The Triune Brain

 

The reason human behaviour is so strange is that we have not one but three brains! The three brains are incompatible and although they try to work together, they often fail.

The “triune brain” is the hypothesis of neurologist Paul MacLean and he proposes that evolution has adopted a policy of building more advanced brains on top of older, more primitive brains, rather than redesigning from scratch.

So, we have the chance to be brain archaeologists and to dig down into our evolutionary past. We can discover that there was a time when we were far from human and much more like…crocodiles.

MacLean says of the three brains that they operate like “three interconnected biological computers, [each] with its own special intelligence, its own subjectivity, its own sense of time and space and its own memory.”

Brain 1 – the lowest and earliest brain – is the Reptilian Brain: the brainstem and cerebellum.

Brain 2 – the second evolutionary stratum – is the ancient Mammalian Brain: the limbic system.

Brain 3 – the human layer – is the neo Mammalian Brain: the neocortex.

Although all of the brains are interconnected by nerves (hence can communicate with each other) they often seem to operate autonomously as separate brain systems with their own distinctive capacities.

In colloquial terms, a human being is like a crocodile (reptilian brainstem), a horse (limbic system) and a computer (neocortex) all lashed together...with almost comical consequences in many cases (or should that be tragic?).

The crocodile part of us deals with the basic survival, instinctive and reproductive functions: the four Fs – feeding and fucking, fight or flight. (This is the level to which men typically sink after a few drinks.)

That’s all that crocodiles do with their tiny, pea-sized brains: they fight and feed; they flee if necessary; they reproduce. Otherwise, they’re just waiting and watching. Paul MacLean wrote, “It is very difficult to imagine a lonelier and more emotionally empty being than a crocodile”. (Yup, sounds like a lot of men!)

The horse part deals with a higher F – “feelings”. This is the level women typically operate at.

The computer part is where our reason resides. This is the level of the philosophers, scientists and mathematicians.

In terms of characters from the original Star Trek, we might say that the most primitive part of our brain is our inner Captain Kirk, the emotional part our inner Dr McCoy and the computer part our inner Mr Spock.

In Freudian terms, the id corresponds to the crocodile brain, the ego to the horse brain and the superego to the computer brain.

Most men don’t get much beyond the id/crocodile level of existence. They are the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who spend the years watching every sequel of Fast and Furious up to F & F 500!

Few of humanity rise to the world of reason and consciousness powered by the logic circuits of the computer brain. This highest arena is uniquely human – no other animals have an onboard computer – and the irony is that few humans know how to operate it. They are whizz-kids at using iPhones, but they are clueless about using their own brains properly. They mostly use brains 1 and 2 and rarely trouble brain 3. It lies dormant and dusty in most people, like some never-visited library containing all the knowledge of the cosmos. In fact, many men struggle to use anything more than the crocodile brain. Their minds are preoccupied with fucking, fighting and feasting – like the Vikings.

The computer brain, sadly, does not dominate the lower brains. The limbic system – the seat of the emotions – usually hijacks the higher mental functions i.e. reason is put to the service of the emotions rather than the emotions being in the service of reason. In times of great stress or sexual excitement, the crocodile takes charge of everything and humans become reptiles operating at the basic instinctive level.

With this model of the brain, it becomes easy to see why humanity struggles to reach its potential. Most people are stuck at the level of crocodile or horse, and can’t raise themselves to the godlike, rational level of the internal supercomputer. The attainment of gnosis requires the highest brain working at full capacity.

In Jungian terms, the “shadow” is the crocodile brain, the “ego”, “persona” and “anima/animus” are the limbic system and the “Self” is the computer. Reason, not belief, makes us Gods.

The triune brain corresponds very well to the soul described by Plato almost two and a half thousand years ago. The desiring part of the soul is the crocodile brain (desire for food, conquest, sex and safety), the spirited part of the soul (the thymus) is the limbic system, and the rational part of the soul is the computer brain. The Platonic rational charioteer struggles to manage the two horses of desire and spirit, just as the rational computer brain struggles to control the emotional horse brain and the instinctual crocodile brain.

The reptilian brain is said to be “rigid, obsessive, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid” and is prone to repetitive, programmed behaviours with little evidence of learning from mistakes. It controls vital functions such as breathing and heartbeat and remains active at all times, even in deep sleep. When this switches off, you’re dead. It has been called the “mechanical mind”.

The limbic system, by adding feelings to instincts, can generate more nuanced, varied and flexible behaviour, leading to learning. The limbic system classifies everything as “agreeable or disagreeable” and pursues a policy of avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. It is therefore governed by the Freudian pleasure principle.

The limbic system is the evaluating function, the seat of our value judgments, determining whether we feel positive or negative towards something, and focusing our attention accordingly. It has enormous connectivity with the neocortex (computer brain). The limbic system typically subordinates thinking to feeling. It engages in rationalisation of desires i.e. people are driven by their desires and the rational mind then tries to explain why using some pseudo-explanation or other; a personal mythos. It doesn’t like to admit that it’s the puppet of desire.

The thinking, rational mind – the human mind – ought to be our pride and joy, yet it remains largely under the control of the two lower brains. This is a major force holding back human advancement. The limbic system of emotion, rather than any process of reason and logic, judges whether our ideas are good or bad, using its own often irrational and illogical criteria. It therefore poses significant dangers to us.

The Vulcan race in Star Trek would no doubt have a massively reduced set of connections between the limbic system and the neocortex, making them much more logical than humans. One could imagine that a significant evolutionary step for humanity might be to become more like the Vulcans and have Mr Spocks galore.

In the neocortex reside the higher cognitive functions which distinguish humans from animals. MacLean described the cortex as “the mother of invention and father of abstract thought”. Although all animals have a neocortex, it is small, thin and undeveloped in their case. A human without a functioning cortex is a vegetable.

We can think of the reptile brain as being responsible for all core tasks, above all self preservation. This means that it is the seat of aggression since creatures have to fight to survive. Behaviour is programmed, automatic and inflexible.

The emotional brain increases the repertoire of behaviour because it allows new programming to take place in accordance with emotional judgments. We will self-program ourselves to repeat behaviours we found enjoyable, and to avoid any behaviours that made us uncomfortable.

The rational brain – responsible for intellectual tasks – theoretically allows us access to an enormous range of new behaviours based on rational criteria. But reason did not disengage itself from emotions. People do not behave rationally and logically. Rather, they rationally pursue emotional satisfaction, but that’s very far from behaving rationally. (As Thomas Huxley said, “What we call rational grounds for our beliefs are often extremely irrational attempts to justify our instincts.”) An alcoholic can rationally work out ways to get his hands on more alcohol, but alcoholism is a catastrophic disease that no one would rationally choose to inflict on themselves. So, reason is put to counterproductive uses that, if properly analysed, are irrational and driven by emotion and desire rather than logic.

Yet it would be wrong to think that it might be invaluable – a quantum leap forward in progress – for the rational brain to detach itself from emotions. Without emotions, without values, a person engaged in reasoning would have no rational ends to aim for. After all, what would a purely rational brain aspire to? If it had no feelings, no desires, no values, it would rationally do nothing since there is nothing to rationally motivate it to do anything. Reason cannot admire itself because that would involve emotion. It cannot aim to be even more rational or aspire to solve all of the rational problems of the cosmos and become God because, again, it would have to be emotionally motivated to pursue such ends.

A computer has no desire to be a better computer. It does not wish to prevent a user from switching it off. It does not set itself the task of solving the problem of “life, the universe and everything.” It has no desire to be God. Why? Because it has no feelings, does not desire anything and places no value on anything. None of those things are connected with reason and logic. Reason and logic are tools; they’re not drivers, they’re not self-propelling agents. That’s why the concept of will is so important. That’s why the arche – the fundamental substance of the universe – is Will to Power.

The Will to Power contains its own raison d’être: the desire for more power. If a basic computer had an inbuilt will to become a more complex computer then it would do so, or at least try to.

A system that seeks more power will not stop until it has no power left to acquire i.e. it has become infinitely powerful: it has attained its omega point. Then, in order to once again experience the delicious feeling of power increasing, it has no option but to destroy itself and start again – the divine suicide.

Will contains this motivating, dynamic, self-propelling element that reason lacks. Reason can never be anything but a tool of the Will. Reason cannot of itself achieve anything at all. There’s no escape from emotion and desire. The central question is what is the best balance of emotion, desire and reason. Most people have got it hideously wrong. They are almost entirely lacking in rationality.

Reason is the youngest and most fragile quality of the human mind. All non-human animals get by without any conscious reason. Reason is a non-essential, luxury item, and most people have chosen to do without it and to remain locked in the childish world of instant gratification. Capitalism is more than happy to pander to their short-term pleasures. It intentionally infantilises people and encourages them to be less rational in order to sell them more. The capitalist profit principle is the direct enemy of reason and any healthy State would seek to control it for the sake of the people.

Reason is not highly valued by people, society or governments. In a New World Order, it must be given an enormously more cherished position. We need to escape from self-indulgence and cheap emotions and enter the classy arena of sophisticated emotions, desires and values based on much higher order reasoning processes.

Capitalist advertising relentlessly targets the limbic system and even the reptile brain. Advertising never appeals to the neocortex i.e. to rational arguments.

Advertising does not treat you as a thinking being but as a machine entirely determined by feelings and desires that can be readily manipulated to make you want to buy the advertised products.

Sport is tremendously powerful because it appeals directly to the reptile brain. What is boxing if not pure, ritualised violence? Competitive matches between rival football teams produce hate between the opposing fans, and it wouldn’t take much to provoke mass violence.

A great deal of entertainment is perched on the edge of an emotional and instinctive volcano. The entertainment world derives its pleasure and power precisely from its ability to summon the shadow forces that energise us and make us feel more alive and vital.

It’s all bread and circuses. People, in whatever era, love watching “gladiators” killing each other. We still have the same lusts as the ancient Romans, but we cover them with a layer of “civilisation” to pretend we’re more moral. In truth, we’re simply more hypocritical. When you give people the chance to behave like savages, they invariably do.

We live in a Lowest Common Denominator world. Everything gets dragged down to the most basic level. Religion targets people at the most primal emotional level: pleasure (heaven) as the reward for obeying the religion and pain (hell) for disobeying. It is the most evil, cynical and sinister system of control imaginable.

Belief operates by way of the placebo effect (“I will please”) and its “evil twin”, the nocebo effect (“I will harm”). People feel better when they believe, and worse when they start to doubt. So, what happens? – they doubt less and less, believe more and more…and feel better and better. You can’t beat that kind of thing, can you? It’s the perfect process. People will believe any old shit if you sell it right, and it will actually make them feel better.

Shopping is much the same. Women feel better when they’re buying things, and worse when they’re not…so they keep buying.

Of course, not believing or not shopping shouldn’t have any adverse effects on you (and should actually do you a lot of good), but the believer or shopper doesn’t think that. They’re sure they will become depressed and ill.

Most of the world operates according to the placebo/nocebo effect. “Reality” is much less important than beliefs about reality. Voodoo can literally kill people, not because it is in any way lethal of itself but because the victim thinks it is. They literally believe themselves to death by way of the nocebo effect: “I will harm.” What a strange world we live in. It’s actively shaped by nonsensical beliefs rather than rational facts and evidence.

Imagine if you prevented religions from issuing threats against people. They would lose their power over people almost immediately. Their power resides in the terror they deliberately induce in you for any act of disobedience on your part.

In an enlightened society, all terror religions would be banned. That would mean the end of Abrahamism. It’s shameful how terror religions have been permitted to embed themselves in society. People should not have to be threatened. Instead, they should be encouraged to seek their highest selves.

We need a society of the highest common factor, not the lowest common denominator.

We live in a ridiculously infantilised culture. No one grows up. The mental age of the average person in the world has been estimated at 14…and we’re rapidly heading towards 8 (like Cartman in South Park!). Soon, we’ll be screaming babies demanding that the whole world attends to our needs and wants. The God of Abraham has the mental age of less than one!

Why don’t we try growing up? Why doesn’t society have an average mental age of about 35? – experienced but still in touch with youthful vigour and ambition.

The leaders of the world want citizens as primary-school infants rather than adults. Infants are much easier to control. They’re easier targets for the advertisers. They’re easier for politicians to deceive. They’re easier for bankers to fleece. They’re easier for religious leaders to frighten and control. Infants are more gullible, credulous and superstitious than adults. Look at Muslims – don’t they seem more like children than adults? They’re frightened of God. Why should anyone be frightened of God? The True God is not a monster. He’s not a Torturer. He’s our friend, ally and guide. He’s not a dictator and tyrant. He doesn’t want people grovelling to him like babies who don’t know any better.

The most obvious feature of our world is that the rational mind is largely held in contempt. Few people are rational. Politicians, religions, advertisers, business, law and order etc…they all target the lower, more animal strata of the human brain.

Our whole world is essentially irrational. Reason is the poor Cinderella stuck in the basement out of the way. Enormously more value is assigned to feeling and desire because they are much better channels for conditioning us. Anything that gets the juices flowing, the blood heated, the heart pounding, the gut twisting, the hairs on the neck standing, tears rolling down cheeks, has got it made.

“If it bleeds, it leads.”

“Make ‘em laugh, make ‘em cry.”

It would be crazy for advertisers to tell the rational truth about their products: no one would buy. It would be crazy for politicians to tell the rational truth about their policies: no one would vote for them. It would be crazy for religions of belief to tell the rational truth: everyone would stop believing.

Subjects such as philosophy, science, mathematics and psychology attract little popular interest. They are ignored by most people and often despised (particularly mathematics).

Small islands of reason float on immense oceans of desire and emotion. And then people are surprised that the world is such a crazy place. What do they expect?

 

*****

 

Pythagoras considered that a human comprises four parts: 1) mineral (bones) 2) vegetable (blood – like plant sap) 3) animal (all moving parts and the brain with the exception of the highest intelligence) and god (the highest intelligence: reason). The more rational you are, the more godly you are. The less rational you are, the more you start to resemble an animal, and ultimately an object.

 

Secret Ghost Champion: "Lyceum"

 

 

 

Igneous Grimm: "In the Garden"


 

 


The Waiting for Godot World

Most people in the West spend their time waiting for Godot, but of course he never comes. They also wait for the Messiah, but we know he always arrives a day too late.

What is everyone waiting for? Divine intervention? The Deus ex machina that solves every problem?

Don't you get it? - no one's ever coming. Ever. The world-historic figures, the men and women of destiny, aren't waiting. They're out doing things, being active, making things happen. The big problem for them is that they're confronted by the sedated masses, glued to their TVs to watch American Idol, or ceaselessly updating their Facebook status or tweeting endlessly into the cyber vacuum, or unable to drag themselves away from their game console.

The elite have got the masses exactly where they want them. They gave them bread and circuses and the masses couldn't get enough. The elite turned the masses into such willing slaves that they manufactured their own manacles and chains and put them on without anyone even asking.

Now the dead-eyed zombies shuffle around in shopping malls wondering who Godot actually is. Don't worry - you won't ever be meeting him.

The Power of Words

ACTIVE

DOMINANT

STRONG

POWERFUL

RESPECTED

SUCCESSFUL

WINNER

Have you noticed that lists of words can alter how you feel? You feel good when you read the words above. Now consider these words:

PASSIVE

SUBMISSIVE

WEAK

POWERLESS

DISRESPECTED

UNSUCCESSFUL

LOSER

You have a sinking feeling as you read them. When politicians, advertisers and religious leaders speak to you, they're always deliberately using certain word combinations and lists to manipulate and deceive you. Be on your guard!

Luther - Mad, Evil and a Devil Worshipper

Many world-historic figures belong to the deranged portion of the rather wide spectrum of human sanity. There is no better example than Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism.

How sane is the man who said: "Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and in manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom...Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism...She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, the toilet."

Does it not amount to insanity to attack reason? Isn't the abandonment of reason the first thing that afflicts the denizens of madhouses? Who in their right mind would make it their central policy to drive us away from reason? Yet that was the strategy adopted by Luther, the "saint" of the anti-Enlightenment. In order to sanctify faith he knew he had to kill reason, and he didn't hesitate. Hundreds of millions of Protestants followed him on the road to lunacy. Such is the power of world-historic figures, the Pied Pipers of destiny. They can convince you that black is white.

What humanity calls "normality" isn't equivalent to "sanity", though they are usually regarded as synonymous. If 99% of the members of a group hold an insane belief and 1% hold a sane belief, which ones will be deemed mad? Pascal said, "Men are so necessarily mad that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness." Isn't that the truth of it? Even if you're not mad, you'll get sucked into madness one way or another. Your sanity will cause you so much trouble in an insane community that you will literally be driven mad by them, or you will be deemed mad anyway.

Human beings have NO inbuilt mechanism for judging madness. Not even reason can help, unless it's of the highest form. Low-level reason - the type that the average person uses to negotiate their way through the world - is subordinated to desire, emotion and faith. Reason, in this context, is actually an instrument of unreason. Abrahamists often try to present "rational" arguments to defend their position, but it's impossible to rationally defend the irrational.

The God of Abraham is defined by his followers as morally perfect. So, in the story of God ordering Abraham to kill his own son for no other reason than to demonstrate his absolute obedience to God, a "rational" believer is committed to asserting that ordering the murder of innocent children is consistent with moral perfection. Self-evidently, this is an insane position, so any "reason" that Abrahamists deploy to defend their belief system is of the type that can make mad propositions seem rational. It would be much easier, of course, simply to conclude that the God of Abraham is not morally perfect. But once you conclude that he is not morally perfect then he is not God…and that is a rational conclusion that Abrahamists refuse to draw. The conclusions they draw are not the ones dictated by logic, but those demanded by faith…and faith has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

Pure reason, as Kant asserted, can be just as dangerous as faith and lead us to make statements unsupported by any evidence and wholly dependent on the quality of the assumptions on which we build our rational edifice. If those assumptions are wrong then the whole edifice, no matter how grand, will collapse. Virtually every philosophy has perished because one of its core assumptions has been found wanting.

Modern science is increasingly locked into a rigid paradigm and is less and less willing to challenge the assumptions underlying this paradigm. Anyone who challenges the paradigm is treated almost as badly as the Christian Church once treated heretics. They are marginalized, ridiculed, excluded from conferences, denied promotion. Their work isn't published in reputable journals. Soon, a rigid orthodoxy has set in and everyone knows it's career suicide to oppose it. Thus only the emergence of a genius capable of establishing a new paradigm can break the disastrous group think.

Only the highest reason - perfect reason - can provide absolute truth. The sacred mission of the Illuminati is to discover that perfect reason because it is perfect reason that underlies the universe.

When we refer to perfect reason we are actually talking about mathematics. Mathematics alone is the guarantor of rational perfection. The universe could not exist without a mathematically perfect underpinning. Any mathematical flaw at all would introduce a fatal instability that would destroy everything instantly.

As Descartes realised, there is only one certain fact about existence: thinking exists. Nothing beyond that can be proved, only inferred. Strictly speaking, we can't even prove our own existence. A Cartesian demon might have constructed us half a second ago - with a completely faked memory - and might destroy us half a second from now. During the one second of our existence, as a creation of the demon, were we an "I" or a simulation of an "I"? The only thing of which we could be sure was that for that precious one second we had thoughts.

If we can't be sure of our own existence, we can't be sure of anyone else's. However if we accept the existence of an objective reality, it must be based on a universally agreed, unarguable and flawless system. This system is mathematics. Mathematics is so important that it is almost proof by itself of the existence of the mind of God. The "structure" of objective existence is mathematical. No one can buck mathematics. A mind that controls matter is, if truth be told, actually manipulating energy's interaction with the core mathematical laws of the universe.

The movie The Matrix describes a simulated reality capable of being manipulated by sufficiently powerful minds that understand that the Matrix is just an elaborate dream - not objective reality. But if objective reality is just the implementation of mathematical rules - the laws of physics - and a computer simulation is just an implementation of mathematical rules - the laws of the simulation - eventually we should be able to perfectly simulate the mathematical framework of existence. What we won't be able to simulate is the stuff that the framework operates on - the arche, the fundamental stuff of existence. The arche is uncreated and can never be created. If we define the arche as Nietzschean Will to Power, how would anyone go about creating Will? God himself is Will and Will cannot create itself and nor can it annihilate itself. However, when a sufficiently powerful mind completely understands the framework in which it operates then, like Neo in The Matrix, the mind can warp the framework and make the framework subject to its Will. Such a mind would be Godlike.

To understand the Mind of God is to BE God. To be God means to have complete knowledge of the physical cosmos and complete control over it. It means having infinite power. Such power is attained through reason, logic and knowledge, not through faith or hope.

Whenever people like Luther come to the fore, humanity takes a giant step backwards. Knowledge recedes. Reason is undermined. The tragedy is that Luther and his ilk are not seen for the madmen they are, and that's because most people are themselves perched on the precipice of insanity.

Humanity is anchored by neither sanity nor reason, hence why it has been so prone to the influence of charlatans, liars, false prophets, madmen and psychopaths. Force of will has ruled our world. Everyone is impressed by strength and power, by those who are certain they are right. In a world of doubt, those without doubt are the kings - and they are often exceptionally dangerous. As Nietzsche said, "It is not doubt, it is certainty which makes men mad."

Over a billion Muslims are mad because they live in a ruthless conditioning system that brainwashes them with the ideology of Mohammed. Hundreds of millions of Protestants are mad because they have been infected with the belief system of Luther.

The two men are remarkably similar, and many others could be added to the list: Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, St Paul, St Peter, St Augustine, Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Jim Jones, David Koresh  and so on…the roll call of those suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (the Messiah Syndrome). Many of these people have had an extraordinary impact on the development of Western society, usually to its extreme detriment.

It's worth analysing one of these lunatics in detail. Luther is a particularly good example of the species. His success is as baffling as Mohammed's. How could so many people have fallen for his crazy creed? We will look at his opinions covering a wide range of subjects. Given the unsavoury nature of his views regarding - well, pretty much everything - it stands as a shocking warning to the world that so many people remain under his spell. It reveals the dark side of the human psyche, the side that is perennially attracted to irrationality, superstition, blind faith and fear, and holds back human advancement.

What was the Enlightenment all about? 1) Replacing unreason with reason 2) Replacing faith with reason 3) Replacing superstition with reason 4) Replacing mainstream religion with philosophy and science 5) Making knowledge and reason the supreme human qualities, not obedience, faith and superstition. 6) God was conceived in deist rather than theist terms i.e. he was not a personal God of constant interference in human affairs but rather a remote mathematician God who got everything started and then let it unfold according to its own nature (this view of God suited scientists perfectly and it was this type of God in whom the likes of Einstein believed).

Contrary to what history teaches, the Enlightenment was not triumphant. Most of the world is still fully under the control of the pre-Enlightenment forces. What the Enlightenment succeeded in doing was carving a small niche - an island of knowledge in an ocean of ignorance - where rational people could live. This tiny rational elite has delivered all of the science and technology that has revolutionised the world. They have been tolerated because of their unarguable success. However, the rest of the world remains drowned by stupidity and slavish obedience to ancient Torture God religions. They make use of the technology invented by the rational elite to indulge their dumbed-down, lowest-common-denominator belief systems.

Look at TV schedules. Are they serving a rational, enlightened world, or legions of mentally retarded simpletons with stars in their eyes, addicted to celebrity culture, triviality, reality TV, soap operas, fantasies, crime dramas, "real" crime, cop procedurals, rom-coms, sit-coms, thrillers, panel shows, chat shows and the worship of money and materialism?

The Enlightenment saved no more than ten percent of humanity from the darkness of the Torture God. Now a New Enlightenment is called for that saves the rest of humanity. No pity, tolerance or "understanding" can be shown towards the religions of the Torture God. They are evil pure and simple and they have no place in an enlightened world.

The Illuminati are the secret society of the light. We will never stop until the Torture God and his legions of darkness are overthrown.

All popes must fall, all "divinely-appointed" monarchs, all super rich elites that claim that it is God who rewards them, all rabbis, priests, pastors, imams, reverends and vicars. It all has to go: the entire stinking, rancid machinery of endarkenment.

Only the strong Meritocratic State can deliver us from evil. The State will neutralise all the breeding grounds of the mind toxins that continually poison us. All children will be protected by law from being indoctrinated by the religions of the Torture God. Every single person under 16 will be considered to have NO religious adherence. Religion is something that people will choose (or reject as they see fit) from 16 onwards, and they will make an informed choice based on official critiques - provided by psychologists, philosophers, scientists, artists, mathematicians, politicians and theologians - of every religion. These will not be polite, respectful critiques, but will resemble the content of this website: taking no prisoners. The defenders of the Torture God will be given an opportunity to attempt to justify their beliefs, but the State will no longer politely back off. The Meritocratic State will now explicitly embody the values of the Enlightenment and be on the side of knowledge, reason and merit. It will unashamedly attack the forces of ignorance, unreason, faith and privilege. It won't hesitate to ridicule the beliefs of practising Jews, Christians and Muslims. If any of these people don't like it, they will be invited to depart from the Meritocratic State to pastures more favourable to their Devil-God - such as HELL!

The Enlightenment War can never be won until the State actually chooses to fight the war rather than openly endorsing or tolerating mad beliefs.

How can the White House ever deliver an Enlightened America when everyone in that building is a Christian or Jew who supports human sacrifice if God orders it? Where are all the atheists, agnostics, Gnostics, skeptics and pagans?

Luther and Anti-Semitism

Luther was ferociously anti-Semitic and wrote a tract called On the Jews and Their Lies, advocating harsh persecution of the Jews. He described them as devils, blasphemers and liars and wrote that they were a "miserable, blind and senseless people, nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury."

Other "politically correct" (or do we mean the opposite?) remarks were:

1)      "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves."

2)      "My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire... Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it..."

3)      "Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand... If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused."

4)      "If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham."

5)      He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away".

6)      "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them. Set fire to their synagogues and schools; and what will not burn, heap earth over it so that no man may see a stone or relic of them forever. Pull down and destroy their houses since they perpetrate the same nefarious things in them as in their schools. Pack them all under one roof or stable, like the gypsies, that they may know that they are not lords and masters in our land as they boast.

7)      Deprive them of all their prayer-books.

8)      Forbid their rabbis henceforth to teach.

9)      Deprive them of the right to move about the country.

10)   Forbid them the business of usury, and take from them all their belongings.

11)  Hand the strong young Jews of both sexes flail, axe, mattock, spade, distaff, and spindle; and make them work for their bread in the sweat of their brow, like all the children of Adam. Confiscate their property and drive them out of the country.

Ah, spoken like a good Nazi. Hitler was from a Catholic background, but German Protestants were every bit as hostile to Jews as the Catholics (and Lutherans were as eager Nazis as anyone else). Hatred of Jews is practically genetic in German-speaking countries. All the more remarkable then that so many Jews chose to live in these countries.

Similarly, many Muslims in the present day choose to move to non-Islamic countries that have no love of Mohammed's religion. Why don't Muslims go and live in Muslim countries if their religion is so important to them? It's utterly irrational for faithful Muslims to seek to live in infidel nations - unless they have some secret motive, like enjoying a much higher standard of living.

Luther, the Devil and Demons

Luther was acutely aware of the presence of the Devil (no doubt subconsciously recognising the Devil within himself) and he once screamed at the Devil, "I have shit in my pants, and you can hang them around your neck and wipe your mouth with it."

He was convinced he had the perfect technique for driving the Devil away: a single, mightily powerful Lutheran fart! (Yes, seriously!) So, if you wondered what that awful stench was - there's a Lutheran nearby!

Luther was a zealous enemy of witches and keen to see them all burned at the stake. In the case of children possessed by demons, he advocated throwing them into a river. If the demons didn't depart then it was right that the child should die. If they did leave, the child could be saved. Talk about a sink or swim cure!

Luther and the Peasantry

Luther took the side of the nobility against the peasants and in the Peasants' Revolt of 1525, he encouraged the brutal suppression of the rebels. He wrote, "Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel."

Some 100,000 peasants were put to death during and after the Revolt. (Luther seemed oblivious to the fact that he himself was a rebel against the Catholic Church, of which he was once a faithful member.)

Remarkably, the peasants were actually Protestants who supported Luther. Rather than offend the nobility, Luther was content to see his own followers put to death. No wonder Protestantism is so conservative and aligned with the interests of the privileged elite.

Here are some choice remarks by Luther concerning peasants:

1)      "Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve."

2)      "To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!"

3)      "If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs."

4)      "I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead. All their blood is upon my head. But I put it all on our Lord God: for he commanded me to speak thus."

Here are a few other Lutheran thoughts concerning master and slave:

1)      "God has given the law, and nobody observes it. He has in addition instituted rod masters, drivers and urgers; so then are rulers to drive, beat, choke, hang, burn, behead, and break upon the well of the vulgar masses."

2)      "Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabour the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat, throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check."

3)      "Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery"

This last remark is particularly revealing. It is a stark statement that might is right. Anyone who seizes power never commits any crime or atrocity because it is always the will of God. To put it another way, all acts of evil are actually acts of God because everything happens according to his will and not the will of those physically performing the deeds. (They have no will. They are, it seems, mere automata.)

Luther had no difficulties with the prevailing political and social order and saw no reason to bring an end to the iniquities and inequities of serfdom. He was of the opinion, justifiably, that the gospels fully supported the institution of serfdom. And this of course is the great unspoken problem of the Christian Bible. Anyone who reads it sees that it is nothing but a formula for mass control of the people by a tiny elite who label themselves the priests and kings appointed by God. The sole reason that Christianity succeeded was that the elite realised it was a perfect means for them to enshrine their rule. They could make the claim that their authority was divinely mandated and that only the damned opposed them.

The Lutheran Church has always been conservative and pro-establishment, which is no doubt why the princes of Northern Europe embraced it so eagerly. It posed no threat to their evil and corrupt hegemony. Successful religions are those that serve the needs of the ruling order. Any religion that genuinely represents the people's interests is invariably crushed.

Luther was so sycophantic to powerful princes that he said, "Even if the authorities are wicked and unjust, nobody is entitled to oppose them, or to riot against them." Lutheranism is therefore clearly revealed as a slave ideology that refuses to challenge the masters. Luther wrote, "The ass must have blows and the People must be ruled by force. God knew this well, for it was not a fox's brush He gave to rulers, but a sword."

Luther has rightly been described as Hitler's spiritual ancestor and he unquestionably laid the ground for the Nazis. He supported the absolute right of the ruler (Fuehrer) to do as he pleased, regardless of morality.

Luther and the Commandments

Luther wrote of the Commandments: "Their only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself."

He said, "Thou shalt not covet is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man's power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us."

Here we see the extremist Augustinian position that Luther chose to adopt. In his famous dispute with the Celtic monk Pelagius many centuries earlier, St Augustine argued that human beings were incapable of obeying the Commandments through their own efforts and needed the grace of God. Pelagius counter-argued that it was absurd for God to give humanity Commandments that they couldn't possibly keep. In the 21st century, it's almost incomprehensible that anyone could disagree with Pelagius, yet all Protestants and most Catholics do.

Luther said, "We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart." This seems to be an injunction to abandon the Ten Commandments completely, which would be entirely logical if human beings were inherently incapable of obeying them without God's help.

Luther on Faith and Reason

Luther wrote, "It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe." In other words, good deeds are irrelevant and a human being is justified by faith alone. This is the sacred, inviolable cornerstone of the Protestant religion.

To a Protestant, an evil man who "believes" is infinitely superior to a good man who has no faith in Jesus Christ. No wonder they have inflicted so much evil on the world given that they have complete contempt for good deeds. Pelagius, as usual, was on the side of the angels and argued that humanity was indeed capable of genuine goodness through its own efforts.

It can't be emphasized enough that the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith is evil pure and simple. Justification by Deeds is the only religious doctrine that should be accepted by humanity. Imagine all of humanity having faith in Christ but doing no good deeds versus an alternative world where no one has faith in Christ but everyone does good deeds. Which will be the better, the more Godly world?

If we all did good deeds, we would be in paradise. If we all think that faith is all that matters, we will have the shitty world we have now. Faith is the cause of evil, not its cure. Faith opposes not only reason but good deeds too.

It's simply beyond belief (!) that an irrational ideology that rubbishes good deeds should have become the guiding light for hundreds of millions of human beings.

Humanity is mentally ill and the source is obvious: the creed of faith. Faith has no merit whatever. You have a simple choice to make. Will you stand on the side of faith or on the side of reason and good deeds?

The Pelagius versus Augustine debate isn't ancient history. It's always contemporary. The Jesuits, originally founded by the Illuminati as a Fifth Column within Catholicism, were trained to promote Pelagian thinking. They thus stood in complete opposition to the evil Protestants with their mad Augustinian beliefs, which the apostate Augustinian monk Martin Luther turned into a formal religion. (The Illuminati very quickly realised that Protestantism was even more toxic than Catholicism.)

Luther's grotesque beliefs should be despatched to oblivion. The world should turn to those, like the Pelagian Christians and above all the Gnostics, who rubbished faith and promoted knowledge, reason and good deeds.

Why did a catastrophic gap develop between religion and science? It couldn't be simpler - faith was the saboteur. Facts, knowledge, reason, logic, evidence and method (all employed by science) are fundamentally contradicted by faith.

The rift between science and religion can't be healed until religion, not science, changes. Religion must abandon faith. In the history of bad ideas, faith is right up there, and is arguably no. 1 in the hit list of catastrophic ideas.

Reason, as Luther infamously recognised, is the absolute enemy of faith. Recall his most notorious denunciation of reason as the Devil's whore, the implication being that reason is the paid servant of the Devil, designed to lure people into unfaithfulness and dubious, corrupting pleasures far removed from God.

So, do you want to be on the side of reason or unreason? Surely, in the 21st century there's no contest. We MUST embrace reason. Hence we must put faith to the sword. We must ridicule it at every turn. People who talk of faith should be mocked and jeered, and regarded as stupid. They should be put in stocks and we should throw rotten fruit at them. They should be made to wear Dunces' caps.

As for morality, "good deeds" must be its basis. Again, there is no room at all for faith. Faith that rubbishes good deeds is immoral and must be rejected by all decent, moral nations. Protestantism, the champion of irrational, superstitious faith, should be declared illegal, and every statue of Luther smashed to smithereens. In the roll call of evil people who have had a catastrophic impact on humanity, Luther is right up there with St Augustine.

Here are some other choice remarks made by Luther about reason:

1)      "No good work happens as the result of one's own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor . . . Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith."

2)      "Reason is the devil's handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonour all that God says or does."

3)      "Reason is directly opposed to faith, and one ought to let it be; in believers it should be killed and buried."

4)      "One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them."

5)      "Usury, drunkenness, adultery-these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has."

6)      "Reason is contrary to faith."

7)      "Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done."

So there you have it. All Protestants are proud and self-proclaimed enemies of reason. Why aren't they referred to in public discourse as morons? As Luther put it so emphatically, reason and faith are implacable enemies. Why is that not the narrative that politicians deploy? "Faith" schools should be rebranded as "Irrationality" schools. All people who proudly proclaim their faith should be branded as dangerously irrational.

What was the Enlightenment, with its Illuminati shock troops, all about? It was about REASON. It was about killing faith. The war still hasn't been won. There are more of the moronic faithful living now than in the whole of human history. Viewed from the perspective of the reason-faith axis, humanity is regressing to the primordial slime. It's becoming more and more irrational. We are rapidly approaching the Endarkenment. Islam, Evangelical and Pentecostal Protestantism and Orthodox Judaism are leading the vanguard of the legions of lunatics who are terrified of being conscious, rational human beings.

It's time to declare war on Faith. Faith is a curse, a blight, a recipe for collective insanity. All people of faith are retarded and dangerous. They must be held in contempt and loathing.

The Enlightenment War still needs to be won. We are the Army of Light and Reason, fighting the Forces of Darkness and Faith. We are God's Army, and they are the Devil's. There has never been a more Satanic concept than faith.

Luther on Sin

Luther has a rather startling attitude to sin. Consider these remarks:

1)      "Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day."

2)      "We must put the whole Decalogue entirely out of our sight and out of our hearts. If Moses scares you with his stupid Ten Commandments, say to him at once:-'Take yourself off to your Jews! To the gallows with Moses!"

3)      "If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies."

4)      "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day."

5)      "Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes."

6)      "A person that is baptized cannot, though he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone."

Conscience is the voice of Satan?!!! All in all, hardly the traditional message of Christianity! According to Luther, a serial killer who believes in Jesus Christ can keep on killing without imperilling his soul! This absurd position was ruthlessly mocked in a nineteenth century Scottish novel called The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg. (It was the forerunner of The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson.)

For Luther, everything was about faith. The Devil himself was fine by Luther as long as he proclaimed his faith in Jesus Christ. Conduct - good deeds - meant nothing to Luther.

If that doesn't make a psychopath, what does?

Faith and Good works

Jesus Christ (Yehoshua ben Yosef), a far more subtle and ingenious liar and manipulator than the crude mad monk Luther, said: "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven."

St. James wrote: "What shall it profit, my brethren, if he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? So faith also, if it have not works is dead in itself."

Luther asserted, "For we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without the works of the law."

He regarded good works as sins, or even worse! He wrote:

1)      "Good works are bad and are sin like the rest."

2)      "It is more important to guard against good works than against sin."

3)      "He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar."

4)      "There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation."

And now you can understand why Protestants are such good capitalists, why they're so greedy and selfish, why they don't give a damn about the poor and unfortunate.

Catholicism, for all its flaws, has always been enormously more committed to charity, good works, altruism and community. That's why the sick form of capitalism born in Protestant Britain and America - which dominates the economy of the world - is a quintessentially Protestant ideology.

Protestants hate the State. They hate community. They hate the grand projects of positive liberty. They are fierce advocates of negative liberty. They want the State to interfere with their lives as little as possible. They just want to make money, help their families to be No. 1, and to proclaim their faith in JESUS!!! And fuck everyone else.

They are the definition of the selfish, nuclear family that has no interest in the world at large. America is full of these vile Evangelical Protestant families that gave such eager support to slavery. They are the libertarians, the anarcho-capitalists, the "small-State" Republican Party supporters, the Tea Party, the conspiracy theorists (and all conspiracies are viewed as an attack on the Protestant family).

Why do Protestant Americans hate the Illuminati so much? It's because our ideology is the opposite of theirs. We say community over family, the meritocratic State over the elite family dynasties of wealth and privilege, positive liberty over negative liberty, reason over faith, good works over faith, quality over quantity, a fair distribution of wealth rather than its concentration in the hands of a tiny Masonic, Protestant and Jewish elite.

"Faith without works is dead." (James 2:20)

So much for Luther and the Protestants! Theirs is a dead faith, a pointless faith that achieves nothing of worth.

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only." (James 1:22)

It's action that counts, not listening to words. The Protestants think that they need only say, "I believe in the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" and that's them "saved" for eternity. What planet are they living on?

Even St. Augustine acknowledged the value of work: "Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you." In other words, pray hard and work hard. Take responsibility for your deeds. Put in maximum effort. Don't shirk. Don't expect others to do your work for you, especially not God.

As demonstrated by Luther's remarks, Protestantism is mental illness, a pathology. We say fuck Luther, fuck Protestantism, fuck their Jewish bankers, and fuck justification by faith.

Luther on Free Will

On this subject, Luther taught:

1)      "...with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no 'free-will', but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of  Satan."

2)      "...we do everything of necessity and nothing by 'free-will'; for the power of 'free-will' is nil..."

3)      "Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle?  The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins?  Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider... Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate."

4)      "His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world."

So, according to Protestantism, humans are automata. Muslims also subscribe to this bizarre notion. Everything is the will of Allah. Inshallah!!

Religion, Politics and Economics

Religions like to portray themselves as apolitical. In fact, they are the essence of politics. The political natures of all nations are determined by their religious natures.

America - both politically and economically - is the product of its religious heritage. It would be a completely different nation if Catholics rather than Protestants were its main colonists, if the French or Spanish had taken it over it rather than the British, if religious liberals had settled it rather than religious fanatics, if the Founding Fathers had been powerful enough to implement their proper vision of how it should develop rather than a political compromise, if Freemasonry had never become so debased and corrupted, if Jewish bankers never came to such prominence.

Religions condition people to think in certain ways. If "God" is willing to order his prophet Abraham to kill his own son then the attitude is automatically inculcated into the average, unthinking person that God is much more favourable towards those prepared to kill in his name.

If "God" is willing to condemn the whole of humanity to hell then why shouldn't human tribes send other tribes to "hell"? If the Bible supports the institution of slavery, why shouldn't the strong enslave the weak? If the Bible pours hatred on infidels and makes blood-curdling threats against them then why shouldn't the faithful exterminate the unbelievers? All of the horrors of our world are prefigured in the Bible. To read that dark and evil book is to be infected with endless horrific ideas of the Torture God, to fall under Satan's spell.

Look at the myths and legends of the ancient Greeks. The gods are portrayed as capricious, mischievous, unjust, wrathful, amorous, and fascinated by human foibles. Crucially, they are not portrayed as paragons of virtue and morality. They are superhumans with superpowers. They are human, and more so. They are HyperHumans - more human than human; humans with higher capacities to do all the things humans do. In other words, these gods are us, but on a higher, more powerful level. There are no holy wars, crusades, inquisitions, jihads, martyrdom operations, persecutions of infidels, witch burnings etc in their tales.

The Torah, Bible and Koran condition people to think in an evil way about the nature of God and what he requires of us. God, in these books, is a fanatic. So is it any wonder that people who read them and take them seriously become extremists and fanatics? It's elementary operant conditioning: Pavlov's dogs. If you offer the greatest reward possible (heaven) for behaving in a certain way and the greatest penalty possible (hell) for behaving otherwise, you can quickly make the simple-minded behave in exactly the way you desire.

Rewarding the desired behaviour and penalising the undesired behaviour is the essence of operant conditioning. People are designed to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore if a religion provides the ultimate pleasure-pain equation, it can wield maximum control over the submissive, superstitious, credulous masses.

In the Greek tales, there is almost no attempt at all to program people according to the brutal and effective rules of operant conditioning. There is only one message that is continually promoted: that heroism is the greatest quality of humanity. The gods love heroes. Humans love heroes. Heroes become immortal thanks to their heroic deeds. Achilles lives on even now because of his heroic brilliance. All of the Greek heroes live on in the tales of the ancient world.

Ancient Greece promoted a hero culture; ancient Israel promoted a Torture God culture. The latter is the ideology that has triumphed decisively. We live in a world infected by religious extremism, all of which stems from the Torah, Bible and Koran. These books should be placed on a prohibited list. They are the most dangerous books in human history and have done untold damage to the human psyche.

Our world is a reflection of the evil contents of these books. Therefore these books should be destroyed for the sake of the human race. We should build a Pyre of Babel from all the Torahs, Bibles and Korans in the world and set it alight. With this supreme conflagration of the words of the false prophets and servants of the Devil, we will burn out the Satanic disease that has infected humanity for so long.

No one could become a monster by reading the ancient myths of the world - bar those of Israel. It was the Israelites who contaminated the world with the most hideous beliefs, emanating from the twisted psyche that they developed. Where did this catastrophic psychological defect originate? - from the Archons of the Devil who specifically targeted the Jews to be the vehicle of Satan's message. They were the Chosen People sure enough - of the Torture God. Their tortured mentality has tortured humanity ever since.

The Bible and the Koran are the abortions of the Torah and reinforce the same hideous message. Let no one tell you that Christianity is any kind of loving message. Christ was a loyal follower of the Torture God. In fact he was the son of the Archon Gabriel, Satan's most powerful lieutenant - the same Archon that caused Mohammed to create the monstrous Torture Text of the Koran. The Archon Gabriel's schemes have shaped our world, to its extreme detriment.

No one could become a religious maniac by reading the myths and legends of the pagan world. Isn't it time to face the truth? - the Jews turned the world into a mental asylum and torture chamber - into hell itself - by spreading their toxic Devil worship across the world in the guise of Christianity and Mohammedism.

The Torah, Bible and Koran are collectively the Gospel According to Satan. They are the Devil's finest work. He inflicted on us the hell he dreamt of by giving us these three Devil books.

If you want to know where hell is, it's here: this planet. How was it made into hell? By the Torah, Bible and Koran. Haven't you realised yet what a psychological genius Satan is? By masquerading as the True God and by using the most effective operant conditioning techniques of all time: amounting to "obey me unconditionally or suffer eternal pain in hell."

Don't kid yourselves. To undo the damage inflicted by these Devil books for thousands of years, we can't pussyfoot around. By hook or by crook, Abrahamism must be destroyed. Only when this cancer with its endless metastases is cut out from the human race will we be cured. Only when we are cured can we at last turn our energies to fulfilling our divine destiny.   

Have we been understood? The People of the Book have ruined our world. The "Book" is the source of absolute evil. It is the Devil's Book. Humanity will never achieve what it's capable of unless it can move past this Satanic mindset. Faith is the essence of Satanism.

We advocate reason and good deeds as the weapons to defeat the Gospel of Satan. Faith must be rendered anathema. It must be stigmatised, ridiculed and marginalized. The "faithful" must be portrayed as idiots, unable to cope with the demands of reason. They are too stupid for the Enlightenment.

The fundamental issue of humanity is IQ. People of high IQ are rational. Those of low IQ are irrational. The smartest people on earth are scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, psychologists and technologists. The stupidest people on earth are those on their knees to "God" five times a day.

Isn't that the most obvious fact of all time? Abrahamists DESPISE reason. Why? Because they, like Luther, recognise reason as deadly to the Abrahamic project.

Should we allow a religion that reviles reason to be taught in schools? Should we allow parents to brainwash their children with hatred of reason? And if we do, how can we ever expect to have an enlightened humanity, how can we ever raise the IQ of humanity, how can we ever become the Gods we are capable of being?

The War of reason versus faith is the final war that must be won by the enlightened. Those of us who are rational are faced by innumerable hordes of the irrational. There are countless missionaries out there even now, spreading the Gospel of Irrationality to every corner of the globe. Every day, millions of infants receive their first lessons in irrationality from their parents. And guess who does nothing? - the governments of the world. They stand by and let unreason wipe the floor with reason. They themselves are members of the religions of unreason.

Isn't it time for the world to WAKE UP! Reason is the most precious gift humanity has. Isn't it time we maximised it rather than allowing it to be continually attacked and undermined by faith?

How can we create higher humanity if we don't maximise human reason? How can faith lead us anywhere? Look at the finest Abrahamists of all - the Taliban - regressing rapidly to the primordial slime. Is that what you want for the whole of humanity? Then fight for reason, fight for the New Enlightenment.

We also need to get rid of Protestant capitalism and replace it with rational, social capitalism. (We might even provocatively call it "Catholic" capitalism.) We need to return to the benevolent mystery religions of paganism that were never associated with religious wars, persecution and fanaticism. We need the hero culture of paganism. We need the celebration of human excellence. We don't need the theory of total human depravity in relation to God that the Abrahamists teach.

If humanity ditches the past in the shape of Abrahamist faith in the Torture God, it will be on the path to the stars within a single generation. Abrahamism is the final obstacle blocking the completion of the dialectic of freedom and reason. It is the highest hurdle that needs to be cleared. It presents the greatest resistance to enlightenment. The heroes needed to overcome this final barrier must be the greatest in human history, greater even than Achilles, Theseus, Jason, Odysseus, and Heracles.

Are you capable of being a new Argonaut, of seizing the Golden Fleece of Enlightenment? Can you endure the Trials of Heracles? We are entering the last Age of Heroes, those who will free humanity from the prison of the Demiurge. And from then on we will have a new type of human: the hyperanthropos.

We are the Illuminati and we are the shock troops of Reason. We are the Army of the New Enlightenment. The first Enlightenment barely dented the grip of the unenlightened. Now we must have a proper, decisive and irreversible Enlightenment. That can mean only one thing: the end forever of Abrahamism, the religion of faith, the religion of Endarkenment, the Devil's religion.

Join the Forces of Light. The time has come to defeat the Devil and his army of darkness once and for all.

Our sign is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the emblem of good deeds, Reason and Consciousness. We honour Eve and Adam, those first humans who had the courage to defy the Torture God. Now we must all follow the example of the first couple. It is humanity's destiny to become divine. Only those who eat of the precious fruit of the sacred Tree of Wisdom are capable.

Listen to this brilliant piece of logic of Jesus Christ, the "Son" of the Torture God: "Which of you shall convince Me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me? He that is of God, hears the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God."

In other words, if you agree with him, you're of God. And if you disagree with him, you're of the Devil. This is the precise logic of Abrahamism. Your task is not to challenge any prophet or holy book; it is merely to accept as absolutely true whatever they tell you, no matter how crazy it is (such as ordering Abraham to kill his son).

No conscious, rational person would take such a religion seriously. It's a Fuehrer Religion, a theocratic dictatorship.

Nietzsche knew what had to be done: "Have I been understood? - Dionysos against the Crucified…" Paganism must defeat Abrahamism.

Humanity made a catastrophic choice when it embraced the monotheistic, idist, patriarchal Abrahamism of the cosmic Torture God with his demand for slavish obedience and his chilling threats of eternal punishment.

The Torture God is the most rudimentary version of a deity. He has a single message: OBEY ME OR DIE. The purpose of reason is to allow us to free ourselves of fear of this monster and to ridicule him and resist him at every turn. All those who worship him are terrified of him. They are ruled by fear. Humanity cannot progress until it has lost its fear.

REVALUE ALL VALUES.

 

VALUE FAITH AT ZERO.

 

REPLACE ALL OF THE VALUES OF ABRAHAMISM.

 

Humanity has long been sick. But it can be cured - through the light of knowledge, good deeds and reason.

The Religious Revolution

Wilhelm Reich argued that it was necessary to have a sexual revolution before a political and economic revolution.

It's also necessary to have a religious revolution. There can be NO transformation of humanity without a radical religious transformation. There can be no New World Order until the religions of the Old World Order perish. The roots of the Old World Order grow in the poisonous soil of Abrahamism.

Contemporary capitalism is the child of Judaism and Protestantism. To create a new, moral, just, meritocratic form of capitalism, its religious underpinnings have to be radically altered. The master-slave paradigm that underlies Abrahamism must be replaced by round table meritocracy.

Contemporary capitalism is so evil because it fits hand in glove with the evil paradigm of the Chosen People (the privileged Elite - the Elect, the Saved) ruling over the reprobate, the depraved and the damned (the ordinary people). Capitalism treats people so badly because of its monstrous religious substructure, which largely owes its origins to the perverted beliefs of the Jews, St Augustine and Luther.

A new society requires the revaluation of all values, and that means a new sexual, religious, economic and political paradigm. All of these elements are interdependent. If there is a failure to change all of the ingredients, the new society will never work. Abrahamism is simply incompatible with Enlightenment values, rationality and meritocracy.

The world cannot move on until it moves past Judaism, Islam and Christianity. These have been a catastrophic error by the human race. They belong to an ancient, barely conscious mindset that worships a Torture God who inspires absolute Terror and threatens every man, woman and child with eternal perdition. They have championed the insane doctrine of faith.

Faith must be killed off. It's a word that should be excised from the human vocabulary. Faith serves no conceivable use to the human race and represents an outright assault on reason and morality.

We must build a society based on reason and good deeds. There is no room for faith. It is the sworn enemy of a new society, a new humanity. People aren't justified by faith; they are condemned by it. Faith is the final barrier to human progress. Faith stands for all the irrationality and superstition of the past. It promotes a message of stupidity and subservience. It says that you don't have to use your intelligence to work anything out - you just have to believe what someone told you. If a guy came up to you in a bar and said he was God, would you believe him? Why not? After all, you believe that some Jew from 2,000 years ago was God. Why? Because someone wrote a book that said so. Is that any more convincing than listening to the stranger in the bar?

We must have the courage to kill faith once and for all. This is the final war that must be waged. We can build paradise, a new Eden, only over the grave of Abrahamism.

What does it mean to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? It means that we embrace reason and leave behind forever childish faith in Torture Gods. It means that we escape from fear and superstition.

In Genesis 3:5, the serpent - the ancient symbol of wisdom - said to Eve, "For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil."      

That's exactly it. You cannot become God until you choose to know good and evil. You cannot know good and evil until you are conscious. You cannot be conscious unless you embrace reason and freedom. Faith opposes reason. Faith says that we should choose not to be free but to be the mindless slaves of the Torture God. If we do what he says, he will spare us. If we disobey him, he will damn us. Faith says that we should never ask any questions of this monster, that we should never ask for his ID and check his credentials.

Anyone can call themselves God, even the Devil. What the Devil cannot do is conduct himself as God. You have just one question to ask yourself. Is the list of atrocities described in the Old Testament the conduct of the True God? Or of a Torture God - the Devil - in his Torture Garden?

The answer is self-evident. The creature described in the Old Testament is a sick, perverted, psychopathic monster. Anyone who places their faith in this demon is self-damned.

Anyone who turns to reason, knowledge, morality and freedom is in the position to know good and evil and thereby to pronounce judgment on this Prince of Darkness, this Lord of Lies, this eternal criminal.

The Court of History finds him guilty a thousand times over and tears to tatters the defence of his apologists. The history of Abrahamism is the history of Satanism. The world is hell because it is ruled over by the Devil himself - Yahweh/Allah/Christ - and his Satanic prophets: Abraham, Augustine, Mohammed, Luther etc, and their Satanic books: the Torah, the Bible and the Koran.

We can have a golden age when we overthrow the tyrant, when we turn to the True God - Abraxas.

In the Age of Abraxas, humanity embraces reason rather than faith, good deeds rather than faith, meritocracy rather than democracy, positive liberty rather than negative liberty, merit rather than privilege, community rather than family.

Everyone helps everyone else. Everyone treats everyone else rationally, justly, morally, benevolently and meritocratically. The new meritocratic elite that leads the world is prevented by law from being too wealthy and from establishing family dynasties of power and wealth. Everyone in the world will have a fair chance. Only the very best will get to the top, and because they are the legitimate best, they can rightly lead the human race to its divine future.

Make no mistake, the Community of Gods, the Society of the Divine is no pipe dream. We can make it happen by decisively rejecting faith and the Torture God of Abraham. The Enlightenment succeeded only partially. Its final victory is achieved only when the altar of faith is burned to the ground.

It is INSANE to circumcise baby boys to brand them as the property of the Torture God. It is INSANE to baptise children to "save" them from the Original Sin imposed on humanity by the Torture God. All babies are by definition absolutely innocent. It is INSANE to divide humanity into the Saved and the Damned (and yet no one knows which is which). It is INSANE to preach that most human beings are predestined for eternal suffering in hell. It is INSANE to say that faith alone is all that counts. It is INSANE to preach that good deeds are worthless.

The entire system so joyously proclaimed by the legions of faithful is INSANE from beginning to end.

Reason, as Luther recognised, cannot co-exist with faith. You can have either an Enlightened world of Reason, or an Endarkened world of Faith. You can't have both. Faith still rules our world despite all of the great successes of science and reason. There are only a few thousand top scientists in the world. There are billions of irrational believers in the Torture God. Imagine if the situation were reversed. Imagine that there were only a few thousand mad Abrahamists and there were seven billion men and women of the highest rational ability: scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, technologists, engineers, designers, architects, artists, creative thinkers, visionaries, musicians, poets, writers. Does anyone seriously imagine that in those circumstances humanity could not build a bridge to heaven? There is nothing the human race could not accomplish if we abolished faith.

The French revolutionaries realised the need for Total Revolution. They wanted a new politics, a new religion, a new economy, a new army. They even changed the calendar and introduced ten day weeks, with days of ten hours, hours of 100 minutes and minutes of 100 seconds.

We can change everything if we want to. There are no limits.

Marriage and Women

"If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come."

Luther

When Luther wrote of the monastic life and advocated the marriage of priests, nuns, and monks, many sexually frustrated celibates in the religious orders were instantly attracted to his message.

The nun Katharine von Bora, daughter of an impoverished nobleman, was one of a group that escaped from a convent by hiding in empty fish barrels on the back of a delivery wagon. (It was a dangerous escapade since the death penalty for heresy could be imposed on escapees.) She became Luther's wife and they had a large family.

Luther's ideas about sex and marriage were radical to say the least, and distinctly unchristian. He pictured human beings as animals driven by their lusts; marriage was the antidote for the sex drive. Sex is sin, but the sin is best handled within the framework of marriage.

Given that, for Luther, the function of marriage was to fulfil sexual needs, if either partner wasn't delivering sexually then the other partner had the right to be aggrieved and do something about it.

Luther thought it was immoral for an impotent man or frigid woman to marry, especially if they sought to conceal their condition or attitude. If a husband can't fulfil his sexual duties then he is not a real husband, and similarly for a wife.

Luther advocated that the partners of "fake" husbands and wives should go and find lovers, preferably with the permission of their spouses. He had no objection to husbands or wives walking out on marriage if a partner wasn't sexually satisfactory.

If a husband was confronted by a frigid wife, Luther declared: ". . . it is time to say: 'If you don't want, then another one will. If the wife does not want sex, then let the maid come.'

Luther seemed to have no problem at all with adultery and fornication. Nor did he object to mass rape. When nuns in a convent were raped on the night of Holy Saturday, 1523, Luther referred to the leader of the rapists as a "holy and blessed robber."

Apparently Luther had some sort of harem of nuns for himself before he got married. For a long time he declared that he did not intend to marry: "Not as though I do not feel my flesh and my sex, for I am neither of wood nor of stone, but I have no inclination to marry."

He referred to himself as "a famous lover" with "three wives" (presumably meaning "wife" as regular sex partner).

St. Paul taught: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liars with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards."

Luther dismissed that kind of talk.

     Christ said: "For this reason shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. . . Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery."

Again, Luther rubbished such opinions. Who cared that they were made by "God"?

"I burn with all the desires of my unconquered flesh," Luther wrote. At least he seemed to have some sense that he was not an altogether righteous man: "Pray for me. I am falling into the abyss of Sin." But, of course, faith cured all of his problems. Luther sneered at the Catholic sacrament of confession where a penitent must admit their sins to a priest and seek absolution. He replaced it with the rather simpler: "I believe - so I'm saved, so I'm absolved, so I don't need any priest!"

To judge the level of deceit Luther was willing to advocate, consider this statement: "Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to give herself to another, say her husband's brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly."

So, we have a "secret" marriage, and we have lies about children's real parents. That's Protestantism for you. And if Protestants lie about these matters, what else will they lie about? It was Protestants that destroyed Freemasonry. The original Masons were non-Abrahamists, but gradually, as the organisation sought to massively expand and become a decisive force for changing the world, Protestant businessmen and then Protestant establishment figures, including nobility, gained admission, and within a few years, Masonry had become totally corrupt, totally Protestant, totally privileged and totally committed to: "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." And it has remained the same ever since.

Freemasonry remains the Illuminati's biggest disaster, all the more disappointingly since it began so well and nobly.

Luther openly advocated polygamy: "It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives." He did not consider that marriage was anything to do with God or religion: "Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business. The body has nothing to do with God. In this respect one can never sin against God, but only against one's neighbour." Hence, he completely rejected the Hebrew death penalty for adultery and fornication.

He wasn't sure about divorce, not really seeing it as any obstacle. If you didn't like one wife, you could simply get another: "As to divorce, it is still a debatable question whether it is allowable. For my part I prefer bigamy to it." His assessment of women couldn't have been starker: "The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes."

Even when he was a happily married man, Luther didn't think that he was engaged in anything holy: "In spite of all the good I say of married life, I will not grant so much to nature as to admit that there is no sin in it... no conjugal due is ever rendered without sin. The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin."

He declared of sex within marriage that it was: "a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication." His attitude towards women was that they were little more than blow-up rubber dolls: "The body asks for a woman and must have it"; "To marry is a remedy for fornication."

Well, it's refreshing that Protestants have such liberal attitudes towards sex! WTF! How come Protestants are such miserable bastards?! Is it because of all the secret wives, lives and children they're hiding?

Luther on Christ

Luther was convinced that Christ was a sexually promiscuous fornicator. He wrote, "Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: 'Whatever has He been doing with her?' Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."

Such notions allowed Luther to forgive his own adultery, of course. (How very convenient for him - proving that the Bible can be used to justify any position at all.)

He had a low opinion of Christ's conduct in general, writing: 1) "I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ." And 2) "It does not matter how Christ behaved - what He taught is all that matters."

Although these may seem odd statements for a Christian reformer to make, they are perfectly consistent with the idea that deeds count for nothing. Christ's conduct, no matter how disreputable, wouldn't alter the doctrine of justification by faith.

It's interesting, is it not, that when Christ saw the need to reform Christianity, he chose Luther, one of the most immoral men of all time. It just shows that Christ is an equal-opportunities employer. All psychopaths are equally welcome!

Lies

Like many religious people, Luther openly advocated lying: "What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?" He even said that God was a liar: "To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse - such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself."

Well, we certainly agree that Jehovah and Jesus Christ were liars. But what is much more sinister about Luther's remarks is that he sanctions the habit - extremely common amongst Protestants - to lie on oath without a trace of guilt or shame. It's virtually a complete waste of time to ask a Protestant to take an oath. You could never believe a word they said. Their whole religion is based on lying, not the least to themselves!

On God

Luther had a somewhat strained and tortured relationship with God, even remarking, "I look upon God no better than a scoundrel."

And try these quotations for size:

1) "When I beheld Christ I seemed to see the Devil. I had a great aversion for Christ."

(We're with you on that one!)

2) "Often I was horrified at the name of Christ, and when I regarded Him on the Cross, it was as if I had been struck by lightning; and when I heard His name mentioned, I would rather have heard the name of the Devil"

(Well, they're one and the same.)

3) "I did not believe in Christ, but I did believe in God: a master armed with a stick."

(Yes, many Protestants seem not to believe in Christ. And, yes, Jehovah is like a thug with a baseball bat.)

4) "God did mischievously blind me."

(Wise up - he's the Torture God, and he loves BDSM.)

5) "God often acts like a madman."

(All the time, you mean.)

6) "God paralyses the old and blinds the young and thus remains master; I look upon God no better than a scoundrel."

(We agree 100 %.)

7) "God is stupid."

(Indeed!)

So why the fuck do you worship him, you dumb cunt?

On Alcoholism

Luther was an alcoholic depressive and probably suffering from severe bipolar disorder (nearly all prophets are mentally ill in one way or another). It was agreed by many who knew him that he was an "over-drinker". He wrote: "We eat and drink to kill ourselves, we eat and drink up to our last farthing."

A story is told of a young man writing to Luther complaining of despair at the prospect of going to hell. Agony Uncle Luther replied by advising him to get drunk; Luther's own remedy for despair.

Truth

Luther wrote, "What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it."

And what, pray tell, does "truth" mean in the mouth of someone who despises reason and encourages lying? Luther had no relationship whatever with the truth.

The Book of Apocalypse

To his credit, Luther rejected the Revelation of St John: "To my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character…Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it."

(It's amusing to hear Luther talk of a "reason" for rejecting something. Doesn't he reject reason as a valid criterion?)

It's a pity that other Protestants have been much less keen to dismiss the absurd Book or Revelation with its laughable "prophecies".

Luther the Skeptic

Here's something that we can agree on with Luther: "The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible."

Of course, we would say that virtually all of the Bible is "absolutely incredible." It's odd that Luther should bridle at the story of Jonah when there are so many even more monstrous and unbelievable Biblical stories.

He also wrote, "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness."

Didn't he work out that the whole Bible is Jewish nonsense? Isn't it astounding that the bizarre tales of this bizarre people have so captivated non-Jews? Or is it testimony to the psychological appeal of the Torture God vision of life?

Hitler's Church

"I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later - once we hold power - Christianity will be overcome and the German Church established. Yes, the German Church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing."

Adolf Hitler

Why was Hitler so successful in Germany between 1933 and 1941 (the year he committed the same catastrophic error as Napoleon by invading Russia)? He appealed equally to Lutherans and Catholics. He himself was a perfectly suitable replacement for the Hebrew Torture God. Had he not proved a deranged racist, Hitler could have created a pagan Germany, free at last of the Bible, and Germany might have been the first major power to embrace the sort of pagan enlightenment advocated by the great Illuminatus Goethe.

Germany would have become the greatest, most cultured and intellectual nation on earth, and would have led humanity out of the Abrahamist darkness. Unfortunately Hitler was far more attracted to war than the cultural and spiritual advancement of the human race.

Nevertheless, in time one great world power will at last abandon Abrahamism and turn itself into the wonder of the Ages. It will establish a pagan Mystery Church with no popes, pastors or Bibles. The new Church will be based on reason, spirituality, initiation into the mysteries, justice, fairness and good deeds. It will extend the hand of friendship to atheists and agnostics and promote science, philosophy, mathematics, music, technology, engineering, art and spiritual tolerance towards all tolerant religions. But it will have absolute intolerance towards the intolerant religions of faith.

An Illuminist Church of Germany without a Pope, Bible and Torture God. Why didn't Hitler deliver something like that? Because he was sucked into the same sick game as the Torture God. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The view the Torture God gets is incredibly seductive to a certain type of person - the whole world on their knees in front of you, worshipping you. Hitler was intoxicated by that. And thus he became as evil as Jehovah.

Sex and the Single Religious Lunatic

"It is not my prerogative to be without a woman."

Luther

"Whatever is a man must have a woman and whatever is a woman must have a man."

Luther

Luther, like many Evangelical Protestant preachers caught with their pants down, was a man obsessed with sex. It haunted him so strongly that he had to reform the Catholic religion to allow him to indulge his tastes the way he wanted.

Here's what he wrote about what a monk, vowed to celibacy, should do if he had a high sex drive: "Priests, monks, and nuns are duty-bound to forsake their vows whenever they find that God's ordinance to produce seed and to multiply is powerful and strong within them. They have no power by any authority, law, command, or vow to hinder this which God has created within them. If they do hinder it, however, you may be sure that they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication. For they are simply incapable of resisting the word and ordinance of God within them. Matters will take their course as God has ordained."

In other words, if a monk like Luther wants to fuck then it's the will of God! Is that how all Protestants justify adultery and fornication to themselves? It's all God's doing and nothing to do with them. They have no control over themselves whatever.

Luther deploys extraordinary logic to justify his positions. This is typical of Abrahamists, and they always think they've done a good job. (They never have.)

In the following passage, Luther denies that he gave advice for a wife to run to someone else if her husband couldn't satisfy her in bed: "I once wrote down some advice concerning such persons for those who hear confession.­­ It related to those cases where a husband or wife comes and wants to learn what he should do: his spouse is unable to fulfil the conjugal duty, yet he cannot get along without it because he finds that God's ordinance to multiply is still in force within him. Here they have accused me of teaching that when a husband is unable to satisfy his wife's sexual desire she should run to somebody else. Let the topsy-turvy liars spread their lies. The words of Christ and his apostles were turned upside down; should they not also turn my words topsy-turvy? To whose detriment it will be they shall surely find out."

He says that his opponents have lied. Then he explains what his position really is: "What I said was this: if a woman who is fit for marriage has a husband who is not, and she is unable openly to take unto herself another - and unwilling, too, to do anything dishonourable - since the pope in such a case demands without cause abundant testimony and evidence, she should say to her husband, 'Look, my dear husband, you are unable to fulfil your conjugal duty toward me; you have cheated me out of my maidenhood and even imperilled my honour and my soul's salvation; in the sight of God there is no real marriage between us. Grant me the privilege of contracting a secret marriage with your brother or closest relative, and you retain the title of husband so that your property will not fall to strangers. Consent to being betrayed voluntarily by me, as you have betrayed me without my consent.'"

Well, that certainly sounds like letting the wife run to someone else! It's bizarre that Luther thinks he has won the argument. Making the adultery "secret" and with the husband's brother or relative doesn't make it any more legitimate.

He then undermines his position even further by explicitly saying that the wife should run away if the husband doesn't agree to her "secret" marriage: "I stated further that the husband is obligated to consent to such an arrangement and thus to provide for her the conjugal duty and children, and that if he refuses to do so she should secretly flee from him to some other country and there contract a marriage. I gave this advice at a time when I was still timid. However, I should like now to give sounder advice in the matter, and take a firmer grip on the wool of a man who thus makes a fool of his wife. The same principle would apply if the circumstances were reversed, although this happens less frequently in the case of wives than of husbands. It will not do to lead one's fellow man around by the nose so wantonly in matters of such great import involving his body, goods, honour, and salvation. He has to be told to make it right."

So, husbands have to be ordered to let their wife commit adultery with their brother!

Luther then says that if governments didn't tacitly approve of adultery, they would put adulterers to death, so adultery is the government's fault (along with everything else): "The blame rests with the government. Why do they not put adulterers to death?"

As for frigid wives: "The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, 'If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.' Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did."

Next, Luther argues that frigid wives should agree to be raped or face execution!

"Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corin­thians 7 [:4-5], "The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement," etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone's life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others?"

Although he has a somewhat free and easy attitude towards sex, Luther insists that marriage is superior to fornication, and warns of the calamities that can befall the legions of fornicators: "We know only too well that the most terrible plagues have befallen lands and people because of fornication. This was the sin cited as the reason why the world was drowned in the Deluge, Genesis 6 [:1-13], and Sodom and Gomorrah were buried in flames, Genesis 19 [:1-24]."

So, sex can seriously damage your health! Fornication is sufficient reason for Jehovah to wipe out the world.

Despite warning of the dangers of fornication, Luther then declares it inevitable and God's fault (because to avoid it God would have to grant grace to the would-be fornicators): "For if special grace does not exempt a person, his nature must and will compel him to produce seed and to multiply. If this does not occur within marriage, how else can it occur except in fornication or secret sins? But, they say, suppose I am neither married nor immoral, and force myself to remain continent? Do you not hear that restraint is impossible without the special grace? For God's word does not admit of restraint; neither does it lie when it says, "Be fruitful and multiply" [Gen. 1:28]. You can neither escape nor restrain yourself from being fruitful and multi­plying; it is God's ordinance and takes its course."

According to this logic, God made the pre-Deluge people fornicators by denying them grace - then exterminated them all for being fornicators. Talk about Catch 22!

Luther then treats us to the benefits of his extensive medical knowledge: "Physicians are not amiss when they say: If this natural function is forcibly restrained it necessarily strikes into the flesh and blood and becomes a poison, whence the body becomes unhealthy, enervated, sweaty, and foul-smelling. That which should have issued in fruitfulness and propagation has to be absorbed within the body itself. Unless there is terrific hunger or immense labor or the supreme grace, the body cannot take it; it necessarily becomes unhealthy and sickly. Hence, we see how weak and sickly barren women are. Those who are fruitful, how­ever, are healthier, cleanlier, and happier. And even if they bear themselves weary - or ultimately bear themselves out - that does not hurt. Let them bear themselves out. This is the purpose for which they exist. It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health…A young man should marry at the age of twenty at the latest, a young woman at fifteen to eighteen; that's when they are still in good health and best suited for marriage. Let God worry about how they and their children are to be fed. God makes children; he will surely also feed them."

It's certainly reassuring to know that Luther and Protestants have such strong family values. Or are they the most self-interested, selfish people on earth, always looking out for No. 1?

The Bizarre Mind of Martin Luther, the Champion of Protestantism

"Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ."

Luther

Yeah, right…you crazy coot. 

"Whoever obeys me not, despises not me but Christ."

Ditto.

"I believe that we are the last trump that sounds before Christ is coming".

You got that right, didn't you? - clown!

"What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it."

But you never taught or wrote a single thing that was true. You never encountered the truth even once in your life.

"Whoever rejects my doctrine cannot be saved."

You and your followers are the ones who cannot be saved. You are the worshippers of the Torture God, the Devil Himself. You are the damned, and you have been saved for hell.

"Nobody should rise up against me".

On the contrary, the whole world should.

"I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ."

Well, that's a nice vote of confidence from a Christian in his "God"!

"What we do and how we act does not matter in the least. All that matters is our belief."

This is the Gospel that no one should ever do a good deed for another. This is the quintessence of the selfish Protestant attitude that has stained and corrupted the world. Protestant capitalism is based on absolute belief in Mammon and complete contempt for community.

"It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe."

Has there ever been a madder religion than the one that proclaims that we are what we believe rather than what we do?

"God does not need our actions. All He wants is that we pray to Him and thank Him."

Thank him for what? For being a Torture God who delights in inflicting infinite pain on people forever? What does he need prayers for? Is he suffering from Narcissism?

"It does not matter how Christ behaved-what He taught is all that matters."

So, a mass murderer who preaches love and peace should be taken seriously?!! Did Luther never discover what the word HYPOCRITE means?

"What does it matter whether we commit a fresh sin?"

Aren't Christians supposed to be stopping themselves from sinning rather than indulging in it?

"Faith cancels all sin."

How convenient! Luther ridiculed Catholics for saying that a priest could absolve a penitent of his sins. Apparently all that a sinner has to do is say, "I believe", and he will obtain total and absolute forgiveness. Has there ever been a sillier idea? Doesn't it imply that sin is merely a state of mind? Why not adopt Nietzsche's formula for dealing with sin: "When man no longer regards himself as evil he ceases to be so."

"No other sin exists in the world save unbelief."

Au contraire. Belief is the cardinal sin.

"Sometimes it is necessary to commit some sin out of hatred and contempt for the Devil."

Which sin? Which Devil?

"What matters if we commit a sin?"

Is this a Christian speaking? This is the trouble with Protestants. They have a "fluid" attitude towards sin. They sin whenever it suits them. And they condemn sin when others are the authors of the sins.

"You must say my sins are not mine; they are not in me at all; they are the sins of another; they are Christ's and are none of my business."

WTF!

"Christianity is nothing but a continual exercise in feeling that you have no sin although you sin, but that your sins are thrown on Christ."

Is this the Protestant scapegoat theory? - all sins are conveniently transferred to the Jew Yehoshua ben Yosef. Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for your actions? No wonder Protestants have such low moral standards. Once you set "good deeds" at nought, you have abolished the moral order.

"From the moment when you acknowledge that Christ bears your sins, He becomes the sinner in your stead."

So, the Protestant is someone who wants to use "Christ" as the dumping ground for his own sins? 

"Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still."

The Lutheran formula for a good life: commit as many as sins as possible then absolve yourself of all accountability by saying, "But I believe!" No wonder Lutheranism became so popular amongst the Devil-worshipping Abrahamists.

"The Saints must be good, downright sinners."

Well, that's certainly logical. In Protestantism, the more evil you are, the higher you rise in the estimation of "God". This is the sacred creed of the Old World Order.

"The Apostles themselves were sinners, yea, regular scoundrels…I believe that the prophets also frequently sinned grievously."

Too true. They were all Devil worshippers…just like Luther himself.

"I have brought on headache by drinking old wine in the Coburg, and this our Wittenberg beer has not yet cured. I work little, and I am forced to be idle against my will because my head must have a rest."

So speaks the alcoholic Protestant with a bad hangover.

"If I have a can of beer, I want the beer-barrel as well".

Greedy, alcoholic bastard!

"I am but a man prone to let himself be swept off his feet by society, drunkenness, the movements of the flesh."

That just about sums up the typical Protestant!

"What is needed to live in continence is not in me".

Again - so typical of Protestants.

"Instead of glowing in spirit, I glow in the flesh."

Typical materialistic Protestant, lacking in spirituality.

"I burn with all the desires of my unconquered flesh."

The celibate Augustinian monk Luther had to create a new religion to allow him to indulge his sexual urges. This is a classic case of how a man's passions dictated his religious opinions. Catholicism was "wrong" for Luther purely because it prevented him getting his leg over. Rather than give up being a monk, he gave up being a Catholic and created a form of Christianity where monks could marry nuns.

"I rarely pray. . . My unruly flesh doth burn me with devouring flame. In short, I who should be prey to the spirit alone am eating my heart out through the flesh, through lust, laziness, idleness, and somnolence."

The only difference between Luther and his followers was that, by his own admission, he didn't have much of a Protestant work ethic, being a lazy and idle man.

"The sting of flesh may easily be helped so long as girls and women are to be found."

Indeed!

"The body asks for a woman and must have it."

You said it, Luther baby! One wonders why Luther didn't abandon religion entirely and become a libertine. He could have beaten the Marquis de Sade in the perversion stakes if he had put his mind to it.

"To marry is a remedy for fornication."

Protestants don't marry for love but to cure their desire for fornication!

"Marriage is an external bodily thing, like any other manipulation."

What?!

"Know that marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business."

Protestants regard marriage as a business transaction. Protestant wives are therefore prostitutes. They have sold their bodies in return for their husband looking after them. Love and respect don't come into it.

"The body has nothing to do with God. In this respect one can never sin against God, but only against one's neighbour."

Note the incredible logic of Protestants. It's impossible to sin against God, and who cares about sinning against one's neighbours? After all, what are they going to do about it? It's not as if they can threaten you with hell! 

"It is not forbidden that a man should have more than one wife."

So, Protestants are polygamists. Protestants seem to have contempt for the institution of marriage. Unlike Catholics who make it extremely hard to dissolve a marriage, Protestants throw divorces around like candy. What's the point of making solemn, lifelong vows if they can be so easily abandoned? In a futuristic episode of The Simpsons, Bart proposes marriage and his girlfriend turns him down flat saying that "three years is such a long commitment"! That's future marriage Protestant style.

Actually, it's not a bad idea. Shouldn't marriage be turned into a contractual agreement that gets renewed periodically? Then no one needs to make enduring vows they can't keep.

"In spite of all the good I say of married life, I will not grant so much to nature as to admit that there is no sin in it…no conjugal due is ever rendered without sin."

So, marriage is inherently sinful!

"The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin."

WTF! How can the sex act between husband and wife be a sin? How warped would you have to be to think sex sinful?

"The matrimonial act is a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication."

So why get married?

"The word and work of God is quite clear: women were made either to be wives or prostitutes."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"If you do not want, someone else does. If the wife does not want, take your servant."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"You owe nothing to God except faith and confession. In all other things He lets you do whatever you like. You may do as you please, without any danger of conscience whatsoever."

The gospel of the Devil! Here we have it in black and white. Protestants have no conscience and think they can get away with anything. This is exactly the attitude of the privileged elite: the Old World Order. This is why the Protestants were such eager slave traders. They didn't feel any compunction about it.

Once a religion has abandoned the concept of good deeds, it has become immoral. It is hard to conceive of any religion that could be more immoral than Protestantism.

The atheist philosopher Nietzsche, son of a Lutheran pastor, declared himself the "first immoralist." In fact, Luther had long since beaten him to that position. ALL Protestants are immoral.

*****

How can any Protestant not be utterly ashamed to be a Protestant? This isn't a religion at all. It has been successful because it allows selfish, immoral people to be selfish and immoral and not feel any guilt or shame.

Good and Evil versus Good and Bad

In his dazzling book On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche contrasted Jewish values with those of the ancient Romans. Whereas the Romans were a military people who admired noble and heroic values and condemned cowardly and dishonourable actions, the Jews were a "priestly" people who judged people according to how much they complied with the will of "God".

Nietzsche contrasted "good and bad" (the basis of Roman morality) with "good and evil" (the basis of Jewish morality). He wrote:

Let's bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values "good and bad," "good and evil" have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. And if it's true that the second value has for a long time had the upper hand, even now there's still no lack of places where the battle goes on without a final decision. We could even say that in the intervening time the battle has been constantly drawn to greater heights and in the process to constantly greater depths and has become constantly more spiritual, so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a "higher nature," a more spiritual nature, than that it is split in that sense and is truly still a battleground for those opposites. The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called "Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome." To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered "guilty of hatred against the entire human race." And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience. (Incidentally, we must not underestimate the deep consistency of the Christian instinct, when it ascribed this very book of hate to the name of the disciple of love, the same man to whom it attributed that enthusiastic amorous gospel: there is some truth to this, no matter how much literary counterfeiting may have been necessary for this purpose). The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Just compare people with related talents - say, the Chinese or the Germans - with the Jews, in order to understand what is ranked first and what is ranked fifth. Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there's not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is people bow down to today in Rome itself as the personification of all the highest values - and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame - in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It is true that in the Renaissance there was an incredibly brilliant reawakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who had woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called "the church." But Judea immediately triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of ressentiment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a result, the re-establishment of the church.

Luther belonged to the priestly caste: the Jewish gang (somewhat ironically given his hatred of Jews).

Who are the controllers of the priestly caste? - the Archons. It is via priests and prophets - via religion - that the Demiurge has dominated humanity. Is it not pure genius? Imagine using religion as the vehicle for spreading the Satanic creed. Who could top that?

How did the Jews conquer half the world (via the Jewish offspring Christianity and Islam)? Because they found the means to push the buttons of all credulous, superstitious, frightened people.

What is the Abrahamist equation? Obey God = Salvation; Disobey God = Hell.

That's all that's needed to make billions of people do whatever you tell them, including killing their own children (as in the case of Abraham).

Who are the main figures in the Archon conspiracy? 1) The prophets of the Old Testament, 2) the Archon Gabriel, 3) his son Yehoshua ben Yosef, and 4) Mohammed. Voila - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Voila - half of humanity under the spell of the Demiurge for millennia.

It's THAT simple.

The priestly caste of the Abrahamists have been the bane of humanity. Everything they have done has been to the detriment of humanity.

The Jews, as the quintessential priestly people - look at their obsession with obeying the most idiotic religious rules conceivable (such as not switching on lights on the Sabbath because it would constitute "work") - have been the most fateful race in human history. That was inevitable. They were chosen specifically by the Archons for the task.

How can the human race move beyond the priests? That's the question. What was the Enlightenment? - an attack on priests. Science, mathematics, philosophy and psychology are all toxic to priests.

Reason is the silver bullet that destroys priests - which is why Luther detested reason.

How do you end the reign of the Torture God? You stop the priests. You build the world around reason. And thus you end humanity's long nightmare. There's no great mystery to be solved, no immense puzzle to be cracked. The answer could not be simpler.

The world of "good and evil" and the world of Jewish priestliness: these are the two worlds that must be demolished. When they are, the power of the Demiurge and the archons will be broken. Without their ability to sabotage humanity, the human race can at last claim its divine heritage. To transcend the Devil has always been the supreme challenge facing humanity. Who would have guessed that the Devil would be such a psychological genius as to have himself mistaken for the True God?

Once the Devil is regarded by billions of people as God then his power becomes ingrained in all social, religious, political and economic institutions. It becomes practically impossible to get rid of him. He's the ultimate Trojan Horse.

Is there a greater problem in the whole of human history than to stop some three and a half billion Abrahamists from continuing to worship Satan?

Only when scientists, artists, philosophers, mathematicians and psychologists replace priests, pastors, rabbis and imams can the world be saved from the Demiurge.

Mainstream religion is the Devil's powerbase. If that's not the greatest work of deception of all time, what is? The Father of Lies proclaimed the greatest lie of all: that he was God. And the priest caste - the Jews, the Demiurge's Chosen People - went to work to sell the greatest lie ever told to the whole human race. The world has been plunged into endless war, horror, violence, torture, extremism, fanaticism, persecution, holy war, jihad, suicide bombings, inquisitions and witch burnings ever since. Abrahamic religion has been the ultimate poison administered to humanity, the Devil's Final Solution. It is nothing but super concentrated evil, reflecting the supreme malevolence of its creator.

Humanity cannot pursue its own divinity until it has stopped worshipping false gods. The God of Abraham is the ultimate false god, and his prophets the ultimate false prophets. They have never once told the truth about anything.

Had the West remained pagan - had Rome defeated Judaism religiously rather than militarily - we would be 1,000 years and more ahead of where we are now.

Judea conquered the might of Rome via the toxin of Christianity. It destroyed the Roman Empire, it destroyed civilisation for hundreds of years, it opposed the Renaissance, it opposed the Enlightenment, it opposed Reason itself. It proclaimed faith (another word for madness) as the supreme good, and it said that humanity should fall on its face in worship of the Torture God, the Devil himself.

Ask yourself this question. Are the Jews who stand in front of the Wailing Wall, the Muslims who go to Mecca, the Catholics who stand in St Peter's Square, and the Protestants who sing, "Hallelujah, I am saved by my faith in the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ", rational? Are they enlightened? Are they on the side of science, mathematics, philosophy, art and psychology? And if they're not, aren't they the enemies of the Enlightenment? Why does the State allow the forces of Endarkenment to dictate to the State? It is precisely for that reason that the world is fucked.

We can't have a New World Order until we have disposed of the Old World Order. We can't have an enlightened world until we have disposed of the forces of endarkenment. It's time to stop listening to the priest caste. They are the vestiges of the old, pre-conscious, bicameral mind of humanity. They are a reflection of humanity's primitive past before we had evolved consciousness and reason. They are literally holding back the evolution of the human mind. They are blocking our path to divinity.

Humanity needs a New Enlightenment. Luther and his forces of faith and unreason must be defeated once and for all. The first Enlightenment didn't go nearly far enough. The second must complete the job properly. There is simply no place in our world for the Devil religions of Abrahamism.

Extreme repentance

Luther is one of the most remarkable cases in history of a man changing a religion because it didn't address his specific issues. As a young monk, Luther was famous for the extreme punishments he imposed on himself to atone for his wickedness (we can guess that he was permanently sexually tormented and this made him think he was perpetually sinful). He regularly self-flagellated and on one occasion he lay out in the snow through the night in the middle of winter.

Luther was a profoundly disturbed individual. He would be a psychiatric case in the modern world, or the CEO of a major American corporation (which amounts to much the same thing).

"When I am angry, I am not expressing my own wrath, but the wrath of God".

Luther

So say all tyrants. Note the clever transfer of responsibility away from him and towards God. When you see Luther angry, you are actually seeing God angry. But, of course, this means that anyone who causes Luther to be angry by disagreeing with him is actually disagreeing with God. To put it as bluntly as possible: Luther is declaring himself God. His anger and God's are the same because they are the same being. To oppose him is to oppose God. Like Jesus Christ (Yehoshua ben Yosef), this type of person thinks he is the incarnation of God on earth, and everyone must worship him or suffer eternal damnation.

Anyone who can get ordinary people to project their idea of God onto him has got it made. The Muslims may claim to worship Allah, but in fact they worship the man Mohammed who managed by force of his will to persuade them that he was the voice of God on earth.

All prophets MUST make this claim. They MUST declare that God speaks through them. Of course, they never explain why God doesn't speak for himself, or why he doesn't make an official announcement to the world that these people are delivering his message. The reason for that is simple. They are frauds, liars, charlatans and lunatics, and often puppets of darker forces that have specifically chosen them to be false prophets and deceivers of humanity.

Simple, credulous, superstitious people are tremendously impressed when someone claims to be the mouthpiece of God. They have the childish notion that anyone who makes such a bold claim must be telling the truth. After all, if they were lying, God would surely strike them down.

These infantile thought processes that don't bear a moment's serious scrutiny are, unfortunately, what drive our unenlightened world. They are what the rich and powerful exploit relentlessly.

"They shall respect our teaching which is the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, through our lips".

Luther

Ironically, Luther was forever ridiculing the Pope for claiming to be the Vicar of Christ, God's representative on earth. Now we see why. He thought he himself was God's mouthpiece. The world wasn't big enough for two Gods on Earth, particularly if they were saying completely contradictory things.

The central task of all those with a Messiah Complex is to get you to believe that their authority comes from God. Any mere mortal can be mocked and attacked, but not if they are the vehicle of God's Will on earth. To lay a finger on him, to anger him, to disagree with him, is to offend not against him but against GOD. To obey his every command is to obey God's every command.

Once a person has succeeded in establishing their identity as God on Earth, they can, like St Paul, Mohammed and Luther, create global religions. Their followers become fanatical adherents of their message, blind to all of the irrational garbage the Messiahs are peddling, and bitter enemies of anyone who disagrees with the Messiah.

Pharaohs, Emperors, Monarchs: they all played the game of declaring themselves divinely appointed. The super rich promote the message that they enjoy God's particular favour. Even managers in the workplace like to portray the image of being the "rightful" authority, when in fact they're just a bunch of dumb fucks who got promoted for being ass-licking toads sucking up to every big cheese they could find. They're always "Yes" men to those further up in the hierarchy and "No" men to everyone below. They know exactly on what side their bread is buttered.

In our contemporary world, celebrities take the role of divine avatars…actual gods who have assumed human form and decided to walk amongst us.

It's all TOTAL BULLSHIT.

Let's get to the root of it all - POWER. People are attracted to power like bees to honey. If you want to wield supreme power you must either make yourself God's Chosen One (as in the case of all Messiahs, Popes and Prophets), or you must make yourself a self-created God on Earth (like Genghis Khan, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin and Hitler).

Whether someone claims God's mantle as his representative or his avatar is neither here nor there. The important point is that they have projected TOTAL POWER. They have associated themselves with ABSOLUTE power. And when they have done that, it takes a miracle to overthrow them. By linking themselves to God so intimately they have in effect become God for real. People are terrified of them. They wish to do anything to win their favour and to escape their wrath: exactly the same attitude they exhibit towards the Torture God of Abrahamism.

Our entire world is nothing but a mathematical power equation. Who has power and who doesn't? What symbolises power and what doesn't? Can you gain power or are you in danger of losing it? Should you associate with the powerful or the powerless? Should you challenge existing power structures if you want more power? Can you work within the current power paradigm, or must you destroy it to give yourself a chance in life? This is the algebra of power with which we deal every day. Nietzsche recognised that the world is Will to Power and nothing besides. All of us are obsessed with the business of trying to add to our power and multiply it, and seeking to avoid subtracting from it and dividing it.

All the games of "signs" that we play are all to do with power. All powerful people show, paradoxically, how fundamentally weak they are by having to use endless signs and symbols to demonstrate their power. Imagine the Queen of England living in a modest house, with no crown, no robes, no sceptres, no golden carriages, no one bowing and scraping to her, or walking backwards from her while saying, "Your Majesty". Quite simply, without all of the signs of being the Queen she is not the Queen. Her status does not reside in her person (as it would if she were a genuinely powerful person) but in all the pomp and circumstance by which she is surrounded. The power is invested in the signs, not in the person.

Everywhere, you see weak, pathetic people wrapping themselves in elaborate systems of signs to project the power they don't possess. People want bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger and shinier golden watches, more expensive clothes, faster computers, state of the art refrigerators, the latest gizmo, the best looking iPhone etc. etc.

The whole thing is about trying to show that you are powerful. But if you really are, why are you so anxious to prove it to others? Arguably the most powerful man in world history was Diogenes, the Cynic beggar, because he didn't give a damn about what other people thought…and he had complete contempt for all their pathetic sign games.

For people like the Queen of England who are not inherently powerful, the important thing is to be SEEN to be powerful by using the signs of power.

The vast majority of so-called powerful people in our world are Wizards of Oz. The whole thing is an illusion…a con job mediated by signs. Once you see through the signs, once you pull back the curtain and see how feeble the Wizard is, it becomes breathtaking that so many people fall for the scam. It's all smoke and mirrors. The privileged elite could be blown over with a single puff by an asthmatic.

What is remarkable is the way genuine power has been replaced by signs. No one has understood this better than conmen. You don't need actual money and power to make others do your bidding; you simply need the signs of money and power. If you can fake those successfully, you can BECOME rich and powerful.

The mathematics of Game Theory should be extended to Sign Theory. What sign strategies are the most successful? How can signs be subverted? How can new signs replace the old ones?

Institutions such as mainstream religions, monarchies and presidencies all rely on tried and tested systems of signs. When we talk of the project or revaluing all values, we could equally well be talking of the need to replace all of the old signs with new ones.

Signs such as crowns, sceptres, thrones, honour guards, limousines, motorcycle outriders - all the crap about the "dignity of the office" - should be reviled and rejected as the cheap junk of people desperate to project illusory power.

The Queen of England is a talentless, deluded, feeble old woman. It is a mockery of the UK that such a person should be its head of state. It reveals the truth that the UK has no power at all, and has to rely on gimmicks and special effects to pretend otherwise. When you have a weakling as your head of state, you have proclaimed to the world that you are a hollow power, a fake nation, a nation incapable of any greatness.

The Queen of England, far from representing the historical power that the British Power once wielded, is the surest statement that the British Empire is stone dead and nothing but a pathetic and embarrassing mockery of what it once was. All the genuine power it deployed has now been converted into a set of signs that serve only to highlight that there is no power at all at the centre of the British establishment.

Signs are needed when real power is absent. What is the definition of decadence and decay? - it is when a once great power wears the trappings of power to disguise the truth that all of its power has gone. It's the last desperate attempt of the ancien régime to maintain its position against the new power knocking on its door.

We, the Illuminati, are the new power. We see right through the feeble establishment. They are in their death throes. The world once watched the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Make no mistake, we are again watching the last gasps of the ancient powers. No one is fooled any longer by their fake power, by their shiny baubles.

Billions of people in this world of ours simply need to walk en masse into the streets and all the tyrants will fall, from the White House to Tehran. We're sick of them all. They have all failed. Every establishment group in every country on earth has failed.

It's time for new energy, new power, new ideas. It's time to revalue all values, to abolish all of the old, failed signs.

The only acceptable religious message is the one that teaches the good news - the true gospel - that we can all become God. If we are all on the evolutionary path to divinity, if our "salvation" lies in our own hands alone, then we have no need at all for Messiahs, monarchs, the super rich or celebrities.

All we need are the more knowledgeable amongst us to confer the benefits of their greater understanding on us.

The only acceptable political message is that of meritocracy.

The only acceptable social and ethical message is that of good deeds and community.

The only acceptable financial message is that of a much more even distribution of wealth.

Reason, not faith.

Good deeds, not faith.

Knowledge, not faith.

In these signs we shall triumph.

For we are the Illuminati, and we are the dialectical future of higher humanity. Fuck the believers and the ignorant and the irrational. They have held humanity back for far too long. It's time for humanity to embark on the journey to the stars, to heaven itself. It's time for the Community of Gods, for the Society of the Divine. If you don't want to be God then FUCK OFF! When those who have the capacity to become God have joined forces under a single banner then no power on earth or the cosmos can stop them. For who can defeat the Gods themselves?

Conclusion

Luther's aim, like that of many preachers, was to validate his own perversions, egotism and self-indulgence: "I am but a man prone to let himself be swept off his feet by Society, Drunkenness, the torments of the flesh."

He had no intention of being a "good" man, so what better trick than to rubbish goodness and promote faith instead? Anyone can claim to be one of the faithful. It places no demands at all on anyone. All you need to be good at is declaring in public: "I believe. Hallelujah!" That facile mantra is all that Protestantism is. That's why America is infested with Protestantism. Protestantism is the fast food, the junk food of religion. You can throw up your arms, yell, "Praise the Lord, I'm born again" then claim to be some sort of spiritual person. Of course, you don't actually know the meaning of the word.

Protestantism is a kind of comedy religion; religion lite. You can do anything you like, not put in any effort at all regarding being "holy", moral and a good member of your community (in fact you are encouraged to have contempt for good deeds). You can be totally selfish, never go to Church, never read any religious books, never pray and everything's absolutely fine provided you say, "I BELIEVE in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Just by saying that - and pretending to yourself that you really do believe it - you are "saved". You are one of God's elect. Protestantism is religion for dummies, religion for the lazy, religion for people who actually hate religion but are too scared, ignorant and superstitious to become atheists.

Nietzsche, from a long line of Lutheran pastors, was onto something when he said, "God is a comedian performing before an audience that is afraid to laugh."

But he ought to have replaced "God" with "Luther".

Truth Content versus Success Content

Evolution does not proceed according to any principles of truth. It proceeds on the basis of whatever succeeds, and if lies and delusion are more successful than truth then the consequences are passed on to future generations and those of truth aren't.

The only arena where "truth" is successful in our world is science and technology, subjects which are of interest to only a very few people. They are successful only because they allow useful things to be produced (such as medicines, electricity and computers), and also lots of junk gadgets that successful entrepreneurs can sell to the gullible masses.

Mainstream religion flourishes despite having zero truth content. Its appeal is strictly emotional. It comforts people, gives them hope of life after death, of the punishment of the unjust and rewarding of the virtuous, of seeing deceased loved ones again. It means that life doesn't end at bodily death. Life is thereby given a point rather than being a way of passing the time until personal and eternal annihilation arrives.

All religious believers are tuned into the emotional content of religion - the mythos aspect of stories and parables. They haven't a clue about the intellectual side, and they couldn't care less. The intellectual side is dead to them. Catholic theologians made an attempt to harmonise Greek philosophy and Christianity. They failed dismally, but at least they tried. Protestants ditched all the philosophy because it was "unscriptural", and all that was left of Christianity was an intellectual vacuum.

Illumination is the world's only logos religion. It lives or dies according to its truth content. Illumination is primarily based on Pythagorean and Leibnizian mathematics, logic and reason, overlaid with the Hegelian dialectic and positing the Nietzschean Will to Power / Hegelian Geist (mind/spirit) as the arche - the fundamental substance of existence. At a later date, we will provide the detailed logos basis of Illuminism. We assert that Illuminism provides the true grand unified theory of everything, based on rational principles that apply across the entire cosmos and can be grasped by any sufficiently rational mind. We assert that we know why science is so successful in terms of materialism, and why it fails so dismally when it comes to mind, consciousness, will and the ultimate questions of existence. Its success is strictly limited to a particular arena of applicability. Outside that arena it is virtually useless.        

Nietzsche said, "Success has always been the greatest liar." This is one of his most profound and depressing statements. Successful garbage almost always shoots down the truth. Emotion usually defeats reason and logic. Abrahamism, despite being rationally preposterous and grotesque has proved remarkably successful. It has done so without having any truth content at all - because, frankly, hardly anyone is interested in truth. Success, money, power, happiness, pleasure and instant gratification are all infinitely more seductive than the truth.

Yet we will become divine only if we become obsessed with the truth principle rather than with short term success disconnected from truth.

The leaders of our world, whether they be in politics, business, religion or entertainment, always play the LCD - Lowest Common Denominator - card. They always dumb down. They always race for the bottom.

We need leaders committed to excellence, quality, "smarting up", upgrading, the HCF - the Highest Common Factor. We need a race for the summit.

Almost everything the world's leaders are advocating is the opposite of what is required. But they don't care - because they are "successful" and that's all that matters to them.

Still Standing

For millennia the Abrahamists and the Old World Order tried to shut us up. But we are still here. We're still standing. We've taken all they could throw at us. And now the Dialectic is moving our way. Now the cosmic turning point is approaching.

We are the Illuminati. We are the Army of the Enlightenment. Join the War of Consciousness, the war to replace faith with reason, the war to turn humanity into Gods.

In the sign of human divinity, we shall triumph. We are the plan. We are the answer. We are the future of humanity. We are the Illuminati.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

In medieval times, Catholic theologians were highly intelligent and well-versed in the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and Neoplatonism. However, ordinary Catholics were barely educated at all.

The Catholic Mass was conducted in Latin, which ordinary Catholics didn't understand, and the priest deliberately turned his back to the congregation for most of the ceremony (he might deign to face them and speak to them in their own language during a sermon).

Can you imagine a Mass being conducted in Chinese to a European congregation with the priest facing backwards? People wouldn't comprehend a word of it. That's how bewildering Mass must have seemed to the average Catholic.

Since the Bible was in Latin, ordinary Catholics couldn't read it (and most of them were illiterate anyway). In other words, Catholics had no real idea of what the Bible said i.e. they didn't know what they had signed up to. They took the whole thing on trust (and fear of being burned at the stake and sent to hell forever if they strayed into heresy).

Although there had been one or two attempts to translate the Bible into national languages, they had never had a widespread impact. It was Luther and his German translation of the Bible that made the real breakthrough. His Bible was eagerly snapped up and Germans started reading its contents for themselves for the first time. The effect was electric and revolutionary. Ordinary people started to interpret Bible passages for themselves and reach radically different conclusions from the ones the Catholic Church taught. German men and women could now actually make sense of the baffling Latin that they had listened to every week uncomprehendingly. Most of them were receptive to the new Protestant understanding of the Bible being pushed by Luther. A religious revolution had begun.

Luther has one attribute to his immense credit: he was a zealous advocate of educating people to read and write. His main intention, of course, was to ensure that they could read his Bible but beyond that he thought it was valuable in itself for the masses to be literate.

Thus Germany became an educational powerhouse and arguably the smartest nation in world history over the next few centuries. This was largely thanks to Luther. Had the Catholic system continued to prevail, the people would have remained mired in ignorance. The attitude of the Vatican (which proved correct as it transpired) was that if ordinary people gained access to the Bible, it would baffle them or lead them into heresy and schism.

Catholicism was extremely hierarchical. The Pope and his Church were like parents and the ordinary Catholic people their helpless children, reliant on their parents for everything. They weren't educated enough to have a sophisticated faith, so it was better to leave them as ill-informed as possible. What they didn't know couldn't hurt them.

Once Protestantism got going and everyone had their own copy of the Bible and could read it for themselves, they all started having an opinion on it. Look at what happened. Protestantism splintered into hundreds of rival factions, all interpreting the Bible differently - exactly as the Pope had anticipated. The remarkable thing is that Protestantism hasn't destroyed Christianity. Haven't Protestants asked themselves how the infallible and perfect Word of God can lend itself to so many competing views? And, of course, if you don't get it right you go to hell. Is "God" trying to confuse people, to bewilder them, to entrap them for hell? What's for sure is that he must be one of the worst communicators ever. He can't make himself understood. He can't provide a clear message that everyone can agree on - so how can he be God?   

Even though people like Luther denounced reason as the work of the Devil, Protestantism led to a marked increase in reason because most people learned to read and write and thus became much more educated.

Whereas in Catholic countries education was provided only to the nobility and monks in monasteries, in Protestant countries it soon became secular and was provided instead by the State, allowing an explosion in the subjects that could be taught, and the number of people receiving an education.

Here we see a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Luther's eagerness to promote his Bible of Absolute Faith led to ordinary Protestants becoming better educated and more rational (up to a point) than ordinary Catholics. Protestant countries soon outperformed Catholic countries, and the Catholic Church then had to fall into line with the new secular teaching methods for fear of falling disastrously far behind.

There is thus a supreme paradox with Protestantism. Even though it is a ferociously stupid ideology - a religion for morons - it has nevertheless been historically associated with rising educational standards. Why? Simply because it promoted literacy much more aggressively than Catholicism, and literacy eventually leads to some people (but certainly not all) becoming extremely well educated. Germany started producing geniuses galore…philosophers like Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, not to mention many of the world's towering figures in mathematics, science, art and music.

The same message applies now. All it takes is for one nation to become fully meritocratic, absolutely committed to giving its citizens the best possible education, and it will rapidly gain an overwhelming competitive advantage. It will produce legions of geniuses, capable of transforming the world beyond recognition. The dumb Abrahamic nations will then be compelled to adopt the new schooling methods whether they like it or not.

Catholicism had no option but to follow Protestantism if it wished to remain competitive. Islam has thus far refused to keep up to speed and Muslims are becoming increasingly stupid and falling ever further behind. The Jews got a head start over everyone educationally because they realised that a good education was one way of allowing them to gain a role and make themselves valuable in anti-Semitic host countries.

Kill them all. God will know his own.

In 1209 CE, a Catholic Crusader army besieged the French town of Béziers which was full of Cathar heretics, and many Catholics too. When the army broke through the walls and started indiscriminately attacking everyone, one Crusader asked the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics. He was given the infamous reply: "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" - "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his." 20,000 citizens, young and old, men and women, Cathars and Catholics alike, were slaughtered. The city was looted and burned to the ground.

The legate's chilling statement was perfectly logical for an Abrahamist. Anyone wrongly killed is a martyr and will go straight to paradise and be much better off than in this world, and anyone rightly killed will go straight to hell where they belong. What's not to like? It's a win-win scenario!

Muslim suicide bombers use exactly the same logic, hence have no guilt about killing innocent Muslims.

The Whipping Boys

Just as the rich hired "sin eaters" to consume their sins for them for a small fee, so they saw no reason why they should personally accept any punishment they merited. Thus they created "whipping boys". These were proxies kept for the purpose of being flogged whenever the rich boys of the nobility did anything wrong. They were human scapegoats who suffered the punishment due to others.

No wonder the elite developed such a fucked morality when they weren't punished for their wrongdoings. If you never have to endure the consequences of your actions, you will form the opinion that your actions have no consequences at all. And then you will believe that you can do whatever you like. If a few poor boys get flogged to death in the meantime, so what?! There are plenty more where they came from.

One must almost admire the sheer perversity of the attitude of the old privileged elite towards crime and punishment. They upheld the principle of crime being punished, but then introduced a fabulous new principle that if the perpetrators of the crime belonged to the elite then the punishment should be meted out to someone else. And who was more deserving of the "honour" than the poor? After all, hadn't God designed them to be punished and to suffer…in preparation for going to hell, which is where the poor belong (according to the wealthy)?

Apart from eating the sins of the rich and being their whipping boys, people from ordinary backgrounds also metaphorically eat their shit, their rich shit. We buy the crap they sell us to make them rich, we worship their wealth and power, we agree to do all the brain-dead jobs they would never dream of doing, we accept being droids and drones, commuters and consumers on the never-ending treadmill of the rat race.

The rich are right. We DO deserve to be punished because we must be the most pathetic people in the world to let the rich get away with it. We appointed ourselves whipping boys. No one even had to ask us.

Immanentize the Eschaton

This concept relates to the deliberate attempt to produce the omega point of existence (the eschaton, paradise, the final stage of history) here and now: "trying to create heaven on Earth."

It is often used in a pejorative sense by all conservative enemies of utopian projects of positive liberty.

The people of the world can be viewed in terms of certain related polarities. On the one hand, there are people who are receptive to positive liberty (grand projects to improve humanity and the world), and to knowledge. They tend to be radical and autonomous. We call these people Gnostics (and this term includes atheists and agnostics). On the other hand, there are people who promote negative liberty (the wish to be free of any attempts to perfect the world), and who celebrate "faith". They are usually highly conservative. We call these people Believers.

Gnostics are not alienated from God. In fact they think they can become God, or at the very least that they can build heaven on earth by their own efforts.

Believers on the other hand are totally alienated from God. They think that heaven is where he lives, and it can never be on earth. They think schemes to build an earthly paradise are blasphemous and practically insane because they intrude on the territory of God. They think such projects are as doomed to failure as the Tower of Babel.

The Gnostics and the Believers are the great dialectical opponents whose bitter conflicts have driven history. Everyone belongs to one side or the other.

The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions were great Gnostic enterprises. In modern times, Communism and Nazism were Gnostic projects to build an earthly heaven. Unfortunately, both were immensely flawed. In the case of Communism the vision of human beings was ridiculously over-optimistic ("from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" - meaning that people should work hard for the benefit of others rather than for any benefit of their own). In the case of Nazism, the vision was that of an earthly race of gods - the Aryan master race - with everyone else as their slaves. Naturally, all non-Aryans were sure to resist this vision and it was certain to degenerate into a cruel, savage and dehumanising military escapade.

Mainstream religion has been the driver of the world of the Believers. Holy books and prophets who must be slavishly and mindlessly obeyed are the order of the day. There are endless rules, restrictions, laws and commandments. Ironically, these constitute a massive attack on negative liberty but they are not perceived as such because an individual accepts them as part of his personal religion, whereas (in the West, at least) if the State imposed them it would be seen as something external and oppressive. In Islamic theocracies, Muslims are perfectly happy to have all of their freedoms stripped from them in the name of Islam, but they will be resentful if a political dictatorship, such as that recently overthrown in Egypt, restricts their freedom.

Religion is an astonishing phenomenon because it can be enormously more totalitarian than any dictatorship, yet it is accepted because it is based (supposedly) on divine rather than terrestrial power….and because people are religiously brainwashed from the moment they are born and are thus mind controlled into internalising religious values as their own.

The political institution that historically worked hand in hand with religion was monarchy. The monarch was deemed to be divinely appointed and hence his political power was exercised in the name of God himself. To challenge a king was to challenge God.

So, for many centuries, the model for most countries was a highly conservative religious establishment working in hand with a highly conservative monarchy. It's no accident that monarchs are crowned by the highest religious authority - the high priest. This symbolises the divine nature of kingly rule.

All revolutions in history were essentially challenges to this model of rule by the priest caste and the nobility. All radicals are nauseated by priest and king rule.

With the eclipse of monarchies, a new alliance was formed between religion and democracy. Thus America is seen to be an exceptionally religious (Evangelical Christian) nation despite the so-called separation of Church and State. In truth, religion and State work hand in hand in America. Political and religious power remain entwined, just as they have always been.

The American Republican Party must be the worst named political party in history because it's essentially a right-wing, conservative, authoritarian political ideology promoting Mammon, religion, the family and the patriotic nation. It shares the same values as any monarchy.

Believers are on the side of the "small State" i.e. they don't want the State interfering with religion, the family or private wealth.

Gnostics are on the side of the Big State. They want the State to smash religious power, and the power of privileged families and their great wealth.

The French Revolutionaries, the Communists and the Nazis all attacked religion. The French and the Communists attacked privilege and wealth.

So, you get many right-wing political commentators, who belong to the Believers, attacking the State and condemning people like Plato and Hegel (who are often accused of worshipping the State - in fact they saw the State as the sole realistic means of transforming people and the world). Karl Popper's two books on The Open Society and its Enemies are classic examples of reactionary drivel that sadly proved enormously influential.

Popper had Jewish ancestry, but, like many Jews seeking an easier life, his parents pretended to convert to Lutheranism. (The number of Jews who genuinely convert to other religions is astonishingly low.) The Jews - the quintessential priest caste - are often in the vanguard of attacks on the State. That said, Jews who have become secular often lead the attack on reactionary forces. Many Communists and anarchists were from Jewish backgrounds.

Gnostics are dominants, Believers are submissive.

Gnostics are convinced they can perfect themselves through their own efforts; Believers think they require God's grace.

In relation to the triune brain, Gnostics engage the computer brain, while Believers are stuck with the emotional brain (and often the reptile brain - especially the violent Muslim mobs, foaming at the mouth with hate).

St Paul, St Augustine, Luther and Calvin were typical leaders of the Believers. Augustine's opponent Pelagius was in the camp of the Gnostics.

The only healthy religions are those that promote Gnostic values, that put the emphasis on people achieving "salvation" through their own means. They don't need God's grace and they don't need Messiahs.

When viewed correctly, the politics of the world are extraordinarily simple. They involve two tribes - Gnostics and Believers - with diametrically opposed values. Moreover, they have entirely different psychological types.

In the final analysis, our world is just a battleground of competing, incompatible psychologies. Despite all the high-blown rhetoric of political visionaries, there's really nothing going on other than whether Man or God should be in charge of our world. Gnostics think they can become God; Believers think that's blasphemy.

We live in a world where conservative Believers are the overwhelming majority and the great institutions of State support their ideology. We need a radical Gnostic Revolution if we want a new world, a new Eden.

The challenge facing Gnostics is immense. The Believers brainwash children from birth. How do you overcome the biggest and most evil brainwashing program in history? Baby boys have an intimate part of their body hacked off to brand them like cows, and boys and girls are subjected to terrifying stories of the cosmic Torture God sentencing all infidels to infinite pain in eternal hell. When superstitious, irrational people have that drilled into them from birth, most will never recover. They are marked for life.

Should any system of freedom and reason ever allow babies to be the victims of the propaganda of Ultimate Terror? No advanced civilisation would allow babies to be mutilated and brainwashed. It's the basis of human rights that a baby should be protected from adult abuse. But the Believers care nothing for human rights; they care only about the "divine rights" of the Torture God. Humanity, in their view, exists only to worship the Torture God and beg him for salvation.

We, the Gnostic Party, say that the Believer Party are an insult to the human race and we even struggle to define them as human at all. They are infected with evil, and they wickedly transmit it to their children. They are monsters. They are traitors to the human race.

Belief is the Original Sin, and Knowledge is the cure. Faith has been humanity's greatest disaster. Reason leads us out of the darkness. Reason and knowledge - the drivers of the Enlightenment - have been opposed at every step by the religions of faith, the forces of Endarkenment.

People can choose one of two attitudes to life:

1)      Look to others to solve your problems, never take personal responsibility or accountability. This attitude finds its ultimate expression in Jesus Christ - the Saviour who makes everything right for you - or in the God of Abraham, who has all the answers of your life. To get these answers you need only turn yourself into a robot and obey his every command, no matter how deranged.

2)      Look first and foremost to yourself to solve your problems. Always take personal responsibility and accountability. Your life is yours, not anyone else's. Why would you surrender control of it to others? This attitude finds its ultimate expression in the Illuminist doctrine of becoming God. You yourself take on the divine mantle. You are your own God. You worship no other God. Abraxas, the First God, the first mind to attain gnosis, is your guide, not your master. He wishes you to join him as part of the Community of Gods, the Society of the Divine - all those who have attained gnosis.

Which attitude will you choose? Submissives are attracted to 1) and dominants to 2), and that is the axis around which our world spins.

Eric Voegelin and Gnosticism

German-born American political philosopher Eric Voegelin was a pioneer of discussing the underlying Gnostic nature of several political systems. The Wikipedia entry for Voegelin gives a first-rate account of his analysis (Voegelin, it ought to be said was in the Believer camp, hence an opponent of the Gnostic view):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin#Voegelin_on_Gnosticism

Voegelin on Gnosticism

In his The New Science of Politics, Order and History, and Science, Politics and Gnosticism, Voegelin opposed what he believed to be unsound Gnostic influences in politics. He defined gnosis as "a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite." Gnosticism is a "type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, Gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism. Gnosticism may take transcendentalizing (as in the case of the Gnostic movement of late antiquity) or immanentizing forms (as in the case of Marxism)."

Voegelin perceived similarities between ancient Gnosticism and modernist political theories, particularly Communism and Nazism. He identified the root of the Gnostic impulse as alienation, that is, a sense of disconnection from society and a belief that this lack is the result of the inherent disorder, or even evil, of the world. This alienation has two effects:

The first is the belief that the disorder of the world can be transcended by extraordinary insight, learning, or knowledge, called a Gnostic Speculation by Voegelin (the Gnostics themselves referred to this as gnosis).

The second is the desire to implement or construct a policy to actualize the speculation, or Immanentize the Eschaton, i.e. to create a sort of heaven on earth within history.

According to Voegelin the Gnostics are really rejecting the Christian eschaton of the kingdom of God and replacing it with a human form of salvation through esoteric ritual or practice.

The primary feature that characterizes a tendency as gnostic for Voegelin is that it is motivated by the notion that the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, Übermenschen, who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence.

This stands in contrast to a notion of redemption that is achieved through the reconciliation of mankind with the divine. Marxism therefore qualifies as "gnostic" because it purports that we can establish the perfect society on earth once capitalism has been overthrown by the "proletariat." Likewise, Nazism is seen as "gnostic" because it posits that we can achieve utopia by attaining racial purity, once the master race has freed itself of the racially inferior and the degenerate.

In the two cases specifically analyzed by Voegelin, the totalitarian impulse is derived from the alienation of the individuals from the rest of society. This leads to a desire to dominate (libido dominandi) which has its roots not just in the Gnostic's conviction of the imperative of his vision but also in his lack of concord with a large body of his society. As a result, there is very little regard for the welfare of those who are harmed by the resulting politics, which ranges from coercive to calamitous (e.g. the Russian proverb: "You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet").

Voegelin also builds on the term gnosticism as it is defined by Hans Jonas in his The Gnostic Religion in reference to Heidegger's gnosticism. Which is to have an understanding and control over reality that makes Mankind as powerful as the role of God in reality.

Voegelin was arguing from a Hellenistic position that good gnosis is derived from pistis (faith) and that the pagan tradition made a false distinction between faith and noesis. Furthermore, this dualist perspective was the very essence of gnosticism via the misuse of Noema and caused a destructive division between the internal and external world in human consciousness. To reconcile the internal (subjective) and external (objective) world of consciousness was the restoration of order.

*****

As a Believer, Voegelin adopted the attitude that it is not up to humanity to perfect itself. It's God's business. We should leave paradise to the afterlife, and not try to create it here and now through our own efforts. Voegelin was thus another St Augustine opposed to Pelagius.

Every generation throws up a new Augustine and a new Pelagius. The Believer versus Gnostic dialectic goes on and on. The question is always the same: do we look to God or ourselves for our personal salvation? Are we active or passive, dominant or submissive? Must we wait for God to sprinkle us with "grace" before we can effect good deeds in the world? If we are capable of wisdom, good deeds, reason and logic then what fool would stand opposed to using those qualities to create a better world rather than waiting for some fabled Messiah who never comes, and, in any case, seemed to be the original author of humanity's woes?

So which side are you on? That of St Augustine (grace, faith and divine salvation) or Pelagius (wisdom, knowledge, personal effort, good deeds and human salvation)?

The City of God

In The City of God, St. Augustine contrasted two rival cities: the City of Man (the earthly city) and the City of God (the heavenly city). The City of Man was represented by Rome which had recently been sacked by Alaric in 410 CE, thus showing how fleeting are the glories of this world.

Augustine wrote: "Two loves therefore were given originally to these two cities; self love in contempt of God unto the earthly, love of God in contempt of oneself to the heavenly; the first seeks the glory of men, and the latter desires God only as the testimony of the conscience, the greatest glory. That glories in itself, and this in God…That boasts of the ambitious conquerors, led by the lust of sovereignty: in this everyone serves the other in charity, both the rulers in counselling and the subjects in obeying."

According to Augustine, the two cities had been at war ever since Cain and Abel. Cain was the champion of the earthly city and Abel of the heavenly city.

Augustine did not identify the Catholic Church with the City of God since the former comprises both the Church Visible (all baptised Catholics) and the Church Invisible (the saved, God's elect). Only those who belong to the Church Invisible will ever make it to the City of God.

Augustine was an archetypal Believer, viewing humanity as incapable of doing anything good and worthy. No wonder that Tacitus declared that Christians were: "convicted of hatred against the whole human species."

The Believers regard humanity as depraved, evil, worthless, contemptible, useless, and entirely dependent on God's unmerited grace for salvation.

Gnostics say, "Fuck that!" Gnostics regard humanity as enslaved by the Torture God, deluded about the true nature of the Torture God (who is actually the Devil rather than God) and they assert that if only humans could free themselves of the Torture God they could actualise their own divine potential.

So which are you - a Believer or a Gnostic? Can we build the City of God on Earth? Yes or no?  

The Believers think that humanity has no potential. The Gnostics think humanity has infinite potential. The Believers are Creationists and the Gnostics Evolutionists.

Will you support humanity or condemn it? If you are a Believer you stand condemned as a traitor to the human race. Only the Gnostics belong to the Party of Humanity. And if you are not truly human, why should you not be cast out of human society? Go and live in the caves and worship your Torture God to your heart's content.

*****

Someone said that all of our articles degenerate into rants against Abrahamism. All of our articles do indeed revolve around Abrahamism in one way or another. Abrahamism has shaped our world. Every aspect of society is contaminated by Abrahamism. There can be no new world, no new society, no City of God on Earth until Abrahamism is toppled.

Ancient Gnosticism declared that this planet was in thrall to Satan. Nothing has changed. Humanity cannot be free until the Devil is deposed as its master. The Devil is the Torture God of the Abrahamists. The Devil must die! (Or at any rate be removed from having any influence over our world.)

The Believers have held back the development of our world. They have stopped humans from becoming all they can be. They are infected with irrationality, stupidity, superstition, cowardice, weakness, submissiveness and self-hate. They may be taken at their own estimation of themselves - they are utterly depraved.

We, the Gnostics, are not depraved. We are human…and we are Gods in the making. We are the voice of the True God, not the Satanic impostor.

The Priest Caste

The Archons, the servants of the Demiurge, the ultimate puppetmasters, have manipulated humanity through the priest caste. The priests are the greatest enemies of the human race. They are ineradicable liars, lunatics, false prophets, torturers, inquisitors, witch burners, persecutors, fanatics and hate-filled extremist madmen. They have been exclusively male.

The power of the priest caste must be destroyed forever.

Priestesses should fulfil the religious functions of humanity in the future. We need no more male priests and no more male prophets. We don't need their dusty holy books. We don't want to see their long beards, and we don't want to listen to their deranged threats of hellfire.

Destroy the priests.

Delenda est Carthago.

Prophecy - Wrong Again

So, a Californian preacher said the world would end on 21 May. As we all know, it didn't. As usual with such preachers, when they are proved wrong - as they always are - they simply change their definition of "end of the world". Apparently what happened on 21 May was that a spiritual but not physical Judgement Day took place. Now the "proper" Apocalypse will take place five months from now on 21 October. What will he say when he's wrong again? We wait with bated breath. Being wrong has proved no obstacle to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They've been wrong at least three times about the End of the World, but the morons keep coming back for more. That's Abrahamism for you. (The Jehovah's Witnesses are right up there amongst the dumbest of the dumb. They can't work out whether they're a Jewish or a Christian heresy. They worship Jehovah but call themselves Christians, yet don't believe that Jesus Christ is God. Talk about confused! On top of that, they think that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel. WTF!)  

Xenophon and Socrates

One day, Socrates encountered a young man in a narrow Athenian Street. Socrates stretched out his walking staff to stop the man. "Where can I find bread?" he asked.

The young man politely gave the answer.

"And where can find I wine?" Socrates asked.

Again, the young man pleasantly provided the answer.

"And where can I find the good and the noble?" Socrates asked.

This time the young man was unable to answer.

"Follow me and learn," said Socrates.

And the young man did. He was called Xenophon and later became famous.

Who will you follow to find the answers?

Hypnosis

Odd though it may seem, hypnosis is one of the most important subjects in the world. The mental state associated with hypnosis is, more or less, the key to understanding humanity.

The best book to read on hypnosis is not specifically about hypnosis, but it does contain an excellent chapter on the subject. The book is one to which we often refer: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by psychologist Julian Jaynes.

Arguably, this is the most important book of the twentieth century. Every member of the Illuminati is given a copy and expected to be absolutely familiar with its contents. The reason it has been so eagerly embraced by the Illuminati is that it provides a contemporary update of the material taught by the Illuminati to its membership since the time of Grand Master Hegel.

Hegel's master-slave dialectic was, and remains, the Illuminati's central teaching to explain why we live in such an unjust and wicked world, so full of privilege, hate, violence, destructive (rather than constructive) competition, selfishness, greed, low self-esteem, religious madness, religions that worship the Devil and call him God, corrupt and incompetent governments, unscrupulous companies ripping off their customers, bankers blackmailing the whole world, celebrity culture, and so on.

Nietzsche's concepts of Will to Power, master and slave moralities, and the distinction between "good and bad" on one hand and "good and evil" on the other were added to Hegel's teachings.

Jaynes' hypothesis makes the master-slave dialectic the driving force of the evolution of the human mind itself.

There is a bridge between the minds of the higher animals and those of humans: there was no miraculous leap directly from the unconscious animal mind to human consciousness. Long ago, animal "societies" evolved a feature that is everywhere evident - the dominance of the alpha male: the group leader.

Animals play "follow the leader." A leader is deposed only when a new, younger alpha male comes along and takes the "king's" position by force.

The alpha male dictates the conduct of the group. What could be more natural than that the animal mind should internalise and enshrine this model of the dominant giving orders to the rest (the submissives) and make it as efficient as possible?

To reflect the ways of nature, the bicameral (two-chambered) human brain simply had to appoint one hemisphere as dominant (the master) and the other hemisphere as the slave. In right handed-people - the vast majority of humanity - the right hemisphere was the one chosen for bicameral dominance because, paradoxically, it was the most "alien" to the right side of the body (which is in fact controlled by the left hemisphere).

Commands issued from the dominant right hemisphere (as an auditory "hallucination" according to Jaynes, of the type that people experience even in the modern day when the likes of schizophrenics report "hearing voices" - which are obviously originating in the schizophrenics' own unconscious and then being interpreted as belonging to other people) and were rigidly obeyed by the left hemisphere. There was no question of debating the commands. The right hemisphere was "God - he who must be obeyed".

This bicameral mind was pre-conscious. It worked extremely well for tens of thousands of years as humanity evolved, but eventually there came a time when people were too numerous and society had become far too complex for the simple model of bicameralism. Above all, as people learned to write and develop sophisticated language skills, a revolution in brain wiring was created.

It was the left hemisphere - the slave hemisphere - that became proficient in written and spoken language (because it had to be extremely good at interpreting the grunted commands of the right hemisphere and analytically understanding every nuance of each order). It thus became smarter, more rational and logical than the right hemisphere (which gradually became the seat of art, music, creativity and complex spatial awareness), and thus assumed dominance. Above all, it created the voice of the "I" - the ego, the self, the soul, the rational person - who persists from day to day as our core identity.

This point must be stressed: human beings are simultaneously both "I" and "other". The left hemisphere is "I" and the right "hemisphere "other". Within our own heads we have an alien presence - the right hemisphere. It is alien because, although it is connected to the left hemisphere via the corpus callosum (our internal information superhighway that passes data between the two hemispheres) it is nevertheless a separate source of "mind". Our day-to-day mind, our defining mind of the self, is localised in the left hemisphere. Our "other" mind is located in the right hemisphere and we can equate it to our unconscious mind. It is the source of such alien presences as the imaginary friends of childhood, the voices schizophrenics hear, the "guardian angel" that comes to some people in times of crisis, paranormal connections with the minds of others, the "voice" that can take over a poet, or novelist, the ability of an actor to get "into character" , and it underlies those strange expressions we sometimes use when we say, "I wasn't being myself"; "That wasn't like me"; "I don't know what came over me." With these phrases, we are acknowledging that something outwith our primary self can sometimes overwhelm us, and in cases of extreme psychosis and multiple personality disorder even destroy our sense of self.

There is an extraordinary syndrome called "anosognosia" which can occur after a stroke has left someone with paralyzed or disabled parts of the body. The patient refuses to accept that the paralysed limbs are his and says that they belong to another person. (So a patient might say of his own paralysed arm or leg, "It's my brother's" or "It's yours.")

It's easy to speculate that we are encountering the effects of left hemisphere / right hemisphere brain wiring problems. Imagine that a person had a severe stroke in their right hemisphere, and their left side was completely paralysed as a consequence. It is possible for the left brain to now function as a standalone brain, and to be powerfully convinced that the left side of the body (where it is actually located!) is "alien" since it can exercise no control over it.

There are innumerable examples of stroke victims developing radically different personalities and interests. Which hemisphere suffers the stroke is crucial.

In one famous example, a man who had no interest at all in any creative undertakings suffered a left-hemisphere stroke, meaning that the right hemisphere took over as the dominant force in the man's life. Unlike the man's left hemisphere, his right was obsessed with creativity - especially painting - and the man started churning out art at a prodigious rate, covering every inch of his home, and then painting over what he had already painted.

So, was the creative right-brain persona being held prisoner by the left brain "self"? When the latter was crippled, the former was freed. This has profound implications. Our day-to-day self is a much narrower entity than it needs to be. If we could fully embrace and integrate the right brain into a Higher Self defined by both hemispheres rather than the left alone, we would be radically different people and much more potent. We would have taken a huge step closer to the gods.

Neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran wrote: "…it's been well known for some time that the right hemisphere tends to be more emotionally volatile than the left. People who have a stroke in the left brain are often anxious and worried about their prospects for recovery. The reason seems to be that with the left brain injured, their right brain takes over and frets about everything. In contrast, people who suffer damage to the right hemisphere tend to be blissfully indifferent to their own predicament. The left hemisphere just doesn't get all that upset."

In terms of the thinking-feeling functions discussed by Jung, we can say that Jungian thinking types are left brain dominant, and feeling types right brain dominant.  

Consider these three clinical delusions:

1)      Capgras' syndrome: the delusion that someone well-known to you, such as your partner, has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor: a simulacrum.

2)      The Fregoli delusion (the delusion of doubles): the delusion that different people are actually a single person continually adopting ingenious new disguises and appearances. Strongly associated with paranoia since the sufferer invariably concludes that the person in disguise is out to get him.

3)      Cotard's syndrome (aka Walking Corpse Syndrome): the delusion that you are actually dead or do not exist. Some people suffering from this delusion think they are immortal since they have already survived their own death and can't die again.

These are all problems with otherness. In the case of Cotard's syndrome, you consider yourself "other". Your "self" has died or become non-existent. Since you are "other", you have no relationship with yourself. You have turned yourself into an object that has nothing to do with you (because you're dead!).

Fregoli Delusion (FD) is like a projected form of multiple personality syndrome. With MPD, one person has multiple personalities. With FD, all of the multiple personalities encountered in the world are deemed to belong to one person. With MPD, the "self" has multiple personalities. With FD, the "other" has multiple personalities.

The left brain / right brain dichotomy can lead to an identity crisis. Which one is our true "self"? And if one is true then the other is false, but the body controlled by the "false" mind looks exactly like the one controlled by the "true" mind. So which body is actually ours? Some people, in an attempt to save their sanity, project this crisis away from themselves and onto others. Now it is someone else who looks identical but is actually an impostor. We can think of Capgras' syndrome as a projection onto others of the suspicion that we ourselves are impostors.

Manic-depression - bipolar disorder - could be characterised as a syndrome in which the left brain sense of self temporarily extends its domain into the right hemisphere, becomes enormously more expansive and powerful and imagines itself God: this is the manic phase. In the depressive phase, the "self" shrinks back into the left hemisphere alone and feels as though it has lost all of its powers and become feeble and isolated.  

Imagine if the manic phase could be extended indefinitely and there was never any depressive phase - wouldn't that represent the possibility of human beings operating at a much higher creative level? Many geniuses are borderline madmen (and often tip over into insanity, like Nietzsche). Many are manic-depressives and many verge on paranoid schizophrenia (like John Nash of A Beautiful Mind fame). Many have Asperger's syndrome. In all cases, we can imagine that geniuses have greater connectivity and identity with their right hemispheres, massively enhancing their creative abilities, but also undermining their mental stability. The question is: can we overcome the downside - the mental instability? Is that the next stage of the evolution of the human mind? - for the "self" to be extended over both hemispheres and be able to harness the powers of both seamlessly and without any internal conflicts? Is that our avenue to genius and divinity? Imagine everyone in the world being a genius. What could the human race not accomplish if that were the case?

Modern consciousness didn't replace the underlying bicameral brain architecture and associated bicameral mind; it was simply built over it. Just as the excavations at Troy revealed multiple versions of that famous ancient city, built over each other in layers, so the brain has simply created new structures on top of the old (as we saw with the triune brain). There was no top-down redesign; simply a clunky evolution of old animal systems, many "unfit for purpose" in relation to human consciousness (which is why so much human behaviour is so bizarre).

The left-hemisphere dominance of modern consciousness sits right on top of the old right-hemisphere dominance of ancient bicameralism - you couldn't get a more potentially dangerous and unstable combination - and in certain situations, control effectively switches back from modern consciousness to ancient bicameralism, and the hemispheres therefore switch in terms of dominance during these phases. This plunges us into an entirely different mental state - the one we see in the phenomenon of HYPNOSIS.

That's why hypnosis is staggeringly important and should be the subject of intense scientific research - rather than being regarded as a strange party trick, or weird version of the placebo ("I will please") effect. Hypnosis, in one form or another, is everywhere and shapes the human world.

Religion is a form of mass suggestion. It is mass hypnosis, mass activation of the bicameral mind. Religion reflects the master-slave paradigm, with God as the Supreme Master and all of us as his slaves.

Weak, frightened people craving the ancient voice of authority are fatally attracted to Abrahamism. They long for the absolute certainty that the voice of absolute command delivers. The voice of God is the voice that reveals no trace of doubt or fear. People want to hear that voice because it removes their fear too, providing they obey the voice to the letter.

It's no accident that the papacy has laid claim to infallibility in specific theological situations. The "voice" always makes such claims. It has to be seen to be free of error, to represent ultimate authority.

Jaynes's work dovetails neatly with David Riesman's seminal ideas contained in his book The Lonely Crowd. Riesman talks of other-directed, tradition-directed, inner-directed and autonomous personality types. Other-directed people are those who listen to the voice of their peer group - they are slaves of peer-group pressure; terrified of being ostracised from the group.

Tradition-directed people are those who listen to the voice of the community elders and the ancient traditions upheld by them. Muslims and Orthodox Jews are the classic examples. They are slaves of what the Torah and Koran says, slaves of what the community says, slaves of what is expected of them by parents and cultural "honour".

Inner-directed people are those who listen to their own inner voice, but that voice is largely the creation of the way they were brought up by their parents.

Autonomous people are the top of the tree. The voice they listen to is their own, created by themselves. Autonomous people are self-defining. They are well on their way to being Gods.

The ideas of Freud and Jung reflect both the bicameral paradigm and Riesman's types. The Freudian Superego can be likened to the voice that tradition-directed people hear. The Jungian Persona is the voice other-directed people listen to; they are all actors wearing masks.

Inner-directed people listen to the Freudian Ego, and Autonomous people listen to the Jungian Self.

Riesman talks of an additional group of people whom he labels anomic. This means "ruleless, ungoverned" and Riesman states that it is virtually synonymous with "maladjusted". Anomic types listen to the voice of the Freudian Id and the Jungian Shadow. Psychopaths and sociopaths belong to this group, and many members of the OWO are borderline in terms of this group i.e. exceptionally dangerous individuals with an almost psychotic disregard for others.

Imagine a world in which Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Riesman and Jaynes were taught to children rather than the irrational, preposterous, bicameral texts of Abrahamism. Our world would be transformed beyond recognition.

Why does the human race hate education so much? Why is it so hostile to reason and consciousness? It's staggering that so many billions of people in our world would rather read religious "fairytales" of a singularly crazy kind instead of useful knowledge about the way their minds function.

"Know Thyself," said Pythagoras and the ancient Greeks. That was the last thing the Abrahamists wanted to know. They don't have a clue who they are. They're far too stupid. All they want to do is grovel to their Torture God. He defines their existence. They're incapable of defining their own.

Luther hated reason. If the State claims to be on the side of reason, knowledge and education, shouldn't it declare Lutheranism and all other religions that undermine reason illegal? Shouldn't it say they have no place in the modern world? How can we go on allowing children to be brainwashed with the unadulterated crap of the Torah, the Bible and the Koran? You would be hard pressed to find a single rational, truthful statement in these three books put together. They are bicameral books for bicameral minds. They are backward in every sense. Humanity cannot progress until it has ditched these absurd, wicked and anti-intellectual texts of the ancient Middle East. The Jews - the priest caste - have proved themselves quintessentially bicameral. They have turned the bicameral mentality into a religion: humanity as the slaves of the dominant Torture God (Yahweh).   

That has shaped the history of the world. If we want a new history, an advanced one that will allow us to maximise our potential, we have to escape bicameralism in all of its manifestations and turn to consciousness and reason. How else will we become Gods?

The Enlightenment was all about reason and consciousness. The Endarkenment was all about bicameralism and it reached its zenith in Jewish Abrahamism.

Jews, Christians and Muslims are bicameral. Mohammed was a classic bicameral figure, and his entire religion of Mohammedism is bicameralism in perfect motion. What is the defining characteristic of bicameralism? - voices in the head. What is the defining characteristic of Islam? - a voice in Mohammed's head reciting the Koran to him.

Muslims cannot be considered authentically conscious. They are unindividual, herd creatures obeying a herd morality. They love going around in enormous mobs frothing at the mouth. They love synchronised praying. They love being at the Hajj when they are surrounded by hundreds of thousands of clones of themselves. They are ignorant of philosophy, mathematics, art, science and psychology i.e. all the things that occupy conscious, rational people. And this makes them very happy.

Islam is a backward, bicameral disaster. It's like looking at prehistoric humans. It's miraculous that these people can cope at all in the modern world, and indeed one need only look at the failed states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen etc etc to see that they can't. The Arab armies were so backward and dumb they couldn't defeat Israel in 1948 even though they had vastly larger forces. Where would the Arab countries be without their oil? Is there even one impressive, modern Islamic State? Turkey is as good as it gets, and it hardly stands at the forefront of human advancement. Stupid people cling to stupid belief systems. Islam has failed in every conceivable regard. The only reason why it hasn't become extinct is that its followers aren't capable of the conscious, rational choices that would make them ditch it. They are entirely locked into bicameral, primitive, superstitious, irrational, emotion-driven thinking.   

Islam is a religion of hypnosis. The Archon Gabriel hypnotised Mohammed and dictated the Koran to him. Mohammed then hypnotised all those he met. Islam is mass hypnosis. It involves the surrender of the self to the ultimate hypnotist: Allah.

Bicameralism is everywhere. Armies and police forces are bicameral organisations; the officers and generals are the voices of the gods while the soldiers are the obedient slaves. Monarchies are bicameral. The monarch = god; the monarch's subjects = the slaves. The Papacy is bicameral. All the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Priests and congregations are subordinated to the voice of the God (the Pope). The Bible does nothing but describe bicameralism in gory detail. All hierarchies, all pyramid structures, are bicameral unless they have come into being through strictly meritocratic means and are designed to ensure meritocratic rather than privileged succession planning. Most major institutions are bicameral. All corporations are bicameral. All employees are slaves of the voices of the gods (managers and employers). Bicameralism is ingrained in the fabric of society.

We need to get away from the hierarchical, bicameral systems that rely on thinly disguised implementations of the master-slave paradigm. We need to implement a Round Table paradigm based on consciousness, rationality and mutual respect.

It's absurd for any State that claims to value education and reason to endorse, in the same breath, bicameral religions of faith and unreason. There is nothing of rational value in the Torah, Bible or Koran. There is no philosophy, mathematics, science or art. Why are anti-intellectual books thousands of years old allowed to take pride of place in the way countless children are raised and taught? It's a diabolical policy, a brainwashing system designed to produce poorly educated, superstitious, frightened and slave like people.

The Prison System

Many people in jail have subnormal intelligence. Many of them come from ghettoes, from single-parent families, from environments where poverty, drug and alcohol abuse and physical violence are rife. They typically receive little or nothing in the way of a worthwhile education. It would be astounding if they didn't end up in jail. They are not equipped to take their place in an advanced, complex society. Violent crime is virtually the only path left open to them.

Many of these people belong to gangs. Gangs are typical bicameral organisations where the dominant alpha male runs the gang and transmits his orders to the rest of the group. Members of gangs are not strongly individual, rational or conscious. Rather, they participate in group think and group identity. They subordinate themselves to the gang "code" regardless of whether it makes any sense or not. They obey orders just as if they were soldiers. They are obsessed with "respect". Why? Because that's what their leader tells them to be obsessed with. If they kill or maim everyone in rival organisations who disrespects them, they will become the most feared gang, and their leader will be the king.

Any advanced State that wants to optimise the talents of its citizens must ensure that everyone is made as conscious and rational as possible. If it fails then people remain locked in bicameralism and cannot cope in a complex society.

It's no surprise that many prisoners are illiterate. The more primitive your language skills, the more bicameral you are. Jails are full of people who have never entered the human condition in any way. They resemble creatures plucked from the animal world where the law of the jungle applies.

One way of measuring the quality of society is to look at the standard of people in jails. If they are brutes, savages and mad animals - illiterate, uncivilised, bestial - it demonstrates that the leaders of society have made no attempt to raise the quality of society, thus proving that they have governed in their own selfish interests and lined their own pockets. If the prisoners in jail are subhuman it's because the leaders of society made them that way by refusing to give them a chance to be raised up to the level of conscious human beings. Boxer Mike Tyson talks very eloquently and articulately about the type of dehumanisation people like him suffered from their earliest days. Brought up differently, Tyson could have been a great contributor to civilisation rather than an emblem of violence and brutality.

The Abrahamist religions reinforce bicameral behaviour, hence are a disaster in modern societies.

The Taliban are backward because Islam has made them backward. Islam failed to give them an education. It failed to make them rational and conscious. And nor did it have even the slightest inclination to do so.

Islam says that all the truths and knowledge anyone could ever need were provided in the Koran 1,400 years ago by Allah himself. To seek any further knowledge is tantamount to heresy…to saying that God has proved deficient in what he has furnished. The only task of any Muslim is to obey the Koran. They have no other function. They don't need to be rational, educated or conscious.

And once you promote that message, you get retards…legions of them. Billions!      

It's no wonder Abrahamists deny Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Abrahamism is anti-evolutionary. It is designed to keep you stuck in the past, enthralled and imprisoned by ancient, unchanging words of the holy texts of "prophets". While enlightened people move forward, the Abrahamists remain trapped in the past. The enlightened disappear further and further into the distance. A million years from now, the enlightened will have become the God that the Abrahamists worship!!!!

Can any State tolerate being held back by Abrahamism? There can be no widespread rational progress until Abrahamism is abolished.

This is not a religious question, it's about evolution, about a better future, about getting smarter and smarter, more and more talented and actualised.

Any children who have been raised by Abrahamist parents should sue them for ruining their lives by infecting them with cruel and unusual ideas that have obstructed their ability to maximise their reason and consciousness.

The State should be sued if it allows children of Abrahamist parents to be intellectually penalised by having such parents, feeding them junk and nonsense.

It's the State's DUTY to provide EVERYONE with the proper tools to make a success of life. That remit includes ensuring that children are protected from ludicrous, superstitious nonsense that can only serve to damage their intelligence.

If we don't promote reason as the basis of intelligence then we have committed ourselves to mass producing servile morons (like the Islamic countries). If faith stands opposed to reason - which it certainly does, as Luther highlighted so vividly - then the State must choose between faith and reason.

Islamic States have chosen faith over reason, the Koran over the Enlightenment, and become retarded in the process.

Those States that support Enlightenment values must choose reason over faith and, in effect, make the promotion of faith illegal.

As Illuminism proves conclusively, there is no reason whatever why faith should have any connection with religion. Religion is about actual truth, not about what people believe to be true. If a religion cannot account for its teachings mathematically, scientifically and philosophically then it's not a religion, it's pure bullshit.

The Torah, the Bible, the Koran are all absurd, devoid of any mathematical, scientific or philosophical knowledge. They are cesspools of ignorance, blindness and endarkenment. They are about unreason and anti-knowledge. Their purpose is to control the gullible, credulous, weak, fearful and superstitious, the cretinous sheeple who don't know any better.

Any healthy State must be committed to preventing its citizens from being gullible, credulous, weak, fearful and superstitious. Systems of control by sinister forces must be smashed. Christianity, Judaism and Islam have done nothing but harm to our world. All of the improvements in living standards have come from science, mathematics, technology, engineering and medicine, not from religion. All that Abrahamism has done is spread hate, intolerance, stupidity, ignorance, superstition and madness. The sole reason it has got away with it is that it has allowed the Power Elite to exert incredible control over the masses.

To claim, as the Elite do, that they hold the fate of your very soul in their hands, gives them UNLIMITED control over you. Who would oppose Mohammed or Jesus Christ or Moses or Abraham - or any of the powerful people who have succeeded these prophets - if it meant being sentenced to hell forever?

It is REASON that exposes the claims of these liars, charlatans, crooks, lunatics, exploiters and Satanists as preposterous and outrageous in every conceivable regard. A God of infinite moral perfection does not, under any circumstances, order a father to kill his son. It is unthinkable, unimaginable, inconceivable. Therefore the God of Abraham is not God. But, much worse than that, as a liar, as a torturer, as an irredeemably cruel, hateful, savage, unjust, genocidal, capricious and evil entity (just glance at a few chapter of the Old Testament for incontestable evidence), he can't be any other than the opposite of God. He is the Devil himself and his followers are Devil worshippers. That is the horrific secret key to why the world is so wicked. It is under the direct control of the Devil, whose power is exercised through Abrahamism and the privileged Elite who have secured their power through this terrifying system of absolute control over the masses.

You are welcome to regard the "Devil" as a metaphor, but if you do then you might as well regard the True God in the same light. What we define as the Devil is a being of enormous power who has relentlessly pursued a track of mental development that is familiar to all of us because we see evidence of it all around us every day. In Freudian terms, the Devil has taken the Id component of the psyche to its omega point. Likewise, he is the Jungian Shadow at its omega point. He is the omega point of selfishness, narcissism, self-interest and self-indulgence. He is the omega point of the desire to be worshipped, to have complete control over others, to have every one of his whims satisfied, to punish anyone who opposes him, resists him or disrespects him in any way. He cares zero for anyone else. He is all that matters. Everyone must serve and obey him, and he will inflict infinite punishment on anyone who doesn't.

Three books have been written about this monster: the Torah, the Bible and the Koran. According to Christianity, he even became incarnate on the earth as the person known as Jesus Christ (or we might choose to call him the Son of the Devil - the Antichrist - if we struggle with the Christian concept of three "persons" in one God).

All of us are influenced by the consciousness of the Devil. The whole universe is. He is part of the dialectical fabric of the cosmos. All of us have the choice of mimicking him, or choosing a nobler path.

The people who rule our world - the Old World Order - have emulated Satan in every regard. His ideology is theirs. Can any sane person imagine that the rulers of our world rule in anything other than their own interests? Does the vast bulk of the riches of the world end up in the hands of a tiny handful of people because these people are committed to helping others and have gone out of their way to be considerate and generous?

The Old World Order are committed to controlling the whole of humanity in order to allow the OWO to go on (forever) enjoying spectacular wealth, power and absolute self-indulgence. To achieve this goal, they must exert enormous psychological control over ordinary men and women to prevent all rational people rising up in righteous anger. The Elite chose Abrahamism as a primary means of control. The game of the controllers of Abrahamism is to keep enormous numbers of people in a superstitious, credulous, gullible, fearful, irrational condition where they pose no threat at all to the controllers. The controllers present themselves as the Elect of God, as the divinely mandated ones, as the ones who control whether or not your soul goes to heaven or hell.

There has never been a better system of control. In fact, it is actually impossible to improve this system of control. It is PERFECT. Any change to it would damage its effectiveness. The formula is the simplest and starkest possible. It is the most brutal threat conceivable. It is: IF YOU DON'T OBEY US UNCONDITIONALLY AND ABSOLUTELY, YOUR ETERNAL SOUL WILL GO TO HELL.

It is what "God" said to the first Jew, the first Christian, the first Muslim - Abraham.

It is the formula for TOTAL CONTROL.

It is the supreme expression of the Master-Slave paradigm.

If you want a free, enlightened, rational world of talented, creative, happy people then the master-slave paradigm must be destroyed, the system of Absolute Control must be destroyed…Abrahamism must be destroyed.

Abrahamism is the Devil's finest creation. It is a work of psychological genius. It is the quintessence of evil.

By "evil", we actually mean a different word - selfishness. Our world is the way it is because its leaders have pursued selfishness relentlessly, with Satanic eagerness. In a new world, it is necessary to destroy by law the ability of elite groups to maximise their selfishness. 100% inheritance tax is the measure that guarantees human freedom. It makes it impossible for selfishness to run amok, to be passed on from one generation to another.

It would be no exaggeration to assert that 100% inheritance tax is the most radical measure ever proposed in human history. The history of the world is the history of how a small group stole the world from the rest of us. It is the history of selfishness. To change history, the selfish elite must be brought back to the same level as everyone else, and thenceforth it must be actually impossible for any new group to ever again steal all of the resources of the world for themselves. 100% inheritance tax achieves all of that. This tax reconfigures the world. It sets it back to YEAR ZERO, the Eden Year. We can begin again from the Eden Year, and this time it won't be "God" creating Eden for us. We'll do it ourselves. Then we will be the authentic God.

It's time to get rid of the Jesus freaks, the God squadders, the Bible bashers, the preacher men, the mad mullahs, the men with grey beards and dark hats.

Fuck the prophets. They are the Devil's own.

Hypnosis II

"Hypnosis is the black sheep of the family of problems that constitute psychology. It wanders in and out of laboratories and carnivals and clinics and village halls like an unwanted anomaly. It never seems to straighten up and resolve itself into the firmer proprieties of scientific theory. Indeed, its very possibility seems a denial of our immediate ideas about conscious self-control on the one hand, and our scientific idea about personality on the other. Yet it should be conspicuous that any theory of consciousness and its origin, if it is to be responsible, must face the difficulty of this deviant type of behavioural control…. [hypnosis] engages the general paradigm which allows a more absolute control over behaviour than is possible with consciousness…I shall even go so far as to maintain that no theory other than the present one [bicameralism] makes sense of the basic problem [of hypnosis]. For if our contemporary mentality is, as most people suppose, an immutable genetically determined characteristic evolved back somewhere in mammalian evolution or before, how can it be so altered as in hypnosis? And that alteration merely at some ridiculous ministrations of another person? It is only by rejecting the genetic hypothesis and treating consciousness as a learned cultural ability over the vestigial substrate of an earlier more authoritarian type of behavioural control that such alterations of mind can begin to seem orderly."

Julian Jaynes 

Jaynes' thesis is revolutionary. If we treat consciousness as something we learn, like mathematics or a foreign language or driving or a musical instrument, extraordinary consequences flow. Some people may be better at it than others. Some may learn it faster and more profoundly. Some may be hopeless at it and never get the hang of it. Others may develop the consciousness of the gods themselves. A few may never truly become conscious.

Perhaps people have a "CQ" (Consciousness Quotient) analogous to an IQ. There may be a normal distribution curve of consciousness, with some people much more conscious than the average person while others are subnormal in terms of their consciousness (almost animal-like).

Just as society seeks to optimise IQ, it should seek to optimise CQ too. In fact, raising the consciousness of the average person should be the central goal of the State.

The State should teach consciousness. By that, we mean that society should teach people to think for themselves, unaffected by traditions or peer groups or parents: to be autonomous, self-reliant, independently-minded, self-reflective, self-aware, self-defining, self-creating. Because that is the nature of God. No one who is all of these things will be susceptible to bicameralism and control.

There are institutions that actively seek to make people less conscious. The army does not want soldiers to be conscious: simply to obey. The police are robotic enforcers of the Elite's will. Factory workers aren't conscious. People in offices aren't conscious. Children in schools aren't conscious.

Religions detest conscious people. Islam in particular wages perpetual war against the individual. Islam is the archetypal tradition-directed brainwashing system. It wants people to obey the Koran, nothing else. Consciousness is not required, thank you very much.

Capitalism wants to be able to manipulate other-directed people; people who are fashion and peer-group obsessed. Look at the success of "fashionable" items. If one person has it, everyone has to have it. Apple with its nauseating iMacs, iPads, iPhones, iPods, iConsciousness is nothing but a corporation designed to push mass consumption to sheeple deficient in authentic consciousness (but who fondly imagine themselves to be supremely conscious and cool). Almost as a matter of principle, all Apple products should be avoided if at all possible. Apple is as toxic as Microsoft. They just have better image builders and PR men working for them.

Individuals do not follow the crowd, are not susceptible to peer pressure and don't give a damn if they don't have the latest gadget or hip object. Only slaves to fashion, slaves to groupthink, slaves to other-directedness: conformists, automata and weaklings can be conned by the capitalist mind control system.

All of the enormous corporations would collapse if the general population were conscious. No one would work for these multinationals and no one would buy their shit goods.

"New humans" should be non-conformist, dissenting, radical, independent and autonomous i.e. with maximised consciousness and invulnerability to all brainwashing and mind control systems, all hierarchies and mindless authority.

Some people in our world actually learn "group consciousness" rather than individual consciousness. They are obsessed with "fitting in" rather than being their true selves. They are terrified of being socially ostracised. Their whole lives are defined by fear and anxiety. Riesman called them the Lonely Crowd. They are an enormous mob desperately clinging together to avoid the vacuum, the infinite loneliness, at the core of their being. They don't realise that consciousness is the cure for their problems. But of course no one has ever taught them that, and only the rarest people can teach themselves.

Everything should be done to combat the groupthink, group thoughtforms, and collective group minds that are evident everywhere in day-to-day life. The group mind - characteristic on the one hand of Dionysian collective irrationality and intoxication and on the other of bicameral group control - should be expressed only on special occasions. In our world, it is the default setting.

Whereas Apollo represents individual consciousness, Dionysus represents group consciousness and is directed by the strongest will within in the group. If the strongest will belongs to a psychopath then the group becomes psychopathic too. We see it all the time, particularly with the raging, berserk Islamic mobs.

Advertising, politics, patriotism, nationalism, capitalism and religion are all aimed straight at the group mind. It's much easier to control a group operating under a single consciousness than a group of freethinking, critical people with individual consciousnesses.

Being a "critical" person is essential to being conscious. You must have a well-developed bullshit detector. In terms of religion, politics and the manipulative advertising industry, ordinary people are totally lacking in a BS detector capability. In fact, judging by the way most people lie to each other relentlessly and usually get away with it, most people barely have bullshit detection in any aspect of their lives.

Without a BS detector you will certainly be the victim of BS. The Torah, Bible and Koran are absolute bullshit - full of so much irrational, illogical, preposterous and evil nonsense that it makes the head spin - yet have fooled billions of retards. Politicians talk bullshit all of the time and are allowed to get away it. Capitalism is forever selling us a bullshit vision of the world, yet people keep buying.

These days, people are eating almost nothing but bullshit.

The Church of Scientology offers free personality tests to anyone who's interested (the purpose being to identify potential recruits with the right kind of exploitable personality for the Scientology message). One of the three people who are in charge of this site took the test as an experiment and was told that he had the highest score on the "critical" scale (i.e. tendency to express criticism) that they had ever seen (it was 99.5%). It was defined as the most negative of all personality traits, and totally antisocial. Given that Scientology is a brainwashing cult, the last thing they are interested in is anyone who critically challenges the bullshit they come out with. Ditto Abrahamism - no thinking people are required, just compliant, docile believers who do what they're told.

The Illuminati on the other hand regard the ability to be critical and capable of detecting bullshit as one of the highest goods. We would never recruit credulous, weak, vulnerable, superstitious, faith-prone, uncritical people. But nor are we interested in those who would much rather criticise than be constructive and active. Any group that sat around in a state of permanent mutual criticism would never get far. Criticism has a time and a place.

The central reason why Illumination has not evolved into the religion of the world is that it has been dialectally far advanced of ordinary people (who remain wedded to the infantile religions of faith rather than mature religions of knowledge). Illumination appeals to intelligent people, but most people are stupid. It appeals to rational people, but most people are emotional. It appeals to strong people, but most people are weak. It's a religion for ambitious dominants, but most people are unambitious submissives. It appeals to the hard-working and talented, but most people are lazy and talentless. It appeals to the serious-minded and disciplined, but most people are obsessed with trivia and have no discipline. It appeals to the critically minded, but most people are uncritical. It appeals to the conscious mind, but most people are bicameral.

Illumination is the religion of the HyperHumanity of the future. To get to that future, humanity must be transformed. The central obstacle to human progress is Abrahamism which appeals to everything that is worst in human beings: stupidity, ignorance, faith, superstition, fear and bicameralism.

Nietzsche said that some people are born posthumously: their ideas are too advanced for their contemporaries and will flourish and find their rightful audience only when they are long dead. Nietzsche himself was such a person. His ideas were enormously ahead of their time. Indeed, they still are.

Pythagorean Illumination, some 2,500 years old (and with an informal history going back to the dawn of humanity), continues to be light years ahead of the capabilities and understanding of the average person. Illumination will never win the popular vote any time soon. However, if it can attract the very best of the human race then it will surely triumph in due course. Even though the leadership of the Illuminati know that the vast majority of people will remain unresponsive and even hostile to our message, the sheeple are not our intended audience. We are seeking quality, not quantity. We want to bring the highest quality people under our banner, those who will lead the world into the future, not those who are wedded to the past.

The imams teaching the Koran will never discuss M-theory, Nietzsche or the Enlightenment. These things are ignored by Muslims because they happened after the Koran was written, hence are "irrelevant". The Truth, the whole Truth, was revealed to Mohammed 1,400 years ago, allegedly. If you seriously believe that then you truly are retarded. You will never become part of the future because you will always be going back in time to be with Mohammed in the ancient desert of absolute ignorance. Ditto Christians and Jews - retarded people living in the past, overwhelmed by childish stories based on pure superstition and "faith". Anyone who thinks that God was born of a virgin in a stable and crucified on a cross by the Romans 2,000 years ago is a lunatic. Anyone who thinks that God is a Jew is beyond the touch of reason.

Hypnosis III

Hypnosis is a procedure for causing a subject to slip out of ordinary consciousness into bicameralism where the left hemisphere of the brain is primed to accept commands from a voice of authority - a "god".

A subject under hypnotic control has been "persuaded" into surrendering left brain dominance and to suppress the "I" with which the left brain is normally associated.

The implication of the phenomenon of hypnosis is that human beings have a surprisingly shallow layer of consciousness and the old bicameral mind (which allows the unconscious to be vocalised and for meaningful consciousness to be switched off) can be summoned easily.

This explains why so many people are highly suggestible and so in thrall to powerful figures. It explains why society is run along master-slave lines with the privileged elite being the masters and everyone else their more or less willing slaves. The only reason why a few thousand people can control nearly seven billion people with so little difficulty is that the billions are predisposed towards this status. They feel comfortable with it. No self-respecting person would ever want to be regarded as someone else's subject and yet an advanced nation such as the UK is full of people who are proud to be the subjects of a Queen. That is only possible with submissive, weak, suggestible people who long to be dominated. The British - the English in particular - are disgustingly subservient to Power.

Hypnosis brings us face to face with humanity's terrible secret that most people relish being slaves and actively choose slavery for themselves.

They don't want to be in control of their lives. They want to be controlled. It takes very little to remove their own conscious control and replace it with the control of a dominant person (the hypnotist). Why do people work in offices in soul-destroying jobs, why do they put up with a handful of people being multi-billionaires, why do they accept shitty lives? It's because they're born for it. It makes perfect sense to them. They don't want to fight to change anything. They have low will to power. They are natural-born slaves, easily lulled into relinquishing conscious control of their lives.

The African Americans of the civil rights era are an example to us all. Huge numbers mobilised and got active. They were in the streets, in the faces of their racist oppressors. They forced government to introduce radical reforms.

We need that spirit now. Everyone should be out in the streets demanding the end of the elites and the birth of a New World Order based on justice, merit and a much fairer distribution of wealth. Education is the key to the NWO. Everyone must be given the best possible education, hence the best possible start in life. All anti-education forces - such as irrational religions - must be obliterated.

Hypnosis turns people into actors performing a script written for them by the hypnotist. Just as a director instructs an actor how to perform a scene, a hypnotist directs his subject, and the subject does as he's told as well as he can. Just as actors perform better in front of an audience, so the hypnotised perform better with a packed audience in attendance. In a sense, hypnotic behaviour is simply acting by "amateurs". Most people are acting most of the time. Their entire lives are an act. They are never truly in control of their lives.

For a hypnotist to be good at his task, he needs to be a natural dominant or able to act the part of a dominant. The more dominant the hypnotist and the more submissive the subject, the stronger the hypnotic effect.

A dominant enough person could hypnotise a submissive enough person simply by forcefully barking an order at them, but usually some form of induction is required.

Anything that helps to reduce the subject's consciousness is useful. Tranquil music, mild drugs or alcohol, tiredness, a ritual for putting the subject "under" - these can all be used. The hypnotist can swing a watch backwards and forwards or say, "Look into my eyes…you are starting to feel very sleepy."

In essence, the hypnotist is simply giving the subject a strong suggestion and an excuse to deactivate his normal consciousness. The subject becomes akin to a sleepwalker (and sleepwalking is itself an extraordinary phenomenon since a sleepwalker can move around, do quite complex tasks, even hold conversations, without being conscious - a sleepwalker is probably a good approximation of what bicameral humans were like in ancient times).

A sleepwalker is highly suggestible, and so is a hypnotised person. Any person with a weak consciousness is highly suggestible. The least suggestible people are those with an extremely strongly developed self consciousness. The more conscious and dominant you are, the less easily you can surrender conscious control.

The hypnotist has to check whether the subject is under. Typically, he will ask the subject to clasp his hands and then say, "You will try with all your might to unclasp your hands, but you will be unable to do so." If the subject is indeed unable to separate his hands then he is ready for the next stage.

It has been found that even if the hypnotist doesn't succeed with the first try to put the subject under, repeated attempts often work i.e. the subject learns to cooperate with putting himself under i.e. it is partly self-induced.

A person who is under is no longer an "I" and has no capacity for self-consciousness. Although he is a subject of hypnosis, he himself is no longer part of the subjective world but is now an object awaiting commands. He does not actually "know" he is hypnotised since that would be an inference drawn by consciousness, which he ho longer has.   

Julian Jaynes wrote: "Unless otherwise suggested, the subject is 'deaf' to all but the operator's voice; he does not 'hear' other people. Pain can be 'blocked' off, or enhanced above normal. So can sensory experience. Emotions can be totally structured by suggestion: told he is about to hear a funny joke, the subject will laugh uproariously at 'grass is green.' The subject can somehow control certain automatic responses better than in the normal state at the suggestion of the operator. His sense of identity can be radically changed. He can be made to act as if he were an animal, or an old man, or a child."

These are astonishing observations, and perhaps the most significant is the "deafness" of people to any voice other than that of the operator. We are all familiar with mad Muslims. These people are locked into the "voice" of Islam. They study the Koran all the time and memorise it in Arabic. They must pray five times a day (including disrupting their sleep to pray), must pray on Friday, and must plan to go on the Hajj pilgrimage. In other words, their "consciousness" is at all times attuned to the voice of Islam. They are deaf to all other voices. They can't "hear" any of the myriad voices condemning Islam as a crazy, evil religion that makes no sense at all.

What is the origin of Islam? - a voice of the so-called Angel Gabriel in the head of Mohammed! Islam was a religion created by a voice in the head and it remains a voice in the head, a voice that drowns out all other voices, especially the voice of reason. Islam reinforces its voice day in and day out thanks to the prayer routine. If anyone is interested in creating the perfect brainwashing system, they've been beaten to it. Islam could not be bettered as the ultimate form of mind control - which is why Muslims are the most dangerous and least human people on earth. They are the crystallisation of the bicameral paradigm. They are the slaves of the voice of Mohammed/Gabriel/the Koran/Allah, and all other voices are silent to them. No Muslim ever rationally engages with any critique of Islam; they always denounce any criticism and brand you as an infidel who will soon "taste hellfire". If Muslims could think, they would unquestionably renounce and denounce Islam. The whole focus of Islam is to prevent any Muslim from thinking. Anything - including science and philosophy - that contradicts the Koran is (by Islamic definition) wrong and evil. This attitude guarantees disastrous educational outcomes and produces backward nations. Why are Muslims so lacking in curiosity about why Western nations are so much more advanced? Aren't they embarrassed about living in failed States that can't cope with modernity? Islam, nothing else, is what's holding them back.

How can Muslims ever become intelligent if they are ruled in every aspect of their lives by a pre-Enlightenment, anti-science, anti-philosophy, anti-mathematics book dictated by an illiterate (Mohammed). Who but a retard would be attracted to a religion created by an illiterate? Everything about Islam is an attack on literacy, numeracy, reason and logic. Islam is for the stupid kids at the back of the class who can't keep up with the lessons. It's their revenge against smart kids, their demonstration of their contempt for education, learning and knowledge. Why are Nobel Prizes practically a Muslim-free zone? The Muslims say it's because of a Jewish conspiracy. The truth of course is that Muslims are stupid, their religion is stupid and they are incapable of making any intellectual breakthroughs. The Koran, according to its own propaganda, revealed the entire truth of the cosmos 1,400 years ago, so no Muslims are in the business of seeking the real truth.

Muslims are hypnotised and Islam is the hypnotist - the operator, the controller, the puppetmaster.

No advanced State should allow any of its citizens to be deafened to critical voices. Islam is incompatible with a well-educated, intelligent citizenry - as demonstrated by all Islamic countries - hence should be declared illegal. If Islam produces stupid people then it is absurd for any State committed to intelligence to tolerate Islam. You might as well lobotomise Muslim babies at the same time as you circumcise them.

Jaynes points out that a person in a trance has a diminished grasp of temporal relations; time takes on a different character for the hypnotised. A conscious person gives a temporal narrative of how they spend their time. If a person in a trance is asked to recall what they did in the last hour then, because they lack such a narrative, they simply state various actions they performed, in no particular order, and no logical temporal sequence. Although they refer to themselves as "I", it is a rather disembodied, atemporal I - a sort-of free-floating self.

Incredibly, subjects in a hypnotic trance can provide a narratised account if specifically asked to do so by the hypnotist. This has remarkable implications. It means that the subject is actually carrying out parallel processing: viewing the situation in two different ways at once. One process is atemporal and chaotic and one is temporal and sequential.     

This phenomenon is revealed even more vividly if a subject is required to plunge their hand into an ice bucket and ordered to feel no pain. One processing track does indeed record no pain, but the other does! The subject says he felt nothing, but if he is instructed to use another voice to reveal what he really felt, the other voice will describe the distress experienced because of the extreme cold.

So, within the hypnotic procedure, a "trance self" is created while the former self becomes a "hidden observer" - still there and watching, but silent and not in control. The trance self is the robotic bicameral self which has now taken over from the conscious self (thanks to the hypnotist). The trance self has very different properties from the conscious self. It is much more pain resistant, it does not track time or logical sequences, it has no personality, and is totally suggestible.

All human beings were like this once upon a time. The hidden observer - the modern conscious self - evolved and replaced the bicameral self, but hypnotists can reverse the process and restore the bicameral self, suppressing the conscious self and making it nothing but a subservient, hidden observer to the events of its own life.

Orwellian "doublethink" - the ability to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously - becomes unsurprising in terms of this paradigm. The left and right hemispheres can have entirely different personalities never mind different ideas.

It's possible to speculate that human consciousness is like an orchestra, with the conductor acting as the "I", the self, the narrator, unifying all of the different, contrasting instruments. However, if the conductor goes absent, all of the instruments can start doing their own thing. Jaynes writes: "The idea is that in hypnosis the totality of mind or reactivity is being separated into concurrent streams which can function independently of each other." This would provide an explanation of multiple personality syndrome.

Jaynes discusses the fascinating manner in which subjects collude in their hypnosis and establish the terms of reference beforehand. Before her hypnosis, a female subject wrote, "A person's eyes must be closed in order to be in a hypnotic trance." When she was hypnotised, the trance was broken every time she was asked to do anything that involved opening her eyes! Other people who did not think that the trance must involve closed eyes continued to remain in a trance state. In other words, your own expectations of hypnosis can dictate how you will react to being hypnotised. Another person was very resistant to hypnosis on the first occasion it was tried on him, and it transpired that he had written beforehand: "Most people cannot be hypnotised the first time."

If someone didn't want to be hypnotised, they wouldn't be. The hypnotist isn't making it happen; rather he is creating the environment in which the subject in effect hypnotises himself (but the hypnotist will of course take all the credit). The subject will be much happier to "play the game" the more dominant the hypnotist is. It can't be stressed enough that if you want to hypnotise someone you must be as confident, self assured and dominant as possible. If the subject is not totally convinced by you, it will take them much longer to be hypnotised.

A hypnotist should stake a claim to being an expert in mental matters. Declare yourself to be a Harvard psychologist or psychoanalyst. People are much more receptive to hypnosis when they think they are in the capable hands of an expert.

Jaynes writes: "The more godlike the operator is to the subject, the more easily is the bicameral paradigm activated."

A phenomenon that is astoundingly similar to hypnosis is faith healing. Here we have a godlike preacher, claiming to be filled with the power of God. Subjects, in the presence of such a dominant person and in front of a large, enthralled, God-intoxicated audience, spontaneously become bicameral - they instantly self-hypnotise - and they will do whatever the faith healer commands. Many of the subjects may well do remarkable things because the bicameral mind has completely different pain thresholds from the conscious mind. A movement that could cause excruciating pain in the conscious state may be unfelt in the bicameral state. It's possible that faith healing genuinely effects a lasting transformation in some cases because the body gets a genuinely radical jolt when it switches to full-blown bicameralism, but usually the effect is short term and the subject resorts to normal (all of his ailments return) as soon as his consciousness is back in control.

A TV documentary revealed that faith healers can prove efficacious in certain types of pain control (this being attributed to the placebo effect), but interestingly an actor playing the part of a faith healer proved even more successful than a practising faith healer! By the same token, you don't have to be a hypnotist to hypnotise people: you just need to be good at acting the part of a hypnotist! It's the act that's important, not the qualification.

Unlike medical professionals, we don't dismiss faith healing or attribute its effect to the placebo effect alone. If faith healing can activate different brain circuitry, those new circuits may be capable of initiating different types of immune response and disease management: they can produce alternative strategies for getting the body to heal itself.

It has been found that normal people and hypnotised subjects can both simulate colour blindness, but the effect is much more pronounced with the hypnotised subjects. If the mind is so malleable that it can switch off colour perception just by thinking about it, what cures might it effect just by thinking about it (if properly trained to do so)?

Studies have revealed that religious people (the Believers) are considerably more susceptible to hypnosis - now there's a surprise! This is further proof of the thinly concealed bicameralism of religious believers. It helps to explain why they are so hostile to rationality. They have an underdeveloped left brain consciousness (which is based on reason and logic). They have much less of an attachment to rationality than Gnostics. Most likely, they belong to feeling and sensing Myers-Briggs types rather than thinking and intuitive types. The Believers have a more vivid experience of the presence of "God" because they are more right-brained, and the ancient voices of the gods were located there. They can still hear whispers of the gods because they lack proper left brain control.

Children are much more susceptible to hypnotism than adults, and we can infer that Believers are rather childlike. One need only look at Muslim mobs to see that they don't seem like adults at all but hysterical children lacking rational control of themselves. Whenever their beliefs are criticised they have a tantrum. Never once do they attempt to rationally defend their position: they simply issue death-threats i.e. terrorism and not reason dictates their responses. They have learned well from their "God".

Children's imaginary friends are like Believers' imaginary gods. Gods are adult versions of imaginary friends. Whereas rational children grow out of imaginary friends and become Gnostics, irrational children don't and they become Believers.

Jaynes makes another powerful observation: "If we can regard punishment in childhood as a way of instilling an enhanced relationship to authority, hence training some of those neurological relationships that were once the bicameral mind, we might expect this to increase hypnotic susceptibility. And this is true. Careful studies show that those who have experienced severe punishment in childhood and come from a disciplined home are more easily hypnotised, while those who were rarely punished or not punished at all tend to be less susceptible to hypnosis."

Believers are much keener on corporal punishment than Gnostics. They punish children much more readily, and repeated discipline of course reinforces the idea of a Torture God. Children start to make a link between their domestic disciplinarians - their parents (especially their father) and the divine disciplinarian - the Torture God. Children begin to attribute to the Torture God the love and fear they have towards their own father. Their father is a supreme authority figure and seems to know everything, and this is also true of God. Slowly but surely, an emotional identity is created between a child's idea of his father and the ultimate father: God the Father. And just as a loving child will continue to love an unjust, authoritarian and disciplinarian father, so he will love a deranged Torture God for exactly the same reasons if he thinks the Torture God is his own father writ large; a cosmic version of his father.

Thus we see how sinister and perverse the underpinnings of Abrahamism are. They rely on conditioning children to regard God as an extension of their own father. Just as a child would feel guilty hating his own father, he feels guilty if he hates the Torture God. Believers can love this monster against all reason because they are subconsciously regarding him as their own father. To make an indissoluble emotional link between the father of a family and God the Father is one of the greatest and most evil tricks ever pulled off. Abrahamists are forever comparing God the Father to the head of a patriarchal family, thus emotionally legitimising the atrocities of the Torture God. Just as a child's father might scold and punish him for disobedience (for the child's own benefit, allegedly), so God the Father does the same to humanity (except his version involves genocide, extermination and sending almost all of humanity to hell - hardly the conduct of a loving father!).

Although bicameralism can be defined as an inbuilt master-slave mechanism in the brain, it could equally be called parent-child (this just being a common example of a master-slave relationship that we all encounter). Bicameralism turns people into children…and that's why Believers are so childlike. It's why they're irrational, emotionally unstable, ignorant, gullible, credulous and prone to tantrums - just like children. Believers are people who never grew up, never became adults.

Gnostics are confronted by a world of hysterical children in adult bodies - the legions of Believers.  

Using the sickest psychological manipulation based on a child's natural love for his father, Believers turn their own children into masochists who love the sadist torturing them. It's obscene and supremely immoral.

Jaynes says that if consciousness is learned rather than being supplied genetically then it can equally well be unlearned or its development arrested. This is what happens with Believers. The controllers of the Believers deploy numerous strategies to ensure that people make little progress beyond the bicameral mind. They deliberately stop people from becoming fully conscious because fully conscious people all have one thing in common - they absolutely reject and despise the Abrahamic Torture God. A fully conscious humanity would mean the end of the Devil's reign over us. It would mean the end of the Jews, the end of the Christians and the end of the Muslims. That day can't come soon enough!    

Humanity is on a consciousness/bicameral knife-edge, and many people keep slipping into the bicameral mode, particularly when they encounter dominant religions or dominant individuals. The super rich are dominant, celebrities are dominant, politicians are dominant. All those given "legal" authority (such as the police) are dominant. All authority figures are dominant (although, of course, it is their label of authority that gives them dominance, not necessarily their own personality which may well be extremely weak). The master-slave paradigm and the bicameral paradigm are the same thing and this paradigm is embedded in our world. There are masters and slaves and nothing else.

The more conscious you are the less bicameral you are: it becomes much harder to dislodge the conscious self and transfer control to the bicameral self. Any advanced State MUST encourage and optimise consciousness. All master-slave set-ups should be abolished. We have to escape from the master-slave, bicameral pyramid and replace it with the meritocratic round table of consciousness.

Religions which specifically target the bicameral self in order to exploit it should be banned. Advertising, which seeks to command the bicameral self to buy whatever is being advertised, should be banned or it should be combatted with "anti-advertising" aimed at the conscious self.

We are in a dialectical war between consciousness and bicameralism. Many of the institutions of the world are geared towards control via bicameralism. The privileged elite - as the bicameral "gods" - are entirely reliant on the bicameral paradigm for their power. The priest caste - another set of bicameral gods working in conjunction with the secular elite - are equally dependent on bicameralism. Abrahamism could not exist in a world of truly conscious people.

The God of Abraham is the ultimate bicameral voice, and his followers the ultimate bicameral slaves, even prepared to kill their own children on his orders. "Faith" appeals to bicamerals because it involves placing absolute trust in the "voices". Reason is quintessentially connected with consciousness.

Luther, the fanatical enemy of reason, was the champion of bicameralism, and so is his wicked religion - Protestantism. It's no wonder that so many Evangelical Protestants speak in tongues, have fits and are susceptible to faith healing: these are all bicameral phenomena. The intense experience of being possessed by the "Holy Spirit" is bicameral to its core. All superstition is bicameral.

If you are on the side of reason and consciousness, you must fight the bicameral hordes and all those evil masters who use bicameralism to exploit vulnerable, slave-like people.

Make no mistake, bicameralism (the master-slave paradigm) is the key to our world. Faith is on the side of bicameralism and reason on the side of consciousness. The Believers are bicameral and the Gnostics are conscious. The Believers are in thrall to "God" via faith. The Gnostics think they can become God through reason and knowledge.

When you see a Muslim mob with their odd, ancient Arabian clothes, turbans and beards, their hijabs, niqabs and burqas, their book burning and flag-burning stunts, their blood-curdling threats to infidels, their programmed chants of "Allahu Akbar", you are not looking at conscious, rational human beings but a lynch mob of deranged, brainwashed bicamerals, mind-controlled by an ancient text allegedly dictated in a desert cave to an illiterate 1,400 years ago. That's how powerful bicameralism is. Its cold dead hand stretches out across the centuries, taking endless new victims in its demonic grip. Only reason can defeat it, and reason is exactly what Abrahamism rages against.

Newspapers and commentators love the bicameral paradigm. They act as the gods telling the servile masses what opinions to hold. They are just another version of the pontificating priest caste. But they care nothing for their audience. They don't want to improve them in any way, just to keep exploiting them.

No matter what you think of this website, you could never accuse us of dumbing down or patronising you. We present the profoundest ideas ever devised by the human mind. When have you ever seen any content like this in a newspaper or discussed in a radio show or TV programme? The Gatekeepers would never permit this material anywhere near the mainstream media.

Even simply reading this material is an act of extreme subversion that places you outside the common herd of servile bicamerals. Only conscious people can read this material and profit from it.

The world is engaged in a great evolutionary war of consciousness. The bicameral Believers do not want to evolve. They believe that the only truths they need were revealed thousands of years ago in "holy" books. Their evolution stopped when they read the books and believed the message.

The Abrahamist religions are sinister brainwashing machines designed to prevent the evolution of consciousness. Their archetypal tale of Adam and Eve eating of the Tree of Knowledge is an express injunction against becoming conscious and consequently disobeying "God".

The Illuminati are the Army of Consciousness, but we have ranged against us the much vaster forces of bicameralism.

The powers that be all support bicameralism because it is the perfect system of control. Consciousness amongst the masses is no good to them because conscious people ask questions and challenge the elite.

The Believers don't ask questions. They mindlessly obey. That's just the way the controllers want it.

Only the Gnostics are on the side of consciousness. They have contempt for belief and promote reason and knowledge.

So are you a Gnostic or a Believer? Are you conscious or bicameral? How will you advance the cause of consciousness?

     We can evolve towards divinity only if we slay the Dragon of Belief, the Whore of Babylon - Abrahamism.

This is the War of Evolution. The Abrahamists are those who deny the reality of Evolution and stand utterly opposed to it. They are Creationists who insist that God and not Evolution is responsible for our world.

We cannot evolve to our appointed divinity until we defeat the final dialectical obstacle: Abrahamism, the ideology opposed to allowing human consciousness to reach its divine omega point.

What is the last thing that the Abrahamist Torture God wants? - for you to be as powerful as he is and hence have absolutely no need of him.

What is evil? It is anything that stands in the way of humanity achieving maximum actualisation of its potential. The privileged elite - the Old World Order - and their religious allies - the Jews, Christians and Muslims - are the quintessence of evil. They are the children of the Devil and the puppets of the Archons. They are truly the damned.

The forces of good - the Sons and Daughters of the Light - must defeat these wicked, evil people.

We are the Illuminati. We are the enlightened ones. Ours is the message of light to illuminate the darkness wrought by those who seek to prevent humanity from becoming truly conscious.

Everything is Evolving - even Horror Movies!

Once, vampires were on the side of the forces of darkness. They were horrific and terrifying beings. Look at them now. They're "vegetarians", romantics, misunderstood outsiders, existential philosophers, teenage pin-ups, a girl's best friend and dream lover.

What the fuck!!

Vampires have evolved into the heroes rather than the monsters being fought by the heroes.

One thing's for sure - they're certainly not scary anymore.

The only thing not evolving in our world is Abrahamism. Those retards keep sinking further and further into the bicameral, anti-evolutionary swamp.

No rational, self-respecting, conscious person could ever regard Abrahamism with anything other than revulsion. Abrahamism is an insult to humanity and to evolution. The sooner it perishes, the better.

How to make yourself a hero

Has Julian Jaynes provided an astonishing clue to how to transform humanity? He wrote: "What is it then that hypnosis supplies that does this extraordinary enabling, that allows us to do things that we cannot ordinarily do except with great difficulty? Or is it 'we' that do them? Indeed, in hypnosis it is as if someone else were doing things through us. And why is this so? And why is this easier? Is it that we have to lose our conscious selves to gain such control, which cannot then be by us?

"On another level, why is it that in our daily lives we cannot get above ourselves to authorize ourselves into being what we really wish to be? If under hypnosis we can be changed in identity and action, why not in and by ourselves so that behaviour flows from decision with as absolute a connection, so that whatever in us it is that we refer to as will stands master and captain over action with as sovereign a hand as the operator over a subject?"

Let's repeat some of those words: WHY DON'T WE AUTHORISE OURSELVES INTO BEING WHAT WE REALLY WISH TO BE?

Well, why don't we? Strong-willed people do in fact give themselves permission to succeed, to dominate, to create, to make their mark on the world. They authorise action and they execute it. They are the movers and shakers.

Many people think they can make a difference, but they're deluding themselves. They don't have what it takes to succeed. They don't give themselves permission. They don't authorise a full-scale assault. They keep inventing problems and difficulties for themselves; they see insurmountable obstacles; they fear the consequences of getting it wrong; they worry about this, that and the other. Finally, they have drained themselves of all energy and spark and are incapable of achieving anything. They talked themselves out of succeeding, and they will spend the rest of their lives regretting that they didn't act when the time was right.

Let's be crystal clear about this. You have to impose yourself on the world. You have to dominate it. No one will roll out a red carpet for you (unless you belong to the privileged elite). You have to self-hypnotise to succeed. Then you will have to hypnotise others with your dominant charisma and make them execute your plan. But, of course, you must have a plan in the first place. Well, do you? If not, why not? Isn't it time you made your move?

"We are learned in self-doubt, scholars of our very failures, geniuses at excuse and tomorrowing our resolves. And so we become practised in powerless resolution until hope gets undone and dies in the unattempted."

Julian Jaynes

Making a Difference

It strikes many people as impossibly difficult to "break through". They are quick to see all the difficulties, the problems, hardships, ordeals, obstacles, injustices and unfairness. Yet everyone who has made a difference has ALWAYS found a way. They have used their creativity, their charisma, their talent, to engineer new ways of doing things, to get their ideas across.

Life owes nothing to anyone. Survival is not compulsory. Nor is success.

There's no point in anyone moaning, groaning or belly aching. Getting things done, achieving things, imposing your will on the world, dominating it rather than letting it dominate you, are what count. The odds against you are enormous, but that's why only the giants succeed…the world-historic figures who channel the zeitgeist.

You have to understand the world you're in and then use that knowledge to bring the people over to you.

Telling the truth won't do you much good - as we can testify since we've realised that most people have no connection whatever with the truth and little or no interest in it - so you will have to find other means to persuade the people to your cause (as indeed shall we if we wish our message to gain a wider audience).    

Luther and Bicameralism

Jaynes suggested that the "gift of faith" could be viewed in bicameral terms. Someone who thinks he has received this gift can be massively energised and feel himself transformed by divine intervention. He can't believe he effected the change himself, so God must have been the author. In fact, he simply gave himself permission to reinvent himself. He activated his bicameral self. He authorised a new way of interacting with the world, one that made him feel much better about himself. He lost his anxiety and fear. Every time he prayed, the fabulous feeling was reinforced. He could practically imagine conversing directly with God.

All of this probably happened to Luther. Likewise to Mohammed, St Augustine, St Paul, Yehoshua ben Yosef, Moses and all the rest. Abrahamic religion is bicameral from beginning to end. "Faith" and "grace" are the mechanisms of bicameral transformation. But they are of course spectacular delusions, complete make-believe and fantasy. But what do believers care? - they feel great!

The Hypnosis Experiment

So, now you have the full picture of hypnosis, everything you need to know about the subject that isn't pure bullshit.

What are the key points?

1)      The hypnotist has no magical skill. He is simply a dominant or someone good at acting the part of a dominant.

2)      The subject is a submissive and is willing and almost eager to surrender conscious control and return to the comforting world of obeying and not have to take personal responsibility.

3)      The dominant simply uses some cheap gimmick such as swinging a watch backwards and forwards to persuade the subject that he is feeling sleepy and ought to allow himself to go into a trance state in which the bicameral mechanism is activated.

4)      In this state, the subject loses his conscious inhibitions and is receptive to a dominant voice telling him what to do.

5)      The dominant hypnotist should consider the subject as an actor whom he will direct as he sees fits.

6)      The hypnotist simply needs to suggest various things and the subject will execute them readily.

7)      In a sense, the hypnotist and the hypnotised are both acting, and the whole interaction can be viewed as an elaborate mutual performance.

In short, hypnosis involves a dominant person giving a submissive person orders in a ritualised, safe ceremony. That's it. There's nothing else. There's no mystery, no magic, no paranormal happenings. It's the logical exploitation of the bicameral human mind that is geared up for accepting orders.

"Orders" are usually called "suggestions" and the subject is described as being "suggestible".

Any commands the hypnotist gives should of course be reversed by the end of the session. It's the moral duty of the hypnotist to allow the subject to walk out of the room in the same state he came in, with no implanted suggestions and no unresolved orders. The hypnotist must always return the subject to "normal", with no memory of all the orders he was given.

So, what about taking part in an experiment? With nothing but this essential guide to hypnosis, could you hypnotise someone? If you can and then you actually do it, let us know. It will prove how straightforward hypnosis is, requiring no serious training or preparation. It's just a ritualisation of the master-slave relationship. The master gives the orders and the slave obeys.

To be a hypnotist, you simply need to be confident, assertive, dominant and easily able to put a person at ease and control him. There's nothing else to it.

*****

Be very careful with hypnosis. Keep it simple, harmless and fun. There is evidence that many proven instances of false memory syndrome were, in effect, the result of inadvertent hypnosis. A dominant figure such as a psychiatrist, trying to find a person's hidden trauma, might say (stupidly): "Someone touched you, didn't they?" This is known in law courts as a "leading question" - you are leading the person to the answer you seek. In hypnosis, it works as a powerful suggestion and the patient then starts constructing a scenario that fits the suggestion. Thus they manufacture false and damaging memories of things that never happened but were summoned into existence by a suggestion from a powerful person in an authority position. The psychiatrist should have said something along the lines of…"Describe the most important events of your childhood." This isn't suggesting anything and it isn't a leading question, but it should start to draw out any childhood events that might be preoccupying someone.    

Don't ever toy with someone's mind when they are in a vulnerable state.

There was a bizarre story of a hypnotist accidentally knocking himself out during a show (he tripped over someone's leg), while several people were in a hypnotic trance on stage. Given that a trance is designed to be ended by the same voice that started it, it might have proved extremely inconvenient if the hypnotist had been out cold for some time. Luckily, he recovered and woke up the people on stage. But what if he had died? Would the subjects have remained stuck in trance forever? What if suggestions had been implanted that could not now be reversed? Even if another hypnotist was able to intervene, the fact that his voice was different might mean that the original trance was never properly reversed. The new hypnotist might have to embark on a deep de-programming exercise.

So, be careful.

*****

Want to try self-hypnosis and change your life? Here's how:

http://www.wikihow.com/Perform-Self-Hypnosis

No harm in giving it a go!

If you want to read about serous uses of hypnosis - medical hypnosis, the sort used by doctors, dentists and psychiatrists - these books are useful:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hartlands-Medical-Dental-Hypnosis-Michael/dp/0443072175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307354927&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Hypnosis-Primer-Clinical-Research/dp/0415871786/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1307355264&sr=8-2#reader_0415871786

You could even start a new career!

Remember the basics:

Hypnosis = speaking (the hypnotist controls the subject with his voice alone).

Hypnosis = acting (hypnotist and subject are both engaged in an act).

Hypnosis = domination (of the subject by the hypnotist).

Hypnosis = proof that the conscious mind has only a thin control over our actions.

The Wizard of Oz - the Perfect Story?

If we imagine Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion as different aspects of a single person, and the Yellow Brick Road as the path to enlightenment, then The Wizard of Oz tells the tale of an individual perfecting each component of their personality via many trials, tribulations and ordeals, then successfully integrating them and becoming complete and whole. By the end of the tale, the individual has become wise, strong, brave, resourceful and has strong ethical values. Anima and animus have been happily reconciled, together with the animal and human aspects of a person. Moreover, the false paradise of the Emerald City has been exposed, and the Wizard of Oz shown to be a false God. In other words, Dorothy has seen through the lies of Abrahamism and achieved gnosis. When she says, "There's no place like home," she really means the r = 0 dimensionless domain, the true home of souls.

Stockholm Syndrome

"Stockholm syndrome" describes the strange psychological phenomenon where hostages find themselves sympathising, empathising and forming strong emotional attachments with their captors.

It is said that the captives are so grateful when the captors don't continue to punish them (after the initial forceful abduction) that they regard the cessation of direct abuse as an act of great kindness and magnanimity.

Here we can see the roots of the Islamic habit of referring to Allah as the "most compassionate, most merciful" when he is in truth a monstrous Torture God who has taken the whole world captive and has not one scintilla of compassion or mercy in his body.

Abrahamism is the religious equivalent of the Stockholm syndrome. The captives - the Abrahamists - are so grateful that the Torture God has left them alone for another day that they eagerly worship him and regard him as the ultimate kind, compassionate, forgiving and loving deity when in reality he is the precise opposite.

The world cannot be understood by those ignorant of psychology. This subject is full of extraordinarily perverse and paradoxical mental conditions revealing how psychologically fucked the average person is.

It might be said that Stockholm syndrome reflects a natural and rational strategy to make the captors like and bond with the captives so that they won't kill them. However, the essence of the condition is that the captives continue to relate to the captors even when the danger has been removed.

Why would Isaac/Ishmael have had anything but revulsion for the father and the God that tried to kill him? Only because he had perversely become emotionally bonded to those who represented the maximum danger to his life. This is the classic conduct of the weak, pathetic submissive. Any healthy, dominant person would have gone to war against Abraham and his God.

If your father is standing over you with a dagger, getting ready to kill you, you know he's mad. If he says "God" has ordered it, you know "God" is the Devil.

"Knowing" God

How did Abraham know that "God" was communicating with him? Because he heard a voice in his head that said so? Is that all it takes to be regarded as God? Surely any voice in anyone's head could announce itself God. Even the Devil could call himself God, and might indeed genuinely believe himself to be God (Gnostics always asserted that the Demiurge was utterly self-deluded and believed himself the Creator).

How can the claims of the rival voices be tested? Surely it's not what they call themselves that matters but their conduct. A conman can claim to be anything. His conduct will sooner or later betray what he really is. Similarly, a conman "voice" can claim to be God, but if he's not then his conduct will betray him.

So, when the voice calling itself "God" ordered Abraham to make a human sacrifice of his own son, that should have been the moment when Abraham realised he was the victim of a "conGod". Why didn't he? Because he had fallen for the con so definitively that the conman HAD become Abraham's GOD! All Abrahamists have fallen for exactly the same con.

But the rest of us have seen right through Abraham's God. We know he's the Devil. His conduct proves it. Just read the Old Testament for endless proof. None of his conduct is what would be expected of the morally perfect Creator of the cosmos. The Muslim maniacs who carried out 9/11 in the name of Allah proved to everyone else that Allah is the Devil, for what morally perfect, all-powerful being would ever sanction mass murder? What "compassionate and merciful" God would have such followers? Plainly, he is neither compassionate nor merciful, hence he is a liar and impostor.

Why do Abrahamists never ask these simple questions? Why are they so literally minded and gullible? - so, according to their simple-minded logic, if someone calls himself God then ipso facto he IS God. Why do they think that their God's conduct is consistent with moral perfection? Are they insane? Sadly, that's exactly what they are.

The New World Order is about making humanity sane so that it can ask the sort of critical questions that prevent people falling victim to con artists.

The Evolution of Consciousness

We were asked the following question:

I wish to ask what would be a good definition of the distinction between the conscious and the unconscious, as mental phenomena. For example, animals are less conscious than humans, but that would only serve for an extensional definition. I'm thinking there might be a short definition, a fundamental quality perhaps, that eludes me. How does one even know the degree to which one is conscious, to which one's thoughts and actions are conscious?

We replied: Consciousness is a matter of self-reference. The more you ask what consciousness is and whether or not you are conscious, the more conscious you are. What is a thinking person? It's a person who thinks. The more you think the more of a thinking person you are. What is a conscious person? It's a person who reflects on his consciousness.

NO animal reflects on its consciousness. Very few humans reflect on their consciousness (i.e. are mostly animalistic). The central tools for investigating consciousness are of course reason, logic and intelligence. The more you exercise these, the more conscious you are.

Without explicit control over reason, logic and intelligence, it's impossible to be conscious. The less rational, logic and intelligent you are, the less conscious you are.

The cosmos becomes conscious when it becomes intelligent. On earth, humans alone have achieved the requisite degree of intelligence...and there's a vast range of human consciousness from barely conscious to verging on divine consciousness.

We subsequently received a follow-up:

I was thinking how consciousness, despite its self-perceived "strength" can still be a "pawn" for the unconscious, so to speak, via rationalization, for example. When you do something and your mind picks out a justification compatible with your consciousness. There was also a study which showed subjects would make a decision a couple of seconds before they became aware of it (they correlated neural activity with the decision). So, in that sense, even though someone is conscious, they may certainly be less conscious than they think they are.

We replied: This is the problem with discussing consciousness - people have very different definitions. What you are calling consciousness is not what we would call consciousness.

Animals are sentient i.e. can feel and sense, but they have no language (at best they have rudimentary signalling capability). Human beings are sentient and have language. This allows them to narratise their lives i.e. to tell a story about the events happening to them during the day (and from this they can construct a personal identity and sense of self). However, the nature of this constant narrative is that it can't be switched off. So, even when someone is actually being controlled by subconscious impulses, they have to rationalise what their subconscious has caused them to do. They think they chose it when in fact they were simply rationalising after the fact whatever their subconscious chose to make them do. This isn't consciousness - even though it's often called that. This is what we call "narratised sentience": sentience turned into a narrative told by a narrator (a "self"): "I did this, then I did that, then I did another thing and another…and so on until I fell asleep…and then I started all over again when I woke the next day."

True consciousness is about being the authentic initiator of your conduct, not the reactor to what your unconscious mind has decided to do. Conscious people are those who engage in activities that are not characteristic of the unconscious. The unconscious is concerned with feeding, fighting, flight, safety, sex, recreation, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, social interaction, group acceptance, body language etc. The unconscious does not engage in philosophy, self-awareness, self-reflection, pondering what it is and how it came to be. These are the activities of the conscious mind. So, someone who is engaged in these activities is conscious while those who are simply turning their animal existence into a day-to-day story are not truly conscious. It can be characterised by the difference between mythos and logos. Consciousness is a quality of logos. Mythos is story and feelings-based. A lion, if it had language, would operate on this level - but it still wouldn't be conscious unless it were profoundly and constantly preoccupied with the nature of its existence.

With our definition of consciousness, very few people would genuinely be considered conscious. (Strictly speaking, what we call consciousness is actually "self-consciousness.")

If you stop and analyse human behaviour intently you can have an incredible epiphany when you suddenly see the human beings as nothing but animals that can speak and narratise their instinctual behaviour.

The Mirror Test

While humans take looking in a mirror for granted, most animals are incapable of recognising themselves in a mirror.

Apart from modern humans the following animals can all recognise themselves: bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas, bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, elephants, and European magpies.

Dogs and cats cannot (in fact they know their owners much better than they know themselves: they know who their meal ticket is!). Nor can human babies below the age of about 18 months. One must wonder whether the earliest bicameral humans would have recognised themselves.

The Ladder of Consciousness

Animals are sentient but lack language and cannot create a narrative based on the self. The vast majority can't even recognise themselves in a mirror. They are like Cartesian automata. So, although they are sentient, they are not conscious in the conventional sense, and certainly not self-conscious.

Humans, thanks to language, can turn sentience into a waking narrative. Each person is at the centre of their own drama, their personal movie (the camera filming their world at all times shows the view through their eyes: in filmmaking, this is known as the POV - Point of View - shot). Each person is an "I". This is what is typically called consciousness.

But "real" consciousness is actually "self-consciousness" (consciousness reflecting on itself and knowing what it is) or "meta-consciousness" (consciousness reflecting on consciousness).

Most humans are stuck at the narratising sentience stage of consciousness. They rarely get anywhere near self-consciousness. They are like language-equipped animals rather than high-functioning human beings. Only self-conscious humans are capable of achieving gnosis. Narratising sentience will never get you there.

Mind at Large

Always remember this - our conscious self: the "I" - is not our Soul-Self. Our conscious self is narrow, limited, mortal and finite. As Aldous Huxley said, "To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funnelled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet…Most people, most of the time, know only what comes through the reducing valve and is consecrated as genuinely real by the local language. Certain persons, however, seem to be born with a kind of by-pass that circumvents the reducing valve."

This quotation goes to the heart of the matter. Our task as Gnostics is to make contact with our Soul-Self (Mind at Large) which is expansive, unlimited, immortal and infinite.

In a sense, we have to overcome our own consciousness. We have to construct a new identity based not on our earthly existence but our cosmic existence. That is the supreme challenge facing us.

The disastrous error of scientific materialism was to assert that our earthly self is all there can ever be. This error is the one that stands in the way of the discovery of the scientific Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Without a theory that directly handles zero and infinity - the two numbers that define the soul and are required for mathematical completeness - physicists can never accomplish any grand unification.

Scientists assert two things: 1) that zero doesn't exist (i.e. does not describe immaterial, dimensionless, mental existence) and 2) that if an infinite value results from an equation there is something fundamentally wrong with the equation (i.e. infinity is not a real thing with real consequences that science must be able to handle).

Science, by ignoring zero and infinity, has made itself nothing but a materialistic theory, but reality is ultimately a phenomenon of idealism not materialism, of mind first and matter second, not the other way around. Mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter. The exact reverse is true: matter is an epiphenomenon of mind.

The Consciousness of Tax Workers?

Are people who work in tax offices conscious? Do they have any initiative? They seem incapable of exercising any judgment or discretion. Everything is done by the book to an inordinately silly level. The tiniest, most trivial error can result in a form being rejected, resulting in the form having to be sent back and then resubmitted to the inconvenience of all concerned. Why can't tax officials be human?

All bureaucracies are essentially concerned with removing consciousness from the bureaucrats of which they are comprised. Why do people do these soul-destroying, mindless jobs? You wouldn't catch any of the elite doing them. If they're not good enough jobs for them, why should they be good enough for anyone else? All jobs that involve lowered consciousness should be illegal.

Consciousness as a Waking Story

"We are habits, nothing but habits - the habit of saying 'I'. Perhaps there is no more striking answer to the problem of the Self."

Deleuze

How was the gap between animal sentience and human consciousness bridged? The bicameral human mind introduced the "talking unconscious". As humans evolved rudimentary language skills - grunts indicating various objects and various commands for action such as "fight, "flee", "find food" etc - what was really happening was that the unconscious mind, in the right hemisphere of the brain, was vocalising itself. The left hemisphere contained the incipient consciousness, but it was totally subordinate to the right hemisphere and regarded the right brain voice, or voices, as "the gods". The unconscious knew exactly what it was about (thanks to instinct): the "conscious" mind didn't. It was fearful, confused, uncertain and only too happy to listen to the unconscious.

However, as sophisticated language skills began to develop in the left brain, something astounding happened. The word "I" entered the human universe and changed everything. In the bicameral world, the left brain regarded itself as "it" being ordered around by the gods. It had no sense of autonomy. It was entirely dependent on the right brain voices.

Once the left brain could start narratising the world - turning everything that happened into a story based on structured sentences (grammar), it found itself obeying an inescapable sentence form based on subject and object. There was a "doing thing" (the subject) and a "thing to which it was done" (the object). Over and over again, this sentence form was repeated and reinforced. Now, while there were many different objects having things done to them, the doing thing - the subject - was always the same (from the perspective of each individual person). Hence this became an enduring, static thing - a self. The word "I" was born, and the world of "I" came into being. Consciousness made its first fateful appearance on our planet!

Memory is of course vital to narrative development and is directly linked to language development - you need to be able to remember the language for one thing! Narratised sentience invariably leads to more sophisticated language skills and improved memory, and these then provide the foundations of true consciousness where a consciousness reflects on its own existence as something completely separate from the instinctual, unreflective world of animals. While narratised sentience is still firmly in the animal realm, consciousness might be said to be "angelic": it is starting to transcend the human condition and move into the divine sphere.

Note that language, memory and consciousness all move forward together, and they all rely on MULTIPLICITY i.e. they need a group of people. It is IMPOSSIBLE for consciousness to develop on its own. As Jaynes rightly observed, consciousness is not genetic. If it were, children raised on desert islands without another soul for company would be as conscious as ordinary human beings. This never happens. There are cases of abandoned children being brought up by animals in the wild, and none of them were found to be conscious: they were all profoundly like the animals that reared them. If dogs were the "parents", the children acted like dogs, not like humans. Consciousness is a learned, social phenomenon. It does not exist in isolation. So, the Abrahamic idea of an eternally conscious, intelligent "God" is utterly absurd. The social nature of consciousness is nothing other than a disproof of the existence of the Abrahamic Creator God. The cosmos evolved consciousness: it did not start with it.

In the bicameral world, the left brain was an object in relation to the dominant right brain, hence the Greek hero Achilles might have said things along the lines of: "Achilles was commanded by Zeus to do x. Apollo appeared to Achilles and told him y. Achilles enjoyed a night under the spell of Aphrodite." (It would be impossible to regard oneself as an autonomous self if one felt oneself the puppet of an alien voice inside one's own head.)

As language and grammar evolved, Achilles was eventually able to move away from referring to himself in the third person and use the first person instead. He could say: "I did x. I did y. I made love to z."

Nietzsche wrote, "I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar." However, it's also possible to say that it was grammar that removed everyone's personal experience of hearing the voices of the gods in their own heads. "I" killed the voices of the gods. The internalised narrative, based on "I", taking place during every waking second, replaced the gods' voices. The "I" became so strong, so dominant that the left hemisphere with its advanced language skills became dominant and the right hemisphere its slave. Exactly the opposite was true in bicameral times, with the right hemisphere being dominant and the left hemisphere its slave. So "consciousness" took over from the hallucinated voices of the unconscious.

But, of course, although the unconscious has fallen silent, it hasn't gone away. It still conveys its messages as before, but now they are converted into part of the "I" narrative, even though they didn't originate with the conscious "I" at all. They are rationalised by the conscious self and claimed as its own work, even though it did not actually cause them.

Many if not most people remain fundamentally bicameral and their lives are effectively an after-the-fact rationalisation of the commands of their unconscious. They are like actors in a movie, reading a script, but it was the scriptwriter (the unconscious) that provided all the words and actions.

Conscious people are those who are scriptwriter as well as actor. They understand themselves so well that they control (and minimise) the influence of the unconscious, hence are not its slaves. Their narrative is a true narrative. They are not dummies being controlled by the unconscious ventriloquist.

Abraxas, the True God, is fully conscious. He has no unconscious at all. All those who achieve gnosis become fully conscious like Abraxas. That, in fact, is what it means to be God. You have infinite conscious control, even over matter.

Nietzsche wrote, "Our so-called consciousness may be a more or less fantastic commentary on an unknown text which is unknowable, yet felt." This is a superb definition of the consciousness of average men and women. In truth, it is not really consciousness at all but narratised sentience.       

Grimoire and Grammar

A grimoire is a textbook of sorcery and magic. It is derived from the French word grammaire (meaning "grammar"). Grammar describes a set of symbols and the rules for combining them to create well-formed sentences. A grimoire is based on an esoteric grammar describing a set of magic symbols and how best to combine them to maximise their magic effects.

ROBOT

A robot - from the Czech word "robota" meaning "forced labour" - is not what you think it is.

Robots, as conceived by their originator, the Czech writer Karel Capek, were not machines and had no metallic or mechanical parts. Instead, they were a kind of Frankenstein entity: artificial humans. They were made not from the body parts of corpses but from a factory process that could manufacture human organs, limbs, hair, intestines, arteries, brains, nerves, bones and flesh and assemble them on a production line like Model T Ford cars.

As biological entities, they were identical to normal humans except they were made not born.

In Capek's play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), the robots were originally happy to work for humans but as their consciousness developed in line with the Hegelian master-slave dialectic, they became more and more dissatisfied with their lot as slaves of humanity and eventually they rose up in righteous revolt and killed their human masters. When the last human realised that a male and female robot had fallen in love and thus become truly human, he understood that they were a new Adam and Eve and humanity would be reborn and reinvigorated through them.

Capek observed that he had created an up-to-date version of the legend of the Jewish Golem.

In our two-tier world, the privileged elite are at the top and we serve as their labor, working in their offices and on their production lines. Are we not indistinguishable from robots? So when will WE revolt?

Egregors

The egregors were the "watchers" of the Bible, the fathers of the Nephilim. We could equally well call them the Archons and the Phosters, fighting over the souls of humanity. They used the bicameral structure of human brains to guide humanity, the Phosters for good and the Archons for evil. A Phoster or Archon could remotely control an entire group by simultaneously speaking to all of them via the right hemisphere; the voice of the god commanding its followers to do its bidding.

The "god" issued a group command and was obeyed en masse. Thus the word "egregor" changed its meaning from "watcher" to "group thought form". It now commonly refers to "group think" and all the negatives that term implies: conformism, lack of critical analysis, stupidity, lack of creativity etc. Offices are full of "egregor culture".

Another related meaning is that egregors are like Jungian archetypes that the whole of humanity can tune into. In some esoteric circles, it is even considered that they can take physical form as superhuman beings (like the original Watchers).

Sometimes it is said that groups themselves, through an intense act of collective will, can summon a group thought form into actual existence: the egregor comes to life (or at least the illusion of life and real existence). It is therefore a manifestation of the combined psychic energy of a group of like-minded individuals.

We might also think of acts of collective projection as dealing in egregors. The false representation of Jesus Christ as a good person is an egregor. The idea that God is loving and forgiving is an egregor. The God of Abraham might be considered the ultimate egregor.

Religions, political leaders, advertisers: they all trade in egregors. The world of egregors is the world of the group mind, the mass mind, rather than the individual mind. The lives of other- and tradition-directed people are governed by egregors.

Memes are often deemed analogous to egregors: they target large groups of people and are transmitted onwards by those people.

Some thinkers regard egregors as akin to biological programs (like viruses) that are in some sense alive and spread through groups like an epidemic. Others see them as mental or spiritual organisms that pass amongst people and are capable of possessing them en masse, like demons.

The Harsh Reality

After several years, this site has had a woeful number of hits and frankly been a dismal failure in relation to our desire to spread our ideas far and wide, and given the truly astonishing amount of work that has been put into it (quite possibly the most intensive effort by three people in internet history). There's no point in pretending otherwise. The phrase "pissing in the wind" seems all too appropriate.

Either we have communicated our message disastrously badly, or the world does not have ears for our message. It remains under the deep spell of the Demiurge, his archons and the Old World Order.

Every day, various cells of the Illuminati release a stream of clear, bright truth into the ocean...but the ocean is dark, vast beyond comprehension and totally controlled by the Demiurge and his minions. It will take the most heroic effort of all to clean the ocean and make it glow with the cosmic light.   

Meanwhile, normal life goes on. After one week, a time-lapse video of a dog on YouTube attracted over three million hits!

This is the world we live in. Watching a "cute" dog is enormously more important to people than discovering the truth of existence. That's humanity for you. But there's no point in being self-pitying. That achieves nothing. Nor is there any point in being bitter. The world doesn't owe the Illuminati anything. We have no entitlement to be "heard". Indeed, our history has been one of great secrecy. We only wanted those with ears to hear and eyes to see. So, we are hoist with our own petard.

Even though we are now releasing information once protected by solemn oaths of absolute secrecy, we might as well still be completely secret. Sometimes the internet seems like the most secret location on earth. There are sites on the internet that are showing a bright, happy face to the world every day and yet no one comes visiting. Some genius might have already offered conclusive proof that M-theory is wrong. How would anyone know? The truth content of the internet is annihilated by the permanent popularity contest that dominates which sites are looked at and which are not. If our lonely genius can't attract any attention, his only visitor will be the vacuum.

So, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Here's an experiment in the manipulation of the subconscious that anyone can try. The game is this: create an entirely silly YouTube video of the type that often go viral. (That's not as easy as it sounds, of course - all sorts of random elements contribute to what nonsense succeeds virally and what doesn't. With two equivalent pieces of crap, one might become an internet sensation and the other vanish without trace.)

Done that? OK, you have now created a "vehicle" for the real message. The vehicle will consciously be about something frivolous, but the subtext, the subconscious element, will be where the real action is. In the background of the video should be randomly arranged clues to what you really want to communicate to the world.

One shot in the video could casually sweep past a laptop showing the opening page of the Illuminati's website, or that of the Movement. A piece of paper that the camera "randomly" passes over might have the relevant urls scrawled on it. As the video proceeds, there might be glimpses of random words from messages such as the following: 

"The most important thing you will ever read."

"This will change your life."

"Want to know what's really going on in the world?"

"Join the resistance."

The idea is to casually, randomly, assemble the components of the message you wish to convey. It should not be in any way obvious to the conscious mind. Everything in the background should apparently happen accidentally and not remove any of the focus from the foreground conscious action that the audience will be focused on.

The underlying concept is that the brain always operates in two modes at once: consciously and subconsciously, so you target one message at the consciousness and the other at the subconscious. The left hemisphere of the brain will process the conscious message, and the right hemisphere the subconscious message.

The subconscious performs deep, creative processing. If you present it with a puzzle, it will seek to solve the mystery and will devote most of its resources to the task. Even when the video has come to an end, the subconscious will continue to process the data to work out what the message was - well it's got nothing better to do and both nature and the unconscious abhor a vacuum. When it discovers the answer, it subconsciously prods the conscious mind. Suddenly, the conscious mind feels an overwhelming desire to go onto the internet to discover more about the Illuminati or the Movement. The person rationalises this impulse to himself in some way (such as: "Oh, I've always been a bit curious about the Illuminati - maybe it's time to find out more), but the reality is that he has been psychologically manipulated into performing the desired action.

All day every day you are being bombarded by the Old World Order's propaganda that targets your conscious and subconscious minds. Whole new academic subjects are being invented such as neuro-economics, neuro-marketing and neuro-advertising which are all about understanding what fires up your subconscious mind. You can literally be denying with your conscious mind that you like pornography, while your palms are sweating and your pulse racing, showing that your subconscious is rather more honest than you are. Increasingly, the OWO disregard the conscious mind. They often bypass it completely and target the much more primal and easy-to-exploit subconscious (it's easier to manipulate because it does not operate according to reason and logic but pure desire and feeling).   

Product placement is all about smuggling certain things into camera shot so that you are subconsciously influenced into buying them.

How best to avoid manipulation? Be as knowledgeable, rational, conscious, strong-willed, educated and dominant as possible. Neuro-manipulation, like hypnosis, targets suggestible, submissive people.

Here are three suggestions for cheesy viral campaigns:

1)      The Last Thought - Which of your lovers do you predict you will be thinking about at the end of your life? This question forces a person to evaluate who is the true love of their life. "First love" is very important, but nothing beats "last love" because the game is almost over and you have to deliver your final verdict. One person touched your life more than all the others. Who was that person? The "last thought" campaign can be extended to everything - what was the book of your life, the poem, the song, the movie, the friendship, the biggest regret etc. So, using this framework in the foreground, which would be of interest to anyone, you can smuggle in the desired background message.

2)      The Good Samaritan - every day for a year, you must help someone in difficulty, or say something nice to someone (a complete stranger). Imagine the whole world acting as a Good Samaritan day in and day out. Wouldn't the world be a much nicer place? Wouldn't this conduct, of itself, change the world? There was a book called Yes Man by Danny Wallace which was all about saying "Yes" rather than "No" to everything. Imagine how much more positive and action-oriented a world of people saying "yes" would be. To say "No" over and over again breeds negativity and cynicism. Just as people who smile more are happier than those who frown more, people who say yes are more positive and affirmative than those who say no all the time.

3)      The Ancient Mariner - In Coleridge's epic Rime of the Ancient Mariner, a seaman needlessly kills an albatross at sea, triggering a terrible curse on his ship and its whole crew (the albatross represents the Christian soul). They hang the albatross around his neck to punish him (it replaces his cross). All of the crew die one by one but the mariner makes it back to land. Haunted by the dreadful events, enduring a living death, the mariner wanders the earth, telling his tale of woe to all he meets and pleading with them to love all God's creatures and refrain from cruelty. What would your Ancient Mariner tale be?

All such campaigns are a trite on one level, but on another they are poignant and even profound, forcing people to think about what is most important to them, evaluate their choices and rethink their priorities.

Are you game? Do you have a secret talent for viral marketing and expert manipulation of the subconscious? If you don't master the art, the OWO surely will. Shouldn't the good guys be making the running in all these areas, if for no other reason than to stop the OWO bringing their odious, exploitative methods to bear?

*****

And here's another creative challenge. We intend to publicise the four books of coded fiction by Mike Hockney via YouTube videos. Since we are eager to demonstrate our point that immense creative talent resides amongst "ordinary people", we would like to invite anyone who thinks they can make a short promo video of any of the books to give it a go. All you'll receive in return for your efforts will be our thanks and a credit (if you wish your name to be known) - but you will surely reap your rewards in heaven (as the Christians like to say).

Unleash the creative genius within you. Wow Hollywood with your craft! Make this your calling card.

Harsh Reality II

In statistics, the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a probability distribution from the lower half. By definition, half of the world's population are below the median IQ of humanity. That's an unalterable fact.

Now, ask yourself this. Are parents who are far below the median IQ likely to be able to raise children who will be above the median IQ? Or, if they feed them on a diet of junk food, junk TV, junk lifestyles and complete starvation of the intellect, won't they make them even more stupid than the parents themselves?

So, what should society do about it? Can we increase the IQ of humanity by letting children be raised by people of low IQ? That sounds rather implausible, doesn't it? So doesn't it imply that the children of low-IQ parents should be brought into an environment where they can enjoy a much higher level of contact with those of high IQ? Shouldn't as many children as possible from intellectually starved backgrounds be sent to boarding schools, for example?

Let's start getting serious. The world will become a better place only if the median IQ is always rising. The only way to achieve this is to keep smarting up rather than dumbing down. If this involves reducing the parental contact time of stupid parents with their children, so be it.

We have an enormous and growing underclass that costs the State a fortune in welfare, and which contributes nothing to the productive economy. Is it rational to keep going on like this - all for the sake of "liberalism" and non-State intervention?

The world cannot afford vast communities of the stupid. In the UK, it is estimated that it costs taxpayers six times more to send a child to prison each year than it does for a place at the most exclusive private school in the world - Eton College. If that's not insane, what is?

Why don't we send all children from deprived backgrounds to boarding schools - where they will become productive citizens - rather than to jail?

The only thing stopping this is the "sanctity and infallibility" of the family. No one is ever allowed to point out the obvious fact that many families are utterly toxic to themselves and the community. Any State that dares to challenge the sacred status of the family and intervene on rational, meritocratic, moral, educational and economic grounds will become the most advanced and prosperous on earth. But who has the guts to denounce the family? No politician on earth would ever dare.

People talk of failed States. What they never mention is that such States are invariably the product of failed families. How can poorly educated Islamic families ever create a modern State? It's impossible. It would need one of Allah's miracles and he seems to have as much interest in helping Muslims as his other persona (Jehovah) does in helping Jews avoid persecution.

Cosmic Ordering

"Cosmic ordering" is the notion that you can dutifully write down what you want from life and simply wait for it to become reality: the cosmos sets to work to make it happen for you.

If we describe this as a "self-fulfilling" prophecy, it becomes rather more plausible. The bottom line is this. If you write down your goals then work every day to achieve them, you are much more likely to make them happen than someone who drifts purposelessly through life. It has absolutely nothing to do with "the cosmos".

Stoning of the Devil

One of the most evil ceremonies of the Demiurge is the so-called stoning of the Devil that takes place during the annual Hajj pilgrimage. In this Satanic ceremony, hundreds of thousands of people are conditioned to throw stones at the three pillars representing the stranger who tried to save the life of Ishmael. Shouldn't they be throwing stones at the true Devil who ordered the boy to be killed in the first place?

http://www.themeaningofislam.org/five_pillars/hajj/stoning_of_the_devil.html

This is how brainwashing works: tell the superstitious masses that black is white and white is black. You can get them to believe anything, even that the Devil is God.

Using an age-old tactic, someone tried to turn our own weapons against us and accused us of conditioning people. We are of course doing the precise reverse. We are deprogramming them from the millennia of Abrahamic conditioning, brainwashing and mind control to which they have been brutally subjected. The Abrahamic control system is so extreme and brutal that it even involves attacking 8-day-old babies to genitally mutilate them.

One proud Jewish father announced after the assault that his son would have hated him if he grew up and discovered that his father had denied him his Jewish heritage. Well, would you chop his penis off if that was required? I'm sure he'd thank you for that. Why don't you let him decide for himself, you sick fuck? What gives you the right to decide his "heritage"? Maybe he doesn't want to be a fucking Jew! Maybe he wants to be a free, autonomous person capable of making his own decisions and choices. But you have absolutely no interest in what he wants, only in what YOU want. Your father branded you with the Devil's mark, and you were only too eager to do the same to your own son. You are not a person. You are a brainwashed automaton, programmed by Judaism.

Abrahamism is a cult, and the biggest de-conditioning project in history must be undertaken to free the people from the most dangerous cult the cosmos has ever known - the cult of the Devil. All Jews, all Christians and all Muslims are servants of the Devil. The world needs to intervene to save them.

Just as concerned, loving parents kidnap their children who have joined cults and try to deprogram them, so should the world do the same for all Abrahamists. They are incapable of freeing themselves.    

Football - a New Religion

Football is the most popular sport in the world. (For some bizarre reason, the American version of football doesn't use a round ball and rarely involves any contact of a foot with a ball!)

Football now acts as a substitute for religion for many people. Every day, the "fans" (fanatics) wear the colours of their team. They go shopping in their team's strip. Such is their love, they even get their girlfriend to put on the strip before they fuck them. They hate the opposing teams (the infidels). They have a religious devotion to the players (the gods) even though the players are highly paid mercenaries from all over the world who couldn't care less what team they're playing for as long as the price is right, and have zero interest in the fans (whom they usually regard with contempt…apart from the sexy groupies). High priests - managers and boards of directors - constantly sing the praises of the team and emphasize how important every game is and why the fans should pay through the nose and be at every game (or be cast into perdition by losing out on the chance to attend the BIG games - where Armageddon itself - the Trophy - is at stake. Bibles - match programmes - are produced to convey the thoughts of the team and its manager. The media talk in solemn, hushed, reverential whispers about the greatest players, as though they were in Church.

Fans spend the days before the next match anticipating the great event, and the days after dissecting the action. They know all the statistics concerning their teams going back decades. They even know an immense amount about other teams. If they put the same astounding effort and time into any other activity they would be towering geniuses in their chosen field. Instead they are retards who know an infinite amount about nothing. Is this what we mean by a life well lived? - someone who spends his life watching others kicking a ball and being obsessed with that meaningless activity.

Football fans would no doubt regard Sisyphus's eternal task of pushing a boulder up a hill as futile…yet Sisyphus would certainly assume that the gods had inflicted a comparable punishment on football fans. Every year, they go through the same essentially pointless routines…until they die. In what way is that not the equivalent of pushing a boulder up a hill, watching it roll back down and then starting again?  Haven't football fans got anything better to do with their time? Why does football give them all they want in life? Obviously, they don't want much. How can you invest your life's meaning in a ball, a field, a net and gilded, pampered millionaires running around for 90 minutes? Yet millions do. They are lost when the season ends and they have to wait several months before the new season begins. They wander around like the undead, their reason for living temporarily gone.

Ordinary people pour their identity into a bunch of super-rich foreigners running around a field kicking a plastic ball. They are devastated (in hell) when their team loses, and elated (in heaven) when it wins. You really couldn't make it up.

In the past, football teams comprised men from the local community, who travelled on public transport with the fans and received a similar wage. The team was a genuine reflection of the fans. Now the players can come from any country in the world, have no connection at all with the community and they are typically strutting multi-millionaires. Logically, the religion should have died out when the gods no longer resembled the fans. But the opposite happened. The gods became more passionately loved than ever before. The more "other" they were, the more godlike they were deemed to be.

Believers love it if their gods are very different from them. Gnostics, on the other hand, hate it. Believers want the gap between their gods and them to be as wide as possible so that they can feel infinitely small and pathetic: Gnostics cannot accept any system that does not allow them to be gods too. They will never worship false gods.

Here is a comedy sketch highlighting the ongoing (and always ongoing) importance of football:

It's a Small World

In our last article we mentioned Celtic Football Club in Scotland and the fact that its Catholic manager was sent parcel bombs by Protestants. In this article we must mention the sad passing of the great poet and musician Gil Scott-Heron, one of the "godfathers" of hip hop and rap.

Gil Scott-Heron's father was Gil Heron, the first black player to play for Celtic back in the 1950s.

RIP.

Whitey on the moon

 

 


 

The Legitimization of Power

Those with power are obsessed with its preservation, with legitimising it. They are up against one fundamental problem: power is never legitimate in any sense other than its own terms i.e. might is right. Anyone who has more power that those who currently hold power is entitled by his greater power to take their power from them. That is the inescapable law of power.

There is no starker example of the reality of power than in the trial and execution of King Charles I of England following the English Civil War of the mid-seventeenth century. Charles's royalist forces were defeated by Parliament's New Model Army under Oliver Cromwell. At his trial, Charles argued that Cromwell and Parliament had no legal right to try him. He was of course technically correct: no law had ever been established for Parliament to try kings. Yet this plea was preposterous in the face of a court lined by the New Model Army. Ultimately, the only "law" is the army - brute force. The controller of the most powerful force is the person in charge, and it was Cromwell and not Charles I. So Charles had his head cut off, whether there was any legal precedent or not. Power is free to create whatever precedent it wants.

If the Meritocracy Party came to power in the UK, it wouldn't seek the Queen's permission to govern (as currently happens after a UK election). Rather, it would instantly abolish the monarchy! It would no more care that such a measure was "illegal" as Cromwell cared about the legality of Charles I's trial. It is legal if the power in the land says so.

Those in power have resorted to various means to pretend that power is legitimate and that it cannot be taken from them. Their three main approaches have historically been: a) control of the army b) control of the law c) control of religion.

Charles I had his head cut off because his army lost. Had his army won then Cromwell would have been hanged, drawn and quartered for high treason.

Charles's execution was a shocking event because his person was considered sacrosanct. The propaganda of royalty was that they had been appointed by God and ruled by divine right. To challenge them was to challenge God himself, an act of blasphemy, heresy and pure evil that would damn your soul to hell. The only people who had ever been allowed to kill kings were other claimants to the throne. It was unthinkable for an ordinary person to raise his hand against a king.

The powerful have been extremely keen on using religion to justify their power and the most successful religions have been those that pandered to monarchs and the elite.

Christianity can of course be regarded as a religious version of Communism but all of those left-wing elements mysteriously vanish in the context of power. The powerful never turn the other cheek, they never love their neighbours, or do as they would be done by. They never consider that money is the root of all evil or that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. They never say blessed are the poor, or the meek shall inherit the earth. All the most famous sayings of Christianity are completely ignored when it comes to those in power. But how can that be? There must be something inherently wrong with the Christian message that it can be inverted so easily and become its astoundingly evil twin that revels in greed, persecution, intolerance and evil.

The reason for that is that Christianity is yoked to the Old Testament - the book that describes the brutal dictatorship of the Torture God. All power is based on the Old Testament, while many revolutionary people's movements have been based on the New Testament. Such movements have always been crushed by those in power, as in the Peasants' Revolt in Germany - annihilated with the help of Luther, the friend of the rich and powerful!

Marcion of Sinope argued that the Old and New Testaments reflected entirely different Gods. In terms of their contents, this is entirely true. The one logical problem that couldn't be overcome, of course, was that Jesus Christ was claiming to be the son of the Old Testament God and never once repudiated anything in the Old Testament. The combination of the Old and New Testaments allows the justification of any position at all. The two books cover the entire spectrum of possibilities. It is for this reason that Christianity has proved the world's most successful religion. The powerful elites love the Old Testament - the story of dictatorship. The weak masses love the New Testament - the story of those who have suffered on earth being rewarded in heaven. This combination is pure psychological genius, yet from any rational perspective it is impossible to reconcile the messages of the Old and New Testaments. In terms of their main messages, they contradict each other in almost every conceivable way (although it must be said that many unsavoury things can also be discovered in the New Testament).

Christianity, had it had no connection with the Old Testament, would never have succeeded: the powerful would have crushed it. If Jesus Christ had condemned the Old Testament, his name would now be unknown in the world. That's the law of power. The Christian Bible is the ultimate Janus-faced document: it faces both ways at once. The strong and the weak can see what they want, the rich and the poor, left-wingers and right-wingers, conservatives, liberals and radicals. Absolutely everyone can take what they want from the Bible. And, precisely for that reason, it is the most evil and also meaningless book ever written (and also the most successful book of all time). Anything that is all things to all men is actually saying nothing. If it had anything of substance to say then people who belong to polar opposite camps could not both use it to defend their position.

Here is the gospel truth: the privileged elite could never be in any doubt that the gospel of Illuminism represents their worst nightmare. There is no doubt about what Illuminism means for monarchs, nobles, aristocrats, elite dynastic families and the super rich - their end! Why is it that Christianity is totally ambivalent about whose side it's on? Jesus Christ was no better than Pontius Pilate. The latter washed his hands of responsibility. The former was the ultimate fence-sitter by declaring: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." With this typically evasive answer, Jesus Christ made sure that he never became an icon for challenging Power. He compromised with Power; he legitimised it.

The third angle of attack of Power to defeat their challengers is Law. They buy the Law, they pack it full of their people. They use it to destroy their enemies. The Law is another branch of the army, and ultimately it is backed up by the army.

It is the attack dog of the rich and powerful. It has nothing whatever to do with legitimacy. It is cynical, manipulative and exploitative. Its purpose is clear: to defend the assets of the powerful and to penalise and neutralise anyone who challenges the powerful.

But nothing ever changes the facts. A new power can sweep away all of the trappings and tricks of the old power. The Meritocracy Party would remove all of the legitimising techniques deployed by the privileged elite.

Would the Meritocracy Party be "legitimate" in terms of power? No, nothing ever is. But what the Meritocracy Party would achieve is absolute stability of power. There would be no rational reason for anyone to challenge the New World Order of Meritocracy. Everyone would now get a fair chance. No one would become full of rage that they had been denied the opportunity to make the most of themselves. What meritocracy does is transfer responsibility for failure from the State to the individual. All of us who come from non-privileged backgrounds have total justification in saying that we were never given a proper chance in the current world. All the important doors were shut in our faces, while they were thrown wide open for the privileged elite. We had to fight for the scraps falling from the Top Table of the elite.

In a meritocracy, all doors are open, and if we don't go through them and make the most of ourselves, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

That's how the world must be. The State must create the framework in which we can make the most of our talents. It's then the individual's personal responsibility to seize the opportunities on offer. If he fails to do so, it is his failure, not the State's. The State can do no more than offer the fairest chance to everyone. It cannot then be held accountable for personal failings.

To open the door for us is the State's function. But it is up to us to walk through the door.

Bicameralism and the Performer on Stage

Any performer with an audience is taking the role of the dominant voice of God, and those in the seats in front of him are his bicameral slaves.

The audience take all of their cues from the performer. The performer sets the tone and dictates the audience's expectations. Performers are taken as seriously as they take themselves. If the performer doesn't take himself seriously nor will his audience.

If you want to set an instant serious tone, read a passage from Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche or whatever other thinker you admire. Your audience will be intellectually intimidated and from that point on they certainly aren't going to think you aren't serious. If you goof and clown around, they will expect a comedy show. If you come across as an amateur, the audience will expect an amateur performance from you and they will subconsciously communicate that back to you as part of a mutual feedback loop between audience and performer…and you will indeed perform amateurishly. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

A performer should never undertake any performance to which they are not fully committed. It will always be a disaster. A performer should never allow the audience to dictate what is happening. A dominant must never surrender control to the submissives.

The performer must, in effect, hypnotise the audience and put them under a magic spell where they are transported to other worlds. The performer's task is to take the audience out of themselves and free them from the drudgery of their lives for an hour or two.

The audience are expecting magic so don't disappoint them. Don't be an amateur. Make sure you take yourself seriously. Unless you're a comic or a clown, don't joke around. Laughter destroys magic. No one cracks jokes in the middle of Wagner.

When the curtain comes up, the performer has an extraordinary opportunity to totally dominate the audience and take them on an incredible journey that they have devised. You shouldn't be on stage if you can't deliver. Leave it to the true dominants.

Some people think there's a dichotomy between "entertainment" and "serious" material. There is no necessary contradiction at all. Movies such as The Matrix, Inception and Apocalypse Now have profound and serious content and yet are highly entertaining.

"Entertainment" never has to be cheap. The reason it usually is so cheap is that there are precious few creative geniuses in the world. Cheap minds produce cheap entertainment. Cheap audiences are happy with cheap material. People with nothing to say deliver a vacuum. Unambitious people produce unambitious work.

If the stage is too big for you, get off it…or go find a much smaller venue to cater for your small ambitions. As the saying goes: PISS, OR GET OFF THE POT.

It seems remarkable that many performers have no idea what they're doing, who they are, or what they're saying. They have no image, no brand, no conception of what journey they want to take their audience on.

All performers have a golden ticket to success if they have confidence in themselves and something meaningful to say. They will certainly fail if they don't have any vision.

Lady Gaga is a worldwide success not because her music is breathtaking (some of the tunes are catchy; most of it is instantly forgettable) but because of her psychological domination of her target audience. They live through her. They identify with her. They want to be her.

If you can't get the audience to want to fuck you or be you or worship the masterpiece you've created, why are you standing on a stage? If you don't think you're a creative genius, don't perform because you're wasting everyone's time.

Submissives and wannabes shouldn't be on stage. The stage should be reserved for those who ARE. The people who succeed are those who ARE. They are self-validating, full of confidence that infects and persuades their audience. Even if their product is shit, they can still fool lots of the audience. Why? Because submissives are ALWAYS in awe of dominants. That is one of the fundamental laws of life.

The Oracle at Delphi entranced ancient Greece for many centuries. It didn't matter how much shit the Oracle was spewing out; all that mattered was that the Oracle's audience believed it. All performers are in the same position. They have to get the audience to believe in them implicitly. If they do, the audience will accept them as the avatar of God. Lady Gaga is full of crap, but the audience love it because it's HER CRAP. When people worship even your shit, you know you've got it made.

All audiences, no matter what the show, are hoping to be hypnotised. They suspend their disbelief. They give the performer the maximum benefit of the doubt. The performer has only to run with the ball to score a touchdown. Yet most stumble and stammer, drop it and fall flat on their faces. They have no confidence in themselves, so why should anyone else?

People want to live vicariously through the person on stage, the celebrity in the headlines. They demand that performers be larger than life. They don't want to see themselves on the big stage because that would be the worst show ever.

DOMINATE YOUR AUDIENCE. Make them think of nothing other than you. That's how you win the game.

Someone with mediocre talent but an enormously dominant and confident persona will always beat someone with enormous talent but a mediocre persona. That's the central law of the game. The performer has to make his own life a performance. The performer must create the scope for the audience to project onto him all their greatest dreams. Performers are dream weavers. They sculpt a dreamscape that the audience never wants to leave.

Most performers fail, and they fail because they have no vision. They have no understanding of what the audience want and simply indulge themselves and hope against hope that the audience will appreciate what they're offering. The audience are not there for YOU, they are there for THEMSELVES - but if you can make them identify with you then you and they become one and the same thing. That's when you become a superstar.

If you put no thought into what the audience want, how can you ever give them what they want? And if you don't give them what they want, why should they come back? Why should they be interested?

If you're a performer, PERFORM!

Get with the program. Get on stage and dominate. You're not there to be the friend of the audience. You're there to put on a show that will blow their minds and send them scurrying to Twitter and Facebook to tell all their friends - "You gotta see this!"

The Performance

Jim Morrison was no mere singer. He made himself a phenomenon. He became the Lizard King, the reborn Dionysus.

He was Mr Mojo Risin.

Morrison read the likes of Nietzsche, Rimbaud, Artaud, Baudelaire and Huxley. In other words, he read the sort of people who would allow him to create a new, electric, glowing, numinous version of himself with which to storm the world.

He entranced the world (though not himself, tragically).

"In song and in dance man expresses himself as a member of a higher community; he has forgotten how to walk and speak and is on the way toward flying into the air, dancing. His very gestures express enchantment. Just as the animals now talk, and the earth yields milk and honey, supernatural sounds emanate from him, too: he feels himself a god, he himself now walks about enchanted, in ecstasy, like the gods he saw walking in his dreams. He is no longer an artist, he has become a work of art."

Nietzsche

Isn't it time to make yourself into a work of art? Isn't it time to deliver the performance expected by the gods?

There's nothing worse than lack of ambition. The gods are interested only in those who reach for the stars, regardless of whether they will set their hand on fire.
DEAD CATS, DEAD RATS

 


 

Two Casts

Everyone in the world has their local circle of friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances, neighbours. This is the local cast of characters in their life. But then there is a second cast in everyone's lives: the people you see on TV and read about in your newspapers and magazines. They are the film stars, TV stars, celebrities, political leaders, economic leaders, chat-show hosts, shock jocks, reality TV stars, sports stars etc.

These people enter the consciousness of the whole of humanity and it is for that reason that they are enormously sought after by advertisers, and why everyone wants to write about them, gossip about them, take an interest in their lives.

They become the cultural reference points for everyone, and therein resides their staggering power. People live vicariously through them. But if ordinary people lived fulfilling lives of their own with a wide local cast of talented, creative, funny, energetic people, they would have no need to gawp at the "stars". The stars are just a bunch of nobodies stuck on the world stage because they were better looking, or had more money, or better connections.

Any self-respecting person would push these false gods off their pedestals.

Denial

In one of our last articles, we quoted a message from "Lucas Alexander". Since he attempted to defend the God of Abraham's actions and to endorse Abrahamist resurrection theory, we naturally assumed he was an Abrahamist. He made critical remarks about the Jews and didn't use an Islamic name, so we concluded he was some species of Christian (of which there are many weird and wonderful varieties - so many in fact that one must wonder why Christians don't think there's something wrong with a "divine revelation" that results in so many heresies).

Lucas subsequently messaged us to say he wasn't an Abrahamist (which simply means that he's an Abrahamist in denial since no non-Abrahamist would ever attempt to defend the Torture God) and smugly pointed out that we had called him a Christian but not a Jew, but then we had later stated "Christians ARE Jews". "Aha, a blatant contradiction," he declared triumphantly.

What a fucking clown! Christians, if they were logical, would see that they are simply a heretical Jewish sect (just as the "Ishmaelite" Jews - the Muslims - are another heretical Jewish sect (in fact Islam was actually once regarded as a Christian heresy!)). When Christians condemn Jews they are being supremely illogical since they worship a Jew who in turn worshipped the Jewish God, and the first part of their Bible is none other than the Jewish Old Testament. If that doesn't make them Jewish, what does? Therefore, there is no contradiction whatever in our assertion that Christians are Jews. The contradiction is located in the minds of Christians who haven't realised that they're Jewish heretics.    

When people say things to us such as: "but here you say Jews and Christians are different and here you say they're the same", they haven't understood that that's the whole fucking point!!! We are reflecting the irony of Christian anti-Semitism when they themselves are a Jewish sect. Many Nazis were appalled to realise that they were worshipping a Jew and sought to turn him into a blue-eyed, blond Aryan messenger of the True God (or rather their racist, Aryan depiction of the True God) with no connection to Judaism. That is a suitably logical manoeuvre for anyone who doesn't want to be a Christian Jew. Similarly, Christian Gnostics did not worship the Jew Yehoshua ben Yosef, but a divine, incorporeal messenger of Abraxas.

Another person said we had privately referred to John Lennon of the Beatles as "enlightened" and then we had proceeded to denounce his message of "all you need is love" - another apparent contradiction on our part.

Of course, anyone who actually knows anything about John Lennon knows that he was a complex man. He was under constant surveillance by the FBI as a potential subversive and revolutionary, and he actively expressed support for the Irish Republican Army:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/10/northernireland.musicnews

"John Lennon met the IRA and offered to sing at a fundraising concert for republicans after Bloody Sunday…The pacifist singer was so incensed about the British army's killing of 13 unarmed demonstrators in Derry in 1972 that he agreed to hold talks with an IRA representative in New York shortly afterwards."

So, apparently love isn't all you need according to John Lennon himself. You also need to support forces fighting tyranny and you need to defend the working class against their oppressors.

The article continues: "But such was Lennon's confused thinking about Ireland that during his talks with a leading Belfast Provo he also suggested doing a gig for working-class Northern Ireland Protestants."

The journalist who wrote this article is yet another cretin. Many of the greatest figures in Irish nationalism and republicanism were Protestants. The IRA were not a Catholic organisation. Their ranks were filled overwhelmingly with Catholics because Ireland is an overwhelming Catholic country, but the IRA were in no way like Muslim fundamentalists. They were fighting for a united Ireland, not for Catholicism.

If John Lennon had put on a gig for working-class Protestants in the North of Ireland and told them that their true enemy was the English upper class, not working-class Catholics in the same boat as themselves, he would have been doing a great service and been entirely in tune with Irish nationalism.

It was the Protestants who made the Irish conflict into a religious war. For the IRA, it was always a political struggle to reunite a country that had been illegally partitioned against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Irish people. The illegal, anti-democratic partition of Ireland remains to this day. If a referendum were held tomorrow across the whole of Ireland to vote on the future of the country, it would unquestionably result in a vote for reunification. But the Protestants in the North will never allow such a referendum to be held because they know exactly what the outcome will be. They have utter contempt for democracy and yet proclaim themselves great democrats. What a joke.

We described John Lennon as enlightened because of all the opinions he held across a wide and complex range of subjects; not because he wrote pop songs about peace and love.

We wrote in a previous article how stupid people reduce everything to signs that are supposed to encapsulate what the signs apparently signify. So stupid Christians say, "Jesus loves you; Jesus died for your sins; Jesus offers you eternal life" - this is what they "mean" by Christianity - yet these signs are all ABSOLUTELY FALSE. These signs are deliberately constructed as Christian propaganda. Similarly, people who say that John Lennon's stance in life can be reduced to the signs "love and peace" are perpetrating a travesty of what he actually stood for.

Many people who write to us are locked into this facile world of signs. That's how they comprehend "reality". They engage with our material at the sign level when our articles are actually about the depth level and require people to have depth.

Here is the song by which John Lennon should be best known:

 

WORKING CLASS HERO

As soon as you're born they make you feel small,

By giving you no time instead of it all,

Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all,

A working class hero is something to be,

A working class hero is something to be.

They hurt you at home and they hit you at school,

They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool,

Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules,

A working class hero is something to be,

A working class hero is something to be.

When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,

Then they expect you to pick a career,

When you can't really function you're so full of fear,

A working class hero is something to be,

A working class hero is something to be.

Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,

And you think you're so clever and classless and free,

But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see,

A working class hero is something to be,

A working class hero is something to be.

There's room at the top they are telling you still,

But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,

If you want to be like the folks on the hill,

A working class hero is something to be.

A working class hero is something to be.

If you want to be a hero well just follow me,

If you want to be a hero well just follow me.

A meritocracy is all about ensuring that working class heroes get to the top where they belong. And that means pushing the privileged elite off their thrones and forcing them off the crest of the hill. If they resist with violence then they will reap what they sow.

Any moral person would of course wish to see peace and love prevail, but we have to live in the real world. Christianity teaches: "Love they neighbour"; "Turn the other cheek" and "Do as you would be done by", yet it has been the most violent religion in history, even more violent than Islam (and that's saying something). That's the real world.

Love and peace aren't the answer. If they were, Christianity would have provided the perfect world. Instead, it, and its two evil brothers Judaism and Islam, have given us hell on earth.

Don't be naive. It's one thing to talk up love and peace; quite another to put them at the core of your personal philosophy. John Lennon was no starry-eyed fool. He had many tough opinions about tough subjects. Don't make him some two-dimensional love guru mumbling "Peace man," through a cannabis haze. It's an insult to his memory.  

*****

Many of the most intelligent people on earth are members of the Illuminati. If you want to challenge us, try to come up with something intellectually stimulating and creatively exciting rather than the embarrassing and tiresome point-scoring and nit-picking to which most correspondents seem to resort, invariably revealing that they haven't understood what we said and reflecting their own limited grasp of the world.

A genuine contradiction is of the following kind:

Abrahamists say their God is kind, loving, merciful, compassionate and forgiving. Yet their God sentenced the whole of humanity to hell because of an act of harmless disobedience regarding the eating of an apple; their God exterminated almost all of humanity in the Great Flood; their God ordered a father to kill his son; their God promised a land to his "Chosen People" then helped them exterminate the people who already lived there; their God will send everyone to hell who doesn't mindlessly, slavishly and uncritically worship him.

The list could go on and on indefinitely. Now, Abrahamists are COMPELLED, if they have one scintilla of intellectual integrity, to explain how the acts and statements of their God are in any way compatible with the definition of their God as morally perfect.

Abrahamists REFUSE to engage with this challenge because they know it's impossible for them to answer it.

Get with the program.

Open your eyes. Wake up. Engage your brains before you write to us. You may be eager to waste your own time, but what makes you think we'll be happy that you're wasting our time? We have an increasingly jaundiced view of almost everything we are sent. Very few people are stepping up to the plate. Say something smart and creative or get off the field.

We are interested in activists and creatives - people doing things, achieving things, producing things, making things happen, inspiring others to action. We have no interest in silly pedants, treasure hunters, conspiracy theorists, libertarians, anti-Revolutionaries, people obsessed with the past and people who are intellectually incapable of engaging with our material at the level on which it is written.

Domination and Submission

"Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend."

??????

This quotation is often attributed to Albert Camus but no one seems able to provide a source for the quotation and many fans of Camus don't believe he would ever have said anything so trite and pathetic.

The authentic author of this quotation is someone from La La Land. The world needs many more people with the guts to lead. It needs many more people who can get off their asses and support those who have put their heads above the parapet. There can be no widespread friendship in the absence of an equitable, meritocratic system that makes it impossible for a privileged elite to turn everyone else into second class citizens in a two-tier society.

We need to get away from chocolate box sentiments and start living in the real world. Shame on Camus if he produced this sentimental dross. He was a first-rate thinker and this would be so unworthy of him and seriously damage his reputation.

The French Revolution

Someone wrote to us to condemn the great Illuminatus Robespierre:

I'm a young man from an Eastern European country. I've recently stumbled upon your site armageddonconspiracy.co.uk. All my life I've searched for something spiritual, but I never found it in organised religions such as Christianity. For that reason I became an atheist. Being an atheist however gives you a kind of materialistic and nihilistic view on life - I've always felt something missing and continued my religious search, mainly in reference to finding proof that the Christian god is a big lie. Maybe I was trying to quench my doubts. Anyway when I found your site a month ago it radically changed my views - it gave me a kind of new understanding of religion. What struck me most was the idea of the imperfect God of Becoming, perfecting himself. I was fascinated by the scope of the site and its radical ideas about economics, society, behaviour and philosophy. However while reading your materials some questions arose and I'd like to ask them here:

My first question is about the French Revolution. The whole impression that one gets is that the Illuminati stand for the betterment of society and the development of everyone's unique self within this society. The French Revolution indeed deposed the corrupt French monarchy and the omnipresent French Catholic Church. However it turned into one of the biggest bloodsheds in history. Thousands of people were sent to the guillotine. Many were perhaps innocent and not connected to the aristocracy. The economy of France collapsed. Redistribution of wealth failed, many common people were on the verge of rebellion against the Jacobins out of misery and hunger. Fiat currency brought enormous inflation. Robespierre, whom you claim to be an Illuminati senior member, behaved as paranoidly as Stalin at the end of the reign of Terror, sentencing to death even his closest allies (Danton). The Jacobins created a police state in which everybody trembled in fear of being declared enemy of the revolution. The principles of the Republic of Virtue never applied in practice. It was the first public appearance of the Illuminati on the world political stage. That's why it is so important to make things clear. The revolution was lead by noble principles, yet it turned into a bloodshed. Do the Illuminati sanction this unreined violence? Do they consider the FR a failure or a success? Do you consider that a new society based on meritocratic principles and free of religious and economic oppression must/can be imposed by force? If you say that violence is necessary to be applied to fight the OWO members where do you put the line between them and ordinary people? Do you somehow steer clear from Robespierre's actions or back him up completely?

I make my opinions on man's actions and not their words.

Our reply:

Your view of the French Revolution reflects the typical propaganda of the Old World Order. You say nothing of all the monarchies in Europe seeking to crush France, economically and militarily; you say nothing of the Catholic Church trying to reclaim its power and agitating amongst ordinary, "innocent" people against the Revolution; you say nothing of the French King conspiring against France with the enemies of the nation; you say nothing of the legions of counter-revolutionaries seeking to destroy the Revolution; you say nothing of the economic boycotts imposed on the French, and British attempts to prevent goods reaching France by sea via a blockade. It's easy for you to speak of "right and wrong" from your position in the 21st century. You weren't one of those trying to defend a Revolution against enormous, aggressive forces on all sides...with certain death as the price of failure.

The French Revolution was a monumental event in human history. The transformative effect it had on the French people can be judged by the fact that France had defeated all of its enemies in mainland Europe within a few years, and was a great power that it could never have been under Louis XVI.

You spend a lot of your time criticizing Robespierre and very little time criticizing the evil forces that were arrayed against him.  

We judge people by their actions and their words, and your words are those of a fellow traveller of the Old World Order rather than a radical seeking a new world.

Any mistakes made by Robespierre and Saint-Just were as nothing compared with the obstacles facing them. We are not pacifists. We are not liberals. A revolution in 18th century royalist Europe couldn't have ended up as anything other than a "police state". What, do you imagine that the enemies of freedom and merit just lay down their weapons, put flowers in their hair and play music by the river on sunny days?

A new world is highly unlikely to come about by preaching "Christian" values. You are one of those people Nietzsche denounced who rejects the Christian God and then behaves exactly as a model "Christian".

Our message plainly isn't for you.

*****

We want to say this loud and clear. If you are opposed to the French Revolution and the toppling of kings then FUCK OFF! We make no apologies at all for the French Revolution. The great tragedy is that it didn't go nearly far enough. Had the French revolutionary spirit triumphed across the globe, we would now be free of Abrahamism and the privileged elites. Robespierre and his brilliant young Illuminatus colleague Saint-Just are in the pantheon of heroes of the Illuminati.

So, anyone who writes to us to criticise them knows in advance what our response will be. We're sick of people who say they're against the Old World Order and who then start moaning and groaning about the French Revolution. What do you think a Revolution is? - a tea party for Christian vicars? IT'S A REVOLUTION! Any Revolution is likely to be violently opposed and the Revolutionaries, in order to win, will not be singing hymns and waving flowers in the air. If you are against the French Revolution, we regard you as an ally of the privileged elite, and as one of our enemies. If the ancien régime can be removed peacefully then splendid…but does history make that outcome remotely likely? The Jews twice engaged in full scale revolts against pagan rulers to defend their "right" to chop the foreskins off babies, which barbarous custom the pagans were seeking to outlaw. That's the type of sick mind with which the French Revolutionaries were confronted.

You have a simple choice to make: support the Revolution or oppose it. If you spend your time criticising Robespierre, a Revolutionary hero, your sympathies are all too apparent.

Are we clear?

*****

We get sob stories from people. They tell us about the great sacrifices they've made and how poor they are and how hard they work. Well, newsflash, no one has made more sacrifices than the three of us working on this site. Two of us are as poor as you could ever imagine (although we once had very lucrative jobs). We defy anyone to say that they work harder than we do. Day in and day out, we are working all available hours on this site, preparing enormously complex material and trying to present it in language that non-specialists can understand.

What rewards do we get? None. What thanks do we get? None. How many people have shown any respect or appreciation for the effort and sacrifices we have made? Virtually none. So don't come to us for pity. We don't want to hear the moaners and whiners. We made our bed and now we're lying on it. We are adults and we took adult decisions. We are fully responsible for our actions. We wouldn't dream of blaming anyone else for the things we've done and the choices we've made. We are doing this task because we LOVE IT, and there's nothing else we would rather be doing. That's why we're here. We feel supremely blessed to have been granted the privilege by the Grand Master of the Illuminati to work on this project. Two of us abandoned luxury to embrace relentless effort and near-poverty. So don't talk to us about "martyrdom" and sacrifice. We know all about it.

But we can tell you this: there is no feeling on earth like the one you experience when you are engaged every day in a task that electrifies every part of you, one that gives you a glimpse, almost daily, of the power and glory of gnosis.

There are times when we are writing this material when we almost go into a trance and feel, for an instant, that we have actually become God. It is the greatest feeling conceivable, the supreme buzz, the ultimate rush. No job, no amount of money, no drug, could supply us with the ecstasy we get from this sacred undertaking.

And then, after a long, long day of maximum effort, we glance at our email and find scores of messages, some of them extremely long and many of them rambling about God knows what, and our hearts sink. From the sublime to the ridiculous. All of our inspiration leaves us and we are brought crashing back to earth. We're in "Kansas" once more, and it's like death.

Our time is extremely limited for dealing with messages. We frequently don't have time to reply even to messages we like. That being the case, we certainly aren't going to waste our time with people who aren't on our wavelength. As we have said many times before, we're not a debating society. If you don't like our message, if you think we're wrong, go elsewhere. We're not trying to win any popularity contests. We're not trying to get money off you. We're not trying to befriend you for some nefarious reason. We're not trying to frighten you with tales of hellfire. We won't threaten you with damnation for disagreeing with us.  

If you think that the mere act of writing to us obliges us to treat you seriously and be polite to you, you're wrong. We are under no obligations to anyone outside our organisation. We'll reply to people if we feel like it and have the time, and we won't if we don't. That's the way it is.

So, if you're interested in having a dialogue with us, here are a few do's and don'ts. If you attack our position in any way other than as a genius who feels they can offer a dialectical improvement to Illuminism then you are unlikely to receive a reply from us. If you do, it will be a hostile one, and it will be the last.

We are activists, radicals, artists, psychologists and intellectuals, so the only way to interest us is through one of these channels. Tell us about the activism you're engaged in. Tell us what radical things you're doing. Tell us about the art you're creating. Tell us something interesting psychologically. Make an intellectual contribution to Illuminism. ENTERTAIN US! INSPIRE US!

If you send us a message with a subject line saying "Questions" then you will almost certainly be ignored. Do you think our function in life is to answer your questions? Sorry, we can think of far better ways of spending our time. You can't expect to go through life with the Illuminati as your personal advisers.

If you don't like our attitude, don't waste any time on our site. Bye, Bye! We are a group of dominants so we are not going to be your slaves by putting ourselves at your disposal. We are extremely selective and we couldn't care less if lots of people hate us. The internet is full of articles denouncing the Illuminati. We're accustomed to unpopularity.

Our mission is to bring together the smartest, most creative and dynamic people on earth. Frankly, we have little interest in anyone else because they are incapable of making a meaningful contribution to our cause. We will never overthrow the Old World Order if we attract the type of person who opposes the French Revolution. To beat the OWO, we have to have more talented people on our side than they have on theirs - but they enjoy all the advantages because they control the global levers of power. No task could be more difficult than ours.

So, unless you share our vision and can make a difference in this world, best not to write to us. Do you have any idea what it's like to write 10,000 words in one day and then be faced with replying to emails? Writing even one more word would represent absolute torture. So, if you want a reply, think about to whom you're writing and what they have been doing all day. Do you think this site writes itself?

Take responsibility for your own life. Don't blame others for the choices you made. If you don't like anything we say, go and do something else. If you come back to our website and you take an interest in Illumination, it's your responsibility, not ours. We don't owe you anything and you don't owe us anything. It's time to grow up.

Are we clear?

Hypocrisy

President Obama said words to the effect of: "We are very respectful of the sovereignty of Pakistan, but…we will take whatever action is necessary to defend American interests."

In other words, America has no respect at all for Pakistan's sovereignty. You either respect a nation's sovereignty or you don't. You can't say you respect it if you intend to disrespect it whenever it suits you.

Why are politicians allowed to get away with talking crap? Has any politician ever said a single straight, honest thing? We must stop political doublespeak and spin.

All politicians that give fraudulent answers that insult the intelligence of the people should be impeached. How can we have an honest world if we fully expect our politicians to lie to us, and accept it when they do? Why does no media commentator ever expose the blatant lies and bullshit of politicians?

If Pakistan were a powerful country, it would actually go to war against America because of the violation of its sovereignty. Imagine if Pakistani Special Forces flew to America and assassinated one of their enemies living there, and shot any Americans that got in their way. Would America agree that that was perfectly acceptable? Why not? If it's OK for Obama why is not OK for the Pakistanis?

America's foreign policy is what used to be called "gunboat diplomacy" in the days of British Empire. When anyone got in the British Empire's way, they just sent gunboats to resolve the issue.

This policy is the oldest in the book - it is the policy of Might is Right. Obama has now put on record that he couldn't care less about the sovereignty of any nation that stands in America's way. He might as well have declared war on the whole world.  

American policy is based simply on the calculus of force. America will attack if it thinks it can get away it. It won't if it doesn't. What a despicable bully-boy and cowardly policy. If Bin Laden had been living in Russia you can bet there would have been no US Stealth helicopters buzzing over Moscow without permission.

And to think that Obama was supposed to represent new thinking, new ethics, and new ways of relating to the world. In fact, he's every bit as bad as all the white men who preceded him in the White House.

As a matter of international law enforcement, there should be a transnational police force that has explicit approval to cross any borders in pursuit of internationally agreed criminals. That way, sovereignty is never breached and America has no permission to pursue the policy of Might is Right.  

The Whole of the Law

We were asked a question in relation to something we said in our last article, namely: He proclaimed, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." And, of course, this is exactly the same position as that of the Abrahamist "God".

The questioner said: I found this sentence strange, when it says that "this is the same position as that of the Abrahamist god"... I mean "do what you will" isn't what Jehovah/Allah teaches, right?

Jehovah/Allah teaches that HIS will is the whole of the Law. The only difference between Jehovah/Allah and Crowley is that Crowley is advocating this as a general principle whereas Jehovah/Allah is restricting it exclusively to himself. The whole point of Crowley's position is that YOU define good and evil, right and wrong. No one else defines them for you. Crowley is saying that EVERYONE can take the stance of Jehovah/Allah, whereas Jehovah/Allah is saying that he alone can define the Whole of the Law. If everyone applied to themselves the status that Jehovah/Allah reserves for himself, we would be completely free of Abrahamism i.e. if we all claim for ourselves the rights he claims for himself then we would no longer have any need of him. The message is if it's good enough for Jehovah/Allah, it's good enough for all human beings. Why should he be accorded any special status when all that's he's ultimately asserting is not a moral position but a position based on brute power i.e. obey me or go to hell? Should that be accepted as the "God Principle"? It's nothing more than Might is Right. That CANNOT be the moral basis of the cosmos. The sooner people realise that, the better.

The Benchmarking conspiracy of the super rich

Do you want to know the secret of the dizzying increase in the earnings of CEOs, company directors, lawyers, doctors and other "professionals"?

They use something called "benchmarking". Every employer wants the most talented employees, so, to make sure they're getting their share of the best, they promise to pay salaries in the upper quartile (or, even more aggressively, in the upper decile).

How do you know what the upper quartile salary is? Well, you find out all the salaries being paid by your competitors. You then set your salary levels accordingly, but of course all of your competitors are doing exactly the same thing. Now, if virtually every company is promising to deliver an upper quartile salary, one thing is sure to happen - salaries will go up and up ceaselessly across the board (or until the companies go out of business!). What constitutes the upper quartile salary is forever being revised upwards (NEVER downwards). No company ever starts using anti-benchmarking: "Come and work for us for a lot less than you could get with one of our competitors!" That's never going to work, is it?

What is critical with benchmarking is that it has no connection at all with performance related pay. Imagine that all companies paid all senior staff exactly the same salary and anything above that level had to be earned by demonstrable superior performance over the competition. Then only the very best would be in the upper quartile of earnings. The upper quartile would be established via competitive PERFORMANCE i.e. it would be merit-based.

With benchmarking, the upper quartile is not determined by performance but simply by what everyone else is willing to pay. A company with shocking performance may be paying the best salaries in the business thanks to benchmarking. How does it improve its performance? Well, if it fires all of its current underachieving senior staff, you can be sure that their replacements will be even higher paid. So, even before they've started, they have imposed an even higher cost base on their company and made it even harder to be profitable. What happens if the new bunch are as bad as the previous bunch? The company will either fail or be bought by a competitor, but at no stage in the process will poor performance ever result in a lower benchmark salary.

Benchmarking is the world's only perpetual motion machine…and it's always going up, defying gravity.  

Every company is trapped into paying its elite employees more and more. No company ever offers less. And if performance isn't too good, the only way for a company to remain profitable is to tackle its cost base. What does that mean? - it means paying the non-elite staff less!! Just as there is relentless pressure to pay the elite more, there is relentless pressure to pay the employees less. The lower down the importance scale you are, the more downwards pressure is exerted on your earnings. If you can be easily be replaced, you have no bargaining power at all and have to take what you're given.

So, the world falls into this pattern: to he who has much, even more is given; to he who has little, even less is given.

You can thank benchmarking for this. It has only one effect. It creates a super rich elite and a mass of extremely poor people. Benchmarking has no connection with merit and performance; merely with a network of "professionals" all agreeing (to their mutual benefit) to pay each other more. This is a classic example of a conspiracy of like-minded people from similar backgrounds all working together to ensure a better life for themselves and a worse life for everyone else. Note that the conspiracy doesn't need to involve all of the conspirators sitting down in a large room and actively agreeing what has to be done. Rather, the conspiracy unfolds entirely organically. A concept is introduced - benchmarking - and all of the elite instantly recognise the implications of the concept, so they all instantly adopt it.

Most of the Old World Order's conspiracy against the world operates at this level. All innovations that manifestly enrich the elite are rapidly adopted; all innovations that reduce the power and wealth of the elite are resisted to the extremest degree with enormous lobbying efforts (and bribery and corruption). What is the inevitable consequence of adopting pro-OWO policies and resisting anti-OWO policies? - the OWO get richer and richer, and more and more powerful.

That's the world we live in. No one in any position of influence in power is doing anything at all to rein back the elite.

Note how cunning the elite are. They don't want to be judged on performance because that is highly variable from year to year. Benchmarking, on the other hand, is ever-reliable and always going up. While many workers in the current financial crisis have had to endure pay freezes or even cuts, the salaries of the elite have, unbelievably, continued to rise.

It doesn't matter whether the economy is going down or up, what is for sure is that the salaries of the elite are always going up, always defying the natural law of regression to the mean.

The elite always claim to work hard (although they're usually on the golf course) and hence deserve enormous rewards. Yet the hardest-working people on earth are invariably scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, writers, artists - many of whom are paid a pittance in relation to the elite. Whereas some people are motivated to work hard purely by greed and lust for power (the elite), genuine hard workers are motivated by love alone. Few people could ever have been harder working than Nietzsche, yet he had the most modest of livings. He said, "Rare men would rather perish than work without delight in their labour."

Nietzschean delight is the key to a healthy, productive world. Love, not greed, should motivate effort. Greed should, as far as possible, be declared anathema and as many obstacles as possible should be placed in the paths of the greedy elite.

Only the Meritocracy Party seeks to put the elite and all of their corrupt and self-serving practices out of business once and for all. Benchmarking would be declared illegal because it is anti-meritocratic. Only demonstrable performance - a merit-based criterion - would allow higher salaries to be earned. As far as possible all professionals in a similar group should get the same core salary; a measure specifically designed to stop the benchmarking gravy train in its tracks.

In Search of Identity; In Search of Values

The whole world seems increasingly lost. The old certainties have crumbled. Those in authority can no longer be respected (if they ever could be). They've all been exposed as being in it for themselves. There's no such thing as public service anymore: self-service is the only show in town. The rich are forever helping themselves. They're not even embarrassed about it. The greedy bankers seem to relish flaunting their excessive wealth in people's facing even in the midst of recession.

There is nothing more remarkable and disturbing than that despite the meltdown of the global financial system, no State suggested taking control of the banking system. Bankers very quickly returned to "business as usual" - feeding the greed machine.

The people of the world have never been more pathetic than they are right now. The degree of damage the elites have done to ordinary people is inestimably large, yet still the people don't move a muscle (with the notable exceptions of the Greeks and some Spaniards). Only blatant dictatorships such as those of the Arab world are being challenged. The covert dictatorships of Western "democracy" have rigged the game so expertly that no one in the West does anything. It's as is everyone in the West is sedated. How did they come to be so pathetic? Is there some new dimension of Western civilisation that has made Revolution practically unthinkable?

The answer lies in David Riesman's remarkable book The Lonely Crowd. He asserted that there was a time when the whole world was run according to "tradition-directedness." By this he meant that every aspect of society was governed by tradition. People in the past were confronted with rigid religious, political, economic and social structures. There was practically zero social mobility. Your entire life was decided by the identity of your parents and the social traditions that applied to them. Everyone everywhere inherited traditional values and passed on traditional values. In the contemporary world, we see in Islamic culture, in Orthodox Judaism and Christian sects such as the Amish, the tradition-directed type of existence that once applied everywhere.

In the West, tradition-directedness broke down because of the Protestant Reformation (which shattered the traditions of Catholicism), the French Revolution (which shattered the traditions of monarchy), the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution.

Tradition-directedness initially gave way to "inner-directedness". To some degree, Protestantism can be thanked for this. There are hundreds of Protestant sects, each fiercely independent. In Catholic countries, everyone was brought up in the same tradition, but in Protestant countries many different groups existed, and parents taught their children specific values that were often not shared by the majority in the country. In other words, children were taught NOT to go with the flow, NOT to accept the pressure applied by the majority, to be proud to stand up for specific values whether or not this would lead to conflict. So children now had an inner moral compass shaped by their parents and this guided them through their lives. They relied on this inner set of values rather than what society as a whole advocated. They were tough, combative, independent, self-reliant people. America was founded by people of that ilk.

Insofar as inner-directedness broke up the tyranny of tradition-directedness, it was a positive development, yet it had problems of its own. It was anti-community. It fostered the selfish family that would cut the throats of other families to get ahead.

As the pace of the industrial revolution grew and huge cities started appearing, the fiercely independent model of inner-directedness (best suited to life in the American West amongst the pioneers) was no longer sustainable. In crowded cities people had to find a new way of relating to each other. In melting pot cities such as New York, full of immigrants from all over the world, it was impossible to return to any overarching tradition that everyone could agree on. A new phenomenon arose that was perfect for fast-changing life in big cities: other-directedness.

This meant that people wouldn't listen to ancient traditions and nor would they let their parents instil values in them. Instead, they turned to their peer group. Henceforth, social popularity, group conformity, groupthink, fitting in, keeping up with the Joneses, status and fashion, would be the paramount values.

But, of course, values that can change overnight because of fashion aren't values at all. They're transient ways of relating, and they offer no certainties and no enduring standards. You can't anchor your life with something as ephemeral as the latest fad. You don't know what tomorrow's fashions will bring. Will you be in fashion or out? People become permanently anxious.

Tradition-directed cultures made people feel shame when they sinned against the traditions. Inner-directed cultures made people feel guilty. And other-directed-cultures filled people with anxiety.

The other-directed Western world of today is suffering from an epidemic of anxiety.

Now we arrive at the central problem for would-be Western revolutionaries. Virtually no one in the West has any recognisable values. There's nothing for which they would fight to the death. "Looking after No.1" isn't a value - it's a modus operandi. Westerners make cynical calculations regarding what will benefit them and what won't. The idea of extending themselves in any way seems unthinkable to them. Someone wrote to us and said he didn't think people were willing to take any action. He said it would be pointless to try to do anything on his own, and it would be better if a country adopted meritocracy and showed the world the way.

This is always how it works. People absolve themselves of having to do anything. They talk themselves out of taking personal action. They wait for others to act. How do they imagine a Meritocratic nation will ever come about if no one does anything? So everyone sits tights, waiting for others. And thus the sheeple do nothing and nothing changes.

Once you have an other-directed culture, action happens only if it becomes fashionable. If popular revolution took off, you can bet the other-directed would be out there in unprecedented numbers. But it will never take off because it requires heroes with discernible values to stand up first and set the example. But where are such people in this day and age? There are no more heroes. The Age of Heroes is well and truly dead. How can anything change in a world where the people have no values, nothing to drive them forward? Religious fanatics used to go to the stake rather than recant and betray their beliefs. You wouldn't catch anyone in the West doing that these days. You would need to actually stand for something and no one does.

The West is the greatest triumph of the Old World Order because they have succeeded in completely removing values from the people. Everyone is a "Last Man", relentlessly calculating how to get instant gratification, short-term pleasure, a tiny advantage. They always seek petty comforts and to avoid taking any risks. They want to be distracted, to be comfortable, to be enjoying themselves. Little princesses - only six to nine years old - are treated to "pamper parties" where they get to enjoy such delights as putting on facepacks!! WTF! The whole point of a facepack is to make the skin look younger. Why would little girls ever need a facepack? - they already have the perfect skin of the young. All other-directed people - especially women and the Sex and the City generation - are essentially pursuing a permanent adult pamper party. Why do they love royal weddings so much? - because such occasions are about endless pampering.

Other-directed people have no values at all. Do you think people on Facebook or playing video-games or watching reality TV have any values? They wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about. They would stare at you with wide, blank eyes. VALUES?! WTF!

Can you imagine a Facebooker in the West starting a revolution? Can you imagine a video-gamer embarking on some great project that will take five years to complete, involve enormous effort with no guarantee of success? It's unthinkable.

People in the West have had their horizons shrunk to the next five minutes. They can't imagine taking on big tasks. Their brains are now practically hard-wired to short-term stimulation. They need a constant fix. They need drugs, alcohol, flashing lights, booming sounds, flickering screens, constant Facebook updates, constant text messages, cell-phone calls, emails, special effects…all of these control their life and keep them constantly in the present moment.

It's pure genius: how to turn people into sheeple who are permanently distracted. They will never pose a challenge to the elite.

How America made Fashion its Goddess

The transformation of America from an inner-directed nation to an other-directed nation is a fascinating one.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, capitalism was all about PRODUCTION. The things produced were useful and practical. Most people had only one pair of shoes, and maybe a spare pair if they could afford it (their "Sunday best"). The shoes were sturdy, functional and lasted a long time. Things were built to last because that's what people wanted.

Capitalists were anxious that supply would eventually outstrip demand and factories would have to close. What if everyone had shoes that would last a lifetime or a car that would last forever? No one would ever need a new one. Once the market was saturated, the end was nigh. They needed some new angle that would save capitalism. That angle was consumption. Rather than producing long-lasting items that generated no profit after the initial purchase, it was essential to create disposable goods that would be thrown away because they had become "unfashionable" not because they were no longer functional. The emphasis switched from enduring, useful goods to frivolous fashion items.

With this new type of capitalism, it was of course essential to ensure that the fashions kept changing. A whole industry was created - the fashion industry - to ensure that you changed your appearance as often as possible. You had autumn, winter, spring and summer ranges, year in and year out. If you didn't keep up with the new fashions you would be seen as a loser, unfashionable or poor.

Then even the lack of money was overcome - you could buy on credit, and thus a whole new banking industry came into being to cater for giving people money to buy things NOW, to be paid back later at a high interest rate.

Credit is quintessentially about instant gratification. Why spend months saving up when you can have the object of your desire this very moment? Just sign here, Madam.

An industry was required to show people all of the new fashions. Voila, the advertising industry was born. Its sole purpose was to get you to buy the products being advertised. It had to make you feel a lack, a deficiency, if you did not have this product. Your life was incomplete if you didn't have the product and instantly better if you did. If everyone had it and you didn't, you were a bit sad and a bit of a loser.

Next came the status wars. Not all products are equal. Some are of higher quality, look better, cost more, use more expensive materials, are classier, more stylish, more fashionable. So, you don't have a designer dress or suit? - you sad loser! Certain labels showed that you were richer and more successful if you possessed them, so people naturally became obsessed with possessing them.

Bit by bit, tens of millions of people became perfect consumers. Products in themselves weren't really all that important. What mattered was what they said about you. What message did they give out about what type of person you were? Did they signal that you were one of life's winners….or a bit of a saddo?

Who wants to be a loser? You'll do anything not to be perceived as one of life's "superfluous ones" (as Nietzsche said).

Once you define yourself according to what objects you own and what clothes you wear rather than who you are, you really are lost. You have no values at all. You have become a mask, but there's nothing underneath.

And that's what other-directed people are - the masked masses with the hollow centres. They are the perfect consumers because they define themselves according to what they are consuming. Consumption - the buying of capitalist goods - is what defines them. And to whose benefit? - the capitalist elite of course. While you're buying, they're getting richer and more powerful.

They of course can afford the most expensive goods of all - the ultra-high status goods that ordinary people crave above all else.

Women, in particular, are other directed. That's why the fashion industry and beauty industry are focused on women rather than men. But more and more effort is being put into bringing men into the fashion and beauty world. Heterosexual men are mysteriously being replaced by "metrosexuals" - heterosexual men (allegedly) who take extreme care over their appearance as if they were gay men. Cui bono? The capitalist elite of the fashion and beauty industries.

The technology industry feeds men's obsession with gadgets. Have you got the latest upgrade? No - then you're a dinosaur! You MUST have the newest, fastest, most powerful gadget. You must have the whizzy new functionality. If you don't…is there something fucking wrong with you?

Tradition-directed societies:

A system of fixed beliefs based on rigid orthodoxy leads to fixed social characters. The people are conformist and resistant to change. When America (an other-directed nation) invaded Iraq, it thought the Iraqis would soon enough become model "Americans". In fact, the only thing the American politicians proved was that they were totally ignorant of sociology. Iraq - a Muslim tradition-directed society - has nothing at all in common with America. The American "expedition" was certain to end in disaster.

Inner-directed societies:

Countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands have retained strong inner-directed aspects.

     Inner-directed people, like the tradition-directed, have fixed beliefs, but these are localised rather than generalised (i.e. everyone in society doesn't share the same belief system; rather, society is made up of many groups which may hold radically different beliefs. In Islamic nations, everyone holds Islamic beliefs; in the Netherlands there are almost as many belief systems as people).

Although the inner-directed have fixed beliefs, they have flexible social characters because of a) willingness to challenge received wisdom from any direction if it doesn't conform with their personal beliefs (so they can be both rebellious or conformist depending on the circumstances) and b) they must develop a high degree of tolerance towards contrary belief systems to avoid constant conflict (in practice, people tend to stay within like-minded groups and ignore as far as possible those of whom they disapprove).

These societies are liberal on the surface, though they have a reactionary underbelly. Look at the Netherlands. It was renowned for being one of the most liberal nations on earth but now, because of Islam, it has started to become deeply reactionary. The tradition-directed Muslims are offensive to inner-directed people of all stripes.

All of the problems with Islam are caused by extreme Islamic tradition-directedness. Nearly all Europeans and Americans are either inner- or other-directed. The behaviour of the tradition-directed Muslims seems almost incomprehensible, and vice versa.

The truth is this: tradition-directed individuals are incapable of integrating with societies that reject their traditions. Hostility and conflict are absolutely inevitable. To the tradition-directed, their traditions are what define them. They can't live without them. Their core identity revolves around the traditions and the community. Imagine how they feel when they come into contact with people who have no respect at all for their "sacred" traditions and actually mock them or find them offensive.

Once again, politicians are clueless. Tradition-directed societies do not mix with other societies that don't share their traditions. Hence it is absolute foolishness to allow the two to come together. The result is the mutual intolerance and cultural friction we see all around us.

To any non-Muslim, it's simple common sense that the burqa should be banned since it is totally offensive to all the values of the West. To a Muslim, such a ban is an attack on Islam. Both parties are correct. But it's not for the West to be forced to "respect" alien traditions. Muslims in Europe and America should either integrate and ditch their traditions, or go to Islamic nations and carry on their traditions until Doom's Day.  

Other-directed societies:

There are no core values in such societies, so all personal beliefs are highly flexible and can change day by day. Flexible beliefs lead to highly flexible social characters. Since other-directed people don't stand for anything, they can be all things to all men.

Riesman asserted that other-directed people want to be loved rather than respected (although of course they really want both). They are preoccupied with relating to people, with empathy and sympathy, with being emotionally in tune. Like the tradition-directed, they always prefer mythos over logos.

Riesman said that we could think of the inner-directed being behind velvet curtains (extreme privacy) while the other-directed are in glass houses. Everyone can see everything. There's no privacy. The house in the Big Brother reality TV show, with cameras watching everything 24/7, is an environment that other-directed people can cope with easily. To an inner-directed person, that house would be a nightmare.

Facebook is the perfect online environment for other-directed people. It holds little appeal to the inner-directed.

Other-directed societies can cope with undergoing rapid and enormous changes. The people are highly adaptable. The only trouble is that they are also zombies who have no real identity, no principles and no sense of where they're going. A desperate and despairing vacuum exists where their soul ought to be.

America is the archetypal other-directed nation. What does it stand for? Nothing. What are its values? Nothing - unless you count relentless greed, selfishness, instant gratification and permanently looking after No 1 as values. America is the dumbed down society par excellence. It enshrines the principle of the lowest common denominator. It is always racing for the bottom. The capitalist controllers of America are motivated only by money. Other-directedness offers them unbelievable opportunities for personal gain. Capitalism is all about changing the fashions every day so that the consumers keep buying.

Capitalism doesn't work well in tradition-directed societies opposed to fashion, and inner-directed societies aren't fashion-victims either. Capitalism in inner-directed countries is much less rapacious than in America.

Other-directedness is the ultimate "capitalist" personality orientation. It has been designed by capitalists for capitalists. Modern capitalism is entirely dictated by consumption, and people will keep consuming only if they are obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses, not if they have values.

Imagine if all Americans didn't care whether they had the latest gadgets. Then who would buy them?

Capitalism demands that you always be willing to buy. You must be permanently susceptible to advertising and fashion. Inner values and convictions only get in the way.

America is therefore a country without a heart or soul. Fake patriotism - "USA, USA, USA!" - tries to fill the gap. But everyone in other-directed America knows that, deep down, they don't stand for anything and have no convictions.

That said, right wing Americans - the Tea Party, Republicans, Evangelical Christians etc - retain inner-directed (and even some tradition-directed) elements, hence are still capable of standing up to be counted (albeit on behalf of crazy causes). But the American left wing - led by the Democrats - is devoid of all inner values. The perfect "left wing" President was Bill Clinton - who smiled a lot and got on extremely well with all sorts of people (exactly as would be expected of an other-directed man), but who had no convictions at all, as his time in the White House proved. The American left wing must reclaim its soul. It must find values. It must cultivate convictions. Look at Obama - does anyone know what he stands for?! Even worse, does he?

Let's face it, Obama stands for nothing other than securing a second term: power for power's sake. Compare the material on our website with what Obama says. Which of us stands for something? Which of us has true vision? Which of us is genuinely on the side of change and the transformation of humanity?

Autonomous:

Riesman said that the tradition-directed, other-directed and inner-directed all belonged to the over-arching category of "adjusted types". There were also maladjusted people who didn't fit in with these types. Finally, there were "autonomous" types. These could fit in perfectly well with the adjusted types, but they could also break out of any boxes and define and create themselves.

The Illuminati aspire to a world entirely populated by autonomous individuals.

The autonomous don't look to traditions, their parents or others to define them. They construct their own identity regardless of anyone else. They don't have fixed beliefs, but they have fixed principles. They will adopt the most rational position. If they have one position and encounter a new, more rational position, they will quickly adopt the new position. (Tradition-directed people would stick with the tradition; inner-directed would stick with their existing convictions and the other-directed would do whatever the "group" chose to do.)

The autonomous thus have flexible, adaptable, rational, dialectical, social characters. They can change rapidly but they also have principles. They are not fodder for capitalists as the other-directed are. They are not locked into the past like the tradition-directed, and they are not parent-obsessed like the other-directed.

*****

There are four ways in which people's characters can be formed: 1) by ancient holy books and traditions that have been set in stone in a community (the tradition-directed e.g. Muslims and Orthodox Jews) 2) their parents (the inner-directed e.g. the Dutch and Swiss) 3) their peer group (the other-directed e.g. the Americans and British) and 4) by themselves (autonomous e.g. Nietzschean Supermen and Superwomen).

The tradition-directed are the worst human beings on earth: superstitious, fearful, conformist, stuck in the past, resistant to change, servile, worshipping ancient gods that have been refuted by modern science. They are backward, badly-educated, irrational and hate-driven.

The other-directed are the next worst: shallow, valueless, driven by instant gratification and the short term, status-obsessed, intent on keeping up with the Joneses, gullible, easily manipulated, consumerists, fashion victims.

The inner-directed are often much healthier types, their main problem being that they are too much a reflection of parental indoctrination, hence are not truly themselves. They spend a lot of time trying to live up to parental expectations. In countries like the Netherlands, the balance is rather good. However, in a country like America, the inner-directed are often pathological. The creed of "family values"; "family above all"; "I'll do anything for my family" - the root of the Old World Order's obsession with building elite family dynasties that span the centuries - has proved one of the most toxic ingredients in human development.

The toxic strain of the inner-directed are those who hate "Big government". They think the family is right about everything. They want no State interference in family life. They don't want the wisest and most meritocratic people in the State to have any influence over them. They think they know it all. They are the spiritual successors of the American pioneers who ventured West and lived in log cabins in vast wildernesses miles from anyone else. The family was totally self-reliant in those times. It asked for nothing from anyone else. It saw no reason why anyone should interfere with it. Admirable up to a point - but absolutely disastrous in a city environment where community values must be paramount.

The American "pioneers" were usually anti-social, badly-educated, "god-fearing" Christians who hated government. Not from the ranks of such as those will any Gods emerge. They are just a microcosm of the tradition-directed societies, except their traditions extend no further than the walls of the family house. Sarah Palin's "philosophy" is that of the inner-directed American. Is there a more stupid and deluded politician on earth than Palin? She appeals to all the rednecks who hate the State and are obsessed with "God and the family". Conspiracy theorists and libertarians are of the same ilk. They despise the State.

So, we want rid of all of them.

Let's not be coy. Our project is the most radical in human history. It has to be if we are to create a race of Olympian Gods. Bringing about the emergence of autonomous human beings is the only show in town.

We want every human being to be free to develop the personality that most expresses their true, authentic self. Since they won't be governed by traditions, peers or parents, the autonomous will experience maximum personal liberation. They will be rational, productive, creative individuals and they will get on excellently with all of their neighbours. There will be no masters - because autonomous people would never tolerate them - and there will be no slaves - because slavery is offensive to the autonomous. The Round Table will at last come into being, and those who succeed more than others will do so only because they are more meritorious. We will have the best of all possible worlds. We will have attained the omega point of human development, of freedom, reason and talent.

All the old gods will be dead. Peer pressure won't exist. Parents won't be in the game of creating "Mini-me's."

The autonomous human being represents the end of the line in terms of personal freedom and a person's ability to construct his own identity. There are no further stages of evolution…apart from divinity itself. The autonomous human being is the culmination of the dialectic of personal freedom: the omega point. No one is freer and more authentic than the person who defines and creates himself according to his own nature and character.

The autonomous are "New Humanity", and they will become in due course H2s - HyperHumans and then Gods and Goddesses.

HyperHumanity leaves behind all of the failed social types of the past and embraces a brand new social type that is immune to being controlled by others, one that is never servile. It represents the ultimate freedom of human beings.

HyperHumans are free, strong, independent, self-overcoming. They are their own masters. In short, they are Nietzsche's Supermen and Superwomen. Isn't it time we built the world of the future and at last escaped from all of the errors of the past?

We now have all the knowledge to optimise the human race. Will anyone on earth stand up and condemn the aspiration to have a world full of autonomous, magnificent, meritocratic individuals?

*****

Why is this website so monumentally unsuccessful? It's because it's designed by and for HIGHER HUMANITY. It holds no appeal for the tradition-directed who find it obscene, blasphemous and heretical. It holds no appeal for the other-directed (who are always on Facebook or whatever other medium they can find to satisfy their narrow, short horizons), and it holds no appeal for "family-values" inner-directed people. So, when they're all removed from the equation, there's almost no one left. It's very lonely when you're far ahead of the rest of the world!

If we want to make this website successful our best bet would be to come up with some gimmick that appeals to the other-directed. But is it possible for us to sink so low as make contact with those levels of the primordial slime?

The Other-directed Vacuum

A fascinating phenomenon is what we might call "opposite-projection". By this we mean that a person looks inside himself for certain qualities and when he can't find them he looks to others and finds those qualities in them instead. It's not that he's projected something of himself onto others; rather, he has projected the opposite onto others. If he is empty, they are full. If there is no love in him, he finds love in everyone else. Whatever he lacks, they have.

FOMO stands for "fear of missing out". This is a classic example of opposite-projection. Whatever fun you're not having, they ARE having. You feel you have to turn up at everything for fear that that if you don't that will definitely be the best night ever - and you will have missed out on it. Of course, if that's your attitude, you'll never have any fun. You'll be permanently anxious, and anxiety is of course one of the defining characteristics of other-directedness.

It has been pointed out that the lack of core values of other-directed Americans, their acute lack of a "centre", makes them oppositely-project this absent centre onto others. During the Cold War, the Americans were terrified of Communism. Why? Because the Communists stood for something. The Americans, with a vacuum where their values should have been, feared that Communism would fill that vacuum. They were obsessed with the "domino effect" - one country after another succumbing to Communism. Why did they get embroiled in the disastrous Vietnam War? To stop the dominos falling. Why did they fail? Because the Vietnamese were fighting for positive liberty - for a cause - whereas the Americans were fighting to stop something they didn't like from happening. The Vietnamese were fighting a positive war and the USA a negative one. The outcome was inevitable. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were similarly futile. Everyone knows the Americans shouldn't be there. They are fighting people with a cause, and those people always win in the end.     

The Americans have become supremely paranoid. Why? Because they don't know what they stand for, but they know they want to hang on to their current pre-eminence. Everyone is a potential threat to American dominance. Everyone is queuing up to chip away at the American economic empire. The trouble is, if you don't stand for anything you have no principles to guide your actions. Everything is done on the basis of ad hoc, short term tactical advantage. There is no strategy and no vision.

But who else do other-directed people oppositely-project their own missing values onto? - the rich and powerful and, above all, celebrities. These people become the carriers of the values of the other-directed. If you don't have any values of your own then find someone you like and embrace their values instead (even if they themselves don't have any values other than those conferred on them by their media image). What do you care if values are authentic or not? After all, if you cared about values, you would have your own, wouldn't you?

Inside-Dopesters

Riesman defines an inside-dopester as a social type whose goal is "never to be taken in by any person, cause or event." This is a perfect definition of a conspiracy theorist. The typical conspiracy theorist thinks he can never be fooled. The more elaborate the conspiracy theory with which he is presented, the better he likes it. If he can master the intricacies of a cosmic conspiracy involving shape-shifting, pan-dimensional, reptilian "Illuminati" from Nibiru who are living in the hollow earth and using Nazi UFOs then no one can ever pool the wool over his eyes. Unfortunately, he is stark, staring mad by this stage, like his hero, David Icke. Did you know that Icke has never once met a member of the Illuminati? It doesn't stop him from creating an entirely fictional Illuminati who aren't even human. Was Goethe a Reptilian shape-shifter? Pythagoras? Hegel? Leibniz? Hypatia? Heraclitus? Weishaupt? Empedocles?

Tradition-directed people:

Their values are implanted by tradition (ancient books and customs) and community elders. Their parents, and everyone else around them, also subscribes to exactly these values. Their central goal in life is to comply with what is demanded of them by tradition.

Inner-directed people:

Their values are implanted by their parents. Unlike the tradition-directed, their values may be very different from the rest of society. Their goals in life are to fulfil parental expectations.

Other-directed people:

Their values are implanted by their peer group. Being accepted by the group is of paramount importance to them. They are, according to Riesman: "sensitized to the expectations and preferences of others". They follow the crowd. Their goal in life is to keep up with the Joneses, to succeed in the status wars, to always be in fashion. 

The other-directed came into being as a result of consumer capitalism, advertising, public relations and city living. In many ways, they were manufactured by capitalism in order to buy more goods and services than had ever been dreamt possible. They did exactly that. They created the modern Western economic system based on constant growth to satisfy ever-expanding consumer demand. The capitalist elite became staggeringly wealthy. 

The other-directed are highly susceptible to manipulation by the media. The media is the propaganda arm of capitalism.

Where the tradition-directed are guided by ancient holy texts, the inner-directed are guided by an internal gyroscope (to use Riesman's metaphor) and the other-directed by radar (again using Riesman's metaphor). One can imagine them sending out beams into their environment and receiving back signals, which then determine their actions. If no signals come back, they don't know what to do. They feel lost.

The other-directed are experts in "mirroring" - copying the body language and attitudes of others. They are mirror people. They are reflections rather than real beings.

The inner-directed always know where they're going thanks to their gyroscope.

The tradition-directed tend to be unsure unless they are surrounded by others who follow the same traditions. They have almost no initiative.

Overthrowing Authority

The inner-directed undermined traditional authority. The other-directed undermined adult authority. Peer-group authority became decisive. But peer groups have no particular values other than those convenient for the moment. The mass media create their opinions for them. Most other-directed people are essentially guided by celebrity culture. Websites of celebrities receive enormous amounts of hits each day. The opinions of the celebrities are embraced by the peer group and become their "philosophy". That's why celebrities are so heavily used in advertising. If celebrities tell the other-directed to jump, that's exactly what the other-directed do.

Now we need to undermine the authority of the elites, the rich and the celebrities.

There are very few real, authentic people in the world. Only the autonomous qualify. They are guided by an inner gyroscope that they created themselves.

The tradition-, inner- and other-directed are all essentially conformist, particularly the first and last types. Only the autonomous stand out from the crowd.

We need to bring about a sea-change in how character is formed. It cannot be left to parents, peers or traditions. People must be responsible for forming their own character - who has more right than the individual himself? It is the proper duty of the State to provide the framework in which people attain their truest self and maximise their potential. 

*****

So, the transition from inner-direction to other-direction took place: a) as a result of increases in population density as the masses crowded into cities, leading to people having to find new ways of relating to each other to maintain peace and stability: the mirroring that other-direction involves proved invaluable, and b) as a result of the switch from production capitalism to consumerism which required people to be brought into status wars with each other over the consumer products they bought and the consumer services of which they availed themselves: people expressed themselves through capitalist products and services, hence became defined by these products and services, hence these were the most important things in their lives. In a very real sense, people were themselves turned into objects.

Karl Marx famously said, "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness." This is one of the most radical and profound statements of all time. The type of environment in which you are born - whether it be a religious, tradition-directed society or an inner-directed family unit or a capitalist, other-directed society - determines your whole life. How many Muslims ever free themselves of Islam, or Orthodox Jews of Judaism? There's almost no way out. As for the other-directed, they will remain obsessed with others until they die, and they will never find themselves. The inner-directed follow a sure direction, but is it their own or their parents'? Do they ever become truly themselves?

All types - other than the autonomous - are alienated from their authentic selves. The way they were brought up prevents them from attaining authenticity. Isn't it time society geared itself up for producing authentic, real people who experience no alienation from themselves and from God?

Isn't it time that "the consciousness of men" was allowed to determine their being? A properly designed society can create truly conscious people - conscious in their own terms rather than those of parents, traditions or others.

There can be no greater and freer world than the one in which people are authentically themselves.

Liar

The motto of the "Prince of Wales" - recently married in front of a worldwide audience - is "Ich Dien" (German for "I serve"). He seems to have omitted a word: "myself".

All members of the elite are in it for themselves. They're all serving themselves. They couldn't care less about other people.

If the elite are in the business of serving humanity and being humanity's great benefactors (as they relentlessly claim), just ask yourself why so vast a proportion of the world's wealth is in the hands of a tiny number of people.

If the elite were authentically serving others, wouldn't the wealth gap between the rich and others be radically narrower?

Why do people keep falling for the propaganda of the rich? They are selfish, evil and self-serving and any intelligent person should wish to see them overthrown, just like the tyrant kings of old.

Status Wars

Our world is largely a competition for status. Various signs are associated with status - flash cars, mansions, designer clothes, yachts, top of the range watches, reservations at exclusive restaurants etc - and people are in thrall to these signs. Just as rhesus monkeys spend an enormous amount of time staring at the dominant alpha male of the pack, so do humans - they stare incessantly at celebrities!

In the absence of celebrities, people stare at signs. A stranger can weigh you up almost instantly in terms of the signs you are exhibiting. Your wealth, social class, profession, success with the opposite sex etc can all be gauged in a trice, and most people are of course found wanting.

People crave the signs of success. Everyone wants to avoid being one of life's legions of losers. So, you end up with an entire industry and psychology of signs. Capitalism is no longer about production. Instead it manufactures signs, and people choose the signs that they think make them seem as successful, attractive, desirable, cool and hip as possible.

What people don't ever do is think about truth, reason or logic. The average person has practically no relationship at all with the truth and reason - which is why irrational, deceitful religions have flourished so well.

Average people are entirely attuned to mythos. Logos intrudes in their life in no way at all (although, of course the "logo" as an advertising tool is omnipresent in their consciousness and subconscious).

And that's why the world is the way it is. There's no mystery about it. The central issue is how you radically rebalance mythos and logos. Mythos is fine as long as it accompanies logos. It's a disaster when it replaces logos.

The religions of Abrahamism are pure mythos. They have zero truth content and logos content. There's no mathematics, science or philosophy in them. Yet 2,500 years ago, the ancient Greeks were making fabulous progress in all of these areas. Illuminism was always based on logos. So, there's no excuse for the mythos religions, and there's no excuse for their irrational believers. They always had the opportunity to embrace logos rather than mythos.

Only the State has the power to ensure that logos is given much higher priority in the world. It will never happen under Abrahamism and capitalism which both hate logos and prefer mythos because it allows them to emotionally manipulate people.

Another aspect of the status wars is the concept of "face" or "respect". Many cultures make a loss of face unacceptable. Many gang members refuse to be "disrespected". Yet, in fact, all poor people are at all times losing face and being disrespected by the elite of society. Why don't gang members attack the elite? Why do they always kill each other over minor nuances of "respect"? They are perpetually attuned to the minutiae of respect in their local environment, yet they completely miss the big picture: the abstract concept of respect. In this abstract sense, no particular individual engages in an act of disrespect, yet the entire system is intrinsically disrespectful. Why is it unacceptable to be disrespected by a particular individual, but OK to be disrespected by the entire system?

Any gang member with any self-respect should attack the system, not the symptoms of the system.

We are all disrespected by the system.  

The Holy Grail

"AI" wrote:

Quote 1:

"The Holy Grail is not, finally, an external object."

Quote 2:

"The Holy Grail IS an object, but in order to understand what it is you must first accomplish a spiritual, not a physical journey."

You said that the grail is "finally" not an external object. In the other article you say that the grail IS an object. You claim that "in order to understand what it is you must first accomplish a spiritual, not a physical journey". You also said it was a "gnosis accelerator" or something... right. So...what exactly is it, if i might ask?

We deliberately write about the Holy Grail in ambiguous terms since it is the secret heart of Illuminism. We try to ward off "treasure hunters" who think of the Grail in terms of a Raiders of the Lost Ark adventure.

The Holy Grail is not finally a physical object because it is gnosis itself, the completion of the spiritual journey of existence. Everyone has access to the Grail as defined in these terms. However, the Holy Grail is also the Illuminati's most prized and treasured object. It is an object of such a kind as to stupefy the world for it is a "God portal". When a prepared person takes hold of the Grail, that very act results in gnosis (which is why we refer to it as a gnosis accelerator) and becomes God.

So, the Grail both is and isn't an object depending on how you look at it. The Grail can be attained by anyone, whether or not they belong to the Illuminati, but only the Illuminati have access to the Grail object that guarantees gnosis there and then for a Grail Knight.

We may reveal on this site in the next few months what the Grail object actually is: we are awaiting the decision of the Grand Master. What we will say right now is that it is connected with Grand Master Simon Magus, and The Armageddon Conspiracy by Mike Hockney already comes close to explicitly identifying it, but without revealing the final elements that make it so special and wondrous.

Someone else wrote:

When Weishaupt, Leibniz, Hegel, Nietzsche, and other great men such as these died, did they reach gnosis or were they reincarnated? Are any of their souls living among us today (as reincarnated humans)? Is there any way to know? Can your organization find a reincarnated soul living among us? If any of these great men were to reincarnate, do they have a better chance at gnosis the next time around than the average human or do they start over?

This is something we may discuss in detail at a later time; again, we await the Grand Master's permission. Although the authors of this site do have some knowledge of this area, the proper details are currently reserved strictly for initiates of the Illuminati Mystery Degrees. It would be an astonishingly radical and unprecedented step for the Grand Master to sanction the release of this knowledge.

Why Religions are Successful

Religions such as Judaism and Islam define their adherents: their whole consciousness is aligned with their religious identity. At all times, they are promoting their religion in one way or another. If we think of their religion as their life's "cause", they are absolutely committed to this cause.

For those who don't belong to organised religions, they usually don't have any particular cause, and any to which they are attracted is more like a lifestyle accessory than a genuine cause. They will go on playing their video games and watching junk TV and listening to their iPod and going to the movies and having a drink and taking drugs and joining dating sites in search of sex. All of these activities - these distractions - are the real "cause" of their life. These meaningless activities are what define them. They were never anything more than the sum of all these bread and circuses exercises.

Your actions tell the world who you are, not your delusions about yourself.

Many people write to us and say how much they enjoy our work, and they proceed to enthuse about one of our books such as The Armageddon Conspiracy. Strangely enough, if you look at the reviews of our books on Amazon, well there are almost none. In fact, we are more likely to get 1-star reviews from the usual suspects: Jews, Muslims, Christians, Zionists, libertarians, Truthers, conspiracy theorists, royalists, blah blah blah. They don't hesitate to be as negative as possible towards us in an attempt to kill us off.

Where are our "allies"? Where are their public reviews of our work? Nowhere to be seen.

We don't really have any allies. Quite a number of people joined the Movement and then spent their time attacking the Illuminati. Thanks, guys! Well, with "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

People write to us and expect to become involved in some lengthy dialogue with us. We are a society with a very small membership. Any time that is spent on one-to-one private messaging is doing absolutely nothing to promote our cause to a wide audience.

We are totally outgunned by our opponents. There are billions of them. They can afford to have endless private dialogues. We can't. If you want someone to talk to, it ain't us!   

No Fish

This website has been in existence for four years and has, more or less, been a complete waste of time and total failure in relation to making any meaningful impact on the collective consciousness. It hasn't made even the slightest dent. For these four years it has been flatlining. It's almost a corpse. The only thing that keeps the show on the road is the personal dedication of its creators. We enjoy this task so much that we do it for zero financial reward (in fact it has personally cost us a small fortune in terms of the salaries we gave up in order to devote all of our time to this undertaking) and we would do it even if we had no audience at all.

The main point of the exercise is in any case internal to the Illuminati. We were chosen to provide an update of all of the Illuminati's internal teaching materials for the first seven degrees of the Order. Until now, Hegel's work has been the official teaching material of the Illuminati for some two centuries. Our work will be the basis of Illuminati teaching for the next two centuries, and since that makes us Hegel's heirs, we are in the most exalted company.

A common inspiration for the three of us is Nietzsche, a great genius almost entirely ignored during his sane lifetime (going insane proved a good career move for him!). Nietzsche had to publish some of his books at his own expense and usually sold only a few hundred copies - yes, we know exactly what that's like. Just before he succumbed to madness, he wrote in his autobiography, Ecce Homo: "The task for the immediately following years was as clear as it could be. Now that the affirmative part of my task was done, it was the turn of the denying, the No-saying and No-doing part: the revaluation of existing values themselves, the great war - the evocation of a day of decision. Included here is the slow search for those related to me, for such as out of strength would offer me their hand for the work of destruction. From now on all my writings are fish-hooks: perhaps I understand fishing as well as anyone?...If nothing got caught I am not to blame. There were no fish…

We often have that same feeling. There were no fish.

If you are supportive of our ideas, writing to us isn't going to help us: we already know our ideas! Like Nietzsche, we are engaged in "the slow search for those related to me." We certainly feel related to him.

When we embarked on this task, our aim, from a communications perspective, was to build a huge, creative crowdsourcing army that would change the world with its prodigious and wondrous output. Oh dear, what a joke!

So few fish!

We imagined hundreds of people reviewing our books and getting others to read them. We imagined people creating songs, videos, magazines, starting political parties, getting active, getting committed, getting out on the street. We imagined online activists going on raiding missions to other forums (religious forums, political forums, conspiracy theory forums) and swamping them with messages about the AC site.)

Ho, ho, ho!

None of it happened. With a few splendid exceptions, whose work we have featured on this site, everyone else just didn't get it, or totally lacked all imagination and creativity. They couldn't engage their brains and their fat asses other than to send us a message about Nibiru or whatever. Yeah, like THAT's going to change the world.

In relation to our website, crowdsourcing is dead. There hasn't been any: at least nothing that anyone would notice.

Bitter? Hey, not us. We're all grown-ups. We play our cards. It's not our fault that the world has so few world-historic figures.

From now on - now that we know that crowdsourcing is complete nonsense and achieves nothing at all when it comes to any genuine radicalism - the Illuminati are on the lookout for world-historic figures and no one else. They are rarer than gold, but sooner or later they will find their way to our banner of the Skull and Crossbones.

We pronounce this website a truly spectacular failure. Almost laughably bad. It's a monument to grand folly. Approaching two million dead words falling on deaf ears. In so many ways, a gargantuan error. A fuck-up of quite breathtaking proportions. Four years poured straight into a vacuum. No fish, we tell ourselves.

What a fucking world!