The Contemporary Body Politic
Plato’s political theory of “the Body Politic” represented its changes in polis as decay; inspiring Martin Luther’s warranted revolution against Christendom and the authority of the Roman Catholic Church; yet went on to influence a continuous revolution against the oppressor, a persistent disease whose pathogenesis is Marxism. Marxism is a disease a result of both the Protestant Reformation and Athenian political theory; it was Plato’s theory that led to Luther’s action, thereby leading to Karl Marx’s recipe for revolution. Expounding from this, various interpretations ensued, leading to a continuous violent revolution evident in contemporary times.
Classical Polis
The classical body politic was a political theory developed in Ancient Athens by Plato, used to describe the decay in the polity; historian Alan Ryan writes of the origin of the corpus polis or the “body politic” stating that Plato’s theory was, “[d]ecay follows a cyclical path,” (Ryan, A., p. 66). Ian McLean’s 1996 Oxford Dictionary of Politics defines the term polis as the “[t]ransliteration of the Greek word for ‘city‐state’. In Plato and especially Aristotle, polis has the normative connotation of the best form of social organization,” (McLean, I., p. 379). Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “corpus” as “[t]he body or substance of anything,” (Handler, J.G., p. 112). Plato rejected contributing to Greek politics, and instead heeded an explanatory warning for posterity to witness and acknowledge the empirical decay of the body politic, (Ryan, A., p. 566). Plato viewed democracy as a potential state, a den for demagoguery; whereby self-proclaimed leaders could supersede the authority of government, thereby transforming it into tyranny (Ryan, A., p. 5). These evident transitions represented decay and disease, deviating from the Greek polis (Ryan, A., p. 6). Plato considered administration, rejecting politics; he declared Ancient Greece’s thriving polis to be a referenced state of polity, deeming it to be “the body politic.” As historian Alan Ryan denotes, Plato’s political theory became the trend; Greek historian Polybius (200BC-118BC) later reinforced Plato’s theory, and “inherited the classical view that change is decay;” scribing the notion of a traditional Greek polis to represent the general well-being of the body politic, (Ryan, A., p. 123). Aristotle wrote in Chapter 10 of his work “The Politics,” that “[t]he division of the body politic into classes…originated in Egypt: the reign of [Egypt’s] Sesostris is long anterior to that of [Greek’s] Minos, (Aristotle, p. 271). Aristotle argued that “the citizens must have a supply of property,” adding that “that property ought to belong to citizens, if we consider that the farm-workers ought to be slaves or barbarian serfs,” (Aristotle, p. 272). Despite the negative aspects of Greek polis, like that of normalizing slavery, androcentrism, and classist hierarchy; it served to provide a solid foundation for perceiving the body of citizens in its most prosperous form as a point of reference; namely, the Body Politic. Plato’s political theory has inspired policy since before Christ, and remains a point of absolute reference in America, enabling the establishment, maintenance, and sustainability of the exceptional Constitutional Republic the nation holds. The contemporary politic must incorporate absolute core values from the Christian doctrine to facilitate the application of the classical body’s core values of righteousness to the hodiernus polis.
The Reformation
Martin Luther (1483-1546) set forth the Reformation in 1517; Luther’s dissent against the Roman Catholic Church by many accounts designated the start of a new era, ascending Germany to prominence after three hundred years of discount, (Engels, F., Loc. 6037). Martin Luther described Rome in 1520 as “to rob men of their money and their faith in God;” it would be these two grievances that would rally enough support to bring Germany out of the Mediæval age, applying consistent revolution to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, (Martin, L., Dillenberger, J., p. 250). Political rebellion laid the groundwork for a historically merited revolution; initiating a perpetual ideology that it takes a consistent revolution to enact change, remove politics, establish administration, and achieve utopia. After nearly a century, the Mediæval era was ended through Protestant’s persistent revolution; bringing an end to Christendom. This divided law into two categories; eternal (divine) and temporal (artificial), (Martin, G.R., p. 49). Luther’s revolutionary victory preserved the mindset that temporal laws of governance were malleable by revolution; the culmination of events led Germany, France, England, et al., to a progressive degradation accelerated throughout Modernity, ultimately resolving in discord throughout the 1800s, namely producing the diseased bodies politic, through the incorporation of process philosophy, (Martin, G.R., pp. 214-215)
Political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973) cites Martin Luther’s position on government, as Luther declared, “God made the secular government subject to reason because it is to have no jurisdiction over the welfare of souls or things of eternal value, but only over bodily and temporal goods, which God places under man’s dominion,” (Strauss, L., p. 478). It was Luther’s 95 Theses that initiated popular appeal in the public square; Mark Greengrass, professor emeritus at the University of Sheffield, writes, “Luther’s Reformation summoned up more powerful political and social forces in support of change whose alliance coalesced in German-speaking Europe,” (Greengrass, M. p. 310). According to the Library of Congress, in 1521 Martin Luther was declared a heretic outlaw by the Holy Roman Empire, and ordered his capture dead or alive, (LOC). At the hearing Luther stood before the court and stated “I cannot and will not recant anything, for it is dangerous and a threat to salvation to act against one's conscience…Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me. Amen," (LOC). Despite man’s attempt to silence Luther, God was not finished with him yet; a kidnapping was staged where Luther was positioned to finish his writings on behalf of the Lord, (LOC). After 1,000 years, revolution had begun to emancipate man from its own tyrannical authority of the pope as the deposing of political figures ensued (Reeves, S., p. 50). Historian Carter Lindburg writes that “Luther's understanding of justification was undergoing a radical change,” (Lindburg, C., p. 111).
German historian Ulinka Rublack writes that “Protestantism argued that the papacy as an institution was heretical and corrupt, it briefly empowered laypeople as legitimate interpreters of the faith and then forged new church hierarchies,” (Rublack, U., p. 3). Although this was seen as revolution by the Roman Catholic Church, it was actually revision and reformation, as the church’s hierarchy had exalted itself over its own citizens. Historian Mark Greengrass writes that, “Luther became convinced that the Roman hierarchy was a tyranny in the service of the Antichrist,” (Greengrass, M., p. 308).
American Author and Pastor Sam Waldron notes that a “system of caesaropapism prevailed at that period;” adding, “from 1536 to 1541 Geneva was governed by a regime in which the State claimed to direct both the religious and the civil life of the citizens,” (Waldron, S., p. 18). The attack on the Roman Catholic Church’s papacy continued until 1689 when the Baptist Confession of Faith was written and distributed to the public (Reeves, S., p. 6). After constant revolution, the Protestant faith had prevailed, deposing Christendom as a means of division. Historian Glenn Burgess believes that “[t]he idea of revolution has come to be seen by some historians and philosophers as essentially a religious one, a secularized version of the millenarian, apocalyptic, and gnostic strands that are part of Christianity,” (Burgess, G., p. 95).
Martin Luther’s revolution inspired the furthering of Plato’s theory, before establishing the early modern body politic, later transitioning to the diseased body politic; as Alan Ryan accounts, “republicanism was a reaction to early modern absolute monarchy and the rise of the modern nation-state,” (Ryan, A, p. 499). Ryan adds that despite the revolutionary philosophy and conceptualization of politics “[t]here was no unified German state until the late nineteenth century,” (Ryan, A., p. 499).
The Reformation paved the way for Modernity, where Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan described the early modern body politic in greater detail, employing Christian Commonwealth, and defining brain, joints, nerves, and necessary organs, “giving motion to the whole body;” Hobbes went on to write that “the pacts and covenants, by which the parts of this body politic were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that fiat, or the let us make man, pronounced by God in the creation,” (Hobbes, T., p. 7-11). Hobbes’s theory differed from Locke’s, in that “there are no property rights prior to the state, all property relations being determined by the sovereign,” (Lopata, B.B., p. 204). Conversely, Locke believed “that all men have a natural right to private property,” asserting that private property exists apart from the state, (Lopata, B.B., p. 204). On property, John Locke stated “that he who appropriates Land to himself by his Labour, does not lessen but increase the common stock of Mankind,” (Locke, J., p. 20). Hobbes’s theory of social contract included the notion that “covenants extorted by fear are valid,” adding that self-preservation and restraint were essential duties, writing, “no man can transfer, or lay down his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment,” (Hobbes, T., pp. 92-93). Hobbes prophesied a “decay of sense,” denoting that “[i]magination is nothing but decaying sense;” by this, he alluded to the future onset of disease emerging subsequent to the exalting of subjective ideology within the conceptual body politic (Hobbes, T., p. 11). The contemporary body politic must take on these essential duties and acknowledging their own position on property, whether Hobbesian or Lockean; every individual must independently address their contribution to political decay eroding American society and collectively dissent against these authoritative obstacles.
The Diseased Bodies Politic
Philosophy has always influenced political leaders, this was the initial fear of Ancient Greece upon sentencing Socrates to death for speaking his alternative thought, (Ryan, A., p. 946). The origin of the diseased bodies politic derived from adjunctive political theories of the depraved; these included Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). These minds segued into the diseased bodies politic inspiring Fredrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), Georges Eugène Sorel (1847-1922), and John Atkinson Hobson (1858-1940); each of these men metastasized the ethos of Marxism, inundating various methods of its expansion, weaponizing the minds of the people against the notorious bourgeois, (Martin, G.R., p. 225). Dr. Glenn R. Martin (1935-2004) contends that “Marxism is dialectical materialism, which Marx derived by taking the dialectic from the German philosopher, Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), and fusing it with the materialism of the German philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872),” (Martin, G.R., p. 225).
Karl Marx’s open hatred of religion greatly influenced politicians, leading to the rise of nefarious fascist and communist leaders such as Mussolini, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il Sung, (LOC). Marx declared in his Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right that religion was “the opium of the people;” adding that “[t]he abolition of religion, as the illusory happiness of the people, is the demand for their real happiness,” (Marx, K., pp. 15-16). Georges Sorel’s 1906 Reflections on Violence placed a state of revolutionary violence within the minds of the proletariat working-class (Sorel, G. E., Loc. 2696; OJP). Leon Trotsky who wrote “the theory of the permanent revolution was formulated by me even before the decisive events of 1905. Russia was approaching the bourgeois revolution,” (Trotsky, L., p. 3377). Friedrich Engels wrote of the ethnic background of the Reformation that “[t]henceforth for three hundred years Germany disappeared from the ranks of independent, energetic progressive countries. But after the German Luther, arose the French Calvin. With natural French acuteness he showed the bourgeois character of the revolution in the Church, republicanised and democratised,” [Engels, F., Loc. 6037). The result was a permanent violent revolution; one that discriminated against enthicity and individualism; since its inception, the Marxist momentum has remained consistent, still observable in contemporary polity; though it has caused a transmutation from its original state.
Historian Carter Lindburg denotes that Ludwig Feuerbach “twisted Luther's thought to serve his own apotheosis of man,” declaring himself to be “Luther II;” Feuerbach was accused of being an atheist, similar to Luther’s charge of heresy, yet both remained diligent in their faith and personal relationship with God, (Lindburg, C., pp. 107-109). Lindburg adds that Feuerbach’s “initial commitment to Hegel and Hegelianism may be paralleled to Luther's early commitment to the Church and its theology;” reporting that in 1839 Feuerbach revolted against Hegelian philosophy; similar response to Luther’s attack on the “scholastic theology of glory,” political revolution again enacting a cultural shift, (Lindburg, C. p. 112). Dr. Glenn R. Martin contends that “Feuerbach presaged the existence of process philosophy,” adding that the shift from absolute Supernaturalism to subjective process philosophy “was articulated in a very influential book by the German philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), published in 1843, titled The Essence of Christianity,” (Martin, G.R., p. 211-213). The diseased body politic produced conflicting variations of thought, weakening the resilience of the polity and the morale of its citizens; Karl Marx wrote in his Theses on Feuerbach, that Feuerbach did “not understand the meaning of ‘revolutionary,’ considering himself to be exceptionally well-versed in the subject of revolution, (Marx, K., p. 348).
Theologian Stephen Strehle wrote on September 2011, Vol. 65, No. 1 that “Hitler says he ‘carried Schopenhauer's works with [him] through the whole of the first World War,’ and acquaintances like Ernst Hanfstaengl and Leni Riefenstahl say he was enamored with Schopenhauer and often referred to his ideas,” (Strehle, S., p. 125). Schopenhauer believed his ethical teaching to be in accordance with Christianity, and held Spinoza in high regard, declaring him “a very great man,” although to Schopenhauer’s dismay “Spinoza could not get rid of the Jews; quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem,” (Schopenhauer, A., p. 1773). Historian David Ian Hall wrote that Hitler’s favorite musician, Richard Wagner read Schopenhauer’s “Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (‘The World as Will and Representation’) four times in less than a year between 1854 and 1855,” (Hall, D.I., p. 158). Hall discloses that uninformed critics of Wagner excuse Hitler’s responsibility, disbursing democide to the musician, alongside German philosophers of the era (Hall, D.I., p. 158). While the views of the diseased bodies politic were at times grotesque and repugnant, no philosopher was directly responsible for mass democide nor physical violence; a position that must be taken into account; Hitler was not a philosopher, he was the epitome of tyranny that philosophers had historically predicted and sought to warn us against. To stand for free speech means building immunity from resistance to all encountered diseases within the contemporary body politic. Stephen G. Fritz, a professor at East Tennessee University, asserts that Marx’s writing partner Fredrich Engels was likely responsible for Hitlerian ideology; Engels wrote of “racial trash” in 1849, “[u]ntil its complete extermination, or loss of national status, this racial trash always becomes the most fanatical bearer there is of counter-revolution,” (Fritz, S.G., p. 164). Fritz concludes that it was Engels who predicted that “the next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties but also entire reactionary peoples to disappear from the earth. And that too is progress,” (Fritz, S.G., p. 164). Karl Marx advocated the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest;” Fritz argues that the Marxist doctrine was built upon Engels’ foundation of this divisive hatred and division in polity, paving the way for Hitler’s destruction, (Fritz, S.G., pp. 163-164).
Hegel similarly held distaste for Jewish religion, writing that “[t]he Jews possess that which makes them what they are…consequently the individual has no freedom for itself,” (Hegel, G.W.F., p. 4085). Hegel added that “on that account we do not find among the Jews any belief in the immortality of the soul;” declaring Jewry as distinctly different from other religions, (Hegel, G.W.F., p. 4086). Karl Marx quoted German Hegelian philosopher and theologian Bruno Bauer, writing that “[c]onsequently he [Bauer] correctly infers: ‘The Jew gives mankind nothing, when he despises his narrow law, when he abolishes his whole Judaism,’” (Marx, K., p. 67). French historian and philosopher Georges Eugène Sorel’s Reflections on Violence furthered Marxist and Nietzschean philosophy, advocating Syndicalism; this sought to unionize workers, by creating a myth of violent revolution, then calling for a strike; (Sorel, G.E., Loc. 2595). Comparing syndicated revolutionaries to valiant heroes of war, Sorel spoke of attainable “glory,” to be achieved through collective revolution, (Sorel, G.E., Loc. 2635). Sorel accepted many forms of antibourgeois thought, writing on behalf of the proletariat; historian Alan Ryan writes that, “Sorel called Marxism ‘social poetry,’ and meant it as praise. He did not think of Marx as a rationalist. Insisting that Marx’s sketch of the socialist utopia was not a fully drawn blueprint, he praised Marx’s ability to inspire emotional longings and a passion for action,” (Ryan, A., p. 935). Sorel’s position that ‘Marx’s socialism wasn’t fully developed,’ or was not ‘executed properly,’ remains a stagnant point held by self-proclaimed socialist-communists of the contemporary age.
On Friedrich Nietzsche, Georges Sorel wrote that “we have to examine the values which escape Nietzsche's classification and which treat of civil relations. Originally magic was much mixed up in the evaluation of these values; among the Jews, until recent times,” (Sorel, G.E., Loc. 2455). Despite his acclaimed rhetoric against Jewish religion,
Britannica cites Georges Sorel in 1897 as;
a passionate defender of Alfred Dreyfus, the Jewish army officer who was wrongly convicted of treason, but he became disgusted with the way the parties of the left exploited “the Affair” for their own political advancement. By 1902 he [Sorel] was denouncing the Socialist and Radical parties for advocating democracy and constitutionalism as a road to Socialism, (Britannica).
Sorel described “[t]he analogy which exists between strikes accompanied by violence and war is prolific of consequences” declaring war as the facilitator of antiquity republics; “the ornament of our modern culture,” (Sorel, G.E., Loc 2682). Sorel sought to bring a “terminal conflict,” believing that “[t]he conception of the general strike, engendered by the practice of violent strikes, admits the conception of an irrevocable overthrow. There is something terrifying in this which will appear more and more terrifying as violence takes a greater place in the mind of the proletariat,” allowing for unionized revolution, (Ryan, A, p. 935; Sorel, G.E. Loc. 2693). Sorel’s call to arms unknowingly played a role in influencing both Mussolini’s dictatorship and Hitler’s mass democide; though philosophy cannot be blamed for Mussolini’s nor Hitler’s execution of these ideas, nor for Hitler’s attack on the Jewish religion. Socialist philosopher George Orwell defined nationalism “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests,” (Orwell, G., p. 2). The spectre of communism has taken on many forms in the contemporary age, yet all derived from the publicity of Marxist ideology.
Not enough space permits the expansion of discerning the nature of the antisemitic rhetoric in many of the political theorists within the diseased bodies politic, yet by these accounts one can perceive the ethnic division within the unfiltered political thoughts of philosophers. What Luther began with the merited division of Christianity, set forth a series of subdivisions transposing influence on the politics of maleficent totalitarian leaders. This is not the fault of the philosophers, who by their own disclosure hold personal reserves; but the fault of the depraved who succumb to satanic influence, attempting to excuse their actions through their origin. This does not excuse the antisemitic rhetoric found in historic political philosophy, yet served as inspiration for those who committed mass democide commanded by totalitarian dictators. It remains not the fault of the political theorist, but that of the executor; Alan Ryan denotes that Mussolini and Hitler’s “fascism was an amalgam of ideas culled from Hegel, Saint-Simon, Marx, Nietzsche, and Sorel,” (Ryan, A., p. 936).
Unlike Hobbes, Locke, and Luther; Marx promoted the idea of centralized revolution to abolish private property; he declared in his commissioned Communist Manifesto, “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property,” (Marx, K., p. 18). This foundational principle is widely overlooked by self-declared contemporary Marxists, who rely on private property to sustain their existence. Historian David McLellan writes that Marx “devoted himself to finding out why the revolutionary movement of 1848 had collapsed and when such a movement might be expected to reoccur,” (McLellan, D., p. xiv). Fredrich Engels wrote that “the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things,” (Engels, F., Loc. 487). Similar to Luther’s anointed dissent, Georges Sorel wrote that “[i]t is to violence that Socialism owes those high ethical values by means of which it brings salvation to the modern world,” (Sorel, G.E., Loc. 2664).
Beyond Marx, Bolshevik Vladimir Lenin and his successor Joseph Stalin were influenced by John Atkinson Hobson; according to Hobson, imperialism was contingent on the ruling class’s poor distribution of wealth, (Kruger, D.A., p. 254). Alan Ryan asserts that communist philosophy, like that of Marxism, was correlative in Plato’s original body politic; with the convergence of public unanimity, administration was essential, yet politics were unnecessary, (Ryan, A., p. 771). Political comparativist Samuel P. Huntington dissents against this position, declaring that politics are a deeply personal connection to a healthy state; writing, “[p]eople use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity” (Huntington, S.P., p. 27). Hobson proclaimed that “a portion of mankind may be said to constitute a nation if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and others;” his statement produced the empirical dichotomy that has remained historically prominent in Communist-Marxist philosophy (Hobson, J.A., p. 8). Karl Marx promoted the idea that it took revolution, the proletariat against the bourgeois, to achieve radical change in government; promising the attainment of an illusory eternal universal utopia, (Ryan, A. p. 785). Dr. Glenn R. Martin writes that “of all of the expressions of process philosophy to date, the Marxist expression has had the greatest global impact,” (Martin, G.R., p. 224).
Following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that led to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), Fredrich Engels’s prophecy proclaimed in 1848’s Communist Manifesto would denote of Hitler’s rise to power; Engels wrote that “[t]he Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation,” (Engels, F., Loc. 487).
Although Hitler found influence from diseased political thinkers, he detested Marxism as shown in the vulgarian writings of Mein Kampf (Ryan, A., p. 835). Hitler declared anything he opposed to be Jewish, creating a democidal dictatorship, whose criterion was ethnicity, representing his lack of critical thinking and mental disease; writing “[t]he Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture,” (JVL). Engels, the co-founder of Marxism, had written nearly a hundred years earlier that of the English bourgeois, a lack of concern “whether his working-men starve or not, if only he makes money. All the conditions of life are measured by money, and what brings no money is nonsense, impractical, idealistic bosh. Hence, Political Economy, the Science of Wealth, is the favourite [sic] study of these bartering Jews,” (Loc. 4674). Engels may have appropriated antisemitism in the minds of his readers, yet it was Hitler who acted out these atrocities, rather than challenging it with Christian philosophy and promoting an inclusive union. Hitler built a covenant with Satan, perverting his interpretations of radical revolutionary existential philosophers, in hopes of achieving wealth, status, power, and a place of significance in history. Due to his alliance with Satan, Hitler the mass-murdering politician has remained preserved by God as a significant figure comparable to Lucifer’s demons, reinforcing the eternal word of the Lord, that we are fallen and depraved and must be regulated through self-regulation through utilizing objective truth.
According to the New York Times, Hitler gifted Mussolini the entire collection of Nietzsche’s works (NYTimes). Historian Alan Ryan writes that World War II marked the end of political theory, and so began the century of ideology (Ryan, A., p. 912). In contrast to Ryan’s position, the diseased body politic, alongside political theory did not end, but ceased to be acknowledged. Through the century of ideology, Marxist political ideology has gone on to influence the formation of nations following Karl Marx’s commissioned “Communist Manifesto” (Marx, R., p. 575). On December 2nd, 1949, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) wrote that North Korea had succumbed to a diseased polity, writing; “Kim [Il Sung] is neither brilliant nor adequately educated, but he has proven himself highly favorable to Stalin. The Japanese surrender was a golden opportunity for both Stalin and Kim to Communize Korea,” (CIA). The disorder at the 38th Parallel led to further disease in the contemporary body politic, (NEH).
The Contemporary Body Politic
Martin writes that this included three revolutions the first was “the shift from theo- to anthropocentrism—from God-centeredness to a man-centeredness;” while the second was “the shift from a presupposed absolute to a presupposed process philosophy or view of existence,” while the third was, “the shift from an antithetical to a synthetic mentality and way of thinking,” (Martin, G., p. 217). Dr. Martin defines Process Philosophy as a diseased polity that “emerged out of the failure of Romanticism-Transcendentalism,” and led to disastrous ideologies like that of Marxism (Martin, G.R., p. 175). These three revolutions are examples of process philosophy representative of the Communist-Marxist infiltration of governments around the world, observable in U.S. polity and its contemporary body politic, (Ryan, A., p. 867). While its pathogenesis can be linked to the revolutionary success in the Reformation, its dissent erupted perpetual revolution in the minds of the depraved; these ideas materialized in weak-minded dictators shielded by their own body of lies, (Ryan, A., p. 928). Marxism transitioned to Fabian socialism in the contemporary age; Dr. Glenn R. Martin writes that “[i]n 1932, the Fabian socialists took over the Democrat Party, making it their political vehicle and, therefore, in the United States, it is the Democrat party which is the vehicle for socialism,” (Martin, G.R., p. 324).
Attacks on religion, free speech, and other inherent rights, derive from the Marxist ideology of the false dichotomy between the proletariat and bourgeois; in reality a far greater number of regimes exist (Ryan, A., pp. 941-942). Marxism, Communism, and Socialism are in fine warped interpretations of social equality, disproportionate to the Christian doctrine’s universal equality; despite the external diversity of man, we are internally created identical in the image of God. The execution of these ideas of revolution requires mens rea or a guilty state of mind, a trait unconducive to a ruling class; God exalts those who reside in His Spirit above their natural state of fallen complacency.
In Genesis 27 (TPT) we are reminded of imago dei, that “God created man and woman and shaped them with his image inside them.” We are created in the image of God; there exists no hierarchical system of class, no divine rulers, and no subservient plebians in the Kingdom of Heaven. The job of governments has historically been the deposing of that authority, in order to yield power in their favor, against His image and the Biblical doctrine ascribed to the very revolution that began the break from feudal authority. God consistently reminds us of His sovereignty, no matter the condition of the body politic; though there may be conflict, turmoil, and disparities, the light of the Lord remains our provision. Through the wars, conflicts, and transitions in government experienced since the original inception of Plato’s theory, the Body Politic has undergone a consistent state of decay, manifesting into empirical disease observable in the contemporary polity. We are reminded that it is His shield of blood that harbors us from Satan’s distractions; these contagious fears include climate change, engagement in proxy wars, threats to U.S. national security, disease, attacks on free speech and free thought, government lockdowns, and the depraved influences of culture.
His Holy Spirit reminds us in Luke 21:9-13 (TPT) that “‘There will also be many wars and revolutions on every side, with rumors of more wars to come. Don’t panic or give in to your fears, for these things are bound to happen. This is still not the end yet.’ Jesus continued, ‘There will be upheavals of every kind. Nations will go to war against each other, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be terrible earthquakes and seismic events of epic proportion that result in famines in one place after another. There will be horrible plagues and epidemics, cataclysmic storms on the earth, and astonishing signs and cosmic disturbances in the heavens. But before all of this happens, you will be hunted down and arrested, persecuted by both civil and religious authorities, and thrown into prison. And because you follow me, you will be on trial before kings and governmental leaders as an opportunity to testify to them in my name.’”
Despite the influence philosophers hold on political leaders, critical scholars cannot blame philosophers for the actions and atrocities produced under a nation’s political leader and their policies, (Ryan, A., p. 950). This same mentality led to the execution of Socrates, and wages war on citizens’ individual sovereignty, (Ryan, A., p. 758). Nietzsche wrote the maxim that “[p]osthumous men — myself, for example — are worse understood than opportune, but are better heard. More strictly: we are never understood — therefore our authority...,” (Nietzsche, F., p. 2779). The Latin legal maxim nemo est supra legis declares that nobody is above the law; this includes the alternative thoughts of philosophers. Dictators who materialized the diseased bodies politic went outside of their jurisdiction, actualizing their own perverse interpretations of the words of these political theorists, (Ryan, A., p. 818). Critics cannot blame diseased thought, nor the diseased bodies politic for the actions of another individual; as citizens of polis we must take accountability for our personal decisions; free speech does not appropriate violence. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and Kim Il Sung exalted themselves above their own citizens, treating them as subjects; while neglecting hold a duty to control their own actions, (Ryan, A., pp. 838-839). None of these tyrants can abdicate responsibility for their terrible acts by placing blame on externally witnessed violent thought, literature, or speech. Violence begets violence; yet political theory begets a healthy body politic; violent theories need not be executed, nor revolutions enacted to appreciate philosophy, (Ryan, A., p. 919). Extreme radical perspective give the reader greater awareness of their own duty to ensure personal moderation, individual responsibility, and self-restraint, (Ryan, A., p. 838). Witnessing a violent war documentary does not warrant the viewer to launch a violent attack upon their own society; just as reading violent political theory does not commission the reader to commit acts of violence. Should a tyrant execute violent ideas, they must be held fully accountable for their actions; omission of the actualization the diseased bodies politic and its political theory builds an immunity to the adjunctive political theory that exists within the contemporary body politic, (Ryan, A., p. 41). Unlike Ancient Athens timocracy, it is not landownership that is required to be citizens of the state, but upholding the inherent duty to observe personal behavior and its contribution to collective polity, (Ryan, A., p. 67). Moreover, observing the government and its effect on society as the allusive body politic, namely the Contemporary Body Politic; from this, America must maintain its own polis no matter the circumstance. The contemporary body politic has inoculated itself against supernaturalism; as Pastor Robert Jeffress reminds us, “[w]hen people no longer love God, they can no longer love themselves rightly,” (Jeffress, R., p. 2).
Conclusion
The resounding principle is that Plato’s political theory remains essential in modern times, though the classical body cannot be redeemed; we must utilize the benefit of the historic trials and errors to re-establish the public conception of contempory body politic(Ryan, A., p. 47). The nation’s resilience relies on good policy aimed at improving a well-informed body of citizens; this happens through individual restraint and personal accountability for one’s actions (Ryan, A., 997). While it can be argued that philosophers are responsible for placing meticulously crafted dangerous ideas into the public square, the sovereignty of God decrees the ability to create ideas and speak our thoughts, no matter their potential interpretation, (Ryan, A., p. 1004). This does not merit infringement on another’s sovereignty through intimidation or execution of thought; albeit human beings cannot and should not regulate each other’s thoughts, but that of our own; Pastor Robert Jeffress writes that “after you vote, trust in the sovereignty of God,” (Jeffress, R., p. 3). After a century of ideology, to consider the contemporary body politic as a physical body, that can be regulated as one would balance their own partitions, a state of American polis can be redeemed from its previous state of disease, (Ryan, A., p. 912). It is up to the individual citizen to regulate their own actions in accordance with an objective reference, be that of an allusion of anatomy; individually contributive to a collective polity.
–October 9th, 2023
Bibliography
Aristotle. (1984, 2013). The Politics (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Britannica. (Accessed on October 8th, 2023). Georges Sorel, Biography & Facts. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georges-Sorel.
Burgess, G. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations (Oxford Handbooks). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
CIA. (1949). The Identity of Kim Il Sung. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00809A000600270269-4.pdf
Engels, Friedrich. (1844). The Collected Works of Friedrich Engels (Unexpurgated Edition) (Halcyon Classics). Halcyon Press Lt. Kindle Edition.
Fritz, S. G. (1990). Reflections on Antecedents of the Holocaust. The History Teacher, 23(2) 161–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/494920
Georges Sorel. (1914). Reflections on Violence. Red and Black Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Greengrass, Mark. (2015). Christendom Destroyed. (The Penguin History of Europe). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Hall, D. I. (2017). Wagner, Hitler, and Germany’s Rebirth after the First War. War in History, 24(2), 154–175. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26059823
Handler, J.D., J.G. (1994). Ballentine’s Law Dictionary: Legal Assistant Edition. Lawyers Cooperative Publishing.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (2019). The Collected Works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel. e-artnow. Kindle Edition.
Hobbes, Thomas; J. C. A. Gaskin. Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics) (p. 92). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Hobson, John Atkinson. (1902, 2018). Imperialism: A Study. Making History. Kindle Edition.
https://books.apple.com/us/book/prevailing-worldviews-of-western-society-since-1500/id1451331222
Huntington, Samuel P. (1996, 2011). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order. Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
Jeffress, R. (2020) Praying for America. FaithWords, Hatchette Book Group: New York, NY.
JVL. (Accessed on October 9th, 2023). Hitler, A., Mein Kampf. Jewish Virtual Library. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/excerpts-from-mein-kampf.
Kruger, D. H. (1955). Hobson, Lenin, and Schumpeter on Imperialism. Journal of the History of Ideas, 16(2), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/2707667
Lindberg, C. (1970). Luther and Feuerbach. Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 1, 107–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003687
LOC. (Accessed on October 8th, 2023). Internal Workings of the Soviet Union - Revelations from the Russian Archives. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html
Lopata, B. B. (1973). Property Theory in Hobbes. Political Theory, 1(2), 203–218. http://www.jstor.org/stable/191194
Luther, M., Dillenberger, J. (1962). Martin Luther, Selections From His Writings. Anchor Books, Random House: New York, NY
Martin, G.R., (1973, 1978, 1984, 2006). Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500. Glenn R. Martin. Triangle Publishing: Marion, Indiana.
Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich. (1848). Delphi Collected Works of Karl Marx (Illustrated). (Delphi Series Seven Book 23). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
McLellan, D.; Marx, Karl; Friedrich Engels; (1992). The Communist Manifesto (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Neh. (Accessed on October 8th, 2023). Korea and the Thirty-Eighth Parallel. The National Endowment for the Humanities. https://www.neh.gov/article/korea-and-thirty-eighth-parallel.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1888). Delphi Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche (Illustrated). (Series Five Book 24). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
NYTimes. (Accessed on October 7th, 2023). Nietzsche to Mussolini. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1943/08/22/archives/nietzsche-to-mussolini.html
OJP. (Accessed on October 8th, 2023). Reflections On Violence. Office of Justice Programs. https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reflections-violence.
Reeves, Stan. (2012, 2023). The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English. Founders Press. Kindle Edition
Ryan, Alan. (2012). On Politics: A History of Political Thought: From Herodotus to the Present. Liveright. Kindle Edition.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. (1909). Delphi Collected Works of Arthur Schopenhauer (Illustrated). (Delphi Series Eight Book 12). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
Simmons, Brian; Ricker, Cheryl. (2020). The Passion Translation. New Testament Masterpiece Edition (2020 Edition): with Psalms, Proverbs and Song of Songs (The Illustrated Passion Translation) (The Passion Translation (TPT). BroadStreet Publishing Group LLC. Kindle Edition.
Simmons, Brian. (2020). Genesis 2020 edition: Firstfruits. (The Passion Translation). BroadStreet Publishing Group LLC. Kindle Edition.
Strauss, L. (1963, 1972, 1987). History of Political Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Strehle, S. (2011). The Nazis and the German Metaphysical Tradition of Voluntarism. The Review of Metaphysics, 65(1), 113–137. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23055685
Trotsky, L., et al. (1930). Communism. Selections from Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky. Andrii Ponomarenko. Kindle Edition
Waldron, Sam. (2022). Political Revolution in the Reformed Tradition: A Historical and Biblical Critique. Free Grace Press. Kindle Edition.