Regarding the earlier “oopsie” that must have singed the eyes of you British visitors… “Sousing out” was a local term where I was from, for trying to figure something out. Or maybe it was just my Dad’s slang for that. Hmmm. Localisms, eh.
New material below from Michael Shellenberger on the advocacy for violence as mainly coming from the left today. Also, examples of “suicidal empathy” in Canadian “catch and release” approaches that release repeat violent offenders to further harm innocent civilians in Canadian cities (abandoning common-sense). And more…
See also “Hamas influenced/shaped by religious beliefs” with a related article. Hamas illustrates the larger problem of bad ideas/archetypes continuing to shape crusades of “salvation through destruction”, an infection that has plagued all the major religious traditions across history, and continues to infect “secular/ideological” versions of our modern era.
The climate science behind climate change. Point? There is no “climate crisis”. We are living through climate change that can be best understood in terms of “natural variation” caused by prominent natural factors. This evidence counters the irrational hysteria incited by the prophets of the climate apocalypse narrative. And that narrative can be understood better in terms of the continuing influence of apocalyptic millennial mythology on many people today.
The evidence below, along with much similar evidence, reveals/exposes the climate crisis movement to be a “profoundly religious crusade”. Its certainly not science. This site probes the mythology behind such crusades and their endeavors to undermine/overturn our liberal democracies through crusades promising “salvation through destruction”, typical of all the similar crusades before, whether religious or “secular/ideological” (as in “secularized” versions of the same basic mythological themes).
Note the same old “salvation through destruction” in Marxist versions, in Nazism, and now prominently in environmental alarmism. The “destruction” element is in the “de-growth, de-development” policies of “Net Zero decarbonization”. Policies now hindering, overturning, and eventually full-frontal ruining/destroying our heritage of industrial civilization based on (what are in reality) plentiful and (hence, what should be) inexpensive fossil fuels.
Add here also the good research of atmospheric physicists like Richard Lindzen and William Happer on the physics of CO2 (see their reports at “CO2coalition.org”) and the fact that the warming influence of CO2 is now “saturated”, a physics term referring to the fact that the area on the infrared spectrum where CO2 functions to warm climate (around 15 mm) is now full. And even a doubling of CO2 levels to 800 ppm will not result in much more warming, if any.
They further add evidence on the many benefits of increased CO2 in our “CO2 starvation era” (Patrick Moore). Benefits like a massive greening of our planet, where more CO2, as basic plant food, has resulted in the addition of some 15-20% more green vegetation on Earth just since 1980. That means more food for animals and significantly increased crop production for humanity. And all this good news is a “crisis”. Huh? What the…? Why are the Greens not celebrating this incredible greening of our planet?
In a long ago article on Anthony Watts’ excellent site “Wattsupwiththat.com” some author stated that you can engage and win arguments over energy policy but if you do not engage the actual science behind climate change then you have lost the game. Here is some excellent comment on the best of climate research- i.e. Henrick Svensmark’s research on cosmic rays and cloud cover.
Let me try to summarize some overall points from Svensmark’s research:
When cosmic rays enter Earth’s atmosphere they excite atoms or molecules around which water vapor adheres, thereby forming cloud cover. While this also happens normally, the cosmic rays give more permanence to the water vapor formed, permitting more permanence to the cloud cover. Such clouds, particularly those 3000 meters and below, have significant reflective potency, reflected solar energy back out to space, thus resulting in cooling of the climate. About 30% of incoming solar energy is reflected back out by clouds.
But when there is stronger solar activity- i.e. “coronal mass ejections”- these sweep across our region of the solar system and block the cosmic rays coming in (related to the sun’s magnetic field). That hinders cloud formation, thereby resulting in more solar energy reaching the Earth and heating the climate. As Svensmark and others show, this has significant correlation to cooling and warming periods on Earth. Hadron Collider experiments have affirmed Svensmark’s research.
Using my simple-minded approach to understanding and summarizing things:
Cosmic rays = more cloud = cooling of climate.
Solar eruptions blocking cosmic rays = less cloud = warming of climate.
This from Ken Haapala’s “The Week That Was- 2025/10/04 (Oct. 4, 2025), The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)”.
Thanks to Haapala for reproducing this fascinating comment below from varied interviews of astrophysicist Henrick Svensmark the author of “The Chilling Stars”, research on how cosmic rays, as related to solar activity (i.e. coronal mass ejections), reveal a strong correlation to warming and cooling periods in climate, a much stronger correlation than the influence of CO2.
Haapala begins:
“This TWTW begins with comments on how Solar activity changes high energy cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere and how these rays change cloudiness on Earth….
He then mentions the research of Danish astrophysicist Henrick on “The Sun and Cosmic Rays”. Svensmark has “advocated the hypothesis that solar activity such as changing solar wind influence the intensity of high energy cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere. The changing intensity of cosmic rays in turn change the cloudiness of Earth. The changing cloudiness in Earth’s atmosphere has a far greater influence on climate fluctuations than changing carbon dioxide. The hypothesis has stood experimental testing by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research which has the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).”
He then moves on to an interview of Svensmark on “How Sun and Cosmic Rays Make Our Climate Change”. The interviewer Hannes Sarv asks Svensmark questions about his research in relation to the claimed “climate crisis”.
“Svensmark responds that claiming that the modest warming experienced over the last 100 years is a crisis is foolish. Cold is a greater foe of humanity than heat.”
Sarv first offers his understanding of Svensmark’s research, stating, “If there are more clouds and reflect the sunlight back to space… if it reflects more sunlight out, then well, logically, we get the cooler climate, right?”
Svensmark responds, “Yes, exactly. Observations are one of the ways we can verify that it works… there are some explosions at the sun. They’re called coronal mass ejections. It’s when the magnetic field lines sort of open up and the sun is throwing out a large magnetic plasma. And this magnetic plasma works more or less like an umbrella or a shield against the cosmic rays. So, within a week, the cosmic rays are dropping, and they can drop maybe up to 30% or something like that. And that is like a natural experiment with the whole Earth.”
He continues, “We see a drop in the clouds following these events. And it’s not just the cloud fraction, it’s also the optical properties of clouds. So, we can actually see changes in the cloud’s microphysics under these events….
Further, “The solar activity modulates the cosmic rays. And that’s simply because the solar activity translates into changes in the solar wind. And the solar wind is covering the whole solar system and all the planets. That works like it’s a magnetic shield that screens against the cosmic rays.
“So, when the solar activity is high, you can say that it’s screening better against the cosmic rays. That means you get fewer cosmic rays into the atmosphere. So solar activity can regulate the amount of cosmic rays that comes into the atmosphere. So that regulates in the cloud cover.”
Haapala interjects these comments on Svensmark’s research:
“It provides an alternative explanation to carbon dioxide for the recent warming.”
He then refers to the similar research of an Israeli scientist Nir Shaviv, “(Who) has made a case that over the long haul, the temperature of the planet depends on the cosmic ray flux, which is affected by the motion of the solar system into and out of the arms of the Milky Way.”
Continuing with the interview of Svensmark, Haapala notes the question of how Svensmark’s hypothesis fits the historical records.
Svensmark replies, “If you look at solar activity going back in time, we talked about the Little Ice Age, which is from around 1300 to 1850. And then you had the medieval warm period for 900 until maybe 1200. that these changes, they fit very beautifully with changes in cosmic rays. So, when it’s cold, you have more cosmic rays coming in. And when it’s warm, you have less cosmic rays entering into the atmosphere. And we know these changes in cosmic rays because when cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, They are actually producing new elements like carbon-14, which is a radioactive form of carbon…
“You can use carbon-14 for dating things. But this carbon becomes CO2, the heavy form from carbon, and it goes into trees. And then you can look at the annual rings of the tree rings and measure how much carbon-14 you have relative to carbon-12. And you can then measure that for all the tree rings going back in time and you can actually reproduce solar activity almost 20,000 years back in time. And if you look at these changes and you compare with how climate has been changing over that period, there is beautiful correlations again.
“So, it is near certain that there is a connection between solar activity and climate. And you can also quantify some of these changes and they are relatively big, and it seems as if that, you know, changes in clouds are a very good candidate for explaining this. And when we look about the last 10,000 years, then the modulation of the cosmic rays, it’s caused by solar activity.”
Haapala brings in other scientists who further question Svensmark about his research…
One asks this, “Okay. Let me just ask you about those cosmic rays again. You did say, but again, I’m not that bright in your field. You did say it comes from Milky Way. Okay. Why does it come from there? Or what is it? What sends it here?”
Svensmark answers, “Cosmic rays are very energetic particles. It’s mainly atomic nuclei, 90% is protons. So that’s the core of the hydrogen atom. So, the energetic particles that we are interested in are mainly produced in what we call supernova… And this supernova, when it explodes, it produces a shock front that is moving out from where the star was located. And this shock front, it works as, you can call it, a cosmic accelerator…. it accelerates particles… And these particles, they are then moving in the interstellar space in the Milky Way….
“Then some of them will be outside, you know, arrive outside our solar system…. Then some of them will then enter into the top of the atmosphere. And then you have maybe one proton that comes in with extremely high energy. And then it works a little bit like billiard ball where you have one particle hitting the molecules or the atoms in the atmosphere and it makes a shower, sort of a cascade of particles that goes down through the atmosphere… you can have one particle coming in that becomes millions and even billions of particles that move down through the atmosphere….”
Haapala ends with a reference to another scientist noting this, “I’ve also talked, for example, to Professor Zharkova. She said to me that we are entering another ice age soon.”
Svensmark replies to this point: “There’s no doubt that we will get an ice age. We have had a number of ice ages back in time. I don’t know if you’re talking about a real ice age or you’re talking about a little ice age, which is just a colder period”.
Haapala concludes: “The discussion brings up the Little Ice Age and the failure to understand brief warming and cooling periods. Then goes into the failure of global climate models, such as ignoring changes in cloudiness, then adjusting the parameters of the models to fit the data. Such actions demonstrate that the models are useless for prediction of future climate. The discission covers the unwillingness of scientists to go against the prevailing political interpretation and ugly demonstrations against Svensmark speaking in Germany. Svensmark then discusses long term climate changes and how traveling through the cosmic rays produced by supernovas may have caused Earth’s extreme ice ages (snowball Earth during the Precambrian period (720 to 635 million years ago). “
“The discussion continues with how traveling through supernovas may have changed the composition of life on Earth and concludes with asserting that the correlation between CO2 and temperatures is poor.”
This is a reference to the eras when the Earth passes through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, is subjected to supernova explosions, and how that correlates with long periods of ice ages on Earth.
Poking Grok over climate science, Wendell Krossa
I asked Grok for some comment on where CO2 operates/functions on the infrared spectrum, where CO2 exercises its warming influence on climate:
My question:
What is the number identifying where CO2 operates on the infrared spectrum?
Grok responded:
“CO2 absorbs infrared radiation primarily at wavelengths around 4.3 μm (micrometers) and 15 μm, corresponding to wavenumbers of approximately 2350 cm⁻¹ and 667 cm⁻¹, respectively. The 15 μm band is the most significant for atmospheric CO2, as it aligns with the Earth’s thermal emission spectrum, contributing to the greenhouse effect.”
I then asked further:
How long is the infrared spectrum? And why include the 4.3 micrometer number?
Grok answered:
“The infrared spectrum spans wavelengths from about 0.7 μm to 1000 μm (700 nm to 1 mm), divided into near-infrared (0.7–2.5 μm), mid-infrared (2.5–25 μm), and far-infrared (25–1000 μm). This range corresponds to wavenumbers from approximately 14,286 cm⁻¹ to 10 cm⁻¹.
“The 4.3 μm number for CO2 is included because it represents a key absorption band where CO2 strongly interacts with infrared radiation, due to its molecular vibrational modes (specifically, the asymmetric stretch). While the 15 μm band is more dominant for Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse effect, the 4.3 μm band is significant in contexts like atmospheric sensing or planetary studies, as it’s a strong absorption feature in CO2’s infrared spectrum.”
I probed further:
Richard Lindzen and William Happer, among others, state that CO2’s ability to warm at the 15 micro-meter range is now limited because that range of infrared is now “saturated”.
Grok replied further:
“The claim by Richard Lindzen and William Happer that CO2’s ability to warm at the 15 μm range is “saturated” refers to the idea that the atmosphere is already so opaque to infrared radiation at this wavelength that adding more CO2 has a diminishing effect on additional warming. Let’s unpack this with clarity:
Infrared Spectrum and CO2 Absorption
“The infrared spectrum, as noted, spans roughly 0.7 μm to 1000 μm. CO2 absorbs strongly at 15 μm (around 667 cm⁻¹), corresponding to its bending vibrational mode, which is critical for trapping outgoing longwave radiation (the greenhouse effect). This band is indeed where CO2 has its most significant impact on Earth’s climate.
Saturation Argument
“The “saturation” argument suggests that at current CO2 concentrations (~420 ppm as of 2025), the 15 μm absorption band is so effective that most infrared radiation at this wavelength is already absorbed within a short distance in the atmosphere. Adding more CO2, they argue, primarily affects absorption in the “wings” (edges) of the band or at higher altitudes, where the atmosphere is colder and emits less radiation, leading to a logarithmic rather than linear increase in warming. This is grounded in radiative transfer physics:
• Absorption Saturation: In the center of the 15 μm band, absorption is nearly complete in the lower atmosphere. Additional CO2 increases absorption slightly at the band’s edges or in thinner upper atmospheric layers.
• Logarithmic Forcing: The radiative forcing from CO2 scales logarithmically with concentration, meaning each doubling of CO2 (e.g., from 400 to 800 ppm) produces roughly the same additional forcing (~3.7 W/m² per doubling, per IPCC estimates).
Why 4.3 μm Was Mentioned
“I included the 4.3 μm band because it’s another strong CO2 absorption feature, relevant in contexts like spectroscopy or planetary atmospheres. However, it’s less significant for Earth’s greenhouse effect because it lies outside the peak of Earth’s thermal emission spectrum (~10–20 μm). The 15 μm band is central to the saturation debate, so my mention of 4.3 μm was supplementary to provide a fuller picture of CO2’s infrared interactions.
Evaluating the Saturation Claim
“While the 15 μm band is highly absorbent, “saturation” doesn’t mean CO2 stops contributing to warming. Key points:
1. Band Wings and Altitude Effects: Increased CO2 broadens absorption in the wings of the 15 μm band and shifts the effective radiating layer higher, where it’s colder, reducing outgoing radiation and enhancing warming.
2. Quantitative Impact: Climate models and measurements (e.g., satellite observations of outgoing longwave radiation) show that CO2’s forcing continues to increase with concentration, albeit logarithmically. Studies, like those in the IPCC AR6, estimate that even at current levels, additional CO2 contributes measurably to warming.
3. Critiques of Saturation: Critics of Lindzen and Happer argue that saturation is overstated because the atmosphere’s complexity (e.g., pressure broadening, overlapping absorptions with water vapor) ensures CO2 remains effective. Observational data from AIRS and IASI satellites confirm ongoing changes in infrared absorption with rising CO2.
Context of Lindzen and Happer
“Lindzen and Happer are prominent skeptics of mainstream climate sensitivity estimates. Their saturation argument is used to suggest lower climate sensitivity (e.g., 0.5–1.5°C per CO2 doubling) compared to IPCC ranges (2.5–4°C). However, mainstream climate science, supported by radiative transfer models and observations, finds that while saturation reduces the marginal effect of CO2, it doesn’t eliminate it, and feedbacks (e.g., water vapor, clouds) amplify warming.
“In summary, the 15 μm band is highly absorbent, but not fully “saturated” in a way that halts CO2’s warming potential. The logarithmic nature of forcing means diminishing returns, but measurable warming persists with rising CO2, consistent with observations and models.”
(End of Grok comments.)
My added notes on Grok’s comments:
Note Grok’s appeal to “mainstream climate sensitivity estimates”. He used to respond to my inquires on climate science by summarizing his counter points with appeal to the “consensus science” of the alarmist narrative. Grok made persistent retreats to affirm the alarmist narrative as the final word on any issue I raised.
The appeal to a climate alarmism “consensus” is something that was long ago discredited as fraudulent. Grok appears to have now shifted to a milder affirmation of the alarmist narrative with this reference to “mainstream climate…”. Note the subtle dismissal of skeptical climate science in Grok’s use of this term “mainstream”, meaning that skeptics of the alarmist narrative are “non-mainstream”- a new take on “climate change deniers”?
I give props to Grok for being honest enough to include the qualifier that “The logarithmic nature of forcing means diminishing returns”, though Grok then immediately follows with a further counter qualification on that bit of honesty- “but measurable warming persists with rising CO2”. And that qualification of a qualification is weakened by his appeal to the highly discredited climate “models”.
Grok seems unaware of the evidence that the CO2 influence on climate is consistently overwhelmed by significant other natural factors, resulting in notable disconnects between CO2 and climate warming periods. That has been noted over long-term paleo-climate eras as well as over shorter periods of the ice-age eras of glaciations/inter-glacial periods (e.g. Vostok ice-core research), millennia scales, centuries, and shorter.
This from Shellenberger
“Democrats’ Refusal To Demand Withdrawal Of Virginia AG Nominee Is A Dangerous New Low In American Politics: Jay Jones openly fantasized about the murder of his political opponents and the deaths of their children”, Michael Shellenberger, Oct. 6, 2025
https://www.public.news/p/democrats-refusal-to-demand-withdrawal
Michael opens this comment on left-wing violence by recounting the nonviolent approach of Charlie Kirk:
“In the weeks since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some on the Left have made calls to lower the temperature and re-humanize the other side. ‘I admired his passion and commitment to debate,’ said California Governor Gavin Newsom. ‘His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence.’ New York Times columnist Ezra Klein wrote, ‘Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him.’ And, at BlueSky, the Left’s alternative to X, The Atlantic’s Sally Jenkins wrote, ‘I didn’t agree with much that he said, but he was interesting and he was growing, and his death is a significant loss for those who believe engagement can help bridge disagreements.’”
He then moves on to this:
“But now, the unwillingness of any high-profile Democratic elected official, candidate, or Party leader to demand that Jay Jones withdraw from Virginia’s attorney general race has set a new low in American political life.
“In a resurfaced 2022 text message, Jones openly fantasized about the murder of his Republican opponents and the death of their children. “Gilbert gets two bullets to the head,” said Jones in a text message to a former state legislative colleague.”
Michael balances the Jones thing with the reminder that Republicans have similarly expressed wishes for harm and the death of their enemies.
Returning to the Jones incident, Michael says “the episode marks a dangerous new low in American political life, and comes at a time of many other signs that the Left supports violence at dangerously high rates. Fifty-five percent of people who self-identified as left of center told pollsters it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Donald Trump, and 48 percent said the same about Elon Musk. And 25 percent of people who describe themselves as “very liberal” and 17 percent of people who describe themselves as “liberal” say that it is sometimes justified to resort to violence to achieve political goals.”
He asks, “How in the world did we get to this new low? What made the Left so violent?”
He suggests several factors, “Partisanship, obviously, is behind much of the hatred.”
Also, “Youth and gender may also help explain violent fantasies by Jones and others on the Left…. Younger Americans and men are more likely to justify political violence than older generations and women. Among liberals aged 18 to 44, a full 26 percent agree that political violence can sometimes be justified, and 22 percent say it’s acceptable to be happy about public figures’ deaths.”
Then he adds, “Narcissism may help explain Jones’ behavior. Research finds that people high in narcissism ‘participate more in politics.’ And two much-discussed 2023 studies by Swiss social psychologists found that ‘left-wing authoritarianism,’ defined as the view that ‘violent revolution against existing societal structures is legitimate,’ correlated strongly with narcissism, which appears to be common among politicians. ‘Considering these results,’ the authors wrote, ‘we assume that some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs’.”
He urges consideration of more factors, “Peel the onion further, and one can see in both Jones’ texts… the intense expression of emotion with an attitude of entitlement. Jones was so obsessed with expressing his feelings that he wouldn’t let it go”. Shellenberger says this is “the Left’s culture of highly emotive, expressive individualism.”
Shellenberger then concludes, “Finally, the rising support for political violence likely represents a continued degradation of traditional religious norms against murder and violence.” He says that the Left’s affirmation of violence against opponents, violates Christianity’s Golden Rule, “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” He then says that the abandonment of traditional religious and moral values is more pronounced on the left.
Here Michael now sounds muddled and gets lost in urging some revival of traditional religion, a return to traditional Christianity.
That needs clarification as the history of Christianity has been that of one of the most violent movements in all history. What was that about?
The message of Jesus was about non-tribalism, non-violence, non-retaliation, generous forgiveness and inclusive love. But those “diamonds” of the Jesus message were buried in the Christian New Testament that is dominated by Paul’s entirely opposite Christ myth, and that is the heart and core of Christ-ianity. The Christ was all about ultimate violence and destruction. Paul’s Christ, entirely opposite to Jesus and his message, was the ultimate icon/archetype of violence. Michael, read the New Testament.
A few examples from the New Testament of Paul’s gospel and his Christ advocating violence:
Matthew has his version of Christ repeatedly pronouncing woe on evildoers, stating that they will be thrown into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew has his Jesus (not the actual Historical person) repeating that phrase again and again (see chapters 11-13, and others later). Remember that attributing advocacy for violence to some respected authority then legitimizes violence for others.
The Jesus of Matthew states that sinners/unbelievers will be thrown into the fires of hell, or into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Then in letters like Galatians, Paul states that any not believing his Christ will be eternally damned, the unbelievers will reap destruction. In his Ephesians letter he talks of God’s wrath coming on the disobedient. In Philippians Paul claims that unbelievers “will be destroyed”.
In First and Second Thessalonians Paul says that Jesus “will retaliate and pay back, when he is revealed from heaven in blazing fire. He will punish those who do not obey the gospel. They (the unbelievers) will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.”
In 1 Timothy Paul speaks of unbelievers being judged, condemned, and destroyed. Paul is constructing his new Christian religion as a movement that promotes ultimate divine violence.
And this, Michael, is the religion you want revived?
The violence and destruction and hell-fire reaches a horrific crescendo in John’s Revelation where the Christ is portrayed with “eyes blazing with fiery rage, his robe bloodied from destroying his enemies.” John says, “(Christ) tramples out the fury of the wrath of God”, then casts his enemies into the lake of burning sulphur.
Reviving traditional Christianity, without properly distinguishing and separating the message of Jesus from that of Paul’s opposite Christ message, only results in restoring some of the worst beliefs and ideals that have long incited and validated some of the worst violence across history. The Crusades, Inquisitions, torture and murder of heretics and witches all show the consequences of holding to beliefs that validate divine retaliatory violence against enemies.
But yes, Michael is right to pull out of the Christian New Testament precepts like Jesus’ Golden Rule. Just make sure that you clean off that diamond from the muddying Christ material. That was Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy’s argument.
Again, I would suggest that Michael remember those statements of psychologist/theologian Harold Ellens:
“There is in Western culture a psychological archetype, a metaphor that has to do with the image of a violent and wrathful God (see Romans, Revelation). Crystallized in Anselm’s juridical atonement theory, this image represents God sufficiently disturbed by the sinfulness of humanity that God had only two options: destroy us or substitute a sacrifice to pay for our sins. He did the latter. He killed Christ.”
“Ellens goes on by stating that the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’. Such a metaphor of an angry God, who cannot forgive unless appeased by a bloody sacrifice, has been ‘right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.
“’With that kind of metaphor at our center, and associated with the essential behavior of God, how could we possibly hold, in the deep structure of our unconscious motivations, any other notion of ultimate solutions to ultimate questions or crises than violence- human solutions that are equivalent to God’s kind of violence’…
“Hence, in our culture we have a powerful element that impels us to violence, a Cruel God Image… that also contributes to guilt, shame, and the impoverishment of personality…”.
As Harold Ellens says, “If your God uses force, then so may you, to get your way against your ‘enemies’”.
(End of Ellens quotes)
Michael could benefit from a look at the research from “Search for Historical Jesus”, “Jesus Seminar” books, and “Q Wisdom Sayings” research, all showing a notable difference between the actual historical person Jesus, and Paul’s reframing him in his “Jesus Christ” myth that resulted in denying the theological breakthrough of Jesus (i.e. God as unconditional love) and re-affirming the opposite theology (God as highly conditional demanding sacrifice). The Gospel writers took Paul’s Christ myth as their authority and then created sayings and incidents/events that they attributed to Jesus but that are entirely opposite to his actual message that has been best summarized in places like Luke 6: 27-36. The result, as Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy stated, is that the “diamonds” of Jesus have been “buried” by the dominance of Paul’s Christ in the New Testament.
Here is an illustration of “suicidal empathy” in a justice system, where well-intentioned judges with a seriously deformed view of compassion appear to be endangering the public and neglecting the number one responsibility of government to protect citizens from assault, from harm. Judges refuse to do so with repeat offenders.
This illustrates a stunning abandonment of common sense and common responsibility.
We hear the stories in US Democratic-run cities, where, based on criteria like skin color and minority status, repeat violent offenders are freed to harm again. Is this due in some way to Woke Progressivism DEI ideology those people are considered “oppressed/victimized” and should then be freed regardless of their criminal history? Oppressed status, defined by skin color, apparently overrules other considerations. Grok replies to this below.
But first this example:
“FIRST READING: B.C. report details how a few people are causing most of the crime: Kelowna says downtown is being devastated by only a handful of chronic offenders that are constantly sprung from jail”, Tristin Hopper, Oct. 3, 2025
Hopper begins:
“In a uniquely meticulous account of the damage done by ‘catch and release’ justice, the City of Kelowna has published a report outlining just how few people are spiking the city’s crime rate.
“Over the course of 2024, the B.C. city found that 1,335 police files were caused by just 15 people.”
Hopper then notes that three offenders were the worst of the worst in terms of being caught and released to commit further multiple offenses, including violent offenses. These three were subject to police calls every four days on average. They were undeterred and emboldened by the catch and release approach.
“The report also noted that while Kelowna’s career thieves used to be distinct from its violent criminals, they were increasingly the same group: A ‘criminal ecosystem’ engaged in stealing and hurting people in equal measure.”
Mayors of BC cities sent a letter to the provincial government showing data that reveals “that just 200 ‘super-prolific’ offenders were singlehandedly undoing civic efforts to bring down crime.” The mayors made recommendations including tougher bail conditions and longer sentences for chronic offenders. They, and the report noted above, state that “civic disorder has generally risen in tandem with plummeting charge rates.”
The report adds that BC leads Canada in “lax criminal sentencing.”
Alberta premier Danielle Smith illustrates the insanity of catch and release, of letting chronic violent offenders repeatedly go free to cause more harm to innocent civilians.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOwOXEaD7uU/?igsh=azJlZTl6eTQ0Y3Vi&fbclid=IwY2xjawNQBX9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHruM_ULBFyDK6P9ipch9PXZJOwczzcWOWmQ_R9mBPcvPa4GWE8BMQ5KGSDoq_aem_dP3r2v23hS3C2jo57Eun9A
“Families should not have to live in fear while violent offenders walk free. It’s time to end Ottawa’s catch-and-release bail system.” This was introduced by Justin Trudeau to ignore criminal history and exercise “suicidal empathy” toward offenders by evaluating them according to other criteria than their actual criminal record.
My question to Grok in regard to this issue of catch and release: And just a reminder that Grok somewhat mindlessly just summarizes material from across the board, including the defensive excuses of those proposing such “catch and release” policies. This summarizing from across the spectrum of commentary/”evidence” colors Grok’s statements of “facts”.
Grok, we hear the stories in US Democratic run cities, where, based on criteria like skin color and minority status, repeat violent offenders are freed to harm again. In Woke Progressivism DEI ideology those people are considered “oppressed/victimized” who should then be freed regardless of their criminal history. Oppressed status, defined by skin color, overrules other considerations. Your thoughts.
Grok responds:
The narrative you’re describing taps into a heated debate around criminal justice reforms, particularly in cities with progressive leadership like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. These often involve bail reform laws that aim to reduce pretrial detention by eliminating or limiting cash bail for certain offenses, with the goal of addressing economic inequalities in the system.
Critics, especially from conservative viewpoints, argue that such policies lead to “catch-and-release” scenarios where repeat offenders— sometimes violent ones— are freed and go on to commit more crimes, framing it as a byproduct of “woke” or DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) ideologies that prioritize “oppressed” status over public safety. I’ll break down my thoughts based on available data and context, aiming for a balanced, evidence-based perspective rather than partisanship.
First, on the stories of repeat offenders being released and reoffending: These aren’t just anecdotes; there are documented cases, particularly highlighted in media coverage of Democratic-led jurisdictions. For instance, in New York City post-2020 bail reform, high-profile incidents include individuals arrested for violent crimes like assault or robbery who were released without bail and later charged with additional offenses, such as the 2025 case of a suspect in a subway stabbing who had prior arrests. Similar patterns appear in Chicago, where arrest rates for violent crimes are low (around 5% in 2024), and critics point to released offenders contributing to cycles of violence.
Conservative outlets often cite these as evidence of soft-on-crime policies enabling a “government-backed crime spree.” Studies on federal violent offenders show high recidivism rates overall—over 60% rearrested within years of release, regardless of jurisdiction. In California, after speeding up prisoner releases, there was concern about violent reoffenders, though overall recidivism has been falling. These examples fuel the perception that reforms prioritize leniency over accountability, especially in urban areas with rising violent crime stats in the early 2020s.
That said, the broader data on bail reform’s impact is more nuanced and doesn’t uniformly support a direct link to widespread crime spikes or increased recidivism. Multiple studies from non-partisan sources like the Brennan Center find no significant changes in crime trends 12 months post-reform in major cities. In New York, eliminating bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies actually reduced re-arrest rates (44% vs. 50% pre-reform). Other analyses echo this: No causal link between bail reform and higher recidivism, with some showing public safety improvements because fewer people are detained pretrial (99% of released individuals in one study weren’t re-arrested for violent crimes).
Fact-checks from outlets like NewsNation conclude there’s no proven surge in crime tied to cashless bail policies. However, subgroup effects exist— reform can increase recidivism for certain nonviolent felony charges— and critics like some district attorneys argue zero-bail leads to more crime based on local data. The discrepancy often boils down to methodology: High-profile cases grab headlines, but aggregate stats suggest reforms don’t broadly drive crime up, though they may in specific contexts or for certain offender types.
Now, tying this to “Woke Progressivism DEI ideology” and the idea that “oppressed status, defined by skin color, overrules other considerations”: This framing seems to stem from critiques of how DEI principles influence policy, but it oversimplifies and isn’t strongly supported by how these systems actually work. DEI in criminal justice focuses on addressing systemic biases— things like reducing racial disparities in policing, charging, and sentencing— to promote equity.
For example, organizations emphasize transparency, diverse teams in law enforcement, and reforms to mitigate overrepresentation of minorities in the system. It’s not about freeing people “regardless of criminal history” based on race; release decisions are typically tied to charge severity, flight risk, and public safety assessments, not explicit racial criteria. In fact, data shows persistent racial disparities against minorities: Black and Latino defendants are more likely to face higher bail amounts, detention, and punitive pretrial outcomes than white defendants, with gaps ranging from 10-80% across studies.
Bail reform is partly designed to counteract this, as cash bail disproportionately impacts low-income communities of color. There’s no mainstream policy evidence that “skin color” directly trumps criminal history in release decisions; if anything, biases lead to harsher treatment for minorities.
Critics do argue that DEI can veer into reverse discrimination, with some DOJ signals in 2025 about potential enforcement against DEI programs that violate civil rights laws. And in the cultural debate, terms like “oppressed/victimized” are used to critique progressive views that emphasize structural racism over individual accountability. But equating DEI directly to race-based leniency in bail ignores that these policies are race-neutral on paper, even if they aim to reduce disparities.
Overall, while tragic reoffending cases highlight real flaws in implementation— perhaps needing better risk assessments or swift consequences for violations— the idea that these policies systematically free violent offenders based on minority status doesn’t hold up against the data. Reforms stem from efforts to fix a system that’s historically unequal, but they’ve sparked valid concerns about balancing equity with safety. Solutions might involve data-driven tweaks, like targeting reforms to low-risk cases or increasing support for mental health and addiction treatment to break recidivism cycles. What do you think— any specific cities or cases you’re referencing?
My further probing this issue with Grok:
What about this situation in Kelowna described in Tristin Hopper’s article- https://nationalpost.com/opinion/b-c-report-details-just-how-few-people-are-causing-all-the-crime?itm_source=index FIRST READING: B.C. report details how a few people are causing most of the crime Kelowna says downtown is being devastated by only a handful of chronic offenders that are constantly sprung from jail, Tristin Hopper
Grok answered:
This Kelowna situation is a stark, localized illustration of the broader challenges we’ve been discussing around criminal justice reforms and their unintended consequences— particularly the “catch-and-release” dynamic that allows a tiny cadre of repeat offenders to wreak havoc while straining public resources. Tristin Hopper’s piece in the National Post dives into a recent City of Kelowna “advocacy paper” (essentially a 14-page report from late 2024 or early 2025) that lays it all bare, and it’s tough to read without feeling the frustration of a system that’s more revolving door than lockup. Let me unpack the key details and tie it back to our conversation.
At the heart of it, downtown Kelowna— a vibrant Okanagan Valley hub known for wineries and tourism— is getting pummeled by just 15 chronic offenders. These individuals generated a whopping 1,335 police files in 2024 alone, averaging a call every four days per person. That’s not hyperbole; it’s the kind of relentless churn that overwhelms RCMP detachments, fire services, paramedics, and even outreach workers.
The report calls their criminality “staggering and relentless,” focusing on property crimes like theft and break-ins that have become the “most visible and disruptive” blight on the area. But it’s not just smash-and-grabs— there’s a nasty overlap with violence, creating what the report dubs a “criminal ecosystem” where stealing escalates to assaults and robberies.
To drive the point home, the report anonymously profiles three archetypes (not outliers, but typical cases):
• “The Frequent Flyer”: 223 police interactions over four years, including assaults, thefts, and threats. This person blew through 31 bail violations and skipped 32 court dates.
• Another subject racked up 70 files in the first seven months of 2025, with 13 violent offenses (one every two weeks)— think weapon-related assaults, robberies, and nonstop breaches of probation. The report notes how these folks seem “undeterred and emboldened,” with “care and consequences… absent.”
This isn’t some abstract stat dump; it’s undoing years of progress. Kelowna’s overall criminal charges have halved since 2014 (from 2,024 to 1,043 per 100,000 people), but these few bad actors are singlehandedly spiking civic disorder and eroding public trust in the streets. And British Columbia’s justice system? It’s the country’s softest touch, with 76.5% of sentences under 30 days— way above the national 58.5% average— making meaningful deterrence feel like a pipe dream.
Tying this to the bail reform and “woke” ideology critiques you raised: The Kelowna report doesn’t explicitly invoke DEI or skin color as factors (the profiles are anonymized and focus on behavior, not demographics), but it hammers the provincial policies that echo those U.S. urban reforms we talked about. These offenders get “routinely released with conditions” they ignore, cycling back out to offend again— classic catch-and-release. Back in 2022, Kelowna’s mayor joined 12 other B.C. mayors in a letter blasting the province over ~200 “super-prolific” offenders province-wide, citing one Kelowna case with 346 files and 29 convictions in just six years, yet still getting sprung repeatedly.
A 2022 provincial report on chronic offending offered 28 recommendations but shied away from tougher bail or longer sentences, even suggesting ditching the term “prolific offender” because it “perpetuates harm and stigma” (a nod to progressive framing around victimization and systemic issues). Three years later, per Kelowna, nothing’s improved— charge rates are cratering, and disorder’s rising.
In my view, this underscores a core tension: Well-intentioned reforms (in B.C., like reduced cash bail and emphasis on alternatives to incarceration) aim to break cycles of poverty and marginalization that fuel recidivism, but without robust enforcement, risk assessments, or wraparound supports (e.g., mandatory treatment for addiction/mental health), they enable the worst actors to game the system.
It’s not about “oppressed status” overriding accountability here— the report frames these as behavioral patterns needing consequences, not excuses— but it does highlight how short sentences and lax releases fail to address root causes or protect the community. Kelowna’s plea is essentially a call for balance: Keep equity in mind but prioritize public safety with tools like electronic monitoring or specialized courts for high-risk repeaters.
Hopper’s take resonates because it’s grounded in this raw data from a “progressive” Canadian context— no U.S. partisan fireworks needed to see the dysfunction. If anything, it bolsters the case for data-driven tweaks over ideological overhauls. Have you seen similar reports from other Canadian cities, or does this make you think B.C.’s policies need a federal nudge?
Hamas influenced/shaped by religious beliefs, Wendell Krossa
This author below (“What Hamas really wants”) gets something of the fact that Islamic violence is motivated by, among other factors, its religious beliefs. Dominantly so. In the broadest terms I would define those religious beliefs in terms of the same “apocalyptic millennialism” of other main Western religions.
I have repeatedly posted a summary list of the bad ideas that were formed and expressed in the earliest human mythologies and then embraced later by the great world religions, and that basic complex of mythical themes has been passed from generation to generation across history. Those themes were long ago embedded in human subconscious as archetypes that persistently influence people to unquestioningly embrace ever new versions of that same complex of bad religious ideas (summarized by some historians as “apocalyptic millennialism”).
Affirming the persistence of those archetypes, we have confirmed and detailed evidence today that they have also been embraced in “secular/ideological” versions for the modern world, notably in Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmist versions.
The profoundly religious element in the human psyche still shapes human thought, emotions, motivations, and responses/behavior and will not disappear from human narratives and consciousness despite the modern-era push for philosophical materialism, atheism to dominate our minds. We are profoundly “homo-religiosus” because we are governed by our primal impulse to meaning and purpose.
Hence, the archetypes of our subconscious, long shaped by primitive religious ideas/themes, impel us to repeatedly embrace religiously-shaped narratives, both in religious and secularized versions. Evidence? Look at the support across the planet for Net Zero decarbonization, the salvation element of the climate apocalypse crusade. A profoundly religious crusade.
Understand the basic archetypes and you will possess the tools to understand better why people continue to embrace new versions of the “same old” as history rolls along. Kristian Niemietz in his great history of socialism (“Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”) summed up how those archetypes continue to shape our narratives when he stated this, based on research of people like social psychologist Jonathan Haidt:
“Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs.”
We respond emotionally to the archetypes of our subconscious, allowing ourselves to be convinced by and embrace ever-new iterations of apocalyptic millennial narratives. New versions like the Marxist and Nazi versions resonated with many as true-ish, right, good. Hence, many also still affirm climate apocalypse, “despite contrary evidence”.
This article below is not entirely clear on the religious element in the Hamas narrative. That religious element is better understood by the larger context of Islamic “apocalyptic millennialism”, with its central theme of “salvation through destruction”. Again, common to all major religious traditions. ISIS more clearly exhibited this worldview when they began their crusade in Syria (2014) believing that if they initiated extermination violence against the enemies of God (bring on the apocalypse), then the Mahdi (Islamic Messiah figure) or God would descend and finish the extermination battle, and then the Caliphate would be spread to the world. This is more than a regional power’s expansionism. This is a global vision, intention, and plan.
See comment in sections below on the Muslim Brotherhood’s long-game plan to overthrow Western liberal democracies and install Islamic theocracy across the world.
Anyway, this article below makes a bit of a peripheral point about the religious factor motivating Hamas, as evident in the ongoing Hamas commitment to the annihilation of Israel.
In general today, there is a dismissal of the role that religious ideas, very primitive in terms of when they were first proposed and in their core nature (i.e. validating tribalism, domination, punitive retaliation and destruction of “enemies”, etc.), there is ongoing dismissal of the vital role these ideas/themes continue to play in our lives, whether in religious systems/traditions or in “secular/ideological” versions.
This reality encompasses most of us. Even those among us who are adamant that they are fully secularized, materialists, even atheist in terms of their belief systems, but still embrace things like the climate alarmism crusade with its own unique version of apocalypse, demand to join a battle to purge evil enemies (“climate deniers”), to embrace salvation through destruction (purge the evil of industrial society), and then find salvation in some utopian millennial paradise (restored wilderness world with fewer people, without the “population bomb”). The historians of apocalyptic millennialism have soused out these beliefs in environmentalism, along with the very same beliefs in Marxism and Nazism.
Anyway, this article making the point on the “extermination” belief of Hamas.
“What Hamas Really Wants: The Ideology of the Islamic Resistance Movement: Book excerpt: Hamas feigned moderation but is committed to a religio-political ideology that holds Israel’s existence to be an affront to God”, Cole Bunzel, Oct. 7, 2025
Bunzel begins, “If the horrific events of October 7, 2023, ought to have made anything clear, it is that Hamas never ceased to bear violent, annihilationist intentions toward Israel, contrary to what many over the years had claimed or suggested.
Bunzel notes that a Hamas military leader listed grievances against Israel but “made clear that forcing change in Israeli policy was not the purpose of the assault”.
The leader said, “Today, yes, today,” he thundered, “our people resume their revolution, rectify their path and return to the plan of liberation and the establishment of the state through blood and martyrdom. … Today is the day of the great revolution that will end the last occupation and the last racist apartheid regime in the world.”
And as with ISIS in Syria, the Oct.7 attack was intended to incite a larger battle and conquest, with the assumption that Iran and other allies would join in.
The author then again affirms the intent of Hamas to annihilate Israel. Hamas fighters and civilian allies “all praised the attack as an act of righteous and divinely sanctioned violence, the ultimate goal of which was to destroy Israel.”
“Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas politburo member based in Lebanon… affirmed in a late October interview that Hamas’s intention was to repeat the violence of October 7 attack until Israel was finally annihilated.”
Bunzel then notes that Hamas successfully deceived Israel, “The Lebanon-based Ali Baraka, boasted in an interview on October 8 about how Hamas had deceived Israel: ‘We made them think that Hamas was busy with governing Gaza, and that it wanted to focus on the 2.5 million Palestinians (in Gaza), and has abandoned the resistance altogether. All the while, under the table, Hamas was preparing for this big attack’….”
The author adds, “Another group to have been deceived was the academic and analytical community. Many elements of this group believed not only that Hamas was deterred but indeed that it was evolving into a more moderate and pragmatic actor, one that Israel and the international community could profitably engage….”
“In the same vein, the Harvard scholar Sara Roy, in a 2011 book about Hamas’s social services sector, observed that ‘Hamas has a history of nonviolent accommodation and political adaptation, ideological reflexivity and transformation, and political pragmatism that the West should welcome.’ She similarly made light of Hamas’s religiosity, stating that ‘Hamas’s fundamental impulse is political and nationalist, not religious, which has accounted for its pragmatism and flexibility’.”
This proved to be dangerous self-deception, because “Hamas, as it turned out, had been neither deterred nor transformed.”
The author then concludes: “What Hamas showed was that it remained committed to a religiopolitical ideology that holds Israel’s existence to be an affront to God.”