Rosicrucianism

The Rosicrucians were a secret society of scholars, alchemists, occultists and esoteric researchers founded in 1459 by the mysterious and shadowy figure known to history as Christian Rosenkreutz (the surname means "cross of roses"). This was actually the codename of an Illuminatus. 

The Order came to public prominence in the early 17th Century (1614-1616) thanks to three anonymous German pamphlets: Fama Fraternitatis, Confessio Fraternitatis, and The Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz. They caused a sensation and people flocked to join the Order, but they discovered that there was no easy way in since there were no convenient lodges or chapters. Entry was by invitation only. Consider the words of enigmatic posters that were seen in Paris in 1622: "We, deputies of the principal college of the brothers of the Rose-Cross, are making our stay both visible and invisible in this town, by the grace of the All-High to whom the hearts of all just men turn, in order to draw men, our equals, from deadly error."

Robert Flood, a prominent Rosicrucian, said of the Order: "All the mysteries of nature are open to them." 

Rosicrucianism was established as a dry run for Freemasonry and indeed there is a Masonic degree known as the Rose Croix. Rosicrucianism played a major part in the rise of science, and might be said to have formed a bridge between medieval alchemy and modern science. The "Illuminati" described by Dan Brown in Angels and Demons were in fact much more like the Rosicrucian Brotherhood. 

The Order clothed radical and progressive ideas in mystical language to avoid the long arm of the Inquisition. 

As for the Rosicross philosophers,

Whom you will have to be sorcerers,

What they pretend to is no more 

Than Trismegistus did before,

Pythagoras, old Zoroaster,

And Apollonius their master.

(Samuel Butler)

Many great figures famous in occult and alchemical circles were Rosicrucians. Rosicrucianism is often described as a Christianised version of Hermeticism. In fact, it was designed to be a poison pill to lure Christians onto the path of heresy. Just like the Gnostics, the Cathars and the Templars, the Rosicrucians' version of Christ had nothing to do with mainstream Christianity, and the Rosicrucians asserted that they were presenting "true" Christianity rather than the mockery it had become. They were vehemently opposed to the Papacy, hence attracted Protestant support. They also strenuously rejected Islam.

The movement was represented by a seven-petalled red rose (symbolising the soul) on top of a black cross (symbolising the body and the four elements of matter). The Rosicrucians sought a) the abolition of monarchy, b) government by a philosophical elite, and c) the Panacea via the practice of alchemy, science and philosophy.

Legend claimed that the Rosicrucians were "unknown higher beings" (in the manner of the Phosters).

Although Rosicrucianism continues to this day, it is an anaemic version of its former self. The mysteries of the original Rosicrucians were never penetrated by any outsiders. The Illuminati has a cell that is considering the rebirth of the original Rosicrucian Order.

The Golden Dawn

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn of which Aleister Crowley was once a controversial member was a modern revival of Hermeticism and has proved highly influential in terms of present-day incarnations of Hermetic secret societies, most of which emulate that model. Others have modelled themselves on Crowley's unique blend of Hermeticism and Gnosticism. Crowley wasn't an Illuminatus, but the Illuminati were certainly interested in him and did consider recruiting him. In the end, they concluded that he was too much of a maverick and too attention-seeking. However, the Illuminati have no difficulty in recommending the work of Crowley to all seekers of the truth. They will find great nourishment in his writings.  

The Emerald Tablet

Alchemy's most sacred text was the Tabula Smaragdina, better known as the Emerald Tablet. Hermes Trismegistus authored it, legend said, but this time the name represented a man rather than a god. The man was said to be a high priest who introduced the art to Egypt. So, Hermes Trismegistus is sometimes a priest, a sage, a great teacher, a magician, a god, or a combination of all of these. The Emerald Tablet was reputed to have been taken from the tomb of the great sage where it was clutched in his dead hands.   

It is the Emerald Tablet that contains the famous statement: "As above, so below." (This is actually a polished, abbreviated version of the true text which reads, "That which is below is as that which is above, and that which is above is as that which is below. With this knowledge alone you may work miracles.") This is the central dictum of Hermeticism. Microcosm  (m) and macrocosm (M) are inextricably linked and the laws of the cosmos are reflected in us, exactly as modern science asserts. When scientists demonstrate that the atoms in our bodies originated in the stars, they have literally brought the macrocosm into the microcosm. Humanity embodies the universe on a smaller scale. 

Most religions, both Eastern and Western, deny the Hermetic principle. Hindus and Buddhists regard "below" as an illusion and "above" as real; Abrahamists regard God (above) as having nothing in common with his creation ("below"). To assert that we could work out everything in the cosmos from simply understanding ourselves is a breathtaking idea. It implies that if we exercise our reason correctly, we can establish the rational basis of all things. The truth isn't "out there", it's "in here" and each and every one of us has access to it. "All" we have to do is observe and think, and to test our hypotheses and refine them if they are found wanting.

Here is wisdom - the three greatest discoveries of the human race bar none are a) the laws of logic b) the operation of the dialectic and c) the scientific method. These supply a systematic approach, applicable anywhere at any time, to the process of linking the microcosm and the macrocosm. METHOD is enormously more important than individual facts or moralistic principles. That's why the Society of the Future must be one that is based on method rather than opinion. Politicians do nothing but express their opinions, driven by personal, religious and ideological factors. They do not apply method, and if they did then they would be out of a job. 

Every aspect of our society should be dictated by the rules of logic, the dialectic and the scientific method. At the moment, our society is run for the benefit of corporations, politicians, lobbyists, advertisers, and powerful vested interests. There is neither rhyme nor reason to anything they do because they are forever chasing instant gratification and short-term interests. Boom and bust economics is exactly what you would expect from a system based on a complete absence of any coherent thinking. Once clear methods have been established - visible to everyone, consistent, and applied everywhere - then we will be free of the world where the rulers take all of the decisions affecting us behind closed doors. Did you have any say in the government bailouts of the banking system? Did you even know what was happening?

Why was there no method in place, no effective regulation, no process of dialectic challenge to the prevailing paradigm to prevent the catastrophe happening? Why was there no plan, no system, no method? Why were there no dissenting voices, no predictions, no hypotheses, no models? Why did the countless excessively well-paid bankers, economists and politicians, the legions of "experts", not see it coming? And why haven't they all been fired for gross negligence and incompetence? The very people who led the world into financial meltdown, whose every belief about economics was shown by the facts to be grotesquely fallacious, were the very people "allowed" by us (the dumb suckers) to sort out the mess they themselves had engineered. And what was their brilliant solution? To get the taxpayers to cover the debts of their bankrupt financial institutions, while they themselves didn't lose a cent (in fact their bonuses were better than ever). GENIUS!!!  

If a mathematics teacher scored zero in a mathematics test would you allow him to teach children and set the mathematics curriculum for the nation? Or would he be out of the door instantly? So why was there no system in place to ensure the automatic dismissal of all those involved at senior level for the banking disaster? When it comes to the absence of any such method for dismissing those who have failed, you have to ask cui bono? The rich and powerful refuse to have a system that kicks them out. They want to stay in charge no matter what. Any healthy system must establish, in advance, the rules that will automatically take effect if there are spectacular failures. And if such rules existed, do you think the rich and powerful would be so cavalier? But they would never agree to any system that kicked their asses to kingdom come. That's why it needs to be imposed on them as part of a general and consistent method for handling all aspects of society from top to bottom. As above, so below. If a lowly employee is fired instantly for screwing up, why doesn't exactly the same rule apply to the top guys? If you operate a system of one rule for those guys and a different rule for everyone else, you have GUARANTEED a crisis.      

*****

So do you think you can crack the code of the Emerald Tablet? Of what does it speak in its few short lines? Is it the Elixir, the Panacea, the Philosopher's Stone, the Quintessence? Is it the Holy Grail itself?

1. This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,

2. That which is below is as that which is above, and that which is above is as that which is below. With this knowledge alone you may work miracles.

3. And since all things exist in and emanate from the ONE who is the ultimate Cause, so all things are born after their kind from this ONE. 

4. Its father is the Sun, its mother is the Moon, the Wind carried it in its belly, the Earth is its nurse and guardian.

5. It is the Father of all things, the eternal Will is contained in it.

6. Here, on earth, its strength, its power remains one and undivided.

7. Earth must be separated from fire, the subtle from the dense, gently with unremitting care.

8. It ascends from earth into heaven and again it descends to the earth; it gathers to itself the strength of things above and things below.

9. By means of this one thing all the glory of the world shall be yours and all obscurity flee from you.

10. It is power, strong with the strength of all power, for it will penetrate all mysteries and dispel all ignorance.

11. By it the world was created.

12. From it are born manifold wonders, the means to achieving which are here given.

13. It is for this reason that I am called Hermes Trismegistus; for I possess the three essentials of the philosophy of the universe.

14. This is the sum total of the work of the Sun.

Hermes was described as the "thrice-great" because he was the master of the three parts of cosmic philosophy: the One, Nous and Psyche in the manner of Neoplatonism, which can be studied via alchemy, astrology, and theurgy. (Theurgy is "divine work": magic performed with the aid of angels, archangels and divinities.) 

Although Hermeticism has close connections with Neoplatonism, it also has a number of pronounced differences, particularly in the treatment of matter. For Neoplatonists, matter was evil and negative, for Hermeticists positive and full of potential, ready to be transmutated into higher forms.

*****

Think of the Illuminati as those who lay Emerald Tablets before you. It's not our task to hold your hand, to get out a schoolteacher's pointer and start explaining every word to you. It's your job to work it out and that doesn't mean dropping us an email saying: "Dear Sirs, please send me the answers to the following list of questions I have prepared for you." Seriously - we actually get emails like that.

Do yourself a favour and keep your list to yourself. The chances of getting a reply from us are slim to zero. It frankly astounds us the number of people who want to sit on their asses and have all the answers to the world handed to them on a plate. A word to the "wise" - get off your backside and go out and do some work for a change.

*****

In alchemy, the circumpunct, the famous symbol of the circled dot, represents the highest ideal - gold. This is also the Pythagorean Monad and the symbol of the sun. The dot can be considered the microcosm and the circle the macrocosm. Or the dot can be considered the One, and the circle the cosmos. Either way, we see in this symbol the truth of as above, so below.

If you read the Enneads and the Corpus Hermeticum, you will gain an extraordinary insight into the thinking of the ancients. Above all, you will encounter a set of inspirational, rational, mystical, esoteric ideas that stand in absolute contrast to what you will read in the Bible, Torah and Koran. The difference in style, tone and approach is stark. 

If you read the Enneads straight after the Old Testament you will understand the unbridgeable gap that exists between the religions of faith and those of knowledge. Whereas the Old Testament is just a set of bizarre and ridiculous stories about a violent and insane group of ancient people - the Hebrews - thinking they were specially chosen by "God", the Enneads will provide you with incredible philosophy. Whereas the Old Testament engages your narrative mind, the Enneads appeal to your rational mind. The contrast is prodigious. Your view of religion will change forever if you read the Old Testament and Enneads side by side. You will see in crystal clear terms two totally different approaches to religion. One approach will seem to you to be full of promise, the other to be preposterous and you will scratch your head in bafflement that anyone ever took it seriously. How could half of the world have fallen for the tale of mad Jews wandering about in the desert worshipping a "jealous God" with genocidal tendencies? It's too absurd for words.  

Religion does not need to consist of bowing, murmuring masses terrified of their God, and hateful and murderous towards anyone who rejects their God.

*****

Gnosticism, Manichaenism, Neoplatonism, Mithraism and Hermeticism have a number of similar features. They all have their origins in Illuminism, the religion of the Pythagorean mystery schools of the Illuminati. All of these ancient religions are Western equivalents of the Eastern Enlightenment religions. Catharism, Templarism, Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry became the "Second Wave" of these religions. But none was able to topple Abrahamism, and they all faded into oblivion. The Cathars were the victims of a savage Catholic Crusade and Inquisition. The Templars were declared heretical and the Order was violently suppressed. The Freemasons were infiltrated and corrupted by rich Abrahamists. The Rosicrucians mutated into a form of New Ageism. Only Illuminism, the most ancient secret society, survived intact, keeping the light alive. Only Illuminism can bridge East and West and bring the nightmare of Abrahamism to its appointed end. Illuminism, the religion of the Dialectic, will triumph in the end because it is the only religion that knows that it must change with the times or perish. Every other religion on earth has, if it did but know it, already been destroyed by modern science. Only Illuminism can accommodate science because, like science, it was founded on reason and mathematics thanks to one of the greatest geniuses of all time - Pythagoras, the first official Grand Master of the Illuminati.  

What is the difference between Gnosticism, Neoplatonism and Hermeticism? 

Gnosticism teaches that the material world and its Creator are evil. We are divine sparks trapped in an evil world and our task is to learn the sacred knowledge that will allow us to return to our divine origins. We live in an evil world ruled by an evil Master, above which resides the True God, to whom we must return.

Neoplatonism teaches that matter is evil, but denies that there is an evil Creator. We have a divine nature that we have forgotten as a result of being enmeshed in the material world, but we can learn how to return to our natural divinity. We are interacting with an evil substance (matter) but everything else reflects a good cosmos and a divine ruling consciousness to which we can return.

Hermeticism teaches that matter isn't evil and nor is there an evil Creator. Evil exists naturally, so to speak, and our task is to purify ourselves of all impurities and bring forth our true divine natures in their golden perfection. The essence of Hermeticism is that the cosmos is basically good, and humanity reflects the cosmos, so humanity is basically good too (as above, so below). Just as we can perfect ourselves, so can the cosmos perfect itself. Our efforts to make ourselves better actually make the cosmos better. God's perfection is completed through us. 

All three schools of thought originated in Pythagorean Illuminism. Illuminism, by using an enormously more sophisticated mathematical, scientific and philosophical terminology can reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each of these individual schools. In relation to the problem of evil, Illuminism introduces ancillary concepts such as alienation, otherness, individuation, and the master-slave dialectic. In relation to matter, Illuminism introduces the r >= 0 cosmic equation, revealing the link between the dimensional and dimensionless, the physical cosmos and the mental cosmos. By giving central importance to the dialectic, Illuminism turns everything into a process of becoming. We and God are becoming. We and God are perfecting ourselves. God cannot be perfect until we are because we are part of God and he is part of us, for that is the meaning of the r = 0 domain outside space and time where everything is connected. Illuminism is the one true perennial philosophy because it is based on dialectical evolution and always reflects the times. It is never out of date, never out of fashion, never disproved by the facts. Gnosticism, Neoplatonism and Hermeticism are all happily embraced by Illuminism. Illuminism emphasises the Gnostic angle when addressing the evil of the Old World Order. It emphasises Neoplatonism in terms of the related concepts of the One, Nous and Psyche (although it handles these concepts with more scientific rigour), and it emphasises Hermeticism in the idea of humanity and God both evolving towards perfection - where finally they meet at the Omega Point and it becomes impossible to distinguish between them. We complete God's evolutionary journey and he completes ours. We fulfil the core principle of Illuminism: we literally BECOME GOD.   

When you first encountered that idea, you may have thought it sounded bizarre. Now you see that it represents the highest and noblest aspiration that humanity has cherished for thousands of years. The very best human minds have dedicated themselves to the sacred quest. They have had to endure living in parallel with an exceptionally powerful enemy sworn to the absolutely opposite agenda. The Abrahamists, the worshippers of the Devil, of everything that is worst in the human condition, have systematically tried to assert that human beings have no relationship whatsoever with God, other than that of abject slaves. Throughout history, they have executed everyone they caught who dared to suggest that humans could become God, thus forcing the finest human beings "underground", pushing them into secret societies where they could breathe healthy air for once. 

The secret history of the human race is its true history. It is the history you will never read about in the world controlled by the Old World Order who have no narrative to tell other than their own, the one they use to turn the rest of humanity into their slaves and to exert total control over them.

The Abrahamists say that we are nothing compared with God and will remain nothing for eternity. The secret societies say that we are potentially divine and one day we will actually be divine. Which of these two worldviews you buy into inevitably determines the shape of your life and everything you think about life, and your opinion of those who control this world. The Illuminati reject the entire narrative sold by the Old World Order. The Illuminati reject all authority that derives its "legitimacy" from the OWO. It rejects Judaism, Christianity and Islam in their entirety and looks forward to the fortunate day when these Satanic belief systems have been consigned to oblivion.      

The Perennial Philosophy

Leibniz coined the term philosophia perennis (the perennial philosophy), meaning a philosophy that lasts forever (the construction of which was the task the Illuminati set for itself). Aldous Huxley adopted the term and he used it in the sense of the "highest common factor" of all religions and spiritual and esoteric philosophies. (Of course, this assumes, erroneously, that they all have something in common; in fact some of them are diametrically opposed to the others - Abrahamism in particular.)

Huxley identified four "fundamental doctrines" of the perennial philosophy:

"First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness-the world of things and animals and men and even gods-is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent. 

"Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known. 

"Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit. 

"Fourth: man's life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to intuitive knowledge of the Divine Ground." 

Genies

Judaism and Christianity interpose angels (messengers) between God and humans. In Islam, there is a third group - jinn - supernatural creatures made of smokeless flame (in contrast with the clay of humans). The name jinn means "to be hidden". 

Jinn inhabit either a parallel world to this one or this world but in a different dimension. At any rate, they are able to interact with this world. (Perhaps we might compare them with fairies, but mostly of the malevolent type.) Like humans, they have free will. They make frequent appearances in the Koran, hence all Muslims are expected to believe in their existence since if they did not exist then Allah and Mohammed would be liars. This illustrates the problem of combining infallibility with nonsense. Once a Holy Book states something as a "fact" no one is ever allowed to disagree with it no matter how much it is subsequently refuted.

Jinn can travel very fast and cover enormous distances. They prefer remote areas such as mountains and woods. They can even live in the air. Their preference is to be part of small communities. 

They are invisible to us, but they can take on human form to deceive humans, hence they are shape-shifters. People such as David Icke also, of course, attribute these qualities to the Illuminati. It's clear from where he gets his ideas.

Just as jinn are largely invisible to humans, humans aren't clearly seen by jinn.

Jinn can be benign, malign or neutral. The Koran is as much for them as for humans, and Mohammed was their prophet too. They will have their Day of Judgment and they too will go to heaven or hell depending on their deeds.

In heaven, the leader of the jinn was Iblis, and he was regarded as being on a par with the highest of the angels. He refused to bow to Adam, the first human, when Allah ordered the angels and jinn to do so. The Koran describes the incident in the following way:

Allah said, "It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who prostrate. What prevented thee from prostrating when I commanded thee?" 

Iblis said, "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay."

This act of flagrant disobedience resulted in the "fall" of the jinn and they were expelled from paradise. Iblis was renamed Shaytan (Satan) and became the father of devils.

Just as Christians are said to have a personal guardian angel, so Muslims supposedly have a jinni assigned to each one of them. Their function, rather than being benign, seems to be to whisper evil thoughts to them about gratifying their base desires. On a bigger scale, Shaytan is said to whisper to all human beings, attempting to bend them to his evil will. Islam says that this is where the desire to sin comes from. So, did Shaytan whisper to the 9/11 gang? Did he whisper to Mohammed himself during the "Satanic Verses" episode? Are the Old World Order always whispering to us via adverts, politicians, and media commentators? Watch out for the whisperers!!

According to the Muslims, Shaytan is not some remote entity; he is right amongst us, albeit in a dimension mostly invisible to us and which is populated by another species (jinn) that is not the product of DNA. Shaytan isn't any sort of abstraction but someone who can pop into human form from the invisible realm. At any time, he could be standing next to you, clouding your heart with his tempting words pandering to your deepest desires.

Now do you understand why Muslims are so primitive and irrational, so angry, so fearful and paranoid? Satan is everywhere, tempting them at all times, trying to seduce them away from the true path. One false move and they will be plunged into hellfire for eternity. 

America is the "Great Satan" and Muslims openly spoke of attacking it before 9/11, and yet the "Truthers" still stick to their crazy idea that American or Jewish special forces hijacked the planes, crashed them and then demolished the Twin Towers for good measure, just in case the planes weren't enough to rouse the American people to action. So, were the Special Forces guys who committed suicide on the planes all brainwashed Manchurian Candidates masquerading as Muslim terrorists? How far down the rabbit-hole do you want to take this thing? Was a shape-shifting, invisible Illuminatus on board each plane, only to fly away like the jinn before impact? Is that how it went down? Was Shaytan the pilot of all four planes, and he hopped between each cockpit?

It's easy for a rational person to forget that there are billions of people in this world who believe that fairies and demons are everywhere. Muslims and 9/11 Truthers belong to the same species of people who believe in a hidden layer of hobgoblins. 

All the crazy shit about Reptilians is just the same as the nonsense about jinn. Why bother believing in a parallel Earth sitting directly over ours? Haven't we got enough issues to deal with in this world without venturing into fairyland? Same goes for Nibiru - the jinn in outer space. Forget all that stuff. There's just one task to be achieved: the overthrow of the Old World Order and their Society of Privilege. Only then can we reset the world and begin again. Day 1, Year Zero - the first day of the New World Order. This time we'll get it right.

The English word genie comes from the Latin genius, which can be considered a special guardian spirit for each of us. The same idea in Greece was called "daimon" and Socrates was famously grateful to his. 

Jinni, the singular of jinn, was translated as "genie" in French translations of -Arabian Nights. Genies can fit inside bottles and offer three wishes because they are jinn made of smokeless fire, blessed with special powers. 

Jinn do all the same things as humans, and have identical institutions such as kings, marriages, families, funerals, law courts. (And TV and movies? How about Jinn Idol?).  Although shapeshifters, some jinn seem to choose to go around with wings (so that they can fly), and other as snakes or dogs or cats, or even like humans. Even dragons and unicorns are possibilities. When Mohammed recited the Koran to them, they turned up in all their different forms.  

Some jinn are said to gnaw on bones that have the useful property of continually regenerating the meat on them. Is that what McDonalds uses? 

Like fairies, elves, goblins, sprites and poltergeists, jinn are said to be responsible for the magic, mayhem and mystery that features in human lives. Magicians, fortune tellers, mediums, psychics etc can all make use of their services.

Solomon was said to have power over jinn, and he obliged them to perform numerous tasks for him, including building his famous Temple. 

If you want to know how backward Islamic scientific thinking is, consider this. A Pakistani nuclear scientist suggested using jinn to solve the energy problems of the world. If we could learn to communicate with them, he said, we could make use of the limitless energy that their bodies of smokeless fire possess. He insisted science and Islam were in perfect agreement! Does Global Warming impact the jinn?

Maybe jinn would be better at running the global economy than the current gang of clowns. 

It's interesting to note that Muslims borrowed the Gnostic idea of docetism (from the Greek word dokein, "to seem") to account for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The Docetes were a Gnostic sect that considered that Christ was purely divine and that his visible form was an illusion, and so the crucifixion and resurrection were also illusory. It only seemed as if these things happened, but they had no actual reality. 

Mohammed agreed with this, which implies that Christ, from the Islamic perspective, is actually a shape-shifting jinni (a genie!), just like Satan. So how can Muslims and Christians possibly claim to worship the same God? Jesus Christ wasn't even human according to Muslims. Interestingly, there are several instances in the Christian Gospels of Jesus Christ mysteriously vanishing in the midst of crowds.

In one case people wanting to stone him for a blasphemous remark he has just made surround him, but he seems to easily, and magically, evade them by walking right past them: 

John 8:59: Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

The Koran says of Christ's crucifixion, "They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did." Previously, the Koran had treated Jesus as just another messenger of God like Noah, Abraham and Moses, but now he's suddenly a mysterious phantom with an illusory body, or with the ability to plant an illusion in the minds of the multitude of people who witnessed his final hours. As expected from an irrational book such as the Koran, no explanation is forthcoming regarding this staggering turn of events that probes the very essence of "reality". Perhaps Mohammed himself was an illusion. Maybe the Angel Gabriel, who dictated the Koran to Mohammed, was a mirage. And, in fact, according to the Satanic Verses controversy, Satan, masquerading as the Angel Gabriel, temporarily deceived Mohammed. If illusion is so commonplace in Islam, why should anyone take this religion seriously? When you add in the shape-shifting, invisible jinn led by Satan who can assume human form whenever they like, isn't Islam a recipe for mass insanity?

Universals and Particulars

Someone sent us a question. Increasingly, we ignore questions because of a) lack of time and b) they often reveal a lack of effort to independently formulate the answers. Rather than actually ponder any issue, people just send off an email and hope that someone else will do their thinking for them. You never truly understand anything unless you do the work yourself. You have to sweat over it. It's not our aim to provide individual answers to everything, but rather to provide the tools that will help people to do the digging for themselves.

Just as you wouldn't expect Stephen Hawking to answer your questions regarding his physics books, you should have no expectation that we will answer your questions. Why would we? How does it help us or advance our agenda to spend an enormous amount of time addressing innumerable questions? We are in the business of changing the world, not of providing a consultancy service for those who want everything on a plate. If you write to us, you should be telling us of your answers, your plans, your creations, your achievements, the tasks you are undertaking to make a difference in the world. You should be revealing in what way you are personally emulating "the greats".  Those are the messages that impress us. When we get long lists of questions, we just put them to the bottom of the pile. If you have some brilliant point to make that we could incorporate in Illuminism, we'd be delighted to hear it. If you can present a case showing that we are in error regarding some point, we will be pleased to take a look, but remember that Illuminism is the product of many of the finest minds humanity has ever produced, so you would need to be a genius yourself to add to Illuminism or correct it. And that, of course, is one of the things we seek - geniuses. The more we have on our side, the better. We would like to have every genius on earth in our ranks. Who could stop us then? We have always desired that the Illuminati should represent the highest cultural, intellectual and spiritual values of humanity. 

We are the keepers of the flame. 

People sometimes accuse us of being arrogant. In fact, assertive is the right word. We have to be in order to stand up to the Old World Order. There's no room for the meek and mild when a vast iniquitous system is there to be overthrown. The OWO have everything and everyone working for them. The whole system is geared up to promote their interests. We have to command the self-belief that we are much smarter and more creative than they are, and that's why we will triumph in the end despite the odds. 

But you don't have to be a genius to make a difference in this world. You just need guts, will and determination. The strong-willed can accomplish wonders through their personal example.

The question we are about to look at is one that serves to illustrate the main themes of this article, hence why we have chosen to respond to it.

Question: Philosophically, many are used to dividing the world into particulars (contingents, manifestations), and universals (forms, ideas). While particulars influence the world directly, living ones through their will, universals are, in a way, unshifting, their "motion" is a reflection of a subject thinking about them. I am a "particular", my human body, with flaws and all, can be seen as made in the "idea of human body, at its current evolution", the universal.  What I am trying to say, is that particulars come as many, being implementations of a certain universal, universals are unique, and cannot act in the world directly (only through their manifesting particulars). Reality is an interplay of order and chaos.

When you say that Satan is real, more than an archetype, he is a living universal? Unique, a particular that is its own form. In "both worlds".  One wonders: can I even ask: "If he's real, what does he look like?  Is he real like you and I, is he real more like gravity or quantum scalar fields? Is he merely real in a potential sense?"

Many religions say that Gods created man. Neil Gaiman inverts this brilliantly. In his stories gods are given reality by the belief people have in them. You say that the Christian God would have no reason to send his only son to this Earth. Yet Satan sends archons. The only solution to avoid contradiction would be to say Satan sends his archons everywhere possible, not only Earth. Is this correct? 

Also, can Satan, Lucifer, Abraxas be regarded as forming a trinity, somewhat similar to the Christian one (three in one)?

Being somewhat pessimistic in nature, I believe that the possible unclarities in this article, what is meant by real, what Satan / Abraxas / Lucifer / can and cannot do, may lead many readers even to superstition again....

A reasonable enough question you might say, but isn't it lacking something? How often do we mention the dialectic in our articles? So where is the dialectical analysis by the questioner? If you are going to send someone a question about their "system" you should surely use the tools that they themselves use or you are treating them with disrespect and displaying wilful ignorance in relation to their ideas. How often have we said that Aristotelian logic is incomplete and must be supplemented by dialectical logic? Yet everything about this question is binary and Aristotelian. It's all about "either/or". If proposition A is true then proposition B must be false. This is the precise opposite of the type of thinking we encourage. It is boxed in, accepting a worldview that we have explicitly rejected many times.

So is it true that something is either a particular or a universal? Well, we have already shown that 1750 years ago, Plotinus thought that Forms could be particular as well as universal. Simply by introducing that idea he destroyed any either/or division between particulars and universals. Was Plato's original idea more valid than Plotinus' refinement? There can be little doubt that Plotinus' system smoothed out a number of illogicalities in Plato's system.

So, the question that was sent to us was formulated wrongly if Plotinus' approach is accepted. The question assumed a Platonic view of the world. What interests us is why the questioner himself didn't challenge the view of Plato. Sure, Plato was a genius but that doesn't make him infallible and we have 2350 years of knowledge to which Plato didn't have access. The point we are trying to make is that you should not take anyone's view as an absolute authority. You are always free to challenge it.

Rather than send us a question with a clear subtext that we are wrong and he is right, the questioner should have questioned whether the premise of his question was valid. The questioner was happy to challenge the validity of our position but not that of his own.

So, if you send us a question, make sure it reflects our premises and not those of someone else. We are very well informed, so if you think you are going to shoot us down, you'd better come armed with the highest possible knowledge.

Plotinus considered the Soul to be both one and many. There is a universal soul and there are particular souls, but they are inextricably joined together. Thus the simplistic notion that something is either a particular or a universal is instantly called into question. What about a tertium quid - a "third thing" resulting from the combination of two things, but different from both? This is the dialectical approach. This is the search for the synthesis of two apparent opposites. 

Something can be both a particular of a Form and a Form itself. There is no contradiction. The whole point of r >= 0 is that everything is partly in the r > 0 domain of space and time, of individual things, and partly in the r = 0 domain outside space and time, the domain of universal things. And something can also be a particular universal. That's what an individual being is.

If you have your immortal essence in the r = 0 domain but you have countless particular mortal forms in the r > 0 domain thanks to reincarnation then you are both universal and particular, and the particular is always interacting with the universal, and vice versa.  

One of the most revolutionary books of the last few decades is A New Science of Life by Rupert Sheldrake. The book's blurb says, "Biologist Rupert Sheldrake argues that phenomena become more probable the more often they occur. When chemists have crystallized a new chemical in one part of the world, for instance, it becomes easier to crystallize elsewhere. After rats in laboratory in Harvard learned to escape from a water maze, rats in Melbourne, Australia, escaped from a similar maze much quicker. Why, and how? Dr Sheldrake describes this process as morphic resonance: the past forms and behaviours of organisms influence organisms in the present. He interprets the regularities of nature as being more like habits than immutable laws."

If Sheldrake knew about Illuminism, he would see that it has already explained his entire system. If particulars and universals are completely separate then they cannot interact with each other. (Indeed universals are traditionally defined as immutable and eternal.) However, if particulars and universals are dialectically linked and are always interacting and evolving together then a) universals are not immutable and b) they can continually provide new information to the particulars. The dialectical model of universals and particulars that is encapsulated by r >= 0 is exactly the model of reality Sheldrake is seeking. In this model, particulars and universals are synergically linked - each reinforcing the other. The cosmos is an enormous feedback system between particulars in r > 0 and universals in r = 0. What could be more obvious, logical and productive? Why do two linked quantum particles remain entangled after being separated by enormous distances? The reason is that the linked system can be considered as a universal in r = 0 and the two quantum particles as particulars of the system in r > 0. They always remain linked to the universal, hence can always be updated instantly on what is happening to the other particle because r = 0 is outside space and time hence can provide instantaneous communication (rather than being limited by the speed of light as Einstein thought).

The new crystals Sheldrake speaks of are particulars of the universal crystal of that type. They update the universal crystal which then passes on the information to any additional crystals that are grown. The process gets more and more efficient until it reaches its omega point and is completely stable (from then on the universal is essentially immutable). Similarly with the rats. Any learning done by particular rats is fed back to the "universal" mind of rats, which then provides the updated information to later generations of rats attempting the same task, which thus can accomplish it much faster.

Homeopathy works in the same way. If we define the original homeopathic system as the universal and then the ultra-diluted versions as the particulars, they are still linked to the information contained in the original universal. Thus, even though there may be no active ingredient physically present in a homeopathic remedy, it can still be efficacious by virtue of the information contained in the original universal i.e. the active ingredient is present informationally if not actually, and the information is of course the critical factor.                

The r = 0 domain might usefully be called the information domain and it ensures that all of the information of the cosmos is always available to everything in the cosmos. It is the Logos. It is the Mind of God.

Sheldrake's morphic resonance provides a powerful way of understanding evolution, and why there are so few intermediate forms in the fossil record. New species reach a final state very rapidly through feedback between the universal of the species and the particulars. There is no long trail showing all the intermediate steps between an old species and the one it evolves into. Humans share 99% of their DNA with the African apes - the chimpanzee and the gorilla. Five million years ago, all three species shared a common ancestor. The gorilla line split off and, a million years later, the chimp line split off. We are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas because we shared a common ancestry for longer.

To understand this process in a "cosmic" sense, it's necessary to consider what happens to universals, how they themselves evolve, just as particulars do. (As above, so below.) All apes have a common ancestor, so there was an original universal for all apes. But it wasn't a "stable" universal. Within that single universal, there were other potential universals corresponding to different types of potential ape. Just as cells divide, we might say that universals divide. The single ape universal splits into more specific ape universals such as chimp, gorilla, human etc. In the physical world, the process matching this is the conventional gene mutation and "natural selection" of evolutionary theory. 

Gene mutation is associated with the splitting up of an unstable universal. All universals are aiming for stability, for their individual omega point where they are a perfect actualization of the central idea they contain. So, whereas Plato invoked a mysterious realm of perfect Forms that was in no way affected by any particulars, the morphic resonance model has a realm of Forms that is completely coupled with the realm of particulars. The two domains are always interacting. The Forms are therefore not Platonically perfect and immutable: they are evolving towards perfection and when they reach their omega point and can change no longer then they have become properly Platonic. For Plato, all possible Forms exist from the outset, so no new ones are possible. Nothing can ever evolve. In morphic resonance, evolution drives the whole thing. New universals can arise. All universals are mutable until they arrive at their omega point. Every universal may be said to have an inner drive to attain perfection - its omega point. But it has to dialectically evolve to get there, and the process is driven by the continual feedback between the r = 0 and r > 0 domains, between the informational world of mind and the physical world of matter.

The Abrahamic God is Platonic in that he is perfect and immutable from the beginning. The God of Illuminism on the other hand starts its journey as pure potential and evolves towards perfection. This division between an eternally perfect God and a God becoming perfect goes to the core of the truth of religion. An evolutionary God is completely consistent with Darwinian Evolution; the God that is perfect from the start is a direct contradiction of Darwinism. That's why you can't, logically, be an Abrahamist and a Darwinist. The Hermetic principle of as above, so below compels anyone who accepts Evolution to accept that the cosmos and God must also be evolving.         

Of course, there are limitations to morphic resonance. As complexity rises, information becomes harder to share between universals and particulars. Thus, even though quantum mechanics and relativity theory are a century old and have had plenty of time via morphic resonance to become embedded in human minds, they plainly haven't. But the news of the arrival of a new Lady Gaga video is rapidly transmitted via morphic resonance to billions of people, resulting in an enormous number of hits in a very short space of time. Even people who have not explicitly seen some sort of message announcing the new video nevertheless have an "inkling" that they ought to be checking out Lady Gaga. The feeling is "in the air".

This would be a typical example of morphic resonance for linked human minds: a simple informational update regarding a straightforward piece of information. However, a complex theory such as quantum mechanics cannot be transmitted via morphic resonance precisely because of its complexity. Sure, rats might be able to find faster ways through mazes via morphic resonance, or humans pick up a new tune more easily, but there's no way anything elaborate can be passed on this way. Only simple memes can be transmitted morphically.     

So, here are our specific answers to the original question:

1) Universals are unique, and cannot act in the world directly (only through their manifesting particulars). 

So, is God a universal or a particular? Can he act in the world directly? There are billions of humans (particulars of the Form "humanity"), but at one time there was only one human - the first. There is nothing to exclude a unique particular, and if a unique particular is the only manifestation of a universal and in a feedback system with it, in what way are the two ideas to be clearly distinguished? Aren't they in fact a single system: the universal-particular, so to speak? Such an entity is in the world and yet also transcends it. It acts directly in the world as a particular, but because the particular is unique it also uniquely represents the universal. Are we in a position to say that the universal is not directly operating in the world? In terms of the Christian Trinitarian God, God is both immanent and transcendent. He is the Form of the Good and yet he acts everywhere in the physical world. He is omnipresent. He can incarnate as a physical being - e.g. as "Jesus Christ" - and be a man-god. He can also be the Holy Spirit, capable of interacting with everyone at once. With the Trinitarian God we have a total blurring of particulars and universals. 

In the case of Satan, he is a unique being just as any being is, and is associated with a particular immortal Form. He reincarnates, just as a human being does. His essence is eternal and yet he can exist in any number of sequential particulars and be in the physical world. But Satan is a being much further along the evolutionary track than we are. Such beings have a much greater affinity with the r = 0 domain. Via the r = 0 domain, a domain outside space and time and completely interconnected, Satan can "whisper" to every mind in the cosmos because all minds are connected to r = 0. Equally, Lucifer can whisper an entirely different message, and Abraxas another message still. Imagine that r = 0 is a cosmic mind and through that mind are flowing all possible thoughts, amongst which are good and evil. Our own minds are tuned into this immense ocean of mental activity and we can choose to tune into good whispers, evil whispers, rational whispers, irrational whispers, any type of whisper we want. Like Sheldrake's rats, we can rapidly mould ourselves and learn new things from all of the mental currents flowing around us. But we can be dragged down as well as raised up. We can watch junk TV along with billions of others. We can engage in endless trivialities. Morphic resonance is, more often than not, a dumbing down force, a conformist force. It makes most people behave the same way. It underlies the success of memes. It helps to promote "viral" campaigns. We could all tune into higher things, but most of us don't. We go with the flow, with whatever is popular and fashionable. We are sheeple, not people. And we are far more likely to listen to Satan's whisper that we should always look after No. 1 than Lucifer's that we should help the community.  

2) Reality is an interplay of order and chaos.

True. It's also an interplay of particulars and universals, of dimensionality and dimensionlessness, of mind and matter, of r = 0 and r > 0.

3) When you say that Satan is real, more than an archetype, he is a living universal. Unique, a particular that is its own form. In "both worlds".  One wonders: can I even ask: "If he's real, what does he look like?  Is he real like you and I, is he real more like gravity or quantum scalar fields? Is he merely real in a potential sense? ". 

Yes, he is a living universal, just as we all are. I currently partake of the Form of human, but what if I reincarnated as an eagle? I am thereby partaking of a different Form, but my essential Form hasn't changed one iota. I'm still me. My personal universal never alters, and the very fact that the phrase "personal universal" can be deployed shows how closely related particulars and universals actually are. No matter what Form I have at any one time, it is still uniquely reflecting me, and that is always the case. And thus it is with Satan. He is always in both worlds. We all are. That's why we're immortal, unique beings. We are in the immortal r = 0 domain and in the mortal r > 0 domain. We are universal and particular. Satan looks like whatever Form he has at a particular time. He could be a human if he wanted to be. He could be sitting in a Wall Street boardroom right now. He can be anything he likes, hence can have any appearance. And someone with so much understanding of the r = 0 domain, is able to transfer in and out of any other mind at will. So, in a sense, it's absurd to ask what he looks like because he could look like anything at all. But, equally, he always looks like "something" as long as he chooses to be in the r > 0 domain. Lucifer, on the other hand, only rarely enters the r > 0 domain, and Abraxas never. Abraxas is the master of r = 0 and now only exists as an incorporeal, non-dimensional entity. But he did have a body once in the age when he was alienated from himself and evolving into what he now is. 

To have a physical body means to have a mortal body in the r > 0 domain. To have a dimensionless body means to have an immortal body in the r = 0 domain. All immortal beings have a dimensionless body (soul, if you will), but they can all acquire a dimensional one. Of course to talk of an incorporeal, dimensionless body is to strain the ordinary meaning of "body", and it's just as easy to describe this state as purely mental. We can't readily detect a soul for the simple reason that it's not in the physical world in any ordinary sense, just as light isn't. We understand light in terms of the space-time framework from which we observe it. But light isn't in space and time as far as its own frame of reference is concerned.  Imagine trying to scientifically analyse a single photon. Sure, it can be detected, but only inadequately.      

4) You say that the Christian God would have no reason to send his only son to this Earth. Yet Satan sends archons. The only solution to avoid contradiction would be to say Satan sends his archons everywhere possible, not only Earth. Is this correct? 

Yes, exactly so. As above, so below. Need the question be asked? The answer is self-evident. Everywhere in the cosmos, the same struggle is being fought. Why would it not be? Although we are all immortal because we all have an essential existence outside space and time, we nevertheless have a mortal existence and we have to incarnate somewhere. Even if we have infinite choices confronting us, we will still end up in one particular place i.e. a simple choice always "collapses the wavefunction" and we end up in a particular place at a particular time. 

When a talented or privileged person first enters the job market, they may have an enormous number of opportunities to choose from. But no matter how much choice they have they will always end up in one particular job. Possibilities are always abolished by specific choices. That's why our existence is all about the choices we make. That's what allows us to trace a particular path rather than a quantum superposition of possible paths. 

The whole point of Jesus Christ from the Christian perspective is that he was a UNIQUE incarnation. If there are infinite incarnations of Jesus Christ i.e. every planet with intelligent life on it had its own Crucifixion followed by Glorious Resurrection, wouldn't the idea become absurd? It would imply that every such planet had its own Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, Serpent, Original Sin and so forth. Christianity demands that Earth is special, but in an infinite system it simply can't be unless we conclude that God chose our world to be special. That's not impossible, but it's highly improbable.

Every intelligent world will be struggling with good and evil in its own way. Every earth-like planet will have its prophets and martyrs, its fanatics, its archons, its Phosters, its Messiahs…why wouldn't they? Why would they operate according to different rules and principles from us? The dialectic is universal. The same processes occur everywhere. The laws of both Physics and Mind are the same everywhere. If Jesus Christ died for our sins, as Christianity claims, then who died for the sins of the intelligent beings on all the other worlds? Either Jesus Christ gave his life for humanity only, and all other sinful worlds are therefore doomed to hell through Christ's refusal to help them, or he's on a perpetual circus tour performing his stage act on every intelligent planet in the cosmos. Either way, it casts Jesus Christ in a radically new light. (Interestingly, Mormons believe that the Earth is just one of many inhabited planets, each with human-like populations, and that they are subject to the Atonement of Jesus too.)

5) Also, can Satan, Lucifer, Abraxas be regarded as forming a trinity, somewhat similar to the Christian one (three in one)? 

Yes, they can be thought of as a trinity, but they are not equal and One like the Christian Trinity. Rather, they are functionally dependent on each other. Just as yin must accompany yang, good, evil and their synthesis must always go together.

6) Being somewhat pessimistic in nature, I believe that the possible unclarities in this article… 

There are countless "unclarities" in all of our articles for the simple reason that language is unstable, has different meaning for different people, has all sorts of nuances, depends on the existing knowledge of the reader, their type of intelligence and personality, whether they are intuitive or sensing, or whatever. No text is sacred. We are not preaching the Word of God. We are not making ex cathedra infallible statements. We are providing a treasure chest of ideas that can nourish your soul. But we can't think your thoughts for you. We can't explain every word to you. Many statements will baffle you. We can't help that. In ten years you may come back to this website, read the whole thing again and have a completely different understanding of the material. Re-reading a favourite book that you remember from childhood is usually an entirely different experience. The words have changed because you have changed. You have moved on.

One of our central messages is to stay well clear of "sacred, infallible, holy" texts. Our material often has a type of ambiguity built into it. For instance, we are always trying to explain things as simply and readably as possible, not as accurately as possible. Try reading Hegel and you will discover what it's like when a great thinker puts accuracy before readability. We try to shape our material for people who have had little or no contact with the type of subjects we discuss. If we used endless technical jargon, we would lose all readers bar a handful of specialists. In an article such as this, we may have baffled too many people because of the abstract content.

So, "unclarity" is guaranteed. It's for you to clarify the thinking in your own mind.

7) what is meant by real? 

Exactly! What IS meant by real? That's one of the oldest questions in philosophy. Real is what we define by the cosmic equation r >= 0. But many others have put forward radically different definitions. Scientists, for example, say that anything they can't comprehend in material terms is not real. You have to CHOOSE. You have to take a stance. 

8) "what Satan / Abraxas / Lucifer / can and can not do, may lead many readers even to superstition again...."

Superstition is defined as an irrational belief maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. Whatever charge may be levelled at us, superstition certainly isn't one of them. Our site is the opposite of superstition. We are showing exactly what r >= 0, a very precise and unique equation, implies about the nature of reality. No other group in history has done what we have. There is a subtext in the question that science is not superstitious. In fact, science is riddled with superstition, metaphysical speculation and ignorance. Anyone fanatically devoted to the closed thinking of science will lack the open mind necessary to comprehend what we are saying. 

When Rupert Sheldrake's book first appeared it was described by a prestigious science magazine as "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years." Why? Simply because it challenged the prevailing scientific paradigm. It's all too easy to succumb to scientism. No one who is not highly impressed by Sheldrake's book will prosper when it comes to our site. Science always tries to close down debate. It has never addressed any of the pertinent issues raised by Sheldrake. It just ignores them, or brands them as superstition or hokum. Words like "superstition" are designed to shut down a debate and promote the establishment agenda. 

People must be open minded and able to consider all possibilities. If you think we're wrong, go ahead and demonstrate it. If not, don't bandy around words like superstition. It reflects a particular mindset that's already closed to new ideas. 

We mocked the Islamic idea of jinn because the concept is put forward in a childish manner. However, if it were part of a rigorous system of science, mathematics and philosophy, we would treat it very seriously indeed, just as we take the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin extremely seriously because it goes to the heart of quantum reality. Never shut yourself off from new ideas. Even the bad ones often have useful messages to impart. The Christian debate about the dual nature of Christ and the triple nature of the Trinity is one that is full of brilliant philosophy. It is not some crude exercise in superstition, regardless of what anyone thinks of the real existence of Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity. It's extraordinary how many people say they believe in God while dismissing talk of Satan as superstitious. Then, when they are asked to define God, they don't have a clue i.e. their belief is irrational, hence superstitious. 

If we think that people already have enough information to answer their own questions then our policy is not to assist them. Also, we keep telling people that there is very little point in asking any questions until we have completed this site and they see what our full position is. Nevertheless, the questions keep pouring in. Save yourself the effort. 

9) I like to see God as a universal principle, whose particulars are life, attempting to become God manifest. The only way he can act directly is through us, we are projections, fragments of God, like light through a prism. A person cannot be defined as inherently good or evil throughout his life. As one learns, one gains experiences, one changes, motives cannot fit into this simple dualistic scheme. I try to avoid seeing them as different beings entirely, in part because the idea of dialectic can be very tricky, and I avoid falling into the trap of "Lucifer is good, praise him, Satan is evil, fear him." So that's why I like to take a more archetypal view of them. I don't know if a universal can incarnate to a particular... Although if it happens once there would be no reason for it not to happen multiple times... some particulars become akin to the specific universal, in time, for a time, they can reflect one archetype or another, while still being a person and not a caricature.

The view being expressed here is that God is not a person, not a consciousness, but an abstract "principle" that is realised through us. Of course, if that were the case then exactly the same argument could be expressed on behalf of Satan. He is an abstract principle that we manifest.

Where did this universal principle of God come from? How did it come into existence? Where is it? How does it interact with us? How can we be its "particulars"? Why are the particulars striving to become "God manifest" rather than something else? Was the "God principle" created? If so, who created it? Did it evolve? If so, how? Where was it at the moment of the Big Bang? So many questions, all of them left dangling in the wind while the questioner, in effect, rubbishes our position. Is it wise to attack a position if your own position is not resting on any foundations?

So, neither God nor Satan is "real" in this view, except as cosmic "principles". In which case, why bother subscribing to religion at all? This view is indistinguishable from psychology or from a naturalistic philosophy. One could simply replace God and Satan with the Taoist principles of yin and yang. But whereas we talk of "becoming God", who would ever talk of "becoming yang"? 

The suggestion is also made with this question that the idea of personalised evil, an evil consciousness, is some sort of childish and ridiculous "caricature". It is being asserted that it is explicitly forbidden that a consciousness could be given over to just one mode of expression. As a simple refutation of this argument we can cite the case of a psychopath. A psychopath is never anything other than a psychopath. It is their only mode of consciousness. They can't simultaneously be reasonable, liberal, kind, empathetic, sympathetic and psychopathic. The last attribute excludes all the rest. Evil in its purest form is psychopathy, so why on earth would anyone claim that it doesn't exist and is just some crazy, superstitious assertion? If you have ever met a psychopath you won't have any trouble accepting the existence of Satan.

People might contend that psychopathy is a medical condition or mental illness, but why should a mental illness result in a personality type that is extremely dangerous to others rather than to the person himself? Is it not reflecting a feature of the cosmos that is fundamentally self-centred and hostile towards others (i.e. evil), and that is particularly expressed through diseased minds? If such a diseased mind is possible on a terrestrial basis, why not on a cosmic basis? If the planet earth can generate evil humans, why can't the cosmos generate evil beings, and, at the apex, a supremely evil consciousness - the Omega Point of this tendency. Anything not forbidden is compulsory. So what factor renders Satan forbidden? What is it that debars a cosmic psychopath - the Demiurge - from existing? 

People, often because of a lack of imagination and a worship of scientific materialism, try to consign Satan to oblivion. Why do they bother? Our world is run by evil psychopaths. A documentary called The Corporation brilliantly portrayed capitalist companies as inherently psychopathic. The Old World Order are psychopaths. Dictators are psychopaths. The Abrahamic religions are psychopathic. Is this all just some ridiculous caricature that we've invented? Were the Nazi deathcamps caricatures? 9/11, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Witch burnings, genocides all over the world? And if all of these instances of psychopathy are real, then why not the same thing on a cosmic scale? What would allow the phenomenon to exist in this world alone, but not in the cosmos as a whole?

It's ridiculous to compare ordinary people with extreme types. Satan isn't a nice guy who has good days and bad, who gets tetchy at work and so on. He's nothing like Joe Average, so why use a Joe Average analysis on him? Was Ted Bundy Joe Average? "A person cannot be defined as inherently good or evil throughout his life. As one learns, one gains experiences, one changes, motives cannot fit into this simple dualistic scheme." Really? Does a person's character change throughout his life? Experience informs character, it does not alter it. Ted Bundy learned through experience how to become a more effective psychopath. People who are born selfish die selfish. The Ignavi - the neutrals, the apathetic, the passive - are neither one thing nor another in terms of good and evil. But people who are genuinely good do not become evil, and those who are genuinely evil do not become good. The questioner is essentially denying that there is such a thing as an enduring character. 

If the universe were as depicted by the questioner then evil would simply not exist. Everyone would be a decent liberal who now and again is a bit "naughty". The world is nothing like that. It has an unhealthy quota of deranged people who would hack your head off if you looked at them the wrong way or insulted their God. 

"Archetypes", "Stereotypes", "Caricatures", "Unclarities", "Superstition"...these are all the words used by people who simply refuse to believe in the possibility of radical evil, even though our world is full of it. This is how they explain it away. Or it's called "game theory" or something of the sort - anything that allows it to be stuffed in a nice little rational box and pushed out of sight. No, no, these people say, it simply won't do to have an actual thing called "evil" operating in our world. Science won't allow it. But, then, science also dismisses free will and minds not built of atoms, yet has there even been a human being who didn't think he had free will and a mind not subject to atomic forces? Why is science treated as infallible when, in terms of mind, life, consciousness, and good and evil, it can't explain a single thing?

Why don't people open their eyes and take a look around at this world of ours? Only when they do will anything start to change.

We are not stupid. We have laser vision when it comes to seeing if people are on our wavelength or not. The questioner's core views are, on the basis of the way his question is framed, very far from ours.

Now you can see why we are reluctant to respond to questions. It involves us in an immensely long deconstruction of the belief system that underlies each question. A question is not a neutral entity. It is loaded with assumptions, beliefs, and particular ways of looking at the world. The way the question is constructed often reveals a thinly disguised hostility or incredulity towards one of our positions, which we inevitably find irritating.

Nietzsche said, "As soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion!"

This is one of the most perceptive statements ever made. If you have a strong feeling against something, you can no longer understand it in its own terms. The Old World Order no doubt have a defence of their position, but it's not one we can comprehend because we are so hostile to their worldview. We don't agree with any of their fundamental assumptions about life or any of their core values. You wouldn't come to us if you wanted to hear a case in favour of their philosophy. We are their fierce critics, not their advocates.

By the same token, we can instantly tell when people are not the "victim of the same passion" in relation to our position. Their questions don't engage with our views but simply echo their own. They have made no serious attempt to understand our position and arguments. So why should we invest a great deal of time and effort in responding to them? They are practically inviting us to abandon our position in order to agree with them. The only time that would ever happen is if someone has out-argued us with a philosophy much more powerful than ours.

So, when you send us a question challenging our position, be better informed than we are. Have a more coherent philosophy. And if you don't have those things, shouldn't you be doing a lot more work before you attack us?

*****

Because of the nature of r = 0 dimensionless existence, we have access to all the thoughts of the cosmos, if we did but know it. So it could be said that Abraxas, Satan and Lucifer are within us psychologically. We would have no problem agreeing with that. But that doesn't mean that Abraxas, Satan and Lucifer do not have independent reality. Anyone who fully understands r >= 0 sees that lots of old-style definitions simply fall away and have to be replaced by radical new concepts, just as quantum mechanics swept away classical mechanics and introduced an utterly bizarre world of instantaneous communication and particles being in two places at once or multiple particles being at the same place at once. 

To understand r >= 0, you have to see that it is in fact the most fundamental equation of quantum mechanics. It changes everything.

Is it possible to formulate a concept of Lucifer and Satan as different personas of Abraxas? Yes, it is. As usual, such a concept is built in to the r >= 0 paradigm. With a hologram, the whole is in each part, and each part in the whole. If you really grasp what that means you will see that we are all inside everything and everything is inside us. Hence all sorts of weird and wonderful definitions can be put forward regarding reality, existence, interconnectedness of existence, individuation, psychological co-dependence, and so forth. They are all different aspects of the truth, and you should emphasize whatever definition most suits your personality and way of thinking, while understanding that things may be a lot more complicated.

The system we advocate is chosen deliberately. We emphasize the reality of Satan because we definitely don't want people to regard "evil" as an internal psychological phenomenon. That's the sort of thing Buddhists do and they thus withdraw from the world and become highly passive. They ignore external evil as an "illusion". Tyranny and injustice go unchecked and unfought. It is essential that people see evil as a radical, active factor in our world that must be challenged and resisted. And the truth is, as the Gnostics always insisted, that our world is very evil. But it can be saved and redeemed. By all of us. All we have to do is overthrow those few thousand people of the Old World Order who are absolutely evil.  

*****

The question we quoted is a clever and well-informed one, but the questioner is obviously a bright person who could work these issues out for himself, especially if he took steps to prevent being locked into certain rigid mindsets and prejudices.

The point we can't stress enough is that life isn't like an exam where you take a paper knowing that someone in an office somewhere has all of the answers. In life, at the level that counts, there's no one giving you the answers. You have to discover them for yourself. So, the sooner you start becoming self-sufficient in the pursuit of knowledge, and providing the answers you need, the sooner you will become the kind of person you need to be. 

As Nietzsche said, "We are the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves." The people who can impose their own laws and be self-creating are those who have the will to power to be bold and confident enough to realise that the answers to their life are within themselves. THAT is the magic ingredient the Illuminati seek in people. The people who provide answers are those who change the world, not those who ask questions. The former are active, the latter passive. The former are confident of themselves, the latter unsure and hesitant. The former need no validation, no one to give them a tick, while the latter are always blinking and saying, "Is this right?"

Illuminism is an immensely intricate system of knowledge. It was created by people obsessed with providing answers, not with asking questions. Questions are essential up to a point, of course, but their fundamental function is to pave the way for answers. Questions are not ends in themselves. It's the answers that are the important things. If you have really grasped Illuminism, you can work out the entire system from just a handful of basic premises, and perhaps just four: the dialectic, r >= 0, the mathematical Completeness Theorem and as above, so below. Sure, there are many grey areas in our system (and the dialectic guarantees that), but that's where you have to use your insight and intuition. The Western mind is obsessed with either/or logic. The Taoists of the East always understood that opposites (yin and yang) flow into each other in a balanced way, and are indispensable to one another. Heraclitus showed exactly the same approach when he said, "The path up and the path down are one and the same." 

An Aristotelian, when confronted by the idea that something can be both a) and b) although they seem to be opposites, would immediately say, "Well, hold on, it's either a) or b). It can't be both because a) and b) are mutually exclusive. He would assert it confidently and be completely wrong. The famous twin-slit experiment of quantum mechanics comprehensively destroyed simplistic Aristotelian logic by demonstrating that a particle could be in two places at once. You won't grasp the higher reality if you insist on a rigid either/or system of logic. As soon as you see binary oppositions being set up, you should be very cautious. Sure, they can be useful, but they are not the whole story and you need to have the flexibility of mind to deploy other tools, particularly the dialectic and its characteristic combination of opposites. Binary logic says particulars and universals are completely separate concepts. The dialectic immediately queries that and says that when viewed from the right perspective they are actually the same, or at least extremely closely related.

You won't "get" Illuminism unless you can break out of any mental boxes that you have allowed yourself to fall into. You have to fire up your mind and think incredible thoughts. You have to fearlessly make astonishing intuitive jumps. The assertions of quantum mechanics seemed insane to one of its own founders - Albert Einstein. He never accepted the quantum mechanical view of reality that gradually emerged. He was stuck in his own mental box of classical concepts. One of the greatest minds of all time, able to think amazing thoughts, didn't, in the end, have enough of an imagination to grasp the true nature of reality.

The truths of life are wondrous. They are not boring, rigid, classical expressions of clockwork mechanics. Human beings are not robots, as scientific materialism asserts. We are GODS!!!!!! Get with the program!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The cosmos is alive. It has a mind. It is evolving towards its Omega Point. And we are evolving with it. Only when we are "complete" is the cosmos complete. So buckle up and enjoy the ride to the Unknown Country, the ultimate journey the cosmos has to offer.

Particulars and Universals (II)

Jung's conception of the collective unconscious can be considered in terms of particulars and universals. The r = 0 domain contains the universal of the human unconscious, and all particular human beings tune into this collective unconscious. However, each human also has a personal unconscious unique to them, and their own consciousness, of course. If we think of de Chardin's concept of the noosphere, we can see that this would represent an evolution of Jung's collective unconscious. Eventually, all human personal unconsciousnesses and personal consciousnesses could coalesce to create a Mass Mind - a collective human mind - both conscious and unconscious. John Wyndham presented a fictional version of this idea in his novel The Midwich Cuckoos (filmed as The Village of the Damned) in which a group of alien children had a collective mind. Anything that one learned was immediately learned by the others (i.e. perfect morphic resonance), and thus their intelligence grew enormously faster than that of human children, leading to an inevitable conflict.

Taken to its ultimate degree, this process would result in a collective cosmic consciousness: the equivalent of the Mind of God! 

All psychic phenomena relate to the idea that a psychic person can access the consciousness or unconscious of another person, hence all such phenomena are all temporary instances of Mass Mind. If everyone were psychic, humanity would thereby have a collective consciousness.

The Neoplatonic Higher Soul is effectively a Mass Mind. Thus we see that thinkers such as Jung and de Chardin are simply giving new life to an ancient idea that was neglected by science. 

Plotinus' model of a Collective Soul outside space and time connected to a myriad of individual souls located in space and time is arguably the best way of thinking about Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance, and about the relationship between a universal and particulars.

In his book A New Science of Life, Sheldrake has a conversation with physicist David Bohm:

Rupert Sheldrake: I think that when the evolutionary theory in biology came in, it triggered the beginning of change. We then had an evolutionary view of reality regarding animals and plants, but it was still considered that there was a timeless background of the physical world, the molecular and atomic world. Now we've gone to the cosmology of the Big Bang, which is widely accepted. So now we've got the entire universe as being a radically evolutionary universe. And this, I think, provokes a crisis, and should provoke a crisis. The idea of timeless laws that have always been there, somehow pervading time and space, ceases to have much meaning when you have an actual historical Big Bang, because you then have this problem: where were the laws before the Big Bang?

David Bohm: There is also the belief, commonly accepted, that at the core of black holes the laws as we know them would also vanish. As you say, scientists haven't faced up to it because they are still thinking in the old way, in terms of timeless laws. But some physicists realize that. One cosmologist was giving a talk and he said, 'Well, you know, I used to think everything was a law of nature, and it's all fixed, but as far as a black hole is concerned, anything can happen.' So, the notion of timeless laws doesn't seem to hold, because time itself is part of the necessity that developed. The black hole doesn't involve space and time as we know it; they all vanish. It's not just matter that vanishes, but any regular order that we know of vanishes, and therefore you could say anything goes, or nothing goes.

Rupert Sheldrake: …And then you confront [scientists] with the question of where were the laws of nature before the Big Bang. And most of them say, 'Well, they must have always been there.' And you say, 'Where? There's no matter in any sense that we know of before the Big Bang. Where were these laws of nature, sort of free floating?' And they say, 'Well, they must have been there somehow.' And then you say, 'Don't you think this is a rather metaphysical concept, in any literal sense of metaphysics, because it's quite beyond existing physics?' They have to admit it sooner or later. As soon as you get into that sort of area, the certainty that so many scientists think their view of the world is founded on simply disappears. It becomes clear that current science presupposes uncritically one possible kind of metaphysics.

Sheldrake's question of where the laws of physics were before the Big Bang is as big as they come. If nothing preceded the Big Bang - no space, no time, no matter, no energy then a) where did the mind-boggling amount of "stuff" associated with the Big Bang come from? b) Where did the laws of physics come from? c) Where are the laws of physics stored now and where were they at the instant of the Big Bang? d) Did the laws of physics exist before the Big Bang in order to be able to direct it, and, if so, where were they since scientists say that nothing existed?) e) If the Big Bang was initiated without any laws of physics then how can cosmologists expect to understand the Big Bang using the laws of physics?! - they are hoist with their own petard f) Did the laws of physics somehow instantly develop right at the beginning of the Big Bang? If so, how is this possible, what's the mechanism, and where are the laws collected and stored? g) If we live in a purely materialistic universe, the laws must somehow be present in matter, but how, and where? 

Ask ANY scientist these questions and they won't have a clue how to answer you. But if they can't answer these most basic questions, isn't the whole edifice of science built on sand? Isn't science just a fairytale? Science is no more credible at this level than Creationism. At least Abrahamists can explain the Big Bang with reference to God - his mind contained the laws of physics. Materialistic scientists have no cosmic mind to invoke to help them out of their dilemma.

The question of where the laws of physics exist and how they influence the physical world is just a restatement of where Plato's realm of perfect Forms exists and how it influences particulars in the physical world. In other words, science, for all of its grandiose claims, is not one jot further forward than Plato 2,350 years ago. Plato tried to get out of his problem by magicking the Demiurge into existence to act as the link between universals and particulars i.e. he invoked a cosmic mind. No such option is available to scientists who reject the independent existence of mind. They have the gargantuan problem of explaining how matter creates, stores and obeys the laws of physics. It is unlikely that any scientist on earth has ever really understood the scale of the task confronting them. They talk about being tantalizingly close to formulating a Grand Unified theory of Everything and yet, in truth, they haven't addressed the most elementary questions imaginable. Scientists are just like the Emperor with his new clothes - they are stark naked and don't know it.  

So, how does Illuminism answer these questions?  We are no better than scientists and popes if we are unable to do so. 

Firstly, there is no such thing as the "nothing" scientists say preceded the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, the dimensionless cosmos existed, which we can associate with pure mind, or, to be more precise, with dimensionless psycho-energy which can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. Because the cosmos before the Big Bang was mind, and because a mind is an entity that generates and stores information, the laws of physics that dictated the course of the Big Bang were already present in the cosmic mind i.e. the laws existed before the Big Bang, as indeed they must have done in order to direct the Big Bang. But as soon as that conclusion is accepted (and it is the only plausible and credible explanation), then scientific materialism is instantly destroyed because it was not "nothing" but rather "mind" that preceded the Big Bang. That inference is momentous beyond all imagining. Why? Because it conjures God into existence. God's mind was the source of the Big Bang. The laws of physics were thoughts in his mind. However, they were not Platonic laws i.e. perfect, unchanging and timeless. 

The laws of physics evolved in God's mind over timeless ages. God, in effect, learned the laws of physics through trial and error. This process should not be thought of as conscious. Mind, as we know all too well, can operate unconsciously. And it was the unconscious thought processes of God's Mind that gave birth to the laws of physics (or, to be more accurate, to Complete Mathematics). When Complete Mathematics was fully established in God's Mind, there was only one thing to be done. Potential must be transformed into actuality. That is the cosmic law. That is what the dialectic demands. So dimensionless psycho-energy was, via the laws of physics (mathematics), transformed into dimensional psycho-energy in the stupendous cosmic event known as the Big Bang. (Mind still remained, of course, because it is impossible to eradicate dimensionless existence; Matter did not replace Mind, but came into co-existence with it.) 

Mind thus alienated itself in matter, but by doing so it gave rise to the possibility of consciousness because this, the highest quality of mind can, as Hegel so brilliantly illustrated, exist only as a multiplicity i.e. consciousness needs a minimum of two thinking beings. Consciousness arises from their interaction. To have genuine multiplicity requires individuation (separate, individual things). True individuation requires space and time (dimensionality), hence the cosmic mind (outside space and time) had no alternative but to create dimensionality. Everything that happened was scrupulously logical.

Just as God's thoughts evolved to create the laws of physics that determined the course of the Big Bang, so everything in the Big Bang universe evolves, and all of these individual material things in space and time feed back to the cosmic mind outside space and time, and it feeds back to them. It is the perfect system of evolution and synergy. Rupert Sheldrake said, "Cosmic evolution involves an interplay of habit and creativity. This hypothesis is radically different from the conventional assumption that nature is governed by eternal laws." Sheldrake is both right and wrong. Eternal laws do exist in a manner of speaking (as Complete Mathematics), but they are supplemented by evolving "universals" which shape the evolutionary activity of the cosmos. The eternal laws provide the background and the framework, while the evolving universals provide the dialectical dynamic that drives the cosmos towards its Omega Point. In an evolving cosmos it is imperative that evolving universals exist.

All the while, the cosmos is trying to achieve something - consciousness. Not just any consciousness: perfect consciousness, involving Absolute Freedom, Absolute Knowledge, Absolute Power: the Omega Point of consciousness, existence, evolution, the dialectic, and teleology. The Omega Point is the point at which all cosmic potential has been completely and perfectly actualised. It is God in the fully realized sense. The cosmos begins as God hidden and ends as God revealed. And thus ends a cosmic cycle. What happens next? God withdraws from physical existence. We might call this process the Big Crunch that reverses the Big Bang, or we might say that the black holes that grow more and more frequent as stars die and implode, gradually return all physical existence to the black hole singularities outside space and time. 

One way or another, all matter returns to its source: mind. And in doing so, we might speculate, God's memories are gradually erased. He metaphorically drinks the waters of Lethe that bring complete forgetfulness, just as the ancient Greeks taught to account for why previous lives were never remembered. And thus the whole cycle begins anew. God is again in a state of maximum potential and minimum actualisation, and the cosmic law of the mind that demands the conversion of potential to actuality via the dialectic, starts all over again. And this will happen for eternity because existence can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. 

As so many ancients knew, the cosmos operates in great Ages. There is no "Heat Death" that materialistic scientists speak of. As Sheldrake says, "The universe now looks like a vast developing organism, not like an eternal machine slowly running out of steam." 

Sheldrake is right. The cosmos is a living, evolving organism with a mind. Therefore, the cosmos can never reach any state of eternal stasis. There is, however, eternal recurrence, but not in the sense of identical events being repeated in each Age. Rather, each Age is unique. Why? Because of chaos theory. Everyone knows the metaphor of the butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo and causing a hurricane in New York. This sums up the idea that the way a system evolves is determined by the starting conditions, but the tiniest changes in the starting conditions lead to spectacularly different outcomes. The flapping of a butterfly's wings could be sufficient to alter global weather. If our weather on earth is impossible to predict, imagine how much greater the unpredictability is in the context of the biggest chaotic event of them all - the Big Bang. Every new Big Bang causes the cosmos to evolve differently, but each cosmos always converges towards the same Omega Point: the maximum actualization of its original potential. All beginnings are different, but all endings the same.

Does this outline not explain everything that science so dismally fails to explain? Science dismisses dimensionless existence (i.e. pure mental existence) and thus catastrophically fails to understand the workings of the cosmos. Logic is only as effective as the original axioms allow. If you start with the wrong axioms, your whole system is guaranteed to be in error. And science, by disregarding mind, eliminates the central axiom of existence. Science is brilliant at describing the properties of material existence, but it is hopeless when it comes to mind, life, and the purpose of existence i.e. all the subjects we truly care about. It is hopeless because it lacks the basic axiom for being able to explain these phenomena: freestanding mind.      

Science is fundamentally stupid because, using its own laws, it is unable to account for the existence of its own laws, yet it arrogantly sees this as no problem. It makes the philosophically ridiculous claim (that would have provoked incredulity amongst the ancient Greeks) that a universe can spring out of complete nothingness. Once again, it does not see this as any kind of problem. Science in this regard is indistinguishable from magic. It involves pulling a rabbit out of a hat, except not as a trick or illusion, but as alleged REALITY. It's staggering that so many intelligent people are sucked into the propaganda spun by science that it is the source of all sure knowledge. In fact, it can't even grasp the basics. Richard Dawkins swans around the globe telling everyone that science has all the answers when it can't even account for itself never mind anything else. It is every bit as absurd as Abrahamism which claims that a perfect God, in need of nothing, had the brilliant idea of creating an imperfect world out of nothing (like science) and then sentencing virtually everyone in the world to eternal pain and punishment in hell. Way to go, God! Maybe you should have stayed home and saved the world a lot of misery. 

The God of Abraham is an anti-evolutionary God. He himself does not evolve, so why would he introduce evolution into his created world? It serves no function. How can the story of Adam and Eve be reconciled with some proto-ape species gradually evolving into humanity? It's ridiculous. All the stuff about Original Sin has to be abandoned instantly, hence there's no need for Jesus Christ to die for humanity's sins. In fact what need is there for God himself? The only God compatible with evolution is a God who is himself evolving.   

Plato, one of the world's intellectual giants, was obsessed with the idea that perfection must be eternal and immutable. Had he not believed this, he would surely have discovered the entire system of the Illuminati (of which he was once a junior member) without having to work his way through all of the different degrees. At its simplest, Illuminism combines mind, mathematics, change and teleology. Put those four ingredients together and the cosmos as we know it emerges. Heraclitus' dynamic principle ("There is nothing permanent except change") is the crucial factor that Plato ignored to his cost. Had he taken it on board he would have seen that all he had to do was recast his Perfect Forms into Forms that were not in fact perfect but evolving towards Perfection: a subtle change and yet a change that makes all the difference.  

Just as new species can evolve on earth through mutation, so can universals mutate and new universals split off from older universals and evolve in their own unique way. Thus Forms are not immutable. The principle as above, so below is really a statement describing the synergic relationship between universals and particulars. The universals are located in the r = 0 dimensionless domain and the particulars in the dimensional r > 0 domain. All of the processes that can happen to particulars can happen to universals also. Indeed, the two sets of processes work in complete harmony with each other, in the manner that Rupert Sheldrake describes as morphic resonance. Each particular can feed information to its linked universal, and each universal can then pass on that information to all the other particulars. This allows scope for the exchange of information between particulars using a non-physical channel, hence rapid evolution of a species. 

Plato failed to connect his Forms to the changing world of phenomena. Aristotle tried to solve the problem by taking Plato's Forms out of their transcendent realm and relocating them in the world of actual things. He still accepted the existence of eternal, immutable Forms, but he paid much more attention to change than Plato did and he allowed matter, but not Forms, to change. As matter changes, it takes on different Forms. Thus the Form of an acorn is different from the Form of an Oak Tree. Matter has an inbuilt striving to actualize Forms and might be considered alive in some sense in Aristotle's scheme. First, some matter might be associated with the Form of the acorn. Then it leaves behind this Form and assumes the Form of an oak tree, which was implicit in the Form of the acorn i.e. the two Forms have an intimate relationship. The matter of the acorn strives to become the matter of the oak tree. That is its "motion", what it seeks to achieve, its teleology. A craftsman might then come along, cut down the oak tree and use the wood to make furniture so that the original matter now has the Form of, say, a table. 

Aristotle creates a much more dynamic system than Plato. Rather than having a living Demiurge that imposes Form on lifeless matter, Aristotle has "living matter" that strives towards a Supreme Being of perfect Form. Yet he too fails to allow Forms themselves to evolve. His system can't account for any new Forms, for Darwinian evolution.

But a proper synthesis of Plato and Aristotle's philosophies (which was the task of Neoplatonism), combined with the Complete Mathematics of Pythagoras, and with the principle that Forms can evolve, adds up, more or less, to Illuminism.

Science was completely wrong to jettison the ideas of Plato and Aristotle and will have to return to them if it is ever to formulate the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. In doing so, it will simply rediscover the Illuminism of Pythagoras, the first Grand Master of the Illuminati whose ideas were those that fed the (junior) Illuminatus Plato and Plato's star pupil Aristotle. The circle will be complete.

Illuminism has, undetected, formed the core of Western intellectual thought. Only one thing has gone disastrously wrong with the West - Abrahamism, the religion of the Devil, and the economic system spawned by Protestant Christians and Jewish financiers: capitalism. The Christians, Jews, Muslims, monarchs, bankers and capitalists are those who are the primary obstacle to making the world as perfect as it can be. Without them, human beings would be gods within a single millennium.

Entelechy

Aristotle was the first to use this term and it is one of his most important and fascinating concepts. Entelechy is a difficult word to define since it has a number of different uses that imply subtly different things. Entelechy is derived from "en" (in) + "telos" (perfection, completion, end) + "ekhein" (to have) - "to have its end within itself". So, we have a concept that refers to the end as potential, the end as actualization and the process that converts the potential into actuality.

Entelechy can be given the following meanings: having its end within itself; having an inner, creative drive to attain that end and, moreover, to achieve it as perfectly as possible; the purpose for which a thing exists and which remains as potential until actualized; the accomplishment of the goal, the fulfilment of the purpose; the realization or complete expression of some function; the condition in which a potentiality has become an actuality; actualization as contrasted with potential; an inherent directing force in the development of an organism; the perfect realization of what was previously only potential; development from what is potential to what is perfected and actualized. 

Entelechy is something like "an informing spirit", an inner genius, a soul seeking to become all that it can be and "dissatisfied" until it succeeds. All things wish to transform their starting potential to maximum actualization. They wish to blossom, to become all they can be, to be their full, unique and authentic selves. 

The entelechy of a kitchen knife is to cut. Here we are using "entelechy" to identify its function. If we speak of a particular knife AS an entelechy, we are saying that it has fully achieved its function (but a blunt and bent knife, on the other hand, would have failed).   

Entelechy is often used to describe an innate tendency, an inner urge and capacity of all living beings to move from potentiality to actuality, to realize their end or purpose, to attain the perfection of which they are capable. It's a drive for things to develop themselves as fully as possible, to become their unique and perfect selves. In the absence of any force preventing them from doing so, they will certainly achieve their entelechy.

An acorn "wants" to become a glorious oak tree. A baby wants to become a magnificent, fully realized adult. Everything has its desired end within itself, and it's just a question of allowing the seed to grow to fruition, doing nothing to prevent it from doing so, and placing no obstacles in its path.

According to Aristotle, entelechy governs all natural processes and explains nature as a whole. Things don't happen accidentally, but by natural design according to their entelechy. There is a hidden natural order that is seeking to express itself. Nature is guided by an internal drive to convert potential into actuality.

Human beings have their own entelechy - to become their best self, to become the human god they have it within them to be. Manifestly, most people dismally fail to accomplish their entelechy. They are pale shadows of what they ought to be. They live in bad faith, they have a false consciousness, they are weak, timid, fearful, cowardly, and servile. They would do anything for an easy life. They are not Supermen, but Last Men - always seeking petty comforts and tiny advantages. They have no great visions, no glorious ambitions. They never become their true selves. They are never authentic. They are an insult to human potential. 

Humanity is suffering from a disease of failed entelechy. Most people, deep down, are profoundly unhappy with themselves. They know they have failed to maximise themselves. They feel ashamed. They enter into various states of denial, or they distract themselves by pursuing trivial, short-term pleasures and instant gratification. But the inner pain never leaves. They look in the mirror and they feel existential sickness, and it gets worse with each passing day as their ability to realise their potential relentlessly fades.

Such people remain incomplete, like plants that never blossomed. They are malformed, feeble, unproductive. Far too many people are the equivalent of dead and withered flowers, or flowers that never grew in the first place, and certainly that didn't come into glorious bloom.

We must create a society of successful entelechy. All the resources of the state should be geared towards maximising the abilities of each and every person

The system we have at the moment - capitalist consumerism - has no interest whatever in fully actualized people. It wants only easily manipulable consumers who will buy things to make themselves feel happy and to "express" themselves. If you are nothing but a collection of the objects that you have purchased in shops - if these truly express who you are - then you are no one. You are not human. You yourself are an object.

There is an extremely depressing best-selling novel by Leanne Shapton called Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry. 

This tells the story of a young New York couple's relationship through the objects they left behind at the end of their relationship and that were auctioned off. Many people found this a "clever" novel. In fact it's nauseating and all too telling about the kind of society we have. It illustrates how people are defined exclusively by their possessions rather than by their creations, achievements, philosophy, conduct, morality, honour and personal nobility. 

Capitalism not only sells objects, it turns the buyers into objects too, who express their "individuality" only through their purchases and not through their own creativity. Even worse, in capitalist societies most humans are deliberately sacrificed - they have their entelechy sabotaged - in order that the privileged few should fulfil theirs. We, the worker drones, are expected to dedicate ourselves to making our managers, bosses and owners much wealthier on the back of our work. 

There is nothing worse than to let your own entelechy be destroyed in order to help someone else's prosper at your expense. Wake up. Don't let them steal your entelechy. Don't do their bidding. You have it within you to be God. That is your sacred entelechy. It's not your entelechy to do lots of shopping in order to make someone else rich. 

When are we happy? When we feel at one with our entelechy; when we know we are fulfilling our potential. Happiness is the emotional state that accompanies the successful realization of our entelechy. What is good? It is when we are true to our highest nature. Aristotle argued in effect that the best of all possible worlds is the one in which all things fully achieve their entelechy. His theory of human well-being is entirely based on the concept of entelechy.

Aristotle is the supreme advocate of teleology. Everything has a natural goal, purpose or function. The nature of the cosmos is for things to automatically act to attain full and complete being, the perfection of their being. Everything seeks to be as fully actualized as its initial potential permits. Excellent things, the most fully actualized, are better than all other things. They have achieved their entelechy - the end that was within them as potential. They are more real, more authentic, more actual. Entelechy is the process that drives Form e.g. that converts the form of an acorn into the form of an oak tree. The acorn has the form of the acorn but the entelechy of the oak tree - that is what it's seeking to become. The entelechy directs the transformation of one form into another related and more complex form.

We have talked about entelechy as though it is a necessary good. This, sadly, is far from true. An entelechy may be malignant. Consider a parasite, or cancer, or evil, or disease, or death, or nature "red in tooth and claw". Consider many human attributes such as self-interest, selfishness, greed, arrogance, narcissism, hatred, violence, cruelty, sadism, callousness etc. All of these can be regarded as entelechies seeking to achieve their maximum actualization.    

What is the entelechy of the Old World Order? To create a permanent ruling dynasty of elite families. Have they succeeded? You bet they have. 

What is the entelechy of capitalism? To ensure that a small group with capital permanently run the world.

What is the entelechy of any company? To become as big and powerful as possible, the sole supplier of their particular product or service. A monopoly.

What is the entelechy of politicians? To be in power. (Note that their entelechy is not to govern well on behalf of the people, but simply to have and exercise power.)

What is the entelechy of a sports team? To win at all costs.

What is the entelechy of a celebrity? To be as famous as possible and command as much attention and money as possible.  

So, entelechies need not be benign, and may be the opposite. Our task is to identify which entelechies are positive and which negative, and to eliminate those that are negative because they are sabotaging our own entelechies. Unless you are a member of the Old World Order then one of your primary aims should be to secure its overthrow because you will never maximise your potential while it exists. If you live in a privileged society and you are not one of the beneficiaries of privilege then you should be totally opposed to privilege. If you live in a capitalist society and you have no capital then you should campaign for the replacement of capitalism. Capitalists will argue instead that you should work extremely hard to accumulate your own capital. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? There are two problems with that analysis. They have commandeered the best education, jobs, and opportunities that life has to offer, so you are at enormous disadvantage and you simply won't be able to compete and, secondly, if you did acquire lots of capital you would then become part of the system that prevents the vast majority of your fellow citizens from achieving their entelechy. Would that make you feel good? If it did then you would be an evil bastard.  

Companies, institutions, nations, religions, political systems, economic systems, philosophies - these are all "living beings" in a sense, each with its own entelechy. Your task is to analyse the entelechy of each of these "beings" and support those that are helping humanity achieve its collective entelechy and overthrowing those that are holding humanity back in their own selfish interests.

The Old World Order must be toppled, as must privilege, capitalist consumerism, religions that make you slaves, institutions that operate in their own self-interest, and companies that just want to make money from you no matter what.

What is a good company to work for? One that seeks to maximise the potential of every employee, that provides a creative, stimulating environment full of great ideas where everyone flourishes. That wants to take visionary ideas and transform their potential into actuality, that aims for the highest quality, that always strives for perfection.

Nations should be exactly the same. The political system of a nation should support that goal, as should its economic system, its religious practices, its education system and all of its institutions. They must all work together to create the maximum actualization of the potential of all of the people. Anything that stands in the way cannot be tolerated. 

It's easy to identify toxic entelechies because they are always for the benefit of a few, and they let everyone else rot. Capitalism is FOR rich capitalists, Privilege is FOR the privileged, the banking system is FOR bankers (not for the people), the Old World Order is FOR the elite dynastic families that comprise it. These are the systems that shape and rule our world and yet they are intrinsically hostile to the maximum actualization of the people's potential. These systems have no interest in ordinary people except in their capacity to serve the elite without causing any trouble. The question is why billions of ordinary people choose to cooperate with a system that fundamentally despises them and couldn't care less if they feel fulfilled or not. In fact, one of the actual purposes of capitalism is to fill you with hang-ups and neuroses that can only be "cured" by buying certain products. If you do not have an iPhone or an iPod or an iPad or whatever then you are a LOSER, you are utterly uncool and pathetic, and you can only be redeemed by getting your wallet out, buying the necessary products and making some capitalist even richer than he was before. How pathetic can you get? The vast majority of objects we own are just junk, yet we let them define us and the relationships we have with others. Who wants to hang out with someone who stares at you if you don't have the latest gizmo? Capitalism doesn't build anything to last. Everything has inbuilt obsolescence. You have to keep on buying. If you don't, capitalism will grind to a halt. Our whole economic system is designed to make you keep buying at all costs. It doesn't care about anything else. And the very last thing it cares about is whether you are an actualized human being.

What governs competing entelechies? Well, it's the dialectic. The dialectic will take what is best from the thesis and antithesis to create a higher synthesis, and the process will go on until the ultimate entelechy has been fully accomplished - the Omega Point of existence. 

We might say that God is the entelechy of existence i.e. God is the end that is implicit in existence, the "end within itself". Entelechy is also the desire to achieve this end, the process that it will use to accomplish it and the end product itself. A process driven by entelechy will keep going until it has fulfilled its task, until it has attained perfection, until it has arrived at its Omega Point. Teleology and entelechy go together. Existence has a purpose that it's trying to achieve. This contrasts with the view of scientific materialism based on Darwin's theory of evolution which states that nothing has any purpose. Things just happen randomly and some outcomes are "naturally selected" and some are not. Those that are selected are deemed more fitted to their environment than those that failed. The selected outcomes then become the basis of a new round of natural selection, and so it goes on, with things becoming better and better suited to their environment. It may look as if design is taking place but in fact it's just natural selection. 

Some people think Darwinian evolutionary theory renders God redundant but in fact mainstream Darwinism doesn't have God as its primary target or victim. Rather, Darwinism attacks the concept of mind. Darwinism is pure scientific materialism. It denies the existence of mind. After all, what is "mind", what are its characteristic activities? - they are learning, adapting, thinking, calculating, planning, scheming, anticipating i.e. they are all purpose-oriented; they are all teleological. Darwinism, by asserting that teleology is a fiction, is saying that mind doesn't exist. Nature has no plan. It is not attempting to achieve anything.

The vision of the world presented by Darwinism is that lifeless, mindless clumps of matter randomly collide with each other and sometimes produce stable entities which endure in a particular environment. These stable entities undergo more cycles of collisions, internal rearrangements (mutations) and so forth and create even more stable entities that are even better adapted to their environment. And so on… 

Eventually you have a world of stable things that are wonderfully suited to their environment. There was no plan involved in any of it. Nothing had any purpose. Nothing was trying to achieve anything. There was no thinking involved. Meaning had no role in any of it. The whole thing, at root, was concerned with nothing other than random events in a world of pure matter. Of course, Darwinism is completely unable to account for how random interactions of inanimate, purposeless objects without minds created life, mind and consciousness and, in particular, human beings - which are quintessentially purposeful creatures. How can any thinking person possibly believe that by throwing a host of lifeless and mindless things into a test-tube and stirring well, that life, mind, consciousness and purpose will eventually pop out at some point (given enough time)? It's preposterous. It goes side by side with a universe leaping out of nothing. These are the positions that scientific materialists are forced to adopt because of their loathing of the concept of mind. The psychological movement that accompanies scientific materialism is called behaviourism and its central tenet is that mind is an unnecessary hypothesis! 

Contrary to what Darwinists believe, natural selection in no way refutes teleology. Evolution based on teleology leads to exactly the same outcomes. Successful entelechies prosper more than unsuccessful ones i.e. they are naturally selected and the unsuccessful ones gradually fade into oblivion. In other words, teleological evolution makes identical predictions to Darwinism in respect of natural selection. But, unlike Darwinism based on randomness, teleological evolution can permit much faster and more targeted natural selection, and a far more slimline fossil record.  

The biggest critique of conventional Darwinism must be that the likelihood of complex, purposeful entities emerging randomly (albeit over a long time period) from purposeless atoms can be nothing other than zero. If purpose is not a function of atoms then it is impossible that they can create purpose: they simply don't have the capability. With teleological evolution - an evolutionary process based on an inbuilt purposeful striving - it is, on the other hand, CERTAIN that purpose will manifest itself. That's the entire point of the process. That's what entelechy is all about. 

Philosopher Saul Kripke defined a human "zombie". This is a hypothetical perfect copy of a human but lacking consciousness. It has no feelings of any kind. But because it is physically identical to a conscious human being and has all the same arrangements of brain cells and motor nerves, it behaves in exactly the same way. How would you be able to tell the difference between a real human being and one of these zombies?

Would Darwinism care what the difference was if the two behaved in exactly the same way? The school of behaviourism cares only about behaviour displayed and assigns zero importance to the mind. So, there is absolutely no need for a mind in the Darwinist/materialist/behaviourist view of the world. Minds seem to be entirely superfluous, so why do they exist? Materialists criticised Kripke's zombies on the basis that if an identical human being were created, he would have exactly the same conscious states as the original. In other words, consciousness is an inevitable product of particular arrangements of matter. They can't explain why, of course.

If all human beings are stuck in a deterministic world of inexorable cause and effect based on interactions of atoms and molecules - as materialists claim - then what possible function can mind serve? It is redundant. The materialistic world neither needs it nor wants it. It's just an embarrassment, and impossible to explain. Atoms and molecules will do their stuff regardless of mind. If mind is not a material "thing" then how can it influence matter? And how can the motion of matter affect mind? Materialism immediately leads to the conclusion that human beings have no free will, and mind is just some sort of strange epiphenomenon that serves no function and makes no difference to the physical world. It's a strange thing that people with minds and free will seek to prove that they have no minds and free will! But that's scientists for you. 

Of course, if there is a mental domain (r = 0) that is connected to the physical domain (r > 0) and yet stands outside space and time then we get a much more complex pattern of cause and effect.

In a material world of space and time, there is only the inexorable cause and effect of material interactions. Free will is impossible. But in an r >= 0 cosmos, four different types of cause and effect are possible:

1) cause and effect in r > 0 (matter has a causal effect on matter)   

2) cause and effect in r = 0 (mind has a causal effect on mind)

3) cause and effect from r = 0 to r > 0 (mind has a causal effect on matter)

4) cause and effect from r > 0 to r = 0 (matter has a causal effect on mind)

Free will belongs to Nos. 2 and 3 (i.e. our free mental choices decide what happens next; they are not part of a material chain of causal necessity). Only the r >= 0 paradigm can explain human free will. Materialism is completely incapable of doing so - there is no place for mind in material existence. In the materialist view, mind can only influence matter if it is material, and if it is material then it is subject to inescapable material cause and effect, making free will impossible.

*****

German embryologist Hans Driesch observed that the removal of part of an embryo often resulted in little or no impairment to the adult organism that subsequently developed. If embryos were little mechanistic entities, as scientific materialism implies, then the removal of major parts from them would be as catastrophic as the removal of the wheels or engine from a car. The car couldn't function and nor could "clockwork" embryos. They would never become adults or they would be grotesquely mutated. Instead, they can often generate perfectly normal adults. Driesch used the word entelechy (or "psychoid" to designate "mind-like matter") to denote a vital force that directs an organism toward its goal. It is, he speculated, non-physical and non-energetic, and is an expression of what is known as vitalism. This is the belief that animate organisms exhibit a principle or process absent from inanimate matter. Vitalism is virtually synonymous with entelechy. Driesch's ideas greatly influenced Rupert Sheldrake.

The Designed Society 

Two and a half thousand years ago, the ancient Athenians said, "The strong take what they want, the weak concede what they must."

The world is still the same today. The rich and powerful are always grabbing whatever is available, and the ordinary people are always letting them. Why? Because if the ordinary people didn't do that then they would have to fight the elite, and ordinary people are cowards who just want an easy life. 

Why are ordinary people so pathetic and so feeble? Why are they so easily brainwashed and mind controlled?

The process begins from birth. Consider the evil religion of Islam. Muslims have a holy day each year when families sacrifice an animal and then eat it. This is done to commemorate Abraham's willingness to kill his son Ishmael (you may have thought Isaac was the son involved, but that's only in the Jewish version of the event).

Now, what sort of people revere a God who orders a father to kill his son without any reason, justification or discussion? What sort of people revere a father who agrees to do so without any hesitation, not even asking why? Are these people sick? Are they mad? Are they evil? What does it do to your consciousness to be told from your earliest days that you should obey "God" no matter what? You should never challenge his authority and never ask for reasons. All you should do is unconditionally submit (and Islam actually means "submission"). This is a religion for slaves. It requires no thought. Your only function is to obey. How can anyone be surprised by 9/11? Muslims' heads are filled with the idea of doing the most extreme things to honour their savage God. If God orders a father to kill his son, he won't have any objections to a martyr slaughtering hordes of disgusting infidels who are destined for hell anyway.

Why does no Muslim ever ask the following simple questions?

1) Why do I believe in a God who orders fathers to kill their children?

2) What kind of God would ever suggest such a thing?

3) Isn't such a God evil?

4) If "Satan" pleaded for the life of Abraham's son, doesn't that show that Satan is a much better person than God - that he is good and God is evil?

5) Why didn't Abraham ask God to justify his crazy order? Why didn't he question it? Is it good to be an automaton who carries out any order, no matter how mad, without question?

6) Why are the son's feelings and rights never considered?

7) If I am prepared to kill my own son in the name of God, haven't I demonstrated that there are no limits to what I am prepared to do to show my obedience? Does that not make me a psychopath, and an extremely dangerous threat to every member of the human race? Am I not evil and deranged?

But do you see the psychological genius of religions like Islam? They promise you the greatest prize - paradise - if you obey, and the greatest pain - hell - if you disobey. A poorly educated, superstitious person is thus terrified of disobeying. He turns slavish obedience to a monstrous tyrant into a great thing that should be celebrated and admired. And thus people convert themselves into evil murderers and zombies. Everything gets turned on its head. Islamic women put on burqas that hide everything other than their eyes and claim that they are doing so in the name of freedom and self-expression?!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Can Muslims actually be considered human? Can anyone who will willingly kill his son for God be anything other than a demon, jinni or monster? If we were to define a human being as someone smart and resolute enough to disobey any crazy order given to him then Muslims would not qualify as human. Indeed their religion forbids them from being human. It desires only automata who live their lives according to the letter of the Koran. 

Let's define a healthy human being as someone who does not obey a voice in his head/God/a figure of authority telling him to kill his own children.

Let's define a healthy human being as someone who listens seriously to someone pleading for his child's life (as Satan did in the story of Abraham) rather than violently attacking him with stones.

Let's define a healthy human being as someone who does not mindlessly and slavishly obey figures of authority or "holy" texts.

Let's define a healthy human being as someone who does not spend his time on his knees. 

Let's define a healthy human being as someone who does not think that "submission" is the purpose of life.

Let's define a healthy human being as someone who does not expect women to go around covered from head to toe and being denied education and self expression. 

Let's define a healthy human being as someone who does not think all homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, apostates and infidels should be killed and sent to hell.

If you apply these eminently sensible definitions then not a single Muslim makes it as a healthy human being. Their minds are sick. Their religion is a disease that creates mental illness. In Pakistan, a Pakistani Christian is on trial for her life for allegedly blaspheming Mohammed. Apparently her Muslim neighbours disliked her because she was a Christian, argued with her then claimed she insulted Mohammed. Pakistani Muslims are killing a heretical Muslim sect called the Ahmadis. The heresy of these minority Muslims is that they don't believe that Mohammed is the last prophet of God. 

It's fascinating to consider why this is such a big deal. The Koran claims to be the final truth of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It's the last word on the matter, God's final revelation. Mohammed was chosen by God to bring all religious debate to an end once and for all. Now, if there is a prophet after Mohammed, it makes Islam just another provisional and outdated religion like Judaism and Christianity. New revelations are possible. The Koran is not the final Word of God after all. This conclusion is unacceptable to Muslims because their religion would no longer be the infallible foundation they need it to be, so they literally want to kill everyone who says that Mohammed is not the last prophet.

Muslims detest free speech. They loathe freethinkers. They want to kill anyone who challenges Allah, Mohammed or the Koran. Their knee-jerk reaction to anything is to hold a violent demonstration and demand the death penalty. The novelist Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death for daring to write about the Satanic Verses controversy. And then they laughably claim that they love peace!! 

Let's not engage in polite avoidance of the elephant in the room any longer. Let's have the debate - are Muslims, Jews and Christians emissaries of the Devil? Are they utterly evil? Are they the biggest obstacle to the progress of the human race?

If we lived in a healthy society, we would declare Islam illegal because the view of humanity it presents is sick and evil. Similarly, Judaism should be declared illegal for the monstrous claim that the Jews are the "Chosen People". Protestantism, with its concept that humanity is totally depraved, should also be banned. And Catholicism, with its idea that the Pope can make infallible statements, and that, historically, claimed that babies that died in infancy should be despatched to Limbo (the edge of hell), should also be consigned to the dustbin. The religions of Abraham should all be indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and of blatant Devil worship and promotion of indisputable evil. All of these religions discriminate against women, historically supported slavery and continue to persecute homosexuals, free-speakers and minorities. When will they be condemned for the abomination they are? It's quite simply unacceptable for people to hold Abrahamist beliefs. Tolerant people can tolerate all things bar one - intolerance. Any society that permits intolerant views to prosper is thereby intolerant, and should be overthrown by all good, tolerant people.

At the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi defence was "we were only obeying orders". That defence resulted in the death penalty. Yet Muslims proclaim their willingness to unquestioningly obey any order of their religion, no matter how insane. 

Why is it "evil" for Nazis to obey orders, yet perfectly acceptable for Muslims? Why are we such hypocrites? Why do we refuse to condemn the intolerable? Using the Nuremberg precedent, any human being who says they were obeying the orders of either their Fuhrer or their God has no defence. Therefore, Islam - the entire religion - is condemned by Nuremberg because it places obeying orders above human lives (and have we not seen endless examples of this contempt for human life by Muslim suicidal/homicidal maniacs). It is therefore a criminal, illegal enterprise contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights. Isn't it about time someone in power had the guts to stand up and say so? 

Muslims say they are peaceful people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their tale of Abraham tells it all. If they think they have received an order from God to commit "jihad", they will not hesitate for a moment to slaughter people (just as Abraham was zealous to kill his son). Their religion demands it. Therefore their religion is evil. Q.E.D. 

Muslims consider submission to the will of someone else to be the greatest good of which they can conceive. We consider it the greatest evil. Islam is a non-thinking, backward religion full of bowing, grovelling masses who have never had a free thought in their lives. They don't know how to think. No one has ever taught them. It was never required of them. Their only function is to obey.

Similarly, the Old World Order have no interest in thinking people. Your only function in their society is to a) perform your duties as a worker droid doing some tedious job that gives you no satisfaction in order to make them rich and b) to go out and consume so that you can make them rich.

That's the "design" of our society. The people who count in life are privately educated and go to elite schools and colleges. They don't mix with the riff raff. All of the best jobs in society are reserved for them. The bankers who control the economy aren't there to bring wealth to the people but rather to themselves. Can you imagine any more ludicrous system than one that places the economic levers of a nation in the hands of private individuals (mostly rich Jews and Freemasons) who are not elected, not publicly accountable and do not have any remit to raise the prosperity of the people? In their pursuit of the rewards of Midas, these private individuals nearly destroyed the world economy. Who bailed them out? The dumb taxpayers. What did the taxpayers get in exchange? Fuck all, except decades of paying back the debt they've been saddled with. What did the rich elite lose? Nothing, naturally.

WISE UP, SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's insane to allow society to be ruled by private individuals relentlessly committed to their own prosperity and well-being. If you allow society to be designed that way you are well and truly screwed (as indeed we all are).

So, who designed society this way? Well, the rich elite, of course. Doh! It's the system that gives them exactly what they want. What's not to like? They're not the ones with the problem - WE ARE. It's our job to overthrow them or be perpetual suckers.

Karl Marx said, "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their social being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." This is one of the most important statements ever made. It says that the whole nature of your thought processes and expectations of life will we shaped by the environment you find yourself in. A kid born to a poor, deprived family in a shitty neighbourhood full of drug dealers and violence is not going to have his consciousness turned towards philosophy. A kid brought up with Islamic beliefs will not have a consciousness directed toward freethinking and self-expression. A kid brought up in a capitalist state will be obsessed with buying objects, not with growing as a creative individual. We are moulded by the circumstances in which we are raised and the belief systems to which we are subjected. Marx said, "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." In other words, our personal quality is radically shaped by the society we find ourselves in. A kid with amazing potential will be destroyed if he is brought up badly, in a hellish environment. 

Margaret Thatcher, Britain's most evil Prime Minister, proudly declared, "There is no such thing as society." That's what all people say who want to uphold the rule of privileged elites and dynastic families. If there is no such thing as society then there is no need to formulate laws to address the needs of society. And that's what Thatcher is infamous for in Britain - letting society rot. She turned the British people into families and individuals who had not one jot of interest in anyone other than themselves. She created a supremely greedy, selfish nation, full of people who would metaphorically cut the throats of their neighbours in a blink if it secured them a useful advantage. 

In any healthy world, there is nothing but society. The quality of my life is entirely dependent on the society I inhabit. If I live in a shit society, my life is shit. It is in my absolute interest to ensure that my neighbours - all of them - are prospering. What could be better, healthier, saner, happier and more successful than a society full of fulfilled, self-actualized people who have achieved the best they are capable of? 

Did Margaret Thatcher create a paradise in Britain? No, she created hell. And yet the rich elite worship her. Why? Because she gave them exactly what they wanted. 

The most successful nation on earth will be the one that gets the most productivity and creativity from all of its citizens. No one can be left behind. No one can be left to rot. The optimal society is, by definition, the one in which every citizen is functioning optimally. Therefore there is only one true question of politics and government - how to get everyone to function optimally. The political systems that control our world have a very different purpose - to ensure that the rich elite have the optimal lives. 

There is nothing more nauseating than nations that claim to be democracies operating in the name of the people yet which are permanently at the mercy of privately controlled banks run by Jews and Freemasons. Ask yourself a simple question. Can the people genuinely be in charge of their nation if they do not control the levers of their economy, if they are not in charge of the financial resources of their country? Yet the myth of "freedom and democracy" is the most potent of the modern age. But any intelligent person sees that there is neither freedom nor democracy. The whole thing is a lie, a sham, a farce, the biggest con in history (after Abrahamism). It is propaganda fed to people who are too dumb to realise they are the most abject suckers there have ever been. If you believe in democracy - the power of the people - then overthrow the regimes that masquerade as democracies but which are actually plutocracies ruled by the rich and powerful for their own benefit.     

Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Humanity cannot be actualized until we have actualized society. We have to design a society entirely dedicated to maximising the quality of all of its citizens. All negative belief systems (such as Abrahamism and capitalism) must be abolished by law. All rich elites operating in their own interests and to hell with everyone else must be abolished by law. All systems of privilege that create two-tier societies (and thus first and second class citizens) must be abolished by law. The people must control the economy (hence the banking system) and its purpose must be to raise the prosperity of all, not just the elite few. All institutions should be explicitly designed to promote the individual and collective well-being of all the people. Society must be operated in the interests of all. It must express the General Will, not the particular wills of the elite. All the wealth that any individual acquires in his lifetime should be returned to the commonwealth when he dies - it should not go into private hands. The whole concept of private wealth extending over many generations within dynastic families must be abolished. 

Each kid growing up should have his gaze fixed on the stars. Each kid should feel loved, protected, and nourished. Each kid should have no doubt that society seeks the best for him and wishes to get the best from him. Each kid should have no doubt that if he works hard and has merit then everything is available to him. 

Can you say that all of that applied to your own childhood? Most kids have nothing other than the love of their parents to cling to, and even that's not guaranteed. Some parents are the worst possible thing in their children's lives.

When we have a society dedicated to entelechy (to the maximum self-actualization of every person), everything will be transformed forever.    

Someone asked us the following questions: "As for your stand on Meritocracy, I do believe those with the most competency should be utilized for the advancement of the world as a whole.  I'd like to know how you will encourage those who refrain from achieving their maximum potential? And what encouraging provisions to those who wont be able to reach their goals?  Last but not least, how could you psychologically prevent the rising of the OWO principles? And would these be against your moral standards?"

These questions are all answered by a society based on entelechy. When citizens are brought up in a healthy rather than diseased society and their consciousness is at last optimized, everything will change. Who would want to refrain from achieving their maximum potential? Such a thing is impossible in a properly constituted society. Our entelechy is to maximise our potential. If no obstacles are placed in our path we will certainly succeed. Everyone will be able to reach their goals, or to know that the only thing that prevented them was that something else had superior talent. Andy Murray is a great tennis player, but he is not as great as Federer and Nadal. Murray doesn't complain. He knows that he can do no more than give it his best shot. He may not achieve his personal ambitions, but not through any failure to maximize his talent. It was simply the case that others were more talented, and that's life. All we can ask for is the best opportunity to maximise ourselves. If we get that, we have no basis for complaint if it turns out that someone else's best was better than ours. 

What people regret most is that they were never given a proper chance, not that their best wasn't good enough.

As for ensuring that the OWO can never rise again, the values that underpin the OWO would not exist in a Meritocratic Republic based on entelechy. In capitalist America, communism has never been able to flourish. The mentality that underpins communism is simply absent from Americans. By the same token, there will come a time when the mentality that supports the values of the OWO will be absent too. It will be futile to hold such opinions and values because all of the institutions of society will be arrayed against them. After a time, they will literally become unthinkable.  

Nietzsche said, "The aim of institutions - whether scientific, artistic, political or religious - never is to produce and foster exceptional examples; institutions are concerned, rather, for the usual, the normal, the mediocre."

We have to create a Nietzschean world based on quality and excellence.

Nietzsche also said, "The goal of mankind is not to be seen in the realization of some terminal state of perfection, but is present in its noblest exemplars." 

In fact, the creation of a perfect society goes hand in hand with producing the finest specimens of humanity the world has ever known, the true Supermen that Nietzsche dreamt of.

That is the prize that awaits us. A Society of the Divine. A Community of Gods. Who would dare to stand in our way?

Mind and Matter

When all's said and done, all of philosophy, religion and science are actually concerned with just one issue - mind and matter. Does mind exist? If so, what is it and where is it? Does matter exist? If so what is it and where is it? If mind and matter both exist, what is the relationship between them? 

All of the world's greatest thinkers have come at these questions from various different angles, and every conceivable permutation has been tried. Sometimes they used language such as Forms rather than mind, but it was always the same game. While slightly exaggerating their positions to emphasize the conceptual differences, we can provide the following scheme: 

Plato said that mind was in a transcendent domain beyond the reach of matter, but matter was nevertheless totally dependent on mental ideas for its form and activity. Mind had no need of matter. So matter is completely subordinate to mind. 

Aristotle said that the domain of mind was in the midst of the domain of matter. Again, matter was totally dependent on mental ideas for its form and activity, but, equally, mind was totally dependent on matter for its existence. Mind needs matter and matter needs minds. So matter and mind are equal partners.  

Descartes said that mind and matter were separate domains, parallel but independent. Mind played no part in the domain of matter, and matter played no part in the domain of mind. Matter was characterised by "extension" while mind was non-extended. Each domain could be studied without any reference to the other. A particularly radical implication was that mind did not move body (and body did not move mind), hence all beings in the physical world are relegated to automata and mindless zombies. This is a rigidly deterministic worldview with similarities to materialistic Stoicism operating according to strict rational laws. In this view, living organisms became as mechanical and determined as inanimate matter, governed by the laws of science and nothing else. Entelechy and teleology were abolished. Free will died to all intents and purposes.

After Descartes, philosophy split into two camps based on his two separate domains - idealism (denial of the existence of anything extended) and materialism (denial of the existence of anything unextended). 

The idealists said that the only thing we could be sure existed was the mind. The apparent material world was just a mental construct and no one could prove otherwise. So, in fact, Descartes' domain of matter was just an illusion and didn't truly exist.    

The materialists went in the opposite direction and regarded the world as a vast clockwork mechanism driven by inexorable scientific laws of cause and effect. Mind had no part to play and became a superfluous hypothesis. The domain of mind was abolished, or simply regarded as some illusory appendage of the domain of matter that had no practical consequences. 

All religions are essentially Platonic and regard mind as the supreme reality.

Science takes the opposite stance and says that materialism is the supreme reality and there is no such thing as unextended existence. 

So, in these terms, science and religion are absolutely irreconcilable. Science denies the existence of the arena on which religion is dependent. Mind, if it can be said to have any existence, is purely a function of matter. 

The Theory of Evolution ignores mind and elevates randomness to the central principle of existence. Some of the things produced by randomness are more successful than others. They prosper while the others perish. There is no purpose, no meaning, no point to anything. Things just happen and some of those things are successful and others are not. That's it - the story of life.

The twentieth century brought about a scientific revolution and the mechanical, clockwork edifice of classical physics suddenly collapsed.

On one side of the revolution stood Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and on the other quantum mechanics. Although few scientists have noticed, this is just another version of the age-old mind-matter debate.

Relativity theory is in the tradition of classical physics and envisages a deterministic, smoothly varying, predictable world i.e. it chimes with the orthodoxy of scientific materialism.

Quantum mechanics is radically different. Although few people dare to say so, it's actually a theory concerning the long lost domain of mind. In quantum mechanics, the material world disintegrates. Particles don't exist until they are observed. Particles can be in two places at once. Many particles can be in the same place at once. It is impossible to simultaneously state the position and momentum of any particle. Accurate information is replaced by probability functions that can only give a likelihood of where something might be. The material world starts to resemble an illusion dependent on conscious observers for its existence. 

Materialistic scientists are terrified of what quantum mechanics is suggesting about the nature of reality and they continue to fight a desperate rearguard action to interpret quantum mechanics in a manner consistent with their anti-mind stance. They always pour scorn on anyone who dares to explore the more radical implications of quantum mechanics and they accuse any such person of going off on speculative and ridiculous flights of fancy. On the contrary, scientists haven't even begun to open their eyes to the world revealed by quantum mechanics. They daren't because their worldview will collapse.

The central problem of contemporary science is to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity theory and thus far the task has proved impossible for mainstream scientists. The reason for their difficulty is simple - they are trying to solve the ancient problem of the relationship between mind and matter and they don't even realise it.

Yet even in relativity theory, a supposedly classical theory, glimpses of the domain of mind are possible. The special theory of relativity reveals that photons are massless and, within their own frame of reference, exist outside space and time. In other words, photons are no longer part of the material world in space and time. Scientists have simply ignored this astounding fact. Why? Because it's impossible for matter to be accelerated to light speed, hence scientists regard it as an unobservable state of being, hence not worth considering.

Then the general theory of relativity predicts the existence of black hole singularities where density becomes infinite. Enormous mass is concentrated in a dimensionless point outside space and time. Division by zero occurs and gravity becomes infinite. Time stops. As with the domain of photons, the black hole singularity leaves the world of matter. Rather than confront the true implications, physicists simply conclude that Einstein's equations must be wrong and his theory is therefore "incomplete".

And how do they propose to rectify the problem? Their latest attempt at creating a Grand Unified Theory of Everything is called M-Theory based on unifying several "string" theories. They have replaced particles modelled on dimensionless points with so-called strings based on one-dimensional loops. These strings oscillate in an eleven-dimensional space consisting of three normal spatial dimensions, one time dimension and seven new spatial dimensions that are rolled up so tightly as to be almost invisible. We're a long way from Kansas!   

The philosophical basis of M-theory is conventional scientific materialism and the usual complete denial of unextended existence. By modelling particles as dimensionless points, science had unwillingly introduced the domain of the unextended into the heart of science. The whole point of string theory is to remove any trace of dimensionlessness by treating particles as finite loops rather than dimensionless points. Using this stratagem, they think they can eliminate the infinities that bedevil physics.

Because of its hatred of the possibility of a domain of mind, modern science is waging war against zero and infinity! Has there ever been a more stupid war? As soon as zero and infinity appear in equations, scientists rewrite the equations and pat themselves on the back. Not once does it occur to them that as soon as they abolish zero and infinity, they abolish the truth of the world. Materialism amounts to an irrational phobia regarding the numbers zero and infinity. 

Finagle's Third Law declares: "In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, is the mistake." By the same token, the numbers that scientists think are most obviously wrong - zero and infinity - are precisely those that are most correct. Weinberg's Corollary asserts: "An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy." That's exactly how we could describe the experts of M-theory.

M-theory cannot succeed because it is philosophically misconceived and based on entirely false axioms. It may be the most elaborate scientific theory of all time and yet it can be instantly dismissed just by analysing its inherent materialistic assumptions. 

M-theory cannot succeed unless it is based on the true cosmic equation: r >= 0.

What is the simplest possible analogy for understanding the workings of the cosmos? The answer should be obvious - we are. Once upon a time we were pure potential, then a fertilised egg gave us our start in the physical world. Then we grew into an embryo in our mother's womb, and then a foetus. Finally, our mother gave birth to us, cut the umbilical cord and there we were - independent creatures in the big, bad world. We knew absolutely nothing. Our conscious minds were blank, waiting to be populated. We had no memories. But we hadn't come into this world as blank slates. No, we had plenty of instincts. We had physical senses feeding us sensory information about the world around us. Above all, we had access to what Jung labelled the collective unconscious. We knew all of the archetypes of human behaviour. We knew mathematics, and, as Chomsky points out, we had access to a universal grammar - everything we needed to understand language even though we hadn't yet uttered a word. We had an invaluable substratum of unconscious knowledge and our task was to start making it conscious, to start using language, to start counting. It was time to generate memories, to become distinct personalities. Slowly but surely, we grew more and more conscious. We became bigger and stronger. We turned into adults who could love, laugh, gaze at the stars, write poems and philosophise. If we have done our jobs properly we have by now actualized our potential, or are in the process of doing so.

As above, so below.

The cosmos itself has always existed, but for a timeless Age it was outside space and time. It was pure mind, painstakingly learning mathematics, through simple trial and error, by making tentative, botched experiments with physicality. All of this took place unconsciously. Just as we did intelligent things as babies without any conscious knowledge, so did the cosmos when it was an "infant". Eventually, the cosmic mind created Complete Mathematics, which also included all of the rules of basic language and logic. It was now ready to give physical birth to itself. The Big Bang was the moment of cosmic conception when Mind fertilised the physical universe. The fertilised egg grew with incredible speed into an entire cosmos with a powerful mind eager for knowledge. Yet, at this time, it was still completely unconscious. It had no memories. It operated via pure instinct and will. Slowly but surely, it matured into an adult. A physical being - the very first in the cosmos - evolved, and this became the personal repository of the cosmic mind. This was God - Abraxas - in his earliest incarnation. Yet still he had no consciousness. Other beings were needed. And, just as the first life on earth gave rise to a huge profusion of life through, initially, asexual reproduction, so did God give rise to new life: his "sons". And in the interaction of these three beings, self-consciousness entered the cosmos for the first time, but so did all of the conscious choices that face humanity - above all, the choice between good and evil. 

New choices rapidly arose. Should they be cooperative or selfish? Should they be equal or should one be the leader? Jealousy, love, envy, desire, hate, vanity, narcissism, egoism, competition, status, arrogance, humility, consideration, callousness...all of these made their first appearance in the cosmos in the rawest and least sophisticated form. And the first consciousness to display each trait became the fixed home for that trait because such traits defined the identity of each consciousness and everything, above all, must have an identity. Thus Lucifer exhibited the qualities that we associate with "good", and Satan, his brother, the opposite qualities. In other words, they defined themselves with regard to the absolutely opposite traits. Abraxas, older and wiser, realised that he could not explicitly take sides but had to watch how this unfolded. Already, the dialectic was becoming conscious within him. He saw how opposites might usefully propel the cosmos forward. So, he did nothing to interfere in the developing struggle between Lucifer and Satan.

Lucifer, like Abraxas, gravitated towards the domain of mind. Satan chose the opposite path and staked his claim to the realm of matter. He became its king, its ruling force, and its defining consciousness. Through him, the master-slave dialectic came into being. He wanted to be absolute Master, and for everyone else to be his slave. 

As his physical world became populated, he became less and less interested in Abraxas and Lucifer, and eventually he barely acknowledged their existence. He decided that he was the Supreme God, the only God, the One True God. He had created the entire cosmos, he believed. He ought to be worshipped. In fact he demanded it. And so his minions went to planets where life existed and they preached that he was the Creator God and that everyone must be his follower and slave. And thus were born on Earth the Satanic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And Earth has been a version of hell ever since, ruled by the Devil, and awaiting liberation.

Who will free the world? All of us - the decent, moral people of the Earth who can turns our minds to Lucifer and, above all, to Abraxas.

If you want to understand existence in a more technical language, here is the whole thing in a nutshell:

The arche, the fundamental substance of existence, is psycho-energy. Psycho-energy can be dimensionless or dimensional. When it is dimensionless it is mind; when it is dimensional it is matter. The cosmic equation r >= 0 ties together both domains in a single continuum. The dimensional r > 0 domain of matter is inside space and time. The dimensionless r = 0 domain of mind is outside space and time. The two domains are synergically linked. They are a mutual feedback system. The r = 0 domain is informational and the r > 0 domain physical. The information domain absorbs information from what is happening in the physical domain and then releases information back into the physical domain in response. The information domain, being outside space and time, is everywhere at once. All points in physical space are directly mapped to the informational domain. Everything in the physical domain is separated in space and time - it is the arena of individual things, of individuation. Everything in the information domain is connected. Universals exist in the r = 0 domain and particulars in the r > 0 domain. Universals are updated by anything that happens with an individual particular, and can then release the information to all other related particulars. (This is what Rupert Sheldrake calls morphic resonance.) An individual being is a universal (i.e. eternal because it is not in space and time), but can have any number of sequential particulars in the r > 0 domain (via reincarnation). Existence is an entelechy. It has a purpose: to maximise its potential, to convert all potential into actualization, to reach its Omega Point. In short, existence is God as potential and seeks to become God as actuality. We are all part of the process. The process is driven dialectically, overcoming all contradictions and conflicts generated in the physical domain. The cosmos is an evolving organism. The r = 0 domain is its mind and the r > 0 domain is its body. Moons, planets, stars and galaxies are the cells of the organism. Asteroids, meteorites and comets are inter-cell detritus. The r > 0 domain emerged from the r = 0 domain, and black holes reabsorb the contents of the r > 0 domain back into the r = 0 domain. 

The r >= 0 continuum addresses all of the issues of science, philosophy and religion. The r > 0 domain is the physical domain studied by scientists. The r = 0 domain is the religious and philosophical domain. 

If your contact with this website leaves you with just one insight it should be this one: there are two interacting domains, one in space and time and one outside space and time. All the mysteries of existence are explained by this bicameral nature of reality. It is the synergic feedback between the mental and physical, between the dimensionless and dimensional, between universals and particulars, that defines life. Only the Illuminati have ever understood the true structure of the cosmos.

The bicameral human brain can be said to be a direct consequence of this split nature of the cosmos. Our mind exists in the r = 0 domain but, crucially, our consciousness resides in the r > 0 domain, or, to be more precise, gets its information from there, thus providing it with the illusion that it exists in that domain. When we die, our space-time consciousness associated with our physical body dies too, but our essential mind is completely unaffected because it was never located in the temporal world in the first place. Through reincarnation, we get a new space-time consciousness. The left hemisphere of our brain (if we are right handed) is the home of our consciousness. The right hemisphere is associated with our essential self. Our left brain is rational, our right brain intuitive. It could be said that men tend to dominate the world because they are more left-brain oriented than women, hence are more in this world, whereas women, often regarded as more intuitive than men, are much more spiritual than men and are in closer contact with their higher selves. To this extent, we need more female qualities to be injected into our world to give it proper hemispheric balance. We have to destroy the age-old patriarchies, especially those of Abrahamism. We need a restoration of the ancient idea of the Divine Feminine, fertility goddesses, Mother Earth, witches, priestesses, women filled with divinity. 

The Christian fanatic Tertullian declared: "Woman awakened to her nature is janua diaboli - the Devil's door." In fact, woman awakened to her nature is woman as she ought to be, and the best thing for the world.

Mind and matter are fully explained by r >= 0. The One and the Many are fully explained. God and humanity, the soul, the afterlife - these are all placed in a fully comprehensible and scientifically compatible context. The scientific mechanisms for psychic and paranormal phenomena are accounted for (all such phenomena take place via the r = 0 informational channel rather than the r > 0 physical channel). Universals and particulars and their interaction are fully explained. Evolution is explained. Existence is fundamentally evolutionary and purposeful. Existence is teleological. There is no disagreement between evolution and teleology: in fact teleology is the only way to make sense of evolution. It is precisely the inherent purposeful drive of existence that results in the evolution of ever more complex forms, and finally of consciousness.

Technically, our position is labeled "panpsychic dialectical monism". There is a single substance that manifests itself dimensionally and dimensionlessly, and the interaction of the two linked domains is driven forward dialectically, creating all the phenomena of our world. Mind is omni-present. It is the source of all of the information in the system.

Existence may be considered as an enormous living organism dedicated to creating information and becoming conscious of that information. According to the universal principle of as above, so below, we are microcosms of the macrocosm. 

What are we if not beings that feed on information, that generate information, that pursue information, that use information for every decision? And if that is true of us, it is equally true of all beings throughout the universe. Above all, it is true of the ultimate consciousness of the cosmos - God. It is our destiny to enter into communion with that supreme consciousness. We will know the Mind of God. We will know all things. We will literally be God.  

This is the true Grand Unified Theory of Everything. 

This is the gospel of the Illuminati.

Have you seen the light?