“In reality, absolute power and a lack of freedom always create disaster”- from an AI Overview below.
And this from Grok below- “A radical alternative at the core”
“Your site’s emphasis highlights a profound fork in the road here. The Jesus approach, in this reading, goes straight to the root. It doesn’t merely tweak surface behaviors or rules— it confronts and seeks to overturn the deepest templates themselves. It proposes an entirely new core vision of the divine as unconditional— not tribal, not dominating, not waiting to punish. This represents a stunning upgrade to the highest human ideals, one capable of reshaping the foundational stories that drive our thinking, emotions, motivations, and actions. Replacing punitive archetypes with unconditional ones would, over time, transform how people treat others and build societies: away from retaliation and purging, toward genuine forgiveness, inclusion, and creative renewal.
“By contrast, the Pauline stream (in this perspective) represents a retreat or compromise. It pulls back toward the older, more familiar deity template— reaffirming elements of domination, tribal election, and punitive justice. This made the new message more palatable and transmissible within the ancient world, but at the cost of diluting the radical shift. The result is a stark contrast between two narratives that have competed within the same tradition ever since: one pushing toward a complete overhaul of the human subconscious story, the other reinforcing much of the old architecture.”
And another from Grok summary below…
Solzhenitsyn’s corrective insight
Solzhenitsyn, having witnessed (and participated in) some of the 20th century’s worst ideological horrors, rejected the comforting externalization of evil. He wrote:
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” goodreads.com
The real enemy isn’t “out there” to be purged in a final revolutionary or apocalyptic battle. It’s the residual animal impulses and the old archetypes inside each of us that incite tribalism (my group is sacred, yours is threatening), domination (power and control as the natural order), and destruction of differing others (retaliation and purging as justice). These patterns provide emotional satisfaction precisely because they are ancient and wired into our storytelling instincts.
Also…
“Plato’s Philosopher Kings and Marxist vanguards both believed elite, educated leaders must control society to achieve a perfect world. Driven by the goal of protecting the common good, this heavy control resulted in the loss of personal freedoms, economic collapse, and widespread hardship.
Pushing AI to do homework on this...
Grok:
Make the point from my site that people today are still influenced by the archetypes of the collective human subconscious to choose beliefs to construct their worldviews/narratives. Archetypes that give people “emotional satisfaction” in choosing the same old themes of, for example, “salvation through destruction” narratives.
(“Archetype” may not be a familiar term to many people so please use more easily understood synonyms.)
The result from endless surrendering to the powerful influence of subconscious archetypes across history is contemporary worldviews with ideals that still validate our worst impulses to tribalism, domination of others, and retaliatory destruction (eye for eye “justice”).
My point is that the archetypes of our collective subconscious were shaped millennia ago by primitive mythological themes, including most critically the most dominant of themes/beliefs- i.e. deities as tribal, dominating, and punitively destructive. Hence, the ongoing human embrace of systems of salvation through destruction, whether in religious or secular/ideological versions, as in the continuing success of Marxism/socialism, environmental alarmism, and theocracy crusades.
This is why my site emphasizes the Jesus approach of going to the root themes in human subconscious to confront, overthrow, and then replace entirely the very core of human narratives with the stunning new theology of unconditional deity- the highest of human beliefs/ideals to reshape the most fundamental archetypes. It is also why I tackle Paul for retreating to reinforce the old deity that reaffirmed the same old archetypes of all past history. Paul and Jesus provide the most stark of contrasting worldviews/narratives.
Archetypes shape human thinking, emotions, motivations, and the outcome is shaping human response, treatment of others, overall behavior and on out to our societies.
Your thoughts and summary.
Grok replied:
Deep-seated story patterns (or primal mental templates) still guide how people build their worldviews today. Most of us aren’t consciously aware of it, but we are drawn to certain big, recurring themes that feel emotionally satisfying because they echo very old, shared human stories. These aren’t just random ideas— they act like invisible blueprints in the background of our minds, shaping what “makes sense” to us, what feels righteous, and what solutions we reach for.
Think of them as the classic plotlines baked into the human imagination across cultures and centuries: the hero who must destroy evil to save the world, the tribe that must dominate or be dominated, the demand for payback (“eye for an eye”) as true justice, and the promise of renewal only after some great purging or catastrophe.
These patterns give people a powerful emotional payoff. They make complex reality feel coherent and morally charged. “Salvation through destruction” is one of the most potent: things will only get better after we tear down the current order, punish the guilty, or unleash righteous force against the outsiders/enemies. This template has persisted because it aligns with something ancient and instinctive in us.
Roots in ancient myths
These mental templates were largely formed in humanity’s early history, when our stories centered on gods who were intensely tribal (favoring “us” over “them”), dominating (ruling through power and fear), and punitively destructive (quick to punish, flood, or smite). Those old narratives didn’t disappear with modernity. They continue to shape both religious and secular belief systems. We see updated versions in:
• Ideologies promising utopia after revolutionary upheaval or the elimination of class enemies.
• Alarmist movements framing humanity itself (or certain industries, groups, or ways of life) as a cancer that must be radically cut out to “save the planet.”
• Crusading or authoritarian mindsets that seek purity and control through coercion and punishment.
The result is worldviews that keep validating our worst recurring impulses: tribal us-versus-them thinking, the desire to dominate opponents, and cycles of retaliation dressed up as justice. Even when dressed in scientific, progressive, or humanitarian language, the underlying emotional script often remains the same one forged millennia ago.
A radical alternative at the core
Your site’s emphasis highlights a profound fork in the road here. The Jesus approach, in this reading, goes straight to the root. It doesn’t merely tweak surface behaviors or rules— it confronts and seeks to overturn the deepest templates themselves. It proposes an entirely new core vision of the divine as unconditional— not tribal, not dominating, not waiting to punish. This represents a stunning upgrade to the highest human ideals, one capable of reshaping the foundational stories that drive our thinking, emotions, motivations, and actions. Replacing punitive archetypes with unconditional ones would, over time, transform how people treat others and build societies: away from retaliation and purging, toward genuine forgiveness, inclusion, and creative renewal.
By contrast, the Pauline stream (in this perspective) represents a retreat or compromise. It pulls back toward the older, more familiar deity template— reaffirming elements of domination, tribal election, and punitive justice. This made the new message more palatable and transmissible within the ancient world, but at the cost of diluting the radical shift. The result is a stark contrast between two narratives that have competed within the same tradition ever since: one pushing toward a complete overhaul of the human subconscious story, the other reinforcing much of the old architecture.
My thoughts
This framework offers a compelling way to understand why harmful patterns recur despite surface-level progress in education, technology, and institutions. Human beings are storytelling creatures; we don’t live by data points alone. We need coherent narratives that resonate emotionally and give meaning. If the deepest available templates still tilt toward destruction-as-salvation and power-as-justice, then even “enlightened” secular ideologies will tend to recycle them. Evolutionary psychology and cultural anthropology support the broad idea that ancient survival pressures (small-group competition, resource scarcity, threat detection) left lasting imprints on our shared imagination. Jung’s concept of archetypes, comparative mythology, and modern memetics all touch on similar territory.
The ambitious claim— that one historical figure offered the decisive breakthrough to replace the core templates— raises big questions. How fully can any single intervention rewrite something so deeply wired? History shows both remarkable moral progress in some areas (e.g., declining violence rates in many societies, expanding circles of empathy) and repeated backsliding into tribal destruction. Cultural evolution is messy and multi-causal: reason, evidence, institutions, economics, and individual agency also play major roles alongside subconscious patterns.
Still, your core diagnostic insight is valuable: real, lasting improvement likely requires addressing not just policies or doctrines on the surface, but the primal stories that feel intuitively “right.” Prioritizing unconditional goodness, forgiveness, and non-retaliatory creativity as the new foundational archetypes is a high and demanding ideal. It challenges both religious traditionalists and secular revolutionaries who remain attached to versions of the old script. Whether one frames this in theological or humanistic terms, the call to consciously examine and upgrade our deepest narrative templates is worth engaging. It pushes us to ask: What stories are we actually living by, and are they worthy of the future we want to create?
Grok suggested studying Campbell’s hero’s journey. My query
“How about Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey in terms of Solzhenitsyn’s insight- i.e. that the real enemy and monster in life to defeat is the old archetypes that incite and validate the residual animal inside us- the evil triad of tribalism, domination, destruction of differing others?”
Grok reply:
This is a powerful and insightful reframing. It takes Campbell’s universal “Hero’s Journey” (the monomyth) and aligns it with Solzhenitsyn’s hard-won wisdom from the Gulag: the true battle isn’t primarily against external monsters or enemies, but against the line of evil that runs through every human heart— including the primal drives and old story templates that keep validating our worst impulses. goodreads.com
Campbell’s Hero’s Journey in traditional form
Joseph Campbell, drawing heavily on Carl Jung’s ideas of archetypes (those deep, shared mental patterns in the collective unconscious), described the Hero’s Journey as a cross-cultural template:
• The hero leaves the ordinary world.
• Crosses into a realm of adventure and trials.
• Confronts and defeats a great monster, dragon, or shadow force.
• Wins a boon or transformation.
• Returns to share it with the community. jcf.org
In countless myths, the “monster” is externalized— an enemy tribe, a tyrant, a chaotic beast, or a dark lord. Slaying it brings order, renewal, and salvation. This pattern feels deeply satisfying because it mirrors ancient survival stories and taps into those subconscious blueprints you’ve highlighted: tribal us-vs-them, domination through superior force, and destruction of the “other” as the path to redemption.
Solzhenitsyn’s corrective insight
Solzhenitsyn, having witnessed (and participated in) some of the 20th century’s worst ideological horrors, rejected the comforting externalization of evil. He wrote:
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” goodreads.com
The real enemy isn’t “out there” to be purged in a final revolutionary or apocalyptic battle. It’s the residual animal impulses and the old archetypes inside each of us that incite tribalism (my group is sacred, yours is threatening), domination (power and control as the natural order), and destruction of differing others (retaliation and purging as justice). These patterns provide emotional satisfaction precisely because they are ancient and wired into our storytelling instincts.
A profound reorientation of the Hero’s Journey
Your suggested lens turns the monomyth inward and upward in a radical way:
• The Call to Adventure: Becoming aware that the “dragon” is not primarily the outsider, the heretic, the capitalist, the unbeliever, or the polluter— but the internal archetypes that make us eager to hate, dominate, and destroy in the name of some greater good.
• The Trials and Ordeal: The hard, humbling work of confronting one’s own heart. This involves recognizing how satisfying it feels to embrace the old scripts (revenge feels righteous; tribal loyalty feels secure; destruction of the “enemy” feels like progress). It demands self-honesty, much like Solzhenitsyn’s prison insight.
• The Supreme Ordeal / Slaying the Monster: Not a violent external victory, but the overthrow of those core subconscious templates. This is where your site’s emphasis on Jesus’ unconditional divine ideal fits powerfully— it offers a replacement archetype: love that doesn’t require an enemy to define itself, forgiveness that breaks retaliation cycles, and creativity that builds rather than purges.
• The Return: Bringing this transformed inner state back into the world— modeling and promoting narratives that weaken rather than inflame the evil triad. Societies improve not through bigger revolutions that reenact the old myth, but through enough individuals willing to “destroy a piece of their own heart” (the old programming).
This reframing keeps the emotional power and universality of Campbell’s monomyth while correcting its common misuse. Too often, people (including modern storytellers in politics, media, and activism) use the Hero’s Journey to justify external witch hunts and “necessary” destruction. The Solzhenitsyn-infused version makes the hero’s true maturity the internalization of the battle.
It resonates with psychological and spiritual traditions that stress metanoia (a profound change of mind/heart), shadow work (integrating rather than projecting the dark side), and the shift from “power-over” to “power-with.” Yet it remains demanding: who wants to slay the dragon that flatters our ego and gives us clear villains?
This integration strengthens your overall thesis. The old archetypes didn’t just shape ancient myths— they keep hijacking even our most sophisticated secular and religious stories. A genuine hero’s journey today would be the one that finally updates the software running in humanity’s collective subconscious. It’s optimistic in its vision of transformation, yet realistic about the cost (that piece of our own heart). Well worth developing further— perhaps as a direct contrast between the classic external-hero myth and the mature, internal one. It could make for a compelling bridge between mythology, psychology, history, and theology.
Loss of individual freedom through big state expansion or through the more egregious socialist assault on individual freedom.
“In reality, absolute power and a lack of freedom always create disaster” AI Overview below.
Liberal big government expansion and socialist collectivism are both trending toward the same destructive outcomes of diminishing individual freedom. Wendell Krossa
Point? Behind the elite powerholder claims to compassion for the oppressed, suffering, disadvantaged citizens, is the critical issue of what then is the best approach to help such people, to enhance their well-being?
Consider the critical elements for healthy human development, what factors are necessary to such development. I refer to things like personal freedom of choice, personal control over one’s life, especially over the major decisions that impact us.
Individual self-determination is a critical element for human development, growth, and maturing.
Back in my undergrad days, I read numerous Israeli studies on organizational structure, hierarchy, and organizational behavior/relationships. It was enlightening to learn that people in higher strata and positions had better mental/emotional well-being due to more control over the decisions that impacted them, while those in lower strata positions had less control over the decisions affecting them and that negatively impacted their well-being.
Keep this in mind that if you claim compassion/empathy for oppressed and less fortunate people, yet push approaches/programs that undermine individual choice, programs that do to many things for such people.
Just as an aside- Organizational researchers advocate for decision-making approaches that try to include affected employees, whether notifying people ahead of time of significant changes, to asking for input from affected personnel, etc., approaches that encourage affected people to “buy into” the decisions being made and support them. Where people are not included in in the decisions that affect them, or the decisions are pushed on them accompanied by threat and coercion, that generates bitterness and employee undermining of decisions (i.e. subordinate “foot dragging” resistance, etc., or even costly turnover as embittered employees leave).
My point here? Socialist control of societies by elites claims to be “on behalf of the people, for the people” but inevitably has to be done by coercion as states takes away personal choice and personal individual control in the expropriation of the means of production, the individual property of citizens. Most citizens will naturally resist that expropriation of their property.
Private property is foundational to successful societies where individuals flourish and are motivated by property rewards to create businesses, jobs, and wealth that benefits all.
Excessive intervention and control of people, whether through big government expansion or direct socialism, not only undermines and ruins economies thereby immiserating people, it more destructively ruins mental and emotional well-being of people. Notable examples of this personal harm include the mass suicides in China under Mao’s forced collectivism.
Both expanded government or direct socialism are similar in outcomes and harm done to citizens through taking their freedom of personal choices/rights. Consider such outcomes when evaluating the impacts of your approaches.
Now back to my points in relation to Grok’s comments above on the subconscious archetypes that grant people “emotional satisfaction in their choice of beliefs”…
Socialism is the dominant example today of people choosing their beliefs according to “emotional satisfaction”, satisfaction that stems from the primitive archetypes of the “bad religious ideas” lists that are posted here.
“Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).”
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
“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
The general framework of socialism (ideas/beliefs/themes) conforms to these lists of religious templates, hence the socialism narrative resonates with the archetypes of the subconscious of many people, archetypes beaten into humanity over the multiple millennia of our past.
Here’s a summary of some of the main archetypes as applied to socialism:
(1)There was an original paradise of perfect humans (“noble savages”) living in communal societies (“noble savage” mythology still dominates leftist academia today- see Stephen LeBlanc’s “Constant Battles: The Myth of the Noble Savage and a Peaceful Past”). (2) The paradise was ruined by corrupted humans who degenerated further in developing civilization. (3) Since the “Fall”, life has been declining toward a worsening state, toward apocalyptic ending (Declinism continues as “the most dominant and influential idea in the modern era”, Arthur Herman’s “The Idea of Decline in Western History”). Now (4) salvation will come through violent destruction- i.e. through (a) sacrifice (i.e. give up the good life in modern liberal democracy civilization) and through (b) purging of the liberal democracy system that threatens the restoration of the noble savage state in primitive communalism. Only then can we attain the promised salvation in (5) restored communal paradise, in a collectivist paradise.
Contemporary narratives that embrace these basic themes provide people with the satisfaction that they are believing/embracing something true, right, good, and just.
The emotional satisfaction felt when embracing such themes helps to understand the rise and spread of socialism in, for example, the US today (e.g. why so many in the upcoming generation favor socialism for organizing human society).
Further, as noted in several posted articles below, socialism removes individual rights and freedoms gradually, and eventually not so gradually, as it subjects citizens to the inevitable totalitarianism of collectivism. As one commentator said, someone has to run the collectives and the elites doing so have learned to frame their domination and control of societies as righteous crusade “on behalf of the people, for the people, or for the greater or common good.”
But the historical “test of outcomes/facts” has consistently revealed the same destructive results in totalitarian control and loss of personal freedom as Kristian Niemeitz outlines in his coverage of the 24 failed socialism projects of the past century or so (“Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”).
Niemietz’s summary statement: “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”.
It may help people to have some useful criteria for detecting if government elites are promoting authentic liberal democracy with robust protection of personal freedoms and rights or if they are moving in the direction of collectivist totalitarianism.
Begin with: Are state elites increasing the size of government, the state and its agencies/bureaucracies? This initial “soft collectivism” approach begins the process of coerced redistribution through increased taxation to maintain the increasing size of government bureaucracies. Taxation is basically state elites/bureaucrats taking the freedom of choice from citizens over how to spend their income.
Insert note: Most citizens of western liberal democracies agree to some level of taxation for shared benefits such as public infrastructure and programs (i.e. transportation/communication infrastructure, varied public services, programs for the less fortunate, etc.). But over past decades, the level of coerced contribution to such shared benefits has progressively expanded till it has become unbearably burdensome and has choked the private enterprise that is the source creative flourishing in societies- i.e. private citizens making free choices and thereby flourishing as the creators of businesses, jobs, and wealth in societies.
What drives elite state powerholders to push relentlessly for expansion of states and state agencies and programs?
Just to fill in the big background picture, the elite push for further domination and control of societies can be traced all the way back to those earliest elites in primitive societies claiming to know the secrets to the invisible realm of spirits and how to appease the threatening spirits (i.e. see prehistorian John Pfeiffer on the earliest emergence of elites in human societies). The claims of some tribe members to special knowledge of secrets were used to validate their domination and control of others as powerholding elites in ancient tribal groups.
Take that early unleashing of the impulse to dominate others down through history to Plato’s “Philosopher Kings”, the fallacy of elite-types believing that they are specially endowed (even divinely blessed/anointed) and therefore know best what is good for all others, especially what is good for the ignorant masses of commoners. That’s us.
Hence, elites, notably when validated by socialist narratives, believe that they are especially qualified to dominate, rule, and control human societies (i.e. Marxist “enlightened vanguards”). Add the self-deception of doing so out of compassion for the oppressed but through an approach that has repeatedly ended in the worsening impoverishment of the poorest people and the overall devastating ruin of entire societies (i.e. “suicidal empathy”).
“AI Overview
“Plato’s Philosopher Kings and Marxist vanguards both believed elite, educated leaders must control society to achieve a perfect world. Driven by the goal of protecting the common good, this heavy control resulted in the loss of personal freedoms, economic collapse, and widespread hardship.
“Understanding how these ideas work requires looking at their core concepts:
“Plato’s Philosopher Kings
• The Concept: Plato believed ordinary people could not manage society fairly. He proposed that the state be run by wise philosopher-kings.
• The Goal: These leaders would remove all greed. They would give up private property and live communally to make perfect, caring choices for the people.
• The Result: The rulers would control every part of life. This total control often led to rigid societies that denied average citizens a voice.
“Marxist Enlightened Vanguards
• The Concept: Thinkers like Vladimir Lenin adapted Marxist theory. They argued that workers could not organize a revolution on their own. They needed an “enlightened” vanguard party to guide them.
• The Goal: This vanguard group aimed to seize power in the name of the working class. They hoped to end unfair wealth gaps and install a fair, collectivist system.
• The Result: To keep power, these vanguards created strict, top-down governments. The loss of free markets and personal choices led to poverty and ruin for many societies.
“Both theories failed for the same reason. They assumed a small group of leaders could perfectly plan and manage the complex lives of millions. In reality, absolute power and a lack of freedom always create disaster.”
(End of AI Overview)
Moving along… With the increase in the size of government, and the increase in taxation to support such increases in the size of states, there also comes increased regulation as state bureaucrats need to show that they are busy producing something (validating their existence and employment).
Add to this, again, the elite/bureaucratic belief that they know better than average citizens how to do things right “for the good of all”, hence, the never-ending increase in state intervention and control of the lives of citizens through excessive regulations/laws.
Another point that I am making in regard to these trends in our liberal democracies to unendingly increase the size of the nanny state, is that such increased state intervention and control of citizens actually prepares citizens for socialist approaches that eventually become totalitarian in coercively doing everything for people. Freedom advocates like Frederik Hayek long ago warned of the gradual loss of independence and self-determination in the citizens of states, due to the developing attitude of dependence on state elites and bureaucrats (i.e. a form of learned helplessness).
Example: See below the interesting comment by Bruce Pardy on “How Americans gave up their own republic: Decades of court rulings and legislation shifted power from elected leaders to unelected bureaucracies”, National Post, July 4, 2026.
Insert:
Another interesting element in the increasing role of state elites and bureaucrats to dominate and control citizens.
Every society is cursed with the busybody types who respond to abuses of varied things by small percentages of the citizenry, in the total prohibition of those things that tend to be abused by the few. Note how that was the response to the abuse of alcohol by some in the last century.
Also in the mix of busybody motivating factors, there is the more generally inherited religious belief that “vices” must by prohibited in order to avoid angering deity (i.e. the sin of breaking taboos and consequently bringing down divine punishment on a society).
The concern of busybody types to prevent abuses by the few then leads to all citizens suffering the loss of personal freedom to moderately use that prohibited thing for their enjoyment. That overreaction by busybody types, and their use of state laws to control all citizens, was behind the prohibitions that ruined the freedom for all others who won’t abuse the prohibited thing.
The same happened in relation to “drugs” back in the 1970s, and consequently research into the usefulness of psychedelics as therapeutics was delayed for decades by such overreaction of governing busybody elites. What is this obsession to endlessly produce more laws to prevent any possible abuse or misuse of things by the few?
Again, note that the busybody intervenors will frame their domination and control as motivated by compassion for others, “for their good or for greater/common good”. The endless cloaking of evil as good. People giving way to their impulse to dominate and control others do not seem fully aware of the harm that is done to others through the loss of control over their own lives, the denial of free individual choice, the loss of self-determination, all critical to healthy human development.
(End of Insert weave)
Back again to these two main indicators of the decline of individual rights and freedoms- i.e. state taxation and regulations:
Observe what politicians do in regard to these two, not just what they promise but what they actually do with the above two. Do they slow, halt, and reverse (i.e. decrease) the trend of state bureaucracies to endless growth in size, notably by decreasing taxes and regulations?
Trends in taxation and regulation are two key indicators of expanding state intervention and control of people, or the reversal of such domination and control.
Politicians with business experience generally do much better running the “big business” of large country economies because they get how critical lowered taxation and decreased regulations are for business flourishing. Ben Carson, during his 2016 candidacy for US president stated well that government should function (minimally) to create the environment in which private businesses can flourish, mainly by lowered taxation and regulations.
The politicians with a good grasp of Classic Liberal democracy principles also do better running states- i.e. the critical importance of promoting the role of free markets, and protecting individual rights (i.e. freedom to enter contracts with others, laws to protect private property and private contracts, etc.). They understand the vital role of incentives to human motivation, such as private property rewards for work invested.
How politicians act with regard to taxes and regulations are decent proxies for who is protecting individual rights and freedoms (liberal democracy) and who is taking us toward collectivist totalitarianism, or not. The battle is always to protect citizens rights and freedoms, to promote common citizens as the sovereigns in society, to protect common citizens from the constant chipping away at their rights and freedoms by ever-expanding elite/bureaucratic intervention and control.
Insert:
Note how William Bernstein deals with the issue of the size of government as a percentage of GDP (i.e. in “The Birth of Plenty”). The problem is that most western states have allowed massive expansion in the size of their governments over the past decades. This expansion of the public sector was uncontrolled under Justin Trudeau’s mismanagement of Canada for the decade from 2015-25, Canada’s “lost decade”. More correctly, Canada’s decade of ruin. When asked early in his government which country he admired most, he replied- The Chinese dictatorship. Well, like Daddy, like son. His Dad Pierre Trudeau was a fanboy of Castro and Mao.
Justin illustrated his own preference for coercive totalitarianism in his unconstitutional use of the “Emergencies Act” to shut down a peaceful protest in Canada, among other acts of state coercion. As a devotee of the climate alarmism cult, he intentionally undermined and blocked the fossil fuel industry that had previously been a significant driver of Canadian flourishing and prosperity.
As Bernstein notes, we citizens agree to some level of government programs but that “social contract”, if unchecked, can then endlessly expand till it undermines the freedom and personal responsibility of citizens, with many becoming too dependent on nanny state intervention and control. Milton Freidman argued that the size of government (i.e. all three branches- federal, state, and municipal) should be limited to about 15% of GDP. Many western liberal democracies are now past 40% of GDP.
Freidman’s argument was that a smaller government would produce “the most good for the most people”. His concern was for the primacy of human freedom, for individual self-determination and personal control over one’s life, critical for healthy human development and flourishing.
Insert:
“AI Overview
“The size of government— measured as total government spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)— varies significantly by country and region. For Canada as a whole, total government spending accounts for approximately 43.6% of the economy. In the United States, federal spending alone represents about 23% of GDP (with general government spending closer to 38%).
The share of government spending depends heavily on the specific jurisdiction and level of government.
“Provincial and Federal Comparisons
• Canada: The fiscal burden varies widely across provinces. According to the Fraser Institute, government spending as a share of the economy ranges from a low of 30.4% in Alberta to a high of 61.2% in Nova Scotia.
• United States: While the federal government spent around 23% of GDP in 2025, state and local government expenditures add another significant layer to the total public sector footprint.
“International Comparisons
“Based on global data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), general government expenditures (including central, state, and local entities) as a percentage of GDP vary by country:
• France: ~57.2%
• Italy: ~50.6%
• Sweden: ~49.3%
• United Kingdom: ~44.0%
• Japan: ~39.1%
• United States: ~37.9%
• South Africa: ~33.0%
• India: ~28.4%
“Economists frequently debate the “optimal” size of government, with much of the literature suggesting that social progress and economic growth are typically maximized when governments account for roughly 26% to 35% of GDP. When spending expands beyond these levels, it can sometimes lead to crowding out of the private sector.”
(End of AI Overview)
Added notes:
Note, in the resurgence of socialism today across western liberal democracies, the crafty defenses by many leading Democrats that we should not worry about the old “Red scare” because the new resurgence of collectivism is just harmless “democratic socialism”, similar to the Nordic models that were long held forth as good balances between two equally legitimate systems for organizing human societies.
No. The Democratic Socialism of the Mamdani people is the same old collectivist beast as ever before so please stop “cloaking evil as good”, as just another surge of noble compassion for oppressed people, for the less fortunate.
See just below Michael Shellenberger’s recent “Public” article where he exposed the cautious presentation of contemporary socialists who are hiding their actual intention to eventually install totalitarian Marxist collectivism that will coercively expropriate the private property of all citizens, not just the property of billionaires. Their end goal is to expropriate even the property of all citizens including their own “useful idiot” supporters (i.e. to take full control of the “means of production”, meaning all private businesses, small, medium, and large).
Insert:
AI Overview- “expropriate”
“Expropriate means to officially dispossess someone of private property, usually by a government or authority for public use. The most accurate synonyms include confiscate, seize, dispossess, appropriate, commandeer, and takeover.”
(End of AI Overview)
Marx had stated that private property was his number one evil to liberate people from, so their “natural and essential nature” as “communal humans” could freely re-emerge (i.e. restore the original state of humanity as noble savages in communalism, and thereby restore the lost paradise). He urged the collectivist takeover of societies through the revolutionary seizing of the means of production”, which is what socialists begin to do by “nationalizing” varied sectors of economies.
What begins “gradually” and by sectors soon expands more and more till societies find themselves under totally encompassing collectivism.
Collectivism can also manifest in “fascism”, which is state domination that leaves businesses in private hands but demands submission to state direction and control for state purposes (i.e. as in the Nazi version, and the contemporary Chinese variant).
Now the Shellenberger article as noted above…
“Public’s Repudiation Of Woke Radicalism Drives Democrats’ Socialist Turn: Deliberate deception, excess of college grads, and the collapse of the Left’s core agenda are driving the turn toward socialism in the US and UK”, Michael Shellenberger, July 1, 2026
https://www.public.news/p/publics-repudiation-of-woke-radicalism
As Shellenberger said regarding the recent successful election of socialist candidates in New York state, as in Britain:
“All of those socialists support a much more radical agenda than the one they ran on. The program of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), of which Mamdani and AOC are members, calls for: total defunding and abolition of the police, jails, and prisons; ending the independence of the Supreme Court and the entire Executive Branch, making them subordinate to congress; ‘expropriat[ing] property from capitalists and deliver it to the working class’; socializing energy production; allowing surgeons to sterilize children and adolescents in an effort to change their sex; a return to Joe Biden’s open borders policy; and the decriminalization of illegal camping and open air drug use. Burnham has proposed to spend an additional £39 billion on public housing, impose a new tax on everyone, and adopt the ‘Housing First’ policy, which has resulted in the subsidization and enabling of drug addiction and death in the U.S….
“(Its) true that the socialists did not highlight their more radical agenda items during their campaigns…
“A big part of the reason for the socialist victories is that they successfully hide their radicalism”.
(End of Shellenberger quotes)
In resurging socialism today, including the so-called “democratic” versions, we see same old patterns of deception that “cloak evil as good” with claims of crusading out of compassion for the less fortunate, for the oppressed. But this latest version surging in New York state is no different from all past crusades of the past century, crusades of “salvation through destruction of liberal democracy societies” that are demonized as the great evil to liberate people from.
Socialist virtue-signaling of being driven by compassion is inevitably exposed as actually being driven by “suicidal empathy”. How so? By the “test of facts/outcomes” from the 24 socialist approaches over the last century that all ended in the same old ruin of entire societies. This is especially true in the modern era when socialist compassion is further implemented with Net Zero decarbonization insanity. Some have argued that the Marxists of the 60s and 70s saw, in the emerging recognition of CO2’s warming influence at that time, an opportunity to exaggerate and demonize that basic element of human flourishing (i.e. it fuels industrial civilization) and thereby utilize a new weapon to undermine and destroy “the evil of capitalist society”.
Insert re this article just posted on Wattsupwiththat.com:
This from Vijay Jayaraj illustrates why collectivists intent on overthrowing liberal democracies embrace the Net Zero madness. The fear-mongering renders populations susceptible to manipulation and coercive control by state elites and further enables the socialist goal of the destruction of liberal democracies through the salvation schemes presented- i.e. eliminate fossil fuels to “save the world” from an imaginary and anti-scientific apocalyptic alarm.
“Europe’s Crisis Is Energy Poverty, Not a Heat Wave”, By Vijay Jayaraj
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/06/europes-crisis-is-energy-poverty-not-a-heat-wave/
Vijay begins: “When temperatures elevate in Europe, political rhetoric rises even faster.”
He notes the alarmist’s hysterical claims that the planet is baking and responds:
“This hyperbole has no scientific basis. The urgency of assertions that carbon dioxide is overheating the atmosphere is never matched in reports about cold snaps that are at least as dangerous. The imbalance reflects an apocalyptic narrative that prioritizes fear and ideology over nuance and evidence.”
He adds a note on what triggered the heat wave, “The cause appears to have been a natural meteorological phenomenon known as an omega block.” (Details in the article at Wattsupwiththat.com)
And then what drives the collectivist elites to push the apocalyptic climate narrative, “Blaming a regional weather pattern on gasoline-powered cars deliberately misleads the public to justify increased state control over daily life.”
He continues, referencing a Lancet study that showed annual deaths from cold far exceeded heat death, by a ratio of 9 to 1. Yet there is no public focus on that far greater threat from cold.
He also notes research showing over the past century in the US, “the frequency of record-high maximum temperatures has gone down, not up.”
His conclusion illustrates exactly the outcome of the “salvation through destruction” approaches used by socialists in conjunction with their embrace of the climate cult to additionally assist the end goal of overthrowing and destroying liberal democracies and subject populations to the coercive state control of collectivist elites,
“The aggressive push for net zero carbon emissions has triggered a self-inflicted economic disaster across the Western world… When global institutions demand eradication of fossil fuel use to prevent an imaginary climate crisis, they are condemning billions of people in developing countries to permanent poverty.”
(End of Jayaraj article)
The core issue remains freedom in liberal democracy today as the best for human flourishing and prosperity, for the most people. As Freidman argued for a general goal- What produces the most good for the most people. We never get perfection and some will abuse any system no matter how good the system may function overall.
Liberal democracy has succeeded better than any other system that we have discovered. It does this far better than the collectivist socialism approach that favors power-mongering elites and their bureaucrats and impoverishes commoners by taking their individual rights and freedoms, by subjecting citizens to elite control under collectives.
Socialism always ends in the same old curse of the “elite/commoner divide” of societies.
Added note:
This interesting article by Bruce Pardy on how even the US (the world beacon of liberty) has slipped down the slippery slope to increasing government growth, to more intervention in citizen’s lives, and consequently to increasing domination and control of citizens. And if this is true of the US, then Canada comparably has done far worse. Under Justin Trudeau we suffered a 42% increase in the size of government. Mark Carney has not yet reversed that massive increase in the size of the state that burdens and drains the private sector of wealth.
“How Americans gave up their own republic: Decades of court rulings and legislation shifted power from elected leaders to unelected bureaucracies”, Bruce Pardy, July 4, 2026
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-how-americans-gave-up-their-own-republic
He opens:
“It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The United States was the land of the free. Limited government. Checks and balances. Separation of powers. The Bill of Rights. But America has instead become a managed society. Its government dominates the lives of its people. How did it go wrong? Lots of bad steps helped to transform the American republic into a managerial state. Here are nine of the moments that sent the ship off course.”
He then lists the 9 steps that led to the abandonment of the original American Dream and descent into an increasingly dominated citizenry and loss of basic freedoms and rights. A shift away from the founding vision of authentic liberal democracy.
His full list:
Residual powers: The “necessary and proper” clause, 1787
Untouchable bureaucrats: The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, 1883
Professional expert class: Woodrow Wilson and the Federal Reserve, 1913
Funding the managerial state: Income taxes and the 16th Amendment, 1913
Delegation: J.W. Hampton v. United States, 1928
The Nanny State: FDR’s New Deal, early 1930s
Funny money: Ending the gold standard
Deference: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1984
The managerial state’s pinnacle achievement: COVID-19
A few examples from Pardy:
“The Pendleton Act and its successors did not end cronyism in the federal service. Instead, it shifted appointment powers from the president to the heads of departments and agencies. Congress had given life to what would become ‘the deep state’.”
And this on FDR’s New Deal:
“Government would protect the economic well-being of its people. In exchange, it would decide what was best. That deal turned America’s burgeoning administrative machinery into a welfare state. Before the New Deal, citizens largely fended for themselves. Under FDR, the federal government did what it had never done before. It stimulated job creation, backstopped bank deposits, established welfare programs such as Social Security, and directed economic activity. The New Deal changed the role of government. To this day, people expect governments to solve social problems and protect them from economic calamity.”
Also, this on the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that gave “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)” the ability to decide the limits of its own authority, to interpret its own statutes, known as the ‘Chevron deference’. That was the ruling where “such power was transferred from Congress to the administrative state. Unelected officials obtained judicial benediction to decide the boundaries of their own powers. Agencies pushed those boundaries, asserting authority that statutes did not grant.”
Pardy concludes:
“The United States Constitution was revolutionary. ‘A republic,’ Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said, ‘if you can keep it.’ They couldn’t. The seeds of the nation’s downfall are in the document itself. The Constitution does not prescribe an administrative state, but nor does it prevent one. Instead of a republic governed by the rule of law, America is now planned, directed and supervised. Broad discretion in the hands of a technocratic managerial class has become the foundation of American government.”
(End of Pardy article)
And this
“She’s baaack…” (Possessed girl in the movie “The Exorcist”, also the “The Nun”, etc.)
“Expert who fled Cuba warns of ‘vicious cycle’ that will lead to ‘communists in double digits’ in Congress: ‘We’re going to get communists in double digits in the House of Representatives at least, there’s no doubt,’ warned Gonzalez”, Peter Pinedo, Fox News.
Pinedo opens:
“A national security expert who fled to the U.S. from Cuba is warning that one ‘vicious cycle’ currently dominating American politics could lead to ‘communists in double digits’ serving in Congress.”
Pinedo says that Cuban expert Gonzalez has compared the current surge of socialist candidates winning Democratic positions is like a host body being overtaken by “body snatchers”, invading parasites.
Like Michael Shellenberger, Gonzalez warns of the deception by the new socialists as they try to present themselves as harmless “democratic socialists”. Gonzalez points out that the authors of the communist manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated, “there was no difference between socialism and communism, they were interchangeable.”
He adds that the “affordability crisis” experienced by young people today has rendered youth susceptible to socialist promises of free handouts. The socialists have been adept at tapping into affordability concerns. But he warns their solutions undermine the free markets and merit-based opportunities that lifted so many across the past history of the US.
He rightly concludes that “Socialist policies essentially restrict what we are able to do,”. Quoting someone, he writes, “So, I do take it seriously and I hope that Democrats, Republicans, they all take the rise of socialism seriously.”
(End of Pinedo article)