Dacia Iluministă

The Multi Social Contract:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The meritocratic movement therefore has two strands:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Democracy is so good:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom and Choice:

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

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

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

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

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

One-Size-Fits-All:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

Summary.

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

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

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

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

Einstein and Socialism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Many Lives We Never Had:

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

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

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

Flowers versus Weeds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Generation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laughter and Superstition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what will it be?
__________

4/7