Bentham thought he had created the perfect prison design since, in theory, it would function just as well whether or not guards were actually present, and save a fortune on staffing costs, he believed. Prisoners, never knowing whether or not they were being watched, would be compelled to behave as if surveillance were constant and never ending. They would become their own guards. This is the precursor of Orwell's Big Brother society where every citizen believes himself to be constantly monitored by the authorities via "telescreens".

The Panopticon was never built during Bentham's lifetime, but a number of buildings have been based on his concept.

Philosopher Michel Foucault used the Panopticon as a metaphor for "disciplinary" societies, and their desire to observe everyone and regulate everyone's behaviour according to "acceptable norms". Open-plan offices are a version of the Panopticon - everyone in the office can see and monitor everyone else. There are no hiding places. "CCTV society", where cameras are positioned on every street corner, are part of the Panopticon tradition. If CCTV had been available to Bentham, he would undoubtedly have replaced guards with cameras and saved even more money. Vast, soulless, open-plan call centres where every member of staff is monitored at all times (by technology rather than by people) are almost perfect Panopticons. Bentham described the Panopticon as "a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example." It would be hard to imagine a more sinister statement: an early declaration of mind control by the authorities.

Foucault said that all hierarchical organisations such as the army, offices, factories, banks, businesses, hospitals, schools, police, the media, the government, have a Panopticon mind-set. All of the lower ranks are watching each other, and believe they are being watched by the higher ranks. They are self-policing, self-regulating, self-censoring. Conformity is absolute. Mavericks are never tolerated.

The power of a disciplinary society is maximised when people police themselves in relation to sexual, moral, social, religious, intellectual and psychological standards. Prisons, schools and offices are not there to rehabilitate, educate and provide a creative working environment, but to control and dominate, to produce conformity, to restrict freedom.

Our lives are ruled by oppressive governments obsessed with a Panopticon mentality. The "War on Terror", very largely a fiction, has allowed a massive extension in the government's powers to spy on us and interfere in our lives. There can be no doubt that 9/11 was an ideal event from the point of view of Panopticon governments; their pretext to extend their dominion. All of their new tyrannical laws must be rolled back. We are under far more danger from malign government than we are from "terrorists". A few thousand people have been killed by terrorists; billions are affected by government intrusion into their lives. The true function of the State is to maximise the merits of its citizens, not to spy on them. Citizens flourish when they are free from surveillance and encroachment in their lives. Government must be strong in setting up the framework of society, and weak when it comes to interference in people's daily lives.

The Panopticon, as Foucault observed, brought together power, knowledge, and control in a single structure. People and the space they inhabited were brought under one, integrated, disciplinary technology.

The Old World Order are obsessed with the Panopticon. There are far too few of them to control the world by their physical presence. So, they sit at the heart of things, like spiders at the centre of the web awaiting their prey, in the central observation tower, and they have complete knowledge of the people, and complete power and control over them. Best of all, they don't even have to be there. Indeed, they never are. But the people think they are, and behave accordingly. It's the ideal system of global control. The earth itself is a Panopticon. The very idea of an all knowing, all powerful, all seeing God who monitors everything that we do and judges every action is nothing but the Panopticon transferred to the metaphysical sphere. Its function, as ever, is to ensure absolute control of the people. "Sin for salvation" is the antidote to the "divine" Panopticon. In fact, only Satan would want to foster a Panopticon society, and all those who advocate this model are servants of Satan. It is freedom, not constant surveillance, for which humanity yearns.

There is only one place where the Panopticon model is acceptable. The people at the top of our society should be subjected to the Panopticon treatment. In other words, the Panopticon should be inverted in its function: the watchers should become the watched. The people should look in on the leaders, and the leaders should be fully aware that their every move is being monitored at all times. The Wall Street "masters of the universe" should not be allowed to cut secret deals behind locked doors. Given their critical influence on the economy, they should be under constant public scrutiny. Every transaction carried out by the rich and powerful should be performed in public. No more secret deals. No more concealment from the people. It's time to demand the Reverse Panopticon where the Old World Order become those who are always watched. They should be placed in a transparent "Moral Box", so to speak, where it is impossible for them to carry out any immoral, private deals for their own benefit and contrary to the interests of the people.

The Panopticon is the essence of control. The controllers are the watchers, and the controlled the watched; the watchers are subjects, the watched objects; the watchers are autonomous agents, the watched are 'Other'.


Simone de Beauvoir said in The Second Sex, "[Woman] is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential, as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute - she is 'the Other'."     

Exactly the same could be said of ordinary people with respect to the Old World Order: "Ordinary people are defined and differentiated with reference to the Old World Order and not the Old World Order with reference to them; ordinary people are the incidental, the inessential, as opposed to the essential. The Old World Order are the Subjects, the Absolute - ordinary people are 'the Other'."

The only people who matter in this world are the rich and famous, the privileged elites, the dynastic families, the masters of the universe, kings, queens, popes, princes, prime ministers and presidents - the Old World Order.

We are "other". We are acted upon. We don't act. The OWO are the subjects and we are the objects. But we don't need to be. We have a choice.

In America, people often talk about "Wall Street versus Main Street". There are only a few hundred major players in Wall Street; there are hundreds of millions of people in Main Street. Why are a few hundred allowed to control hundreds of millions? Why does Main Street allow itself to be 'Other'? Why doesn't Main Street tell Wall Street to go to hell? It goes back to Hegel's Master and Slave dialectic. A few masters can control vast numbers of slaves. But why do the slaves allow it? Why don't they resist? Why do they accept their fate, their eternal condition as second-class citizens? The answer has always been the same one: because they are afraid and have no stomach for a fight.

Do you like being 'the Other'? You must do otherwise you would do something about it. In order for the world to change, you must change yourself. And when enough people have changed then everything becomes possible.


Masters know they are autonomous agents because they are able to dominate others but are never themselves dominated. You know you are Other if you are dominated. You are not autonomous. You are controlled. You are not free.

The Old World Order have transcendent lives. Every day is different. They travel to glamorous places, cut lucrative deals, meet VIPs, get invited to swanky parties and host their own extravagant celebrations. The rest of us, by contrast, repeat the same passive and mundane tasks of everyday existence. We are condemned to lives of endless repetition and drudgery, living in our functional, square boxes called houses, while the OWO live in elegant mansions in the most beautiful locations.

Until the rise of feminism, women saw themselves as innately inferior to men. For ordinary people, there has been no successful equivalent of feminism. They still see themselves as innately inferior to the privileged elites of the OWO.

In Britain, protocol demands that the Queen's "subjects" should walk backwards when leaving her presence, as it would show insufficient deference to turn their backs on her. They must bow and scrape to her as though she were some divinely appointed super being rather than a tiresome, stupid old woman. Anyone who walks backwards from another person is being humiliated by that person. The Queen's protocol is designed to show who has the power, and who is the Other. Only a slave would tolerate being treated so demeaningly. The Queen, and everyone like her, is an obscenity and must be overthrown in the name of the dignity of the people.

Ordinary people are part of the Old World Order's narrative, and not the other way around. We are implicated in our own subjugation. We must secretly prefer it because otherwise we would be fighting against it.

Beauvoir said, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." Similarly, we are not born slaves of the OWO, but we become slaves. Why? Because we're too lazy, inept and cowardly to do anything else. Isn't it time we chose a new role for ourselves?

The Illuminati's programme has always been both religious and political, and both aspects are closely connected. When a person "becomes God", it is impossible for him to be a slave of another. The Illuminati's mission - to release the divine spark within people - automatically has profound political ramifications. The Old World Order would be instantly swept aside if humanity were able to communicate with its divine self. The Old World Order act as gods, but they are false gods, and it is time to topple these brass idols. We are living in the twilight of the idols. And soon will come the dawn of the True God. 


Jacques Derrida was one of the most controversial philosophers of modern times. His technique of "deconstruction" is both widely admired and condemned. The complexity of deconstruction can be seen from the fact that Derrida criticised any attempt to define exactly what deconstruction is on the grounds that any such definition would itself be open to being deconstructed.
 
Roughly speaking, deconstruction revolves around "decentring". In every arena of life, a "centre" is defined and anything not identified with that centre is pushed, subtly or unsubtly, to one side. Take "God". God is almost always referred to as "he" (although a few feminists deliberately use "she"). God is a not a sexual being and therefore has no sex. "He" should actually be spoken of in non-gendered terms, but no such vocabulary exists. The use of "he" privileges men over woman and places them at the centre of life and woman on the margins. The use of "she" would do the opposite. The point is that the choice of personal pronoun for referring to God instantly places one group above another. Until the rise of feminism, the centrality of God as a male was never seriously challenged, and society on earth was invariably controlled by men.

In a masculine society, women are marginalized. In times of great wars - as most of our history has been - the masculine is dominant. Nowadays, with wars being small and fought far away, with relatively few casualties, the centre of the Western narrative is turning away from the masculine and becoming increasingly feminine. Political correctness, caring, empathising, hugging, social networking, compromising, accommodating, consoling, consensus…. the key words of our contemporary culture are essentially feminine. No one preaches strong values because some people might be offended. Strength itself is not welcome nowadays. No one stands for anything because that would mean putting principles above getting on with others, and that's unacceptable. So, the centre of our narrative is changing, and now the masculine is becoming "other". The Old World Order are delighted with the feminisation of society because it reduces the chances of any forceful response to their control over us.

The subject of a book is that book's "centre". Jesus Christ is the centre of a book about Christianity. Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are automatically made non-central in such a book. They are at the margins; they are excluded; they are "other".

Derrida was concerned with revealing the assumptions that accompany the centre, and what it means for those entities excluded from the centre. Deconstruction takes apart a product of any type and exposes the agenda that underlies it. Books, newspapers, magazines, movies, paintings, sculptures, political systems, religions, celebrities, advertising…absolutely everything can be deconstructed. We learn that we are never dealing with objective facts, but with narratives that promote the underlying agenda. To understand the deceit that lies, fundamentally, at the centre, is to be released from the prison of illusion that the centre constructs.

Look at all the "centres" of our culture: freedom, democracy, liberalism, capitalism, equal rights, Judaeo-Christianity etc. Everything else is pushed to the fringes, rendered irrelevant, unworthy of consideration. But, via deconstruction, we can cause the centre to collapse, bring the "other" to the foreground, and gain a wider and better understanding.

A Muslim is trapped in a brainwashed state because he can't understand that the Koran is nothing but a text that places seventh century Arabia at the centre of life. Equally, the New Testament is centred on Judea of 2,000 years ago, and the Torah on Moses and the history of the Jews. If Muslims, Christians and Jews were intelligent people they would deconstruct their sacred texts, but of course they won't because then the texts would no longer be sacred. These "believers" have done the opposite of deconstruction: they have constructed false centres that marginalize everything else. No Muslim ever questions the Koran, or Christian the Bible, or Jew the Torah. Nothing could be more dangerous than the fanatic who refuses to see the world through different eyes, as the violent history of the main religions has amply demonstrated.

Most of life consists of the creation of false centres that then take on a kind of religious significance that no one dare challenge. Deconstruction is the antidote. Deconstruction is one of the greatest tools of liberation ever devised because it makes us question everything we read and learn, and that's exactly as it should be. This website has its own centre, and can be deconstructed like everything else. But, unlike others, we encourage seekers of truth to engage in deconstruction (but we have no interest in unconstructive people who want to pointlessly argue with us, as many of those who contact us choose to do). Only when you have deconstructed can you be trusted to construct. You will do so knowingly, aware of the limitations and the assumptions built into your constructions.

Deconstruction doesn't lead nowhere as its critics maintain; it leads us to the truths that we can finally stand by. When every text has been decentred, when every "other" is no longer other then we can see for ourselves those things in which we ought to invest our energy. We again construct centres, but this time having taken the the "other" into due consideration. If we now ignore others it is not because they were marginalized and made invisible to us, but because we understood exactly what we were doing, and the full consequences of our actions.

Deconstruction is always political and ideological, just as construction and centring were in the first place. Deconstructionists are those who no longer fall for the propaganda of the central, privileged position.

The Old World Order remain the centre of the world's grand narrative. It's time for us to deconstruct them out of existence.

Even before deconstruction existed, Nietzsche was attacking the ultimate grand narrative - God at the centre of the universe, the infallible judge of all of humanity, the supreme moral paragon. What if that centre were false, Nietzsche asked, what if God were dead? Then the centre of existence has collapsed. Morality vanishes. Good and evil no longer exist. No one is in charge. The meaning of life is called into question. What then? Nietzsche proposed a new centre - the Superman, the man who takes on the mantle of creator and judge, and obeys his own will to power. In effect, the Superman deposes God and replaces him as God, but he is a God who knows he is fallible.

The centre of the Illuminati's narrative is the True God, but we openly encourage Nietzsche's approach because those who dare to don the mantle of God are the only ones who could ever imagine what it is like to be God, and it is precisely those people in whom God is most interested. They are the ones worthy of divine love because they are the ones who come closest to understanding it. Nietzsche's advocacy of the Superman is remarkably similar in intent to the Illuminati's advocacy of the search for the higher self, the divine spark. In both cases, humans look inside themselves and try to become something greater, nobler and more divine.


Existentialism is Gnosticism for atheists. Nietzsche, one of the founding fathers of existentialism, removed from humanity the comforting idea that there is a divine, benevolent omnipotence overseeing us. Instead, we inhabit a cold, unforgiving, brutal world where there are no absolute standards, no certain guides of conduct for us to follow. We are in a hostile, disturbing landscape that, while not created and ruled by a malign being (as Gnosticism teaches), is certainly not there for our comfort and joy. But whereas Gnosticism offers the possibility of salvation via the attainment of gnosis and reaching the realm of the True God, existentialism offers no such hope. We are abandoned on a desolate shore by an implacable universe and no one is coming to save us. What then?

Dostoyevsky's message in The Brother Karamazov was that if God does not exist, everything is permitted. No divine power is stopping us from doing whatever we like. For Jean-Paul Sartre, an ardent atheist, everything is indeed permitted. Humanity is free - radically free. There is no one directing us, no one expecting anything of us, no one looking out for us. We are free to make of life anything we want. At every moment we are free. Even in the grimmest circumstances, we are free. Even if someone is holding a gun to our head, we are free. As Sartre put is so chillingly, "Man is condemned to be free." Freedom is no joyous, easy, wonderful attribute. It can be the greatest burden. We must accept full responsibility for everything that happens in our lives, whether or not we are happy to do so. Most people aren't. They want to blame others, blame the system, blame everything and everyone except themselves. They are denying that they are responsible for their fate. Such people will never truly live.

"It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live."

We do not have to accept being slaves and puppets of the Old World Order. Most of us choose to. We could fight, but we don't because it takes too much effort and courage. We comply because we are cowards. In Hegel's master/slave dialectic, we are the slaves. We have no one to blame but ourselves. There are billions of us, yet we allow a handful of people to control us and lord it over us. What kind of people are we? Do you think you are close to finding your higher self if you bow and scrape to others, if you wave a flag when a President or Queen goes by, when you ask a celebrity for an autograph?

Most people are led to believe that they are not free, and they eagerly take refuge in their imagined lack of freedom. Life is simple and straightforward if all you have to do is obey. A Christian is not free to disobey the Bible, the Jew the Torah or the Muslim the Koran. People do not think that they are free to break the law or to do whatever they want whenever they want. They think they have duties and obligations, and standards of conduct that they must follow. But they don't. It's all an illusion. People are free not to do any of these things. The immense, overwhelming freedom that Sartre talks about fills people with anguish and despair. He referred to the "dizziness" of freedom. Imagine a high-wire act at a circus, with no safety net. Would you like to be up there, or would it drive you insane with fear?

Since the future is always radically in doubt because it is entirely dependent on what we choose to do, many of us are crushed by angst. Freedom is too much for us. It demands too much. To escape anguish, we adopt strategies of "bad faith" where we deny that we are fundamentally responsible for our actions.

Sartre provides two vivid examples. A man, trying to seduce a woman, takes her hand. The woman ought to accept it or reject it, but she does neither. Instead, she pretends nothing has happened and simply leaves her hand where it is as if it's an object that doesn't belong to her. She has abdicated her responsibility to make a decision. She has rejected freedom, rejected herself as a subject and become instead a passive object. That is how many people lead their lives. They are inauthentic.

In Sartre's second example, a waiter in a café performs his role with an absurd degree of enthusiasm, as if he's trying to become the very essence of a waiter, the Platonic perfect waiter. His whole life seems to be defined by his "waiterhood". But being a waiter is just a choice, an act, a job; it doesn't define anyone. A waiter could choose to stop being a waiter at any moment and just walk out. Why does he allow this role to subsume him? Why does he pour his identity into it? Is that the best he can do? The truth is that he is avoiding making other choices by locking himself into this part. He is refusing the infinite opportunities available to him. Our world is full of people who are defined by their jobs. They lose their identities if they lose their jobs. How sad and pathetic is that? Who wants to become synonymous with their dreary job, to have no identity beyond the drudgery they have freely chosen to embrace? Again, these people are inauthentic. They are fake human beings. They could scarcely be further from their higher selves.

At any moment, we can choose to change everything. We can abandon our status as puppets of the Old World Order. We can stop being slaves. Each of us can change our circumstances, and if we all change then the whole world will change. Instead, people make excuse after excuse, and nothing changes. But there are no acceptable excuses. Everyone is free. The only thing stopping us is ourselves.

Sartre was famous for denying that individuals have essential selves. He said, "Existence precedes essence". This is the core of existentialism. Our existence is primary. The "self", the "ego" is a construct. It is not "given" to us at birth. It is not an indivisible source of our behaviour and character. The experiences arising from our existence shape our selves. That being the case, we can reconstruct ourselves. No one says it is easy, but it can certainly be done. Our constructed "self" restricts our freedom because of the seeming requirement to "act in character". But we could choose not to. We can always choose. Isn't it time to become new people?


Michel Foucault was preoccupied with the subject of power and how, in a very real sense, it changes how reality is perceived. If history is written by the winners, by those with power, then what that does that say for the reliability and accuracy of history? If the Nazis had won WWII, what would the word "Holocaust" mean? Would it even be mentioned? Would anyone know what it was? Would the term exist? The Nazis could tell any story they liked about the "resettlement" of the Jews in some far away place to explain why all of the Jews had vanished. A few fake "Potemkin villages" could be set up somewhere to give the semblance of truth to the lie.

Imagine the horror of a Jew who had escaped from a death camp and discovered that not a single person believed his story. Everyone he met thought he was insane. Wouldn't he soon become insane? Foucault argued that if historical "truths" are a function of power then an event like the Holocaust is no longer a matter of strict fact, but instead depends on the dominance of a particular narrative. History is never anything other than propaganda. As Napoleon said, "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?" There are no objective facts. If it is conceivable that the Holocaust could have been concealed from history in the aftermath of a Nazi victory, what else has been hidden, what else has been distorted until it is unrecognisable? How can any narrative be trusted? How can any "fact" be treated as genuine?

The Holocaust has been turned into something else: an industry. Jews can point to it forever and proclaim themselves eternal victims to whom constant concessions must be made as reparations. They can justify their savage treatment of Palestinians on the basis that "We must never let the Holocaust happen to us again: we will take every measure to defend ourselves." The Holocaust was the best thing that ever happened to Zionism. Without it, the State of Israel would never have come into existence.

In Washington DC, there is a "Holocaust Memorial Museum" - a theme park dedicated to genocide rather than to Mickey Mouse. You can watch WWII snuff movies on an endless repeat cycle: extermination as eternal recurrence. At the beginning of your tour you are issued with an ID card matching you to a real victim or survivor of the Holocaust. At the end, you throw your ID card in the bin.

Is nothing sacred?  

The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by Norman G. Finkelstein contends that the American Jewish lobby exploits the memory of the Holocaust for political and financial gain, and to garner political, military and economic support for Israel. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, thinks this insidious industry corrupts Jewish culture and betrays the Holocaust victims. Finkelstein should be praised by Jews, but instead he is condemned.

Foucault, like Nietzsche before him, claimed that truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil, normality and abnormality are illusory. They are creations of the will to power, the will to dominate. Language is used in a particular way to prosecute certain vested interests and particular agendas. Myths are sold to the people. Narratives are constructed to advance the positions of the powerful. A centre is created from which those who oppose the centre are marginalized. The most successful story on earth is that of the Old World Order. They have harnessed the whole of society to support their dominant position, and all of the slaves go along with it. They lap up the nonsense about "freedom and democracy", "law and order", the "War on Terror", and all the rest of the drivel.

Foucault used the term "the archaeology of knowledge." Although what he meant by this phrase is complex, it is a brilliantly illuminating concept in its ordinary meaning. History is not a neat, tidy arrangement of indisputable facts. History involves getting down and dirty, into pits of the past. The facts are covered under layers of dirt and grime. Some are like books with many pages torn, charred or missing, with many words smudged and indecipherable. Some facts are hidden and irretrievable. Some facts have been moved around by earth tremors, floods or grave robbers. Many facts seem to contradict many others. Everything is open to interpretation and misinterpretation.  

The idea that history exists in any objective way is laughable. History is a weapon. Facts are marshalled to support a viewpoint. That doesn't make them true. We were asked if Thomas Jefferson was indeed a Freemason since there is no formal "proof" in the public arena. This question presupposes that there is some infallible version of history, where everything can be neatly proved or disproved. No such history exists. Even if we were to provide our evidence of Jefferson's membership of a Masonic Lodge, all those who don't like the idea would immediately challenge it. Some would accuse us of manufacturing it. Instantly, it would no longer be a "fact" but a point of debate, research, and controversy. Some people would agree with the evidence, and others wouldn't. If some people can deny that the Holocaust ever took place, of what value are "indisputable facts"?

Jean Baudrillard argued in The Gulf War Did Not Take Place that the first Gulf War did not actually happen. Before it began, he said it wouldn't take place and after it was over he said he had been proved right. The reporters at the "front" were embedded in army units and were unable to move around freely. They got most of their information by watching CNN on TV, and CNN got most of its information from the Pentagon. The whole thing could easily have been staged, or to use Baudrillard's preferred word, simulated. No one watching at home would have known any better. The whole war lacked reality. Many people said it was like a video game. They were able to watch pictures taken from cameras fitted to cruise missiles. They got a missile's "viewpoint" as it flew through a window before exploding: the ultimate precision bombing.

NATO is currently engaged in a war in Afghanistan. There are no battles. There is no indication that NATO is winning. NATO says it is fighting on behalf of freedom and democracy but there's no evidence that the Afghanis want NATO's version of freedom and democracy. Soldiers die and are brought home in flag-draped coffins, but no one's sure what they're fighting for. No victory is in sight. There is no "exit strategy". Most people probably couldn't point to Afghanistan on a map. They have no idea why NATO is there beyond some vague notion of the "War on Terror". No one really knows what the War on Terror is or who the enemy actually is. Are the Iraqis and Afghanis to be called "terrorists" because they're fighting to get an army of occupation out of their country, just as the Americans and British would do if they were invaded?

The truth is that the War on Terror is a simulation of a war. "Terror" is an abstraction, not a real, identifiable enemy. It's a matter of opinion whether someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter. The purpose of this strange, obscure, undefined war is to keep the military-industrial complex and intelligence agencies in a position of permanent power, to justify governments taking draconian measures against their people in the name of "Homeland Security". Everyone is spied on by the authorities. In Orwell's prophetic novel 1984, war was permanent, the perfect means to control the population. If there are no real wars then the Old World Order simply simulate them, just as Big Brother did in 1984. No one can tell the difference anymore.

The real war is that of the government against the people.

Each person constructs his own version of history based on his personal ideology. He excludes things that don't accord with his view, and eagerly embraces those things that do. He doesn't even know he's doing it. If you find yourself being doubtful about many of the things on this site, our message isn't for you. You should move on to something that you can be more passionate about. Finding your higher self comes about via your zealous commitment to a cause. Gnosis isn't straightforward knowledge. It's a deep, inner certainty that you reach not through a field of facts (most of which are illusory) but through profound personal conviction. The truth isn't so much laid before you as seizes you. You know which facts are true and which are false because you have "become God". You are like Neo in The Matrix. It wasn't "facts" that transformed Neo, it was his realisation of who he was and of what he was capable. He became a Superman; his higher self was fully unbound and unleashed.

The Matrix is practically the perfect Gnostic tale. A man (Neo) is unknowingly living in a world controlled by a malign, hostile controller (the Demiurge). Agents (the archons, the "ultimate puppetmasters") operate within the Matrix, eliminating any threats. Humanity is literally asleep. People are arrayed in huge battery farms to provide energy for machines. They are collectively fed a dream of an illusory world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, freedom, democracy etc). Neo is contacted by mysterious guides (the Illuminati) who offer him a chance to find the truth. They tell him that he is the Chosen One (meaning that he is ready to make full contact with his higher self: to at last find the Holy Grail after many prior reincarnations). He doesn't really accept who he is, but nevertheless joins his guides in their great struggle against hopeless odds. He endures many ordeals (representing his arduous initiation into the great mysteries), like the archetypal hero of myth, and is pursued relentlessly by his enemies. Still, he fails to realise who he is (nothing is more difficult than facing up to yourself; abandoning all of your comforting delusions and safety nets). He must die and be reborn before he can assume the mantle of his higher self (all mystery religions require the metaphorical death of the initiate before he can gain access to the higher truths). Then, Neo achieves gnosis and understands everything. He sees right through the Matrix. He can manipulate "reality" at will. By the end of the trilogy, he is blind, but can still see (the sight of the soul), and he is bathed in a mystic, glorious light (of the True God). Can you too be Neo? You will never get there through slavish devotion to "facts". How many facts existed in the Matrix? None at all. The whole thing was an illusion. Don't you "see"? Knowledge and facts are not synonymous. Knowledge can transcends facts.

Nietzsche said, "There are no facts, only interpretations." That is higher knowledge. True knowledge comes from grasping the huge, gaping limitations of the ordinary human mind and not being sucked into illusory "certainties". When Socrates heard that the Oracle at Delphi had named him the wisest man in the world, he was initially perplexed. Then he said that perhaps it was true because whereas he knew that he knew nothing, others pretended to know everything, and yet manifestly knew nothing.

The unconditional worship of "facts" is dangerous and leads to the sterile atheism of someone like Richard Dawkins: he has closed off his mind entirely from his higher self. Even worse is faith, which dispenses with facts altogether and leads, inevitably and inexorably, to the insanity of suicide bombings in the name of "God". Gnosis is about transcendence of the human condition by reaching direct, experiential contact with the divine spark, a fragment of the divine order that, in the manner of a hologram, contains the whole divine order. To reach that state, the seeker of truth must tread the finest of lines…respecting and being guided by facts but at all times realising that facts may betray him. Nietzsche, despite being an atheist, was well on his way to contacting his divine spark because he was intent on removing, with surgical precision, every trace of the false knowledge that blocks the path to enlightenment. He was deconstructing himself, and from that immensely challenging process the true self can emerge.

Isn't it time to "wake up" (as Neo was told at the beginning of The Matrix)? The whole of humanity needs to wake up. The Illuminati can guide you in the right direction but only you can transform yourself. Everything is rendered clear and bright when you liberate your divine spark. Otherwise, you are seeing through a glass, darkly. You will never encounter your divine self via a cause in which you have doubts and suspicions. Above all, if you don't think you have a divine spark, you will never find it. Why is the Holy Grail so hard to find? - because too many people get bogged down in minor detail and fail to grasp the big picture. They engage at the level of facts rather than that of profound transformation. They are blocking their own progress, almost as if they are too scared to complete their great quest. They approach the task in absolutely the wrong way: like detectives rather than philosophers.

Foucault sought to show that human beings are knowing, knowable and self-knowing in terms of power relations. People are allocated a certain level of power from the day they are born. It's very hard to break out of the range that society has allocated to you. You are expected to do x (which is suitable for your level of power) but not y (which is above your level), or z (which is below it). Everyone knows where they stand in the power hierarchy, or they quickly learn. The subtlest signs can be used to demonstrate someone's status. More often, unsubtle signs are used: designer clothes, bling, big houses, flash cars. We are locked within networks of power. Are you happy to live in the box that society has allocated to you? Why not break out? Reject the signs of "status". Reject the false power hierarchy. The only legitimate hierarchy is the one based on demonstrable merit.

Don't let society construct you. You must become yourself: an autonomous, self-directing person, immune to the boxes others wish to place you in, but you must also stop placing others in boxes. We all collude in the process. We must remove the power-tinted spectacles through which we view everything.

Whenever you see an authority figure, ask yourself whether their authority is legitimate or a construct. Rapidly, you will reach the conclusion that authority is, more often than not, a con trick. Many "criminals" are in prison because they decided to use exactly the same tactics that, thousands of years ago, the great dynastic families of the Old World Order used to seize power - violence. It was right then; now it's wrong, supposedly. Why should those who have authority and power now be immune from the processes that allowed them to gain authority and power in the first place?

No matter how deeply ingrained the Old World Order's narrative is, don't forget that it can disappear at any time. The grand narrative of Communism collapsed overnight with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Isn't it time we pushed over the OWO's invisible wall? Isn't it time we saw them as emperors with no clothes? And when they're revealed in all their feeble nakedness, the game will be over.

It won't be easy, but no one should expect it to be. As Thomas Paine, the great political essayist and pamphleteer who contributed so much to the American Revolution, said, "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph: what we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value."

Paine was a fierce critic of hereditary monarchy on the grounds that it involved a previous generation dictating the rulers of future generations. By the same token, when dynastic families take active steps to ensure that their offspring have far superior opportunities than those of other families, they are effectively deciding who the rulers of the future will be. They have no right to do so, and that power, in the name of meritocracy, must be stripped from them. Hereditary rule and privilege are effectively the same thing. Those who oppose monarchs should oppose dynastic, elite families too.

As Paine said, "For all men being originally equal, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honour of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of the hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."

Paine was a true meritocrat; an outstanding individual who rose from the humblest of origins. He held a Gnostic view of the world, regarding the God of the Old Testament as hateful, vengeful and spiteful. He was an advocate of deism and condemned both atheism and Christianity.
 
It still seems remarkable that anyone would buy into religions such as Judaism and Christianity. Is it because they don't actually understand them? In the Old Testament, God promised Abraham that he would "shower blessings" on him and make his people, the Jews, "as many as the stars of heaven and the grains of sand on the seashore." He didn't keep his promise, did he? Why do the Jews still believe? Wasn't the Holocaust proof enough that there is no God looking out for them?

According to the Bible, Adam and Eve's sin of disobedience - the "original" sin -
cursed humanity for eternity. Why such an extreme response? Why no second chance? What kind of God behaves in this way? It was God himself who placed temptation in the path of Adam and Eve. What did he expect? Moreover, he knows everything, so he knew they would be disobedient. So how can Adam and Eve be held responsible? They were entirely innocent.

The God of the Bible, we are told, is kind, loving, forgiving and merciful, yet all of humanity is under sentence of going to hell because of original sin. There's precious little evidence of love, mercy or forgiveness, is there? Why did God create us in the knowledge that the vast majority of us are going to hell? What a cruel, sadistic and horrific thing to do.

St Augustine said that, by God's grace, a few of the baptised will be saved from the fires of hell (the unbaptised have no chance at all). God chooses to bestow his grace upon an elect few, and they, and only they, will go to heaven. The gift of grace has empowered them to live Godly lives. According to Augustine, we have no control over our fate; it is entirely in God's hands. This is the vile and repellent doctrine of predestination. How can anyone believe such a monstrous idea? God, with virtually no justification, seems committed to sending most souls to hell. And this is supposedly a 'good' God worthy of worship. No, this is Satan, Lord of Hell.


In The Wealth of Nations, Scottish political economist Adam Smith said that people acting in their own self-interest would be guided by an "invisible hand" to the benefit of society. What a joke. There is no "invisible hand", just the violent fist and the grasping claw of the Old World Order. They are a cartel, conspiring to defraud the public for their own profit. "Free markets" are no such thing. Again, the powers-that-be create a narrative that suits their agenda.

Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argued that elites in a society typically maintain their power not simply through the control of wealth, but also through a domination of the social culture. They create the "norms", the parameters that shape society. They define right and wrong, good and bad, sane and mad, acceptable and unacceptable. They control the education system, what is taught and what isn't, the economic arena, the media, the political system. They get their ideas, their values, their propaganda "out there" and they marginalize the voices of the opposition. They even define "silence" - what is never said, what is assumed, the unstated values that subtly pervade the prevailing culture. Bourdieu wrote, "The most successful ideological effects are those which have no need of words, and ask no more than a complicitous silence."

The Old World Order rely on "complicitous silence". It is one of their best weapons.

The people are deaf and blind to their plight. They are unaware of their historic destiny to defeat the Old World Order: they have a "false consciousness" created by the OWO. The OWO have the resources at their disposal to continually counter the challenges to them, but all it takes is for them to lose concentration for a moment and then they are lost. The Roman Empire collapsed when it lost its sense of what it truly was, when it became overstretched, overly decadent, and infected by a new and strange religion (Christianity). The same thing will inevitably happen to the Old World Order.

It will be a "black swan" event that comes from nowhere, entirely unexpectedly ,that leads to the destruction of the OWO. It is the job of the enemies of the OWO to try to manufacture black swan events. This site is one such attempt. There are many others. The Illuminati have many cells, operating independently, all trying to create the toxin that will poison the OWO. One of them will succeed.



Before you look at the plan, take in words the general idea of it.

The building is circular.

The apartments of the prisoners occupy the circumference. You may call them, if you please, the cells.

These cells are divided from one another, and the prisoners by that means secluded from all communication with each other, by partitions in the form of radii issuing from the circumference towards the centre, and extending as many feet as shall be thought necessary to form the largest dimension of the cell.

The apartment of the inspector occupies the centre; you may call it if you please the inspector's lodge.

It will be convenient in most, if not in all cases, to have a vacant space or area all round, between such centre and such circumference. You may call it if you please the intermediate or annular area.

About the width of a cell may be sufficient for a passage from the outside of the building to the lodge.

Each cell has in the outward circumference, a window, large enough, not only to light the cell, but, through the cell, to afford light enough to the correspondent part of the lodge.

The inner circumference of the cell is formed by an iron grating, so light as not to screen any part of the cell from the inspector's view.

Of this grating, a part sufficiently large opens, in form of a door, to admit the prisoner at his first entrance; and to give admission at any time to the inspector or any of his attendants.

To cut off from each prisoner the view of every other, the partitions are carried on a few feet beyond the grating into the intermediate area: such projecting parts I call the protracted partitions.

It is conceived, that the light, coming in this manner through the cells, and so across the intermediate area, will be sufficient for the inspector's lodge. But, for this purpose, both the windows in the cells, and those corresponding to them in the lodge, should be as large as the strength of the building, and what shall be deemed a necessary attention to economy, will permit.

To the windows of the lodge there are blinds, as high up as the eyes of the prisoners in their cells can, by any means they can employ, be made to reach.

To prevent thorough light, whereby, notwithstanding the blinds, the prisoners would see from the cells whether or no any person was in the lodge, that apartment is divided into quarters, by partitions formed by two diameters to the circle, crossing each other at right angles. For these partitions the thinnest materials might serve; and they might be made removable at pleasure; their height, sufficient to prevent the prisoners seeing over them from the cells. Doors to these partitions, if left open at any time, might produce the thorough light. To prevent this, divide each partition into two, at any part required, setting down the one-half at such distance from the other as shall be equal to the aperture of a door.

These windows of the inspector's lodge open into the intermediate area, in the form of doors, in as many places as shall be deemed necessary to admit of his communicating readily with any of the cells.

Small lamps, in the outside of each window of the lodge, backed by a reflector, to throw the light into the corresponding cells, would extend to the night the security of the day.

To save the troublesome exertion of voice that might otherwise be necessary, and to prevent one prisoner from knowing that the inspector was occupied by another prisoner at a distance, a small tin tube might reach from each cell to the inspector's lodge, passing across the area, and so in at the side of the correspondent window of the lodge. By means of this implement, the slightest whisper of the one might be heard by the other, especially if he had proper notice to apply his ear to the tube.

With regard to instruction, in cases where it cannot be duly given without the instructor's being close to the work, or without setting his hand to it by way of example before the learner's face, the instructor must indeed here as elsewhere, shift his station as often as there is occasion to visit different workmen; unless he calls the workmen to him, which in some of the instances to which this sort of building is applicable, such as that of imprisoned felons, could not so well be. But in all cases where directions, given verbally and at a distance, are sufficient, these tubes will be found of use. They will save, on the one hand, the exertion of voice it would require, on the part of the instructor, to communicate instruction to the workmen without quitting his central station in the lodge; and, on the other, the confusion which would ensue if different instructors or persons in the lodge were calling to the cells at the same time. And, in the case of hospitals, the quiet that may be insured by this little contrivance, trifling as it may seem at first sight, affords an additional advantage.