🧵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.

🧵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.”