​I don’t know if I would have picked up on this idea as much when I read this book, had I not been reading Trust Works first.

In the early days, Jim Kettleman shares some of the ideas he was taught to live by. One of those statements is:
  “Don’t trust anybody, not even me. To trust is a weakness. It ain’t necessarily that folks are bad, but they are weak or afraid. Be strong. Be your own man. Go your own way, but whatever you do, don’t go crossways of other folks’ beliefs" (L’Amour, Louis. Flint: A Novel (p. 17). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition).

I have been thinking about his definitions of Trust and wondering what my beliefs are.

What is the definition of trust? Why does he think that trust is a weakness?

Are there parts of this quote that are wrong? What are those parts? Are there correct parts? What are those parts?

American Heritage’s online definition of Trust:
1. Firm belief in the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing; confidence or reliance.
“trying to gain our clients’ trust; taking it on trust that our friend is telling the truth.”
2. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one.
“violated a public trust.”
3. One in which confidence is placed.

I think part of the truth is that people CAN be weak and afraid. And when we have fears, we don’t always act with what we know is right. Jim can pick out examples in his life where his belief not to trust protected him. But is that the best way to live?

I think we can find examples in our own lives where trusting someone harmed us. But can we also find examples in our lives that trusting someone helped us? What lessons do we learn from that?

I also think that we need to be strong and that we need to be our own person in the sense that we do what we think is best and, after listening to or considering all the options, make our own decisions about what to do and live.
But I also believe it is a weakness not to be able to trust anyone, to counsel or get support from people. I can’t imagine how lonely that life would be. I am an external processor. I have to work outside my thinking to resolve issues and decide what to do. Should I trust and listen to every voice? No.

Trust is a simple word but a very complex idea. Reading Ken Blanchard’s Trust Works was very helpful because it shared actions that could be measured and connected to Trust. I find that I have reflected on these ideas several times since learning about his ABCD Trust Model. Jim had a lot of areas he could check off in this model, but there were several areas he was really weak in, especially in the Connected box.

As I have been reflecting on some of the things that I have learned from reading Flint. This is one of the areas. I have thought a lot more about what trust looks like and how we show trust to people.

A quote that I want to take issue with: "Books are friends that will never fail you. You are going into a hard world" (L’Amour, Louis. Flint: A Novel (p. 17). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition).

I don’t believe this is 100% true. I believe it very much matters which books you read. If the book is based on false premises, the book will fail you. It will lead you astray, especially if the author or the work has the intention to try to sway the reader’s allegiance towards bad or wrong ideas.

I like this point from The Healing Power of Stories by Daniel Taylor:
   “We should evaluate these core stories by the highest criteria and act accordingly if they are found wanting. We can heal our stories and choose new ones, for instance, by becoming true, acting characters rather than mere personalities. Characters are defined by their choices, and their choices are a reflection of their values and understanding of the world. Your most meaningful stories should be chosen, not lived by default.” (p. 125).

To me, one of the things that makes this book a good story is that you can see that Jim is wrestling with some of his teachings and seeing that they might not be 100% accurate. We get to see that Jim will change some of his beliefs. And if Jim can change, so can we. We can change and refine our beliefs as we go along in life.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand shows very well a couple of main points in Victor Davis Hanson’s The Dying Citizen.  The two points that overlap between these two books in the problems of having an administrative state and globalization.  In the story, Atlas Shrugged, one of the characters does not want to be bothered or interrupted with anything that he considers irrelevant to his work.  Dr. Robert Stadler has delegated most of the decisions to someone else to deal with so that he can continue with his research.   A book is published in his name that he disagrees with.  He calls the administrative assistant to complain about the book but never really stands up to him because it would inconvenience him.  Later again in his name a science project is completed, this project is a weapon that can be used to silence any person who disagrees with the administrative state.  Dr. Stadler finds out about it at the press conference.  Dr. Stadler states he did not give permission for this project and his appointed director, Dr. Ferris says,
               “Now you see, Dr. Stadler, how unfortunate it is if you allow yourself to be disturbed by political matters, which you have always considered unworthy of your attention and knowledge.  Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged (p. 775). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

It does not matter Dr. Stadler’s protesting that he didn’t sanction or even know about this project.  He is told that he will present a speech supporting the weapon. 

              “Dr. Stadler took the pages, but held them between the tips of two straight fingers, as one might hold a scrap of waste paper about to be tossed aside. “I haven’t asked you to appoint yourself as my ghost writer,” he said. The sarcasm of the voice gave Ferris his clue: this was not a moment for sarcasm. “I couldn’t have allowed your invaluable time to be taken up by the writing of radio speeches,” said Dr. Ferris. “I felt certain that you would appreciate it.” He said it in a tone of spurious politeness intended to be recognized as spurious, the tone of tossing to a beggar the alms of face-saving. Dr. Stadler’s answer disturbed him: Dr. Stadler did not choose to answer or to glance down at the manuscript”.  Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged (pp. 775-776). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

When Dr. Stadler talks of challenging the speech, he is reminded that his job and conveniences will be affected if he does not support the project.  As he walks toward the platform to deliver the speech a report begs him to tell the truth. 

                         “Tell them the truth! Tell them that you had nothing to do with it! Tell them what sort of infernal machine it is and for what purpose it’s intended to be used! Tell the country what sort of people are trying to rule it! Nobody can doubt your word! Tell them the truth! Save us! You’re the only one who can!”  Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged (pp. 778-779). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
 
What will Dr. Stadler do?  He will attack the newsman and then deliver the speech that is written for him. All because he didn’t want to give up the prestige and comforts that he had been living on as other men had been using his name to advance their position.    He joined the deep state to earn some benefits and, in the process, has sold his name to others to be used as they wish. 

In Atlas Shrugged the deep state has taken over the education system, business sector and the government, one step at a time with many willing accomplices who think they will benefit by conforming and bargaining with the government. They system becomes “the Frankensteinian monster that cannot be controlled by its human creator (The Dying Citizen p. 160).

In the Dying Citizen, the author shares examples of how America as moved away from its founding principles and documents toward the deep state or the running of America by the unelected.  Victor Hansen’s work shows our current choices and trajectory with facts and current conditions of our society.  Ayn Rand’s novel shows the fictional collapse of a society.  Unfortunately, there are many similarities between the fictional story published in 1957.  I think Ayn Rand saw the direction America was heading.  Her story shows what could happen and provides a solution.  Though I agree with the possibilities of how our society could collapse if we continue to embrace globalism and deep state, I believe there are better solutions than proposed in this book.  In Atlas Shrugged those businessmen and institutions that saw the direction was wrong withdrew from society to create a faster collapse.  Their goal was to build their own small utopia that would isolate them from the rest of the people, allowing many to suffer.  Hanson has a better solution. 
​
                “Thus, the only remedy to protect the citizen was to ensure that there would be tripartite and competing government interests-all overseen as well by the people, who in turn could elect their own officials.  Each concern would be equipped with checks and balances upon the other.  The ensuing tension would lead to a forced sharing of power and thereby prevent the inevitable emergence of a monarch, autocrat, or tyrant  or rule by the mob-and also supposedly rule by unelected officials inside the government” (The Dying Citizen, p. 161).
 
As Victor Davis Hanson points out, the Founding Fathers worked to set up a system where we could oversee the government.  Of course, that is work and takes time.  I guess we have to consider the consequences of not being a citizen overseer.  Will we be like Dr. Stadler?  Or will we choose to become active participants in the community, doing all we can to speak up for the values we hold and learn about the principles of good government, so we don’t collapse our own government by allowing others to take advantage of our disinterest and lack of knowledge?

This is one of those books that you can read over and over again and get new insights from!

Here is one idea: 

She [Ms Stacy] said we couldn’t be too careful what habits we formed and what ideals we acquired in our teens, because by the time we were twenty our characters would be developed and the foundation laid for our whole future life.  And she said if the foundation were shaky we could never build anything really worthwhile on it.”
       Chapter 30  (Conversation between Anne and Marilla)

What character do we want to have?  What habits do we think are important to develop those habits?  

Our childhood experiences help establish who we are.  What experiences do you remember?  How did they influence you?

As a parent, what experiences do I want my children to have?  How do I build an environment that will help create great character in myself and my family?  

Anne had small everyday experiences that helped form who she would become.  What small changes do I want to make in my home to help create a home of happy childhood experiences?  and happy adult experiences?   

Reading Atomic Habits by James Clear helps me see that it is the small and simple things that can have great effects on my habits.  I just need to carefully choose and plan what I want in my home.  

​

Amazing Book.  I am so glad that I read this book. 

The first sentence of the book: “Life is difficult.”   Well, that gets my attention right away since there are so many great things about life and so many difficult things.  Still on the first page:  “Life is a series of problems.  Do you want to moan about them or solve them? Do you want to teach your children to solve them?” 

Since my answer to both questions is to solve them, I continued reading the book.  If I were to quickly recap this book, I would say the book is about learning to love yourself through self-discovery and developing discipline (wanting to grow). 
​
At the back of my book, I listed out nine books that support the ideas in this book.  I enjoy finding interdisciplinary bridges to the books I am reading.
 

As I was reading from Hume's Essays Moral, Political, Literary, I ran across this opening sentence in Essay XII Of Civil Liberty:  "Those who employ their pens on political subjects, free from party-rage, and party-prejudices, cultivate a science, which, of all others, contributes most to public utility, and even to the private satisfaction of those who addict themselves to the study of it." 

Something for me to ponder.  In Politics, Aristotle claimed that political science was the highest science.
Hume’s Essay VIII of Parties in General states that “faction subvert the government, render laws impotent, and beget the fiercest animosities among men of the same nation, who ought to give mutual assistance and protection to each other”.

How is it that we can cultivate the science of government without being drawn into the factions?  How are we divided so quickly into different groups?

Hume points out that we can divide into groups based on our interests, our beliefs and our affections.  Affections, that is an interesting word.  I understand how we “naturally [wish] that right may take place, according to [our] own notions of it.”

According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary Online, Affections is defined as passion, a mend of mind, desire, along with several others. 

I think that Hume might be saying that we have attachments based on the groups we belong to.  That registers with me, I know that during election times candidates work to let us know what groups support them, hoping that we will vote based on our loyalty to different organizations. 

As I have been pondering these ideas, I see how easy it is for us to be pulled away from the goal and purposes of government toward the emotion of politics. 

John Adams said, “Government is instituted for the common good, protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of people…” (The Report of a Constitution or Form of Government for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28-31 October 1779).  I believe that.  The more challenging part is to define those words into actionable principles that can be agreed upon.  Because this is so challenging we divide into different groups based on what we believe those words to mean and how to apply those words.     
 
As I got older, I realized how little I understood the science of government.  In school I was taught some basic ideas of how our government ran but there is so much more that I didn’t understand or was not taught.  Some of the ideas I was not taught were:

1. Why do we form government. 
2. What is the purpose of government.
3. How do we know what good government is or is not.
4. How do we find the principles of government.
5. How do we decide if a proposal is based on the principles of good governance.

I have tried to correct this lack of knowledge over the years.  I have read different books and listened to different people and yet even with this find that I have so much still to learn about government.  There are several things that I have learned over the years that have influenced my thinking.  A couple of these are:

1. Government starts in the home.  The family is the foundation of government.
2. A good foundation is critical.
3. Government should be founded on the principles of Natural law.

 
As I have been trying to apply these ideas I have paid a bit more attention to issues in the community.  Why?  Because I have learned it is my responsibility to learn for myself if ideas are true or false.  I can’t depend on what others tell me is the right way to think.  That is hard to do.  There are so many voices.  How do I wade through all of the ideas, and voices?  I want to decide based on my beliefs and principles and be “free from party-rage and party-prejudice”.    I want to be on the side that “contributes most to public utility” or to do the things that bring us together towards a better environment for everyone.  Yet what is that path?  Where do I find it?  That brings me back to natural law and what natural law is.  As I have studied what some of the great thinkers* said about natural law I have concluded that there are two basic ideas in the world.  1. Those that believe in natural law, and 2. Those that do not believe in natural law.  These divisions can’t be unified, for they see the world so differently that they can’t agree.   I have chosen to believe in natural law. 

Using the help of many ideas I am defining natural law as a system of justice common to all people at all times which is recognized through correct reasoning that is tied to obedience to God. 

I believe that there is a right and wrong way to behave and that my job is to determine the right and align myself with it, regardless of my own beliefs.  In other words, I could want to live differently than natural law lays out but if I want to live a principled life, I must align myself with the laws that are set out otherwise I suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.  I struggle with this every day.  I would rather enjoy my sweets and goodies instead of healthy and good for me food.  I would really love to eat whatever I wanted when I wanted but the principes of health tell me that there are consequences and that I need to align myself with those principles if I want to find happiness.  The same applies to every area of life to include government.  There are principles that must be discovered through correct reasoning that are based on Natural Law. 

Luckily for me I live in a time of abundance.  Abundance of energy and knowledge.  I have access to the great minds of many people who have been studying these ideas and trying to share them+ out.  Learning about government principles takes time and energy.  Taking the time to read through people’s ideas and dissecting them down to the principles is work. I turn to my core book to verify the ideas and in order to help me focus on what is truly important.  This allows me to spend less time involved in factions based on interests, beliefs, and affections and more time on what is best for everyone in society.   

I love the words, “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 (The Declaration of Independence). 

These words changed my life.  I was luckily exposed to these words in school.  They have sunk deep into my heart and have returned to me again and again.  The US Government set up a system founded on the idea that all men were equal before God and the law.  Our job as citizens is to help promote and follow that idea.  We of course have faults; we see them every day and through all of history.  We also see the progress we have made by trying to follow these ideas. 

I would like to leave a better place for my children.  That requires me to make some changes in my life.  The more I can align myself with true principles, the happier I will be. I chose to spend my free moments† trying to understand natural law and the principles that flow from them so that I can understand better and pass that better understanding on.  To continue the progress that great men and women have tried to make.

What a wonderful time we live in that we have so much abundance.  We have time when most people except a very few have had to do more than any other generation.  We have abundant energy.  We are so blessed.  Now with our time, how will we use it?  Will we use it in ways that will make the world a better place?  Will we work to discover the correct principles around us so that we can see better?  Or will be caught up in cunning craftiness of men who try to deceive us (see Ephesians 4: 14)?  Will we be caught in the factions that surround and divide us?  
 
 


*Cicero, William Blackstone, Thomas Ried, Lysander Spooner, CS Lewis, Mortimer Adler, and Audrey Rindlisbacher

+see Thomas Jefferson Education, Blackbelt in Freedom and Depth
​
†I could fill Volumes with Descriptions of Temples and Palaces, Paintings, Sculptures, Tapestry, Porcelaine, &c. &c. &c.—if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty.—The Science of Government it is my Duty to study, more than all other Sciences: the Art of Legislation and Administration and Negotiation, ought to take Place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other Arts.—I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.  (John Adams to Abigail Adams, 12 May 1780, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-03-02-0258

I knew that this story is one of those stories that does not have a happy ending.  However, it is an important book to read and think about what the author is asking you to consider.   Reading this in Feb 2026 is even more poignant because I can see again lynch mobs in parts of our society.   Of course, they don’t call themselves lynch mob.  They call themselves protesters.  But they have decided they don’t like something so are out vandalizing, harming others, chasing people, yelling, screaming, fighting, and many other things in the name of justice.  They have decided to take the law into their own hands.

In this story, a man is said to be killed and cattle were stolen.  The cattle had been disappearing before, and the cow hands and ranchers were upset about it. But when a friend is killed, action needs to be taken.  Or so the characters in this book thought.  They gathered a group to go hunting for the rustlers of cattle and a murderer of a hired hand.  They did not want to wait or include the sheriff and the judge.  Justice was needed!

         “We shall observe order and true justice, Judge”, he told him.   
          Tetley looked at him.  “In time,” he said.
          “Mapes,” he said, turning to Butch.
          “Yes, sir?”
          “You said Risley had made you deputy?”
          “Yes, sir,” said Butch.
          “Then suppose you deputize the rest of us.”
        “It’s not legal,” [Judge] Tyler told him.  He appeared infuriated by Tetley’s smiling, elusive talk.  “No deputy has the right to deputize.”
          “It’ll do for me, Butch; go head and pray,” Smith yelled.
         Butch looked at Tetley. Tetley didn’t say anything or even nod.  He just smiled, that thin little smile that barely moved the corners of his mouth.
          “How about it, boys?” Butch asked us.
          “Mapes,” Tyler bellowed at him, “It’s ineffective.  Your violating the law yourself, in such an act.”
       Men called out to Mapes: “Go ahead, Butch”; “I guess it will take as well with you as any, Butch”; “fire away, sheriff.”
         “Raise your right hands,”….(p. 93)

This group of men were determined to catch the rustlers and murderer regardless of the situation.  They were not going to wait for the sheriff or a new day or better weather.  Off they went with their determination to lynch, not catch the guilty parties.  Several men had encouraged them to follow the law, but emotions were high and they felt that their way was the right way.   I knew before I got to page 100 that things are not going to turn out well or the right way.  Sure enough, they find 3 men that they believe are guilty.  There is not enough evidence to clear them, but they think there is enough evidence to hang them, so they do.  It was pointed out to them before they hung the men that it would be really easy to verify these men’s story if they just waited until morning and checked out their story.  But these men came for a lynching and were not interested in anything else.  Several of the men in the party were convinced that hanging was deserved.  Shortly after they find out that they hung the wrong men.  

The opening chapters of the book talk about justice and what justice means. There are many pages of trying to reason with the mob.  But the men are never fully convinced that they need to slow down and do things the right way.

One answers that justices is…”seein’ that everybody gets what’s comin’ to him…” (p. 46)
And
“True law, the code of justice, the essence of our sensations of right and wrong, is the conscience of society.  It has taken thousands of years to develop, and it is the greatest, the most distinguishing quality when has evolved with mankind.” (p. 49)

Another feels that they have seen enough injustice in the land by men that they need to make sure justice is served this time.

Why did these men not want to wait for a trial?  “Law, as the books have it, is slow and full of holes.” (p 156) They decided that they would not get justice the way they wanted it so lynched the men. 

Shortly after they found they had accused and hung the wrong men one of the character’s says:
                “My God,” Gil said, “I knew it didn’t feel right.  I knew we should wait.” (p. 189)

What is the author asking me and you to do with this story?

Does he want us to understand that in the heat of emotion people in a crowd will act in ways they would not if they were alone?  Does he want to show us that it is hard to stand up against others because we fear what they will say about us or treat us?  Does he ask us to consider what we would do if we were one of the men called to join the mob? 

Is the author trying to warn us that when we see an injustice we should not let our emotions rule over our decisions?  That our first reaction might not be the best reaction?  

“We desire justice, and justice has never been obtained in haste and strong feeling” (p.33)
Is that true? 

What happens if the law decides differently than what we want it to decide? 
In this case there was no murder and the cows they recovered were not stolen but bought.   The men in this mob left and acted without collecting all the information that they needed to have to make the decision to hang rustlers.  Now they each have to either find someone to blame or live with guilt that they didn’t deliver justice that day but injustice.  These men decided that they would not get justice from the society and laws that were established.  Yet how did they do? 

​Reflecting back on my own life, I can see where I have made decisions in the heat of the moment, some of them were wrong.  Some of them needed to be done but with a different approach.  Overall, taking the time to sit back, collect more information, and wrestle with the ideas would have been a better choice.

So why read Politics?  I have been wondering what have I gained by reading this book. There are ideas in the book that I agree with.  I held them before I read the book.  There are ideas that I disagree with.  What benefit does this book add to my understanding? 
I notice these ideas as I thumb through my book and look at my margin notes:
 
“the best form of government, i.e. that under which the state will be most happy (and happiness, as been already said, cannot exist without virtue), it clearly follows that in the state which is best governed and possesses men who are just absolutely, and not merely relatively to the principles of the constitution….” (Book 7, Chapter 9)
 
“But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong.” (Book 7, Chapter 7)

“And in democracies of the more extreme type there has arisen a false idea of freedom which is contradictory to the true interests of the state.  For two principles are characteristic of democracy, the government of the majority and freedom.  Men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom doing what a man likes.  In such democracies every one lives as he pleases, or in the words of Euripides, ‘according to his fancy.’ But this is all wrong; men should not think it is slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution; for it is their salvation.”  (Book 5, Chapter 9)

“For men are easily spoilt; not every one can bear prosperity.” (Book 5, Chapter 8)

“In the first place it is evident that if we know the causes which destroy constitutions, we also know the causes which preserve them; for opposites produce opposites, and destruction is the opposite of preservation.  In all well-attempered government there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters; for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state, just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eats up a fortune.”  Book 5, Chapter 8)
“The citizens begin by giving up some part of the constitution, and so with greater ease the government changes something else which is a little more important, until they have undermined the whole fabric of the state.” (Book 7, Chapter 7)
​
“Revolutions are effected in two ways, by force and by fraud” (Book 5, Chapter 4)
 
“..general willingness of all classes in the state to maintain the constitution.” (Book 4, Chapter 9)
 
“But we must remember that good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government.  Hence there are two parts of good government; one is the actual obedience of the citizens to the laws, and the other part is the goodness of the laws which they obey;…” (Book 4, Chapter 8)
 
“…the law is supreme…” (Book 4, Chapter 4)
 
I marked many other things, but these are the ideas that stood out to me as I flipped through the pages.  Aristotle is trying to determine what type of political association is best suited for securing happiness (virtue) for its citizens.  He takes the time to analyze all the types of governments he knows looking at what happened to them, pointing out the good and the bad. 

His arguments are also incomplete.  There are more forms of government than he outlined.  Many of his foundational ideas about people I find flawed so why continue reading a book that has ideas in it that I don’t agree with?   

Taking each government type and looking at opposites, gives a clearer picture of the importance of following the argument to the end.  Ideas can sound good, but when they are carried out do they end good? In this particular case, governments established seemed to have some good intentions that the people united with.  What were the results of must of them?  Collapse.  Each had flaws and problems in them that could not be overcome with the foundation they had. 
​
As I reflect on the ideas that stood out to me (listed above) I had to ask why these points stood out to me more than the other points I marked and made notes about.  These quotes apply to the current situation I am in.  Aristotle has some reminders to us today about governments.  His works are hard to get through, and his history is old and sometimes even lost on us but his points still ring true even among his false assumptions.
These last weeks I have been watching a group or two of people that have decided to be their own lynch mob.  They don’t want to go to and through the law, they want to destroy the law and all that it stands for…the state.  It is painful to watch, it hurts may heart.  My reason begs for something different.  I feel like I am Sparks in The Ox-Bow Incident.  Awkward, not knowing what to do but knowing what is happening is wrong. 

I read this book in isolation from the other Narnia books and found that I had ideas that I missed in previous readings. 

King Tirian, the last of the Kings of Narnia, hears word that Aslan is in Narnia.  As he is on his journey, he discovers that things are just not working out well.  There seems to be a problem with what Aslan is saying, and there are problems with the Calormen.   The talking beasts of Narnia ask why this Aslan is so different.  They notice and name the issue, but they still accept that Aslan is the person who is directing Shift the ape to command those in Narnia.  King Tirian sees the miserable faces of those around him who have been accepting the ideas of Shift.  King Tirian recognizes that something is wrong.
 
“Ape,” he cried with a great voice, “you lie damnably.  You lie like a Calormene.  You lie like and Ape.
 
He meant to go on and challenge the Ape but was struck and knocked down.  What is it that makes King Tirian different from the others?
 
The king escapes and seeks to expose the false stories of Shift, along with gathering a force to remove the Calormen soldiers from Narnia, but runs into many troubles.  He persists and, though he is outnumbered, will continue to challenge Shift.
 
“Here stand I, Tirian of Narnia, in Aslan’s name, to prove with my body that Tash is a foul fiend, the Ape a manifold traitor, and these Calormenes worthy of death.  To my side, all true Narnians.  Would you wait till your new masters have killed you all one by one?”
 
So why is Tirian so willing to see what could become of the plan Shift has laid out, but those of Narnia are not seeing?  Why do the Narnians not question the differences that they see between the new and old Aslan? 
Tirian seems to have a sense of conscience that he will not go against.  The animal that has been posing as Narnia is freed from Shift and states:   “I see now that I really have been a very bad donkey.  I ought never have listened to Shift.  I never thought things like this would begin to happen”. 

Is one of the reasons that Shift had so much influence?  That it would never get this bad?   

At the beginning of the story, Shift tells the donkey, “You know you’re no good at thinking, so why don’t you let me do your thinking for you?”

Or is the reason that the thinking was delegated to Shift, it was just easy to listen to someone else tell you what you want to do? 
 
How can we apply this story to our own lives?  Where do we stand in the story?  Do we stand with Aslan and Narnia or with the false Aslan and Calormen?  Which belief system do we choose to embrace, support, and follow?
 
This book was published in 1956.  World War II is over, and the Cold War is in progress.  Is Lewis trying to warn up of what is going on?  Warn us that we have a choice to make?  We have to choose between the real Aslan and those who pretend to be Aslan.  Will we choose to follow leaders who promise “to make things better for everyone,” or “it's for your benefit,” or will we choose leaders who expect us to think and figure out how we can make the world a better place?