Dacia Iluministă

There’s an extremely simple way to tell if people are free. If they are obliged to carry out some act before they can devote their attentions to what they really want to do then they are slaves. So, the Egyptians held a mass protest to demand President Mubarak’s departure after “Friday prayers”. Prayers? WTF?! Why the hell are revolutionaries engaging in the most conventional and submissive act conceivable? Would true revolutionaries stop for prayers? What’s important? – getting rid of the dictator or getting on your knees to worship that other dictator, Allah?

Isn’t a defining characteristic of dictators that they expect everyone to bow before them? Isn’t Allah the cosmic dictator? Why get rid of a mortal dictator merely to subjugate yourself to an immortal one? Freedom 101 – free people do not worship any kind of dictator, terrestrial or cosmic. Free people do not bow, kneel and grovel. They are free NOT to pray on Friday. They are free NOT to pray five times a day. They are free NOT to memorise the Koran. They are free NOT to be Muslims. But none of that is true of Muslims. They are intrinsically unfree.

Women aren’t allowed to pray with the men, and they all have to wear the hijab. Think of the irony of a revolutionary freedom movement that can’t tolerate women praying in the company of men. Not much of a revolution then. Not much idea of freedom. Almost the antithesis in fact. The Egyptian Revolution had no leadership. The people had no clear idea of what they wanted. They knew what they were against, but not what they were for. Nature abhors a vacuum. The best organised group will take over in due course and, in Egypt, that means the Muslim Brotherhood.

The young people of the Islamic countries are trapped in a nightmare. They are the Facebook, Twitter generation, up to speed with modernity, yet they are still, at core, brainwashed Muslims, and Islam is the total opposite of modernity. They can never be free until they are free of Islam. Part of the Egyptian people’s rage against President Mubarak was a subconscious projection of their rage against Islam, but they are never allowed to express that rage. It’s the ultimate taboo, hence it exercises the greatest shadow effect. If one wanted to create a perfect brainwashing virus, infecting generation after generation in perpetuity, it couldn’t prove any more successful than Islam. Mohammed was not a prophet, he was a psychologist, a supreme mind controller. He grasped how best to manipulate badly educated, primitive, superstitious, fearful people.

No rational person could ever be a Muslim. That religion is the antithesis of reason. It asserts that a 1400-year-old book is the infallible Word of God, containing the answers to everything. If you have ever actually read it then you will understand that the only thing it contains is the key to brainwashing credulous, non-thinking people.

The key turns out to be remarkably simple. You start with a supernatural encounter – Mohammed, an illiterate tribesman, meets the Angel Gabriel in a cave and has the Koran dictated to him. This gets the mind into a suitably superstitious, credulous mode – and then it is bombarded by an unrelenting message of divine terrorism.

The Koran simply teaches that you will suffer eternal hellfire if you disobey its rules, and enjoy eternal paradise if you do everything it says. It demands that you wage jihad against infidels, kill apostates, kill blasphemers, kill anyone who breaks the rules. You must pray five times a day (thus ensuring that Islam is on your mind all day, every day). You must attend Friday prayers. You must memorise the Koran in Arabic (an immense undertaking that will take you many years, again forcing you to wallow in Islam). You must reject anyone who claims that there can be any new prophets. You must reject anyone who says that the Koran is not Allah’s final and infallible word. You must reject anything that contradicts the Koran i.e. the whole of Enlightenment and scientific thinking. (There is no science, philosophy or mathematics in the Koran – hardly surprising since Mohammed was a man of zero education.) You must eat halal food only. You must wear certain clothes (and women must dress “modestly”, preferably in a burqa). You must avoid drugs and alcohol. You mustn’t have casual sex.

The purpose of Islam is to lock you into its dictatorial vision of the world where your only task is to submit to the will of Allah. There is nothing else to it. It has contempt for science, mathematics and philosophy. The Koran is the Book of Stupidity and one only needs to take a cursory glance at Islamic nations to see that none of them is in any way associated with any serious intellectual, artistic or cultural endeavour. Muslims hate music, hate art, hate science, hate philosophy, hate mathematics, hate literature. None of these played any part in the life of Mohammed (just as they didn’t in the lives of Jesus Christ and Moses – Abrahamic prophets are invariably astoundingly badly educated, and their followers have eagerly emulated them in this regard. Did you know that Jesus Christ was illiterate?! The reason he didn’t commit a single word to paper was that he couldn’t.)

If you sign up to a stupid religion you become stupid. That’s the law of life. Islam has proved itself over and over again to be the enemy of intelligence. Intelligence has no function if your only purpose is to obey. Only superstitious primitives, incapable of rational thought, are attracted to Islam. Did you know that Muslims do not believe in chance? Everything is literally the will of God. When Muslim students learn probability theory at school, they are told they are only doing it in order to pass exams, and that the theory is actually complete nonsense. According to Islam, if a coin is tossed 100 times and produces 50 heads and fifty tails, it has nothing to do with probability, but because God wills it. And you wonder why Muslims don’t win any Nobel Prizes and why they burn books?

The Revolution in Egypt, conducted as it was within the framework of totalitarian Islam, failed to inspire. Egypt, many centuries before Islam, was one of the intellectual and cultural powerhouses of the world. The real Egyptian revolution will be the one that casts aside Islam. Tyranny is embedded in Islam, hence any revolution by an Islamic people is never a revolution about freedom. Look at what happened in Iran. A monstrous Shah was overthrown and replaced with what? – by an even more monstrous Ayatollah who proceeded to drag Iran back to the dark ages. Isn’t something similar going to happen in Egypt in due course? The Muslim Brotherhood is ready to pounce. One thing’s for certain – Egypt won’t be any freer after the revolution than it was before because it’s still in the jail of Islam.

Modern Jihadism was invented in Egypt – by a man called Sayeed Qutb. The 9/11 conspiracy was led by the Egyptian maniac Mohammed Atta. Don’t expect wonderful things from modern Egypt. In Pakistan, a 17-yr-old schoolboy may be put to death for blasphemy because he allegedly made an insulting comment about the Prophet Mohammed in an exam paper. Islam and freedom never go together. They are the antithesis of each other. The Egyptian Revolution is going nowhere. Iran congratulated the Egyptian “Islamic Liberation Movement”. That should set the alarm bells ringing for everyone else.

Never forget that, originally, Islam was simply Judaism transported in a South-easterly direction to the Arabian deserts by a pagan tribesman (Mohammed) who was well acquainted with the many Jews living in Arabia at the time. Whereas Christianity is Judaism combined with pagan Greek philosophy (making Christianity Judaism’s bastard son), Islam is Judaism’s legitimate son. Islam traces itself back to the founder of Judaism: Abraham. While the Jews proceeded from the line of Abraham’s son Isaac, the Muslims came from Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, Isaac’s half brother. The two religions have always been half-brothers.

Mohammed was aware that there was a huge gap in the Jewish Torah – what became of Ishmael and his descendants. All he had to do was say that the Abrahamic Ishmaelites were the Arabs, that they were destined to be the most loyal followers of Yahweh (Allah), and that he (Mohammed) was chosen to be the prophet who would announce the new Torah – the Koran – to the Arabs, and lead them away from the pagan gods. He saw himself as the Arab Moses, the final prophet of Yahweh/Allah. Hence Muslims are just Arab Jews, singing the same song but from the perspective of Ishmael rather than Isaac.

Imagine a world of 1.3 billion Orthodox Jews like those bearded fanatics in their silly hats and dark suits who bob backwards and forwards in front of the Wailing Wall. Islam is what that horrific vision has morphed into, and it isn’t any improvement. Christians are Greek Jews and Muslims are Arab Jews, but they’re all still Jews. In truth, half the world is Jewish, worshipping Yahweh (Satan). Western monotheism is simply Judaism. Islam is a puritanical religion, totally intolerant of dissent. You have to question the mentality of those who, in the 21st century, are willing to be part of this religion. How can anyone equate Islam with freedom?

Every epoch of history has seen a dialectical expansion in human freedom, but Muslims represent one area where the dialectic has never worked. Muslims are no freer now than they were when Mohammed first invented his Arab version of Judaism.
__________

The Magic of Revolution:

“…the ‘strange God’ of commerce perched himself side by side with the old divinities of Europe on the altar; and one fine day threw them all overboard with a shove and a kick. It proclaimed the making of profit as the ultimate and sole purpose of mankind.” –Marx

Revolution can transform you.
Revolution can transfigure you.
Revolution can redeem you.

Make no mistake, you seekers of a better life, revolution is your salvation. Revolution changes everything. It smashes the power of the Old World Order. In revolution, a new world is born. New opportunities, new adventures, and new possibilities abound. Most revolutions are caused by hunger, unemployment, poverty, degradation, deprivation, lack of freedom. Eventually, these overwhelm fear and generate action. But revolution is also invariably accompanied by something else: lack of respect for the ruling order.

When the masters are seen to be inept, to not know what they are doing, then they are lost. And are we not now at that stage in the West? Who any longer has respect for the Old World Order who arrogantly labelled themselves geniuses and masters of the universe yet brought the world to the edge of ruin? They themselves are now suffering a profound crisis of confidence. The financial meltdown revealed that they didn’t understand their own system despite their extravagant claims to wisdom deserving of supernaturally large rewards, hence they are now incredibly vulnerable to those with a superior understanding.

The world is changing. The age of revolutions is at hand. Towards the end of the 19th century, Nietzsche, the apocalyptic prophet of the modern age, wrote: “What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. This history can be related even now; for necessity itself is at work here. The future speaks even now in a hundred signs, this destiny announces itself everywhere; for this music of the future all ears are cocked even now. For some time now, our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect…For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals – because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these ‘values’ really had. We require, sometime, new values.”

Exactly as Nietzsche predicted, the twentieth century saw Europe – the epicentre of two world wars in quick succession – plunged into catastrophe. Since the end of WWII, we have lived in a phoney and fake age where all values have been eroded. We are immersed in nihilism. Scientific materialists, the high priests of modernity, are nihilistic atheists. We have a consumer culture that worships objects and celebrities, the brass idols of the creed of capitalism. Abrahamism has split in two. Most Abrahamists are living hypocritical lives of comfort and selfishness divorced from spiritual values, while a minority have tried to replace their fading faith with fanaticism. And the contemporary religion of social networking – the cyber fakery of Facebook and Twitter – is devoid of any intellectual and spiritual content. Deep down, most people believe in nothing.

The world has never been more nihilistic, and thus it is poised on the edge of a precipice. If new values do not emerge, madness, mayhem and murder on the scale of Armageddon will descend upon the human race. The two world wars of the last century will be as nothing. Wars will erupt over global warming, overpopulation, religious divisions, lack of food, lack of water, pollution, massive disparities in wealth, conflicts of economic interests between West and East, even young versus old as an ageing population consumes more and more resources, thus denying them to the young. It’s estimated that the world’s population could be at least 9 billion by 2050. The problems we have now will be enormously magnified. Revalue all values – before it’s too late. The window of opportunity is narrow. Unless we build a meritocratic world that unleashes the genius and creativity of human beings to solve the immense problems facing us, we will be dead and buried before the end of this century. RIP humanity.

“…money-worship has been elevated into a religion. Perhaps it is the only real religion – the only real felt religion – that is left to us. Money is what God used to be.” –Orwell
__________

The Fake Revolution:

It’s depressing to say it, but the Egyptian Revolution was fake. It was like a Hollywood staging of a revolution. It looked like the real thing, but ultimately was nothing but desperate people blowing off steam
and posing for the cameras.

Revolutionaries who chant Allahu Akbar? It’s a contradiction in terms. It would be like a revolution in Britain being accompanied by cries of, “God save the Queen!” rather than “Down with the tyrant!” These weren’t revolutionaries. They were the forces on the one hand of reactionary Islam (the Muslim Brotherhood) desiring to overthrow a quasi-secular autocrat, and on the other of young, Western influenced Muslims seeking the freedom that they imagine exists in the West (yeah, that’ll be right), but still in an Islamic context (a contradiction in terms). They had nothing in common with the French revolutionaries, history’s truest revolutionaries, who wanted to change everything, with religion as one of their primary targets.

All authentic revolutionaries have always been committed to an overthrow of the old religious structures. Without such an aim, it’s not a revolution. 18 months after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the Iranian “Revolution” ended up producing the most horrific, reactionary Islamic fundamentalist theocracy imaginable. There is no reason to suspect that things won’t turn out the same way in Egypt. The Egyptian people cannot be free until they revolt against Islam, and there is no sign of that. The French revolutionaries regarded Catholicism – the national religion – as the friend and ally of the establishment, and of reactionary, counter-revolutionary forces. Religion is ALWAYS the friend of tyrants, hence you cannot have a true revolution without the destruction of the existing religious order.

In psychology, “displacement” occurs when the primary target of your anger is too powerful to confront, so you displace your rage to someone else, an easier target, and take it out on them instead. In Egypt, the real issue was not about Mubarak but about Islam. It is not Mubarak and his ilk who stand most in the way of freedom, but Islam. Islam is too powerful to take on, so the people displaced their frustration onto Mubarak. But it makes no difference. The Egyptians will never be free until they are free of their unenlightened Islamic religion.

Remember the “Green” Revolution in Iran? Same deal. The young people were really trying to overthrow Islam. It was the Iranians, not the Tunisians, who really started the latest phase in Islamic Revolution. What none of them have realised yet is that it’s their religion they are rebelling against. Islam is the equivalent of the Berlin Wall – it must fall before the people can be free. The dialectic is in motion. Sooner or later, Islam itself will be the target and the long-awaited Reformation of Islam can start. The world will enjoy a second Enlightenment. Everything can change. The tipping point is not too far away now. But one thing must be said in favour of the Muslims. They proved themselves far better at using Facebook and Twitter for political purposes, for getting themselves organised to take on the authorities. Isn’t that what Westerners should be using social networking for too rather than posting endless pictures of drunk people at parties?
__________

Failed Revolution:

The military are now in charge of Egypt. Elections are promised. Big deal. Revolutions are not what they used to be. The generals are still the same. The rich are still the rich and the poor the poor. The imams are still preaching as they always did.

The people actually had no firm objective other than the removal of the President, but when he refused to go they had no Plan B. So they just stood around, hoping. Luckily, they stood around long enough and at last he went. But couldn’t they have achieved so much more having mobilised millions of people? These chances come along so rarely. They must be put to maximum advantage. If revolutionaries have no plan, and the counter-revolutionaries are equally devoid of a plan, a standoff ensues, as happened in Egypt. Mubarak blinked first because he wasn’t getting positive signals from his military. Muslims, being submissives waiting for the voice of Mohammed, the Archangel Gabriel, the Koran or Allah to direct them, are prone to ineffectual action in the absence of strong leadership. Some of the Egyptian protestors actually said it was a good thing that they had no leaders, but a Revolution without leaders and a plan is just a big crowd milling around aimlessly, as Egypt proved.

Revolution 101 – You must have a clear plan, with clear objectives, and strong leaders ready to take over right now from the existing ruling regime, not in elections six months down the line. In France in 1789, the Jacobin revolutionaries already had a complete blueprint for a New World Order – Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract. They detested monarchy and wished to abolish it permanently. They wished to replace Christianity with the new undogmatic religion of the “Supreme Being”. They wanted to be rid of the aristocracy. They wanted to express the General Will of the people. They were talented, smart, energetic and eager to take over from the ancien régime.

If the Egyptians were like the French of 1789, they would have seized the Egyptian parliament and installed their own government, they would have attacked the President’s residence, and they would have burned down the police headquarters and the main jail. The Egyptians did none of these things, hence the Revolution faded out with a whimper. No matter that the Egyptian Revolution isn’t yet the real thing. The people who took to the streets to oppose Mubarak must still be congratulated. Hundreds gave their lives. They have put the West to shame. And they have shown that they have tremendous potential as a people. If they can overthrow Islam, they will be capable of the highest achievements. In the West, when Lehman Brothers collapsed, capitalism was ripe for overthrow, but no one acted because no one had a plan, so the ruling order was able to go on as before. That situation must never happen again.

A new government-in-waiting needs to be ready to step in. Does such a government exist? No? Well let’s create it.
__________

Dialectical Government:

One of the greatest contributions to political philosophy came from Jean-Jacques Rousseau who contrasted the “particular will” with the “General Will”. The latter promotes the best interests of the whole community, while the former allows a particular group to prosper at the expense of everyone else.

A right-wing Republican government in America will invariably cut taxes (to favour the rich), reduce regulation (to favour rich corporations), reduce public spending and the size of the state (to penalise the poor and deprived) i.e. it governs in the interests of its Republican constituency, not in the interests of all. How could anyone argue that it is governing in the interests of all when it is so nakedly executing an ideological agenda that helps the rich and attacks the poor? It is transparently government according to the particular will, not the General Will.

Gil Scott-Heron famously said, “Mandate my ass.” He’s absolutely right. No democratic government ever has a mandate. Winning an election is just that – an election victory. It’s not a mandate. Those who voted for the opposition parties aren’t suddenly supportive of the winning party just because it won. They are as opposed to it as they always were. All governments are elective dictatorships. In the UK, it is typical for the governing Party to enjoy the support of only about a fifth to a quarter of the total electorate. Up to 80% didn’t vote for them yet have to endure their “mandate”!

Political parties of any description are vehicles of particular wills, not the General Will. The central political question lies in whether there is anything that can truly reflect the General Will in a systematic and transparent way, to the satisfaction of all. The answer is an extraordinary one. Conventional politicians are by definition enemies of the General Will since they care only for sectional interests and satisfying their supporters and sponsors. Hence conventional politicians can play no part in the New Politics. Political parties must be abolished!

But we are not advocating any kind of anarchy in the new world. Rather, we will turn to the most successful endeavour in human history to show us the way forward – science.

While politics has lurched from one crisis and disaster to the next, science has produced astounding triumph after astounding triumph. Science, not politics, has brought us the advanced world we live in (materially if not spiritually!). Only the biggest fools on earth would say that the political way of doing things has proved beneficial to humanity.

We seek to replace politics with political science i.e. a new politics that takes its lessons and methods from science, thus emulating the brightest jewel in the human crown.

Science is characterised by smart people putting forward well-considered hypotheses, which are then tested by other smart people.

Data and evidence are collected to see how well they correspond to the hypothesis. The hypothesis can be refined in the light of the data, and new experiments performed. If the hypothesis is unproductive, it is discarded while if it prospers then eventually it attains the status of “theory”. A scientific theory is not something speculative and vague as many non-scientists erroneously believe. It has been successfully tested innumerable times and it takes something remarkable to overthrow it. Newtonian physics, which had been revered for centuries, was replaced by Einsteinian physics, but it was nevertheless Newtonian physics that was used to land man on the moon i.e. that’s how good and reliable it was. Einstein’s refinements to Newton’s laws only become significant in extreme situations that we don’t often encounter. Even now, we refer to Newton’s Laws of motion.

Creationists say that Darwinian Evolution is just a “theory” – but it is an extremely well tested one with an enormous evidence base. Darwinism, like Newtonian physics, will eventually be replaced, but it will still retain a great deal of validity. What’s for sure is that Abrahamic Creationism is a mad hypothesis without any evidence at all to support it and an immense amount to refute it. No scientist would ever consider Creationism a theory – it’s just a story. It’s Mythos, not Logos. Much of the trouble with the world is that “Mythos-thinkers” believe they can challenge “Logos-thinkers”. The two types of thinking have nothing in common. Scientists (Logos-thinkers) have nothing but contempt for the suggestion that the world was created in six days by “God”, the only “proof” being an ancient book of the Jews, which says so. “Revelation” isn’t fact or evidence. It’s not theory. It can’t be tested. It can be neither verified nor falsified. It’s pure Mythos. Can anyone “prove” that gods didn’t once live at the summit of Mount Olympus? There are innumerable stories and none of them can ever form the basis of any kind of science.

Creationists are Mythos-thinkers who don’t understand science. Their attacks on Darwinism amount to little more than some staring-eyed person jabbing his finger at the Book of Genesis and saying, “Hey man, can’t you read? It says right here that God made the world in six days. End of story.” Stories – Mythos – should be reserved for entertainment purposes, not for trying to understand mathematical, scientific and philosophical reality. Politicians, like religious leaders, are always spinning yarns to “sell” their message to us. We don’t need their Mythos view of the world.

There are no political parties in science. Disputes are resolved via experiments, hard data, mathematics and logic, not via speeches, rhetoric, stories and ideology. Scientists can’t vote down other scientists and dogmatically push through their agenda regardless of the evidence. No scientists have to kiss babies and shake the hands of the “common man” to get elected. They have no party position that they have to defend. In the New Politics, clever people will propose hypotheses and these will be tested and the evidence collected. The evidence will decide between rival hypotheses, not some partisan debate in Congress full of hot air and fanatical ideology. Evidence, not rhetoric, is the only valid means of testing rival policies and ideas in order to identify the most successful ones.

As an example of this process, consider this message “V” sent us.

“I have been reading this website and the affiliated website Armageddon Conspiracy for about a year and a half or more. I have really appreciated reading your writings, and enjoyed reading up on all of the concepts that you look at and address in each article. I can relate with much of what you are saying most of the time, but in regards to your idea about separating the different Meyers-Briggs types, I totally disagree. Instead of arbitrarily separating types that are already separated, I think what needs to happen is integrating the types through understanding, because Meyers-Briggs type are not static – and people can change. In different stages of my own life, I have exhibited a number of different characteristics, although I am fundamentally an introverted intuitive type. If I did not have the opportunity to try out those different aspects of myself, I would probably not function as well as I do now.

If I could set up an ideal school system, I would first teach extensively on the positive and negative traits of each of the different types. Then I would have everyone take the test.

Afterwards I would pair extroverts with introverts as an experiment. I would have them ask each other questions about why they do things the way they do, and how they would respond to hypothetical situations. Then I would have each child write a paper on how they could integrate the positive aspects of the ‘other’ type. If thinking introverts remain wallflowers their whole lives, how can they speak up and change the world if they are afraid to talk – or have not integrated positive extroverted speaking abilities? How can sensing extroverts learn to listen to themselves if they do not perceive others with that ability? The worst thing you could do is separate the different types, because they will still have to deal with each other. By avoiding the conflict altogether they will grow stagnant, and will not learn. Learning and growth often accompany strife and difference. All of the different Meyers-Briggs types should represent aspects of ourselves – if we are healthy fully integrated beings, we need to be able to don whatever mask for any situation that comes our way.

I am currently writing a children’s story about two children – one is an introverted thinker, and one is an extroverted sensing type – and throughout the story I write about why they are afraid of each other, and how they learn to integrate their differences to become a think tank extraordinaire. This has to do with the concept of the Hegelian Synthesis which you wrote about on the Armageddon Conspiracy site. Shouldn’t we create a synthesis of the different types instead of working with the extreme introverts and extroverts? Otherwise there will always be conflict, that’s why I think it’s so important to write you on this subject, because I really like where the Movement could go – but I feel like this concept that you mention in the article is dogmatic and limiting.

We replied.

Thanks for your message. We’re sure many people would entirely agree with you, so we’d like to quote your message in a future article. It gives us an excellent opportunity to discuss the dialectic in action. Thanks again. And good luck with the children’s story – it sounds great!

(The main difference between our position and V’s is that we think personality type is much more static than she asserts, and that different types do not and cannot happily rub along together. If personality type were fluid and relatively easy to change, we would have no hesitation in endorsing her stance. Indeed, her aim of producing human beings who have integrated all of the different Myers-Briggs personalities and are thus able to cope in any situation is the best possible outcome. If it can be achieved then we should certainly strive to achieve it. However, if we are hard-wired to a certain personality type i.e. our brain allows us to operate only in certain ways, then we must confront the world as we find it and not as we would wish it to be. If thinking and feeling are mutually exclusive; if you cannot be both intuitive and sensing, then V’s ambition of multi-functional human beings cannot be realised no matter how desirable it is. Jung’s project of individuation – becoming the master of every psychic component – is the same as V’s. It may be the case that it cannot be fully accomplished, but can only be approximated i.e. an intuitive person will never fully enter into the world of sensations but can train himself to be more receptive to sensations than he would have been otherwise: he can glimpse and interact with the “other” world of sensations without ever truly venturing into its heart. He will always be a visitor, never at home.)

If we were a political party with a majority, we would rubbish V’s suggestions and vote her down (because that’s what political parties do). Her ideas, no matter how potentially true and invaluable, would be dead in the water. What a disaster if it turned out she was right!

But the dialectic does not operate in that calamitous way, potentially ignoring and discarding great ideas because they do not fit the particular will of the dominant political party. There’s no need for us to have any acrimonious argument with V. We have proposed a thesis and V has proposed an antithesis – it’s the dialectic in full flow. The way forward would be to arrange tests of both hypotheses and see how they match up to the evidence subsequently collected. Maybe one hypothesis is right and the other wrong; maybe both are partially right and partially wrong, or maybe both are completely wrong. We’ll know for sure thanks to hard data, not cynical speechifying in Congress unsupported by any evidence.

Depending on the evidence, it may be possible to combine the rival hypotheses in a synthesis, which will then act as a new thesis. Perhaps both hypotheses will have to be discarded and new ones tried. The key point is that we now have a scientific process and method that everyone can see is completely fair and allows rival ideas to be heard and respected.

Every citizen, like V, will be able to propose hypotheses and have them treated with the utmost consideration. Clever citizens will be direct contributors to the new dialectical politics, not passive recipients of policies passed in Congress after “hot air” debates. We don’t need any politicians or any debates. We just need hypotheses, experiments and evidence.

Take drugs policy as an example. There are fifty States in the USA: fifty opportunities to try different approaches to drugs. You can have zero tolerance approaches, decriminalisation, complete legalisation etc in the different States. At the end of a ten-year period, the nation simply has to look at all the different approaches that were trialled in the different States and see which one worked the best. That then becomes “best practice” to be used throughout the country. See how easy it is. No emotive debates are required, no moralising, no religious opinions. All that is needed is the experimental data.

Evidence replaces rhetoric. Science replaces politics. All debates are resolved evidentially. All disputes are turned into rival scientific hypotheses and put to the test. Is that not the only sensible and rational means to resolve conflicts? All the hot air and ideology gets kicked out and is replaced by cool, calm science. No politicians are necessary, thank you very much: no pressure groups, no lobbyists, no hysterical media reporting. This new system removes all of the levers of power from the OWO and from the religious and political fanatics. Their irrational beliefs and propaganda can now be relentlessly challenged and tested.

The whole world will have a transparent, systematic method to resolve all issues. All hypotheses will be available on the internet, as will all the experimental procedures to test them, and all of the results. The world will become a global laboratory dedicated to perfecting human life and society. Plato said, “I have created the perfect republic, but where are the perfect people?” The dialectical method will supply Plato with his perfect people.

The ingredient that was missing all along from politics was none other a neutral method with which all parties could agree – a dialectical, scientific method.
__________

The Dialectical Revolution:

We are supremely fortunate. We are living in the era of dialectical completion.

1945 – the end of fascism.
1989 – the end of totalitarian Soviet Communism.
2008 – the beginning of the end for Western Capitalism.
2011 – the end of Arab dictators.

The pace is increasing, and the internet is acting as an incredible accelerator.

The hardest dictators to topple are the unseen ones of capitalism: the super rich Zionists and Masons. They operate behind the scenes, pulling the strings of their “democratic” politician puppets. The credit crunch has done enormous damage to their propaganda that they know what they’re doing economically. Since that was their supreme claim to legitimacy, they no longer have any credibility. They are like the Emperor with his new clothes – stark naked and about to be ridiculed even by children.

After they fall, humanity’s dialectical journey only has one more hurdle to overcome – the bicameral, ancient slave religions of Devil worship. They will be replaced by new, 21st century religions of light, reason, freedom and consciousness.

The nightmare is nearing its end.
The dawn of a glorious new humanity is coming.
And we will be there to see it.
__________

Plato’s Republic of Laws:

Plato, one of the greatest geniuses of all time, advocated that the ruling class of society should live in a strictly communist manner. None of the rulers should own any private property; they should live in common housing and share communal meals.

Whatever anyone thinks of Plato’s system, no one could accuse him of supporting a ruling class in it for their own material gain. Imagine the leaders of the present world being uniformly poor, and doing their work purely for the public good. Isn’t that real “public service”?

Plato was preoccupied with how to create a truly enlightened society. In his ideal city-state, everyone obeys the General Will and works for the common good, hence the state is a unity, free of faction fighting. All the land and property are distributed fairly and any private wealth closely regulated.

In The Laws, Plato’s last great political work, he argued that no citizen should be allowed to possess any gold or silver. Money should be based on iron. No citizen should be allowed to become any richer than four times the poorest citizen; any extra is automatically placed in a common people’s fund – the Commonwealth. No citizen is permitted to fall below a basic level of wealth set by the State.

(In relation to Plato’s suggestion that the richest people in society should be no more than four times richer than the poorest, this is now deemed too restrictive. A more appropriate figure would be anything from a factor of ten to a hundred to ensure that hard workers and creatives have a clear incentive. This figure could be continually adjusted until the optimal value is found. Remember, meritocracy is not communism – it is anti-privilege (excessive wealth used as a weapon), not anti-wealth per se. Meritocracy absolutely wants to reward high achievers for hard work, talent and creativity.)

Such laws, Plato argued, provided unshakeable stability to the ideal city-state. Greed is effectively banned. No one can become excessively rich. Plato said, “Great money-making is impossible… The hypothesis that underlies our laws aims at making the people as happy and friendly to one another as possible.”

Isn’t that the most laudable of aims, and isn’t massive inequality of wealth, power and status the main driver of dissatisfaction in our world? People become alienated from their own lives when they start obsessively comparing their relative poverty with the extravagant wealth of the super rich. They are always miserable because they are always dreaming of a life they will never have. In Plato’s city-state, distinctions between citizens are never allowed to become too great, certainly never wide enough to cause envy, discontent and conflict. Men and women are treated equally (a revolutionary concept in the time of Plato, and one that was borrowed directly from the Pythagorean Illuminati).

Plato sought a rational, just and ordered society, with virtue as its central goal. In his ideal city-state, there is no need for rival political parties. An experienced group of 37 Guardians of the Laws supervise the state. The citizens gather in a General Assembly to vote on important issues. An elected council of 360 independent citizens carry out the day-to-day running of the state and serve one-year terms. There are also judges and juries to administer the law, priests and priestesses to perform the religious functions, and generals and admirals to defend the state. Market trade is closely regulated, as are all aspects of City life.

Critics have described it as a totalitarian state, but they are entirely wrong: it’s a meritocratic state, with all aspects of city life guarded against abuse. There would have been no Credit Crunch, no excessive greed, no privileged elite, no ingrained inequality, in Plato’s utopia.

Plato’s city-state is to be a single entity – like a person – striving for its own good. In this state there are no “rival loyalties” – no political parties representing sectional interests, no factions putting their particular wills over the General Will. Every citizen’s loyalty is to the state and the common good. As Plato said so accurately, “True political art must care not for the private but the common – for the common binds cities together, while the private tears them apart.”

We live in a world of private interests. Everyone is out for themselves. The bankers – those responsible for the financial health of the economy – are typically the greediest people in the world, devoted to enriching themselves. What sane state would ever allow its banks to be in private hands and to be controlled by people who want to help themselves to as much money as they can get away with? It is the bankers and their confederates who would doubtless accuse Plato of totalitarianism – because they would be the biggest losers in a Platonic state.

Plato wrote, “Whoever leaves private things unregulated by law and believes the people will be willing to live with the common and public things regulated by laws – is incorrect in his thinking.”

This is a crucial statement. Any government that allows the private domain to be ignored in a society of great disparities in wealth is essentially supporting a society of privilege where private individuals are allowed to rig the system in their own favour. Thus an unregulated private domain invariably leads to the richest private individuals controlling the state. This is the basis of the Old World Order. The biggest enemy of privilege is meritocratic regulation that prevents privileged individuals from using their positions of privilege to exploit and manipulate the public space. When the state neglects to act in the private sphere, when it refuses to try to mould the state for the better and chooses to remain inactive, this is called “negative liberty”. It is negative rather than positive because it does not seek to promote any agenda: for good or ill, citizens are left to their own devices in the private sphere. The rich are allowed to get richer, parents to brainwash their children, bigotry and intolerance to go unchecked as long as they stay in the home etc. Negative liberty is not FOR anything; rather is about being free FROM positive liberty. Right wingers are advocates of negative liberty and the “small state”.

“Positive liberty” is where the state seeks to actively implement a vision of freedom, hence directly intervenes in the private sphere. Left wingers are proponents of positive liberty and the big state. The Illuminati’s vision of creating a “Community of Gods” is the quintessence of positive liberty. Capitalist democracy and consumerism are the supreme expression of negative liberty. You are free to shop till you drop and the state will never put any obstacles in your way. The state couldn’t care less what consumerism does to people’s minds, whether it turns them into zombies, droids and drones. The Profit Principle is all that matters. The supporters of private wealth and privilege are always those who demand that the state stay out of the private sphere. The state does indeed have no right to interfere with any private matters that have no consequences for the public sphere, but it has every right to interfere with those that do. It’s failing in its duties if it does not. Plato was buried in the Academy that he founded. Diogenes Laertius wrote, “Phoebus Apollo gave to mortals Asclepius and Plato, the one to save their bodies, the other to save their souls.”

Plato’s Republic of Laws represents a suitable dialectical starting point for a meritocratic society. America was designed not as a democracy but as a Republic of Laws. The only democratic component involves the elections of the President and Congress. America has failed to be the beacon of liberty that it was intended to be for one very simple reason – it tried as far as possible to stay out of the private sphere, and thus it allowed an immense system of private privilege to grow that now overshadows the Government, Congress, the Republic, the Constitution, the Laws, and, above all, the People.

Moreover, it gave birth to the mad anarcho-capitalist libertarians who think that government should play no role in their lives whatsoever, and that they should pay no taxes whatsoever. America is now totally split between libertarians who want no government, Republicans who want a small government, Democrats who want bigger government and left wingers who want government to stand up to the privileged elite once and for all. America is no longer a Republic of Laws nor any kind of democracy: it’s a Plutocracy – government by a rich elite, and this was allowed to happen because of America’s advocacy of negative liberty.

What is the antidote? – meritocracy and positive liberty.
__________

6/10