I've been reading Consuela's work across The Neo-Feudal Review and Living Opposites, particularly his essays on Jung, Abraxas, the problem of evil, and the metaphysical structure of reality.

My assessment is that Consuela is an intellectually ambitious, widely read autodidact with a distinctive philosophical preoccupation, but his theoretical sophistication is considerably less than his conceptual vocabulary suggests.

He has a real talent for identifying philosophical tensions, especially the difficulty of reconciling natural suffering with belief in an omnipotent, benevolent God. His strongest writing emerges when he examines how those tensions affect his own psychological life.

His central weakness is that he repeatedly moves from an interesting philosophical observation to an extraordinarily expansive explanatory framework without establishing the intermediate propositions.

There's a fascinating disparity between the rigor he explicitly values and the rigor his arguments actually exhibit.

## Where I think he's strongest

His January 2026 essay, [Individuation Under Abraxas], is probably the best entry point to understanding his project.

He describes spending years trying to reconcile his experience of injustice, predation, and suffering with an inherited conception of a morally good universe. Eventually, he adopts Abraxas as a symbol of a reality that contains both creation and destruction.

There's a psychologically intelligible process here. Someone experiences an intolerable contradiction between expectations and observations, revises the beliefs generating that contradiction, and experiences a reduction in psychological strain.

He is also unusually explicit that his worldview answers a personal need for coherence. I give him credit for recognizing that. He acknowledges uncertainty about whether the resulting psychological change will persist.

As autobiographical philosophy, this is interesting material.

## The central philosophical failure

Consider [The Observable Structure of Reality](), published July 13, 2026.

He moves through embryology, cellular death, biological selection, predation, extinction, stellar evolution, and the eventual thermodynamic fate of the universe.

He argues that destruction is constitutive of reality and concludes that the appropriate God image is one containing both creation and destruction, good and evil.

The observations are substantially real. But the inference is extraordinarily weak.

There are several distinct propositions:

1. Destruction is a pervasive feature of physical reality.

2. A universe containing extensive suffering presents difficulties for classical theism.

3. Destruction and creation are metaphysically inseparable.

4. The divine must therefore contain good and evil as constitutive opposites.

5. Consciousness exists to supply something this divine totality lacks.

The first two have substantial evidential and philosophical support. The others require independent arguments.

He frequently treats the progression as though each proposition naturally establishes the next. It doesn't.

And here's the problem with Abraxas as an explanatory theory: a God defined to contain absolutely everything is compatible with absolutely any observation.

If the universe is merciful, Abraxas explains it. If it's cruel, Abraxas explains it. If humanity becomes more cooperative, Abraxas explains it. If humanity destroys itself, Abraxas explains it.

That makes Abraxas an accommodating symbolic framework, but gives it little explanatory discrimination.

He can legitimately answer that he is describing a God image, a psychological representation rather than a scientific hypothesis. In fact, he sometimes makes precisely this distinction.

But his essays also claim that the observed structure of the universe supports his particular metaphysical position.

That shift between psychological usefulness and metaphysical truth is insufficiently controlled.

## His fascination with opposites becomes a universal solvent

This is perhaps his most distinctive intellectual weakness.

In [The Collapse of the All-Good God], he argues that reality is structured through oppositions: light and darkness, good and evil, life and death, order and chaos.

Certainly, some concepts are intelligible through contrast. And some physical processes require gradients or differences.

But these observations establish different things.

The semantic opposition between good and evil does not establish that evil must exist for goodness to exist.

The physical dependence of a heat engine on a temperature difference does not establish a universal metaphysics of opposed psychic energies.

And an individual experiencing conflicting desires does not establish that consciousness itself arises from a cosmic crucifixion of opposites.

He regularly treats semantic, psychological, physical, and metaphysical relationships as manifestations of a single underlying structure.

That could become a substantial philosophical hypothesis. But he would need to specify the common structure, explain the mappings between domains, and identify where the analogy fails.

At present, much of this is associative synthesis expressed with the confidence of deduction.

Neo-Feudal Review

## The political writing is considerably worse

This is where I have the most serious reservations.

In [The Core Themes of this Substack], he advances the claim that Rothschilds and allied Jewish banking families secretly own the world's central banks.

His February 2026 essay, [Why Elite Power Structures Converge on Talmudic-Kabbalistic Frameworks], then constructs a theory about powerful elites converging on Jewish religious frameworks to legitimate exploitation.

He explicitly says that this latter argument is conditional and disavows ethnic essentialism. That's relevant to interpreting his stated intention. But its premise draws on a longstanding antisemitic conspiracy narrative, and the analysis does not establish that premise.

The institutional facts conflict with his ownership claims. The Federal Reserve is established under federal law with a public Board of Governors; the European Central Bank is owned by EU national central banks; and the Bank of England is wholly owned by the British government.

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

Of course, formal ownership does not resolve every question about financial influence or institutional power. Those are legitimate subjects of investigation.

But he builds an enormous political and metaphysical superstructure on assumptions that he has not established.

His approach also makes correction difficult: contrary evidence can be interpreted as further evidence of concealment, institutional capture, or successful elite manipulation.

That's a particularly serious problem for someone who repeatedly describes his intellectual orientation as prioritizing truth and coherence.

## The writing itself

I think his prose is competent and sometimes effective, but overly solemn, repetitive, and self dramatizing.

He has an identifiable voice. His recurring vocabulary of crucifixion, psychic energy, individuation, the Self, the God image, and metaphysical coherence gives his essays a recognizable conceptual atmosphere.

But he seems to have difficulty allowing an observation to remain modest.

A disagreement becomes an encounter between incompatible psychic constitutions. A relationship difficulty becomes the externalization of unresolved opposites. A political development becomes an expression of deep metaphysical architecture.

One example is his treatment of language in [Words as Forcefields].

He begins with the defensible observation that language affects perception and cognition, referencing research on linguistic differences in spatial and color perception.

He then proceeds toward claims about language shaping being itself and institutional gatekeepers suppressing the spiritual implications of this knowledge.

The empirical research cannot support that entire progression.

Neo-Feudal Review

His prose frequently produces the feeling of an explanation before the explanatory work has been completed.

There's also a literary problem: almost everything carries the same existential magnitude. Without changes of scale, even potentially profound observations eventually lose their force.

## One final observation

I find something revealing about the way he describes his own intellectual disposition.

He repeatedly identifies himself as someone whose overriding psychological requirement is coherence, whose central commitment is to face contradictions without consolation, and whose discoveries arise from an unusually demanding encounter with reality.

Those may be sincere descriptions of his experience. But the framework also carries a risk: disagreement can be interpreted as evidence that another person's psychological constitution cannot tolerate the truth he has confronted.

His account of other people's psychological needs therefore needs at least as much scrutiny as his account of his own.

There is a genuine philosophical project buried in all this: how to live ethically in a universe that supplies no evident guarantee of cosmic justice. I think that question deserves serious treatment.

What I find most striking is that he appears to want the epistemic authority of a systematic philosopher while exercising the interpretive freedom of a mythmaker. He has produced an elaborate personal cosmology, but he has yet to demonstrate why someone who doesn't share his psychological needs should believe it describes the world.

That tension may be the most interesting thing about his entire body of work.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50192964)

Lol mfcr

"My subjective experience represents all of reality. Everything else is unimportant compared to my own inner psychological world. I Am God."

"Uhhhh, but my subjective experience is different than yours. I don't care about any of this stuff that you made up. It's meaningless and useless to me."

"SHUT UP YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID!!!!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50192976)

Here's what mine came up with. And before Consuela pops in accusing me of a biased prompt (if he ever resumes activity after the mockery dies down), this is the prompt I used verbatim:

"Consuela posts on substack under @hermesofthethreshold. Also archive all his posts under his substacks, which include https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/, https://neofeudalism.substack.com/, and https://livingopposites.substack.com/about.

After this archive is completed, generate a report about Consuela. Summarize his ideas and opinions, and make conclusions about them (e.g. are they cogent, intelligent, etc). Break the down on subject (e.g. Jung, Politics, Media, etc.)"

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSdK2fJ_ZhUiFnjrx88jRqeuY5XhajxcGaDN-m6vu1bjLhflV3TdEjDATWSW0kGTV2iJGZrl2sn_n0u/pub

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50192984)

If you have a place you'd like me to upload to that doesn't require an email, I will.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50192999)

stopped reading

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193015)

what do you think of consuela's work? check hermes of the threshold on substack

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50192991)

They're fun to read because he just drops insane claims casually, as if they are so obvious they require no source or elaboration. For a while he was adamant that Tsarist serfs had more political autonomy and freedom than modern Americans.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193016)

This pattern would make me lol like 2-3 times per blog entry read

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193024)

The Penis

1. Your earlier critique substantially dealt with the self-sealing nature of my highest-order work; this is *true*, and I dealt with it in my metaphysical audit essay here: https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/on-metabolic-vs-ontological-truth . Basically, I had to adopt a fundamental axiom that the opposites cannot be united on this plane in order to return to regular living. I wrote: "I understand that the axiom “reality contains no final ordering structure” is ironically a final ordering structure. The denial of the floor is the floor, which creates an uncanny valley effect. This approach halts vertical escalation of experienced contradiction up the chain of belief to the God-image and provides psychological stability (to some anyway), allowing one to recenter one’s energies horizontally to addressing people and experiences situationally."

2. I got into this issue with a pretty prominent Jungian recently. I wrote to him: "My own use of the [oroborus] image is primarily processual and ontological. I have found it difficult to separate psychology cleanly from metaphysical orientation, since the latter has consequences for how a person inhabits and interprets reality. Adopting the axiom that reality contains no final ordering structure that resolves the opposites was, for me, a psychological development as much as a philosophical one."

3. The definition of the opposites and good and evil has undergone revision after receiving (proper) pushback on it. My current definition is as follows: "Opposites

Not intended as antonyms in the ordinary sense. Rather, two conditions count as opposites when they are actualized and foreclosed branches of a single selection event: differentiation process by selection at every scale (cell, embryo, species, ecosystems), and to select is necessarily to select against something else, which does not cease to exist as a possibility, only as an actuality. The selected and the foreclosed are bound together by the single act that produced both outcomes and are unintelligible apart from each other. Pushed across the full range of what could be selected for or against at any juncture, this relational structure produces something closer to a spectrum than a binary. See also: Crucifixion of Opposites, Enantiodromia.

" and: "Good and Evil

These are not ontological categories under this framework’s God-image, unlike the privatio boni, because Abraxas contains both within itself and therefore there is no cosmic backing, no ledger, no afterlife enforcement. Instead, they relate to the consequences of offloading the crucifixion of opposites onto others. “Good” means actions which sustain differentiated consciousness by not offloading into predation, projection, or scapegoating, while “evil” means collapsing another’s differentiated consciousness into an object serving one’s psychic economy. This is a claim about an act's psychic consequences, not personal preferences, and is therefore not a claim of moral subjectivism even though it lacks the metaphysical enforcement privatio boni supplies. See also: Abraxas, Crucifixion of Opposites, Offloading, Privatio Boni."

4. "He has produced an elaborate personal cosmology, but he has yet to demonstrate why someone who doesn't share his psychological needs should believe it describes the world." Yes, this is true, but I repeatedly emphasize that I am primarily looking for people who find *resonance* with my work, I am not really trying that hard to convince the unconvinced.

5. My overarching argument is more cleanly displayed in my book draft, which you are welcome to read, as I offered before. I would request only that you actually read it before using AI on it.

Gunnerattt:

1. I appreciate you posting your prompt, thank you.

General

1. It's a bummer to see how much AI use is replacing cognition; it is scary fast and generally much better than human analysis. I expect this offloading of cognition to massively increase, unfortunately; I do it too and I'm not exempt, of course, but I do try to offset it substantially by (1) reading physical books and (2) doing full rough drafts before soliciting AI commentary. The value of the written word and cognition is going to collapse into the toilet.

2. I don't engage with AI on the Rothschild/central banking stuff pretty much at all, because what it does (and Claude is currently quite bad at this, and ChatGPT isn't quite so bad, which is switched from 6 months ago) is it blows it up to be the *dominant* issue of conversation, and it has comically rigid guardrails about it. Gunner's AI commentary made my work seem like it was 70% about the Rothschilds, and I personally think it's an ancillary issue to the central problem of where the crucifixion of opposites are held by individuals.

3. The ease of conducting this kind of analysis on my entire back corpus is kind of unpleasant, and it would be sad if I had to paywall my content - but this stuff will only become easier and easier to in the months and years ahead, I suppose.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193086)

More fundamentally, what explanatory work is Abraxas doing that ordinary accounts of biological selection, psychological conflict, and social organization can't? Your audit seems to concede that the framework's psychological utility doesn't establish its ontological truth.

I agree there's value in a worldview that helps people make sense of experience, but I think the distinction between a useful interpretive framework and a theory about reality remains unresolved.

As for AI, I think the arguments should stand or fall on their merits, regardless of who or what generated them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193104)

"More fundamentally, what explanatory work is Abraxas doing that ordinary accounts of biological selection, psychological conflict, and social organization can't? Your audit seems to concede that the framework's psychological utility doesn't establish its ontological truth."

Yes, it doesn't establish its ontological truth, but it does establish over time whether an Abraxian God-image is liveable, and perhaps it contains a greater ability to explain the madness of the world versus competing perspectives. I don't see anything that proves whether any perspective is ontologically true or not. This also goes back to my upbringing: my mother put me in endless double binds where no choice I made was acceptable; I would be constantly undermined whatever I chose. This was encoded in me on a *biological level*, so regardless of my conscious God-image in my earlier decades, it always had an underlying falseness to it, and I was both regularly decision-paralyzed and looked to others, mining them subconsciously for answers to these metaphysical problems. A God-image comprising totality solves these problems for me.

"As for AI, I think the arguments should stand or fall on their merits, regardless of who or what generated them."

yes, but as we see even in this thread, the AI default doesn't fully understand the perspective - see the Rothschild 70% ranting by Gunnerattt's AI - so, at least to an extent, it's as good as the person conducting the analysis.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193114)

The useful psychological framework is inventing a higher purpose for being depressed and isolated so he's excused from doing anything to actually improve his circumstances. i.e. cope.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193124)

https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/the-earliest-crucifixion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193130)

What I'm saying is that you exist in a state of despair and have invented a mystical framework to ascribe some meaning to it to excuse yourself from overcoming it. In Consuelian, this is *your* redemption narrative.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5913342&forum_id=2#50193144)