Having learned that I am a direct descendant of the leaders of the Scottish War of Independence, 1306-1320 (or therabouts), I have been studying the history of that era. What I have come to understand from these studies is something that we all should understand. Things that we were probably taught in school, that I ignored at the time; but that have a profound influence and consequence in our United States of America.
Basically, throughout human existence, we have lived under only a couple of governing societies. Tribal, of course, where it was primarily a large extended family unit. Once there were more people to deal with, then we evolved into a more structured kind of society, which was pretty much the only thing going until the founding of the United States in 1776. Feudal society or governance. Even the tribal organizations worked on a basic feudal concept.
In the 1300's to 1700's, my Scottish ancestors were fighting for both systems. My Great Grandfather, Robert de Bruce and William Wallace of "Braveheart" fame weren't truly fighting for "freedom".
Bruce and Wallace are depicted as fighting for the freedom of Scotland. In reality, they were fighting for the "rights" of the aristocracy of which their families were a part. They just wanted Scotland to be run by Scottish Kings instead of English ones. The system would remain the same. "Freedom" was not a real part of anything in that era and really hadn't been, for the majority of the people, for thousands of years.
To the Nobles: Freedom meant "Freedom from English oversight." It meant they didn't want Edward I auditing their books, taxing their wool exports, or summoning them to fight his wars in France.
To the Regular People: "Freedom" was more practical. An English administration meant foreign tax collectors who didn't know local customs and "English Law" which often overrode the traditional "Laws of the Brets and Scots." For the poor, "Freedom" was the hope that the guy taking their grain at least spoke their language and lived in the next valley rather than in Westminster.
The regular people, the peasants, owned nothing. Everything was owned by the King, who then "granted" some of it to Lords and Vassals to manage for him, as long as they did what they were told. If they didn't, the King would take their lands and give them to someone else. The peasants were just the slaves who produced everything and gave most of it to their "Lord", who then gave some to the King.
Today, we have "No Kings" rally's, complaining about the actions of someone who was elected by the votes of 80 million, mostly peasants, to do the things he is doing. He only gets to be President for four years and when he's done, his son won't just automatically become the next President. The next President will be selected by the voice of the people.
While the structure of our government (Senates, Republics, Vetoes) is a refined version of Roman architecture, the soul of the system—the concept of Individual Sovereignty via Divine Grant—was a brand new invention in the history of nations.
The "Vertical" vs. "Horizontal" Source of Power
To see why this is unique, you have to look at where every other system believed power came from:
The Ancient & Feudal Model (Vertical): Power started at the top (God or the Gods) and was channeled down to one person (the King, the Emperor, or the Pharaoh). That person then "loaned" out rights and land to everyone else. If you had a right, it was a "gift" from the guy above you.
The American Model (Direct): The Founders argued that the connection is direct. God gives rights to each individual person simultaneously.
This means the "Lords" and "Kings" are suddenly out of a job. If the individual already has the rights, they don't need a middleman to grant them.
The "Inalienable" Difference
The Romans had a concept of ius (rights), but they were "Civil Rights." They were part of a contract with the city of Rome. If you broke the contract or the city fell, the rights vanished.
The Founding Fathers introduced the word "Inalienable" (or Unalienable). This is a legal term meaning "cannot be sold, transferred, or taken away."
If your rights come from a King, the King can take them back.
If your rights come from a Majority Vote (Democracy), the majority can vote them away.
But if your rights come from God, no human government has the "standing" in court to touch them. They are literally "out of this world" in terms of jurisdiction.
In the "Old World," if a person wanted to worship God according to their own conscience, they were technically "stealing" power that belonged to the King. The King claimed to be the final word on both your body and your soul.
By declaring that rights are God-given and personal, the Founders created the only political environment in human history where:
The Government is legally smaller than the Individual.
The Individual is legally beholden to God before the State.
Every other system we've discussed—Feudalism, Roman Imperialism, Communism—relies on the idea that the "Group" or the "Leader" is the source of truth. The American concept of God-given rights acts as a "Shield of Agency." It assumes that you are a sovereign being capable of making your own choices, and that the government’s only moral job is to make sure nobody (including the government itself) interferes with that agency.
It truly is the first time in history that the "man in the grass hut" was told: "You aren't a subject; you are a Sovereign. This land isn't owned by a Lord; it is maintained by your consent."
It’s a high-stakes system, though. It only works as long as the people remember where those rights actually came from. If they start believing the "Lords" in Washington are the ones giving them their rights, they’ve already walked halfway back to the feudal pole.
Socialism is Just Feudalism Rebranded
I. The Myth of "Progress"
We are taught that history is a straight line from the "dark ages" to enlightenment. But today, many are advocating for a system that is thousands of years old. If you look closely at the mechanics of 14th-century Feudalism and compare them to modern State-controlled Socialism, you’ll find they are the same engine with a different coat of paint.
II. The "Lord and Peasant" Mechanics
Throughout human history, there have really only been two models of governance:
The Feudal Model (The Default): You work the land, the King (the State) takes the profit, and in exchange, you get "protection" or "benefits." You are a subject. Your rights are granted by the ruler and can be revoked by the ruler.
The 1776 Model (The Exception): You own your labor, you keep the profit, and you provide for your own security. You are a citizen. Your rights are inherent and belong to you, not the government.
III. The "Braveheart" Fallacy
In the 1300s, when men like Robert de Bruce fought the English, he claimed to be fighting for "freedom". In reality, he was just fighting for a Scottish King to replace an English one. The system of "Lords and Serfs" remained.
Today’s younger generation is falling for the same trick. They think they are rebelling against "the elites," but the solutions they support—centralized government control of healthcare, housing, and wages—actually hand total control back to the very elites they claim to hate. They aren't ending the system; they are just asking for a new "Lord" to manage their lives.
IV. The Hidden Hand of the Modern Aristocracy
Why do the world’s wealthiest "elites" often support these movements? Because a Feudal/Socialist system is a protected monopoly.
In a free society, a "Lord" has to compete with you.
In a Socialist society, the "Lord" only has to lobby the King.
It is easier to control a population that "owns nothing" ("You will own nothing and be happy" is the slogan of the World Economic forum) than a population of independent property owners.
V. The Choice: Subject or Citizen?
When you advocate for the State to be your provider, you are accidentally auditioning for the role of a 14th-century peasant. You are trading your sovereignty for a "benefit" that can be taken away the moment you displease the "Lord."
The "1776 moment" was the only time in human history we broke that cycle. We decided that no man is born with a saddle on his back, and no man is born with boots and spurs to ride him. To go back to a system of State-reliance isn't "progressive"—it is the ultimate surrender to the ancient past.
Marxism presents itself as the ultimate "progressive" leap into the future, but structurally, it functions as a technological update to the ancient past.
If you look at the mechanics of power, Marx didn't invent a new way for humans to live; he just swapped the titles of the people in charge.
The Great Substitution
Marxism is essentially "Feudalism 2.0" because it retains the same top-down hierarchy, just with new branding for the "Lords" and the "Serfs."
The Land: In the 1300s, the Crown held the land. Under Marxism, the "People" (the State) hold the land. In both cases, you don't own it.
The Labor: In the 1300s, the peasant worked for the Lord’s manor. Under Marxism, the worker works for the State’s collective. In both cases, the surplus value is taken by a central authority to be "redistributed" as they see fit.
The Rationale: The King used "Divine Right" (God said I'm in charge). The Marxist uses "Historical Materialism" (Science and Progress say we're in charge). Both claim an authority that the average person is not allowed to question.
The "Administrative Fiefdom"
Marx claimed that the "State would wither away," but in practice, every Marxist experiment has led to a massive, bloated bureaucracy.
You can compare this to the Lord’s Court. In the feudal system, the Lord had his stewards, tax collectors, and enforcers who lived off the labor of the peasants. In a Marxist/Socialist state, you have the "Apparat"—the party officials and bureaucrats who don't produce anything themselves but manage everyone else’s lives. They are the new Aristocracy.
Why It’s Not a Radical Change
The only truly "radical" change in human history was the recognition of the individual.
Ancient/Feudal Era: The Individual is a cell in the body of the Kingdom.
Marxist Era: The Individual is a cell in the body of the Proletariat/State.
1776: The Individual is the Sovereign.
If a system results in a small elite in a capital city deciding how much "grain" you get to keep from your own harvest, it doesn't matter if you call that elite a "Duke" or a "Commissar." The life of the person in the field remains exactly the same: they are working for someone else’s benefit.
Marx didn't want to get rid of the King; he just wanted to be the King. He didn't want to free the serfs; he wanted to be the one who managed them. If you follow the Marxist path, you aren't moving forward into a utopia; you are retreating into the very system my ancestors began fighting to escape 700 years ago.
Private Property is the only thing that stands between a "Citizen" and a "Subject." Without the right to own things, you have no place to stand when the State comes for your liberty.
In Scotland, the struggle was often about who wore the crown—Scottish or English. But 250 years ago, right here, our ancestors weren't fighting for a different King; they were fighting to end the office of the King entirely.
My family has been part of the fight since the 1300's.
1. The Scottish Stage (The Feudal Struggle)
In 1314 at Bannockburn, the goal was National Sovereignty. The Bruce family fought to ensure Scotland wasn't a "fiefdom" of England. However, the internal structure remained feudal. The common man was still a subject; he just had a Scottish Lord instead of an English one. This was "Freedom" in the sense of independence from a foreign power, but not yet personal liberty.
2. The American Stage (The Individual Revolution)
Fast forward to the late 1700s. When my ancestors reached these shores and joined the American Revolution, the goal shifted from National Sovereignty to Individual Sovereignty. This was the "radical" break. They took the fighting spirit of their Scottish ancestors and applied it to a brand-new idea: that no man—not even a Bruce—had a divine right to rule another.
Why are you so eager to give up in a single generation what it took my family seven centuries to figure out? You think you’re being revolutionary, but you’re actually just trying to jump back into the cage my ancestors finally broke open 250 years ago."
Marx’s concepts didn't offer a way out of the "Lord/Peasant" dynamic; they just offered to put "The People's Commissar" in the Lord's castle. My own family only truly escaped that system a few centuries ago, which makes the threat of socialism feel much more imminent and dangerous. It’s not "ancient history"—it’s a system that was only just defeated on this continent, and it’s trying to claw its way back.
The unique ideals that are the foundation of this country were Divinely inspired to our Founders. The creation of this United States of America was central to the founding of the Kingdom of God on the Earth. Our entire human existence is based on this concept of individual rights and free agency. We can't give it away.
Book of Mormon
Ether 2:10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.
2 Nephi 1:7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment