Dacia Iluministă

Below the level of the OWO are a group of people called the Gatekeepers. They are agents and middlemen; those who take a healthy cut of every transaction. They are parasites. They inflate the market so that their cut grows. They are editors, publishers, producers, talent scouts, advertisers, marketers, fashion setters, commentators, head-hunters, recruitment consultants, political lobbyists, gallery proprietors etc.

Gatekeepers are those who set the tone for society. They decide what books get published, what art gets shown, what movies get made, what articles appear in newspapers and magazines. They choose which stories to highlight and which to bury. They decide whom the media should ridicule and whom they should protect. They take political positions. They promote certain agendas. They ensure that only the “right” people get through the doors. Gatekeepers, like the OWO, are usually Jewish or Masonic. They are well off, well connected, the public face of the establishment. They are mostly educated at private schools and elite colleges and universities. Often, they are related to members of the Old World Order. They are a filter between the people and the OWO.

They look after their own. They invariably favour people who come from similar backgrounds, hold similar views and have similar tastes to themselves. It comes so naturally to them that often they don’t even realise they’re doing it. If you’re not in the “in-crowd”, you should resign yourself to remaining forever in the “out-crowd”. The Gatekeepers are an anti-meritocratic force. They are mired in nepotism and cronyism. They must be swept aside.
__________

The Treasury:

The Old World Order have attempted to portray the irresistible rise of Goldman Sachs as the epitome of the American Dream: a poor immigrant (Goldman) comes to America and within a few years is wildly successful, running a vastly influential bank. If you believe that fantasy, you’ll believe anything. Goldman was a senior figure in an ancient secret society called The Treasury that traces its origins to the time of Moses. The Treasury’s plan is a simple one: to control wealth. Wealth is power and those with the most wealth are the most powerful. That was true in Moses’ day and it is true now. The Treasury was intent on learning everything it could about wealth: how to get it, how to exploit it, how to use it to manipulate people, how to use it to extend its power, how to undermine enemies and hostile powers, how to make itself invulnerable.

Goldman was sent to America, with his ludicrous cover story of being a heroic immigrant, tasked with setting up a banking Leviathan that would be capable of bringing the Treasury’s grandest dream to fruition: the complete control of the entire wealth of the world. That, in effect, is what the world banking system is, and Goldman Sachs takes pride of place. The world’s banks are not there to benefit the people of the world but to advance the interests of the Treasury and the greater organisation of which they are the financial wing: the Old World Order, the tightly knit set of dynastic families that dominate our world. These are the notorious “bloodlines” that are often discussed in online forums. First amongst them is the Rothschild family, the Satanic heart of the Old World Order.

Consider these facts. Goldman’s son-in-law was Samuel Sachs, another member of the German-Jewish mafia that installed itself in America. Sachs was a close friend of another person of German-Jewish stock, Philip Lehman (a partner in Lehman Brothers). Intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was common. Nepotism was rife. Many partners in major investment banks were closely related by blood and marriage. And this is supposed to lead to healthy competition and no conflict of interest, is it? What a joke. The investment banks are – and always have been – a cartel run by The Treasury to serve its interests. They are the beating heart of the Old World Order.

German Jews in America provided the financial strength of the Old World Order, but they needed another group to give them access to political power, to status, prestige and the highest levels of society. That other group was the Freemasons, consisting almost entirely of wealthy WASPs – White Anglo Saxon Protestants. (Virtually every American president has been a wealthy WASP.) That unholy alliance endures to this day and is stronger than ever. Protestant Christian fundamentalists are the most vocal supporters of the state of Israel. The American nation is a slavish and uncritical supporter of Israel even though it is counter-productive for American foreign policy and brings it into ruinous conflict with Muslim nations. 9/11 happened because of America’s relationship with Israel. So what does America get out of this relationship? – nothing but misery and hate. But the close relationship keeps the powerful Jewish lobby sweet.

The following is a list of prominent Jews in the financial world: http://jewprom.50webs.com/JewPromSite_files/sheet045.htm

That website also shows prominent Jews in many other fields, including a long list of billionaires. If a similar list existed for prominent Freemasons, it would just about be possible for anyone reading the list to compile the names of all 6,000 members of the Old World Order. The OWO is a Jewish/Masonic conspiracy. The dreadful irony for the Illuminati is that they gave birth to Freemasonry. But it should be emphasised that the OWO seized control of Freemasonry from the Illuminati by using the oldest trick in the book – bribery and corruption. Freemasonry was intended to bring about a great spiritual renaissance in humanity. Now it is a squalid empire of greed. That illustrates the scale of the task confronting the Illuminati in their struggle to overthrow the OWO. Even their own creations can fall prey to the OWO.

Before the advent of Freemasonry, the OWO was composed of the European aristocracy and their Jewish financiers. But as the power of the aristocracy seemed to be on the wane because of the growing power of parliaments and the merchant class, the aristocrats realised they needed a new way to maintain their position. A secret organisation consisting of well-educated professionals and merchants proved perfect for their purposes. The aristocrats used their status and wealth to seduce their way into the Masonic lodges and soon became the masters. The ordinary Masons were dazzled by being allowed to mix in the highest ranks of society and rapidly succumbed to greed, nepotism and cronyism. To this day, the nauseating British Royal Family hold most of the highest positions in Freemasonry.

The aristocrats believe that everyone has their price. Do you have your price? The Illuminati welcome only those who can never be bought. There are all too few of such people. Look at the modus operandi of the Old World Order in the present day. Rich banks like Goldman Sachs, full of wealthy Jews, hire Ivy League preppies – the children of high-ranking Freemasons. They select MBA students from all the most prestigious business schools. No one else gets a look in. No one else is eligible. The OWO is strictly for Jews and Masons, the unholiest of alliances. (Prominent Catholics, despite their historical differences with Protestantism and Freemasonry, are now fully on-board with the Masonic agenda. So are most of the richest Muslims, particularly those of Saudi Arabia.) But their day is coming to an end.

How can you contribute to the overthrow of the Old World Order? The task is one of psychology. It involves the waging of a “war of signs”. (This concept is discussed in the book The Last Bling King by Mike Hockney.) It amounts to associating “negative” signs with an entity until that entity becomes repulsive to the vast majority of people. At that point, the entity, no matter how powerful it once was, is rendered impotent. Can ordinary people use their creativity to associate a plethora of negativity with Goldman Sachs, to make it the physical manifestation of the unacceptable face of capitalism? It will be the face on every poster, the face that the whole world will come to loathe. The game is to make Goldman Sachs a pariah organisation, the uncoolest place on earth at which to work. Every employee and partner will, bit by bit, be made to feel like lepers in the community. They will be ostracised and despised. No one at a party will ever admit to working for that organisation. The government will be too scared to appoint anyone who ever worked for that firm to any influential position. Drop by drop, its lifeblood will drain away.

Make YouTube videos mocking and criticising Goldman Sachs. Write letters of complaint about them to your politicians. Email media companies with negative comments about Goldman Sachs. Run Facebook campaigns against them. Protest outside their offices. Blog against them. Post anti Goldman Sachs messages on online forums. Arrange flash mobs outside their office every day. Use your creativity. Rather than wasting your time poking people on Facebook, posting pointless shit, or twittering about the sandwich you just ate, think of a strategy for toppling the most evil bank in the world. The bosses of Goldman Sachs think the world is powerless against them. Let’s prove them wrong.

Don’t delude yourselves that the American President will be coming to your aid. Who was Obama’s first Chief of Staff? – Rahm Emanuel, a leading figure in the Jewish community. Who is Emanuel’s brother? – Ari Emanuel, a super-agent and major player in Hollywood. Why does that not seem remotely surprising? The White House and Hollywood combined in one family – the political message and the Hollywood propaganda to sell it. “With Ari, it’s all about the bottom line,” said Jewish writer Aaron Sorkin, a client of Emanuel and creator of the television drama The West Wing. “In a business deal, he’s going to try to kill for you, and it’s just going to be about putting as much money in your pocket as he can, until you tell him that there’s something else that’s important to you.” Yes, that sounds like the sort of thing a monster of greed would proudly say.

The character Josh Lyman in The West Wing is reputedly based on Rahm Emanuel. Yes, why not get a group of Jewish friends together and let them all write about each other and promote the careers of each other on prime time TV? The father of the Emanuel brothers was a member of the ultra-Zionist terrorist organisation Irgun. Perhaps someone should mention that the next time the White House condemns Islamic terrorism.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, is Jewish. So is Larry Elison, founder of Oracle. So are Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google. So is Max Levchin, founder of PayPal. (So are many of the Russian oligarchs who plundered the resources of the former Soviet Union.) Think of the power wielded by these people. Think of their influence over the internet. Here’s the reality. If a smart kid from a poor, ordinary family has a great idea, he has no one to support him. His friends scoff at him. No one can lend him any money. The banks sneer at him. He has no network, no money, no support. His idea withers and dies. But it’s a completely different situation when a bright young Jew or clever preppie Freemason (like Bill Gates) has a good idea. They immediately plug into their network of support. They quickly raise capital. A whole organisation of help is rapidly deployed to bring the project to fruition. Then the world stands back, applauds and calls these people geniuses…

But they’re not. They benefit from a huge helping hand unavailable to others. They are the children of privilege. They have all the right calling cards to succeed. Zuckerberg, for example, was no outsider. He was from a well-off Jewish family and he was attending one of the best and most prestigious universities on earth. If you can’t succeed given such support, there’s something wrong with you. The mystery is why anyone buys into the myth that these privileged people who simply make the most of their privileges are somehow admirable. Approximately 5,300,000 Americans are Jewish, representing about 1.7% of the total American population and roughly 36% of the Jewish population of the world. It is estimated that there are between 13.2 and 18 million Jews in the world. They represent a tiny fraction of the world’s population, yet they exercise massive influence. The Netherlands in Europe has a population of 16.5 million people. It is a highly intelligent, cultured, peaceful, stable nation that once controlled a global trading empire, yet it has nothing like the influence over the world that the Jewish Diaspora does. Why not? Because virtually no Dutch people belong to the Old World Order. They are not part of the huge machine of influence, wealth and power that propels the Jewish people forward.

The Illuminati have a number of members from Jewish backgrounds, but they all repudiate Judaism and they are appalled by the degree of mutual back scratching and nepotism that prominent Jews engage in so enthusiastically. Einstein, one of the finest Jews in history, said, “Try not to become a man of success but a man of value.” It’s a tragedy that most Jews want to be men of Mammon.

It’s important to make a point about anti-Semitism since that accusation is quickly made when anyone says anything critical about any Jewish person. An anti-Semite is someone who wishes ill against someone for no other reason than that person is Jewish. However, is it anti-Semitic to be opposed to those Jews who are part of a conspiracy against the citizens of the world? The purpose of branding people anti-Semitic for expressing negative remarks about greedy shysters who happen to be Jewish is to shut down discussion and anathematise those who made the comments. It’s an old and tired tactic.

If no one speaks out, the conspiracy will never be broken. Ordinary people must have courage. Don’t let rich Jews shout you down. Don’t let rich Freemasons shout you down. Don’t let any rich person of any stripe shout you down. Those who conspire against the people have no rights.
__________

The British Disease:

Britain is one of the most divided, class obsessed nations in the developed world. Inequality and greed are rife. Social mobility is rapidly going into reverse despite the fact that an allegedly centre-left party was recently in power for 13 years in a row. Lord Peter Mandelson, probably the most powerful politician in Britain during those years (even more powerful than the two Labour prime ministers), publicly said he was “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich”. He himself is filthy rich. Mandelson is Jewish and exceptionally well connected with a host of other wealthy Jews and Freemasons. (He is a close friend of the Rothschild Family and often stays at the luxury holiday estate of Lord Jacob Rothschild in Corfu.) Bear in mind that this man represented a party that a couple of decades ago was explicitly socialist and believed in the redistribution of wealth to give ordinary people a realistic chance in life. Which left-wing person would ever call himself “Lord” and cultivate the friendship of the Rothschild family, one of the richest and most privileged families on earth?

You could not imagine two people less socialist in their outlooks than Peter Mandelson and former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair. The “New Labour” Party created by Mandelson, Blair and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has nothing in common with the original Labour Party. In other words, a left-wing party has been hijacked by right-wingers and completely neutralised as a threat to the rich. This perfectly demonstrates the way the OWO work. Their conspiracy takes place right under the noses of the people and no one notices. A political movement gets taken over and no one says a thing. In fact the people even vote for the new party. That illustrates how brainwashed the people are, how well the gatekeepers have softened them up.

Britain is a fractured nation. A huge underclass has evolved, violent, feral, constantly intoxicated and mired in crime. All around the country, deep unease is growing. Gated communities are springing up everywhere. No one trusts anyone else. Everyone looks to their own interests and ignores the rest of their community. The whole concept of community is dying. People are increasingly ruthless, uncaring and lacking in compassion. Everyone is out for themselves. The gap between rich and poor is widening at a bewildering rate. The super-rich are buying themselves out of society. They are moving into the rarefied air of the world of the gods. “Nothing is enough for a person for whom enough is too little,” is what ordinary people say of the super greedy.

The poor are dispossessed, powerless and increasingly afraid. They see no future. Just seven percent of British children are privately educated, but 75 percent of judges, 70 percent of finance directors, 55 percent of solicitors, 53 percent of CEOs, 53 percent of journalists, 50 percent of medics, and 38 percent of politicians come from that background, and it’s getting worse. If you’re not “one of us”, you don’t stand a prayer of getting any of the best jobs in Britain. The OWO control practically every significant job.

The book The Millionaires’ Death Club by Mike Hockney illustrates the world of the OWO. A group of exceptionally rich, arrogant and privileged students – on their way to senior roles in the OWO – are a law unto themselves. They are contemptuous of ordinary people and think they can get away with anything, even murder. One of the ancient initiation ceremonies of the Illuminati is described in the book. That same ceremony has been appropriated in real life by the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale. Many symbols and ceremonies of the Illuminati have found their way, via Freemasonry (which was the creation of the Illuminati), to modern Masonic societies. These similarities are then cited as “proof” that the Illuminati are the ultimate puppet masters. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Illuminati are freedom fighters, seeking to liberate humanity from the yoke of the OWO.

Many people who claim to despise the rich, privileged elites would succumb to them if they were ever invited to join the in-crowd. The Millionaires’ Death Club is about an impressionable person being offered that very chance. What would you do if they opened the door to you?
__________

Goldman Sucks:

Something truly extraordinary has happened. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Goldman Sachs, the greedy, grasping, Midas heart of the Old World Order, with fraud, prompting an immediate slump of over 12% in their share price. For once, the victims of the evil empire of Goldman Sachs were not the ordinary people, but their own big clients, including the German bank IKB. This is a momentous hour. Like rats in a sack, the Old World Order have viciously turned on each other. Their united front is disintegrating. How did it come about? What did Goldman Sachs do that was so outrageous that the SEC could no longer turn a blind eye to the myriad of transactions performed by Goldman Sachs that should have attracted the most serious scrutiny long ago?

What happened was that the hedge fund Paulson & Co, one of the most spectacular beneficiaries of the Credit Crunch, earning billions of dollars while so many other were losing billions, put together a complex portfolio of subprime-mortgage-backed investments that it fully expected to slump in value i.e. it was actually assembling a collection of what it thought were the highest risk, most dubious investments available, and anticipating maximum downside on this portfolio. Its explicit strategy was to bet heavily against this portfolio i.e. to “short” it to the fullest extent. In other words, Paulson & Co regarded this portfolio as utterly toxic, a disaster in the making. This portfolio was “dead man walking” if ever there was one.

Paulson & Co arranged for Goldman Sachs to structure, market and sell this portfolio to its prestigious clients. Goldman Sachs gave it the full, glossy treatment, indicating to many clients that they would be sitting on a potential goldmine if they invested in this portfolio. They completely omitted to mention to all would-be clients that Paulson & Co regarded this portfolio as a collection of the walking dead – a zombie fund heading for the graveyard. Isn’t this a critical piece of information about which every potential client ought to have been made aware? It’s a bit like selling a house for full market value when you know it’s sitting on the edge of a crumbling cliff, a fact that you deliberately fail to tell the purchaser.

In fact, they didn’t mention Paulson & Co at all. They claimed instead that ACA Management, an objective, independent third party with expertise in analysing risk, had assembled the portfolio. They must have known that if they had admitted the involvement of Paulson & Co, investors might have viewed it entirely differently, given the reputation of hedge funds. The Goldman Sachs “vice president” at the heart of the scandal was a Frenchman called Fabrice Tourre. In an email sent to a friend a month before he helped to structure the toxic portfolio, Tourre said, “More and more leverage in the system. The whole building is about to collapse anytime now … Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fabrice Tourre … standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implication of those monstrosities!!!”

Tourre was described as a “well-mannered, handsome guy from a very refined family.” He had a reputation for throwing noisy parties in his fashionable block of flats. He was a ‘straight-A’ student at the Lycee Henri IV, one of France’s most elite schools, housed in an exquisite 6th Century abbey in Paris. He then studied mathematics at the Ecole Centrale Paris, a top French university, before completing his elite education with the obligatory trip to the USA where he obtained a master’s degree from Stanford. He worked in a luxurious office in a prime location in London. A Wall Street insider said, “This is the most cynical scheme I ever saw. Tourre was very aggressive about trying to make the assets look better than they were.” Tourre was described as being “in his element.”

The portfolio tanked in value in a matter of months, costing major European banks a fortune – some $1bn in total. It is almost beyond belief that Goldman Sachs thought it could get away with this. Its defence was that it was selling a sophisticated product to sophisticated investors, and it was up to them to perform any necessary checks (just as someone buying a house should always get a surveyor to check a property). Goldman Sachs, under the command of Lloyd Blankfein, is now exposed as having favoured a major hedge fund client over other major clients. One can well imagine that Goldman Sachs and Paulson & Co have very tight links of one sort or another.

John Paulson, founder of Paulson & Co, personally earned 2.3 billion in 2008. He was only the fourth best-paid hedge fund manager in the world. In 2007, Paulson earned $3.7bn. How much money does this man need?

The top 25 American hedge fund managers earn an average of $1bn per annum. Their total salary could pay for 658,000 teachers earning $38,000 per annum, and educate 13 million children. But, of course, the hedge fund managers would prefer to keep the money for themselves. Of what possible interest is the education of 13 million children to them? “I’m all right – so screw the whole world!” is their mantra. Isn’t it time America turned round to them and said, “No, screw you,” and took all their money away from them? It’s not as if hedge fund managers actually do anything productive. They are speculators and parasites who destabilize the world economy. What kind of economic system is it that allows these people to flourish and be celebrated? It’s an economy of the damned, an Evil Empire of unrestrained greed and selfishness, the economic system of a mental asylum. Think about it: 13 million educated children or 25 billionaire speculators; a meritocracy or capitalism? You choose.

“The chief value of money lies in the fact that one lives in a world in which it is over-estimated.” –H L Mencken

It’s time for humanity to stop being ruled by money. It’s time for the vast majority to start dictating to the tiny minority. From now on, they will do our bidding, not we theirs. We are pathetic cowards and slaves if we let these spivs and speculators tell us that we should live our lives on their terms and according to their sick and deranged values where all that matters is the sheer amount of wealth they can amass (and deprive others of the use thereof). As for Goldman Sachs, it is an investment bank that has now hoisted its true colours. It is not an honest broker, but a dishonest one, explicitly helping some clients over others. It can spin the issue however it likes, but the truth is now plain for all to see. This ought to mean the complete ruination of the reputation of Goldman Sachs. It is a true bombshell.

Goldman Sachs is the infamous “vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”. This is a devastating indictment of its business practices and ethics (it doesn’t have any). Why isn’t this monstrosity put out of business? This institution is offensive to all decent people. It serves no function of any value to the people. It is a vehicle for making the rich richer, for transferring assets from the poor to the rich, for placing ever-increasing amounts of resources and power in the hands of those who already have more than could ever be deemed acceptable in a democracy.

Institutions such as Goldman Sachs are the very instruments that ensure that the people are never given any power in a democracy. They are the central reason for the failure of democracy. In a meritocracy, Goldman Sachs, and all of its clones, would be closed down. Many banks have been described as being “too big to fail” i.e. they have an implicit guarantee that, if they screw up on a huge scale, they will always be bailed out by taxpayers to prevent an economic catastrophe. You have to ask yourself why any institution should be allowed to place a gun at the head of taxpayers. Why were they allowed to become “too big”? Cui bono? Go figure.

The remedy is simple. Break up every major financial institution into parts, any of which will be allowed to fail if it screws up. The law should prevent any organization from becoming too big and powerful, from being able to have a huge and decisive influence over public affairs. Goldman Sachs has its tentacles in every aspect of the Western world’s economic functioning. Ex-Goldman Sachs executives are everywhere, running all sorts of organizations, institutions and government agencies. In effect, a Goldman Sachs network of influence extends all over the West. These people have the same political beliefs, the same mentality, the same aims, the same tactical and strategic thinking. They are a walking, talking, spreading conspiracy of wealth and power. They know who’s on their side and who isn’t. These are the people who send in economic “hit men” to devastate companies, and even countries that they want to bring under their power.

They are zealous advocates of Zionism, and they ensure that the West is dragged into supporting Israel, the most divisive nation on earth. What possible legitimate reasons are there for the West to alienate over a billion Muslims in order to suck up to a few million Zionists? It defies all logic, apart from the true logic of the world – that of power and wealth. Who controls it is all that counts – and the Zionists of Goldman Sachs are the Prime Movers when it comes to wealth, power and influence. Goldman Sachs would never employ you unless you were one of the “Elite”. They have an elaborate recruitment policy to ensure that only the “right type” ever steps through their doors. Goldman Sachs, by its very nature, is a conspiracy against the world, and it’s about time that the world now conspired against Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs is an abomination. It serves no moral purpose. It does nothing to serve the people. It is the enemy of the people. The sinister “Illuminati” that exists in the popular mythology of the internet is really nothing other than Goldman Sachs. That institution of extravagant greed represents everything to which the true Illuminati is opposed. The great Adam Weishaupt would have been the first person to demand its total destruction.

Meritocracy is about taking explicit measures to ensure that no individual, family or group is allowed to acquire disproportionate wealth, power and influence. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a “winner-takes-all” ideology. The whole purpose of capitalism is to ensure that a tiny elite controls the means of production and takes almost all of the “surplus value” (i.e. profit) for themselves. The vast bulk of the surplus value of the global economy resides in the hands of a privileged elite who will do anything to hang on to it. They do not act in your interests; only in their own. We have no problem with people who work hard and have good ideas achieving considerable prosperity – but we do object to that wealth becoming excessive. Does anyone on earth need more than, say, one million dollars a year (after tax) to be considered extremely well rewarded for their efforts? So why is anyone on earth paid more than that? The vast bulk of the surplus value in the world should be reinvested in the people of the world, to raise up the whole of humanity, not to allow the Elite to each have twenty luxury mansions, three yachts, one hundred super cars, million-dollar parties, and whatever else they deem fit to lavish on themselves as they wallow in infinite narcissism.

Make no mistake, capitalism is the vehicle of excessive wealth, and it is capitalism that needs to be changed if we want a fair world. A cap on personal wealth of a million dollars a year after tax would be an appropriate start. Only people fuelled by greed could possibly complain about such a cap. And is not avarice one of the seven deadly sins? In Britain, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke of “moral bankruptcy” and ordered an investigation of Goldman Sachs’ British operations by the Financial Services Authority.

Has the hour of its destruction finally come? Credit where credit’s due. No matter what we think of the SEC and the Obama administration, we will congratulate them if they make a start on the holy mission of ridding the world of the evil of Goldman Sachs. There can be no doubt that the strains of the Credit Crunch have caused rifts amongst the OWO. It appears that those who felt that Goldman Sachs did not treat all members of the OWO fairly are casting it adrift. Its catastrophic public image is making it an easy target for politicians. Never forget that Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs said that he was just a banker doing God’s work. What god is that? Yahweh, the Demiurge, Satan? In 2009, Blankfein earmarked $5bn for staff pay and bonuses. Let’s hope Blankfein and his Godly bank are going down – all the way to hell where they belong.
__________

The Illuminati versus Freemasonry:

The Illuminati were the founders of Freemasonry, but they did not run it in a hands-on way (they always leave satellite organisations to evolve in their own way since they have insufficient numbers and resources to manage them themselves, and in any case they think it right that the new organizations should control their own destiny). Although it began as a noble, heroic and anti-establishment organisation committed to spreading Enlightenment values, Freemasonry was soon identified by the Old World Order as the weak link in the resistance movement, one that could be “turned”. They were not wrong. The central problem with Freemasonry was that it expanded too fast. Originally it only recruited meritocratic individuals, highly committed to political and religious transformation of the world, but, as it expanded, new members joined who had none of the same reforming zeal but were merely curious about the secrets and ceremonial practices of Freemasonry.

This is one of the main reasons why the Illuminati remains a small organisation of only a few thousand adepts. Only by ensuring that new members are of the right type can the Order be protected from the kind of disaster that overtook Freemasonry. The Illuminati uses a “cell” consisting of three senior adepts to handle all matters of recruitment in a consistent way.

The 3-person Illuminati cell that is responsible for this series of books is a so-called “communication cell” (one of a number of such cells, all of which operate independently and are engaged in a variety of projects) and has no influence over the recruitment cell. We pass on details of individuals who contact us expressing an interest in joining the Illuminati (and we provide a recommendation), but virtually all such candidates are put on a “watch” file. In essence, this means that the progress of such candidates is monitored over a period of years to see if they are committed, zealous, meritocratic individuals who are not susceptible to the corruption of the OWO. “The Movement” is now the testing ground where would-be recruits can demonstrate their credentials.

We must emphasise again that the Illuminati are nothing like the Freemasons. We are not a group that seeks to have lodges in every town, nor to have a mass membership with money, power and influence rolling in. You can’t be admitted to the Illuminati because you know someone who knows someone, and so on. You can’t be admitted because you are rich and famous. You can’t be admitted simply because you are keen to learn secrets. You must be the right type of person, and the Illuminati usually takes years to decide whether or not you are.

The Illuminati rejects modern Freemasonry utterly because it has been hijacked by the so-called Star Families (bloodlines) of the Old World Order and has become their primary means of upholding their power. Every member of the OWO is a Mason, although they belong to extremely special lodges to which no ordinary Mason is ever admitted. What most people “know” about the Illuminati concerns the period when, under Grand Master Adam Weishaupt, the Order’s existence became a matter of public record. Weishaupt was a professor, an expert in law, canon law and philosophy, who was determined to push forward the agenda of the Enlightenment with its two primary goals:

a) To attack the idiocy, hypocrisy, illogic, corruption and oppression of Christianity and b) To attack the inequality, unfairness, tyranny, elitism, injustice and oppression of the European monarchies and the arrogant aristocracies that supported them.

Weishaupt was a highly educated academic (in common with many members of the Illuminati), committed to bringing about a New World Order based on meritocracy where everyone has a fair chance and can rise as high as their talents warrant. It is astounding that Weishaupt’s New World Order has been transformed in contemporary mythology from a vehicle to overthrow tyranny into one that, according to the deranged anarcho-capitalist libertarians with their shape-shifting Reptiles, Hollow Earth, Nibiru and microchip theories, will bring about the greatest tyranny of all, where the Earth is ruled by fascist aliens.

How can any rational human being equate what Weishaupt actually said with what the libertarian lunatics are claiming he said? Weishaupt’s New World Order is the best thing that could happen to this earth. It is the means by which the world will move from the squalid rule of the Old World Order to the visionary society envisaged by Star Trek. Which society would you rather have? Only enemies of meritocracy, justice, fraternity, liberty and equality are opposed to Weishaupt’s New World Order.

Reject all of those who condemn the New World Order. The NWO is precisely what we should all be aiming for: the world where all of us have the best chance to make the most of ourselves, to use our talents to the full, to achieve maximum self-fulfilment.

The Illuminati’s main problem is its own creation: Freemasonry. Freemasonry was designed as a movement to advance the cause of the Enlightenment. Initially, Freemasonry did exactly what was expected of it. In particular, it helped during the French Revolution to overthrow the evil monarchy of Louis XVI. Before that, it gave rise to the Republic of the United States of America where the great Illuminist Thomas Jefferson was the main author of the inspirational Declaration of Independence. The sentiments expressed there are what the Illuminati stand for, yet the anarcho-capitalist libertarians who, perversely, claim to be on the side of truth, freedom and justice, oppose these principles.

Thomas Jefferson ensured that America allowed its citizens to worship God in whatever way they chose i.e. there was no state church, no state religion, no demands for people to follow particular religious practices. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

A strict “wall of separation” was maintained between religion and state, exactly as any healthy state would desire. It is all the more remarkable that America has become such a Christian Fundamentalist nation that blindly supports Israel, a nation that has an explicitly religious identity i.e. there is no wall of separation in Israel. In fact, the opposite is true: it is a Jewish state. The head of state of the UK doubles up as the head of the state church of England: the Anglican Church. How can a monarch be the leader of a religion? It’s absurd. Many nations are explicitly Muslim. Pity those who live in those countries who do not subscribe to Islam. State religion is one of the greatest of all evils. Religious nations should be boycotted and ostracised from the community of nations.

A modern state without monarchy and without a state religion – this was the first part of Weishaupt’s New World Order. He wanted the American model to be extended to every European nation groaning under monarchy and state religion. Unfortunately, America soon became as corrupt as the European nations, but the failure of America is to do with the people who have been allowed to rise to power, not with the principles upon which the Republic was founded. Those principles were never fully implemented. If they had been, America would have become the great beacon of hope for humanity that it was always intended to be. America can still be that beacon. Only those who are opposed to the foundation of the American Republic could possibly oppose Weishaupt’s New World Order, and indeed many anarcho-capitalist libertarians do indeed bemoan the creation of America and label it as a sinister Masonic conspiracy from the outset. America has not evolved as its founders intended it should, but that was because the “Empire” fought back i.e. the Old World Order worked out how to sabotage the wondrous American experiment.

They chose Freemasonry as the Trojan Horse that would allow them to infiltrate the new American system of government. This was the logical and perfect choice since most of the leading figures in the American Revolution were Masons. The Illuminati had intended Masons to be Enlightenment warriors – noble, honourable, principled and driven by meritocracy – but the Old World Order appealed to the oldest of temptations: greed and lust for money, power, fame, sex and influence. They turned Freemasonry to the dark side by the simple and brutally effective use of bribery and corruption. It’s the tactic they always use to neutralise their enemies, and it rarely fails.

Freemasonry is now a nauseating, unprincipled, self-serving secret society of free-loaders, carpetbaggers, robber barons, gangsters, racketeers and everyone who’s fake, on the make and on the take. The only difference between the Mafia and Freemasonry is that the Mafia are outside the establishment while the Freemasons are the establishment.

Notorious mobster Al Capone said:

“Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.”

“You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”

“I have built my organization upon fear.”

These are identical to the sentiments of the OWO. The truth is that the OWO are a gangster conspiracy that is treated as legitimate. Washington DC and Wall Street are full of gangsters stealing from the public, committing hold ups in broad daylight, silencing their enemies and doing everything to further “our thing”. Like the Mafia, they are “family” men and women, fully committed to making sure their children get much more than everyone else’s children. Like the Mafia, they use force to achieve their ends. They are criminals wearing a cloak of fake respectability. Economist John Maynard Keynes said, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” Isn’t it time we wised up?

The OWO are arch capitalists (i.e. racketeers) and they have no interest at all in doing anything for the greatest good of everyone. They are in it entirely for themselves. Look at the Wall Street gang: the size of their bonus is their only concern. The whole world can go to hell as long as they get their super-inflated bonus. If their bonus is refused they will threaten to leave the country and go where they are more appreciated. This is essentially the thesis of Ayn Rand’s nauseating novel Atlas Shrugged. The rest of us should make it as easy as possible for these people to go elsewhere. Every nation would be better off without these sociopaths.

The great unholy alliance of our time is between Washington DC’s Freemasonry and Wall Street’s Jewish bankers. The banks provide the financial muscle while the Masons provide the political and social power: a marriage truly made in hell.

Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is married to Jewish Goldman Sachs investment banker Marc Mezvinsky, son of former Pennsylvania Representative Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky and former Iowa Representative Ed Mezvinsky. This is how the old World Order works: dynastic marriages stretching across the banking and political worlds, continually extending their financial and political power. It’s happening right in front of our faces. How long before Marc Mezvinsky is on the board of Goldman Sachs; how long before Chelsea Clinton is running for President? Already, the wheels are in motion for these things to happen. Already, the OWO are preparing the path for these two chosen ones. Already OWO teams have started work on these projects. Already, others are shut out, blocked, regardless of their merits.

For centuries, Europe was controlled by a group of royal families that engaged relentlessly in dynastic marriages to consolidate their wealth and power. Royalty is no longer what it was, but the OWO have simply replaced it with new dynastic marriages between bankers and politicians, those who control our money and those who control the laws that govern us. They rule us with the same arrogance and selfishness as the monarchs of old.

When he was young, Bill Clinton was a member of the junior Masonic association the “Order of De Molay”. He later entered the ultra-elitist and utterly secretive OWO Masonic lodge called “The Golden Star of Minerva”. (It must be acknowledged that many of the names and symbols associated with Freemasonry ultimately derive from the Illuminati, the founders of Freemasonry. Now the Illuminati can only look on appalled as their ancient names and symbols are abused in the most disgraceful manner by modern Masons as these charlatans desperately seek authenticity.)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a close friendship with former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband who, like Chelsea’s fiancé is Jewish (Miliband’s brother Ed is also a senior British politician, and is now the leader of the Labour Party). We can be sure no substantive pressure will be exerted on Israel by America and the UK to make the Israelis stop their disgraceful treatment of the Palestinians.

When are people going to wake up? We cannot allow these dynasties to keep gathering more and more power.

Never forget the unholiest alliance: Masonic power and Jewish money, the axis of evil around which the Old World Order revolves. The people of Israel claim that God led them to the “Promised Land” and that they have a divine right to be there. Of course, the Palestinians, once known as the Canaanites, were in the Land of Canaan long before the Hebrews showed up with their “army of God”. They, not the Israelis, are the people who can legitimately claim that Canaan is their historical homeland. Only a Satanic god would ever promise a people a land that already belonged to another people. And look how effective Satan’s promise proved: thousands of years later, conflict and hatred is still rife in the so-called “holy” land.

The Old Testament story of how the Hebrews violently seized control of Canaan with the help of their partisan, violent God is one of the most shocking and horrific narratives ever placed before the world, that such a tale should be place in a supposedly holy book and fed to billions of people over several millennia is one of the greatest sins ever perpetrated against humanity. Marcion was right that this sickening book should be treated with nothing but horror and revulsion. It would have been much better for the world if this tale had never been told.

But it must be emphasised that there are many good Jews who are as opposed to what the Jewish banking fraternity get up to as we are. There can be no knee-jerk anti-Semitism. The Old World Order consists of only 6,000 people: a small number of super-rich Jews, a small number of super-influential Freemasons, a small number of members of the aristocratic and royal families of Europe, a small number of super-celebrities and a small number of self-serving “intellectuals” and propagandists. They are backed up by senior members of the world’s security forces (military and police) and intelligence services.

Insofar as the Illuminati founded Freemasonry and Freemasonry has now become the opposite of what it was intended to be, it is perhaps not unsurprising that the Illuminati has been condemned in some circles, but this is unjust. Freemasonry was corrupted by the OWO; it is no longer the noble brotherhood originally designed by the Illuminati. That is why the Illuminati now advocate a completely different vehicle for advancing the cause of a New World Order, one to which any motivated person can contribute. “The Movement” is the way forward to change the world. You can be part of it too.
__________

3/9

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

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

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

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

Direct Democracy:

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

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

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

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

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

The Family – the Natural Enemy of the State:

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

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

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

The Family – Dog Eat Dog:

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

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

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

Community, an Alternative to the Nuclear Family:

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

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

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

Marriage:

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

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

Religion, the Worst Form of Child Abuse?:

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

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

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

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

The Benefits of the State over the Family:

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

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

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

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

Ants and the Elderly – Abolish Retirement:

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

Devil’s Advocate Department:

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

The House of Commons or the House of Extraverts?:

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

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

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

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

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

Shopping:

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

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

The Death of Art:

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

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

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

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

So, which side are you on?
__________

6/7