Anomie will drive the forthcoming Revolution. It has slipped under the radar of the Elite, and they have no idea of just how serious the problem is for them. David Cameron, the idiot Prime Minister of the UK, has shown himself clueless. Being an extremely rich and privileged toff, he has no idea how the underclass live and what they think. He has never met any of them. He is surrounded by other posh and privileged people who equally know nothing of the underclass. They are as ignorant of the trouble heading their way as the French aristocrats of 1789.

Sociologist David Riesman divided people into three types: adjusted, anomic (maladjusted) and autonomous. The adjusted are the typical representatives of the tradition-, inner- and other-directed social types. The anomic are those who have never managed to fit in with these social types in the normal way. Instead, they are deviant representatives of these types. A gang, for example, is a deviant other-directed group where peer group pressure is all consuming. They also create a "tradition" - a code of conduct that gets transmitted to all members and carried on from generation to generation. They also usually have a strict hierarchy with the dominant alpha male at the summit. In other words, they reflect many of the aspects of mainstream society but in a deviant way that is at violent odds with the mainstream. The Mafia are an archetypally anomic group. They conduct themselves rather like a ruthless mainstream corporation, except the "commodity" they specialise in is criminality, particularly drugs, prostitution, gambling, extortion and protection rackets. Any senior member of the Mafia would unquestionably feel right at home in the boardroom of a mainstream corporation. The Mafia is simply a criminal version of a corporation (and many would argue that the vast majority of corporations are simply legalised criminal enterprises).

"Anomic", as used by Riesman, means ruleless, ungoverned and outside social norms. However, it's more useful to expand the definition of anomie to include the situation that applies to gangs and the Mafia where rules and governance are in place, but are outside and in conflict with the mainstream system.

Riesman says of the adjective anomic: "It is virtually synonymous with maladjusted, a term I refrain from using because of its negative connotations; for there are some cultures where I would place a higher value on the maladjusted or anomic than on the adjusted." He doesn't give any examples but clearly all anomic Muslims or Orthodox Jews (those who openly challenge and defy their religious traditions) are of much higher worth than adjusted Muslims or Orthodox Jews.  

Riesman valued above all the "autonomous" type, and we absolutely agree with him. Riesman wrote: "The 'autonomous' are those who on the whole are capable of conforming to the behavioural norms of their society - a  capacity the anomics usually lack - but are free to choose whether to conform or not."

The Illuminati are all autonomous. Members can conform with the norms of society if and when necessary, but equally are not defined by the mainstream norms and can step outside them, without entering the frequently desperate world of the anomic.

The choices of the anomic are highly restricted whereas the autonomous have an excess of choices. The New World Order will be one where everyone is autonomous.

Riesman observed that many anomic individuals were apathetic, with a visible lack of emotion and drive. They were prone to depression, slow in their mental and physical responses, subdued and often exhibiting an empty expression. Riesman wrote: "Taken all together, the anomics - ranging from overt outlaws to 'catatonic' types who lack even the spark for living, let alone for rebellion - constitute a sizable number in America."

In fact, it's possible to conclude that most people are on a spectrum of anomie and most "normal" people are actually anomics who are nevertheless skilled at playing the game of "fitting in". They are playing the part of being normal but do not inwardly feel normal at all. How many people in the UK were watching the riots and sympathising to a considerable extent? Probably half the country could understand the frustration and anger of the underclass.

It's the sheer scale of explicit or implicit anomie that spells doom for the ruling class. They have alienated far too many people and now they have insufficient numbers to prop them up against the tide of discontent. Their disastrous mismanagement of the economy and their ongoing greed have destroyed the illusion that they are fit people to be in charge. Practically everyone now hates the ruling elite and all that's lacking for them to be overthrown is a sensible, rational alternative. That's what the Meritocracy Movement is all about - to provide the superior alternative to democracy (which, at root, is nothing but rule by a plutocratic elite) that the people are craving.  

Riesman wrote: "Modern industrial society has driven great numbers of people into anomie, and produced a wan conformity in others, but the very developments which have done this have also opened up hitherto undreamed of possibilities for autonomy. As we come to understand our society better, and the alternatives it holds available to us, I think we shall be able to create many more alternatives, hence still more room for autonomy."

Riesman wrote this over sixty years ago. In that time, enormous amounts have been learned, yet one thing has held back progress - the ruling elite.

In the UK, many leading politicians, including the Prime Minister, have a degree called "PPE" from Oxford University, one of the great bastions of the ruling elite. PPE is "Politics, Philosophy and Economics" and is arguably the most sinister degree in the world. It is essentially the ideology of the Power Elite turned into an academic qualification. PPE is all about the philosophy of the elite, the politics of the elite and the economic systems most favourable to the elite. It is their blueprint for running the world. Enormous numbers of politicians and civil servants have this insidious degree.

Our world should in fact be run according to PSS - "Psychology, Sociology and Science". Philosophy is essential to establishing the constitution and defining the goals of society. However, once that is done, it is psychology, sociology and science that will deliver the practical management of society to achieve those aims. Politics will be rendered obsolete. Politicians will be replaced by psychologists, sociologists and scientists. The scientific method will replace political posturing and moralising. We will live in an evidence-based society where policies that lead to good outcomes will be preserved and those that lead to bad outcomes will be abandoned. Drugs, for example, will be legalised and then the evidence will be collected over a number of years to see if the world is better or worse as a result. The opinions and morals of those opposed to drugs will be neither here nor there. All that will matter are facts and evidence. Everything else is hot air and bullshit. As for economics, it will be completely subordinated to the constitution. Only economic systems compatible with the aims of society will be tolerated. So, if society is striving to maximise merit, any economic system that promotes privilege (such as contemporary capitalism) will become illegal. The world will be run on an entirely rational and transparent basis. No one will be in any doubt about the goals and direction of society.

At the moment, there is no government or nation on earth that has defined what its purpose is and what the purpose of society is. The reason for that is simple. Religion is allowed to define the purpose and goals of the individual. This is unacceptable. The State must provide a universal definition that every member of the State must sign up to, or leave the State.

The appropriate definition couldn't be easier to formulate: the purpose of the State is to produce perfect people: free, independent, autonomous, self-creating, meritorious, those whose abilities have been maximised, those who freely construct their own identity based on their own nature, character and personality.

Plainly, religion contradicts all of these elements. Abrahamism says that the purpose of everyone is to obey God or burn forever in the fires of hell. Karmic religions say that if your life is shit then it's because you were wicked in a previous life, so shut up and get on with it. Religion creates pathetic, submissive, servile, passive, terrified people, who are easy for the ruling elite to control. There is only one acceptable religion - ILLUMINATION - the religion of dialectical evolution, of striving for perfection, of BECOMING GOD.

Kleptocracy is rule by thieves. Is that not the world we live in? The world is run by the rich for the rich. They steal from us all the time - and we let them. Isn't it time the thieves were punished? And isn't it time we took back what they stole from us - our money, our dignity, our lives?

The British Government has appointed a commission to enquire into the causes of the recent riots and to determine any lessons to be learned. Of course, the commission comprises individuals selected from the "great and the good", from the privileged elite, from the British establishment.

We could write their conclusions right now. We know that they are not going to call for the abolition of the establishment, for the redistribution of wealth, for the policing of the underclass to be made much less provocative and aggressive, or for vast resources to be pumped into ghettos.

One-parent families will be blamed, and poor educational attainment, and lack of discipline at schools and a "get rich quick" culture and so on. Absolutely nothing will change. Within five years, we will experience a second wave of riots much bigger than the first.

What's the point of commissions when their answers are already pre-scripted? The establishment will never reach any conclusion other than that they are right and the underclass is wrong. These exercises are a futile insult to the intelligence of the people. The truth is the last thing that any of the commissioners is interested in, or is capable of recognising. The bottom line is this. If you treat people like scum, they become scum. It's your fault, not theirs. The British riots were caused by David Cameron and his super-rich chums - and they are the ones who should be going to jail for very lengthy sentences.

Bohemia was a historic kingdom in what is now the Czech Republic. Gypsies from that area travelled around Europe. They were outsiders, strange, different and exotic. The term "Bohemian" came to be applied to artists and writers who looked and behaved unconventionally, and to unconventional people in general. Bohemia is a good description for the new spiritual State of autonomous, self-creating and self-defining individuals that the Illuminati wish to build.

It's time for a Bohemian Revolution, a Bohemian Rhapsody.

Thomas Aquinas said that hell is where you go when you're not becoming the person God wants you to be. Illuminism says that hell is where you are when you're not becoming the person YOU want to be. And ultimately you want to be God, so Aquinas is right, but for entirely the wrong reasons.

When history comes calling, you must not be found wanting. We dislike Muslims intensely, but we applaud all of those involved in the Arab Spring who had the guts to get off their asses and fight. They were not found wanting. They found their courage. Many died, and still the others went on.

The Arab Spring is monumental because it presages a Muslim Enlightenment. The Arabs rose up against dictators and tyrants. Soon, "God willing", some of them will turn against the supreme tyrant - Allah. Mohammed will be denounced as a false prophet and many Muslims will at last embrace reason and light, just as many Europeans did at the birth of the modern world.

But our world in not in fact modern. Most of it is as backward as the world of the ancient Jews tramping around in the desert concocting their fantastic delusion that they were the Chosen People of the Creator of the entire Cosmos. What a sad and pathetic God he would have to be if he were preoccupied with a bunch or ranting and raving bearded Jews wearing funny hats and with strings dangling down from their midriffs.

The dialectic is in motion. The Islamic Enlightenment is long overdue. Now the hour is at hand. When hands are raised against human tyrants, they can be raised against divine ones too. If the Arab Spring was about freedom then Muslims must be free of Allah, Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is a slave morality, a religion for slaves. The word "Islam" means submission. We say to all Muslims - it's time to get off your knees and stand up straight like human beings. Where's your dignity? Where's your self-respect? Are you dogs or humans?    

DO NOT BE TIMID TOWARDS THE WORLD, BE BOLD. DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE WORLD, DOMINATE IT.

Better a wolf than a dog. Better a shepherd than a sheep. Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

The rule of dogma (past) v the rule of reason (future).                      

The rule of the privileged elite v the rule of the meritocratic elite.

Religion v science, mathematics, philosophy, psychology and sociology.

Mythos logic v Logos logic.

Ptolemy's cosmology (earth created by God and placed at the centre of the universe) v the infinite universe (earth has no special place and there is no Creator God).

Creator God v Evolutionary God.

God the Tyrant v God the Mentor and Guide.

Man as the slave of God v Man becoming God.

Devotion, faith, obedience, acceptance of social order versus intellect, freedom, autonomy, independence, merit, choice, knowledge.

It's time for humanity to remove the chains of the past. We must EVOLVE. The Muslims, Jews and Christians expect us to be in thrall to the Koran, Torah and Bible a billion years from now. Is that not INSANE?!! We must move onwards and upwards and leave the retards behind to sink back into the ancient slime that gave birth to them. Good riddance.  

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." - Thomas Paine

"In the first part of 'Rights of Man' I have endeavoured to show...that there does not exist a right to establish hereditary government...because hereditary government always means a government yet to come, and the case always is, that the people who are to live afterwards, have always the same right to choose a government for themselves, as the people had who have lived before them." - Thomas Paine

"All men being originally equal, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever." - Thomas Paine

Once, the elite used the principle of heredity to ensure dynastic control down through the ages. As Paine recognised, hereditary rule places obligations on those not yet born. They are slaves even before they exist.

As hereditary rule faded away in many countries, it was replaced by a new version based on money, privilege. The rich can rule over us in perpetuity because of the power conferred by money. The system of privilege, exactly like that of heredity, shapes the lives of future, unborn generations.

In a world of privilege, your future is not in your own hands and your merits count for nothing. Because of the failure of your parents and grandparents to become rich, you are now doomed. The odds against you being a success are simply astronomical. You will need to be blessed with extraordinary good looks, or sporting talent or entertainment ability - anything that the rich value and can exploit to make themselves richer - or you're well and truly fucked.

Even before you were born, your fate was decided, and the same was true of your parents, your grandparents and all earlier generations of your family line. You were born for slavery, to be the servants of the rich elite.

Is it just and fair for people to have their fate decided by what happened in the past? - by events that had nothing to do with them?

What is the central principle of meritocracy? It is that each new generation starts afresh, unburdened by the past. How is this achieved? By 100% inheritance tax. All the wealth anyone has accumulated is returned to the commonwealth upon their death. This means that it's impossible to transmit wealth and power from generation to generation. In such a system, what happens now can NEVER AGAIN decide the future lives of the unborn.

Meritocracy ensures that for the first time in history human beings are free from the moment they are born and they do not need to care at all about how successful or unsuccessful their parents were. Their fate is in their own hands, no one else's. The past won't determine them. Instead, they will create their own future.

The world can be reduced to two extremely simple formulas:

1)    Heredity/Privilege - the past shapes the future and controls the unborn. This is overwhelmingly the most popular formula of our world. This is the core doctrine of the OLD WORLD ORDER. Practically everyone believes that parents should be allowed pass on wealth to children and that the State has no right at all to intervene. None of them grasp that this single act makes slaves of the unborn. BUT NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO ENSLAVE FUTURE GENERATIONS.

2)    Meritocracy - what we do, not what anyone else does, determines our future; all of the unborn are given an equal opportunity. This is the cornerstone of the NEW WORLD ORDER. We can never be ourselves, we can never be authentic, we can never be self-determining and self-creating, we can never be in control of our own destiny until heredity and privilege are destroyed. All monarchs, all nobles, all dynastic elites, must be obliterated. There can be no human freedom until the past of heredity and privilege is eradicated once and for all. Robespierre and Saint-Just, two of the Illuminati's greatest heroes, sought to exterminate those who denied the French people their freedom. Too cruel? Too harsh? Well, the same task can be achieved by a single tax - the 100% inheritance tax, the single most important tax in human history, the tax upon which the fate of humanity, and human freedom itself, rests.

Are you for freedom or against it? If you are for it, you must consign dynastic elites to the dustbin of history. Wealth and power must, by law, be prevented from being transmitted within families. All wealth must be transferred to the COMMONWEALTH, the wealth of ALL of the people.      

In a world of privilege, the only winners are the privileged. Any non-privileged person who supports inheritance is attacking himself and sabotaging his own self-interest. Such a person is a fool for now and forever. Our world is overflowing with the stupid, and it was the privileged who made them stupid - because their stupidity suits the privileged in every possible way.

"If one class in society is obliged, in order to live, to secure the acceptance by others of its services, whilst another class can do without them, because of the resources already at its disposal, resources that, however, are not necessarily the result of some social superiority, the latter group can lord it over the former. In other words, there can be no rich and poor by birth without there being unjust contracts." - Durkheim

"The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. - I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living': that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle." - Thomas Jefferson

Year Zero = the end of privilege; the start of human freedom and merit.

Over and over again in the West, the message goes out that the parents must be allowed to decide the fate of their children: what beliefs to give them, to what school to send them, what values to instil in them, how to discipline them. It is regarded as outrageous that the State should interfere. But look at what's happening in the East, in China. It's rapidly becoming the world's top economy, and churning out entrepreneurs, mathematicians, engineers, musicians, and so on, of a fantastically high calibre - all within a centralised command and control system run by the Communist Party. In China, it's regarded as entirely natural for the State to set the tone, not parents. The State even decided how many children a family should have. Chinese parents have internalized the values of the State and, given the population of China, have realized the imperative of maximizing their children's talents. The phenomenon of the "Tiger Mother" - the mother determinedly pushing her children to achieve great things through constant hard work and practice - has now started to create waves in the West too. China has, as yet, no privileged elite (other than those associated with the Communist Party) to ruin and corrupt it, but that will change over the next few decades unless the Chinese introduce enormous inheritance taxes to stop the new breed of multi-millionaires forming a future dynastic elite.

Historically, China has always seen the State as more important than individuals while the West, on the other hand, has championed the individual over the State. In fact Western individualism is regarded as one of the reasons why the West proved so much more successful than the East after the birth of Western science (before then, China was more advanced than the West).

The optimal solution is one where the purpose of the State is to create autonomous individuals whose talents and strengths have been maximized. Who is better able to accomplish the task? - the family unit which has, typically, two mediocre parents as its controllers, or the State which has, potentially, the finest minds out of hundreds of millions of people to direct it? To put it another way, since the State can assemble the nation's greatest geniuses to determine how to bring up children in the best possible way while the family can, at best, muster only two religiously brainwashed, academically average parents, which of the two alternatives is likely to know best how to produce the finest, highest achieving children? You would need to be insane to trust the job to parents. And what about dysfunctional one-parent families, families where the parents are working all hours, parents who are illiterate and of subnormal IQ, parents who are alcoholics, religious fanatics, drug addicts, parents suffering mental health problems and so forth? How can this disastrous range of parental types lead to sensible, optimised outcomes? Why should children have their futures ruined by inept parents? But if all children are put under the full control of the State, they can all expect exactly the same maximised education, regardless of the failings of parents.

The sad fact is that most parents ruin their children's lives because they don't know any better. They do the best they can, but most are hopelessly inadequate. How many parents have detailed knowledge of the latest psychological and sociological research regarding how the mind and society works? Why are ignorant, stupid, religiously indoctrinated parents regarded as the fount of all wisdom? It's crazy.

It has suited the Old World Order, with their doctrines of "family first" and "negative liberty" - minimal State interference - to have the family as the central unit of society. That model has given them the power and control over society that they have always sought. The last thing the OWO want is a State full of supremely talented, autonomous individuals who will no longer tolerate being treated as second-class citizens. The OWO, as a matter of policy, have always undermined the power of the State. The Illuminati, on the other hand, as exponents of positive liberty - the doctrine that the State should seek to produce a perfect world - have always seen the State as the sole means of bringing heaven to earth. Stupid families will never manage it, nor selfish, self-absorbed individuals always looking out for No.1.

Hegel, one of the Illuminati's greatest Grand Masters, is often accused of "State worship". The Illuminati do indeed revere the State, but only the meritocratic State run by the finest minds - not the sort of monstrous State we see in America run by a privileged elite in Washington D.C., controlled by lobbyists and the super rich, promoting the interests of Zionist banks and corporations at all times. Such a State is an abomination, a catastrophe, an absolute inversion of the true meaning of the State. The real State can have only one function - to optimize ALL of the people. There can be no privileged elites, no two-tier societies, no "them and us", no "one law for 'us' and another for everyone else", no "looking after No. 1" and so on. The State must be seen to be acting in everyone's interests, and there should be no conceivable doubt about that. There can be no entrenched elite.

The anti-State, pro-family propaganda of right wing conservatives has been a catastrophe for the world. The State, not the family, is the sole guarantor of universal standards of fairness, justice and equal opportunity. The State is a fundamentally left wing conception while the family is invariably right wing. The family, as history has demonstrated all too clearly, is always preoccupied with its own interests.

The world of the family is a world of vicious competing units striving with all their might to climb up the status tree and push everyone else down. The Old World Order is the inevitable and logical product of a society based on the sacrosanct family. Inheritance is an intrinsically family-centric doctrine. It cares nothing for the Commonwealth. This is the central problem with the family: it is always seeking its own maximum advantage and cares nothing for others. In fact, one of the family's doctrines of success is that others must fail. All families secretly want other families to trip up so that they will then enjoy an advantage over them. That's no basis for a healthy society.

The central philosophy of the State is that the best world is the one where cooperation between people is maximized, not minimised. If we all do our utmost to help each other, we all prosper. Your good fortune is my good fortune, and mine yours. We are not trying to cut each other's throats, as in the family model. Cooperation is imperative and critical. It must be ingrained in every fibre of society.

The best model for society is the scientific community. All scientists share and share alike. Each scientist is reliant on all of the work of other scientists. Every scientist wants to make a huge discovery of course, so an element of competition is always present, but every scientist knows that science would collapse if all scientists jealously guarded their research and never shared anything with their peers. Collaboration and sharing are essential to the enterprise. Science is optimized not through competition but through cooperation.

The right wing view of the world is that the best society is a product of brutal competition between families. Manifestly, this doctrine is wholly false, but no one intends to change it because it is perfect for the privileged elite. They have no incentive to change anything. The left wing view is that cooperation must be the bedrock of society, but left wingers have never yet come up with a viable model to supersede the family model.

But such a model now exists. It's the meritocratic model of the Illuminati. The key to this model is psychological profiling. The reason why all left wing utopias collapsed was that there's an inherent problem with the human race - personality types that are so different as to render them like warring tribes, seeking entirely different things from life and disagreeing with each other over everything. These tribes resemble the competing families of the right wing model of reality. But psychology provides the answer. We can now tailor the world for the members of all the different tribes. We can separate those tribes that are likely to be in conflict with each other, and unite those that will cooperate. Inter-tribal conflict will be minimised and cooperation maximised. The left wing model of a caring, sharing, collaborative, cooperative, meritocratic society based on the Commonwealth can become a reality. We really can build utopia by using our knowledge of psychology and sociology.  

The right wing "game theory" of life where ruthless units of self-interest savagely compete with each other but manage to attain a state of sullen, suspicious equilibrium - just as America and Russia did in the Cold War - has had its day. Now we must adopt the left wing view of life that reflects the strengths of the most successful group in the history of the world - the scientific community. We have the knowledge to achieve it. All we need now is the will. We can build a world of merit rather than privilege where everyone has an equal opportunity, and where we are surrounded by friends rather than enemies and we all want to cooperate with each other because we have finally grasped that we will all be much happier and more successful if all of our neighbours are happier and more successful.

In the context of society, the past must never be allowed to determine the future. The success or failure of parents should have no bearing at all on the success or failure of their children. The law must be constructed so as to ensure that all children start with an equal opportunity in life. The law must therefore automatically prohibit inherited wealth because such wealth can have no effect other than that of providing an unfair, unearned advantage to those who inherit it. The State must provide a tailored education for everyone, hence the influence of parents on their children's fates will be minimized. Stupid, dysfunctional parents will not be allowed to ruin their children's lives.

The State is the sole guarantor of human freedom from the past. The Old World Order have been determined to ensure that the past dictates the future. That's the whole point of inheritance and privilege. The concept of hereditary power and wealth extending down through the centuries is the essence of the ideology of the dynastic elite families that have perpetually ruled our world to their supreme advantage and the supreme disadvantage of everyone else.

Meritocracy, the keystone of the New World Order, is all about removing inheritance, privilege and hereditary rule once and for all. Only in such a world are equal opportunities and genuine freedom possible.

If you are an advocate of freedom, merit and an equal chance for all then you must be opposed to inheritance, privilege and the family as the key unit of society.

Family versus State; privilege versus merit; inherited opportunity versus equal opportunity. That's the stark equation of our world. That's the Old World Order versus the New World Order. Now CHOOSE!

Scotsman J. M. Barrie is famous for being the author of Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up, but he ought to be much more famous for his play The Admirable Crichton, one of the most subversive works ever written and greatly admired by the Illuminati.

Crichton is a butler to a British Lord. When the Lord and his rich family and friends go on a sailing expedition, their ship is wrecked and they are stranded on a deserted island far from any major trading routes. The chance of rescue seems remote. At first the Lord is in charge of the group, but it soon becomes apparent that neither he nor any of the other toffs have any clue how to do anything. Only Crichton has any practical skills and he now becomes the undisputed leader and the rest refer to him as "the Guv" (the Governor, the Boss). Crichton is in his element and completely dominant. He has shown himself to be the natural leader and by far the most meritorious in this natural environment where privilege counts for nothing.

Crichton creates a thriving island community where everyone is happy. The Lord's daughter falls in love with him, even though she is engaged to another Lord back in England. Just as they are about to be married, a rescue ship appears. "Civilisation" has returned. Instantly, Crichton is reduced to a butler once more and his wedding is off forever.

Back home, one of the toffs is hailed as a hero on the basis of a false account he gave of events on the island in which he and the Lord share the honours for all that was accomplished, and Crichton is barely mentioned. The presence of Crichton is now utterly embarrassing and everyone feels awkward in his presence. His role on the island is never discussed. The Lord's daughter marries her fiancé; what happened between her and Crichton on the island is a taboo subject. The play ends with Crichton announcing that he will be leaving, to everyone else's great relief.

This play shows how fake and damaging privilege is, and how it's the absolute enemy of merit and capability. Privilege is a system of signs, symbols and coded relations that construct a false reality and which conceal the truth. The whole point of privilege is to ensure that the truth is never allowed to show its face. In The Admirable Crichton, only the disaster of the shipwreck allows the natural, truthful order to be established. As soon as "civilisation" intervenes, the fake order of privilege is resurrected. Crichton is immediately made a nobody again. An extremely capable man must go through life as the servant of fools. That's the story of our world thanks to the great evil of privilege.

Note that everyone has a first name other than Crichton. He's a second-class citizen in a two-tier society. He might as well be given a number rather than a name. He is the symbol of all talented people who are victims of the pernicious system of privilege.     

We will never have a just, fair and meritorious world until privilege is crushed. It cannot be stressed enough that the end of privilege is the prerequisite for a New World Order, and The Admirable Crichton provides a graphic depiction of why it's so necessary. People must be judged on their real talents not on their status and connections. The Old World Order's creed of "It's who you know that counts" must be destroyed. In the system of privilege, your worth is judged by your postcode or zipcode (i.e. whether you're from somewhere nice and privileged or from some vile ghetto) and your "name" (i.e. whether you have the name of a good, well-connected, privileged family or you're from the "great unwashed" with no social standing). 

Frenchman Charles Fourier (1772 - 1837) was a philosopher and utopian socialist. It was Fourier who coined the word feminism. He was a powerful advocate of the importance of community and the Communards of the Paris Commune were greatly influenced by his ideas.

Fourier was insistent that cooperation was the secret of a healthy society and would radically improve the productivity levels of workers, each of whom would be rewarded in direct proportion to their contribution (i.e. hard work would be incentivised).

Fourier, inspired by the phalanx - the basic military formation of the ancient Greeks that relied on cooperation and coordination of the soldiers who had to move as a disciplined whole - applied this name to the new communitarian entity that he wished to be the basic unit of society rather than the family. "Phalanxes" would be housed in huge, beautiful buildings called Phalanstères that were like grand hotels.

These buildings had four floors with the most talented occupying the top floor and the least the ground floor. Relative wealth was determined by one's job which was assigned on the basis of merit, interest and dedication. Also, unpopular jobs that no one wanted to do attracted higher pay.

Fourier regarded "trade" as Jewish and Jews as the "source of all evil". He advocated that they be forced to perform farm work in the Phalanstères.

Fourier asserted that poverty was the cause of most of the ills of society, hence there must be a decent minimum wage for everyone, including those unable to work. This is perhaps the first appearance of the "basic income" doctrine - everyone in society to have a guaranteed amount of money to live on - although it was assumed that anyone who could work would work and no one would choose to opt out and simply take the money (if they were neither ill nor unemployed against their will).

Fourier wanted to liberate every human being - every man, woman, and child - and he regarded liberation as having two primary aspects: intelligence, nourished by education, and joy, nourished by the healthy expression of human passion. Everywhere, he saw intelligence and joy under attack. Education for the vast majority of people remained rudimentary and religion continually constrained all joyful activities. Work always undermined joy, so he wanted to crack the secret of turning work into play.

People who love what they do will invest far more time and care into it than those who hate their work. They will do a far better job and be enormously more productive. They will feel fulfilled, contented, at one with their work, with how they use their time. The most depressing thing is to be alienated from how you spend your time because that's what constitutes your life. To love life, you must love how you spend your time, and you never will if you're trapped in a job you hate and you're only doing it because you have no alternative. That makes you a slave, and there's nothing worse than that. People and work must be harmonised.  The State should find what people like doing and give them jobs that involve that activity, in the company of others who enjoy it too. Work should be the centrepiece of a joyful life, not the thing that people flee from. Most people spend their lives dreaming of their free time and of the "weekend" when work mercifully stops for 48 precious hours. So many people are driven by this permanent Sisyphean treadmill of work, play, work, play, ad infinitum. Play takes on a kind of insane, desperate character with many pumping themselves full of drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of their lives. Precious few use their spare time to dig their escape tunnel from their prison camp. They never get out.

Life can be good only when work and play coincide - you love what you do to earn your living. Soccer players are immensely envied because they relish what they do, get paid a fortune for it and receive endless adulation and all the finest things in life because of it. Most soccer players are morons, but, hey, you can't have everything, can you?        

Fourier was a zealous proponent of a New World Order based on harmonious collaboration.

"Phalanstery" (also called phalanx): a socialist community as planned by Charles Fourier; any communal association; the buildings housing such a community; a grand hotel-cum-monastery.

Origin: French phalanstère (phalange (phalanx) + (mona)stère, monastery).      

Fourier's utopian vision was of a world organised into self-sufficient phalanges (phalanxes), each consisting of about 1,600 people sharing common buildings (phalansteries) - very much like modern university campus halls of residence - and working about 5,000 acres of land to grow the foodstuffs for the community (i.e. it was designed to integrate urban and rural features). Educational facilities were to be provided, along with workshops for handicrafts. Regular entertainment would be laid on and everything would be rationally organised to provide a happy and harmonious social life. Those doing the most menial, unpleasant tasks or the most challenging and demanding, were to be paid the most from the commonwealth, while those doing the easiest and most pleasant jobs would be paid the least.

The phalanges were to be linked into suitable cooperative groups and finally into a great federation. Theoretically, each phalange could be self-governing with its own unique character, like an ancient Greek city-state, or a whole group might agree to have a common government. This model is supremely flexible. It is the political equivalent of atoms and molecules in chemistry. The basic political atom is the phalange and these atoms can be joined to create molecules of different sizes. Is this not an inherently better system than a one-size-fits-all democracy with a single centralized government? It offers far more freedom, choice, flexibility and dynamism and can accommodate on an equitable basis radically different approaches to life. Phalanges that have different outlooks can ignore each other while having friendly relations with those on a similar wavelength.

Basically, everyone in the world can have a bespoke political and social system if they can find 1,600 other similarly minded people.

Is this not the future? Is this not how the world should be, a world of choice and liberty? Imagine a whole world where the family square box (house) model of the world is abolished and is instead replaced by a phalange model where each phalanstery resembles a campus university, with educational facilities at its core. There would also be many bespoke workshops for hi-tech companies, design companies, and so forth. Each phalanstery would have a medical facility, and each group of phalansteries would have a hospital. There would be shared entertainment complexes and shopping areas.

With this basic model, we would have the building blocks to create bespoke societies and city-states. Everyone would be able to have their own utopia where they are surrounded by those who share their values. There wouldn't be a capitalist corporation in sight, nor any bank "too big to fail", nor any irrational market.

Fourier dreamt that there would be millions of these phalanxes all around the world, loosely ruled by a world omniarch ("ruler of all"), or a World Congress of Phalanxes.               

Fourier, an ardent feminist and advocate of equal rights for women, believed that the traditional family home oppressed women and that they would be much freer within a community, supported by many other women. He considered that all important jobs should be open to women and men on an equal basis and aptitude alone should decide who was given the job. He was keen to speak of women as individuals rather than as appendages of men. What he saw of marriage so horrified him that he himself never married.

A compassionate man, Fourier was sympathetic towards the plight of the sexually rejected (and perhaps he suffered that fate himself). He had the rather charming idea of jilted suitors being led away by a corps of fairies who would administer a love cure. More intriguingly, he proposed a card-index system of personality types that could be consulted by people looking for casual sex. He also defended homosexuality.

For the world to be completely changed, the institutions of the world must be completely changed and the unit that is most in need of change is the family. Dysfunctional families abound. Every such family causes endless problems for society. We can't go on like this. The boil of family dysfunction must be lanced, and the easiest thing is to dilute the family by placing it within a community context. The psychological toxins present in so many homes would be enormously diluted in a community environment where everyone is exposed to far more people. In a phalanstery, children could enjoy a boarding school environment in one wing, while the parents would be nearby in another wing. Children could spend quality time with their parents while not being constantly subjected to the parental madness that afflicts so many households. Many psychiatrists regard the family home as one of the most disturbed and dangerous places in the world, the source of endless mental illness via child abuse, spouse beating, bullying, trying to fit children into a parental mould of unrealistic expectations and so on. Schizophrenics often become markedly healthier when removed from the family home and then relapse when they "recover" and are sent home i.e. it's the home environment that is often responsible for the schizophrenia. Stupid parents will inevitably infect their children with stupidity. Obese parents will have obese children. All of the neuroses of parents will be passed on to their children. Fanatical religious beliefs will be passed on. Are alcoholics and drug addicts fit parents? Are the permanently unemployed good role models?

The family home is catastrophic for many people. Nothing is more important than that its harmful effects should be negated as much as possible. Community is the answer.

The optimal solution is to allow quality time where parental love and nurturing are at their best, but to enormously reduce overall contact time between children and parents so that all the neuroses, bad habits and mental toxins don't have a chance to be transmitted. Everyone will be much healthier and happier.

Fourier's design for a phalanstery consisted of three parts: a central block and two wings. The central block was designed for quiet activities and included communal dining rooms and kitchens, meeting rooms, libraries, studies and lecture rooms. One of the wings was for heavy labour and noisy activities including carpentry, hammering and forging. Noisy children had a play area here. The other wing contained ballrooms, activity areas and reception areas for meetings with outsiders. Private apartments were located throughout.

Some have compared phalansteries to land bound ocean-liners.

The strength of a community is that it offers access to a much wider range of talents than those of parents alone; it takes a lot of the pressure off parents (the children are no longer in their pockets all the time and they're not totally reliant on them); childcare can be spread out and any neurotic parental behaviour is diluted. Any extremist views are likely to be moderated. If parents are genuinely interested in bringing up their children in the best possible way then one thing they will have to recognise is that they're not ideal for the job, and many others must help with the task. That goes for ALL parents. There's no such thing as a perfect parent. An African proverb says, "It takes a village to raise a child." That's exactly right.

Never forget Philip Larkin's incendiary poem, This Be the Verse

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.   

Our world will be far better off adopting communes as the fundamental unit of society. At a stroke, people will be far more cooperative and the deadly, cutthroat, soul destroying game theory competition between families will end at long last.

Fourier believed that there are twelve fundamental passions: the five senses (touch, taste, hearing, sight and smell); four soul passions (friendship, love, ambition and parenthood); and three "distributive" passions: la papillone, la cabaliste, la composite.

"La papillone" is the love of variety. Anyone would be driven crazy by a production-line job of mindless repetition. Even lovers grow tired of each other and have affairs. Fourier considered that endless drudgery stunted and repressed human beings. So, it's essential to eliminate all tedious or unpleasant jobs using automation.

"La cabaliste" revolves around rivalry and conspiracy. Fourier intended to utilise this positively by creating healthy competition between different teams of workers to see who could produce the most goods, or the goods of the highest quality. The mistake that Communism made was to try to eliminate competition when, in fact, all societies need some degree of competition as an incentive and to act as a group unifier. The trick is to get the right balance and prevent competition from becoming sinister and poisonous. As for conspiracy, people love conspiracy theories and conspiring. Even the task of arranging an orgy with the sexy couple at the next table (!) involves a conspiracy of sorts. These secret arrangements are delicious in all contexts. Secret societies are a manifestation of la cabaliste.

"La compositer" is the most satisfying of all because it is about creating a composite of the other passions, so, for example, it might involve a delicious meal (senses) in good company (soul) while discussing the details of a conspiracy (la cabaliste).

Fourier, obsessed with numbers, produced a list of 810 psychological types derived from these twelve passions. Multiplying by two (male and female) gives a figure of 1,620. Thus each phalanstery was in some sense a microcosm of society, containing a couple of each possible psychological type.

Fourier thought his Law of Passional Attractions i.e. matching up those with the same passions, would revolutionise society in the same way as Newton had revolutionised physics. This is probably the first appearance of the idea that society is best shaped via a study of people's psychological types and matching them accordingly.

Interest in Fourier grew in the 1960s, with hippie communes imitating some of his ideas. They particularly liked his advocacy of sexual liberation and free love. He accepted sadism and masochism among consenting partners as well as sodomy, lesbianism, homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, fetishism, sex between close relatives - in fact anything at all so long as it was consensual.

As for women, he considered that they had been effectively turned into slaves by men. The level of any civilization could, he said, be determined by the extent to which its women were liberated. He rejected the tyranny of patriarchy and believed that the family structure inherently subjugated women. It turned women inwards to spouse and children and alienated them from society. In the phalanstery, family arrangements were entirely different and much more outward looking.

Fourier is a truly great visionary. His ideas concerning turning work into play, a variety of work to prevent boredom, a designed community, sexual liberation, an educational emphasis, a hatred of oppression, an appreciation of the importance of psychological profiling, his championing of feminism, mark him out as a man well ahead of his time. Perhaps the world is only now ready for Fourier.

Henri de Saint-Simon (1760 - 1825) was an advocate of meritocracy, in the shape of a scientific technocratic elite who would run society according to rational, objective principles and repeat the success of science in the social sphere. Saint-Simon was the founder of French socialism, the first utopian socialist, and one of the influences on the thinking of Karl Marx.

He advocated the abolition of the law of inheritance (with the right of succession transferred from the family to the State) and the creation of a social fund. Society itself would be the sole owner of all the means of production and would entrust the running of all industry to the most able. His system is thus a meritocratic, socialist technocracy run according to scientific laws. He regarded bureaucrats as parasites.

Saint-Simon called for the emancipation of women and insisted that they must be treated with complete equality in relation to men. He advocated the equal distribution of property, power, culture and happiness. In his view, freedom and equality could be attained only through a science of society based on community living. A scientific society would surely resolve the problems of the poor and lowly.

It's interesting to note that socialist utopian thinkers have always championed the cause of experts, intellectuals and meritocracy while right-wingers are often extremely hostile to intellectuals and favour democracy over meritocracy. Whereas the left wing thinkers want smart people to be in charge and for society to emulate the scientific method and be based on rational laws, right-wingers want the rich and privileged to be in charge, and for the ordinary people to be in thrall to idiotic religions of faith, irrationality and superstition.

It's time for smart people to unite and defeat the religious and political right wing once and for all. Right-wingers are stupid, driven by simplistic slogans and infantile analysis of complex matters. They always prefer moralising over scientific evidence. The intelligentsia have to bring to an end the rule of the stupid - the Dumbocracy, the Idiocracy, the MORONarchy.

It's time for a Smart Society led by smart people obeying reason, logic, science, philosophy, technology, mathematics, psychology, sociology and art. One generation is all that's needed to transform this world of ours.  

"When the conditions of men are very unequal and the inequalities are permanent, individuals become little by little so dissimilar that each class assumes the aspects of a distinct race." - Alexis de Tocqueville

Have we not generated such conditions and inequalities in the present day? In fact the privileged class aren't so much a different race as a different species. The elite have no empathy and sympathy with the lower orders, no understanding of how they live, and worst of all, no interest.

Alexis De Tocqueville (1805 - 1859), an acute French social commentator, put forward an interesting argument that in caste systems based on religion or class, people know who they are and where they fit in. They don't have unrealistic goals because the horizons of their caste are clearly set and there's no possibility of travelling beyond them. But what happens in an apparently "open" society? Then everyone has potentially infinite horizons. Everyone thinks everything is possible. Everyone is permanently dreaming of the better life they think will come, then increasingly frustrated and disappointed when it fails to arrive. They are in intense competition with everyone else. Everyone is anxious and obsessed with status because status reflects how well you're doing in life. In a caste system, your social position is fixed so you can't be preoccupied with status. Only open societies become immersed in status wars. But at least in a true open society, you really do have the chance to rise to the top.

The worst possible society is the fake open society that is actually a cunningly disguised caste system. In such a system you enjoy neither the security and boundaries of the caste system nor do you have any realistic opportunities to realize your dreams. You are permanently tantalized by them, but they're always out of reach. That's the world we live in now. The West calls itself an open democracy that encourages merit, but it's actually a closed plutocracy run by the privileged elite. The elite live in gated communities far from the madding crowd. They have an elaborate code of signs and symbols to exclude outsiders. They go to elite schools and colleges that are beyond the price range of ordinary people; they join special clubs and societies that are closed to the mob.

But the ordinary person nevertheless subscribes to the "American Dream" and still thinks everything's possible. It's not. Everyone in the world is plagued by dreams of a perfect life, all the more so because perfect lives are forever paraded in front of us. Our media is full of images and tales of celebrities and the super rich enjoying seemingly ideal lives. Most people look at such lives and then at their own and there can be only one conclusion - they are a total failure in comparison and their dreams are turning to ashes.

What could be worse than to raise the highest possible hopes and then never deliver? That's our world. And it's an unsustainable world. The dreams it instilled in people but failed to turn into reality will be the same dreams that cause the people to turn against the elite in a great Revolution. As soon as they understand that they have been deceived, that freedom and democracy are an illusion and that they are in fact in the most insidious caste system with an impregnable dynastic elite sitting on top of the world, they will at last revolt.

The elite thought they could get away with lying, with their propaganda and the perfect illusions of the Spectacular Society, but all they have done is load the bullets into the guns of their enemies.

The Old World Order are always striving to turn themselves into a dynastic nobility that permanently rules the world. With every passing year, as the gulf between the rich and poor grows ever wider, this becomes increasingly possible, yet it also markedly raises the prospect of the inevitable dialectical response - a people's Revolution.

Tocqueville made a fascinating observation regarding a phenomenon that occurs within aristocratic societies - the identification of servants with their masters and accompanying alienation from themselves: "The servant ultimately detaches his notion of himself from his own person; he deserts himself as it were, or rather he transports himself into the character of his master and thus assumes an imaginary personality. He complacently invests himself with the wealth of those who command him; he enjoys their fame, exalts himself with their rank, and feeds his mind with borrowed greatness."

We see the same thing happening in the UK with the Royal Family. Millions of working people love this anti-meritocratic, unaccountable, elitist family that despises the ordinary people and refers to them as subjects and commoners.

The same perverse phenomenon occurs in relation to celebrity culture. Billions of people spend their lives identifying with celebrities and living through them vicariously. By reading all the gossip about the celebrities, seeing the glossy photos of their luxury dream homes and the fabulous parties they attend with the "beautiful people", they imagine themselves becoming part of this scene, and that they will be best friends with the particular celebrity they most admire.

Of course, this is pure fantasy. It's how to live in bad faith, to create a fake life that demeans you in every possible way. Celebrity culture and royalty are obscenities. They must be abolished for the psychological well-being of ordinary people. We must topple all of the false gods.               

Tocqueville said that in well-functioning aristocratic societies, the people had an instinctive trust in authority whereas in democratic societies there is an instinctive distrust. We see this all too clearly in the West where in every country everyone hates the government. Why is this? In aristocratic societies, the elite were better educated and cultured than the ordinary people and seemed much classier and refined. The elite of today may have paid for a better education, yet they do not seem intellectually competent - think of the stumbling fool George W Bush - and nor do they seem classy, cultured and refined. In fact they often go out of their way to pretend to be "down with the people". Yet by trying to blur the distance between rulers and ruled, they make themselves seem unremarkable and actually unfit for high office.

If the elite don't seem genuinely smarter than the ordinary people then the ordinary people will start to think they could do better. They will become convinced the government is not only inept but corrupt too, and that they are carrying out perverse policies to serve their own interests. Moreover, they will be right.  

Tocqueville asserted that democratic societies were plagued by the right of "private judgment" where ordinary people felt entirely comfortable about criticising their rulers, something that was unthinkable in the great monarchies of old.

Tocqueville wrote: "Where the citizens are all placed on an equal footing and closely seen by one another, and where no signs of incontestable greatness or superiority are seen in any one of them, they are constantly brought back to their own reason as the most obvious and reliable source of truth. It is not only confidence in this or that man which is destroyed, but the disposition to trust the authority of any man whatsoever. Everyone shuts himself tightly within himself and insists on judging the world from there."   

In the UK, the most elaborate measures are taken to protect the head of state - the Queen - from coming into contact with ordinary people and any prospect of having her position openly challenged. The media are invariably sycophantic towards her and no voices of militant republicanism are allowed to be heard. That's the UK in the 21st century - barely changed from its feudal past.

The people of the UK are an embarrassment and it's the black kids who rioted in London - who aren't fooled by the propaganda of the elite - who probably offer the greatest hope of leading the UK towards a better future.

Tocqueville put forward an interesting argument that in aristocratic societies, the opinions of the people were formed by great men - i.e. experts - while in democratic societies "public opinion" is the greatest influence on the positions people adopt. The "tyranny of the majority" becomes a huge problem. People don't respect expert opinion but they do acknowledge popular opinion. Yet what if Ibsen is right and the majority is always wrong? In his brilliant play An Enemy of the People, Ibsen savages the idea that ordinary people know best, that the wisdom of the crowd is superior to the wisdom of the individual genius. As meritocrats, we agree with Ibsen. Popular opinion once regarded the Earth as flat and stationary, at the centre of the universe. Had the world listened to popular opinion, it would never have evolved. Billions of people subscribe to the popular opinion that Abrahamist religions reveal the truth of life. Of course, the real truth is that these religions are wholly false.

Modern politicians frequently employ "focus groups" to examine their policies. They abandon any policies that are unpopular. Since when did leaders let their views be shaped by the followers? No wonder there is a leadership vacuum in our world. Nietzsche was keen to point out that modern trends have militated against strong leadership. He asserted that people in democracies are incapable of leading. They don't know how - and he has been proved right. The only people making the running in democracies are the greedy elite. Politicians are their puppets.

Democratic politicians are particularly obsessed with the strongest opinion former in democratic societies - the media, controlled of course by the rich elite. The media churns out propaganda, which is absorbed by the people and then regurgitated by them. The media has constructed a false consciousness for the people. Unable to think for themselves, most people will happily go along with whatever the majority think and the majority opinion is invariably moulded by the media.

If the media in America were run by Michael Moore rather than Rupert Murdoch, America would just about be a socialist nation by now. Most people have no firm views about anything because most people are not well educated, do not study philosophy and are extremely unreflective. They acquire whatever ideas they find most appealing at a particular time, and those opinions which are repeated over and over again. Most Americans have been brainwashed to hate communism but most of them have no idea what it actually is. We guarantee that if most Americans read the works of Karl Marx, many of them would be joining the Communist Party tomorrow. Marx is a brilliant thinker and even in you finally reject his views, you can't help but be impressed by his arguments and his deconstruction of the evils of capitalism.

Most people are "shorthand thinkers". They reduce all complex subjects to a few simplistic signs, symbols and soundbites. So, virtually no Christians know anything about Christian theology i.e. the religious philosophy that underpins Christianity. "Christianity", for the average Christian, means: "Jesus loves me; Jesus died for my sins; Jesus rose from the dead; only if I believe in Jesus will I go to heaven." That's it. That's the extent of their "understanding" of Christianity. Why should anyone take the opinions of these people seriously if they do not constitute a meaningful, well-thought-out system of thought?

Meritocracy is all about ensuring that only those with meaningful things to say will be listened to, and everyone else will be ignored. If you want to vote on economic policy, get yourself an economics degree. If you don't have an economics degree or its equivalent then shut up in relation to economics since you literally don't know what you're talking about and why should any emphasis be placed on your ill-informed, half-baked, ignorant opinions?

We won't make any progress in the world until we listen to the wise and ignore the stupid. Democracy, as all intellectuals have always understood, is a means of putting power in the hands of ill-informed public opinion. How can that be sensible and rational? Democracy goes hand in hand with Protestantism - it's the cult of the loudmouthed moron who thinks bar talk constitutes philosophy. It's extraordinary how many badly educated people think they are right about everything. What that means is that they have contempt for education and regard it as essentially worthless. Meritocracy, on the other hand, regards education as the highest good, and it ought to be the axis on which the world revolves rather than family, patriotism, religion and capitalism.

Tocqueville believed that the tyranny of the majority opinion would lead to intellectual stagnation. People, scared of disagreeing with the consensus, would stop using their reason and just go with the flow. In fact, stagnation was the least of it. Active dumbing down has taken place under democracy, a race for the bottom. Democracy has given us a lowest common denominator culture. There is almost zero intellectual content in the mainstream media.

Tocqueville made an astute observation about the American attitude to religion: "If we examine it very closely, it will be observed that religion itself holds sway there much less as a doctrine of revelation than as a commonly received opinion." In other words, Americans believe because everyone else believes, not because they have spent any time studying the religion they profess to believe. Their beliefs are based on a) ignorance and b) whether or not they are popular rather than knowledge.

Tocqueville asserted that in aristocratic societies, people identified only with their own class. They had intense loyalty to their own kind, and little to others. In a proper democracy, people can identify with everyone, and that makes their loyalty to each other much less intense. If you love everyone then in fact you love no one. The ultimate love is a craving for just one other person. Intensity is selective. You can't be intense towards everyone. Democracy has the effect of simultaneously widening our empathy and sympathy base while reducing its passion. And perhaps this reduction goes so far as to actually diminish our regard for everyone. It makes us apathetic towards all.

In aristocracies, people are passionate towards some and indifferent towards most. In democracies, people gradually become universally indifferent. They are not motivated to be loyal to anyone other than their close circle, particularly their family. Thus we generate the game theory world of selfish families ruthlessly competing with each other. A nightmare.  

Tocqueville wrote of aristocratic societies, "The notion of human fellowship is faint and men seldom think of sacrificing themselves for mankind, but they sacrifice themselves for other men."

Soldiers often say that they don't fight for their country or any cause but for each other. Their primary loyalty is towards their platoon or company and to the fellow soldiers and friends they rely on 100% in life or death situations. That breeds a strength of connection that non-soldiers will never grasp. Gangs too are intensely loyal to other members, while having hostility to everyone else. In democracies, people will fight for their families and that's it. In theory, they should care about all of their fellow citizens but in practice they don't. The best way to create a much wider loyalty group is via Fourier's phalanx communities.

Tocqueville argued that democratic societies generate huge competitive pressures between everyone as they all strive to get the best jobs, houses, partners, schools for their children and so on. They become obsessed with their private interests and any enhanced empathy they may have had for others is destroyed. According to Tocqueville, the extreme individualism of democracy becomes mere egotism. Individuals grow solitary and deeply suspicious of others. Paranoia rises. Conspiracy theories spread exponentially.

As community is progressively destroyed by individualism, a side effect is for bureaucratic centralization to grow to fill the void of cooperation. Washington DC is created in all of its nightmarish glory, and its real function is to keep the peace between endlessly warring private factions that all hate central government.

"Despotism, which thrives on fear, sees in the isolation of men the best guarantee of its own survival, and therefore it takes enormous care to isolate them...Equality places men side by side, unconnected by a common tie. Despotism raises barriers to keep them apart: the former predisposes them not to consider their fellow creatures, the latter makes general indifference a sort of public virtue." - Tocqueville

Democracy creates an atomised society, a bureaucratic, centralised despotism and a catastrophic indifference, if not actual hatred, between people, all of whom are ruthlessly competing for the same things. The authentic rat race has come to life and we have all allowed it to happen. We are no longer human. We look in the mirror and we see rat whiskers.

Tocqueville said of centralised democratic government, "It does not tyrannize, but it interferes, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies people, until each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."      

India was the jewel of the British Empire. Astoundingly, just a few thousand Britons controlled a subcontinent of one hundred million. How was such a thing possible? Why didn't the Indians simply sweep the British away? Tocqueville was fascinated by what forces had allowed the British to maintain their power for centuries.

His primary answer was the Indian caste system. The vast majority of people belonged to the lower castes and they imagined that they were being punished for wrongdoings in previous lives. If they wanted to improve their lot next time round, they had to stoically endure their grim lives. This karmic ideology makes people passive and accepting of ill treatment. It's perfect for tyrants who want to control large numbers of people. The small number of highest caste Indians had no fellow feeling with their countrymen. If anything, they identified more with the British, whom they regarded as high caste too. In fact, the British in effect reinvented themselves as the highest caste in the Hindu religion, higher even than the priestly Brahmins. They used the existing caste mechanisms for running India, but now they placed themselves at the top of the tree. So, everything continued much as before. The British had no need to interfere. They just collected the money at the end of the line.

The British upper class are superb at adopting airs and graces and presenting themselves as a deserving elite. The Indians genuinely thought the British were a superior caste and that it was wise to obey them. Once you've made people buy into your myth, you've got it made.

The Old World Order have effectively created a new caste system. They have made everyone else believe that they are a superior caste - as evidenced by their enormous wealth - and everyone has gone along with it.

The people think to themselves that if they bring down the elite, the ultimate shit storm will be unleashed. Who will be able to run the world better than the self-styled "masters of the universe"? Without them, the world will surely fall apart.

The key task for the OWO is to control the media machine - their propaganda department, their Orwellian "ministry of truth" (which tells nothing but lies) - and ensure that no plausible rival system is allowed to present itself to the people. Democracy, for all its rhetoric, is totalitarian. When have you ever heard any discussion of alternatives to democracy in the media? When has capitalism ever been seriously challenged in the Western media? Billions of people are led to believe that there is no alternative to the rule by the OWO. It's either the OWO or chaos and ruin. The OWO prey on the fears of the masses.

Companies often say in their corporate brochures that they are only as good as their people. The same is true of nations. A nation is only as good as its citizens. That, in fact, is the guarantor that there is nothing to fear. If you believe that your nation has many good and great people in it then if the present system collapses, it will soon be replaced by something new and potentially much better. Far from being something to fear, it's a glorious opportunity and probably the best chance you will ever have to make your mark.

The OWO have also benefitted from the social atomisation, inter-family competition and mutual indifference of those in democratic societies. Unlike the Muslims in the Arab uprisings, they have little inclination to gather together. Islam is all about community; the West is all about the family and individual. It's enormously harder to get Westerners off their fat asses.

The collapse of the existing order is a great opportunity for you; what you've always been waiting for. Let's get rid of the Old World Order. They have fucked our world and now it's time for them to be fucked. The new world can be built very quickly - using the assets of the rich. They have forfeited those assets because of their crimes against the people and their criminal ineptitude in managing the economy. Their greed - and their greed alone - was the cause of the financial meltdown. Now they must pay.

The monarchy and aristocracy of the France of 1789 had no idea what was about to hit them. Their arrogance blinded them to what was going on. Their isolationist, privileged lives, where they never came into contact with ordinary people, meant that they had no idea of the fury of the people. They imagined their wealth, the law and, ultimately, the army would protect them. They were wrong on every count. The French aristocracy had engineered tax immunity for themselves, and no longer bothered to fulfil any of their duties to their communities. In the modern day, the super rich live behind huge gates, have no interest in the community at large and use top accountants to reduce their taxes to nothing.

Today's super rich have repeated all of the same catastrophic errors as the French elite of 1789, and now history will repeat itself. The Revolution is surely coming. The internet is a discontent magnifier and it can link people everywhere.

All it would take is one giant heave and the Western elite will topple. All of their assets will be seized and meritocrats will establish a provisional government.

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold." - W.B. Yeats (The Second Coming)

"A terrible beauty is born." - W.B. Yeats (Easter 1916, commemorating the Irish Easter Uprising against the British Empire)

HAD I the heavens' embroidered cloths,

Enwrought with golden and silver light,

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths

Of night and light and the half-light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;

I have spread my dreams under your feet;

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

The Anatomy of Power

 

 

In May 2010, a coalition Government came to power in the UK, formed by the right wing Conservative Party and the Centrist Liberal Democrat Party. The newly appointed Cabinet (consisting of 29 Ministers) - the core of the UK Government - was said to have a net worth of £60 million. All of them belong to the financial elite. Politics in the UK was once the preserve of the wealthy - you could literally buy a constituency - and it's becoming so again. 23 of the 29 members of the Cabinet have assets and investments estimated at more than £1million. In other words, a clique of millionaires now run the UK. We have listed the backgrounds of these individuals, and what schools and universities they went to, and what degrees they took.

Extraordinary patterns emerged. Virtually all of them were privately educated and came from extremely rich and privileged backgrounds (none more so than Prime Minister David Cameron). Many of them had fathers who had been active in politics. None of them has a degree in mathematics, any science subject, any engineering subject, any technological subject or any psychological or sociological subject. An incredible number had a particular degree from Oxford University - "PPE" - Politics, Philosophy and Economics, the degree specially designed for the British political establishment. History was also a popular subject.

The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer - responsible for British economic policy - has a history degree. Extremely well qualified for his job, obviously.

No matter what country you come from, you ought to study this list very carefully. There will be a list in your country of an identical nature. You will immediately realise something profound: you're definitely never going to be on the list.

If, by the time you have reached the end of this list, you're not demanding a Revolution, you deserve a shit life. Only fools and cowards support a system of government entirely hostile to their interests. If you're not part of the "in crowd", you must get rid of them or forever be part of the "out crowd" - a failure, a loser, a nobody.

These people have complete contempt for you. They operate within a tiny, narrow clique from which everyone from a regular background is excluded.

The List of Shame - theirs for engineering it, and ours for putting up with it:

David Cameron (personal fortune of £4m) - Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service.

Parental background: Father was a rich stockbroker. Mother is a retired Justice of the Peace and daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet. Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV; a 5th cousin of Queen Elizabeth II. He's also descended from a German-Jewish financier whose family assisted the Rothschilds, and a rich Danish Jewish family. Cameron's maternal grandfather was Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet, an Army officer and the High Sheriff of Berkshire. Cameron's maternal great-grandfather was Sir William Mount, 1st Baronet, BE, Conservative MP for Newbury 1918-1922. Cameron's great-great grandmother was Lady Ida Matilda Alice Feilding. His great-great-great grandfather was William Feilding, 7th Earl of Denbigh, GCH, PC, a courtier and Gentleman of the Bedchamber. His mother's cousin, Sir Ferdinand Mount, was head of 10 Downing Street's Policy Unit in the early 1980s. Cameron is the nephew of Sir William Dugdale, brother-in-law of Katherine, Lady Dugdale (died 2004) Lady-in-Waiting to The Queen since 1955 and former Chairman of Aston Villa Football Club. EXTREME ELITE BACKGROUND. DAVID CAMERON IS THE ARCHETYPAL BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT FIGURE. A MASON WITH JEWISH BLOOD, HE HAS FINGERS IN EVERY PIE. HE IS THE VERY WORST KIND OF HUMAN BEING. AN ABSOLUTE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.

School: ETON COLLEGE FOR BOYS. MOST ELITE PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THE WORLD.

University: Brasenose College, University of Oxford; First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE). ELITE EDUCATION.

Joined the Conservative Research Department and became Special Adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then to the leader of the Conservatives (who then campaigned to have Cameron appointed as his successor. Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications for seven years.

Clubs: BULLINGDON CLUB. ELITE CLUB.

Gideon Oliver ("George") Osborne (£4.6m) - Chancellor of the Exchequer

Parental background: Part of the old Anglo-Irish aristocracy, known in Ireland as the Ascendancy. Heir to the Osborne baronetcy (of Ballentaylor, in County Tipperary, and Ballylemon, in County Waterford). ELITE BACKGROUND.

School: St Paul's School. ELITE SCHOOL.

University: Magdalen College, University of Oxford; Bachelor's degree in Modern History. ELITE EDUCATION.

Edited the Oxford University newspaper; attended Davidson College in North Carolina for a semester as a Dean Rusk Scholar; became a Conservative researcher and then an MP.

Clubs: BULLINGDON CLUB. ELITE CLUB.

Jeremy Hunt (£4.5m) - Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport

School: Charterhouse School (head boy). ELITE SCHOOL.

University: Magdalen College, University of Oxford; First in PPE. ELITE EDUCATION.

Chris Huhne (£3.5m) - Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Parental background: son of wealthy businessman.

School: Westminster School. ELITE SCHOOL

University: Sorbonne, where he obtained a certificate in French Language and Civilisation, followed by Magdalen College, University of Oxford where he was a Demy scholar. First in PPE.ELITE EDUCATION

Edited the Oxford student magazine.

Dominic Grieve (£3m) - Attorney General

School: several private schools and Westminster School. ELITE SCHOOL

University: Magdalen College, University of Oxford; degree in Modern History. ELITE EDUCATION

President of the Oxford University Conservative Association.

Francis Maude (£3m) - Minister for the Cabinet Office, Paymaster General

Parental Background: son of the former Conservative Cabinet minister Angus Maude. ELITE BACKGROUND.

School: Abingdon School (private). ELITE SCHOOL.

University: Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge, degree in Law. ELITE EDUCATION.

Andrew Mitchell (£2m) - Secretary of State for International Development

Parental background: son of a former Conservative MP. ELITE BACKGROUND.

School: Rugby school. ELITE SCHOOL.

University: Jesus College, University of Cambridge; degree in History. ELITE EDUCATION.

Chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association and President of the Cambridge Union.

David Laws £1m-2m estimate - Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Parental background: son of a rich banker. ELITE BACKGROUND.

School: private schools.

University: King's College, University of Cambridge; double first in economics. ELITE EDUCATION.

Went into investment banking, becoming a Vice President at JP Morgan and then Managing Director; Head of US Dollar and Sterling Treasuries at Barclays de Zoete Wedd.

Nick Clegg (£1.9m) - Deputy Prime Minister

Parental background: father, Nicholas Clegg CBE, is chairman of United Trust Bank, and is a trustee of The Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation. Paternal grandmother, Kira von Engelhardt, was the daughter of a baron in Imperial Russia whose family fled after the Russian Revolution. One of his great-great-grandfathers, Ignaty Zakrevsky, was attorney general of the Imperial Russian senate. ELITE BACKGOUND.

School: Westminster School. ELITE SCHOOL.

University: Robinson College, Cambridge; degree in social anthropology. ELITE EDUCATION.

David Willetts (£1.9m) - Minister of State (Universities and Science) Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

School: King Edward's School - private school. ELITE SCHOOL.

University: Christ Church, Oxford; First in PPE. ELITE EDUCATION.
 
Lord Strathclyde (£10m) - Leader of the House of Lords, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Parental background: Son of Conservative politician The Hon. Sir Tam Galbraith. PRIVILEGED BACKGROUND.

School: Two independent schools for boys. PRIVATE EDUCATION.

University: University of East Anglia; graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Philip Hammond (£7.5m) - Secretary of State for Transport

Parental background: Son of Civil Engineer.

School: Shenfield High School.

University: University College, Oxford; degree in PPE. ELITE EDUCATION.

William Hague (£2.5m) - Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Parental background: son of a business couple running a drinks company.

School: educated at a selective grammar school

University: Magdalen College, University of Oxford; First IN PPE. ELITE EDUCATION.

President of the Oxford University Conservative Association, President of the Oxford Union

MBA worked as a management consultant at McKinsey & Company.

Theresa May (£1.6m) - Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equality

School: private schools

University: St Hugh's College, University of Oxford; degree in Geography. ELITE EDUCATION.

Oliver Letwin (£1.6m) - Minister of State, Cabinet Office

Parental background: son of William Letwin, Emeritus Professor at the London School of Economics

School: Eton College

University: Trinity College, Cambridge; degree in philosophy and history. ELITE EDUCATION.

Letwin is Jewish.

Caroline Spelman (£1.5m) - Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

School: the Hertfordshire and Essex High School

University: Queen Mary College, University of London; First in European Studies

Owen Paterson (£1.5m) - Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

School: privately educated

University: Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; MA in History. ELITE EDUCATION.

Cheryl Gillan (£1.5m) - Secretary of State for Wales

Parental background: daughter of a former British Army officer and director of a steel company.

School: Cheltenham Ladies' College,

University: the College of Law; Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing.

Kenneth Clarke (£1m+) - Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice

School: Selective grammar school

University: Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge; degree in law. ELITE EDUCATION

Chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association.

Sir George Young (£1m) - Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal

Parental background: son of Sir George Peregrine "Gerry" Young, 5th Baronet. ELITE BACKGROUND

School: ETON. ELITE SCHOOL.

University Christ Church, Oxford; degree in PPE. ELITE EDUCATION.

Iain Duncan Smith £1m - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Parental background: son of a Royal Air Force Group Captain highly decorated in World War II

School: HMS Conway, a naval training school.

After school: Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

Michael Gove £1m - Secretary of State for Education

School: Robert Gordon's College - private, to which he won a scholarship.

University: Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford; degree in English. ELITE EDUCATION

President of the elite Oxford Union.

Dr Liam Fox £1m - Secretary of State for Defence

Parental background: born and raised in East Kilbride, Scotland and brought up in a council house. Educated at Catholic comprehensive school.

University: University of Glasgow Medical School.

DAVID CAMERON AND NICK CLEGG

Is it not an extraordinary thing that Britain's Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister both have such similar backgrounds? Both come from millionaire backgrounds and are themselves millionaires. Both went to elite private schools where fees are £30,000 per year, considerably more than the average British annual salary. Eton College for boys, where Cameron went to school, is the most privileged school in the world. Virtually every "Old Etonian" (as they call themselves) rises to a senior position in the Old World Order or the organisations that service it. Westminster School, where Clegg went, is not far behind.

Nineteen Prime Ministers in British History have come from Eton, eight from Harrow "public" school (ironically, the bastions of extreme privilege refer to themselves as "public" rather than as ultra-private) and two from Westminster. The vast majority of British schools have, of course, no political connections at all.      

David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party only four years after entering Parliament. It was even quicker for Nick Clegg - just two years. Time doesn't crawl for such people. They're fast tracked to the top. All doors are opened for them. They never see a red light. When he was starting out on his political career, David Cameron was endorsed by a phone call from Buckingham Palace! Cameron's posh wife Samantha is the daughter of a baronet and descended from Charles II.   

That's the UK in the 21st century - infested by toffs, royals, and the super rich. Our day will come when we will replace these people. Never again will anyone who opted out of the State education sector be allowed any job in the public sector. They turned their backs on the people when they refused to be educated alongside them, so the people will henceforth turn their backs on them. Isn't that justice? Why should those who refused to interact with the people at school be allowed to rule them? Is that not insane? If the State education system isn't good enough for them, why should they alone be allowed to escape and get the finest education money can buy? Who the fuck do these people think they are? One thing's for sure - once a meritocratic government is in place, such people will never be heard from again. The people will be permanently protected from the likes of Cameron and Clegg.    

Cameron is an especially evil man. He is the latest in a long line of Tory MPs produced by his family: i.e. his is an archetypal "dynastic" family of privilege. It was certain that one of them would one day become Prime Minister. That is the entire point of these families. From his earliest moments, everyone told him that he was "destined for great things". Well, why wouldn't he be? The red carpet has been set out for him and indeed for all others who are born into exceptional privilege. He enjoys every advantage that is explicitly denied to everyone else. These people are always astonishingly self-confident: who wouldn't be if they were backed up by centuries of wealth and power? Even as a teenager, Cameron was accustomed to being told he had the makings of a future prime minister. While most people are worrying about their education and getting any sort of job just to get on the employment ladder, children of privilege are already having all doors opened for them to allow them to fast track to the very top. These people never worry about money or jobs. They can focus right from the start on the highest and most powerful jobs in the world. They are never beset by the doubts that afflict anyone who sees a staggeringly difficult road ahead, with every door firmly closed in their face.

If, like the authors of this website, you have had to crawl out of the gutter and use a preternatural effort of will to drag yourself to a position where you could pull back the curtain and see the feeble ranks of the privileged - enervated, corrupt and talentless despite all the benefits showered on them - you will be able to smell how close the end is for these poltroons and criminals. Illusion alone sustains them. Only the voice of the young lad shouting out, "The Emperor is stark naked" remains to be heard. ONE SPARK - that's all that's needed. One spark of truth!

*****

We have chosen to highlight a few more leading toff politicians:

You have been relentlessly lied to that you have any chance. You don't have a prayer of succeeding. You never did. The system of privilege is there to ensure that the privileged succeed and you fail. There are only a few good jobs to go around. Those are all reserved for the elite. If you weren't born into the elite, you will never be joining it. The high life is not for you. You were DESIGNED by the system to be mediocre and get nowhere. You blabber on about love all you like, spout mystical hogwash, delude yourself that there is such a thing as "karma", read New Age books and engage in all the other displacement activities that allow you to avoid confronting the central fact of life: Power. You don't have any and those that do wish that to remain the case so that they can go on allocating the finest things in life to the members of their caste. Revolution alone can change your life. The system that has oppressed you must be destroyed for you to be free. The privileged elite must be swept aside if any of the great jobs are ever to come your way.

In the UK, only 7% of the population go to private schools, but 59% of Conservative MPs, the traditional party of government, were privately educated. Gideon Osborne, the extremely wealthy Chancellor of the Exchequer, was looked down on in the Bullingdon Club because he hadn't gone to Eton and his background wasn't quite as glittering and blue-blooded as the rest, so he was known as "Oik", meaning lowborn, working class and yobbish.

70% of high court judges are privately educated. You certainly won't catch them doing anything other than upholding the law of the elite. The vast majority of top newspaper editors, columnists and news presenters are privately educated i.e. they completely control the media and pump out their propaganda on behalf of the elite around the clock. Social mobility has gone into reverse in the last twenty years and is declining at a phenomenal rate. Ever since Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan pushed through unrestrained free market economics and enormous tax cuts for the rich, the rich have become infinitely richer. Until Thatcher and Reagan, the elite felt themselves under threat from left-leaning governments that were willing to impose high taxes on them. Since Thatcher and Reagan, the West has become right wing and the elite have never had it so good. This, of course will be their downfall. Nemesis always follows hubris. They have become supremely arrogant and imagine they can get away with anything. Just as their ludicrous economic model was based on the principle that house prices could never fall, so their political model is based on the fallacy that the people will never revolt.  

Stop kidding yourselves. Stop feeding the machine that crushes you. Oppose it in every way you can. If you don't then choose whatever words you like to describe yourself: loser, weakling, coward, slave, failure, puppet, patsy, stooge. You think there's a conspiracy going on? Of course there is - it's by the people at the top of society against you and everyone like you. And what are you doing about it? FUCK ALL. What battlefield have you chosen to express your enmity of the elite? - 9/11. Deep down, even you know that Muslim maniacs who despised America were responsible for 9/11. Why don't you choose the RIGHT battlefield on which to engage the elite - MONEY! Why don't you demand that the money that gives them all of their power be taken from them? Because you worship money as much as they do. You think that the dollar is sacrosanct. You think the State - the Commonwealth - has no right to take it from anyone. You think that because the elite have brainwashed that into you because it is essential for you to believe that utterly in order for you to pose no threat to them. As soon as you realise that you are entitled to their money because they have stolen it from you and your ancestors - just as the African Americans of today are owed endless trillions for the slavery that was inflicted on them by the elite - then you will have no compunction about removing the assets of the criminals who run our world. Forget 9/11. Just concentrate on the removal of the elite's wealth - once that is achieved, everything else in our world will become better.            

 

Nathaniel Philip Victor James Rothschild, a scion of the Rothschild family

School: ETON

University Wadham College, University of Oxford; degree in History

Member of the Bullingdon Club. Close friend of George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Rory Stewart (Conservative MP)

School: ETON

University: Balliol College, University of Oxford; degrees in modern history and PPE

Appointed a deputy Governor of two provinces in Iraq at age 30. Awarded OBE for his services.

There is of course no reason why a 20-yr-old, never mind a 30-yr-old, couldn't have a crucial job if they are sufficiently talented, but can you imagine that someone NOT from Eton and Oxford would ever have been given such a job?

Brad Pitt has bought the rights allowing him to make a film of Stewart's life. Stewart likes to compare himself to Lawrence of Arabia.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Mayor of London

Parental background: Johnson is a descendant of King George II, and through George's great-great-great grandfather James I/VI, a descendant of all of the previous British royal houses. Johnson is an 8th cousin of David Cameron.

School: ETON.

University: Balliol College, University of Oxford; degree in classics.

President of the Oxford Union

His children are called Cassia Peaches, Milo Arthur, Lara Lettice and Theodore Apollo.

MEMBER OF THE BULLINGDON CLUB

Rachel Johnson (sister of Boris Johnson)

School: St Paul's Girls' School. ELITE SCHOOL.

University: New College, University of Oxford; degree in Classics.

Edited Isis, the magazine for Oxford University students.

Jo Johnson (Conservative MP, brother of the above)

School: ETON

University: Balliol College, University of Oxford; degree in Modern History.

Edited Isis, the magazine for Oxford University students.

Leo Johnson, another brother, is a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers. Leo has an MBA from INSEAD. He holds an M.Sc. in Resource and Environmental Economics from University College London, where he was Dow Scholar, and a B.A. from New College, University of Oxford, where he was Stephens Scholar.

Jacob Rees-Mogg

 

Parental background: son of William Rees-Mogg, a former editor of The Times. He is married to the heiress Helena de Chair.

School: ETON

University: Trinity College, Oxford; degree in history

President of the University Conservative Association

Annunziata Rees-Mogg

Sister of the above, and looking to join him as a Member of Parliament.

Has been a leader writer for The Daily Telegraph, deputy editor of MoneyWeek, and editor of the European Journal.

The Labour Party

After the election defeat of the "left-wing" Labour Party and the resignation of Gordon Brown as leader, five candidates put themselves forward to be the new leader.

Check out their backgrounds:

Diane Abbott

Parental background: born to Jamaican immigrants,

School: Harrow county grammar school (selective)

University: Newnham College, University of Cambridge; degree in History.
After campaigning on behalf of state education for decades, she chose to send her own son to private school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed Balls

Parental background: father is Michael Balls, a zoologist Emeritus Professor at Nottingham University.

School: Nottingham high school (private boys' school)

University: Keble College, University of Oxford; First in PPE. Kennedy Scholar at Harvard University.

Married to Yvette Cooper: first married couple to serve together in the British Cabinet. Cooper went to Balliol College, University of Oxford where she was awarded first class honours in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. She gained a Kennedy Scholarship to Harvard University and finished her studies with an MSc in Economics at the London School of Economics.

Andy Burnham

School: St Aelred's Roman Catholic high school (State education system)

University: Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge; degree in English.

David Miliband

Parental background: "I am the child of Jewish immigrants and that is a very important part of my identity."

University: Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford; First in PPE; took a degree in Political Science at MIT, where he was a Kennedy Scholar.

Ed Miliband (brother of David, and winner of the leadership election)

University: Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford; degree in PPE, followed by the London School of Economics, where he obtained a Masters in Economics

*****

Have you noticed that the Labour candidates have almost identical profiles to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats? They all go to Oxford and Cambridge and take degrees in PPE, history or English. They work as political researchers for the current crop of politicians, and then they themselves become members of Parliament as soon as opportunities arrive. They never work in the real world and mix with real people and yet these are the people elected to represent the people. What a joke!

The Piers Gaveston Society

Another example of an elite, secret Oxford club is the Piers Gaveston Society, dedicated to luxury dining, drinking and drug-fuelled excess. Membership is restricted to 12 specially chosen undergraduates. Hugh Grant, the buffoonish British actor, was a member. An enormous number of successful English actors come from extremely privileged backgrounds, and are often the children of a previous generation of actors.

Another famous member of Piers Gaveston was Count Gottfried von Bismarck, a descendant of Otto von Bismarck, the famous Prussian "Iron Chancellor", showing the international dimension of the Elite's activities at Oxford.

The society's members love indulging in bizarre sexual extravaganzas. They organize bacchanalian parties for hundreds of friends, choosing secret luxury venues such as grand country mansions (in the manner of the movie Eyes Wide Shut). They are treated to copious champagne, caviar, drugs, followed by an orgy. They regard decadence and debauchery as the highest good.

The Millionaires' Death Club by Mike Hockney is based on clubs such as the Bullingdon Club and the Piers Gaveston Society. These people think they were born to rule the world.

*****

The Piers Gaveston Society was named in honour of the favourite and gay lover of the English King Edward II. Edward's mighty army was humbled at the Battle of Bannockburn in Scotland in 1314 CE by a much smaller army under Robert the Bruce, the man who succeeded William Wallace as the leader of Scottish resistance to the English. Bannockburn is a superb example of a small, well-disciplined, well-drilled force under brilliant leadership inflicting a catastrophic defeat on an army three times larger. Anyone who has seen Braveheart will be familiar with the deadly archers used by the English, plus their heavy cavalry (the medieval equivalent of tanks). The English had some 3,000 expertly trained armoured knights, riding large, specially bred horses. The Scots had fewer archers with inferior bows, and only a few hundred small horses serving as light cavalry. The Scots shouldn't have stood a chance, but they made maximum use of the terrain and conditions to neutralize all of the advantages of the English army. Bannockburn established Scotland as an independent nation until 1707 when Scotland agreed to enter into union with England to form Great Britain.       

The Missing Songs - Pho' - Solvency. ['N Tha BLaK] EPixtape

01 $enior Data (Intro) - Ph'lash

 

 

 02 CA$HFLOW - Ph'lash

 

03 Conflict of Intere$t - Pho'

 

04 BUCKaneer$ (Interlude) -Ph'lash

 

05 High $take$ (Archie Karas) - Ph'lash

 

06 BLaKLiGHT - Ph'lash

07 Blue Magick (Outro) - Ph'lash 

 

Meritocracy - how it works in practical terms

Many people think meritocracy is something vague, but it couldn't be simpler. What it does straight away is to remove the right of everyone over 18 to vote. People no longer have an automatic vote. Instead, a new voting system is established in which people are permitted multiple votes related to subjects in which they have demonstrable ability and knowledge i.e. by virtue of academic qualifications or work experience. Instead of voting for a politician in your geographical area, you vote for experts in your own fields of expertise. So, for example, if you have an economics degree then you are allowed to vote for which people should be running the economy. Anyone who doesn't have an economics degree or doesn't work in an economics job or can't otherwise demonstrate their expertise in economics, doesn't get a vote regarding economics. If you want to vote, get qualified (citizenship exams will be provided in all major subjects; they won't be as advanced as degrees, but they will allow citizens to demonstrate that they have meaningful knowledge of a subject). Otherwise, you will be deemed ignorant of the subject, hence it would be absurd to give you a vote regarding a subject about which you know nothing. You can have as many votes as your areas of evident merit. If you have no merits, you get no votes.

In a meritocracy, politics based on geographical constituencies and on political parties vanishes. All people standing for elections are independents. Their tasks are restricted to their own areas of merit. The only restriction applied to the policies they devise is that those policies must be consistent with the Meritocratic Constitution. For example, if economists are mandated to ensure that the economy is to be run for the good of the Commonwealth and to ensure that no cartels or elites are allowed to come into existence, any policies they enact that contradict the Constitution will be reversed, and the Meritocratic Supreme Court will fire them. New elections will then be held to find a new set of economists to run the economy meritocratically.

This is a simple system. It abolishes politics as we currently experience it (and endure it). It places merit at the core of the new politics. It gives everyone a vote according to their merits, and the unmeritorious get no vote at all since they don't deserve it. It ensures that the Meritocratic Constitution is obeyed. Make no mistake, meritocracy is the culmination of the political dialectic, the inevitable replacement of democracy (plutocracy). It is the essential precursor of the drive towards the Community of Gods and the Society of the Divine.

Meritocracy is the system by which humanity is guided in Star Trek. If we ever want to travel through space as they did in the TV series, we must put human excellence rather than the wealth of the privileged at the top of our priorities. Money must, eventually, be entirely removed from the equation. Money has allowed an entirely fake idea of merit to be established. Your "worth" has been tied to the amount of money you have rather than your actual talents, yet those born into privilege immediately have more money (hence more "merit") than everyone else despite having done nothing. Merit is about YOUR skills, not about what your parents did or how much money they had when you were born.    

It's time to get real. It's meritocracy or nothing. Democracy - a disguised plutocracy - must be smashed to smithereens. Modern democracy is the most sinister and insidious political ideology ever devised. It has allowed a privileged elite to remain in permanent power while pretending to serve the people. Never has there been a more fraudulent, deceitful and hypocritical political system. The idiot masses have swallowed the propaganda of the rich and become the slaves of the rich, while imagining themselves free. In terms of psychological manipulation of the gullible, democracy represents GENIUS. It is the best and most successful tactic ever devised by the elite. They have constructed the perfect means to dominate, exploit and manipulate the people while giving the impression they are doing it all in the name of the people and for the people. Hitler, the greatest fan of the BIG LIE, couldn't have created a bigger lie than democracy.    

*****

It should be emphasized that it's not the politicians who win democratic elections that run democracy. It's the power elite behind the curtain who pull the strings, and make their puppets dance. Some of the politicians even know what's going on, though they never make any real attempt to change anything, and they would be assassinated if they did (like JFK). American President Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind and degree from what is possessed by men of small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and effective - a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

We agree, except we would make inheritance tax absolute. Everyone knows what has to be done - the rich must have their fortunes removed from them and the class of super rich should be legally prevented from coming into existence ever again - so why don't we all get on with it rather than babbling about 9/11, love, mystical hogwash, New Age bullshit and all the rest of the nonsense that stops people from standing up to the rich and seizing their wealth?   

The New Education

We need a new education system where people LOVE to learn. As Austrian physicist Victor Weisskopf said, "Knowledge has to be sucked into the brain, not pushed into it." You have to be motivated to learn otherwise you won't learn a thing. The sausage factory "learning" of State schools is a joke. Private schools carefully cultivate every precious student (whose parents are paying a fortune for him to be there - and they want a high return on investment). If it's good enough for those cunts, it's good enough for the rest of us, right?! If you accept second-class treatment you become second class. If you want the best, demand the best. The rich do, so why don't you?  

The Jewish lobby

In June 2010, Helen Thomas, the longest-serving reporter in the White House press corps, with a reputation for fearlessly speaking the truth to the powerful, said to a rabbi that Israeli Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and go home to "Poland, Germany, and America and everywhere else." Her career was instantly terminated. She was compelled to fall on her sword and announce her retirement. Why is no one in the American media allowed to ask a perfectly reasonable question about Israel? Anyone who does not provide unequivocal support is shut down in one way or another.

"Avoid London - Area Closed - Turn on Radio."

 

This was the chilling, Apocalyptic sign that appeared over motorways leading to London on 7 July 2005, the day London was attacked by Islamic suicide bombers.  
Motorways all over the world will be showing such signs in the next few years as the global economy collapses and violence erupts in every country.

The First Outbreak of the Global Revolution

"If the head of the stream is dirty, the whole stream is dirty." - Jamaican Proverb

Where will the final Revolution break out first? Fittingly, it will be Great Britain, the birthplace of capitalism, and which spread its noxious creed around the world via its evil Empire. All of the ingredients are in place for meltdown in the UK. The country is ruled by an unaccountable head of State - the Queen - and a government of ridiculously posh, privileged, millionaire toffs who have been privately educated and know nothing about ordinary people. They are gleefully presiding over horrific spending cuts, particularly in the State sector (which they despise). Unions have vowed to fight. Students rioted last year over massive increases in tuition fees. An astonishing degree of anomie exists amongst the underclass. Violent, feral gangs are everywhere. There are tensions between different immigrant communities. The far right is growing. The police have been shown to be a) inept and b) corrupt, obsessed with pandering to Rupert Murdoch's evil media machine. The "expense scandal" has shown the politicians to be grotesquely corrupt, spending all of their time trying to rip off the public purse. They too have been shown to be the puppets of Rupert Murdoch. Because of the phone and computer hacking scandal, Murdoch himself is now holed below the waterline. All of the institutions of Britain have failed. All authority figures are held in contempt. There has been an utter collapse in the people's confidence in the ruling elite. This will be magnified as recession and enormous spending cuts devastate the economy.

Black kids in ghettos will rise up, overwhelm the police, and the rest of the country will join them. Britain is long overdue a revolution.

The British government has supported the overthrow of despicable Arab dictators by armed force, but what will they do when they confront the reality that the British people now regard them as despicable dictatorship? Will their armed bullyboys and the army protect them? Will their privileged corrupt judges continue to support them? Britain is rotten to the core. The politicians, judges, media, police and army have all been exposed for the corrupt criminals they are. They are not a legitimate ruling regime. They are a tyranny, just like the tyrannies of Islam. And it has always been an established principle of modern social contract theory that the people have the legal right to overthrow regimes that are acting against the interests of the people. PRIVILEGE itself is a conspiracy against the people and a fundamental breach of the social contract. All governments of privilege are ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE, and it is lawful for the people to depose them.           

"In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimizes civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract

*****

What was the fatal mistake of the elite? As we said, it was to over promise and under deliver. You always pay the price of raising expectations too high. The perfect images of the Society of the Spectacle promised heaven but delivered hell.

Why are there so many different religions?

"O senseless man who cannot make a worm, and yet makes gods by dozens." - Michel de Montaigne

 

There is only one true religion - Illumination. Why? Because Illumination proclaims MATHEMATICS as the ontological AND epistemological basis of reality. Nothing exists that is not, at root, mathematical. All order, organisation, patterns, formulas, equations and information are manifestations of mathematics. A non-mathematical universe is impossible. All genuine knowledge is mathematical since mathematics alone is TRUTH. Existence provides objective truth and subjective truth. The latter is mere opinion and is mostly wholly false. Objective truth is mathematical. Science succeeds because it reflects mathematics. Illumination succeeds by extending science to ontology i.e. Illuminism declares that mathematics isn't merely a tool for helping us to uncover the patterns of reality, mathematics IS reality. Zero, infinity and the imaginary number have actual existence - they are not mathematical devices used to help us solve problems in an instrumental sense (instrumentalism says that getting the right answer is more important than understanding what the answer actually means). ZERO = the SOUL. INFINITY = THE CAPACITY OF THE SOUL IN THE MENTAL DOMAIN. THE IMAGINARY NUMBER = THE ORIGIN OF TIME.

Once you extend science to accommodate the soul, you have turned an atheistic, materialistic ideology into a glorious religion based on mathematical idealism. Zero, as an ontological reality, as an entity that truly exists (and of which there are infinite instances), is the mathematical guarantor of true religion. Zero explains the soul, God, consciousness and the afterlife. Science has failed to address fundamental reality because it has lacked the imagination and mathematical nous to confront and understand the reality and meaning of zero. Materialism asserts that zero doesn't exist and the whole of the materialistic ideology flows from that one assertion. The whole of idealism, on the other hand, is based on the real existence of zero. Descartes, without realising what he had done, made the fundamental equation of reality crystal clear when he said that there were two substances: matter (extended) and mind (non-extended). As soon as you realise that Descartes' non-extended mind is nothing other than the domain of ZERO as an ontological reality, you have solved the primary mystery of existence. As for matter (extension) - it is simply all of the numbers greater than zero. Mind and matter together constitute COMPLETE ontological reality. They constitute COMPLETE MATHEMATICS. Scientific Materialism is a subset of Illuminism because it is incomplete mathematics whereas Illuminism is complete mathematics. That's the world in a nutshell. It's all in the math!            

The Spectacular Con

The purpose of the Spectacular Society is to bring about the condition described by Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson: "When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his 'proper place' and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit."

The spectacle is designed to deceive and dupe. It pacifies and depoliticizes. It makes you more interested in American Idol and X-factor than in your own life and who's governing you. It's a "permanent opium war" intended to stupefy its viewers, to disconnect them from awareness of the forces that control their lives. The spectacle diverts anger away from the criminal elite and toward phantoms, fictions and illusions, invented to "entertain" you. Conspiracy theorists help the elite by constructing ludicrous stories about pan-dimensional Reptilian aliens. The Jews were convinced that David Icke had invented a coded language to talk hostilely about Jews since surely he couldn't really believe that shape-shifting lizard existed ergo they must be a disguised reference to Jews. Well, why doesn't Icke talk about Jews? Aren't they right at the centre of the conspiracy? So fuck the Reptilians and let's start talking about Zionist control of America: of the banks, corporations, media, foreign policy and military objectives. 9/11 was caused by American Zionism. Osama bin Laden attacked America because of its extreme support of Zionist terrorism in Palestine.

The Spectacle leads you away from where the bodies are buried. It conceals the truth. It hides the perpetrators of exploitation and injustice. Like a heroin hit, it manufactures feelings of euphoria, and leaves you always craving more. You get severe withdrawal symptoms if the drug is removed.

The Spectacle brings about catharsis. It temporarily purges you of negativity by showing you a Hollywood movie where everything works out right after a long struggle against the odds. If you watch a film about the heroes winning, you feel that all is well with the world. But life's nothing like that; the heroes are usually destroyed. The bad guys almost always win in real life. Don't confuse fictional success with real success.

Left and right wing shows are as bad as each other. They are for entertainment purposes. They give their respective audiences what they want. They deliver chatter, laughter, smiles, jokes - they don't deliver action and revolution. They don't propose new political ideas and parties. They are vacuous. Left and right engage in a tiresome Punch and Judy show. You think there's some kind of genuine debate going on, but you're wrong. They're all looking at the ratings. They're all in showbusiness, not the business of actually changing anything. And these guys are all rich.

Don't be fooled. Political satire isn't politics. Anything on the media is entertainment. It's spectacle.

Empty gossip, cheap jokes, trivial analysis, grandiose posturing, synthetic anger, celebrity guests - it's the same formula used by left and right wing "political" shows. Different spin doctors are used, but they use the same spin cycles, the same tricks of the trade.     

Truth, ideas, philosophy, science - all of these are ignored. You get a Mythos show, not a Logos presentation of ideas. It's all about emotions. There's no analysis, no information, no knowledge. The spectacle and the Logos are never seen together.

The spectacle is all about how you feel, not how you think. Its purpose is to keep you intellectually starved and emotionally addicted - like a baby.

The spectacle wants to turn the whole world into a gigantic advertising billboard, to perpetually fill us with desires for capitalist objects, and to make us associate the purchase of those objects with pleasure, freedom and self-expression. The spectacle would love to take the sky itself and turn it into a global screen. It would like to turn the stars and planets into advertising holograms, beaming out spectacular images of perfection. 24/7, day or night, we would be unable to escape the spectacle.

How do you beat the spectacle when the spectacle has become reality? Hyperreality, as defined by Baudrillard, is the condition where we can no longer distinguish fact from fiction. But, of course, if our reality consists of that inability to separate authenticity from the "authentic fake" then reality isn't hyperreality at all - it's our sole reality. That's exactly where the elite want us - in a fantasy world where we can't hope to understand the truth of anything because we have no idea what the truth is and no reference points of truth. Religion has never been anything other than a fantasy world where the most incredible garbage is asserted to be true and taken to be true even though it has been scientifically and logically refuted in every imaginable way.       

It's time to smash the mirror, to shatter the spectacle, to break the spell it has cast over us into a trillion pieces.

100% INHERITANCE TAX

This is a tax you never experience because you have to be dead before it applies. Is that not the perfect tax? LIFE IS PAID FOR BY DEATH! WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER? WHAT COULD BE MORE JUST? WHAT COULD BE MORE MERITOCRATIC? THE END OF THE DYNASTIC ELITES, THE MONARCHS, THE NOBLES, THE ARISTOCRACY, THE IN-CROWD, THE OLD WORLD ORDER. ALL THE MONEY IN A NATION IS CONTINUALLY RECYCLED. NO ONE CAN HOARD IT. THE MONEY IS ALWAYS REINVESTED IN THE LIVING, IN ALL FAMILIES, NOT JUST SOME.

Moral Hazard

You should memorise this concept because it sums up the rule of the privileged elite. Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would if it were fully exposed to the risk. When the rich take extraordinary risks in order to gain extraordinary profits for themselves and then expect the State and the taxpayers to pick up the pieces if their gambles go hideously wrong, as they invariably do. When the gambles fail, it should be Wall Street not Main Street that loses everything. The Constitution must be written to ensure that outcome. Speculators should be jailed for the crime of reckless endangerment of the economy.

The failure of the first phase of the Movement

The Movement was a rather disastrous enterprise from the outset. It attracted an unhealthy mix of new-agers, conspiracy theorists, hippies, vegans, wacky people looking for anything to stimulate them, fantasists, Mr Angries and lonely introverts.

There was no sign that the Movement wanted to BECOME anything in particular. It was a talking shop when in fact it should have been a hothouse for developing a blueprint for a new society. The Tea Party may be deranged, but at least they know what they stand for and what they're campaigning to achieve. Could that ever have been said of the Movement?

The Movement never had an identity and it was incapable of creating one. It was highly instructive, but not in a positive sense. The idea of establishing an international activist movement seems to be pure pie in the sky. The Zeitgeist Movement is on a much bigger scale but it too is struggling to amount to anything significant and serious divisions have arisen between Zeitgeist and Project Venus. So, what's new?

The Movement should simply dissolve itself or become something much clearer: the MERITOCRACY movement, the sole purpose of which is to establish and promote a Meritocracy Party. Any topics other than meritocracy are banned. The Meritocracy Party is to be a left-wing answer to the Tea Party. The great thing about the Meritocracy Party is that no one can dare to challenge the basic concept. Who in their right mind would denounce merit?

Adam Curtis

The Illuminati use the work of a particular British documentary maker - Adam Curtis - to give new members a crash course on why the modern world is the way it is.

Above all: The Century of the Self, The Power of Nightmares, The Trap, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.

Other excellent activist documentaries are:

The Corporation - Jennifer Abbott and Mark Achbar

Capitalism: A Love Story - Michael Moore

Inside Job - Charles Ferguson

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room - Alex Gibney

Shock Doctrine - Mat Whitecross

Starsuckers - Chris Atkins

The Yes Men Fix the World - Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno

The Secret Army

World salvation can come from an unexpected quarter - gangs. They can be the irregular army of the Global Freedom Uprising. The gangs of the world hate the establishment, the authorities, the police, law and order. They have been failed by society. Religion has abandoned them. To whom do they turn? They have only themselves, so they become gangs. No one will look out for them other than their fellow gang members.

They are not criminals; they are doing what they need to in order to survive. The real crime was on the part of society that left them to rot in ghettos where they had no choices in life, no hope of accomplishing anything. What kind of system does that to people?

But the gangs can become the liberators. They can become the soldiers of the army of light. They are loyal, brave, energetic, daring, fearless. They see through the bullshit of society.

But the sad truth is that the system has brilliantly manipulated them. The people most likely to be victims of gangs are members of other gangs.

DIVIDE AND RULE - the ancient mantra of the elite. You stick the underclass in ghettos and let them fight each other like rats in a sack.

All the establishment has to do is to get the gangs to squabble with each other, to ferociously defend their "territory". The rest takes cares of itself.

But what if the gangs stopped fighting each other and came together to form a SUPERGANG? That's what happened during the British riots. Gangs called a truce and came together for a common purpose. The result was devastating. The police were unable to respond and chaos erupted. The police were massively overstretched. This means that if a similar exercise were carried out in the future but on twice the scale, the British police would be unable to stop it.

Imagine a Revolutionary Supergang with an urban general of the calibre of the ancient world's Hannibal of Carthage. Many experts regard Hannibal's victory against the Romans at Cannae in Italy as the greatest example of military prowess ever demonstrated.

It was one of the worst defeats ever suffered by Rome. It was the prototype battle of annihilation that every general has dreamt of emulating ever since. The Germans of WWII were experts at using Hannibal's tactics. At Cannae, Hannibal faced a vastly numerically superior Roman army. Despite that, using the first recorded pincer attack, he was able to outflank the Romans and encircle their army. The much greater numbers of the Romans became irrelevant. Most were trapped in the centre and were unable to wield their swords. Only those on the outside of the trapped mass could fight and they were no match for the superior Carthaginian soldiers who relentlessly slaughtered them. The Romans at the middle of the crush could do nothing other than wait to be killed.

In the modern day, in an urban environment, a gang simply needs to confront the police in a particular location. The police will respond and, if they have the manpower, seek to outflank the gang and trap them. However, if the gang has a strategic reserve to commit, or allied gangs that it can summon, it can in turn encircle the police. Streets can be blocked off and the police trapped.

One day, perhaps soon, an urban Hannibal will emerge who will unite all of the warring gangs, study the tactics of the great generals and deploy them in city environments. Thanks to social networking, he can have an immense amount of information about the disposition of the enemy, and he can summon reinforcements, and direct them to exactly where they are needed. The British riots showed that the police can't think on their feet and can't call on reserves quickly enough. They are therefore sitting ducks.

The Nightmare

All systems of thought other than mathematical materialism and mathematical idealism are garbage and nonsense. They contain zero truth content. Abrahamism never once made a true statement. Only irrational people follow Moses, Christ or Mohammed. But this world of ours has never been anything other than superlative at generating endless legions of the mad.

Why do so many people hold so many deranged beliefs? Is that not the surest proof that the world wasn't created by a sane Creator and indeed not by any Creator at all? The prevalence of insanity is only comprehensible in an evolving universe which does not know what sanity is and is slowly struggling towards it. What would be the sanest world? - one in which everyone acts rationally. Reason and logic are the anchors of sanity. Reason and logic were the last human qualities to appear. They are still barely present in most people. They are like fragile babies that could easily be killed off by the predators of faith and unreason.

Enlightenment is the agenda of reason and logic. What was Enlightenment saving us from? - from faith, superstition and irrationality. How can anyone who claims to be on the side of the Enlightenment possibly be a Christian? It's a category error. Christianity represents toxic hatred of reason, logic and knowledge. Jesus Christ never once mentioned reason, logic or knowledge. He never once referred to science, philosophy or mathematics. How can any intelligent person be a Christian?

Is Jesus Christ the God of retards? He must be - why else did he never once say anything clever even though he is supposed to be the Creator of the Universe? How could anyone read the sayings of Jesus Christ and even for one microsecond succeed in deluding themselves that these are utterances of GOD? You would have to have an exceptionally low opinion of God to think that Jesus Christ had any connection with him at all. Read the banalities and platitudes of Jesus Christ alongside the dazzling works of Plato, Leibniz, Hegel and Nietzsche. Surely, it would make more sense to worship any of these men rather than that dumbass Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God for Dummies. It's impossible for any intelligent person to believe in Christianity. Christianity is an all out assault on reason. Christianity, like Islam and Judaism, flies the flag of NO QUARTER in its dealings with rationality. Rationality should hoist the red Jolly Roger and do likewise to Abrahamism.

The religion of Abraham must be removed 100% from the human race. There ought not to be one trace of it left behind. Every Torah, Bible and Koran should be burned to ashes. Every Synagogue, Church and Mosque should be demolished and levelled. In 100 years' time, Abrahamism ought to be no more than an echo of a mad idea that once flickered perversely across human consciousness: a flash of nightmare that lit up a torture chamber for one horrific instant.

9/11

 "America has been hit by Allah at its most vulnerable point, destroying, thank God, its most prestigious building." - Osama bin Laden, 7 October 2001

Rather an odd thing for a Muslim to say if 9/11 was a Mossad/CIA operation.

15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians espousing Wahhabism, the most virulent form of Islam that calls for Islamic domination of the world and the global imposition of Sharia Law, for absolute intolerance of heresy and apostasy, for the wholesale destruction of Israel, for women to be totally subordinate to men, for Islamic theocracy to replace democracy.

Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian psychopath who led the hijackers, stipulated in his will: "The person who will wash my body near my genitals must wear gloves on his hands so he won't touch my genitals...I don't want any women to go to my grave at all during my funeral or on any occasion thereafter."

The Wahhabites particularly despised New York, with its Zionist powerbase in Wall Street, its large Jewish population, its sexually liberated women, its fondness for drink, drugs and partying. It was a perfect target.

The hijackers wanted to drive out the American infidels located in several military bases in Saudi Arabia. These infidels were defiling the sacred homeland of Islam, the holy ground where Mohammed himself once walked. They wanted to attack America for its constant support for Zionist Israel, regardless of the number of atrocities carried out by the Zionists against the Muslim Palestinians. They wanted to call, in the most dramatic fashion, for an Islamic Caliphate uniting all the Islamic nations. And they wanted to end the sanctions that had been imposed on Iraq for many years, leading to a humanitarian disaster that was harming children in particular.

Why don't the "Truthers" think the Wahhabites were totally motivated to strike against the Great Satan? It is in fact because they are absolutely ignorant of Wahhabism and have made no attempt at all to study it. Know thy enemy! The Truthers haven't the vaguest idea who the enemy is.

Here's the "logic" of the Truthers. The elite want to impose drastic controls on the people (true). A major terrorist incident would give them the pretext (true). Therefore, they conclude, the elite engineered the terrorist incident themselves. They seem entirely oblivious to the fact that many people all across the world hate America and wish it serious harm. They think, perversely, that only Americans are motivated to attack America (!). They also think that no one other than the CIA, Mossad and U.S. Special Forces are capable of pulling off a terrorist incident. They think that 9/11 was some extremely sophisticated operation that a bunch of "rag heads" could never have accomplished.

In fact, 9/11 was about as crude as you can get. 19 Muslims used box cutters and fake bombs to hijack four planes and terrify their passengers (none of whom would have expected to die since hijackings had never before resulted in suicide operations) and crashed them into buildings not long after take-off. There's nothing difficult to grasp. The only thing cruder would have been something along the lines of the previous Islamic terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in 1993 - when they drove a truck bomb packed with explosives into the public parking garage beneath the World Trade Center. Their intention was that the North Tower's foundations would be so weakened by the massive explosion that the tower would topple over and hit the South Tower, bringing both towers down and killing thousands. "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again!"   

Why can't people accept the blindingly obvious facts? Was 1993 a dry run by Mossad and the CIA? Surely the Truthers must offer a full explanation of 1993 as an inside job if we are to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job too. After all, it would be extremely bizarre to conclude that 1993 was carried out by Muslim maniacs but 9/11 wasn't. If the Muslims did it once, they could certainly do it again, and do it better with a more effective plan.

Sharia Law - which advocates the stoning of adulterers, amputations of limbs for theft, the death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy - is supported by around 80% of Muslims. These people should not be regarded as gentle, compassionate, forgiving people. They are intolerant savages and anyone who has ever read the Koran knows that only the Torah exceeds it in terms of brutality and terror. Why would anyone think these people couldn't be responsible for 9/11?

Most Muslims want Islam to be a central guiding principle of their society i.e. for Islam to be very much in the public sphere. They believe that democracy and Islam are entirely compatible, yet it's impossible to believe that non-Muslim minorities would be properly protected in explicitly Islamic States. There's no sign of genuine modernisation or enlightenment in any Islamic country, and failing to separate the State and religion in extremist countries can never lead to democracy - only to theocracy (like Iran).

The Wizard of Oz - Devil Worship?

From the book "The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave" by Fritz Springmeier & Cisco Wheeler:

The man who wrote the book The Wizard of Oz was a member of the Theosophical Society. L. Frank Baum lived in South Dakota and created The Wizard of Oz book as a theosophical fairy tale incorporating the "ancient wisdom" of the Mystery Religions. The book has so much material from inside the secret world of the Illuminati that the few who understand the Illuminati wonder if Baum wasn't an insider. The moral of the book is that we must rely upon ourselves, for we alone have the power to save ourselves. This was part of the original lie of Satan in the garden. Satan has simply dressed up the same original lie into different packaging and is distributing it worldwide as the most popular American fairy tale. L. Frank Baum explained how he came to write the book, "It was pure inspiration....It came to me right out of the blue. I think that sometimes the Great Author has a message to get across and He has to use the instrument at hand. I happened to be that medium, and I believe the magic key was given me to open the doors to sympathy and understanding, joy, peace and happiness." (Hearn, Michael P. ed., The Annotated Wizard of Oz. NY: Clarkson N. Potter, 1973, p. 73.) In Baum's time, the head of the Theosophical Society, H.P. Blavatsky had been putting out her journal called Lucifer. In other words, I highly suspect Baum knew what the Theosophical Society was all about, and that he himself was deeply into the occult. The book The Wizard of Oz came out in 1900. (It wasn't until 1939 that the movie was made.)

*****

Shockingly, the real Illuminati do indeed love The Wizard of Oz, although, unfortunately, the Wizard is presented as a rather benevolent conman who means well rather than as a psychopath - like the God of Abraham. Dorothy and her friends overcome their fear of him, and they see that their belief in him is ill founded. It's a tragedy that the dumb-dumb Christians didn't realise that The Wizard of Oz is none other than their false, fake God and that if you get past the curtain, you see what a pathetic person he is.

The Ayn Rand Game

Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, her hymn of love to the dollar, presented a tale of all of the super rich in America leaving the mainstream world to go and live in an idyllic, secluded valley in Colorado. By removing themselves from the ordinary world, they would force the "socialists" who were oppressing them to run the nation on their own. Without the help of the entrepreneurs, the socialists would surely fail.

We propose something along similar lines. All of the intelligentsia, the meritocrats, the rationalists should start developing a parallel society where Abrahamism and the super rich privileged elite play no part. The 20% of the world's population who are smart enough to leave the past behind, will gradually isolate themselves from the rest and let them ooze back to the primordial slime whence they came.

Imagine the Abrahamists and the privileged elite trying to cope without any help from the intellectual elite. It would be a catastrophe. We can already see what nations are like without an intelligentsia - Islamic countries; totally backward. Islam should be held up as the supreme example of what happens when you reject reason in favour of faith, when you allow a whole society to be brainwashed by an irrational ancient book (the Koran).

Anticipation

Ian Kershaw, a biographer of Hitler, suggested that rival groups and individuals competed for Hitler's approval by seeking to anticipate his desires. The same thing is true in the present day of celebrities and the super rich. Hordes of people spend their time wondering what they must do to secure the favour of these "gods". Why don't they live their own lives for a change?!

The Death of the Past

Three doctrines must be killed off once and for all before humanity can move on.

1)    The death of Abrahamism. This evil ideology is the unholy enshrinement of the master-slave doctrine. It proclaims that our purpose in life is to be perfectly obedient and to slavishly and unquestioningly obey our "rightful" masters. We must have "faith" that our masters always act in our interests and we must never use our reason (the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge) to challenge the established order. Anything wicked in the world is never the fault of the masters, but of disobedient slaves who lack sufficient faith - and they will be punished for their failings with eternal hellfire.

2)    The death of karma. This evil doctrine proclaims that our current lives are the products of our past lives and if we are having a terrible time now it's not because we are the victims of wicked regimes but because we are being punished for unspecified and unknown sins performed in an unremembered past existence. This allows the justification of any conceivable atrocity and for the blame to be transferred entirely from the perpetrator to the victim. The victim invariably deserved it.

3)    The death of privilege and heredity. These are extremely similar to karma but now, instead of being punished for your sins in previous lives, you are punished for the failings of your parents. If your life is shit it's because your parents failed to hand onto you the advantages from which the children of the privileged benefit. If you're not wearing a crown, it's the fault of your parents for not belonging to the right bloodline. Your parents, not the elite, are entirely to blame for your misfortunes.

These three doctrines guide our world. They place the blame for everything on you or your parents. The elite, the masters, are of course never to blame. They are the Teflon rulers.      

Only the most pathetic and moronic people would allow themselves to be suckered into believing the propaganda of the elite. In truth, they are responsible for EVERYTHING. All of the blame can be laid at their door because they are the ones with the power. It wasn't you who destroyed the economy. THEY DID. You don't have the power to wreck anything. THEY DO.

Quality

The elite are committed to quality. They want a quality education, quality health service, quality partners, quality jobs, quality consumer goods and quality places to live. When it comes to the masses over whom they rule, quality suddenly becomes quantity. Pile it high and sell it cheap. Stick the grunts and gooks in ghettos, in factories, in offices. Give them a production-line lifestyle, a sausage factory education. Let quality be what distinguishes the elite from the rest. The elite have "class" - the masses have large, anonymous, faceless numbers that all run into one another.

You notice quality, but not quantity, except as an undifferentiated force. When the elite interact with each other, they see quality. Everyone has a "name". They come from a "good family". They have a distinguished family history. They are SOMEBODIES. They despise the nouveau riche because they are vulgar, have no class or quality, no name, no history. They are nobodies who got lucky.    

As for the rest of us, we are all nobodies - the League of Nobodies. We are the bystanders, the anonymous crowd murmuring "rhubarb" in the background. We don't count. We are too numerous to be counted. Our function is to be "boosters" - to boost the noise level when the elite are in town. It's our function to scream and beg for the autographs of our betters (they, of course, never ask for our autographs). The elite look at us but never see us. We are to be the background colour, there to provide the atmosphere, but we are indistinguishable one from the other. We are an amorphous mass.

The elite are always developing themselves. They spend virtually no time watching TV because they have plenty of things going on in their lives - unlike the League of Nobodies who can't get off their TV chairs.     

Isn't it time to stop being a Nobody? Then read The Last Bling King by Mike Hockney. Join the League for the Liberation of Nobodies. Become a name. Become a person. Make the elite SEE you.

They will certainly see you if you are ramming 100% inheritance tax down their throats, if you are campaigning for a Second Enlightenment to sweep away faith and privilege.

What do we say? NO TO CIRCUMCISION. MAKE IT ILLEGAL. NO TO THE TEACHING OF FAITH. BAN ALL FAITH SCHOOLS. Irrationality has no place in the modern world. Stupid religions must be persecuted not allowed to grow. Make all the Jews, Christians and Muslims wear yellow Stars of David, Crosses and Crescents so that they can be seen in broad daylight for the retards they are. Every day, their absurd Torture God who orders fathers to kill their children, should be denounced as the Devil he assuredly is. He is the God of Terror, which is why so many of his followers are Terrorists. The War on Terror is the War against Jews, Christians and Muslims. They are evil incarnate. They think that the purpose of God is to enslave humanity, to deny human beings the right to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge i.e. to keep them in a state of perpetual stupidity. They think that a God who orders human sacrifice of members of your own family is to be worshipped rather than resisted to the uttermost end. These are the most fucking retarded people you could ever encounter: people who can't distinguish good from evil, who can't see that a God who orders a father to kill his son is an eternal monster, not God.  

Identity Construction

Nothing is more important than who gets to construct identity. Forget parents, peer groups and decrepit traditions - find your true self and form your identity around who you really are rather than who others want you to be. Ditch the fake you. Become real and authentic.

Nothing is more important than who gets to control the media message. Rupert Murdoch, a corrupt and depraved right wing fanatic who runs an empire of sleaze, criminality and cover-ups, has been allowed to control 40% of the UK media. How can anyone think that any person, let alone this monster, should be allowed such a monopoly over the channels of communication to the minds of the people? Would you give Satan 40% control of the media, and allow him to spin his web of evil 24/7? Yet Murdoch might as well be the Devil for all the damage he has done. Playwright Dennis Potter rightly wanted to shoot him.

 The State

Only the State can drive the world forward. It is the engine of human progress. When people like Sarah Palin trumpet the "family" as the supreme good, where is her evidence that the nuclear family has ever achieved anything of worth? How can two mediocre parents create a high quality environment fit for the cultivation of Gods? Only the State has the scale, power and access to the finest minds to do so.

Stupid jobs make stupid people. Smart jobs make smart people. It's up to the State to create those smart jobs. The family certainly can't do it.

Visibility

Given the power of lobbyists, banks and corporations and media moguls over the government, shouldn't their personal financial affairs be fully visible to the people so that we can see what they're up to? We want full disclosure of their finances down to the last cent. We want to know exactly how much tax they pay. Those in power are the servants of the people, not their masters, so the people should demand complete disclosure of the financial affairs of the elite, of all people in positions of power and influence.

In order for the consent of the governed to be granted, it must on the basis of complete transparency of ALL of those in power, whether elected or not. If the bosses of private banks and corporations can exert control over governments then they are part of the government and they must be as accountable as any member of the government. Otherwise, they are a shadow government that rules without accountability i.e. they are a tyranny.

We demand the economic empowerment of the masses through an enormous redistribution of wealth from the privileged to the people.

We demand a system of total social mobility i.e. we demand the complete abolition of the force obstructing social mobility: privilege.

We demand that those people living on the margins, the fringes of society, be restored to the mainstream and have their dignity returned to them.

NOBODY PEOPLE VERSUS SOMEBODY PEOPLE. It's time for the nobodies to win.

THE KILL ZONE.

WE ARE SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL REVOLUTIONARIES.

SCABS - all those people from the unprivileged classes who defend the rights of the privileged. These people have a false consciousness and live in bad faith.

With thanks to M.C. Windbreaker for his ideas concerning the agenda of the Panther Party. Can you do better?

THE PANTHER PARTY 

1.         CONTROL OF ALL LOCAL INSTITUTIONS.

2.         FULL EMPLOYMENT.

3.         GUARANTEED HOUSING OF A HIGH AND PRACTICAL STANDARD.

4.         THE BEST EDUCATION.

5.         UNIVERSAL, FREE HEALTH CARE.

6.         FREEDOM FROM POLICE BRUTALITY AND LEGALIZED MURDER.

7.         FREEDOM FROM UNWARRANTED STATE SURVEILLANCE.

8.         A PROHIBITION ON ALL WARS OF AGGRESSION.

9.         JAILS TO BE CONVERTED INTO INSTITUTIONS OF REFORM NOT OF REVENGE AND PUNISHMENT.

10.     A REVALUATION OF ALL INSTITUTIONS: THEY MUST OPERATE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE AND NOT OF THE ELITES.

11.     THE ADOPTION OF POSITIVE LIBERTY OVER NEGATIVE LIBERTY: THE STATE SHOULD BE ABOUT IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF PEOPLE'S LIVES THROUGH DIRECT INVOLVEMENT WITH THEIR LIVES (RATHER THAN LEAVING THEM ALONE TO GO SHOPPING).

12.     AN END TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN MERIT. THE TWO-TIER SOCIETY OF THE PRIVILEGED VERSUS THE NON-PRIVILEGED MUST BE ABOLISHED.

13.     A COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE TO THE FAMILY TO BE PROVIDED, TO GIVE PEOPLE FROM DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES A CHANCE TO ESCAPE.

14.     A RATIONAL REDISTRIBUTION OF MONEY IN SOCIETY: IT IS ABSURD FOR EXCESSIVE WEALTH TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF AN UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE ELITE FEW WHO EXERT ENORMOUS POWER AND CONSTANTLY PROMOTE THEIR OWN INTERESTS OVER THOSE OF THE PEOPLE.

15.     A COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE "ANTI-ELITE" LAW. We demand a new statute that empowers investigation of the wealthiest 1% of our society. We demand that the top 1% be subject to the following questions by a public legislative body: 1.Which educational institutions has the individual attended? 2. What clubs were attended by the individual during their time at these institutions? 3. Which private clubs, Masonic Lodges, and/or secret societies is the individual currently a member of? 4. What is the individual's religion? 5. How much money has the individual earned in the past year publicly & privately? How much of this individual's total earned was taxed? 6. Is the individual friends or relative with anyone else listed in the top 1% wealth list?

16.     THE PROVISION OF LOCAL ORGANIC FOOD CULTIVATION AND HEALTHY FOOD OPTIONS FOR ALL COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY THOSE WITH DIETS TRADITIONALLY HIGH IN JUNK-FOOD. A good, healthy diet for all is essential for a good, healthy society.

17.     THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MERITOCRATIC REGULATORY FUNCTIONS WITHIN GOVERNMENTS AT CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS. PRIVILEGE, NEPOTISM AND CRONYISM MUST BE ERADICATED FROM SOCIETY.

18.     A LEGAL SYSTEM FIT FOR PURPOSE THAT PROVIDES EQUALITY OF TREATMENT REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL WEALTH. NO ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. THE LAW MUST NEVER AGAIN BE BOUGHT BY THE WEALTHY. THERE CAN BE NO TWO-TIER LAW. THE LAW IS FOR ALL, EQUALLY, REGARDLESS OF WEALTH.

19.     THE ABOLITION OF DEMOCRACY. This form of government has never been anything other a disguised plutocracy and oligarchy. The elite have always been able to manipulate democracy to suit their own ends. When a system is created that presents the illusion of people power but ensures that power is retained firmly by a moneyed elite, this is the most insidious form of tyranny.

20.     THE END OF INSTITUTIONAL ABRAHAMISM. Abrahamism has never been radically separated from government, as it ought to have been. It tacitly impacts on all aspects of government and public discourse. It is embedded in all of the central institutions of State. This relationship must be terminated. There should be a full separation of Church and State to the extent that the State should hold commissions of enquiries into Abrahamic religions and determine whether they are compatible with civil and human rights and whether they interfere with education by valuing faith and superstition over reason and knowledge. It is unacceptable for humanity to be defined as the slaves of an unseen force. Humanity will have no supernatural master, especially no tyrant who orders fathers to perform human sacrifice on their sons. An entirely new spiritual space must be constructed, based on a radically new vision of God within the mathematical, philosophical and scientific domain. God must be brought into the world of reason, not of supernatural miracles.

21.     THE END OF MONEY AS THE MEASURE OF HUMAN VALUE. Money must never again be used as a weapon by the elite to advance their interests and to oppose and sabotage the interests of the people.

22.     THE END OF THE INDIGNITY TO WHICH MANY POOR PEOPLE ARE ROUTINELY SUBJECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES.

23.     THE END OF THE DOCILITY AND PASSIVITY THAT IS ALLOWED TO INFECT HUGE SECTIONS OF THE PUBLIC. 

24.     SENSIBLE ALLOCATION OF LAND, FOOD, HOUSING, EDUCATION, CLOTHING, JUSTICE & PEOPLE'S CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY.

25.     IS ALL OF THIS BEYOND THE CAPABILITIES OF AN ENLIGHTENED, RATIONAL GOVERNMENT? WHY SHOULD IT BE? 

 

 

 

NOVUS ORDO MUNDI

EX I   OMNI

Phantom: a Statement

Magus,

After writing my letter expressing support for the "New Movement", I am afraid that I have made a great mistake in doing so. While I still stand by my condemnation of the foolish, irresponsible and potentially dangerous actions of some members (with the full exclusion of Pho'), I have been left without any reasonable doubt that the New Movement is not capable of any real change. These people are stagnant, anti-intellectuals without any skill or capacity to change the world. At BEST they will only harm newcomers by polluting their minds with their passive, sentimental dross and soft-hearted attitudes towards the very cause we have all taken up -- to overthrow the Old World Order, to stop Abrahamism and pierce the ignorance of the masses with the Light of Reason.

The treachery of the Movement has gotten out of hand. Its members have resorted to the defacement of Pho's reputation and to petty insults. The very people that created the Movement have been stabbed in the back, the goals of the Illuminati turned on their head in lieu of new sentiment. The Movement has become an abomination, it should be formally disowned and disbanded. I for one approve of the dissolution of M.

Let merit stand on it's own. No starry-eyed drivel should strangle the very goals that we seek to achieve. A New World Order is not made with hugs and kisses, with heart-to-heart conversations or "unconditional love". It is made with the sweat of hard toil upon the backs of genius, it is made with determination and devotion, it is shaped by skill and by art and a piercing intelligence that dims every star with it's brilliance. All people that take an interest in the full vision of Illuminism stand on their own, they define the group -- M failed because it was the precise opposite. Everybody should have a plan, a vision, a method and a project to work on. It is the task of the individual to distinguish themselves by their efforts, Many Eyes and One Vision.

Let this be my last address, Phantom is no more.

*****

We entirely endorse this statement. The administrators of the Movement were on the whole engaged in something that, from the beginning, we found quite distasteful: a kind of New Age sentimentality based on "love will change the world". Group hug, everyone. These people have now denounced us and repudiated us. We received a message from them a few hours ago to inform us of the fact. Well, that's as it should be. It's right that they should form their own independent group and put into action their own ideas, and we wish them good luck.

Their message was signed: "Torquemada and his Nuns (aka the admins of the Movement)". That sounds like some sort of sex game, and we sincerely hope it is. The world needs as much BDSM in torture chambers as it can get.

It's hard to build any organisation and you certainly can't have sentimentalists and radicals in the same boat. We always advocated the separation of psychological types, and we feel enormously happier with the type of approach and stance advocated by Phantom. The ideology of emotionalism and "cosmic love" is one that is inconsistent with reason.

The Path of Illumination

http://www.facebook.com/Path.Of.Illumination 

To help disseminate the principles of Illumination, our work began quietly alongside our fellow Illuminati diligently exerting their efforts on another communications project. The intention is to train interested parties into capable leaders that can provide the foundations for a better society. Now that there are sufficient numbers of people to make this work possible, we will interact with interested parties in gradual stages so as to help them gain a basic foundation that will serve the better interests of humanity.

We welcome all atheists, agnostics, serious gnostics and skeptics. The brave Faustian investigator, willing to doubt anything and willing to travel to ineffable depths and incomprehensible heights to find knowledge is the ideal seeker. Such people are rarer than the finest material treasures. They are Pearls among seekers.

The Illuminati recognize that nobody can usher in a new Golden Age without being sufficiently Enlightened in regards to the workings of the Universe. The knowledge that is shared is not dependent on us giving you any orders or direction, it's entirely dependent on your own efforts. Persistence, Determination, Honesty and the Pursuit of Excellence are what will take you to the stars - not devotion to some spiritual "master". We are not the voice of God, merely messengers. The voice is your own, our task is to help humanity awaken to a greater purpose in life and realize their own Inner Divinity, actualize their latent potential. 

Our goal is to bring humanity to a new stage of evolution, to HyperHumanity, a Community of Gods, a Society of the Divine. The dreaded conspiracy theorists fear a New World Order, when the world they fear is already arrived: it has been here for millennia. We wish to overthrow the Old World Order and usher in a new Golden Age that will bring us to this next stage of evolution.

This communication cell is to become a base for archiving knowledge and information relevant to the construction of a New World Order, to the refinement of the individual and the betterment of society as a whole. Discussions engaging in polemics are indeed welcome. Preferred material for sharing belongs to the fine arts, to music and to science, to philosophy and psychology, literature and anthropology, esoteric theory and practice, to mathematics and the like.

We are not interested in conspiracy theories nor in new age pseudoscience, we are not interested in spiritual wise-men spouting their latest "realization" nor their own version of saving the world. People who have only an ephemeral interest in the betterment of humankind should leave. Those that want to shout our message off the rooftops and move on to their next obsession are not welcome here.

The serious-minded and committed seeker is welcome. Organized, well-grounded, skilled and refined men and women are most welcome. We wish to bring together the best of humanity and unite them under a banner that will once and for all topple the corrupt oligarchies that have rigged the world in their favour. This is a test of endurance. Patience will always triumph.

We are the Ancient Order of the Illuminati, the heirs of Pythagoras. Our Fire has burned for Aeons. The Flame of Prometheus lives on and ever more we strive towards Abraxas, the True God. Once more the Temple of the Mysteries reveals itself to humanity, the time has come for all men and women to grow up and reach for the stars.

The trio involved in tending this page are:  Praetorian (Π), Cygnus (Ψ) and Sigma (Σ). They administer and guide interested parties in this Great Work. 

Be a part of the Revolution. Be a part of The New Order of the Ages.

*****

Note that the above initiative is not undertaken by the same communication cell of the Illuminati that authored this site, but it is an approved cell.