https://www.globalliberalblog.com/

Global Liberal Blog, 8th Street, Central Etobicoke, ON (2026)

01/02/2026

The Concrete Wall and the Great Trigger: From Institutional Secrecy to Planetary Literacy

I. Introduction: The Theatre of Transparency

In December 2025, the release of the so-called Epstein Files was framed as an act of overdue transparency. The files arrived heavily curated: partial disclosures, redactions justified on “national security” grounds, and a narrative emphasis on individual misconduct rather than institutional design. Public outrage followed a familiar arc—intense, brief, and ultimately absorbed into the background noise of the information economy.¹

This was not a failure of transparency. It was its contemporary form. Modern states no longer rely primarily on secrecy. They rely on managed disclosure—the strategic release of information calibrated to dissipate anger while preserving structural continuity.

Transparency has become theatrical: a performance of accountability designed to stabilize legitimacy without threatening the architecture of power itself.² At the center of this architecture stands the "concrete wall": the hardened interface where political authority, financial power, and intelligence infrastructure converge. Justice is not absent beyond this wall; it is simulated in front of it.

II. The Concrete Wall: Institutional Protection

Power in late modernity is rarely monopolized. It is distributed across a triad: the state, global finance, and intelligence services.

Each is formally distinct, yet functionally interdependent. Finance requires regulatory shelter; the state requires liquidity and compliance; intelligence services require both secrecy and funding. Accountability that seriously threatens one node destabilizes all three—and is therefore neutralized.³

History repeats this pattern with remarkable consistency. The Profumo Affair scandalized British politics while leaving the intelligence apparatus untouched.⁴ The Monroe–Kennedy era exposed personal entanglements but preserved the national security state that enabled them.⁵

The Epstein case followed the same logic: the spectacle of an individual predator displaced scrutiny from the networks—financial, political, and logistical—that sustained him.

This displacement is not accidental. Individual villains are narratively efficient. Systems are not.

The cost is severe: while public attention fixates on episodic crimes, institutional harms proceed with minimal disruption—wars financed through abstract instruments, environmental destruction justified as externality, and policies like Canada’s Sixties Scoop that fragmented Indigenous communities without a single dramatic “crime scene.”⁶

State-sanctioned violence and financial collapse have killed and displaced orders of magnitude more people than the crimes dominating media coverage.⁷

III. Energy, Scarcity, and the Tyrant State

On the Kardashev Scale, humanity remains a Type 0 civilization—one that has not mastered the energy potential of its own planet. While often treated as speculative, the scale is analytically useful when read sociologically.⁸ In Type 0 conditions, power derives from the control of scarcity: fossil fuels, land, data flows, and credit.

Governance under scarcity tends toward fortification. The state becomes a gatekeeper; obedience is incentivized; dissent is securitized.⁹ Internal conflict is not pathological—it is functional. Scarcity legitimizes hierarchy, which legitimizes surveillance, which in turn legitimizes secrecy. The transition to a Type 1 civilization—planetary coordination of energy and systems—is therefore not primarily technological. It is institutional and cognitive.

This is the real "Great Filter": the inability of a species to reorganize itself when its tools outgrow its social structures.¹⁰

IV. The Great Trigger: Crisis Without Borders

What forces reorganization is rarely moral insight; it is shared vulnerability.

Greenhouse gases do not respect sovereignty; viruses do not pause at customs; financial contagion propagates faster than legislatures can convene. The 2008 collapse and COVID-19 demonstrated that planetary problems require planetary literacy—a shared understanding of humanity as a coupled system.¹¹

The argument for coordination is not purely theoretical. There are instructive moments when humanity has behaved as a proto-Type 1 civilization:

The Montreal Protocol (1987): Faced with atmospheric data on CFCs, states acted through technical convergence rather than moral consensus. The ozone layer began to recover because incentives were aligned with planetary feedback loops.

The Human Genome Project (1990–2003): Laboratories shared data in real-time, treating knowledge as non-rivalrous infrastructure.

These cases shared a crucial feature: they minimized ideological negotiation and maximized technical clarity. Where governance resembled engineering rather than politics, coordination emerged.

V. The Whistleblower’s Dilemma

In a scarcity-based system, figures like Snowden and Assange occupy an anomalous position. Their impact is often blunted not by disproof, but by information saturation. Modern power no longer suppresses leaks; it fragments them into an attention economy designed for decay.¹⁵

Individual whistleblowers cannot destabilize structural equilibria. They function instead as signal mutations—evidence that the environment is becoming incompatible with existing norms.¹⁶ Their sacrifice does not produce immediate change, but it accumulates informational pressure that later crises convert into legitimacy shifts. They make transitions intelligible when they arrive.

VI. Beyond the Wall

Real justice becomes possible only when transparency is architectural rather than discretionary—embedded in systems rather than granted by authority.¹⁷

A Type 1 civilization does not depend on virtuous rulers; it depends on verifiable processes. From this perspective, the turbulence of 2025 is not collapse; it is a trigger event—the destabilization required for cognitive reorganization at planetary scale.

VII. The Choice: Symbiosis or Silence

Artificial intelligence accelerates this choice. AI offers speed and scale; humanity provides context and value. Separately, both are dangerous. Together, they may be sufficient.¹⁸ The risk is intelligence governed by scarcity psychology. God-like tools in zero-sum minds amplify coordination problems.

The alternative is deliberate symbiosis: coupling technical acceleration with engineered empathy—extending moral concern beyond tribe and nation.¹⁹ The fossil record is crowded with species that failed to make analogous transitions. Avoiding a 300,000-year silence requires dismantling the concrete wall—and outgrowing the civilization that poured it.

Endnotes

1. Bennett & Livingston, The Disinformation Order

2. Bratton, The Stack

3. Gilens & Page (2014), elite influence in policy formation

4. Davenport-Hines, An English Affair

5. Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard

6. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

7. Global Burden of Disease; SIPRI; UN Environment Programme

8. Kardashev (1964), reframed sociologically

9. Foucault, Security, Territory, Population

10. Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies

11. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (2011)

12. WHO pandemic preparedness reviews

13. IPCC synthesis reports

14. Ostrom, Governing the Commons

15. Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

16. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

17. Lessig, “Code is Law”

18. Bostrom, Superintelligence

19. Singer, The Expanding Circle

Tom MacPherson © 2026

12/24/2025

From Galilean Preacher to Imperial Logos: How Power Canonized a Crucified Troublemaker

History does not remember men as they were. It remembers them as they became useful. In the ancient world, remembrance was never neutral; it was curated by power.

Figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus, Romulus, and Julius Caesar were not merely recalled but elevated—lifted from contingency into destiny, from biography into myth. Their lives were not falsified so much as completed by divinization. Jesus of Nazareth belongs unmistakably to this ancient grammar of memory.

Historically, Jesus appears not as a metaphysical abstraction but as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher formed by the anxieties and expectations of Second Temple Judaism. He proclaimed the imminent Kingdom of God. Under Roman occupation, this was not an interior theology but a political provocation. To announce God’s reign was to imply Rome’s expiration.

Rome understood the implication immediately. Jesus was crucified as a troublemaker—publicly, shamefully, decisively. Crucifixion was Rome’s punctuation mark. It was not used to debate ideas, but to terminate disorder. On this point, history is firm.

Yet ex*****on did not end the movement. It clarified it. What followed was not memory, but reinterpretation. A failed messiah posed a theological problem—and problems invite solutions.

Drawing upon Jewish categories of resurrection, exaltation, and divine agency, Jesus’ followers transfigured defeat into vindication. The crucified man was raised, enthroned, exalted. The scandal of the cross was metabolized into cosmic necessity.

Over time, the escalation intensified. Prophet became messiah. Messiah became divine agent. Divine agent became God. This was not an anomaly of faith, but a familiar ancient process: the conversion of historical rupture into metaphysical inevitability. Before emperors ever noticed Christianity, it had already proven socially viable. Its earliest strength lay not in palaces but in tenements.

Christianity spread among the poor, slaves, women, and the socially marginal—those for whom Roman order offered discipline but no dignity. Its promise inverted hierarchy: the last would be first, the humiliated exalted, the crucified victorious. Suffering was not erased; it was revalued. Communal charity, mutual aid, and a radical ethic of belonging allowed Christianity to function as a counter-society within the empire. Long before it was powerful, it was survivable. Long before it ruled, it consoled. The decisive transformation, however, came with abstraction. Here Paul of Tarsus emerges not as a mere missionary, but as an architect.

Paul universalized Jesus by dismantling the ethnic and legal particularities of Jewish messianism. Circumcision, dietary law, Torah observance—once foundations—became obstacles. What remained was portable theology: sin, salvation, faith, Christ. A message no longer bound to a people, but addressed to humanity as such. This was not betrayal; it was translation. And translation is always selection.

Christianity became transmissible precisely because it became detachable. Fit not for a synagogue, but for an empire.

By the fourth century, power completed what theology had prepared. Roman emperors—beginning with Constantine—recognized Christianity’s utility. Not as dissent, but as cement. Doctrine hardened under patronage. Councils convened. Orthodoxy was defined. Scripture was canonized. Ambiguity became heresy. Theology ceased to be discovered and began to be administered. Truth, once contested, was now enforced. God acquired a bureaucracy.
With power came purification. Competing Christianities—Jewish-Christian, Gnostic, heterodox—were not merely debated but erased. Diversity, once the movement’s condition of life, became a liability.

Orthodoxy survived not because it was truer, but because it was authorized. Memory was narrowed. Rivals were silenced. History was edited. The victorious narrative mistook endurance for inevitability.

A parallel logic of survival-through-alignment is already visible a century earlier in the figure of Flavius Josephus. Like Roman historians such as Livy, Tacitus, and Suetonius, Josephus wrote under patronage—but his position was more precarious.

A defeated rebel captured during the Jewish Revolt, he survived by becoming useful. He predicted Vespasian’s rise, secured pardon, adopted the Flavian name, and lived under imperial protection in Rome.

His histories repeatedly justify this defection as divine providence, recasting surrender as wisdom and resistance as fanaticism. Josephus survived in life because he served the Flavians. He survived in history because he served the Church. Memory spared him for the same reason power once did.

Conclusion

Paul, Josephus, and imperial Christianity are not anomalies; they are iterations of a single pattern. Survival required alignment. Expansion required adaptation. Endurance required authority. Paul translated Jesus for the Gentile world. Josephus translated Jewish defeat for Roman power. Emperors translated theology into governance. In each case, what lived was not what resisted, but what proved useful.

Christianity’s enduring legacy is therefore not merely the triumph of belief, but the success of a narrative repeatedly recalibrated to power—myth refined by necessity, canon sealed by authority, and memory disciplined until it could rule.

© Tom MacPherson 2025

12/14/2025

The Birth of Strict Patriarchal Yahwism: The Role of the Babylonian Exile

The development of ancient Israelite religion was neither linear nor internally uniform. Rather, it unfolded through a series of ruptures driven by political collapse, cultural contact, and existential crisis. While Yahweh remained the central divine figure across these transformations, Israel’s understanding of his nature—and the social order authorized in his name—shifted dramatically.

I shall argue that the Babylonian Exile (586–539 BCE) functioned as a decisive theological crucible in which earlier, pluralistic forms of Yahwism were reconfigured into a more exclusive, increasingly patriarchal monotheism. Drawing on archaeological evidence, textual criticism, and sociological analysis, I contend that the rejection of divine plurality—especially the marginalization of the feminine divine associated with Asherah—was not merely a doctrinal refinement, but part of a broader project of identity consolidation, legal centralization, and elite authority formation.

1. Pre-Exilic Yahwism and the Canaanite Matrix

Before the Exile, Israelite religion operated within the shared symbolic universe of the Ancient Near East. Most scholars agree that early Yahwism is best described as henotheistic or monolatrous: Yahweh was worshipped as Israel’s primary god, without a systematic denial of the existence or efficacy of other deities.

The very name Israel—commonly interpreted as “He who strives with El”—preserves this inheritance. El, the high god of the Canaanite pantheon, appears in early Israelite personal names and poetic traditions, suggesting not a replacement but a gradual assimilation of divine attributes into Yahweh.

This pluralism extended beyond elite theology into popular religious practice. Archaeological finds such as the 8th-century BCE inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud invoke blessings “by Yahweh and by his Asherah,” indicating that many Israelites understood Yahweh as accompanied by a divine consort. Whether Asherah was conceived as an independent goddess or as a cultic symbol associated with Yahweh, her presence reflects a religious imagination that accommodated divine multiplicity, fertility symbolism, and localized ritual practice.

Such popular religion was not necessarily perceived as heretical prior to the late monarchic period. Rather, it mirrored agrarian rhythms and household cults in which women likely played significant ritual roles, suggesting a more diffuse and socially embedded form of religious authority.

2. Exile as Theological Rupture

The Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the First Temple in 586 BCE constituted a catastrophic rupture. Within the dominant ancient worldview, military defeat typically implied divine abandonment or inferiority. For the Israelite elite—priests, scribes, and prophets—this posed an intolerable theological dilemma.

The response that emerged, particularly in exilic and post-exilic texts, was innovative rather than conservative. Defeat was reinterpreted not as evidence of Yahweh’s weakness, but as proof of his absolute sovereignty. Yahweh had not lost to Babylonian gods; he had used Babylon as an instrument of judgment.

This reframing marked a decisive step toward exclusive monotheism—an interpretive audacity born not of serenity, but of survival instinct. Texts associated with the Deuteronomistic tradition and exilic prophecy increasingly assert not merely Yahweh’s supremacy, but his uniqueness. Other gods are demoted—from real divine beings to forbidden rivals, and eventually to empty fictions. While this shift did not occur uniformly or instantaneously, the Exile accelerated a trajectory toward ontological monotheism that would be further solidified in the Persian period.

Crucially, responsibility for the catastrophe was internalized. The Exile was explained as the consequence of covenantal failure: improper worship, foreign alliances, and violations of divine law. This interpretation preserved Yahweh’s power while imposing a new emphasis on obedience, law, and textual authority.

3. The Marginalization of the Feminine Divine

Within this emerging theological framework, the continued presence of divine plurality—especially in the form of a feminine consort—became increasingly problematic. Biblical texts compiled or edited during and after the Exile consistently portray the worship of asherim as a central offense provoking divine wrath.

This polemic operated on multiple levels.

a. Theological Exclusivity

A solitary, universal deity could not easily coexist with a divine partner. Asherah, whether understood as goddess or symbol, represented relationality, fertility, and generative balance—qualities that complicated the emerging image of Yahweh as a singular, transcendent lawgiver. Her elimination served to protect divine uniqueness and to simplify theological authority.

b. Institutional Power and Patriarchy

The removal of the feminine divine also had social consequences. Post-exilic religious life increasingly revolved around institutions—Temple, Torah, priesthood, and scribal interpretation—that were monopolized by men. The Priestly Code, along with reforms associated with Ezra and Nehemiah, reinforced genealogical purity, male lineage, and centralized ritual control.

While it would be reductive to posit a crude one-to-one causation between theology and social hierarchy, symbols are never innocent. The symbolic landscape mattered. A cosmos governed exclusively by a male deity—King, Judge, and Father—provided a powerful legitimating framework for male-dominated authority structures on earth.

At the same time, traces of resistance and complexity remained. Feminine metaphors for Yahweh persist in prophetic literature, and women continue to appear as prophets and patrons. These survivals underscore that the transformation was contested rather than total.

4. Identity Formation and Survival

The post-exilic turn toward exclusive monotheism, legal rigor, and textual centrality was not merely repressive; it was adaptive—an act of cultural self-hardening under historical pressure. By redefining Israelite identity around covenantal law rather than land, temple, or monarchy, exilic thinkers constructed a portable form of religion capable of surviving diaspora.

In this sense, the rejection of earlier syncretism—including the marginalization of Asherah—functioned as a strategy of boundary maintenance. Distinctiveness became a means of continuity.

Conclusion

The Babylonian Exile did not invent Yahweh, monotheism, or patriarchy ex nihilo; it refined them in fire. Rather, it intensified and reconfigured existing currents within Israelite religion. Faced with political annihilation, exilic elites reinterpreted catastrophe as divine judgment, elevated Yahweh from national god to universal sovereign, and narrowed acceptable religious expression in the name of covenantal fidelity.

The suppression of divine plurality—particularly the feminine—was central to this process, not simply as a theological adjustment, but as part of a broader reorganization of authority, identity, and power.

This transformation led directly to a strict form of post-exilic Judaism, defined by (1) ontological exclusivity, (2) patriarchal institutional control, and (3) a reliance on a strictly interpreted textual canon (Torah) as the new, portable center of identity.

© Tom MacPherson 2025

12/10/2025

Modern political and economic interests combined with colonial history have actively exploited and weaponized the identity-forming religio-ethnic lore held about the God El, Elohim, Eli or Allah.

This lore, though concerning the same foundational God, presents different and conflicting versions used to justify modern rivalries.

M.E. Conflict = Political Power + Economic Interests + Colonial Legacies + Ethnic Narratives + Religious Mythologies (as mobilized)

12/03/2025

Shades of Power:
Banks Control Credit, Religious Bodies the Social Capital, and Intelligence Agencies the Classified Channels.

Public officials, donors, the clergy, bankers, and underground channels, including criminal organizations, form reciprocal relationships — favors flow both ways.

The history of high-level politics, global finance, and influential religious and criminal organizations consistently demonstrates the existence of reciprocal networks where favors, influence, and transactional relationships flow in both directions.

Scholars have long described how these institutions form interdependent networks—not through a single orchestrated design, but through the practical realities of shared interests, proximity to power, and the exchange of favors or information.

Within these networks, relationships often blur the lines between public authority, private wealth, and informal channels. Politicians consult financiers; religious leaders maintain ties with donors and officials; intelligence services interface with law-enforcement and diplomatic bodies; and private actors sometimes occupy space between legitimate enterprise and illicit opportunity.

The result is a landscape where influence travels in many directions, and where transparency is unevenly distributed.

Several historical episodes illustrate how such opaque intersections become visible only when they fracture.

High-profile cases throughout history sometimes illuminate cracks in this system. The mysterious deaths of figures such as Roberto Calvi and Michele Sindona —both bankers with connections to the the Vatican, the mafia and the Italian government, the still-debated circumstances surrounding the deaths of Canadian pharmaceutical magnate Barry Sherman and his wife, and the enduring cultural fascination with Marilyn Monroe’s final days demonstrate how unresolved or controversial events tend to attract speculation about the hidden pressures surrounding individuals connected—directly or indirectly—to political, financial, or social power structures.

These cases do not prove a unified plot, but they underscore how opaque environments create fertile ground for unanswered questions.

More recent events, including the ongoing legal examinations of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities and the public scrutiny of decision-making processes within the Trump administration, similarly highlight how sensitive information, personal leverage, and institutional relationships can become part of broader narratives about power.

Investigations, journalists, and court proceedings continue to uncover how access, privilege, and secrecy overlap in ways that challenge public trust.

Rather than pointing to a single explanation, these episodes suggest how vulnerable individuals and institutions can become when concentrated power, limited transparency, and high-stakes information converge.

The recurring pattern is not the existence of one hidden network, but the persistent difficulty democracies face when attempting to regulate the intersections of money, influence, and discretion. In this sense, the most enduring lesson is not about conspiracy, but about the importance of accountability mechanisms—and the consequences when they fail to keep pace with the systems they are meant to oversee.

Taken together, these patterns suggest that revelations in contemporary cases rarely represent anomalies but rather reflect enduring structural logics.

I have not yet examined the Epstein files, but it is reasonable to hypothesize that their contents will prove neither anomalous nor bewildering; rather, they may reveal the predictable entanglements of high-profile political actors, clerical authorities, financial elites, intelligence operatives, strategically positioned intermediaries, and the architects of transnational criminal networks.

© Tom MacPherson 2005

11/28/2025

Justice That Kills and Death That Punishes: How Abrahamic Religions Normalize Violence as Moral Order

The Abrahamic traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—stand among the most influential forces in shaping human civilization. Yet their historical entanglement with state power has repeatedly produced a model of justice where killing is sanctified, punishment is eternalized, and violence is framed not merely as permitted, but as morally required.

The resulting system collapses the distinction between law and theology, between the courtroom and the altar. What emerges is a civilization built on a paradox: justice that kills, and death that punishes.

I. Religious Authority and State Power: A Historic Convergence

1. Divine Right and Absolute Rule

For centuries, political authority in societies shaped by Abrahamic traditions rested on a simple premise: rulers governed by God’s mandate. To resist a king, a caliph, or a priest was not merely a political act—it was sacrilege. Political authority thus inherited the infallibility of the divine, creating a fertile climate for despotism. Once power is sanctified, it becomes unquestionable.

2. Theocracy as Civil Order

When religious law becomes civil law, the categories of sin and crime collapse into one. Transgressions once overseen by priests are now enforced by the state’s coercive apparatus. This convergence normalizes punishment as a sacred obligation. In such systems—from ancient Israelite codes to medieval Christendom to contemporary Islamic theocracies—capital punishment is not a regrettable necessity; it is religious duty, divinely legislated.

3. Moral Control Through Fear

The fusion of religious conscience with state violence creates a powerful psychological instrument: the internalization of moral surveillance. Social conformity is no longer enforced merely through prisons, but through doctrines of eternal damnation. Humanity’s most intimate anxieties—the fear of death and the fear of meaninglessness—become tools for political and clerical domination.

II. Divine Justice and Eternal Punishment in the Abrahamic Worldview

1. Scriptural Narratives of Retributive Justice

Sacred texts contain abundant depictions of divine wrath: the Flood, the plagues of Egypt, the annihilation of S***m, the conquest narratives of Joshua, the apocalyptic visions of Revelation. These are not metaphors in their original context. They are moral exemplars, teaching that God enforces justice through destruction.

In the Torah and later jurisprudence—rabbinic halakha, Christian canon law, Islamic fiqh—numerous offenses were historically punishable by death. The severity of the penalty communicates the perceived sacredness of order—and the threat of chaos.

2. Hell as the Ultimate Penal Colony

The doctrine of Hell, especially in Christian and Islamic eschatology, crystallizes the second half of the formula: death that punishes. It promises infinite torment for finite offenses, turning morality into a cosmic carceral system. Eternal punishment extends the reach of divine authority far beyond earthly life, cementing obedience through metaphysical terror.

III. Violence as Sacred Duty: Historical and Contemporary Expressions

1. Crusades:

Launched as holy wars sanctioned by papal authority, the Crusades exemplify how religious absolutes can baptize geopolitical expansion. Killing ceased to be murder and became an act of salvation—provided the victims were labeled infidels.

2. Inquisitions:

Through torture, ex*****on, and censorship, the Inquisitions operationalized theology as state police. To dissent was to sin; to sin was to threaten social order; thus, the heretic became a criminal whose death preserved the community’s purity.

3. Jihadist Violence (Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS):

Militant interpretations of jihad similarly fuse sacred purpose with political violence. Su***de missions (not described explicitly here) and terror attacks—including the destruction of the World Trade Center—are framed as acts of moral purification and cosmic struggle. The perpetrators view themselves not as criminals, but as agents of divine justice.

4. Christian Nationalism and White Supremacy (K*K, extremist militias):

American Christian nationalism bears the same imprint: a belief in divinely ordained hierarchy, chosen peoples, and sacred violence. The K*K’s appropriation of Christian symbolism—crosses, scripture, ritual—illustrates how religion can be weaponized to sanctify racial terror and social domination.

5. Ongoing Middle Eastern Conflicts:

The modern Middle East remains shaped by this legacy: sectarian absolutism, prophetic territorial claims, and political systems grounded in religious legitimacy. Whether in Israel–Palestine, intra-Islamic conflicts, or fundamentalist insurgencies, theology remains tightly interwoven with national myths and territorial ambitions.

In each case, religion does not merely accompany violence—it moralizes it.

IV. A Humanist Call Beyond Sacred Violence

If Abrahamic traditions have historically offered systems where justice kills and death punishes, the alternative must be a moral philosophy grounded not in divine threat, but in human flourishing.

1. Humanism begins with a simple but revolutionary shift:

Authority must justify itself through reason, compassion, and mutual dignity—not through claims of divine sanction.

Where religion demands obedience, humanism demands understanding. Where theology promises punishment, humanism promises responsibility. Where sacred texts enshrine hierarchy, humanism affirms equality. Where divine justice kills, human justice must protect life.

2. The challenge before humanity is therefore moral and civilizational:

To build societies where ethics arise from empathy, not fear; where law arises from reason, not revelation; and where the value of a life is not measured by conformity to ancient dogma, but by our shared capacity for freedom, creativity, and care.

In an age still haunted by holy violence, humanism stands as the only credible path forward—not merely as a philosophy, but as a moral imperative.

© Tom MacPherson 2025

Global Liberal Blog

01/02/2026

12/24/2025

12/14/2025

12/10/2025

12/03/2025

11/28/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category