state isn’t just a tool for governance but the ultimate embodiment of human freedom, rationality, and the collective will. For Hegel, individuals find their true purpose and identity only by being subsumed into this higher entity— think of it as the state as the final boss of history’s unfolding logic.
In Hegel’s system, the state is the “actualization of the ethical idea,” a living, rational organism that transcends mere individual desires or contracts (like in Locke or Rousseau). It’s not about protecting rights or serving citizens as an end; instead, it’s the end itself—the “march of God in the world,” as he puts it. Individuals aren’t atoms with independent value; their freedom comes from participating in the state’s rational will, which Hegel sees as the collective spirit (Geist) reaching its fullest expression. This isn’t the people’s will in a democratic sense but a deeper, almost metaphysical “universal will” that the state manifests through its institutions— monarchy, bureaucracy, laws.
The structure leans hard into collectivism. Private life— family, property, personal goals— exists, but it’s subordinate to the state’s ethical totality. Hegel’s ideal isn’t a free-for-all market or a loose federation; it’s a constitutional monarchy where a king (guided by reason) and a professional civil service enact the state’s purpose. Citizens have roles— workers, bureaucrats, soldiers— but their duties align with the state’s aims, not their own whims. He’s cool with some individual rights (property, marriage), but only insofar as they strengthen the collective framework.
Hegel’s twist is that this subjection isn’t oppression— it’s liberation. Alone, individuals are irrational, selfish, stuck in nature’s muck. Through the state, they join history’s dialectic, where conflicts (like individual vs. collective) resolve into higher unity. The state reconciles opposites— freedom and authority, personal and universal— making it the ultimate good. Critics, like Schopenhauer, trashed this as bootlicking for Prussian absolutism, and later thinkers (Marx included) saw it as a setup for authoritarianism since the “will of the people” is whatever the state says it is.
Summarized: Hegel’s state is a dominant, collectivist machine, absorbing individuals into its rational destiny, claiming to represent their true will while demanding their loyalty as the highest virtue. It’s less about priests or philosopher-kings dictating terms (like Sumer or Plato) and more about an abstract, evolving system where the state itself is the star. Want me to pit it against Plato’s or Sumer’s setups directly?
My further request to Grok– Then Marx’s version of collectivism as following Hegel?
Grok answered:
It seems like you’re asking about Karl Marx’s version of collectivism and how it relates to or follows from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy. I’ll break this down based on their ideas and the connection between them.
Marx’s collectivism is rooted in his vision of a classless, stateless society— communism— where the means of production are owned collectively, and wealth is distributed based on need rather than individual accumulation. This contrasts with individualism, which prioritizes personal ownership and autonomy. Marx saw history as a material struggle between classes (the bourgeoisie and proletariat), driven by economic conditions, leading inevitably to collective ownership as the resolution.
Hegel, on the other hand, didn’t explicitly advocate for collectivism in the economic sense Marx did. His philosophy centered on the dialectic— history as a process of ideas unfolding through conflict (thesis, antithesis, synthesis)— and the realization of freedom through the state. For Hegel, the state was the ultimate expression of collective human spirit (Geist), reconciling individual desires with a rational, universal order. Collectivism in Hegel is more abstract: it’s about the ethical community and the collective development of reason, not necessarily the abolition of private property.
Marx took Hegel’s dialectical method but flipped it. Where Hegel saw the dialectic as a movement of ideas or spirit, Marx grounded it in material conditions— hence “dialectical materialism.” Marx criticized Hegel for being too idealistic, arguing that the real driver of history wasn’t the state or spirit but class struggle over resources. So, Marx’s collectivism follows Hegel in using the dialectical framework but departs by tying it to economics and rejecting the state as an end goal. Marx saw the state as a tool of class oppression that would “wither away” once communism was achieved.
In short, Marx’s collectivism borrows Hegel’s process of historical development but reorients it from a spiritual or institutional focus to a material, revolutionary one aimed at collective ownership and the dissolution of class distinctions. Does that clarify the link you’re exploring, or did you have a specific aspect in mind?
Pushing Grok more: What about Marx’s number one evil- private property and that liberation was for people to become communalists living for the common good? Subjected to collectives.
Grok again:
You’re zeroing in on a core piece of Marx’s thought: his view of private property as the root of societal evil and his vision of liberation through communal living for the common good. Let’s unpack this.
For Marx, private property— specifically the private ownership of the means of production (factories, land, capital)— was the primary source of oppression. He argued in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital that it created a system where the bourgeoisie (capitalists) exploited the proletariat (workers) by extracting surplus value— profit— from their labor. This wasn’t just an economic gripe; Marx saw private property as alienating people from their work, each other, and their own human potential. In a capitalist system, individuals are pitted against one another, chasing personal gain, which he viewed as dehumanizing. He famously wrote, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
His alternative was a society where the means of production are held in common— no private ownership of factories or land, just collective control. This wasn’t about stripping people of personal belongings (like your toothbrush), despite what critics often claim; it was about the big stuff that generates wealth and power. Liberation, for Marx, meant freeing people from the chains of wage labor and competition, allowing them to live as “communalists” working for the collective good rather than individual profit. In his ideal communist society, the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” would govern life, replacing the selfish drives of capitalism with cooperation.
But here’s where it gets sticky: Marx didn’t romanticize this as a utopia of happy consensus. He saw it emerging from struggle— revolution— where the proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat” to transition toward this communal state. The endgame was a classless, stateless society where people’s needs and contributions aligned naturally, without coercion. Critics, though, point out the tension: subjecting individuals to collectives, risks trading one form of domination (capitalist bosses) for another (the collective or its enforcers). Marx believed historical forces would sort this out, but he was light on details about how free individuals would stay in practice.
So, yes, Marx framed private property as evil incarnate because it fractured humanity into haves and have-nots. His liberation was about dissolving that divide, turning people into communalists who live for the whole. Whether that subjection to collectives liberates or suffocates, depends on how you read human nature— and history’s mixed experiments with his ideas. What’s your take on that tension?
I then stated to Grok: On the claim of collectivist elites to operate the collective on behalf of the people, for the people Kristian Niemietz says this in Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies,
“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.”
Grok responds:
You’re bringing in a sharp critique from Kristian Niemietz’s Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies, and it ties directly into the tension between collectivist ideals and the reality of who ends up holding the reins. Let’s break down Niemietz’s argument and see how it connects to that shaman-to-elite thread we’ve been tracing.
Niemietz is zeroing in on a practical flaw in the socialist vision— specifically the kind pitched by “democratic socialists” who imagine a system where “the people” collectively plan the economy. Think of it as Marx’s endgame dialed back from revolution to reform: no private property, production organized for the common good, all decided democratically. Sounds nice on paper— everyone’s a stakeholder, no bosses, no billionaires. But Niemietz says it’s a pipe dream. Why? Because economic planning— figuring out what to produce, how much, and for whom— isn’t something you can crowdsource like a Reddit poll. It’s a logistical beast requiring expertise, data, and quick decisions, which inevitably funnels power to a small group of technocrats or bureaucrats.
His point is that “the people” don’t run collectives; elites do. Central planning, whether in Soviet five-year plans or Venezuelan oil nationalization, demands a hierarchy— someone’s got to crunch the numbers, set quotas, enforce compliance. That’s not empowerment for the worker on the factory floor; it’s a new boss in a fancier suit, maybe waving a red flag. Niemietz argues this isn’t a bug but a feature: socialism, even the democratic kind, concentrates power in the state or its proxies, not the masses. History backs him up— look at the USSR’s Politburo or Mao’s Great Leap Forward. The rhetoric was “for the people,” but the reality was top-down control by a clique claiming to speak for them.
This loops back to your shaman example beautifully. The shaman claims insight into the invisible world— gods, spirits— to guide the tribe. The socialist elite claims insight into the invisible hand of economics— production, distribution— to guide the collective. Both sell their authority as serving the common good, but both elevate themselves above the rest. The shaman becomes the priest-king; the planner becomes the commissar. In Niemietz’s view, the democratic socialist hope of a flat, participatory system crashes against the same reef: complexity demands specialization, and specialization breeds elites.
He’s not alone in this. Friedrich Hayek hit a similar note in The Road to Serfdom, arguing that central planning erodes freedom because it can’t avoid vesting power in a few “experts.” Niemietz doubles down with a historical jab: socialism’s track record— USSR, Cuba, Venezuela— shows bureaucratic elites, not worker councils, calling the shots every time. Even in softer cases like Scandinavian social democracy, it’s not “the people” planning but elected officials and technocrats tweaking a still-capitalist economy.
So, tying it to Marx’s hatred of private property and his communalist dream, Niemietz would say Marx misjudged the cure. Ditching private property doesn’t liberate people into a collective utopia; it hands the keys to a new ruling class— the ones who “know best” how to run the show. The elite/commoner divide doesn’t vanish; it just changes uniforms. What do you think— does Niemietz’s take hold water, or is there a counter to his inevitability argument?
(End of Grok comments)
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? Hint, hint, Elon.
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
Bob Brinsmead: Love and freedom are inseparable realities. Where there is no true freedom there is no authentic love.
And, another post to discussion group…. Some morning fun with Grok, Wendell Krossa
Again, these are just for any interested… Note Grok pushing back against my statement of God in Acts 2-4 as an “angry Marx-like” anti-private property guy.
Some of my morning converse with friend Grok:
Grok your thoughts on Canadian Prime minister Pierre Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau co-authored a book praising Chinese communism (Deux Innocents en Chine Rouge) and his PhD thesis was on the relationship between Communism and Christianity. Acts chapters 2-4 provides validation for the relationship between communism and Christianity as the early Christians are presented as showing that true love is to hold all things in common. And God is presented as a collectivist or communalist, an angry Marx-like collectivist who hates private property and kills those who try to hold a bit of personal property.
Grok’s response:
It seems like you’re asking for my thoughts on Pierre Trudeau, the former Canadian Prime Minister, with a focus on his intellectual leanings toward communism, his co-authored book Two Innocents in Red China (Deux Innocents en Chine Rouge), and his PhD thesis exploring the relationship between communism and Christianity. You’ve also provided an interpretation of Acts 2-4 to suggest a biblical basis for this connection. Let’s unpack this thoughtfully.
Pierre Trudeau was a fascinating and polarizing figure—charismatic, intellectual, and often unconventional. His early writings and academic work do show a curiosity about socialism and communism, which isn’t surprising given the mid-20th-century context. Two Innocents in Red China, written with Jacques Hébert in 1956, reflects a youthful Trudeau’s impressions of Maoist China during a trip there. The book isn’t an outright endorsement of Chinese communism but rather a travelogue with a mix of admiration for the energy of the revolution and a somewhat naive optimism about its promises—like many Western intellectuals of that era who were intrigued by collectivist experiments. It’s worth noting that Trudeau was in his mid-30s then, still forming his worldview, and this was well before he became a pragmatic Liberal politician.
His PhD thesis at Harvard, which explored the interplay between communism and Christianity, suggests he saw some philosophical overlap—perhaps in their shared emphasis on community and equality. Your reference to Acts 2-4 aligns with this: the early Christian community in those chapters is depicted as living communally, sharing possessions, and rejecting individual hoarding. Verses like Acts 2:44-45 (“All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need”) do echo a collectivist ethos. Some scholars and theologians have indeed drawn parallels between this and Marxist ideals of abolishing private property for the collective good.
But your take on God as an “angry Marx-like collectivist” who “hates private property and kills those who try to hold a bit of personal property” seems to stem from Acts 5—the story of Ananias and Sapphira. There, they sell a piece of property but lie about giving all the proceeds to the community, and they drop dead after being confronted by Peter. It’s a dramatic episode, and one could interpret it as a warning against deceit or greed disrupting a communal ideal. Still, calling God a Marxist here might be a stretch—biblical scholars typically frame this as divine judgment on dishonesty, not a blanket condemnation of private property. The Old Testament, for instance, is full of laws protecting property rights, which complicates the idea of God as a proto-communist.
As for Trudeau himself, whatever flirtations he had with communist ideas in his youth didn’t define his tenure as Prime Minister (1968–1979, 1980–1984). He governed as a liberal democrat, championing individual rights—like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—while also pushing a strong federal state. His policies leaned left on social issues and economics (think nationalized healthcare and energy programs), but he wasn’t dismantling capitalism or praising Mao from Ottawa. If anything, his fascination with collectivism seemed more academic than ideological by the time he held power.
So, my thoughts? Trudeau was a thinker who wrestled with big ideas—communism, Christianity, justice—in a way that reflected his Jesuit education and restless intellect. Acts 2-4 might’ve intrigued him as a model of voluntary communalism, but I doubt he’d cast God as a Marxist enforcer. His real legacy is less about ideology and more about navigating Canada through a turbulent era with a mix of idealism and pragmatism. What do you think—am I missing a piece of the puzzle here?
Then I sent this article to Grok on Pierre Trudeau’s fanboy relationship with communist leaders:
“Pierre Trudeau really, really loved communists | Canada Did What?!: He covered up famines for Red China, and wasn’t all that pleased with Ukrainian independence”, Tristan Hopper, Mar. 5, 2025
Grok replied:
Thanks for sharing the National Post article by Tristin Hopper. It’s a provocative piece that dives deep into Pierre Trudeau’s apparent affinity for communist regimes, painting a picture of a man who not only sympathized with these systems but actively supported them, even in the face of their darkest moments. The podcast transcript adds a layer of intensity to the discussion we started earlier, focusing on Trudeau’s trips to China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba, and framing them as evidence of a troubling ideological blind spot—or worse, a deliberate endorsement of authoritarianism. Let’s dig into this and see what holds up, what’s exaggerated, and how it connects to your original question about his views on communism and Christianity.
Hopper’s central claim is that Trudeau “really, really loved communists,” pointing to his 1960 book Two Innocents in Red China, his 1952 visit to Stalin’s Soviet Union, and his cozy relationship with Fidel Castro as proof. The article suggests Trudeau wasn’t just naive but complicit—helping to downplay the Great Leap Forward famine, praising Soviet economic achievements built on gulag labor, and shrugging off Cuba’s repression. It’s a harsh take, and it’s meant to shock, especially with lines like “running interference on the deadliest famine in human history” or befriending “mass murderers.”
Starting with Two Innocents in Red China, Hopper’s right that Trudeau and Jacques Hébert visited China in 1960 during the Great Leap Forward, a disaster that killed tens of millions. The book does present an overly rosy view—factories humming, kids in school, no mention of starvation—which looks damning in hindsight. Trudeau’s dismissal of famine reports as Western propaganda or racist myths aligns with what Hopper compares to Walter Duranty’s whitewashing of the Holodomor. But there’s nuance here: Trudeau wasn’t a journalist with a global platform like Duranty; he was a minor academic figure, and the book barely made a splash at the time. It’s also worth asking how much he knew. The full scale of the famine wasn’t widely confirmed in the West until later, and his hosts were masters of deception—Potemkin villages, as Hopper notes. Still, his willingness to take the propaganda at face value, even with hints of skepticism in the text, suggests either gullibility or a predisposition to see communism in a flattering light.
The Soviet angle is equally striking. Trudeau’s 1952 trip to Moscow under Stalin—signing memos as “Comrade Trudeau”—and his 1971 visit to Norilsk, a city built by forced labor, are tough to defend. His praise for Soviet progress, like solving inflation without unemployment, ignores the human cost: millions in gulags, mass repression, and a police state. The Norilsk episode, where he reportedly lamented Canada’s lack of such development, is particularly chilling when you hear dissidents like Vladimir Bukovsky and Andrei Amalrik call him out for glorifying a slave-labor hellscape. This wasn’t just academic curiosity; it’s hard to argue he didn’t know about Stalinist atrocities by 1952, given his education and the post-WWII revelations. His 1971 boast to Soviet leaders about cutting Canada’s NATO commitments further hints at a desire to align with them, or at least not oppose them too fiercely.
Then there’s Cuba and Fidel Castro. The personal warmth—diving trips, Castro as “Papa Fidel” to Trudeau’s kids, the pallbearer role at his funeral—stands out as unusual for a democratic leader. Hopper’s point about Castro’s brutality (political prisoners, no elections, flirting with nuclear war) contrasts sharply with Trudeau’s silence on these issues. His 1964 quip about elections being unnecessary after watching Castro’s speeches is eyebrow-raising, though it could’ve been half-joking. Still, it fits a pattern: Trudeau rarely criticized communist regimes the way he did democratic ones, like the U.S. or even Canada’s own policies.
Connecting this to your original question about communism and Christianity, Hopper mentions Trudeau’s PhD thesis on their relationship, suggesting it shaped his worldview. The Acts 2-4 parallel you raised—early Christians sharing everything—might’ve appealed to him as a model of voluntary collectivism, a kind of moral purity he saw echoed in communist ideals. But where you see God as a “Marx-like collectivist” punishing private property (via Ananias and Sapphira), Trudeau’s take seems less wrathful and more aspirational. His writings and actions suggest he admired the communal spirit, not the violence enforcing it. The problem is, he often overlooked that violence in practice—whether Mao’s famines, Stalin’s gulags, or Castro’s jails.
Hopper’s critique isn’t flawless, though. He leans hard into emotional framing—“dark side,” “catastrophic stuff”—and sometimes overreaches. Trudeau’s foreign policy wasn’t pure propaganda; he pursued détente with the East to avoid nuclear escalation, a stance not unique to him during the Cold War. His Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as Bob Plamondon notes, clashes with any deep love for authoritarianism—how do you square individual liberties with defending martial law in Poland? Maybe Trudeau saw communism as a noble experiment gone awry, or a counterweight to Western excess, rather than a system to emulate wholesale. His memoirs lamenting the Soviet collapse as destabilizing hint at pragmatism, not just ideology.
So, my thoughts? Trudeau’s record on communism is messier than either his fans or critics like Hopper fully admit. He wasn’t a secret Marxist plotting Canada’s downfall, but he had a soft spot for collectivist regimes that’s hard to justify given the evidence available even then. His Christianity-communism link might’ve been intellectual fuel, but in practice, he seemed more charmed by the charisma of men like Castro than horrified by their body counts. It’s a contradiction—championing freedom at home, excusing tyranny abroad—that leaves his legacy open to debate. What do you make of Hopper’s take? Does it shift your view of Trudeau’s motives?
And…
“Wrong, PBS, Real-World Data Doesn’t Show That a Climate Crisis Is Happening”, Anthony Watts and H. Sterling Burnett, March 6, 2025.
Watts and Burnett respond to a Public Broadcasting System article which states that “proof of catastrophic climate change is found in obvious “growing dangers” evident for all to see.” They say that is false.
“PBS fails to acknowledge that the climate has always changed and there is little evidence to support the notion that human activities have altered climate in a way that is leading us toward disaster…”
They first note that the ocean is not becoming acidic and the Great Barrier Reef has experienced record levels of coral cover in recent years.
Then, there is no increase in deaths from extreme weather but to the contrary evidence shows a stunning decline in deaths from weather events and natural disasters over the past 100 years. A 99 percent decline. Most important to note- 10 times more people die every year from cold than die from warming (Lancet study).
And malnutrition and hunger have declined as more CO2 has resulted in crop production booming across the world (record crop yields). Add that with more CO2 (basic plant food) the planet has greened dramatically (some 15% more green vegetation across Earth since 1980).
Further, “total global area burned by wildfires has declined markedly in the United States and globally over the past century.”
“As for hurricanes and extreme weather, the data simply does not support claims that they are becoming more frequent or severe. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself acknowledges that there is no significant trend in global tropical cyclone activity.
Watts and Burnett conclude that PBS is cherry-picking extreme weather events and misrepresenting other factors, and ignoring the huge benefits of more CO2 “all to justify heavy-handed government intervention.”
The flap over Jeff Bezos taking a stand for freedom illustrates the anti-freedom crusade of the left today. Part of the larger reaction of the US Left today, anything that Trump and Crew are for, they are against. No matter how insane that leaves them on many issues.
This offers a peek inside the totalitarian mind- “a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
“Shock and horror in U. S. media as Bezos calls for ‘free market’ opinion: Tech billionaire announces major change to The Washington Post’s opinion pages”, Terence Corcoran, Mar.5, 2025
https://financialpost.com/opinion/shock-horror-us-jeff-bezos-free-market?tbref=hp
“In an email last Wednesday to the paper’s editorial staff, Bezos — executive chairman of Amazon — outlined a major change in the opinion pages of the newspaper he bought in 2013 for US$250 million. “We are going to be writing every day in support and defence of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.”
“Stop the presses! The virtual ink had barely dried on the email when media commentators began rushing in to condemn Bezos and his plan to turn the Post’s hitherto mixed-bag opinion pages into bastions of economic and personal liberty. “Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity,” wrote Bezos.”…
“On his X post announcing the editorial changes, Bezos received a reader response that cited economist Milton Friedman’s observation that “underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” To which Bezos replied: “Yes, they are very much intertwined. This is underappreciated but very true. Thank you.””