Sunday's Thoughts
by Alice-Alexandra-Sofia




Introduction to Political Theology


Preliminary Notes

Imagination and Symbolic Thinking

Political Theology, Ideology, and Propaganda

Implementation and Current Status of Political Theology

Conclusive Remarks





…false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies…

…alluring unsettled souls, having a heart occupied with covetousness, children of curse;

forsaking the straight path they went astray…

For speaking great swelling words of vanity, by the lusts of flesh, in unbridled lusts they allure……

…it would be better for them do not cognize the way of righteousness,

than fully knowing to turn from the holy commandment…

{2 Peter 2:1, 14–22)





Preliminary Notes


The Europeans began acquaintance with the political theology through the works of Augustine the Bishop of Hippo*1*.

Following Marcus Varro (116–27 B.C.), Augustine describes three kinds of heathen theologies [The City of God  VI.v–viii, xi 112–117, 118]:

1/ mythical or fable theology adapted to the theatre; it is a creation of the poets: they interpret official state cults (the sets of state–approved religious beliefs) into models of behavior for citizens; through poems, plays, songs, proverbs, the poets create and maintain a particular culture by

a/ transmitting the symbolic–mythical mode of thinking to the minds of spectators

b/ propagating the values, social and cultural norms, which fit the purposes of the Polis/state, and making them ready for digestion by the majority of the population, therefore, implementing them into the reality of social and cultural life

c/ sustaining the political and social order needed for survival of the Polis/state

2/ physical theology is a creation of the philosophers and priests–diviners who imagine the nature and properties of their gods; following Aristotle, philosophers and diviners used physical–theological speculations as the means of development of practical knowledge (the scientific progress in the contemporary terms)

3/ civil or political theology is a foundation of a political organization.

The heathen states of the Past applied civil or political theology as the means of propagation and control of the religious beliefs; by fashioning political and social opinions of the population, the rulers expected to accomplish the political purposes:

a/ to sustain social behavior

b/ to maintain political and social stability

c/ to establish patterns of thinking and behavior, which should be manifested through the religious, political, and social rituals.

The civil or political theology determined the main values and models, which then, were spread through the mythical theology: fables and myths became the indispensable tool for establishment of a particular culture and for maintenance of social and political stability. Since, imagination and its framework – symbolical/mythical thinking became the starting point for establishment of political organizations, which pursue the absolute power over human being.

Plato–Aristotle’s design fully implemented the discovery of the ancient slave–owners: management through the manipulation with the mind (control of thinking, imagination, and beliefs) is much more efficient that open physical coercion.

For instance,


slave by body rebels, seeks freedom, escapes, and can harm his owner


slave by the mind is unreservedly obedient,
finding his “little goodness” in satisfaction of the needs of his owner,
transforming service to his owner into the meaning of own existence,
and believing that his slavery is the freedom.



Political theology worked through the apparently non–coercive methods, with which the political organization–Polis/state regulated and controlled the social and political order that sustained its existence. These methods included

1/ arrangement of the overall framework of knowledge that determined social, religious, and civil life of the community members–citizens of the Polis

2/ official approval, propagation, and maintenance/replacement of the role models – heroes of fables, myths, theatrical plays, and other products of the arts

3/ total surveillance, which was accomplished through elected officials, priests, temple prostitutes, informers, and other sources of information concerning words, deeds, and intentions of the subjects.

The Polis/state maintained and implemented political theology through three channels:

1/ the theatrical plays; in this case, political and mythical theologies merged for the sake of the state purposes; for instance, for the purposes of the social and political stability, waging wars, which were the regular mode of business acquisitions (new slaves, wheat, gold, and other resources of the conquered), protection from the external enemies

2/ the rites of worship, sacrifice, and festivities at temples maintained by priests–diviners

3/ the law, rules, and norms controlled by the special monitoring structures (similar to the Plato’s Nocturnal Council and Council of the Elders), which were endowed with

a/ the privilege to approve dissemination of “the right opinions”

b/ responsibilities to persuade the mass population that the “right opinions” are their own

c/ the authority to restrain those who would resist the common good, rebel against the common order, defy or disprove the common beliefs, or by any means jeopardize safety of the Polis.

The role models provided the necessary patterns of social behavior (e.g., loyalty and obedience to rulers, piety to gods). The priests and other informers monitored behavior of the members of the society during mandatory participation in the official rituals, attendance of theaters, temples, and public gatherings, social contacts, and private life. The military units and temple guards acted with the coercive power (e.g., imprisonment, exile or termination of the different–minded/heretics with political and social opinions, religious beliefs, and behavior, which deviated from the officially propagated opinions, beliefs, social and political norms).

Three types of theology named by Augustine reflect three–level arrangement of the heathen society:

1/ the fables and myths of the poets sustain the shared dream world – religions or cults, which define the conscience, fill up the consciousness, and restrain the mind of ordinary citizens within the boundaries of a particular setting described with particular meanings of good and evil, and embodied into particular articles of faith. If to follow the design of Plato’s Republic, it might be assumed that this part was intended for the mob–beast – the majority of population

2/ the physical–theological speculations (the level of the Plato’s divine–consummated philosopher–king) expand the earthly dream world unto the dimension of invisible, yet held to be cognizable (thus, predictable and even manageable) deities; they are intended to feed the mind with the figments of imagination named knowledge (or science, or faith), which systematizes fantasies concerning the universe and the place of man within it, and to keep the mind within the particular boundaries of the shared dream world. In Plato’s design, this knowledge sustains social and political stability – in fact, stagnation, which impairs the progress of the society and eventually activates the processes of decay and degeneration [for instance, Plato advises to guard the system of education from innovation, if such a system already produces “people of good character” fitted for the perfect community – Republic 424a–b]

3/ the political theology takes care of the entire society and each of its members at the level of actions and communications; it institutes the rules and rituals, through which the society realizes own values, worships its deities, regulates behavior of its property–members–parts, distributes the social and other privileges, prevents and punishes deviations from the officially accepted standards of conduct (with which the controlling structures evaluate compliance with the imposed beliefs and patterns of thinking). In brief, it sustains the political organization (and through it, the Polis/state) and keeps it operational.

The three types of theology perform the three most significant functions with which any establishment maintains own existence: they

a/ define the meaning of good and evil, therefore, control contents of the conscience, morality, ethics, morals of the members/subjects of the establishment

b/ determine the life of the mind by controlling the contents of knowledge and rules and methods of cognition–creation–dissemination of knowledge; in the Plato–Aristotle’s model, they confine the mind within the shared dream world that sustains purposes of a particular political organization

c/ direct behavior of a body – determine the acts, which express the officially endorsed contents of the conscience and the mode of thinking and confirm that a particular person is a reliable member of a particular group unified with a particular set of beliefs.

There are only three problems with all three theologies:

1/ their contents is false knowledge, thus they are incapable of sustaining the sufficient strategy of social and political survival

2/ they confine the minds within the restricted mandatory set of false assumptions concerning God, man, and Universe; therefore, they enslave the mind by depriving it of freedom of thinking and conscience and lead it to degeneration ( as Socrates noticed, slavery is the death of reason)

3/ they ultimately ruin the establishment (society, state, civilization), which adopted them as the means to regulate social stability, to achieve political and other purposes, and to determine the manner of existence.

In general, the Plato–Aristotle’s political design embodies unity of the state and the religion, which work together to achieve the complete control over minds and bodies of the subjects. The entire human being – conscience, mind, and body – serves the state, which in this case, becomes the true master and the main deity of its subjects.

Later, the pagan Roman Empire modified this design according to her settings – multinational and multicultural conglomerate of the conquered states with different religions and cults. The Empire practiced religious and cultural tolerance under the condition that the universal cult of the “divine emperor” dominates over all cults and religions, yet, the essence was unchangeable: the state/civil authority based on the power of coercion assumed the right to define and to control the religious beliefs of the subjects. 

Difference among political theologies of the ancient societies might be explained by different combinations of similar (in its essence) ingredients and settings (time–space–complexity parameters). These ingredients include philosophical and theological doctrines, sets of deities, customs, historical dissimilarities of development, purposes of the political organizations (expansion, stability, or just survival), etc. Among dominant settings are natural resources, living space, time–range of existence, overall level of development, including amassed knowledge of destruction (weapons, military strategies), efficiency of organizations that realize the force of coercion, etc.

Political theology is practical application of the philosophy, the core of a system that sustained life of the heathen societies and defined the meaning of phenomenon known as the heathenism. Consequently, when the Western theologians accepted Plato–Aristotle’s philosophical–political–theological doctrine, they absorbed the entire system that sustained life of the heathen societies. 

In general, the history of the European political and philosophical thought might be seen as the history of elaboration of the political theology; the most advanced Medieval version is Aquinas’ political theology*2*, which became the official doctrine of the papal Church of Rome.

In Aquinas’ case, the modification of the original design includes change of the holder of the supreme power:

– in the Plato–Aristotle’s design, the supreme power belongs to the governing group of the Polis/state, so, religious authorities play the secondary role: they have to accomplish the purposes of the state

– in the papal establishment, the civil/state authorities (kings and their vassals, magistrates, judges) are the subjects of the religious leader – the pope; so, the state has to accomplish the purposes of the religious – supreme – leader.

Political theology provides the comprehensive framework, within which the entire set of political–religious–cultural–social institutions and establishment is unified under the rule of one main idol – the mortal man



who asserts himself as the earthly substitute of God

who pretends to sit at the place of God and to have a “share of dignity of God”

whose laws supplant the Law of God

who ascribes to himself the absolute power over his subjects



Definitely, this version was considered as more reliable basis for accomplishment of such purposes as stability and expansion of the political system in pursuit of global dominion.

Avery R. Dulles refers to the Aquinas’ doctrine as to “a Platonized form of Aristotelianism” that embraced the Muslim and heathen sources [Dulles 119, 133].

This reference also points out the most significant feature of the Aquinas’ political theology – the comprehensiveness (for the Aquinas’ time) intended to sustain the absolute power of the ruler:

a/ it has embraced all concepts, which could serve the purposes of the papal hierarchy

b/ it assimilated all assumptions concerning absolute authority of one and absolute submission of many

c/ it is designed to sustain the political organization in pursuit of the world–wide domination.




Imagination and Symbolic Thinking


The mind has the purpose to secure survival of a human being, and it accomplishes this purpose by incessant perception of information and creation of knowledge of the actuality: knowledge is life of the mind – its food and its main product. Survival is not possible for an ignorant being – the being that does not “read” and comprehend the actuality of the environment from which food, danger, and death might come. Imagination is a faculty of the lower level of intelligence: it is a compensatory mechanism allowing “connecting of the dots” and comprehension of the nature of events and things of the material world, when there is no sufficient information received through the sensual perception (vision, hearing, etc).

If mind is deprived of the knowledge of the actuality, it employs imagination for creation of assumptions and accepts them as knowledge of the actuality. If the mind is not able to comprehend the actuality, it falls into the dream world and lives by figments of own imagination or by the images from the shared dream worlds, for instance, such as symbolical worlds of cults and heathen religions.

Nevertheless, whatever the products of imagination are (e.g., contribution into the adequate comprehension of the environment, or assumption of possible –imaginable – threats to survival), they are inseparably connected with the sensual perception and serve only physical survival within the world of the matter. Only the images of the material world and information received through the senses sustain the work of imagination: nothing more is available.

Although imagination works at the levels of the matter, its use is not possible at the highest levels of complexity, for instance, for accessing and comprehension of the spiritual knowledge that the human soul receives from God. In general, the very assumption that imagination might serve theological inquiries reveals that its author has no access to the spiritual knowledge.

Christian theologians and Western (papal) theologians hold different opinions concerning imagination.

According to Christian Greek theologians, images of the sensible things bring the soul into “the turmoil of the passions,” and the intellect, which is “fed by the senses” and attached to imagination, creates “impure passions.” Imagination of evil leads to the desire of evil, then to the feeling of pleasure or pain proceeding from evil (because evil is “impassionate attachment” to the senses). Ultimately, the mind becomes “fully conscious” of evil and unites itself with the evil [St. Maximus the Confessor §35, §38, §75 195, 203; Ilias the Presbyter IV:123 63].

The theological connection of imagination with evil {Genesis 8:21} becomes visible if to comprehend that imagination is intended to serve the needs of the matter (e.g., human survival within the world of the matter), thus imagination has to be focused on the matter. The matter exists within the time–space–complexity parameters: the material structures created for achievement of a particular purpose are temporal – at due time, they disintegrate, dissipate, or otherwise lose the original structure, form, access to energy, etc. The main law, which controls the world of the matter, is the law of destruction: all material structures (human body, building, tool, vessel, etc.) have to be destroyed or to disintegrate (releasing the energy) after they achieved or failed to achieve the purposes for which they have been created. Consequently,


the main law of the matter is death

death is the greatest evil from all those cognized by men

imagination focused on the evil has to be bent to the evil,
otherwise, it will not serve its purposes.


To the contrary, the human spirit is created as the immortal being that bears the image and likeness of immortal Almighty God the Holy Spirit, lives by the breath of God, and might be transformed into the temple–dwelling of the Living God {Genesis 1:1–2, 26–27; 2:7; 9:6; Isaiah 6:1–3; John 1:1–5, 9–13; 4:24; 14:15–17, 23}.

By the very nature, a human being is focused on immortality; although each human being has to pass through the world of the matter because of the Ancestors’ choice to cognize the good and the evil, each human being is invited to return to the Homeland – the Kingdom of God. The knowledge of the Home is not the knowledge of temporal dissipating world accommodating the arch–evil – death of men. Knowledge of the evil cannot be the spiritual knowledge. The spiritual knowledge cannot be obtained with the human imagination, because the evil exists only within the world of the matter, and because the presence of God annihilates the creatures of flesh destined to cognize the ultimate evil – death {cf.: Exodus 33:20; Luke 10:17–20; John 8:44; Revelation 19:11–21; 20:14–15; 21:8}.

Only those who worship God in spirit and truth are the ones that God seeks {John 4:23–24}, yet, the spirit and truth are not accessible for human imagination dealing with the world of death.

Thus, since the fifth century (works of Maximus the Confessor), the Greek theologians began to correlate

a/ imagination with evil (when it is applied to the spiritual life)

b/ the work of imagination for creation of theological knowledge with an ability to substitute the dream worlds for the actuality of existence. In their perception, the link of correlated phenomena, or the chain of evil, begins with admission of a possibility to use imagination for creation and transmitting the spiritual knowledge and the knowledge of God Who is the Spirit {John 4:24}.


an image of sensible things

the fruit of imagination, passion, desire

actually experienced pain or pleasure

an awareness of the connection between imagination and a real pain or pleasure

a transformation of the imagination into the source of real pain or pleasure

the substitution of the imaginary world for the reality.



It means that the mind, which lives by imagination, is ready for acceptance of false assumptions instead of the knowledge of truth, heresy instead of true faith, an idol instead of true God, and the heathenism instead of the true religion.

The Greek theologians were not alone in their mistrust of imagination and rejection of imagination as the source of knowledge.

For example, in the seventeenth century, Blaise Pascal described imagination as the “arrogant power, the enemy of reason,” which has become a second nature of man; while reason detects misery, imagination covers misery with glory [Pascal Pensées §82 186].

The Pascal’s definition points out the main dangers of imagination: irrelevance and inability to sustain the work of intelligence–reasoning.

The Western theologians accepted imagination as the legitimate source of their theological assertions in the same manner as they accepted the heathen philosophy for interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

For instance, Thomas Aquinas (the thirteenth century) asserted that the mind has to employ phantasms in the act of thinking/cognition [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica III Q.11 a2; Emery IV:7–8].

“To employ phantasms” means to use the “imaginative faculty,” which Aquinas sees as the intermediary between the sensual perception and the mind. Obviously, Aquinas assumes that the mind creates thought and knowledge by the power of reasoning based on information provided by imagination and sensual perception.

To the contrary, the Greek theologians hold that any knowledge created with the participation of imagination cannot be spiritual; it is the knowledge of the matter incapable of reaching “the things of the Spirit” [St. Gregory Palamas (1988) §§16–20  99–101].

Such a difference in opinions indicates the irreversible split: in the Western theological thought, phantasms were admitted as the source of the knowledge of God; in the East, imagination was excluded from the theological studies, and human imagination was not admitted as the source of knowledge of God.

In the fifteenth century, Catholic theologians already widely used imagination as the basis for mysticism, theological concepts, and practical tasks. For instance, Denys the Carthusian (1402–1471) describes the “art of meditation” as the constant process, which includes the following steps [in: Emery IV:14]:


a/ the mind arises from images to abstractions

b/ the mind reverses to phantasms

c/ from the phantasms, the mind again rises to abstraction,

and so on with the objective to become able to disregard images and ascend to God.


Thus, the phantasms of the material world are expected to lift the mind at first, to the level of abstract immaterial categories, then, to God. Such expectations are not different from the expectations of the Plato’s consummated philosopher to cognize the eternal immaterial essences of things and the thoughts of deities.

Ultimately, in the Western theological studies, imagination had received the place of legitimate source of knowledge. Own imagination became the roots and beginning of meditation [e.g., Emery IV:7] for the theologians who, nevertheless, continued to identify themselves as the Christians, then, Ignatius of Loyola put imagination at work as the means of training for the service of the papal hierarchy (Ignatius of Loyola included in his Spiritual Exercises the complete set of meditations, with the purposes to “seek and find the divine will” and to train men to overcome own personality and unreservedly submit own life to the hierarchical church [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §1, §21, §353 283, 287, 356]*3*).

The following four examples disclose a philosophical foundation on which imagination serves as the actual source of knowledge for many generations of the papal theologians and the subjects of the papal church.

1. John Duns Scotus (1266/1274?–1308), with the reference to the text of Augustine of Hippo*1*, declares: things learned through senses are true, because with them people learn the heaven and the earth. With the reference to Aristotle, he concludes: imagination interprets the phantasms that are “sensible impressions or images” as the true reflection of reality [Duns Scotus 322, 350; Augustine On The Trinity XV:12].

That is how papal theologians began to recognize phantasms created by imagination as true reflections of the reality of both realms – the realm of the matter (politics) and the realm of the Absolute Good (theology).  The root of this misconception is in Aristotle’s assertion that objects of sense should be used to clarify the objects of intellect, because “the former are plainer than the latter” [Aristotle Magna Moralia I.i.21]. However, the theologians discarded the following text with explanation that the Ideal Good should be excluded from the discourse, because it is not the subject of science [Magna Moralia I.i.22–27].

Senses serve those who live at the Earth, learn the visible, discernible, perceivable Earth – the world of the matter, and have to survive within the world of the matter – at the Earth. Yet, it is irrational to assume that senses can perceive and human reasoning can comprehend the invisible immaterial realm, which people traditionally refer to as “the heaven.”

Nevertheless, the senses did become the main source of knowledge about the reality of the Spirit (the heaven) and the first authority for the authors of imaginary interactive theology. Aristotle’s logic of simplification played the very bad joke with those who accepted it as the pinnacle of wisdom: in their bewilderment, they mixed up all levels of complexity and produced irrational mass of phantasms and their “scientific” interpretations and assertions.

2. Catholic saint Bonaventura (1221–1274) presumes that it is possible to know God “through creatures in the natural light of reason,” he asserts that “the dark” or a creature might be the means to learn the light (God) and knowledge of the creature is an “intermediate ladder,” which “by the mode of image” elevates to the knowledge of God [Bonaventura 131–133, 136].

3. Nicolaus of Cusa (1401–1464) writes about the common perception of the “greatest philosophers and theologians” who held that the visible world is the true reflection of the invisible and it is possible “in a dark manner,” through analogies and through creatures, to rise to the knowledge of God. Although no image can be formed without material sensible things, the image is the only unquestionable way to obtain knowledge of the unknown things: the more abstracts a theologian extracts from the sensible things “the more secure and certain” is the knowledge of the divine. Thus, the knowledge of the divine things might be obtained only through the symbols, and the best of them are the mathematical symbols, or according to Boethius, without knowledge of mathematics, the knowledge of divine is not possible [Nicolaus of Cusa 21–24; Boethius ref. in: Nicolaus of Cusa 22].

However, not many theologians were able to ascend to the appropriate levels of the mathematical–symbolical–theological abstraction; the majority followed the commonly accepted method to produce “the divine knowledge” with own imagination (often, heated/over–stimulated by frenzied techniques of diviners.)

The knowledge of the divine (the Spirit) cannot be inferred from the knowledge of sensible things (the matter); otherwise – in contradiction to the word of God {Exodus 33:20} – it would be possible to see God and to live. Yet, the philosophizing theologians had found another source of revelations: they accepted the Proclus’ assertion that although the divine is uncognizable by the reason and cannot be subject to an opinion, the properties of gods may be inferred and known from the beings, which depend on gods, or the divine may be known “from the existents which participate it” [Proclus Prop. 123].

Within the framework of papal theology, the common perception of the “greatest philosophers and theologians” concerning the possibility to cognize God through creatures was considered as the direct inference from the Epistle to the Romans. However, St. Paul the Apostle writes about those who oppose Christianity and suppress the truth with the false although God granted them the knowledge; he reminds that the Gospel of Christ is the power of God that reveals the truth of God for salvation of all believers. The Apostle’s text is focused on Lord God Jesus Christ – incarnated Word–God, and only through Jesus Christ “the invisible of God, His eternal power and Divinity” were revealed to men. Yet, men put “the image similar to mortal men” and deceit in place of the glory of the immortal God and the truth; then, they worshipped a creature instead of the Creator; consequently, they were committed to their perverted minds, their own perversion, and their shameful passions {Romans 1:16–32}.

Consequently, If to consider the logical completeness and the wholeness of the meaning, and if do not snatch just one passage from the text, it becomes obvious that the Apostle’s text has nothing in common with the interpretations and assertions submitted by Bonaventura and Nicolaus of Cusa, especially concerning application of the images of the material world toward cognition of God and the ability to learn the light through the darkness.

St. Paul the Apostle writes about only one Being through Whom God revealed Himself to man: Lord Jesus Christ Who is the Son of Man and the Son of God – incarnated Word–God. Only after incarnation of God Who revealed the name and knowledge of God (the knowledge that is the eternal life for man), man became able to cognize his Creator through His creation – the Son of Man: he who has seen and known Lord God Jesus Christ has seen and known the Father {John 14:6–11; 17:3, 6, 21–26}.

The assertion of a possibility to learn the light by the means of darkness and to cognize God through images of the visible material world has the same logical foundation as attempts to learn life through death and to cognize God through the evil committed by men; such attempts resulted in the Thomas Aquinas’ sacrilegious portrayal of God as the source of evil*2*. This assertion has roots in the Plato’s doctrine of two worlds (the world of being and the world of becoming) and in the ancient concept of the unity of the opposites, which brought such fruits, for example, as the Manichaeism and dialectical materialism. Whichever images and knowledge of creatures the mind has, in the best case scenario, it is able to infer only the laws, which control and determine the nature/properties of creatures at the levels of the material world.

For instance, the nature of any being living at the earth is created by the unity of the energy, force, and the law, therefore, it has a completeness of perfection as any creation of God does. Yet, it also has completeness of the material object/thing/event, which is structured for a particular purpose, time–range, and limitedness of existence, which do not allow comprehension of the omnipotent power beyond. Any attempt to impose this understanding of the temporal limited being on the nature of God Who created the Earth is pointless: God is the eternal Spirit {Genesis 1:2; John 4:24} without any analogue within the world of the matter. The mind does not have the power, ability, and the sufficient complexity, which are necessary for cognition of eternal God–Spirit.

The human essence – soul–heart–mind (the mind in the following text) – was designed to receive the knowledge–life from God and destined to exist–operate within the temporal time–complexity–bounded Universe described with the categories of law and the matter. The knowledge of creatures (that is the contents of the consciousness) allows accomplishment of the mind’s mission within the framework, which accommodates the laws that control existence of the creatures. The mind receives the knowledge of God only from God Himself and only when the mind is prepared and chosen by God Himself {John 15:16}; the chosen man becomes the Prophet, the Apostle, or the servant of God. Yet, even the Apostles do not have the completeness of the knowledge of God and their own nature {1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 13:9–12}. Therefore, all self–initiated attempts to assemble the true knowledge of God with the images of the matter, mathematical symbols, etc., are the false and deceit, which are irrational even from the point of view of ordinary logic or common sense.

The tragedy is that the false knowledge culminates in perversion of the nature; then, the inseparable companion of perversion – death/destruction – comes. In particular, the worth and consequences of the method of cognition of God with the human imagination might be inferred from its fruits, for instance, such as the Inquisition and the sacrilegious notion of the “law of Christ” to burn heretics at the stake, which Catholic theologians Henry of Susa (1271) and Jean d’Andre (1348) [ref. in: Vacandard 128] inferred from the images of the surrounding them reality and ascribed to God.

4. William of Ockham (1300–1349) argues: according to the opinion of the doctors, God “can not produce any effect without a first cause.” In consistency with the Aristotle’s link – ‘eye → color/phantasm → intellect/light,’ William of Ockham asserts that the eye cannot see the sight of color unless the color is actually present; likewise, “it is not possible that God causes sight of understanding” unless He reveals His presence in the considered subject [William of Ockham 373–374].

If to translate this assertion into the normal language, it means that when the philosophizing theologian assumes that he is seeing God, the theologian’s vision is truth, and God is actually present. Other interesting details include

– the peculiar overconfidence of the papal “doctors” who assume own ability to judge what God can or cannot do.

– the method: the papal theologian assumes that he sees/knows God through the Aristotle’s analogy with a human body and all this comes to setting the limits for God – what He can or cannot do.

This particular case seems to be literal embodiment of St. Paul the Apostles warning {Romans 1:21–23}.

The referred above opinions of the papal theologians

a/ reveal the completeness of their trust in the reality of their own figments of imagination

b/ illustrate the depth of delusion of those who believe that they lead the papal subjects to the true knowledge of God

c/ expose arrogance of the ignorant mind that assumes that it is able to evaluate God.

Such confidence is the by–product of the common practice to apply the knowledge of the matter to its Creator, philosophical concepts to theology, and figments of own imagination to the real world.

In summary,

1/ for the papal theologians, their own imagination became the legitimate source of the theological concepts similarly to the poets and philosophers of the pagan Antiquity who created political theology

2/ the Greek Orthodox theologians recognized that when the mind employs sensual perception to create an image of God, it uses images of the material world, therefore, creates an illusion, mirage, phantasm, or idol. Consequently, acceptance of this illusion and phantasm as the truth and use of imagination in any connection with the knowledge of God is the sin [The Philokalia 1:362, 364–365]. Moreover, all attempts to cognize God through the images of the created by Him world or through the properties of the matter are sacrilegious – they constitute blasphemy*4* – because, in fact, they are the attempts

a/ to associate immortal eternal God with the creations that exist within the temporal dissipating world of death

b/ to ascribe to God the properties and features of His creations.

Since, for the Greek Orthodox Christians, any application of imagination toward the knowledge of God (that is creation of imaginary world instead of cognition of the truth) constitutes blasphemy and sin (sin as a failure to accomplish the main purpose of existence of the mind: love to God and cognition of God).

When the art of philosophy is used to justify the substitution of illusions for the reality, philosophy undergoes transformation from love of wisdom (the means of survival) into justification of the false (the means of death).

Consequently, the Thomas Aquinas’ method of creation of theological knowledge with phantasms is the method of creation of heresies. Whatever knowledge Aquinas amassed with such a method, and whichever wordings from the Holy Scriptures he uses, his main doctrine – political theology, which the papacy associates with Christianity, might be acceptable only for the people who have no knowledge of Christian teachings.

Consequently, implementation of the political theology in the papal Church of Rome began with making the Bible forbidden book for the laity (the Inquisition in Toulouse issued prohibition to read the Bible, in 1229). The official reason of prohibition was “avoidance of heresies” because of wrong interpretation of the sacred text by the “ignorant” laity. In fact, deprivation of the laity of true knowledge of God made possible advancement of heresies*5*, for instance, such as deification of the pope along with his angelic hierarchy*2*, and ultimately, resulted in complete substitution of the political theology for Christianity.

Acceptance and advancement of political theology, which for the Christian, is the relapse into the heathenism and the worst heresy from all ever created by human imagination, would not be possible without a particular – symbolic/mythical – mode of thinking. Such mode of thinking is the legacy of the ancient Egyptian priests–diviners, which, along with the Orphic serpentine theology*6*, became the foundation for the philosophical–theological–political speculations of Plato and (in its down–to–earth version) Aristotle. Along with practices of the heathen diviners and heathen philosophy, the Western theologians absorbed the Aristotle’s dialectics or the logic of simplification*7*; then, they became the part of the system – the heathenism.

Aquinas’ political theology, as any heathen religion, is a symbolic world. It expands from the mind to the mind, through transformation of the mind into the consumer–creator of symbols*8*, so, the mind begins to use imagination as the source of knowledge of truth. Tertullian’s comparison of heresy*5* with the fever, “deadly and excruciating” calamity whose purpose is annihilation of mankind [On The “Prescription” of Heretics], provides insight for understanding the nature of such disorder as susceptibility to group thinking and acceptance of the heretical and heathen beliefs and opinions, especially, when they are sustained by the authority based on the power of coercion and when they are shared by the majority. Only knowledge of God protects the human heart–mind from deadly fever of philosophizing imagination and phantasms born by the frenzy of heathen diviners.

In general, through the history, the essence of the heathenism remains unchangeable in spite of all modifications, philosophical wordings, and contemporary scientific definitions: the heathenism is idol–worship, and its main deity is the ancient Orphic arch–dragon–serpent–beast, the container of forms of animals and other things, including men, the arch–evil that masquerades itself with forms of any possible kind – from wooden figurines that man makes to express his belief in existence of deity through the all–powerful empires, establishments, and leaders that take the place of God.

Is any sound mind able to accept existence of such idol–beast and worship it as to god?

Then, what transforms the sound mind into the idol–worshiping mind and forces it to believe in bestial deity that lives by death of its creations and needs human sacrifices to confirm its existence? Only one thing makes such transformation possible: the over–stimulated (sick), unguarded, and corrupted/perverted imagination (imagination is assumed to be corrupted/perverted because no sound mind would, for instance, sacrifice own child to idol as the Phoenicians did*9*). Without such imagination, transfer to symbolical/mythical thinking – foundation of shared dream worlds of heathenism – is not possible.

Therefore, symbolical/mythical mode of thinking might be seen as an indication of the mind unprotected by knowledge of truth and therefore, incapable to discriminate between the good and the evil, and prepared for transformation into an idol–worshiper.

Seemingly, transfer to the symbolical/mythical mode of thinking does not impair the mental abilities: the mind does not lose logic and overall abilities of reasoning. For instance, the heresies must imitate the truth and have some inner logic, which would present them as new truth or as elaboration of existing belief: only logically thinking mind is capable of

a/ creating symbols, dream world, heresies, and false religions

b/ making them persuading and ready for acceptance by other mind

c/ attracting of followers.

Consequently, initiation of the symbolical thinking should be made at another level, deeper than the faculty of deliberation. In the Past, the special wording existed for definition of the people whose ability to discern between good and evil is impaired: sickness of soul (or possession by the unclean spirits). The next step for those who acquired the sickness of soul is spiritual death: they become the living dead, the creatures of flesh and the being of the matter. Then, only knowledge of God could cleanse their soul and awaken them to the spiritual life {Lord God Jesus Christ sent His disciples to cleanse the possessed, to heal the sick, and to resurrect the living dead – Matthew 10:1–8}.

In the current time, in which the natural sciences, societies, and cultures live by Aristotelian practicable marketable good, the belief in existence of the soul became a rare phenomenon, possession of a few who still believe that a human being is created in image and after likeness of God and that a human soul might be connected with God the Creator and Father {Genesis 1:26–27; 9:6; John 14:6, 23}.

However, the essence of phenomenon remains unchanged in spite of inability to comprehend its essence and to find its roots. The disorders leading to acceptance of imagination as the source of knowledge of the actuality, figments of imagination as the actuality, false assumptions as knowledge of truth, heresies as true faith, and the heathenism as a true religion, do exist. They can be transferred from person to person, from group to a nation, and from one nation to the world population only if the mind looses an ability of discrimination between the good and the evil, therefore, between truth and lies.

When the mind switches to symbolical mode of thinking, the first step is denigration, or rejection of own value as a creation of God – the unique being destined to carry the Holy Spirit of God within the particular time–space–complexity settings. The mind begins to perceive itself as the Aristotelian average measurable by material possessions and as a part of herd of the social animals: it creates own self–image from the images and symbols of the material world.

When the mind creates self–image with the images of the surrounding world, it creates false knowledge.

For instance, if the mind identifies itself with some particular symbols–sets of assumptions expressed with images of the material world, it assumes own inadequacy to own nature that is to the image of God. When the mind assumes own ability to cognize or describe the nature of God with the symbols created from images of the material world, it substitutes a phantasm created with own imagination for the true knowledge of God. These practices explain tenacity of the heathenism as the customary practices to create idols after likeness of the surrounding material objects and to identify the imaginary constructions as true philosophy.

In the Antiquity, such practices were developed into “true philosophizing in the temple.”

“True philosophizing in the temple” produced the symbolical–mythological theology of the ancient Egyptians and originated political theology of the ancient Greek Polis along with the multitude of different cults (including cults of divine emperors, leaders of religious and political establishments, and the states). In general, insufficiency of true knowledge of God begets symbolism, covers it with the name of true philosophy, elevates it to the rank of the religion, and ultimately, ascribes the name of absolute truth to figments of imagination.

For instance, according to Ludwig von Bertalanffy, philosophy describes “primitive magic” of taking symbols for things as the “realism of concepts” for the real things, and a science itself might be described as a set of symbols; for example, vocabularies and algorithms are systems of symbols produced in accordance with established rules; the overall symbolic activity is “a principal characteristic of human behavior” [von Bertalanffy (1967) 31, 46, 92; (1981) 55].

Furthermore, the researchers identify the contemporary culture as a pattern of mutually developed and accepted symbols [Schultz 14], or “the sum total” of the world of symbols, where each symbolic system reflects specific aspect of reality and contains some truth, yet this truth is “only relative”  [von Bertalanffy (1981) 47, 83–84].

The relative “truth” cannot be the absolute truth: the very word “symbol”*8* assumes free interpretation that might not reflect the truth of a described reality. A definition of the culture as the set of the common symbols, which carry the particular meanings, implies that each culture is a shared symbolic dream world. A group, or society, or nation creates the shared world of symbols with the intentions to define the meaning of own existence, realize own values, and secure own reproduction–survival.

For instance, any system/organization/business enterprise might be seen a symbolic universe with its own logic: members of the organization create their own meanings of truth, values, and myths, which determine their attitude toward the surrounding world, express their opinions, and define their rituals; then, they act in accordance with the defined meanings [Schultz 17, 29, 61, 76, 78, 85; Cassirer ref. in Schultz 76].

Consequently, within such groups, societies, nations, the mind lives by creation, modification, embodiment in words and actions, or rejection of the symbols that might or might not reflect the human nature. Consequently, the stability of the societies, social, political, and other groups and establishments, which are sustained by the symbolic worlds, depends on an ability of the leader/controlling group to implement standards of symbol–creating activities and to make them mandatory.

Furthermore, if to accept Ludwig Wittgenstein’s interpretation of rules as symbols and description of a science as a system of symbols created in accordance with some rules, it is possible to infer that symbolism had become the foundation of sciences: whatever the nature of symbolic activity is, whichever false the so–called “true” philosophy offers to its consumers, symbolism and “true philosophizing” penetrated all sciences. The overall picture of the contemporary epistemological and philosophical concepts accepted as knowledge suggests the conclusion similar to the Socrates’ question–guess [ Plato Cratylus 411d–e; 439a–e; 440a–c; Theaetetus 152d–e; 156a–d; 157b–c; 182d–e]: is true knowledge possible within the constantly changing world or does man exist within the unhealthy state of unreality?

Within the worlds sustained by symbolical thinking, the Socrates’ question has no positive answer. A symbol is a variable image whose meaning undergoes changes at different levels of abstraction, generalization, complexity, and conditions of existence. A symbol conveys a set of assumptions, and the actual value of the symbol is not in its closeness to the actuality or verisimilitude. The symbol carries an ability to evoke or re–create a particular world/setting, and its carrier–maker is the part ready to be assimilated into the general set of symbols, that is to be included into an organization. However, the essence of a symbolic world/setting might be different for different minds because of diversity or complete incompatibility of levels of abstraction, complexity, and conditions of existence. Such differences might became the source of social and political instability, because of inability of one mind living by a specific interpretation of the set of symbols

a/ to comprehend the logic of another mind

b/ to perceive another symbolic universe

c/ to fit the particular organization.

However, the actual danger is inability to cognize the actuality of existence, therefore, to survive.

For instance, people have different intuitive understanding and non–similar abilities to comprehend the symbolic worlds, which sustain other minds. Such absence of the mutual foundation might result in interesting situations. In particular, Mr. A might discern the signs of coming disasters in the evening news; Mr. B might perceive Mr. A as a personality with the persistent symptoms of mental disorder; Mr. C, who observes behavior of both Mr. A and Mr. B, might interpret the difference of their perception as the consequence of different background (education, religious beliefs, etc.).

This simplified example reflects the common problem of any setting sustained with the symbolic worlds: a possibility of misinterpretation, inadequate reflection, or incomplete re–creation that might or might not describe the true meaning and essence of the world. The symbols create the general (and vague) knowledge framework – the working platform on which any symbolic world might be assembled. Furthermore, as any world created under the rule of free interpretation of false assumptions, a science cannot be separated from the underlying dream world – the set of the symbols, which it employs as the languages, rules, and sets of created assumptions believed to be the true concepts or knowledge (for example, such as the mythological religion of the ancient Egyptians who developed elaborated symbols, which – as they believed – describe everything, including the chaos). It means that if the science follows logic of its creators must remain in the permanent stage of stagnation. Probably, this phenomenon explains the inability of human societies to establish life in dignity, freedom, and prosperity for all their members. If to analyze the true meaning of the “progress,” the only conclusion is that the progress is identified as development of the tools for arrangement and fashioning the material objects (buildings, carriers for travelers, means of communications, weapons of mass destruction, etc.). The human part of equation remains at the level of heathen societies serving death and destruction.

The ancient opinion–makers asserted similarity of symbol–creating–deciphering patterns as the stabilizing and maintaining force of the society; since, the meaning of heresy has different definitions at the different levels, yet, all levels have the same definition of heresy – incompliance with the main rules of symbol–creating activities.

To operate with symbols, the mind needs intuition, imagination, and a set of the standards/rules, which regulate comprehension and interpretation of symbols. For instance, in the Wittgenstein’s logic, some rules are equivalents to the symbols, and symbols reflect the meaning of rules [Wittgenstein 5.514]. It means that the natural and other sciences imply that a society and existence of a human being within the society (including rules of behavior, ethical norms, etc.) might be described with the sets of symbols. However, when a symbolical description is based on the sciences, philosophical, religious, or social doctrines, which are the offspring of “true philosophizing,” the ensuing rules of behavior are incompatible with the normal human nature.

For instance, Thomas Aquinas defined murder of the “sinner” as “virtuous” and “praiseworthy” *2*, *10*; the papal theologians associated robbery and persecutions of the heretics, the Jews, and the different–minded who did not convert into the Catholicism or who rebel against the papal authority, with the Crusade – the fight for their god; then, these perverted values were invented into life of the European states by the Inquisition*11*. Then, the Nazis associated the extermination of the Jews and “inferior nations” with their “Crusade” for preservation of the purity of German race and elevated extermination of human beings at the rank of civil virtues. The Nazi’s modification of the meaning of the virtues and the consequent perversion of the nature of those Germans who made Nazism the actuality cost lives of 14 millions of “racial inferiors” and 54.8 millions (estimated) of victims of World War II [Trager 893, 894].

In the context of religious activities, two far–reaching assumptions were made:

1/ the symbols – “signs” – of the Scriptures indicate the events of the Future [Origen Word II:205 101]

2/ symbols perform coalescence of the divided by space and time persons into one living community [Israel Scheffler ref. in: Elgin 13].

The second assumption might be true only when the symbols carry strictly definite meanings; otherwise, each new generation would have own interpretation of the religious beliefs because the same symbols might be interpreted differently by different people with different levels of imagination and overall development. Consequently, it might be inferred that the mind is able to live only by the Present: it has no possibility to learn true meanings of the Past and it is not able to foresee the Future; consequently, the meanings of the history and the truths of religions are different with each new generation.

Origen inspired the philosophizing theologians*12*  to interpret the Scriptures as the collection of symbols and encouraged to predict the Future in accordance with potency of their imagination.

However, St. Paul the Apostle warned: people seek signs and wisdom, which is insanity before God, and stumble upon the truth of the crucified God–Man, which they are not able to comprehend {1 Corinthians 1:18–25}. Symbolism and philosophy neither reveal the meaning of the words of God nor convey the true knowledge of God. They seduce the mind with the promise to disclose the hidden sacred wisdom, yet afterward, subvert and corrupt the mind with the symbolic worlds of myths and false assumptions. The historical fact is that creation of images for feeding of the mass population was the main task of pagan poets and philosophers: Origen simply transfers the concepts of heathen political theology into that what he offers as an interpretation of the Scriptures, thus, he substitutes the heathenism for the Christian teachings.

The Origen’s innovation received the maximal acknowledgement when the papacy reached the peak of its secular power, the Inquisition forbade the Catholic laity to read the Bible, and the special institute of the papal theologians (the Magisterium) began to feed the laity–papal subjects with the images, which were consistent with the purposes of the papacy; for example, such as infallible deified superior – the pope/ universal teacher/ shepherd worshiped by the perfect unreservedly obedient papal subject–part of the community with the heart fiercely devoted to the earthly substitute of God and with body parts waiting to execute any order of the deity–superior.

Initially, the symbolic interpretation of the Scriptures led to falsification of the word of God and misconceptions; ultimately, the figments of human imagination took the place of the word of God and were assembled into Aquinas’ doctrine – political theology*2*, which supplanted the Christian teachings for the papal subjects.

However, after the Bible was translated into the main European languages and was re–discovered by the European nations, the Western Schism marked the visible phase of disintegration of the papal establishment.

Another historical fact illustrates the consequences of the innovations in the sphere of the political theology: the Adolf Hitler’s propaganda almost literally followed the design developed with the works of Origen, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas*12*: it produced the images for the “undeveloped souls” of “the great masses” of Nazi Germany and freed their conscience from any moral responsibility for the crimes against humanity committed for the sake of great Germany and according to the orders of their superiors.

With the growth of population, development of trade and other intra– and inter–connections within and among societies, states, nations, and establishments, along with the increase of the overall volume of control, new political structures emerged. Political theology produced the offspring: political science and ideology intended to sustain political and social structures responsible for survival of systems/organizations based on the symbolic worlds.



Political Theology, Ideology, and Propaganda


Political theology cannot be forced onto the mind, which has learned the true knowledge of the reality; enslaving the free mind is impossible task until the mind loses freedom of thinking or until it is deprived of true knowledge; only then, the mind might be deceived with the myths and delusions.

The analysis of works of two writers might facilitate comprehension of the overall influence of the political theology on the human mind and evaluate its significance as the framework for ideologies and propaganda.

In Renaissance Italy, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) wrote his observations of the social and political life of his contemporaries; his work became the foundation of the political science. It should be noticed that Machiavelli lived in the society–world, which the Inquisition controlled with the inhumane methods of persecution, interrogation, tortures, and disgraceful death, and which accommodated manufacturing and consuming of the products of political theology – social animals–parts–property–slaves of the papal hierarchy.

Some features of the members of this society fashioned by the Inquisition might be inferred from the notes of Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519): man is the passage/channel for food and tomb for animals, producer of waste, who exists by death of the others, who has no virtue, leaves nothing of worth behind, worships the lifeless images, and praises the heavens for those who inflict harm on their country and “the human race.” Man’s world is full of lamentations and ruins; it consists from the beings, which he kills, consumes by the most barbarous way, and then, uses the remnants to cause death to the others (e.g., a bow made from the horns of ox). In this world, Christ is sold and crucified again, “the Friars” (papal clergy) live by the means of the dead saints, and people buy the Paradise (indulgencies – papal forgiveness of sins for money) from those who have neither “license” from the Lord nor the power over the greatest value they sell [da Vinci 63, 80, 1100, 1101, 1106, 1108, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1117, 1125].

Leonardo da Vinci left the portrayal of the devastated world without God and freedom: the world built by political theology and fashioned by the Inquisition, which completed transformation of man (created into the image of God and after likeness of God) into the Aristotelian animal–property/part of the papal “perfect community.” The essence of this world is death and the destiny of those who imagine that they are alive is deceit and annihilation: one group of the living dead deceives and consumes other groups of the living dead in the macabre dance of death.

The writings of Niccolo Machiavelli describe the means by which this world is governed and the meaning of virtue – good and evil – of those who are this world. In brief, the Machiavellian doctrine might be summarized with the following assertions [Machiavelli (1980) 44, 46, 49–50, 81, 84–85, 90–93; (1996) 65, 90, 92, 106, 112, 155, and so on] (from 1 through 5).

1) In general, men are “ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain”; they belong to those who benefit them; their ruler would benefit more from fear than from love, because “a dread of punishment” never fails.

This set of assertions re–iterates the Aristotelian concept of the social animal–man/slave of the community/state as the basis for the official state policies and at the same time, illustrates the consequences of constant applications of the Aristotelian politics for the control of religious, social, and political life; in fact, Machiavelli describes the new being – the ultimate product of political theology and the Inquisition. 

2) Only unreserved obedience of the subjects–slaves secures preservation of the state order. If the subjects are slaves, their disobedience to their conquerors must not be tolerated. The free city must be destroyed; otherwise, it destroys the ruler.

This set of assertions concatenates slavery and preservation/stability of the state; moreover, it links survival of the ruler with elimination of freedoms of his subjects.

3) Initiation of “a new order of things” and reforms is the most dangerous, difficult and insecure enterprise for a ruler; the ruler must learn only war, the war’s discipline and organization, because the art of war is the only thing and the only virtue, which the ruler needs.

This set of assertions re–introduces the methods of Alexander of Macedonia who constructed his empire on the military force, and who also accepted Plato–Aristotle’s idea of stagnation as the condition of preservation of the state. As it could be seen from the history, reliance on the military force and stagnation destroyed all those who employed them as the means to obtain the power and to maintain social and political stability.   

4) The ruler must arrange such a state order, which would make the subjects believe by force if they lose the propagated by the ruler beliefs; the ruler must know how to use both sides of the human nature: the man and the beast; the ruler must employ the beast’s tactics of deceit and fight. The vices, “inhumane cruelty,” and knowledge of the evil are necessary for survival of the state and well–being of its ruler.

This set of assertions not only elevates the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare at the rank of state policies; it – following Aquinas’ doctrine – asserts the necessity to employ the evil (e.g., vices and inhumane cruelty) to achieve the goal that is presumed to be the good (in this case, preservation of the state and well–being of the state ruler). However, the Machiavellian “good” of the state and the “good” of the ruler is death for the others – ruler’s subjects: preservation of the state, which enslaves and dehumanizes its subjects, impedes the evolution and results in stagnation and corruption of the society; ultimately, it brings annihilation of everything. In general, preservation of the Machiavellian state is the worst evil, and Machiavelli employs the evil to preserve the evil.

5) The rulers must be independent from the morality because they need to use fraud, conspiracy, and corruption.

In summary, the Machiavellian doctrine assembles into the foundation for the policies and tactics of the ruler concerned with own survival and prosperity of his establishment

a/ the advanced version of the Aristotelian social animal (which in Machiavellian version is explicitly upgraded to the beast)

b/ the deceit and force as the methods to rule and to gain the power over men

c/ enslaving of the ruler’s subjects as the necessary condition of stability and preservation of the state

d/ the necessity to impose by force the beliefs beneficial for the state

e/ the evil, inhumane cruelty, vice, and immorality as the means to secure survival of the state and its ruler.

By portraying man as a beast that might be treated with inhumane cruelty, Machiavelli completed the shift – the transition of significance of survival of a person to significance of survival of the establishments/rulers. The Machiavelli’s doctrine reveals the complete embodiment of the Plato–Aristotle’s utopia and Aquinas’ political theology into the politics of the state; it openly correlates survival of the state with the evil, stagnation, and dehumanization of the citizens–subjects–property–slaves; the description of a successful ruler evokes a vision of the beast–leader of the herd of beasts–social animals–parts–slaves.

However, Machiavelli’s doctrine does not contain new discoveries: he elaborates for the needs of the rulers of the political organizations the methods, policies, and tactics provided by Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology. In general, the works of the Machiavelli offer the improved version of the Aristotle’s politics adapted for the next stage or new infernal vortex/circle of the anti–evolution (if to accept as the first the ancient heathen Greece and as the second –  the Roman Empire, the third was Europe of not–so–ancient Past controlled by the papal church of Rome; the fourth was Europe of the Reformation, the fifth was Europe of French revolutions, then, it was Europe–cradle of World Wars).

The politicians made the Machiavellian doctrine a foundation for statecraft: The Prince became a manual and guidance for the kings and their advisers, as well as a source for the state policies, and – according to Christian Gauss – the “required reading for us all.” In the twentieth century, Niccolo Machiavelli was recognized as the founder of the modern political science; among his avid readers and followers were leaders of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and bolshevist Russia [Gauss 7–9, 19], where the Machiavelli’s idea of political purges was fully implemented (especially, in Russia under the Stalin’s rule).

If to consider social and political aspects of the societies controlled by political theology, there is no big difference between political theology and ideology; they both

–– provide the core – the theoretical and philosophical foundation for political institutions

–– establish as a truth a particular set of beliefs intended to maintain particular social and political structures

–– sustain the managing structures, which disseminate and implement the official beliefs with coercion, restriction of freedom, and control of the access to information and knowledge

–– stipulate the apparent behavior of the subjects and re–program their conscience

–– justify the struggle for the absolute power and pursuit of the global domination.  

For instance, a pre–cursor of political theology – the cult of the divine Alexander, which was focused on creation of the earthly worldwide empire under unifying power of Alexander, the “descendent of god” *13*, expressed the imperial ambitions of Alexander of Macedonia. Later, its modification – the official cult of the divine emperor – was embodied into such a political institution as the Roman Empire. Then, political theology of the papal establishment, which supplanted the Christian Church of Rome, accommodated the imperial ambitions and claims of the papacy on the absolute power and worldwide domination. Then, ideologies of Communism and Fascism were materialized into the totalitarian states intended to conquer the world, to subdue all nations under the power of fuehrer/party leader and to establish the Fascist/Communist order as the only way of existence for all nations of the Earth.

The eagerness of the states to establish own cults might be considered as the latest fashion invented after the Western Schism and disintegration of the papal empire. Until the state and religion were inseparable as it was, for instance, in the heathen Roman Empire and Greek Polis, ideology in the strict sense did not exist, because the state was a political embodiment of religion, and the religion – political theology – was the foundation of the state. The progenitor of ideology – political theology not only instituted the role models, ideals, and required patterns of behavior for the mass population, which filled theaters, temples, and circuses; it formed the social unity and maintained the stability of the society and the state. The social unity, therefore stability of the state, was guarded with the drastic measures justified by the philosophical speculations, which were embodied into the state policies. For instance,

–– the Socrates’ justification of the power of law over all citizens and the consequent execution of Socrates for incompliance with the official religion and morality of the Athenian society, which along with the Socrates’ apparent law–abiding attitude promoted the right of the state or society to exterminate the different–minded

–– justification of the death penalty for heretics who refused to comply with the official religious rituals and beliefs, which the state imposed on the different–minded through such an establishment, for example, as the Plato’s Nocturnal Council [Plato The Laws 908a, 909a, 951c–e, 961a–b]

–– the capital punishment for violation/rejection of the official religious rituals – heresy, which was equated with state treason (especially, in the heathen Roman Empire).

Ideology as the cult of the state established by the ruling group, which identifies itself with the state, appeared when the state began to separate itself from religion and asserted itself as the main deity. Then, the state ideology became the official religion; the government took place of the highest authority in every part of daily life of people, and began to determine the degree of freedom, morals, the meaning of human values, etc. of its subjects.

However, initially, ideology was not identified with the cult of the state: it started as the social phenomenon – the additional set of beliefs and rules, which differentiated the ruling elite and its closest servants from the others. This set of beliefs coexisted with religion, philosophy, social and ethical values. In some sense, ideology became alternative to Caesaropapism in the states, which officially dissociated themselves from the traditional religion (Caesaropapism is a political system, in which a secular ruler assumes the power over religion; for instance, Peter I established Caesaropapism in Russia when he assumed the “supreme judicial and executive power” over the Church and made himself the “Supreme Judge” of the Synod that is, in fact, the head of the Church).

However, the difference between political theology and ideology exists:

–– political theology develops on the existing religion and utilizes the religious beliefs of men to achieve the objectives of the leading group, which covers its purposes with the common good of the community of the believers

–– ideology apparently rejects any religion, yet, in fact, it is focused on untraditional deities: the abstract concept, deified political leader, or cult of the state.

Through the history of European nations, political theology with its elaborated methods of control over and influence on the mind and re–programming the conscience provided the blueprint and the model for the most inhumane ideologies.

For instance, the Italian Il Regime Fascista of August 30, 1938, mentions the Society of Jesuits as the source of education, from which the Fascist societies, states, and nations in Europe, Italy, and Germany “have much to learn” [ref. and qtd. in: Passelecq and Suchecky 131, 294].

The history confirms that any state, empire, or another establishment made after the Aristotelian model sooner or later, yet, inevitably launches the struggle for the local supremacy and then, for world domination. The Aristotelian state begins with self–positioning as the focus of existence, the first priority, and the main value of its subjects: it makes itself an idol and establishes own cult. For achievement of the infallible status of deity, the state compiles own version of religion – ideology. Ideology is expected to provide the state with the means to define the conscience and exercise the absolute power over the mind and body of each subject. From such a point of view, ideology might be devised as the set of patterns, matrixes, and limits, which stipulates the manner of thinking and behavior of the state subjects and determines the meaning, purposes, and conditions of their existence within the state.

Ideology could come into existence only within the world, which, for instance, has been

–– transformed into the dwelling of the mob – social animals – monitored by the structures implementing the ideals of Plato’s guardians of the Republic

–– founded on the universal slavery pattern ‘master–→slaves’

–– deceived with the Plato’s concept of a human being as the irrational mixture of evil matter and noble intelligence, which contracts human body as a disease (such perception of a human being prepares the foundation for admissibility of cruelty toward human body as the natural mode of existence and substitution of Aristotelian physical virtues (pain and pleasure) for the morality and ethics)

–– perverted with Aristotelian logic of simplification

–– trained in inhumanity and idol–worship by the political theology and the Inquisition

–– populated with the beings described by Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolo Machiavelli.

Antoine Destutt de Tracy (1754–1836), who coined the term “ideology,” intended to establish the science of creation of the better people [Eatwell 2]. Other founding fathers of ideology presumed the possibility to modify the human nature with the political and social means [e.g., Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) ref. in: O’Sullivan 55]. From such a point of view, ideology might be seen as the means of correction for the humans fashioned with the Inquisition and political theology. However, this correction was not intended to restore the original human nature; it was intended to facilitate existence of the political organizations.

Until ideology became the apparent expression of the state, many definitions and descriptions stressed its social or even scientific nature. For example, ideology was defined as

––  the objective level of society because it envelops all forms of social consciousness [Larrain 14]

–– “a system of concepts, beliefs, and values” of social class, social group, or the society [Mackie 91]

––  a “relatively coherent set of empirical and normative beliefs and thoughts” concerning human nature, historical, political, and social concerns [Eatwell 9].

Thus, it was assumed that ideology as the social phenomenon, expresses the essence of self–consciousness, self–identification, and self–positioning within the society, which a particular social group has as the basis of own existence and as the justification of its claims on the particular part of society’s wealth, privileges, and other resources.

With incorporation of the concepts of Niccolo Machiavelli and Francis Bacon into the framework of the social sciences, the ideology became “a psychological distortion,” false social consciousness, and “the antithesis of science” [Larrain 13, 33]; Marx, Pareto, Sorel, and Mannheim undertook development of ideology in such direction [Mackie 91].

The definition of ideology as “the antithesis of science” seems to be inconsistent with the primary purpose of de Tracy and other founding fathers. However, if to recognize that the contemporary materialistic and value–neutral social and natural sciences produce only the false imaginary worlds, ideology (with its primary purpose to modify human beings and make them fit to the imaginary worlds of the Aristotelian states and establishments) fits such a definition.

The roots of ideology can be traced in the deepest periods of the history – wherever and whenever the particular distortion of reality (for instance, that one group of the society is entitled to distinctive privileges because of the special ancestors, wealth, religion, race, education, political status, or any other feature asserted as the differentiating factor) justifies exclusive privileges or personal rights, or access to advantages of education, opportunities to accumulate wealth, obtain citizenship, etc.

Then, it was assumed that common features of the persons’ consciousness shape the society’s religion, social sciences, philosophical concepts, and values, which all together compose the so–called “self–consciousness of the society.” The society’s self–consciousness contains the beliefs, which justify particular gathering or union of people as the separate social group, society, or nation. The intentional distortion of the social reality transforms the society’s self–consciousness into the rudimentary forms of ideology, which later might mature into the state cult.

The main features that differentiate ideology and self–consciousness of the normal society include the purposeful misinterpretation of the reality undertaken according to interests of a particular group, and modified beliefs and values, which usually presents the distorted evaluation or justify specific activities of the particular group (e.g., guardians of Plato’s Republic).

Ideology maintains “verisimilitude” of the asserted values [Mackie 91, 100]: it integrates true and false beliefs and values and conceals the difference between real functions of the group’s activities and their presentation. The true values facilitate digestion/acceptance of the hidden inhumane concepts; the social, political, or religious authority (sometimes, convincingly sustained with the power of coercion) makes all mixture the verisimilar and edible set of assertions, which is presented as the best foundation for existence and prosperity. To sum it up, the mixture of true and false values covered with the heading “truth” composes ideology.

For instance, any society without the unifying faith in God unavoidably fosters the groups, which desire to conquer the best place within the society’s hierarchy and to position themselves as the elite entitled to exceptional privileges. Such a society becomes easily susceptible to the deadly disease of ideology–producing activities. By rejecting the faith and accepting compromise in the problems of values and moralities, the members of the society transform themselves into the slaves who are managed by gregarious instinct and who seek the security in the feeling of belonging to the special groups. Then, worship to a visible and powerful idol supersedes the traditional religion. The symbol of the controlling group embodied into the party or state leaders, ideas of the racial superiority, or idea of supremacy of the state/group/leader over morality and human values usually performs the role of such an idol within the state with developed ideology.

Two initial/basic theoretical assumptions make ideology the worst version of the contemporary heathenism:

––   the human nature needs perfection

–– with the power of political organization, the human nature might be perfected through modification of religious and other beliefs, manipulation the conscience, influence on thinking through the coercion, fear, and deprivation of life and other resources [that according to Aquinas, is the secondary or “temporal” good – life, property, good repute, which Aquinas – in opposition to the Ten Commandments and the Word of God {Exodus 20:1–17; Mathew 22:36–40) – excluded from the necessity to wish to the neighbor [Summa Theologica II–I Q.11 a4 a]).

The political “perfection” of humans became the task of social Darwinism, which was intended to secure fitness of a person to the demands and conditions imposed by the state on its subjects. Then, ideology continued to develop as the means of encroachment and the intrusion in the social and private life of the members of political establishments, which strive to subdue and modify human beings in order to survive and achieve own purposes.

Two old misconceptions (integrated by Aristotle into the foundation of a political organization – the Polis/state) provide the basis for the state’s deification:

1/ the good of an entire establishment (the common good) is more important than the good of a person–member of this establishment

2/ individual good of a person who is a part–member of a community–establishment is the lesser priority, which – if needed – must be sacrificed for the greatest – common – good of the entire establishment.

 Three Aristotle’s assertions prepared the foundation for the conflict between the state ideology and any other religion (within those states, which adopted from the heathenism the Aristotelian politics, political theology, and the claim on possession with the absolute power over the mind, body, and conscience of its subjects):

a/ the state has divine origin; with this assertion, the state positions itself at the same level as the Church

b/ the good and survival of the state has the priority over the good and survival of a person; with this assertion the state presents itself as the center or focus of existence of its subjects, thus, struggles for the place of God

c/ the state owns its subjects; with this assertion, the state claims the absolute power over life and death of its subjects that logically concludes self–deification.

In summary, these three assertions illustrate the stages of self–deification: everything begins with the usurpation of the place of God; next step is to position itself as the center of the Universe, and to assert the claim on possession with the God’s absolute power. The logic of self–deification spins two circles of the Inferno:

1/ for the state, the only means to confirm own pretense on possession with the absolute power is to exercise the authority over death of the state subjects – the state becomes the assassin of men 

2/ when the Aristotelian political dictum of the state supremacy and divine origin of the state is accepted as the main truth of the state, the conflict between the state and the church enters the manifest stage, during which the state exercises the power of coercion and terminates the freedom of the conscience and freedom of thinking.

However, any state, social, political, or any other establishment is just a group of persons that gathered themselves together for the sake of own survival, own well–being, and achievement of own particular purposes. As such, any establishment should pursue the purposes of the greatest good for its members, thus, the church and the state, which include the same people, should not have any reason for the antagonism. When this orientation is perverted and the greatest good of the state (or several persons who control the state or identify themselves as the state) becomes the first priority, the state evolves into the monster, which enslaves many for the sake of a few.

There were some endeavors to modify the medieval papal concept of the “Two Swords” and portray it as an ability of the separated but cooperative and equally powerful authorities of the church and the state in harmony rule the earthly life of men [e.g., in: Deane 172]. However, the idea of such “shared absolute” power attracts attention only until the state is weaker than the church and needs her support to establish itself.

The conflict between the state and religion reached the peak in the totalitarian states, which attempted to annihilate Christianity in the same fashion as the papal establishment annihilated Christian teachings: they even began with the same action – prohibition of the Bible (the papal Inquisition – in the thirteenth century, Bolsheviks – in the twentieth century). In the totalitarian states, such conflict is inevitable because the ruling group believes that due to its nature, the Christian Church always is “the spiritual antagonist of a state.” The totalitarian state pretends to become “the Whole”; it attempts to take the place of Christianity as the universal religion, and to become the embodiment of the whole concept of the world and life for its subjects. It begins with separation of morality from the faith [Sturzo 530, 535–536; italic in the original]. Then, it asserts itself as the highest authority in the matters of faith and conscience.

The place for a new religion—ideology is prepared when

a/ the faith has been rejected

b/ the two main buttresses for the stability of the perfect community of social animals gregarious instinct and feeling of insecurity [in: Guirdham 114] shape the common patterns of social behavior

c/ the truth is an artificial construction produced on demand as any of services or goods intended for consuming by the population

d/ the society has acquired the particular flexibility or ability of swift changes of values, when the created yesterday truth or the meaning of a moral ideal can be easily replaced today by another construction according to the changed needs of the state.

Thus, at first, the social group or the state establishes foundation for its claims: it constructs a new body of social knowledge – ideology. Usually, this task is reserved for scientists–experts (who, in this case, might be seen as the re–incarnation of the ancient priests–diviners philosophizing in the temple) who produce concepts and ideas on demand of the state rulers. Ideology becomes the foundation of the shared dream world, which an owner of ideology imposes on the others. All social activities are now centered around a new core – ideology, which begins to develop (through the state policies) different conditions of existence for the social group–producer of new ideology, and for its subjects – ordinary members and groups of the society, which were not able to gain power sufficient for establishment of own ideologies.

The ideology–producing activities do not differentiate from the processes of creation primitive religions, myths, idols, cults; for instance, they include elaborated rituals of sacrifices for the justification and establishing values of created beliefs. In the contemporary societies, the essence of such processes is the same, only the scale of human sacrifices is incompatible with the modest achievements of the ancestors.

The history reveals that before the manifest stages of disintegration, different societies experience invasion of the modified versions of ancient heresies, myths, cults, and superstitions; probably, susceptibility to them indicates the readiness for acceptance of the destructive ideologies. Some researchers diagnose “the rebirth of ancient religions” within the contemporary societies [e.g., Allison 165], which frequently use the misconceptions established by political theology and other perversions of Christian teachings as the articles of faith in order to disguise their actual foundation – the heathenism, and to attract the followers who are not able to discern the false behind the attractive slogans and verisimilar assertions. The re–establishment of the heathenism begins through the arts, culture, and sciences (for instance, such phenomena as movement of funs deifying the personages of movies, books, shows, supermen, vampires, celebrities, kind and omnipotent aliens, which come to save mankind from its own problems, and other phantasms and myths, which fill up the consciousness with dreams and distract the mind from its natural business – thinking and decision of the actual problems).

In general, the rational/normal mind is not susceptible to the deadly disease of ideology. Ideology–producing activities are not possible until there is a necessity to fill emptiness of the mind, which has perverted own nature by rejecting the unity with God–Creator. The society, which is sick enough to reject God, already had lost the potential of continuing development, and already became insufficient. This insufficiency activates the program of self–annihilation, which begins with the loss of an ability to discern the good and the evil. The consequent impairment of information selective processes does not prevent acceptance of the destructive knowledge by the persons and then, the society/state/establishment. Such a society, state, or establishment is prepared

–– to perceive the ideas of atheism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or their upgraded versions as the complete freedom leading to the greatest common good

–– to embrace any inhuman ideology as the substitute for the faith in God

–– to accept inhumanness and destructive laws as the natural features of the superpower and to substitute the perversion for the God’s commandments.

It should not be forgotten that the majority of population of the Communist, Fascist, and Nazi states had accepted destructive ideologies and provided Bolsheviks–communists, Fascists, and Nazis with the mandate of power. It means that in the beginning of the nineteenth century, for the majority of population of Russia, Italy, Germany, and some other European states, Bolshevism/Communism, Fascism, and Nazism  became the embodiment of their own thoughts and ideals, or, in Gregory Vlastos’ interpretation, “deep–rooted impulses,” motives, and desires. Moreover, some authors even identified “the pattern of Christian community” with the Nazi social structure [Vlastos 53, 56]. Obviously, such a reference might be applied for the papal – not Christian – community, because the vast majority of the pre–Nazi German population knew only papal political theology and its versions created by the heretical movements and the Reformation.

From another angle of consideration, ideologies and their embodiments – the totalitarian states – might be seen as the means of mass suicide for the human beings that perverted own nature by rejecting God. The problem is only that the totalitarian state, as the weapon by which the society commits the mass suicide, does not differentiate among its victims – did or did not they pervert their nature – and slaughters all who are accessible (e.g., all who dwell at the same land or within the society, which becomes the target of the group behind the destructive ideology).

Two ideologies from the most destructive political plagues in the history of mankind (Communism and Nazism) have the similar pattern of the suicidal processes or the processes of self–annihilation:

–– corruption of the societies, which culminates in rejection of God

–– the implementation of the false values of the dream worlds that supersede the traditional human values, which maintain existence of the society and which are intended to preserve life and dignity of a human being

–– the mass extermination of those who did not subdue the conscience, thinking, and behavior to new rules

–– the latent disintegration of the establishment

–– an annihilation of the remnants of the establishment through war or political and social upheaval (unrest, riots, revolution).

The suicidal process begins with the assumption that a human being might exist without God, or that a human being is not a creation of God inseparably connected with the Creator. As the substitute for the unity with God, any destructive ideology asserts the ideals of Aristotelian herd of social animals (e.g., common good); acceptance of these ideals heralds the beginning of degeneration.

The overall cycle of transformation of free man into a social animal–property/member/part of the herd–community (as the preparation for invention of ideology) includes the following processes:

1/ the development of contempt to traditional and religious ideals, virtues, and norms of behavior, fostering the cult of power, aggression, and competition consistent with the animal concept of survival

2/ standardization of thinking, actions, and manner of life; acceptance of the material factors (e.g., such as consuming of goods) as the main indicator of the social status and quality of life

3/ the development of the mass culture focused on the compliance with the common opinions, submission to the ideals of the common good prevailing over good of a person, deification of supermen and selected celebrities, excessive consuming, and possession of material wealth

4/ fostering the group ideals (at first, fear of uniqueness) and feelings of the necessity of unification with fellow humans with the same comfortable level of development that do not demand, stimulate, or encourage continuation of the narrow and laborious way of perfection as the main purpose of life and who might be easily replaced, therefore, who might be easily sacrificed, disposed, suppressed, betrayed, terminated, and forgotten.

The first symptom of the advancing degeneration is the loss of individuality, which also signifies completion of the first stage of perversion, at which ideology makes two most important changes: it substitutes a group for a person, and standards and needs of the herd for the values and purposes of a human beings (first to be ridiculed and discarded are the imitation of God and achievement of perfection of God; then, mention of the name of God in media or in political, scientific and business environment/context becomes “political incorrectness”). Then, it asserts the purpose of development of the omnipotent (in the Aristotle–Aquinas’ fashion) state as the main priority of its citizens: an ideal citizen serves the state not God; observance of the state orders and acceptance of the required by the state patterns of behavior become the main virtues. 

The feeling of insecurity resulting from modification of the main purposes and traditional values facilitates re–focusing of the cognitive activities: from natural directions of development and optimization as the coming to the Creator – to the perverted purposes and values usually expressed as

––  the explicit or implied belief that any of substitutes for God (the party boss, the state itself, official science, superman, vampire, magician, politician, etc.) possesses (or has access to) the supernatural power

––  susceptibility to mythical and oversimplified symbolical thinking, superstitions, mental disorders

–– collectivism based on the gregarious instinct, which, in fact, is the acceptance of the ideals of social animals (and own role as a part and property of the community)

–– the suppression or extermination of the different–minded  

–– reliance only on the political structures and potential/resources of the material world for decision of the cognitive, moral, and ethical problems

–– the belief that the compliance with the officially propagated norms and values would ensure the person’s physical security, prosperity, and stability of belonging to a particular group/hierarchical level.

Simultaneously, the state assumes control over the family and reproductive life of its citizens. Although many social studies consider the Plato’s perfect Republic and Aristotle’s perfect Polis only as utopias, the methods of population control and surveillance over the state subjects literally follow the Plato–Aristotle’s model: the family becomes the next target (after the faith), and in addition to usurpation of the place of God, the totalitarian state inevitably appropriates the place of the father of the family.

For instance, oppression of the Christian Church and mass execution of followers of all religions, which people practiced in pre–1917 Russia, preceded destruction of the primary human tides (parents––children). The officially imposed rules of conduct for citizens instituted as the high virtue betrayal of parents by their children, especially, if the parents worshipped God instead of bolshevist leaders, or had own opinion (incompatible with the state ideology) about the party leaders and actions of bolsheviks/commissars/communists. Generations of young communists in post–1917 Russia were bred with the special role model – teenager Pavlik Morosov. According to the official version, the teenager had informed government against his father; the denunciation led to the father’s execution. The “crime” of the boy’s father was assistance to the neighbors who had to be executed for their wealth and religious beliefs. Similar norms and practices existed in Nazi Germany.

The roots of such state policies might be traced to

a/ the Plato’s guardians deprived for the sake of the state from all family tides including the father–child relation

b/ the Aristotle’s dictum that the state by its divine nature has the absolute priority over the family and a person

c/ the mandatory treachery by the papal clergy that had to inform the Inquisition about those who confessed their doubts or sins against the papal faith or the papal hierarchy,

d/ the Freud’s “Oedipus” complex assumed by the rulers as the foundation of their own personalities.

The first two steps – rejection of God as the center of the Universe, and rejection of a father as the center of a family – institute the state as the main authority and the state ideology as the main religion. The elevation of the state at the rank of the main deity facilitates substitution of the interests of the state for the traditional values, e.g., with such group norms as the mandatory betrayal of parents, relatives, friends, and acquaintances who do not comply with the state’s laws, rules, and morals.

From another angle of consideration, political theology and ideology might be seen as the different stages of idolization when the combed (convenient for the politically–oriented controlling structures) image of deity supersedes the original faith.

Political theology covers itself with the ideal images of deities.

Ideology apparently discards the traditional deities and seems to be more business–oriented, while, in its essence, it is the modification of political theology of the ancient pagans for other space–temporal setting and the actual difference is in the wording only: any concept or idea might play the role of deity–center of the ideology. The main distinction of ideology is its elaboration for the practical use; sometimes ideology provides the illusion of religious tolerance, because it might be customized to any deity or cult, accommodate any set of false beliefs, and support any group struggling for the power.

Two things differentiate political theology from ideologies (for instance, such as the Bolshevist/Communist/Soviet/Nazi):

1. the wordings; Aquinas utilizes the wordings and definitions borrowed from the Scriptures (God, faith, salvation, etc.), while Soviet and Nazi versions, for instance, operate with the philosophical definitions (philosophy, freedom, equality, super–race, new order, etc.) and use the patterns of heathen cults and myths for description of ideological, political, and social purposes

2. the degree of physical restriction of freedom: 

– Aquinas did not mention limitation of travel abroad (anyway, in Aquinas’ time, it was not too much places for heretics to escape the Inquisition) and even permitted to expel the Jews and non–Catholics (after deprivation of property)

– the communists kept the subjects behind the iron curtain, considered an escapee as betrayer and enemy of the nation, and executed captured fugitives

– the Nazis imposed the yoke of Greater Germany onto all Germans irrespective of their citizenship and dwelling at other states. 

In other matters, Aquinas’ political theology and the ideologies of Communism and Nazism have similarities; they all

a/ substitute the artificial constructions–idols for God:

–– Aquinas invented the philosophical–physical heathen deity fashioned after Plato–Aristotelian container of forms/ideas/prime mover/source of the opposites/etc., and deified the pope – head of the papal “divine office”/hierarchy*2*

–– Communism deified the common good and leaders of the Communist party

–– Nazism deified the common good of the German race, deified Fuehrer as the central figure of Nazi ideology (similarly to the pope who is the central figure of political theology), which became the official state religion

b/ deprive its subjects–citizens–slaves of human rights, including

–– freedom of thought and freedom of conscience – for all

–– life, social status, and property – for the different–minded

c/ prohibit the Bible and the books inconsistent with the official ideology/cult of the pope/leader of ruling party (e.g., in continuation of the long–lasting tradition, which the Inquisition began in 1229, when it forbade the Catholic laity to read the Bible, the contemporary Inquisition operating within the papal office, regularly issues the list of books prohibited for the papal subjects – Index Prohibitorum)

d/ restrict access to the sources of alternative information and knowledge

e/ provide for forceful conversion or termination of the different–minded

–– Aquinas – mostly through the threat of exile, deprivation of property, persecutions by the Inquisition, and waging war

–– Communism and Nazism – mostly through the physical extermination or separation from the society (e.g., prisons and concentration/labor camps)

f/ equate the attempt to escape/change denomination/citizenship with the state treason punishable by death.

Furthermore, it should be noticed that neither Mussolini nor Hitler invented something completely new: Fascism and Nazism absorbed many destructive concepts developed during at least twenty–five centuries by theologians, philosophers, and scientists whose minds worked with the Aristotelian dialectic.

In general, both – political theology and ideology – have the similar purposes: an arrangement of an establishment and maintenance of its existence through manipulation with the contents of the sets of beliefs (in this case, the beliefs are the statements with justification of the purposes and terms of existence), purposes, patterns of approved behavior, and patterns of thinking of the people who are chosen to become the subjects/members of the establishment. The ultimate purpose of political theology and ideology is transformation of the raw resource (free human beings) into the product ready for use (unreservedly obedient slaves–subjects–property of the establishment).



Implementation and Current Status of Political Theology


Two possible ways exist for implementation of political theology:  

––  embodiment  – when the old core (existing political theology) is injected into a new establishment; the main methods include conversion and proselytism

––  substitution – when an existing establishment is assimilated; the main methods include ecumenism and similar movements of unification and integration of the society. Such kind of unification might be achieved through propaganda (that is intentional deception); for instance, manifest recognition and fostering of cultural diversity. In the same time, the manifest approval and recognition cover actuality of re–focusing on the purposes of the establishment, which are accompanied with the shift from the personal values and individualism to the ideals of common good and collectivism.  

Today, Aquinas’ doctrine still maintains the papal establishment; it shapes the manner of thinking and determines life of its subjects, and it exploits the Aquinas’ concept of supremacy of the common good over the good of a person and the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare (concept of coercion for the sake of love) and Augustine’s assertion of permissibility to use evil for the sake of good. It continues to carry the seed of death – the false knowledge of God – potent at any time to blossom out the same old fruits: claims on the worldwide domination and absolute spiritual and secular power. If the papacy acquires this power, the updated versions of the Crusades and the Inquisition, and (as it was in the Past) political assassinations, tortures, and executions for disagreements with the papal dogma might again become manifest (not hidden) actuality of the daily life.

For instance, the contemporary papal theologian and Jesuit John Coleman writes that the papal social doctrine still “injects an ethical dimension” of the common good into the political, economic, cultural, and international order; he also asserts that the “voice of reason and humane common experience... is the more likely appeal” than the word of God [Coleman 68–69].

It seems that the actual history of mankind does not confirm that the papal establishment has acquired the humane experience (or any human virtue, as the current pedophile scandal reveals). Besides, the very assertion that the figments of imagination – the only possible “voice of reason,” which exists within the framework of political theology – and crimes against humanity (e.g., such as the “humane common experience” of the Inquisition) might be more influential than the word of God confirm that the overall position of the papal hierarchy remains unchanged concerning

1/ Aristotle’s doctrine

2/ heresy of Origen

3/ focus on the global domination.

For those researchers who project the Past over the Future, the history provides many examples sufficient to support the conclusion that the ultimate disintegration is the inevitable end for social and state systems, which restrict freedom of religion, thinking, and cognition, and which attempt to control religion, cognition, and thinking of their subjects–citizens.

Those who project the Plato–Aristotle’s utopian constructions over the Future of mankind should also imagine disintegration of these constructions (as it happened in the Past).

One question remains: if the political theology so apparently triggers self–annihilation of the political and social establishments, which implements its methods, why the papal establishment survived all these centuries and still, continues the attempts to assimilate the entire Christendom?

The longevity and tenacity of the papal establishment is in its claim on the ideals of Christian teachings and in the use of the Scriptures and Christian terminology for disguise of its true nature. In a certain degree this longevity might be contributed to the thousand–year old tradition of acceptance and submission to the power, which at some historical settings was considered as absolute (e.g., the power over life and death accompanied with the belief that the pope can decide the eternal destiny of the soul might be conditionally referred as the absolute because a human being believes that it is absolute). If so, the logical question could be appropriate: how the Roman popes used their “absolute power” and how the papal subjects evaluate the work of their “divine functionaries”?

During the peak of the recent world–wide scandal with the “sexual abuse” of children by the Catholic priests, The Washington Post published the article with the references to the opinion of a “devout Catholic” who names the absolute power as the reason of the world–wide scandal with the “sexual abuse” of children by the Catholic priests, as well as for “other atrocities.” In summary, the article concatenates in one logical set

–– the “sexual abuse” of children by the Catholic priests worldwide

–– recognition of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and “the other atrocities” as the atrocities

–– acknowledgment of existence of “absolute power” of the Vatican named as the reason for the sexual abuse scandal, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and “other atrocities”

–– hierarchical solidarity and cover–up policy resulting in suggestion to the laity to sit on the pew and “be quiet”

–– assurance that some Catholics are “not against the hierarchy”

–– the desire “to share power” and have “a better church” [McGrory (in Newspapers)].

In spite of the mentioned crimes, the referred “devout Catholic” is not against the papal hierarchy, he wants “just... to share power” to which he refers as to “the absolute” and which he names as the reason for the atrocities.

However, the history does not confirm existence of such phenomenon as the shared or divided, yet, still absolute power, although the very image (phantasm) of the absolute power is so attractive that the papal subject–member of the Catholic laity wants to possess a piece of it in spite of the atrocities and crimes, for which this power – as he himself asserts – is the reason.

If to recall the meaning of the “absolute power,” it becomes evident that the desire to “share” the “absolute power” of the papacy comes to the desire of the power over life of other human beings and to the right to determine the post–mortal destiny of a human soul. This desire also illustrates the depth of delusion in which the papacy keeps its subjects: the history does not confirm existence of at least one Roman pope who possessed the abilities, which compose the meaning of the absolute power; the only power they used without restriction was the power by the hands of their subjects to murder, torture, plunder, and execute those who did not recognize their pretense on the place of God and other unsupported claims. The self–asserted power of the Roman popes over the destiny of human soul was “proved” only with hallucinations of the papal subjects*14*.

Although the popes continuously attempt to validate their claims with the promise of God to give the Apostles the power to bind and to loose on the earth and in heaven {Matthew 18:18}, they forget one detail: God promised this power to His disciples only. Whoever commits evil and “other atrocities,” thus, violates the commandments of God, cannot be His disciple because the Spirit of God does not dwell with the evil of men. With such an institution as the Inquisition incorporated into the body of the papal church, and the history of crimes against God and His creations, the papacy has no right to represent itself as the discipleship of Lord God Jesus Christ.

Thus, the “absolute power” of the Roman pope is the fruit of imagination created to deceive and enslave the papal subjects and, for the sake of the common good of the papal community, to extract from them unreserved obedience, their property, and their very lives. Only the imaginary world of Aquinas’ political theology provides the illusion of justification of the papal “absolute power,” which the popes have been chasing since their first claim on the supremacy over the Christendom. Now the image of this power degenerates to the level of cover–up for disgrace and sexual crimes of the papal clergy and keeping the laity “quiet.”

The instant questions might be appropriate:

– what keeps the people at the status of the subjects of the papal hierarchy and fuels their expectations to have “a better church” if they do know the crimes committed by the papal hierarchy in the Past and if they are able to detect its problems in the Present?

– do the papal subjects believe – in contradiction of Lord God Jesus Christ {Matthew 7:16–23; Luke 6:43–46} – that they can obtain the good fruit from the bad tree, therefore, would have the good (e.g., the “better church”) from the same hierarchy, which so many centuries was the source of the atrocities and crimes against humanity?

– could it be that the meanings of the good and the evil and, therefore, of “better church,” for the papal subjects differ from the Christian teachings and Apostolic traditions?

Although the papal establishment was deprived of the secular power in the nineteenth century, after almost four centuries of religious wars and unrest, it still holds its grasp on the souls– minds of its subjects: Aquinas’ political theology is constantly applied and elaborated according to the conditions in which the papal establishments has to operate.

For instance, the Aristotelian gregarious concept of the common good of the slave–owning society and the medieval heresy, which denied existence of individual souls after physical death (some theologians connect this concept with Averroës’ (ibn Rushd) interpretations of Aristotle), had penetrated the minds of the papal theologians so deeply that the concept of salvation of the whole perfect papal community, which owns its members with all their parts, unconditionally took the place of the Christian dogma of eternal life and personal salvation of each human being. This concept logically continues the pope Boniface VIII’s (the thirteenth century) assertion of submission to the pope as a necessary condition of salvation elaborated for the contemporary societies, which struggle for efficient use of the scare resources. If to apply the papal logic, it might be inferred that if the will of the pope decides the destiny of human soul, why he should not arrange salvation of his subjects more efficiently: by packages, flocks, units, herds, offices, hierarchies, etc.? In fact, the “deprivitized” social–mystical–political communities of papal agents, unreservedly obedient to their superiors and deprived of all earthly ties*15* cannot be considered as the Christian communities in the Apostolic traditions; the contemporary “Church militants” might be likened to the military units of ant–socialist impersonalized society or beehive–structured version of the Plato–Aristotle’s utopia.     

Another example: the foundation of the Christian faith is the dogma of personal salvation of each human soul – unique and precious, expiated by the Blood of Lord God Jesus Christ. However, a contemporary Catholic theologian asserts that there is “a danger of relating God and salvation to the existential problem of the person,” while salvation is not a private salvation, it is the public matter. Consequently, “the deprivatizing of theology is the primary critical task of political theology”: the Christian love must be interpreted in its societal dimension, as “the unconditional determination to bring justice, liberty, and peace to the others”; therefore, such societal love could demand “actions of a revolutionary character” [Metz 258, 260, 266]. (Italic in the original text; the book carries Nihil Obstat of Censor Librorum and Imprimatur of Bishop of Burlington, which signify the official declarations that the book is “free from doctrinal or moral error.”) 

History preserves the examples of the similar “actions of a revolutionary character” for the sake of justice and liberty: the same slogans fueled the masses during revolutions in France and Russia.

The referred above opinion of Professor of Fundamental Theology Johannes B. Metz illustrates how Aquinas’ political theology works today. Simultaneously, Professor Metz’s assertions prompt some questions:

1/ as soon as for the papal establishment salvation does not mean salvation of a person anymore, how it will work – for the whole papal hierarchy at once, or “deprivatized” salvation is just a contemporary interpretation of the medieval heretical doctrine (missed by the Inquisition’s censor), which propagated the unity of all mankind through the active intellect and rejected personal immortality?

2/ what does it mean – justice and liberty – for the papal hierarchy, which according to the Aquinas’ doctrine

a/ consists from the exclusive beings perfected by the grace and power of the papal office, yet, deprived of any freedom

b/ rests upon the unreservedly obedient human beings, whose souls instead of the word of God are fed on the images produced by their “guardians” – the Doctors of the Church, and who

–– are deprived from the most sacred tradition of the Christianity established by God Himself – the Eucharist with two elements

–– could be forced to carry out any crime for the sake of the papal hierarchy – the hierarchy, which through the Inquisition and the unreservedly obedient subjects, practiced and justified torture, maiming, death penalty, deprivation of property, and burning people at stake for their beliefs and for the actions, which Thomas Aquinas defined as mortal sins (e.g., disobedience to the superior, rejection of the self–deified pope – schism)

–– live under the papal clergy’s surveillance of the conscience and thinking (for instance, through the mandatory confessions) and still have no right to read the books if the contemporary Inquisition includes them in its Index Prohibitorum?

3/ do “the others” desire “justice, liberty, and piece” of the Aquinas’ “perfect community,” where the righteousness had been superseded by the laws legalizing the false pretense, will, and crimes of men? Would not they prefer the freedom of death to the slavery of life with the papal “justice and liberty” within the “deprivitized” theology, which has replaced Christianity with the terror of the Inquisition and now boldly renovates the image of the papal establishment , which still harbors the Inquisition, with the Marxist absurd of “societal” love?  (As did prefer the death to the life in slavery and heresy the Greek Christians who defended the temples of Constantinople from the Catholics–Crusaders, the Protestants burnt at the stake for rebellion against the papacy, and all victims who rejected the conversion into the Catholicism and who refused to submit their mind to the papal control and their conscience to the re–programming by the papal hierarchy.)

The influence of political theology on the contemporary world is so profound that cannot be disregarded in any aspect, and it can be found in any sphere of human thought, irrespective of the religious beliefs of the researchers .

For instance,

1/ Paris Arnopoulus writes: the final purpose of the Universe could be transformation of humankind into the “organic social system with a collective mind and will” – the global self–consciousness in synergetic symbiosis with the Gaia ecosystems; there is a possibility of the submission of individuals to the purposes of “collective salvation.” Then, he asks the question: what is the purpose – “individual or collective salvation” [Arnopoulus 328]?

The very question about the purpose – “individual or collective salvation”– discloses the underlying projection of the Plato–Aristotle’s perfect community over the Future of entire mankind and coincides with the idea of “deprivitized” theology of collective salvation of the entire papal community. The very appearance of this question predicts failure of the suggested social construction because it signifies a logical reality constructed upon the concept of man–social animal as a replaceable part/property of the establishment, thus reveals the system in the process of disintegration.

2/ Robert Colquhoun refers to a social structure as to “a host of moving bodies – like that of a swarm of bees” and concludes: the repetitive patterns of behavior and interconnections within the society determine stability of the social structure [Colquhoun 32–33].

The image of the society as “a swarm of bees” betrays the influence of Plato–Aristotle’s social utopias.

Evidently, for the papal hierarchy, the Christian concept of salvation should look irrational because it is not consistent with the Aristotelian framework based on the assumption of supremacy of the whole over its parts. Then, how it is possible to assume that a part – an insignificant part–property–subject of the hierarchy – would be saved and would enter the Kingdom of God, while the whole – the papal hierarchy with all its “priests” in the state of mortal sin, “wicked prelates,” and the “supreme judge” – the pope standing at the place of God – would be doomed to the inferno?  Consequently, the Christian dogma of personal salvation must be supplanted with the concept of “deprivatized” salvation as the public matter.

The work of the contemporary theologian proclaims that a Catholic who mystically read The Gospel of John in the sense of “the neo–Platonic theologies and the classical love–mystics” have a new opportunity to contemplate “the self as agent” [David Tracy ref. and qtd. in: Coleman 73], and some theologians “pioneered as prophets” against “the danger of privatization in the Catholic mystical tradition,” which should be “the mystical–political”: the unity of mystical and prophetical imagination could be “the main Catholic contribution to the prophetic imagination” [Coleman 72–74].

At first, in Christianity, there is no such thing as “the prophetical imagination”: the true prophecy and human imagination are not compatible. The Prophets–messengers of God receive the revelations of God by the Holy Spirit {2 Peter 1:21}, while the heathen diviners communicate the figments of own imagination. The very wording – “danger of privatization of the Catholic mystical–political tradition,” “the neo–Platonic theologies” – reveals the centuries–old Philo–Origen–Augustine–Aquinas tradition of frivolous interpretation and falsification of the Scriptures and contamination of the knowledge of God with the heathen philosophical construction and figments of human imagination. The referred above notion of a Catholic “agent” conveys the image of training of the psychic agent/trooper who with heathen theology “deprivatizes” The Gospel According To John in an attempt to achieve the unity of two kinds of imagination. The meaning and the potential of the papal establishment, which fosters such practices, become especially revealing if

a/ to correlate the Jesuit John Coleman’s notions with

–– the referred above Professor Johannes B. Metz’s “actions of a revolutionary character” in the name of societal love within deprivatized political theology

–– the actions of the papacy in the Past, and continuity of the papal claims on supremacy and worldwide domination

b/ to recall address of Pius XI (1938) to seminarians from the Urban Pontifical College of Propaganda, in which he declared that the Catholic Action is “the pupil” of his eye, anyone who attacks Catholic Action strikes the pope, and, as it is known from the history, “anyone who strikes the pope dies” [Osservatore Romano of 23 July 1938, ref., trans., and qtd. in: Passelecq and Suchecky 120–121, 293].

The papal wording is intended to remind the reference of God about His chosen people –“the apple of His eye” {Zechariah 2:8}; it demonstrates how deeply self–asserted right to usurp the title and attributes of God has penetrated the very fabric of existence of the papal hierarchy. Indeed, if one pope sends his own angels of peace and salvation*16*, why another pope cannot refer to his subjects with the same words, with which God refers to His chosen people?

The Catholic Action is the organization intended to develop the worldwide network of enclaves for preservation and carrying on the Catholic way of life outside of the politics in the time, when the mandatory separation of the Church and the state became the reality of many states and nations; its working tasks revealed to the public include

a/ proselytization

b/ continuing influence on education

c/ assimilation of the “working classes” into the Christian organizations, which “would compete with those of the socialist or communist labor movement” [Wills xvi; Passelecq and Suchecky 156(qtd.)].

Some inferences follow:

a/ political theology had openly grown into the strategy of political conquest

b/ the Catholic Action has the objective to lawfully expand Catholicism and the papal influence as the means of regulation of the social stability within the societies susceptible to ideologies

c/ the papacy continues the preparation for the conquest of the world and absolute secular power; it is ready to embrace the marxist groups and (in continuation of its traditions revealed in the time of Nazis) to bestow upon them its blessings as on the saviors of mankind

d/ the papal revolution is a real possibility, and if it becomes the actuality, it would not be different from Fascist, Nazi, or Communist coup d’état.

The army of the papal agents–activists*15* is the reality, and the history does not know the cases when the armies were prepared just for fun. The actual history of the papacy provides the compelling illustration, which kind of Future expects the societies under the papal control: there cannot be any guarantee that the papal “revolutionary actions” for the sake of societal love would assume the character of bloodless takeover through the social or political domineering influence and the papal subject would live in peace and harmony with the whole world. Ultimately, the papal establishment will receive complete freedom of assassination of the souls and perversion of the human nature, for instance such as Ignatius of Loyola’s Exercises with mandatory blasphemies against Lord God Jesus Christ and self–tortures in likeness of the heathen diviners. The resulting mental and physical disorders, spiritual slavery (that is the death of reason), unreserved obedience, and fear will transform any society under the papal control into the inferno of anti–evolution.



Conclusive Remarks


The history of the political theology, the referred above opinions of the contemporary papal theologians, and the history of the Western civilization illustrate the current problems with the papal establishment, especially, with the continuous lust of the papacy for the absolute power covered under the slogans of ecumenism and the “ministry of unity.”

At first, any doctrine, image, idea cannot find its embodiment without free will of man: to exist, political theology needs the people who would accept it, actualize it, preserve it, propagate its values, and recruit the others. Any human being has the right to choose freely the beliefs, religion, theological doctrine, ideology, or citizenship. If political theology and its embodiment – the papal establishment – both accommodate the person’s aspirations, beliefs, and expectations of the comfort, hope, and everlasting life and happiness – fine; so it might exist and foster its subjects, as many religions, theologies, and establishments do.

In theory, the laws of democratic societies and contemporary tolerance should assure the freedom of choice for each member of the society, yet simultaneously, they should protect freedoms of the others. They should prevent any attempt of the papal subjects and through them the papal hierarchical church to intervene with the freedom and well–being of the others and to impose own beliefs and manner of life onto the others by coercion, deceit, or other unlawful means. In the same time, the overall danger of the Plato–Aristotle’s design is inability of protection of freedom of a person: as soon as the political theology underlies any political organization created after Plato–Aristotle’s design, there is no protection of a person. Yet, the entire Western civilization is the offspring of the heathen philosophy and the Aristotle’s Polis.

Therefore, the main part of the problem with the Aquinas’ political theology is the protection of freedom of conscience and freedom of choice within the society opened to its influence. Along with political and social structures, this protection might be accomplished only through education in the history of philosophy and religions. Such education should expose deceit and false of political theology and made clear for everyone that

a/ Aquinas’ political theology dissimilates falsification of the words of God, heresy, and misinterpretation of the Christian teachings

b/ the essence of Aquinas’ political theology is the heathenism.

At second, at the time of the Inquisition, the expansion of the papal authority was simple: it demanded the perceptible compelling force resulting in fear of death and persecution. The current conditions in the majority of societies make such a decision obsolete; now it is the time of more complicated methods, mainly, sophisticated influence on the mind, which proved to be more effective than physical coercion. Many contemporary societies provide the papal establishment with the necessary conditions for its survival and expansion:

–– the majority of population lost the steadfast Christian Faith

–– ignorance of the mind and blindness of the conscience resulting from the inadequate religious education prepare the fertile ground for superstitions and symbolic/mythical thinking

–– corruption, and substitution of the values, which sustain the anti–evolution, for the normal morality 

–– restrictions of the access to unbiased information and true knowledge

–– restriction of the religious education

–– unequal protection before the law

–– discrimination based on religion, race, sex, social status, cultural differences, education, wealth, which foster envy, hatred, and acceptance of the evil (e.g., revolution, terrorism) as the medicine for the existing social evils.

Wherever these conditions exist or develop, whenever human beings do not learn the words of God, political theology and its offspring – ideology can be implanted and bring with it the inevitable death and destruction – at first, the death of freedom, then, coercion and persecutions, then, extermination of the different–minded.

Thus, the second part of the problem is the protection from ignorance, atheism, and injustice. Yet, no one contemporary society has developed or learned the optimal means

a/ to eradicate ignorance, inequality, discrimination, or at least maintain their minimal level; the part of population defined by Plato as the “ignorant mob” still serve as the ground for totalitarian and oppressive hierarchies; in some cases, the political organization cultivates ignorance because it is the necessary condition for using the “ignorant mob” against other less susceptible to re–programming groups of the society: mass ignorance is the most profitable and beneficial condition for the groups striving for power and domination

b/ to protect the controlling and protective structures of the society from corruption

c/ to protect the society from atheism and the following destruction of the morality and human ideals.

The history confirms that the different cultures, social and state structures, nations, or other human establishments, which have any resemblance with the Plato–Aristotle’s political design (the Polis) and other features of the heathen political–social–religious utopia, inevitably institute the set of mandatory beliefs and values. Then, in order to control implementation of the mandatory beliefs and values, they restrict the person’s freedoms: physical force and coercion begin to fashion the spiritual life of the society, and that is the time when the papal establishment gains the fertile ground for expansion.

The plentiful harvest of death gathered by the Aristotle’s concept of common good (which was fully implemented into the papal establishment and totalitarian states) prompts the question: does mankind exist as the whole or is the idea of unified mankind is a false image similar to the phantasm of absolute secular and spiritual power of self–deified man*17*?

In fact, there is only one pattern: God–Creator and a person – a human being and the God’s creation who carries the image and likeness of God and who exists to accomplish the will of God. The particular derivative of the will of God is the particular purpose–mission–meaning of existence of a particular human being – person.

Therefore, mankind exists not as the system or the wholeness: it is the infinite net of the unique realities. Each of these realities – a person – is the cosmos, the creator and embodiment of the unique universe, which is focused on God and which has the only center and source of existence – God.

The hosts of the human minds–universes are united only by God – the Source of their origin, and by the main pattern of life–sustaining processes; they co–exist within the time–space–complexity–bound singularity, where the divine energy of God in its eternal rhythm of perfection creates and tests just one particular pattern–law from the uncognizable by man multitudes. Perhaps that is why love to God and love to the neighbor as to himself are the main laws for man, not love to the faceless common good or to mankind as the whole.

Such a vision of man and understanding of impossibility of the complete confluence with other men and especially, with men’s establishments, were the distinctive features of ancient Greek philosophy (pre–Pythagorean and pre–Plato), which carried the remnants of true knowledge of God. For instance,  

– man is the cosmos, the free and unique universe that lives and dies in loneliness because he had chosen to cognize the evil, which does not exist in the presence of God

– the attributes, features, and values of the material world are the phantoms that become a temporal reality when the different minds–universes collide at their way to cognition of God and finding the way home, into the realm of God the Spirit and the Creator.

Some researchers detect the traces of this vision of the ancient sages; for instance, Arlene W. Saxonhouse notices: the Greek authors advised about the danger of striving for “too much unity”; the “activity of philosophy” was reduced from a divine to “bestial activity”; then, the destruction of the boundaries between man and animals, which was accomplished with the dialectical method, reduced man to the level of animal [Saxonhouse x, 128].

That is how degeneration/anti–evolution begins:


to overcome the obstacles at the way to the “absolute” power over other men,
one group, which identified own interests as the interests of the Polis/political organization,
had to suppress the individuality and to subdue a person to the group


such usurpation of the power and suppression of individuality is possible
only after downgrading man at the level of gregarious animals
and substitution of idol–worship (beliefs carried by political theologies/religions of politics)
for the true knowledge of God


this task was successfully accomplished by the Plato and Aristotle’s political/social/religious utopia
and especially, by Aristotelian “philosophy” of a social animal/man.


All concepts and doctrines, which have the source of origin in the Plato–Aristotle’s design (the Polis – the political organization of the social animals), therefore, the Orphic theology as its hidden yet actual foundation, carry the similar patterns of belittlement and humiliation of man.

For instance, the “perfect communities,” totalitarian states, political theology, and destructive ideologies compiled after the Plato–Aristotle’s utopia and with Aristotelian logic based on the Orphic serpentine theology*18*

–– amasses human beings in one easily manageable herd

–– humiliate and pervert the human nature and undermine the conviction in the preciousness of each human being as the unique variation of the image of the Creator

–– downgrade the (initially) intelligent and free human being at the level of animal or the wild beast of pray, which does not carry the living soul–breath of live exhaled by God, and which – as any domesticated animal – has to serve the master–owner, or – as the wild beast of pray – has to be exterminated.

The underlying assumption is that as soon as man (as just as one form from the entire collection of forms of animals and other creatures, which are contained within the Orphic “absolute divine” animal – arch–serpent/beast) descends at the level of animals, he, logically, shares animals’ destiny and should not expect any other treatment, which would differ from his own methods he applies to animals.

Another feature of the reality, in which man becomes a social or other kind of animal, is its infernality and hopelessness: there is no exit and there is no hope for liberation by the means available within the world of the matter. The process of degeneration, which started with physical slavery as the foundation of the heathen world, advanced through the Plato–Aristotle’s perfect community–state, then, involved re–programming of the conscience of the subjects of the papal hierarchy, then, culminated in the complete possession by a human being/citizen (body, mind, and conscience) realized by the totalitarian states.  

A free independent human being–person became such a mortal enemy of each Aristotelian establishment that even some contemporary researchers strive to besmear and ridicule the very notion of individuality; for instance, they identify individualism as the basis for Fascism and Nazism, while there is as much from individualism in these creations of the heathen imagination as is in the herd of sheep processed at the slaughterhouse.

If to analyze the history further, one more constant pattern might be detected: the rejection of God and following corruption of the morality signify the manifest stages of destruction, when the program of self–annihilation reaches the irreversible phase, and people begin to build actively the machine/ organization/ establishment, which would carry out their own death sentence. The neo–heathen cults, destructive ideologies, dehumanization of man, deification of the rulers and their political organizations, social unrests, inhumane laws, propaganda of hatred, and lies concerning possibility of improvement of human nature through coercion, slavery, or scientific discoveries compose the initial concoction from which the dreaming minds construct the most effective elements of the science of self–annihilation. This science begins with the sets of beliefs imposed on the prepared by atheism, superstitions, hatred, and corruption minds of the mass population and culminates in the perversion of human ideals and virtues, total surveillance over thinking and actions, conscience–reprogramming followed with mass executions and concentrations camps for the different–minded or non–programmable free human beings.

This science reaches the peak with the transformation of mass population into the classical Aristotelian animals caged within the bee–hive social structures whose nature was improved with the contemporary embellishments; for instance, such as

–– the presumption of own racial/national/proletarian/religious superiority

–– all–permissibility and justification of all crimes against humanity, which were committed according to the orders of the leaders

–– the ability to digest and implement any false presented as the truth by their superiors, rulers, bosses, etc.

The latent processes of the anti–evolution enter the visible or discernible phase at the moment when, within any society/establishment, the following conditions coincide:

–– unavailability of the true knowledge of God or its intentional falsification

–– the absence of Christian faith and deprivation of the true knowledge of God has prepared the ground for propaganda, the perversion of human ideals, and corruption of the morality

–– the presence of man or a group with unsatisfied lust for dominion, universal recognition, and absolute power/control over the others, the possibility for such man or the group to gain access to the force of coercion, and the readiness of the society to accept any strong leader as a new deity

–– the immorality and corruption of those who willingly accept the deified leader and make his delusional dreams the actuality of the others

–– the inability of the majority of population to protect own freedom.   

The coincidence of these conditions becomes possible after the true knowledge of God was rejected and His laws were violated, therefore, nothing is left that would protect the society from transformation into the slaughterhouse for herd of social animals.

In conclusion, it should be noticed that one of the most convincing examples of the deadly potential of political theology is its offspring – ideologies; for instance, such as ideologies of Communist and Nazism embodied into the inhumane totalitarian slave–owning states.

In general, to make ideologies the state–wide official religion is possible only in the corrupted society*19*: the comprehensive corruption – personal, religious, social, political – is the necessary ground for development and advancement of ideology.

Then, with advancement of ideology to the rank of the common religion, the suppressive structures begin “looping off” (usually, through physical extermination) of the most advanced members of the society, especially free thinkers with the creative abilities, which threaten total standardization of the population. Such standardization irreversibly impairs the society’s potential of survival (interruption of creation of knowledge, which sustains the evolution), and complete the substitution of fear and spiritual slavery for the human values and freedom. Disorder of the creative processes within the society follows.

The disordered processes of knowledge creation make impossible development and jeopardize the well–being and evolution of the society. The society transforms itself into the closed structure that exists by consuming the accumulated before resources. With depletion of the resources, the society disintegrates into the hostile groups of persons concerned only with own physical survival and pursuing own physical survival by any means. Such a society has no Future and its complete destruction, disintegration, or assimilation by another state is predestined. The actual time of disintegration depends on the original reserves and availability of life–supporting resources, or a possibility to plunder the resources of other states.

The initial signs of transformation of the society into the ideology–based structure include

–– a deterioration of quality of life

–– decreased efficiency and increased spending of government funds and natural resources

–– an increase of different types of addiction, escapism, suicides, and violent crimes, especially among the young members of the society

–– the acceptance of neo–heathen beliefs (for example, the shift toward superstitions, divination, witchcraft, shamanism, and other beliefs of the ancient pagan societies)

–– a decrease of the creative potential of the society and, in particular, fruitlessness of the vital scientific research, which are expected to provide the basis for development of the society.

The next stages might include

–– the transformation into the inferior labor market for the more advanced social and state systems

–– an incorporation of the organized crime–structures in all power– and resources–carrying levels of the state and social hierarchies

–– the local wars, conflicts, and social unrest, usually with untypical for the society violations of human rights and atrocities intended to eliminate the ethnical, religious, or political minorities.

The law of irreversibility of cognition makes impossible disappearance of the created knowledge of the good, as well as of the evil. The knowledge exists and advances throughout the centuries: knowledge of the good leads to the perfection and sustains the evolution; knowledge of the evil with each new generation demands more sacrifices, consumes more lives and resources. If to trace through the centuries the link of misconceptions, which ultimately, became destructive ideologies of the twentieth century, it is possible to see how

–– the perverted assumptions of the ancient philosophers concerning human nature led to freedom from any morality and traditional human values

–– the manipulations with truth and false (especially, concerning the moral values) and substitution of the false for the truth in pursuit of interests of a particular group/society/nation/state/system resulted in annihilation of the group, society, nation, state, and all correlated social and political arrangements/systems.

It is also possible to infer that the greatest responsibility of a human being is the responsibility for own thoughts and especially, for embodiment of the thoughts into the material structures (concepts, books, etc.), which the mind creates in the attempt to achieve own purposes.

The main lesson of the history of political theology is simple and unambiguous. If a society is oriented toward the advancement, optimization, and evolution, it should elaborate the protective measures, which would avert recruitment and transformation of free human beings into the ignorant unreservedly obedient slaves of any establishment, which pursues the absolute power over minds and bodies of its subjects. Any coercion or application of the physical force in the matters of faith would signify transformation into the likeness of the papal inquisitors and “Church militants.” There is only one way for the civilized societies to prevent assassination of the souls and corruption of the conscience of their members: dissemination of the true knowledge of God and propagation of the Christian teachings through freely offered and free religious education. The true knowledge of God is the only, yet, the mightiest weapon, which the Christians can employ against the assassins of the living souls, corruptors of the conscience of men, and the “dreamers who defile flesh” {Jude 8}.








*1* See Works of Augustine of Hippo, Folder Philosophy, Page_6.


*2*  See Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Folder Philosophy, Page_7.


*3*  See The Church Militants, Folder Political Theology, Page_3.


*4*  According to Thomas Aquinas, blasphemy denotes the disparagement of the goodness of God when somebody suggests something inappropriate or incompatible with God, e.g., ascribes the properties of God to His creations or makes false statements about God [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica  II–II Q.13 a1, a2, a3]  – see Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Folder Philosophy, Page_7.


*5*  See Heresy, Folder Archive, Page_2_2008.


*6* Concerning the Orphic doctrine and Egyptian philosophizing see Philosophy: the Beginning, Folder Philosophy, Page_1.


*7* Concerning Aristotle’s logic of simplification, see posting The Logic of Death, Folder Archive, Page_2_2008, and Philosophy: Aristotle, Folder Philosophy, Page_3.


*8* The following postulates (1 through 10) summarize the definitions of symbols invented or accepted by different researchers; they also delineate the framework of knowledge, which determines the meaning of social, political, and religious life within the contemporary societies.  

1) Symbols are intended to transmit the codes of development and re–creation/reproduction for the systems, which share the same time–space–complexity dimensions and have the common basis (that is the similar knowledge framework, which sustains existence of similar symbolic realities). How, when, and where the codes of development and re–creation would be read and realized depend upon the recipient’s level of complexity.

2) Symbols perform system–maintaining functions and serve the following purposes:

–  to preserve the essence of the system

–  to recreate the purposeful structures and the patterns of intra–system relations and the system’s inter–connections with its supersystem and environment

– to position/control the mind at the different time–space–complexity points; the symbols provide the point of reference or the means of orientation with which the mind is directed toward creation of particular knowledge, therefore, toward achievement of the particular purposes.

3) The mind operates with the definite and constant quantity of symbols and embodies them into different symbolic systems, which are consistent with the level of complexity achieved by the mind (therefore, might be predicted if the level of the particular mind’s complexity is known). The inherited system of symbols carries concise code of the Future because it re–produces the similar system, although within different time–space settings.

Each generation supplements the inherited symbols by new shadows of meaning (according to the properties of the particular Future, which this generation builds); in two cases, the meaning of the inherited symbols might be altered:

a/ when the symbolic reality is intended to transform or destroy the actual reality, which accommodates those who re–create the symbolical reality

b/ when the actual reality does not accommodate existence of the symbolic reality, which, then, must be destroyed.

For example, the sign or image of fish, which carries a man within it, was given in the second millennium B.C. in the context of punishment for the sin of disobedience {Jonah 1:1–16}. In the A.D. first century, the same sign was referred with the meaning of repentance and resurrection {Matthew 12:39–41; Luke 11:30, 32}. In the sixteenth century, Nostradamus wrote down his vision of the “enclosed in a fish” documents, weapons, and men who make a war [Cheetham 92]; in the twentieth century, submarines and space shuttles in a form of fish became the actuality.

This particular example illustrates the transformation of the meaning of symbols: the sign referred by God as the promise of eternal life, which for many began with physical death of the One – the Son of Man, ultimately, was interpreted as the means to deliver death to other men.

4) Symbolic world reflects self–evaluation of men, social groups, and nations, their vision of the cosmos and of own place within it. Each symbol reproduces particular property or feature, and symbolic world is the knowledge expressed in terms acceptable (readable) for the minds, which might be accommodated at the different hierarchical levels, yet, unified into one symbolic reality (dream world).

5)  Symbolic worlds sustain the communality and direct development of social groups, nations, civilizations, which exist at the different points of the dimension of time. Symbolic systems define the hierarchies of purposes by determining meaningfulness and values of the desired results. The constancy of the essences of these symbols serves the continuity of social and other activities and especially the continuation of the patterns of knowledge creation. Generally, the mind comprehends a particular symbol in accordance with own abilities to embody the symbolic world into the structures, systems, and realities of the material Universe.

In a process of cognition of particular levels of the hierarchy of power and its subsystems (e.g., social group, business universe, corporation) within the disintegrating societies, it would be more efficient to consider not individual or isolated symbols or even sets of symbols: only the integer – the comprehensive system of symbols, which exists as the wholeness – provides sufficient data for analysis, because it reflects the achieved level of complexity, level of development or decay, patterns of interconnections and interactions, potency, and potential of the world described by the system of symbols, as well as the destiny–Future of those who create, transmit, and actualize it.

6) Each system creates own symbolic world/universe/reality, with which it describes the main parameters and conditions of existence, survival, self–preservation, self–destruction and recreation, hierarchies of purposes and values. Examples of the symbolic universe/world/reality include heathen theologies, national culture, corporate culture, ideology, professional ethics, arts, and sciences.

7) The symbolic system is the concise code, which allows instant comprehension of the essence of a world/universe/reality tied to a particular complexity of interpretation. Intuition provides understanding and comprehension of symbols. At first, intuition opens the way to detect the correlation between symbols; the second step is to understand meanings of the main symbols, then, to fill gaps between the correlation and the meanings and to interpret the system of symbols as the description of the observed reality.

Thus, a symbol might function as a password/key, which opens access to a particular imaginary world.

8) To create a viable purposeful system, the designer/creator has to establish its core – the symbolic world/universe. To achieve the particular purposes, the higher hierarchical levels create sets of symbols for the lower hierarchical levels. If the designer intends to arrange a system, which would be capable of development and optimization, the symbolic world should include multi–level energy–information structures with the level(s) of complexity higher than the level(s) where the created system will be accommodated.

This postulate discloses, for instance, how the ancient Greeks created their theological doctrines: the real world of men was imposed on the world of super–natural beings, which their creators – philosophers and poets – endow with all weaknesses of the human nature, yet, also with immortality and relative omnipotence determined by the place at the hierarchy of deities. Some heroes and exceptional personalities entered the world of deities or themselves were deified for their virtues or accomplishments. Such two–folded world provided the necessary space for aspirations and expectations of the mortals, therefore, supported the desirable social order and at least some degree of the social stability within the heathen society.

9)  If any system has to be completely destroyed by the higher level of the hierarchy or by its counterparts at the same hierarchical level, the symbolic world, which is its core, must be distorted, replaced, or determined to be false.

10) The difference between symbol and concept might be described with the following assertions:

a/ the comprehension of symbol is tied with the level of development of a particular mind; the same symbol evokes different realities within different minds in accordance with the degree of their development; however, any symbol accepted within a particular world means something for each mind that accepts this world as the reality of own existence. It might be also said that the common symbols are unified with the properties (e.g., similar complexity), which make them recognizable, discernible, meaningful, and intended for implementation; for instance, the symbols, which convey the allowable means to preserve own existence are the most attractive

b/ the concept conveys the same pattern to all minds with the similar level of complexity; the mind that has an insufficient level of complexity is not able to comprehend or recognize the particular concept; it is unable to participate in cognition/creation of knowledge, which includes this particular concept.

If the set of symbols (or symbolic world) is comprehensive, it might convey purposes, essence, and the destiny of the reality, which developed the symbolic world or which might be described by this symbolic world. The mind does not perceive this reality symbol by symbol or step by step (e.g., word–symbol).  The mind reads, scans, or deciphers the entire code–essence of the symbolic world, comprehends the reality behind and re–creates it at the accessible levels of complexity (or at the levels accommodating the mind or the cognized reality).

Some researchers identify the theory of symbolism with the computer model of mental activity [e.g., Capra 265]; however, such identification instantly reveals the insufficient level of complexity of consideration. It seems that the theory of symbolism attempts to form the logical framework for development of the mind within the establishments, which had replaced the reality with the shared dream worlds and which consequently, lost the ability to preserve their actual world. Instability and inadequacy of such frameworks might be illustrated with constant demands of reforms within dissipating social or religious structures, which have reached the irreversible stage of the latent destructive processes.

There is an opportunity to recognize the Future of an establishment through determination of the patterns of thinking accepted as the standard or ideal patters. For instance, the symbolical mode of thinking reveals the dreamers–inhabitants of the shared dream worlds; the conceptual thinking is a feature of the reality–oriented mind that pursues purposes consistent with the purposes of evolution.


*9*  Concerning Phoenicians, see  postings:  The Curse of Cain, Folder Archive, Page_5_2009, and Philosophy: the Beginning, Folder Philosophy, Page_1.


*10*  According to Thomas Aquinas, “the state is a perfect community,” where each man “in all that he is and has” belongs to the community as its natural part. As soon as any part is imperfect, and the whole is perfect, every part exists for the sake of the whole. Consequently, it is according to nature to inflict a loss of the part to save the whole. If a sinner becomes danger and infects the community, it is not only lawful; it is even “praiseworthy and advantageous” to kill the sinner to protect the common good from corruption by sin [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I–II Q.90 a2; Q.96 a4; II–II Q.64 a2, a3, a5, a6; Q.65 a1]. Furthermore, in the Aquinas’ perfect community, the greater power applies the greater coercion: a ruler of the perfect community possesses the “perfect coercive power.” He rules by “political foresight,” which Aquinas compares with the providence by which God rules the world. If such a ruler inflicts death and mutilation as punishment, deprives men of life, property, and liberty  (if he commit murder, theft, robbery, extortion and other crimes against humanity) for the sake of the common good or legal justice, these crimes become the lawful and praiseworthy acts [Summa Theologica II–II Q.64 a2; Q.65 a1, a2; Q.66 a5, a8; Q.67 a4; ref. also in: Bigongiari xvi]: as soon as Aquinas already asserted that the evil and unjust laws have their source within the eternal law/will/nature/essence of God, the criminal actions within the range of activities, which should secure the common good, logically become “praiseworthy” acts of the ruler.


*11* For example, the Roman popes initiated the Crusades and compelled the state rulers to punish (in many cases, to murder) those whom the papal church condemned as heretics and to confiscate their property, to expel the unbelievers and to deprive them from their rights and their property. The papacy assumed the authority to deprive of property condemned heretics and the Jews who did not wish to convert into the Catholicism. Aquinas’ political theology justified the habit of the papal hierarchy to discard The Ten Commandment do not kill and do not covet another’s property and refuted two other commandments of God on which “all the laws and the prophets hang” {Matthew 22:36–40} (cf.: [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 233–234]; the law of the pope Innocent III, which legalized confiscation of property of heretics [e.g., in: Maycock 104], Thomas Aquinas’ concept of “unjust possession” [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II–II Q.66 a8 ro2] and, for example, its application in Spain, where the faithful Catholics, who diligently served the Inquisition, stripped the Jews and the Moors of their property [e.g., in: Willett 83]).


*12* See Folder Philosophy, Pages 5–7.


*13* Mother of Alexander was a priestess and the initiated of orgiastic rites of Dionysus; she encouraged the rumors that the main Greek deity Zeus visits her bedchamber in image of gigantic serpent, and that Alexander is a son of Zeus, not of her mortal husband, the king of Macedonia. From his mother, who was initiated into the Dionysian orgiastic rites (therefore, who had to cultivate insanity to present herself as a servant of Dionysus – deity of insanity and death), Alexander inherited bouts of “divine” madness, which was considered as the sign of special relations with gods, and contempt to human life inseparable from the cult of Dionysus as a god of death. In a due time (after his father was assassinated and Alexander came to the power), Alexander asserted that he is a son of the main deity. Arrian and Plutarch hold that Alexander’s deification was “a mere device” used for political purposes. However, the indirect evidence suggests that Alexander believed in his divine origin strived to make himself a fitting member of the family. For instance,

a/ the area of his military campaign enveloped the way, which according to myth, Dionysus (son of Zeus) made during his efforts to enlighten the mortals: Alexander planned to conquer all nations that practiced different modifications of the cult of vine and worshiped Dionysus (or Dionysus’ local version). Only after his army was stopped in India and the veterans refused to continue the march to the end of the world, Alexander returned in Babylon, where he began preparation to the next conquest: Arabian peninsula, Caspian kingdoms, Libya, Iberia (Spain), and Italy

b/ Alexander carried Iliad by Homer with him during all his military campaigns, and nobody can prove that the crimes of gods had not inspired the ruthless assassinations, slaying of the prisoners of war, self–deification, pillage, and other crimes of Alexander

c/ The Alexander’s fury against the disobedient did not differentiate the nation, kinship, and friendship. Seemingly, Alexander equated free citizens of Greece and Macedonians with the conquered nations and considered all of them as the slaves that must be unreservedly obedient to their master. Indifference to the Greek nation – incompatible with the traditional Greek values – discloses the Alexander’s inner disposition toward other human beings: all mortals are slaves of the gods [e.g., in: Aristotle Eudemian Ethics VIII.iii.14–15]; thus, as soon as he – Alexander – is god, all the others are just his slaves irrespective of nation and position within his imperial hierarchy.

The Alexander’s biographers provide the descriptions, which make condemnation more appropriate than deification; for instance, Alexander of Macedonia

– assassinated all his relatives, stepmother, and brothers

– on one occasion, ordered to slaughter seventy or eighty thousand of the Persian troops

– executed many of his friends and companions apparently for treason, obviously for their rejection of proskunetis (προσκυνητης – the ritual of obeisance – kneeling or prostrating before a ruler} and resentment to the Alexander’s adaptation of the manners and vanity of the kings of the conquered nations, which were inconsistent with the Aristotelian ideals of the Polis that consist from average/equal citizens

– destroyed many cities that attempted to resist his army (including the Greek colonies and cities in Asia unwilling to become a part of his empire), plundered and enslaved their population; in some occasions, the entire population of conquered cities was slaughtered [Arrian 255; Curtius 238–241; Dascalakis 257–259; Graves 1:104–105, 114; Jouguet 79, 395; Justinus 11:9–10; 12:3–7 60–62, 68; Paulus Orosius 100, 101; Plato Phaedrus 244a, c, 265a–b; Plutarch 253–254, 259–260, 284–285, 306–307; Vergil 6:51–58, 84–89].

Ultimately, deification of the Alexander did not work, and his empire did not last long. The conquered nations were not prepared to accept unconditionally the conqueror’s religion, philosophy, and ethics for such a price as own wealth, life, and freedom, and especially because the actions of Alexander and his courtiers did not comply with the officially proclaimed ideals.

The deeds of Alexander of Macedonia portray him as the obsessed with self–idolization maniac, and ruthless murderer. His quest for the world domination resulted in robbery, enslaving, and murder of people at the conquered territories and demolition of the cities, including the Greek colonies. Deification of Alexander (especially, on such background as the immoral mythical gods of poets depicted by Homer), and presentation of robbery, enslaving, and forcefully imposed rules of existence as the “enlightenment of the barbarian nations” adequately describe the heathen values.

The history does not support the assumption that the noble ethical concepts ever had any real application within the heathen world: ethics and morality cannot exist within the society whose gods from the beginning are murderers and adulterers. Homer was the main educator of the ancient Greeks; his Iliad, Odyssey, and Hymns provide the full description of gods and their deeds, which even some ancient pagan moralists characterized as disgraceful subjects of reproach and condemnation [e.g., Xenophanes of Colophon Fragment 11 23]. Nobody can prove that the crimes of gods along with Aristotle’s practicable good of the Agora (market) had not inspired the ruthless assassinations, slaying of the prisoners of war, self–deification, pillage, and other crimes committed by Alexander.


*14* For example, Catholic saint Birgitta declared: she received the “divine” revelation that if the pope is not a heretic, he has the absolute power to bind and loose souls. Even if the pope is sinful, vicious, and so wicked that after his death he would be condemned to hell, God confirms the pope’s “lawful acts on earth” [Birgitta ref. and qtd. in: Lea 3:641].


*15* See The Church Militants, Folder Political Theology, Page_3.


*16*  If the pope believes that he “stands at the place of God,” he also might believe that the papal army is not different from the army of God. Indeed, the pope Innocent III writes that he acts on behalf of the Holy Trinity and refers to his legate as to “a very angel of peace and salvation” who acts according to the will of God [Selected Letters of Pope Innocent… III 177, 216, 150, 151, 154].


*17* Evidently, the phantom of papal spiritual power exists only because the papacy associates its faith – Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology – with the Christian teaching, and because the pope pretends to act on behalf of God. Today, after the papacy had lost the direct and manifest access to the coercive and oppressive state structures, the papal power is realized through the control and re–programming of the mind and of the conscience of the papal subjects. However, the papacy continues to exercise its apparent spiritual authority and the hidden influence on the political affairs of the states through access to education and charitable activities. For instance, the papacy declares that by teaching the people to act for the sake of the common good, it prepares “good citizens for each state” [John Paul II Redemptor Hominis §17.7 in: The Encyclicals of John Paul II 77].

In this case, the papal hierarchy especially loyally follows the teaching of its true main theologian – Aristotle – for the sake of own common good and following the strategy to obtain the absolute power. In particular, according to Aristotle, the education of citizens must be inseparable for the functions of state; otherwise, the state would discontinue its existence because of transformation into the institution of those who have the teaching authority. Thus, the papal “hierarchical church” inevitably would attempt to make loyal papal subject from each person who had gone through the Catholic educational institutions. Consequently, such a person might be lost for the state if this state is independent of or opposing to the papal influence.


*18* Concerning the Orphic theology, see Philosophy: the Beginning, Folder Philosophy, Page_1.


*19* The society, which has been poisoned with political theology and consequently, accepted atheist and materialistic philosophy, fostered ethics–free sciences “independent” of morality and human values, and developed political economy based upon thievery, envy, and greed, becomes the most fertile ground for development of ideologies. The most susceptible to ideologies are the social groups with the perverted moral values, for instance, similar to those which were established by Aquinas’ doctrine justifying any evil committed in accordance with the order of the superior and for the sake of the “common good” [e.g., in: Summa Theologica I–II Q.90 a2; Q.96 a4; II–II Q.64 a2, a3, a5, a6; Q.65 a1; II–II Q.64 a3; Q.65 a1 ro1; Q.66 a7, a8] and those fashioned by the Weber and Nietzsche’s ideas or similar neo–heathen doctrines. Additional components of the foundation on which ideologies advance almost instantaneously include deeply wounded national pride along with the ideas of racial/other superiority, economical and other crises, impoverishment of population, natural disasters.

For instance, initially, Communism and Nazism fascinated many people who did not comprehend the essence, could not imagine the consequences, and who were not aware of their meaning for the countries, where these ideologies established their stronghold with false, lies, and unspeakable crimes against humanity. Some of those people who acquired the knowledge of the nature and consequences of these ideologies realized that this evil is not compatible with the normal human nature. Likewise, the Christendom should disclose the essence of the Aquinas’ political theology behind Catholicism and call it by its name – the heathenism cultivated by the philosophizing theologians who had lost any ability to discriminate between the good and the evil: Christianity must be dissociated with Aquinas political theology–papal faith–Catholicism.






Allison, C. FitzSimons. The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy. Harrisburg, Philadelphia:  Morehouse, 1994.

Aristotle. "The Eudemian Ethics."  The Athenian Constitution. The Eudemian Ethics. On Virtues and Vices. v. 20. With an English Translation by H. Rackham. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1971. 23 vols.

Aristotle. "The Magna Moralia." The Metaphysics. v.2. With an English Translation by G. Cyril Armstrong. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1935. 425–685. 2 vols.

Arnopoulus, Paris. Sociophysics:  Chaos and Cosmos in Nature and Culture. Commack, New York:  Nova Science, 1993.

Arrian. The Life of Alexander The Great. Trans. Aubrey de Sélincourt. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:  Penguin Books, 1958.

Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). The City of God. Trans. Marcus Dods. A Select Library of the Nicene and Past–Nicene Fathers. Buffalo:  Christian Literature, 1887.  

von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. Robots, Men and Minds: Psychology in the Modern World. New York: George Braziller, 1967.

von Bertalanffy, Ludwig.  A Systems View of Man.  Ed. Paul A.LaViolette.  Boulder,  Colorado:  Westview Press, 1981.

Bonaventura (Saint). "Commentary on The Four Books of Sentences of Peter Lombard." Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Part II:  Roger Bacon to William of Ockham. Ed. and trans. Richard McKeon. New York, Chicago, Boston:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. 118–148.

Capra, Fritjof, and David Steindl–Rast with Thomas Matus. Belonging to the Universe: Explorations on the Frontiers of Science and Spirituality. New York:  HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Cheetham, Erica. The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus. New York:  Perigee Books, 1989.

Coleman, John. "Catholic Wellsprings for the Prophetic Imagination." The Future of Prophetic Christianity:  Essays in Honor of Robert McAfee Brown. Ed. Denise Lardner Carmody and John Tully Carmody. Maryknoll, New York:  Orbis Books, 1993. 67–75.

Colquhoun, Robert. "The Art of Social Conjecture: Remembering Bertrand de Jouvenel." History of Human Sciences,  v. 9,  № 1 (Feb 1996). 27–42.

Curtius, Quintus Rufus. The History of Alexander. Trans. John Yardley with an Introduction and Notes by Waldemar Heckel. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:  Penguin Books, 1984.

Dascalakis, Apostolos Basileiou. Alexander the Great and Hellenism. Φεσσαλονικε:  Institute for Balkan Studies, 1966. (Fessalonike, Greece.)

Deane, Herbert A. The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine. New York and London: Columbia UP, 1963.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Ed. Norman P. Tanner. London and Washington, DC:  Sheed & Ward, Georgetown UP, 1990.

Dulles, Avery Robert. The Craft of Theology:  From Symbol to System. New York:  Crossroad, 1995.

Duns Scotus, John. "The Oxford Commentary on The Four Books of The Master of the Sentences." Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Part II:  Roger Bacon to William of Ockham. Ed. and trans. Richard McKeon. New York, Chicago, Boston:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. 313–350.

Eatwell, Roger. "Ideologies: Approaches and Trends." "Fascism." Contemporary Political Ideologies. Eds. Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright. Boulder, Colorado:  Westview Press, 1993. 1–22. 169–191.

Elgin, Catherine Z. Between the Absolute and the Arbitrary. Ithaca and London:  Cornell UP, 1997.

Emery, Kent. Monastic, Scholastic, and Mystical Theologies from the Later Middle Ages. Variorum Collected studies Series; CS561. Aldershot, Hampshire, U.K., Brookfield, Vermont:  Variorum, 1996.

Gauss, Christian. "Introduction to the Mentor Edition." The Prince  by Niccolo Machiavelli. 1935. Trans. Luigi Ricci. New York:  Oxford UP, 1980. 7–30.

Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. 1955.  Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:  Penguin Books, 1986. 2 vols.

St. Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. Ed. and trans. Robert E. Sinkewicz. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:  Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,  1988.

Guirdham, Arthur. Christ and Freud:  A Study of Religious Experience and Observance. London:  George Allen and Unwin, 1959.

Ignatius of Loyola, Saint. Personal Writings: Reminiscences, Spiritual Diary, Select Letters, including text of The Spiritual Exercises. Trans. with Introduction and Notes by Joseph A. Muniti and Philip Endean. London: Penguin Books, 1996.

Ilias the Presbyter. “A Gnomic Anthology.” The Philokalia: The Complete Text Compiled by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, with the assistance of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline) Constantine Cavarnos, Dana Miller, Basil Osborne, Norman Russel. London: Faber & Faber, 1979–1995. 4 vols. V.3, 34–65.

John Paul II. "Redemptor Hominis." The Encyclicals of John Paul II. Ed., Introductions by J. Michael Miller. Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996. 31–96.

Jouguet, Pierre. Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of  the East. New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1928.

Justinus, Marcus Junianus. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Books 11–12:  Alexander The Great. Trans and Appendices by J. C. Yardley. Commentary by Waldemar Heckel. New York: Oxford UP, 1997.

Larrain, Jorge. The Concept of Ideology. London:  Hutchinson of London, 1979.

Lea, Henry Charles. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages. New York:  Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, 1887. 3 vols.

Luther, Martin. Basic Luther. Four of his Fundamental Works.  (The Ninety–five Theses.  Address to the Nobility.  Concerning Christian Liberty.  A Small Catechism.)  Springfield, Illinois: Templegate Publishers, 1994. 10–153.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. Discourses on Livy. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago and London:  University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. 1935. Trans. Luigi Ricci (1903). New York:  Oxford UP. Reprint as “A Mentor Book”  by  The New American Library, 1980.

Mackie, Joan L. Logic and Knowledge. Selected Papers, v. 1. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford UP, Clarendon Press, 1985.

Maycock, Alan L.  The Inquisition from Its Establishment to the Great Schism:  An Introductory Study. With an Introduction by Ronald Knox. New York and Evanston:  Harper & Row, 1969.

St. Maximus the Confessor. “Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue and Vice. The Philokalia: The Complete Text Compiled by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, with the assistance of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline) Constantine Cavarnos, Dana Miller, Basil Osborne, Norman Russel. London: Faber & Faber, 1979–1995. 4 vols. V.2, 164–284.

Metz, Johannes B. "Relationship of Church and World in the Light of a Political Theology." Renewal of Religious Thought:  Proceedings of the Congress in the Theology of the Renewal of the Church. Centenary of Canada, 1867–1967. v. 2. Ed. L.K. Shook. Introduction by Paul–Émile Cardinal Léger. 2 vols. Montreal:  Palm Publishers, 1968. 255–270.

New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington, DC:  The Catholic University of America, 1967.  17 vols.

Nicolaus of Cusa (Cusanus). "On Learned Ignorance." Renaissance Philosophy. Vol. II: The Transalpine Thinkers. Ed., trans., and introduced by Herman Shapiro and Arturo B. Fallico. New York:  Random House,  1969.  3–24.

Origen. Origen, Spirit and Fire. A Thematic Anthology of his Writings by Hans Urs von Balthasar. Trans. Rober J. Daly, S.J. Washington, D.C.:  Catholic University  of America Press, 1984.

O'Sullivan, Noël. "Conservatism." Contemporary Political Ideologies. Eds. Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright. Boulder, Colorado:  Westview Press, 1993. 50–77.

Pascal, Blaise. The Provincial Letters. Pensées. Scientific Treatises. Trans. Thomas M’Crie. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2nd ed. Chicago, 1990.

Passelecq, Georges, and Bernard Suchecky. The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI. Trans. Steven Randall. With an Introduction by Garry Wills. New York:  Harcourt Brace, 1997.

Paulus Orosius.  The Seven Books of History against the Pagans. The Fathers of the Church. v. 50. Trans. Roy J. Deferrari. Washington, D.C.:  Catholic University of America Press, 1964.

The Philokalia: The Complete Text Compiled by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, with the assistance of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline) Constantine Cavarnos, Dana Miller, Basil Osborne, Norman Russel. London:  Faber & Faber, 1979–1995.  4 vols.

Plato. Complete Works. Edited with Introduction and Notes by John M. Cooper.  Associated Editor D.S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis, Indiana:  Hackett Publishing, 1997.

Plutarch. "Alexander." The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives  by  Plutarch. Trans.  and  annotated  by  Ian Scott–Kilvert.  Introduction by G.T. Griffith.  Harmondsworth,  Middlesex, England:  Penguin Books, 1973.  252–334.

Proclus. The Elements of Theology. A revised text with Translation, Introduction and Commentary by  E. R. Dodds. 2nd ed. Oxford, U.K.:  Clarendon Press, 1992.

Saxonhouse, Arlene W. Fear of Diversity: The Birth of Political Science in Ancient Greek Thought. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Schultz, Majken. On Studying Organizational Cultures: Diagnostic and Understanding. De Gruyter studies in Organization 58. Berlin and New York:  de Gruyter, 1994.

Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England (1198–1216). Eds. C.R. Cheney and W.H. Semple. London:  Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953.

Sturzo, Luigi. Church and State. v. 2. London:  G. Bless, The Centenary Press, 1939. 2 vols.

Tertullian, Quintius Septimius Florens. "On The “Prescription” of Heretics." On The Testimony of the Soul. On The "Prescription" of Heretics. Trans. T.Herbert Bindley. New York: E.S.Gorham, 1914. 31–96.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint). Summa Theologica. First Complete American Edition in 3 volumes literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, San Francisco: Benziger Brothers, 1947. 3 vols.

Trager, James. The People’s Chronology:  A Year–by–Year Record of Human Events from Prehistory to the Present. Rev. ed. A Henry Holt Reference Book. New York:  Henry Holt, 1992.

Vacandard, Elphege. The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church. 1915.  Trans. from the 2nd edition Bertrand L. Conway. Merrick, New York:  Richwood Publishing, 1977.

Vergil (Vergilius, Publius Maro). The Aeneid: An Epic Poem of Rome. Trans. L.R. Lind. Bloomington:  Indiana UP, 1962.

da Vinci, Leonardo. The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. Arranged, Rendered into English and Introduced by Edward MacCurdy. Old Saybrook, CT: Konecky & Konecky, 2003.

Vlastos, Gregory. Christian Faith and Democracy. Hazen Books on Religion. Distributed by Association Press. New York, 1939.

Willett, Franciscus.  Understanding the Inquisition.  N. Easton, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Press, 1968.

William of Ockham. "The Seven Quodlibeta." Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Part II: Roger Bacon to William of Ockham. Ed. and trans. Richard McKeon. New York, Chicago, Boston: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. 360–421.

Wills, Garry. "Introduction:  Fumbling toward Justice." The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI by Georges Passelecq and Bernard Suchecky. Trans. Steven Randall. With an Introduction by Garry Wills. New York:  Harcourt Brace, 1997. ix–xxiv.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico–Philosophicus. The German text of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Logisch–philosophische Abbandlung with a new Translation by P. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness and with the Introduction by Bertrand Russell, F.R.S. New York:  Humanities Press, 1961.

Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary by J.H. Lesher. Toronto, Canada:  University of Toronto Press, 1992.



Newspapers: The Washington Post

McGrory, Mary. "Awaiting a Change Within the Church." August 4, 2002.  F5.





Posted September 2, 2011

Original Post November 23, 2008



Copyright (c)2010 Sunday's Thoughts &