Optimates versus Populares
The nobility of ancient Rome were referred to as patricians and the common people as plebeians ("plebs"). The plebeians sought better treatment and enhanced rights from the patricians, but it was always a struggle to win any concessions. Without credible political representation, the plebeians had little chance of gaining a true voice in the Roman Republic.
To try to improve their lot, the plebeians on several occasions carried out an act of mass protest, similar to a general strike. Each time, they abandoned the city en masse in an act known as a Secessio Plebis (withdrawal of the commoners, Secession of the Plebs) and left the patricians to themselves. All shops and workshops closed, and all commerce in the city halted. On one occasion, the pleb soldiers refused to fight for the patricians. On another occasion, the plebs threatened to build a new city, free of the nobility. The patricians were forced to come to terms and offer political powers to the plebeians.
Isn't it time for a modern Secessio Plebis to show the Elite who's really in charge? The word veto is Latin for "I forbid". Shouldn't we forbid the ever widening gap between the rich and poor? The people can change everything at any time of their choosing, just as the Roman plebs did by going on general strike.
The plebeians were permitted to elect ten political representatives called tribunes (from the Latin tribus = tribe) who were empowered to convene the Plebeian Council (People's Assembly), act as its president, and propose legislation. It was illegal for patricians to do tribunes any harm; their lives were sacrosanct because they were the personal embodiment of the plebeians. They had the power of veto in many matters, and were entitled to intervene legally on behalf of plebeians. A tribune had the right to summon the Senate and submit policies for consideration. It was illegal for any patrician to serve as a tribune.
In the 2nd century BCE, two remarkable brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus (known as the Gracchi) were elected as tribunes of the plebs and used their power in an unprecedented way to challenge the Elite. Roman politics was changed forever.
Certain issues such as who had the right to become a citizen and how and where land and property should be allocated to citizens were becoming causes of increasing tension between patricians and plebeians, and the Gracchi became the vox populi - the voice of the people - demanding radical reform. The stage was set for an almighty political showdown.
Thanks to the Gracchi, a political movement emerged known as the Populares ("favoring the people"; the Popular Party). They wished to curb the power of the patrician Senate, and enhance the rights and livings conditions of the people. Leaders of the Populares movement were known as populists or "demagogues" (leaders of the people). In general, they campaigned for the extension of citizenship to provincials, for cancellation of debts where they had become extortionate, and for the fair distribution of land and property.
The political faction that opposed them was called the Optimates ("Best Men"). They were also known as Boni: "Good Men". The Optimates were the establishment party, the advocates of firm, patrician, Senatorial rule. They were conservatives, defending the traditions of Rome and the existing ruling order. They strove to maintain the power and privileges of the Elite and limit the power of the people. They exercised their power through the Senate (the Roman version of the Washington D.C. political establishment; it is perhaps unsurprising that America has its own patrician Senate, with the plebs having the House of Representatives. The Senate reflects the UK's patrician House of Lords (unelected), while the House of Representatives reflects the UK's House of Commons. "Lords" and "Commons" shows how anachronistic, absurd, divisive and elitist British politics are.).
The Optimates promoted the interests of the "nobiles" (noble families i.e. the typical OWO dynastic families of privilege and power) and fought hard to hold back the rise of novi homines ("new men", often from the provinces and outwith the Roman nobility, and often advocates of the People's Party). The most famous and talented novus homo was Cicero (the first of his family to enter the Senate), who, ironically, chose to be on the Optimates' side. He ingratiated himself with them by the simple tactic of always taking their side. This won him their support, but they never liked or trusted him. He was always an outsider; "not one of us" - lower class, unrefined, lacking patrician taste and manners.
The Optimates sought to restrict the extension of Roman citizenship and to preserve the ancient traditions of their forefathers. They strove always to uphold the oligarchy of the noble families. They dominated the Senate and acted as a continual block on social reform. They particularly feared popular generals who had the support of the people and the army.
The members of both political factions belonged to the wealthier classes; no ordinary people ever had any power in Rome; no plebeian without influential connections ever served in the Senate or in formal government. No plebeian without influential connections had the benefit of an education.
Members of branches of patrician families that had fallen on hard times and lost their influence and status were regarded as plebeian by the snobs of the nobility, but such "plebeian" families had nothing in common with the masses of true plebeians - all the common people living in slums. Often, these plebeian "nobles" were determined to regain former glories. They turned to the people for support since they certainly wouldn't get if from the established nobility.
At the zenith of the Optimates' power, the dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla posted throughout Rome long lists of Populares to be executed. The named individuals were stopped on sight and summarily put to death. This was true terror - having to check lists of the condemned to see if your name was on there, knowing that you could be killed instantly if it was.
Caesar
Julius Caesar was a member of one of Rome's oldest and most respectable noble families, yet he championed the Populares' political faction. He was opposed by Pompey the Great, a novus homo, who fought on behalf of the Senate and the Optimates.
Behind his public mask, Caesar had complete contempt for plebeians, but nevertheless continually courted their support against the Senate. To achieve his goal of becoming the supreme leader of Rome - a king or emperor - he had to smash the power of the Senate, hence he cynically exploited the plebeians. He was assassinated by a combination of Optimates defending the interests of the Senate and nobility, and Populares, who foresaw that Caesar would become a tyrant and an enemy of the people.
The civil war that followed Caesar's death led to the end of the Roman Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire under the first emperor Octavian (Augustus Caesar), nephew and heir of Julius Caesar. Imperial succession then followed on a mostly hereditary basis, although eventually rival generals fought it out for the imperial crown.
Caesar, a patrician, was no supporter of the lower classes, but he was prepared to cynically use them to advance his own personal cause. Many Roman politicians appealed to whatever constituency served their interests at a particular time. They had no principles or political ideology. Self-interest was their only guide.
It has been said by historians that the clashes between the Populares and Optimates were nothing whatever to do with political principles and concerned nothing but raw power. A patrician who had no interest in the people would nevertheless pander to them if it were politically expedient.
The Roman patricians were infamously devoted to power. The entire Roman culture was brutally militaristic and power driven. Imagine America being run by hundreds of vigorous, ambitious, ruthless, battle-hardened generals in the prime of life rather than soft, decrepit politicians, and you will get a flavour of the savage power politics of ancient Rome. Politics was conducted like war. The ends always justified the means. Victory was everything. It didn't matter how it was achieved. Bribery, corruption, blackmail, assassination were all perfectly acceptable. After all, if you won and then ordered the execution of all of your rivals for treason, who would oppose you? Since money bought power, the Roman Elite were infamous for their corruption (just like the modern politicians of nations like America and Britain).
Jugurtha, King of Numidia (Algeria) said of Rome's fatal weakness for money, "Urbem venalem et mature perituram, si emptorem invenerit": "The city's life is for sale, and it would kill itself if it could find a buyer."
Doesn't that sound like Wall Street, Washington D.C. or Hollywood? Ancient Rome has reincarnated in America.
The Gracchi
The Gracchus brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, were the first prominent Romans to be recruited by the Illuminati, and, as Latin speakers, were the first to actually use the term "Illuminati". As the star of Rome ascended and Latin became the language of Europe, this became the permanent name of the secret society.
It was with the Gracchi that the Populares, the People's Party, began. Unlike many others who jumped on the bandwagon, seeing an opportunity for self-advancement, the Gracchi genuinely wanted to bring about radical reforms on behalf of the ordinary people, and to smash the power of the ruling Elite. They paid with their lives.
The Gracchi were born to a plebeian branch of an old and noble family. Their ambitious mother wanted them to have the best possible education, and put them in the hands of the finest Greek tutors (the Greeks were the best and most knowledgeable teachers of the time, and many were brought to Rome). The tutors taught Tiberius and Gaius philosophy, science, mathematics, astronomy, logic, oratory, history and political science (particularly the ideas of Plato, Aristotle and Athenian democracy). One of the tutors was a member of the Illuminati, and it was he who recruited the brothers, seeing that they were individuals of exceptional ability who could literally change the course of Rome and the world.
Plutarch, an ancient Greek historian with strong links to the Illuminati, said, "These boys were brought up with such care and such ambitious hopes by their mother, that though they were without dispute in terms of their natural gifts the first among the Romans of their time, yet they seemed to owe their virtues even more to their education than to their birth."
Plutarch described the similarities and differences between the two remarkable brothers: "We notice that the figures of Castor and Pollux, as they are represented in sculpture and painting, show certain differences in their physique, as between the boxer and the runner. In the same way with these two young Romans; in spite of their strong resemblance to one another in courage and self-discipline as well as in generosity, eloquence, and greatness of mind, yet in their actions and administrations of public affairs, a considerable variation showed itself…Tiberius was gentle and composed, alike in his cast of features, expression and demeanour, whereas Gaius was earnest, highly strung and impassioned. And so in their public speeches to the people, Tiberius spoke in a quiet, orderly manner, standing throughout on the same spot; whereas Gaius would walk about on the hustings, and in the heat of his orations pull his gown off his shoulders, and was the first of all the Romans that used such gestures…Gaius's oratory tended to electrify his audience, making everything tell to the utmost, whereas Tiberius was more conciliatory and appealed to men's sense of pity...The same difference that appeared in their speaking styles was observable also in their characters. Tiberius was mild and reasonable, Gaius rough and passionate, to the degree that, often, in the midst of speaking, he was so hurried away by his passion, against his judgment, that his voice lost its tone, and he lapsed into abuse, spoiling his whole speech. As a remedy to this excess, he made use of an ingenious aide of his, one Licinius, who stood constantly behind him with a sort of pitch-pipe, or instrument to regulate the voice by, and whenever he perceived Gaius's tone alter and break with anger, he struck a soft note with his pipe, on hearing which Gaius immediately checked the vehemence of his passion, and his voice, grew quieter, and allowed himself to be recalled to temper. Such are the differences between the two brothers; but their valour in war against their country's enemies, their justice in the government of its subjects, their care and industry in office, and their self-command in all that regarded their pleasures, were equally remarkable in both."
The Gracchus brothers, like all Roman men, were well trained in martial matters. They became renowned for their horsemanship and combat skill, outshining their peers. Tiberius, the older brother, earned fame for his courage and daring by being the first to scale the walls of Carthage in Rome's final campaign against that city. On another occasion he used his diplomacy skills and personal charisma to save an army of 20,000 men that had been cut off and threatened with extermination.
The boys, linked as they were to a noble family, and now with big reputations as rising stars of the army, were looked upon favourably by the ruling elite. If they had played the usual game, they would have allied themselves to the Optimates and enjoyed lives of privilege. Instead, they remained true to the principles of the Illuminati and campaigned on behalf of the people. Land reform was their main angle of attack. They wanted to take away the excessive amounts of land that the elite had acquired and to redistribute it amongst the plebeians (just as the present-day Illuminati want to strip the Elite of their excessive wealth and invest it instead in the people). Naturally, they generated a whirlwind of opposition, ultimately costing their lives despite some early successes.
The brothers, so well taught by the Greeks, were able to make incendiary speeches that gripped their audiences and roused them from their apathy. They were inspired orators, brilliantly persuasive, who knew how to deliver well crafted speeches in the grand Greek style, and which Romans always found so impressive in comparison with their plainer, more functional speeches.
The Gracchi were fiercely opposed to the increasing trend of rich landowners pushing plebeians off their farms and into economic ruin. (The same type of thing happened in Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries, in the forced expulsions of people from their land to make way for more profitable sheep, known to history as the "Highland Clearances". Many of these displaced people made their way to America and Canada.) The plebeians ended up in the Roman slums, idle and having to accept hand-outs due to lack of paid work in a slave-based economy.
An old law that the Senate had conveniently chosen to ignore specifically limited the amount of land that any single individual could own. By invoking this law, Tiberius had the ancient traditions of Rome on his side, and legal right. He established a commission to redistribute land holdings from patricians to plebeians. But the patrician landowners were furious that their lands were to be confiscated.
Plutarch describes the volatile situation, and the sleazy tactics adopted by the rich: "However, Tiberius did not draw up his law without the advice and assistance of those citizens that were then most eminent for their virtue and authority; amongst whom were Crassus, the high-priest, Mucius Scaevola, the lawyer, who at that time was consul, and Claudius Appius, his father-in-law. Never did any law appear more moderate and gentle, especially being enacted against such great oppression and avarice. For they who ought to have been severely punished for transgressing the former laws, and should at least have lost all their titles to such lands which they had unjustly usurped, were notwithstanding to receive a price for quitting their unlawful claims, and giving up their lands to those fit owners who stood in need of help. But though this reformation was managed with so much tenderness that, all the former transactions being passed over, the people were only thankful to prevent abuses of the like nature for the future, yet, on the other hand, the moneyed men, and those of great estates, were exasperated, through their covetous feelings against the law itself, and against the lawgiver, through anger and party-spirit. They therefore endeavoured to seduce the people, declaring that Tiberius was designing a general redivision of lands, to overthrow the government, and cut all things into confusion."
(Here we hear the usual "conspiracy theory" accusations that have followed the Illuminati throughout history. The accusers are always the Elite. They have always been terrified of the Illuminati's New World Order that would sweep away their power. All those who are opposed to the NWO are puppets of the Elite.)
"But they had no success. For Tiberius, maintaining an honourable and just cause, and possessed of eloquence sufficient to have made a less creditable action appear plausible, was no safe or easy antagonist, when, with the people crowding around the hustings, he took his place, and spoke on behalf of the poor. 'The savage beasts that roam over Italy,' he said, 'have their dens and holes to lurk in; but the men who fight and die for our country enjoy the common air and light and nothing else. It is their lot to wander with their wives and children, houseless and homeless over the face of the earth.' He told them that their commanders were guilty of lies and mockery, when, at the head of their armies, they exhorted the common soldiers to fight for their ancestors' tombs and altars; when not any amongst so many Romans is possessed of either altar or monument, neither have they any houses of their own, or hearths of their ancestors to defend. They fought indeed and were slain, but it was to maintain the luxury and the wealth of other men. They were styled the masters of the world, but in the meantime had not one foot of ground which they could call their own. An harangue of this nature, spoken to an enthusiastic and sympathizing audience, by a person of commanding spirit and genuine feelings, no adversaries at that time were competent to oppose.
"Forbearing, therefore, all discussion and debate, the patricians addressed themselves to Marcus Octavius, his fellow-tribune, who being a young man of a steady, orderly character, and an intimate friend of Tiberius, upon this account declined at first the task of opposing him; but at length, over-persuaded with the repeated importunities of numerous considerable persons, he was prevailed upon to do so, and hindered the passing of the law; it being the rule that any tribune has a power to hinder an act, and that all the rest can effect nothing, if only one of them dissents. Tiberius, irritated at these proceedings, presently laid aside this milder bill, but at the same time preferred another; which, as it was more gratifying to the common people, so it was much more severe against the wrongdoers, commanding them to make an immediate surrender of all lands which, contrary to former laws, had come into their possession."
The situation became increasingly tense and dangerous. Finally, Tiberius was accused of trying to make himself king. His enemies in the Senate pronounced him a tyrant and demanded emergency powers to deal with him. Some of them took armed thugs with them to confront Tiberius and his supporters. Tiberius and around 300 of those with him were savagely clubbed to death. Tiberius's murderer was one of his fellow tribunes, a plebeian like himself. (It's always the same story: the rich can always find traitors amongst the people who will do their dirty work for them.) This was the first occasion since the time of the kings that blood had been openly shed in Roman politics. The bodies of the dead, including Tiberius, were denied decent burial and callously dumped in the River Tiber.
Several years later, younger brother Gaius took up where his brother had left off. He was under no illusions about his likely fate. He told a story that his brother had appeared to him in a dream and said, "Why do you hesitate, Gaius? There is no escape. Fate has decreed the same destiny for us both, to live and die in the service of the people."
He was bitter towards all those who had failed to stand with his brother. He said, "But you stood by and watched while these men beat Tiberius to death with clubs, and while his dead body was dragged through the midst of the city to be thrown into the Tiber. And afterwards those of his friends who were caught were put to death without a trial."
But his passion for justice drove him on. As well as reviving land reform, he fixed grain prices to prevent profiteering and granted improvements in the rights of citizenship for those non-Roman Italians in the territories around Rome, who had previously been denied significant rights.
However, many plebeians were angry that non-Romans were being treated on a par with them, and turned against Gaius. Immediately, Gaius's powerful enemies in the Senate seized the moment to crush him. 3,000 of Gaius's supporters were killed in the fighting and in summary executions afterwards. As for Gaius himself, he committed suicide in the traditional manner of a defeated Roman soldier by falling on his sword. His enemies beheaded him and stuck his head on the point of a spear.
As before, the bodies of the dead were tossed into the Tiber, and their property was sold and the proceeds seized by the Senate. Their wives were forbidden to wear mourning clothes in public.
The Senator who was behind the plot against Gaius that had led to so much violence on the street of Rome, built, in a grotesquely nauseating act of hypocrisy and triumphalism, the Temple of Concord. An outraged citizen carved on it: "This Temple of Concord is the work of mad Discord."
After this, the Illuminati withdrew from Roman politics and over the following centuries concentrated on Roman religion - specifically Mithraism, which was a version of Illuminism. Tragically, Illuminist Mithraism was swept away by the Jewish Mithraism of St Paul, the appalling religion known to the world as Christianity.
*****
The conflict between Populares and Optimates raged on, but the Gracchi were replaced, on the whole, by unscrupulous demagogues rather than men of principle. The struggle ended with the assassination of Caesar (ostensibly one of the Populares but really a man who would be king), and the consequent birth of imperial Rome in the aftermath of the civil war that followed Caesar's death.
History has judged the Gracchus brothers to have been blinded by unrealistic idealism, and deaf to the base notes of human nature. They struggled to understand how corrupt and selfish Romans were. Above all, they didn't comprehend how fickle and unreliable the plebeians were. Most of them refused to stand and fight. Most of them could be bought off. Most of them had no principles. So what's new?
The Gracchi retain a position of immense honour in the history of the Illuminati. They were exemplary meritocrats. The world is in desperate need of two such brothers again. They were true revolutionaries, and were failed by the people, as so often happens in history. Had they triumphed, world history would have been entirely different. But for any revolutionaries to triumph, they need the people to stand as one, and the people rarely do. It's all too easy for the Elite to divide and rule, to make the people split into factions and fight amongst themselves, thus posing no danger to the Elite.
The Gracchi have sometimes been compared with the Kennedy brothers: JFK and RFK - young, dynamic, charismatic, good-looking, from a distinguished family, cut down in their prime after trying to push through reforms antithetical to the interests of the Elite.
The comparison is rather stretched. The Kennedys were members of the Old World Order, albeit outsiders by virtue of being Catholics in a WASP-controlled nation, but nevertheless, they were fervent capitalists, militarists, anti-Communists, pro-rich i.e. typical OWO members. However, they did begin to see that genuine reform was necessary, and, within OWO circles, they argued that it was necessary to make concessions to the people to prevent a popular uprising against the Washington D.C. Establishment, that would probably be led by African-American radicals.
The OWO old guard, ultra conservatives, hated such talk, and took the necessary steps to silence the Kennedys. Even so, the Kennedy agenda prevailed, and reforms were introduced, though not of a sufficiently transformative nature to bring about meaningful change.
The Kennedys will always retain an ambiguous reputation: far too closely linked with power, wealth and privilege, but smart enough to try to help ordinary people, albeit in limited fashion.
Spartacus
Spartacus was a great hero in the war against the Elite. He led a slave uprising against Rome that shook the Republic to its core. He stood for the oppressed against the slave-owning patricians, for justice for the downtrodden, for freedom against tyranny.
After winning several spectacular victories, his rebellion was finally crushed with ferocious violence. Tens of thousands of slaves died in the last battle, including, it is thought, Spartacus himself, though his body was never identified.
6,000 captured rebels were crucified along either side of the Appian Way leading to Rome.
Although he had no connection with the Illuminati, Spartacus was greatly admired by the Order, to the extent that Grand Master Adam Weishaupt chose to be known as "Brother Spartacus" within the Order. Those absurd people who consider Weishaupt a secret member of the Elite must find it somewhat perplexing that he chose for himself the name of a slave who wanted to destroy the evil rulers of the world.
Adam Weishaupt was in fact the most revolutionary of all the Grand Masters of the Illuminati and detested the Elite to the point of obsession. He it was who coordinated all of the Illuminati's actions throughout the American and French Revolutions. He was utterly hardline and uncompromising. It was Weishaupt who encouraged the Jacobin leaders in France to implement the "Terror" to eradicate aristocrats and counter-revolutionaries. He argued that a sign had to be sent to the whole world that the Elite were not indestructible, that they were mortals who could be struck down just as easily as they themselves normally struck down the ordinary people. Weishaupt frequently pointed out how the Gracchus brothers were assassinated without hesitation by the Elite, and the followers of Spartacus were exterminated. Why were the Elite never condemned for their savagery, for the "Terror" they inflicted on the people as a matter of course, and with total impunity? The people had to show that they would treat the Elite exactly as the Elite treated them. Only then would the Elite learn their lesson.
Weishaupt's stance remains very controversial within the Illuminati. Some have argued that he went too far. Others, that the Elite had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
The Proletariat
According to Karl Marx, in a capitalist society the vast majority of people belong to the proletariat: this is the class that does not own the means of production (because they have no meaningful capital). Therefore they are forced to make a living by selling their labour, in tasks that do not interest them in any way and keep them alienated from their true selves.
Marx called the capitalist class the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are in permanent opposition to the proletariat and always seek to pay the proletariat as little as they can get away with, while paying themselves as much as they can contrive. The proletariat on the other hand want to be paid as much as they can achieve.
Why African Americans should never be capitalists
The ancestors of today's African Americans were violently abducted from their continent, packed into ships fit for no human, dragged across an ocean, mistreated on an epic scale, and then compelled to work as slaves for white "masters" (invariably God-fearing, Christian men). Many were worked to death. Many were executed for fighting back or trying to escape. Many went mad. The white masters earned a fortune from their forced labour, imposed at the point of gun and sword.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the control of capital. Capitalism ensures that capital is in the hands of an elite few. Slaves, by definition, have no capital. When they were eventually freed, the African Americans had no capital, and no opportunity to create any capital. All they could do was work for a subsistence wage. In a racist society, they had no realistic possibility of progress. At no time, has the average African American had genuine access to capital. A few token African Americans in sports and entertainment have become wealthy, but virtually none are in the billionaire class of the many Zionists and Freemasons at the top of the world's financial tree.
So, why would a group of people without capital and denied capital want to participate in a system based on having capital? Of course, it's not just African Americans who are in this predicament. Everyone from average working families of any ethnic description has no realistic prospect of prospering in a capitalist system. They will always be wage slaves, forced to sell themselves to the highest bidder. They will always be in a state of alienation.
Is that how it should be?
In a meritocracy, in order to give all of the people a proper chance, a massive redistribution of capital is required. The white super-rich, the Zionists and the Freemasons, stole money from the rest of us. They exploited us, manipulated us, enslaved us, alienated us, turned us into zombies. Shouldn't we return the favour? The age of the super-rich is over. The age of unfettered capitalism is over. This is the age of equal opportunities and merit, a fair chance for all. In respect of African Americans, they are due reparations from the rich white families that criminally exploited them and profited enormously from them. But they'll be waiting until hell freezes over in the OWO's immoral economic system before they get what they're owed.
It's all very well offering people political, civil and human rights, but it's meaningless unless you offer them a fair chance economically too. Everyone needs economic rights, foremost of which is not to be penalized for the rest of your life because you did not have rich parents.
What does a vote matter if you have no job?
What does a vote matter if you have no economic power?
What does a vote matter if it gives you no chance of a better life?
When have African Americans ever stood a chance in a capitalist system in which they have never had any capital? African Americans are designed to fail in such a system, as are all other people who have no realistic access to capital. The stain of slavery wasn't wiped away by freeing the slaves.
A fair economic system is one in which no one is automatically placed at an advantage or disadvantage depending on the amount of capital controlled by their parents. Why should the wealth, or lack of it, of a child's parents be allowed to determine the child's prospects in life? What kind of system makes your fate dependent not on how hard-working and talented you are, but on how successful your parents were at acquiring money? People should be judged only on what they have done, not on what others have done. Why should Paris Hilton have an easy life because she has rich parents? What has that got to do with her efforts in life? Why is she benefiting from what someone else did? Isn't she a parasite, sponging off her parents? Isn't she a useless "dead head" incapable of making her own way in life? What kind of ridiculous system is it where your own efforts don't matter a jot because your chances in life have already been largely decided by how well your parents did or didn't do?
The new morality is that it should be a matter of absolute shame to take money and help from rich parents, if you happen to have such parents. You should be labeled a scrounger and deadbeat living on welfare handouts, provided not by the state but by your parents You should be made a pariah, mocked and reviled for being unable to stand on your own two feet, to make your own way in life.
The financial link between parents and children, in terms of its shaping the children's future, needs to be permanently dissolved. Certainly, parents are responsible for feeding, clothing and putting a roof of their children's heads. But they should not be able to buy a privileged education for their children, or to give them financial gifts, trust funds and an inheritance that other children are denied.
Rich parents can take their children on expensive holidays, can put a luxury roof over their heads, give them lots of treats, and so forth - no one objects to any of that - but they cannot be allowed to buy decisive advantages in life for them, and they cannot be allowed to pass on enormous wealth to them. Children must fend for themselves when they reach adulthood. No child should be advantaged or disadvantaged by parental wealth or poverty. Children have no responsibility for what their parents did. Why should they be penalized if their parents didn't do well, or be extravagantly rewarded because their parents did? We cannot have a society of merit until every single person is judged solely on their own efforts. The society of privilege we have at the present time makes everyone dependent on their parents' efforts, not on their own. What kind of pathetic basis is that for society? The sins of the fathers are literally visited on the sons in this world. Your life chances are entirely shaped by the relative wealth of your parents. That is the fundamental poison in our society, the mechanism that stands in the way of any true meritocracy.
As soon as you approve of children inheriting wealth from their parents, you are opposed to meritocracy. To be a supporter of a meritocratic society means preventing parents from passing on either financial advantage or disadvantage to their children.
This is the key test of whether someone is truly meritocratic or not. You will hear many democratic politicians say that they are supporters of meritocracy. You won't hear a single one of these frauds and hypocrites say that inheritance tax should be raised to a 100%. In fact they will probably say the opposite.
You can have either a society of privilege or a society of merit. You can't have both. The ability of rich parents to pass on overwhelming financial advantages to their children, and the inability of poor parents to compete, means that, in such a system, privilege and inequality are guaranteed. The solution does not lie in making wealth illegal - everyone should have the opportunity to work hard and achieve a prosperous life - but in preventing the transmission of wealth to others, even to one's own children. The wealthy are entitled to spend their money on themselves. If they die without having spent it, too bad. Any surplus should be automatically transferred to the "Commonwealth", to be reinvested for the good of all.
So, are you a meritocrat or are you a supporter of the right of rich parents to transfer decisive financial advantages to their children? Capitalists and libertarians would fight to their last breath to a) retain the right to brainwash their children in whatever ways they see fit (and fuck everyone else), b) give their children the most privileged education money can buy (and fuck everyone else who can't afford it) and c) give all of their money to their children at death (and fuck everyone else with no money to give). Will you fight with them or against them?
Make no mistake. The essence and core of the Society of Privilege is anti-competitive, monopolistic practices. The members of the Elite are allowed to enjoy advantages unavailable to those without money. The poor cannot compete, and the gap between rich and poor widens all the time. An absolute monopoly over the best and most influential jobs in society is soon exercised by the Elite, and they are not in the business of giving up their monopoly to the plebs. Anyone who supports fair competition, equal opportunities for all, must oppose the Society of Privilege.
Do you support the meritocratic Commonwealth - a society for the benefit of all - or do you support the sacrosanct family - a unit of absolute selfishness that cares only for itself ("The rest of the world can go screw itself as long as we're all right.")?
The propaganda in favour of the family is neverending. It is the fundamental unit of society, hence the fundamental cause of the godforsaken world we live in. Why should we put the blame at any other door?
The Elite are the ultimate advocates of "family values". And wouldn't you be too if your family were the masters of the world? But if your family aren't the masters then you'd have to be the biggest fool on earth to sign up to perpetual rule by the Rothschilds and their ilk. Anyone who subscribes to a system that guarantees their failure IS a failure. It's time to sweep aside all of these dynastic families. It couldn't be easier. All that is required is 100% taxation of their estates at death, and rigorous prevention of their inevitable illegal attempts to smuggle their money away from the Commonwealth. That's it. That's all that needs to be done to smash the power and wealth of the Elite once and for all and change the world forever.
So, what's it to be?
Family versus Community.
Private wealth versus the Commonwealth.
Dynastic Family Elites versus Equal Opportunities for all.
Somebodies (successful families) versus Nobodies (unsuccessful families).
Privilege versus Merit.
Time to choose.
The Capitalist Pyramid
There they are at the top of the pyramid, the Old World Order: Royalty, Bankers, the Super-Rich, Freemasons, with their big bag of swag. Did you ever have a chance of being at the top? You must be joking. Not unless your wealthy parents gave you all the advantages money could buy to ensure that all doors that are closed to the plebs are open to you.
The Old World Order's first level of control is religion: they brainwash you from birth to bind you into their morality. Their supreme moral principle is that it is wrong for the poor to take from the rich. Above all, they have to prevent the plebs from saying, "Hey, just a minute, why don't we take all of the capital from these fat cats and share it amongst ourselves so that we can all have a better life?"
The OWO's second level of control is enforcement: soldiers, police, the intelligence services. If ordered, these people will shoot you down in the street. They don't even need orders. British paratroopers massacred unarmed civil rights protesters in Derry in Northern Ireland in 1972. None was ever prosecuted. Several of their commanders were decorated by the Queen. These enforcers are all enemies of the people.
Then we have the OWO's day-to-day level of control: managers, supervisors, lawyers, accountants, advertisers, lobbyists, agents, all the gatekeepers and middle men, the brown nosers and arse lickers, those who would do anything to suck up to the OWO.
So, where are you in the pyramid? If you're at the bottom then never forget that all you have to do is copy the example of the Roman plebs and walk away. Without you, the whole rancid edifice collapses.
Do you want a glimpse of how the "system" works? Have a look at this video of the Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson of the British Royal Family accepting a down payment of forty thousand dollars in cash, with £500,000 due in total, for arranging a meeting for a wealthy investor with her ex-husband, Prince Andrew: "cash for access". Of course, none of this money is declared to the tax man. You would think that the Duchess would now be the subject of a huge tax investigation, but, no, the tax man isn't interested. If it were you, he'd be all over you like a rash, but it's not you, it's a Duchess, so he does nothing. One rule for the rich, another for the poor. As for cash for access, if you pay the right people, lucrative doors will open for you. If not, you're just a mug on the outside, without a hope or a prayer. Zionists are experts at this game. The Wall Street bankers know which palms to grease. They know which Freemasons to go to, with large briefcases stuffed full of cash.
The Four Systems
There are four basic economic models:
1) Capitalism - winner takes all - excessive rewards for a tiny group (almost always from backgrounds of privilege). "Fuck everyone else."
2) Communism - no winners - everyone gets paid the same, regardless of what they achieve. No rewards for hard work or talent. Ends up as a low-achieving, lazy, lowest common denominator ideology. It is utterly unambitious because there's no point in having any ambition. "Fuck the hard working and the talented."
3) No money - advanced technology meets all needs - Star Trek and the Venus Project.
4) Meritocracy - aspires towards 3), but in the meantime it is a hybrid of communism and capitalism: most people are paid roughly the same; the highest achievers get a healthy amount extra, but their earnings are capped to prevent them from becoming overly financially powerful and being able to use money as a weapon, and all of their money is returned to the Commonwealth at death.
In a meritocracy, the Commonwealth replaces private wealth. All money in private hands is sooner or later returned to the Commonwealth to be reinvested in the people. Dynastic private wealth is eliminated. Greed is eliminated. Elite families that can use their power and wealth to influence world affairs are eliminated. They will simply no longer exist once inheritance taxed is raised to 100%.
So, what's it to be? Will you fight in the trenches alongside the capitalists, the libertarians, the monarchists and the Elite families to defend the principle of private wealth, or will you fight for the Commonwealth - for the people to own and control a nation's wealth, and for that wealth to be used in the interests of all the people regardless of race, sex or background?
The Elite despise the Illuminati for one reason above all others - that, in the name of meritocracy and equal opportunities for all, the Illuminati seek to permanently deprive them of their private wealth, by which they have always controlled the world.
This issue of private wealth is the crux of economics and politics. It is the core of the struggle between the Old World Order and the New World Order.
The Old World Order = enormous private wealth in the hands of the few.
The New World Order = the Commonwealth in the hands of the many.
So, what's it to be?
When the Revolution comes will you be standing with the greedy and the privately wealthy? Or will you be standing with the people against the control of the economy by unaccountable, unelected private individuals who care only about self-enrichment and the glorification and self-interest of their families?
Adam Weishaupt called for the complete eradication of Elite families. That can be achieved by removing all of their private wealth via 100% inheritance tax.
How long will the people tolerate being given no chance in life in order to defend the principle of dynastic private wealth? How stupid can we be?
In the UK, a new "A*" grade has just been introduced in exam marks. It has now been proved that children who attend private schools are three times more likely to achieve this new grade than those from the state education sector. These new grades are playing a vital role in securing places at prestigious universities.
There are two ways to look at this fact. Either privately educated children are genetically more intelligent than those from the state sector, or when a vast amount of money is paid for the best teachers and facilities, it produces the best exam results.
Anyone who receives a state education in the UK is automatically being penalized. The UK is a two-tier society. Those who do not attend private schools are second class citizens. Why do they tolerate it? Why do they keep playing the "perfect game"?
In the Commonwealth, such a situation would be impossible. 1) No privileged education system. 2) Educational equal opportunities will be enshrined in law. Fuck anyone who thinks they have a right to what others can't have. Fuck anyone who thinks they can use money to jump the queue. Fuck anyone who thinks they can buy their way into the best universities.
The Revolution is coming. Smash privilege. Smash private wealth. Smash the Zionist/Masonic control of the economy.
Then the "perfect game" will be over.
Prolefeed
In Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, "prolefeed" is a term used to describe the shallow, trashy books, movies, music and newspapers (containing only sport, sensational crime and astrology) and sentimental songs produced by "Prolesec", a section of the Ministry of Truth whose job is to keep the "proles" sedated, zombified, stultified, stupefied, addicted to junk to ensure they never stray anywhere near knowledge, anywhere near TRUTH. i.e. the Ministry of Truth's function is to lie, just like all of our political leaders, religious leaders , business leaders, and media leaders. Most of Prolesec's output is generated by a machine that needs no human input, such is its formulaic nature (i.e. exactly like most TV shows). "Pornosec" produces hard core porn sent out in sealed brown envelopes to the proles.
Prolefeed is the diet of mental junk that the ruling Party gives to the people to keep them in a state of mass distraction, unable to think or resist. In our time, we call it "popular culture." Social networking is just a new element of the Elite's prolefeed. You can keep five hundred million people in the West occupied every day in checking the latest meaningless garbage posted on Facebook. It's extraordinary how much time people spend on Facebook and how little on anything important…such as changing the world. Imagine lying on your deathbed reflecting on all the time you frittered away on Facebook that you could have spent instead on the health of your soul. But did you even have a soul? Perhaps that's why you paid it such little attention in the first place.
We live in the age of trivia. Most people have no interest in fighting for any cause. They have no values they want to defend. They're just the Roman mob but with gadgets and the Internet to keep them occupied. Bread and circuses - the same old story. The Perfect game goes on.
This is the age of low culture. This is the age of kitsch. This is the age of sentimentality and nostalgia, of fake togetherness, designed to make money for the OWO. This is the age of Reality TV. This is the age of the junk society, the society that craves spectacle, the bigger and dumber the better, and preferably in 3D. There are no real people anymore. They have all become simulacra, bad imitations of real people. Authentic humans no longer exist. The world is full of phoneys, fakes. When people say they're "keeping it real", they have no idea what "real" means. Reality TV "stars" say that they want to show us the "real me". But there is no "me". They have no core, no inner life, no values. They are hollow, empty, shells of people, mass manufactured by our junk culture. All they can show us is what popular culture does to people - it turns them into Lowest Common Denominator units on a production line of synthetic humans, fit only to shop and consume. That's all that's required of you in a capitalist society. Shop till you drop. Where's your spirit?
Go on, keep playing the Perfect Game, because you are the perfect suckers and the game was designed for the likes of you.
You disagree? Well prove it.
Idiots versus Citizens
In ancient Athens, an "idiot" was a self-centered person interested only in private rather than public affairs, hence an ignorant person, lacking knowledge and understanding of the world (from which we derive the modern sense of the word as indicating a stupid person). The opposite of an idiot was a citizen. Everyone was born into ignorance - i.e. as an idiot. Through education, an idiot was converted into a citizen: idiots were born and citizens made.
In the world of today, most people are idiots in the Athenian sense: they are self-centred, apathetic, ill-informed, uninterested in and unable to fulfil the role of citizen.
The task of meritocracy is to bring the Age of the Idiot to an end, and replace it with the age of the active, engaged, informed, positive contributor to society, the true citizen of the meritocratic Republic.
What are you? Look in the mirror. Be honest. Are you an idiot or a citizen? If the former, what are you going to do about it? If the latter, where's your proof?
And so it begins
Photon and his colleagues have carried out The Movement's first "action". Here is a trailer of their demonstration on Friday the 13th 2010 at Independence Hall in Philadelphia (where the Declaration of Independence was signed).
This excellent hyperreal happening sets the standard. Can you match it?
Cells of 3-6 creative, talented, ambitious meritocrats provide the optimal structure for The Movement. Such cells yield tight, supportive, cohesive units where creativity and initiative have maximum opportunity to flourish. There's no need for any command hierarchy; small units perfectly reflect the Round Table paradigm of meritocracy.
A handful of noble Knights can be vastly more effective than huge armies. The Knights Templar often fought in small vanguard units as heroic shock troops to inspire the others.
Are you ready to be a new Templar? Are you ready to join the New Model Army? Can you be one of the tribunes of the people like the Gracchus brothers?
Don't read about history. Make it!
The Meritocracy Party is The Movement's political wing.
The R-Faction is The Movement's activist wing.
Prognosis Entertainment is The Movement's creative wing.
Are you able to help the Movement? Do you have the talent, the commitment, the imagination?
We don't need the jeerers, the cynics, the skeptics, the lazy, the uncreative. Pho's song Red Gnosis spells it out...
Red Gnosis - Pho' (Produced by Vherbal of AnnoDomini Beats)
DID YOU GET THE MESSAGE?
Get with the program or get out.
We need many more people like Photon and his colleagues if we want to light up the dark sky that has hung over humanity unendurably long. If you just want to gripe and bellyache go somewhere else. The Movement cannot succeed unless it ditches the deadwood. Look in the mirror. Are you going somewhere? Or do you want to spend your life finding excuses to do nothing?
What's the prognosis?
That depends on whether The Movement can attract more like Photon who are capable of performing acts of high merit, and fewer of those who have nothing to offer but their insidious negativity.
RED GNOSIS: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, LEAVE.
