Dacia Iluministă

Scotsman J. M. Barrie is famous for being the author of Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up, but he ought to be much more famous for his play The Admirable Crichton, one of the most subversive works ever written and greatly admired by the Illuminati. Crichton is a butler to a British Lord. When the Lord and his rich family and friends go on a sailing expedition, their ship is wrecked and they are stranded on a deserted island far from any major trading routes. The chance of rescue seems remote. At first, the Lord is in charge of the group, but it soon becomes apparent that neither he nor any of the other toffs have any clue how to do anything. Only Crichton has any practical skills and he now becomes the undisputed leader and the rest refer to him as “the Guv” (the Governor, the Boss). Crichton is in his element and completely dominant. He has shown himself to be the natural leader and by far the most meritorious in this natural environment where privilege counts for nothing.

Crichton creates a thriving island community where everyone is happy. The Lord’s daughter falls in love with him, even though she is engaged to another Lord back in England. Just as they are about to be married, a rescue ship appears. “Civilisation” has returned. Instantly, Crichton is reduced to a butler once more and his wedding is off forever. Back home, one of the toffs is hailed as a hero on the basis of a false account he gave of events on the island in which he and the Lord share the honours for all that was accomplished, and Crichton is written out of the history. The presence of Crichton is now utterly embarrassing and everyone feels awkward in his presence. His role on the island is never discussed. The Lord’s daughter marries her fiancé; what happened between her and Crichton on the island is a taboo subject. The play ends with Crichton announcing that he will be leaving, to everyone else’s great relief.

This play shows how fake and damaging privilege is, and how it’s the absolute enemy of merit and capability. Privilege is a system of signs, symbols and coded relations that construct a false reality. The whole point of privilege is to ensure that the truth is never allowed to show its face. In The Admirable Crichton, only the disaster of the shipwreck allows the natural, truthful order to be established. As soon as “civilisation” intervenes, the fake order of privilege is resurrected. Crichton is immediately made a nobody again. An extremely capable man must go through life as the servant of fools. That’s the story of our world thanks to the great evil of privilege. Note that everyone has a first name other than Crichton. He’s a second-class citizen in a two-tier society. He might as well be given a number rather than a name. He is the symbol of all talented people who are victims of the pernicious system of privilege.

We will never have a just, fair and meritorious world until privilege is crushed. It cannot be stressed enough that the end of privilege is the prerequisite for a New World Order, and The Admirable Crichton provides a graphic depiction of why it’s so necessary. People must be judged on their real talents not on their status and connections. The Old World Order’s creed of “It’s who you know that counts” must be destroyed. In the system of privilege, your worth is judged by your postcode or zip code (i.e. whether you’re from somewhere nice and privileged or from some vile ghetto) and your “name” (i.e. whether you have the name of a good, well-connected, privileged family or you’re from the “great unwashed”, with no social standing).
__________

Direct Democracy:

Someone wrote to us to advocate “direct democracy”. We should emphasize that direct democracy has no connection at all with meritocracy. Our correspondent wrote, “My problem is with just a few taking decisions that affect the lives of everyone.” This is the typical attack by democrats on meritocracy. Meritocracy wants all decisions to be taken by a few – providing the few are manifestly the most talented and smartest people in the world. Whatever flavour of democracy anyone promotes, whether representative or direct, it will always lead to the “tyranny of the majority”, populism, and lowest common denominator thinking – and it will never raise the quality of humanity. We rise via our best minds, not by pandering to what shoppers, junk TV addicts and video gamers think is right. The direct democracy agenda is wholly opposed to ours.

Our correspondent wrote, “As by that idea, we should allow only God to take the decisions.” That’s exactly right – we should trust in those who are humanity’s closest approximation to God, and let them raise up the rest of us, just as the ideas of the greatest scientists raise up the living conditions of all human beings. Where would we be without our scientific geniuses – and in what way did “direct democracy” contribute to their work? NOT AT ALL. Science would be a joke if it were subjected to democratic principles. We would still believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

We aim to apply the scientific model – the most successful undertaking in human history – to politics. Direct democrats, on the other hand, want to have politics handed over to the ill-educated, ill-informed and ignorant. Frankly, such people have no sympathy at all with our views, and seem a hair’s breadth away from being members of the Tea Party. Their comments show that they have absolute contempt for the concept of meritocracy and their “solution” to the world’s ills is simply to hand over voting to the people themselves rather than to the elected representatives of the people. Direct democracy is an example of what we call “Protestant” thinking i.e. the ideology which proclaims that each person knows best and fuck the experts. We, on the other hand, side with the authentic experts (such as the scientists) and reject any idea that badly educated people can improve the world. Go to Africa if you want to see how backward a badly educated Continent is. Direct democracy would turn the whole world into Africa. Direct democracy is designed to undermine expertise and make the ordinary person think they know better than the most highly qualified individuals.

It’s an extraordinary thing that direct democrats should find any commonality between our position and theirs. There’s none. They’re the opposites. We are meritocrats while they are those who want to find a “better implementation” of democracy via getting decision-making closer to the voter. Imagine a whole world of Muslims voting – that’s what their system would be like. A CATASTROPHE. Meritocracy proclaims that everyone is improved by having the smartest people running the world. It’s not improved at all by giving each person equal power. A world of seven billion Muslims exercising direct democracy would never progress. They would keep voting to enact Koranic laws; there would be no rational Enlightenment or possibility of such an Enlightenment. All progressive measures would be voted down because they would be judged anti-Koranic. Meritocracy, on the other hand, supports the freethinkers, the thinkers who are way ahead of everyone else. Meritocracy leads to dynamism, radicalism and rapid progress based on genuine expertise.

Direct democrats ought to read An Enemy of the People by Ibsen – “The minority is always right.”
__________

The Family – the Natural Enemy of the State:

THE INTRACTABLE PROBLEM of political philosophy, so deep-seated that many political philosophers have avoided any consideration of it, is the unbridgeable gap between the basic functional unit of the state (the family) and the State itself. The aim of the State, most people would agree, is to serve the interests of all of its citizens – to treat them as fairly and equally as possible, to show no favouritism, and to do what is best for the population as a whole. The family, on the other hand, seeks to always serve the interests of its own members, to show blatant favouritism towards those members, to try to secure the best possible treatment for itself (and screw everyone else).

So, the State’s functional unit (the family) and the State itself are mutually incompatible. The British Conservative Party (the “Tories”) seeks to minimise the State and maximise the self-interested behaviour of families (all well and good for the successful families from which the Tories garner most of their support). The “old” British Labour Party, the traditional opponents of the Tories, sought to redistribute wealth and generate a more equitable society. The State, under Old Labour, was quite willing to dictate to the family. “New” Labour, the modernised Labour Party, has abandoned the historical Labour project and is now just an alternative Tory Party (with practically identical policies and outlook on life).

No State can ever be successful until it resolves the tension between family and State. The Meritocratic State is the solution, providing the family buys into the concept of merit – that it’s ultimately in everyone’s best interests, including the family’s – for everyone to promote the interests of the most meritorious individuals in society, regardless of from which families and backgrounds they come.
__________

The Family – Dog Eat Dog:

When British Prime Minister David Cameron exhorts families to do their best for their children, what does he mean? What does he really mean? In a world of limited resources, anything that one person has is denied to another. There is cut-throat competition for the best jobs, houses, partners, schools, medical treatment and so on. Who sponsors this dog-eat-dog world? Why, families, of course. When you do the best for your family, you are ensuring that another family fails in this zero sum game. You win: they lose. It’s as simple as that. As Gore Vidal said, “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.” That is the motto of the average family. To do the best for your children is to do your worst for someone else’s. People should bear that in mind next time they hear one of Cameron’s family homilies. Do you really want to live in a society where other families are actively out to harm yours, to metaphorically slit your throat so that their children can prosper at the expense of yours?

Families should be doing what is best for the State, and that will also be precisely what is best for the family, assuming that the most meritorious individuals run the State: the best people the State has to offer. A simple question arises. What is the best conceivable State? Some might take the anarchists’ stance and claim that we shouldn’t have States at all, but anarchists run don’t run any country on earth. We all live in States, and therefore we have to return to the question. Can any State be better than the one run by its best people? Is it better for a State to be run by its richest citizens, or its poorest, or its most average? Quite simply, if the best people do not govern the State then it cannot be the best State. The rich would run the State to enhance their own wealth, and to hell with the poor. The poor wouldn’t have a clue how to run a State. As for the most average, what do they know about anything except how to infect the State with mediocrity? Their motto, that of cowards and sheep, is: “It is better to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.” (John Maynard Keynes).

We’re crying out for those who know how to succeed unconventionally: the leaders of men, the best of humanity.
__________

Community, an Alternative to the Nuclear Family:

When a family fails, society often pays the penalty. The children are likely to end up poorly educated, with mental health issues, low self-esteem and behavioural difficulties. They frequently become unemployable and prison fodder. Society pays out vast amounts on benefits to single parent families. Those children from disadvantaged homes who end up in State care usually have negative life outcomes.

The usual “solution” proposed by politicians (especially Tories), is to promote “family values”, and to try to provide incentives to prop up the family via special treatment, including tax breaks. This, of course, is a ludicrous attempt to defend a failing and outmoded institution. The age of the family is coming to an end. Family life is incompatible with the modern era. With so many choices available, with religious and social prohibitions regarding “alternative” lifestyles no longer taken seriously, with women increasingly financially independent, all the main pillars that supported the nuclear family are collapsing. Nothing can be done to rebuild them. The way forward is to find a replacement for the family. The obvious choice is the community: groups of fifty to a hundred like-minded people with mutual respect for each other, a great deal in common, a desire to help each other – to provide friendship, companionship, and a secure, loving, nurturing, supportive environment for every member of the community.

The Israeli Kibbutz provides a plausible starting point for the communal family model. Social isolation, millions living on their own, millions of struggling one-parent families, millions of conventional families doing their utmost to protect their own selfish interests, is the shape of the modern world. The community model would revolutionise every country and help solve many of our most glaring social ills.
__________

Marriage:

Marriage will be an endangered institution in a meritocratic society. The emphasis switches away from couples, families and groups to the individual: the new functional unit of the state (within a community setting). Marriage would then become simply a private arrangement between individuals. It wouldn’t be acknowledged by the State, and certainly wouldn’t attract any tax privileges or preferential treatment. The State must define itself as an entity populated by citizens, not by couples and families. The State should feel no compunction about removing children, or even adults, from unhealthy family environments. The individual’s interests are paramount. The State has a duty to the individual, and none to the institution of marriage. The State cannot stand by and let families raise children badly so that they become a liability to the State.

The underclass exists precisely because the State adopts a hands-off approach to the family and lets it churn out poorly educated, disruptive, unemployable individuals, sure to be a constant drain on the resources of the State. The State should apologise to those individuals for allowing their parents to ruin their lives, and should take all necessary measures to stop any more children being damaged in this way.
__________

Religion, the Worst Form of Child Abuse?:

Just as the family is fundamentally at odds with the State (since it seeks to put its own interests above those of the State), so is religion. Religion aims to promote its own inflexible agenda, which is not that of the State (unless the State happens to be a theocracy such as Iran).

There are religious communities in Britain in which children are compelled to wear a certain style of clothes, eat certain foods and avoid others, shun children who do not belong to their religion, go to their own segregated schools, be taught material that is entirely contrary to science, and so on. They end up dysfunctional relative to the State and their neighbours. They are frequently hostile to the State, and resent and oppose any State interference. They are isolationist, anti-social, intolerant. Children brought up in these communities are marked for life. They will never recover from their upbringing. What right do parents have to destroy their children’s lives in the name of their personal religious beliefs? This is child abuse of the very worst kind: denying a child any realistic hope of living according to the child’s own values and desires. To strip those from a child is to metaphorically strip the child of its very life. And children brought up in this way almost never make a positive contribution to the State. Why does the State tolerate it? The State cannot make any progress while its efforts are being sabotaged by these two most insidious fifth columns: family and religion. Often, the very people who lead the State are family-oriented and profess strong religious beliefs. Is it any wonder the State doesn’t work?

The State must assert its authority if it is ever to achieve the sort of society it wishes to build. It cannot succeed if it allows factions within the state to pursue separate and opposed agendas. In the immortal words of Rousseau, people should be “forced to be free”. This phrase often shocks people, but in fact it’s the only game in town. Religious parents who brainwash their children are forcing them “to be free” (in their conception of freedom). Families raising their children in non-State-sanctioned ways are also forcing them to be “free” (again, according to their peculiar values). Why should they be allowed to do it and the State denied the same right when it’s the State that will have to pick up the pieces when things go wrong?

Only the State can impose the uniform “playing field” that’s required to allow meritocracy to flourish. Only the State has the right to force anyone to be free. It has the right for the simple reason that it, and only it, seeks to promote the interests of all of its citizens. Families give their own interests paramount importance, regardless of the needs and merits of other families. Religions give their own beliefs paramount importance, even though they are usually entirely at odds with the beliefs of everyone else. To allow families and religions to dictate how children should be brought up amounts to a form of State suicide. People who are not supportive of the State cannot conceivably make a positive contribution to it, so ought to be excluded from it. It’s time for the State to draw up a formal social contract. You sign up or you don’t, as you see fit. If you don’t, you must leave the State because you have forfeited your right to be there. You are outwith the contractual agreement between the State and its citizens.
__________

The Benefits of the State over the Family:

Imagine I could offer you the choice between having your life irrevocably molded by two average office workers or by hundreds of elite individuals with breath-taking talents. In the first case, of course, I’m referring to a typical family upbringing; in the second, the sort of upbringing a Meritocratic State could offer. Parents, on the whole, aren’t greatly educated. They haven’t, for one thing, attended classes on optimal strategies for raising children. Disgruntled football fans like to chant, “You don’t know what you’re doing,” if they think their team’s manager isn’t up to the job. Shouldn’t the State chant the same thing at many parents? Parents, in a host of cases, are a catastrophe for their offspring. It actually amounts to State-sanctioned child abuse to allow such people to bring up children. And, in the end, it’s the State that’s forced to pick up the bill via crime, prisons, police, the welfare state, social workers, care homes, the judiciary, low productivity etc. Why bother with all of these costs of failure, when we could simply address the root cause and take children away from inept parents who don’t know or care what they’re doing?

The State can call on the skills of millions of remarkable individuals. It has at its disposal brilliant scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, engineers, economists, teachers, academics, psychologists, sociologists, surgeons, consultants, GPs, nurses, carers, artists, charismatic youth workers, child experts etc. It can use this vast pool of skill to bring children up in the best possible way – as creative, constructive, inspiring individuals who can make a full and dazzling contribution to the State. Why should children instead be condemned to the dreary boxed environment provided by the average family; to be raised by two untalented, bored and boring adults known as parents? It’s crazy. The Meritocratic State would prefer to send the vast majority of children to boarding schools, where they can escape the parental environment. Parents will have the burden of raising children removed from them, will have much more time to themselves (much more time to develop themselves?), and can be proud that they’re doing the best possible thing for their children by turning them over to the experts.

Parents, it has to be admitted, have one vital function that the State can never hope to perform. Parents love their children in a way no one else could. This element has to be protected as far as possible, so children will be encouraged to spend as much time as possible with their families outside term time. They will have the best of both worlds: quality time, quality love with their families during the vacations, and a quality meritocratic education at boarding school away from their families during term time. The perfect formula. If we could identify the “most average” family in any country (the median family) then half of the country’s families would be above this average, and half below. Now, if the “most average” family were affluent, cultured, highly intelligent, disciplined, hardworking, then even the below average families might be of high calibre. However, if the “most average” family is in fact poorly educated, ignorant of culture, obsessed with property prices and having multiple cars, dismissive of intellectuals, keen to binge drink at the weekend, keen watchers of soap operas and dumbed-down TV in general, greedy consumers of junk food, eager shoppers etc, then what on earth might the below average families be like, especially those near the bottom of the range – the underclass?

A simple question – in the present-day world, does the “most average” family resemble the former or the latter? Can anyone be in any doubt about the answer?
__________

Ants and the Elderly – Abolish Retirement:

In the ant world, it’s an observed phenomenon that ants take more risks the older they get. Why isn’t it the same in the human world? We should forget cosy retirement. There should be no pensions. The old should take more risks, not fewer. We have an increasingly ageing society. Great! All forms of discrimination against the elderly should be savagely penalised. People should work – and play – until failing health makes it impossible. It’s not as though office jobs justify a long retirement in any case. Maybe coal miners deserved and needed a long retirement, but certainly not office workers. And who wants to retire anyway? It’s one foot in the grave for most people.
__________

Devil’s Advocate Department:

A Government should at all times seek to challenge its own decisions. If it can address the objections of its sternest critics, its policies are more likely to be successful. The Government should actively seek out talented “awkward squad” individuals to question Government policies. The “Devil’s Advocate” Department will be composed of philosophers, scientists, psychologists and mathematicians, with the specific remit of identifying flaws and inconsistencies in Government policies, and likely unintended consequences. As with scientific theories, policies become more robust the more they are challenged and subsequently refined. Far from being “negative”, doubts, suspicions, challenges, and attempts to refute are all positive activities that should be encouraged.
__________

The House of Commons or the House of Extraverts?:

If you want to be a British MP, what are the requirements? Well, you almost certainly have to belong to an established political party. So, freethinking, independently minded individuals can forget it. No outsiders, thank you very much: the in-crowd only. You will have to be chosen by the selection committee of your constituency party. So, you require the talent of getting on well with tedious, local bureaucrats. No “don’t suffer fools gladly” types, I’m afraid – those who’d have nothing but contempt for petty politickers. To impress the selection committee you will have to be respectable, with a good job. You should have gone to a nice school and a good university. You’re likely to be married with a family. In other words, all interesting people, anyone who hasn’t played “the game”, anyone who resists convention, can put away their application form. Oh, and you probably have to be not too young and not too old, preferably quite presentable, probably not handicapped. You’ll be superficially charming. You won’t be outspoken or have any radical opinions. Mustn’t upset Mr and Mrs Average, must we? In fact, you should really be as similar to them as possible, but just a touch better.

If you clear all of these hurdles, what then? Well, you can start campaigning for election to the House of Commons. And to succeed at that you have to be a competent public speaker – but not too good because then you’d be unusual. You have to be happy to shake hands, kiss babies, visit hospitals, have your picture taken with the disabled, and have a nice cuppa with the elderly. You must be a “people person”. To sum it up: you have to be an extrovert. The entire process by which MPs end up in the House of Commons is a textbook case of how to strip out anyone different, anyone unconventional, and anyone too talented. Above all, it’s practically impossible for introverts to become MPs. What sort of political system is it that proclaims how fair and accessible it is, yet ruthlessly prevents many of its most meritorious citizens from having any reasonable chance of being elected?

Want to be an MP? Introverts need not apply. Geniuses need not apply. Heretics, hermits, visionaries, revolutionaries, misanthropes – don’t even think about it. Perhaps the House of Commons should be renamed the House of the Commonplace, the House of the Trivial, the House of the Bland and the Banal. Above all, the House of Extraverts. But one day, hopefully soon, it will be the House of Merit.

“Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” –Shelley

“An army without culture is a dull-witted army, and a dull-witted army cannot defeat the enemy.” –Mao Zedong
__________

Shopping:

Napoleon once said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers. These days, he’d describe it as a nation of shoppers. Our purpose in life, it seems, is to shop. Our education system churns out fresh, eager shoppers, keenly receptive to the latest advertising. Our status is determined by how much we can spend when we go to the shops. Permanent window-shoppers are the lowest of the low. Parliament exists to frame the laws in which we can maximise our shopping. The City handles the finances of our shopping trips. Can’t afford it? – no worries – here’s loads of credit. You can’t afford that either, but who cares? Just keep spending, for God’s sake. The economy will collapse if you don’t. It’s your duty to shop. Shopping – the categorical imperative, the basis of our modern morality. Why not replace humans with androids? They could shop 24/7; perfect shopping machines that don’t have to take any breaks. Commercial Britain – a nation with a clockwork heart. The nation’s soul, such as it was, has expired. Can we resurrect Britain? Can Commercial Britain be replaced by Cultural Britain, dedicated to art, science, knowledge, architecture, ideas, creativity, experimentation, adventure, beauty, and aesthetics?

The Meritocracy Party seeks to bring together the entire cultural community of the UK: scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, psychologists, academics, designers, artists, architects, writers – and to promote the idea that a society without culture is a desert. Can the cultural community of the UK become a power block to influence Government policy? Would the Government have any credibility if the cultural community opposed it? Imagine a Government unsupported by a single intellectual. Is such a Government possible? Wouldn’t it be a laughing stock? There’s a bigger question – would a nation based on culture rather than commerce be more successful, more intelligent, more prosperous, freer, happier, healthier, more soulful? Would crime rates plummet? Could we practically scrap the Welfare State? Would our town and cities be architectural wonders, our schools the envy of the world? Culture beats commerce hands down. So what’s stopping us?
__________

The Death of Art:

Damien Hirst, one of the richest artists in the world, made a life-size platinum skull encrusted with 8,601 fine diamonds. The sculpture was entitled For The Love of God and it sold for £50m, making it one of the priciest contemporary artworks ever made. An art gallery sold several limited edition silkscreen prints of the work, one of which was sprinkled with diamond dust. What does it represent, this diamond skull that cost £14m to make (funded by a commercial consortium of businessmen) and made a £36m profit for the consortium? Death by bling, the extermination of culture by celebrity, the elevation of commercialism to the supreme aim of art. When businessmen become artists, there is no art.

Russian writer Evgenii Zamiatin said, “There can be a real literature only when it is produced by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers and sceptics and not by patient and well-meaning officials.” What would Zamiatin have thought of art being run by business consortia with the sole aim of generating a tidy profit? Art or capitalist consumerism? Is there any difference now? Where are the madmen, hermits and heretics?

Capitalist Consumerism is associated with Vulgarity, the Lowest Common Denominator, Dumbing Down, Celebrity Culture, 24/7 Shopping, Materialism, Tabloid Newspapers, Tittle Tattle, Malicious Gossip, Prurience, Reality TV, Soap Operas, Anti-Intellectualism, Illusion, Delusion, and Lies.

Meritocracy is associated with Intelligence, Talent, Quality, Refinement, the Elevation of the Human Spirit, the Higher-self, Good Taste, Nobility, Honour, Integrity, and Truth.

So, which side are you on?
__________

6/7

“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” –George Orwell

Human dogs have proved ideal for brainwashing, for conditioning, training, being made to perform tricks for their masters. They internalise all of the values of the ruling elite and obediently carry them out to the letter. They are, as Orwell says, not even conscious of how orthodox they are. To be conscious of it would be to be capable of challenging it, and that is one thing the dogs never do. The Islamic dogs would never dream of questioning the Koran or Mohammed. It is simply unthinkable. Consciousness is the biggest threat to dog religions. If the dogs ever became conscious, they would start to reflect on whether their beliefs are rational. So, the wolves that prey on them ensure they never become conscious. They keep them permanently on their knees in prayer; they insist that they memorise the whole Koran (a Muslim who succeeds in this task is called a hafiz); they demonise infidels and apostates, and they issue non-stop threats of eternal hellfire. The terror machine never rests for a moment.

The aim of the Illuminati is to bring about a quantum leap in evolution whereby the human dogs finally become conscious. Just as the time of the wolves must come to an end, so must that of the dogs.
__________

It’s a Dog eats Man world:

Indonesia is a country where people traditionally eat dogs. It was reported that seven Indonesian dogs, starved of food while their owner was on holiday for two weeks, ate him when he returned home. His luggage was lined up outside his front door and was noticed by a neighbourhood guard who raised the alarm. “His skull was found in the kitchen, and his body was found in the front of his house,” the local police chief said. “We suspect that the dogs were hungry, so they attacked Andre, because they had not been fed for fourteen days.” Police also found bones of two other dogs, believed to have been killed and eaten by the others. So, is it a dog eat dog, dog eat man or man eat dog world?

Here are some comments that were posted on the internet about this story:

Dude it’s your fault for not feeding your dogs… that’s why they ate you.

What goes around comes around!!

This is what we call Animal Rights.

Good one, dogs.

Sounds a bit like a Shaggy Dog Story to me.

Some folks here are clearly more enamoured of dogs than a human life.

HaHaHa..Finally something worth reading. Poor dogs, but job well done!..F@#$%*G IDIOT!!!

This is called KARMA! He has paid for what he has done!

HA HA makes a change for the dogs to eat the human – bast**d got what he deserved!

Just want to say, all the comments about how a human life is greater than a dog’s are a joke. We are all animals, and therefore we are all equal.

Well done, dogs – justice is served!

Divine justice.

Good for the dogs. If only they’d known that eating his bones as well would give them a nice treat of bone marrow. Shame for the two eaten dogs. He deserved to be eaten three times if it were possible. Can only hope it was slow and painful.

Poor dogs. What is it with these people thinking it’s ok to starve and mistreat animals? This story makes me so sad and angry at the world. The man was clearly a disgusting human being and deserved what he got quite frankly. Rot in hell.

So pleased they ate him.

Best story of justice for animal cruelty I have ever read!!!! Poor dogs. Just makes me want to protect mine even more.

******

The vast majority of opinions expressed by online contributors asserted that it was “justice” for a human being to be eaten alive by dogs, and that he was going to hell. Most of the comments were by women, and most were presumably dog owners. We now live in a world where human life is less important than pet life. What a totally fucked world. As someone commented, “I just sat here and read most of these comments and I can’t believe people think that it’s ok or even agree with dogs eating a human being. I can truly say this world is unreal. Never would have thought people would think the way that they do. Don’t get me wrong, I love animals – but what if that was a baby that was killed by the dogs?”
__________

Chemical Wolves and Dogs:

The debate about wolves and dogs can be analysed scientifically in terms of three chemicals: testosterone, oestrogen and oxytocin. Testosterone is the wolf chemical and oestrogen the dog molecule. Oestrogen tames while testosterone increases aggression. What of oxytocin? It reinforces bonds between people, especially mothers and babies during breastfeeding. It’s also released during sexual orgasm in both men and women and helps to create healthy interpersonal relationships and strong emotional bonds.

Oxytocin has been called the “Moral Molecule” since it binds people and makes them much less likely to harm each other. Those with deficient oxytocin release are often psychopathic. They have no ability to bond with other; no sympathy. Oxytocin could be called the “Jesus Drug” if we charitably describe Jesus Christ as someone genuinely in favour of the Golden Rule of “Do as you would be done by.” Oxytocin makes that an actual possibility. Wolves become attached to their dogs, and vice versa, thanks to oxytocin. Oxytocin stops wolves from being psychopaths and slaughtering all of the dogs. So, human life is simply a continual interplay between aggression (immorality) mediated by testosterone, domestication (civilisation) mediated by oestrogen and bonding (morality) mediated by oxytocin.

Capitalism is a testosterone ideology and communism an oxytocin ideology (in principle). Fascism is excessively testosterone driven but also invokes a tremendous oxytocin bond between the people and their leader. Religious messiahs create immense oxytocin bonding, backed up by testosterone threats. The Stockholm syndrome whereby hostages become emotionally bonded to their captors largely sums up the way our world functions. Rationally, people should despise the rich elite, but the elite’s relentless media propaganda and brainwashing succeeds in creating a powerful bond and dependency, underpinned by implicit threats.
__________

Christianity = Love?:

“JW” sent us a message saying:

Now I understand your teachings after reading The Armageddon Conspiracy. It’s almost incomprehensible, but I understand why. I must say I am having a battle inside between two completely different ideals. One being Gnostic and the other Christian. I understand that love is the strongest boundary for us as humans, because when love is taken we get pain. I don’t know if in this life I can defeat love, because love is me. Everything I live for is in regards of love. I’ve never shown hatred to another soul in my life, and with what you say, until I do not have love, my chains are intact.

Our Reply:

Christianity has nothing at all to do with love, as its history has shown all too clearly. Christianity is about mindless obedience to Jesus Christ – and if you haven’t understood that yet, you haven’t understood anything at all. Why would a God of “Love” send people to hell? It’s a fundamental contradiction in terms. Why would a God of Love claim that if people don’t believe in him then they are damned? Why would a God of Love order a father to murder his son?

It sounds as if you are an extremely brainwashed individual.

Gnosticism is about knowledge and reason and if you want a world of people doing no harm to others, it is reason, not love that will achieve the goal. The propaganda regarding love is mind-bogglingly dumb. Every torturer, maniac, extremist and fanatic loves something or someone. Love is therefore the answer to nothing at all. Only rational conduct will save humanity.

If you haven’t used your reason to see through the endless lies of Christianity then you are in deep trouble. Reason, not abandoning love, frees you from chains. Love has nothing to do with the matter in hand. Why don’t you refer to reason in the same terms that you refer to love? Then you will at last free yourself. Otherwise, you will remain a permanent slave of delusion.
__________

Narrative Theory:

“Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” –George Orwell

“But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence… illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.” –Feuerbach, Preface to the second edition of The Essence of Christianity

THE HUMAN MIND is designed to perceive causality everywhere. Imagine a world in which human minds were oblivious to causality. It would seem as if things happened without any reason. Everything would be random and we would be permanently surprised. We’d never anticipate anything since we’d never be thinking, “Aha, A will cause B to happen.” The world would be quite literally inexplicable and bewildering, like a permanent LSD trip where space and time perception had disintegrated. So, it’s essential for human minds to be inherently designed around causality – we must look for it everywhere and apply it all times. Only then can we make constant sense of the world.

However, there’s a catastrophic problem. We can’t see causality. We can’t observe it in any way. What happens is that various observable things take place and then we apply causality to what we have witnessed. Causality is an inference, an interpretation of events. Unfortunately, like all interpretations, it can be wrong. Human history is the history of illusory causality, of making up absurd reasons for why B followed from A.

The earliest human beings said that spirits and gods caused things. They said that the whole universe was full of conscious minds that caused the world to operate as it did. The god of wind caused storms because he was angry with someone. The god of the sea caused tidal waves to punish someone who had failed to make a sacrifice to him. Zeus hurled lightning bolts when he was angry. Vikings claimed that thunder and lightning were created when Thor’s mighty hammer struck something, the blow generating sparks (lightning) and a booming sound (thunder). All of the myths and legends of ancient times explained all the phenomena of the world according to the actions of a huge cast of unseen higher powers. People had no concept of the laws of physics or nature, but that didn’t prevent them from detecting causality everywhere.

The monotheists got rid of all the competing gods and had just one, who created everything, designed everything and made everything work as it did. Even to this day, many monotheists think that anything that happens is literally the “will of God” i.e. he personally made it happen. Nothing happens by accident or according to random factors or through natural law: God explicitly intervenes in his Creation. There are two ways in which the human mind applies causality – via Mythos or Logos thinking. Mythos thinking is what we’ve just mentioned – making up stories and myths about what causes things. Its opposite is Logos thinking – using reason, logic, science, mathematics and philosophy to explain why things happen as they do.

In ancient times, Logos thinking was almost as crude as Mythos thinking since there was no established system of science, mathematics and philosophy to apply. The Logos thinkers had to grope their way towards plausible theories, and often mixed in Mythos elements. For example, early astronomical theories often invoked gods as the agents responsible for keeping planets in their orbits (which were invariably described as circular because the gods would of course choose perfect circles in which to move). For a long while, Mythos thinking and Logos thinking could happily co-exist. It wasn’t until the rise of modern philosophy and science that the link was finally broken. Logos thinking then became highly objective, logical, and evidence-based. The scientific method was rigorously applied and ruled out all supernatural explanations for phenomena.

Mythos and Logos thinking are now the exact opposite. Any scientist would laugh at the idea that “Allah” caused anything, or that elves, spirits, fairies, ghosts, angels or whatever else had any causal agency. In terms of the human race, only 1% are strict Logos thinkers (the scientists, mathematicians and philosophers), and all the rest are stuck in the world of Mythos – religious thinking, superstition, conspiracy theories and story thinking. Human minds must assign causality and if they can’t think of (or don’t know) a rational Logos reason then they will use a Mythos reason instead, and indeed they will usually prefer a Mythos cause over a Logos cause. So, the vast majority of human beings are continually wrongly interpreting reality by attributing fantasy causality based on primitive stories and beliefs. Most conspiracy theories are built on a fantastic edifice of invented causality.

The essence of Mythos thinking is story telling rather than abstraction. Mythos is all about narrative. The Viking explanation of thunder and lightning is a wonderful narrative. Of course, it has zero connection with the truth, but it offered a FULL and emotionally satisfying explanation of the phenomenon of thunder and lightning as far as the ordinary Viking was considered. Anyone without a scientific understanding of thunder and lightning was forced to come up with some story about it, or it would seem like an unfathomable and deeply disturbing random happening, outside causality. The Vikings also thought that the rainbow was a bridge to heaven.

Other cultures considered it a divine sign, pointing to a glorious new era, or to a pot of gold (!). Human sacrifice was conducted by cultures such as the Aztecs as a deliberate means to appease the gods. They invented a wholly false system of causality based on what signs allegedly showed divine displeasure and what sacrifices were required in response. The witchcraft hysteria of Medieval Europe was another lethal example of an absurd causality being applied to explain natural phenomena. In the present day, most Muslims operate according to an entirely invented causality based on the will of Allah.

We thus reach a profoundly disturbing aspect of the human condition. Human beings are obsessed with causality, but not with truth (although many stupid people think the two are the same thing). Billions of Muslims genuinely believe that a crazy narrative told by a man on a starvation diet meditating in a cave for many weeks without any contact at all with any other human beings was the actual Word of God, transmitted to Mohammed via the Angel Gabriel. Now, in relation to Mohammed’s experience, a Logos thinker would talk about severe disturbances in the brain chemistry of a fasting man leading to hallucinations, or about the vivid fantasies of a lonely man suffering from extreme sensory deprivation. Without stimulation, a human mind creates its own via fantasy and hallucination. Mohammed was a religiously minded man praying in a cave and seeking God, so it was no surprise that his hallucinations should take an extreme religious form.

Others have speculated that his visions were caused by epilepsy, or that he was hearing voices as a result of schizophrenia, or suffering from bipolar disorder and in his manic phase he thought himself God and, in his depressive phase, God’s humblest slave. Julian Jaynes’s theory of the bicameral mind, involving auditory hallucination in the right hemisphere of the brain giving commands to the subservient left hemisphere of the brain, would provide a neat explanation for Mohammed’s experience. Indeed, all sorts of explanations can be advanced, any of which is infinitely more plausible than the one accepted by Muslims. Yet billions are attracted to the most improbable causal explanation. They have based the entire way they conduct their lives on the conclusion that Mohammed was neither mentally ill, nor hallucinating, nor lying, nor deluded. They have staked everything on the belief that God, or the Angel Gabriel to be more exact, spoke in Arab to an illiterate tribesman in a cave in order to communicate with the WHOLE of humanity.

Forget Mohammed, does it seem remotely likely that the Creator of the Universe would be unable to appear in front of his Creations and explain what life’s all about? Why wouldn’t the Creator simply address the human race directly, in all of their languages simultaneously? After all, if he’s going to leave a book with his directions to the human race, why not read it aloud to everyone in their own tongue – then there could be no conceivable doubt. Why would he choose the extraordinary mechanism of communicating via bearded prophets telling incredibly tall tales, and who never had any witnesses for their incredible claims? Why didn’t Jesus Christ announce on the Cross that if everyone turned up at his tomb at 7 am on Sunday, he would roll away the stone and reveal to them that he had returned from the dead? How come there wasn’t a single witness to his resurrection, the most important event in Christianity? Why are there NEVER any witnesses? Does God have something to hide? Such as the fact that he’s a total liar? Jesus Christ went to great trouble to show his wounds to Doubting Thomas to “prove” that he was who he said he was (even though he now resembled a gardener, according to his confidante Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John). The Doubting Thomas episode demonstrates that Christ was cognizant of the need to prove his extraordinary claims, so why didn’t he offer proof on a much grander scale to the whole of humanity?

It’s an astonishing and frightening thing that so many people in our world are so able and willing to believe total nonsense. In fact, they seem to actively seek out nonsense, the more absurd the better. As Hitler realised, the more preposterous the claim, the bigger the lie, the more willing people are to accept it as ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Why? Because people are stupid, ignorant, superstitious, looking for big but simplistic explanations, for emotionally comforting explanations. Above all, they are victims of deadly brainwashing enforced on them by the wolves that prey on them. Mohammed was a wolf, or the instrument of a wolf, because only wolves ever say, “Obey or perish.”

Only a wolf would set up the two fatal equations of Abrahamism:

1) Obey me and you go to heaven = eternal pleasure.

2) Disobey me and you go to hell = eternal pain.

This basic pleasure/pain equation (ultimate carrot/stick) is the most basic form of Pavlovian conditioning. And, really, much of our existence is a simple reflection of elementary but extremely potent conditioning/ brainwashing/ indoctrination. B.F. Skinner’s school of behaviourism and operant conditioning was highly successful for a time because it seemed to chime with the relentless advance of science into all areas, including the workings of the mind. Skinner actually dismissed the existence of mind and consciousness. He thought that “freedom and dignity” were illusory. All that mattered was the application of a stimulus and the resultant behaviour provoked by the stimulus. Both the stimulus (its intensity, duration, composition) and the consequent behaviour were fully scientifically observable, hence psychology could be brought into the realm of hard, objective science with no subjective elements at all. Skinner’s ideas are unfashionable now, but not with the Illuminati. We hold his theories in high regard, even though we fundamentally reject his central thesis regarding the unimportance of mind.

The human race has been subjected to an immense program of operant condition aka brainwashing, indoctrination and mind control. To shatter that brainwashing once and for all, we have to use reverse operant conditioning. We have to make it the ultimate disgrace to be an Abrahamist or capitalist. We have to make people feel physically sick when they contemplate Abrahamism and greedy capitalism. Abrahamism and capitalism will be rendered anathema. It will become the ultimate social stigma to subscribe to Abrahamism and capitalism. Soon enough, no one will have anything to do with these belief systems because it will be socially unacceptable. Just as the leaders of America used relentless Abrahamist and capitalist propaganda to brainwash Americans, so the same tactics will be used to undo the brainwashing. There will be relentless anti-Abrahamist and anti-capitalist propaganda (we are referring here to the extreme form of capitalism that allows a tiny number of people to control most of the assets of the world, not to capitalism per se which can be made socially productive if operated properly).

Ultimately, the aim is to remove all forms of brainwashing and conditioning from the world. Every citizen must be truly free. But to the get to the Promised Land, we have to undo the incredible damage done to the human psyche throughout history, particularly by Abrahamism, the Devil’s chosen religion, and capitalism, his chosen economic system. One objective that must be achieved is a huge advance in Logos thinking. All institutions must reflect Logos rather than Mythos.
__________

Narrative Reality:

Our world is dominated by narrative – by simple stories that provide an equally simplistic analysis of the world we live in. What is a “soundbite”? – it’s an attempt to convert a complex issue into something that can be summed up in a sentence or phrase. This simple sentence or phrase then becomes “reality” and replaces the complex underlying issues. Soundbites create a “sign system” where reality is dissolved in favour of easy-to-remember but completely false (usually) mantras.

What is the sign system of Christianity? What are the Christian soundbites? “Jesus loves you. Jesus saves. Jesus died for your sins. Salvation through Jesus alone. Paradise shall be yours if you believe in Jesus.” This is what the average Christian thinks “Christianity” is. This is the neat little Mythos that encapsulates their worldview. Of course, it’s total bullshit. If you look past the Christian soundbites at the horrific underlying reality of Christianity, you feel sick at the sheer scale of deception involved. But only Logos thinkers go under the surface. Mythos people are surface thinkers; superficial, facile, trivial. They never dive down into the depths of complexity. They don’t have the right diving gear. They would drown in seconds.

Our whole world operates at the surface level. There is no depth to 99% of humanity. Consider advertisements – 30-second narratives designed to manipulate you emotionally into buying a product. Consider politicians – their speeches deliver no analysis. They do nothing but formulate soundbites and turn all the complex issues of government into a simplistic joke. All TV shows tell a narrative. Reality TV creates a narrative. Religious has its infantile parables (narratives). Capitalism declares its narrative soundbites: “Greed is good.”; “Profit is Godly”; “Lunch is for wimps.”; “Work hard and you can achieve the American Dream.” Lawyers use soundbites relentlessly: “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” (O.J. Simpson Trial). Popular songs, movies, Broadway shows, corporate brochures, sports events…they’re all trying to create narratives that can be compressed into catchy, memorable soundbites.

Many people have noticed that movie trailers are often better than the movies themselves, or that the movie was fully explained by the trailer even though it was only a few seconds long. How many movies that looked good in the trailer turned out to be a total yawn? We live in a “trailer” world where the main feature is compressed into a few pseudo-exciting frames, disguising the underlying tedium.

Books for “dummies”; “Learn Quantum Mechanics in 3 Minutes” – yeah, right! The whole world is trying to boil down the essence of everything into a 30-second advert, a six-word soundbite. But the world can’t be reduced to this infantile level. Some things are immensely complex and there’s no getting away from it. Our website is enormously complex. In fact, it’s the most complex website on the planet. We try to simplify it as much as possible, but the fact remains that anyone who wants to understand Illuminism will have to work through two million words. That task is beyond the capabilities of most people.

The leaders of the world want you to stay stuck at the superficial level. They want you to be controlled by a few hot button phrases. How many Americans grew to despise Communism even though they knew absolutely nothing about it? Their rich capitalist ruling elite told them over and over again – “The only good commie is a dead commie.” There were endless scare stories about “reds under the beds”. And yet most average Americas haven’t read even ONE word of Karl Marx. How can you legitimately have a visceral hatred of something you know nothing about it? YOU CAN’T. But of course, you can if you’ve been brainwashed. Christians sneer at the beliefs of Muslims and vice versa and yet what characterises both groups is that neither has ever read a word of the other’s religion (in fact, most people are entirely ignorant of their own religion, never mind that of others). No one could accuse us of ignorance of what others believe. We understand them all too well. Our website provides an analysis of every major system of thought in world history. We detest Abrahamism because we know all about it; not because we are ignorant of it. To hate something for valid reasons you have to know what it is first. Most people just go straight to the hating, bypassing the knowledge part entirely.

There is no aspect of the mainstream world that isn’t in the business of dumbing down everything to lowest common denominator statements that the most retarded people on earth can grasp. Abrahamism is an extreme form of mental retardation. Any intelligent person immediately rejects it as soon as they are old enough to understand it. But most people aren’t intelligent. In fact, they’re stupid. Deep down, most of them believe that God is actually supervising and causing everything. And that’s the dumbest idea in the history of the cosmos. Given the importance of narrative, it’s essential that everyone should be narratively literate. It may sound absurd, but in terms of your day-to-day life, nothing is more important than your understanding of narrative. Given that all information is presented to you in essentially narrative (Mythos) form, shouldn’t you be an expert in narrative?

For this reason, the Illuminati provides all of its members with tuition in creative writing. Here is the list of creative writing books used by the Illuminati:

Save The Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need by Blake Snyder

The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers, 3rd Edition by Christopher Vogler

Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting by Robert McKee

Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting by Syd Field

The Screenwriter’s Problem Solver: How to Recognize, Identify, and Define Screenwriting Problems by Syd Field

Writing the Blockbuster Novel by Albert Zuckerman

The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri

The Anatomy of Story: 22 Steps to Becoming a Master Storyteller by John Truby

A Story Is a Promise: Good Things to Know Before You Write That Screenplay, Novel, or Play by Bill Johnson

These books cover novel writing, plays and screenplays. They analyse such things as structure, character, plot, plot-points, turning points, climaxes, dénouements, protagonists, antagonists, allies, enemies, tricksters, shape shifters, mentors, lovers, gods, anima/animus figures, the shadow, id, egos, superego, raising the tension, building the stakes, making the reader care, empathy, sympathy, motivations, guilty secrets, psychological scarring, inner wounds. In other words, creative writing is applied psychology. Do you hate your boss at work? Do you hate your colleagues? Do you love them? Rather than treat all of the people in your life as real human beings, why not think of them instead as characters in a screenplay? Think of their motivation. What is it that makes them tick? Money? Status? The respect of their colleagues? Self-respect. Are they materialistic or idealistic? What’s their home life like? What are their vulnerabilities? Does anything make them nervous? What’s their secret fear? Can you detect their “inner wound”?

In order for novels, plays and screenplays to work, they must remind you of real people and make you identify with their lives and problems so that you take a vicarious interest in them. They are YOUR proxies in an exciting fictional world. So, the techniques of successful fiction writers are necessarily superb at producing realistic simulacra of people. But, in that case, why can’t the same techniques be applied to REAL people? Just as a novelist analyses the characters of the fictional people who feature in his book and tries to make them as lifelike as possible, so you can do the reverse and analyse the real people in your life as fictional characters.

You will be astonished by how your opinion of people changes when you start to analyse them as fictional characters trying to conceal vulnerabilities and inner wounds. Think of the Pope – why did he choose a celibate life? Think of the Queen of England – is she terrified of a confrontation with a real person who rubbishes everything she stands for and calls a fraud and a phoney? Think of President Obama – is he riven with inner conflict over his white attitudes and how much he has let down the African Americans? All the Zionists and Masons of Wall Street – why are they so obsessed with money and materialism? What inner weakness are they trying to compensate for? Suddenly, all of the masters of the universe seem weak, sad and pathetic. They’re no longer intimidating. They’re just people like everyone else, with neuroses, anxieties, vulnerabilities, inner secrets and wounds, and hence they can easily be overthrown.

In The Millionaires’ Death Club by Mike Hockney, the decision was taken to portray a central character – Zara – as psychologically invulnerable. She is exceptionally beautiful, exceptionally intelligent, exceptionally rich, exceptionally cultured, exceptionally classy and exceptionally confident. That’s how most ordinary people imagine the members of the Old World Order, but of course they’re not like that at all. They certainly love to present themselves in a perfect light, but there are any number of demons lurking behind the facade.

You can make your life much more exciting by treating it as a movie, and by treating all of the real people you meet as fictional characters. Of course, by doing so, you may uncover real truths about them, not fictional ones. Keep your eyes and ears peeled at all times for the narratives that are being continually directed at you by advertisers, politicians, businessmen, economists, bankers, media commentators, popes and pastors – they’re all spinning you a line.

Then there are the conspiracy theorists, the anarchists, the libertarians and so on, all furiously selling their particular spin too. The whole world is being deafened by soundbites and made dizzy by spin-doctors. Storytellers are everywhere, selling you yarns. What is the Bible except a collection of ludicrous tales about ancient Jewish tribesmen wandering around in the desert pretending they are special? Above all, use the narrative theory of life to become your own script doctor. Fix the faulty script. Fix all the elements of your life story that have gone wrong. Become a fictional God and then a real God!
__________

The Movie Theory of Life:

The Last Bling King by Mike Hockney presents the thought experiment of analysing your life as a movie. Would anyone want to see the movie in which you are the star? Or is it the most boring movie of all time?

“DE” sent us the following message:

I found your website the Armageddon Conspiracy most enlightening. I’ve read the Armageddon conspiracy and the Last Bling King. They left me in awe. I was wondering how I could get involved… I mean really involved, to get stuck in. I do not desire to let things slip past. I was quite taken by the movie of your life way of thinking.

In addition, I’ve put up a website (still in beta) in support of meritocracy (link below)http://www.wix.com/gottoaskyourself/whereistherevolution

Our Reply:

Hello DE – great website.

The issue we have at the moment is that of “joiners” versus “self-starters”. If a huge organisation exists then there is something for people to join. It’s easy, for example, for people to join a local Christian Church. But if there is no obvious physical location where people can go, and if members of the organisation they wish to join live far from them, what then? A “joiner” simply shrugs his shoulders and says, “Oh well, I’ll go and join something else.” So, the people who make a profound local difference are the “self-starters” who get something up and running in their local area, to which the “joiners” can then attach themselves. What we are interested in is producing a template for self-starters: a scheme that allows the movers and shakers of the world to go ahead, release their creative energy in their local area, and recruit people.

The “Movie of Your Life” is a concept that would have a lot of resonance with many people. It is of course a powerful way to get people to think about how their life is going. Imagine a “Movie Group” in your area – dedicated to “changing the script”. Our whole world follows a certain script. We all know who the stars are. All the camera shots have them in focus and everyone else is just an unnoticed blur in the background. You’re right that the Made in Chelsea cast would be nowhere if they hadn’t been born into privilege. But they were, and the script of our world is that they will therefore enjoy an easy life. So, it’s up to the rest of us to change the script.

It’s the self-starters who will make the decisive difference. It doesn’t take much for a self-starter to get going. You go into the town centre with a friend and a camcorder. He films you while you’re walking along and you hand out a flyer saying: “Is the movie of your life what you want it to be, or would you fall asleep while you’re watching it, or even walk out and demand a refund? Is it time to change the script? Join the Movie Group. Meet at Bar X at 7.30 on Monday Night.” Back it up with something on Facebook, and off you go. You get a local group together and you start planning activism events, easier said than done, of course – but that’s why self-starters are the people who make the big difference in life.

So, would you define yourself as a joiner or a self-starter?

DE said:

Self-starter! Never been one to mindlessly follow.

My immediate areas are Redditch, Warwick, Stratford and Birmingham, I will definitely work on some leaflets, recruiting a friend shouldn’t prove too difficult, I already have one who is curious about the system and its flaws… I think I would start small, maybe Stratford or Redditch, It’ll probably be within the next month or so. The ideas are already flowing as I type this. I’ll formulate a plan and send it your way. Something that would help is if you gave me some points to bring up during a meeting.

Our Reply:

Excellent. We look forward to receiving your plan.

As for what to discuss at the meeting, here’s the agenda:

Let’s say that that the objective of this movement is to create a brand new movie of the world, much better than the one that is currently on show everywhere across the globe. Let’s call it the Eden Movie. Imagine we could start the world again from scratch, using all the lessons we have learned from the old movie of the world.

1) What political system would we produce if we had a clean slate?

2) What religion?

3) What economic system?

4) How would we educate people?

5) Could we apply psychology everywhere to create a much smarter and happier human race?

6) What activist stunts could we pull off to get publicity?

7) And how do we stop running the old, silent, black and white movie of the past so that we can get our new 3D, high definition, blazing colour movie in every cinema on earth? It will be the best movie EVER.

If you succeed in getting something like this off the ground, we could publicise it on our website to show everyone else how it’s done.

You sound as though you have the right attitude, so best of luck to you!

******

DE then produced a leaflet, to be distributed in Stratford upon Avon (where Shakespeare was born):

Is the movie of your LIFE how you intended it to be? Do you feel you’re the star of your own movie, or is someone else – a celebrity, royalty, a privileged toff, a super-rich person – always in the main shot? Are you an out-of-focus blur in the background? How close does your movie stick to the original script you intended for your life? If it’s nowhere near, isn’t it time to change the script or change your life? Become the star of your own movie, transform it into colour rather than the dull black and white it is now.

Ask yourself – if the movie of your life was in a cinema, would you watch it? Would you want other people to see it? Would they walk out because it’s so boring? Even worse, would you walk out too and demand a refund? If you want to change your script and the performance, if you want to make your movie spectacular, if you want it to be something you’d be proud to show in every cinema in the world, meet at 6:30 on the 23.7.11 opposite MacDonald’s by the bridge next to the river.

The Outcome?

Hey there,

I went to Stratford last Friday and handed out 150 leaflets. No one showed, or joined the Facebook group. Next time, we are going to try again, and focus on the Facebook group, if there are enough people to join the group, Gathering will be held. On the bright side, I have footage; a friend is just editing it.

******

So, well done to DE. He got off his ass, went out, and made a difference in the real world. He got a disappointing response, but that’s how it usually goes at the beginning. Nevertheless, an army of DEs would eventually make an enormous difference. What are YOU going to do? Isn’t it time to join your local Movie Group and change the shit scripts life is giving you?
__________

Life Story:

Story is central to the human experience. Without a story, people perish. They have no identity. What’s YOUR story? Every person has a right to their story and the right to have a chance to make it as good as possible. In our world, most people are left storyless. To have no story is to be rudderless. To take another’s story away from him is to cut him loose without an identity. A person without a story is nothing. The last thing you own is the story of your life. That’s what flashes before your eyes as you die. That’s what you take with you into the afterlife, so you had better be sure it’s a good one. Dolly Parton said, “Everything I have started with a song.” She turned her whole life not into a story but a song. Is that not glorious? Imagine singing your way into the afterlife, being born into eternity on a soaring sound wave, a perfect note.

Actors like to ask, “What’s my character’s motivation in this scene?” We should all be asking ourselves the same thing in each scene of our life, but most of us just pass through life on autopilot. Make sure you live a good story. Or make it a good song or a good poem. In Australia, Aborigines talk of your story as your “dreaming”. How good is yours? Is it the dream you always wanted?
__________

A Real Business Problem:

MANY CORPORATIONS HAVE TRIED to make crowdsourcing work. Most have failed. Consider the publishing industry: publishers release a vat number of books each year and have no idea which ones will take off and which won’t. The success of Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling came as a total surprise to industry insiders. If they can’t get those right then they don’t know what they’re doing, do they? How could a publisher know in advance that it was dealing with a sure-fire hit? The best way would be to get the early drafts of books looked at by large numbers of readers rather than professional editors. The publisher would then release only those books that generated tremendous early reader enthusiasm. The tastes of the editors – the gatekeepers – wouldn’t come into it at all. Instead, the taste of the people would be decisive.

HarperCollins created a website called Authonomy (http://www.authonomy.com/) where writers were invited to submit their books to create an online “slush pile”. Readers and fellow writers were then supposed to read the books in the slush pile and nominate their favourites. The top five each month would reach the “Editor’s Desk” and be submitted to the HarperCollins editorial board for consideration for publication. After three years, HarperCollins have published not one of the “successful” books. Why not? What went wrong? For one thing, virtually no readers joined the Authonomy site. Only writers signed up – several thousand of them. Nearly all of them had submitted a book that they were desperately trying to get onto the Editor’s Desk.

The original idea behind the site was that members would give an honest opinion of the books they read, and the cream would rise to the top. What actually happened was that all sorts of factions and cliques developed, and these were far more interested in their own agenda than in finding the genuinely best books. Moreover, writers are very different from readers and often have completely different tastes. But the most serious problem of all was that getting to the Editor’s Desk became a game and all of the members of Authonomy turned into ruthless gamers. The “game” became so ridiculous that gamers started swapping votes for each other’s books without even reading the respective books. Acquiring votes to get onto the Editor’s Desk was all that mattered; reading books became irrelevant. In other words, the whole purpose of the site – to locate by crowdsourcing the best books on the site – was negated in every possible way. Votes counted, not books. The books that reached the top were those that had been gamed the best. Their quality as books was neither here nor there – in fact, most were dreadful. So much for crowdsourcing.

The business need is for a viable crowdsourcing model that allows early-stage projects to be evaluated by large numbers of people, thus ensuring that those projects that go into full production are guaranteed popular hits. Imagine a Hollywood studio or a major publisher with a 90-100% hit rate. Anyone who could crack this model would be sitting on a goldmine. No one has come close so far, and HarperCollins’ attempt descended into farce. Can you think of a way to get the public involved in early-stage projects to identify the future Dan Browns and J.K. Rowlings? You can’t afford to pay the public for their time because that would bankrupt you, so how could you motivate them to help? That’s the key to the whole thing.
__________

Psychopathy:

JOURNALIST JON RONSON has written on the topic of psychopaths and he suggests that 1% of the population may belong to this category. Applying his “psychopath checklist”, he says that most CEOs of American companies should be classified as psychopaths and he commented, “Capitalism at its most ferocious is a pure expression of psychopathy.” He could equally have said psychopathy was all too apparent in leading military commanders, police chiefs, stock market traders, top lawyers, media moguls, religious leaders and politicians. Many of the people who get to the top do so precisely because they are psychopaths, hence are not restrained when it comes to using the disreputable, sleazy and vicious tactics that often accompany stratospheric rises.

In our world, almost anyone who gets to the top should be considered mentally disturbed. The system is mentally disturbed because the people who run it are mentally disturbed. They are psychopathic wolves.
__________

Bohemia:

Bohemia was a historic kingdom in what is now the Czech Republic. Gypsies from that area travelled around Europe. They were outsiders, strange, different and exotic. The term “Bohemian” came to be applied to artists and writers who looked and behaved unconventionally, and to unconventional people in general. Bohemia is a good description for the new spiritual State of autonomous, self-creating and self-defining individuals that the Illuminati wish to build. It’s time for a Bohemian Revolution, a Bohemian Rhapsody.
__________

Becoming:

Thomas Aquinas said that hell is where you go when you’re not becoming the person God wants you to be. Illuminism says that hell is where you are when you’re not becoming the person YOU want to be. And ultimately you want to be God, so Aquinas is right, but for entirely the wrong reasons.
__________

History:

When history comes calling, you must not be found wanting. We dislike Muslims intensely (and indeed all Abrahamists), but we applaud all of those involved in the Arab Spring who had the guts to get off their asses and fight. They were not found wanting. They found their courage. Many died, and still the others went on. The Arab Spring is monumental because it presages a Muslim Enlightenment. The Arabs rose up against dictators and tyrants. Soon, “God willing”, some of them will turn against the supreme tyrant – Allah. Mohammed will be denounced as a false prophet and many Muslims will at last embrace reason and light, just as many Europeans did at the birth of the modern world. But our world in not in fact modern. Most of it is as backward as the world of the ancient Jews tramping around in the desert concocting their fantastic delusion that they were the Chosen People of the Creator of the entire Cosmos. What a sad and pathetic God he would have to be if he were preoccupied with a bunch or ranting and raving bearded Jews wearing funny hats, with strings dangling from their midriffs.

The dialectic is in motion. The Islamic Enlightenment is long overdue. When hands are raised against human tyrants, they can be raised against divine ones too. If the Arab Spring was about freedom then Muslims must be free of Allah, Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is a slave morality and a religion for slaves. The word “Islam” means submission. We say to all Muslims – it’s time to get off your knees and stand up straight like human beings. Where’s your dignity? Where’s your self-respect? Are you dogs or humans?

DO NOT BE TIMID TOWARDS THE WORLD; BE BOLD. DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE WORLD; DOMINATE IT.

Better a wolf than a dog. Better a shepherd than a sheep. Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied (as J.S. Mill memorably said).
__________

4/7

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