New material below on “Going ‘superlative’ to make a critical point” on the psychopathology of apocalyptic that still dominates both religious and “secular/ideological” systems of belief today, notably the crusades of Marxism and environmental alarmism.
And then…
I am with Bob Brinsmead, among others, in probing and highlighting how Historical Jesus was deformed and buried in Paul’s merger of Jesus with his Christ. History’s most famous statement of an oxymoron is the “Jesus Christ” combination (i.e. oxymoron as a fundamental contradiction, a merging of two entirely opposite things). Paul’s Christ myth contradicts and overturns the main themes of Jesus’ teaching, distorting and burying his actual message.
Most critical in the mix, Paul’s Christ is a rejection of the non-retaliatory, unconditional God of Jesus, the very core of his “stunning new theology”, his “greatest contribution to the history of human ideas” (James Robinson). Jesus stated his theology, his image of God, in stating, “Let there be no more eye for eye retaliation. But instead, love your enemy because God does. God does not retaliate but generously gives sun and rain to all alike, to both good and bad people.” He added the unconditional element in his theology in parables like the Prodigal Father who did not demand sacrifice/payment before forgiving, including, loving the offending son.
Paul retreated to restate the primitive mythology of vengeful, conditional deity, i.e. his statement of his theology in Romans 12- “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord”. Throughout letters like Romans he reenforced the myth of a highly conditional deity who demanded the ultimate condition of the sacrifice of a godman for atonement.
The Mother of all scandals- The triumph of Hellenism in Paul’s christology, Wendell Krossa
Bob Brinsmead has a new Substack account (robertbrinsmead@substack.com) where he presents evidence on what actually shaped Paul’s Christ myth. Paul’s Christology was not a direct revelation from the risen Christ himself, as Paul claimed in an effort to validate his “heavenly visions”. Paul constructed his Christ myth using, among other elements, themes from Greek culture and mythology that dominated the “narrative airwaves” of his time due to the widespread Hellenization of that ancient world. See Helmut Koester’s “History, Culture, And Religion of the Hellenistic Age”.
One notable theme that Paul borrowed from the Greeks was the idea of “absolute monarchy which became a reality in the establishment of Hellenistic rulers” (p. 34, see more Koester quotes below). The idea of necessary elite rule of others stemmed from Greek beliefs in the special rights of extraordinary individuals, that such people had special rights to rule others.
Greeks believed that special individuals were divine in some manner. They had accomplished heroic deeds, offered extraordinary insights, or had unique skills, etc. This Greek belief in the superiority of special people reappeared in the Romans who believed that their emperors should be worshipped as divine. So also, the Egyptian Pharaohs were viewed as divinities. Plato had also taught obligatory rule by special people with regard to his “philosopher kings”, elite individuals more qualified than any others to rule the rest.
(Insert: Note in the Greek thinking on the validation of elites, the larger and longer-term validation of the “elite/commoner divide” in human society, something traced by historian Richard Landes as afflicting human societies over the millennia. Pre-historian John Pfeiffer traces the emergence of elites in the earliest human societies with shaman elevating themselves over others by claiming special insights into the secrets of the invisible realm of spirits. I would add that this claim of elites to specialness is just expression of the base impulse to domination that we have all inherited from our animal past- i.e. the “alpha” thing in both males and females.)
Koester explains the basis for Greeks validating special people as divinely authorized to rule others. He notes the early Greeks had “cultic hymns that enumerated the great acts of a particular deity… miraculous acts” (p. 131) that were recited in religious propaganda. In Greek biographies, the extraordinary deeds and gifts were recited in hymns as praise to these gods. The extraordinary features of such people could include great poetic or philosophical gifts, or miracle stories.
Koester says, “Hellenistic biographies incorporate miracle stories in a strikingly uncritical manner” and this was especially true in relation to the founding heroes of a religion. He adds, stating that this biographical tradition continued with Roman emperors and on through to Christian heroes and saints:
“In the lives of the emperors, stories of political and military achievements stand side by side with narratives of prodigies and supernatural appearances…the Christians adopted this genre of… biography for accounts of their founding hero and it is not surprising that subsequent literature, especially the legends of Christian saints is entirely dominated by miracle stories” (132).
Speaking to the syncretism of that era and the notable fact of Hellenization throughout that world, Koester adds that Greek ideas permeated and shaped other religions like Judaism. “The general Hellenistic religious experience invaded all religions… No single religion of the Hellenistic and Roman period was spared” (158).
Features of the Hellenistic religious experience included: One God in heaven who rules all, Platonism (noted above), belief in miracles, salvation of the individual person, allegorical interpretation of myths/rites/customs as spiritual statements of universal significance, etc.
“The religion of Israel was also drawn into this process, despite a revolt… in the Maccabean uprising against the Hellenizers. Christianity began as a sect… within an already Hellenized Jewish religion, but it did not simply emerge out of the preaching of the Jewish prophet Jesus. Rather Christianity, probably more than any other religion of its time, adapted itself to a variety of cultural and religious currents and appropriated numerous foreign elements until it was ready to succeed as a world religion- thoroughly syncretistic in every way” (p.158).
With see the Christian syncretism with Hellenism, particularly, in Paul’s embrace of Greek views of special people as divine and therefore divinely authorized to rule others. This feature was central to his reconstruction of the Palestinian wisdom sage Jesus as “Lord Jesus”.
And this feature of divinely validated domination of others contradicted entirely Jesus’ own views on some lording over others. Jesus had opposed any form of elite lordship. I would emphasize that if this is his view of “greatness”, and he is considered as offering profound insight into the nature of God (i.e. himself an “incarnation” of God), then “God is great” in Jesus’ theology means that God is not a “Lord, King, ruler” but is, to the contrary, a servant deity.
Here is Jesus’ statement on this Greek issue of claiming special status to dominate others, in Matthew 20:
“The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their high officials exercise authority over them. You should not do that. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant. Whoever wants to be first must be your slave. Just as I came, not to be served, but to serve”.
And this statement would follow his usual manner of making points when teaching- i.e. that our best behavior as humans is an expression of what God is like (the “behavior based on similar belief” pattern). If true greatness is serving not lording over, then God serves and does not lord over.
A radically different take on “God is great”, eh.
Paul deformed Historical Jesus entirely with the Greek feature of lordship– i.e. “Lord Jesus”. That reaffirmed the curse of all antiquity in the “elite/commoner divide” of people and societies. Paul constructed his Christ to re-enforce the feature of ultimate divine domination as the ideal archetype or model for human relationships. With his myth of Christ as ultimate Lord he affirmed domination/submission relationships “as a spiritual statement of universal significance”.
Other statements in the New Testament canon also affirm relationships of domination/submission- i.e. “Wives submit to your husbands. Slaves submit to your masters…. All submit to state authority as appointed by God (Romans 13)”. All such precepts are backed by the central theology of a dominating “Lord Jesus” to whom every knee would bow in eternal submission to his “rod of iron” totalitarian rule. See, for example, John’s Revelation statements on the Christ- “… (who) will rule the nations with an iron rod and smash them like clay pots”. Not so “great”, eh.
When Paul syncretized his Christ with basic Hellenism themes, he re-enforced the Greek validation of elite domination and control over populations of commoners.
It also needs to be made clear in regard to this theme of “commoners dominated by elites”, that “where there is no freedom there is no love”. You cannot not equate the “Lord Jesus” of Paul with any actual common understanding of love. You don’t love others if you dominate and control them. Please. Historical Jesus got this right decades before Paul deformed him with the “Lord Christ” mythology.
Once again… Historical Jesus rejected the long-standing mythology/theology (deity as “lord, king, ruler”) that validated relationships of domination/submission. That theology had shaped all previous history and narratives. He courageously presented his own unique Wisdom insights that directly contradicted the varied common themes of the religious traditions of his time.
Protesting the theology undergirding the sacrifice industry:
Jesus also took up the anti-sacrifice protest of some of the Old Testament prophets, notably Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah.
These OT prophets had initiated an incomplete anti-sacrifice protest that Jesus later took to its fullest expression by going to the root of the issue, i.e. to the long-standing theology behind sacrifice- i.e. the threat of angry and punitively destroying deity who demanded violent punishment in the murder of an innocent as required for appeasement/atonement of his rage. Any who did not submit and believe such mythology would suffer eternal destruction (e.g. “Lord Jesus returning in blazing fire to destroy… and trampling out the fury of the wrath of God”, among other New Testament statements of salvation through destruction, as per Thessalonians, Romans, Revelation.)
Presenting his entirely new and contrary theology, Jesus stated that God was unconditional love and, hence, did not demand violent sacrifice or any payment before forgiving, loving, and including all (e.g. sun and rain given generously and inclusively to both good and bad people, the Prodigal Father not demanding any prerequisite restitution or payback, etc.).
Jesus’ “stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditional God” went to the root psychopathology/mythology driving the sacrifice industry- i.e. the angry, punitive deity at core.
Most everything in the authentic teaching of Historical Jesus (i.e. the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel research) pointed to a core unconditional reality as the Ultimate Reality. Hence, being most essentially unconditional, it pointed to a stunningly nonreligious deity. “Nonreligious” because all religion has been most essentially conditional, how to appease and please highly conditional God. This validates my argument that no religion has ever communicated the unconditional nature of God to people. A highly conditional institution cannot communicate unconditional reality. Further affirmation of the oxymoronic element in all this.
Add here that Jesus’ protest against the theology of the sacrifice industry got him killed. See Bob’s essays that cover this.
“The Historical Jesus: What the Scholars are Saying”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-historical-jesus-what-the-scholars-are-saying/
“The Doctrine of Christ and the Triumph of Hellenism”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-doctrine-of-christ-and-the-triump-of-hellenism/
Jesus was historically the first to introduce the “stunning new theology” that should have been the spark igniting the greatest liberation movement ever in the depths of humanity’s subconscious, liberation from the deeply embedded archetypes that have always shaped human minds, emotions, motivations, and responses/behaviors. Archetypes that had from the beginning been oriented to ultimate metaphysical threats from divine forces, spirits, gods.
But Paul squelched that Jesus’ spark and reestablished primitive threat theology in his Greek-shaped Christ myth.
Qualifying note on the “diamond” insight of Jesus that God is unconditional love:
I would not go into the details of what all this means for any given individual life. I would leave that for each person to work out personally. It certainly does not mean pacifism in the face of evil or violent people. Any common understanding of love gets that we are all responsible to restrain violent people/offenders in order to protect the innocent, to maintain peace and order in society.
The Jesus insight on ultimate reality, ultimate ideal/archetype, does advocate for restorative treatment of offenders, post-restraint and incarceration. “No more eye for eye but instead love your enemy because God does”, pushes us to consider how we should maintain our own humanity in the context of evil and offenses from others.
This is to say that the Jesus insight on unconditional does not affirm the “suicidal empathy” of today’s “far-left Woke Progressivism” with its DEI distortion and “decarceral/de-carceration” policies applied in US cities. That psychopathology has enacted policies that let violent offenders go free (based on skin color) because they are viewed as present-day victims of historical systemic racism that they claim continues to dominate today.
This illustrates “suicidal empathy” where people virtue signal for moral status in their societies and self-blind themselves to the results of the policies that they implement, policies that destroy human life. Their impulse to virtue signal overrides common sense and responsible approaches that hold all accountable for behavior.
“Why Gavin Newsom lets drug dealers kill the homeless with Fentanyl and Meth: Chris Rufo and I discuss the coming clash between Trump and the homeless industrial complex”, Michael Shellenberger, July 26, 2025
https://www.public.news/p/why-gavin-newsom-lets-drug-dealers
Shellenberger notes that California voters appear to be returning to a modicum of common sense with new policies that now mandate addiction treatment for repeat drug offenders after years of progressive policies promoting “harm reduction, and the non-enforcement of various laws, including ones against open-air drug use, drug dealing.”
Those policies resulted in overdoses that “spiraled out of control. Open-air drug scenes were killing hundreds every year.”
Shellenberger states that radical-Left activists are behind the irresponsible policies and benefitted from the billions of dollars poured into the “homeless industrial complex.”
“More drug-fueled homelessness has meant more money for the homeless industrial complex. Just at the state level, California spends over $20 billion annually on homelessness and mental health.”
He then explains the irresponsible belief system that drives such policies, beliefs that promote such irresponsible pacifist-type policies:
“Newsom and his allies believe — or at least perform belief — in a moral ideology that treats all law enforcement as oppression and life-saving interventions as traumatic coercion.”
He concludes with the new approach by the Trump administration where “Federal funding should now depend on outcomes, not ideology. Cities may be required to clear encampments, prosecute open-air drug dealing, and offer structured treatment. And the legal framework that has shielded chaos may be challenged in court.”
Point: Beware embracing forms of pathological “compassion/empathy” with outcomes that destroy life. Hold Thomas Sowell’s “test of facts” approach (i.e. evidence of actual outcomes) to evaluate the policies you implement.
Going ‘superlative’ to make a critical point… “Greatest, most profound, most critical, etc.”
Most profound insight ever, worst scandal in its burial, subsequent greatest fraud and lie, and now most critical project to recover the buried diamond. Am I being too superlative with these adjectives? Wendell Krossa
(AI Overview: Being superlative means being the best, surpassing all others, or being of the highest quality. It’s a way to describe something or someone as being at the top of their class, possessing the greatest degree of a particular quality.)
The project to recover the “buried diamond” began with “The Search or Quest for Historical Jesus” around 1738 with German theologians publishing the first papers.
This from AI Overview:
“The “search for the historical Jesus” is an academic movement that began in the 18th century, aiming to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth using historical and archaeological evidence, independent of theological interpretations or the doctrines of the church. This movement arose from the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason and historical criticism, which questioned the uncritical acceptance of biblical accounts.”
The Quest for Historical Jesus set forth the basic outlines of discovery that the historical person Jesus was strikingly different from Paul’s Christ or Christology.
James Tabor (“Paul and Jesus”) offers good summarizing comment on the basic outcomes of the Quest:
“There was a version of ‘Christianity before Paul’, affirmed by both Jesus and his original followers, with tenets and affirmations quite opposite to these of Paul… the message of Paul, which created Christianity as we know it, and the message of historical Jesus and his earliest followers, were not the same. In fact, they were sharply opposed to one another with little in common beyond the name Jesus itself” (p.xv1)…
“We are all cultural heirs of Paul, with the well-established doctrines and traditions of mainstream Christianity deeply entrenched in our culture. In contrast, Jesus as a historical figure… has been largely lost to our culture” (p. xv11)…
“Paul operated with a strongly apocalyptic perspective that influenced all he said or did” (p.15)…
“The entire New Testament canon is largely a post-Paul and pro-Paul production…” (p.19)…
“The ‘Jesus’ who most influenced history was the ‘Jesus-Christ’ of Paul, not the historical figure of Jesus… Paul transformed Jesus himself (and) his message of a… kingdom of justice and peace on earth, to the symbol of a religion of otherworldly salvation in a heavenly world”, (21)…
“The form of Christianity… (that thrived in the late Roman Empire)… was heavily based upon the ecstatic and visionary experiences of Paul. Christianity as we came to know it, is Paul and Paul is Christianity. The bulk of the New Testament is dominated by his theological vision”, p.24)…
“Paul’s view of Christ as the divine pre-existent Son of God who took on human form, died on the cross for the sins of the world, and was resurrected to heavenly glory at God’s right hand becomes the Christian message”, (39)…
“The Q source is the earliest collection of the teachings and sayings of Jesus… the most striking characteristic of the Q source in terms of reconstructing Christian origins is that it has nothing of Paul’s theology, particularly his Christology or view of Christ”, (41).
Regarding the statement of Tabor above, that apocalyptic influenced all that Paul said and did and was a main feature of his Christ myth, I would note that Historical Jesus was strikingly anti-apocalyptic. How so? His central statement of “his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God” affirms his anti-apocalyptic position.
My paraphrase of his central statement on his new theology: “Let there be no more ‘eye for eye’ retaliation. Instead, love your enemies because God does. How so? God does not retaliate with eye for eye vengeance against enemies but instead mercifully gives sun and rain to all alike, to both good and bad people”.
If God does not retaliate then God is non-apocalyptic because apocalypse is the supreme act of divine eye for eye vengeance in the punishment of humanity by destroying the world with an apocalypse.
Paul then rejected the non-apocalyptic theology of Jesus and re-enforced the belief in apocalypse in his Christ myth, stating first his theology of a vengeful God in Romans, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord”, and then re-affirming apocalyptic in his Thessalonian letters (among other places), stating, “Lord Jesus will return in blazing fire to destroy all who do not believe my Christ myth.”
And so, with Paul’s Christ myth as the most influential myth in history, the singular myth that has most dominantly shaped Western narratives and consciousness, we have had this belief deforming our narratives and consciousness for the past two millennia resulting in the mass-death outcomes of Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism (climate apocalypse). When will we ever learn? The historians have done the detailed homework exposing these psychopathologies that have incited, guided, and validated contemporary apocalyptic millennial crusades like Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism.
As the ‘military guy’ warned- Until you go after the ideas that drive such madness and violence, you will only see repeated eruptions of such religiously-driven violence.
The great tragedy is that we were given the anti-apocalyptic alternative two millennia ago. That liberation from bad religious ideas would have set our narratives and consciousness in entirely new directions. Rebirth after death. Reintegration around the entirely new after disintegration of our enslavement to the old monstrosity.
I make the basic point again:
A fundamentally non-retaliatory God (“The stunning new theology of Jesus”) will not retaliate with the supreme form of retaliatory vengeance- i.e. apocalyptic destruction of everything.
Primitive apocalyptic mythology is one of history’s most egregious frauds and lies, a complete distortion of reality and life as declining when all evidence shows that life (and all reality), to the contrary, has been improving across the millennia. The improvement is evident on all three great “emergences”. The (1) emergence of the cosmos from initial chaotic super-heat to following cooling and increasing organization and complexity (galaxies, stars, solar systems, etc.), the (2) emergence of life from simpler to more complexity and organization (multi-cellular organisms and complex ecosystems, etc.), and then (3) human civilization growing more complex, organized, and humane (declining violence across millennia and better care for all life).
Yet due to “emotional satisfaction and not rational evidence in the choice of beliefs” the apocalyptic lie continues to dominate public narratives and consciousness still today across world. It is embraced in all the major religions, including in Eastern traditions like Buddhism (declining lifespan- Mircea Eliade) and Hinduism (great cycles of rise then decline to disastrous ending). The outcome of apocalyptic mythology is evident in surveys showing that most people believe the world is becoming worse (YouGov in Ten Global Trends). The damaging impact of apocalyptic is also evident in survey showing kids with significant levels of “eco-anxiety”. And you wonder how this background narrative theme feeds into the world’s number one illness- depression. Julian Simon offered some good insight on this in his autobiography, how his discovery of the improving state of life lifted his clinical depression and it never returned.
Remember psychologist Harold Ellens’ statement that cruel God theology, the driving force behind the myth of apocalyptic destruction “deforms human personality with fear, anxiety, shame, guilt, despair/depression, nihilism, and violence”. That helps to understand the felt sense of obligation of many people to embrace religious salvation myths as required to save oneself from the threat of apocalyptic destruction.
My recommendation- Go to root ideas, as Jesus did, and overturn the deformed theology behind such destructive mythologies.
And recognize that Paul’s apocalyptic Christ myth has been most responsible for bringing the grand lie of apocalyptic into Western and world consciousness. That is a critical starting point to solving the horrific outcomes of such psychopathology.
Continuing…
Marinate in the Tabor quotes above for a while and you will get the point made by Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy that “the diamonds” of Jesus have been buried in “the dung” of Paul’s Christ myth.
The Quest for Historical Jesus has continued into its “third phase” since 1985 in the “Jesus Seminar” and most critically in the “Q Wisdom Sayings” research that gets us closest to what Jesus actually taught, his actual message. It is critical to get to the actual message of the man because the authors of the four New Testament gospels put a lot of additional stuff in their accounts that the original Jesus could not have spoken because those editorial additions contradict his core theme of unconditional love.
That core theological discovery of Jesus, that God was unconditional love, is the cohering center of his message. It provides the criterion of “thematic coherence” to guide our sorting through what he most likely taught and what is falsely attributed to him by the gospel authors. Historians/theologians now recognize the gospel authors were guided by theological agendas that distort actual history, agendas oriented to affirming Paul’s theology/christology.
My point is that the basic groundwork and research has been done by many contributing scholars/theologians/historians. And I would offer that Bob Brinsmead has done some of the best summarizing work on Historical Jesus with the material and arguments that he presented in his latest two essays:
“The Historical Jesus: What the Scholars are Saying”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-historical-jesus-what-the-scholars-are-saying/
“The Doctrine of Christ and the Triumph of Hellenism”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-doctrine-of-christ-and-the-triump-of-hellenism/
My personal conclusion regarding the recovery of “the buried diamond of the original Jesus message” is that this project is singularly critical for humanity because Jesus’ theological insight on unconditional deity is the single most profoundly humane insight in all history. It orients our consciousness to the highest reach of true humanity, to the actual nature of authentic love, more than any other insight or statement from across history. It points to an ideal that is far more than James Robinson’s statement that Jesus presented “a stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God… (that) was his greatest contribution to the history of human ideas”.
“Non-retaliatory” is, if you will, the ‘negative’ expression of the far more potent and positive insight that God was no conditions love of an inexpressibly wondrous nature.
That stunning new take on divine love was highly offensive to many people whose minds had long been soaked in some form of retributive justice as ultimate righteousness, ultimate good. But there was no such ultimate justice with the God of historical Jesus. And he recognized how that “stunning new theology” enraged many good people, hence, he spoke repeatedly to that offense.
Look at the response of his first audience when he left off “The day of vengeance of our God” in his reading of Isaiah 61 and then told stories of God inclusively, and without retaliatory vengeance, sending Jewish prophets to help and heal outsiders to the Jewish religion- God showing mercy to “sinners/enemies”. His audience, longing to hear of their tribal God’s vengeance against their enemies, and enraged at any mercy shown to those outsiders, tried to kill him at the very start of his career by throwing him off a cliff (Luke 4).
Jesus illustrated that same nontribal, non-discriminatory, unconditional generosity with the parable of the Prodigal’s Father and the vineyard owner. Such “no conditions love” offended and enraged righteous people who demanded some form of punitive response toward their offenders/enemies. They refused to embrace the idea of toleration for the “no more eye for eye… but instead, love your enemy” message of Jesus. Look how Matthew in his gospel, though feeling obligated to state the actual teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:38-48, then follows a few chapters later with his own editorial additions that affirm harshly retributive justice (“cast into outer darkness”). Those added statements deny and undermine entirely the earlier unconditional message of Jesus on “love your enemies”.
“They are looking for transcendence”, this quote from the article below in Free Press, July 26, 2025.
“On Pilgrimage with 20,000 Young Catholics”, Rod Dreher.
Yes, we all possess the natural impulse to meaning, as in “looking for transcendence”. But beware of looking too much to the heavens and ignoring, downplaying this life.
Paul’s Christ orients this natural impulse for meaning to otherworldly concerns (“otherworldly salvation in a heavenly world”, Tabor quote below) based on irrational mythology that distorts human consciousness and shifts human concerns away from improving life in this world (i.e. “justice and peace on earth”). Any “looking for transcendence” that weakens our responsibility to improve life here and now is a deformed understanding and irresponsible engagement of the impulse for meaning.
Darker elements in Paul’s Christ notoriously validate our worst impulses, and are contrary to Jesus’ orientation to this-world decency toward all (“a kingdom of justice and peace on earth”), to living full-blooded “here and nowism”.
As James Tabor says, “The ‘Jesus’ who most influenced history was the ‘Jesus-Christ’ of Paul, not the historical figure of Jesus… Paul transformed Jesus himself (and) his message of a… kingdom of justice and peace on earth, to the symbol of a religion of otherworldly salvation in a heavenly world”, James Tabor.
The new apocalyptic alarm- AI?
As sociologist David Altheide stated in his study of alarmist media, they need to construct crisis to keep the funds flowing (“Creating Fear: News and the construction of crisis”). H. L. Mencken noted something similar in stating, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
Worrall’s article on this:
“Climate activists outraged at President Trump’s AI push: Are greens market testing a pivot from climate activism to anti-AI activism?” Eric Worrall, July 24, 2025
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/27/climate-activists-outraged-at-president-trumps-ai-push/
Worrall poses the question- “Are greens market testing a pivot from climate activism to anti-AI activism?
“As the public support base for climate action narrows, greens have long been searching for a replacement for the climate crisis which could re-engage groups which outright reject their climate crisis claims…”
He says, “I predicted in 2017 that AI would be the winning replacement ticket….”
He continues, “Add to this mix the green left’s visceral hatred for President Trump, the fact President Trump is a major advocate of AI, and the fact AI campuses really do cause significant problems for communities when the supporting infrastructure is inadequate, and all the ingredients for a major green pivot to anti-AI activism appear to be in place.”