Constitutional Gnosis

the common ideology for American rectification

I’ve been contemplating much upon the

Tree of Woe

lately. In an article some months ago, a common ideology was called for. While this task is far beyond me as an individual, I put forth my thoughts to continue the decentralized effort to build an ideology capable of rectifying the mass psychosis inherent to the contrived regime consensus seeking our permanent enslavement.

Gnostic Alternative to Postmodernism

It is neither spiritually nor psychologically possible to truly adopt postmodernism as a worldview. That doesn’t keep people from trying. Ultimately, postmodernism serves as a sophisticated means of rationalizing hypocrisy and delusion, especially for those incapable of candor regarding their pursuit of self-interest.¹ Since motivation is the master of reason, it is often impossible to convince those who have come to rely on it to justify their vicious and contemptible existence. Gnosis provides a sound alternative to the depravity and madness of postmodernism. I’m speaking here of gnosis in the broadest possible conception.² Gnosis is knowing. It is having confidence in your own beliefs and values. This is easier said than done, because it requires uncommon self-awareness and pain tolerance. As difficult as it may be, it is a quality required of those with the capacity to lead America away from the postmodern cliff that inevitably collapses into nihilism and destruction. Those incapable of this level of development are always dependent upon trust. It is the duty of leaders to inspire trust backed by genuine desire to advance the interests of trustees so that material and spiritual support for the enemy may be siphoned away and parlayed into strategic victory.

Constitutional Gnosis

My goal with this essay is to advance the case for those capable of gnosis to adopt a straightforward and reasonable understanding of the Constitution, and appreciate its indispensable value as the only political framework capable of achieving American Rectification (thereby forestalling an American Reckoning). As

Tree of Woe

so cogently argues, those mired in the deceptions of postmodernism can be made to support a government completely antithetical to American values. Applying his mind for strategy and affinity for game design, he details how enemies of America seek to cynically break the game by exploiting weaknesses in its design. What these articles make clear is that no matter how flagrantly unconstitutional and anti-American a political strategy is, postmodernism offers a “rational” defense. Indeed, this is no small part of how the Constitution has come to be regarded so contemptuously by the ruling elite while ostensibly retaining its place as “The Supreme Law of the Land.” To contrast the status quo of Constitutional Postmodernism with Constitutional Gnosis, consider the legal doctrine of judicial review.

Under this doctrine the courts have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. That is to say, human beings are given the authority to unilaterally determine Truth. This is absurd on its face if you consider the implications, some of which have already come to pass, and others soon to follow without a concerted effort towards rectification. With judicial review in place, there is only one thing standing between our American society with its faint hope of rectification and a postmodern hellscape doomed to reckoning, and it isn’t SCOTUS. As Alexander explains, there is nothing that Constitutionally prohibits court packing nor elimination of SCOTUS justices unwilling to certify blatant spiritual treason against the American people. No, the only thing that truly stands in the way, is Constitutional Gnosis. Leaders who are able to discern when something is clearly unconstitutional and parlay that discernment into effective action to support and defend the Constitution against its most dangerous enemies.³ Simultaneously, the ability to coordinate efforts to achieve Rectification likewise require Constitutional Gnosis, as it is this “knowing” regarding an objective standard that enables unity of effort given geographic temporal dispersion.

Gnosis and Nullification

While this might at first glance seem like a novel proposal, this was explicitly endorsed by multiple Constitutional framers and implicitly endorsed by all Americans until the advent of judicial review. The notion that it is the responsibility of every individual, be he executive, legislator, judge, bureaucrat, military officer, or any other civil servant, to judge the constitutionality of affairs and refuse to support that which is unconstitutional may sound radical today, but it was the intent of the founding fathers and the only conception that recognizes the humanity and agency of American citizens. The alternative is that we’re all cogs in a machine turning at the pleasure of the SCOTUS. It is widely understood that jury nullification is within the rights of jury members, and I would argue it is the duty of jurors to nullify unconstitutional laws as well. While efforts to suppress the doctrine of jury nullification have prevailed within courtrooms, there is nevertheless a widespread recognition of its existence and legitimacy. The type of nullification inherent to Constitutional Gnosis isn’t something widely understood or explicitly identified and discussed, but these last few years have made it abundantly clear this needs to change. Critics of nullification will argue that there is no objective basis for anyone to interpret the constitution, which is why we have given it over to courts as a political procedural matter⁴ - BECAUSE the Constitution doesn't actually mean anything, we can't nullify that which violates its meaning. Or so the argument goes...

The Objective Constitution

As with any ideology thoroughly entwined with subjective values, discernment, and interpretation, Constitutional Gnosis must be paired with some objective standards to coordinate efforts, facilitate coalition building, and maintain moral continuity. This consideration is a bit of an adaptation of yet more

Tree of Woe

insight using diet of all things to explain morality. The optimal diet is subjective, but there are still objective standards by which subjective diets can be evaluated. Gnosis is something only an individual is capable of which makes it inherently subjective. The Constitution is an objective document that references our shared objective reality, however. Codifying this in a manner that will have widespread agreement is inherently challenging, but I’ll try. I envision much constructive dialogue will be possible in this space, so long as anything smacking of postmodernism can be discarded out of hand. For those whose paths of individuation have led to seeking American rectification, or a making right of our government and society to realign with Constitutional norms, I offer some objective ideological considerations.

Constitutionality is Legitimacy

The primary ideological objective standard accompanying Constitutional Gnosis is that Constitutionality determines legitimacy. Put another way, what is allowed by the Constitution is legitimate while those things prohibited by the Constitution are not. The Gnostic standard applies here. It is you who must determine Constitutionality. Many things can factor into this determination, but just because Oliver Wendall Holmes said it 100 years ago isn’t sufficient to confer legitimacy if you don’t find the arguments persuasive. Making a determination is always good practice to prepare for unforeseen circumstances, but it is a moral duty that is essential where unconstitutional action can cause irremediable injury. To illustrate I’ll provide two examples.

The first example was seen during COVID. To really capture what it takes to make an individual assessment of the Constitutionality of policy with the potential to cause irremediable harm, then risk everything to support and defend the Constitution and the Americans it was drafted to serve is beyond the scope of this essay. Fortunately I already wrote a review of a Defending the Constitution Behind Enemy Lines that does indeed capture this. Please check it out if you haven’t yet.

The second example is the 2020 election. What is lost on most members of the lay public dependent on a media apparatus hostile to their long term interests is that “fraud” was never the relevant framing for issues related to the 2020 presidential election. The appropriate framing⁵ is instead “Constitutionality.” Marc Elias went all over the country implementing election rules, almost all of which were blatantly unconstitutional, and a few of which have been subsequently found to be unconstitutional by their respective state legislatures and judiciaries. Another great American, Ivan Raiklin⁶, recognized this and proposed a Constitutionally valid remedy in the event that the election was conducted in an unconstitutional manner. Ivan published this recommendation openly⁷. Whatever happened in the weeks after that, the federally contrived events of January 6th successfully placed discussion of the Constitutional legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election outside the Overton window during the critical timeframe legal remedy for the treason of Marc Elias and his various associates and benefactors was still possible.⁸

For both of these violations of the Constitution there was irremediable injury inflicted upon the American populace. While remedy is not possible, accountability still is. Pursuing accountability is the duty of people like Rob Green and Ivan Raiklin because of the logical implications of the ideology of Constitutional Gnosis. Ivan and Rob didn’t wait for SCOTUS to say “you know what, this is unconstitutional” because that day may never come and some of us are unwilling to lose all of our rights in the meantime.

Another consideration that logically follows from “Constitutionality is Legitimacy” is that seeking Rectification must not use means that are clearly unconstitutional even when there are no punitive consequences for doing so. This is a common means by which postmodernists advance their agenda. Adopting this strategy is to reject Gnosis in favor of postmodernism spiritually bankrupting the effort and ensuring the only possible recourse will be Reckoning.

Much ideology flows from the a priori acceptance of the Legitimacy Axiom. Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional? Is fraction reserve banking? With Constitutional Gnosis comes awareness that many of the intractable problems we’re forced to endure in modern America are merely fruits of a poisonous (unconstitutional) tree. The noble function of an unfettered market has become a distant abstraction used to justify what would have amounted to dueling offenses 200 years ago. Likewise, ascending the social hierarchy in America requires a direct repudiation of virtue and outright abandonment of spiritual development. These travesties can be reversed, and the means can always be framed in terms of Rectification. A making right of illegitimate departures from the plain purpose and explicit restraints outlined in the Constitution.⁹

Risk

This approach is not without risk. Leaders will assume tremendous risk by not complying with or actively resisting unconstitutional lines of effort advanced by the postmodern enemies of liberty. That said, they will simultaneously avoid a much graver risk: becoming complicit in advancing an evil they, in the case of federal employees and military members, swore to oppose.

1. The inability to be honest about one’s goals and ambitions is a characteristic deeply embedded within the professional-managerial class and the elite members of that class in particular. The status that most of them seek requires this lack of candor as honest about self-interested motivations codes as gauche.

2. In this great overview of Stephan Hoeller’s Freedom,

Neoliberal Feudalism

outlines a useful conception of gnosis at greater length. The path of individuation can be taken in the context of many religious faiths. A notable contemporary example is the individuation many traditional Catholics have undergone in response to the Pope being an obvious apostate. Another way to understand what I mean by gnosis here is to consider its opposite: reflexive deference to the judgement of others.

3. Currently the most dangerous enemies to the Constitution are domestic. The CCP and RT aren’t publishing articles about how the Constitution is dangerous and needs to be “torched.” Those who fail to recognize this are guilty of malice, incompetence, or some combination thereof.

4. This focus on procedure over results, meaning, and purpose is a key feature of the cryptocracy. A recent Devon Erickson’s X post illustrative of this point comes to mind.

5. In terms of Constitutional Gnosis

6. Check out Ivan’s stack here (his mentions are mysteriously disabled):

7. Wikipedia calls the plan a “legalistic soft coup” which is wild considering the definition of legalistic is “following the letter of the law” and “soft coup” is an “illegal overthrow of the government… through non-violent means.”

8. I know most readers of this blog have already seen it, but they took the time to brag about it early 2021 in a Time Magazine article entitled The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election. From the article “They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding.” Many of these “law changes” were not conducted through state legislatures and were clearly unconstitutional, but then again so was the federal mask mandate for travel. They don’t care about the Constitution, only power. We have to concern ourselves with both and still win. If being the good guy was the path of least resistance we wouldn’t be in this mess.

9. There are some key grounding phrases that act as heuristics to provide guidance along the path of Constitutional Gnosis. In addition to admonitions about hypocrisy and delusion, I posit there are two additional sayings that capture this ideology in a practical way. The first is “Don’t take it out of my hide.” Pulled from hostage negotiator Chris Voss, this saying captures the essence of the non-aggression axiom in a manner that doesn’t trigger the dismissal of this term that accompanies its misuse by lolbertarians. There is a difficult balance here because the fiat money and fractional reserve banking make any “smart” financial plays employing leverage tantamount to “taking it out of others’ hide.” If you’re party to an increase in the money supply, then you’re culpable. A tricky problem, but one that we can keep in mind in how we transact with our fellow man. When negotiating or engaging in enterprise, we must strive to not profit at the direct expense of our countrymen. Andrew Tate’s antics manipulating and defrauding people who he deems “deserve it” comes to mind as a stereotypical example of the type of nihilistic self-serving materialism that seems to dominate the internal world of our more self-aware enemies. Tate is simply atypically honest about it, perhaps contributing to or a consequence of his status as a dissident. I wrote this article mainly about how and why we shouldn’t “take it out of anyone else’s hide”

Nature is Unfair

Another key “power statement” is Boyd’s “Be Somebody or Do Something.” For those who measure success as “being somebody” spiritual development becomes severely constrained. What confers status today is so profoundly perverted, that to seek status above all else is to align yourself with the enemy. Constitutional Gnosis will not confer status, at least not anytime soon, but it is pretty much the only way you can have any hope to “Do Something” for your country. The latter part of one of my earlier essays on this blog expands upon Boyd, this speech, and its profound impact inspiring virtue that produced tangible results.