Vă 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
Archive for the ‘Mişcarea Dacia’ Category:
Academia Iluministă (99)
What Sane Woman would be a Muslim?:
As we mentioned, Islamic Sharia Law declares that the testimony of two women is the equivalent of that of one man, so in any trial where it’s a man’s word against a woman’s (in a case of sexual assault or rape, for example), the man automatically wins. That’s Islamic justice for you. Read this account from an Islamic website of why “God” designed things this way, for women’s “benefit” (!)
Question: Why do women have half the men’s right of testimony?
Answer: The essentials which form the fundamentals of the Islamic Law are based on revelation (of Allah). They are outlined in the Quran. In other words, the legal essentials are established and ordained by the Creator of the Universe. Whatever the age, atmosphere and circumstances in which one lives, those essentials are the source of peace and means of comfort. This is because these decrees are the most suitable ones for man’s creation. When the decrees and jurisdiction in the Quran are studied, the outstanding point is that both corporeal and spiritual existence of man is taken into consideration.
In the matter of witnessing, it is possible to observe that, too. The translation of the verse about giving testimony is as follows…
And call upon two (Muslim) men among you as witnesses. If two men are not there, then let there be one man and two women, from among those of whom you approve as witnesses, that if either of the two women errs (through forgetfulness), the other may remind her.
So, here, the basic matter is directly related to the creation of women. This is a requisite of their psychological aspect. The underlying disposition of woman is excitement and she lives with her excitements. Therefore, ideas get rooted in her heart rather than her mind and develop effects in this way. She cannot really remain unbiased in the face of events. She approaches phenomena with intuition as her conscience and mercy prevail.
Due to that quality of theirs, the Quran says: Women may forget, therefore they should be given helpers in testimony. It is expressed by Allah the Almighty who created the woman. So, it is an unchanging rule. Are there not among women those who do not easily forget and those who have sharper memories than men? Of course, there are, but generally, this psychological state is seen in women more often. It is just natural that they cannot retain events in their memories long. On the other hand, the woman is more introverted. She has a world of her own. She is busy with the housework all day. She takes care of children and of their upbringing. Very few women are interested in trade, business, and politics. How will a woman who is so away from the outer world be aware of the events that take place there, how will she learn about them and retain them in her mind and to what extent will she be able to bear witness?
By accepting two women’s testimonies equal to that of one man, and thus not burdening the woman with the responsibility as much as that of the man in the matter of witnessing, Islam does not harm her right, on the contrary, protects it and prevents her from sinning. This is because bearing witness is a tough duty that brings about great responsibilities.
******
Are we clear now? Allah himself made Islamic women dumb, forgetful and half as reliable (and intelligent?) as men. There’s no point in complaining. Women’s lib won’t get you anywhere. Allah ain’t listening. Islamic women have allowed themselves to be devoured by the wolves, so they deserve everything they get. Any sane, rational woman should regard Islam as the uttermost insult to women.
__________
Wolf Theory:
WOLF THEORY ASSERTS that the whole of the human condition is defined by the five percent of the human race who are dominant: the human wolves. They are aggressive, assertive, dynamic, bold, attack-minded, determined, driven, adventurous, combative, uncompromising, active, on the front foot, always making things happen, entrepreneurial, get up and go. They set the agenda. The remaining 95% of the human race are the tame, timid, domesticated, docile, mediocre “dog” humans, looking to curl up in front of the fire near their master, be patted on the head, and have their belly rubbed. They are unambitious, unadventurous, unimaginative, defined by their desire to have an easy a life as possible involving minimum effort. They don’t like conflict and always seek compromise. They never drive the agenda. They are reactive, passive, always waiting for things to happen, always on the back foot. They follow the agenda of others. They don’t have the ability or will to create their own agenda.
So, what are you – wolf or dog?
The Old World Order are wolves, defined by their extraversion, love of luxury, wealth and privilege. They are entirely driven by materialistic power and status.
The Illuminati are also wolves, but on the introverted side of the equation. They are driven by idealism and desire to master abstract ideas and discover the absolute truth of existence. They have almost no interest in materialism and find status games pathetic. The Illuminati wolves blame the OWO wolves for all the ills of the world. The OWO wolves love exploiting the dogs and making them do their bidding. The Illuminati wolves despise the willingness of the dogs to eat the shit of the OWO. The Illuminati proclaim the doctrine of everyone becoming God. Why? Because the OWO would have no power in a Community of Gods – there would be no dogs to serve them. A Community of Gods would, on the other hand, conform with the agenda of the Illuminati – to assume conscious control of the entire universe and understand every aspect of it.
We are not at all interested in either real dogs or human dogs – they are incapable of advancing our agenda in any way. As for the ultimate wolf philosopher, he is not an Illuminatus at all, nor a member of the OWO. He is Friedrich Nietzsche, the prophet of the Will to Power, a supremely wolverine concept.
Cesare Borgia was an archetypal wolf and Nietzsche expressed these opinions about him: We fundamentally misunderstand the predatory animals and predatory men, for example, Cesare Borgia, and we misunderstand nature, so long as we still look for a ‘pathology’ at the bottom of these healthiest of all tropical monsters and growths or even for some hell born in them, as almost all moralists so far have done. It seems that among moralists there is a hatred for the jungle and the tropics? And the ‘tropical man’ must at all accounts be discredited, whether as a sickness and degeneration of human beings or as his own hell and self-torture? But why? For the benefit of the ‘moderate zones’? For the benefit of the moderate human beings? The “moral human beings”? The mediocre? This for the chapter ‘morality as timidity.’
I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter-Cesare Borgia as pope! One altogether misunderstands the beast of prey and man of prey (Cesare Borgia for example), one misunderstands ‘nature’, when one looks for something ‘sick’ at the bottom of these healthiest of all monsters, as virtually all moralists have done.
As long as there have been human beings there have been human herds (families, tribes, nations, states, churches), and always very many who obey and very few who command. Nothing has been cultivated among men better than obedience; ‘thou shalt unconditionally do this, unconditionally not do that’. Those commanding have to deceive themselves that they too are only obeying; I call it the moral hypocrisy of commanders. They defend themselves by posing as executors of more ancient or higher commands (of ancestors, the constitution, justice, the law or even of God), or borrow the herd’s way of thinking and appear as ‘servants of the people’, or ‘instruments of the common good’. The herd-man in Europe today glorifies his qualities of timidity, modesty, industriousness, and peace which make him useful to the herd. And when leaders seem to be indispensable, the clever herdsmen gather together; this is the origin of all parliamentary constitutions. What a release from burden, was the appearance of an unconditional commander for this herd-European; Napoleon!
******
If we refer to the Illuminati as good wolves (dedicated to mastering the cosmos rather than mastering people) and the Old World Order as bad wolves (devoted to dominating and enslaving people), the history of the world because the history of the conflict between good and bad wolves. The good wolves are the philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, psychologists, artists, writers, poets, designers, academics, visionaries, revolutionaries, radicals, engineers and technologists while the bad wolves are the monarchs, emperors, dictators, tyrants, generals, prophets, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, feudal lords, capitalists, aristocrats, nobility, privileged elites, business magnates, media moguls, bankers, financiers, advertisers, lawyers, political leaders, conservatives and celebrities.
The good-wolf/bad-wolf dialectic has driven our world. The bad wolves are determined to oppress, repress, control, enslave, exploit, manipulate and dominate the submissive dog people. They have had no desire to share resources, but to take as much as possible for themselves (hence why so much of the world’s wealth is in the hands of so few). They are extraordinarily narcissistic, egotistical, conceited, arrogant, dismissive and contemptuous of others. They think they deserve the best, and fuck everyone else. The good wolves have always sought to enlighten the masses, to improve the quality of life, to raise the standard of knowledge, to promote reason and logic, to raise general well-being. The wolves are the major chess pieces and the dogs are the pawns, being pushed hither and thither.
Bad wolves are predators and tame dogs are their prey. Capitalism is a supremely rapacious, ruthless economic system: perfect for the bad wolves to devour the weak and helpless. Gordon Gekko’s immortal Greed is good speech is the perfect summation of the bad wolf ideology. Wall Street is a perfect bad wolf movie, and shows what is required of you if you wish to join the wolves gnawing the bones of the dead dogs. Bad wolves are often glamorous and charismatic figures, envied by all the tame dogs since they seem so confident and in charge and are getting exactly what they want from life, even if it means trampling everyone else into the dirt.
Good wolves are usually on the periphery of life, locked away in ivory towers, laboratories or in lonely garrets where they struggle in isolation or in small teams with the great mysteries of the earth and the cosmos. They are largely ignored by the world until one of their ideas detonates and changes the world irrevocably. The answer to changing the world for the better is astoundingly simple – destroy the bad wolves. This was the strategy adopted by the Illuminists Robespierre and Saint-Just in the French Revolutionary “Terror”. The king and the aristocracy who had so viciously preyed on the people were guillotined. The counter-revolutionaries who supported the bad wolf regime went the same way. Unfortunately, France was plunged into war with all of the major monarchies of Europe who wanted to kill off this Republican monstrosity in their midst, so there was no opportunity for the Illuminati to build a brand new society. War dominated everything and so a warrior soon came to power – Napoleon. Although he can claim some credits, Napoleon was simply a new type of bad wolf. Bad wolves are the bane of the world. Any rational society would identify these bad wolves in childhood and seek to sublimate their negative tendencies in positive pursuits. Society should implement specific laws to curb the ability of bad wolves to rise to the top.
Not all bad wolves are seen for what they are. Steve Jobs is greatly admired by many people. In a British newspaper, journalist Michael Bywater wrote, “Cool, by its very nature, is something which it should not be possible to mass-produce. Steve Jobs is the man who industrialised cool.” Of course, the original assertion is correct: cool CANNOT be mass-produced. Steve Jobs didn’t do anything “cool”. He was a greedy capitalist who saw how to industrialise the capitalist appearance of “cool” for legions of sad fuck human dogs who have to have the latest gadget (even though they never do anything worthwhile with all of these gadgets they own). There’s no difference between Microsoft and Apple: two ruthless capitalist leviathans trying to part tame dogs from their money. How anyone can use “cool” in the context of one of the richest corporations on earth is simply breath-taking. Apple products are shit. They offer nothing to the world. What has Apple achieved other than make endless millions of people spend all of their time glued to gadgets, and doing NOTHING productive. Apple has massively expanded the scope for people to twitter and bellyache endlessly. The air crackles with endless moronic trivia. Is that what people call PROGRESS?!!
Capitalist technology mostly revolves around how to expand the exchange of BULLSHIT exponentially. Airheads and retards have never had so much scope for expressing their empty, pointless thoughts. The world is awash with mind pollution, with toxic memes. Huge cyber garbage dumps are everywhere, filled to bursting with the collected “thoughts” of those who can’t think. They can’t think because they spend so much time frittering away their time with their shiny gadgets rather than learning anything and developing a skill.
There has only ever been one true route to meaningful achievement – that most unpopular of undertakings, HARD WORK. Not all the gadgets on earth will help you if you are a mediocre, lazy, stupid dog. The morons should dump their gadgets and read a book! But of course, that wouldn’t be “cool”. And we must all seek to be cool in the way that makes immense amounts of money for Steve Jobs, mustn’t we? If we don’t conform to capitalist cool then we can never be cool, right?! All Big Bad Wolf institutions and individuals are easy to spot – they have immense wealth and influence and they never talk about wealth redistribution. They always sing the praises of “profit”. Steve Jobs is no different.
__________
The London Riots, a “Bad Wolf” Case Study:
For a few days, law and order broke down in the capital of the United Kingdom, one of the world’s most powerful nations. The London police were exposed as inept and ineffectual, clueless and impotent in the face of widespread disorder and looting. One of the most intriguing aspects of the London riots was that it was overwhelmingly perpetrated by young black men. This was plain to see in endless pictures of the event. However, no politician or media commentator wanted to talk about the racial angle, and their bacon was saved when other British cities rioted, and in some of these cases the rioters were overwhelmingly white.
However, a prominent and controversial TV historian called Dr David Starkey jumped in where angels fear to tread, making comments deemed so racist that several observers declared that he had committed career suicide. He made the statement that in the UK all successful blacks are effectively white i.e. they consciously or subconsciously imitate prominent whites. Conversely, unsuccessful whites consciously or subconsciously imitate prominent “bad boy” blacks. Cue media outrage.
Starkey stated, ‘What has happened is that a substantial section of the chavs [members of the UK underclass]…have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion.” On the subject of black street language, Starkey said, “Black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together. This language, which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that has intruded in England…This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.” Starkey commenting on David Lammy, Labour Member of Parliament for Tottenham where the riots began (following the fatal shooting of an armed black man who didn’t seem to be given any chance to surrender), said, “Listen to David Lammy, an archetypal successful black man. If you turn the screen off, as if you were listening to him on radio, you would think he was white.”
In one of our previous articles, we wrote:
A book called The History of White People by black American historian Nell Irvin Painter has argued, convincingly, that Barack Obama is white, and this has nothing to do with the fact that his mother is white. Obama has basically found himself motoring along on the “white side” of the track i.e. his education is typical of that of a patrician white, as are his income, his power, his status, and that was true long before he became President. It was easy for many whites to vote for him because, as they recognised, he was effectively white himself. Would those whites who voted for Obama also have voted for someone like the Reverend Wright? Not a chance.
Painter’s point is that race is a social construct, subject to the forces of fashion. Many whites, attracted by the “bad boy” image of black rappers, have adopted black cultural values. Painter has argued that well-connected, prosperous blacks can be “white”, while disadvantaged whites are indistinguishable from disadvantaged blacks, if you ignore their skin colour and focus on how they conduct their lives, and how they are treated by society. Can anyone deny that President Obama sounds much more like a white professor than a black rapper?
We regard Starkey and Painter’s case as unarguable. The question isn’t whether it’s true or not – it plainly is – but to understand how it came about and what can be done about it. And, in fact, the issue isn’t really one of race at all, but of education.
Consider the following hypothetical case of a young black man whose father has jumped ship and plays no part in his upbringing. He’s in a one-parent home and his mother is out all day working for the minimum wage as she packs shelves in a supermarket. She is exhausted when she comes home and just wants to watch soap operas to relax. She has no time for her son, though she dutifully tells him to work hard at school, respect his teachers and make something of himself. She herself is uneducated and barely literate. She can’t give her son any help with his schoolwork and she doesn’t provide an educational environment where books are respected.
The young black man is not at all academic. He hates school. Moreover, he is highly physical and dominant. He is, in fact, a bad wolf. What are the life choices facing this young black wolf? Well, he’s already a dismal failure at school. The academic track is a dead end for him. He will definitely have a miserable life if he tries to go down the conventional path of achieving exam success. He has no chance at all of passing any exam. In order to have power and influence within his community, it’s vital for him to minimize the importance of education in his peer group because that is where he is at maximum disadvantage, where he’s an absolute, sure loser. So, he uses his physicality to bully all of the smart boys. He constantly rubbishes academic attainment and says it’s only for those “sell-outs” trying to copy whites. He says that all books are racist because they’re written by white men and promote white values. He plays “gangsta rap” constantly and is always talking about hoes, bitches, guns, bling, drugs, robbery and shooting cops. He and all of his friends refer to each other as “niggers”.
He can’t speak English very well since he can barely read, so he starts inventing a new language in which no one is more fluent than he is. This is a kind of grunting language full of words being used in bizarre ways (he never really understood what the words meant in the first place). Also, this coded language serves to stamp his brand on his gang and to exclude outsiders. He defies teachers in school and is regarded as a rebel, a “hero”. At all times, he says he’s too cool for school and that any academic kid is a geek, nerd, dork, and uncool loser. He relentlessly stigmatizes and bullies any academically successful kid. He is inevitably expelled (not that he attended school much anyway). He becomes involved with the local drug dealers and starts earning good money and driving a flash car. He gets sexy girlfriends. His friends envy him and look up to him. He beats up, stabs or shoots anyone who opposes him and rules his gang with an iron fist. He demands “respect” at all times.
So, this guy has created a good life for himself where he has status, power, respect, and money. He has maximized his opportunities outwith the school environment where he had zero chance of achieving anything. Can anyone criticize him? The academically talented kids leverage their academic skills to the maximum. Why shouldn’t those with different skills leverage those different skills to the maximum too?
Does our case study sound familiar? All people who struggle at school are tempted by the alternative, criminal type of life we have described. It’s no surprise that unsuccessful white kids should be attracted to this gangsta scene and its street code and language. Very soon, they will be black in all but skin colour. By the same token, the blacks who do well at school will soon be white except in skin tone. If blacks were the academically most successful then the positions would be reversed and ambitious whites would be seeking to become black, and unsuccessful blacks would be turning white. It’s not race that’s the issue: it’s which group is most identified with educational success in an environment where huge emphasis is placed on passing exams.
How should we deal with the young black wolf? The doctrine of negative liberty – of non-interference in people’s lives – says, “Do nothing.” But we know exactly where that leads – to increasing criminality and eventually jail or death.
The interventionist State would stop this young black wolf from poisoning his peer group and turning them against education. He, and everyone else of similar ilk, would be identified at an early age by psychological profiling and they would be taken to radically different, non-academic schools. Here, their particular skills would be identified and a means found to harness them constructively. The young wolf would feel proud and successful of his achievements. His self-esteem and self-image would be high. Far from becoming an enemy of the State, he would be transformed into a valuable contributor with a clear-cut, non-academic path to follow through life. He would enjoy status and power within the system rather than outside it.
Gang culture is a direct product of negative liberty where governments make no attempt to intervene in the lives of non-academic kids from dysfunctional families. Gangs are an alternative form of society. They have a hierarchy and a code of conduct. They have a dress code, a demand for “respect”, for loyalty. To “diss” one member of the gang is to diss the whole group. A gang provides status, a place, a function, a role in life, an identity, a cause. For those who have been rejected by the mainstream, why wouldn’t you join a gang?
In the arena of positive liberty, gangs are wholly unacceptable, and they would be prevented from arising in the first place. Gangs are formed by bad wolves, so the primary way to stop their formation is to deal with the bad wolves before they become bad. It’s not a remotely difficult job as long as the State assigns itself the right to address problems at the earliest possible stage. Any failure to tackle a problem makes the problem much worse. The advocates of negative liberty never intervene until the streets are on fire and rioters are roaming around like wild animals. Is that rational?
Gangs are the logical response to the indifference of the State. If the State doesn’t help then people will help themselves. They can’t be blamed for that. It’s the State’s fault for doing nothing. The British riots were exactly what the British form of government brought on itself by its criminal disregard for kids from ghettos.
__________
The Krypteia:
THE ANCIENT SPARTANS had an alternative way of dealing with troublemakers. They were faced with the problem of suppressing a slave population that outnumbered them some ten to one. They chose to wage psychological warfare and selective assassination against the helots (slaves) to keep them under control. Above all, they targeted any helots that showed any signs of dominant behaviour. If you kill all the wolves, only tame dogs are left, and they are no threat to anyone.
Plutarch gives the following account of the deadly Spartan tradition known as the Krypteia (“hidden, secret things”; the Krypteia might also be regarded as the Spartan secret service):
By this ordinance, the magistrates from time to time dispatched privately some of the ablest and most discreet of the young warriors into the country, armed only with their daggers, and such minimal supplies as were necessary. In the daytime, they hid themselves in out-of-the-way places, and there lay quiet, but, in the night, they came out into the highways and killed all the helots they came upon; sometimes they set upon them by day, as they were at work in the fields, and murdered them. As, also, Thucydides, in his history of the Peloponnesian war, tells us, that a good number of them, after being singled out for their bravery by the Spartans, garlanded, as enfranchised persons, and led about to all the temples in token of honours, shortly after disappeared all of a sudden, being about the number of two thousand; and no man either then or since could give an account how they came by their deaths. And Aristotle, in particular, adds that the ephori, so soon as they were entered into their office, used to declare war against them, that they might be massacred without a breach of religion. It is confessed, on all hands, that the Spartans dealt with them very hardly; for it was a common thing to force them to drink to excess, and to lead them in that condition into their public halls, that the children might see what a sight a drunken man is; they made them to dance low dances, and sing ridiculous songs, forbidding them expressly to meddle with any of a better kind. And, accordingly, when the Thebans made their invasion into Laconia, and took a great number of the Helots, they could by no means persuade them to sing the verses of Terpander, Alcman, or Spendon, “For,” said they, “the masters do not like it.” So that it was truly observed by one, that in Sparta he who was free was most so, and he that was a slave there, the greatest slave in the world. For my part, I am of opinion that these outrages and cruelties began to be exercised in Sparta at a later time, especially after the great earthquake, when the Helots made a general insurrection, and, joining with the Messenians, laid the country waste, and brought the greatest danger upon the city. For I cannot persuade myself to ascribe to Lycurgus so wicked and barbarous a course, judging of him from the gentleness of his disposition and justice upon all other occasions; to which the oracle also testified.
The Wikipedia entry gives the following account:
“Every autumn, according to Plutarch, the Spartan ephors would declare war on the helot population so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt. The kryptes were sent out into the countryside with only a knife to survive on their skills and cunning with the instructions to kill any helot they encountered at night and to take any food they needed.
“According to Cartledge, Krypteia members stalked the helot villages and surrounding countryside, spying on the servile population. Their mission was to root-out potential sedition. Troublesome helots could be summarily executed. Such brutal oppression of the helots permitted the Spartans to control the agrarian population and devote themselves to military practice. It may also have contributed to the Spartans’ reputation for stealth since a boy who got caught was punished by whipping. Only Spartans who had served in the Krypteia as young men could expect to achieve the highest ranks in Spartan society and army. It was felt that only those Spartans who showed the ability and willingness to kill for the state at a young age were worthy to join the leadership in later years.”
So, the Krypteia was like Special Forces training of the most extreme kind, involving assassination missions as a rite of passage. Others have described it in terms of a secret police like the Nazi Gestapo, designed to identify and deal with subversives at an early stage. One way or another, the wolves must be dealt with. The rational way is to do so early and benevolently, and to harness the wolves’ positive qualities for socially productive ends. The Spartan approach is also rational, but brutal and tyrannical. The irrational approach is to do nothing and let the problem fester and grow. Gang culture is exactly what you get when wolves are allowed to rule their own local environment. It’s monumental madness to allow this to happen.
Gangs are a disaster. They are a State within a State or, more accurately, a dysfunctional State within a dysfunctional State. The whole point of gangs is to challenge the authorities and to be, in effect, at constant war with the mainstream. Gangs are criminal entities, so why are they allowed to exist? It’s the appalling doctrine of negative liberty that allows the endless problems of the underclass to multiply until eventually they erupt on the streets, as happened in the UK.
_________
Scarface:
ONE OF THE MOST socially important films of all time is Scarface (1983) directed by Brian De Palma, written by Oliver Stone and starring Al Pacino as the grotesquely larger than life and unforgettable Tony Montana. Black gangs and even the Mafia have acknowledged their debt to Scarface. They all seek to emulate Montana and the lifestyle he enjoyed. Montana, a bad wolf if ever there was one, gives a voice to all of the aggressive young men outside the mainstream, particularly those who have little or no meaningful contact with the education system.
Montana says of himself, “Okay, here’s the story. I come from the gutter. I know that. I got no education… But that’s okay. I know the street, and I’m making all the right connections. With the right woman, there’s no stopping me. I could go right to the top.” Note the staggering ambition. It’s not good enough merely to do well despite having no education. Only “the top” will satisfy his ambition. Everyone these days is staggeringly ambitious. Every scumbag wants to get to the top and thinks they can realistically get there. Never have so many people been so deluded. Not one of these “top-seekers” ever expects to have to work themselves to exhaustion to get there. Hard work is never considered necessary. It’s all about “balls” and “being myself”.
Montana says, “Orders? You giving me orders? Amigo, the only thing in this world that gives orders is balls. You got that? Balls.” In other words, the law of the jungle applies. The strongest give orders. The rest must obey. Montana is throwing down the challenge that all wolves offer: fight or submit. “This is paradise, I’m tellin’ ya. This town is like a great big pussy just waitin’ to get fucked.”
In gang culture, everything is described in sexual terms. Homosexuality is unacceptable. A pussy is regarded as the ultimate goal. Heterosexuality is so extreme as to become, ironically, homoerotic (just look at the amount of time gangstas spend getting the look right, going to the gym and “bonding” with their “brothers” in sweaty, oily, masculine environments). “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.”
This is the basic equation all gang members understand.
In the famous restaurant scene, Montana says to the upmarket diners, “What you lookin’ at? You all a bunch of fuckin’ assholes. You know why? You don’t have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin’ fingers and say, ‘That’s the bad guy.’ So… what that make you? Good? You’re not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don’t have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There’s a bad guy comin’ through! Better get outta his way!”
Gangsters and the rich have a great deal of moral equivalence. Most rich people are simply legalized gangsters; those who have the law on their side when they commit their robberies and hold ups. What better way to steal from a bank than to be its chief executive, empowered to award yourself enormous bonuses? Who needs to wear a mask to carry out a heist? Better to walk into the vault as the CEO and help yourself.
“I’m Tony Montana! You fuck with me, you fuckin’ with the best!”
All top gangsters think they’re the best, and indestructible. They never are.
“You wanna go to war?! We’ll take you to war, okay?!”
Gangs are about four things: money, power, sex and violence.
“Okay, Sosa. You wanna fuck with me? You fucking with the best! You wanna fuck with me? Okay. You little cockroaches… come on. You wanna play games? Okay, I’ll play with you. You wanna play rough? Okay! Say hello to my little friend!”
This is the monologue that runs through the head of all gangsters as they embark on insane rampages, usually culminating in their own death.
“Hey, how’d you like dat? Huh? You fuckin’ maricón! Hey! You think you can take me? You need a fuckin’ army if you’re gonna take me! You hear?! C’mon! I’ll take you all to fuckin’ Hell! Come on! Come on! Come to me! Okay! Who you think you fuckin’ with? I’m Tony Montana! You fuck with me, you fuckin’ with the best! [while being shot repeatedly] Come on! I’m still standin’, huh! Fuck! Come on! Go ahead! I take your fuckin’ bullet! Come on! I take your fuckin’ bullets! You think you kill me with bullets? I take your fuckin’ bullets! Go ahead!”
Not the speech of a philosopher! Socrates certainly didn’t say any of this as he sipped his hemlock.
Tony topples from a balcony into the fountain below and floats face-down in the water beneath a statue of the globe bearing, in gaudy red neon, the inscription “The World Is Yours.” All gangsters think this.
Tony Montana has captured the imaginations of the uneducated underclass to an astonishing degree. He was the man who climbed out of the gutter and reached the top through sheer force. How many thousands of gang members have met their deaths as they tried to imitate Tony Montana? The money, the beautiful women, the cocaine, the flash cars, the luxury mansions, the fear and respect of everyone – this is the package that the whole underclass dreams of. Education features nowhere in this fantasy. Reason has no role. It’s all about will. About BALLS. The educated must use their superior intellect to destroy this Scarface dream world that gang members permanently inhabit.
Scarface is a brilliant movie, but it should be interpreted as a warning rather than as something to aspire to. Society is fucked if it is generating enormous numbers of Tony Montanas on the one hand and Reality TV wannabes on the other. Any rational society must be all about EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. Where an academic education is inappropriate, other types of civilising and productive education must be provided, leading to good career prospects.
__________
Werewolves:
Why are people so fascinated with werewolves, with the transformation of an ordinary person into a human wolf at the full moon? It’s because tame, timid human “dogs” fantasize about what it would be like to be one of the dominant wolves for a change. But real human wolves are real human wolves all the time, not just on full moons. They are permanent werewolves, and it usually takes bullets – they needn’t be silver! – to stop them.
__________
Simplicity:
People imagine that they are complex but in fact you could know almost everything about them by spending five minutes walking through their house. Straight away, you would know who is rich and who is poor, who is messy and who is tidy, who has imagination and who is conventional. People with pets can be assumed to be feeling and sensing types. People with fast, flash cars, enormous TV screens and state of the art video games are heavily into sensation. Thinkers and intuitives will usually have plenty of books. Thinkers will have many conventional academic books while intuitives will also have esoteric books, science fiction and fantasy books.
People who read lots of literary fiction might be mistaken as thinkers or intuitives, but they’re not. Fans of literary fiction are just a special category of feeling and sensing types who get their thrills from imagining situations rather than actively experiencing them. Your clothes also betray a huge amount about you, as do the friends you have. The contents of your fridge, the type of wine you drink, your toiletries in the bathroom…absolutely everything throws light on who you are, how you think and how you behave.
__________
Planet Bling:
Astronomers think they have identified a planet made of diamond. Are all the bling kings having multiple orgasms? What next? – a solid gold planet – Planet Midas in the Mammon Quadrant? Instead of the Man on the Moon, we’ll have the Bling King on Planet Platinum Card. Did you know that gold is formed when a star goes supernova? Then it rains down on planets like ours – the ultimate golden shower! Can you imagine looking up and seeing gold dust suspended in the air, glinting and gleaming, making earth’s atmosphere take on a miraculous golden glow?
__________
The Wolf War:
“Everything good is the transmutation of something evil: every god has a devil for a father.” –Nietzsche
GNOSTICISM DECLARES ABRAHAMISM to be the religion of Satan. Gnosticism declares that the vast majority of humanity are deluded and indeed evil. Gnosticism declares that humanity is in thrall to the Devil and controlled by Satanic forces. The world, therefore, is a fundamentally evil place. It can even be defined as hell itself; or as a prison planet for ignorant, deluded and wicked souls. There are ways out, but only when humanity turns to reason, knowledge and logic (Logos) rather than faith, superstition, story, emotion and fable (Mythos).
Gnosticism promotes the agenda of the Enlightenment. Abrahamism promotes the agenda of primitive Middle Eastern tribes obsessed with slavish obedience to a Torture God. The Armageddon Conspiracy by Mike Hockney is a book about the revaluation of all values. It seeks to shock anyone from a Christian background into a 180-degree revolution of their worldview. What if Christians weren’t the “good guys” but the opposite? What if the “bad guys” – the Nazis and the notorious Illuminati – were the heroes of humanity fighting the good fight? In fact, what if the Nazis and the Illuminati were one and the same? This is one of the themes of the novel.
This raises the question of what, if any, are the true connections between the Nazis and the Illuminati. After Germany’s defeat in WWI, the nation descended into chaos. The Illuminati saw a glorious opportunity to bring about a German Revolution based on paganism, Gnosticism and a New Enlightenment. It’s true that three Gnostic secret societies, including the Illuminati, had connections with the milieu from which the Nazi Party emerged. The Illuminati knew several people who became prominent Nazis. The Grand Master of the Illuminati actually met Adolf Hitler in the early 1920s and found him interesting and impressive but clearly suffering from “Messiah Syndrome” – when a person becomes convinced that he personally (rather than as a part of a rational movement) has a divine mission to save his country or the world.
The Armageddon Conspiracy explores the notion of Hitler being recruited by the Illuminati and becoming its Grand Master. In fact, the Illuminati quickly grew to despise the Nazis, seeing them as nothing but moronic, racist thugs who were intending to replace the God of Abrahamism with a “new Jehovah” – the Fuehrer! Nazism was a celebration of the cult of the personality rather than a new, enlightened, anti-Abrahamist, anti-capitalist system of government that would lead forward the whole world. Nevertheless, the Illuminati were fascinated by the tactics and strategy invoked by Hitler. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany was beset by catastrophic economic difficulties and continual violent clashes between left and right wing parties. The liberal centre was paralysed and hopelessly ineffectual. Yet within an extremely short period, Germany was fully stable and prospering under Hitler’s rule, albeit that its main activity was rebuilding the German war machine.
Imagine that in a few years from now, America and the major European powers are bankrupt, capitalism is dead, democracy has collapsed and rival factions are violently struggling for power. Everything is in chaos. How will order be restored? Will liberals achieve it? Or does some spell have to be cast over the people, just as Hitler bewitched Germany? Hitler identified an internal enemy disliked by all Germans – the Jews. He also identified an external enemy – Bolshevism. His private army, the SA (later replaced by the SS), ensured instant law and order.
In Revolutionary France, the Illuminati were faced with enormous difficulties in transforming chaos into order and were forced to take savage measures. Liberals are of course horrified by the steps that Revolutionary groups take to impose their will, but they conveniently never consider the question of how they themselves would run a country if it were on the verge of total collapse. Bland, liberal, consensus politicians would be eaten alive. As Hitler rightly recognised, the Will becomes fundamental in chaotic situations. Those with the strongest will are those who triumph.
If the prevailing Western economic and political paradigm of “liberal” capitalist democracy were to collapse tomorrow and the Meritocracy Party stepped in, no one can be in any doubt that extreme measures would have to be taken to entrench the new system. All actions have to be decisive, and the most radical measures must be taken IMMEDIATELY. The Revolution will be won or lost in the first 100 days. By the end of that period, the shape of the future must be apparent to all, and irreversible. The days of the rich would instantly be over. All of their assets would be seized (as happened in the Russian Revolution). A brand new constitution would be declared setting out the philosophical principles of the new regime. All existing institutions inconsistent with the new constitution would be abolished.
Of course, since there won’t be any widespread rational agreement about what has to be done the new government must be backed up by force – a “New Model Army” (France had a Revolutionary army, Russia had the Red Army and Hitler had the SA and SS). A new police service must be ready to step in. There must be a secret police to identify counter-revolutionaries. Liberals are appalled by such ideas and talk of a “police state”. These people are naïve beyond belief. The world is never changed by holding enormous genteel tea parties for the liberal chattering classes. To undo thousands of years of brainwashing and to effect a decisive, irreversible change, there is simply no question that illiberal measures must be taken. If you don’t want to get your hands dirty then declare yourself one of the Ignavi and stand on the side-lines. Don’t get in the way! The will of the new regime must be absolute and unflinching. Robespierre and Saint-Just did not flinch. They WERE the French Revolution. Without them, the Revolution would have collapsed. Their iron will held the whole thing together.
The end of Abrahamism will not come about by negotiation and debate. It will come about because a superior will declares Abrahamism illegal and puts it out of business once and for all. In Germany, Hitler quickly made the Christian Churches subordinate to his will, and established Nazism as a form of pagan religion, a return to the pre-Christian age of German heroes. The German people soon adopted a new mindset based on doublethink – half Christian, half Nazi. This doublethink is often a precursor to a radical change. Moreover, the Hitler Youth were raised purely within the Nazi paradigm and experienced little or no Christian brainwashing, but endless Nazi indoctrination. Many of them were more loyal to Nazism than to their own parents, and were willing to expose their parents to the authorities as subversives if they overheard them criticizing the Fuehrer.
Although this sounds repellent, the question must be raised whether it’s any more moral for parents to brainwash their children. The ultimate aim is to create an environment where zero brainwashing takes place, but in order to get there, the brainwashing performed by parents must be undone.
“Faith” and superstition must be eradicated from the human condition, replaced by reason and knowledge. Worship of Torture Gods and Terror religions must be ended and replaced by psychologically healthy religions devoted to maximisation of human potential and the aspiration to turn humans into Gods. Worship of money must be eliminated. None of this will be accomplished by half-hearted, liberal talking shops. It will be enacted through irresistible force of will. Hippies, new agers, flower power people, the “love brigade”, the tree huggers and all the rest will never change anything. Change is a function of power, of force, of will. Unpleasant acts are a sine qua non.
Hitler stabilised Germany by neutralizing all dissenting voices, by silencing all the wolves who opposed him. Instantly, the chaos and street violence that had characterised the Germany of that era ceased. There was an immediate benefit for the vast majority (though not of course for the people who hated and opposed Hitler).
Had Hitler actually been the Grand Master of the Illuminati, committed to implementing the enlightened meritocracy of the Illuminati, he would have created the most powerful nation in human history that would have led the rest of the world into a Golden Age. Instead, he presented himself as an Aryan Messiah and plunged the world into a horrific war that, in the end, made superpowers of the capitalist, Zionist-financed Americans and the communist Russians – in other words, Hitler gave an unprecedented victory to the two opposing poles he hated most. Way to go.
Many people think they will fight when the shitstorm comes. But they won’t. Only the wolves come out to play. The rest cower in their homes and wait for the outcome to be decided. The world is all about the wolves and who controls the wolf pack. The set of wolves that moves most decisively always wins. The “Wolf War” is invariably conducted at the level of Scarface: brutal violence. Look at all the so-called “velvet revolutions” that have taken place throughout the world. Could it be said that any of them actually worked? Who, ultimately took over in all of these countries? – the rich, the friends of Zionism. Goldman Sachs moved in to direct their economic policies. Velvet revolutions turned out to be nothing but the replacement of socialist elites by capitalist elites. These were fake revolutions that were more like corporate takeovers.
Genuine revolutions generate violence because there’s so much at stake. Imagine an enlightened government seeking to bring an end to circumcision and Abrahamism. The Abrahamist wolves would definitely resort to violence. After all, the Abrahamists have been history’s most violent group. Religious fanaticism goes hand in hand with “holy war”. Yet our world cannot move on until Abrahamism is destroyed. Abrahamism is the dark, dead, evil past. There will never be a rational, enlightened New World Order while the poison of Abrahamism flows through the world’s arteries.
__________
The End of the Wolf Age:
“Liberal: a power worshipper without power.” –George Orwell
The wolves have dominated the world long enough. They are a product of an excess of testosterone, so the antidote is oestrogen. We need far more women in influential positions. Banking, stock markets and economic policy should, in particular, become the province of women. That is the surest way to end boom and bust cycles. Boom is the outcome of aggressive greed and risk-taking. Bust is when the gambles finally fail and, sooner or later, they always do. Money, of course, is power and it’s essential that power should not fall into the hands of the wolves.
It’s time for the wolves to be tamed, but we don’t want to turn them into dogs. Cats would be more appropriate!
__________
3/7
Tags: Academia Iluministă
Academia Iluministă (98)
Introduction:
THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a member, working under the pseudonym of “Adam Weishaupt” – the name of the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master.
The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity.
If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites. Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then dispatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise.
Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing? Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan?
Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”.
Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.
__________
Quotations:
“If you live among wolves you have to act like a wolf.” –Nikita Khrushchev
“In our society leaving baby with Daddy is just one step above leaving the kids to be raised by wolves or apes.” –Al Roker
“In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves.” –R. A. Butler
“Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.” –Isaiah Berlin
“Lions, wolves, and vultures don’t live together in herds, droves or flocks. Of all animals of prey, man is the only sociable one. Every one of us preys upon his neighbour, and yet we herd together.” –John Gay
“Pacifists are like sheep who believe that wolves are vegetarians.” –Yves Montand
“Don’t accept your dog’s admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful.” –Ann Landers
“I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven’t got the guts to bite people themselves.” –August Strindberg
“Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” –Bible, Matthew: 15. 27.
“Yesterday I was a dog. Today I’m a dog. Tomorrow I’ll probably still be a dog. Sigh! There’s so little hope for advancement.” –Charles M. Schulz, (Snoopy)
“I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” –Winston Churchill
__________
Introduction:
THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a member, working under the pseudonym of “Adam Weishaupt” – the name of the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master.
The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity.
If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites. Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then dispatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise.
Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing? Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan?
Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”.
Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.
__________
Human Dogs:
MANY PEOPLE ARE DOG LOVERS. Little do they suspect that many of the secrets of humanity are locked within the relationship of owners and their pets. Dogs are domesticated wolves. They prospered while wolves were exterminated in many parts of the world. Yet in the human world, it’s the human wolves that have prospered, and they prey on the domesticated human dogs. By understanding dogs and wolves, we can understand the human condition.
From the Wikipedia entry on dogs:
The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo) is a domesticated form of the grey wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora. The term is used for both feral and pet varieties. The dog may have been the first animal to be domesticated, and has been the most widely kept working, hunting, and companion animal in human history.
The word “dog” may also mean the male of a canine species, as opposed to the word “bitch” for the female of the species. Dogs were domesticated from gray wolves about 15,000 years ago. They must have been very valuable to early human settlements, for they quickly became ubiquitous across world cultures. Dogs perform many roles for people, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and military, companionship, and, more recently, aiding handicapped individuals. This impact on human society has given them the nickname “Man’s Best Friend” in the western world. In 2001, there were estimated to be 400 million dogs in the world.
Over the 15,000-year span the dog had been domesticated, it diverged into only a handful of landraces, groups of similar animals whose morphology and behaviour have been shaped by environmental factors and functional roles. Through selective breeding by humans, the dog has developed into hundreds of varied breeds, and shows more behavioural and morphological variation than any other land mammal. For example, height measured to the withers ranges from a few inches in the Chihuahua to a few feet in the Irish Wolfhound; colour varies from white through greys (usually called “blue’”) to black, and browns from light (tan) to dark (“red” or “chocolate”) in a wide variation of patterns; coats can be short or long, coarse-haired to wool-like, straight, curly, or smooth.
******
It’s a remarkable thing, but not a single member of the Illuminati has any pets. How can that be explained? Or, to put it another way, why do so many people choose to have pets rather than do without them? Animals are expensive, time-consuming, dumb, chaotic, frequently dirty, and can get their owners involved in vicious disputes. In many ways, pet ownership is immoral – in a world full of starving human beings, why are there fat pets? Animals can’t speak. They can’t do science, philosophy or mathematics. So what’s the point of them? Why would anyone want to spend any time with them?
It’s said that there’s a powerful emotional bond between dogs and humans, and that’s the key to the enigma. The Illuminati are thinkers and intuitives in terms of Jung’s personality types. Such people value ideas above all else. All members of the Illuminati have huge libraries. They love books, movies, documentaries, world news, studying religions and philosophies. How does a dog serve a thinker or intuitive? Not at all. It can’t contribute anything in the realm of ideas. It’s a dumb, pointless mutt. You’d be as well sitting with a lump of rock for all the mental stimulation you’d get from a dog.
But dog lovers, and pet lovers in general, are overwhelmingly Jungian sensing and feeling types. The sensers love the physical interaction with their dogs. The feelers become emotionally attached to them, often obsessively so, treating them as more important than human beings. Many dog lovers treat their dogs better than they do human strangers and would save their dog in a crisis rather than a person. Many owners drown trying to save their dogs that have fallen into water.
Owners think the world should indulge their love for their dogs, that others should tolerate without question their yapping, barking, snarling, salivating, unleashed beasts. But why should anyone allow themselves to be barked at? Who signs up to be barked at because of someone else’s predilections? Of course, no one ever asks if anyone wants to be barked at and be attacked by dogs. It’s taken for granted that it’s OK. And, of course, if anyone kicks to death a dog that attacks him, it won’t be the dog owner who appears in court for bringing an uncontrolled beast into the public arena, it will be the person who defended himself against an unprovoked assault by a beast.
The Illuminati advocate the “Law of Neutrality”. The law should always take the side of the most neutral person in any dispute. Therefore, for example, a man walking along a pavement or sidewalk, minding his own business, is as neutral as it gets. If someone else brings a dog into the public space then that person is not “neutral”; they have a brought a potential cause of dispute and trouble with them. If a dispute does indeed break out because the person minding his own business objects to a beast barking at him and slobbering over him, surely he should be the one supported by the law. But he’s not. The law is irrational. It was formulated by the sort of influential people who like dogs – rich landowners with vast country estates.
Although dogs are tame relative to wolves, they are rather keen on barking and biting in the presence of human strangers. It has been estimated that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans each year, with 885,000 requiring medical attention and some 30,000 having to undergo reconstructive surgery. Why should those who dislike dogs be forced to endure this outrageous situation? The police clamp down on the possession of dangerous knives in the public space, yet they allow irresponsible owners to go around with aggressive dogs that can do every bit as much damage as a knife attack. Every year, many toddlers are savaged to death by household “pets” that usually turn out to be “killer dog” breeds, specially cultivated for their aggression and the fear they instil in people. It’s one thing to voluntarily sign up to be in a city full of dogs, it’s quite another to have it tyrannically imposed on you.
The obsession that some people have with dogs is remarkable. Dale Carnegie, the author of the famous book How to Win Friends and Influence People, highlighted the role of dogs. He wrote, “Did you ever stop to think that a dog is the only animal that doesn’t have to work for a living? A hen has to lay eggs, a cow has to give milk, and a canary has to sing. But a dog makes his living by giving you nothing but love.”
Many people are indeed in love with dogs, these creatures that don’t do anything productive. A dog is a parasite. Its purpose in life is to get others to look after it and cater for all of its needs. It’s the ultimate sponger, freeloader and dead head. Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene portrayed human beings as gene survival machines whose purpose was to serve the interests of their genes and, above all, to replicate them as widely as possible. It was as if human beings were being actively exploited and manipulated by their genes. In similar fashion, if you are a dog owner, you are being exploited and manipulated by your dog. It has latched onto you as a suitable person – a mark, a sucker – to feed, house and protect it. In return, it licks your hand and whatever else pets do that you love so much. It does those things not because it loves you, but because it has to do them in order to make you think it loves you. Only then will it get from you what it wants. Cats are much more independent than dogs, hence a lot less lovable. Studies have shown that cat owners have higher IQs than dog owners and that people without pets have the highest IQs of all. We might as well say that a person’s needs for love and affection stands in direct opposition to their intelligence. Dog owners need a lot of love, and all the time lavished on love is time not lavished on ideas and thinking. Therefore, surprise, surprise, they are less intelligent.
The subject of dogs is instructive because it says a great a deal about human societies. As we have seen, dogs are descended from wolves, which are of course highly aggressive. Research has indicated that dogs originated in early human hunters selecting wolves for tameness against aggression. Aggressive wolves were frequently killed while tame wolves were nurtured. After breeding over many generations, dogs became radically different from wolves and amazingly well attuned to humans. That’s not surprising. They were naturally selected, with human taste acting as the criterion for selection i.e. humans killed dogs they didn’t like and kept the ones they did. The ones they liked were the ones that did likeable things (as judged by humans): the ones that were very affectionate, loyal and loving, looked cute and sensed human emotions.
Dogs are enormously more attuned to analysing human faces than they are those of other dogs. Isn’t that astounding? Why is that? Because it’s human beings that look after them, not other dogs. Dogs absolutely know on what side their bread is buttered – and it’s the human side, not the doggy side. Dogs get more out of being with humans than they do with other dogs because that’s how they’ve been bred and selected by humans. They are supremely unnatural creatures, like toys that have come to life. A dog’s whole purpose in life is to please its human master – not to form good relationships with other dogs.
Dogs, uniquely amongst animals, inspect human faces in the same way that humans do. That’s how emotionally sensitized to humans they are. Many people can accurately decipher dog barks. These barks form a rudimentary signalling system. Dogs are the only creatures that understand and respond to the human pointing gesture. They realise that their master is giving them an informational signal. All other animals, including chimpanzees, are oblivious to what pointing signifies.
Overall, a dog can know about 15 commands. There’s one example of an incredible dog that’s as smart as a two-year old human baby, but this is certainly the exception. Nevertheless, it shows that dogs could evolve a much higher intelligence than they typically possess at present. Perhaps if they were actively selected for intelligence rather than cuteness and petness we could have them studying philosophy in a thousand years, and barking especially loudly and rolling over when they read Leibniz and Nietzsche.
Russian breeding experiments with foxes over several generations have demonstrated that they too can be made to behave like dogs if they are selected for tameness against aggression. What’s more, radical changes in appearance occurred with the later generations of tamed foxes. Their ears got floppier, their tails shorter and curlier, their limbs shorter, their coats more exotically patterned and coloured i.e. they became much cuter and indeed very similar to dogs. So, selection for tameness results in enhanced cuteness and “petness”.
The domestication of dogs has been said to favour juvenile rather than adult traits. Tame dogs are those dogs that haven’t evolved adult frustration, aggression and desire for power. Aggression signifies dominance. Tameness signifies submissiveness and immaturity. Domestication corresponds to an infantilisation process and involves a deliberate selection of adults who behave like children. If wolves are the adults, dogs are the infants. They’re childlike, baby creatures and the sort of humans who like them are deeply attracted to childlike, baby creatures that love unconditionally and don’t argue back.
To recapitulate, dogs were wolves selected for tameness. They were juvenile, submissive wolves that didn’t compete for dominance and assert themselves. They were big babies. They were cute, affectionate and needy – exactly like human babies, and there’s considerable evidence that the same brain mechanisms that are triggered when people interact with babies are activated when dog lovers interact with their pets. The bonding hormone oxytocin is released. The owners want to look after their “babies”, nurture them, love them, care from them and protect them. They become more human to them than actual humans – and indeed dog owners actually hate most human beings, which is why they prefer the company of dogs. Pet owners can’t cope with the adult world, so they choose to live in an infantilised world of cute, juvenile pets. They want to know if dogs have souls, so that they can imagine reuniting with them in paradise. Well, of course dogs have souls, but these souls are extremely primitive. As humans, we ought to be interacting with higher souls if we want to “upgrade”, not with lower souls that will drag us down.
The reason we’re mentioning all of this is to make several crucial points about human beings. Look at the most beautiful women. How many are smart? Aren’t they too selected for cuteness, looks, infantilism (“blondeness”), adorability, vulnerability and “petness”? Marilyn Monroe – she ticks all the boxes. She was a child all her life, desperately looking for father figures.
In a sexist, male-dominated society, women have been selected over many generations for submissiveness, looks, juvenility etc. They certainly weren’t selected for intelligence and aggression. Is the type of women we have today a reflection of a dog-like breeding process? Have we actually bred overly emotional, underly rational women; women who are obsessed with appearance, compliance and emotional intelligence?
Just as dogs were bred to be attuned to the moods of their owners, is the same true of women? Were women selected according to how well they fitted in with the tastes of their dominant, aggressive male masters? They’re so emotionally smart because men bred them for exactly that purpose. Women are not renowned for aggression, dominance, assertiveness and intelligence because dominant men didn’t want any of those traits in their women. All SUPERWOMEN (the type of women who could give men a run for their money) were DESELECTED by a dominant male culture that didn’t value talented women and just wanted subservient, pretty adornments.
Two hundred years ago, it would be fair to say that women were juvenile adults. If you read something like Jane Austen’s famous book Pride and Prejudice, you don’t seem to be in an adult world at all, but one of complete nonsense and trivia – a juvenile world where all that matters is getting married to a rich, desirable, handsome man (and obviously not much has changed in the present day). Just as Dale Carnegie’s dogs needed to get their master to love them and cater for all their needs, exactly the same was true of women in Austen’s day. If you didn’t play the game, you literally weren’t selected hence didn’t have children hence didn’t pass on your genes. So, the genes of women who rejected the male game were actively removed from the gene pool. They were deselected out of existence. No one ever mentions this subject because it’s so controversial.
If we honestly analyse the lives of most women and their total obsession with appearance and emotional connectedness, aren’t we drawn inexorably to the conclusion that men bred them that way? Either women have always had a genetic predisposition to “looking good” above all other things, or they have been bred to demonstrate this trait. And who would be the beneficiaries of this breeding regime? – dominant men who like pretty women who are no threat to them. Can there really be any doubt that women have been bred in exactly the same way as dogs – for cuteness, tameness, submissiveness, and lovability? Just as the function of dogs is to please their master (if they don’t, they will be discarded and put down), women’s role historically was to please her “master” – her husband. Indeed the husband was always regarded as the master of the household and his home was his castle where he exercised absolute dominion over wife and children. What is “feminism”? It’s essentially an initiative to cause a different type of femaleness to be valued over the old, traditional, homemaker type. Feminism ought to be much more radical. After several decades of feminism, women seem to be as obsessed with the Sex and the City frivolities that have always defined them. Jane Austen would have fitted right in with the Sex and the City girls. Nobel prize-winning physicist Marie Curie certainly wouldn’t. Don’t we need a hell of a lot more Marie Curies?
Women’s liberation has changed the picture to some degree, but not nearly enough. Pick up any women’s magazine – written and edited by women for women – and you will come across endless trivial garbage, obsessed with tameness, cuteness, appearance, “getting your man”. There’s no science, no philosophy, no mathematics, no art, no aggression, no dominance, no religion – just celebrity culture, health, gossip, high heels, handbags and diets. If dogs could read, they’d be reading women’s magazines, concentrating on the articles about how to “win and keep your master”.
The world is in desperate need of a second liberation of women. The preoccupations of women’s magazines are a disgrace to the whole human race. The era of women’s magazine and mindless shows like Sex and the City must end. Women have been infantilised by male “natural selection”. Most of them are giggling babies, juveniles who never grew up, who never cultivated adult tastes. Women act like babies in order to get men to love and care for them. It’s ridiculous. This is the 21st century, wake up!
Men select women according to their “babylike”, infantile, cute looks and submissive nature. Consider Islamic culture – all women are submissive and all you can see of many of them is big, baby eyes peeking out from behind their veils. They’re expected not to speak in male company and generally to make themselves as invisible as possible, unless needed for male gratification. Can there be any greater insult to a woman than to veil and silence her? It represents ABSOLUTE MISOGYNY.
Under Islamic Sharia Law, the testimony of two women is deemed equivalent to that of one man. Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Mohammed and spiritual home of Islam, has only just given women the vote. Saudi women are forbidden from driving, are not allowed to travel without the permission of a male guardian, are not allowed to open a bank account or access healthcare without the permission of a man and must cover their entire bodies, except for their hands and eyes, in public or in the presence of strange men. The clothes should be dark, dull and unadorned.
Any progressive society interested in female liberation has to radically alter the obsession with women’s looks. Disturbingly, women are actually more obsessed than men. Men’s magazines show lots of pictures of hot women…and so do women’s magazines! Why are women always staring so avidly at beautiful women? It’s for the same reason that male monkeys spend an enormous amount of time staring at the pack leader: in order to ensure your survival and success in the group you have to be as attuned and informed about the alpha male as possible. You certainly don’t want to fall foul of him. Similarly, all women are fully aware that they are being subjected to intense scrutiny over their looks, so they stare at the alpha hot women and try to emulate them as far as they can. These days, plastic surgery and Botox can be pressed into service to make the similarity more precise.
Consider these definitions of women’s looks fromhttp://
1. “Waste of talent”: a fat girl with a hot face.
“If that bitch lost 20 pounds she would not be such a waste of talent.”
2. “Pretty face syndrome”: a condition where girls with naturally pretty faces, put no effort into their bodies and generally end up fat and out of shape. The opposite of “Butterface”.
“With such a pretty face that girl could be super-hot if it wasn’t for her pretty face syndrome.”
“Damn shame she’s got PFS; she could be so hot.”
“Picked up a good looking girl last night, but when I got her naked turned out she had a serious case of pretty face syndrome 
”
3. “Adele Syndrome”: a condition suffered by overweight or chunky women with otherwise naturally pretty faces.
Some men celebrate women with Adele syndrome, while some detest it; a waste of a nice face? The condition has been fittingly named after popular singer Adele, who has a very pretty face but a chunky body.
Guy 1: Woah, look at that girl’s face. She’s beautiful!
Guy 2: Dude, look at her body. She has Adele Syndrome.
Guy 1: Oh, damn. What a waste.
4. “Irish prawn”: a woman with a great face, but the body isn’t so great (opposite of a prawn who has a great body but face isn’t so great, seeing as though you eat the body of a prawn and throw away the head).
John: She looked good man, fat arse but.
Steve: Yeah bit of an Irish prawn.
John: Yeah, I’d still slam it.
5. “Body foul”: when a girl has a hot face combined with a nasty, banged up body. Usually signified by either little goofy tits with a bony chest or big sloppy flapjack jugs. Also, junk in the trunk (dumpy fat around the thighs) is a major body foul.
“I had to throw a yellow flag when the hot girl in the front row stood up because her huge dumpy ass was a major body foul.”
6. “Car face”: the phenomenon were a woman has a beautiful face when spotted in her automobile, but when she gets out a fat or otherwise unseemly body is attached. Also known as the exact opposite of butterface.
“I thought a hot chick was making eyes at me on my Vespa yesterday, but when she dragged 200 pounds of cottage cheese out of her car at the gas station I saw she just had car face so I hauled ass out of there!!!”
7. ‘berg: when a girl has beautiful slender face shot on her personal website (facebook, MySpace etc…) but a really fat body that does not suit her head.
“Dude… look at this girl, look at her face. Isn’t she hot?”
“I don’t know man, scroll down…”
“In unison: “OH MAN, SHE’S A ‘BERG!!!”
8. “Butterface”: a girl with an exceptionally hot body but an exceptionally ugly face. Everything but-her-face is attractive.
“Damn look at the cans on that girl but her butterface would scare small children and large dogs away.”
“She looked real good… but her face (butterface).”
And so on ad infinitum. Male judgements over female looks are exceptionally harsh and brutal. Of course, women are increasingly judging men just as ruthlessly. Women want their tall, dark, handsome man, their “Mr Darcy” (archetypal Romantic Hero), the alpha male, the rich male, the powerful male, with a washboard stomach and rippling muscles. Men’s magazines, which used to be exclusively devoted to pictures of women as scantily clad as possible, have now started to show alpha hot males with rippling, oiled muscles and six packs. Men are thus starting to feel the heat too over their looks. Nevertheless, they will never become as obsessed as women because status rather than looks continues to be critical to a man’s attractiveness.
While men have always been driven by women’s looks, women have traditionally been more interested in a men’s status – a reflection of male power and ability to look after women. Men select for looks and women for status. Women want someone to protect them and their children, to be an excellent provider, to give them a luxury lifestyle and high prestige. Consider the phenomenon of the WAGs (“wives and girlfriends”). These are gorgeous women (invariably airheads) who “stalk” extremely rich and successful sportsmen. The exchange could not be more basic. The woman has her gorgeous looks to trade, and the man has his immense status and paypacket. Deal done.
The extraordinary thing about female beauty is that so much of it is totally fake. A woman without her make-up, her hair-do, her high heels, her padded bra, her ass-shaping underwear and so on, has radically different looks from the artificial creation that stepped out so gloriously on a Saturday night with her “killer looks”. Beautiful women are extremely high maintenance and invariably supremely vacuous. If you’re an expert at staring at yourself in the mirror for hours on end, you’re unlikely to be able to add much to the debate on M-theory! Top sportsmen are well matched to the WAGS in terms of their airhead proclivities. Has there ever been a smart sportsman? Is such a thing actually possible?
Another extremely controversial area where radical selection criteria were applied was in the slave trade. African slaves were not selected for brains, defiance, rebelliousness, dominance, cunning and so forth. The ideal slave was a big, strong, docile, submissive man who got on with his work, accepted his lot and never caused any trouble. Can we really be surprised that African Americans are so much better at sport on average than white Americans – given that they were actively selected for physical prowess – or that the African Americans are not generally associated with intellectual excellence? The smart Africans were actively deselected by the slave masters (i.e. killed off as troublemakers).
Of course, these artificially applied selection criteria gradually vanish from the gene pool when they are no longer enforced. And, indeed, reverse trends can be applied. If humanity selected dogs for aggression rather than tameness, they would start heading back towards being wolves. Imagine a new slavery being applied to African Americans, except this time they were selected for intelligence and deselected for physicality. Eventually you would have Superhuman black intellectuals, all of them useless at sport. This experiment has already been carried out elsewhere – with Jews! In the Jewish community, intelligence was identified as the best way to resist persecution. A smart Jew could make himself of use to the persecutors and thus save himself. A big, strong, defiant Jew, on the other hand, would get himself killed instantly. So, Jews “bred” clever people and constantly promoted the virtues of education. How many Jews are associated with sporting prowess? Virtually none. African Americans on the other hand have endorsed sporting prowess as a way out of the shit, but they have also adopted a stance of extreme anti-education and anti-intellectualism. Many blacks actually revile books as “white” i.e. racist documents by racist whites. They sneer at smart African Americans and brand them as dorks, geeks, nerds and uncool. It’s “cool” to be rebellious at school, to not play the “white man’s game.” In the whole history of this world, there has never been a more counterproductive ideology. The blacks ought to have emulated the Jews and made an excellent education the greatest possible virtue in their community, the thing desired above all else. Education will set you free – not a basketball in your hand.
People think of natural selection as being, well, “natural”. It’s nothing of the kind. As soon as human beings are involved, they bring conscious choices to the party. Natural selection is transformed into value selection i.e. things are selected according to their perceived value within an artificially constructed human table of values.
Dogs are described as “man’s best friend”, but not by people who hate dogs. Why are dogs allowed in human cities at all? Only because large numbers of people value dogs and their value system is allowed to prevail over those who loathe dogs. If the value system of the dog-haters dominated, there would be no dogs in any cities. The presence of dogs in cities isn’t “natural” and could easily be stopped. They are there because they have been “unnaturally” selected according to the preferences of a certain section of the human population.
No one ever dares to venture into the minefield of human breeding because they immediately think of racist eugenics and Nazism, yet breeding has been taking place since the dawn of time. Dogs – juvenile, tame, submissive wolves – were selected by tribesmen to help them with hunting. Later, when farmers needed help to keep flocks of sheep under control, dogs proved invaluable. They were also useful as guard dogs and for sounding the alarm. Dogs in those days had many practical uses. They became very different from the wolves they once were. A new type of creature was born – the domesticated, tame wolf: the dog. It had been summoned into existence not by nature but by human choices.
To reiterate our earlier point, can’t we assume that women have historically been human “dogs” (indeed, they are often called “bitches”) i.e. the early hunters selected them in exactly the same way? Those hunters wanted tame, domesticated, submissive, emotionally attuned companions, good at cooking, looking after the household and bringing up the children. Isn’t that exactly what the history of women has been all about? Look at Islamic women in the present day. Isn’t that STILL what their lives are all about? Strong, dominant, smart women would have been deselected from the female population, just as aggressive wolves were deselected in comparison with tame wolves (dogs). There may well have been Stone Age Superwomen who were sexually ignored by men hence died out. Or maybe they were turned into celibate priestesses and died out that way (or put to death as “witches”, like the non-conformist women of the Middle Ages). How can we be sure that women, as they are today, evolved “naturally” rather than as the products of a more or less conscious breeding programme by dominant men? The qualities most women have today are those that men wanted them to have, not those conferred by “nature”. In the peafowl world, the females dominated sexual selection hence the males (peacocks) had to go in for an extraordinary preoccupation with appearance. If a peacock didn’t have a stunning enough tail “display”, it would never get a partner, hence be unable to pass on its genes.
Not just women and slaves may have been consciously bred to have certain qualities. Dominant males killed all dominant rivals but spared submissive, weak, servile males. A pack – or a social group we might say – can only have one alpha male. If a rival alpha emerges, it must fight the first alpha. Either the challenger kills the incumbent and takes over as alpha male, or the incumbent kills him. Either way, the pack retains a single alpha male. The submissives don’t intervene. They will obey whoever comes out on top. That’s what they were bred for – to obey.
“It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion.” –Dean Inge
It has been estimated that 5% of the world’s population are dominant, hence 95% are essentially submissive. That sounds right. If people were all dominant, we could never have the type of world that exists now where a tiny number of people control everyone else. This happens because submissives refuse to fight dominants. Only other dominants fight and they usually end up dead or in jail.
We thus arrive at a horrific truth. The social order is entirely shaped by Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. The masters – always dominant and aggressive alpha males – have decided everything. They are human “wolves”. (It’s no coincidence that all alpha males have been attracted to the symbol of the wolf and Hitler, a supreme alpha male, called his headquarters in Eastern Prussia, where he directed the Russian campaign, the “Wolf’s Lair.”). In ancient times, the human wolves were forever fighting each other to the death in order to be dominant so the number of wolves in any human population could never grow too high. It turns out that a stable solution is reached when the wolves constitute 5% of the population. There are enough to dominate the 95% of submissives, but not enough to be continually at each other’s throats.
Just as human hunters chose to be accompanied by domesticated, tame, submissive wolves (dogs), so human wolves chose to be accompanied by domesticated, tame, submissive human dogs i.e. ordinary people who follow the path of least resistance and want a life of trivial pleasures. Nietzsche called these tame and timed people “last men” and Dante labelled them the “Ignavi”: anonymous and non-committal, refusing to fight until they see which way the wind is blowing.
This is our world, the world of wolves and dogs. WAGs are the ultimate dogs. Their entire purpose is to snare a rich sportsman and then parasitically live a life of luxury using his money. If every pet dog died tomorrow, it would have zero effect on the world since they do not exist within the natural order. They’re not part of the food chain – they get their food out of a can provided by a human master. Humans removed dogs from nature. They are artificial creatures, bred by dog-lovers to be companions for dog-lovers (who invariably dislike humanity, hence why they choose and prefer to spend so much time with non-humans). Most human beings are “dogs”. Women and slaves have been treated like dogs throughout history. The aristocracy has treated the working class like dogs. Consider working in a modern office. Who but a human dog could bear to exist in that servile, domesticated, tame environment where you have to obey ridiculously inept managers and infinitely greedy bosses?
Scott Adams, author of the comic strip Dilbert, said that his “greatest creative output was during my corporate years, when every meeting felt like a play date with coma patients.” Isn’t that the truth of it? Offices sedate people. Workers are killed by stultifying corporate stasis. Offices and corporations eliminate creativity, and uncreative people are economically unproductive people. If we want to transform people and unleash their creativity, we have to destroy the bureaucratic and corporate world.
Capitalism is often called a dog-eat-dog ideology but it’s actually a wolf-eats-dog system. The capitalist bosses are wolves, devouring the workers. The workers go along with being eaten alive because they’re so tame and frightened. They’re incapable of fighting back. They were selected for their jobs precisely because they had no fight in them. A troublemaker in an office is swiftly fired. In other words, the only people who can function in offices are those sufficiently tame that they will never cause any trouble.
What is a job interview? It’s a ritual where you prove to the master – the wolf – that you’re tame and harmless. You metaphorically bare your neck to them, the sign, according to ethologist Konrad Lorenz, of submission and appeasement that dogs make to show that they are entirely at the mercy of a stronger dog or wolf. If you snarl at the interviewers, bare your teeth and tell them to fuck off, you definitely won’t get the job, no matter how talented you are. You have deselected yourself by being insufficiently deferential. Your task in this world is to be tame (or “civilised” to use the more common description). You are required to be compliant, subservient and mediocre. In a two-tier society in which the best jobs are reserved for the privileged elite, your task is to know your place, not to aim too high, to accept that the best things are never coming your way: you will never eat at the top table and you must live with it.
Nietzsche, the genius who could sniff any scent of submissiveness and tameness at a thousand paces, said, “The problem I raise here is not what ought to replace mankind in the sequence of species (-man is an end-): but what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life, the most secure guarantee of the future. “This more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but always as a lucky accident, as an exception, never as willed. He has rather been the most feared; he has hitherto been virtually the thing to be feared-and out of fear the reverse type has been willed, bred and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick animal man-the Christian…”
Christianity (“Turn the other cheek”; “Love your enemy”), Islam (which means “submission”) and Judaism (with its 600+ rules to be obeyed) are the ultimate domestic, tame, herd-like, sick religions. The followers of these religions are not people but SHEEPLE. What was the point of the tale of Abraham? – a wolf (Jehovah) told a dog (Abraham) to kill his son. If Abraham were any kind of wolf, he would have told Jehovah to fuck off in no uncertain terms. But the whole point of the exercise was for Abraham to be shown his place: that of the person who would obey no matter what. If he resisted, Jehovah would destroy him. To survive, Abraham had to do whatever the wolf commanded. That’s all that Abrahamism is – a religion for dogs who want to slavishly obey the ultimate wolf. It wouldn’t occur to these non-people to challenge their wolf. The thought is unthinkable to them. It’s not part of their nature. They have been bred to be slaves.
At the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis said “they were only obeying orders” and they were genuinely baffled that anyone could think they had done anything wrong. These Nazis were dogs obeying their wolf (Hitler). The idea of disobeying their wolf simply did not compute, just as no Abrahamist ever thinks that they should tell their “God” to go fuck himself. They are petrified of the consequences. Dogs OBEY. That’s what a dog is – an obeying creature. How could they possibly be condemned for doing exactly what their nature dictates? Would you criticise a shark or lion for killing animals? That’s what sharks and lions DO. That’s their nature. So why were the Nazi “dogs” told that they had done anything wrong? They hadn’t at all. They did what all dogs do – obeyed their master. If you wouldn’t punish a shark, why would you punish a dog?
Nietzsche’s quotation raises one of the ultimate questions – what type of human being should we breed? We will never escape from the master-slave dialectic until we stop breeding human dogs. Nietzsche demanded the revaluation of all values and one of the central questions that needs to be addressed is the value of servile, tame, doglike human beings. Their function is to obey the wolf masters, but if we create a meritocracy and there are no more wolf masters then the dogs become redundant. They need to become HUMAN BEINGS. Dog religions such as Islam – where Allah is the master and all Muslims are his mindlessly obedient dogs – must be outlawed.
We must escape once and for all from dog culture, from tame, domesticated, servile human beings who have no dignity and who allow themselves to be prey for wolves. To overthrow capitalism, we must overthrow the capitalist wolves, drive them away and never let them come back. NO MORE HUMAN DOGS. No dog economic systems, no dog religions, no dog philosophies, no dog political systems (of which democracy is the most obvious example).
It’s time to breed a new type of humanity and, once again, it was Nietzsche who provided the perfect definition: “We want to become those who we are – the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves!” Humans should be strong, autonomous, self-sufficient, independent, rational, creative, assertive, ambitious, adventurous, bold, disciplined, cognizant of the value of community, noble, honourable, trustworthy, unintimidated, free, magnificent and full of endeavour. They should never be docile, flocklike, herdlike, packlike, submissive, tame, timid, domesticated, sedated, frightened, irrational, superstitious and prone to “faith”. We have to deselect these traits from the human condition if we are to create a Community of Gods; a Society of the Divine.
__________
2/7
Tags: Academia Iluministă
Academia Iluministă (97)
Jiren Gray a adăugat 7 fotografii în albumul Wolf or Dog?
The Anti-Elite Series – Book 4/7:
Blurb:
There are two types of human being – “wolves” (aggressive, assertive dominants who are determined to get what they want), and “dogs” (timid, domesticated, submissives, continually at the mercy of the wolves). Capitalism is a wolf ideology. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are dog religions – intent on forcing you onto your knees and making you obey endless commandments. Capitalism and Christianity work perfectly together. The capitalist wolves can prey on the Christian dogs who simply “turn the other cheek.”
Democracy is another perfect vehicle for wolves. The people – the dogs – are given the illusion that they are in control, yet all democracies are just oligarchies and plutocracies. The ruling elite are never evicted by democracy. The wolves decide the political agenda and the candidates. The people merely choose which wolf will feed on them.
All aspects of existence can be analysed according to the wolf-dog theory. Why has feminism largely failed – is it because women were “bred” to be domesticated and submissive by dominant “wolves”? Are Jewish and African American histories a function of their being prey to “white wolves”? Is gang culture the rawest expression of the wolf culture? Is the movie “Scarface” a case study of an archetypal wolf? Is Nietzsche’s characterisation of Cesare Borgia a perfect summation of wolf doctrines? Nietzsche was the philosopher of the ultimate wolverine concept of Will to Power.
How did the Spartans go about killing the wolves amongst the slave population they controlled (to ensure the rest stayed as timid dogs)? Do the chemicals testosterone, oestrogen and oxytocin determine whether you are a wolf or dog?
Is meritocracy the only political system that can free the dogs from the rule of the wolves?
So, what are you – wolf or dog?
This is a book by the Pythagorean Illuminati, and its aim is to re-train the dogs to understand the wolves and stand up to them. If you want the best things in life, you cannot allow yourself to be preyed upon by the Power Elite.
******
A Book Review:
“An excellent book from a series of excellent books by the Pythagorean Illuminati. The Illuminati take many interesting and challenging subjects such as philosophy, mathematics, psychology, religion, politics, economics and science and integrate them into nothing less then a grand unified theory of everything. All of these books are very well written and the authors make the challenging information as easy as possible for everyone to understand. If you have any interest at all in life’s greatest mysteries you need to read all of the books by the Pythagorean Illuminati. You should also check out the Illuminati’s websitewww.armageddonconspiracy.c
Just like all of the books by the true Illuminati this book tackles many controversial issues head on. The Illuminati aren’t afraid to face any issue whether it is “politically incorrect” or not and I believe that is something everyone needs to get the courage to do. Nothing is going to get done unless tolerant people aren’t afraid to upset and fight intolerant people. One of my favorite lines by the Illuminati is: “Tolerant people can tolerate all things bar one-intolerance.” Another one of my favorites is: “Any society that permits intolerant views to prosper is thereby intolerant, and should be overthrown by all good, tolerant people.” This is the attitude we need to develop as soon as possible. We need to stop being so weak and begin to act like Heroines and Heroes.
In this book the Illuminati use wolves and dogs to make several crucial points about humanity and human society. The Illuminati show how humans selectively bred wolves for certain submissive traits and came up with dogs. The book raises the question, Has the same selective breeding been done with humans and if so could it be reversed? The book takes a look at how women in society are taught to behave. It shows that feminism needs to continue to drive forward and smash this cultures stereotypes of women if any positive change is going to be possible in society. I for one think women need to be in charge of the major aspects of society, men have had their chance and look at where they have gotten us.
This book shows how a few dominant people (wolves) control the vast majority of submissive people (dogs) and the only thing that is going to stop the wolves are awakened, strong, healthy, heroic human beings. Submissive dogs will continue to do nothing. We need to wake up and realize what we truly are before it’s too late.” –BG
__________
1/7
Tags: Academia Iluministă
Academia Iluministă (96)
There is no task more difficult than attempting to reform a berserk, irrational religion such as Islam. Anyone who has the guts to try immediately takes their own life in their hands. Consider the case in the UK of Imam Dr Usuma Hasan, a physics lecturer at Middlesex University and a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. When he made the claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution is compatible with Islam, he immediately received death threats from Islamic fundamentalists who declared that Darwin’s theory contradicted the Koran’s unambiguous statement that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were directly created by Allah. Hasan’s claims were deemed blasphemous and deserving of the death penalty. How can you have a debate about anything when one group immediately sentences the opposing group to death?
Hasan was compelled to retract his claims, and he posted a wretched note on the door of his mosque saying, “I seek Allah’s forgiveness for my mistakes and apologise for my mistakes.” So, there you have it – a practising British scientist has been compelled by threats to declare the superiority of a bizarre book of desert revelations (made to an illiterate and brutal tribesman) over Darwin’s methodical 19th century research which has been accepted, in one form or another, by every credible scientist on earth. If such things can happen in Britain, one of the most advanced nations on earth and not under Islamic rule, imagine what would happen if the Muslims were actually in charge!
At the lecture he gave supporting his claim of compatibility between Islam and Darwinism, Hasan said that he was interrupted by “fanatics” who handed out leaflets declaring that Darwin was a blasphemer. One of the men said to Hasan, “You are an apostate and should be killed.” Hasan’s views were described at his mosque as a “source of antagonism in the Muslim community.” He was dismissed from his role as imam. He had stated, “Darwinism is not a matter of iman [belief] or kufr [disbelief], and people are free to accept or reject a particular scientific theory.” In Saudi Arabia, clerics still commonly teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as it says in the Koran. So, don’t expect any Islamic Enlightenment. The fundamentalists have got their strategy perfectly worked out – just kill anyone who disagrees with you, and say you’re doing it in the name of Allah. Anyone who challenges you is a blasphemer and apostate and must be killed. That’s lesson 101 in how to ensure you remain retarded for eternity.
Islam is the religion for retards, the religion forever stuck in the Arabian desert of 1,400 years ago. Islam is not part of the dialectic of freedom and progress. It’s a permanent antithesis. The rational people of the world have no option but to pull up the drawbridge against Islam. Muslims cannot be allowed to infect non-Muslims with their irrationality and fanaticism. It’s not Muslims themselves who are the problem, but Islam as an ideology. It lends itself to mania. It encourages and demands fanaticism and intolerance.
All three Abrahamist religions should be regarded as an illness, as an infectious disease; a contagion. If you remain in contact with them, they will keep re-infecting you and you will never be cured. But if just one generation were freed from Abrahamism, this hateful religion would perish. All Muslims, Jews and Christians could be cured if they were released from the relentless brainwashing machine that grips them from the moment they are born. The forces of irrationality are growing with astonishing rapidity. The time is short for the rational amongst us to change the world. Within forty years, it may be all over. The dialectic of freedom will grind to a halt, and even be reversed, and we will end up living in a world groaning under the tyranny of Sharia Law. Imagine the whole world ruled by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, (ISIL, IS).
Islam is the greatest threat the world has ever known. It is even more toxic than the Old World Order. Don’t kid yourself that liberal Muslims will triumph. Pakistan was designed as a modern liberal democracy – look at it now. It’s a failed state full of Islamic extremists. All liberal societies, unless they take explicit and severe countermeasures, invariably succumb to the more committed, forceful and determined fanatics in their midst. In the West, the fanatical capitalists of super greed swept the liberals aside. In Islamic nations, lacking capitalism, the mad mullahs were the ones who grabbed power. Now the Muslims are out-breeding the Westerners and, if the present trends persist, first Europe and then America will fall to Islam.
Before long, Darwinists in the West will be executed for blasphemy. There will be death camps for non-Muslims, or they will be made to serve as slaves for Islam – as was done for many centuries in Islamic countries. There will be no drugs, alcohol, rock ‘n’ roll, and casual sex or bacon sandwiches. There will be no freedom. All women will have to wear burqas. Science and philosophy will be made illegal because they contradict the Koran. All food will be halal. “Moral” police will roam the streets, strictly enforcing Sharia rules and regulations. Thieves will have limbs amputated, and fornicators and adulterers will be flogged, and even stoned to death. There will be endless executions for the mildest transgressions.
You think this is scare mongering? Then you have never heard what is being preached in countless mosques all over the world. You just need to look at Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran etc to see that this behaviour is already being carried out day in and day out in Islamic nations. Many liberal Muslims will ridicule such thinking, but they will not be the ones in charge when the Darkest Hour comes. The fanatics – the dominant few willing to kill others and even themselves – are the ones who will be running the show. Only the biggest fools on earth cannot see what is coming. Nietzsche foresaw that the 20th and 21st centuries would be the most cataclysmic in history. There can be no doubt what the defining issue of this century will be – ISLAM.
Europe has several times in its history almost succumbed to the military power of Islam. Desperate, last-ditch battles were fought several times to hold back the Islamic tide. Had any of these battles been lost, Europe might well have fallen to Islam. The key battles were Poitiers in 732, Vienna in 1529 and 1683, and the naval battle of Lepanto in 1571. Now the same outcome may happen via immigration and higher birth rate rather than force of arms.
The West was delivered from Christian tyranny thanks to the Renaissance, the Reformation (which split Christianity into warring factions) and, especially, the Enlightenment. What if these had never happened? We could be living under a Roman Catholic dictatorship with the Pope at its head. Scientists would be forbidden from contradicting the Bible and handed over, like Galileo, to the Inquisition if they dared to challenge Scripture. It was such a tyranny under which the Gnostic Cathars. They were subjected to the first Inquisition and then a holy crusade to exterminate them.
That’s the type of world that’s coming our way if Islam is triumphant. There has been no Islamic Renaissance, Reformation or Enlightenment and there will never be one because the Islamic fundamentalists have demonstrated that they will kill anyone who dares to disagree with them. It’s the 21st Century and Islam still refuses to modernize itself. In fact, it is more extreme and intolerant now than it was fifty or a hundred years ago. It is going BACKWARDS. Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran and Afghanistan are a vision of the future of the world. Only if the non-Islamic world acts now can the world be saved from Islamic hegemony. It’s the most important issue of all.
Only reason can save us. Otherwise we will be plunged into the ultimate Endarkenment.
__________
Wes Penre:
There are only a small number of genuine truth seekers in this world of ours. One of them is Wes Penre. For years, Wes attacked the global elite, calling them by the conventional internet name of the “Illuminati”. However, when he found out about the authentic Illuminati, he immediately made sure his readers were given corrected information i.e. he was one of those rare people who can break out of an existing paradigm and embrace new ideas. That’s the mark of someone genuinely interested in the truth. Economist John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Surprisingly few people are capable of changing their opinions. They are locked in and they will never be coming out of their mental jail. 99% of people born as Muslims, for example, will die as Muslims and not once will it cross their minds that they are 100% wrong.
As for Wes Penre, he is one of the few who are capable of retaining an open mind. He has laboured for years with little or no reward, often being abused and ridiculed for his efforts. It takes a special kind of person to spend year after year on a difficult and challenging enterprise. People typically give up on things after days, weeks, or a few months at most. Only people with real commitment and determination will make a difference in this world. It’s the rarest breed that perseveres without any conventional reward. The reward comes in other ways, of course.
Could you devote yourself to a major undertaking for a decade? Wes’ current projects are at:
http://
http://wespenre.com/
Check them out and support Wes’ work.
__________
Tsunami and Kamikaze:
Humanity always stands in awe of nature when events such as the Japanese tsunami occur. Human beings suddenly seem so fragile, helpless and pathetic when nature flexes its muscles. The control which we imagine we exert over our world is revealed as nothing but shadow and illusion. But, of course, these events are not always regarded as natural phenomena. For many Abrahamists, they are the Will of God, hence there will be many malignant Christians, Jews and Muslims wondering what evils the Japanese have done to justify God’s wrathful retaliation. The Japanese aren’t Abrahamists, of course – so there’s a pretext straight away. They are being punished for being infidels, because they refuse to kneel and bow to the tyrant Yahweh/Allah/Christ and acknowledge Abraham, Moses and Mohammed.
The “karmists” will believe that the Japanese who died were paying their karmic dues for past crimes. As for ancient Gnosticism, it would regard this as another malevolent action of the wicked king of the earth – the Demiurge – in his eternal campaign to torture humanity in this hell. But nature is just nature and does what nature does. Moreover, a cataclysmic event that kills vast numbers can sometimes be seen as a sign of divine favour rather than Godly malevolence. The Japanese word kamikaze means “divine wind” and refers to the providential typhoons that destroyed Kublai Khan’s two Mongol invasion fleets that would surely have conquered Japan. In WWII, the Japanese kamikaze pilots thought of themselves as a divine wind that would similarly destroy the American invasion fleet.
When the Spanish Armada was ravaged by terrible storms in 1588 as it attempted the invasion of England, the event was proclaimed by Elizabeth I as God’s divine intervention on the side of the Protestant cause against Catholicism. Catastrophes can often be double-sided. Disaster is often accompanied by triumph. The horrors the Japanese have suffered will be transformed in due course into new ways to fight future disasters. One day, humanity will indeed enjoy the control over nature that has hitherto been the province of the gods.
__________
Time:
“MOR-ELS” sent us the following message about time.
******
THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN EVERYTHING THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO US WILL BECOME INSIGNIFICANT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF CREATION.
THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN ALL THAT WAS LOVED WILL BE LOST AND ALL THAT WAS LOST WILL BE FOUND.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOUR EGO WILL NEED TO BE SHATTERED IN ORDER FOR YOU TO TRULY EVOLVE. REMEMBER PRIDE COMES BEFORE THE FALL.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU WILL REALIZE THAT MONEY IS REALLY JUST PAPER AND TRULY HAS NO VALUE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN ALL WILL SEEM HOPELESS, AND AT THAT POINT YOU WILL FIND RENEWED CONFIDENCE IN THE WILL OF MEN.
THERE WILL BE A TIME REGARDLESS OF YOUR “DIFFERENCES” YOU WILL REALIZE THAT A HUMAN BEING IS A HUMAN BEING.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUY YOU HAPPINESS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU FINALLY SEE THAT INFINITE POTENTIAL IS THE BASIS FOR ALL THERE IS, AND THAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST AN ILLUSION.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU THINK YOU CAN’T GIVE ANY MORE, AND SUDDENLY WILL FIND THAT LITTLE BIT MORE TO GIVE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME THAT YOU FINALLY COME TO TERMS WITH YOUR LIKES AND DISLIKES AND REALIZE THAT THEY ARE FOR THE MOST PART PETTY.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU GET A GRIP AND SEE THAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU MAY THINK SO THE WORLD ACTUALLY DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU, AND YOUR EMOTIONS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME THAT YOU FIND OUT CONSUMERISM IS ACTUALLY SLAVERY, AND THAT YOUR FREEDOM ONLY COMES THROUGH EXPRESSION OF UNIQUENESS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU WILL SEE THAT ALL THE “THINGS” YOU HAVE WORKED SO HARD FOR MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT THE PEOPLE YOU LOVE TO SHARE THEM WITH.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU REALIZE THE PEOPLE YOU LOVE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE “THINGS” YOU WORKED SO HARD FOR.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU TRULY ARE AT LIBERTY TO BE YOUR SELF WITHOUT FEAR OF RIDICULE OR CONDEMNATION.
THERE WILL BE A TIME THAT YOU REALIZE WISDOM IS APPLIED KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT KNOWLEDGE IS USELESS IF IT IS NOT APPLIED.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU COME TO TERMS WITH THE FACT THAT YOU MUST BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU BREAK THROUGH YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF “KARMA”, AND YOU WILL LEARN FULL WELL THAT YOU TRULY GET WHAT YOU GIVE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU FIND OUT THAT “TIME” IS MERELY AN ILLUSION USED TO PLACE LIMITS ON THE HUMAN PSYCHE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME THAT YOU SEE THAT EVERYTHING IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME YOU ACCEPT THAT YOUR FIVE SENSES DECEIVE YOU, AND THAT YOU REALLY DON’T SEE WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU FIGURATIVELY, AND LITERALLY.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU WILL BREAK THROUGH THE BONDAGE OF MANIPULATION, AND FIND OUT THAT “GOD” EXISTS WITHIN YOU NOT OUTSIDE OF YOU.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN ALL WILL BECOME CLEAR, AND THE VEIL OF CONFUSION WHICH HAS BLINDED YOU FOR SO LONG WILL BE LIFTED.
THERE WILL BE A POINT AT WHICH YOU BREAK AND YOU WILL FEEL OVERWHELMED, AND THEN YOU WILL GROUND YOURSELF AND YOUR EMOTIONS SO YOU CAN START ANEW.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN ALL MANKIND WILL SEE WE ARE ALL OF THE SAME ESSENCE, OR ONE AND THE SAME. AND ALL OUR FRIVOLOUS DISAGREEMENTS WILL FALL BY THE WAY SIDE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOUR PERSONAL SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION WILL BE FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU THAN LOVE, MONEY, OR EVEN LIFE ITSELF. BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT EVOLVE FROM THE INSIDE OUT YOU DO NOT EVOLVE AT ALL.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN IRRELEVANT CONTRADICTION SUDDENLY BECOMES RELEVANT.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN THE DAYS BECOME NIGHTS AND THE NIGHTS BECOME DAYS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU LOSE ALL SENSE OF TIME AND SPACE. AT THAT POINT YOU HAVE FREED YOUR MIND AND SOUL FROM THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF YOUR BODY.
THERE WILL BE A TIME FOR ALL THESE THINGS I ASSURE YOU THAT. BUT YOU MUST BE PROACTIVE IN YOUR OWN EVOLUTION.
REMEMBER KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, BUT IT ONLY BECOMES WISDOM WHEN IT IS APPLIED. SO LIVE, LOVE, APPLY LOGIC AND REASON, AND LEARN TO PRACTICE WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED SO THE TRUE ESSENCE OF YOUR BEING CAN ASCEND.
__________
The Symbol:
“GW” sent us the following message:
Having just finished reading about the Celestial Human my jaw dropped and tears came to my eyes upon seeing the Monad symbol by Pythagoras. Since childhood, I have had frequent dreams/nightmares of this exact symbol; me seeing the black dot in the middle surrounded by pure white. Feeling terribly lonely in these dreams to the extent I felt I was annihilated by the whiteness around me, suffocating me. Just when I feel I am going to die, the scene changes and I become a white dot in the middle of darkness/black. The symbol actually turns inside out. It becomes its reversed image and the loneliness strikes me even harder than before. The darkness becomes people by whom I am completely surrounded but from whom I am utterly separated, and that knowledge is suffocating me. I am fully aware in my dream, entirely helpless and trying to escape it. It has been my most feared nightmare and I’ve been wondering why on earth it has been haunting me for so long. I have explained to myself that I know at least on some levels what the dream is about.
But now reading about the celestial human it strikes me that is has had so many implications that I have been too scared to look at as it contradicts many of the morals and values with which I was brought up; those being very strange since I was raised by an alcoholic, semi-Christian mother. I have always KNOWN in my core that there is an energy connecting all living beings: watching a flower grow from a seed to a blooming blossom; the spark so evident in all children; simply observing humans, animals and nature has told me this. Seeing a loved one dead was probably what totally convinced me about this as I could SEE the life spark wasn’t there any more. My friend had become a corpse, nothing more, and it was the weirdest experience ever.
The thing is I have always fled from this core knowledge as it seemed to alienate me from other normal human beings telling me or suggesting I had lost my marbles. I was afraid I was insane. I remember clearly trying to explain to my mother about both these dreams, my experiences of popping out of my body unintentionally, or the experience that the world, on several occasions, seemed to become jolted backwards, going out of tune and rhythm. (The only way I can describe it best is as if someone took the whole fabric of the universe and “scratched” it as a DJ does to a record.)
When I tried to talk to my mother about these things, it scared the crap out of me because she would look at me completely baffled (no wonder, I suppose), not knowing what to say to me and also looking quite worried about my mental health, which in turn made me feel even more afraid. These dreams and experiences followed me continually till I was 18 and I became pregnant carrying my daughter. I knew 3 days after intercourse that I was pregnant. I had not gone over time. There was no way I could have known I was pregnant – a pregnancy test wouldn’t have been able to pick it up – but I felt this seed inside me beaming like a light. It was like a tingling and the sweetest sensation ever. I could feel the light inside me and see it in my mind. And yes I was indeed pregnant. I gave birth to a beautiful daughter and she has kept me sane and grounded since. Whenever I felt my soul trying to jump out I would hold on to her little feet and it would keep me in place, so to speak. It might seem like a huge responsibility to place on such a small child but it was the only way to keep these things from happening which scared me so profoundly as I didn’t know what they where or how to control them.
Later I came across a book written by a Native American about how to think in words and not images, so as not to pop out. Carlos Castaneda’s books about the teachings he received from Don Juan also helped me gain a better understanding of what was going on and so I didn’t have to cling on to my daughter’s feet 
. It is both a relief and a mind-boggling shock (in the good sense) that this symbol has eluded me until today – a symbol which has been with me my whole life via my dreams, a symbol which was devised by Pythagoras 2,500 years ago! A symbol which describes the essence of the universe and the Image of God… I mean wtf?! Had I not been so utterly afraid of being abnormal, I might have figured it out sooner and it could have helped me conquer my fears of being abnormal, alone, weird etc etc. how ironic is that? I am inclined to say EUREKA! I used to utter those words as a small child, having picked it up from some comic book, whenever I figured something out, not fully understanding its meaning other than I GOT IT!
I still have that dream, but very rarely now. Hopefully next time it occurs I’ll approach it differently and not be so afraid. There are so many thoughts arising in regards to the explanations given in the article The Celestial Human. The Universe is like an organism ever building ever declining, as is life itself down to the smallest details. I know what this symbol means even if I can’t verbalise it. How beautiful.
I wanted to thank you for posting this absolutely amazing material on your site. It has day by day really helped me in accepting myself and to trust my inner light, my brain and my eyes to guide me on my journey in life. I also wanted to share this with someone who might understand and appreciate my experiences for what they are and not for what they are not and hopefully create some resonance. I have never really told anybody about these experiences as they including myself have been rejected whenever I’ve tried to do so. So from a personal point of view this is such a relief.
PS: I have attached the reverse symbol in case my explanation wasn’t clear enough.
Our Comment:
“GW” is clearly highly intuitive and has the ability to access a set of perceptions very different from those of ordinary people. Shouldn’t we be cultivating people with exceptional abilities and unusual ways of perceiving the world rather than making them feel alienated and strange? There are many people in this world with extraordinary gifts that we actively ignore because their gifts don’t fit with the prevailing paradigm.
In the sort of new world we are advocating, all those people like GW who have brains wired in exceptional ways will be nurtured and treasured. Through them, the rest of us will be able to gain the profoundest insights currently denied to us. It’s the prevailing one-size-fits-all, identikit view of humanity that prevents the human race from appreciating those who fall outwith the ordinary parameters and who can therefore perceive the world differently from others. They are a vital resource; not people who should be shunned for being “abnormal”.
Many “witches” who were burned at the stake in the Middle Ages were nothing other than women with unusual abilities, which were taken to be Satanic powers. How foolish their persecutors and killers were. Society often labels unusual people as mad when it should be using these people to unlock doors of perception that would otherwise be permanently locked to the rest of us.
__________
The Ecstasy and the Agony:
“LW” sent us this message.
I belonged to a New Age religion; a fairly large movement stemming from Theosophy in the late 1800s and the I AM Movement in the 1900s. It started in the 60s, originally named Summit Lighthouse. It was started by Mark Prophet who was later joined by his wife, Elizabeth Clare Prophet (she became infamous in the US because of the nuclear war/bomb shelter stuff, and the fact that her husband and a staff member were involved in an illegal gun-purchasing incident). The movement was based on what has been referred to as Teachings of the Ascended Masters. Mark and Elizabeth were referred to as “Messengers” and supposedly received teachings directly from these Ascended Masters. I think the strength of the movement ultimately became its downfall and that was the extremely strong personalities of Mark and Elizabeth. I also think a herd mentality developed in its members, and these two became rather objects of worship, much like pop culture celebrities. This, in turn, caused their egos to become highly inflated resulting in all the problems that come with complexes such as that.
But, in its heyday, Summit Lighthouse – which then morphed into Church Universal and Triumphant after Mark died – really did accomplish quite a bit. They ultimately ended up in Montana on a huge acreage, became self-sufficient as far as farming etc. for its staff. They created a community in a nearby town for church members and staff. They published many, many books, monthly lessons, videos, music. They held seminars worldwide, in particular quarterly conferences at the headquarters in Montana, which were attended by thousands. There were very many talented and creative people who were movers and shakers in that movement. We had a dynamic form of “prayer” called decreeing. It was powerful, especially when a whole mass of members were decreeing together. I once was on a hillside which overlooked the large tent at one of the conferences which was high up in the mountains, and when I heard the decreeing coming from that tent, it sounded like the most beautiful music I had ever heard.
In essence, the basic tenet of the movement was freedom: freedom from physical incarnation, freedom to ascend spiritually higher in our evolution, and thus pulling the entire planet up with us. As I have said before, we believe that we have the spark of the Divine within us, we are all destined to become Christs, and that those who attained their ascension before us were helping us on our way (the Ascended Masters). We believe in the I AM Presence – that is, the individualized Presence of God which was our true identity before we became trapped in physical incarnation.
Here’s where it went wrong. It became extremely politically and religiously conservative. What started as a rebellious movement away from organized religion became that very same thing. It became dictatorial – what you can’t wear, what you can’t eat, be careful about too much sex, decree, decree, decree. I noticed after some years that many people on staff were automatons. It became a culture based on fear. Elizabeth became the ultimate Dictator and the staff that most closely surrounded her became very abusive and power hungry. Towards the late 90s, it became apparent that something was not right with her, and then it was finally revealed that she had Alzheimers. She died just last year. The movement still goes on, but is very much reduced.
Even though I now doubt a lot of the teachings we were given, I still carry with me many of the beliefs from that movement, but I feel that I have moved on and matured to a higher level of knowledge. I look at those years – for me about twenty – as “glory days” because as I said, we were on fire for freedom. It seemed for a long time that we were unstoppable, and then it all crumbled. It imploded, really. It started with corruption from within, loss of the strong leader, and a subsequent distrust of the inner circle by the membership at large.
I think my initial inspiration and that of the people who I know well in the movement stemmed from the lack we felt and the emptiness of the current religions – mainly the Christian ones. We were all searching for a deeper spirituality and a deeper knowledge of self. That coupled with the idea that we could “save the world,” so to speak, made it very enticing.
Do I think its destruction could have been prevented? No. There were way too many factors that played into the final downfall, most of which stemmed from idolatry – idolatry of the Messengers, idolatry of the Ascended Masters, and idolatry of self, really. I cringed when I read the Last Bling King when they anointed John Paul: it was so typical of what our movement went through. As you have shown, all religions stem from one person and that person ultimately becomes the God of that religion, except in the case of the Jews where they have anointed themselves the gods. It has never worked to lift mankind and it never will. It is within us to work out our own destiny.
I just want to let you know that when I found the Teachings of the Ascended Masters, I knew without a doubt that it’s what I had been searching for. I now believe those teachings, at the very least, served to open up my mind to be able to accept even higher teachings, which I have found with the Illuminati and the AC website. I am now on fire to discover the truth of the Mystery of the Holy Grail. (Btw, the Arthurian stories were a very big part of the teachings of the Summit Lighthouse; in fact, one of their headquarters was named Camelot). That is why I’ve begged you to at least leave that website up, so all other seekers, like myself, can discover it and learn the higher truths. The teachings on the website need to be read and re-read over and over until they are completely internalized.
I have said in the past that my biggest fear in life is that, in the end, I will be found wanting; that I didn’t do enough to accomplish whatever it was I needed to in this lifetime. That accomplishment is nothing less than discovering the true mystery of life and to ultimately be reunited with the True God.
I thank you for all the time and effort you all put into the website. I know you think you failed, but I’m inclined to think otherwise.
Our Comment:
What a fascinating account from LW, and it provides a salutary lesson. We’ve come across this religion before and it certainly has seductive features and elements with which we sympathize. We can understand why LW was so enthusiastic. It’s a shame that such enterprises tend to go awry after promising beginnings. All organizations have to be aware of the processes LW has described – the way idealism turns to dogmatism and to the cult of the personality. But if people are forewarned, they can see the danger signs developing and do something about them.
__________
The Poem:
Phantom sent us the following message and poem:
******
Tonight I was pondering The Art of War, a favourite text of mine, and from it I drew inspiration for a poem I hope will find its way into one of your books.
This poem is dedicated to all our friends and allies,
To every seeker, knower and illuminator
That brings to this world a shining beacon
To guide every soul and show them
That they are the brightest stars!
The poem is called The Brightest Deed, The Sunlit Seed.
In the Hearts of Men,
A Fire dwindles,
In the Night’s black fen, our Spirit kindles
The soul, the spirit of man,
Our goal, to unleash it again.
Into this world we plunge,
Upon the face of uncertainty and Lunge
A bright Spear, a flaming Arrow
Seizing victory from defeat’s jaws
So Narrow.
The clock strikes in this final hour,
As we rise against the tyrant’s power
And cast down the yokes of shame,
Taking up our swords & cloaks of flame
And shine so brightly into the night, freeing our brethren of their darkest plight.
To look upon a new world rising,
Like the bright Morning star shining, heralding the end of night and the new day surmising,
A bright new future, crying
Alight! Alight! The night she falls,
The Sun gleams, into the sky striding!
__________
Denial of Service
“Look at what my lunch money bought ya – a ticket to the Guillotine.” –Pho’
******
And finally…
Amanda’s Corner
“Feelfelt” provides the female vocal on the song The Black Sun by Pho’, the visionary Hip Hop artist.
Born on that most auspicious of days – 14 July, Bastille Day – Feelfelt is a natural rebel and revolutionary.
We are particular fans of her vocal delivery of the word “bling”. Has there ever been a more glorious sound? Has anyone better captured the imaginary sound that light makes when it hits the face of a diamond?
*bling!*
Now, it has come to our attention that parties who shall remain anonymous have nominated Feelfelt as “teacher’s pet” for this month. Since all teachers’ pets must be treated with due deference, we have dedicated this corner to a celebration of the factors which no doubt brought her to such an elevated rank in teacher’s estimation.
Before you enter Feelfelt’s cyber abode, you should wipe your feet and remove your shoes. We promised Feelfelt that we would arrange the furniture and plump the cushions on her behalf. She insisted that we get the over-paid feng shui consultants and decorators to provide a style that she dubs “Zen Chic” – minimal and functional, yet beautiful and comfortable. The energy is clean and direct, soothing and calming. One feels unfettered yet fancy in such an environment.
Of course, cyber apartments are states of mind, so breathe in hard, clear the clutter from your mind and imagine the perfect place for experiencing the sublime. For such is Amanda’s apartment that we have conjured for your delectation. It is the hippest, coolest place you have ever seen and you will no doubt wish you could stay here forever. Alas, not even forever lasts forever.
Feelfelt’s natural habitat is Buffalo, New York. Here, she sculpts her aural delights. As she says herself, she creates songs that combine euphonious chordal, rhythmic guitar work with a distinctively powerful and emotive voice. She ventures through epic musical landscapes, plunging into deep, silent valleys and climbing great, snow-capped mountains.
Musical notes fall from the blossoming trees like ripe fruit and are swept up by the wind to form symphonic, dynamic, ever-changing walls of sound like musical kaleidoscopes, full of aural “colours” conveying every possible emotion. In a Feelfelt performance, the audience encounters a spirit who fully engages their senses and feelings and won’t let go until every drop of the magic spell has been drained. Never has the elixir sounded so good.
“Amanda World” can be further explored here:
http://www.myspace.com/
Here’s a sample of Amanda in action:
http://www.myspace.com/
Check out the girls who arrive late and natter through the song. How rude!
And check out the rather interesting spanking scene depicted on the poster at the left of the shot.
Keep your ears peeled for the Music of the Spheres. The Feelfelt experience is not to be missed.
Art, music, and the esoteric – it’s all going on.
__________
The Gnostic Legion:
“The Age of Aquarius, the promised Age of Reason, has been born into a Dark Age of Reason. Scientific materialism fights tooth and nail to have no god, and to do so it has resorted to denying life, mind, and free will. Human life is reduced to a mere mechanism. This dehumanization forces the mind to resign itself from the world and from looking for anything more, and plays perfectly into the hands of decadence. Materialism reigns, and its adherents strangle life and mind just to turn a profit. Countless millions are asked to swallow austerity so that the few can carry on business as usual. The biosphere is being destroyed for the sake of a bank balance. Religion today stands opposed to rationality. Spirituality is sold for rocks and it worships obscurantism. Faith is promoted as a means to secure unjustified and manifestly false beliefs just so that you can have the feeling of being right. Monotheism poisons the minds of a myriad. Our world is dying, and instead of being revived by an Enlightenment, it is being choked by an Endarkenment. It doesn’t have to be this way.
“Gnosticism has always been a radical and revolutionary religion and world-view, but it’s rarely stepped out of the shadows to assert its place in the world. Gnosticism rarely presents itself in the form of activism, but we’re flouting esoteric tradition because the world needs a tangible alternative to scientific materialism and faith-based religion. Science and religion are complementary within the mathematical idealism espoused by the Illuminati, and all of the insights of Gnosticism are preserved and extended through the emphasis on mathematical intuition. The fourfold virtue ethics of Aristotle are a sine qua non of the Gnostic life. Environmental devastation is inexcusable, and so is austerity and decadence. Moderation, fairness, and justice are all essential to Illuminism. Illuminism is the world-view that undoes the twisted falsehoods promoted by popular religions, by misled scientific materialism, and by cynical politicians and businessmen. It is mathematical Gnosticism, expressed through ontological mathematics. It’s time to begin the Luciferian Rebellion, and in the name of humanity, we shall set the world aright.
“The Gnostic Legion is the radical activism wing of Illuminism, and is run by radical Illuminists. The Egyptian god Set was once portrayed as a heroic warrior in service of Ra, and would spear the great serpent Apophis every night. We are Set, and materialism and monotheism is our Apophis. We will raise a grass-roots, popular movement across all four corners of the world. This movement is to spread Gnosticism and Meritocracy, and resist monotheism and capitalism. We will ensure fairness and secure justice, and resist the tyranny of greed and faith-based religion. We insist on a world of free-thinking and autonomous individuals. We will protect the vulnerable and bring exploiters to justice. We are the front line of the Second Enlightenment.
“The Gnostic Legion is dedicated to finding activists around the world who have read and engaged with the entirety of the Illuminati’s material. Those who have read and broadly agree with the thoughts espoused on the Armageddon Conspiracy website are free to apply. Knowledge, however, is not enough. Acting upon the will on its own, too, is not enough. Knowing and doing together constitute the power of the revolutionary. Joining us entails that you will be trained and built up for successful activism work. Provided that you pass our tests and show your worth, the successful applicant will be entrusted with roles in their respective division and with specific tasks.”
You can find us here:
www.facebook.com/
******
The Pythagorean Illuminati:
Working with the Gnostic Legion will be a new cell of the Pythagorean Illuminati.
The Pythagorean Illuminati is a web archive and communications cell run by three Illuminati Mathematikoi. We officially represent the Order of the Illuminati and have played a supporting role to the AC team. We are taking over their communication role, with an enhanced emphasis on Logos. Our task is to present a rational and broad intellectual base for Pythagorean Illuminism. Our express purpose is to facilitate communication with world-renowned intellectuals with compatible ideas, and to set up real-world presentations of Illuminist thought to the public.
As an archival project, our task is to deliver a concise, publicly accessible archive for gifted people who have gaps in their education. As polymaths and lovers of learning, we will provide guidance towards learning the deeper aspects of ontological mathematics and Illuminist philosophy. Thus, we’re tasked with helping the best and brightest benefit from a centralized repository of Pythagorean knowledge.
You can find us here:
www.facebook.com/
******
Adam Weishaupt, Michael Faust and Mike Hockney will not be involved with any of the content provided by the new communication cell. Very high calibre individuals are associated with the Gnostic Legion and Pythagorean Illuminati sites. They are ideal successors to Adam Weishaupt, Michael Faust and Mike Hockney. Don’t waste the talent of these individuals. Don’t waste their time. Contribute, or leave. We have no time for the endless debaters. We have no time for those who tolerate trolls, snipers, saboteurs, malcontents and Ignavi. All such people drag down everything with their negativity. If you don’t like our message, move on. Don’t hang around, trying to poison everyone with your toxic personality. Don’t you have any self-respect? Where are the constructive, positive things in your life? What is the healthy cause you’ve committed yourself to?
-AC
******
Tune in and don’t drop out!
The End
******
The Armageddon Conspiracy: The Plot To Kill God
__________
https://www.amazon.com/
__________
8/8
Tags: Academia Iluministă
Academia Iluministă (95)
The thesis asserts: “Most people reject outright concepts such as 100% inheritance tax and the nationalization of all privately owned businesses because they don’t see how these things would benefit them at all. They suspect that this would mean a dictatorship of some sorts.” If you were in a bar discussing 100% inheritance tax with a stranger and you said that it was about taking all of his hard-earned money away from him at his death and preventing him from leaving it to anyone of his choice, he would indeed think you were a totalitarian nutcase.
You NEVER try to persuade anyone of anything by highlighting what they may lose. You always emphasize how they will gain. It has been said that everyone gains from basic income, but since this income is far below what most people are already earning, they would not perceive it as any kind of gain, and, rightly or wrongly, they would invariably associate it with freeloaders and scroungers – no average member of society wants to perceive themselves in that light.
People on welfare are generally held in contempt. And those on welfare often try to take as much as they can from the State without thinking for a second of how to give anything back. It becomes a way of life for them and, since it’s reasonably tolerable, there’s no incentive for them to change anything, especially since they know they lack the qualities that conventional society requires. Their “consciousness” becomes that of the lazy scrounger, and they even start to take a defiant pride in it, and are always talking about their “entitlements”, never about their duties and responsibilities. The UK has a huge underclass of people who have spent their entire lives on benefits and never contributed anything to society. NOTHING AT ALL! Would basic income be music to their ears? You bet it would. They would vote for it in a flash. And everyone who hates them and regards them as parasites would vote against basic income. It would be dead in the water.
As for 100% inheritance tax, it has to be sold as a benefit, not a loss, and it has to be sold as a moral and righteous measure that any good and decent person would support and any evil person oppose. Start the debate with the stranger in the bar by discussing Robin Hood (a person loathed by Ayn Rand, the supreme apologist for the super-rich). Ask the stranger if he would have supported Robin Hood’s campaign to take the wealth of the rapacious, greedy, cruel and unjust king, nobles and barons and give it to the needy sick and the hardworking ordinary people. If he says he’s on Robin Hood’s side then you’re in business. If he says he’s not then call him an evil, greedy bastard to his face and walk away.
Ask the stranger whether he’s on the side of the Wall Street fat cats or the ordinary people of Main Street. Who should be running the country – the people or the bankers?
Ask the stranger whether or not he supports a two-tier society with two classes of citizens – the privileged elite on top and everyone else permanently beneath them.
Ask the stranger if he would like his children to have a fair chance in life, and not to have to compete in a system rigged against them.
Ask the stranger if he supports the obvious fact that the rich keep getting richer and many of the poor keep getting poorer. Does he think that leads to a healthy, fair, meritocratic society?
Ask the stranger if he supports people getting something for nothing – welfare. When he says, “No”, ask him what the difference is between those who inherit wealth from others without doing any work themselves and those who take money from the State without doing any work themselves. Aren’t they morally equivalent? They both want and expect something for nothing.
You should then say to the stranger that you have a way to ensure that no one who does no work will get something for nothing, and moreover your innovation will release all of the money of the super-rich to the hardworking ordinary people. It will transfer the money of the Wall Street fat cats to Main Street. It is 100% inheritance tax, the bedrock of meritocracy. It ensures that privileged, spoiled kids don’t get to inherit lives of luxury just because they are related to people who made lots of money (and by the same token that decent kids are not forced to live in poverty because their parents didn’t manage to make any money). It creates an even playing field. It ensures that everyone sets out from the same starting line. It brings to an end the rule of the dynastic elites that have always ruled the world.
For the first time ever, it gives everyone an equal chance to go as far as their merit will carry them. Everyone benefits other than the super-rich and their parasitical offspring. Everyone gains. It is morally, economically and socially right. It is the Robin Hood tax that redistributes the wealth of the fat cats to the decent people. The wealthy can enjoy their riches during their lifetime. It is taken from them only when they have no further need of it because they are dead. It is not any sort of attack on people earning a good living. In fact, it’s designed to give everyone a good living.
There will be far more wealth in circulation because there will be no reason for the super-rich to hoard their wealth. They will spend, spend, spend. And soon, 100% tax will be irrelevant because everyone will make sure they have spent all of their money before they die. Everyone will enjoy a much higher standard of living thanks to all of the extra money available. Inflation won’t take off because there’s no reason any longer for the elite ownership class to always be seeking to increase their profits by raising prices. The vast majority of people will join the ownership class.
100% inheritance tax unlocks the Bank of the Super Rich and lets the ordinary people enjoy its benefits.
100% inheritance tax is on the side of nature since it restores the law of the regression to the mean. In ultra-capitalism, the rich keep getting richer in defiance of the law of regression to the mean, and contrary to nature. Super wealth is an unnatural phenomenon, a kind of disease that attacks the whole of society. 100% inheritance tax is the natural remedy.
Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man on earth, declared, “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” That’s absolutely right!
So, 100% inheritance tax is the Robin Hood tax, the Carnegie Tax, the Tax for taking from Wall Street and giving to Main Street, the Tax that restores nature via regression to the mean, the Tax that stops scroungers getting something for nothing, the moral and egalitarian Tax that allows everyone to set out from the same starting line.
Only the greedy, the immoral, the lazy, the mad, the stupid and the anti-meritocrats would oppose the Robin Hood Tax.
“So,” you say straight to the stranger, “Are you for or against 100% inheritance tax – are you moral or immoral?”
Rationally, the 100% inheritance tax cannot be contested. It is EASY to force any enemy of this tax into a corner where they look like an immoral monster. If you can’t walk into a bar and persuade any stranger of its merits then you don’t understand it or you yourself are immoral. You are taking next to nothing from them and giving them EVERYTHING. Far from being a hard sell, it should be the easiest sell imaginable. No member of the Illuminati has ever voiced any opposition to it. We pride ourselves on being rational, moral and meritocratic. The people who don’t “get it” are the irrational, the super-rich, the privileged, the anarchists and libertarians.
We understand that we are trying to overcome centuries of indoctrination, of people with a false consciousness who live in bad faith. But we know for a fact that any rational person who hears about the Robin Hood Tax immediately becomes a fervent advocate of it. It addresses the fundamental problem of how to redistribute the excessive wealth of the greedy elite without resorting to communism. The Robin Hood tax is the ONLY means for achieving non-socialist redistribution of wealth, hence the only means of achieving a fairer, reformed version of capitalism that gives everyone a realistic chance in life and allows the merit of the people to flourish in an unprecedented way.
******
We ought to be honest about where our sympathies lie in this debate and they are unquestionably with the antithesis. The proponent of basic income has argued his case as well as anyone could, and we applaud him for that, but we think the stronger, more pragmatic and realistic points reside with the counter case. The antithesis better reflects the tenor and spirit of the articles on our website. We would certainly endorse the type of family upbringing and value system described in the antithesis case. We completely endorse the statement: “Meritocracy is not a pass-fail system, but rather a system that allows each person to find their own highest attainment. There is no shame in being less than first in a particular field or endeavour – it is simply that the other person had more skills suited for that particular event.”
Meritocracy gives everyone the best possible chance. It doesn’t promise victory for everyone. Only the very best will win.
******
From the perspective of dialectical meritocracy, we are in some sense committed to being neutral in the basic income debate. Both sides have points for and against, and the whole essence of the dialectic is not to reach any dogmatic stance one way or another (there is no a priori means of showing one view to be wholly wrong), but to test both scenarios in real life and compare and contrast the data that is subsequently collected. If one method is clearly better than the other then we drop the loser. If both are comparable but one is cheaper then we would adopt the cheaper.
Dialectical meritocracy should avoid dogmatism and should not commit itself to any particular policy stances other than those that relate fundamentally to meritocracy. The two contestants in this debate have both done what dialectical meritocracy demands: they have presented their cases articulately and eloquently and demonstrated that there is a substantive issue here that demands resolution. Both reflect radically different views of human nature, so it’s imperative that we reach a resolution of the debate. It cannot be achieved rhetorically or theoretically. Only real-life evidence from a controlled experiment would definitively decide the matter. So, the meritocracy movement should not declare itself for or against basic income. It can have the best of both worlds and say that this is the sort of idea that would be tested out. We in the meritocracy movement will be bold and daring and give all plausible ideas the fairest of hearings. But, equally, we will give the counter case the same respect and same opportunities.
We are committed to dialectical progress, not to any ideological stances. We have no a priori certainty as to what will prove to be the best outcome. What we have is the METHOD for resolving the impasse. The method is what we are promoting as the greatest good, not the particular policies. We are emulating the scientific method. At its strictest and best, science couldn’t care less what hypotheses are put forward since they are all dealt with in exactly the same way: they are subjected to tests and they prove either successful or unsuccessful in their ability to account for the data. Nor do we care. Any and all policy initiatives are welcome. The dialectical method will sort the wheat from the chaff. The only elements of meritocratic implementation that are not up for grabs are those that concern the defining principles of meritocracy, and there are only five of these, all of which are closely related.
1) Everyone must be judged on their own merits and not on those of others such as family, friends or colleagues.
2) No one should inherit wealth that their parents or relatives generated since that is a fundamental contradiction of the first rule of meritocracy.
3) All means of intentionally rigging the system to give some people an inbuilt advantage over others are unacceptable.
4) Money and power can never be used as weapons to secure the advantage of “chosen ones” at the expense of everyone else.
5) All forms of privilege as a means of creating a two-tier society of the privileged and the non-privileged are anathema. By “privilege”, we mean an active programme for attempting to secure the permanent advantage of “chosen ones” at the expense of the non-chosen; in particular to buy a superior education unavailable to others, to buy influence, to create networks of “top jobs” that will be allocated only to the privileged elite, to create systems of signs based on status and snobbery that are favourable to one group but not to others.
We will identify, expose and punish all people who attempt to subvert the meritocratic model through the use of privilege.
Basic income is not a core meritocratic principle. It would be possible to argue that it is both for and against meritocracy. It is for meritocracy insofar as it provides an equal financial starting line for everyone. It is against meritocracy insofar as it allows scope for people who do nothing to parasitically live off the efforts of others. Even though we might have our suspicions one way or the other, it is impossible to say definitively in advance whether the anti-meritocratic ingredient would outweigh the pro-meritocratic ingredient.
Society will be utterly transformed under a meritocratic government and education system. The sorts of problematic behaviours that are in evidence in liberal democracies may vanish completely once people are educated, raised and treated properly and respectfully, and are given full encouragement and support to be all they can be. If the proponent of basic income can find enough supporters to implement his proposal then it’s his and their right to give it their best shot…but it’s up to them to make it work. They, collectively, will be the State. Those who consider it unworkable would sign up to a different Social Contract.
It’s vital that everyone should be passionate about the State they choose. The supporters of basic income might create a paradise if they all commit themselves to it with the same passion as the proponent for the case. But they cannot be allowed to impose their passions on those who don’t share their enthusiasm. That would be tyranny, and that’s what we’re trying to escape from.
******
In some ways, the basic income debate is misconceived. The ultimate aim of meritocracy is to deliver a resource-based, technology-driven economy that has no need of money – so the concept of basic income would be rendered redundant. All of the aims of the basic income advocates would be met in a moneyless society. Also, the arguments put forward are essentially a critique of contemporary capitalism, but in a meritocratic society, none of those features would be present.
In our article about the New World Order, we described an entirely new education system, the entire point of which is to identify what makes each person tick and give them the best possible education in the areas in which they will shine and be most fulfilled. The concept of people wanting a basic income so that they don’t have to be wage slaves in an oppressive capitalist system would not apply. Nor would much of the rest of the analysis about crime and so on. These undesirable aspects of society are the products of contemporary capitalism. In a rational, meritocratic society, we would expect to eliminate virtually every ill to which basic income is proposed as the solution. Basic income is the answer to TODAY’s miseries, but these won’t exist in the meritocratic world of tomorrow.
The whole point of the New World Order is to give everyone the chance to optimise themselves. If that results in anyone at all being keen to accept a basic income from the State then the project has failed. No “optimised” person should be doing anything other than productive work and making a full contribution to the State. In a meritocratic State, there will be zero unemployment. The idea of anyone not doing productive work is anathema. In fact, the idea is that people should find such fulfilment and self-respect through their work that we can practically abolish the idea of retirement. Many authors never retire. Why not? Because they are doing what they love – expressing themselves. When you are in the right job, you wouldn’t want to retire.
Everyone in the State will have to explicitly sign a Social Contract, which is, of course, a two-way agreement. The State has duties and responsibilities and so does each citizen. The idea that anyone could be paid for simply being a citizen without offering anything at all in return would be incompatible with any sensible Social Contract. Being a citizen is not a job; it is a contractual status. Who would expect a State to survive if it had unilateral obligations, but no guarantee of anything in return?
The basic income proposal often looks dangerously like a communist policy: “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs”. What you have in Marxism is a flow of resources from the able to the needy – in what way is that different from basic income? And we all know how Soviet communism turned out. No able person wants to be breaking his back supporting other able-bodied people who simply choose not to work because they don’t find any job satisfying. The able bodied would quickly leave that society, and who could blame them? Then what will the others do?
__________
Work versus Jobs:
The basic income thesis accurately describes the many ills from which contemporary society suffers. Basic income is proposed as the solution, but in fact the answer lies in the total transformation of society that will be brought about by the new meritocratic form of government. A central aim of the new society will be to eliminate every “wage slave” job whereby people toil away at grim and unsatisfying jobs for a pittance in order to make some super rich capitalist even richer. Can anyone seriously imagine that the new hyper-educated, unsubmissive workforce that the new bespoke meritocratic education system will produce will be content to work in call centres, in factories and on assembly lines? It is IMPOSSIBLE.
The new education system is designed to alter the consciousness of the people so that they will no longer accept being second-class citizens and the puppets of the wealthy. Marx said, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness.” In other words, the nature of the society we live in shapes our consciousness. In a radically different society with radically different values, we will have a radically altered consciousness. The whole world as it appears to us now will we swept away. None of the things we routinely accept now because it’s the way the “system” works will be acceptable in the meritocratic future. There won’t be any monarchs, popes, super-rich elites, Abrahamist pressure groups, junk consumerism, celebrity culture etc. – all of these will vanish. That’s why it’s a New World Order!
We will be producing a new type of human being: enormously more educated, capable, self-confident, independent, unwilling to kowtow. None of the ways of doing things that are possible now because of our dumbed-down, docile, deferential, submissive society will be possible when the people emerging from schools and colleges have none of these negative traits. Basic income will be the last thing on their minds – they will have the highest possible expectations and aspirations. Who in their right mind would aspire to receiving “basic income”? No one in the new society will want any sort of minimum wage or basic existence. The new society has failed utterly if anyone thinks there is anything good about living at the “safety net” level. We are trying to create a Community of Gods, not a hippie commune of work-refuseniks and social drop-outs. Marx, following Hegel, emphasized the key concept of alienation. Marx said that almost all of us are alienated from our jobs and derive no satisfaction from them. The only people having a good time are the rich bosses with all of the power who don’t have to suffer the degrading treatment that everyone further down the food chain must endure.
We have to abolish this soul-destroying alienation. Hence all soulless, droid jobs must be eliminated. Over time, through superior technology and design, all such jobs will be automated. If we define a job as something you do to pay the bills then we aspire to live in a jobless world. If we define work as something through which you express your identity, exercise your creativity and attain fulfilment then we aspire to move instead to a world of work. Everyone should be doing work that makes them happy, and into which they can pour their efforts and be in their element. We want to build the Society of Excellence.
We will be moving away from the international capitalist model of mass production (quantity) and constant consumerism – which serves no other function than to make the super-rich even richer – to national capitalism involving designer, bespoke production (quality). There will be no inbuilt obsolescence, no new upgrade every six months to keep the consumption machine moving. All of the multinational leviathans – McDonalds, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken yada yada yada – that bestride the world will no longer be able to set up shop. Instead, for example, there will be bespoke food outlets where those who love making and serving food will be able to devise their own menus and dishes and pour their own culinary creativity into the enterprise. We want huge numbers of profitable, bespoke small businesses full of committed people who love their work and make a good living rather than huge faceless corporations with a formulaic approach that channel enormous profits back to a handful of super wealthy individuals. There will be no grim call centres full of drones reading out scripts.
International capitalism is about standardisation in order to lower costs and raise profits, about having a consistent “brand” experience. Standardisation = Drone World, Droid Land, Zombie Central. International capitalism proclaims that big is beautiful. National capitalism is about the bespoke experience and promotes the opposite message: small is beautiful. The idea of excess profits and constant corporate growth will vanish because the State will cap the amount of money any individual can make, and will of course apply 100% inheritance tax at death. What we are implementing is, in effect, a mechanism for preventing multinationals from ever coming into existence ever again. National capitalism will be based on small and medium-sized enterprises. There will be no leviathans, no super-rich private individuals using their money and power to dictate to the State.
We will turn capitalism into something healthy, creative, productive and fulfilling rather than a monstrous sausage machine churning out bland gloop all over the globe. We will be converting international capitalism of a few super-rich global players into national capitalism of many well-off players. Ours is true capitalism rather than the out-of-control, super greedy contemporary version. Ours is socially responsible and prevents any possibility of private individuals opposing the General Will and dictating to the State to satisfy their selfish, particular will.
No more Rothschild and Bush dynasties! No privileged elite. International capitalism is hyper-capitalism for the sake of a tiny ownership class and we will replace it with public capitalism for the sake of all the people. Everyone will, more or less, be working for themselves rather than for a boss. Groups of people can combine their capital and become group owners. We seek to massively expand social ownership. At the moment, the multinational leviathans can quickly put any small competitors out of business. This will become impossible in the new society: it will instead be the multinationals that are put out of business.
Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered by British economist E. F. Schumacher is a classic text opposing contemporary capitalism, which Schumacher regarded as dehumanising. He argued that the workplace should, first and foremost, be a place of dignity and meaning. He advocated “smallness within bigness”, meaning that large companies should be decentralized and operate as a related group of small organizations. He was keen to emphasize the importance of scale and the idea of “enoughness.” Western capitalism always aims for the biggest scale (lowest production costs), no matter how much damage ensues. Why were banks allowed to become too big to fail? Cui bono? Why did no one challenge the dangerous scale of the banking leviathans, so big they dwarf entire economies?
No one cares as long as the profits keep rolling in. The Profit Principle trumps everything else. And when it comes to enough, nothing is ever enough. The super-rich have no concept of having enough. Like Oliver Twist, they always want more, but Oliver was starving in a workhouse and they’re not.
Schumacher attacked the conventional economic wisdom that growth is always good and that bigger is better. He asserted that society should aim to obtain “the maximum amount of well-being with the minimum amount of consumption.” Isn’t that eminently sensible? Schumacher’s ideas were quite fashionable for a time but were of course completely ignored by those in power. Isn’t it time for Schumacher’s ideas to be back on the agenda? We would never have suffered the Credit Crunch if his economic thinking had prevailed. It was multinationals, global leviathans and banks too big to fail that brought us to the brink of catastrophe. Are we the dumbest humans in history or will we finally wise up and take action against all of the leviathans, monarchs and super-rich?
Schumacher said, “The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity. Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity.” Other quotations by Schumacher are equally profound:
“Character…is formed primarily by a man’s work. And work, properly conducted in conditions of human dignity and freedom, blesses those who do it and equally their products.”
“Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology towards the organic, the gentle, the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful.”
“The most striking thing about modern industry is that it requires so much and accomplishes so little. Modern industry seems to be inefficient to a degree that surpasses one’s ordinary powers of imagination. Its inefficiency therefore remains unnoticed.”
“The way in which we experience and interpret the world obviously depends very much indeed on the kind of ideas that fill our minds. If they are mainly small, weak, superficial, and incoherent, life will appear insipid, uninteresting, petty, and chaotic.”
The human race has never lacked people with brilliant insight and wisdom. What it has always lacked is leaders with insight and wisdom. It has been cursed by greedy, selfish, self-interested leaders always looking out for themselves, their friends and family. Nepotism, cronyism and privilege have always been their watchwords. Why do ordinary people never stand up to power? Why do they never question the legitimacy of monarchs and the super-rich? Why are they cowards and slaves? Why are they so docile and submissive? There is nothing rational about contemporary society. Marx said, “The real nature of man is the totality of social relations.” It cannot be stressed highly enough how important this statement is. If we create unhealthy social relations, we create unhealthy men and women.
Most of us exist in various states of alienation. Abrahamists are alienated from God. Employees are alienated from their jobs. Everyone is alienated from their political masters. In a society that worships money, most people are alienated from themselves and continually gaze enviously at those with enormous amounts of money and total freedom. We have to address all of these different forms of alienation, and the primary target is the super-rich because they are the ones who control our world. The existence of any class of super rich is simply unacceptable. The super-rich automatically cause society to fragment.
It is impossible to maintain social harmony and cohesion when some people are thousands of times wealthier than the average. How can anyone talk of any kind of equality when such financial disparities exist? As soon as unbridgeable inequalities are created, the world becomes a pyramid rather than a round table. People start gauging themselves with respect to others and they become obsessed with status. As soon as you have status wars you no longer have a community. The essence of a community is that its members have respect for each other. That mutual respect disintegrates in deeply unequal societies. The happiest societies are those in which inequalities are contained within a narrow range. Wide inequalities should be regarded as fundamentally anti-social.
The supreme problem for our society is that those who control it are profoundly anti-social and anti-communitarian. They are doing fantastically well and want nothing to change. They don’t want to see their wealth or power being eroded in any way. They can do whatever they like since no one has the guts to stand up to them. They see people as nothing but means to their economic ends, and not as ends in themselves. One simple fact ought to be patently obvious to everyone. Society works brilliantly and does everything required of it for one group of people – those at the top. They are the people with the power to change things yet they are also the ones least motivated to change anything since they have everything they want.
Therefore, the people must a) change themselves and b) change those at the top of society. Any society is crazy if it doesn’t ensure that the leaders of society care about society and wish to serve its interests. Can anyone look at the leaders in any part of the world and fail to conclude that they are in it for themselves? They are GENIUSES at grabbing money and power for themselves. They are hopeless at helping the people. In fact, improving the lot of the people in any significant way would be counter-productive for them. Anything that the elite do that seems to help the people is an illusion.
In the 19th century, capitalism was about production – grim factories full of people doing shit jobs for twelve hours a day seven days a week. The owners wanted to squeeze out every penny of profit. They had no concern at all for the welfare of the people. No one ordered them to be inconsiderate bastards treating people like scum. They did it naturally. They had inbuilt contempt for ordinary humanity.
Now, capitalism is about consumption – people shopping rather than producing. Production is mostly automated, but someone needs to buy the goods. So we have shopping malls full of zombie consumers! The capitalist ownership class still hate the people, but their contempt is now expressed differently, and with the utmost hypocrisy. The corporations spend all of their time flattering and seducing the consumers, or filling them with fears and anxieties – the tactics depend on the nature of the product being sold. Corporations wage psychological war against ordinary people with a single aim: to get them to consume. They couldn’t care less about the welfare of the people. That just gets in the way of the Profit Principle.
Why do we allow people who hate humanity to be the leaders of humanity? Why do we allow psychopaths to become rich and powerful rather than putting them in therapy? We have to stop letting the crazies dictate to us.
We need an economy based on both production and consumption, but this time production and consumption should revolve around creativity and quality. There is nothing to stop us having an economy based on self-improvement, art, science, mathematics, literature, philosophy, design, film-making, music-making, psychology, and so on. The world would be full of self-employed people – acting as their own bosses – or small ownership groups. People could come together on a contractual basis to carry out projects of mutual benefit. The whole economy should be based on Schumacher’s principle that small is beautiful. We could have endless diversity, a profusion of small, specialist, bespoke companies offering unique products and services.
The aim is to gradually eliminate all “wage slave” jobs via better design and technology, and to get everyone involved in creative work in which they can express themselves and feel proud and fulfilled. We want to switch from big is best to small is beautiful, from mass production to bespoke production, from drone and droid jobs to creative and diverse work portfolios. We need active, enthusiastic, productive workers, not passive workers doing the bare minimum. Workers need to express who they are through their work: not who someone else is. They should profit from their own endeavours; not create profits for others. They should become their real selves through their work. They shouldn’t be faking it and wearing masks. They should no longer be alienated from religion, education, politics, psychology or the workplace.
This enlightened type of thinking has been held back by one force only – the Old World Order who will not concede any of their power or wealth. The State must have the guts to confront these monsters and lay down the law to them. Their Age of Tyranny is over. It’s time for the people to be authentically free.
******
Summary.
Basic income is a debate for today’s society, not an issue for tomorrow’s. The new society is designed to address all of the ills detailed in the thesis, and the concept of basic income will be superfluous in such a society. Capitalism is not evil per se. It is the particular implementation that is evil – the one designed to cater for a small super rich elite who call all of the shots and create global empires outwith the control of the State and the people. This model of capitalism is not a servant of the people, but a Dictatorship of Mammon.
The world can be free only when the controllers are removed from power. Only one policy guarantees the end of the super-rich – 100% inheritance tax.
******
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.
In 1789, the French revolutionaries issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. In 1793, a second and lengthier version was adopted.
The full text is provided here and still represents a triumph of sensible principles:
The French people, convinced that forgetfulness and contempt of the natural rights of man are the sole causes of the miseries of the world, have resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration these sacred and inalienable rights, in order that all the citizens, being able to compare unceasingly the acts of the government with the aim of every social institution, may never allow themselves to be oppressed and debased by tyranny; and in order that the people may always have before their eyes the foundations of their liberty and their welfare, the magistrate the rule of his duties, the legislator the purpose of his commission.
In consequence, it proclaims in the presence of the supreme being the following declaration of the rights of man and citizen.
1. The aim of society is the common welfare. Government is instituted in order to guarantee to man the enjoyment of his natural and imprescriptible rights.
2. These rights are equality, liberty, security, and property.
3. All men are equal by nature and before the law.
4. Law is the free and solemn expression of the general will; it is the same for all, whether it protects or punishes; it can command only what is just and useful to society; it can forbid only what is injurious to it.
5. All citizens are equally eligible to public employments. Free peoples know no other grounds for preference in their elections than virtue and talent.
6. Liberty is the power that belongs to man to do whatever is not injurious to the rights of others; it has nature for its principle, justice for its rule, law for its defence; its moral limit is in this maxim: Do not do to another that which you do not wish should be done to you.
7. The right to express one’s thoughts and opinions by means of the press or in any other manner, the right to assemble peaceably, the free pursuit of religion, cannot be forbidden. The necessity of enunciating these rights supposes either the presence or the fresh recollection of despotism.
8. Security consists in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property.
9. The law ought to protect public and personal liberty against the oppression of those who govern.
10. No one ought to be accused, arrested, or detained except in the cases determined by law and according to the forms that it has prescribed. Any citizen summoned or seized by the authority of the law, ought to obey immediately; he makes himself guilty by resistance.
11. Any act done against man outside of the cases and without the forms that the law determines is arbitrary and tyrannical; the one against whom it may be intended to be executed by violence has the right to repel it by force.
12. Those who may incite, expedite, subscribe to, execute or cause to be executed arbitrary legal instruments are guilty and ought to be punished.
13. Every man being presumed innocent until he has been pronounced guilty, if it is thought indispensable to arrest him, all severity that may not be necessary to secure his person ought to be strictly repressed by law.
14. No one ought to be tried and punished except after having been heard or legally summoned, and except in virtue of a law promulgated prior to the offense. The law which would punish offenses committed before it existed would be a tyranny: the retroactive effect given to the law would be a crime.
15. The law ought to impose only penalties that are strictly and obviously necessary: the punishments ought to be proportionate to the offense and useful to society.
16. The right of property is that which belongs to every citizen to enjoy, and to dispose at his pleasure of his goods, income, and of the fruits of his labour and his skill.
17. No kind of labour, tillage, or commerce can be forbidden to the skill of the citizens.
18. Every man can contract his services and his time, but he cannot sell himself nor be sold: his person is not an alienable property. The law knows of no such thing as the status of servant; there can exist only a contract for services and compensation between the man who works and the one who employs him.
19. No one can be deprived of the least portion of his property without his consent, unless a legally established public necessity requires it, and upon condition of a just and prior compensation.
20. No tax can be imposed except for the general advantage. All citizens have the right to participate in the establishment of taxes, to watch over the employment of them, and to cause an account of them to be rendered.
21. Public relief is a sacred debt. Society owes maintenance to unfortunate citizens, either procuring work for them or in providing the means of existence for those who are unable to labour.
22. Education is needed by all. Society ought to favour with all its power the advancement of the public reason and to put education at the door of every citizen.
23. The social guarantee consists in the action of all to secure to each the enjoyment and the maintenance of his rights: this guarantee rests upon the national sovereignty.
24. It cannot exist if the limits of public functions are not clearly determined by law and if the responsibility of all the functionaries is not secured.
25. The sovereignty resides in the people; it is one and indivisible, imperceptible, and inalienable.
26. No portion of the people can exercise the power of the entire people, but each section of the sovereign, in assembly, ought to enjoy the right to express its will with entire freedom.
27. Let any person who may usurp the sovereignty be instantly put to death by free men.
28. A people has always the right to review, to reform, and to alter its constitution. One generation cannot subject to its law the future generations.
29. Each citizen has an equal right to participate in the formation of the law and in the selection of his mandatories or his agents.
30. Public functions are necessarily temporary; they cannot be considered as distinctions or rewards, but as duties.
31. The offenses of the representatives of the people and of its agents ought never to go unpunished. No one has the right to claim for himself more inviolability than other citizens.
32. The right to present petitions to the depositories of the public authority cannot in any case be forbidden, suspended, nor limited.
33. Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of man.
34. There is oppression against the social body when a single one of its members is oppressed: there is oppression against each member when the social body is oppressed.
35. When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties.
******
The modern Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clearly inspired by the original French Declaration.
Note that Islamic nations are opposed to the Declaration. They deny that people should be free to change religion, they deny that women are men’s equals, and they deny that neutrality should be maintained when comparing religions (since Islam is always to be favoured).
__________
7/8
Tags: Academia Iluministă
