Vă invit să vă alăturaţi grupului Facebook Mişcarea DACIA, ce-şi propune un alt fel de a face politică!Citiţi partea introductivă şi proiectul de Program, iar dacă vă place, veniţi cu noi !
O puteţi face clicând alături imaginea, sau acest link
Archive for Maggio, 2019:
Academia Iluministă (101)
THE WORLD WAS RULED from the beginning by wolves. All monarchs have been wolves. Religious leaders were always wolves preaching a wolf doctrine of “obey me or perish”. Capitalists have been extreme wolves preying on the poor. We need to escape from the control of wolves. We need Platonic philosopher-kings and Guardians. Unlike Plato, we now have an immense battery of psychological tools at our disposal to identify benevolent rulers and distinguish them from the selfish psychopaths who want to exploit humanity for their own ends. We can create a “philosopher-king” psychological template. Let’s imagine that John F. Kennedy really was a Camelot figure and had come from an entirely meritocratic background rather than one of extreme wealth and privilege i.e. imagine an idealised version of the flawed reality. We could psychologically profile such a leader and then seek similar traits in all future leaders. We could keep adjusting the template as we go along in response to any flaws that become apparent. Eventually we could know right from the outset whether the candidates for high office will govern for the people or for themselves. We will be able to exclude all greedy, selfish, wolf characters from all positions of influence over the people.
Plato talked of having “Guardians” who lived in a commune and were raised from childhood to be the leaders of society. They would all be philosophers, with no greedy, selfish, materialistic aims. Their only interest would be the optimal governance of the State for the good of all. These days, we could psychologically identify just such Platonic Guardians. Equally, we could subject all of the political, banking, regulatory, business, stock market and economic leaders who brought the world to the brink of the financial catastrophe to psychological tests and create profiles of those who must never again be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. Leadership can be converted into a science. Simply by using psychological profiling, we can identify those capable of running the world competently and those sure to be a disaster. We don’t need elections, spin-doctors, lobbyists, campaign donations from Goldman Sachs and all the rest of it. We KNOW who the bad wolves are. We can exclude them. Whatever you think of President Obama, he clearly isn’t up the job. In fact, it’s hard to think of anyone in Congress who’s fit for purpose. We don’t need to endure these people. We can create a whole new political class based on psychology rather than on “who you know”. Privilege can be entirely removed from the political equation.
Politics is primarily an arena for extraverts, but introverts are much more likely to be wise and altruistic leaders. In our new system, introverts would begin to predominate. Also, women and representatives of minority groups would be much more likely to create a radical departure from the failed ways of the past. A New World Order means finding new ways to do everything, to escape from the mistakes that brought us to the vile world we presently endure. We simply need to identify the traits of those who led us to disaster and prevent them from leading us ever again. There’s nothing intellectually difficult about changing the world. You could transform it beyond recognition in a single generation. But it’s having the will to destroy the existing order that’s the true stumbling block. It has rightly been said that those that don’t learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. The tragedy for the world is that many people have learned from the past – but they’re not the ones in charge. The ruling order continues to be the same and continues to pursue the same old policy of extreme self-interest and privilege. The horrific truth is that they WANT to repeat the past because the past is exactly where they have always held power. That’s why they’re called the Old World Order. They don’t want anything to change, except in the sense of updated and more efficient ways of maintaining and extending their power.
The key to genuine change is to change exactly that type of person who has always risen to the top of our society. Such people have invariably been psychopaths and sociopaths with extraordinarily little interest in the welfare of anyone other than themselves. In fact, they have taken delight in humiliating others and doing everything to highlight the gulf between the top tier of society and everyone else. The “top” people are obsessed with status – and status is all about showing that you are much richer and more powerful than others. The precise purpose of the status game is to create a radical difference between high status and low.
__________
The Meritocratic Constitution:
A Constitution does not need to specify endless details, clauses and sub clauses. It simply has to state all of the central concepts upon which the State will be founded. In the Meritocratic Constitution, the ten concepts listed below should all be in an ascending trajectory within the Meritocratic State:
1) Merit
2) Freedom
3) Equality of Opportunity
4) Dignity
5) Psychological well-being
6) Reason
7) Quality
8) Creativity
9) Aspiration
10) Community
If any citizen considers that any aspect of the State is falling short in regard of any of the above, he can bring a case to the Supreme Court, the institution charged with defending and promoting the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the highest institution in the Meritocratic State, above the Presidency. Why? Because nothing is more important than the Constitution and no one, no matter how powerful, is allowed to defy the Constitution. The Constitution, not any individual person, is the guarantor of the Meritocratic State.
It must be stressed that the Supreme Court is a Philosophical Court, not a legal one. In a Meritocracy, lawyers will find their status in catastrophic decline. The Philosophical Supreme Court will be composed of Platonic Guardians under the leadership of a philosopher king elected from amongst their number. The function of the Philosophical Supreme Court is to constitute a kind of living embodiment of the Platonic Forms of Absolute Standards. The Guardians will never be perfect, but they will be the best thinkers humanity has to offer. None of them will be rich. It will be a prerequisite of service on the Philosophical Supreme Court that there can be no question of financial impropriety. All of their financial dealings will be completely transparent. They’re not there for the money; they’re there to serve the people.
In addition, there will be various other Philosophical Courts. Each age group will have a Philosophical Court of people of that age to represent that group’s interests. So, there will be a Court for teenagers, for 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90+. Minority groups can have Courts, if they so desire. Everyone should feel that one Court or another speaks for them. Using the mechanism of Courts, it could be possible to do away entirely with politicians, lobbyists and lawyers, who have proved themselves inept, selfish and corrupt. If catastrophe happens on your watch, should it not be compulsory for you to resign or be fired? Why is there any need for debate? Everyone associated with the financial meltdown should no longer be in power. Tragically, nearly all of those who caused the catastrophe are still running the world. That’s because the system is designed not to kick their sorry asses into touch. These people have no honour, nobility or integrity. Many of them don’t even think they did anything wrong!
__________
Philosophers versus Lawyers:
It has been said that lawyers become more eloquent the higher their fee. In ancient Greece, Socrates and Plato were bitter enemies of “sophists”. Socrates and Plato were philosophers – lovers of wisdom – while the sophists were “wise men”. Why should lovers of wisdom and wise men not get along famously? Aren’t they almost the same thing? Socrates and Plato certainly didn’t think the Sophists were wise but, rather, cunning and disreputable, willing to use their intelligence to present specious arguments to bamboozle and persuade the ignorant. The Sophists were itinerant teachers cum lawyers, selling their services to the highest bidder. They would defend any position if the money was right. So, clearly, exactly like modern lawyers, they had no regard for the truth at all. The idea that America should have a Supreme Court composed of lawyers is surely one of the sickest jokes in history. No sane person would trust a lawyer with a bottle of water, never mind a Constitution. Look at the Supreme Court’s conduct in the Bush versus Gore election. Does that not stand as one of the greatest travesties in world history? It certainly had nothing to do with truth, justice or the Constitution. It was an entirely politically motivated judgement, taken by political appointees of the political party that was the beneficiary of the Court’s decision. How can any Court have any integrity if its members are political appointees?
Socrates and Plato were right to despise the Sophists. The world has always been full of a certain type of pseudo-intellectual who is very happy to prostitute his mind in order to make a lot of money. He is motivated by Mammon not by Truth. That’s why you can’t let rich people anywhere near important public jobs. They have excluded themselves by their greed. They are manifestly interested in self-service, not public service. Wealth and altruism never go together. 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.” Therefore Law 1 of the Meritocratic State should be an absolute prohibition on any wealthy person serving in government. Extreme wealth must become anathema, a thing of shame and disgrace. It must be purged entirely from the human condition. After all, how can it possibly help the State in any way for a very small number of its citizens to be ridiculously rich?
The Age of the Rich must have the curtain brought down on it. Never again should wealth direct the fate of the world.
__________
The Past versus the Future:
The rule of dogma (past) versus the rule of reason (future).
The rule of the privileged elite versus the rule of the meritocratic elite.
Religion versus science, mathematics, philosophy, psychology and sociology.
Mythos Logic versus Logos logic.
Ptolemy’s cosmology (earth created by God and placed at centre of the universe) versus the infinite universe (earth has no special place and there is no Creator God).
Creator God versus Evolutionary God.
God the Tyrant versus God the Mentor and Guide.
Man as the slave of God versus Man becoming God.
Devotion, faith, obedience, acceptance of social order versus intellect, freedom, autonomy, independence, merit, choice, knowledge.
It’s time for humanity to remove the chains of the past. We must EVOLVE. The Muslims, Jews and Christians expect us to be in thrall to the Koran, Torah and Bible a billion years from now. Is that not INSANE?!! We must move onward and upwards and leave the retards behind to sink back into the ancient slime that gave birth to them. Good riddance.
“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” –Thomas Paine
__________
Why Privilege is Wrong:
“In the first part of ‘Rights of Man’ I have endeavoured to show…that there does not exist a right to establish hereditary government…because hereditary government always means a government yet to come, and the case always is, that the people who are to live afterwards, have always the same right to choose a government for themselves, as the people had who have lived before them.” –Thomas Paine
“All men being originally equal, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever.” –Thomas Paine
Once, the elite used the principle of heredity to ensure dynastic control down through the ages. As Thomas Paine recognised, hereditary rule places obligations on those not yet born. They are slaves even before they exist. As hereditary rule faded away in many countries, it was replaced by a new version based on money and privilege. The rich can rule over us in perpetuity because of the power conferred by money. The system of privilege, exactly like that of heredity, shapes the lives of future, unborn generations. In a world of privilege, your future is not in your own hands and your merits count for nothing. Because of the failure of your parents and grandparents to become rich, you are now doomed. The odds against you being a success are simply astronomical. You will need to be blessed with extraordinary good looks, or sporting talent or entertainment ability – anything that the rich value and can exploit to make themselves richer – or you’re well and truly fucked. Even before you were born, your fate was decided, and the same was true of your parents, your grandparents and all earlier generations of your family line. You were born for slavery, to be the servants of the rich elite. Is it just and fair for people to have their fate decided by what happened in the past? – by events that had nothing to do with them?
What is the central principle of meritocracy? It is that each new generation starts afresh, unburdened by the past. How is this achieved? By 100% inheritance tax. All the wealth anyone has accumulated is returned to the commonwealth upon their death. This means that it’s impossible to transmit wealth and power from generation to generation. In such a system, what happens now can NEVER AGAIN decide the future lives of the unborn. Meritocracy ensures that for the first time in history human beings are free from the moment they are born and they do not need to care at all about how successful or unsuccessful their parents were. Their fate is in their own hands, no one else’s. The past won’t determine them. Instead, they will create their own future.
The world can be reduced to two extremely simple formulas:
1) Heredity/Privilege: the past shapes the future and controls the unborn. This is overwhelmingly the most popular formula of our world. This is the core doctrine of the OLD WORLD ORDER. Practically everyone believes that parents should be allowed to pass on wealth to children and that the State has no right at all to intervene. None of them grasp that this single act makes slaves of the unborn. BUT NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO ENSLAVE FUTURE GENERATIONS.
2) Meritocracy: what we do, not what anyone else does, determines our future; all of the unborn are given an equal opportunity. This is the cornerstone of the NEW WORLD ORDER. Until heredity and privilege are destroyed, we can never be ourselves, we can never be authentic, we can never be self-determining and self-creating, we can never be in control of our own destiny. All monarchs, all nobles, all dynastic elites, must be obliterated. There can be no human freedom until the past of heredity and privilege is eradicated once and for all. Robespierre and Saint-Just, two of the Illuminati’s greatest heroes, sought to exterminate those who denied the French people their freedom. Too cruel? Too harsh? Well, the same task can be achieved by a single tax – the 100% inheritance tax, the single most important tax in human history, the tax upon which the fate of humanity, and human freedom itself, rests.
Are you for freedom or against it? If you are for it, you must consign dynastic elites to the dustbin of history. Wealth and power must, by law, be prevented from being transmitted within families. All wealth must be transferred to the COMMONWEALTH, the wealth of ALL of the people. In a world of privilege, the only winners are the privileged. Any non-privileged person who supports inheritance is attacking himself and sabotaging his own self-interest. Such a person is a fool for now and forever. Our world is overflowing with the stupid, and it was the privileged that made them stupid – because their stupidity suits the privileged in every possible way.
“If one class in society is obliged, in order to live, to secure the acceptance by others of its services, whilst another class can do without them, because of the resources already at its disposal, resources that, however, are not necessarily the result of some social superiority, the latter group can lord it over the former. In other words, there can be no rich and poor by birth without there being unjust contracts.” –Durkheim
“The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.–I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.” –Thomas Jefferson
Year Zero = the end of privilege; the start of human freedom and merit.
__________
The Perfect State:
OVER AND OVER AGAIN in the West, the message goes out that the parents must be allowed to decide the fate of their children: to determine what beliefs to give them, to what school to send them, what values to instil in them, how to discipline them. It is regarded as outrageous that the State should interfere. But look at what’s happening in the East, in China. It’s rapidly becoming the world’s top economy, and churning out entrepreneurs, mathematicians, engineers, musicians, and so on, of a fantastically high calibre – all within a centralised command and control system run by the Communist Party. In China, it’s regarded as entirely natural for the State to set the tone, not parents. The State even decided how many children a family should have. Chinese parents have internalized the values of the State and, given the population of China, have realized the imperative of maximizing their children’s talents. The phenomenon of the “Tiger Mother” – the mother determinedly pushing her children to achieve great things through constant hard work and practice – has now started to create waves in the West too. China has, as yet, no privileged elite (other than those associated with the Communist Party) to ruin and corrupt it, but that will change over the next few decades unless the Chinese introduce enormous inheritance taxes to stop the new breed of multi-millionaires forming a future dynastic elite. Historically, China has always seen the State as more important than individuals, while the West has championed the individual over the State. In fact, Western individualism is regarded as one of the reasons why the West proved so much more successful than the East after the birth of Western science (before then, China was more advanced than the West).
The optimal solution is one where the purpose of the State is to create autonomous individuals whose talents and strengths are maximized. Who is better able to accomplish the task? – the family unit which has, typically, two mediocre parents as it controllers, or the State which has, potentially, the finest minds out of hundreds of millions of people to direct it? To put it another way, since the State can assemble the nation’s greatest geniuses to determine how to bring up children in the best possible way while the family can, at best, muster only two religiously brainwashed, academically average parents, which of the two alternatives is likely to know best how to produce the finest, highest achieving children? You would need to be insane to trust the job to parents. And what about dysfunctional one-parent families, or families where the parents are working all hours, or where the parents are illiterate and of subnormal IQ, or where parents are alcoholics, religious fanatics, drug addicts, or where parents are suffering mental health problems, and so forth? How can this disastrous range of parental types lead to sensible, optimised outcomes? Why should children have their futures ruined by inept parents? But if all children are put under the full control of the State, they can all expect exactly the same maximised education, regardless of the failings of parents.
The sad fact is that most parents ruin their children’s lives because they don’t know any better. They do the best they can, but most are hopelessly inadequate. How many parents have detailed knowledge of the latest psychological and sociological research regarding how the mind and society works? Why are ignorant, stupid, religiously indoctrinated parents regarded as the fount of all wisdom? It’s crazy. It has suited the Old World Order, with their doctrines of “family first” and “negative liberty” – minimal State interference – to have the family as the central unit of society. That model has given them the power and control over society that they have always sought. The last thing the OWO want is a State full of supremely talented, autonomous individuals who will no longer tolerate being treated as second-class citizens. The OWO, as a matter of policy, have always undermined the power of the State. The Illuminati, on the other hand, as exponents of positive liberty – the doctrine that the State should seek to produce a perfect world – have always seen the State as the sole means of bringing heaven to earth. Stupid families will never manage it, nor selfish, self-absorbed individuals always looking out for No.1.
Hegel, one of the Illuminati’s greatest Grand Masters, is often accused of “State worship”. The Illuminati do indeed revere the State, but only the meritocratic State run by the finest minds – not the sort of monstrous State we see in America run by a privileged elite in Washington D.C., controlled by lobbyists and the super-rich, promoting the interests of Zionist banks and corporations at all times. Such a State is an abomination, a catastrophe, an absolute inversion of the true meaning of the State. The real State can have only one function – to optimize ALL of the people. There can be no privileged elites, no two-tier societies, no “them and us”, no “one law for them and another for everyone else”, no “looking after No. 1” and so on. The State must be seen to be acting in everyone’s interests, and there should be no conceivable doubt about that. There can be no entrenched elite.
The anti-State, pro-family propaganda of right wing conservatives has been a catastrophe for the world. The State, not the family, is the sole guarantor of universal standards of fairness, justice and equal opportunity. The State is a fundamentally left wing conception while the family is invariably right wing. The family, as history has demonstrated all too clearly, is always preoccupied with its own interests. The world of the family is a world of vicious competing units striving with all of their might to climb up the status tree and push everyone else down. The Old World Order is the inevitable and logical product of a society based on the sacrosanct family. Inheritance is an intrinsically family-centric doctrine. It cares nothing for the Commonwealth. This is the central problem with the family: it is always seeking its own maximum advantage and cares nothing for others. In fact, one of the family’s defining doctrines of success is that others must fail. All families secretly want other families to trip up so that they will then enjoy an advantage over them. That’s no basis for a healthy society.
The central philosophy of the State is that the best world is the one where cooperation between people is maximized, not minimised. If we all do our utmost to help each other, we all prosper. Your good fortune is my good fortune, and mine yours. We are not trying to cut each other’s throats, as in the family model. Cooperation is imperative and critical. It must be ingrained in every fibre of society. The best model for society is the scientific community. All scientists share and share alike. Each scientist is reliant on the work of other scientists. Every scientist wants to make a huge discovery of course, so an element of competition is always present, but every scientist knows that science would collapse if all scientists jealously guarded their research and never shared anything with their peers. Collaboration and sharing are essential to the enterprise. Science is optimized not through competition but through cooperation.
The right wing view of the world is that the best society is a product of brutal competition between families. Manifestly, this doctrine is wholly false, but no one intends to change it because it is perfect for the privileged elite. They have no incentive to change anything. The left wing view is that cooperation must be the bedrock of society, but left-wingers have never yet come up with a viable model to supersede the family model. But such a model now exists. It’s the meritocratic model of the Illuminati. The key to this model is psychological profiling. The reason why all left wing utopias collapsed was that there’s an inherent problem with the human race – personality types that are so different as to render them like warring tribes, seeking entirely different things from life and disagreeing with each other over everything. These tribes resemble the competing families of the right wing model of reality. But psychology provides the answer. We can now tailor the world for the members of all the different tribes. We can separate those tribes that are likely to be in conflict with each other, and unite those that will cooperate. Inter-tribal conflict will be minimised and cooperation maximised. The left wing model of a caring, sharing, collaborative, cooperative, meritocratic society based on the Commonwealth can become a reality. We really can build utopia by using our knowledge of psychology and sociology.
The right wing “game theory” of life where ruthless units of self-interest savagely compete with each other but manage to attain a state of sullen, suspicious equilibrium – just as American and Russia did in the Cold War – has had its day. Now we must adopt the left wing view of life that reflects the strengths of the most successful group in the history of the world – the scientific community. We have the knowledge to achieve it. All we need now is the will. We can build a world of merit rather than privilege where everyone has an equal opportunity, and where we are surrounded by friends rather than enemies and where we all want to cooperate with each other because we have finally grasped that we will be much happier and more successful if all of our neighbours are happier and more successful.
__________
The Law:
In the context of society, the past must never be allowed to determine the future. The success or failure of parents should have no bearing at all on the success or failure of their children. The law must be constructed to ensure that all children start with an equal opportunity in life. The law must therefore automatically prohibit inherited wealth because such wealth can have no effect other than that of providing an unfair, unearned advantage to those who inherit it. The State must provide a tailored education for everyone, hence the influence of parents on their children’s fates will be minimized. Stupid, dysfunctional parents will not be allowed to ruin their children’s lives. The State is the sole guarantor of human freedom from the past. The Old World Order are determined to ensure that the past dictates the future. That’s the whole point of inheritance and privilege. The concept of hereditary power and wealth extending down through the centuries is the essence of the ideology of the dynastic elite families that have perpetually ruled our world to their supreme advantage and the disadvantage of everyone else.
Meritocracy, the keystone of the New World Order, is all about removing inheritance, privilege and hereditary rule once and for all. Only in such a world are equal opportunities and genuine freedom possible. If you are an advocate of freedom, merit and an equal chance for all then you must be opposed to inheritance, privilege and the family as the key unit of society. Family versus State; privilege versus merit; inherited opportunity versus equal opportunity. Those are the stark equations of our world. That’s the Old World Order versus the New World Order.
Now CHOOSE!
__________
5/7
Tags: Academia Iluministă
Academia Iluministă (100)
“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” –George Orwell
Human dogs have proved ideal for brainwashing, for conditioning, training, being made to perform tricks for their masters. They internalise all of the values of the ruling elite and obediently carry them out to the letter. They are, as Orwell says, not even conscious of how orthodox they are. To be conscious of it would be to be capable of challenging it, and that is one thing the dogs never do. The Islamic dogs would never dream of questioning the Koran or Mohammed. It is simply unthinkable. Consciousness is the biggest threat to dog religions. If the dogs ever became conscious, they would start to reflect on whether their beliefs are rational. So, the wolves that prey on them ensure they never become conscious. They keep them permanently on their knees in prayer; they insist that they memorise the whole Koran (a Muslim who succeeds in this task is called a hafiz); they demonise infidels and apostates, and they issue non-stop threats of eternal hellfire. The terror machine never rests for a moment.
The aim of the Illuminati is to bring about a quantum leap in evolution whereby the human dogs finally become conscious. Just as the time of the wolves must come to an end, so must that of the dogs.
__________
It’s a Dog eats Man world:
Indonesia is a country where people traditionally eat dogs. It was reported that seven Indonesian dogs, starved of food while their owner was on holiday for two weeks, ate him when he returned home. His luggage was lined up outside his front door and was noticed by a neighbourhood guard who raised the alarm. “His skull was found in the kitchen, and his body was found in the front of his house,” the local police chief said. “We suspect that the dogs were hungry, so they attacked Andre, because they had not been fed for fourteen days.” Police also found bones of two other dogs, believed to have been killed and eaten by the others. So, is it a dog eat dog, dog eat man or man eat dog world?
Here are some comments that were posted on the internet about this story:
Dude it’s your fault for not feeding your dogs… that’s why they ate you.
What goes around comes around!!
This is what we call Animal Rights.
Good one, dogs.
Sounds a bit like a Shaggy Dog Story to me.
Some folks here are clearly more enamoured of dogs than a human life.
HaHaHa..Finally something worth reading. Poor dogs, but job well done!..F@#$%*G IDIOT!!!
This is called KARMA! He has paid for what he has done!
HA HA makes a change for the dogs to eat the human – bast**d got what he deserved!
Just want to say, all the comments about how a human life is greater than a dog’s are a joke. We are all animals, and therefore we are all equal.
Well done, dogs – justice is served!
Divine justice.
Good for the dogs. If only they’d known that eating his bones as well would give them a nice treat of bone marrow. Shame for the two eaten dogs. He deserved to be eaten three times if it were possible. Can only hope it was slow and painful.
Poor dogs. What is it with these people thinking it’s ok to starve and mistreat animals? This story makes me so sad and angry at the world. The man was clearly a disgusting human being and deserved what he got quite frankly. Rot in hell.
So pleased they ate him.
Best story of justice for animal cruelty I have ever read!!!! Poor dogs. Just makes me want to protect mine even more.
******
The vast majority of opinions expressed by online contributors asserted that it was “justice” for a human being to be eaten alive by dogs, and that he was going to hell. Most of the comments were by women, and most were presumably dog owners. We now live in a world where human life is less important than pet life. What a totally fucked world. As someone commented, “I just sat here and read most of these comments and I can’t believe people think that it’s ok or even agree with dogs eating a human being. I can truly say this world is unreal. Never would have thought people would think the way that they do. Don’t get me wrong, I love animals – but what if that was a baby that was killed by the dogs?”
__________
Chemical Wolves and Dogs:
The debate about wolves and dogs can be analysed scientifically in terms of three chemicals: testosterone, oestrogen and oxytocin. Testosterone is the wolf chemical and oestrogen the dog molecule. Oestrogen tames while testosterone increases aggression. What of oxytocin? It reinforces bonds between people, especially mothers and babies during breastfeeding. It’s also released during sexual orgasm in both men and women and helps to create healthy interpersonal relationships and strong emotional bonds.
Oxytocin has been called the “Moral Molecule” since it binds people and makes them much less likely to harm each other. Those with deficient oxytocin release are often psychopathic. They have no ability to bond with other; no sympathy. Oxytocin could be called the “Jesus Drug” if we charitably describe Jesus Christ as someone genuinely in favour of the Golden Rule of “Do as you would be done by.” Oxytocin makes that an actual possibility. Wolves become attached to their dogs, and vice versa, thanks to oxytocin. Oxytocin stops wolves from being psychopaths and slaughtering all of the dogs. So, human life is simply a continual interplay between aggression (immorality) mediated by testosterone, domestication (civilisation) mediated by oestrogen and bonding (morality) mediated by oxytocin.
Capitalism is a testosterone ideology and communism an oxytocin ideology (in principle). Fascism is excessively testosterone driven but also invokes a tremendous oxytocin bond between the people and their leader. Religious messiahs create immense oxytocin bonding, backed up by testosterone threats. The Stockholm syndrome whereby hostages become emotionally bonded to their captors largely sums up the way our world functions. Rationally, people should despise the rich elite, but the elite’s relentless media propaganda and brainwashing succeeds in creating a powerful bond and dependency, underpinned by implicit threats.
__________
Christianity = Love?:
“JW” sent us a message saying:
Now I understand your teachings after reading The Armageddon Conspiracy. It’s almost incomprehensible, but I understand why. I must say I am having a battle inside between two completely different ideals. One being Gnostic and the other Christian. I understand that love is the strongest boundary for us as humans, because when love is taken we get pain. I don’t know if in this life I can defeat love, because love is me. Everything I live for is in regards of love. I’ve never shown hatred to another soul in my life, and with what you say, until I do not have love, my chains are intact.
Our Reply:
Christianity has nothing at all to do with love, as its history has shown all too clearly. Christianity is about mindless obedience to Jesus Christ – and if you haven’t understood that yet, you haven’t understood anything at all. Why would a God of “Love” send people to hell? It’s a fundamental contradiction in terms. Why would a God of Love claim that if people don’t believe in him then they are damned? Why would a God of Love order a father to murder his son?
It sounds as if you are an extremely brainwashed individual.
Gnosticism is about knowledge and reason and if you want a world of people doing no harm to others, it is reason, not love that will achieve the goal. The propaganda regarding love is mind-bogglingly dumb. Every torturer, maniac, extremist and fanatic loves something or someone. Love is therefore the answer to nothing at all. Only rational conduct will save humanity.
If you haven’t used your reason to see through the endless lies of Christianity then you are in deep trouble. Reason, not abandoning love, frees you from chains. Love has nothing to do with the matter in hand. Why don’t you refer to reason in the same terms that you refer to love? Then you will at last free yourself. Otherwise, you will remain a permanent slave of delusion.
__________
Narrative Theory:
“Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” –George Orwell
“But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence… illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.” –Feuerbach, Preface to the second edition of The Essence of Christianity
THE HUMAN MIND is designed to perceive causality everywhere. Imagine a world in which human minds were oblivious to causality. It would seem as if things happened without any reason. Everything would be random and we would be permanently surprised. We’d never anticipate anything since we’d never be thinking, “Aha, A will cause B to happen.” The world would be quite literally inexplicable and bewildering, like a permanent LSD trip where space and time perception had disintegrated. So, it’s essential for human minds to be inherently designed around causality – we must look for it everywhere and apply it all times. Only then can we make constant sense of the world.
However, there’s a catastrophic problem. We can’t see causality. We can’t observe it in any way. What happens is that various observable things take place and then we apply causality to what we have witnessed. Causality is an inference, an interpretation of events. Unfortunately, like all interpretations, it can be wrong. Human history is the history of illusory causality, of making up absurd reasons for why B followed from A.
The earliest human beings said that spirits and gods caused things. They said that the whole universe was full of conscious minds that caused the world to operate as it did. The god of wind caused storms because he was angry with someone. The god of the sea caused tidal waves to punish someone who had failed to make a sacrifice to him. Zeus hurled lightning bolts when he was angry. Vikings claimed that thunder and lightning were created when Thor’s mighty hammer struck something, the blow generating sparks (lightning) and a booming sound (thunder). All of the myths and legends of ancient times explained all the phenomena of the world according to the actions of a huge cast of unseen higher powers. People had no concept of the laws of physics or nature, but that didn’t prevent them from detecting causality everywhere.
The monotheists got rid of all the competing gods and had just one, who created everything, designed everything and made everything work as it did. Even to this day, many monotheists think that anything that happens is literally the “will of God” i.e. he personally made it happen. Nothing happens by accident or according to random factors or through natural law: God explicitly intervenes in his Creation. There are two ways in which the human mind applies causality – via Mythos or Logos thinking. Mythos thinking is what we’ve just mentioned – making up stories and myths about what causes things. Its opposite is Logos thinking – using reason, logic, science, mathematics and philosophy to explain why things happen as they do.
In ancient times, Logos thinking was almost as crude as Mythos thinking since there was no established system of science, mathematics and philosophy to apply. The Logos thinkers had to grope their way towards plausible theories, and often mixed in Mythos elements. For example, early astronomical theories often invoked gods as the agents responsible for keeping planets in their orbits (which were invariably described as circular because the gods would of course choose perfect circles in which to move). For a long while, Mythos thinking and Logos thinking could happily co-exist. It wasn’t until the rise of modern philosophy and science that the link was finally broken. Logos thinking then became highly objective, logical, and evidence-based. The scientific method was rigorously applied and ruled out all supernatural explanations for phenomena.
Mythos and Logos thinking are now the exact opposite. Any scientist would laugh at the idea that “Allah” caused anything, or that elves, spirits, fairies, ghosts, angels or whatever else had any causal agency. In terms of the human race, only 1% are strict Logos thinkers (the scientists, mathematicians and philosophers), and all the rest are stuck in the world of Mythos – religious thinking, superstition, conspiracy theories and story thinking. Human minds must assign causality and if they can’t think of (or don’t know) a rational Logos reason then they will use a Mythos reason instead, and indeed they will usually prefer a Mythos cause over a Logos cause. So, the vast majority of human beings are continually wrongly interpreting reality by attributing fantasy causality based on primitive stories and beliefs. Most conspiracy theories are built on a fantastic edifice of invented causality.
The essence of Mythos thinking is story telling rather than abstraction. Mythos is all about narrative. The Viking explanation of thunder and lightning is a wonderful narrative. Of course, it has zero connection with the truth, but it offered a FULL and emotionally satisfying explanation of the phenomenon of thunder and lightning as far as the ordinary Viking was considered. Anyone without a scientific understanding of thunder and lightning was forced to come up with some story about it, or it would seem like an unfathomable and deeply disturbing random happening, outside causality. The Vikings also thought that the rainbow was a bridge to heaven.
Other cultures considered it a divine sign, pointing to a glorious new era, or to a pot of gold (!). Human sacrifice was conducted by cultures such as the Aztecs as a deliberate means to appease the gods. They invented a wholly false system of causality based on what signs allegedly showed divine displeasure and what sacrifices were required in response. The witchcraft hysteria of Medieval Europe was another lethal example of an absurd causality being applied to explain natural phenomena. In the present day, most Muslims operate according to an entirely invented causality based on the will of Allah.
We thus reach a profoundly disturbing aspect of the human condition. Human beings are obsessed with causality, but not with truth (although many stupid people think the two are the same thing). Billions of Muslims genuinely believe that a crazy narrative told by a man on a starvation diet meditating in a cave for many weeks without any contact at all with any other human beings was the actual Word of God, transmitted to Mohammed via the Angel Gabriel. Now, in relation to Mohammed’s experience, a Logos thinker would talk about severe disturbances in the brain chemistry of a fasting man leading to hallucinations, or about the vivid fantasies of a lonely man suffering from extreme sensory deprivation. Without stimulation, a human mind creates its own via fantasy and hallucination. Mohammed was a religiously minded man praying in a cave and seeking God, so it was no surprise that his hallucinations should take an extreme religious form.
Others have speculated that his visions were caused by epilepsy, or that he was hearing voices as a result of schizophrenia, or suffering from bipolar disorder and in his manic phase he thought himself God and, in his depressive phase, God’s humblest slave. Julian Jaynes’s theory of the bicameral mind, involving auditory hallucination in the right hemisphere of the brain giving commands to the subservient left hemisphere of the brain, would provide a neat explanation for Mohammed’s experience. Indeed, all sorts of explanations can be advanced, any of which is infinitely more plausible than the one accepted by Muslims. Yet billions are attracted to the most improbable causal explanation. They have based the entire way they conduct their lives on the conclusion that Mohammed was neither mentally ill, nor hallucinating, nor lying, nor deluded. They have staked everything on the belief that God, or the Angel Gabriel to be more exact, spoke in Arab to an illiterate tribesman in a cave in order to communicate with the WHOLE of humanity.
Forget Mohammed, does it seem remotely likely that the Creator of the Universe would be unable to appear in front of his Creations and explain what life’s all about? Why wouldn’t the Creator simply address the human race directly, in all of their languages simultaneously? After all, if he’s going to leave a book with his directions to the human race, why not read it aloud to everyone in their own tongue – then there could be no conceivable doubt. Why would he choose the extraordinary mechanism of communicating via bearded prophets telling incredibly tall tales, and who never had any witnesses for their incredible claims? Why didn’t Jesus Christ announce on the Cross that if everyone turned up at his tomb at 7 am on Sunday, he would roll away the stone and reveal to them that he had returned from the dead? How come there wasn’t a single witness to his resurrection, the most important event in Christianity? Why are there NEVER any witnesses? Does God have something to hide? Such as the fact that he’s a total liar? Jesus Christ went to great trouble to show his wounds to Doubting Thomas to “prove” that he was who he said he was (even though he now resembled a gardener, according to his confidante Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John). The Doubting Thomas episode demonstrates that Christ was cognizant of the need to prove his extraordinary claims, so why didn’t he offer proof on a much grander scale to the whole of humanity?
It’s an astonishing and frightening thing that so many people in our world are so able and willing to believe total nonsense. In fact, they seem to actively seek out nonsense, the more absurd the better. As Hitler realised, the more preposterous the claim, the bigger the lie, the more willing people are to accept it as ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Why? Because people are stupid, ignorant, superstitious, looking for big but simplistic explanations, for emotionally comforting explanations. Above all, they are victims of deadly brainwashing enforced on them by the wolves that prey on them. Mohammed was a wolf, or the instrument of a wolf, because only wolves ever say, “Obey or perish.”
Only a wolf would set up the two fatal equations of Abrahamism:
1) Obey me and you go to heaven = eternal pleasure.
2) Disobey me and you go to hell = eternal pain.
This basic pleasure/pain equation (ultimate carrot/stick) is the most basic form of Pavlovian conditioning. And, really, much of our existence is a simple reflection of elementary but extremely potent conditioning/ brainwashing/ indoctrination. B.F. Skinner’s school of behaviourism and operant conditioning was highly successful for a time because it seemed to chime with the relentless advance of science into all areas, including the workings of the mind. Skinner actually dismissed the existence of mind and consciousness. He thought that “freedom and dignity” were illusory. All that mattered was the application of a stimulus and the resultant behaviour provoked by the stimulus. Both the stimulus (its intensity, duration, composition) and the consequent behaviour were fully scientifically observable, hence psychology could be brought into the realm of hard, objective science with no subjective elements at all. Skinner’s ideas are unfashionable now, but not with the Illuminati. We hold his theories in high regard, even though we fundamentally reject his central thesis regarding the unimportance of mind.
The human race has been subjected to an immense program of operant condition aka brainwashing, indoctrination and mind control. To shatter that brainwashing once and for all, we have to use reverse operant conditioning. We have to make it the ultimate disgrace to be an Abrahamist or capitalist. We have to make people feel physically sick when they contemplate Abrahamism and greedy capitalism. Abrahamism and capitalism will be rendered anathema. It will become the ultimate social stigma to subscribe to Abrahamism and capitalism. Soon enough, no one will have anything to do with these belief systems because it will be socially unacceptable. Just as the leaders of America used relentless Abrahamist and capitalist propaganda to brainwash Americans, so the same tactics will be used to undo the brainwashing. There will be relentless anti-Abrahamist and anti-capitalist propaganda (we are referring here to the extreme form of capitalism that allows a tiny number of people to control most of the assets of the world, not to capitalism per se which can be made socially productive if operated properly).
Ultimately, the aim is to remove all forms of brainwashing and conditioning from the world. Every citizen must be truly free. But to the get to the Promised Land, we have to undo the incredible damage done to the human psyche throughout history, particularly by Abrahamism, the Devil’s chosen religion, and capitalism, his chosen economic system. One objective that must be achieved is a huge advance in Logos thinking. All institutions must reflect Logos rather than Mythos.
__________
Narrative Reality:
Our world is dominated by narrative – by simple stories that provide an equally simplistic analysis of the world we live in. What is a “soundbite”? – it’s an attempt to convert a complex issue into something that can be summed up in a sentence or phrase. This simple sentence or phrase then becomes “reality” and replaces the complex underlying issues. Soundbites create a “sign system” where reality is dissolved in favour of easy-to-remember but completely false (usually) mantras.
What is the sign system of Christianity? What are the Christian soundbites? “Jesus loves you. Jesus saves. Jesus died for your sins. Salvation through Jesus alone. Paradise shall be yours if you believe in Jesus.” This is what the average Christian thinks “Christianity” is. This is the neat little Mythos that encapsulates their worldview. Of course, it’s total bullshit. If you look past the Christian soundbites at the horrific underlying reality of Christianity, you feel sick at the sheer scale of deception involved. But only Logos thinkers go under the surface. Mythos people are surface thinkers; superficial, facile, trivial. They never dive down into the depths of complexity. They don’t have the right diving gear. They would drown in seconds.
Our whole world operates at the surface level. There is no depth to 99% of humanity. Consider advertisements – 30-second narratives designed to manipulate you emotionally into buying a product. Consider politicians – their speeches deliver no analysis. They do nothing but formulate soundbites and turn all the complex issues of government into a simplistic joke. All TV shows tell a narrative. Reality TV creates a narrative. Religious has its infantile parables (narratives). Capitalism declares its narrative soundbites: “Greed is good.”; “Profit is Godly”; “Lunch is for wimps.”; “Work hard and you can achieve the American Dream.” Lawyers use soundbites relentlessly: “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” (O.J. Simpson Trial). Popular songs, movies, Broadway shows, corporate brochures, sports events…they’re all trying to create narratives that can be compressed into catchy, memorable soundbites.
Many people have noticed that movie trailers are often better than the movies themselves, or that the movie was fully explained by the trailer even though it was only a few seconds long. How many movies that looked good in the trailer turned out to be a total yawn? We live in a “trailer” world where the main feature is compressed into a few pseudo-exciting frames, disguising the underlying tedium.
Books for “dummies”; “Learn Quantum Mechanics in 3 Minutes” – yeah, right! The whole world is trying to boil down the essence of everything into a 30-second advert, a six-word soundbite. But the world can’t be reduced to this infantile level. Some things are immensely complex and there’s no getting away from it. Our website is enormously complex. In fact, it’s the most complex website on the planet. We try to simplify it as much as possible, but the fact remains that anyone who wants to understand Illuminism will have to work through two million words. That task is beyond the capabilities of most people.
The leaders of the world want you to stay stuck at the superficial level. They want you to be controlled by a few hot button phrases. How many Americans grew to despise Communism even though they knew absolutely nothing about it? Their rich capitalist ruling elite told them over and over again – “The only good commie is a dead commie.” There were endless scare stories about “reds under the beds”. And yet most average Americas haven’t read even ONE word of Karl Marx. How can you legitimately have a visceral hatred of something you know nothing about it? YOU CAN’T. But of course, you can if you’ve been brainwashed. Christians sneer at the beliefs of Muslims and vice versa and yet what characterises both groups is that neither has ever read a word of the other’s religion (in fact, most people are entirely ignorant of their own religion, never mind that of others). No one could accuse us of ignorance of what others believe. We understand them all too well. Our website provides an analysis of every major system of thought in world history. We detest Abrahamism because we know all about it; not because we are ignorant of it. To hate something for valid reasons you have to know what it is first. Most people just go straight to the hating, bypassing the knowledge part entirely.
There is no aspect of the mainstream world that isn’t in the business of dumbing down everything to lowest common denominator statements that the most retarded people on earth can grasp. Abrahamism is an extreme form of mental retardation. Any intelligent person immediately rejects it as soon as they are old enough to understand it. But most people aren’t intelligent. In fact, they’re stupid. Deep down, most of them believe that God is actually supervising and causing everything. And that’s the dumbest idea in the history of the cosmos. Given the importance of narrative, it’s essential that everyone should be narratively literate. It may sound absurd, but in terms of your day-to-day life, nothing is more important than your understanding of narrative. Given that all information is presented to you in essentially narrative (Mythos) form, shouldn’t you be an expert in narrative?
For this reason, the Illuminati provides all of its members with tuition in creative writing. Here is the list of creative writing books used by the Illuminati:
Save The Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need by Blake Snyder
The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers, 3rd Edition by Christopher Vogler
Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting by Robert McKee
Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting by Syd Field
The Screenwriter’s Problem Solver: How to Recognize, Identify, and Define Screenwriting Problems by Syd Field
Writing the Blockbuster Novel by Albert Zuckerman
The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri
The Anatomy of Story: 22 Steps to Becoming a Master Storyteller by John Truby
A Story Is a Promise: Good Things to Know Before You Write That Screenplay, Novel, or Play by Bill Johnson
These books cover novel writing, plays and screenplays. They analyse such things as structure, character, plot, plot-points, turning points, climaxes, dénouements, protagonists, antagonists, allies, enemies, tricksters, shape shifters, mentors, lovers, gods, anima/animus figures, the shadow, id, egos, superego, raising the tension, building the stakes, making the reader care, empathy, sympathy, motivations, guilty secrets, psychological scarring, inner wounds. In other words, creative writing is applied psychology. Do you hate your boss at work? Do you hate your colleagues? Do you love them? Rather than treat all of the people in your life as real human beings, why not think of them instead as characters in a screenplay? Think of their motivation. What is it that makes them tick? Money? Status? The respect of their colleagues? Self-respect. Are they materialistic or idealistic? What’s their home life like? What are their vulnerabilities? Does anything make them nervous? What’s their secret fear? Can you detect their “inner wound”?
In order for novels, plays and screenplays to work, they must remind you of real people and make you identify with their lives and problems so that you take a vicarious interest in them. They are YOUR proxies in an exciting fictional world. So, the techniques of successful fiction writers are necessarily superb at producing realistic simulacra of people. But, in that case, why can’t the same techniques be applied to REAL people? Just as a novelist analyses the characters of the fictional people who feature in his book and tries to make them as lifelike as possible, so you can do the reverse and analyse the real people in your life as fictional characters.
You will be astonished by how your opinion of people changes when you start to analyse them as fictional characters trying to conceal vulnerabilities and inner wounds. Think of the Pope – why did he choose a celibate life? Think of the Queen of England – is she terrified of a confrontation with a real person who rubbishes everything she stands for and calls a fraud and a phoney? Think of President Obama – is he riven with inner conflict over his white attitudes and how much he has let down the African Americans? All the Zionists and Masons of Wall Street – why are they so obsessed with money and materialism? What inner weakness are they trying to compensate for? Suddenly, all of the masters of the universe seem weak, sad and pathetic. They’re no longer intimidating. They’re just people like everyone else, with neuroses, anxieties, vulnerabilities, inner secrets and wounds, and hence they can easily be overthrown.
In The Millionaires’ Death Club by Mike Hockney, the decision was taken to portray a central character – Zara – as psychologically invulnerable. She is exceptionally beautiful, exceptionally intelligent, exceptionally rich, exceptionally cultured, exceptionally classy and exceptionally confident. That’s how most ordinary people imagine the members of the Old World Order, but of course they’re not like that at all. They certainly love to present themselves in a perfect light, but there are any number of demons lurking behind the facade.
You can make your life much more exciting by treating it as a movie, and by treating all of the real people you meet as fictional characters. Of course, by doing so, you may uncover real truths about them, not fictional ones. Keep your eyes and ears peeled at all times for the narratives that are being continually directed at you by advertisers, politicians, businessmen, economists, bankers, media commentators, popes and pastors – they’re all spinning you a line.
Then there are the conspiracy theorists, the anarchists, the libertarians and so on, all furiously selling their particular spin too. The whole world is being deafened by soundbites and made dizzy by spin-doctors. Storytellers are everywhere, selling you yarns. What is the Bible except a collection of ludicrous tales about ancient Jewish tribesmen wandering around in the desert pretending they are special? Above all, use the narrative theory of life to become your own script doctor. Fix the faulty script. Fix all the elements of your life story that have gone wrong. Become a fictional God and then a real God!
__________
The Movie Theory of Life:
The Last Bling King by Mike Hockney presents the thought experiment of analysing your life as a movie. Would anyone want to see the movie in which you are the star? Or is it the most boring movie of all time?
“DE” sent us the following message:
I found your website the Armageddon Conspiracy most enlightening. I’ve read the Armageddon conspiracy and the Last Bling King. They left me in awe. I was wondering how I could get involved… I mean really involved, to get stuck in. I do not desire to let things slip past. I was quite taken by the movie of your life way of thinking.
In addition, I’ve put up a website (still in beta) in support of meritocracy (link below)http://www.wix.com/
Our Reply:
Hello DE – great website.
The issue we have at the moment is that of “joiners” versus “self-starters”. If a huge organisation exists then there is something for people to join. It’s easy, for example, for people to join a local Christian Church. But if there is no obvious physical location where people can go, and if members of the organisation they wish to join live far from them, what then? A “joiner” simply shrugs his shoulders and says, “Oh well, I’ll go and join something else.” So, the people who make a profound local difference are the “self-starters” who get something up and running in their local area, to which the “joiners” can then attach themselves. What we are interested in is producing a template for self-starters: a scheme that allows the movers and shakers of the world to go ahead, release their creative energy in their local area, and recruit people.
The “Movie of Your Life” is a concept that would have a lot of resonance with many people. It is of course a powerful way to get people to think about how their life is going. Imagine a “Movie Group” in your area – dedicated to “changing the script”. Our whole world follows a certain script. We all know who the stars are. All the camera shots have them in focus and everyone else is just an unnoticed blur in the background. You’re right that the Made in Chelsea cast would be nowhere if they hadn’t been born into privilege. But they were, and the script of our world is that they will therefore enjoy an easy life. So, it’s up to the rest of us to change the script.
It’s the self-starters who will make the decisive difference. It doesn’t take much for a self-starter to get going. You go into the town centre with a friend and a camcorder. He films you while you’re walking along and you hand out a flyer saying: “Is the movie of your life what you want it to be, or would you fall asleep while you’re watching it, or even walk out and demand a refund? Is it time to change the script? Join the Movie Group. Meet at Bar X at 7.30 on Monday Night.” Back it up with something on Facebook, and off you go. You get a local group together and you start planning activism events, easier said than done, of course – but that’s why self-starters are the people who make the big difference in life.
So, would you define yourself as a joiner or a self-starter?
DE said:
Self-starter! Never been one to mindlessly follow.
My immediate areas are Redditch, Warwick, Stratford and Birmingham, I will definitely work on some leaflets, recruiting a friend shouldn’t prove too difficult, I already have one who is curious about the system and its flaws… I think I would start small, maybe Stratford or Redditch, It’ll probably be within the next month or so. The ideas are already flowing as I type this. I’ll formulate a plan and send it your way. Something that would help is if you gave me some points to bring up during a meeting.
Our Reply:
Excellent. We look forward to receiving your plan.
As for what to discuss at the meeting, here’s the agenda:
Let’s say that that the objective of this movement is to create a brand new movie of the world, much better than the one that is currently on show everywhere across the globe. Let’s call it the Eden Movie. Imagine we could start the world again from scratch, using all the lessons we have learned from the old movie of the world.
1) What political system would we produce if we had a clean slate?
2) What religion?
3) What economic system?
4) How would we educate people?
5) Could we apply psychology everywhere to create a much smarter and happier human race?
6) What activist stunts could we pull off to get publicity?
7) And how do we stop running the old, silent, black and white movie of the past so that we can get our new 3D, high definition, blazing colour movie in every cinema on earth? It will be the best movie EVER.
If you succeed in getting something like this off the ground, we could publicise it on our website to show everyone else how it’s done.
You sound as though you have the right attitude, so best of luck to you!
******
DE then produced a leaflet, to be distributed in Stratford upon Avon (where Shakespeare was born):
Is the movie of your LIFE how you intended it to be? Do you feel you’re the star of your own movie, or is someone else – a celebrity, royalty, a privileged toff, a super-rich person – always in the main shot? Are you an out-of-focus blur in the background? How close does your movie stick to the original script you intended for your life? If it’s nowhere near, isn’t it time to change the script or change your life? Become the star of your own movie, transform it into colour rather than the dull black and white it is now.
Ask yourself – if the movie of your life was in a cinema, would you watch it? Would you want other people to see it? Would they walk out because it’s so boring? Even worse, would you walk out too and demand a refund? If you want to change your script and the performance, if you want to make your movie spectacular, if you want it to be something you’d be proud to show in every cinema in the world, meet at 6:30 on the 23.7.11 opposite MacDonald’s by the bridge next to the river.
The Outcome?
Hey there,
I went to Stratford last Friday and handed out 150 leaflets. No one showed, or joined the Facebook group. Next time, we are going to try again, and focus on the Facebook group, if there are enough people to join the group, Gathering will be held. On the bright side, I have footage; a friend is just editing it.
******
So, well done to DE. He got off his ass, went out, and made a difference in the real world. He got a disappointing response, but that’s how it usually goes at the beginning. Nevertheless, an army of DEs would eventually make an enormous difference. What are YOU going to do? Isn’t it time to join your local Movie Group and change the shit scripts life is giving you?
__________
Life Story:
Story is central to the human experience. Without a story, people perish. They have no identity. What’s YOUR story? Every person has a right to their story and the right to have a chance to make it as good as possible. In our world, most people are left storyless. To have no story is to be rudderless. To take another’s story away from him is to cut him loose without an identity. A person without a story is nothing. The last thing you own is the story of your life. That’s what flashes before your eyes as you die. That’s what you take with you into the afterlife, so you had better be sure it’s a good one. Dolly Parton said, “Everything I have started with a song.” She turned her whole life not into a story but a song. Is that not glorious? Imagine singing your way into the afterlife, being born into eternity on a soaring sound wave, a perfect note.
Actors like to ask, “What’s my character’s motivation in this scene?” We should all be asking ourselves the same thing in each scene of our life, but most of us just pass through life on autopilot. Make sure you live a good story. Or make it a good song or a good poem. In Australia, Aborigines talk of your story as your “dreaming”. How good is yours? Is it the dream you always wanted?
__________
A Real Business Problem:
MANY CORPORATIONS HAVE TRIED to make crowdsourcing work. Most have failed. Consider the publishing industry: publishers release a vat number of books each year and have no idea which ones will take off and which won’t. The success of Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling came as a total surprise to industry insiders. If they can’t get those right then they don’t know what they’re doing, do they? How could a publisher know in advance that it was dealing with a sure-fire hit? The best way would be to get the early drafts of books looked at by large numbers of readers rather than professional editors. The publisher would then release only those books that generated tremendous early reader enthusiasm. The tastes of the editors – the gatekeepers – wouldn’t come into it at all. Instead, the taste of the people would be decisive.
HarperCollins created a website called Authonomy (http://www.authonomy.com/) where writers were invited to submit their books to create an online “slush pile”. Readers and fellow writers were then supposed to read the books in the slush pile and nominate their favourites. The top five each month would reach the “Editor’s Desk” and be submitted to the HarperCollins editorial board for consideration for publication. After three years, HarperCollins have published not one of the “successful” books. Why not? What went wrong? For one thing, virtually no readers joined the Authonomy site. Only writers signed up – several thousand of them. Nearly all of them had submitted a book that they were desperately trying to get onto the Editor’s Desk.
The original idea behind the site was that members would give an honest opinion of the books they read, and the cream would rise to the top. What actually happened was that all sorts of factions and cliques developed, and these were far more interested in their own agenda than in finding the genuinely best books. Moreover, writers are very different from readers and often have completely different tastes. But the most serious problem of all was that getting to the Editor’s Desk became a game and all of the members of Authonomy turned into ruthless gamers. The “game” became so ridiculous that gamers started swapping votes for each other’s books without even reading the respective books. Acquiring votes to get onto the Editor’s Desk was all that mattered; reading books became irrelevant. In other words, the whole purpose of the site – to locate by crowdsourcing the best books on the site – was negated in every possible way. Votes counted, not books. The books that reached the top were those that had been gamed the best. Their quality as books was neither here nor there – in fact, most were dreadful. So much for crowdsourcing.
The business need is for a viable crowdsourcing model that allows early-stage projects to be evaluated by large numbers of people, thus ensuring that those projects that go into full production are guaranteed popular hits. Imagine a Hollywood studio or a major publisher with a 90-100% hit rate. Anyone who could crack this model would be sitting on a goldmine. No one has come close so far, and HarperCollins’ attempt descended into farce. Can you think of a way to get the public involved in early-stage projects to identify the future Dan Browns and J.K. Rowlings? You can’t afford to pay the public for their time because that would bankrupt you, so how could you motivate them to help? That’s the key to the whole thing.
__________
Psychopathy:
JOURNALIST JON RONSON has written on the topic of psychopaths and he suggests that 1% of the population may belong to this category. Applying his “psychopath checklist”, he says that most CEOs of American companies should be classified as psychopaths and he commented, “Capitalism at its most ferocious is a pure expression of psychopathy.” He could equally have said psychopathy was all too apparent in leading military commanders, police chiefs, stock market traders, top lawyers, media moguls, religious leaders and politicians. Many of the people who get to the top do so precisely because they are psychopaths, hence are not restrained when it comes to using the disreputable, sleazy and vicious tactics that often accompany stratospheric rises.
In our world, almost anyone who gets to the top should be considered mentally disturbed. The system is mentally disturbed because the people who run it are mentally disturbed. They are psychopathic wolves.
__________
Bohemia:
Bohemia was a historic kingdom in what is now the Czech Republic. Gypsies from that area travelled around Europe. They were outsiders, strange, different and exotic. The term “Bohemian” came to be applied to artists and writers who looked and behaved unconventionally, and to unconventional people in general. Bohemia is a good description for the new spiritual State of autonomous, self-creating and self-defining individuals that the Illuminati wish to build. It’s time for a Bohemian Revolution, a Bohemian Rhapsody.
__________
Becoming:
Thomas Aquinas said that hell is where you go when you’re not becoming the person God wants you to be. Illuminism says that hell is where you are when you’re not becoming the person YOU want to be. And ultimately you want to be God, so Aquinas is right, but for entirely the wrong reasons.
__________
History:
When history comes calling, you must not be found wanting. We dislike Muslims intensely (and indeed all Abrahamists), but we applaud all of those involved in the Arab Spring who had the guts to get off their asses and fight. They were not found wanting. They found their courage. Many died, and still the others went on. The Arab Spring is monumental because it presages a Muslim Enlightenment. The Arabs rose up against dictators and tyrants. Soon, “God willing”, some of them will turn against the supreme tyrant – Allah. Mohammed will be denounced as a false prophet and many Muslims will at last embrace reason and light, just as many Europeans did at the birth of the modern world. But our world in not in fact modern. Most of it is as backward as the world of the ancient Jews tramping around in the desert concocting their fantastic delusion that they were the Chosen People of the Creator of the entire Cosmos. What a sad and pathetic God he would have to be if he were preoccupied with a bunch or ranting and raving bearded Jews wearing funny hats, with strings dangling from their midriffs.
The dialectic is in motion. The Islamic Enlightenment is long overdue. When hands are raised against human tyrants, they can be raised against divine ones too. If the Arab Spring was about freedom then Muslims must be free of Allah, Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is a slave morality and a religion for slaves. The word “Islam” means submission. We say to all Muslims – it’s time to get off your knees and stand up straight like human beings. Where’s your dignity? Where’s your self-respect? Are you dogs or humans?
DO NOT BE TIMID TOWARDS THE WORLD; BE BOLD. DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE WORLD; DOMINATE IT.
Better a wolf than a dog. Better a shepherd than a sheep. Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied (as J.S. Mill memorably said).
__________
4/7
Tags: Academia Iluministă
Academia Iluministă (99)
What Sane Woman would be a Muslim?:
As we mentioned, Islamic Sharia Law declares that the testimony of two women is the equivalent of that of one man, so in any trial where it’s a man’s word against a woman’s (in a case of sexual assault or rape, for example), the man automatically wins. That’s Islamic justice for you. Read this account from an Islamic website of why “God” designed things this way, for women’s “benefit” (!)
Question: Why do women have half the men’s right of testimony?
Answer: The essentials which form the fundamentals of the Islamic Law are based on revelation (of Allah). They are outlined in the Quran. In other words, the legal essentials are established and ordained by the Creator of the Universe. Whatever the age, atmosphere and circumstances in which one lives, those essentials are the source of peace and means of comfort. This is because these decrees are the most suitable ones for man’s creation. When the decrees and jurisdiction in the Quran are studied, the outstanding point is that both corporeal and spiritual existence of man is taken into consideration.
In the matter of witnessing, it is possible to observe that, too. The translation of the verse about giving testimony is as follows…
And call upon two (Muslim) men among you as witnesses. If two men are not there, then let there be one man and two women, from among those of whom you approve as witnesses, that if either of the two women errs (through forgetfulness), the other may remind her.
So, here, the basic matter is directly related to the creation of women. This is a requisite of their psychological aspect. The underlying disposition of woman is excitement and she lives with her excitements. Therefore, ideas get rooted in her heart rather than her mind and develop effects in this way. She cannot really remain unbiased in the face of events. She approaches phenomena with intuition as her conscience and mercy prevail.
Due to that quality of theirs, the Quran says: Women may forget, therefore they should be given helpers in testimony. It is expressed by Allah the Almighty who created the woman. So, it is an unchanging rule. Are there not among women those who do not easily forget and those who have sharper memories than men? Of course, there are, but generally, this psychological state is seen in women more often. It is just natural that they cannot retain events in their memories long. On the other hand, the woman is more introverted. She has a world of her own. She is busy with the housework all day. She takes care of children and of their upbringing. Very few women are interested in trade, business, and politics. How will a woman who is so away from the outer world be aware of the events that take place there, how will she learn about them and retain them in her mind and to what extent will she be able to bear witness?
By accepting two women’s testimonies equal to that of one man, and thus not burdening the woman with the responsibility as much as that of the man in the matter of witnessing, Islam does not harm her right, on the contrary, protects it and prevents her from sinning. This is because bearing witness is a tough duty that brings about great responsibilities.
******
Are we clear now? Allah himself made Islamic women dumb, forgetful and half as reliable (and intelligent?) as men. There’s no point in complaining. Women’s lib won’t get you anywhere. Allah ain’t listening. Islamic women have allowed themselves to be devoured by the wolves, so they deserve everything they get. Any sane, rational woman should regard Islam as the uttermost insult to women.
__________
Wolf Theory:
WOLF THEORY ASSERTS that the whole of the human condition is defined by the five percent of the human race who are dominant: the human wolves. They are aggressive, assertive, dynamic, bold, attack-minded, determined, driven, adventurous, combative, uncompromising, active, on the front foot, always making things happen, entrepreneurial, get up and go. They set the agenda. The remaining 95% of the human race are the tame, timid, domesticated, docile, mediocre “dog” humans, looking to curl up in front of the fire near their master, be patted on the head, and have their belly rubbed. They are unambitious, unadventurous, unimaginative, defined by their desire to have an easy a life as possible involving minimum effort. They don’t like conflict and always seek compromise. They never drive the agenda. They are reactive, passive, always waiting for things to happen, always on the back foot. They follow the agenda of others. They don’t have the ability or will to create their own agenda.
So, what are you – wolf or dog?
The Old World Order are wolves, defined by their extraversion, love of luxury, wealth and privilege. They are entirely driven by materialistic power and status.
The Illuminati are also wolves, but on the introverted side of the equation. They are driven by idealism and desire to master abstract ideas and discover the absolute truth of existence. They have almost no interest in materialism and find status games pathetic. The Illuminati wolves blame the OWO wolves for all the ills of the world. The OWO wolves love exploiting the dogs and making them do their bidding. The Illuminati wolves despise the willingness of the dogs to eat the shit of the OWO. The Illuminati proclaim the doctrine of everyone becoming God. Why? Because the OWO would have no power in a Community of Gods – there would be no dogs to serve them. A Community of Gods would, on the other hand, conform with the agenda of the Illuminati – to assume conscious control of the entire universe and understand every aspect of it.
We are not at all interested in either real dogs or human dogs – they are incapable of advancing our agenda in any way. As for the ultimate wolf philosopher, he is not an Illuminatus at all, nor a member of the OWO. He is Friedrich Nietzsche, the prophet of the Will to Power, a supremely wolverine concept.
Cesare Borgia was an archetypal wolf and Nietzsche expressed these opinions about him: We fundamentally misunderstand the predatory animals and predatory men, for example, Cesare Borgia, and we misunderstand nature, so long as we still look for a ‘pathology’ at the bottom of these healthiest of all tropical monsters and growths or even for some hell born in them, as almost all moralists so far have done. It seems that among moralists there is a hatred for the jungle and the tropics? And the ‘tropical man’ must at all accounts be discredited, whether as a sickness and degeneration of human beings or as his own hell and self-torture? But why? For the benefit of the ‘moderate zones’? For the benefit of the moderate human beings? The “moral human beings”? The mediocre? This for the chapter ‘morality as timidity.’
I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter-Cesare Borgia as pope! One altogether misunderstands the beast of prey and man of prey (Cesare Borgia for example), one misunderstands ‘nature’, when one looks for something ‘sick’ at the bottom of these healthiest of all monsters, as virtually all moralists have done.
As long as there have been human beings there have been human herds (families, tribes, nations, states, churches), and always very many who obey and very few who command. Nothing has been cultivated among men better than obedience; ‘thou shalt unconditionally do this, unconditionally not do that’. Those commanding have to deceive themselves that they too are only obeying; I call it the moral hypocrisy of commanders. They defend themselves by posing as executors of more ancient or higher commands (of ancestors, the constitution, justice, the law or even of God), or borrow the herd’s way of thinking and appear as ‘servants of the people’, or ‘instruments of the common good’. The herd-man in Europe today glorifies his qualities of timidity, modesty, industriousness, and peace which make him useful to the herd. And when leaders seem to be indispensable, the clever herdsmen gather together; this is the origin of all parliamentary constitutions. What a release from burden, was the appearance of an unconditional commander for this herd-European; Napoleon!
******
If we refer to the Illuminati as good wolves (dedicated to mastering the cosmos rather than mastering people) and the Old World Order as bad wolves (devoted to dominating and enslaving people), the history of the world because the history of the conflict between good and bad wolves. The good wolves are the philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, psychologists, artists, writers, poets, designers, academics, visionaries, revolutionaries, radicals, engineers and technologists while the bad wolves are the monarchs, emperors, dictators, tyrants, generals, prophets, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, feudal lords, capitalists, aristocrats, nobility, privileged elites, business magnates, media moguls, bankers, financiers, advertisers, lawyers, political leaders, conservatives and celebrities.
The good-wolf/bad-wolf dialectic has driven our world. The bad wolves are determined to oppress, repress, control, enslave, exploit, manipulate and dominate the submissive dog people. They have had no desire to share resources, but to take as much as possible for themselves (hence why so much of the world’s wealth is in the hands of so few). They are extraordinarily narcissistic, egotistical, conceited, arrogant, dismissive and contemptuous of others. They think they deserve the best, and fuck everyone else. The good wolves have always sought to enlighten the masses, to improve the quality of life, to raise the standard of knowledge, to promote reason and logic, to raise general well-being. The wolves are the major chess pieces and the dogs are the pawns, being pushed hither and thither.
Bad wolves are predators and tame dogs are their prey. Capitalism is a supremely rapacious, ruthless economic system: perfect for the bad wolves to devour the weak and helpless. Gordon Gekko’s immortal Greed is good speech is the perfect summation of the bad wolf ideology. Wall Street is a perfect bad wolf movie, and shows what is required of you if you wish to join the wolves gnawing the bones of the dead dogs. Bad wolves are often glamorous and charismatic figures, envied by all the tame dogs since they seem so confident and in charge and are getting exactly what they want from life, even if it means trampling everyone else into the dirt.
Good wolves are usually on the periphery of life, locked away in ivory towers, laboratories or in lonely garrets where they struggle in isolation or in small teams with the great mysteries of the earth and the cosmos. They are largely ignored by the world until one of their ideas detonates and changes the world irrevocably. The answer to changing the world for the better is astoundingly simple – destroy the bad wolves. This was the strategy adopted by the Illuminists Robespierre and Saint-Just in the French Revolutionary “Terror”. The king and the aristocracy who had so viciously preyed on the people were guillotined. The counter-revolutionaries who supported the bad wolf regime went the same way. Unfortunately, France was plunged into war with all of the major monarchies of Europe who wanted to kill off this Republican monstrosity in their midst, so there was no opportunity for the Illuminati to build a brand new society. War dominated everything and so a warrior soon came to power – Napoleon. Although he can claim some credits, Napoleon was simply a new type of bad wolf. Bad wolves are the bane of the world. Any rational society would identify these bad wolves in childhood and seek to sublimate their negative tendencies in positive pursuits. Society should implement specific laws to curb the ability of bad wolves to rise to the top.
Not all bad wolves are seen for what they are. Steve Jobs is greatly admired by many people. In a British newspaper, journalist Michael Bywater wrote, “Cool, by its very nature, is something which it should not be possible to mass-produce. Steve Jobs is the man who industrialised cool.” Of course, the original assertion is correct: cool CANNOT be mass-produced. Steve Jobs didn’t do anything “cool”. He was a greedy capitalist who saw how to industrialise the capitalist appearance of “cool” for legions of sad fuck human dogs who have to have the latest gadget (even though they never do anything worthwhile with all of these gadgets they own). There’s no difference between Microsoft and Apple: two ruthless capitalist leviathans trying to part tame dogs from their money. How anyone can use “cool” in the context of one of the richest corporations on earth is simply breath-taking. Apple products are shit. They offer nothing to the world. What has Apple achieved other than make endless millions of people spend all of their time glued to gadgets, and doing NOTHING productive. Apple has massively expanded the scope for people to twitter and bellyache endlessly. The air crackles with endless moronic trivia. Is that what people call PROGRESS?!!
Capitalist technology mostly revolves around how to expand the exchange of BULLSHIT exponentially. Airheads and retards have never had so much scope for expressing their empty, pointless thoughts. The world is awash with mind pollution, with toxic memes. Huge cyber garbage dumps are everywhere, filled to bursting with the collected “thoughts” of those who can’t think. They can’t think because they spend so much time frittering away their time with their shiny gadgets rather than learning anything and developing a skill.
There has only ever been one true route to meaningful achievement – that most unpopular of undertakings, HARD WORK. Not all the gadgets on earth will help you if you are a mediocre, lazy, stupid dog. The morons should dump their gadgets and read a book! But of course, that wouldn’t be “cool”. And we must all seek to be cool in the way that makes immense amounts of money for Steve Jobs, mustn’t we? If we don’t conform to capitalist cool then we can never be cool, right?! All Big Bad Wolf institutions and individuals are easy to spot – they have immense wealth and influence and they never talk about wealth redistribution. They always sing the praises of “profit”. Steve Jobs is no different.
__________
The London Riots, a “Bad Wolf” Case Study:
For a few days, law and order broke down in the capital of the United Kingdom, one of the world’s most powerful nations. The London police were exposed as inept and ineffectual, clueless and impotent in the face of widespread disorder and looting. One of the most intriguing aspects of the London riots was that it was overwhelmingly perpetrated by young black men. This was plain to see in endless pictures of the event. However, no politician or media commentator wanted to talk about the racial angle, and their bacon was saved when other British cities rioted, and in some of these cases the rioters were overwhelmingly white.
However, a prominent and controversial TV historian called Dr David Starkey jumped in where angels fear to tread, making comments deemed so racist that several observers declared that he had committed career suicide. He made the statement that in the UK all successful blacks are effectively white i.e. they consciously or subconsciously imitate prominent whites. Conversely, unsuccessful whites consciously or subconsciously imitate prominent “bad boy” blacks. Cue media outrage.
Starkey stated, ‘What has happened is that a substantial section of the chavs [members of the UK underclass]…have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion.” On the subject of black street language, Starkey said, “Black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together. This language, which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that has intruded in England…This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.” Starkey commenting on David Lammy, Labour Member of Parliament for Tottenham where the riots began (following the fatal shooting of an armed black man who didn’t seem to be given any chance to surrender), said, “Listen to David Lammy, an archetypal successful black man. If you turn the screen off, as if you were listening to him on radio, you would think he was white.”
In one of our previous articles, we wrote:
A book called The History of White People by black American historian Nell Irvin Painter has argued, convincingly, that Barack Obama is white, and this has nothing to do with the fact that his mother is white. Obama has basically found himself motoring along on the “white side” of the track i.e. his education is typical of that of a patrician white, as are his income, his power, his status, and that was true long before he became President. It was easy for many whites to vote for him because, as they recognised, he was effectively white himself. Would those whites who voted for Obama also have voted for someone like the Reverend Wright? Not a chance.
Painter’s point is that race is a social construct, subject to the forces of fashion. Many whites, attracted by the “bad boy” image of black rappers, have adopted black cultural values. Painter has argued that well-connected, prosperous blacks can be “white”, while disadvantaged whites are indistinguishable from disadvantaged blacks, if you ignore their skin colour and focus on how they conduct their lives, and how they are treated by society. Can anyone deny that President Obama sounds much more like a white professor than a black rapper?
We regard Starkey and Painter’s case as unarguable. The question isn’t whether it’s true or not – it plainly is – but to understand how it came about and what can be done about it. And, in fact, the issue isn’t really one of race at all, but of education.
Consider the following hypothetical case of a young black man whose father has jumped ship and plays no part in his upbringing. He’s in a one-parent home and his mother is out all day working for the minimum wage as she packs shelves in a supermarket. She is exhausted when she comes home and just wants to watch soap operas to relax. She has no time for her son, though she dutifully tells him to work hard at school, respect his teachers and make something of himself. She herself is uneducated and barely literate. She can’t give her son any help with his schoolwork and she doesn’t provide an educational environment where books are respected.
The young black man is not at all academic. He hates school. Moreover, he is highly physical and dominant. He is, in fact, a bad wolf. What are the life choices facing this young black wolf? Well, he’s already a dismal failure at school. The academic track is a dead end for him. He will definitely have a miserable life if he tries to go down the conventional path of achieving exam success. He has no chance at all of passing any exam. In order to have power and influence within his community, it’s vital for him to minimize the importance of education in his peer group because that is where he is at maximum disadvantage, where he’s an absolute, sure loser. So, he uses his physicality to bully all of the smart boys. He constantly rubbishes academic attainment and says it’s only for those “sell-outs” trying to copy whites. He says that all books are racist because they’re written by white men and promote white values. He plays “gangsta rap” constantly and is always talking about hoes, bitches, guns, bling, drugs, robbery and shooting cops. He and all of his friends refer to each other as “niggers”.
He can’t speak English very well since he can barely read, so he starts inventing a new language in which no one is more fluent than he is. This is a kind of grunting language full of words being used in bizarre ways (he never really understood what the words meant in the first place). Also, this coded language serves to stamp his brand on his gang and to exclude outsiders. He defies teachers in school and is regarded as a rebel, a “hero”. At all times, he says he’s too cool for school and that any academic kid is a geek, nerd, dork, and uncool loser. He relentlessly stigmatizes and bullies any academically successful kid. He is inevitably expelled (not that he attended school much anyway). He becomes involved with the local drug dealers and starts earning good money and driving a flash car. He gets sexy girlfriends. His friends envy him and look up to him. He beats up, stabs or shoots anyone who opposes him and rules his gang with an iron fist. He demands “respect” at all times.
So, this guy has created a good life for himself where he has status, power, respect, and money. He has maximized his opportunities outwith the school environment where he had zero chance of achieving anything. Can anyone criticize him? The academically talented kids leverage their academic skills to the maximum. Why shouldn’t those with different skills leverage those different skills to the maximum too?
Does our case study sound familiar? All people who struggle at school are tempted by the alternative, criminal type of life we have described. It’s no surprise that unsuccessful white kids should be attracted to this gangsta scene and its street code and language. Very soon, they will be black in all but skin colour. By the same token, the blacks who do well at school will soon be white except in skin tone. If blacks were the academically most successful then the positions would be reversed and ambitious whites would be seeking to become black, and unsuccessful blacks would be turning white. It’s not race that’s the issue: it’s which group is most identified with educational success in an environment where huge emphasis is placed on passing exams.
How should we deal with the young black wolf? The doctrine of negative liberty – of non-interference in people’s lives – says, “Do nothing.” But we know exactly where that leads – to increasing criminality and eventually jail or death.
The interventionist State would stop this young black wolf from poisoning his peer group and turning them against education. He, and everyone else of similar ilk, would be identified at an early age by psychological profiling and they would be taken to radically different, non-academic schools. Here, their particular skills would be identified and a means found to harness them constructively. The young wolf would feel proud and successful of his achievements. His self-esteem and self-image would be high. Far from becoming an enemy of the State, he would be transformed into a valuable contributor with a clear-cut, non-academic path to follow through life. He would enjoy status and power within the system rather than outside it.
Gang culture is a direct product of negative liberty where governments make no attempt to intervene in the lives of non-academic kids from dysfunctional families. Gangs are an alternative form of society. They have a hierarchy and a code of conduct. They have a dress code, a demand for “respect”, for loyalty. To “diss” one member of the gang is to diss the whole group. A gang provides status, a place, a function, a role in life, an identity, a cause. For those who have been rejected by the mainstream, why wouldn’t you join a gang?
In the arena of positive liberty, gangs are wholly unacceptable, and they would be prevented from arising in the first place. Gangs are formed by bad wolves, so the primary way to stop their formation is to deal with the bad wolves before they become bad. It’s not a remotely difficult job as long as the State assigns itself the right to address problems at the earliest possible stage. Any failure to tackle a problem makes the problem much worse. The advocates of negative liberty never intervene until the streets are on fire and rioters are roaming around like wild animals. Is that rational?
Gangs are the logical response to the indifference of the State. If the State doesn’t help then people will help themselves. They can’t be blamed for that. It’s the State’s fault for doing nothing. The British riots were exactly what the British form of government brought on itself by its criminal disregard for kids from ghettos.
__________
The Krypteia:
THE ANCIENT SPARTANS had an alternative way of dealing with troublemakers. They were faced with the problem of suppressing a slave population that outnumbered them some ten to one. They chose to wage psychological warfare and selective assassination against the helots (slaves) to keep them under control. Above all, they targeted any helots that showed any signs of dominant behaviour. If you kill all the wolves, only tame dogs are left, and they are no threat to anyone.
Plutarch gives the following account of the deadly Spartan tradition known as the Krypteia (“hidden, secret things”; the Krypteia might also be regarded as the Spartan secret service):
By this ordinance, the magistrates from time to time dispatched privately some of the ablest and most discreet of the young warriors into the country, armed only with their daggers, and such minimal supplies as were necessary. In the daytime, they hid themselves in out-of-the-way places, and there lay quiet, but, in the night, they came out into the highways and killed all the helots they came upon; sometimes they set upon them by day, as they were at work in the fields, and murdered them. As, also, Thucydides, in his history of the Peloponnesian war, tells us, that a good number of them, after being singled out for their bravery by the Spartans, garlanded, as enfranchised persons, and led about to all the temples in token of honours, shortly after disappeared all of a sudden, being about the number of two thousand; and no man either then or since could give an account how they came by their deaths. And Aristotle, in particular, adds that the ephori, so soon as they were entered into their office, used to declare war against them, that they might be massacred without a breach of religion. It is confessed, on all hands, that the Spartans dealt with them very hardly; for it was a common thing to force them to drink to excess, and to lead them in that condition into their public halls, that the children might see what a sight a drunken man is; they made them to dance low dances, and sing ridiculous songs, forbidding them expressly to meddle with any of a better kind. And, accordingly, when the Thebans made their invasion into Laconia, and took a great number of the Helots, they could by no means persuade them to sing the verses of Terpander, Alcman, or Spendon, “For,” said they, “the masters do not like it.” So that it was truly observed by one, that in Sparta he who was free was most so, and he that was a slave there, the greatest slave in the world. For my part, I am of opinion that these outrages and cruelties began to be exercised in Sparta at a later time, especially after the great earthquake, when the Helots made a general insurrection, and, joining with the Messenians, laid the country waste, and brought the greatest danger upon the city. For I cannot persuade myself to ascribe to Lycurgus so wicked and barbarous a course, judging of him from the gentleness of his disposition and justice upon all other occasions; to which the oracle also testified.
The Wikipedia entry gives the following account:
“Every autumn, according to Plutarch, the Spartan ephors would declare war on the helot population so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt. The kryptes were sent out into the countryside with only a knife to survive on their skills and cunning with the instructions to kill any helot they encountered at night and to take any food they needed.
“According to Cartledge, Krypteia members stalked the helot villages and surrounding countryside, spying on the servile population. Their mission was to root-out potential sedition. Troublesome helots could be summarily executed. Such brutal oppression of the helots permitted the Spartans to control the agrarian population and devote themselves to military practice. It may also have contributed to the Spartans’ reputation for stealth since a boy who got caught was punished by whipping. Only Spartans who had served in the Krypteia as young men could expect to achieve the highest ranks in Spartan society and army. It was felt that only those Spartans who showed the ability and willingness to kill for the state at a young age were worthy to join the leadership in later years.”
So, the Krypteia was like Special Forces training of the most extreme kind, involving assassination missions as a rite of passage. Others have described it in terms of a secret police like the Nazi Gestapo, designed to identify and deal with subversives at an early stage. One way or another, the wolves must be dealt with. The rational way is to do so early and benevolently, and to harness the wolves’ positive qualities for socially productive ends. The Spartan approach is also rational, but brutal and tyrannical. The irrational approach is to do nothing and let the problem fester and grow. Gang culture is exactly what you get when wolves are allowed to rule their own local environment. It’s monumental madness to allow this to happen.
Gangs are a disaster. They are a State within a State or, more accurately, a dysfunctional State within a dysfunctional State. The whole point of gangs is to challenge the authorities and to be, in effect, at constant war with the mainstream. Gangs are criminal entities, so why are they allowed to exist? It’s the appalling doctrine of negative liberty that allows the endless problems of the underclass to multiply until eventually they erupt on the streets, as happened in the UK.
_________
Scarface:
ONE OF THE MOST socially important films of all time is Scarface (1983) directed by Brian De Palma, written by Oliver Stone and starring Al Pacino as the grotesquely larger than life and unforgettable Tony Montana. Black gangs and even the Mafia have acknowledged their debt to Scarface. They all seek to emulate Montana and the lifestyle he enjoyed. Montana, a bad wolf if ever there was one, gives a voice to all of the aggressive young men outside the mainstream, particularly those who have little or no meaningful contact with the education system.
Montana says of himself, “Okay, here’s the story. I come from the gutter. I know that. I got no education… But that’s okay. I know the street, and I’m making all the right connections. With the right woman, there’s no stopping me. I could go right to the top.” Note the staggering ambition. It’s not good enough merely to do well despite having no education. Only “the top” will satisfy his ambition. Everyone these days is staggeringly ambitious. Every scumbag wants to get to the top and thinks they can realistically get there. Never have so many people been so deluded. Not one of these “top-seekers” ever expects to have to work themselves to exhaustion to get there. Hard work is never considered necessary. It’s all about “balls” and “being myself”.
Montana says, “Orders? You giving me orders? Amigo, the only thing in this world that gives orders is balls. You got that? Balls.” In other words, the law of the jungle applies. The strongest give orders. The rest must obey. Montana is throwing down the challenge that all wolves offer: fight or submit. “This is paradise, I’m tellin’ ya. This town is like a great big pussy just waitin’ to get fucked.”
In gang culture, everything is described in sexual terms. Homosexuality is unacceptable. A pussy is regarded as the ultimate goal. Heterosexuality is so extreme as to become, ironically, homoerotic (just look at the amount of time gangstas spend getting the look right, going to the gym and “bonding” with their “brothers” in sweaty, oily, masculine environments). “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.”
This is the basic equation all gang members understand.
In the famous restaurant scene, Montana says to the upmarket diners, “What you lookin’ at? You all a bunch of fuckin’ assholes. You know why? You don’t have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin’ fingers and say, ‘That’s the bad guy.’ So… what that make you? Good? You’re not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don’t have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There’s a bad guy comin’ through! Better get outta his way!”
Gangsters and the rich have a great deal of moral equivalence. Most rich people are simply legalized gangsters; those who have the law on their side when they commit their robberies and hold ups. What better way to steal from a bank than to be its chief executive, empowered to award yourself enormous bonuses? Who needs to wear a mask to carry out a heist? Better to walk into the vault as the CEO and help yourself.
“I’m Tony Montana! You fuck with me, you fuckin’ with the best!”
All top gangsters think they’re the best, and indestructible. They never are.
“You wanna go to war?! We’ll take you to war, okay?!”
Gangs are about four things: money, power, sex and violence.
“Okay, Sosa. You wanna fuck with me? You fucking with the best! You wanna fuck with me? Okay. You little cockroaches… come on. You wanna play games? Okay, I’ll play with you. You wanna play rough? Okay! Say hello to my little friend!”
This is the monologue that runs through the head of all gangsters as they embark on insane rampages, usually culminating in their own death.
“Hey, how’d you like dat? Huh? You fuckin’ maricón! Hey! You think you can take me? You need a fuckin’ army if you’re gonna take me! You hear?! C’mon! I’ll take you all to fuckin’ Hell! Come on! Come on! Come to me! Okay! Who you think you fuckin’ with? I’m Tony Montana! You fuck with me, you fuckin’ with the best! [while being shot repeatedly] Come on! I’m still standin’, huh! Fuck! Come on! Go ahead! I take your fuckin’ bullet! Come on! I take your fuckin’ bullets! You think you kill me with bullets? I take your fuckin’ bullets! Go ahead!”
Not the speech of a philosopher! Socrates certainly didn’t say any of this as he sipped his hemlock.
Tony topples from a balcony into the fountain below and floats face-down in the water beneath a statue of the globe bearing, in gaudy red neon, the inscription “The World Is Yours.” All gangsters think this.
Tony Montana has captured the imaginations of the uneducated underclass to an astonishing degree. He was the man who climbed out of the gutter and reached the top through sheer force. How many thousands of gang members have met their deaths as they tried to imitate Tony Montana? The money, the beautiful women, the cocaine, the flash cars, the luxury mansions, the fear and respect of everyone – this is the package that the whole underclass dreams of. Education features nowhere in this fantasy. Reason has no role. It’s all about will. About BALLS. The educated must use their superior intellect to destroy this Scarface dream world that gang members permanently inhabit.
Scarface is a brilliant movie, but it should be interpreted as a warning rather than as something to aspire to. Society is fucked if it is generating enormous numbers of Tony Montanas on the one hand and Reality TV wannabes on the other. Any rational society must be all about EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. Where an academic education is inappropriate, other types of civilising and productive education must be provided, leading to good career prospects.
__________
Werewolves:
Why are people so fascinated with werewolves, with the transformation of an ordinary person into a human wolf at the full moon? It’s because tame, timid human “dogs” fantasize about what it would be like to be one of the dominant wolves for a change. But real human wolves are real human wolves all the time, not just on full moons. They are permanent werewolves, and it usually takes bullets – they needn’t be silver! – to stop them.
__________
Simplicity:
People imagine that they are complex but in fact you could know almost everything about them by spending five minutes walking through their house. Straight away, you would know who is rich and who is poor, who is messy and who is tidy, who has imagination and who is conventional. People with pets can be assumed to be feeling and sensing types. People with fast, flash cars, enormous TV screens and state of the art video games are heavily into sensation. Thinkers and intuitives will usually have plenty of books. Thinkers will have many conventional academic books while intuitives will also have esoteric books, science fiction and fantasy books.
People who read lots of literary fiction might be mistaken as thinkers or intuitives, but they’re not. Fans of literary fiction are just a special category of feeling and sensing types who get their thrills from imagining situations rather than actively experiencing them. Your clothes also betray a huge amount about you, as do the friends you have. The contents of your fridge, the type of wine you drink, your toiletries in the bathroom…absolutely everything throws light on who you are, how you think and how you behave.
__________
Planet Bling:
Astronomers think they have identified a planet made of diamond. Are all the bling kings having multiple orgasms? What next? – a solid gold planet – Planet Midas in the Mammon Quadrant? Instead of the Man on the Moon, we’ll have the Bling King on Planet Platinum Card. Did you know that gold is formed when a star goes supernova? Then it rains down on planets like ours – the ultimate golden shower! Can you imagine looking up and seeing gold dust suspended in the air, glinting and gleaming, making earth’s atmosphere take on a miraculous golden glow?
__________
The Wolf War:
“Everything good is the transmutation of something evil: every god has a devil for a father.” –Nietzsche
GNOSTICISM DECLARES ABRAHAMISM to be the religion of Satan. Gnosticism declares that the vast majority of humanity are deluded and indeed evil. Gnosticism declares that humanity is in thrall to the Devil and controlled by Satanic forces. The world, therefore, is a fundamentally evil place. It can even be defined as hell itself; or as a prison planet for ignorant, deluded and wicked souls. There are ways out, but only when humanity turns to reason, knowledge and logic (Logos) rather than faith, superstition, story, emotion and fable (Mythos).
Gnosticism promotes the agenda of the Enlightenment. Abrahamism promotes the agenda of primitive Middle Eastern tribes obsessed with slavish obedience to a Torture God. The Armageddon Conspiracy by Mike Hockney is a book about the revaluation of all values. It seeks to shock anyone from a Christian background into a 180-degree revolution of their worldview. What if Christians weren’t the “good guys” but the opposite? What if the “bad guys” – the Nazis and the notorious Illuminati – were the heroes of humanity fighting the good fight? In fact, what if the Nazis and the Illuminati were one and the same? This is one of the themes of the novel.
This raises the question of what, if any, are the true connections between the Nazis and the Illuminati. After Germany’s defeat in WWI, the nation descended into chaos. The Illuminati saw a glorious opportunity to bring about a German Revolution based on paganism, Gnosticism and a New Enlightenment. It’s true that three Gnostic secret societies, including the Illuminati, had connections with the milieu from which the Nazi Party emerged. The Illuminati knew several people who became prominent Nazis. The Grand Master of the Illuminati actually met Adolf Hitler in the early 1920s and found him interesting and impressive but clearly suffering from “Messiah Syndrome” – when a person becomes convinced that he personally (rather than as a part of a rational movement) has a divine mission to save his country or the world.
The Armageddon Conspiracy explores the notion of Hitler being recruited by the Illuminati and becoming its Grand Master. In fact, the Illuminati quickly grew to despise the Nazis, seeing them as nothing but moronic, racist thugs who were intending to replace the God of Abrahamism with a “new Jehovah” – the Fuehrer! Nazism was a celebration of the cult of the personality rather than a new, enlightened, anti-Abrahamist, anti-capitalist system of government that would lead forward the whole world. Nevertheless, the Illuminati were fascinated by the tactics and strategy invoked by Hitler. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany was beset by catastrophic economic difficulties and continual violent clashes between left and right wing parties. The liberal centre was paralysed and hopelessly ineffectual. Yet within an extremely short period, Germany was fully stable and prospering under Hitler’s rule, albeit that its main activity was rebuilding the German war machine.
Imagine that in a few years from now, America and the major European powers are bankrupt, capitalism is dead, democracy has collapsed and rival factions are violently struggling for power. Everything is in chaos. How will order be restored? Will liberals achieve it? Or does some spell have to be cast over the people, just as Hitler bewitched Germany? Hitler identified an internal enemy disliked by all Germans – the Jews. He also identified an external enemy – Bolshevism. His private army, the SA (later replaced by the SS), ensured instant law and order.
In Revolutionary France, the Illuminati were faced with enormous difficulties in transforming chaos into order and were forced to take savage measures. Liberals are of course horrified by the steps that Revolutionary groups take to impose their will, but they conveniently never consider the question of how they themselves would run a country if it were on the verge of total collapse. Bland, liberal, consensus politicians would be eaten alive. As Hitler rightly recognised, the Will becomes fundamental in chaotic situations. Those with the strongest will are those who triumph.
If the prevailing Western economic and political paradigm of “liberal” capitalist democracy were to collapse tomorrow and the Meritocracy Party stepped in, no one can be in any doubt that extreme measures would have to be taken to entrench the new system. All actions have to be decisive, and the most radical measures must be taken IMMEDIATELY. The Revolution will be won or lost in the first 100 days. By the end of that period, the shape of the future must be apparent to all, and irreversible. The days of the rich would instantly be over. All of their assets would be seized (as happened in the Russian Revolution). A brand new constitution would be declared setting out the philosophical principles of the new regime. All existing institutions inconsistent with the new constitution would be abolished.
Of course, since there won’t be any widespread rational agreement about what has to be done the new government must be backed up by force – a “New Model Army” (France had a Revolutionary army, Russia had the Red Army and Hitler had the SA and SS). A new police service must be ready to step in. There must be a secret police to identify counter-revolutionaries. Liberals are appalled by such ideas and talk of a “police state”. These people are naïve beyond belief. The world is never changed by holding enormous genteel tea parties for the liberal chattering classes. To undo thousands of years of brainwashing and to effect a decisive, irreversible change, there is simply no question that illiberal measures must be taken. If you don’t want to get your hands dirty then declare yourself one of the Ignavi and stand on the side-lines. Don’t get in the way! The will of the new regime must be absolute and unflinching. Robespierre and Saint-Just did not flinch. They WERE the French Revolution. Without them, the Revolution would have collapsed. Their iron will held the whole thing together.
The end of Abrahamism will not come about by negotiation and debate. It will come about because a superior will declares Abrahamism illegal and puts it out of business once and for all. In Germany, Hitler quickly made the Christian Churches subordinate to his will, and established Nazism as a form of pagan religion, a return to the pre-Christian age of German heroes. The German people soon adopted a new mindset based on doublethink – half Christian, half Nazi. This doublethink is often a precursor to a radical change. Moreover, the Hitler Youth were raised purely within the Nazi paradigm and experienced little or no Christian brainwashing, but endless Nazi indoctrination. Many of them were more loyal to Nazism than to their own parents, and were willing to expose their parents to the authorities as subversives if they overheard them criticizing the Fuehrer.
Although this sounds repellent, the question must be raised whether it’s any more moral for parents to brainwash their children. The ultimate aim is to create an environment where zero brainwashing takes place, but in order to get there, the brainwashing performed by parents must be undone.
“Faith” and superstition must be eradicated from the human condition, replaced by reason and knowledge. Worship of Torture Gods and Terror religions must be ended and replaced by psychologically healthy religions devoted to maximisation of human potential and the aspiration to turn humans into Gods. Worship of money must be eliminated. None of this will be accomplished by half-hearted, liberal talking shops. It will be enacted through irresistible force of will. Hippies, new agers, flower power people, the “love brigade”, the tree huggers and all the rest will never change anything. Change is a function of power, of force, of will. Unpleasant acts are a sine qua non.
Hitler stabilised Germany by neutralizing all dissenting voices, by silencing all the wolves who opposed him. Instantly, the chaos and street violence that had characterised the Germany of that era ceased. There was an immediate benefit for the vast majority (though not of course for the people who hated and opposed Hitler).
Had Hitler actually been the Grand Master of the Illuminati, committed to implementing the enlightened meritocracy of the Illuminati, he would have created the most powerful nation in human history that would have led the rest of the world into a Golden Age. Instead, he presented himself as an Aryan Messiah and plunged the world into a horrific war that, in the end, made superpowers of the capitalist, Zionist-financed Americans and the communist Russians – in other words, Hitler gave an unprecedented victory to the two opposing poles he hated most. Way to go.
Many people think they will fight when the shitstorm comes. But they won’t. Only the wolves come out to play. The rest cower in their homes and wait for the outcome to be decided. The world is all about the wolves and who controls the wolf pack. The set of wolves that moves most decisively always wins. The “Wolf War” is invariably conducted at the level of Scarface: brutal violence. Look at all the so-called “velvet revolutions” that have taken place throughout the world. Could it be said that any of them actually worked? Who, ultimately took over in all of these countries? – the rich, the friends of Zionism. Goldman Sachs moved in to direct their economic policies. Velvet revolutions turned out to be nothing but the replacement of socialist elites by capitalist elites. These were fake revolutions that were more like corporate takeovers.
Genuine revolutions generate violence because there’s so much at stake. Imagine an enlightened government seeking to bring an end to circumcision and Abrahamism. The Abrahamist wolves would definitely resort to violence. After all, the Abrahamists have been history’s most violent group. Religious fanaticism goes hand in hand with “holy war”. Yet our world cannot move on until Abrahamism is destroyed. Abrahamism is the dark, dead, evil past. There will never be a rational, enlightened New World Order while the poison of Abrahamism flows through the world’s arteries.
__________
The End of the Wolf Age:
“Liberal: a power worshipper without power.” –George Orwell
The wolves have dominated the world long enough. They are a product of an excess of testosterone, so the antidote is oestrogen. We need far more women in influential positions. Banking, stock markets and economic policy should, in particular, become the province of women. That is the surest way to end boom and bust cycles. Boom is the outcome of aggressive greed and risk-taking. Bust is when the gambles finally fail and, sooner or later, they always do. Money, of course, is power and it’s essential that power should not fall into the hands of the wolves.
It’s time for the wolves to be tamed, but we don’t want to turn them into dogs. Cats would be more appropriate!
__________
3/7
Tags: Academia Iluministă
Academia Iluministă (98)
Introduction:
THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a member, working under the pseudonym of “Adam Weishaupt” – the name of the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master.
The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity.
If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites. Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then dispatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise.
Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing? Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan?
Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”.
Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.
__________
Quotations:
“If you live among wolves you have to act like a wolf.” –Nikita Khrushchev
“In our society leaving baby with Daddy is just one step above leaving the kids to be raised by wolves or apes.” –Al Roker
“In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves.” –R. A. Butler
“Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.” –Isaiah Berlin
“Lions, wolves, and vultures don’t live together in herds, droves or flocks. Of all animals of prey, man is the only sociable one. Every one of us preys upon his neighbour, and yet we herd together.” –John Gay
“Pacifists are like sheep who believe that wolves are vegetarians.” –Yves Montand
“Don’t accept your dog’s admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful.” –Ann Landers
“I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven’t got the guts to bite people themselves.” –August Strindberg
“Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” –Bible, Matthew: 15. 27.
“Yesterday I was a dog. Today I’m a dog. Tomorrow I’ll probably still be a dog. Sigh! There’s so little hope for advancement.” –Charles M. Schulz, (Snoopy)
“I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” –Winston Churchill
__________
Introduction:
THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a member, working under the pseudonym of “Adam Weishaupt” – the name of the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master.
The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity.
If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites. Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then dispatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise.
Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing? Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan?
Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”.
Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.
__________
Human Dogs:
MANY PEOPLE ARE DOG LOVERS. Little do they suspect that many of the secrets of humanity are locked within the relationship of owners and their pets. Dogs are domesticated wolves. They prospered while wolves were exterminated in many parts of the world. Yet in the human world, it’s the human wolves that have prospered, and they prey on the domesticated human dogs. By understanding dogs and wolves, we can understand the human condition.
From the Wikipedia entry on dogs:
The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo) is a domesticated form of the grey wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora. The term is used for both feral and pet varieties. The dog may have been the first animal to be domesticated, and has been the most widely kept working, hunting, and companion animal in human history.
The word “dog” may also mean the male of a canine species, as opposed to the word “bitch” for the female of the species. Dogs were domesticated from gray wolves about 15,000 years ago. They must have been very valuable to early human settlements, for they quickly became ubiquitous across world cultures. Dogs perform many roles for people, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and military, companionship, and, more recently, aiding handicapped individuals. This impact on human society has given them the nickname “Man’s Best Friend” in the western world. In 2001, there were estimated to be 400 million dogs in the world.
Over the 15,000-year span the dog had been domesticated, it diverged into only a handful of landraces, groups of similar animals whose morphology and behaviour have been shaped by environmental factors and functional roles. Through selective breeding by humans, the dog has developed into hundreds of varied breeds, and shows more behavioural and morphological variation than any other land mammal. For example, height measured to the withers ranges from a few inches in the Chihuahua to a few feet in the Irish Wolfhound; colour varies from white through greys (usually called “blue’”) to black, and browns from light (tan) to dark (“red” or “chocolate”) in a wide variation of patterns; coats can be short or long, coarse-haired to wool-like, straight, curly, or smooth.
******
It’s a remarkable thing, but not a single member of the Illuminati has any pets. How can that be explained? Or, to put it another way, why do so many people choose to have pets rather than do without them? Animals are expensive, time-consuming, dumb, chaotic, frequently dirty, and can get their owners involved in vicious disputes. In many ways, pet ownership is immoral – in a world full of starving human beings, why are there fat pets? Animals can’t speak. They can’t do science, philosophy or mathematics. So what’s the point of them? Why would anyone want to spend any time with them?
It’s said that there’s a powerful emotional bond between dogs and humans, and that’s the key to the enigma. The Illuminati are thinkers and intuitives in terms of Jung’s personality types. Such people value ideas above all else. All members of the Illuminati have huge libraries. They love books, movies, documentaries, world news, studying religions and philosophies. How does a dog serve a thinker or intuitive? Not at all. It can’t contribute anything in the realm of ideas. It’s a dumb, pointless mutt. You’d be as well sitting with a lump of rock for all the mental stimulation you’d get from a dog.
But dog lovers, and pet lovers in general, are overwhelmingly Jungian sensing and feeling types. The sensers love the physical interaction with their dogs. The feelers become emotionally attached to them, often obsessively so, treating them as more important than human beings. Many dog lovers treat their dogs better than they do human strangers and would save their dog in a crisis rather than a person. Many owners drown trying to save their dogs that have fallen into water.
Owners think the world should indulge their love for their dogs, that others should tolerate without question their yapping, barking, snarling, salivating, unleashed beasts. But why should anyone allow themselves to be barked at? Who signs up to be barked at because of someone else’s predilections? Of course, no one ever asks if anyone wants to be barked at and be attacked by dogs. It’s taken for granted that it’s OK. And, of course, if anyone kicks to death a dog that attacks him, it won’t be the dog owner who appears in court for bringing an uncontrolled beast into the public arena, it will be the person who defended himself against an unprovoked assault by a beast.
The Illuminati advocate the “Law of Neutrality”. The law should always take the side of the most neutral person in any dispute. Therefore, for example, a man walking along a pavement or sidewalk, minding his own business, is as neutral as it gets. If someone else brings a dog into the public space then that person is not “neutral”; they have a brought a potential cause of dispute and trouble with them. If a dispute does indeed break out because the person minding his own business objects to a beast barking at him and slobbering over him, surely he should be the one supported by the law. But he’s not. The law is irrational. It was formulated by the sort of influential people who like dogs – rich landowners with vast country estates.
Although dogs are tame relative to wolves, they are rather keen on barking and biting in the presence of human strangers. It has been estimated that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans each year, with 885,000 requiring medical attention and some 30,000 having to undergo reconstructive surgery. Why should those who dislike dogs be forced to endure this outrageous situation? The police clamp down on the possession of dangerous knives in the public space, yet they allow irresponsible owners to go around with aggressive dogs that can do every bit as much damage as a knife attack. Every year, many toddlers are savaged to death by household “pets” that usually turn out to be “killer dog” breeds, specially cultivated for their aggression and the fear they instil in people. It’s one thing to voluntarily sign up to be in a city full of dogs, it’s quite another to have it tyrannically imposed on you.
The obsession that some people have with dogs is remarkable. Dale Carnegie, the author of the famous book How to Win Friends and Influence People, highlighted the role of dogs. He wrote, “Did you ever stop to think that a dog is the only animal that doesn’t have to work for a living? A hen has to lay eggs, a cow has to give milk, and a canary has to sing. But a dog makes his living by giving you nothing but love.”
Many people are indeed in love with dogs, these creatures that don’t do anything productive. A dog is a parasite. Its purpose in life is to get others to look after it and cater for all of its needs. It’s the ultimate sponger, freeloader and dead head. Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene portrayed human beings as gene survival machines whose purpose was to serve the interests of their genes and, above all, to replicate them as widely as possible. It was as if human beings were being actively exploited and manipulated by their genes. In similar fashion, if you are a dog owner, you are being exploited and manipulated by your dog. It has latched onto you as a suitable person – a mark, a sucker – to feed, house and protect it. In return, it licks your hand and whatever else pets do that you love so much. It does those things not because it loves you, but because it has to do them in order to make you think it loves you. Only then will it get from you what it wants. Cats are much more independent than dogs, hence a lot less lovable. Studies have shown that cat owners have higher IQs than dog owners and that people without pets have the highest IQs of all. We might as well say that a person’s needs for love and affection stands in direct opposition to their intelligence. Dog owners need a lot of love, and all the time lavished on love is time not lavished on ideas and thinking. Therefore, surprise, surprise, they are less intelligent.
The subject of dogs is instructive because it says a great a deal about human societies. As we have seen, dogs are descended from wolves, which are of course highly aggressive. Research has indicated that dogs originated in early human hunters selecting wolves for tameness against aggression. Aggressive wolves were frequently killed while tame wolves were nurtured. After breeding over many generations, dogs became radically different from wolves and amazingly well attuned to humans. That’s not surprising. They were naturally selected, with human taste acting as the criterion for selection i.e. humans killed dogs they didn’t like and kept the ones they did. The ones they liked were the ones that did likeable things (as judged by humans): the ones that were very affectionate, loyal and loving, looked cute and sensed human emotions.
Dogs are enormously more attuned to analysing human faces than they are those of other dogs. Isn’t that astounding? Why is that? Because it’s human beings that look after them, not other dogs. Dogs absolutely know on what side their bread is buttered – and it’s the human side, not the doggy side. Dogs get more out of being with humans than they do with other dogs because that’s how they’ve been bred and selected by humans. They are supremely unnatural creatures, like toys that have come to life. A dog’s whole purpose in life is to please its human master – not to form good relationships with other dogs.
Dogs, uniquely amongst animals, inspect human faces in the same way that humans do. That’s how emotionally sensitized to humans they are. Many people can accurately decipher dog barks. These barks form a rudimentary signalling system. Dogs are the only creatures that understand and respond to the human pointing gesture. They realise that their master is giving them an informational signal. All other animals, including chimpanzees, are oblivious to what pointing signifies.
Overall, a dog can know about 15 commands. There’s one example of an incredible dog that’s as smart as a two-year old human baby, but this is certainly the exception. Nevertheless, it shows that dogs could evolve a much higher intelligence than they typically possess at present. Perhaps if they were actively selected for intelligence rather than cuteness and petness we could have them studying philosophy in a thousand years, and barking especially loudly and rolling over when they read Leibniz and Nietzsche.
Russian breeding experiments with foxes over several generations have demonstrated that they too can be made to behave like dogs if they are selected for tameness against aggression. What’s more, radical changes in appearance occurred with the later generations of tamed foxes. Their ears got floppier, their tails shorter and curlier, their limbs shorter, their coats more exotically patterned and coloured i.e. they became much cuter and indeed very similar to dogs. So, selection for tameness results in enhanced cuteness and “petness”.
The domestication of dogs has been said to favour juvenile rather than adult traits. Tame dogs are those dogs that haven’t evolved adult frustration, aggression and desire for power. Aggression signifies dominance. Tameness signifies submissiveness and immaturity. Domestication corresponds to an infantilisation process and involves a deliberate selection of adults who behave like children. If wolves are the adults, dogs are the infants. They’re childlike, baby creatures and the sort of humans who like them are deeply attracted to childlike, baby creatures that love unconditionally and don’t argue back.
To recapitulate, dogs were wolves selected for tameness. They were juvenile, submissive wolves that didn’t compete for dominance and assert themselves. They were big babies. They were cute, affectionate and needy – exactly like human babies, and there’s considerable evidence that the same brain mechanisms that are triggered when people interact with babies are activated when dog lovers interact with their pets. The bonding hormone oxytocin is released. The owners want to look after their “babies”, nurture them, love them, care from them and protect them. They become more human to them than actual humans – and indeed dog owners actually hate most human beings, which is why they prefer the company of dogs. Pet owners can’t cope with the adult world, so they choose to live in an infantilised world of cute, juvenile pets. They want to know if dogs have souls, so that they can imagine reuniting with them in paradise. Well, of course dogs have souls, but these souls are extremely primitive. As humans, we ought to be interacting with higher souls if we want to “upgrade”, not with lower souls that will drag us down.
The reason we’re mentioning all of this is to make several crucial points about human beings. Look at the most beautiful women. How many are smart? Aren’t they too selected for cuteness, looks, infantilism (“blondeness”), adorability, vulnerability and “petness”? Marilyn Monroe – she ticks all the boxes. She was a child all her life, desperately looking for father figures.
In a sexist, male-dominated society, women have been selected over many generations for submissiveness, looks, juvenility etc. They certainly weren’t selected for intelligence and aggression. Is the type of women we have today a reflection of a dog-like breeding process? Have we actually bred overly emotional, underly rational women; women who are obsessed with appearance, compliance and emotional intelligence?
Just as dogs were bred to be attuned to the moods of their owners, is the same true of women? Were women selected according to how well they fitted in with the tastes of their dominant, aggressive male masters? They’re so emotionally smart because men bred them for exactly that purpose. Women are not renowned for aggression, dominance, assertiveness and intelligence because dominant men didn’t want any of those traits in their women. All SUPERWOMEN (the type of women who could give men a run for their money) were DESELECTED by a dominant male culture that didn’t value talented women and just wanted subservient, pretty adornments.
Two hundred years ago, it would be fair to say that women were juvenile adults. If you read something like Jane Austen’s famous book Pride and Prejudice, you don’t seem to be in an adult world at all, but one of complete nonsense and trivia – a juvenile world where all that matters is getting married to a rich, desirable, handsome man (and obviously not much has changed in the present day). Just as Dale Carnegie’s dogs needed to get their master to love them and cater for all their needs, exactly the same was true of women in Austen’s day. If you didn’t play the game, you literally weren’t selected hence didn’t have children hence didn’t pass on your genes. So, the genes of women who rejected the male game were actively removed from the gene pool. They were deselected out of existence. No one ever mentions this subject because it’s so controversial.
If we honestly analyse the lives of most women and their total obsession with appearance and emotional connectedness, aren’t we drawn inexorably to the conclusion that men bred them that way? Either women have always had a genetic predisposition to “looking good” above all other things, or they have been bred to demonstrate this trait. And who would be the beneficiaries of this breeding regime? – dominant men who like pretty women who are no threat to them. Can there really be any doubt that women have been bred in exactly the same way as dogs – for cuteness, tameness, submissiveness, and lovability? Just as the function of dogs is to please their master (if they don’t, they will be discarded and put down), women’s role historically was to please her “master” – her husband. Indeed the husband was always regarded as the master of the household and his home was his castle where he exercised absolute dominion over wife and children. What is “feminism”? It’s essentially an initiative to cause a different type of femaleness to be valued over the old, traditional, homemaker type. Feminism ought to be much more radical. After several decades of feminism, women seem to be as obsessed with the Sex and the City frivolities that have always defined them. Jane Austen would have fitted right in with the Sex and the City girls. Nobel prize-winning physicist Marie Curie certainly wouldn’t. Don’t we need a hell of a lot more Marie Curies?
Women’s liberation has changed the picture to some degree, but not nearly enough. Pick up any women’s magazine – written and edited by women for women – and you will come across endless trivial garbage, obsessed with tameness, cuteness, appearance, “getting your man”. There’s no science, no philosophy, no mathematics, no art, no aggression, no dominance, no religion – just celebrity culture, health, gossip, high heels, handbags and diets. If dogs could read, they’d be reading women’s magazines, concentrating on the articles about how to “win and keep your master”.
The world is in desperate need of a second liberation of women. The preoccupations of women’s magazines are a disgrace to the whole human race. The era of women’s magazine and mindless shows like Sex and the City must end. Women have been infantilised by male “natural selection”. Most of them are giggling babies, juveniles who never grew up, who never cultivated adult tastes. Women act like babies in order to get men to love and care for them. It’s ridiculous. This is the 21st century, wake up!
Men select women according to their “babylike”, infantile, cute looks and submissive nature. Consider Islamic culture – all women are submissive and all you can see of many of them is big, baby eyes peeking out from behind their veils. They’re expected not to speak in male company and generally to make themselves as invisible as possible, unless needed for male gratification. Can there be any greater insult to a woman than to veil and silence her? It represents ABSOLUTE MISOGYNY.
Under Islamic Sharia Law, the testimony of two women is deemed equivalent to that of one man. Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Mohammed and spiritual home of Islam, has only just given women the vote. Saudi women are forbidden from driving, are not allowed to travel without the permission of a male guardian, are not allowed to open a bank account or access healthcare without the permission of a man and must cover their entire bodies, except for their hands and eyes, in public or in the presence of strange men. The clothes should be dark, dull and unadorned.
Any progressive society interested in female liberation has to radically alter the obsession with women’s looks. Disturbingly, women are actually more obsessed than men. Men’s magazines show lots of pictures of hot women…and so do women’s magazines! Why are women always staring so avidly at beautiful women? It’s for the same reason that male monkeys spend an enormous amount of time staring at the pack leader: in order to ensure your survival and success in the group you have to be as attuned and informed about the alpha male as possible. You certainly don’t want to fall foul of him. Similarly, all women are fully aware that they are being subjected to intense scrutiny over their looks, so they stare at the alpha hot women and try to emulate them as far as they can. These days, plastic surgery and Botox can be pressed into service to make the similarity more precise.
Consider these definitions of women’s looks fromhttp://
1. “Waste of talent”: a fat girl with a hot face.
“If that bitch lost 20 pounds she would not be such a waste of talent.”
2. “Pretty face syndrome”: a condition where girls with naturally pretty faces, put no effort into their bodies and generally end up fat and out of shape. The opposite of “Butterface”.
“With such a pretty face that girl could be super-hot if it wasn’t for her pretty face syndrome.”
“Damn shame she’s got PFS; she could be so hot.”
“Picked up a good looking girl last night, but when I got her naked turned out she had a serious case of pretty face syndrome 
”
3. “Adele Syndrome”: a condition suffered by overweight or chunky women with otherwise naturally pretty faces.
Some men celebrate women with Adele syndrome, while some detest it; a waste of a nice face? The condition has been fittingly named after popular singer Adele, who has a very pretty face but a chunky body.
Guy 1: Woah, look at that girl’s face. She’s beautiful!
Guy 2: Dude, look at her body. She has Adele Syndrome.
Guy 1: Oh, damn. What a waste.
4. “Irish prawn”: a woman with a great face, but the body isn’t so great (opposite of a prawn who has a great body but face isn’t so great, seeing as though you eat the body of a prawn and throw away the head).
John: She looked good man, fat arse but.
Steve: Yeah bit of an Irish prawn.
John: Yeah, I’d still slam it.
5. “Body foul”: when a girl has a hot face combined with a nasty, banged up body. Usually signified by either little goofy tits with a bony chest or big sloppy flapjack jugs. Also, junk in the trunk (dumpy fat around the thighs) is a major body foul.
“I had to throw a yellow flag when the hot girl in the front row stood up because her huge dumpy ass was a major body foul.”
6. “Car face”: the phenomenon were a woman has a beautiful face when spotted in her automobile, but when she gets out a fat or otherwise unseemly body is attached. Also known as the exact opposite of butterface.
“I thought a hot chick was making eyes at me on my Vespa yesterday, but when she dragged 200 pounds of cottage cheese out of her car at the gas station I saw she just had car face so I hauled ass out of there!!!”
7. ‘berg: when a girl has beautiful slender face shot on her personal website (facebook, MySpace etc…) but a really fat body that does not suit her head.
“Dude… look at this girl, look at her face. Isn’t she hot?”
“I don’t know man, scroll down…”
“In unison: “OH MAN, SHE’S A ‘BERG!!!”
8. “Butterface”: a girl with an exceptionally hot body but an exceptionally ugly face. Everything but-her-face is attractive.
“Damn look at the cans on that girl but her butterface would scare small children and large dogs away.”
“She looked real good… but her face (butterface).”
And so on ad infinitum. Male judgements over female looks are exceptionally harsh and brutal. Of course, women are increasingly judging men just as ruthlessly. Women want their tall, dark, handsome man, their “Mr Darcy” (archetypal Romantic Hero), the alpha male, the rich male, the powerful male, with a washboard stomach and rippling muscles. Men’s magazines, which used to be exclusively devoted to pictures of women as scantily clad as possible, have now started to show alpha hot males with rippling, oiled muscles and six packs. Men are thus starting to feel the heat too over their looks. Nevertheless, they will never become as obsessed as women because status rather than looks continues to be critical to a man’s attractiveness.
While men have always been driven by women’s looks, women have traditionally been more interested in a men’s status – a reflection of male power and ability to look after women. Men select for looks and women for status. Women want someone to protect them and their children, to be an excellent provider, to give them a luxury lifestyle and high prestige. Consider the phenomenon of the WAGs (“wives and girlfriends”). These are gorgeous women (invariably airheads) who “stalk” extremely rich and successful sportsmen. The exchange could not be more basic. The woman has her gorgeous looks to trade, and the man has his immense status and paypacket. Deal done.
The extraordinary thing about female beauty is that so much of it is totally fake. A woman without her make-up, her hair-do, her high heels, her padded bra, her ass-shaping underwear and so on, has radically different looks from the artificial creation that stepped out so gloriously on a Saturday night with her “killer looks”. Beautiful women are extremely high maintenance and invariably supremely vacuous. If you’re an expert at staring at yourself in the mirror for hours on end, you’re unlikely to be able to add much to the debate on M-theory! Top sportsmen are well matched to the WAGS in terms of their airhead proclivities. Has there ever been a smart sportsman? Is such a thing actually possible?
Another extremely controversial area where radical selection criteria were applied was in the slave trade. African slaves were not selected for brains, defiance, rebelliousness, dominance, cunning and so forth. The ideal slave was a big, strong, docile, submissive man who got on with his work, accepted his lot and never caused any trouble. Can we really be surprised that African Americans are so much better at sport on average than white Americans – given that they were actively selected for physical prowess – or that the African Americans are not generally associated with intellectual excellence? The smart Africans were actively deselected by the slave masters (i.e. killed off as troublemakers).
Of course, these artificially applied selection criteria gradually vanish from the gene pool when they are no longer enforced. And, indeed, reverse trends can be applied. If humanity selected dogs for aggression rather than tameness, they would start heading back towards being wolves. Imagine a new slavery being applied to African Americans, except this time they were selected for intelligence and deselected for physicality. Eventually you would have Superhuman black intellectuals, all of them useless at sport. This experiment has already been carried out elsewhere – with Jews! In the Jewish community, intelligence was identified as the best way to resist persecution. A smart Jew could make himself of use to the persecutors and thus save himself. A big, strong, defiant Jew, on the other hand, would get himself killed instantly. So, Jews “bred” clever people and constantly promoted the virtues of education. How many Jews are associated with sporting prowess? Virtually none. African Americans on the other hand have endorsed sporting prowess as a way out of the shit, but they have also adopted a stance of extreme anti-education and anti-intellectualism. Many blacks actually revile books as “white” i.e. racist documents by racist whites. They sneer at smart African Americans and brand them as dorks, geeks, nerds and uncool. It’s “cool” to be rebellious at school, to not play the “white man’s game.” In the whole history of this world, there has never been a more counterproductive ideology. The blacks ought to have emulated the Jews and made an excellent education the greatest possible virtue in their community, the thing desired above all else. Education will set you free – not a basketball in your hand.
People think of natural selection as being, well, “natural”. It’s nothing of the kind. As soon as human beings are involved, they bring conscious choices to the party. Natural selection is transformed into value selection i.e. things are selected according to their perceived value within an artificially constructed human table of values.
Dogs are described as “man’s best friend”, but not by people who hate dogs. Why are dogs allowed in human cities at all? Only because large numbers of people value dogs and their value system is allowed to prevail over those who loathe dogs. If the value system of the dog-haters dominated, there would be no dogs in any cities. The presence of dogs in cities isn’t “natural” and could easily be stopped. They are there because they have been “unnaturally” selected according to the preferences of a certain section of the human population.
No one ever dares to venture into the minefield of human breeding because they immediately think of racist eugenics and Nazism, yet breeding has been taking place since the dawn of time. Dogs – juvenile, tame, submissive wolves – were selected by tribesmen to help them with hunting. Later, when farmers needed help to keep flocks of sheep under control, dogs proved invaluable. They were also useful as guard dogs and for sounding the alarm. Dogs in those days had many practical uses. They became very different from the wolves they once were. A new type of creature was born – the domesticated, tame wolf: the dog. It had been summoned into existence not by nature but by human choices.
To reiterate our earlier point, can’t we assume that women have historically been human “dogs” (indeed, they are often called “bitches”) i.e. the early hunters selected them in exactly the same way? Those hunters wanted tame, domesticated, submissive, emotionally attuned companions, good at cooking, looking after the household and bringing up the children. Isn’t that exactly what the history of women has been all about? Look at Islamic women in the present day. Isn’t that STILL what their lives are all about? Strong, dominant, smart women would have been deselected from the female population, just as aggressive wolves were deselected in comparison with tame wolves (dogs). There may well have been Stone Age Superwomen who were sexually ignored by men hence died out. Or maybe they were turned into celibate priestesses and died out that way (or put to death as “witches”, like the non-conformist women of the Middle Ages). How can we be sure that women, as they are today, evolved “naturally” rather than as the products of a more or less conscious breeding programme by dominant men? The qualities most women have today are those that men wanted them to have, not those conferred by “nature”. In the peafowl world, the females dominated sexual selection hence the males (peacocks) had to go in for an extraordinary preoccupation with appearance. If a peacock didn’t have a stunning enough tail “display”, it would never get a partner, hence be unable to pass on its genes.
Not just women and slaves may have been consciously bred to have certain qualities. Dominant males killed all dominant rivals but spared submissive, weak, servile males. A pack – or a social group we might say – can only have one alpha male. If a rival alpha emerges, it must fight the first alpha. Either the challenger kills the incumbent and takes over as alpha male, or the incumbent kills him. Either way, the pack retains a single alpha male. The submissives don’t intervene. They will obey whoever comes out on top. That’s what they were bred for – to obey.
“It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion.” –Dean Inge
It has been estimated that 5% of the world’s population are dominant, hence 95% are essentially submissive. That sounds right. If people were all dominant, we could never have the type of world that exists now where a tiny number of people control everyone else. This happens because submissives refuse to fight dominants. Only other dominants fight and they usually end up dead or in jail.
We thus arrive at a horrific truth. The social order is entirely shaped by Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. The masters – always dominant and aggressive alpha males – have decided everything. They are human “wolves”. (It’s no coincidence that all alpha males have been attracted to the symbol of the wolf and Hitler, a supreme alpha male, called his headquarters in Eastern Prussia, where he directed the Russian campaign, the “Wolf’s Lair.”). In ancient times, the human wolves were forever fighting each other to the death in order to be dominant so the number of wolves in any human population could never grow too high. It turns out that a stable solution is reached when the wolves constitute 5% of the population. There are enough to dominate the 95% of submissives, but not enough to be continually at each other’s throats.
Just as human hunters chose to be accompanied by domesticated, tame, submissive wolves (dogs), so human wolves chose to be accompanied by domesticated, tame, submissive human dogs i.e. ordinary people who follow the path of least resistance and want a life of trivial pleasures. Nietzsche called these tame and timed people “last men” and Dante labelled them the “Ignavi”: anonymous and non-committal, refusing to fight until they see which way the wind is blowing.
This is our world, the world of wolves and dogs. WAGs are the ultimate dogs. Their entire purpose is to snare a rich sportsman and then parasitically live a life of luxury using his money. If every pet dog died tomorrow, it would have zero effect on the world since they do not exist within the natural order. They’re not part of the food chain – they get their food out of a can provided by a human master. Humans removed dogs from nature. They are artificial creatures, bred by dog-lovers to be companions for dog-lovers (who invariably dislike humanity, hence why they choose and prefer to spend so much time with non-humans). Most human beings are “dogs”. Women and slaves have been treated like dogs throughout history. The aristocracy has treated the working class like dogs. Consider working in a modern office. Who but a human dog could bear to exist in that servile, domesticated, tame environment where you have to obey ridiculously inept managers and infinitely greedy bosses?
Scott Adams, author of the comic strip Dilbert, said that his “greatest creative output was during my corporate years, when every meeting felt like a play date with coma patients.” Isn’t that the truth of it? Offices sedate people. Workers are killed by stultifying corporate stasis. Offices and corporations eliminate creativity, and uncreative people are economically unproductive people. If we want to transform people and unleash their creativity, we have to destroy the bureaucratic and corporate world.
Capitalism is often called a dog-eat-dog ideology but it’s actually a wolf-eats-dog system. The capitalist bosses are wolves, devouring the workers. The workers go along with being eaten alive because they’re so tame and frightened. They’re incapable of fighting back. They were selected for their jobs precisely because they had no fight in them. A troublemaker in an office is swiftly fired. In other words, the only people who can function in offices are those sufficiently tame that they will never cause any trouble.
What is a job interview? It’s a ritual where you prove to the master – the wolf – that you’re tame and harmless. You metaphorically bare your neck to them, the sign, according to ethologist Konrad Lorenz, of submission and appeasement that dogs make to show that they are entirely at the mercy of a stronger dog or wolf. If you snarl at the interviewers, bare your teeth and tell them to fuck off, you definitely won’t get the job, no matter how talented you are. You have deselected yourself by being insufficiently deferential. Your task in this world is to be tame (or “civilised” to use the more common description). You are required to be compliant, subservient and mediocre. In a two-tier society in which the best jobs are reserved for the privileged elite, your task is to know your place, not to aim too high, to accept that the best things are never coming your way: you will never eat at the top table and you must live with it.
Nietzsche, the genius who could sniff any scent of submissiveness and tameness at a thousand paces, said, “The problem I raise here is not what ought to replace mankind in the sequence of species (-man is an end-): but what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life, the most secure guarantee of the future. “This more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but always as a lucky accident, as an exception, never as willed. He has rather been the most feared; he has hitherto been virtually the thing to be feared-and out of fear the reverse type has been willed, bred and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick animal man-the Christian…”
Christianity (“Turn the other cheek”; “Love your enemy”), Islam (which means “submission”) and Judaism (with its 600+ rules to be obeyed) are the ultimate domestic, tame, herd-like, sick religions. The followers of these religions are not people but SHEEPLE. What was the point of the tale of Abraham? – a wolf (Jehovah) told a dog (Abraham) to kill his son. If Abraham were any kind of wolf, he would have told Jehovah to fuck off in no uncertain terms. But the whole point of the exercise was for Abraham to be shown his place: that of the person who would obey no matter what. If he resisted, Jehovah would destroy him. To survive, Abraham had to do whatever the wolf commanded. That’s all that Abrahamism is – a religion for dogs who want to slavishly obey the ultimate wolf. It wouldn’t occur to these non-people to challenge their wolf. The thought is unthinkable to them. It’s not part of their nature. They have been bred to be slaves.
At the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis said “they were only obeying orders” and they were genuinely baffled that anyone could think they had done anything wrong. These Nazis were dogs obeying their wolf (Hitler). The idea of disobeying their wolf simply did not compute, just as no Abrahamist ever thinks that they should tell their “God” to go fuck himself. They are petrified of the consequences. Dogs OBEY. That’s what a dog is – an obeying creature. How could they possibly be condemned for doing exactly what their nature dictates? Would you criticise a shark or lion for killing animals? That’s what sharks and lions DO. That’s their nature. So why were the Nazi “dogs” told that they had done anything wrong? They hadn’t at all. They did what all dogs do – obeyed their master. If you wouldn’t punish a shark, why would you punish a dog?
Nietzsche’s quotation raises one of the ultimate questions – what type of human being should we breed? We will never escape from the master-slave dialectic until we stop breeding human dogs. Nietzsche demanded the revaluation of all values and one of the central questions that needs to be addressed is the value of servile, tame, doglike human beings. Their function is to obey the wolf masters, but if we create a meritocracy and there are no more wolf masters then the dogs become redundant. They need to become HUMAN BEINGS. Dog religions such as Islam – where Allah is the master and all Muslims are his mindlessly obedient dogs – must be outlawed.
We must escape once and for all from dog culture, from tame, domesticated, servile human beings who have no dignity and who allow themselves to be prey for wolves. To overthrow capitalism, we must overthrow the capitalist wolves, drive them away and never let them come back. NO MORE HUMAN DOGS. No dog economic systems, no dog religions, no dog philosophies, no dog political systems (of which democracy is the most obvious example).
It’s time to breed a new type of humanity and, once again, it was Nietzsche who provided the perfect definition: “We want to become those who we are – the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves!” Humans should be strong, autonomous, self-sufficient, independent, rational, creative, assertive, ambitious, adventurous, bold, disciplined, cognizant of the value of community, noble, honourable, trustworthy, unintimidated, free, magnificent and full of endeavour. They should never be docile, flocklike, herdlike, packlike, submissive, tame, timid, domesticated, sedated, frightened, irrational, superstitious and prone to “faith”. We have to deselect these traits from the human condition if we are to create a Community of Gods; a Society of the Divine.
__________
2/7
Tags: Academia Iluministă
Academia Iluministă (97)
Jiren Gray a adăugat 7 fotografii în albumul Wolf or Dog?
The Anti-Elite Series – Book 4/7:
Blurb:
There are two types of human being – “wolves” (aggressive, assertive dominants who are determined to get what they want), and “dogs” (timid, domesticated, submissives, continually at the mercy of the wolves). Capitalism is a wolf ideology. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are dog religions – intent on forcing you onto your knees and making you obey endless commandments. Capitalism and Christianity work perfectly together. The capitalist wolves can prey on the Christian dogs who simply “turn the other cheek.”
Democracy is another perfect vehicle for wolves. The people – the dogs – are given the illusion that they are in control, yet all democracies are just oligarchies and plutocracies. The ruling elite are never evicted by democracy. The wolves decide the political agenda and the candidates. The people merely choose which wolf will feed on them.
All aspects of existence can be analysed according to the wolf-dog theory. Why has feminism largely failed – is it because women were “bred” to be domesticated and submissive by dominant “wolves”? Are Jewish and African American histories a function of their being prey to “white wolves”? Is gang culture the rawest expression of the wolf culture? Is the movie “Scarface” a case study of an archetypal wolf? Is Nietzsche’s characterisation of Cesare Borgia a perfect summation of wolf doctrines? Nietzsche was the philosopher of the ultimate wolverine concept of Will to Power.
How did the Spartans go about killing the wolves amongst the slave population they controlled (to ensure the rest stayed as timid dogs)? Do the chemicals testosterone, oestrogen and oxytocin determine whether you are a wolf or dog?
Is meritocracy the only political system that can free the dogs from the rule of the wolves?
So, what are you – wolf or dog?
This is a book by the Pythagorean Illuminati, and its aim is to re-train the dogs to understand the wolves and stand up to them. If you want the best things in life, you cannot allow yourself to be preyed upon by the Power Elite.
******
A Book Review:
“An excellent book from a series of excellent books by the Pythagorean Illuminati. The Illuminati take many interesting and challenging subjects such as philosophy, mathematics, psychology, religion, politics, economics and science and integrate them into nothing less then a grand unified theory of everything. All of these books are very well written and the authors make the challenging information as easy as possible for everyone to understand. If you have any interest at all in life’s greatest mysteries you need to read all of the books by the Pythagorean Illuminati. You should also check out the Illuminati’s websitewww.armageddonconspiracy.c
Just like all of the books by the true Illuminati this book tackles many controversial issues head on. The Illuminati aren’t afraid to face any issue whether it is “politically incorrect” or not and I believe that is something everyone needs to get the courage to do. Nothing is going to get done unless tolerant people aren’t afraid to upset and fight intolerant people. One of my favorite lines by the Illuminati is: “Tolerant people can tolerate all things bar one-intolerance.” Another one of my favorites is: “Any society that permits intolerant views to prosper is thereby intolerant, and should be overthrown by all good, tolerant people.” This is the attitude we need to develop as soon as possible. We need to stop being so weak and begin to act like Heroines and Heroes.
In this book the Illuminati use wolves and dogs to make several crucial points about humanity and human society. The Illuminati show how humans selectively bred wolves for certain submissive traits and came up with dogs. The book raises the question, Has the same selective breeding been done with humans and if so could it be reversed? The book takes a look at how women in society are taught to behave. It shows that feminism needs to continue to drive forward and smash this cultures stereotypes of women if any positive change is going to be possible in society. I for one think women need to be in charge of the major aspects of society, men have had their chance and look at where they have gotten us.
This book shows how a few dominant people (wolves) control the vast majority of submissive people (dogs) and the only thing that is going to stop the wolves are awakened, strong, healthy, heroic human beings. Submissive dogs will continue to do nothing. We need to wake up and realize what we truly are before it’s too late.” –BG
__________
1/7
Tags: Academia Iluministă
