Post

More from @thepalmerworm

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Feb 5

🧵This is the key distinction; Elves create in harmony with what is, while Sauron re-forms creation into what he desires.

Tolkien did not reject technology outright. He made a crucial distinction between technology that aligns with Natural Law (what he called Art or sub-creation) and technology that seeks to dominate and enslave.

He expressed this distinction through the contrast between the Elves and Sauron:

Elven “magic” (Art) is technology in harmony with nature and human flourishing.

Sauron’s “magic” is technology as a tool of domination, manipulation, and enslavement.

This is the essential framework for understanding the difference between good and evil technology in Tolkien’s world and in our own.

2/

Tolkien explicitly noted this problem:

“I have not used ‘magic‘ consistently and indeed the Elven-queen Galadriel is obliged to remonstrate with the Hobbits on their confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy and for those of the Elves. But the Elves are there (in my tales) to demonstrate the difference.”

This means that most human civilizations have failed to recognize the fundamental difference between these two uses of technology.

The Elves are Tolkien’s way of restoring this lost knowledge.

3/ Tolkien describes Elven “magic” as an expression of Art; sub-creation in alignment with Natural Law.

True Sub-Creation: Reflecting the Divine Image:

Tolkien’s philosophy of sub-creation is that man, as a creature made in the image of God, has a legitimate secondary creativity.

This is the essence of good technology; it assists, beautifies, and enriches, but does not enslave or replace.

Read 8 tweets

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Feb 2

🧵Tolkien’s Rejection of Bletchley Park:
A Prophetic Stand Against the Mechanization of the Human Soul and the War for Popular Sovereignty Under Natural Law

Tolkien’s brief involvement in training as a codebreaker at Bletchley Park during World War II is a little known yet profoundly revealing moment in his life. He left the training, finding it a waste of his time; but more importantly, he found it deeply troubling. His refusal to participate in what was, at the time, considered one of the most prestigious intellectual war efforts was not a rejection of patriotism or intelligence work, but a rejection of THE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS of mechanization, algorithmic control, and the use of technology to dominate human will.

2/
Tolkien understood that the greatest war was not simply one of military power, nor even political control, but a war of ideas; a war for the human soul. His departure from Bletchley was not a retreat from battle, but a strategic decision to fight on the front where the true war was being waged; the battle of METAPHYSICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL and MORAL REALITY.

3/

His opposition to the mechanization of man and the rise of algorithmic control was not merely a reaction to the events of World War II but a far deeper, prophetic recognition of the long war against human dignity; one that stretches from Descartes’ dualism, through Constructivist relativism, and now into the ‘post-liberal™️’ age of digital authoritarianism.

Read 16 tweets

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Jan 31

🧵Who Funded and Promoted the Rosicrucian Order?

The Rosicrucian movement emerged in the early 17th century as an esoteric secret society claiming to possess hidden knowledge that would guide the evolution of society.

Financial & Aristocratic Patrons:
The Rosicrucians were primarily funded and promoted by European aristocrats who sought to replace traditional Natural Law governance with esoteric elite rule. To undermine philosophical realism and objective morality and to shape governance structures around hidden, mystical principles controlled by initiated elites.

Key Financial Backers:

The House of Orange-Nassau (Netherlands):
Supported esoteric and occult movements to counter the power of the Catholic Church and played a role in shaping early banking and financial capitalism, which later tied into governance models.

The Habsburg Dynasty:
Funded alchemy and Rosicrucian research as part of a broader attempt to fuse science, mysticism, and statecraft.

The Elector Palatine, Frederick V of Bohemia (1596–1632):
A major Rosicrucian patron, he sought to reshape governance using esoteric principles, directly linking Rosicrucianism to political philosophy.

Early Financial Networks:
Rosicrucian thought was spread through Masonic and alchemical circles, which were linked to merchant banking elites in Venice, Amsterdam, and London.

These banking elites; especially those involved in the rise of private finance in England, were instrumental in shaping the economic conditions that later influenced Locke’s economic and political theories.

2/ How Rosicrucian Ideas Were Inserted into
Early Political Thought

The Role of Esoteric Societies in Hobbes, Locke,
and Rousseau’s Theories

Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651); directly interacted with Rosicrucian-aligned intellectuals in France, absorbing the idea of an artificial, elite-guided societal order. His Leviathan reflected Rosicrucian principles of a hierarchical, all-encompassing governing system controlled by hidden knowledge.

Locke (Two Treatises of Government, 1689); was deeply connected to Whig banking interests, which were influenced by Rosicrucian and Masonic thought in London. His theories redefined Natural Rights in nominalist terms, opening the door for later evolutionary relativism.

Rousseau (The Social Contract, 1762); heavily influenced by mystical currents in Enlightenment thought, many of which had Rosicrucian and Theosophical connections.

3/ How the Rosicrucian Order Infiltrated Political Philosophy

The early 17th century Rosicrucian manifestos (Fama Fraternitatis and Confessio Fraternitatis) claimed that:

Society must be restructured based on hidden esoteric wisdom.

Governance should be designed around an elite-knowing class, who guide the masses without their full awareness.

These ideas heavily influenced the framing of political legitimacy in the early modern period, gradually SHIFTING LAW FROM MORAL REALISM TO ENGINEERED SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS.

Read 10 tweets

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Jan 30

🧵The Conflict Between Evolutionary Psychology,
Behavioural Economics, and Natural Law:

Why are they incompatible?

Natural Law is founded on the premise that:

Human beings are rational, moral agents endowed with free will.

Rights are inherent and derived from human nature, not contingent on government or social consensus.

Objective moral truth exists and can be known through reason.

Governance must be based on voluntary consent, with legitimacy originating from the people, not imposed elite control.

This is popular sovereignty and self governance under American Constitutional Republican Governance 🇺🇸🫡

2/ Evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics,
in contrast, posit that:

Human behavior is largely determined by biological instincts and cognitive biases, undermining free will.

Moral norms are adaptive, not objective; they exist as evolutionary strategies for group survival rather than absolute truths.

People are irrational decision makers who must be “nudged” or guided by external forces (governments, corporations, technocrats) toward “better” choices.

Governance should be structured around behavioral control, ensuring people make “correct” choices through incentives, deterrents, and psychological conditioning.

3/ Fundamental Clash:

Natural Law affirms moral realism, free will, and self governance.

Evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics justify elite control based on human irrationality.

Under Natural Law (American Constitutional Republican Governance), evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics cannot be legitimate foundations for governance.

Read 9 tweets

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Jan 30

🧵The Technocratic Subversion of Decentralization:
How the Networked State Destroys Popular Sovereignty

The False Promise of Decentralization

Decentralization is the rhetorical🐍 selling point of emerging digital governance models, including the Networked State concept, smart cities, and blockchain-based governance experiments. The public is being led🍏to believe that:

🐍Governance is shifting away from centralized bureaucracies toward community-driven, decentralized systems.

🐍Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), Web3, and tokenized economies will empower individuals with greater self-determination.

🐍AI and behavioral science-driven governance will be “neutral” and more efficient than traditional government structures.

However, in reality🚩these decentralized models are embedding the very same behavioral control mechanisms☠️ found in centralized authoritarian states, except now they are automated😵‍💫, opaque, and nearly impossible to🍏resist.

2/
This transition to “decentralized” control achieves the following:

It DISSOLVES TRADITIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE and replaces it with private AI driven rule outside the reach of national legal frameworks.

It operationalizes mass behavioral modification using evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics to ENGINEER COMPLIANCE AT SCALE (but through digital) rather than physical, enforcement.

It eliminates political accountability by SHIFTING GOVERNANCE FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS to algorithmic control structures that CANNOT BE CHALLENGED OR OVERTURNED.

It grants an even smaller technocratic elite greater power than ever before; WHILE MAKING PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY ARE FREER.

3/ How Evolutionary Psychology & Behavioral Economics
Are Embedded in the Networked State

AI & Predictive Behavioral Modeling as Governance;
How do they work?

🐍Evolutionary psychology assumes humans are irrational decision-makers, prone to biases and cognitive flaws.

🍏Behavioural economics treats governance as a system of behavioral nudges rather than law-based consent.

In decentralized governance models, AI powered behavioral analytics replace legislative decision making; monitoring individuals in real time and influencing their actions.

Read 19 tweets

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Jan 28

🧵Evolving Perennialism & Rejection of Individual Autonomy

I’ve been wanting to get to this document & post findings for some time. It’s long & while this thread is not a breakdown of the document in detail yet, it is an introduction to the implications of the content in broad terms. I read this document last year & immediately flagged grave concerns with several people who understand what’s being presented & the consequences for American Constitutional Republican governance, for popular & national sovereignty. @CourtenayTurner has several podcasts detailing aspects of this document. For now, here is a general broad overview. If there is interest, a detailed deeper dive within chapters can follow.

2/ Evolving Perennialism & Rejection of Individual Autonomy

The Primacy of Collective Evolution:

Evolving Perennialism views human development as an ongoing, collective process guided by spiritual wisdom and cosmic laws. This perspective implicitly downplays the autonomy of the individual in favor of a collective, evolutionary project.

In a democratic Constitutional Republic like the United States, which rests on the principle of individual rights and self-governance, this worldview challenges the notion that individuals should have control over their personal and political destinies.

It suggests instead that governance should be oriented towards the larger, collective (Theosophical) “evolutionary” process, diminishing the focus on individual liberty that the American system is founded upon.

3/ The Cosmic Over the Personal:

Evolving Perennialism implies that individuals are not individual agents but are part of a greater cosmic order. This would delegitimize individual sovereignty, which is central to American governance, by proposing that individuals should align their will and political actions with the greater, often undefined, needs of the evolving collective.

This leads to the erosion of the concept of popular sovereignty, as governance becomes less about responding to the will of the people and more about aligning society with what is perceived as an ongoing cosmic or evolutionary direction.

Read 12 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @thepalmerworm

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

the palmer worm 🌲mother, wife,choral conductor.

Did Thread Reader help you today?

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

Send Email!