<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>St. Louis Tea Party Coalition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stlouisteaparty.com</link>
	<description>Restoring liberty since 2009</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 13:35:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.1</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">30769244</site>	<item>
		<title>Happy 239th Constitution Day &#8211; Have you considered the greatest of all reflections on the perils of human nature?</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/09/happy-239th-constitution-day-have-you.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 13:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Rule Of Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution Day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberty]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=695a9c202ba2f155176ea5e7e23813ff</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Today is the 239th birthday of the United States Constitution. Peruse it or lose it... and the liberty it was written to preserve. 
What was signed as completed upon this day, two hundred and thirty-nine years ago, September 17th, 1787, by thirty-nine ...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[Today is the 239th birthday of the United States Constitution. Peruse it or lose it... and the liberty it was written to preserve. 
What was signed as completed upon this day, two hundred and thirty-nine years ago, September 17th, 1787, by thirty-nine of the fifty-five Framers, was <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s9.html">the Constitution of the United States of America</a>, and whether you stand in respect for, or disrespectfully turn away from, the Flag, the National Anthem, or the Pledge of Allegiance, you do so in reference to that document which is the oldest existing instrument of its kind, still in operation.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2E98cwco7Uslcs8lTFV2bzElh2wIfG1Sosit3kFg7THG_cUhzHfAWJE-04MwH8-TVgU2M2QnN7ooCtvvbG42cJUfI5r3nPcUDAd62Zqw09U1HSzUycBA2MBRJoUb-XYL9tgR7dg/s1600/WeThePeople.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" height="263" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2E98cwco7Uslcs8lTFV2bzElh2wIfG1Sosit3kFg7THG_cUhzHfAWJE-04MwH8-TVgU2M2QnN7ooCtvvbG42cJUfI5r3nPcUDAd62Zqw09U1HSzUycBA2MBRJoUb-XYL9tgR7dg/s400/WeThePeople.jpg?resize=400%2C263&#038;ssl=1" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Why?
<br />
<br />
Is it simply a list of rules for governing by? Is it nothing more than a favorite fossil of '<i>white people</i>', or something that requires a particular 'heritage' to appreciate and defend? A document of oppression? Frederick Douglass once thought so, but because he was an honest thinker, he didn't stop with the answers that were given to him by others (or his own first conclusions), but continued to think upon the matter, and so he&nbsp;<a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-is-it-pro-slavery-or-anti-slavery/">discovered the Truth which such vile falsehoods seek to smother</a> and erase.
<br />
<br />
But today I'm really not much concerned with your answers to those 'points', but in whether or not you are familiar with the ideas, principles and purposes which animated the writing of it - are you? And if not... what worth can your opinion on it - pro or con - have for me, or for anyone else?
<br />
<br />
Whether you mouth its praises, or make showy protests against it, without understanding what it is you are referencing - your praises and protestations fail to even rise to the level of being wrong, they are but verbal dust to be brushed away, meaningless and of no consequence. And if you are one of that thoughtless many, you may take comfort in the knowledge that you are in the happy company of millions of such Pavlovian 'Conservatives', Pro-Regressive Leftists, and Libertarians, for whom the United States Constitution is little more than a paper bell which they bark at.
<br />
<br />
But for those of you who <i>do </i>see it as more than a mere object of ink upon paper; for those of you who don't insult the memory of those who strove to produce it as having been anything other than men of flesh and blood; for you who understand that it was written upon the foundation prepared for up by the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/07/250-years-later-america-still-depends.html">Declaration of Independence</a>, so as to give physical form to, enable, and implement, some of the greatest political ideas of Western Civilization:
<blockquote>
<ul><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
<li>that Individual Rights result from the nature of being human ("<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s5.html">...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...</a>"), </li>
<li>that men who understand that, are men who are capable of self-governance, </li>
<li>that well-ordered argument can lead to a self-correcting means of governance,</li>
<li>that such a system, established by such a people, can enable lives lived in liberty while in society with others, so long as the beast of Power is bound down and limited by laws whose purpose is to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of every person </li>
</span></em></ul>
</blockquote>, then for you and all such people as that, who keep and bear intellectual arms through a document such as this, Liberty <i>is</i> possible.<div><br />
But it is <i>only</i> possible for those who take the trouble to consider it and understand those thoughts and principles which made it possible. 
<br />
<br />
For those intemperate folk who simply wish to sing the praises of, or rain curses down upon, that which they know little or nothing of, so that they can '<i>do what they will</i>', as they want, <i>because</i> they <i>desire</i> to... well for them, as <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/660#lf0006_anchor_007">Edmund Burke said in the face of the debut of Fascism</a>:

<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”</span></em></blockquote>
Whether you are '<i>for or against it</i>', especially on this day, in <i>our</i> day, you'd be wise to consider what would happen if we should lose the last vestiges of it, and those protections it uniquely extends to both sides. 
<br />
<br />
For those of you who already do, or who are at least willing to make the effort to understand those ideas which animated the framing of this document, those of you who understand that such principles and ideas as these cannot be owned by any race or culture, but can only be discovered by some for the benefit of all, then by virtue of that understanding, you and I are unified through these thoughts which were so well formed, written down, and 'completed' (and not to forget <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2010/12/bill-of-rights-at-219-years.html#Presentation%20and%20Debate">the first debate on amending</a> its completion), on <i>'the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven'</i>.
<br />
<br />
What is it that we celebrate today, <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/">Constitution </a>Day, but the efforts of our Founding Fathers, 239 years ago, to harness the pursuit of power, and force it to serve the pursuit of happiness? It is simply the greatest achievement in history, to date, to enable men to live in liberty, with one another, <i>while disagreeing with each other</i>, under the protection of the Rule of Law.<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html">We the People of the United States</a>, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</span></em></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNhXM8OhsAryc0kl8TUfZXnvRa1fiOCSypJ02o61yPfDe5LXRbDIGROA3pFzDAs5DTXLO-i93Se7P3XdnWb8Ghvke_-ihivEY95xmu8UPGKzZmqPLyDcqgr2Lhhr5_MpRw4DvMkg/s1600/Washington_Constitutional_Convention_1787.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" height="210" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNhXM8OhsAryc0kl8TUfZXnvRa1fiOCSypJ02o61yPfDe5LXRbDIGROA3pFzDAs5DTXLO-i93Se7P3XdnWb8Ghvke_-ihivEY95xmu8UPGKzZmqPLyDcqgr2Lhhr5_MpRw4DvMkg/s320/Washington_Constitutional_Convention_1787.jpg?resize=320%2C210&#038;ssl=1" width="320" /></a></div>
It's worth noting that our Founding Generation found the efforts of the Framers of the Constitution... wanting. 
<br /><br />
They very nearly refused to ratify the document, <i>not </i>because it wasn't an elegant solution to the harnessing of power, but because they felt it didn't go far enough in securing our Individual Rights. 
<br /><br />
But, in the end, they took a risk that politicians could be trusted to provide the lacking Bill of Rights afterwards, and though those politicians almost reneged, James Madison insisted that their word be kept, and though he initially disliked the idea of a Bill of Rights, <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html">he submitted a series of amendments</a> which, after vigorous debate, became the original Ten Amendments to the Constitution that we know today as the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html">Bill of Rights</a>, which were amended to the Constitution for the purpose of restraining the power which the Constitution harnessed into the hands of men:
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.<br />
The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--"</span></em></blockquote>

Madison didn't dislike the idea of a Bill of Rights because he didn't want to secure our Rights, but because he feared that any list of Rights, in the hands of politicians, would serve as snares and loopholes to all of our Rights, limiting them to only those words written upon parchment. But in the process of writing his amendments, he hit upon the ideas that would become our 9th and 10th Amendments, reserving all those Rights and Powers not listed, to the people and those powers not listed, to the states.
<br />
<br />
We have recently come through a series of tumultuous elections, followed by a series of events that are "<a href="https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm">testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.</a>" ...
<br /><br />
If you have not considered what rests at the core of our Constitution, the balancing of powers against powers, and forcing ambition to serve liberty... you must realize that it is not an easy task. As Madison put it in <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed51.htm">Federalist #51</a>:

<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span><span style="font-size: 85%;">"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of </span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">attack. Ambition</span><span style="font-size: 85%;">&nbsp;must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. </span><b style="font-size: 85%;">But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.</b><span style="font-size: 85%;"> In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."</span></span></em></blockquote>

We've passed through elections with charges of fraud, we've ended our longest war in utter chaos and left Americans behind in enemy territory, we have politicians, generals, media and individuals, behaving as if they have no understanding of, concern for, or interest in this document which for 239 years has served to bind the fearsome power of government down with laws. It is up to you, <i>We The People</i>, to consider whether or not that power is balanced against anything at all, so as to serve your liberty - or to extinguish it.
<br />
<br />
Our Constitution was devised so as to put Government at the service of <i>your</i> ability to live your own life, in liberty, with your fellows. Is it still serving that function, or imperiling it? That's a question you'd better consider, because it will determine the direction that this government turns towards, or turns forever away from, either enabling you, your children and your children's children, to live their own lives - or not.<br />
<br />
One final point, whether you are an old hand with, or relatively new to, this document and its ideas, I take it as an obvious point that your reading of it can be greatly improved and informed by those arguments for, and against it, that were in the minds of those who debated the writing and ratifying of it. One of the best tools I've ever found for considering and reflecting upon the whole or particular parts of the Constitution, is the University of Chicago's site "<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html">The Founders Constitution</a>". Scroll down on the contents page and you'll find that it goes through the Constitution clause by clause, and that each is supplied with a list of links to those  relevant portions of not only the <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm">Federalist</a> and <a href="http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers">Anti-Federalist</a> Papers, but to documents which the Founders had in mind when writing the Constitution, to what the Anti-Federalists objected to (this is particularly helpful in understanding the arguments <i>for</i> the Constitution which the Federalist Papers make), as well as early Supreme Court opinions and judgments that were relevant to that clause being acted upon, as well as the commentaries by early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (which are fantastic).
<br />
<br />
Without further ado:
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #990033; font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;"><b><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s9.html">Constitution of the United States and the First Twelve Amendments 1787--1804</a></b></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html">We the People</a></span></b> of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.<br />
<br />
<b>Article. I.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 1</a>. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 2</a>. The House of Representatives shall be composed
of Members chosen every second Year by the People
of the several States, and the Electors in each State
shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the
most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.<br />
<br />
<!--[Volume 1, Page 30]-->
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have
attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven
Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not,
when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he
shall be chosen.<br />
<br />
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned
among the several States which may be included within
this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which
shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of
free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term
of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of
all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made
within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress
of the United States, and within every subsequent Term
of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least
one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be
made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to
chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six,
New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland
six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina
five, and Georgia three.<br />
<br />
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any
State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of
Election to fill such Vacancies.<br />
<br />
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_3_1-2.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 3</a>. The Senate of the United States shall be
composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the
Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall
have one Vote.<br />
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence
of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally
as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of
the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second
Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the
fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of
the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second
Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise,
during the Recess of the Legislature of any State,
the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments
until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then
fill such Vacancies.<br />
<br />
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained
to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen
of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be
an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.<br />
<br />
The Vice President of the United States shall be President
of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be
equally divided.<br />
<br />
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a
President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President,
or when he shall exercise the Office of President of
the United States.<br />
<br />
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on
Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United
States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person
shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present.<br />
<br />
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from Office, and disqualification
to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless
be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment
and Punishment, according to Law.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_4_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 4</a>. The Times, Places and Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,
except as to the Places of chusing Senators.<br />
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year,
and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,
unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_5.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 5</a>. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections,
Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and
a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;
but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day,
and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent
Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties
as each House may provide.<br />
<br />
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with
the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.<br />
<br />
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and
from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts
as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas
and Nays of the Members of either House on any question
shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered
on the Journal.<br />
<br />
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall,
without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than
three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the
two Houses shall be sitting.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 6</a>. The Senators and Representatives shall receive
a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained
by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach
of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance
at the Session of their respective Houses, and in
going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech
or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in
any other Place.<br />
<br />
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for
which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under
the Authority of the United States, which shall have
been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been
encreased during such time; and no Person holding any
Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either
House during his Continuance in Office.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_7_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 7</a>. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate
in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose
or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_7_2-3.html">Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives</a><!--[Volume 1, Page 31]-->
and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,
be presented to the President of the United States; If he
approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with
his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated,
who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration
two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the
Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the
other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become
a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both
Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the
Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall
be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If
any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten
days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented
to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he
had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment
prevent its Return in which Case it shall not be a Law.
<br />
<br />
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence
of the Senate and House of Representatives may be
necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be
presented to the President of the United States; and before
the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him,
or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two
thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according
to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of
a Bill.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 8</a>. The Congress shall have Power To lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_2.html">To borrow Money</a> on the credit of the United States;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_3_commerce.html">To regulate Commerce</a> with foreign Nations, and
among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_4_citizenship.html">To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization</a>, and
uniform Laws on <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_4_bankruptcy.html">the subject of Bankruptcies</a> throughout
the United States;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_5.html">To coin Money</a>, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_6.html">To provide for the Punishment </a>of counterfeiting the Securities
and current Coin of the United States;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_7.html">To establish Post Offices</a> and post Roads;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_8.html">To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts</a>, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_9.html">To constitute Tribunals</a> inferior to the supreme Court;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_10.html">To define and punish Piracies and Felonies</a> committed
on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_11.html">To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal</a>,
and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_12.html">To raise and support Armies</a>, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_13.html">To provide and maintain a Navy</a>;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_14.html">To make Rules for the Government and Regulation</a> of
the land and naval Forces;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_15.html">To provide for calling forth the Militia</a> to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_16.html">To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia</a>, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html">To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever</a>,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may,
by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of
Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the
United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State
in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_18.html">To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper</a>
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government
of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
thereof.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 9</a>. The Migration or Importation of such Persons
as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the
Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or
duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding
ten dollars for each Person.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_2.html">The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus</a> shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion
the public Safety may require it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_3.html">No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law</a> shall be
passed.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_4.html">No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid</a>, unless
in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before
directed to be taken.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_5.html">No Tax or Duty</a> shall be laid on Articles exported from
any State.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_6.html">No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce</a>
or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of
another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be
obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_7.html">No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury</a>, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular
Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures
of all public Money shall be published from time to
time.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_8.html">No Title of Nobility</a> shall be granted by the United
States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress,
accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title,
of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign
State.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_10_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 10</a>. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance,
or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;
coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing
but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing<!--[Volume 1, Page 32]-->
the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of
Nobility.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_10_2.html">No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress</a>, lay
any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what
may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection
Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid
by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use
of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws
shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_10_3.html">No State shall, without the Consent of Congress</a>, lay any
Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time
of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another
State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War,
unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as
will not admit of delay.<br />
<br />
<b>Article. II.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 1</a>. The executive Power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America. He shall hold
his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be
elected as follows<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_2-3.html">Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors</a>, equal to
the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of
Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed
an Elector.<br />
<br />
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and
vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall
not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for,
and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall
sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the
Government of the United States, directed to the President
of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in
the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,
open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be
counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the
whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be
more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal
Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President;
and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest
on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse
the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall
be taken by States, the Representation from each State
having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist
of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States,
and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a
Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President,
the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the
Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should
remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.<br />
<br />
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the
Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes;
which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_5.html">No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of
the United States</a>, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither
shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.<br />
<br />
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or
of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the
Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve
on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law
provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or
Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring
what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer
shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed,
or a President shall be elected.<br />
<br />
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services,
a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased
nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have
been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period
any other Emolument from the United States, or any of
them.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_8.html">Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall
take the following Oath or Affirmation</a>:--"I do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_2_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 2</a>. The President shall be Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion,
in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of
their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant
Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United
States, except in Cases of Impeachment.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_2_2-3.html">He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate</a>, to make Treaties, provided two thirds
of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate,
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers
of the United States, whose Appointments are not
herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established
by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment
of such inferior Officers, as they think proper,
in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the
Heads of Departments.<br />
<br />
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies
that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by
granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of
their next Session.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_3.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 3</a>. He shall from time to time give to the Congress
Information of the State of the Union, and recommend
to their Consideration such Measures as he shall
judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in<!--[Volume 1, Page 33]-->
Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the
Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such
Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors
and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the
Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the
Officers of the United States.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_5s18.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 4</a>. The President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office
on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.<br />
<br />
<b>Article. III.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 1</a>. The judicial Power of the United States, shall
be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a
Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_2_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 2</a>. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,
in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to
all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies
to which the United States shall be a Party;--to
Controversies between two or more States;--between a
State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of
different States,--between Citizens of the same State
claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between
a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.<br />
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,
the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all
the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court
shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the
Congress shall make.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_2_3.html">The Trial of all Crimes</a>, except in Cases of Impeachment,
shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the
State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;
but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall
be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law
have directed.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_3_1-2.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 3</a>. Treason against the United States, shall consist
only in levying War against them, or in adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of
two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.<br />
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment
of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work
Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life
of the Person attainted.<br />
<br />
<b>Article. IV.</b><br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 1</a>. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each
State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings
of every other State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records
and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_2_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 2</a>. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.<br />
<br />
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or
other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in
another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority
of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be
removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.<br />
<br />
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under
the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence
of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged
from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on
Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may
be due.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_3_1.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 3</a>. New States may be admitted by the Congress
into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or
erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any
State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or
Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of
the States concerned as well as of the Congress.<br />
<br />
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make
all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory
or other Property belonging to the United States; and
nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to
Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular
State.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_4.html"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Section</span> 4</a>. The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when
the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a5.html">Article. V</a>.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two
thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid
to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed
by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment
which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight
hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and
that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's
equal Suffrage in the Senate.<br />
<br />
<!--[Volume 1, Page 34]--><br />
<b>Article. VI.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_1.html">All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into</a>, before
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid
against the United States under this Constitution, as under
the Confederation.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_2.html">This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States</a>
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_3.html">The Senators and Representatives before mentioned</a>,
and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a7.html">Article. VII</a>.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall
be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between
the States so ratifying the Same.<br />
<blockquote>
The Word, "the," being interlined between the
seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The
Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure
in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words
"is tried" being interlined between the thirty second
and thirty third Lines of the first Page and
the Word "the" being interlined between the forty
third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.
Attest <span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">William Jackson</span> Secretary</blockquote>
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the
States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the
Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty
seven and of the Independance of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto
subscribed our Names,<br />
<br />
Go: <span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Washington</span>--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia<br />
<table border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>New Hampshire</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>John Langdon<br />
Nicholas Gilman</td>
<td>}</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Massachusetts</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Nathaniel Gorham<br />
Rufus King</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Connecticut</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Wm. Saml. Johnson<br />
Roger Sherman</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>New York</td>
<td></td>
<td>Alexander Hamilton</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>New Jersey</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Wil: Livingston<br />
David Brearley.<br />
Wm. Paterson.<br />
Jona: Dayton</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Pensylvania</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>B Franklin<br />
Thomas Mifflin<br />
Robt Morris<br />
Geo. Clymer<br />
Thos. FitzSimons<br />
Jared Ingersoll<br />
James Wilson<br />
Gouv Morris</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Delaware</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Geo: Read<br />
Gunning Bedford jun<br />
John Dickinson<br />
Richard Bassett<br />
Jaco: Broom</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Maryland</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>James McHenry<br />
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer<br />
Danl Carroll</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Virginia</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>John Blair--<br />
James Madison Jr.</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>North Carolina</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>Wm. Blount<br />
Richd. Dobbs Spaight.<br />
Hu Williamson</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>South Carolina</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>J. Rutledge<br />
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney<br />
Charles Pinckney<br />
Pierce Butler.</td>

</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><img height="6" scr="../Images/1ptrans.gif" width="1" /></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>Georgia</td>
<td>{</td>
<td>William Few<br />
Abr Baldwin</td>

</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;"><b>Amendments to the Constitution</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;"><b><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html">Preamble to the first ten Amendments</a>:</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Congress of the United States;
Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.&nbsp;</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--</i></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Article I</b> - Congress shall make no law respecting an <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html">establishment of religion</a>, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_speech.html">freedom of speech</a>, or of the press; or the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_assembly.html">right of the people peaceably to assemble</a>, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<br />
<br />
<b>Article II </b>- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html">right of the people to keep and bear Arms</a>, shall not be infringed.<br />
<br />
<b>Article III</b> - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIII.html">in any house</a>, without <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIIs12.html">the consent of the Owner</a>, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.<br />
<br />
<b>Article IV</b> - The <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIV.html">right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated</a>, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<br />
<br />
<b>Article V</b> - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html">due process of law</a>; nor shall <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV_due_process.html">private property be taken for public use, without just compensation</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Article VI</b> - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html">right to a speedy and public trial</a>, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.<br />
<br />
<b>Article VII</b> - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendVII.html">right of trial by jury shall be preserved</a>, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.<br />
<br />
<b>Article VIII</b> - Excessive bail <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendVIII.html">shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments</a> inflicted.<br />
<br />
<b>Article IX</b> - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIX.html">shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Article X</b> - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendX.html">are reserved to the States respectively</a>, or to the people.


<br />
<br />
<img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/images/single_line.gif?w=900&#038;ssl=1" /><br />
<span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot;;"><b>The Founders' Constitution</b></span><br />
<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s9.html">Volume 1, Chapter 1, Document 9</a><br />
<br />
The University of Chicago Press<br />
<i>Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States</i>. Edited by Charles C. Tansill. 69th Cong., 1st sess. House Doc. No. 398. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1927.


</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13940</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>25 Years Later &#8211; Who are we, who now remember September 11th, 2001?</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/09/25-years-later-who-are-we-who-now.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[September 11th]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=66cc5903e36d44a87083fafb83114f47</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[
Last year, the day before 9/11, Charlie Kirk was murdered by a transtifa enthusiast. Today, 25 years after September 11, 2001, the mayor of New York City is a communist muslim. Such indicators of what's been called a Red-Green Alliance, add still more...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
Last year, the day before 9/11, <a href="https://open.substack.com/pub/danaloesch/p/charlie-kirk-was-assassinated-today?r=8zhgy&amp;utm_campaign=post&amp;utm_medium=web&amp;showWelcomeOnShare=false">Charlie Kirk was murdered</a> by a transtifa enthusiast. Today, 25 years after September 11, 2001, the mayor of New York City is a communist muslim. Such indicators of what's been called <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelyoussef/2026/09/06/i-lived-under-a-red-green-alliance-i-know-what-comes-next-here-n2682357">a Red-Green Alliance</a>, add still more urgency to the need to ask the question I've been asking for years: <b>Who <i>are</i> we, who now remember September 11th, 2001?</b>
<br /><br />
If anyone thinks that's too provocative &amp; divisive a manner for remembering what happened 25 years ago today, screw your notions of unity and healing, <i>remember</i> what was done to America 25 years ago, recognize what is being done to it <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/09/bigger-government-requires-smaller.html">today</a>, and consider <i>deeply</i> what <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">that should mean, and does mean</a>&nbsp;to us <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2025/07/calvin-coolidge-thomas-jefferson-james.html">as Americans</a>, both today, and tomorrow - few things are more important for us to do <i>right now</i>.<br />


<b><div><b><br /></b></div>[From 09/11/2024] Who are we, who now remember September 11th, 2001</b><br />
In previous posts in remembrance of September 11th, 2001, I've noted that who we are as Americans, has been becoming less recognizable than the date we're remembering, and with the current election, that lack of recognition has been increasing between us, as speedily&nbsp;as that time in September has been receding from us into the past. The painful truth is that what has most unified Americans, before <i>and </i>after 9/11, has been our opposition to each other; a unity formed from our general ignorance of the history and ideas that made America possible 226 years before that awful day. As that is clearly still the case, and with an emphasis upon my continued sentiment of '<b><u>Screw healing, keep the wound raw - remember what was done to America, and what that should mean to <i>us as</i> Americans!</u></b>', I'll repeat my post from 2021, followed by my 2018 remembrance of the events of September 11th, 2001:<br />
  <b><div><b><br /></b></div>[From 09/11/2021] What we've forgotten to remember</b><br />
Something a little different to begin marking the 20th year since September 11th, 2001. My usual remembrance will be down below, but I'm not willing to pretend that our present circumstances don't matter in relation to it.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKhFv9KYRUaCc979RTzbaN3FOB6SBUdkJJJu5vidlmjpSVGPA6VBCL8G_3i8eLxe8hxDzBdoytSp1X3UcSzKlJ_ADUTIqdHuony0XPcN3GG_Q9bEvaTOuPgnXp8iKwPSM8miyHtA/s606/BeforeTheDateMattered.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="606" data-original-width="425" height="400" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKhFv9KYRUaCc979RTzbaN3FOB6SBUdkJJJu5vidlmjpSVGPA6VBCL8G_3i8eLxe8hxDzBdoytSp1X3UcSzKlJ_ADUTIqdHuony0XPcN3GG_Q9bEvaTOuPgnXp8iKwPSM8miyHtA/w280-h400/BeforeTheDateMattered.jpg?resize=280%2C400&#038;ssl=1" width="280" /></a></div>
Two things we've forgotten about September 11th, 2001: the day before, and the day after, and the worst constant between them.
<br /><br />
On the day before, I could take the kids to the airport, walk in and stroll on up to the gate with them to wait for their mom to come out of the plane. No TSA, or any of the other measures that have followed since the day after.
<br /><br />
On the day after, there were flags flown everywhere you looked, everyone was thinking about America and what it meant to them, and to how we'd destroy those who did 9-11 to us.
<br /><br />
Those aspects of the day before, and the day after, have all but vanished.
<br /><br />
What <i>has </i>remained constant from the day before, and the day after September 11th, 2001, and every day from then to now, is the sense of political fury, recrimination, and partisan obstruction, directed towards 'the other side' - the day before, it was over the Bush v Gore election of 2000, the day after it was about the day before and what we did about it afterwards. From then to now, every imaginable excuse for partisan disagreement has been embraced by all sides.&nbsp;<div><br /></div><div>IOW, what it is that we are unified in as Americans, is our opposition to each other. 
<br /><br />
That's not a good sign.
<br /><br />
What has remained far too constant from then to now, is that people have given too little thought to thinking about what is important about what America is, and what it depends upon. 
<br /><br />
20 years later, what's remained constant between the day before, and the day after, is not only our anger at the political opposition, but that people have given so little thought to understanding what it was that caused us to be attacked, as if it doesn't really matter what America is, and depends upon, in order to be America. 
<br /><br />
And the people who <i>We The People</i> have put in our government today exemplify our lack of  understanding of who we are, who we should be, and why.
<br /><br />
I've spent the last several weeks reading even further into what those that&nbsp;<i>We The People</i> have put in charge of our children's educations, which has in fact gone into educating the generation that has grown up since September 11, 2001, about who they are and why. 
<br /><br />
It's been a disgusting experience. But there's little mystery as to why so few care, or care to remember.<br /><br />
We have people in our schools and government today, that hate what America is and means, every bit as much as those who killed thousands of Americans on September 11th, 2001. And they were there long before September 11th, 2001, and they've only intensified their positions and numbers, since then.
<br /><br />
Almost worse than that, we have many, many, more people in and out of our government, who care very little about that. In a nation founded upon a set of ideas, they don't think that those ideas matter much at all.
<br /><br />
That's unacceptable. It should be noted that what can't continue, won't.
<br /><br />
If you remember September 11th, 2001, and forget what you, and America, are, and what each requires - it doesn't much matter what you remember about this day, or any other.
<br /><br />
The chaos surrounding our schools and education today, is an indication that people <i>might </i>be beginning to realize that it <i>does </i>matter what we know about who we are, and what America is and depends upon, and the importance of our taking care in putting the right people into our schools and government.
<br /><br />
On September 11th, 2001, nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered. It is right and proper that we commemorate that. But for what happens to America to really matter, <i>We The People</i>, have to take the time to understand what it means to be Americans.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>It's up to us. It's up to you. And it's that which is needed for the memory of September 11th, to be as meaningful as it <i>should </i>be, to those living in America and <i>should</i> be Americans.
<br /><br />
Make it matter. Make it worth remembering. Because it was and is most assuredly a day to remember. And now, back to then:<br /><br />

<b>[From 09/11/2018] Remember, Remember the 11th of September</b><br />
And now it is September 11th once again, and once again it is time to remember. We remember September 11th because of what happened upon September 11th, 2001. September 11th is not '<i>Patriot's Day</i>', and it's damn sure not '<i>a day of service</i>' (other than military service). September 11th, 2001 is a day to remember that the full brutality and destruction that man is capable of was deliberately visited upon America in New York City, Washington D.C. and Shanksville Pennsylvania. We should remember. We should reflect. Those responsible should have been and should be destroyed, and those whose negligence had enabled it, and those who excuse it, and those who minimize it, should be despised and reviled by all who remember. We must remember so that the horror of September 11th, 2001 is confined to the past and is not allowed to slip past us and out into another clear blue sky in the future.
<br /><br />
Screw healing.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFB36fXgaDi1eck_nO_Cq02nRDvhhgWRCGyCb9ImBqJ4b5b5F5zhe5t1EDlNT9hy7bdXwH_8Me_3OTs9hJ3zW7Fag_u5UvI5B9zfb2AtMEFurkBIru4cxiAYO8gpuhRoM4LtNx-Q/s1600/ny7.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="410" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFB36fXgaDi1eck_nO_Cq02nRDvhhgWRCGyCb9ImBqJ4b5b5F5zhe5t1EDlNT9hy7bdXwH_8Me_3OTs9hJ3zW7Fag_u5UvI5B9zfb2AtMEFurkBIru4cxiAYO8gpuhRoM4LtNx-Q/s320/ny7.jpg?resize=296%2C320&#038;ssl=1" width="296" /></a></div><br />
We should pick at the wound, keep it burning. Remember the parents on the plane heading in to strike the Towers, their child sitting next to them... remember the people in the Tower on the phone to 911, crying, scared, burning from the heat, and then screaming as the impossible happened, the tower collapsed beneath them into nothingness. Remember the wives, husbands, children, of those who just went to work that day, and had their lives and world stolen from them by islambie thugs.
<br /><br />
Remember that no matter what idiot politician or educationista prattles... we are a people who have known, and still know freedom and liberty and law, a people who believe it is good to live a moral life and pursue our happiness where we see fit to choose to. Remember that there are alleged human beings who wish nothing more than to destroy that possibility.
<br /><br />
Remember Sept. 11, 2001. Be angry, feel hatred, seek the destruction of those who seek yours. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do so, and remember that those who lost their lives, and those who have since given their lives in this cause, have hallowed this day far beyond and above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say today, but History - in reflection and action - will remember what happened, and it will take note of whether or not we remember. It will take note of whether or not we take note of those who had taken, and those who have given, the last full measure of devotion -- and it will judge whether or not we here are highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; whether or not this nation, shall continue to give birth to, and stand up for and defend freedom, and it shall judge from that, whether or not government of the people by the people for the people, shall, or shall not perish from the earth.
<br /><br />
And it will judge and act accordingly.
<br /><br />
Remember September 11, 2001.
<br /><br />
In remembering what happened on September 11th, 17 years ago, I've patched this post together from a number of memories and posts and comments I've made from then to now. Where they began, of course, was on the morning of September 11th, 2001, when my wife, who was a flight attendant with TWA, called me as I was driving into work on I-70, just passing through Earth City, to tell me a plane had just crashed into the World Trade Center.<br />
<br />
I was thinking a Cessna, but she said it sounded like it was larger, the impact too large. I knew a plane had once hit the Empire State building on a stormy night, but she said the weather looked clear, how could that be possible? As we were talking, another jet hit the other tower.<br />
<br />
That made it clear what was going on, we decided that she'd pick the boys up from school and bring them home.<br />
<br />
I continued on into work, and news came that another plane had hit the Pentagon.<br />
<br />
A blue streak of horror and animal fury blasted back at my radio as the news came that one of the towers was collapsing. As I walked into work, 7th floor of A.G. Edwards, people were crowded around the T.V. in the lobby and the second tower came down.<br />
<br />
I went to my desk, one of the guys there was trying to get a hold of his son who worked in one of the World Trade Center towers. I turned to our project coordinator and told him I wouldn't be working that day, and headed for home.<br />
<br />
I told the boys the obvious as we watched the news, that the world had just changed, we were at war, and nothing would be the same.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7AgC9FIvxZZ7RJKZiOs5KlyKtWz51MCz5QBeCgDo1b0T8wbVc46uUc-Hdm0s-RlXcj1EPEuO5Ck7GkVSGXoFk_Z745XTiFtKoCrWQi9JnvsMItxk_TOK-av93UA8AK8awOiOUww/s1600/wtc23.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="420" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7AgC9FIvxZZ7RJKZiOs5KlyKtWz51MCz5QBeCgDo1b0T8wbVc46uUc-Hdm0s-RlXcj1EPEuO5Ck7GkVSGXoFk_Z745XTiFtKoCrWQi9JnvsMItxk_TOK-av93UA8AK8awOiOUww/s320/wtc23.jpg?resize=210%2C320&#038;ssl=1" width="210" /></a></div>
<br />
To those who want to think of this day as a time for healing or a day of service, Fuck You. We are not going back to the reflexive evasion of reality which is what made this day possible.<br />
<br />
Political Correctness began its well deserved death that day ten years ago today, it may be a long, agonizingly slow death, fitting perhaps for the cancer that it is, but it was the beginning of the end of the view that it is in any way good or proper to pretend a lie can pretty up the truth.<br />
<br />
The lie is nothing but darkest evil, and the light of Truth chases, confines and obliterates it... as we have, and will do, to those who did this evil – you are nothing, and to nothingness you will be returned.<br />
<br />
And yet there are those who will shake their head and ask "How do you kill an idea?"<br />
<br />
How do you kill an idea? If it is an idea that people are not open to discussing, an idea that will not tolerate reasonable alternatives, an idea that requires your death or your submission, then the answer to that question is a very simple one:<br />
<br />
You cannot defeat an idea.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTDfcjLijUl7OXHxcXVBjXVrn-RkNvCAkQ90tD148J574b5xl2av9pp-P3q2g18R_mo7ayPi6eIPsH7mzHmo9cs9or29DWfmrp6gK2EvZzMTyJaOXIPq2lCJz4BAHsWsBbmIjHcQ/s1600/9-11.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="639" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTDfcjLijUl7OXHxcXVBjXVrn-RkNvCAkQ90tD148J574b5xl2av9pp-P3q2g18R_mo7ayPi6eIPsH7mzHmo9cs9or29DWfmrp6gK2EvZzMTyJaOXIPq2lCJz4BAHsWsBbmIjHcQ/s320/9-11.jpg?resize=213%2C320&#038;ssl=1" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
All you can do is make physically certain that those of the enemy who might survive a war with you, would live in constant fear and dread at the thought of that idea ever again being in their head, let alone upon their lips. You cannot defeat an idea, you can only make people determined to no longer entertain them, because of the memory of the war they fought with you over it, and the fear of the possibility of such a conflict ever happening again, is too painful to think about<br />
<br />
How do you kill an idea? By killing its hosts, and causing everyone else to fear and dread the thought of thinking it.<br />
<br />
Screw healing.<br />
<br />
We should pick at the wound, keep it burning. Remember the parents on the plane heading in to strike the Towers, their child sitting next to them... remember the people in the Tower on the phone to 911, crying, scared, burning from the heat, and then screaming as the impossible happened, the tower collapsed beneath them into nothingness. Remember the wives, husbands, children, of those who just went to work that day, and had their lives and world stolen from them by islambie thugs.<br />
<br />
Remember that no matter what idiot politician or educationista prattles... we are a people who have known, and still know freedom and liberty and law, a people who believe it is good to live a moral life and pursue our happiness where we see fit to choose to. Remember that there are alleged human beings who wish noting more than to destroy that possibility.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhERXVzFDnayc3zWC0dQttTmfhZ_iYz3_qzPPIahiWjXd6XXSd1N8hvUp-tF5IC1enTk_MRZLmn8SA-e5sFJZ__HsIjsy2FILhSeZoDkObF-YBuKht7cwgm4loK0eBhSD6U8X2p-A/s1600/wtc54.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="640" height="213" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhERXVzFDnayc3zWC0dQttTmfhZ_iYz3_qzPPIahiWjXd6XXSd1N8hvUp-tF5IC1enTk_MRZLmn8SA-e5sFJZ__HsIjsy2FILhSeZoDkObF-YBuKht7cwgm4loK0eBhSD6U8X2p-A/s320/wtc54.jpg?resize=320%2C213&#038;ssl=1" width="320" /></a></div>
Remember Sept. 11, 2001. Be angry, feel hatred, seek the destruction of those who seek yours. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do so, and remember that those who lost their lives, and those who have since given their lives in this cause, have hallowed this day far beyond and above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say today, but it will remember what happened, and it will take note of whether or not we remember.<br />
<br />
A proper foreign policy is "Mind your own business &amp; we'll mind ours. Mess with us or ours, and we'll destroy you. Period."<br />
<br />
Anything less, reasoning with those who are unreasonable, giving measured responses in reply to savagery, etc., are concessions and only serve to enable those who wish us harm.<br />
<br />
Perhaps more than anything else, remember that forgetting how and why the attacks of 9-11 were made possible, guarantees that its horrors will be revisited upon us, courtesy of our willful inability to recognize their approach, and the cost of that will be history rhyming itself once again, as the <a href="http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm">Gods of the Copybook Headings</a> limp up to explain it once more:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,<br />
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.<br />
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,<br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.<br />
<br />
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn<br />
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:<br />
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,<br />
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.<br />
<br />
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,<br />
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,<br />
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come<br />
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.<br />
<br />
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,<br />
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;<br />
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;<br />
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.<br />
<br />
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.<br />
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.<br />
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,<br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: <i>"Stick to the Devil you know."</i> <br />
<br />
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life<br />
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)<br />
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,<br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: <i>"The Wages of Sin is Death."</i> <br />
<br />
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, <br />
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; <br />
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, <br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: <i>"If you don't work you die." </i><br />
<br />
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew<br />
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true<br />
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four<br />
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.<br />
<br />
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man<br />
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. <br />
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, <br />
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;<br />
<br />
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins<br />
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, <br />
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, <br />
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! <br />
</span></em></blockquote>
Please, try to remember 9/11 as the lesson we won't have to learn once more.<br />
<br />
Reality will not be denied, and Evil will not be turned aside because you choose to turn away from it. Deny that, and the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return. Please. Just face the facts and learn the lesson so we don't have to learn it once more.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisSD7s2GG6pFNV70cXnYvUJc-Az5NEdv7brQFT_2gdllupZc-UypRQziAYHGxPtn7iBLVKctNW7ohMOH12-MCW9E1iO3gy2W1tfCOM6yi4Xo6agVMDhWQVFEbysguCZ6pn8jEaDA/s1600/wtc-1wolfrom.jpg?ssl=1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" data-original-height="605" data-original-width="771" height="251" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisSD7s2GG6pFNV70cXnYvUJc-Az5NEdv7brQFT_2gdllupZc-UypRQziAYHGxPtn7iBLVKctNW7ohMOH12-MCW9E1iO3gy2W1tfCOM6yi4Xo6agVMDhWQVFEbysguCZ6pn8jEaDA/s320/wtc-1wolfrom.jpg?resize=320%2C251&#038;ssl=1" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13932</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bigger government requires smaller Americans</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/09/bigger-government-requires-smaller.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 03:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Pro-Regressivism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T.R./Wilson Conservatives]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=a7e7ce64f66a74c96d36c0e7d9c14a82</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[
Dana Loesch reported on some news that was not welcome:
"...the Vice-President is shopping a draft plan to pay $9,000 per child of taxpayer dollars to families of married parents where the wife stays home..."
These people aren't simply pushing economi...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
Dana Loesch reported on some news that <a href="https://danaloesch.substack.com/p/dont-make-welfare-queens-of-american">was not welcome</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...the Vice-President is shopping a draft plan to pay $9,000 per child of taxpayer dollars to families of married parents where the wife stays home..."</span></em></blockquote>
These people aren't simply pushing economic and social policies to help young families - economic policies are just <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/exiting-wizards-circle-of-economics.html">the most effective means</a> of coming up with schemes for duping <i>We The People</i> into enabling them to do what they want to do, <i>to us</i>, while calling it '<i>Conservative</i>'.
<br /><br />But what's it conserving?
<br /><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihc8jRBlX2QZJz3g7nQ1LFTwCP0sskuPr4c8D9JwU9niqFdFFNX0I3b3ca5t0MU9lj5cm_7IWrVgNIw_9JLxBt9xuzQDulHHvxncRyDRtnRetQhiWulwq5Qbfu4seOkuOxCt4Jgt-qt0UbW9S208jAk_SSWQaJW7pU3asEtbKHWE3GV2hhnTC3Dw/KRobertsPro-Regressive.jpeg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="0" data-original-width="0" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihc8jRBlX2QZJz3g7nQ1LFTwCP0sskuPr4c8D9JwU9niqFdFFNX0I3b3ca5t0MU9lj5cm_7IWrVgNIw_9JLxBt9xuzQDulHHvxncRyDRtnRetQhiWulwq5Qbfu4seOkuOxCt4Jgt-qt0UbW9S208jAk_SSWQaJW7pU3asEtbKHWE3GV2hhnTC3Dw/s200/KRobertsPro-Regressive.jpeg?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://x.com/KevinRobertsTX/status/2097460286793957495"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Pro-Regressive T.R./Wilson 'Conservatives'!</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table>It's certainly not conserving the rights of the American people, which is neither new nor surprising, as those seeking bigger government require smaller Americans to impose it upon. And the more Big Government you accept, the smaller the range of actions that you can use your own judgement to take, becomes.
<br /><br />
Government that isn't limited to upholding and defending the individual rights, property, and lives of its people from enemies foreign and domestic (See <a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_1.html">Article 1, Section 8</a>), can only expand what they do care about - government power and grift - by reducing the scope of the American citizen's individual rights, property, and lives, and they are more than willing to sacrifice what is rightfully yours, to satisfy their lust for power and prestige.
<br /><br />
Those who support these measures while calling themselves 'Conservative', are clearly not seeking to conserve the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and that understanding which made them possible. So again: what are they trying to conserve?
<br /><br />

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-TSndsKRQ3mqKDbvZW6rfUb4kxDf247hFVtZJYoepJPDj8Fc_t59J3LNmv9_ix1G0A1zB2uhGm_K2NL6X2cu6M3ktWXzePWcqBfgEW-L5uPcEY44zer_hK2mjDk2Cd0a73Wcky4EUdYORszzhRiOuSX-K7jvl8BgcpC5lpft1WIwTr1p9iG46Kw/DLoeschCrockett.jpeg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="0" data-original-width="0" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-TSndsKRQ3mqKDbvZW6rfUb4kxDf247hFVtZJYoepJPDj8Fc_t59J3LNmv9_ix1G0A1zB2uhGm_K2NL6X2cu6M3ktWXzePWcqBfgEW-L5uPcEY44zer_hK2mjDk2Cd0a73Wcky4EUdYORszzhRiOuSX-K7jvl8BgcpC5lpft1WIwTr1p9iG46Kw/s320/DLoeschCrockett.jpeg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://x.com/DLoesch/status/2097699733602975829?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>This is what should be conserved</i></span></a>!</td></tr></tbody></table>

They're clearly not wanting to conserve James Madison's understanding of the constitution, though he would have recognized at least some part of their intentions, as almost from the very start there were politicians seeking to '<i>do good!</i>' via other people’s money.&nbsp;<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2010/06/you-say-you-want-constitution-wellll-ya.html">I've mentioned several times before</a> about James Madison, while still a congressman, getting ticked off at congress's attempt to spend the then princely sum of $15,000 on refugees, saying:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."</span></em></blockquote>


, and years later as President, he said in his Veto Message of March 3, 1817,
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States..."</span></em></blockquote>

Neither do these 'Conservatives' of today, want anything to do with conserving what Thomas Jefferson understood about the purpose of government under our constitution, as he too warned that:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388 "</span></em></blockquote>

Neither does it appear that today's 'conservatives' would want anything to do with conserving what President Franklin Pierce understood to be the purpose and scope of our system of government, as he said after vetoing an appropriation to assist the mentally ill, 
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding, "To approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."</span></em></blockquote>

The same goes for President Grover Cleveland, who famously vetoed numerous spending bills, while similarly saying, 

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."</span></em></blockquote>

Today's 'Conservatives' truly do not want to conserve what originally made our form of government, really and truly a uniquely American one. What they <i>do</i> want to conserve, is what began to emerge a century <i>after</i> our Declaration of Independence was signed, and our Constitution was written and ratified, when, even though Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution remained the same, those who desired to use government power to '<i>do good!</i>' for '<i>the common good!</i>', felt hampered by the understanding of those documents, and as <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2010/06/you-say-you-want-constitution-wellll-ya.html">I noted back in 2010</a>, they wanted "<i>change!</i>". The first chip in the integrity of our Constitution, came, tellingly, in the same type of infrastructure bill that James Madison vetoed nearly a century earlier:

<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"> 

"...Something had changed, and Wilson was the first (to Teddy Roosevelt's frustration) to be able to truly capitalize upon it. This breach in understanding is clearly visible in how the Federal Road program had come to be, in view of an earlier SCOTUS ruling:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">"In the 1907 case Wilson v. Shaw, the U.S. Supreme Court officially gave Congress the power "to construct interstate highways" under its constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce."</span></blockquote>

The SCOTUS 'gave' congress the power? Which Article of the constitution do you find that in? But that is the typical top-down view of pro-regressivism (and what lawyer and judge doesn't see themselves as being at the top?). In the SCOTUS decision which opened the way for these bills, Justice Brewer admiringly references a previous case favoring railroads, that asserted,

<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">"It cannot at the present day be doubted that Congress, under the power to regulate commerce among the several states as well as to provide for postal accommodations and military exigencies, had authority to pass these laws."</span></blockquote>

Cannot be doubted? How is it that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, not only doubted that congress had such power, but clearly expressed those reasons for them in his veto of just such a bill under the same guise? Something changed... what was it?"</span></blockquote>

This is the ugly falsehood of 'Progress' that today's 'Conservative' wants to conserve, holding that term up as a figleaf to cover their desire to regress society back to that point in the past - <i>before The United States of America</i> - when government's powers <i>were not</i> limited, and when those in power could do as they willed to do to their own people, for the '<i>common good</i>'. These people are '<i>T.R./Wilson Conservatives</i>', and they are seeking to conserve and call 'progress', the same bi-partisan assault that <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2011/12/presidents-obama-trs-nationalism-vs.html">Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson launched</a> against the original American understanding of "<i>life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness</i>", just over a century ago.<br /><br />It was that <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">Pro-Regressive</a> attitude that Calvin Coolidge was calling out in his speech on the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/07/250-years-later-america-still-depends.html">Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence</a>, as:

<div style="float: left;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7t-2pWRSDPVbPiIjxIf8v7tdTLO9y69PZGXg_BZetk-mNmgMvuuUJI0amPDlMdihk48TmMoY4JZOehoBnSdRN50xdSckd_XysidSFuAcIjP9DR1iIVP9ykN7b6nTqPdrFVsBl10u6iPOmOSFbEGhTL_vm4FnJay_6RBdt8rHlxZf7lGN7o5TUyA/Duffy-AlfonsoPro-Regressive.jpeg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="0" data-original-width="0" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7t-2pWRSDPVbPiIjxIf8v7tdTLO9y69PZGXg_BZetk-mNmgMvuuUJI0amPDlMdihk48TmMoY4JZOehoBnSdRN50xdSckd_XysidSFuAcIjP9DR1iIVP9ykN7b6nTqPdrFVsBl10u6iPOmOSFbEGhTL_vm4FnJay_6RBdt8rHlxZf7lGN7o5TUyA/s200/Duffy-AlfonsoPro-Regressive.jpeg?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://x.com/Van_Blogodidact/status/2097710043248390449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">&nbsp;<span style="font-size: x-small;">Choose progress,<br />over Pro-Regress!</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. <b><i>If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final</i></b>. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. <b>If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. <i>Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers</i></b>..."</span></blockquote>These '<i>T.R./Wilson Conservatives</i>' will cheer on whatever 'benefit' seems likely to lure the unwary into further eroding the Constitutional protections for our inalienable rights, in hopes of fully transforming the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2016/10/perverting-progress-into-poison.html">Rule of Law, into a Rule of Rules</a>, and they intend to be the ones with the power to make up the rules that you will have to live by.<div><br /></div><div>Don't fall for it.&nbsp; Again.</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13930</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Critical Thinking&#8217; Fails its Socratic Paternity Test</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/08/critical-thinking-fails-its-socratic.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 02:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Critical Thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Socrates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sophistry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Critical Insurrection]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=2bd4eb740d9797915fc20db6d2cb33ec</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[


If, as I contend, 'Critical Thinking' is and always has been a critical threat to sound reasoning (it has) - why did (do) otherwise intelligent people adopt and promote it? That's partly due to what we saw in the previous post, where its deceptive c...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj8ujJJiW9lq3S8ONh1APnffcijiqreyCEfHvPDIZjbZG5AQzrJhbvVG3ely_gmkPUlXXgCI4ZnnYJbjHLmxuMATWxq3EarU1PzFAvKc1uQHd3avicC6sD7_uXnphjuuw3lfLED7-TIC18Uz87BDPdrYmmdc6H2G9AeY64cBDgyDfQIpuH9QLrBw/s1598/SocratesRefutesCTPaternity.png?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1098" data-original-width="1598" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgj8ujJJiW9lq3S8ONh1APnffcijiqreyCEfHvPDIZjbZG5AQzrJhbvVG3ely_gmkPUlXXgCI4ZnnYJbjHLmxuMATWxq3EarU1PzFAvKc1uQHd3avicC6sD7_uXnphjuuw3lfLED7-TIC18Uz87BDPdrYmmdc6H2G9AeY64cBDgyDfQIpuH9QLrBw/s320/SocratesRefutesCTPaternity.png?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

If, as I contend, 'Critical Thinking' is and always has been a critical threat to sound reasoning (<i>it has</i>) - why did (<i>do</i>) otherwise intelligent people adopt and promote it? That's partly due to what we saw in the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/08/thinking-critically-about-critical.html">previous post</a>, where its deceptive claims about what CT is and will 'do' for students, are furthered by the claim that 'Critical Thinking' is directly descended from what Socrates practiced at the dawn of Western philosophy. As has already been pointed out, these claims are clearly bogus, even on the basis of the title itself, as 'Critical Thinking' stretches no further back in time than to John Dewey in the 1890's (not actually using those words until 1910), and that the first book on 'Critical Thinking' wasn't published until <i>19<b>41</b></i>. But what needs to be better understood, which is the purpose of this post, is that worse than simply being technically incorrect about historic details (AKA: Lying), the substance and spirit of the claim is, at best, patently absurd.

<br /><br />
Ironically (Socrates cheers), as their Socratic paternity claim is made to lull people into <i>not</i> thinking about what 'Critical Thinking' really is, if we subject 'Critical Thinking' itself to just the initial questions that Socrates might have begun with, it not only reveals itself to be a mismatch on the basis of its philosophical DNA, but it reveals how fundamentally incompatible that CT is to what Socrates was doing, and to <i>why</i> he was doing it, and so flat-out fails the Socratic paternity test.

<br /><br />
At the dawn of moral philosophy some 2,500 years ago (<span style="font-size: x-small;">can you feel Moses waving 'hi!' from across the sea?</span>), Socrates had begun practicing his unique form of asking questions in a manner he called the Dialectic, to clarify the meaning of the words we use, and how to use them to better understand ourselves and the world around us. As Plato recounts it, his dialectical process began with asking someone a seemingly simple question about what had been claimed or repeated by them, and whether or not an obvious implication of that was something that they thought to be true. He'd continue questioning the answers given to his questions to reveal the extent and integrated nature of that knowledge (or lack of it), in the hopes that both the questioner and the person being questioned (and those of us participating in the dialog at home) would gain a better depth of understanding of what they did and did not know about what they had presumed to be so.

<br /><br />
One thing that practicing his dialectical reasoning upon his fellow Athenians brought out into the open, was that those terms which Socrates' fellows' lives revolved around, in everything from the seemingly mundane, to the loftiest of sentiments, were so poorly understood by them, that their own words were leading themselves astray from what they expected they could secure by using them. Worse still, their lack of understanding was being used by those amongst them, the Sophists, who understood how to cultivate their confusion in order to disorder their minds into whichever state of passionate intensity or apathetic disregard, seemed to best serve the interests of a well-positioned few.

<br /><br />


<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;"><b>NOTE:</b> You shouldn't read Plato to find 'answers' (that's a bad habit from 'Critical Thinking'), but to identify the questions, and how best to pursue understanding.&nbsp;</div>


One such dialog, <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/76464/pg76464-images.html#EUTHYPHRO_DIALOGUE">the Euthyphro</a>, is set where Socrates is waiting to be arraigned on the charges of impiety that he'd soon be executed for, and it recounts the conversation that followed from Socrates asking another fellow in 'the waiting room', about what he was there for. Euthyphro answered that he was there waiting to charge his father with 1st degree murder over the accidental death of a misbehaving fieldhand, because Euthyphro thought that would be the pious thing to do.
<br /><br />
Socrates, a bit taken back by that, asked him what he meant by Piety? To which Euthyphro, as do most of Socrates' 'victims', replied with a surface level answer:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Piety is giving an offering to the gods, or being respectful"</span></em></blockquote>

, and in typical fashion, Socrates began by clarifying what he'd asked, before launching into the dialog of further questioning the answers being given:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"You misunderstand me, you've given me examples of pious behavior, but I'm interested in what it is that Piety means..."</span></em></blockquote>

, and the dialogs get underway with Socrates attempting - oftentimes without succeeding - to clarify what the speaker actually meant by the words and terms they'd been carelessly using to think with.
<br /><br />


Consider, for instance, Euthyphro charging his father with murder. His father had taken an action, and his slave died following it - that was an obvious and readily apparent fact. But whose action was it that caused the death, the father's or the slave's? And what was meant by 'Caused'? And was the action Just?
<br /><br />
Without having questioned his way past the surface level of appearances, Euthyphro could not have the knowledge that only follows from examining the depths of context surrounding an issue, and acting '<i>as if</i>' you already know what you haven't bothered to examine, causes consequences that cannot be good. Can justice be served by taking action against someone '<i>as if</i>' you know what you haven't bothered to understand? <i>Can</i> such an action be pious? By disregarding the context of what happened, Euthyphro's pious action amounted to virtue signaling the pretense of it at his father's expense - how likely was it that (Zeus? Athena? <i><a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/8604/pg8604-images.html#link04">The Furies</a>?</i>) would look kindly upon that?
<br /><br />
By ignoring context, we butcher our grasp of causation into a materialistic "Cause &amp; Effect" response, which is not adequate for gaining a sound understanding of an issue. Unfortunately for Euthyphro, Aristotle's study of <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.htm/l#anchorName">Causation</a> and the four causes which that revealed (final cause, efficient cause, formal cause, and material cause), was still several decades in the future, and Aquinas's 5th 'Exemplary cause', was still a thousand years beyond that. We, however, <i>can </i>benefit from what Euthyphro lacked... but how many of us do? As 'Critical Thinking' gives no consideration to such concerns, it helps to ensure that those numbers are few.

<br /><br />

What the Socratic dialogs that Plato left us also demonstrate, is not only how little people often understand of what they're saying, but how angry they can become when made to face their own errors &amp; ignorance - so much so that Socrates' was ultimately executed for refusing to stop practicing his dialectic of questioning upon the people of Athens.
<br /><br />
What is critically important for us to understand still to this day, and perhaps <i>especially </i>today, is that it is as easy as it is unwise to behave as if we understand something, when the underlying meaning of the words we're using amounts to what '<i>everyone knows!</i>', and without the context being clear to us, we truly <i>cannot</i> know what we are talking about.
<br /><br />



The painful fact is that the real drama of history often ensues from those critical misunderstandings which result from the right questions having <i>not</i> been asked, or having been asked, were left unheeded. In fact, tragedians, comedians, and historians have long made their living by providing their audiences with an awareness of the context which the people 'on stage' lack, and without which they lead themselves into taking those unwise positions and actions that can only lead to disaster, while 'the audience' is left to experience the agony of knowing what could have been prevented if someone, <i>anyone, </i>would have simply asked one or two key questions that would have unraveled the entire awful turn of events. 
<br /><br />
But unlike an audience, we here in the present cannot know what might hinge upon what it is that we do <i>not</i> consider, or say, and we should learn from those dramatists that real knowledge is never isolated, and only (seemingly) ethically neutral in certain contexts. And we should also realize that the sophists of every age view those who ask and pursue questions as Socrates did, as threats to those whose interests are served by such matters not being common knowledge, and they view those who teach such lessons, as Socrates did, as being... unwelcome.
<br /><br />

But being ignorant of important facts isn't nearly the problem that being ignorant of the need to ask relevant questions, is. The inclination to assume that we cannot know what is true, or that 'knowledge' is just a matter of recalling isolated facts, combine together with our willingness to accept 'obvious' facts and 'answers' that '<i>everyone knows!</i>', to leave you forever '<i>just asking questions!</i>' while never gaining an understanding of what an answer to them should be, which mainly benefits those who'd prefer they remain concealed by what '<i>everyone knows!</i>'.


<br /><br />

<b>A Critical Difference between philosophical reasoning and 'Critical Thinking'</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidQiwc_pttZiV1hlgLvH1kaTEhBw6lq03w5Iw05vzizeJES20BEaHi1tgtYyyj7kG_zcWPoenHKuZETmfZRH0_vgefsFdZ7VmNeNn_kfGARjgtWuAP_nRaXHeapV-IkELjOMPC8pI1bSkFBpuQ4NK8AIApDMuEBBECClnaLJZYl1n2UnU25BJcXw/s1280/Socrates_UnexaminedLife.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidQiwc_pttZiV1hlgLvH1kaTEhBw6lq03w5Iw05vzizeJES20BEaHi1tgtYyyj7kG_zcWPoenHKuZETmfZRH0_vgefsFdZ7VmNeNn_kfGARjgtWuAP_nRaXHeapV-IkELjOMPC8pI1bSkFBpuQ4NK8AIApDMuEBBECClnaLJZYl1n2UnU25BJcXw/s320/Socrates_UnexaminedLife.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

We saw in the previous post, that when asked what 'Critical Thinking' is, CT'rs standard reply to parents and the public, was very much like that of Euthyphro's reply about what Piety is, with:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question, analyze, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write...."</span></em></blockquote>

, and with  Socrates's response as an example, we can see that we should reply to those CT'rs: 

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"You misunderstand me, you've given me examples of 'Critical Thinking's behavior, but I'm interested in what it is that 'Critical Thinking' means..."</span></em></blockquote>

, but to be fair, as that is clearly not the kind of thinking that 'Critical Think'rs are familiar with, we, like Socrates, should clarify a little further about just what kind of reply it is that we're looking for, and why. When we feel ourselves being either stirred up into anger or lulled to sleep by another's words, as you feel their words taking ahold of you, you should do as he did and question the nature of the context that they're leading you into. Ask:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>What ends will the good or ill passions you're being led to feel, serve to excuse, distract you from, or accomplish?</li>
<li>Is what is meant by the words being used to urge you on, going to have the same meaning when they're being applied?</li>
<li>Who benefits most from the actions you're being led to take?</li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>

, and despite his famously protesting that he knew nothing, Socrates clearly understood the importance of knowing the meaning of the words you're thinking with. He knew how the overall context that those words are used in, could shift what is assumed to be meant by them, and he knew that it's only by asking and pursuing questions into that as yet shadowy context, that we can hope to understand whether the positions and actions that people are being led into taking, are of value or not, are true or false, or right or wrong, which are matters that shouldn't remain concealed through our ignorance of it.
<br /><br />

<!--that the love of wisdom is consumated through the comprehension of Universals being integrated by the methodical use of logic to identify what is real and true, and so reveal their causes along with the ethical fruits of what actions are right & wrong and Just, to take in light of that understanding

Socrates is often given shortshrift for his conclusion that Evil is Ignorance of what is right, but that is half right. But it needs to be understood as ignorant <i>but not</i> innocent of its nature. Evil cultivates its ignorance as a fertilizer for growing the envy and hostility that it feeds the destruction it hungers for.-->

Socrates referred to the practice of his dialectic, as Philosophy, 'the love of wisdom', and it was clear that he considered Philosophy to be - in a way that has been made nearly alien to our ears today - a deeply moral matter of consciously using our language to integrate our understanding of reality, so as to develop our knowledge of what is real &amp; true and right &amp; wrong to do, and without which we <i>cannot</i> know what it is that we're talking about.

<br /><br />


Having a systematic approach to understanding what it was that Socrates's dialectical practice of philosophical reasoning meant and entailed, would have to wait for his philosophical son &amp; grandson, Plato and Aristotle, to begin developing. But it was his persistent engagement of his fellows in those habits of inquiry (which (no surprise to him) would eventually cost him his life), that started the Grecco/Roman half of The West upon the path towards seeking an objective understanding of what is real &amp; true, and right &amp; wrong, and which, IMHO, was and <i>is</i> central to what enabled its Judeo/Christian counterpart to join together with it, in the forming of Western civilization.

<br /><br />

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: left; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 35%;">Socrates starts opening a can of worms with a leading sophist, in <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1672/1672-h/1672-h.htm#chap02">The Gorgias</a>:
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
...<br />SOCRATES: Very good, Callicles; but will he answer our questions? for I want to hear from him what is the nature of his art, and what it is which he professes and teaches; he may, as you (Chaerephon) suggest, defer the exhibition to some other time.
<br />
CALLICLES: There is nothing like asking him, Socrates; and indeed to answer questions is a part of his exhibition, for he was saying only just now, that any one in my house might put any question to him, and that he would answer.
<br />
SOCRATES: How fortunate! will you ask him, Chaerephon—?
<br />
CHAEREPHON: What shall I ask him?
<br />
SOCRATES: Ask him who he is...."</span></em>
</div>



Socrates' opponents at the time, the Sophists, OTOH, were already well aware of the misunderstandings that the misuse of language could create, and rather than attempt to clarify what our words mean and how best to use them, they thrived upon that darker form of dialectical reasoning which cultivates the ignorance &amp; errors that result from an absence of good questions being asked, and in fact <i>depends </i>upon utilizing ignorance and the ambiguities of language to conceal meaning. Their skill in the manipulation of that, was what the Sophists were sought out and rewarded for.


<br /><br />



Sophistry <i>requires</i> the ability to get away with treating words and terms '<i>as if</i>' their meaning is disintegrated from the rest of what you know, and <i>that</i> depends upon a widespread view of knowledge being seen as little more than the ability to recall what's useful in one moment, and to consider that completely irrelevant to the concerns of the next moment. That Pragmatic view of knowledge as essentially having 'meaning' in name only (another variant of Nominalism), is what enables the sort of language that we accept today in phrases such as '<i>Truth is an illusion</i>' and '<i>Truth is what works</i>', which is critical for spurring people into taking those positions and actions that serve a given narrative which they likely know less than nothing about (hello '<i>stay 6' apart for social distancing</i>'!), for a 'common good' that primarily serves the interests of those that the sophists of the Ideological Observatories serve. 

<br /><br />
And so with that contrast between Socrates' Philosophical Reasoning, and that of Rhetorical Sophistry in mind, I hope you're recalling two of the primary contentions of the Critical Thinking crowd from <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/08/thinking-critically-about-critical.html">the previous post</a>, which are that:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"> 1)“...a student attains 'higher order thinking' when he no longer believes in right or wrong" </span></em></blockquote>, and that that assertion is dependent upon the view of 'knowledge' that Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives has been teaching to those who've been teaching our teachers since the 1950s, that 'knowledge' is only a matter of recalling "<i>...previously learned material...</i>", and as such, it:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"> 2)"...represents the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain."</span></em></blockquote>

, and if so, you <i>should</i> now recognize - if you are thinking reasonably rather than 'critically' - that both of these beliefs that are at the heart of 'Critical Thinking', are in full opposition to the deeply integrated knowledge and moral clarity of thought that Socrates was pursuing through his Dialectic. 
<br /><br />
And seeing now why the CT'rs reply to the question of what 'Critical Thinking' <i>is</i>, is so much like Euthyphro's, we can compare and contrast what Socrates' purpose of using his Dialectic to pursue Philosophy was, to the nature of the 'Critical Thinking' that our modern day sophists teach in our schools, and notice just how unlike that is to Socrates' method, which sought to understand and integrate our thinking, and to expand our knowledge in order to better do what Aristotle said in the opening of the <a href="https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html">Nichomachean Ethics</a>: 

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim ..."</span></em></blockquote>

In complete contrast to that, what the sophistry of 'Critical Thinking' aims at, is what is momentarily useful to ends that can only be unworthy, because they are achieved by diminishing the nature of our knowledge to a recalling of random facts as suitable 'answers', and with which CT'rs seek to bring about an attitude within a student's mind, that: 

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“...a student attains 'higher order thinking' when he no longer believes in right or wrong"</span></em></blockquote>

On that basis alone, any reasonable consideration of the evidence before us, shows that 'Critical Thinking' not only fully and completely <i>fails </i>the Socratic paternity test, but reveals that the claim could only have been made, in order to put you and your children under its power. You needn't fear that this failed paternity test will leave our 'Critical Thinkers' as philosophical orphans though, for since it was also the Sophists' primary interest to get people to act without considering whether such actions were 'right or wrong', and instead to just do 'what works', we have identified that our 'Critical Thinkers' philosophical pedigree truly lies with the Sophists. 

<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPiZIR618zz4txai1yR0A0ZZ8bJ8-hsQL26GG8bzjZVGvr4TzCTse0pqwPSyIeSQ0bedVPSt0Zc51150dfcs0AjdrJY5jLpO3PITigYnT_8ykz-ihivMu18LXwjujPyGXbnYpPaS2-DwqhwAF_6DXfrrUd68slGMN2oiPY7Gd9ptkJcATnRqnX6g/s800/FB_IMG_1724269892262.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: right; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="565" data-original-width="800" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPiZIR618zz4txai1yR0A0ZZ8bJ8-hsQL26GG8bzjZVGvr4TzCTse0pqwPSyIeSQ0bedVPSt0Zc51150dfcs0AjdrJY5jLpO3PITigYnT_8ykz-ihivMu18LXwjujPyGXbnYpPaS2-DwqhwAF_6DXfrrUd68slGMN2oiPY7Gd9ptkJcATnRqnX6g/s320/FB_IMG_1724269892262.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

The authentic intelligence that leads people out of the darkness of confusion and into seeking to see and do what is right, comes from turning your own attention towards actively identifying what <i>is</i> (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal">Metaphysics</a>), how you know it (through an <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1">epistemology</a> of <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#anchorName">Causality</a> and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20is%20Truth">Logic</a>), and what should be done in response to that (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#the-ethics-of-epistemology-escaping">Ethics</a>), and will reveal to you a depth of context in every aspect of your life, that can only be revealed by the light of what is real and true.
<br /><br />


Because the Sophist's power - then and now - depends upon those manipulations of language that are only possible within a climate of subtle misunderstandings and meaningless 'knowledge', their 'Critical Thinking', like Euthyphro, blinds themselves into believing that they can see what they do not, and if we are not aware of their doing so, we put ourselves in peril.
<br /><br />
To prevent the same old sophistry from becoming as fatal to us today, as it was to Socrates in his day, it is critical for us to stop mistaking the Artificial Intelligence of 'Critical Thinking', for the real thing, and we'll dig further into that, in the next post.

]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13922</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/08/thinking-critically-about-critical.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2026 21:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Critical Thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[semantic deception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Critical Insurrection]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=083b8107958b7ad3a90e77ad40715c89</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[

I've had enough experience over the years with the issue of criticizing 'Critical Thinking', to know that many of you are unlikely to become convinced anytime soon that 'Critical Thinking' is the problem which I understand it to be. But I'm less inte...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[

I've had enough experience over the years with the issue of criticizing 'Critical Thinking', to know that many of you are unlikely to become convinced anytime soon that 'Critical Thinking' is the problem which I understand it to be. But I'm less interested in persuading you about that, than in having you pursue some questions that are, oddly enough, rarely asked, and if you'll do that, give some consideration to what those questions reveal about what you'd assumed CT to be, and make an honest judgement about that, then whether or not you agree with my conclusions, I'll consider that a <i>big </i>success.

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: left; margin-right: 1em;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvFSXh_P1ULVZcoskWg1jxpYCUgw3JRc09cBkGOdo4yRwxQkrsBFPiXi7eLXEtr1Sog5xeil1JOR3pLex9yFCVbgBHwQ_GR7ESLqS-0GCr_-PBlEBfsesw8tJjvL8kVUOIMkL1wBBLor_Fuk_sKueWxvIC0_sgqha16dZZZw7rP9BLyGntDDiAiw/s1098/LeaningTowerOfBabel_CriticalThinking.png?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: 1em; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1098" data-original-width="737" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvFSXh_P1ULVZcoskWg1jxpYCUgw3JRc09cBkGOdo4yRwxQkrsBFPiXi7eLXEtr1Sog5xeil1JOR3pLex9yFCVbgBHwQ_GR7ESLqS-0GCr_-PBlEBfsesw8tJjvL8kVUOIMkL1wBBLor_Fuk_sKueWxvIC0_sgqha16dZZZw7rP9BLyGntDDiAiw/s320/LeaningTowerOfBabel_CriticalThinking.png?fit=900%2C320&#038;ssl=1" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Richard Mitchell's "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1585790036"><i>The Leaning Tower of Babel</i></a>"</span></td></tr></tbody></table>
So, let's start with trying to get a grip on what most people think is meant by 'Critical Thinking', by considering how parents and academics might respond to the question:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul style="text-align: left;">
 </ul><ul></ul><ul><li>What is Critical Thinking, and what is it expected to do for students?</li></ul>

</span></blockquote>

It's safe to say that if you ask most people what their expectations of 'Critical Thinking' is, and what they expect that it will do to help their, and their kids lives, they'll answer something like:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
a - Learning 'Critical Thinking' will help my kid to think more clearly and logically about what they read and hear.
<br />
b - Being a 'Critical Thinker' will help my kid to see and do what is right, and better understand how to succeed in life.
</span></em></blockquote>

Not surprisingly, most schools will reply similarly, though in academic language, that they expect <a href="https://www.monash.edu/student-academic-success/sharpen-your-thinking/critical-thinking/what-is-critical-thinking"> 'the same'</a>:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
a -"<i>Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question, analyze, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write....</i>"
<br />
and b - it's "<i>... about making reliable judgements based on reliable information.</i>"
</span></em></blockquote>

What's interesting to note though, is that when the theorists of 'Critical Thinking' talk with each other about what 'Critical Thinking' is and does, the one thing they agree upon most, is that they <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/00346543261438479?mi=ehikzz">don't agree upon what it is or does</a> for students. Furthermore, the fact is that doubts about whether or not learning to be better able to "<i>... question, analyze, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement...</i> is something that is <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/youre-100-percent-wrong-about-critical-thinking-362334?_gsa=1&amp;=1"> being taught effectively</a> by CT, have been raised almost from its inception. 

<br /><br />

So there's at least one discrepancy between what 'Critical Think'rs say to each other, and what they say to parents and the general public about what they think CT is and does.
<br /><br />
That's interesting.
<br /><br />
Something else that shouldn't be missed, is that there's a bit of ambiguity involved in their citing those 'features' of how to "<i>...question, analyze, interpret...</i>" to identify what 'Critical Thinking'  is and does, as those are also what the Western understanding of the art of Reasoning has been identified with for thousands of years. And while those habits of mind which most people typically expect kids to learn from practicing 'Critical Thinking' - to <i>"...question, analyze, interpret..."</i>, think logically, etc. - are the habits of mind that any decent education has sought to lead students to develop throughout those thousands of years - why speak '<i>as if</i>' that would identify 'Critical Thinking' in particular? 

<br /><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCmvS0gLFOxMoKz0KEINPPzHU_piXWm6-xVu4JnxewXP7UND8VFwHvCft67ojljgf6Wfa6Y9VQVJ8s1kcGoFZhcN2BcFuGo5Q9cvA4pLb2xVetNzVKc9jiYVgaMlGoh04coyg3Sds1ovjMR82mR0ChADPJZiv85nOtZft6S_MhFUrZMYp85vWqRg/s1106/Confounded.png?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="706" data-original-width="1106" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCmvS0gLFOxMoKz0KEINPPzHU_piXWm6-xVu4JnxewXP7UND8VFwHvCft67ojljgf6Wfa6Y9VQVJ8s1kcGoFZhcN2BcFuGo5Q9cvA4pLb2xVetNzVKc9jiYVgaMlGoh04coyg3Sds1ovjMR82mR0ChADPJZiv85nOtZft6S_MhFUrZMYp85vWqRg/s200/Confounded.png?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/p/chronological-mind-and-the-historicist">it is confounding</a>...</i></span></td></tr></tbody></table>

Are any of you Critical Thinkers out there now wondering how 'Critical Thinking' differs from Reasoning? And if not, does that mean that you think that 'Critical Thinking' and Reasoning <i>are</i> 'the same'? But... if they describe 'the same thing'... then why does 'Critical Thinking' even exist? Those of you who recall the previous post's warnings about the perils of reasoning with false premises and ambiguous terms, should be getting curiouser and curiouser. As Christine at <a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/">The Palmerworm</a> points out, when you are intentionally led "<i>to mistake for another, to identify falsely</i>", it's possible that you are being <a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/p/chronological-mind-and-the-historicist">confounded</a>... and those of you who're familiar with the activist uses of a '<a href="https://beautifultrouble.org/toolbox/tool/floating-signifier">Floating Signifier</a>', should be slipping out of curiosity, and into alarm.
<br /><br />
But sure, while the discrepancies we can see so far between these two sets of answers, don't seem to amount to being a deal breaker, they do at least indicate the need for us to ask a few more questions. We can come at this from a different angle by asking three more questions, beginning with one question about what you might be thinking that I'm thinking:

<ol><blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
<li>Are you suggesting that 'Critical Thinking' isn't equivalent to, or as old and valued as, a traditional approach to Reasoning is?</li></span></em></blockquote>
, followed by:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
<li>When did we first discover the wonders of 'Critical Thinking', and what are its innovations?</li>
<li>When and why did we begin calling for more of 'Critical Thinking'?</li>
</span></em></blockquote></ol>

To answer question <b>#1</b>, Yes, I am. One reason why I speak of 'Critical Thinking' in such a critical manner, is because it is typically spoken of '<i>as if</i>' it were something it is not, which leads people into a number of false assumptions about it, ranging from it having its origins coming from Socrates (which is untrue), to it coming from the Frankfort School of '<a href="https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-theory/">Critical Theory</a>' (which is also untrue... but as we'll see, in many ways the reverse of that is more true).
<br /><br />
When I criticize 'Critical Thinking', I'm not questioning the value of what most people believe CT means, I am questioning what it actually <i>is</i> and does. I'm pointing out that despite what CT promises, it not only has not lived up to those promises, but that there are good reasons to believe that CT is itself central to what has degraded our student's ability to develop those habits of mind that "<i>...question, analyze, interpret...</i>" which thoughtful judgement is dependent upon.
<br /><br />


Do you think I go too far in that? Then answer me this, given that we can probably all agree that 'Critical Thinking' has been one of, if not <i>the</i> most popular products of the Education Industry since it first began to surface in the academic language of the 1950s, quickly rose into public awareness across the 1960s &amp; 1970s, and then exploded into demand by schools across the nation over the 1980s,1990s and into the 2000s, has this thought ever occurred to you?: 



<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>I marvel at how much more clear and consistent and sensible the general thinking and behavior of the American people has become, since we began teaching more and more of 'Critical Thinking', don't you?</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>


I think that most people would hesitate to reply '<i>yes!</i>' to that... and that the rest of us would burst out in bitter laughter at the suggestion.
<br /><br />

And yet experience shows that people's reaction to that will amount to little more than a headshake &amp; a grumble.
<br /><br />
<i>That's </i>interesting too, isn't it?
<br /><br />
And if you haven't asked such a question before, or having asked it, didn't get an adequate answer to it... is <i>that</i> a failure of 'Critical Thinking', or a result of it? What I am encouraging people to do here, is to consider these questions <i>and</i> to stop assuming that <i>'everyone knows!'</i> what 'Critical Thinking' is 'all about', and also to consider instead how well it's lived up to delivering on any of the promises made in its name, and to wonder why that might be. 
<br /><br />
 
<!--<div style="float: right;">
Video: Beauty and reverence, is not enough to escape Carlysle
<iframe width="418" height="235" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yCxL3pQiKx8?t=9" title="The past is a foreign language" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>-->


I'm asking these questions because the concerns that I have with 'Critical Thinking', are that what those academic theorists <i>intend</i> 'Critical Thinking' to do, has less to do with what most parents and others would see as improving their student's thinking, than with fundamentally <i>changing</i> their student's way of thinking, and that it does so in ways that most parents and others would neither expect nor approve of.

<br /><br />
So yes, I am more than just suggesting that how the rising popularity of  'Critical Thinking' has tracked with a 'surprising' inability to think through such issues, and I'm cautioning that it has a lot more to do with causation, than correlation.
<br /><br />



<b>Intellectual Stolen Valor - Is 'Critical Thinking' what you've been led to think it is?</b><br />
The answer to question <b>#2 (<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>2-When did we first discover the wonders of 'Critical Thinking', and what are its innovations?</i>)</span></b>, isn't the easy answer that we're usually given, as the promoters of  'Critical Thinking' often speak of it '<i>as if</i>' it were either a very modern 'discovery' which our poor 'critical thinking' deprived Founding Fathers had to make do without while framing, debating, and ratifying, our Constitution, or '<i>as if</i>' our Founder's era <i>knew</i> about, engaged in, and may have even been masters of, but whose skills we've somehow lost the knack of since their time. If you assumed something like the latter, you might be forgiven for that error, as it is one that CT'rs are very keen on everyone thinking '<i>as if</i>' it were so. For instance, the popular and 'authoritative' CT site, CT.org, opens its post on: "<a href="https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-brief-history-of-the-idea-of-critical-thinking/408">A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking</a>", with this glowing line:

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqd51RGfv_glRl3jP0cPDhGcad2bp9eQ6nLFQw_3cW1SpQQLn-j4gplPAPS4FQvlZ7LzK_hLKgj5VJV3AnNpEdbv_rlgUp2YeAEkLlzo2QaH62mHSQE4K_I1UUwVEy9UdWliuVT8ue-8WzY81WuDVvJzz7slGPArI3OCbMlmbBEpl4TWsfoYiEug/s1858/Screenshot_20260715_132007_Edge.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: left; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1858" data-original-width="1548" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqd51RGfv_glRl3jP0cPDhGcad2bp9eQ6nLFQw_3cW1SpQQLn-j4gplPAPS4FQvlZ7LzK_hLKgj5VJV3AnNpEdbv_rlgUp2YeAEkLlzo2QaH62mHSQE4K_I1UUwVEy9UdWliuVT8ue-8WzY81WuDVvJzz7slGPArI3OCbMlmbBEpl4TWsfoYiEug/s320/Screenshot_20260715_132007_Edge.jpg?fit=900%2C320&#038;ssl=1" /></a></div>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"The intellectual roots of critical thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago who discovered by a method of probing questioning that people could not rationally justify their confident claims to knowledge."</span></em></blockquote>

Sounds swell, doesn't it? Except for one teensy-weensy problem: in both fact and spirit, it is untrue. It's a Semantic Deception that's even more blatant than what was performed with '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1.html">epistemology</a>' (if you're unaware, read that link). This entire narrative of theirs is one they've essentially plagiarized from, and misattributed to, intellectual history, and it amounts to the equivalent of a case of philosophical stolen valor.
<br /><br />
How can I say that? Because "<i>...its etymology...</i>" is <i>very</i> traceable to a few scattered mentions by John Dewey and other supporters of 'Progressive Education' in the late 1890s to early 1900's, where Dewey described the need for a *new* method of thinking, as in 1910's "<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/37423/pg37423-images.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">How We Think</span></a>", which at the time he usually referred to as 'Reflective Thinking', and envisioned that what:


<blockquote><span style="font-size: 65%;">
 "...<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/">was needed, as</a>

<blockquote>"...active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends." (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)
</blockquote> 
and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind..." 
</span></blockquote>


, keep your eye on that 'scientific attitude of mind' (and '<i>supposed form of knowledge</i>'), we'll come back to these shortly. And although the motive theories behind CT had been gaining traction in 'Progressive Education' circles, the first serious treatment of '<i>Critical Thinking</i>', didn't come until decades later when one of Dewey's followers, an obscure academic &amp; management consultant from Teachers College, Columbia University, Edward M. Glaser, delivered his book&nbsp;<a href="https://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.31924013955657?urlappend=%3Bseq=19">'Critical Thinking'</a> to a preoccupied world in that somewhat less than ancient year of: <b>19<u>41</u></b>.
<br /><br />


It's not as if the fine folks at CT.org don't already know this, they even mention it elsewhere on their site, but because they'd rather not openly say so and draw attention to the fact, they 'bury the lead' (AKA: Lie by omission and commission). One reason for that, might be the fact that the actual history of 'Critical Thinking', is rather brief, uninspiring, exceedingly boring, and riven by such failures that they feel the need to resort to the intellectual stolen valor of their claims, in order to 'get important things done'.
<br /><br />

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">For a deep dive into the depths of the "<i>that</i> is <i>this</i>" tactic, you should <i>cautiously</i> read Derrida's '<a href="http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f13/drrdassp.pdf">Structure, Sign, and play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences</a>', which lays out the strategy of deconstructionism (equivocate, mis-identify, and brazenly uphold the new error as being a valid point). It is pure toxic garbage, but it is revealing all the same.</div>

BTW parents, does the inclination to pretentiously misrepresent another's history &amp; achievements as being your own, sound like the traits you'd look for in someone being hired to clarify and improve the thinking of your child? The fact that CT'rs are resorting to an old Sophist's trick of equating <i>this</i> with <i>that</i>, and then pretending <i>that</i> is the 'same as' <i>this</i> (see Derrida's essay in sidebar), is not only pathetic, but is a level of 'creative thinking' (AKA: Lying) that most parents would also be unlikely to want to have experts instilling in their kids' minds (especially so if they are mindful that it was the Sophists who instigated the trial &amp; death of Socrates).

<br /><br />
So now, seeing that 'Critical Thinking' is a recent construct, are you curious about what innovations it has introduced into our habits of thinking?  After all, as our schools advertise their ability to improve their students' 'Critical Thinking Skills', what are these new innovations that CT has <i>added </i>to our known knowledge of Thinkology? And how do they differ from the old and supposedly outmoded methods that 'mere reasoning' once advised on how to '<i>...question, analyze, interpret...'</i>? And why is it that CT still advertises itself by those same old traits of how to  '<i>...question, analyze, interpret...'</i>, instead of using its own marvelous new innovations to that?

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: left;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pWSwfVDiq8"></a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pWSwfVDiq8"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Wizard of Oz, Dr of Thinkology</span></a><br />
  <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCVfAZsXMNQmmc9OvlfgLCNvHvESyglZwkZ-WDsIcFjmG1MC39dM59Dg_TetWdWrkwWFA5FvrQqB2ZQer_l2uHXHZJxbf_fso-vS5mlfj4G-ck9xJ2Lo-CNLRPisHAAfcJlMJtWBFPFqJchKWCIhUXn_r6X8FlNU6BhT0Wy9GNJEERdYKPVjNYyw/s320/DrOfThinkology.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" height="150" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCVfAZsXMNQmmc9OvlfgLCNvHvESyglZwkZ-WDsIcFjmG1MC39dM59Dg_TetWdWrkwWFA5FvrQqB2ZQer_l2uHXHZJxbf_fso-vS5mlfj4G-ck9xJ2Lo-CNLRPisHAAfcJlMJtWBFPFqJchKWCIhUXn_r6X8FlNU6BhT0Wy9GNJEERdYKPVjNYyw/w200-h150/DrOfThinkology.jpg?resize=200%2C150&#038;ssl=1" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div></div>
<br /><br />

That isn't just interesting, <i>it's odd</i>, isn't it? I mean, when you want to distinguish one thing from another, do you highlight  what both have in common, or do you point out how they differ? IOW, if you had a sports car to sell, you wouldn't say:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"<i>This sports car is worth so much more than that sedan because it has the same engine and four wheels that sedan has but </i><i>now </i> I'm referring to those as being sporty!"</span></em></blockquote>

, would you? No, if you'd devised something that's better and more effective than something else, you'd focus on what sets your new thing apart from that old thing, and highlight what makes <i>this</i>, better than <i>that</i>, right?
<br /><br />
OTOH, if for some reason, you'd rather avoid scrutiny, then the way you're going to sell that product is by acting '<i>as if</i>' it was 'the same as' your competition's, but... that's it's less expensive, or easier to come by, or some such, right?
<br /><br />


But if you're being told that it delivers those old tried and true steps, methods and expectations '<i>borrowed</i>' from earlier philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Thomas Reid, etc., and you then noticed that it requires far more time, money, and resources to do the same thing that had always been done before, but now with worse results, and you found that your questions about that are met with "<i>...nothing to see here, no need to concern yourself , just more expert thinkery in action, move along. All's well...</i>", you could be forgiven for suspecting that what you're being sold  '<i>as if</i>' it were 'the same' thing, might be hiding something very, very, different, behind the appearances of sameness that you've been advised to just trust to the 'experts'.
<br /><br />
If these were used car salesmen selling you a car with another car's Carfax history, you'd be concerned... but it's somehow ok behavior<i> in those teaching your child how to think?</i>
<br /><br />
If 'Critical Think'rs <i>did not </i>come up with these 'features' of '<i>...question, analyze, interpret...</i>' - and <i>they <b>did not</b></i> -  or add new steps to them - and <i>they <b>have not</b></i> -  then <i>why </i>do they behave as if they had? What is this pretense intended (yes, <i>intended</i>) to conceal?
<br /><br />
Having read through many a book and whitepaper on the subject, I can tell you that the poorly hidden secret of 'Critical Thinking's secret sauce is that it most definitely <i>does differ</i> from what came before, and they do not like to advertise the nature of what that difference is, because what it actually is, is an absence - a subtraction from rather than an addition to - our knowledge and understanding, and how to think with and about them.

<br /><br />


If you are someone who sees themself as being open-minded and capable of  '<i>questioning, analyzing, interpreting</i>', then I'd think this would be something that you'd consider to be worth pursuing to an answer. Right?
<br /><br />






The answer to <b>#3</b>&nbsp;(<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><b>3-</b></i></span><b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>When and why did we begin calling for more of 'Critical Thinking'?</i></span>)</b>, requires a bit of a two-step reply, which begins with Glaser's book on 'Critical Thinking', as he and his fellow theorists of education realized that 'Critical Thinking' could be made out '<i>as if</i>' it were a critical necessity for 'education' in the modern world. And with that claim being made by TWKB (Those Who Know Best), it became possible for them to achieve less than nothing right out in the open, by peddling their jargon terms of '<i>Critical Thinking Skills</i>' and '<i>Higher-Order Thinking</i>' as the innovations needed for gaining a 'scientific understanding' of any issue at all.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html#experimentally-reading-ourselves-into">John Dewey &amp; Co.</a> and their 'labs' at Columbia's Teachers College had been building up to this for years, and Glaser's own efforts made extensive use of various studies to bolster those skills, and to warn of what hinders them, such as <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924013955657&amp;seq=61">referenced on pg 47</a> of Maller and Lundeen's study on "<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/458766252/maller1933-pdf">Sources of Superstitious Beliefs</a>", which describes how:

 <blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...the researchers sought to determine the extent to which the home, books/media, school, church, friends, and personal experiences influence belief and disbelief in superstitions..." </span></em></blockquote>


, and in noting that superstitions are often described as 'false religions', they noted that:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"... it is not altogether surprising that what is considered religion by one may be considered superstition by another..."</span></em></blockquote>

Do you find yourself a bit suspicious as to how they went about clarifying that difference, or the reason for pointing it out? If not, how about after noting how Glaser repeatedly advocates that:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...a scientific attitude is developed by a knowledge of scientific facts and varies directly with such knowledge...."</span></em></blockquote>

, even as he repeatedly has to admit that:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...general science work seemed to have no effect in reducing 
superstitious beliefs..."</span></em></blockquote><i>


That's </i>interesting.
<br /><br />

Even more interesting, Glaser himself notes <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924013955657&amp;seq=189">in the conclusion</a> to his study, that 'Critical Thinking' didn't actually help students in their general thinking. As he puts it:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...There is no reason to believe, for instance, that the students who gained significantly in critical thinking <b>as measured by the tests</b> are now appreciably more competent to make critical judgments of pieces of art, music, or literature...."</span></em>[emphasis mine]</blockquote>

Yes, you read that right. <a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/p/human-nature-de-te-fabula-narratur">Thomas Reid</a>'s quip comes to mind, that "<i>Theories are the creatures of men, which nature seldom mimics</i>". And while it's hard to imagine how any of this helps in selling the sizzle of the '<i>CT Sports Car</i>', the fact is, that it <i>has</i> sold, and sold well. How?
<br /><br />

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHxmOxPc7Q6X8F9mv7K-z52X8uQvV0Oezzat2dAE4MlpFs6yPTxIhlkZkbXnWcQVJxRsbrQQjiHrLbaAhRg76Ol3nzOjFhBS6-JmgBh2qjctqXyAUMklx4WLo0TSxuYEjDG-lA2DVKihrAz1-4T1ppWP8odZSrLQ7x9Vc82te2dzVyeuJRkvkpLg/s589/Reid_CreaturesOfMen.png?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: right; display: block; margin-left: 0em; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="1" data-original-height="589" data-original-width="466" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHxmOxPc7Q6X8F9mv7K-z52X8uQvV0Oezzat2dAE4MlpFs6yPTxIhlkZkbXnWcQVJxRsbrQQjiHrLbaAhRg76Ol3nzOjFhBS6-JmgBh2qjctqXyAUMklx4WLo0TSxuYEjDG-lA2DVKihrAz1-4T1ppWP8odZSrLQ7x9Vc82te2dzVyeuJRkvkpLg/s320/Reid_CreaturesOfMen.png?fit=900%2C320&#038;ssl=1" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/p/the-great-chain-of-epistemology-hierarchical"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">The Great Chain of Epistemology;<br /> Hierarchical Order of Knowledge</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table>

Glaser and his fellow 'Social Scientists' certainly didn't <i>add</i> anything new beyond their jargon in place of the old terms '<i>as if</i>' they meant the same things as syllogisms, rhetoric, and the like. It's worth noting, however, that their new 'social science' terms have served to verbally divide the thousands of years of existing commentary on the subject of teaching and reasoning well, from what they've been advertising as this new method called 'Critical Thinking'. And yet they'd <i>added </i><u>nothing</u> of substance to the practice or explanation and effectiveness of reasoning, or to logical thinking, or rhetoric, or even to the practice of science itself.
<br /><br />
Nothing.
<br /><br />

But in being sold the spiel of improving students' ability to "<i>...question, analyze, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement...</i>", what is being concealed is that their 'thinking skills' are not intended to improve the student's ability to reason well, but more narrowly to instruct the student in finding what is expected to be the correct answer, and the way that 'Critical Thinking' does that, is hidden in plain sight behind what it boasts to parents that it will provide their kids: Critical <b>Thinking <i><u>Skills</u></i></b>.  The operational use of 'skills' is first being applied to two very different approaches to thinking - one being the kind of reasoning in which a juror would deliberate over evidence for an accused person being found guilty or innocent, and the other with which a scientist might examine some materials and measure others to find and select what fits a given formula -  and collapsing both under the narrower term of  'skills', which is more suited to the latter, results in the former being neglected, at best.
<br /><br />
The students, in being instructed to treat all knowledge '<i>as if</i>' it were a demonstrable fact or calculation of external references so as to find 'the right answer' (<span style="font-size: x-small;">which, BTW, was <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html#disorienting-america-modern-thinking">Fichte's goal for Prussian 'education'</a>, to produce students who would accept the answers they were given without question</span>), are being nudged away from developing the inner <i>qualities </i>of honesty, ethics and moral behavior, that are necessary for developing sound reasoning and <a href="https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.6.vi.html#141">practical wisdom</a>.
<br /><br />

That's where the second step in CT's success story comes in, with '<i>Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives</i>', which helped enormously in making the very new and obviously flawed field of 'Critical Thinking', able to spread throughout our schools.
<br /><br />
<!--https://archive.org/details/leaningtowerofba0000mitc/page/72/mode/2up?q=%22a+certain+Benjamin+S.+Bloom%22-->

The  sciency-ish set of booklets that comprise <a href="https://sourcetext.com/iii-on-language-and-the-power-of-thought/#back3">Bloom's Taxonomy</a>, formed what's been lauded as <i>the </i>authoritative list of definitions and objectives for what every teacher has been directly or indirectly taught to teach from, since the 1950's, and was critical to the selling of 'Critical Thinking' to the world. One of those critical points defined <a href="https://www.csun.edu/science/ref/reasoning/questions_blooms/blooms.html">Knowledge as</a>:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Knowledge is defined as the remembering of previously learned material... represents the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain."</span></em></blockquote>

, and according to Bloom et all, knowledge doesn't imply understanding or deep meaning (as you'll see below, it <i>definitely</i> doesn't imply knowledge as being right or wrong), it's just facts conveniently strung together so as to be recalled when &amp; where useful. In the new 'cognitive domain' of Bloom's Taxonomy, the sense of knowledge as once understood as being a <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/03/testing-knowledge-wisdom-to-promote.html">depth of understanding that's valuable in the pursuit of wisdom</a>, has been replaced with 'knowledge' as the 'lowest level' of 'learning outcomes' in 'the cognitive domain', where students will prove their 'knowledge' by scanning for and collecting as many of the useful facts that the social science experiment of 'education' calls for, which is what enabled the recall of facts to become what is measured in our 'testing'.
<br /><br />
Bloom's views on these matters are very much drawn from the likes of John Dewey's ideas of 'Pragmatism', and operate under the modern presumption that metaphysics - <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal">what <i>is</i></a> - is either unknowable or does not exist (ahem), and that what matters is the 'epistemological' processing of 'facts' to find 'what works', readily fit so well with what our Teachers Colleges already taught in their practice of teaching teachers how to teach, that it quickly caught fire with modern notions of 'education' and 'went viral' worldwide. Even today, a quick search online will return thousands of references over the last seven decades, such as this one from The London School of Management Education (2019), saying that <a href="https://lsme.ac.uk/blog/blooms-taxonomy"> effectively developing</a>:”

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“...critical thinking skills is always a challenge to teach and deliver effectively to learners, and the best approach is to adopt the Bloom’s taxonomy as the basis of learning...” </span></em></blockquote>

, which all supports their efforts to teach, and teach, and teach, your kids the skills of 'higher-order thinking' that they insist is s<i>oOoo</i>o necessary to the success of 'Critical Thinking'.
<br /><br />




<b>Delivering less than zero, by means of the Thinking Skills of Semantic Deception</b><br />


<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">
Dr. Benjamin Bloom should be remembered for writing books such as <a href="https://afajournal.org/past-issues/1993/november-december/what-s-wrong-with-outcome-based-education/">"Outcome-Based Education"</a>, and "Mastery Learning", each of which prompted a great deal of parental outrage, and many more rounds of productive '<i>Education Reform!</i>'.
</div>


What reading through the booklets of Bloom's Taxonomy reveals, is not just that '<i>Critical Thinking</i>' promises to deliver the <i>'higher-order thinking'</i> skills - or 'HOTS', as they like to refer to them - (they <i>do</i> love their cutesy acronyms), or that they are <a href="https://theconversation.com/lets-stop-trying-to-teach-students-critical-thinking-30321">difficult for them to deliver on</a>. And what we should note here, is that parents and most other people's expectations of what these '<i>Critical Thinking Skills</i>' are, is very likely <i>not</i> what these Educrats mean by them.
<br /><br />
For instance, it seems unlikely that most people think that their suburban school district would teach their teachers that '<i>Critical Thinking</i>' and '<i>HOTS</i>' should be taught to mean, what I found was being emphasized in around 2020 by the "<a href="https://sccoe.instructure.com/courses/731/assignments/8772">Santa Clara County Office of Education</a>" (it's since been taken down or put behind its membership wall), which was (and likely still is) instructing their new teachers to teach their students 'Thinking Skills', according to this view from '<i>Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives</i>'. <b>Note</b>: As you can see in the screenshot, the bold emphasis is mine, but the ellipsis are in the original, I have not edited its content:
<table style="border: 2px solid lightblue; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><tbody><tr><td><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
  
  <a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK1-0ZKOsbErsrRHK8pgBdpjrxQo1Z9nB7IYVYezIe3XgMicNP0ON-P9U5LsgN4eNj0c_3rbjDln2ECPEsYwHHK5nHq1yvhJcI42g5o8yz2eb4vvZAX5gWcBcPd2KuU0e2FOnfrYN8HAsLN0T4PUz53x_5OujqOvTcEcaKXxHrU8xsknBiLaBkyA/s1594/BloomsRevisedTaxonomy_SantaClaraCounty.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1050" data-original-width="1594" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK1-0ZKOsbErsrRHK8pgBdpjrxQo1Z9nB7IYVYezIe3XgMicNP0ON-P9U5LsgN4eNj0c_3rbjDln2ECPEsYwHHK5nHq1yvhJcI42g5o8yz2eb4vvZAX5gWcBcPd2KuU0e2FOnfrYN8HAsLN0T4PUz53x_5OujqOvTcEcaKXxHrU8xsknBiLaBkyA/s320/BloomsRevisedTaxonomy_SantaClaraCounty.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>
    </td><td>
<blockquote><em><p style="font-size: 90%; text-align: center;">How can lesson design move learners from knowledge acquisition that is concrete to one that is more abstract and creative?</p><span style="font-size: 80%;">“Benjamin Bloom said, “...<b>a student attains 'higher order thinking' when he no longer believes in right or wrong</b>".
  
In creating his taxonomy, Bloom highlighted a student’s ability to <b>think more abstractly</b> and demonstrate learning in ways that were sparked by creative thinking. Learning is more than recalling the right answer. It is applying learned content to new and different situations in ways <b>that can “reorganize a child's thoughts, attitudes, and feelings.”</b> This course will review Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and will expose the learner to different technology tools that can move students to higher orders of thinking."</span></em></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table>




Is "<b><i>... no longer believes in right or wrong...</i></b>" and "<b><i>...reorganize a child's thoughts, attitudes, and feelings...</i></b>" what you were thinking of when I originally asked what you expected '<i>Critical Thinking</i>' to do for a child's thinking?
<br /><br />


And now, as you use your '<i>Critical Thinking Skills</i>' to read this with an open and analytical mind, to compare what I've shown you so far, to your original expectations, are some doubts beginning to arise in your mind? If you were to <i>'...question, analyze, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement...</i>' further upon this, it seems to me that these are just a few fairly obvious questions that you should be asking yourself (and stewing upon):
<div style="float: right;"></div>
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>How do they intend to 'help' students to 'no longer believe' in Right &amp; Wrong (spoiler alert: they mean that in both senses of the words, BTW, true/false &amp; good/bad)?</li>
<li>What is meant by  'reorganize their student's thoughts, attitudes, and feelings', and how do they go about doing that?</li>
<li>What is meant by  'knowledge acquisition', and how does that differ from learning what is being studied?</li></ul></span></em></blockquote>





Prior to our modern reforming of schooling (which, BTW, is in no way limited to public schooling), people sought an education to lead them out of the shadows of ignorance and confused misunderstanding, by learning what's rooted in an integrated understanding of what is real and true and right and wrong, and by aiming at identifying the good that all sound thinking aims at, the student was expected to be able to become a moral and self-governing individual capable of living a life worth living, in liberty with others. 
<br /><br />
Teaching students '<i>Critical Thinking Skills</i>', OTOH, utilizes the student's mind '<i>as if</i>' the purpose of an 'education' was to stock the shelves of the nation's human resources tool sheds, with a variety of tools and skills which TWKB have determined to be needed, at varying skill levels, for various tasks, as needed. Such 'Thinking Skills' do not reflect <i>who </i>a student <i>is</i>, but what actions they've been trained to perform for 'today's economy'. A sad 'side effect' of instilling 'thinking skills' in this way, is that in between having tasks to work on, the student's 'education' is of little or no use to them outside of the tasks which they've been made useful for, and so they're left to fill their 'off hours' with whatever distracting entertainments might keep their 'power tool' brain buzzing with between tasks.

<br /><br />

Unlike traditional education which carefully revealed timeless truths to its students which they would find to be of value throughout their lives, to be 'educated' in modern times is to be suited only to the present moment, which necessarily means becoming useless in the next one ... which will then require your re-education (<i>"Learn to code!")</i>. Perhaps what it is that 'Critical Thinking Skills' are intended to move us 'beyond', is best summed up with the opening line of <a href="https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html">Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics</a>:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim
..."</span></em></blockquote>

, which was the view that was prevalent in our Founders era, and was very much rooted in a concern for understanding what is real and true, and is unquestionably concerned with what is right and wrong, and that is entirely opposed by what Bloom's Taxonomy has been teaching our teachers to teach our kids to 'rise above' for decades.
<br /><br />

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: left; font-size: 85%; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 35%;">'Critical Thinking' in action: “<i>I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done</i>.”<br />

— <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/04/17/npr_ceo_katherine_maher_a_reverence_for_the_truth_might_be_getting_in_the_way_of_getting_things_done.html">Katherine Maher (NPR CEO)</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMMLk6ol69AsmR4zF_32CREwE1NGyZGbwQk0_Av-esSTgMleGPEDcTDHsdwTbK_cwilmGITNinmps7zEbDYEVYmwA7cY1qL-DcJfyQUuKCEdqn6d0jBe9mFSoizrhbb-Uh0xBxerw8CoJdiKkdH1oWSE-GvnRMy6WSiuh9B-Y738oIEyyhP7hmMw/s583/NPRMaherUnreverance.png?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="580" data-original-width="583" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMMLk6ol69AsmR4zF_32CREwE1NGyZGbwQk0_Av-esSTgMleGPEDcTDHsdwTbK_cwilmGITNinmps7zEbDYEVYmwA7cY1qL-DcJfyQUuKCEdqn6d0jBe9mFSoizrhbb-Uh0xBxerw8CoJdiKkdH1oWSE-GvnRMy6WSiuh9B-Y738oIEyyhP7hmMw/s200/NPRMaherUnreverance.png?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>
</div>

<i>Because</i> these differences between what had traditionally been considered to be sound reasoning, and 'Critical Thinking', are distinctions that make a critical difference, they go unmentioned when CT'rs are selling CT's skills to parents and the general public to confound their understanding with "<i>Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question, analyze, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write....</i>"
<br /><br />



Under the guise of teaching kids 'thinking skills' to "<i>...question, analyze, interpret...</i>" the world '<i>as if</i>' 'Critical Thinking' were the 'same as' reasoning, students are being taught what was <i>never intended</i> to lead them into becoming good, moral, ethical persons, and instead focuses them on acquiring some level of '<i>Conflict Resolution Skills</i>' which views 'truth' as a relative and malleable means of calculating utilitarian bargains in which the 'ends justify the means', and it does so under the implicit presumption that <i>it would be <u>wrong</u></i> to teach the importance of developing a child's ethical judgment of  what is real and true and right and wrong. 


<br /><br />
The harsh reality is that through the power of being trained in 'Critical Thinking Skills' which view knowledge as "<i>...the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain...</i>", a person's depth of understanding is easily satisfied at the surface level of ideological appearances, which severs them from having any deeper concern for what is real and true and right and wrong. By their own efforts to skillfully calculate a pragmatic answer, rather than by seeking first to understand and respond appropriately to what it is that's being contemplated, they are metaphysically <i>decapitating</i> themselves from within their own mind, by removing the metaphysical point and purpose of reasoning well from their conscious awareness and intent.


<br /><br />
That subtraction of the student's metaphysical awareness <i>is</i> 'Critical Thinking's <i>primary innovation</i>, and it has enabled the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">pro-regressive</a> desire to develop demoralized human resources (just what do you think "<i>... no longer believes in right or wrong...</i>" means?!), who are stocked with whatever calculative tools and 'people skills' that the experts of TWKB deem to be needed most at that particular point in time. 
<br /><br />

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_uJLNUQQtMFBU1bgWQnCHKx0VFhK6nQMfMAulDL3hXgO4Idevt0LtLboq10dzK9JUIfuYiLrJbNWpQez9F4TfRGQwDewNdluHL4YiOV_AXa-Y-KZiczAo5gUKWxYttj7LJ5Y39p2sTBv6CtjPZSEipYaBxg7d_8QTtseujE9zWbU3YoAhI1A-tg/s3429/Bezmenov_Demoralized.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: right; display: block; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1918" data-original-width="3429" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_uJLNUQQtMFBU1bgWQnCHKx0VFhK6nQMfMAulDL3hXgO4Idevt0LtLboq10dzK9JUIfuYiLrJbNWpQez9F4TfRGQwDewNdluHL4YiOV_AXa-Y-KZiczAo5gUKWxYttj7LJ5Y39p2sTBv6CtjPZSEipYaBxg7d_8QTtseujE9zWbU3YoAhI1A-tg/s320/Bezmenov_Demoralized.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf">Re-Remembering the Mis-Remembered Left:</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table>Especially if your own schooling was all about building up your 'thinking skills', this cannot be pleasant to hear, and even harder to accept, but as you're beginning to see for yourself, if you pay attention to what the purveyors of 'Critical Thinking' say when discussing what they intend 'Critical Thinking' to accomplish, they'll tell you <i>in their own words</i>, that these <i>are</i> the ideals that they intend to transform  you and your kids with.
<br /><br />
Do yourself a favor, don't just try to '<i>keep an open mind</i>', and perhaps above all don't try to '<i>wake up!</i>', as if you've been asleep all along - you <i>have not</i> been asleep, and the contrivance of that excuse is unworthy of the mind of man (hi Marx!). What you do need to do, is to turn the light of your own attention towards actively taking notice of what <i>is</i> (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal">Metaphysics</a>), how you know it (through an <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1">epistemology</a> of <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#anchorName">Causality</a> and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20is%20Truth">Logic</a>), and what should be done in response to that (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#the-ethics-of-epistemology-escaping">Ethics</a>), and you'll soon see the darkness being rolled back by the light of what is real and true. There is a great deal that you will begin to take notice of as you continue to "<i>...question, analyze, interpret...</i>" from that perspective, and despite what our educators think of you (and humanity), <i>because </i>you are a human being, you <i>are</i> able to see, recognize, understand, and correct the errors of men.
<br /><br />

<b>What is 'Critical' to your Thinking?</b><br />
So now as you compare what you'd assumed CT to be, to what you're now beginning to see it involves, never forget that what you assume that the Pro-Regressive Left (and Right) mean by something, as even how to '<i>...question, analyze, interpret...</i>' is often the sheep's clothing that's being used to smuggle in a wolf that's contrary to your expectations, and they do so because of their pragmatic belief that truth is just '<i>what works</i>' for the moment, and they see <i>themselves</i> as TWKB (Those Who Know Best) who <i>should</i> have the power to determine what it 'works' for. 

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;"><span style="font-size: 85%;">See:</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNNCXlp62zQ&amp;t=1s">Beneath Sheep's Clothing</a>"
</span></div>
<br /><br />




That's especially the case when you see the word 'Critical' placed before the word 'Thinking', for while you might think that 'Critical' simply implies an important point to question &amp; consider in what you are thinking about, if that were the case, there'd be no need for the 'Critical' to be prefixed to 'Thinking', as that is what <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/thinking">'thinking' is</a>:

<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><i>thinking</i> noun <br />

the activity of using your mind to consider something:<br />
do some thinking <i>I'll have to do some thinking about how best to arrange the books.</i></span></blockquote>

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeVmqH2JX09tv9f2R8IDzjqay8GwYjQ0LFelR4PNzCEE8Vp6rRcfuTw7Eu4VDXbvHO6vPT887fs9ohJAET_GvoBAW2qmtYrGamZ8qtG9S-9zPTVJ9mR3DCEoWtsGSA1xVSP2uyNso3C5yOGHyroafN8ZehYesDNPU6mP8SsQszAoUjTx_i_qAAog/s1582/Silva_GnosticProcess.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1270" data-original-width="1582" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeVmqH2JX09tv9f2R8IDzjqay8GwYjQ0LFelR4PNzCEE8Vp6rRcfuTw7Eu4VDXbvHO6vPT887fs9ohJAET_GvoBAW2qmtYrGamZ8qtG9S-9zPTVJ9mR3DCEoWtsGSA1xVSP2uyNso3C5yOGHyroafN8ZehYesDNPU6mP8SsQszAoUjTx_i_qAAog/s200/Silva_GnosticProcess.jpg?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

, but those of a Progressive, Socialist, Marxist, Hegelian, Kantian, Rousseauian, Cartesian, Hobbesian bent of mind (or just <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">Pro-Regressive</a>&nbsp;for short), do not mean for you to simply consider something from different angles, what they mean by 'Critical', is for you to engage you in the causeless doubt (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2009/07/unknown-conspiracies-you-dont-think.html">hi Descartes!</a>) that isn't intended to raise questions, but, as how the skeptic puffs himself up in his own eyes while tearing down what others behold and revere, it encourages you to presume to 'just know' that there are alternate or hidden 'answers' to be dwelt upon, without any actual cause or evidence for suspecting them - what <a href="https://x.com/BH0806/status/1639704332227563525">Samuel Silva calls</a> '<i>the affirmation of the No</i>' - and that sense of 'Critical' is perhaps best expressed by Marx's <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm">exhortation to a</a>: 

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;"><a href="https://archive.org/details/pilgrims-regress-cs-lewis/page/n289/mode/2up?q=Fissiparous">Fissiparous, in CS Lewis’ Pilgrim’s Regress</a>, is a "<i>...process of infinite fracturing, unceasingly dividing...</i>"</div>

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"... ruthless criticism of all that exists..."</span></em></blockquote>

, so as to undermine and destroy the foundations of the West in general and of America in particular, and to bring our houses to ruin.
<br /><br />
It's critical to note that adding 'Critical' to your 'Thinking', is not done to better understand what <i>is</i> true, the 'Critical' is put there to operate upon your 'Thinking', in much the same way as 'Social' is used in 'Social Justice' to dilute &amp; destroy the traditional western understanding of 'Justice' that's concerned with individual instances of right and wrong, in favor of using power to enforce those popular presumptions and prejudices, which TWKB calculate that they can get away with at the moment, by presenting them as being 'what works'. Both instances are intentional assaults upon the metaphysical '<a href="https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/the-root-and-the-fruit">Imago Dei</a>' of man as a being created in the image of God, which they seek to replace with social constructs that give TWKB the power to reshape society in <i>their</i> own image.

<br /><br />

The first step a person takes down the road of '<i>Critical Thinking Skills</i>' in seeking 'answers' to poorly understood questions, is already leading them away from attending to what <i>is</i>, how you know it, and what you should do about that and why (<a href="https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.6.vi.html#141">buh-bye Aristotle</a>), and 'Critical Thinking' does so because its HOTS are not intended to, or interested in, enhancing the ethical reasoning, or the sense of morality, or even the accuracy of a person's thinking, they exist to put the purposes of power at the center of your attention, as with the NPR CEO quoted above, so as to dispense with 'truth' as a "<i>...distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done</i>". <i>That</i> is the purpose of 'Critical Thinking', and <i>that</i> is how 'Critical Thinking' seeks to <i>"...reorganize a child's thoughts, attitudes, and feelings.."</i> and move them '<i>beyond</i>' concerns for '<i>right or wrong</i>', which leaves them, you, and the rest of  '<i>We The People</i>' wandering around as metaphysically decapitated beings, not just dazed and confused about what is real and true, but arguing with each other over the ideal way to churn society in their brave new world of Ideology (see <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/06/answering-somehow-problem-of.html">previous post</a>).

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmzf7rczmLG0p6ufK1UuJ5Y4D3a6lLmBGe9o3WmRyMhJvZBi56V6F8odYevEXscwtLotB4RJBRjodGpSGGDvuwpskgeDtFbHmWe0xaSId9vEMJ-qaTdBtNDNrA01l56IFcg9zST71f7zvxJYR-gJy67d6RAi8kHJ3p73y1rih75ME1XYDAlkSEbg/s1672/CourtenayTurner_ImagoDei.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="941" data-original-width="1672" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmzf7rczmLG0p6ufK1UuJ5Y4D3a6lLmBGe9o3WmRyMhJvZBi56V6F8odYevEXscwtLotB4RJBRjodGpSGGDvuwpskgeDtFbHmWe0xaSId9vEMJ-qaTdBtNDNrA01l56IFcg9zST71f7zvxJYR-gJy67d6RAi8kHJ3p73y1rih75ME1XYDAlkSEbg/s320/CourtenayTurner_ImagoDei.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/the-root-and-the-fruit"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The Root and the Fruit</span></a></span></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br /><br />

In the coming posts we'll dive deeper into what we've just scratched the surface of here, in what 'Critical Thinking' follows from, seeks, triggers and accomplishes, but as its 'Skills' <i>have</i> been spread throughout our schools, it should be no surprise to us today that generations of people drilled in '<i>Critical Thinking Skills</i>', should show an ever diminishing ability to think well, behave virtuously, morally, honestly, or purposefully.
<br /><br />
And finally, I should add, with the reactions in mind that many of us have on first learning about the nature of '<i>Critical Thinking</i>', it's best to not forget that one of the leading reasons why we find ourselves in our current circumstances today, is <i>because</i> of all of the bipartisan <i>'School Reform!'</i> we've engaged in over the last century. To borrow a phrase from <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2024/05/dividing-right-through-false-choices-of.html">a radical activist</a>: “<i>The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house!</i>”.  
<br /><br />
It's best to just get your kids out of our schools, and redirect their attention and concerns towards what is real and true, so that they can have a chance to get a decent education.

]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13914</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Meaning of our &#8216;Answers&#8217; are problems for &#8216;Critical Thinking&#8217;</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-meaning-of-our-answers-are-problems.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 18:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Critical Thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Critical Insurrection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Western way of thinking]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=1c6826d367de7a59aefd37c2a789a7d7</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[
Do you understand The Grammar of Liberty?

In the previous two posts (here and here) I noted how much we've lost with those stories and histories of The West that we're no longer learning from today. And whether it's the case that we're only not readi...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit5nRTqb3J8NdK65y-Kh48o6YA6ZzX8WE55ZuglUvg2GaJll0jlpk2BP9etYsZ9sLugMafPc3-OfCFW-_DRP9EyS98yQKE_NmdNxdptBsKkW2P2FQgNJc6shpnEr1WpdFF0uFwfmiv_0sMA46nexTdDSSGaZvfILy_oEqQtSarRk822lx3rjOPEg/s1447/WheelOfCriticalThinking.png?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1079" data-original-width="1447" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit5nRTqb3J8NdK65y-Kh48o6YA6ZzX8WE55ZuglUvg2GaJll0jlpk2BP9etYsZ9sLugMafPc3-OfCFW-_DRP9EyS98yQKE_NmdNxdptBsKkW2P2FQgNJc6shpnEr1WpdFF0uFwfmiv_0sMA46nexTdDSSGaZvfILy_oEqQtSarRk822lx3rjOPEg/s320/WheelOfCriticalThinking.png?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Do you understand <a href="https://substack.com/home/post/p-204956571">The Grammar of Liberty?</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table>

In the previous two posts (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/06/somehow-critical-insurrection-being.html">here</a> and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/06/answering-somehow-problem-of.html">here</a>) I noted how much we've lost with those stories and histories of The West that we're no longer learning from today. And whether it's the case that we're <i>only</i> not reading &amp; studying them, or worse, that we're reading them through a post-modernist 'lens' that is fundamentally opposed to what makes The West in general and America in particular so much better than the rest, either way their meaning is being lost to us, and that is what's leaving us blind to the very real monsters that we're facing in the world today.
<br /><br />
That means that recovering the canon of the Greco-Roman-Judeo/Christian West's stories and histories, involves more than just reading those works, it involves being mindful that those works represent an approach to reality which understands that:

<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><i>Real meaning is only found through recognizing what is real and true.</i></span></blockquote>

<b>IOW</b>: how you go about your reading, matters as much or more than what you're reading - how else could you be expected to recognize the many errors, and even evils (hello Rousseau!), that are present in the canon, and understand how to avoid swallowing and repeating them? Recovering the Western mind, rather than simply repeating its sometimes fashionable 'answers', requires developing its essential approach to reasoning about reality (which, despite appearances, <i>is the same reality</i> that our Founders faced) in the pursuit of wisdom, and that involves <i>seeking</i> to understand what <i>is</i> (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/Metaphysician%3A%20heal%20thyself">Metaphysics</a>), what that leads to and what follows from it (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/causality%20%26%20its%20effects">Causality</a> &amp; <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20is%20Truth">Logic</a>), and what, if anything, should or should not be done about what it is that you do come to understand about aspects of the real world that you live within (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-ethics-of-epistemology-escaping.html">Ethics</a>).
<br /><br />




If you're one of those who recognizes the problems surrounding what we no longer know or understand, and are wondering what to do about it, I hope you're not also one of those who complains when told what the solution to that is:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">Open those books and begin remedying your own lack of familiarity with the canon.</span></em></blockquote>



And yet, because I've had experience with delivering this message over the years, I won't be surprised when those hearing this advice for the first time (<i>first</i> time? <i>Really?</i>), that many of you (not you, of course) will be thinking (or shouting): 

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"But Van, it'll take <u>time</u> to read those books!"</span></em></blockquote>

Yes, you are correct. It <i>will</i> take time <i>and</i> some effort on your part, to learn some measure of what you should have been taught to understand all along.
<br /><br />
<i>And?</i>
<br /><br />
Are you waiting for the Answer Fairy to leave some solutions under your pillow? Or to have A.I. <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> do that for you? Do you imagine that you can 'fix' others, without 'fixing' yourself? That must be <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:3-5&amp;version=KJV">some mote you see</a> in another's eye, if it's stopping you from seeing that this is <i>exactly</i> the sort of response that the Hydra's <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> knows it can expect as <i>"... an expression of the American mind..."</i> from most people schooled in America today. Go figure.
<br /><br />
I do, of course, get the aggravation behind the response, though. When I began this series of posts, I naively thought that I could just expose the central issues required to cauterize the stumps and approach the 'final boss' (which I'll finally name in the course of this post, and identify and dig further into it throughout this series of posts). Nevertheless, it's taken me five years of going through  the history of '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html">Education Reform</a>' in America (again), the equally forgotten (discarded) nature of <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#the-real-choice-metaphysician-heal">Metaphysics</a>, and what <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#epistemology-you-keep-using-that-word-1">Epistemology</a> is not (but should be), and the false &amp; subversive ideology of '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/exiting-wizards-circle-of-economics.html">Economic Thinking</a>' (which is <i>not</i> philosophy or a substitute for one).
<br /><br />
It turns out it takes time to get something done. Go figure. Recognize that evading this is just indulging in more of the wishful thinking we've all been filled up with since pre-school. Deal with it, and get on with the doing of it!
<br /><br />


If you still resist doing so, is it because you don't realize that recovering some measure of those works, along with the deliberate intention of seeking to understand what is real and true, may be able to do for you some measure of what it did for our Founders in their era? If you <i>don't </i>think it can... why? If you do, but would rather use your time doing something else... what and <i>why</i>?
<br /><br />
Or do you <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> think that human beings in our modern world are so very different from those of our Founders' era? Do you imagine that their powdered wigs &amp; horse drawn carriages somehow made them different from (or better than?) you?  Or that having technology <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> makes you different from (or better than?) them?
<br /><br />
What seems more likely to you, that having electric lights means that we don't need to know what they understood to be necessary for living lives worth living and in liberty with others, or that something about our having electric lights has <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> blinded us to the dangers of our own ignorance?
<br /><br />
You should blink and take a moment. Then refocus, and think.
<br /><br />
The only real difference between them then, and us now, is our respective familiarity with the canon, along with approaching it with the intention of gaining a better understanding of what is real and true and right to do, and doing so with a clear awareness that there are consequences to ignoring reality. The real difference between them then, and us now, is that our electrified society eases our thinking that we can <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> get away with ignoring reality, in a way that wasn't possible with <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-never-was-and-never-will-be.html"> the hostile wilderness they faced</a>.
<br /><br />


If you want to do something to help restore The West, what is it that you imagine you could do that'd be better and more effective, than beginning to restore it within yourself first? If you doubt the value or effectiveness of doing so... do you not understand what that 'answer' means for the very issue you've admitted to recognizing? 
<br /><br />

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-tcmR2ZSXZTKQJQj1_JC0med8K8MzYERZnIdtLUCdzCBy0t9p4mnNgSH0fl4-WLgRRtdFeGrcP4bzn4D5m0NiJoR-ObnxxuMpcPh31Psy-1vBxv2xk8oE0qGZyP0N9WoJ17sgQsPptMZT2XNJ03MNRIHzRSCjfOGOgHI_j_NpcwpCpQo6Qb1Cng/s350/IOHydraDescartes.png?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="350" height="160" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-tcmR2ZSXZTKQJQj1_JC0med8K8MzYERZnIdtLUCdzCBy0t9p4mnNgSH0fl4-WLgRRtdFeGrcP4bzn4D5m0NiJoR-ObnxxuMpcPh31Psy-1vBxv2xk8oE0qGZyP0N9WoJ17sgQsPptMZT2XNJ03MNRIHzRSCjfOGOgHI_j_NpcwpCpQo6Qb1Cng/w200-h160/IOHydraDescartes.png?resize=200%2C160&#038;ssl=1" width="200" /></a></div>
Becoming familiar with the stories and histories that shaped their thinking, and the habits they practiced in thinking about them, will provide you with some measure of what led Thomas Jefferson to describe the Declaration of Independence, as being: "... <i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2025/07/calvin-coolidge-thomas-jefferson-james.html">an expression of the American mind</a></i>...". Conversely, failing to adhere to a habit of reasoning that seeks to understand what is real and true, and lacking the canon which develops that habit, leads into the muddled state of mind that the Hydra's provocations are meant to distract us into, and 'Critical Thinking' plays a significant role in which mode it is that prevails for our students, and for the rest of us today, though... perhaps not in the way you might assume.
<br /><br />







And again, No: getting 'answers' from your targeted research and LLM prompts <i>will not</i> provide you with the understanding that you should have, or save you much if any time in learning what you need to learn. What either is most likely to do, is to fill you with still more meaningless 'answers' that you'll be drawn into bandying about with the opposing groups from the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/06/answering-somehow-problem-of.html">Ideological Observatory</a>, as both of you help the ideologs to spread their ideological churn further far and wide. 
<br /><br />
Don't do that. Learn something from history, instead. Stop complaining and start reading what you've missed out on.

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;"><ul><li><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html">Questions that lead to Metaphysics, Causality, and the Logic of Ethics</a></li><li>How<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html"> the failings of our public schools trace back to our Founders</a></li><li> How to step out of the<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/exiting-wizards-circle-of-economics.html"> Wizard's Circle of Economics</a>, and return to Classical American Liberalism</li></ul>
</div>
<br /><br />
And as you go about doing what you know you need to do, keep in mind that the point of engaging in this kind of learning is less about fetching items from a shopping list of The Bible, Homer, the Greek Tragedians, Herodotus, Aesops... Dante... Shakespeare, as if to acquire new possessions, merit badges, and support ribbons for displaying on social media, than to continuously learn more about what is, what follows, and how their integration enables us to better recognize the universal concepts and principles involved in better understanding what you know, and what should be done about that (and don't neglect your Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, and Thomas Reid, who'll help you with getting more meaning and understanding out of those stories, and within your life).
<br /><br />
The good news is that you don't need to 'know it all' (and you should know that you never will), and neither do you have to memorize long lists of facts and answers.
<br /><br />
What really needs to be done, is what so many are avoiding: Doing the reading, and actively focusing on how to approach an issue, which is what enables a person to generate a sufficient force and heat of understanding that's needed to both sever and cauterize the hydra's many headed lies into lifeless stumps, and to understand that then, and <i>only then</i>, can it be safe to move on to attack the next provocation that's being waved in their face. 
<br /><br />





<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMd0agTe1sosgKF5egdsp7YdhVgRrFBtWT6vD004R7Sq-P7c2fesT8HN00zU1IXsZaDh_YlNitX_MFEYHfTaV9n-_5dFhW1w4xaHkhbk5xh7-kXiOo_tO2w5cBeE9K7GAA5T-UKh19zm4oiDbQLjATJdRSFw9wr4Uv-nTqM6gzzrFPeCiNQsJJGQ/s850/quote-he-the-devil-always-sends-errors-into-the-world-in-pairs-pairs-of-opposites-he-relies-c-s-lewis-35-34-81.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="850" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMd0agTe1sosgKF5egdsp7YdhVgRrFBtWT6vD004R7Sq-P7c2fesT8HN00zU1IXsZaDh_YlNitX_MFEYHfTaV9n-_5dFhW1w4xaHkhbk5xh7-kXiOo_tO2w5cBeE9K7GAA5T-UKh19zm4oiDbQLjATJdRSFw9wr4Uv-nTqM6gzzrFPeCiNQsJJGQ/s320/quote-he-the-devil-always-sends-errors-into-the-world-in-pairs-pairs-of-opposites-he-relies-c-s-lewis-35-34-81.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

The <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">Pro-Regressive</a> doesn't want you to develop those habits - <i>and </i>they need for you to think that simply reacting, is a 'good idea'.
<br /><br />

With that in mind, keep in mind that Pro-Regressive's (Left and Right) <i>always</i> utilize ambiguous terms in order to benefit from the shallow and premature conclusions which they know that you will <i>ass</i>ume they mean by their words (such as 'Left' and 'Right'), while unbeknownst to you, the inner-circle of TWKB (Those Who Know Best) have freighted them with misleading content and meaning which directly contradicts what you assume is meant by them.


<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;"><a href="https://x.com/ClassicLibera12/status/1904647614668190089">Key Tools of Semantic Deception:</a><br />
<b>Paltering (n.)</b> The act of using truthful statements to mislead or deceive, often by omitting key details or presenting facts so as to create a false impression.
<br /><br />
<b>Polysemy (n.)</b> The coexistence of multiple meanings for a single word or phrase, where the meanings are related but distinct, often arising from a common origin or usage over time.
<br /><br />
<b>Equivocation (n.)</b> The use of ambiguous language or expressions to mislead or avoid commitment to a clear statement, often by exploiting multiple meanings of a word or phrase to obscure the truth.
</div>
<br /><br />

As we'll see in this series of posts, these tactics are nothing new, they come from the age-old art of Sophistry, which concentrates upon generating an '<i>everybody knows!</i>' mask of unquestioned narratives which seem to have substance, and turns your attention away from looking beneath the surface for further arguments or deeper meaning. The sophist waves the flag of '<i>Only fools &amp; fascists doubt ___!</i>' to divert the rest of their audience into fighting against a slew of superficial labels in one rhetorical dead-end alley after another, while the revolution advances on around them and acquires ever more monstrous forms. 
<br /><br />

To be able to identify and expose the central neck of the many-headed hydra, requires our not treating what isn't real, <i>as if</i> it <i>were</i> real - that's what their illusions rest upon. That requires your being in the habit of expecting that the meaning of something, must mean that something <i>is</i> and can be understood <i>to be</i> true, something whose essentials are identifiable, and which integrate into the rest of what you know - before and after - without contradiction, and is not simply a floating 'fact' that is copy &amp; pasted widely as the 'answer' whenever prompted.
<br /><br />



What I mean by that, is that what seems sensible on the surface, may not have any real meaning in it. For instance, take the original syllogism:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">
Socrates is a man,<br />
All men are mortal,<br />
Socrates is a mortal man</span></blockquote>


, which is logically correct, meaningful, and true, but the fact that on the surface it is syntactically correct (it follows Logic's rules of distributed middle, etc.,), is <i>not</i> what makes this syllogism either meaningful or true. Aristotle's first rule of logic is that before beginning to construct a syllogism, you must <i>first </i>ensure that your premises are true, and that your terms are unambiguous, and only then do you go on to constructing a syllogism to logically demonstrate that. 

<br /><br />
It is only by understanding that the premise of what a man <i>is</i> ( human beings have a nature that <a href="https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/the-root-and-the-fruit">is created</a> to perceive reality and to use its reasoning faculty to guide its chosen actions to accord with what is real and true, and suffers the consequences of failing to do so), and that what the term mortality refers to (a living creature's life will end in death, and that every man, no matter how well they reason out their best laid plans, will someday die), and knowing who it was that the term Socrates refers to (an Athenian man, proven in battle, who thought that an unexamined life was not worth living, and who was put to death in 399 B.C. for publicly questioning his fellow Athenians and testing the meaning of their replies with his Socratic logic), is what makes it possible for the properly structured syllogism to demonstrate that it is both meaningful and true, but if either its premises are untrue or its terms are ambiguous, it doesn't matter how correctly the syllogism is structured, it's 'answer' can't be logically shown to be either or meaningful true. 
<br /><br />

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtkNRh2JB4YDa1Dd7j85MV51eTDPtji4wWmfLLoHppeqgeaUbVxKRVaNvhdblGGo1USSs1tp9hWEJx-HTlbX__E7fv15KcdQSo62gs2i6ij8BDgCO4lbisDhA5aUG_cb3nEdFVzrH1aFZvdeg826tkKH5CrE-Ur0DE6Ty2mxbDjrWuyG3C-S9eJA/s679/20241023_104619%201.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="382" data-original-width="679" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtkNRh2JB4YDa1Dd7j85MV51eTDPtji4wWmfLLoHppeqgeaUbVxKRVaNvhdblGGo1USSs1tp9hWEJx-HTlbX__E7fv15KcdQSo62gs2i6ij8BDgCO4lbisDhA5aUG_cb3nEdFVzrH1aFZvdeg826tkKH5CrE-Ur0DE6Ty2mxbDjrWuyG3C-S9eJA/s320/20241023_104619%201.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">...</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">from Stephen Coughlin's <a href="https://x.com/S_Coughlin_DC/status/1744418087510688081">Unconstrained Analytics</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table>

To better see the issue, contrast the 'Socrates is a man' syllogism, with one that is syntactically correct, but whose premises and terms are invalid:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">
Socrates is a tortoise,<br />
All tortoises fly,<br />
Socrates is a flying tortoise</span></blockquote>

The premise that all tortoises fly is a false premise that does not reflect what a tortoise <i>is</i> or can do. And while we recognize the name 'Socrates', because it's not being used to refer to the man that we typically assume it does, the term is being used ambiguously. Because the syllogism's premises are untrue, and its terms are ambiguous, it is not logical, meaningful, or true.
<br /><br />
I can hear some thinking:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Another swell story Van, but I'm not worried about what a tortoise can or kant do!"</span></em></blockquote>

Try this one on for size:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">
Healthcare is a human right,<br />
All human rights are inalienable,<br />
Healthcare is an inalienable human right</span></blockquote>

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">The absence of Context, often indicates the presence of Pretext</div>

If you're in the habit of ignoring context and accepting answers where 'That makes sense', or what 'everyone knows' is correct, and are not in the habit of checking premises &amp; terms, your agreement with or objection to this, will likely reflect whichever way the current ideological winds are blowing you in, each of which may reflect as little of what is real and true, as the other (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2012/04/principles-left-behind-rush-to-slut.html">See obamacare, or 'replacements'</a> for it, for reference).
<br /><br />
<b>Note: </b>you should also beware of those who'd say that something like the Tortoise &amp; Healthcare syllogisms are '<i>logically correct, but technically untrue</i>' (hi Kant!), for they too are utilizing untrue premises and ambiguous terms, to subvert your understanding of reality through the mis-structuring of logic, so as to escape the restrictions of what is real and true.
<br /><br />
With the habit of checking premises &amp; terms firmly in place, then you'll find issues with such 'arguments' jumping out at you, one after the other, such as:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li> '<b><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203517304574306170677645070">Healthcare</a></b>' - What is meant by 'health'? Who defines and determines that, you, your doctor, or metrics on a govt regulated insurance form? Similarly for what is meant by 'care', does that mean choosing a service from those offering it, that you think are best able to provide it, or will you have to take what some other entity has determined that you're eligible to receive, according to how you are classified by it? </li>
<li>'<b>human right</b>' - a 'human right' is a collectivist term for what might be secured by pressure groups who desire to use political power to force others to act as they wish, and so such inhumane 'rights' are entirely constructed and fully alienable, by majority rule, and/or authoritarian dictate</li>
<li>An '<b>Inalienable Right</b>' is derived from what all human beings by nature <i>are</i>, and not from what some or all people yearn for  - what is inalienable, cannot be alienated - separated from your nature - anymore than breathing can be made optional.</li>
<li>I say again: <b>There are </b><b><i>no</i></b> 'human rights' that are inalienable</li>
<li>'<b>Individual Right</b>' - is derived from the nature of what all human beings are, not from what some or all people desire . An individual right cannot be alienated from you except by force, such as imprisonment or execution, as penalty for violating the individual rights of others, and such individual rights can only be <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/exiting-wizards-circle-of-economics.html#CommonGoodCommon">justly upheld and defended, within a rule of law</a> that is dedicated to, and limited by, an objective respect for them (AKA: Liberty).
</li>
<li><b>Liberty or a House Slave</b> - Whether your society recognizes 'human rights' or 'individual rights', determines whether you have a choice in your 'healthcare' being provided by those who're interested and competent to offer it, or have no choice in what will be given by those who have been compelled to provide it (AKA: enslaved), and competence will have little or no role in the 'care' you receive, or the 'health' you achieve from it.</li>
</ul></span></blockquote>

Those who peddle 'answers' which have only the surface appearance of being correct, while urging you to accept their statements as '<i>obviously true!</i>' without your grasping or examining their underlying meaning, are just as likely to 'argue' that you are a heartless fascist for even thinking of questioning what '<i>everyone knows!</i>', as do both sides of the ideological "<i>Healthcare is a human right!</i>" battle.
<br /><br />

<b>Reminder/Hint:</b> They <i>want </i>you to react to their 'answer', they <i>do not</i> want you to take a moment to understand <i>what</i> it supposedly answers, or what an actual answer would actually <i>mean</i>.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1r7YePOsjWWuOup59cbmw5R3jRVZ4Qh6KqBq3atLVKyP9O9-vokA5nIyJf12WwlmTWW8S4XnbGQCh8hwlv7ePYBV4LJHOrMF1wFCOnvOLj9cxTBamn5t6rBN0UcU3UqHfEJ8cgWVVs7z4HXMpV4-vl00e30maBnzxb6tGZW94xAT_KisIedCM-A/s680/Solzhenitsyn_DisguisedCommunism.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="680" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1r7YePOsjWWuOup59cbmw5R3jRVZ4Qh6KqBq3atLVKyP9O9-vokA5nIyJf12WwlmTWW8S4XnbGQCh8hwlv7ePYBV4LJHOrMF1wFCOnvOLj9cxTBamn5t6rBN0UcU3UqHfEJ8cgWVVs7z4HXMpV4-vl00e30maBnzxb6tGZW94xAT_KisIedCM-A/s200/Solzhenitsyn_DisguisedCommunism.jpg?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

The scattershot banalities of '<i>everyone knows!</i>' that surround phrases in everything from "<i>Healthcare is a human right!</i>" to "<i>Heritage Americans are the only <u>real</u> Americans!</i>", are waved about to lure you into biting on the enticing bait of isolated facts shorn of necessary context, by which they form the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-semantic-deception-of-sel-social.html">Semantic Deceptions</a> needed for disguising their untrue premises and ambiguous terms. It's in that way that our own language is often used to play upon our assumptions, and if we fail to examine the premises &amp; terms being used in the language that we habitually hear and use, then our own thoughts use of them can do grave injury to our understanding of far more than just what is being 'argued' in that moment. 
<br /><br />

That <i>is</i> and always has been the signature strategy of Sophists through the ages, and in all of their ideological stripes. It is <i>how</i> <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">Pro-Regress</a> is achieved.
<br /><br />



Fortunately for us, these monsters, as all monsters do, have a fatal weak spot - they <i>are</i> untrue - which they can't help but hide in plain sight, which is why they live in a constant state of dread of an honest man with the sense and liberty to ask: <i>"What do you mean by ___?"</i>. They are painfully aware of the real danger that they would be left facing if we <i>don't</i> take the bait of those distractions that they're busily thrusting into our faces. 
<br /><br />
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"></span></em></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHcmvg_hul70moB3I9TS_L3EDQA4eA_Qk3z5OjNSD5Qg9K5oAWrS8DsrnjeEJpHjayg5IFu3PEOtv34fj62tIgowE_YoIIgSzcxu8xlZILGFhAfh3gu7bFhmaGeb7leqf5HlKGW0LLL0Q4dPimcQCnQoTcEc8WohrW-kFektYpD9d2Ib71_NkVQ/s1600/dan-robinett-drobinett-bard-smaug.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHcmvg_hul70moB3I9TS_L3EDQA4eA_Qk3z5OjNSD5Qg9K5oAWrS8DsrnjeEJpHjayg5IFu3PEOtv34fj62tIgowE_YoIIgSzcxu8xlZILGFhAfh3gu7bFhmaGeb7leqf5HlKGW0LLL0Q4dPimcQCnQoTcEc8WohrW-kFektYpD9d2Ib71_NkVQ/s320/dan-robinett-drobinett-bard-smaug.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /><span style="font-size: 80%;"><br />Their weak spot is easily spotted, <i>if</i> you look</span></a></div>

Whether it occurs on X, or Facebook, or face to face, don't engage with them on the level of their narrative and its deliberate provocations, for to do so is to implicitly accept their false premises. That is what happened during the "<i>Healthcare is a human right!</i>" push for obamacare, which was often advocated for with lines such as <i>"<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-economy-isnt-about-economics-stupid.html">What are you going to do about the 30%</a> who lack health insurance?!"</i>, and the typical response from The Right was something like <i>"First of all, it's only about 10%, and these people choose..."</i>, without ever realizing that by doing so, they'd implicitly accepted their pro-regressive premises, and effectively conceded the argument, and so could do nothing more than complain as their half of the ideological <i>"Left! Right! Forward March!"</i> cadence helped in marching us on towards our demise.
<br /><br />
Stop taking their narratives as presenting either valid or invalid facts (what is obviously wrong, is a key means of drawing you into their ideological churn. AKA: Clickbait). Ignore their provocations and poke beneath the surface by paying less attention to what they've said, and more to what the premises for what they'd said must mean, what they're based upon, and what is likely to follow from, and be built upon, their being accepted. 
<br /><br />

Start looking at their narratives as a story that's being told to make you <i>assume</i> that they mean what they <i>do not</i> really mean (which typically involves evading a principle that's lethal to their narrative), which is how they sell what 'everyone knows', and inflict such damage by shifting our attention away from what is, to their narrative about it.
<br /><br />

Doing this needn't be a complicated process, and doesn't require research projects, or position papers, it only requires you to question their narrative along the conceptual paths that they're evading, "...<a href="https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/10-5.htm">taking every thought captive</a>..." so as to reveal and identify their unspoken premises &amp; terms: 

<blockquote><span><ul>
<li style="font-size: 85%;">When they say '<i><b>Black lives matter!</b></i>', ignore the provocations that some lives matter and others don't, by questioning the premise it evades and denies: '<i><b>Why do <u>any</u> lives matter?</b></i>' </li>
<li style="font-size: 85%;">When they say that "<i><b>The sexual organs you were born with don't determine your 'gender'!</b>"</i>, question the premise they want you to presume is unquestionable, by asking "<i><b>Then how does faking the appearances of having those sexual organs through costume, makeup, or surgical alteration, determine your 'gender'?</b></i>"</li>

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkUzTTQ6pAksrhBAlmX5GfTPGnPeGxChJaJQ4y-MiL0NMDKOzmCdzhdvSQSYTj8kHpyYLl3C4eIwFv0nTrLbdYWJTWvwxbnpHIUjaP5k07QAv3PRIBXw5rwrJPEgq_6vfkoT790UnWHamwgQSVVRI2dbyKQnfCin7JgytB0hUYQ1hBRO1I5698mA/s1462/TheGreatSeal2.png?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1098" data-original-width="1462" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkUzTTQ6pAksrhBAlmX5GfTPGnPeGxChJaJQ4y-MiL0NMDKOzmCdzhdvSQSYTj8kHpyYLl3C4eIwFv0nTrLbdYWJTWvwxbnpHIUjaP5k07QAv3PRIBXw5rwrJPEgq_6vfkoT790UnWHamwgQSVVRI2dbyKQnfCin7JgytB0hUYQ1hBRO1I5698mA/s200/TheGreatSeal2.png?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

<li><span style="font-size: 85%;">When they say '</span><i style="font-size: 85%;"><b>America is only for Heritage Americans!</b></i><span style="font-size: 85%;">', bring what they count upon you thinking that they mean, face to face with what they don't want you to realize that </span><i style="font-size: 85%;">they</i><span style="font-size: 85%;"> mean, by pointing out the actual meaning of their words: "</span><b style="font-size: 85%;">The motto of The Great Seal of the United States of America, finalized in 1782, is </b><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/07/e-pluribus-unum-pre-independence-day.html" style="font-size: 85%; font-weight: bold;">e Pluribus Unum</a><b style="font-size: 85%;"> (Out of many, One), and clearly proclaims the 1776 date </b><span style="font-size: 13.6px;"><b>(MDCCLXXVI)</b></span><b style="font-size: 85%;">&nbsp;of&nbsp; the Declaration of Independence and its proposition that "...<i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/07/250-years-later-america-still-depends.html">all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights</a></i>..." and so must be treated equally before the law, as the origin of and foundation for the United States of America</b>. That <i>is</i> the meaning and heritage of being an American, so how can rejecting either of those mean anything other than opposition to our American heritage?"</li>
</ul></span></blockquote>


Note that they <i>cannot </i>reply to those questions, without also acknowledging that the false premises and ambiguous terms which they are trying to evade, are the Achilles' heel (another lost story) of their assertions. Ask such questions not to '<i>own them!</i>', but to turn the discussion away from their narrative, and back towards reality.
<br /><br />



  
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCrBtO899meUDlWVU-MGWTS9qP3cAsQXPDviCRvLCULtTBBzEUb3t4TF5YebwG_PuYEBZ40AoRZ1jKhyoItzb059F6kJwWX5OGq6LNm4EpBBUJfgStMxXiWmC1zK8vHZsdoiIQBYYqskMpikbs_7w0Pcw8gBu9zfq8o9sbUmqUKRxw0FWoeG-9UQ/s1038/dracula-1931-mirror-1038x576.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1038" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCrBtO899meUDlWVU-MGWTS9qP3cAsQXPDviCRvLCULtTBBzEUb3t4TF5YebwG_PuYEBZ40AoRZ1jKhyoItzb059F6kJwWX5OGq6LNm4EpBBUJfgStMxXiWmC1zK8vHZsdoiIQBYYqskMpikbs_7w0Pcw8gBu9zfq8o9sbUmqUKRxw0FWoeG-9UQ/s200/dracula-1931-mirror-1038x576.jpg?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

Some people (you too?) will say:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"> "But they'll never engage in conversations like that!"</span></em></blockquote>

, and of course that <i>is</i> the kind of conversation that the truly <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">Pro-Regressive</a> (Woke or otherwise) will <i>never </i>engage in - they'll recoil from such questions like Dracula from a mirror, and perhaps for the same reason. 
<br /><br />
Keep in mind though that most such conversations that you may become engaged in, are <i>not</i> for the (immediate) benefit of the radical you're speaking with (though you never know what time will tell), but for <i>your own</i> understanding, and especially for those who may be silently watching from a distance.
<br /><br />
If <i>we </i>fail to demonstrate how to dig deeper into identifying what they're trying to distract us from, <i>that</i> can be as deadly to us, as their <i>failing</i> to distract us from doing so, is to them. 

<br /><br />
Again, don't react and try to 'own them' - that helps no one but the churning of the Ideological Observatory. The most effective thing you can do is to question their point calmly and cooly, not to get to a different answer, but to bring out a deeper understanding of the issue and their premises, and by doing so, pull them along with you as you pursue identifying what is - and is not - real and true about their 'answer'.
<br /><br />

<b><a name="CriticalLanguageAlert">A Critical Language Alert</a></b><br />
In short, the alternative to being led around by your ears, is your giving some meaningful thought to what underlies the terms of the narrative that they're attempting to entangle you in.
<br /><br />
The best response to a narrative and its provocations, is to think through the meaning and implications of what they've said, and to test whether its assumptions and claims (entailing premises and terms), meaningfully reflect what you can understand to be real and true.
<br /><br />
Most people today will feel an almost natural reaction against that - did you feel its tug?
<br /><br />
It comes from a particular habit of thinking, and that is what needs to be identified, broken, and replaced with that which I've been describing here, and those who don't do that, will continue to find themselves being carried along on the surface of popular narratives, flopping about as they're skewered with one provocation after another.
<br /><br />
The one thing you can be sure of, is that whichever ideological path that this habit of thinking is leading us all down, leads to a very real and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2010/03/healthcare-mandates-evil-for-greater.html">inescapably anti-American system</a> being imposed upon us all. 
<br /><br />
Remember Alinsky's lesson for training up monsters: 
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">The issue is never the issue, the issue is <b>always</b> the revolution.</span></em></blockquote>

The deeper problem with banalities of  '<i>everyone knows!</i>', and our eagerness for easy answers, and our acceptance of shallow 'logic', is that this pattern for arriving at their conclusions, has been repeatedly presented to us as being <i>so</i> sensible, and <i>so</i> obvious, and <i>so</i> alluring for a hundred years, that questioning the design pattern that generates this habit of thinking, doesn't occur to us. Popular opinion recognizes problems all around us, and enthusiastically calls for actions that <i>can only</i> bring still more of the same, and we do so, not because we want more problems, but because we're unaware that how we've been taught to go about our thinking, <i>is</i> the pattern that is furthering the purposes of the Critical Insurrection being waged against us. 

<br /><br />
What I'm getting at here, is that the thing that's defined our pattern of thinking, whose habits incline us towards seeking 'answers' from everything from narrowly targeted research, to those turning to A.I. for 'answers' <i>as if</i> having those answers is or could be a substitute for understanding the problem, which only then can appropriate solutions be sought for.
<br /><br />
The thing that I'm pointing to as being <i>the</i> central head of the modern Hydra...
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyZdMP08sA4T3l2Umt7VFU4vl4B6ks1L6gRZEmO0I5r7B7dcNhPWx17wdlr79L54NsKQlLr1QL3AH9t9pQytqyRna9C3H80VgG6FWodFCrbUigYST8UNRthVETfGeUj8pzU8VUxeyjaafahyS58poZA9d0ELI5m-Vs7njj4O-ZYSCKtP6zak1oQw/s768/CT_SnakeOil.png?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="593" height="200" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyZdMP08sA4T3l2Umt7VFU4vl4B6ks1L6gRZEmO0I5r7B7dcNhPWx17wdlr79L54NsKQlLr1QL3AH9t9pQytqyRna9C3H80VgG6FWodFCrbUigYST8UNRthVETfGeUj8pzU8VUxeyjaafahyS58poZA9d0ELI5m-Vs7njj4O-ZYSCKtP6zak1oQw/s200/CT_SnakeOil.png?fit=900%2C200&#038;ssl=1" /></a></div>
...the 'Final Boss', is... 
<br /><br />
...<i>wait</i> for it: 


<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'<i><b>Critical Thinking</b></i>'. </span></em></blockquote>
No, I'm not recommending <i>more</i> 'Critical Thinking'.
<br /><br />
What I am saying, is that in much the same way that  '<i>Social Justice</i>', '<i>Black Lives Matter!</i>' and '<i>Heritage American</i>', seek the opposite of what they advertise themselves as being concerned with, 'Critical Thinking' is <i>not</i> the cure for our problematic thinking, 'Critical Thinking' <i>is</i> the problem that has made our thinking so unreasonable.
<br /><br />
<b>IOW: </b> The  'Critical Thinking' that we've been putting so much time and effort and money into forcing down our kids' throats as if it were the cure, is the very poison that's been making us all so sick. 'Critical Thinking' <i>is</i> the bad habit we need to be cured of.
<br /><br />

The Munchausen Proxy folks in <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/06/answering-somehow-problem-of.html">the Intellectual Observatory</a>, have been careful to generate the impression that 'obviously' what '<i>everybody knows!</i>' is meant by 'Critical Thinking', is that it is a scientifically valid method for thinking through the meaning and implications of what has been said, and for testing whether what you believe is or is not true. Unfortunately, as we'll see in excruciating detail in the coming posts, is that while they do intend to give you that impression, the reality is that the theorists of 'Critical Thinking' make artful use of semantic deception to formulate their materials and curriculum in such a way that they effectively undermine and subvert what every sensible person expects 'Critical Thinking' to mean, and to do for them. And this has been done deliberately, and remarkably openly (for those who bothered to look), for nearly a century.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrrctBcOL8PNcSB_psCEsvqlhhmCBuRewbr8xWz30OhzTCR_4YppGsfmMn1Uj50JhExIdpv4JxKxzmmSl_nSSDqANoPTL_iY-Rnl3ouaaR3L0YZsSPcIss-Y0OrFvHuMg2Sbv3vnADf0mXvbiJE-vjMZ1Qsi9WLMlVA0AG_mSOQkNHg5SiwMMDMg/s548/MonsterStories.png?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="548" data-original-width="495" height="200" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrrctBcOL8PNcSB_psCEsvqlhhmCBuRewbr8xWz30OhzTCR_4YppGsfmMn1Uj50JhExIdpv4JxKxzmmSl_nSSDqANoPTL_iY-Rnl3ouaaR3L0YZsSPcIss-Y0OrFvHuMg2Sbv3vnADf0mXvbiJE-vjMZ1Qsi9WLMlVA0AG_mSOQkNHg5SiwMMDMg/s200/MonsterStories.png?fit=900%2C200&#038;ssl=1" /></a></div>

What I'm pointing to here is not just another Ideology, it is <i>not</i> CRT (Critical Race Theory), or even any of the other 'Critical Theories'; what I'm pointing to <i>is</i> the monstrous many-headed hydra which those writhing necks of <i>CRT, </i><i>BLM</i>,  and '<i>Heritage Americans</i>', sprout from, each time we attack any of them <i>as if</i> they were the central problem attacking us.
<br /><br />

Even as I type this into the internet, I can sense the pushback from many of you against what I've just said (you too? Of course). And that's a good thing.
<br /><br />


But it's worth your while to keep in mind another trope of monster stories, which is that the loudest denials of the monster's existence often turn out to be coming from either the monster in disguise, or from those who have been unwittingly aiding and supporting it (<i>"The call is coming from inside the house!"</i>). See our long and tragic history of Education Reform, and our <i>very</i> bipartisan calls for "<i>We need more 'Critical Thinking'!</i>" today.
<br /><br />
And so, as we head into the coming posts, I'm not asking you to trust that <i>I</i> have the answers. I'm asking you to consider that you haven't been asking the right questions (such as What is education?).
<br /><br />
I'm not asking you to trust what I present to you as new 'answers', I'm asking you to consider what I present, and to satisfy yourself that the premises and terms involved are sound and meaningful (theirs, mine, and yours), while being especially careful about the difference between those facts that you <i>assume </i>to be true (<i>'everybody knows!'</i>), and what you actually <i>know</i>, within the proper context, <i>is</i> real and true, and that you come to understand its meaning.

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9QRvac4z8UP6R-YRmWNk3awSddwqQfrrtQf75JDlETH2yvpwP7Xb023T9aDiZXH27MUjTTJTzY3NGsSP0Zb_tMhLPb1WFW4VNhLjK7CwvpnhCjpdRY3PIJcZ165Tab_QHFe56f_nxJmSBvI4IZO4p69jkCpmmMrs7nF7coKUz6FPsQc-f3b2ZtQ/s1102/Solzhenitsyn_OneWordOfTruthOutweighsTheWorld.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1102" data-original-width="735" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9QRvac4z8UP6R-YRmWNk3awSddwqQfrrtQf75JDlETH2yvpwP7Xb023T9aDiZXH27MUjTTJTzY3NGsSP0Zb_tMhLPb1WFW4VNhLjK7CwvpnhCjpdRY3PIJcZ165Tab_QHFe56f_nxJmSBvI4IZO4p69jkCpmmMrs7nF7coKUz6FPsQc-f3b2ZtQ/s320/Solzhenitsyn_OneWordOfTruthOutweighsTheWorld.jpg?fit=900%2C320&#038;ssl=1" /></a></div>
<br /><br />
Towards that end, keep Solzhenitsyn's line from '<a href="https://honestyculture.com/alexander-solzhenitsyn-live-not-by-lies/">Live not by lies</a>' in mind:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">...Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, we will be obstinate in this smallest of matters:  <b>Let them embrace everything, but not with any help from me</b>... </span></em></blockquote>
, and that:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world...."</span></em></blockquote>
There are few things that are more critically important to a sound mind, than that.
<br /><br />
Do that, and then like Hercules &amp; Iolaus, or even the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes, you may soon recognize what the old tales told us over and over, that few things burn the lie and its liar more hotly, than having their false pretenses publicly exposed to the truth.
<br /><br />
Now all we have to do, is to do that to every last one of the Hydra's heads, and soon we'll be able to bury its body under a tombstone, and consider the immortal beast to be defeated.

<br /><br />
For the moment.
<br /><br />
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13906</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>250 years later, America still depends upon Americans&#8217; understanding of our Declaration of Independence</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/07/250-years-later-america-still-depends.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 15:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Calvin Coolidge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e Pluribus Unum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independence Day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Individual Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Declaration of Independence]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=fd9c2194ba4c97af3533d3799af3b0c6</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Three quick points before getting to my annual reposting of Calvin Coolidge's speech on the "Inspiration of our Declaration of Independence", and to the Declaration of Independence itself, on its 250th Anniversary. The first point, which I went into a ...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[Three quick points before getting to my annual reposting of Calvin Coolidge's speech on the "<i><b><a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/presidential-messages.html#Inspiration">Inspiration of our Declaration of Independence</a></b></i>", and to the <b><a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s5.html">Declaration of Independence</a></b> itself, on its 250th Anniversary. The first point, which <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/07/e-pluribus-unum-pre-independence-day.html">I went into a little bit of detail here</a>, is that the Declaration of Independence is the vehicle through which those who care about what is real and true, are able to become <i>one</i> people, Americans, and that its inheritance is not one of blood, but of understanding their shared ideals. To affirm:
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb4texDQwZt1xzt9iy3vAAh7mesO68QTmOE2HnUj4aGL52uM1RRmV0_xqzQ1fuoo5PnM-ZMEtGDIDbdrNNwM2lJd75DwYqWbFC34JkDiiTCa2KAL5Sg2FbPb5tsNuhsMhp0V1I6Vnly5NQlEwpsoj2AfTiuoSUAFw4xigyLjmM-ViHuOvT7rgCpg/s1448/CoolidgeInspirationOfDeclarationOfIndependence.png?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1079" data-original-width="1448" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb4texDQwZt1xzt9iy3vAAh7mesO68QTmOE2HnUj4aGL52uM1RRmV0_xqzQ1fuoo5PnM-ZMEtGDIDbdrNNwM2lJd75DwYqWbFC34JkDiiTCa2KAL5Sg2FbPb5tsNuhsMhp0V1I6Vnly5NQlEwpsoj2AfTiuoSUAFw4xigyLjmM-ViHuOvT7rgCpg/s400/CoolidgeInspirationOfDeclarationOfIndependence.png?w=400&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>
  <blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'... these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...'</span></em></blockquote>
 , is your ticket into the American body-politic, it is your passport to recite the later phrases with the rest of us, so that '<i><a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html">We The People</a></i>' are <i>able </i>to form a more perfect union <i>because </i>we do hold these truths to be self-evidently true. It is how we are made '<i>e Pluribus Unum - Out of many, One</i>' people, and our diverse origins and differences are transformed into interesting footnotes to our lives, rather than defining - or dividing - features of them.
<br /><br />
The second point, is that with the <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Loper-Bright-Enterprises-v.-Raimondo-No.-22-451.pdf">Supreme Court striking a blow</a> against the encroachments upon our liberty by <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/06/scotus-deals-massive-blow-to-administrative-state-overrules-deference-doctrine/">the Administrative State</a>, things are looking better for the restoration and preservation of liberty, than they have in decades.
<br /><br />
The third point, is that our independence wasn't begun on July 4th 1776, that was simply the end of the beginning. And in what has been more terrifyingly clear with the 2020s, is how central to America's existence, the Declaration of Independence and the ideas that animate it, is to there being an America (the geographical location of our nation) with Americans (those who understand and revere the ideas that made America possible) in it, and for either of those to be able to continue on together for long into the future.
<br /><br />
I'm not talking about each person having a copy of it - the document itself is meaningless and useless without a people who understand it. The Declaration of Independence only came into being in the first place, <i>because </i>there was a people along the eastern seaboard who understood its meaning well before it was written. Thomas Jefferson later commented that he made no attempt to be innovative or '<i>revolutionary</i>' when writing it, but only that he intended it "<i>... to be an expression of the American mind...</i>" - is it an expression of yours?<br />
<br />
John Adams, in the first quotation below, recalled that in his opinion the American Revolution actually began in 1761, when James Otis spoke against the <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/early-american-documents.html#James%20Otis">'Writs of Assistance'</a> to an assembled crowd, calling out a wealth of classical allusions and a sweeping summation of history and of legal gems, which roused all of his listeners through a torrent of eloquence so profound that Adams thought it had sparked the revolution 'then and there'. Otis too expressed only the common content and passions of "<i>the American mind</i>", and so I ask you, if a new James Otis were to speak to us like that today, how many people living here in America would recognize any of what he summarized or recognize why it was important? Would those modern listeners be more likely to be moved by his eloquence... or to shrug it away with a texted 'TLDR' ('Too Long Didn't Read')?
<br />
<br />
How likely is it that we can long have either America or Americans in it, without the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> being both known and understood by at least a majority of them? And how well can it be understood by a people who've been 'educated' out of any familiarity with that history, its important ideas, and a perspective that <i>values </i>profound truths eloquently expressed?
<br />
<br />
Don't bother muttering against our schools, they have dropped the ball, intentionally, and they cannot be looked to for help in picking it back up. It's <i>you</i> who needs to do this, beginning with yourself, and counting on no one else to fill the contents of your own mind with what it has until now lacked. The internet is open to you, and I've provide the links you need here to get started. You and no one else are responsible, for America continuing to be populated with Americans... or at least with one (who can then tell another).
<br />

<br />
<i>July 4th 1776,</i>&nbsp;was the end of the beginning of America's Independence, and now 250 years later, it's up to you to ensure that July 4th 2026 isn't the beginning of its end. And to ensure that... you need to start back at the beginning. And where our independence began, according to a fellow that was in attendance at both events, John Adams, was when <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/early-american-documents.html#James%20Otis">James Otis spoke against King George's 'Writs of Assistance'</a> back in 1761, which <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6735">as Adams recalled it</a>,
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">",,,But Otis was a flame of fire! With a promptitude of Classical Allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events &amp; dates, a profusion of Legal Authorities, a prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous Eloquence he hurried away all before him. American Independence was then &amp; there born. The seeds of Patriots &amp; Heroes to defend the Non sine Diis Animosus Infans; to defend the Vigorous Youth were then &amp; there sown. Every Man of an immense crouded Audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take Arms against Writs of Assistants. Then and there was the first scene of the first Act of opposition to the Arbitrary claims of Great Britain. <b>Then and there the Child Independence was born. In fifteen years i.e. in 1776. he grew up to Manhood, &amp; declared himself free</b>.,,,"</span></em>[emphasis mine]</blockquote>
I point that out, because it underlines the importance of what is perhaps <i>most</i> remarkable about what the Declaration of Independence's author, Thomas Jefferson, considered to be the <i>least </i>remarkable aspect of it - that he intended the Declaration as an expression of ideas that were familiar and commonly understood, by the majority of Americans, of that time, as <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jefferson-the-works-vol-12-correspondence-and-papers-1816-1826#Jefferson_0054-12_439">Jefferson wrote to a friend in later years</a>, about what it was meant to accomplish: 
<br />
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &amp;c..."</span></em></blockquote>
That is why we are unique in the annals of human history, as being a nation <i>founded upon ideas</i> (those twits mouthing on about '<i>inherent American anti-intellectualism</i>' can kiss my patriotic ass). Those common ideas, and their influence, continued to serve as strong guides for the later creation of our <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s9.html">Constitution</a>, and in even a cursory reading of the charges of the Declaration of Independence against King George, it is easy to see their reflection in our Constitution, and the original ten amendments to it:<br />
<blockquote>
<em><b>"<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s5.html">To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World</a>."</b></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_speech.html">1st Amendment</a></span></em></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security<b>."</b></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html">2nd Amendment</a></span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries."</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;">The first three articles of our Constitution, divides Govt into three branches, which prevent any one person or wing from attaining a monopoly of power over the others.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance."</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;">This is what our Constitution was expressly designed to forbid, which unfortunately is what the pro-regressive Administrative State, was erected upon it to encourage (as was our politically instituted educational system) - proof that Laws that do not live in the hearts and minds of the people, cannot protect them against themselves</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;">Congress has control of organizing and funding the military budget, and while the Executive has command of the military, he can not do much, for long, without the further consent of the people's representatives, and in all ways, the military is under civil control.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us"</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIII.html">3rd Amendment</a></span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States"</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_2_3.html">Article 3, Sections 2, Clause 3</a>, as well as the <a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendIV.html">4th</a>, <a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html">5th</a>, 6th, <a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendVII.html">7th</a> Amendments of <a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss13.html">the Bill of Rights</a></span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World"</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_3_commerce.html">Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3</a></span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:</span></em><br />
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_3.html">Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3</a></span></span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">
"FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury"</span></em></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 85%;"> <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendV-VI_criminal_process.html">5th and 6th Amendments</a> (and more) </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
, and if you take the time to read both, you will find many, many, more points of harmony between the two.
<br />
<br />
But enough, onto Calvin Coolidge's speech, and a happy 250th Independence Day to you all!
<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/presidential-messages.html#Inspiration">The Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence</a></b><br />
Given in&nbsp;<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;times&quot; , serif; font-size: 14.6667px; font-weight: bold;">&nbsp;</span>July 5, 1926:<br />
<br />
<div class="wrapContainer">
<div class="image-right" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="President Calvin Coolidge" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXGYcJnOvpPP4mwxOR-Km0zosqDaQOImMRDXXhqy34mK2J10YCpklW5ygyAEnlHLeJWNHDxdCTRqTt-14zeK044_UenE1A1BiZpua2yQ2W5w6ApNgYDsOoIQcfmQPFaDw71w4BMg/s320/coolidge.gif?w=900&#038;ssl=1" /></div>
</div>
We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.<br />
<br />
Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human<br />
experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.<br />
<br />
It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.<br />
<br />
It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.<br />
<br />
It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.<br />
<br />
We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them. The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.<br />
<br />
While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.<br />
<br />
This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.<br />
<br />
When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.<br />
<br />
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.<br />
<br />
If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be under-estimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.<br />
<br />
It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.<br />
<br />
The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.<br />
<br />
But if these truths to which the declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that:<br />
The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people<br />
<br />
The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.<br />
<br />
This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise, entitled "The Church's Quarrel Espoused," in 1710 which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.<br />
<br />
While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise, It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.<br />
<br />
That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent". It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man". Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth . . . ." And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine". And still again, "Democracy is Christ's government in church and state". Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker as early as 1638.<br />
<br />
When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature's God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."<br />
<br />
No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.<br />
<br />
Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.<br />
<br />
If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.<br />
<br />
We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.<br />
<br />
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.<br />
<br />
In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self government; the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that "Democracy is Christ's government". The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.<br />
<br />
On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.<br />
<br />
It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.<br />
<br />
Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.<br />
<br />
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they&nbsp;worshiped.<br />
<br />
***************<br />
Happy Independence Day America!

**************************
<br />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript">In Congress, July 4, 1776</a>.</h3>
<strong>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,</strong> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.<br />
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.<br />
<div class="space-left">
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.<br />
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.<br />
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.<br />
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.<br />
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.<br />
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.<br />
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.<br />
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.<br />
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.<br />
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.<br />
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.<br />
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.<br />
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:<br />
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:<br />
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:<br />
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:<br />
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:<br />
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:<br />
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences<br />
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:<br />
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:<br />
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.<br />
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.<br />
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.<br />
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &amp; perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.<br />
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.<br />
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.</div>
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.<br />
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.<br />
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.<br />
<hr />
<div class="nwidget nlayout ncolumns row make-eq" data-columns="4x1_4">
<div class="col-sm-3">
<strong>Georgia</strong><br />
Button Gwinnett<br />
Lyman Hall<br />
George Walton<br />
<br />
<strong>North Carolina</strong><br />
William Hooper<br />
Joseph Hewes<br />
John Penn<br />
<br />
<strong>South Carolina</strong><br />
Edward Rutledge<br />
Thomas Heyward, Jr.<br />
Thomas Lynch, Jr.<br />
Arthur Middleton<br />
<br />
<strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
John Hancock</div><div class="col-sm-3"><br /></div>
<div class="col-sm-3">
<strong>Maryland</strong><br />
Samuel Chase<br />
William Paca<br />
Thomas Stone<br />
Charles Carroll of Carrollton<br />
<br />
<strong>Virginia</strong><br />
George Wythe<br />
Richard Henry Lee<br />
Thomas Jefferson<br />
Benjamin Harrison<br />
Thomas Nelson, Jr.<br />
Francis Lightfoot Lee<br />
Carter Braxton<br />
<br />
<strong>Pennsylvania</strong><br />
Robert Morris<br />
Benjamin Rush<br />
Benjamin Franklin<br />
John Morton<br />
George Clymer<br />
James Smith<br />
George Taylor<br />
James Wilson<br />
George Ross</div><div class="col-sm-3"><br /></div>
<div class="col-sm-3">
<strong>Delaware</strong><br />
Caesar Rodney<br />
George Read<br />
Thomas McKean<br />
<br />
<strong>New York</strong><br />
William Floyd<br />
Philip Livingston<br />
Francis Lewis<br />
Lewis Morris<br />
<br />
<strong>New Jersey</strong><br />
Richard Stockton<br />
John Witherspoon<br />
Francis Hopkinson<br />
John Hart<br />
Abraham Clark<br />
<br />
<strong>New Hampshire</strong><br />
Josiah Bartlett<br />
William Whipple<br />
</div><div class="col-sm-3"><br /></div>
<div class="col-sm-3">
<strong>Massachusetts</strong><br />
Samuel Adams<br />
John Adams<br />
Robert Treat Paine<br />
Elbridge Gerry<br />
<br />
<strong>Rhode Island</strong><br />
Stephen Hopkins<br />
William Ellery<br />
<br />
<strong>Connecticut</strong><br />
Roger Sherman<br />
Samuel Huntington<br />
William Williams<br />
Oliver Wolcott<br />
<br />
<strong>New Hampshire</strong><br />
Matthew Thornton</div></div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13898</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Answering &#8216;Somehow&#8217;: The Problem of the Ideological Observatory</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/06/answering-somehow-problem-of.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 01:40:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Critical Thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ideological Observatory]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=e8aec4cd9b3184ea822ac6f4535a4481</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As seen in the previous post, seeking after obvious facts and answers can 'somehow' put you at odds with understanding what is real and true. But how? As with most of our problems today, they have less to do with what we do, than with what we no longer...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[As seen in <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/06/somehow-critical-insurrection-being.html">the previous post</a>, seeking after obvious facts and answers can <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> put you at odds with understanding what is real and true. But how? As with most of our problems today, they have less to do with what we do, than with what we no longer do, and since the West has been 'educated' out of its stories and history, we've lost sight of what Aristotle understood to be a critical aspect of understanding what you know, which you can catch a glimpse of in his <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.1.1.html">Poetics, Section 1, Part IX</a>:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen- what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. <b>Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular</b>...."</span></em></blockquote>

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">
<b>Proverbs 29-19</b>:<br />
"<i>Where there is no vision, the people perish...</i>"<br />
Note: It's worth reading the other translations <a href="https://biblehub.com/kjv/proverbs/29-18.htm">of that passage here</a>.</div>

, and together with our modern attitude of treating stories as 'just stories', we've trained ourselves into the habit of seeking obvious facts as being sufficient answers for particular problems, and we become too easily satisfied with that lack of depth in short range answers, and in so doing, give no thought to those universals which principled thoughts such as "<i>...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...</i>" depend upon being understood, by <i>We The People</i>.
<br /><br />
This tendency to accept a shallow understanding of matters, makes an ideal stage for the 'somehow' that philosophical Houdini's - 'experts' - cultivate for performing their sleight of mind 'magic' of conceptual distractions, in synch with the artful stage management of narratives, which leaves us unable to see the monsters that our world is filled with today, let alone how to battle them. Worse, the forms which those monsters have been taking, like that of the many-headed Hydra, instinctively grasp that we don't understand them well enough to do them any real harm, and so they gleefully provoke us into reacting with those shallow attacks that we think we're hurting them with (hello&nbsp;<i>"education reform!"</i>), but which actually helps their beast to grow still more heads to overwhelm us with. 
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWEevXizs3JK2uXE4XeE1ymBGTauuzl_TUUswfEN987z7lbjNhdTiZFD44R4km_xIXeuhXo81qwm4uCXDTQuCDgOwGxpzo6eqk9OT8oCRg8gf6gs4TYgJp7b_qToNtWeD4TqQamDvsVyMzRzwM1DvwFXm5izWLXSPRpgRaJNIT8zMIaMjsV7sQcg/s1055/Platocave.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="979" data-original-width="1055" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWEevXizs3JK2uXE4XeE1ymBGTauuzl_TUUswfEN987z7lbjNhdTiZFD44R4km_xIXeuhXo81qwm4uCXDTQuCDgOwGxpzo6eqk9OT8oCRg8gf6gs4TYgJp7b_qToNtWeD4TqQamDvsVyMzRzwM1DvwFXm5izWLXSPRpgRaJNIT8zMIaMjsV7sQcg/s320/Platocave.jpg?w=320&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

<br />That deliberately shallowed vision <i>is</i> the means that <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">pro-regressives</a> from Descartes to Kant, to Fichte, to Dewey and Gramsci, have used in their efforts to hamper people's ability to grasp what <i>is</i> real and true, and <i>that</i> is critical to their plans for ending the West's 'Cultural Hegemony'.
<br /><br />
How does that <i><b>'somehow' </b></i> work?
<br /><br />

You've heard of <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html#remove-this-dangerous-technology-from">Plato's Allegory of the Cave</a>, right? In which there are prisoners chained to the wall in a cave, as unseen others fix their attention upon the shadows being cast upon the other wall before them. The prisoners, who seeing nothing else,  accept those shadowy images before them as being real, and there's something in that act of accepting surface level answers, which leads them to cling to them, and to resent, and even to attack, those who try to show them the depths of what is actually real and true.
<br /><br />
While keeping that spirit of Plato's Allegory intact, I'd like to make a suggestion for modernizing its form, by utilizing the popular meme of an object that is shaped in such a way that when light is shone on it from the front, side, or above, onlookers see it casting images  of a square upon one wall, a circle upon the other, and a triangle upon the center of the floor, within the walls of an Ideological Observatory that has been established to teach what are said to be the most valuable answers (ideologies) to students who're studying to become Those Who Know Best (TWKB) in their society. <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3cPOfHhwHFFOlCzbZZLZZNEiZk8LrN5CFfkI55M8SzyEJ7_G651f1aL8xe6fTYjy9eES5I6XTLSkhvYypd2_FAUHtVKcPXk2NiDMmDp9RehK-ey5TReR51FqRitS-PO3jtMfuHLMQ59EqtAPyZVl5uw_qfl1c1WKWCDZDCs_B8XgvdtLOYlUWOw/s571/DifferingObviousFacts.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="571" height="172" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3cPOfHhwHFFOlCzbZZLZZNEiZk8LrN5CFfkI55M8SzyEJ7_G651f1aL8xe6fTYjy9eES5I6XTLSkhvYypd2_FAUHtVKcPXk2NiDMmDp9RehK-ey5TReR51FqRitS-PO3jtMfuHLMQ59EqtAPyZVl5uw_qfl1c1WKWCDZDCs_B8XgvdtLOYlUWOw/w200-h172/DifferingObviousFacts.jpg?resize=200%2C172&#038;ssl=1" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />Inside the Ideological Observatory, its interior has been curtained off and divided up in such a way that a spotlight can be shone onto the ideological object hanging from the ceiling, so that only one shape is seen in any individual area within it. And instead of images being viewed by prisoners chained to a wall of a cave, the students of the Ideological Observatory are divided up into particular groups, in which each group knows nothing of the shapes that other groups are being shown in their areas, and seeing only that one image which is <i>obviously</i> being cast upon its surface by the light being shone on it from above, they are instructed throughout their studies there, how to argue <i>that the&nbsp;</i>image they're being shown contains the answer that is<i> the key</i> to resolving the world's troubles, <i>and</i> to getting all that <i>they</i> most desire in that world. 

<br /><br />
Of course, once these students have graduated and are sent out into the world, they are soon confronted by others who've passed through the Ideological Observatory, but who speak of having seen differently shaped answers than those shapes that they had learned to recognize within all that they saw. Each of these groups will predictably experience "<i>WTF?!</i>" moments and a sense of outrage, whenever meeting the liars and idiots&nbsp;of those other groups who dare to deny the obvious fact that the shape of the answer is <i>"and should be!"</i>&nbsp;that [triangle, circle, or square] which <i>they</i> earned <i>their</i> degrees in studying. 

<br /><br />
More importantly, the fact is, of course, that each group <i>has</i> viewed what <i>is</i> obviously the image of a [triangle, circle, or square]. But along with that 'obvious fact' comes the false impression that the object that they viewed that image of, was cast from a [triangle, circle, or square], which couldn't be further from the truth - which those who focus the spotlight on the ideological object hanging above all of these areas know full well - and without a grasp of the wider and deeper contexts involved in what they are considering, such 'obvious facts', can be exceedingly misleading, and quite possibly entirely untrue.
<br /><br />
For real life examples of this, see <i>'Social Justice!', 'Free Speech Movement!', 'Free Trade!'</i>, etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />
Now you might be assuming that it's obvious that the Ideological Observatory is able to instill those assumptions which spread division &amp; discord, <i>because </i>its inner rooms are curtained off to show different 'answers' to different groups, but that's not the case.
<br /><br />

In fact, those differences are but useful distractions that help each group to provoke reactions from those of other groups, to act out against them, which keeps the ideological dialectic churning away, and helps ensure that the Ideological Observatories will continue to be filled with a steady stream of eager students in search of answers. 
<br /><br />

The real key to the Ideological Observatory isn't so much that each group has been given different answers, as the fact that 'answers' are all that each group is given; 'answers' are what each group is taught to seek out in all of their materials; 'answers' define the problems which their group desires to solve; 'answers' are what each group is thoroughly instructed in how to give systematic arguments for justifying those systems, and which produce only those 'answers' which they recognize as being <i>the</i> acceptable 'answers'. 


<br /><br />
The particular 'shape' (ideology, system, etc.,) which one group does, or doesn't accept as being the 'answer', isn't what matters to the Ideological Observatory. What <i>does</i> matter to it, is its ability to shape every group to conform to <i>the pattern</i> of seeking answers from ideologically approved sources &amp; authorities, with very little risk that the 'educated' will ever learn how to ask those questions that would lead to understanding the essentials of what they have been observing.

<br /><br />

That pattern of accepting, memorizing, and regurgitating obvious 'answers' and seeing systems <i>as if</i> they were reality, <i>is</i> the central lesson and is the key to the successful spread of ideology, and that pattern of thinking is what The Ideological Observatory instills into all of the members of all of the groups that it processes through its hallowed halls, and is passed on to those who've learned by example from them.
<br /><br />

The only counter arguments that are taken seriously by any of the groups themselves, are those of 'Epistemological arguments' which compare and contrast the utility of 'answers' from competing systems, while conspicuously refusing to venture into examining what the hanging object actually is, or how the spotlight is focused upon it, and who it is that handles doing that, or why, which amount to wacademic fanfare over making distinctions without a difference.
<br /><br />
What this ultimately means, is, that <i>what</i> the Ideological Observatory's graduates <i>think</i>, isn't the issue, or their litmus test for entry: <i>How</i> they think, <i>is</i>, which illustrates that far from being a benign saying, that idiom attributed to John Dewey: 
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Teach them how to think, not what to think"</span></em></blockquote>

, is less a noble sounding statement about the methods of good teaching, than how modernity has used our educational system to pour a big goblet of hemlock down reason's throat, for more than a century.
<br /><br />



That system for transmitting the ideological pattern of thinking is what ensures that the interests of the Ideological Observatory are served, and that is&nbsp;served, no matter what shape any group's ideological system identifies as being&nbsp;<i>the</i> 'answer' - be it triangle, circle, or square. 
<br /><br />
As a consequence, what's common to every ideological shape-seer amongst TWKB in our society, is that the same habitual pattern of thinking which all groups are instructed in, <i>expects </i>to find satisfaction in <i>obvious</i> facts and in all-encompassing systematic answers for them (ideology). Each of these shape-seers will habitually argue with those who <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> fail to see that the shape which they see in those facts which 'everyone' can clearly see,&nbsp;<i>must be</i> the 'answer' that they're seeking. And having been miseducated into an unfamiliarity with, or misunderstanding of Universals, they lack the '<a href="https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/from-exit-and-build-to-teslas-wireless?utm_source=publication-search">metaphysical firewall</a>' of what is,&nbsp;<i>and</i> what <i>cannot</i> be real and true, which leaves them more easily led to see particular answers in any given flurry of facts. Even in the case of those who convert into believing a different ideological group's 'answer' - now seeing a square instead of a circle or a triangle - they're not valued for the new 'answer' they believe, but for how that adds to the competition between the ideological systems that are peddling circles, triangles, or squares, and that 'conversion' raises the heat of contention over what all have observed. That heated competition is valued <i>not</i> because it helps to promote one shape over another, but because it helps to better hide what is real and true beneath the churning of discord &amp; division that their ideological competition ensures, and that is what ensures that Ideology is what will continue to reign over all.
<br /><br />

Those who don't order their understanding by surface appearances, but by their underlying concepts and principles, integrated with facts, are better able to resist accepting those 'answers' put out by the Intellectual Observatory, because they will routinely question what other people fail to. By doing so, these questioners are better able to see how an ideology leads its listeners into accepting its disembodied 'answers', and how it is that the ideolog's purposes depend upon human nature being rendered rootless, so that it will run its course more favorably for the particular narratives they are being fed. But when these outliers try to ask their questions of TWKB, they will almost certainly find them unwilling to listen, or to do the work of understanding: <i>'people don't talk that way or use words like that!'</i>&nbsp;is a reply that's often heard from those who want the fruit of answers, but who want nothing to do with tending the tree and roots which such fruit is grown from.
<br /><br />

<b><a name="UnobservedInIO"></a><a>What is necessarily not observed in the Ideological Observatory</a></b><br />
The pattern that those who pass through the Ideological Observatory <i>do not</i> learn, is that of inspecting what the actual issue <i>is</i> (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/Metaphysician%3A%20heal%20thyself">Metaphysics</a>), understanding what leads to and follows from that (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/causality%20%26%20its%20effects">Causality</a> &amp; <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20is%20Truth">Logic</a>), and methodically reasoning from that to understand what, if anything, should or should not be done about that (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-ethics-of-epistemology-escaping.html">Ethics</a>).
<br /><br />
The person who learns to look up and around in order to observe the object that ideological images are generated from, and inspects the source of the light being shown upon it, as well as the shadows being cast from them, becomes someone who develops the habit of thinking first about what is, and then diligently reasons from there, in accordance with that. Those are the people who are able to develop the deep roots that a sound &amp; sturdy tree of knowledge can grow from, and so becomes able to comprehend at least some of what the whole truth actually is.
<br /><br />
The nature of <i>that</i> pattern of reasoning, which has been passed on down from <a href="https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html">Aristotle</a> through <a href="https://isidore.co/aquinas/QDdeVer1.htm">Aquinas</a>, and from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RBak-E9xC0&amp;t=9s">Thomas Reid</a>&nbsp;to our Founders' generation, is understood as:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">“the conformity of thing and intellect” (adaequatio intellectus et rei)</span></em></blockquote>

, and that is recognized (though not understood) by the operators of the Ideological Observatory, as being a direct threat to the observatory itself, for it understands that if its adherents regularly examined both the light source and the object which its vaunted images were being cast from, they'd soon understand how its shapes were contrived to appear to be what '<i>everyone knows!</i>' as triangles, squares, and circles, and whether or not those shapes actually followed from the nature of the object of their thought, or not.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: left; font-size: 85%; margin-right: 1em; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">The depth of understanding and breadth of applicability that particular 'answers' can never contain:<br />"<i>...A single line of choral text can emerge from memory and aid recognition of what is occurring in the present, perhaps even more clearly than pages of intellectual academic argument...</i>"<br />
~ <a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/p/axioms-in-accord">"Axioms in Accord"</a>
</div>

<i>Anything</i> that might impart that pattern of thinking - such as the once treasured stories <a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/p/axioms-in-accord">and music</a> of The West in concert with the realist philosophy they are rooted in - <i>cannot </i>be permitted to be given any respect in the Ideological Observatory. Instead, they are sold the sop of '<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#anchorName">Epistemology</a>' justifying what you know, by comparing one system with other systems, each of which systematically avoids identifying what it <i>is</i> that those systems are systems of...'somehow'  (ala Hegel's&nbsp;<i><a href="https://ia801805.us.archive.org/20/items/hegel-and-the-hermetic-tradition/Hegel%20and%20the%20hermetic%20tradition%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29_text.pdf">'Science!'</a> </i>of systematic mysticism).

<br /><br />

Recall that stories don't provide their readers with easy answers. The person who opens up the biblical books of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&amp;version=ESV">Genesis</a> or <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%201&amp;version=ESV">Judges</a>, or myths such as Hercules, or even histories such as are found in <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7142/pg7142-images.html#link2H_4_0001">Thucydides</a> or <a href="https://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index-Plutarch.html">Plutarch's Lives</a>, expecting to be presented with answers they can '<i>score an A+!</i>' with, are in possession of minds that've already been captured by the pro-regressive pattern of thinking, and they will have to actively and intentionally struggle to free themselves from those habits of mind that they've been taught to confine their thinking within.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Liberal-Art-Introduction-Reasoning/dp/0813232341">Logic as a Liberal Art</a>: An Introduction to Rhetoric and Reasoning
by Rollen Edward Houser <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisovv_IJLKbN9F92KOVO4g7z6yFLXN0isaoFXcSdHwZI3YIgpEvX6zBH6EwCD1dMo2W09qLKK7KYFnZal8PMkBV_FuKBS4SmawvJj9kGevsOYlaEiddWU4cviJ6FGo5cY5fL7C9N60FABt_rtaWXikTt39LJnLwmPQtcsny6C262xsXfWT1t9Lfg/s1059/LogicAsLiberalArt3.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1059" data-original-width="541" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisovv_IJLKbN9F92KOVO4g7z6yFLXN0isaoFXcSdHwZI3YIgpEvX6zBH6EwCD1dMo2W09qLKK7KYFnZal8PMkBV_FuKBS4SmawvJj9kGevsOYlaEiddWU4cviJ6FGo5cY5fL7C9N60FABt_rtaWXikTt39LJnLwmPQtcsny6C262xsXfWT1t9Lfg/s320/LogicAsLiberalArt3.jpg?fit=900%2C320&#038;ssl=1" /></a></div></div>


If you doubt the value of the literature of the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West (The Bible, the stories from Homer to <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1995/pg1995-images.html#cantoI.I">Dante</a>, their histories), you need only look at the state of the world today to see what its absence over the last century has cost us. It's not coincidence that its stories were the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html#our-founders-wrong-turn-towards">first to be ejected from our schools</a>, its philosophy was then <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html#pragmatically-shifting-us-off-of-our">pragmatically subverted</a> &amp; corrupted without their support, and its religions stands alone, turned against each other, and under siege. And if you ask '<i>What can be done to restore it?</i>', the answer should be obvious: Read what has been set aside.  Do that, and you begin restoring the glory of The West within yourself, and <i>that</i> is no little thing.
<br /><br />
Familiarize yourself with the 'language' used - and realize that because we are talking about a 'common culture' that extends over <i>umpteen language</i>s, we are not talking about the '<i>arbitrary rules of punctuation</i>' (the English rules of which, though I'm better than I once was, I've no doubt my grammar still gives grammarians the willies), but of <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/solid-ground-for-standing-upon.html#enlightening-dark-ages-once-again">a grammar centered on</a> the reality based logical integration of thought across theme, plot, and character development. Focusing your attention upon that grammar of reasoning within the stories and materials being read, is what encourages the reader to draw inferences, identify principles, and so better understand how and why people - <i>yourself included</i> - take those actions that they do.
<br /><br />
But as you're reading, it is important to understand that just reading the lost literature of The West, is <i>not</i> enough: <i>how</i> you read through it makes a critical difference.
<br /><br />
<b>The Real Difference that makes all the Difference!</b><br />
As you're reading through what is truly worth reading, you must realize that reading to understand what <i>is</i> (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/Metaphysician%3A%20heal%20thyself">Metaphysics</a>), what it leads to and what follows from that (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/causality%20%26%20its%20effects">Causality</a> &amp; <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/search/label/What%20is%20Truth">Logic</a>), and what, if anything, should or should not be done about that (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-ethics-of-epistemology-escaping.html">Ethics</a>), is a <i>very</i> different method and purpose for reading, than that of reading those same '<i>texts</i>' through '<i>the lens of</i>' modernist ideologies (whether Utilitarian, Marxist, or other Critical Theories), to see what the Ideological Observatory expects you to see. The tragic fact is that much of The West's literature is still technically being taught in our schools and colleges today (as professed by creatures like <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/05/trolling-trolls-projections-dark-shadow.html">my troll</a>), but they are being taught in such a way that&nbsp;doesn't seek understanding and wisdom, but utility and power. That difference between seeking to understand what you're reading, in order to better understand what is real and true, and that of seeking answers that are 'true enough' to achieve an aim, is the difference between day and night, and while you may be reading the same words, what you are able to understand from them, will be worlds apart.<br /><br />

Those rootless would-be heroes 'on our side' who've ignored or were steered away from rooting their understanding in what is real and true, will fail to foresee the long-range consequences of their short-term answers, which is exactly what makes them&nbsp;the target audience that the hydra counts upon provoking. Remember: The Hydra <i>wants you to attack it, because your reaction is the point of its action</i> -  and the impetuously heroic efforts of those full of answers without understanding (hello "<i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/sel-social-and-emotional-learning-and.html#DividingTheRight">School Choice!</a></i>"), will do little more than to help the hydra to grow more heads to attack us all with. That is what Saul Alinsky understood about the vast monster he helped to create out of decades of college students: The Hydra knows that <i>you</i> won't have been taught enough to be able to kill it, and that because your ill-considered reaction is likely to be cutting off one of its regenerable heads without knowing how (or understanding why) to cauterize it and prevent it from growing two more back in its place, your heroic efforts will only help it to grow still more heads to eventually overwhelm us all with.
<br /><br />
Most of all, what the would-be heroes of our populace have been 'educated' to <i>not</i> understand, is how much damage can be accomplished by just shifting our attention and understanding aside... <i>just enough</i>... for an important universal to be only partially recognized and an inference of principle to be missed (like the shift from inalienable rights, to what rights you've contracted for, which is <a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/p/the-architecture-of-authority">a very different thing</a>). We no longer recognize how much our ability to recognize universals clearly (or realize why we need to) and to assiduously make principled distinctions, is largely developed from what we learned (or should have learned) in childhood all those years before, and so we've forgotten how much we rely upon being able to lay ahold of those in the face of all of the buzzing particulars that adult life might array against us.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDLhDzaOWQvD8d3iMLPt1ypbL4q50ORY0W-yEU4o5GuUyEuGligXxLHLvkmGcLx0OfMY9lPt2EWZRD_-deZVfinN5qXjbBdR7KoY1sTqBuTPfyFvYfjDYXCn8PzJbzTde2O92RYOd_JoRiYwzBQm5_1Fq75C6n2NReXZi4aoZwCR4ZjvXY206tUA/s757/FrederickDouglassLiterature.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="757" data-original-width="699" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDLhDzaOWQvD8d3iMLPt1ypbL4q50ORY0W-yEU4o5GuUyEuGligXxLHLvkmGcLx0OfMY9lPt2EWZRD_-deZVfinN5qXjbBdR7KoY1sTqBuTPfyFvYfjDYXCn8PzJbzTde2O92RYOd_JoRiYwzBQm5_1Fq75C6n2NReXZi4aoZwCR4ZjvXY206tUA/s320/FrederickDouglassLiterature.jpg?fit=900%2C320&#038;ssl=1" /></a></div>
The most meaningful lessons for us to learn are not learned through the STEM's of 2+2=4, but by working through fables like '<a href="https://americanliterature.com/author/aesop/short-story/the-boy-who-cried-wolf">The boy who cried wolf</a>', and parables like '<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013&amp;version=ESV">The Sower</a>' and the return of '<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2015:11-32&amp;version=ESV">The Prodigal Son</a>', and epic stories from <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/51355/pg51355-images.html#chap01">The Iliad</a> to <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/82/82-h/82-h.htm">Ivanhoe</a>, as well as the many&nbsp;<a href="https://archive.org/details/columbianoratorc00bing/page/n5/mode/2up">meaningful poems, and speeches of the great orators</a>, which were key to developing the deep and penetrating reasoning that put the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West&nbsp;on the world stage.
The person whose thinking was developed through lessons such as those, is likely to be better prepared to utilize the understanding of 2+2=4 with far greater effect, than that of a person who has learned only the deracinated facts of 2+2=4. Which approach a person's learning was guided by, is a clue to how likely it is that they themselves habitually engage in 'Critical Thinking'.
<br /><br />
Those who truly want to <i>'fight!, fight!, fight!'</i>, must learn to look further than the obvious 'answers' floating upon the surfaces of popular narratives, and to realize that doing so requires more than those 'answers' which targeted 'research' and the engineering of LLM prompts can provide, and that requires reading, considering, and pondering, those lessons and histories found in the books - <i>not</i> textbooks - of the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West, which most of us were either never taught, or were taught in a way that neutered or subverted their meaning and value.
<br /><br />
We'll dig further into the nature of that, and into revealing the hidden nature of the dastardly&nbsp;<b><i>'somehow'</i></b>, in the next post.

]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13884</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Somehow&#8217; &#8211; The Critical Insurrection being waged in the minds of our &#8216;Critical Thinkers&#8217;</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/06/somehow-critical-insurrection-being.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 13:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Critical Thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Critical Insurrection]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=92ac6e68daa33e66c0d22e41d1ffc5a0</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[

Rene Descartes led The West into its first Critical Turn in thinking: "masked I advance":

 
I began this series of posts on 'The Critical Insurrection' five years ago (here, and here), by noting that despite the heated talk of insurrection at the ti...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 35%;">

Rene Descartes led The West into its <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2009/07/unknown-conspiracies-you-dont-think.html">first Critical Turn</a> in thinking: "<i>masked I advance</i>":
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiMMwPLLDtx0Mw8e-AHqpzNDeXPy-n17h2fb6NzZUqDAKCE-5ruJRALs58cAH1Rq_yzDkZuVzKQTmtbf31SWwL7xzoT9SHhv2uF8oNGUunJDZJtbsS7KoWtHACl5QdvRe6slQ-jNJK4UKlquD8Ho-A2A5imQdkfEwF5sePbXT80bgMiux1-JnO7A/s718/Descartes_CriticalTurn.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="334" data-original-width="718" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiMMwPLLDtx0Mw8e-AHqpzNDeXPy-n17h2fb6NzZUqDAKCE-5ruJRALs58cAH1Rq_yzDkZuVzKQTmtbf31SWwL7xzoT9SHhv2uF8oNGUunJDZJtbsS7KoWtHACl5QdvRe6slQ-jNJK4UKlquD8Ho-A2A5imQdkfEwF5sePbXT80bgMiux1-JnO7A/s200/Descartes_CriticalTurn.jpg?w=225&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div></div>
 
I began this series of posts on 'The Critical Insurrection' five years ago (<a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/07/behind-actual-insurrection-critical.html">here</a>, and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/07/fighting-hydra-requires-more-than-just.html">here</a>), by noting that despite the heated talk of insurrection at the time, the real and ongoing insurrection against America has had very little to do with what happened in our capital on the day of Jan 6th (<a href="https://danaloesch.substack.com/p/the-lefts-many-january-6ths">a bitterly laughable claim</a>). Much more to that point, are the innumerable insurrectional ideologies that have beset America with a century and more of attacks, whose most significant aspect is not those attacks we see <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/01/why-are-they-called-protestors-because.html">still to this day</a>, but the <i>acceptance</i> of that behavior by so many amongst us. <i>That</i> indicates where the critical damage is being done, not in open rioting, but within the ideas being thought within our minds, and so masked, the insurrection advances.
<br /><br />

The various forms that 'Progressive Education' has taken over the last two centuries, have enabled the insurrection to advance unseen, by progressively purging the Western Mind of its history &amp; literature. Too often lost in the distractions of rising illiteracy rates, falling test scores, and calls for more '<i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html#never-forget-that-education-reform-is">education reform!</a></i>', is the reality that without the natural defenses that those lessons of history &amp; literature had provided, we've become less able to identify, let alone confront, the ongoing insurrection that the enemies of the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West, have been executing against us.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWUhyphenhyphenZGyukiNbxj7CXySWDrA0cPTU6Aqy9KVADjertAjI4_sSxrql9Fz6QjgirtQibtDESGtGsG-W3w_XGTarDvxpvSJ9_peAs0UQuViYagya61N1evRmJC7oV33piq1JEZM7clwTPG1WwB8ikywpcDCpBVtsUDEDobWyYbCzeVwm6x80lxFtz7A/s1492/FightingTheHydra.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1118" data-original-width="1492" height="150" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWUhyphenhyphenZGyukiNbxj7CXySWDrA0cPTU6Aqy9KVADjertAjI4_sSxrql9Fz6QjgirtQibtDESGtGsG-W3w_XGTarDvxpvSJ9_peAs0UQuViYagya61N1evRmJC7oV33piq1JEZM7clwTPG1WwB8ikywpcDCpBVtsUDEDobWyYbCzeVwm6x80lxFtz7A/w200-h150/FightingTheHydra.jpg?resize=200%2C150&#038;ssl=1" width="200" /></a></div>
What lessons? 
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">The Anchorage School District <a href="https://mustreadalaska.com/a-subtle-revolution-anchorage-school-district-places-we-do-not-endorse-disclaimer-on-u-s-constitution-and-declaration-of-independence/">puts a warning label on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution</a></div>


The most obvious ones we lack today, are those that were once commonly learned from those now mostly forgotten stories, such as the one I referenced in the 2nd of these posts, where <a href="https://acropolis-greece.com/hercules-and-hydras-many-heads-a-battle-of-regeneration/">Hercules fought the Hydra</a>, the many-headed monster that grew two new heads for each one that was cut off. In that adventure, Hercules &amp; his companion Iolaus realized that they couldn't defeat the hydra just by cutting off its heads, because for each one they severed, it grew back two more to attack them with. What they soon realized was that if after Hercules cut off a head with his sword, Iolaus quickly cauterized its stump with his torch, it could grow no more heads from that neck, and so as they severed &amp; cauterized one neck after another, they soon rendered the many headed Hydra, headless, and were able to bury what was left of the beast under a massive stone.
<br /><br />
Sure, I realize that many (not you, of course) might be saying:
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Swell story Van, but we're not facing many headed monsters, and we have no swords or torches to cut and cauterize them with if we did! What we need are STEM skills, not stories!"</span></em></blockquote>

, and my reply to that, is:

<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;">Stop being so naive.</span></blockquote>


For those with eyes to see, the plain fact is that we <i>are</i> fighting a many headed monster, and <i>it is</i> devouring both our children <i>and</i> our society, and it is our willful ignorance of that, that has made it so easy for the beast to lay us low.
<br /><br />
So yes, shallow perceptions aside, the fact is that:
<blockquote>
<em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>we most definitely <b>do</b> have a monster confronting us in the guise of a govt whose power has broken free of its proper limitations, working in league with an 'educational system' designed to make you unwise enough to accept it</li>
<li>its many heads stem from fraudulent rights and perverted virtues that're supported by a long neck of unjust laws &amp; new 'norms' that've grown out of the boldest of its lies</li>
<li>we do have a sword: Truth, and we do have a flaming torch to cauterize the necks we sever: Principled arguments rooted in metaphysics, causality/logic, and ethics, which provide the high degree of truth needed for unseen errors to be found &amp; corrected and for lies to be exposed, which is what it takes to ignite &amp; burn sophistry with the heat of a thousand suns
</li>
</ul></span></em>
</blockquote>

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVOPhhQzDxdsH85v9Hb2PCDqVCwB1mRsdi_U2ouPOQyJZ0rQuFyletxyIz8T5rvDg91Fv3VcCfg0g5YXh0AsR51-GTnucHD5BCREHEGi_qB3PrCJvsPNMSyHrk-Y_NHYPgm0VgLeDAj24sMo3QZZFSBfN2UhBEIkatBp_Q2mVmZzxssHEEUSp40g/s431/TheChoiceOfHercules.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="431" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVOPhhQzDxdsH85v9Hb2PCDqVCwB1mRsdi_U2ouPOQyJZ0rQuFyletxyIz8T5rvDg91Fv3VcCfg0g5YXh0AsR51-GTnucHD5BCREHEGi_qB3PrCJvsPNMSyHrk-Y_NHYPgm0VgLeDAj24sMo3QZZFSBfN2UhBEIkatBp_Q2mVmZzxssHEEUSp40g/s200/TheChoiceOfHercules.jpg?w=200&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>

The sheer quantity of meaningless facts being waved about in front of our faces, distracts most of us from being able to see the principles that underly them, and that is at least partly due to what we've been 'educated' to look for importance in, and what we habitually dismiss as irrelevant. Those valuable lessons which go unseen within everything from the fables of Aesop, to the mythic adventures of heroes like Hercules (<span style="font-size: x-small;">the painting "<a href="https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/manhood/manvotional-the-choice-of-hercules/">The Choice of Hercules between virtue and pleasure</a>", went 'viral' in our Founders' era</span>), and the biblical tales such as Samson who "<i>slayed a thousand with the jawbone of an ass</i>", are what our modern 'thinking skills' oriented education, effectively blind us to.
<br /><br />
One would have to be a fool, or one so dis-educated as to be indistinguishable from one, to dismiss such gems as little more than '<i>Talking snake stories</i>', but achieving that level of cognitive blindness is and has been the point of our pro-regressive dis-education, and having achieved that state of mind by the early 20th Century, is what made it child's play for our experts in 'Progressive Education' to then discard Greek &amp; Latin, and Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Aquinas, and even Shakespeare, from the minds of the last several generations that their beast has been busily 'educating'.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: left; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;"><i>“In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching remedial English in college.</i>”      ~Joseph Sobran</div>

The West was able to achieve what it had, through how it learned lessons from its foundational stories, and recovering both those stories <i>and</i> how to read them, could do that for us once again, if we would just stop doing everything else <i>but</i> that. It's worth considering, that one uncomfortable lesson that those stories are ready to teach us, is that a STEM Skill centric people - having skills without understanding - is the intended result of <a href="https://www.online-literature.com/oliver-goldsmith/history-of-rome/18/">cutting all the tall poppies down</a> to size. 
<br /><br />
Some of you (not you, of course) might be saying: 
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Oh come on... give me even one example of a 'lesson' like that applying today!"</span></em></blockquote>

Ok, tell ya what, here are three relevant lessons worth learning from Hercules &amp; the Hydra for the price of one:

<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ol>
<li> By imagining yourself in the position of the monster that grows two new heads for every one that's lost, you might learn that the monster <i>wants</i> to provoke its opponents to rush in and cut off one of its heads, because that's how it gets enough heads to overwhelm them with. 
</li>

<li>Knowing that the Hydra <i>wants</i> to be attacked by bold &amp; impetuous heroes whose tempers can easily be inflamed, teaches you that it's wise to consider a situation carefully before rushing in to attack what you're being provoked with.</li>

<li>From stories such as these you learn that those who're ignorant of such lessons, are more prone to following their natural (ignorant) reactions to rush in where angels fear to tread, and so assist the monster they're battling against, to defeat them.

<ul><li><b>Bonus Lesson</b>: <i>No</i> Hydra wants you to learn lessons such as these, from stories such as those!</li></ul></li></ol></span></blockquote>

Provoking you to rash actions is how such monsters go about killing and eating you, or as Saul Alinsky put it when radicalizing students into Leftist activism:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Their reaction <b>is</b> your action!"</span></em></blockquote>

Is this just theory? No, and a quick check of recent history abounds with the consequences of allowing the hydra to provoke the rash behavior of popular opinion, again &amp; again... here are three off the top:
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li>Ten years ago when <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2019/06/mis-identifying-what-is-is-real-meaning.html">trans-gender bathrooms and drag-queen story hour emerged</a>, the public was outraged and demanded <i>change!</i>... which was then exploited through policies ensuring gender affirming care, porn in public school libraries, and further diluted and reduced the presence and position of women in society through the zealotry of  '<i>trans women are women!</i>', men beating women in women's sports, and men being named as '<i>woman of the year</i>'</li>
<li>Twenty years ago when parents were angered by convoluted math problems and the vapidness of assigned 'texts', they rushed into their school boards and loudly demanded <i>change!</i> (to what? for what?) and more rigorous testing (testing of what? for what?), and '<i>struck down Common Core!</i>' (or so they thought); which on the one hand helped usher in the ideological intensification of SEL, CRT, and DEI, and 'School Choice' on the other (the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/sel-social-and-emotional-learning-and.html#DividingTheRight">'choice' isn't what you think it is</a>), both of which add additional bureaucratic facts, policies, reduced understanding, and ever worsening results</li>
<li>A hundred years ago sensational stories about political corruption led to a big push for more 'democracy!' and the first wave of campaign finance reform being waved in We The People's faces, which resulted in passing the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2012/04/nine-out-of-ten-dictators-agree-with.html">17th Amendment... which reduced meaningful representation</a> for every person, incentivized corruption, and transformed the federal govt into the untouchable hydra that We The People are still battling against today</li>
</ul></span></blockquote>

And as you begin to notice that provocations and insults are routinely deployed to get us to attack the obvious issues being waved in front of our faces, it's worth remembering Alinsky's other favorite training phrase:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"The issue is never the issue, the issue is <u>always</u> the revolution!"</span></em></blockquote>


<div style="float: left; font-size: 75%;">C.S. Lewis: <a href="https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/CSLI_studyGuide_Screwtape_Rev1ePages.pdf">"The Screwtape Letters"</a><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSsn5c2cBuN5X-IPbVNE5DKyguK1m9pOp8bamB8cAgYDMrV3ItFYmI86EvqIeS9PWWqssqhBaqdCZ1QSi5n6dpVjH6yu50LHEQsO4u_kZC4YqATVns1m3Ia7wUskyU-vd-Fb1XAVFZKq072K4hyphenhyphen4SB5njhDhCMT3ms1GGzoOaLWCNb3eQuBmrRtw/s1000/lewispolitics2Wormwood.png?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="1000" height="213" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSsn5c2cBuN5X-IPbVNE5DKyguK1m9pOp8bamB8cAgYDMrV3ItFYmI86EvqIeS9PWWqssqhBaqdCZ1QSi5n6dpVjH6yu50LHEQsO4u_kZC4YqATVns1m3Ia7wUskyU-vd-Fb1XAVFZKq072K4hyphenhyphen4SB5njhDhCMT3ms1GGzoOaLWCNb3eQuBmrRtw/w320-h213/lewispolitics2Wormwood.png?resize=320%2C213&#038;ssl=1" width="320" /></a></div></div>

, and remember that their tactics are all about provoking you to react to the latest outrage in as shallow a manner as possible (anger &amp; miseducation being the preferred one-two punch of  monsters everywhere &amp; everywhen), so that it can intensify our reactions and advance its divisiveness forward over our positions, positions which, lacking the perspectives which those lessons could have provided a solid foundation for, become more easily overrun, and prone to collapse before the critical insurrection.
<br /><br />

The treasury of the West, from Homer to The Bible, from Virgil to Dante, and Shakespeare, abounds with meaningful lessons and truths which reveal its foundations in the rock of what is real and true, and those can still be as readily communicated to us today, as they were to our Founders in their era, and so provide the metaphysical stability needed to fill the mind, body, and soul, with far more than 'just stories', and the Hydra gnos that.
<br /><br />


 <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/the-tragic-libraries-of-education-what.html#for-education-to-be-meaningful-its">I've noted before</a>, how at the outset of the pro-regressive transformation of what we had known education to be, into the malicious creature it is today, an astonished essayist commented in the late 1800s that:

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"...The notion that literature can be taken up as a branch of education, and learned at the proper time and when studies permit, is one of the most farcical in our scheme of education..."</span></em></blockquote>

<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;"><a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/">The Palmerworm</a> is adept at showing how seemingly useful answers are used to suppress and violate vital principles, such as: <a href="https://thepalmerworm.substack.com/p/the-anthropological-line"><b>The Anthropological Line</b></a>
</div>

, and he said so because to think that what literature transmits to our understanding can be thought of as being only a secondary branch of a 'STEM' education, rather than the soil, root and trunk of what an education is developed through, was still recognized by most people in his day to be completely absurd. Since then, however, that has become the norm, as anyone trained in 'Critical Thinking Skills' today would tell you (like my <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/05/trolling-trolls-projections-dark-shadow.html">college professor troll</a>), and they'll find ready support from those on 'The Right' who will jump at any opportunity for still more <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2022/08/never-forget-that-education-reform-is.html">'education reform</a>' (which mainly enlarges the schools' bureaucracy and further diminishes the education they provide) to boost those test scores, provide 'accountability' and ensure improved 'thinking skills'. But take note: 

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;"><ul>
<li><b>What do stories provide?</b>: grammar, context, theme, plot, characterization, through which readers develop a basic understanding of logic, causality, ethics, and the ability to infer principles through, and learn lessons from, what they've read.</li>
<li><b>What do stories <u>not</u> provide</b>: Answers.</li>
<li><b>What does modern schooling train you to seek and accept?</b>: <u>Answers</u>.</li>
</ul></span></em></blockquote>


Being trained to seek surface answers leads a person to neglect their awareness of underlying structures of principled understanding which are revealed through attention to theme, plot, and character development (you did learn about <a href="https://glcoverage.com/2024/09/13/aristotle-plot-tools/">theme, plot, and character development</a> in school, right? ...and that it was one of <i>the</i> most important lessons to learn...?), and not just those found in stories &amp; literature, but in other narratives as well. That habit of mind is vital for developing a solid depth of understanding about what you've read or heard, and without that, the habit weakens, you become comfortable with its absence, and ever more willing to accept whatever 'answers' you're given, as substitutes for having given the serious consideration to a matter that's required to come to a conclusion about it that's worthwhile - actual, not artificial intelligence.&nbsp;<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 85%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">Excellent demonstrations from <a href="https://courtenayturner.substack.com/">Courtenay Turner</a>, on how to see the larger story being lost behind the 'answers' that're given, in:<br />"<a href="https://courtenayturner.substack.com/p/the-simulation-state"><b>The Simulation State</b></a>" and "<a href="https://substack.com/inbox/post/194805659"><b>The Factory Reset</b></a>"</div>

<br /><br />
Don't forget: 
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 85%;"><b>striking off the monster's head is the easy part... <blockquote>...as the monster <i>intends it</i> to be</blockquote></b></span></blockquote> 

, and that requires it to do nothing more than wave the easy answers of divisive facts in our faces, to get an ill-considered reaction from us. And unless you actually understand the issue which it inflamed your reaction to, then even if you manage to cut the head off the neck you're being faced with, you'll lack the depth of understanding that's needed to generate enough heat to cauterize its bloodied stump, and so you enable the hydra to sprout still more heads for tearing us all apart with.
<br /><br />


<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: left; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">A Grimoire of philosophical spells: <a href="https://ia801805.us.archive.org/20/items/hegel-and-the-hermetic-tradition/Hegel%20and%20the%20hermetic%20tradition%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29_text.pdf">"Hegel and the hermetic tradition"</a>, by Glenn Alexander Magee
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwmdF_J6Gt1kHgB7ECi6wltg_nUrbeubhT_rc0aQzO298iTUfnGJP8QtsAqpEJh8C8JDCLKqp5j1AK4ifnAq9iHCKc2yp75RD5wazp95JyZMDLcW7qbl08rjP9hB1z4bW31iZYgfXITLHfCUG3nkfvWwA-qF22S_VCRKJfx6kqoNxuPtGipUvJjw/s400/Hegel-and-the-Hermetic-Tradition-9780801438721-2435786612.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" width="900" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="275" height="200" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwmdF_J6Gt1kHgB7ECi6wltg_nUrbeubhT_rc0aQzO298iTUfnGJP8QtsAqpEJh8C8JDCLKqp5j1AK4ifnAq9iHCKc2yp75RD5wazp95JyZMDLcW7qbl08rjP9hB1z4bW31iZYgfXITLHfCUG3nkfvWwA-qF22S_VCRKJfx6kqoNxuPtGipUvJjw/s200/Hegel-and-the-Hermetic-Tradition-9780801438721-2435786612.jpg?fit=900%2C200&#038;ssl=1" /></a></div>
</div>


That lack of depth in our understanding (Note: this isn't a matter of intelligence, but of what is left unconsidered by even the most able thinkers), is what inclines us to lash out at every provocation, which is what has been on full display in the usual responses to issues like students being led (by their teachers and administrators) out of school to protest for '<i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-polluted-narrative-of-justice-water.html">Black Lives Matter!</a></i>' or '<i><a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/01/why-are-they-called-protestors-because.html?m=0">Ice Out!</a></i>', as the Woke Left &amp; Woke Right (or just <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">Pro-Regressive</a>, for short), shout that <i>"It's about white supremacy!'</i> or <i>'It's about hating white people!"</i>, both of which advance a common narrative of racial division. What's then able to go unnoticed in those (deliberate) appearances, is that the actual issue is <i>not</i> about race, race is just what they know they can rely upon to provoke a rash response from both you and their friends on the 'other side'. 
<br /><br />





The issue is never about the apparent issues of education, or race, or illegal aliens, or about what 'gender' you identify as, but the churning that happens on every ideological front, as with the 2nd Amendment where the dialectical churning from each side ('Left' or 'Right') making it all about guns - for or against - diverts everyone from thinking about the individual rights that <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-2nd-amendment-meets-saul-alinksys.html">the 2nd Amendment secures to us</a>&nbsp;by preventing the government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms (<b>Note</b>: it says '<i>arms</i>' in general, not <i>'firearms'</i> in particular) - <i>that churning is</i>&nbsp;the insurrection in action. 
<br /><br />
The pattern to be noticed emerging from that, that of a provocative distraction, reaction, action, is the footprint (and&nbsp;<i>mating call</i>) of the monster that we're actually facing (which is <i>not</i> the guise of govt that it wears, but the monster <i>beneath</i> that mask), and <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> that pattern mirrors how we've all been taught to think about and approach the issues of the day.
<br /><br />

The initial provocative distractions and the public reactions to them - <i>'transgender bathrooms', 'low test scores', 'teachers unions'</i> - seize upon surface facts and easy answers, and then - <i><b>'somehow'</b></i>  - with an action of philosophical sleight of mind (have you noticed how activism around hot-button issues like '<i>freedom of speech!</i>' and '<i>Don't cancel me!</i>', typically intensify the problems they purport to be concerned with?) the underlying issue slips by and progressively metastasizes (reproduces?) and sprouts two new heads as matters steadily worsen. 
<br /><br />
Whichever head of the hydra is being battled, as we react to the distracting movements that the hydra churns up around an issue, the doors to the halls of power are swung wide open by our impetuous heroes calling for <i>'Change!'</i> from all sides, and the only thing that can be counted upon, is that it will result in still more policies, media denunciations, and more, as the spiritual and political corruption of the Hydra's venom seeps in deeper and spreads still further... which is the '<i>Left, Right, Left, Right, Forward... March!</i>' of the revolution.
<br /><br />
<div style="border: 2px solid lightblue; float: right; font-size: 75%; margin-left: 3px; margin-right: 3px; margin-top: 3px; padding: 5px; width: 25%;">Eric Voegelin:<a href="https://archive.org/details/sciencepoliticsg0000voeg">"Science, Politics, and Gnosticism"</a></div>


How has that <i><b>'somehow'</b></i> been accomplished? Well, in a word - and this word might be a bit provocative itself: <b>Magic</b>
<br /><br />
I know, many (not you, of course) are probably saying: 

<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"Really Van? <b><u>Magic</u>?!</b>"</span></em></blockquote>

Yes, but, because the word 'Magic' has multiple meanings, it's important to clarify that what I mean by that has less to do with the hocus-pocus sense of a Merlin the Magician, and more to do with the skilled stagecraft of a philosophical Houdini. Much of what has been attributed to <i>complex issues</i> (1st cousin to 'hocus-pocus') like <i>'rising illiteracy', 'trade wars', 'the decline of the family'</i>, are in fact the natural consequences of simple perceptions, decisions &amp; actions we're routinely led into, whose import is effectively obscured and hidden from us by the artful misdirection &amp; subterfuge (much of which is done unconsciously) of those who put on the airs of an expert (magician).
<br /><br />


<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA5pQYKFBfrI1Rwofu281vda7McO1hBX3Uyf-lwrjHrXvdc3fur4nW0mG12odAEuiyO1DXrftI9aP3ngjPFqi5itm-VGi4b72JT-TX1_Lungm2GcxEJq-SPpFVjF852WwSih3axPV-l7nRfhw7tgk7mOk7FnIX6TrjcsM2LTlsZHXh4z5F5NU/s1486/Brown_DefineWoman4.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 2px solid lightblue; clear: right; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 75%;">"Can you define a woman?"<br />, "No...I'm not a biologist"</span><br /><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="749" data-original-width="889" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA5pQYKFBfrI1Rwofu281vda7McO1hBX3Uyf-lwrjHrXvdc3fur4nW0mG12odAEuiyO1DXrftI9aP3ngjPFqi5itm-VGi4b72JT-TX1_Lungm2GcxEJq-SPpFVjF852WwSih3axPV-l7nRfhw7tgk7mOk7FnIX6TrjcsM2LTlsZHXh4z5F5NU/s320/Brown_DefineWoman4.jpg?w=240&#038;ssl=1"  /></a></div>


No doubt most of you (you too?) are pushing back on even that 'stage magician' identification of the term, but I'll ask you: What is it that you have in mind to explain what has enabled bearded men to publicly identify as woman, and to do so with the assurance that thousands if not tens of thousands of <i>highly educated</i> people will accuse <i>you</i> of '<i>transphobia</i>' and '<i>hate speech</i>', for objecting to their ludicrous claims?

If the sum of your assessment of that is something to the effect of 
<blockquote><em><span style="font-size: 85%;">'Oh...hell-If-I-Know...somehow!'</span></em></blockquote>

, then I submit to you, that <i>your</i> exasperation <i>and</i> acceptance of it, is that same sense which both the stage magician and  the philosophical sorcerer cultivate, because to be successful they both need their audience to have that level of misunderstanding about the tricks they're performing upon them "<i>Wow... somehow he pulled a rabbit out of a hat!</i>". Just as the stage magician uses sleight of hand to <i>appear </i>to pull a rabbit out of a hat, the philosophical sorcerer uses a conceptual sleight of mind to slip impossible ideas into what '<b><i>everyone knows</i></b>', in order to do what every sane person would otherwise say is insane to even consider. And they do this with the assurance and expectation that they will be applauded for doing so on the national and international stage, just as the stage magicians are applauded for tricking their audiences in Las Vegas.<br /><br />
We'll put legs under this as we go through this series of posts, but I submit to you that if the audience 'knows' only those apparent 'answers' that the magician gives them ("<i>you can see there's nothing in this hat</i>") and doesn't understand the nature and causes of what they are seeing happen before them (such as how to conceal a rabbit), then those 'answers' they think they know about the trick, coupled with their misdirected attention and absence of interest in understanding what has happened, means that their audience's understanding of events differ very little from either sense of those observing a magician perform 'Magic'. I contend that nothing less than the widespread shallowness of understanding that is compatible with either sense of 'Magic', could have enabled someone to confidently identify as 'trans', and to feel assured that <i>you</i> would be penalized by the rest of the audience for <i>heckling</i> their performance.

<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu-j3aRaDreEUtErhNAqjP3ARWJAX34JRg-BFNP221Pm3p0FAIw3AZE9NoWD5K8MTlDiHnVFDe1q_SaP3zP4NXDsqGlrFFBeqbqtmVQSVwQJcpwYsT4DcXR3vUv_V99ixxtM6QNzhNnPoK336EtV7jF1ClrWg9Bkd7grozqDE8mN24Kb9R9uwm7A/s1350/CSLewis_HeroicStories.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-left: 3px; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="1080" height="200" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu-j3aRaDreEUtErhNAqjP3ARWJAX34JRg-BFNP221Pm3p0FAIw3AZE9NoWD5K8MTlDiHnVFDe1q_SaP3zP4NXDsqGlrFFBeqbqtmVQSVwQJcpwYsT4DcXR3vUv_V99ixxtM6QNzhNnPoK336EtV7jF1ClrWg9Bkd7grozqDE8mN24Kb9R9uwm7A/w160-h200/CSLewis_HeroicStories.jpg?resize=160%2C200&#038;ssl=1" width="160" /></a></div>

This sort of 'Magic' should <i>not</i> be dismissed as mere trickery, as that same power it has to amuse, can be used to dismantle and destroy friendships, families, and entire societies &amp; civilizations, by presenting poisonous ideas as desirable cure-alls. I submit to you that the artful stage management of philosophical 'Magic' is not only real, but exceedingly effective in its misdirections ("<i>I think therefore I am</i>") and wand-waving ("<i>Teach how to think, not what to think</i>"), and other such techniques of conceptual sleight of mind, that induce the mindset of seeking '<i>just the facts!</i>' , along with a willingness to accept the appearance of obvious 'logical answers', which serious students of literary myths &amp; monsters would balk at, even as it dismisses those studies as only so much unserious jibber-jabber (and with a sly eye cast towards religion). That soph-satisfying sense of superiority, is a 'tell' of how easily such spells of apparent 'understanding' can and have been performed upon us, without our noticing.
<br /><br />
Deceptions such as these have not only enabled the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/04/for-want-of-word-or-of-understanding.html">Pro-Regressives</a> to bury us under layers and layers of the hydra's provocations, but they also whisper to us <i>why</i>&nbsp;it is that they operate in this way. Antonio Gramsci (who, BTW, was decades late to the pragmatic propaganda party) infamously identified the West's 'Cultural Hegemony' - that western culture being the result of the philosophy, religion, history, stories and myths of the Greco/Roman - Judeo/Christian civilization, has dominated all others -  as the greatest defense against, and threat to, his Marxist's ideals, because he saw that our regard for our stories and religion and the understanding of them, was far more central to and foundational for that 'Cultural Hegemony', than any scientific and technical aspect of 'progress' in the modern world (none of which could have occurred without them).
<br /><br />

What it is that Gramsci &amp; others before him intended by attacking the West's 'Cultural Hegemony' and why, and how that was meant to be wielded against The West, by 'defenders' of The West using its technological powers against itself, is what we need to identify, sever, and cauterize into lifeless stumps, in order to bury the headless beast beneath an unmovable stone. Only then, will we be able to re-secure a sound understanding of America, within the minds of Americans today, and tomorrow.
<br /><br />

Using 'Critical Thinking' to identify the nature of that '<b><i>somehow</i></b>', progressively clarifying its footprint, profile, and purpose, and the familiar and trusted appearances it operates through and hides behind, is what this series of posts will be digging into.
<br /><br />


]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13882</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Memorial Day &#8211; A day to remember those who died for&#8230; what?</title>
		<link>https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/05/memorial-day-day-to-remember-those-who.html</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Van Harvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 13:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Memorial Day]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stlouisteaparty.com/?guid=fd38946080a979767636dc3718334285</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Memorial Day, the last Monday in May, is a day set aside to remember and honor those who have died in the armed forces of the United States of America. If we are to honor and memorialize those who gave their lives, can we do so properly without being m...]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[Memorial Day, the last Monday in May, is a day set aside to remember and honor those who have died in the armed forces of the United States of America. If we are to honor and memorialize those who gave their lives, can we do so properly without being mindful of what it was that they offered up, and lost, their lives in defense of?<br />

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">

<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEielNNwmcNSbyNw_7G8wizeCXW898YaSILt-P2DexOwQiE_KGTawktaSyNpFW3_spnS-xPea7MlvTtn9BXeml-8LmnglUY3qNMx0vSv5FMysCakSAfqk3aCsg9uORoDykW1v1lCFA/s1600/RememberTheFallen.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" height="240" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEielNNwmcNSbyNw_7G8wizeCXW898YaSILt-P2DexOwQiE_KGTawktaSyNpFW3_spnS-xPea7MlvTtn9BXeml-8LmnglUY3qNMx0vSv5FMysCakSAfqk3aCsg9uORoDykW1v1lCFA/s1600/RememberTheFallen.jpg?resize=320%2C240&#038;ssl=1" width="320" /></a></div>

<br />

After all, unlike the service members of other nations around the world who pledge their lives in defense of the nation, or the homeland, or the government or crown, the members of our armed forces do not. They did at one time, prior to 1789 members of the armed forces swore allegiance to the United States of America, but afterwards, with some short lived variations for officers, members of our military first g<a href="http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html">ive their oath as</a>:

<br />

<blockquote>

<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;....", </span></em></blockquote>

and only in pursuance of that, do they also swear <br />

<blockquote>

<em><span style="font-size: 85%;">"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."</span></em></blockquote>

Although that is most assuredly a solemn service to the nation, their lives are not sworn primarily <i>to</i> the nation, or <i>to</i> the government or <i>to</i> the President. They swear to support, to defend and to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance, <i>to</i>,<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/"> the Constitution of the United States of America</a>.

<br />

<br />

Can any decent person, with that in mind, especially on this day, dare to think of that document as being simply a piece of paper? Or that the Constitution they sacrificed their lives for, was primarily created for the ability of politicians to jockey for power, to bargain for benefits and to increase the influence of one political party or another? 

<br />

<br />

I do so hope your answer to that is <i>No</i>. 

<br />

<br />

The Constitution is not simply a piece of paper, and it is far more than a set of rules to define how government is to operate. Its laws were created by men in order to preserve and protect that which is by nature necessary for our being able to live our lives as human beings. Not just regulations, but laws written under the principles of Natural Law, designed to harness men's baser (and <i>also </i>inalienable) faults - such as ambition for power - to serve the purpose of preserving and defending the highest of political aspirations: <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s5.html">liberty and justice for all</a>.<br />

<br />

The Constitution doesn't simply define our laws, but their limits.

<br />

<br />

The Constitution, which would not have been passed by <i>We The People</i>, <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2012/06/you-have-no-constitutional-rights-none.html">without the promise that it would be immediately amended with what became the Bill of Rights</a>, those first ten amendments to it, is not simply paper, but words which harness the power of <i>We The People</i> to protect a select few rights which were understood as being necessary to prevent a tyrant from successfully rising amongst them or their posterity.

<br />

<br />

The Constitution was <i>not </i>designed to make the operations of government efficient, smooth and easy, but was instead deliberately designed so that its branches and operations would serve to slow, stall, and kill any implement of power - aka: Law - which some significant body of representatives of <i>We The People</i>  (whether in the House, Senate, Executive or Judiciary) might see as being a threat to their liberty to live as human beings.

<br />

<br />

Those men and women we honor on Memorial Day served and died, not in defense of a government, or a leader, or for a piece of paper, but for the rule of laws which recognize, uphold and defend the right of human beings to live their own lives in liberty, and respectful of others right to do the same.

<br />

<br />

Can we honestly honor the dead, without honoring what they gave their lives for?

<br />

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">

<a href="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQrCCAYqPy0n6ZxmVd7Zq33X8XdKhmixBD7EziIyn8R6j_4poEmzk4x1k5l3JfQozhLBVlZ-nv5zeC1K70G2RD4PszGAazJrN4dEa10Io-tPTOENiyP_Q2lGUL4UQvFkhcoYe1ew/s1600/Memorialized.jpg?ssl=1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-recalc-dims="1" border="0" height="247" src="https://i0.wp.com/blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQrCCAYqPy0n6ZxmVd7Zq33X8XdKhmixBD7EziIyn8R6j_4poEmzk4x1k5l3JfQozhLBVlZ-nv5zeC1K70G2RD4PszGAazJrN4dEa10Io-tPTOENiyP_Q2lGUL4UQvFkhcoYe1ew/s1600/Memorialized.jpg?resize=320%2C247&#038;ssl=1" width="320" /></a></div>

<br />

Please keep that in mind the next time you hear someone talking about getting around the Constitution - for the Constitution is the reason why there are so very, very many, whose lives are honored and memorialized on this day, and so very, very many others, whose lives were so deeply affected by their loss for the remainder of their days.
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		<enclosure url="" length="0" type="" />

		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">13874</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
