Dacia Iluministă

The Movement

1) A New Religion

Imagine a clean slate for religion. No bearded prophets, no holy texts, no brainwashing going back hundreds and thousands of years, no commandments, no saints, no angels, no rituals, no sacraments, no places of worship, no priests and preachers, no traditional practices and observances, no holy days, no popes, no rules regarding diet, clothes or appearance, no prohibitions, no sermons.

How would you go about creating a religion from scratch?

It should be a religion that does the following:

a) Wakes up humanity and brings about a spiritual renaissance.
b) Frees humanity from the materialistic, zombie consumer culture of shopping malls.
c) Appeals to theists, deists, gnostics, agnostics and even atheists.
d) Promotes mystery, secrecy and wonder, and provides a transformative experience for its initiates.

It’s up to you to build it. Create, on the drawing board, via crowdsourcing, the perfect religion, with no historical baggage, and then bring it alive. Can you do it?

This new religion will be called Illuminism (rather than Illumination). The aim is for it to be so inspiring that it will consign all other religions to oblivion, and will allow agnostics and atheists to participate. For all of its triumphs, science, the bedrock of atheism, is full of holes and contradictions (it’s amazing how many critical flaws in science are glossed over as if they didn’t exist), and, above all, science can’t answer the most basic question of all: what is the meaning of life? This isn’t a scientific question, it’s a philosophical one, and atheists are as interested in it as much as everyone else.

So, can you collaborate with others to produce a religion that will inspire the world and save us all from the horrors of the current dominant religions?

It should be a religion that costs nothing, requires no priests, rabbis, or imams, no churches, mosques, synagogues or temples, no baptisms, no “holy” days; a religion that has no need of “saints” interceding on our behalf, nor of “sacraments” that bestow “grace” upon us, nor ancient texts that we are supposed to take literally, nor fierce prophets ordering us what to do. No one and no organisation stands between you and God. God is within you.

The qualities attributed to Jesus Christ are those possessed by each person if they did but know it. As with Christ, God and man are united in each and every one of us; two natures existing within each person. Christians are willing to believe this of Christ, but not of ordinary men and women. Gnostics accept it as true of everyone. This radically opposite view makes all the difference in the world.

Christianity or Gnosticism? – God incarnate in one person (Christ), or the divine spark incarnate in everyone? Which offers the most glorious and hopeful vision for humanity? There is no possible doubt. Had Christianity evolved slightly differently (and it had many opportunities to become unrecognisable from the way it turned out), it could have been Gnostic Christianity, with Christ as an Everyman…a shining example to all Gnostics, a model for everyone to emulate, the perfect blend of humanness and the divine spark.(Some Gnostics regarded Christ as a divine messenger sent by the True God to enlighten us. He had a phantom body, they said, rather than a real one because no being from the realm of light would ever fully enter into the Satanic material world. Other Gnostics regarded him as indeed taking on a physical reality so that he could act as the perfect example to everyone of how to escape Satan’s material hell. His life, they said, was about an ordinary man – a carpenter – going on an incredible journey to release his divine spark and become God. He was so successful that billions now worship him as though he were a unique being rather than an exemplar whom anyone can emulate.)

The Illuminati, knowing the true identity of Jesus Christ, revile him, but the “image” of Jesus Christ rather than the reality could certainly have been the foundation of great things if it had evolved along Gnostic lines. The archons – the agents of the Demiurge, the ultimate puppetmasters – ensured that this did not happen.

Nothing is more important than the idea that God (or a “higher self” to placate atheists) resides within you, because this ensures that no one is alienated from God (he is no longer separate, alien and distant from us) and it gives every person’s life infinite value. It ensures that everyone has high self-esteem and self-confidence. Kings of old claimed to be divinely appointed and thus to have the absolute right to dominate everyone else. Illuminism should teach that we are all divinely appointed and no one has the right to dominate anyone.

Illuminism should promote humanity’s highest aspirations, the feeling of well-being and contentment, the feeling that everyone is precious and to be treated as such.

Illuminism should abolish churches and formal buildings of worship. Religion should return to nature, to the outdoors: to groves and forests, rivers and lakes, mountains and fields, caves and grottoes. It should contain mystery and magic to kindle the human imagination. There should be no power hierarchy.

Ecstasy means standing outside of oneself. Enthusiasm means being possessed or inspired by a god. Inspiration means breathing in the divine essence. These words are all related to the quest for the divine spark and attaining your higher self. Illuminism should be full of ecstatic experiences, enthusiasm and inspiration.

A long-running joke in The Simpsons is the incredible tedium of the Reverend Lovejoy’s services. The Simpsons, like most Christians, regard religion as a chore that needs to be endured every Sunday. There’s nothing uplifting about it, nothing transcendent. Religion is supposed to be the core of the mystery of life, and yet for most people it’s something that sends them to sleep. Modern religion is either a bore or leads to the psychopathic fanaticism of suicide bombers. The majority of people these days are numb, “comfortably” numb. Isn’t it time to come out of your numbness, to feel the exhilaration that true religion brings? The world is crying out for a new religion.

Can you create symbols and initiation degrees for Illuminism? Can you create a structure for an underground religion? Can you create secret and mystical ceremonies? Can you create a religion that allows people to feel like gods?

Perhaps the ancient and historical red Phrygian cap should be worn? This is the famous liberty cap of the American and French Revolutions. Perhaps you can find inspiration from the following texts:

The Emerald Tablet
The Kybalion
The Corpus Hermeticum
The Rosicrucian Manifestos
1. Fama Fraternitatis
2. Confessio Fraternitatis
3. Chymical Wedding

The Holy Grail:
1. Perceval, The Story of the Grail by Chrétien de Troyes
2. Joseph of Arimithea, or the Novel of the History of the Grail by Robert de Boron
3. Parzival by Wolfram von Eschenbach

The Divine Comedy by Dante
Paradise Lost by John Milton
Faust by Goethe

Or from the following spiritual films:

Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky)
(The quest for a modern Grail.)
Solaris (Andrei Tarkovsky)
(An encounter with reified dreams and the deep contents of the unconscious.)
Excalibur (John Boorman)
(The quest for the original Grail.)
Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola)
(Journey into the heart of darkness for an encounter with your higher self, only to discover that it has become corrupt. You must “kill” your higher self, allowing it to be reborn in a purified state.)
Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis)
(A man finding his higher self through eternal recurrence and reincarnation.)
The Matrix (Wachowski Brothers)
(A man transforming into his divine self.)
V for Vendetta (James McTeigue)
(A masked hero fights back against an oppressive, totalitarian regime.)
Network (Sidney Lumet)
(The cynicism and evil of corporations and the media are spectacularly exposed.)

Objective: for Illuminism to replace all established religions.

Excerpted, page 339

© The Illuminati’s Secret Religion

Deconstruction

Jacques Derrida was one of the most controversial philosophers of modern times. His technique of “deconstruction” is both widely admired and condemned. The complexity of deconstruction can be seen from the fact that Derrida criticised any attempt to define exactly what deconstruction is on the grounds that any such definition would itself be open to being deconstructed.

Roughly speaking, deconstruction revolves around “decentring”. In every arena of life, a “centre” is defined and anything not identified with that centre is pushed, subtly or unsubtly, to one side. Take “God”. God is almost always referred to as “he” (although a few feminists deliberately use “she”). God is a not a sexual being and therefore has no sex. “He” should actually be spoken of in non-gendered terms, but no such vocabulary exists. The use of “he” privileges men over woman and places them at the centre of life and woman on the margins. The use of “she” would do the opposite. The point is that the choice of personal pronoun for referring to God instantly places one group above another. Until the rise of feminism, the centrality of God as a male was never seriously challenged, and society on earth was invariably controlled by men.

In a masculine society, women are marginalized. In times of great wars – as most of our history has been – the masculine is dominant. Nowadays, with wars being small and fought far away, with relatively few casualties, the centre of the Western narrative is turning away from the masculine and becoming increasingly feminine. Political correctness, caring, empathising, hugging, social networking, compromising, accommodating, consoling, consensus…the key words of our contemporary culture are essentially feminine. No one preaches strong values because some people might be offended. Strength itself is not welcome nowadays. No one stands for anything because that would mean putting principles above getting on with others, and that’s unacceptable. So, the centre of our narrative is changing, and now the masculine is becoming “other”. The Old World Order are delighted with the feminisation of society because it reduces the chances of any forceful response to their control over us.

The subject of a book is that book’s “centre”. Jesus Christ is the centre of a book about Christianity. Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are automatically made non-central in such a book. They are at the margins; they are excluded; they are “other”.

Derrida was concerned with revealing the assumptions that accompany the centre, and what it means for those entities excluded from the centre. Deconstruction takes apart a product of any type and exposes the agenda that underlies it. Books, newspapers, magazines, movies, paintings, sculptures, political systems, religions, celebrities, advertising…absolutely everything can be deconstructed. We learn that we are never dealing with objective facts, but with narratives that promote the underlying agenda. To understand the deceit that lies, fundamentally, at the centre, is to be released from the prison of illusion that the centre constructs.

Look at all the “centres” of our culture: freedom, democracy, liberalism, capitalism, equal rights, Judaeo-Christianity etc. Everything else is pushed to the fringes, rendered irrelevant, unworthy of consideration. But, via deconstruction, we can cause the centre to collapse, bring the “other” to the foreground, and gain a wider and better understanding.

A Muslim is trapped in a brainwashed state because he can’t understand that the Koran is nothing but a text that places seventh century Arabia at the centre of life. Equally, the New Testament is centred on Judea of 2,000 years ago, and the Torah on Moses and the history of the Jews. If Muslims, Christians and Jews were intelligent people they would deconstruct their sacred texts, but of course they won’t because then the texts would no longer be sacred. These “believers” have done the opposite of deconstruction: they have constructed false centres that marginalize everything else. No Muslim ever questions the Koran, or Christian the Bible, or Jew the Torah. Nothing could be more dangerous than the fanatic who refuses to see the world through different eyes, as the violent history of the main religions has amply demonstrated.

Most of life consists of the creation of false centres that then take on a kind of religious significance that no one dare challenge. Deconstruction is the antidote. Deconstruction is one of the greatest tools of liberation ever devised because it makes us question everything we read and learn, and that’s exactly as it should be. This website has its own centre, and can be deconstructed like everything else. But, unlike others, we encourage seekers of truth to engage in deconstruction (but we have no interest in unconstructive people who want to pointlessly argue with us, as many of those who contact us choose to do). Only when you have deconstructed can you be trusted to construct. You will do so knowingly, aware of the limitations and the assumptions built into your constructions.

Deconstruction doesn’t lead nowhere as its critics maintain; it leads us to the truths that we can finally stand by. When every text has been decentred, when every “other” is no longer other then we can see for ourselves those things in which we ought to invest our energy. We again construct centres, but this time having taken the the “other” into due consideration. If we now ignore others it is not because they were marginalized and made invisible to us, but because we understood exactly what we were doing, and the full consequences of our actions.

Deconstruction is always political and ideological, just as construction and centring were in the first place. Deconstructionists are those who no longer fall for the propaganda of the central, privileged position.

The Old World Order remain the centre of the world’s grand narrative. It’s time for us to deconstruct them out of existence.

Even before deconstruction existed, Nietzsche was attacking the ultimate grand narrative – God at the centre of the universe, the infallible judge of all of humanity, the supreme moral paragon. What if that centre were false, Nietzsche asked, what if God were dead? Then the centre of existence has collapsed. Morality vanishes. Good and evil no longer exist. No one is in charge. The meaning of life is called into question. What then? Nietzsche proposed a new centre – the Superman, the man who takes on the mantle of creator and judge, and obeys his own will to power. In effect, the Superman deposes God and replaces him as God, but he is a God who knows he is fallible.

The centre of the Illuminati’s narrative is the True God, but we openly encourage Nietzsche’s approach because those who dare to don the mantle of God are the only ones who could ever imagine what it is like to be God, and it is precisely those people in whom God is most interested. They are the ones worthy of divine love because they are the ones who come closest to understanding it. Nietzsche’s advocacy of the Superman is remarkably similar in intent to the Illuminati’s advocacy of the search for the higher self, the divine spark. In both cases, humans look inside themselves and try to become something greater, nobler and more divine.

Excerpted, page 315

© The Illuminati’s Secret Religion