WHAT HAS CHANGED

​Within our society there is greater and greater unrest.  This unrest has been escalating for many years.  Those who have promoted the unrest claim that the ability of a citizen to own a gun is at the heart of this unrest.  However, what we know is that societies have existed where gun ownership is allowed and, in some cases, encouraged and societies have existed where gun ownership was denied.  In both situations violence and irrational attacks have taken place.  Guns was not the constant.  What the constant was, was people. 
 
Those of you who have read my writings, my books, and perhaps have heard me speak, know that I am a believer in history.  I have studied history.  As a side note, my eldest granddaughter is learning to enjoy history.  She became interested in the life of Mary Queen of Scots, (yes Papa had something to do with it) and has learned that history is just a novel, only dealing with real people and happenings.  The interactions between individuals, families, small groups, and large groups or national societies , and hundreds and thousands of years ago is the same as that of today.  Of course, today we are able to get news much quicker and we are able to be in different parts of the world much quicker, but people have not changed.  The lesson is that we can learn the future by studying history. 
 
Let’s narrow this study to the last 250 years and confine it to the society we call the United States.  We must begin with the founding of the United States and understand, through the objective study of history, that the events that led to the independence of the American Colonists and then their insight in forming a new nation was truly unique.  The United States was the first nation founded on the principles of Natural Rights and Natural Law.  These principles put government in the third position with the Creator as number one and the people as number two on the sovereignty scale.  In previous situations the role of government and the people had been reversed and often government was even placed as number one on the sovereignty scale. 
 
What the United States idea really meant in everyday life was that people had liberties that were free from government control. People were now not only free to, but they were encouraged to, strive to reach the limits of their abilities and then to stretch those limits.  Thomas Jefferson most profoundly stated this idea when he added “pursuit of happiness” to the other Natural Rights enunciated of life, and liberty.  People were no longer restricted to the limits of government or the collective who prior to the United States had placed limits on individuals on criteria such as position at birth (for instance nobility or commoner), conformity to the ideas and dictates of the government or collective, and special likes or dislikes of the government official (both socially and romantically).
 
This unique concept, placing government in the number three position of sovereignty, meant that the people who believed society was best when government officials or the elite where in control of the lives and thoughts of the people vehemently disagreed with this concept.  This is not new to history but this type of a transformation of societies has occurred before.  Remember, history teaches us that political positions and ideas within any society are never stagnant, but are always being challenged and changed.  The elite forces, those of the two extremes of liberty and tyranny have remained constant but the masses have swung from side to side, and often quickly and radically.  An excellent example of how quickly the masses can change is the change in the attitude of the masses towards Jesus.  On Sunday they cheered Jesus and hailed him as their King.  By Thursday evening and Friday morning they were calling for his death.  Those who hated and despised Jesus because he challenged them, remained the same.  Jesus did not change.  It was the masses that changed.
 
Those who despise individual freedom, freedom from the dictates of the government and collective, have been prevalent within the United States from before the Revolutionary War.  They were referred to then as loyalists or Tories.  These collectivists of today (Marxist, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – all virtually the same) continue to demand that individual freedoms be limited, and often eliminated, by government or the collective.  George Soros said it this way, “An open society is a society which allows its members the greatest possible degree of freedom in pursuing their interests compatible with the interests of others.”
 
This is what has changed in the United States.  This collectivist idea as stated by George Soros and put forth by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the middle to late 19th century is openly being proclaimed in the United States today.  This is a philosophy in direct contrast to our founding.  This philosophy of Soros, Marx, and Engels calls for the destruction of a society that is built on individual freedom and expression so their desired society of control of the individual over their life and thoughts can be accomplished.  A study of how they propose to do this is a study of history in how it has been attempted throughout the ages. 
 
All who believe in government or collective control, view the family unit as a threat to their goals.  The reason is simple.  A society built with strong families as their base is a diverse society with people who have respect for others and others property.  The collective insists on total conformity of thought and expression by all and insists that property is to not be regarded as the property of the individual but the property of the government or the collective. 
 
Marx said that to accomplish this transition to this collectivist society, all long-standing principles, all morality, and all religion must be abolished.  The principles of our nation when founded must be declared to be antiquated and no longer workable, morality must be judged not on right or wrong as Locke said it should be in his theory of Natural Law, but on whether or not the action moves us down the road to communism or not as stated by Lenin, and the new society must be an atheist society which is in direct contrast of the beliefs upon which our nation was founded.
 
This collective extreme is not new.  It has existed for ages.  What has changed in the United States is that the masses are changing.  More and more of the masses are believing that the family unit is outdated, that our founding principles are antiquated, that morality is strictly individual, and that the Creator is simply fiction. 
 
Our society has always had guns.  That is constant.  What has changed is the masses and their indoctrination in the beliefs set forth by the collectivists (Marxist, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – all virtually the same) that the rights of the individual must always be secondary to the dictates of the government or the collective.  Societies that have transitioned to this philosophy have always become violent.  Yes, what has changed is not the ownership of guns, but what has changed is the acceptance and encouragement of violence to bring about a fundamental transformation of our society from a society with God as the sovereign, then man, and then government as opposed to government as the sovereign, then man, and God is completely eliminated, per Marx.  A major part of this transformation is the destruction of the family unit.
 
We who believe in the principles upon which our nation was founded, those principles which made our nation “that shining city on the hill” must understand that history teaches us that movements can be changed and reversed.  Sam Adams understood this concept as the masses ebbed and flowed in the 1760’s and 1770’s.  He said then and it is just as applicable or perhaps even more applicable now on how to move the masses toward liberty, “It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
 
Will you become a part of this irate, tireless minority??