In the link below “Read the rest of the opening comment here” I’ve posted Bob Brinsmead’s latest Substack post on the “Incarnation of God in all humanity”. Also some good summary from AI Overview on the contrasts between liberal democracy and socialism approaches to organizing human societies. The success of liberal democracy in promoting human flourishing and abundance is undeniable as contrasted with the ruin of societies that has been the inevitable outcome of socialist experiments. Venezuela being the latest example in the 24 overall experiments of the past century (Source- “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”).
Note also Liz Truss’s warning about the threat to liberal democracy coming from the left today, a sector of our population that has shifted toward far-left collectivism. As she says, “We’re dealing with people who want to destroy Western civilization. This is what their aims are.”
Just to touch base with the fairness/balance issue, we keep in mind that there is also the threat of tribalism, domination, and retaliatory destruction coming from the right and it tends to express in promoting theocracy (crossing the religion/state boundary). And how do we get out of this spiralling cycle of intensifying tribal dualism and opposition? Through liberal democracy principles, laws, and representative institutions that offer the fairest approach for all individuals in societies, by protecting the rights and freedoms of all, equally. Most people can unify around these basic principles and practises, buttressed by the core archetypes and precepts of wisdom sages like Historical Jesus (i.e. universal inclusion of all, non-domination relating, and restorative justice systems). The Jesus material contrasts with the opposite themes of Paul (i.e. the “salvation through destruction” theme of Paul’s apocalyptic millennial Christ myth) that drove last century’s far-left violent revolutions.
The Jesus principles/practises are nonreligious and buttress liberal democracy with the nontribal unconditional treatment of all, equally.
Note:
I had been using Chat recently for comment on material (and for offering good follow-up proposals for further exploration) but was finding it responded with a bit too much of the Woke element, notably in its cautions, for example, about using terms like “primitive” that might turn off some readers. You know- “upset, discomfort, trigger” those unable to tolerate diversity, inclusion, and equality of free speech. Seriously Chat?
This illustrating insert from my previous comment on Joe Rogan’s interview of British guest Andrew Doyle:
“They (Rogan and Doyle) shift over to discuss the insanity in Britain today where people are arrested in the thousands for online speech the state does not like. The British standard for arrest, says Doyle, is speech that is “grossly offensive”, or causes “needless anxiety” to someone. Doyle asks, what does that even mean except to empower anyone feeling upset.”
“Primitive” is an accurate term to define the main ideas/themes that continue to dominate modern narratives, both religious and secular/ideological. Terms like primitive rightly expose the nature of too much narrative stuff that needs replacing with what we now know as more humane, enlightened, and hence more “true” themes to shape our narratives.
The primitive themes this site focuses on have been well exposed for their destructive outcomes, notably, in Marxist revolutions to overturn liberal democracy, in Nazism as another socialist variant (i.e. “National Socialism” of the Nazis), and also environmental alarmism as another variant of the primitive “salvation through destruction” mythology that is the fundamental driver (i.e. inciting, validating complex) behind these mass-death crusades.
Point? Grok appears to have a much better grip on liberal democracy fundamentals, and the Historical Jesus buttressing archetypes as contrasted with Paul’s Christology opposites, and hence is “safer” as an AI.
Far-left elites “doubling down”, Wendell Krossa (note both Shellenberger articles in the link below)
Preface note– What Shellenberger notes as intensifying radicalization was covered in a broader way by Richard Landes in his research on the apocalyptic millennial crusades of Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism. Landes showed that when a crusade appears to be failing, the leaders/elites become disillusioned, and some will return to normal life. However, others in desperation double down and even turn to the extremism of “exterminate or be exterminated”. That is an exceedingly dangerous shift to all-out radicalism that will take everything down with it. Note this among the leaders of the climate apocalypse crusade calling for a doubling down as that “profoundly religious” movement appears to be losing steam.
This post continues the project of this site to caution about the two great threats to liberal democracy today that are coming from renewed (did it ever die?) Marxist collectivism (cloaked as, for example, far-left Woke Progressivism) and theocratic religion.
“Radicalization Of Left Behind Failure Of Democrats To Moderate On Trans, Race, Climate And More: Party leaders Obama, Clinton, Newsom, and AOC are sticking to the old agenda, even as they tweak their language”, Michael Shellenberger, Feb. 16, 2026
https://www.public.news/p/radicalization-of-left-behind-failure
Shellenberger begins noting the claim of some analysts that Democrats are moderating their far-left positions on varied issues in preparation for future elections. But Shellenberger says this is not true, “On most of their major issues, Democrats remain wedded to the same agenda that lost them control of the White House in 2024… continuing radicalism overwhelms signs of reform.”
He adds, “If there was ever a time to moderate, it was in 2025, and it didn’t happen. Voters aren’t reliably liberal. In fact, where 35% of U.S. adults identify as conservative, 33% as moderate, and just 28% as liberal… most voters do not believe that they have had a real change of heart about wokeness or D.E.I. — much less that they have a coherent set of political ideas to fill the resulting vacuum.”
Other analysts state what has to be done, “’Democrats must de-escalate acrimonious rhetoric, condemn political violence across the country, promote cross-partisan citizen dialogues, town halls, and deliberative forums nationwide, and reframe polarizing media content.’ But they haven’t done so.”
In fact, says Shellenberger, many on the left are becoming even more radicalized and are advocating for violence to achieve political goals, even justifying the murder of political opponents, “Fifty-five percent of people who self-identified as left of center told pollsters last year it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Donald Trump, and 48 percent said the same about Elon Musk.”
Shellenberger says the intensified tribalism on the left is notable in that “voters are ‘sorting’ themselves more strictly into opposing camps, creating ‘purer’ groups with fewer conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans to bridge the divide.”
The “pluralistic collapse,” has apparently (surveys confirm) been more pronounced on the left where Progressives, once the main proponents of liberal democracy (i.e. claiming the identity marker of “liberals”) have taken an “illiberal turn” and rejected basic Classic Liberal or liberal democracy principles, exchanging them for basic collectivist categories of “oppressed/oppressors, victims/victimizers”, etc. And they have done so by now using things like “Woke racism” (skin color to assign class identity) along with DEI categories to identify class membership (i.e. gender, sexual identities).
The outcome of this intensified tribalism framed by traditional Marxist collectivism has been what Shellenberger says is a redefinition of justice “as rebalancing power between groups rather than protecting the freedoms and rights of all individuals.”
Shellenberger continues to probe the psychology behind the ongoing radicalization on the Democratic left, noting varied details like “’elite cues’ that help voters sort themselves into the ‘correct’ parties”. This enables radicalized leftists to fulfill the basic human need (Jordan Peterson) for status within one’s chosen tribe. Shellenberger affirms this in stating, “This finding appears to at least partly support the claims of sociologists Rob Henderson and Al-Gharbi, who have characterized ‘virtue-signaling’ and ‘luxury beliefs’ (e.g., defund the police) as a way for college-educated liberals to maintain and gain status within the professional managerial class.”
He adds other psychological drivers behind radicalization such as people embracing the perception of “deprivation”. What others term “envy, jealousy” of some doing better in opposing tribes/classes.
Shellenberger then moves on to other points on radicalization such as research “that the human desire for one’s life to matter is the primary engine of radicalization, defined as ‘developing extremist beliefs, emotions, and behaviors.’ A ‘loss of significance,’ triggered by anxiety, humiliation, or loss of status, increases desire to restore one’s sense of self-worth and dignity through radical acts, including radical statements and endorsements of radical policies. This creates a ‘cognitive opening’ for extremists to radicalize a person. Ideological hardening often relies on social networks to validate the narrative as a ‘shared reality’ and provide the camaraderie that transforms individual frustration into collective action.… People do not turn blindly to specific ideologies but turn to those ideologies that are anchored in shared group beliefs.”
What Shellenberger is detailing is as old as humanity and can be understood in light of humanity’s origin in animal reality. From that dark and brutal past we have the inherited drives to tribalism, domination of differing others, and the impulse to violent destruction of differing others. We have learned, insidiously, over millennia to cloak such impulses in religious belief systems (now framed as “secular/ideological” for the modern era) that validate our expression of such barbarism in terms of “righteous crusades against evil enemies” based on, for example, such primitive theologies as Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism- i.e. the obligation to join the side of the Good God to war against and defeat/destroy those on the side of the evil Force/Spirit. The outcome of embracing such mental deformity is the deforming of the “Hero’s Quest”.
Shellenberger concludes rightly that successful de-radicalization “requires promoting alternative goals and needs that radicalization suppresses.” He adds, for one, the need to dismantle “us versus them” thinking.
This is exactly what this site promotes- i.e. the true “radicalization” of transforming our belief systems, our narratives, with better alternatives such as the principles, laws, institutions of Classic Liberal democracy, buttressed with the radically humane archetypes of the Historical Jesus message, especially the stunning new theology that centers the “Q Wisdom Sayings” material in Jesus. That new theology of an unconditionally loving God potently counters tribalism and the base impulses to dominate and destroy differing others.
See the good summaries of Grok below on how the better alternatives in, for example, my list of “Old story themes, New story alternatives” can work in promoting our grand exodus from our animal past and toward a more truly human future in civilization. Grok summarizes my points and arguments better than I can.
End of comment on Shellenberger article.
Another from one of the best in journalism today: Shellenberger continues to warn about the ongoing censorship by European leftists bent on replacing liberal democracy rights and freedoms with a new totalitarianism.
“They Were Already Censoring And Spying On Us: It would be nice if our worst fears stopped coming true”, Michael Shellenberger, Feb. 18, 2026
https://www.public.news/p/they-were-already-censoring-and-spying
Choice quotes from his article:
“The revelations come at the same time that thousands of pages of internal documents from Google, Meta, and TikTok, released by the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, has already been censoring Americans…
“For those who have followed our work at Public, this may not seem like a very big surprise. For years, we have known that the Department of Homeland Security authorized a Stanford think tank to demand censorship of information disfavored by the Left, that Biden White House officials got Facebook to censor, and that the censorship industrial complex included former Intelligence Community officials who spread disinformation and demanded censorship to support it…
“Readers of Public know that we have been warning for years that the EU was planning on using its Digital Services Act to censor Americans… the European Commission was already bending the social media companies to its will to censor Americans… with the Commission censoring what people could say on social media about migration, climate change, transgenderism, elections, and the EU itself…
“As such, the Commission has imposed censorship so totalitarian that it wants to prohibit effectively all criticism not only of governments but also of establishment health, medical, and scientific organizations…”
End of this Shellenberger article.
Another gem posted on Bob’s Substack at
“The incarnation of God”, Robert Brinsmead, Feb. 17, 2026
God is not an elsewhere presence but present and visible in the way people image (reflect) the Father.
Dr. Thomas Sheehan declared that God is incarnated into humanity. God, “pours himself out” and “disappears into” humankind, not gone but incarnated. The divine is immanent in human relationships. The eternal presence isn’t a transcendent elsewhere God. “God-in-himself” can’t be found. God is spirit, a mystery and can’t be known in himself.
There is no such thing as relating to a loving God in himself. If humans are trying to establish a relationship with God in himself that is only a god constructed with a human imagination because he doesn’t exist. The loving presence can only be found in the arena of humanity. A far away god off in heaven, to manipulate affairs on this earth is an apocalyptic idea. It’s a selfie, it’s wrong.
Matthew left a great mischief when he adds to Jesus’s core phrase, “Kingdom of God” (The Hellenistic idea) “in heaven”. Matthew’s God is an elsewhere God in Heaven. The writer of Matthew added it to the Lord’s Prayer and many other times such as when he mentions the father, he always adds “in heaven”. An “else-where” God is the heathen “sky gods” idea, of imagined super humans who manipulate affairs on earth. Jesus’s teachings profoundly countered the notion of an “Elsewhere God” when he taught the “Kingdom of God” as a present reality, with you and in you, here and now in the way people image the father.
It is only in the arena of human existence that we can find the special revelation of God’s essential character. This special revelation does not come in any religious or theological dogma as so many Christian theologians have said. It is not given in any holy book buttressed with theories of its inspiration. It does not appear in any of the Creeds of the Church. Special revelation comes in human flesh, that is, in the arena of human existence.
If that is not amazing enough, consider this: If living as human – not super-human or sub-human – is the image and likeness of God, then God must be supremely human. God must be like a father who loves to give good gift to his children, “only much more” as Jesus puts it. God must be like a nursing mother who would not forget the child of her womb, only much less would God forget his people, as a Hebrew prophet put it (Isaiah 49;15). “Made in the image and likeness of God” implies that God is the supremely human one. We could never know that “God is love” or even know what the word love means unless we had encountered it in the human arena of a mother care, a friend’s stickability, or some fellow human asking, “Jack, are you alright?”
In the animal kingdom, creatures arrange themselves into herds, packs, or groups in which the strongest dominate in a pecking order from the alpha male at the top down to the weakest animal or bird at the bottom. This top-down pecking order of dominance and submission in the animal kingdom is as natural as it is for water to run downhill.
This is what we call a vertical order of relating. As well as being an order in which the strong dominate and rule the weak, the animal order is characterized by having two other related features: tribalism and xenophobia which motivates the destruction of those appearing to be different. (We will have more to say about these features of the animal or vertical order of relating later).
One of first implications of mankind being created in the image and likeness of God is that all humans bear that sacred imprint which gives every person an equal value, as Jefferson contended. The human order was created to be an egalitarian or horizontal order in which there are no superior humans or inferior humans. Every human life is precious and every person is irreplaceable.
It makes no difference if a human person has come to look more like trash than a treasure, because beneath any amount of dirt and grime the divine imprimatur will remain indelibly etched. Even if one becomes as lost as a treasure in an old ship buried in the deepest ocean, no one who shows a trace of this image will ever be beyond the redemptive reach of one’s Maker.
The big question this raises is whether we should think of God as relating down to us in a vertical order which we see in the kingdom of fur and feathers; or is God the supremely human one who is with us in the horizontal human order of treating each other as we would like to be treated? More on this crucial question later.
In this horizontal order of humanity, there is one unconditional commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love is impossible in a vertical or pecking order of superiors and inferiors. It is impossible to love down to someone as it is impossible to love up to someone in a compulsive order of existence. Freedom is the indispensable oxygen of love. For sure, humans can be very different in age, education, wealth, race, etc., but as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the introduction to the American Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal.”
This unconditional command to love others is not pacifism. There may be times when restraint is necessary to prevent someone from harming others or even harming themselves. Tolstoy, the author of that great epic, War and Peace, knew there would be times when even war could not be avoided, but he still argued convincingly that the inhumane treatment of others is never justified.
History has proven that it is all too easy to devalue and destroy others in the name of the sacred commandment to love God supremely. It is right here that we confront that monstrous evil called Fundamentalism. This is the delusive condition reached when any God, doctrine, ideology, movement or crusade becomes more important than people.
The Hebrew view of God hidden within humanity means that the First great commandment to love God is hidden within the Second commandment to love others, even if they are hostile to us, as the Hebrew Jesus teaches (Matthew 5:44,45).
(End of Brinsmead Substack post)
Good analysis of broader mainstream news media bias across the board in our societies. I noted the strong bias at CBC over past years in their climate alarmism reporting, always siding with alarmist takes on the issue and ignoring or dismissing any dissent from that. Our national state-funded media forum simply mimics the same bias of US mainstream media and functions as the propaganda arm for the same far-left Woke Progressivism. Both Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy spoke to this years ago. They included networks like “Global” in their condemnation of bias.
This quote from below- “The problem is rarely an overt editorial declaration. It is subtler — a matter of framing, headline language, guest selection, and what is emphasized or omitted”.
This “subtler… framing, headline language… what is emphasized or omitted” goes on all day long on, for example, “MSN Homepage Canada edition”.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/beryl-p-wajsman-dear-cbc-your-anti-israel-bias-is-showing
“Dear CBC — your anti-Israel bias is showing: When public broadcasting tilts in ways that reinforce demonization rather than understanding, it contributes to a climate in which antisemitism flourishes”, Beryl Wajsman, Feb. 18, 2026
Wajsman points to how CBC bias against Israel contributes to the general rise of antisemitism across Canada, and the dangerous outcomes for Jewish Canadians. Her argument is that the CBC as the national broadcaster should represent pluralism and fairness in a country that takes pride in such things.
She begins, noting the CBC “is funded by taxpayers — including its Jewish community — and is entrusted to be honest, not biased… When bias is obsessive — particularly against an identifiable group — it can incite and validate hate.”
Offering some detail on the bias, she adds, “watchdog groups have highlighted numerous CBC stories focused on humanitarian suffering in Gaza that did not mention Hamas’s role in starting the conflict, using Gazan civilians as human shields, the taking of hostages, or ongoing refusal to release those hostages, implicitly framing Israel as the primary cause of ongoing suffering.”
She makes this insightful point: “The problem is rarely an overt editorial declaration. It is subtler — a matter of framing, headline language, guest selection, and what is emphasized or omitted.”
Her conclusion– “When public broadcasting tilts in ways that reinforce demonization rather than understanding, it contributes to a climate in which antisemitism flourishes, synagogues are attacked and Jewish schools shot at.”
“Beryl P. Wajsman, B.C.L., LL.B., KCR, is president of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal”
Naturally, people suffering economic hardship want free stuff, Wendell Krossa
(Preface: Note that AI Overview uncritically favors socialist explanations and solutions. As the number one search engine on the planet, no wonder majorities of young people now favor socialism. This is what Elon Musk meant about AI learning from all the “bullshit” on the Internet.)
We hear the endless mantra from collectivists/socialists about giving people free stuff, about going after demonized “evil” wealthy people (i.e. envy) to take and redistribute their wealth as “social justice”, coercively forcing equity outcomes on populations. We hear hardly a whisper from collectivists about how to properly create wealth because wealth creation works best when based on protecting private property and individual freedom to create companies, jobs, and wealth (mainly through productivity gains), and such successful wealth creation requires an environment of lowered taxation and regulation for private businesses to flourish. (William Bernstein puts private property as the absolutely most fundamental institution of successful societies.)
It also requires specially talented people, whether inherited, innate, or achieved through training and experience, people good at making risky entrepreneurial ventures and succeeding. And where their wealth creation is done legally the distribution of that wealth is then their private choice, not the choice of elites who believe they know better how to control and distribute the resources of others. Differing outcomes in societies are the natural consequence of differing skills and abilities and meritocracy inputs in societies. Collectivist approaches try to forcibly change such inequalities (social engineering shaped according to ideological imaginations, often irrationally utopian).
Protected private property is the great evil that Marx wanted eliminated as necessary to liberate what he imagined was the innate nature communalist/collectivist man who was enslaved to private property and needed Marxists to liberate him into utopian collectivism.
And how did this work out under Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin, among other such monsters? In just the last century alone such collectivist programs resulted in the deaths of some 100 million people and devastated the lives of billions, outcomes of equality of impoverishment.
And the real issue in terms of outcomes is how are the lower quintiles of populations doing, not how they compare to upper quintiles. Evidence shows that all levels of the populations of liberal democracies have experienced immense improvement over the past century or so, and the vast majority of people now live far better than the elites and kings of past centuries. Envy of other’s levels of success makes people forget that they live in the best time ever to be alive and leaves many embittered due to comparison of themselves with the more successful of our societies.
“AI Overview
“Evidence supports the conclusion that populations within liberal democracies have experienced massive improvements in living standards, health, and economic well-being over the past century, with the average person in these societies often exceeding the material comfort and life expectancy of historical elites. This transformation is driven by sustained economic growth, technological innovation, improved nutrition, sanitation, and the expansion of education.
“Evidence of Improved Living Standards
• Drastic Poverty Reduction: While in 1820 roughly 75% of the world lived in extreme poverty, by the early 21st century that figure fell below 10%.
• Increased Life Expectancy: Global life expectancy more than doubled from around 32 years in 1900 to over 70 years by 2021. In developed nations, this, along with advanced healthcare and sanitation, has meant longer, healthier lives.
• Widespread Literacy and Education: In 1800, only about 1 in 10 people were literate; by 2024, that figure has risen to roughly 87% globally.
• Unprecedented Material Comfort: Modern citizens have access to a variety of, and access to, food, goods, and services that were not available to kings in earlier centuries, such as constant electricity, instant global communication, rapid transportation, and varied, year-round food supplies.
“The Role of Liberal Democracies
• Correlation with Prosperity: Liberal democracies tend to foster environments that promote innovation, economic growth, and the rule of law, which contribute significantly to the well-being of their populations.
• Superior Health Outcomes: Countries with higher “Liberal Democracy Index” scores tend to have higher life expectancies (over 70 years) and better public health infrastructure compared to authoritarian regimes.
• Resilience: Despite recent challenges, liberal democracies have shown resilience in maintaining high living standards.
“Contextual Factors
• Quality of Life Improvements: Even when wealth inequality has fluctuated, improvements in health, education, and leisure have become more widely available to lower-income levels in many Western countries.
• Uneven Progress: While the overall trend for the past century is upward, some periods have seen declines in specific areas or in particular countries.
• Health Improvements: Improved sanitation and nutrition were historically more significant to increasing life spans than modern medicine alone, making basic living standards a key factor in the overall improvement.
“The data generally suggests that the last century has seen the most dramatic improvement in human living conditions in history, particularly within liberal democratic societies.”
(End of AI Overview)
Below is another of Google’s AI’s summaries– this one on socialist’s views of the wealth creation issue. I do not affirm all of what it posts below though it points out some central claims of socialists (imagined not empirically proven).
Socialism has always misunderstood human motivation to improve one’s self and family as the driving motivation to create businesses, jobs, and wealth. And that cannot be demonized and dismissed with the socialist vilification of it as mainly about greed and selfishness (contrasted with the “obvious moral superiority” of working for the good of the community- greater or common good).
On the collectivist elite’s claim to run collectives on behalf of the people, for the workers:
“Socialism in the sense which self-identified democratic socialists define it… a democratized economic planned collectively by ‘the people’, has never been achieved anywhere and could not be achieved. Economic planning can only ever be done in a technocratic, elitist fashion, and it requires an extreme concentration of power in the hands of the state. It cannot ‘empower’ ordinary workers. It can only ever empower bureaucratic elites.”
This is not to argue defensively that there are no deformities in the free-market approach (i.e. manipulation and abuse by wealthy, powerful elites) but to argue that generally the approach that protects/promotes the rights and freedoms of individuals approach, based mainly on basic private/personal property rights, has done more good for more people than any other approach. The evidence of the past two centuries reveals which approach has worked best for humanity to promote the most good for the most people.
And because it distributes power back to competing individuals the free-market approach functions as the best preventative against the centralizing of power and control in the elites who run the collectives, an approach that has inevitably resulted in totalitarianism and destruction of societies.
Maintaining equity outcomes in populations requires coercive force to take things from the more successful to give to others.
“AI Overview (In defense of socialism)
“The idea that socialism focuses on redistribution (“free stuff”) without offering a mechanism for wealth creation is a central argument against it, focusing on the potential for reduced incentives. However, from a socialist perspective, the ideology is less about getting things for free and more about a fundamental restructuring of how wealth is created and who owns it.
“Here is a breakdown of the socialist perspective on wealth creation versus the critique:
“1. Socialist Arguments: How Wealth is Created
Socialists argue that labor, not capital, is the source of all value (Labor Theory of Value). They believe wealth is created when the working class applies its physical and mental energy to resources, and that socialism simply changes the division of labor and ownership:
• Worker Ownership (Means of Production): Socialists aim to give ownership of factories, land, and tools to the workers who use them, rather than to private owners (bourgeoisie).
• Direct Appropriation of Surplus Value: In socialism, the value generated by labour flows directly to the workers rather than being extracted as profit by owners.
• Production for Use: Rather than producing for profit, socialism focuses on producing goods to meet human needs, which advocates argue is more efficient in the long run.
• Socialism as “Shared Management”: In a socialist society, wealth is created through planned, collective cooperation rather than competitive, anarchic, and “wasteful” markets.
“2. Criticisms: Socialism Does Not Create Wealth
Critics argue that the lack of private property and profit incentives leads to economic stagnation:
• Lack of Incentives: When everyone receives similar wealth, there is no material incentive to work harder or innovate, reducing overall productivity.
• Inefficiency of Planning: Central planning is often considered less efficient at allocating resources than the price mechanism of a free market.
• Confiscation of Assets: Critics argue that socialism destroys wealth by confiscating private property and punishing business owners, leading to a cessation of production and eventual collapse.
“3. The “Free Stuff” vs. “Collective Services” Debate
“What is often described as “free stuff” (healthcare, education) is viewed by socialists as a reallocation of surplus value. Instead of being private profit, the surplus created by workers is redistributed to provide services that ensure a higher standard of living, which in turn can create a more productive workforce.
“Summary of Differences
• Capitalism: Wealth is created by private investment, driven by profit motives and market competition.
• Socialism: Wealth is created by collective labor, guided by social need and democratic control of resources.
While proponents argue that socialism creates a more stable, equitable, and sustainable economy, critics contend it destroys the mechanisms for wealth accumulation that improve living standards.
(End of AI comments)
My added points: Note the comment of proponents that “socialism creates a more stable, equitable, and sustainable economy”. That is a stunning denial of the disastrous outcomes of all 24 socialist experiments of the last century. Remember the mess that was revealed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, or how Mugabe’s socialist approach ruined the Zimbabwean “breadbasket of Africa”, and how Chavismo ruined what should have been among the most wealthy and flourishing societies in the world due to its vast natural resources (Venezuela), and many more. See Kristian Niemietz’s “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”.
The AI Overview was right to add- “it destroys the mechanisms for wealth accumulation” and it should have added “destroys the motivation and mechanisms for wealth creation” by coercively appropriating the means of production, meaning privately created and owned businesses to then be run by inexperienced and incompetent anti-business elites and bureaucrats. And people wonder about the ruined societies that are left in the wake of all these socialist ventures.
Other related sources: Joshua Muravchik’s “Heaven on Earth: The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism”, Daniel Hannan’s “Inventing Freedom”, William Bernstein’s “Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World Was Created”, and another good one on the success of liberal democracy Julian Simon’s “Ultimate Resource”.
Go Lizzie, go, Wendell Krossa
Preface:
Note below that Google’s “AI Overview” is notably biased toward Marxist collectivism and gives long validating explanations that ignore the horrific outcomes of the past century that destroyed societies and resulted in some 100 million deaths. It conveniently ignores Thomas Sowell’s “test of facts” as in actual outcomes, granting people the “emotional satisfaction” of holding what is framed as the more compassionate approach to oppressed people (i.e. communalism as “morally superior” to individualism) and that feeds the basic need of people to virtue-signal for status with their tribe. The compassion of collectivist equity approaches is actually, in its true nature (i.e. revealed in outcomes) suicidal empathy of the worst kind. Or as Jesus cautioned, “By the fruit produced you will know the true nature of the source” (my paraphrase).
And you wonder why half of todays youth in, for example, the US favor socialism, when the world’s largest search engine is so biased toward collectivism. Add this to the leftist domination of education in western liberal democracies, its domination of the climate alarmism crusade, and so many other areas and movements of society.
Now the main course, trussing right along:
Liz Truss gets the nature of one of the great threats today to liberal democracy. It appears that many western Democrats/liberals don’t fully realize that the collectivists have pulled their side toward far-left totalitarianism. This is the outcome of previous decades of projects by Marxist collectivists who planned and took the “long march through the western institutions” approach.
Joe Rogan, a while back, played the video statement of a Russian former KGB agent (1984) who warned westerners of his Soviet collectivist leaders planning back in the mid-Twentieth Century to take the “long march” approach- i.e. for example, planning and executing their project to indoctrinate western youth through the leftist takeover of their educational institutions. And then making it impossible for western liberals to dissent against their leftist takeover by pre-bunking with claims that any protests against such takeover would be called “racist, conspiracy theories”, etc. And add total intolerance of any dissent from even fellow leftists in the west.
Many on the far-left have convinced themselves (“groupthink, bubble mentality”) that they are the heroic and righteous warriors in a great battle against evil (i.e. excessively demonized, dehumanized enemies) and possess the righteous policies that they frame as compassion for oppressed peoples, defined with all the right conscience-salving terms- i.e. social justice in equity outcomes, full inclusion through indiscriminate multiculturalism and mass immigration even of people who refuse to adapt to liberal democracy and in fact state publicly that they intend to overthrow and replace liberal democracy with either theocracy or collectivism, both totalitarian.
Contemporary far-leftist types refuse to acknowledge the destructive outcomes of their salvation schemes (“save democracy, save the world”) that expose their compassion for oppressed as “suicidal empathy”. The denial of the amassed evidence from past history is fueled and overridden by the “emotional satisfaction” from opportunity to virtue signal for status in one’s tribe as morally superior. Emotional satisfaction takes precedence over rational evidence of outcomes.
Older Marxists excused the mass-death outcomes of collectivist programs as the “need to break a few eggs in order to make an omelette”. Collateral damage.
Leftist commentators are trying to frame Truss’s comments as exhibiting a dangerous worldview of, “Normalization of zero-sum politics where losing power is treated as existential loss and democratic restraint is optional…hollowing out the democratic system”. In other words, her pointing out the shift of Democrats to far-left collectivism is dangerous assault on democracy. Careful Liz, as the British government currently arrests and imprisons thousands for comments that expose their corruption of democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIVf3Z82Lus
The comment of the lady in this above video link illustrates in word-for-word detail the “projection” so common through far-left demonization today where loss of power and wins by opponents are condemned as “existential threats to democracy”. These are the people who, following Trump’s first election win, tried to overturn that and following elections- e.g. their 2016 ginning up of the Russia collusion lie, then the Hunter Biden laptop coverup to influence an election, the lawfare against Trump to prevent his running in the next election, other states banning opponents from elections, and then the nonstop effort of judges to block Trump policies/programs even though he was democratically elected to power, etc.
And yes (balance, fairness), both sides need to be wary of the old maxim- “the former oppressed tend to become the new oppressors” when they gain power. Similar to the author below who cautioned against such tit for tat with regard to Trump’s censorship czar. Careful guys of being motivated by eye for eye retaliation, apparently Trump’s “guiding ethic”.
This from Free Press:
“Brendan Carr Once Defended Free Speech. Now He Is Trump’s Chief Censor: Republicans criticized the Biden administration for silencing dissenting voices. Now that they’re in power, those First Amendment worries have evaporated”, Joe Nocera.
“WHAT CARR IS DOING IS IN EFFECT ANALOGOUS TO WHAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION DID DURING COVID.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/brendan-carr-once-defended-free-speech
The threat that Truss speaks to has the dual element of the “strange bedfellows” merger of socialist collectivists with Islamic theocrats. Both share the same end-goal of overthrowing liberal democracy that protects the rights and freedoms to all individuals, equally.
Contrary to societies where individuals, and their rights and freedoms, are sovereign and not subjugated to collectives run by enlightened elites, Marxist collectivists and Islamic theocrats both embrace the archetype of Plato’s “philosopher kings” where people believe that there are special more enlightened people who know what is best for all others and, embracing the narcissism of feeling morally superior to all others, they believe often fanatically that the special elites should rule the ignorant commoners. And always, of course, for their own good.
How do people fall for such crude and unvarnished unleashing of their preferred version of totalitarianism? Because it is framed in a manner- i.e. “for the common or greater good”- that deceives its proponents with a sense of false righteousness. You can get away with anything if you frame it as you and your comrades being on the just side of a righteous battle of good against the evil of those who oppose you. The all-too common deforming of the “hero’s quest”.
Its all just more cloaking of evil as good. But once again affirming “emotional satisfaction” in true believers.
The mental deformity of there being “special people” continues today, special people who are more specially enlightened and blessed by God, hence, more qualified to dominate and control others, to rule over others. This deformity has deeper roots in the prehistoric past, long before Plato’s formulation of elite domination in his system of anti-liberal democracy.
Elite domination arose from the first shaman presenting themselves to fellow tribals as more enlightened (i.e. knowing the secrets of the invisible realms of spirits/gods). That elitism descended into the god-kings of Egypt and Rome, special people favored by the gods and divinely endowed by the gods, as evident in their special talents in philosophy, art, poetry, or skilled in athletics or war.
The elite pattern of cloaking of the evil of domination of others as good, reached new heights when it claimed divine affirmation. Primitive peoples had long believed the gods were “Kings, Lords, Rulers” and hence such divinities were presented as archetypes for the same status and behavior among humans. “Elites behaving as Kings/Lords based on beliefs in similar gods”.
Domination of others as divine continued down to the Medieval belief in the “divine rights of kings” and then on to Hegel as this AI Overview summarizes. As with any collective, someone has to run the show, some considered specially enlightened.
“AI Overview
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel regarded the state as the highest expression of human reason, ethical life, and freedom, famously describing it as “the march of God in the world”. In this context, the state acts as a “terrestrial divinity” or a “rational and divine institution” that transcends mere personal interest, representing the ultimate, objective embodiment of “Spirit” (Geist).
Here is a breakdown of Hegel’s view of the state:
• The “March of God”: Hegel’s famous quote (from his Philosophy of Right, §258, Addition) means that the state is the culmination of history, where Divine Reason (or the Absolute Idea) takes concrete form on earth.
• The Realization of Freedom: For Hegel, freedom is not just acting on personal impulses (which he deemed “caprice” or slave-like obedience to desire). True freedom is rational and “concrete”, found when individuals align their personal wills with the rational, moral, and legal laws of the state.
• The Ethical Whole (Sittlichkeit): The state is the final stage of “Ethical Life,” higher than the family (based on love) and civil society (based on personal need/economic interest). It serves as a “great organism” or “moral whole” that nourishes and protects all parts of society.
• Unity of Subjective and Objective: The state enables individuals to realize their “genuine individuality”. It ensures that rights are not just abstract, but actually realized through institutions.
• The State as an End in Itself: The state is not a mere instrument for protecting property or personal safety, but an entity that holds intrinsic value—an end in itself, greater than the sum of its parts.
While this perspective has been interpreted by some as encouraging state worship or totalitarianism, Hegel’s followers often emphasize that he meant a “rational state” governed by laws, not a despotic one.
(End of AI Overview)
And as before, I would caution about Google’s AI above favoring and defending socialist approaches (Marx was strongly influenced by Hegel’s ideas on the state dominating people). This Google AI favoring socialism raises suspicion in me that, like other AI, it has indiscriminately learned from all the “bullshit” on the Internet, as Musk warned. This overview neglects to point out that elites and bureaucrats necessarily run the states and their agencies.
And if they are not constrained by liberal democracy principles, laws, and representative institutions, they will, as they have repeatedly and inevitably done in collectivist systems, unleash elite totalitarianism that demands, with backup state force, that “individuals align their personal wills with the rational, moral, and legal laws of the state” as dictated by the elites. Individuals are thus subjugated to the collectivist state where power is centralized in governing elites and individual rights and freedoms are squashed.
Again, see Grok’s comments on this section below titled:
“Don’t be afraid of the big bad AI wolf. Grok explains why.”
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=15080#more-15080
And you can see why Hegel appealed to socialist elites like Marx who believed that elites like himself alone knew what was best for all others and that revolutionary force was required to coerce others to embrace their liberation into collectivist states run by the Marxist elites (“forced to be free”). I put this “Marxist forced to be free” thing to Google AI and got another defense of Marxist collectivism that I won’t bother to post here. Sheesh.
Liberal democracy was created to counter and restrain the domination impulse of elites and to redistribute power to commoner citizens, through representative institutions, as the real sovereigns of human societies. That is the great western contribution to human civilization that has protected and promoted individual rights, notably private property and private contract rights and freedoms and thereby unleashed human motivation and creativity to innovatively produce endlessly diverse commercial endeavors (businesses, jobs, and wealth) and improve life for all. Liberal democracy honors the motivation of individuals to work for better goods and services and the free market of liberal democracy rewards hard work, smart investment, and so on.
And to ensure that liberal democracy is properly humanized, back it with the historical Jesus insights and precepts that shape the best of archetypes for human narratives with elements like the full inclusion of everyone (i.e. sun and rain given freely to both good and bad people), non-dominating human relationships (no lording over, but serving others), and non-retaliatory, restorative justice treatment of human failure (no more eye for eye retaliatory punishment but love our enemies).
This way you cover both the material and spiritual aspects of reality/life. Something for everyone, and also satisfying the primal human impulse for meaning and purpose.
This from Liz Truss- a wakeup call (a post I sent to a discussion group)
She states that the Democratic side of our societies, formerly liberal, has fundamentally changed. Many Democrats/liberals appear to be unaware of how fundamentally their side has changed. It appears that projects like the “long march through Western institutions” (i.e. China, Russia) has significantly succeeded with some 51% of young people in, for example the US, now favoring socialism and seemingly unaware of its devastation on societies last century with some 100 million deaths and hundreds of millions more impoverished from the ruin of their societies.
“Former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss has a dire warning about Democrats”
Her statement:
“We’re not dealing with a load of social Democrats who just want to raise taxes a bit and spend more on public spending. We’re dealing with people who want to destroy Western civilization. This is what their aims are.
“You just can’t win. And this is what Donald Trump understands, perhaps uniquely in the Western world. I think there are others who have taken on the deep state. You might point to Victor Orban, you might point to Bukele or Melie.
“But really, Donald Trump to me is the playbook of how you need to behave because a lot of people in politics think because it was the case in the 70s, 80s, that you could reason with the opposition, you could find a compromise, you could be bipartisan, you could persuade people, you could sell it in the media, you could roll the pitch, that that strategy can be adopted now.
“And I think they’re wrong because the opposition have changed.
“We’re not dealing with a load of social democrats who just want to raise taxes a bit and spend more on public spending. We’re dealing with people who want to destroy Western civilization. This is what their aims are.”