Dacia Iluministă

Academia Iluministă (54)

Zero and Nothing:

One subject to which we continually return is the meaning of “nothing” because it is so fundamental to the nature of reality. Scientific materialists assert that something is real only if it exists in space and time and has material existence, even though in the next breath they then assert that the universe appeared from “nothing” – and even though light, as defined by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, is, within its own terms, outside space and time and has no mass and no conventional material existence. In other words, scientific materialism is riddled with inconsistencies and could even be labelled incoherent.

If immaterial existence outside space and time is real then there can be no such thing as “nothing”, hence nor does the universe come from “nothing”.

The First Law of Thermodynamics – the law of conservation of energy – states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. This implies that the energy now present in the universe has existed forever. It was not created and nor can it be destroyed. No new energy can come into existence, and none can be removed. The energy of the universe will endure forever, taking on various new guises in that time.

The human soul, if simply defined as immaterial energy that exists outside space and time, is therefore deathless, indestructible and immortal, and this is in complete accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics.

However, scientists have managed to smuggle in, almost unnoticed, an entirely different version of the First Law of Thermodynamics that contradicts the former version. It’s the “Free Lunch” version of the law. According to this, an entire universe can appear out of nothing so long as the total energy equals zero i.e. if a “positive” energy source can be perfectly balanced by a “negative” energy source then you can create as much energy as you like. In other words, energy can be created and destroyed at will if it does so in terms of a cosmic accountant’s trading off of positive and negative energy. The total energy of the universe according to this view is always zero, hence the First Law should really state: the total energy of the universe can never deviate from zero, or the total energy of the universe is always conserved at zero.

The scientific community, being staggeringly inept philosophically, has never appreciated that these two versions of the First Law are not in any way equivalent but actually the complete opposite. In the first version, it is being stated that the total energy of the universe is definitely non-zero and can have any value up to infinity, and whatever the number is, it can never be increased or reduced. The second version states that the total energy of the universe is never anything other than zero. A corollary of the second version is that it is possible to eliminate all forms of energy – positive and negative – from the universe, leaving nothing at all: Absolute Zero!

The first version excludes the possibility of non-existence. The second makes non existence possible, but with the unlikely proviso, in philosophical terms, that non existence (Absolute Zero) contains a bizarre and implausible mechanism for suddenly creating an enormous and even infinite amount of positive energy, counterbalanced by an equal amount of negative energy. But how would this be possible if the universe ceased to exist by attaining Absolute Zero in terms of its total energy content?

Which version do you think is more credible?

If the first version is correct then the Big Bang involved the conversion of pre-existing dimensionless energy into dimensional energy. In the second version, the Big Bang created something literally out of nothing, albeit the “something” is balanced between positive and negative energy and still adds up to “nothing”. In the first version, the Big Bang is a calculated event, worked out by a dimensionless cosmic mind, in which the laws of physics are stored. If the second version is true – and this is the one supported by the scientific community – then the Big Bang was a random and mysterious event and there is no indication of where the laws of physics come from and how the universe can attain a state of nonexistence that is somehow not non-existent since it possesses the capacity to give rise to the Big Bang. If this latter version is correct then how come Big Bangs aren’t happening all the time, everywhere, since none of these events every actually use up any energy because total energy is always conserved at zero?

The scientific community seem to have no understanding or awareness of these difficulties and, moreover, the motivation for their version seems to be simply so that they can avoid considering the existence of a cosmic mind. Without their version, they would have to concede that all of the energy present in the material universe came from pre-existing energy in an immaterial universe i.e. they would have to acknowledge that pure mind existed and that the cosmos was fundamentally based on idealism rather than materialism. Moreover, there would now be scope for God, souls and the afterlife: thoughts by which conventional science is repelled.

By creating a “zero” version of the First Law, scientists can desperately cling to materialism, but only by appealing to a bizarre concept of non-existence that somehow always contains the seeds of existence (even though this is a contradiction in terms).

Philosophically, there is either non-existence or existence, each of which is eternal, neither of which can be transformed into the other (i.e. non-existence can’t suddenly exist nor existence suddenly not exist) and both of which are mutually exclusive. If non-existence were possible there would be nothing at all. Nothing would ever have happened. There would be no processes of any kind. There would be no latent existence lurking within non-existence because that would mean that non-existence was simply a disguised form of existence i.e. existence that did nothing for long stretches but was ready to erupt at any moment. If there is no such condition as non-existence then there is only existence, and it is eternal. It can be neither created nor destroyed.

Scientific materialists, with their weird version of the law of conservation of energy, have created an untenable definition of nonexistence. They argue on the one hand that the energy of the universe is always zero, and on the other that this can go from “genuine” zero (Absolute Zero) to “false” zero – a zero made up of a perfect balance of positive and negative energy, extending all the way to infinite positive energy cancelled out by infinite negative energy. The Big Bang involved the conversion of Absolute Zero energy into an indefinite amount of false zero energy, with the total amount of cosmic energy always staying at zero.

The key question is this: if Absolute Zero involves the complete absence of energy – absolute nothingness, absolute non-existence – then where is the process hiding that will allow Absolute Zero to be transformed into false zero? By definition, it can’t exist since at Absolute Zero, non-existence is all there “is”. So, the Big Bang scientific materialists, although they can mathematically balance the energy books, can offer no rational account of how their version of the Big Bang is possible. Theirs is a form of magic whereby absolute nothing suddenly becomes something but stays as “nothing”, at least in a technical accounting sense. They have pulled the materialist rabbit from the hat, and not a blush of shame has ever crossed their cheeks. They believe that absolute nothingness always contains a hidden mechanism for converting true zero into false zero. They have never been able to explain this extraordinary feat of magic. They attempt to use the laws associated with the false zero universe we observe all around us to account for the true zero universe. But the true zero universe contains none of the laws of the false zero universe. Indeed it contains nothing at all, so how can they apply any of their laws to it?

Much of cosmological science is a philosophical joke, based on supremely incoherent concepts that nevertheless allow scientists to do lots of calculations, write lots of scientific papers to advance their careers, but which are not grounded in any solid foundations of science, mathematics or, especially, philosophy.
__________

Improbabilities:

Consider this statement by Professor Brian Cox, currently the most prominent spokesman for science in the UK:

“As a fraction of the lifespan of the universe, as measured from its beginning to the evaporation of the last black hole, life as we know it is only possible for one thousandth of a billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth of a percent.”

This unimaginably small window of life contains an even smaller window – that of conscious existence. According to Cox’s figures, life is staggeringly improbable; in fact so close to zero as to make no difference. A rational person might conclude that such a statistic is proof that Cox’s extremist scientific materialism is utterly false. How can life be an inconceivably unlikely by-product of existence? Moreover, how can it be generated by lifeless, mechanistic forces? Isn’t it much more rational to accept that life is the essence of existence, and consciousness has a 100% probability of being generated: that the fundamental forces of life are seeking that precise outcome? Far from being improbable in the extreme, we are INEVITABLE. We are the purpose of the cosmos. Consciousness is what the unconscious cosmos strives for. There are no mechanistic forces in operation – only unconscious mental forces. Mind is dimensionless and matter is its dimensional product through which it attains consciousness. There are no accidents, no wildly improbable statistics concerning the likelihood of life. We are not the creatures of randomness, tossed into existence for no reason for a brief cosmic second or two as mechanistic forces pointlessly wind down until the cosmos attains a condition of eternal heat death in which nothing meaningful ever happens.

It’s bizarre that scientific materialists like Cox and Richard Dawkins treat life so contemptuously. They seriously believe that a universe can emerge from nothing for no reason and then fade away to a ghostly state as it expends all of its energy. Also for no reason, the phenomenon of life flickers briefly into existence before rapidly being extinguished again, and during that infinitesimally short period of consciousness, humanity rubs its eyes, scratches its head and says “WTF!!!”

Well, that’s scientific materialism for you. Absolute nihilism.

Imagine that a religious believer said to Professor Cox that it was rational to believe in the existence of God even if the likelihood of God’s existence was only in the region of one thousandth of a billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth of a percent. Most people would think it was insane to accept those odds. You might as well be an atheist. But Professor Cox is in no position to mock the believer. After all, he thinks the window of life is open only for that infinitesimally small percentage of the lifespan of the universe, and the window for conscious life is smaller still. If these are the odds scientists accept as credible and rational it’s amazing that they don’t all believe in God…and in moons made of cheese for that matter.

The truth is that the cosmos always exhibits life – it is nothing but life – and the apex of life on earth thus far is self-organizing cellular life, culminating in conscious beings (humans). The probability of life appearing in the universe is 100%. The probability of consciousness appearing in the universe is 100%. The probability of mind attaining complete knowledge of the universe (the Mind of God) is 100%.

Physicists say with considerable justification that anything not forbidden is compulsory. We know for a fact that life and consciousness are not forbidden – because we ourselves exhibit these qualities. Anyone who does not accept the existence of God is asserting that his existence is forbidden. Any probability, even one infinitesimally small, that is not actually zero (i.e. not forbidden) will definitely occur in an infinite system.

So, from a scientific standpoint, the argument concerning God’s existence should be reduced to the grounds on which scientists assert that it is forbidden. What principles do they adduce to prove the impossibility of God’s existence? By their own logic, if they can’t show that God’s existence is forbidden then they must accept that his existence is compulsory. We are not of course referring to the Abrahamist God, whose existence can easily be disproved on simple logical grounds, but the evolutionary, dialectical God of Illuminism, the unconscious cosmic mind of the r = 0 domain that becomes conscious through the individuation provided by the r > 0 domain.

On the one hand, scientific materialists deny that non-material existence is possible and then they say that material existence came from “nothing” i.e. from some form of non-material existence. If the material world can emerge from immaterial existence then isn’t that proof that immaterial existence is a real, substantive thing, capable of generating matter? And what is immaterial existence? It is mind – the existence of which is the one thing materialists refuse to acknowledge.

******

The expanding universe can have two fates according to conventional cosmological thinking. Either it is expanding forever because gravity cannot overcome the force of expansion, in which it will case it will inevitably suffer the heat death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Or its expansion will reach a maximum limit dictated by gravity and then become contraction: the “Big Crunch” will reverse the Big Bang.

The reason we mention this is that Professor Cox makes authoritative statements as if he knows for sure what the condition of the universe is and will be, when in fact he’s merely telling a story, unsubstantiated by any evidence. It is not clear according to the available evidence whether expansion will keep going or contraction will kick in.

Secondly, Cox refers to the evaporation of black holes. There is as yet no evidence for such a phenomenon, and it is a controversial topic. On the one hand, physicists say that the laws of physics fall apart at the black hole singularity, and then they claim that all black holes will evaporate according to known laws. So which is it? Do the laws fall apart or not? Moreover, the hypothetical total evaporation would of course depend on whether more material is leaving the black hole than entering it. In a Big Crunch style universe, black holes would eat everything and eventually coalesce into a cosmic singularity.

Why doesn’t Cox make any of that clear? Scientists talk with incredible certainty, giving precise probabilities about this, that or the other when in fact these figures are built on multiple dubious assumptions. They are dealing in hypotheses not facts, yet they are presented as facts, giving the impression that science has all the answers.

In terms of black hole radiation for example, materialistic considerations are applied to a situation where it’s by no means evident that any kind of materialism is valid. A black hole singularity does not exist in the material domain. All distances have been compressed to zero and time has stopped. All of the mass has been converted into dimensionless energy, so unless scientists have a theory that accounts for how dimensionless and dimensional energy interconvert (and they definitely don’t have such a theory!) then how can they justify treating black holes as dimensional entities subject to conventional quantum processes? It’s not science; it’s pure speculation.

Isn’t it time prominent scientists started expressing rather more qualified statements? They pontificate like the high priests and popes of some ancient religion. If Cox were being a proper scientist, he should have declared as more than just a mumbled preamble that everything he said was related to certain hypothetical models and calculations, none of which have been evidentially corroborated. But scientists don’t like to reveal the reality that much cosmological thinking is more influenced by Mythos than Logos.

******

Professor Martin Rees said, “The best guess is that the universe will go on expanding for ever and that it will become ever colder and ever emptier.”

Can there be a bleaker, more sterile vision of the future? The cosmos is like an enormous clock winding down. It is gradually depleted of all of its energy and finally it can do nothing at all. As WWI poet Wilfred Owen said in his poem Futility, “Was it for this the clay grew tall?”

According to the good professor, the cosmos goes to all the trouble of plucking itself out of nothing just to freeze itself in an eternal emptiness. Perhaps it should have stayed in bed!

In the Big Crunch scenario, the cosmos can return to the Absolute Zero of dimensionless existence whence it came. In the permanently expanding universe model, it never gets back there. One must wonder what the cosmos has been doing for infinity if it only decided to rouse itself from nothingness 14 billion years ago. Why didn’t it do so a trillion years ago, or a trillion trillion? Why that one moment 14 billion years ago when it has had eternity to get round to it? It is practically insane to contend that “nothing” erupts, in a strictly one-off process, in the most gargantuan unleashing of energy conceivable only to use it all up and then remain frozen and useless until Doomsday, which of course never comes! If nothing could become something 14 billion years ago then it could have done so any number of times previously. In fact an infinite number of times: anything not forbidden is compulsory.

What possible reason could the cosmos have had for forbidding the Big Bang until a specific instant 14 billion years ago? If it could happen then, it could have happened at any moment prior, and moreover, it unquestionably did. Existence is an infinite series. It never terminates. There have been infinite Big Bangs, and they have all concluded with the cosmos returning to dimensionless existence, which then gives rise to a new Big Bang. Nothing else is possible. There is no definitive cosmic endpoint. If there were any such point, we would already have reached it since we’ve had eternity to do so. Therefore it does not exist.

We are manifestations of a cosmic Will that strives eternally. It never grows tired. It never gives up. It never calls an end. It is incapable of doing so. The cosmos is eternal becoming. There is no such thing as a state of permanent being. It is as impossible as a state of absolute nothingness. There is always something, and it is always becoming. It is always transforming itself. It is always converting its potential into actuality, becoming more powerful, more realised, more perfect. And when it has attained any (temporary) state of perfection it has no choice but to start all over again because not to do so would be to contradict its own nature which compels it to always be transforming itself into something new. The universe craves novelty, exactly as we humans do – as above, so below. If you want to understand how the cosmos works, just look to yourself because you are a living manifestation of the cosmic Will. Just as you can’t rest on your laurels, no matter what wonders you accomplish, nor can the cosmos.

When you truly grasp that fact, you grasp the nature of reality. The German philosopher Schopenhauer understood it, but regarded it as horrific and even evil. Nietzsche took up where Schopenhauer left off and diagnosed Schopenhauer as a nihilist. For Nietzsche, the supreme challenge was to overcome nihilism and affirm life no matter what. He considered that only Supermen could understand the nature of reality and not be crushed by it. Only they had an infinite love of life. Only they said “Yes” to life no matter what. He declared, “What does not kill me makes me stronger.”

Is there a more powerful statement? It means that you can place value on everything that happens to you and, while a single breath is left in your body, you can celebrate being alive. Nietzsche’s highest God was Dionysus, the divinity of passion and intoxication. And has anyone ever been more intoxicated by life than Nietzsche himself? To many people, Nietzsche’s lonely, sickly, isolated life where he existed modestly and enjoyed none of the worldly success to which his brilliance entitled him, is something from which to look away in horror. Yet if you could see through the eyes of someone like Nietzsche as he gazed down from the mountaintop and comprehended all of existence, you would know what it was like to be God and it would make all other pleasures seem as nought. You would not trade that priceless instant for ANYTHING.

“6,000 feet beyond man and time.” –Nietzsche
__________

Thought for the Day:

The vast majority of cells physically present in your body don’t belong to you, but to microbes. It has been estimated that 95% of the cells in the human body are bacteria located in the large intestine. Looking at it another way, we are 19 parts microbe to one part human! We have been colonized by countless microbes. Perhaps the God of Microbes made us to serve as the edible host for his minions! (Moreover, the “human” part of us is mostly water, and water is composed of atoms which are little more than empty space. It has been said that if an atomic nucleus were the size of a grain of rice, the size of the atom itself would be that of a football stadium, and the stadium would be nothing but an empty space through which electrons travel in some ghostly fashion since they never actually have a definite position and momentum. In other words, a human being is water, digested food, empty space and microbes! Must we not be divine to marshal such unpromising ingredients into beings that can contemplate eternity?!)

Consider this. None of these innumerable microbes has any conception of being inside an organism that thinks, loves and desires. They see no indication whatsoever of the existence of thoughts. If they themselves could think, they would probably be scientific materialists and deny the existence of mind. But what of us? Are we any better at comprehending that we too are inside an organism that thinks, loves and desires? We live inside God. We are part of God. Through reason, intuition and knowledge, we can attain the same cosmic perspective as God. We are not microbes, we are human beings. And we are more than that – we are potential Gods.

Scientific materialists have reduced us to mindless microbes. They have assaulted and insulted the dignity of humanity. Abrahamists too have insulted our dignity and reduced us to contemptible slaves of a tyrant God who exists in another dimension. We are none of these things. We are astonishing. God is simply a human being further along the dialectical track than we are. We can all attain gnosis, and when we do, the cosmos becomes our body, just as it is for God. The cosmic mind is his mind. And it can be ours too.
__________

The Dream:

“AG” sent us a chilling account of a dream that reflects the disturbing world of the privileged elite.

I’ve been reading the Armageddon Conspiracy (AC) website for sometime, and while I have read a lot, I’m not done. One composition takes me on paths that I have to follow and when they come to a conclusion, I start on the next composition. My mind has been ignited into much more activity in the last three months than in many years prior.

To the point of my contact; I have been having a recurring dream recently, that while I can decipher most on my own, I’m not entirely sure what it may mean in total. I’m not asking for interpretation, but I do think it may have been influenced by the reading of the AC site. For what it’s worth, I am compelled to share it with you.

******

There is a city. It is very large and could be any major U.S. city. I have not traveled to Brooklyn before, but this is the name of the city, though I do not feel that this has any bearing on the dream. This city is laid out in four concentric circles. The outer ring is beautiful, new and modern. It has everything; new schools, large, beautiful homes, shopping centers, entertainment, no crime and includes a waiting list of people trying to move in. The next inner ring is a bit older with a longer wait list, same with the second and finally, the center.

In the center of the city is a ruler who calls himself a king. He is viewed positively by the inhabitants and has a select few advisers that help monitor the outer rings. He is widely hailed as a benevolent ruler and a king for the people. He refuses to take a wife so he may only serve his subjects. His televised orations are all about the people and how he loves them. Not many people get access to the center, and the inhabitants are fine with the excuse that due to its small size, visitations to the inner circle are limited.

People may come and go from this city as they choose. However, those that live there seem not to be compelled to leave. More people clamor to get on the wait list than the number of people leaving. There is a visitor. He is interested in learning about the city. His request to live in the outer ring has been granted. He is very pleased with the city. No one wants for anything. His neighbors are excited about his arrival. He’s invited out to several functions and makes acquaintances with others in his neighborhood.

Everyone is pleasant… a bit like “Stepford” pleasant.

The visitor could not be happier. After the first year there though, there’s something lacking for him. He talks with a few neighbors about his growing restlessness and they ask if he’s applied to enter the third ring. These neighbors will be moving there soon, and suggest he get on the list. The third ring of this great city is supposed to be even better than the ring they currently reside in, but he needs to get on the list. To qualify for the wait list, you must live in the fourth, outer, ring for two years. An adviser will look at your application and may grant your request. This visitor does so and has found that his spirits are renewed because he is looking forward to the next level.

At the end of two years, he is notified by mail that he will be able to move to the next ring if he chooses. He is ecstatic and agrees to do so. The letter cautions though that once you move forward in the city, you cannot move backward. You may, of course, leave the city entirely, but you may not go back to your previous station. He couldn’t imagine why that part of the letter is necessary; this city is amazing!

When he gets to his new lodgings, he takes in the sight with a shadow of doubt though. The house is much smaller, this part of the city a bit older than the fourth ring and there’s something a bit darker about it. He chalks it up to the neighborhood being more established with older housing, shopping centers and people. He can forgive the graffiti he sees every now and then and even the occasional bum sleeping on the sidewalk. It is a city after all, and it’s just part of it. He reunites with the acquaintances he met in the outer ring and is pleased. His job is great, he’s got friends and life is going great.

for the next ring. The thought had not entered his mind since he’s been fairly content with his life, but he asks what’s awesome about the next ring of the city. The friends tell him that it’s even better than what he’s currently living in. The exclusivity of it makes it alluring and the wait list is even longer. To qualify for this next ring, a person would have to live in the third ring for three to five years, and it’s not guaranteed you’ll be accepted if you do apply.

Our visitor is intrigued and he tries to imagine life better than it is right now. He doesn’t want to disappoint his friends, and he starts to think of the status he’d acquire with being accepted into the second ring…. if he is accepted at all. He and his friends wage a bet on who will get accepted first. They have a better chance since they’ve lived a year longer in the third ring than the visitor, but after three years, the visitor gets another acceptance letter in the mail, with the same caution; that once you move forward in the city, you cannot move backward. You may, of course, leave the city entirely, but you may not go back to your previous station. This time though, our visitor is a smidge wary. He likes the life he has, but he is then overcome with what he imagines the next part of the city will be.

His friends have mixed emotions. Some are jealous, others sad and maybe two genuinely happy for him. He leaves with mixed emotions too, because he won’t be able to see them again, unless they too are accepted into the next level.

When he enters the second ring, he realizes he may have made a mistake. This part of the city is much older than the last. The houses are gone and in their place are apartments. It’s still suitable living, but not what he expected. The neighborhoods are more crowded and there’s a darker shadow. He is shocked to find graffiti and bums more frequently. The buildings are run down and some are outfitted with barred windows and doors.

Still though, he overcomes all this mentally by telling himself that to live here means great things and that he was chosen specially for this. The king’s advisers have found his work and person worthy of moving forward. He finds out on his own how long the wait list is for the best part of the city; the center. Few people have access to it and the king is said to be on a personal basis with those who live there. It becomes this visitor’s goal to get there. He resolves to work hard, and put his all into his new community. He organizes clean ups and donations. He goes out of his way to help where he can. It’s a five to seven year wait before he may be accepted, but he’s sure that he will be if he works hard enough. He also can’t help but feel a little smug that he was chosen and not his friends.

He finds though that among the homeless he reaches out to are a people who are shriveled physically and mute. There aren’t a lot of them, but enough to arouse his curiosity. He attempts to communicate with them, but they can’t write as their hands are gnarled and neither can they seem to speak. They seem almost lifeless. One night after several years of living in the second ring, as he walks home, he comes across one of these individuals on the street. It appears to be a man, and he is beckoning to the visitor. This particular person is not quite as shriveled as the others and is intent on meeting with the visitor. When the visitor is close enough he hears what passes for whispers emanating from the shriveled man. While the man’s lips do not move, and it’s just barely audible, he hears, “You will get to the center of the city and when you find the secret, you must warn the others”. As these words are spoken, the visitor watches in horror as the man shrivels farther in on himself and his mouth is nearly twisted shut. A police officer comes from the shadows, further scaring the visitor, for while crime does occur, he hardly ever sees an actual police officer and none has ever spoken to him. This one does however, and tells him, “You know, these poor chaps have quite a sad disease. The cause hasn’t been figured out yet, though we haven’t seen any others affected. Perhaps it resolved itself.” And he walks off.

Our visitor is shaken and heads home. He tries to wrap his mind around what the man who shriveled before him meant. He replays the police officer’s words in his mind and rationalizes that the shriveled man was merely trying to talk, though it was impossible for him to do so and he must have imparted some sort of meaning to the sounds. How silly of him! He’s been working too hard, he thinks, and the police officer is right; a very sad disease this shrivel business is. He resolves to let it go, despite having seen the man’s mouth nearly twist shut and shrink in front of him, it was late, dark and he’s been working too much.

He finds in the future though, that he avoids the shriveled people. Within a month, he gets his next acceptance letter. He is heading for the city center. His hard work has paid off. But what a sorry sight it is! Crowded to almost overflowing! There is a golden castle in the very middle and people are moving everywhere in chaos, noiselessly. He was instructed in his letter to go to the castle at once and he heads there uneasily. He is not able to ask one person where they are going or what they are doing. They are moving too fast, but not in any discernible order.

When he enters the castle, trying to prepare himself for the glory of the king, he finds nothing but four fat slobs sitting around an even more slovenly character with a crown. Under this king’s feet are people, hunched over and working as ottomans. The visitor takes in the horror as he realizes the whole table, chairs and other furniture are living people. There are people bustling about bringing what seems like endless amounts of food and wine, others are taking the empty trays, others still are entertaining in various ways… not all are pleasant to the visitor’s sensibilities. There’s noise everywhere and not in harmony with the motions of what he sees. Another curiosity is the presence of the shriveled, diseased here too.

He is terribly confused and horribly let down. This is not what he expected. The king calls him over, and asks him to sit on one of the human chairs. The visitor is reluctant but then gathers his wits and remembers he is in the presence of the king. For what might be the king’s shortcomings, he is still in charge of this large, successful city, and so he sits. The king lays out to him how he has been chosen specifically to be here. He will assist one of the advisers. He is to report back tomorrow morning, after checking into what the king tells him, surely is adequate lodging. He is dismissed.

Walking back through a noiseless, chaotic throng of people, he finds his lodging. None of this makes sense to him, but he talks it through to himself. It’s busy and chaotic because there are a lot of things to do in a government. The king does not have time to maintain his appearance because he is so busy working for the people. People move without sound so as to not lose time performing their important duties, to which he recalls that he will be working for an adviser! He is a bit elated at this, and for one night, his fears are abated.

It is not long though, before the visitor finds himself over worked. He is depressed because he realizes he stopped seeing people and now just sees furniture, hungry (as there is little time to eat), lonely because every person in the city is too busy for pleasure and not one person to vent to. One night he tries to fall asleep, but can’t. Quite suddenly, he realizes that everyone in the city has become a slave of their own choosing. He is a slave. They can leave, but they choose not to. They have invested so much time into the city, so much effort to be there. Their families are invested in their schools, government and businesses.

If any of them left, there would be nothing for them and how would they explain themselves to the outside world for staying so long? Remembering the words of the shriveled man, he determines to find what the secret is to the city. He is renewed and goes about his duties with efficiency. He finds ways to finish his responsibilities and still have a few minutes left over to find out what he can from any source he can find. He learns there is a library and bookstore very near to him and wonders why he never saw these before. After work, he has a precious few minutes to get into either before closing time, so he resolves to find more efficient ways to do his job to get more time at the end of the day to learn. It is a struggle. The harder he works, the more is expected of him. Unexpectedly the powers above him reward him with more money, but it goes unnoticed, for he is now single minded and he needs nothing and craves for nothing, save the secret
of the city.

His bosses are finding him uncooperative and unfriendly to the establishment. Co-workers, who never say a word, suddenly complain loudly that he is closed off and rude. He wants to stop his search, but he feels he is so close. He is fired. On his last day at work, the adviser he works for tells him he wants to show him something. He places a piece of paper on his desk walks out of his office and leaves the visitor there. Hesitantly, he picks up the paper. It is a list of the people in power in descending order. The king is on there of course, along with the advisers, but there is a position above the king. It says “Queen”. This is curious, as the king has made it known he will not take a wife, but he asks himself who rules the king?

A creator? He feels faint, but he forces his thoughts further. What are the shriveled people? Why are they here? Why are they shriveled? Who creates a system where people become slaves? And in a single moment of clarity, he realizes the “queen” is the creator, but that every person in the inner city serves it and creates the “queen” by becoming the king’s slaves… by believing the deception fed to them. He is panicked and leaves the office. The adviser calls something after him, but his hearing is muffled. He tries to call out to someone, to tell them the truth of their enslavement, that they have to free themselves, but his throat has gone dry it seems. He gets to the street and starts yelling but his voice is hoarse. His body is in pain and he hunches over to catch his breath and finds he can’t stand straight. He realizes the frightening discovery that he is starting to shrivel, like the men he saw in the third ring. No one stops to help him. They are too busy.

He hears the haunting words the shriveled man imparted to him in the third ring, “You will get to the center of the city and when you find the secret, you must warn the others”. He desperately calls out and tries to grab anyone that is near him to tell them the secret and with each attempt he becomes more gnarled in body. His mind is fighting to get these words out, but the tongue is not moving and he bursts into tears. He recalls that the shriveled people become mute and figures out that he may not have much longer to speak the truth. He is frantic and this is the final blow to his mind; he cannot tell the truth that it took so long to find.

******

And I awake.

Over all, I understand it, though some of the details I don’t. I’m more worried that the character in the dream cannot tell anyone what it all means. He knows the truth, but there’s nothing he can do.

******

Our Comment.

Thanks, AG. Your dream is a profound one, and ingeniously encapsulates many of the themes we discuss on our site. You have already identified the essence of the dream when you say, “I’m more worried that the character in the dream cannot tell anyone what it all means. He knows the truth, but there’s nothing he can do.”

If a good, decent person worked their way up to highest levels of society, what would they find there? Would they be happy? Or would they be disgusted by what they discovered? The golden castle may look beautiful, but it’s a prison. You must abandon your freedom and mould yourself into the shape expected of you. You become as vile as the people who already inhabit that kingdom. And if, like your hero, you recognise what’s really going on, what can you do to change anything? Above all, who’s listening? And who cares? The system goes on regardless.

The message we take from you dream is that the inner kingdom cannot be saved. It is inherently corrupt. There’s no point in trying to cooperate with it, or in attempting to succeed on its terms. There is no truth in that kingdom – hence everyone is silent. Or the truth is so horrifying that no one wants to hear it, hence no one is listening. Either way, the truth is dead.

It’s time to smash the golden prison.
__________

The Divine Project:

Atheists say there is no God.

Agnostics say they don’t know if there is a God.

Abrahamists say you are nothing compared with God.

We say you are God!

So, whose side are you on? Whose vision do you embrace? Do you want to be perfect?

Then join the project for perfecting humanity.

The end of slavery. The start of true freedom.

We are the Illuminati.

Help us change the Paradigm.

The End

******

The Armageddon Conspiracy: The Plot To Kill God
__________

http://www.amazon.com/Illuminati-Paradigm-Shift-Series-Book-ebook/dp/B0050VDBFU
__________

7/7

Academia Iluministă (53)

(Escape Captivity)

Work versus Jobs:

A central aim of the new meritocratic form of government and 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 be 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 dropouts.

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 counterproductive 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.

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 contempts 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, imprescriptible, 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).
__________

Islam and Darwinism:

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.

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 outbreeding 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 no drugs, alcohol, rock ‘n’ roll, 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 scaremongering? 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.
__________

Alchemy:

Jung regarded alchemy as a projection of the collective unconscious onto the external world, and the pursuit of the philosopher’s stone and the transmutation of base metal into gold as the process of individuation whereby we transform the Ego into the Self. Alchemy once served as an excellent means of disguising heresy under a bewildering jargon, impenetrable to anyone other than the initiates and adepts.

However, it began to take on a life of its own and develop into a crazy hybrid of chemistry and mysticism. There is a specific type of alchemy that Illuminism still holds in the highest regard and keeps extremely secret, but what usually passes as alchemy is regarded as archaic and outmoded in relation to science, mathematics, philosophy and psychology. What does a discussion of the four ancient elements mean in an era of the Periodic Table, nuclear fusion and fission (scientific transmutation of the elements!)? The supreme ability – controlling and manipulating matter with the mind – isn’t achieved through antique alchemy.

If you find alchemical jargon stimulating and inspiring, by all means delve into this arcane subject and try to discover its secrets. However, it must be said that the alchemy you will find discussed in relevant books is a bit like Latin – a fascinating but dead language. The world has moved on. Mainstream alchemy was replaced by something much more powerful – chemistry – and the highest alchemy is now based on contemporary science and psychology, not on medieval manuscripts. Everything evolves and it can be counterproductive to keep looking to the past when the answers mostly lie in the present and the beyond.

Illuminism respects the past, but it doesn’t worship it. Humanity has much more knowledge now than in the days of Pythagoras. Which is the more profitable use of your time? – studying alchemy or quantum mechanics, the past or the future? Alchemy is Mythos and quantum mechanics Logos.

The past is seen as sexy and mysterious. Many people seriously believe that the ancients knew much more than modern humanity; that if only we could discover the greatest secrets of the ancients then we would know the Mind of God. Illuminism, on the other hand, teaches the gospel of the dialectic. The past provides necessary building blocks for the present, but the present is much more dialectically advanced than the past, so why look backwards to a time of greater ignorance rather than explore the incredible knowledge of the modern world? Be future-oriented, not past-obsessed.

Logos, not Mythos, is the path to knowledge. Old alchemy tells the story of spiritual transformation, but it does not actually deliver it. What is required is much more advanced knowledge based on Logos.
__________

The Australian Atlantis?:

Did something like the Mayan civilisation once exist in Australia? Was there an advanced island civilisation that perished because of some cataclysm? Magnetic Island off the coast of Townsville (central North Queensland) is listed amongst a large number of sites in Australia with puzzling features and artefacts that hint at an extraordinary, untold history. See, for example:

http://www.awarenessquest.com/html/australian_archaeological_anom.html

It has been speculated that the ancient Phoenicians may have established colonies in ancient Australia, or even the lost tribes of Israel!
__________

The Way of St James:

The Camino de Santiago – the Way of St James – is a collection of old European Catholic pilgrimage routes that reach their end at Santiago de Compostela in northwest Spain. Pilgrims have been walking these routes for over a thousand years. Catholicism, no matter its faults, has produced wondrously beautiful cathedrals, churches and art and even when Catholicism and Christianity have vanished, the artworks will remain.

We encourage everyone to go on a pilgrimage. You can follow an existing route, or create one of your own. Pick beautiful, spiritual places: ancient ruins, natural beauty spots, mountains, lakes, forests, cathedrals, picturesque villages, medieval walled towns, poignant battlefields, places of romance, horror, history, magic, delight: anything that heightens your feelings, senses, spirituality and intuition.
__________

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 come in other ways, of course.

Could you devote yourself to a major undertaking for a decade? Wes’ current projects are at: http://battleofearth.wordpress.com/ andhttp://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.

Our Comment.

Many of our correspondents are highly intuitive and have 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 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.

******

Denial of Service.

“Look at what my lunch money bought ya – a ticket to the Guillotine.” –Pho’
__________

6/7

Academia Iluministă (52)

The Midas Gang:

There are 1,200 billionaires in the world (as of beginning of 2011). Why does anyone need to be a billionaire? How much money does someone need in order to live well? Should it be up to super rich individuals to decide, or is it actually something that is relevant to a whole community and hence should be decided by the community? When it comes to a State that has no say over how much private individuals are allowed to earn, cui bono? Is it the State or the super rich individuals who benefit?

A world has been constructed where a tiny number of individuals dictate to governments. They always get their own way. Politics and economic systems are designed to suit them. WHY?!

If the State cannot tell greedy individuals to take a running jump then the State has no power at all and we are all living in a plutocracy where our lives are shaped by the whims of extraordinarily rich individuals. What sane, rational person would wish to be the slave of the rich? The State, in the name of the people, must wrest control from the rich, and it can only do that by explicitly controlling their wealth. Why should the richest person on earth have more than say 100 million dollars? Would he be able to claim that he was being hard done by and forced to live in penury, or would he in fact still be able to enjoy an inconceivably luxurious life that others can only dream of? When is enough enough? We must derail the gravy train. We must stop the Greed Machine. If we don’t, we deserve all we get.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity on a large scale…The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” –Thomas Jefferson
__________

What Price?:

“Hollywood is a place that pays a $1,000 for a kiss, and fifty cents for your soul.” –Marilyn Monroe

We live in a Price Tag society where we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. We inhabit a Sisyphean world where we toil during the day at some soul-destroying, alienating occupation. At night and weekends, when we are “free”, we consume junk TV, go shopping for junk, watch Hollywood junk, drink and take drugs to numb the pain, get out our iPhones, iPods and iPads to distract ourselves. And then the cycle begins all over again, day after day, week after week, year after year – until we die. Like Sisyphus, we never finish pushing the boulder. The task always wins in the end. It doesn’t die, we do! Isn’t it time we smashed the Sisyphean boulder? Who is making us push it? – the super rich capitalist ownership class, that’s who. They have chained us to it by piling debt on us: debt to them.

Decades ago, futurologists spoke of a coming “leisure society”. The idea was that technological innovations would eliminate countless dreary jobs while maintaining, and even increasing, productivity. People would still enjoy the same quality of life but would have to spend far fewer hours at the workplace. So the question was how they would spend all of their extra leisure time.

Why didn’t the leisure society ever materialize? People have worse jobs than ever. Imagine working in a call centre like a lab rat on a treadmill, robotically reading out a script to try to sell some junk product to reluctant customers.

The reason is that all the time we saved was re-directed into bringing out new product ranges faster and faster. Our masters created a world of hyper consumerism in which they sell to us round the clock. What is the internet? – a 24/7 shop-front. There isn’t a single moment when you are denied the opportunity to buy.

Rather than enjoying a leisure society, we have been manipulated into accepting a ferociously paced consumption fest which creates bigger profits than ever for the ownership class. Why don’t we step off the treadmill? We are free to do so whenever we want.

One of the most autonomous individuals in history was Diogenes the Cynic, who lived as a beggar in a barrel in the streets of Athens. He refused to let anyone be his master. The Illuminati have a “Diogenes Division” – these are members who have agreed to dedicate two years of their lives exclusively to Illuminati undertakings for the equivalent of a minimum wage. All members of the Illuminati must serve in the Diogenes Division at some stage, and it is deemed highly beneficial for the soul to endure a period of near poverty.
__________

What are we?:

First of all: what we are not. We are not anarchists nor socialists nor libertarians nor ultra-capitalists nor communists nor democrats nor advocates of negative liberty.

We are MERITOCRATS. That is what defines us. We advocate strong government by the most meritorious men and women. We don’t want unmeritorious people in charge, nor greedy people out for themselves, and nor do we want no one in charge (as anarchists, libertarians and ultra-communists advocate – a position of so-called negative liberty).

We are advocates of positive liberty. By that we mean that we have an extremely powerful vision of what humanity ought to be and we want humanity to dedicate itself to reaching its omega point of dialectical perfection. We refer to that final state as the Community of Gods and the Society of the Divine. It logically follows that if we wish to attain that goal, the most meritorious amongst us are those most likely to get us there. We won’t succeed via the greedy or unmeritorious or those who have no vision of what humanity ought to be.

So, no we don’t advocate making common cause with any type of anarchist, libertarian or democrat – except as a short-term expedient to get rid of a common enemy. But the anarchists, libertarians and democrats would themselves become the enemies of our cause in due course since they would object to strong, directed government that actively promoted the pursuit of the perfection of humanity. What anarchists and libertarians oppose is all government. They oppose authority per se regardless of whether it is good or bad. We are enemies of wrongful authority but not of the authority of those whose talents qualify them to be in charge. The Illuminati is full of smart, creative people but we all acknowledge that the Grand Master and the Ruling Council are those best able to lead us to where we want to go.

Only a fool would ideologically oppose the principle of the wisest people being allowed to lead. If you require brain surgery, you want the best brain surgeon to perform the operation. You don’t choose the worst brain surgeon because you are opposed to “fascist” hierarchies of brain surgeons. Similarly, if you want the best society you seek the means of identifying those best qualified to deliver it. You don’t arrogantly decide that you are as well qualified as anyone else. Anyone who adopts that attitude is opposing the whole concept of merit and expertise. Anarchists and libertarians are invariably those who think that they are so great that no one could possibly be in a position to have better ideas and ways of doing things than they. They are deluded fools, with a massively inflated sense of their own abilities. The world would fall apart under anarchy or libertarianism. We would succumb to the grimmest Hobbesian war, everyone fighting with everyone else, and soon enough a Leviathan – a dictator – would rise up to impose order, and would be eagerly embraced by the masses. Anarchism and libertarianism are a complete joke. They have no vision of optimised human beings – in fact they would regard that aspiration as some sort of fascist dream.

We love Nietzsche’s concept of the Superman. We see the Superman as the necessary precursor of the Divine Human. If you are not enthralled by the idea of attaining perfection – of all human beings attaining perfection – then you are no ally of ours. Anarchists and libertarians despise the Superman. They just want to be left alone to pass the time as they see fit. Their vision of humanity is as dismal as capitalist consumerism.

We hope we have made our position crystal clear, and the scope of our ambition. If you prefer anarchism or libertarianism then you should join one of the vehicles for those ideologies. You certainly won’t be of any use to our mission.

Our key words are meritocracy, the transformation of quantity into quality, the pursuit of excellence, the alchemical project of turning base metal into gold, and the desire for perfection. If you don’t want to be perfect, go somewhere else. Our ideas are not for you. If you think you are already perfect and know the answers to everything – which is what the anarchists and libertarians effectively believe of themselves (they think they need no help from experts and the wise) – then, again, our ideas are not for you.

Everyone must approach knowledge with humility. There are those who know more than we do and we would be fools not to attempt to seek them out and gain their knowledge. Every member of the Illuminati understands that we can achieve remarkable things if we are part of a united society dedicated to the furtherance of knowledge and if we allow ourselves to be guided by those who are further along the path to enlightenment. Every member aspires to be Grand Master one day, but only if we deserve it because we have become the best, because we are the member of the Illuminati with the most merit. And then it is our sacred duty to lead the Illuminati ever closer to its omega point. The Grand Master is the servant of the Illuminati, not its dictator. To desire to be of service to others is to attain true wisdom. To be obsessed with serving yourself – like all of the present leaders of our society – is to prove that you are completely unfit to be a leader.

Society must protect itself from the types of people who are currently in charge. The easiest way is to ensure, by law, that the leaders are not super rich and can never become super rich. Any rich person who seeks to lead should first of all be compelled to surrender most of their wealth. If they refuse then they have proved that they are unworthy. They have demonstrated what their motivation is, and it’s obviously not public service.
__________

Media Manipulation:

The media, said Noam Chomsky, is “a machine for manufacturing consent.” That’s not quite right. It creates the illusion of consent by the simple expedient of only allowing certain voices to be heard. It doesn’t so much make consent as pretend that it already exists. People are never given the opportunity to realize how little consent there actually is.
__________

Social Capitalism:

The system we advocate may be called public or social capitalism. Its central idea is that rather than capital being concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of super rich, it is relatively evenly distributed across society. Profits do not go exclusively to the privileged elite but instead to everyone – or at least everyone who’s willing to work hard.

The banking system will be under public control but will nevertheless have capitalist features. Competition is one of the essential drivers of capitalism, and meritocracy will seek to identify the optimal ways of harnessing competition (in current capitalism there’s some healthy competition but also a great deal of wasteful competition and inefficient replication). The new banking system will be based on a large number of competing banks, all of which will have the opportunity to adopt different banking strategies. No bank will be allowed to be “too big to fail”, but each bank will have significant autonomy and the employees of the more successful banks will make more money than those of the less successful.

Similarly, the corporations of present-day capitalism – where the ownership class earn inordinate amounts of money – will no longer exist. Corporate ownership, like capital, will be much more evenly distributed.

We have said all along that the system we advocate is a synthesis of socialist and capitalist elements, and it should absolutely never be characterised as purely socialist. No socialist would recognise our system as belonging to their ideology. We are essentially capitalists who assert that the State should dictate to private capital rather than private capital to the State.

In the UK, the banking leviathan HSBC has threatened to relocate its headquarters from London to Hong Kong because it disapproves of what it sees as anti-banking measures being taken by the government. It is utterly unacceptable for any private institution to blackmail the State and demand preferential treatment. Our version of capitalism would kill off arrogant institutions like HSBC and replace them with capitalist institutions that owe their existence and loyalty to the State rather to the paradigm of “stateless Globalism”.

Contemporary capitalist multinational corporations have become extra-national i.e. they operate beyond the reach of any State. This means that the OWO – the super rich elite – can tell States all over the world what to do. This cannot be tolerated. Groups of private individuals cannot be allowed to favour their particular will over the General Will of the people. Our “State” version of capitalism reins in capitalism and re-establishes who’s in charge – the People, not small, privileged elites. Public capitalism recognises its obligations to the State. It does not immediately relocate to another part of the world if it fails to get its own way. Public capitalism is about ensuring that the citizens own the means of production. So, if American citizens are the owners of their own companies, they won’t be relocating to Mexico or China any time soon, will they?

A rich capitalist couldn’t care less in what nation he chooses to locate his sweatshop factories. He simply wants to maximise his profits and screw everyone else. He has no commitment to his fellow citizens whatsoever. We seek to eliminate that kind of international capitalism and replace it with national capitalism, based on a nation’s capital residing with its people and not with an itinerant elite who have no national loyalty. German capital should remain in Germany, British in Britain, American in America, Finnish in Finland, and so on. We don’t want any international playboys moving their money around at will to maximise their personal profits regardless of the interests of their home nations.

Our project is about reforming capitalism by removing the bulk of the capital and power from a tiny elite and redistributing it amongst the people. To do so, we need to introduce socialist elements, but these are simply to allow the State to regain control of the economy from private individuals, not to start nationalizing everything in sight and creating huge, inefficient, uncompetitive State monopolies and bureaucracies that ignore markets. Given that we support all of the essential features of capitalism other than that private individuals should dictate to the State (as they do in contemporary capitalism), no one could validly accuse us of being socialists.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.” What he ought to have said was: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I will make her laws.” In other words, the people with the money are the power behind the throne: the secret lawmakers who make the world dance to their tune. But why do people let them? It’s not as if stopping them is hard – you simply prevent private individuals from controlling the banks, hence the money. You put the banks and the economy under the control of elected, accountable officials. What could be easier?

We are the advocates of the truest form of capitalism – the version that operates according to the General Will of the people and not the particular will of the elite. Public capitalism is the only acceptable form of capitalism.

“In other walks of life, people can take pride in their world without expecting to earn huge salaries. They feel good about themselves because of what they do, not what they are paid. And they take satisfaction from contributing to the public good as well as their employers’ profits. None of that applies in banking, which has been reduced to a narrow calculus of profit and bonus. It is this blinkered view of the world that has made bankers unable to understand why they have to change. They live in a parallel, self-perpetuating universe in which they meet very few people outside their tiny circle. They work so hard that they rarely have time to socialise, and, when they do, it is with other stratospherically rich bankers and lawyers. Their views all reinforce each other’s. And the few outsiders they do encounter, they tend to disdain – usually because they have less money. Bankers are used to getting their own way, because they can wield a chequebook, and collectively, because of the importance of their sector to the economy.” –Mary Ann Sieghart, The Independent

We cannot allow the elite to dictate to us. We will dictate to them. If they don’t like it, they can leave, but they will then be declared enemies of the State and never allowed back in. They will become pariahs. That’s exactly what they deserve and they have brought it on themselves.

******

There have been benevolent employers before – people like Robert Owen in Britain in the 19th century – but they manifestly failed to overcome the prevailing system. Why? Because if there are 99 malevolent employers to every benevolent one, decent employers don’t have a prayer. Evil cartels can put them out of business one way or another. How do you imagine the Old World Order came to power in the first place?

Robert Owen bought a chain of textile mills called “New Lanark”, near Glasgow. He created a village for his workers and provided a school, healthcare, childcare and so on. His employees loved him. He wanted his workers to receive all their needs as part of their working conditions, very much in the manner of the benevolent lord described in the thesis. Although he has been described as one of the founding fathers of socialism, he was really just a conscientious capitalist. As soon as he died, his worker communes collapsed. No one else supported his model.

The benevolent employers always lose to the more numerous evil ones. The only way to beat the bad guys is to make it impossible for them to exist, by taking control of the levers of wealth.

******

A correspondent stated: “Quite frankly, the masses don’t want to study the teachings of Nietzsche or Hegel or hear scientific theories about the nature of the universe. Instead, they want money. Money is their prime motivator, so we should concentrate our efforts on it. Imagine huge crowds holding up signs with the red M-logo in them and shouting time after time: ‘We want money! We want money!’ What an exciting vision! And it can be transformed into a reality. It has been truthfully said that the people can be bought, so let’s buy them.”

This is in danger of being the most cynical and mercenary statement ever made. The super rich have traditionally bought the people in one way or another. Now, our response is supposedly to offer money on a much wider scale than ever before.

WE WANT MONEY! WE WANT MONEY! That sounds like the slogan of Wall Street, not of any movement connected with meritocracy and the spiritual improvement of humanity. Instead of creating a society where people DO want to study Nietzsche, Hegel and science, we are simply to bribe the masses like the cheapest hustlers.

It is not our ambition to pander to what is lowest in people. There are plenty of others happy to do that. We are the party of excellence, of quality, of a higher type of humanity. Our cause is utterly lost if we reject the highest culture – as represented by the likes of Nietzsche, Hegel and science – and spend our time dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.

It’s true that the masses couldn’t care less about the truth of their lives, the world and the cosmos. It’s true that many people would rather shop, watch TV and gossip about celebrities than contemplate the fundamental nature of existence. It’s true that the masses are sheeple, not people.

Nevertheless, it is not our place to join them in their desperate race for the bottom. We are ascending to the top. We are not in freefall in the bottomless abyss of consumerism and celebrity culture. We are the people of the summits, of the highest heights. We are those who seek to see further than ever before. We look to the stars and beyond. And we look inside. Because there we will find God.

If you do not have values then you have nothing.

If we have to resort to distributing money to the masses to gain their support – if that is the sum and substance of our vision – then what’s the point?

We will appeal to the highest aspirations of people, not their basest instincts. We seek to make all people into Gods, no matter how retarded, deluded and dumb they may be at the moment. We will transform their consciousness. When we are finished, it won’t be Hegel and Nietzsche who are unknown amongst the masses, but the vacuous celebrities.

There will come a day when statues of Hegel and Nietzsche are in the centre of every town and city, and there will be no celebrities and no super rich. In that sign we shall triumph, or victory is not worth achieving.
__________

The Robin Hood Tax:

The correspondent further stated: “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. The “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 completely endorse the statement of another correspondent, who wrote: “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.

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?
__________

5/7

Academia Iluministă (51)

The Multi Social Contract:

A State could offer a selection of social contracts outlining the duties of the citizen and the responsibilities of the State. There could be an anarchist-friendly social contract whereby the State offers little and demands little; there could be a libertarian social contract where, again, the state adopts a minimal profile. In other cases, the State could offer a social contract based on basic income, or one that offers no such safety net, and so on.

Of course, there are all manner of practical difficulties regarding the implementation of the Multi Social Contract, but since it offers everyone what they want then it would be best possible political system if it could be engineered correctly.

The relative effectiveness of the different social contracts would become evident over time, and they might finally converge on just a couple of the most viable social contracts.

By offering a multi social contract theory of politics, we can appeal to everyone, even those with whom we have no sympathy. Let everyone go to hell in their own way! We would avoid looking like totalitarians. We would be able to emphasize freedom and choice, and catering for different lifestyles and belief-systems.

Wouldn’t everyone like to say: “This is who I am and this is the sort of society I want to live in.” And then actually get what they want! How many people right now get the system they desire? – virtually no one. The whole thing is a one-size-fits-all botched and bungled compromise that satisfies only one group – the privileged elite at the top.

The optimal state should be based on a choice of social contracts. Everyone should personally choose a social contract to sign up to. At the moment, we are tacitly bound by a set of rules and laws we never agreed to, hence we are all slaves. You can be free only when you freely choose the laws by which you live. You are never free if they have been imposed on you. Imagine finally being free of the Old World Order, the Abrahamists and the ultra-capitalists!

Meritocracy has to sell itself as the true vehicle of freedom and choice. It can offer multiple social contracts to the citizens, all based on the central idea that each social contract will be tailor-made for groups of like-minded citizens. Everyone gets the social contract they want. Why would anyone who values freedom and choice oppose that?

If people don’t want freedom and choice and prefer things to stay as they are then that’s their choice. It’s time to put up or shut up. Radical change is on the agenda, or the same old crap. There’s no other possibility.

The meritocratic movement therefore has two strands:

1) Putting multi social contracts on the political agenda – splitting up nations into states or city-states, each expressing a particular ideology, just like ancient Athens, Sparta, Thebes and Corinth.

2) Establishing suitable policies for those states or city-states that choose to define themselves with regard to meritocratic thinking rather than other ideologies, always bearing in mind that any disputes over policy such as the one involving basic income can be resolved by invoking separate social contracts.

We do not need to commit ourselves to anything other than fundamental meritocratic rules such as ensuring that no dynastic, privileged elites can ever emerge. All other policies are “thought experiments” in a sense, and if they are at serious odds with each other then they can be moved into alternative social contracts.

In other words, meritocracy can express itself via several social contracts with many similar points, but also with significant policy differences in the detail i.e. we can be mature and sensible enough to allow meritocracy to come in several flavours. There’s no need for disagreement. If you have a serious problem with one type of meritocratic social contract you simply find another one more agreeable to you.

Our whole approach should be based on the avoidance of any type of one-size-fits-all “totalitarian” thinking and, instead, the offer of bespoke social contracts which can yield people as much as, say, 90% of what they’re looking for (there will always be a need for minor compromises).

Freedom, choice and flexibility must be our watchwords. We can appeal to everyone, even to non-meritocrats, by offering them the chance to create states or city-states based on the values important to them. If Muslim fanatics want a Sharia Law city-state, that’s their choice. But if their system fails (as it surely would!) and they then want to join the hyper-successful meritocratic states and city-states, they must abandon all of their old values. They will have to sign the meritocratic social contract and be bound by its terms.

We don’t need to get into arguments with any of our enemies. We can actually say we will work with them to give them exactly what they want, and they will of course have to give us exactly what we want too.

It’s the final political Revolution, the end of the Freedom Dialectic. How could you be any freer than in a state or city-state that you chose yourself because it reflected your core values and identity?
__________

If Democracy is so good:

Hillary Clinton said, “History has shown that democracies tend to be more stable, more peaceful and more prosperous.”

If democracy is so good, why doesn’t it apply to the workplaces in which all of the supporters of democracy work? Why are the workers never allowed to elect the CEO or President of the company? Why are they never allowed to appoint the board members? Why are they never permitted a say in recruitment and promotion, or to sit on the remuneration board?

Companies are dictatorships: authoritarian, hierarchical structures where all decisions are taken at the top. It is through companies that we see the true face of what is happening in so-called democracies. The privileged elite at the apex of the companies take the decisions and the workers – the ordinary people – are never consulted, and their opinions are regarded as worthless.

If the elite actually believed in democracy, they would ensure that all aspects of society were democratic, wouldn’t they? In fact, they make sure democracy gets nowhere near the workplace, thus betraying their real contempt for democracy and the people.

We advocate meritocratic democracy in the workplace whereby all positions in a company are subjected to democratic votes regarding who is the most meritorious person to assume a position. The decision-making is thus taken away from the management elite and given to the workers.

Rather than allowing the big bosses to decide their own remuneration and bonuses, it should be up to the workers to decide. Wouldn’t that constitute a genuine revolution? It would change EVERYTHING at a stroke.
__________

Freedom and Choice:

We experience freedom when we are able to exercise meaningful choices. We have plenty of freedom when it comes to consumerism, and little or none anywhere else.

In elections, we are allowed to choose between those whose names have been placed on the ballot paper, but how many of us had any say in who got on the ballot paper in the first place? Overwhelmingly, we are alienated from politics.

We have no freedom and choice in the workplace. The dictators at the top of the pyramid issue the decrees that everyone must obey. Hence we are also alienated from our work.

We have no say over the banking system, hence the economy, and thus we are alienated from that too.

We are alienated from all aspects of our lives other than those that involve consumption (i.e. the activity that gives our money to the capitalist elite).
__________

One-Size-Fits-All:

In a sense, meritocracy is about a war on the one-size-fits-all mentality and ideology.

In the State education system, you get one type of education for everyone, the assumption being that all pupils and students are somehow identical.

We have advocated treating the human race as being composed of 16 different tribes based on Myers-Briggs types, hence there should be 16 different education systems, each tailor-made for each tribe.

The State should guarantee us not just any old education, but a bespoke education that will give us the best chance in life. Such an education has to recognise that the 16 different tribes have radically different ways of learning; something that is never acknowledged by the powers-that-be.

A corollary is that these 16 different tribes all have different responses to religion, politics, philosophy, science etc. – so a one-size-fits all solution satisfies no one.

Why are there so many different religions and political ideologies in the world? It’s because each religion or political system makes sense to one tribe, but not to a different tribe, so that different tribe has to find something knew. Look at the difference between Abrahamists and Gnostics, between Abrahamists and atheists. The Abrahamists are advocates of “faith”, while Gnostics and atheists are preoccupied with knowledge. Gnostics and atheists are “rationals” while Abrahamists are “guardians”. Neither group understands the other.

The reason this is so important is that it goes to the heart of meritocracy. Who decides who is most meritorious? If every tribe has a different idea of merit then the concept is reduced to a shambles. It becomes bogged down in disputes and the most numerous tribe is likely to get its way.

In capitalist countries, merit is decided by how much money you have – a disastrous criterion. In Abrahamist societies, the most “meritorious” are the most fanatical followers of Abrahamism – another disastrous criterion. In sensation seeking societies, the most meritorious are those who take the biggest risks – “dangerous sports” addicts, the fastest drivers, the best sportspeople etc. In societies based on emotion, those who emote the best are the highest regarded – the Mother Theresas of the world and the Oprah Winfreys.

Intuitives revere those with the best ideas, the ideas offering the most possibilities for future growth and development. Thinkers esteem the most logical step-by-step thinkers, with scientists at the top of the tree.

So, unless only your tribe gets to decide on matters important to you, you are likely to have to endure other people’s idea of merit.

We have a hopelessly jumbled and muddled world – a global Babel – where everyone is talking not just different languages but different psychological languages too. None of the tribes can agree on anything. Everything is reduced to ineffectual and irrational compromises. No wonder so much of life is shambolic.

Jung spoke of the need for individuation, one of the central aspects of which is the process of differentiation of the four psychological functions of thinking, feeling, intuition and sensing. Each psychic component has to be analysed separately in order to be properly understood; otherwise you get an undifferentiated chaos of mental impressions and ideas over which you can exert no control. Our world is the equivalent of an undifferentiated Mind that has no self-understanding. By emphasizing the 16 different Myers-Briggs tribes we are effectively taking the first step towards the healthy individuation of humanity.

Some people advocate a policy of simply ensuring that the different types are given more of an education about the other types in order to better understand and deal with them. This is indeed an important step, but it doesn’t go far enough. It’s easy for a rational person to understand why so many people flock to Islam; it’s a brilliant brainwashing system for targeting credulous, superstitious, badly educated people desiring some Mythos framework for their lives. However, that in no way makes it acceptable to a rational person, or any easier to deal with. Any rational person in an Islamic society is in big trouble. Full stop. Rationality is not welcome there because it invariably undermines the authority of the irrational Koran. So, the best that can be done is to ensure that all rational people are given an easy escape route from Islam.

Imagine a world in which you had a genuine choice between different education systems, political systems, economic systems, philosophical systems, psychological systems and religions. Isn’t that the freest world you could have? What could be freer?

Being forced to abide by the hostile rules of other tribes constitutes slavery not freedom. All of the tribes are held back by the other tribes. None of them get what they want, so they are all miserable.

We drag each other down by trying to live in these one-size-fits-all systems and societies. We will never be free until we realise the truth of the human condition – that we are incompatible “species” that are guaranteed to be hostile towards one another.

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes had a vision of nature consisting of perpetual, brutal war that could only be stopped by a huge power – the Leviathan – that enforced its Will on all the warring factions.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a vision of human nature in which, left to their own devices, people would be cooperative and live in peace and harmony. It was “civilisation” itself, he maintained, that was the cause of conflict through introducing divisive ideas such as private property, status, hierarchies, political factions etc.

In fact, Hobbes and Rousseau are both right, and both wrong. Conflict is, as Hobbes recognised, inevitable. Why? Because there are 16 tribes, often with little in common and that quickly provoke and incur the enmity of their fellow tribes.

But Rousseau is also right because if people all belonged to the same tribe they would indeed cooperate and live in harmony because there would be little friction between them. They would all be on the same wavelength.

Isn’t it time we took the radical step necessary for final freedom and accepted that many of us will never get along because we are simply too different? Hence we should be separate. Race has traditionally been used to justify separating people – most notoriously in South Africa during the Apartheid regime – but that is a ridiculous criterion. How you perceive and conceptualise the world, how you think, feel, sense and intuit – these are the proper basis for separation. It’s not a question of anyone being morally better or worse than anyone else; it’s just a question of difference. We have to understand difference and know how best to deal with it to get the most out of everyone. We will never achieve that in the one-size-fits-all society where people dogmatically insist that all human beings are the same.

If you want a world in which you experience the maximum degree of freedom, you must be allowed to live in a society that is extremely well matched to your value system. You will never feel free if you are in continual conflict with others and continually forced to accept defeat or abide by hopeless compromises.

If we can freely choose between different consumer objects, why can’t we also freely choose between different education systems, religions, philosophies, economic systems and political systems – and get to live in exactly the type of society we dream of? With that manifesto, we can appeal to EVERYONE! Sure, there are all manner of complications and difficulties, but they can all be addressed in a smarter, happier, more efficient world.

If you’re in a political debate with non-meritocrats, you don’t have to argue against their crazy ideas. Instead, you can say that in a meritocracy they will get a city-state where they can live according to whatever laws they want.

******

Summary.

Meritocracy is dependent upon being able to assess who is most meritorious, but different personality types have different ways of answering this question. If there are 16 different answers to the question then 16 types of meritocratic society are needed. Of course, those societies not based on reason and intuition may fail spectacularly because the types of merit they promote (such as being the best Abrahamist) are not conducive to creating a functioning, advanced society. Islam is proving how an irrational belief system can start dragging people back to the Dark Ages. The most “meritocratic” Muslims (i.e. the most zealous advocates of the Koran) are the opposite of those needed for a modern society.

In the long-term, one society will prove stunningly superior to all the others: the one based on reason and intuition. All others will have to succumb to that model in the end.

“NW” wrote to us to say: “I’d like to tell you that we need only one nation to become meritocratic. With your plan for the school system we will be cranking out experts. Even the lowliest man will be an expert in his class. Our production will surely skyrocket and our national wealth would be unfathomable. All the other countries must either replicate our education system or fall behind. Those who replicate it will soon find they have quite intelligent citizens who now want to rule themselves. The countries that don’t will quickly stagnate and become economically dead. Their people will look at their neighbors and say fuck this and revolution will follow. In a matter of 100 years, I can imagine a one world meritocratic utopia where man is better than ever before. We would be a true race of Gods.”

And NW is exactly right. We just need to get one perfect meritocratic society up and running, and it will soon be enormously more successful than all of its rivals.
__________

Einstein and Socialism:

“The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labour contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the ‘free labour contract’ for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from ‘pure’ capitalism.

“Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an ‘army of unemployed’ always exists. The worker is always in fear of losing his job. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than easing the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor and to a crippling of the social consciousness of individuals.

“This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced that there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented towards social goals.” –Einstein

In fact, Einstein is wrong about competition. The ideal model of endeavour to emulate is Einstein’s own speciality – science – which is ferociously competitive. Everyone wants to be the genius who makes the huge breakthrough, the person who gets the Nobel Prize, and, above all, understands the Mind of God.

Science is remarkable in many ways. It is simultaneously highly collaborative and highly individualistic. Einstein achieved his brilliant insights only by building on the work of many geniuses who preceded him. Without them, he would have got nowhere. He had friends who were able to help him with the mathematics he needed for relativity theory. Yet he spent most of the time on his own, pondering.

Scientists have tremendous respect for each other, yet also want to win. That is what meritocracy is seeking to replicate. The ideal society is one in which collaboration, cooperation and competition co-exist, in which everyone respects and admires each other but also wants to grab the glory of great and unique achievements.

The greatest scientists have never been motivated by money. Contrast them with the greedy clowns of Wall Street who contribute nothing to society or the greater good of humanity but are obsessed with money.
__________

The Many Lives We Never Had:

The instant we are conceived by our parents, we are endowed with incredible potential. There is an enormous range of lives we are capable of leading. Yet as soon as we are born, almost all of that potential evaporates. Why? Because the particular environment we find ourselves in dictates the narrow, limited lives available to us. Our parents inflict a religion, not of our choosing, on us. We might find ourselves being genitally mutilated by circumcision then forced to wear certain clothes, to eat certain foods, to pray endlessly, to try to memorise a strange, ancient text, to avoid certain people because they are “infidels”, and so on. If we live in a crime-infested ghetto, that inevitably becomes the central preoccupation of our life. We are likely to end up in a gang. We will probably attend an under-achieving school that fails to give us a decent education.

The wealth of our parents has an overwhelming impact on us. If they are rich, they can place us on a golden path of freedom and privilege. If they are poor, we will have to struggle through life in the slow lane, as second-class citizens in a two-tier society. Astoundingly rapidly, our possibilities in life are blocked off. We are forced down grim, claustrophobic roads. Soon, there is no escape. We have deactualised our potential i.e. rather than becoming the best we can be, we frequently become the worst.

Why is life like this? Isn’t it time we did something about it? Meritocracy is all about delivering the society where our environment gives us the best possible chances in life rather than the worst.
__________

Flowers versus Weeds:

In a sense, we are all both flowers and weeds. In terms of our own tribe, we are flowers, and we help each other to bloom. But the members of other tribes are like weeds that deprive us of resources, crowd us out, ruin all of our delicate patterns.

Imagine a rational person in Pakistan, surrounded by Muslim weeds. Anyone who expresses any criticism of Islam in Pakistan is guilty of blasphemy, for which the penalty is death. If the State doesn’t carry out the sentence, a Muslim vigilante nutcase will do it instead, to the acclaim of his compatriots. How could any non-Muslim possibly bloom in such a nation? It’s impossible. The weeds kill all the flowers.

In terms of other tribes, we ourselves are weeds. None of us can flourish properly because we are all ruinously interfering with each other.

The meritocratic society is about designing a landscape garden, where there are no weeds, just flowers in the locations where they grow best and bloom most vividly and colourfully.

The one-size-fits-all garden is a complete mess, full of choking weeds, where no flower grows properly.

Nothing is more important than the realisation that humanity is not an undifferentiated, homogeneous mass. Human beings are different and need to be treated differently depending on how their brains are wired.

Just as a gardener knows what particular conditions are needed for the cultivation of each of the different types of flowers he grows, so the “Society Gardener” needs to know what every type of human being needs to make them flourish.

In ancient Greece, the word pharmakon (from which we derive “pharmacy”) meant drug, medicine – or poison. All medicines can be regarded as toxic (they should be toxic to your illness, after all): it’s the dose that controls whether they kill or cure you.

Each human being is a pharmakon too. We always think of ourselves as being benevolent and on the side of good, but many of us are extremely toxic to others. Muslims are frequently toxic to non-Muslims, especially in Pakistan. But these Muslim murderers believe they are good and doing the right thing; that they are performing God’s work, no less.

Most of us don’t need or want the medicine others are offering. In fact it would kill us. None of the 16 Myers-Briggs tribes has the right to dictate to any or all of the others. The task is to find the means of maximising harmony between the tribes, minimising the weeds and the toxic effects. If the simplest way forward is to physically separate the tribes then let’s get on with it.

Two thirds of the Illuminati belong to the INTJ and INTP tribes. The remaining third are those who can work effectively with INTJs and INTPs. In other words, we practise what we preach. We have designed our own secret society according to psychological distinctions.

How many people in this world want to create William Blake’s Golgonooza, the wondrous City of the Imagination? Zeitgeist’s Venus Project is akin to Golgonooza. Most people couldn’t care less about Golgonooza, but many rationals and idealists crave it. We will never have it if we remain in the grip of those who do not care for intuition and the imagination. Therefore we must separate ourselves. Isn’t that the only logical way forward? Otherwise, we would have to dominate the others using our intelligence, and we would become just a new set of dictators, imposing our will on others.

No one should be coerced, explicitly or implicitly, to buy into someone else’s vision. We despise Wall Street yet we are forced to dance to the Wall Street tune. So how do we escape?

Nor do we want to trap within our system people who don’t like our vision of the world. They would be miserable and of no use to us. So, isn’t it best for the tribes of the world to go their separate ways? We must learn from history and surely that has proved beyond any question that humans are prone to savage conflict. But what underlies the conflict? One of the answers is that we dislike and fear people who are on a radically different wavelength. They make us uncomfortable and anxious. We don’t know what to expect from them. We don’t know how to anticipate their moves. We have neither empathy nor sympathy with them.

People become hostile and intolerant when they are surrounded by people they dislike. It’s the most natural response in the world. It’s your fight or flight mechanism kicking in. We are designed to flee from those who make us feel bad and stressed, or fight them.

In our present one-size-fits-all societies, we are constantly in fight or flight mode because we are surrounded by people from whom we are psychologically alienated. How can anyone in their right mind think that’s healthy? We have to create a new society where our fight or flight buttons are never pressed and we can get on with being happy and creative instead. That can only happen in a psychologically designed society. We have to bring together those who can live in harmony and cooperation, and separate them from those who will provoke disharmony and conflict. What could be more logical? We can achieve this through psychological profiling. Everyone can have a society where they genuinely love their neighbours because their neighbours behave just as they do.

Christians like to say, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Well, we want to actually deliver a new world based on just this rule – and it can only be done when you understand your neighbours and are all on the same wavelength.

It’s a sad but unavoidable fact of life that there are those who will never be our friends. They are just too different from us. It’s not that they’re wrong and we’re right, that they’re bad and we’re good – there’s no morality involved – it’s just that we’re not simpatico.

If we can’t be together then we must be apart. And thus we’ll create happy societies. We can visit other city-states as tourists, not as enemies. And they can visit us and be treated with the utmost hospitality for the duration of their stay.

Isn’t that what “civilisation” is all about?
__________

One Generation:

Phantom wrote, “If we have ONE generation of children that is free from the brainwashing and putrefaction of the current state of society, the world will change utterly.”

That’s right. We’re just one generation from a new world, but getting the space to create that one golden generation is the biggest problem imaginable. The tragedy is that most parents believe it’s their sacred duty to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs. They think they’re doing them a favour, doing the right thing. They couldn’t be more wrong, but how can you persuade them of their error when they in turn were brainwashed by their own parents?

People who are in the grip of superstition cannot be freed, unfortunately. They are superstitious because a) they have been the victims of brainwashing and b) they don’t have the sort of rational mind that allows them to free themselves from absurd beliefs.

If you say, “Fuck Jehovah, fuck Allah, fuck Jesus Christ!” – you are not placing your soul in any jeopardy. Frankly, the True God isn’t listening to what you are saying, and isn’t in the business of punishing anyone. The True God is a God of Knowledge, not of Crime and Punishment. What the True God offers us is the chance to gain the same knowledge he has.

Can any person seriously believe that God is watching every human being all the time, shaking his head in disapproval over any “transgressions” and getting ready to send someone to hell for eternity, or nodding in appreciation because some person has robotically obeyed every rule in an ancient book? What a sad, sad, sad vision of God these fools have.

Phantom wrote: “Today it hit me that Illumination is like an operating system custom-tailored to our own individual perception. It allows us to navigate the inner worlds with ease and incorporate art, science, mathematics and philosophy into its perspective – in fact, Illumination does it naturally, like a four-winged bird holding up its quintessential aspect, the spiritual, and vice versa the spiritual feeds into this quaternion. I have enjoyed my meditations the last few weeks; these inside worlds are beautiful beyond description but there is always more to see.”

Now, isn’t that a far superior vision to the one offered by Abrahamism? God is inside us, not outside. If we look deeply enough, we will all find God. Do you spend all of your time hoping and praying that your enemies will be punished forever in the most horrific ways for daring to oppose you? Haven’t you got better things to do with your time? By the same token, God has better things to do than contemplate the torture he will inflict on people for disobeying him. As above, so below.

If you are not a sick fuck who dreams of eternally punishing rule breakers then you can be sure God isn’t either. The sort of people who are obsessed with obeying rules and commandments are utterly alienated from God and have understood nothing of real religion. In truth, they are mentally ill, being guided by their unconscious shadow. They are full of hate, bitterness, rage and the desire for revenge. They project their own cruelty and bestiality onto the God they worship. They can’t imagine that he isn’t as obsessed with garbage and sadism as they are. They are pathetic, and they are the people to whom the label “evil” can be legitimately applied. Anyone who thinks God is a cosmic Torturer and Avenger, committed to inflicting endless pain on anyone who disobeys his books of petty rules about whether or not you should eat bacon sandwiches, turn on the light on a Saturday, or cut your hair in a certain way is MAD! There’s no other word for it.

As was said about Lord Byron, these people are: “Mad, bad and dangerous to know.”
__________

Laughter and Superstition:

Only one type of animal has a sense of humour – human beings. And only one type of animal is superstitious – human beings. Superstition is an extraordinary phenomenon. It is defined as an irrational belief founded on ignorance or fear and characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, rules, commandments and rituals.

Consider the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Jews couldn’t care less about the superstitions of Christians and Muslims, but they will compulsively obey all Jewish rules out of terror of the imagined consequences of disobeying them.

Christians couldn’t care less about not being circumcised while Jewish and Muslim men think they will go to hell if they aren’t circumcised. Imagine being sentenced to eternal hell for not having your foreskin chopped off. That, apparently, will be the fate of all of us who haven’t had the unkindest cut. We’re shaking in our shoes!! Muslims not only don’t regard Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and the only path to paradise, they think that anyone who says Jesus Christ is God is going to hell.

Jews regard the beliefs of Christians and Muslims as irrational and superstitious; Christians think it’s the Jews and Muslims who are crazy, and Muslims are certain all Jews and Christians are going to hell for rejecting Mohammed and the Koran.

Isn’t it amazing that people are able to see others’ beliefs and superstitions as ridiculous and irrational, yet can’t comprehend that their beliefs and superstitions are viewed exactly the same way by others? A Muslim has no fear of insulting Jesus Christ, yet believes he will jeopardise his immortal soul if he breathes a word against Mohammed. Christians believe that Mohammed is in hell – Dante even wrote about it in The Inferno – and have no fear at all about insulting him.

Why is one group seized by dread at the thought of insulting Mohammed while all other groups think that insulting Mohammed has no consequences at all for the afterlife?

Imagine a God who sends all non-Jews to hell, or all non-Christians or all non-Muslims.What kind of God is that? What rational person would want to have anything to do with such a God?

Why is that some of us who were raised as Abrahamists are able to break away from our childhood religion and not be remotely affected by superstition or fear, while many more are terrified and can’t escape? What is it that grips them so tightly? The answer of course is that those who reject their parents’ religion are invariably highly rational. Reason is the antidote to superstition. All Abrahamists who haven’t abandoned their religion are lacking in rationality, hence they are inherently extremely dangerous, as Muslims prove over and over again in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Superstition is fear that has been instilled in children in their earliest years, and continually reinforced ever since. Any child who does not have a rational mind is poisoned forever. Superstition relies on three things: irrationality, fear and submissiveness. If you think about it, all people who believe that some dominant person (Moses, Christ, Mohammed etc.) is the mouthpiece of God are submissives – slaves –waiting for their master to tell them what to do, and believing him to be infallible.

Submissives are those who can’t imagine that they themselves are, at core, God. Dominants have no such problem. Submissives are alienated from their inner godliness, and are extremely susceptible to instead projecting it onto someone else – any suitably dominant person. All prophets are dominants and all followers are submissives.

The Illuminati’s desired end-point – the Community of Gods; the Society of the Divine – is one in which there are no masters and slaves, no dominants and no submissives. Everyone has become God. Any healthy religion should be striving to release everyone’s inner God.

Look at the Muslims. Their religion is called “Submission” and they spend all of their time on their knees. Only submissives are attracted to Islam. It’s the essence of submissiveness. They believe that an illiterate tribesman, who was very friendly with Jews living in Arabia, went into a mountain cave and encountered the Angel Gabriel, who then proceeded to recite the Word of God – the Koran – to him. Now, to any dominant person, this is ludicrous beyond belief. But, to weak, pathetic submissives, searching for the guidance of a dominant, there is nothing odd about it. They WANT to believe. They want to be told in unambiguous black and white what to do. They want the master to tell them what’s halal (permitted) and what’s haram(forbidden). It all makes perfect sense to them. It’s emotionally satisfying.

And it’s not as if these morons could ever work out it for themselves. They need dictatorial “holy” books to fill the void in their brains. They have no initiative. They are robots waiting to be programmed. They have precious little free will. Anyone who wants to slavishly obey commandments in a book is barely human.

To any dominant person, Islam is a religion that makes them feel physically sick. It reeks of weakness, stupidity, irrationality and submissiveness. It is incomprehensible to any dominant person how anyone could take Islam seriously. It’s a joke religion, a bad imitation of Judaism, which is itself a pile of crap.

Why would any God worthy of the name send a person to hell, as Jews and Muslims believe, for not being circumcised (i.e. for remaining as nature intended!). In other words, God, the alleged designer of humanity, hates his own design and thinks that unless a male has his foreskin snipped off then he deserves eternal hellfire. So why didn’t he simply design males without foreskins and then he wouldn’t need to get upset about it? If God requires the removal of foreskins then he must have made a mistake to provide them in the first place. (By the way, did you realise that Jesus Christ’s divine foreskin may still exist, carefully preserved by his family? Will it have magic properties? Is it imbued with divinity? Will it be a stargate to heaven?)

The whole thing is actually laughable and yet it would cause WWIII if Jews and Muslims were prohibited by law from physically mutilating their male children.

Monarchists – such as the people of the UK – are another group of retarded submissives. What kind of person wants to be someone’s “subject”? – only a submissive. The UK has a nauseatingly submissive working class who revere their masters. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the UK are amongst the most privileged people on earth: the living, breathing Old World Order. The people who voted for them and who support the unelected, unaccountable head of state – the Queen – have neither dignity, intelligence nor self-respect. Monarchy is Leviathan: a monstrous tyranny. The British people have a false consciousness. They have completely swallowed the masters’ ideology.

We don’t live in a rational world. The vast majority of people aren’t rational. So how can a group such as the Illuminati hope to resolve the world’s problems via rational arguments? We’re in Catch 22. Humanity’s problem isn’t that no one knows what to do, but rather that irrational people will resist all rational plans to reform the world. They are creatures of superstition.

The War of the World is the war between the rational and the superstitious. No task is of greater importance than dealing with superstition. The rational thing to do is make it illegal for any child to be subjected to any irrational teaching that provokes terror, or division between different groups. That, of course, means making Abrahamism and karmic teachings illegal – and billions of humans wouldn’t tolerate that for a moment. Why not? Because they are brainwashed and superstitious! Catch 22 again.

What needs to be done, for rational reasons, can unfortunately never be done because of the irrationality of so many. So, there’s only one way forward – to separate the rational from the irrational and build a big wall. The rational people can then create a new world free of superstition. The simple truth is that they will never be able to do this while they are tethered to Abrahamists and karmists.

Malcolm X advocated separating blacks and whites and creating an independent country for blacks within America until such time as all African Americans could return to Africa. In many ways, this was a supremely rational proposal that even racist whites should have welcomed. In the UK, the far-right white parties advocate giving money to non-whites in exchange for those people returning to their ancestral homes. They would be ecstatic if a contemporary Malcolm X agreed with them.

Of course, it’s not race that’s the problem. The white racists are irrational. THEY are the problem. And there are plenty of irrational blacks, Asians, Hispanics etc too.

Rational people couldn’t care less about race. The only way to move forward is for ALL the rational people in the world to get together and create a rational society. It will be infinitely more successful than the societies run by the irrationals and the latter will be forced, eventually, superstition or no superstition, to accept all of the rules of reason. Any of the irrationals who insist on clinging to superstition will end up in the caves, like the Taliban.

The rationals must lead by example, but they will only get that chance if they cut themselves off from the irrational. Ayn Rand’s notorious book Atlas Shrugged actually proposes something of this kind, except it’s about rich rather than rational people. In Rand’s book, the super rich go on strike because they’re fed up being dictated to by Commies. They create an idyllic community in a hidden valley in Colorado and cut themselves off from everyone else. The rest of the country starts to fall apart and the Commies have to come begging for salvation. The super rich agree to return only if they will now be in total charge, and the Commies are only too happy to agree. Hence why this book is so revered by wealthy Americans.

Meritocrats can keep the same plot, but with the heroes changed from the rich to the rational. The point is that only a policy of separation can ever truly reveal who is right and who is wrong. The rational can prove the superiority of reason only if they are allowed the space to build a rational society, and that can happen only if they can free themselves of the irrational.

We need Apartheid (!) – rational rather than racist – if we are to have any hope of changing the world. People should be free to choose the society they want to live in. If, like the Taliban, you want to live in a superstitious hellhole – go for it. If you want to live in a rational society then you will be signing up for a world ruled by reason, and all superstitions will be consigned to the dustbin.

So, what will it be?
__________

4/7

Academia Iluministă (50)