Dacia Iluministă

Deconstruction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpted, page 315

© The Illuminati’s Secret Religion