Francois Voltaire (1694-1778) was a French philosopher and leader of the Enlightenment. Because he was an ex-con (he was imprisoned many times) he hated unenlightened monarchy and was a fan of British democracy-limited monarchy. He believed democracies needed an Enlightened monarch in order to offset the “idiocy of the masses.” Although he was, as any true Rationalist and Skeptic, a deist, he also believed the masses need a “god” as a moderating influence, and he is famous for saying, “If God did not exist, He would have to be invented.” Voltaire’s extreme desire to rid society of the evils of religion and absolute monarchy produced in him an impatient and ruthless intellectual thoroughness that resulted in his motto about religious enthusiasm: “Crush the infamous thing!” He was speaking intellectually; he detested physical violence. He visited England early in life and was strongly influenced by John Locke. Although he was a deist and spoke of “God”, he was, like many Enlightened scholars of his day, strongly opposed to Biblical Christianity because it is contrary to the Laws of Nature as revealed by human Reason. Voltaire urged leaders of society to take positive action to reform society and make it Enlightened and free of the blinding influences of enthusiastic Christianity. He joined Ben Franklin as a member of Freemasonry. Enthusiastic American Christians frequently derided the Christianity-hating Thomas Jefferson by comparing him to Voltaire. When Voltaire died, Mozart (the composer) wrote, “The arch-scoundrel Voltaire has finally kicked the bucket.” His detractors took delight in ridiculing him as a philosopher because he never had an original thought – just like all the other philosophers.

 

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a philosopher and a superstar of his day. He was born in Geneva, where his education consisted solely of studying Calvinist philosophy-laden sermons and Greek biographies. As a young man he moved to France, moved in with a woman who used up her wealth to pay for his continuing education, renounced Calvinism, and converted to Catholicism. After a while he abandoned the woman (who then died in poverty), moved back to Geneva, and reconverted to Calvinism. Upon returning to France after a few years, Rousseau lived with another woman and fathered five children from 1746 to 1752 – all of whom he unapologetically gave to an orphanage as soon as they were born.

 

Rousseau taught that man in his ancient Natural state was pure and was only corrupted by the societies he created. In other words, since modern man is a product of his corrupt environment, modern society needed to be changed by us corrupt men in order to produce the kind of uncorrupt societies that even the “pure” men of antiquity couldn’t create. (This idiotic, contradictory nonsense caused scholars, both Calvinist and Catholic, to renounce him.) He said Natural Equality among pure men had been upset when they invented agriculture, private property, and commerce – which fed their self-interest/greed and made them want to increase their own wealth at the expense of others. Therefore, the power needed to be taken away from the corrupt ruling few and be restored to the pure masses where it belongs. Accordingly, the purpose of government is to establish and protect that ancient unspoiled Natural Equality (that produced evil men who created corrupt societies).

 

Considering himself to be an expert on rearing children, Rousseau taught that young children are pure and uncorrupted and should be allowed to develop without “oppression” from their society-corrupted parents so the children can mature “Naturally” – like the evil, corrupt-society-producing men above did. (Yes, this famous philosopher who had so much influence on modern society, was, like many of the other famous philosophers, a very messed-up individual.) In appreciation for his huge contributions to our Enlightened free society, the United States named a peak and a mountain range after him.

 

Rousseau wrote The Social Contract in 1762. It was built upon the assumption that Locke’s writings were valid. In this work Rousseau said when the ruler breaks the “social contract”, the people have an obligation for the good of society to rebel against him. The problem with any form of democracy, Rousseau realized, was in the very majority that comprised it. He agreed with other thinkers, most notably the outspoken Plato, who taught that most people are stupid. Rousseau theorized that the moronic majority of citizens, whether they are “pure” or corrupted by society, are so stupid they need a constitution and a system of laws to keep them from self-destruction. He thought, because the masses tend toward religious superstition, that claims should be made for the divine inspiration of the constitution in order to encourage its unquestioned acceptance by the dim-witted multitude. He also believed it was necessary to find a substitute for anything you took from society. Therefore, when monarchy was removed, in order to replace all the “God save the king” devotion and loyalty, the government must promote loyalty to the State itself as if it were a person. Rousseau is the father of modern patriotism, and today love for, loyalty to, and devout pledges of allegiance to an inanimate flag have become almost as common in the democratic world as love for, loyalty to, and devout pledges of allegiance to an inanimate wafer in the Roman Catholic world – for which Protestants call Catholics idolaters.

 

Denis Diderot (1713-1784) was a popular and influential philosopher, philanderer, and author of idiotic stories that made women’s vaginas mouths that could speak. In spite of the fact that he came from a devout Catholic family, he was anti-Christian. He drifted into atheism as a result of his studies. Atheism was largely unpopular among the masses, but Diderot traveled in elite circles away from the masses. Most scholars of his time remained “Christian” on Sundays but were skeptics the rest of the week. The opposite of a Christian skeptic was a Christian enthusiast. Since enthusiasts tended to be unenlightened, they were branded as irrational and superstitious, and were thought to be hindrances to the building of a modern Enlightened society, and thorns in the side of progress. Scholars and philosophers, including Diderot, universally despised that kind of Christianity.

 

Diderot espoused radical changes to society for the good of mankind and defended the legitimacy of revolution if necessary to effect these changes. Diderot and his friend, Voltaire, were favorites of Catherine the Great of Russia. She corresponded with Diderot and gave him financial support. Like many other educated monarchs, she had democratic leanings: “I have set great store by philosophy because I have always had an oddly Republican soul. I admit that it may be something of a phenomenon to find a soul of this temper in a person having the limitless power of my position…” However, she lost respect for philosophy when Diderot visited her for several months. In getting to know him she realized he was just “a harebrained eccentric, a dreamer, a charlatan.” And when she saw how undisciplined and chaotic the masses became in democracies, she rejected Enlightened forms of government.

 

Because Diderot is appreciated as a major figure of the Age of Reason who succeeded in his intention “to change the common way of thinking”, he has been named one of history’s hundred greatest men.

 

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English Whig (pro-democracy), Calvinist, and philosopher who predated other influential philosophers who were closer to the time of the American f-ing fathers. But – perhaps because he was English – Locke had the most influence. His influence was boosted by the fact that he was the most popular apologist for the democratic Glorious Revolution of 1688 when William and Mary overthrew her father. Locke’s Puritan father fought for Oliver Cromwell in the Civil War against King Charles I and may have been one of the many who took the Engagement Oath. John Locke witnessed the public hanging of Cromwell’s corpse and the disgrace and humiliation his father suffered when British society embraced the tenants of the Oxford Decree (page H10-15). Locke despised the Oxford Decree because he was an Enlightened Christian who believed Christianity had proven to be a flawed and inadequate foundation for society. He believed Christianity should be retained as a religion but not as the foundation of civilization. As an apologist for the Glorious Revolution he would vindicate his father, ingratiate himself with the current generation of democratic elite, and help prevent future resurgences of the unenlightened religious superstition that had disgraced his father with the Oxford Decree. His success was phenomenal.

 

The new foundation for civilization, Locke said, should be Natural Law. If that were the case the resulting democracy would get its framework of laws from the peoples’ Reason, be administered by the people, and be for the peoples’ benefit. Locke, who was a student of Greek philosophy, admired Plato and René Descartes and was influenced by the Greek Epicureans who stressed living by sight (using the physical senses to gather truth) and the importance of “Happiness.” He is credited with helping to lay the foundation of Reason for modern science, establishing the Age of Reason in both Britain and France, and inspiring the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. He helped draft a constitution for the new American colony of North Carolina, which granted freedom of religion – something that quickly became a cherished principle among Enlightened Christians. He was supposedly a Christian who loved the Lord, but because he believed the Bible often contradicted the new, increasingly-fashionable higher power of Natural Law, he treated the word of God the same way Sir Edward Coke in his antiquarian “research” treated the Magna Carta and other old documents – he used various Rational methods to de-emphasize what it said in order to uncover its “hidden treasures of Natural Law.” This allowed him to show that God does not really favor monarchy as one might gather from the Bible – because the deity’s Natural Laws actually promote democratic forms of government. Locke favored a constitutional republic. He believed God’s Natural Law was the underlying principle of the “social contracts” of government. (The earliest references to these “social contracts” are in the dialogues of Plato – Locke’s idol.) The fact that self-interest was the main motivation when forming a social contract showed the value and importance of Self as a foundation upon which to build a better society. This was supported by the fact that “what seems Natural” agreed with what was “self-evident” because, Locke argued, that is exactly what “Divine Providence” intended. In this way “self-interest” was validated as a motivator for individual actions which, compounded, would produce a great society with Natural checks and balances. For example, when two girls want to divide a cake, self-interest and distrust result in a miniature social contract as the girls agree to an “I’ll cut, you choose” system of checks and balances that ensures an equitable outcome. In other words, Locke believed greed would regulate Christian society better than the selfless Christian love taught in the Bible. Locke’s ideas would later inspire Adam Smith to invent capitalism, in which self-interest was the motivator and regulator of the economy. (The invention of capitalism was not a big step because capitalism is a Natural by-product of democracy; you cannot have democracy without capitalism.)

 

Because rearing and educating children has such a major impact on society, Locke wrote Some Thoughts on Education, which was to have an immediate influence on education, and a gradual effect on the rearing of children. Parents were advised in their relationship with their children not to base their authority on fear like God does. Instead of enforcing obedience as a parent/monarch, Locke said parents should democratically reason with children, “for as years increase, Liberty must come with them.” Locke’s contemporary, Lord Chesterfield, a prominent Enlightened statesman and Christian, went so far as to say parents should make children their “equals” and “friends” because “I never saw a froward child mended by whipping.” A social commentator of the era observed: “Nothing is so common as to hear parents say that to curb their children is to spoil their genius. Everyone calls Solomon barbarous and a damned fool when he said spare the rod and spoil the child.” Increasingly, “Christian love” was being changed to mean pacifistic tolerance. And thanks to Reason, we were now much smarter than the Holy Bible. Yes, the Bible had been good in its day, but that day was past.

 

The Enlightened teachings of Locke and Rousseau about rearing children have borne fruit: Today in the United States, state-run welfare agencies believe parents are unfit if they teach their children “to be obedient and compliant” (an actual quote). The unspoken implication (and widespread practice) is that children should be allowed to be willful and independent. This liberation of children even extends to saying grace at home before meals: Many parents no longer require their young children to bow their heads and participate when the rest of the family says grace  – because the toddlers “should be allowed to formulate their own beliefs.”

 

Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was another superstar who greatly influenced the American f-ing fathers. Blackstone was an English lawyer, antiquarian, and member of Parliament who was famous for his Commentaries on the Laws of England. He was an Enlightened student of philosophy, a big fan of Locke and Grotius, and an active propagandist and campaigner – sometimes deceitfully so – for Natural and Common Law. (Technically speaking, Natural Law and Common Law are different. Natural Law is the invisible, unwritten Law of the way life ought to be that Nature or Nature’s God programmed into people. Common Law is derived from Natural Law, is sometimes written down, and is used as a traditional regulator by society. Practically speaking, however, Natural Law and Common Law are so closely related the terms are often used interchangeably. They were promoted as the foundation of “human liberties” and “human rights.”)

 

In 1753 Blackstone delivered the first recorded scholastic lectures on English law. He used dignified language and an authoritative speaking style to deliberately disguise the contradictions, absurdities, and true origins of the English legal system. He falsely represented England’s legal code as orderly, logical, respectable, and authoritative, all while carefully concealing its true foundation – the ancient pagan philosophers. Ignoring pagan philosophy as the one and only source and foundation for everything about the legal system, he vaguely made the legal system seem to be the modern embodiment of the Laws of Nature. For example, instead of openly referring to “pagan precedents” he referred to “the custom of the realm from time immemorial” in order to make it seem established, official, and authoritative. Almost no one in the legal system would bother to seriously question Natural Law until about seventy-five years later.

 

The work that made Blackstone famous, Commentaries on the Laws of England, was first published in 1765 and was an instant, smashing success in Britain and the North American colonies. In fact, in America where Enlightened Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Calvinists greatly outnumbered members of the colonial Church of England, Blackstone’s Commentaries was in even greater demand than it was in England because of the American Protestants’ ravenous hunger for secular literature that “justified” rebellion. In England Blackstone’s book was merely a revered textbook and reference. In the colonies – and later in the young United States – it was the bible of law, and was used to build the government of the United States and its legal system.

 

Blackstone authoritatively declared that all laws, including statute laws, were valid only if they conformed to Natural Law. Because the members of Parliament were presumed to be Enlightened enough to use Reason without other corrupting influences (such as greed, religion, and politics) when making laws, it had to be concluded that Parliamentary laws conformed with Natural Law – because if not they wouldn’t be valid. This Reasoning was believed by Whigs to support their pro-democratic/anti-monarchy platform.

 

Blackstone was not a thinker. He got all of what he said from Locke and other “precedents” who, in turn, had gotten their ideas from the same Greek philosophers who provided Pontius Pilate with his snappy little specious retort, and whose influence had been unsuccessfully fought against by the Maccabees. In fact, Blackstone’s mental capabilities were well known to his fellow Parliamentarians. Those who’d read his book couldn’t believe the man whose ill-thought-out legal arguments on the floor of Parliament that often contradicted his Commentaries was in fact its author.

 

But Commentaries continued to be a success because Blackstone did have an impressive writing style and because for years there simply was no other legal reference available. In substance, Commentaries shows Blackstone had a poor grasp of even the most elementary concepts of law. He used language that blurred (perhaps intentionally) the distinction between the Laws of Nature and the laws of God, which was easy to do because the two were believed to be one and the same. The result was his content appealed to the Enlightened and his language appealed to naïve Christians who lacked discernment. If a Christian who thought Reason was good and who knew nothing about Blackstone or his agenda, were to read Commentaries he would not only think it was good Christian material, he’d also be pleased to find it supported Martin Luther’s teaching that political involvement (and democracy) was part of Christianity.

 

Blackstone was nothing but a highly successful propagandist for the secular, self-evident Reasoning of Natural Law. For example, read these gems from Commentaries: “As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the Law of Nature. These laws laid down by God are eternal, immutable laws of good and evil to which the Creator Himself conforms in all dispensations… this Law of Nature, being co-equal with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other law. It is binding over the entire globe in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.” As you can see, Blackstone, anything but an original thinker, got much of this from Hugo Grotius. You can also see how his language would appeal to enthusiastic – but unthinking – Christians; and his content would appeal to secular humanists – such as his teaching that in both Old and New Testament dispensations God never performed the super-Natural miracles the Bible says He did because He must conform to His Laws of Nature.

 

Sometimes Blackstone’s book is so imbecilic as to make the reader wonder if he mindlessly copied or miscopied things about which he had no understanding, such as when he wrote people have rights, and things also have rights. Scholars believe this error to be the result of his inability to grasp technical, but basic, terms of ancient Roman law.

 

By the mid 1800s both Blackstone and Natural Law were discredited. In spite of the fact that the U.S. f-ing fathers used many terms and phrases from Commentaries when they wrote the Constitution, today’s lawyers no longer study his works because it is now known he was inept. His life’s work was meaningless even when he wrote it because Natural Law has always been nothing but pagan mythology – it simply does not exist. However, Commentaries remains in print because many Christians still buy it. It and Webster’s old Dictionary remain popular among Christians who worship the f-ing fathers, democracy, the Constitution, and political activism as “Christian” because both Blackstone’s and Webster’s use of religious language makes today’s Christians think these men were “spiritual.” To give you an idea of how popular Blackstone remains among ignorant and/or Enlightened Christians, read these two separate 21st century reviews:

 

Every American lawyer ought to read Blackstone’s Commentaries. Not that the law it contains is still reliable, although much of it is. But for the big picture, the history of the development of the English common law, he remains an indispensable source. The American founding fathers grew up with Commentaries, and these four volumes were indispensable for a Colonial gentleman’s education. In reading them, you will gain a new understanding of the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. As Blackstone develops the law, he sets it against the backdrop of the British struggle against arbitrary rule by the King, the seventeenth century wars of religious fanaticism, and England’s long battle to win freedom from the power of the papacy. To read Blackstone is to learn what the founding fathers thought and feared, and what they wrote the Constitution to guard against.

 

Once referred to as the “bible of American lawyers,” Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England shaped the principles of law in both England and America when its first volume appeared in 1765. Commentaries became the most essential knowledge that every lawyer needed to acquire. For the next century law remained what Blackstone made of it. Commentaries was a product of the intellectual and social values of the eighteenth century and its notions of Reason, Nature, and the Sublime. It illustrates all the elegance, social values, and internal contradictions of the Age of Reason.

 

Because the discredited Commentaries had such a direct influence on the shaping of our secular nation, nobody today wants to indirectly badmouth our republic and its legal system by referring to Blackstone as the “Father of Modern Law” – even though he is just that. To do so might cause more people to research him, realize our nation is founded on elements of discredited pagan philosophy, and rekindle the roaring debate that went on in legal and governmental circles during the mid 1800s. In legal circles, therefore, Blackstone is quietly ignored. (There is, however, some evidence that Commentaries’ value as a historic and legal “precedent” may be causing a resurgence in its use.)

 

Blackstone was a man of no intellect, no grasp of law, and no integrity. He was suckered by the ancient Sophists, and became a sophist himself in the usual and basest meaning of the word: Sophist: A professional teacher who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning, makes his points with ingenious and specious language rather than sound arguments. Even the encyclopedias have nothing good to say about him. But he is nevertheless a pillar of modern, secular, Western civilization.