------

Subject: The 3 major obstacles to the Logos Kingdom come on earth

(Tues, June 14, 2011)

(approx. 4325 words, 8 pp.)

(or)

(or)

(or)

The over-all goal in this series of "Kingdom come" essays is a step-by-step procedure for setting up the literal "Kingdom of God come on earth," which can be done as we are "seeing," so to speak, by overcoming 3 major remaining obstacles to this ends, namely, 1.) "legal positivism" in most major law schools, 2.) closed-minded Epicureanism in most colleges and universities, and 3.) "higher criticism" in most mainline seminaries.

To continue from Part II-A...

What we saw in Part II-A is that presumably 99 people out of 100 who have not been negatively influenced by "the blind leading the blind" (as Jesus says) can "see" (by common sense) there can be a real "travesty of Justice" because there is a real Justice, metaphysically and ontologically speaking, and it is associated with (and at times even identified with) a traditional notion of God, and this idea of there being no real Justice, metaphysically and ontologically speaking, and not being able to see it is the foundational starting point of "legal positivism," which tends to take 2 forms over the last 200 years, one of the Radical view where Justice is meaningless words on paper to exploit others, and the Liberal view of moving beyond real transcendent Justice and rights to a supposedly higher, irrational vision of "love only," usually with accompanying positive utopian political rights.

And we ended last time with Barack Obama’s story and experiences in law school, essentially confirming this analysis, though he sees this emergence of "legal positivism" of one stripe or another as a good thing, and not a bad one. My experiences in elite schools dealing with law and philosophy of law were in fact very similar to President Obama’s.

I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the late 1970s, which at the time was considered by many to have one of the top 3 philosophy programs in America, as I recall, by some ratings anyway, but top 3 or top 10 does not really matter for this analysis. The point is I was a student at a major school where the "ruling elite" (not necessarily a bad thing?) go to be "educated." In those days at the U of C you would sign up for 7 or 8 courses and attend the first class or two of each to see what the course content would be and then pick 3 or 4 courses to actually take for your quarter course load.

It was a pretty good system. It is hard to remember all the details now, but at one point I signed up for a "philosophy of law" course, and I went to the first class to see what it was going to be about, and the professor had outlined what he saw to be the 4 or 5 leading theories of legal positivism. As I recall Liberalism and Marxism were two, but I cannot remember what the other 2 or 3 were. That is to say for that professor one had to decide which theory of "legal positivism" to pick of the 4 or 5 in order to render literally politically correct "Justice" in that particular political system. (You should be smelling a rat here, or at least a fish.)

However, in that first class one perspective student raised his hand and asked what about the legal theory of "Natural Law," or, that is, the "higher moral law," and the professor answered bluntly we were not going to consider that since everyone already "knows" (or "sees" I would say) that it is false.

In effect, the only question to be considered was which political ideology not based on any "higher moral law" is the state going to impose on 99% of the common people. In essence, the professor was saying let’s discuss what "rights" we the corrupted "legal positivist" 1% ruling elite should "create" in order to give those rights to the common people of America in our benevolence and intellectual genius since there are obviously no real, Rational, or ultimate "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." That is a given!

I did not take the class. As a mere common person I did not feel worthy to sit in on such weighty questions and important decisions to be made by America’s privileged corrupted "legal positivist" 1% rulers. I felt such classes were only for future Supreme Court Justices, and I knew I would never be able to attain that level of intellectual sophistication and would not be able to join in the worse than toilet paper versus "lives" to mean "love only" debate. I was heart broken. My future in American law and philosophy was over!

What is the point here?

The entire "legal positivism" thing is nonsense or will eventually wind up there, and it is tyranny of the first order since the state supposedly creates "rights" and really can do no "wrong" ultimately (but only "wrong" to some faulty ideological theory) since there is, supposedly, no real "higher moral law" leaving the only question to be which "rights" should the state create, or, that is to say, which theory of "legal positivism" should be adopted? But the corrupted "legal positivist" 1% rulers and indeed entire law schools caught up in any theory of "legal positivism" cannot "see" the utter foolishness of all of this, indeed just the opposite!

For them not "seeing" the state is absolute and can ultimately do no real "wrong" is "blindness." This is a classical Biblical case of calling evil good and good evil. And to really confuse matters further, if that is possible, in order to further, specifically, both the Liberal (statist love-only) and Marxist (statist race-based egalitarian) agendas of no "real higher moral law" or that is to say no real Justice and no real "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as the ultimately absurd foundational point of their theories, the Liberal and Radical adopt the terms "social and economic justice" for their theories. Why?

Because such terminology has great rhetorical appeal, and in fact just as my old Chicago professor had suggested, one picks one’s preferred theory of "legal positivism" and then slaps the labels "rights" and "justice" social, economic or otherwise on it. The point today is usually when someone says "social and economic justice" they mean Marxism or raced-based Marxism, literally, though sometimes they mean political and legal Liberalism (that is, the state can and should do everything for you). But they do not mean there is a real Justice metaphysically and ontologically speaking of Cicero and the Founders, rather they only mean some ruling may be "unjust" or inconsistent thinking in relationship to Liberalism or Marxism or some other faulty humanist no "higher-moral-law" ideology.

The refreshing thing about the old Soviet Union is they were not subtle and deceiving like this. They basically said outright the state is "God," and you are not, and what we say is "good for the people" is "good for the people," get used to it, or go to the gulag.

Compare this to the circus of our Senate hearings of the last 30 years for Supreme Court nominees. "Madam, do you promise to be true to not being true to the original intent of the Constitution unless you think it might be a good idea to do otherwise on Tuesdays or Thursdays, or if you have to take your dog to the vet?" "Yes, Senator, I do." And the Senator replies, "That is all I wanted to hear! You are clearly a part of our corrupted "legal positivist" 1% ruling elite, and you realize that we and the state and the Court are infallible, and we can do no wrong. But which theory of ‘the state can do no wrong’ do you hold to?" And the nominee replies, "Does it really matter, Senator?" "No," says the Senator, "I guess not; you are clearly the woman for the job, unless you are just pretending to be a woman to fill a politically correct quota, although if that is the case you could unquestionably fill the Constitutional transgender quota for the Supreme Court."

The fact is today for the corrupted "legal positivist" 1% ruling elite this nonsense is brilliant stuff, and the entire Democrat leadership and half the Republican elite are up to their eyeballs in it, quite literally in the realm of the spirit and with what they "see" as supposedly brilliant and what follows once one starts down the ultimately absurd path that the state can do no wrong really, and it is not accountable to God and His Righteousness and Justice because God and His Righteousness and Justice do not exist when you have blind or deceived eyes to so "see" it.

In my humble opinion the entire Democrat Senate and maybe half the Republican Senate should probably not be tarred and feathered (figuratively speaking of course) and run out of Washington on a rail, but certainly removed from office and positions of power and influence, and in that case the nation can be restored and the Constitution re-established and the "Kingdom come" to that part of one branch of government for generations to come, if not forever. Please note: inevitably law school professors and Senators are numerically few and a tiny, tiny percentage of the population, so in this sense one might properly call them an "elite" for good or bad. However, when that small percentage buys into faulty thinking (to common sense to 99 people out of 100) they are a corrupted ruling elite.

A little history is in order here: After the 19th century this whole "legal positivism" thing moved forward (actually backward of course) in America on a parallel track with "higher criticism" or Liberalism in the Church with its "new" God incapable of the supernatural, and its "new" amoral Christianity with its "new" Jesus and "new" Gospel. And in law this is specifically formulated as "legal positivism" with no real "higher moral law" or, that is, "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," and a "new" ultimately amoral (no real rights or Justice) Constitution inevitably develops or "lives," as its proponents say, and begins to be taught in all the law schools.

The fact is the blind, depraved or deceived ruling 1% elite in law, government, education and religion are, as all of us, fallen creatures, and "legal positivism" in law and government, especially, has an enormous appeal to our fallen natures, if you are a judge or official in the state. Rare is the non-theist in a place of great authority who can resist the lure of "legal positivism." Satan whispers in your ear "You are as gods, and you are brilliant to ‘see’ it, and you can do no wrong!"

It is truly a comforting thought to think you can do whatever you feel like as a judicial, legislative or executive tyrant, and you can, even in theory, do no real wrong, and there is no real God to whom you are accountable! If you in self-righteousness think you would not fall to the allure of the "legal positivism" of Liberalism or Radicalism if you were in a position of great power in law or government, you may be deceiving yourself! Jesus did not in the desert of course, but without the power of God in you, it is almost impossible not to fall to such temptations or to be able to stand against "the wiles of the Devil," especially for those ignorant of his "devices." Satan is too good at what he does, and the allure and pressure of absolute and unrestrained power is too great. Destroying America’s law schools with utter folly and idiocy was one of Satan’s greatest achievements ever in my opinion rivaled only by his corruption and destruction of higher education and his corruption and destruction of the mainline Christian denominations, as we will see in later essays in this series.

Also, to be fair here to Satan’s tragic victims...

Also, to be fair here to Satan’s tragic victims, and to really understand how this played out, one needs to understand most of the early "higher critics," who rejected traditional notions of God and Christianity, as well as most early "legal positivists," who rejected traditional notions of a real "higher moral law," were not initially as radical as I am making them out to be here.

I think both the "higher critics" for Christianity and "legal positivists" of all stripes for law saw themselves as "fixing" Christianity and "fixing" law as part of the progress of man’s knowledge and understanding of things on earth. This is, as many have pointed out, the truly nutty idea of "the myth of (inevitable) progress" (and it is yet another Satanic lie), namely, that all change is necessarily "good" and "progress". This is utterly ridiculous, of course, but it clearly applies to the mess of "legal positivism" (as well as "higher criticism"). Why?

The Founders thought there was a "Law of Nature and of Nature’s God," and the legal positivist new view is this is not the case, so it must be true because it is a new view, and so it must be better! This is a variation on the old bathroom graffiti, "Eat excrement 50 million flies can’t be wrong." And so in law, with time, things will get very nasty, yet again, and the downhill slide and eventual jurisprudence meltdown will occur.

Initially, the early "higher critics" and "legal positivists" thought or at least said they could co-exist with the traditionalists in law, government, education and even religion. But this co-existence in all of these areas begins to break down in the 1920s and 1930s. It is easy to see why.

If one guy in law thinks the Constitution no longer applies for today (for whatever the "legal positivistic" reason) or thinks in religion the Bible is a myth, and another guy thinks the Constitution and the Bible are still true and relevant, the two guys are going to have a hard time co-existing in a law school or seminary on what is to be taught to the students, and one side is going to win out, and one side is going to lose, for better or worse, you might say.

So, if you tell law students that as judges they will be bound by a real "higher moral law" of Rights and Justice from God as expressed in our founding documents, this will have a radically different impact on the students and future judges than telling them that there is no real "higher moral law" to be bound by (the Founders were wrong). Teaching "legal positivism" to the students (as Obama and I were taught) will leave them free as judges (or Senators) to do whatever seems like a good idea to them based on love, positive rights, helping people, redistribution, egalitarianism, Marxism, race-based Marxism, furthering your career, etc.

With time this will have a devastating impact on the legal system of "rights" and eventually destroy it as we saw in the closing decades of the 20th century. And so here we are in 2011 with the United States Supreme Court as a virtual Theater of the Absurd, at least in terms of what presumably 99% of people "see" to be true who are not indoctrinated into some form of "legal positivism" of no real "higher moral law." However, today many people are indoctrinated, by humanist design of the law and education system, no less, and this vastly complicates the political process.

The complicated political process...

In a normal world, all else being equal, Tea Party Senatorial and even Presidential candidates should get 99% of the vote, since a major part of the Tea Party movement is a return to traditional notions of Constitutional law and government, completely forsaken by all Democrats and many Republicans. But, of course, we today do not live in a "normal world." We live in a crazy world. And "all else" is not "equal".

A substantial percentage of the population has been brainwashed by this legal positivist nonsense, and must be deprogrammed and virtually all the media is controlled by Liberals and Radicals, all of whom are some stripe of "legal positivist" by definition in theory (there can be no real "travesty of Justice"), no less, as well as in practice with activist judges. And a significant percentage of the population benefits indirectly from the corrupt system. What does this mean?

It is probably not realistic to expect to get more than 60 to 70% of the vote in political elections in the near future in most states against the overtly absurd and morally depraved "legal positivists." However, in a generation or two, it is not utopian to approach a 99% figure in my opinion because that is what I would figure is at least the number of people who would hold that a court, judge or state is capable in theory and in practice of a real "travesty of Justice."

This type of clear false teaching on essential matters of a given discipline, in this case "legal positivism" in the law schools (and as will see later "higher criticism" in the seminaries) starts slowly and somewhat innocuously, but Paul says it will spread like a cancer, and Wesley says it is like these people have a disease they are spreading, and you can become infected with it.

Paul even says such amoral ideas of "legal positivism" and "higher criticism" are so irrational, so nutty, and ultimately so absurd that they come from demons, but, still, you think you are progressing by "seeing" such things as people do not really have minds, or that there is no "higher moral law" or that the Bible is necessarily a myth because it has the supernatural in it, but in actuality you have completely lost all Rationality and common sense on these issues. (Not "seeing" there is a mind-brain problem is to me more just dull-witted than morally depraved or demonic, as such, and it is specifically not addressed by Paul to my knowledge, but Paul clearly believes in the reality of the soul, and this is, indeed, often linked to the mind and mind-body problem in philosophy.)

Again, the early "legal positivists" and "higher critics" had no intention whatsoever of destroying the law schools and seminaries. They just wanted to be allowed to teach along with everyone else, but with time the traditionalists in both disciplines are going to be slowly displaced, die off from attrition, or even be removed, or not given tenure, etc. or not even hired in the first place.

This ultimate absurdity and "legal positivistic" outrage is what the 1% ruling elite law students have learned for several generations now as a self-evident given, no less, in virtually every major law school in America! Big mess obviously, and all financed by the people they rule over as serfs, and these rulers rule as virtual dictators or unaccountable absolute monarchs who can do no real wrong. Tough luck for the people!

Look, let’s get practical, we are going to have law schools, and we are going to have seminaries, obviously, but in the big picture they are financed by the populace or the various denominations, as the case may be, but it is a bit outrageous that both are teaching what are absurdities to 99% of the people who support them.

We will look at the seminaries in detail in later essays, but they are mentioned here to show they have the same parallel, very un-Godly corruption of common sense (and of "seeing" it and "not seeing" it) that is going on in the law schools. In history the non-traditional no real "higher moral law" or God or traditional God associated with the law at first started slowly and seemingly innocuous, only wanting a seat at the table, then equal time in the discussion, and then to be prominent, and then to be taught exclusively without even a consideration of traditional views in law and religion as well as in education, as we will see next time.

I am not making this stuff up...

I am not making this stuff up. Years ago, I read a book written in mid 20th century by a major American jurist who said at the time that the Natural (moral) Law was being displaced and even thrown out of the law schools, and he thought it was crazy, and that it was not going to end well nor end where the people advocating it thought it was going to end, and of course it didn’t end well with the United States Supreme Court as a virtual Theater of the Absurd (with Bill and Steve getting married, etc.), and you will note this is almost exactly what Spurgeon had said in the late 19th century concerning religion and its "downgrade" and ultimate complete collapse as we saw in the Revolution essays. We will look at how this process developed specifically in the seminaries in later essays.

However, the point remains I think, namely, if you had told virtually any legal positivist at the beginning of the 20th century that "legal positivism" would end with abortion and homosexual "rights" they would have said, "No way!"  But Satan, the author and architect of this demise of law as well as the Christian religion and higher education generally, knew exactly where things would end up once one throws out traditional notions of rights and God and starts on this fundamentally flawed downhill path, and though the complete decline and fall of American law and the law schools would take several generations, it will be essentially complete by the 1970s, as President Obama and I learned in elite graduate education back in those days.

May the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration rest in peace.

May the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence "rest in peace." I think they should, at this point, be removed from the National Archives and given a proper funeral and burial with a full 21 gun salute and then be sealed in a commemorative tomb in Arlington National Cemetery for the next 1000 years. We owe the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence at least a proper burial for their almost 200 years of service to our nation.

To be very clear here: I wish to go on record as being totally against a funeral pyre or cremation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence at this point, if for no other reason than we should have them available in their tombs if we at some point in the distant future wish to bring them back to life for service to the nation once again, the current entire Democrat Party and apparently half the Republican leadership notwithstanding of course, but such is the political and jurisprudence situation of our time...

In concluding summary, the ultimately absurd idea (to presumably 99 normal people out of 100) that there is no real "higher moral law" in the first place in order for the judge or state to be bound by it, and hence able to do true "wrong," in the second place is taught in virtually all law schools in America except a mere handful (no doubt almost all conservative Roman Catholic?), at least according to an article I read in The National Review 30 years ago, no less. I would assume the situation has done anything but improve since then.

What does this mean? If you want to get an A in class at law school and ultimately get yourself stamped "approved" for a degree in American law and in order to enter into the corrupted 1% ruling elite, you have to buy into the absurdity of "legal positivism" and the blasphemy of the state as "God."  Or, you will be deemed "politically incorrect" and uncertified and given your walking papers. And in fact the situation is actually far worse with so-called "politically incorrect" education as we will see next time.

So, one down, "legal positivism" in the law schools and its impact on law and government, two to go, close-minded Epicureanism in the colleges and universities and its impact on education, next time, and then "higher criticism" in detail in the cemeteries or so-called "seminaries" and its impact on Christianity and Judaism in an essay or two after that. I actually went to a major mainline cemetery as a youth, as well, believe it or not, and we will deal with that issue after doing the problem of Epicureanism in the colleges and universities, next time so join us then Tuesday, June 21, 2011.