Dacia Iluministă

Introduction:

THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a member, working under the pseudonym of “Adam Weishaupt” – the name of the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master.

The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity.

If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites. Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then dispatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise.

Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing? Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan?

Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”.

Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.
__________

Quotations:

“If you live among wolves you have to act like a wolf.” –Nikita Khrushchev

“In our society leaving baby with Daddy is just one step above leaving the kids to be raised by wolves or apes.” –Al Roker

“In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves.” –R. A. Butler

“Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.” –Isaiah Berlin

“Lions, wolves, and vultures don’t live together in herds, droves or flocks. Of all animals of prey, man is the only sociable one. Every one of us preys upon his neighbour, and yet we herd together.” –John Gay

“Pacifists are like sheep who believe that wolves are vegetarians.” –Yves Montand

“Don’t accept your dog’s admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful.” –Ann Landers

“I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven’t got the guts to bite people themselves.” –August Strindberg

“Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” –Bible, Matthew: 15. 27.

“Yesterday I was a dog. Today I’m a dog. Tomorrow I’ll probably still be a dog. Sigh! There’s so little hope for advancement.” –Charles M. Schulz, (Snoopy)

“I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” –Winston Churchill
__________

Introduction:

THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a member, working under the pseudonym of “Adam Weishaupt” – the name of the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master.

The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity.

If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites. Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then dispatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise.

Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing? Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan?

Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”.

Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.
__________

Human Dogs:

MANY PEOPLE ARE DOG LOVERS. Little do they suspect that many of the secrets of humanity are locked within the relationship of owners and their pets. Dogs are domesticated wolves. They prospered while wolves were exterminated in many parts of the world. Yet in the human world, it’s the human wolves that have prospered, and they prey on the domesticated human dogs. By understanding dogs and wolves, we can understand the human condition.

From the Wikipedia entry on dogs:

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo) is a domesticated form of the grey wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora. The term is used for both feral and pet varieties. The dog may have been the first animal to be domesticated, and has been the most widely kept working, hunting, and companion animal in human history.

The word “dog” may also mean the male of a canine species, as opposed to the word “bitch” for the female of the species. Dogs were domesticated from gray wolves about 15,000 years ago. They must have been very valuable to early human settlements, for they quickly became ubiquitous across world cultures. Dogs perform many roles for people, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and military, companionship, and, more recently, aiding handicapped individuals. This impact on human society has given them the nickname “Man’s Best Friend” in the western world. In 2001, there were estimated to be 400 million dogs in the world.

Over the 15,000-year span the dog had been domesticated, it diverged into only a handful of landraces, groups of similar animals whose morphology and behaviour have been shaped by environmental factors and functional roles. Through selective breeding by humans, the dog has developed into hundreds of varied breeds, and shows more behavioural and morphological variation than any other land mammal. For example, height measured to the withers ranges from a few inches in the Chihuahua to a few feet in the Irish Wolfhound; colour varies from white through greys (usually called “blue’”) to black, and browns from light (tan) to dark (“red” or “chocolate”) in a wide variation of patterns; coats can be short or long, coarse-haired to wool-like, straight, curly, or smooth.

******

It’s a remarkable thing, but not a single member of the Illuminati has any pets. How can that be explained? Or, to put it another way, why do so many people choose to have pets rather than do without them? Animals are expensive, time-consuming, dumb, chaotic, frequently dirty, and can get their owners involved in vicious disputes. In many ways, pet ownership is immoral – in a world full of starving human beings, why are there fat pets? Animals can’t speak. They can’t do science, philosophy or mathematics. So what’s the point of them? Why would anyone want to spend any time with them?

It’s said that there’s a powerful emotional bond between dogs and humans, and that’s the key to the enigma. The Illuminati are thinkers and intuitives in terms of Jung’s personality types. Such people value ideas above all else. All members of the Illuminati have huge libraries. They love books, movies, documentaries, world news, studying religions and philosophies. How does a dog serve a thinker or intuitive? Not at all. It can’t contribute anything in the realm of ideas. It’s a dumb, pointless mutt. You’d be as well sitting with a lump of rock for all the mental stimulation you’d get from a dog.

But dog lovers, and pet lovers in general, are overwhelmingly Jungian sensing and feeling types. The sensers love the physical interaction with their dogs. The feelers become emotionally attached to them, often obsessively so, treating them as more important than human beings. Many dog lovers treat their dogs better than they do human strangers and would save their dog in a crisis rather than a person. Many owners drown trying to save their dogs that have fallen into water.

Owners think the world should indulge their love for their dogs, that others should tolerate without question their yapping, barking, snarling, salivating, unleashed beasts. But why should anyone allow themselves to be barked at? Who signs up to be barked at because of someone else’s predilections? Of course, no one ever asks if anyone wants to be barked at and be attacked by dogs. It’s taken for granted that it’s OK. And, of course, if anyone kicks to death a dog that attacks him, it won’t be the dog owner who appears in court for bringing an uncontrolled beast into the public arena, it will be the person who defended himself against an unprovoked assault by a beast.

The Illuminati advocate the “Law of Neutrality”. The law should always take the side of the most neutral person in any dispute. Therefore, for example, a man walking along a pavement or sidewalk, minding his own business, is as neutral as it gets. If someone else brings a dog into the public space then that person is not “neutral”; they have a brought a potential cause of dispute and trouble with them. If a dispute does indeed break out because the person minding his own business objects to a beast barking at him and slobbering over him, surely he should be the one supported by the law. But he’s not. The law is irrational. It was formulated by the sort of influential people who like dogs – rich landowners with vast country estates.

Although dogs are tame relative to wolves, they are rather keen on barking and biting in the presence of human strangers. It has been estimated that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans each year, with 885,000 requiring medical attention and some 30,000 having to undergo reconstructive surgery. Why should those who dislike dogs be forced to endure this outrageous situation? The police clamp down on the possession of dangerous knives in the public space, yet they allow irresponsible owners to go around with aggressive dogs that can do every bit as much damage as a knife attack. Every year, many toddlers are savaged to death by household “pets” that usually turn out to be “killer dog” breeds, specially cultivated for their aggression and the fear they instil in people. It’s one thing to voluntarily sign up to be in a city full of dogs, it’s quite another to have it tyrannically imposed on you.

The obsession that some people have with dogs is remarkable. Dale Carnegie, the author of the famous book How to Win Friends and Influence People, highlighted the role of dogs. He wrote, “Did you ever stop to think that a dog is the only animal that doesn’t have to work for a living? A hen has to lay eggs, a cow has to give milk, and a canary has to sing. But a dog makes his living by giving you nothing but love.”

Many people are indeed in love with dogs, these creatures that don’t do anything productive. A dog is a parasite. Its purpose in life is to get others to look after it and cater for all of its needs. It’s the ultimate sponger, freeloader and dead head. Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene portrayed human beings as gene survival machines whose purpose was to serve the interests of their genes and, above all, to replicate them as widely as possible. It was as if human beings were being actively exploited and manipulated by their genes. In similar fashion, if you are a dog owner, you are being exploited and manipulated by your dog. It has latched onto you as a suitable person – a mark, a sucker – to feed, house and protect it. In return, it licks your hand and whatever else pets do that you love so much. It does those things not because it loves you, but because it has to do them in order to make you think it loves you. Only then will it get from you what it wants. Cats are much more independent than dogs, hence a lot less lovable. Studies have shown that cat owners have higher IQs than dog owners and that people without pets have the highest IQs of all. We might as well say that a person’s needs for love and affection stands in direct opposition to their intelligence. Dog owners need a lot of love, and all the time lavished on love is time not lavished on ideas and thinking. Therefore, surprise, surprise, they are less intelligent.

The subject of dogs is instructive because it says a great a deal about human societies. As we have seen, dogs are descended from wolves, which are of course highly aggressive. Research has indicated that dogs originated in early human hunters selecting wolves for tameness against aggression. Aggressive wolves were frequently killed while tame wolves were nurtured. After breeding over many generations, dogs became radically different from wolves and amazingly well attuned to humans. That’s not surprising. They were naturally selected, with human taste acting as the criterion for selection i.e. humans killed dogs they didn’t like and kept the ones they did. The ones they liked were the ones that did likeable things (as judged by humans): the ones that were very affectionate, loyal and loving, looked cute and sensed human emotions.

Dogs are enormously more attuned to analysing human faces than they are those of other dogs. Isn’t that astounding? Why is that? Because it’s human beings that look after them, not other dogs. Dogs absolutely know on what side their bread is buttered – and it’s the human side, not the doggy side. Dogs get more out of being with humans than they do with other dogs because that’s how they’ve been bred and selected by humans. They are supremely unnatural creatures, like toys that have come to life. A dog’s whole purpose in life is to please its human master – not to form good relationships with other dogs.

Dogs, uniquely amongst animals, inspect human faces in the same way that humans do. That’s how emotionally sensitized to humans they are. Many people can accurately decipher dog barks. These barks form a rudimentary signalling system. Dogs are the only creatures that understand and respond to the human pointing gesture. They realise that their master is giving them an informational signal. All other animals, including chimpanzees, are oblivious to what pointing signifies.

Overall, a dog can know about 15 commands. There’s one example of an incredible dog that’s as smart as a two-year old human baby, but this is certainly the exception. Nevertheless, it shows that dogs could evolve a much higher intelligence than they typically possess at present. Perhaps if they were actively selected for intelligence rather than cuteness and petness we could have them studying philosophy in a thousand years, and barking especially loudly and rolling over when they read Leibniz and Nietzsche.

Russian breeding experiments with foxes over several generations have demonstrated that they too can be made to behave like dogs if they are selected for tameness against aggression. What’s more, radical changes in appearance occurred with the later generations of tamed foxes. Their ears got floppier, their tails shorter and curlier, their limbs shorter, their coats more exotically patterned and coloured i.e. they became much cuter and indeed very similar to dogs. So, selection for tameness results in enhanced cuteness and “petness”.

The domestication of dogs has been said to favour juvenile rather than adult traits. Tame dogs are those dogs that haven’t evolved adult frustration, aggression and desire for power. Aggression signifies dominance. Tameness signifies submissiveness and immaturity. Domestication corresponds to an infantilisation process and involves a deliberate selection of adults who behave like children. If wolves are the adults, dogs are the infants. They’re childlike, baby creatures and the sort of humans who like them are deeply attracted to childlike, baby creatures that love unconditionally and don’t argue back.

To recapitulate, dogs were wolves selected for tameness. They were juvenile, submissive wolves that didn’t compete for dominance and assert themselves. They were big babies. They were cute, affectionate and needy – exactly like human babies, and there’s considerable evidence that the same brain mechanisms that are triggered when people interact with babies are activated when dog lovers interact with their pets. The bonding hormone oxytocin is released. The owners want to look after their “babies”, nurture them, love them, care from them and protect them. They become more human to them than actual humans – and indeed dog owners actually hate most human beings, which is why they prefer the company of dogs. Pet owners can’t cope with the adult world, so they choose to live in an infantilised world of cute, juvenile pets. They want to know if dogs have souls, so that they can imagine reuniting with them in paradise. Well, of course dogs have souls, but these souls are extremely primitive. As humans, we ought to be interacting with higher souls if we want to “upgrade”, not with lower souls that will drag us down.

The reason we’re mentioning all of this is to make several crucial points about human beings. Look at the most beautiful women. How many are smart? Aren’t they too selected for cuteness, looks, infantilism (“blondeness”), adorability, vulnerability and “petness”? Marilyn Monroe – she ticks all the boxes. She was a child all her life, desperately looking for father figures.

In a sexist, male-dominated society, women have been selected over many generations for submissiveness, looks, juvenility etc. They certainly weren’t selected for intelligence and aggression. Is the type of women we have today a reflection of a dog-like breeding process? Have we actually bred overly emotional, underly rational women; women who are obsessed with appearance, compliance and emotional intelligence?

Just as dogs were bred to be attuned to the moods of their owners, is the same true of women? Were women selected according to how well they fitted in with the tastes of their dominant, aggressive male masters? They’re so emotionally smart because men bred them for exactly that purpose. Women are not renowned for aggression, dominance, assertiveness and intelligence because dominant men didn’t want any of those traits in their women. All SUPERWOMEN (the type of women who could give men a run for their money) were DESELECTED by a dominant male culture that didn’t value talented women and just wanted subservient, pretty adornments.

Two hundred years ago, it would be fair to say that women were juvenile adults. If you read something like Jane Austen’s famous book Pride and Prejudice, you don’t seem to be in an adult world at all, but one of complete nonsense and trivia – a juvenile world where all that matters is getting married to a rich, desirable, handsome man (and obviously not much has changed in the present day). Just as Dale Carnegie’s dogs needed to get their master to love them and cater for all their needs, exactly the same was true of women in Austen’s day. If you didn’t play the game, you literally weren’t selected hence didn’t have children hence didn’t pass on your genes. So, the genes of women who rejected the male game were actively removed from the gene pool. They were deselected out of existence. No one ever mentions this subject because it’s so controversial.

If we honestly analyse the lives of most women and their total obsession with appearance and emotional connectedness, aren’t we drawn inexorably to the conclusion that men bred them that way? Either women have always had a genetic predisposition to “looking good” above all other things, or they have been bred to demonstrate this trait. And who would be the beneficiaries of this breeding regime? – dominant men who like pretty women who are no threat to them. Can there really be any doubt that women have been bred in exactly the same way as dogs – for cuteness, tameness, submissiveness, and lovability? Just as the function of dogs is to please their master (if they don’t, they will be discarded and put down), women’s role historically was to please her “master” – her husband. Indeed the husband was always regarded as the master of the household and his home was his castle where he exercised absolute dominion over wife and children. What is “feminism”? It’s essentially an initiative to cause a different type of femaleness to be valued over the old, traditional, homemaker type. Feminism ought to be much more radical. After several decades of feminism, women seem to be as obsessed with the Sex and the City frivolities that have always defined them. Jane Austen would have fitted right in with the Sex and the City girls. Nobel prize-winning physicist Marie Curie certainly wouldn’t. Don’t we need a hell of a lot more Marie Curies?

Women’s liberation has changed the picture to some degree, but not nearly enough. Pick up any women’s magazine – written and edited by women for women – and you will come across endless trivial garbage, obsessed with tameness, cuteness, appearance, “getting your man”. There’s no science, no philosophy, no mathematics, no art, no aggression, no dominance, no religion – just celebrity culture, health, gossip, high heels, handbags and diets. If dogs could read, they’d be reading women’s magazines, concentrating on the articles about how to “win and keep your master”.

The world is in desperate need of a second liberation of women. The preoccupations of women’s magazines are a disgrace to the whole human race. The era of women’s magazine and mindless shows like Sex and the City must end. Women have been infantilised by male “natural selection”. Most of them are giggling babies, juveniles who never grew up, who never cultivated adult tastes. Women act like babies in order to get men to love and care for them. It’s ridiculous. This is the 21st century, wake up!

Men select women according to their “babylike”, infantile, cute looks and submissive nature. Consider Islamic culture – all women are submissive and all you can see of many of them is big, baby eyes peeking out from behind their veils. They’re expected not to speak in male company and generally to make themselves as invisible as possible, unless needed for male gratification. Can there be any greater insult to a woman than to veil and silence her? It represents ABSOLUTE MISOGYNY.

Under Islamic Sharia Law, the testimony of two women is deemed equivalent to that of one man. Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Mohammed and spiritual home of Islam, has only just given women the vote. Saudi women are forbidden from driving, are not allowed to travel without the permission of a male guardian, are not allowed to open a bank account or access healthcare without the permission of a man and must cover their entire bodies, except for their hands and eyes, in public or in the presence of strange men. The clothes should be dark, dull and unadorned.

Any progressive society interested in female liberation has to radically alter the obsession with women’s looks. Disturbingly, women are actually more obsessed than men. Men’s magazines show lots of pictures of hot women…and so do women’s magazines! Why are women always staring so avidly at beautiful women? It’s for the same reason that male monkeys spend an enormous amount of time staring at the pack leader: in order to ensure your survival and success in the group you have to be as attuned and informed about the alpha male as possible. You certainly don’t want to fall foul of him. Similarly, all women are fully aware that they are being subjected to intense scrutiny over their looks, so they stare at the alpha hot women and try to emulate them as far as they can. These days, plastic surgery and Botox can be pressed into service to make the similarity more precise.

Consider these definitions of women’s looks fromhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/

1. “Waste of talent”: a fat girl with a hot face.

“If that bitch lost 20 pounds she would not be such a waste of talent.”

2. “Pretty face syndrome”: a condition where girls with naturally pretty faces, put no effort into their bodies and generally end up fat and out of shape. The opposite of “Butterface”.

“With such a pretty face that girl could be super-hot if it wasn’t for her pretty face syndrome.”

“Damn shame she’s got PFS; she could be so hot.”

“Picked up a good looking girl last night, but when I got her naked turned out she had a serious case of pretty face syndrome 🙁 ”

3. “Adele Syndrome”: a condition suffered by overweight or chunky women with otherwise naturally pretty faces.

Some men celebrate women with Adele syndrome, while some detest it; a waste of a nice face? The condition has been fittingly named after popular singer Adele, who has a very pretty face but a chunky body.

Guy 1: Woah, look at that girl’s face. She’s beautiful!

Guy 2: Dude, look at her body. She has Adele Syndrome.

Guy 1: Oh, damn. What a waste.

4. “Irish prawn”: a woman with a great face, but the body isn’t so great (opposite of a prawn who has a great body but face isn’t so great, seeing as though you eat the body of a prawn and throw away the head).

John: She looked good man, fat arse but.

Steve: Yeah bit of an Irish prawn.

John: Yeah, I’d still slam it.

5. “Body foul”: when a girl has a hot face combined with a nasty, banged up body. Usually signified by either little goofy tits with a bony chest or big sloppy flapjack jugs. Also, junk in the trunk (dumpy fat around the thighs) is a major body foul.

“I had to throw a yellow flag when the hot girl in the front row stood up because her huge dumpy ass was a major body foul.”

6. “Car face”: the phenomenon were a woman has a beautiful face when spotted in her automobile, but when she gets out a fat or otherwise unseemly body is attached. Also known as the exact opposite of butterface.

“I thought a hot chick was making eyes at me on my Vespa yesterday, but when she dragged 200 pounds of cottage cheese out of her car at the gas station I saw she just had car face so I hauled ass out of there!!!”

7. ‘berg: when a girl has beautiful slender face shot on her personal website (facebook, MySpace etc…) but a really fat body that does not suit her head.

“Dude… look at this girl, look at her face. Isn’t she hot?”

“I don’t know man, scroll down…”

“In unison: “OH MAN, SHE’S A ‘BERG!!!”

8. “Butterface”: a girl with an exceptionally hot body but an exceptionally ugly face. Everything but-her-face is attractive.

“Damn look at the cans on that girl but her butterface would scare small children and large dogs away.”

“She looked real good… but her face (butterface).”

And so on ad infinitum. Male judgements over female looks are exceptionally harsh and brutal. Of course, women are increasingly judging men just as ruthlessly. Women want their tall, dark, handsome man, their “Mr Darcy” (archetypal Romantic Hero), the alpha male, the rich male, the powerful male, with a washboard stomach and rippling muscles. Men’s magazines, which used to be exclusively devoted to pictures of women as scantily clad as possible, have now started to show alpha hot males with rippling, oiled muscles and six packs. Men are thus starting to feel the heat too over their looks. Nevertheless, they will never become as obsessed as women because status rather than looks continues to be critical to a man’s attractiveness.

While men have always been driven by women’s looks, women have traditionally been more interested in a men’s status – a reflection of male power and ability to look after women. Men select for looks and women for status. Women want someone to protect them and their children, to be an excellent provider, to give them a luxury lifestyle and high prestige. Consider the phenomenon of the WAGs (“wives and girlfriends”). These are gorgeous women (invariably airheads) who “stalk” extremely rich and successful sportsmen. The exchange could not be more basic. The woman has her gorgeous looks to trade, and the man has his immense status and paypacket. Deal done.

The extraordinary thing about female beauty is that so much of it is totally fake. A woman without her make-up, her hair-do, her high heels, her padded bra, her ass-shaping underwear and so on, has radically different looks from the artificial creation that stepped out so gloriously on a Saturday night with her “killer looks”. Beautiful women are extremely high maintenance and invariably supremely vacuous. If you’re an expert at staring at yourself in the mirror for hours on end, you’re unlikely to be able to add much to the debate on M-theory! Top sportsmen are well matched to the WAGS in terms of their airhead proclivities. Has there ever been a smart sportsman? Is such a thing actually possible?

Another extremely controversial area where radical selection criteria were applied was in the slave trade. African slaves were not selected for brains, defiance, rebelliousness, dominance, cunning and so forth. The ideal slave was a big, strong, docile, submissive man who got on with his work, accepted his lot and never caused any trouble. Can we really be surprised that African Americans are so much better at sport on average than white Americans – given that they were actively selected for physical prowess – or that the African Americans are not generally associated with intellectual excellence? The smart Africans were actively deselected by the slave masters (i.e. killed off as troublemakers).

Of course, these artificially applied selection criteria gradually vanish from the gene pool when they are no longer enforced. And, indeed, reverse trends can be applied. If humanity selected dogs for aggression rather than tameness, they would start heading back towards being wolves. Imagine a new slavery being applied to African Americans, except this time they were selected for intelligence and deselected for physicality. Eventually you would have Superhuman black intellectuals, all of them useless at sport. This experiment has already been carried out elsewhere – with Jews! In the Jewish community, intelligence was identified as the best way to resist persecution. A smart Jew could make himself of use to the persecutors and thus save himself. A big, strong, defiant Jew, on the other hand, would get himself killed instantly. So, Jews “bred” clever people and constantly promoted the virtues of education. How many Jews are associated with sporting prowess? Virtually none. African Americans on the other hand have endorsed sporting prowess as a way out of the shit, but they have also adopted a stance of extreme anti-education and anti-intellectualism. Many blacks actually revile books as “white” i.e. racist documents by racist whites. They sneer at smart African Americans and brand them as dorks, geeks, nerds and uncool. It’s “cool” to be rebellious at school, to not play the “white man’s game.” In the whole history of this world, there has never been a more counterproductive ideology. The blacks ought to have emulated the Jews and made an excellent education the greatest possible virtue in their community, the thing desired above all else. Education will set you free – not a basketball in your hand.

People think of natural selection as being, well, “natural”. It’s nothing of the kind. As soon as human beings are involved, they bring conscious choices to the party. Natural selection is transformed into value selection i.e. things are selected according to their perceived value within an artificially constructed human table of values.

Dogs are described as “man’s best friend”, but not by people who hate dogs. Why are dogs allowed in human cities at all? Only because large numbers of people value dogs and their value system is allowed to prevail over those who loathe dogs. If the value system of the dog-haters dominated, there would be no dogs in any cities. The presence of dogs in cities isn’t “natural” and could easily be stopped. They are there because they have been “unnaturally” selected according to the preferences of a certain section of the human population.

No one ever dares to venture into the minefield of human breeding because they immediately think of racist eugenics and Nazism, yet breeding has been taking place since the dawn of time. Dogs – juvenile, tame, submissive wolves – were selected by tribesmen to help them with hunting. Later, when farmers needed help to keep flocks of sheep under control, dogs proved invaluable. They were also useful as guard dogs and for sounding the alarm. Dogs in those days had many practical uses. They became very different from the wolves they once were. A new type of creature was born – the domesticated, tame wolf: the dog. It had been summoned into existence not by nature but by human choices.

To reiterate our earlier point, can’t we assume that women have historically been human “dogs” (indeed, they are often called “bitches”) i.e. the early hunters selected them in exactly the same way? Those hunters wanted tame, domesticated, submissive, emotionally attuned companions, good at cooking, looking after the household and bringing up the children. Isn’t that exactly what the history of women has been all about? Look at Islamic women in the present day. Isn’t that STILL what their lives are all about? Strong, dominant, smart women would have been deselected from the female population, just as aggressive wolves were deselected in comparison with tame wolves (dogs). There may well have been Stone Age Superwomen who were sexually ignored by men hence died out. Or maybe they were turned into celibate priestesses and died out that way (or put to death as “witches”, like the non-conformist women of the Middle Ages). How can we be sure that women, as they are today, evolved “naturally” rather than as the products of a more or less conscious breeding programme by dominant men? The qualities most women have today are those that men wanted them to have, not those conferred by “nature”. In the peafowl world, the females dominated sexual selection hence the males (peacocks) had to go in for an extraordinary preoccupation with appearance. If a peacock didn’t have a stunning enough tail “display”, it would never get a partner, hence be unable to pass on its genes.

Not just women and slaves may have been consciously bred to have certain qualities. Dominant males killed all dominant rivals but spared submissive, weak, servile males. A pack – or a social group we might say – can only have one alpha male. If a rival alpha emerges, it must fight the first alpha. Either the challenger kills the incumbent and takes over as alpha male, or the incumbent kills him. Either way, the pack retains a single alpha male. The submissives don’t intervene. They will obey whoever comes out on top. That’s what they were bred for – to obey.

“It takes in reality only one to make a quarrel. It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion.” –Dean Inge

It has been estimated that 5% of the world’s population are dominant, hence 95% are essentially submissive. That sounds right. If people were all dominant, we could never have the type of world that exists now where a tiny number of people control everyone else. This happens because submissives refuse to fight dominants. Only other dominants fight and they usually end up dead or in jail.

We thus arrive at a horrific truth. The social order is entirely shaped by Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. The masters – always dominant and aggressive alpha males – have decided everything. They are human “wolves”. (It’s no coincidence that all alpha males have been attracted to the symbol of the wolf and Hitler, a supreme alpha male, called his headquarters in Eastern Prussia, where he directed the Russian campaign, the “Wolf’s Lair.”). In ancient times, the human wolves were forever fighting each other to the death in order to be dominant so the number of wolves in any human population could never grow too high. It turns out that a stable solution is reached when the wolves constitute 5% of the population. There are enough to dominate the 95% of submissives, but not enough to be continually at each other’s throats.

Just as human hunters chose to be accompanied by domesticated, tame, submissive wolves (dogs), so human wolves chose to be accompanied by domesticated, tame, submissive human dogs i.e. ordinary people who follow the path of least resistance and want a life of trivial pleasures. Nietzsche called these tame and timed people “last men” and Dante labelled them the “Ignavi”: anonymous and non-committal, refusing to fight until they see which way the wind is blowing.

This is our world, the world of wolves and dogs. WAGs are the ultimate dogs. Their entire purpose is to snare a rich sportsman and then parasitically live a life of luxury using his money. If every pet dog died tomorrow, it would have zero effect on the world since they do not exist within the natural order. They’re not part of the food chain – they get their food out of a can provided by a human master. Humans removed dogs from nature. They are artificial creatures, bred by dog-lovers to be companions for dog-lovers (who invariably dislike humanity, hence why they choose and prefer to spend so much time with non-humans). Most human beings are “dogs”. Women and slaves have been treated like dogs throughout history. The aristocracy has treated the working class like dogs. Consider working in a modern office. Who but a human dog could bear to exist in that servile, domesticated, tame environment where you have to obey ridiculously inept managers and infinitely greedy bosses?

Scott Adams, author of the comic strip Dilbert, said that his “greatest creative output was during my corporate years, when every meeting felt like a play date with coma patients.” Isn’t that the truth of it? Offices sedate people. Workers are killed by stultifying corporate stasis. Offices and corporations eliminate creativity, and uncreative people are economically unproductive people. If we want to transform people and unleash their creativity, we have to destroy the bureaucratic and corporate world.

Capitalism is often called a dog-eat-dog ideology but it’s actually a wolf-eats-dog system. The capitalist bosses are wolves, devouring the workers. The workers go along with being eaten alive because they’re so tame and frightened. They’re incapable of fighting back. They were selected for their jobs precisely because they had no fight in them. A troublemaker in an office is swiftly fired. In other words, the only people who can function in offices are those sufficiently tame that they will never cause any trouble.

What is a job interview? It’s a ritual where you prove to the master – the wolf – that you’re tame and harmless. You metaphorically bare your neck to them, the sign, according to ethologist Konrad Lorenz, of submission and appeasement that dogs make to show that they are entirely at the mercy of a stronger dog or wolf. If you snarl at the interviewers, bare your teeth and tell them to fuck off, you definitely won’t get the job, no matter how talented you are. You have deselected yourself by being insufficiently deferential. Your task in this world is to be tame (or “civilised” to use the more common description). You are required to be compliant, subservient and mediocre. In a two-tier society in which the best jobs are reserved for the privileged elite, your task is to know your place, not to aim too high, to accept that the best things are never coming your way: you will never eat at the top table and you must live with it.

Nietzsche, the genius who could sniff any scent of submissiveness and tameness at a thousand paces, said, “The problem I raise here is not what ought to replace mankind in the sequence of species (-man is an end-): but what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life, the most secure guarantee of the future. “This more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but always as a lucky accident, as an exception, never as willed. He has rather been the most feared; he has hitherto been virtually the thing to be feared-and out of fear the reverse type has been willed, bred and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick animal man-the Christian…”

Christianity (“Turn the other cheek”; “Love your enemy”), Islam (which means “submission”) and Judaism (with its 600+ rules to be obeyed) are the ultimate domestic, tame, herd-like, sick religions. The followers of these religions are not people but SHEEPLE. What was the point of the tale of Abraham? – a wolf (Jehovah) told a dog (Abraham) to kill his son. If Abraham were any kind of wolf, he would have told Jehovah to fuck off in no uncertain terms. But the whole point of the exercise was for Abraham to be shown his place: that of the person who would obey no matter what. If he resisted, Jehovah would destroy him. To survive, Abraham had to do whatever the wolf commanded. That’s all that Abrahamism is – a religion for dogs who want to slavishly obey the ultimate wolf. It wouldn’t occur to these non-people to challenge their wolf. The thought is unthinkable to them. It’s not part of their nature. They have been bred to be slaves.

At the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis said “they were only obeying orders” and they were genuinely baffled that anyone could think they had done anything wrong. These Nazis were dogs obeying their wolf (Hitler). The idea of disobeying their wolf simply did not compute, just as no Abrahamist ever thinks that they should tell their “God” to go fuck himself. They are petrified of the consequences. Dogs OBEY. That’s what a dog is – an obeying creature. How could they possibly be condemned for doing exactly what their nature dictates? Would you criticise a shark or lion for killing animals? That’s what sharks and lions DO. That’s their nature. So why were the Nazi “dogs” told that they had done anything wrong? They hadn’t at all. They did what all dogs do – obeyed their master. If you wouldn’t punish a shark, why would you punish a dog?

Nietzsche’s quotation raises one of the ultimate questions – what type of human being should we breed? We will never escape from the master-slave dialectic until we stop breeding human dogs. Nietzsche demanded the revaluation of all values and one of the central questions that needs to be addressed is the value of servile, tame, doglike human beings. Their function is to obey the wolf masters, but if we create a meritocracy and there are no more wolf masters then the dogs become redundant. They need to become HUMAN BEINGS. Dog religions such as Islam – where Allah is the master and all Muslims are his mindlessly obedient dogs – must be outlawed.

We must escape once and for all from dog culture, from tame, domesticated, servile human beings who have no dignity and who allow themselves to be prey for wolves. To overthrow capitalism, we must overthrow the capitalist wolves, drive them away and never let them come back. NO MORE HUMAN DOGS. No dog economic systems, no dog religions, no dog philosophies, no dog political systems (of which democracy is the most obvious example).

It’s time to breed a new type of humanity and, once again, it was Nietzsche who provided the perfect definition: “We want to become those who we are – the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves!” Humans should be strong, autonomous, self-sufficient, independent, rational, creative, assertive, ambitious, adventurous, bold, disciplined, cognizant of the value of community, noble, honourable, trustworthy, unintimidated, free, magnificent and full of endeavour. They should never be docile, flocklike, herdlike, packlike, submissive, tame, timid, domesticated, sedated, frightened, irrational, superstitious and prone to “faith”. We have to deselect these traits from the human condition if we are to create a Community of Gods; a Society of the Divine.
__________

2/7