Chapter III. Methods of Social Control at Each Layer

The axis of thought is not an academic curiosity. It is a map of vulnerabilities. Each layer along the axis offers its own opening for exploitation, and elites—whether monarchs, oligarchs, corporations, or modern autocrats—have always known how to pull these levers.

Social control is not uniform; it adapts to the structure of thought people inhabit. To see how the web of truth is weakened, we must examine each layer of the axis not as a philosophy alone but as a method of control.

Mysticism and Authority

Mysticism grants meaning, hope, and identity. But as an analytic framework, it fails, because it defers to authority without mechanism.

Mystical analysis of Trump or Putin, as I have said elsewhere, is bound to fail: magical thinking opens onto an infinite state-space, with endless possible interpretations but no means of adjudication.

In that infinity, one might feel confident but will almost never light upon the true state of affairs.

Because mysticism cannot test itself, it tends to collapse into obedience to those who claim special access. That is why regimes cultivate cults of personality that border on the religious. To disagree is not to argue—it is to blaspheme.

We see this in our own time: Trump’s followers describe him in messianic terms, “chosen by God” to lead, while Putin casts his wars as sacred missions for the Russian soul.

This is not new. Rasputin’s sway over the late Romanovs shows the same principle: the holy man’s “insight” into divine mysteries became a lever for control at the highest levels of state.

Mysticism provides meaning, but when it is applied to politics or war, it delivers obedience, not truth.

Tradition and Heritage

Tradition is stronger than mysticism in that it is lived across generations. It provides continuity, cohesion, and cultural stability. But it too is “imported thought.” People inherit their religion, customs, and worldviews from parents and communities.

Rarely do they test these ideas; they are absorbed as givens.

The danger is clear: tradition can be seized and reframed by those in power. They present themselves as guardians of “heritage,” equating obedience with fidelity to the past. This is why nostalgia is such a potent political tool.

I pointed to this dynamic in analyzing Heather Cox Richardson’s writing on America’s “two great forces”: the tradition of white-slaver supremacy versus the tradition of equality.

Tradition, when unexamined, is a mask for inherited domination. Jim Crow segregation was justified as “the Southern way of life,” making critique indistinguishable from treason against community identity.

When tradition is deployed this way, it blocks analysis and demands conformity.

Language Bias and Framing

Even when individuals believe themselves unbiased, language itself imposes frames. Words are not neutral carriers; they encode assumptions. “Peacekeeping operations” instead of invasions, “special military operations” instead of wars—these phrases smuggle legitimacy into illegitimate acts.

I underscored this in my analysis of Zelenskyy’s preference for “bilateral” talks with Putin instead of “trilateral” with Trump involved. The terms matter. “Bilateral” suggested symmetry and dignity; “trilateral” would have implied subordination and danger.

Framing through words shifted perceptions of risk and leverage.

History shows this power repeatedly. The Bush administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation” in place of torture reframed barbarism into bureaucratic procedure, neutralizing moral and legal opposition.

Language bias is subtle but devastating: it corrupts thought at its foundation, shaping what can be imagined before evidence is ever considered.

Pseudoscience and Conspiracy

Pseudoscience wears the clothes of rigor without its discipline. Systems like UFO-ology or scientology offer explanations that feel structured but are never tested. They generate certainty without falsifiability.

In modern politics, pseudoscience reappears as conspiracy. These are self-sealed frameworks where every disconfirmation becomes further proof of the cover-up. The coherence is compelling, but it is immune to reality. For propagandists, this is gold: they gain foot soldiers of unreality, people whose conviction is absolute precisely because it cannot be tested.

I identify this by placing UFO-ology and scientology on the mysticism–empiricism axis.

Both mimic structure, but the mimicry is hollow. History’s example is Lysenkoism in Stalin’s USSR: genetics outlawed, pseudo-biology enthroned, and agricultural policy warped into catastrophe.

Pseudoscience delivered control and ruin in equal measure.

Ideology and Identity

Ideology is more structured than mysticism or pseudoscience. It arranges facts and events into an ordered system. But its strength is also its weakness: ideology is selective. It filters truth through loyalty.

Ideology mobilizes powerfully. It unifies, inspires, and commands sacrifice. But it is brittle. When facts contradict the ideology, the ideology bends the facts. People remain loyal not to truth but to group identity.

I made this point in The Staggering Stupidity of MAGA’s Last Stand. MAGA is not a political program but an identity cult. It replaces analysis with loyalty tests: prove your belonging by repeating the slogans.

History shows the same in totalitarian states where the “party line” flipped overnight, yet the faithful applauded both versions.

Ideology makes obedience into proof of purity.

Scientism and False Expertise

Scientism is not science. It is data theater. It offers charts, jargon, and numbers without causal mechanism. It produces the impression of rigor while avoiding the discipline of explanation.

I have written against this repeatedly. My own power equation—harm over time—was designed to avoid scientism’s trap. It ties measurement to mechanism, ensuring predictions can be tested. By contrast, scientism intimidates dissenters. To question is to be cast as “anti-science,” even when the “science” is hollow.

The historical record is clear. Nazi “race science” cloaked ideology in measurement. Phrenology once lent a false veneer of inevitability to hierarchy.

Today, elites deploy carefully selected “studies” to sell policies as evidence-based while omitting the mechanisms that make evidence meaningful.

Scientism creates compliance by intimidating critique.

Pop-Analysis and Commentary Churn

Adjacent to scientism is pop-analysis: reactive commentary that interprets each event in isolation. It provides a sense of immediacy but lacks predictive power. It reacts rather than explains.

I criticized this in my response to Jake Broe’s analysis: he continues to call President Trump “stupid,” as though intent and alignment are irrelevant. That is reaction, not mechanism. It entertains, but it leaves audiences unable to anticipate the next move.

History has shown this in war coverage. News outlets present each strike as a spectacle, each scandal as isolated drama, preventing viewers from connecting events into operational patterns.

Pop-analysis creates the illusion of knowledge while keeping the public disoriented.

Realism and Determinism

Realism, in both politics and philosophy, recognizes enduring structures. States pursue power, patterns repeat. This provides more explanatory power than ideology or pop-analysis. But realism often neglects data and mechanism. It risks becoming fatalism: “states will do what states do.”

I have made this critique most sharply in analyzing William Spaniel. His models are neat, but they remain untethered from regime security and asymmetric deception. They explain little of what is unfolding in real time.

Without mechanism, realism becomes determinism. That determinism paralyzes analysis and blinds observers to innovation, deception, and gambits.

History confirms the danger. Before 1940, deterministic readings of armored warfare predicted stalemate. Analysts failed to see the mechanism of Blitzkrieg.

Fatalism disguised as wisdom left nations unprepared.

Structural Empiricism and Resistance

At the apex lies structural empiricism. Here evidence and mechanism are bound together and tested against reality. It demands data to defeat the null hypothesis and mechanisms that explain why the data appear as they do.

It requires predictions that survive contact with future events.

This is the framework I have applied: rejecting mystical explanations, refusing imported traditions, piercing language bias, discarding pseudoscience and ideology, resisting scientism, avoiding commentary churn, and surpassing mechanism-light realism.

Only structural empiricism makes it possible to call the play before it happens.

The record is there: the May 9 parade gambit, the failure of the Graham–Blumenthal bill, the collapse of secondary sanctions, the moral inversion of the Alaska–Washington summits, Zelenskyy’s insistence on bilateral talks. These were not lucky guesses. They were scientific forecasts: data tested, mechanisms applied, nulls rejected.

History validates this method as well. In World War II, Allied traffic analysis combined with decrypted messages provided not just records of the past but predictions of enemy movement. Data plus mechanism equals foresight. That is structural empiricism in practice.

Towards Factual Truth

Every lower layer of the axis offers a distinct seam for exploitation: mysticism to charisma, tradition to nostalgia, language to framing, pseudoscience to conspiracy, ideology to loyalty, scientism to false expertise, pop-analysis to distraction, realism to fatalism.

Each can be and has been weaponized to weaken the web of truth.

Only structural empiricism resists. By demanding that data and mechanism align, by requiring predictions that can be tested, it strips elites of their easiest levers of control.

This is why regimes of lies—from Trump’s America to Putin’s Russia—labor to keep their publics anywhere but here.

Structural empiricism is not just an analytic choice; it is a shield for the web of truth.

---

https://bsky.app/profile/johnrraymond.bsky.social