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.
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
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.
the dead-eyed zombies shuffle around in shopping malls wondering who Godot
actually is. Don't worry - you won't ever be meeting
The Power of Words
you noticed that lists of words can alter how you feel? You feel good when you
read the words above. Now consider these words:
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
Luther - Mad, Evil and a Devil
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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.
Illuminati are the secret society of the light. We will never stop until the
Torture God and his legions of darkness are overthrown.
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.
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!
Enlightenment War can never be won until the State actually chooses to fight
the war rather than openly endorsing or tolerating mad
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
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
"politically correct" (or do we mean the opposite?) remarks
Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary
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
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
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
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
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.
them of all their prayer-books.
their rabbis henceforth to teach.
them of the right to move about the country.
10)Forbid them the business of usury, and
take from them all their belongings.
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
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.
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
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."
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!
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
Luther and the Peasantry
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."
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.)
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
are some choice remarks by Luther concerning 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."
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
they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can
stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs."
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
are a few other Lutheran thoughts concerning master and
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
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."
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
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.)
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.
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.
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
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
wrote of the Commandments: "Their only purpose is to show man his impotence
to do good and to teach him to despair of himself."
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."
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
simply beyond belief (!) that an irrational ideology that rubbishes good deeds
should have become the guiding light for hundreds of millions of human beings.
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?
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.)
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
are some other choice remarks made by Luther about
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
is the devil's handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonour all that
God says or does."
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."
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
is contrary to faith."
is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God
has said or done."
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.
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.
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.
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.
has a rather startling attitude to sin. Consider these
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!"
we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become
the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies."
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
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."
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
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
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.
that doesn't make a psychopath, what does?
Faith and Good
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
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."
asserted, "For we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without
the works of the law."
regarded good works as sins, or even worse! He wrote:
works are bad and are sin like the rest."
is more important to guard against good works than against
that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a
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."
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
without works is dead." (James 2:20)
much for Luther and the Protestants! Theirs is a dead faith, a pointless faith
that achieves nothing of worth.
be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only." (James
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?
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.
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
this subject, Luther taught:
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."
do everything of necessity and nothing by 'free-will'; for the power of
'free-will' is nil..."
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."
(Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as
He does all that is in this world."
according to Protestantism, humans are automata. Muslims also subscribe to this
bizarre notion. Everything is the will of Allah.
Religion, Politics and
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
- 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.
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
"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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
that the most obvious fact of all time? Abrahamists DESPISE reason. Why?
Because they, like Luther, recognise reason as deadly to the Abrahamic
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
the Forces of Light. The time has come to defeat the Devil and his army of
darkness once and for all.
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.
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
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).
conscious, rational person would take such a religion seriously. It's a Fuehrer
Religion, a theocratic dictatorship.
knew what had to be done: "Have I been understood? - Dionysos
against the Crucified…" Paganism must defeat
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.
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
REPLACE ALL OF THE VALUES OF
has long been sick. But it can be cured - through the light of knowledge, good
deeds and reason.
Reich argued that it was necessary to have a sexual revolution before a
political and economic revolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
can have a golden age when we overthrow the tyrant, when we turn to the True
God - Abraxas.
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
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.
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
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
entire system so joyously proclaimed by the legions of faithful is INSANE from
beginning to end.
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.
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.
can change everything if we want to. There are no
the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling,
then let the maid come."
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.'
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."
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."
referred to himself as "a famous lover" with "three wives"
(presumably meaning "wife" as regular sex partner).
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
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,
Luther rubbished such opinions. Who cared that they were made by
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
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,
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.
remains the Illuminati's biggest disaster, all the more disappointingly since
it began so well and nobly.
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.
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
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
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."
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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!
Luther had a somewhat strained and
tortured relationship with God, even remarking, "I look upon God no better
than a scoundrel."
try these quotations for size:
"When I beheld Christ I seemed to see the Devil. I had a great aversion
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
they're one and the same.)
"I did not believe in Christ, but I did believe in God: a master armed
with a stick."
many Protestants seem not to believe in Christ. And, yes, Jehovah is like a
thug with a baseball bat.)
"God did mischievously blind me."
up - he's the Torture God, and he loves BDSM.)
"God often acts like a madman."
the time, you mean.)
"God paralyses the old and blinds the young and thus remains master; I
look upon God no better than a scoundrel."
agree 100 %.)
"God is stupid."
why the fuck do you worship him, you dumb cunt?
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
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.
wrote, "What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world
should fall to pieces over it."
what, pray tell, does "truth" mean in the mouth of someone who
despises reason and encourages lying? Luther had no relationship whatever with
The Book of Apocalypse
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
amusing to hear Luther talk of a "reason" for rejecting something.
Doesn't he reject reason as a valid criterion?)
a pity that other Protestants have been much less keen to dismiss the absurd
Book or Revelation with its laughable
something that we can agree on with Luther: "The history of Jonah is so
monstrous that it is absolutely incredible."
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
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
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
Sex and the Single Religious
is not my prerogative to be without a woman."
is a man must have a woman and whatever is a woman must have a
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
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."
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
deploys extraordinary logic to justify his positions. This is typical of
Abrahamists, and they always think they've done a good job. (They never
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."
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.'"
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.
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."
husbands have to be ordered to let their wife commit adultery with their
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?"
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
Luther argues that frigid wives should agree to be raped or face
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
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
sex can seriously damage your health! Fornication is sufficient reason for
Jehovah to wipe out the world.
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."
to this logic, God made the pre-Deluge people fornicators by denying them grace
- then exterminated them all for being fornicators. Talk about Catch
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
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
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."
right…you crazy coot.
obeys me not, despises not me but Christ."
believe that we are the last trump that sounds before Christ is
got that right, didn't you? - clown!
I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to
pieces over it."
you never taught or wrote a single thing that was true. You never encountered
the truth even once in your life.
rejects my doctrine cannot be saved."
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
should rise up against me".
the contrary, the whole world should.
have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in
that's a nice vote of confidence from a Christian in his
we do and how we act does not matter in the least. All that matters is our
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.
does not matter what people do; it only matters what they
there ever been a madder religion than the one that proclaims that we are what
we believe rather than what we do?
does not need our actions. All He wants is that we pray to Him and 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
"It does not matter how Christ
behaved-what He taught is all that matters."
a mass murderer who preaches love and peace should be taken seriously?!! Did
Luther never discover what the word HYPOCRITE means?
does it matter whether we commit a fresh sin?"
Christians supposed to be stopping themselves from sinning rather than
indulging in it?
cancels all sin."
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."
other sin exists in the world save unbelief."
contraire. Belief is the cardinal
it is necessary to commit some sin out of hatred and contempt for the
sin? Which Devil?
matters if we commit a sin?"
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
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
is nothing but a continual exercise in feeling that you have no sin although
you sin, but that your sins are thrown on Christ."
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.
the moment when you acknowledge that Christ bears your sins, He becomes the
sinner in your stead."
the Protestant is someone who wants to use "Christ" as the dumping
ground for his own sins?
a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still."
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
Saints must be good, downright sinners."
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.
Apostles themselves were sinners, yea, regular scoundrels…I believe
that the prophets also frequently sinned
true. They were all Devil worshippers…just like Luther
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."
speaks the alcoholic Protestant with a bad hangover.
I have a can of beer, I want the beer-barrel as
am but a man prone to let himself be swept off his feet by society,
drunkenness, the movements of the flesh."
just about sums up the typical Protestant!
is needed to live in continence is not in me".
Again - so typical of
of glowing in spirit, I glow in the flesh."
materialistic Protestant, lacking in spirituality.
burn with all the desires of my unconquered flesh."
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.
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
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
sting of flesh may easily be helped so long as girls and women are to be
body asks for a woman and must have it."
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.
marry is a remedy for fornication."
don't marry for love but to cure their desire for
is an external bodily thing, like any other
that marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular
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.
body has nothing to do with God. In this respect one can never sin against God,
but only against one's neighbour."
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
is not forbidden that a man should have more than one
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
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
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."
marriage is inherently sinful!
matrimonial duty is never performed without sin."
How can the sex act between husband and wife be a sin? How warped would you
have to be to think sex sinful?
matrimonial act is a sin differing in nothing from adultery and
why get married?
word and work of God is quite clear: women were made either to be wives or
you do not want, someone else does. If the wife does not want, take your
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
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
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
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.
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
Good and Evil versus Good and
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
contrasted "good and bad" (the basis of Roman morality) with
"good and evil" (the basis of Jewish morality). He
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.
belonged to the priestly caste: the Jewish gang (somewhat ironically given his
hatred of Jews).
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?
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.
is the Abrahamist equation? Obey God = Salvation; Disobey God = Hell.
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).
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.
priestly caste of the Abrahamists have been the bane of humanity. Everything
they have done has been to the detriment of humanity.
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.
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.
is the silver bullet that destroys priests - which is why Luther detested
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.
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?
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
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?
when scientists, artists, philosophers, mathematicians and psychologists
replace priests, pastors, rabbis and imams can the world be saved from the
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
I am angry, I am not expressing my own wrath, but the wrath of
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
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.
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
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.
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.
shall respect our teaching which is the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost,
through our lips".
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.
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.
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.
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.
our contemporary world, celebrities take the role of divine
avatars…actual gods who have assumed human form and decided to walk
all TOTAL BULLSHIT.
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).
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
time for new energy, new power, new ideas. It's time to revalue all values, to
abolish all of the old, failed signs.
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
we need are the more knowledgeable amongst us to confer the benefits of their
greater understanding on us.
only acceptable political message is that of
only acceptable social and ethical message is that of good deeds and
only acceptable financial message is that of a much more even distribution of
Reason, not faith.
Good deeds, not
In these signs we shall
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
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."
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.
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
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
he ought to have replaced "God" with
Truth Content versus Success
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
we will become divine only if we become obsessed with the truth principle
rather than with short term success disconnected from
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.
need leaders committed to excellence, quality, "smarting up",
upgrading, the HCF - the Highest Common Factor. We need a race for the summit.
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.
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
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
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
The Law of Unintended
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.
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).
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
suicide bombers use exactly the same logic, hence have no guilt about killing
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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."
is often used in a pejorative sense by all conservative enemies of utopian
projects of positive liberty.
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.
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
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.
Gnostics and the Believers are the great dialectical opponents whose bitter
conflicts have driven history. Everyone belongs to one side or 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
are on the side of the "small State" i.e. they don't want the State
interfering with religion, the family or private wealth.
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
French Revolutionaries, the Communists and the Nazis all attacked religion. The
French and the Communists attacked privilege and wealth.
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.
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.
are dominants, Believers are submissive.
are convinced they can perfect themselves through their own efforts; Believers
think they require God's grace.
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
Paul, St Augustine, Luther and Calvin were typical leaders of the Believers.
Augustine's opponent Pelagius was in the camp of 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
can choose one of two attitudes to life:
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.
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.
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
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
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
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
which side are you on? That of St Augustine (grace, faith and divine salvation)
or Pelagius (wisdom, knowledge, personal effort, good deeds and human
The City of
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
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
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.
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.
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
Believers regard humanity as depraved, evil, worthless, contemptible, useless,
and entirely dependent on God's unmerited grace for
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
which are you - a Believer or a Gnostic? Can we build the City of God on Earth?
Yes or no?
Believers think that humanity has no potential. The Gnostics think humanity has
infinite potential. The Believers are Creationists and the Gnostics
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
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.
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.)
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
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
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
power of the priest caste must be destroyed forever.
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.
Prophecy - Wrong
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!)
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.
young man politely gave the answer.
where can find I wine?" Socrates asked.
the young man pleasantly provided the answer.
where can I find the good and the noble?" Socrates asked.
time the young man was unable to answer.
me and learn," said Socrates.
the young man did. He was called Xenophon and later became famous.
will you follow to find the answers?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
hypothesis makes the master-slave dialectic the driving force of the evolution
of the human mind itself.
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.
play "follow the leader." A leader is deposed only when a new,
younger alpha male comes along and takes the "king's" position by
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
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).
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".
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.
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
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.
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
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.
are innumerable examples of stroke victims developing radically different
personalities and interests. Which hemisphere suffers the stroke is
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.
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.
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
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
these three clinical delusions:
delusion that someone well-known to you, such as your partner, has been
replaced by an identical-looking impostor: a simulacrum.
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
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!).
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.
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.
- 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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
people listen to the Freudian Ego, and Autonomous people listen to the Jungian
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.
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
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
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
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).
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?
Enlightenment was all about reason and consciousness. The Endarkenment was all
about bicameralism and it reached its zenith in Jewish Abrahamism.
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.
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
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
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:
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Abrahamist religions reinforce bicameral behaviour, hence are a disaster in
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.
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
once you promote that message, you get retards…legions of them.
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!!!!
any State tolerate being held back by Abrahamism? There can be no widespread
rational progress until Abrahamism is abolished.
is not a religious question, it's about evolution, about a better future, about
getting smarter and smarter, more and more talented and
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.
State should be sued if it allows children of Abrahamist parents to be
intellectually penalised by having such parents, feeding them junk and
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
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
States have chosen faith over reason, the Koran over the Enlightenment, and
become retarded in the process.
States that support Enlightenment values must choose reason over faith and, in
effect, make the promotion of faith illegal.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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?
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
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.
is what "God" said to the first Jew, the first Christian, the first
Muslim - Abraham.
is the formula for TOTAL CONTROL.
is the supreme expression of the Master-Slave paradigm.
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
is the Devil's finest creation. It is a work of psychological genius. It is the
quintessence of evil.
"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
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
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.
the prophets. They are the Devil's own.
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
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
days, people are eating almost nothing but bullshit.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
brings us face to face with humanity's terrible secret that most people relish
being slaves and actively choose slavery for themselves.
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.
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
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
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
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
dominant enough person could hypnotise a submissive enough person simply by
forcefully barking an order at them, but usually some form of induction is
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."
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).
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
are hypnotised and Islam is the hypnotist - the operator, the controller, the
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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
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."
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
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
writes: "The more godlike the operator is to the subject, the more easily
is the bicameral paradigm activated."
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.
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
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.
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)?
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.
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
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
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."
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
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!).
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.
are confronted by a world of hysterical children in adult bodies - the legions
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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".
Illuminati are the Army of Consciousness, but we have ranged against us the
much vaster forces of bicameralism.
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.
Believers don't ask questions. They mindlessly obey. That's just the way the
controllers want it.
the Gnostics are on the side of consciousness. They have contempt for belief
and promote reason and knowledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
forces of good - the Sons and Daughters of the Light - must defeat these
wicked, evil people.
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
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.
have evolved into the heroes rather than the monsters being fought by the
thing's for sure - they're certainly not scary anymore.
only thing not evolving in our world is Abrahamism. Those retards keep sinking
further and further into the bicameral, anti-evolutionary swamp.
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
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
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
repeat some of those words: WHY DON'T WE AUTHORISE OURSELVES INTO BEING WHAT WE
REALLY WISH TO BE?
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
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
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?
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."
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.
owes nothing to anyone. Survival is not compulsory. Nor is success.
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.
have to understand the world you're in and then use that knowledge to bring the
people over to you.
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
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.
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!
now you have the full picture of hypnosis, everything you need to know about
the subject that isn't pure bullshit.
are the key points?
hypnotist has no magical skill. He is simply a dominant or someone good at
acting the part of a dominant.
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
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
this state, the subject loses his conscious inhibitions and is receptive to a
dominant voice telling him what to do.
dominant hypnotist should consider the subject as an actor whom he will direct
as he sees fits.
hypnotist simply needs to suggest various things and the subject will execute
a sense, the hypnotist and the hypnotised are both acting, and the whole
interaction can be viewed as an elaborate mutual performance.
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.
are usually called "suggestions" and the subject is described as
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.
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
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
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.
ever toy with someone's mind when they are in a vulnerable state.
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
to try self-hypnosis and change your life? Here's how:
= speaking (the hypnotist controls the subject with his voice
= acting (hypnotist and subject are both engaged in an
= domination (of the subject by the hypnotist).
= proof that the conscious mind has only a thin control over our actions.
The Wizard of Oz - the Perfect
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.
syndrome" describes the strange psychological phenomenon where hostages
find themselves sympathising, empathising and forming strong emotional
attachments with their captors.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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.
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
The Evolution of
were asked the following question:
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
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.
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.
explicit control over reason, logic and intelligence, it's impossible to be
conscious. The less rational, logic and intelligent you are, the less conscious
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
subsequently received a follow-up:
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.
replied: This is the problem with discussing consciousness - people have very
different definitions. What you are calling consciousness is not what we would
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
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
our definition of consciousness, very few people would genuinely be considered
conscious. (Strictly speaking, what we call consciousness is actually
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.
humans take looking in a mirror for granted, most animals are incapable of
recognising themselves in a mirror.
from modern humans the following animals can all recognise themselves: bonobos,
chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas, bottlenose dolphins, killer whales,
elephants, and European magpies.
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
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
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.
"real" consciousness is actually "self-consciousness"
(consciousness reflecting on itself and knowing what it is) or
"meta-consciousness" (consciousness reflecting on
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
The Consciousness of Tax
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?
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
Consciousness as a Waking
are habits, nothing but habits - the habit of saying 'I'. Perhaps there is no
more striking answer to the problem of the Self."
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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."
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
robot - from the Czech word "robota" meaning "forced
labour" - is not what you think it is.
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.
biological entities, they were identical to normal humans except they were made
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.
observed that he had created an up-to-date version of the legend of the Jewish
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 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.
"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
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).
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
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.
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
are often deemed analogous to egregors: they target large groups of people and
are transmitted onwards by those people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
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.)
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.
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:
most important thing you will ever read."
will change your life."
"Want to know what's really going on
in the world?"
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.
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.
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
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).
placement is all about smuggling certain things into camera shot so that you
are subconsciously influenced into buying them.
best to avoid manipulation? Be as knowledgeable, rational, conscious,
strong-willed, educated and dominant as possible. Neuro-manipulation, like
hypnosis, targets suggestible, submissive people.
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.
- 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
- 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
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.
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?
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).
the creative genius within you. Wow Hollywood with your craft! Make this your
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
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
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
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.
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?
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?
don't we send all children from deprived backgrounds to boarding schools - where
they will become productive citizens - rather than to
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
is a comedy sketch highlighting the ongoing (and always
ongoing) importance of football:
It's a Small
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
Scott-Heron, one of the "godfathers" of hip hop and rap.
Scott-Heron's father was Gil Heron, the first black player to play for Celtic
back in the 1950s.
Whitey on the moon
The Legitimization of
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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).
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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 ApocalypseNow have profound and serious content and yet are
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
YOUR AUDIENCE. Make them think of nothing other than you. That's how you win
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.
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.
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?
you're a performer, PERFORM!
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!"
Morrison was no mere singer. He made himself a phenomenon. He became the Lizard
King, the reborn Dionysus.
was Mr Mojo Risin.
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
entranced the world (though not himself, tragically).
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."
it time to make yourself into a work of art? Isn't it time to deliver the
performance expected by the gods?
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
DEAD CATS, DEAD RATS
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.
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.
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
self-respecting person would push these false gods off their pedestals.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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."
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
is the song by which John Lennon should be best known:
soon as you're born they make you feel small,
giving you no time instead of it all,
the pain is so big you feel nothing at all,
A working class hero is something to be,
working class hero is something to be.
hurt you at home and they hit you at school,
hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool,
you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules,
working class hero is something to be,
working class hero is something to be.
they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
they expect you to pick a career,
you can't really function you're so full of fear,
working class hero is something to be,
working class hero is something to be.
you doped with religion and sex and TV,
you think you're so clever and classless and free,
you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see,
working class hero is something to be,
working class hero is something to be.
room at the top they are telling you still,
first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
you want to be like the folks on the hill,
working class hero is something to be.
working class hero is something to be.
you want to be a hero well just follow me,
you want to be a hero well just follow me.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
genuine contradiction is of the following kind:
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
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.
REFUSE to engage with this challenge because they know it's impossible for them
to answer it.
with the program.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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
wrote to us to condemn the great Illuminatus
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
I make my opinions on man's actions and
not their words.
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.
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.
spend a lot of your time criticizing Robespierre and very little time
criticizing the evil forces that were arrayed against him.
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
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?
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
message plainly isn't for you.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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."
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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".
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,
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
you want to know the secret of the dizzying increase in the earnings of CEOs,
company directors, lawyers, doctors and other
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).
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?
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.
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.
is the world's only perpetual motion machine…and it's always going
up, defying gravity.
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.
the world falls into this pattern: to he who has much, even more is given; to
he who has little, even less is given.
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.
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
the world we live in. No one in any position of influence in power is doing
anything at all to rein back the elite.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
In Search of Identity; In Search of
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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:
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
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.
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.
other-directed Western world of today is suffering from an epidemic of
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
transformation of America from an inner-directed nation to an other-directed
nation is a fascinating one.
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.
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
wants to be a loser? You'll do anything not to be perceived as one of life's
"superfluous ones" (as Nietzsche said).
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.
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
of course can afford the most expensive goods of all - the ultra-high status
goods that ordinary people crave above all else.
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.
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
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
like Switzerland and the Netherlands have retained strong inner-directed
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
characters. Since other-directed people don't stand for anything, they can be
all things to all men.
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
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.
is the perfect online environment for other-directed people. It holds little
appeal to the inner-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
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.
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
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.
if all Americans didn't care whether they had the latest gadgets. Then who
would buy them?
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
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
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?
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?
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.
Illuminati aspire to a world entirely populated by autonomous
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.)
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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
we want rid of all of them.
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.
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.
the old gods will be dead. Peer pressure won't exist. Parents won't be in the
game of creating "Mini-me's."
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
autonomous are "New Humanity", and they will become in due course H2s
- HyperHumans and then Gods and Goddesses.
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
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
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?
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
other-directed are highly susceptible to manipulation by the media. The media
is the propaganda arm of capitalism.
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.
other-directed are experts in "mirroring" - copying the body language
and attitudes of others. They are mirror people. They are reflections rather than
inner-directed always know where they're going thanks to their gyroscope.
tradition-directed tend to be unsure unless they are surrounded by others who
follow the same traditions. They have almost no
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.
we need to undermine the authority of the elites, the rich and the celebrities.
are very few real, authentic people in the world. Only the autonomous qualify.
They are guided by an inner gyroscope that they created
tradition-, inner- and other-directed are all essentially conformist,
particularly the first and last types. Only the autonomous stand out from the
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
can be no greater and freer world than the one in which people are
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".
members of the elite are in it for themselves. They're all serving themselves.
They couldn't care less about other people.
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.
the elite were authentically serving others, wouldn't the wealth gap between
the rich and others be radically narrower?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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
gang member with any self-respect should attack the system, not the symptoms of
are all disrespected by the system.
Holy Grail is not, finally, an external
Holy Grail IS an object, but in order to understand what it is you must first
accomplish a spiritual, not a physical
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
actions tell the world who you are, not your delusions about
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
are our "allies"? Where are their public reviews of our work? Nowhere
to be seen.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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
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
often have that same feeling. There were no
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
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!
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.)
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.
relation to our website, crowdsourcing is dead. There hasn't been any: at least
nothing that anyone would notice.
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.
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
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