Saturday, July 04, 2026

250 years later, America still depends upon Americans' understanding of our Declaration of Independence

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 little bit of detail here, is that the Declaration of Independence is the vehicle through which those who care about what is real and true, are able to become one people, Americans, and that its inheritance is not one of blood, but of understanding their shared ideals. To affirm:
'... 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...'
, is your ticket into the American body-politic, it is your passport to recite the later phrases with the rest of us, so that 'We The People' are able to form a more perfect union because we do hold these truths to be self-evidently true. It is how we are made 'e Pluribus Unum - Out of many, One' people, and our diverse origins and differences are transformed into interesting footnotes to our lives, rather than defining - or dividing - features of them.

The second point, is that with the Supreme Court striking a blow against the encroachments upon our liberty by the Administrative State, things are looking better for the restoration and preservation of liberty, than they have in decades.

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.

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, because 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 'revolutionary' when writing it, but only that he intended it "... to be an expression of the American mind..." - is it an expression of yours?

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 'Writs of Assistance' 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 "the American mind", 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')?

How likely is it that we can long have either America or Americans in it, without the Declaration of Independence 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 values profound truths eloquently expressed?

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 you 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).

July 4th 1776, 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 James Otis spoke against King George's 'Writs of Assistance' back in 1761, which as Adams recalled it,
",,,But Otis was a flame of fire! With a promptitude of Classical Allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events & 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 & there born. The seeds of Patriots & Heroes to defend the Non sine Diis Animosus Infans; to defend the Vigorous Youth were then & 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. Then and there the Child Independence was born. In fifteen years i.e. in 1776. he grew up to Manhood, & declared himself free.,,,"[emphasis mine]
I point that out, because it underlines the importance of what is perhaps most remarkable about what the Declaration of Independence's author, Thomas Jefferson, considered to be the least 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 Jefferson wrote to a friend in later years, about what it was meant to accomplish:
"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, &c..."
That is why we are unique in the annals of human history, as being a nation founded upon ideas (those twits mouthing on about 'inherent American anti-intellectualism' can kiss my patriotic ass). Those common ideas, and their influence, continued to serve as strong guides for the later creation of our Constitution, 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:
"To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World."
"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."
"HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries."
  • 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.
"HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance."
  • 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
"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."
  • 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.
"FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us"
"FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States"
"FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World"
"FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
"FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury"
, and if you take the time to read both, you will find many, many, more points of harmony between the two.

But enough, onto Calvin Coolidge's speech, and a happy 250th Independence Day to you all!

The Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence
Given in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 5, 1926:

President Calvin Coolidge
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.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people

The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 worshiped.

***************
Happy Independence Day America! **************************

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, 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.
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.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
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.
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.
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.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
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.
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.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
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.
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:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
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:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
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 & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Georgia
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

North Carolina
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts
John Hancock

Maryland
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Delaware
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

New York
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Massachusetts
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Connecticut
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire
Matthew Thornton

Friday, June 19, 2026

Answering 'Somehow': The Problem of the Ideological Observatory

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 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 Poetics, Section 1, Part IX:
"...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. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular...."
Proverbs 29-19:
"Where there is no vision, the people perish..."
Note: It's worth reading the other translations of that passage here.
, 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 "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." depend upon being understood, by We The People.

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 "education reform!"), but which actually helps their beast to grow still more heads to overwhelm us with.

That deliberately shallowed vision is the means that pro-regressives from Descartes to Kant, to Fichte, to Dewey and Gramsci, have used in their efforts to hamper people's ability to grasp what is real and true, and that is critical to their plans for ending the West's 'Cultural Hegemony'.

How does that 'somehow' work?

You've heard of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, 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.

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.

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 obviously being cast upon its surface by the light being shone on it from above, they are instructed throughout their studies there, how to argue that the image they're being shown contains the answer that is the key to resolving the world's troubles, and to getting all that they most desire in that world.

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 "WTF?!" moments and a sense of outrage, whenever meeting the liars and idiots of those other groups who dare to deny the obvious fact that the shape of the answer is "and should be!" that [triangle, circle, or square] which they earned their degrees in studying.

More importantly, the fact is, of course, that each group has viewed what is 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.

For real life examples of this, see 'Social Justice!', 'Free Speech Movement!', 'Free Trade!', etc., etc., etc.

Now you might be assuming that it's obvious that the Ideological Observatory is able to instill those assumptions which spread division & discord, because its inner rooms are curtained off to show different 'answers' to different groups, but that's not the case.

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.

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 the acceptable 'answers'.

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 does matter to it, is its ability to shape every group to conform to the pattern of seeking answers from ideologically approved sources & 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.

That pattern of accepting, memorizing, and regurgitating obvious 'answers' and seeing systems as if they were reality, is 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.

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.

What this ultimately means, is, that what the Ideological Observatory's graduates think, isn't the issue, or their litmus test for entry: How they think, is, which illustrates that far from being a benign saying, that idiom attributed to John Dewey:
"Teach them how to think, not what to think"
, 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.

That system for transmitting the ideological pattern of thinking is what ensures that the interests of the Ideological Observatory are served, and that is served, no matter what shape any group's ideological system identifies as being the 'answer' - be it triangle, circle, or square.

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, expects to find satisfaction in obvious facts and in all-encompassing systematic answers for them (ideology). Each of these shape-seers will habitually argue with those who 'somehow' fail to see that the shape which they see in those facts which 'everyone' can clearly see, must be the 'answer' that they're seeking. And having been miseducated into an unfamiliarity with, or misunderstanding of Universals, they lack the 'metaphysical firewall' of what is, and what cannot 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 not 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 & division that their ideological competition ensures, and that is what ensures that Ideology is what will continue to reign over all.

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: 'people don't talk that way or use words like that!' 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.

What is necessarily not observed in the Ideological Observatory
The pattern that those who pass through the Ideological Observatory do not learn, is that of inspecting what the actual issue is (Metaphysics), understanding what leads to and follows from that (Causality & Logic), and methodically reasoning from that to understand what, if anything, should or should not be done about that (Ethics).

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 & sturdy tree of knowledge can grow from, and so becomes able to comprehend at least some of what the whole truth actually is.

The nature of that pattern of reasoning, which has been passed on down from Aristotle through Aquinas, and from Thomas Reid to our Founders' generation, is understood as:
“the conformity of thing and intellect” (adaequatio intellectus et rei)
, 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 'everyone knows!' as triangles, squares, and circles, and whether or not those shapes actually followed from the nature of the object of their thought, or not.

The depth of understanding and breadth of applicability that particular 'answers' can never contain:
"...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..."
~ "Axioms in Accord"
Anything that might impart that pattern of thinking - such as the once treasured stories and music of The West in concert with the realist philosophy they are rooted in - cannot be permitted to be given any respect in the Ideological Observatory. Instead, they are sold the sop of 'Epistemology' justifying what you know, by comparing one system with other systems, each of which systematically avoids identifying what it is that those systems are systems of...'somehow' (ala Hegel's 'Science!' of systematic mysticism).

Recall that stories don't provide their readers with easy answers. The person who opens up the biblical books of Genesis or Judges, or myths such as Hercules, or even histories such as are found in Thucydides or Plutarch's Lives, expecting to be presented with answers they can 'score an A+!' 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.

Logic as a Liberal Art: An Introduction to Rhetoric and Reasoning by Rollen Edward Houser
If you doubt the value of the literature of the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West (The Bible, the stories from Homer to Dante, 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 first to be ejected from our schools, its philosophy was then pragmatically subverted & corrupted without their support, and its religions stands alone, turned against each other, and under siege. And if you ask 'What can be done to restore it?', 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 that is no little thing.

Familiarize yourself with the 'language' used - and realize that because we are talking about a 'common culture' that extends over umpteen languages, we are not talking about the 'arbitrary rules of punctuation' (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 grammar centered on 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 - yourself included - take those actions that they do.

But as you're reading, it is important to understand that just reading the lost literature of The West, is not enough: how you read through it makes a critical difference.

The Real Difference that makes all the Difference!
As you're reading through what is truly worth reading, you must realize that reading to understand what is (Metaphysics), what it leads to and what follows from that (Causality & Logic), and what, if anything, should or should not be done about that (Ethics), is a very different method and purpose for reading, than that of reading those same 'texts' through 'the lens of' 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 my troll), but they are being taught in such a way that 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.

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 the target audience that the hydra counts upon provoking. Remember: The Hydra wants you to attack it, because your reaction is the point of its action - and the impetuously heroic efforts of those full of answers without understanding (hello "School Choice!"), 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 you 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.

Most of all, what the would-be heroes of our populace have been 'educated' to not understand, is how much damage can be accomplished by just shifting our attention and understanding aside... just enough... 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 very different thing). 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.

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 'The boy who cried wolf', and parables like 'The Sower' and the return of 'The Prodigal Son', and epic stories from The Iliad to Ivanhoe, as well as the many meaningful poems, and speeches of the great orators, which were key to developing the deep and penetrating reasoning that put the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian West 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'.

Those who truly want to 'fight!, fight!, fight!', 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 - not 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.

We'll dig further into the nature of that, and into revealing the hidden nature of the dastardly 'somehow', in the next post.

Friday, June 12, 2026

'Somehow' - The Critical Insurrection being waged in the minds of our 'Critical Thinkers'

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 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 bitterly laughable claim). 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 still to this day, but the acceptance of that behavior by so many amongst us. That 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.

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 & literature. Too often lost in the distractions of rising illiteracy rates, falling test scores, and calls for more 'education reform!', is the reality that without the natural defenses that those lessons of history & 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.

What lessons?

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 Hercules fought the Hydra, the many-headed monster that grew two new heads for each one that was cut off. In that adventure, Hercules & 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 & 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.

Sure, I realize that many (not you, of course) might be saying:
"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!"
, and my reply to that, is:
Stop being so naive.
For those with eyes to see, the plain fact is that we are fighting a many headed monster, and it is devouring both our children and our society, and it is our willful ignorance of that, that has made it so easy for the beast to lay us low.

So yes, shallow perceptions aside, the fact is that:
  • we most definitely do 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
  • its many heads stem from fraudulent rights and perverted virtues that're supported by a long neck of unjust laws & new 'norms' that've grown out of the boldest of its lies
  • 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 & corrected and for lies to be exposed, which is what it takes to ignite & burn sophistry with the heat of a thousand suns
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 (the painting "The Choice of Hercules between virtue and pleasure", went 'viral' in our Founders' era), and the biblical tales such as Samson who "slayed a thousand with the jawbone of an ass", are what our modern 'thinking skills' oriented education, effectively blind us to.

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 'Talking snake stories', 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 & 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'.

“In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching remedial English in college.” ~Joseph Sobran
The West was able to achieve what it had, through how it learned lessons from its foundational stories, and recovering both those stories and how to read them, could do that for us once again, if we would just stop doing everything else but 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 cutting all the tall poppies down to size.

Some of you (not you, of course) might be saying:
"Oh come on... give me even one example of a 'lesson' like that applying today!"
Ok, tell ya what, here are three relevant lessons worth learning from Hercules & the Hydra for the price of one:
  1. 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 wants 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.
  2. Knowing that the Hydra wants to be attacked by bold & 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.
  3. 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.
    • Bonus Lesson: No Hydra wants you to learn lessons such as these, from stories such as those!
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:
"Their reaction is your action!"
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 & again... here are three off the top:
  • Ten years ago when trans-gender bathrooms and drag-queen story hour emerged, the public was outraged and demanded change!... 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 'trans women are women!', men beating women in women's sports, and men being named as 'woman of the year'
  • 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 change! (to what? for what?) and more rigorous testing (testing of what? for what?), and 'struck down Common Core!' (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 'choice' isn't what you think it is), both of which add additional bureaucratic facts, policies, reduced understanding, and ever worsening results
  • 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 17th Amendment... which reduced meaningful representation for every person, incentivized corruption, and transformed the federal govt into the untouchable hydra that We The People are still battling against today
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:
"The issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution!"
, and remember that their tactics are all about provoking you to react to the latest outrage in as shallow a manner as possible (anger & miseducation being the preferred one-two punch of monsters everywhere & 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.

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.

I've noted before, 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:
"...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..."
The Palmerworm is adept at showing how seemingly useful answers are used to suppress and violate vital principles, such as: The Anthropological Line
, 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 college professor troll), and they'll find ready support from those on 'The Right' who will jump at any opportunity for still more 'education reform' (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:
  • What do stories provide?: 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.
  • What do stories not provide: Answers.
  • What does modern schooling train you to seek and accept?: Answers.
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 theme, plot, and character development in school, right? ...and that it was one of the most important lessons to learn...?), and not just those found in stories & 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. 
Excellent demonstrations from Courtenay Turner, on how to see the larger story being lost behind the 'answers' that're given, in:
"The Simulation State" and "The Factory Reset"


Don't forget:
striking off the monster's head is the easy part...
...as the monster intends it to be
, 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.

A Grimoire of philosophical spells: "Hegel and the hermetic tradition", by Glenn Alexander Magee
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 'Black Lives Matter!' or 'Ice Out!', as the Woke Left & Woke Right (or just Pro-Regressive, for short), shout that "It's about white supremacy!' or 'It's about hating white people!", 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 not 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'.

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 the 2nd Amendment secures to us by preventing the government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms (Note: it says 'arms' in general, not 'firearms' in particular) - that churning is the insurrection in action.

The pattern to be noticed emerging from that, that of a provocative distraction, reaction, action, is the footprint (and mating call) of the monster that we're actually facing (which is not the guise of govt that it wears, but the monster beneath that mask), and 'somehow' that pattern mirrors how we've all been taught to think about and approach the issues of the day.

The initial provocative distractions and the public reactions to them - 'transgender bathrooms', 'low test scores', 'teachers unions' - seize upon surface facts and easy answers, and then - 'somehow' - with an action of philosophical sleight of mind (have you noticed how activism around hot-button issues like 'freedom of speech!' and 'Don't cancel me!', 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.

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 'Change!' 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 'Left, Right, Left, Right, Forward... March!' of the revolution.

How has that 'somehow' been accomplished? Well, in a word - and this word might be a bit provocative itself: Magic

I know, many (not you, of course) are probably saying:
"Really Van? Magic?!"
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 complex issues (1st cousin to 'hocus-pocus') like 'rising illiteracy', 'trade wars', 'the decline of the family', are in fact the natural consequences of simple perceptions, decisions & actions we're routinely led into, whose import is effectively obscured and hidden from us by the artful misdirection & subterfuge (much of which is done unconsciously) of those who put on the airs of an expert (magician).

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 highly educated people will accuse you of 'transphobia' and 'hate speech', for objecting to their ludicrous claims? If the sum of your assessment of that is something to the effect of
'Oh...hell-If-I-Know...somehow!'
, then I submit to you, that your exasperation and 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 "Wow... somehow he pulled a rabbit out of a hat!". Just as the stage magician uses sleight of hand to appear to pull a rabbit out of a hat, the philosophical sorcerer uses a conceptual sleight of mind to slip impossible ideas into what 'everyone knows', 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.

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 ("you can see there's nothing in this hat") 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 you would be penalized by the rest of the audience for heckling their performance.

This sort of 'Magic' should not 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 & 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 think therefore I am") and wand-waving ("Teach how to think, not what to think"), and other such techniques of conceptual sleight of mind, that induce the mindset of seeking 'just the facts!' , along with a willingness to accept the appearance of obvious 'logical answers', which serious students of literary myths & 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.

Deceptions such as these have not only enabled the Pro-Regressives to bury us under layers and layers of the hydra's provocations, but they also whisper to us why 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).

What it is that Gramsci & 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.

Using 'Critical Thinking' to identify the nature of that 'somehow', 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.