Dacia Iluministă

Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduced a radically different way of looking at scientific progress. He contested the view that science is objective, dispassionate and follows a steady, linear upwards trajectory of progress. Instead, he said that science involved “paradigms”, which can be thought of as intellectual frameworks in which scientific theories are produced. While a certain paradigm reigns, all of the accepted theories belong to that paradigm, and any theories which disagree with it are rejected, marginalized and ridiculed. A scientific establishment upholds the paradigm. Funding is given to those scientists who are supportive of the paradigm and denied to anyone who isn’t. The paradigm becomes a kind of religion, with its high priests and sacred theories that must not be challenged. Heretics aren’t welcome.

The paradigm can link into non-scientific arenas such as the prevailing economic, religious and political systems. Western science is closely tied to capitalism, industry and business and was once under the direction of the Judaeo-Christian paradigm. If capitalism gives money to science then science does capitalism’s bidding. The paradigm reflects the dominant culture rather than purely scientific considerations. It invariably becomes compromised, corrupted and part of a whole system of thought and attitudes, ruled over ultimately by the super rich, like everything else. Look at how many top scientists have worked for the military-industrial complex.

Kuhn described “normal science” as the science that takes places while a particular paradigm reigns. Normal science tends to endure over long periods. The Newtonian paradigm lasted for over 200 years, with all of the science taking place within that time reflecting Newtonian thinking.

However, anomalies start to accumulate. Initially, these are conveniently ignored. As more and more appear, they put a growing strain on the paradigm, which gradually becomes less credible. Eventually it breaks down and revolution erupts. A new paradigm must be found that is better at dealing with the anomalies. Thus Newtonian physics gave way to relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Einstein was heavily involved in the formation of both of the new theories and yet even he couldn’t reconcile himself with the revolutionary implications of quantum mechanics and remained loyal to much of the Newtonian paradigm. By the time of his death, many scientists regarded him as a sad old man who couldn’t move with the times. What a fate for such an innovator!

The current paradigm of physics remains quantum mechanics and relativity theory, but it is already known that they are incompatible and thus a new paradigm is sought in which they will be reconciled. The best candidate for the reconciliation is said to be “M-Theory” based on “superstrings”.

Science proceeds by ways of long periods of normal science, followed by “revolutionary science” when the best new paradigm vies with and then takes over from its predecessor. Once the new paradigm is entrenched, normal science resumes and the new ideas become the establishment paradigm.

Kuhn pointed out that the new paradigm often doesn’t win over the supporters of the old paradigm, who remain wedded to their old ideas – just as Einstein remained wedded to the objective determinism of Newtonian physics rather than the observer-created, probabilistic world of quantum physics.

Often, the old paradigm literally dies out – when those who were brought up with it die, just as Max Planck remarked.

If Kuhn is right and rival paradigms can co-exist for a while, with the old paradigm gradually being killed off by the deaths of its supporters rather than being triumphantly replaced by the new paradigm, then it implies that science is partisan, non-objective, and not even particularly rational i.e. the evidence is not deemed sufficient to decide the matter. In other words, science is a belief system.

That’s particularly true in the case of Islamic “science”, which is fundamentally flawed because it invokes the concepts of haram (forbidden) and halal (praiseworthy) in relation to the Koran i.e. Islamic science is not allowed to contradict Mohammed’s “revelation”. If it does, it is wrong and must be rejected. Hence Islamic science is a joke that can make no conceivable progress.

C.P. Snow described the sciences on the one hand and arts and humanities on the other as “two cultures” that had ceased communicating with each other. We might say that they belong to two different paradigms. The gap has arisen because science is now so specialised and complex that it’s extremely hard for a non-scientist to get any real idea of what’s going on. Equally, scientists have no time to engage with the humanities since the demands science places on them are so onerous. Even worse, there is a fundamental difference in brain-wiring and psychological types between those who work in science and those in the humanities. Very few people can bridge the gap.

Scientists and technologists are overwhelmingly rationals, with a few idealists in the mix. Those in the humanities are overwhelmingly artisans with a few guardians in the mix.

Doesn’t the suspicion grow that different personality types have a strong tendency to drift apart and create separate worlds? It’s one of the most natural processes in the world. Shouldn’t we accept the reality of this and take it to its logical conclusions? i.e. rather than have a one-size-fits-all world where we all get thrown together in one gigantic melting point and have to blindly navigate our way around in a frequently hostile and incomprehensible environment, why don’t we create four worlds – one for rationals, one for idealists, one for artisans and one for guardians. Or perhaps only two are needed: one for sensers (the guardians and artisans who have sensing as either their primary or auxiliary function) and one for intuitives (the rationals and idealists who have intuition as their primary or auxiliary function).

In Zeitgeist 3 – Moving Forward, the Project Earth section shows a wonderful utopian city based on neat, perfectly designed concentric circles. When rationals and idealists see this, they think, “WOW!!! I want to live there.” When guardians and artisans look at it, they say, “What a load of crap. Only geeks, nerds and dorks could dream up something like that.” The sensers outnumber the intuitives by four to one. The Zeitgeist vision can never be realised while the sensers rule the world.

The ruling Western paradigm is: Judaeo-Christian Abrahamism, democracy, capitalism, “freedom”, liberalism, sensing, materialism and “negative liberty”. All mainstream thinking takes place within this paradigm. If you want to get on in the world, you had better play the game and obey this paradigm. Don’t dare challenge it and become a heretic.

The Illuminati’s heretical and revolutionary paradigm, the one with which we seek to replace the old paradigm, is: Illuminism, meritocracy, social capitalism, freedom, radicalism, intuition, idealism and “positive liberty” This will be the final paradigm shift, the one ordained by the dialectic of freedom. But the followers of the old paradigm will never fully embrace it. Only when they have all died off will the old paradigm finally vanish.

That’s why children are the key to the future. If all children are brought up and educated with the new paradigm, there’s nothing the parents can do, just as there was nothing the English Catholics could do as their children were inculcated with Protestantism in the time of Henry VIII and his successors. Within two generations, a Catholic country had become toxically anti-Catholic. The old paradigm was well and truly dead.brought up and educated with the new paradigm, there’s nothing the parents can do, just as there was nothing the English Catholics could do as their children were inculcated with Protestantism in the time of Henry VIII and his successors. Within two generations, a Catholic country had become toxically anti-Catholic. The old paradigm was well and truly dead.

That’s how the game works. The revolutionaries change the paradigm and then the children are brought up under the new regime and reflect the new paradigm. Their parents are powerless to prevent it.

At the moment, no one in any country has any choice about what paradigm they will live under. If we are free human beings then shouldn’t we be offered options?

As Kierkegaard wrote, “How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called existence? Why should I be involved? Isn’t it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint?”

Why should any of us have to accept a paradigm we didn’t choose? Why should we be subjects to its laws and ideology? Does that not make us slaves?

All of us MUST have a choice of which paradigm we live under. We have to escape the tyranny of one-size-fits-all systems that are there for the convenience of the privileged elite and allow them to exert maximum control over us.

It’s agony for idealists and rationals to suffer the dumbed-down materialism of the guardians and artisans. We can’t allow them to dictate to us. We are much smarter than they are. We have to act together and use our superior intelligence to create the Zeitgeist world. We will never be free unless we cooperate and combine our incredible strengths.

The world needs a minimum of two paradigms. That’s the basic level of choice. Four paradigms is probably the best number, giving us a broader but manageable set of choices. Wouldn’t you like to know that there was a part of the world specially designed for people like you where you can enjoy an optimised life?

Freedom is about choices, so where are our choices? Sure, we can choose what objects to buy, what things to consume, but we have no say at all about what type of paradigm we live under. All of us get just one – the paradigm of the ruling elite.

The dialectic of freedom demands free choices between different paradigms. Only then will we feel truly free.

We could go even further in the pursuit of choice and create an entirely new model of society based on the concept of the city-state, which was the model adopted by ancient Greece, the founder of Western civilisation. The achievements of the ancient Greeks were so astounding that even now it’s impossible to look upon them with anything other than awe. Was the city-state model fundamental to their success? If so, shouldn’t we be trying to resurrect it?

For example, could this model resolve the tensions building in the multiethnic, multicultural melting point of the modern UK? Unlike America, the UK does not expect its citizens to be British first and foremost. There are many people who physically live in Britain, but are not of Britain i.e. they openly proclaim their allegiance to foreign powers such as Pakistan.
__________

The Ancient Greek Solution to Multiculturalism:

Contrary to the rhetoric of the politicians, the UK is not a shining example of multiculturalism, but a patchwork of sullen, mutually suspicious ghettoes. Perhaps the UK should look to history for remedies. The city-states of Ancient Greece, of Renaissance Italy, and Germany under the Holy Roman Empire were all highly successful and arguably set the intellectual agenda for the world. Does the citystate model provide the best way of handling Islamic fundamentalism?

Britons are constantly told of how much more tolerant they are than the French, Germans, Danes etc., and how they’ve handled the issue of immigration so much more successfully. Of course, it’s all spin. Britain is a seething cauldron of racial and cultural tension, and as soon as you talk to real people in real bars, you hear the bile pouring out.

Multicultural Britain is Ghetto Britain. The whole country is riven with unacknowledged apartheid. A BBC Panorama programme highlighted the case of Blackburn. This town has been split in two, into a white half (where “white” refers to the indigenous population of Britain) and a Muslim half (mostly immigrants from Pakistan). Panorama tracked the movements of two taxis – one driven by a white man and the other by a Muslim – and discovered that neither taxi ever ventured into the respective “wrong” side of town.

Blackburn is simply a more visible version of what has happened throughout the UK – “no-go” areas have popped up everywhere. The process is a familiar one. Immigrant families enter certain districts of a town, “white flight” soon becomes evident and immigrants gradually populate the whole district. The immigrant area relentlessly expands until it reaches some clearly defined barrier such as a river, a motorway, countryside etc.

Neither the immigrants nor the whites (and, of course, the immigrants are often white themselves these days, from Eastern Europe) are engaging in anything sinister. Immigrants like to be with those who share their culture, language, understand their problems, enjoy their cuisine and ways of doing thing etc. It’s only natural that they should congregate in the same places. By the same token, the indigenous population have, on the whole, no desire to end up surrounded by an imported culture alien to them, so as soon as the immigrant population reaches a certain critical mass in a particular area, the indigenous population departs. Some people might suspect underlying racism, but how can it be non-racist for immigrants to wish to stick together and then racist for the indigenous population to wish to do exactly the same?

We now live in patchwork Britain. Communities are developing separately from each other, with different standards of living, different cultural norms and alternative ways of perceiving the world. Resentment, suspicion and hostility between different communities are only to be expected. If this divided nation is the manifestation of the great triumph of multiculturalism, something has gone horribly wrong.

Are there examples from history that might provide genuinely successful models of multicultural development? One that leaps out is Ancient Greece. For obvious reasons, it can’t be considered an example of racial multiculturalism (everyone was of the same race), but the city-states that comprised Ancient Greece unquestionably promoted the coexistence of radically different cultures.

The two most notable Greek city-states were, famously, Athens and Sparta. Athens was a democracy (although women had no vote and neither did the huge slave population, nor freedmen, nor anyone not born in Athens), and produced famous philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, great tragic playwrights such as Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus, comic writers such as Aristophanes, beautiful architecture such as the Parthenon, wonderful sculptures, and great historians such as Herodotus and Thucydides. It also had a superb navy and became a great maritime and mercantile power.

Sparta, by contrast, operated a system of dual monarchy. It was a ferocious military power, and the ability of its soldiers became legendary. It deliberately didn’t build walls around the city to demonstrate that its soldiers were the only defence it required. The concentration on military affairs left no room for anything else. Sparta produced no significant architecture, philosophy, poetry or art: a sterile culture in almost every way. It maintained a reign of terror over a huge slave population (the helots), fearing the slaves were always on the point of revolt. Oddly, women were highly esteemed in Sparta and enjoyed far more privileges than other Greek women. Amongst other things, they were encouraged to train and exercise, thus becoming famed for their beautifully honed bodies: the predecessors of today’s Californian gym bunnies.

Thebes and Corinth were the other two most prominent Greek city-states, though there were scores of others, mostly in alliance with the major players. Competition was fierce between the city-states, sublimated in the form of great events such as the Olympics, but often expressed in savage wars.

Nevertheless, it was from these Greek city-states that practically the whole of modern European culture emanated. And it was again thanks to city-states that European culture emerged from a bleak period of stagnation in the Dark and Middle Ages. The Renaissance sprang from the Italian city-states of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: world-renowned cities such as Florence, Rome, Naples, Turin, Bologna, Sienna, Milan and Venice. Without this particular Italianate city-state structure, the Renaissance may never have happened. As in Ancient Greece, competition between city-states was bitter, and violent conflicts frequent. Nevertheless, art, science and culture in general flowered in this cut-throat environment. Great patrons of the arts such as the Medicis came to the fore. Culture, like war, was in a sense a continuation of politics by other means; another way of demonstrating a city-state’s power, status and superiority. Science and technology, as engines of progress in weapons’ design, were heavily supported. Political theorists such as Machiavelli also found themselves in vogue.

Germany, in the time of the Holy Roman Empire, was largely a collection of city-states, and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it too became a powerhouse of advances in philosophy, science, maths, music and literature.

Scotland in the eighteenth century was in some sense a large citystate centred on Edinburgh, with a burning desire to distinguish itself following the Union with England in 1707. The Scottish Enlightenment gave us several figures of global importance including Adam Smith, the founder of economic science and first theoretician of free market capitalism, and David Hume in philosophy, perhaps the greatest sceptic of all, to whom all philosophers must pay due regard.

History has demonstrated over and over that city-states bring something extra to the party. The intense rivalry they engender often becomes associated with accelerated advances in science, technology, philosophy and art. City-states are a tried-and-tested antidote to stagnation and cultural stultification.

So, how could modern Britain make use of city-states to address the problem of multiculturalism? The key is not to be frightened by ghettoisation, but to take it much further and transform it into a positive virtue. We could have a Hindu city-state for the Indian community, a city-state for Orthodox Jews, one for Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc.

Muslims tend to be either liberal or fundamentalist. There could be a city-state for each type. The Islamic fundamentalist city-state should be allowed to apply its own local laws, which would no doubt involve Sharia Law.

Some might say that in this time of the War on Terror, it would be mad to allow fundamentalists to set up their own “safe haven” within Britain. However, this policy would actually enhance security. All those disaffected youths who spend their time loathing Britain and the West would now throw their energies into proving the “superiority” of their Islamic city-state. Their efforts would be constructively channelled and result in productive outcomes. Far from attacking Britain, they would become proud Muslims and ultimately proud Britons too, just as the Athenians and Spartans were proud of their city-states and proud of being Greeks. When the time came, they fought together against the common enemy, Persia.

Fundamentalist Muslim women could happily wear the hijab, niqab, the burqa without offending anyone. The Islamic city-state could send its children to its own Islamic schools without interference.

Of course, any Muslim who preferred not to live in a Muslim citystate wouldn’t have to, but they’d also have to leave behind the visible signs of their religion if they chose to go to a non-Muslim city-state. No veils; no ethnic wear; no mosques.

Let the white, racist British National Party have their own citystate, and let them expend their energies on trying to run it successfully. Handicapped and disabled people could have their own purpose-built, state-of-the-art city-state if they so desired, and the opportunity to run their own affairs without being discriminated against. Lesbians and gay men, swingers, the elderly, intellectuals, artists, loved-up smug couples, sexy singles, “nuclear” families, careerists – they could all have their own city-states where they could indulge their lifestyles and have them tailored for their specific needs, without aggravating others. Those who couldn’t care less about differences between people could have their own liberal city-states where anything goes. Meritocrats could run one city-state, royalists and supporters of privilege another. Animal lovers could have a city that revolved around their pets. People might choose to live with those of the same psychological type. The smartest and most creative people could live together. People would go only where they felt most comfortable, to the city-state that most met their needs. Everyone would freely choose. No one would be in any way compelled.

There could also be a city-state for all new immigrants. Any newcomer to the UK would have to stay in this city-state for at least a year before being allowed to move to a different city-state in the UK proper. Since their own quality of life would be adversely impacted by too much immigration, the immigrant community in this city-state would find it in their interests to restrict the number of new immigrants coming into the country. If this city-state is sealed off from the rest of the country then the quality of life of the immigrants who live there becomes directly dependent on whom they let in. It’s a counterintuitive solution to immigration, but perhaps exactly what’s needed. Having immigrants police themselves might prove the perfect method for controlling immigration.

Historically, city-states have proved disproportionately creative and rapidly adaptive to changing circumstances. Citizens tend to take greater pride in their city-state than they do in their nation as a whole. Their self-respect, self-confidence and self-pride are all higher. Separate communities can evolve without interference from disapproving opponents. Ghettoes can be transformed from minuses into pluses. Is this the perfect model for multicultural Britain?

Isn’t there anyone who dreams of the glories of Athens, Sparta, Thebes and Corinth being reborn in grey, dreary old Britain? Being broken into city-states could energise the whole country. In the old Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, a tiny part of London declared itself a separate state. Perhaps the film wasn’t so much fanciful as prophetic.

******

The world has run out of ideas. The old systems have reached the end of the road. They are unfit for purpose. New visions, new futures, new choices are demanded. We can have tailor-made education systems for everyone, and tailor-made city-states where they can live. Who but the enemies of freedom would oppose a new world based on genuine choice? The one-size-fits-all, sausage machine view of the world is long past its sell-by date. It hasn’t made us happy. We will be happy only when we live in environments that make sense to us, where we feel at home, surrounded by friends and allies on the same wavelength. Only then will we flourish and make the most of ourselves.

In the past, race, religion and culture have been used as the basis for separation, but psychology is the only truly rational, and indeed moral, basis for dividing people into groups. Division by skin colour is blind prejudice and utterly ridiculous. Division by Myers-Briggs types is about ensuring a rational world. Much of the world seems incomprehensible and in truth it really is – because it’s mostly the product of others types of mentality with which few of us have any sympathy or empathy. If you want the world to make sense you have to order it so that you are mostly surrounded by people on your wavelength.

To rationals in particular, the need for a rational world is paramount. The Zeitgeist movies present a rational new vision of the world. The trouble is that most people aren’t rational and are not seduced by Zeitgeist. How do you persuade the irrational of the rational way forward? They don’t know what you’re talking about.

The rationals and idealists – the intuitives – must act as one irresistible force. We have no choice if we want a better world. Otherwise we will be condemned to live forever under the tyranny of the irrational sensers.
__________

The Rationals:

Most members of the Illuminati are INTJ and INTP.

INTJ (the Mastermind):
Dominant function: Introverted Intuition
Auxiliary: Extraverted Thinking
Tertiary: Introverted Feeling
Inferior: Extraverted Sensing

INTP (the Architect):
Dominant: Introverted Thinking
Auxiliary: Extraverted Intuition
Tertiary: Introverted Sensing
Inferior: Extraverted Feeling

Note how the INTPs are extraverted where the INTJs are introverted, and introverted where the INTJs are extraverted. They are an introversion/ extraversion mirror image. Many of the leadership of the Old World Order are ENTJ and ENTP:

ENTJ (the Fieldmarshal):
Dominant: Extraverted Thinking
Auxiliary: Introverted Intuition
Tertiary: Extraverted Sensing
Inferior: Introverted Feeling

ENTP (the Inventor):
Dominant: Extraverted Intuition
Auxiliary: Introverted Thinking
Tertiary: Extraverted Feeling
Inferior: Introverted Sensing

Note how similar ENTJ is to INTJ; the main difference being that INTJ has a dominant function of introverted intuition and auxiliary function of extraverted thinking, whereas ENTJ have a dominant function of extraverted thinking and auxiliary function of introverted intuition. They are a dominant/auxiliary-function mirror image.

The ENTPs and INTPs have a similar relationship. Where the INTP has a dominant function of introverted thinking, it is the auxiliary for the ENTP. Where the INTP has an auxiliary function of extraverted intuition, it is the dominant function for the ENTP.

If the ENTJs and ENTPs could unite with the INTJs and INTPs, it would be game over.
__________

The Choice Paradigm:

Why did communism fail to overthrow capitalism in the West? A number of reasons have been advanced, such as the capitalist ruling class using their control of the media and education system to create a false consciousness amongst the people whereby they were subtly indoctrinated into supporting the ideology of the rulers, an ideology hostile to their own interests. A much simpler analysis can be provided. Any objective comparison of capitalism and communism shows that the former offered much more choice and freedom than the latter, even if much of it was illusory. In the Soviet Union, you could not even enjoy the illusion of voting the government out of office. There was only one political party – the Communist Party, so you had no access to alternative political voices. Dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. The secret police were everywhere. There was no free speech. As for buying goods and services, you had to take whatever Communism put in front of you from its selection of state monopolies. There was almost no choice and all of the goods and services were of inferior quality.

Any system that seeks to replace capitalism must offer more choice, more freedom, higher quality and more fulfilling lives. Communism, in retrospect, made almost every mistake imaginable. The “cure for capitalism” actually ended up worse than the disease.

Most people won’t tolerate being told what’s best for them. They won’t conduct themselves rationally. They will always act emotionally and according to ruthless self-interest as they perceive it. Capitalism has understood human psychology extremely well.

Either the people are dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by a superior, dominant force, or they must be seduced.

The city-state paradigm, no matter how seemingly impractical, offers a glimpse of a radically new world with an astonishing degree of freedom and choice. We can create bespoke political systems for people, giving them exactly the “micro-world” they have clamoured for. Then it’s up to them whether their chosen city-state sinks or swims. They will have to work hard and they will have no one to blame but themselves if everything goes wrong. The State thus transfers to the people the responsibility for the State’s success. Every citizen will be active and engaged: they will have no choice. If they are part of a city-state that they have personally chosen and which then goes horribly wrong, they have had their political vision refuted in the only way that counts – in the open for all to see. They can’t claim that it was anyone else’s fault. They chose it and they fucked it up. So, if that’s what goes down then a) their political thinking is rejected forever and b) they have to go begging to another city-state to be allowed in there.

“Phantom” (a leading member of The Movement) enquired whether “socialist” meritocracy had close affinities to Social Libertarianism and other sophisticated types of anarchism and hence whether The Movement should seek to garner support from such quarters. He also mentioned the ongoing “basic income” debate – involving whether or not everyone should receive a guaranteed income from the State for being a citizen – that has been raging in The Movement’s forum and is examined in another book in this series (Voices of the Movement).

Phantom said, “The ideal state will be one where the citizens participate in society out of their own conscious & knowing volition as opposed to being duped or forced into it.”

He’s exactly right, but one thing is certain – there’s no one-size-fits-all political system that will command everyone’s loyalty and devotion.

In our book entitled New World Order, we proposed that 16 education systems should be constructed for primary school children, corresponding to the 16 Myers-Briggs types. Every personality type would thus get a bespoke education rather than the one-size-fits-all treatment they receive at the present time. Who can doubt that such an education system would produce enormously superior students? No one would be alienated from school. Every kid would thrive.

Exactly the same type of thinking can be extended to politics via the city-state model. Instead of imposing a totalitarian one-size-fits-all system on everyone, leaving most people distinctly cold and uninspired, we create multiple political systems and every citizen can freely choose the political system that most appeals to them.

The basic income debate reveals radically different views of human nature. There’s no point at all in trying to reconcile the two visions, or to hold a democratic vote to decide the issue. Neither party to the debate would find it acceptable if they lost, and indeed why should they? Both think they’re right, and both have presented their cases passionately and skilfully.

We can’t shout down one side and say that they’ve got it wrong somehow. The only rational way forward, respecting the principles of greater freedom, choice and citizen engagement, is to say that in a meritocratic system, both options will be given their chance to flourish.

Every citizen can get what they want – if they can find enough supporters to join them in their enterprise. But it’s then their personal responsibility to make it work. Those who support basic income will have to create their own economic system to pay for it. Those who think it will be a disaster do not have to participate in it. A compromise would make both parties unhappy. Using the city-state model, both sides get what they want, and they will be proved right or wrong in due course.

One of the accusations made against the basic income ideology is that it would inevitably result in a group of parasites living off the work of others. Well, all those who harbour that suspicion would of course stay well clear. Those who think it can succeed will be the only victims if it goes belly up. What is fairer than ensuring that people live with the consequences of their own choices; that they stand or fall by their own efforts?

Phantom suggested that it should be the State’s priority to “preserve and maximize the freedoms of the individual and to support them regardless.” The State can achieve these goals only by being multi-faceted and infinitely flexible. Consider the USA. There are fifty States, with significant autonomy, ruled by a Federal government (mostly immensely unpopular and regarded almost as fascist). Utah is a “Mormon” State. California is socially liberal, with the city of San Francisco being renowned for its gay population. Many southern States are racist. Many Bible Belt States have a Christian fundamentalist ethos. Alaska and Montana are for the outdoors types. Every State has its own stereotype.

In other words, a de facto city-state model already exists. Why not adjust the balance so that the Federal Government’s power is massively reduced, and the autonomy of the States greatly increased? They can have their own constitution, laws and ways of doing things. Every citizen can go to whatever State most suits their inclinations. The Federal Government becomes merely a body for ensuring good relations between the States. But wouldn’t economic mayhem result? Each State would have radically different economic policies, after all.

In Europe, a one-size-fits-all currency – the Euro – has been in use throughout the “Euro zone”, with disastrous consequences. What the Euro experiment has proved beyond doubt is that you can have a single currency only if all the countries that use the currency have similar economies and economic policies i.e. they need to be much more closely integrated. The Euro needs a united and closely integrated Europe.

You must introduce separate currencies if you increase national or state economic autonomy. And you have to impose strict firewalls to prevent a catastrophe in one place spreading everywhere else. The global economy almost collapsed in 2008 because there were no banking firewalls in the West – all the banks were multinational leviathans with their fingers in every pie. They were all dependent on each other. When one got into trouble, they all did – madness!

What would America say to having the dollar broken up into fifty separate currencies to allow each State to run its economy and banks exactly as it sees fit? The Ayn Randists could abolish all regulation, as they’ve always desired. The anarcho-capitalist libertarians could do whatever they like. The anarchists could have the government-free State they’ve always craved. Socialist libertarianism could flourish in New York or California. Everyone could get what they want. No more compromise. No more having to water everything down.

The world would retreat from globalisation to localisation, from “big is beautiful” to small and bespoke. The faceless, impersonal forces of capitalist globalization would be halted at a stroke.

True freedom is about being allowed to make highly specific choices about how you live your life. If you are part of a vast human mass all with radically different opinions, you will never get what you want. Everything will always be bitterly contested and reduced to an ineffectual compromise. However, if you can get together with people on the same wavelength, you can say goodbye to compromise, disputation and muddle. You and your colleagues can single-mindedly build your own dream state.

Most people don’t feel any engagement with politics. Why should they? It’s just a game that takes place far away in a congress, parliament or assembly. The whole thing is a cynical set of deals and compromises that give no one what they want. What’s the point? Every citizen must become engaged and active and they will do so only if their State reflects who they are.

Freedom and choice are maximised when you get to choose what kind of State you live in. Why not be an American with fifty sub-Americas to choose from? The ancient Greek city-states were proudly independent, but were still Greek and cooperated when necessary.

Why go on trying to find a common way of living with anarchists, libertarians, anarcho-capitalist libertarians, Ayn Randists, rednecks, the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, Christian fundamentalists, Mormons, Muslims, Survivalists, Rapturists etc etc?

How will you ever be happy when you are surrounded by people you actively loathe? Imagine being in a State full of people who all share your enthusiasms and ways of thinking. You can be friends with all of them. You can all work together with a common purpose. You’re all pulling in the same direction rather than endlessly squabbling. Don’t you think you will be able to achieve infinitely more?
__________

3/7

Introduction:

THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a member, working under the pseudonym of “Adam Weishaupt” – the name of the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master.

The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity.

If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites. Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then despatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise.

Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing? Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan?

Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”.

Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.
__________

Quotations:

“The statesman shears the sheep, the politician skins them.” –Austin O’Malley

“Politics and the fate of mankind are shaped by men without ideals and without greatness. Men who have greatness within them don’t go in for politics.” –Albert Camus

“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.” –Charles de Gaulle
__________

Changing the Paradigm:

England, one of the great Protestant powers of history, was once a devout Catholic country. The Pope gave its king, Henry VIII, the title of Fidei Defensor (defender of the faith) because he had launched a ferocious written attack on Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism.

But Henry’s Spanish wife, Catherine of Aragon, failed to give him a male successor, so he sought a divorce to allow him to find a new wife to provide the boy he craved. Catholicism does not permit divorce and the Pope was unwilling to finesse a deal with Henry whereby the marriage would be annulled on some technicality.

Henry broke with Rome, appointed himself the head of the new “Church of England” and demanded from his bishops that they sanction his divorce. He was now a Protestant, just like Martin Luther, though he continued to follow many of the Catholic ways of old and hypocritically retained the Pope’s title of Fidei Defensor, used by the British Royal Family to this day even though they proved conclusively that not only would they not defend the Catholic faith, they would actively persecute it. Many English Catholics were appalled by Henry’s conduct and rose in righteous rebellion, but they were crushed one by one, and the leaders suffered the horrific fate of being hung, drawn and quartered for high treason.

The English people were good, loyal and faithful Catholics, and had been for a thousand years, until their king decided he wanted a divorce. Yet, within decades, England was virulently anti-Catholic. It introduced innumerable laws against Catholics, burned their priests at the stake and subjected them to relentless persecution and discrimination. The hostility can still be seen and felt to this day. The question is this – how can good Catholics be turned into Catholic persecutors within a couple of generations?

We mention this piece of history because there are many people who pour scorn on the Illuminati’s political system of meritocracy (designed to replace the existing system of representative democracy) and consider it unachievable, just as many 16th century English Catholics never imagined that their children would become fanatical Protestants. The critics of meritocracy particularly revile the 100% inheritance tax, which is the sine qua non of the meritocratic vision. This measure is expressly for the purpose of destroying dynastic wealth i.e. unless you prevent the possibility of family wealth being transferred from generation to generation, you will always be the victim of privileged family elites like the Rothschilds and Bushes. These elites, with their enormous prestige and influence, invariably form an unelected and unaccountable shadow global government – the Old World Order (OWO) – based on their private wealth and power with which they can buy and manipulate all of the governments of the world. In every way, the existence of a privileged elite is antithetical to meritocracy, and indeed to democracy. What’s the point of electing prime ministers and presidents if they are in fact pawn of people whose names were never on any ballot paper? Only a fool participates in a bogus election that does nothing but provide the front men for an unseen regime whose manifesto is never anything other than its own self-interest.

To a meritocrat, it is breathtaking that so many families, even those with no assets to pass on, are such fierce defenders of the rights of family inheritance. It is BECAUSE of this attitude that the OWO rule us. We can be free only when the elite’s money is taken from them and they can no longer use it as a weapon against us. The Old World Order are so successful precisely because they have the tacit support of most ordinary families. These families are clueless, submissive, irrational, credulous groups of morons, infected by “faith” in Abrahamism and the ludicrous rhetoric of “freedom and democracy” (which is more accurately (“freedumb and dumbocracy”). They have bought the OWO’s ideology hook, line and sinker. They have a false consciousness (constructed for them by the relentless media propaganda of the ruling elite) and they live in bad faith.

We would give up in the face of this resistance and cretinism of the masses if we did not already know that the ordinary families of today are as irrelevant as the ordinary Catholic families of 16th century England. The opinions of the anti-meritocrats count for nothing. All that matters is who has power. Who controls the agenda? Who dictates the consciousness of the people?

Henry VIII used a combination of terror, bribery and corruption and realpolitik to get the ruling elite fully onboard with his new Church of England. They then rapidly demonised Catholicism over the next few decades and, critically, brainwashed all of England’s schoolchildren.

In just one generation, the mentality of a nation can be irrevocably changed. It doesn’t matter a damn what the dinosaurs think and believe. It doesn’t matter what they say about 100% inheritance tax.

After just one generation of meritocratic government, the meritocratic principles will become second nature, and the people will be baffled that previous generations once lived differently and permitted privileged elites to flourish.

The brilliant scientist Max Planck wrote, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

That’s exactly the way the world works. We can’t ever persuade convinced Abrahamists, democrats and supporters of dynastic family power that they are wrong – they are beyond help in that regard. But if meritocracy becomes the ruling paradigm, the Abrahamists and the fans of privilege and the OWO will die out and their archaic belief system will become as extinct as the Flat Earth Society. The education of children is the key to a new world order. Once children are liberated from the beliefs of their parents and given a tailor-made, optimised education, the world will be transformed by that fact alone.

If you are a true meritocrat then you are a visionary and you are in tune with the dialectic of freedom. You see and understand things that the dumb, brainwashed sheeple will never grasp.

What is our great task? It is essentially this – to bring together all of the smartest, most active and creative people in the world who are not part of the ruling paradigm of the OWO. We don’t need any kind of majority of the sheeple. We’re not democrats, after all. We have said over and over again that the vast majority of people in this world are submissive sheep. They will go with the flow, whatever it is. That’s their nature: to follow the path of least resistance; to do whatever is required of them by the powers-that-be. That’s why Catholic England rapidly became Protestant England. No Catholic would have thought it possible, yet it happened with remarkable speed.

The movers and shakers dominate this world, not the hewers of wood and drawers of water. One active person has more effect than ten passive people. One leader is worth a thousand people. A “messiah” is worth half a world. Ergo, the game is to bring the whole active resistance to the Old World Order under a single banner. To be victorious, we need only about 5% of the population on our side, providing that the 5% consists of the smartest, most determined, most creative, most committed people in all the lands. In other words, we need the heroes. The hero monomyth is at the core of our project because only heroes can change the world. The highest heroes are world-historic figures. Any group that can assemble all of the heroes cannot lose. Where the heroes go, the rest of the world follows.

So, our task is not to appeal to the brainwashed masses, who are already irretrievably lost, but to attract those, like the Nietzschean Übermenschen, who will create the future.

The old gods are dead. The highest heroes are the new gods, and only through them will the rest of humanity attain divinity. Meritocracy is the platform for the greatest exemplars of the human race, those who will give birth to a new world, those who will reach up and pluck the bright stars from the heavens.

We don’t need to convince the sheeple of anything. We don’t need to persuade Abrahamists that they are fatally deceived. We don’t need to fight the OWO. We just need the heroes, the Supermen and Superwomen who can alter the destiny of worlds.

Are you such a person?
__________

Bank Robbers in Designer Suits:

Do you want to see the world created by the OWO in 3-D and full Technicolor? Watch the film-documentary Inside Job by Charles Ferguson. If you don’t crave a French-style Revolution by the time the closing credits roll, there’s something wrong with you.

Inside Job forensically dissects the astonishing gangster culture that governs our world. Yet virtually no one saw this movie even though it won an Oscar for best documentary. It suffered the usual fate of vital films – receiving a very limited release. Art house cinemas showed it, but most multiplexes wouldn’t touch that sort of thing with a bargepole. The dumbed-down masses couldn’t imagine anything worse and more boring than watching a documentary explaining exactly why our world is the way it is. Anyone who is not interested in this topic is beyond help. Inside Job is so important that it ought to be one of the most successful films of all time: everyone should be going to see it. It should be shown in every school. The fact that so few are interested in it illustrates how docile the sheeple are, and how brilliant is the brainwashing job done on them.

Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson wrote, “When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his ‘proper place’ and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary.”

That’s the world the OWO have crafted. They have created a population that would rather spend all of its time watching American Idol and Lady Gaga videos than scrutinizing how the elite came to be so rich and powerful. Such a population poses no threat at all to the OWO, which is exactly why they designed things that way.

Think of what has been done to the people in order to make them so hostile to learning the truth of the prison they are in. Think how brilliantly the OWO have performed their task. Even when their evil is fully exposed in painstaking detail, it doesn’t make the slightest difference. The members of the OWO could walk around dressed as Satan himself, in horns and hooves, and still they would be worshipped as God.

That’s why heroes alone can save the world – the few who have seen through all of the lies and are ready to act, to lead, to use their personal gifts to transform this world of ours. Achieving a democratic mandate is not our priority. The mandate we seek is that of the true heroes. Ours is the Hero Flag, and under that banner we shall inevitably triumph.

Here is the ruling ideology of the OWO that the heroes must smash:

1) The super rich are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.

2) They deserve all of their wealth and power because of 1).

3) Wicked, Godless communism would result if you deprived them of their wealth and power. The world would be plunged into chaos.

4) It is your God-given duty to obey the super rich in every way because they are the ones who enjoy God’s favour i.e. they are God’s chosen appointees and any resistance to them is an attack on God himself. It is the “divine right” of the wealthy to rule.

5) If you work hard enough, you too could become super rich, so don’t complain.

6) The super rich are all about family and if you love your family you will emulate the super rich and their strong family values.

7) It would be theft and a crime against God for the State to remove the wealth of the super rich.

8) The super rich are being rewarded by God, and the poor punished by God. Your wealth is the surest sign of your closeness to God. You are evil if you are poor – why else has God given you nothing?

9) The poor are the damned and the rich the saved.

10) The rich are God’s elect.

11) The super rich are the only legitimate authority in the world. Everything they do is by definition legitimate. You have no legal grounds to challenge them.

12) They have the absolute right to impose their views on everyone else: to brainwash them, to control the education they receive, and to control the media that educates, informs and entertains them.

13) Wealth is proof of God’s favour ergo any attack on wealth is Satanic.

Of course, “Mammon” should replace the word “God” in this list, but the ordinary person no longer draws any distinction since all they dream about is becoming rich, about becoming a high priest of Mammon. Money, in our world, is freedom, power, status, prestige, desirability and delight all rolled into one. Money is the panacea the ancient alchemists sought. All of our problems would end if only we had enough money.

The Mammonites are everywhere. There has never been a more powerful religion in history. The OWO have proved that money can buy the world’s soul and control every feature of this planet. Cicero said, “There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it.” The OWO have taken every fortress in just this manner. “Resistance is futile,” they brag as they wave their bags of gold.

We have no truck with democracy. Why not? Because the people are completely debased, corrupted and retarded. They have accepted their own slavery and subjugation. They think it is fully justified. They are delighted to endlessly distract themselves with the junk the elite put in front of them. They are not a “people” at all: merely a bread and circuses mob of performing puppets and gawping spectators. They are not humans but rather human impersonators. It’s even questionable whether they have true souls.

The hero, the superman – the man or woman who would be God – is the antidote.

If you are a meritocrat you will have found yourself developing a kind of nausea when you contemplate the sheeple. How could humanity have fallen so low you will think? And how can such people help the dialectic of freedom when they have embraced slavery so eagerly? They refuse to take the actions necessary to save themselves. They put on their own manacles and sing, “Hallelujah! – give us heavier chains!”

The people must be saved, but they can’t save themselves. Only the free can change the world. Only heroes are free. They are self defining, self creating. They don’t wait on others.

Would any democrat dare to utter the immortal slogan of Nietzsche: “We, however, want to become those who we are – the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves!” Only such individuals have the strength to dream, to seize life, to transform themselves and others. What do the rest matter? Who needs their endorsement? They will never agree with us because they have sold their souls to the Devil.

Congratulations to Pho’, the visionary Hip Hop artist, and all those who assisted him in creating his H.E.R.O. Volume 1 Collection – an astoundingly innovative, inspirational and ambitious work, illustrating true grandeur of vision. It’s a mystery that Pho’ isn’t yet a global phenomenon, but his time will surely come. He makes smart music for smart people, music with something to say, music that seeks to change the world.
_________

The War of the N’s and S’s, T’s and F’s, I’s and E’s:

We are hard-wired for conflict. The reason for that is that large groups of us have nothing in common with other large groups with whom we are forced to share the planet. We humans, in our various different groups, perceive the world differently. We conceptualise it differently. We have totally different value systems. It’s quite possible that we could get on better with Martians than with some of our neighbours. No one could be more alien to us than those who have a radically different understanding of the world and way of interacting with it.

Are Abrahamists even human? Do people who vote for the Republican Party belong to the same species as everyone else? It’s actually more than a question of brainwashing. What these people believe is a reflection of how their brains are configured. A person who is sensing oriented with feeling as his auxiliary function, or feeling oriented with sensing as his auxiliary function, is not someone who is thinking his way through life, not someone who is intuiting the truth of things.

The sensers and feelers go through life cut off from the cerebral side of life. Is it any wonder they succumb to irrational belief systems, that they place faith over knowledge? They can’t do otherwise because they don’t actually have any firm idea of what reason is. They don’t interact with it on a daily basis. It’s something obscure and alien to them, whereas irrational nonsense is what they trade in day in and day out. These people have no contact with Logos (reason) – they are driven by the simple Mythos “logic” of stories and emotions, a style of logic which makes claims such as cowboys in white hats are good and those in black hats are evil (which was once the rule in all cowboy movies, just in case the retarded Abrahamist audience couldn’t work out good and evil conduct for themselves!).

If we analysed those who believe in the Abrahamic religions and those who don’t we would discover astounding psychological differences. In Myers-Briggs terms, Abrahamists would be over represented by S’s, F’s and E’s and non-Abrahamists by N’s, T’s and I’s. In other words, the conflicts of the world are about different types of brain wiring and psychological types.

It would be almost impossible for a Myers-Briggs INTJ personality type to persuade an ESFP of the truth of anything because the latter doesn’t care about the truth in any rational way. As we said, they are Mythos-based rather than Logos-centred. They subscribe to emotional stories rather than abstract logic. They are thrill seekers rather than contemplatives. They want to wallow in sensory information – their perceptions – and feelings rather than bring conceptual order to the world. The two groups have no common language. They can’t communicate. Their frameworks of reality are incommensurate.

The idea that you can have a rational debate with any person is a myth. Huge numbers of people have no idea what reason is. Literally. Their minds just don’t work that way. A rational person can barely understand the concept of “faith” because it demands that they abandon reason in order to believe something that has no rational basis. Why would they ever be attracted to such an idea? Yet a person who has very little grasp of reason will have no difficulty at all. If someone tells them an engaging, emotional story that they buy into and then says that they must believe this to be wholly true even though there is no evidence for it, these people will say, “Fine with me.” They are driven by emotions and sensations, not facts. If faith provides them with comfort and courage then they will eagerly embrace it. The truth content of their beliefs doesn’t come into it. It’s irrelevant.

The ancient Gnostics were the first religious thinkers to be repelled by the idea of faith and to take a resolute stance against it. They demanded knowledge. There can be little doubt that Gnostics are a different psychological type from believers. Atheists, skeptics and agnostics are also unable to accept faith.

The Pythagorean Illuminati sought to build everything on the most precise knowledge base possible: mathematics, the queen of the sciences. Not once did the Illuminati ever stray near the bizarre world of faith – the irrational world.

The more you contemplate “faith”, the more it seems indistinguishable from madness. When Luther described reason as the “Devil’s whore”, he was asserting that facts, logic, evidence and knowledge are no proper basis for understanding the world and instead non-facts, illogic, non-evidence and non-knowledge are the proper ways to approach life. WTF! The “revelation of God” in an ancient book of highly dubious provenance, and full of crazy assertions and rules, is how we should order and live our lives. Really?

It’s well known that the Christian gospels are merely a selection from many ancient manuscripts, others of which could have been chosen instead. The trouble was that all of these different potential gospels horrifically contradicted each other, even though they were all ostensibly about the infallible teachings of Christ. So “they” (the Church elders) chose the small set that were most consistent, but even within these there were many blatant contradictions. Why do so many people think these selected gospels are the revelation of God if they can’t agree on the basic facts of Jesus’ life? The identities of the authors of the four Christian gospels are shrouded in mystery and it’s not entirely clear that any of them actually knew Jesus and were eyewitnesses to any events in his life. All of them may be nothing but hearsay. Jesus’ apostles were mostly ill-educated fishermen unable to read or write, and Jesus Christ himself was probably illiterate given that he didn’t commit even one word to paper. You simply could not get a more dubious basis for a “revelation” on which to stake your life. No rational person is inclined to believe any of it.

What possible reason could anyone have for believing that a baby born of a “virgin” (the word “maiden”, meaning an unmarried girl, was actually mistranslated as “virgin”) 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem was none other than the God of the Universe rather than just another bastard Jew (literally)? Mary, the so-called Mother of God, unquestionably had premarital sex and attempted the most audacious and far-fetched cover-up in history, a lie so big and absurd that it has been eagerly embraced by billions of cretinous Christians ever since. They wouldn’t like to think of Christ’s mother as a delinquent teenager into casual sex and prepared to make up outrageous lies to try to save her bacon when she got pregnant – just like plenty of teens in the present day. Yet isn’t that far more credible than a “virgin” conception? Since when did claims that contradict science and all human experience become credible? If a teenage girl in the present day said she was pregnant through supernatural means she would be denounced as a liar or locked up as mad…so why is such a whopper believed because it’s two-thousand years old and made by a Jewess called Mary?

Let’s be charitable to Mary. Let’s say that what actually happened was that she met a con man passing himself as one of the Watchers – the angels that came to earth and seduced earthly women, thus giving rise to the race of Nephilim, the offspring of humans and angels. The Watcher seduced her then told her that he hadn’t genuinely had sex with her because he was an immaterial angel, hence she was entitled to claim she was still a virgin because she hadn’t had sex with a mortal man. She was more than happy to go along with the story, and even started to believe it herself.

The Illuminati actually decided to test this scenario, and sent out men pretending to be angels to see what effect it would have on women. The strategy was astoundingly successful – anyone who can convincingly tap into the “Angel Mythos” has the chance to be a Don Juan. Who can doubt that young Mary fell for just such a stratagem? All suggestible, submissive girls are prey for good-looking, unscrupulous men passing themselves off as angels. The Illuminati performed the ruse as an experiment; others do it as a way of life. Go out to a nightclub and try it for yourself, but make sure you actually know about angel lore!

Matthew 1:18 Whereas [Christ’s] mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost?! Yeah, right!

Luke 1 26-35: And in the sixth month [of the pregnancy of John the Baptist’s mother Elizabeth], the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women.” Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her, “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” And the angel answering said to her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Of course, the Watchers were also called the sons of God! Is this the Gospel proof that Jesus Christ was an archon?!

One of the most notorious archons is called “Gabriel” – the “Angel” Gabriel, to be more precise! An archon is a human being with a higher, “angelic” soul which confers remarkable powers on him, and much-extended longevity (incidentally, have you ever wondered why many people in the Bible – such as Methuselah – were said to have lived for many centuries?). Gabriel it was who seduced Mary. She bore his son – Jesus Christ, the archon, a boy who also enjoyed out-of-the-ordinary powers. And Gabriel it was too who sought out Mohammed and recited the Koran to him. And thus the Arch Archon Gabriel has played one of the most significant roles in human history. There is no plot greater than the Gabriel conspiracy.

“Gabriel (i.e. man of God). One of the Archangels, sometimes referred to as the Angel of Death, the prince of fire and thunder, but more frequently as one of God’s chief messengers, and traditionally said to be the only angel that can speak Syriac and Chaldee. The Mohammedans call him the chief of the four favoured angels and the spirit of truth. Milton makes him the chief of the angelic guards placed over Paradise. In the Talmud, Gabriel appears as the destroyer of the hosts of Sennacherib, as the man who showed Joseph the way, and as one of the angels who buried Moses. According to the Koran, it was Gabriel who took Mohammed to heaven on Al Borak and revealed to him his ‘prophetic love’. In the Old Testament, Gabriel is said to have explained to Daniel certain visions; in the New Testament he announced to Zacharias the future birth of John the Baptist and appeared to Mary the mother of Jesus.” –Brewster’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

Consider this: why did Gabriel meet Mary in private? Why did he not appear in front of Mary, Joseph and their parents, so that no one would get the wrong idea?

Consider this: why did Gabriel meet Mohammed in private? Why did he not announce the Koran himself to all the peoples of the world so that no one could doubt its veracity? Why are the greatest religious “revelations” always conducted in the utmost secrecy, making it impossible for them ever to be verified in any way?

The Illuminati conduct their affairs in secret to avoid the persecution of the followers of Gabriel and the OWO. But why should Gabriel – allegedly an angel of God Almighty, have to resort to secrecy rather than openness? Why does the God of “Revelation” not reveal himself? (Abraxas, the True God, is no God of Revelation – he is reached via reason, knowledge and gnosis i.e. he is the God of the enlightened, not of the endarkened.) It doesn’t make any sense, unless the purpose of the secrecy is to ensure that no one can rationally challenge the claims placed before them. They are designed to be matters of faith rather than reason, from which we can conclude that this “God” is not the True God of Reason, but rather the false God of psychological manipulation based on faith. He is the Demiurge, Satan.

Why did “God” learn carpentry of all things in Nazareth? Why was it not until he was 30 years of age that he suddenly started to perform “miracles”? Not the miracle of driving the Roman army of occupation out of the country, of course, since that would be too much like an actual, verifiable miracle that history would record.

So, “God” gets himself crucified by the Romans and then rises from the dead – taking care, as usual, to ensure that not a single person witnessed the event. Why didn’t he go straight to Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas, the High Priest of the Temple, and say, “Hey, guys, SURPRISE!” But of course that would make it a factual event rather than a faith-based event. Faith requires that there should never be a single objective witness and no evidence of any kind.

We can’t have facts getting in the way, can we? Why did Allah choose to send the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed in a cave to dictate the Koran to him? Why not do it in broad daylight in the middle of Mecca in front of thousands of people? Hey, way too many witnesses! Prophets are like serial killers – they always do things in the utmost secrecy without a single witness. If there were any witnesses, they probably killed them!

“God” is like some grand conspirator, sneaking around doing everything he can to avoid being seen. He’s the perfect criminal. He never leaves a trace. No CIS team could ever build a case against him. Strange, given that he allegedly created the world and us. Why does he hide himself from his creations? Why does he skulk around in the darkest shadows? As a matter of divine policy, he always acts through single individuals, and we just have to take their word for it that they’re telling the truth because they absolutely never provide any evidence.

But why should we believe them? Are we crazy? No rational person would take any of this nonsense seriously, but all rational people are compelled to live in a world where billions of irrational people treat this with literally deadly seriousness. They’ll kill you if you point out the myriad rational errors in their mad claims. In fact, they will call you mad! Or they will brand you as a heretic, infidel, apostate, demon, devil, tempter, corrupter, an evil influence, a servant of Satan, or whatever other demented label they can think up.

Consider the four “Temperaments” devised by David Keirsey: the Guardians, Artisans, Rationalists and Idealists. Which of these are the ones prone to faith?

The Guardians are defined by their desire for security. They are “Supervisors” (ESTJ in terms of Myers-Briggs personality types), “Inspectors” (ISTJ), “Providers” (ESFJ) and “Protectors” (ISFJ). None of these are intuitives, and the Providers and Protectors aren’t thinkers either. These latter ones are the most susceptible to prophets and preachers demanding absolute faith. They quite simply aren’t geared up for reasoning their way through the world.

As for the Artisans, they are sensation seeking. They are Promoters (ESTP), Crafters (ISTP), Performers (ESFP) and Composers (ISFP). As with the Providers and Protectors, the Performers and Composers are not skilled at thinking or intuition. Again, they are easy meat for the religions of faith.

As for the Supervisors, Inspectors, Promoters and Crafters, although they have a thinking capacity, it is not supported by intuition. In many ways, intuition is a kind of bullshit detector. An intuitive can “smell” lies.

Nietzsche, a genius of intuition, wrote, “I was the first to discover the truth, in that I was the first to sense – smell – the lie as lie…My genius is in my nostrils…”

Intuitives smell the biggest possible fish when it comes to faith. Non-intuitives don’t have that advantage.

“Faith” is a virus that spreads through the Guardian and Artisan classes, and unfortunately these make up 80% of the human population. The Guardians – the security seekers – are the bedrock of “family values”, “freedom and democracy” and Abrahamism. They will cut your throat to defend the self-interest and privileges of their families. They are the ones who would fight to the death to prevent 100% inheritance tax. They would perceive it as the ultimate attack on their family security. The Artisans – the sensation seekers – are the worshippers of celebrity. They are the primary capitalist consumers. They love to shop. They are obsessed with fashion, thrills, socializing, parties, vacations, fast cars, video games etc.

The Rationals – the knowledge seekers – are the Field Marshals (ENTJ), the Masterminds (INTJ), the Inventors (ENTP) and the Architects (INTP). All of these are highly rational and intuitive and the least likely to have anything to do with faith.

The Idealists are identity seekers and are Teachers (ENFJ), Counselors (INFJ), Champions (ENFP) and Healers (INFP). They have a certain susceptibility to credulity because they lack the thinking function, but their intuition can usually steer them away from danger.

Virtually everyone who reads our series of books will be a rational or an idealist. We would expect zero interest from guardians and for just a few curious artisans to come this way. This is a society for intuitives, and intuition has a profound relationship with gnosis. In fact gnosis is ultimate intuition.

We seek to bring together all of the rationals and idealists. Unfortunately, the extraverts amongst them often work for the Old World Order. Many senior members of the Old World Order are ENTJs and ENTPs. They are the brains of the OWO operation, and the ENFJs and ENFPs often act as their propagandists and are the ones who can so successfully make an emotional connection with the people.

All aspects of life can be analysed in terms of the introversion-extraversion, intuition-sensing and thinking-feeling dichotomies. The whole of history has been a battlefield between different mental ways of engaging with the environment. In a world of rationals, there would be no such phenomenon as faith. Abrahamism, quite simply, would not exist.

Rationals and idealists are outnumbered four to one, so we can see that they have tended to be the victims of the guardians and artisans.

They have been the heretics, the witches, the freethinkers, the atheists, skeptics, agnostics, Gnostics, rebels, revolutionaries, visionaries, dreamers and utopians. But if they acted as one, they would be unstoppable because they are so gifted. That’s why we want to bring as many as possible together under the meritocratic banner.

We, the intuitives, have a huge obstacle to overcome – the old world of the guardians and artisans, those mired in the past, in conservatism. They are driven by their senses and emotions, not by reason and future-possibilities. They are afraid of change, of new ideas. The concept of a New World Order terrifies them. They can’t think their way through problems. They are superstitious and intellectually primitive. Only such people could continue to revere ancient texts that have been disproved and discredited in every conceivable way. The reason they cling to old ways is that they gain emotional security from them and they can’t think their way beyond them. While intuitives always look to the future, the sensers never stop gazing at the past. They see the past as safe and understandable in their terms; the future as problematic. Intuitives love the future because that’s where their minds are most at home – imagining new possibilities.

Books, TV, films, music, religions, political parties – our tastes in these reflect our brain-wiring and psychological types. If you knew the psychological profiles of all the people who vote at the Oscars, you would have no difficulty in working out who would win the prizes.

Rationally, it might seem impossible for the intuitives to beat the sensing types given that there are so many more of the sensers, and the sensers’ belief systems are so deeply ingrained. But the intuitives have the advantage of being much smarter, and the numbers game is irrelevant because the vast majority of people are submissives and will do whatever they are told by dominants.

The Zeitgeist series of films is highly geared towards intuitives. Project Venus and Project Earth are the quintessence of visionary intuition. The strongest critics of Zeitgeist are, of course, the Old World Order and the conservative sensers.

One thing that must be clear from what we have said is that there will be no groundswell of public support for meritocracy leading to the resource and technology-based future society envisaged by Zeitgeist where money is no longer needed. We aren’t fools. We know that the sensers are far too entrenched in their traditional and conservative ways.

So, we can win only by being a) much smarter b) much more heroic c) much more dominant d) much more cohesive e) much more focused. We have to undermine the faith of the sensers in their leaders and system. We have to attack from every angle, sow endless seeds of doubt. We have to remove their will to resist. This is a psychological war, and those who are best able to use psychology will prove victorious.

Kierkegaard wrote about The Instant – the moment when eternity intersects with time, the moment of decision, the moment when you have to choose once and for all which side to fight on. Well, The Instant is here. You can no longer avoid it. This is the time for heroes. Will you be one of them? It’s your choice.
__________

2/7