Changing the World

ChangeTheWorldby Deana Chadwell    4/5/14
Recently I wrote a piece about how Darwinian evolution has affected our society and one of the points I made was that the constant deference given to blind, purposeless change — change for change’s sake. Here I’d like to look at a specific manifestation of this national preoccupation: the change-the-world syndrome.

Changing the world, leaving it a better place, making a difference are all catch phrases that no one looks at with any noticeable discrimination, but it doesn’t take a very long look to see that this concept has wrought far more misery than magic.

In the first place the concept is swollen with arrogance and self-importance. Not that changing the world doesn’t happen – the world does change, but it doesn’t happen on purpose. It happens because people see a need – orphaned children with nowhere to go, or sick people with no one to care for them, or students who want to learn, and they build orphanages or hospitals or schools and the world improves — in one tiny place at one point in time. Suffering and misery and ignorance continue, but the power of evil is held at bay.[pullquote]Changing the worldleaving it a better placemaking a difference are all catch phrases that no one looks at with any noticeable discrimination, but it doesn’t take a very long look to see that this concept has wrought far more misery than magic.[/pullquote]

During the incarnation Jesus himself, though he came to pay the price of sin for us all, did not come to make the world a better place. He did heal the sick, raise people from the dead, and feed the hungry, but he didn’t do it wholesale – just here and there in specific places at specific times for specific purposes – usually to demonstrate that He was, in fact, God. When he gave the Great Commission to his disciples he didn’t tell them to go out and change the world; he told them to take the gospel to the Jews, the Samaritans and then to the Gentiles and they did that. Eventually the world did change, but as a by-product, not as the disciples’ original intent — Christians did eventually build orphanages and hospitals and schools, kindness eventually took hold, but as a by-product of their gratitude to God, not as an arrogant plan to “make a difference.”

Nowhere in Scripture are we told to change the world. Jesus directed us to treat others as we would want to be treated. He told us to love our neighbors and our enemies, and those are powerful forces, but he didn’t say to “make a difference.”

For one thing, “making a difference” is a morality-free concept. Hitler made a difference – and that’s what he set out to do. So did Joseph Stalin. So did Mao Tsi-tung. And the difference those men made was horror personified. Altogether they murdered at least 100 million people – all in the name of “changing the world.”

“Changing the world” inevitably requires changing human nature, but human nature cannot be changed — unless each person desires to change his own nature, and even then it requires divine intervention; it can’t be accomplished by fiat. Even with death staring them in the face, people cannot change who they are just because someone tells them that they have to.

Eric Severeid once said that “the chief cause of problems was solutions,” and the “change the world” crowd specializes in silly solutions that cause huge problems. The whole environmental boondoggle has come about as a result of this overwhelming hubris. True, we can and should be just and caring stewards of the world God made for us, but to go to the extent of treating other humans like they had no right to walk on the earth is not part of that picture. I live in Oregon where the economy has never recovered from the spotted owl decree and 30-some years later owls are still dying out. The problem is with cause and effect – it’s very, very hard to prove and to destroy an industry and people’s livelihoods on the supposition that some theory is correct is irresponsible and dangerous.[pullquote]For one thing, “making a difference” is a morality-free concept. Hitler made a difference – and that’s what he set out to do. So did Joseph Stalin. So did Mao Tsi-tung. And the difference those men made was horror personified.[/pullquote]

The CTW syndrome affects not only industry, but also time-honored institutions. Let’s look at just one that has nearly been destroyed by this pernicious and presumptive paradigm:

Our education system used to be the best in the world; it prepared American children with the knowledge and skills needed to build the most astounding nation the world has ever seen. Even though John Dewey progressivism began gnawing at the guts of our schools by the early 1900’s, we didn’t start to really see the result until well past the middle of the century.

I started teaching in 1975 and my purpose for going into the profession was to teach; that was what I wanted to do; I was interested in being part of the process of learning. I wanted to provide for others those gifts my best teachers had given me. That was all. And after 30 years in high school classrooms I can assuredly say that was enough. If I’d had to change the world too, I wouldn’t have been a very good teacher; I wouldn’t have had time to teach them the truth.

If I had a student in my high school class all year I would only see him less than four 40-hour weeks. That’s not much time in which to teach him all about writing and literature and public speaking – let alone to pound him into the little “worker bee” a state officer once announced was the desired end result.

Yet, more and more teachers see their jobs as transformational, as directed more toward changing the nature of the child and therefore the nature of the society. Forty years ago I listened to a federal employee explain to our local school board that certain programs were needed in the early grades to get students ready to accept evolution when it was presented – why would that be of concern to the federal government? Aren’t we to teach what facts we have and train the students in the time-honored methods of thinking about and assessing those facts? Evidently, changing the world by changing the students’ view of that world is more important, even though we have no evidence that task can be done without causing more damage than it can fix.

In the last years of my life in the public schools I was horrified by the fear present in my students’ writing – fear of global warming, of environmental disasters, of things they had no control over. No wonder so many have slipped into drug use and quit concerning themselves with their education – why bother?

And though teachers are, for the most part, hell-bent on stamping out bullying, as if that awful part of human nature could be altered by watching cute little films, many feel free to do some bullying themselves as they try to shove kids into uniform, progressive round holes – the end does justify the means in this business of changing the world.

Boys are no longer allowed to be boys – we punish them for shooting finger-guns and drug them if they don’t sit still. And, conversely, girls are expected to go after both careers Atlasand boys as if they were the ones filled with testosterone. Both girls and boys are subjected to Planned Parenthood propaganda, anti-American doggerel, socialist whining, and political correctness all in the effort to “leave the world a better place.” They feel the awful weight of the “change the world” expectation – an even greater responsibility than the federal debt we’ve saddled them with.

I don’t have space here to talk about the many ways the CTW mentality has altered the church, the law and now medicine (To make the world better we’ve authorized doctors to kill both the unborn and sick?). We’ve ruined national defense and crumbled our constitution all with the superior attitude of “making a difference.”

The world will, one day, be a better place, but you can’t do a good thing in a bad way and get good results; we’re reaping the rewards of our national arrogance right now and it will get worse before it gets better. Can we all just relax, do whatever it is that God has designed us to do, in our little corner of the world, and leave the grand scheme of things in God’s hands where it belongs. Someday the world will be changed for the better and when that day dawns it will be God’s doing, not ours, and it will be perfect.
__________________________________________________
Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com. • (2460 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Changing the World

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Eric Severeid once said that “the chief cause of problems was solutions,” and the “change the world” crowd specializes in silly solutions that cause huge problems. The whole environmental boondoggle has come about as a result of this overwhelming hubris.

    Jonah Goldberg talks about this mindless “making a difference” in his book, “Liberal Fascism.” And you are so right to call it a morality-free concept.

    My own thoughts on this are that living inside a superficial a celebrity culture where beauty and the perfect life are on display 24/7, it has left people feeling insignificant. The best and purest expression of this kind of insignificance is when Hamas or some other Islamic terrorist organization can get some poor schmuck to strap on a bomb vest and go take out a busload of Israeli children. In that scenario, he is raising himself out of his mundane and pointless existence and is indeed “making a difference.”

    The bombs are smaller when some nitwit “Progressive” yute goes out into the world to “make a difference.” But such a mindless and shallow obsession to “be someone” can be destructive in its own way. And when a million of these small bombs go off, they can be much bigger than anything al-Qaeda could ever imagine.

    I started this site in order to “make a difference” but fully knowing that in order to do so, it would likely cause me grief, not a heady narcissistic feeling of “being somebody.” I don’t want to “be somebody.” But I do want to oppose all those mindless nitwits out there who are taking our world apart one piece at a time because they don’t have the good sense to turn off the damn TV and just go work in some church charity or something.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    You mention that if you had tried to “change the world” as a teacher, you wouldn’t have had the time to teach the truth. I would suggest that if you wanted to change the world, you wouldn’t have wanted to teach the truth. Truth is antithetical to most efforts to “change the world”.

    As for the corruption of medicine, I noticed this several years ago with the Terri Schiavo case (incidentally, schiavo is Italian for “slave”; the Venetian ciao is a local variant). Some doctors seemed quite comfortable with killing a woman without testing her fully to make sure she was as truly brain-dead as they insisted. Ever since then, I’ve regarded the movie Coma as no longer fictional.

  3. Rosalys says:

    Excellent article! You are so correct – it’s pride and arrogance.

    “I will change the world!”
    “I will make a difference!”
    “I want to be somebody!”

    “…‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
    I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north;
    I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’” Isaiah 14: 13-14

    A long, long, long time ago when I was in high school, there was a teacher, a young guy fresh out of college, who was assigned to teach Geography. On the first day he announced that he was going to turn it into a current events class – presumably because geography is of so little importance. Needless to say he was a crusading liberal who believed it was his job to mold a bunch of hapless teenagers into his own image. I wasn’t in that class – being a hapless teen myself, I wasn’t much interested in geography. But even back then in my largely clueless state I thought to myself, “Who does he think he is pulling a bait (as if geography can be considered bait to a 17 year old!) and switch?” It has taken the maturity that only time can accomplish in us for me to look back and see that a course in geography, properly taught would be a very valuable part of a well rounded education.

    Now we have this Common Core curriculum. Everybody is to be the same, think the same, do the same. Forget about developing the individual, each with his own unique gifts and desires, that God created him to be. Our Keepers aren’t looking for educated citizens. They don’t even want moral citizens. What they want are obedient (to them) citizens.

    • Rosalys says:

      I’m having trouble with the italics. I put the symbols with i in the middle both fore and aft the word or passage I want italicized, and what I get is everything italicized as can be seen in my comment above. I only intended “Isaiah 14: 13-14” italicized.

      Somebody, help! Why isn’t this working? What am I doing wrong?

      • You are way ahead of me — I haven’t figured out how to do italics at all.

        There’s a new video out on Common Core that is really well done. I wrote a review of it on http://www.catholicismusa.com. You can watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjxBClx01jc.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Okay, the end italics is a left caret followed by a slash followed by “I” followed by a right caret. (I had to write it that way to be visible.) Your slip-up was to forget the slash. For Deana, the begin italics is the same but without the slash.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I will definitely make a chart perhaps under a “Help” menu item at the top. Most sites (including this one) are not very helpful when it comes to spelling these thing out.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Okay, Rosalys, you’ve cost me a couple hours this afternoon, but it was worth it. I learned a few things myself.

        Here is the pdf page showing how to format the text. You can download it and print it out. (Or just print it out from your browser.) It also is available at the bottom of the “Archives” menu at the top of every page. That’s not a particularly logical place for it, but it’s just there for now. It didn’t make sense to do a whole “Help” menu for just one item.

        And because I have the super-user god-like (small-g) powers here, I fixed the formatting of your post. Timothy was correct in that you needed that finishing slash.

        • Rosalys says:

          Thank you very! What other website out there would go to this much trouble for a mere commenter! You rock!

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            You’re very welcome, Rosalys. I hope others can make use of it as well. I know that in putting that together, I learned a thing or two.

            Again, for those who might not have caught all of this conversation, here’s a chart that shows all (or most) of the text formatting you can do, whether in comments or articles. You’ll have instant access to it under the “Archives” menu item at the top of the page.

  4. Glenn Fairman says:

    It was the ancient Greeks, of course, who first posed the question: What is the default (rest) state of reality? Some held it to be stasis and others change. Plato pointed to the unchanging forms lying beyond the Divided Line and Heraclitas told us that we could not step twice in the same stream. Jerusalem, however, informed us that the Creator who formed the cosmos existed outside of time and was beginingless, changeless, immaterial, and timeless in his omnipotent and omniscient Being.

    There are vast implications if we are to choose either as the point of our philosophical origin. If Epicurianism is correct, then evolution holds court over matter and truth and we cannot point to any ideals or modes of action that are binding in the epistemological sense– we are then free floating in a sea of becoming—as is the demiurge himself in an eternity of materiality without essence.

    The ramifications of this are cosmos-shaking. It means that the possibility of truth is negated and that no Archimedean point exists by which morality can be deduced—-we are cast adrift in a galaxy of flux. From this relativism, philosophy and the disciplines are then contingent on the whim of man, and he alone is the final measure of what shall then be.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’m currently reading a book called Alice in Quantumland. I’s a somewhat ponderous attempt to explain quantum physics using the “down the rabbit hole” paradigm of Through the Looking Glass.

    I didn’t expect it to make quantum physics any more understandable and that is because no one understands it. Oh, some certainly understand the rules. But these rules are like memorizing the rules for some card game that you couldn’t have deduced beforehand and must accept simply as the ground rules. Once you do, you know that aces go to the top, black jacks can only be laid upon red queens, and you draw from the deck three cards at a time.

    One may try to divine why aces, and not deuces, go on the foundation, why it should be black on red instead of black on black, or why the deck itself should have 52 cards, four suits, and 13 values.

    The same appears to be the same with the smallest realms of physical reality. You can learn the rules but you can’t say why it is this set of rules and not another. That is, nothing truly makes sense in the way we make sense of other things in the world. The constant refrain amongst quantum physicists is that you just have to accept what is.

    What this means is that science has not, and can never, find any deep meaning to the universe via science. This does not, of course, automatically mean that anyone’s religion is correct. But clearly science as the means of understanding our universe is a dead-end. Few have the nerve to admit this, science having taken on a sort of “faith” proposition of its own.

    It’s logical to conclude that the material universe had some kind of cause outside of (or superior to) space and time. That much seems to be agreed on by honest scientists considering that space and time are created after the Big Bang, and both elements are entirely fungible. That is, something as elastic as Silly Putty can hardly be considered the ground of being.

    So a proper, logical, and coherent metaphysics extends beyond the strictly material. And the odd thing is, we can prove that to ourselves even from within the material by noting the quite immaterial thoughts inside our own heads…something the science cannot now, nor ever in principle, find, let alone measure.

    But as for the realm of beyond space and time, we can certainly logically assume a First Cause (or Outer Cause) of some kind. But other attributes such as “changeless, omnipotent, and omniscient” are not required and are just guesses or hopes. That doesn’t mean such guesses are wrong, only that they don’t automatically flow from extra-natural causes. One can imaging a Cause of all the universe that isn’t omnipotent or omniscience, let alone changeless. These words tend to act more as incantations than logical propositions.

    So we find ourselves living in an enigma wrapped in a riddle. Much of what we call “relativism” is simply contra-tradition (tradition being a mixture of influences, particularly best practices). It is the means by which the Left can destroy the existing order so as to create their egalitarian utopia run by them, the new Lords and Ladies of the Feudal Manor, while the many useful idiots feel satisfied and fulfilled on the trinkets handed out, such as “gay marriage.” But it is not a belief system that necessarily falls from science, no more than a bowl rather than a mug should be fashioned from a lump of clay.

    Must we conclude that man is lost, truth is lost, and morals are but convention because we live somewhat in an enigma wrapped in a riddle? There are surely enough “natural” rules (such as that an anvil falling on a head hurts) in order for us to fashion many things, whether analogous to a bowl or a mug. Even the same rules of Christianity have been used to fashion good places and less-than-good places.

    Man looks for absolute meaning while necessarily having to deal with the somewhat amorphous lump of clay he’s been dumped into. In that clay man can find a reason for Auschwitz or America. Man may not be the measure of all things, but he can make good things or bad things, and he can do so under the guise of Heaven, just as he frequently creates hell under the guise of an earthly “compassionate” Utopia.

    Some have fashioned out of this circumstance that we should therefore believe in nothing. And yet these same people then typically offer a whole litany of things that are not just options to believe in but must be believed in. So who is to make a good order out of this human chaos when so much contingency is built into the universe itself and so much “order making” is little but man’s earthly conceits?

    One of the sane aspects of America is that is was built upon the idea of making a buck, not fulfilling ideology. It wasn’t about making a buck at any cost. But it was about the freedom for people to pursue their own interests, within reason. In this context, a little religion is good, but too much is stifling. A little state is good, but too much is stifling. Even a little philosophy is good, but too much is stifling. Living peaceably and productively within the many enigmas wrapped in a riddle is the art of a good life. We want to know all, but we can’t possible know all, or even enough. But we still must get on somehow.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is one reason I moved back from agnosticism to deism. There is only one known universe, and it happens to support the possibility of sapient life, even though there are numerous key constants that if even insignificantly different would make such a universe impossible (which means that those differences really aren’t insignificant, of course).

      Another attempt at using fiction to explain (mostly through imbedded lectures and the main character’s dreamed responses as he falls asleep listening to the lectures) is the Mr. Tompkins stories by science popularizer George Gamow.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      “These words tend to act more as incantations than logical propositions.”

      That’s because all language is somewhat magical. Words are magic symbols for things. They are not essence. As I have said before, the only word which is what it describes is “word”. That’s one reason I find John 1:1 so interesting.

      I find trying to describe God something of a fool’s errand. We are limited in our senses, perceptions, intelligence and knowledge. But we are all fools in our own way.

      To human beings, life is completely fractured. The world and universe are made up of many different “things”. The “material” is in the forefront. Disunity rules our lives and environment. Change is ever-present. Contradiction reigns. Questions about questions create perpetual unrest.

      Give my shortcomings, I can only try to imagine what might be. And words fail me when trying to describe what I think in this regard, as it has nothing to do with this world. Perhaps there is a heaven outside of time and space. It must be outside of matter as matter is flawed. Perhaps it is where all fractures are mended, change is not known, there are no contradictions and unity rules. Unalloyed completeness would be bliss.

      Sorry for the lack of clarity, but I am unable to get to the pure essence of the concept which hit me.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Yes, I suppose word is the only word that is what the word describes…if one knows the meaning of the word, “word.” So then we get down to something more basic — information.

        Our word for “red” is not the subjective experience of the word red, but we understand what it means. It’s useful. The word doesn’t have to be the object.

        However, we’re constantly dealing with the dishonest Left who intentionally mangle words in order to deceive and self-deceive where most decidedly the word is not the object. Did anywhere hear that Orwellian message from the nitwit broad at Firefox after they fired that guy? She kept stressing “diversity.” But firing someone for having a diverse viewpoint is contrary to that word.

        Many of our political battles are lost because of this dishonest use of words. Why this should be so is interesting. Words seem to have the power to mold the way we think. It’s even possible (sad to say) that that stupid broad believed what she was saying.

        Certainly lying to people can mold the way they think by giving them false impressions of the world. And one might ask in regards to words and their inevitable inaccuracy, when are they being used just to be harmlessly “polite,” when are they mild euphemisms (going to “the little boy’s room” instead of the toilet), and when are they outright self-conscious (or even unconscious) lies?

        The military is famous for euphemisms — “collateral damage” instead of…well…whatever word or words one supposes is more truthful. “Civilian deaths”? “Unintended but inherently unavoidable deaths due to the nature of the enemy intentionally fighting amongst civilians in an urban area, especially when the enemy is not uniformed”?

        You could extend that out and even be more accurate. And you could do so regarding each and every word one uses, unpacking it to avoid ambiguity, striving to be as non-euphemistic as possible. But then we would lose the usefulness of words which is to communicate “good enough” information in a timely manner.

        But clearly we sometimes do need to unpack words and see what’s what and make sure we’re not skimming over meaning, let alone reality. Are certain words expressing a definite idea (whether that idea may be true or false), an emotion, a hope, a rumor, or whatever? We can note the importance of this process because of the shift from “global warming” to “climate change.” Global warming not having panned out, now the environmental wackos and statists have chosen another bamboozle word. As to whether they are bamboozling only the low-information voters or themselves is left to be seen.

        Like surely all of you astute people here, I can sift through the words and generally get down to the real meaning. One may then agree or disagree with a particular concept, but the first job of understanding is to understand the underlying meaning which may or may not jibe with the superficial words.

        That more people aren’t up to this basic task is disconcerting. Many just can’t be bothered and are fine with other people doing their thinking. But many more seem trapped inside a propaganda bubble where the words actually capture their thinking. Surely we see this at the base of how yutes have been captured by the Left. It’s not just that their emotions have been manipulated (as big of a factor as this cult technique is). Many of them quite literally are unable to think outside the syntax or lexicon that they have been told is complete.

        I’ve had many conservatives tell me the exact same story. They’ve talked to a liberal (often a son or a daughter), explaining the details of some particular point or policy. Very often such conversations begin and end in a deadlock. But there are those rare times when they will have the other person saying something such as, “I agree with your facts and analysis…but I still don’t think you’re right.”

        Sometimes this is surely plain pig-headed intransigence. Sometimes it is just a lack of trust. But I’m beginning to believe more and more that many people — their minds and worldviews shrunk by “Progressivism”/Leftism — are just not capable of comprehending anything outside of this very narrow worldview.

        Perhaps this is partially to do with B.W.S — Battered Word Syndrome. If you have clusterfu**ed people’s minds enough with a barrage of half-honest, quarter-honest, and plain dishonest Orwellian manipulations of meaning, I think one can lose one’s bearings. We might then understand why so many people do genuinely seem unable to think for themselves and are predisposed to vapid bumper sticker logic.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I’ve mentioned this somewhere (I think at a link here): A friend of mine once observed that liberalism believes in what he calls Disney diversity: a bunch of puppets in all different colors, but made from the same mold and chanting in unison.

    • Brad — I agree that natural or general revelation has its limits — it can lead us to the conclusion that something else — something astounding — lies beyond space and time; it can lead us to the door, but it can’t open the door.

      That’s where special revelation picks up and it is interesting that human beings seem to desire answers to big questions. I’m with you in that I find religion generally silly — all that huffing and puffing from tiny, insignificant creatures jumping up and down, waving frantically, and shouting, “Look what I did!” (Or didn’t do as the case may be.) But if one can look past the fuss-and-bother of churchianity, peel back the need for approbation, there is much to be learned.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        it can lead us to the door, but it can’t open the door.

        One of my heresies, Deana, is that I’m a Joseph Campbell admirer. Yes, yes, I’m well aware of his sometimes condescending attitudes. But I’ve read a couple of his books and have watched his Moyers (eyeroll) program several times. It’s interesting to see Campbell — who was raised a Catholic — often lament his inability to have a truly religious experience. He is, a least, honest about that. And I’m sure, somewhat like him, his interest in religion as a topic is fueled by something other than condescension or the desire to falsify it.

        Part of Campbell’s main schtick is the idea that, according to him, our religious symbols and imagery are meant to lead us to the door, and not be the door itself. Others whom I somewhat trust have noted that there are many aspects of modern Christianity where this is forgotten. To use a Buddhist term, they mistake the finger for the moon (the analogy being, if someone points to the moon and you simply look at the finger, you haven’t “gotten” it). I’m sure you’re quite familiar with this analogy.

        Occasionally I’m obnoxious and slightly tetchy on this subject. I brought about bad feelings about one time on Facebook (sort of in retaliation, if I must be honest — I got tired of being scolded for not capitalizing “god” each and every time). I asked if being fascinating with a wooden image of Jesus in a cradle wasn’t crossing the line on idol worship.

        Of course, the nativity is an old and respected form of veneration, one made famous by St. Francis himself. Still, there is that inner point not to mistake the carved wooden figure for the moon. And that explains my own biases or inclinations. I perhaps tend too much toward the moon and very little finger. I have little time or patience for what I deem man’s liturgy and want The Real Thing. I don’t want any wooden dolls.

        And I think it’s inherently true that the real thing is esoteric, mysterious, and as difficult to grasp and hold in one’s hand as threads of gossamer. Others differ, and I can appreciate that. But that only goes to show that this is an inherently subjective thing, at least to some extent.

      • steve lancaster says:

        Deana,
        Not long ago, I posted a review of two of Eric Hoffer’s books. His insight on change and what it does to a population subjected to drastic change will, I think assist your thinking.
        “a population subjected to drastic change will become a population of misfits”. Is this not exactly what the progressives have done to the US over the last 100 years?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *