"KZ" asked us an extremely important question:
"100% Inheritance Tax is something I'd say is a very important part of the Meritocratic Nation. Such a tax will ensure that there will not be a "Noble" class (in which wealth is passed down through generations) and it will ensure that everyone gets an equal opportunity to succeed, just as the American Founding Fathers wished. The only problem is I don't know how to sell this idea to the common man! In a discussion with a close friend, I attempted to sell the idea, but the response I received was, "If I am to spend my life working and struggling, I want the fruits of my efforts to go to my kids. Why should I work if I know everything will go to the government or someone else?" The only response I had was that it's honorable and proper, but he'd say to hell with that. His family first. This seems to be a slight bump in the road."
Our Comment: You're absolutely right about the importance of 100% inheritance tax to a meritocratic society. As for your friend, you have to "enlighten" him. The exact reason he works in a rotten job and "struggles" is that he's part of a system that does not regard him as a human to be cultivated; just as a wage slave and a consumer. Naturally, he wants to spare any kids of his the same misery that he is enduring, but the best way to achieve that is to help change the system. "Why should I work if I know everything will go to the government or someone else?" Much of it already goes to someone else - to the Elite!
"My family first" is exactly the mantra we attack over and over. That is the mentality that the Elite use to justify their wealth and power, their creation of family dynasties that rule over us forever. If you asked any member of the Elite what his philosophy was he would say Family First! i.e. screw the rest of you suckers. That attitude is the fastest route to an anti-meritocratic society.
Ask your friend this question: If in the future he is able to pass on a huge advantage to his kids, what does he say to the kids whose parents weren't able to pass on anything? His implicit message to them is FUCK YOU!!!! (just as the Elite say to us.) If that's his attitude towards others who are less fortunate than he is then, frankly, he's scum - a part of the evil system we are trying to overthrow. Why should children be penalized because their parents were unable to make much money? Are the sins of the fathers to be visited on their sons? That is a monstrous ideology. If your friend works hard, but has some bad luck (gets sick on a long term basis, for example) and isn't able to pass on much to his children, is he happy in the knowledge that society will treat his kids as badly as he implicitly wants to treat the kids of poor families who don't inherit much from their parents?
Equally, why should children benefit because of work done by someone else (their parents) - that's the whole basis of "trust fund" rich kids who have no talent at all yet sail through life in easy street. People should be judged on the basis of their own work and talent; not of those to whom they are related. In a meritocratic society, decent people would be appalled to have something given to them that they hadn't personally worked for.
This is a moral issue. Your friend is either moral or he isn't. If he has contempt for the children of unprivileged families then he is an immoral person. He will either be happy to be characterized as immoral, or he'll start paying attention to what you're saying. Either way, you'll discover a lot about him.
You should always emphasize fairness, justice, equal opportunities, merit, morality, personal responsibility and personal work (not work by proxies on your behalf).
You should always condemn privilege and narrow self-interest (being only concerned with your own success and that of your family - that's exactly why our society is so fucked and why so many people are dehumanized wage slaves).
Let no one kid themselves. The privileged Elite send their children to elite schools and colleges where they get the finest education money can buy and access to an elite social network that will guarantee them the best jobs for life precisely because they HATE YOU. They do not want you and your children to enjoy the advantages that they enjoy. They want to use their money to EXCLUDE you, to permanently lock you out from the good jobs. Their money is deployed as a weapon. These people are gangsters.
Look at the example of Fabrice Tourre of Goldman Sachs. Do you seriously imagine that you are in a fair competition with these people born into privilege? You don't stand a chance. None of us do. From the moment we were born, we had already lost. For us to have a chance of being winners, these people must be swept aside. There are billions of us and handfuls of them. What are we waiting for? Permission? Don't worry, it has already been granted. We have full permission to create a New World Order where all the forces of privilege lie dead and buried forever.
Why should any child, because of the failure of its parents to make huge amounts of money to lavish on it, be penalized for life, be denied any chance of leading a decent life? It's a scandal. Why should any child, just because it has extremely rich parents, be guaranteed a life of leisure on easy street? It's a scandal.
The fundamental principle of meritocracy is that everyone should be judged on their own merits, not on those of their parents, siblings or anyone else. The rich cannot be allowed to use their wealth to buy advantages for their kith and kin. Otherwise, we would be enshrining a two-tier society of rich and poor. Capitalist democracy is exactly such a two-tier system. It pretends to empower the people, while actually being entirely about the interests of the rich. Capitalist democracy is government of the people by the rich for the rich.
In the forthcoming British General Election, two of the three candidates for prime minister attended elite private schools. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair had an elite private education. Most leading politicians in Britain attended private schools. Although only 7% of the British people are privately educated, the vast majority of leading jobs go to these people. You have to wonder at just how dumb the remaining 93% of Britons are to tolerate this. Why would anyone take part in a game totally rigged against them? And look at the head of state of Britain - a monarch - unelected and impossible to remove. The "Queen" is a person who enjoys that status purely because of the identity of her parents. Britain is an anti-meritocratic, class-ridden society of privilege, where the elite continue to rule as they have always done. "Democracy" is a farce, a masquerade by the rich to conceal the age-old face of Plutocracy - rule by the rich. When will the rest of us wise up?
The people cannot be free until the two-tier society is smashed, until the rich no longer set the agenda.
Meritocracy is about preventing money being used to rig society. Therefore, 100% inheritance tax applies i.e. no one on their death can pass on a single cent to anyone else. All of their money becomes the property of society to be reinvested in society, and particularly in education. They can spend every cent they earn during their life, but they can't spend it on buying a privileged education for their children.
When they're dead then they own nothing because the dead have no property rights. And why should the relatives of the dead be allowed to inherit from the dead? They didn't do any work for it. They didn't raise a sweat. It's a straightforward principle of personal dignity and responsibility that you should be paid for your own efforts, not for someone else's. To receive money for work that you never did is a form of the ancient crime of usury. Usurers were those who lent money to others for exorbitant interest and were then able to make an excellent living out of the labour of others. It was a crime in the past to make a fine living from the toil of others, and it should still be a crime.
Which do you prefer?
a) I work hard, I make money, I spend my money.
Or
b) He works hard (I do nothing). He makes money for me (I do nothing). I spend the money he makes for me.
The former is a dignified human being. The latter is a parasite.
If you work hard with the intention of leaving it to someone else then you are implicitly turning them into a parasite feeding off your efforts. You have no right to make another person a parasite, and they, if they have one shred of self-respect, should not accept a cent from you.
We should be building a society of dignity and fairness where no one gets an unfair advantage by virtue of to whom they are related. As soon as you allow privilege, i.e. a system where those who have excessive wealth can use that excessive wealth to buy an unassailable advantage for their family over other families, then you have destroyed merit. You guarantee the perpetual rule of an Elite who will always be able to price you out of the market. That's exactly the world we live in now. The Elite despise inheritance taxes; they want to be able to pass on every cent to their families to ensure that their families remain in wealth and power forever. To destroy the privileged Elite, all of their money has to be stripped from them when they die.
Inheritance tax must be raised to one hundred percent since no one can be allowed to use the wealth they have acquired to transmit a posthumous anti-meritocratic advantage to someone of their choosing. As the great Scottish-American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man in the world, said, 'By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of the rich man's estate which should go at his death to the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell.' Carnegie was strongly of the opinion that enormous legacies to children were harmful to those children. More importantly, they are harmful to the state because they provide an unfair, anti-competitive advantage to some people, thus transgressing the Meritocratic Principle.
Whereas oligarchs are consumed with their desire for material wealth and conspicuous spending, meritocrats are obsessed with culture and the experiences of the mind. An excess of money would be vulgar for a meritocrat, and all meritocrats would bear in mind Andrew Carnegie's warning, "The man who dies rich dies disgraced."
The last thing the Elite want is a meritocratic nation where their children are denied any privileges over anyone else, where money cannot secure any advantage.
Here is an extract from our meritocracy site:
The race of life: the race you can never win (unless you're one of "us")
You're the fastest runner in the world and you take your place at the starting line for the most important race of your life. You look up the track and see some obese guy in a designer suit standing five metres from the finishing tape. You complain to the race organizer but he tells you to mind your own business and concentrate on your own race. You think it must be some bizarre joke and it will all get sorted out later. The starting pistol sounds and you set off, running faster than you ever have in your life. But no matter how fast you run, no matter how good you are, you'll never beat the fat cat, puffing, panting and waddling his way to the finishing line.
Fattie wins the gold medal, and receives the adulation of the crowd. Two attractive blondes throw themselves at him. Everyone tells him how brilliant he is. He says he owes it all to God and his loving family who bought him a place at the best of schools and paid a million dollars to allow him to start five metres from the finishing line. The crowd cheers and demands that the winner's parents be allowed to stand on the podium alongside their brilliant son. A reporter asks father, mother and son what they think of the second-placed athlete who broke the world record but still lost. They all shrug and say in unison, 'Well, he's not a member of our family, so who cares.' The crowd, full of like-minded families, rises to acclaim them. 'If only we could all be like them,' they sigh. The world-record holder goes back to his housing project and dead end job. His colleagues tell him he's a loser, and turn their backs on him.
Welcome to the anti-meritocratic world, this world. What are you going to do about it? Will you stand back and watch while cronyism, nepotism, the old school tie, the private club, the right university, the right accent, the right background, the right secret society, the right religion, the right family, destroy merit so that their chosen ones can prosper at your expense? It's time to smash the conspiracy. Break up all the mechanisms that allow privileged groups within society to rig the system in their favour and penalise anyone who doesn't belong to their insidious cliques.
The Meritocracy Party seeks to ensure that everyone, as far as possible, starts the race of life from the same starting line. Then we'll see who the fastest runners really are; who deserves the medals, who should justly receive the acclaim and the rewards. At the moment, who you know (nepotism and cronyism) is vastly more important than what you know (merit). How often do we hear the mantra, 'Networking is the fastest way up the ladder.' Meritocracy will push this toxic ladder over. From now on, demonstrable talent, not your social connections, will be the fastest way to make progress in life.
*****
"Discontent arises from a knowledge of the possible, as contrasted with the actual."
Aneurin Bevan
*****
Here's what "DF" has to say about changing society:
The very first thing that needs to happen is an absolutely peaceful, quiet, weaponless (adhering to the NTSB safety code, not even a set of nail clippers in the crowd) assembly of 3-4 million Americans in Washington D.C. and New York to calmly walk into the UN, Congress, Senate and White House and not only dismiss, but take into custody every one of our illustrious 'public servants' and the UN personnel so we know where they are and what they're up to until we have time to properly deal with them, a FEMA camp with the barest of accommodations (say Geneva Conventionesque) looks good from here.
First thing on my agenda would be to stop all American aggression and bring everyone home from everywhere: troops, spies, ambassadors, tourists everyone. At the same time as that's being done I would go after the Goldmanites and their cronies, seizing The Fed, all the central banks and bankers and the members of the 13 families and every institution they inhabit globally. They would be held in one of their own FEMA camps until we could deal with them at a later date. I know what I personally would like to do to each and every one of them, suffice it to say barbaric would be a very mild description.
For a short period of time we would continue on with business almost as usual, except the wealth stolen from the global population by every thief connected with the OWO would've been compiled and redistributed evenly amongst each of the 6 billion + citizens of the world. This would level the OWO's playing field and give everyone an equal opportunity. Along with this "money" would be a list of required purchases that would ensure everyone is linked in to the world around them through both satellite/cable TV and high speed internet, essential in the gigantic educational undertaking ahead and making every home a school and place of worship and eventually every body a temple.
Everyone would have to be brought to the light gradually through education, first academically and spiritually then as everyone gets up to speed on their academic needs the process would naturally turn towards Illumination. As society progressed towards Illumination within each self, an Illumination would naturally prevail socially as well, negating any need for politics, money or laws.
The need of one would be as the need of the many, therefore the many would satisfy the need of the one by satisfying itself. Everyone's life needs would all be met as a matter of course by society as a whole, each contributing his/her given talent to the fulfillment of the global community and the global community fulfilling each individual.
Those that stand out get greater rewards, but nothing that provides any type of advantage over another. Education is the key to the whole thing (it's how I found you and if I can do it anyone can) and the process would have to start immediately to keep the short attention spanned, mostly ignorant population from falling into chaos.
Initially it would be done by involvement in all decisions made and constant communication utilizing TV and the internet to accomplish as total an inclusion as possible of the population. At the beginning of every week the issues of the week could be presented to the populace via TV, the population could return its answer via the internet during the week. The outcome could be reported the next week, acted upon immediately and new business introduced until there is no more "business" and mankind has moved on to bigger and better things instead of being perpetually mired in political minutia.
Instead of a cumbersome government of thieves we'd only need one man: a "host" if you will or figurehead. For that matter it could be somebody new each week because everyone would have an equal say in what the majority rules and the person on-screen would just be a news-reader when you got down to it and the only unified action taken would be physical commencement of the jobs at hand which would be done at as local a level as possible to take advantage of each area's talent.
This being only the most basic of outlines the only way to address any contingency that arises is through the communication system I outlined earlier. This would have the dual purpose of ensuring the majority ruled and would keep the population focused on the tasks at hand that continually enrich their lives. Just the reward of discernible progress every day will be enough to inspire even the most hardened skeptics and get them on board.
Housing will be a first concern as well as bringing people home from overseas. My simple answer to that will be if you left a house due to foreclosure, go back there. If it's occupied find one that isn't and set up shop, in the near future all that'll matter is that you're indoors, ownership won't be an issue. As for the 6000, my civilized answer for them would be to strip them bare, flog them bloody, dress them in rags, brand/tattoo a fiery red M on their foreheads, cut out their tongues and seat them all in the Hollywood Bowl so they could watch all their "assets", everything that they own or worshiped go up in flames on a series of IMAX movies. When they've stopped weeping, rub salt in all their wounds then cast them out on the streets of the nastiest slums they created and let them rot there.
The hardest part of the whole plan will be to get 3-4 million people to do anything together for any reason, let alone overthrowing a soap opera government and a bunch of bankers. They'd all rather stay home and just watch it on TV.
Our Comment: We think there are many excellent ideas in here that could be fleshed out to contribute towards a viable plan for changing society. Can you help to put flesh on the bones? Providing everyone with equal, high-speed communication facilities is one thing that would be mandatory in a meritocratic society. No one should be denied access to the basic infrastructure of technology that everyone needs in the internet age.
As for the 6,000 tyrants of the OWO, they certainly deserve what "DF" suggests - a taste of their own medicine, so to speak. But perhaps the best way to punish them would be to build the perfect society for everyone that they wished only for themselves, and then to make them participate in it without any of their former advantages. We would pardon them all their sins against us because we are better than they are, morally superior. Now that they no longer had any power over us we could afford to be magnanimous. However, the will of the people will decide in the end.
We said to "DF":
We like the idea. We'll put it on our site in due course. It will certainly get people to think.
The hardest part of the whole plan will be to get 3-4 million people to do anything together for any reason, let alone overthrowing a soap opera government and a bunch of bankers. They'd all rather stay home and just watch it on TV.
That's exactly right. That's always the main problem.
The other huge problem is how do you get the police, army and National Guard not to open fire? The OWO would declare a state of emergency and martial law - how would anyone fight back if they had no weapons?
"DF" replied:
I know the OWO would institute martial law. In fact I think they'd pull out all the stops and create another Tiananmen Square incident on an even grander scale to "set an example," but we can't prevent that. If we marched on Washington armed that would give them the excuse they'd need to justify their actions publicly and the dumbed-down fools would go along with it.
It is quite another story however to gun down unarmed people whose only crimes are being there and not doing it sooner. I also know for a fact that all the agencies you mentioned are "brainwashed" into believing that killing their own family members would be the "right" thing to do if ordered to do so, but like the LT. Colonel that questions Obama's birthplace, all these people have a conscience of sorts and would hesitate for at least a second if ordered to fire on their unarmed countrymen, after all they're in the same boat we're in, they're losing everything to the OWO's greed just like everyone else. Just because they are their "pit bulls" doesn't give them any kind of immunity, that just makes them dumber than most.
Seeing an armed crowd would reinforce the "brainwashing" and they wouldn't hesitate at all. Not only would we have to be unarmed, but the crowd would have to be quiet. Shouting protest slogans, carrying banners and signs, creating any kind of chaos or confusion would agitate their "brainwashed minions" into action as quickly as visible weaponry would and even though this is a war of sorts, we don't want any bloodshed if at all possible or at least we have to do everything within OUR power to prevent that while still accomplishing our goals. And one thing everyone needs to remember...OUR CONSTITUTION GIVES US THIS RIGHT and THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE REQUIRES IT OF ALL ABLE-BODIED AMERICANS TO OVERTHROW AN OPPRESSIVE DESPOTIC GOVERNMENT...martial law or not. In my estimation (for what it's worth) the only way to prevent that is to very visibly broadcast the entire event globally as it happens. They would be far less likely to open fire on a peaceful crowd with the whole world watching.
Our Comment: So, what do you think? Is DF right? Here's an example of what the forces of "law and order" do to unarmed, innocent people:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100415/video/vwl-video-of-cops-beating-student-shocks-89eb865.html
Would you want to step out in front of the OWO's pit bulls without any way of defending yourself? It would be fantastic if 4 million brave Americans could assemble and march unarmed on Washington D.C. and New York. We just can't see it happening. As DF says, most people would stay at home to watch it on TV. In fact, if the Apocalypse came, they'd probably prefer to watch that on TV too.
The reality is that the OWO's system of control works because most people buy into it. It will stop working when most people stop buying into it. We favour the tactic of the boycott.
In 1880 in Ireland, rich English landowners were evicting many poor Irish tenant farmers because they couldn't afford to pay the exorbitant rents. The Irish Land League responded by stating that anyone who took over a farm from an evictee would be "isolated from his kind as if he were a leper of old" i.e. no one would talk to them, serve them in shops, even acknowledge their existence. The first person subjected to this treatment was Captain Charles Boycott, a County Mayo land agent.
Wikipedia says:
A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons.
The word boycott entered the English language during the Irish "Land War" and is derived from the name of Captain Charles Boycott, the estate agent of an absentee landlord, the Earl Erne, on Achill Island in County Mayo, Ireland, who was subject to social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880. In September that year protesting tenants demanded from Boycott a substantial reduction in their rents. He not only refused but also evicted them from the land. Charles Stewart Parnell, in his Ennis Speech proposed that, rather than resorting to violence, everyone in the locality should refuse to deal with him. Despite the short-term economic hardship to those undertaking this action, Boycott soon found himself isolated-his workers stopped work in the fields and stables, as well as the house. Local businessmen stopped trading with him, and the local postman refused to deliver mail.
The concerted action taken against him meant that Boycott was unable to hire anyone to harvest the crops in his charge. Eventually 50 Orangemen from Cavan and Monaghan volunteered to harvest his crops. They were escorted to and from Claremorris by one thousand policemen and soldiers-this despite the fact that Boycott's complete social ostracism meant that he was actually in no danger of being harmed. Moreover, this protection ended up costing far more than the harvest was worth. After the harvest, the "boycott" was successfully continued.
We would like to see elections being boycotted, specific products, specific super rich individuals, specific celebrities, specific banks, specific companies, specific organisations. One by one, every leviathan would be brought to its knees and forced to bow to the will of the people. We're not pretending that such campaigns would be easy to organise, but once it was done for the first time, a template would exist that could then be used over and over again. We write about this strategy in The Last Bling King, which is about the overthrow of the ruling order by the people.
There would be no physical risk to anyone, and any person or organisation who was targeted would instantly realise that their world would never be the same again.
The people must be the "king" to whom the "great and good" come cap in hand as supplicants, not the other way around. We must show who is boss. Is it their money, or is it our talent, dignity, honour, strength and courage?
So, what tactics would you suggest?
*****
"RZ" said:
This was inspired by my wanting to provide a contribution even if only for myself of my own vision of where I would like the world to go. I have read every article on your site at least once, and reread some from time to time. I follow because I am interested so much by the teachings of the soul, and I have always known deep down that there has to be more out there than the world that I was brought up in. I do not however follow in the sense that I base all of my existence on your teachings. I live my own life and will not allow you to feed me shit if that's what starts to happen.
I went to a Catholic high school (but usually skipped mass) and was an 'average' Canadian sheep. I am now 26 and I have a job as a teacher at a computer school who focuses on giving real world training instead of robbing a student of their max possible student loan only to leave them alone in a classroom for hours on end. However I see the limits of the current financial system (and inflation) and the cost to students. It is simply too expensive to be educated. And that's simply being 'educated' according to a piece of paper! What about any true learning? However, the best thing about the internet now is people can learn anything they want and usually free by some means. The problem is pretty much nobody wants to have to do the work themselves so it's a waste sometimes. If people realized the things they could do, I think the world would be a much better place.
As far as religion goes I have taken a look at many of the religions out there and have never believed any true god could really be so tyrannical towards his people. I basically became atheistic but considered the possibility of higher beings, which of course would be one definition of god. I have recently read some of Crowley's work, watched Zeitgeist and went through a few conspirators just to get an idea of other things out there. I have begun studying Gnosticism in my spare time (I do a lot of work at school). Now I believe in a God of Becoming.
Anyways my contribution goes as far as to give the idea behind inspiring my poem below. It is something simple that could be implemented right away, and I realize I'm probably not the first person ever to mention this. There was an article on CNN.com stating how employees are the biggest EXPENSE to a business. HELLO what about greatest asset?
If businesses focused on growing their employees even half as much as they do profits, the returns would go the whole world round and people could relax in a lot of ways once things were allowed to change. It would take getting used to at first but I imagine everyone would have to contribute in ways they never thought imaginable before, ways that would humble them once they became hungry and things weren't the way they once were. I imagine that eventually if our current 'civilization' is not able to make it, some other form of beings on this planet will. Our evolved selves, or the survivors of the great greed crash.
I have better hopes of what could happen, but I would like to grow and become a part of it. I know in my life that I contribute much and am a healer of sorts but also know it could be more. I am opposed to slavery but truly in my heart I want to live in better times for us all. I still have so much to learn. I am also a musician and plan to deliver my message once I believe I am ready. I am still a child of sorts, so I am not even sure quite yet what my message is, but I also believe it is in agreement with most if not all of the principles you have presented (since they all open up so many ideas) up to the point of Dialectic thinking and how in the last few days I have begun to see differently because of it.
Here is my poem:
from the earth to the sun
how can we claim to be 'high above'
if we are 'too good' to stand in the dirt
with our bare feet
and ask the land for the food
from its seeds
we can't ask that one simple question
to something that is clearly bigger than us
and as we sit in our ranks
as many millions as there are miles to the sun
we're each just a piece and the whole
we're missing the whole point
------
I want to contribute. I want to help grow the world. I will keep moving to that goal. I'm not asking for anything. That is my goal.
If you guys aren't for real though, shame on you, but seriously I think you are.
Our Comment: We completely agree with what RZ said.
If businesses focused on growing their employees even half as much as they do profits the returns would go the whole world round and people could relax in a lot of ways once things were allowed to change. It would take getting used to at first but I imagine everyone would have to contribute in ways they never thought imaginable before...
That's exactly it. Humanity will never reach its full potential while it is ruled by the Profit Principle (designed to enrich a tiny elite) rather than the People Principle (designed to release the potential of everyone).
You certainly don't have to agree with everything we say. Above all else, we want to encourage people to think for themselves and express their unique talents in the way that makes most sense to them.
That's a neat poem. We will certainly quote that on our site, if you don't mind.
*****
Mor-els said:
At this current time I feel humanity is humanity's greatest enemy. I am not speaking of outward conflict per se, but rather individual inner conflict, which mostly manifests into external conflicts. The process of overcoming this inner dilemma has been the struggle of philosophers, theologians, alchemists and many others. They have tried to overcome ego, or sin on their path to 'enlightenment'. As much as the ills of the world are a problem for humanity they are also ours individually. Each needs to start in their own house so to speak. I was inspired by the words of Mahatma Ghandi when he said; 'Be the change you want to see in the world' when I wrote the following piece. For those with the eyes to see, and the ears to hear it speaks volumes beyond the surface in meaning, and I feel will speak to those who visit your site.
If I was to be who I am already meant to
I wouldn't need a job, money, or credentials
If as a whole, or at least majority we realized
Who we were then as people we'd be free
See we're prisoners of life, of ego, and of strife
Unrelenting anger and lack of true insight
Delve into your being, into the core of what matters
Not your car, not your home, not your jewels, or your fashions
In a man there's a woman, in a woman there's a man
A twin flame you can't extinguish when they both understand
The concept of 'love' and what it truly means,
But be careful where you grow it, it may not be time to seed
Before we were there was
Once we're gone there still will be
Let the guiding light of self lead you to your destiny
Where you've been, and where you're going
Has been written in the stars
Your signature's been signed to the universal card
Embrace yourself to your truest essence
Transcend all the petty fights
And worthless indiscretions
Let your intuition guide you
As you travel down the road
Of what has been, and has to be
As we make our journey home
To the lost ones
-find your soul
Our Comment: Everything Mor-els says is true.
And the Gandhi quote is superb, so we will echo it:
'Be the change you want to see in the world.'
"CS" said:
I have just finished reading the "Outsiders" section on the website and really enjoyed gaining insight into how other people feel, their visions and ideas. I feel proud to have been included among these very talented, "inner-lead" people; I know what I see is a mirror of myself so I guess therefore I must be a talented and inner-lead person too!
You mentioned in the section that you are always interested in stories of our experiences so I thought I would write to you with my story.
My life began on Bougainville Island, "politically" belonging to Papua New Guinea, however the people believe they are, and always will, be part of the Solomon Islands in the Pacific. My father is English and was working for the copper mine there (more about that in a little while) and my mum is Corsican, French and Italian. My parents met in England and made the decision after a year that my mum would join my dad and live with him in tropical paradise. I was born there at the end of 1980 and my sister was born two and a half years later.
Life was simple, a beautiful life of creativity, enjoyment and community. We as white people were in a minority so all my childhood friends were black and brown mainly! I ran around bare-foot and naked until I started school (although I resented having to wear clothes initially!). If I did wear clothes it was shorts and a singlet top. What else is necessary? I have wonderful memories of the sights and smells of the island and the experiences I had. I thought it would never end. However I had no idea about the civil war brewing and what would later happen as a result.
1987- As a child I only understood this: there were native people on the island who wanted to destroy the mine and the community attached to it. The hospital was the first to get burned down, electricity pylons were knocked down, the rebels were doing all they could to destroy the mine and get rid of the expatriate inhabitants. We had a curfew at 7pm (it gets dark quickly at the equator) and everyone had to be inside after that time. At night I remember the sound of gunshots in the hills - singular gunshots from the rebels, and automatic gunfire from the Papua New Guinea Army. When the lights went out, my dad went out to help get them back on. The guns scared me the most, everything else I just didn't understand. In July 1989 we left our home for a life in the UK. We had a 6-week holiday around Australia (without my dad) before arriving at our destination in August 1989. Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, England. My dad arrived that September and we lived with my paternal grandparents for the first 4 months before we found a house of our own. I remember the Berlin Wall coming down at that time…little did I know that would serve as a powerful metaphor for what had, and was going to happen, to me.
Already by this point I was aware that I was now living in an alien world. Oh sure, we'd been on regular holidays to England and France to visit family. However I was now LIVING here. I had no escape from the cold and the people around me were different. Grumpy! On my first day at school I was given the thickest song-book I had ever seen (think all children who went to a Church of England school would remember this book with the words to just about every church hymn) and I was supposed to learn them all very quickly and sing my heart away to god and Jesus in a way I never had before. For a few years I did, learning songs for me is easy but I wanted my life on Bougainville again. Within weeks of being at an English school I had been taunted for having an Australian accent but always said that I wasn't Australian. The children would ask, "Where are you from then?" and I would answer, "Papua New Guinea" and they would reply, "I've never heard of it, you're a liar!"
Nice kids eh?
It then spiralled to being taunted about the clothes I wore, being "fat", the fact that I was clever and the teachers liked me and I started to stop telling people where I was from. No one understood, or even knew WHERE I was from, so I kept it to myself and only spoke about it with my parents and sister. To be honest I didn't think much of these kids initially, they didn't seem very clever to me, the girls went nuts if they ever saw an insect and they reckoned I was "weird" because I wasn't instantly plunged into hysterics because there was a spider or a flying insect in my vicinity. (A wabby I came to understand was a wasp, didn't understand why they use a word that was twice as long?! Why didn't they just call it a wasp?!) So I started to lose potential friends because I wasn't like them. I lost my accent quickly by learning to talk like the other kids more. For the first time in my life, I was trying to "fit in" because who I was didn't seem to be "good enough". However in this little exercise I was learning a skill that I would be able to develop later in life, a gift of doing British and Irish accents! Not terribly useful per say, but greatly entertaining for me and the people who hear me doing them! I am a linguist so it was also helping me develop my talent for all languages and accents also.
Eventually at 11, I started secondary school and met Amanda. I spotted her instantly. She was the only brown skinned girl in my class, the only one in our year and pretty much the first one I had met since being in England. I started talking to her instantly because she seemed to be someone I could relate to, and she certainly was. I found out that her father was from Pakistan and her mother was from Trinidad in the West Indies. I was very interested in her multi-cultural background and felt like I had finally met someone who was a child of the world like me! We became great friends and I think she was the first angel sent to me to deal with my culture shock ordeal. We remained close friends throughout school until I left to go to Art College in 1997. We still remain in touch to this day although our lives have been so far apart.
When I was about 13 I refused to sing hymns in assembly one day. One of the fearsome year heads came over and wanted to know why I wasn't singing. I said I didn't know if I believed in any of it and didn't want to sing. She told me I would get a detention if I didn't, so I pretended. I just flapped my chin like a ventriloquist dummy from that point on during every hymn. I tried "junior club" which ran every Wednesday evening. Again, my parents were open-minded to it, it was my choice and I hoped it would help me make friends. We had to do study of the bible and got stickers on a crucifix sticker-chart. I don't remember what happened when we filled them up other than getting another stick-chart! Oh lucky us! I can't remember when I stopped going, only that it did not serve me, my questions weren't wanted and I stopped going.
Religious education was a joke. 90% of the time it was reading stuff from the bible, and the last 10% had the "other" religions crammed in. I remember being the one to dispute what I was being told was "truth"; I never got a straight answer to my questions, if an answer at all and I was not best liked by a few of these "good christen teachers". I was a "troublemaker" in their book, neither my sister, my parents, nor I went to church. We were condemned from that time.
I got bullied, found it hard to make friends; generally school was awful. I endured it as I got older, I got what I wanted out of it; I loved art, design technology, 3D design and languages. I was in all the choirs, the orchestra, the drama group and yes had to sing church songs sometimes, but I figured any song is good to sing to train my voice. I resented the rubbish they tried to tell me was "important". I mean, Trigonometry? I resent the wasted time in my young life on things that would never serve me. They never tried to find out what I was good at, they were always trying to make me "better" by brainwashing useless formulae and logic into my head for me to reel off "parrot fashion" at a later date. What's the point? Is being able to remember those facts a show of intelligence? Hardly. It's proving that our minds can be manipulated in any number of ways. I didn't like how they were trying to manipulate me.
I also began to understand what had happened on Bougainville thanks to the information I got from my parents. Back in 1975 a mining company, had discovered a large amount of copper on the island. They approached the natives promising money and jobs (if they wanted them) if they were allowed to mine and build communities on the island. The natives agreed, why wouldn't they? They were a trusting, beautiful indigenous people; they had no reason to think that these white men would lie? My dad says that already in 1980 there was money owed to these people but his MD thought that was the least important matter on his agenda. So things stayed as they were and festered until 1987. A native man who worked for BCL (Bougainville Copper Limited) decided that enough was enough. The chemicals that the mine used to separate the copper ore were just being pumped into the rivers and the fish were dying. Other animals were dying too as a result of the polluted natural water supply. Hunters in the bush couldn't hunt. The mine was killing their island. So this man got a group of rebels together to get the mine closed. This group got bigger and bigger and their actions became more disruptive. They wished no one dead, they were activists; they wanted the mine closed and the communities gone so that their island could be allowed to heal.
What I didn't know was that my dad's life could have been in danger. What I didn't know was that every time my dad went out to try and sort the electricity for the village, the rebels had spotted him doing this too. Apparently, one night we got a phone-call, it was one of the rebels. The man said "Hey long-bone" (my dad is 6ft2 and was very skinny, an apt nickname given how recognisable he was against the 5ft natives) "we've been watching you. Last night we had you in the sight of our gun. Think it's best that you leave the island". Well I didn't find out about this call until a few years ago. However that is why we left as quickly as we did, my dad having to stay to finish up and that is why my mum was so worried for my dad when he wasn't with us. In truth, I don't think they wanted to hurt my dad or anyone. But this "long bone" was obviously talented and causing a disturbance for their disturbance. My parents knew this too. After all, my dad knew in 1980 after talks with the locals and his MD that promises weren't being made and the island was in trouble.
We all know that the rebels were doing something powerful, trying to overthrow a mass, moneymaking corporation. They succeeded, however they did destroy much of what was built there. If you look at the Island on GoogleMaps, you can see the big hole in the ground where the mine was and cleared areas where our village was. What I remember stays safe in my mind and memory. However they succeeded in over-throwing it. Sadly many lives were lost, on all sides. A nasty but very important time for freedom in that part of the world. Perhaps even a testament to what we are trying to fight today.
20 years after the mine closed, I do know that the island is well on the mend. You might be interested in a documentary that was filmed for the BBC back in the late 90s. Great story of the coconut and its marvellous uses!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn9gJmklJGg
OK so now you know what got me here. I saw this evil world for what it was within a very short time of being here. I can honestly say I went to sleep as a young teen and woke up again in my early 20s. I am lucky that I have been spared the horror of religious brainwashing as a young child. My parents made sure I could be a free spirit and it meant I had a strong hold over the evil modern world. I didn't get lost for long. I do not have a TV other than to watch movies or interesting programs. I am free from sky or digital channels pumping mindless nonsense into the majority of this country. I read, I write, practice and teach music, I cook wholesome meals from scratch, I decorate cakes for special occasions; I don't need a TV!
I hope I can help others to get this realisation, women in particular. As a woman I feel it is my duty to get together with other women to spread this message and get females out of their pink, fluffy, sparkly, designer prison!
Oh dear, this is going to be VERY difficult!
Our Comment: People can become outsiders for a number of different reasons such as temperament, intelligence, creativity, sexuality, race, politics, religion, inner-directedness etc. In CS's case, her highly unusual background would have played an enormous role in making her an outsider. And, yes, education should be dictated by what a child is good at. Some children love trigonometry, others hate it. Why would you keep forcing it down the necks of those who aren't going to derive any benefit from it? It's crazy. The child's talents should determine how it is educated, not the demands of a one-size-fits-all curriculum imposed from on high.
"CS" also provided a fascinating account of past lives:
This experience happened to me when I was last in Australia in 2005. I was staying with one of the 'wise women' of my journey (although I never thought of her as that at the time, but I now know she was there as part of my 'Hero program'). She was one of the women who worked with the spirit and me and introduced me to new wisdom.
I was staying in their caravan in their garden and one morning, in the half awake/half asleep state I heard a voice say 'I was a transvestite'?! Really loud! It was about 8.30 in the morning and I wondered what that was all about?! Anyway, I needed the toilet so I went into the house and Dragui (my wise woman) was lying on the sofa. She sat bolt upright and said, 'I've just had a vision. You were a man who dressed as a woman. You were tall, dark and handsome and had a wife. But you wanted to dress as a woman and your wife didn't want to go out with you when you were dressed as a woman. You loved music and nightclubs…' Then she said, ' …but you were so unhappy about the lack of understanding from your wife and the people around you, and you died in your late 30s from a drug overdose.'
Well let me tell you I was stunned as you can probably imagine.
However it all started to add up and my life since then has shown more insight into what this information is telling me about this life. For a start, I had an amazing childhood, tropical island, best parents ever, the kind of parents that always answer my questions if they can, never pushed me towards religion. As a result I could develop beautifully and naturally as a human.
Perhaps ending my life too early in the 'past' drove my Self to choose a life where I could regain my status in evolution quickly, with very little corruption and negativity? Just a theory. Like I switched the computer game off mid-game, but then switched it back on again and regained the stuff saved from the memory card?
As a small child, I wanted to be known as a boy, I refused to wear girl's clothes and I have always lived my life as a 'tom boy' so to speak. I'm the first to get mucky under the car, do DIY around the house, lift heavy objects, I have quite a deep voice for a woman and I've always had issues with not wanting to look 'girly'.
But you see, when I was about 16 I nearly took my life (again?) due to feeling that I was not accepted. Needless to say I was saved by a phone call from a friend and it did not happen. I did however struggle with self-acceptance for many years after that. But when I had this experience in 2005 I thought back to that time and thought 'I nearly did it again?! For the exact same reasons!'
Since that realisation it occurred to me that I had to learn Self-acceptance, I had to find my Self in order to break out of this cycle I was in. Who knows how long it's been going on for? How many lives have I repeated the same mistake?
As it happens I am a musician and love clubs and dancing, I can dance anyone off the dance-floor; perhaps another 'memory' of the 'past'? Perhaps my distaste for 'girly' clothes comes from a fear linked to this 'past life' that I won't be accepted? I know this experience changed something profound in my life and I will never forget what it has taught me and will continue to teach me...
The other strange thing that has prevailed in my life since beginning my quest is that 4 different people have told me about a 'spirit' who is with me, a guide if you will. Again these experiences linked me to another "past life".
The first time I was told by a medium that I had a tall, broad, middle-aged tribal man with me and that he had been my husband in a past life. I was very confused. Who is this man? Why have I got a tribal man with me? Why isn't it my granddad or someone from my immediate family? This person also said to me 'You talk to yourself a lot, don't you? Well keep talking because they're listening.'
I carried on with my life having blocked out this experience until I came into contact with the second person. This person told me I had a native American man with me.
Well after spending a few years forgetting the 1st person's words the memory came back at that moment. I had been told the same thing by two different sources and I had chosen to forget what the 1st person said so I couldn't have told anyone. After this I soon "forgot" this second reminder in my conscious but obviously my sub-conscious retained it.
In 2007 I was in a situation at work where I was in a depressive condition. I didn't know it at the time but one of my colleagues had clairvoyant abilities. One day I was in tears in the staff room, the job was too much and I didn't want to be there anymore. This colleague was in the room at the time.
A couple of weeks past and I was talking with this colleague about something or other and we got on the subject of Angels. She then told me that she was clairvoyant but didn't talk to anyone about it usually. I mentioned that I had two people in the past tell me about my spirit guide. She immediately said, 'you know it's a man, don't you?' I was a bit shocked and I said that's what I had come to understand.
She then told me about the day she saw this 'spirit' or 'guide'. That day when I was in tears in the staff room, she saw my guide with his arms around my shoulders saying, 'Don't give up.' She described him as a dark-skinned man; she could only see his top half and his chest was bare. She said, 'Put it this way, I can't imagine this guy wearing a suit!' She described him as being very broad and muscular, probably middle-aged. From the front it looked as though he had no hair, but from the side there was a really long plait of hair. She said he was wearing an animal tooth on a thong around his neck. She explained that at the time she wasn't sure if she should tell me what she saw; she didn't know if I was ready for that information or how I would take it.
I began to realise that maybe I should start acknowledging what was being revealed to me.
In 2008 I met a guy at work who was completely blind (I was working in a college for blind and partially sighted people at the time) and he was a very spiritual soul. Almost immediately after meeting we started talking regularly about Divine Energy and how we manipulate it in our own lives. The subject of spirit guides came up and he piped up and said that he could see his 'guide' (using his inner eyes of course) and he said, 'Do you know who yours is?' I said people had told me in the past. He said straight away, 'Yeah, he's a native American, isn't he?!'
Well I couldn't believe my ears. Four times I had heard this now!
What are the implications or reasons? I don't know. Was I his wife in a past life? Some sources say so but how could I be sure? Meditation could bring it out. Maybe I don't need to know the details yet, if at all?
I know that when I decided to ask him his name, the name "Bear Foot" or "Bare Foot" came into my head.
The only thing I do know that I'm never alone.
On the same subject of past lives, "RN" gave us this wonderful story:
A policeman who has two daughters once told me that the youngest one, who was 5 at the time, used to say to her parents that she had lived before. Her mother used to say to her that she should stop talking such nonsense. She stopped talking about it to her mother but said to her father: "Daddy I have lived before. I lived on an island with many boats and many horses. One day the island exploded and I was dead for a long time and now I am here with you, Daddy. I will tell you this story two times and then I will have forgotten it all." It all came true. When he told me this story, the girl was thirteen and every time he asked she got angry.
Our Comment: Thank you for sending us that story. It's very intriguing. It sounds like a reference to a cataclysmic event such as the "Minoan Eruption":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thera_eruption
What is particularly fascinating is that the girl predicted that she would forget, and subsequently did.
*****
Two snippets from the British newspaper The Independent - one of the world's few newspapers that actually merits an occasional read:
"A new study claims to have found a human population immune to racial stereotypes. Children with Williams' syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that limits social anxiety, displayed no racial biases when shown pictures of other children and asked to assign good or bad traits. A control group reliably pointed to other races when asked questions like, 'which is the naughty boy?' said livescience.com."
What is healthier? - for us to admit that we suffer from social anxiety, or to project our fears onto other races so that we can feel better about ourselves? Racism is one of the biggest barriers to a fair world. One must wonder what the racial disposition is of the top American hedge fund managers. You get one guess only. That's all you need!
"A notorious San Francisco beggar known as 'Hate Man' - becau
se of his request that everybody say 'I hate you' before engaging him in conversation - has been revealed to be the former New York Times journalist Mark Hawthorne. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, the cross-dressing, rubbish-eating 73-year-old described his world view, which revolves around being 'straight about the negatives.'"
We like his style. It's about time people started talking straight about the negatives rather than pretending everything is fine when it plainly isn't.
*****
We get a number of messages challenging the reality of the OWO. Here are a few examples of the type of thing, with our responses.
In actuality I am very open to your position. The reason for my questions is that I, in defense of your position, am often presented with questions such as these from the skeptics. Since I as yet do not have airtight responses to them I was hoping to get some input from you. I find the skeptics paradoxically very helpful because it forces me to think harder and to refine my arguments (which favor your position). With that in mind, I still think you have left holes which need plugging. For example, a skeptic might argue that while Microsoft may be a bully now, it started as an entrepreneurial start-up that challenged the OWO (in the name of IBM). So a skeptic might argue that the Microsoft story is actually a victory over the OWO. Now maybe it has since been corrupted, I dunno...Also with regard to rigging the system, game theory presents scenarios wherein collaborative/corruptive/collusive practices emerge by those entities in "power" just because these practices are ones which will maintain the power of those in power. Kind of a positive feedback loop but not a conspiracy. What is your response to these? Your help on this will allow me to try to spread the word more effectively.
Game theory is a product and reflection of human behaviour, not the other way around. To engage in collaborative/corruptive/collusive practices is precisely to engage in a conspiracy, which has as its precise objective to maintain the power of those in power. All that game theory does is place conspiracy theories on a mathematical basis. Why call it game theory at all? Simply by applying a neutral, mathematical label to something does not explain it away as a neutral, mathematical phenomenon. Don't you think there are obvious, predictable, quasi-mathematical rules to describe how conspiracies are conducted? They're not random. They've been tried and tested for millennia.
In a previous article, we mentioned a gameshow based on the famous philosophical problem known as the Philosopher's Dilemma, one of the central conundrums studied by Game theory. In the gameshow, two contestants have earned a lucrative pot of money between them. At the final stage of the show each contestant has to secretly decide to "split or steal", and the other person has no knowledge of what decision they have taken. There are three options: a) if both contestants choose to split then they each go away with a fair split of the spoils: 50-50, each b) if one wants to steal and the other wants to split then the thief takes the whole lot and the other leaves with nothing, c) if both choose to steal then both get nothing.
Prior to the final decision, the two contestants have a little chat about what they intend to do. Of course, anyone planning to steal is never going to admit it, so the chat always involves both parties swearing that they will split and have absolutely no intention of stealing. But can you trust what the other person is saying?
This is a classic Game theory scenario. What decision will you take based on no sure knowledge of the other's intentions?
Now, there are those who regard the OWO as a product of some quasi-mystical Game theory influence that mysteriously shapes our world and society, and which leaves them blameless as the authors of humanity's misfortune. Let's be absolutely clear about this. There would be no game if the two contestants were true to their word and split the money. There would be no game if one or both contestants didn't have the intention of screwing over the other and stealing all the money. There would be no game if one or both contestants weren't willing to lie through their teeth to the other to disguise their true intentions. In other words, it's not game theory that determines human behaviour but human behaviour that determines game theory i.e. it's the fact that some human beings are liars, cheats and thieves that creates the dilemma, the "game".
The thieves, liars and cheats are those with a "winner takes all" mentality, exactly the same mentality that underlies capitalism and the OWO.
We would assume that anyone who joins The Movement would be the sort of person who would never contemplate lying to and stealing from another person i.e. game theory does not apply to The Movement - every member always chooses the "split" option, to fairly share any windfall. Imagine a society based on the values of The Movement rather than on those of the sort of people who eagerly lie, cheat and steal to secure a decisive advantage for themselves; those like the bosses of Goldman Sachs!
"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
Martin Luther King
In our world, the liars, cheats and thieves are the OWO. They have no compunction whatsoever about lying to us, cheating us and stealing from us. Who are the thieves of our world? They are those who have all the money, of course. Doh! How did a tiny Elite manage to commandeer an absurd proportion of the world's wealth? Did it happen by some miraculous accident or did they relentlessly go out of their way to make it happen? Did they lie, cheat and steal at every turn to consolidate and expand their power? How else could they have come to be in a position whereby, for example, just twenty-five staggeringly greedy hedge fund managers have the same amount of wealth that could pay for thirteen million children to receive an education.
You seriously imagine that such a thing comes about randomly, through no design on the part of the Elite? What planet are you living on? How naïve can you possibly get? The whole basis of our society is that of the Elite conspiring against everyone else, with the intention of placing themselves in positions of unassailable power and wealth that they will then pass on to their children, and they to theirs, in perpetuity.
Our world is ruled by privileged family dynasties and only the most stupid people on earth could possibly conclude that the Elite have not actively conspired to make this happen, and to maintain this condition indefinitely, at the expense of all the rest of us.
Here is our account of the "Regression to the Mean" from our meritocracy site. Go figure.
Regression to the Mean: How the Super Rich Defy Nature
Taller than average parents tend to have children shorter than they are. Shorter than average parents tend to have children taller than they are. Genius parents tend to have less intelligent offspring. Stupid parents tend to have more intelligent children. Gamblers enjoying fantastic winning streaks tend, in the long run, to lose their winnings. Gamblers, on terrible losing streaks, would, if they were able to continue playing, win back a good portion of their losses. Welcome to the great stabilising force of nature: regression to the mean. Without it, we could breed freak populations of giants and dwarves, humans with the intelligence of gods and others with the intelligence of goldfish. 'Lucky' gamblers might win the wealth of nations, and losers, if they could stay in the game, run up national debts. Without regression to the mean, stable society would disintegrate.
Wherever you see regression to the mean being subverted, you know something odd is happening. There's one element of our society in which regression to the mean is defied to a dizzying degree: wealth. The rich just keep getting richer, and nothing ever reins them back in. Equally, there are billions of poor people on earth who will never acquire any meaningful wealth. How can such an unfair distribution of wealth have come about? How can it be so ruthlessly sustained? It seems to defy all logic. Yet there's nothing mysterious about it.
In any fair, unrigged system regression to the mean will occur. When regression to the mean is seen not to operate you have certain proof that mechanisms have been put in place to prevent a fair outcome. Capitalist democracy, with the family at its core (for 'family' read nepotism and cronyism), is the precise vehicle in the West used to perpetuate unfairness. Meritocracy is the antidote. In a meritocratic society, every family will enjoy its day in the sun. Regression to the mean guarantees it. There will be no more great dynasties wielding their power, wealth and influence for centuries. Don't you want to have your chance, based on your merit?
If wealth could be equated with height then most of us would be the size of ants, while the super rich would be as high as mountains. Do you think that's healthy? As an ant, you wouldn't even be able to contemplate the size of the super rich. And they wouldn't notice if they stood on you and crushed you to death. And, in your heart, aren't you already aware that you're invisible to the super rich? They couldn't care less about you. As far as they're concerned, you don't exist. Just as we only notice ants when they crawl over our hand on a hot day, so it is with the super rich and us.
Never forget that they didn't get where they are by talent. They are the beneficiaries of a rigged system. You, by playing along with it, perpetuate it. A word to the wise - wise up, suckers!
Imagine a super-rich person going into a luxury restaurant. No one looks at him. No one acknowledges him. No one takes his jacket. No one shows him to his seat. No one offers him a drink. No one gives him a menu. No one serves him any food. If no one does anything for him, his wealth is meaningless. Wealth is an illusion that you choose to reify i.e. to make it solid, tangible. Wealth is nothing more than an arrangement between people. The essence of this arrangement is that poor people choose to accept that they are deficient in this imaginary substance (money). They acknowledge that the wealthy can supply it to them and they eagerly pursue it because then they will become less 'deficient'. Yet the whole system is merely an elaborate set of transactions in a fantasy currency. The arrangement can be broken at any time if sufficient numbers choose to opt out. The ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes, the most famous of the Cynics, held wealth in contempt. In a world of Diogenes's, the illusion of wealth would dissolve.
But the beneficiaries of the money arrangement - the wealthy - do everything in their power to maintain the illusion. They are the Wizards of Oz, and they aren't going to let anyone see behind the curtain. If you rejected their arrangement, they would be no different from you. So, don't blame anyone else for your poverty and their wealth. If you choose to sign up to an arrangement that guarantees you a subservient role, what right do you have to complain? The wealthy are right in concluding that you're a loser and a failure because only an idiot signs up to be a slave when, at any time, he can choose liberty instead.
You should accept the money arrangement only if you get a fair slice of the pie. It's well known that the vast majority of assets in any country are controlled by a tiny percentage of the population. Why not eat from a different pie, where you get more than a few crumbs. Vote for the Meritocracy Party.
For example, a skeptic might argue that while Microsoft may be a bully now, it started as an entrepreneurial start-up that challenged the OWO (in the name of IBM). So a skeptic might argue that the Microsoft story is actually a victory over the OWO. Now maybe it has since been corrupted, I dunno..
Regarding Microsoft, study the background of Bill Gates. You think he was some punk from the Bronx? Here's an extract from wikipedia:
"Gates was born in Seattle, Washington, to William H. Gates, Sr. and Mary Maxwell Gates, of English, German, Irish, Scottish descent. His family was upper middle class; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president. Gates was the fourth of his name in his family, but was known as William Gates III or "Trey" because his father had dropped his own "III" suffix. Early on in his life, Gates' parents had a law career in mind for him."
And, of course, he went to Harvard, one of the primary centres of OWO activity.
If you think that the OWO is about specific corporations, you have entirely misunderstood. The OWO is about people - about "elite" people. Corporations are simply vehicles to allow them to control money, power, and people. But one corporation is as good as another. IBM gave way to Microsoft i.e. an elderly OWO institution was replaced by a new OWO institution. Nothing had changed other than the name of the corporation and the CEO. The OWO were still pulling all of the strings. Do you think the board members of IBM were thrown onto the scrapheap, penniless and ruined forever by Microsoft? The reality is that they had shares in Microsoft and made a fortune.
Corporations come and go; the people who run them remain at the top, merely moving from one to another.
The reality is that you too are a complete skeptic. It would take a committed anti-OWO activist about one second to demolish the points you raised. The fact that you didn't means that you are in thrall to your colleagues' opinions. You are looking for ways to doubt. You could come back with more points regarding what we've just said, and we could get back to you with more responses. But to what end? We are not a debating society. We don't care about the opinions of your colleagues. They're not on our side and they never will be. They will always find ways to be skeptical. Why? Because they are almost certainly well off people in quite good jobs who do rather well in the OWO's system and rather like it. They are completely unmotivated to change a single thing.
There is no such thing as an "airtight" response. People can convince themselves of absolutely anything. A woman in a burqa can believe that she is a liberated woman. Try reading about cognitive dissonance. When someone's beliefs are demolished, a frequent response is to redouble their belief since they simply can't bear to abandon something to which they have committed so much time. Jehovah's Witnesses three times predicted the end of the world. Each time it failed to end, some people gave up on it, but others became even more committed. That's the way humans operate. (Of course, your colleagues would immediately accuse us of suffering from cognitive dissonance and we would say exactly the same of them i.e. they are so committed to the position that there is no conspiracy that they will redouble their belief in this position no matter how many "facts" of a conspiracy are presented to them.)
"Spreading the word," means getting like-minded people on board, people who might be receptive to the message. It doesn't mean debating with people who will never be on board under any circumstances and in fact are arguably part of the OWO's machine.
If you are interested in actually doing something to resist the OWO then read our article called The Movement, meet up with like-minded people in your area and start carrying out actions that will bring about change. Many people have already contacted us to say they have started, and these are the people who are capable of changing things.
As for the rest, well, frankly, it's all hot air, isn't it? Nothing changes.
I'm afraid we're not going to engage in any further debate about the kinds of points you are raising. We have to direct our time and energy towards productive outcomes. Your colleagues will never listen and are a sterile audience from our point of view.
I have had a number of in depth conversations with some of my colleagues around the idea of the OWO, and I have a few questions for you on this. Over time, a typical schoolyard full of seemingly equal children may often transform itself from a homogeneous mixture to a heterogeneous collection various cliques, groups, hierarchies, and power classes. The bullies and/or smartest kids will ultimately gain power over the meek and/or ones easiest to intimidate or manipulate. Or another example would be a prison. The inmates ultimately branch off into cliques with hierarchies of power and intimidation/manipulation. In neither of these examples are there hidden puppetmasters behind the scenes telling the most powerful school kids or most powerful inmates how to exercise their power. In other words, there is no orchestrated conspiracy in these cases (of a satanic figure with his archons behind the scenes running things). Most people view the OWO not as an orchestrated conspiracy but rather something that naturally emerges out of our society. Wouldn't the emergence of power and the attempt to consolidate and perpetuate this power naturally happen in any society without needing to invoke some vast orchestration with archons and gods, etc...
Over time, a typical schoolyard full of seemingly equal children may often transform itself from a homogeneous mixture to a heterogeneous collection of various cliques, groups, hierarchies, and power classes. The bullies and/or smartest kids will ultimately gain power over the meek and/or ones easiest to intimidate or manipulate.
So, let's put together the children of all the elite, privileged families with the children from the housing projects, trailers and ghettos. Who comes out on top? Who wins when the law of the jungle applies - the spoiled rich kids, or the tough poor kids? The answer is obvious. But that is never allowed to happen...the rich kids are deliberately taken away from the rough, tough kids to ensure that the "natural order" is never allowed to manifest itself. This removal of the elite from the others in order to give them a vastly superior education is the very essence of a conspiracy to distort society in favour of the elite. Nor does the conspiracy have to be explicit. Eventually it becomes second nature: it is entirely internalised. Everyone knows exactly what needs to be done to ensure that the rich maintain their wealth and power.
There is not a single rich person on this planet who does not understand the game of maximising wealth and power, and thereby screwing over everyone who does not have wealth and power. When has any rich person ever followed St Francis of Assisi's example and given away all of their wealth? As for those rich people who give money to charity, why is it that charity events are almost exclusively lavish, five-star parties in exclusive, luxury locations to which only the rich are invited? Is that charity or is that the rich a) networking b) self-promoting and c) getting publicity for themselves as "caring, sharing" people. The whole thing is a lie and a scandal. Charity is a scandal. If something is worthwhile, it ought to be supported by the government. If it's not worthwhile then fuck it! Either way, there's no room for charity. "Charity" is nothing but a vehicle for rich people to be seen as kind, giving and unselfish when the truth is the exact opposite.
Or another example would be a prison. The inmates ultimately branch off into clichés with hierarchies of power and intimidation/manipulation.
So, lets strip the Wall Street fat cats (who almost bankrupted the nation) of all their wealth and power and throw them in jail where they belong. You think they'll be at the top of the prison hierarchy?
You have provided examples of natural hierarchies where those with the most merit in the particular environments rise to the top. That's exactly what meritocracy is trying to achieve: everyone starts from the same starting line and the fastest winner wins.
Privilege, on the other hand, is all about rigging the system to prevent the natural outcome.
Instead of competing, business cartels manipulate prices to rip off the people. Huge corporations like Microsoft carry out massively anti-competitive practices. Smaller, better rivals are crushed. Big companies use political lobbying, bribery and even espionage to gain unfair advantages.
In neither of these examples are there hidden puppetmasters behind the scenes telling the most powerful school kids or most powerful inmates how to exercise their power.
But there are hidden puppetmasters, and not so hidden ones, deciding who goes to jail and who goes to what schools, and who is given a realistic chance of getting to the top of society and who has practically no chance at all. Schools and jails could be run along entirely different lines. There could be entirely different winners and losers. The people who set the rules of the game are the winners, not the people who have no control over the hand they are dealt.
The puppetmasters decide the rules; the suckers play the game despite having had no say in setting the rules.
In other words, there is no orchestrated conspiracy in these cases (of a satanic figure with his archons behind the scenes running things). Most people view the OWO not as an orchestrated conspiracy but rather something that naturally emerges out of our society.
You think that the rules of society are "natural"? In nature, the strong take from the weak. Does society allow a strong, aggressive guy with no money to go round to a millionaire's mansion, kill him and move into his mansion? Why not? Nature wouldn't object. It's "red in tooth and claw", after all. So why does society object? Is it perhaps because the rich man in the mansion conspires with other rich men in mansions to create the rules of society that ensure that no one can easily come round and take their wealth from them, the very wealth that they have stolen from others?
Wouldn't the emergence of power and the attempt to consolidate and perpetuate this power naturally happen in any society without needing to invoke some vast orchestration with archons and gods, etc...
The emergence of power may or may not be natural. The attempt to consolidate and perpetuate this power is always unnatural i.e. it seeks to change nature. If a man became rich by stealing from others, he then seeks to introduce laws against theft because he knows that otherwise what he did to become rich could just as easily be done to him. What was "natural" when it was to his advantage is now to be branded as a crime and a sin. For a few great, elite, dynastic families to rule the world generation after generation is no accident. It's an orchestrated conspiracy to at all times advance the interests of the elite and harm those who might challenge them. It's not "vast"; it's actually quite small. And it's easy to manipulate people who want to be manipulated.
In effect, 6,000 people run the whole world even though there are six and a half billion people on earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Do you think that Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the Bilderberg Group, modern Freemasons, Wall Street boardrooms etc are benign, harmless groups who are taking no steps to shape the world in their image? And you think no one stands behind them?
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
The OWO have done their job perfectly if you believe that they deserve to be where they are, if you believe that they did not actively rig the system in their favour and took no steps to sabotage your chances and those of everyone else who might compete with them.
And if you do meekly accept your subjugation then they are right, aren't they? You don't deserve anything better. The natural order has asserted itself. The masters are at the top, and the slaves are serving them.
If you can rationalise everything around you, you can fully accept the dominance of the OWO and you can reach the conclusion that the only thing that stopped you from doing better in life was your own personal deficiency then nothing more need be said. You have "bought" the OWO's propaganda hook, line and sinker.
But why do you bother to read websites that completely reject the OWO? Aren't you wasting your time if you accept what your colleagues say?
I cannot believe a small collective consciousness is ruling the world and holding the rest back maliciously and knowingly. I can accept wealth distribution and inheritance is a problem, I can accept there are great flaws in the systems of democracy that allow abuse and misuse, however suggesting there is a cabal of individuals that is actively seeking to control the masses, disadvantage them and maintain their own wealth - as a group, sharing the same mentality, motivation - is just as insane a notion to me as hollow earth.
We come across people like you all of the time, and you never say anything we haven't heard a thousand times before. What incentive do you think we have to engage in a debate with someone such as yourself?
Nietzsche said, "As soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion!"
You actively seek ways to disagree with us. You make very little attempt to try to figure out how our statements about the OWO could be true.
Your statement shows that you are certainly not coming to the topic as an agnostic but as a firm denier. You are suggesting that our discussions of the OWO are "insane" (that's really going to take you far with us, isn't it?), that it's a fabricated conspiracy and that there's no evidence at all that the world is controlled by an astonishingly small group of power players, numbering approximately 6,000.
I cannot believe a small collective consciousness is ruling the world and holding the rest back maliciously and knowingly. I can accept wealth distribution and inheritance is a problem, I can accept there are great flaws in the systems of democracy that allow abuse and misuse, however suggesting there is a cabal of individuals that is actively seeking to control the masses, disadvantage them and maintain their own wealth - as a group, sharing the same mentality, motivation - is just as insane a notion to me as hollow earth.
Indeed. So, is it rational for you to be engaging in a debate with those who advocate such "crazy" ideas? We don't debate with hollow earth people, so why are you trying to debate with us? You emailed us unbidden. Do you think we email the hollow earth gang?
You haven't, I'm afraid, given us any reason to regard you as anything other than a negative, unconstructive individual. If you can't make a positive, productive contribution, why don't you go in search of another arena more suited to your taste? Why do you persist? It's quite perverse, don't you think?
We are only interested in those with a contribution to make, with energy, positivity, and creativity. We can find millions of people to disagree with us and condemn us. We have better things to do with our time, frankly, than to spend it on convincing you of the reality of the OWO.
If you don't agree with our statements about the OWO, good for you, but then don't expect us to be well disposed towards you. We long ago gave up reading the latest hollow earth stories. So, if you think the OWO theory is ridiculous then, by the same token, it must be time for you to move on to pastures new.
The substantive issue is that a small group of people set the agenda for our world and it is an agenda designed to enrich them and not the people of the world. Do you think ordinary people caused the Credit Crunch, or was it governments, bankers, credit agencies, regulators and bosses of big business? Whose side are you on? If you have no interest in getting rid of the ruling class and regard them as blameless people who, by some miraculous process that has nothing to do with active design on their part, managed to acquire the vast majority of the world's wealth and power, then you should go elsewhere.
We are interested in people who want to start actively and constructively campaigning for real change in this world and that means, of necessity, toppling the ruling regime. We call them the OWO, but you're welcome to call them whatever you like.
In the circles in which we move, we have had direct contact with the archons of the Demiurge. They are not ridiculous comic-book "demons" from the pages of medieval Christian propaganda. Rather, they are exactly the sort of people who are experts in areas such as game theory and know precisely how to set ordinary people against each other, and to hold back humanity. Their mission is to support the agenda of the Demiurge and there has never been any doubt about what the Demiurge's agenda is. Just try reading the Torah, the Bible and the Koran.
The Demiurge wants the whole of humanity - six and a half billion people - lying prostrate before him, averting their eyes from him, worshipping him, glorifying him, doing whatever he wants no matter how insane (as in the story of Abraham and Isaac). He is Ego taken to its limitless extent. He is the essence of Narcissism. He cares nothing for others, only for himself. He is the definition of Selfishness and Self-interest.
He feeds on fear. He is a terrorist. He said to Abraham, "Now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake."
What manner of God wants to be feared? No God at all. It is Satan who wants to make the world cower before him, who rules through Terror, through the threat of infinite and eternal punishment for disobeying him.
We see echoes of the Demiurge's narcissism, selfishness and egotism everywhere. They are branded on our world. Look at celebrity culture, at "royalty", at the super rich, at the "upper class", the "nobility", the "Elite", the "aristocracy". Our entire culture is saturated with the influence of the Demiurge.
The Jews at the Wailing Wall are worshipping the Demiurge, the million of Muslims at Mecca are worshipping the Demiurge, the Christians who go to church every Sunday are worshipping the Demiurge.
Do any of these people talk about glorifying humanity, of releasing maximum human potential, of raising humanity up to become God?
You must be joking if you think the Abrahamic faiths are about anything other than blind obedience - even to the extent of suicidal mass murder (so-called "martyrdom" operations) - to the universe's supreme tyrant.
You imagine that the Abrahamic faiths happened by accident? That all the horror and evil, the slaughter and persecutions, the intolerance and hatred, just arose by themselves, without a directing intelligence?
In fact, we don't actually care whether people buy into the reality of the Demiurge and the archons or not. All we really care about is that, one way or another, people should recognise that humanity is far from fulfilling its potential and that there are various "forces", however you want to define them, that are holding humanity back. Those who are an obstacle to human progress must be removed. Those who stand in the way of every person on earth being treated as unique and wonderful individuals who must be cherished, cultivated and helped towards maximum self-actualisation, must be vanquished.
Isn't it amazing that so many people work so hard to justify the status quo, to claim that there's nothing to be done and it's all just "human nature"? When it comes to such an apathetic (and pathetic) attitude, ask yourself cui bono?
The people who love this kind of negative talk - that there's no conspiracy, that it's game theory, that it's human nature and that we're all helpless in the face of it yada yada yada - are precisely the people who are doing rather well from the current way of doing things: the OWO and their fellow travellers and hangers on. The hangers on - the OWO's parasites - just like their masters, don't want anything to change because it might upset their cosy, comfortable little lives as high priests of their "gods".
We despise such people. They are as much of a problem as the OWO themselves. The OWO, seeing the dangers posed by Marxism, created a "middle class" of people who enjoy feeding on the scraps from the OWO's table. Had this middle class never been born then there would have been just two classes: the workers (the slaves) and the capitalist bosses who exploit them (the masters). The workers would certainly have risen up against the capitalist bosses and destroyed them, as they did in Russia in 1917.
The OWO aren't stupid. They saw the danger, so they created the smug, comfortable "middle class" - all the tedious accountants and lawyers, managers and bureaucrats - and defused the threat of revolution.
There are all too many OWO collaborators out there. They are the equivalent of what Nietzsche called the "Last Men" - feeble, complacent, petty people exclusively focused on narrow self-interest and with no grand vision for the human race, followers of negative liberty (the creed of "leave me alone in my little square box of a house with my smug little family") rather than pursuing positive liberty, the gospel of "let's do something great and wonderful, something that will light up the entire dark cosmos with the astonishing glory of humanity."
Which side are you on? To all those negative people who write to us with their nit picking, self-satisfied arguments, fuck off! We're not interested in your "Last Men" analysis of the world, your constant excuses on behalf of the ruling order.
To use their own language, you're either for the OWO or you're against them. Stand up and be counted, one way or another. Those who choose to be agnostics are just cowards like the Ignavi in Dante's Inferno.
It's make your mind up time.
When Goldman Sachs and other bankers pay themselves vast bonuses, the propaganda they put out is that they deserve it, they earned it, they are being rewarded appropriately for being "geniuses".
But consider the alternative narrative. They have rigged a system that has become a one-way bet for the Elite. They can never lose because rule number 1 of their game is: The Elite always Win. They have no skill. Anyone could do what they do if they enjoyed all the same privileges.
The narrative of the Elite is that they are "doing the best for their children, just as any other parents would do." The real narrative is that they are harming the interests of all children who have no access to privilege. They are preventing them from having a decent shot at life. No one on earth has any right to restrict the opportunities of anyone else on earth. The capitalist system of privilege is all about deciding who will sail through life in a luxury yacht and who will be sitting on the bus to nowhere. No decent person could support such a system. Equality of opportunity should be enshrined in law, and that means the end of Privilege.
And here's the crux of the alternative narrative: every dollar spent on privilege is a dollar stolen from those who do not enjoy any privilege. These people are thieves and criminals. They are stealing from the ordinary people their chance to have a good life and a satisfying job. They are stealing from us in order to feather their own nests, to rig the system against us. The barriers to us getting in on the action get higher and higher with each passing second. Their wealth keeps rising; our relative poverty keeps rising too. We are going backwards. Each generation has less social mobility than the one before. We are returning to a feudal system. And it's all because we're too dumb to see through their ludicrous fake narrative that they deserve to be our masters...that they are better than we are.
Do we have "sucker" and "loser" branded on our foreheads? We must do because why else would we let the Elite steal our lives from us? Some of us are even apologists for the criminals, trying to find arguments to explain away the fact that they have hijacked all of the world's resources for their own infinitely greedy ends.
We will ignore all future emails to us where people try to defend the OWO as merely some natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with a deliberate conspiracy to defraud the people. They are criminals. They have utter contempt for us and they think they can walk all over us. When a hedge fund manager pays himself a billion dollars he is telling us that we are the most pathetic people in human history. If we weren't, we would surely stop him. We would take that money off him and give it to teachers to bring enlightenment to all the children of the world.
There are six and half billion of us, and a few thousand of them. Who's running this show? Democracy? Is that the world's biggest joke? How come the one sure outcome of democracy is that the rich have kept getting richer? So much for power to the people.
Meritocracy is a political system which has as its fundamental principle the prevention of anyone acquiring disproportionate wealth and power. Do not participate in democratic politics any longer. Treat it with utter contempt. It is nothing but a vehicle for the Elite to rule us with our consent, to make us complicit in our own humiliation. Don't fall for the propaganda. Everything they say is a lie. Everything they do is designed to make them richer.
It's time for change. REAL CHANGE. That means it's time for the end of democracy. You think we can't replace it with a far superior system of meritocracy? YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The super rich - the OWO - are the sole barrier to humanity rising to the firmament and gazing over the glittering celestial plain with the infinitely bright eyes of God.
Let's get started.
*****
A Creative Challenge
Are there any talented film directors out there who could make a short, chilling film of 30 seconds to a minute duration?
Here's the idea. Imagine a grim, remote landscape, maybe on an isolated mountainside. We catch a glimpse of a man aggressively tying a young boy to a flat, altar-like rock. The sky is an ominous grey colour. The tone of the film suggests that we are watching a serial killer at work. We see the scene from the boy's point of view. He is screaming hysterically as he desperately tries to free himself from the ropes binding him. We see glimpses of the tall, bearded man who is attacking him. The camera is shaking wildly as the boy struggles for his life against this monstrous predator.
We see the flash of a blade and realise that the killer is about to plunge it into the boy and murder him.
The boy shouts out, "Don't kill me, daddy."
A caption appears over the boy, showing his name - Isaac.
We are now shown a clear shot of the bearded old man who is about to slaughter the child.
A caption appears saying:
Abraham:
Founding Father of
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
A further caption says:
A little earlier, Isaac had asked his father, "Where is the victim for the holocaust?"
His father never told him that he was the victim.
Would you want a father like this?
Do you want to be a victim of the holocaust?
Do you want a father who would kill you in the name of his God?
Would you want to believe in your father's God?
The three Abrahamic Religions are the sickest story ever told.
They are the history of violence and horror.
They are a curse on the human race.
They are the gospel of Satan.
End the madness.
Turn to the light.
Turn to Illumination.
*****
In our next article, we will return to an exploration of the r >= 0 universe and show how it is the dialectical culmination of all mainstream philosophical and religious thinking. The article after that will show how r >= 0 can be used as a framework for understanding all psychic and paranormal phenomena. Two subsequent articles will deal with a) a simplified version of the philosophy of the great Illuminatus Hegel who made the last comprehensive attempt to bring the ideas of Illumination to a wide audience and b) the secret monadology of another towering Illuminatus, Leibniz. Leibniz and Hegel's teachings constitute the essence of Illumination.
The Illuminati are often referred to as the "Bavarian" Illuminati thanks to the most controversial of the Illuminati's Grand Masters - Adam Weishaupt. Since Weishaupt was an academic and great thinker, like Hegel and Leibniz, who wanted to rid the world of sadistic religions and tyrannical governments, it is utterly perverse that he is now cast as a profoundly sinister man. Does anyone regard Hegel or Leibniz as deeply sinister?
What is certainly true is that the Illuminati was centred in Germany for a very long time. Ironically it was when Germany was unified under Bismarck in 1871 that the Illuminati chose to move its base of operations since it was apparent that Germany was becoming militaristic and moving away from its cultural greatness. (The new headquarters was Scotland, which had always played a crucial role in the affairs and history of the Illuminati. It was there, for example, that the original form of Freemasonry was born from the remnants of the Knights Templar. The Scottish connection is alluded to in The Armageddon Conspiracy.)
Nietzsche (not an Illuminatus) was so alarmed by the type of Germany that he found himself in that he started laying claim to Polish ancestry. His scathing opinions about the new Germany were shared by the Illuminati. Much of what he said about Germany could now be said about most of the Western world and perhaps particularly about America. Germany, thankfully, has returned to being a great nation and it would be no surprise if the idealistic up-and-coming generation of Germany were at the forefront of changing the world for the better, in keeping with the traditions of the Illuminati. (The Movement's forum was of course established by "FV" of Germany, and he is doing excellent work creating videos for The Movement.)
America, too, can return to being the great nation that once inspired the world and seemed like a beacon of freedom. One way or another, it will be America that is the focus of major world events in the next few years. America is a deeply polarized society and one day something is going to give. Then it will be up to the good Americans to stand up and be counted, and to set an example that will inspire the world.
