🧵The Collapse of the Axial Room
A Forensic Fable on Metaphysical Humility

The Chamber

There was a chamber called the Axial Room. It was sealed from above, below and beyond. Within it, every variable was controlled; temperature, light, speech, movement. All that could be measured was believed to exist; all that could not be measured was declared irrelevant, if not dangerous. At the center of this room stood a man called The Constructor. He was not a tyrant by his own reckoning. He considered himself a liberator; one who had cast off all superstition, all metaphysical impositions, all gods. He said;

“We do not believe. We create. What is not constructed by us has no authority.”

The room was bright. Not because of sunlight (there were no windows) but because of the overhead brilliance of engineered clarity. Mirrors lined the walls. Data screens gave constant feedback. All knowledge was to be generated within. Meaning was declared and Law was programmed. Morality was coded into behavioural systems. Truth was what remained after consensus was “managed”. 2/ The Creed of Control

The Constructor’s creed was simple;
“There is no above. Nothing higher than reason.”
“There is no below. Nothing more basic than perception.”
“There is only progress; spiralling upward and forward.”

Everything else was a residue of what was termed ‘religious pathology’. The Constructor mocked those who spoke of metaphysical grounding, moral objectivity, or divine order. To him, those were projection mechanisms; coping systems for inferior minds. The future belonged to constructivists; those who understood that meaning must be engineered, not received. He had no need for metaphysical humility, because he believed there was nothing outside the system that could demand it. Humility, in his eyes, was submission to illusions and illusions were obstacles to be removed.

🧵Constitutional Liberty ≠ Liberty to Destroy the Constitution

Key Principle from Natural Law & the Founders:

Liberty is not license. Freedom of religion does not include the “freedom” to destroy liberty itself. The First Amendment protects religious exercise within the bounds of moral and civil order. It does not protect practices or ideologies that subvert Natural Law, deny the moral structure of reality, or seek to replace the source of legitimate authority (the People under God) with the State, Market, or Mind. 2/ Natural Law as the Boundary

James Wilson (Founding Father and moral realist) taught:

“Law must rest upon the eternal foundation of justice.”
(Lectures on Law)

Religious liberty is bounded by Natural Law. If a religion denies truth (e.g. relativism, hermetic ‘polarity’…) erases the image of God in man (e.g. materialism, pantheism), or promotes spiritual hierarchy that violates equality (e.g. theosophical Christ-consciousness), or calls for legal supremacy of a church, race, or caste - then - it is not protected as true religious liberty, but becomes a political weapon cloaked as religion.

Natural Law Test:

Ask of any religion or system:
Does it affirm or destroy moral conscience?
Does it uphold the equal moral agency of the People?
Does it protect objective truth and justice?
Does it affirm the natural rights of others?

If the answer is no, it’s not religious liberty - it’s civilizational sabotage.

🧵OBJECTIVE VALUES ≠ ONTOLOGICAL REALISM

People assume “Objective Values” means that values are grounded in something outside the individual’s opinion; therefore they assume it must mean eternal truths, natural law, or God-given rights. But here’s what it actually means in systems like Perry’s “New Realism” (or Rand’s Objectivism):

“Objective” means values can be described, classified, or derived from rational observation of effects. What’s “real” is what works within a system. “Objectivity” is measured by coherence, utility, or consensus within a human-defined structure. This is epistemological realism only; rights, dignity, or value are granted conditionally, based on performance, function, or consent.
open.substack.com/pub/escapekey/… 2/ What’s Missing?

💡Ontology

That is; the recognition that man has a nature, a fixed essence and a teleological orientation that cannot be revoked, redesigned, or replaced. Without ontological realism there is no foundation for “inalienable rights”, no basis for conscience, no justification for limits on state or expert power and no “self-evident” truths - only engineered consensus.

Objectivism Does the Same, claiming that “reason” reveals objective truth, but reason is disconnected from ontological being. Objectivist ethics are rationalist-derivative and conditioned by performance, not grounded in the inviolable nature of the person. As with Perry, this leads to morality as behavioural output, rights as conditional recognitions and sovereignty as system-conformance.

🧵
The Abolition of Man (C.S. Lewis) offers several passages that directly illuminate the futility of demanding moral integrity, civic virtue, or fidelity to truth from public institutions that have been systemically stripped of the metaphysical foundation necessary to sustain such traits. Here are key excerpts and how they relate to our civic incapacity to defend itself against subversion and infrastructure coup d’état: 2/
“We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.”

“We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
(The Abolition of Man, Chapter 1)

This is Lewis’s most direct statement of the systemic contradiction. Institutions have been philosophically neutered; through the abandonment of objective moral order (Natural Law, Logos, telos). Yet we expect integrity, loyalty, courage and reason from these very same bureaucracies and public servants. This is precisely the condition of our civic, educational and legal institutions; their very☠️formation denies the reality of the virtues they claim to uphold.

1/ The Law of Noncontradiction (LNC) states:

“A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.”

But the Hermetic Principle of Polarity denies the fixity of identity, asserting that “A and not-A” can be two ends of a single scale. It collapses distinction into continuity, claiming all opposites are one in essence and redefines contradiction as apparent, not real. This is a direct metaphysical inversion of the LNC. It dissolves ontological clarity into psychological relativism and prepares the ground for:

Dialectical synthesis (Hegel, Marx, Lenin)
Postmodern ambiguity (Derrida, Foucault)
Behavioural manipulation (e.g., NLP, “grey logic”)
Technocratic fusion of opposites (order/chaos, liberty/control)

Downstream Operational Effects:

Once the Principle of Polarity replaces LNC truth becomes mutable; nothing is absolutely true or false - just perspective.
Moral categories collapse; good and evil become two “poles” of the same energy. Discernment breaks down; everything is “both-and,” never “either-or.” Manipulators thrive; sophists, dialecticians and technocrats can redefine reality situationally. 2/
The Hermetic Principle of Polarity is the esoteric root of the subversion of the Law of Noncontradiction. It redefines contradiction as illusion and replaces being with process. From this root, entire philosophical, political and educational systems have been built to confuse, invert and ultimately control.

/end

🧵It’s taken me about 3 yrs of working steadily to unpack this metaphysically dense, rich statement. Hopefully it won’t take others as long. In this thread I’ll break it down a little:

https://twitter.com/bh0806/status/1541209470726021125

2/ “The gnostic premise of the death of God…”

What it means:
This refers not simply to Nietzsche’s declaration (“God is dead”) but to the gnostic metaphysical operation beneath it. Gnosticism posits that the material world is a prison (to be transcended) and the God of creation (as in Genesis) is either false or lower than a secret “true” god behind or beyond being. This premise is not atheism in the modern sense, it’s metaphysical revolt; Promethean/Luciferian - ‘Melkor’ in intent and operation.

Why it matters:
To say “God is dead” in this context means that the source of order, truth, teleology and being itself is no longer recognized as real. It’s a metaphysical strike, not just theological.

💡 Gnostic Death of God = Displacement of Logos
(the ordering principle of reality, reason and truth)

This is not simply a rejection of ‘Religion’, or one Faith or another, of Ideology or Identity. This is the rejection of the very means by how we know anything about ourselves, our world and our relationship to all else. Our very ability to articulate and embody shared reality with another human being and even to acknowledge reality individually ourselves.

This isn’t a nostalgic hankering for subjective idealistic meaning - this is the fundamental rejection of knowledge and the means of accessing and articulating that knowledge.

🧵
The term “Natural Law” has been hijacked and repurposed by esoteric, occult, and Hermetic traditions in ways that profoundly distort its classical meaning. Many well-meaning people today are confused because they hear the same words (“Natural Law”) but they are being used to mean entirely opposite things, with opposite consequences for truth, morality, liberty and personhood. Thank you to @ChartingLiberty for prompting this thread, sorry it’s a bit late!

Let’s perform a scalpel-precise forensic distinction between:

🏛️ Classical Natural Law (Aristotle → Aquinas)

vs.
🌀 Hermetic “Natural Law” (Gnostic / Occult / Esoteric) 2/ 🏛️Classical Natural Law ~ Rooted in Logos🔥

Source; Aristotle, developed and completed by Aquinas within realist metaphysics and Christian theology. Grounded in Logos; intelligible, moral order of the universe, reflecting eternal law in created things.

Key Principles:
Reality is real and knowable
Man has a nature (rational, moral, social)
That nature is ordered to an end (telos): truth, virtue, beatitude
Natural law = participation in eternal law via reason (Summa Theologica I-II, Q.91–94)
Morality = conformity to what is
Rights and duties = rooted in being, not will or assertion
Law is objective, discoverable by reason, and binding in conscience

Moral Order:
Objective good and evil
Conscience judges reality, not just emotion
Human law must conform to natural law (Aristotle/Aquinas)
Personal liberty = freedom to pursue the good

Implications:
You don’t invent morality; you recognize and conform to it
Self-governance = moral formation to align will with truth
All human persons share equal dignity because of shared endowed rational nature.

🧵Sleight of hand; ‘Justified Belief’ - Epistemology™️ Veilcraft
“Wissenschftslehre” (Fichte) ➡️ “Epistemology” (Ferrier)🐍
blogodidact.blogspot.com/2023/10/episte… I first shared this superb article by @Van_Blogodidact over a year ago. Between then and now, working on the material for my book has deepened my understanding of how seismic this alchemical manoeuvre; the conjuring🪄of the term ‘Epistemology’ - and crucially, its institutionalization across domains and fields as default - was and continues to be, in its power to disable our cognitive defence against ideological subversion and possession. I’m still in the weeds of unpacking this deep magic (curse), the process by which it operates and how it undoes our orientation and navigation, dislocating our awareness and discernment from what is recognized, real and true; substituting instead what is imagined and constructed. I’ll unpack some of this in the thread below. Before continuing with that, I heartily recommend reading Van’s essay in full - several times - saving it and coming back to it repeatedly. You might want to ask why your own education has not taught you about this and what that omission serves. 2/ James Ferrier’s invention of the term “epistemology” in the 1850s marked a critical alchemical maneuver that operationalized Hermetic-Neoplatonic subversion within the heart of academic philosophy, in the Anglo-American tradition. This was not merely a lexical innovation, but a metaphysical severance with strategic implications:

What Ferrier Operationalized ~ The Alchemical Severance

Ferrier’s coinage of epistemology (“the science of knowing”) was not a neutral academic contribution. It was his Kantian-Reidian synthesis that used Reid’s surface realism to smuggle Kantian mediation and subjective idealism into Anglo-American discourse. Instead of recovering Reid’s ontological realism, Ferrier abstracted knowledge into a standalone discipline, divorced from metaphysical being (reality independent of the mind). Following Descartes & Fichte, Ferrier cast knowledge as a self-referential science, not a participation in Logos or divine order. He used the term “epistemology” to grant this abstraction institutional legitimacy. This shift was the gateway by which Hermetic principles (gnostic, emanationist, mind-over-matter, self-deifying) entered mainstream philosophy and science, masked as academic rigor.

David’s question is such a good one and so important that it really deserves a thread response:

🧵Locke’s Inadequacy; Severing Rights from Ontology

Locke is often celebrated for asserting that man has rights to “life, liberty and property.” But unlike Aristotle or Aquinas (or Founders Wilson, Witherspoon and others), Locke did not ground these rights in man’s nature as a rational teleological being. Instead, he treated rights as extensions of will and self-ownership. Locke emphasized contract and consent as the source of political legitimacy. He avoided invoking a universal moral order rooted in the Logos or Natural Law in any realist sense. CS Lewis wrote prolifically about the implications and consequences of this ‘avoidance’/ rejection/denial.

This makes Locke’s system nominalist at its root. It sees rights not as participation in eternal truth, but as designations based on agreements and language. It reduces moral claims to assertions of entitlement tied to personhood-as-will. So even “negative rights” (like the right to be left alone) are grounded in possessive individualism (constructs subject to flux), not in a coherent endowed metaphysical anthropology of man. 2/ The Risk of “Negative Rights”
Without Metaphysical Substance

Without rooting rights in what man is, “negative rights” are only as secure as the contract or social agreement upholding them. They can be reinterpreted by new legal authorities (as has happened). They have no necessary link to truth or goodness (pertaining to man’s ontology & teleology) only to morally relative pragmatic and utilitarian preference or assertion in relation to systems (and their ‘evolution’).

This is why you now see “negative rights” weaponized to protect things like:
The “right” to abortion
The “right” to euthanasia
The “right” to gender self-definition

None of these are grounded in human nature or purpose. They are grounded in subjective autonomy, just as Locke permitted.

🧵“Government doesn’t grant rights. Rights preexist.
Government gets its powers from the people.”

Yes that’s correct - but what kind of being can possess rights prior to government? If we don’t answer this ontologically, the claim sounds like rhetoric, not reality and this is precisely how generations have given their agency away, by accepting and embracing constructivism, subjectivism, idealism and the many ‘Theories of Men’ which ontologically and teleologically deny the understanding of being from which pre existent rights arise.

Let’s remind ourselves of the hidden philosophical infrastructure that most modern people don’t have; because it’s been systematically removed from their formation over generations of intellectual subversion in academia and education: 2/ Rights Are Only Inalienable If They Are Ontological

That is; rights must be grounded in what man is by nature, not in what society, law, or consensus decides he is.

This requires upholding that human nature is real, not socially constructed and that this nature is ordered toward a purpose (telos) e.g., truth, moral agency and accountability. It requires the comprehension that the moral law is written into that nature, not imposed from outside.

If these metaphysical commitments are denied (as they are in all nominalist derived theory/philosophy, all Theory of Ideas philosophical genealogy; Cartesian, Kantian, Utilitarian, Behaviourist, Pragmatist, Progressive, Positivist, Postmodern (and Post Liberal‼️) then Rights are just desirable permissions, not moral truths that government is bound to respect.

🧵 “If you cite Magna Carta to justify the Declaration, you’ve already lost the argument about where rights come from.”
(Professor Daniel N Robinson)

Professor Robinson’s point is both philosophical and tactical. To reference Magna Carta is to frame liberty as a negotiated concession, not a natural truth. This invites the legal positivists, technocrats and managerial elites to revise or revoke rights at will; because if rights come from custom, then they can be changed by new customs.

The American Founding, by contrast, was the first political act in history to say:

“We do not ask. We declare. These rights were always ours.”

Let’s drill down on this in brief……. 2/
Professor Daniel N. Robinson was one of the few scholars with both the historical and metaphysical clarity to warn that citing the Magna Carta as a source or precursor to the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution is not only historically misleading, but philosophically and legally subversive to the American Founding’s actual principles.

Here’s why Robinson gave this warning and why it’s so important:

🧵
Long ago, at the highest place in the Realm there stood a cathedral not built by hands.Its stones were measured in silence. Its arches sang, but no voice was heard.Its beauty was not expressive; it was obedient. Here, music was not performed. It was followed and those who entered did not come to feel something. They came to place themselves under something. 2/
In that place, each voice knew its place. No sound stood alone. Dissonance was permitted, but only to be resolved. Harmony did not mean sameness. It meant order. No singer sought attention. No melody sought approval. All things pointed beyond the self.

🧵Operational Success🐍

The so-called “good (and ‘bad’) magic” (originating in Hermeticism, Kabbalah, and esoteric Renaissance mysticism) did not disappear with the rise of the Enlightenment. It was veiled, codified and rebranded under the ‘secular’ language of philosophy, arts, Science™️, psychology, and politics. It became the subterranean metaphysical engine of modernity’s intellectual architecture.

Despite their outward ideological disagreements, Enlightenment rationalism, Romantic idealism, existential revolt and postmodern deconstruction ALL operationalize the same metaphysical inversion; man as autonomous re-creator, using imagination, will and symbol to remake reality.

2/ Enlightenment Philosophy (Early Codification Stage)

Key Shift:
Truth is no longer discovered through participation in Logos; it is now produced by reason, method, and analysis. Reality is what the mind can structure, measure, or manipulate.

Key Figures:
Descartes begins the severance; knowledge begins in the thinking subject, not in being. Spinoza provides pantheistic remapping of divinity into systemized substance. Leibniz posits the world as an infinite set of pre-programmed monads; an abstracted theurgical cosmos.

Hermetic Operation:
The microcosm (mind) is the key to ordering or even generating the macrocosm (reality).

“Give me extension and movement and I will recreate The World” (Descartes)

🧵
The “good magic” referenced here at the bottom of the extract shared by Michael and defended by Robert Fludd in his Tractatus and Apologia, is not benign or neutral, despite the term’s rhetorical spin. It is rooted in the Hermetic-Kabbalistic esoteric tradition, particularly aligned with the prisci theologi and the Corpus Hermeticum and we’re going to follow the trajectory of its animation through to the modern day. 2/ Fludd’s “good magic” refers to:

Hermetic Theurgy:

A practice of spiritual ascent and cosmic manipulation grounded in the belief that man can influence the divine and cosmic order through symbolic rites, visualizations, and invocations. Seen as “good” because it supposedly aligns with divine will or natural harmony.

Microcosm-Macrocosm Doctrine:

The human being is seen as a microcosm that mirrors the macrocosm (the universe). “Good magic” manipulates the microcosm to effect change in the macrocosm, or vice versa; a gnostic inversion of participation that makes man an operator rather than a recipient of divine order.

Hermes Trismegistus & Prisca Theologia:

Fludd invokes the authority of Hermes Trismegistus, the supposed ancient Egyptian sage, to claim an esoteric wisdom older and purer than Christianity. “Good magic” is seen as part of this pre-Christian or perennial wisdom, often conflated with alchemical, astrological and mystical techniques used to transform both the self and nature.

Operative Knowledge (Scientia Operativa):

A knowledge that transforms reality through will and imagination; not contemplation but transformation. This is magical idealism, where thought and word are seen as causative.

🧵Dialectical capture of moral language & hijacking of telos

In the classical (Thomistic, Aristotelian) tradition, telos refers to the intrinsic, intelligible end or purpose (fulfilment) of a being or act, grounded in objective reality and the nature of things as they are. Human beings, as rational moral agents, are capable of discerning the good; not as utility or outcome, but as that which fulfils their nature in alignment with the natural law. Telos is not something invented but discovered and conformed to. Requiring foundational metaphysical realism, philosophical moral objectivity and cultivation of moral agency, developed primarily through disciplined practise grounded in Faith. Over centuries this metaphysical telos has been gradually inverted, accelerated through Benthamite utilitarianism and Deweyan pragmatism, the concept of “good” was collapsed into the useful, then into the functional and finally into the adaptive. Telos became untethered from truth and redefined in terms of outcome, emotional effect, or social coherence. Now, in the AI-augmented constructivist era, telos is renamed “purpose”, now redefined as a programmable psychological alignment tool; a way of guiding collective behavior through a common “moral language” engineered not through metaphysics, but through data-driven models of emotion, affiliation and feedback.

This is where figures like Jonathan Haidt enter. 2/ Haidt’s Role:
Constructing the “Moral Grammar” of the New System

Jonathan Haidt’s work, particularly in The Righteous Mind and through the Moral Foundations Theory, claims to explain why people disagree morally, not by appealing to natural law or reason, but by analyzing evolved, adaptive moral intuitions across cultures.

His six “moral foundations” (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, liberty) are treated as neurologically wired heuristics that explain political and cultural affiliation. This moral model is:
Evolutionary (morality is adaptive for group survival)
Psychological (morality is intuitive and emotionally triggered)
Pluralistic (there is no one correct moral order),
Data-driven (measurable through large-scale digital behavior)

This system has become a moral API (a plug-in grammar) being actively embedded into AI systems, content algorithms, and behavioral governance frameworks under the guise of promoting “trustworthy AI,” “shared values,” or “moral balance.”

In this framework, moral agency is no longer rational, universal and rooted in being. It is adaptive, emotionally reactive, statistically profiled and socially engineered.

This is not the Aristotle/Aquinas realism requisite for individual moral agency; self governance. This is constructivist moral computation for assimilating into and adaptive compliance with AI governance. Data nodes in a ‘managed’ system.

🧵Metaphysical Collapse in Five Architectural Phases

Nominalism - The Foundational Severance

A grand neoclassical civic building representing formation of your individual given/endowed inner constitution. One foundation stone is being removed from the base corner. Here the corruption of inner constitution begins. The rest of the structure is intact, but the action is visibly critical. The removal of real universals. Nothing seems to fall………yet. The structure remains visually intact, dignified and serene, but the intentional removal of a single foundation stone has begun. This image quietly signals the metaphysical breach, with the consequences yet to manifest. The structure of reality appears stable. Yet beneath its elegant exterior, removal of that single foundational stone is the act (the denial of real universals) which severs the building’s contact with being (intelligible coherence and structural integrity) itself. No collapse has occurred yet, but the loss is irreversible. From here, all further instability follows. 2/Constructivism - Cracks in the Base and Inner Displacement

Same building (our inner constitution), but now cracks run up through the base and interior elements (like internal supports or flooring) are misaligned or warping. Slight leaning of the building may begin. Subtle instability; still standing, but compromised. With nature and universals gone, man begins to construct false meaning internally. The building no longer sits solidly on reality. The structure is still upright, but now bears the visible consequences of foundational severance: cracks rising from below, subtle leaning and internal distortion beginning to appear. With the foundation compromised, the building begins to fracture. No longer anchored in reality, meaning is now artificially reconstructed; misaligned, warped and unstable. The damage remains hidden to many, but the structure has lost its internal coherence. The illusion of order is becoming harder to maintain, forcing artificial reconstruction on an unstable base.

🧵Why Glasses Are Not Enough; Why A Scalpel Is Necessary

In this image, The Abolition of Man sits beside two instruments; a pair of glasses and a scalpel. Most readers, educators and cultural commentators today reach for the glasses. They read C.S. Lewis to see more clearly. They admire his prose, nod at his moral courage and feel the weight of his defense of tradition, virtue and objective value. Through the lenses of nostalgia or literary admiration, they perceive him as a steward of the “great tradition.” The glasses improve their view; but not their discernment.

Yet glasses alone do not reveal infection.

They do not tell us where the corruption lies, how it spreads, or what must be cut out to prevent institutional death. Glasses enhance sight, but not diagnosis. They allow for perception, but not precision. They do not reveal the metaphysical surgery that must occur to restore the integrity of a soul, a culture, or a curriculum. 2/ This is why the scalpel is required

The scalpel is not sentimental. It does not flatter; it is the instrument of forensic clarity. The scalpel is for those who are not content with admiring tradition’s beauty; but are committed to excising the false traditions and the subtle corruptions. The lingering parasites of nominalism, subjectivism and romantic idealism that have wrapped themselves in the robes of “Classical Education.”

🧵The Hollow Rhetoric of Constitutional Defence;
Why Metaphysical Realism, Not Sentiment, Sustains a Republic

In the face of America’s accelerating moral, civic, and institutional collapse, there has emerged a growing chorus of voices clamoring to “defend the Constitution.” These appeals, however sincere, are tragically hollow; because they are rooted not in the metaphysical foundations upon which the Constitution was built, but in nostalgia, tribal loyalty, or procedural formalism. Such appeals ring increasingly impotent in a society that no longer possesses the cognitive, moral, or spiritual architecture required to understand, let alone uphold, the very principles enshrined in the founding documents. Indeed, most of these appeals come from voices that either ignore or actively participate in the very theological, philosophical, and pedagogical systems that have dismantled the metaphysical conditions necessary for the Constitution to function. 2/
The Constitution was not crafted as a floating structure of legal mechanisms. It was conceived upon the granite of metaphysical realism; the conviction that truth is real and knowable, that law is discovered, not invented, and that reason is the participatory faculty by which man discerns the natural order. It presupposes a people formed in truth, habituated to virtue, and capable of recognizing moral order as something given, not constructed. It assumes a civic anthropology; a vision of man as rational, free and responsible, without which popular sovereignty collapses into chaos or is absorbed into tyranny. Yet today, in both religious and secular spheres, the dominant institutions reject this anthropology wholesale.

🧵Game B co-option of Christianity

“A Digital Throne in Shepherd’s Clothing”
Modern technocratic systems are very keen to co-opt the external symbols of Christianity; scripture, church and community, to mask underlying control architecture. This is not a revival of faith, but a strategic rebranding for social engineering purposes in the proposed roll out of The Networked States. This thread unpacks a little of that. 2/
Jordan Hall (formerly Jordan Greenhall) is a technologist and co-founder of Game B, a movement seeking to replace current societal structures with decentralized, adaptive “Networked States” governed by AI-enhanced collective intelligence. His mission is to transition civilization into a post-nation-state, post-market system through digitally mediated “Commons” governance.

Just as the WEF utilized Faith is the 3rd Leg of their economic & governance stool, Jordan Hall also proclaims the pragmatic utility of religion with a proposal exemplifying the classic maneuver; a metaphysical vacuum filled with symbolic religiosity repurposed for behavioral governance.

Hall states: “Religion is Necessary”

He asserts that: “Religion is sine qua non… Our culture is disintegrating because of the hollowing-out of religion.”

It sounds great and music to the ears of so many who’ve stated this for years…….generations…..

It sounds traditional and even faith-affirming to many. But Hall does not mean religion as worship of the transcendent or reverence of a given created order. He means it operationally; as a memetic binding agent for behavior, identity and communal feedback loops in a technocratic society.

🧵Ontology

Ontology is the ground beneath liberty. It tells us that reality is real, human nature is knowable and law must reflect truth - not power. Without it, self-government collapses into control.
Ontology isn’t abstract philosophy. It’s the foundation of liberty. Lose that and we don’t just lose debates; we lose our country, our conscience and our humanity. Ontology is simply this; the way reality actually is - independent of our opinions, beliefs, or feelings. It’s the deep structure of the world; that things have a real nature, a purpose and an order. We all live inside this reality - whether we acknowledge it or not. 2/ Why Ontology Matters

Without a real, shared world:
There’s no way to know what’s true
No way to tell right from wrong
No way to have justice, liberty, or law
No way to protect the dignity of the person

Ontology is the ground beneath everything we call civilization.
It’s what makes shared truth acknowledgeable . What makes liberty real in practise and what makes self-government intelligible.

A Constitutional Republic only functions coherently if human nature is acknowledged and understood as real and knowable. Law only protects liberty if it reflects something true about what it means to be human. Reason only works if there’s a real world for it to correspond with.

🧵The Valley of the Broken Bridge

Long ago, in the Valley of Concord, two great houses stood side by side. The House of Faith and the House of Reason were distinct, yet they shared a common bridge: the Foundation of Reality. It was said that as long as both houses crossed the bridge often and met at the Center Stone (called Being) they would prosper together. In those days, Faith knew that it could not define reality by decree, but had to trust that its mysteries rested on an unshakable created order. Reason knew that without Faith’s moral compass, its search for knowledge would spiral into cold calculation and cruelty. The bridge united them, for both accepted the Real as prior and independent. They disagreed on many things, yet never doubted the ground beneath them.
open.substack.com/pub/thepalmerw… 2/
But far above, in the Tower of the Simulator, the Architects of Containment watched with frustration. Their power could not grow as long as the bridge with its centre stone remained intact. So they whispered to both houses: To Faith they said; “Why should you share anything with Reason? The Real is dangerous. Only your Book matters. Declare the world unknowable without divine decree.” To Reason they said; “Why should you rely on Faith? The Real is irrelevant. Truth is what you measure, manipulate and model. Declare man as data.” The houses, seduced by these clever lies and the abuse of language, turned inward. First came suspicion. Then estrangement. Then came the Collapse. The Foundation of Reality cracked and the Bridge fell into the Abyss.