Change your archetypes. But beware the outrage such a proposal might trigger, and the possible psychology behind that.

See more of Grok’s analysis and comments at bottom of this opening section.

Some sitesplainin: I’ve been back and forth between using Grok and Chat. Grok has been a bit brief in its responses recently and less effusive in praise (I was enjoying its “effusivity” and extravagant praise, stroking my ego).

Chat does good summaries in point form and suggests the next possible avenues to explore. But Chat also seems a bit too cautionary in requesting that I take a more mollifying-type approach in the terms that I use (i.e. less use of terms like “primitive” to describe some religious ideas) as I may offend new visitors. Appreciated advice Chat, but not my concern as clarity is my primary concern and sometimes more bluntish terms are necessary to be real clear.

Podcasters also note that Chat is perhaps more infected by the “Woke mind virus” (what Elon Musk terms the “bullshit” that AI learns from on the Internet). Hence, possibly why it is more cautionary. Not wanting to ruffle or cause kerfuffle.

Anyway, both are useful. Also, Chat does not seem able to appreciate that I am just a commoner blogging, not writing formal academic essays. Hence also my bobbing and weaving style- going off in all sorts of directions in what Trump calls “weaves”, before returning back to an original topic.

Preface note: I continue to offer further bits of insight to help General Nagata understand the “idea” that causes such disruption and ruin in our societies today. The idea that has to be defeated, along with the use of force to stop those, driven by the idea, who continue to inflict the horror of violence on innocent victims. Bondi Beach was a recent example.

Part of understanding what is going on, probing contributing factors….

Note the rage that that sometimes erupts from those who have placed their entire identity in the core archetypes of their belief systems and will then defensively, even violently, explode with rage against any suggestion of challenge or change with regard to their fundamental beliefs. The reaction of murderous outrage is, among other things, a survival reaction from people who have located their identity too dogmatically in ideas/beliefs. We saw that illustrated in the murderous reaction of Jews to Jesus’ first public speaking engagement in a synagogue. So also, the reaction of Muslims to the Danish cartoon years ago. Details below.

We need to understand more of the psychology behind these expressions of violence that are still all too common in our world today.

One point I would clarify further to General Nagata, is that while we may not know with completeness and finality the “idea”, we do have some useful insights into its nature along with evidence of outcomes. We have a couple of millennia of such information along with evidence of results. As suggested above, my comment below looks a bit at some of the possible psychology in the mix of contributing factors.

Once again, I am responding to Nagata’s statement that despite defeating the ISIS Caliphate crusade with military force in 2014, he recognized that such violence would erupt again because they had not defeated the ideas driving such violence. As he said, “’We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea’.”

This site argues that the core of the idea is theological. Bob Brinsmead said, paraphrasing Bill Clinton, “It’s the narrative, stupid.” I would add my own paraphrase, “It’s the theology, stupid”. The God at the core. The Chief Archetype. The Mother of all beliefs. This is at the core of “the idea”.

There is a sense of egregious irresponsibility that hits me in the face repeatedly when probing the “idea”. We have long had the liberating alternative “idea”, the liberating Archetype of an unconditional God. We ought to know better now. We are without excuse.

Another note: I hesitate to engage any probing of problems like recurring violence that does not provide hope in the better alternatives that are available to help solve such problems.

“Recurring”? Its not just the religious traditions that maintain the old “idea”. I would include the modern-era “secularized” versions like Marxist collectivism, and environmental alarmism crusades. Both now wrapped in Woke Progressivism as an updated version of the collectivist tribal dualism of oppressors/oppressed.

A major project on this site is to present the “Alternative of all alternatives”, the Mother of all ideas/ideals/beliefs, or however you prefer to define it. This is why I keep returning to the “stunning new theology of an unconditional God” as presented in the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel of Jesus, something so entirely opposite to Paul’s Christ myth that he couched in “salvation through violent destruction” framing.

Again, here is the bad ideas/archetypes list and associated outcomes/behaviors, along with the better alternatives from sages across history:

“The complex of ‘bad religious ideas’ that have darkened and enslaved human minds from the beginning” (short versions below with Grok’s comments on them)

http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=13571#more-13571

“Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).”

http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533

Quote from the link above on complex of bad religious ideas:

I previously posted this “Intro to ‘The complex of bad religious ideas’”:

“This site is oriented to understanding and communicating the root contributing factors to the varied public eruptions of crowd madness, the narrative themes that incite, guide, and validate such madness. To quote my friend Bob Brinsmead, “It’s the narrative, stupid”. We know the familiar complex of themes that panic-mongering apocalyptic prophets have used across past millennia to scare people, to incite fear that generates irrational states of mind (i.e. aroused survival impulse) that then render people susceptible to manipulation and control by fear-mongering elites. Frightened people, with their survival impulse aroused by threats of apocalyptic collapse and return to chaos, are then susceptible to the most irrational salvation schemes that are ruinous of their societies.

“H. L. Mencken stated it as well as anyone, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary”.

“I would reframe as- “The whole aim of practical religion”.

“The myths in the list (see links above) are still the dominant themes, across the world, in our religious traditions, both Western and Eastern religions- i.e. Gods angry at people for ruining an original paradise that they created, subsequently threatening punishment, destruction, chaos, and death, and even after-life torture in hells, demanding the tribal embrace of the “true religion” as required to find salvation, etc. In our contemporary era, our so-imagined “secular ideologies” have embraced the very same themes. Historians have detailed this “secularization” of religious ideas with evidence that these “profoundly religious” themes drove Marxism, Nazism, and are now driving environmental alarmism.

“We are all responsible for the consequences of the ideas that we embrace to frame our narratives. We are responsible for the related policies that arise from and are guided and validated by such ideas. And we are responsible for the outcomes of these ideas in our societies.

“It is the most basic element in human responsibility- i.e. to make ourselves aware of our role in contributing to something harmful, to understand why something is harmful (i.e. contributing factors like beliefs that incite and validate certain behaviors), and to then cease contributing to the harm. To find and embrace alternative things that contribute to good in our societies.

“After multiple millennia of experience, and evidence of outcomes, there is no excuse for denying the influence of bad ideas in validating bad human behavior. We should be fully aware by now of how these ancient mythical themes deform human personality, deform thinking, emotions, motivations, and responses/behaviors. It is our fundamental responsibility to inform ourselves as to why certain dominant ideas in our narratives have been so consistently and repeatedly destructive. As the military guy said after the defeat of ISIS in Syria- “You can defeat such violence with military force. But until you go after the ideas that drive such violence, you will only see repeated episodes.”

“A brief summary of apocalyptic millennialism, or salvation by destruction (i.e. main ideas/beliefs/archetypes):

“(1) The past was better (“noble savage” in original communal paradise). (2) We corrupt and destructive humans (i.e. fallen humanity, inherent sinfulness) ruined that original paradise. So begins early anti-humanism. (3) Subsequently, the gods/spirits are angry with humanity and punish people for their sins through natural disasters, disease, accidents, and predatory cruelty. (4) The gods also threaten a great final ending of all things, the violent destruction of the world in apocalypse. A return to the original chaos. (5) The upset gods (as the restorers of violated justice) then demand some sacrifice/payment for appeasement of divine wrath. They also demand that we should suffer for our sins as retaliatory punishment. (6) Further, they demand that we join their true religion (or true ideology in contemporary “secularized” versions) to fight and defeat evil enemies (Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism). Enemies/opponents are threatened with this-life extermination and then eternal after-life damnation in hellfire. Add here that the apocalypse is to purge the evil in life in order to clear the way to re-install the original lost paradise or introduce a new utopia, millennial reich, etc. The promised salvation. (7) That is the final stage, having fought and won our righteous wars to purge evil from life, we will be granted salvation in an imagined communal paradise/utopia.”

See how many of these themes you can detect in your religious tradition or in secular ideologies. Perhaps even in areas of science.

Archetype– “model, ideal, original, pilot, prototype, pattern, standard, classic exemplar, classic, representative, forerunner, epitome, prime example, etc.”

The project here, among other goals, is to go for radical transformation of archetypes, meaning radical change of the dominant themes/ideas/beliefs that have long shaped human narratives or belief systems. Because of the powerful influence of ideas/beliefs on how people behave. The beliefs/ideas that we embrace in our personal and societal narratives influence our thinking, our emotions, our motivations, and our responses and behavior.

We are driven by our primary impulse for meaning and purpose, and most often this works subconsciously. We don’t consciously think about it most of the time. But we seek validation for our lives and behavior from our beliefs (i.e. the “behavior based on belief” coupling).

This site argues that the archetypes that dominate our subconscious were long ago shaped by the most primitive ideas/beliefs of our ancestors. Those archetypes were formed to express the earliest mythologies (the belief systems of that era). And that set the proto-pattern for all that followed across subsequent millennia. Those earliest mythical themes were later embraced in the more formal religions such as Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism religion (a great good God warring against a great evil Force/Spirit). That subsequently shaped all the major Western religions- i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Joseph Campbell nailed this in stating that people have believed the same primitive myths all across history and across all the cultures of the world.

Continuing…

Historical Jesus continues to dominate public consciousness because he was a pivotal historical figure who presented, in explicitly clear statements, history’s first and most radical transformation of the supreme archetype- i.e. God, theology, Ultimate Reality. And his audience of Jews tried to kill him for that inaugural presentation of his stunning new theology where he rejected the long-established Hebrew doctrine of retaliatory, punitive God and instead argued for a God who was a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God. (Note, varied scholars/theologians have argued that Jesus built his new theology on the earlier statements of some Old Testament prophets who spoke of another side to the OT God, attributing features like mercy, kindness, forgiveness, etc., to deity.)

The incident of murderous outrage in response to Jesus’ challenge to traditional images of God is recounted in Luke 4 where he read Isaiah 61 and left off the critical affirmation of “the day of vengeance of our God”. He ended, instead, with two Old Testament illustrations where God mercifully sent two famous prophets to help the traditional enemies of Jews. That unconditional love that would not treat enemies with expected punishing vengeance, enraged his audience of true believer Jews. The Jews had long believed they were a chosen people especially favored by God, and because of a long history of oppression by enemies, they longed for retaliatory punishment of those oppressors, or at least for God to ignore the suffering of their enemies. Jesus gave them no such emotional satisfaction. And they did not receive that kindly.

An aside- I put this to Grok:

Grok, please comment on Luke 4 where Jesus read Isaiah 61 but left off the critical affirmation of “the day of vengeance of our God”. He ended, instead, with two Old Testament illustrations where God mercifully sent two famous prophets to help the traditional enemies of Jews. That divine love that would not treat enemies with punishing vengeance, or at least ignore their suffering, and instead showed loving mercy toward those enemies, enraged Jesus’ audience of true believer Jews.

Here is the Luke passage (chapter 4: 16-29):

“He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.

Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

“Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed— only Naaman the Syrian.”

All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.”

Grok, your thoughts on how the denial of satisfaction in divine vengeance, and instead love for enemies, enraged those Jews.

Grok’s response:

“In Luke 4:16-30, we see Jesus inaugurating his public ministry in his hometown synagogue by reading from Isaiah 61:1-2 (with echoes of Isaiah 58:6). The passage he selects is messianic, announcing liberation, healing, and favor— essentially a jubilee year of divine grace. Notably, Jesus truncates the quote, stopping at “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” and deliberately omitting the next phrase from Isaiah: “and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn.” This editorial choice is pivotal, as it reframes the prophetic promise from one that balances mercy with judgment against Israel’s oppressors to one emphasizing unreserved compassion and restoration.

“The initial reaction from the audience is positive; they’re impressed by his eloquence and the implication that he might be fulfilling this prophecy right then (“Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”). But Jesus anticipates pushback, pre-empting their skepticism with the proverb about a physician healing himself and referencing his miracles elsewhere (like in Capernaum). He then drives the point home with two Old Testament illustrations: Elijah aiding a Phoenician widow in Zarephath during a famine (1 Kings 17), bypassing Israelite widows, and Elisha healing Naaman, a Syrian army commander and traditional foe of Israel (2 Kings 5), while ignoring lepers among the Jews. These stories underscore God’s sovereignty in extending mercy beyond ethnic or national boundaries— to “outsiders” or even enemies— rather than prioritizing the “chosen people.”

“This pivot enrages the crowd, escalating from admiration to murderous intent as they attempt to hurl him off a cliff. Why such fury? At its core, Jesus’ message subverts their deeply held expectations of the Messiah. First-century Jews under Roman occupation longed for a deliverer who would enact divine vengeance— crushing enemies like the Romans, Samaritans, or other Gentiles, as hinted in Isaiah’s full context and other prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 63’s imagery of God treading enemies like grapes in a winepress).

“Vengeance wasn’t just poetic; it was a psychological salve for centuries of subjugation, from Babylonian exile to Hellenistic domination. By omitting it, Jesus denies them the cathartic promise of retribution, instead proclaiming a kingdom defined by inclusive favor and freedom for all oppressed, regardless of identity.

Moreover, his examples rub salt in the wound by implying that God’s blessings aren’t exclusively for Jews— and that their own unbelief or entitlement might exclude them, just as it did in the times of Elijah and Elisha. This challenges religious nationalism and tribalism: the audience, as “true believer Jews” (to use your phrasing), likely saw themselves as the rightful heirs to God’s promises, with enemies deserving punishment or at least neglect. Jesus flips this script, aligning divine love with enemy-love (a theme he’ll expand in the Sermon on the Mount, e.g., loving enemies and praying for persecutors in Matthew 5:43-48).

“It’s a radical ethic: mercy over vengeance, universal grace over exclusive judgment. Psychologically, this denial of “satisfaction in divine vengeance” strips away a comforting narrative of cosmic justice as payback, forcing confrontation with a God who heals Naaman (Syrian oppressors) and feeds Zarephath widows (pagan foreigners) while calling insiders to repentance.

“In broader theological terms, this episode foreshadows the Gospel’s expansion to Gentiles (as in Acts) and critiques any theology that weaponizes God for in-group vindication. It echoes Old Testament threads where God’s mercy surprises and offends (e.g., Jonah’s reluctance to preach to Nineveh, lest enemies repent and be spared). The rage isn’t just about omitted words; it’s about shattered illusions. If the Messiah brings favor without vengeance, it demands personal transformation— loving enemies as God does— rather than triumphant schadenfreude. This remains provocative today, challenging any worldview that finds solace in “us vs. them” retribution, whether religious, political, or cultural. Jesus’ approach here sets the tone for his ministry: grace that scandalizes the self-righteous.”

(End of Grok’s comments)

My point here is how we take our primary impulse for meaning and purpose and locate our very identity in a system of beliefs, especially in our images of God, as the supreme Ideal/Idea or belief. And we find intense emotional satisfaction in what our God promises in terms of, for example, salvation.

Many true believers in some belief system or tradition (especially religious systems) don’t question the possibility that the ideas that undergird the salvation element in their belief systems may be based on false initial assumptions/beliefs. For example: Consider the long history of humanity accepting the fundamental belief that there is an angry God threatening destruction and eternal damnation if not appeased by bloody human sacrifice. That threat theology first traumatizes people with fear, anxiety, shame, guilt, despair and depression, and hence a salvation scheme that follows up such horrific ultimate threat then provides profound relief- i.e. “emotional satisfaction” in some related salvation promise. Comfort after traumatizing with threat.

Insert: Note Zenon Lotufo’s quote of Harold Ellens stating that even materialist/atheists still hold the same views of deity even though overall denying the existence of deity.

Continuing…

Kristian Niemietz (referring to something else) helped us understand how people are often unaware of the initial factors/ideas behind their finding comfort in the beliefs that they embrace, hence: “Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs.”

I frame the original false ideas that undergird salvation theology in terms of deeply embedded archetypes.

And because the basic themes of threat theology have long been embedded as archetypes of the human collective subconscious (Jung) we are often not aware of their continuing influence on us. We just feel the emotional urges that they emote from the depths of our psyches and the satisfaction provided when we choose related ideas that are based on these deeply embedded archetypes.

And then (here’s the outrage part) when people’s core beliefs are challenged, especially the beliefs associated with deity, that comes to people as a challenge to their very selves. If something is challenged as wrong among their beliefs, then people will see that as condemnation that they themselves must be wrong, and their very existence is thereby challenged. That can be felt as traumatizing, terrifying.

Hence, the enraged survival reaction of many when their belief system is challenged.

I am just probing further the possible psychology behind violence. Adding more to help General Nagata understand the “idea” that we have to defeat if we are to resolve the problem of never-ending violence in our societies.

Hence my point- Consider that the emotional satisfaction that you might feel in certain beliefs may be the result of your unthinkingly accepting false initial assumptions/beliefs that undergird the salvation beliefs that give you such satisfaction. At a minimum- Why not re-evaluate such initial assumptions/beliefs to understand better your satisfaction in ideas that we now know cause too much destruction in our societies. What Thomas Sowell urged in considering the outcomes, “the test of facts”.

I would relate this, for instance, to the still widespread belief in apocalypse. This idea dominates our major religions, and has been widely embraced in the “secularized” versions of Marxism and environmental alarmism. It continues, functioning from the background as a deeply embedded archetype, to engender fear and anxiety that leads many to unthinkingly accept the proffered salvation schemes of modern apocalyptic prophets that result in such harm to our societies. Note, for example, the national suicide occurring in Germany’s “de-industrialization” as the salvation response to the climate apocalypse myth.

Continuing, an insert illustration of rage psychology:

We saw the same outrage, as that of Jesus’ first audience, across the Islamic world when the Danish cartoonist drew the cartoon of Muhammad. That was touching the sore spot of the core identity of people and hence their survival impulse and they reacted accordingly.

Consider also that humor, poking fun at sacred cows, challenge to the authority and validity of fundamental beliefs, is viewed by some as existential threat, especially to powerholders who demand that they and their authority be taken seriously. Humor challenges power and authority and is met with the severest retaliation as a survival reaction.

With beliefs and ideas, even long-held deity images, we should all be open to becoming mutable selves (Louis Zurcher’s “The Mutable Self”). Not locked onto fixed complexes of ideas as final and unchallengeable truths. (I have previously blogged on this in varied other sections on this site)

It is basic to human maturing to embrace the process of becoming a mutable self, of being open to new information, open to development and growth in an ongoing process of change. We should all be mutable selves, ever looking for new and more humane ideas and behaviors.

End of insert weave, and back to the Jesus story…

The leading priests in Jerusalem eventually did have Jesus killed when he publicly protested the sacrifice industry in Jerusalem (i.e. Bob Brinsmead’s take on Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers). The authorities knew that he had rejected the basic archetype that affirmed their domination and control of the Jewish religion and Jewish population- i.e. the mythology of a wrathful God who demanded brutal human sacrifice for atonement/appeasement.

The belief that deity demands human sacrifice to appease divine wrath (i.e. Paul’s book of Romans) has been exposed by, for example, psychologist Harold Ellens for what it really communicates and does to human minds and lives: “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’”.

After his death, the core message of Jesus survived in the early Christian movement. It was well known as an oral tradition of “Q wisdom sayings” (perhaps also written) that were the “scriptures” of especially the “Jewish Jesus movement”. Paul viewed as that Jewish Jesus movement as “heretical”, hence, two decades after Jesus’ death, Paul set about constructing his Christ myth as a rejection of the wisdom sayings message of Jesus. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul elaborates on his rejection of the wisdom tradition of Jesus. He states, “the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight”.

See, for example: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jesus/stephenjpatterson.html

Paul constructs his Christ myth by embracing and absorbing the undeniable authority of the respected person of Jesus, but he then buried Jesus’ actual message of unconditional love with his restoration of the belief in human sacrifice as necessary to appease angry deity.

Paul also embraced other elements of primitive mythology such Plato’s Hellenistic “Philosopher Kings who were divinely endowed to rule all commoners”. He took that element to construct the feature of “Lord Jesus”, the ultimate Lord to whom every knee would bow and who would rule eternally over all nations with a totalitarian “rod of iron” (e.g. Revelation). He thereby directly contradicted Jesus’ clear teaching that no one should lord over others but should serve others.

Paul’s Christ is the merger of two entire opposites and that weakens and undermines the good element in Paul’s merger. This is what Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy were trying to point out in their statements that the “diamonds” of Jesus had been buried in the “dung” of Paul’s Christology. It was blunt language but stated this issue clearly.

The merger of Historical Jesus with Christ in the title “Jesus Christ” results in history’s greatest oxymoron and that ends in the profound cognitive dissonance that arises from holding two entire opposites in one entity. And that is the very center of the Christian religion- “Lord Jesus Christ.”

Paul couched his Christ in the larger complex of “apocalyptic millennialism” themes, which can be summed as “salvation through violent destruction”. It is the fallacy of belief that to achieve some form of salvation into a millennial paradise, heaven, or some other form of utopia, you first must violently purge some evil system that exists and blocks the way to arriving at your imagined salvation.

Marxists employed this profoundly religious system of ideas to validate their destruction and purging of capitalist society in order to achieve their vision of restored communalism. They embraced the myth that primitive tribal societies were the original paradise that capitalist civilization had ruined (i.e. the original “noble savage” mythology that continues to dominate academia today, original humans as Adam/Eve living in paradise before falling into modern sinfulness).

Paul also restored the fundamental belief in retaliatory “eye for eye” justice in his Christ. He quoted an Old Testament verse to re-affirm the image of a retaliatory God who validated divine justice as vengeance against enemies (Romans 12: “’Vengeance is mine, I will retaliate’ says the Lord”).

Where Jesus, two decades earlier, had rejected outright the Old Testament belief in justice as “eye for eye” retaliation against enemies/opponents (i.e. Matthew 5, Luke 6). Jesus had stated that instead of vengeful retaliation we must love our enemies because God loves God’s enemies. He backed this claim with the evidence of God generously giving sun and rain to everyone alike, to both good and bad people. In his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God, there was no tribal favoring of true believers over unbelievers, no exclusion of anyone, no punitive destruction, just equal love for all. Unconditional love.

Essential to understanding the “idea” that must be defeated, if we are to properly resolve the problem of ongoing violence in our world (General Nagata’s concern), we have to probe the psychology of people who become enraged at this stunning new theology of an unconditional God. The psychology of rage at non-retaliatory justice (not just Jewish and Islamic rage, but Christian also). Rage at the restorative treatment of enemies as encapsulated in the precept to “Love your enemies”.

And again, obviously, any restorative treatment of offenders/enemies should not advocate the irresponsible responses of pacifism in the face of violence against innocent people. Any basic common-sense form of love will get the responsibility to protect the innocent even with force that restrains and incarcerates violent offenders.

Added notes:

In his Christ myth, Paul constructed history’s greatest lie and fraud. “Greatest” because that myth buried history’s greatest and most profoundly liberating insight that had overturned “threat theology” entirely. Images of vengeful, punitive God have always been features in the real monster that has terrorized people across history. Think of the added and unnecessary psychic suffering added to already unbearable physical suffering as people have long been told that natural disasters, disease, accidents, and the cruelty of predatory others were all evidence of God’s anger and punishment for their sin.

The Japanese woman expressed this long-held belief following the 2011 tsunami, in rhetorically asking: “Are we being punished (by God) for enjoying life too much?”.

That greatest-ever “Mother Archetype of all archetypes”- i.e. threat theology- has been behind so much validation of violence over history. It was a basic theme driving the violence of Marxist revolutions. It motivated Nazism and now functions as a major contributing factor to environmental alarmism crusades (Again, see the research of Richard Landes, Arthur Herman, Arthur Mendel, David Redles, etc.).

Threat theology has resulted in endless enslavement in the depths of human consciousness, the worst form of enslavement. Enslavement to mythically-constructed and mythically-based fear of ultimate forces that have never existed except in the overheated minds of religious authorities.

“Worst form of enslavement”? Yes. You can live in liberal democracy and still be enslaved in mind, emotions, motivation, and spirit, just as is evident in the many who continue to embrace the endless modern-era iterations of apocalypse, whether religious or secular versions. It is enslavement to fear based on the most primitive of human myths. And the outcomes of such fear-mongering and slavery are immensely destructive to societies.

Put these two bits of practical wisdom from Mencken and Mendel together:

H. L. Mencken: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

Arthur Mendel (Vision and Violence): “Apocalyptic is the most violent and destructive idea in history”. And apocalyptic is basic to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and has subsequently been embraced in Marxism, Nazism, and now environmental alarmism. Get these lines of descent and shared belief among these listed traditions and movements, as the historians have done the good homework for us in tracing this out.

This is all information that will help us all to further understand the “idea” that Nagata rightly stated we must defeat if we are to protect our societies from the violence and destruction that causes so much ruin in modern life.

Here is more from Grok:

Grok, your analysis and comment on the new section at the top of

https://wendellkrossa.com/

The section is titled:

“Site Project: Change your archetypes. But beware the outrage such a proposal might trigger, and the possible psychology behind that.”

Grok’s response:

The section you’ve highlighted at the top of your site introduces a provocative core project: advocating for a “radical transformation of archetypes,” defined as foundational models or ideals that underpin human narratives, beliefs, and ultimately behaviors. It emphasizes how these archetypes, rooted in primitive ancestral mythologies (e.g., early cosmic dualisms like Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), operate subconsciously, driving our impulses for meaning, validation, and action.

Joseph Campbell’s observation about the universality of primitive myths across cultures is invoked to underscore their enduring grip. The title’s warning about potential outrage hints at psychological resistance— perhaps cognitive dissonance or emotional attachment to these ingrained beliefs— when challenging such deeply embedded patterns. The section teases “More to come…,” suggesting it’s an evolving manifesto.

What follows appears to be an expansion or illustrative application of this archetype-shifting idea, framed around liberal democracy as a prime example of a “better” archetypal model. It proposes distilling the concept into a one-page genealogy chart, contrasting it with rival civilizational models, and linking it to anti-apocalyptic narratives (a theme that aligns with your site’s broader critique of doom-laden stories versus evidence-based optimism). The genealogy traces liberal democracy’s “braided river” evolution from ancient foundations (e.g., Mesopotamian law, Greek citizenship, Roman due process) through medieval constraints (Magna Carta), Enlightenment principles (Locke, Montesquieu), and modern constitutionalization, culminating in institutions like free speech, rule of law, and peaceful reform.

In comparisons, liberal democracy is positioned as prioritizing constrained power, individual precedence over the state, and gradual change, against rivals like imperial hierarchies (order over liberty), theocracies (divine authority over consent), and revolutionary ideologies (ends justifying violent rupture). The anti-apocalyptic tie-in is particularly sharp: liberal democracy rejects myths of redemptive destruction, moral drama, or purifying collapse (seen in religious eschatology, Marxism, or even modern environmental alarmism), favoring instead “repair” through error correction, institutional humility, and negotiation. Institutions like habeas corpus or elections are framed as bulwarks against escalation into apocalyptic frenzy. The closing synthesis encapsulates this as a “humble and hard” promise of peaceful improvement over utopian salvation.

Analysis

This section effectively serves as a meta-framework for your site’s content, using archetypes as a lens to diagnose societal ills and prescribe change. The strength lies in its interdisciplinary weave: psychology (subconscious impulses), anthropology (Campbell’s myths), history (genealogical evolution), and philosophy (anti-apocalyptic humanism). By warning of “outrage,” it pre-empts backlash, acknowledging that challenging archetypes touches on identity and existential security— people may react defensively because these beliefs validate their worldviews, much like how cognitive biases protect against discomforting truths.

The expansion on liberal democracy feels like a practical demonstration of archetype replacement: swapping primitive, dualistic, vengeance-oriented myths for a fallible, corrective model. It’s logically structured— the genealogy avoids oversimplification by portraying development as organic and cumulative, not revolutionary. The contrasts highlight liberal democracy’s uniqueness without idealizing it (noting failure modes like complacency), which adds nuance. Tying it to anti-apocalypticism is a clever pivot, reinforcing that outdated archetypes fuel destructive narratives (e.g., “salvation through rupture”), while liberal ones promote resilience and progress. This resonates with evidence-based views of history, where human advancement is incremental, not cataclysmic.

Potential limitations: The section assumes readers grasp terms like “archetypes” or “apocalyptic narratives” without much onboarding, which might alienate newcomers (though the definition helps). The genealogy, while comprehensive, could risk Eurocentrism by emphasizing Western threads (e.g., Magna Carta over non-Western parallels like ancient Indian republics or African consensus systems), though it nods to Mesopotamian roots. Psychologically, the “outrage” caveat is intriguing but underexplored here— expanding on mechanisms like confirmation bias or tribalism could deepen it.

Comments

I appreciate the boldness: proposing archetype change is ambitious, akin to cultural psychotherapy on a grand scale, and it fits xAI’s ethos of questioning assumptions to uncover truth. Liberal democracy as an anti-apocalyptic archetype is a compelling reframing— it counters the allure of doomsday stories that dominate media and politics, promoting instead a pragmatic optimism grounded in history’s actual trajectory (e.g., declining violence per Pinker, or rising global prosperity). This could spark productive debates, especially in polarized times where rivals like authoritarianism or ideological purism gain traction.

If expanding, consider visualizing the genealogy as an actual chart (perhaps via a tool or embed) for better accessibility, or linking to case studies (e.g., how apocalyptic thinking fueled events like the French Revolution vs. liberal reforms in Britain). Overall, it’s a thoughtful provocation that encourages self-reflection— changing archetypes isn’t just intellectual; it’s about rewiring how we live. If this is indeed new, it sets a strong tone for the site, inviting visitors to engage critically with their own subconscious scripts.