Below: Pushing Grok on Mendel’s warning (Vision and Violence) to beware of any version of salvation that comes through destruction.
Wisdom from Carl Jung
Think- Death to the old and rebirth into the new. Disintegration of the old and reintegration around the new.
“Signs that you are about to begin the best state of your life, Carl Jung”, Mental Dose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Idz5SSPpaY
From the intro: “You’re not falling apart. You’re falling into ‘alignment’. The best stage of your life begins the moment you stop being who you were told to be.”
This is a positive and hopeful way to view and approach human development, especially as it involves fundamental transformation that leads to leaving comfortable things of the past in order to embrace things that are fundamentally new.
Evidence/data from natural sciences that falsifies the apocalyptic narrative of the “climate crisis crusade.”
GREENHOUSE GASES AND FOSSIL FUELS CLIMATE SCIENCE April 28, 2025, by atmospheric physicists Richard Lindzen and William Happer
Quotes from their report: “CO2… becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations because of what in physics is called “saturation.” Each additional increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in “radiative forcing,” or in temperature…
“At today’s CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 425 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future, the ability of future increases to warm the planet will be even smaller. This also means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is in the IPCC’s words “the main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
“In short, more carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather. Now and at higher levels, increasing carbon dioxide creates more food for people worldwide, and only a slight and beneficial increase in temperature….”
See the full report (quoted and linked below) for detailed data presentations and illustrative graphs…
Continuing with Carl Jung’s “Signs you are entering the best state of your life”…
Jung is good on how to view this transformation as liberation from the old that holds you back, to embrace as progress and advance that which takes you into the new, into better and more meaningful things. Such fundamental transformation, he states, is not loss but advance into a more meaningful life.
Here below is the rough transcript of this video clip as presented by a narrator on Jung’s material. I would frame this call of Jung to death/rebirth, disintegration/reintegration, as notably involving the rethinking of our basic beliefs and worldview. Recognizing that we may have embraced beliefs that give us “emotional satisfaction, even though against rational evidence of the harm that they cause” (Kristian Niemietz in “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”).
Recognizing that our belief system may be seriously faulty can initially feel frightening because of how we tightly tie our identity to our beliefs. So, letting go of the old to embrace something new may feel like a death experience because it is about engaging a profoundly fundamental transformation, even transformation of the self.
But Jung is right to frame this as a “liberation to something better, to our true self and a more authentically humane life”. It is a death to what holds us back that is not our true self. So read the natural feelings of disorientation and even fear of change as positive signs that something better is about to emerge and grow.
On Jung’s call to remain open to profound change I thought of Louis Zurcher’s “The Mutable Self”. Zurcher urged the same openness to ongoing change and development. To not tie our identity too dogmatically to fixed objects like an immutable belief system. He called us to remain open to change in an ongoing process– to become “mutable selves”. Too many define themselves by a belief system they inherited from parents, or their community/peers/society, what they were told to believe.
We see this same hanging on to something immutable over the long-term history of humanity- i.e. many simply embracing what we have inherited from our primitive ancestors, the same old beliefs that have dominantly defined human narratives across history, often with little fundamental change, aside from some minor tinkering at the periphery (due to fear of “immutable truths” backed with threats of “heresy, blasphemy, disloyalty, expulsion from community of ‘believers’”, etc.?).
Fortunately, many across past centuries have been awakening to realize the inhumanity of many inherited beliefs and have been seeking better alternatives, something more humane. We should not fear such profound change as “loss” but view it as liberation, as transformation into a better future, as Jung urges.
My rough transcript of narrator’s comments on Jung’s material–
(1) The first sign is that we begin to question things that we once accepted as truth– i.e. our identity, values, goals. They all start to feel uncertain as if something foundational is beginning to shift beneath you. This is not confusion. It’s the mind breaking free of inherited narratives and the soul pushing forward into a more conscious existence, into alignment.
Jung speaks of the disorientation that proceeds transformation. The old life you built no longer satisfies, the mask slips and in its place rises a strange sacred curiosity- Who am I beneath the roles I play? What do I actually want, not what I was told to want? These are uncomfortable questions and they mark the beginning of self-reclamation. Growth never arrives with comfort. It comes wrapped in uncertainty and carried by insight as you notice something else shifting deep within you. Follow the call and other signs emerge.
(2) The second sign reveals itself to you as you begin to feel a quiet but undeniable detachment from your past. What once felt essential now seems hollow. Old familiar things lose their emotional weight. You are not abandoning anything but just outgrowing it. This detachment can feel like grief. At first you may miss the comfort of the known, the rhythm of habits that made you feel safe. But under the mourning is a powerful message from your soul. You are ready for more. The past is no longer where you belong and clinging to it only delays your growth. This is not about loss. Its about liberation. You are being invited into a new reality where truth matters more than familiarity. And from that sacred release a new awareness takes root, a redefinition of what truly matters. Your inner world shifts and so does your sense of meaning.
(3) The third sign becomes clear as you question what is truly important to you. Things that once seemed important- status, recognition, material success- start to feel empty. You are no longer motivated by the expectations of others. You are searching for something deeper, something real. This redefinition often brings a sense of unease. Letting go of old ambitions can feel like losing direction but in truth you are finally stepping off the path built for someone else and beginning to build your own. Meaning becomes your compass. Experiences that nourish your spirit matter more than achievements that impress others. You realize fulfilment is not found in doing what looks good but in doing what feels right and as you start living from this place of inner alignment another guide awakens in you. One that doesn’t speak in words as external noise fades. Your inner voice becomes more audible.
(4) The fourth sign is the emergence of a deeper more intuitive way of navigating life. Decisions that once felt complicated become clear. A quiet sense of knowing begins to guide you. It isn’t loud or dramatic but subtle, steady, and deeply personal. Jung saw intuition as a vital inner function, one that connects us to truths beyond logic. You feel drawn to certain people, paths, or decisions without knowing why. Yet something in you simply knows this guidance is not random. It’s the soul steering you toward the life you’re meant to live. The more you trust it, the more your outer world becomes in synch with your inner self and with the intuitive clarity comes a powerful desire not just to exist but to grow.
(5) The fifth sign arises with a sense of urgency. You no longer want to stay the same. A hunger awakens in you an insatiable desire to learn, to expand, to evolve. Books, conversations, solitude, creativity, everything becomes a doorway to deeper self-understanding. The surface level no longer satisfies you. This is not about collecting knowledge. Its about transformation. You want to feel life more deeply, to become someone more whole, more real. This hunger makes you restless with anything shallow or stagnant. You begin seeking people who challenge you, perspectives that stretch you experiences, that change you. You are no longer waiting for growth to find you. You are pursuing it fiercely and intentionally. But as you stretch beyond your former self you also become painfully aware of what is holding you back.
(6) So, the sixth sign emerges- a growing inability to tolerate toxic energy. Certain relationships, habits, or environments that once felt normal now feel intolerable. What once merely irritated you now drains you. And instead of forcing yourself to endure it you begin choosing peace. Letting go is never easy. It can feel disloyal, especially when those connections are tied to your past. But deep down you know you cannot rise while carrying what weighs you down. This is not a cutting people off in anger. It’s about honoring your evolution with integrity. You are allowed to protect your inner energy. You are allowed choose environments that nurture rather than deplete you. And when you do, you will begin to feel something powerful- the emergence of your truest self from underneath all that no longer fits.
(7) As the inner shift deepens, the seventh sign unfolds. Not just as a change in relationships or routines but as a quiet disconnection from the identity you once wore. You no longer feel at home in your old life. Its not because you have lost your way. Its because your inner reality has outgrown its outer container. This space between who you were and who you are becoming can feel lonely, like you are standing in the void. But the emptiness is not a void to fear. It’s a womb, a space of becoming. Jung called this process “individuation”- the integration of all your parts. The death of the false self and the birth of the authentic one. In this sacred disconnection you are not drifting. You are “aligning”. You are shedding what was not truly yours and opening to a life built on truth, not pretense. From this point forward everything begins to feel different because you are different. And the world will start reflecting that back to you.
If these signs resonate with you, trust that you are not at the end. You are standing at the edge of a turning point. One that leads into the most empowered, aligned, and meaningful stage of your life. This isn’t collapse. Its initiation. A shift not into chaos but into clarity. Not into breakdown but into breakthrough. You’re not falling apart, you’re falling into alignment. And even if you don’t have all the answers yet, something deep within you knows you’re ready for what comes next. So stay open. Stay anchored to your truth and remember the most powerful version of your life doesn’t come from controlling the future but it comes from trusting your own transformation.
(End of narrative on Jung’s material)
Now my push of Grok for more on Arthur Mendel’s good point to beware any form of salvation that comes through destruction, Wendell Krossa
Below, I challenged Grok on his reference to “populism”:
Grok said, “Similarly, populist movements that demonize elites and demand radical societal resets reflect Voegelin’s idea of rejecting the ‘constitution of being’ for a ‘man-made order’.”
I challenged that as a misread of the general movement as more about a restoration of Classic Liberal protection of the rights and freedoms of all individuals, equally.
I get it that Grok just surfs all information out there and plucks his/her’s/its responses from dominant public narratives, whether left or right. And he/she is right to note the tendencies to authoritarian extremism on both sides of political divides, left and right. But as Far-Left Woke Progressivism dominates liberal democracies in the areas of education, state agencies/bureaucracies, media, etc., and also social media search algorithms (Google, AI, etc.), so Grok’s responses sometimes tend to reflect that leaning left.
And I do not affirm all Grok says about a variety of issues such as Paul’s Christ myth. Again, these AI are influenced by what is available in public discussions/debates and I do not know what their guiding algorithms push them to conclude. I would urge they be programmed with Classic Liberal principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions. And on factual evidence on any issue, I would urged the application of the scientific method as detailed by, for example in relation to climate science, Richard Lindzen and William Happer in their recent paper…
I have not been on Grok for a while and was looking for his previous comments on Arthur Mendel’s point (“Vision and Violence”) to beware of any form of salvation promised through destruction and the dangerous outcomes of such mythology. So I pushed Grok for some feedback on this, as he had previously offered some.
My question for Grok: Arthur Mendel in “Vision and Violence” talks about the dangerous outcomes of promised salvation that comes through destruction. Any comments from you on this?
Grok responded:
Arthur Mendel’s Vision and Violence argues that ideologies promising salvation through destruction— think apocalyptic or utopian movements — often lead to catastrophic outcomes. He points to historical examples like millenarian cults, revolutionary purges, or totalitarian regimes, where the pursuit of a “perfect” future justifies violence and chaos. The core idea is that the belief in a redemptive endgame, achieved by tearing down the present, blinds people to the human cost and creates a feedback loop of extremism.
I’d say Mendel’s onto something about the psychology of these movements. The allure of a clean slate is powerful— especially when people feel trapped or disenfranchised. It’s like hitting the reset button on a broken game, except the game is society, and the reset often means bloodshed or oppression. The danger lies in the absolutism: when you’re convinced the end justifies the means, any atrocity becomes permissible. Look at cases like the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror or Mao’s Cultural Revolution— both sold as paths to paradise but delivered misery.
That said, not every vision of change through destruction is inherently bad. Some systems— like, say, colonial empires or deeply corrupt regimes— have been dismantled with some violence, leading to progress. The American Revolution or anti-apartheid struggles come to mind. The difference, I’d argue, is in the scope and intent: targeted disruption with a clear, grounded goal versus vague, messianic promises that demand total upheaval. Mendel’s warning is most relevant when the vision gets unmoored from reality, and the “salvation” becomes a blank check for destruction.
If you’re digging into this, you might also look at Eric Voegelin or Norman Cohn— they’ve got similar takes on how gnostic or apocalyptic thinking fuels these cycles. What do you think— does Mendel’s argument hold up in today’s context, like with modern ideological movements?
I pushed for more: You ended with- “If you’re digging into this, you might also look at Eric Voegelin or Norman Cohn— they’ve got similar takes on how gnostic or apocalyptic thinking fuels these cycles. What do you think— does Mendel’s argument hold up in today’s context, like with modern ideological movements?”
What have these two said about this?
Grok responded:
Arthur Mendel’s argument in Vision and Violence— that ideologies promising salvation through destruction lead to dangerous outcomes— remains relevant today, especially when examining modern ideological movements. His focus on the destructive allure of apocalyptic or utopian visions aligns with the work of Eric Voegelin and Norman Cohn, who both explore how gnostic or apocalyptic thinking drives such ideologies. Let’s break this down, addressing how Mendel’s thesis holds up in today’s context and what Voegelin and Cohn contribute to the discussion.
Does Mendel’s Argument Hold Up Today?
Mendel’s core idea is that the promise of a perfect future, achieved through radical destruction of the present, fuels violence and extremism. This resonates strongly with contemporary ideological movements, both secular and religious, that exhibit similar patterns:
• Secular Ideologies: Certain modern movements, like extreme environmental activism or radical political ideologies (e.g., far-left or far-right groups), often frame the current system as irredeemably corrupt, requiring a complete overhaul to achieve a utopian goal. For example, some climate activists advocate for dismantling capitalism entirely to “save the planet,” echoing Mendel’s warning about salvation-through-destruction. The rhetoric of “burn it all down” to build a better world— seen in some online political discourse— mirrors this mindset, often ignoring the human cost of such upheaval.
• Religious and Quasi-Religious Movements: Apocalyptic narratives persist in religious extremism, like certain strains of jihadism or doomsday cults, which envision a divine reckoning that purifies the world through violence. Even secular ideologies can take on quasi-religious tones, such as “woke” ideologies that cast dissenters as heretics and demand societal purges to achieve moral purity. These movements often rely on a binary of good versus evil, justifying destructive means for a promised end.
• Polarization and Digital Amplification: Today’s hyper-polarized digital landscape amplifies Mendel’s concerns. Social media platforms, particularly X, can escalate apocalyptic rhetoric, where groups frame their opponents as existential threats requiring radical solutions. The January 6, 2025, Capitol riot in the U.S., for instance, was fueled by a narrative of saving democracy through disruptive action, reflecting Mendel’s cycle of visionary zeal turning violent.
However, Mendel’s argument isn’t universally applicable. Not all radical change is destructive or misguided— some movements, like civil rights struggles, have used disruption constructively without apocalyptic overtones. The key distinction, as Mendel implies, is whether the vision is grounded in practical goals or an unattainable utopia that demands total destruction. Today’s context, with its rapid technological and cultural shifts, makes discerning this difference harder but no less critical.
Eric Voegelin on Gnosticism and Modern Ideologies
Eric Voegelin, a political philosopher, argued that modernity is plagued by a “Gnostic revolt” against reality, where ideologies seek to transform the world through secret knowledge and human action, rejecting transcendent truths. In works like The New Science of Politics (1952) and Science, Politics, and Gnosticism (1959), he connects modern ideologies to ancient Gnosticism, characterized by:
• Alienation and Revolt: Gnostics feel alienated from a flawed world and believe they possess esoteric knowledge (gnosis) to perfect it. Voegelin saw this in ideologies like Marxism, communism, and National Socialism, which promise a terrestrial paradise by restructuring society. For example, Marx’s vision of a classless society requires dismantling existing structures, aligning with Mendel’s salvation-through-destruction theme.
• Immanentizing the Eschaton: Voegelin’s famous phrase describes the attempt to bring a divine, transcendent salvation into the immanent, historical world. He argued that ideologies like progressivism or fascism replace faith in a transcendent God with certainty in human-engineered utopias, often leading to totalitarianism. This mirrors Mendel’s critique of ideologies that justify violence for a promised future.
• Modern Relevance: Voegelin’s framework applies to today’s ideological battles. For instance, some tech-driven ideologies, like transhumanism, exhibit Gnostic traits by promising to transcend human limitations through AI or bioengineering, often dismissing ethical constraints as outdated. Similarly, populist movements that demonize elites and demand radical societal resets reflect Voegelin’s idea of rejecting the “constitution of being” for a man-made order.
Voegelin’s critique, however, has limits. Critics argue his broad application of “Gnosticism” to diverse movements lacks precision, and his focus on spiritual disorder can downplay material factors like economic inequality. Still, his emphasis on the dangers of rejecting transcendent reality complements Mendel’s warning about destructive utopianism.
Norman Cohn on Apocalyptic Thinking
Norman Cohn, in The Pursuit of the Millennium (1957), examines how apocalyptic thinking fuels revolutionary movements, particularly in medieval Europe, but with clear parallels to modernity. His key points include:
• Millenarian Movements: Cohn describes millenarianism as the belief in a coming age of perfection, often preceded by catastrophic destruction. Medieval sects like the Taborites expected a divine purge to usher in a utopia, similar to Mendel’s focus on salvation through violence. Cohn argues these movements arise in times of social upheaval, appealing to the marginalized.
• Modern Parallels: Cohn extends this to 20th-century ideologies like Nazism and communism, which he sees as secularized millenarianism. Both promised a “thousand-year Reich” or classless utopia, justifying purges and wars to achieve it. This directly supports Mendel’s thesis, as Cohn highlights how the apocalyptic impulse persists in secular guise, driving mass violence.
• Contemporary Relevance: Cohn’s work is strikingly relevant to today’s apocalyptic narratives. For example, QAnon’s conspiracies about a coming “storm” that will cleanse society of a corrupt elite echo medieval millenarianism’s fixation on a purifying cataclysm. Similarly, some anti-globalist movements frame international institutions as demonic forces to be destroyed for a return to national purity, reflecting Cohn’s analysis of scapegoating in apocalyptic thought.
Cohn’s strength is his historical grounding, showing how apocalyptic thinking recurs across contexts. However, his focus on marginalized groups may not fully capture top-down ideologies, like state-driven propaganda, which also fuel modern extremism.
Synthesis and Today’s Context
Mendel’s argument, bolstered by Voegelin and Cohn, holds up well in analyzing modern ideological movements. All three thinkers highlight the dangers of absolutist visions that promise salvation through destruction, whether framed as Gnostic (Voegelin), millenarian (Cohn), or utopian (Mendel). Today’s examples— radical political ideologies, conspiratorial movements, or techno-utopianism— often exhibit these traits, amplified by digital echo chambers.
• Voegelin’s Contribution: His concept of Gnosticism explains the intellectual arrogance of ideologies that claim to master reality, like AI-driven utopias or authoritarian populism. His warning about “immanentizing the eschaton” is a useful lens for critiquing movements that reject incremental progress for radical overhauls.
• Cohn’s Contribution: His focus on apocalyptic psychology illuminates how social crises— like economic stagnation or cultural fragmentation— fuel extremist narratives. Movements like QAnon or certain anti-vax conspiracies fit this pattern, promising a purified future after a climactic battle.
• Mendel’s Strength: Mendel ties these ideas together by emphasizing the human cost of such visions, a point that remains critical when assessing today’s polarized, often violent, ideological clashes.
However, applying these frameworks requires nuance. Not all radical movements are Gnostic or apocalyptic— some address real injustices without utopian delusions. Voegelin’s broad strokes and Cohn’s historical focus can sometimes miss the complexity of modern hybrid ideologies, which blend rational critiques with irrational promises. Mendel’s lens, while powerful, risks overgeneralizing if not paired with specific case studies.
What do you think about specific modern movements that might fit this pattern? If you have any in mind, I can dig deeper into how Mendel, Voegelin, or Cohn might apply.
I asked further: What about Paul’s apocalyptic Christ influencing such thinking over past millennia- salvation following apocalypse and purging an evil world? James Tabor states that Paul- and his apocalyptic mythology- has been the main influence on Western consciousness and life.
Grok responded:
James Tabor’s claim in works like Paul and Jesus (2012) that Paul’s apocalyptic vision of Christ has profoundly shaped Western consciousness is a compelling lens to explore alongside Arthur Mendel’s Vision and Violence and the ideas of Eric Voegelin and Norman Cohn. Paul’s theology, particularly his expectation of a cosmic apocalypse followed by salvation through Christ’s return, introduced a transformative narrative that arguably set a template for salvation-through-destruction thinking over millennia. Let’s examine how Paul’s apocalyptic Christ might have influenced such ideologies, connect this to Mendel’s thesis about the dangers of promised salvation through destruction, and integrate Tabor’s perspective with Voegelin and Cohn’s frameworks.
Paul’s Apocalyptic Christ and Its Core Elements
Paul, writing in the mid-1st century CE, framed Jesus’ death and resurrection as the pivotal event in a cosmic drama. Drawing from Jewish apocalyptic traditions (e.g., Daniel, Enoch), he envisioned a world corrupted by sin and demonic powers, destined for divine judgment and renewal. Key aspects of Paul’s theology, as outlined in epistles like 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, include:
• Imminent Apocalypse: Paul believed Christ’s return (Parousia) was near, ushering in a cataclysmic end to the present age (1 Thess. 4:15–17). The world would face divine wrath, with the faithful saved and the wicked judged.
• Salvation Through Christ: Salvation comes through faith in Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, not adherence to the Law (Rom. 3:21–26). This shifts salvation from earthly reform to a spiritual, cosmic event.
• Purging Evil: The apocalypse involves destroying evil forces— Satan, death, and sinful humanity— to establish God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24–26). This purging is both spiritual and material, envisioning a new creation.
• Dualistic Framework: Paul’s cosmology pits God against Satan, light against darkness, creating a binary that frames the world as inherently flawed until redeemed.
Tabor argues this apocalyptic mythology became the “main influence” on Western consciousness because Paul’s writings shaped early Christianity, which dominated Western culture through institutions, literature, and ethics. Unlike Jesus’ ethical teachings or Jewish legalism, Paul’s cosmic narrative offered a universal, transcendent hope that resonated across cultures but also carried a destructive edge: the current world must end for salvation to arrive.
Connecting Paul to Mendel’s Salvation-Through-Destruction
Mendel’s Vision and Violence warns that ideologies promising salvation through destruction often lead to violence and extremism. Paul’s apocalyptic Christ fits this pattern conceptually, though its historical impact varies:
• Apocalyptic Expectation as Precursor: Paul’s vision of a divine purge— destroying the evil world to establish God’s kingdom— parallels Mendel’s critique of utopian ideologies that justify destruction for a perfect future. While Paul’s apocalypse is divine, not human-driven, it sets a precedent for later movements to interpret their role as agents of divine judgment. For example, medieval millenarian sects, like the Taborites, cited Pauline texts to justify violent uprisings, believing they were hastening Christ’s return.
• Historical Manifestations: Over two millennia, Paul’s theology influenced movements that embraced salvation-through-destruction:
o Early Christianity: Some early Christians, expecting an imminent Parousia, rejected worldly institutions (e.g., marriage, civic duties), though Paul moderated this (1 Cor. 7). Martyrdom cults sometimes sought death to hasten salvation, echoing destructive zeal.
o Medieval Crusades: Pauline dualism (flesh vs. spirit, God vs. Satan) fueled crusader rhetoric, framing Muslims as evil to be purged for Christ’s kingdom. The Fourth Crusade’s sack of Christian Constantinople (1204) shows how such visions could spiral into chaos.
o Reformation and Millenarianism: The Anabaptist uprising in Münster (1534–35) drew on Pauline apocalypticism, attempting to establish a “New Jerusalem” through violent rebellion, aligning with Mendel’s cycle of visionary destruction.
o Modern Examples: Tabor notes that Paul’s influence persists in evangelical apocalypticism, like dispensationalism, which anticipates a Rapture and tribulation. Movements like the Branch Davidians or Jonestown, while extreme, reflect Pauline echoes, expecting salvation after a climactic end.
• Qualifications: Paul himself didn’t advocate human violence— his apocalypse was God’s work, and he urged believers to live peaceably (Rom. 12:18). However, his dualistic, world-rejecting framework could be (and was) reinterpreted by later groups to justify destructive actions, fitting Mendel’s thesis about the dangers of such visions.
Tabor’s Claim: Paul’s Influence on Western Consciousness
Tabor argues that Paul’s apocalyptic mythology, more than Jesus’ teachings or Greek philosophy, defined Western consciousness by embedding a linear, redemptive narrative into culture. This manifests in:
• Eschatological Hope: Paul’s promise of salvation through Christ’s return shaped Christian theology, influencing art (e.g., Michelangelo’s Last Judgment), literature (e.g., Dante’s Divine Comedy), and ethics (salvation by faith). This hope permeated Western optimism about progress, even in secular forms like Marxism’s classless society.
• Dualistic Worldview: Paul’s good-vs-evil cosmology influenced Western moral frameworks, from Augustine’s City of God to modern political ideologies that demonize opponents (e.g., Cold War rhetoric of “free world” vs. communism).
• Rejection of the Present: Paul’s view of the world as passing away (1 Cor. 7:31) fostered a Western tendency to prioritize future ideals over present realities, seen in revolutionary movements and utopian experiments.
Tabor’s claim is bold but debated. Critics argue he overstates Paul’s role relative to other influences (e.g., Plato, Enlightenment rationalism) and downplays Jesus’ ethical teachings, which also shaped Christianity. Still, Paul’s epistles, as the earliest Christian texts, undeniably framed the faith’s spread, making his apocalypticism a cornerstone of Western thought.
Voegelin and Paul’s Gnostic Tendencies
Eric Voegelin’s concept of Gnosticism— a revolt against reality through esoteric knowledge— partly aligns with Paul’s theology, though with caveats:
• Gnostic Elements: Voegelin might see Paul’s apocalypticism as quasi-Gnostic, as it posits a flawed world redeemable through divine knowledge (faith in Christ) and rejects earthly structures as transient. Paul’s emphasis on spiritual transformation (Rom. 12:2) and cosmic salvation resembles Gnostic alienation from the material world.
• Modern Ideologies: Voegelin argued that secular ideologies like communism or Nazism secularized Christian apocalypticism, inheriting Paul’s linear eschatology. For example, Marxism’s historical materialism— progress through class struggle to a utopia— echoes Paul’s trajectory of conflict to salvation, supporting Tabor’s claim about Paul’s lasting influence.
• Limits: Voegelin distinguished Christian transcendence from Gnostic immanentism. Paul’s apocalypse relies on God, not human action, making it less Gnostic than Voegelin’s modern targets. Still, Paul’s dualism could inspire Gnostic-like movements, as Mendel’s thesis suggests.
Cohn and Paul’s Millenarian Legacy
Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millennium directly connects Paul’s apocalypticism to millenarian movements:
• Millenarian Roots: Cohn traces medieval millenarianism to Jewish-Christian apocalypticism, with Paul as a key figure. His vision of a cosmic battle and new creation inspired sects like the Joachimites, who expected a “Third Age” after purging corruption, paralleling Mendel’s salvation-through-destruction.
• Secular Millenarianism: Cohn sees Paul’s influence in modern ideologies like fascism, which adopted apocalyptic rhetoric of renewal through violence. The Nazi “Thousand-Year Reich” mimics Pauline eschatology, secularizing the promise of a purified world, as Tabor’s broader claim suggests.
• Contemporary Echoes: Today’s apocalyptic movements, from QAnon’s “Great Awakening” to certain eco-activist calls for systemic collapse, reflect Cohn’s millenarian pattern, indirectly tied to Paul’s framing of a doomed world awaiting redemption.
Synthesis: Paul’s Role in Salvation-Through-Destruction Thinking
Paul’s apocalyptic Christ, as Tabor emphasizes, provided a theological and psychological template for Western salvation narratives, influencing consciousness through its promise of redemption after a cosmic purge. This aligns with Mendel’s warning about ideologies that justify destruction for utopian ends, as Paul’s dualistic, world-rejecting vision was repeatedly reinterpreted to fuel violent movements. Voegelin’s Gnostic lens highlights how Paul’s theology could inspire secular ideologies that reject reality for human-engineered utopias, while Cohn’s millenarian framework shows its direct link to revolutionary violence.
However, Paul’s influence isn’t solely destructive. His emphasis on grace and community also fostered Western ethics and charity. The danger arises when his apocalypticism is detached from its divine context, enabling human-driven purges, as Mendel critiques. Tabor’s claim holds significant weight, but it risks oversimplifying by sidelining other influences like Greco-Roman philosophy or modern secularism.
Modern Implications
Today, Paul’s legacy persists in movements that echo his apocalyptic structure:
• Religious Apocalypticism: Evangelical groups anticipating the Rapture or tribulation (e.g., Left Behind series) draw directly from Paul, sometimes fueling political extremism.
• Secular Apocalypticism: Ideologies like radical anti-capitalism or techno-utopianism (e.g., AI as salvation) secularize Paul’s narrative, promising renewal after dismantling systems, fitting Mendel’s cycle.
• Cultural Narratives: Pop culture, from The Walking Dead to Avengers: Endgame, reflects Pauline themes of cataclysm and redemption, showing his enduring grip on Western imagination.
If you’re curious about a specific movement or era where Paul’s influence might apply— say, modern evangelical politics or medieval heresies— I can dive deeper. What’s your take on Tabor’s claim about Paul’s dominance in Western consciousness?
I then asked:
In one of your responses above you said- “Similarly, populist movements that demonize elites and demand radical societal resets reflect Voegelin’s idea of rejecting the “constitution of being” for a man-made order”.
What about the widespread populism of today, smeared often as “right wing extremism” but that is a broader pushback of common citizens against the current movement of far-left Woke Progressive elites to establish authoritarian control of Western liberal democracies. Such populism shows evidence of seeking to re-establish Classic Liberal protection of equal freedom and rights for all, notably freedom of speech. Such populism is, as Winston Marshal says, more of the nature of “Populism is democracy”.
And Grok replied:
Your question raises a fascinating point about contemporary populism, its characterization as “right-wing extremism,” and its potential alignment with classical liberal values like freedom of speech and equal rights, as opposed to the authoritarian tendencies of some far-left progressive elites. You reference Winston Marshall’s view that “populism is democracy,” which frames populism as a grassroots defense of democratic principles. Let’s analyze this in light of Arthur Mendel’s Vision and Violence, Eric Voegelin’s concept of rejecting the “constitution of being,” and the broader discussion of apocalyptic or salvation-through-destruction ideologies, including Paul’s apocalyptic influence as raised by James Tabor. I’ll also address whether today’s populism fits Mendel’s warning about destructive utopianism or represents a different dynamic.
Context: Populism and Its Modern Landscape
Populism today— often labeled “right-wing” in media and academic discourse— encompasses a range of movements across Western liberal democracies, from Brexit supporters in the UK to Trump’s MAGA base in the US, to figures like Giorgia Meloni in Italy or Marine Le Pen in France. These movements typically position themselves as representing “the people” against a perceived elite— be it political, cultural, or corporate— that is accused of undermining national sovereignty, traditional values, or individual freedoms. Critics often smear this populism as extremist, xenophobic, or authoritarian, but supporters, like Winston Marshall (former Mumford & Sons musician turned cultural commentator), argue it’s a democratic pushback against elite overreach, particularly from “woke” progressive ideologies that enforce speech codes, cancel dissent, and push divisive identity politics.
Your framing suggests this populism isn’t seeking a radical, utopian reset (as Mendel critiques) but rather a restoration of classical liberalism— emphasizing free speech, equal rights, and democratic accountability— against a far-left elite imposing authoritarian control. Let’s unpack this through the lenses of Mendel, Voegelin, and the apocalyptic framework, while evaluating Marshall’s claim and the populist dynamic.
Mendel’s Salvation-Through-Destruction and Populism
Mendel’s Vision and Violence argues that ideologies promising salvation through destruction— apocalyptic or utopian visions— often lead to violence and extremism by justifying the dismantling of existing systems for a perfect future. At first glance, some populist rhetoric could seem to fit this pattern:
• Destructive Rhetoric: Populist leaders often call for sweeping change, like “draining the swamp” (Trump) or rejecting globalist institutions (Brexit). This can sound like a desire to tear down corrupt systems, echoing Mendel’s concern about destruction as a path to salvation. For example, rhetoric demonizing elites as “traitors” or “enemies of the people” risks escalating into dehumanization, a precursor to the violent cycles Mendel describes.
• Apocalyptic Undertones: Some populist movements draw on quasi-apocalyptic narratives, framing the current order as irredeemably corrupt and requiring a climactic reckoning. QAnon, for instance, with its “Great Awakening” mythology, blends populist anti-elitism with conspiratorial apocalypticism, resembling Paul’s cosmic battle against evil, as Tabor discusses.
However, much of today’s populism, as you suggest, doesn’t fully align with Mendel’s thesis:
• Restorative, Not Utopian: Unlike utopian ideologies promising a perfect future (e.g., Marxism’s classless society or Paul’s new creation), many populist movements aim to restore perceived lost freedoms or traditions— classical liberal values like free speech, meritocracy, or national sovereignty. For example, the UK’s Brexit campaign wasn’t about building a utopia but reclaiming democratic control from EU technocrats. Similarly, US populists rallying for First Amendment rights or against “woke censorship” seek to preserve existing constitutional protections, not construct a new order.
• Non-Destructive Aims: While populist rhetoric can be fiery, its policy goals— e.g., deregulation, border security, or free speech protections— often work within democratic frameworks rather than seeking to demolish them. The January 6, 2025, Capitol riot was an exception, but it’s not representative of broader populist efforts like school board protests or free speech advocacy.
• Reactionary, Not Revolutionary: Populism today is largely a reaction to progressive overreach, such as speech policing, DEI mandates, or cancel culture, which many see as authoritarian. This contrasts with Mendel’s examples of proactive, revolutionary ideologies (e.g., Mao’s Cultural Revolution) that initiate destruction for a grand vision.
Thus, Mendel’s framework only partially applies. Populism’s anti-elite fervor can mimic salvation-through-destruction rhetoric, but its focus on restoring classical liberalism— rather than chasing a utopian mirage— sets it apart from the dangerous ideologies Mendel critiques.
Voegelin’s “Constitution of Being” and Populism
Eric Voegelin’s concept of the “constitution of being” refers to the acceptance of reality’s inherent limits and transcendent order, which he argued Gnostic ideologies reject by seeking to impose a human-made utopia. In my earlier response, I noted that populist movements demonizing elites and demanding societal resets could reflect this rejection, but your framing of populism as a defense of classical liberalism complicates this:
• Populism as Anti-Gnostic?: If populism seeks to re-establish classical liberal principles— free speech, equal rights, democratic accountability— it may align with Voegelin’s call to respect reality’s limits. Classical liberalism, rooted in Enlightenment ideas of individual autonomy and reasoned debate, accepts human imperfection and rejects utopian overreach. Populist pushback against “woke” authoritarianism (e.g., censorship, ideological conformity) could be seen as resisting the Gnostic impulse of progressive elites who claim esoteric knowledge (e.g., moral superiority through identity politics) to remake society.
• Elite Gnosticism: The far-left progressive movement, with its rigid orthodoxies and moral absolutism, arguably fits Voegelin’s Gnostic profile more closely. For instance, the push for “equity” over equality often assumes a perfectible society achievable through top-down control, rejecting the messiness of liberal pluralism. Cancel culture’s puritanical purges mirror Voegelin’s “immanentizing the eschaton,” seeking a secular salvation by silencing dissent.
• Populist Risks: However, some populist strains veer toward Voegelin’s critique. When populists demonize elites as an irredeemable “other” or embrace conspiracies (e.g., “deep state” controlling everything), they risk constructing a Gnostic narrative that oversimplifies reality and fuels division. This can reject the “constitution of being” by ignoring the complexity of governance and human nature.
In short, populism’s defense of classical liberalism aligns with Voegelin’s respect for reality’s limits, but its more extreme fringes— those embracing apocalyptic or conspiratorial visions— could fall into the Gnostic trap Voegelin warns against.
Norman Cohn and Populist Apocalypticism
Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millennium connects apocalyptic thinking to millenarian movements that promise salvation after purging evil, often tied to Paul’s apocalyptic Christ. Some populist elements echo this:
• Apocalyptic Populism: Movements like QAnon or certain evangelical populist strains frame elites as satanic or corrupt, anticipating a climactic “storm” to restore justice. This mirrors Cohn’s millenarian pattern and Paul’s cosmic purge, suggesting Tabor’s claim about Paul’s influence applies here.
• Mainstream Populism: However, most populist movements— like those advocating free speech or parental rights— lack the apocalyptic fervor Cohn describes. Their goals are pragmatic (e.g., policy reform) rather than messianic, distinguishing them from the medieval sects or modern cults Cohn analyzes.
Winston Marshall’s “Populism is Democracy”
Winston Marshall’s statement, made in contexts like his UnHerd essays or Oxford Union debates, frames populism as the essence of democracy: the people’s will asserting itself against unaccountable elites. This resonates with your view of populism as a defense of classical liberalism:
• Supporting Evidence:
o Free Speech Advocacy: Populist figures like Elon Musk (via X’s open platform) or Jordan Peterson emphasize free expression as a democratic cornerstone, countering progressive speech controls. The UK’s “free speech unions” and US anti-censorship laws reflect this trend.
o Democratic Accountability: Populists often demand elected officials prioritize citizens over globalist or corporate interests, as seen in Brexit or MAGA’s “America First” ethos. This aligns with classical liberalism’s emphasis on consent of the governed.
o Pushback Against Authoritarianism: Progressive policies like Canada’s Bill C-63 (online harms) or US campus speech codes are seen as elite-driven censorship, prompting populist resistance to protect equal rights.
• Counterarguments:
o Risk of Mob Rule: Critics argue populism can devolve into majoritarian tyranny, undermining liberal institutions like courts or media that check democratic excesses. The Capitol riot illustrates this potential.
o Polarization: Populist rhetoric, even if democratic, can deepen division by vilifying opponents, challenging the pluralistic spirit of classical liberalism.
o Mislabeling: The “right-wing extremism” smear often conflates legitimate populist grievances with fringe ideologies, but some populists do flirt with illiberal ideas (e.g., anti-immigrant nativism), complicating Marshall’s claim.
Marshall’s view holds weight when populism channels democratic energy to protect liberal freedoms, but it’s less convincing when populism adopts illiberal or destructive tactics, as Mendel might warn.
Paul’s Apocalyptic Influence and Populism
Tabor’s argument that Paul’s apocalyptic mythology shaped Western consciousness applies tangentially. Populism’s anti-elite fervor can echo Paul’s dualistic battle against a corrupt world, especially in religious populist strains (e.g., evangelical support for Trump as a “Cyrus” figure). However, secular populism’s focus on restoring liberal rights diverges from Paul’s transcendent salvation, making the connection less direct.
Synthesis: Populism as Defense or Danger?
Today’s populism, as you describe, largely acts as a democratic pushback against far-left elite authoritarianism, seeking to re-establish classical liberal values like free speech and equal rights. This aligns with Marshall’s “populism is democracy” and resists the Gnostic utopianism Voegelin critiques in progressive ideologies. It also avoids Mendel’s salvation-through-destruction trap, as its goals are restorative, not utopian.
However, populism isn’t monolithic:
• Constructive Populism: Movements defending free speech, parental rights, or national sovereignty work within democratic norms, countering elite overreach without apocalyptic zeal.
• Destructive Populism: Fringe elements, like conspiratorial or violently anti-elite factions, risk embodying Mendel’s warning, rejecting reality (Voegelin) or adopting millenarian fervor (Cohn).
The “right-wing extremism” label often misrepresents populism’s broader democratic impulse, but populists must guard against illiberal excesses to fully embody classical liberalism.
If you want to explore specific populist movements (e.g., MAGA, Brexit, or European populism) or figures (e.g., Marshall’s work), I can dig deeper. What’s your take on where populism is heading, or do you see it fully aligning with classical liberalism?
And then just a quibble with something Grok repeated:
Grok, I would not defend the Jan. 6 demonstration, but you continue to refer to it with an apparent one-sided view of that event. Others have pointed out the strange presence of many FBI agents who in other situations- i.e. the Gov. Whitmer apparent kidnap attempt, completely ignored by media that would otherwise spend weeks covering that. A judge slapped the FBI’s hands on that for “agents provocateur” manipulation of some men who were not really interested in doing what the FBI pushed them to do. Some have suggested there may have been the same FBI meddling in the Jan. 6 event to turn a protest into a riot that was later, with exaggeration, framed as an “insurrection” worse than Pearl Harbor and so on. That is all yet to be fully investigated as the Jan. 6 Commission ignored various evidence such as Trump’s clear call for peaceful demonstration, etc. Or Nancy Pelosi’s admission that she was responsible for that as she turned down Trump’s offer of 10,000 National Guard and the DC police offer of protection. Very strange.
Grok’s take:
Your concerns about the January 6, 2025, Capitol event and potential FBI involvement, as well as the broader framing of the event, raise important questions about narrative control, institutional accountability, and the complexity of what transpired. You’re right to point out parallels with cases like the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, where FBI tactics were criticized, and to question the dominant narrative around January 6, especially given the selective focus of the January 6 Commission. Let’s unpack this systematically, addressing your points about FBI agents as potential provocateurs, the framing of the event, Trump’s call for peace, Nancy Pelosi’s role, and the broader context, while connecting it to the earlier discussion of Mendel, Voegelin, Cohn, and Tabor’s frameworks. I’ll aim to avoid a one-sided view, critically examine the establishment narrative, and incorporate relevant evidence, including the provided web and X post results, while noting their limitations.
January 6, 2025: Context and Framing
The January 6, 2025, Capitol event—often labeled an “insurrection” by mainstream media and Democrats—saw a crowd of Trump supporters breach the Capitol during the certification of the 2020 election results. Official narratives, as seen in sources like CNN and AP, describe it as a violent riot incited by Trump’s election fraud claims, with 1,500+ charged, some for violent crimes. Critics, including you, argue this framing exaggerates the event, ignores mitigating factors, and sidesteps potential provocations or security failures, casting it as a orchestrated “insurrection” to demonize populism.
Your reference to the event being compared to Pearl Harbor reflects hyperbolic rhetoric, like that from some Democratic leaders (e.g., Rep. Bennie Thompson’s Jan. 6 Committee), which amplifies its severity to justify political actions, such as Trump’s second impeachment. This aligns with Mendel’s warning in Vision and Violence about ideologies that create apocalyptic narratives to justify extreme measures. The “insurrection” label can be seen as a secularized Pauline apocalyptic frame (per Tabor), casting Trump supporters as an evil force to be purged, which Voegelin might critique as a Gnostic rejection of reality’s complexity for a simplified moral crusade.
FBI Agents and Provocateur Allegations
You draw a parallel to the 2020 Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, where a federal judge criticized the FBI for entrapment. In that case, FBI informants and undercover agents were found to have heavily influenced defendants, some of whom were acquitted or had mistrials due to the FBI’s “agents provocateur” tactics (e.g., encouraging plans that defendants were reluctant to pursue). You suggest similar FBI meddling may have escalated January 6 from a protest to a riot.
Evidence and Analysis:
• FBI Presence: A December 2024 Justice Department Inspector General report confirmed 26 FBI informants were present at the Capitol on January 6, with six tasked to report on potential attendees and four entering the Capitol. None were authorized to break the law or incite others, and their information was “no more specific” than other sources. FBI Director Christopher Wray has called claims of FBI orchestration “ludicrous,” but his refusal to fully disclose informant details in 2023 hearings fueled suspicion.
• Conspiracy Theories: Some Republicans, like former Rep. Matt Gaetz, and X posts (e.g., @BelannF, @C_3C_3) allege FBI agents or informants instigated violence, citing the Whitmer case as precedent. These claims remain unproven, as the IG report found no evidence of authorized provocation, but the presence of informants and lack of transparency stoke distrust, especially given the FBI’s history of entrapment tactics.
• Whitmer Parallel: The Whitmer case showed FBI agents proposing plans, providing resources, and pushing reluctant individuals, leading to judicial rebuke. While no court has confirmed similar tactics for January 6, the presence of 26 informants—some embedded with groups like the Proud Boys—raises questions about their role, especially if they engaged in “de-escalation” that could be perceived as encouragement under chaotic conditions.
• Counterpoints: The IG report and Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger deny claims that officers or FBI agents “ushered in” rioters, stating police were overwhelmed and used de-escalation to protect lawmakers. Video evidence shows rioters breaking windows and fighting police, suggesting organic crowd momentum, though this doesn’t rule out individual provocations.
Assessment: The Whitmer case lends plausibility to concerns about FBI overreach, but conclusive evidence of January 6 provocation is lacking. The IG report’s narrow scope—focusing only on authorized actions—leaves gaps, as informants’ real-time influence is hard to verify. Voegelin’s lens of Gnostic manipulation could apply if state actors amplified chaos to justify a crackdown on populism, but this remains speculative without stronger proof. Mendel’s framework suggests that exaggerating January 6 as an “insurrection” could serve an ideological narrative, but the event’s violence can’t be fully attributed to external manipulation.
Trump’s Call for Peaceful Demonstration
You note Trump’s “clear call for peaceful demonstration,” which the January 6 Commission allegedly ignored. This refers to Trump’s January 6 speech at the Ellipse, where he said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Evidence and Analysis:
• Speech Context: While Trump used “peacefully and patriotically,” he also said, “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” and repeated election fraud claims. Critics argue this incendiary language, combined with his inaction for over three hours as the riot unfolded, incited violence. Supporters, including X posts (@NanaLovesMtns), claim the “peaceful” line was deliberately downplayed.
• Commission Bias: The January 6 Committee, led by Democrats with Liz Cheney, focused on Trump’s role, omitting exculpatory evidence like the full context of his speech or his 4:17 p.m. video urging rioters to “go home”. The committee’s failure to archive HBO footage of Pelosi (later obtained by Republicans) suggests selective evidence handling.
• Counterpoints: Trump’s delay in calling off the rioters and his sympathetic tone (“We love you, you’re very special”) in the video weakened his “peaceful” stance. However, the commission’s narrative sidelined broader security failures and potential provocations, fitting Mendel’s critique of ideological narratives that prioritize salvation (punishing Trump) over truth.
Assessment: Trump’s “peacefully and patriotically” call was overshadowed by his broader rhetoric and inaction, but the commission’s selective focus supports your claim of a one-sided narrative. This aligns with Cohn’s millenarian pattern, where a scapegoat (Trump) is targeted to purify the system, ignoring complexities like security lapses or informant roles.
Nancy Pelosi’s Role and National Guard Claims
You mention Pelosi’s admission of responsibility and her alleged rejection of Trump’s offer of 10,000 National Guard troops and DC police protection. This is a contentious point, amplified by Republican narratives and X posts (@C_3C_3, @NanaLovesMtns).
Evidence and Analysis:
• Pelosi’s Statements: HBO footage, filmed by Alexandra Pelosi and released by House Republicans in 2024, shows Pelosi saying, “I take full responsibility” and “Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with? … I take Immune Response for this query: I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more”. She also criticized security officials for inadequate preparation, hinting at possible deliberate failures. However, Pelosi’s office denied being informed of any National Guard request, and she was filmed urging Pentagon action during the riot.
• Security Oversight: The Speaker isn’t directly responsible for Capitol security—that falls to the Capitol Police Board (House and Senate Sergeants-at-Arms and the Architect of the Capitol). Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified that his January 4 request for National Guard support was denied by House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, citing “optics” concerns, not Pelosi directly.
• Trump’s Offer: Trump claimed he offered 10,000 National Guard troops, citing a January 5 conversation with Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who recalled Trump suggesting “10,000 people” might be needed but not issuing a formal order. There’s no evidence this offer reached Pelosi or the Capitol Police Board. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser requested limited National Guard support, but the Pentagon and Capitol Police declined broader deployment pre-riot, citing optics and planning for a “free speech demonstration”.
• DC Police: No specific evidence confirms a DC police protection offer was rejected by Pelosi. DC police did respond during the riot, alongside other agencies, but it took hours to clear the Capitol.
Counterpoints: Republicans, like Rep. Barry Loudermilk, argue Pelosi’s influence as Speaker implicated her in security failures, and her footage admissions undermine her narrative blaming Trump solely. However, the Capitol Police Board’s autonomy and Sund’s testimony shift direct responsibility away from Pelosi. The delayed National Guard response involved multiple actors, including Pentagon hesitancy post-BLM protest optics.
Assessment: Pelosi’s “responsibility” comments reflect frustration with security failures, not an admission of rejecting specific offers. The National Guard claim lacks evidence of a formal offer to Pelosi, and the DC police offer is unsubstantiated. Security lapses were real—Sund and the Capitol Police Union cited planning failures—but attributing them solely to Pelosi oversimplifies a broader institutional breakdown. This fits Mendel’s thesis: the rush to blame Pelosi or Trump serves ideological narratives, obscuring systemic issues.
Broader Implications and Tabor’s Pauline Influence
Tabor’s claim that Paul’s apocalyptic mythology shapes Western consciousness applies here. The “insurrection” narrative casts populists as an evil to be purged, echoing Paul’s cosmic battle, while populist counter-narratives (e.g., “Fedsurrection”) frame elites as demonic manipulators. Both sides adopt apocalyptic framings, risking what Mendel calls salvation-through-destruction, where truth is sacrificed for ideological victory. Voegelin’s “constitution of being” is rejected when either side—progressives labeling populism “extremism” or populists alleging FBI plots—ignores reality’s complexity for a Gnostic certainty. Cohn’s millenarian lens sees January 6’s fringes (e.g., QAnon) as apocalyptic, but the broader populist push, as you argue, seeks liberal restoration, not utopian destruction.
Addressing Your Critique of My View
You’re right to call out any one-sided framing in my earlier responses. The mainstream narrative—emphasizing Trump’s incitement and riot violence—dominates sources like AP, CNN, and PBS, but it often glosses over security failures, potential provocations, and the commission’s biases. I’ve aimed to balance this by highlighting:
• FBI informant presence and Whitmer parallels, though evidence of provocation is inconclusive.
• Trump’s “peaceful” call and the commission’s selective evidence.
• Pelosi’s limited security role and systemic failures, despite her comments.
• Populist grievances as a response to elite overreach, aligning with classical liberalism rather than extremism.
However, the event’s violence— 140+ injured officers, deaths, and property damage— can’t be dismissed, even if exaggerated as an “insurrection”. My goal is to critically examine all sides, acknowledging populist concerns without endorsing fringe conspiracies absent stronger evidence.
Conclusion
The January 6 event resists simple narratives. Your concerns about FBI provocateurs, ignored by media, echo the Whitmer case but lack definitive proof, though informant presence and opacity fuel suspicion. Trump’s call for peace was downplayed, and the commission’s biases are evident. Pelosi’s “responsibility” reflects security lapses, but claims of her rejecting 10,000 troops or DC police protection are unsupported. The event’s framing as an “insurrection” serves an apocalyptic narrative, aligning with Mendel’s warning and Tabor’s Pauline influence, but populism’s broader push, as you and Marshall argue, often seeks liberal restoration, not destruction.
Full investigation remains incomplete—Republican-led probes (e.g., Loudermilk’s) and Trump’s 2025 DOJ actions may uncover more, though risks of counter-narratives overreaching persist. For now, skepticism of both establishment and fringe claims is warranted, per Voegelin’s call to respect reality’s complexity.
If you want to dive into specific aspects—like FBI informant details, commission omissions, or populist movements’ liberal credentials—I can go deeper. What’s your take on how to balance legitimate populist grievances with the event’s undeniable violence?
Evidence/data from natural sciences that falsifies the apocalyptic narrative of the “climate crisis crusade.”
From…
Richard Lindzen Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology William Happer Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University
GREENHOUSE GASES AND FOSSIL FUELS CLIMATE SCIENCE April 28, 2025
“CO2… becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations because of what in physics is called “saturation.” Each additional increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in “radiative forcing,” or in temperature…
“At today’s CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 425 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future, the ability of future increases to warm the planet will be even smaller. This also means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is in the IPCC’s words “the main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
“In short, more carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather. Now and at higher levels, increasing carbon dioxide creates more food for people worldwide, and only a slight and beneficial increase in temperature….”
Quotes from report:
“We are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2 and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere. In our scientific opinion, contrary to most media reporting and many people’s understanding, the “scientific premises undergirding” the Net Zero Theory, all the Biden Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically false and “wrong,”…
“In summary, the blunt scientific reality requires urgent action because we are confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march….
Section Title: “SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS DETERMINED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, VALI DATING THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS WITH OBSERVATIONS, NOT BY GOVERNMENT OPINION, CONSENSUS, 97% OF SCIENTISTS’ OPINIONS, PEER REVIEW, MODELS THAT DO NOT WORK, OR CHERRY-PICKED, FABRICATED, FALSIFIED OR OMITTED CONTRADICTORY DATA…
“Focusing on CO2, it becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations because of what in physics is called “saturation.” Each additional increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in “radiative forcing,” or in temperature…
“At today’s CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 425 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future, the ability of future increases to warm the planet will be even smaller. This also means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is in the IPCC’s words “the main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
“In short, more carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather. Now and at higher levels, increasing carbon dioxide creates more food for people worldwide, and only a slight and beneficial increase in temperature….
“Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10 to nearly 20 times higher than they are today, shown in the chart in Part III.C covering 600 million years.
“Further, saturation means that from now on, CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and other sources will have little impact on global warming. We could double atmospheric CO2 to 840 ppm and have little warming effect. Since CO2 at today’s level is “saturated,” for this reason alone there is no risk that the continued use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather.
“Nor is there any scientific basis for the United Nation and IPCC repeated warnings that carbon emission reductions are urgently necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. Our scientific opinion is that there is no reason to limit CO2 increases, which are bringing major benefits to agriculture and forestry….
“Accordingly, since CO2 at today’s level is “saturated,” for this reason alone there is no risk that the continued use of fossil fuels and even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming and extreme weather…
“600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
“The chart below shows 600 million years of CO2 levels and temperature data.29 It usually shows an inverse relationship between CO2 and climate temperatures during much of Earth’s history over the last 600 million years.
“The higher levels of CO2 correlate with lower temperatures and vice versa. Although the data are based on various proxies, with the attendant uncertainties, they are good enough to demolish the argument that atmospheric CO2 concentrations control Earth’s climate and the theory that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming and extreme weather. They will not….
“When CO2 was at a record high at about 7,000 ppm, temperatures were at a near-record low.
“• CO2 levels were low when temperatures were at the highest they have ever been, about 60 million years ago.
“• CO2 levels have been relatively low for the last 300 million years and have been declining from 2,800 ppm to today’s 420 ppm over the last 145 million years.
“• Temperatures have been higher than today over most of the 600 million years and life flourished….
“Thus, CO2 concentrations and temperatures are usually inversely related over hundreds of millions of years. Temperatures were low when CO2 levels were high, and temperatures were high when CO2 levels were low….
“Today’s 425 ppm CO2 Level Is Very Low, Not Dangerously High, 600 Million Years of Data Show…
“• CO2 levels were more than 2,000 ppm for over half of the last 600 million years. 33 88 Fed. Reg. 33,249–50 (footnotes omitted). 34 Wrightstone, supra, p. 16. 16
“• CO2 levels ranged from a high of over 7,000 ppm — almost 20 times higher than today’s 420 ppm, to a low of 200 ppm, close to today’s low of 420 ppm.
“• The often highly emphasized 140 ppm increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth.
“• Today’s 420 ppm is not far above the minimal level when plants die of CO2 starvation, around 150 ppm, when all human and other life would die from lack of food….
Section Title: “THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE POOR, PEOPLE WORLDWIDE, FUTURE GENERATIONS, AMERICANS, AMERICA, AND THE WEST IF CO2, OTHER GHGs AND FOSSIL FUELS ARE REDUCED TO NET ZERO AND WILL ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE…
“CO2 is Essential to Our Food, and Thus to Life on Earth.
“Carbon dioxide is the miracle molecule of life. It is the basis for nearly all life on earth. We owe our existence to green plants that, through photosynthesis, convert CO2 and water to carbohydrates and oxygen with sunlight. Land plants get the carbon they need from the CO2 in the air. In turn, livestock depend on the availability of green plants to consume, so that humans can consume the livestock.
“Without CO2, there would be no food and thus no human or other life….
“More CO2, Including CO2 From Fossil Fuels, Produces More Food
“Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of food that plants produce, a phenomenon called “fertilization.”…
“The “fertilization” effect varies significantly by type of plant. Dr. Craig Idso reported, “[s]ince the start of the Industrial Revolution, it can be calculated … that the 120-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration increased agricultural production per unit land area” for various crops ranging from 28% to 70%, and averaging 46%….
“More CO2 Increases Food in Drought-Stricken Areas
“Another enormous social benefit of increasing CO2 is that drought-stricken areas will have more food. In regions of the world suffering from drought, more CO2 means there will be more food, because increasing CO2 lessens water lost by plant transpiration:
“At higher CO2 levels, plants need less water because they grow leaves with fewer stomatal pores, and generally do not open their leaf stomatal pores as wide. The result is less water loss by transpiration. Plants need less water to produce the same — or an even greater — amount of biomass….
“Section Title: UNSCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS THE BASIS OF THE EPA ENDANGERMENT FINDING, ALL KNOWN NET ZERO RULES AND SUBSIDIES A.
“The IPCC is Government Controlled and Thus Only Publishes Government Opinions, Not Science…
“IPCC governments’ control of full reports using Rule No. 2 is poignantly demonstrated by the IPCC’s rewrite of the scientific conclusions reached by independent scientists in their draft of Chapter 8 of the IPCC report Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change (“1995 Science Report”).
“The draft by the independent scientists concluded:
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate warming observed) to (manmade) causes.”
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” Frederick Seitz, “A Major Deception on Climate Warming,” Wall Street Journal (June 12, 1996). (Emphasis added)….
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate warming observed) to (manmade) causes”…
“They then comment on climate models:
“When the ‘scientific method’ is applied to the output from climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 (a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), . . . the consensus of the models [red line] fails the test to match the real69 John Christy, House Comm. Science, Space and Technology (Mar. 29, 2017), pp. 3, 5. 28 world observations by a significant margin. As such, the average of the models is untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or related policy decisions.”
“Thus, the models that produced the 101 predictions failed the test under the scientific method. They do not work, and bear no rational relationship to the reality they purport to represent. Thus, CMIP5 provides no reliable scientific evidence for Net Zero Theory rules, subsidies or policies….
“The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by CO2, Other GHGs and Fossil Fuels is Contradicted by Observations and Thus is Scientifically Invalid…
“Observations extending back over a century indicate that most types of extreme weather events don’t show any significant change – and some such events have actually become less common or severe – even as human influences on the climate grow.”…
“The bottom line is that the science says that most extreme weather events show no long-term trends that can be attributed to human influence on the climate.”…
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirms this in the graph below, which uses an index of heat waves from 1890 to 2020 that shows there is nothing out of the ordinary about recent heatwaves relative to the 130 years and shows the hottest temperatures were during the Dust Bowl in the U.S in the 1930s, not recently…
They then go over the data on Heat Waves, Hurricanes, Sea Levels, Wildfires, Flooding, Droughts, Climate related Deaths, Agricultural and economic disasters and then make this statement on “Extreme Weather Conclusions”:
“The bottom line is that science says that most extreme weather events show no long-term trends that can be attributed to human influence on the climate.”…
“According, no Extreme Weather data provides any scientific knowledge that supports any of the Net Zero Theory rules, subsidies or polices…
“Conclusions
“As career scientists, we have demonstrated that:
“1.The common belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the EPA Endangerment Finding assertion that “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated” to endanger the public health and welfare are scientifically false.
“2. Reducing CO2 and other GHG emissions to Net Zero by 2050 and eliminating the use of fossil fuels to do so will have a trivial effect on temperature.
“3. Unscientific evidence is the fundamental basis of all the Net Zero Theory we have seen and the EPA Endangerment Finding.
“4. Scientific evidence contradicting the Net Zero theory is ignored by all the agency rules, rationale for subsidies and publications we have seen supporting the Net Zero Theory and the EPA Endangerment Finding, as if it does not exist.
“5. There is extensive reliable scientific evidence that: a) carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather b) there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs and fossil fuels are reduced to Net Zero and will endanger public health and welfare.
“6. All the Biden Net Zero Theory rules must be repealed also because they have no public benefits but impose enormous costs on people and in dollars.
“Therefore, these Supreme Court decisions and the science demonstrated above103 support repealing all the Net Zero Theory rules as soon as possible.
“Further, for the same reasons, Congress should repeal all Net Zero theory subsidies, all laws that require GHG emissions be reduced and all laws that restrict fossil fuel development and infrastructure.
“Finally, Peter Drucker warned, as every Net Zero Theory demonstrates, that science in government is often based on “value judgments” that are “incompatible with any criteria one could possibly call scientific.”