🧵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.

🧵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.

🧵 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.

🧵
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.

🧵
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.

🧵Constitutional Scholar Daniel N. Robinson;
Metaphysical Architecture of American Liberty

Daniel N. Robinson (1937–2018) was the philosopher who restored the living bridge between Aristotle, Aquinas, Reid and the American Founders. Where mere historians lacking metaphysical literacy simply reported the Constitution as contract, Robinson thoroughly understood it as a moral architecture grounded in metaphysical realism; law as participation in truth, not projection of will. This had (and continues to have) huge implications and consequences operationally. How things are done - not impotent intellectual argument and historicist navel gazing. How the civic infrastructure functions and how you and I function (or fail to!) within it. How that civic infrastructure upholds and defends the principles and premises of The Declaration & Constitution (especially how The People are formed to do so - or not!!). By tracing the Founders’ metaphysical lineage to the classical doctrine of natura and the common-sense realism of James Wilson, Daniel Robinson revealed that the Republic’s durability depends on an ontology of being, not the machinery of power. In the ‘New Age’ of Communitarianism under Technocracy (where data replaces reason and systems claim sovereignty over souls) Daniel Robinson’s work is needed more than ever because reminds citizens (or even teaches them for the first time!!!) that liberty endures only where reality governs law - and law serves the moral order of man as a rational kind (not a constructed artifact of the state, or a digital artifact of The System). This thread shares just a few examples of Daniel N Robinson’s work for anyone wanting to exercise self governance and learn for themselves. 2/
Robinson maps the often-overlooked Scottish realist (not Hume!!!) lineage (through Reid et al) into the American Founding, giving philosophical depth to the familiar Revolutionary era. By 1820 the debt of the Founders to Scottish moral and mental philosophy was widely acknowledged.

“And the foundation of moral science is human nature itself, regarded by the Founders as a ‘natural kind’, essential in its defining features”

“The Founders were striving to be correct politically - not politically correct - and this aspiration called for a workable and systematic understanding of human nature”

(Moral Science at the Founding: Ruling Passions - Daniel N. Robinson, Amherst College lecture, October 31 2003)

Here Robinson links the Aristotelian/Aquinas moral-psychology of virtue (moral agency, not display) and human nature to the Founders’ constitutional thinking about the passions, reason and ordered liberty.

🧵Being & Naming - Civic Application & Practise

I’ve been wanting to clarify the intelligibility and meaning of Dr. Larry Arnn’s remarks (given at the Charlie Kirk Memorial) because they have been widely misrepresented (by both intellectuals and the general public) and yet they express the very metaphysical foundation that safeguards a free and truthful society. Finally, I’ve had a bit of time to do so and I only ofer this because I perceive it to be highly relevant to what we’re facing, fighting and the means of defence and restoration. I hope this is helpful and that if in error, I’ve misrepresented Dr Arnn in any way, someone who knows him and happens to read this thread will have Dr Arnn put me straight! It is my understanding that Dr Arnn’s words recover the classical and biblical understanding that reality is knowable, creation is good, and speech must correspond to being. This understanding (rooted in Aristotle, Scripture, and the American Founding) forms the only real defence against ideological possession and political manipulation. When language ceases to name things truthfully, law and conscience lose their anchor in reality; but when speech serves being, truth restores order, liberty and moral clarity. This thread will break down Dr Arnn’s remarks in detail.
imprimis.hillsdale.edu/theres-a-ladde… 2/ “Start with the Bible.”

Begin your search for what’s true and good with the most foundational source in our tradition. It sets the tone that reality isn’t invented by us; it’s given. Our laws and duties should reflect what’s true about human beings, not just what’s popular or useful.

🧵Loss of Metaphysical Grammar

Both constitutional and Thomist traditions were once grounded in a shared realist grammar;

Being is prior to thought - truth is the conformity of mind to reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei). The moral law is intelligible because it participates in the Logos.

Once that grammar was eroded (first through nominalism, then through idealism and phenomenology), institutions retained only the vocabulary of realism without its ontology. They still speak of ‘law’, ‘order’, ‘reason’ and ‘truth’, but these words now operate inside conceptual frameworks shaped by Kant, Hegel and modern social theory; all of which relocate truth inside consciousness or community. These frameworks cannot recognize neoplatonic or emanationist subversions, because they already interpret (truth/law/being) through the same inward, mentalist (hermetic) ‘lens’. 2/
Theological Containment through Synthesis

Many self-identified ‘Thomist’ institutions quietly adopted transcendental Thomism (Maréchal, Rahner, Lonergan) or personalist reinterpretations that blend Aquinas with modern subjectivism. Being inverted as ‘self-presence’ or ‘transcendental openness’. Participation inverted as ‘consciousness realizing itself’. Heresies in both their sacred and their civic applications. These are Neoplatonic reintroductions disguised as aggiornamento - old Neoplatonic ideas about reality flowing out from God like light or thought - brought back and disguised as ‘modern updates’ to the faith. The word ‘aggiornamento’ means ‘bringing up to date’. So what looked like a fresh, modern renewal of Thomism or Christianity was actually a repackaging of ancient idealist and emanationist thinking, deployed under the claim of making theology more ‘relevant’ or ‘modern’. They didn’t ‘modernize’ Thomism; they quietly replaced its realist foundations with the same mystical philosophy it once rejected. Once that shift occurred, ‘Thomism’ was hollowed out from within; it retained the language of participation but inverted the direction from God to man - to - man to God. That is why such institutions cannot detect the same inversion when it appears in Bahá’í, Hegelian, or Teilhardian form; they share the same metaphysical grammar of emanation, but ‘baptized’ through modern pedagogical veilcraft, in scholastic vocabulary.

🧵Liberty, Truth and the Question of Absolutism

Q1.
Isn’t this just imposing one group’s ‘truth’ on everyone else?

A:
No. The argument is not that everyone must agree on every opinion or worldview. A republic only requires agreement on those realities without which liberty itself collapses. For example, if contracts no longer bind, commerce cannot function. If sex is treated as infinitely fluid in law, protections for women and children become meaningless. These are not sectarian impositions; they are conditions without which freedom is impossible. Q2.
But who decides what counts as a ‘non-negotiable’ truth?

A:
The test is not who shouts loudest, but what realities are required for liberty to exist.

Free speech presupposes that words mean what they say.

Due process presupposes that evidence refers to something outside of power.

Parental rights presuppose that family ties are not just paperwork.

These are not inventions but recognitions and without them, rights reduce to permissions from rulers.

🧵Competing Christian Interpretations of Rights

Catholic Scholasticism:
Rights are grounded in natural law as participation in the eternal law. Inalienable rights flow from objective human nature as rational creatures ordered to God. Catholic political theology, however, often tied rights to hierarchical mediation (Church and State as dispensers). While America retained this ontological grounding of natural law as participation in the eternal law, it explicitly rejected Catholic political theology and hierarchical mediation of rights - for very specific reasons!!

Protestant Puritan / Theonomic Line:
Rights are not inalienable in the strict sense; they are conditional privileges granted or withdrawn based on covenant obedience. Authority rests in the covenant community (civil and ecclesial), not in the people as individuals. This is the foundation of the ‘Principle of Superiority’ whereby rulers mediate God’s will and people obey. There’s a relationship here to note between Pufendorf’s Principle of Superiority in English Law, upheld by Blackstone, which Founder James Wilson outright rejected due to its incompatibility with American Popular Sovereignty and Self Governance. This is why the UK and Europe, under the Legal Principle of (State) Supremacy, can not fight back against their authoritarian governments in the same way that America can defend itself - IF - its Natural Law origins are understood and enacted. Currently there appears to be much opposition to Americans understanding this, from many vested in a Post Constitutional America. 2/ Continental Enlightenment (Pufendorf, Locke, Hobbes):

Rights are redefined as will or consent. They are no longer tied to final cause or natural law but to contractual arrangements. Inalienable becomes pragmatic shorthand for what cannot be ‘safely’ given up. This is not the grounding of the Declaration.

Scottish Common Sense Realism (Witherspoon, Madison, Adams, Wilson):

Rights are self-evident truths discernible by right reason, grounded in human nature as created by God. They are not permissions, not contracts and not church-mediated. Rights are inalienable precisely because they arise from the essence of man as rational, moral, accountable being (as defined ontologically in Genesis and upheld by St Paul) which no ruler or covenant can erase. Founding Father and Supreme Court Justice James Wilson brought this directly into the U.S. founding.

1/
Shows the fruits of not teaching this in Education for the past gazillion generations - that the equality declared by the Founders is not an empirical judgment about the present conduct of mankind, nor a reward for demonstrated virtue. Nor a denial of talents and capabilities. It is a recognition of what man is by nature, not of how far he may fall in practice. To say ‘all men are created equal’ is to affirm that even the criminal and the psychopathic possess a human nature that makes them accountable to moral law, endowed with faculties for reason and conscience; even when those faculties are abused or rejected. The corruption of man does not erase his nature; it reveals what happens when that nature is disordered. The Founders held that because all men are equally capable of discerning, and bound to, (Aristotle/Aquinas) Natural Law (God’s Created Order), no one may be deprived of rights without violating the order of creation itself. 2/
The Founders were never naïve about man’s corruption. They lived in an age well acquainted with crime, cruelty and tyranny, and they did not write ‘all men are created equal’ out of romantic idealism. Rather, they drew a sharp line between the ontological ground of equality and the juridical structures needed to secure it. Ontologically, every human being shares the same nature, rational faculties and accountability to (Aristotle/Aquinas) Natural Law. That is what ‘created equal’ declares; there is no natural caste, no inherent superior, no human born with a divine right to command others. But precisely because the Founders recognized that conscience is fragile, will is often disordered and corruption is common, they designed a constitutional order of checks and balances, divided powers and written limits. They knew men could not be trusted to rule as angels, so they created institutions to restrain vice and safeguard liberty. Without this, the strong and unscrupulous will deploy the Noble Lie and always claim a ‘superior right’ to dominate and society collapses into will-to-power. By grounding equality in rerum natura and binding it to lex aeterna, the Founders gave the people a plumbline (my term) that remains true even when conscience falters. The constitutional architecture was their recognition that fallen men require external guardrails to keep the reality of equality from being obliterated by human corruption.

🧵The Customer As King - Passivity Of Consuming Information Without Formation

The present public ‘Market appetite and desire appears to be for certainty without responsibility, for ‘Strong leadership’ promising decisive action without requiring individuals to exercise sustained moral reasoning, with the resulting individual agency. The desire I’m observing is for construct-derived collective belonging - not -individual agency. The majority appetite demonstrated is a preference for aligning with a movement’s identity rather than shouldering the weight of sovereign individual agency. Popular sovereignty is psychologically invisible without experience of self-governance and most people can’t imagine what it looks like. Their only reference points (over generations) are hierarchies and managed systems.

When the public is actively calling for ‘strong leadership’ the market delivers; whether in the form of a political strongman, a charismatic influencer, or (now “freed” from federal corruption - but strangely ok with state, district and municipal corruption) an AI governance interface to save the day. Technocracy can present itself as the strong, incorruptible leader, except it’s not a person, it’s an infrastructure. Algorithmic enforcement is marketed as ‘beyond human corruption’ while being fully Programmable by Those Who control The System. But they know we all like consuming and producing so the illusion of democratic means of participation is baked into our consumer access and choice architecture.


2/ The Structural Irony

The Founder’s design presumed a people who wanted to govern themselves, not to be ruled, even benevolently. Today, most view rule by ‘our’ side as the highest achievable form of freedom. “Democratic Freedom” - the onramp to tyranny - as the Founders warned and established the Republic to defend against. This ‘party’ collectivist mindset makes it irrelevant whether the ruling apparatus is ‘hard’ (authoritarian regime) or ‘soft’ (technocratic governance); the citizen’s role has already been reduced to follower/consumer - a subject of a system which their agency is outsourced to and which ‘manages them’ as a utilitarian resource for the owners and architects of The System.

🧵
The Doug Wilson / Moscow, Idaho ‘militarized ecclesial capture’ (MEC) model functions as a form of religious-communitarian authoritarianism that appears hyper-local and biblically grounded, but in its structure and operational logic it is entirely compatible with (and in some respects ideal for) the emerging totalitarian technocracy/networked state paradigm.

In this thread I’ll break this down in a little detail. 2/ The Structural Premise of Militarized Ecclesial Capture

Wilson’s model is not simply ‘church leadership’, it’s a tightly integrated religious authority network that consolidates theological authority, civil authority and economic control in a unified leadership hierarchy. It demands total allegiance to the governing church body, including political and civic obedience framed as spiritual duty. It exercises in-group preference in business, education, housing and local governance; making access to resources contingent on membership loyalty. ‘Militarized’ in this context means disciplined chain of command and strong gatekeeping against ideological dissent.
Intentional strategy to expand territorial and institutional influence - this is not ‘just’ spiritual care.

🧵Ideology as Deployment System🐍

Ideology is not primarily about belief (architecturally it never was), it is about behavioural engineering. It functions not as a truth claim to be evaluated, but as a delivery mechanism for reprogramming how individuals perceive reality, authority and themselves. Ideologies serve as deployment systems; they install conceptual frameworks that override inherited metaphysical assumptions and gradually recondition populations into new ontological operating modes. ‘Unburdening from what has been’. They’re demolition systems - the mechanisms of Solve et Coagula for The Great Work requiring both Chaos and the calculated Order to be installed in its wake. 2/
Every dominant ideology in modern discourse; whether political, cultural, spiritual, or technological, performs this function. Its goal is not to persuade through reasoned argument, but to embed a new structure of perception. It does this by saturating language, media, institutions and interpersonal dynamics with a vocabulary of crisis, grievance, liberation, or innovation. The target is not just opinion, but orientation; disabling orientation and navigation in order to reshape what the individual considers real, good and possible. Population control at scale and management of the masses by the few.

🧵Neither a Horse nor a Dog

The Founders’ insistence that man must be neither a “dog” nor a “horse” refers not to a commentary on social status or station, but to man’s metaphysical capacity—his rational and moral agency as a bearer of logos, which is necessary for the preservation of a free republic. A dog follows commands. A horse may be trained and directed. But both are governed externally. The Founders explicitly rejected the notion that man is to be managed through coercion, impulse conditioning, or elite rule. They understood that liberty demands internal governance—self-rule through Right Reason.

What the Founders Meant:

James Wilson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others (though often inconsistently applied) inherited and expressed the tradition of Classical Realism—especially via Reid, Beattie, and the Protestant Realist Thomistic core in Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. Their metaphysical assumptions informing the Declaration and Constitution were:

Man is rational, not because he can calculate, but because he can apprehend what is; reality as it is.

Man is moral, not because he obeys rules, but because he participates in the discernment of the good, which is objective and knowable.

Therefore, man must be educated not to blindly obey, but necessarily to govern himself; to choose the good because he sees (discerns not projects) it and loves (commits himself to) it.

A “dog” or “horse” cannot do this. They can be controlled, domesticated, or broken whereas a citizen cannot. A subject can - if under mental/intellectual manipulation and behavioural control. That would be the province of constructivist philosophy in the academy (following the Founding and as part of the long campaign of subversion against it), the state education system instantiated specifically to negate it) and the propaganda apparatus of media culture at large. If a man is conditioned like a dog, or trained like a horse, he is not a citizen of a Republic; he is a subject, or worse, a mechanism. Social Science has been a primary mechanism of transforming citizens into subjects - now subjects of Technocratic soft Totalitarianism, for which Bernays’ ontology of consumerism as the mechanism of controlling domestic population has been key. Man as consumer, client and service user in The Market. The Pavlovian and Skinnerian control mechanisms of environmental affordances and behaviour rewards run efficiently and mostly invisibly in The Market under the ubiquitous default to Pragmatism and Contracts/Agreements/Consent Frameworks. 2/ The Telos of Education in the Classical Republic

The telos of education, under Classical Realism and the metaphysics of the American Founding, is therefore not to conform the citizen to power or adapt him to systems, but to form him in truth. This requires formation in Right Reason (Recta Ratio). Capability (within limits) to recognize (logic; apprehension & judgement necessary) what is real and what is good (not as opinion or preference) but in direct relation to understanding and embodying the responsibilities and duties of liberty, as established by the Founders. This demands education in grammar, logic, and rhetoric (not as tools of persuasion) but of discernment. So not mere performative oration for ‘training leaders’, but recognition, comprehension necessary for all ‘men’ (grown ass adults, not arrested development incapable of upholding its own responsibilities absent genuine impairment/injury). In other words - stewards of liberty, rather than mere claimers of license.

🧵Recursion v Participation

Do you comprehend inalienable rights? That your rights come from your created (endowed) human nature (what man is, not ‘has’ or ‘does’) - not from government or contracts?

Then you believe, whether you know it or not, in a real human nature; something that doesn’t change based on who’s in power, what the system says, or the ideas laundered through constructivist “theories”. Acknowledging what man is as a rational human adult is to uphold ‘Man’ as understood and articulated in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. To recognize, embody, uphold and defend this is participation.

BUT:
If you’re in a system based on recursion (statist and managerial control systems), you don’t have rights. You have roles, responsibilities and functions that are granted to you by the system, as long as you’re ‘ascending’ (evolving/complying) properly.

Recursion v Participation is not abstract philosophy; it’s the difference between being a citizen and being a managed resource. What follows is civics-grounded explanation designed for those who do not speak ‘philosophy’ or ‘theology’, but do care about liberty, government, rights and being a free citizen. This thread was inspired by reading open.substack.com/pub/escapekey/… and I highly recommend reading the article in full (and all his other excellent articles on the architecture of control and co-option into simulation systems).

Participation = rights by nature
Recursion = permissions by performance 2/ Your Vote

In a participatory system, your vote matters because the system is supposed to serve truth and the good of the people. Citizenship is real participation in law, policy and sovereignty. In a recursive system, your “vote” is just a way to keep you inside the loop. You have ‘ritual inclusion’ - but the real decisions are already made at the top.

Participation = real voice in law
Recursion = simulated consent

🧵Atheism and the Constitution: The Core Problem

While the Constitution does not require belief in God, it does require assent to a metaphysical and moral structure that atheism (when consistent) cannot supply.

https://twitter.com/thepalmerworm/status/1949302326872694985

2/ Why This Matters

The Declaration of Independence asserts:

“…all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

This is not religious dogma; it is political metaphysics. It asserts that Man has a nature which is not assigned by the state. It asserts that that rights flow from that nature, not from utility, consensus, or legal fiat. But atheism (in its consistent philosophical form) denies all three. If matter is all that exists, man is no more sacred than a tree. Rights are legal fictions and law is power. Even if an atheist emotionally prefers liberty, their worldview provides no ontological foundation for it. Only ideological/political preference.

🧵Club Of Rome Veilcraft Supreme🪄🐍🍎

‘First Principles and First Values of Evolving Perennialism’ (May 2023, Office for the Future)

The document presents itself as a unifying moral and philosophical framework designed to guide humanity through “meta-crisis,” claiming to recover “universal first principles” from spiritual traditions (especially the “perennial philosophy”) while promoting a vision of “planetary wholeness,” “dignity,” and “shared sensemaking.” It repeatedly uses terms like “sacred,” “sovereignty,” “truth,” “beauty,” and “goodness” to create the illusion of continuity with traditional metaphysical and moral realism. This is the doctrine of Game B - so remember who is cheerleading that initiative to “Phoenix The Republic” among many other goals. 2/ Operational Function

Beneath the sacred-sounding language, the document is a technocratic blueprint for embedding a totalitarian panentheistic monism into global governance. It does not defend Natural Law, Popular Sovereignty, or the inalienable rights of persons as metaphysically real. Instead it enables and facilitates Ontological Reversal:

It replaces being with becoming (process metaphysics)
Nature with emergence (constructivism)
Virtue with integration (systems compliance)

These shifts operationalize gnostic and neoplatonic metaphysics disguised as moral universalism.

🐍Synthetic “Spiritual” Grammar:

The “First Principles” are not grounded in ontology but in functional coherence within global systems; a coded moral-operational grammar fit for AI, behavioural algorithms and socio-technical modeling.

🐍Prisca Theologia Weaponized:

The “ancient wisdom” cited (Hermes Trismegistus, Plotinus, Teilhard de Chardin, etc.) is deployed not as spiritual formation but as epistemic architecture to justify planetary-scale soft-totalitarian convergence; governed by predictive behavioural models, not conscience or moral agency.

☠️Universal Moral Operating System:

The framework is designed to supersede all constitutions, religions, and legal traditions by embedding algorithmic authority beneath the appearance of pluralistic agreement. It is morally neutralized, consensus-driven and behaviorally enforced.

☠️Technocratic Containment of Dissent:

Language of “wholeness,” “transcendence,” “universal dignity,” and “meta-integration” is used to diffuse opposition and suppress political sovereignty by subsuming it into the rhetoric of “planetary consciousness evolution”.

The Architects Beneath the Floor

A Forensic Fable on the Dialectic of Philosophers and the Machinery of False Being

The Hidden Foundry

Beneath the checkerboard rooms and curated oppositions of the House, there was an ancient Foundry, where men in robes and masks labored endlessly over scrolls, diagrams and molten scripts. These were no ordinary philosophers. They called themselves Architects, but their craft was not contemplation - it was construction. Their task? To simulate anthropology, to manufacture metaphysics and to replace reality with models. They did not seek truth; they sought control of terms. Their motto was; “He who defines being governs becoming.” And so they built. They called themselves philosophers, but they were engineers of illusion; cloaked in costume, speaking in riddles, forging new definitions of man not to understand him, but to control him. Their true craft was not wisdom, but containment. 2/ The Alchemy of Inversion

The Foundry had many tools besides the dialectic. Their formulas were drawn from the secret playbooks of the Neoplatonic and Hermetic arts. They fractured reality into parts and recombined it through abstraction. They concealed inversion beneath poetic mysticism and presented the result as ‘visionary insight’. Each “theory” was an alchemical transmutation of the real;

🪄The soul became a system
🪄The will became desire
🪄The intellect became software
🪄The good became preference
🪄The cosmos became code

But the public did not see the forge. They saw only the glittering results; new doctrines, new schools, new manifestos; each claiming to redress and replace the last, each built on the same false matter. Wearing opposing masks, they staged quarrels for each generation; Rationalist v Empiricist, Idealist v Materialist etc. while secretly crafting each doctrine from the same false clay. Their conflict was choreography and their unity was inversion.

🧵The House of a Thousand Rooms

A Forensic Fable of Dialectic;
Containment and the End of Discernment

The Arrival

Once there was a vast and glittering House of a Thousand Rooms, suspended in midair like a floating city. The House promised sanctuary, wisdom, and power to all who entered. Its gates bore many signs; “Justice, Freedom, Reform, Tradition, Innovation, Rebellion.” Each room behind each sign claimed to oppose the others. Some walls were painted red, others blue, others gold or green. Some were filled with candles, others with screens. Some wore clerical garb, others suits, some in branded causal merch, while others wore lab coats. Travellers arrived daily in search of truth. They were told: “Choose a room. Debate those in other rooms. Defend your view and refute theirs.” And so they did. They moved from room to room and joined movements. They read manifestos and made signs. They adopted flags (or renounced them) and made podcasts. They held protests, wrote papers and argued across panels. They followed thought leaders who told them what to think and how to presume that they were thinking for themselves. But few ever asked; “What is the foundation of the House itself?” “Who built it?” “Why are all the rooms so eerily symmetrical?” 2/ The Invisible Architect

Unseen beneath the House, a dialectical engine hummed. Its name was Nomos and its blueprints came from old halls where men like Protagoras, Ockham, Descartes and Hegel once spoke in riddles. Their premise was simple; “Truth is not found; it is made.” “Reality is not known; it is processed.” “Order is not given; it is chosen.” They dismantled the Real and replaced it with perspectives. They shattered form, nature and being; repackaging just the rhetorical fragments into options, identities and arguments. Nomos was their child. He built the House. He gave every room its slogans. He provided endless costumes. He ensured that each opposition was carefully calibrated; not to break the system, but to fuel it. He whispered into both ears and gave the public many sides, but only one floor. Many voices, but only one architecture - the architecture of containment.

🧵The Garden of the Severed Root;
A Fable Of The Abandonment & Rejection That Brought Ruin

The Orchard Of The First Inheritance

There once was a people who had inherited a vast orchard planted in alignment with nature’s wisdom. Each tree was planted by measure and its fruit nourished the whole Republic. They did not invent these trees; they had been entrusted with them. Each tree bore fruit with a name; Truth. Justice. Reason. Self-restraint. Accountability. Rightful Liberty. The people lived by tending these trees, which bore according to their nature and not according to the people’s will. These trees had roots; not in myth or metaphor, but in what simply was - and was not dependent on opinion. In the orchard of the First Inheritance, truth bore fruit because the trees were planted in right order, tended by those who submitted their labor to what had already been given. The orchard thrived because the People conformed themselves to the nature of the orchard; not the other way around. The red fruit, consistent and nourishing, was not invented, but received. 2/ The First Whisper; “Your Words Are Power”

One day a murmur drifted through the orchard; “These names are just noises. You can name them otherwise.” A cloaked stranger came to the people with scissors of silver and said; “Cut the roots. They are not needed. The names you use bind you to limits that belong to another age.” The People (particularly the educated among them) began snipping roots beneath the trees, certain that new growth could be engineered from above the soil. They called this freedom and progress. They did not realize they were already beginning to starve. The whisper of subversion began not with violence, but with flattery. “Your roots bind you,” said the voice. “Cut them, and you will be free.” The People, flattered into believing themselves wise, began to sever the very truths that had once nourished their strength. The fruit still looked the same; but its source was no longer trusted.