Below- Another good article from Bob Brinsmead on the triumph of Hellenism in Paul’s Christ myth. The Kirk memorial offered examples of how the critical distinction between Jesus and Christ continues to be confused. Brinsmead shows more of the differing outcomes from these two opposite realities. This is about understanding the real nature of the version of Christianity that we inherited in our Western civilization. Paul’s “Christ-ianity” is not the religion of Jesus.
Now just below- “Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ“. The importance of understanding this? The historical outcomes of influential ideas/beliefs matter as the historians of “apocalyptic millennialism” have outlined in their good research on how such ideas shaped the mass-death crusades of Marxism and Nazism, and are now influencing environmental alarmism.
Also further below- Links to good commentary from Gad Saad and Michael Malice, and Greg Gutfeld’s latest. And a bit of my “conspiracy theory” on the “Carney barker” for the climate cult (why Trump “likes Mark Carney”).
In the midst of stirred fires keep the light in our minds clear… Wendell Krossa
I heard a ‘Turning Point’ official say that Charlie Kirk pushed three basic things to unite the country- i.e. (1) limited government (less taxation which is the elite/state appropriation of citizen’s property to make choices for them over their assets, and less regulation to keep elites and bureaucrats from interfering in the personal choices and lives of citizens), (2) free speech (especially offensive, upsetting, enraging speech), and (3) free markets (protected private property, private contracts). These are Classic Liberal, liberal democracy fundamentals that function to maintain the rights and freedoms of all individuals, equally, through systems of common law and representative institutions that serve citizens and do not function as tools of the state elites/bureaucrats to meddle in and control the lives of citizens. These basics can unite all humanity.
Just saying… Now moving into my point in response to the great celebratory remembrance in Glendale Arizona for Charlie Kirk.
The central wisdom in the “Q Wisdom Sayings” material is best presented in Luke 6:27-36. That is the central message of Historical Jesus that sets forth his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God. That is the ultimate lodestar ideal presented to humanity, the ultimate core theme for any truly humane narrative. That ideal liberates and transforms everything as nothing else can. It is the ultimate “TOE” (Theory of Everything).
Now where am I going with this? I just saw some reports on the celebration of Charlie Kirk’s life at that great gathering to remember him.
The overall celebration was emotionally inspiring.
There were some powerfully stirring moments such as his wife Erika sharing the story of Jesus, who in the throes of a horrible death, asked God to forgive his murderers because “they did not know what they were doing”. So, she said of Charlie’s killer- “I forgive you”. That brought most of us to immediate tears as the forgiveness of enemies- i.e. “love your enemies”- is the height of human heroism and love. Love beyond love.
It’s not about feeling mushy toward the offenders who torment us in life. It’s more about the intention to do the humane thing, the right thing, the unconditional thing toward fellow failing humans. The offenders must still be held accountable and even imprisoned for public safety as the number one responsibility of any government.
So why now raise this “quibble” that I will raise? Well, it’s more than a quibble. There was a lot of pushing a larger narrative in that gathering, the push for the revival of Christianity (e.g. Jesse Watters did this on Fox) that worries many of us. Talk of people going back to church, getting back into their bibles. All fine and good, if they do as many modern Christians have learned to do and ignore the nasty parts in their holy book and religious tradition, and focus on the good stuff in the mix- i.e. the authentic message of Historical Jesus.
But to do so you have to have some appreciation of the profound difference between the messages of Historical Jesus and Paul’s entirely opposite Christ mythology. And in that gathering these two were mixed and merged as Christians continue to do in Paul’s “Jesus Christ” oxymoron that continues to fuel stunning levels of cognitive dissonance that allows the dark stuff to continue unchallenged and uncorrected in that tradition.
We can’t continue with the “same old” that has fueled so much tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others over the past millennia. Remember again those good historians (Richard Landes, Arthur Herman, Arthur Mendel, David Redles, etc.) who have exposed the Christian “apocalyptic millennial” themes that drove Marxism and Nazism, and are now driving environmental alarmism.
Even Erika expressed elements of the old threat theology in later saying that she felt obligated to forgive the killer or she wouldn’t get into heaven. What? What kind of monster God are you envisioning that would do something so horrible as send a deeply wounded mother and wife to hell just for feeling normal and healthy outrage at her husband’s murderer? Sheesh, eh. But that is just what that admixture of Jesus with Christ produces.
So that is where the confusion comes in and the intensity of emotion around a tragedy like the murder of Kirk tends to produce responses that ignore such critical distinctions as emotion overwhelms rational and critical thinking. Yes, feel the horror over his murder that tried to silence his stance on free speech. But in that celebration of Kirk there was too much mixing of traditional Christianity with the better precepts of Historical Jesus. So contrary to Erika’s comment that “Christ” made that famous statement- “Father forgive them…”, along with- “Love your enemies”, I would counter- No, it was Jesus who made those statements.
Christ, according to Paul’s Christology myth, embodies things like “Lord Jesus will return in blazing fire to destroy all who did not believe his Christ myth… unbelievers will be cast into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth…”. And note Revelation 19, where in a rage with blazing eyes of fire, Christ tramples out “the fury of the wrath of God” before casting all unbelievers into lake of fire to be tormented forever, shut out forever from the love of God. And so much more Christology threat of destruction and torment. There is no ultimate “forgive and love your enemies” in the Christ of Paul. It’s all hellfire and damnation that is entirely opposite and contrary to Jesus’ message of unconditional love. There is no final forgiveness if you are sending disagreeing others to hell forever.
It’s in times when emotion is so intense and elevated to feverish heights by such a horrific murder that we want to maintain our rational, critical faculties and be clear on what is good and bad in the mix of our beliefs and ideals. This site is all about these critical issues, especially in times of heighted and aroused emotion that can orient people to dangerous trajectories and outcomes (i.e. a heightened sense of tribalism and “righteous crusade” against evil enemies) if not properly informed with factual evidence (i.e. the “Search for Historical Jesus”, “Jesus Seminar”, “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel, etc.). I also felt the emotions of the event were giving way to the tendency to “deify/divinize the dead” excessively, rushing to grant sainthood a bit too soon. I don’t know that Kirk “would have been a future president”.
On the threat theology that Erika referred to…
There is no such monster God anywhere and never has been. Clean off Paul’s Christ mythology from the Jesus “diamond” (Thomas Jefferson’s project) and get a good grip on the “stunning new theology of Jesus” that God is unconditional love. “Unconditional” as in no conditions. None. Sun and rain are given to all, none excluded, all included, all safe in the end. No matter our failure to live as human here.
So if you really claim to “believe in Jesus” and want to honor him properly (i.e. “glorify God/Christ” as Christians often urge) then understand what he actually taught- i.e. that God was unconditional love. Do as Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy did and pull the real Jesus out of the “dung” of Paul and get clear his unconditional message. That is getting a grip on real love and “Truth”. No one is going to be left out of the future life in other realms. Everyone is safe, in the end. And even in this life, all are included in the unconditional love of God, even while being held responsible for failures to live as human, for consequences to behavior.
Paul’s Christ undermines everything in the fundamental themes that Jesus taught and said. Paul, entirely contrary to what Jesus had taught, retreated back to “eye for eye” retaliatory vengeance when he affirmed his retaliatory theology by quoting- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord”. That was the frontal rejection of the unconditional God of Jesus to reaffirm the same old primitive threat theology of all past religion.
And just to poke at the Evangelical fervor stirred at that remembrance, remember the critical importance of the “separation of state and religion”. My hope is that that the movement of Charlie will stick to those three basic unifying things- i.e. limited government, free speech, and free markets. Classic Liberal principles as expressed in liberal democracies. Keep religion separate from that. If you need a healthy “spirituality”, then embrace the actual message of Historical Jesus as in the “Q Wisdom Sayings” research that gets us closest to what he actually taught.
Added note:
To do Charlie Kirk’s legacy real honor, we do best by sticking to the things that all can agree on such as his admirable defense of free speech, all speech. And his emphasis on the basics of classic liberalism/liberal democracy that I noted above (i.e. limited government, free speech, free markets).
Again, my argument with the mix and merging of things during the celebration in Arizona is because some were trying to take it post-celebration, (i.e. again, Jesse Watters on Fox) in the direction of revived traditional Christianity. Hence, my response- Careful, careful as there is a long history behind traditional Christianity that many in that religion have not admitted to despite the great histories now available on those harmful outcomes. We don’t want any such repeats. And even more, we don’t want a revival of Paul’s myth still widely dominating minds and lives, not after the great discoveries from the “Search for Historical Jesus”, “Jesus Seminar”, and especially the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel research.
The critical issue being that there is a clear distinction to be made- i.e. between the good material in the Jesus message and the dangerous themes in Paul’s Christ material. There appears to be little to no understanding of this distinction among many Christians though they appear to have developed the skill of ignoring the darker stuff to focus more on the Jesus themes that have inspired so much good (i.e. the necessary practise of “picking and choosing”, something moderates in all religious traditions need to learn).
Coming- The basic differences between Jesus and Paul’s Christ myth.
Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ (updated 2025), Wendell Krossa
Some of the main contradictions that highlight the oxymoronically opposite themes between the messages of Historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ mythology. The point I draw from this? The themes of Paul have greatly shaped Western consciousness, narratives, and overall societies for the past two millennia (the conclusion of historians/scholars like James Tabor). The Jesus themes have influenced us to a lesser extent, mainly moderating the harsher features and destructive influence of Paul’s Christ:
The main contradictions: (Sources: “Search for Historical Jesus”, “Jesus Seminar” books, and notably, “Q Wisdom Sayings” research, etc.)
(1) Jesus taught an unconditional love (i.e. there is no sacrifice demanded in Jesus’ original message- i.e. the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel). In his teaching on love there were no required conditions from his God to be met for forgiveness, inclusion, and salvation. Versus the highly conditional atonement religion of Paul, i.e. the supreme condition of the sacrifice of a cosmic godman- the Christ. Additionally, the condition of belief/faith in his myth (see his letter to the Romans), along with other related religious conditions.
(2) Nonretaliation in Jesus (no more ‘eye for eye’ justice but ‘love the enemy’ because God does not retaliate but loves enemies- “Be merciful just as God is merciful”). Versus supreme divine acts of retaliation in apocalypse and hell myths. Note Paul’s statement of his theology affirming a retaliatory deity in his quote of an Old Testament verse- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord” (Romans 12), along with his “Lord Jesus returning in fire to destroy all who don’t believe my Christ myth” (Thessalonians, etc.).
(3) Restorative justice (again- no eye for eye, but love the offender/enemy) versus punitive, destroying justice (“Unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction”, Thessalonians).
(4) Nonviolent resolution of problems (again, no violent retaliation against enemies) versus the violent destruction of apocalypse and fiery hell, and the violence in the demanded appeasement of deity by blood sacrifice for atonement- i.e. the dangerously inciting theme in the belief that if you murder the right people- sacrifice them- then you can make the future better (evil thinking that it is heroically doing good by using violence and murder).
(5) Nontribal inclusion of all humanity (“sun and rain given freely to both bad and good people”) versus the highly tribal favoritism toward true believers and the discriminatory exclusion of unbelievers for not believing Paul’s Christ. Note the ultimate tribal divide illustrated in Revelation in the eternal division of humanity- i.e. people assigned either to heaven or to hell, as per the cosmic dualism of Zoroaster.
(6) Nondomination in relationships (“If you want to be great then serve others”) versus ultimate eternal domination by “Lord Christ” under his “rod of iron” totalitarianism (“every knee shall bow… He will rule them with an iron scepter”).
There is no love in threat, coercion, domination of others.
(7) Non-dualism (God as the Oneness of Ultimate Reality that is love) versus eternal dualism (i.e. again, the cosmic tribal dualism of “God and Satan”, “heaven and hell”).
Further, ultimate Oneness leads to the logical conclusion that there is no separation of humanity from deity, what some describe as all humanity being indwelt by God, the divine reality that is inseparable from the common human spirit. God as the Life-giving spirit inside each of us, and God’s nature as unconditional love then defining our true self/person.
(8) Another- Jesus referred to himself as a “son of man”- i.e. as just another ordinary imperfect human in common with all other humans. Not as a divine person or god sent from heaven. Paul rejected the humanness of Jesus in claiming that he was some form of Hellenist godman sent from heaven on a special mission from God. Paul reconstructed the human Jesus after the pattern of the godmen myths of the Pharaohs and Caesars- i.e. born of virgins so as to avoid the “inherited sinfulness” stain.
Eventually, succeeding generations of Hellenist Christianity would further the Christology of Paul in claiming their “Jesus Christ” was sinlessly perfect, something the Historical Jesus had denied, for example, when he corrected someone with- “Why do you call me ‘good’. There is none good but God.”
The heretical Hellenist Christianity of Paul eventually reconstructed the fully and truly human Jesus into a full-fledged God and member of the Trinity.
And so on…
You cannot mix and merge such extreme opposites in the one and same person- i.e. in the merger of “Jesus Christ”- as that supremely oxymoronic combination creates such profound cognitive dissonance that you are left with a mental state akin to insanity or madness. And the egregious thing in such mixture is that the good elements (i.e. the Jesus insights) are distorted and buried by the primitive and darkening elements in the Christology of Paul.
Applying Christology to Jesus (i.e. the divinizing of a common man over the first few centuries of Christianity) has effectively buried the potency of his liberating insights, notably his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, non-apocalyptic God. That truth expressed in his entirely new view of deity, though still present there in summaries of his statements (see Matthew 5, Luke 6), that “stunning new theology” is not presented clearly in its liberating potency because the larger New Testament context emphasizes Paul’s retaliatory, apocalyptic Christ and that dominating narrative overwhelms the central themes and message of Jesus.
Paul was intent on overturning and replacing Jesus’ wisdom sayings with his “secret wisdom of the Christ”, correcting what he termed the “foolish worldly wisdom” of Jesus and his followers, like Apollos (see 1 Corinthians for Paul’s vilifying rant against the wisdom tradition of Jesus).
Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy both nailed the contradiction between Jesus and Paul in the bluntest of terms and few have been as clear and direct since, perhaps because their comments are highly offensive to true believer’s sensibilities.
Few since have embraced their clarification of the stark contrast between Jesus and Paul, preferring instead the religious reformism that tinkers around the edges and corrects nothing essential. Religious reformism avoids the central issue of theology- how Paul’s Christology utterly deformed the actual historical Jesus and his message.
Worldview and Culture of Hellenism (this latest article from Brinsmead’s Substack site)
Cracks in the wall of Christendom, Robert Brinsmead
Hellenism did not die when the Greek Empire was replaced by the Roman Empire. The influence of the Greek language and culture penetrated and dominated Roman civilization.
Rome was able to sweep away the political structures of the disintegrating Grecian Empire, but it could not destroy the language, the worldview and culture of Hellenism. The Greek language and culture remained the common language and culture throughout the Roman World.
Rome did not produce philosophers to replace Socrates, Plato and Aristotle whose influence lived on to become the fathers of Western philosophy. Rome had no dazzling array of myths to outshine the Greek myths with its pantheon of gods, divine man heroes and mystery religions.
Rome did produce some of its own virgin-born heroes such as Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, and a new divine man such as Augustus and the cult of Caesar worship. Yet the new gods were only the old Hellenist gods dressed in new garments. The Caesars of Rome donned the old Hellenised garments of divine man rulers in the tradition set by Alexander the Great.
Helmut Koester, History, Culture and Religion of the Hellenistic Age
[Helmut Koester was the Chairman of the Editorial Board, Harvard University, for this publication in 1982]
Indeed, Christianity, which had its beginnings in the early Roman imperial period, was rapidly Hellenized and appeared in the Roman world as a Hellenistic religion, specifically as an already Hellenized Jewish religion. p. 40
Christianity, after all, became a Hellenistic movement through and through, largely because Judaism had already marked the path into Hellenistic culture. pp. 97,98.
All the books of the New Testament without exception were originally written in Greek; there is no early Christin Greek writing which can be shown to have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic… Christian authors normally quote from the Septuagint… p.110
Christianity became deeply enmeshed in the syncretistic process, and this may well have been its particular strength. Christianity began as a Jewish sect with missionary ambitions, but it did not simply arise out of Judaism, nor directly out of the ministry of Jesus.
On the basis of these beginnings, however, Christianity, more than any other religion of the time was able to adapt itself to a variety of cultural and religious currents and to appropriate numerous foreign elements until it was ready to succeed as a world religion- thoroughly syncretistic in every way. pp. 166-167
The myth of Dionysus dying and revivication was widely known. p.183
Mary, the mother and goddess of heaven in Christianity, is little more artistically than a copy of Isis. p. 188
Parallels with Christian statements abound in this narration of the initiation into a mystery religion. One should not deny that the New Testament and the mysteries speak the same language. p.191
Christianity was deeply in a process through which it became one with the Hellenistic world and its religious concepts. p.201
To claim, therefore, that Christianity was specifically the religion of the poor and underprivileged is nonsense and can be easily refuted. p.201
It was the Hellenist faction of the Jesus movement who turned Jesus into Christ and then into God after his death. Jesus said nothing about Christ and neither did the apostolic church.
The doctrine of Christ is a Hellenist myth from beginning to end.
In a recent publication called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari presents an astonishing account of the existence and power of myths. He shows how humans are different to other animal species in that they can be held together in large communities such as nations and international movements because they have imaginative faculties that live by stories or myths that bind them together. Joseph Cambell’s life’s work was to compose a whole series of volumes about the myths of mankind.
The human mind tends to adhere to myths and believe in them more strongly than observable realities. As Montaigne put it, “Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.”
In the Christ myth, the Hellenists “forged the most compelling myth in the history of mankind.” (Maccoby) It conquered the Roman Empire and became a dominant force in Western civilization. The myth of Christ inspired the human spirit to do both bad and good things.
On the negative side, devotion to the myth of Christ inspired a lot of book burning, including the destruction of the great library of Alexandria, and a dreadful amount of intolerance and persecution in pogroms against the Jews, crusades against the innocent Cathars in the North of France and the Muslims in the Holy Lands, the burning of heretics at the stake and the terrors of the Inquisition – all crimes against humanity done in the name of Christ.
For more than a thousand years, the rule of Christendom (which means the domain of Christ) was among the greatest totalitarian regimes of mind and body control that this world has ever seen.
During this period the Church made far more martyrs than it ever produced from its own ranks. During this reign of the Church as the servant of Christ, the most unforgivable crime, punishable by death at the stake, was to question any facet of the doctrine of Christ.
Cracks in the Wall of Christendom
It was the Hellenist faction of the Jesus movement who turned Jesus into Christ and then into God after his death. Jesus said nothing about Christ and neither did the apostolic church.
The doctrine of Christ is a Hellenist myth from beginning to end.
In a recent publication called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari presents an astonishing account of the existence and power of myths. He shows how humans are different to other animal species in that they can be held together in large communities such as nations and international movements because they have imaginative faculties that live by stories or myths that bind them together. Joseph Cambell’s life’s work was to compose a whole series of volumes about the myths of mankind.
The human mind tends to adhere to myths and believe in them more strongly than observable realities. As Montaigne put it, “Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.”
In the Christ myth, the Hellenists “forged the most compelling myth in the history of mankind.” (Maccoby) It conquered the Roman Empire and became a dominant force in Western civilization. The myth of Christ inspired the human spirit to do both bad and good things.
On the negative side, devotion to the myth of Christ inspired a lot of book burning, including the destruction of the great library of Alexandria, and a dreadful amount of intolerance and persecution in pogroms against the Jews, crusades against the innocent Cathars in the North of France and the Muslims in the Holy Lands, the burning of heretics at the stake and the terrors of the Inquisition – all crimes against humanity done in the name of Christ.
For more than a thousand years, the rule of Christendom (which means the domain of Christ) was among the greatest totalitarian regimes of mind and body control that this world has ever seen. During this period the Church made far more martyrs than it ever produced from its own ranks. During this reign of the Church as the servant of Christ, the most unforgivable crime, punishable by death at the stake, was to question any facet of the doctrine of Christ.
Despite all these factors which tended to subordinate the teachings of Jesus to the basement of the Church, the Church always had its thinkers who seemed to be moved by Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount more than they were moved by Paul’s preaching of Christ.
What has happened in the last two hundred years is that the Quest for the Historical Jesus has gone into that basement, besides a lot of other historical “basements”, to look at the teachings of Jesus in their true historical context.
The overwhelming consensus of the Quest is that the historical Jesus is not the Christ of faith.
This means that the teachings of Jesus are not supportive of the Christ myth or compatible with the Christ myth. We may have assumed, as the Church has generally assumed, that the teachings of Jesus and the Christ myth belong together like twins from the same mother, but this is not what the Quest has found.
The very term Jesus Christ is an oxymoron. Jesus was an historical person; Christ is a Hellenist myth.
Jesus and Christ present us with entirely different images of God.
This stands out starkly in Jesus’ teaching about a kind of love that rejects violence, pay-back justice and dominion over others.
We only need ask, how many people did Jesus kill when he was here on earth? None of course, because he was non-violent. How many people will Christ kill when he comes to earth “in flaming fire to take vengeance on all them that know not God”? (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8) This event is presented in Christian teaching as the mother of all holocausts. Jesus and Christ confront us with entirely different images of God.
Is divine violence destined to be the final solution to human violence? Do the violent images of Christ throw some light on why so much of Christian history was violent?
In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:36-48), Jesus rejected any “eye for an eye” pay-back justice in favour of a restorative and redemptive justice of unconditional forgiveness (see also Luke 6: 28-36). Yet the Christ of Paul is said to propitiate the wrath of God with an atoning sacrifice for sin (Romans 3), and a forgiveness based on punitive justice.
The whole book of Revelation, said to be “an apocalypse of Jesus Christ”, is about pay-back time, vengeance, and retaliation from beginning to end. So, a violent atonement and a violent end of the world are just two parts of the one myth!
The students in the school of Jesus were taught to renounce achieving dominion and control over others because true greatness is found in serving others rather than in controlling them (Matthew 23:13).
On the other hand, Christ is frequently presented as having dominion over all and ruling all nations with a rod of iron (Revelation 2;17; 19:15). The God we see in the real man called Jesus is very different to the kind of God who is revealed in the Christ myth which re-enforces all those unfortunate images of a domineering, controlling kind of God.
That is why so many serious cracks are now appearing in the doctrine of Christ. No myths last forever, not even “the most compelling myth in the history of mankind.” All is not lost because there is so much to be gained. What remains in the New Testament documents without the Christ myth has always been its real treasure.
Thomas Jefferson likened the authentic parables and sayings of Jesus to finding diamonds that have been scattered among the dung of inferior minds. He suggested that these diamonds are not so hard to find. One only needs to listen carefully to identify the unique voiceprint in the words of the great teacher.
You can read more of my writing on this topic at Bob Brinsmead’s website…
The Doctrine of Christ and the Triumph of Hellenism – Bob Brinsmead
(End of Brinsmead article)
“The Donald” speaks uncomfortable truths…
Whatever you think of the person “Trump”, and we all have cringe moments in regard to him (mine is over the times that he expresses his “petty vindictiveness”), set those aside and hear the basic points that he makes that no one else makes with such “PC-free” clarity. They have to be said to the world, so thanks Donald. Especially, hear him on the “suicidal empathy” in regard to uncontrolled immigration of people who hate liberal democracies and the Green “scam” that is ruining European societies.
“Trump’s address at the UN: FULL SPEECH”
https://youtu.be/cWXcXKJ-N2Q?si=sJYraH2nv8FoISe8
And some interesting material on this and that…
I often cringe at Greg Gutfeld’s tribalish harangues of the Left, using descriptive terms that don’t help heal the tribal divide in his country (e.g. “assholes”). But the commentary from him and his panel members, often libertarian/independent types, is so worth the listen on many current issues impacting all of us in Western liberal democracies.
Here (in link below) he does a great monologue on how public narratives, public messaging/indoctrination, incites fringe types to violence. Meaning- You don’t actually need to formally join some group as public messaging is enough to explain the incitement of some to violence. One guest debunks studies on which side is most responsible.
Kat Timpf is good on getting past the despair over her personal hopelessness regarding today’s tribal hatred. How so? She wakes her baby son in the morning and then focuses on her family during the day.
“Greg Gutfeld Show 9/23/25 FULL END SHOW | ᖴO᙭ ᗷᖇEᗩKIᑎG ᑎEᗯS”, September 23, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBqzKESrNp0
Gad Saad and Michael Malice on some significant factors that are driving the severe pathologies in our societies today. They discuss Saad’s “Parasitic Mind” and “Suicidal Empathy”.
“YOUR WELCOME” with Michael Malice #380: Gad Saad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85pJfwGD9Wk
It’s coming, Wendell Krossa (see above)
After return from attending a wedding this weekend, I will repost again soon the basic themes of Historical Jesus (the “non-religious” wisdom sage) as they embody the very best of the ideas and ideals that we have accumulated across history for shaping our narratives- i.e. the unconditional nature of Ultimate Reality or deity (expressed in the non-tribal, non-threatening, universal inclusion of all), nonretaliatory response to offense (ending retaliatory “eye for eye” cycles), nonviolent resolution of problems (i.e. “restorative justice”, but that holds offenders fully responsible for offenses and restitution), non-dominating relating to others (state and other elites serving the people), etc.
These ideals have been best expressed in the Classic Liberal principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions of “liberal democracy”. The protection of the rights and freedoms of all, equally.
The Historical Jesus ideals embodied in liberal democracy have proven to be the best for guiding us through life in a manner that does the least harm and the most good to others. They are ideals that enable us to maintain our own humanity in response to evil in life.
Again, this is not about pacifism that virtue signals for status as morally superior, the behavior that we see exhibited by too many today in what is correctly defined as “suicidal empathy”. It promotes, for example, policies of not restraining violent offenders, not imprisoning (“de-carceration”), and decriminalizing their worst behaviors, all of which are the abdication of government’s fundamental responsibility to protect all citizens from assault or harm.
The “increasing crime” outcomes are evidence of the pathology of the policy, what Thomas Sowell calls “The test of facts”. Or as Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them” (i.e. “fruits”- the products or outcomes that reveal the true nature of what you have promoted or planted).
The point of presenting these general “archetypal ideals” to frame narratives, is to do as Frederik Hayek stated about regulations, laws, and rules- Don’t specify for citizens in excessive and onerous detail how they should choose to act and live. Just point in the general direction of where you all want to go, to create a more humane society (“the good society”). And let free individual citizens choose in detail how they will creatively and uniquely get to that better future. Respect the self-determination, maturity, and sense of responsibility that most people are capable of. Let peace and order in a humane civilization flourish from the bottom-up instead of being coercively imposed by state elites and bureaucrats, top-down. In other words, trust average citizens.
The nature of a “good society”? Our better constitutions and universal codes of basic human rights lay out in detail the features of a commonly agreed on good society. Again- liberal democracy.
And…
Beware the danger of engaging the dehumanizing response of “former oppressed becoming the new oppressors”, Wendell Krossa (“Dehumanizing”? Yes, it renders those responding to their “liberation” with such retaliatory vengeance, less than fully human.)
Meaning- The danger of engaging the same old eye for eye cycles that destroy relationships and societies with ongoing hate, retaliation, and punitive destruction. That never gets us to a better society.
When will we learn that Roman philosopher Musonius Rufus was right that to “bite back the biter is animal and not human”. Retaliation renders us all petty and subhuman, not the great human spirits that we should be (i.e. courageous initiators who break retaliatory cycles and generously set things moving in better directions).
This is critical for “the Right” to understand, as they endure the ongoing hatred, vilification, and demonization from “the Left” today, just as they have from across the last decade. I refer to the danger of the formerly “oppressed becoming the new oppressors”, of responding with retaliation that fuel endless cycles of “eye for eye”.
Eye for eye is what Donald Trump has stated in the past as his “guiding ethic” for life. Only he has apparently stated (in one of his books) that he seeks to respond with an intensified version of eye for eye, with 10 times the retaliation compared to what he received from his offenders/critics. I have heard him make statements like that over past years. And he exhibited that in his response to Rosie O’Donnel’s irresponsible comments on his defense of a beauty queen long ago (“Who’s he to set himself up as a moral example”). Who are any of us to do so, Rosie? You included.
Others (supporters of his like Michael Malice) have referred to Trump’s impulse to retaliate as his “petty vindictiveness”.
Republicans need to be aware that they share the same ugly impulses as Democrats, to embrace a tribalism that overly demonizes and dehumanizes their opponents and then seeks to engage harm for harm, hurt for hurt, vilification for vilification, and so on.
All of us also hold the impulse to portray ourselves as better than our opponents, to virtue signal as morally superior to others, along with the ever-present follow-up of releasing our own dark impulse to dominate others- to seek the destruction of opponents by censoring, banning, cancelling, to respond with punitive justice, not restorative. All elements in the descent into the downward spirals of eye for eye cycles.
We all harbor the same dark animal impulses and need the constant reminder and cautions of our liberal democracy basic principles and practices. The real battle in life against the real enemy in life is an intensely personal inner battle against the common evil that resides inside all of us- the “evil triad” of tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others.
Note that Pam Bondi, in response to the kerfuffle below, has since backed off and re-affirmed her respect for the First Amendment but not clearly enough, according to these editors.
This from Free Press
“Pam Bondi vs. the First Amendment: At last, something we can all agree on: The attorney general has no idea what she’s talking about”, by The Editors, Sept. 17, 2025
I am not affirming all these Free Press editors say below as they seem too gleeful to have caught Bondi misspeaking about “hate speech” and are not generously open to fully accepting her follow-up corrections. But they offer a necessary slap on the hand to Republicans who appear too eager to engage “petty vindictiveness” in acting like “the former oppressed now becoming the new oppressors”. A temptation that all who hold to ‘eye for eye’ justice are susceptible to.
The Editors begin: “In an interview that aired on Monday, our attorney general said that the federal government would crack down on “hate speech” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.
They point out that hate speech is not illegal and they quote Charlie Kirk’s own comments on this issue- “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
This is contrasted with Bondi’s threat to those celebrating Kirk’s murder, among other speech sins, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
The Editors continue, noting that Republicans have insisted for years on the critical importance of free speech and held European allies responsible for failing to honor this fundamental right of liberal democracies. Now justifiably angry following Kirk’s murder they appear to have forgotten this most basic democratic right. And Bondi herself appears to by conflating “speech with violence”, the exaggerated anti-democracy error of the Left, over past years.
They note Bondi made an attempt to correct her earlier statements on hate speech and re-affirm support for First Amendment free speech rights. She claims that she misspoke. But then Donald Trump himself added to the confusion when confronted by an ABC reporter. He said that Bondi should probably go after people like the reporter for treating him so unfairly. He called that “Hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart” and maybe Bondi should go after you and your organization.
Fortunately, as the Free Press Editors note: “The upside of Bondi’s statement is that it has been robustly denounced by observers across the political spectrum, from the far right to the far left and everyone in between.
“We’ll take unifying moments wherever we can find them right now. But the fact that our unity is born out of our collective alarm that the Attorney General of the United States lacks a basic grasp of the Constitution she swore to uphold is cold comfort.”
(End of Free Press quotes)
Then some comment on a “Carney barker” for the climate cult, Wendell Krossa
You like conspiracy theories? Here’s one from me. Trump was effusive in praising Mark Carney and dissing Pierre Poilievre before the last Canadian election. Meddling with “make Canada the 51st state” and thereby rousing Canadian ire.
A US president meddling in a Canadian election “like nobody’s ever seen before”.
Now I cannot believe that Trump’s intelligence and State people have not informed him about Carney. Jordan Peterson did a good review of Carney’s book and his central beliefs. He is a complete cultic zealot for Net Zero and ending fossil fuels. In his book he argues for Covid-style lockdowns to shut down fossil fuels. He states that every decision made in society should promote the end of fossil fuels usage.
But to get elected he knew he had to make “grandiose promises” that deceptively hid his real agenda, hinting at perhaps endorsing a pipeline to get Canadian fuels to foreign markets but then, post-election, adding blockages like required First Nations approval for major projects, etc.
And now his first list of projects has no pipeline included. Well, surprise, surprise, eh.
Trump knew that Carney would not push fossil fuel development. And he knew that Poilievre would push such projects and with Canada’s huge fossil fuel resources that would make Canada a serious competitor against US fossil fuel exports to the world, something that Trump seriously desires- i.e. the US as sole energy superpower without Canadian competition. Hence, Trump’s “I like this guy Carney”. Of course you do, you smart businessman and deal maker, you. So we have been had. Manipulated by the “51st state” nonsense and “I like Carney”, etc.
Anyway, just my “conspiracy theory” bit for today…
“Mark Carney’s vaporous narcissism: The PM has a penchant for making grandiose promises that are unachievable and incoherent”, John Robson, Sept. 18, 2025
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/mark-carneys-vaporous-narcissism?itm_source=index
Pinker seeing Red on DEI
This from self-identified “liberal Democrat” Stephen Pinker, author of “Better Angels of Our Nature”, among other bestsellers.
“Canadians should thank Steven Pinker for denouncing DEI in Parliament: Distinguished scholar tells MPs that discriminatory policies at universities and government institutions are harming science and the nation”, Peter MacKinnon, Sept. 24, 2025
MacKinnon comments on Stephen Pinker’s testimony to a Canadian “House of Commons” committee.
Quotes:
“Pinker called for universities to disempower DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) … Moderate voices on these issues are often silenced by advocates for race and gender quotas who resort to the racist label to discredit those who do not agree with them. The words of Steven Pinker may encourage them to speak up, and to join what we should hope to be a growing chorus favouring non-discrimination, cosmopolitanism and viewpoint diversity. Indeed, Canadians should be grateful to Dr. Pinker.”
And this also re Pinker seeing Red…
“FIRST READING: Diversity mandates killing Canadian science, famed academic tells Commons committee: Racial quotas now standard for Canadian academic hiring, grant funding”, Tristan Hopper, Sept. 19, 2025
Hopper opens: “Diversity mandates as practiced by Canada are eroding basic science and discrediting the academic system, the renowned Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker warned in recent testimony to a House of Commons research committee.”
According to Hopper, Pinker argued that “universities need to drop their ‘obsession’ with enforcing ethnic diversity and focus instead on cultivating ‘viewpoint diversity’”.
Hopper says that in Canada, identity-based policies have been driven by federal order and funding. He notes that Pinker told the House committee, “it’s not reasonable to expect that every single branch of science is going to have an ethnic makeup that’s exactly proportional to the general population.” The result has been “that under the guise of ‘looking’ diverse, universities have increasingly become subject to chilling ‘monocultures’ that shun and punish dissenting opinions.”
He quotes Pinker’s statement, “As a cognitive scientist, I can attest that the human mind is vulnerable to many biases and fallacies. The strongest is the ‘my side’ bias, the conviction that my tribe or coalition or party is correct and that a rival coalition is ignorant or evil or both.”
“Pinker said the usual way around this is to maintain an intellectual culture in which biases can be freely attacked and criticized by colleagues who think differently. ‘One person can point out another’s errors and the whole community can be more rational than any of the individuals in it’”.