Vă invit să vă alăturaţi grupului Facebook Mişcarea DACIA, ce-şi propune un alt fel de a face politică!Citiţi partea introductivă şi proiectul de Program, iar dacă vă place, veniţi cu noi !
O puteţi face clicând alături imaginea, sau acest link
Posts Tagged ‘Hegel’
Hyperian History Of The World (19th Century, Part 1)
Hyperian History Of The World (19th Century, Part 1)
After the tumultuous events of the end of the 18th century, the old powers of the church and the European monarchies were forever diminished. Nonetheless, these old powers were still very much in control, just no longer in such an overt and obvious way. The French Revolution had failed, yet it had a tremendous effect on the world. Napoleon attempted to spread revolutionary ideals around Europe, yet proclaimed himself as Emperor and became a new form of tyranny. The old powers quickly seized on this new tyranny and presented themselves as heroic liberators in their war against Napoleon. Eventually, Napoleon was brought down and the old powers restored, albeit in a diluted way.
Following these events, the world was beginning to feel very much more modern. Science was progressing and spreading, well on its way to replacing religion as the dominant influence on the thought of ordinary people, and the industrial revolution saw the massive spread of new technologies across the world.
If science and engineering were growing, philosophy, on the other hand, was waning. The industrial revolution was creating lots of wealth and was driven by science and engineering. As such, these disciplines grew. Philosophy, by comparison, began to seem old fashioned and without any real purpose, merely an academic curiosity. People no longer seemed to care about understanding the true nature of their existence, preferring rather to merely indulge in the petty pleasures of a purposeless existence.
Nonetheless, in Germany in the 19th century, there were still a number of great philosophers. In the previous century, Immanuel Kant had produced a philosophical system which separated the universe into the noumenal and the phenomenal, the former being the true reality and the latter being the way in which we experience it. This was a new kind of dualism which concluded by saying that we can never have any knowledge of the true reality of existence. This idea seemed to kill off idealism and pave the way for the dominance of materialism which we see today. However, there was one philosopher who resisted, and in fact took idealism to its most extreme, to absolute idealism, the great Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Hegel refused to accept that we can never know the true reality of the universe. Hegel saw that, if the universe is nothing but minds, then there is nothing which minds cannot know. Yet we are, for the most part, currently in a state of ignorance about the true nature of our reality. Hegel realised that the universe was one of a constant evolution towards complete knowledge of reality. We are currently alienated from the truth of existence, and all the things we don’t yet understand thus appear foreign and ‘other’ to us. Yet, as we progress, we slowly come to understand and have complete knowledge of the full content of our minds.
To explain the evolution of our minds, Hegel went back to the ideas of Heraclitus. Heraclitus had said that the universe changes due to the conflict and resolution of opposite forces. Hegel took this idea and added to it greater philosophical rigour and formed it into the idea known as the dialectic. The dialectic works as follows. Everything that exists, every idea we can have, can be called a thesis. The existence of a thesis automatically requires the existence of the idea which is the very opposite of the thesis, the antithesis. Things are defined by what they are not, therefore nothing can exist without the thing that it is not (its opposite) also existing. The thesis and the antithesis interact and conflict arises. This conflict is eventually resolved by a new thing arising out of the conflict, the synthesis, which takes what is good from both the thesis and the antithesis. This higher synthesis then becomes a new thesis, the existence of which requires the existence of its antithesis causing conflict and resolution into a new, higher synthesis, which becomes a new thesis etc.
This dialectical progression occurs everywhere in the universe to everything in the universe. This is how minds evolve towards their perfect state. Hegel backed up this idea by providing a philosophical reason why this should occur. Hegel defined the basic substance of the universe as Geist, meaning mind or spirit. This was equivalent to the collection of monads in the Leibnizian system, or God in Spinoza’s system. Geist originally exists in a purely unconscious state and strives to become fully conscious. By being split into infinite mids, Geist can begin to become conscious of itself, as the individual minds can reflect upon one another in order to become aware of themselves.
Thus Hegel shows that the existence of many minds is rationally necessary in order for the universe to evolve towards its final state of full consciousness of itself. The one had to become many in order for the many to all reflect upon one another and begin the process of actualising their potential and becoming perfect, a process which follows the logic of the dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
Hegel also saw that this was not merely an internal process within our minds, yet was also manifesting itself outside in the physical world around us. The progress of the history of our society also develops in the same way, in accordance with the dialectic. The progress of society, and all of the conflict which arises, is simply a phenomenal manifestation of the internal progress within our minds. Eventually, Hegel realised, the world will arrive at a society in which every mind is free to express itself and actualise all of its potential.
Hegel had an enormous impact on subsequent philosophers, although more frequently this amounted to his philosophy being dismissed by those who failed to understand it. This is somewhat understandable however, given that, in his writings, Hegel buried his philosophy beneath layers and layers of dense academic language rendering it all but impenetrable to the average reader. Hegel retains the reputation as the most difficult to read philosopher to this day.
One subsequent philosopher inspired by Hegel would have a major impact on world events however. This was Karl Marx. Unfortunately, Marx seemed not to have a complete understanding of Hegel’s philosophy. Whereas Hegel’s system was one of dialectical idealism, Marx developed a philosophy of dialectical materialism. Hegel’s system explored the development of mind and the effects this development had on the world around us. Marx, however, ignored the minds of individuals and focused entirely on the development of society, from a materialist perspective.
Marx had witnessed the rise of capitalism following the industrial revolution. He saw how it had clearly shown the division of society into the ruling classes and the working classes, locked in an ongoing struggle. Under capitalism, the ruling classes control the means of production whilst the working class enable these means by selling their labour for wages. Using Hegel’s dialectical logic, Marx foresaw that the struggle between the classes would lead to the development of a class consciousness amongst the working class, which would see them demand more and more political power, eventually culminating in the development of a classless, communist society, in which the means of production are controlled by everyone and everyone is equal.
Marx didn’t merely describe this system, he actually called for the workers to rise up in revolution against the ruling classes in order to bring about communism sooner rather than later. This didn’t happen until the next century however, and Marx remained just a theorist. Whilst Marx’s critique of capitalism is excellent, showing exactly how it is an insidious system which benefits the rulers to the massive detriment of the workers, his alternative solution was not as well thought out. This problem derives ultimately from his materialist rejection of Hegel’s focus on the mind. The truth is that people who have lived under capitalism for so long simply aren’t psychologically ready for communism. There has to be psychological development of the people alongside the social development. Whilst communism is an ultimate end point for the social development, it cannot be enforced upon a people who are not psychologically ready for it. Events in the 20th century would show all too clearly the dangers of communism being forced upon people without the relevant psychological development.
Marx showed just how capitalism is a psychologically damaging system, yet communism, when enforced, proved to be just as damaging. To solve the problem, we simply have to return to Hegel’s dialectic. If capitalism is the thesis, and communism is the antithesis, what we require is a synthesis. Hyperianism aims to provide this synthesis. Whilst we must bring down the form of wildly unregulated capitalism which we currently have, we do not aim to completely remove capitalism as a whole. Rather, we advocate a form of state controlled capitalism in which competition is encouraged, but never allowed to get out of control, being directed at all times by logic and reason and an enlightened government. This enlightened government will actively promote a meritocratic system in which every citizen is given true equal opportunity to reach their full potential. The state will actively engage in the psychological development of each individual and, eventually, this system will have created a society of highly enlightened Hyperians. At that point, a classless society of pure equality will simply occur by itself, without having to be forced, as a natural, rational consequence of the Hyperian system.
The End of History
28 The End of History
History is teleological. It has a “telos” – an end, a purpose. It is not a collection of random events but is moving in a definite direction that can be discerned. Hegel identified the central axis of history – freedom. He said, “The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.”
History comes to an end when absolute freedom has been attained. Absolute freedom is the condition where every person has the opportunity to express their maximum potential. If they fail, it is because of their own deficiencies, not because they have been sabotaged by others.
At the moment, the vast majority of us have no authentic freedom. The system is set up to serve the interests of the Old World Order. They are free; the rest of us are deluding ourselves. The OWO’s genius is to give us the illusion of freedom, while withholding true freedom. History will not reach its telos until superficial freedom is replaced by genuine freedom.
We Are Not Free
Our contemporary illusory freedom is part of a long chain of history that has been analysed in detail by Hegel. He shows us how we came to be where we are. He starts his study of historical teleology by examining the ancient civilisations of the Orient. In ancient China, India and Persia only one person was free – the ruler. The will of all those who served the ruler was subordinated to that of their master. No one had a conscience in any modern sense; no one formed their own opinions about right and wrong. All personal responsibility was absent from them. They simply obeyed.
In China, the people were like small children. Their emperor was their father. In India, the caste system of Hinduism introduced another element. As well as the despotism of the ruler, the people were subject to the inflexible despotism of religion. If you had a lowly station in life, you couldn’t complain. It was just karmic retribution according to Hinduism, for misdemeanours in a previous existence. You had no right to demand freedom, and the thought didn’t even occur to you. In Persia, the situation was different again. Once more, a despot reigned and religious rules applied (this time Zoroastrian rather than Hindu). However, whereas Hinduism was despotic – your nature was determined by a prior life of which you had no awareness – Zoroastrianism was about an ongoing struggle between good and evil in which everyone had a role to play.
The absolute ruler of Persia would never be challenged while he obeyed Zoroastrianism, but if he acted against the religion then he risked being deposed. In other words the ruler, like his subjects, was constrained by principles. He could not be capricious in the manner of the rulers of India and China.
Hegel saw the restraints placed on the ruler by principles (intellectual or spiritual) as providing the basis of “true history”. If those principles could be changed, humanity might be transformed. Under the rule of a Chinese despot, there was no principle to which anyone could appeal to bring about change. In India, Hinduism was equated with nature itself and was also immune from change. These were static societies, where no possibility of the introduction of radical freedom realistically existed. In Persia, the rule of law implied that new laws might one day be enacted that could lead to a better society.
In the west at this time, the city-states of ancient Greece were coming to prominence. These city-states were fiercely competitive and offered a much more individualistic vision of humanity. Power was much less centralised. When the monolithic Persian Empire collided with the free city-states of Greece, the Greeks emerged victorious. The central reason for the success of the Greeks was that they fought more effectively, with a greater sense of what was at stake. The Persian soldiers were like automatons. They knew that their ruler saw them all as utterly disposable. Their morale was much lower than that of the Greeks, and they were far more likely to panic and flee.
But even the Greeks were not truly free. Sparta was a military state, with every citizen pressed into service. A huge population of Helot slaves served the Spartans. In Athens, in name a democratic state, the vote was restricted to adult males who had completed military training. Women and foreigners had no vote and, as with Sparta, a large slave population served the state. Even the citizens themselves were far from free in a modern sense. They identified with the state to such an extent that its interests were theirs. They were more like cells in a body than free agents with minds of their own. Athens put Socrates to death because he dared to challenge the authority of the state and to ask the sort of awkward questions that modern dissenters routinely pose. Spartans who refused to serve the military ethos of their state were killed or banished in disgrace. The situation in contemporary America where many citizens actively loathe the federal government and even plot against it would have been incomprehensible to the Greeks. Every such dissenter would have been put to death.
Eventually, Greece succumbed to a despot – Philip II of Macedonia. Philip’s son, the famous Alexander the Great, went on to conquer Persia, India and Egypt. (Egypt, the nation of god-like pharaohs, was another empire where freedom was minimal.)
But a new empire – the Roman, soon eclipsed Alexander’s empire. Rome was like a cross between Sparta and Athens: a harsh military machine that still managed to acknowledge the rights of citizens. Again, a huge slave population served it. Yet Rome was defeated in the end by a slave ideology – Christianity. The ethos of the empire changed under this new and strange religion that opposed all of the old pagan gods of Rome.
The Roman Empire was eventually resurrected in the guise of the Roman Catholic Church (religious power) and the Holy Roman Empire (political and military power). The structure of the Catholic Church resembled that of the old Roman Empire, with the pope replacing the emperor and the cardinals the Senate. Archbishops, bishops and priests were the equivalents of the officer ranks of the Roman army. It was a rigid hierarchy. The ordinary people, if they wanted God’s favour, had to go through the appropriate channels, from priest to pope. The pope was the “vicar of Christ”, God’s representative on earth. The people themselves had no direct access to God. If they wanted to pray, they had to invoke a saint. The idea that an ordinary person could have a personal relationship with God was unthink- able.
Then Islam appeared. This religion had nothing resembling the hierarchy of Catholicism. There was no pope, no voice of central authority. Every ordinary Muslim could open a direct channel to Allah. All they needed was the Koran. To that extent, they were freer than Catholics, though the history of Islam has not proved conducive to genuine freedom.(Muslims are in such awe of their God that he takes the role of master and they of slaves. Slaves, by definition, are never free. Muslims – “those who submit” – revel in their own slavery. In terms of the dialectical progress of history, nothing is more certain than that Islam will have to be reformed or is doomed to a slow death because of its opposition to freedom.)
Eventually, the idea of a direct line to God spread to the Christian world. Martin Luther opposed the Catholic hierarchy and increasingly viewed it as an active obstacle to the true Christian message. The Protestant Reformation emphasised scripture over the authority of the Church. The Bible, previously only available in Latin (which ordinary people could not read) was translated into German. Now everyone could study the Bible and draw their own conclusions. There is only one Catholicism but there are now scores of Protestant sects. When people are free to make up their own minds, the tendency is always towards the proliferation of factions. Gnosticism historically had many factions, each emphasising a different aspects of Gnostic thinking. Islam has not splintered in the same way as Christianity because it is so simplistic that there is little scope for doctrinal dispute. Shia and Sunni Muslims differ over whether Mohammed’s descendants should have been accorded special status, not over points of doctrine.
With the decentralisation of power in the west and the release of the individual from the rigid hierarchy of Catholicism, freedom spread rapidly. Hegel regarded the Reformation as a decisive event in history, a huge breakthrough for the dialectical advance of freedom. Science, in particular, was liberated from theology. Whereas the Catholic Church accused Galileo, one of the world’s greatest scientists, of heresy and suppressed his work, scientific thought started to flourish in free- thinking Protestant countries. The Counter- Reformation, which brought the Jesuits to the fore, realised that Catholicism had to move with the times, and Catholicism also embraced science and the new thinking of the Enlightenment.
Islam became stuck in a rut because of over- emphasis on the Koran and did not advance in terms of freedom, and to this day is scientifically and culturally backward. In Europe, the Renaissance, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Enlightenment led to an intellectual ferment that fuelled increasing freedom and started to switch the emphasis to the individual. Nationalism and the slow disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire added fresh impetus. Then came the two critical events of the 18th Century – the American and French Revolutions. The Reformation had eroded the centralised power of Catholicism and now these two Revolutions had eroded the centralised power of monarchs.
Although Napoleon, a product of the French Revolution, chose to make himself an emperor, he also introduced codes of rights for citizens. These codes were derived from the thinking of the Revolution and influenced the whole of Europe, including Hegel’s nation Prussia, a militaristic monarchy.
In public, Hegel was content to proclaim that the Prussia of his time represented the culmination of history. Freedom of the individual had reached a sensible level, he said, tempered by the need for security, rightful authority and law and order. This kept him in good stead with the authorities, and ensured that he attracted no suspicion.
In private, Hegel despised the Prussian state and longed for its overthrow and the implementation of true freedom. He believed that he could influence events more effectively if he appeared as a dutiful Prussian citizen, while secretly working behind the scenes against the Prussian monarchy.
Hegel’s analysis was adopted by Karl Marx, who now put forward class war based on economic inequality as the primary battle- ground of freedom. Rich people are much more free than poor people. Therefore to increase freedom wealth must be more evenly distributed. A communist state, according to Marx, was the final word in freedom since all private property was abolished, all wealth equally spread, and everyone had equal rights.
History has not supported Marx. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought an end to the Marxist dream. Communism did not deliver increased freedom. It was totalitarian, oppressive, bureaucratic, backward and reactionary.
At the end of the Cold War, American academic Francis Fukuyama declared that western, liberal, capitalist democracy would be recognised as the end-point of history’s pursuit of freedom. History had come to an end, he said. The whole world would adopt the American and European system of government and economics, he thought. He has been proved as wrong as Marx.
Hegel’s central thesis that history is about the increase in freedom of the ordinary citizen has proved correct. However, it is obvious that we have not reached the end-point of freedom.
The mission of the Illuminati is to take humanity to that end-point. The obstacles to freedom are everywhere. Monarchies still exist all across the world. Repressive religions are still corrupting billions of people. There are dictators and tyrants. Power resides in the hands of rich elites that manipulate political and economic systems for their own ends. The super-rich are flourishing as never before. The Old World Order, a group of 6,000 people, run the planet.
The Illuminati’s agenda has never altered – to overthrow oppressive religions, governments and individuals who seek to control the people and hold back freedom.
What is ultimate freedom? – when every person on earth gets an equal chance to maximise their potential. When those who rise higher than others do so on grounds of superior, demonstrable merit alone. What does that mean in practice? No one can be allowed to be too rich or too poor. Failing families cannot be allowed to spiral ever downwards. Successful families cannot be allowed to buy additional advantages and privileges and turn themselves into powerful, self-perpetuating dynasties. The state must take a far more active role in people’s lives.
Right wing political parties such as the Republicans in America and the Conservatives in Britain continually demand the minimisation of state interference in people’s lives. These parties are the tools of the Old World Order. They want rich, elite, dynastic families to rule the world in perpetuity, and for the state to keep out of their clandestine business. When you hear anyone calling for a reduction in the power of the state, you know you are listening to a mouthpiece of the Old World Order.
The Jewish philosopher Isaiah Berlin in his essay “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958) high- lighted the difference between the Old World Order’s approach to freedom and that of the New World Order. Isaiah Berlin was a Zionist and close friend of the Rothschild family. He loved to move in the circles of the wealthy and powerful: a typical hanger-on of the Old World Order, an advocate of their ideology.
Berlin distinguished between “negative” and “positive” liberty. Negative liberty is the position that people should be left to themselves, and the state should impose the minimum number of constraints. This type of freedom isn’t for anything; rather it is concerned with being free from interference. American Republicans trumpet the value of negative liberty. The state is kept passive in relation to the people. Some people – the rich, powerful and well-connected – flourish while the rest, the vast majority, live bland, banal lives or, in the case of a large underclass, lives of grim, grinding poverty and despair. The state extends no helping hand. American capitalist democracy is the creed of negative liberty. Many American citizens live in squalor, with minimal access to basic standards of health care. Tens of millions of Americans are poor, with no prospects. They are sustained by the illusion of the “American Dream”, which, in reality, is as rare as a lottery win. One in a million defy the odds and succeed. For many of the rest, the dream is a nightmare.
Positive liberty is where the state is highly interventionist and offers the people a grand vision, a collective project in which everyone can participate. It promises them identity and self-realisation, a release from the directionless, purposeless lives that overtake most people when they are left to their own devices. Positive liberty is for something. It is about becoming something new. From this type of liberty a new humanity will emerge: stronger, fitter, more intelligent, capable of greatness. Ordinary people will be able to get in touch with their Higher Selves, to unleash the latent powers within them that negative liberty seeks to inhibit. Positive liberty is a progressive and active conception of liberty. It is about changing the world for the better.
Cynicism, apathy, nihilism, and social fragmentation are the fruits of negative liberty. Our horizons are narrow and limited. Junk proliferates. People become zombie consumers, perpetually stuck in a vast, 24/7 shopping mall. They shop for the latest cheap trinkets with which the rich have tempted them. They worship celebrities because their own lives are so lacking. They are always dreaming of a better life, but doing nothing to make it happen. They don’t have the tools or resources to make a difference. Celebrities become “brands”. People are reduced to “brand followers”. Even dead celebrities like Michael Jackson are brands. What kind of world is it where advertising brands shape the world? You mustn’t be seen with the wrong brand, you must pay a fortune for the right brand. Apathy is endemic in societies based on negative liberty. Selfishness is maximised. “I’m all right, Jack.” “I’m looking after Number 1.” Screw everyone else. There’s no community. People are alienated and estranged. They live in “bad faith”. They have an “unhappy consciousness. Yet our leaders tell us that we’ve never had it so good. They have never had it so good, but the rest of us inhabit a Waste Land where there are no values.
Political correctness is our new morality. In a world of political correctness, everyone is permanently on the verge of apologising for fear that they might be about to inadvertently offend someone. To cause offence, any kind of offence, is the greatest of crimes these days. What sort of people are we when we feel compelled to apologise for what we know to be true? Do we no longer have any convictions? Do we stand for nothing? Is appearing nice, and being acceptable to our peers, what we have been reduced to?
Don’t listen to the Rothschilds. Don’t listen to Isaiah Berlin. Don’t listen to the Old World Order. Negative liberty is a trap. It leads to our present-day wilderness, to a global shopping mall full of zombies, listening to piped-in muzak and searching for the right brands to boost their self-esteem. Negative liberty provides a global stage for reality TV, a global sports fields for preening, prancing show ponies. Some soccer players are now signing contracts worth £250,000 per week – £12.5 million a year – £60 million for a 5-year contract. Fight back. Don’t watch these people. Shun them. Don’t buy brands. Don’t watch reality TV. Don’t buy into all of the Old World Order’s scams and tricks. Resist the tyrants. Theirs is a project for reducing us to sub- humans; consumers on a conveyor belt, our only purpose to buy the latest gadgets, labels and designer items to line the pockets of the super-rich. We are the society of suckers. The stooges, the patsies. They saw us coming a long time ago. There’s a sucker born every minute, and each of us was one of them. But our fate isn’t set in stone. We can find our dignity again. We can become people rather than consumers. We must turn to positive liberty.
We are told by our masters to defend freedom and democracy. What they mean is negative freedom and dumbocracy. Is that what you want to fight and die for?
Ours is a democracy of obedience and compliance. In every country, we get the Siamese twins of Republicans and Democrats, Conservative and Labour, and so on. We are only one step removed from Henry Ford’s version of choice – “You can have any colour so long as it’s black.” In the 2004 American election, Americans were offered a choice between two rich, privileged members of Skull and Bones. Did it matter which candidate won?That was no choice at all. We never have a choice. We always get the candidates of the Old World Order.
No one is burned at the stake for heresy in our society. Instead, anyone who dares to reject the Old World Order is mocked and marginalized in the media. Political correctness, another ingenious device of the Old World Order, instantly shuts down any form of controversial debate. Criticise the Jewish bankers of Wall Street and you will immediately be branded anti-Semitic. You might as well be branded with the Mark of Cain. No one needs stakes, nooses and torture chambers anymore. We engage in self-censorship. Why? To stop us speaking out against the Old World Order. To stop us telling the truth.
The world has lost its nerve. It has become weak and feeble, full of “last men”, those who wish only to satisfy their petty needs, to be left alone to get on with their small, trivial pleasures.
It’s true that positive liberty can go wrong. The communism of the Soviet Union was the last major attempt to implement a whole new conception of society. It failed because it was an atheistic, slave morality that emphasised equality over merit.
The Illuminati have often been accused of crypto-communism, but we loathe communism as much as we do capitalism. We are advocates of competition. We praise ambition. We admire and encourage great accomplish- ments. We want to reward and celebrate the individuals who do outstanding things. We want innovators and geniuses. We want great people. But all within reason. In a meritocratic society, the desire for more than the average is admirable, providing you are willing to work harder than the average. But the desire for excessive reward, out of all proportion to the actual work you have put in, is anti- meritocratic. There are only 24 hours in a day. If one person works hard for 1 hr a day and another for 16 hrs a day, then, on the most basic view, he deserves 16 times more. He doesn’t warrant a million times more as we often see in our contemporary capitalist society. In a meritocracy, there are no “masters of the universe.” There are no astronomical rewards. Instead, there is the sort of glory for high achievement that the ancient Greeks understood: to wear a winner’s laurel wreath, to receive the adulation of the crowd, and to be given a reasonable monetary bonus as a reward for excellence, isn’t that enough? Why must some people, overcome by greed, be allowed to demand all the riches of earth for their meagre achievements?
They should remember the tale of King Midas. When everything you touch turns to gold, you are doomed. And you deserve to perish. Greed is not good. It is a crime.
A world of the free
Existence is fundamentally teleological. Its purpose is to locate its hidden maximum, the transcendent point where it reaches its fullest expression. There, existence as an impersonal abstraction transfers power to a personal, concrete self-consciousness. That self- consciousness is the fruition of the universe’s search for its own soul. It is what we call God. Once God has evolved, the universe’s original telos has been satisfied. It is then God who sets a new telos. He is free to choose anything. He has the knowledge and power to accomplish whatever he desires.
The universe is not impersonal. It is not meaningless. It is not lifeless and barren. It creates meaning. It creates intelligence. It creates consciousness. It creates a soul. It becomes alive. It becomes a person. God is the universe as a living entity. The Hylocosmos is God’s body and the Psychocosmos his mind.
The universe’s original purpose was to become self-conscious and, from that point, to intelligently direct its own future and attain absolute freedom and knowledge. (Absolute knowledge, Hegel says, is “mind knowing itself as mind.”) The earth became self-conscious in the shape of humanity and now it has an intelligence to direct it. The universe is earth writ large.
Each cell in a human body busies itself with basic, microscopic functions, yet all those cells put together can create a Hegel, Einstein or Da Vinci. The cells treated individually and the cells treated as a whole are two entirely different things. As the human personality is to individual cells so is God to the universe. It can be said that the purpose of cells in a human body is to provide the platform for human intelligence. Equally, the purpose of the components of the universe is to provide the platform for a universal intelligence. As above, so below. That is the ancient wisdom. We need only examine ourselves to see the way the universe works.
The wise will see that the reductive, scientific prescription of purposeless evolution by natural selection actually masks a more fundamental principle of the universe striving towards its telos in a process that is super- ficially blind but is anything but. Teleology does not contradict natural selection. Rather, natural selection is the primary tool of teleology, the mechanism it employs to find its way to its destination. Many scientists, because they can’t directly observe purpose, declare that it is not there, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These scientists erroneously, and contrary to the principles of the scientific method, conclude that purpose is permanently ruled out.
The scientific method recognises that no scientific theory is ever definitively proved. Each theory is a provisional truth that can be overturned at any time if new evidence appears that refutes the theory. Science does not reach completion. Confidence in the findings of science increases each time experiment confirms theory, but 100% confidence is never, and can never be, attained.
Conventional religion makes humanity subordinate itself to God. It legitimises the principle that a remote, mysterious authority should control us. This principle then reveals itself in every aspect of our lives. When we are children, our parents who seem like gods to us control us. Then, at school, teachers control us. Then, in the workplace, by managers and bosses. In our religious lives, to priests, preachers and popes. In our financial lives, by the “masters of the universe” in Wall Street and the City. In our leisure time, celebrities, “stars”, “heroes” control us. We want to be like them, to wear what they wear, do what they do. We have negated ourselves. We have become nothing. We have surrendered the control of our lives to others.
Those who control us are the Old World Order. They think we deserve to be treated like cattle. After all, we meekly go along with our fate. We have not fought back. Like the Muslims, we submit. We should have “submission” branded on our foreheads. Why do we submit? Because we are weak and they are strong. There are many more of us, but they use the principle of “divide and rule” to control us. We can never agree amongst ourselves. And that’s exactly what they want. That’s why just 6,000 people can rule the world.
How can they be stopped?
We are raised to be cannon fodder. The masters are raised entirely differently. They are brought up to rule, and we are brought up to serve them. They have infinite ambition and the widest horizons. We settle for minimum wage jobs and dreary office work.
In a world of strong, resourceful humans who take control of their own lives, the power of the OWO would be shattered. The masters of the universe would vanish, as would the religious leaders, the authority figures, the managers, the bosses, the celebrities, the stars and heroes. We should be our own heroes, manage our- selves, control our own destinies. But that requires personal strength, energy and talent.
Those are the qualities that must be inculcated in every person. Imagine what billions of talented people could accomplish. Humanity could reach for the stars. We could unleash our maximum potential, live our lives to the fullest extent. We should shape our lives like the most expert of sculptors, fashioning the clay with our own personal genius. Instead, we go along with the schemes of the OWO. They don’t want us to be strong. They don’t want to help us. They have got the world they want. They want us to obey and cause them no trouble. They will let us do whatever we like, provided we don’t challenge them. But only they lead truly free lives. The rest of us must endure the yoke of the Old World Order. You would think we would have tired of it by now.
One of the most controversial members of the Illuminati was Saint-Just, one of the architects of the French Revolution. He came to power at just 25 and was guillotined by the age of 26.
Saint-Just’s policy left many members of the Illuminati uncomfortable. His hatred of the Old World Order was so extreme that he demanded their complete annihilation. At the trial of King Louis XVI, Saint-Just gave his maiden speech to the French revolutionary Convention. It was a dazzling speech that has gone down as a landmark in history. Under a monarchy, this young genius would never have had an opportunity to display his exceptional merit. To contrast his speech with those of contemporary politicians is to see how pathetic and talentless our politicians are. Not one is fit to stand in the same company as Saint-Just.
Here are two short extracts from his dramatic speech of 13 November 1792.
“Some day men will be astonished that in the eighteenth century humanity was less advanced than in the time of Caesar. Then, a tyrant was slain in the midst of the Senate, with no formality but thirty dagger blows, with no law but the liberty of Rome. And today, respectfully, we conduct a trial for a man who was the assassin of a people, taken in flagrante, his hand soaked with blood, his hand plunged in crime.”
“With whatever illusions, whatever conventions, monarchy cloaks itself, it remains an eternal crime against which every man has the right to rise and to arm himself. Monarchy is an outrage which even the blindness of an entire people cannot justify; that people, by the example it gave, is guilty before nature, and all men hold from nature the secret mission to destroy such domination wherever it may be found.
No man can reign innocently. The folly is all too evident. Every king is a rebel and an usurper. Do kings themselves treat otherwise those who seek to usurp their authority? Was not Cromwell’s memory brought to trial? And certainly Cromwell was no more usurper than Charles I, for when a people is so weak as to yield to the tyrant’s yoke, domination is the right of the first comer, and is no more sacred or legitimate for one than for any other. Those are the considerations which a great and republican people ought not to forget when judging a king.”
In the vote in January 1793 to determine the king’s fate, Saint-Just gave one of the briefest verdicts: “Because Louis XVI was the enemy of the people, of its liberty and its happiness, I conclude for death.”
Saint-Just and Robespierre, two great Illuminists, were guillotined in July 1794. They were brought down by the machinations of Satanic archons who saw that the French Revolution might be exported to every nation and permanently destroy the power-base of the Old World Order.
Where are the Saint-Justs of today? Our world can no longer create people like that. We are zombies, suckers, brainless consumers, shuffling our way towards oblivion. History will never mark our passing. We are the damned. The Old World Order have nothing to fear from us.
Yet teleology is on our side. From somewhere, through some mechanism, people will come to prominence who will dare to take on the power of the Old World Order. It is an inevitable out- come of the arrow of history. Freedom cannot be stopped.
Are you one of the freedom fighters? What are you going to do to change the world?
Excerpted, page 231
© The Illuminati’s Secret Religion
Apeiron
Hegel referred to the basic substance of the universe as “Geist”, a complex German word that expresses notions of both mind and spirit. Geist is dialectically evolving towards what Hegel called ‘the Absolute’ – God. The Absolute represents the complete control of the physical world by the mental. It is a state of Absolute Knowledge and Absolute Freedom. The Absolute understands itself perfectly. Hegel is often interpreted as an idealist, denying the existence of the physical, but in fact, like all Illuminists, he considered the physical and mental to be two aspects of a single substance.
However, he certainly regarded the mental as the dominant aspect of the single mind-matter reality – the dialectical process is all about bringing mind to its highest possible expression – and to that extent can be regarded as an idealist. Hence “Geist” is carefully chosen to emphasise the mental aspect.
There is no word that perfectly captures the nature of the basic substance of the universe: the arche, the first principle. The Ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander used the word “apeiron”, which is usually translated as “a substance without definition that gives rise to all things and to which all things return, a sort of primal chaos.”
Illuminists most usually use the word “Becoming” to describe the single fundamental substance of the universe. “Becoming” is technically an adjective rather than a noun, but Illuminists prefer this word over any other because it makes clear the difference between Illumination and the false religions of Being such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
“Becoming” emphasises the changing, dynamic nature of the universe, the evolutionary, dialectical aspect that drives the universe forwards and upwards. “Being” on the other hand is frozen, static, conservative, resistant to change. Mathematician Roger Penrose has proposed that there are three kinds of reality: physical, mental and mathematical, all connected in an unknown and deeply mysterious way. In fact there is only one reality, which presents itself in two ways: mind and matter.
Mathematics, it is true, is more than just a language created by the mind. It might be said to be a deep expression of Nietzsche’s Apollonian ordering principle that seeks to shape the Dionysian chaos. Mind and matter, if they are to avoid an existence of meaningless chaos, must have a strong core of order and organisation, a tendency to obey natural laws. That tendency will never be precise, but it will be reliable on average, hence the statistical emphasis of modern Quantum Theory.
Mind and matter both have mathematics built into them. Mathematics can be defined as the science of pattern. Mathematicians look for patterns in numbers and space, in the physical world and abstract worlds. The mind cannot help looking for patterns. Humans look at the clouds in the sky and start to see meaningful shapes. People have reported seeing the face of Jesus Christ on slices of toast. At all times, the mind tries to shape and pattern sensory data. All of this is mathematical in nature.
Baseball players, basketball players, American football players, soccer players and most other sportspeople engage in remarkable feats of intuitive mathematics. Think of the skill involved in catching a ball while on the run: the catcher is subconsciously calculating the speed of the ball, its trajectory, wind speed, his own speed, the conditions under his feet, the interception point, the orientation of his hands etc. The person involved may know nothing about mathematics as an academic subject, he might even be hopeless at the subject, yet he can solve this complex maths problem as he’s on the move without carrying out a single conscious calculation. Autistic savants can carry out prodigious calculations in their heads faster than professors can solve them with a calculator. These examples prove how deeply embedded in the psyche mathematics is.
The Ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras – another great Illuminist (and the first to be identified with Illumination’s fundamental doctrine of the transmigration of souls) – claimed that numbers are the arche. He also said that a mathematical Law called Harmony controlled the universe. Pythagoras is associated with the mystical idea of the Music of the Spheres (also known as Musica universalis – universal music): the most beautiful and perfect music of all, which permeates the entire universe but can be heard only by God. Music is audible mathematics. It is the sound of the Apollonian order in the universe. It has such a powerful effect on us because it resonates with the mathematical intuitions buried within us. When we hear harmonies, we are listening to orchestrated numbers; we are directly experiencing universal order in the form of musical notes. Discordant music, jarring notes are the province of Dionysian disharmony.
Schopenhauer said that music was a “copy of the will itself” and there’s much truth in this. Illumination is a religion that holds mathematics in the highest regard and assigns to it an elevated status, but it is not a separate reality as Roger Penrose believes. It is part of the fabric of mind and matter. It is the language of the fundamental ordering principle.
Excerpted, page 161
© The Illuminati’s Secret Religion
Artwork by Joshua Hehe
Why we are so great
Meritocrats recognise that we have now reached peak insanity. Trump represents the apex of human stupidity, thus it is inevitable that the historical dialectic will soon swing wildly towards its antithesis, namely supreme rationalism – Meritocracy. Presently we are insurgents behind enemy lines prudently waiting for our moment to strike. But when our time comes we will usher in a new age of enlightenment and banish all the forces of endarkenment and stupidity that have plagued humanity for millennia. We know there is no messiah, no God willing to intervene and save us. We are the only vanguard of salvation. We are the new Gods in waiting. Join us!
– Pericles
STATUL ILUMINIST şi FAMILIA
„Ce să mai vorbim de familiile disfunctionale cu un singur părinte, familiile în care sunt părinți care lucrează tot timpul, părinți care sunt analfabeți și cu IQ subnormal, părinți care sunt alcoolici, fanatici religioși, dependenți de droguri, părinți care suferă de probleme de sănătate mintală și așa mai departe? Cum poate această gamă dezastruoasă de tipuri de părinți să-şi conducă copiii la rezultate bune? De ce copiii ar trebui să-și distrugă viitorul din cauza unor părinții inepți? Dar dacă toți copiii sunt supuși controlului deplin al statului, aceștia se pot aștepta la aceeași educație maximizată, indiferent de lipsurile părinților.
Faptul trist este că majoritatea părinților distrug viața copiilor pentru că nu știu ce-i mai bine pentru ei. Ei fac tot ce pot după înţelegerea lor, care este deficitară în marea lor majoritate. Câți părinți au cunoștințe detaliate despre ultimele cercetări psihologice și sociologice despre modul în care funcționează mintea și societatea? De ce părinții ignoranți, stupizi, îndoctrinați religios sunt considerați ca izvor de înţelepciune? E o nebunie.
Vechea Ordine Mondială (O.W.O.) a implementat cu doctrina sa de “familia înainte de toate” și “Libertatea Negativă” – intervenția minimă a statului – ideea iraţională de a avea familia ca unitate centrală a societății. Acest model le-a dat Puterea și Controlul asupra societății. Ultimul lucru pe care OWO îl dorește este un Stat plin de indivizi supranormali, autonomi, care nu vor mai tolera să fie tratați ca cetățeni de clasa a doua. OWO, ca politică, a subminat întotdeauna puterea statului. Iluminații, pe de altă parte, ca exponenți ai Libertății Pozitive – doctrina potrivit căreia Statul ar trebui să caute să producă o lume perfectă – au văzut întotdeauna statul ca singurul mijloc de a aduce cerul pe pământ.
Hegel, unul dintre cei mai mari maeștri Illuminati, este adesea acuzat de “Cultul de Stat”. Iluminații respectă cu adevărat Statul, dar numai statul meritocratic condus de minți minunate – nu statul monstruos pe care îl vedem în America, condus de o elită privilegiată în Washington DC, controlată de lobbyiști și super-bogați, promovând interesele Băncilor și Corporațiilor. Un astfel de stat este o urâciune, o catastrofă, o inversiune absolută a adevăratului sens al statului. Statul real poate avea o singură funcție – de a optimiza TOTI oamenii. Nu pot exista Elite Privilegiate, nici societăți pe două nivele, nici “ei și noi”, nici “o lege pentru ei și alta pentru toți ceilalți” şamd. Statul trebuie să fie conceput să acționeze în interesul tuturor și nu ar trebui să existe nicio îndoială în acest sens.
Propaganda anti-statală, pro-familială a conservatorilor de dreapta a fost o catastrofă pentru lume. Statul, nu Familia, este singurul garant al standardelor universale de corectitudine, justiție și oportunități egale. Statul este o concepție fundamentală de stânga, în timp ce familia este invariabil de dreapta. Familia, după cum istoria a demonstrat prea clar, este întotdeauna preocupată de interesele PROPRII, ci nu de cele COMUNITARE”
– AC
Tags: comunitate, Familia, Hegel, Illuminati, Iluminism, Libertate Negativă, Libertate Pozitivă, NWO, OWO, Privilegiu, putere, Religie, Stat Iluminist
