(/\ /\ Click above to go Home, or Back to MainSection, or to other Tuesday Reports.) 

------

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

(Tues., October 4, 2011)

(approx. 4895 words, 9 pp.)

(or)

(or)

(or)

As we saw last time the question remains, how do we as a practical matter achieve the final victory in the realm of the spirit over the truly irrational, undesirable, faulty theories of "legal positivism," closed-minded Epicureanism, and "higher criticism"? To answer that question one must ask or determine the process of how we got here to this point in the spiritual nature of things, and we will do this by examining a specific case in point representative of the process of teaching as true and good and right things that are naturally and clearly false and not good and not right to perhaps 99% of people under normal circumstances!

I am going to give an analysis here which even someone like the great atheist Bertrand Russell also asserts, so it is not particularly Christian or simply my personal opinion. Here’s the deal. At the beginning of the 20th century Dewey and a relatively small group of people decide (actually tend to "see" without argument) that atheism is true. They were not so-called "agnostics," which many people are, that is, a person who simple does not know if there is a God or no God, rather they were outright committed atheists because they had become convinced that the existence of God is incompatible with modern science, but as almost all atheists they had no real Rational arguments for their belief.

Indeed, to my personal knowledge the only atheist who tries to argue Rationally or intellectually for the non-existence of God is Bertrand Russell. John Dewey, as virtually all atheists I am aware of, just assumes atheism is true and goes to work with his various theories, most of which are not very good Rationally speaking and many of which are downright terrible and false, but not all. But, regardless, for Dewey as most committed atheists generally atheism itself is true, proven, and that is the end of the matter (even more so than Darwinian evolution, as such, which we have already looked at).

A sure-thing atheism is not true of course, but it is for Dewey and his friends, who want to so teach the teachers to teach all the children, and part of this clearly irrational higher vision done in the name of Rationality is also to teach that a simplistic Darwinism is completely true, proven and that is the end of the matter. Why? Because Dewey and friends, that is, the people who are teaching the teachers that probably taught you, think that if people start finding out that there are problems, resolvable or not, with Darwin then their entire atheist, amoral or Epicurean, and no "higher moral law" for the state agenda will collapse.

Is this true? Yes, I think it is, but the point is though Dewey and friends think their entire atheist, amoral or Epicurean, and no "higher moral law" for the state agenda is Rational, it is not open to discussion, and it will itself be taught as true, proven and that is the end of the matter.

However, by contrast, Richard Rorty, Dewey’s postmodern next generation follower, simply states that the entire atheist, amoral or Epicurean, and no "higher moral law" for the state agenda is not "Rational" but a matter of irrational belief, and the people who control the state and teach the teachers will determine what all the children will be indoctrinated with, specifically not only things such as Darwin is completely true, completely proven and that is the end of the matter but also whatever else is relevant for the agenda of the totalitarian state as part of the atheist, amoral or Epicurean, no "higher moral law" for the state larger worldview.

This radical humanist (say) 10% corrupted ruling elite of the (say) 1% corrupted ruling elite, that is, the people who determine what teachers will teach and who actually write the textbooks for the teachers, train future Senators or Supreme Court Justices, etc. would appear (I would speculate) to be no more than .001 of the nation, and this is why a powerful federal government, especially in the area of education, can be so dangerous, and it can literally have an agenda to teach people that black is white. Let’s be honest, this is a potential "evil."

Being an atheist, as such, is not necessarily an "evil," as such, of course, but wanting to take over the state or educational agenda of the nation in order to teach people nutty, amoral, atheistic blatant non-truths, that is, falsehoods as "truth" and as "truth" that is not to be questioned is an "evil," and it is what the novel 1984 is about, and it is the totalitarian beast state of the book of Revelation, and the perfect example in our time is generally taken to be Stalinist Russia, which in effect Dewey held to be a Rational "good" though in actuality it was an "evil" of course, while Rorty was under no such delusion; he simply stated that same state structure to be an irrational "good" of absolute totalitarian power, if you could only "see" it, as it were.

Both Dewey and Rorty are Marxists (Rorty more openly than Dewey), and they of course belong to the Obama school that the Constitution, itself, is a literal evil or possible "pact with the Devil" (p.115 in Audacity) as part of what I call the worse than trash paper crowd. Why? Because it is an impediment for their agenda both for their totalitarian state and for their self-professed education agenda to indoctrinate the entire populace with atheism, radical Epicureanism, and state as God.

This is not a "conspiracy theory" rather it is an open agenda, and by the 1970s Dewey and friends had pretty much pulled this off in education evidenced by the fact that you, my dear reader, are just absolutely certain that it is a fact, even scientific fact (no less), that Darwin is completely true, completely proven and that is the end of the matter, and, hence, not open for discussion, etc., and I would say Dewey and Rorty pulled off their agenda for the state and law as well given the election of Obama, who is often openly contemptuous of the Constitution and our national traditions and who is openly a follower of Alinsky and Wright (and no one thought anything of it).

This would clearly seem to mean that in all likelihood if you went to college, or law school or seminary after the 1960s, you were not consciously taught falsehoods and even absurdities by your teachers, but the people who taught those falsehoods and even absurdities to your teachers probably did indeed have a conscious Radical humanist agenda to do revision history or to "fix" things, so to speak, in law, education, and Christianity and Judaism. How do we know this? Because if you go back and read the literature people like John Dewey (and the "higher critics" and "legal positivists") say so themselves, and this means many teachers after the 1970s could not teach you the Truth if they wanted to because they, poor things, had simply never been exposed to it (by the presumably 1% corrupted elite of the corrupted elite)! What a mess.

I am a student of history, and this absolute nonsense of Dewey and Rorty, and of Wright and Alinsky, and of the nutty politically correct educational system of close-minded Epicureanism, of "legal positivism" and of "higher criticism" with its Christian and Jewish Liberalism and of Obama and the Democrat Party and half the Republican Party will not go on forever, it just does not happen in history.

Even if there is not Revolutionary change, which there may well be, with all of these people being totally discredited or even thrown out of positions of power and influence, there will be change with time regardless, I think, because such Radical movements simply run out of gas with time, as the old Soviet Union did.

Why did the old Soviet Union fail? It was operating on the premise, indeed virtual religion, that Marxism was true, and that it would work well to produce a prosperous society, and that hard-core Marxism was "good," or, that is, in effect moral. And, of course, it was none of these things, and that became obvious to everyone with time, and in the end even the Communist Party ruling elite did not believe their own ideology!

This means almost certainly one would think that our grandchildren or great grandchildren will see in their lifetimes a traditional America and a traditional education system, legal system, and Christian religion prevail, if we do not see some sort of Revolutionary change before then, which is possible of course, but maybe not likely because America is too far gone because the Devilish nonsense has done its work and done it well for over 100 years in law, education, government and religion and few people under the age of 60 or 70 have any knowledge whatsoever of America’s heritage in many of these areas, sad to say.

And the only way to have a true Revolution is from the bottom up with the overwhelming majority of people unwilling to finance and put up with the absolute nonsense and outrages that we are seeing and have seen for the past 50 years in law, education, government, and religion. However if "legal positivism" of no "higher moral law," close-minded Epicurean hedonism, and "higher criticism" of Christian and Jewish Liberalism bite the dirt, then the whole superstructure of the Leviathan entitlement Welfare State with its highly corrupted legal and educational systems will implode, presumably, and while the Tea Party’s winning a handful of House seats in 2010 was a good sign, it may be a bit like the Russian "revolution" of 1905, it did not really change anything but it was a harbinger of real change and revolution to come 12 years later, but in this our case it may be 2, 4, or 6 years later.

It seems to many people, and I think correctly, the mainstream media is the key for the corrupted ruling elite (which is presumably no more than 1% of the population) maintaining their power. However, the mainstream media is definitely not "evil" (in my opinion) rather they are themselves (as their teachers) victims and products of the corrupted education system and because of this they cannot, as most other Americans, any longer think Rationally and objectively about anything, that was Dewey’s and friends’ goal, and again by the 1970s this was pretty much accomplished in all the colleges and universities, (law schools and seminaries), and virtually everyone in the mainstream media received their college education since the 1970s, and hence the mainstream media is as clueless as everyone else, bless their hearts, to the history and traditions of America in the areas of law, education, government and religion. Not complicated.

And this is on open display in Obama’s Audacity of Hope book, where he does sort of a mainstream media news analysis of himself and his struggle for re-making America in a Black Liberation Theology image, as a supposedly normal and even inspiring exercise. For me this is totally surreal because this is totally crazy and outrageous and, again, because seemingly no one thinks anything of it!

This is not proverbial rocket science here, folks. The only hope for America is to create an alternative media that is not clueless to the history and traditions of America in the areas of law, education, government and religion, and the only way to do that is to create an alternative educational system, which, for its part, is also not clueless to the history and traditions of America in the areas of law, education, government, and religion, and that educational system will then produce journalists who are capable of doing Rational and objective analysis. And then we can move fairly easily to Logos-based Christianity and Logos-based government and law. Piece of cake.

Today, of course, the mainstream media works like the old Soviet news agency Pravda (which means "truth" and was anything but) used to work in the old Soviet Union. The mainstream media controls the nation by giving "reality" to the politically correct or, that is, close-minded Epicurean, "legal positivist," Christian "higher critic" party line, and in politics this is the Democrat party line usually.

When we no longer have a media pretending like all this utter nonsense in law, education, government and religion makes "Rational" sense, the whole edifice of the humanist society created over the last 100 years by the "legal positivists," the Epicureans, and the "higher critics" will implode, presumably. When it implodes, it will seem sudden and dramatic, of course, but in reality it will not be sudden and dramatic at all! It will be the result of years and years of discrediting "legal positivism," Epicureanism, and "higher criticism" (the theoretical foundations of the Leftist corruptions in law, education, government and religion), and it will be result of years of continuously exposing of their obvious and at times even absurd fallacies.

There may be a weakness in our Constitutional system, which I think Jefferson saw, and that is all the Devil has to do to control America is convince 5 people on the Supreme Court that black is white, if you only have eyes to "see" it. Some have suggested one way around this problem is a Constitutional amendment to have a possible two thirds (or even majority perhaps) Senate override provision. The fact is the Supreme Court went bad before the Senate and the Democrat Party as a whole did by being infected with stealth "legal positivist" activists being appointed to the bench.

Before being activist became politically correct you had to hide it to get on the bench, and in truth probably most of the controversial activist ruling of the pre-1970s would probably have been overridden by a traditional American Senate before it went politically correct in the 1970s. Remember there used to actually be conservative Democrats! Pro life, pro prayer, pro heterosexuality, pro gun, pro private property, pro free enterprise, pro family, etc. And, hence, that Senate would have presumably overridden most Liberal activism, but no longer of course.

In fact, today being a Liberal activist is now considered a qualification and even requirement for being on the bench for all Democrats and actually many Republicans. How times have changed! However, this is not all bad. If the major requirement for being on the Supreme Court today is not believing in the Constitution, then the Radical Left will inevitably implode with time because this is utterly ridiculous, and really outrageous when you get right down to it.

I recall when the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a right in the Massachusetts Constitution for homosexual marriage, a conservative commentator quipped that the Court "found" a right in the Constitution that had been overlooked for two hundred years, but in reality that Court was not looking for such a right "in" the Constitution. That is the whole point of being an "activist," and buying into the absurdity of activism in theory.

This is so crazy that the average person cannot believe that it is happening nor get their mind around it. This is much like presumably 99% of people (who have not been indoctrinated otherwise) simply cannot believe that 1% cannot "see" we have minds or that Mother Teresa is actually a better person than Adolf Hitler. For the "activist" the whole point of being a judge is to diss the Constitution!

What could be more obvious! How long can this whole absurd agenda in law, education, government and religion go on? Not forever clearly? And it has presumably almost run its course?

How many people who have not been indoctrinated otherwise really think it is perfectly Rational to say the universe created itself out of nothing, which is the atheist-humanist view of our time (a tad bit "postmodern," you might say?), and it is the anti-Christian view. On this issue there is a specifically Christian view of the Founders (a Creator God), and then there is a non-Christian, even anti-Christian view of Liberals and atheists, and the anti-Christian view is clearly nuts, (if not simply false as the other humanist idea of an infinite and self-existent universe).

So, the Christian view is Rational, and the non-Christian view is not, and I personally find it hard to believe that even 1% of the population would hold to the non-Christian view on this unless indoctrinated to do so. This means it is entirely possible that virtually every person in the entire country and the entire world in a Kingdom Era except the most hardened atheists, hedonists, absurdists, and tyrants, will become a Christian with time. I mean literally 99.9% of people. (Think about it.)

If there is no demonic darkness and deception to cause people to "see" absolute absurdities as "true" and "brilliant" in law, education, government, religion, and even science and life generally, then presumably "everybody" will get saved. (Think about it.)

You do not have to die and go to heaven, if you don’t want to, but a time could easily come where "nobody" in their right mind (so to speak) rejects an offer of heaven and eternal life. Why? It is too foolish and irrational and even absurd not to accept the salvation offer, which also gives a new heart and indwelling Spirit as well as heaven.

The Gospel will simply triumph with time because it is true, a better life, and you get heaven when you die, and you avoid the other undesirable place, and the Gospel is Rational, while the non-Christian view is not true, is a lousy selfish hedonistic life, and you come under the Judgment of God when you die, and it is flatly irrational to say in complex conspiracy that Jesus did not walk out of the grave, or to say that Mother Teresa is not really better than Adolf Hitler, or to say that the universe created itself out of nothing, or to say that DNA created itself out of dirt, and in order not to be able to "see" these things the Bible says you have to be either blinded by the Devil or indoctrinated otherwise by Dewey, Rorty and company, whose stated goal is to so indoctrinate you otherwise. And so here we are, trying to restore law, education, government and the Christian religion. Can it be done? I think so. I do not think it will happen overnight, but it can and will be done I think, almost inevitably with time...

In my opinion modern humanism, that is, atheism supposedly based on Reason was a tough philosophical opponent (the toughest ever), but postmodern humanism in law, education, government and religion based ultimately on absurdity and irrationality is not such a tough opponent because it concedes the point that it is ultimately absurd and irrational, as its very reason for being.

Look at it this way: Marx and Dewey want to be totalitarian dictators over us controlling every aspect of lives supposedly based on Reason and for our "good." Rorty their self-professed postmodern descendant says he also wants so to be a totalitarian dictator over us controlling every aspect of lives, not because of Reason, but because he feels like it! He basically pulls a superman Nietzsche on us. Forget all the phony flowery rhetoric and sloppy deceptive thinking about Reason.

Rorty basically says I want to go with a statist God and control everything you say, do, or think in all areas of life in law, education, government, and religion etc. This is truly a hard sell to say the least. And Barack Obama, being more Radical than merely Liberal, is up to his eyeballs in this stuff, and he presumably figures out he will never get elected President with such a Radical rap, no kidding, and so he decides, as do virtually all late 20th century Marxists, to dress it all up a bit (as Frances Schaeffer points out and many others) with "social and economic justice," and "progress," and Obama adds "hope and change," etc.

As my old professor Stephen Toulmin would say this is no "return to Reason" by the modern humanist, rather I would say this is a return to rhetorical platitudes and a "return to religion" (of all things) in the sense of trying to have government give meaning to life and that sort of thing. Think about it. Obama gives a majority of Americans "hope" for living. A scary thought, no doubt, but we must be realists about this; if he does, he does. He is some dude, clearly.

It would seem if you aspire in your dreams (as apparently Rorty did) to be an absolute monarch of a postmodern, totalitarian Marxist sort, it would seem clear you would not run for office on that platform. Or, do you? My take on this from Obama’s books and speeches is that he believes exactly what Jeremiah Wright believes, namely, Black Liberation Theology (race-based Marxism), and he at times even says so to appeal to his base, and, hence, he often does little to hide it, but, regardless, what he does do, overtly and very brilliantly, is he very adroitly sells himself (not his ideology) to the public as being the only "hope" for America, and that he, and he alone, is marked and gifted by Providence to lead America into a brave new world, of what? Of Black Liberation Theology of Wright and Rorty. And only the divinely chosen followers of Obama, God help us, can "see" this brave new world (of Wright and Rorty and even Alinsky) is where we want to be. What could be more obvious?

For my own part, I am still a bit of a doubter. I’m still not quite able to "see" it just yet, but many, many, many people see this brave new world of Wright, Rorty, and Alinsky to be really, really "profound" and "inspiring" stuff. However, it is entirely possible that the Democrat Party will cease to exist as a political force in America, and it may well be Obama himself who was the final nail in the coffin, or who led them over the cliff as only he could do (choose your metaphor or analogy), and in fact this may be what Obama is actually marked by Providence to do, namely, end the Democrat Party as a political Leftist force in America, once and for all. Maybe? Time will tell, I guess, but you will note it all hinges on what people "see" or do "not see" or may or may not "come to see," etc. And that is definitely a tough if not impossible thing to predict, of all things, that is, when people may come to "see" anything.

We end this series the same way we began it: Obama and Leftist Democrats generally are not "evil," and they are not America’s problem. They are a symptom of our problems. The same way that legal positivists are not "evil" and are not our problem in law, so much as a symptom of what is wrong in the field of law. And the same could be said of Epicureans in education and "higher critics" in Christianity and Judaism.

My position is it is a free country, and you can be a Democrat politician if you want to be, or a "legal positivist" or Epicurean or "higher critic," if you want to be. I just do not think any such people should be given great positions of authority or power is my view. And when the vast majority of Americans share that view their will be a "Revolution" in law, education, government, and the Christian and Jewish religions, and we will set up the actual Logos "Kingdom come" on earth with a Bible-based sin-and-salvation Christianity, and a practical, higher moral law, Logos-based law and government, and a Rational-Moral-Theism based education system.

Not very complicated is it? But all of this makes zero sense to you, if you cannot "see" it, or if you are all wrapped up in "legal positivism," Epicureanism, or "higher criticism" because you have been indoctrinated into these things, in which case such things seem brilliant to you, and you tend to think in only those terms, and really that is about all you are able to do. What breaks this irrationality, blindness and deception? Christian salvation is the only antidote I know of in order to restore Rational thought, but it must be administered before the patient is too far gone?!

The Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Who is the "we"? The American founders, obviously. What does this mean? They were Rational Moral Theists, and Christian ones at that. But these truths are not "self-evident" to the Liberal or atheist "legal positivist," indeed just the opposite, they are not even true ("self-evident" or otherwise)! The Liberal and atheist "legal positivist" just cannot "see" them!

But this cuts both ways... FDR had a positive bill of rights, which, in essence, said the state, potentially, can and should do everything for you, and that this was "self-evident" to him presumably as a Liberal, because it is not at all "self-evident" or even true to common sense, anymore than the universe created itself out of nothing. In fact such a positive bill of rights tends to be self-evident utopian to common sense and to normal "seeing." So, we end this six part essay series as we started it, with "seeing" things and with one man’s "self-evident" is another man’s falsehood and even foolishness if not outright absurdity even on the most major issues of life. And some people "see" and believe some pretty nutty stuff these days, nutty indeed, in law, government, education and the Christian and Jewish religions.

How long can the absurdities of "legal positivism," Epicureanism, and "higher criticism" go on? Another 5 years? 10 years, maybe? But certainly not 50 years, history just does not work that way. One can only call black white and evil good so long, and then the thing implodes, and if "legal positivism," Epicureanism, and "higher criticism" are defeated, there is little place left to go but to a (clear, Rational) Kingdom Christianity and Kingdom view of law and government, and the fact that all three ("legal positivism," Epicureanism, and "higher criticism") have become close-minded or so called "politically correct" means they in reality feel they cannot defend themselves (Rationally speaking), and in truth this signals "the end" of the Church Age is perhaps much closer than it appears, and in reality, as history goes, we are not going to not going to stay where we are now for the next 50 years though we might for the next 5 or 10 years but maybe not even that.

We are not going to have forever the main requirement for sitting on the Supreme Court to be not believing in the Constitution. Please. And we are not going to have forever the main requirement for teaching in the seminaries is not believing in the Bible! Get real. And we are not going to have forever the point of education being that the sophists and the Epicureans were right and the Rational Moral Theists (as Solomon, Socrates, and Cicero) were wrong. It is simply not going to happen.

The utter absurdity of this will become self-evident to everyone, and then the whole edifice of radically humanistic law, government, education and Christianity and Judaism will implode, and out of this will emerge a whole new Christian Age with a Rational Moral Theistic paradigm as True and Good (or Desirable) and of Right Reason and then "the deal is done" of the Kingdom Age as here (as I have been saying in endless essays on this website and in the Great Books video series for some years now).

So the darkness and absurdity of the hour where everything is 180 degrees out of phase in law, government, education and Christian religion is in many ways a positive sign, and it is exactly what is prophesied in the Bible for the end of the Church Age, and will in the end precipitate a 180 degree flip in all these areas. So cool I can hardly believe it myself! Join us next time for the final Part VI-B to end this essay series, now planned for Tuesday, October 11, 2011.