Dacia Iluministă

Scotsman J. M. Barrie is famous for being the author of Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up, but he ought to be much more famous for his play The Admirable Crichton, one of the most subversive works ever written and greatly admired by the Illuminati. Crichton is a butler to a British Lord. When the Lord and his rich family and friends go on a sailing expedition, their ship is wrecked and they are stranded on a deserted island far from any major trading routes. The chance of rescue seems remote. At first, the Lord is in charge of the group, but it soon becomes apparent that neither he nor any of the other toffs have any clue how to do anything. Only Crichton has any practical skills and he now becomes the undisputed leader and the rest refer to him as “the Guv” (the Governor, the Boss). Crichton is in his element and completely dominant. He has shown himself to be the natural leader and by far the most meritorious in this natural environment where privilege counts for nothing.

Crichton creates a thriving island community where everyone is happy. The Lord’s daughter falls in love with him, even though she is engaged to another Lord back in England. Just as they are about to be married, a rescue ship appears. “Civilisation” has returned. Instantly, Crichton is reduced to a butler once more and his wedding is off forever. Back home, one of the toffs is hailed as a hero on the basis of a false account he gave of events on the island in which he and the Lord share the honours for all that was accomplished, and Crichton is written out of the history. The presence of Crichton is now utterly embarrassing and everyone feels awkward in his presence. His role on the island is never discussed. The Lord’s daughter marries her fiancé; what happened between her and Crichton on the island is a taboo subject. The play ends with Crichton announcing that he will be leaving, to everyone else’s great relief.

This play shows how fake and damaging privilege is, and how it’s the absolute enemy of merit and capability. Privilege is a system of signs, symbols and coded relations that construct a false reality. The whole point of privilege is to ensure that the truth is never allowed to show its face. In The Admirable Crichton, only the disaster of the shipwreck allows the natural, truthful order to be established. As soon as “civilisation” intervenes, the fake order of privilege is resurrected. Crichton is immediately made a nobody again. An extremely capable man must go through life as the servant of fools. That’s the story of our world thanks to the great evil of privilege. Note that everyone has a first name other than Crichton. He’s a second-class citizen in a two-tier society. He might as well be given a number rather than a name. He is the symbol of all talented people who are victims of the pernicious system of privilege.

We will never have a just, fair and meritorious world until privilege is crushed. It cannot be stressed enough that the end of privilege is the prerequisite for a New World Order, and The Admirable Crichton provides a graphic depiction of why it’s so necessary. People must be judged on their real talents not on their status and connections. The Old World Order’s creed of “It’s who you know that counts” must be destroyed. In the system of privilege, your worth is judged by your postcode or zip code (i.e. whether you’re from somewhere nice and privileged or from some vile ghetto) and your “name” (i.e. whether you have the name of a good, well-connected, privileged family or you’re from the “great unwashed”, with no social standing).
__________

Direct Democracy:

Someone wrote to us to advocate “direct democracy”. We should emphasize that direct democracy has no connection at all with meritocracy. Our correspondent wrote, “My problem is with just a few taking decisions that affect the lives of everyone.” This is the typical attack by democrats on meritocracy. Meritocracy wants all decisions to be taken by a few – providing the few are manifestly the most talented and smartest people in the world. Whatever flavour of democracy anyone promotes, whether representative or direct, it will always lead to the “tyranny of the majority”, populism, and lowest common denominator thinking – and it will never raise the quality of humanity. We rise via our best minds, not by pandering to what shoppers, junk TV addicts and video gamers think is right. The direct democracy agenda is wholly opposed to ours.

Our correspondent wrote, “As by that idea, we should allow only God to take the decisions.” That’s exactly right – we should trust in those who are humanity’s closest approximation to God, and let them raise up the rest of us, just as the ideas of the greatest scientists raise up the living conditions of all human beings. Where would we be without our scientific geniuses – and in what way did “direct democracy” contribute to their work? NOT AT ALL. Science would be a joke if it were subjected to democratic principles. We would still believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

We aim to apply the scientific model – the most successful undertaking in human history – to politics. Direct democrats, on the other hand, want to have politics handed over to the ill-educated, ill-informed and ignorant. Frankly, such people have no sympathy at all with our views, and seem a hair’s breadth away from being members of the Tea Party. Their comments show that they have absolute contempt for the concept of meritocracy and their “solution” to the world’s ills is simply to hand over voting to the people themselves rather than to the elected representatives of the people. Direct democracy is an example of what we call “Protestant” thinking i.e. the ideology which proclaims that each person knows best and fuck the experts. We, on the other hand, side with the authentic experts (such as the scientists) and reject any idea that badly educated people can improve the world. Go to Africa if you want to see how backward a badly educated Continent is. Direct democracy would turn the whole world into Africa. Direct democracy is designed to undermine expertise and make the ordinary person think they know better than the most highly qualified individuals.

It’s an extraordinary thing that direct democrats should find any commonality between our position and theirs. There’s none. They’re the opposites. We are meritocrats while they are those who want to find a “better implementation” of democracy via getting decision-making closer to the voter. Imagine a whole world of Muslims voting – that’s what their system would be like. A CATASTROPHE. Meritocracy proclaims that everyone is improved by having the smartest people running the world. It’s not improved at all by giving each person equal power. A world of seven billion Muslims exercising direct democracy would never progress. They would keep voting to enact Koranic laws; there would be no rational Enlightenment or possibility of such an Enlightenment. All progressive measures would be voted down because they would be judged anti-Koranic. Meritocracy, on the other hand, supports the freethinkers, the thinkers who are way ahead of everyone else. Meritocracy leads to dynamism, radicalism and rapid progress based on genuine expertise.

Direct democrats ought to read An Enemy of the People by Ibsen – “The minority is always right.”
__________

The Family – the Natural Enemy of the State:

THE INTRACTABLE PROBLEM of political philosophy, so deep-seated that many political philosophers have avoided any consideration of it, is the unbridgeable gap between the basic functional unit of the state (the family) and the State itself. The aim of the State, most people would agree, is to serve the interests of all of its citizens – to treat them as fairly and equally as possible, to show no favouritism, and to do what is best for the population as a whole. The family, on the other hand, seeks to always serve the interests of its own members, to show blatant favouritism towards those members, to try to secure the best possible treatment for itself (and screw everyone else).

So, the State’s functional unit (the family) and the State itself are mutually incompatible. The British Conservative Party (the “Tories”) seeks to minimise the State and maximise the self-interested behaviour of families (all well and good for the successful families from which the Tories garner most of their support). The “old” British Labour Party, the traditional opponents of the Tories, sought to redistribute wealth and generate a more equitable society. The State, under Old Labour, was quite willing to dictate to the family. “New” Labour, the modernised Labour Party, has abandoned the historical Labour project and is now just an alternative Tory Party (with practically identical policies and outlook on life).

No State can ever be successful until it resolves the tension between family and State. The Meritocratic State is the solution, providing the family buys into the concept of merit – that it’s ultimately in everyone’s best interests, including the family’s – for everyone to promote the interests of the most meritorious individuals in society, regardless of from which families and backgrounds they come.
__________

The Family – Dog Eat Dog:

When British Prime Minister David Cameron exhorts families to do their best for their children, what does he mean? What does he really mean? In a world of limited resources, anything that one person has is denied to another. There is cut-throat competition for the best jobs, houses, partners, schools, medical treatment and so on. Who sponsors this dog-eat-dog world? Why, families, of course. When you do the best for your family, you are ensuring that another family fails in this zero sum game. You win: they lose. It’s as simple as that. As Gore Vidal said, “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.” That is the motto of the average family. To do the best for your children is to do your worst for someone else’s. People should bear that in mind next time they hear one of Cameron’s family homilies. Do you really want to live in a society where other families are actively out to harm yours, to metaphorically slit your throat so that their children can prosper at the expense of yours?

Families should be doing what is best for the State, and that will also be precisely what is best for the family, assuming that the most meritorious individuals run the State: the best people the State has to offer. A simple question arises. What is the best conceivable State? Some might take the anarchists’ stance and claim that we shouldn’t have States at all, but anarchists run don’t run any country on earth. We all live in States, and therefore we have to return to the question. Can any State be better than the one run by its best people? Is it better for a State to be run by its richest citizens, or its poorest, or its most average? Quite simply, if the best people do not govern the State then it cannot be the best State. The rich would run the State to enhance their own wealth, and to hell with the poor. The poor wouldn’t have a clue how to run a State. As for the most average, what do they know about anything except how to infect the State with mediocrity? Their motto, that of cowards and sheep, is: “It is better to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.” (John Maynard Keynes).

We’re crying out for those who know how to succeed unconventionally: the leaders of men, the best of humanity.
__________

Community, an Alternative to the Nuclear Family:

When a family fails, society often pays the penalty. The children are likely to end up poorly educated, with mental health issues, low self-esteem and behavioural difficulties. They frequently become unemployable and prison fodder. Society pays out vast amounts on benefits to single parent families. Those children from disadvantaged homes who end up in State care usually have negative life outcomes.

The usual “solution” proposed by politicians (especially Tories), is to promote “family values”, and to try to provide incentives to prop up the family via special treatment, including tax breaks. This, of course, is a ludicrous attempt to defend a failing and outmoded institution. The age of the family is coming to an end. Family life is incompatible with the modern era. With so many choices available, with religious and social prohibitions regarding “alternative” lifestyles no longer taken seriously, with women increasingly financially independent, all the main pillars that supported the nuclear family are collapsing. Nothing can be done to rebuild them. The way forward is to find a replacement for the family. The obvious choice is the community: groups of fifty to a hundred like-minded people with mutual respect for each other, a great deal in common, a desire to help each other – to provide friendship, companionship, and a secure, loving, nurturing, supportive environment for every member of the community.

The Israeli Kibbutz provides a plausible starting point for the communal family model. Social isolation, millions living on their own, millions of struggling one-parent families, millions of conventional families doing their utmost to protect their own selfish interests, is the shape of the modern world. The community model would revolutionise every country and help solve many of our most glaring social ills.
__________

Marriage:

Marriage will be an endangered institution in a meritocratic society. The emphasis switches away from couples, families and groups to the individual: the new functional unit of the state (within a community setting). Marriage would then become simply a private arrangement between individuals. It wouldn’t be acknowledged by the State, and certainly wouldn’t attract any tax privileges or preferential treatment. The State must define itself as an entity populated by citizens, not by couples and families. The State should feel no compunction about removing children, or even adults, from unhealthy family environments. The individual’s interests are paramount. The State has a duty to the individual, and none to the institution of marriage. The State cannot stand by and let families raise children badly so that they become a liability to the State.

The underclass exists precisely because the State adopts a hands-off approach to the family and lets it churn out poorly educated, disruptive, unemployable individuals, sure to be a constant drain on the resources of the State. The State should apologise to those individuals for allowing their parents to ruin their lives, and should take all necessary measures to stop any more children being damaged in this way.
__________

Religion, the Worst Form of Child Abuse?:

Just as the family is fundamentally at odds with the State (since it seeks to put its own interests above those of the State), so is religion. Religion aims to promote its own inflexible agenda, which is not that of the State (unless the State happens to be a theocracy such as Iran).

There are religious communities in Britain in which children are compelled to wear a certain style of clothes, eat certain foods and avoid others, shun children who do not belong to their religion, go to their own segregated schools, be taught material that is entirely contrary to science, and so on. They end up dysfunctional relative to the State and their neighbours. They are frequently hostile to the State, and resent and oppose any State interference. They are isolationist, anti-social, intolerant. Children brought up in these communities are marked for life. They will never recover from their upbringing. What right do parents have to destroy their children’s lives in the name of their personal religious beliefs? This is child abuse of the very worst kind: denying a child any realistic hope of living according to the child’s own values and desires. To strip those from a child is to metaphorically strip the child of its very life. And children brought up in this way almost never make a positive contribution to the State. Why does the State tolerate it? The State cannot make any progress while its efforts are being sabotaged by these two most insidious fifth columns: family and religion. Often, the very people who lead the State are family-oriented and profess strong religious beliefs. Is it any wonder the State doesn’t work?

The State must assert its authority if it is ever to achieve the sort of society it wishes to build. It cannot succeed if it allows factions within the state to pursue separate and opposed agendas. In the immortal words of Rousseau, people should be “forced to be free”. This phrase often shocks people, but in fact it’s the only game in town. Religious parents who brainwash their children are forcing them “to be free” (in their conception of freedom). Families raising their children in non-State-sanctioned ways are also forcing them to be “free” (again, according to their peculiar values). Why should they be allowed to do it and the State denied the same right when it’s the State that will have to pick up the pieces when things go wrong?

Only the State can impose the uniform “playing field” that’s required to allow meritocracy to flourish. Only the State has the right to force anyone to be free. It has the right for the simple reason that it, and only it, seeks to promote the interests of all of its citizens. Families give their own interests paramount importance, regardless of the needs and merits of other families. Religions give their own beliefs paramount importance, even though they are usually entirely at odds with the beliefs of everyone else. To allow families and religions to dictate how children should be brought up amounts to a form of State suicide. People who are not supportive of the State cannot conceivably make a positive contribution to it, so ought to be excluded from it. It’s time for the State to draw up a formal social contract. You sign up or you don’t, as you see fit. If you don’t, you must leave the State because you have forfeited your right to be there. You are outwith the contractual agreement between the State and its citizens.
__________

The Benefits of the State over the Family:

Imagine I could offer you the choice between having your life irrevocably molded by two average office workers or by hundreds of elite individuals with breath-taking talents. In the first case, of course, I’m referring to a typical family upbringing; in the second, the sort of upbringing a Meritocratic State could offer. Parents, on the whole, aren’t greatly educated. They haven’t, for one thing, attended classes on optimal strategies for raising children. Disgruntled football fans like to chant, “You don’t know what you’re doing,” if they think their team’s manager isn’t up to the job. Shouldn’t the State chant the same thing at many parents? Parents, in a host of cases, are a catastrophe for their offspring. It actually amounts to State-sanctioned child abuse to allow such people to bring up children. And, in the end, it’s the State that’s forced to pick up the bill via crime, prisons, police, the welfare state, social workers, care homes, the judiciary, low productivity etc. Why bother with all of these costs of failure, when we could simply address the root cause and take children away from inept parents who don’t know or care what they’re doing?

The State can call on the skills of millions of remarkable individuals. It has at its disposal brilliant scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, engineers, economists, teachers, academics, psychologists, sociologists, surgeons, consultants, GPs, nurses, carers, artists, charismatic youth workers, child experts etc. It can use this vast pool of skill to bring children up in the best possible way – as creative, constructive, inspiring individuals who can make a full and dazzling contribution to the State. Why should children instead be condemned to the dreary boxed environment provided by the average family; to be raised by two untalented, bored and boring adults known as parents? It’s crazy. The Meritocratic State would prefer to send the vast majority of children to boarding schools, where they can escape the parental environment. Parents will have the burden of raising children removed from them, will have much more time to themselves (much more time to develop themselves?), and can be proud that they’re doing the best possible thing for their children by turning them over to the experts.

Parents, it has to be admitted, have one vital function that the State can never hope to perform. Parents love their children in a way no one else could. This element has to be protected as far as possible, so children will be encouraged to spend as much time as possible with their families outside term time. They will have the best of both worlds: quality time, quality love with their families during the vacations, and a quality meritocratic education at boarding school away from their families during term time. The perfect formula. If we could identify the “most average” family in any country (the median family) then half of the country’s families would be above this average, and half below. Now, if the “most average” family were affluent, cultured, highly intelligent, disciplined, hardworking, then even the below average families might be of high calibre. However, if the “most average” family is in fact poorly educated, ignorant of culture, obsessed with property prices and having multiple cars, dismissive of intellectuals, keen to binge drink at the weekend, keen watchers of soap operas and dumbed-down TV in general, greedy consumers of junk food, eager shoppers etc, then what on earth might the below average families be like, especially those near the bottom of the range – the underclass?

A simple question – in the present-day world, does the “most average” family resemble the former or the latter? Can anyone be in any doubt about the answer?
__________

Ants and the Elderly – Abolish Retirement:

In the ant world, it’s an observed phenomenon that ants take more risks the older they get. Why isn’t it the same in the human world? We should forget cosy retirement. There should be no pensions. The old should take more risks, not fewer. We have an increasingly ageing society. Great! All forms of discrimination against the elderly should be savagely penalised. People should work – and play – until failing health makes it impossible. It’s not as though office jobs justify a long retirement in any case. Maybe coal miners deserved and needed a long retirement, but certainly not office workers. And who wants to retire anyway? It’s one foot in the grave for most people.
__________

Devil’s Advocate Department:

A Government should at all times seek to challenge its own decisions. If it can address the objections of its sternest critics, its policies are more likely to be successful. The Government should actively seek out talented “awkward squad” individuals to question Government policies. The “Devil’s Advocate” Department will be composed of philosophers, scientists, psychologists and mathematicians, with the specific remit of identifying flaws and inconsistencies in Government policies, and likely unintended consequences. As with scientific theories, policies become more robust the more they are challenged and subsequently refined. Far from being “negative”, doubts, suspicions, challenges, and attempts to refute are all positive activities that should be encouraged.
__________

The House of Commons or the House of Extraverts?:

If you want to be a British MP, what are the requirements? Well, you almost certainly have to belong to an established political party. So, freethinking, independently minded individuals can forget it. No outsiders, thank you very much: the in-crowd only. You will have to be chosen by the selection committee of your constituency party. So, you require the talent of getting on well with tedious, local bureaucrats. No “don’t suffer fools gladly” types, I’m afraid – those who’d have nothing but contempt for petty politickers. To impress the selection committee you will have to be respectable, with a good job. You should have gone to a nice school and a good university. You’re likely to be married with a family. In other words, all interesting people, anyone who hasn’t played “the game”, anyone who resists convention, can put away their application form. Oh, and you probably have to be not too young and not too old, preferably quite presentable, probably not handicapped. You’ll be superficially charming. You won’t be outspoken or have any radical opinions. Mustn’t upset Mr and Mrs Average, must we? In fact, you should really be as similar to them as possible, but just a touch better.

If you clear all of these hurdles, what then? Well, you can start campaigning for election to the House of Commons. And to succeed at that you have to be a competent public speaker – but not too good because then you’d be unusual. You have to be happy to shake hands, kiss babies, visit hospitals, have your picture taken with the disabled, and have a nice cuppa with the elderly. You must be a “people person”. To sum it up: you have to be an extrovert. The entire process by which MPs end up in the House of Commons is a textbook case of how to strip out anyone different, anyone unconventional, and anyone too talented. Above all, it’s practically impossible for introverts to become MPs. What sort of political system is it that proclaims how fair and accessible it is, yet ruthlessly prevents many of its most meritorious citizens from having any reasonable chance of being elected?

Want to be an MP? Introverts need not apply. Geniuses need not apply. Heretics, hermits, visionaries, revolutionaries, misanthropes – don’t even think about it. Perhaps the House of Commons should be renamed the House of the Commonplace, the House of the Trivial, the House of the Bland and the Banal. Above all, the House of Extraverts. But one day, hopefully soon, it will be the House of Merit.

“Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” –Shelley

“An army without culture is a dull-witted army, and a dull-witted army cannot defeat the enemy.” –Mao Zedong
__________

Shopping:

Napoleon once said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers. These days, he’d describe it as a nation of shoppers. Our purpose in life, it seems, is to shop. Our education system churns out fresh, eager shoppers, keenly receptive to the latest advertising. Our status is determined by how much we can spend when we go to the shops. Permanent window-shoppers are the lowest of the low. Parliament exists to frame the laws in which we can maximise our shopping. The City handles the finances of our shopping trips. Can’t afford it? – no worries – here’s loads of credit. You can’t afford that either, but who cares? Just keep spending, for God’s sake. The economy will collapse if you don’t. It’s your duty to shop. Shopping – the categorical imperative, the basis of our modern morality. Why not replace humans with androids? They could shop 24/7; perfect shopping machines that don’t have to take any breaks. Commercial Britain – a nation with a clockwork heart. The nation’s soul, such as it was, has expired. Can we resurrect Britain? Can Commercial Britain be replaced by Cultural Britain, dedicated to art, science, knowledge, architecture, ideas, creativity, experimentation, adventure, beauty, and aesthetics?

The Meritocracy Party seeks to bring together the entire cultural community of the UK: scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, psychologists, academics, designers, artists, architects, writers – and to promote the idea that a society without culture is a desert. Can the cultural community of the UK become a power block to influence Government policy? Would the Government have any credibility if the cultural community opposed it? Imagine a Government unsupported by a single intellectual. Is such a Government possible? Wouldn’t it be a laughing stock? There’s a bigger question – would a nation based on culture rather than commerce be more successful, more intelligent, more prosperous, freer, happier, healthier, more soulful? Would crime rates plummet? Could we practically scrap the Welfare State? Would our town and cities be architectural wonders, our schools the envy of the world? Culture beats commerce hands down. So what’s stopping us?
__________

The Death of Art:

Damien Hirst, one of the richest artists in the world, made a life-size platinum skull encrusted with 8,601 fine diamonds. The sculpture was entitled For The Love of God and it sold for £50m, making it one of the priciest contemporary artworks ever made. An art gallery sold several limited edition silkscreen prints of the work, one of which was sprinkled with diamond dust. What does it represent, this diamond skull that cost £14m to make (funded by a commercial consortium of businessmen) and made a £36m profit for the consortium? Death by bling, the extermination of culture by celebrity, the elevation of commercialism to the supreme aim of art. When businessmen become artists, there is no art.

Russian writer Evgenii Zamiatin said, “There can be a real literature only when it is produced by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers and sceptics and not by patient and well-meaning officials.” What would Zamiatin have thought of art being run by business consortia with the sole aim of generating a tidy profit? Art or capitalist consumerism? Is there any difference now? Where are the madmen, hermits and heretics?

Capitalist Consumerism is associated with Vulgarity, the Lowest Common Denominator, Dumbing Down, Celebrity Culture, 24/7 Shopping, Materialism, Tabloid Newspapers, Tittle Tattle, Malicious Gossip, Prurience, Reality TV, Soap Operas, Anti-Intellectualism, Illusion, Delusion, and Lies.

Meritocracy is associated with Intelligence, Talent, Quality, Refinement, the Elevation of the Human Spirit, the Higher-self, Good Taste, Nobility, Honour, Integrity, and Truth.

So, which side are you on?
__________

6/7

“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” –George Orwell

Human dogs have proved ideal for brainwashing, for conditioning, training, being made to perform tricks for their masters. They internalise all of the values of the ruling elite and obediently carry them out to the letter. They are, as Orwell says, not even conscious of how orthodox they are. To be conscious of it would be to be capable of challenging it, and that is one thing the dogs never do. The Islamic dogs would never dream of questioning the Koran or Mohammed. It is simply unthinkable. Consciousness is the biggest threat to dog religions. If the dogs ever became conscious, they would start to reflect on whether their beliefs are rational. So, the wolves that prey on them ensure they never become conscious. They keep them permanently on their knees in prayer; they insist that they memorise the whole Koran (a Muslim who succeeds in this task is called a hafiz); they demonise infidels and apostates, and they issue non-stop threats of eternal hellfire. The terror machine never rests for a moment.

The aim of the Illuminati is to bring about a quantum leap in evolution whereby the human dogs finally become conscious. Just as the time of the wolves must come to an end, so must that of the dogs.
__________

It’s a Dog eats Man world:

Indonesia is a country where people traditionally eat dogs. It was reported that seven Indonesian dogs, starved of food while their owner was on holiday for two weeks, ate him when he returned home. His luggage was lined up outside his front door and was noticed by a neighbourhood guard who raised the alarm. “His skull was found in the kitchen, and his body was found in the front of his house,” the local police chief said. “We suspect that the dogs were hungry, so they attacked Andre, because they had not been fed for fourteen days.” Police also found bones of two other dogs, believed to have been killed and eaten by the others. So, is it a dog eat dog, dog eat man or man eat dog world?

Here are some comments that were posted on the internet about this story:

Dude it’s your fault for not feeding your dogs… that’s why they ate you.

What goes around comes around!!

This is what we call Animal Rights.

Good one, dogs.

Sounds a bit like a Shaggy Dog Story to me.

Some folks here are clearly more enamoured of dogs than a human life.

HaHaHa..Finally something worth reading. Poor dogs, but job well done!..F@#$%*G IDIOT!!!

This is called KARMA! He has paid for what he has done!

HA HA makes a change for the dogs to eat the human – bast**d got what he deserved!

Just want to say, all the comments about how a human life is greater than a dog’s are a joke. We are all animals, and therefore we are all equal.

Well done, dogs – justice is served!

Divine justice.

Good for the dogs. If only they’d known that eating his bones as well would give them a nice treat of bone marrow. Shame for the two eaten dogs. He deserved to be eaten three times if it were possible. Can only hope it was slow and painful.

Poor dogs. What is it with these people thinking it’s ok to starve and mistreat animals? This story makes me so sad and angry at the world. The man was clearly a disgusting human being and deserved what he got quite frankly. Rot in hell.

So pleased they ate him.

Best story of justice for animal cruelty I have ever read!!!! Poor dogs. Just makes me want to protect mine even more.

******

The vast majority of opinions expressed by online contributors asserted that it was “justice” for a human being to be eaten alive by dogs, and that he was going to hell. Most of the comments were by women, and most were presumably dog owners. We now live in a world where human life is less important than pet life. What a totally fucked world. As someone commented, “I just sat here and read most of these comments and I can’t believe people think that it’s ok or even agree with dogs eating a human being. I can truly say this world is unreal. Never would have thought people would think the way that they do. Don’t get me wrong, I love animals – but what if that was a baby that was killed by the dogs?”
__________

Chemical Wolves and Dogs:

The debate about wolves and dogs can be analysed scientifically in terms of three chemicals: testosterone, oestrogen and oxytocin. Testosterone is the wolf chemical and oestrogen the dog molecule. Oestrogen tames while testosterone increases aggression. What of oxytocin? It reinforces bonds between people, especially mothers and babies during breastfeeding. It’s also released during sexual orgasm in both men and women and helps to create healthy interpersonal relationships and strong emotional bonds.

Oxytocin has been called the “Moral Molecule” since it binds people and makes them much less likely to harm each other. Those with deficient oxytocin release are often psychopathic. They have no ability to bond with other; no sympathy. Oxytocin could be called the “Jesus Drug” if we charitably describe Jesus Christ as someone genuinely in favour of the Golden Rule of “Do as you would be done by.” Oxytocin makes that an actual possibility. Wolves become attached to their dogs, and vice versa, thanks to oxytocin. Oxytocin stops wolves from being psychopaths and slaughtering all of the dogs. So, human life is simply a continual interplay between aggression (immorality) mediated by testosterone, domestication (civilisation) mediated by oestrogen and bonding (morality) mediated by oxytocin.

Capitalism is a testosterone ideology and communism an oxytocin ideology (in principle). Fascism is excessively testosterone driven but also invokes a tremendous oxytocin bond between the people and their leader. Religious messiahs create immense oxytocin bonding, backed up by testosterone threats. The Stockholm syndrome whereby hostages become emotionally bonded to their captors largely sums up the way our world functions. Rationally, people should despise the rich elite, but the elite’s relentless media propaganda and brainwashing succeeds in creating a powerful bond and dependency, underpinned by implicit threats.
__________

Christianity = Love?:

“JW” sent us a message saying:

Now I understand your teachings after reading The Armageddon Conspiracy. It’s almost incomprehensible, but I understand why. I must say I am having a battle inside between two completely different ideals. One being Gnostic and the other Christian. I understand that love is the strongest boundary for us as humans, because when love is taken we get pain. I don’t know if in this life I can defeat love, because love is me. Everything I live for is in regards of love. I’ve never shown hatred to another soul in my life, and with what you say, until I do not have love, my chains are intact.

Our Reply:

Christianity has nothing at all to do with love, as its history has shown all too clearly. Christianity is about mindless obedience to Jesus Christ – and if you haven’t understood that yet, you haven’t understood anything at all. Why would a God of “Love” send people to hell? It’s a fundamental contradiction in terms. Why would a God of Love claim that if people don’t believe in him then they are damned? Why would a God of Love order a father to murder his son?

It sounds as if you are an extremely brainwashed individual.

Gnosticism is about knowledge and reason and if you want a world of people doing no harm to others, it is reason, not love that will achieve the goal. The propaganda regarding love is mind-bogglingly dumb. Every torturer, maniac, extremist and fanatic loves something or someone. Love is therefore the answer to nothing at all. Only rational conduct will save humanity.

If you haven’t used your reason to see through the endless lies of Christianity then you are in deep trouble. Reason, not abandoning love, frees you from chains. Love has nothing to do with the matter in hand. Why don’t you refer to reason in the same terms that you refer to love? Then you will at last free yourself. Otherwise, you will remain a permanent slave of delusion.
__________

Narrative Theory:

“Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” –George Orwell

“But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence… illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.” –Feuerbach, Preface to the second edition of The Essence of Christianity

THE HUMAN MIND is designed to perceive causality everywhere. Imagine a world in which human minds were oblivious to causality. It would seem as if things happened without any reason. Everything would be random and we would be permanently surprised. We’d never anticipate anything since we’d never be thinking, “Aha, A will cause B to happen.” The world would be quite literally inexplicable and bewildering, like a permanent LSD trip where space and time perception had disintegrated. So, it’s essential for human minds to be inherently designed around causality – we must look for it everywhere and apply it all times. Only then can we make constant sense of the world.

However, there’s a catastrophic problem. We can’t see causality. We can’t observe it in any way. What happens is that various observable things take place and then we apply causality to what we have witnessed. Causality is an inference, an interpretation of events. Unfortunately, like all interpretations, it can be wrong. Human history is the history of illusory causality, of making up absurd reasons for why B followed from A.

The earliest human beings said that spirits and gods caused things. They said that the whole universe was full of conscious minds that caused the world to operate as it did. The god of wind caused storms because he was angry with someone. The god of the sea caused tidal waves to punish someone who had failed to make a sacrifice to him. Zeus hurled lightning bolts when he was angry. Vikings claimed that thunder and lightning were created when Thor’s mighty hammer struck something, the blow generating sparks (lightning) and a booming sound (thunder). All of the myths and legends of ancient times explained all the phenomena of the world according to the actions of a huge cast of unseen higher powers. People had no concept of the laws of physics or nature, but that didn’t prevent them from detecting causality everywhere.

The monotheists got rid of all the competing gods and had just one, who created everything, designed everything and made everything work as it did. Even to this day, many monotheists think that anything that happens is literally the “will of God” i.e. he personally made it happen. Nothing happens by accident or according to random factors or through natural law: God explicitly intervenes in his Creation. There are two ways in which the human mind applies causality – via Mythos or Logos thinking. Mythos thinking is what we’ve just mentioned – making up stories and myths about what causes things. Its opposite is Logos thinking – using reason, logic, science, mathematics and philosophy to explain why things happen as they do.

In ancient times, Logos thinking was almost as crude as Mythos thinking since there was no established system of science, mathematics and philosophy to apply. The Logos thinkers had to grope their way towards plausible theories, and often mixed in Mythos elements. For example, early astronomical theories often invoked gods as the agents responsible for keeping planets in their orbits (which were invariably described as circular because the gods would of course choose perfect circles in which to move). For a long while, Mythos thinking and Logos thinking could happily co-exist. It wasn’t until the rise of modern philosophy and science that the link was finally broken. Logos thinking then became highly objective, logical, and evidence-based. The scientific method was rigorously applied and ruled out all supernatural explanations for phenomena.

Mythos and Logos thinking are now the exact opposite. Any scientist would laugh at the idea that “Allah” caused anything, or that elves, spirits, fairies, ghosts, angels or whatever else had any causal agency. In terms of the human race, only 1% are strict Logos thinkers (the scientists, mathematicians and philosophers), and all the rest are stuck in the world of Mythos – religious thinking, superstition, conspiracy theories and story thinking. Human minds must assign causality and if they can’t think of (or don’t know) a rational Logos reason then they will use a Mythos reason instead, and indeed they will usually prefer a Mythos cause over a Logos cause. So, the vast majority of human beings are continually wrongly interpreting reality by attributing fantasy causality based on primitive stories and beliefs. Most conspiracy theories are built on a fantastic edifice of invented causality.

The essence of Mythos thinking is story telling rather than abstraction. Mythos is all about narrative. The Viking explanation of thunder and lightning is a wonderful narrative. Of course, it has zero connection with the truth, but it offered a FULL and emotionally satisfying explanation of the phenomenon of thunder and lightning as far as the ordinary Viking was considered. Anyone without a scientific understanding of thunder and lightning was forced to come up with some story about it, or it would seem like an unfathomable and deeply disturbing random happening, outside causality. The Vikings also thought that the rainbow was a bridge to heaven.

Other cultures considered it a divine sign, pointing to a glorious new era, or to a pot of gold (!). Human sacrifice was conducted by cultures such as the Aztecs as a deliberate means to appease the gods. They invented a wholly false system of causality based on what signs allegedly showed divine displeasure and what sacrifices were required in response. The witchcraft hysteria of Medieval Europe was another lethal example of an absurd causality being applied to explain natural phenomena. In the present day, most Muslims operate according to an entirely invented causality based on the will of Allah.

We thus reach a profoundly disturbing aspect of the human condition. Human beings are obsessed with causality, but not with truth (although many stupid people think the two are the same thing). Billions of Muslims genuinely believe that a crazy narrative told by a man on a starvation diet meditating in a cave for many weeks without any contact at all with any other human beings was the actual Word of God, transmitted to Mohammed via the Angel Gabriel. Now, in relation to Mohammed’s experience, a Logos thinker would talk about severe disturbances in the brain chemistry of a fasting man leading to hallucinations, or about the vivid fantasies of a lonely man suffering from extreme sensory deprivation. Without stimulation, a human mind creates its own via fantasy and hallucination. Mohammed was a religiously minded man praying in a cave and seeking God, so it was no surprise that his hallucinations should take an extreme religious form.

Others have speculated that his visions were caused by epilepsy, or that he was hearing voices as a result of schizophrenia, or suffering from bipolar disorder and in his manic phase he thought himself God and, in his depressive phase, God’s humblest slave. Julian Jaynes’s theory of the bicameral mind, involving auditory hallucination in the right hemisphere of the brain giving commands to the subservient left hemisphere of the brain, would provide a neat explanation for Mohammed’s experience. Indeed, all sorts of explanations can be advanced, any of which is infinitely more plausible than the one accepted by Muslims. Yet billions are attracted to the most improbable causal explanation. They have based the entire way they conduct their lives on the conclusion that Mohammed was neither mentally ill, nor hallucinating, nor lying, nor deluded. They have staked everything on the belief that God, or the Angel Gabriel to be more exact, spoke in Arab to an illiterate tribesman in a cave in order to communicate with the WHOLE of humanity.

Forget Mohammed, does it seem remotely likely that the Creator of the Universe would be unable to appear in front of his Creations and explain what life’s all about? Why wouldn’t the Creator simply address the human race directly, in all of their languages simultaneously? After all, if he’s going to leave a book with his directions to the human race, why not read it aloud to everyone in their own tongue – then there could be no conceivable doubt. Why would he choose the extraordinary mechanism of communicating via bearded prophets telling incredibly tall tales, and who never had any witnesses for their incredible claims? Why didn’t Jesus Christ announce on the Cross that if everyone turned up at his tomb at 7 am on Sunday, he would roll away the stone and reveal to them that he had returned from the dead? How come there wasn’t a single witness to his resurrection, the most important event in Christianity? Why are there NEVER any witnesses? Does God have something to hide? Such as the fact that he’s a total liar? Jesus Christ went to great trouble to show his wounds to Doubting Thomas to “prove” that he was who he said he was (even though he now resembled a gardener, according to his confidante Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John). The Doubting Thomas episode demonstrates that Christ was cognizant of the need to prove his extraordinary claims, so why didn’t he offer proof on a much grander scale to the whole of humanity?

It’s an astonishing and frightening thing that so many people in our world are so able and willing to believe total nonsense. In fact, they seem to actively seek out nonsense, the more absurd the better. As Hitler realised, the more preposterous the claim, the bigger the lie, the more willing people are to accept it as ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Why? Because people are stupid, ignorant, superstitious, looking for big but simplistic explanations, for emotionally comforting explanations. Above all, they are victims of deadly brainwashing enforced on them by the wolves that prey on them. Mohammed was a wolf, or the instrument of a wolf, because only wolves ever say, “Obey or perish.”

Only a wolf would set up the two fatal equations of Abrahamism:

1) Obey me and you go to heaven = eternal pleasure.

2) Disobey me and you go to hell = eternal pain.

This basic pleasure/pain equation (ultimate carrot/stick) is the most basic form of Pavlovian conditioning. And, really, much of our existence is a simple reflection of elementary but extremely potent conditioning/ brainwashing/ indoctrination. B.F. Skinner’s school of behaviourism and operant conditioning was highly successful for a time because it seemed to chime with the relentless advance of science into all areas, including the workings of the mind. Skinner actually dismissed the existence of mind and consciousness. He thought that “freedom and dignity” were illusory. All that mattered was the application of a stimulus and the resultant behaviour provoked by the stimulus. Both the stimulus (its intensity, duration, composition) and the consequent behaviour were fully scientifically observable, hence psychology could be brought into the realm of hard, objective science with no subjective elements at all. Skinner’s ideas are unfashionable now, but not with the Illuminati. We hold his theories in high regard, even though we fundamentally reject his central thesis regarding the unimportance of mind.

The human race has been subjected to an immense program of operant condition aka brainwashing, indoctrination and mind control. To shatter that brainwashing once and for all, we have to use reverse operant conditioning. We have to make it the ultimate disgrace to be an Abrahamist or capitalist. We have to make people feel physically sick when they contemplate Abrahamism and greedy capitalism. Abrahamism and capitalism will be rendered anathema. It will become the ultimate social stigma to subscribe to Abrahamism and capitalism. Soon enough, no one will have anything to do with these belief systems because it will be socially unacceptable. Just as the leaders of America used relentless Abrahamist and capitalist propaganda to brainwash Americans, so the same tactics will be used to undo the brainwashing. There will be relentless anti-Abrahamist and anti-capitalist propaganda (we are referring here to the extreme form of capitalism that allows a tiny number of people to control most of the assets of the world, not to capitalism per se which can be made socially productive if operated properly).

Ultimately, the aim is to remove all forms of brainwashing and conditioning from the world. Every citizen must be truly free. But to the get to the Promised Land, we have to undo the incredible damage done to the human psyche throughout history, particularly by Abrahamism, the Devil’s chosen religion, and capitalism, his chosen economic system. One objective that must be achieved is a huge advance in Logos thinking. All institutions must reflect Logos rather than Mythos.
__________

Narrative Reality:

Our world is dominated by narrative – by simple stories that provide an equally simplistic analysis of the world we live in. What is a “soundbite”? – it’s an attempt to convert a complex issue into something that can be summed up in a sentence or phrase. This simple sentence or phrase then becomes “reality” and replaces the complex underlying issues. Soundbites create a “sign system” where reality is dissolved in favour of easy-to-remember but completely false (usually) mantras.

What is the sign system of Christianity? What are the Christian soundbites? “Jesus loves you. Jesus saves. Jesus died for your sins. Salvation through Jesus alone. Paradise shall be yours if you believe in Jesus.” This is what the average Christian thinks “Christianity” is. This is the neat little Mythos that encapsulates their worldview. Of course, it’s total bullshit. If you look past the Christian soundbites at the horrific underlying reality of Christianity, you feel sick at the sheer scale of deception involved. But only Logos thinkers go under the surface. Mythos people are surface thinkers; superficial, facile, trivial. They never dive down into the depths of complexity. They don’t have the right diving gear. They would drown in seconds.

Our whole world operates at the surface level. There is no depth to 99% of humanity. Consider advertisements – 30-second narratives designed to manipulate you emotionally into buying a product. Consider politicians – their speeches deliver no analysis. They do nothing but formulate soundbites and turn all the complex issues of government into a simplistic joke. All TV shows tell a narrative. Reality TV creates a narrative. Religious has its infantile parables (narratives). Capitalism declares its narrative soundbites: “Greed is good.”; “Profit is Godly”; “Lunch is for wimps.”; “Work hard and you can achieve the American Dream.” Lawyers use soundbites relentlessly: “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” (O.J. Simpson Trial). Popular songs, movies, Broadway shows, corporate brochures, sports events…they’re all trying to create narratives that can be compressed into catchy, memorable soundbites.

Many people have noticed that movie trailers are often better than the movies themselves, or that the movie was fully explained by the trailer even though it was only a few seconds long. How many movies that looked good in the trailer turned out to be a total yawn? We live in a “trailer” world where the main feature is compressed into a few pseudo-exciting frames, disguising the underlying tedium.

Books for “dummies”; “Learn Quantum Mechanics in 3 Minutes” – yeah, right! The whole world is trying to boil down the essence of everything into a 30-second advert, a six-word soundbite. But the world can’t be reduced to this infantile level. Some things are immensely complex and there’s no getting away from it. Our website is enormously complex. In fact, it’s the most complex website on the planet. We try to simplify it as much as possible, but the fact remains that anyone who wants to understand Illuminism will have to work through two million words. That task is beyond the capabilities of most people.

The leaders of the world want you to stay stuck at the superficial level. They want you to be controlled by a few hot button phrases. How many Americans grew to despise Communism even though they knew absolutely nothing about it? Their rich capitalist ruling elite told them over and over again – “The only good commie is a dead commie.” There were endless scare stories about “reds under the beds”. And yet most average Americas haven’t read even ONE word of Karl Marx. How can you legitimately have a visceral hatred of something you know nothing about it? YOU CAN’T. But of course, you can if you’ve been brainwashed. Christians sneer at the beliefs of Muslims and vice versa and yet what characterises both groups is that neither has ever read a word of the other’s religion (in fact, most people are entirely ignorant of their own religion, never mind that of others). No one could accuse us of ignorance of what others believe. We understand them all too well. Our website provides an analysis of every major system of thought in world history. We detest Abrahamism because we know all about it; not because we are ignorant of it. To hate something for valid reasons you have to know what it is first. Most people just go straight to the hating, bypassing the knowledge part entirely.

There is no aspect of the mainstream world that isn’t in the business of dumbing down everything to lowest common denominator statements that the most retarded people on earth can grasp. Abrahamism is an extreme form of mental retardation. Any intelligent person immediately rejects it as soon as they are old enough to understand it. But most people aren’t intelligent. In fact, they’re stupid. Deep down, most of them believe that God is actually supervising and causing everything. And that’s the dumbest idea in the history of the cosmos. Given the importance of narrative, it’s essential that everyone should be narratively literate. It may sound absurd, but in terms of your day-to-day life, nothing is more important than your understanding of narrative. Given that all information is presented to you in essentially narrative (Mythos) form, shouldn’t you be an expert in narrative?

For this reason, the Illuminati provides all of its members with tuition in creative writing. Here is the list of creative writing books used by the Illuminati:

Save The Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need by Blake Snyder

The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers, 3rd Edition by Christopher Vogler

Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting by Robert McKee

Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting by Syd Field

The Screenwriter’s Problem Solver: How to Recognize, Identify, and Define Screenwriting Problems by Syd Field

Writing the Blockbuster Novel by Albert Zuckerman

The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri

The Anatomy of Story: 22 Steps to Becoming a Master Storyteller by John Truby

A Story Is a Promise: Good Things to Know Before You Write That Screenplay, Novel, or Play by Bill Johnson

These books cover novel writing, plays and screenplays. They analyse such things as structure, character, plot, plot-points, turning points, climaxes, dénouements, protagonists, antagonists, allies, enemies, tricksters, shape shifters, mentors, lovers, gods, anima/animus figures, the shadow, id, egos, superego, raising the tension, building the stakes, making the reader care, empathy, sympathy, motivations, guilty secrets, psychological scarring, inner wounds. In other words, creative writing is applied psychology. Do you hate your boss at work? Do you hate your colleagues? Do you love them? Rather than treat all of the people in your life as real human beings, why not think of them instead as characters in a screenplay? Think of their motivation. What is it that makes them tick? Money? Status? The respect of their colleagues? Self-respect. Are they materialistic or idealistic? What’s their home life like? What are their vulnerabilities? Does anything make them nervous? What’s their secret fear? Can you detect their “inner wound”?

In order for novels, plays and screenplays to work, they must remind you of real people and make you identify with their lives and problems so that you take a vicarious interest in them. They are YOUR proxies in an exciting fictional world. So, the techniques of successful fiction writers are necessarily superb at producing realistic simulacra of people. But, in that case, why can’t the same techniques be applied to REAL people? Just as a novelist analyses the characters of the fictional people who feature in his book and tries to make them as lifelike as possible, so you can do the reverse and analyse the real people in your life as fictional characters.

You will be astonished by how your opinion of people changes when you start to analyse them as fictional characters trying to conceal vulnerabilities and inner wounds. Think of the Pope – why did he choose a celibate life? Think of the Queen of England – is she terrified of a confrontation with a real person who rubbishes everything she stands for and calls a fraud and a phoney? Think of President Obama – is he riven with inner conflict over his white attitudes and how much he has let down the African Americans? All the Zionists and Masons of Wall Street – why are they so obsessed with money and materialism? What inner weakness are they trying to compensate for? Suddenly, all of the masters of the universe seem weak, sad and pathetic. They’re no longer intimidating. They’re just people like everyone else, with neuroses, anxieties, vulnerabilities, inner secrets and wounds, and hence they can easily be overthrown.

In The Millionaires’ Death Club by Mike Hockney, the decision was taken to portray a central character – Zara – as psychologically invulnerable. She is exceptionally beautiful, exceptionally intelligent, exceptionally rich, exceptionally cultured, exceptionally classy and exceptionally confident. That’s how most ordinary people imagine the members of the Old World Order, but of course they’re not like that at all. They certainly love to present themselves in a perfect light, but there are any number of demons lurking behind the facade.

You can make your life much more exciting by treating it as a movie, and by treating all of the real people you meet as fictional characters. Of course, by doing so, you may uncover real truths about them, not fictional ones. Keep your eyes and ears peeled at all times for the narratives that are being continually directed at you by advertisers, politicians, businessmen, economists, bankers, media commentators, popes and pastors – they’re all spinning you a line.

Then there are the conspiracy theorists, the anarchists, the libertarians and so on, all furiously selling their particular spin too. The whole world is being deafened by soundbites and made dizzy by spin-doctors. Storytellers are everywhere, selling you yarns. What is the Bible except a collection of ludicrous tales about ancient Jewish tribesmen wandering around in the desert pretending they are special? Above all, use the narrative theory of life to become your own script doctor. Fix the faulty script. Fix all the elements of your life story that have gone wrong. Become a fictional God and then a real God!
__________

The Movie Theory of Life:

The Last Bling King by Mike Hockney presents the thought experiment of analysing your life as a movie. Would anyone want to see the movie in which you are the star? Or is it the most boring movie of all time?

“DE” sent us the following message:

I found your website the Armageddon Conspiracy most enlightening. I’ve read the Armageddon conspiracy and the Last Bling King. They left me in awe. I was wondering how I could get involved… I mean really involved, to get stuck in. I do not desire to let things slip past. I was quite taken by the movie of your life way of thinking.

In addition, I’ve put up a website (still in beta) in support of meritocracy (link below)http://www.wix.com/gottoaskyourself/whereistherevolution

Our Reply:

Hello DE – great website.

The issue we have at the moment is that of “joiners” versus “self-starters”. If a huge organisation exists then there is something for people to join. It’s easy, for example, for people to join a local Christian Church. But if there is no obvious physical location where people can go, and if members of the organisation they wish to join live far from them, what then? A “joiner” simply shrugs his shoulders and says, “Oh well, I’ll go and join something else.” So, the people who make a profound local difference are the “self-starters” who get something up and running in their local area, to which the “joiners” can then attach themselves. What we are interested in is producing a template for self-starters: a scheme that allows the movers and shakers of the world to go ahead, release their creative energy in their local area, and recruit people.

The “Movie of Your Life” is a concept that would have a lot of resonance with many people. It is of course a powerful way to get people to think about how their life is going. Imagine a “Movie Group” in your area – dedicated to “changing the script”. Our whole world follows a certain script. We all know who the stars are. All the camera shots have them in focus and everyone else is just an unnoticed blur in the background. You’re right that the Made in Chelsea cast would be nowhere if they hadn’t been born into privilege. But they were, and the script of our world is that they will therefore enjoy an easy life. So, it’s up to the rest of us to change the script.

It’s the self-starters who will make the decisive difference. It doesn’t take much for a self-starter to get going. You go into the town centre with a friend and a camcorder. He films you while you’re walking along and you hand out a flyer saying: “Is the movie of your life what you want it to be, or would you fall asleep while you’re watching it, or even walk out and demand a refund? Is it time to change the script? Join the Movie Group. Meet at Bar X at 7.30 on Monday Night.” Back it up with something on Facebook, and off you go. You get a local group together and you start planning activism events, easier said than done, of course – but that’s why self-starters are the people who make the big difference in life.

So, would you define yourself as a joiner or a self-starter?

DE said:

Self-starter! Never been one to mindlessly follow.

My immediate areas are Redditch, Warwick, Stratford and Birmingham, I will definitely work on some leaflets, recruiting a friend shouldn’t prove too difficult, I already have one who is curious about the system and its flaws… I think I would start small, maybe Stratford or Redditch, It’ll probably be within the next month or so. The ideas are already flowing as I type this. I’ll formulate a plan and send it your way. Something that would help is if you gave me some points to bring up during a meeting.

Our Reply:

Excellent. We look forward to receiving your plan.

As for what to discuss at the meeting, here’s the agenda:

Let’s say that that the objective of this movement is to create a brand new movie of the world, much better than the one that is currently on show everywhere across the globe. Let’s call it the Eden Movie. Imagine we could start the world again from scratch, using all the lessons we have learned from the old movie of the world.

1) What political system would we produce if we had a clean slate?

2) What religion?

3) What economic system?

4) How would we educate people?

5) Could we apply psychology everywhere to create a much smarter and happier human race?

6) What activist stunts could we pull off to get publicity?

7) And how do we stop running the old, silent, black and white movie of the past so that we can get our new 3D, high definition, blazing colour movie in every cinema on earth? It will be the best movie EVER.

If you succeed in getting something like this off the ground, we could publicise it on our website to show everyone else how it’s done.

You sound as though you have the right attitude, so best of luck to you!

******

DE then produced a leaflet, to be distributed in Stratford upon Avon (where Shakespeare was born):

Is the movie of your LIFE how you intended it to be? Do you feel you’re the star of your own movie, or is someone else – a celebrity, royalty, a privileged toff, a super-rich person – always in the main shot? Are you an out-of-focus blur in the background? How close does your movie stick to the original script you intended for your life? If it’s nowhere near, isn’t it time to change the script or change your life? Become the star of your own movie, transform it into colour rather than the dull black and white it is now.

Ask yourself – if the movie of your life was in a cinema, would you watch it? Would you want other people to see it? Would they walk out because it’s so boring? Even worse, would you walk out too and demand a refund? If you want to change your script and the performance, if you want to make your movie spectacular, if you want it to be something you’d be proud to show in every cinema in the world, meet at 6:30 on the 23.7.11 opposite MacDonald’s by the bridge next to the river.

The Outcome?

Hey there,

I went to Stratford last Friday and handed out 150 leaflets. No one showed, or joined the Facebook group. Next time, we are going to try again, and focus on the Facebook group, if there are enough people to join the group, Gathering will be held. On the bright side, I have footage; a friend is just editing it.

******

So, well done to DE. He got off his ass, went out, and made a difference in the real world. He got a disappointing response, but that’s how it usually goes at the beginning. Nevertheless, an army of DEs would eventually make an enormous difference. What are YOU going to do? Isn’t it time to join your local Movie Group and change the shit scripts life is giving you?
__________

Life Story:

Story is central to the human experience. Without a story, people perish. They have no identity. What’s YOUR story? Every person has a right to their story and the right to have a chance to make it as good as possible. In our world, most people are left storyless. To have no story is to be rudderless. To take another’s story away from him is to cut him loose without an identity. A person without a story is nothing. The last thing you own is the story of your life. That’s what flashes before your eyes as you die. That’s what you take with you into the afterlife, so you had better be sure it’s a good one. Dolly Parton said, “Everything I have started with a song.” She turned her whole life not into a story but a song. Is that not glorious? Imagine singing your way into the afterlife, being born into eternity on a soaring sound wave, a perfect note.

Actors like to ask, “What’s my character’s motivation in this scene?” We should all be asking ourselves the same thing in each scene of our life, but most of us just pass through life on autopilot. Make sure you live a good story. Or make it a good song or a good poem. In Australia, Aborigines talk of your story as your “dreaming”. How good is yours? Is it the dream you always wanted?
__________

A Real Business Problem:

MANY CORPORATIONS HAVE TRIED to make crowdsourcing work. Most have failed. Consider the publishing industry: publishers release a vat number of books each year and have no idea which ones will take off and which won’t. The success of Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling came as a total surprise to industry insiders. If they can’t get those right then they don’t know what they’re doing, do they? How could a publisher know in advance that it was dealing with a sure-fire hit? The best way would be to get the early drafts of books looked at by large numbers of readers rather than professional editors. The publisher would then release only those books that generated tremendous early reader enthusiasm. The tastes of the editors – the gatekeepers – wouldn’t come into it at all. Instead, the taste of the people would be decisive.

HarperCollins created a website called Authonomy (http://www.authonomy.com/) where writers were invited to submit their books to create an online “slush pile”. Readers and fellow writers were then supposed to read the books in the slush pile and nominate their favourites. The top five each month would reach the “Editor’s Desk” and be submitted to the HarperCollins editorial board for consideration for publication. After three years, HarperCollins have published not one of the “successful” books. Why not? What went wrong? For one thing, virtually no readers joined the Authonomy site. Only writers signed up – several thousand of them. Nearly all of them had submitted a book that they were desperately trying to get onto the Editor’s Desk.

The original idea behind the site was that members would give an honest opinion of the books they read, and the cream would rise to the top. What actually happened was that all sorts of factions and cliques developed, and these were far more interested in their own agenda than in finding the genuinely best books. Moreover, writers are very different from readers and often have completely different tastes. But the most serious problem of all was that getting to the Editor’s Desk became a game and all of the members of Authonomy turned into ruthless gamers. The “game” became so ridiculous that gamers started swapping votes for each other’s books without even reading the respective books. Acquiring votes to get onto the Editor’s Desk was all that mattered; reading books became irrelevant. In other words, the whole purpose of the site – to locate by crowdsourcing the best books on the site – was negated in every possible way. Votes counted, not books. The books that reached the top were those that had been gamed the best. Their quality as books was neither here nor there – in fact, most were dreadful. So much for crowdsourcing.

The business need is for a viable crowdsourcing model that allows early-stage projects to be evaluated by large numbers of people, thus ensuring that those projects that go into full production are guaranteed popular hits. Imagine a Hollywood studio or a major publisher with a 90-100% hit rate. Anyone who could crack this model would be sitting on a goldmine. No one has come close so far, and HarperCollins’ attempt descended into farce. Can you think of a way to get the public involved in early-stage projects to identify the future Dan Browns and J.K. Rowlings? You can’t afford to pay the public for their time because that would bankrupt you, so how could you motivate them to help? That’s the key to the whole thing.
__________

Psychopathy:

JOURNALIST JON RONSON has written on the topic of psychopaths and he suggests that 1% of the population may belong to this category. Applying his “psychopath checklist”, he says that most CEOs of American companies should be classified as psychopaths and he commented, “Capitalism at its most ferocious is a pure expression of psychopathy.” He could equally have said psychopathy was all too apparent in leading military commanders, police chiefs, stock market traders, top lawyers, media moguls, religious leaders and politicians. Many of the people who get to the top do so precisely because they are psychopaths, hence are not restrained when it comes to using the disreputable, sleazy and vicious tactics that often accompany stratospheric rises.

In our world, almost anyone who gets to the top should be considered mentally disturbed. The system is mentally disturbed because the people who run it are mentally disturbed. They are psychopathic wolves.
__________

Bohemia:

Bohemia was a historic kingdom in what is now the Czech Republic. Gypsies from that area travelled around Europe. They were outsiders, strange, different and exotic. The term “Bohemian” came to be applied to artists and writers who looked and behaved unconventionally, and to unconventional people in general. Bohemia is a good description for the new spiritual State of autonomous, self-creating and self-defining individuals that the Illuminati wish to build. It’s time for a Bohemian Revolution, a Bohemian Rhapsody.
__________

Becoming:

Thomas Aquinas said that hell is where you go when you’re not becoming the person God wants you to be. Illuminism says that hell is where you are when you’re not becoming the person YOU want to be. And ultimately you want to be God, so Aquinas is right, but for entirely the wrong reasons.
__________

History:

When history comes calling, you must not be found wanting. We dislike Muslims intensely (and indeed all Abrahamists), but we applaud all of those involved in the Arab Spring who had the guts to get off their asses and fight. They were not found wanting. They found their courage. Many died, and still the others went on. The Arab Spring is monumental because it presages a Muslim Enlightenment. The Arabs rose up against dictators and tyrants. Soon, “God willing”, some of them will turn against the supreme tyrant – Allah. Mohammed will be denounced as a false prophet and many Muslims will at last embrace reason and light, just as many Europeans did at the birth of the modern world. But our world in not in fact modern. Most of it is as backward as the world of the ancient Jews tramping around in the desert concocting their fantastic delusion that they were the Chosen People of the Creator of the entire Cosmos. What a sad and pathetic God he would have to be if he were preoccupied with a bunch or ranting and raving bearded Jews wearing funny hats, with strings dangling from their midriffs.

The dialectic is in motion. The Islamic Enlightenment is long overdue. When hands are raised against human tyrants, they can be raised against divine ones too. If the Arab Spring was about freedom then Muslims must be free of Allah, Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is a slave morality and a religion for slaves. The word “Islam” means submission. We say to all Muslims – it’s time to get off your knees and stand up straight like human beings. Where’s your dignity? Where’s your self-respect? Are you dogs or humans?

DO NOT BE TIMID TOWARDS THE WORLD; BE BOLD. DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE WORLD; DOMINATE IT.

Better a wolf than a dog. Better a shepherd than a sheep. Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied (as J.S. Mill memorably said).
__________

4/7