Post

More from @thepalmerworm

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

@thepalmerworm

Jun 11

🧵The Loosening Of Stone

A devout man can build something that later proves vulnerable to reinterpretation. A loyal Catholic can employ symbolic forms whose downstream implications he does not necessarily fully anticipate, or maybe he does, I don’t know. A sincere architect can inherit conceptual material whose genealogy he (perhaps) has not systematically examined. None of that automatically requires deception, subversion, or bad faith. Gaudí appears (unless I’m informed otherwise) to have been a sincere and devout Catholic. The symbolic language he employed contains influences that are not reducible to traditional doctrine alone. That symbolic language can be appropriated by later theological frameworks that Gaudí himself may never have accepted - who knows. The sincerity of an enterprise does not settle the question of what its structure permits. Don’t misread this, I’m not posing a question here about whether Gaudí was a faithful Catholic. The question which concerns me is whether the symbolic grammar of the Sagrada Família is sufficiently determinate to constrain later interpretation within traditional doctrinal boundaries, or, whether the chosen symbolic grammar enables and facilitates reinterpretation, particularly enabling of post conciliar evolution and innovation. This thread closes with a short video briefly covering what I’m outlining in my contrasting earlier forms with those new ones specifically chosen by Gaudi. P.s. - ‘rigidity’ is not a ‘bad’ word! It gets a bad press for sure! But that’s not surprising really is it….! It denotes in this thread an integrity of form which preserves function. As opposed to a fluidity of form which repurposes function.

2/
Please understand that these are different questions and concerns. Personal orthodoxy is not something I’m calling into question, however, that does not automatically guarantee interpretive stability. What I’m looking at is whether the form itself reliably preserves the metaphysical distinctions upon which the traditional doctrine depends - or not. What is at stake is not aesthetics. It is whether doctrine remains capable of defending itself. If a form no longer clearly preserves distinctions then current and future generations can gradually reinterpret the faith without ever openly rejecting it. The question is whether the form itself possesses sufficient doctrinal precision to resist reinterpretation after the doctrinal culture that originally surrounded it has weakened. Does the form preserve transcendence, or does it facilitate immanence? The former preserves a completed deposit of faith. The latter privileges historical unfolding and the Spirit of The Age.

3/
In a civilization with strong doctrinal theological formation, the architecture is anchored. In a civilization without that formation, the architecture becomes available for repurposing. That is precisely why the Church historically fought so intensely over metaphysical distinctions that modern people often dismiss as merely ‘abstract’. The distinction is never merely intellectual though. It determines whether Christianity is understood as revealed truth about reality, or a historical journey toward an ever-unfolding understanding of reality. Think for a moment about what the latter has already facilitated with regard to ideological subversion, constructivism, deconstruction and inversion. For non believers too, the epistemological warfare fall out has impacted all Western Institutions and civic infrastructure; Education, Law, Governance and now Healthcare too.

Read 4 tweets

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

@thepalmerworm

Apr 19

🧵Roots of Liberty
A Primer on the Natural Origins of Rights

The Great Divide: Inalienable Nature v Contractual Consent

At the heart of the American experiment lies a profound ontological distinction that determines whether a person remains a sovereign moral agent or is reduced to a managed subject. This is the divide between inalienable rights and contractual permissions. That term ‘ontological’ is of foundational significance because it remains the target for negation and usurpation by powerful interests vested in the subjugation of man through the negation of the ontological function of America’s Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Republican governance.

The non-negotiable ontological foundation of the American order is the recognition that rights are not products of human will or social negotiation, but ontological properties of the human person grounded in the reality of his or her endowed created nature. Modern ‘contractarian theories’ attempt to substitute the ground of rights from what a person is (which is inalienable) to what persons agree to (which is alienable). This substitution is sometimes concealed by a rhetorical ‘natural rights language’ used as a deceptive gloss. In operation however, once rights are moved to the realm of contract, they cease to be rights (inalienable) and become revocable permissions (alienable) administered by a system.

2/ Why is understanding & recognizing this distinction critical?

If we switch the ground of rights from ‘what a person is’ (inalienable) to ‘what persons agree to’ (alienable), so called ‘liberty’ becomes conditional upon compliance, which is not liberty at all - even though it is often experienced as consumer freedom. With that switch, authority is relocated from the individual to the system administrator; be it the State, a Corporation, or a Digital Platform. The individual is no longer sovereign; they are merely a service user within a managed environment.

3/
The following statements were predicated upon a rigorous ontological understanding that sought to articulate the ‘constitution of man’ which was fundamental to Constitutional Republican governance:

John Adams on the Law of Nature

"The rights of the colonists as Christians… and as men… may be best understood by reading… the law of nature…"
(John Adams, Novanglus, 1775)

🔥Adams establishes that rights are discovered through the study of natural law rather than being invented through the mechanisms of a civil compact.

James Madison on the Nature of the Right

"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man… This right is in its nature an unalienable right."
(James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785)

🔥Madison argues that unalienability is tied to the very ‘conviction and conscience’ (moral agency) of the individual; internal faculties that the mind cannot, by its very nature, coerce or surrender to a social agreement.

Samuel Adams on Natural Rights

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property…"
(Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772)

🔥By categorizing life, liberty and property as ‘natural’, Adams places them outside the jurisdiction of contractual negotiation or legislative adjustment.

George Mason on Inherent Liberty

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights… namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property…"
(Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776)

🔥Mason asserts that freedom and the acquisition of property are inherent to human nature, existing as operational realities before the formation of any government (and/or corporation!)

The American Founders viewed did not view rights as political preferences. They deeply understood, upheld and defended them as observations of reality rooted in the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’. This is why the article I wrote over 2 years ago for @corTheory had the title ‘The Constitution & Our Constitution; Symbiosis’ - precisely because the architecture of Constitutional Republican governance is ontological (not political and not ideological) in nature, in purpose and in operation.

Read 7 tweets

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

@thepalmerworm

Mar 1

🧵Donald Ewen Cameron - MKUltra

The Engineering Turn in Anthropology

When Donald Ewen Cameron pursued ‘depatterning’ and psychic ‘repatterning’ under programs later associated with CIA MKUltra, he was not merely applying harsh medical techniques. He was operationalizing a specific instrumental behaviourist anthropology.

If the human person is fundamentally a patterned nervous system, then identity becomes contingent configuration. If identity is contingent configuration, then it can be erased and rewritten. If it can be rewritten, then power over mechanism becomes the decisive authority. This is the ontological relocation of the ground of the human person, in the name of ‘Science’™️. The instrumentality is utilized by conditioners/social engineers/pedagogues/media etc and the stakes are civilizational.

The Canadian Mansion Turned into a Mind-Control Experiment: Ravenscrag youtu.be/MZbom14MO5M?si… via @YouTube

2/ The Sovereignty Question

Individual sovereignty - in the classical, Christian and American Declaration-anchored sense - presumes:
A stable essential created human nature
An irreducible rational faculty ordered to intelligible goods
Intrinsic moral limits that do not arise from the state/corporation/supranational entities
Teleological ends that precede method

If the person is instead regarded as a programmable substrate, sovereignty becomes incoherent. What you might still call ‘rights’ become, in practise, ‘temporary permissions’ granted to ‘a modifiable’ system. See the recent Neufeld ‘ruling’ to understand the consequences of this engineered switch from sovereign person to ideological identity attributed to ‘modifiable organisms’. The real world stakes of that - understand the consequences. You have to recognize and acknowledge the foundations which were first removed in order to facilitate this ‘switch’ and recognize the false floor upon which the engineered substitutions were erected and scaffolded. This is NOT politics. It is NOT culture. Those are all downstream symptoms. The causal roots are the ontological understanding of man. Whether or not man as a sovereign human being is upheld and defended within the founding documents and governing instruments of a nation.

3/ The Behaviourist (pattern first) Model
(under which social engineering and ideologies flourish)

Under a pattern-first ontology continuity of self is neurological persistence with moral agency as conditioned response. Conscience is reduced to a brain-state and teleology is replaced by functionality. Under this model, law becomes behavioural optimization with sovereignty negated in function (even if retained in rhetoric) supplanted with ‘manageability’ (frequently utilizing consumer tactics and fear narratives to invoke and shape desired behavioural outcomes).

Read 11 tweets

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

@thepalmerworm

Feb 21

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/2025208990079352887

🧵She’s right and none of this happened overnight.

What happened in the Neufeld/BC Human Rights Tribunal ruling did not begin in that hearing room. By the time a tribunal is weighing ‘harm’ against Charter freedoms, the decisive losses have already occurred upstream. The much earlier core structural mistake that Canadians made was to presume to treat the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as if it were an inalienable-rights instrument, when it is not. In this sense, it was not fit for purpose because The Charter is a positive-law document embedded inside a parliamentary supremacy system. It explicitly allows rights to be limited, balanced and overridden by ‘reasonable limits’, administrative tribunals, statutory human-rights regimes and Section 1 proportionality analysis & Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause). Once that positivist framework was/is accepted, the outcome is not ‘a betrayal’ of the Charter; it is unfortunately the Charter functioning as designed, predicated upon specific foundational premises the public and even the legal and public officials/public servants themselves are no longer trained to recognize, discern and comprehend. The tyranny is much more effective when no one understands the roots it operates from and works in all good faith and ignorance to perpetuate it unwittingly. I’m not a legal expert, I investigate the foundations upon which legal, educational and governance systems are predicated and informed. That which remains largely invisible but which is structurally load bearing and determines everything built and operationalized upon it. I’ll break this down a bit, but really you need legal professionals who damn well understand this and the stakes we all face - urgently.

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/2025208990079352887

2/ What should have been done - and when

Before human-rights tribunals ever gained quasi-judicial supremacy (1970s–1990s) what was required was the following:

Rejecting the delegation of constitutional questions to administrative tribunals. Forbidding tribunals from adjudicating speech, belief, or conscience. Insisting that only superior courts may weigh Charter rights. Preventing ‘human rights’ statutes from being elevated above common law freedoms. Instead, what actually happened was that Canadians accepted tribunals as ‘access to justice’. Speech and belief were reclassified as ‘regulable harms’. Due-process standards were lowered in the name of the ideological insurgency warfare term; ‘equity’. Warfare on domestic population. Bureaucratic bodies gained interpretive supremacy over constitutional meaning. The point of no return was crossed when tribunals were allowed to ‘balance’ Charter rights instead of faithfully applying law.

3/
When Section 1 (‘reasonable limits’) jurisprudence solidified (Oakes test era) what was required at that time was public rejection of proportionality doctrine applied to speech. Insistence that expression is not a policy variable. Refusal to treat ‘harm’ as a subjective or ideological category. But what actually happened was that courts normalized balancing truth against ‘feelings’. This is where academia and education have themselves been operationalized (funded, strategized and deployed) as the asymmetric insurgency warfare tactical arms of Statecraft against domestic population. ‘Equality’ (tactical warfare term) claims were allowed to negate liberty claims. Harm became self-certifying - if someone reports harm, harm ‘exists’. In terms of tactical defence against hostile forces, the critical failure here was that Canadians accepted that rights are ‘negotiable’, not ontological. Once that happens anywhere, tribunals are empowered to decide ‘how much’ freedom remains, not whether it exists. The road to hell is paved with good intentions which operationalize tyranny in the name of ‘care’ and ‘compassion’. Asymmetric warfare capitalizes on this.

Read 8 tweets

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

@thepalmerworm

Feb 16

🧵Creaturehood (not transhumanism & not post humanism)
open.substack.com/pub/thepalmerw…

2/
open.substack.com/pub/thepalmerw…

3/
open.substack.com/pub/thepalmerw…

Read 10 tweets

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

@thepalmerworm

Feb 14

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/2022697994617843773

🧵Integrity of the Human Person - Soul, Mind & Body

To understand classical metaphysical realism is to recognize that a human person is not ‘a body’ plus ‘a mind’ plus ‘some information’. A person is a substance; an embodied, rational creature whose created soul IS the form of the body. Mind is not a separable commodity (not a ‘thing’ that can be extracted, uploaded, leased, tokenized, or assigned its own jurisdiction). Bodily integrity is not a negotiable wrapper around a more ‘real’ subjective inner self; it is the integrity of the same being. Inalienable rights arise from the kind of being you ARE (essential nature - ontological), not from the kind of function you can perform, identity you project, or the kind of system you can interface with. Hylomorphism is a metaphysical ‘NO’ to every program that tries to treat the person as a modular stack. It refuses the split that attempts to rationalize what Jennifer is warning us about in her article extract. I’ll break this down further in the thread below but for a TL;DR gist, here’s a very short video intro to hylomorphism and its negation in academia and education.

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/2022697994617843773

2/ The corruption - replacing ontology with biology

When ontology is replaced by ‘biology’, the human being is no longer approached as a unified substance with intrinsic powers ordered to real ends, but as a managed organism:

The body becomes a system (inputs/outputs, optimization, risk management).

‘Nature’ is no longer essential, but instrumentalized - confined to description without normativity (what is measurable is what is real; what is real is what is manipulable).

The human is redefined as a living platform rather than a moral agent with intrinsic intelligible ends; man, woman ….etc.

Once that happens, rights stop being recognitions of what a person is and start becoming regulatory instruments for managing a population of systems. Rights as a TOOL OF governance, not a BOUNDARY AGAINST governance.
open.substack.com/pub/jbilek/p/g…

3/ Bait & Switch - metaphysics replaced by method

The decisive hinge operationalized in academia and education. ‘Method’ promises™️ neutrality (🐍🙄 of course it does - the first big lie) procedures, metrics, compliance frameworks, ‘evidence-based’ policies, stakeholder processes, therapeutic protocols, behavioural nudges, risk models.

But method can’t tell you what a person IS. So it quietly seeds and reinforces in a substitute anthropology:
The human becomes whatever the method can operationalize.
The good becomes whatever the system can measure.
The true becomes whatever the process can stabilize.

That’s how a civilization moves from ‘rights are inalienable’ to ‘rights are permissions granted to controllable categories’ and look at those categories in the excerpt from Jennifer’s article. This sleight of hand does not deny inalienable rights explicitly - it simply makes ontological realism unnecessary to ‘administer’ the systems of the world that you buy into and feel you can’t opt out of without tremendous sacrifice. And lets face it - despite a secondary and tertiary education, who really understands what ontological realism is, enough that it informs their capacity not only to say “this is bullshit - now fuck off” - but also to present the exact precise procedural and legal reasoning in specific relation to the upholding and defence of inalienable rights as established in the Founding Documents? Those documents don’t defend and uphold themselves - that’s your job as formed responsible individuals with the knowledge, comprehension and articulation to do that. And of course, the spine to stand your ground no matter what’s thrown at you.
open.substack.com/pub/jbilek/p/g…

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @thepalmerworm

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher.

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!