Post

More from @thepalmerworm

the palmer worm - mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Nov 30

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/1994417770998468682

🧵Removing “……and the Son”

The consequence of NOT saying “…and the Son” obviously has theologically implications and consequences, but what I don’t see recognized (as yet) are the geopolitical, ontological and metaphysical ones. How this translates through to the civic level of operation. I’m no theologian and am not attempting a theological discussion per se here, but rather, looking at the downstream consequences in operation. Forgive me if I make specific theological mistakes due to my own ignorance or misunderstanding, I’m trying to get to the specifics of the consequences in civic application for both believers AND non believers. Please bear with me in this thread, as I try to work through this and of course, for the theology, please seek clarification from the theologians themselves. My focus is as ever, downstream civic consequences in practise.

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/1994417770998468682

2/
In the Nicene Creed as recited in the East, the Holy Spirit proceeds:

“…from the Father.”

In the West (since the 6th–11th centuries), the Creed includes:

“…from the Father and the Son.”

This is the Filioque clause. The Filioque is not a linguistic dispute; it is an ontological one.
It concerns the inner life of God Himself; the procession of Persons within the Trinity.

3/
Removing “and the Son” does three things in this context:

It symbolically yields the Western (Latin) tradition to the Eastern one. In this setting - on the site of Nicea - the optics are of Rome capitulating to Constantinople’s original form.

It erases 1,000+ years of doctrinal development that differentiated East and West. The Filioque was the clearest theological marker of the Western metaphysical grammar.

It signals a move toward a “lowest common denominator” creed - acceptable to all branches of Christianity - thus softening the particularities of each tradition. Not saying “and the Son” is an act of theological flattening.

Read 10 tweets

the palmer worm - mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Nov 14

🧵Shared civic metaphysics is not tyranny; it’s prevention of it

When people say, “requiring shared metaphysics in civic life is tyranny - you can’t dictate what I must believe,” they are confusing two entirely different things; private belief and public ontology. Their objection only sounds plausible because modern culture has erased the distinction. A constitutional republic does not require citizens to hold the same theology, join the same church, or pray the same prayers. The Founders rejected that explicitly. But every constitutional republic - every single one in human history - rests on some set of presumptions about what a human being is, what reason is for, how responsibility works and what counts as a real moral claim. These are not theological claims.
They are civic metaphysics and without them, self-government is impossible.

2/
A political community cannot function if some of its members believe human beings are moral agents capable of choosing in light of truth, while others believe people are organisms determined by social inputs, or self-creating wills unconstrained by nature, or mere data vessels optimized by systems. These are not private disagreements. They are incompatible definitions of the subject of law, the bearer of rights and the agent of responsibility. The Founders took it for granted that citizens shared a minimal ontology; that humans are rational creatures, that truth is real enough for public reasoning, that moral obligations exist independently of desire and that rights flow from that reality. These presumptions were not optional; they were prerequisites for deliberation itself. Without them, law becomes arbitrary, courts become managerial and elections become clashes of mutually unintelligible worldviews.

3/
To deny this and claim that any shared metaphysical ground is imposing tyranny’ is to demand the impossible; a republic in which people do not even agree on what a person is. That is not liberty at all - it is civic anarchy consequently followed by administrative domination, because the vacuum must eventually be filled by someone’s anthropology - usually the one with institutional/corporate power! This is why the post Enlightenment ‘modern’ appeal to ‘metaphysical neutrality’ is the real tyranny. It allows the State, corporations, the Foundations, the credentialing system, or elite institutions to impose an implicit metaphysics - a constructivist one - while pretending that no such metaphysics exists! Under the banner of tolerance, it inserts and imposes a worldview in which human nature is malleable, moral agency is diminished and rights no longer constrain power. The public is told that ‘nothing is being imposed’, while everything is being redefined!

Read 5 tweets

the palmer worm - mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Nov 9

🧵Being versus Becoming;
The Metaphysical Fault Line - Civic Consequences

Being means reality is stable enough to be known. Becoming (Heraclitean flux) means reality is always changing and never quite is anything.

If reality is stable, you can:
💡identify facts
💡establish guilt or innocence
💡keep contracts
💡hold leaders accountable
💡educate citizens in discernment

If reality is flux, you can:
🐍redefine facts on the fly
🐍claim contradictions as ‘higher truth’
🐍shift moral blame endlessly
🐍rewrite yesterday’s commitments
🐍destabilize citizens until they defer to power

This is why Aristotle refuted Heraclitus and this is why Hegel, Marx, Lenin had to resurrect Heraclitus. A Republic requires Being. Revolutionary dialectics require Becoming. The rest of this thread will detail civic consequences. Please read Stephen’s slides in full👇in addition to further essential analytical content from @AnalyzeEvidence

2/ Why Marxism Needs Flux

UA (Unconstrained Analytics) analysis shows Lenin doing the one thing most people never notice.
Lenin openly attacks Aristotle’s Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and the Excluded Middle. Why?
Because Marxism cannot function if reality is stable:

If ‘A is A’, then private property is real.
If ‘A is not -A’, then moral responsibility is real.
If ‘Either A or not -A’, then truth is not a political weapon.

So Lenin (following Hegel) declares that a thing is what it is AND is ALSO its opposite and BECOMES something NEW through CONFLICT. Once you accept that CONTRADICTION is ‘how truth works’ you are no longer reasoning - you are yielding to hermetic principles and alchemical processes of operational transformation. Your buy in to this IS the power that provides its agency to control YOU. The abuse of power operationalized through the abuse of language. This is why UA states Marxism is a word game - a weaponized one.

3/ How We Have Been Conditioned for 200+ Years
to Accept Flux

This is the part so many people miss - you do not need to *identify as* a Marxist to be operating on Heraclitus-Hegelian assumptions. The West - through its universities, art, literature, psychology and ‘evolving anthropology’ (philosophy *as* Statecraft) has spent centuries teaching:
Truth evolves
Identity evolves
Morality evolves
Human nature evolves
Society evolves
Meaning evolves

This conditioning trains citizens to accept contradictions and to treat instability as normal. To depend on experts to interpret the flux and for citizens to give up their own judgment. The removal of Aristotelian Grammar and Logic from foundational curricular (and even its retention only in ‘conceptual’/theoretical form divorced from civic practical application) deracinated generations of people. This is precisely how a population loses discernment and once discernment is gone, a Republic cannot be defended.

Read 8 tweets

the palmer worm - mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Oct 26

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/1981977859746111852

🧵 Quantum Consciousness Is the New Civic Programming

What’s being circulated under the guise of “quantum revelation” isn’t science. It’s a sophist inversion of metaphysical order; using physics language to reprogram how people think about reality, law and selfhood. Phrases like “the field is conscious,” “time breathes,” “the observer creates the universe” aren’t physics. They’re monistic metaphysics disguised as empiricism; a re-enchanted materialism claiming consciousness and matter are one continuous substance (hi Spinoza!!) and if I had a penny for every spamming of my content on here and substack with sophistry like this, I’d be rich. So many are duped by it - seduced by it and the grooming of public conscience to warmly, aspirationally embrace this sophistry and been decades in the making. So why do people bite on the bait?

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/1981977859746111852

2/
This language weaponizes scientific vocabulary to convey an ancient Hermetic axiom; as above, so below - all is mind.
That’s the same gnostic substrate behind today’s ‘conscious AI’, ‘digital soul’ and ‘universal awareness’ rhetoric. What ‘socialist/communist’ rhetoric was doing last century, ‘quantum’ rhetoric now takes into the digital AI age.

3/
For anyone wanting to remain grounded in reality - here’s a reminder that Aristotelian-Thomistic-Reidian realism understands that the knower and the known are distinct.
That reality exists independently of perception and that causality is participation in being, not mental feedback.
The ‘observer effect’ doesn’t mean mind creates matter; it relates to instrumentality and measurement. Realist metaphysics go from being to knowing, to naming then meaning. The ‘quantum consciousness’ myth reverses it to meaning first, then knowing following by being - erasing self-evident truth and turning reality into a programmable social construction. Soft totalitarian’s ultimate tool for the digital age. And you’ll like it - desire it and opt in willingly without fully understanding the civic and personal costs of doing so.

Read 6 tweets

the palmer worm - mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Oct 24

https://twitter.com/thepalmerworm/status/1981000407246660003

🧵
Why is it that Professor Daniel N. Robinson could teach these truths at the highest levels of academia and yet see no civic restoration come from them in his own lifetime?

This thread will unpack that:

https://twitter.com/thepalmerworm/status/1981000407246660003

2/
He spoke into institutions that had already lost metaphysical literacy. By Robinson’s time the disciplines that should have acted on his analysis (law, philosophy, education) had already redefined knowledge as professional expertise, not as the pursuit of truth. So when he proved that the Founding was realist, colleagues treated it as an ‘interesting interpretation’, not as an ontological diagnosis demanding reform. They literally lacked the grammar to grasp that a false metaphysics makes a constitution unworkable.

3/ He appealed to reason within a positivist system:

Robinson remained a scholar; the universities he addressed had become bureaucracies. In those settings, truth claims have no procedural pathway to policy change. Committees respond only to accreditation standards, funding incentives, or litigation threats, never to philosophical argument. So a realist like Robinson could clarify reality, but not compel action. His voice was placed in the ‘archive’, not in the operating manual.

Read 9 tweets

the palmer worm - mother, wife,choral conductor.

@thepalmerworm

Oct 22

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/1981018105963811283

🧵
What an interesting and creative post. It’s the kind of messaging I would emotionally resonate with, but that would be to ignore its deeper functional implications, so with a glass of cold water on hand, let’s have a look at the rhetorical layer first.

Jordan (Green)Hall positions himself here as diagnosing a ‘failure’ of the Western Church; not necessarily in doctrine or metaphysics, but in institutional efficacy. He claims that by the 20th century, “there really was no Church in the West,” implying that moral and civic authority had migrated to the ‘State and Market’. Did you incline into that, nodding along? I did - it resonates strongly with me in an idealistic romantic emotional sense (which I can’t deny - even though I probably sound clinical and cold on this platform - I do ‘feel’ things like this very strongly, which is why someone like me, very much needs the tools of discerning veilcraft - because if it were left up to my feelings/emotions, I’m very easy prey). Note how superficially persuasive Jordan’s rhetoric is to traditionalists. It sounds like a lament for Christendom’s decline. But the operative frame is systems-theoretic, not metaphysical. He treats ‘Church’ as a social operating system rather than a sacramental or ontological institution. That framing immediately signals that his critique is not metaphysically realist (it may well be Machievelli ‘realist’!) or theological. Can you see what it is yet…..? It’s cybernetic. The Church measured by its functional control capacity over populations, not by fidelity to truth or the Logos.

https://x.com/thepalmerworm/status/1981018105963811283

2/ Now The Dialectical Core

Were you intrigued by the repeated comms calling for ‘Knighthood’? Do you know what that means in a systems theory cybernetic context? Once you get over your own heady Romantic projections and literary associations, the ‘Knighthood’ proposal is not a call for renewed Christian virtue in any traditional sense. Interestingly in Jordan (Green)Hall’s idiom (drawn from his Dialogos and Trust Foundation discourse), ‘Knighthood’ represents a new elite order of disciplined initiates, trained in Game B principles of adaptive intelligence, moral sovereignty and meta-crisis coordination. A secular version of ecclesial hierarchy; a civic-mystical order tasked with ‘protecting that which should be protected’, but operating outside any theological authority. It’s the same structural impulse as the Platonic Guardians, Templar orders, or WEF Young Global Leaders, but wrapped in the language of virtue and moral restoration. It’s very attractive rhetoric isn’t it. In short, he’s proposing a technocratic monastic order for the post-Christian West - yeah….that’s not attractive.

3/ Context

Jordan (Green)Hall’s Trust Foundation (look it up & note its personnel) work reinterprets ‘trust’ as a ‘systemic capacity’ - a measurable property of networked governance. In that system the words used have meanings you may not assume by default;

Knighthood - ethical operator class
Faith - alignment protocol
Church - trust infrastructure
Sin - coordination failure
Virtue - effective system coherence

A ‘Knighthood’ can through this veilcraft, function in operation as a para-religious civic order; a cadre of initiates trained to manage ‘trust flows’, mediate ‘social conflict’, and maintain ‘systemic stability’ through moral-seeming language (rhetoric).

Amazing how similar that looks to the WEF’s Global Shapers, UNESCO’s ‘New Humanism’ educators and military-civic synthesis think tanks like RAND’s ‘Ethical AI’ units👀. But with ‘Knighthood’, the mythos is quasi-Christian to appeal to disillusioned Western conservatives and post-liberals.

Read 6 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!