🧵💡
A people cannot rule themselves unless they first understand reality. Without formation in truth, every attempt at self-governance will collapse into the very system it seeks to replace:
‘Once, in a valley surrounded by great mountains, there stood a village called Hollowstead. The people of Hollowstead lived as they always had; planting, harvesting, trading, and speaking in words they had inherited without ever questioning their meaning. They did not wonder why their customs were as they were, nor did they ask who had first shaped their laws. Life simply was, and that was enough.’ 2/‘One day, a traveler arrived, a man who had studied the ways of the ancients. He had spent years searching for a people who still knew the old ways of self-rule, those who had not forgotten how to govern themselves by truth rather than whim. Seeing the village’s disorder; their dependence on rulers who neither understood nor cared for them; he resolved to teach them self-governance. He stood in the village square and spoke:
“You are not ruled by necessity, nor by fate. Your laws should not be dictated by distant lords. You can rule yourselves, if only you remember how.”

🧵James Wilson🔥🫡🇺🇸🔥
Thank you Roberta Bayer - pleased to have found your work!Roberta sets out here what I have been repeatedly sharing on this platform for over a year - and she’s a proper faculty scholar, a real academic - so there!😜 2/ The function of anti-realist philosophy in the academy was purposed for epistemic containment, serving Mercantile & Statist power consolidation which needed to ensure the eradication, thereafter, prevention of The People attaining or even desiring Self Governance. The fact that to this day (and with increasing zeal) we have academics and ‘thought leaders’ defending and lauding the philosophies predicated on skepticism (& its many derivations) which actively undermine and subvert popular sovereignty and self governance is not a mere intellectual curio or ideological difference of ‘opinion’. It is the destruction of the fabric of society in the American Constitutional Republic. It is tactical warfare of the deepest kind - as Founder and Framer; Supreme Court Justice James Wilson well understood. I have repeatedly presented this analysis and I can only hope that like a message in a bottle, the analysis I’ve posted on here through the past year and its implications and consequences I’ve dedicated my Fable Series to illustrating do, by some miracle, make it onto the desk of someone with the agency at National Level to assist with counter measures for Education at large and at scale.

🧵I won’t be winning friends with this thread but here goes:

Grassroots community-driven education movements, even when opting out of mainstream public schools, are already primed to reproduce the very ideological subversion they are trying to escape. Why? Because in the main (yes I’m generalizing) the parents, educators, and local leaders behind these efforts have already been intellectually formed by the same Neoplatonic and Nominalist paradigms that corrupted public education in the first place, irrespective of whether they are Faith affiliated or not.

They do not recognize the nature of epistemic war.

They cannot perceive how their own worldview remains captive to the enemy’s metaphysical assumptions.

They believe they are “choosing liberty” when in reality, they are re-enacting the same ideological capture in a different framework.

Even when they “opt out,” they remain prisoners of the very system they are resisting; because they are still using its methods, its content, and its assumptions about reality. 2/ WHY LOCALIZED “ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION”
WILL REMAIN TRAPPED IN ELITE CAPTURE

Parents & Local Leaders Have Already Been Formed
by the Enemy’s Intellectual System:

The majority of parents and grassroots education leaders do not recognize the epistemic war they are inside of. Even when rejecting “wokeness” and “progressivism,” they still fundamentally accept the deeper structures of Nominalism, Constructivism, and Neoplatonic mysticism that inform modern education. They assume that “Classical Education” or “Christian Homeschooling” is an escape, when they too, have in varying degrees, been built upon the same foundational errors that led to modern ideological corruption. Even “conservative” and “traditional” education movements will continue producing epistemically compromised citizens who may be able to uphold “tradition/heritage” yet are unable to sustain self-governance.

Currently there is much within the cant of both Tradition & Heritage which is being subtly and deceptively co-opted to Technocratic State Power consolidation by stealth. This is working fast to corral the demoralized population, desperate for anti woke and anti communist solutions in addition to fellowship with others desiring a renewal of hope & optimism in the face of so much hostility and destruction. Yes, I’ve been listening carefully to the ARC sessions posted online so far. It’s quite something listening to words that I so long to hear, then all of a sudden a quick “wait…..what…??!!” as the speaker/interviewee drops a call to action which utterly negates self governance and popular sovereignty under natural law.

🧵
Neoplatonic Corruption of Platonism & Nominalist Subversion of the Academy - their relationship🤓

Just as Neoplatonism corrupted classical Platonism by replacing objective reality with mystical abstraction, Nominalism subverted the Academy by severing knowledge from metaphysical realism, reducing truth to linguistic and conceptual constructs.

The two processes are 💡structurally identical; both operate by transforming🐍 knowledge from something discovered💡 into something created🪄, thereby placing it under the control of elite interpreters🐍 rather than objective reality🔥. 2/ FROM OBJECTIVE FORMS TO ELITIST MYSTICISM

Classical Platonism; Realism & the Fixed Order of Forms:

Plato asserted that universals (Forms) exist objectively; justice, beauty, and truth are real and discoverable, not human inventions. The philosopher’s role was to align human understanding with these pre-existing realities, using dialectic and reason to reach deeper insights into the nature of being.

The Neoplatonic Corruption; Replacing Objective Forms with Mystical Abstraction🪄

Neoplatonism (Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus) altered Plato’s system, making knowledge a process of mystical ascent🪄 rather than rational discovery💡.

Instead of the Forms being objective realities accessible through reason, Neoplatonism taught that knowledge was a layered, esoteric process requiring secret initiation, mediation by enlightened masters, and a transcendent ascent to “higher realities.”

Neoplatonism replaced metaphysical realism with an interpretive system, placing knowledge under the control of elite mediators rather than objective reality.

This shifted philosophy from an epistemology of discovery🔥 to an epistemology of controlled access🐍, where only the initiated🐍 could interpret reality. Only they had the ‘enlightened consciousness’. As with current Critical Consciousness “Scholars”, New Thought™️Leaders, Game B Architects, Technocrats & Integralist Synthesizers of every Brand.

🧵Stoney bringing the 🔥 here - have you spotted how/why?

Let’s break it down:

Language matters, and when the wrong language is used; even if it sounds “right” it becomes a Trojan Horse for subversion. If the wrong foundation is accepted, everything built on it will lead back to centralized control, rather than individual liberty and self-governance under Natural Law. 2/ The Problem with “Personal Liberties” vs.
“Individual Liberties Recognized in the Constitution”

At first glance, the shift in The Washington Post’s editorial stance may seem like a victory. After all, “personal liberties” and “free markets” sound like concepts aligned with traditional American values. But there’s a critical flaw in the phrasing; one that allows for ideological capture and subversion down the line.

🚩Why Is “Personal Liberties” a Red Flag?

🧵
Natural Law does not assess actions based on social trends, ideological narratives, or subjective preferences but on whether they align with objective reality, the intrinsic nature of human beings, and the moral order discernible through reason.

Natural Law is not arbitrary moralism; it is a system that derives moral principles from the intrinsic nature and purpose of things. In 2025, the question of homosexuality must be examined within this objective framework, not through emotional appeals, cultural pressures, or nominalist social constructs. 2/ Natural Law’s Framework for Human Sexuality:

This imo is much bigger than just homosexuality - I’d say the discussion is about sexuality full stop and one which someone like me - going to university in the “shaggathon early 1990s” where aversion to promiscuity was ‘wierd’ & ‘prudish’ & an option of *not* engaging in that was socially speaking, not even on the table - well….it’s a discussion my generation raised outside of limiting religious principles didn’t even know how to have, that it was even possible. You probably find that strange. That was the culture though and it’s only ever gone full steam ahead since then. So - away from subjective experience and back to Natural Law:

Natural Law evaluates human actions based on whether they fulfill the intrinsic telos (purpose) of human nature and whether they align with the rational order of reality.

🧵The City of Veritas and the Three Truths ©️CJ

A long time ago, in a land called Aletheia, there was a city named Veritas. It was a city unlike any other, built on a foundation that made it strong, free, and wise. This foundation was called the Word, and it was given to the people so that they would always know truth. 2/
The people of Veritas lived by three guiding truths:

The Word Alone (Sola Scriptura):
The truth came from the Word, not from rulers, priests, or scholars; it was accessible to all.

Faith Alone (Sola Fide):
A person’s relationship with God was personal and did not require approval from religious authorities.

Grace Alone (Sola Gratia): Salvation came from God’s mercy, not from human effort or government control.

🧵Understanding the Motivation Behind Epistemic Subversives: Why They Mislead & What They Gain

Why would public figures, especially those who appear to champion Western Civilization, intellectual freedom, and sovereignty, engage in epistemic misdirection?

The public often resists the idea that their intellectual heroes could be subversives unless they understand why these figures would deliberately distort truth. Many people assume that ideological errors are just mistakes, not intentional misdirection. To effectively counter epistemic subversion, we must clearly articulate the motives behind it. 2/
A public intellectual engaging in epistemic misdirection does not do so randomly. There are identifiable incentives and motivations that drive this behavior.

Core Motivations:

🐍Strategic Containment:
Preventing the Public from Gaining True Intellectual Sovereignty

🐍Personal or Organizational Gain:
Influence, Wealth, or Institutional Legitimacy

🐍Ideological Alignment:
Advancing a Controlled Narrative While Pretending
to Oppose It

🧵Reading Comprehension needs a preservation order🤦‍♀️

Perhaps this gentleman isn’t interested in what the words he’s posted mean in the full context of James Wilson’s philosophical & legal thought - which was deeply rooted in Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law & Self Governance - but I imagine others are. This is why I give you my time in making this thread.

“A State, I cheerfully admit, is the noblest work of Man”
(Founder, James Wilson)

To assume that James Wilson’s use of the word “State” implies Statism is to misinterpret both his intellectual tradition (including his metaphysics & moral philosophy) and his explicit rejection of centralized, top-down authority in favor of the sovereignty of the People. 2/ Wilson’s Intellectual Foundation:
Natural Law & Popular Sovereignty

James Wilson, a key architect of the U.S. Constitution and a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was deeply influenced by Scottish Common Sense Realism and Natural Law philosophy. He explicitly rejected the European statist tradition that placed sovereignty in the State itself and instead argued that sovereignty belongs to the People, who delegate power through government - but never surrender it.

🧵The False Attribution of Classical Liberalism to
Locke, Smith, & Mill

The modern narrative deliberately equates Classical Liberalism with thinkers like Locke, Mill, and Smith, who were nominalists and statists rather than defenders of Natural Law, self-governance, and individual sovereignty.
This misrepresentation (compounded throughout most of academia & media programming) erases the Scottish Common Sense foundation of James Wilson and the U.S. Founders, ensuring that Classical Liberalism is framed as inherently compromised, when in reality it was the strongest political defense against subversion due to its grounding in Realism: metaphysical, philosophical & epistemological. 2/ The Real Foundation of Classical Liberalism:
Scottish Common Sense Realism & Natural Law

James Wilson, the U.S. Founders, and Scottish Common Sense Realists did not base rights on historical contracts but on Natural Law, divine order, and objective reality.

Their political framework was rooted in epistemological realism; not the dialectical skepticism of Locke, Rousseau, or Mill.

They rejected nominalism outright and grounded the U.S. Constitution in metaphysical realism rather than in a state-managed social contract.

🧵The Legacy of Garrigou-Lagrange vs.
Subversion; Vatican II’s ‘New Theology’

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange was one of the last great defenders of traditional Thomism and metaphysical realism, and his outright rejection of Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) was not a matter of mere preference, but of principle.

Lagrange understood that New Theology was not just a shift in emphasis, but a total epistemic subversion of Catholic thought, leading directly to the modernist collapse of doctrine after Vatican II.

Those who today promote Lagrange while keeping their analysis within the framework of Vatican II’s New Theology are fundamentally misrepresenting him; either out of ignorance or deliberate deception.

This is not my area of expertise, I advise seeking more skilled, knowledgable, experienced voices than mine - but in a very general, basic way, this thread attempts to break down the historical and philosophical conflict between Lagrange and the ‘New Theologians’ and understand why Vatican II represents not just a theological shift, but a rupture in Catholic metaphysical realism.

The processes at work here have (I’ve come to understand over the past few years) incredible resonance and overlap with the very same strategy and tactics of subversion within Education Philosophy, Pedagogy, Praxis & Policy which I’ve been investigating more broadly in great depth. This is why I’m daring to get out over my skis here. I can’t ignore the similarities within the analysis. If you’ve been following my posts & substacks, you also might recognize the tactical forces of Illusio, Perceptum, Behaviouralis, Fragmentum & Valerian - in the relentless subversion and negation of Realitas within this thread as it unfolds. This (imo) is not just of concern for those identifying *as* Catholic - but also more broadly for other denominations in addition to agnostics and atheists concerned for Realism (Epistemic, Philosophical & Metaphysical) as the bedrock of Education (which has been absent for over a century). 2/ Who Was Garrigou-Lagrange, and What Did He Stand For?

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877–1964) was one of the last and greatest Thomists before Vatican II. He was a professor at the Angelicum in Rome and was deeply influential in Catholic theology, until the rise of the modernist currents that took over at Vatican II.

Lagrange’s Core Commitments:
Metaphysical Realism: He upheld that truth is objective, immutable, and grounded in reality itself - NOT in perception or historical context.

(Traditional) Thomism as the True Philosophy of the Church:
He fiercely defended classical Thomism as the authentic Catholic intellectual tradition, rejecting all deviations into modernism.

Condemnation of Nouvelle Théologie:
He saw that the New Theologians were attempting to replace Thomism with a fluid, existential, and historical theology, one that would ultimately DESTROY doctrine.

Drafting Humani Generis (1950):
His ideas were directly incorporated into Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, which formally condemned Nouvelle Théologie as a modernist error.

Lagrange’s Central Warning:
If the Church abandoned (Traditional) Thomism in favor of ‘synthesis’ with modernist philosophy, it would lose its ability to defend doctrine, and its teachings would be dissolved into historical relativism and personalist existentialism - which is exactly the current situation - both in Catholicism in 2025 and in UN/UNESCO Constructivist Education Pedagogy as it is no longer able to defend any Epistemological or Moral Doctrine of Objectivity, Reality - Truth. Witness the curriculum now taught in Law, Medicine and the policy & procedures forced upon civil servants, those in public office and employees under corporate compliance.

🧵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.

🧵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.

🧵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.

🧵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.

🧵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.

🧵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.

🧵Game B as a Trojan Horse for Technocratic Totalitarianism

Game B, as advocated by thinkers like Bret Weinstein, Daniel Schmachtenberger, and Jordan Hall, presents itself as a novel, decentralized approach to societal evolution that aims to move beyond the perceived failures of “Game A” (i.e., traditional competitive market economies and political systems). However, beneath its rhetoric of systemic innovation and cooperative intelligence, Game B’s principles, premises, and praxis fundamentally undermine and subvert popular sovereignty, self-governance, and Constitutional Republican governance. This analysis will expose the philosophical, metaphysical, and strategic underpinnings of Game B, demonstrating how it aligns with the broader agenda for totalitarian technocracy, not as a direct authoritarian system, but as a seemingly organic, “networked” form of control that disguises centralized governance under the illusion of decentralized cooperation. 2/The Philosophical and Metaphysical Foundations of Game B

Game B’s Roots in Systemic Thinking & Cybernetics:

Game B is deeply influenced by complex systems theory, cybernetics, and systems optimization paradigms, which treat human societies as dynamic, adaptive networks rather than communities of autonomous individuals with inalienable rights.

Cybernetic Control; Game B’s emphasis on feedback loops and self-organizing systems aligns closely with the Tektological framework (Bogdanov), which asserts that governance should be mediated by an optimizing authority rather than grounded in absolute principles (such as Natural Law).

Collective Intelligence Over Individual Sovereignty; Game B prioritizes collective sense-making, coordination and synthesis of knowledge, meaning that individual sovereignty is subordinated to the intelligence of the group or network.

Thus, while Game B claims to be a decentralized, emergent alternative to centralized governance, its functional logic necessitates managed coordination, placing sovereignty in the hands of networked authorities rather than individuals.

🧵The Systemic Subversion of Liberty

Literature and historical evidence support the analysis that philosophical systems, including nominalism and its modern offshoots, have not always been neutral or purely epistemic endeavors, but have often been deeply entangled with political and social agendas. The use of education and the academy as vehicles for such agendas has functioned as part of an immensely well funded, co-ordinated broader effort to reshape societal norms, centralize power, and transform political structures.

Nominalism and its evolution in Western thought, particularly the philosophies from Descartes onwards, has facilitated many veiled vehicles for social, political, and ideological control, rather than functioning as merely neutral, objective methodologies for understanding the world. The funded and promoted rise of nominalist thinking (particularly with the embedding of the Prussian Academic/Education paradigm) was not merely a philosophical shift, but a strategic move to subvert and undermine traditional concepts of natural law, objective truth, and individual autonomy, especially in relation to the sovereignty of U.S. Constitutional Republic.

With a shout out to the comprehensive work of @_Escapekey_ whose substack everyone should be mining for its wealth of analysis:
open.substack.com/pub/escapekey?…
This thread will further unpack those strategic subversion tactics in specific relation to their consequences on self governance and popular sovereignty. 2/

By integrating foundational premises of nominalism within systemic governance models and environmentalism as an ideological imperative, global socialism has been embedded within capitalist structures WITHOUT EXPLICIT REVOLUTION; Not One Shot Fired. This process has systematically eroded:

Natural Law ; by rejecting objective moral and legal principles in favor of pragmatic systemic management.

Popular Sovereignty; by replacing democratic governance with managerial technocracy.

Self-Governance; by conditioning individuals to see themselves as components of a larger system rather than autonomous moral agents.

🧵
I find Nathan Jacobs to give of the clearest articulations of the Nominalism/Realism divide for the layman. I’ve shared his content before but if you’ve not listened yet, imo this is well worth your time to digest: youtu.be/G1lrYYqg5qY?si… it also relates back to a couple of his earlier presentations: youtu.be/nVmPIMg4St4?si… & a shorter clip here: youtu.be/4jk2JfsY584?si…

Why does this interest me so much? Because like Jacobs, I’ve also found it to be causal & the root of inability to defend (cognitively) against ideological subversion (of both ‘Right’ & ‘Left’) in addition to accommodation of heretical streams within various Faiths.

As I’ve examined the roots of Education subversion & the philosophies which have undermined Constitutional Principles & premises, Nominalism has been foundational to that enterprise. It’s no surprise then that Nominalism has been dominant within the Academy & State Education Pedagogy. Not in explicit taught Theory - but as implicit premises & praxis deployed under a variety of means. It’s been the air breathed & the water swam in for several generations. Certainly since the New Frontier Architects Of Education; the Social Reconstructivists throughout the 20th Century. Nominalism has (through Education) formed our assumptions, world view & understanding of ourselves. In this way, disabling the orientation & navigation faculties of our inner constitution. Most of us haven’t even realized this as we’ve functioned primarily in Levels 1 & 2 (see that final link above). Imo - this remains a key susceptibility which even Classical Education has failed to equip students with the necessary discernment for. Many of our ‘brightest & best’ have assumed that the Nominalist paradigm is ‘just the way the world is’ and hopefully in this thread, you’ll start to understand what the implications & consequences of that assumption have been for personal sovereignty & self governance under Natural Law.

🧵
Nominalism is the philosophical doctrine that denies the existence of universal, objective realities or forms, asserting instead that universals are merely names (nomina) or linguistic conventions without any independent existence outside the mind. In contrast to Realism, which posits that universals (e.g., justice, truth, or human nature) have real, objective existence, Nominalism confines meaning and reality to subjective perceptions or linguistic constructions. 2/

Nominalism erodes and negates personal sovereignty, self-governance, and natural law in the following ways:

Rejection of universal principles undermines natural law, which is based on immutable truths grounded in human nature and reality. By reducing truth to subjective or societal constructs, Nominalism weakens the foundation for self-evident rights and personal sovereignty.

Without universal moral principles, ethics becomes contingent on individual preferences, societal trends, or power dynamics.
This relativism fosters dependency on external authorities (e.g., the state or ideology) for moral guidance, eroding self-governance.

I put out many threads last year on ‘Descartes The Father Of Ideology’ (commenting on John Bruce Leonard’s essay series) which are worth looking for on my search bar. Crucial in understanding how our endowed rational faculties were skewed with Reason severed from its jurisdictional relationship to (principles of self-evident) Common Sense.

🧵
Protestant theology that integrates reason, Natural Law, and the dignity of the individual provides a robust foundation for liberty, self-governance, and personal sovereignty. In contrast, Protestant theology that denies these principles often leads to authoritarianism, collectivism, or moral relativism, which erode the philosophical and ethical preconditions for liberty. Understanding these distinctions is essential for aligning theology with the metaphysical and ethical foundations necessary for a free society. I only have the bot to chat with so here goes:
🤖 2/