This is not about censoring something. It is about defending institutional stewardship, pedagogical custodianship and recognizing the instrumental hostile utility of Marketplace models and consumer ontology to the adversarial forces of epistemological warfare, media political warfare operations and the destruction of the public’s cognitive integrity to be able to recognize, discern and defend against what is being done to them - as ‘customers’ - in the Marketplace.

In the current theater of operations, while the liberty to speak is a universal right that protects the person from the external usurpation of their own conscience, the competence to actually occupy a constitutive seat of office (and the general public capacity to comprehend that office) is a prerequisite-driven achievement. It’s not simply opinion and projection - in the same way that structural engineering, navigation and piloting a craft are all technically specific competencies, requiring cumulative practise with clearly defined and demonstrated non negotiable competencies. By granting the same procedural standing to uninformed customer preference as demonstrably competent constitutive comprehension - the digital marketplace introduces a jurisdictional erosion that ensures the eventual collapse of institutional stability and the requisite pedagogical function of stewardship. This failure to distinguish between expressive liberty and the acquisition of prerequisite competence enables opinion, misinformation and disinformation to contaminate the environment, stripping original constitutive material of its power to correct the very subjective flaws it was designed to address.

Read more

The Crisis of Jurisdictional Recognition

Read more

“The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to those parts of the earth where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen, and great were the difficulties with which they had to struggle, from the imperfection of human society, and the unjust decisions of usurped authority.”

Read more

I concluded my previous article with the statement;

Read more

Historicism does not merely ‘add chronology’ to education. It reorders the intellect. This is arguably one of the most significant pedagogical consequences of historicism (which no one to my current knowledge, is raising as clinically urgent) - that historicism as epistemological and methodological default, has functioned as an intellectual/cognitive affliction of sorts. It trains students to ask; ‘When did this idea emerge? Who influenced whom? How did this concept develop?’ before asking ‘What is this?’. That inversion has profound consequences. The first casualty is the recognitional faculty.

Read more

The American Republic did not establish public office as an instrument through which successive generations could express competing political philosophies. It established office as a constitutional trust. That distinction is foundational. A constitutional trust does not originate in the office-holder, the ‘Party’, the state, or the prevailing will of society. It derives from the constitutional order itself, which recognizes antecedent realities concerning human nature, rights, law, and political authority. The office exists because the constitutional order exists; the office-holder therefore receives a trust that he neither creates nor possesses.

Read more

If there were to be a foundational civic formation teaching and learning program dedicated to Realism and Constitutive Order, the purpose would not be to teach philosophy as an academic subject. It would be to restore the intellectual habits that make philosophy, science, law, medicine, theology and civic judgment possible in the first place. One of the deepest obstacles pedagogically is an objection I’ve seen a number of times to the necessity of formation and the objection itself is revealing. It assumes; ‘If reality is obvious, no formation should be necessary’. But that confuses the intelligibility of reality with the condition of the knower. Reality can be perfectly intelligible while our capacity to recognize it is impaired. That is true everywhere else.

Read more

Dedication on this Eve of the 250th Anniversary of American Independence

Read more

When public office holders and public servants treat foundational principles as modular or negotiable preferences, they introduce a high-velocity solvent into the organization’s foundation. Subjective tastes are the primary eroders of institutional integrity. When the operating assumptions are incompatible with an institution’s purpose, the system will undergo a structural failure that no amount of sincere intent can prevent. Foundational principles, premises and operating assumptions form the base of a vertical hierarchy we can identify as the operational cascade of institutional embodiment.

Read more

Read more

Read more

One places the Cross at the centre of history and interprets man through it. The other gradually places man at the center of history and interprets the Cross through him. The rhetoric, vocabulary and emotional tone remain Christian - but the organizing principle increasingly becomes anthropological and sociological rather than Christological and ontological. That word ‘Love’ remains and Christ recedes while ‘Humanity’ advances - Magnifica Humanitatis.

Read more

So now we reach the end of our series reflecting on Davidson and Rees-Mogg’s 1997 book (blueprint) ‘The Sovereign Individual’. I hope these articles have been helpful in raising awareness regarding the Problem-Reaction-Solution, Ordo an Chaos nature of what on the surface (through ingesting Media Narratives) looks like disparate events, while in operation, forms something of a much broader, long range project for radical full scale transformation. The usurpation of nation states by platform governance and the usurpation of inalienable rights (for Americans). If you haven’t read the preceding articles in the series, I advise doing so and having your own copy of the book. The 1st article can be read here:

Read more

The authors present this as a ‘natural outcome’ of the new era. Yet their own language shows that it results in a reordering of how authority and obligation are distributed. Equality under the law, as a binding principle, is replaced by differentiation (of access) as a functional condition of participation. The discerning reader must therefore hold the distinction that the chapter (purposefully) blurs. Equality of outcome is not the same as equality under law. The former may vary across circumstances; the latter is the basis of lawful governance. By conflating the two, the authors are able to dismiss the principle that constrains power while appearing to address only its most visible expression.

Read more

A technocratic system does not need the old state to be upheld and defended, its officers and offices held to account - no!! What it needs is for the old state to be seen as exhausted, corrupt, violent, incompetent and unable to manage conflict. Then the public begins to demand systems that promise neutral administration, safety, security, coordination and efficiency. Disorder creates the appetite for management and the (financed, choreographed) conflict creates demand for control. Activism, riots, crime waves, institutional sabotage, border chaos, financial insecurity and ideological agitation all become (as they were devised and operationalized to be) usable inputs in the same transition; they serve to discredit law-bound governance and prepare the population to accept system-bound governance.

Read more

It reveals the mechanism by which autonomy is first concentrated in a mobile elite and then, increasingly thereafter absorbed into system-level control. The ‘cognitive elite’ are not the final sovereigns! They are a transitional class within a larger restructuring. That transition is not at all from constraint to freedom. The transition is from visible, law-bound authority to embedded, system-mediated control.

Read more

When sovereignty is ‘commercialized’ it no longer resides in a legal order. It resides in systems that provide services; financial systems, communication systems, identity systems and transactional platforms. These systems do not operate under constitutional constraint. They operate under rules defined by those who control them. That is the new structure. The Monarch, the Pope, the Bishop, the Elder, the Bureaucrat and the Administrator have not disappeared. Their functions have been absorbed and redistributed into systems. Power has not been removed. It has been depersonalized, distributed and embedded, making it far more difficult to locate, challenge, or restrain. Decentralized for re-centralization to the new centre of operation.

Read more

The ‘Sovereign Individual™️ operates beyond the reach of many of the constraints that have bound persons in the past’ (p. 13).Those ‘constraints’ being referenced are not merely arbitrary impositions; they include the very legal and political structures that define citizenship, jurisdiction and accountability. To operate ‘beyond’ them is not simply to ‘gain freedom’ - it is to exit the framework within which law binds both authority and individual. The authors make clear that this capacity is not universal. It belongs to those who possess the requisite skills and resources, stating that the ‘cognitive elite’ will be the primary beneficiaries of this transformation (p. 6).

Read more

Once everything becomes a market transaction, there is no longer any principled distinction between; government and corporation, citizen and consumer, rights and services, law and contract, self-governance and platform management. The public imagines they are escaping ‘state power’. Operationally they are dissolving the very category that can limit private power. The result is not at all ‘less governance’. The result is governance by whichever institution controls the infrastructure people depend upon. (Jones)

Read more