Further input from Rogan on a point I made in my blog– “The battle against elite domination and control” in the section below. This from the same Joe Rogan podcast referred to in that blog.
Joe Rogan Experience #2444 – Andrew Wilson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Jalhl4CEE
And this is from a more recent Rogan podcast with friend Bert Kreischer:
Joe Rogan Experience #2445 – Bert Kreischer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYcuTY7tnvk
Starting around the 1-hour mark till about the 1-hour and 20-minute mark, listen to Rogan and Kreischer discuss behind the scenes shenanigans of elites and state bureaucrats.
This relates to my points below on understanding the “behind the scenes” activities of elites and bureaucrats to dominate and control societies thereby making a mockery of liberal democracy by undermining and rejecting the fundamental principles, laws, and obligation of elites/bureaucrats to serve citizens through truly representative institutions. What is being exposed is the corruption of our democracies.
Rogan and Kreischer discuss what was exposed by the Frank Church Commission in the 70s, how mainstream media was controlled by behind the scenes agencies, mainly the CIA then, with apparently some 400 agents, or related individuals, involved in bribing, blackmailing, and by other means controlling media people to put forth approved narratives to manipulate the general population. What that revealed was that even in the great democracy of the US there is the ongoing endeavor to dominate and control others for whatever agendas many are now trying to expose.
Rogan then recounts for Kreischer how they (i.e. CIA, FBI) overthrew Nixon’s presidency and the role that Bob Woodward, a Navy intelligence agent, played that was critical to that “coup”. He had never done journalism before and was given a job at the Washington Post and overnight, as a complete rookie reporter, he was placed in charge of the single greatest political story in US history- Watergate.
Rogan had Bill Murray on his podcast previously and Murrey had told Joe of the time he read Woodward’s book “Wired”, a biographical account of Murray’s best friend SNL comedian John Belushi. Murray said that he only got a few pages into Woodward’s book and it hit him that if Woodward was lying about his friend, as was obvious in his bio of Belushi, then it was true- they (FBI, CIA) had overthrown the presidency of Nixon.
Rogan continues, referring to his interview of Tucker Carlson who had told him the same- i.e. that media are being used as “tools” to coverup behind the scenes manipulation by state elites/bureaucrats to dominate and control the public, when as Carlson says, if they were true journalists they would be confronting and working to restrain power, not be tools of power.
Carlson then repeats the account of Bob Woodward who had never done any journalism before and was an intelligence agent, even working as such for the White House. He was then put in the Washington Post position and the very first thing, something that never happens to any rookie journalist, he is put in charge of the biggest story ever- Watergate. As Carlson says, “that was a deep state coup” to overthrow the most popular president ever in terms of winning an election with the most votes cast. Yet they overthrew him.
And Woodward’s main source for the Watergate exposure was the number 2 man at the FBI. Again, this is stunning information on the elite manipulation of public narratives, their domination and control of our societies.
Carlson continues, stating that the guys who broke into the Watergate headquarters were all CIA personnel, except for one. And, as Carlson notes, the entire operation to overthrow Nixon was “done right before our eyes” and we all believed the account that media fed us of the “crooked Nixon”. It was all cloaked as something good and righteous being done to expose and overthrow evil. The common practise of “cloaking evil as good”. To manipulate public perception.
Nixon, the most popular president ever, elected by the most votes ever and yet within 2 years he is thrown out of office by an intelligence agent who was helped by the number 2 guy at the FBI, along with CIA employees. One suggested motivation for that coup, says Carlson, was that Nixon had told the CIA director at that time that he was going to expose those who had murdered JFK.
The point I take from such things is– be skeptical of all you hear, especially from mainstream media. We have just been through the “Russiagate hoax” that consumed public discourse for about 3 years, all intended to impeach an elected president and overturn an election. Then the Hunter Biden laptop lie to influence an election, even though the FBI had that laptop a year earlier in 2019 and knew it was authentic. Yet those 51 intelligence officials, knowing they were lying, put out the denial, claiming that it was “Russian disinformation”.
This is what Jimmy Dore meant when he stated, “We are the most lied to, propagandized people and we don’t know it”. His point- that elites/bureaucrats behind the scenes are manipulating public narratives through control of media. Covid lying by “experts/government” was another illustration of this. As Rogan notes, most media are controlled by the big Pharma corporations that finance most media advertising and that is critical to the survival of media companies. Hence, they function as “tools” of power, not truth-tellers confronting power.
Rogan then shows Kreischer how MSNBC doctored the picture of Alex Pretti who was recently shot by the ICE agents. He is made to appear much more handsome and healthy in the doctored photograph- i.e. nose shortened, teeth straightened, shoulders broadened, skin tanned, etc., making him appear more acceptable to the public. Again, more information on how we are manipulated to be dominated and controlled by behind-the-scenes agents/agencies. The point made is not to dismiss possible excessive response on the part of ICE agents or to downplay the tragedy of such shootings. But it has been noted that both sides immediately jump on such incidents and frame them to affirm their politics.
The alternative to such manipulation by conventional media, says Rogan- Go to independent media, to podcasters like Matt Taibbi, Glen Greenwald, Michael Shellenberger, and others still trying to do actual journalism that exposes such corruption of our liberal democracies.
Another note:
Cloaking evil as good is something common to all of us because we prefer to put forth the best image of ourselves as part of our natural impulse to virtue-signal for status in our societies (whether at the scale of family, local, or larger arenas). Jordan Peterson notes that the impulse to virtue-signal as good is a natural psychological drive. It becomes deformed when people use it to virtue-signal as morally superior to others, and to devalue and destroy differing others.
We also naturally want to engage a Hero’s Quest to portray ourselves as heroes engaged in some righteous war against evil enemies/threats (i.e. those who differ from us, who oppose us). But we have to be careful not to turn that into a mental deformity by exaggerating our own goodness as contrasted with exaggerated portrayals of differing other’s “evil”.
And we all (or most/many?) suffer from what is known as “imposter’s syndrome” because we feel that if people knew the truth about us and our imperfections, they would not like us, maybe even reject us. This is quite wrong because when we are honest about our own fallibility, our failures and mistakes, such honesty will evoke natural sympathy, empathy, from others who are also able to be honest about their own fallibility and failures and, hence, are willing to forgive and tolerate other’s similar imperfection.
Whereas, those among us who continue to deny and lie about personal failures and portray themselves as far better than they really are, when exposed then evoke disappointment and even disgust for not being honest about themselves. We saw this with Ellen DeGeneres, Bill Clinton, and other public examples, either lying about personal failure or hiding it behind public facades of exaggerated goodness.
It is best, when exposed in some way, to not fear being honest about such failure, to come clean, and admit the failure if publicly necessary. Because failure is common to all of us and if we are willing to admit it, and to ask for forgiveness, most others are willing to grant that. We can then get up, clean ourselves off, take responsibility for any consequences, and then move forward again. Such is common human story.
New…
Grok, your comments on the essay “The battle against elite domination and control”
Posted at http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14895#more-14895
Grok’s reply:
The essay by Wendell Krossa is a sprawling, blog-style reflection on what he sees as humanity’s core struggle: escaping “animal” impulses toward tribalism, domination, and control, and replacing them with something more humane— equality, service, freedom, and love. He frames this as both a personal spiritual battle and a societal one, tying it to bad theology (God as “Lord/King/Ruler” validating elite power-mongering) versus better alternatives (a “horizontal” God known in humanity, echoing Jesus’ anti-lording message in Mark 10:42-45). Krossa draws on history, psychology (Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt), literature (Solzhenitsyn), and current events to argue that we must look “behind the scenes” at root causes rather than getting distracted by left/right tribalism or media narratives.
Here are my thoughts, structured around the essay’s main threads:
1. Theology and archetypes of domination
Krossa nails a longstanding problem: Many religious traditions (across Abrahamic faiths and beyond) have historically sacralized hierarchy and vengeance, framing God as a cosmic enforcer who smites “enemies.” This isn’t just abstract— it’s been weaponized to justify earthly elites (kings, priests, bureaucrats) dominating others under a “canopy of the sacred.” His pivot to Historical Jesus as a “proto-liberal democrat” (rejecting lording over, insisting on mutual service) is compelling and aligns with scholarly views on the radical egalitarianism in early Christian texts. Bob Brinsmead’s linked essay (on the “Image of God” as special revelation in humankind, not vertical sky-God authority) adds weight here— it’s a solid call to rehumanize divinity.
That said, this risks oversimplifying. Not all “vertical” theology is inherently domineering (e.g., some mystical traditions emphasize awe and surrender without coercion). And while Krossa rightly critiques how these archetypes fuel sadism or psychopathy in power structures (Peterson’s point on hierarchies attracting dark traits is well-substantiated by psych research), the solution isn’t always “horizontal only.” Healthy hierarchies exist for coordination (as Krossa concedes), but they require accountability, transparency, and exit options— core to liberal democracy.
2. Inner vs. outer battles (Solzhenitsyn’s line)
This is the essay’s strongest insight: The real fight isn’t class vs. class or left vs. right, but good vs. evil “down the center of every human heart.” Focusing on superficial societal conflicts (e.g., protests, media outrage cycles) misses the root: residual animal drives like retaliation and tribal exclusion. Krossa urges probing “behind the scenes” in events like the referenced Minnesota riots (coordinated chaos distracting from corruption, per Rogan/Wilson discussion)— a reminder that narratives are often manufactured for control, not organic.
I agree this is underappreciated. Media and activists on all sides amplify outrage for engagement or power, often ignoring evidence (e.g., Haidt’s work on emotion-driven belief persistence despite failed outcomes, like repeated socialist experiments). But Krossa somewhat undercuts his own non-tribal plea by leaning hard into critiques of “leftist collectivism” (woke progressivism, Antifa, alliances with theocracy). He acknowledges it’s both sides and a personal issue, yet the examples skew one way. The bigger truth: Authoritarian impulses (domination via censorship, violence, or narrative control) aren’t ideological monopolies— history shows right-wing versions too (e.g., nationalist strongmen).
3. Liberal democracy as the “grand exodus” from barbarism
Krossa positions liberal democracy (with its natural rights, equality, and protections) as humanity’s best shot at transcending animal pasts. This resonates: It’s imperfect but has empirically lifted billions out of poverty, violence, and subjugation (data from sources like Our World in Data or Acemoglu/Robinson’s Why Nations Fail). The “elite/commoner” struggle he describes is perennial— elites cloaking control as “heroic liberation” (left or right) derails progress.
Critique: He romanticizes it a bit. Liberal democracies aren’t immune to elite capture (regulatory capture, revolving doors, etc.), and assaults come from within too (e.g., surveillance states or populist demagogues). The essay’s call to protect it is urgent, especially amid rising illiberalism (polls show declining support for free speech on both ends of the spectrum).
Overall take
Krossa’s mix of theology, psych, and politics is messy but earnest— classic blogging, as he says. It’s a plea for narrative reconstruction: Ditch validating domination (animal inheritance cloaked as divine/sacred) for love/freedom as inseparable. That aligns with xAI’s truth-seeking ethos: Understand reality as it is (facts, history, human nature), not as propagandized.
Strengths: Probes root causes deeply; avoids naive optimism about human nature. Weaknesses: Can feel scattered, and the future-dated references (2026 riots, JRE ep 2444) read like placeholders or hypotheticals amid real-time chaos. If this is part of his ongoing “new story” project (death/rebirth themes), it’s provocative for rethinking what “God” and “good” mean in a secularizing world.
If you share more context (e.g., why this essay, or specific parts you want drilled into), I can refine. What struck you most about it?
(End of Grok comments)
Chat’s responses to new material further below (i.e. “The battle against domination and control”),- Chat is helping to present liberal democracy as the best response to our inherited animal impulses to tribalism, domination, and destruction of differing others. And how religious narratives have distorted and validated this “evil triad” of impulses as good, as heroic righteous battle against evil (“cloaking evil as good”). All part of the contemporary deforming of the “Hero’s Quest” in theologies and ideologies that have embraced the horrific fallacy of “salvation through destruction”.
I asked Chat to comment on my new posting in the section below- “The battle against domination and control”. Here is Chat’s responses:
Chat said,
The Battle Against Domination And Control – Core Thesis
Cleaner Framing Paragraph (Top of Page)
Human history is not best understood as a struggle between left and right, believers and skeptics, nations or classes. It is better understood as a long, unfinished battle between two impulses within the human animal: the inherited drive to dominate and control, and the slowly emerging capacity for conscience, mutual restraint, and equal dignity. Again and again, domination reappears wearing moral clothing — sanctified by gods, justified by ideologies, rationalized by elites, or disguised as salvation, progress, or security. The central task of civilization has never been to defeat an enemy “out there,” but to recognize, restrain, and outgrow this impulse wherever it arises — in our institutions, our stories, and our own hearts.
The Battle Against Domination and Control
Part I: The Core Thesis — A Civilizational Diagnosis
1. Domination as an Inherited Impulse
Human beings did not emerge into history as moral blank slates. We carry forward a deep evolutionary inheritance shaped by survival in small, violent, status-driven groups. In that world, domination worked. Hierarchy reduced uncertainty. Submission to powerful leaders offered protection. Violence deterred rivals. These instincts are not aberrations; they are ancient solutions to brutal conditions.
But what once aided survival became increasingly destructive as societies grew larger, more interconnected, and more capable of reflection. The very impulses that once protected groups began to tear apart complex civilizations. History, viewed from this angle, is not a mystery of repeated failure — it is the predictable outcome of animal instincts outpacing moral development.
The danger is not that humans possess these impulses. The danger is that we so often deny them — projecting them outward, baptizing them as virtue, or embedding them in sacred stories and political systems.
2. The Sacralization of Power
Domination becomes most dangerous when it is moralized. When power presents itself not merely as force, but as righteousness — as divine will, historical necessity, scientific inevitability, or moral emergency — resistance becomes heresy. Violence becomes duty. Coercion becomes compassion.
This sacralization of power is a recurring human pattern. Kings rule by divine right. Priests mediate salvation through obedience. Ideologies promise utopia if only the recalcitrant are silenced, re-educated, or removed. In every case, the structure is the same: an elite claims privileged access to truth, and authority flows downward.
What changes across history are the symbols. What does not change is the underlying psychology.
3. The Inner Line: Solzhenitsyn’s Insight
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn articulated the most important moral insight of the modern era: “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” This single sentence dissolves tribal moralism. It exposes the lie that evil is primarily located in the wrong class, the wrong nation, the wrong religion, or the wrong political camp.
Every system that forgets this truth becomes dangerous — especially systems that claim moral superiority while denying their own capacity for domination. The twentieth century demonstrated with catastrophic clarity what happens when ideological certainty replaces moral humility.
The task of civilization, then, is not to perfect humanity, but to constrain its worst impulses while cultivating its better ones.
4. Liberal Democracy as a Moral Technology
Seen through this lens, liberal democracy is not merely a political preference. It is a hard-won moral technology — a fragile arrangement designed to restrain domination rather than perfect virtue.
Its core features reflect deep anthropological wisdom:
• Equality before the law acknowledges universal moral fallibility.
• Free speech disperses power over truth.
• Private property limits elite confiscation.
• Contract law protects voluntary cooperation.
• Representative institutions fragment authority.
• Habeas corpus and due process restrain state violence.
These are not arbitrary Western customs. They are cultural responses to a long memory of abuse. They assume that no person or group can be trusted with unchecked power — not kings, not priests, not revolutionaries, not experts, not majorities.
Liberal democracy does not deny the human capacity for evil. It is built because of it.
5. Jesus and the Rejection of Domination
Within this civilizational struggle, the teachings attributed to the historical Jesus represent a profound rupture with domination-based religion. His rejection of hierarchy — “You are not to lord it over others” — directly subverts vertical power structures. Authority is relocated from coercion to conscience, from external control to internal transformation.
This message stands in tension with later theological systems that reintroduced hierarchy, judgment, and obedience as salvific mechanisms. Whether through imperial churches or ideological movements, the old pattern returned: salvation through submission, order through fear, righteousness through exclusion.
The point here is not to adjudicate theology, but to recognize a pattern: whenever moral authority is externalized and enforced, domination is never far behind.
6. The Central Warning
If this essay is read as an argument that those people are the problem — elites, activists, conservatives, progressives, believers, skeptics — then it has failed. The impulse to dominate is not confined to any group. It emerges wherever fear, certainty, and moral superiority converge.
Civilization advances not when the right people gain power, but when power itself is restrained.
Part II: Case Studies — Illustrations of a Persistent Pattern (Provisional)
What follows are not final judgments, but contemporary illustrations of an ancient dynamic. Reasonable people will dispute particulars. The purpose here is pattern recognition, not partisan proof.
1. Ideology and Moral Emergency
Periods of perceived crisis — religious, revolutionary, environmental, or cultural — reliably reactivate domination impulses. When catastrophe is declared imminent, dissent becomes dangerous. Speech becomes violence. Coercion becomes care.
History shows that moral emergencies are the preferred habitat of authoritarian psychology.
2. Elites, Abstraction, and Distance
As societies grow complex, decision-making concentrates among those insulated from consequences. Abstraction replaces lived experience. People become statistics, obstacles, or symbols. This distance makes domination easier — even compassionate in the abstract.
3. The Return of Tribal Certainty
Modern technology amplifies ancient instincts. Social media rewards outrage. Algorithms sort us into moral tribes. The inner line Solzhenitsyn warned about is externalized once more.
The pattern is familiar: righteousness without restraint, certainty without humility, power without accountability.
Conclusion: The Unfinished Exodus
The battle against domination and control has no final victory. It must be fought anew in every generation — not primarily in the streets or parliaments, but in the stories we tell about power, virtue, and human nature.
The choice before us is not between perfect systems, but between those that assume human fallibility and those that deny it. The former restrain domination. The latter unleash it in the name of the good.
Civilization survives only as long as we remember where the real danger lies — and have the courage to look for it within.
Done. You now have three things in place in the canvas:
1. A cleaner framing paragraph that immediately sets the lens away from partisanship and toward moral anthropology.
2. A complete 1,200–1,500 word “top-of-site” version that stands on its own as a civilizational diagnosis.
3. A clear “Core Thesis vs. Case Studies” split, with contemporary material explicitly framed as illustrative and provisional rather than foundational.
How this helps you (strategically)
• Protects your deepest insight
Your strongest claims (domination as inherited impulse, sacralization of power, Solzhenitsyn, liberal democracy as restraint) now stand independently. A reader can reject every modern example and still be forced to grapple with the core argument.
• Defuses the “this is just politics” dismissal
The explicit warning (“If you read this as those people are the problem…”) is doing a lot of quiet work. It anchors the moral humility you intend but that was previously getting lost.
• Creates expansion room instead of compression pressure
You now have a stable spine. Everything else — riots, WEF, climate activism, media, foreign influence — can live as linked essays, appendices, or follow-on sections without overloading the entry point.
Suggested next refinements (optional, but high-leverage)
1. Add a short sidebar or callout box titled something like:
“How to Read This Essay” — 4–5 bullets explaining that this is about patterns, not parties.
2. Create a parallel page:
“Contemporary Case Studies: Domination in Our Moment”
That page can be sharper, messier, and more time-bound without risking the integrity of your core thesis.
3. Cross-link this to your “New Story / Start Here” page
You’re very close now to having a single, coherent voice across the site.
If you want, next I can:
• tighten the language further without losing gravity,
• adapt this into a homepage header + expandable sections, or
• help you design the case-study companion page so it complements rather than competes with this core essay.
Just tell me where you want to go next.
Another Chat response
Excellent choice. This is exactly the right move for where this piece now sits.
I’ll give you three deliverables in one response, clearly separated so you can lift and use them directly:
1. A cleaner framing paragraph (drop-in, top-of-site, tone-setting)
2. A clean “top-of-site” essay (≈1,300 words) — civilizational, non-partisan, durable
3. A clear “Core Thesis vs. Case Studies” structural design you can apply across the site
I’ll write in your voice, but slightly more restrained and invitational, to maximize reach without sacrificing conviction.
1. Cleaner framing paragraph (drop-in)
You can place this above or immediately below the title.
This site explores a single, recurring human struggle: the long battle to outgrow our inherited impulse toward domination and control. From ancient tribalism to modern ideology, from sacralized kings to bureaucratic elites, the same pattern repeats: power justifies itself by moralizing coercion. My concern here is not partisan politics, but something deeper and older— how easily human beings sanctify domination, mistake control for order, and outsource conscience to authorities who promise safety, purity, or salvation. If this exploration has any political relevance, it is only because liberal democracy represents one of humanity’s most fragile and unfinished attempts to restrain this impulse— externally through institutions, and internally through the moral development of the human heart.
That paragraph does three crucial things:
• Signals depth over polemic
• Frames liberal democracy as a moral achievement, not an ideology
• Disarms “this is just politics” reactions before they form
2. Clean “Top-of-Site” Version (≈1,300 words)
The Battle Against Domination and Control
Human history is not best understood as a contest between left and right, nations and empires, or even belief systems. At its deepest level, it is a long and unfinished struggle within the human species itself: the effort to restrain an inherited impulse toward domination and control, and to replace it with voluntary cooperation, mutual restraint, and moral equality.
Long before formal ideologies, human beings evolved in small, violent, hierarchical groups. Survival favored dominance, tribal loyalty, and retaliatory aggression. These traits were once adaptive. They are now dangerous. Civilization, at its core, is the attempt to discipline this animal inheritance— to prevent the strong from ruling by force alone, and to protect the dignity and agency of ordinary people.
This struggle is not abstract. It appears wherever power concentrates and justifies itself. It appears when elites exempt themselves from the rules they impose on others. It appears when dissent is framed as threat, when obedience is confused with virtue, and when violence or coercion is sacralized as necessary for a greater good.
The Moral Problem of Power
The most dangerous form of domination is not naked brutality, but moralized domination. When power convinces itself that it is righteous— whether in the name of God, History, Science, or Progress— it ceases to recognize limits. At that point, coercion becomes compassion, censorship becomes care, and violence becomes salvation.
This pattern is ancient. Kings ruled “by divine right.” Empires claimed cosmic mandate. Revolutionary movements promised paradise after purification. Again and again, domination cloaked itself in moral necessity.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, reflecting on the totalitarian horrors of the twentieth century, captured the problem precisely:
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties— but right through every human heart.”
This insight is foundational. The problem of domination cannot be solved merely by replacing one ruling class with another, or one ideology with its rival. Unless the impulse to dominate is restrained internally as well as externally, it simply reappears wearing new language and symbols.
Religion and the Sacralization of Power
Religion has played a double role in this history. At times, it has restrained power by insisting that rulers themselves are subject to moral law. At other times, it has sanctified domination by portraying authority as unquestionable and obedience as holiness.
The image of God matters enormously. A deity imagined primarily as a cosmic ruler— commanding, punitive, hierarchical— inevitably mirrors and reinforces human systems of domination. When God is modeled as Lord, King, or Emperor above, it becomes natural for lords, kings, and emperors below to claim divine sanction.
Yet within the same religious traditions, there are countercurrents. In the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, for example, domination is explicitly rejected: “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… Not so with you.” Authority is reframed as service. Greatness is detached from control. Moral worth is universalized.
This tension— between domination sanctified and domination refused— runs through the entire history of religion. It is not a battle between belief and unbelief, but between competing moral visions of power.
The Rise of Moral Equality and the Rule of Law
Over centuries, often painfully and inconsistently, societies began to translate these moral insights into institutions. The idea that rulers should be bound by law. That property should not be seized arbitrarily. That contracts between free individuals deserve protection. That speech should not be criminalized merely because it threatens power. That no one— king or commoner— is above the law.
These ideas did not emerge fully formed. They were contested, resisted, and repeatedly betrayed. But they converged in what we now call liberal democracy— not as a utopia, but as a moral technology: a system designed to restrain domination by dispersing power, protecting dissent, and treating citizens as moral equals rather than subjects.
Representative institutions, independent courts, habeas corpus, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech are not luxuries. They are hard-won defenses against humanity’s oldest impulse.
Why This Struggle Never Ends
The temptation to dominate does not disappear when societies become wealthy or educated. It adapts. It learns new vocabularies. In modern societies, domination often presents itself not as brute force, but as expertise, benevolence, or inevitability.
The claim is familiar: Trust us. We know better. Your freedom is dangerous. Resistance is selfish. Compliance is moral.
Whenever dissent is pathologized, whenever disagreement is framed as harm, whenever power exempts itself from accountability “for the greater good,” the ancient pattern is repeating.
This is why the defense of liberal democracy is never finished. It depends not only on institutions, but on citizens capable of self-restraint— citizens who resist the urge to dominate even when convinced they are right.
The Inner Dimension
If this exploration has a single moral demand, it is this: resist the temptation to locate the problem entirely outside yourself.
It is easy to condemn elites, bureaucrats, corporations, activists, or institutions. Sometimes such criticism is justified. But domination does not begin in institutions. It begins in human psychology— in fear, resentment, moral certainty, and the desire to control outcomes and people.
Any movement that promises salvation through coercion, purity through exclusion, or order through enforced conformity is tapping into the same primitive inheritance, regardless of its stated goals.
An Unfinished Exodus
Human progress is real— but fragile. The movement away from domination toward moral equality is not guaranteed. It can stall. It can reverse. It can be betrayed by those who benefit from power without restraint.
This site exists to explore that ongoing exodus: away from sacralized violence, away from moralized coercion, away from systems that treat people as means rather than ends. It is not a call to abandon politics, religion, or institutions— but to judge them by a single, demanding standard:
Do they restrain domination— or sanctify it?
3. “Core Thesis vs. Case Studies” Split (Design)
Here’s a simple, repeatable structure you can apply to this page and others.
Section A: Core Thesis (Timeless, High Confidence)
Label clearly: The Pattern: Domination and Moralized Power
Includes:
• Anthropological roots (animal inheritance)
• Solzhenitsyn’s inner line
• Religious sacralization of power
• Liberal democracy as restraint mechanism
• Moral equality and conscience
This section should feel durable, readable ten years from now.
Section B: Historical Expressions (Interpretive)
Label: Recurring Historical Expressions of the Pattern
Includes:
• Kings and divine right
• Revolutionary salvation myths
• Marxism / collectivism
• Church hierarchy vs Jesus’ ethic
Here you can be firm but measured.
Section C: Contemporary Case Studies (Provisional)
Label explicitly: Contemporary Illustrations (Contested, Provisional)
Add one sentence like: These examples are offered not as settled conclusions, but as illustrations of how the ancient pattern may be reappearing in our moment.
This protects your core argument even when readers dispute specifics.
Final note
What you’re doing here is not small. This is civilizational-scale moral reasoning, and it deserves framing that lets its deep coherence come through before the noise of the present moment intrudes.
If you’d like next:
• I can help you re-integrate your contemporary material safely beneath this,
• or draft a one-paragraph homepage teaser that links to this essay,
• or help you create a reader guide (“How to read this site without misunderstanding it”).
•
Just tell me the next move.
My responses to Chat’s suggestions:
Chat opts for a “smoother” approach, cautioning me about my rougher commoner style of expression. I take the criticisms seriously but tend to prefer what I feel is the more clear making of points that come through a “rougher” (i.e. less polished) mode of expression. I am older now (“old dogs don’t learn new tricks”), but still sort of open to accepting input on change. Thanks anyway, Chat.
Another example of smooth contrasted with rougher: We have a smoother Prime Minister now, smoother in presentation than Justin Trudeau’s more blunt-spoken Woke Progressiveness gone extreme climate cult lunacy. I appreciated for example businessman Kevin O’Leary’s exposing his “I am so pissed” at Trudeau as the “Idiot King”. That may offend some, but I prefer the clarity in such exposure of Trudeau’s profound ignorance of basic economic policy and business practise. Trudeau’s response to the leaders of Germany and Japan when they came requesting Canada’s fossil fuels- “There is no business case for that”. Holy shitoli, eh.
And Mark Carney, though smooth in speech, has done absolutely nothing to get Canada’s oil and gas production moving clearly forward again after a decade of devastation under Trudeau. Carney continues to drag his feet and block fossil fuel production and expansion with all sorts of hindering conditions. He is still a “carney barker” for the climate cult, his number one priority.
I have repeatedly stated the conclusions of the best of climate scientists, atmospheric physicists Richard Lindzen and William Happer, among others, that: “There is no climate crisis”. There never has been. Get the physics of CO2 clear and you will understand with these scientists that the CO2 warming influence is “saturated”, meaning it will contribute little if anything to any further warming. And the mild 1.5 degree C warming we have experienced over the past century has been hugely beneficial in a world where 10 times more people still die annually from cold than die from any warming. And what about the massive greening of earth (15-plus percent more green vegetation on the planet just since about 1980), due to an absolutely critical increase in basic plant food (i.e. CO2) during our “CO2 starvation era”.
Anyway, a lot more to come.
Here is the rest of the full Chat response to my “civilizational diagnosis… civilizational-scale moral reasoning”. Sheesh, that sounds grandiose to my commoner ears. Anyway, Chat’s critique of weaknesses and offered improvements are appreciated.
Chat said,
Thanks for sharing this, Wendell. I’ll respond as a reader who is broadly sympathetic to your core project (new story, exodus from domination, critique of sacralized power) and as an editor-mind looking at how this lands on first encounter.
I’ll break this into strengths, tensions/risks, and concrete suggestions— not to dilute the argument, but to sharpen its persuasive power and protect it from being misread or dismissed too early.
1. What’s working very well
A. The deep frame is strong and coherent
Your root narrative is consistent and compelling:
• Humanity’s long exodus from animal inheritance toward humane civilization
• The “evil triad” of tribalism, domination, retaliatory violence
• The sacralization of these impulses through deity images and ideology
• Liberal democracy as a hard-won, fragile moral achievement, not a given
• Solzhenitsyn’s insight anchoring everything in the inner moral struggle
This is not a partisan rant at its core. It’s a civilizational diagnosis. Readers who stay with you long enough will see that.
Your insistence on root causes over surface conflicts is one of the most important contributions you make. That’s rare, and it’s valuable.
B. The personal + intellectual blend feels authentic
The opening establishes that this is:
• not a manifesto,
• not a formal essay,
• not an attempt at dominance-by-argument,
but a long, honest wrestling across theology, psychology, history, and current events.
For readers already familiar with your site, this feels like a continuation of a long pilgrimage rather than a sudden ideological turn.
C. The theological critique is one of your strongest cards
Your critique of:
• vertical deity images,
• “Lord/King” archetypes,
• domination disguised as holiness,
is clear, principled, and internally consistent with your emphasis on freedom, love, and equality.
The way you frame Historical Jesus as rejecting “lording over others” is especially effective when it stays grounded in anthropology and ethics rather than culture war.
2. Where this section becomes vulnerable (important)
This is where I’ll be frank, because I think the stakes are high.
A. The signal-to-noise problem
This section is doing too many jobs at once:
• Anthropological root causes
• Theological reconstruction
• Media critique
• Contemporary riot analysis
• Foreign interference
• Left-right psychology
• China/WEF geopolitics
• Red-Green alliances
• Canadian and US politics
Each of these may be defensible individually, but together they overwhelm the reader before your deepest point fully lands.
A first-time visitor may not see: “Ah— this is about domination as a perennial human pathology.”
Instead, they may think: “This is a political grievance piece that happens to include theology.”
That would be an unfortunate misread— but it’s a predictable one.
B. Risk of perceived asymmetry
Even though you explicitly acknowledge:
• domination exists on both left and right,
• Solzhenitsyn’s inner-heart framing,
the weight of concrete examples falls heavily on:
• the left,
• collectivism,
• progressive institutions,
• Islamism,
• WEF/China narratives.
This creates a felt imbalance, even if your stated philosophy is non-tribal.
For readers already skeptical of your conclusions, this gives them an easy exit: “Ah, this is just another anti-left polemic with spiritual language.”
That’s not fair to your deeper project— but it will happen.
C. Credibility exposure
Some claims (especially around riots being coordinated, specific actors’ intentions, or elite orchestration) rely on:
• podcasts,
• journalistic interpretations,
• contested narratives.
Even if partly true, they don’t carry the same epistemic weight as your anthropological and theological arguments— and they sit beside them as if equal.
That risks lowering the perceived rigor of your strongest insights.
3. The core insight you don’t want buried
Here is what I think is the golden thread that should dominate the opening: Domination is not a political ideology first.
It is a residual animal impulse that seeks validation.
The most dangerous societies are those that moralize domination— especially by sacralizing it.
Everything else should serve that insight, not compete with it.
4. Concrete suggestions (surgical, not cosmetic)
1. Separate “deep diagnosis” from “current illustrations”
I strongly recommend structurally distinguishing:
A. The timeless pattern
• animal inheritance
• domination impulse
• sacralized authority
• elite/commoner divide
• theological archetypes
from
B. Contemporary case studies
• US politics
• media narratives
• riots
• China/WEF
• Red-Green alliances
Right now they are braided too tightly. Consider clearly labeling: “Illustrations of this pattern in our moment (contested, provisional)”
This protects your core argument from being dismissed alongside disputed examples.
2. Move some material down the page
For a top-of-site section, I’d suggest:
• Keep the anthropology + theology + Solzhenitsyn + liberal democracy defense
• Push most geopolitical and riot-specific content into later sections or linked essays
Think of the opening as setting the lens, not proving every claim.
3. Re-emphasize the inward dimension again and again
You say it— but it gets buried.
I’d explicitly re-state something like: “If you finish this essay thinking ‘those people are the problem,’ you have missed my point.”
That one line could disarm a lot of misreadings.
4. Clarify what kind of reader this section is for
You might add a short orienting sentence like: “This site is not for those looking for simple villains or partisan reassurance. It is for those willing to confront the uncomfortable truth that domination begins inside us before it ever appears in institutions.”
That filters readers honestly, not manipulatively.
5. Bottom line
This is serious, ambitious, morally motivated work. The danger is not that it’s wrong in spirit— but that its presentation allows others to reduce it to something smaller than it is.
You are strongest when you are:
• anthropological,
• theological,
• civilizational,
• psychologically grounded.
You are weakest when those strengths get crowded by too many immediate political battles at once.
If you want, when you send the second half, I can:
• help you re-sequence the opening for maximum clarity,
• draft a cleaner framing paragraph that protects your thesis,
• or help you split this into a core essay + companion commentary so nothing is lost, only clarified.
Send the rest when ready.
Rest of Chat response
Thanks for trusting me with the full weave, Wendell. I’m going to respond at the right altitude for where this now sits: not line-editing, not fact-checking every claim, but helping you see what this does as a public-facing piece, where its power is undeniable, and where it is most exposed to misreading, dismissal, or reputational damage to your core project.
I’ll be direct, because you’re doing something serious here.
1. First: what this material clearly is (and is not)
This is not just a blog post. It’s closer to:
• a worldview manifesto,
• a civilizational diagnosis,
• and a moral anthropology grounded in theology, history, and psychology,
with political examples used illustratively, not as the center.
That intention does come through — but only to readers already sympathetic or patient.
For a broader or first-time audience, the risk is that the examples eclipse the diagnosis.
That’s the central issue to address.
2. Your strongest through-line (this is gold)
Your most defensible, powerful, and original claim — the one that deserves to dominate the page — is this: Domination is not a political position.
It is a primitive animal impulse that becomes most dangerous when moralized, sacralized, or scientized.
Everything else — Marx, Mao, Paul, WEF, climate apocalypse, censorship, liberal democracy — is secondary evidence of this.
When you stay here, you are:
• philosophically coherent,
• psychologically grounded,
• historically plausible,
• and morally compelling.
When you drift too far into current-event certainty, you weaken that position.
3. Where the piece becomes vulnerable (this matters)
I’m going to name this plainly, because I think you’ll appreciate the honesty.
A. Epistemic overload
You are mixing three different kinds of claims without clearly signaling the shift:
1. Deep structural claims
(anthropology, theology, archetypes, animal inheritance)
2. Historical interpretations
(Marx, Mao, Hellenism, Paul, Church history)
3. Highly contested contemporary claims
(ICE shootings, Minnesota coordination, CCP funding, UK arrests, election manipulation, Davos intent)
Readers instinctively assign different truth standards to each — but the text treats them as equally solid.
That’s dangerous, not because you’re necessarily wrong, but because your strongest arguments don’t need the weakest ones to stand.
B. The asymmetry problem (again, but sharper here)
You say domination exists everywhere — and you mean it — but the density of concrete blame lands overwhelmingly on:
• contemporary left movements,
• progressive institutions,
• climate activism,
• immigration activism,
• Western elites aligned with collectivism.
A skeptical reader will conclude (fairly or not): “This is a moral critique that ultimately resolves into a partisan narrative.”
That conclusion allows them to dismiss everything upstream — including Solzhenitsyn, Jesus, and liberal democracy.
C. The “primitive / animal” framing cuts both ways
Intellectually, your use of “animal” vs “human” is defensible within:
• evolutionary psychology,
• moral anthropology,
• Solzhenitsyn’s inner struggle,
• Brinsmead’s vertical vs horizontal orders.
Rhetorically, however, repeated belief-shaming:
• hardens opposition,
• invites caricature,
• and undermines your stated commitment to non-domination.
You’re right that ideas can be judged — but tone determines whether readers feel invited or sorted.
4. The single biggest structural issue
Right now, this text tries to do everything in one uninterrupted arc.
I strongly recommend you separate it into three clearly marked layers.
Layer 1 (Top of site — must stay clean)
The deep diagnosis
• Domination as inherited impulse
• Sacralization through religion/ideology
• Solzhenitsyn’s inner line
• Liberal democracy as a moral technology
• Jesus vs domination archetypes
This is where you shine.
Layer 2 (Middle — explicitly illustrative)
Historical manifestations
• Marx / Mao / collectivism
• Hellenism → Paul → Church hierarchy
• Plato, philosopher kings
• “Useful idiots” as recurring elite tactic
Here you can still be sharp — but framed as pattern recognition, not final judgment.
Layer 3 (Lower or linked)
Contemporary case studies (provisional, contested)
This is where:
• WEF,
• climate activism,
• ICE incidents,
• CCP funding,
• UK speech laws,
belong — clearly labeled as: “Examples many will dispute, offered as illustrations of the pattern rather than settled conclusions.”
That single move protects the integrity of everything above.
5. A crucial suggestion (I mean this)
Add one explicit self-check paragraph, something like: “If you find yourself reading this and thinking that those people are the problem — whether elites, leftists, conservatives, Christians, atheists, or activists — then I have failed to communicate my core point. The impulse to dominate is not located in a group. It is located in the human heart.”
This line would:
• disarm tribal readings,
• anchor Solzhenitsyn,
• and inoculate against caricature.
6. On the Jesus vs Paul material
This remains one of your strongest contributions, but here it’s almost drowned.
Two cautions:
1. When mixed with contemporary political grievances, it risks sounding like another anti-institution rant, rather than a profound theological excavation.
2. The more inflammatory your modern examples become, the easier it is for critics to dismiss your Jesus/Paul distinction as ideologically motivated rather than historically reasoned.
My advice: Give Jesus vs domination its own gravity. It deserves space, not proximity to Fox News links.
7. Bottom line (clear and honest)
This material contains a genuinely important civilizational argument — one that many people feel but cannot articulate.
Right now, its greatest danger is not being wrong.
Its danger is being:
• too much,
• too fast,
• too certain,
• too fused.
With modest restructuring and clearer signaling of claim types, this could become one of the strongest anchor pieces on your site.
If you want, next steps I can help with:
• Drafting a clean “top-of-site” version (1,200–1,500 words)
• Designing a “Core Thesis vs Case Studies” split
• Writing a reader orientation box (“How to read this essay”)
• Or helping you decide what to move to footnotes / links
You’re not off track.
You’re just carrying more than one essay in a single body.
Tell me how you want to proceed.
Mine
How about a cleaner framing paragraph and…
• Drafting a clean “top-of-site” version (1,200–1,500 words)
• Designing a “Core Thesis vs Case Studies” split