The leader of the Jesuit Order, the Superior General, is commonly known as the "black pope" because of both his power and black vestments.

Such is the degree of loathing and suspicion that attaches to the Jesuits that some conspiracy theorists regard them as the ultimate puppetmasters, and some claim that the Illuminati and the Jesuits are the same thing:
What is the truth about the Jesuits and the Illuminati?


The Jungle Utopias  

The Jesuits, like the Knights Templar before them, were created by the Illuminati to infiltrate and destabilise Catholicism. Both orders were suppressed: the Templars permanently and the Jesuits for a few decades. The Jesuits, by the time they were reinstated, had been purged of virtually all traces of the Illuminati, although it is worth pointing out that in more recent times French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his theories concerning the Omega Point and Noosphere, independently created ideas that are not far distant from the tenets of Illumination, the religion of the Illuminati.

Illuminati Grand Master Adam Weishaupt was educated at the Jesuit College in Ingolstadt in Bavaria, and the Jesuits largely controlled the town's university. Some conspiracy theorists have therefore concluded that the Illuminati were the creation of Jesuits. Ingolstadt was in fact the headquarters of the Illuminati at that time, and many Jesuits were carrying out duties on behalf of the Illuminati. However, it should not be assumed that all Jesuits were in league with the Illuminati. For decades, the Vatican had been taking increasing control of the Jesuit Order and many if not most Jesuits were, by the late eighteenth century, entirely loyal to the Pope. The Order had, in effect, split into two separate factions. When the Order was suppressed it was so that it could be purged once and for all of all "undesirable" elements. Only when it was felt the task was complete - after more than a generation - was the Order reinstated. The Vatican had learned from the previous example of the Knights Templar and this time did they did not want to create any new martyrs or myths, so they did not eliminate the Order, but purified it.

The movie The Mission is based on the true story of the Jesuit "Reductions" (missions) in South America. The Reductions provide a glimpse of what type of world the Illuminati wished to create in those days: the New World Order. The Reductions are an illustration of positive liberty. They represent one of the greatest episodes in history, and yet few people know much about this boldest of experiments.

When the Spanish and Portuguese empires conquered South America, many indigenous Indians were plunged into the familiar tale of Old World Order slavery and exploitation. Jesuit missionaries, under the guidance of the Illuminati, tried to help the Indians. They managed to persuade the King of Spain to grant a vast region to their care, in return for generous annual payments to the King's coffers.
In 1609, the Jesuits established the first mission and other missions followed over the following years, up to a total of about forty by the first half of the 18th century. Each mission catered for up to 10,000 people i.e. they were the size of small towns.

The Jesuits helped the Indians to create advanced societies. The Reductions had law and order, schools, hospitals, and free public services for the poor. There was no death penalty. The working day was set at 6 hours, compared with the 12-14 hours of the average European worker. The Indians worked the communal land and all produce was fairly divided amongst them. They were skilled in sculpture and woodcarving, and started making watches and musical instruments. In their free time, the Indians enjoyed music, dance, games, sport and reading. They were shielded from the bad influences of the Europeans (alcohol, gambling and venereal disease) and allowed to develop their creativity.

Each Reduction was arranged in a square. On one side were the civic buildings: church, school, hospital, community hall, warehouses for storage, shops etc. On the other three sides were the Indians' homes.

The missions were extremely efficient. Not only were they self-supporting, they produced surpluses of goods, which could then be traded. They were far more economic than comparable communities in Europe. They were said to be the first entirely literate communities in the history of the world. Meritocratic community elders were placed in charge, under the supervision of the handful of Jesuit missionaries in each Reduction. The missions became centres of culture and egalitarian community life. They effectively enjoyed full independence from the territories of South America ruled by Spanish and Portuguese governors.

The Jesuits protected the Indians from European slave-hunters, to the annoyance of the slavers who thought the Jesuits were bad for business and potentially subversive. They worried about what would happen if the Jesuit missions were set up everywhere, including in Europe. Slowly but surely, the Jesuits' missions were perceived - correctly - as a radical threat to the power of the Old World Order.

The Jesuits' enemies then claimed that the Jesuits were exploiting the Indians, making vast sums of money from them to enrich themselves, and acting as arrogant lords with airs and graces. Nothing was further from the truth, but the nature of propaganda does not change: in every age, the names of the good are blackened by the bad.

In 1767, tensions came to a head and the Jesuits were expelled from the Spanish and Portuguese empires. The missions were destroyed or absorbed into new towns built by the authorities. Slavers captured many of the Indians and the rest returned to the forests and jungles for safety.

Little remains to mark the passing of the Jesuits' Reductions (although the La Santisima Trinidad del Parana Reduction in Paraguay is a UNESCO World Heritage Site). The Old World Order had succeeded in killing off the Illuminati's great and noble vision. They despised the Jesuits' resistance to slave raids, and the autonomy and economic success of the Reductions. They despised the good education and high standards of health care enjoyed by the Indians. They despised the Indians' lack of subservience to nobles, kings and emperors. They despised these jungle utopias where primitive Indians were turned into far more than noble savages: they became clever, skilled members of communities that were not based on power, riches and status.  When they looked at the Reductions, the OWO saw a new society that might overthrow everything they stood for. So they eliminated the threat.

In 1773, the Jesuit Order was formally suppressed throughout all Catholic lands.

In 1814, with the Order completely purged of all non-orthodox influences, and under strict instructions never again to challenge the power and economic interests of the nobility, it was reinstated.

All good, thinking people should see that what the Illuminati-inspired Jesuits attempted in the jungles of South America centuries ago was a magnificent endeavour, a heroic attempt to create a utopia free of the iniquities and corruption of the Old World Order. That's why the Reductions were ruthlessly stamped out.

We are told that we need to live in capitalist cities, full of all the ills of our fallen modern society. Do we? Our cities are impersonal machines, designed for the convenience of the OWO, to maximise the profits of big business, and to allow close control and surveillance of the masses. We could replace our appalling, inhuman, congested, dirty and dangerous cities with 21st century Reductions: small, efficient, economic communities of 10,000 people. (Jean-Jacques Rousseau - whose ideas are discussed in detail in the next section - was a strong advocate of communitarian politics. Community, more than anything else, is what has been lost in our modern societies.) Wouldn't they be things of awesome beauty? The world would be transformed. The time of monarchs, Masons and Wall Street fat cats would end. This age of soul-destroying materialism, consumerism, cheap entertainment, junk food and junk values would be over at long last. Humanity could reach out towards its higher self, freed from the chains of the Old World Order.  

Isn't it time to start again the great project of the Illuminati's Reductions, designed for the 21st Century?

Isn't it time for community rather than anonymous, soulless, capitalist cities: the dark, Satanic mills of the Old World Order?

Isn't it time for a New World Order?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Swiss-born Rousseau was not formally a member of the Illuminati, but he moved in Illuminati circles and was highly regarded by the Illuminati. Like several other prominent individuals in whom the Illuminati have taken an interest over the centuries, he was regarded as too much of a maverick to accept the discipline of the Illuminati. Hence, he became a collaborator rather than a member.

Rousseau's masterpiece The Social Contract (1762) was immediately recognised in Europe as a revolutionary work. Copies of the book were burned in Geneva and later in several European capitals. The author and his work were denounced in Paris and condemned by the French parliament. Rousseau, already exiled from his home city of Geneva, had to flee France where he had been living.

The Social Contract is, in effect, a statement of the political position of the Illuminati at that time, and remains largely valid to this day. A Meritocratic Republic of Laws, based on a social contract operating in the interests of all, is the vision of the Illuminati. This is the New World Order. It does harm to none, except those who do not wish to promote the common good. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The chain of our society could not be any weaker because of the number of people who are left to rot by the Old World Order. Society can never be healthy and strong until as much effort is put into strengthening the weakest link as is put into polishing the strongest links.

The Old World Order, in their high towers of greed, selfishness and privilege, are the antithesis of good citizens. They can play no part in any healthy State. Everything that characterises the Old World Order would become illegal in the New World Order.

"Let us establish just laws for our contract." (Virgil)

The Social Contract

The Social Contract was the "Bible" of the two leading Illuminists and Jacobins, Robespierre and Saint-Just. They attempted to put Rousseau's ideas into practice, but they were given no time and space. In the aftermath of the Revolution, France was plunged into war against the great royalist powers of Europe: the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, Spain, Portugal and Great Britain. Counter-revolutionary forces were everywhere. There were uprisings inside France against the Revolutionary government. The Catholic Church was opposed to the Revolution. France was in chaos.

In other circumstances, the Jacobins might have created the radical new society they desired. Instead, they were locked into conflict, horror and terror and failed to bring their vision to fruition. That is the world's great tragedy. Now, more than ever, we need a social contract between the governors and the governed, one that prevents the governors from doing what they always do: governing in their own interests rather than those of the people and then lying through their teeth that they are doing their best for everyone. Democracy is dumbocracy. You'd need to be really dumb to buy it. 

Quotations by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying, 'This is mine', and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: 'Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.'"

When it comes to any piece of land on earth, what allows anyone to say, "I own this. It's mine." What if someone else says, "No, it's mine", or, "It belongs to no one." Who's right? The question, in the past, was settled by force. Nowadays, it's by wealth and legal assertions, underpinned, ultimately, by force once more. So nothing has changed. Brute force is concealed under a veneer of legalistic respectability, but still might is right, still the strong take what they want from the weak. The lesson is simple: you get what you want in this world through force. That is the eternal credo of the Old World Order.

"The word 'Economy' is derived from 'house' and 'law', and meant originally only the wise and legitimate government of the house for the common good of the whole family."

Nowadays, no conclusion is possible other than that the economy is for the good of the rich and powerful alone. That's why the banks - the main driver of the wealth of the Old World Order - are not under the control of the nation. How can the economy be left in the hands of entities that have radically different priorities from the nation itself? Banks and their shareholders want to maximise their profits. They care nothing for economic stability and for helping the underprivileged of society. In the pursuit of profit, banks would not hesitate to undermine the nation's economy. That is exactly what the present financial crisis is about, yet no one has demanded that banks, in the national interest, be brought under the control of the elected government.

Some banks are "too big to fail", we are told. In other words, banks have been permitted to acquire so much wealth and power that it would destroy the economy if they went out of business. In effect, these banks are holding a gun to the head of the nation. Why were they allowed to get so big? Cui bono? Certainly not the people. Taxpayers had to bail out these banking leviathans, but you can be certain they will not be there when the vast bonuses are being paid out to the fat cats. How strange is that? Why do people tolerate it? How stupid are they? They have been brainwashed to think that strong government is tantamount to communism. Many Americans have a great fear of federal government, and that leads to an even greater fear of a New World Order. So, they would rather be the suckers who get ripped off by the Wall Street robber gang and carpetbaggers. It's time they studied economic theory and wised up about the nature of free market capitalism - the deadly instrument of tyranny of the Old World Order.

"Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."

This is Rousseau's most famous quotation. In our society, you are free, for the most part, in direct proportion to how wealthy you are. The poor are barely distinguishable from slaves.

"It is then, according to Grotius, doubtful whether the human race belongs to a hundred men, or those hundred men to the human race … On this showing, the human species is divided into so many herds of cattle, each with its ruler, who keeps guard over them for the purpose of devouring them."

This is an excellent definition of the Old World Order.

"Thus, Philo tells us, the Emperor Caligula reasoned, concluding equally well either that kings were gods, or that men were beasts. The reasoning of Caligula agrees with that of Hobbes and Grotius. Aristotle, before any of them, had said that men are by no means equal naturally, but that some are born for slavery, and others for dominion."

This is the core ideology of the OWO. We are born, they think, to be their slaves.

"Aristotle was right; but he took the effect for the cause. Nothing can be more certain than that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them: they love their servitude … Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuated the condition."

Most people in our society secretly love servitude. Why else would they so willingly endure the reign of the OWO? Why else would they tolerate Wall Street fat cats?

"Tranquillity is found also in dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live in? The Greeks imprisoned in the cave of the Cyclops lived there very tranquilly, while they were their turn to be devoured."

Are we not living in dungeons - our square boxes that we call houses - waiting our turn to be devoured by our masters?

"Even if each man could alienate himself, he could not alienate his children: they are born men and free; their liberty belongs to them, and no one but they has the right to dispose of it."

Yet all of the time, we inflict on our children our own cowardice. If we start off as slaves of the Old World Order, our children inherit our enslavement, but we have no right to impose our sentence on them. Children should never be allowed to inherit either a lofty or lowly position in life. Their merits should dictate where they end up, not their family connections.

"When Nunez Balbao, standing on the seashore, took possession of the South Seas and the whole of South America in the name of the crown of Castile, was that enough to dispossess all their actual inhabitants, and to shut out from them all the princes of the world? If this was the case, it was quite unnecessary to multiply these ceremonies, and all the King of Spain had to do was, from his apartment, to take possession all at once of the whole universe, allowing himself to exclude from his empire what had formerly been possessed by other princes."

This sums up the Old World Order. They think they can take ownership of things to which they have no right at all.

"Under bad governments, equality is only apparent and illusory; it serves only to keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much."     

This is a key statement. The New World Order will ensure that all have something and none too much. The members of the Old World Order desire that many will have next to nothing, some will have something and a few - they themselves - will have virtually everything.

"Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes."

This is an excellent summary not just of Christianity, but also of Judaism and Islam: the three slave religions created by the Old World Order to exploit the weak and gullible.

"The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows indeed that it deserves to lose them."

Nothing has changed in Britain since 1762. British "democracy" is still one of the greatest jokes on earth. America now has equally ridiculous elections.

"In a word, it is the best and most natural arrangement that the wisest should govern the many, when it is assured that they will govern for its profit, and not for their own."

This is a perfect statement of meritocracy and the New World Order. The Old World Order, on the other hand, govern purely for their own profit.

"In respect of riches, no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself; which implies, on the part of the great, moderation in goods and position."

The Old World Order are never moderate in their greed. Look at the whole culture of vast bonuses for bankers. Do these people care a damn about anyone else?

"Wise men, if they try to speak their language to the common herd instead of its own, cannot possibly make themselves understood."

Most people have been so debased by democracy, by the dumbed-down ideology of capitalism that they can barely think for themselves. They have a short attention span and no ability to follow complex arguments. They want everything delivered to them in sound bites. Intellectual debate has become impossible in our society. That's why a clown like George W Bush could become President in the American dumbocracy.

"Each of us puts his person and all of his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole. At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a corporate and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains voters, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons, formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign authority…

"Again, the Sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power need give no guarantee to its subjects, because it is impossible for the body to wish to hurt all of its members."  

The sort of State we have now can barely be called a State at all. The people are not bound together by a social contract that clearly defines what is expected of each and every citizen. Instead, we merely have a collection of people - families and individuals - who have not signed up to any social contract and operate in their own interests rather than that of the collective. Negative liberty and free markets are the order of the day. No one cares about the existence of a huge underclass. This underclass is inconceivable in the State characterised by Rousseau (and the Illuminati).

Rousseau's position is that when everyone agrees to the social contract they become, in effect, cells in a new, vibrant, living and breathing entity called the State. The State, so to speak, is alive. It is a person with a mind. It acts in its own interest. In the same way that none of us, assuming we are happy and healthy, would ever deliberately cause harm to any part of ourselves because we would only be damaging ourselves, so Rousseau's State is incapable of harming any part of itself i.e. it will never do any damage to any of its cells - its citizens.

Whereas Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan had everyone submitting to the power of the monarch (the Old World Order's familiar master and slave paradigm), Rousseau has everyone submitting to themselves (no masters and no slaves). That is, all cells/citizens are alike - none takes precedence over another - so to submit to the State is to submit to yourself, but with yourself multiplied as many times as there are citizens in the State.

In such a State, no citizen would ever be abandoned (as so many are in our shameful society), since the State is damaged if any of its cells is damaged. In other words, Rousseau's State inherently seeks the benefit of all. It would never favour one group over another, never permit some to enjoy great privilege, wealth and power while others are reduced to desperation, poverty and powerlessness. The Old World Order's version of the State is anathema to Rousseau.

If the State does not explicitly help to maximise the potential of every citizen then it is no State at all. It is a tyrant that must be overthrown. Its rule is illegal and no one need comply with it. That is the State in which we currently exist. It is an illegal tyranny of the Old World Order, designed to keep the vast majority of us in degrading servitude to the elite, dynastic bloodlines that have trampled over us for millennia.     

"It is solely on the basis of the common interest that every society should be governed."

Our society is governed on the basis of providing maximum service to privileged elites. There is no common interest.

"To be general, a will need not always be unanimous; but every vote must be counted: any formal exclusion is a breach of generality."

Consider the US election of 2000: the Supreme Court ignored the will of the American people.

The General Will

"The body politic, therefore, is also a moral being, possessed of a will; and this general will, which tends always to the preservation and welfare of the whole and of every part, and is the source of the laws, constitutes for all the members of the State, in their relations to one another and to it, the rule of what is just or unjust."

"It follows from what has gone before that the general will is always upright and always tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people always have the same rectitude. Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see what it is; the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad.

"There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter considers only the common interest, while the former takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of particular wills: but take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel one another, and the general will remains as the sum of the differences.

"('Every interest,' says the Marquis d'Argenson, 'has different principles. The agreement of two particular interests is formed by opposition to a third.' He might have added that the agreement of all interests is formed by opposition to that of each. If there were no different interests, the common interest would be barely felt, as it would encounter no obstacle; all would go on of its own accord, and politics would cease to be an art.)

"If, when the people, being furnished with adequate information, held its deliberations, the citizens had no communication one with another, the grand total of the small differences would always give the general will, and the decision would always be good. But when intrigues arise, and partial associations are formed at the expense of the great association, the will of each of these associations becomes general in relation to its members, while it remains particular in relation to the State: it may then be said that there are no longer as many votes as there are men, but only as many as there are associations. The differences become less numerous and give a less general result. Lastly, when one of these associations is so great as to prevail over all the rest, the result is no longer a sum of small differences, but a single difference; in this case there is no longer a general will, and the opinion which prevails is purely particular.

"It is therefore essential, if the general will is to be able to make itself known, that there should be no partial society in the state and that each citizen should express only his own opinion. But if there are partial societies, it is best to have as many as possible and to prevent them from being unequal. These precautions are the only ones that can guarantee that the general will shall always be enlightened, and that the people shall in no way deceive itself."

Rousseau makes an astonishing point that is never discussed in the modern world. All political parties are "partial associations". They express a particular rather than a general will. When a Republican President is elected in America do you imagine for one moment that he operates in the interest of all Americans? You would have to be insane to believe that. A Republican President has to repay all of the people who put him there, he has to govern according to the Republican platform on which he stood, he has to satisfy his Republican constituency, he has to spread the Republican message, he has to put Republicans in as many influential positions as possible. In other words, a Republican President governs on behalf of the Republican Party i.e. a particular will. A Democratic President would do the same for his Democratic constituency.

Democracy never expresses the general will. It never even comes close. It is always about satisfying particular, narrow agendas of self-interest of the victorious political party. It is astounding that such an ideology has managed to pass itself off as a vehicle of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It is nothing of the kind. It is government of the people, by sectional interests for sectional interests.

In order to come close to "government for the people" it is necessary to abolish sectional interests i.e. political parties. The government of a nation should be placed in the hands of meritocratic independents with no party allegiances and no political axe to grind. Each independent should be elected by a constituency of people in that person's profession, who can vouch for his expertise, and who can remove him if he no longer commands their respect. The independents should then decide amongst themselves whom the President or Prime Minister should be. The idea of having a popularity contest between two individuals put forward by self-interested political parties is no basis for good governance of a nation. It leads to exactly the type of ineffectual government we have to endure now - the form of government that suits the Old World Order down to the ground since their power is never threatened.

The general will is directed solely to the common interest. It never serves one part of society at the expense of another. Under the operation of the general will, no one would feel alienated from the State. However, it is unclear how in practical terms the general will could ever be reliably and unambiguously expressed. Rousseau envisaged a highly educated, independently-minded citizen body, with none too rich or too poor, coming together in the absence of sectional interests for free and vigorous discussion. They would vote directly for the policies to be implemented by the executive. In the age of the internet, this has become a practical possibility, but far too many people are too poorly educated and there are too many groups with sectional interests that would sabotage any progress.

The Illuminati advocate the extension of humanity's most successful, objective and fairest tool - the scientific method - to the political arena to find the optimal way to express the general will. The scientific method involves putting forward hypotheses, testing them, refining them, testing them again in an iterative process that never truly ends, until a hypothesis is promoted to the status of theory ("law" might be a better term to show that theories have reached a condition where they are exceptionally difficult to overturn).

Why shouldn't the same thing be done in political terms? The aim of government is to find the best way to express the general will. So, why not implement hypotheses and test the impact they have on society? If they are unsuccessful, reject them; if they are reasonably successful, refine them to improve them, if they are wildly successful, enshrine then in the nation's Constitution. Isn't that method a far better one that letting moralising, deceitful wind-bags stand up in Congress or Parliament to express their tedious, anti-scientific prejudices that have succeeded only in delivering the soul-destroying world we endure now.

(The scientific method, an interative process in which hypotheses are continually refined to make them more and more robust, is closely related to Hegel's triadic dialectical method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Scientific theories, in a sense, are the synthesis of many preceding phases of thesis and antithesis.)

Extending Rousseau's idea, could there be a general will common to the whole human race rather than to just a community or nation-state? The New World Order seeks to find the general will for the whole world. In this sense, Rousseau's general will starts to resemble Teilhard's collective consciousness of humanity, evolving via the noosphere.

The idea of humanity acting with one consciousness is highly utopian. If you could feel your neighbour's pain via a collective consciousness, you would do everything in your power to help him because it would feel like your own personal pain, and everyone wants to remove their own pain. Suffering, poverty, selfishness, inequality, isolation and alienation would come to an end.

Kant's moral categorical imperative says, "Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." If the State can be characterised as a person with a will then it becomes simple for the State to set categorical imperatives since every moral maxim is automatically a universal law. But if the State is not like this then there can be no categorical imperatives, just moral relativism expressed by sectional interests. Anything that approaches absolute morality, right and wrong, is only possible in a State in which every person is explicitly socially contracted to every other so that everyone acts in his own and everyone else's interests. In our present society, everyone acts in their own interest and there is no genuine morality.

But would this human collective suffer from groupthink and stagnation? Would it be cumbersome, inflexible, and slow to adapt? Would it be quasi-communist? (It must be emphasised that the Illuminati consider communism as disastrous as free market capitalism. They seek a middle way between these two damaging extremes, based on strong community values. The purpose of the State is to provide for the education, health, defence and economic stability of the nation: everything else can be left to communities, the stronger and more independent the better.)

It is necessary to find the right balance between the individual and the community, between private consciousness and the collective consciousness. If the first is the thesis and the second the antithesis then the synthesis is meritocracy. Meritocracy is all about identifying excellent individuals who are dedicated to improving both themselves and their society. Could that ever be said of the Old World Order? The defining characteristic of the members of the OWO is that they seek excessive wealth and power. In our society, the greedy queue up at the money trough to gorge themselves. Not once do they consider that they are doing anything wrong. These people shouldn't be allowed within a million miles of positions of power over the body politic.

In the Harry Potter children's book series, a concept called the Horcrux is discussed. It is derived from an old tradition that magicians and wizards can separate their soul from their body. By hiding their soul in a special, secret place, they can safeguard it from harm and make themselves invulnerable. Since their "life" is no longer in their body, they cannot die.

To increase the dramatic effect, the Harry Potter author JK Rowling created the innovation of allowing the soul to be split into many parts, each of which could be placed in a special, magical container called a Horcrux. A master wizard can be killed only when all of his Horcruxes have been destroyed. (Note that a soul is traditionally defined as indivisible, which would make Rowling's treatment of the soul as splittable absurd.)

Now imagine this scenario. The human race has a single soul that has been distributed amongst every human i.e. every person is a Horcrux. Each human has only a partial not a full soul: all the partials souls are inter-dependent. To destroy humanity's soul, every human has to be killed.

What if God demanded that in order for humanity to be saved, every partial soul must be good? One evil "partial" soul would condemn humanity to hell. What if God had given humanity a certain amount of time in which to develop a system for ensuring that all partial souls are good?

If humanity is judged on a collective level, not an individual basis, then your fate is tied to everyone else's. If one person is evil, humanity is finished.

Given that your personal fate and that of the whole of humanity is at stake, what system would you create to ensure that people are good? Isn't the general will, the collective consciousness, the weltgeist (the world spirit), the volkgeist (the spirit of the people), the anima mundi (the world soul) the answer? Individuals would set aside personal and sectional interests and act only for the common good. If everyone obeys the general will, humanity is saved. If anyone disobeys the general will, even just one person, we are damned.

Imagine that Satan's mission was to destroy the general will. At every turn, he promotes personal and sectional interests. If he succeeds, humanity is lost and he collects the human soul in his kingdom of hell.

The Old World Order is Satan's creation for ensuring that selfish interests defeat the general will. He needs power over only one partial soul for him to succeed. As it is, he has power over almost the whole of humanity.

Only the Illuminati stand against him. Only the New World Order, and the expression of the people's general will, can save us.

(The concept of split souls is not the basis of the Illuminati's religion, but it serves as a useful way of thinking about the inter-dependence of human beings, and how we all need to look out for each other.)

If the general will were truly to manifest itself, we would be living in a utopia. There would be no evil and no Old World Order. Isn't it time we set to work to deliver the world all good people deserve?

Everyone, acting in their rational self-interest, should sign the social contract. No longer should you put yourself or your family above all else. If you really want to do the best for your family, you should do your best for every other family. Our salvation lies in finding the best amongst us and putting them in the most important jobs. Your neighbour should be as important to you as you are, and you to he. The Old World Order's model of complete selfishness and trampling everyone into the dust in order to ensure that they and theirs prosper is ended.

Let's begin humanity's most magnificent task, the creation of a New World Order.

The Jacobin Clubs

In France, members of the Dominican Order of Roman Catholicism were known as Jacobins because their first monastery in Paris was in the Rue St Jacques. When a group of French revolutionaries rented the refectory of a Dominican monastery, they were nicknamed the Jacobin Club. The Jacobins set up chapters all over France and became the dominant force in revolutionary France. The Club was shut down after the fall of its most influential members, the Illuminists Robespierre and Saint-Just.

The Jacobins are often branded proto-communists and extreme left wingers. In fact, they were simply those who wished to create a Republic of just laws based on the principles of freedom, equality and brotherhood. What's extreme about that? They were determined to bring to an end the evil tyranny of despotic rule by a king and the privileged elites who supported him. What's wrong with that?

Isn't it time for new Jacobin Clubs around the world, sustained by the internet? The Jacobin Clubs changed France and the whole world. They did it before and they can do it again. The New World Order - the implementation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract - is the prize that awaits the rebirth of Jacobinism, the irresistible force that destroyed the corrupt monarchy of Louis XVI. Louis was a leading member of the Old World Order. The Jacobins are those who can deliver the world from the stranglehold of the Old World Order. The OWO are terrified of the Jacobins.   

Black radical leader Marcus Garvey said, "The whole world is run on bluff. No race, no nation, no man has any divine right to take advantage of others. Why allow the other fellow to bluff you?"

Isn't it time to call the Old World Order's bluff?

H L Mencken said, "To believe passionately in the palpably not true…is the chief occupation of mankind."

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are palpably false. Democracy is palpably not government of the people, by the people and for the people. The government and economy of every nation are palpably not under the control of the people. Isn't it time to wake up? Isn't it time for the palpably true?

In Great Britain, a so-called advanced nation, more and more of the top jobs are reserved for the privileged elite. Social mobility has gone into sharp reverse. One commentator said, "Far more important to employers than qualifications, it turns out, are those elusive attributes of articulacy, tact and team-working that form the social codes of business and the professions - the attributes, in short, of the white upper middle class. Like it or not, if social mobility is to improve, it is essential for poor children to be taught these codes of the dominant culture."  

What is the message here? Forget merit. If you want to succeed, imitate the dominant upper middle class. Become a Freemason. What a disgusting and nauseating message. We need the new Jacobins more than ever. We can increase social mobility very easily - by destroying the power of the privileged elites. We don't need to imitate them. They need to fall into line with the just will of the people.

It's time to end the rule of the global elite, the masters of the universe, the Old World Order.