Van Harvey

*not consequences* -> not causes 😑

Don't 'Should' all over yourself. The consequences of the Rule of Law whose purpose is to uphold and defend individual rights, was an explosion in productivity, wealth, and prosperity to an extent that no one had ever dreamed of. But those welcome consequence of upholding first principles, are effects, not consequences, or justifications for why you should uphold Natural Liberty.

Shall we play a game? Should we? To what ends should we combine Game Theory with the Rule of Law? That's another strange game, in which the only winning move is not to play. But many 'defenders of liberty' are urging us all to play along...🧵

courtenayturner.substack.com/p/the-technocr… This. Is. 🔥 @Van_Blogodidact just nailed it. Game Theory isn’t ‘neutral’ or ‘compatible’ with moral realism—it’s the metaphysical Trojan horse that lets technocrats redesign reality itself so their models don’t have to deal with pesky things like free will, teleology, or the imago Dei. They need to hollow out the foundation first. That’s not prudence—that’s constructivism dressed up as ‘Economic Thinking.’ And it all feeds straight into the Santa Fe Institute grift—the complexity theory hub (Epstein/Maxwell were very interested) that spawned Game B and ‘minimum viable metaphysics.’ See my piece on Jim Rutt’s technocratic philosophy paving the road to posthuman control. This is how they build the new financial system: tokenized everything creating a literal cybernetic organism for a gamified society. Blockchain as the nervous system, tokens as behavioral hormones, DAOs as the decision cortex—programmable nudges turning humans into nodes in their feedback-loop machine. (Full breakdown in my ‘Tokenization of Everything’ Substack + Microsoft 666 patent thread.) Shoutout for quoting the real Bezmenov warning vs. the faux-Yuri lure. Defenders of liberty: stop playing their game. The only winning move is to reject the board entirely and defend metaphysical realism, natural law, and human sovereignty. open.substack.com/pub/courtenayt… courtenayturner.substack.com/p/the-proof-of…

@CourtenayTurner @thepalmerworm @corTheory Gaming the Game Theory Games, and other shades of 'Economic Thinking' blogodidact.blogspot.com/2026/03/gaming…

The purpose of Game Theory, as is the case with 'Economic Thinking', is to model (meaning to substitute theory for reality) how best to escape from the 'restrictions' of respecting your individual rights, so as to manage society through ever more efficient calculations of every move that you 'should' be made to make. And that is not compatible with metaphysical & moral realism

Game Theory and 'Economic Thinking' are attempts to reverse that process of causality, as their projected results are their justifications for implementing their strategies, and their systems are reflexively used to transform them into its own causes.

@BuzzPatterson Yet.

You’re not France.

🤣

@DSPetolicchio Was... Hillary... not available?

Nancy pelosi, obviously

@DSPetolicchio Miyamoto Musashi.

Tokugawa

NnnnooOooo f'ing waAayyyy!!!😱

@thepalmerworm I'm pretty sure that you'd have a very difficult time explaining to any of those of our Founders' generation, how a sound education could fail to transmit a solid understanding of the traditions of The West.

💯

🤣

@RealDeanCain Looks like evil pollen.

Bad policy = run away!!

@m_takewaka Start? No. Continue? Absolutely.

My American friends, I'm facing a major problem here. When I say I want to eat American BBQ, some Americans say, "come to Texas," others say, "come to South Carolina," and still others say, "come to Missouri." I'm confused. Are you guys going to start a BBQ civil war?

1/2 🧵 My response to some interesting question on my Divided line essay: open.substack.com/pub/correspond… Great discussion here, and I appreciate the depth you’re both bringing to the Divided Line. But I’d be remiss not to point something out that bears directly on this conversation. We’ve been talking about how figures at the dianoia level present themselves as guides to noesis — offering hypothetical symbolic frameworks as if they were the Forms themselves. This is not merely an abstract philosophical problem. It is operationally active right now. Jordan Peterson is perhaps the most visible contemporary example. I want to be fair: he has genuinely helped many young men find a sense of order, responsibility, and meaning. That is real, and I won’t dismiss it. But that is also precisely what makes the deeper issue so dangerous. A shepherd who leads the flock part of the way up the mountain — and then into a different cave — does more damage than a shepherd who never got anyone moving at all. His entire framework is Jungian archetypal psychology dressed in Platonic clothing. The archetypes function as his Forms. He is asking you to ascend through his symbolic interpretive system. That is not noesis. That is a closed dialectical circle — what I’d call the Wizard’s Circle — where all reasoning is permitted only within the pre-established frame. Question the frame and you’re accused of retreating to the shadows. This conversation is getting to something really important, and I want to push it one level further, because I think it’s the crux of everything. We tend to treat noesis as the unambiguous goal — the summit of the Divided Line, direct apprehension of the Forms, the philosopher finally free of the cave. And within Plato’s framework, yes, that’s the highest epistemic state. But here’s what I’d ask you to sit with: noesis, as a structural concept, does something very dangerous. It creates a permanently two-tiered epistemic class. There are those who have achieved direct apprehension of ultimate truth — and there are those who haven’t. And crucially, the ones who haven’t cannot evaluate the claim of those who have. You cannot verify noesis from outside noesis. That’s not a bug in Gnosticism. That is Gnosticism. The pneumatics, the psychics, the hylics — it’s the same ladder. The initiated and the uninitiated. And the initiated get to speak for reality in a way the uninitiated are structurally prohibited from challenging. Plato arguably planted that seed, and the Neoplatonists — Plotinus, Ficino, Pico — watered it into full esoteric bloom. Now bring it forward to today. What is “the science” as wielded by the expert class? It is a secular noesis claim. “We have accessed a level of understanding you cannot follow without our credentials, our models, our methodologies. Trust the experts.” The epistemological structure is identical. It doesn’t matter whether you dress it in Jungian archetypes, Integral Theory, climate modeling, or public health consensus — the move is always the same: I have seen the Forms. You have not. Defer to me. Peterson does this with Jungian depth psychology. He implies he has intuited the deep archetypal structures of the psyche — the things beneath the things — in a way that grants him interpretive authority. And I’ve done a deep dive on how this connects directly to ARC, because ARC is selling the same epistemological product with a traditionalist label on it. The “better story” they’re offering is still a story that requires their initiated narrators to tell it. The Christian answer to this (and you don’t have to be Christian to recognize it metaphysically) — and I think this is decisive — is the Incarnation. Logos made flesh. Truth that became publicly visible, touchable, falsifiable by anyone present, not accessible only through an esoteric method mastered by a natural elite. That’s not just a theological claim. It’s an epistemological revolution. It’s the direct counter-structure to both Platonic

👀 Beware the choice that's offered, which dismantles your ability to make choices that're worth choosing.

@LibertyCappy Even more forgotten than Gen X, is Gen J (1954 to 1965).

Once you realize it