Illumination: the Secret Religion - Sex for Salvation III

The Lessons of Commodification

1) Exploit people's fears and desires.

2) Manufacture fears and desires.

3) Try to create fears and desires that make people crawl over glass to get what you're selling.

4) Make sure your product has to be bought over and over again. It was no good for Christ to "cure" Original Sin. His task was to give you an escape route if you did exactly what he told you. Always make them perpetually dependent on you. Never pardon them. Never cure them. Keep them sick. Make sure they keep coming back. Make sure they keep paying. The more they pay, the richer you get.

Do you SEE? It's all about money and power. It's all about psychological exploitation and manipulation. Keep the people in a state of permanent superstition, irrationality, fear and desire. Then keep fleecing them until Kingdom Come (which it never will).

That is the gospel of the Old World Order.

"Is your job boring and meaningless? Does it leave you with feelings of futility and fatigue? Is your life empty? Consumption promises to fill the aching void; hence the attempt to surround commodities with an aura of romance, with allusions to exotic places and vivid experiences; and with images of female breasts from which all blessings flow."

Christopher Lasch

Original Sin

Arguably, this is the most pernicious, evil, immoral and absurd concept ever devised by the human mind. The principle it establishes is that the fate of our soul is dependent on acts that had absolutely nothing to do with us and for which we bear zero responsibility or accountability. Nevertheless, we are told we will go to hell because of Original Sin - unless we believe in Jesus Christ, who may then choose to save us. But if we prefer not to believe in a God who sends us to hell for things we didn't do then he will send us to hell!

Regardless of whether or not Adam and Eve did anything in Eden that any reasonable and rational person could call a sin, what did their actions have to do with anyone else? What do they have to do with people born hundreds of thousands of years after them?

Adam and Eve's sin was deemed so serious that it merited hell - not just for them but for every human being to come after them, forever. Imagine that you disobeyed your parents and they then told you that because of your "sin" all of your descendents would go to hell. You would think they were deranged, yet that's exactly what "God" said to Adam and Eve. And billions of people believe this shit!

How can any sane person say that modern humanity bears full moral responsibility and accountability for actions performed by our ancestors in prehistoric times? How can we be guilty of things we didn't do? Why are we given the most extreme sentence possible - hell - because of an act of alleged disobedience at the dawn of time? What kind of moral God punishes people for things they never did?

Imagine you are standing in front of St Peter on Judgment Day and he starts reading out a list of all your crimes and sins, except you soon realise that you haven't done any of the things on his list. When you complain, he smiles sinisterly and says, "You are guilty of whatever sins we choose to attribute to you. It's irrelevant whether you committed them or not. You signed up to Original Sin, didn't you? What did that have to do with you? Nothing at all, but you're still going to pay for it. You should have read the small print more carefully. Didn't you realise you were signing an eternal pact with the Devil and selling him your soul? All the Devil wants to do is punish you, and by agreeing to Original Sin, you made it possible for him to pin any sin at all on you and hence justly punish you forever. Don't come moaning to us. You should have read the contract you were signing. We can't help it that you're irrational. You deserve to be punished just for that, don't you think? Oh, of course, that's the whole problem - you don't think. That's why you're standing here, about to be sent to hell. The only people going to heaven are the ones who didn't sign up to Satan's Contract of Original Sin, hence he has no power or authority over them."

Original Sin makes no sense at all, except as a ruse of the Devil. The reason it was devised was that the Church had to find a way to make sense of Jesus Christ's sacrifice. If he wasn't dying to save us then why was he committing suicide at all? Also, more importantly, in order for the Church to have power over us it had to make us dependent on it for our salvation. The sin can't ever be pardoned because then we would have no further need of the Church. The Church is thus like a doctor who refuses to cure you because then you wouldn't require his services. The doctor makes sure you are never healed. That's the function of this type of doctor - to keep you sick so that you will always be dependent on him. Imagine that: a doctor who CAUSES illness. That's what the Church is. It infects you with evil and sin then offers itself as the cure, except it never cures you. You have to do what it says forever. In terms of pure psychological evil, it is a work of genius, worthy of Satan himself. And the Church is indeed the Synagogue of Satan.

The "holy" men of the Church keep telling you that you are evil sinners. Why? Because then you are in need of holy men. If you absolve yourself, you have no need of them. So, go ahead, forgive yourself of all sins. No member of the Illuminati is a sinner. We have committed no sins at all. Why? Because we refuse to acknowledge the mad definitions of sin used by those who wish to wield the concept of sin as a deadly weapon to control people. We say that they are the sinners. We say they are Sin itself.

Any rational person would get as far away from the Church as possible.

You are responsible for your own actions. You are not responsible for anyone else's. Adam and Eve are responsible for the deeds they performed. No one else is responsible. To suggest that we are responsible for deeds we never committed is insane…yet that's the core message of the Christian Church. That's why Jesus Christ was crucified - to save us from deeds that had nothing to do with us. How could Jesus Christ die for your sins when you hadn't even been born? How can an innocent human baby born today be in any way sinful? What monstrous ideology claims a newborn baby is going to hell unless he believes in Jesus Christ? Only the most evil, fucked, Satanic minds in human history could buy into this garbage. Abraham was such a person…and he of course was sent to hell for his troubles (because he died before Jesus Christ gave his life for humanity).

Adam and Eve went to hell because of Original Sin. Abel, though God loved him, went to hell just like Cain. Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, King David, King Solomon, all the kings and all the prophets, all those who defended Yahweh against false gods, all those who obeyed the Ten Commandments to the letter, all those who were freed from Egypt by God, all those who exterminated the Canaanites with God's help, all those who signed solemn covenants with God, all the High Priests of God's Holy Temple in Jerusalem, every member of the Chosen People, everyone mentioned favourably in the Old Testament…according to Christianity, every single one of them went to hell because they were all irredeemably stained by Original Sin and Jesus hadn't yet made his sacrifice that would allow anyone to be saved.

So, there you have it. Christianity says that every Jew born before Christ went to hell, regardless of whether or not they served God and obeyed him to the letter. Don't you think there's something a bit MAD about that? Why does the Old Testament feature in the Christian Bible given that everyone mentioned in it was sentenced to hell?

Moreover, according to St Augustine's doctrine, eagerly embraced by Protestantism, that no human being can be saved by doing good deeds but must rely on the unmerited gift of the grace of God, then this means that no Jew, including Abraham and Moses, could ever have been released from hell. Before the death of Jesus Christ, God bestowed no grace on anyone and because no good deeds can save anyone this means that all the great patriarchs of the Old Testament are, right now, burning in hellfire. They don't tell you that in Bible class, do they?

The fact is that the Old Testament makes no sense in relation to the New Testament given that by the logic of the latter (as interpreted by St Augustine and all Catholics and Protestants who put faith and the need for divine grace above good deeds), all Jews were sentenced by God to hell for being irredeemably stained by Original Sin, for which he had not yet offered the potential remedy (Jesus Christ's sacrifice and subsequent grace).

That's the trouble with trying to bring together two irreconcilable religious systems. The Old Testament has no need of Jesus Christ and doesn't mention him, and the New Testament defines everyone in the Old Testament as damned to hell by Original Sin. No wonder in the second century Marcion of Sinope took the logical step of denouncing the God of the Old Testament as the Demiurge.

The real Original Sin is believing in Original Sin. You can cure yourself at any moment by the simple expedient of leaving the Church.

We hereby absolve you of all your sins! We hereby abolish Original Sin. The Illuminati have spoken!

Original Sin II

"Since humanity came into being, man has enjoyed himself too little. That alone is our original sin."

Nietzsche

Original Sin - also known as Ancestral Sin - does not exist in any other religion, including the two other Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Islam.

According to Islam, the Garden of Eden was located not on Earth but in Heaven. Iblis (Satan) tempted Adam and Eve to disobey God by eating of the forbidden fruit, and thus the couple were expelled from Heaven to Earth. (Did he provide them with a spaceship? Or did he "beam them down" using a Star Trek transporter? What about a magic carpet or three wishes by a genie? Why doesn't the Koran tell us?) So, humanity is being collectively punished for Adam and Eve's disobedience, hence in a sense this is equivalent to the concept of Original Sin. However, no Saviour figure such as Jesus Christ is required by Islam to reconcile humanity with God (showing that Christ is an unnecessary hypothesis and should therefore be rejected according to Occam's Razor). Rather, humanity simply needs to obey Allah, and he has told us exactly what is required via the Koran, given to us by his Prophet Mohammed. While Christianity is about placing your absolute faith in Jesus Christ, Islam is about placing your absolute faith in the Koran.

Although Judaism locates Eden on Earth (somewhere in Iraq or Iran), it shares the Islamic analysis of the Adam and Eve tale (or more accurately, Islam borrows the original Judaic interpretation): humanity is disobedient, hence is punished. If humans want to be saved, they must cleanse themselves of disobedience and obey God's rules and Commandments at all times, like good little automata.

Abrahamism argues that because God knows everything, he already had foreknowledge of what Adam and Eve would do. So, according to Abrahamism, God deliberately created humanity in the knowledge that he would end up sending most humans to eternal suffering in hell. If that doesn't make him Satan, Lord of Evil, then what does? What is Satan's purpose? - to lure human souls to hell where he will torture them forever! What is the purpose of God/ Allah/ Yahweh/ Christ? - to send all but a handful of souls to hell. So, what's the difference?

In Gnosticism, there's no such thing as Original Sin, and the snake in Eden is an emissary of the True God. Its purpose was to bring the precious gift of knowledge and consciousness to Adam and Eve, thereby freeing them from the Demiurge's tyrannical control. The Demiurge was furious when he discovered what had happened and expelled them from Eden because they were now a threat to him and no longer his mindless slaves.

Even within Christianity, the concept of Original Sin met with ridicule in some quarters. Christianity might never have become the monstrous doctrine that has brought so much misery to humanity if it had instead listened to the voice of sanity emanating from the Celtic monk Pelagius in the early fifth century. Pelagius attacked Original Sin and the associated belief that death and sexual lust were the result of Adam and Eve's "Fall". He denied that humanity required any divine grace in order to be good, saying that ordinary human nature was sufficient to recognise goodness and to do good and noble deeds that would merit a place in heaven. No supernatural intervention was required. St Augustine, on the other hand, argued that no human being could ever merit heaven no matter what they did. No human could do anything genuinely good. God, randomly, chose some to be saved and the rest (the overwhelming majority) to be damned, but there was nothing anyone could do to influence God's decision. Pelagius understood immediately that this was one of the most evil ideas ever devised. At a stroke, it removed all moral responsibility from humans and relegated good deeds to mere illusion.

Pelagius lost the debate and was condemned as a heretic, and thus Christianity lost its final chance to be a decent religion. It's easy to see why Pelagius lost. His version of Christianity had no need of the Church. People could save themselves by their own efforts. No one needed to be baptised and to regularly receive the sacraments. No one needed priests, bishops or popes. No one needed God's grace.

As a matter of POWER, not morality, Pelagius was rejected. And that was always the way it went in Christianity. Every time it was confronted by heresy, the Church chose the position that gave it the most power over men, and rejected the position that gave ordinary people power to save themselves. So it goes. All institutions follow the same ruthless and cynical strategy. The accretion of power is all that matters. All institutions reflect the Will to Power and will do anything to secure and increase it, regardless of morality or rationality.

The official position of Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, is that humanity is eternally depraved as a result of Original Sin and not a single person is able through their own natural powers to do anything at all to deserve salvation. Christianity thus reduces human beings to helpless vessels of sin, irredeemably damned unless God arbitrarily saves them. Any philosopher worthy of the name instantly realises that this renders Jesus Christ himself totally unnecessary since his "sacrifice" doesn't change a single thing about the human condition. We were inherently depraved before the Crucifixion, and inherently depraved after it too. God could simply have chosen to save some human beings and damn the rest without Christ ever having been born. It seems that the only function of Christ's death was to persuade God the Father to arbitrarily save a small number of human beings from hellfire. No one deserved to be saved, but, because of Christ, God the Father deigned to help some of us by bestowing grace on us. We didn't merit it - he simply randomly assigned it. In other words, Christianity has no moral dimension at all. No one can do good deeds without God's help. No one can believe in God without God's help. We have no moral responsibility because we are all intrinsically depraved and evil. We are all damned, but God in his great "compassion" throws the dice and saves those of us who get double six (or whatever other random criterion he chooses). We are not moral agents and we are not living in a moral world. Rather, according to Christianity, Earth is simply hell's waiting room, and may even be regarded as the outermost circle of hell. If you're alive on Earth, you will almost certainly be going to hell no matter what you do in your life. All the good deeds in the world won't save you if God hasn't marked you as one of the Elect. Only by having God's grace randomly and undeservingly conferred upon you can you avoid your fate.

So, the Christian God created the world in order to send almost everyone in it to hell, and yet billions of people actually worship this monster. What the fuck's wrong with them? How can anyone call this entity anything other than Satan? Is he not the King of Hell?

If you call yourself a Christian, you are committed to the following positions:

1. Death came from sin, not man's physical constitution (which was originally immortal).

2. Infants must be baptized into the Church to have any hope of being cleansed of original sin (outside the Church there is no Salvation).

3. Children dying without baptism go to hell.

4. The grace of Christ provides the strength and will to act out God's commandments, and without it there is no such strength and will.

5. No good works can come without God's grace.

Pelagius, the voice of sanity and reason, saw how deadly these notions were to human free will and morality. Christianity, like Islam, makes the Will of God responsible for everything. If God wills us to be good then we will be. If he does not then we will be evil, in accordance with our fallen nature of unremitting depravity.

Pelagius understood that Augustinian Christianity turned human beings into nothing but wicked automata, programmed for evil doing and incapable of transcending their inbuilt sinfulness.

Where Augustine declared, "Non possum non peccare" ("It is not possible to not sin"), Pelagius counterargued that anyone could obey the Commandments because God would not have given humanity Commandments that it could not keep i.e. God would not be so cruel and unjust as to give us impossible commands and then send us to hell if we failed to accomplish the impossible. He regarded Augustine's position as one of fatalism and predestination, removing mankind's free will. Had Pelagianism become mainstream Christianity, it would have been a much less toxic religion. But the bad guys (i.e. most of the "saints" - like St. Augustine) always won in Christianity.

Protestantism made Christianity even more hostile to Pelagius. Whereas Catholicism had sought to assign good deeds at least some merit, Protestantism reduced good deeds to having no value at all. For Protestants - the most deranged Christians of all - faith is all that matters, and only the grace of Christ can allow you to believe in Christ.

Protestantism may be called the Taliban wing of Christianity, full of extremist nutters. All the Greek philosophy that Catholicism had used to give it some semblance of intellectual credibility was ditched by Protestants who asserted that the Bible alone was all that a Christian needed. If it wasn't in the Bible, it could be safely ignored. And thus Protestantism became the religion for incredibly stupid people who loathed philosophy.

Pelagius

"Fanatics are picturesque. Mankind prefers to look at poses rather than to listen to reason."

Nietzsche

Pelagius was born in the British Isles, either in the border area of Scotland and Northern England or alternatively in Ireland or Wales. Thus he was a Celtic rather than Roman monk. For several centuries, Celtic Christianity operated differently from the Roman Church, before eventually falling into line at the Synod of Whitby in 664 CE. Had it been the other way around - had Rome succumbed to Pelagian Christianity - we would now be living in a much saner world.

It's one of the great tragedies of life that a great man can be thwarted because he happens to come up against an immensely powerful and manipulative enemy. Had St Augustine never lived, Pelagian Christianity may well have triumphed. As it was, Augustine proved an irresistible force and made the Church obey his will and declare Pelagius's position heretical.

Ironically, most Christians, especially Catholics, adopt a rather Pelagian approach to their lives in a practical day-to-day sense. St Augustine's vision of Christianity really does resemble a kind of severe mental illness.

Augustine's idea of Original Sin is right up there as one of the greatest errors and most monstrous ideas ever. He believed that death entered the world because of Original Sin and marked us all for damnation. It was the sin that defined the entire human condition. It transcended particular human beings and became universal, applicable to the whole of humanity in perpetuity. It was a cosmic event, a cosmic sin, outside the scope of mere history.

Why? Because it was the only way to make the life of Jesus Christ remotely relevant.

One of the most astounding aspects of the ferocious debate between Augustine and Pelagius is that both of them effectively did away with any need for Jesus Christ, though neither said that or even realised it.

In the time of Pelagius (and indeed in the present day), there were three Christian views of how the soul came into existence. According to Origen, souls pre-existed bodies and were assigned to them at conception or shortly thereafter. This view was deemed heretical (particularly because it implies reincarnation). According to Creationism - the position supported by Pelagius - God creates the soul at the moment of conception or shortly thereafter and assigns it to the body. Ironically, this has become the favoured view of the Catholic Church despite Pelagius being one of its advocates (interestingly, there is no definitive stance on this critical issue). The position taken by Augustine was called traducianism and this proposed that the soul was created by the act of conception i.e. your soul, like your body, is made by your parents and is a product of their two individual souls. Augustine thus makes damnation an STD - a sexually transmitted fatal disease. We inherit sin and death from our parents. It's part of our spiritual DNA.

The great advantage of this theory is that it makes any defects of the soul hereditary and thus it provides support for the transmission of Original Sin to all human beings. Creationism on the other hand would seem to make Original Sin impossible since it would require God to "inject" Original Sin into each new soul he creates. It would make him into an absolute monster, essentially sentencing each soul to hell even as he makes it. The Catholic Church, which defends the creationism theory of the soul, has not explained how it is compatible with the concept of Original Sin. Pre-existence of souls certainly isn't compatible with Original Sin since the souls existed prior to the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

Given the crucial importance of the soul to Christianity, isn't it extraordinary that after two thousand years it still doesn't have any viable explanation of how souls came into being? Faith certainly won't help them!

When Augustine argued the case for predestination - that God decides who will go to heaven and who to hell when the soul comes into existence - Pelagius rightly asked what was the point of believing if our fate had already been decided. He ought to have asked an even more explosive question - what function was served by Jesus Christ if everyone's fate was decided at conception?

Predestination, another of Augustine's pet theories, turns God into a monster who literally creates souls for the purpose of sending nearly all of them to perpetual suffering in hell. If that doesn't make him a cosmic psychopath what does? Why is Christianity so silent on this vital theological matter? In fact, it runs away from virtually all serious theological points. It hasn't got a clue how to answer them.

Augustine declared that humanity was "a mass of sin." So horrific was his view of human nature that he sentenced newborn babies to hell if they died before being baptised. (He thought that babies were in any case the very definition of selfishness. He said, "If infants do no injury, it is for lack of strength, not lack of will.") Of course, he is assuming that there is a connection between baptism and those who have been chosen to be saved by God, but, by his own account, he can't have any real idea of what God's criteria are for saving some and damning others, hence baptism is actually meaningless. It can't give you any guarantee at all.

There are actually two Christian Churches - the Church Visible and the Church Invisible. The former comprises all ostensible Christians; all those who call themselves Christians and have been duly baptised and admitted into communion with the Church. As for the latter, they are the Elect, the Saved, those known to God alone. They are his sons and daughters upon whom he has conferred the gift of grace to save them from hellfire. No one on Earth can know if they belong to the Church Invisible. It is the most secret society of all. Even its members don't know they are its members.

Pelagius was horrified by the thought of a God who sent babies to hell who had done nothing wrong. He it was who proposed the idea that later became the concept of Limbo - a place where unbaptised babies that die in infancy go to that isn't hell proper, but rather a more benign place at its edge. It makes you wonder what these dead babies do for eternity.

Limbo has now been killed off by the Catholic Church, and it now states that it hopes the unbaptised dead babies are saved by God's "infinite mercy". One is temped to say this is the last "God" one would appeal to for mercy. When has he ever shown any?

The debate between Pelagius and Augustine could scarcely have been more profound. According to Pelagius, God gives us the tools to perfect ourselves and the free will to choose to exercise them or not. He does not make it impossible for us to be good through our own efforts.

Augustine on the other hand maintained that God perfects some of us by act of divine grace, which is all about him and nothing to do with us. "Grace", one of the most lunatic ideas ever devised, is described as the free and unmerited love and favour of God. Well, if it's unmerited then there's nothing we can do to earn it. The Catholic Church claims that its sacraments confer grace on us, but how can they if there's nothing we can do to merit grace? The Protestants abandoned the idea that grace came from the sacraments offered by the Church and instead concluded that grace came directly from God to the Elect.

If God chooses not to bestow grace on you then he has damned you to hell, regardless of the type of life you lead, good or bad. You have absolutely no control over any of this, and no say in it. You're in the ultimate lottery: heaven for the random winners and hell for the equally random losers. You can't even pray to influence the outcome. You can't do anything. Your free will, if not entirely illusory, is in any case useless. It makes no difference to anything. If predestination is true, all your actions are futile.

Pelagius bitterly opposed Augustine, but failed to win the debate. While he put free will and rationality on one side of the scales, Augustine put predestination and grace on the other. The scales tipped Augustine's way.

Pelagius's view of grace was that it was something conferred on us to help us to maximise our own potential. Augustine's view was that grace replaced our own free will and allowed us to do what God wanted. He famously said, "The good that I would, I do not; the evil that I would not, that I do." His position is that freely choosing between alternatives is one thing, but having the power to act on what you choose is quite another i.e. we do not possess the power to do what we will (or to be more exact when it comes to doing good we will ourselves not have the power because we are fundamentally wicked). You cannot do genuinely good things unless God gives you the power through his gift of grace.

For Pelagius, grace assists our actions while for Augustine it controls our actions. For Pelagius, our task is more difficult without grace, for Augustine it is impossible.

Where Pelagius emphasized personal effort and moral responsibility, Augustine emphasised grace - the ultimate magic. We might call it aetherial "God dust" (as opposed to gold dust) that he sprinkles on some of us.

It's simply astounding that Christians, and Protestants in particular, reduce human beings to automata, whose fate was decided at conception before they had even done a single thing. Is that what we call "justice"? Is that a meritocracy? Or is it the supreme tyranny, the ultimate enslavement? It beggars belief that any thinking person could be a Christian.

It would have been a different story if Pelagius had proved triumphant. He didn't consider that Jesus Christ died to atone for Original Sin but rather that Jesus' noble self-sacrifice gave God the opportunity to bestow grace on us and hence make it easier for humanity to get to heaven. Jesus, in Pelagius's view, served as a wondrous example to the rest of us, showing that it's possible to lead a sinless life. It was claimed by Pelagius's enemies that he said, in common with some of his supporters, that it was possible for humans to be sinless through their own hard efforts. He answered that this was a foolish idea, though not heretical (in fact, this "foolish idea" was probably very much his position although he was back peddling to avoid being accused of heresy - to say that a man could be sinless was practically saying that a man could be Christ himself). He emphasized that we were made in God's image. Although the image may have become clouded, we can choose to respond to God's grace and clean the image. Augustine on the other hand said that we can never escape from our past. Only God's grace can redeem us.

Many of Pelagius's ideas came close to the Gnostic position that human beings can perfect themselves through their own efforts alone. To take that position too far leads, Pelagius eventually realised, to an attack on the need for Jesus Christ, hence he rowed back. He should in fact have gone further and become an outright Gnostic. Even so, his form of Christianity is one that could be turned into something healthy since it would bear a close resemblance to Gnosticism.

Pelagius is consistently a kind, compassionate man, and Augustine consistently a monstrous sadist. We shouldn't be at all surprised that it was Augustine who won the debate within the Church. So it goes.

Protestantism and Capitalism

Medieval Catholicism was, historically, the greatest enemy of the Illuminati, yet the Illuminati now regard Catholicism as the lesser Christian evil: Protestantism has managed to be much worse, and that takes quite some doing!

It's hard to say exactly which religion is more evil between Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Protestantism. The last can certainly argue a powerful case to be regarded as the ultimate Satanic religion.

Protestantism, at root, regards humanity as fundamentally depraved and evil. It also believes that God has chosen to pluck some lucky ones from the legions of the damned. These are the so-called "elect"; the "saved" - the Church Invisible.

The ordinary Protestant is obviously keen to establish whether he belongs to the Elite of those predestined for salvation. How would he go about discovering this priceless information? It occurred to the Protestant mind that people leading shit lives were likely to be the damned, and those leading worthy lives the saved. After all, it would be perverse to get things the other way around, and the Protestant God isn't perverse (as far as Protestants are concerned!).

The Protestants alighted on money as a direct measure of holiness. Rich people are going to heaven and the poor to hell, they decided. So Protestants became obsessed with hard work - the famous Protestant (Puritan) work ethic - and thrift. (So extreme was the Puritan dedication to work that the Puritan leader Cromwell actually banned Christmas in England during his rule in the 17th century and made people work that day. Whereas Catholic countries offered many days off to celebrate various feast days of the saints, Protestant countries abolished all of these and became obsessed with work to a pathological degree.) Moreover, they had no compunction about ripping off and exploiting the poor. After all, the poor were all hell-fodder, destined for the Devil's fires. Above all, Protestants loved having African slaves because they didn't have to pay them anything at all and they could work them to death and no one would care.

The Protestant elite became rich on the backs of the slaves and the poor. The Old World Order are overwhelmingly Protestant. Unrestrained capitalism is a Protestant ideology. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both Protestants, gave rise to the current era of super wealth for a tiny handful.

Wall Street is an alliance between Protestant Freemasonic capitalists and Jewish worshippers of Mammon. (The Jews, as the world's bankers, eagerly embraced Protestant capitalism.)

Protestants are self-righteous, smug psychopaths. They think conspicuous wealth proves that God is on your side. They think you deserve to go to hell if you have the wrong skin colour or are poor. You can see the evils of Protestantism embedded in America to this day.

Who are the Tea Party? Protestants! Who are Republicans? Protestants! Who are the Old World Order? Protestants! Who are the Freemasons? Protestants! Who live in the racist Confederate States of America? Protestants! Who hated the immigrants from Catholic Ireland, Catholic Italy and Catholic Poland? Protestants! Who hate Catholic Hispanics? Protestants!

Protestantism is all about hate, discrimination, slavery, racism, exploitation, greed, selfishness, and the creed of the Protestant family above all other families.

Protestants are opposed to meritocracy. Look at Protestant England with its ludicrous monarch. Protestants are all about privilege, networking, keeping undesirables out.

Despite their fabulous wealth, look at how hard the Kennedys found it to break into the magic circle in America. The WASPs - the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants - regarded them as filthy Papists. JFK remains the sole Catholic President in American history. (The UK has never had a Catholic prime minister. Tony Blair converted to the Catholic faith after he left office: he feared the electoral consequences of becoming a Catholic in office. It is illegal for the monarch of the UK to be a Catholic, or for the monarch to marry a Catholic - such is the entrenched WASP nature of the UK.)

And who are the people who insist that the first black President isn't even American? The good old Protestants again.

"Reason is the Devil's whore," say Protestants. We say that Protestants are the Devil's dogs.

The people from whom we receive the most hate mail are Protestant "Truthers", Protestant anarcho-capitalists and Protestant libertarians. Most conspiracy theorists are Protestants. All of the anti New World Order propaganda comes from Protestants. Protestants, from the outset, condemned the Illuminati because they thought it was a Catholic secret society, based in Catholic Bavaria and full of Jesuits.

Read all the ridiculous crap about the Illuminati on the internet and you will discover that nearly all of it stems from core Protestant beliefs about evil Catholics. America has historically been a WASP nation and now the WASPs are getting extremely worried that they are losing their grip. Many conspiracy theories are a pathetic plea to return to the American values of a century ago when the WASPs were totally in charge. The Tea Party is a WASP nostalgia movement.

The world will not change until the monstrous religion of Protestantism falls.

Scottish Parcel Bombs

In Scotland, Neil Lennon, the manager of Celtic Football Club, was sent two parcel bombs - which were luckily intercepted. A male lawyer and a 71-yr-old retiring female politician, both supporters of Celtic, were also sent bombs. Lennon and two of his players had previously been sent bullets in the post. Lennon has received several death threats from "Loyalist" paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland and been beaten unconscious in the street by fans of Rangers - Celtic's bitter rivals - in Glasgow.

Lennon is a Northern Irish Catholic, and Scotland, like Northern Ireland, is one of the most sectarian countries on earth, full of Protestants who detest Irish Catholics. Some people have the capacity to personalize an ancient conflict - Neil Lennon is such a person, almost a world-historic figure in many ways. He has become the single focus of the hatred of Irish Catholics by Scottish Protestants. They pour out their bile onto him, all the more so because he refuses to be cowed.

The person who sent the bombs is unquestionably a fan of Rangers. Celtic and Rangers are both based in Scotland's largest city - Glasgow. Celtic have a predominantly Catholic support with Irish ancestry. Rangers have an exclusively Protestant support and for many years they refused to let any Catholic play for their team. They have been charged by the European football authorities for the racist and sectarian songs chanted by their supporters.

One of their songs contains the line, "We're up to our knees in Fenian [Irish Catholic] blood!"

Several Celtic fans have been murdered by Rangers fans. There are numerous Facebook campaigns proclaiming eternal hatred and detestation of Neil Lennon. One mocked-up picture showed him in a blood-spattered Celtic jersey, riddled by bullets (with one through the middle of his forehead), to the great delight of many Rangers' fans. One Scottish footballer had "Die Lennon Die" as his status on Facebook. Another player said he wished the bomb had "fucking killed" Lennon.

Lennon's "crime" is to be a Catholic who dares to challenge the Protestant hegemony of the Scottish establishment. For decades, Celtic Football Club has been discriminated against by referees, most of whom are Rangers' fans and members of the Masonic Orange Order for extremist Protestants who regard the Pope and the Catholic Church as the Antichrist.

The rivalry between Celtic and Rangers is probably the most intense in the world. It is a contest on virtually every level. Celtic are Catholic, left wing, anti-monarchy, anti-establishment and represent the persecuted Irish immigrant community. Rangers are Protestant, right wing, pro-monarchy, pro-establishment and represent the entrenched sectarian elite of Scotland.

Rangers' fans sing: "We are the People. We are the People." By this they mean that they are the Chosen People - the Elite. In fact, several centuries ago the Protestants of Scotland emulated the Jews and made a solemn Covenant with their Protestant God. They are strong supporters of the Jews, while Celtic fans have expressed solidarity with the persecuted Palestinians.

The ancestors of the Celtic fans arrived in Glasgow during the terrible years of the Irish Famine (the 1840s) when Ireland was officially part of the United Kingdom. The Irish were in fact merely relocating from one part of the UK to another, just as an American might travel from New York to California without becoming any less American. No one would call an American making that trip an immigrant, but that's what the Irish were called, and they were treated with utter contempt and hostility.

In the years of the Irish Famine, the Irish population fell by almost 40%. Out of a population of some 8 million, over a million died and more than two million emigrated (with many travelling to Glasgow, Liverpool, Australia, America and Canada). To this day, the population hasn't recovered. No help was offered to the Irish from the rest of the United Kingdom because, as Catholics, the Irish were regarded as subhuman. (Similarly, New Orleans was treated with contempt in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because it was mostly African Americans who lived there.)

And then people wonder why the Irish Republican Army fought for decades to get the British out of Ireland. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK to this day while the South is an independent Republic.

The Irish Catholics of Northern Ireland were dubbed "the blacks of Europe" and were subjected to prejudice and discrimination as bad as that endured by African Americans. In the 1960s, the Irish Catholics consciously copied the civil rights marches of the African Americans - and were attacked and brutalised by the Protestant police, just as African Americans were by racist white police, and just as South African blacks were by the racist white police of that country, and Palestinians by racist Jewish police and soldiers. Where African Americans turned to the Black Panthers for protection from the authorities, the Irish Catholics turned to the IRA, the South African blacks to the ANC and the Palestinians to the PLO. All of these organisations were branded as terrorists by the authorities and freedom fighters by their supporters. So it always is.

In England in the 1950s and 1960s, it was common to see signs outside boarding houses and bars saying, "No blacks, Irish or dogs."

Celtic Football Club was established by Brother Walfrid in 1888 to help the desperately poor Irish Catholics in Glasgow. To this day, the discrimination suffered by Catholics in Scotland is breathtaking and as bad as anywhere in the world. Every year, Scottish Protestants hold thousands of Orange Order marches in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Orange Order have strong links with the Ku Klux Klan and far-right English nationalist groups. They seek to march through Catholic areas, a gesture as inflammatory as the KKK marching through Harlem. There have been endless riots caused by Orange Order marches, yet still the authorities refuse to ban all such sectarian marches.

Rangers fans sing to Celtic fans: "The famine is over - why don't you go home?"

Ironically, Scotland is named after an Irish tribe that conquered Scotland - the Scotti - and the people of Scotland and Ireland are genetically almost identical. They are separated now in religious terms (with Scotland being predominantly Protestant and Ireland predominantly Catholic - thus demonstrating that religion can override even biology).

The degree of sectarianism in Scotland is quite astounding. It's referred to as "Scotland's shame". Crime statistics demonstrate that Glasgow is one of the most violent cities on earth.

The reason we're highlighting this matter is to a) show how the same conflicts are happening in different guises all over the world: the brutal establishment persecuting minorities that have done nothing wrong (in contrast with Islamic groups that actively seek to conquer the world and impose Sharia Law on it) and b) because many of the enemies of the Illuminati are from Scottish Protestant backgrounds. The Ku Klux Klan were largely Scottish and Northern Irish Protestants who had settled in America and served the Confederacy. The KKK's symbol of the fiery cross was borrowed directly from Scotland (chieftains used it as a signal to summon the clans in the Scottish Highlands - and note the word "clan"). Many of the Union Army that fought the Confederacy were Irish Catholics who had arrived in America to escape the Famine.

The American Republican Party, the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Confederates, the Freemasons, the anarcho-capitalist libertarians, the Ayn Randists, the Old World Order…all of these can be shown to have their strongest roots in Protestant Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

So, oddly enough, the Illuminati find themselves on the side of Catholics against the WASPs. What an irony!

If the Illuminati were inclined to support any team, it would be the anti-establishment, republican, left wing rebels of Glasgow Celtic. We might even link their religious propensities to Pelagius, the Celtic monk who could have saved Christianity if the Church had listened to him.

"Our day will come."

Neil Lennon defies the baying mob.

*****

In all conflicts in the world, there is almost invariably an aggressor and a retaliator, the persecutors and the persecuted. There is no moral equivalence between the two. The resistance groups such as the PLO, IRA, ANC and Black Panthers would never have existed if they had not been on the receiving end of the aggression, persecution and discrimination of the establishment group. The establishment always labels the resistance fighters as "terrorists" and never acknowledges its own crimes. Yet the establishment is the true source of evil.

In Scotland, the problems between Celtic and Rangers, the Catholics and Protestants, are described as sectarian and the official attitude is that both sides are equally to blame. The Celtic fans have refused to accept this stance and have said that there is a one-way street of discrimination: anti Irish Catholic racism on the part of Protestant Rangers fans. Celtic retaliate against the racism; they do not instigate the trouble. To label both groups as equally bad is the easy way out for the authorities. They don't want to have to label one group as the real problem, especially if most of them come from that group. "A plague on both your houses," they say, and thus avoid their moral responsibility to condemn one group and exonerate the other.

Although the Muslims may seem to have many features of the unfairly persecuted minority, there is a vast difference in their case. Extremist Muslims, rather than simply resisting Western oppression, have themselves created an extremely aggressive ideology with which they seek to persecute anyone who disagrees with them.

Islamism is about imposing Sharia Law and Islamic hegemony on the world. It's a totalitarian system akin to fascism. Muslims tend to be extremely reluctant to integrate with non-Muslims (for fear of becoming "contaminated") and they adopt numerous cultural practices to place barriers between them and others. They often make threats against non-Muslims and vow that infidels will suffer hellfire.

So, Muslims cannot be viewed in the same light as groups that suffer discrimination for no cause. African Americans have historically been persecuted for their skin colour, not for any hostile actions perpetrated by them. The racists who continue to discriminate against African Americans are entirely at fault.

In the context of Islam, the same cannot be said. The Muslims, if the boot were on the other foot, would unquestionably impose horrific systems of discrimination against non-Muslims, as is already evidenced in nearly every Islamic nation.

All Islamic nations impose Islamic rules and regulations whether non-Muslims like it or not. The freedoms that are granted to Muslims in Western countries certainly aren't reciprocated to non-Muslims in Islamic nations.

It's certainly possible to have great sympathy for the Palestinians and to be outraged at the treatment they have received at the hands of the Israelis. That is a situation that the West must resolve by ordering the Jews to implement the two-state solution based on the pre-1967 borders of Israel and Palestine.

Depression

So, have you ever been walking along behind a group of morons fluent in "Retard" - the grunting, monosyllabic, shouty, sweary language they use to "communicate" with each other? Listening to the cretinous content of their conversation is profoundly depressing. What's even more depressing is the realisation that you have only tuned into this drivel for a few seconds whereas the people who live on Planet Retard are stuck there 24/7 for their whole lives. Never once will an intelligent thought enter their minds!

Then you realise that many, if not most, human beings are just one step up from brute animals. How can we ever have a rational world with such poor raw material? No wonder the legions of dumb and damned believe in Original Sin.

The real Original Sin is being stupid and thinking you are in no need of a cure.

The Sign Industry

Most people are stupid and the world is too complicated for them. No Abrahamist could ever understand this website. It's beyond their capacities. In a world that's too complicated, people turn to a simplified subset - signs. A sign represents something. A cross is the sign of Christianity, a Crescent the sign of Islam. Signs are about dumbing down the world and converting it into a new form of commerce: the trade in signs.

So, the preacher who tells you, "Christ died for your sins," is saying that the whole Christian story can be boiled down to the sign contained in that sentence i.e. the sign of someone laying down his life for your sake. No one is likely to condemn someone who nobly sacrifices himself for others. Of course, the fact that the sign is a spectacular misrepresentation of Christianity is neither here nor there. All that matters is whether you fall for it or not.

Christians never study any critical account of their belief system. They stick to childish mantras: Christ loves me, Christ died for me, Christ is truth, Christ saves. That constitutes their understanding of Christianity. They have no idea of what Christianity is actually about. No, that's not true. Christianity is what people think it is, not what it actually is.

Muslims think that Allah is good even though he orders human sacrifice. They think "Shaytan" is evil even though he opposes human sacrifice. They have reduced their belief system to two statements: "good" is obeying the Koran; "evil" is disobeying it. That's the sum and substance of Islam - a good/ evil on/ off switch.

The Jews have reduced Judaism in a similar fashion. Obeying the endless rules of Judaism is "good"; breaking any of them is "evil".

This is how people go through life. They reduce the world to a set of on-off switches, a set of binary options. They have been conditioned to call one option good and the other evil. The facts don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Reason doesn't matter. All that matters is whether the switch is on or off.

To exploit people, all you have to do is understand what system of simple signs they have been conditioned to accept.

Politicians do nothing but dumb everything down to the simplest signs - soundbites. Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior and Junior never made a single complex statement the entire time they were in the White House, if indeed ever. The average Republican can't understand anything complex.

Creationists believe that the world was made in six days because it says so in the Bible. They can't conceive that a) six days might be metaphorical rather than literal and b) that the statement might in any case be false, especially since there's no evidence whatsoever that it's true.

We live in a world of signs all concerned with simplifying and FALSIFYING the world. Signs are about concentrating on the packaging and ignoring the contents. As with so many capitalist products, enchanting packaging conceals junk.

Status is communicated by signs. The idea behind status symbols is to convey as rapidly as possible someone's high status: Rolex watch, Ferrari, designer suit etc.

What is bling? - the vulgar display of conspicuous wealth. The bling kings aren't ones for subtlety. They wear large, prominent items of gold, silver and diamond so that no one can be in any doubt that they're rich.

But this in turn prompts others to tone down their conspicuous wealth so as not to be classed as nouveau riche. A new set of subtle signs then emerges. The war of signs never ends.

Nothing is more important than who controls the signs. To change the world, it is necessary to change the signs that are used to condition people.

Borrowed Interest

"Being famous is like being gold plated. Everything shines." - Heidi Weiss.

"Those who are very beautiful, very good and very powerful scarcely ever learn the full truth about anything. In their presence we involuntarily lie."

Nietzsche

Everyone is interested in beauty, but how do you get people to look at things you want to sell them that aren't beautiful? Simple. You photograph a beautiful person with the product. The interest you have in the beautiful person is then borrowed by the product i.e. you look at it because it is framed by beauty even though it is not itself beautiful. You would never have looked at it had not beauty been used to lure you in. Flowers use the same technique to attract bees.

The use of celebrities in advertisements is all about exploiting "borrowed interest", hence why celebrities keep getting more and more powerful. Any new product is likely to struggle. It has to borrow interest from an existing successful product to get itself noticed. The fastest way to get attention is via someone who already attracts enormous attention - a celebrity.

Celebrity culture goes hand in hand with the advertising industry and ultra capitalism. They are all accomplices in the same plot to degrade humanity.

The Test for Women

Where do you stand on the Romantic Hero scale? Women can be classified according to three types:

1) Fans of Mr Darcy (male protagonist of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen)

2) Fans of Mr Rochester (male protagonist of Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte)

3) Fans of Heathcliff (male protagonist of Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte)

Women who like Darcy are soppy romantics with a distinct Mills and Boon mentality. Jennifer Anniston types. Yuk. Utterly conventional.

Women who like Rochester want someone a bit smarter and manlier. Rachel Weiss types, shall we say? Not so bad. Flirting with unconventionality.

Women who like Heathcliff - ah, now you're cooking on full burners. Heathcliff, the tortured soul, the brute. Those who want to break out of the confines of conventional society are in this category. The Angelina Jolie type (before she was "Bradified" and became a crashing bore).

And women who like the "Story of O". Hey, you're off the scale. Handcuffs and dungeons.

Masochism

The love of pain is called algolagnia (Greek for "pain craving)".

Sadism, named after the Marquis de Sade, is taking pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Its opposite is masochism: finding pleasure in being the recipient of pain. This phenomenon is named after novelist Leopold von Sacher-Masoch who, in his novel Venus in Furs, wrote about a submissive man (Severin) who loved being whipped by his female lover (Wanda). Velvet Underground wrote a famous song about this topic.

Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau was submissive. He wrote, "To lie at the feet of an imperious mistress, to obey her commands, to ask her forgiveness - this was for me a sweet enjoyment."

Sexual investigator Nancy Friday estimated on the basis of her researches that four out of five men are submissive.

People who like vampire stories - all those Twilight fans - have strong sado-masochistic tendencies, the vampires being the sadistic dominants and the submissives their victims.

The werewolf is another sadistic figure - the hidden dominant who appears only at certain times (the full moon).

Tales of horror, which fascinate so many people, are largely a symbolic representation of sado-masochism in a quasi-religious and supernatural setting. The "monsters" are always dominants and their victims always submissives. The monsters are defeated only when dominant humans - heroes - confront them.

The Old World Order are dominants sucking the blood from the rest of us. We need to stand up to them like heroes and defeat them.

The Emo, Goth, Punk and Metal scenes all revolve around BDSM.

A famous modern tale of total female submissiveness is Story of O by Pauline Réage. The heroine is told by her master: "You are here to serve your masters. During the day, you will perform whatever domestic duties are assigned you, such as sweeping, putting back the books, arranging flowers, or waiting on tables. Nothing more difficult than that. But at the first sign or word from anyone you will drop whatever you are doing and ready yourself for what is really your one and only duty: to lend yourself."

Depersonalisation

Some submissives like to be depersonalised and treated as objects - such as footstools, tables, hatstands, ashtrays or toilets.

Some people fall in love with inanimate objects. A number of women have been recorded as falling in love with bridges and enjoying orgasms by rubbing themselves against parts of the bridge. They have been deeply distraught - lovesick - when banning orders have been placed on them to keep away from the bridges.

Confrontation with the Shadow

Freudian and Jungian psychology points us to the strange world of the secret, the hidden, the repressed, the suppressed…the shadow world that haunts our imagination, where monsters, horrors, terrors, primal fears, anxieties, demons and devils reside.

Where does this secondary world come from? Its origins lie in the fact that all of us are split beings - selfish individuals on one hand and altruistic members of a community on the other. All of life revolves around the balance each of us manages to achieve. Some people remain selfish all their life and never become part of a community, except of the fellow selfish. The Wall Street gang are of this ilk. They are fundamentally anti-social.

Some people subordinate themselves to the community and become saint-like (like Mother Theresa).

In terms of the Freudian model of the psyche, our selfish aspect (the id) is the opposite of our community aspect (the superego). Since id behaviour is often unacceptable to the community, it has to be driven underground - and this is where it becomes powerful and dangerous. It haunts our dreams and nightmares. Often, it erupts in episodes of rage in our ordinary lives.

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and The Portrait of Dorian Gray are classic Victorian depictions of the interface between the "polite" world and the shadow world.

The "game" of healthy psychology is to neutralise the power of the concealed id world. Religion fails to do so. In fact, it brands it evil and amplifies it.

The Illuminati confront the world of the shadow sexually and particularly through transgressive sex - sex that shatters conventional taboos and prohibitions.

BDSM opens the doors to the secret realm of the shadow and allows the monsters - like the Minotaur trapped in the labyrinth - to come out to play.

In BDSM, you escape the dreary world of plain, vanilla sex and explore your limits. It's by finding your limits that you defuse your id impulses. BDSM is about exploring the forbidden.

Dominance and submission are coupled like yin and yang. Submission can be thought of as an escape from the ego, an abdication of personal responsibility. Domination is the opposite. It's the supreme ego trip and involves having godlike powers over another.

The dominant person is often highly intellectual who uses psychology to determine the secret desires of the submissive. The submissive of course is seeking to get the dominant to inflict the things that the submissive loves. They take part in a complex dance, in which both seek to maximize their pleasures.

Very few dominants are of the same type as the Marquis de Sade. Georges Bataille wrote, "The kind of sexuality [Sade] has in mind runs counter to the desires of other people…they are to be victims, not partners…the partners are denied any rights at all: this is the key to his system." That is domination as criminality. That is the serial killer's version of domination.

The people who are able to play both roles in the submission-domination game are called "switches".

If a male dominant is an übermensch, the female equivalent is an überfrau

"Better to have no God, better to set up destiny on one's own account, better to be a fool, better to be God oneself!"

Nietzsche

"The concept of 'God' was invented as the opposite of the concept of life."

Nietzsche

Jezebel

When it comes to the Jewish Bible, a good rule of thumb is to regard all of the "evil" people in it as good and all the "good" people in it as evil.

Jezebel, the Phoenician wife of Israel's King Ahab, is one of the most reviled women in history, her name being synonymous with any "loose woman". She was accused of being a witch and a whore and the prophet Elijah branded her an abomination. She was portrayed as the power behind the throne who converted her husband to the pagan worship of the Canaanite and Phoenician fertility god Baal and his consort Ashtoreth (called Astarte by the Greeks, and the equivalent of both Aphrodite and the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). Jezebel was in fact a priestess of Baal (her name was actually Iz-baal meaning "praise Baal").

The worship of Ashtoreth involved sacred prostitution, which took place even in the confines of Solomon's Temple - supposedly Yahweh's exclusive place of worship. In fact, Solomon himself was devoted to Ashtoreth and celebrated the goddess in the appropriate fashion.

The unpalatable truth for orthodox Jews is that Solomon's Temple celebrated polytheism, not monotheism. The form of Ashtoreth that Solomon worshipped is now known by the Greek name Sophia - the goddess of wisdom. But she had an earthly, sexual side too, associated with temple prostitution. So powerful was her impact that even the Jewish monotheists have smuggled her into their religion. She is none other than the "Shekinah."

Shekinah is Hebrew for "that which dwells or resides".

Yahweh is not of the world. He stands outside it as its creator. Hence, it is not Yahweh himself who enters the physical world but rather his "presence" - the Shekinah" - often characterised in terms of a beautiful female (which could easily be interpreted as Yahweh's consort - just like Baal and Ashtoreth!).

In fact, "Sophia" is a multi-faceted concept. Some regard Sophia as a major deity in her own right, others as a feminine aspect of God representing wisdom. Depending on preference, the Shekinah can be regarded as a separate entity from Yahweh, or as the manifestation of Yahweh's wisdom on earth. But if the former is true then Judaism is no longer monotheistic.

Sophia (Wisdom) can also be regarded as the counterpart of the masculine Logos (Reason). Indeed, what use is reason if not combined with wisdom? Pythagoras used "philosophy" to describe what he was about rather than philologos (love of reason). Perhaps pure mathematics is the quintessential subject of philologos.

Jewish monotheism is nothing of the kind. It's a disguised polytheism based on the traditional gods of the region. The Jews took all of the qualities of the different gods and goddesses they worshipped and blended them into one, and attributed all of that power to the single god Yahweh, but time and time again, glimpses of the underlying polytheism break through.

Why don't the Jews do the decent thing and renounce their Devil-god Yahweh, and return to the paganism of Solomon and his famed temple? Why don't they become Illuminists like Solomon himself and bring the nightmare of Yahweh's tyrannical rule to an end?

Baal and Ashtoreth are hated by Jews because they represent the pagan polytheism to which the Israelites succumbed over and over again. Their names feature frequently in the Old Testament and it's clear that the Yahweh worshippers waged a long, bitter and mostly unsuccessful war against the Hebrew pagans. It was only when the kingdom of Judah was crushed by the Babylonians and the people were enslaved that the pagan gods finally fell from favour. The Yahweh faction sold the idea that the catastrophe was caused by the Jews' failure to worship Yahweh alone, thus incurring his wrath. So, from then on, the Jews created the myth that they had always worshipped Yahweh alone. It's one of the most effective propaganda jobs of all time…and a complete lie.

The Jews were originally pagans like everyone else and they should rejoin the human race by reverting to their ancient religion based on Baal and Ashtoreth.

The Yahweh gang tried to demonise Baal. "Baalzebul", meaning "Baal (lord) of the lofty dwelling", mutated into Beelzebub - "lord of the flies" - the Devil!

Jezebel was murdered by Yahwehists; they threw her out of a window of her palace then rode over her body with a chariot, before leaving her corpse to be eaten by the palace dogs. All that remained were her head and hands.

So, poor old Jezebel. Rather than being an evil whore, painted with devilish cosmetics, she was a great pagan heroine, whose reputation was destroyed by the true Devil worshippers: the Yahweh faction.

Feminists have praised Jezebel as a strong, independent, wise and assertive woman, murdered by the male fanatics of a male-dominated religion who despised the fact that she resisted their domination and defied them to her last breath (like Hypatia). Jezebel is rightly a feminist icon and all women should admire her.

The Illuminati have special ceremonies to celebrate wrongly defamed Biblical women such as Jezebel, Delilah and Eve. In truth, they were pagan heroines, fighting the diabolical Yahweh and his evil cohorts.

With few exceptions, everyone praised by the Bible is evil, and everyone condemned by it is good. The Bible is the inversion of good and evil. What else would you expect from the Devil's Book?

The Scarlet Woman

Another ceremony the Illuminati have is that of the "Scarlet Woman", where every female member comes dressed in provocative red.

A scarlet woman is an "immoral" woman, a prostitute. The expression originates in the Book of Revelation 17:5, where Saint John describes a vision of a woman in purple and scarlet clothes sitting "upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns" and with an inscription on her forehead: "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the Earth." This was said to refer to the Roman Empire, up to its knees in corruption, immorality and the blood of saints. Protestants later applied the term to the Roman Catholic Church, and Catholics reciprocated.

As usual, the rule is to celebrate everything the Bible condemns. If the Whore of Babylon is to be used in a derogatory sense then it should be as an alternative name for Abrahamism itself.

Consider the facts. For all of its faults, the Roman Empire brought civilisation to the barbarians, it brought the high culture of Greece with it and it provided the basis for the modern world. What did Abrahamism do? It brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burning, heretic burnings, pogroms, persecutions, martyrdom operations, suicide bombers, burqas, religious fanaticism, blood-curdling threats of hellfire. So, Rome or Abrahamism - which was a force for considerable good in the world and which for absolute evil?

Abrahamism is the "abomination of the Earth."

The Bible must be relentlessly mocked and undermined. No book has done more damage to the world than that one, though the Koran is rapidly catching up.

Fornication

In ancient Rome, prostitutes gathered under the arches of the Coliseum, waiting for the crowds, full of primal lust and life after watching so much death, to emerge. The Latin word for archway is fornix, and from fornix, we get fornication.

Gladiators were the super celebrities of their day and in the peak of physical condition. Women, especially aristocratic ones, were prepared to go to any length to sleep with these super hunks.

After the World Cup final in football, the number of children conceived in the winning nation goes up…and down in the losing country. There is a direct link between testosterone production and victory.

Hyperreality

"If you're not a star in Hollywood, you don't exist." - Heidi Weiss

What is meant by the term "hyperreality"? We have two meanings in mind. The first is a massively enhanced reality, populated by HyperHumans, living life as it ought to be lived. This hyperreality invokes 100% of the power of the brain - there is nothing unused, nothing lazily ticking over or sleeping - everyone is fully energised and operating at their optimal level all the time. Everyone leads the best life of which they are capable. No one has any regrets. No one feels they have missed any opportunities. No one thinks they have underperformed or let themselves down in any way. All potential is actualised.

The second is radically different and relates to the hyperreality discussed by the late French philosopher Jean Baudrillard. Whereas the first definition relates to a greater reality than the one we presently inhabit, the second describes a situation in which reality has ceased to exist! Baudrillard describes hyperreality as "more real than real". Yet how can something unreal have more reality than reality itself? That is the paradox Baudrillard ingeniously explores.

If the world does not become the kind of hyperreality to which we aspire then it will certainly become the hyperreality Baudrillard describes, and, arguably, we're already living in such a world.

At the start of The Matrix, Baudrillard's book Simulacra and Simulation is clearly shown as one of Neo's possessions, and many people believe the film was an exploration of his ideas. He denied that this was so, and in fact thought there was no connection at all. Here's why. In The Matrix, there is a simulated reality (the Matrix itself) and "real" reality - the world of Zion. In other words, there is a clear distinction between reality and simulation. In Baudrillard's hyperreality, the whole point is that it is no longer possible to know what is simulated and what is real. There is NO escape route. There is no red pill you can take to allow you to exit the Matrix.

Baudrillard's hyperreality has much more in common with the work of Philip K Dick who consistently wrote of layered reality in which the core layer - "real" reality - is never reached. In a Baudrillardian version of The Matrix, Zion would be shown to be a simulation too, as would the Architect, the Controller of the Matrix. So if Zion and the Architect are both simulations, where is "reality"? You have lost even the possibility of getting to the core of things. Even if you take the red pill, you simply move to a different level of the simulation. You never leave the overall simulation. You have no idea who created the simulation and why. You have no idea if the simulation accurately reflects any reality. Perhaps the simulation has gone into a death spiral of self-reference and each level of simulation is a simulation of a simulation, and no longer has any contact at all with the "reality" which was originally simulated. This is the nightmare condition of hyperreality. Baudrillard says that it is full of simulacra without originals.

But what of the proposition that hyperreality can be more real than real? The extremely successful sitcom Friends was a simulation of an idealized group friendship. The six friends portrayed in the show were all young, good looking, living close together, in lovely apartments in a nice part of town. They all had good jobs and were comfortably off. Above all, everything they said was expertly scripted by a large team of skilled writers. Imagine how much more impressive you would be if you knew everything that was about to be said to you, and had the perfect retort already formulated. The friends were all extremely good at forgiving each other and pretending that any bitter arguments never happened. Bad feeling was forgotten almost instantly, and certainly in time for the next show.

No friendships of six people in the real world are anything like those depicted in Friends. But what effect does watching "perfect" friends have on the audience of Friends? Whether they like it or not, they will start to compare their own friendships with the idealized versions, and find their real friendships wanting. So, the simulation of friendship becomes the gold standard by which people start to gauge friendship. Yet this gold standard is pure fiction. People are trying to measure reality according to unreal standards.

The same thing is true of fashion models. They are impossibly beautiful and their images are everywhere. When we say "impossibly" beautiful that's exactly what we mean because the images of the models are invariably airbrushed and digitally enhanced. Moreover, the make-up is perfect, the lighting is perfect, the setting is perfect, the designer clothes are perfect. Reality could never rival this simulated perfection.

The same thing is true of the entire advertising industry. Over and over again, we are presented with images of the perfect world we will inhabit if we buy the product the advertiser is showing us. Advertising uses psychology and cinema-quality production values to simulate a utopia.

Virtually all of the images we see day in and day out are unnaturally perfect. All of the TV shows and movies we watch all involve extremely attractive people in enviable environments, delivering perfect lines or having perfect adventures.

Never in the whole of history have human beings been so immersed in images and simulations of perfection - more vivid, more beautiful, higher definition, having more impact, more real than real, better than real. But what effect is this having on us? Is not the gap between the perfection presented by the media on the one hand and the dreary, unfulfilling lives most people lead on the other becoming unbearably wide? Every perfect image is like a silent reproach to our own imperfection. Women in particular feel ugly when they are in constant competition with the likes of Megan Fox, Angelina Jolie, Beyonce, Rihanna and Sienna Miller whose images are plastered everywhere.

The simulated perfection that surrounds us is mediated by screens. On every screen we look at it, perfection stares out at us. Screens are everywhere. We are always staring at screens. Cinema screens, TV screens, iPhone screens, computer screens… Screens are omnipresent in our lives. And they are the delivery mechanisms of perfect images of perfect lives. Celebrities, the nobility and the super rich are those with the perfect lives we so envy. They rule the screens.

All of this simulated perfection isn't for our benefit, of course. It has two purposes: 1) to get us to buy things and 2) to make the perfect people seem like gods who deserve our full devotion, respect and the right to reign over us.

It's the biggest con job in history.

Moreover, all of our social and cultural values, all of our aspirations, now revolve around this perfect simulation that has been dangled in front of us. This is the true Matrix.

Reality has vanished. We are in a contest with an electronic perfection that we can never defeat. How can we restore reality? How can we live real lives again? Are we any longer capable of recognising reality?

And that is Baudrillard's point. Have we not entered a simulated perfection? All standards of reality have, in the shining world of screens, been enhanced beyond the level that reality can sustain. They are "more real than real". They are HYPERREAL.

This kind of hyperreality has created a dizzying dialectic of perfection that has left actual human beings far behind. It's an electronic perfection, a virtual perfection, a perfection of digital technology. Only digital souls, not real ones, can attain digital perfection.

No real person can get close to this perfection, not even those whose gilded lives are captured by the glittering pixels that shine so brightly like digital stars. But the gilded ones get the next best thing: to shine amongst the rest of humanity.

So now we live in an infinitely strange world that has decoupled itself from all that was once real. Our highest values are simulated. Our dreams are simulated. As Philip K Dick said, "Do androids dream of electric sheep?"

If we want to find our way out of the digital labyrinth and back to the daylight of reality, we need to reject the digital gods. We need OUR lives to be the great and fulfilling ones, not the fabricated, scripted ones we see on screen. We need to reclaim reality by reclaiming ourselves. We need to break the spell of the magic screens, of the divine images that entrance us.

There's no point sitting in front of screens all day long, absorbed and consumed by the images they show us, supporting the fake, phoney and simulated values they promote.

Screens, images, the media, celebrity culture, spin doctors, propaganda…these are all the tricks the Old World Order use to make us worship them.

Image, in all of its senses, dominates our world. Do you have a good image or a bad? Baudrillard argues that the "image" has undergone four successive phases:

1) It is the reflection of a basic reality.

2) It masks and perverts a basic reality.

3) It masks the absence of a basic reality.

4) It bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.

We are now living in the fourth and final phase - hyperreality, pure simulation, the world of simulacra without any originals, simulacra that have taken on a life of their own. They define this Age. They define us. This is the "real" Matrix, but the controllers are the same as those who previously ruled over us in the real world - the Old World Order.

Baudrillardian hyperreality is the latest and most effective brainwashing system of the Old World Order. It's even better than religion. This hyperreality is infinitely glittering, glimmering and beguiling. It constantly tantalises us with glimpses of perfection. We adore staring at screens. We can't get enough of it. And who is selling us these screens and filling them with all these images, and mind controlling us with the messages they display? The Old World Order, naturally.

The OWO are the screen masters. They are the ones who populate the screens. They decide what gets screened and what doesn't, who gets screened and who doesn't. They are the gatekeepers and they let through only those of whom they approve. They are always "on message" and the message is always theirs. Every time you look at a screen, you are having their mind control directed at you. The message is repeated over and over again. The message is constantly reinforced. Soon, it's all you can think of. Go shopping. Buy this, buy that. Admire this person, dislike this one. Worship celebrities, condemn troublemakers. Support the police, support the army, support the intelligence services. Support the super rich. Never oppose Wall Street. Resist socialism. Resist anyone who opposes Abrahamism. Do your job. Pay your taxes. Support the nuclear family. Keep your mouth shut.

You want to be free? You want to be real? Control the screens! Control the content. Abolish the celebrities. Abolish the phoney perfection. The screens and their images must be our servants not our masters.

Seduction Versus Production

"Seduction is, at all times and in all places, opposed to production."

Baudrillard

"Men use power to get sex. Women use sex to get power." - Tom Wolfe

In his book On Seduction, Baudrillard argued that there are two modes of love. The female mode is centred on seduction, which is imaginative and symbolic. It is about flirtation, oblique glances, whispered promises, and always seeks to defer the sex act. It employs makeup and fashion to tantalise, emphasize and beguile. Titillating gestures, double entendres and mysterious codes are essential to seduction. It trades in ambiguity and seeks to take control over the symbolic rather than "real" order of things. It revolves around delayed gratification. It is always putting off the moment of consummation, while never saying no to it.

The male mode of love concerns production (we might say that each "fuck" is a commodity and that men want to produce as many as possible), and is unimaginative and direct. While female seduction lures men into a dark, unknown space - the realm of the vagina, so to speak - male love is centred on the known and visible, on the phallus and on penetration. It is like a Cruise missile that wants to get to its target as directly as possible in order to detonate (ejaculate). It seeks to get the job done fast. Whereas female seduction concerns the symbolic order, male love is focused on mastering the real order - the physical completion of the sex act. It is about instant gratification.

Men are simple, direct creatures obsessed with production, completion and simplicity. Women are complex, indirect and painstaking artists rather than production-line manufacturers. Where men are focused on quantity, women prize quality. Where men are unsubtle, women elevate subtlety into a work of art. Men head straight for the target, following the path of least resistance, while woman circle round and take a long route in which the resolve of men is tested to the maximum. Women seek to resist men's short-term objectives.

The French writer Stendhal described the male pursuit of a woman in terms of a siege of a castle. If the castle (a woman's honour) fell too soon, she was dishonoured. If the siege went on too long, the man was humiliated. Timing was of the essence. A man must not storm the castle too brutally, and the woman must not reinforce its defences too effectively. A perfect romance involves perfect timing where the woman's honour is preserved and the man saved from humiliation. It is the woman who decides when the siege is over, hence plays the crucial role. She makes or breaks a romance.

Men always complain about the ridiculous small talk and "beating about the bush" that they have to go through before they get what they want - a fuck. Women always complain that men are like Neanderthals with only one thing on their minds.

Men, on average, have an enormously higher libido than women. Most women have no idea how off the scale male sexuality is. Gay men have the most sex. Why? Because there are no coy, resistant women in the equation. Gay men are highly promiscuous on average and complete the sex act extremely rapidly, and many often with total strangers. Straight men have exactly the same objectives, but their plans are always thwarted by women. Lesbians have the fewest sexual partners; there are no men on the scene to constantly press them for sexual favours so both partners can indulge in a long and complex seduction.

The average man is much more interested in porn than the average woman. Porn rapidly gets down to business. The "money shot" is never delayed too long. Women are much more interested in the erotic rather than the pornographic. They want a story and some kind of emotional contact and meaning.

Consider activities such as striptease and burlesque. They are about tantalising the male imagination. The art is in how slowly a woman can disrobe, how fevered she can make her audience in anticipation of the final unveiling. The performer is operating in the symbolic realm. Each item she removes is heavy with symbolic weight, and gets heavier as she reaches the items that conceal the things the men most want to see. As she reaches the final item, she is moving incredibly slowly, magnifying every gesture, every tiny adjustment of the last garment which conceals the holy grail. Men's eyes are bulging and their tongues hanging out. They are literally drooling. Yet what is about to be revealed is something they have seen countless times before and in some senses is an absence rather than a presence. Women are nevertheless able to transform it symbolically into the sanctum sanctorum, the holy of holies, where the goddess resides…Venus herself.

Think of the ultimate striptease…Salome's dance of the seven veils. So seductive was it, so potent and infinitely bewitching, that it cost a prophet his life. It was the perfect performance. It gripped Herod's imagination and never let go.

Advertising is a devious synthesis of seduction and production. The advertisements seduce the consumers into buying things that have been mass-produced. The aim is not to uplift humanity or play a fascinating emotional game, but merely to bring profits to some greedy capitalist pig.

We need a new synthesis of seduction and production, one that is not geared to mindless consumerism and capitalism, one that is not based on financial transactions, but is instead about leading us to higher spirituality.

Men want to go straight to gnosis, but in fact the nature of the dialectical route to gnosis is one that demands seduction in all of its forms. Seduction is the antithesis of the direct route. Seduction provides the contradictions, mysteries, resistances and obstacles that are needed to breathe life into the dialectic.

Seduction - the eternal feminine - is the sacred aspect of life that promotes mystery and imagination. It is based on Mythos and Sophia (story and wisdom), whereas the male approach is based on the battering ram and the sheer penetrative power of Logos. We need Mythos, Logos and Sophia all working in harmony. We don't have nearly enough seduction in our real lives; and we have far too much of it in the hyperreal world of the screen - the authentic Matrix.

Seduction can lead us out of the labyrinth. Seduction can lead us higher. We need priestesses and goddesses to bring seduction into the ordinary world. And through seduction, we oppose production. We transfer power from men to women, from capitalism to a just and bespoke economic system based on quality rather than quantity.

Remember, seduction is on the side of quality and production on the side of quantity. We have to escape the production lines, the sausage factories, the one-size-fits-all mentality. Those things all belong to the male obsession with production. Every aspect of life should seduce us, and there's nothing about mass production that is remotely seductive.

Jean Baudrillard writes in Seduction:

1) "Seduction represents mastery over the symbolic universe, while power represents only mastery of the real universe."

2) "This transubstantiation of sex into signs is the secret of all seduction."

3) "[Seduction] is a game, sex is a function."

4) "Since Machiavelli politicians have perhaps always known that the mastery of a simulated space is at the source of their power, that politics is not a real activity, but a simulation model, whose manifest acts are but actualised impressions."

5) "The strategy of seduction is one of deception."

6) "To wear meaning out, to tire it out in order to liberate the pure seduction of the null signifier or empty term - such is the strength of ritual magic and incantation."

7) "If you were to see written on a door panel: 'This opens onto the void.' - wouldn't you still want to open it?...That which looks onto nothing has every reason to never be forgotten. That which is arbitrary is simultaneously endowed with a total necessity."

8) "Seduction is never linear…it is oblique."

9) "Vulgar seduction might proceed by persistence, but true seduction proceeds by absence; or better it invents a kind of curved space, where the signs are deflected from their trajectory and returned to their source.

10) "The seducer knows how to let the signs hang. He knows that they are favourable only when left suspended, and will move of themselves towards their appointed destiny."

*****

Whereas production makes tangible things, seduction produces illusions, and these are much more powerful. The world of ideas is what mesmerizes us, not the world of objects.

Baudrillard speaks of the power of the "insignificant signifier" - "the mind is irresistibly attracted to a place devoid of meaning."

Why should that be? Because human beings are "meaning generators". When we look at random clouds passing overhead, we start converting them into meaningful shapes. Why? Because that's what minds do. They impose meaning. So, what is more exciting than the void? What greater challenge is there? Did not the cosmic mind summon the physical world out of "nothing". And why? In order to organize it, in order to give it meaning, in order to see itself reflected in the mirror of materialism.

Cinema is all about seduction. Suspense movies seduce us with the possibility of what surprise may come next. Horror movies seduce us with the possibility that we may not be able to bear what is coming. Mystery movies seduce us with the possibility of unravelling the greatest puzzles of our existence. Romance movies seduce us with the delight of the possibility of perfect love. Comedies seduce us with the possibility of riotous laughter. Fantasy movies seduce us with the possibility of imagining ourselves in another world. Science fiction seduces us with the possibility of glimpsing the future. Action movies seduce us with the possibility of spectacles that take our breath away. Thrillers seduce us with the possibility of an emotional roller coaster.

For good or ill, we are being seduced all the time.

A Parody of a Parody

In the UK, an amazing and disturbing new phenomenon has emerged in the music industry. There are almost no new bands breaking through, and instead a deluge of tribute bands has swamped the scene. Live concert venues have a tribute act on every other night.

What has music come to when it is merely a never-ending glorified karaoke show to pay homage to the "stars" of yesteryear? Has the music industry completely run out of ideas? Imagine the position a century from now…there will be no new music at all, just reheats of the "classics" on an endless loop.

There's a cynical statement in the book publishing industry that people want "the same but different" i.e. they don't want Dan Brown to write chick lit, science fiction or the "Great American Novel" - they just want endless variations on The Da Vinci Code. All of Brown's books are very much "the same but different". He has established his brand and now he's trapped by it.

Similarly, the music industry just wants the same hit songs played over and over again. If the songs' originators can't deliver then let impersonators do it. New music is by definition brandless, hence can't compete with the dominant established brands. New music is being steadily killed. Isn't the music we feature on this website worthy of a huge audience? Will it get it? Not if it constantly has to compete with a back catalogue of golden oldies, endlessly re-spun, reheated and regurgitated.

A band called The Doors Alive do a superb impression of the original band. But what's the point? Can't they do something new? Have they got nothing to say for themselves? Or are they too trapped by the need to make a living in an industry that is not prepared to take any risks?

Every now and again, the rogues' gallery of tribute acts are joined by the "real thing" when the original "cast" gets back together again for the lucrative tour and nostalgia fest.

Worst of all are the self-tribute acts like the Rolling Stones, the greed machine that seems to be on endless tour around the globe, raking in the cash and cutting off interest in and opportunities for new bands and artists.

They don't have the grace to step out of the limelight. They crave it like addicts. They don't care that they have become a parody of themselves. They don't care that they're standing in the way of others.

Everyone in the world wants to make money fast, and the quickest way is to rely on tried and tested brands. Look at the movie industry with its continual sequels and prequels.

If we want to have a creative world full of new things, new ideas, innovations, progress, we have to kill off this mania for giving us "the same but different". We need investors who are willing to take risks; not those whose first instinct is to study spreadsheets, business models and income projections.

The Greatest Stars

It's one thing to be attractive, another to be captivating. Only those who understand seduction can be captivating. Look at the stars of modern Hollywood. Most of them are attractive, but precious few are captivating. In fact, are any? The stars of previous eras seem much more stellar. Look at the fascination many people still have with Marilyn Monroe decades after her death. How many modern stars will be mourned decades from now?

Hollywood is now just a production line of sequels, rehashes of old classics, remakes, reheats, special effects extravaganzas, celebrity vehicles.

Celebrities are not "stars". Stars are far above celebrities, precisely because they do not court celebrity. Are there any stars today? Everyone is playing the fame game, cashing in on celebrity - and as soon as they do that they forfeit any possibility of being a star. Perhaps the age of stars is dead, killed by the 24/7 media machine that leaves no one alone.

Politics too now only attracts a certain type of person, prepared to live continuously in the media spotlight. But what has publicity got to do with high politics?

The media is making it impossible for high quality people to enter public life. Who wants to become a performing monkey for the media circus? Who wants to have every aspect of their life dissected by blow-hards and talking heads? Who wants to be the subject of continual gossip and innuendos? Only narcissists crave constant attention, and ours is most certainly the Age of the Narcissist. Reality TV has done more than anything to pander to the notion that any loudmouthed, moronic extravert can win fame and fortune by simply acting outrageously.

Where has our taste gone? Where have our standards gone? Where has quality gone? They have all been destroyed by the hyperbolic hyperreality of the technological sausage machine that just screams louder and louder, with brighter and brighter lights, and in super high definition so that we can see with 20/20 perfection the vacuum at the heart of our culture (or should that be 40/40 perfection in this age of much higher technological perfection). The better our technology, the worse the content. We have less and less to say that has any meaning, but we can deliver our empty rhetoric more and more perfectly. Soon, you will hear the void itself when politicians speak.

In the past, politicians knew how to seduce. Hitler seduced an entire nation.

In the past, film stars seduced. Rudolf Valentino seduced women all over the globe.

Prophets seduced. Messiahs seduced. Military leaders seduced.

But who seduces us now? We are seduced only at a superficial level that leaves us profoundly unmoved. Everything is cheap, disposable and trivial. Nothing leaves an impression.

Where has the grand seducer gone? Where are the shining ones who could seduce on the global stage?

The collective seductions, the grand seductions, the seductions that elevated humanity to new levels have had their day. Obama seemed to offer a flicker of possibility, but look at him now - the tyrant who keeps Bradley Manning imprisoned in disgraceful conditions that shame America. Why not give Manning a medal instead?

Now, it is not individuals but the medium itself that seduces. As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. We stare at the screens in awe of the degree of technical perfection, yet the "stars" now seem too small for the screen, overpowered by the technology. Who nowadays is big enough for the medium? Who has content sufficiently visionary to dominate the medium? Only the Illuminati!

It's time for the Grand Seduction.

There is only one message that can seduce the masses away from their slavish worship of consumerism - the possibility of a new world where everyone gets the chance to be their best self, to lead the most fulfilled life of which they are capable. All the objects on Earth don't add up to fulfilment. Fulfilment is the preserve of the soul. And that is the province of the Illuminati.

Hyporeality - The Less Real Than Real

Something that Baudrillard never wrote about, although it's strongly suggested in his work, is the opposite of hyperreality - which we have chosen to label hyporeality (hyper means "over, in excess, above" and hypo means "under, beneath, or below").

In relation to reality, hyperreality might be said to add extra dimensions. It's not 3D, it's 4D. It's not stereophonic, it's quadraphonic. The smells are beyond our abilities to smell, the sounds more perfect than our ability to hear, the tastes beyond the sensitivity of our taste buds. Nothing is left to the imagination. Hyperreality renders imagination obsolete since it seeks to capture the impossible things of the imagination through extra dimensions furnished by technology. (At Katy Perry's concerts, the aroma of strawberries is piped into the auditorium to accompany the music. All of your senses are engaged at once; you are overwhelmed by sensory input.)

In contrast, hyporeality might be said to subtract dimensions from reality. It disguises, conceals, deceives, plays tricks of the mind. It uses optical illusion, paradox, mystery and magic, sleight of hand. It leaves things to the imagination - a mental rather than physical dimension.

Production and seduction, hyperreality and hyporeality, are all about adding and subtracting dimensions. We are involved in a dizzying interplay of extra and missing dimensions, more dimension than we need and less than we require. We are immersed in the more real than real and the less real than real.

In hyperreality, seduction has been pressed into the service of production. Now we need a hyporeality of pure seduction - spiritual, sexual, non-materialistic, non-consumerist, natural - to cancel the effect of hyperreality and bring us back to reality.

From a proper reality, we can then seek to build a proper hyperreality for HyperHumanity: human beings operating at their maximum potential and leading completely fulfilled lives.

The Jewish Question

"The Jews took a different view of anger from that held by others and sanctified it." -- Nietzsche

Is this not the best answer ever given to the origin of Judaism? Where others found the idea of angry gods unpleasant, the Jews declared the concept of a wrathful god holy and sacred. They became addicted to a God who hated and punished them, who was always angry. They thought it showed he cared. They thought it meant they were special to him, his Chosen People.

The anger of God became the essence of God. It was always necessary to appease this God. Anything but perfect obedience brought forth his rage. He was a God who inspired fear. The Jews came to love the fear this God instilled in them. Why? Because they were the world's first masochists - a whole nation of them - and they did what all masochists do: they fell in love with a sadist. Not just any sadist; the ultimate sadist - Satan. They worshipped the cruellest God they could imagine: the most unjust, capricious, vengeful, jealous, insecure, violent, egotistical, narcissistic, selfish, pitiless, callous - the Devil himself.

He alone could satisfy the sheer extent of their self-hate, their contempt for themselves, their desire to be humiliated, punished, despised and tortured.

Why would any psychologically healthy person worship God as a Monster? Why would any psychologically healthy person think that God would order human sacrifice and the murder of children? You are mentally ill if you think such things are possible in relation to God. These are impossible commands for any God worthy of the name to issue. They are commands, on the other hand, that would be entirely expected of the Devil.

To understand the Jews you need only understand pathological masochism…and psychotic sadism. Who are masochists most attracted to? - the nastiest sadist they can find who can inflict on them the pain they crave. What else can be said of Jewish history than that it has been an uncanny searching out of ways to be punished and degraded? What was the Holocaust? It was the Jewish God wearing a swastika armband and doing what the Jewish God has done for millennia: punishing the Jews. This time he was delivering their greatest dream - the Apocalypse, Armageddon itself. If they didn't like it, they would long since have stopped enduring it. Who but irredeemable masochists would continue to worship their God in the aftermath of the Holocaust? This is a failed God. This is a God who has not fulfilled his side of the sacred Covenant. It would be impossible for any sane person to worship a God who, depending on how you look at it, either perpetrated the Holocaust himself, or stood idly by. Either way, you would ditch this God - unless you were a masochist. This same God watched the Jews being crushed and enslaved by the Egyptians, Babylonians and the Romans. He watched while they were persecuted by the major powers of Europe over many centuries. What possible use is this God if all he does is watch you suffer? Even the "Exodus" resulted in nothing but wandering around in the desert for 40 years, followed by a brutal war with the Canaanites.

The Jews go on believing because they love being despised by their God. They are his slaves, and that's just the way they like it.

And of course, exactly the same is true of their fellow Abrahamists: the Christians and, especially, the Muslims. The Muslims are quite literally "those who submit". Who but submissive masochists want to kneel and bow and grovel to a sadistic God? Would YOU? No free person feels anything but a shudder of revulsion when they contemplate the Abrahamic religions.

"The Jews are the moral genius among nations by virtue of their capacity for despising the human in themselves more than any other people." -- Nietzsche

Why did the Marquis de Sade detest "God" so much? Because he recognised the competition. "God" was the supreme, cosmic sadist. "God" had the role Sade coveted for himself. "God" treated people in reality the way Sade only could in fantasy.

How Sade would have loved the Jews: a whole nation waiting to be abused by him in whatever way he deemed fit, begging him to be crueller and crueller, and always coming back for more.

We say this to all Abrahamists - if you have any self-respect, abandon this self-degradation you have chosen for yourselves. Seek the light of the True God. He is no sadist, and he seeks no masochists. Become psychologically healthy. God is your guide, friend and ally. He is not the master and you are not his slaves.

Wake up. Break free from masochism. Get off your hands and knees. Stand up straight you pathetic excuses for human beings.

Do you see? All of our sexual, religious and political views have a common source: our intrinsic Will to Power. Anyone with a weak Will to Power is attracted to those with a strong Will to Power, in order to compensate for their own deficiency. Theirs is a logical move. If you are not personally strong then ally yourself with someone who is. Masochists and submissives are those who wish to be in the company of the sexually powerful - sadists and dominants. In religion, masochists and submissives are attracted to a terrifyingly powerful God of anger, punishment and sadism - the Abrahamic God in other words, or Satan as he should rightly be called. In politics, masochists and submissives are attracted to monarchies, oligarchies, dictatorships, plutocracies (of which democracy is a disguised kind), and rule by elites.

The world is the way it is because most people desire that it should be so, or are willing to tolerate it. If they didn't, our world would be radically different. No one has to tolerate the God of Abrahamism. Anyone can stop believing in him at any time. They can do so at this very instant. No one has to tolerate monarchs - they can be kicked off their thrones tomorrow. No one has to tolerate the super rich: laws can quickly be introduced to remove all of their excess money and power from them. No one has to tolerate being a second-class citizen in a two-tier society of privilege.

Unfortunately, masochists and submissives DO tolerate the intolerable. If you want to explore and understand the incredible significance of masochism and submissiveness in our culture, consider this reply that a submissive gave to a Craigslist "casual sex" advertisement placed by a dominant:

Hi I just read your add on Craigslist. I'm looking to be dominated. Are you looking to meet anyone or just online? I like to feel used and humiliated and I like anything that achieves that...e.g. being ordered to deep throat, ass to mouth, being called names etc.

There you have it in a nutshell. Some people are TURNED ON by being humiliated, mistreated and punished. And suddenly the mad religion of Abrahamism - a religion to which no rational person could ever subscribe - makes perfect sense. The Abrahamists - the Jews, Christians and Muslims - are TURNED ON by their sick religion. It gives them the masochistic humiliation and degradation they crave. They LOVE being on their hands and knees, grovelling and murmuring - just as all masochists love being on their hands and knees to their sadistic master.

If you choose as your religion one in which you spend all of your time bowing and scraping, it's not because you have any interest in truth, it's because you enjoy bowing and scraping. If you didn't you wouldn't do it.

Nietzsche wrote, "I have never met a German who was favourably inclined to the Jews; and the repudiation of actual anti-Semitism on the part of prudent and practical men is not directed against the sentiment but against its dangerous excess."

Very few people, if they are being honest, like observant Jews. They are tolerated, but they are not made welcome. We have no problem with people from Jewish backgrounds who do not practise Judaism, but we definitely do have a problem with those who do. We are not amongst those who say that you should respect religions. We have no respect at all for Judaism. We find it malignant and disgusting. We find its conception of God evil. So why would we have any desire to respect it? It has done untold damage to the world and spawned the equally repellent religions of Christianity and Islam. No, we don't respect these religions or their followers, and since when did they ever respect anyone who didn't share their faith? They have slaughtered people for millennia in the name of their God and yet they expect to be respected by those whom they have threatened, persecuted and killed. Muslims beheaded innocent people in response to a Christian pastor burning the Koran in America. The Abrahamists don't even respect each other, so why should anyone else respect them? To pretend to respect things you despise is hypocrisy. Shouldn't everyone be encouraged to be honest?

Nietzsche's attitude towards the Jews was highly liberal for the time. Although he was prepared to criticise the Jews, he also spoke highly of them and reserved particular scorn for anti-Semites. He wrote, "The anti-Semites do not forgive the Jews for having both intellect and money. Anti-Semite - another name for 'bungled and botched.'"

In fact, the reason many people dislike practising Jews is the same as their reason for disliking practising Muslims - they find the appearance of these people offensive i.e. the deliberately provocative clothes these people wear that are intended to show that they have no intention of integrating with others. Ordinary Christians, to their credit, do not usually wear anything provocative - but if they all ventured out dressed as priests, monks and nuns then they too would become a disgusting spectacle in the public space. One of the main differences between Christianity on the one hand and Jews and Muslims on the other is that only Christians who belong to holy orders wear religious "uniforms" whereas huge numbers of ordinary Jews and Muslims wear distinctive religious garb. What does that tell us? That all those who wear religious uniforms think they are closer to God, and holier and more moral than others. They think their appearance reflects higher virtue. A woman in a burqa thinks she is better than the Western "whores" who wear jeans and T-shirts. What the religious fanatics wear is intended as a moral reproach to others, hence is a provocation. They are making a calculated statement. They have brought their religious beliefs into the public space where they are not welcome. Congratulations to France for banning the burqa. Every nation should ban all religious uniforms from the public space. They are offensive and lead to conflict.

Many members of the Illuminati were raised as Christians, and all of them had a shared experienced of finding it unacceptably demeaning to participate in the Christian ceremonies of kneeling, praying, worshipping, grovelling, and singing, "Hallelujah" to someone of whom Nietzsche wrote, "If Christ really intended to redeem the world, may he not be said to have failed?" Indeed! Christ has surely failed. Only a perverse person goes on believing in a failed God. Christianity has been the central directing force of Western society. It has had two thousand years of unchallenged hegemony to deliver a terrestrial paradise. It has failed spectacularly. What makes its followers think that it will do any better in the next two thousand years? Why go on torturing yourself with this dismal religion that has delivered misery on a global scale? All of our modern comforts have been delivered by science and technology, not by Christianity. Scientists and technologists are mostly atheists and agnostics, not Christians.

The Illuminists who abandoned Christianity first turned to atheism - where no grovelling to gods was required - but eventually found their way to Illuminism which restored God to their lives, but without requiring any demeaning conduct.

Nietzsche wrote, "Christianity arose for the purpose of lightening the heart; but now it must first make the heart heavy in order to lighten it. Consequently it will perish." Again, Nietzsche is spot on. Christianity creates the disease (the heavy heart) to which it offers itself as the remedy. Once people see that they can be free of a heavy heart not by embracing Christianity but by rejecting it, Christianity will perish.

Have we been understood? What you choose to believe is conditioned by your natural inclination to submissiveness or dominance. As Nietzsche said, "Opinions evolve out of passions. Indolence of intellect allows these to congeal into convictions." Submissives choose religions that offer a delicious experience of submission, in which kneeling, bowing and grovelling are essential. Islam ("Submission") is just one gigantic celebration of absolute submissiveness. It is quite literally stomach churning for a dominant person to gaze upon the annual Islamic Hajj to Mecca and see these legions of white-robed submissives surrendering to their tyrant God and forsaking the last sliver of self-respect.

Nietzsche described morality as "the herd-instinct in the individual." Is that not the perfect description of Islam? Each individual Muslim expresses the herd ideology. If cows believed in God, it would be Allah they worshipped.

Dominants often become atheists. Those less dominant, but not submissive, become agnostics or Buddhists. There is only one religion for dominants - Illuminism. The central axis of Illuminism - the project to become God - is the supreme expression of dominance. To be perfect, to be God: there can be no status more dominant than that.

Submissives are terrified of Illuminism, and even loathe it - because it seems to offer them no prospect of indulging their submissiveness. But it does. Illuminism, as part of its "Sin for Salvation" teaching, offers submissives the opportunity to explore their inclinations sexually rather than religiously, and thus it offers them the means of scratching the itch so that it no longer haunts and dictates their life.

Nietzsche wrote, "In every religion, the religious man is an exception." The reason for that is that religion is not about religion, but about submission and domination.

Nietzsche wrote, "Jesus died too early. Had he lived, he would have learned to love the earth, and laughter too, and would have disavowed his doctrine." In other words, Jesus was a miserable sod who needed to have more fun - like the rest of his po-faced followers.

"I have not gained the impression that sexual abstinence helps to bring about energetic and self-reliant men of action or original thinkers or bold emancipators and reformers. Far more often it goes to produce well-behaved weaklings who later become lost in the great mass of people." -- Freud

Exactly so. Sexual exploration, adventure and "deviance" often indicate people of high intelligence and creativity. The opposite sexual attitudes usually indicate mediocre, boring bastards.

Communism and socialism are ideologies of submission since they want to impose an artificial equality. American capitalism is a master-slave ideology - with the rich elite being the masters and everyone else their slaves. Meritocracy is a dominance ideology: those who are most talented will dominate society. We make no apology for that. Someone suggested to us that meritocracy is "unfair" because it discriminates against the less talented and the untalented. That's exactly right - it does. However, what's the alternative? - to discriminate against the talented in favour of the untalented? That, in effect, is what the Soviet Union did and it was catastrophic. American capitalism also discriminates against the talented: it is geared towards helping those from privileged backgrounds, many of whom are much less talented than those from unprivileged backgrounds (who mostly never get a chance to prove themselves).

Any system will unquestionably discriminate against one group of people or another. The question is what system leads to the best outcomes for society as a whole. Can anyone say that it is better for society not to be governed by its most talented citizens? The corollary is that society should take active steps to prevent its most talented citizens from succeeding. Is that not the height of perversity? Meritocracy is not about absolute fairness. Nature bestows more gifts on some than others, and there's nothing anyone can do about that other than trying to interfere with Nature itself. The aim of meritocracy is not to fight Nature but to assist it. The best and most natural outcome is for the most naturally gifted to be at the front, leading the rest of humanity onwards and upwards. Privilege is a system that seeks to put rich and well-connected people at the front, regardless of talent. Communism and socialism seek to deny that anyone is more gifted than anyone else, in complete defiance of the obvious facts.

We are pro-competition, pro-talent, pro differential outcomes. We are radicals who want to perfect humanity - not woolly, soft liberals banging on about metaphysical equality all the time. If you think it's unfair to champion talent then go and join the legions of untalented and then we'll see who wins the competition: the talented or the untalented. It's your choice.

Abrahamism = submissiveness = absolute degradation = being the slave of God.

Illuminism = dominance = absolute self-respect = being God.

So, are you dominant or submissive?

The Matrix II

Why did the makers of The Matrix think they were honouring Baudrillard's ideas? They believed that the process of simulation, used to construct simulacra, was the essence of Baudrillard's ideas. Since the movie depicts an elaborate simulation of the human world, and the creation of a simulacrum of the Earth of the late 1990s, it seemed to match the theme.

The simulacrum - the Matrix - had its own reality which was radically different from what was really going on, which, according to the film, was the horrific aftermath of nuclear war.

While Plato defines a simulacrum as an inferior copy of an original, Baudrillard defines it much more abstractly, paradoxically and postmodernly. He calls it a copy without an original. The Matrix is a simulacrum in the Platonic tradition, but not in the sense Baudrillard intended. In The Matrix, we are told that the Architect attempted to program a paradise for humanity, but this was rejected by the human mind. So, humans were given a copy of a reality of a previous age in human history: the late twentieth century. This reality was accepted. However, we see that this simulacrum does have an original, hence is not a Baudrillardian simulacrum but a Platonic one.

What Baudrillard was seeking to show, in contrast to the film, was that reality has died and been replaced by hyperreality - a simulacrum without an original arising from a process of simulation originating, for Baudrillard, in the workings of the media, not in any kind of cataclysmic war.

The media simulate reality with the specific intention of manipulating it for the benefit of those who control the media. Their simulation is about "the brand", the "image", the constructed reality. Think of the image of a politician, a celebrity or CEO. It's designed to convey a certain message. If you hear someone being described as "on message", it means they are reinforcing the desired image. If someone is not on message then they will be eased out of the picture because they are corrupting the brand, and that's unacceptable.

People in the media lose their jobs if they don't abide by the message - the brand - of their employers. Politicians are marginalized if they contradict the leaders of their party. Employees are fired if their "cultural values" are different from those of their employers. So everyone conforms to the message, the brand, the engineered "reality". But it's nothing but a simulacrum - a fake world, and a bad fake at that.

However, after a while, the simulated reality is no longer a simulation, it is taken as reality itself. We only become aware that we have been deceived - that the "reality" is false - when a major contradiction becomes apparent. The image of the actor Rock Hudson, a huge star back in the day, was that of a handsome, charming, ladies' man. In fact, he was a promiscuous gay man who died of AIDS. Everyone in the know went along with the simulated reality of Hudson's image until it became impossible to maintain the deceit because of his illness.

But what if the day of reckoning never comes? Then the constructed image remains as the perceived reality even though it is nothing of the kind. How many deals have been done to save someone's image, or a company's brand? It's happening all the time. It's a huge industry. There are people whose job is to repair brand damage, reconstruct an image, or build a completely new one if the old one is too badly tarnished. Accountancy leviathan Price Waterhouse Coopers has a "Head of Reputation". There are all sorts of "crisis managers" out there whose job is to make the fall-out from any problematic event as harmless as possible. They dispose of the toxic waste. They smother and neutralise the radioactivity. The whole point of the exercise is to hide the truth, to conceal an inconvenient reality and create a happy fiction that is taken for reality. If these people are as good as the huge amounts of money they are paid then it means that society is full of fakes and phoneys who are "getting away with it" all the time, and who will go to their graves without the truth ever being told.

There comes a time when brand and image are so entrenched that they're the only reality we know. How do we get back to "real" reality? Baudrillard says there's no way back. Real reality is lost in the mists forever. The reality principle itself finally perishes.

We all participate in the manipulation of constructs - images, brands, symbols, signs - all of which have become detached from any authentic reality. They coalesce to become a new type of reality: hyperreality, which is more real than real. It is a manipulated, enhanced, exaggerated, perfected system of propaganda, and the primary beneficiaries are, as usual, the privileged elite.

Yet we're all guilty. Consider your own Facebook page. Is it the "real you" - or is it your careful construction designed to portray you in what you think is the most flattering light? Do you post your best photographs or worst? Do you post your finest witticisms or maddest ramblings? Do you emphasise your best points or confess all your defects, failings and deficiencies? Do you admit you're addicted to drugs and porn, that you're an alcoholic, that you're a loser in a shit job, that you're cheating on your girlfriend, that you lied about someone to get them fired? No, you play the game - that of constructing a "perfect" representation of yourself, a hyperreal version of the rather more mundane reality.

Corporations, celebrities and politicians have much more money - hence can do a much better job of creating a fake, hyperreal portrayal of themselves.

Once a simulacrum has become completely divorced from the original, the reality principle has been destroyed and it's impossible to restore it. That, Baudrillard says, is what has happened to our culture. It's ineradicably fake and phoney, based on a staggering degree of manipulation. Everyone is trying to project the perfect image of themselves. All corporations, politicians, celebrities, bosses, religions, institutions - they're all dedicated to establishing a brand ungrounded in any plausible reality.

If you Google the word "Nike", you won't get a reference to the winged Greek goddess of victory, but to the multinational sportswear manufacturer, named after the goddess. They have supplanted the original meaning of the word. The great Olympians of ancient Greece who won Nike's favour are now joined by any lazy slob who can stagger along to a shopping mall and buy some Nike merchandise manufactured in a Southeast Asian sweatshop. There is no authenticity left in the concept. It's just a shell now, exploited relentlessly by a cynical capitalist corporation to sell its goods and make its big bosses very rich. Everywhere you look, you see the Nike logo - but how many times do you see the winged goddess in your local high street? Successful sportspeople are used in slick advertisements to suggest that you can be like them if you buy the products they're endorsing. The ads present a fake perfection, often with stunning special effects that have no basis in reality. The whole thing is hyperreal.

How can we in our simulated world of fake perfection any longer have any relationship with reality? How would we even recognise reality? With what would we compare it? Where is our real reference point? Imagine the situation 1,000 years from now. Things can only get worse. Much worse. Is it even possible to imagine how fake the world will be a million years from now if it continues on its present trajectory?

The Matrix failed to convey the true horror of Baudrillard's ideas - that reality has been irredeemably lost. In fact, it's hard to see how any movie could capture his point. In order to show that reality has gone, you have to show that there was a reality in the first place (as was done in the film), but when your starting point is a simulacrum without an original, to what original reality will you refer? There isn't one. That's the whole point. The hyperreality principle replaces the reality principle, and hyperreality is a system based on the deliberate and systematic concealment and suppression of anything that endangers the desired image i.e. its inherent objective is to ensure that any kind of authenticity can never surface. Baudrillard eventually arrived at an even more extreme formulation: "The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth - it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true." In other words, reality is so distorted that it no longer makes any sense to talk of anyone lying because that would presuppose some sort of reality principle and awareness of truth. When hyperreality is sufficiently embedded, it becomes its own truth, a truth with no relationship to anything we once called true. Liars have no idea they are lying. They don't know what that concept means.

We could argue that we have always lived in hyperreality. To understand what the original reality was, we would have to know the past with perfect clarity. To what extent do most people know history? Even if you do know anything about it, you are confronted by the fact that it has always been written by the victors, hence is their fiction designed to promote their brand. None of it was ever true.

We are presented with a model, a simulation, of how things are, and eventually we confuse the model for reality. But at least that saves us from the realisation that we have no idea what reality is. If Abrahamism is false (which it is, of course), it means that over half of the world's population subscribe to a total fantasy, a grand deception, a radical falsification of life. Virtually none of these people will ever escape from their constructed Abrahamic hyperreality of total delusion.

To illustrate his argument, Baudrillard discussed a fable by Borges where an empire's skilled cartographers draw a map so accurate that it covered every inch of the real territory of the empire. As the empire declined, the map frayed and disintegrated and eventually all that was left of it were some tattered fragments in the desert.

But Baudrillard thought that the map - the model, the simulation - had switched with the territory in terms of importance and the map now "precedes the territory". In the desert, it's no longer fragments of the map you will find, but fragments of the real territory. We have generated the "desert of the real".

The media, PR organisations, corporations, political parties, religions are all concerned with trying to present ideal representations of their activities. Fashion, art, music, our homes, our relationships, our jobs - our lives themselves - are all given the best possible gloss. Pick up a women's magazine and you will see that it contains nothing but representations of perfect lives, perfect beauty, perfect marriages, perfect houses, perfect relationships, perfect fashions. It's as if ugliness and imperfection don't exist. These magazines are nothing but hyperreal fantasies, but they are what most women read, and they don't read anything that contradicts this propaganda, hence the propaganda becomes the reality.

The content of this website will never be discussed in any mainstream media forum because our message is the opposite of what the controllers want you to hear. No one anywhere in the fake world wants you to hear our message because we threaten to restore the reality principle, based on the history of the Illuminati which is a record of real reality rather than the simulated reality of Abrahamism and capitalism.

There's a phenomenon in the newspaper industry called "churnalism" where press releases by public relations firms on behalf of their clients are uncritically reproduced (churned out) in newspapers. No one has any time to check them so they are simply accepted verbatim. Thus the PR firms can smuggle in any old crap. The line between fact, information and propaganda has become hopelessly blurred.

The simulated world we live in does nothing but generate memes which reproduce to a dizzying degree and spread everywhere, infecting everyone, whether they like it or not. Simulations generate more simulations in an enormous chain reaction. Soon, there's no room left for anything that isn't a simulation, and how would you distinguish simulations from reality anyway if you no longer know what reality looks like? Did you ever know? How could you tell? Could anyone inside the Matrix work it out without help from Zion?

Most people now unashamedly live in a pure fantasy world. They play video games where they're the great hero who saves the world. They watch fantasy movies and implausible TV shows and dream of starring in "Reality TV", which of course is always hyperreality. They go to Disneyworld and Universal Studios. They worship celebrities. They get as far from the truth of their lives as they can. And the truth, which hyperreality only amplifies, is that they are second-class citizens in a society of the privileged and the non-privileged. They are life's losers.

People are obsessed with spectacle. We live in the society of the spectacle. People are addicted to the spectacular. They want bigger and better spectacles. They need more and more to keep them stimulated. They crave entertainment. They crave more powerful simulations, more breathtaking special effects, more everything.

No one wants POR - plain old reality. Simulation - hyperreality - the simulacrum - these are what the people desire.

We all live in Disneyland now - an utter fantasy world. Our true God is Mickey Mouse. At least he's a lot nicer than Yahweh.

The Spectacular Society

Spectacle is a commodity, and, just like any other commodity, it is controlled by the richest capitalists. A huge amount of money is required to put on the biggest spectacles, so those without money can't compete.

The biggest bands in the world are dinosaur acts such as U2, the Rolling Stones, Bon Jovi, Madonna and Bruce Springsteen. They can all afford to put on immense spectacles. Someone like Lady Gaga - whose entire act is about spectacle - can join the gang, but if you're part of a hard-working and talented new band, the chances of breaking through are increasingly bleak. You have failed the "spectacular test" - you just can't put on enough of a spectacle to attract any attention.

The Spectacular Society is the latest brilliant trick of the elite to keep themselves in power. They have instilled in everyone a mental state that has been labelled FOMO - Fear of Missing Out. Anything that is BIG and SPECTACULAR becomes a MUST SEE. You dread all of your friends going without you to a trendy festival with headlining bands. You will be missing out. You will be uncool. You will be a loser. You will be absent from a crucial point of reference that your friends will mention for years to come. So, you have to go. FOMO demands it.

And that's what the elite rely on - dragooning you into behaving as they desire i.e. shelling out enormous ticket prices to see the spectacles they have put on to keep you enslaved.

Spectacle has become the new form of gatekeeping to prevent ordinary people challenging the power of the elite. Theoretically, a medium such as the internet places everyone on an equal footing with equal access to a global audience, but that's pure moonshine. Most people will be, and are, drawn to the most spectacular sites on the internet. They spend all of their time finding out about the spectacular acts: Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Beyonce and so on. They would never dream of coming to a site like this one full of hundreds of thousands of difficult words about the most fundamental questions of existence. The ultimate truths of life aren't spectacular to the ordinary person. Lady Gaga is of much more interest to a teenage girl than Einstein's special theory of relativity. The former is trivial nonsense; the latter is about the deep nature of the universe, yet the former remains enormously more popular. If ordinary people cared a damn about the Truth they would all be philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, theologians and psychologists. But they don't care and they're not. They crave spectacle and nothing else. They are addicted to it. As long as you're a witness to the Spectacle then you're not missing out. All your friends will know you're worth knowing. You're cool. Knowing ultimate truth doesn't make you cool - it makes you a geek, nerd or dork. And who wants to be one of those sad losers? Those who know the ultimate truth don't get invited to Lady Gaga's aftershow party, hence are worthless. Is that not the reality… or rather the hyperreality?

The world we live in is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, dumbed down so low it can't sink any lower. The elite have us exactly where they want us, entirely dependent on the spectacles they put on for us. There's nothing new about this game, of course. The ancient Roman elite knew the power of the spectacle - hence the Coliseum. "Bread and circuses": it's the same old mantra. If you feed the masses and give them a show, they'll do whatever you tell them. Truth? - you must be having a laugh. How many people in the world give a fuck about the truth? - almost none.

Your behaviour defines you. If you're interested in the truth, you will devote a lot of time to subjects that deal with it. If you're not, you won't. So, look around you. How many people do you know whose behaviour suggests that they are driven by a desire to discover the truth of life? And how many run hither and thither like the Ignavi to see the latest spectacle the elite have dangled in front of them? We didn't lose reality so much as run away from it. We live in hyperreality precisely because that's where the average person wants to be. They didn't care much for the truth…so they abolished it. Hyperreality, the spectacular society, is so much more enticing. Who wants fact when you can have fiction? Who wants Logos when you can have Mythos? Who wants reason when you can have emotion?

People are terrified of missing out; terrified of being social failures. Their primary objective is to fit in with their peer group - to be accepted and respected. They are in the thrall to the forces that target their deepest fears. These weapons are deployed relentlessly by the elite.

It takes a dominant personality to not give a damn about missing out or being regarded as a failure. Dominants are strong, free and independent. They don't define themselves according to the opinions of others. They define and create themselves. They live by their own standards. If their friends don't like it then they ditch their friends. They absolutely never make their lives dependent on the approval of others. However, only 5% of the world are clear-cut dominants, and the rest are nearly all clear-cut submissives.

Submissives are either other-directed or tradition-directed. They are never inner-directed or autonomous. They let others set the parameters for their lives.

The elite direct nearly all of their attention to working out how to relieve submissives of their money, and to prey on their anxieties and keep them docile. The spectacle is the biggest weapon in their armoury.

So, if you're in a band struggling to get a lucky break, what are you doing to make your act into a spectacle that other people will talk about, that will make them think they're missing out if they don't come to see you and buy your stuff? Find a theme - a spectacular theme. Have a gimmick that fires the imagination. Dress up. Do something potently sexual or magical. Put on an epic performance.

If you're smart enough, you can overcome lack of money by appealing to hyporeality - the realm of seduction and imagination - rather than hyperreality. The German expressionist silent movie The Cabinet of Dr Caligari was remarkably potent because of the beguiling sets the filmmakers used to create a creepy, supernatural atmosphere. Yet it turned out that a small budget meant they were forced to cobble together old, ill-fitting panels of wood to make the fake houses for the set. The panels stuck out at strange angles and cast weird shadows. When filmed in low light, they became extraordinarily sinister. A much more expensive, proper set would never have achieved the same effect.

The film Jaws was famously saved from disaster because the expensive model shark wasn't up to the job, so Steven Spielberg was forced to tap his imagination and show the shark as little as possible. The clever psychological tricks he used to depict the presence of the shark without actually showing it were what turned the film into a blockbuster. He appealed to the imagination, not to a perfect model of a shark. He used hyporeality, not hyperreality.

Film noir was all about ingenious sets, lit in amazing ways to create effects of light and dark that reflected the mental states of the protagonists.

You can create a spectacle without money by invoking the power of the human imagination, which will fill in the gaps for you. If you want to make it big, become the master of imaginative spectacles. You don't need the elite's money. You can outsmart them.

Remember, in this world you have to be on the side of the spectacle. The submissive masses are interested in nothing else. They enjoy a vicarious feeling of power when they attend spectacles of power. Give them what they want if you want to succeed in their terms.

The Sayings of Morpheus:

The ultimate question in the world of hyperreality:

"What is real? How do you define real?"

Hyperreality - the ultimate prison of the Demiurge:

"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind."

The choice:

"You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

In hyperreality, no pill allows you to escape. You just keep going deeper into the rabbit hole until you realise it has no bottom.

In truth, gnosis itself is the only escape from hyperreality.

Let's call the red pill the gnosis pill. As for the blue pill, that is the pill that all the Abrahamists and ultra-capitalists swallow. They are the ones who are staying in Wonderland - the fantasy world of hyperreality. They have no interest in any rabbit holes or escape tunnels. The truth is an entirely alien concept to them. They wouldn't recognise it if they tripped over it. The blue pill gang have destroyed the reality principle. They don't want reality. They want a perpetual escapist fantasy.

They don't want to wake up. They want to stay in Dreamland forever. They would rather visit Disneyworld than pick up a philosophy book.

The path of activism:

"Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

Only one person can save you - yourself:

"I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."

The most disturbing question of all - how do you know the red pill shows you the difference between the dream world and the real world? Perhaps it just takes you to a deeper level of the dream:

"Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure it was real? What if you were unable to awake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world, and the real world?"

"Welcome to the desert... of the real."

"Welcome...to the real world."

Or should that be, "Welcome…to hyperreality."

The Wisdom of Crowds, or the Stupidity?

"Insanity in individuals is something rare. In groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule."

Nietzsche

Nietzsche is wrong here. How could individuals stay sane if the group, nation or epoch to which they belong is insane? History has proved over and over again that mad societies create mad people. Abrahamists are mad because they have been raised with mad ideas. The system wants them to be mad.

There's an old military piece of wisdom that inside every army there's a mob struggling to get out. In other words, if you allow discipline to break down, the army loses cohesion and becomes a rabble. Organisation gives way to chaos. Mob mentality breaks out and everyone follows the crowd rather than the orders of the officers. As soon as that happens, the army is sure to suffer a rout.

In all of the decisive battles of history, there came a time when the losing army suddenly stopped being an army and became a mob. They were then slaughtered by the enemy.

One of the most pressing questions for generals is to understand what causes that remarkable transition from army to mob.

At the Battle of Waterloo between the French under Napoleon and the Allied coalition under Wellington, the French army had been on the verge of victory but suffered a sudden reverse. Almost instantly, morale disintegrated and the French soldiers fled in blind panic, suffering enormous casualties. Had they maintained their discipline they could have left the field in good order and survived to fight another day.

The key to victory is inflicting a blow on the enemy that acts as a tipping point to convert an army into a mob.

That tipping point will come one day with Abrahamism and capitalism, and the whole stinking edifice will collapse. The army of "God" and Mammon will become a rabble.

The Mob Mentality

"People will always obey, provided that they can become intoxicated in doing so."

Nietzsche

A mob has a mind of its own. It's almost like a collective mind - a joining together of the minds of all the members of the mob. It has its own id and superego, and they are very different from those of an individual. In a mob, people do things they would never dream of doing on their own. Personal responsibility is abdicated because it can now be spread across the whole group.

The mob mind provides a kind of psychic connection between all of its members. If sufficiently powerful, a thought that one person has can drive the whole group. Think of a lynch mob. On their own, the members of the mob would never murder someone without any regard at all for the law and due process. But if one strong person in the group is determined to do it, everyone else eagerly follows along.

Beehives and ant colonies might be said to exhibit a collective mind. Perhaps humanity too has the capacity to think collectively rather than individually, but the ability is invoked only in times of extreme emotional intensity. "Psychics" would therefore be those who are able to use this latent psychic channel that exists between all people.

Just as some individuals in situations of extreme stress can summon a "Third Man" - a kind of guardian angel - so perhaps some groups of humans can become psychically joined when a threshold of emotional intensity is crossed. The individual mind vanishes and the group mind takes over. This would allow a much faster response in times of crisis. Rather than everyone laboriously discussing what has to be done, the collective mind issues commands and everyone instantly obeys them.

In the situation of an army collapsing, the mob mind has concluded that the game is up and the best thing for the mob to do is flee for their lives. The idea grips the whole army in a flash, and the collapse of discipline and cohesion is instant.

In some situations, the mob mind makes catastrophically bad decisions, leading to chaos and madness. In others, it can show tremendous organisation, purpose, dedication and focus.

Look at this YouTube video of Celtic fans singing their anthem You'll Never Walk Alone (a song of absolute group solidarity).

Now look at the mob mind - Rangers fans riot after losing 1-0 to Celtic in a cup final. There's only a thin dividing line between "civilisation" and chaos.

The individual mind is Apollonian while the collective mind belongs to Dionysus. The latter mind is much more emotional, wild and irrational. It is fuelled by rumours, stories, superstitions, innuendos, primal hate and fear.

The bicameral mind is perfectly suited to submitting to the collective Dionysian Mind. Perhaps groups of early humans had almost no individuality (consciousness) and operated collectively at all times. The bicameral gods spoke not to individual minds but to the Group Mind. Everyone in the group heard the same orders. They all acted together, and were thus much more powerful than those who acted on their own.

True individuals were killed for being "strange". They came to be regarded as demons and devils, witches and warlocks.

It must be emphasized that bicameralism, the root of the mob mind, is all about bypassing the conscious mind. Most of advertising is aimed straight at your bicameral mind, ordering you to buy whatever the advertisers are selling. Politicians also seek to get past your conscious mind. Much of the world is striving to reach the most receptive and manipulable part of you - your bicameral mind that responds emotionally and submissively. Consciousness is not valued at all by the Old World Order. In fact, it's an obstacle to their objectives. They would prefer you not to be conscious at all, but to be utterly bicameral, following their orders at all time.

Bicameralism in a group is equivalent to a condition of mass hypnosis. The hypnotist (the agent of the Old World Order) tells people what to do, and they carry out the orders unquestioningly. The OWO have no interest in reasoning with people. Their whole system is based on the manipulation of the unconscious mind, the irrational mind, the emotional mind, the submissive bicameral mind. They never want to be confronted by Apollonian minds i.e. really smart, rational people calling them to account. Because they have no rational answers to give.

They use expert psychological techniques to exploit us, and most people have no idea what's happening to them. While the masses worry about fluoride, their whole lives are being stolen from them by the OWO and they don't even realise it.

Abraham might be the classic exemplar of the bicameral mind. Arguably, he simply wasn't conscious when he made ready to kill his son. He was a bicameral robot, mindlessly obeying the voice of "God" in his head.

Abrahamism is a classic manifestation of the mob mentality. It has no appeal whatever for the rational minds of Apollonian individuals. Instead, it appeals to the Dionysian Group Mind of hysteria, superstition and submission to the group will. Look at Islam. Is it possible to be a Muslim and an individual? Everything Muslims do is collective. Look at the Hajj pilgrimage - one immense homage to the collective. They are the "Borg" of the religious world. All they want to do is "assimilate" everyone else. They regard resistance to Islam as futile.

Look at the mad Jews in front of the Wailing Wall. Look at the mad Christians speaking in tongues and having fits induced by the "Holy Spirit". (Holy Spirit? More like the Dionysian Group Mind.) All Abrahamists are mad. That's why they have proved so susceptible to the Devil and his archons.

We live in a very strange world. Most people aren't conscious - they're bicameral.

Most people aren't individuals - they're nodes of a mob.

Most people aren't Apollonian - they're Dionysian (in the worst way!)

There isn't one human race - there are many (perhaps of the order of the 16 Myers-Briggs tribes).

If you want to transform the world, you have to understand the raw material you are dealing with. In most part, it is of extremely low quality and can barely be called human at all.

Abrahamism crystallises all that is wrong with humanity. It reveals all of the stupidity, craziness and savagery of which human beings are capable. It reveals the mob mind that has proved so dangerous throughout history.

The Muslim mobs that become murderously insane with rage when anyone criticizes the "prophet" represent humanity at its absolute worst, as beasts, as wild animals completely disconnected from human reason.

Apollonian individuals should have nothing but revulsion for Islam in particular and Abrahamism in general.

In corporate circumstances, the mob mind manifests itself in the bureaucratic mindset of "Group Think". Everyone robotically obeys the corporate culture, and anyone who rebels has to start looking for a new job.

We have to harness our vastly superior intelligence to beat the mob and the Group Think gang…but there are so many more of them.

What do the Illuminati want to achieve? - the maximisation of the number of true individuals, of individual consciousness, of personal responsibility and accountability, of reason and logic. We want to smash the mob mind of Abrahamism. It lies at the root of everything that is wrong with the human race, and it has provided the channel by which the Demiurge has ruled this world.

If the mob mind dies, so does the rule of Satan and the Old World Order.

"Gradually increasing stupidity follows all stability like its shadow."

Nietzsche

"We are from the beginning illogical, and therefore unjust, beings."

Nietzsche

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Nietzsche

"Man has been reared by his errors."

Nietzsche

"What was the glory of the Renaissance? The attempt to revalue Christian values: to make the opposite values, the noble values, triumph."

Nietzsche

The New Capitalism

We are advocates of a reformed version of capitalism that we refer to as public, social or meritocratic capitalism. But isn't capitalism a monstrous ideology? Why bother reforming it? Why not get rid of it entirely? Here's why.

In the twentieth century, the main competitors to capitalism were communism and socialism. In the Soviet Union, only one political party existed - the Communist Party. Therefore there was no political competition and no political debate. The State owned all of the assets of the Soviet Union. A central planning committee decided what was needed and it allocated people to jobs in vast state monopoly industries. There was no competition for any of these monopolies, hence they were all astoundingly inefficient, uncreative and unresponsive to the wants of the people. They had far too many workers, but since the State guaranteed everyone a job, it was virtually impossible to be fired. Everyone was paid much the same salary regardless of effort, so there was no incentive to work hard or be ambitious. Why take on more responsibility for virtually no extra reward?

In this lumbering system of state monopolies, markets did not exist. Markets are what allow products to be tested by the court of public opinion and prosper or founder. Markets reflect competition. Companies that make unsuccessful products go out of business; those that make successful ones grow bigger. Markets, if used properly, give people what they want. In a monopoly system without markets, it doesn't matter what anyone wants. You get what the monopolies make and it's tough if you don't like their products. You have no say over anything they do. You can't demand something different.

Imagine if America had ended up with one monopoly car manufacturer - that of Henry Ford - and everyone got exactly the same car, and every car was black. That, in effect, was how the Soviet Union operated. Without competition and with no markets to pass judgement, there was no reason for the monopolies to change and innovate. They just kept cranking out the same old junk even though the rest of the world had moved far ahead.

Teenagers in the Soviet Union were captivated by American jeans. In fact they were captivated by virtually all American products. The Soviet Union responded by trying to stop most of its citizens from ever going to the West and from seeing Western TV shows or movies. Nor would they allow many Westerners into the country.

When you're in a country that won't let you leave and won't let you see what's going on elsewhere, you know you're fucked. The sensible person wants to be in the country that others are gazing at longingly; he doesn't want to be in the country where he is the one doing the longing gazing. The Soviet Union collapsed because it had become backward in relation to the competition, and the truth could no longer be concealed.

It became backward because of a) monopolies b) lack of competition c) absence of markets d) lack of innovation e) massive bureaucracy f) massive inefficiency g) guaranteeing jobs regardless of performance h) a single party totalitarian political system.

No one in their right mind would ever want to bring back Soviet communism. The Chinese saw that the game was up and quickly adopted capitalist methods i.e. the Communist Party survived by turning to capitalism!

What about socialism? In 1945, the UK elected a socialist Labour government which introduced a widespread programme of state nationalisation. There was a National Health Service, a state steel industry, a state coal industry, a state nuclear industry, a state rail system, a state electricity supplier, a state gas supplier, a state water supplier, a state telephone service, a state post office etc

Nearly all of these were bloated, inefficient, uncompetitive, overmanned, bureaucratic, unresponsive and they all provided poor service. British socialism could not call itself any kind of success story.

The right-wing Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher eventually privatised nearly all of these state enterprises. Lots of people were fired, the rich got richer, but service remained as bad as ever. So it goes.

It would be absolute folly to attempt to resurrect communism or socialism in any way.

The focus must be on capitalism, but on doing it properly.

Contemporary capitalism is effectively bankrupt. It has proved disastrous in many ways, but it's much easier to rectify the problems of capitalism than those of socialism.

The central problem of contemporary capitalism can be identified extremely rapidly: the capitalist elite. Those at the top of the tree have systematically manipulated and exploited the system to favour their own interests. They are robber barons and carpetbaggers. Monopolies have been replaced by oligopolies and cartels that relentlessly rig the markets. Free, fair markets have been replaced by corrupt markets where insider information is rife, always giving an insurmountable advantage to the market makers and controllers.

Those with money and power can buy and control the political system. All politicians are their puppets. The elite use lobbyists to get their laws passed. They have expensive lawyers to allow them to bypass any inconvenient laws; top accountants to allow them to bypass any financial restraints. Tax experts allow them to pay virtually no tax at all. They control the media that pumps out constant propaganda on their behalf. The banks have been allowed to become too big to fail, and are thus underwritten by the taxpayers who have no say at all in how the banks are run, and who receive none of the profits but all of the liabilities.

Capitalism, as practised today, is a ruthless, cynical and self-perpetuating system of privilege. It's not capitalism itself that's the problem. It's the way the system is gamed by the top capitalists that's the issue. It's not the fundamental components of capitalism that are flawed i.e. competition, markets, innovation, hard work, choice. It's the way these are abused by the elite.

100% inheritance tax is not an attack on capitalism; it's an attack on the rich elite, and it's designed to bring their domination to an end once and for all. Imagine capitalism without the super rich, without the privileged elite. Imagine free, efficient, fair markets where everyone has access to the same information at the same time. Imagine a political system and politicians that can't be bought. Imagine a free media not under the control of the elite that actually tells the people the truth. Imagine a legal system with lawyers committed to justice. Imagine accountants and tax consultants who aren't on the fiddle. Imagine banks accountable to the people. Imagine a system in which the workers rather than the rich elite own the companies.

When ordinary people need money to start up new companies, what happens? They have to go to a bank or a venture capitalist. But those with the money - the bankers and venture capitalists in their shiny designer suits - don't like giving money to ordinary people. They give it to their friends and family, their college acquaintances and Masonic chums, their relatives, people to whom they owe a favour, fellow members of the magic circle of privilege, the in-crowd. If you're not part of the gang, you get nothing. You'll just have to go on being a slave.

But what if the state decides who gets the money and it allocates it on the basis of merit alone? Capitalism can be tamed, regulated and reformed. It can become a system that serves the people rather than the privileged elite. Capital can be much more evenly distributed. Every worker can have a proper stake in his workplace and in society and be incentivised to work hard, to create and innovate.

So, the war is not against capitalism, but against the controllers of capitalism. When we talk of public capitalism, social capitalism or meritocratic capitalism, we mean a new form of capitalism in which the state, not the privileged elite, decides the shape of capitalism.

Socialism and communism are about state control using economic tools and production systems antithetical to capitalism. We are talking about a new form of state control where the state embraces rather than rejects capitalism, where it uses it for the benefit of all the people, not to enrich the elite. We get the best of both worlds: the best of state control - government of the people by the people for the people - and the best of capitalism. Now Main Street tells Wall Street what to do rather than the other way around. Now the super rich gradually fade away as their wealth is stripped from them when they die. The dynastic families of power come to an end. All the networks of privilege are smashed to pieces.

What system could be better? It would be mad to ditch the aspects of capitalism that made America vastly more powerful than the Soviet Union. Look at Communist China, now rapidly catching up with America. Their trick was to copy American capitalism, and their innovation was to ensure that the Communist Party, not the rich, stayed in control of the system. The rich in China don't dictate to the state.

We are proposing something like China's system of capitalism, but based on pluralistic meritocratic government rather than a Communist dictatorship. The central feature will be that the people are in charge, and not the rich and not a totalitarian political party.

There are certain industries - such as the oil industry - that will need to have extremely firm state control, and others where the lightest of touches can be applied. Any industries concerned with the environment, public health and protection, and the financial well-being of the state must be tightly regulated. Most other industries can be left largely to their own devices.

The super rich are the great enemy. They must be abolished. In the future, the rich will be those who earn the equivalent of one or two million dollars a year. There will no longer be people with personal wealth of hundreds of millions and even many billions of dollars. The rich will never again be so rich that they can buy the government.

Boom and bust economic cycles will come to an end when the rich are prevented from allowing their greed to run riot.

In terms of taxation, we advocate flat taxes that are as easy to implement as possible and require no expensive bureaucracy to administer them. Taxation can also be used selectively to inhibit undesirable activities. For example, a tax on gasoline will encourage people to use less, and that's better for the environment and helps to preserve a diminishing resource.

We are not preaching an economic revolution; merely a logical improvement of existing systems. This is a pragmatic, sensible way forward that can be implemented quickly. It won't scare Main Street (though it will terrify Wall Street). It's not something new and alien. It's just a much better way of managing capitalism. It's capitalism for the people, capitalism that rewards the most meritorious not the most privileged, capitalism that has a social conscience and is opposed to rampant greed. It's capitalism that restores the integrity of politicians. The political system will no longer be on offer to the highest bidder. It's capitalism that smashes the power of Wall Street, the Zionists, the Freemason WASPs and the Old World Order.

Even though we are not socialists, what we are proposing will nevertheless be labelled as socialism by the lackeys of the super rich. It's our task to show that we are capitalist reformers, not destroyers. The only thing we seek to destroy is the privileged elite - the Old World Order.

The New World Order will exist for the benefit of the people, not for the fat cats at the top of the capitalist pyramid. Social or public capitalism involves spreading capital much more evenly across society, not handing all of the capital to the State as in communism. The State's function is to help distribute capital sensibly, rather than allowing a class of super rich people to develop as in contemporary capitalism.

We are trying not to be too prescriptive about our approach. Our aim is to set out the general framework and then let the creativity of the people fill in the specifics. It's important for the people to see the new system as theirs and to take complete ownership of it. No one can be allowed to dictate to the people.

In terms of free market economics, we are for markets that are genuinely free. The trouble is we see no examples of such markets. All we see are markets rigged by and for privileged cartels - hence it becomes necessary to intervene and regulate heavily.

Also, markets may have to be controlled in relation to the environment, for example.

However, when meritocracy beds in and the cartels have vanished we can hopefully move to a much freer market environment. If markets can be made to work properly...great. If not, regulation is necessary.

Most champions of the sorts of rigged markets we have now are anarcho-capitalist libertarians who support Ayn Rand. Those markets have to be abolished forever.

Slavery

It's 150 years since the beginning of the American Civil War. Just as communism failed because it provided no incentives for hard work and it stifled innovation, exactly the same can be said of the slave economy of the Confederacy. Because the masters used manual labour (slaves), they had no interest in technological advancement. Relative to the North, the South became more and more backward and anti-technological. In the war, the Confederates fought bravely and fanatically, but they never stood a chance.

Consider the tale of two slave masters. One uses his slave labour in the traditional way. He becomes very wealthy but is always worried about a slave uprising. He needs guards to protect him. The slaves endure a living hell.

The second slave master succumbs to enlightenment and decides to free all of the slaves. Not only that , he gives them all an excellent education and then he asks them to use their brains to help him find much better ways to work the land. After a few years, they have devised chemical fertilisers and a host of gadgets that can work 24/7. He gives them a percentage of all the profits. He gets on great with them and has no need of any guards.

Which model will be more successful in the long run? The slave master gets huge short-term profits but fails in the long run. His only strategy involves finding more slaves. If the supply dries up, he's finished. The enlightened boss has an elite workforce who are grateful to him, admire him and are willing to work hard for his and their own benefit.

What's the point of treating people like shit when you could treat them well and get far more from them? Why be immoral when you could be both moral and generate higher profits? Why live in fear of a revolt when you could be friends with your workers?

The aim of meritocracy is simple - to give everyone the best education possible and thus make everyone as productive and fulfilled as possible, and give us all a much higher standard of living. Those who put short-term profits above all else and are willing to treat others as subhuman are the truly evil people in our world. There are still many of those kinds of people around today. They are at the top of society - the fat cats with big cigars.

The old Confederacy still has plenty of supporters. Would any decent, moral person have anything to do with a cause that promoted slavery and fought to uphold it? Anyone who flies the Confederate flag, regardless of their pathetic rhetoric that they are not advocating a return to slavery, is a racist…end of story. It's the equivalent of flying a swastika and saying that you have nothing against Jews.

The modern Confederates emphasize the evils of central government. They espouse libertarianism. They think people should be free to be racist if that's what they want. Many of the Tea Party are Confederate sympathisers.

The vast majority of anti-Illuminati propaganda on the internet comes from Confederate sympathisers. We draw little distinction between them and the Ku Klux Klan. They hate the Illuminati, they hate African Americans, they hate Jews, they hate Catholics, Hispanics, Irish, Polish, Italians…anyone who's not an evangelical WASP.

These WASP Confederates are the scum of the earth. We have utter contempt for all of their mad conspiracy theories.

The Conspiracy Theory Business

Several prominent people make a commercial living out of spreading conspiracy theories. If they don't keep the whole thing motoring along, they will be out of business. All businesses must grow or perish. How do you grow the conspiracy theory market? Well, that's simple - you keep adding new elements to the conspiracy mix.

The Illuminati were originally portrayed as left wing revolutionaries - the power behind the Jacobins - because they toppled the French monarchy in 1789. Over time, they morphed into Jesuits, Jewish bankers, Freemasons, Monarchists, bloodlines, and even into pan-dimensional, shape-shifting reptilians from another world. What next? You can be sure something new will be along in due course. That's the nature of the business.

"NW" wrote to us with the following message:

"Recently the Movement has been plagued with conspiracy theorists. They think that all the old lies about the Illuminati are now true about the OWO. They think that America is making FEMA Death Camps and planning to impose martial law. They claim that fluoride is harmful.

What do you think of all these conspiracy theories? Is fluoride really an OWO plot to weaken the masses? Are death camps a possibility? Is HAARP used to create natural disasters?

I think it's a firm no for all of them. Just what is the extent of the OWO's power? Are they really in a position to completely enslave people? I think you should definitely make an article about conspiracy theories in general. Point out those which are nonsense and those which might hold truth. That will surely help any future Movement members see the pointlessness of getting wrapped up into conspiracy theories and becoming similar to a Truther.

*****

Our Comment:

Exactly right: you can't just replace the word "Illuminati" with "Old World Order" in all the familiar conspiracy theories.

Certain people are actively selling fear to you. They're selling you conspiracy theories that get bigger, better, more controversial, more explosive, more deadly, more elaborate every year. It's all total bullshit. It's a business selling a commodity and there are people out there who love buying it.

The Old World Order don't want to kill you. They want you to work for them. They want you to buy what they sell you. They want you to make them very rich. They want you to worship them. They will lose ALL of that if they start trying to harm anyone. The last thing the privileged elite would ever do deliberately is to bring down the system that has made them gods amongst men.

Ask yourself a simple question. Have the elite got lives of which most people are immensely envious? Yes? How did they reach this position? Was it not by creating exactly the sort of world we have now? So why would they throw it all away by doing all the things they're accused of by the conspiracy theorists? Does Microsoft want to kill its customers? How would that help its profits? How does that improve the bottom line and please the shareholders? Do the multinational corporations that run the world and bring immense riches to their bosses want to start building concentration camps instead, thus triggering a war that will destroy them?

What fucking planet are the conspiracy theorists living on?

The conspiracy, the real conspiracy, is the one staring you in the face every day. How did the rich get so rich? How do they stay so rich? How do they ensure that generation after generation stays rich? How do they make sure that their friends, families, relatives and cronies get to dine at the Top Table? How do they dominate the media? How do they control the law, politics, the police, the military, the intelligence services, Hollywood? How do they prop up the Zionist State of Israel? How do they get the best education, the best jobs?

It's all to do with money, privilege and inheritance. Money is power.

Fluoride, HAARP, FEMA death camps, black UN helicopters, one global currency yada yada yada is just mad bullshit.

The world is already totally enslaved by the Old World Order. Has no one understood a single thing we've been saying? There is only one game in town…stripping the super rich of their wealth and power once and for all using the mechanism of 100% inheritance tax. When the super rich are destroyed, their entire system of privilege goes with them; the two-tier society where most of us are second-class citizens perishes. The people will be in charge, not the rich.

So forget fluoride and start getting organised for overthrowing the privileged rich. Everything else is a distraction. Don't fall for the sales pitch of the peddlers of conspiracy theories. Their business relies on scaring you, on pretending that they have the inside dope vital to your survival. The more they frighten and panic you, the more you are in their power, the more you rely on them.

They are just the prophets of a religion, no different from Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Whereas the ancient prophets terrified the people with tales of hellfire, the conspiracy theory prophets terrify you with tales of FEMA death camps and fluoride poisoning and Tesla machines for controlling the weather. It's all complete crap…science fiction, science fantasy and tales of ancient gods from other worlds all rolled into one ludicrous package for infinitely gullible people.

The prophets of conspiracy theories can't stop scaring you or they would go out of business. They scour the internet every day, looking for new ingredients to add to the mix. Every new speculation in science is enlisted to the cause.

The Church of Scientology was the creation of science fiction writer Ron L Hubbard. The likes of David Icke are just new versions of Hubbard and, like him, they have a cult following. Hubbard said the best way to become rich was to invent a religion, and he was true to his word.

Why should you not take Icke seriously? - because he's running a business. Why should you be much less suspicious of us? - because we have provided well over a million words of unique information over several years for not a single cent. Clearly, we're not financially motivated. Doesn't that suggest we are the real deal? Our purpose is simple: to offer enlightenment. We don't make any despicable attempts to frighten you into giving us money. And you of course can be of immense help to us. We know we will never change this world on our own. None of us can.

The simple reality is this. The Power Elite have already engineered something close to the world they want. The problem for David Icke and his ilk is that the ordinary person may well be irritated by the way the world is but not particularly frightened. Icke has to offer you a vision of a terrifying conspiracy in order to make you dependent on him and give him your money.

The conspiracy of the elite is indeed terrifying, but not in the sense that anyone is trying to kill you, poison you or put you in a camp. You ought to be terrified of living in a world that has turned you into a second-class citizen in a two-tier society. And that's exactly where you are RIGHT NOW. So what are you going to do about it? - start reading more absurd tales about fluoride being used to kill you, or start getting serious and campaigning to rid the world of the Power Elite?

There is nothing more irritating to us than that so many people don't seem remotely outraged about the way the world is today, but instead keep worrying about some future hell. Wake up! THIS is hell. You're already in it. If you haven't realised that yet then you're a totally brainwashed slave of the elite who will never pose any threat to their hegemony.

What's the biggest problem facing you? Wall Street or fluoride? If you're worrying about fluoride, you're clearly no threat to Wall Street.

If you want to live your life as a pawn of the privileged elite, go ahead. We don't. We want to bring their reign to an end. We want the world to be meritocratic. We want the smartest and most talented people to run the world, not the richest and best connected. We want to see the complete abolition of the dynastic elites that rule the world generation after generation - monstrous dynasties like those of the Bush family and the Rothschilds.

If you want to spend all of your time worrying about FEMA death camps, go to David Icke World. This website, on the other hand, is the place for those who want to destroy the super rich who run our world. This is the place for those who want the people to be in charge of the world, not Zionist bankers, Freemason WASPs, monarchs, celebrities and family dynasties.

We don't have time to waste on absurd theories about weather machines and chem. trails. The conspiracy of the privileged elite couldn't be more obvious. It's in our faces every day, 24/7. If you haven't seen it yet, there's no hope for you. If you think the conspiracy is something different and is about toxic fluoride and some weird desire of capitalists to kill the consumers who make them extremely rich then you don't know what day of the week it is. You're completely lost to the world of reason.

Ask yourself a simple question. Would you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? So why would the elite kill you? Haven't you realised who you are yet? You're the goose! You're their slave, their meal ticket. You do everything they want. They make you a second-class citizen and you don't do a thing about it other than worry about fluoride. They advertise their consumer goods to you and you dutifully buy them. You dutifully pay your taxes. You dutifully do your shit job every day. You dutifully vote for whoever the Elite put on your ballot paper.

WAKEY, WAKEY!!!!!

Why would FEMA put you in a death camp when you are one of the best slaves the Elite have ever had? Do you think these people are stupid? Why don't you try looking in the mirror?

Have we got the message across yet? No one's trying to kill you. They want to go on exploiting you as they've always done….and you haven't even noticed. Who do you think spreads most of the conspiracy theories? It's the Elite, of course, backed up by their friends like David Icke whose business operation depends on getting you to believe that there's a vast intergalactic conspiracy going on. Kerching! - another sale to another terrified, gullible person. Remember, there's a sucker born every minute. Try not to be one of them.

Forget conspiracies. The only question is what effort are you personally prepared to make to get rid of the privileged gang that rules us?

"JF" said:

"You should write an article about 'prophecies' and how the Bible is being used by the Elites for preconditioning. I remember the day of 9/11 when they let us out of school early. Two girls on the bus were talking about 'the second coming'. And even now everyone is tying the (fake) Illuminati with the 'Antichrist' Bible prophecies. I read some comments on YouTube when I do some research and it angers me whenever I see people saying it's apart of the prophecy. I describe prophecies like a card trick. If you're the magician, you give the mark the card you want but have them believe they picked it themselves. That's all there is to it. If Revelation talks about 'the last days' then that's what they're going to give them. They know when people see these events (9/11, microchip, NWO, etc) unfold, they already know what their response will be: 'It's part of the prophecies; this has to happen." And all they will do is kneel and pray; waiting for Jesus to return and save them, because that's what the Bible tells them to do (and that's what the elite wants, for them to do nothing). They put out the whole alien propaganda (alien agenda, or the Illuminati are alien reptilians) and they even try to tie that into the Bible prophecies. People are so stupid, I sometimes feel ashamed that I'm a human."

Our Comment

We agree entirely. Prophecies are invariably manipulative. Here's a simple fact. Not once in human history has anyone anywhere successfully prophesied anything at all i.e. not one seer has ever written down an event that would occur at a specific date, time and place to specific people. Nor has any such prophecy ever been provided by anyone. No such prophecy is present in the Book of Revelation. In other words, anything can be projected onto these prophecies. They are all things to all men, and it is that which gives them their tremendous power. They are infinitely flexible and can be deployed in almost any circumstances. Any major event can immediately be described as the fulfilment of some ancient prophecy.

Prophecies are a total con, a complete fabrication. No one has ever seen the future. It can't be seen for the simple reason that it doesn't exist yet. How can anyone know the future if even the future doesn't know the future? Does the weather know what tomorrow's weather will be like?

The Trick

In the film "The Prestige", we are told that every great magic trick consists of three acts. The first act is called "The Pledge" where the magician shows you something ordinary and promises to do something amazing with it. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician does something extraordinary with the ordinary thing, making you gasp. The third act, and the hardest one, is when he reverses the extraordinary act, but he does not take you back to the beginning but to a higher state where you feel transformed and inspired by the trick. This is called "The Prestige".

The elite are performing the Prestige for us over and over again. We keep falling for it. We never see through the act even though we've watched it countless times before.

Stendhal Syndrome

"As I emerged from the porch of Santa Croce, I was seized with a fierce palpitation of the heart; the well-spring of life was dried up within me, and I walked in constant fear of falling to the ground." -- Stendhal

A psychosomatic disorder was named after the 19th century French novelist, Stendhal, who fainted after visiting Florence's Basilica of the Holy Cross (Santa Croce), full of masterpieces by the likes of Giotto.

Stendhal Syndrome is a "disease" that targets art lovers and represents a kind of overdosing on too much beauty. It causes a rapid heartbeat, chest pains, dizziness, hallucinations and usually concludes with the victim fainting. It's also known as hyperkulturemia (meaning "an excess of culture in the blood").

It has been called an ATD - art-transmitted disease - in which too much beauty becomes toxic. It is caused by aesthetic overload following the viewing of too many masterpieces and priceless objects in too short a time or in too confined a space.

Philistines and bankers are of course immune.

Freud the Hysteric

Sigmund Freud famously fainted when he was admiring Michelangelo's marble sculpture of Moses outside the tomb of Pope Julius II. Although Freud was from a Jewish background, he was an atheist. Freud said that he identified Moses, the father of Judaism, with his own father. He believed that guilt over his abandonment of the faith of his father and ancestors had caused him to faint.

Freud in fact suffered regular bouts of hysteria. One of the main triggers was being in the presence of a man with an intellect superior to his. It filled him with a deep sense of inadequacy and insecurity. On several occasions, he passed out when arguing with Carl Jung, no doubt because he recognised that his disciple was well on his way to outstripping his teacher.

Isn't it ironic that one of the great investigators of the unconscious was himself overwhelmed by unconscious forces? Despite that, Freud remains one of the great figures of history, and he belongs to that group of extraordinary individuals from Jewish backgrounds who did not practise Judaism but have made an enormous contribution to human progress. These are the "Jews" who should be admired and applauded. The ones who roam Wall Street and Hollywood and who stand bobbing and babbling in front of the Wailing Wall, worshipping the God who made them wail, are the ones who are beneath contempt. The Jews associated with greatness are those who repudiated Yahweh. Isn't it time all the other Jews did the same and became a great people to be celebrated rather than shunned by humanity?

Haven't they realised yet that Orthodox Jews have contributed nothing to the world, and the Jews who have earned such a fabulous intellectual reputation have invariably not been "Wailing Wall" Jews? How dumb are these people?!

Mother's Boy

St Augustine, one of the worst Christian psychopaths, and the inspiration for Protestantism, had a Christian mother and a pagan father. He was much closer to his mother, yet he abandoned her faith and followed the dualist and Gnostic religion of Manichaeism for many years. Like Freud who felt guilty over betraying his father's Judaism, we can surmise that Augustine felt increasingly guilty over rejecting his beloved mother's faith. Such people are always subconsciously looking for a way back to the fold, and if it offers itself, as it did in Augustine's but not in Freud's case, they embrace it fanatically and become almost deranged in their fervour.

The Donatist Heresy

Donatists were Christians of North Africa who supported the extreme position of a bishop called Donatus. The core of their position was that the Church was a society of holy people, from which mortal sinners must be absolutely excluded. To tolerate sinners would destroy the purity and integrity of the Church. They believed that anyone who had compromised with the Roman authorities that had persecuted Christianity had excluded themselves from the Church. Priests and bishops who had cooperated with the Romans to save themselves were no longer Christians. They had forsaken the faith and invalidated their holy orders. The sacraments administered by them were no longer valid. They had no Godly power. They should be regarded as enemies of the Church and declared anathema.

The Donatists had to be brutally suppressed.

We see the Donatist struggle being re-enacted over and over again, especially in modern Islam. A "pure" Muslim is one who makes no compromises with the infidels. A "bad" Muslim is too integrated into Western society, and has made too many compromises and concessions.

Women in burqas are making a statement of their Islamic purity - and of their contempt for all Muslim women who don't wear the burqa, and for all the scantily dressed infidel scum. A woman in a burqa is a Muslim Donatist: a fanatic. There is nothing neutral about wearing a burqa. It's a symbolic attack on those who don't wear it. No Western society should tolerate such intolerance.

The Donatist way of thinking at the heart of Islam is why we particularly despise Islam. Islamic nations subscribe to either authoritarian dictatorships - which clamp down on the extremists - or fanatical theocracies. Look at Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran: all are failed states and appalling places to live. They are ruled by the Donatist tendency; those who promote absolute Islamic purity, which means living in the manner of Mohammed 1,400 years ago.

The West, frankly, has to crush Islamic Donatism. It should not be called the "War on Terror". Instead, the West should declare all aspects of extremist Islam contrary to Western values and demand Islamic liberalism. Anyone who refuses to compromise, like the Donatists of old, should be automatically deported to Islamic countries. That way, everyone will know exactly where they stand.

The West cannot go on pretending that the problem is with "terrorists". It's not. It's with extremist Islam (from which all of the terrorists come). The West should therefore make it clear that it finds extremist Islam unacceptable. It refuses to do so for fear of alienating "liberal" Muslims, hence it will never defeat the War on Terror. This war will go on forever unless the enemy is precisely defined and identified. We know exactly who the enemy is: all Muslims in the West who refuse to accept Western values and want to impose Sharia Law on the West.

All Western Muslims should be subjected to a "Test Act". Historically, Test Acts were introduced in 17th century Protestant England to prevent Catholics and Non-Conformists from taking jobs in the civil service. One test was that anyone who worked for the government had to deny transubstantiation, which automatically excluded devout Catholics.

Although that sounds horrific, if you wish to change a nation's religion and keep it changed, you will likely have to be very tough on those of the old religion.

You can't shy away from a fight. Lincoln couldn't avoid a fight with the Confederacy. Nor can a fight with extremist Islam be avoided and the sooner it is defined as what it is, the better.

All Muslims in Western countries should be asked on oath whether they aspire to have Sharia Law imposed on Western countries. If they say yes, they should be deported. If they say no, they can stay. But if they stay then they cannot subscribe to any extremist behaviour such as wearing burqas and staying in self-imposed Islamic ghettoes.

Remember, we're not liberals, we're radicals. Liberals are incapable of changing anything. We have to be as extreme in our desire to create a new order as our enemies are to keep us imprisoned in their world.

The Illuminati have historically been on the side of revolution, not of liberal rhetoric. We seek the ultimate revolution - that of meritocracy. Meritocracy is nothing other than the end of the Old World Order forever. It is the permanent end of the privileged, elite class that has ruled the world since the dawn of time. The elite have done everything in their power to secure their position and transmit their wealth and power to their children. Look at hereditary monarchy: a particular family is allowed to rule in perpetuity by claiming that they have a "divine right". For that ridiculous claim to work, they must ensure that the people buy into their religious system. They must ensure that the people are afraid of them. They must have power over life and death.

The whole system is devoted to nothing but the perpetuation of power. It is not about goodness, about merit, about the people, about God, about art or quality or society or religion or politics or anything else. Power alone is all that matters: how to get it, how to keep it, how to transmit it. Every institution has been pressed into the service of power. The world has been divided into two: the powerful and the non-powerful, masters and slaves. The non-powerful have never had any realistic chance of enjoying any power. Every measure has been taken to ensure that power stays with those who already have it. That is the history of the world. If you want a new history then that system of power has to be smashed forever. It can be smashed via the law, via 100% inheritance tax, via the breaking up of all cartels, by all markets being made fair and free and all mechanisms used to rig them removed. It can be smashed by allowing talented people from absolutely any background to reach the top. This is the creed of meritocracy.

To bring to an end the old structures of power is ipso facto to destroy the Old World Order. New structures of power must be based on merit alone. It must be made impossible for any dynastic families ever again to rule the world.

Meritocracy signals the death of dynastic power. Families like the Bush family and the Rothschilds will never again bestride the globe.

You're either for us or against us. You are either for the Old World Order or against them. To beat them, the answer is to remove their ability to transmit their wealth and power. Inheritance is the key to the Old World Order's game, hence inheritance is the absolute focus of attack of meritocracy.

The vast majority of people in this world have been brainwashed by the elite into being completely supportive of inheritance. All parents want to hand on privileges, advantages and assets to their children. It is precisely because nearly everyone supports inheritance that it is so difficult to overthrow the Old World Order. They are the overwhelming beneficiaries of inheritance. Most families have little or nothing to pass on, so it is rationally perverse for them to support inheritance. Sadly, most people are irrational and completely indoctrinated to operate against their own interests.

Here's the bottom line. All parents do best for their children not by passing on selfish financial advantages that they have accrued (which automatically penalise those children whose parents have nothing to give them i.e. they are an immoral and unjust weapon deployed against innocent children), but by passing on a just, moral and fair system where people prosper through their own hard work and talent and are not subjected to any penalties because of any deficiencies in their parents. No one can be held responsible for the failures of others over whom they had no control. Inheritance is all about magnifying the effect of parents. Meritocracy is about minimising the effect of parents. It is Augustine versus Pelagius all over again. Augustine says that we are mere reflections of our ultimate parents - Adam and Eve - and our lives are entirely shaped by the legacy they have bequeathed to us. Pelagius argues that we are responsible for ourselves, not for our parents. Their "sins" are not ours. Their victories are not ours. We should inherit neither their assets nor their debts. Ninety-nine percent of us will be better off if inheritance were abolished. The two-tier society would be ended. We would all have an equal chance in life for the first time in human history.

When the whole of world history is boiled down, it can be seen to revolve around just one concept - inheritance - because inheritance has been the essence of the transmission of power. Inheritance is inherently unfair. Inheritance has always given an unbeatable advantage to those with lots to inherit, and proved an impossible handicap to those with nothing to inherit.

The situation is perhaps best summed up in the plight of African Americans. It is virtually impossible for them to succeed because the game is so heavily rigged against them (and most working class whites are in the same boat). All people who don't want African Americans to have an equal chance are evil. The only way to ensure an even playing field for everyone is meritocracy. Inheritance is the antithesis of meritocracy hence the core of evil. Inheritance is the true original sin.

STAND ON YOUR OWN TWO FEET.

BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN DEEDS AND TALENTS, NOT THOSE OF OTHERS.

DESTROY INHERITANCE!

DESTROY ORIGINAL SIN!

This is the gospel of meritocracy.

Women's Liberation

By Feelfelt

I am writing this piece in support of The Movement's "Women's Liberation Month" campaign. Within The Movement, I'm one of the few females around and, it seems, one of the most visible. I don't use a fake name (other than my stage name: FEELFELT) and photos of me are easily found. All my parts are genuine and original. I can drive this classic to the show, and win the prize too.

I will not write about anybody else's efforts, creations or experiences but my own. I'm a rebellious autodidact who tenaciously follows her intuition, and I'm here because I continue to make the choice to be. Sometimes it's an easy choice, sometimes it's a difficult one - but the only choice that matters is the one that leads me up the spiral of my own evolutionary destiny. I will not eat the image or expectations imposed or implied by anyone. I nourish myself because nobody else is going to feed me as well as I can. But this bounty is boundless. I've made enough to share… and you are welcome to grab a plate and join - but I will not be serving you. Goddess helps those who help themselves.

Although the people involved with the Movement are mostly male, this has been the only (although entirely virtual) community/social setting I've found that allows for my evolution, to which I've been tending privately all these years. The M community provides a canopy of spiritual support that I want on my journey. I have all the tools - I just need the proper settings and events in which to utilize them. Surrounding myself with people who understand the depth of "the journey" has been key to my continuation of it. There have been certain M's that have the ability to see what I am Truly becoming; allowing and facilitating my experiences. You know who you are, and I Thank You.

As a musician associated with the Movement - I will say that music has always been my therapy and a path to Self-discovery. It's a sovereign expression of my divinity. My songs are not written "for" anybody in particular. I put my expressions on display for you - the audient - but this is not a performance or entertainment, per se. I read recently that in a healing tradition from Mexico and Central America called the Curanderisma - the story itself is 'holy' and is used as medicine. The story is not told to lift you up, to make you feel better, or to entertain you, although all those things can be true. The story is meant to take the spirit into a descent to find something that is lost or missing and to bring it back to consciousness again. This is my modus operandi.

I will say this about my own liberation as a woman: My play will not be inhibited. I am ruled by Venus and the Moon - I personify beauty, art, love and express all feelings - whether they be soft or hard. My power lies in these qualities, not my weakness. I will continue balancing and integrating my feminine qualities with my masculine qualities such as logic, reason, analyzing and aggression because this is the path of evolution. Therefore, I will not be made to think that certain qualities are less desirable than others, or that they are shallow distractions to my True Self which hold me back. The only way I break the chains of the OWO is by freeing my mind from their programming. Everything else is incidental. My Mission is to free other people's minds (especially women's) by embodying True Freedom and becoming a living example - lighting the path out of the dungeons of the OWO. This is Moving with my Truth. M for the Movement!!

GRATITUDE

Generously
Rewarding
Attitude
That
Inspires
Thanks
Uniting
Divine
Expression

Declaration of Independence

By Feelfelt

I am a Goddess.
I am an Illuminatus.
I am an Alchemist.
I am Androgynous.
I am Beyond This...Master and Mistress.
I am Abraxas, the Synthesis.
I am Amanda, Mediatrix of Mixes.

Our Comment:

Hallelujah!

Yes, we definitely need lots more women - with just that kind of attitude.

It's a shame that so few women have joined the cause. We need more ways of appealing to women, and it's best, of course, that imaginative, talented women should take the lead in that regard.

The Medium is the Message

The Movement's second publication is devoted to Women's Liberation:

Excellent work, and well done to everyone involved in producing it.

http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The_MEDIUM_[Vol.1-Iss.2].pdf

Libre Momentum

Free Women (M)ovement

The Woman's Chapter of The Movement is forming at http://www.libremomentum.info. It is an online communication and resource center that is intended to support and inspire women in their endeavor to be liberated from the global puppet-masters. We are advocates of Illuminism, a Round Table psychology, and Meritocracy. We aspire to be Super Women, and to nurture the same qualities in the generations to come. We want an end to the traditional, gender differentiated roles. We wish to have balance on all levels of existence, to transcend duality and become everything we have it within us to be.

*****

Our comment: Women are the key to creating a new world. The patriarchal and matriarchal systems are both failures: we need a new, smart synthesis. Given that the OWO is mostly a male phenomenon, we need far more women at the top of society to act as an antidote to the male posturing and testosterone-driven behaviour that causes so much damage.

We need priestesses and goddesses, Wonder Women and Super Women. We don't need princesses. We don't need modesty. We don't need women worrying about being more successful than their male partners.

Women mustn't let anyone or anything hold them back. We need far more women entering the ranks of the world's greatest thinkers. That can happen only if women who have the capacity to reach the top are given the right cultural support.

One of the greatest tragedies of the world is the way it has wasted so much female potential. Half the world has been sold the idea that they should sit in the corner playing with dolls and staring in a mirror.

It's time for women to regain the status they had in pagan cultures based on the worship of the goddess. Women are half of the equation for creating a new humanity. This time we need to get the right answer. Men and women are different. That's not a problem: it powers the dialectic that drives us forward. The aim is to get the best of both worlds and achieve higher and higher syntheses. It's outrageous that women have been forced to live in a male-dominated culture. In the future, it needs to be an equal partnership. Not a partnership that mindlessly treats women and men as equals when there are plainly radical differences between the two, but which assigns equal significance to their respective strengths. Yin and yang are eternal partners, not eternal enemies. Neither is more important than the other. Neither can function without the other. The dialectic needs both working at full power.

Nietzsche on Women

"Perhaps truth is a woman who has reasons for not revealing her reasons?"

"Supposing Truth is a woman - what then?"

"The true man wants two things; danger and diversion. Therefore he wants woman, the most dangerous plaything."

"The greatest charm of life is that it puts a gold-embroidered veil of potentialities over itself, promising, resisting, modest, mocking, sympathetic, seductive. Yes, life is a woman!"

*****

We received the following observations:

1) "In a recent article, you considered possibilities about God and the universe, but you neglected one: God might not exist, and maybe the universe always existed. This view is in Jainism, Samkhya and Buddhism."

Any view that God does not exist but the universe has always existed must be compatible with Big Bang theory to be taken seriously, hence will simply be a system in which the Big Bang is reversed by a Big Crunch, leading to a cyclical universe of Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch ad infinitum i.e. it's simply a repeating version of Big Bang theory.

As it happens, Jainism, Samkhya and Buddhism all attribute mental attributes to the cosmos in a way that scientific materialism doesn't, hence they can be regarded as variations on the theme of the universe itself being God. They differ only insofar as they don't say that a particular "God consciousness" is attained. However, others might easily define what they say about the workings of the cosmos to be tantamount to divine control. What is the Buddhist concept of karma if not some cosmic "intelligence" that judges good and evil? If heavens and hells can be spoken of in Buddhism, is that not a religious conception? These belief systems are clearly radically different from the atheism of scientific materialism. They cannot be accurately described as clear-cut denials of the existence of God. Rather, they describe a highly nuanced version of an entity that could certainly be called "God", whether it be a divine consciousness, divine force, divine reason, or whatever. They deny a personalised God, but they do not deny the presence of some sort of intelligent guiding force in the universe. They are therefore radically different from scientific materialist views of the cosmos which assert that there is no intelligence whatever steering the universe and mind is just a random and pointless product of matter.

Jainism asserts that when a soul has freed itself from karma, it can attain divine consciousness, and experience infinite knowledge, perception, power, and bliss. Doesn't that sound exactly like a definition of God? Jainism says that every soul has the potential to achieve divine consciousness (siddha) through its own efforts. This is exactly the same stance as Illuminism. In relation to "God", Jainism asserts that there is no supreme divine creator and that the universe is self-regulating. Again, this is the same as Illuminism - so, to this extent, Jainism can be regarded as an Eastern version of Illuminism. Therefore it is absurd to say Jainism has no relationship with God. The only thing being denied is the Creator God of Abrahamism, not the concept of God understood as he who knows everything and wields complete mental control over matter.

As with Illuminism, the goal of Jainism is to realize the soul's true nature (gnosis for Illuminism; siddha for Jainism).

Jainism declares that the universe and its laws of nature are eternal, without beginning or end, but constantly undergoing cyclical changes. Again, this is very similar to Illuminism, but, crucially, the latter invokes evolution and the dialectic. Jainism is a karma-based religion, which Illuminism explicitly rejects.

Jains talk of the following types of life: human, sub-human (animal, insect, plant, etc.), super-human (heavenly beings), and hell-beings. Illuminism calls super-humans Phosters, and hell-beings Archons.

Samkhya is a school of Hindu philosophy dividing the cosmos into the noumenal domain of consciousness ("Purusha") and phenomenal realm of matter ("Prakriti"): the domain of the experiencer and that of the experienced. Prakriti is further split into animate and inanimate domains. Purusha, on the other hand, involves countless Jivas (individual units of consciousness/souls) which animate the living branch of Prakriti.

As with Jainism and Illuminism, there's no Creator God. Nor is there any personalised God figure, and yet, as with Jainism, each Jiva can achieve moksha (enlightenment) and effectively become God. So, once again, it's not true to state that Samkhya is completely devoid of a concept of God.

The reality is this: ALL Eastern religions have an aspect that can certainly be equated to a kind of God. They are nothing like scientific materialism which is really the only ideology that seeks to deny any Godlike aspect to the cosmos; and when pushed even the most extreme atheists will admit the possibility of a super-intelligence running the cosmos (just so long as it has nothing in common with the Abrahamic God). The Will described by Schopenhauer is also a type of cosmic mind that gives rise to the phenomenal universe.

So, the premise of the question is philosophically flawed. It is attempting to restrict the definition of God to one accepted by Abrahamists. We reject such a narrow definition. In the definition we use, every religion that has a concept of enlightenment has ipso facto provided a workable definition of a recognisable God. Any soul that achieves enlightenment becomes God.

2) "Something I found strange is you wrote about Yeshua (Jesus) as someone anyone could be like, but you also said something like he was a corrupt Abrahamist."

When we talk about figures such as Jesus Christ or Moses, we are usually attacking the perception of them that Abrahamists hold i.e. we are dealing with them in terms of how they are conventionally regarded. It would be pointless for us to continually refer to Jesus Christ as an archon of Satan since Christians would automatically reject this view. If we wish to erode their belief in Christ we have to attack THEIR concept of Jesus Christ, not promote ours.

We have stated on more than one occasion that one Illuminati cell is currently working on a modified version of Christianity - one that would allow Christians to migrate to a much healthier form of Christianity (like Pelagian Christianity, for example).

If anyone hasn't grasped that we refer to Jesus Christ in multifaceted ways, they clearly haven't been paying much attention.

3) "Non-Abrahamic ancient Jewish sects existed: surviving Mandaeans/Nazurai, descended from the Nazareans, think Abraham was not a prophet. The Nazareans rejected Tanakh parts such as Mosaic (Moses') books' parts. There is evidence Yeshua was a Nazarean and that Nazareth did not exist at his time but was named after Nazareans."

These are not "Jewish" sects i.e. sects relating to the religion of Judaism. They are sects that existed in Israel amongst Jews (in the racial rather than religious sense). A Jew who does not practise Judaism is something very different from a Jew who does.

As for Jesus Christ, he at no time claimed to be anything other than Yahweh's most faithful Jewish servant. He made no attempt to repudiate Abraham, Moses or Yahweh. Jesus Christ's life is shrouded in many mysteries but there is absolutely no question that he was Jew racially and religiously. The identity of his father is clearly the most significant thing about Jesus Christ, and it certainly wasn't "God the Holy Spirit" who fathered him. As soon as you understand that it was the "Angel" (Archon) Gabriel who impregnated Jesus Christ's mother - making Jesus Christ a human being but so much more (with the extraordinary powers of his Archon father) - then the story of Jesus Christ becomes much more comprehensible. He was the central figure in an Archon plot to seize control of a nation and set up a dynasty of priest-kings, through which the Archons would rule the country and eventually the world. Islam was created in another phase of the plot. Who was it that chose Mohammed and dictated the Koran to him? None other than the "Angel" Gabriel. With over half of the world subscribing to Abrahamism, has not the Archon Gabriel succeeded spectacularly?

Someone asked us how we could justify calling the Archons the ultimate puppetmasters while emphasizing that they rarely intervene in the affairs of humanity. Consider the actions of the Archon Gabriel. By doing two or three simple things, he has controlled the religious complexion of the human race for millennia. Having carried out a few actions, he was able to sit back and watch chaos and horror descend on us. That's how the system works.

4) We were questioned about our use of the term 'Hermeticism' rather than 'Hermetism'. In fact, we draw no distinction between the two terms. In academic terms, the former relates to the "rediscovery" of hermetic thinking in medieval times and subsequent developments of the tradition while the latter applies to the hermetic thinking of the ancient world. However, it is only possible to talk of rediscovery if you think something was lost. Since the Illuminati did not lose any of the ancient hermetic thinking, it would be absurd to talk of rediscovery.

"Hermeticism" is derived from the word "hermetic" which in turn comes from "Hermes", and "Hermetism" also comes from "Hermes". Hence there is no difference worth preserving other than in pedantic academic circles.

5) "It seems strange to condone Crowley and the Golden Dawn (which had Theosophist founders) but not Madame Blavatsky."

Let's be clear about this. Madame Blavatsky was a charlatan. Only people with contempt for science and philosophy would expect to find any "truth" in her theosophy. Any system of thinking that is not rooted in mathematics, science, philosophy and psychology is essentially a waste of time. That's not to say that her writings can't provide interesting background reading. We spend a lot of time studying Abrahamism even though we find it absurd. We encourage people to read all kinds of material since inspiration can be found in unlikely places. The writings of St Thomas Aquinas, the main theologian of Catholicism, are much more interesting and intellectually credible than anything Madame Blavatsky ever uttered. Why don't the theosophists read Aquinas?

Rudolf Steiner's school of Anthroposophy is vastly superior to Blavatsky's Theosophy, and Steiner was of course a great scholar of Goethe, the Illuminati's greatest artistic genius. Someone asked us why we didn't rate Steiner above Carl Jung. The simple fact is that Steiner went off on many cranky and crazy excursions into the "spirit world" - where anyone can say anything about anything without any fear of contradiction. Jung's ideas always remained much more grounded and credible than those of Steiner and his intuitions brought him extremely close to the position of the Illuminati.

Societies such as the Golden Dawn provide an insight into secret societies. Crowley is of interest because of the kind of man he was and his devotion to the "spirituality of transgression". He's a fascinating person and worth studying as a major figure in esoteric thinking.

Georgi Ivanovich Gurdjieff and the Russian mathematician P.D. Ouspensky are also worthy of attention.

To read about such people and study their ideas can help people to break away from the Abrahamic mentality. With the exception of Jung, we don't "condone" any of them in relation to their teachings concerning "truth". Self-evidently, we reject anyone's position that is inconsistent with the teachings of Illumination.

However, unlike other religions that try to prevent you from reading anything that might "corrupt" you, Illuminism encourages you to read as much as possible. Given that one of the tasks for members of the Illuminati is to create a credible new religion, we expect our members to have a deep knowledge of as many religious systems as possible.

One remarkable side effect of building your own religion is that you can see through other religions extremely easily; you can sniff charlatanry instantly (which is why the Illuminati insist on the completion of this task). Blavatsky's Theosophy is an obvious construction.

The only reason you should be inclined to accept Illuminism is that you find it impossible to refute scientifically, mathematically and philosophically. Illuminism is, of course, the only religion in which members of the Illuminati have been unable to detect any flaws.

Above all, we would encourage people to read books that popularise mathematics and that deal, in particular, with i, the imaginary number, zero and infinity - because those are the numbers that define existence.

Artificial Relationships

Many advertisements directed at 16-24 year olds feature an attractive, smiling young couple, having a good time. Why? Because that's what 16-24 year olds aspire to. However, more and more advertisements show the couple looking not at each other, but at various types of gadget. They are smiling at screens, not at each other. With whom are they having the relationship? - their lover or their screens?

This is the insidious effect of hyperreality - the world of screens. People start to spend much more time gazing at perfect images on screens rather than at real people. More and more they inhabit a digital, pixellated virtual reality, and they are increasingly alienated from beings of flesh and blood with all their imperfections.

We'll never get back to any kind of reality if we don't start engaging with each other rather than with technology. It's depressing to see groups of kids sitting together physically, but not speaking to each other or interacting with each other. Rather, they are all interacting with their gadgets. Human beings have been relegated to glorified comfort blankets. You want them around to reassure you, but you will direct your attention elsewhere.

The manufacturers of gadgets are interested in only one thing - sales of gadgets. They have no concern about the effects of their technology. They don't care whether we are starting to live increasingly in a fantasy world, and are increasingly alienated from each other.

The Degradation of Britain

On 29 April 2011, 2 billion people watched a "royal" wedding in London. Once again, the British system of absolute privilege and complete contempt for merit was at the centre of the world's attention, to the shame of all self-respecting British people. Once again, the pomp and ceremony of the elite was paraded in the faces of the people. Once again, their power and "divine right to rule" was shown for all to see. Once again, girls everywhere dreamt of being a princess in a fairytale carriage and vowed to redouble their search for a handsome prince to marry. Every sexist stereotype conceivable was on show. All the tricks of Power were deployed to make ordinary people bow and kneel to the Old World Order.

It was a scandal and an outrage - an insult to the entire human race. At one point, the brother of the bride gave a reading from the Bible: "Do not be haughty. Associate with the lowly."

Haven't you wised up yet?

If you have ever wondered about the reality of the Old World Order then you have just had its public face revealed to you in full Technicolor at that wedding. That's what it's all about. That's what the great Illuminati hero Adam Weishaupt sought to destroy forever. He called himself Spartacus, and he tried to raise the slaves in righteous revolt once more. As a young man, he had success with the events in America, and he had even more success in revolutionary France where a new young hero - the brilliant Illuminatus Saint-Just - played a decisive role. But the cancer of royalty remains. It has not been cut out. The royals have clung on to their power and privilege. America is in thrall to the English monarchy. It's as if the American Revolution never happened. They love the pageantry and the Disneyland feel to the whole thing. They think Britain is some sort of Brigadoon, stuck in a fairytale time warp. (Brigadoon is a mythical Scottish village that miraculously rises out of the mists every hundred years for one day only, so that it remains uncorrupted by the outside world.)

The bride, Kate Middleton (now Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge), has been described as a "commoner", outside the usual circle of nobility from which royalty traditionally choose their partners. In fact, her parents are millionaires, and she was schooled privately at the exclusive Marlborough College and then at Scotland's elitist University for the super privileged, St. Andrews. If she's from a "common" background, where are ordinary people from - the gutter?

On her mother's side, there is the inevitable Jewish ancestry (her mother is called Goldsmith). Freemasons and Jews - the tale of modern privilege.

Forget the nonsense about fluoride and pan-dimensional Reptilians, why aren't you rising up against the vile Queen of England, the head of the Old World Order?

If you are not sickened by that wedding and everything it stands for then you are no friend of the New World Order of justice and merit.

The British Royal Family is the essence of privilege, the symbol that all those born into the "wrong" families have no chance in life. If you come from the wrong background, all the talent on earth won't help you. No one cares about talent. They care about money, power, influence, connections.

Pythagoras said, "Know Thyself." The Old World Order say, "Know thy place." (And your place is scrambling around in the lowest circles of hell, while the privileged sit at the Top Table laughing at you.)

The royal wedding was given saturation coverage. It commanded full spectrum dominance. Half of the British population watched it, and a vast global audience. This was the essence of the Society of the Spectacle - where the elite of a nation commandeered all of the resources of the state to put on the biggest possible propaganda show. Every stop was pulled out. Every newspaper in Britain covered nothing but that story. All news shows were exclusively dedicated to the wedding - as if there were no other news in the country or world. All media presenters gushed endlessly about how wonderful it all was. Not a single media figure condemned the event. NOT ONE!

A few republicans were allowed to speak, only to be mocked and called "kill-joys".

One exceptionally privileged individual declared that monarchy and meritocracy were entirely compatible because the Royal Family were the best and most talented people in the country!

One of the most advanced nations of the world was brought to a halt for a day. Why? Because a privileged couple were getting married. BIG FUCKING DEAL! Why did the world have to stop on its axis for the wedding of two mediocre individuals? Who cares about that ghastly couple? But you are MADE to care. The Old World Order do everything to make you care.

Never forget that all royal families are parasites. Their task is to get their "subjects" to keep them in permanent luxury, with no effort required on their part. How can you get others to pay you to do nothing? How can you get them to fund the easiest life conceivable for you? That's the task of all royal families. They have to create a fantasy world - a hyperreality - where you think it's right and proper for you to worship them and keep them in luxury.

On the following day, the main news headline - the most important news in the whole world, apparently - was, "The royal couple have left in a helicopter for their honeymoon."

FUCK OFF AND NEVER COME BACK!

The revolution is coming and these false gods will be toppled.

Humanity must regain its dignity. The tyrants must fall.

21 January 1793

Two Species of Humanity

In prehistoric times, Neanderthal Man could mate with Homo Sapiens, but rarely did. So in the present day there are two human species that can mate, but rarely do. We call them Conscious and Bicameral humanity. Most people in the world are not conscious in the truest sense. Their apparent consciousness is simply a superficial layer concealing their primitive bicameral minds.

Logos and Sophia are the keys to consciousness. Mythos and Eros are the keys to bicameralism.

Abrahamism is all about bicameralism: silly stories devoid of logic, reason, mathematics, philosophy, psychology and science. Only people who are not properly conscious can be lured into believing in these religions.

Recall that bicameralism is the theory that humanity was once extremely prone to hallucination, especially auditory hallucinations. People frequently heard voices in their heads, and they took these to be the voice of gods and angels.

Consider Moses talking to a burning bush and continually hearing the voice of God. Consider Jesus Christ continually hearing the voice of his "Father". Consider Mary and Joseph hearing the voice of the Angel Gabriel. Consider the Hebrew prophets who heard God talking to them. Consider Mohammed who had a vision of the Angel Gabriel and then heard his voice continually in his head, dictating the Koran to him.

Why is it that these voices that spoke so frequently in the past to so many people are now so silent? It's because consciousness has removed their voice; but not entirely. Rather, many people continue to hear the voices whispering to them in their subconscious. These people are still firmly in the bicameral mode and hence are still extremely susceptible to the age-old habits of bicameral people. Those habits are quintessentially submissive. Bicameralism is all about listening to the voice of authority, of supreme command. The God of Abraham is the personalisation and crystallisation into one (monotheism) of the ancient bicameral voices that once directed human being like so many robots. Bicamerals still long to hear that voice. It makes them feel whole again. They place their complete faith in it. Without it, they are lost.

Consciousness is directly related to dominance. The more conscious you are, the more dominant you are, and the more you subscribe to Logos and Sophia. Atheists are very dominant people because they have little or no need for the idea of a comforting deity. The Illuminati take a different approach. Rather than rejecting God, we want to be him…and we know how to do it.

Bicameralism is inextricably linked with submissiveness, and up to 95% of humanity is submissive. They are guided by stories and emotion. They ignore reason and wisdom. The Christian gospels are narratives, full of childish parables. There is not a single sophisticated idea in these books. Jesus Christ did not make a single clever remark in his entire life. He may well have been illiterate.

If you read a book by a great philosopher such as Descartes, Kant, Leibniz or Hegel and then read an Abrahamic text, the contrast is staggering. One thing's for sure: the philosophers are infinitely smarter than those who claim to be representing the Word of God. It's an important question - why is God so bad at philosophy? Why is he so stupid?

Nietzsche wrote contemptuously, "It is a curious thing that God learned Greek when he wished to turn author - and that he did not learn it better."

No conscious person could take any Abrahamic religion seriously.

The Illuminati are advocates of HyperHumanity - a new, extraordinary version of the human race. Illumination is a religion for the true elite of the world: those who are conscious, those who operate according to Logos and Sophia. We are the sons and daughters of Apollo and Athena. The future belongs to us.

Abrahamism will be consigned to the bicameral, non-conscious past. And good riddance. It's time humanity grew up. It's time we evolved. Welcome to the New World Order.

"What has been the greatest objection to life up to now? - God."

Nietzsche

Osama bin Laden

And so on May 2 2011 we learned of the death of Osama bin Laden, and, it is to be hoped, of the cherished 9/11 conspiracy theory of the "Truthers". They maintained that bin Laden was a CIA agent and wasn't being hunted by America. So much for that barking mad idea. Why did so many people cling to it for so long, against all the facts? Will they apologise now? You must be joking. The theory will mutate in new directions, and more suckers will sign up. Already, it is being suggested that the story that the body was dumped at sea is to disguise the fact that it wasn't bin Laden at all. Bin Laden, so it is said, remains in the service of the CIA with a new identity - and no one's looking for him now. So it goes.

"Congratulations" to the Pakistani Intelligence Services for protecting their man for so long. A top job. Bin Laden wasn't in the mountains, he wasn't hiding in a hole in the ground, he wasn't living with fanatical tribesmen. He was residing in a custom-built villa within walking distance of Pakistan's equivalent of West Point, a modest drive from the Pakistan capital.

Bin Laden was a man of the past, of the age of the mad bearded prophets. A beard, if worn by a person with strong religious beliefs, should be regarded as a sign of mental illness and pathology. Beards are as bad as burqas. Any religious person with a beard ought to be shunned by society. The beard reflects a sick unconscious. A beard conceals a face, and metaphorically it conceals the shadow elements that the bearded man seeks to bury.

Bin Laden, with his long, thick beard, spent far too much time studying the Koran, and not nearly enough on self-analysis. In fact, no bearded prophets ever question themselves. They are staggeringly lacking in self-awareness and self-reflection. They can't conceive of being wrong. They can't conceive of having personality defects. At all costs, they have to flee from the idea that they may be mad, that God hasn't spoken to them and that it's all in their mind. They have to be infallible, to show no error and no weakness. It's their strength and absolute absence of self-doubt that defines them and impresses others.

C.S. Lewis wrote, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

When it comes to prophets and messiahs, they are invariably liars, lunatics or "something worse." They are NEVER what they claim to be and only a fool would ever think they were.

Bin Laden, and all of his bearded companions, should long ago have put down the Koran and drunk wine in honour of Dionysus, and then have had lots of great, healthy sex. The tragedy is that they preferred reading weird and incomprehensible verses written in the desert 1,400 years ago by a man who was highly suggestible and had visual and auditory hallucinations extending over many years.

As it is, bin Laden has been welcomed into "Paradise" by Allah/Yahweh/Christ/Satan and is even now pawing the seventy-two virgins he was promised.

Oh the humanity!

And now the world awaits the inevitable reprisals by the men with beards. So it goes.