Once upon a time, England was a devout Catholic country. The Pope gave its king, Henry VIII, the title of Fidei Defensor, defender of the faith, because he had launched a ferocious written attack on Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism.
But things changed. Henry’s Spanish wife, Catherine of Aragon, failed to give him a male successor, so he sought a divorce to allow him to find a new wife to provide the boy he craved. Catholicism does not permit divorce and the Pope was unwilling to finesse a deal with Henry whereby the marriage would be annulled on some technicality.
Accordingly, Henry broke with Rome, appointed himself the head of the new “Church of England” and demanded from his bishops that they sanction his divorce. He was now a Protestant, just like Martin Luther, though he continued to follow many of the Catholic ways of old and hypocritically retained the Pope’s title of Fidei Defensor, used by the British Royal Family to this day even though they proved conclusively that not only would they not defend the Catholic faith, they would persecute it. Many English Catholics were appalled by Henry’s conduct and rose in righteous rebellion, but they were crushed one by one, and the leaders suffered horrific deaths for high treason.
The English were good, loyal and faithful Catholics, and had been for a thousand years, until their king decided he wanted a divorce. Yet, within decades, England was virulently anti-Catholic. It introduced innumerable laws against Catholics, burned their priests at the stake and subjected them to relentless persecution and discrimination. The hostility can still be seen and felt to this day.
The question is this – how can good Catholics be turned into Catholic persecutors within a couple of generations?
We mention this piece of history because there are many people who pour scorn on meritocracy and consider it unachievable, just as many 16th century English Catholics never imagined that their children would become fanatical Protestants. The critics of meritocracy particularly revile the 100% inheritance tax which is the sine qua non of meritocracy i.e. unless you prevent the possibility of dynastic family wealth you will always be the victim of privileged family elites like the Rothschilds, who, invariably, will form a shadow global government – the Old World Order – based on their private wealth and power with which they can buy and manipulate all of the governments of the world.
To a meritocrat, it is breathtaking that so many families, even those with no assets to pass on, are such fierce defenders of the rights of family inheritance. It is BECAUSE of this attitude that the OWO rule us. We can be free only when the elite’s money is taken from them and they can no longer use it as a weapon against us. The Old World Order are so successful precisely because they have the tacit support of most families. These families are clueless, submissive, irrational, credulous groups of morons, infected by “faith” in Abrahamism and the ludicrous rhetoric of “freedom and democracy.” They have bought the OWO’s ideology hook, line and sinker. They have a false consciousness and they live in bad faith.
We would give up in the face of this resistance and cretinism of the masses if we did not already know that the ordinary families of today are as irrelevant as the ordinary Catholic families of 16th century England. The opinions of the anti-meritocrats count for nothing. All that matters is who has power. Who controls the agenda? Who dictates the consciousness of the people?
Henry VIII used a combination of terror, bribery and corruption and realpolitik to get the ruling elite fully onboard with his new Church of England. They then rapidly demonised Catholicism and, critically, brainwashed all of England’s schoolchildren.
In just one generation, the mentality of a nation can be irrevocably changed. It doesn’t matter a damn what the dinosaurs think and believe. It doesn’t matter what they say about 100% inheritance tax. After just one generation of meritocratic government, the meritocratic principles will be second nature, and people will be baffled that previous generations once lived differently and permitted privileged elites to flourish.
The brilliant scientist Max Planck wrote, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
That’s exactly the way the world works. We can’t ever persuade convinced Abrahamists that they are wrong – they are beyond help in that regard. But if meritocracy becomes the ruling paradigm, the Abrahamists and the fans of privilege and the OWO will die out and their archaic belief system will become as extinct as the Flat Earth Society. The education of children is the key to a new world order. Once children are liberated from the beliefs of their parents and given a tailor-made, optimised education, the world will be transformed by that fact alone.
If you are a true meritocrat then you are a visionary and you are in tune with the dialectic of freedom. You see and understand things that the dumb, brainwashed sheeple will never grasp.
What is our great task? It is essentially this – to bring together all of the smartest, most active and creative people in the world who are not part of the ruling paradigm of the OWO. We don’t need any kind of majority of the sheeple. We’re not democrats, after all. We have said over and over again that the vast majority of people in this world are submissive sheep. They will go with the flow, whatever it is. That’s their nature: to follow the path of least resistance; to do whatever is required of them by the powers-that-be. That’s why Catholic England rapidly became Protestant England. No Catholic would have thought it possible, yet it happened with astounding speed.
The movers and shakers dominate this world, not the hewers of wood and drawers of water. One active person has more effect than ten passive people. One leader is worth a thousand people. A “messiah” is worth half a world. Ergo, the game is to bring the whole active resistance to the Old World Order under a single banner. To be victorious, we need only about 5% of the population on our side, providing that the 5% consists of the smartest, most determined, most creative, most committed people in the land. In other words, we need the heroes.
The hero monomyth is at the core of our project because only heroes can change the world. The highest heroes are world-historic figures. Any group that can assemble all of the heroes cannot lose. Where the heroes go, the rest of the world follows.
So, our task is not to appeal to the brainwashed masses, who are already irretrievably lost, but to attract those who will create the future – like the Nietzschean Übermenschen.
The old gods are dead. The highest heroes are the new gods, and only through them will the rest of humanity attain divinity. Meritocracy is the platform for the greatest exemplars of the human race, those who will give birth to a new world, those who will reach up and pluck the stars from the heavens.
We don’t need to convince the sheeple of anything. We don’t need to persuade Abrahamists that they are fatally deceived. We don’t need to fight the OWO. We just need the heroes, the Supermen and Superwomen who can alter the destiny of worlds.
Are you such a person?
INTR0 - Pho' (H.E.R.O. Vol. II) [Produced by Anno Domini Records]
Do you want to see the world created by the OWO close up, in 3-D and full Technicolor? Watch the film-documentary Inside Job by Charles Ferguson. If you don't crave a French-style Revolution by the time the closing credits appear there's something wrong with you.
Inside Job forensically dissects the astonishing gangster culture that governs our world. Yet virtually no one will see this movie even though it won an Oscar for best documentary. It has suffered the usual fate of vital films of receiving a very limited release. Art house cinemas are showing it, but most multiplexes wouldn't touch that sort of thing with a bargepole. The dumbed-down masses couldn't imagine anything worse and more boring than watching a documentary explaining exactly why our world is the way it is. Anyone who is not interested in this topic is beyond help. Inside Job is so important that it ought to be one of the most successful films of all time: everyone should be going to see it. It should be shown in every school. The fact that so few are interested in it illustrates how docile the sheeple are, and how brilliant is the brainwashing job done on them.
Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson wrote, "When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his 'proper place' and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary."
That's the world the OWO have crafted. They have created a population that would rather spend all of its time watching American Idol and Lady Gaga videos than scrutinizing how the elite came to be so rich and powerful. Such a population poses no threat at all to the OWO, which is exactly why they designed things that way.
Think of what has been done to the people in order to make them so hostile to learning the truth of the prison they are in. Think how brilliantly the OWO have performed their task. Even when their evil is fully exposed in painstaking detail, it doesn't make the slightest difference. The members of the OWO could walk around dressed as Satan himself, in horns and hooves, and still they would be worshipped as God.
That's why heroes alone can save the world - the few who have seen through all of the lies and are ready to act, to lead, to use their personal gifts to transform this world of ours.
Achieving a democratic mandate is not our priority. The mandate we seek is that of the true heroes. Ours is the Hero Flag, and under that banner we shall inevitably triumph.
This is the ruling ideology of the OWO that the heroes must smash:
1)The super rich are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.
2)They deserve all of their wealth and power because of 1).
3)Wicked, Godless Communism would result if you deprived them of their wealth and power. The world would be plunged into chaos.
4)It is your God-given duty to obey the super rich in every way because they are the ones who enjoy God's favour i.e. they are God's chosen appointees and any resistance to them is an attack on God himself. It is the "divine right" of the wealthy to rule.
5)If you work hard enough, you too could become super rich, so don't complain.
6)The super rich are all about family and if you love your family you will emulate the super rich and their strong family values.
7)It would be theft and a crime against God for the State to remove the wealth of the super rich.
8)The super rich are being rewarded by God, and the poor punished by God. Your wealth is the surest sign of your closeness to God. You are evil if you are poor - why else has God given you nothing?
9)The poor are the damned and the rich the saved.
10)The rich are the elect.
11)The super rich are the only legitimate authority in the world. Everything they do is by definition legitimate. You have no legal grounds to challenge them.
12)They have the absolute right to impose their views on everyone else: to brainwash them, to control the education they receive, and to control the media that educates, informs and entertains them.
13)Wealth is proof of God's favour ergo any attack on wealth is Satanic.
Of course, "Mammon" should replace the word "God" in that list, but the ordinary person no longer draws any distinction since all they dream about is becoming rich, about becoming a high priest of Mammon. Money, in our world, is freedom, power, status, prestige, desirability and delight all rolled into one. Money is the panacea the ancient alchemists sought. All of our problems would end if only we had enough money.
The Mammonites are everywhere. There has never been a more powerful religion in history. The OWO have proved that money can buy the world's soul and control every feature of this planet. Cicero said, "There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it." The OWO have taken every fortress in just this manner. "Resistance is futile," they brag as they wave their bags of gold.
We have no truck with democracy. Why not? Because the people are completely debased, corrupted and retarded. They have accepted their own slavery and subjugation. They think it is fully justified. They are delighted to endlessly distract themselves with the junk the elite put in front of them. They are not a "people" at all: merely a bread and circuses mob of performing puppets. They are not humans but rather human impersonators. It's even questionable whether they have true souls.
The hero, the superman - the man or woman who would be God - is the antidote.
If you are a meritocrat you will have found yourself developing a kind of nausea when you contemplate the sheeple. How could humanity have fallen so low you will think? And how can such people help the dialectic of freedom when they have embraced slavery so eagerly? They refuse to take the actions necessary to save themselves. They put on their own manacles and sing, "Hallelujah! - give us heavier chains!"
The people must be saved, but they can't save themselves. Only the free can change the world. Only heroes are free. They are self-defining, self creating. They don't wait on others.
Would any democrat dare to utter the immortal slogan of Nietzsche: "We, however, want to become those who we are - the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves!"
Only such people have the strength to dream, to seize life, to transform themselves and others. What do the rest matter? Who needs their endorsement? They will never agree with us because they have sold their souls to the Devil.
Congratulations to Pho' and all those who assisted him in creating his H.E.R.O. Volume 1 Collection - an astoundingly innovative, inspirational and ambitious work, illustrating a true grandeur of vision. It's a mystery that Pho' isn't yet a global Hip Hop personality, but his time will surely come. He makes smart music for smart people, music with something to say, music that seeks to change the world.
H.E.R.O. Vol. I [EP] ( OFFICIAL YOUTUBE RELEASE VERSION!)
Greetings! This is the OFFICIAL release of H.E.R.O. Volume One for YouTube! Special Shouts to: Vherbal Industries, AnnoDomini Records, Sinima, jolly, Magus, Praetorian, 'Alessandro Cagliostro' , Sol Niger, FeelFelt, Caddy One, KRS One and the Temple of Hip Hop, Sav, Xception, GiGi & The Poor Righteous Polymathematicians of Philadelphia (PA), Ennea Gramz, 'mlf33', and THE (M)OVEMENT! THANK YOU for your direct inspiration, consultation, investment, resources and companionship in the process of manifesting this project! Keep watch for the FREE DOWNLOAD! :::or just rip it ;)::: VOLUME TWO IS IN THE WORKS!
The War between N's and S's, T's and F's, I's and E's
We are hard-wired for conflict. The reason is that large groups of us have nothing in common with other large groups with whom we are forced to share the planet. We perceive the world differently. We conceptualise it differently. We have totally different value systems. It's quite possible that we could get on better with Martians than with some of our neighbours. No one could be more alien to us than those who have a radically different understanding of the world and way of interacting with it.
Are Abrahamists even human? Do people who vote for the Republican Party belong to the same species as everyone else? It's actually more than a question of brainwashing. What these people believe is a reflection of how their brains are configured. A person who is sensing oriented with feeling as his auxiliary function, or feeling oriented with sensing as his auxiliary function is not someone who is thinking his way through life, not someone who is intuiting the truth.
These people go through life cut off from the cerebral side of life. Is it any wonder they succumb to irrational belief systems, that they place faith over knowledge? They can't do otherwise because they don't actually have any firm idea of what knowledge is. They don't interact with it on a daily basis. It's something obscure and alien to them, whereas irrational nonsense is what they trade in day in and day out. These people have no contact with Logos - they are driven by the simple Mythos "logic" of stories and emotions, a style of logic which makes claims such as cowboys in white hats are good and those in black hats are evil (which was once the rule in all cowboy movies, just in case the retarded Abrahamist audience couldn't work out good and evil for themselves!).
If we analysed those who believe in the Abrahamic religions and those who don't we would discover astounding psychological differences. Abrahamists would be over represented by S's, F's and E's and non-Abrahamists by N's, T's and I's. In other words, the conflicts of the world are about different types of brain wiring and psychological types.
It would be almost impossible for an INTJ personality type to persuade an ESFP of the truth of anything because the latter doesn't care about the truth in any rational way. As we said, they are Mythos-based rather than Logos-centred. They subscribe to emotional stories rather than abstract logic. They are thrill seekers rather than contemplatives. They want to wallow in sensory information - their perceptions - and feelings rather than bring conceptual order to the world. The two groups have no common language. They can't communicate. Their frameworks of reality are incommensurate.
The idea that you can have a rational debate with any person is a myth. Huge numbers of people have no idea what reason is. Literally. Their minds just don't work that way.
A rational person can barely understand the concept of "faith" because it demands that they abandon reason in order to believe something that has no rational basis. Why would they ever be attracted to such an idea? Yet a person who has very little grasp of reason will have no difficulty at all. If someone tells them an engaging, emotional story that they buy into and then says that they must believe this to be wholly true even though there is no evidence for it, these people will say, "Fine with me." They are driven by emotion and sensations, not fact. If faith provides them with comfort and courage then they will eagerly embrace it. The truth content of their beliefs doesn't come into it. It's irrelevant.
The ancient Gnostics were the first to be repelled by the idea of faith and take a resolute stance against it. They demanded knowledge. There can be little doubt that Gnostics are a different psychological type from believers. Atheists, skeptics and agnostics are also unable to accept faith.
The Pythagorean Illuminati sought to build everything on the most precise knowledge basis possible: mathematics, the Queen of the sciences. Not once did the Illuminati ever stray near the bizarre world of faith - the irrational world.
The more you contemplate "faith" the more it seems indistinguishable from madness. When Luther described reason as the "Devil's whore", he was asserting that facts, logic, evidence and knowledge are no proper basis for understanding the world and instead non-facts, illogic, non-evidence and non-knowledge are the proper ways to approach life. WTF! The "revelation" of "God" in an ancient book of highly dubious provenance is how we should order and live our lives. Really?
It's well known that the Christian gospels are merely a selection from many ancient manuscripts, others of which could have been chosen instead. The trouble was that all of these different potential gospels horrifically contradicted each other, even though they were all ostensibly about the infallible teachings of Christ. So "they" (the Church elders) chose the small set that were most consistent, but even within these there were many blatant contradictions. Why do so many people think these selected gospels are the revelation of God if they can't agree on the basic facts of Jesus' life? The identities of the authors of the four Christian gospels are shrouded in mystery and it's not entirely clear that any of them actually knew Jesus and were eyewitnesses to any events in his life. All of them may be nothing but hearsay. Jesus' apostles were mostly ill-educated fishermen unable to read or write, and Jesus Christ himself was probably illiterate given that he didn't commit even one word to paper. You simply could not get a more dubious basis for a "revelation" on which to stake your life. No rational person is inclined to believe any of it.
What possible reason would anyone have for believing that a baby born of a "virgin" (the word "maiden", meaning an unmarried girl, was actually mistranslated as "virgin") 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem was none other than the God of the Universe rather than just another bastard Jew (literally)? Mary, the so-called Mother of God, unquestionably had pre-marital sex and attempted the most audacious and far-fetched cover-up in history, a lie so big and absurd that it has been eagerly embraced by billions of cretinous Christians ever since. They wouldn't like to think of Christ's mother as a delinquent teenager into casual sex and prepared to make up outrageous lies to try to save her bacon when she got pregnant - just like plenty of teens in the present day. Yet isn't that far more credible than a "virgin" conception? Since when did claims that contradict science and all human experience become credible? If a teenage girl in the present day said she was pregnant through supernatural means she would be denounced as a liar or locked up as mad…so why is such a whooper believed because it's two-thousand years old and made by a Jewess called Mary?
Let's be charitable to Mary. Let's say that what actually happened was that she met a conman passing himself as one of the Watchers - the angels that came to earth and seduced earthly women, thus giving rise to the race of Nephilim, the offspring of humans and angels. The Watcher seduced her then told her that he hadn't genuinely had sex with her because he was an immaterial angel, hence she was entitled to claim she was still a virgin because she hadn't had sex with a mortal man. She was more than happy to go along with the story, and even started to believe it herself.
The Illuminati actually decided to test this scenario, and sent out men pretending to be angels to see what effect it would have on women. The strategy was astoundingly successful - anyone who can convincingly tap into the "Angel Mythos" has the chance to be a Don Juan. Who can doubt that young Mary fell for just such a stratagem? All suggestible, submissive girls are prey for good-looking, unscrupulous men passing themselves off as angels. The Illuminati performed the ruse as an experiment; others do it as a way of life. Go out to a nightclub and try it for yourself, but make sure you actually know about angel lore!
Matthew 1:18 Whereas [Christ's] mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost?! Yeah, right!
Luke 1 26-35: And in the sixth month [of the pregnancy of John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth], the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women." Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her, "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end." And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" And the angel answering said to her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Of course, the Watchers were also called the sons of God! Is this the Gospel proof that Jesus Christ was an archon?!
One of the most notorious archons is called "Gabriel" - the angel Gabriel, to be more precise! An archon is a human being with a higher, "angelic" soul which confers remarkable powers on him, and much-extended longevity (incidentally, have you ever wondered why many people in the Bible - such as Methuselah - were said to have lived for many centuries?). Gabriel it was who seduced Mary. She bore his son - Jesus Christ, the archon, a boy who also enjoyed out-of-the-ordinary powers. And Gabriel it was too who sought out Mohammed and recited the Koran to him. And thus the Arch archon Gabriel has played one of the most significant roles in human history. There is no plot greater than the Gabriel conspiracy.
"Gabriel (i.e. man of God). One of the Archangels, sometimes referred to as the Angel of Death, the prince of fire and thunder, but more frequently as one of God's chief messengers, and traditionally said to be the only angel that can speak Syriac and Chaldee. The Mohammedans call him the chief of the four favoured angels and the spirit of truth. Milton makes him the chief of the angelic guards placed over Paradise. In the Talmud, Gabriel appears as the destroyer of the hosts of Sennacherib, as the man who showed Joseph the way, and as one of the angels who buried Moses. According to the Koran, it was Gabriel who took Mohammed to heaven on Al Borak and revealed to him his 'prophetic love'. In the Old Testament, Gabriel is said to have explained to Daniel certain visions; in the New Testament he announced to Zacharias the future birth of John the Baptist and appeared to Mary the mother of Jesus."
Brewster's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable
Consider this: why did Gabriel meet Mary in private? Why did he not meet in front of Mary, Joseph and their parents, so that no one would get the wrong idea?
Consider this: why did Gabriel meet Mohammed in private? Why did he not announce the Koran himself to all the peoples of the world so that no one could doubt its veracity?
Why are the greatest religious "revelations" always conducted in the utmost secrecy, making it impossible for them ever to be verified in any way?
The Illuminati conduct their affairs in secret to avoid the persecution of the followers of Gabriel and the OWO. But why should Gabriel - an angel of God Almighty, allegedly, have to resort to secrecy rather than openness? Why does the God of "Revelation" not reveal himself? (Abraxas, the True God, is no God of Revelation - he is reached via reason, knowledge and gnosis i.e. he is the God of the enlightened, not of the endarkened.) It doesn't make any sense, unless the purpose of the secrecy is to ensure that no one can rationally challenge the claims placed before them. They are designed to be matters of faith rather than reason, from which we can conclude that this "God" is not the True God of Reason, but rather the false God of psychological manipulation based on faith - the Demiurge, Satan.
Why did "God" learn carpentry of all things in Nazareth? Why was it not until he was 30 years of age that he suddenly started to perform "miracles"? Not the miracle of driving the Roman army of occupation out of the country, of course, since that would be too much like an actual, verifiable miracle that history would record. So, "God" gets himself crucified by the Romans and then rises from the dead - taking care, as usual, to ensure that not a single person witnessed the event. Why didn't he go straight to Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas, the High Priest of the Temple, and say, "Hey, guys, SURPRISE!" But of course that would make it a factual event rather than a faith-based event. Faith requires that there should never be a single objective witness.
We can't have facts getting in the way, can we? Why did Allah choose to send the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed in a cave to dictate the Koran to him? Why not do it in broad daylight in the middle of Mecca in front of thousands of witnesses? Hey, way too many witnesses! Prophets are like serial killers - they always do things in the utmost secrecy without a single witness. If there were any other witnesses, they probably killed them!
"God" is like some grand conspirator, sneaking around doing everything he can to avoid being seen. He's the perfect criminal. He never leaves a trace. No CIS team could ever build a case against him. Strange, given that he allegedly created the world and us. Why does he hide himself from his creations? Why does he skulk around in the darkest shadows? As a matter of divine policy, he always acts through single individuals, and we just have to take their word for it that they're telling the truth because they absolutely never provide any evidence.
But why should we believe them? Are we crazy? No rational person would take any of this nonsense seriously, but all rational people are compelled to live in a world where billions of irrational people treat this with literally deadly seriousness. They'll kill you if you point out the myriad rational errors in their mad claims. In fact, they will call YOU mad! Or they will brand you as a heretic, infidel, apostate, demon, devil, tempter, corrupter, an evil influence, a servant of Satan, or whatever other demented label they can think up.
Consider the four "Temperaments" devised by David Keirsey: the Guardians, Artisans, Rationalist and Idealists. Which of these are the ones prone to faith?
The Guardians are defined by their desire for security. They are "Supervisors" (ESTJ in terms of Myers-Briggs personality types), "Inspectors" (ISTJ), "Providers" (ESFJ) and"Protectors" (ISFJ). Note that none of these are intuitives and the Providers and Protectors aren't thinkers either. These latter ones are the most susceptible to prophets and preachers demanding faith. They quite simply aren't geared up for reasoning their way through the world.
As for the Artisans, they are sensation seeking. They are Promoters (ESTP), Crafters (ISTP), Performers (ESFP) and Composers (ISFP). As with the Providers and Protectors, the Performers and Composers are not skilled at thinking or intuition. Again, they are easy meat for the religions of faith.
As for the Supervisors, Inspectors, Promoters and Crafters, although they have a thinking capacity, it is not supported by intuition. In many ways, intuition is a kind of bullshit detector. An intuitive can "smell" lies.
Nietzsche, a genius of intuition, wrote, "I was the first to discover the truth, in that I was the first to sense - smell - the lie as lie…My genius is in my nostrils…"
Intuitives smell the biggest possible fish when it comes to faith. Non-intuitives don't have that advantage.
"Faith" is a virus that spreads through the Guardian and Artisan classes, and unfortunately these make up 80% of the human population. The Guardians - the security seekers - are the bedrock of "family values", "freedom and democracy" and Abrahamism. They will cut your throat to defend the self-interest and privileges of their families. They are the ones who would fight to the death to prevent 100% inheritance tax. They would perceive it as the ultimate attack on their family security. The Artisans - the sensation seekers - are the worshippers of celebrity. They are the primary capitalist consumers. They love to shop. They are obsessed with fashion, thrills, socializing, parties, vacations, fast cars, video games etc
The Rationals - the knowledge seekers - are the Fieldmarshals (ENTJ), the Masterminds (INTJ), the Inventors (ENTP) and the Architects (INTP). All of these are highly rational and intuitive and the least likely to have anything to do with faith.
The Idealists are identity seekers and are Teachers (ENFJ), Counselors (INFJ), Champions (ENFP) and Healers (INFP). They have a certain susceptibility to credulity because they lack the thinking function, but their intuition can usually steer them away from danger.
Virtually everyone who visits this website and spends any time on it will be a rational or an idealist. We would expect zero interest from guardians and for just a few curious artisans to come this way. This is a website for intuitives, and intuition has a profound relationship with gnosis. In fact gnosis is ultimate intuition.
We seek to bring together all of the rationals and idealists. Unfortunately, the extraverts amongst them often work for the Old World Order. Many senior members of the Old World Order are ENTJs and ENTPs. They are the brains of the OWO operation, and the ENFJs and ENFPs often act as their propagandists and are the ones who can so successfully make an emotional connection with the people.
All aspects of life can be analysed in terms of the introversion-extraversion, intuition-sensing and thinking-feeling dichotomies. The whole of history has been a battlefield between different mental ways of engaging with the environment. In a world of rationals, there would be no such phenomenon as faith. Abrahamism, quite simply, would not exist.
Rationals and idealists are outnumbered four to one, so we can see that they have tended to be the victims of the guardians and artisans. They have been the heretics, the witches, the freethinkers, the atheists, skeptics, agnostics, Gnostics, rebels, revolutionaries, visionaries, dreamers, utopians. But if they acted as one they would be unstoppable because they are so gifted. That's why we want to bring as many as possible together under the meritocratic banner.
We, the intuitives, have a huge obstacle to overcome - the old world of the guardians and artisans, those mired in the past, in conservatism. They are driven by their senses and emotions, not by reason and future-possibilities. They are afraid of change, of new ideas. The concept of a New World Order terrifies them. They can't think their way through problems. They are superstitious and intellectually primitive. Only such people could continue to revere ancient texts that have been disproved and discredited in every conceivable way. The reason they cling to old ways is that they gain emotional security from them and they can't think their way beyond them. While intuitives always look to the future, the sensers never stop gazing at the past. They see the past as safe and understandable in their terms; the future as problematic.
Intuitives love the future because that's where their minds are most at home - imagining new possibilities.
Books, TV, films, music, religions, political parties - our tastes in these reflect our brain-wiring and psychological types. If you knew the psychological profiles of all the people who vote at the Oscars, you would have no difficulty in working out who would win the prizes.
Rationally, it might seem impossible for the intuitives to beat the sensing types given that there are so many more of the sensers, and their belief systems are so deeply ingrained. But the intuitives have the advantage of being much smarter, and the numbers game is irrelevant because the vast majority of people are submissives and will do whatever they are told by dominants.
The Zeitgeist series of films is highly geared towards intuitives. Project Venus and Project Earth are the quintessence of visionary intuition. The strongest critics of Zeitgeist are, of course, the Old World Order and the conservative sensers.
One thing that must be clear from what we have said is that there will be no groundswell of public support for meritocracy leading to the resource and technology-based future society of Zeitgeist where money is no longer needed. We aren't fools. We know that the sensers are far too entrenched in their traditional and conservative ways.
So, we can win only by being a) much smarter b) much more heroic c) much more dominant d) much more cohesive e) much more focused. We have to undermine the faith of the sensers in their leaders and system. We have to attack from every angle, sow endless seeds of doubt. We have to remove their will to resist. This is a psychological war, and those who are best able to use psychology will prove victorious.
Kierkegaard wrote about "The Instant" - the moment when eternity crosses time, the moment of decision, the moment when you have to choose once and for all which side to fight on. Well, the Instant is here. This is the time for heroes. Will you be one of them?
Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduced a radically different way of looking at scientific progress. He challenged the view that science was objective, dispassionate and followed a steady, linear upwards trajectory of progress. Instead, he said that science involved "paradigms", which can be thought of as intellectual frameworks in which scientific theories are produced. While a certain paradigm reigns, all of the accepted theories belong to that paradigm, and any theories which disagree with it are rejected, marginalized and ridiculed. A scientific establishment upholds the paradigm. Funding is given to those scientists who are supportive of the paradigm and denied to anyone who isn't. The paradigm becomes a kind of religion, with its high priests and sacred theories that must not be challenged. Heretics aren't welcome.
The paradigm can link into non-scientific arenas such as the prevailing economic, religious and political systems. Western science is closely tied to capitalism, industry and business and was once under the direction of the Judaeo-Christian paradigm. If capitalism gives money to science then science does capitalism's bidding. The paradigm reflects the dominant culture and not just scientific considerations. It is compromised, corrupted, part of a whole system of thought and attitudes, and ruled ultimately by the super rich. Look at how many top scientists have worked for the military-industrial complex.
Kuhn described "normal science" as the science that takes places while a particular paradigm reigns. Normal science tends to endure over long periods. The Newtonian paradigm lasted for over 200 years, with all the science taking place within that time reflecting Newtonian thinking.
However, anomalies start to accumulate. Initially, these are conveniently ignored. As more and more appear, it starts to put a growing strain on the paradigm, which gradually becomes less credible. Eventually it breaks down and revolution erupts. A whole new paradigm must be found that is better at dealing with the anomalies. Thus Newtonian physics gave way to relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Einstein was heavily involved in the formation of both of the new theories and yet even he couldn't reconcile himself with the revolutionary implications of quantum mechanics and remained loyal to much of the Newtonian paradigm. By the time of his death, many scientists regarded him as a sad old man who couldn't move with the times. What a fate for such an innovator!
The current paradigm of physics remains quantum mechanics and relativity theory, but it is already known that they are incompatible and thus a new paradigm is sought in which they will be reconciled. The best candidate for the reconciliation is said to be "M-Theory" based on "superstrings".
Science proceeds by ways of long periods of normal science, followed by "revolutionary science" when the best new paradigm struggles with and then takes over from its predecessor. Once the new paradigm is entrenched, normal science resumes and the new ideas become the establishment paradigm.
Kuhn pointed out that the new paradigm often doesn't win over the supporters of the old paradigm, who remain wedded to their old ideas - just as Einstein remained wedded to the objective determinism of Newtonian physics rather than the observer-created, probabilistic world of quantum physics.
Often, the old paradigm literally dies out - when those who were brought up with it die, just as Planck remarked.
If Kuhn is right and rival paradigms can co-exist for a while, with the old paradigm gradually being killed off by the deaths of its supporters rather than being triumphantly replaced by the new paradigm, then it implies that science is partisan, non-objective, and not even particularly rational i.e. the evidence is not deemed sufficient to decide the matter. In other words, science is a belief system.
That's particularly true in the case of Islamic "science", which is fundamentally flawed because it invokes the concepts of haram (forbidden) and halal (praiseworthy) in relation to the Koran i.e. Islamic science is not allowed to contradict Mohammed's "revelation". If it does, it is wrong and must be rejected. Hence Islamic science is a joke that can make no conceivable progress.
C.P. Snow described the sciences on the one hand and arts and humanities on the other as "two cultures" that had ceased communicating with each other. We might say that they belong to two different paradigms. The gap has arisen because science is now so specialised and complex that it's extremely hard for a non-scientist to get any real idea of what's going on. Equally, scientists have no time to engage with the humanities since the demands science places on them are so onerous. Even worse, there is a fundamental difference in brain-wiring and psychological types between those who work in science and those in the humanities. Very few people can bridge the gap.
Scientists and technologists are overwhelmingly rationals, with a few idealists in the mix. Those in the humanities are overwhelmingly artisans with a few guardians in the mix.
Doesn't the suspicion grow that different personality types have a strong tendency to drift apart and create separate worlds? It's one of the most natural processes in the world. Shouldn't we accept the reality of this and take it to its logical conclusions? i.e. rather than have a one-size-fits-all world where we all get thrown together in one gigantic melting pot and have to blindly navigate our way around in a frequently hostile and incomprehensible environment, why don't we create four worlds - one for rationals, one for idealists, one for artisans and one for guardians. Or perhaps only two are needed: one for sensers (the guardians and artisans who have sensing as either their primary or auxiliary function) and one for intuitives (the rationals and idealists who have intuition as their primary or auxiliary function).
In Zeitgeist 3 - Moving Forward, the Project Earth section shows a wonderful utopian city based on concentric circles, and all perfectly designed. When rationals and idealists watch this, they think, "WOW!!! I want to live there." When guardians and artisans look at it, they say, "What a load of crap. Only geeks, nerds and dorks could dream up something like that." The sensers outnumber the intuitives by four to one. The Zeitgeist vision can never be realised while the intuitives have to let sensers rule the world.
The ruling Western paradigm is: Judaeo-Christian Abrahamism - democracy - capitalism - "freedom" - liberalism - sensing - materialism - and "negative liberty". All mainstream thinking takes place within this paradigm. If you want to get on in the world, you had better play the game and obey this paradigm. Don't dare challenge it and become a heretic.
The Illuminati's heretical and revolutionary paradigm, the one with which we seek to replace the old paradigm, is: Illuminism - meritocracy - public capitalism - freedom - radicalism - intuition - idealism and "positive liberty" This will be the final paradigm shift, the one ordained by the dialectic of freedom. But the followers of the old paradigm will never fully embrace it. Only when they have all died off will the old paradigm finally vanish.
That's why children are the key to the future. If all children are brought up and educated with the new paradigm, there's nothing the parents can do, just as there was nothing the English Catholics could do as their children were educated in Protestantism in the time of Henry VIII and his successors. Within two generations, a Catholic country had become toxically anti-Catholic. The old paradigm was well and truly dead.
That's how the game works. The revolutionaries change the paradigm and then the children are brought up under the new regime and reflect the new paradigm. Their parents are powerless to prevent it.
At the moment, no one in any country has any choice about what paradigm they will live under. If we are free human beings then shouldn't we be offered options?
As Kierkegaard wrote, "How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint?"
Why should any of us have to accept a paradigm we didn't choose? Why should we be subjects to its laws and ideology? Does that not make us slaves?
All of us MUST have a choice of what paradigm we live under. We have to escape the tyranny of one-size-fits-all systems that are there for the convenience of the privileged elite and allow them to exert maximum control over us.
It's agony for idealists and rationals to suffer the dumbed-down materialism of the guardians and artisans. We can't allow them to dictate to us. We are much smarter than they are. We have to act together and use our superior intelligence to create the Zeitgeist world. We will never be free unless we cooperate and combine our incredible strengths.
The world needs a minimum of two paradigms. That's the basic level of choice. Four paradigms is probably the best number, giving us a broader but manageable set of choices. Wouldn't you like to know that there was a part of the world specially designed for people like you where you can enjoy an optimised life?
Freedom is about choices, so where are our choices? Sure, we can choose what objects to buy, what things to consume, but we have no say at all about what type of paradigm we live under. All of us get just one - the paradigm of the ruling elite.
The dialectic of freedom demands free choices between different paradigms. Only then will we feel truly free.
We could go even further in the pursuit of choice and create an entirely new model of society based on the concept of the city-state, which was the model adopted by ancient Greece, the founder of Western civilisation. The achievements of the ancient Greeks were so astounding that even now it's impossible to look upon them with anything other than awe. Was the city-state model fundamental to their success? If so, shouldn't we be trying to resurrect it?
On our sister site for the Meritocracy Party is the following article:
The Ancient Greek Solution to Multiculturalism
Contrary to the rhetoric of the politicians, the UK is not a shining example of multiculturalism, but a patchwork of sullen, mutually suspicious ghettoes. Perhaps the UK should look to history for remedies. The city-states of Ancient Greece, of Renaissance Italy, and Germany under the Holy Roman Empire were all highly successful and arguably set the intellectual agenda for the world. Does the city-state model provide the best way of handling Islamic fundamentalism?
Britons are constantly told of how much more tolerant they are than the French, Germans, Danes etc, and how they've handled the issue of immigration so much more successfully. Of course, it's all spin. Britain is a seething cauldron of racial and cultural tension, and as soon as you talk to real people in real pubs, you hear the bile pouring out.
Multicultural Britain is Ghetto Britain. The whole country is riven with unacknowledged apartheid. A BBC Panorama programme highlighted the case of Blackburn. This town has been split in two, into a white half (where "white" refers to the indigenous population of Britain) and a Muslim half (mostly immigrants from Pakistan). Panorama tracked the movements of two taxis - one driven by a white man and the other by a Muslim - and discovered that neither car ever ventured into the respective "wrong" side of town.
Blackburn is simply a more visible version of what has happened throughout the country - "no-go" areas have popped up everywhere. The process is a familiar one. Immigrant families enter certain districts of a town, "white flight" soon becomes evident and immigrants gradually populate the whole district. The immigrant area relentlessly expands until it reaches some clearly defined barrier such as a river, a motorway, countryside etc.
Neither the immigrants nor the whites (and, of course, the immigrants are often white themselves these days, from Eastern Europe) are engaging in anything sinister. Immigrants like to be with those who share their culture, language, understand their problems, enjoy their cuisine and ways of doing thing etc. It's only natural that they should congregate in the same places. By the same token, the indigenous population have, on the whole, no desire to end up surrounded by an imported culture alien to them, so as soon as the immigrant population reaches a certain critical mass in a particular area, the indigenous population departs. Some people might suspect underlying racism, but how can it be non-racist for immigrants to wish to stick together and then racist for the indigenous population to wish to do exactly the same?
We now live in patchwork Britain. Communities are developing separately from each other, with different standards of living, different cultural norms and alternative ways of perceiving the world. Resentment, suspicion and hostility between different communities are only to be expected. If this divided nation is the manifestation of the great triumph of multiculturalism, something has gone horribly wrong.
Are there examples from history that might provide us with genuinely successful models of multicultural development? One that leaps out is Ancient Greece. For obvious reasons, it can't be considered an example of racial multiculturalism, but the city-states that comprised Ancient Greece unquestionably promoted the coexistence of radically different cultures.
The two most notable Greek city-states were, famously, Athens and Sparta. Athens was a democracy (although women had no vote and neither did the huge slave population, nor freedmen, nor anyone not born in Athens), and produced famous philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, great tragic playwrights such as Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus, comic writers such as Aristophanes, beautiful architecture such as the Parthenon, wonderful sculptures, and great historians such as Herodotus and Thucydides. It also had a superb navy and became a great maritime and mercantile power.
Sparta, by contrast, operated a system of dual monarchy. It was a ferocious military power, and the ability of its soldiers became legendary. It deliberately didn't build walls around the city to demonstrate that its soldiers were the only defence it required. The concentration on military affairs left no room for anything else. Sparta produced no significant architecture, philosophy, poetry or art: a sterile culture in almost every way. It maintained a reign of terror over a huge slave population (the helots), fearing the slaves were always on the point of revolt. Oddly, women were highly esteemed in Sparta and enjoyed far more privileges than other Greek women. Amongst other things, they were encouraged to train and exercise, thus becoming famed for their beautifully honed bodies: the predecessors of today's gym bunnies.
Thebes and Corinth were the other two most prominent Greek city-states, though there were scores of others, mostly in alliance with the major players. Competition was fierce between the city-states, sublimated in the form of great events such as the Olympics, but usually expressed in savage wars.
Nevertheless, it was from these Greek city-states that practically the whole of modern European culture emanated. And it was again thanks to city-states that European culture emerged from a bleak period of stagnation in the Dark and Middle Ages. The Renaissance sprang from the Italian city-states of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: world-renowned cities such as Florence, Rome, Naples, Turin and Venice. Without this particular Italianate city-state structure, the Renaissance may never have happened. As in Ancient Greece, competition between city-states was bitter, and violent conflicts frequent. Nevertheless, art, science and culture in general flowered in this cut-throat environment. Great patrons of the arts such as the Medicis came to the fore. Culture, like war, was in a sense a continuation of politics by other means; another way of demonstrating a city-state's power, status and superiority. Science and technology, as engines of progress in weapons design, were heavily supported. Political theorists such as Machiavelli also found themselves in vogue.
Germany, in the time of the Holy Roman Empire, was largely a collection of city-states, and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it too became a powerhouse of advances in philosophy, science, maths, music and literature.
Scotland in the eighteenth century was in some sense a large city-state centred on Edinburgh, with a burning desire to distinguish itself following the Union with England in 1707. The Scottish Enlightenment gave us several figures of global importance including Adam Smith, the founder of economic science and first theoretician of free market capitalism, and David Hume in philosophy, perhaps the greatest sceptic of all, to whom all philosophers must pay due regard.
History has demonstrated over and over that city-states bring something extra to the party. The intense rivalry they engender often becomes associated with accelerated advances in science, technology, philosophy and art. City-states are a tried-and-tested antidote to stagnation and cultural stultification.
So, how could modern Britain make use of city-states to address the problem of multiculturalism? The key is not to be frightened by ghettoisation, but to take it much further and transform it into a positive virtue. We could have a Hindu city-state for the Indian community, a city-state for Orthodox Jews, one for Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
Muslims tend to be either liberal or fundamentalist. There could be a city-state for each type. The Islamic fundamentalist city-state should be allowed to apply its own local laws, which would no doubt involve Sharia Law.
Some might say that in this time of the War on Terror, it would be mad to allow fundamentalists to set up their own "safe haven" within Britain. However, this policy would actually enhance security. All those disaffected youths who spend their time loathing Britain and the West would now throw their energies into proving the "superiority" of their Islamic city-state. Their efforts would be constructively channelled and result in productive outcomes. Far from attacking Britain, they would become proud Muslims and ultimately proud Britons too, just as the Athenians and Spartans were proud of their city-states and proud of being Greek. When the time came, they fought together against the common enemy, Persia.
Fundamentalist Muslim women could happily wear the hijab, niqab, the burqa without offending anyone. The Islamic city-state could send its children to its own Islamic schools without interference.
Of course, any Muslim who preferred not to live in a Muslim city-state wouldn't have to, but they'd also have to leave behind the visible signs of their religion if they chose to go to a non-Muslim city-state. No veils, no ethnic wear, no mosques.
Let the white, racist British National Party have their own city-state, and let them expend their energies on trying to run it successfully. Handicapped and disabled people could have their own purpose-built, state-of-the-art city-state if they so desired, and the opportunity to run their own affairs without being discriminated against. Lesbians and gay men, swingers, the elderly, intellectuals, artists, loved-up smug couples, sexy singles, "nuclear" families, careerists - they could all have their own city-states where they could indulge their lifestyles and have them tailored for their specific needs, without aggravating others. Those who couldn't care less about differences between people could have their own liberal city-states where anything goes. Meritocrats could run one city-state, royalists and supporters of privilege another. Animal lovers could have a city that revolved around their pets. People could choose to live with those of the same psychological type. The smartest and most creative people could live together. People would go only where they felt most comfortable, to the city-state that most met their needs. Everyone would freely choose. No one would be in any way compelled.
There could also be a city-state for all new immigrants. Any newcomer to the UK would have to stay in this city-state for at least a year before being allowed to move to a different city-state in the UK proper. Since their own quality of life would be adversely impacted by too much immigration, the immigrant community in this city-state would find it in their interests to restrict the amount of new immigrants coming into the country. If this city-state is sealed off from the rest of the country then the quality of life of the immigrants who live there becomes directly dependent on whom they let in. It's a counterintuitive solution to immigration, but perhaps exactly what's needed. Having immigrants police themselves might prove the perfect method for controlling immigration.
Historically, city-states have proved disproportionately creative and rapidly adaptive to changing circumstances. Citizens tend to take greater pride in their city-state than they do in their nation as a whole. Their self-respect, self-confidence and self-pride are all higher. Separate communities can evolve without interference from disapproving opponents. Ghettoes can be transformed from minuses into pluses. Is this the perfect model for multicultural Britain?
Isn't there anyone who dreams of the glories of Athens, Sparta, Thebes and Corinth being reborn in grey, dreary old Britain? Being broken into city-states could energise the whole country. In the old Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, a tiny part of London declared itself a separate State. Perhaps the film wasn't so much fanciful as prophetic.
The world has run out of ideas. The old systems have reached the end of the road. They are unfit for purpose. New visions, new futures, new choices are demanded. We can have tailor-made education systems for everyone, and tailor-made city-states where they can live. Who but the enemies of freedom would oppose a new world based on genuine choice? The one-size-fits-all, sausage machine view of the world is long past its sell-by date. It hasn't made us happy. We will be happy only when we live in environments that make sense to us, where we feel at home, surrounded by friends and allies on the same wavelength. Only then will we flourish and make the most of ourselves.
In the past, race, religion and culture have been used as the basis for separation, but psychology is the only truly rational, and indeed moral, basis for dividing people into groups. Division by skin colour is blind prejudice and utterly ridiculous. Division by Myers-Briggs types is about ensuring a rational world. Much of the world seems incomprehensible and in truth it really is - because it's mostly the product of other types of mentality with which few of us have any sympathy or empathy. If you want the world to make sense you have to order it so that you are mostly surrounded by people on your wavelength.
To rationals in particular, the need for a rational world is paramount. The Zeitgeist movies present a rational new vision of the world. The trouble is that most people aren't rational and are not seduced by Zeitgeist. How do you persuade the irrational of the rational way forward? They don't know what you're talking about.
The rationals and idealists - the intuitives - must act as one irresistible force. We have no choice if we want a better world. Otherwise we will be condemned to live forever under the tyranny of the irrational sensers.
Note how similar ENTJ is to INTJ; the main difference being that INTJ has a dominant function of introverted intuition and auxiliary function of extraverted thinking, whereas ENTJ have a dominant function of extraverted thinking and auxiliary function of introverted intuition. They are a dominant/auxiliary-function mirror image.
The ENTPs and INTPs have a similar relationship. Where the INTP has a dominant function of introverted thinking, it is the auxiliary for the ENTP. Where the INTP has an auxiliary function of extraverted intuition, it is the dominant function for the ENTP.
If the ENTJs and ENTPs could unite with the INTJs and INTPs, it would be game over.
The Choice Paradigm
Why did communism fail to overthrow capitalism in the West? A number of reasons have been advanced, such as the capitalist ruling class using their control of the media and education system to create a false consciousness amongst the people whereby they were subtly indoctrinated into supporting the ideology of the rulers, an ideology hostile to their own interests. A much simpler analysis can be provided. Any objective comparison of capitalism and communism shows that the former offered much more choice and freedom than the latter, even if much of it was illusory. In the Soviet Union, you could not even enjoy the illusion of voting the government out of office. There was only one political party - the Communist Party, so you had no access to alternative political voices. Dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. The secret police were everywhere. There was no free speech. As for buying goods and services, you had to take whatever Communism put if front of you from its selection of state monopolies. There was almost no choice and all of the goods and services were of inferior quality.
Any system that seeks to replace capitalism must offer more choice, more freedom, higher quality and more fulfilling lives. Communism, in retrospect, made almost every mistake imaginable. The "cure for capitalism" actually ended up worse than the disease.
Most people won't tolerate being told what's best for them. They won't act rationally. They will always act emotionally and according to ruthless self-interest as they perceive it. Capitalism has understood human psychology extremely well.
Either the people are dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by a superior, dominant force, or they must be seduced.
The city-state paradigm, no matter how seemingly impractical, offers a glimpse of a radically new world with an astonishing degree of freedom and choice. We can create bespoke political systems for people, giving them exactly the "micro-world" they have clamoured for. Then it's up to them whether it sinks or swims. They will have to work hard and they will have no one to blame but themselves if everything goes wrong.The State thus transfers to the people the responsibility for the State's success. Every citizen will be active and engaged: they will have no choice. If they are part of a city-state that they have personally chosen and which then goes horribly wrong, they have had their political vision refuted in the only way that counts - in the open for all to see. They can't claim that it was anyone else's fault. They chose it and they fucked it up. So, if that's what goes down then a) their political thinking is rejected forever and b) they have to go begging to another city-state to be allowed in there.
"Phantom" enquired whether "socialist" meritocracy had close affinities to Social Libertarianism and other sophisticated types of anarchism and hence whether The Movement should seek to garner support from such quarters. He also mentioned the ongoing "basic income" debate - involving whether or not everyone should receive a guaranteed income from the State for being a citizen - that has been raging in The Movement's forum and which we will be examining in detail shortly.
Phantom said, "The ideal state will be one where the citizens participate in society out of their own conscious & knowing volition as opposed to being duped or forced into it."
He's exactly right, but one thing is certain - there is no one-size-fits-all political system that will command everyone's loyalty and devotion.
In our previous article entitled "New World Order", we proposed that 16 education systems should be constructed for primary school children, corresponding to the 16 Myers-Briggs types. Every personality type would thus get a bespoke education rather than the one-size-fits-all sausage factory treatment they receive at the present time. Who can doubt that such an education system would produce enormously superior students? No one would be alienated from school. Every kid would thrive.
Exactly the same type of thinking can be extended to politics via the city-state model. Instead of imposing a totalitarian one-size-fits-all system on everyone, leaving most people cold and uninspired, we create multiple political systems and every citizen can freely choose the political system that most appeals to them.
The basic income debate will reveal radically different views of human nature. There's no point at all in trying to reconcile the two visions, or to hold a democratic vote to decide the issue. Neither party to the debate would find it acceptable if they lost, and indeed why should they? Both think they're right, and both have presented their cases passionately and skilfully.
We can't shout down one side and say that they've got it wrong somehow. The only rational way forward, respecting the principles of greater freedom, choice and citizen engagement, is to say that in a meritocratic system, both options will be given their chance to flourish.
Every citizen can get what they want - if they can find enough supporters to join them in their enterprise. But it's then their personal responsibility to make it work. Those who support basic income will have to create their own economic system to pay for it. Those who think it will be a disaster do not have to participate in it. A compromise would make both parties unhappy. Using the city-state model, both sides get what they want, and they will be proved right or wrong in due course.
One of the accusations made against the basic income ideology is that it would inevitably result in a group of parasites living off the work of others. Well, all those who harbour that suspicion would of course stay well clear. Those who think it can succeed will be the only victims if it goes belly up. What is fairer than ensuring that people live with the consequences of their own choices; that they stand or fall by their own efforts?
Phantom suggested that it should be the State's priority to "preserve and maximize the freedoms of the individual and to support them regardless." The State can achieve these goals only by being multi-faceted and infinitely flexible. Consider the USA. There are fifty States, with significant autonomy, ruled by a Federal government (mostly immensely unpopular and regarded almost as fascist). Utah is a "Mormon" State. California is socially liberal, with the city of San Francisco being renowned for its gay population. Many southern States are racist. Many Bible Belt States have a Christian fundamentalist ethos. Alaska and Montana are for the outdoors types. Every State has its own stereotype.
In other words, a de facto city-state model already exists. Why not adjust the balance so that the Federal Government's power is massively reduced, and the autonomy of the States greatly increased? They can have their own constitution, laws and ways of doing things. Every citizen can go to whatever State most suits their inclinations. The Federal Government becomes merely a body for ensuring good relations between the States.
But wouldn't economic mayhem result? Each State would have radically different economic policies, after all.
In Europe, a one-size-fits-all currency - the Euro - has been in use throughout the "Euro zone", with disastrous consequences. What the Euro experiment has proved beyond doubt is that you can have a single currency only if all the countries that use the currency have similar economies and economic policies i.e. they need to be much more closely integrated. The Euro needs a united Europe.
You must introduce separate currencies if you increase national or state economic autonomy. And you have to impose strict firewalls to prevent a catastrophe in one place spreading everywhere else. The global economy almost collapsed in 2008 because there were no banking firewalls in the West - all the banks were multinational leviathans with their fingers in every pie. They were all dependent on each other. When one got into trouble, they all did - madness!
What would America say to having the dollar broken up into fifty separate currencies to allow each State to run its economy and banks exactly as it sees fit? The Ayn Randists could abolish all regulation, as they've always desired. The anarcho-capitalist libertarians could do whatever they like. The anarchists could have the government-free State they've always craved. Socialist libertarianism could flourish in New York or California. Everyone could get what they want. No more compromise. No more having to water everything down.
The world would retreat from globalisation to localisation, from "big is beautiful" to small and bespoke. The faceless, impersonal forces of capitalist globalization would be halted at a stroke.
True freedom is about being allowed to make highly specific choices about how you live your life. If you are part of a vast human mass all with radically different opinions, you will never get what you want. Everything will always be bitterly contested and reduced to an ineffectual compromise. However, if you can get together with people on the same wavelength, you can say goodbye to compromise, disputation and muddle. You and your colleagues can single-mindedly build your own dream state.
Most people don't feel any engagement with politics. Why should they? It's just a game that takes place far away in a congress, parliament or assembly. The whole thing is a cynical set of deals and compromises that give no one what they want. What's the point? Every citizen must become engaged and active and they will do so only if their State reflects who they are.
Freedom and choice are maximised when you get to choose what kind of State you live in. Why not be an American with fifty sub-Americas to choose from? The ancient Greek city-states were proudly independent, but were still Greeks and cooperated when necessary.
Why go on trying to find a common way of living with anarchists, libertarians, anarcho-capitalist libertarians, Ayn Randists, rednecks, the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, Christian fundamentalists, Mormons, Muslims, Survivalists, Rapturists etc etc?
How will you ever be happy when you are surrounded by people you actively loathe? Imagine being in a State full of people who all share your enthusiasms and ways of thinking. You can be friends with all of them. You can all work together with a common purpose. You're all pulling in the same direction rather than endlessly squabbling. Don't you think you will be able to achieve infinitely more?
The Multi-Social Contract
A State could offer a selection of social contracts outlining the duties of the citizen and the responsibilities of the State. There could be an anarchist-friendly social contract whereby the State offers little and demands little; there could be a libertarian social contract where, again, the state adopts a minimal profile. In other cases, the State could offer a social contract based on basic income, or one that offers no such safety net, and so on.
Of course, there are all manner of practical difficulties regarding the implementation of the Multi-Social Contract, but since it offers everyone what they want then it would be best possible political system if it could be engineered correctly.
The relative effectiveness of the different social contracts would become evident over time, and they might finally converge on just a couple of the most viable social contracts.
By offering a multi-social contract theory of politics, we can appeal to everyone, even those with whom we have no sympathy. Let everyone go to hell in their own way! We would avoid looking like totalitarians. We would be able to emphasize freedom and choice, and catering for different lifestyles and belief-systems.
Wouldn't everyone like to say: "This is who I am and this is the sort of society I want to live in." Then actually get what they want! How many people right now get the system they want? - virtually no one. The whole thing is a one-size-fits-all botched and bungled compromise that satisfies only one group - the privileged elite at the top.
The optimal state should be based on a choice of social contracts. Everyone should personally choose a social contract to sign up to. At the moment, we are tacitly bound by a set of rules and laws we never agreed to, hence we are all slaves. You can be free only when you freely choose the laws by which you live. You are never free if they have been imposed on you. Imagine finally being free of the Old World Order, the Abrahamists and the ultra-capitalists!
Meritocracy has to sell itself as the true vehicle of freedom and choice. It can offer multiple social contracts to the citizens, all based on the central idea that each social contract will be tailor-made for groups of like-minded citizens. Everyone gets the social contract they want. Why would anyone who values freedom and choice oppose that?
If people don't want freedom and choice and prefer things to stay as they are then that's their choice. It's time to put up or shut up. Radical change is on the agenda, or the same old crap. There's no other possibility.
The meritocratic movement therefore has two strands:
1)Putting multi-social contracts on the political agenda - splitting up nations into states or city-states, each expressing a particular ideology, just like ancient Athens, Sparta, Thebes and Corinth.
2)Establishing suitable policies for those states or city-states that choose to define themselves with regard to meritocratic thinking rather than any other ideology, always bearing in mind that any disputes over policy such as the one involving basic income can be resolved by invoking separate social contracts.
We do not need to commit ourselves to anything other than fundamental meritocratic rules such as ensuring that no dynastic, privileged elites can ever emerge. All other policies are "thought experiments" in a sense, and if they are at serious odds with each other then they can be moved into alternative social contracts.
In other words, meritocracy can express itself via several social contracts with many similar points, but also with significant policy differences in the detail i.e. we can be mature and sensible enough to allow meritocracy to come in several flavours. There's no need for disagreement. If you have a serious problem with one type of meritocratic social contract you simply find another one more agreeable to you.
Our whole approach should be based on the avoidance of any type of one-size-fits-all "totalitarian" thinking and, instead, the offer of bespoke social contracts which can yield people as much as, say, 90% of what they're looking for (there will always be a need for minor compromises).
Freedom, choice and flexibility must be our watchwords. We can appeal to everyone, even to non-meritocrats, by offering them the chance to create states or city-states based on the values important to them. If Muslim fanatics want a Sharia Law city-state, that's their choice. But if their system fails (as it surely will!) and they then want to join the hyper-successful meritocratic states and city-states, they must abandon all of their old values. They will have to sign the meritocratic social contract and be bound by its terms.
We don't need to get into arguments with any of our enemies. We can actually say we will work with them to give them exactly what they want, and they will of course have to give us exactly what we want too.
It's the final political Revolution, the end of the Freedom Dialectic. How could you be any freer than in a state or city-state that you chose yourself because it reflected your core values and identity?
If Democracy is so good…
Hillary Clinton said, "History has shown that democracies tend to be more stable, more peaceful and more prosperous."
If democracy is so good, why doesn't it apply to the workplaces in which all of the supporters of democracy work? Why are the workers never allowed to elect the CEO or President of the company? Why are they never allowed to appoint the board members? Why are they never permitted a say in recruitment and promotion, or to sit on the remuneration board?
Companies are dictatorships: authoritarian, hierarchical structures where all decisions are taken at the top. It is through companies that we see the true face of what is happening in so-called democracies. The privileged elite at the apex of the companies take the decisions and the workers - the ordinary people - are never consulted, and their opinions are regarded as worthless.
If the elite actually believed in democracy, they would ensure that all aspects of society were democratic, wouldn't they? In fact, they make sure democracy gets nowhere near the workplace, thus betraying their real contempt for democracy and the people.
We advocate meritocratic democracy in the workplace whereby all positions in a company are subjected to democratic votes regarding who is the most meritorious person to assume a position. The decision-making is thus taken away from the management elite and given to the workers.
Rather than allowing the big bosses to decide their own remuneration and bonuses, it should be up to the workers to decide. Wouldn't that constitute a genuine revolution? It would change EVERYTHING at a stroke.
Freedom and Choice
We experience freedom when we are able to exercise meaningful choices. We have plenty of freedom when it comes to consumerism, and little or none anywhere else.
In elections, we are allowed to choose between those whose names have been placed on the ballot paper, but how many of us had any say in who got on the ballot paper in the first place? Overwhelmingly, we are alienated from politics.
We have no freedom and choice in the workplace. The dictators at the top of the pyramid issue the decrees that everyone must obey. Hence we are also alienated from our work.
We have no say over the banking system, hence the economy, hence we are alienated from that too.
We are alienated from all aspects of our lives other than those that involve consumption (i.e. the activity that gives money to the capitalist elite).
In a sense, meritocracy is about a war on the one-size-fits-all mentality and ideology.
In the State education system, you get one type of education for everyone, the assumption being that all pupils and students are somehow identical.
We have advocated treating the human race as being composed of 16 different tribes based on Myers-Briggs types, hence there should be 16 different education systems, each tailor-made for each tribe.
The State should guarantee us not just any old education, but a bespoke education that will give us the best chance in life. Such an education has to recognise that the 16 different tribes have radically different ways of learning; something that is never acknowledged by the powers-that-be.
A corollary is that these 16 different tribes all have different responses to religion, politics, philosophy, science etc - so a one-size-fits all solution satisfies no one.
Why are there so many different religions and political ideologies in the world? It's because each religion or political system makes sense to one tribe, but not to a different tribe, so the different tribe has to find something knew. Look at the difference between Abrahamists and Gnostics, between Abrahamists and atheists. The Abrahamists are advocates of "faith", while Gnostics and atheists are preoccupied with knowledge. Gnostics and atheists are "rationals" while Abrahamists are "guardians". Neither group understands the other.
The reason this is so important is that it goes to the heart of meritocracy. Who decides who is most meritorious? If every tribe has a different idea of merit then the whole concept is reduced to a shambles. It becomes bogged down in disputes and the most numerous tribe is likely to get its way.
In capitalist countries, merit is decided by how much money you have - a disastrous criterion. In Abrahamist societies, the most "meritorious" are the most fanatical followers of Abrahamism - another disastrous criterion. In sensation seeking societies, the most meritorious are those who take the biggest risks - "dangerous sports" addicts, the faster drivers, the best sportspeople etc. In societies based on emotion, those who emote the best are the highest regarded - the Mother Theresas of the world and the Oprah Winfreys.
Intuitives revere those with the best ideas, the ideas offering the most possibilities for future growth and development. Thinkers esteem the most logical step-by-step thinkers, with scientists at the top of the tree.
So, unless only your tribe gets to decide on matters important to you, you are likely to have to endure other people's idea of merit.
We have a hopelessly jumbled and muddled world - a global Babel - where everyone is talking not just different languages but different psychological languages too. No tribes can agree on anything. Everything is reduced to ineffectual and irrational compromises. No wonder so much of life is shambolic.
Jung spoke of the need for individuation, one of the central aspects of which is the process of differentiation. Each psychic component has to be analysed separately in order to be properly understood; otherwise you get an undifferentiated chaos of mental impressions and ideas over which you can exert no control. Our world is the equivalent of an undifferentiated Mind that has no self-understanding.
By emphasizing the 16 different Myers-Briggs tribes we are effectively taking the first step towards individuation of humanity.
Some people advocate a policy of simply ensuring that the different types are given more of an education about the other types in order to better understand and deal with them. This is indeed an important step, but it doesn't go far enough. It's easy for a rational person to understand why so many people flock to Islam; it's a brilliant brainwashing system for targeting credulous, superstitious, badly educated people desiring some Mythos framework for their lives. However, that in no way makes it acceptable to a rational person, or any easier to deal with. Any rational person in an Islamic society is in big trouble. Full stop. Rationality is not welcome there because it invariably undermines the authority of the irrational Koran. So, the best that can be done is to ensure that all rational people are given an easy escape route from Islam.
Imagine a world in which you had a genuine choice between different education systems, political systems, economic systems, philosophical systems, psychological systems and religions. Isn't that the freest world you could have? What could be freer?
Being forced to abide by the hostile rules of other tribes is slavery not freedom. All of the tribes are held back by the other tribes. None of them get what they want, so they are all miserable.
We drag each other down by trying to live in these one-size-fits-all systems and societies. We will never be free until we realise the truth of the human condition - that we are incompatible "species" that are guaranteed to be hostile towards one another.
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes had a vision of nature consisting of perpetual, brutal war that could only be stopped by a huge power - the Leviathan - that enforced its Will on all the warring factions.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a vision of human nature in which, left to their own devices, people would be cooperative and live in peace and harmony. It was "civilisation" itself, he maintained, that was the cause of conflict through introducing divisive ideas such as private property, status, hierarchies, political factions etc.
In fact, Hobbes and Rousseau are both right, and both wrong. Conflict is, as Hobbes recognised, inevitable. Why? Because there are 16 tribes, often with little in common, and that quickly provoke and incur the enmity of their fellow tribes.
But Rousseau is also right because if people all belonged to the same tribe they would indeed cooperate and live in harmony because there would be little friction between them. They would all be on the same wavelength.
Isn't it time we took the radical step necessary for final freedom and accepted that many of us will never get along because we are simply too different? Hence we should be separate. Race has traditionally been used to justify separating people - most notoriously in South Africa during the Apartheid regime - but that is a ridiculous criterion. How you perceive and conceptualise the world, how you think, feel, sense and intuit - these are the proper basis for separation. It's not a question of anyone being morally better or worse than anyone else; it's just a question of difference. We have to understand difference and know how best to deal with it to get the most out of everyone. We will never achieve that in the one-size-fits-all society where people dogmatically insist that all human beings are the same.
If you want a world in which you experience the maximum degree of freedom, you must be allowed to live in a society that is extremely well matched to your value system. You will never feel free if you are in continual conflict with others and continually forced to accept defeat or abide by hopeless compromises.
If we can choose consumer objects, why can't we also freely choose education, religion, philosophy and politics - and get to live in the type of society we dream of? With that manifesto, we can appeal to EVERYONE! Sure, there are all manner of complications and difficulties, but they can all be addressed in a smarter, happier, more efficient world.
If you're in a political debate with non-meritocrats, you don't have to argue against their crazy ideas. Instead, you can say that in a meritocracy they will get a city-state where they can live according to whatever laws they want.
The meritocratic challenge is how to create a system of city-states that can co-exist with radically different systems and yet be peaceful and cooperative. The ideal model is ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy and Enlightenment Germany, without the wars! Arguably, these were the three greatest periods in human history. Shouldn't we be trying to recreate the conditions that led to such incredible human progress?
Meritocracy is dependent upon being able to assess who is most meritorious, but different personality types have different ways of answering this question. If there are 16 different answers to the question then 16 types of meritocratic society are needed. Of course, those societies not based on reason and intuition may fail spectacularly because the types of merit they promote (such as being the best Abrahamist) are not conducive to creating a functioning, advanced society. Islam is proving how an irrational belief system can start dragging people back to the Dark Ages. The most "meritocratic" Muslims (i.e. the most zealous advocates of the Koran) are the opposite of those needed for a modern society.
In the long-term, one society will prove stunningly superior to all the others: the one based on reason and intuition. All others will have to succumb to that model in the end.
"NW" wrote to us to say: "I'd like to tell you that we need only one nation to become meritocratic. With your plan for the school system we will be cranking out experts. Even the lowliest man will be an expert in his class. Our production will surely skyrocket and our national wealth would be unfathomable. All the other countries must either replicate our education system or fall behind. Those who replicate it will soon find they have quite intelligent citizens who now want to rule themselves. The countries that don't will quickly stagnate and become economically dead. Their people will look at their neighbors and say fuck this and revolution will follow. In a matter of 100 years, I can imagine a one world meritocratic utopia where man is better than ever before. We would be a true race of Gods."
And NW is exactly right. We just need to get one perfect meritocratic society up and running, and it will soon be enormously more successful than all of its rivals.
Einstein and Socialism
"The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the 'free labor contract' for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from 'pure' capitalism.
"Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an 'army of unemployed' always exists. The worker is always in fear of losing his job. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than easing the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor and to a crippling of the social consciousness of individuals.
"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced that there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented towards social goals."
In fact, Einstein is wrong about competition. The ideal model of endeavour to emulate is science itself - which is ferociously competitive. Everyone wants to be the genius who makes the huge breakthrough, the person who gets the Nobel Prize, and, above all, understands the Mind of God.
Science is remarkable in many ways. It is simultaneously highly collaborative and highly individualistic. Einstein achieved his brilliant insights only by building on the work of many geniuses who preceded him. Without them, he would have got nowhere. He had friends who were able to help him with the mathematics he needed for relativity theory. Yet he spent most of the time on his own, pondering.
Scientists have tremendous respect for each other, yet also want to win. That is what meritocracy is seeking to replicate. The ideal society is one in which collaboration, cooperation and competition co-exist, in which everyone respects and admires each other but also wants to grab the glory of great and unique achievements.
The greatest scientists have never been motivated by money. Contrast them with the greedy clowns of Wall Street who contribute nothing to society or the greater good of humanity but are obsessed with money.
The Many Lives We Never Had
The instant we are conceived by our parents, we are endowed with incredible potential. There is an enormous range of lives we are capable of leading. Yet as soon as we are born, almost all of that potential evaporates. Why? Because the particular environment we find ourselves in dictates the narrow, limited lives available to us. Our parents inflict a religion, not of our choosing, on us. We might find ourselves being genitally mutilated by circumcision then forced to wear certain clothes, to eat certain foods, to pray endlessly, to try to memorise a strange, ancient text, to avoid certain people because they are "infidels", and so on. If we live in a crime-infested ghetto, that will become the central preoccupation of our life. We are likely to end up in a gang. We will probably attend an under-achieving school that fails to give us a decent education. The wealth of our parents has an overwhelming impact on us. If they are rich, they can place us on a golden path of freedom and privilege. If they are poor, we will have to struggle through life in the slow lane, as second-class citizens in a two-tier society. Astoundingly rapidly, our possibilities in life are blocked off. We are forced down grim, claustrophobic roads. Soon, there is no escape. We have de-actualised our potential i.e. rather than becoming the best we can be, we frequently become the worst.
Why is life like this? Isn't it time we did something about it? Meritocracy is all about delivering the society where environment gives us the best possible chances in life rather than the worst.
Flowers versus Weeds
In a sense, we are all both flowers and weeds. In terms of our own tribe, we are flowers, and we help each other to bloom. But the members of other tribes are like weeds that deprive us of resources, crowd us out, ruin all of our delicate patterns.
Imagine a rational person in Pakistan, surrounded by Muslim weeds. Anyone who expresses any criticism of Islam in Pakistan is guilty of blasphemy, for which the penalty is death. If the State doesn't carry out the sentence, a Muslim vigilante nutcase will do it instead, to the acclaim of his compatriots. How could any non-Muslim possibly bloom in such a nation? It's impossible. The weeds kill all the flowers.
In terms of other tribes, we ourselves are weeds. None of us can flourish properly because we are all ruinously interfering with each other.
The meritocratic society is about designing a landscape garden, where there are no weeds, just flowers in the locations where they grow best and bloom most vividly and colourfully.
The one-size-fits-all garden is a complete mess, full of choking weeds, where no flower grows properly.
Nothing is more important than the realisation that humanity is not an undifferentiated, homogeneous mass. Human beings are different and need to be treated differently depending on how their brains are wired.
Just as a gardener knows what particular conditions are needed for the cultivation of each of the different types of flowers he grows, so the "Society Gardener" needs to know what every type of human being needs to make them flourish.
In ancient Greece, the word pharmakon (from which we derive "pharmacy") means drug, medicine - or poison. All medicines can be regarded as toxic (they should be toxic to your illness, after all): it's the dose that controls whether it kills or cures you.
Each human being is a pharmakon too. We always think of ourselves as being benevolent and on the side of good, but many of us are extremely toxic to others. Muslims are frequently toxic to non-Muslims, especially in Pakistan. But these Muslim murderers believe they are good and doing the right thing; that they are performing God's work, no less.
Most of us don't need the medicine others are offering. In fact it would kill us. None of the 16 Myers-Briggs tribes has the right to dictate to any or all of the others. The task is to find the means of maximising harmony between the tribes, minimising the weeds and the toxic effects. If the simplest way forward is simply to physically separate the tribes then let's get on with it.
Two thirds of the Illuminati belong to the INTJ and INTP tribes. The remaining third are those who can work effectively with INTJs and INTPs. In other words, we practise what we preach. We have designed our own society according to psychological distinctions.
How many people in this world want to create William Blake's Golgonooza, the wondrous City of the Imagination? The Venus Project is akin to Golgonooza. Most people couldn't care less about Golgonooza, but many rationals and idealists crave it. We will never have it if we remain in the grip of those who do not care for intuition and the imagination. Therefore we must separate ourselves. Isn't that the only logical way forward? Otherwise, we would have to dominate the others using our intelligence, and we would become just a new set of dictators, imposing our will on others.
No one should be coerced, explicitly or implicitly, to buy into someone else's vision. We despise Wall Street yet we are forced to dance to the Wall Street tune. So how do we escape?
Nor do we want to trap people who don't like our vision of the world within our system. They would be miserable and of no use to us. So, isn't it best for the tribes of the world to go their separate ways? We must learn from history and surely that has proved beyond any question that humans are prone to savage conflict. But what underlies the conflict? One of the answers is that we dislike and fear people who are on a radically different wavelength. They make us uncomfortable and anxious. We don't know what to expect from them. We don't know how to anticipate their moves. We have neither empathy nor sympathy with them.
People become hostile and intolerant when they are surrounded by people they dislike. It's the most natural response in the world. It's your fight or flight mechanism kicking in. We are designed to fight those who make us feel bad and stressed, or flee from them.
In our present one-size-fits-all societies, we are constantly in fight or flight mode because we are surrounded by people from whom we are psychologically alienated. How can anyone in their right mind think that's healthy? We have to create a new society where our fight or flight buttons are never pressed and we can get on with being happy and creative instead. That can only happen in a psychologically designed society. We have to put together those who can live in harmony and cooperation, and separate them from those who will provoke disharmony and conflict. What could be more logical? We can achieve this through psychological profiling. Everyone can have a society where they genuinely love their neighbours because their neighbours behave just as they do.
Christians like to say, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Well, we want to actually deliver a new world based on just this rule - and it can only be done when you understand your neighbours and are all on the same wavelength.
It's a sad but unavoidable fact of life that there are those who will never be our friends. They are just too different from us. It's not that they're wrong and we're right, that they're bad and we're good - there's no morality involved - it's just that we're not simpatico.
If we can't be together then we must be apart. And thus we'll create happy societies. We can visit other city-states as tourists, not as enemies. And they can visit us and be treated with the utmost hospitality for the duration of their stay.
Isn't that what "civilisation" is all about?
Phantom sent us the following message and poem:
Tonight I was pondering the Art of War, a favourite text of mine, and from it I drew inspiration for a poem I hope will find its way into one of your articles.
This poem is dedicated to all our friends and allies,
To every seeker, knower and illuminator
That brings to this world a shining beacon
To guide every soul and show them
That they are the brightest stars!
The poem is called The Brightest Deed, The Sunlit Seed
In the Hearts of Men,
A Fire dwindles,
In the Night's black fen,
our Spirit kindles
The soul, the spirit of man,
Our goal, to unleash it again.
Into this world we plunge,
Upon the face of uncertainty
A bright Spear, a flaming Arrow
Seizing victory from defeat's jaws
The clock strikes in this final hour,
As we rise against the tyrant's power
And cast down the yokes of shame,
Taking up our swords & cloaks of flame
And shine so brightly into the night,
freeing our brethren of their darkest plight.
To look upon a new world rising,
Like the bright Morning star shining,
heralding the end of night and
the new day surmising,
A bright new future, crying
Alight! Alight! The night she falls,
The Sun gleams, into the sky striding!
Phantom wrote, "If we have ONE generation of children that is free from the brainwashing and putrefaction of the current state of society, the world will change utterly."
That's exactly right. We're just one generation from a new world, but getting the space to create that one golden generation is the biggest problem imaginable. The tragedy is that most parents believe it's their sacred duty to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs. They think they're doing them a favour, doing the right thing. They couldn't be more wrong, but how can you persuade them of their error when they in turn were brainwashed by their own parents?
People who are in the grip of superstition cannot be freed, unfortunately. They are superstitious because a) they have been the victims of brainwashing and b) they don't have the sort of rational mind that allows them to free themselves from absurd beliefs.
If you say fuck Jehovah, fuck Allah, fuck Jesus Christ - you are not placing your soul in any jeopardy. Frankly, the True God isn't listening to what you are saying, and isn't in the business of punishing anyone. The True God is a God of Knowledge, not of Crime and Punishment. What the True God offers us is the chance to gain the same knowledge he has.
Can any person seriously believe that God is watching every human being and shaking his head in disapproval over any "transgressions" and getting ready to send the person to hell for eternity, or nodding in appreciation because some person has robotically obeyed every rule in an ancient book?
What a sad, sad, sad vision of God these fools have.
Phantom wrote: "Today it hit me that Illumination is like an operating system custom-tailored to our own individual perception. It allows us to navigate the inner worlds with ease and incorporate art, science, mathematics and philosophy into its perspective - in fact, Illumination does it naturally, like a four-winged bird holding up its quintessential aspect, the spiritual, and vice versa the spiritual feeds into this quaternion. I have enjoyed my meditations the last few weeks; these inside worlds are beautiful beyond description but there is always more to see."
Now, isn't that a far superior vision? God is inside us, not outside. If we look deeply enough, we will all find God.
Do you spend all of your time hoping and praying that your enemies will be punished forever in the most horrific ways for daring to oppose you? Haven't you got better things to do with your time? By the same token, God has better things to do than contemplate the torture he will inflict on people for disobeying him. As above, so below.
If you are not a sick fuck who dreams of eternally punishing rule-breakers then you can be sure God isn't either. The sort of people who are obsessed with obeying rules and commandments are utterly alienated from God and have understood nothing of real religion. In truth, they are mentally ill, being guided by their unconscious shadow. They are full of hate, bitterness, rage and the desire for revenge. They project their own cruelty and bestiality onto the God they worship. They can't imagine that he isn't as obsessed with garbage and sadism as they are. They are pathetic, and they are the people to whom the label "evil" can be legitimately applied. Anyone who thinks God is a cosmic Torturer and Avenger, committed to inflicting endless pain on anyone who disobeys his books of petty rules about whether or not you should eat bacon sandwiches, turn on the light on a Saturday, or cut your hair in a certain way is MAD! There's no other word for it.
As was said about Lord Byron, these people are: "mad, bad and dangerous to know."
Laughter and Superstition
Only one type of animal has a sense of humour - human beings. And only one type of animal is superstitious - human beings.
Superstition is an extraordinary phenomenon. It is defined as an irrational belief founded on ignorance or fear and characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, rules, commandments and rituals.
Consider the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Jews couldn't care less about the superstitions of Christians and Muslims, but they will compulsively obey all Jewish rules out of terror of the imagined consequences of disobeying them.
Christians couldn't care less about not being circumcised while Jewish and Muslim men think they will go to hell if they aren't circumcised. Imagine being sentenced to eternal hell for not having your foreskin chopped off. That, apparently, will be the fate of all of us who haven't had the unkindest cut. We're shaking in our shoes!!
Muslims not only don't regard Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and the only path to paradise, they think that anyone who says Jesus Christ is God is going to hell.
Jews regard the beliefs of Christians and Muslims as irrational and superstitious; Christians think it's the Jews and Muslims who are crazy, and Muslims are certain all Jews and Christians are going to hell for rejecting Mohammed and the Koran.
Isn't it amazing that people are able to see others' beliefs and superstitions as ridiculous and irrational, yet can't comprehend that their beliefs and superstitions are viewed exactly the same way by others? A Muslim has no fear of insulting Jesus Christ, yet believes he will jeopardise his immortal soul if he breathes a word against Mohammed. Christians believe that Mohammed is in hell - Dante even wrote about it in The Inferno - and have no fear at all about insulting him.
Why is one group seized by dread at the thought of insulting Mohammed while all other groups think that insulting Mohammed has no consequences at all for the afterlife?
Imagine a God who sends all non-Jews to hell, or all non-Christians or all non-Muslims. What kind of God is that? What rational person would want to have anything to do with such a God?
Why is it that some of us who were raised as Abrahamists are able to break away from our childhood religion and not be remotely affected by superstition or fear, while many more are terrified and can't escape? What is it that grips them so tightly? The answer of course is that those who reject their parents' religion are invariably highly rational. Reason is the antidote to superstition. All Abrahamists who haven't abandoned their religion are lacking in rationality, hence they are inherently extremely dangerous, as Muslims prove over and over again in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Superstition is fear that has been instilled in children in their earliest years, and continually reinforced ever since. Any child who does not have a rational mind is poisoned forever.
Superstition relies on three things: irrationality, fear and submissiveness. If you think about it, all people who believe that some dominant person (Moses, Christ, Mohammed etc) is the mouthpiece of God are submissives - slaves - waiting for their master to tell them what to do, and believing him to be infallible.
Submissives are those who can't imagine that they themselves are, at core, God. Dominants have no such problem. Submissives are alienated from their inner godliness, and are extremely susceptible to instead projecting it onto someone else - any suitably dominant person. All prophets are dominants and all followers are submissives.
The Illuminati's desired end-point - the Community of Gods; the Society of the Divine - is one in which there are no masters and slaves, no dominants and no submissives. Everyone has become God. Any healthy religion should be striving to release everyone's inner God.
Look at the Muslims. Their religion is called "Submission" and they spend all of their time on their knees. Only submissives are attracted to Islam. It's the essence of submissiveness. They believe that an illiterate tribesman, who was very friendly with Jews living in Arabia, went into a mountain cave and encountered the Angel Gabriel, who then proceeded to recite the Word of God - the Koran - to him. Now, to any dominant person, this is ludicrous beyond belief. But to weak, pathetic submissives, searching for the guidance of a dominant, there is nothing odd about this. They WANT to believe. They want to be told what to do in black and white. They want the master to tell them what's halal (permitted) and what's haram (forbidden). It all makes perfect sense to them. It's emotionally satisfying.
And it's not as if these morons could ever work out it out for themselves. They need dictatorial "holy" books to fill the void in their brains. They have no initiative. They are robots waiting to be programmed. They have precious little free will. Anyone who wants to slavishly obey commandments in a book is barely human.
To any dominant person, Islam is a religion that makes them feel physically sick. It reeks of weakness, stupidity, irrationality and submissiveness. It is incomprehensible to any dominant person how anyone could take Islam seriously. It's a joke religion, a bad imitation of Judaism, which is itself a pile of crap.
Why would any God worthy of the name send a person to hell, as Jews and Muslims believe, for not being circumcised (i.e. for remaining as nature intended!). In other words, God, the alleged designer of humanity, hates his own design and thinks that unless a male has his foreskin snipped off then he deserves eternal hellfire. So why didn't he simply design males without foreskins and then he wouldn't need to get upset about it? If God requires the removal of foreskins then he must have made a mistake to provide them in the first place. (By the way, did you realise that Jesus Christ's divine foreskin may still exist, carefully preserved by his family? Will it have magic properties? Is it imbued with divinity? Will it be a stargate to heaven?)
The whole thing is actually laughable and yet it would cause WWIII if Jews and Muslims were prohibited by law from physically mutilating their male children.
Monarchists - such as the people of the UK - are another group of retarded submissives. What kind of person wants to be someone's "subject"? - only a submissive. The UK has a nauseatingly submissive working class who revere their masters. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the UK are amongst the most privileged people on earth: the living, breathing Old World Order. The people who voted for them and who support the unelected, unaccountable head of state - the Queen - have neither dignity, intelligence nor self-respect. Monarchy is Leviathan: a monstrous tyranny. The British people have a false consciousness. They have completely swallowed the masters' ideology.
We don't live in a rational world. The vast majority of people aren't rational. So how can a group such as the Illuminati hope to resolve the world's problems via rational arguments? We're in Catch 22.
Humanity's problem isn't that no one knows what to do, but rather that irrational people will resist all rational plans to reform the world. They are creatures of superstition.
The War of the World is the war between the rational and the superstitious. No task is of greater importance than dealing with superstition. The rational thing to do is make it illegal for any child to be subjected to any irrational teaching that provokes terror, or division between different groups. That, of course, means making Abrahamism and karmic teachings illegal - and billions of humans wouldn't tolerate that for a moment. Why not? Because they are totally brainwashed and superstitious! Catch 22 again.
What needs to be done, for rational reasons, can never be done. So, there's only one way forward - to separate the rational from the irrational and build a big wall.
The rational people can then construct a new world free of superstition. The simple truth is that they will never be able to do so while they are tethered to Abrahamists and karmists.
Malcolm X advocated separating blacks and whites and creating an independent country for blacks within America until such time as all African Americans could return to Africa. In many ways, this was a supremely rational proposal that even racist whites should have welcomed. In the UK, the far-right white parties advocate giving money to non-whites in exchange for those people returning to their ancestral homes. They would be ecstatic if a contemporary Malcolm X agreed with them.
Of course, it's not race that's the problem. The white racists are irrational. THEY are the problem. And there are plenty of irrational blacks, Asians, Hispanics etc. too.
Rational people couldn't care less about race. The only way to move forward is for ALL the rational people in the world to get together and create a rational society. It will be infinitely more successful than the societies run by the irrationals and they will be forced, eventually, to accept all of the rules of reason, superstition or no superstition. Any of the irrationals who insist on clinging to superstition will end up in the caves, like the Taliban.
The rational must lead by example, but they will only get that chance if they cut themselves off from the irrational. Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged actually proposes something of this kind, except it's about rich rather than rational people. In Rand's book, the super rich go on strike because they're fed up being dictated to by Commies. They create an idyllic community in a hidden valley in Colorado and cut themselves off from everyone else. The rest of the country starts to fall apart and the Commies have to come begging for salvation. The super rich agree to return only if they will now be in total charge, and the Commies are only too happy to agree. Hence why this book is so revered by wealthy Americans.
Meritocrats can keep the same plot, but with the heroes changed from the rich to the rational. The point is that only a policy of separation can ever truly reveal who is right and who is wrong. The rational can prove the superiority of reason only if they are allowed the space to build a rational society, and that can happen only if they can free themselves of the irrational.
We need Apartheid (!) - rational rather than racist - if we are to have any hope of changing the world. People should be free to choose the society they want to live in. If, like the Taliban, you want to live in a superstitious hellhole - go for it. If you want to live in a rational society then you will be signing up for a world ruled by reason, and all superstitions will be consigned to the dustbin.
So, what will it be?
The Midas Gang
There are 1,200 billionaires in the world. Why does anyone need to be a billionaire? How much money does someone need in order to live well? Should it be up to super rich individuals to decide, or is it actually something that is relevant to a whole community and hence should be decided by the community? When it comes to a State that has no say over how much private individuals are allowed to earn, cui bono? Is it the State or the super rich individuals who benefit?
A world has been constructed where a tiny number of individuals dictate to governments. They always get their own way. Politics and economics are designed to suit them. WHY?!
If the State cannot tell greedy individuals to take a running jump then the State has no power at all and we are all living in a plutocracy where our lives are shaped by the whims of extraordinarily rich individuals. What sane, rational person would wish to be the slave of the rich? The State, in the name of the people, must wrest control from the rich, and it can only do that by explicitly controlling their wealth. Why should the richest person on earth have more than say 100 million dollars? Would he be able to claim that he was being hard done by and forced to live in penury, or would he in fact still be able to enjoy an inconceivably luxurious life that others can only dream of? When is enough enough? We must derail the gravy train. We must stop the Greed Machine. If we don't, we deserve all we get.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity on a large scale...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
"Hollywood is a place that pays a $1,000 for a kiss, and fifty cents for your soul."
We live in a Price Tag society where we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. We inhabit a Sisyphean world where we toil during the day at some soul-destroying, alienating occupation and at night and weekends, when we are "free", we consume junk TV, we go shopping for junk, we watch Hollywood junk, we drink and take drugs to numb the pain, we get out our iPhones, iPods and iPads to distract ourselves. And then the cycle begins all over again, day after day, week after week, year after year - until we die. Like Sisyphus, we never finish pushing the boulder. The task always wins in the end. It doesn't die, we do! Isn't it time we smashed the Sisyphean boulder? Who is making us push it? - the super rich capitalist ownership class, that's who. They have chained us to it by piling debt on us: debt to them.
Decades ago, futurologists spoke of a coming "leisure society". The idea was that technological innovations would eliminate countless dreary jobs while maintaining, and even increasing, productivity. People would still enjoy the same quality of life but would have to spend far fewer hours at the workplace. So the question was how they would spend all of their extra leisure time.
Why didn't the leisure society ever materialize? People have worse jobs than ever. Imagine working in a call centre like a lab rat on a treadmill, robotically reading out a script to try to sell some junk product to reluctant customers.
The reason is that all the time we saved was re-directed into bringing out new product ranges faster and faster. Our masters created a world of hyper consumerism in which they sell to us round the clock. What is the internet? - a 24/7 shop front. There isn't a single moment when you are denied the opportunity to buy.
Rather than enjoying a leisure society, we have been manipulated into accepting a ferociously paced consumption fest which creates bigger profits than ever for the ownership class. Why don't we step off the treadmill? We are free to do so whenever we want.
One of the most autonomous individuals in history was Diogenes the Cynic, who lived as a beggar in a barrel in the streets of Athens. He refused to let anyone be his master. The Illuminati have a "Diogenes Division" - these are members who have agreed to dedicate two years of their lives exclusively to Illuminati undertakings for the equivalent of a minimum wage. All members of the Illuminati must serve in the Diogenes Division at some stage, and it is deemed highly beneficial for the soul to endure a period of near poverty.
What are we?
First of all: what we are not. We are not anarchists nor socialists nor libertarians nor ultra-capitalists nor communists nor democrats nor advocates of negative liberty.
We are MERITOCRATS. That is what defines us. We advocate strong government by the most meritorious men and women. We don't want unmeritorious people in charge, nor greedy people out for themselves, and nor do we want no one in charge (as anarchists, libertarians and ultra-communists advocate - a position of so-called negative liberty).
We are advocates of positive liberty. By that we mean that we have an extremely powerful vision of what humanity ought to be and we want humanity to dedicate itself to reaching its omega point of dialectical perfection. We refer to that final state as the Community of Gods and the Society of the Divine. It logically follows that if we wish to attain that goal, the most meritorious amongst us are those most likely to get us there. We won't succeed via the greedy or unmeritorious or those who have no vision of what humanity ought to be.
So no we don't advocate making common cause with any type of anarchist, libertarian or democrat - except as a short-term expedient to get rid of a common enemy. But the anarchists, libertarians and democrats would themselves become the enemies of our cause in due course since they would object to strong, directed government that actively promoted the pursuit of the perfection of humanity. What anarchists and libertarians oppose is all government. They oppose authority per se regardless of whether it is good or bad. We are enemies of wrongful authority but not the authority of those whose talents qualify them to be in charge. The Illuminati is full of smart, creative people but we all acknowledge that the Grand Master and the Ruling Council are those best able to lead us to where we want to go.
Only a fool would ideologically oppose the principle of the wisest people being allowed to lead. If you require brain surgery, you want the best brain surgeon to perform the operation. You don't choose the worst brain surgeon because you are opposed to "fascist" hierarchies of brain surgeons. Similarly, if you want the best society you seek the means of identifying those best qualified to deliver it. You don't arrogantly decide that you are as well qualified as anyone else. Anyone who adopts that attitude is opposing the whole concept of merit and expertise. Anarchists and libertarians are invariably those who think that they are so great that no one could possibly be in a position to have better ideas and ways of doing things than they. They are deluded fools, with a massively inflated sense of their own abilities. The world would fall apart under anarchy or libertarianism. We would succumb to the grimmest Hobbesian war, everyone fighting with everyone else, and soon enough a leviathan - a dictator - would rise up to impose order, and would be eagerly embraced by the masses. Anarchism and libertarianism are a complete joke. They have no vision of optimised human beings - in fact they would regard that aspiration as some sort of fascist dream.
We love Nietzsche's concept of the Superman. We see the Superman as the necessary precursor of the Divine Human. If you are not enthralled by the idea of attaining perfection - of all human beings attaining perfection - then you are no ally of ours. Anarchists and libertarians despise the Superman. They just want to be left alone to pass the time as they see fit. Their vision of humanity is as dismal as capitalist consumerism.
We hope we have made our position crystal clear, and the scope of our ambition. If you prefer anarchism or libertarianism then you should join one of the vehicles for those ideologies. You certainly won't be of any use to our mission.
Our key words are meritocracy, the transformation of quantity into quality, the pursuit of excellence, the alchemical project of turning base metal into gold, and the desire for perfection. If you don't want to be perfect, go somewhere else. Our ideas are not for you. If you think you are already perfect and know the answers to everything - which is what the anarchists and libertarians effectively believe of themselves (they think they need no help from experts and the wise) - then, again, our ideas are not for you.
Everyone must approach knowledge with humility. There are those who know more than we do and we would be fools not to attempt to seek them out and gain their knowledge. Every member of the Illuminati understands that we can achieve remarkable things if we are part of a united society dedicated to the furtherance of knowledge and if we allow ourselves to be guided by those who are further along the path to enlightenment. Every member aspires to be Grand Master one day, but only if we deserve it because we have become the best, because we are the member of the Illuminati with the most merit. And then it is our sacred duty to lead the Illuminati ever closer to its omega point. The Grand Master is the servant of the Illuminati, not its dictator. To desire to be of service to others is to attain true wisdom. To be obsessed with serving yourself - like all of the present leaders of our society - is to prove that you are completely unfit to be a leader.
Society must protect itself from the types of people who are currently in charge. The easiest way is to ensure, by law, that they are not super rich and can never become super rich. Any rich person who seeks to lead should first of all be compelled to surrender most of their wealth. If they refuse then they have proved that they are unworthy. They have demonstrated what their motivation is, and it's obviously not public service.
The media, said Noam Chomsky, is "a machine for manufacturing consent." That's not quite right. It creates the illusion of consent by the simple expedient of only allowing certain voices to be heard. It doesn't so much make consent as pretend that it already exists. People are never given the opportunity to realize how little consent there actually is.
Zero and Nothing
One subject to which we continually return is the meaning of "nothing" because it is so fundamental to the nature of reality. Scientific materialists assert that something is real only if it exists in space and time and has material existence, even though in the next breath they then assert that the universe appeared from "nothing", and even though light, as defined by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is, within its own terms, outside space and time and has no mass and no conventional material existence. In other words, scientific materialism is riddled with inconsistencies and could even be called incoherent.
If immaterial existence outside space and time is real then there can be no such thing as "nothing", hence the universe does not come from "nothing".
The First Law of Thermodynamics - the law of conservation of energy - states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. This implies that the energy now present in the universe has existed forever. It was not created and nor can it be destroyed. No new energy can come into existence, and none can be removed. The energy of the universe will endure forever, taking on various new guises in that time. The human soul, if simply defined as immaterial energy that exists outside space and time, is therefore deathless, indestructible and immortal, and this is in complete accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics.
However, scientists have managed to smuggle in, almost unnoticed, an entirely different version of the First Law of Thermodynamics that utterly contradicts the former version. It's the "Free Lunch" version of the law. According to this, an entire universe can appear out of nothing so long as the total energy equals zero i.e. if a "positive" energy source can be perfectly balanced by a "negative" energy source then you can create as much energy as you like. In other words, energy can be created and destroyed at will if it does so in terms of a cosmic accountant's trading off of positive and negative energy. The total energy of the universe according to this view is always zero, hence the First Law should really state: the total energy of the universe can never deviate from zero, or the total energy of the universe is always conserved at zero.
The scientific community, being staggeringly inept philosophically, has never appreciated that these two versions of the First Law are not in any way equivalent but actually the complete opposite. In the first version, it is being stated that the total energy of the universe is definitely non-zero and can have any value up to infinity, and whatever the number is, it can never be increased or reduced. The second version states that the total energy of the universe is never anything other than zero. A corollary of the second version is that it is possible to eliminate all forms of energy - positive and negative - from the universe, leaving nothing at all: Absolute Zero!
The first version excludes the possibility of non-existence. The second makes non-existence possible, but with the unlikely proviso, in philosophical terms, that non-existence (Absolute Zero) contains a bizarre and implausible mechanism for suddenly creating an enormous and even infinite amount of positive energy, counterbalanced by an equal amount of negative energy. But how would this be possible if the universe ceased to exist by attaining Absolute Zero in terms of its total energy content?
Which version do you think is more credible?
If the first version is correct then the Big Bang involved the conversion of pre-existing dimensionless energy into dimensional energy. In the second version, the Big Bang created something literally out of nothing, albeit the "something" is balanced between positive and negative energy and still adds up to "nothing". In the first version, the Big Bang is a calculated event, worked out by a dimensionless cosmic mind, in which the laws of physics are stored. If the second version is true - and this is the one supported by the scientific community - then the Big Bang was a random and mysterious event and there is no indication of where the laws of physics come from and how the universe can attain a state of non-existence that is somehow not non-existent since it can still give rise to the Big Bang. If this latter version is correct then how come Big Bangs aren't happening all the time, everywhere, since none of these events ever actually uses up any energy because total energy is always conserved at zero?
The scientific community seem to have no understanding or awareness of these difficulties and, moreover, the motivation for their version seems to be simply so that they can avoid considering the existence of a cosmic mind. Without their version, they would have to concede that all of the energy present in the material universe came from pre-existing energy in an immaterial universe i.e. they would have to acknowledge that pure mind existed and that the cosmos was fundamentally based on idealism rather than materialism. Moreover, there would now be scope for God, souls and the afterlife, thoughts by which conventional science is repelled.
By creating a "zero" version of the First Law, they can desperately cling to materialism, but only by appealing to a very bizarre concept of non-existence that somehow always contains the seeds of existence (even though this is a contradiction in terms).
Philosophically, there is either non-existence or existence, each of which is eternal, neither of which can be transformed into the other (i.e. non-existence can't suddenly exist nor existence suddenly not exist) and both of which are mutually exclusive. If non-existence were possible there would be nothing at all. Nothing would ever have happened. Nothing would ever have existed. There would be no processes of any kind. There would be no latent existence lurking within non-existence because that would mean that non-existence was simply a disguised form of existence i.e. existence that did nothing for long stretches but was ready to erupt at any moment. If there is no such condition as non-existence then there is only existence, and it is eternal. It can be neither created nor destroyed.
Scientific materialists, with their weird version of the law of conservation of energy, have created an untenable definition of non-existence. They argue on the one hand that the energy of the universe is always zero, and on the other that this can go from "genuine" zero (Absolute Zero) to "false" zero - a zero made up of a perfect balance of positive and negative energy, extending all the way to infinite positive energy cancelled out by infinite negative energy. The Big Bang involved the conversion of Absolute Zero energy into an indefinite amount of false zero energy, with the total amount of cosmic energy always staying at zero.
The key question is this: if Absolute Zero involves the complete absence of energy - absolute nothingness, absolute non-existence - then where is the process hiding that will allow Absolute Zero to be transformed into false zero? By definition, it can't exist since at Absolute Zero, non-existence is all there "is". So, the Big Bang scientific materialists, although they can mathematically balance the energy books, can offer no rational account of how their version of the Big Bang is possible. Theirs is a form of magic whereby absolute nothing suddenly becomes something but stays as "nothing", at least in a technical accounting sense. They have pulled the materialist rabbit from the hat, and not a blush of shame has ever crossed their cheeks. They believe that absolute nothingness always contains a hidden mechanism for converting true zero into false zero. They have never been able to explain this extraordinary feat of magic. They attempt to use the laws associated with the false zero universe we observe all around us to account for the true zero universe. But the true zero universe contains none of the laws of the false zero universe. Indeed it contains nothing at all, so how can they apply any of their laws to it?
Much of cosmological science is a philosophical joke, based on supremely incoherent concepts that nevertheless allow scientists to do lots of calculations, write lots of scientific papers to advance their careers, but which are not grounded in any solid foundations of science, mathematics or, especially, philosophy.
Consider this statement by Professor Brian Cox, currently the most prominent spokesman for science in the UK, and a darling of the media: "As a fraction of the lifespan of the universe, as measured from its beginning to the evaporation of the last black hole, life as we know it is only possible for one thousandth of a billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth of a percent."
This unimaginably small window of life contains an even smaller window - that of conscious existence. According to Cox's figures, life is staggeringly improbable; in fact so close to zero to make no difference. A rational person might conclude that such a statistic is proof that Cox's extremist scientific materialism is utterly false. How can life be an inconceivably unlikely by-product of existence? Moreover, how can it be generated by lifeless, mechanistic forces? Isn't it much more rational to accept that life is the essence of existence, and consciousness has a 100% probability of being generated: that the fundamental forces of life are seeking that precise outcome? Far from being improbable in the extreme, we are INEVITABLE. We are the purpose of the cosmos. Consciousness is what the unconscious cosmos strives for. There are no mechanistic forces in operation - only unconscious mental forces. Mind is dimensionless and matter is its dimensional product through which it attains consciousness. There are no accidents, no wildly improbable statistics concerning the likelihood of life. We are not the creatures of randomness, tossed into existence for no reason as mechanistic forces pointlessly wind down to the point where the cosmos attains a condition of eternal heat death in which nothing meaningful ever happens.
It is bizarre that scientific materialists like Cox and Richard Dawkins treat life so contemptuously. They seriously believe that a universe can emerge from nothing for no reason and then fade away to a ghostly state as it expends all of its energy. Also for no reason, the phenomenon of life flickers briefly into existence before rapidly being extinguished again and during that infinitesimally short period of consciousness, humanity rubs its eyes, scratches its head and says WTF!!!!!!
Well, that's scientific materialism for you. Absolute nihilism.
Imagine that a religious believer said to Professor Cox that it was rational to believe in the existence of God even if the likelihood of God's existence was only in the region of one thousandth of a billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth of a percent. Most people would think it was insane to accept those odds. You might as well be an atheist. But Professor Cox is in no position to mock the believer. After all, he thinks the window of life is open only for that infinitesimally small percentage of the lifespan of the universe, and the window for conscious life is smaller still. If these are the odds scientists accept as credible and rational it's amazing that they don't all believe in God…and in moons made of cheese.
The truth is that the cosmos always exhibits life - it is nothing but life - and the apex of life is self-organizing cellular life, culminating in conscious beings such as humans. The probability of life appearing in the universe is 100%. The probability of consciousness appearing in the universe is 100%. The probability of mind attaining complete knowledge of the universe (the Mind of God) is 100%.
Physicists say that anything not forbidden is compulsory. We know for a fact that life and consciousness are not forbidden - because we ourselves exhibit these qualities. Anyone who does not accept the existence of God is asserting that his existence is forbidden. Any probability, even one infinitesimally small, that is not actually zero (i.e. not forbidden) will definitely occur in an infinite system.
So, from a scientific standpoint, the argument concerning God's existence should be reduced to the grounds on which scientists assert that it is forbidden. What principles do they adduce to prove the impossibility of God's existence? By their own logic, if they can't show that God's existence is forbidden then they must accept that his existence is compulsory. We are not of course, referring to the Abrahamist God, whose existence can easily be disproved on simple logical grounds, but the evolutionary, dialectical God of Illuminism, the unconscious cosmic mind of the r = 0 domain that becomes conscious through the individuation provided by the r > 0 domain.
On the one hand, scientific materialists deny that non-material existence is possible and then they say that material existence came from "nothing" i.e. from some form of non-material existence. If the material world can emerge from immaterial existence then isn't that proof that immaterial existence is a real, substantive thing, capable of generating matter? And what is immaterial existence? It is mind - the one thing of which materialists refuse to acknowledge its existence.
The expanding universe can have two fates according to conventional cosmological thinking. Either it is expanding forever because gravity cannot overcome the force of expansion, in which case it will inevitably suffer the heat death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Or its expansion will reach a maximum limit dictated by gravity and then become contraction: the "Big Crunch" will reverse the Big Bang.
The reason we mention this is that Professor Cox makes authoritative statements as if he knows for sure what the condition of the universe is and will be, when in fact he's merely telling a story, unsubstantiated by any evidence. It is not clear according to the available evidence whether expansion will keep going or contraction will kick in.
Secondly, Cox refers to the evaporation of black holes. There is as yet no evidence for such a phenomenon, and it is a controversial topic. On the one hand, physicists say that the laws of physics fall apart at the black hole singularity, and then they claim that all black holes will evaporate according to known laws. So which is it? Do the laws fall apart or not? Moreover, the hypothetical total evaporation would of course depend on whether more material is leaving the black hole than entering it. In a Big Crunch style universe, black holes would eat everything and eventually coalesce into a cosmic singularity.
Why doesn't Cox make any of that clear? Scientists talk with incredible certainty, giving precise probabilities about this, that or the other when in fact these figures are built on multiple dubious assumptions. They are dealing in hypotheses not facts, yet they are presented as facts, giving the impression that science has all the answers.
In terms of black hole radiation for example, materialistic considerations are applied to a situation where it's by no means evident that any kind of materialism is valid. A black hole singularity does not exist in the material domain. All distances have been compressed to zero and time has stopped. All of the mass has been converted into dimensionless energy, so unless scientists have a theory that accounts for how dimensionless and dimensional energy interconvert (and they definitely don't have such a theory!) then how can they justify treating black holes as dimensional entities subject to conventional quantum processes? It's not science; it's pure speculation.
Isn't it time prominent scientists started expressing rather more qualified statements? They pontificate like the high priests and popes of some new cult. If Cox were being a proper scientist, he should have declared that everything he said is related to certain hypothetical models and calculations, none of which have been evidentially corroborated. But scientists don't like to reveal the reality that much cosmological thinking is more influenced by Mythos than Logos.
Professor Martin Rees said, "The best guess is that the universe will go on expanding for ever and that it will become ever colder and ever emptier."
Can there be a bleaker, more sterile vision of the future? The cosmos is gradually depleted of all of its energy and finally can do nothing at all. As WWI poet Wilfred Owen said in his poem Futility, "Was it for this the clay grew tall?"
According to the good professor, the cosmos goes to all the trouble of plucking itself out of nothing just to freeze itself in an eternal emptiness. Perhaps it should have stayed in bed!
In the Big Crunch scenario, the cosmos can return to the Absolute Zero of dimensionless existence whence it came. In the permanently expanding universe model, it never gets back there. One must wonder what the cosmos has been doing for infinity if it only decided to rouse itself from nothingness 14 billion years ago. Why didn't it do so a trillion years ago, or a trillion trillion? Why that one moment 14 billion years ago when it has had eternity to get round to it? It is practically insane to contend that "nothing" erupts, in a strictly one-off process, in the most gargantuan unleashing of energy conceivable only to use it all up and then remain frozen and useless until Doomsday, which of course never comes! If nothing could become something 14 billion years ago then it could have done so any number of times previously. In fact an infinite number of times. Anything not forbidden is compulsory.
What possible reason could the cosmos have had for forbidding the Big Bang until a specific instant 14 billion years ago? If it could happen then it could have happened at any moment prior, and moreover, it unquestionably did. Existence is an infinite series. It never terminates. There have been infinite Big Bangs, and they have all concluded with the cosmos returning to dimensionless existence, which then gives rise to a new Big Bang. Nothing else is possible. There is no definitive cosmic endpoint. If there were any such point, we would already have reached it since we've had eternity to do so. Therefore it does not exist. We are manifestations of a cosmic Will that strives eternally. It never grows tired. It never gives up. It never calls an end. It is incapable of doing so. The cosmos is eternal becoming. There is no such thing as a state of permanent being. It is as impossible as a state of absolute nothingness. There is always something, and it is always becoming. It is always transforming itself. It is always converting its potential into actuality, becoming more powerful, more realised, more perfect. And when it has attained any (temporary) state of perfection it has no choice but to start all over again because not to do so would be to contradict its own nature which compels it to always be transforming itself into something new. The universe craves novelty, exactly as we humans do - as above, so below. If you want to understand how the cosmos works, just look to yourself because you are a living manifestation of the cosmic Will. Just as you can't rest on your laurels, no matter what wonders you accomplish, nor can the cosmos.
When you truly grasp that fact you grasp the nature of reality. Schopenhauer understood it, but regarded it as horrific and even evil. Nietzsche took up where Schopenhauer left off and diagnosed Schopenhauer as a nihilist. For Nietzsche, the supreme challenge was to overcome nihilism and affirm life no matter what. He considered that only Supermen could understand the nature of reality and not be crushed by it. Only they had an infinite love of life. Only they said "Yes" to life no matter what. He said, "What does not kill me makes me stronger."
Is there a more powerful statement? It means that you can place value on everything that happens to you and, while a single breath is left in your body, you can celebrate being alive. Nietzsche's highest God was Dionysus, the divinity of passion and intoxication. And has anyone ever been more intoxicated by life than Nietzsche himself? To many people, Nietzsche's lonely, sickly, isolated life where he existed modestly and enjoyed none of the worldly success his brilliance entitled him to, is something from which to look away in horror. Yet if you could see through the eyes of someone like Nietzsche as he gazed down from the mountaintop and comprehended all of existence, you would know what it was like to be God and it would make all other pleasures seem as nought. You would not trade that priceless instant for ANYTHING.
"6,000 feet beyond man and time." - Nietzsche
Thought for the Day
The vast majority of cells physically present in your body don't belong to you, but to microbes. It has been estimated that 95% of the cells in the human body are bacteria located in the large intestine. Looking at it another way, we are 19 parts microbe to one part human! We have been colonized by countless microbes. Perhaps the God of Microbes made us to serve as the edible host for his minions! (Moreover, the "human" part of us is mostly water, and water is composed of atoms which are little more than empty space. It has been said that if an atomic nucleus were the size of a grain of rice, the size of the atom itself would be that of a football stadium, and the stadium would be nothing but an empty space through which electrons travel in some ghostly fashion since they never actually have a definite position and momentum. In other words, a human being is water, digested food, empty space and microbes! Must we not be divine to marshal such unpromising ingredients into beings that can contemplate eternity?!)
Consider this. None of these innumerable microbes has any conception of being inside an organism that thinks, loves and desires. They see no indication whatsoever of the existence of thoughts. If they could think, they would probably be scientific materialists and deny the existence of mind.
But what of us? Are we any better at comprehending that we too are inside an organism that thinks, loves and desires? We live inside God. We are part of God. Through reason, intuition and knowledge, we can attain the same cosmic perspective as God. We are not microbes, we are human beings. And we are more than that - we are potential Gods.
Scientific materialists have reduced us to mindless microbes. They have assaulted and insulted the dignity of humanity. Abrahamists too have insulted our dignity and reduced us to contemptible slaves of a tyrant God who exists in another dimension.
We are none of these things. We are astonishing. God is simply a human being further along the dialectical track than we are. We can all attain gnosis, and when we do, the cosmos becomes our body, just as it is for God. The cosmic mind is his mind. And it can be ours too.
The 9/11 Paradigm
9/11 conspiracy theories should be reclassified as a religion, or, better still, as a mental illness. A person keeps sending web links to us in which various anti-Zionists provide "irrefutable evidence" that Zionists were responsible for 9/11. (See, for example:
Of course, their "evidence" is always laughable and just reveals how crazy and irrational they are. There is literally nothing that could persuade the "Truthers" to change their mind and accept the self-evident facts.
9/11 is astoundingly simple. Only one thing needs to be known: that four American planes were hijacked and used as suicide bombs by their hijackers. Everything that happened subsequently flowed from that incontestable fact, the sine qua non for everything else. So, who would hijack an American plane and then be willing to give his life to use it as a weapon of war against prominent American targets, resulting in indefinite numbers of innocent Americans being slaughtered? Obviously, it would be an agent of Mossad or the CIA! After all, they're famous for their suicide hijacking operations and desire for martyrdom. The CIA and Mossad are notorious despisers of American civilians, and are only too keen to massacre them in vast numbers. They've long harboured a pathological hatred of America. Or have I gone fucking insane?!!!
Without any conceivable question, 9/11 was carried out by 19 of the legions of Muslim maniacs who detest America, and who love suicide operations as the martyr's fast track to paradise. Probably ten thousand Muslims have participated in suicide operations over the years. Number of CIA or Mossad agents who have taken part in suicide operations? - ZERO!
All of the hijackers were identified. They were all well-known Muslim fanatics who attended jihadist training camps in Afghanistan. Air stewardesses on the planes (all of whom died) used onboard phones to say exactly what was happening and who was doing it (they gave the seat numbers of the hijackers). The heavily accented voices of the hijackers in the cockpits were recorded. Flight 93 was brought down because of a passenger uprising. The passengers were fully aware of what had happened to the other planes because their family and friends on the ground were telling them in phone calls. The Flight 93 passengers were not trying to attack suicidal Mossad or CIA agents, but Muslim fanatics wearing red martyrdom bandanas around their heads. The Muslim hijacker pilots had all attended American flying schools in the previous months. That's exactly what you would expect as part of an elaborate CIA and Mossad suicide plot, isn't it?
In 1993, in another well-known CIA/Mossad plot, a van bomb was used to try to blow up the TwinTowers. Or was it another bunch of Muslim maniacs?
In 1994, the CIA/Mossad hijacked a plane in Algeria, intending to crash it into the heart of Paris. French Special Forces killed these CIA/Mossad agents. Or was it in fact another gang of Muslim crazies that got gunned down?
The London bombing and the Madrid bombing - obviously carried out by the CIA, Mossad and the British and Spanish Intelligence services and not by Muslim psychopaths who left martyrdom videos bragging about what they had done and giving warning of more attacks to come. The many terrorist attacks against Russia - Mossad, the CIA and the Russian intelligence service were self-evidently the guilty parties and not the hordes of Muslims who despise Russian rule and have been waging war against Russia for decades.
There are certain incontrovertible facts: Muslims love peace and never harm anyone; no Muslim has ever taken part in a suicide operation; no Muslim has ever hijacked a plane; no Muslim has ever hated the Americans or Europeans; no Muslim has ever targeted the twin Towers. Anyone who says that Muslims carried out 9/11 is clearly a member of Mossad or the CIA. Muslims love the West.
At least that's what the demented Truthers think. Our correspondent talks about the "truth". Not that he cares what it is. Like many people, he knows what the conclusion is that he desires, and nothing as inconvenient as a fact will dissuade him from marching straight to that conclusion. He will hunt high and low for material to support his delusion, and ignore everything that contradicts it. This is the trademark way that Christians, Jews, Muslims, creationists etc operate. These are "Mythos" people who have never been troubled by rational Logos thinking. Actually, they're not capable of exhibiting reason or logic. They are locked into feelings and sensations. They have their 9/11 paradigm that shapes how they understand the world, and they will never abandon it. They can't. It has become part of their identity.
We are opposed to Zionism, the State of Israel, American support for Zionism and Israel, and the Zionist lobby in America. Yet we will not stoop to accusing Zionists of crimes they didn't commit when the guilty parties have been caught red-handed.
To the person who keeps writing to us - why don't you join Al Qaeda? Don't visit our site again. Go and plague someone else with your conspiracy theories. For two thousand years and more, Abrahamists have bought into irrational garbage. Two thousand years from now the Religion of 9/11 will still be going strong. Why? Because the earth is a mental asylum, full of people unable to think rationally.
Muslim maniacs and their fellow travellers have claimed that the Madrid bombing was ordered by the Spanish government and the London bombing by the British government. Why should anyone be surprised that they blamed the Zionists and Americans for 9/11? It's what they do - blame others - and there are always credulous fools willing to believe them because they have their own axe to grind.
There are hundreds of Muslims in jails all over Europe, all caught plotting acts of horrific violence against the West. Only the most deluded people on earth would imagine that Western governments fabricated all of this. Go to a radicalised mosque and you will hear imams calling for all infidels to be killed and for all good Muslims to martyr themselves in a global jihad. Are these secret CIA and Mossad imams? Get fucking real.
9/11 was one act amongst a whole campaign of Islamic jihadist terrorism that has been going on for decades in scores of countries. Only people who don't have a clue about the history of jihadism could imagine that it was something that 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done by jihadists. It's ALL they've been doing for decades.
Anyone who says that 9/11 was perpetrated by Zionists and Americans is a friend and ally of Al Qaeda, Islamic jihad, and global Sharia Law. Zionists and the American government are guilty of innumerable crimes. 9/11 isn't one of them.
Shehzad Tanweer - "CIA/Mossad Agent" (according to the logic of 9/11 conspiracy theorists) who murdered seven innocent people in a suicide bomb attack on London Underground on 7/7/2005.
During the Cold War, the Americans chose to help the Afghani jihadists - the future Taliban - against the Soviets. Once allies, the Americans and Taliban are now the bitterest of enemies.
Donald Rumsfeld was famously pictured shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, and America gave massive aid to Iraq during its war with Iran (another hated enemy of America). So, according to conspiracy theory logic, Saddam Hussein was a CIA agent! Therefore, Saddam Hussein participated in the 9/11 conspiracy even though it resulted in his overthrow and death! Don't laugh - that's the level of rationality the conspiracy theorists operate at.
They look for any compromising photographs, snippets of information, hearsay, rumours, coincidences etc and build them into an enormous edifice that contains so much data that it might seem impressive on first glance. On second glance, it's like the Ptolemaic model of the solar system - utter nonsense.
And never forget this: not a single particle of evidence has ever linked Iraq to 9/11. So, this "brilliant" conspiracy, whose purpose was allegedly to allow America to justify an invasion of Iraq to grab its oil and provide regional support for Israel, did not fulfil even its first objective - to attribute blame for 9/11 to the nation about to be attacked. Was this the most inept conspiracy in history? Or are the conspiracy theorists who advocate this "conspiracy" the most retarded in history?
The Cabinet Meeting that gave the go-ahead for 9/11
Just consider for a moment that you're sitting around the Cabinet table of the Israeli Government. You're having to decide whether to use Mossad to attack your greatest friend, ally, supporter and funder - America. You will be killing thousands of American citizens. If you are caught, America will not only have to withdraw all support and friendship from you but actually declare war on you. It would be the end of Israel, the treasure you have protected with such determination for so long. Israel will revert to Palestine once more, and the Jews will never get it back again. And it will be your fault. You will surely go to hell. Yahweh will declare that the Jews broke the sacred Covenant and brought this fate upon themselves. In a couple of centuries, there will be no Jews left on earth. And all because you madly chose to attack your great benefactor and friend, America, in the most cold-blooded and treacherous way imaginable.
And why are you contemplating this insane step? Because you want America to attack Iraq. The plan is to covertly attack America while pretending that responsibility lay with Al Qaeda or Iraq (who cares? - they're all ragheads!), thus creating the excuse for war on Iraq.
According to some scenarios, the American government will actually be helping you to attack their own country - the biggest act of treason in human history. Both you and the Americans have to pray that nothing goes wrong and nothing leaks (may God curse WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and all those inclined to spill the beans!). If it does, the governments of Israel and America are both toast - they will be executed for high treason, and Israel will cease to exist.
"And remind us again of why we're taking the biggest, riskiest and most treacherous gamble in the history of the world, one that will stand as an eternal act of infamy," say the Israeli Prime Minister and the American President to their advisers as they get ready to give the go-ahead for the diabolical plot. "Because we want a war in Iraq? Aren't there any easier ways, guys? And we have to find 19 Mossad and CIA agents who can be plausibly passed off as Islamic terrorists, and moreover, we need them all to agree to murder thousands of Americans and also commit suicide? Apart from that, we have to rig the TwinTowers for demolition, to take place not when the planes strike but some time later. We also have to demolish some towers that didn't even get hit by planes! We have to fire a missile at the Pentagon, and then shoot down one of the four planes that we ourselves hijacked.We also have to close down the whole of American airspace. Isn't that all going to be a bit of a stretch? Then we have to arrange the biggest cover-up in history, involving thousands of people, any one of whom could talk and blow the whole thing? Hmmmmm. I'll tell you what, guys - you're all fired!!!!!"
You would have to be literally deranged to believe that the American and Israeli governments ordered Mossad and the CIA to find 19 suicide agents to kill 3,000 Americans, thus creating an excuse for war with Iraq, which wasn't even implicated in 9/11.
What's the alternative? 19 Islamic Jihadists working for Al Qaeda, an organization that loathes pro-Zionist America and has attacked American targets all over the world for many years, hijacked four American planes and used them to perform spectacular "martyrdom" operations against the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar!!!
So, which option do you choose? Are you sane or insane?
Anyone who continues to say that the governments of Israel and America perpetrated the most heinous act of treason in history for the extremely modest "prize" of war with Iraq is quite simply demented and beyond help. Not one shred of credible evidence has ever been advanced to support the mad hypothesis. No conspiracy theorist has ever explained who the Israeli and CIA agents were who were willing to kill Americans and themselves for the sake of the "plan". Some have suggested that the planes were flown by remote control (!), thus ignoring all of the evidence from all of the planes, particularly Flight 93, that Muslim hijackers had violently seized the planes and killed passengers with box cutters. All of the hijackers were identified. They were all known jihadists. What the fuck is there to be suspicious about? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Which two countries do all jihadists loathe? - America and Israel. You think they weren't motivated to carry out 9/11? You think the thousands of acts of Islamic terrorism are all covert CIA and Mossad operations to discredit nice, peaceful Muslims who would never hurt a fly? What fucking planet are you living on?!
If you, like George W Bush and his senior Cabinet colleagues, were an extremely wealthy person enjoying the finest life imaginable, would you court disaster, infamy and the death penalty by ordering a covert attack on your own country and fellow citizens - just to create a pretext for attacking foreign countries that have oil you want?
Your fate would be entirely in the hands of the hundreds and thousands who would need to be involved in such a mammoth undertaking as 9/11 (if viewed as a Western conspiracy): the White House, Pentagon, Air Traffic Control, the media, CIA, FBI, Mossad, all those involved in the planning of the alleged demolition of the Twin Towers and other buildings, those who allegedly fired a missile at the Pentagon, NYPD and emergency services, Washington police and emergency services etc. - any one of whom could have blown the whole deal and squealed, with deadly consequences for you and your family.
The truth is that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are nuts who buy into a vision where George W Bush and his confederates aren't even human. Rather, they are pan-dimensional lizard humans from another world: they despise humanity and they would never breathe a word of the conspiracy because they're all Reptilians! That's the only way to make their conspiracy work. Then it becomes airtight (!). The hijackers can become shape-shifting creatures that escaped from the planes into another dimension before the collisions took place. Ah, now it all makes perfect sense!!!
So, was 9/11 carried out by Islamic maniacs using the modus operandi characteristic of Islamic jihadist terrorists for several decades, or was it carried out by alien Reptilians? That's your choice. And then people wonder why we call "Truthers" crazy!
Some people have suggested we should form an alliance of convenience with "Truthers". You must be joking!
The Dastardly and Brilliant Conspirators - DBC
Our correspondent sent us this message: "I would like you to kindly review the following 50 unanswered questions about the world trade center attack:"
First off, we should say that all of the junk and complete nonsense we are about to wade through has already been comprehensively debunked at sites such as:
Clearly, the person who sent us this list has no interest in researching any of the 9/11 debunking sites. There are many websites claiming 9/11 was an inside job and just as many debunking those websites. Our correspondent is the sort of person who avidly reads the "inside job" sites and completely ignores the others. He lives in a fantasy land, not realising that all of the "definitive" evidence he reads about has already been totally discredited and rejected.
By and large, we will not be offering the answers to the fifty questions since that has been done exhaustively elsewhere. Instead, we will be concentrating on how moronic these questions are and we will be considering the mentality of the person who compiled the list and those people, like our correspondent, who are taken in by this gibberish. We will adopt a tone of mockery since how else can you show your contempt for the ranting and raving of the lunatics and madmen who have long since departed the rational world.
1) How come dead or not dead Osama bin Laden has not been formally indicted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as responsible for 9/11? Is it because the US government - as acknowledged by the FBI itself - has not produced a single conclusive piece of evidence?
That's because the DBC (the "dastardly and brilliant conspirators") know that bin Laden didn't do it - because THEY did! America has spent billions on pursuing bin Laden as a complete smokescreen, and they have brilliantly made sure they never actually captured him, because that would prove disastrous. He would expose the whole sordid conspiracy. In fact, he's actually in the protective custody of the CIA in a special Witness Protection Scheme for "Guilty Men who are not Guilty!"
America has imprisoned hundreds of Muslims in GuantanamoBay for years. Astoundingly, not one of them has been formally indicted by the FBI. Is that because America doesn't have a single conclusive piece of evidence against them? Or is it because America has chosen to treat them as "unlawful enemy combatants" (denied the right of legal prisoners of war) in an ongoing terrorist war and is detaining them indefinitely as permanently dangerous combatants rather than as people to be processed by the American criminal justice system?
2) How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours - without even a crime scene investigation?
What?! It took the DBC that long? But surely the DBC had all of the details of the conspirators already - after all, they picked them!
In fact, all of the perpetrators were identified DURING the hijackings - the air stewardesses used the phones on the planes to provide the seat numbers of the hijackers to the authorities. Who the fuck needs a crime scene? Jack Ruby was identified within seconds of assassinating Lee Harvey Oswald. WTF! No one had carried out the required crime scene investigation!!! Unacceptable!
3) How come none of the 19's names appeared on the passenger lists released the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?
Er, on the one hand it's being suggested that the perpetrators were conveniently identified by the DBC within 72 hours without a crime scene investigation; now it's being asserted that the DBC were so dumb that they hadn't even worked out who they were going to finger for the crime, hence inserted the names afterwards. Are these the dumbest conspirators in history? They didn't have their stooges and patsies ready to take the blame. This, of course, is the first thing to which conspirators attend. You must have someone to blame - that's the whole point of the conspiracy.
In fact, because the hijackers were fully known, they were deliberately excluded from the passenger lists because they were murderers, not passengers. An entirely appropriate step to take, wouldn't you say? The 7/7 bombers in London aren't listed amongst the dead for exactly the same reason.
4) How come eight names on the "original" FBI list happened to be found alive and living in different countries?
How many John Smiths are in the world? How many people use fake identities? How many fake passports are in the world?
5) Why would pious jihadi Mohammed Atta leave a how-to-fly video manual, a uniform and his last will inside his bag knowing he was on a suicide mission?
Eh?!! Is he supposed to leave his last will in his hotel room for the cleaners to find?
Atta's bags did not make it onto Flight 11 because his earlier flight from Portland was delayed. They were found later at LoganInternationalAirport, containing his hijacking kit, including an airline uniform and flight manuals.
Most conspiracy theorists choose to say that the bag was obviously planted.
And what does "pious" have to do with anything? The question is a non sequitur.
6) Why did Mohammed Atta study flight simulation at Opa Locka, a hub of no less than six US Navy training bases?
Because he was a DBC agent!!! Of course, if the DBC were smart, they would have made sure he trained anywhere else in the utmost secrecy. But these are evidently the dumbest conspirators in history!
7) How could Mohammed Atta's passport have been magically found buried among the WordTradeCenter (WTC)'s debris when not a single flight recorder was found?
Because the DBC ludicrously planted it there!!!!Actually, wasn't it some other hijacker's passport rather than Atta's (namely Satam Al Suqami)? Come on, get your facts straight!
8) Who is in the possession of the "disappeared" eight indestructible black boxes on those four flights?
Or perhaps the claim that black boxes are indestructible only applies to normal crash conditions. The Titanic was described as "unsinkable". We all know how that turned out!
9) Considering multiple international red alerts about a possible terrorist attack inside the US - including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's infamous August 6, 2001, memo - how come four hijacked planes deviating from their computerized flight paths and disappearing from radar are allowed to fly around US airspace for more than an hour and a half - not to mention disabling all the elaborate Pentagon's defense systems in the process?
Because the DBC were in control of the whole of American airspace and all American air controllers were in on the conspiracy and should immediately be indicted by the FBI!!
The suggestion being made here is that America should be geared up for shooting down commercial airliners full of hundreds of people within seconds of any route deviation. Just imagine that on 9/11 American fighter planes were scrambled within minutes and shot down ten planes (because many planes deviated from their prescribed routes that day), six of which didn't have any hijackers onboard. That would have played well, wouldn't it?
On 9/11, no one in America associated hijacking with suicide missions. Only an insane person would expect hijacked planes, or planes behaving erratically, to be routinely shot out of the sky over American cities. Even now, would anyone shoot a plane out of the sky over a city? - you would cause much more damage than letting it crash in one location. Debris would rain down all over the city causing fires, death and destruction everywhere.
10) Why the secretary of the US Air Force James Roche did not try to intercept both planes hitting the WTC (only seven minutes away from McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey) as well as the Pentagon (only 10 minutes away from McGuire)? Roche had no less than 75 minutes to respond to the plane hitting the Pentagon.
Because he's a member of the DBC! Or perhaps it's because it wasn't his job to be intercepting commercial airliners and shooting them down and you need the highest possible authorisation to start doing things like that. Or is America a military dictatorship?
11) Why did George W Bush continue to recite "My Pet Goat" in his Florida school and was not instantly absconded by the secret service?
"Abscond" - to run away secretly to avoid prosecution or punishment! Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Don't you mean "extracted"?
Because he's a member of the DBC! What better alibi?! Given that he was fully in on it, shouldn't Bush be awarded an Oscar for looking like a gormless clown who didn't know what the fuck was going on, and seemed utterly paralysed?
12) How could Bush have seen the first plane crashing on WTC live - as he admitted? Did he have previous knowledge - or is he psychic?
Both! He's a pan-dimensional Reptilian shape-shifter. Also, the Florida school has a hook-up to the DBC's live channel showing dastardly deeds!!! Apparently, the children were shocked to have been dragged into the dark secret and then forced to stay silent afterwards!
13) Bush said that he and Andrew Card initially thought the first hit on the WTC was an accident with a small plane. How is that possible when the FAA as well as NORAD already knew this was about a hijacked plane?
All over the world, it was reported that a light aircraft had crashed into the TwinTowers. A light aircraft crash was a comprehensible scenario; a hijacked commercial aircraft on a suicide mission was not. The FAA and NORAD had no expectation that a hijacked plane would deliberately crash. No one would call it a terrorist event without a "crime scene investigation" i.e. doing things by the book.
The cretin who made up these questions wants, on the one hand, everything to be done according to standard procedure, and then on the other to be done according to unique procedures invented on the spot by people without any authority.
14) What are the odds of transponders in four different planes being turned off almost simultaneously, in the same geographical area, very close to the nation's seat of power in Washington, and no one scrambles to contact the Pentagon or the media?
So, it has always been standard procedure in America for air traffic controllers to get onto the media to inform them about all strange happenings in airspace? Yeah, right? Should all American employees have a hotline to the media and the Pentagon, and instead of getting on with their jobs in a crisis they should have a chat with the media and the Pentagon instead? WTF!
Imagine the conversation to the Pentagon: "Four transponders have been switched off. We have no further information so I want you to start searching the skies for these planes and then blasting commercial aircraft with hundreds of passengers onboard out of the sky."
15) Could defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld explain why initial media reports said that there were no fighter jets available at Andrews Air Force Base and then change the reports that there were, but not on high alert?
Because he was feeding false data to the media because he was a member of the DBC!!!
In London on 7/7, emergency services were accidentally sent to the wrong place because of confusion over the address. In any crisis, things go wrong and confusion reigns.
16) Why was the DC Air National Guard in Washington AWOL on 9/11?
They were all in on it! The DBC told them to do nothing. Or maybe they, like most other people, had no idea what was going on, and no orders.
17) Why did combat jet fighters of the 305th Air Wing, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey not intercept the second hijacked plane hitting the WTC, when they could have done it within seven minutes?
Yes, if they had known what we all know now. They didn't know it at the time. There's a useful phrase - the "Fog of War" - that is used to describe the incredible confusion that often reigns during battles. Generals like to say that their battle plan is out of date the moment a battle begins.
It's remarkable how the Conspiracy Theorists judge everything with perfect hindsight and have a touching belief in the infallibility of all government and military institutions. Did the Americans attack themselves at Pearl Harbor as part of a cunning plan to draw Japan into war? How else to explain the complete incompetence of the Americans on 7 December 1941?
18) Why did none of the combat jet fighters of the 459th Aircraft Squadron at Andrews Air Force Base intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon, only 16 kilometres away? And since we're at it, why did the Pentagon not release the full video of the hit?
Because someone needs to give the appropriate orders, and the Air Force commanders didn't have the vaguest idea what was going on. There were all sorts of reports of transponders being switched off. No one knew for sure how many hijacked planes there were, and where they were.
The video? There wasn't much to see!
19) A number of very experienced airline pilots - including US ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a former fighter jet pilot - revealed that, well, only crack pilots could have performed such complex manoeuvres on the hijacked jets, while others insisted they could only have been accomplished by remote control. Is it remotely believable that the hijackers were up to the task?
The ringleader of the terrorists was an Egyptian - so the first person you would go to for impartial expertise would be the hated dictator of Egypt! The autopilot on modern aircraft is so good that they can fly themselves! Pilots are only there for safety reasons. The job of a pilot is much less complex than you would imagine - and since when did Mubarak fly a modern airliner?!
20) How come a substantial number of witnesses did swear seeing and hearing multiple explosions in both towers of the WTC?
What kind of explosions? All sorts of equipment within the WTC would have exploded due to the intense heat and fires.
As for the reliability of witnesses, try studying Psychology 101 and you'll discover that witnesses are rarely to be trusted. Most are in shock, are in a highly suggestible state, and are hypersensitive to all manner of sensations and hallucinations.
21) How come a substantial number of reputed architects and engineers are adamant that the official narrative simply does not explain the largest structural collapse in recorded history (the TwinTowers) as well as the collapse of WTC building 7, which was not even hit by a jet?
How come a number of reputed scientists deny the reality of global warming while a much larger number ridicule the deniers?
A huge amount of debris fell on WTC 7, and it was blazing with many fires.
22) According to Frank de Martini, WTC's construction manager, "We designed the building to resist the impact of one or more jetliners." The second plane nearly missed tower 1; most of the fuel burned in an explosion outside the tower. Yet this tower collapsed first, long before tower 2 that was "perforated" by the first hit. Jet fuel burned up fast - and by far did not reach the 2000-degree heat necessary to hurt the six tubular steel columns in the center of the tower - designed specifically to keep the towers from collapsing even if hit by a Boeing 707. A Boeing 707 used to carry more fuel than the Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 that actually hit the towers.
Designer of Titanic - "We designed it to be unsinkable." It's touching how many non-engineers regard engineers as infallible. The Shuttle disasters? - "infallible" engineers again.
Everyone knows that the second plane hit at a lower level. Imagine that the planes had managed to strike the base levels of the Towers - the structures would have collapsed within minutes. It's the incredible weight pressing down on any weak spot that leads to structural collapse. There was much more weight on the Tower 1 "weak zone" than the Tower 2 equivalent because the impact took place at a lower level.
From the official report: "The report concluded that the fireproofing on the TwinTowers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. This was confirmed by an independent study by PurdueUniversity."
But they're all in on it of course!
23) Why did Mayor Rudolph Giuliani instantly authorize the shipment of WTC rubble to China and India for recycling?
Because he was in on it and wanted to give the incriminating evidence to the Chinese and the Indians so that they could blackmail the conspirators!
24) Why was metallic debris found no less than 13 kilometres from the crash site of the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Was the plane in fact shot down - under vice president Dick Cheney's orders?
Eh?! Wasn't Dick Cheney in on the conspiracy? So why would he order the plane to be shot down? Wouldn't that constitute ABSOLUTE PROOF that the American government wasn't responsible for 9/11?!
In their eagerness to stir as much shit as they can find, these dumb fuck Conspiracy Theorists have destroyed their own conspiracy theory. One second, 9/11 was an inside job. Next second, Cheney is ordering the hijacked planes to be blasted out of the sky! Talk about having your cake and eating it! On the one hand, Cheney is being accused of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy; on the other, he is being accused of a totally different conspiracy - covering up shooting down Flight 93! Jesus - that bastard can't win.
The Conspiracy Theorists simply use a scattergun approach and hope that something sticks. They are the most intellectually dishonest people on earth. They are malicious troublemakers. "Truthers?" They are the biggest liars on earth!
25) The Pipelineistan question. What did US ambassador Wendy Chamberlain talk about over the phone on October 10, 2001, with the oil minister of Pakistan? Was it to tell him that the 1990s-planned Unocal gas pipeline project, TAP (Turkmenistan/ Afghanistan/ Pakistan), abandoned because of Taliban demands on transit fees, was now back in business? (Two months later, an agreement to build the pipeline was signed between the leaders of the three countries).
Yes, exactly right!! And so what? Is the suggestion seriously being made that the American government perpetrated the most heinous act of treason in history just so that a pipeline could be built that had been blocked by the Taliban? WTF!!
26) What is former Unocal lobbyist and former Bush pet Afghan Zalmay Khalilzad up to in Afghanistan?
Who cares!? Maybe he's working on the pipeline project! Does that mean he was in on 9/11 and should be executed?!
27) How come former Pakistani foreign minister Niaz Niak said in mid-July 2001 that the US had already decided to strike against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban by October? The topic was discussed secretly at the July Group of Eight summit in Genoa, Italy, according to Pakistani diplomats.
Wouldn't that be rather logical? He had been on their hitlist for some time. If they had moved a month earlier they might have stopped 9/11!! But, according to this scenario, bin Laden clearly wasn't a CIA agent, yet many Conspiracy Theorists have suggested he was.
28) How come US ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine told FBI agent John O'Neill in July 2001 to stop investigating al-Qaeda's financial operations - with O'Neill instantly moved to a security job at the WTC, where he died on 9/11?
This is ridiculous. An ambassador to Yemen has no authority to give orders to FBI agents. Are we supposed to believe that the US ambassador to Yemen let it be known that she had interfered in an FBI investigation and then arranged for an agent to be assassinated as part of the 9/11 conspiracy? WTF!
29) Considering the very intimate relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and the ISI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), is Bin Laden alive, dead or still a valuable asset of the ISI, the CIA or both?
According to 27) Pakistan was aware that America wanted to kill bin Laden. Now it's being suggested that he was an ISI and/or CIA agent. Make your fucking mind up! This is the most ridiculous conspiracy theory in history, contradicting itself at every turn.
30) Was Bin Laden admitted at the American hospital in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates on July 4, 2001, after flying from Quetta, Pakistan, and staying for treatment until July 11?
Yes, America's "Most Wanted" often use that hospital! WTF!!!
31) Did the Bin Laden group build the caves of Tora Bora in close cooperation with the CIA during the 1980s' anti-Soviet jihad?
So what? The CIA were actively helping the anti-Soviet jihad. Everyone knows that.
32) How come General Tommy Franks knew for sure that Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora in late November 2001?
Because his intelligence officers told him, perhaps? Would you prefer that Franks didn't have a clue where he was? Franks can't win, can he?
33) Why did President Bill Clinton abort a hit on Bin Laden in October 1999? Why did then-Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf abort a covert op in the same date? And why did Musharraf do the same thing again in August 2001?
Because their plans changed! Are we back to the allegation that bin Laden was working for the CIA? Make your mind up!
34) Why did George W Bush dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force nine months before 9/11?
So, doesn't the existence of the bin Laden Task Force prove that he was NOT working for the CIA? Was he suddenly recruited to the CIA by Bush months before 9/11? WTF! Does he keep changing sides every few months?!
35) How come the (fake) Bin Laden home video - in which he "confesses" to being the perpetrator of 9/11 - released by the US on December 13, 2001, was found only two weeks after it was produced (on November 9); was it really found in Jalalabad (considering Northern Alliance and US troops had not even arrived there at the time); by whom; and how come the Pentagon was forced to release a new translation after the first (botched) one?
Is it being alleged that the tape was fake, or simply that the translation wasn't accurate? Doesn't America have an intelligence network whose job is to find out secret information long before troops show up? Or is America totally clueless despite spending billions on its intelligence services. Which is it?
36) Why was ISI chief Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmad abruptly "retired" on October 8, 2001, the day the US started bombing Afghanistan?
Because he was suspected of being a friend of the Taliban, perhaps?! Wouldn't that be the logical action to take? Even now, the ISI are suspected of being riddled with Taliban sympathisers.
37) What was Ahmad up to in Washington exactly in the week of 9/11 (he arrived on September 4)? On the morning of 9/11, Ahmad was having breakfast on Capitol Hill with Bob Graham and Porter Goss, both later part of the 9/11 Commission, which simply refused to investigate two of its members. Ahmad had breakfast with Richard Armitage of the State Department on September 12 and 13 (when Pakistan negotiated its "cooperation" with the "war on terror") and met all the CIA and Pentagon top brass. On September 13, Musharraf announced he would send Ahmad to Afghanistan to demand to the Taliban the extradition of Bin Laden.
Wasn't it stated by this cretin in Q.27 that America and Pakistan were planning a strike on bin Laden within weeks. So, that's why he was there, you dumb fuck.
38) Who inside the ISI transferred US$100,000 to Mohammed Atta in the summer of 2001 - under orders of Ahmad himself, as Indian intelligence insists? Was it really ISI asset Omar Sheikh, Bin Laden's information technology specialist who later organized the slaying of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Karachi? So was the ISI directly linked to 9/11?
Yes. The ISI were, and still are, totally infiltrated by Islamists.
39) Did the FBI investigate the two shady characters who met Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi in Harry's Bar at the Helmsley Hotel in New York City on September 8, 2001?
40) What did director of Asian affairs at the State Department Christina Rocca and the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef discuss in their meeting in Islamabad in August 2001?
The weather? Why wouldn't the director of Asian affairs talk to a Taliban ambassador? Isn't that her job?
41) Did Washington know in advance that an "al-Qaeda" connection would kill Afghan nationalist commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, aka "The Lion of the Panjshir", only two days before 9/11? Massoud was fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda - helped by Russia and Iran. According to the Northern Alliance, Massoud was killed by an ISI-Taliban-al Qaeda axis. If still alive, he would never have allowed the US to rig a loya jirga (grand council) in Afghanistan and install a puppet, former CIA asset Hamid Karzai, as leader of the country.
America had been relying on Massoud to take the fight to the Taliban. His assassination was acknowledged at the time as a major blow to American interests. America would have been perfectly happy with Massoud as the leader of Afghanistan.
42) Why did it take no less than four months before the name of Ramzi Binalshibh surfaced in the 9/11 context, considering the Yemeni was a roommate of Mohammed Atta in his apartment cell in Hamburg?
All the associates of Atta were identified extremely quickly. What is the suggestion being made here? That the intelligence services are inept, or that some cover up is going on? It's baffling trying to keep up with this alleged conspiracy.
43) Is pathetic shoe-bomber Richard Reid an ISI asset?
Well, he was certainly pathetic. Are we now switching our attention to the ISI? Were they responsible for 9/11 rather than Mossad and the CIA?
44) Did then-Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence tell the CIA in 2001 that 25 terrorist pilots had been training for suicide missions?
The most serious allegation that can be levelled against the American government was that they knew something was imminent and, in effect, allowed it to happen. We have described it as an act of omission rather than commission. It suited their foreign policy objectives to allow a major attack to take place - which is an extremely different claim from the one that they committed the act themselves.
Also, note that this point is indicating that the Russians were giving the CIA vital intelligence about a forthcoming Islamic martyrdom operation. Of course, according to the conspiracy theory, the CIA and Mossad - not Al Qaeda - were behind 9/11…so were the CIA in fact feeding false information to the Russians! Aha!!
45) When did the head of German intelligence, August Hanning, tell the CIA that terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft?"
See 44). If the CIA and Mossad were behind 9/11, they were evidently extremely inept at keeping their plan secret. Apparently everyone knew about it.
Or were Mossad and the CIA engaged in a dastardly campaign of misinformation and disinformation? Aha!!!
46) When did Egyptian President Mubarak tell the CIA about an attack on the US with an "airplane stuffed with explosives?"
47) When did Israel's Mossad director Efraim Halevy tell the CIA about a possible attack on the US by "200 terrorists?"
See 44). Hold on - weren't Mossad involved with the CIA in the 9/11 conspiracy? Did they tell the CIA about their own joint conspiracy? WTF!
48) Were the Taliban aware of the warning by a Bush administration official as early as February 2001 - "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs?"
And why wouldn't America want to attack the Taliban given that they were hosting terrorist training camps?
49) Has Northrop-Grumman used Global Hawk technology - which allows to remotely control unmanned planes - in the war in Afghanistan since October 2001? Did it install Global Hawk in a commercial plane? Is Global Hawk available at all for commercial planes?
Aha, the remote-controlled-plane theory rears its head!!! So why did Cheney allegedly shoot down Flight 93 if it was a remote-controlled plane of the Zionist-American conspiracy? So, all the phone calls from the soon-to-be-dead passengers on the planes were faked? There were no hijackers, and it was all just made up? Suicidal fake pilots and aircrew were on the planes? Or maybe there were no passengers on the planes and all of their grieving relatives are liars and evil conspirators. Maybe all of the alleged victims are living in a witness protection scheme on a luxury desert island. WTF!
Just how low and desperate can this conspiracy theory get - it's an obscene insult to all of the innocent victims of Islamic jihadism on 9/11.
50) Would Cheney stand up and volunteer the detailed timeline of what he was really up to during the whole day on 9/11?
He was obviously presiding over the most diabolical act of treason in human history, so he'll probably take the Fifth! He was so evil that he even ordered Flight 93 - a plane that his conspirators had hijacked - to be shot down, and then he conspired to cover it up. He conspired against his own conspiracy!!!! WTF!!! THAT's cunning!!!
It was suggested to us by our correspondent that these fifty questions were the "smoking gun". As you can see for yourselves, they are ludicrous nonsense that no rational person could take seriously. Why do people waste so much time thinking up garbage? Have they got nothing better to do with their time?
We say this to the author of this collection of idiotic rubbish…So, on the one hand the planes were "remote controlled" or flown by "expert pilots" (obviously of a suicidal nature) and part of a conspiracy. On the other hand, they were being shot down by order of Dick Cheney, one of the alleged conspirators. Which is it? Can't you make your fucking mind up? You haven't spent even five seconds thinking through the logic of your position, such is your eagerness to apologise for Islamic maniacs who believe in a God who expects men and women to kill their own children if he commands it.
You have assembled a list of ridiculous points all of which have been addressed a hundred times over.
If you wish to believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by Mossad, the CIA and US Special Forces, that's your prerogative. No rational argument will ever persuade you otherwise. Why don't you become a Muslim fanatic since that's where your sympathies must lie?
It was suggested to us by the correspondent who sent this list that it was just "a fraction of the true story". Well, God spare us from the rest of the shit if this is the calibre of the material!
The correspondent wrote, "By the way the best article I read about 9/11 accused the MOSSAD of masterminding the attack."
Wow, we're impressed! We prefer the shape-shifting lizard theory. Equally unbelievable but much more fun.
"Sorry for bothering you (one last time) with this subject though I find it of utmost importance for the society that is trying to liberate all humanity."
The last people on earth who would represent the "liberation of humanity" are Muslims. They are slaves to Allah, Mohammed and the Koran and they would love to exterminate everyone who disagrees with them.
We can decode this statement as meaning that you have a dangerous 9/11 obsession, and you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your bizarre beliefthat super-rich Americans and Jews like to commit acts of high treason warranting the death penalty for no other reason than raking in a few extra bucks from foreign wars. You are a follower of the 9/11 religion, a new belief-system as cretinous and ridiculous as Abrahamism. You are insufficiently rational ever to escape from your mental illness. You ought to see a psychiatrist.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to despise the Zionist and American governments. Why would anyone need to invent excuses to loathe them?
In psychological terms, 9/11 is a projection of people's anxieties about the way they are being governed onto a specific event that crystallizes their deepest fears about those ruling them. If only the conclusive proof could be found, they think, it would bring about the end of the tyrants.
But 9/11 is just a distraction. We know the governments of the world are rotten to the core. We need to act now. We don't need to waste our time chasing chimeras. Rather than becoming politically active and getting out and doing something, people spend all of their time digging up more and more nonsense about 9/11. It's an excuse for non-action.
9/11 was a decade ago. Not one shred of credible evidence has ever linked the CIA or Mossad to the event despite tens of thousands of people dedicating every moment of their lives to uncovering every ludicrous detail of 9/11 no matter how irrelevant, speculative or absurd (as demonstrated by the fifty questions). The evidence that ties the event to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda is overwhelming. Why don't people move on? Answer? - they can't. They have "faith". They have created a religion and now they don't want to become heretics by admitting that it was Al Qaeda all along, just as the government said.
"AG" sent us a chilling account of a dream that reflects the disturbing world of the privileged elite.
I've been reading the Armageddon site for sometime, and while I have read a lot, I'm not done. One composition takes me on paths that I have to follow and when they come to a conclusion, I start on the next composition. My mind has been ignited and much more active in the last three months than in many years prior.
To the point of my contact; I have been having a recurring dream recently, that while I can decipher most on my own, I'm not entirely sure what it may mean in total. I'm not asking for interpretation, but I do think it may have been influenced by the reading of the Armageddon site. For what it's worth, I am compelled to share it with you.
There is a city. It is very large and could be any major U.S. city. I have not traveled to Brooklyn before, but this is the name of the city, though I do not feel that this has any bearing on the dream. This city is laid out in four concentric circles. The outer ring is beautiful, new and modern. It has everything; new schools, large, beautiful homes, shopping centers, entertainment, no crime and includes a waiting list of people trying to move in. The next inner ring is a bit older with a longer wait list, same with the second and finally, the center.
In the center of the city is a ruler who calls himself a king. He is viewed positively by the inhabitants and has a select few advisers that help monitor the outer rings. He is widely hailed as a benevolent ruler and a king for the people. He refuses to take a wife so he may only serve his subjects. His televised orations are all about the people and how he loves them. Not many people get access to the center, and the inhabitants are fine with the excuse that due to its small size, visitations to the inner circle are limited.
People may come and go from this city as they choose. However, those that live there seem not to be compelled to leave. More people clamor to get on the wait list than the number of people leaving. There is a visitor. He is interested in learning about the city. His request to live in the outer ring has been granted. He is very pleased with the city. No one wants for anything. His neighbors are excited about his arrival. He's invited out to several functions and makes acquaintances with others in his neighborhood.
Everyone is pleasant... a bit like "Stepford" pleasant.
The visitor could not be happier. After the first year there though, there's something lacking for him. He talks with a few neighbors about his growing restlessness and they ask if he's applied to enter the third ring. These neighbors will be moving there soon, and suggest he get on the list. The third ring of this great city is supposed to be even better than the ring they currently reside in, but he needs to get on the list. To qualify for the wait list, you must live in the fourth, outer, ring for two years. An adviser will look at your application and may grant your request. This visitor does so and has found that his spirits are renewed because he is looking forward to the next level.
At the end of two years, he is notified by mail that he will be able to move to the next ring if he chooses. He is ecstatic and agrees to do so. The letter cautions though that once you move forward in the city, you cannot move backward. You may, of course, leave the city entirely, but you may not go back to your previous station. He couldn't imagine why that part of the letter is necessary; this city is amazing!
When he gets to his new lodgings, he takes in the sight with a shadow of doubt though. The house is much smaller, this part of the city a bit older than the fourth ring and there's something a bit darker about it. He chalks it up to the neighborhood being more established with older housing, shopping centers and people. He can forgive the graffiti he sees every now and then and even the occasional bum sleeping on the sidewalk. It is a city after all, and it's just part of it. He reunites with the acquaintances he met in the outer ring and is pleased. His job is great, he's got friends and life is going great.
After about a year or so though, his friends ask if he's applied yet for the next ring. The thought had not entered his mind since he's been fairly content with his life, but he asks what's awesome about the next ring of the city. The friends tell him that it's even better than what he's currently living in. The exclusivity of it makes it alluring and the wait list is even longer. To qualify for this next ring, a person would have to live in the third ring for three to five years, and it's not guaranteed you'll be accepted if you do apply.
Our visitor is intrigued and he tries to imagine life better than it is right now. He doesn't want to disappoint his friends, and he starts to think of the status he'd acquire with being accepted into the second ring.... if he is accepted at all. He and his friends wage a bet on who will get accepted first. They have a better chance since they've lived a year longer in the third ring than the visitor, but after three years, the visitor gets another acceptance letter in the mail, with the same caution; that once you move forward in the city, you cannot move backward. You may, of course, leave the city entirely, but you may not go back to your previous station. This time though, our visitor is a smidge wary. He likes the life he has, but he is then overcome with what he imagines the next part of the city will be.
His friends have mixed emotions. Some are jealous, others sad and maybe two genuinely happy for him. He leaves with mixed emotions too, because he won't be able to see them again, unless they too are accepted into the next level.
When he enters the second ring, he realizes he may have made a mistake. This part of the city is much older than the last. The houses are gone and in their place are apartments. It's still suitable living, but not what he expected. The neighborhoods are more crowded and there's a darker shadow. He is shocked to find graffiti and bums more frequently. The buildings are run down and some are outfitted with barred windows and doors.
Still though, he overcomes all this mentally by telling himself that to live here means great things and that he was chosen specially for this. The king's advisers have found his work and person worthy of moving forward. He finds out on his own how long the wait list is for the best part of the city; the center. Few people have access to it and the king is said to be on a personal basis with those who live there. It becomes this visitor's goal to get there. He resolves to work hard, and put his all into his new community. He organizes clean ups and donations. He goes out of his way to help where he can. It's a five to seven year wait before he may be accepted, but he's sure that he will be if he works hard enough. He also can't help but feel a little smug that he was chosen and not his friends.
He finds though that among the homeless he reaches out to are a people who are shriveled physically and mute. There aren't a lot of them, but enough to arouse his curiosity. He attempts to communicate with them, but they can't write as their hands are gnarled and neither can they seem to speak. They seem almost lifeless. One night after several years of living in the second ring, as he walks home, he comes across one of these individuals on the street. It appears to be a man, and he is beckoning to the visitor. This particular person is not quite as shriveled as the others and is intent on meeting with the visitor. When the visitor is close enough he hears what passes for whispers emanating from the shriveled man. While the man's lips do not move, and it's just barely audible, he hears, "You will get to the center of the city and when you find the secret, you must warn the others". As these words are spoken, the visitor watches in horror as the man shrivels farther in on himself and his mouth is nearly twisted shut. A police officer comes from the shadows, further scaring the visitor, for while crime does occur, he hardly ever sees an actual police officer and none has ever spoken to him. This one does however, and tells him, "You know, these poor chaps have quite a sad disease. The cause hasn't been figured out yet, though we haven't seen any others affected. Perhaps it resolved itself." And he walks off.
Our visitor is shaken and heads home. He tries to wrap his mind around what the man who shriveled before him meant. He replays the police officer's words in his mind and rationalizes that the shriveled man was merely trying to talk, though it was impossible for him to do so and he must have imparted some sort of meaning to the sounds. How silly of him! He's been working too hard, he thinks, and the police officer is right; a very sad disease this shrivel business is. He resolves to let it go, despite having seen the man's mouth nearly twist shut and shrink in front of him, it was late, dark and he's been working too much.
He finds in the future though, that he avoids the shriveled people. Within a month, he gets his next acceptance letter. He is heading for the city center. His hard work has paid off. But what a sorry sight it is! Crowded to almost overflowing! There is a golden castle in the very middle and people are moving everywhere in chaos, noiselessly. He was instructed in his letter to go to the castle at once and he heads there uneasily. He is not able to ask one person where they are going or what they are doing. They are moving too fast, but not in any discernible order.
When he enters the castle, trying to prepare himself for the glory of the king, he finds nothing but four fat slobs sitting around an even more slovenly character with a crown. Under this king's feet are people, hunched over and working as ottomans. The visitor takes in the horror as he realizes the whole table, chairs and other furniture are living people. There are people bustling about bringing what seems like endless amounts of food and wine, others are taking the empty trays, others still are entertaining in various ways... not all are pleasant to the visitor's sensibilities. There's noise everywhere and not in harmony with the motions of what he sees. Another curiosity is the presence of the shriveled, diseased here too.
He is terribly confused and horribly let down. This is not what he expected. The king calls him over, and asks him to sit on one of the human chairs. The visitor is reluctant but then gathers his wits and remembers he is in the presence of the king. For what might be the king's shortcomings, he is still in charge of this large, successful city, and so he sits.
The king lays out to him how he has been chosen specifically to be here. He will assist one of the advisers. He is to report back tomorrow morning, after checking into what the king tells him, surely is adequate lodging. He is dismissed.
Walking back through a noiseless, chaotic throng of people, he finds his lodging. None of this makes sense to him, but he talks it through to himself. It's busy and chaotic because there are a lot of things to do in a government. The king does not have time to maintain his appearance because he is so busy working for the people. People move without sound so as to not lose time performing their important duties, to which he recalls that he will be working for an adviser! He is a bit elated at this, and for one night, his fears are abated.
It is not long though, before the visitor finds himself over worked. He is depressed because he realizes he stopped seeing people and now just sees furniture, hungry (as there is little time to eat), lonely because every person in the city is too busy for pleasure and not one person to vent to. One night he tries to fall asleep, but can't. Quite suddenly, he realizes that everyone in the city has become a slave of their own choosing. He is a slave. They can leave, but they choose not to. They have invested so much time into the city, so much effort to be there. Their families are invested in their schools, government and businesses.
If any of them left, there would be nothing for them and how would they explain themselves to the outside world for staying so long? Remembering the words of the shriveled man, he determines to find what the secret is to the city. He is renewed and goes about his duties with efficiency. He finds ways to finish his responsibilities and still have a few minutes left over to find out what he can from any source he can find. He learns there is a library and bookstore very near to him and wonders why he never saw these before. After work, he has a precious few minutes to get into either before closing time, so he resolves to find more efficient ways to do his job to get more time at the end of the day to learn. It is a struggle. The harder he works, the more is expected of him. Unexpectedly the powers above him reward him with more money, but it goes unnoticed, for he is now single minded and he needs nothing and craves for nothing, save the secret of the city.
His bosses are finding him uncooperative and unfriendly to the establishment. Co-workers, who never say a word, suddenly complain loudly that he is closed off and rude. He wants to stop his search, but he feels he is so close. He is fired. On his last day at work, the adviser he works for tells him he wants to show him something. He places a piece of paper on his desk walks out of his office and leaves the visitor there. Hesitantly, he picks up the paper. It is a list of the people in power in descending order. The king is on there of course, along with the advisers, but there is a position above the king. It says "Queen". This is curious, as the king has made it known he will not take a wife, but he asks himself who rules the king?
A creator? He feels faint, but he forces his thoughts further. What are the shriveled people? Why are they here? Why are they shriveled? Who creates a system where people become slaves? And in a single moment of clarity, he realizes the "queen" is the creator, but that every person in the inner city serves it and creates the "queen" by becoming the king's slaves... by believing the deception fed to them. He is panicked and leaves the office. The adviser calls something after him, but his hearing is muffled. He tries to call out to someone, to tell them the truth of their enslavement, that they have to free themselves, but his throat has gone dry it seems. He gets to the street and starts yelling but his voice is hoarse. His body is in pain and he hunches over to catch his breath and finds he can't stand straight. He realizes the frightening discovery that he is starting to shrivel, like the men he saw in the third ring. No one stops to help him. They are too busy.
He hears the haunting words the shriveled man imparted to him in the third ring, "You will get to the center of the city and when you find the secret, you must warn the others". He desperately calls out and tries to grab anyone that is near him to tell them the secret and with each attempt he becomes more gnarled in body. His mind is fighting to get these words out, but the tongue is not moving and he bursts into tears. He recalls that the shriveled people become mute and figures out that he may not have much longer to speak the truth. He is frantic and this is the final blow to his mind; he cannot tell the truth that it took so long to find.
And I awake.
Overall, I understand it, though some of the details I don't. I'm more worried that the character in the dream cannot tell anyone what it all means. He knows the truth, but there's nothing he can do.
Our Comment: Thanks, AG. Your dream is profound. It's an ingenious encapsulation of many of the themes we discuss on our site.
You have already identified the essence of the dream when you say, "I'm more worried that the character in the dream cannot tell anyone what it all means. He knows the truth, but there's nothing he can do."
If a good, decent person worked their way up to the highest levels of society, what would they find there? Would they be happy? Or would they be disgusted by what they discovered? The golden castle may look beautiful, but it's a prison. You have to abandon your freedom and mould yourself into the shape expected of you. You become as vile as the people who already inhabit that kingdom. And if, like your hero, you recognise what's really going on, what can you do to change anything? Above all, who's listening? And who cares? The system goes on regardless.
The message we take from you dream is that the inner kingdom cannot be saved. It is inherently corrupt. There's no point in trying to cooperate with it, or in attempting to succeed on its terms. There is no truth in that kingdom - hence everyone is silent. Or the truth is so horrifying that no one wants to hear it, hence no one is listening. Either way, the truth is dead.
It's time to smash the golden prison.
Atheists say there is no God.
Agnostics say they don't know if there is a God.
Abrahamists say you are nothing compared with God.
We say you are God!
So, whose side are you on? Whose vision do you embrace?
Do you want to be perfect? Then join the project for perfecting humanity.