Charlton’s stuff is free to download, It is not perfect nothing ever is. Looking at the separate arguments that people make rather than the ideology of the writer is a good practice I think, and one that is increaSINGLY Rare.
An example of Writers such as Charlton in the Past would be, say, Ezra Pound and his ABC of economics. Now Pound was a Fascist, that does not though diminish the criticism of debt based money and the Gold Standard, set out in his ABC of economics. I would argue the Same applies to Charlton, but also to Adolph Hitler and Mein Kamph. I have read all three, they provide insights to particular and peculiar world views but provide a perspective on events which the Orthodox Historical narrative obscure. Frank Harris is another writer worth reading, he was a friend and biographer of Oscar Wilde, yet his book, England or Germany a critique of social relations in the the UK , USA and Germany in the run-up to the First world war is a perspective you will not find in any standard History Text,
Kant contrasts “apodictic” with “problematic” and “assertoric” in the Critique of Pure Reason, on page A70/B95. . These matters are to do with what we know as truth in the world which is sometimes called reality. Some commentators have been arguing a ´Post-Truth´ turn in the news this is a logical error in reasoning for as Frank Harris says in England or Germany, p.144 ( https://archive.org/stream/englandorgerman01harrgoog/englandorgerman01harrgoog_djvu.txt)
´´Genius welcomes criticism; the more the
merrier, the higher the better. “Come look
what I’m doing´´, it cries fearlessly, knowing
that truth must help it and that in an open
struggle between truth and falsehood, truth has
nothing to fear. ´´
The same goes for Tragedy and Hope by Caroll Quigley, he was writing from the perspective of an elitist and yet manages to provide the core of most of the John Bircher type narratives in Skousen and Alex Jones´s world views,
”The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think´´.
the idea before it was clothed in words
heard in minds, as uttered thought
the communication of arranged ideas
Thoughts lifting mist from the poet´s page.
To set the stage, not in the round
but, to see the scene in the sphere
Which actors will the playwright lay
on the page´s narrative to steer.
Quiggleys words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
Foucault. the episteme.
´´would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be
acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as
scientific.” Michel Foucault.
the Pragmatist in me inspired by C S Pierce my favourite modern philosopher and one of the finest logicians that have come down to us says this.
CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: In order to
reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues
as intellectual honesty and sincerity a
nd a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientific
inquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them
to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to
know how things really were … (1-34).
[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake
(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with in
tentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235).
[When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines wh
at the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which
determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham
reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men
come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative….
Just my 5 penneth worth. But read widely and drink deeply of the pool of all knowledge. Judging a book by its cover was always an overrated past time in my opinion.