QR Code Business Card

Join Us on FACEBOOKVă invit să vă alăturaţi grupului Facebook Mişcarea DACIA, ce-şi propune un alt fel de a face politică!

Citiţi partea introductivă şi proiectul de Program, iar dacă vă place, veniţi cu noi !
O puteţi face clicând alături imaginea, sau acest link

Hyperian History Of The World (19th Century, Part 5)

Ottobre 31st, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Dacia Iluministă

Hyperian History Of The World (19th Century, Part 5)

Nietzsche’s radical philosophy signalled the end of an era for philosophy. Just as he had declared that ‘god is dead’, Nietzsche had attacked all manner of ‘idols’, including many greatly respected philosophers. Kant, Hegel and even Leibniz failed to escape Nietzsche’s scathing attacks. Perhaps Nietzsche was (understandably) frustrated by the fact that no religion, no philosophy, no science had succeeded in adequately explaining this reality in which he found himself, and so he felt the need to attack everything, to expose it all as empty and without true meaning.

Of course, Nietzsche’s biggest problem was that he was not a rationalist, and therefore lacked the means to distinguish between what was the real truth and what were empty falsehoods. Yet it was nonetheless true that even the greatest of rationalists, Leibniz, had not been able to truly express his philosophy in the purest rational terms because, as has been discussed, he lacked the mathematics with which to do so. Unfortunately, philosophy after Leibniz had actually seemed to move further and further away from mathematics (with science becoming more and more mathematical after Newton by contrast). Kant had started, in his earlier writings, with a more mathematical, almost scientific view of reality, which he had then rejected in his later, grander philosophy. Even Hegel, whose system was the most ‘complete’, had expressed it in metaphysical terms rather than mathematical, and mathematics was entirely absent in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

As philosophy became less mathematical and science more so, those seeking to understand reality were perhaps drawn more to science than to philosophy, as science would have seemed more rigorous, despite its basis in irrational empiricism. The problem was, of course, the sundering of academic disciplines. Mathematicians, those who held the keys to existence, were not sufficiently versed in philosophy and, as such, knew not how to use their keys. In the 18th century, Euler had actually discovered the equation which explained and defined all existence, yet had not realised that that is what is was. Unfortunately, no philosopher had made the connection either, yet mathematicians pressed on, making more and more discoveries, the significance of which they continued to fail to grasp.

In the early 19th century, another mathematician came along, Joseph Fourier, who, like Euler, made incredibly important mathematical discoveries, yet knew not their true significance. The biggest problem in philosophy was the mind/matter interaction problem which went back all the way to Descartes. Leibniz had partially solved the mind/matter interaction problem by showing that matter must be ultimately derived from mind, from the monads in his system, and that this must be done via some mathematical operations. Yet Leibniz had not discovered what those operations were.

It wasn’t until the work of Fourier that these mathematical operations were discovered. As he was a mathematician and not a philosopher, Fourier himself did not realise the implications of his own discoveries, but he can nonetheless be counted among humanity’s greatest geniuses by virtue of having made the mathematical discoveries necessary to solve the mind/matter problem.

Euler’s formula had shown that the exponential function could be expressed in terms of sine and cosine waves. Fourier built on this and discovered that every mathematical function can be expressed in terms of these simple waves, sine and cosine waves. From the analysis of these waves, Fourier realised that the same mathematical information can be presented in two completely different ways. Mathematical information can be presented in terms of a frequency domain as well as a space/time domain. Using a mathematical operation, known as the Fourier Transform, one can switch between the two domains.

These mathematical ideas provide the answer to Descartes’s problem. Leibniz had shown that each monad contains infinite energy, and energy is simply a collection of simple waves. The energy within the monads, within the realm of mind, is therefore represented by Fourier’s frequency domain and this same energy can be represented by Fourier’s space/time domain, via Fourier’s Transform, to form the realm of matter. Leibniz had shown that mind and matter were simply two forms of the same thing, and Fourier had (finally) provided the mathematics to show how it worked. Finally it could be shown how mind and matter can interact, by the fact that they are both presenting the same mathematical information in two different ways, related by Fourier’s Transform.

Of course, the true implications of Fourier’s discoveries were not recognised at the time, yet Fourier’s work was still hugely influential, particularly in science and engineering. By failing to utilise mathematics, philosophy was eclipsed by science in the 19th century, as science began to make progressions.

Religion had informed the worldview of the majority of people for so many centuries, yet now science was replacing religion, often offering completely alternative views of reality. In the 19th century this was shown most explicitly by the theories of Charles Darwin. The bible, which had been the source of knowledge for most ordinary people for centuries, simply stated that god had created the world and all the creatures in it. Darwin developed an alternative theory which proved devastating for religion.

Darwin asserted that the huge variety of species of life on Earth had all descended from common ancestors via a process which he called ‘natural selection’. Given that there were variations in the offspring of a species, those individuals which were better adapted to their environment were more likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore, over time, species would develop and evolve in various ways in response to changes in the environment. This theory of evolution was utterly in opposition to the religious ‘creationist’ view as, most significantly, Darwin’s theory required no creator at all.

Of course, there were flaws in the theory. Darwin failed to explain the origin of life itself (how did the first species appear?), he failed to explain exactly how variation occurs (his contemporary Gregor Mendel did explain this with his early genetic theory, but he was all but ignored while Darwin became a celebrity), and, of course, his theory was based solely on his empirical observations, and therefore had no rational basis at all. In fact, upon analysis, one realises that Darwin’s theory is ultimately based upon supposedly ‘random’ changes, some of which just happen to be suited to the environment.

Here the absurdity is revealed. If these changes are random, then every possible change has an equal chance of occurring. Given that only a narrow range of these changes would actually be suited to the environment of a species, the fact that such a variety of species has evolved, often with incredibly specific adaptations, and often over rather short spans of time, seems incredibly lucky. To go from single-celled organisms to the complexity of the human brain via a system of randomness just seems too good to be true.

In fact, a far less famous biologist had already developed a theory of evolution which addresses these problems, long before Darwin, yet these ideas are rarely discussed by scientists today. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s theory of evolution stated that there was some kind of complexifying force which drove evolution up a ladder of increasing complexity. To modern scientists this seems almost mystical and, of course, such a force could never be empirically observed, yet Lamarck’s theory at least accounts for the rapid increase in complexity which could never be achieved via randomness as Darwin later asserted.

The problem was, as ever, that these scientists were not philosophers and were not mathematicians. The three disciplines needed to be used together in order to truly understand reality, yet they had become far too separated.

Compared with the assertions of the bible, however, science certainly seemed to provide more rigorous explanations of reality and the power of religion was forever diminished with these scientific discoveries. Yet, later in the 19th century, even science would begin to show its fragility. Ever since Newton, physicists were happy with their deterministic view of the universe, based upon observable effects guided by simple mathematical laws. Yet it eventually became clear that things were not as simple as Newton had thought.

The most significant physicist of the late 19th century was James Clerk Maxwell, who delivered the first significant blow to the Newtonian view of physics. Maxwell studied both electricity and magnetism and eventually realised that they were simply two different expressions of the same phenomenon, namely light itself. Maxwell showed that both electric and magnetic fields travelled through space as waves moving at the speed of light. This unification of light, electricity and magnetism led to the idea of the electromagnetic spectrum, which Maxwell used to predict the existence of other forms of light such as radio waves.

This was very significant. Radio waves, and other types of light on the electromagnetic spectrum were not observable, yet their existence had been predicted mathematically, via the equations which Maxwell had developed. Whereas Newton had made his observations and then had developed equations to fit them, Maxwell had started with the mathematics and then declared that these waves must exist, without having observed them. This was a major shake-up to scientists who, once so certain of their view of reality, now began to realise that things were not as they had seemed. Physics was ripe for revolution, and in the next century chaos would certainly ensue.

Maxwell showed how science and mathematics were working together to improve their views of reality. Unfortunately they were still very much alienated from philosophy and, as such, there were still major flaws in their theories. Yet, nonetheless, 19th century science shows quite clearly that the reign of irrational religion was over once and for all, as Nietzsche said with his ‘god is dead’. Science would become the new power over the way in which people thought, yet, being based on empiricism, would be just as irrational as religion had been, yet in a far less easy to notice way.
– Brice Merci – hyperian


Settembre 27th, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Dacia Iluministă


Jacques Derrida was one of the most controversial philosophers of modern times. His technique of “deconstruction” is both widely admired and condemned. The complexity of deconstruction can be seen from the fact that Derrida criticised any attempt to define exactly what deconstruction is on the grounds that any such definition would itself be open to being deconstructed.

Roughly speaking, deconstruction revolves around “decentring”. In every arena of life, a “centre” is defined and anything not identified with that centre is pushed, subtly or unsubtly, to one side. Take “God”. God is almost always referred to as “he” (although a few feminists deliberately use “she”). God is a not a sexual being and therefore has no sex. “He” should actually be spoken of in non-gendered terms, but no such vocabulary exists. The use of “he” privileges men over woman and places them at the centre of life and woman on the margins. The use of “she” would do the opposite. The point is that the choice of personal pronoun for referring to God instantly places one group above another. Until the rise of feminism, the centrality of God as a male was never seriously challenged, and society on earth was invariably controlled by men.

In a masculine society, women are marginalized. In times of great wars – as most of our history has been – the masculine is dominant. Nowadays, with wars being small and fought far away, with relatively few casualties, the centre of the Western narrative is turning away from the masculine and becoming increasingly feminine. Political correctness, caring, empathising, hugging, social networking, compromising, accommodating, consoling, consensus…the key words of our contemporary culture are essentially feminine. No one preaches strong values because some people might be offended. Strength itself is not welcome nowadays. No one stands for anything because that would mean putting principles above getting on with others, and that’s unacceptable. So, the centre of our narrative is changing, and now the masculine is becoming “other”. The Old World Order are delighted with the feminisation of society because it reduces the chances of any forceful response to their control over us.

The subject of a book is that book’s “centre”. Jesus Christ is the centre of a book about Christianity. Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are automatically made non-central in such a book. They are at the margins; they are excluded; they are “other”.

Derrida was concerned with revealing the assumptions that accompany the centre, and what it means for those entities excluded from the centre. Deconstruction takes apart a product of any type and exposes the agenda that underlies it. Books, newspapers, magazines, movies, paintings, sculptures, political systems, religions, celebrities, advertising…absolutely everything can be deconstructed. We learn that we are never dealing with objective facts, but with narratives that promote the underlying agenda. To understand the deceit that lies, fundamentally, at the centre, is to be released from the prison of illusion that the centre constructs.

Look at all the “centres” of our culture: freedom, democracy, liberalism, capitalism, equal rights, Judaeo-Christianity etc. Everything else is pushed to the fringes, rendered irrelevant, unworthy of consideration. But, via deconstruction, we can cause the centre to collapse, bring the “other” to the foreground, and gain a wider and better understanding.

A Muslim is trapped in a brainwashed state because he can’t understand that the Koran is nothing but a text that places seventh century Arabia at the centre of life. Equally, the New Testament is centred on Judea of 2,000 years ago, and the Torah on Moses and the history of the Jews. If Muslims, Christians and Jews were intelligent people they would deconstruct their sacred texts, but of course they won’t because then the texts would no longer be sacred. These “believers” have done the opposite of deconstruction: they have constructed false centres that marginalize everything else. No Muslim ever questions the Koran, or Christian the Bible, or Jew the Torah. Nothing could be more dangerous than the fanatic who refuses to see the world through different eyes, as the violent history of the main religions has amply demonstrated.

Most of life consists of the creation of false centres that then take on a kind of religious significance that no one dare challenge. Deconstruction is the antidote. Deconstruction is one of the greatest tools of liberation ever devised because it makes us question everything we read and learn, and that’s exactly as it should be. This website has its own centre, and can be deconstructed like everything else. But, unlike others, we encourage seekers of truth to engage in deconstruction (but we have no interest in unconstructive people who want to pointlessly argue with us, as many of those who contact us choose to do). Only when you have deconstructed can you be trusted to construct. You will do so knowingly, aware of the limitations and the assumptions built into your constructions.

Deconstruction doesn’t lead nowhere as its critics maintain; it leads us to the truths that we can finally stand by. When every text has been decentred, when every “other” is no longer other then we can see for ourselves those things in which we ought to invest our energy. We again construct centres, but this time having taken the the “other” into due consideration. If we now ignore others it is not because they were marginalized and made invisible to us, but because we understood exactly what we were doing, and the full consequences of our actions.

Deconstruction is always political and ideological, just as construction and centring were in the first place. Deconstructionists are those who no longer fall for the propaganda of the central, privileged position.

The Old World Order remain the centre of the world’s grand narrative. It’s time for us to deconstruct them out of existence.

Even before deconstruction existed, Nietzsche was attacking the ultimate grand narrative – God at the centre of the universe, the infallible judge of all of humanity, the supreme moral paragon. What if that centre were false, Nietzsche asked, what if God were dead? Then the centre of existence has collapsed. Morality vanishes. Good and evil no longer exist. No one is in charge. The meaning of life is called into question. What then? Nietzsche proposed a new centre – the Superman, the man who takes on the mantle of creator and judge, and obeys his own will to power. In effect, the Superman deposes God and replaces him as God, but he is a God who knows he is fallible.

The centre of the Illuminati’s narrative is the True God, but we openly encourage Nietzsche’s approach because those who dare to don the mantle of God are the only ones who could ever imagine what it is like to be God, and it is precisely those people in whom God is most interested. They are the ones worthy of divine love because they are the ones who come closest to understanding it. Nietzsche’s advocacy of the Superman is remarkably similar in intent to the Illuminati’s advocacy of the search for the higher self, the divine spark. In both cases, humans look inside themselves and try to become something greater, nobler and more divine.

Excerpted, page 315

© The Illuminati’s Secret Religion

Este posibil ca imaginea să conţină: noapte

Cavalerii Mesei Rotunde

Marzo 11th, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Mişcarea Dacia
“Eu scriu pentru o rasă de oameni care nu există încă: pentru Domnii Pământului. (Übermensch)” – Nietzsche
Cavalerii Graalului, aflaţi într-o misiune sfântă de a găsi Graalul, au fost modelul viitorilor Cavaleri Templieri, un grup restrâns de sfinţi cavaleri care și-au dedica viața lor unor Misiuni Sacre. Merlin (un Druid) a devenit modelul viitorilor Alchimiști. Camelot a devenit simbolul unui Oraș al lui Dumnezeu pe Pământ, Orașul-Stat perfect, spre care omenirea ar trebui să aspire.
Masa Rotundă a devenit simbolul Meritocrației contra Privilegiului. Arthur a devenit simbolul conducătorilor dedicați Scopurilor Superioare, mai degrabă decât Lăcomiei și Interesului Propriu. Tărâmul Deşertăciunii a devenit simbolul Lumii Avraamice Satanice și a Hoardelor Barbare care au inundat Europa. Religia Gnostică a lui Arthur și a regatului său a devenit modelul viitoarei religii gnostice a Catharismului – religia celor “Puri”. Preoții catharilor se numeau Perfecții … “Cei Perfecți”. Perfectele Femei se numeau Perfectae. Aceasta este traseul care duce de la Pitagora la Roma, la Alexandria, până la Britania Arthuriană și apoi la Alchimie, Cathari și Cavalerii Templieri.”



Ottobre 12th, 2018 No Comments   Posted in Mişcarea Dacia


„În “Originea Conștienței în Colapsul Minții Bicamerale”, Julian Jaynes a susținut că mintea umană primitivă era mai degrabă „Bicamerală” decât Conștientă. Ceea ce a vrut să spună era că cele două emisfere ale creierului nostru aveau o relație asimetrică una cu cealaltă și că natura umană era împărțită în două prin cele două emisfere, cu o parte Dominantă numită „Zeu” (situat în emisfera dreaptă a creierului) , și o parte a Dominată numită „Om” (în emisfera stângă a creierului).

Când mintea bicamerală domnea, „Zeul” creierului din dreapta dădea ordine executate fără crâcneală de „Omul” din creierul din stânga. Creșterea Conștienței a implicat evoluția treptată a emisferei stângi, devenind mult mai puternică decât emisfera dreaptă, în final învingând-o în totalitate (ca noii zei Olimpici răsturnând vechii zei Titanici). „Zeul” a amuţit și numai „Omul” a rămas, dar acum acesta se putea imagina pe sine însuși ca un fel de Zeu.

Avraamismul păstrează un mare caracter bicameral. Pur și simplu a mutat zeul în emisfera dreaptă, proiectându-l/ antropomorfizându-l în ceruri. „Omul” avraamic se închină în continuare “Zeului”. În viziunea lui Jaynes, poemele epice ale lui Homer reflectă această minte bicamerală mai degrabă decât conștiența modernă, motiv pentru care cartea tratează zeii foarte mult ca și cum ar fi fost reali și direct experimentaţi. În același fel, Biblia reflectă mentalitatea bicamerală. Evreii, ca și grecii, au experimentat direct divinul. În zilele noastre, zeii sau Dumnezeu sunt tăcuți și par să nu interacționeze deloc cu noi. Ori Zeii au plecat – „God is dead – Nietzsche – (sau nu au existat), ori capacitatea noastră de a-i experimenta, sau credinţa că-i experimentăm, a fost pierdută.

Jaynes a oferit o explicație extrem de plauzibilă pentru ceea ce a avut loc: mințile bicamerale concepute pentru zei și dependente de zei au fost înlocuite de minți conștiente destinate acțiunii autonome (și care pot deveni ele însele zei). Bicameralismul este despre Mitul religios, în timp ce Conștiența adevărată este despre Logos şi Rațional.

De fapt, există două specii umane – specia Mythos și specia Logos, aceasta din urmă fiind mult mai evoluată. Omenirea „veche” se închină zeilor. Noua umanitate încearcă să devină zei. Majoritatea oamenilor – probabil 90% – au urme puternice vestigiale ale minții pre-moderne și pot ușor aluneca înapoi. Majoritatea oamenilor religioși din lume au doar un strat subțire de Conștiență, o Minte care este încă în esență Bicamerală. Fenomenul Hipnozei, a argumentat Jaynes, activează mintea bicamerală, cu hipnotizatorul Dominant care acționează ca „Zeu” asupra subiectului Hipnotizat/Dominat. Schizofrenia, a spus Jaynes, este o întoarcere pe deplin a bicameralismului, cu Conștiența victimei copleșită de „vocile zeilor” din capul lui, care îi ordonă.”

Mike Hockney – ”World Overworld Underworld Dreamworld”


Luglio 1st, 2018 No Comments   Posted in Mişcarea Dacia
„Dante îi considera posesori ai celor mai rele suflete dintre toate. Aceștia erau „Ignavi” – cei neutri, leneși, apatici, oportuniști, cei ale căror singure Cauze erau cele proprii, cei care nu făceau vreodată un angajament față de nimic altceva în afara propriului interes.
Acești oameni au provocat un şoc în mintea medievală a lui Dante. Ce ar face el în lumea de astăzi, mai ales din SUA și Europa, unde Ignavi sunt acum mai mult sau mai puțin singurele persoane pe care le puteţi întâlni – oameni care s-au ataşat nemilos la lăcomia, egoismul și narcisismul lor … libertarieni, anarhiști, relativiști, subiectiviști, empiriciști, nihiliști, agnostici, capitaliști prădători și alţii asemenea. Oameni care disprețuiesc statul, societatea și guvernul și sunt interesați doar de propriile nevoi și dorințe. Oameni care resping adevărul absolut și obiectiv. Oamenii care cred că fiecare are calea proprie și propriul adevăr și că singurul lucru pe care trebuie să-l faci este să-ți asculți propria propagandă, propriile opinii și convingeri, interpretările tale proprii, propriile tale experiențe.
Aceasta a devenit acum poziția rasei umane care a asigurat ascensiunea irezistibilă a Omului Mediocru, cel mai patetic și individualist tip de persoană care se închină sieşi, care nu are absolut nimic de a da lumii în afară de mediocritate zdrobitoare, minciună și trivialitate. El este exemplul perfect al Efectului Dunning-Kruger. Nietzsche i-a numit pe acești conservatori de sine „Last Men” și i-a considerat produsul final al rasei umane, opusul total al Supermen-ului său.
Am intrat acum în Epoca Last Men. Social-Media este mijlocul lor de a-și răspândi peste tot gunoiul plictisitor, distrugând totul despre calitate, merit și excelență. Nu-i mai puteți auzi pe cei cu ceva semnificativ de spus din cauza zgomotului lipsit de sens al mediocrilor.
Omenirea este acum la o răscruce de drumuri. Suntem la Endgame. E timpul să alegeți o parte. Dacă doriți să evitați Vestibulul Iadului, trebuie să vă raliați în spatele unui banner și să-i dați totul, să-i dați inima și sufletul.
După cum a spus Nietzsche: “Oricine s-a angajat vreodată să construiască un nou Rai, a găsit puterea pentru asta în Iadul său”.