We Are Not Free
Our contemporary illusory freedom is part of a long chain of history that has been analysed in detail by Hegel. He shows us how we came to be where we are. He starts his study of historical teleology by examining the ancient civilisations of the Orient. In ancient China, India and Persia only one person was free - the ruler. The will of all those who served the ruler was subordinated to that of their master. No one had a conscience in any modern sense; no one formed their own opinions about right and wrong. All personal responsibility was absent from them. They simply obeyed.
In China, the people were like small children. Their emperor was their father. In India, the caste system of Hinduism introduced another element. As well as the despotism of the ruler, the people were subject to the inflexible despotism of religion. If you had a lowly station in life, you couldn't complain. It was just karmic retribution according to Hinduism, for misdemeanours in a previous existence. You had no right to demand freedom, and the thought didn't even occur to you. In Persia, the situation was different again. Once more, a despot reigned and religious rules applied (this time Zoroastrian rather than Hindu). However, whereas Hinduism was despotic - your nature was determined by a prior life of which you had no awareness - Zoroastrianism was about an ongoing struggle between good and evil in which everyone had a role to play.
The absolute ruler of Persia would never be challenged while he obeyed Zoroastrianism, but if he acted against the religion then he risked being deposed. In other words the ruler, like his subjects, was constrained by principles. He could not be capricious in the manner of the rulers of India and China.
Hegel saw the restraints placed on the ruler by principles (intellectual or spiritual) as providing the basis of "true history". If those principles could be changed, humanity might be transformed. Under the rule of a Chinese despot, there was no principle to which anyone could appeal to bring about change. In India, Hinduism was equated with nature itself and was also immune from change. These were static societies, where no possibility of the introduction of radical freedom realistically existed. In Persia, the rule of law implied that new laws might one day be enacted that could lead to a better society.
In the west at this time, the city-states of ancient Greece were coming to prominence. These city-states were fiercely competitive and offered a much more individualistic vision of humanity. Power was much less centralised. When the monolithic Persian Empire collided with the free city-states of Greece, the Greeks emerged victorious. The central reason for the success of the Greeks was that they fought more effectively, with a greater sense of what was at stake. The Persian soldiers were like automatons. They knew that their ruler saw them all as utterly disposable. Their morale was much lower than that of the Greeks, and they were far more likely to panic and flee.
But even the Greeks were not truly free. Sparta was a military state, with every citizen pressed into service. A huge population of Helot slaves served the Spartans. In Athens, in name a democratic state, the vote was restricted to adult males who had completed military training. Women and foreigners had no vote and, as with Sparta, a large slave population served the state. Even the citizens themselves were far from free in a modern sense. They identified with the state to such an extent that its interests were theirs. They were more like cells in a body than free agents with minds of their own. Athens put Socrates to death because he dared to challenge the authority of the state and to ask the sort of awkward questions that modern dissenters routinely pose. Spartans who refused to serve the military ethos of their state were killed or banished in disgrace. The situation in contemporary America where many citizens actively loathe the federal government and even plot against it would have been incomprehensible to the Greeks. Every such dissenter would have been put to death.
Eventually, Greece succumbed to a despot - Philip II of Macedonia. Philip's son, the famous Alexander the Great, went on to conquer Persia, India and Egypt. (Egypt, the nation of god-like pharaohs, was another empire where freedom was minimal.)
But a new empire - the Roman, soon eclipsed Alexander's empire. Rome was like a cross between Sparta and Athens: a harsh military machine that still managed to acknowledge the rights of citizens. Again, a huge slave population served it. Yet Rome was defeated in the end by a slave ideology - Christianity. The ethos of the empire changed under this new and strange religion that opposed all of the old pagan gods of Rome.
The Roman Empire was eventually resurrected in the guise of the Roman Catholic Church (religious power) and the Holy Roman Empire (political and military power). The structure of the Catholic Church resembled that of the old Roman Empire, with the pope replacing the emperor and the cardinals the Senate. Archbishops, bishops and priests were the equivalents of the officer ranks of the Roman army. It was a rigid hierarchy. The ordinary people, if they wanted God's favour, had to go through the appropriate channels, from priest to pope. The pope was the "vicar of Christ", God's representative on earth. The people themselves had no direct access to God. If they wanted to pray, they had to invoke a saint. The idea that an ordinary person could have a personal relationship with God was unthinkable.
Then Islam appeared. This religion had nothing resembling the hierarchy of Catholicism. There was no pope, no voice of central authority. Every ordinary Muslim could open a direct channel to Allah. All they needed was the Koran. To that extent, they were freer than Catholics, though the history of Islam has not proved conducive to genuine freedom. (Muslims are in such awe of their God that he takes the role of master and they of slaves. Slaves, by definition, are never free. Muslims - "those who submit" - revel in their own slavery. In terms of the dialectical progress of history, nothing is more certain than that Islam will have to be reformed or is doomed to a slow death because of its opposition to freedom.)
Eventually, the idea of a direct line to God spread to the Christian world. Martin Luther opposed the Catholic hierarchy and increasingly viewed it as an active obstacle to the true Christian message. The Protestant Reformation emphasised scripture over the authority of the Church. The Bible, previously only available in Latin (which ordinary people could not read) was translated into German. Now everyone could study the Bible and draw their own conclusions. There is only one Catholicism but there are now scores of Protestant sects. When people are free to make up their own minds, the tendency is always towards the proliferation of factions. Gnosticism historically had many factions, each emphasising a different aspects of Gnostic thinking. Islam has not splintered in the same way as Christianity because it is so simplistic that there is little scope for doctrinal dispute. Shia and Sunni Muslims differ over whether Mohammed's descendants should have been accorded special status, not over points of doctrine.
With the decentralisation of power in the west and the release of the individual from the rigid hierarchy of Catholicism, freedom spread rapidly. Hegel regarded the Reformation as a decisive event in history, a huge breakthrough for the dialectical advance of freedom. Science, in particular, was liberated from theology. Whereas the Catholic Church accused Galileo, one of the world's greatest scientists, of heresy and suppressed his work, scientific thought started to flourish in free-thinking Protestant countries. The Counter-Reformation, which brought the Jesuits to the fore, realised that Catholicism had to move with the times, and Catholicism also embraced science and the new thinking of the Enlightenment.
Islam became stuck in a rut because of overemphasis on the Koran and did not advance in terms of freedom, and to this day is scientifically and culturally backward. In Europe, the Renaissance, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Enlightenment led to an intellectual ferment that fuelled increasing freedom and started to switch the emphasis to the individual. Nationalism and the slow disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire added fresh impetus. Then came the two critical events of the 18th Century - the American and French Revolutions. The Reformation had eroded the centralised power of Catholicism and now these two Revolutions had eroded the centralised power of monarchs.
Although Napoleon, a product of the French Revolution, chose to make himself an emperor, he also introduced codes of rights for citizens. These codes were derived from the thinking of the Revolution and influenced the whole of Europe, including Hegel's nation Prussia, a militaristic monarchy.
In public, Hegel was content to proclaim that the Prussia of his time represented the culmination of history. Freedom of the individual had reached a sensible level, he said, tempered by the need for security, rightful authority and law and order. This kept him in good stead with the authorities, and ensured that he attracted no suspicion.
In private, Hegel despised the Prussian state and longed for its overthrow and the implementation of true freedom. He believed that he could influence events more effectively if he appeared as a dutiful Prussian citizen, while secretly working behind the scenes against the Prussian monarchy.
Hegel's analysis was adopted by Karl Marx, who now put forward class war based on economic inequality as the primary battleground of freedom. Rich people are much more free than poor people. Therefore to increase freedom wealth must be more evenly distributed. A communist state, according to Marx, was the final word in freedom since all private property was abolished, all wealth equally spread, and everyone had equal rights.
History has not supported Marx. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought an end to the Marxist dream. Communism did not deliver increased freedom. It was totalitarian, oppressive, bureaucratic, backward and reactionary.
At the end of the Cold War, American academic Francis Fukuyama declared that western, liberal, capitalist democracy would be recognised as the end-point of history's pursuit of freedom. History had come to an end, he said. The whole world would adopt the American and European system of government and economics, he thought. He has been proved as wrong as Marx.
Hegel's central thesis that history is about the increase in freedom of the ordinary citizen has proved correct. However, it is obvious that we have not reached the end-point of freedom.
The mission of the Illuminati is to take humanity to that end-point. The obstacles to freedom are everywhere. Monarchies still exist all across the world. Repressive religions are still corrupting billions of people. There are dictators and tyrants. Power resides in the hands of rich elites that manipulate political and economic systems for their own ends. The super-rich are flourishing as never before. The Old World Order, a group of 6,000 people, run the planet.
The Illuminati's agenda has never altered - to overthrow oppressive religions, governments and individuals who seek to control the people and hold back freedom.
What is ultimate freedom? - when every person on earth gets an equal chance to maximise their potential. When those who rise higher than others do so on grounds of superior, demonstrable merit alone. What does that mean in practice? No one can be allowed to be too rich or too poor. Failing families cannot be allowed to spiral ever downwards. Successful families cannot be allowed to buy additional advantages and privileges and turn themselves into powerful, self-perpetuating dynasties. The state must take a far more active role in people's lives.
Right wing political parties such as the Republicans in America and the Conservatives in Britain continually demand the minimisation of state interference in people's lives. These parties are the tools of the Old World Order. They want rich, elite, dynastic families to rule the world in perpetuity, and for the state to keep out of their clandestine business. When you hear anyone calling for a reduction in the power of the state, you know you are listening to a mouthpiece of the Old World Order.
The Jewish philosopher Isaiah Berlin in his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty" (1958) highlighted the difference between the Old World Order's approach to freedom and that of the New World Order. Isaiah Berlin was a Zionist and close friend of the Rothschild family. He loved to move in the circles of the wealthy and powerful: a typical hanger-on of the Old World Order, an advocate of their ideology.
Berlin distinguished between "negative" and "positive" liberty. Negative liberty is the position that people should be left to themselves, and the state should impose the minimum number of constraints. This type of freedom isn't for
anything; rather it is concerned with being free from interference. American Republicans trumpet the value of negative liberty. The state is kept passive in relation to the people. Some people - the rich, powerful and well-connected - flourish while the rest, the vast majority, live bland, banal lives or, in the case of a large underclass, lives of grim, grinding poverty and despair. The state extends no helping hand. American capitalist democracy is the creed of negative liberty. Many American citizens live in squalor, with minimal access to basic standards of health care. Tens of millions of Americans are poor, with no prospects. They are sustained by the illusion of the "American Dream", which, in reality, is as rare as a lottery win. One in a million defy the odds and succeed. For many of the rest, the dream is a nightmare.
Positive liberty is where the state is highly interventionist and offers the people a grand vision, a collective project in which everyone can participate. It promises them identity and self-realisation, a release from the directionless, purposeless lives that overtake most people when they are left to their own devices. Positive liberty is for
something. It is about becoming something new. From this type of liberty a new humanity will emerge: stronger, fitter, more intelligent, capable of greatness. Ordinary people will be able to get in touch with their Higher Selves, to unleash the latent powers within them that negative liberty seeks to inhibit. Positive liberty is a progressive and active conception of liberty. It is about changing the world for the better.
Cynicism, apathy, nihilism, and social fragmentation are the fruits of negative liberty. Our horizons are narrow and limited. Junk proliferates. People become zombie consumers, perpetually stuck in a vast, 24/7 shopping mall. They shop for the latest cheap trinkets with which the rich have tempted them. They worship celebrities because their own lives are so lacking. They are always dreaming of a better life, but doing nothing to make it happen. They don't have the tools or resources to make a difference.
Celebrities become "brands". People are reduced to "brand followers". Even dead celebrities like Michael Jackson are brands. What kind of world is it where advertising brands shape the world? You mustn't be seen with the wrong brand, you must pay a fortune for the right brand. Apathy is endemic in societies based on negative liberty. Selfishness is maximised. "I'm all right, Jack." "I'm looking after Number 1." Screw everyone else. There's no community. People are alienated and estranged. They live in "bad faith". They have an "unhappy consciousness." Yet our leaders tell us that we've never had it so good. They
have never had it so good, but the rest of us inhabit a Waste Land where there are no values.
Political correctness is our new morality. In a world of political correctness, everyone is permanently on the verge of apologising for fear that they might be about to inadvertently offend someone. To cause offence, any kind of offence, is the greatest of crimes these days. What sort of people are we when we feel compelled to apologise for what we know to be true? Do we no longer have any convictions? Do we stand for nothing? Is appearing nice, and being acceptable to our peers, what we have been reduced to?
Don't listen to the Rothschilds. Don't listen to Isaiah Berlin. Don't listen to the Old World Order. Negative liberty is a trap. It leads to our present-day wilderness, to a global shopping mall full of zombies, listening to piped-in muzak and searching for the right brands to boost their self-esteem. Negative liberty provides a global stage for reality TV, a global sports fields for preening, prancing show ponies. Some soccer players are now signing contracts worth £250,000 per week - £12.5 million a year - £60 million for a 5-year contract. Fight back. Don't watch these people. Shun them. Don't buy brands. Don't watch reality TV. Don't buy into all of the Old World Order's scams and tricks. Resist the tyrants. Theirs is a project for reducing us to subhumans; consumers on a conveyor belt, our only purpose to buy the latest gadgets, labels and designer items to line the pockets of the super-rich. We are the society of suckers. The stooges, the patsies. They saw us coming a long time ago. There's a sucker born every minute, and each of us was one of them. But our fate isn't set in stone. We can find our dignity again. We can become people rather than consumers. We must turn to positive liberty.
We are told by our masters to defend freedom and democracy. What they mean is negative freedom and dumbocracy. Is that what you want to fight and die for?
Ours is a democracy of obedience and compliance. In every country, we get the Siamese twins of Republicans and Democrats, Conservative and Labour, and so on. We are only one step removed from Henry Ford's version of choice - "You can have any colour so long as it's black." In the 2004 American election, Americans were offered a choice between two rich, privileged members of Skull and Bones. Did it matter which candidate won? That was no choice at all. We never have a choice. We always get the candidates of the Old World Order.
No one is burned at the stake for heresy in our society. Instead, anyone who dares to reject the Old World Order is mocked and marginalized in the media. Political correctness, another ingenious device of the Old World Order, instantly shuts down any form of controversial debate. Criticise the Jewish bankers of Wall Street and you will immediately be branded anti-Semitic. You might as well be branded with the Mark of Cain. No one needs stakes, nooses and torture chambers anymore. We engage in self-censorship. Why? To stop us speaking out against the Old World Order. To stop us telling the truth.
The world has lost its nerve. It has become weak and feeble, full of "last men", those who wish only to satisfy their petty needs, to be left alone to get on with their small, trivial pleasures.
It's true that positive liberty can go wrong. The communism of the Soviet Union was the last major attempt to implement a whole new conception of society. It failed because it was an atheistic, slave morality that emphasised equality over merit.
The Illuminati have often been accused of crypto-communism, but we loathe communism as much as we do capitalism. We are advocates of competition. We praise ambition. We admire and encourage great accomplishments. We want to reward and celebrate the individuals who do outstanding things. We want innovators and geniuses. We want great people. But all within reason. In a meritocratic society, the desire for more than the average is admirable, providing you are willing to work harder than the average. But the desire for excessive reward, out of all proportion to the actual work you have put in, is anti-meritocratic. There are only 24 hours in a day. If one person works hard for 1 hr a day and another for 16 hrs a day, then, on the most basic view, he deserves 16 times more. He doesn't warrant a million times more as we often see in our contemporary capitalist society. In a meritocracy, there are no "masters of the universe." There are no astronomical rewards. Instead, there is the sort of glory for high achievement that the ancient Greeks understood: to wear a winner's laurel wreath, to receive the adulation of the crowd, and to be given a reasonable monetary bonus as a reward for excellence, isn't that enough? Why must some people, overcome by greed, be allowed to demand all the riches of earth for their meagre achievements?
They should remember the tale of King Midas. When everything you touch turns to gold, you are doomed. And you deserve to perish. Greed is not good. It is a crime.
A world of the free
Existence is fundamentally teleological. Its purpose is to locate its hidden maximum, the transcendent point where it reaches its fullest expression. There, existence as an impersonal abstraction transfers power to a personal, concrete self-consciousness. That self-consciousness is the fruition of the universe's search for its own soul. It is what we call God. Once God has evolved, the universe's original telos has been satisfied. It is then God who sets a new telos. He is free to choose anything. He has the knowledge and power to accomplish whatever he desires.
The universe is not impersonal. It is not meaningless. It is not lifeless and barren. It creates meaning. It creates intelligence. It creates consciousness. It creates a soul. It becomes alive. It becomes a person. God is the universe as a living entity. The Hylocosmos is God's body and the Psychocosmos his mind.
The universe's original purpose was to become self-conscious and, from that point, to intelligently direct its own future and attain absolute freedom and knowledge. (Absolute knowledge, Hegel says, is "mind knowing itself as mind.") The earth became self-conscious in the shape of humanity and now it has an intelligence to direct it. The universe is earth writ large.
Each cell in a human body busies itself with basic, microscopic functions, yet all those cells put together can create a Hegel, Einstein or Da Vinci. The cells treated individually and the cells treated as a whole are two entirely different things. As the human personality is to individual cells so is God to the universe. It can be said that the purpose of cells in a human body is to provide the platform for human intelligence. Equally, the purpose of the components of the universe is to provide the platform for a universal intelligence. As above, so below. That is the ancient wisdom. We need only examine ourselves to see the way the universe works.
The wise will see that the reductive, scientific prescription of purposeless evolution by natural selection actually masks a more fundamental principle of the universe striving towards its telos in a process that is superficially blind but is anything but. Teleology does not contradict natural selection. Rather, natural selection is the primary tool of teleology, the mechanism it employs to find its way to its destination. Many scientists, because they can't directly observe purpose, declare that it is not there, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These scientists erroneously, and contrary to the principles of the scientific method, conclude that purpose is permanently ruled out.
The scientific method recognises that no scientific theory is ever definitively proved. Each theory is a provisional truth that can be overturned at any time if new evidence appears that refutes the theory. Science does not reach completion. Confidence in the findings of science increases each time experiment confirms theory, but 100% confidence is never, and can never be, attained.
Conventional religion makes humanity subordinate itself to God. It legitimises the principle that a remote, mysterious authority should control us. This principle then reveals itself in every aspect of our lives. When we are children, our parents who seem like gods to us control us. Then, at school, teachers control us. Then, in the workplace, by managers and bosses. In our religious lives, to priests, preachers and popes. In our financial lives, by the "masters of the universe" in Wall Street and the City. In our leisure time, celebrities, "stars", "heroes" control us. We want to be like them, to wear what they wear, do what they do. We have negated ourselves. We have become nothing. We have surrendered the control of our lives to others.
Those who control us are the Old World Order. They think we deserve to be treated like cattle. After all, we meekly go along with our fate. We have not fought back. Like the Muslims, we submit. We should have "submission" branded on our foreheads. Why do we submit? Because we are weak and they are strong. There are many more of us, but they use the principle of "divide and rule" to control us. We can never agree amongst ourselves. And that's exactly what they want. That's why just 6,000 people can rule the world.
How can they be stopped?
We are raised to be cannon fodder. The masters are raised entirely differently. They are brought up to rule, and we are brought up to serve them. They have infinite ambition and the widest horizons. We settle for minimum wage jobs and dreary office work.
In a world of strong, resourceful humans who take control of their own lives, the power of the OWO would be shattered. The masters of the universe would vanish, as would the religious leaders, the authority figures, the managers, the bosses, the celebrities, the stars and heroes. We should be our own heroes, manage ourselves, control our own destinies. But that requires personal strength, energy and talent.
Those are the qualities that must be inculcated in every person. Imagine what billions of talented people could accomplish. Humanity could reach for the stars. We could unleash our maximum potential, live our lives to the fullest extent. We should shape our lives like the most expert of sculptors, fashioning the clay with our own personal genius. Instead, we go along with the schemes of the OWO. They don't want us to be strong. They don't want to help us. They have got the world they want. They want us to obey and cause them no trouble. They will let us do whatever we like, provided we don't challenge them. But only they lead truly free lives. The rest of us must endure the yoke of the Old World Order. You would think we would have tired of it by now.
One of the most controversial members of the Illuminati was Saint-Just, one of the architects of the French Revolution. He came to power at just 25 and was guillotined by the age of 26.
Saint-Just's policy left many members of the Illuminati uncomfortable. His hatred of the Old World Order was so extreme that he demanded their complete annihilation. At the trial of King Louis XVI, Saint-Just gave his maiden speech to the French revolutionary Convention. It was a dazzling speech that has gone down as a landmark in history. Under a monarchy, this young genius would never have had an opportunity to display his exceptional merit. To contrast his speech with those of contemporary politicians is to see how pathetic and talentless our politicians are. Not one is fit to stand in the same company as Saint-Just.
Here are two short extracts from his dramatic speech of 13 November 1792.
"Some day men will be astonished that in the eighteenth century humanity was less advanced than in the time of Caesar. Then, a tyrant was slain in the midst of the Senate, with no formality but thirty dagger blows, with no law but the liberty of Rome. And today, respectfully, we conduct a trial for a man who was the assassin of a people, taken in flagrante, his hand soaked with blood, his hand plunged in crime."
"With whatever illusions, whatever conventions, monarchy cloaks itself, it remains an eternal crime against which every man has the right to rise and to arm himself. Monarchy is an outrage which even the blindness of an entire people cannot justify; that people, by the example it gave, is guilty before nature, and all men hold from nature the secret mission to destroy such domination wherever it may be found.
No man can reign innocently. The folly is all too evident. Every king is a rebel and an usurper. Do kings themselves treat otherwise those who seek to usurp their authority? Was not Cromwell's memory brought to trial? And certainly Cromwell was no more usurper than Charles I, for when a people is so weak as to yield to the tyrant's yoke, domination is the right of the first comer, and is no more sacred or legitimate for one than for any other. Those are the considerations which a great and republican people ought not to forget when judging a king."
In the vote in January 1793 to determine the king's fate, Saint-Just gave one of the briefest verdicts: "Because Louis XVI was the enemy of the people, of its liberty and its happiness, I conclude for death."
Saint-Just and Robespierre, two great Illuminists, were guillotined in July 1794. They were brought down by the machinations of Satanic archons who saw that the French Revolution might be exported to every nation and permanently destroy the power-base of the Old World Order.
Where are the Saint-Justs of today? Our world can no longer create people like that. We are zombies, suckers, brainless consumers, shuffling our way towards oblivion. History will never mark our passing. We are the damned. The Old World Order have nothing to fear from us.
Yet teleology is on our side. From somewhere, through some mechanism, people will come to prominence who will dare to take on the power of the Old World Order. It is an inevitable outcome of the arrow of history. Freedom cannot be stopped.
Are you one of the freedom fighters? What are you going to do to change the world?