https://www.globalliberalblog.com/

Global Liberal Blog, 8th Street, Central Etobicoke, ON (2025)

11/02/2025

🌍 Synthetic Minds, Shared Earth: Toward a Global Ethical Framework for Bioconvergence

Humanity stands at a threshold where intelligence itself is no longer bound to flesh and bone. As biotechnology fuses with artificial intelligence, we are entering the age of bioconvergence—a world where the biological and the digital intertwine.

Yet our moral compass remains fragmented, constrained by borders, ideologies, and local traditions that cannot address global crises like climate change, data privacy, or synthetic sentience.

If we are to coexist with the minds we are creating—and survive the transformations they bring—we must move from what is to what ought to be.

The ethical systems we inherited were descriptive, dictated by culture and circumstance. But a planetary civilization requires moral realism: the recognition that justice, equality, and dignity are not opinions—they are universal truths grounded in the empirical reality of interdependence.

Ecological systems and cognitive neuroscience alike reveal that no being—organic or artificial—exists in isolation; our well-being is woven into the well-being of others. Interdependence is not an ideal—it is a measurable fact of existence.

From this realism emerges a consequentialist imperative: the greatest good is no longer national prosperity or individual gain, but the maximum sustainable well-being of all life on Earth.

To achieve this, we must:

i. Establish a global moral status metric to guide the treatment of emerging synthetic intelligences.

ii. Recognize biological and neural data as shared human heritage—resources to be protected, not exploited.

iii. Enforce distributive justice in biotechnology and AI, ensuring that their benefits become global public goods, not the privilege of a few.

iv. Create a Global Bioconvergence Council, an ethical operating system for governance, where every regulation must meet a new “Universal Golden Rule”: no policy is just unless all can rationally accept it.

Ultimately, progress will not be measured by how fast we build smarter machines, but by how wisely we choose to share their power. In this new epoch, the question is not whether synthetic minds will change humanity—but whether humanity can grow morally strong enough to guide them.

A truly global ethics must not erase cultural diversity; it must rise from it, harmonizing our distinct moral traditions into a shared compass for survival.

Synthetic Minds, Shared Earth is a call to build that compass together.

© Tom MacPherson 2025

10/21/2025

Contradictions: Superstitions, Primeval Epistemology, and Limited Understanding

I. The Genesis of Superstition

From the earliest days of human existence, people sought to make sense of their surroundings. The rising sun, the fall of rain, the cycles of birth and death — all inspired wonder but also fear. Primitive humans, faced with an unpredictable world, were compelled to search for causes behind the events they witnessed. Their curiosity was natural, but their tools for understanding were limited. With only the naked eye and no established method of scientific reasoning, they relied on direct observation and imagination to interpret what they saw.

Lacking knowledge of physics, biology, or meteorology, early humans filled the gaps in their understanding by assigning agency to natural forces. The rustle of leaves became a whispering spirit; thunder was the voice of an angry god. In the absence of evidence, imagination became explanation. This was not irrational — it was an attempt, within the limits of early cognition, to construct order out of chaos. Yet, because these beliefs arose from emotion and not from systematic inquiry, they gave birth to superstition.

Superstition, then, was the first human attempt at epistemology — a way of knowing that offered comfort but little accuracy. It allowed people to feel in control of an uncontrollable world. However, since each community developed its own interpretations, these superstitions often contradicted one another. One tribe’s sacred animal might be another’s cursed omen. Truth became a matter of locality and belief, not of universality. Contradictions were tolerated because they served a psychological need: the reassurance that events had meaning, even if the explanations were inconsistent.

These contradictions are vividly illustrated in the scriptures themselves. For example, the notion of original sin — first expressed in Genesis 3 through the fall of Adam and Eve, and reaffirmed in Romans 5:18–21 and Psalm 51:5, where human beings are portrayed as inherently sinful — directly conflicts with Ezekiel 18:20, which insists that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” One passage implies a hereditary stain upon all humanity; the other affirms personal moral responsibility.

Such inconsistencies reveal how early mythic explanations of suffering were later moralized and institutionalized, producing doctrines that satisfied emotional and theological needs rather than rational coherence.

II. The Central Question

This raises a crucial question: if superstition was born from ignorance and produced contradictions, why did such beliefs persist for thousands of years — even as human knowledge advanced? How did systems of thought rooted in error manage to survive into modernity, often resisting or even suppressing the progress of reason and science?

III. The Persistence of Contradiction: Power and Preservation

The endurance of superstition cannot be explained only by ignorance. It must also be understood as the product of powerful social and political forces that found such beliefs useful. Once superstition became organized into religion and doctrine, it transformed into a tool for unity — and, inevitably, control.

A. Political Coercion and Ideological Utility

Throughout history, rulers recognized the unifying power of shared belief. A population that worships the same gods or obeys the same moral order is easier to govern. Religious institutions, in turn, offered legitimacy to kings and emperors, presenting them as chosen or blessed by divine authority. In this alliance, superstition was no longer simply a way of explaining the world; it became a foundation for political stability. Doubt was seen not as inquiry but as rebellion.

B. Repression of Dissent and Intellectual Stagnation

To maintain this stability, dissent had to be suppressed. Those who questioned prevailing beliefs — whether philosophers, scientists, or reformers — often paid a high price. History is filled with examples of thinkers silenced, imprisoned, or executed for challenging sacred truths. By punishing doubt, institutions preserved not only their doctrines but also their influence. As a result, whole societies remained intellectually stagnant, unable to freely explore new ways of knowing.

C. Dogmatism and Obscurantism as Institutional Strategy

Over time, these systems developed mechanisms to prevent the spread of alternative ideas. Dogmatism presented belief as absolute truth, closing the door to revision or reinterpretation. Obscurantism went further, deliberately concealing or distorting new knowledge that threatened the established order.

Through these twin forces, contradiction became institutionalized. Humanity advanced in technology and observation, but its collective worldview often remained bound by outdated or conflicting beliefs.

IV. Conclusion

Superstition, born from ignorance, endured because it served a deeper social function. It offered order, identity, and a sense of belonging — even when its explanations were false. What began as a primitive attempt to understand the unknown evolved into a structure of power that resisted change for centuries.

To move beyond these contradictions, humanity must recognize superstition’s origins not as a moral flaw but as a stage in the development of thought. Understanding how early epistemology was shaped — and later manipulated — is essential to freeing ourselves from the residue of these inherited illusions. Only by acknowledging both the human need for meaning and the dangers of dogmatic control can we continue the unfinished journey from belief to understanding.

10/18/2025

Humanity in Peril: Why Progress Is Accelerating Our Self-Destruction

This analysis explores the critical vulnerability of the modern world—not merely from singular threats, but from the dangerous synergy between rapid, democratized technology and deepening socio-economic instability. Progress, once seen as a linear good, has become an existential risk multiplier.

I. The Technological Tipping Point: AI, Bio-Vulgarisation, and Existential Risk

The convergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and biotechnology—referred to here as bio-vulgarisation—represents the most potent accelerant of global peril. This combination lowers the barrier to entry for creating catastrophic events from the state-level to the individual or non-state actor level.

A. Democratized Pathogenesis

AI models increasingly function as sophisticated, virtual research and development laboratories. Their capacity to synthesize and simulate biological systems allows them to design and optimize novel agents—pathogens, toxins, or customized viruses—at a speed and complexity far beyond human expertise.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this vulnerability. While the precise origins of SARS-CoV-2 remain under investigation, the proximity of the initial outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology—a P4 facility known for research on bat and civet coronaviruses—revealed how thin the line has become between legitimate experimentation and potential catastrophe. Within weeks of the viral genome’s publication, a Swiss laboratory successfully replicated the virus synthetically, underscoring how modern biotechnology has effectively democratized viral reconstruction. What once demanded vast institutional infrastructure can now be achieved with commercially available gene-synthesis equipment and computational tools.

The Shift:
Malicious actors no longer require decades of specialization or state-funded laboratories. They can leverage accessible AI systems to generate biological blueprints and employ off-the-shelf biotechnologies to execute them—turning existential threats into low-barrier, high-impact risks.

The Scale of Impact:
This convergence magnifies the probability of a biological catastrophe, whether through deliberate misuse or accidental release of engineered, highly virulent, or transmissible agents.

AI-Driven Bio-Design in Practice:
In 2021, researchers demonstrated that drug-discovery algorithms could be inverted to design thousands of toxic molecular compounds within hours. The same principle applies to genetic design: AI models trained on protein and viral databases can predict mutations that enhance binding affinity or immune evasion. Tools such as AlphaFold, while revolutionary for medicine, exemplify this dual-use paradox—the very systems that accelerate vaccine research can also inform the engineering of more resilient pathogens.

B. The AI Arms Race

The same AI architectures that assist in climate modeling or medical discovery are inherently dual-use. They can optimize cyber-attacks, coordinate disinformation campaigns, or enable autonomous weapon systems—fueling a rapid technological arms race unconstrained by existing treaties.

This dynamic now defines the new digital cold war between China and its allies on one side, and the United States with its technological partners on the other. Algorithmic dominance has supplanted nuclear deterrence as the central metric of global power. Each bloc views AI leadership as synonymous with geopolitical sovereignty, driving a self-reinforcing cycle of innovation without ethical alignment. The absence of enforceable AI governance frameworks mirrors the unregulated arms build-ups that preceded the twentieth century’s global conflicts.

II. The Social Fracture Point: Inequality and Resource Monopolization

While technological capability provides the means of destruction, deepening socio-economic inequality provides the motivation, resentment, and instability that justify its use.

A. Disproportionate Ownership in a Finite World

The world’s total resources remain finite, yet the proportion controlled by the wealthiest individuals and corporations continues to expand exponentially. This concentration is not merely economic—it is a geopolitical destabilizer.

The Zero-Sum Mentality:
As wealth consolidates, so does power. Critical resources—land, water, energy, minerals, and data infrastructure—become monopolized, creating a zero-sum competition for survival among marginalized populations.

Heightened Social Tensions:
Extreme inequality correlates directly with social polarization, radicalization, and political unrest. This rising desperation fuels movements that challenge established orders and creates fertile recruitment grounds for actors seeking to disrupt global stability.

B. Historical Parallels: The Road Once Traveled

The socio-economic polarization of our era echoes the volatile conditions that preceded both World Wars: concentrated capital, disenfranchised populations, and ideologies promising salvation through destruction. Just as interwar inequality incubated nationalist extremism and class-based resentment, today’s digital connectivity enables transnational grievance networks—communities united not by geography, but by shared disillusionment. When despair becomes digitally networked, revolt no longer needs an army; it needs only access to a lab or a laptop.

III. The Untraceable Engine: Cryptocurrency and Illicit Finance

Decentralized finance, while empowering economic autonomy, also furnishes a mechanism that bridges the gap between social desperation and technological capability.

A. The Flow of Illicit Capital

Cryptocurrencies allow rapid, borderless, and often opaque transfers of value, making them the preferred conduit for financing internationally banned weapons programs, extremist movements, and transnational criminal organizations.

Evasion of Sanctions:
The pseudonymous nature of certain crypto transactions facilitates the circumvention of traditional financial controls, enabling illegal procurement of materials and expertise necessary for AI-optimized or biologically enhanced weapons.

The Nexus of Power and Peril:
Wealth accumulated through global inequality—whether by legal concentration or illicit means—can, through digital laundering networks, indirectly fund those willing to weaponize accessible catastrophic technologies. The system thereby finances its own destabilization.

IV. The Feedback Loop of Self-Destruction

The present danger is defined not by isolated crises but by the compounding feedback between three mutually reinforcing domains:

1. Inequality (Fuel):
Creates mass resentment and a large pool of actors motivated to inflict harm on the system.

2. Illicit Finance (Connector):
Channels and conceals capital flows to enable these actors.

3. AI/Biotech (Weapon):
Provides the low-cost, high-lethality tools that render catastrophic attacks feasible.

When advanced technology becomes a weapon of the desperate, funded by untraceable capital, and driven by structural inequality, the cumulative risk to humanity surpasses any in recorded history. The pattern recalls the precursors of past global conflicts—but now operating at digital speed and planetary scale.

Global stability will depend not merely on regulating emerging technologies, but on rebalancing socio-economic power and instituting enforceable ethical frameworks for innovation. Without such equilibrium, progress itself becomes the architecture of extinction.

Ⓒ Tom MacPherson 2025

09/28/2025

Trump, Project 25, and America's Spiraling Drift into Fascism

Based on reports from various reputable news organizations, including The Associated Press, The Financial Times, Oregon Public Broadcasting, The Guardian, Reuters, and CBS, the following phrases have been recently attributed to Donald Trump:

a. Referred to the position of the Secretary of Defense using the historical and evocative title, "Secretary of War."

b. Characterized peaceful demonstrators as "domestic terrorists."

c. Described the city of Portland as "war-ravaged."

d. Stated that the military would be deployed with "full force" to suppress demonstrations.

Many other actions Trump has taken demonstrate executive power expansion. He notably:

a. Circumvented the authority of state governors to deploy the National Guards in both Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Chicago and Washington DC.

b. Appointed individuals perceived as political loyalists to crucial command positions within the Army leadership.

c. Initiated the restructuring of federal agencies, a move interpreted as a consolidation of power within the executive branch.

d. Undertook measures to reduce the scope or limit the authority of various regulatory agencies, with a particular focus on sectors such as environmental protection/climate science, health sciences, and education.

e. Emphasized the rapid onboarding of political appointees who have been "ideologically vetted" into key bureaucratic roles to expedite policy implementation.

f. Implemented reductions or significant changes to funding for major social programs (e.g., SNAP, Head Start) or proposed shifting greater administrative control over these programs to state governments.

g. Indicated a clear intent to revoke or substantially scale back civil protections related to anti-discrimination laws, abortion access, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

A central concern is the quasi complete control of all three federal branches—the Executive, Congress, and the Supreme Court—by individuals aligned with the "MAGA" political movement, significantly diminishing the system of checks and balances.

These actions and the structural changes I have outlined indicate a "fascist drift" with several potential ramifications and possible future scenarios. America has reached a critical inflection point.

I invite you to share your most insightful opinions on what comes next. Given the complexity of outcomes, which possible future scenarios do you find most concerning, and why?

09/20/2025

Jesus Never Existed. Jesus Never Died. His Entire Story Belongs to the Realm of Fantasy

There is no credible historical evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived. There are compelling arguments in this regard. I shall start with a simple logical deduction followed by a short historical analysis.

First, it is imperative to present a cogent argument elucidating the assertion that Jesus never existed, based on the false premise present in the gospel:
1. It's alleged that a ghost made a virgin pregnant, which cannot be demonstrated empirically.
2. To live, one needs to exist at least as a fertilized egg. Since premise 1 proves empirically there was no fertilized egg, life would not be possible in this scenario.
3. No fertilized egg means no zygote, no birth, no life, no death —no existence.

Second, an examination of historical evidence shall be undertaken.
In the annals of history, the figure of Jesus Christ stands as a towering enigma, revered by billions yet shrouded in historical ambiguity. This inquiry seeks to unravel the layers of skepticism that surround the traditional narratives of Jesus, employing a critical lens rooted in positivism and phenomenology to scrutinize the historical authenticity of key aspects of his life.

1. Lack of contemporary biographical accounts:

Central to the discourse on the historical Jesus is the dearth of contemporary biographical accounts from his era. Tacitus, the Roman historian, mentions the crucifixion of a man named Jesus in passing, while Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to the ex*****on of a figure known as Christ. However, these references, albeit significant, offer scant detail and lack the depth expected of firsthand biographical narratives (Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3).

2. Commonness of the name "Jesus" and the practice of crucifixion:

Compounding the challenge of historical reconstruction is the ubiquity of the name "Jesus" during the first century CE. Amidst a sea of Jesuses, discerning the specific individual who catalyzed the Christian movement becomes a formidable task, underscoring the complexity of identifying a singular historical Jesus amidst the multitude (Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant).

Moreover, the political instability in Jerusalem during Jesus' time, particularly due to the activities of zealot rebellions and resistance against Roman rule, could have led to an increase in capital punishment, including crucifixion, as a means of suppressing dissent and maintaining control. While historical records don't provide precise numbers, the tumultuous nature of the era likely contributed to a higher frequency of ex*****ons. Another Jesus might have been executed for participating in seditious activities against both the Jewish and Roman authorities.

The combination of the commonness of the name "Jesus" during that time period and the widespread practice of crucifixion makes it extremely challenging, if not impossible, to pinpoint the exact identity of the Jesus who was crucified.

3. An era of overabundant "Messiahs"

Historical evidence, particularly from the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, strongly indicates that there were many people claiming to be the Messiah in 1st-century Judea. These figures often rose to prominence in a political and religious climate of widespread discontent with Roman rule and the perceived corruption of the Jewish elite who collaborated with them.

In his works The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, Josephus documents a number of charismatic leaders and "prophets" who gathered large followings. He describes them as "deceivers," "impostors," or "brigands," a reflection of his pro-Roman and aristocratic viewpoint.

His descriptions clearly point to figures with messianic or quasi-messianic aspirations. They promised divine intervention, liberation from the Roman yoke, and the restoration of Israel. Josephus names several such figures, including:

i. Judas the Galilean (c. 6 CE):
He is described as a leader who incited a revolt against a Roman census, arguing that paying taxes to Rome was a form of servitude and that God alone was the true ruler of Israel.

ii. Theudas (c. 45 CE):
A magician who persuaded a large crowd to follow him to the Jordan River, promising to part the waters like Moses. The Roman procurator at the time, Cuspius Fadus, quickly crushed the movement.

iii. The Egyptian (c. 50s CE):
He gathered thousands of followers and led them to the Mount of Olives, promising that the walls of Jerusalem would fall at his command, allowing him to enter and overthrow the Roman garrison.

iv. Menahem (c. 66 CE):
A leader during the First Jewish-Roman War who was the son or grandson of Judas the Galilean. He took control of Jerusalem for a brief period and acted like a king before being killed by rivals.

The idea that Paul and other early Christians essentially "invented" a new religion by deifying a messiah figure, possibly a different one than the historical Jesus, is a significantly plausible argument.

4. Biographical discrepancies and genealogical divergences:

The genealogies presented in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew diverge significantly, casting doubt on the veracity of these lineages tracing Jesus's ancestry. Moreover, the narrative of Jesus's immaculate conception, coupled with the absence of a biological father, challenges traditional notions of human lineage and raises questions regarding the historical accuracy of such accounts (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium).

5. Anonymous gospel manuscripts and multiple editorial interventions:

The anonymity of the Gospel manuscripts and their subsequent editorial interventions throughout history pose substantial challenges to their reliability as historical documents. Subject to multiple revisions and redactions over time, these texts reflect not only the theological agendas of their authors but also the socio-political contexts in which they were produced, complicating efforts to discern the authentic words and deeds of Jesus (Freedman and Murphy-O'Connor, The Gospel According to Mark).

6. Exclusion of alternative gospel accounts:

The exclusion of alternative Gospel accounts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and Gospel of Matthias, from the New Testament canon raises intriguing questions about the motives behind the selection of certain texts for inclusion. These marginalized texts offer divergent perspectives on Jesus's teachings and relationships, suggesting a deliberate effort to suppress dissenting voices and preserve a unified narrative of Jesus's divinity (Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels).

7. Interpretive lenses and altered states of consciousness:

Interpretations of certain Gospel passages, including John's revelations, have led to speculation regarding the influence of altered states of consciousness or psychedelic experiences. While such interpretations remain speculative, they underscore the interpretive diversity inherent in historical and literary analyses of the biblical texts, inviting scholars to consider alternative frameworks for understanding the narratives of Jesus's life (Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant).

In conclusion, the historical skepticism surrounding the Jesus narrative necessitates a nuanced and multidisciplinary approach to unraveling the complexities of his life. By critically examining the lack of contemporary biographical accounts, the ambiguities arising from common names, the overabundance of individuals claiming messianic authority, genealogical discrepancies, the editorial interventions in Gospel manuscripts, the exclusion of alternative Gospel accounts, and the potential for interpretive diversity, we can navigate the labyrinthine terrain of Jesus studies with scholarly rigor and intellectual probity.

Ultimately, this inquiry serves not to undermine faith but to enrich understanding, inviting us to approach the study of the historical Jesus with an open mind, employing critical thinking and objective, scientific historical analysis.

09/18/2025

Luke 19:27
"Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." - Jesus

This verse encapsulates Christianity’s authoritarian kernel: the demand for absolute loyalty to a sovereign ruler sanctified as divinely chosen. Whether one interprets it as Jesus’ own words or as the narrative voice of the parable, its presence in the canonical text betrays Christianity’s long entanglement with power.

As Max Weber observed, religions do not merely provide moral norms; they legitimate authority by imbuing rulers with charisma that appears transcendent. Luke 19:27 is one of the clearest expressions of such charisma, where refusal to submit is equated with treason punishable by death. From late antiquity to the present, Christianity has repeatedly supplied the political theology for tyranny, absolutism, conquest, and exceptionalism.

The Papal States and the Inquisitions (12th–19th century)

The logic of Luke 19:27 found institutional embodiment in the Inquisition. Heretics, Jews, Muslims, and dissenting Christians were branded as enemies of Christ’s kingship. Torture and ex*****on were justified not as cruelty but as divine justice: eliminating dissent reinforced both papal sovereignty and territorial consolidation.

As Michel Foucault might put it, the Inquisition was not merely about killing bodies but about disciplining souls—creating subjects who internalized obedience to church authority. This was Christianity’s first full experiment in systematized tyranny, establishing a template for later regimes.

Medieval Europe and the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648)

The Reformation shattered papal monopoly but did not dislodge Christianity’s absolutist DNA. Instead, rival confessions weaponized it. The Thirty Years’ War devastated Central Europe, with one-third of its population killed. Each faction—Catholic Habsburgs, Lutheran princes, Calvinist states—framed the conflict as defending Christ’s kingship against enemies who must be crushed. Religious identity doubled as racial and civilizational identity: to be Christian in the “correct” sense was to be fully human; all others were expendable. This marks a transition from religious tyranny to a nascent form of white Christian nationalism—one that would later be exported overseas.

England and Northern Ireland (16th–20th century)

In England, Henry VIII’s break with Rome fused obedience to the crown with obedience to a particular form of Christianity. Catholics became traitors by definition; faith was transformed into a loyalty oath to the sovereign. This logic metastasized in Ireland, where Protestant colonization treated Catholic natives as a rebellious underclass. The sectarian violence that scarred Northern Ireland well into the 20th century was not merely theological but deeply entangled with white nationalist identity: Protestant supremacy framed itself as the guardian of civilization against “barbarous” Irish Catholics. The biblical logic endured—those who refused the sovereign king’s religion were to be subdued or eliminated.

The United States – From Manifest Destiny to Modern White Nationalism

The Puritan settlers brought this theology to the Americas, rebranding it as “American exceptionalism.” John Winthrop’s “city on a hill” rhetoric translated directly into conquest: the genocide of Indigenous peoples, the enslavement of Africans, and the westward expansion of the frontier. Manifest Destiny was Christianity’s absolutism draped in republican language, sanctifying land theft and mass death as divine mandate.

Edward Said’s concept of “othering” is essential here: Christianity defined the American self in opposition to Indigenous, Black, and immigrant “enemies,” justifying their subordination.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, this heritage persists in white nationalist movements. The Ku Klux Klan fused the cross and the noose; contemporary Christian nationalists frame restrictive immigration laws, anti-LGBTQ legislation, and foreign interventions as defending a “Christian nation.” Luke 19:27 thus resurfaces in secular policy: those who will not acknowledge the Christian sovereign order—now transmuted into a white Christian polity—are cast as existential threats.

Modern Poland – Catholic Nationalism in the 21st Century

Poland illustrates Christianity’s enduring political theology in a contemporary setting. The ruling Law and Justice Party (P*S) weaponizes Catholic identity as the essence of Polishness. In 2020, the Constitutional Tribunal—under Church influence—imposed one of Europe’s strictest abortion bans, casting women who sought reproductive autonomy as enemies of the nation’s Christian identity. P*S has also vilified LGBTQ+ communities as “foreign ideologies” and resisted EU refugee quotas, framing Muslim migration as a threat to “Christian Europe.”

The alliance between Church and state enforces a sovereignty where dissent is stigmatized as betrayal. Here the Luke 19:27 logic is repurposed: those who resist Catholic kingship—whether secular liberals, women, or minorities—are enemies to be symbolically purged from the nation.

Conclusion: Christianity’s Authoritarian Kernel Across Centuries

From the Inquisition to the Thirty Years’ War, from English absolutism to American Manifest Destiny, and from Ireland to modern Poland, Christianity has consistently fused the sacred with the sovereign. Weber helps us see how charisma becomes routinized into authority; Foucault shows how discipline shapes compliant subjects; Said reminds us that domination requires the construction of despised “others.”

Across all these cases, Luke 19:27 functions less as a stray verse than as a foundational political theology: those who refuse Christ’s kingship must be destroyed. The genealogy is unbroken. Medieval Christendom sanctified tyranny; early modern Europe forged confessional nationalism; settler colonialism turned conquest into providence; modern white nationalists translate divine kingship into racial sovereignty.

What persists is the same absolutist logic: Christianity as the language of domination, dissent cast as existential threat, and violence justified as divine necessity. Far from being merely a religion of peace, Christianity has been one of history’s most resilient engines of tyranny and exceptionalism—its authoritarian kernel still active in modern politics and law.

Global Liberal Blog

11/02/2025

10/21/2025

10/18/2025

09/28/2025

09/20/2025

09/18/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category