An everyday glance into our embracing of destructive ideas, their withered leaves and spoiled fruits.
2 subscribers
Oct 13 ⢠6 tweets ⢠3 min read
đ§ľLoss 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 âlawâ, âorderâ, âreasonâ and âtruthâ, 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) âlensâ.
2/ Theological Containment through Synthesis
Many self-identified âThomistâ institutions quietly adopted transcendental Thomism (MarĂŠchal, Rahner, Lonergan) or personalist reinterpretations that blend Aquinas with modern subjectivism. Being inverted as âself-presenceâ or âtranscendental opennessâ. Participation inverted as âconsciousness realizing itselfâ. 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 âmodern updatesâ to the faith. The word âaggiornamentoâ means âbringing up to dateâ. 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 ârelevantâ or âmodernâ. They didnât âmodernizeâ Thomism; they quietly replaced its realist foundations with the same mystical philosophy it once rejected. Once that shift occurred, âThomismâ 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 BahĂĄâĂ, Hegelian, or Teilhardian form; they share the same metaphysical grammar of emanation, but âbaptizedâ through modern pedagogical veilcraft, in scholastic vocabulary.
Sep 16 ⢠7 tweets ⢠3 min read
đ§ľLiberty, Truth and the Question of Absolutism
Q1.
Isnât this just imposing one groupâs âtruthâ 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 ânon-negotiableâ 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.
Sep 5 ⢠5 tweets ⢠5 min read
đ§ľCompeting 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 âPrinciple of Superiorityâ whereby rulers mediate Godâs will and people obey. Thereâs a relationship here to note between Pufendorfâs 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 âsafelyâ 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.
Aug 30 ⢠5 tweets ⢠3 min read
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 âall men are created equalâ 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 (Godâs Created Order), no one may be deprived of rights without violating the order of creation itself.
2/ The Founders were never naĂŻve about manâs corruption. They lived in an age well acquainted with crime, cruelty and tyranny, and they did not write âall men are created equalâ 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 âcreated equalâ 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 âsuperior rightâ 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.
Aug 11 ⢠6 tweets ⢠5 min read
đ§ľThe Customer As King - Passivity Of Consuming Information Without Formation
The present public âMarket appetite and desire appears to be for certainty without responsibility, for âStrong leadershipâ promising decisive action without requiring individuals to exercise sustained moral reasoning, with the resulting individual agency. The desire Iâm observing is for construct-derived collective belonging - not -individual agency. The majority appetite demonstrated is a preference for aligning with a movementâs identity rather than shouldering the weight of sovereign individual agency. Popular sovereignty is psychologically invisible without experience of self-governance and most people canât imagine what it looks like. Their only reference points (over generations) are hierarchies and managed systems.
When the public is actively calling for âstrong leadershipâ the market delivers; whether in the form of a political strongman, a charismatic influencer, or (now âfreedâ 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 itâs not a person, itâs an infrastructure. Algorithmic enforcement is marketed as âbeyond human corruptionâ 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 Founderâs design presumed a people who wanted to govern themselves, not to be ruled, even benevolently. Today, most view rule by âourâ side as the highest achievable form of freedom. âDemocratic Freedomâ - the onramp to tyranny - as the Founders warned and established the Republic to defend against. This âpartyâ collectivist mindset makes it irrelevant whether the ruling apparatus is âhardâ (authoritarian regime) or âsoftâ (technocratic governance); the citizenâs role has already been reduced to follower/consumer - a subject of a system which their agency is outsourced to and which âmanages themâ as a utilitarian resource for the owners and architects of The System.
Aug 10 ⢠8 tweets ⢠3 min read
đ§ľ
The Doug Wilson / Moscow, Idaho âmilitarized ecclesial captureâ (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 Iâll break this down in a little detail.
2/ The Structural Premise of Militarized Ecclesial Capture
Wilsonâs model is not simply âchurch leadershipâ, itâs 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. âMilitarizedâ 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 âjustâ spiritual care.
Aug 6 ⢠6 tweets ⢠5 min read
đ§ľIdeology as Deployment Systemđ
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. âUnburdening from what has beenâ. Theyâre 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.
Aug 4 ⢠10 tweets ⢠10 min read
đ§ľNeither a Horse nor a Dog
The Foundersâ insistence that man must be neither a âdogâ nor a âhorseâ refers not to a commentary on social status or station, but to manâs metaphysical capacityâhis 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 governanceâself-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 Realismâespecially 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 âdogâ or âhorseâ 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 Bernaysâ 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 âtraining leadersâ, but recognition, comprehension necessary for all âmenâ (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.
Aug 3 ⢠8 tweets ⢠4 min read
đ§ľRecursion v Participation
Do you comprehend inalienable rights? That your rights come from your created (endowed) human nature (what man is, not âhasâ or âdoesâ) - not from government or contracts?
Then you believe, whether you know it or not, in a real human nature; something that doesnât change based on whoâs in power, what the system says, or the ideas laundered through constructivist âtheoriesâ. Acknowledging what man is as a rational human adult is to uphold âManâ as understood and articulated in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. To recognize, embody, uphold and defend this is participation.
BUT:
If youâre in a system based on recursion (statist and managerial control systems), you donât have rights. You have roles, responsibilities and functions that are granted to you by the system, as long as youâre âascendingâ (evolving/complying) properly.
Recursion v Participation is not abstract philosophy; itâs the difference between being a citizen and being a managed resource. What follows is civics-grounded explanation designed for those who do not speak âphilosophyâ or âtheologyâ, 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 âvoteâ is just a way to keep you inside the loop. You have âritual inclusionâ - but the real decisions are already made at the top.
Participation = real voice in law
Recursion = simulated consent
Jul 27 ⢠4 tweets ⢠2 min read
đ§ľAtheism 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.
ââŚall men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RightsâŚâ
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.
Jul 25 ⢠5 tweets ⢠4 min read
đ§ľClub Of Rome Veilcraft SupremeđŞđđ
âFirst Principles and First Values of Evolving Perennialismâ (May 2023, Office for the Future)
The document presents itself as a unifying moral and philosophical framework designed to guide humanity through âmeta-crisis,â claiming to recover âuniversal first principlesâ from spiritual traditions (especially the âperennial philosophyâ) while promoting a vision of âplanetary wholeness,â âdignity,â and âshared sensemaking.â It repeatedly uses terms like âsacred,â âsovereignty,â âtruth,â âbeauty,â and âgoodnessâ 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 âPhoenix The Republicâ 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.
đSynthetic âSpiritualâ Grammar:
The âFirst Principlesâ 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.
đPrisca Theologia Weaponized:
The âancient wisdomâ 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.
â ď¸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.
â ď¸Technocratic Containment of Dissent:
Language of âwholeness,â âtranscendence,â âuniversal dignity,â and âmeta-integrationâ is used to diffuse opposition and suppress political sovereignty by subsuming it into the rhetoric of âplanetary consciousness evolutionâ.
Jul 10 ⢠8 tweets ⢠7 min read
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; âHe who defines being governs becoming.â 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 âvisionary insightâ. Each âtheoryâ was an alchemical transmutation of the real;
đŞThe soul became a system
đŞThe will became desire
đŞThe intellect became software
đŞThe good became preference
đŞThe 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.
Jul 10 ⢠8 tweets ⢠7 min read
đ§ľThe 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; âJustice, Freedom, Reform, Tradition, Innovation, Rebellion.â 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: âChoose a room. Debate those in other rooms. Defend your view and refute theirs.â 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; âWhat is the foundation of the House itself?â âWho built it?â âWhy are all the rooms so eerily symmetrical?â2/ 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; âTruth is not found; it is made.â âReality is not known; it is processed.â âOrder is not given; it is chosen.â 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.
Jul 7 ⢠12 tweets ⢠10 min read
đ§ľThe 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 natureâs 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 peopleâs 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; âYour Words Are Powerâ
One day a murmur drifted through the orchard; âThese names are just noises. You can name them otherwise.â A cloaked stranger came to the people with scissors of silver and said; âCut the roots. They are not needed. The names you use bind you to limits that belong to another age.â 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. âYour roots bind you,â said the voice. âCut them, and you will be free.â 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.
Jun 24 ⢠9 tweets ⢠8 min read
đ§ľThe 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;
âWe do not believe. We create. What is not constructed by us has no authority.â
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 âmanagedâ.2/ The Creed of Control
The Constructorâs creed was simple;
âThere is no above. Nothing higher than reason.â
âThere is no below. Nothing more basic than perception.â
âThere is only progress; spiralling upward and forward.â
Everything else was a residue of what was termed âreligious pathologyâ. 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.
Jun 23 ⢠5 tweets ⢠3 min read
đ§ľConstitutional Liberty â Liberty to Destroy the Constitution
Key Principle from Natural Law & the Founders:
Liberty is not license. Freedom of religion does not include the âfreedomâ 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:
âLaw must rest upon the eternal foundation of justice.â
(Lectures on Law)
Religious liberty is bounded by Natural Law. If a religion denies truth (e.g. relativism, hermetic âpolarityââŚ) 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, itâs not religious liberty - itâs civilizational sabotage.
Jun 21 ⢠5 tweets ⢠3 min read
đ§ľOBJECTIVE VALUES â ONTOLOGICAL REALISM
People assume âObjective Valuesâ means that values are grounded in something outside the individualâs opinion; therefore they assume it must mean eternal truths, natural law, or God-given rights. But hereâs what it actually means in systems like Perryâs âNew Realismâ (or Randâs Objectivism):
âObjectiveâ means values can be described, classified, or derived from rational observation of effects. Whatâs ârealâ is what works within a system. âObjectivityâ 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/âŚ2/ Whatâs Missing?
đĄOntology
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 âinalienable rightsâ, no basis for conscience, no justification for limits on state or expert power and no âself-evidentâ truths - only engineered consensus.
Objectivism Does the Same, claiming that âreasonâ 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.
Jun 19 ⢠20 tweets ⢠7 min read
đ§ľ
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 dâĂŠtat:
2/ âWe make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.â
âWe laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.â
(The Abolition of Man, Chapter 1)
This is Lewisâs 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 veryâ ď¸formation denies the reality of the virtues they claim to uphold.
Jun 17 ⢠16 tweets ⢠8 min read
1/ The Law of Noncontradiction (LNC) states:
âA thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.â
But the Hermetic Principle of Polarity denies the fixity of identity, asserting that âA and not-Aâ 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:
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 âpolesâ of the same energy. Discernment breaks down; everything is âboth-and,â never âeither-or.â 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
Jun 16 ⢠9 tweets ⢠4 min read
đ§ľItâs taken me about 3 yrs of working steadily to unpack this metaphysically dense, rich statement. Hopefully it wonât take others as long. In this thread Iâll break it down a little:
2/ âThe gnostic premise of the death of GodâŚâ
What it means:
This refers not simply to Nietzscheâs declaration (âGod is deadâ) 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 âtrueâ god behind or beyond being. This premise is not atheism in the modern sense, itâs metaphysical revolt; Promethean/Luciferian - âMelkorâ in intent and operation.
Why it matters:
To say âGod is deadâ in this context means that the source of order, truth, teleology and being itself is no longer recognized as real. Itâs a metaphysical strike, not just theological.
đĄ Gnostic Death of God = Displacement of Logos
(the ordering principle of reality, reason and truth)
This is not simply a rejection of âReligionâ, 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 isnât a nostalgic hankering for subjective idealistic meaning - this is the fundamental rejection of knowledge and the means of accessing and articulating that knowledge.
Jun 16 ⢠9 tweets ⢠5 min read
đ§ľ
The term âNatural Lawâ 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 (âNatural Lawâ) 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 itâs a bit late!
Letâs perform a scalpel-precise forensic distinction between:
đď¸ Classical Natural Law (Aristotle â Aquinas)
vs.
đ Hermetic âNatural Lawâ (Gnostic / Occult / Esoteric)
2/ đď¸Classical Natural Law ~ Rooted in LogosđĽ
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.91â94)
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 donât 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.