As punishment, he was condemned to stand up to his chin in the water of a dark river of Hades, with the delicious fruit of a riverbank tree hanging from branches directly over his head. Every time he tried to drink, the water receded from him just enough to thwart him, and no matter how he stretched and strained, he could never quite reach the fruit. Thus his eternal torment was to be permanently thirsty while surrounded by water, and permanently hungry while mere centimetres from the most glorious fruit. All the time, he imagined that with a bit more effort he could attain the goals he craved, but his anticipation always went unfulfilled, thus multiplying his suffering.

It is from this tale that we get the word tantalize - to excite a hope but not satisfy it. We are all tantalized by what life seems to offer, but we can never quite reach out and grab the glittering, shiny things that we imagine will give us the fulfilment we crave. 

Tantalus could be labelled the patron saint of capitalism, especially of the advertising industry, the insidious propaganda wing of capitalism. Capitalist advertising's only function is to permanently tantalize the consumer. Delicious objects, products and services, all wrapped in the most gorgeous packaging, leap out at us from our TV screens, doing everything they can to seduce us. Consumers are literally salivating like Pavlov's dogs as they watch food porn - the most exquisitely filmed food, accompanied by a woman's seductive voice encouraging us to buy. Consumers are drooling as they gaze at beautiful specimens of humanity, practically naked, inviting us to buy God know's what. Not that we care - we just want to gaze forever at beauty. We'll buy whatever it takes to keep on looking. We'll keep putting our coins into the peep show slot until we have no money left.

Advertisers are selling dreams, and the dream figures of the celebrity world are those making the pitch.

Advertisers tantalize us and then offer salvation - get out your credit card and buy these dreams we are selling. Of course, a new set of dreams is on offer tomorrow and the next day and the next ad infinitum. This dream factory never closes. Every day we are presented with new tantalising dreams. No one ever stops to say - hold on, these dreams plainly aren't working if they have to be replaced with new ones every day.

The whole purpose of capitalism is to prevent us from being satisfied; to ensure that we keep chasing the dream they dangle in front of us. In that respect, capitalism reflects Schopenhauer's evil Will perfectly. Each time we make a purchase our pleasure is fleeting: you can literally hate a product within seconds of taking possession of it. When you triumphantly hold it in your hand, you suddenly realised it's very far from the dream-product you were led to believe. In fact, it's crap - just like all the other crap you've bought over the years. They've conned you yet again. You're the same old sucker you've always been, still falling for the unctuous pitch of the snake-oil salesmen. You've bought enough snake oil over the years to create a lake of it.

In a healthy capitalist system, there would be an antithesis opposing the advertising industry - "anti-advertising" - acting as a bullshit detector, a fraud exposer, a bubble buster. It would mock the products being sold as dreams and show they are often nightmares. It would mock the celebrities who endorse the products, and expose all of the psychological techniques used to manipulate and exploit us. Maybe then we would get some honesty and truth in advertising. The advertisers would no longer be able to make extravagant claims on behalf of the shit they're selling. Unless they're promoting something of genuine quality then they will be mercilessly shot down.

The thesis of advertising and the antithesis of anti-advertising would lead to far higher quality products. Who could complain other than those who want to con us?  

If you want to make lots of money in life, work directly with money (like bankers) or channel the Will in some way. Sport - competition - summons the Will. It is sublimated war, hence attracts the greatest interest amongst men. Shopping does the same job for women. Why? Because women are mostly engaged in buying things they think will make them more attractive.

Other activities that channel the Will are art, music, movies, TV shows, novels, poetry, religion, magic etc. Anything that stirs the emotions in a profound way qualifies. Imagine being a quantity surveyor, an accountant, a bureaucrat, a conveyancing lawyer, an office worker - these don't stimulate the Will at all. The very thought of them makes people start to drop off to sleep.

Will is about Mythos - stories, emotion, desire, power. Many people hate science, mathematics and philosophy because these are Logos activities concerning reason and logic. The mind has two activities - the rational and the irrational (or, to be more accurate, rationality based on sound principles of logic versus "rationality" rooted in emotional logic, which often appears capricious, hence irrational). The mind is a battlefield contested by the two gods Apollo and Dionysus. Logos is the arena of Apollo, while Mythos and unrestrained passion form the domain of Dionysus.

Ours is a culture and world devoted during work time to Apollonian control and organisation, and in playtime to Dionysian instant gratification. Most Apollonian jobs are deadly dull, fit only for droids and drones. The highest Apollonian jobs - those of scientists, mathematicians, technologists, engineers and philosophers - can be highly stimulating and fulfilling, but only for those with rational minds.

This website deliberately mixes Mythos with Logos to make it more palatable. If we delivered Illuminism in a dry, academic, Apollonian style, precious few people would read it, just as precious few people spend any time on something as tinder-box dry as M-Theory.

No one feels properly fulfilled unless they have a job that involves the expression of the Will or the highest levels of Reason. All other jobs are soul destroying, and should be automated out of existence. 

If Schopenhauer were telling Tantalus' story, he would have added an even crueller twist to the tale. The tormented man would succeed in stealing a drink or plucking the fruit from the tree. For a moment, he would enjoy supreme ecstasy, but then the moment would be gone and Tantalus' thoughts would turn to other things…how to escape, how to get back to the living world. He would be plunged into brand new gloom at the difficulties confronting him. In other words, we can never satisfy our cravings. There's no way out. Not even for a Son of God, such as Tantalus.

The Will, Schopenhauer asserts, exists outside space and time. It gives rise to minds that impose the categories of space and time, cause and effect on the world i.e. minds create the phenomenal world of our daily experience. All the phenomena we see around us are - if you could remove the mental goggles that compel us to see everything in terms of space and time, cause and effect - nothing but a single, ceaseless, eternal, cosmic Will. Everything is imbued with Will - water, sand, rocks, microbes etc - but in most cases the Will is unconscious and does not exercise the free will and choice we associate with humanity.

A human being might be considered the highest manifestation of the Will - hence the greatest expression of evil if the Will is itself evil. And isn't that true? Aren't we (and beings higher than us on the evolutionary scale) the authors of the true evils of the world? Without us, there would be no malicious, gratuitous acts of cruelty and pain in the world. Animals act through necessity. Only we - or rather some of us - take pleasure in torturing and harming others.

"Hell is other people," said Sartre. Never a truer word spoken. But what if we are sometimes the "other people"? We all have the capacity to be hell for others, and they for us. We are the damned, bound together by the various hells we inflict on each other. Some of us are much worse than others, of course. We make it our business to mistreat others.

The Abrahamists and the capitalists have rebranded evil as good. They have worshipped the Devil himself and called him God. When people can't distinguish between good and evil, God and the Devil, you know you're living in a fucked world.

"More depends on what things are called than on what they are."

Never forget the Islamic tale of Abraham. "God" tells his prophet to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Ishmael. Abraham doesn't hesitate and gets his dagger ready. A stranger comes along and yells out to Abraham to stop. Three times, the stranger pleads for Ishmael's life, but each time Abraham violently drives him away by bombarding him with stones. The stranger is then called "Shaytan", Lord of Evil, because he tried to talk Abraham out of killing his own son. That's the world in a nutshell. There are billions of people in our world who see nothing odd about "God" commanding human sacrifice while "Satan" seeks to prevent it. Wouldn't any good, rational person immediately reverse the two and say that Satan orders human sacrifice while God is the one who tries to save life? If the Abrahamists can't get something as black and white as this right, how can they get anything right? They are Devil-worshippers who call Satan "God", and thus believe themselves to be doing God's work when they carry out the most evil acts imaginable, such as 9/11.

"Morals are constantly undergoing transformations occasioned by successful crimes."

For Schopenhauer, the phenomenal world is a mind-created illusion superimposed on the noumenal reality of the single cosmic Will. Individual human beings are illusory - underneath we are all exactly the same. Remove time and space and all human beings merge into one. Indeed, we merge with all other things. We are all Will and nothing besides.

A human being is a phenomenal manifestation of the noumenal Will. The human body is objectified Will. The human mind perceives the Will as it appears in the phenomenal domain of space, time and individuation, and also enjoys an inner experience of the Will, albeit mediated through mental structures geared for understanding phenomena rather than noumena. Individuation - division into individual things, including human beings - is made possible only because of the perception of space and time. Remove that perception, remove the distinctions of space and time, and everything collapses into cosmic unity.

Schopenhauer's position is, in effect, Kantian Buddhism i.e. regular Buddhism with the impressive philosophy of Kant superimposed over it. If you are interested in creating a new religion, you should take one of the old religions and see if you can blend it with a major philosophical system. Thanks to its Kantian elements, Schopenhauer's version of Buddhism is much more intellectually impressive and logical than the original. In fact, old Buddhism ought to have died and been fully replaced by Schopenhauer's "religion".

Uniquely in philosophy, Schopenhauer took the step of branding existence as inherently evil (just as in religion Buddha proclaimed that existence is nothing but suffering caused by desires that can't be satisfied i.e. an utterly negative state). Although he didn't use overtly religious language, Schopenhauer's position is tantamount to identifying the cosmic Will with the Devil himself, and asserting that we are therefore all part of the Devil. (That certainly takes care of the question of why evil exists!) There is only one escape route - not to will at all; to have no desires (which of course can be equated with the Buddhist concept of Nirvana). Since Will is Satanic, the greatest moral act is not to will, to suppress your will and hence yourself out of existence. All that is left of you are those parts of you that are not involved with the act of willing i.e. reason, knowing, disinterested aesthetic contemplation. Although he doesn't say so, the outcome of Schopenhauer's plea for everything to cease willing would be a cosmic Logos: pure rational and aesthetic contemplation of the eternal Platonic Forms (indeed, after Kant, it was Plato who had the greatest influence on Schopenhauer's thinking). We might put this forward as the true meaning of Nirvana in Buddhism. You shed all of your personal aspects and become one with the rational cosmic mind, contemplating the eternal verities. To this extent, you are absorbed into the mind of the God of Reason. 

There is something glorious about Schopenhauer's philosophy, and it has attracted many great minds, such as those of Nietzsche and Wagner. It can be viewed as a form of Gnosticism, with the act of ceasing to obey the tyrannical Will taking the role of gnosis - enlightenment. On the whole, it is unremittingly gloomy and pessimistic and yet it addresses the miseries of life so boldly and honestly - cutting through all the bullshit - that it becomes almost admirable and bracingly uplifting.

Schopenhauer's innovative and radical answer to the problem of evil is to say, essentially, that all of existence, including humanity, is evil, hence why would we expect anything other than evil, pain and misery? Yet Schopenhauer's philosophy is much gloomier than it needs to be; he seemed to take a perverse delight in rubbishing existence. However, he himself had made it clear that there was a form of salvation - contemplation. Mental activity that does not involve willing is good. It is only willing that is evil. One of the least satisfactory aspects of Schopenhauer's philosophy is his lack of attention to where rational contemplation originates. On the one hand, he characterises the noumenon as pure Will (not containing any rational component), and yet he talks of contemplation of the Platonic Forms as being the highest good. How can Will give rise to the capacity for contemplation? Shouldn't Schopenhauer have said that the noumenon is not Will alone but Will plus Reason? Therefore, the objective becomes to silence the Will (evil) and amplify Reason (good).

It's a great pity that Schopenhauer wasn't an avid student of the Neoplatonism of Plotinus. His ideas would have made a good fit with that ancient philosophy. Plotinus spoke of existence being composed of three main elements: the One (the mysterious origin of everything), the Nous (that contemplates the One and contains all the Platonic Forms) and the Psyche (split into a united upper half that contemplates the Nous, and a fragmentary lower half that gives rises to all of the individual things in the world). Schopenhauer could have called "the One" the unknowable noumenon, and the fragmented Psyche the Will with which he was so obsessed. The aim of life is to escape from the Will to the higher Psyche and then to the ultimate Mind - the Nous - which is involved in pure contemplation of the eternally enigmatic One.

Hegel, the philosophical giant of the age, took a very different path from Schopenhauer. Where the latter emphasised the non-rational aspect of existence, Hegel placed rationality centre stage. For Hegel, existence unfolded according to a magnificent plan of pure rationality. The most precise dialectical logic guided everything towards its culmination in the Absolute: perfected existence, totally free, all knowing and all-powerful (God, in other words).

Schopenhauer loathed Hegel, hence turned his back on the best way out of his labyrinth of existential evil: the dialectic. Evil is indeed an integral feature of existence, but so is its antithesis - good - and the dialectic of good and evil reaches its culmination in neither morality nor immorality but in amorality (the highest rationality) - beyond good and evil. Amorality in this sense does not imply indifference to morality, or ignorance of what morality is. Rather, morality and immorality are seen as two forces driving the cosmos forward, but what emerges from them is a third thing (tertium quid) - REASON.

Reason operates according to its own logic and not that of morality or immorality. The reasonable person does what is rational. Rationality ends up on the side of morality because there is no valid reason, when you understand existence fully, to deliberately harm others. Such an action is a crime against rationality.

Schopenhauer recognised as much as Hegel did that we are all absolutely linked. To harm another is to harm oneself - an irrational act. Evil and selfishness are practically synonymous. The selfish super rich person is evil and irrational because he does not grasp that by depriving others of resources he is damaging them and ultimately damaging himself.

We will have a world fit for humanity only when we all cooperate in the building of it. Only when the super rich are declared excommunicate for their crimes against the people can we create Eden. We have had thousands of years of the privileged elite running the world. Have they created paradise? Yes - for themselves! Only the mad keep repeating the mistakes of the past and expecting a different result. The rule of the super rich has failed dismally for everyone who is not super rich so the only rational response is to remove the super rich from their seats of power. Kick their butts out onto the street. Drag the Queen of the UK off her gold throne and deport her. Burn down the boardrooms of the Wall Street fat cats. The only people who should be in positions of power over the people are those who act in the interests of the people, not in their own interests. Excessive personal wealth is an unambiguous sign that someone is wholly devoted to his own gratification, hence that person is unfit for any position of public power.

If we operated rationally, we could easily create a Golden Age. The problem, of course, is that most of humanity doesn't know what rationality is. Look at the Abrahamists - they think it's rational to have faith in a creature that orders human sacrifice and sends almost all of humanity to hell. What human being would wish to reach heaven if it meant being in the company of the monster who welcomes blood-soaked Islamic suicide bombers and offers them seventy-two virgins? The ringleader of the 9/11 murder gang was obsessed with cleanliness because he was getting ready for his heavenly wedding. He told his accomplices that the time between martyrdom and the wedding to the seventy-two virgins is very short - a mere blink of the eye. That's one wedding that no rational person would ever want to attend. Did the virgins have any say in to whom they would be married for eternity? Or did they have to do what they were told by the men in their lives, as in Islamic societies on Earth?

As for female Islamic martyrs, do they get seventy-two male virgins to marry? Is their wedding night like the ultimate gangbang? Are the Muslims making hardcore porn in "heaven" - non-stop orgy scenes?

No logical person could countenance the bizarre fantasies of these Islamic crackpots for a moment. Yet the world is full of irrational people. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is another deranged religion.

Why can't people focus on the only conspiracy that counts - the rule of the elite and their never-ending conspiracy of privilege designed to ensure that their family dynasties bestride the globe eternally. Why should the world bend over for you if your name is Rothschild? That evil family represents everything that's wrong with the world. We have offered the solution: 100% inheritance tax. All of the family dynasties of the Old World Order will be brought to an end by this meritocratic, rational tax. If you want a new world then campaign for 100% inheritance tax. Everything else is just an irrelevant distraction. 100% inheritance tax is the silver bullet, the stake through the heart of the vampire of the super rich.

We can have a new world only if we end the reign of the rulers of the old world. 100% inheritance tax - by itself - brings about the revaluation of all values. It empowers the powerless, gives a voice to the voiceless, sweeps aside the entrenched elite who have rigged the game in their favour. When the senior members of the Rothschild family pass away, the riches and power of that family will be no more. Their wealth will be transferred to the people (from whom they stole it in the fist place).

If you want to be free, you must destroy the super rich. There is not a single reason why those who are not rich should tolerate a handful of people commandeering the vast bulk of the resources of the world and calling it their private property.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the ills of the world to the invention of private property. He asked where the process would end. Could a suitably powerful person throw open his windows and proclaim the whole world his private property? Of course, what Rousseau is really talking about is disproportionate private property. A person who owns a family house isn't a tyrant. A person who owns a hundred millionaire mansions all over the world is.

Why don't the rest of us simply say, "No! You can't have any more. You already have far more than you need."      

In Schopenhauer's philosophy, a human being is the noumenal Will as phenomenon. A sculpture or painting of a human being is a copy of the phenomenon. But what of music? What is that a copy of? Schopenhauer's influential answer was that music is a direct copy of the Will itself, rather than a copy of a phenomenon. Music is in a sense alive. Like us, it is the Will as phenomenon. When we hear the finest music, it's as though we are listening to the cosmic heartbeat itself (or as close as we can ever get to the underlying truth of things). We are tuning into the striving, the desire, the unquenchable craving, the ceaseless energy of the Will. Music moves us so much because we too are all of those things, albeit seen through the distorting lens of the phenomenal world. Music makes our bodies resonate. We can feel it inside us. To look at a painting is one thing; to feel music coursing through you is quite another.

Music is the cosmic Will made audible in space and time. There is no other art form that brings us so close to bare existence, to the underlying nature of all things.

How can a scientific materialist account for the spell of music? How can mechanistic processes make us (mere biological mechanisms) weep? How can music fill us with yearning, with sadness, with love, with joy? How can any mechanistic process accomplish that? It can't. Materialistically, human beings are nothing but the food and drink they consume every day. How can music make food and drink - us! - want to dance?

Music, when you really understand its significance, is the proof of God, of the soul, the afterlife, the eternal cosmic Will that can never fade. There is no universal heat death coming our way as the scientific materialists claim. The cosmos is alive and can never die. It is immortal Will. We are Will and we too are immortal. Go and listen to your favourite song and realize for the first time that it's the proof that you can never die. It's beyond all materialist theories of life.    

But there's good music and bad. The bad is muzak - shopping mall music, deliberately sanitised and synthesised; plastic music for plastic people. The Will is extracted from it and replaced with blandness and banality. Most of the world's music is muzak, designed not to offend, incapable of moving us.

Music at its best is revolution. All around us we are beginning to hear the Soundtrack of the Revolution. Liberty is coming. The fires have been lit beneath the wooden floors of the Old World Order. 

The Will also communicates itself directly through human beings. Our deepest emotions bring us closest to the cosmic Will. Love, hate, anger, envy, disgust, shame…all of these originate in the Will. And perhaps the closest we can ever get to the Will is through the desire to reproduce it. Reproduction means…sex!

When we are in the grip of sexual desire, we have become one with the eternal Will. We are beyond space and time. There is no readily available act with a higher transformative power than sex. Sex is the quintessential expression of the Will, of the lust for life, of pure, irrational desire.

It's for that reason that celebrity culture revolves around sex appeal. Anyone who can act as the lightning rod for global sexual desire becomes a god or goddess. The likes of Megan Fox, Beyonce, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Rihanna and Angelina Jolie are objects of desire for billions of people.

Yet these are all pale, bloodless divinities. They are what Judea-Christian capitalism uses to control us. Sex can be made so much more than the sanitized nonsense we are subjected to. Pagan sex is where the action is.

Sex for salvation is the formula for life.

"Perhaps my morality objects to it, but from my own experience and from watching myself and other people, I have come to believe that sexuality is the centre around which revolves all of social existence and the inner life of the individual."

When the Will is expressed sexually, it can be labelled with the Freudian term "libido" - a form of mental energy. Carl Jung expanded the concept of libido to refer to all mental energy, but it's useful to assign a different name for the psychic energy of each human drive. A person with a low libido might have a high "hate energy". Hate, love, jealousy, envy, greed, lust, anger, gluttony…they all have their own energy.

The instinctual energies manifest themselves in different strengths in all of us, but the energies are fundamentally linked, being traded off against each other. If we repress sexual energy because of social taboos, it reappears somewhere else, usually in an uncontrolled and dangerous form.

Wilhelm Reich, a disciple of Freud who worked as a clinical assistant in Freud's Psychoanalytic Polyclinic, thought it might be possible to scientifically measure a person's libido. He developed a theory that if sexual energy isn't released properly, it gives rise to neurosis and ultimately psychosis.

Islamic suicide bombers, dreaming of their seventy-two virgins, have become psychotic through repressed sexuality. Islamic attitudes towards women reflect extreme sexual dysfunction. When men put women in burqas it's because they are terrified of sex and of women.

Reich believed that a good orgasm discharged libido fully, allowing it to flow though the body and energise every part of it. He regarded high quality orgasms as a prerequisite for mental health.

Reich was right that the mental health of society is bound up with good sex. Ever since Abrahamism killed paganism, the West has been in the grip of a warped attitude to sex. Protestants associate sex with the original sin of Adam and Eve. Catholics demand the celibacy of priests and prohibit women from serving as priests. Orthodox Jewish women are only allowed to show their natural hair to their husbands and have to wear ill-fitting wigs every time they go out, making them look like freaks. Many Muslim women must cover themselves from head to toe when they dare to venture into public.  

Many cultures treat sex as a taboo. It's portrayed as dirty, dangerous and shameful. Some religions - especially Islam - think that gay sex should be punished with death! Sex is turned from something natural and healthy into an unnatural and perverted activity. It's consigned to a dark, furtive, subterranean world where its power over us is magnified. Taboos are invested with bewildering power because they grip the imagination like nothing else. The temptation to transgress the taboo can become overwhelming.

He regarded his "Orgasm theory" as revolutionary. It placed the orgasm at the centre of the human condition, the supreme determinant of human happiness. His Orgasm Theory proclaimed: "Orgastic potency is the capacity for surrender to the flow of biological energy without any inhibition, the capacity for complete discharge of all dammed-up sexual excitation through involuntary pleasurable contractions of the body."

Failure to discharge orgasmically leads to poor health and neurosis.

A world where everyone enjoyed great sex would be a transformed world. Crime, violence, unhappiness, bitterness and hate would be swept away. People would go about their business radiating health and happiness, glowing with inner energy.

Sex, for Reich, is the centre of the human experience and the quality of our sex lives determines the happiness of the human race. Bad sex leads to unhappiness, good sex to fulfilment.

The "Free Love" hippie and flower power movements of the 1960s owed much to Reich's influence. The famous slogan "make love not war" summed up his thinking. If you're not making love, your life instinct (Eros) will be transformed into the death instinct (Thanatos) and will be unleashed in violence, hate and war.

Is it any coincidence that the Abrahamist religions hate sex and wage perpetual war? When Jesus Christ talked about loving your neighbour, it should have been taken literally. His followers chose to despise sexual love and replaced it with hatred of any who chose to believe differently from them. In orthodox Christianity, Christ is always depicted as a virgin, thus providing divine condemnation of sexuality. The sexual frustration of Abrahamists erupted in crusades and jihads that continue to haunt us to this day.

Isn't it extraordinary that Christianity, which preaches a message of love, is full of nothing but hate and a desire to send as many people as possible to perpetual suffering in hell? Isn't it extraordinary that Islam, which preaches a message of peace, compassion and submission, is staggeringly violent, and its prophet Mohammed was himself a bloody, violent figure who ordered numerous massacres of prisoners? As for the Jews, there's not a particle of love and peace associated with their monstrous tribal war god, Yahweh, whom they madly proclaimed the one God of the entire universe.

All of these people need a damned good fuck. They know that better than anyone, and they know equally well that sex would destroy their crazy, hateful religions, hence they impose never-ending taboos and prohibitions on sex.

St Augustine, one of the great monsters of Christianity whose ideas eventually gave rise to the appalling religion of Protestantism (with its ludicrous sanctification of faith over reason), regarded sex and procreation as the means by which original sin were transmitted from parents to their children, leading many Protestants to conclude that sex itself is the original sin. Augustine declared, "The very root of sin lies in carnal generation."

To eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil contrary to God's command was code for having recreational, lustful sex. It is only after they have eaten the fruit that Adam and Eve are aware of their nakedness and wish to cover themselves with clothes i.e. the message is that sex is shameful and sinful. From then on, sex became indissolubly linked to the concept of evil. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were immortal (Romans 5:1 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; so also death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."). Birth, sex and death were unknown in Eden. Chaste kissing and cuddling were all that Adam and Eve did before the serpent tempted them (very Freudian!). Post-coitus, they were driven from paradise and into the world of mortality and suffering.

Naturally, it was essential for Christ to have been conceived non-sexually because otherwise he too would have been infected by original sin. Also, his mother Mary had to be conceived "immaculately" to ensure her womb was a sin-free zone for the embryonic God.

St Augustine said that all human beings regard sex as shameful, hence why they have sex in the dark and in privacy - so that others can't witness their shameful deeds. Unlike animals which mate only in season, humans are at it all the time with their disgusting, insatiable, sinful lusts.

The Cynic philosophers such as Diogenes who openly fucked in the street and masturbated in public scandalised "decent" people.

Augustine pointed out that brothels were always in special, restricted areas, never in the main street. Everyone knew they were squalid and shameful. He had no hesitation in declaring that babies - the products of the sex act - went straight to hell if any should be unfortunate enough to die before being baptised.

According to Augustine, all humans belong to the "mass of perdition" and we can be saved only if God bestows grace on us. If he doesn't, we have no cause for complaint because we are inherently damned and undeserving of any love, mercy or compassion.

As you would expect, Augustine was a total hypocrite. He infamously declared, "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet." In other words, he made sure he enjoyed a highly active sex life before he settled down to chastity when he was no longer capable.

Of faith, Augustine said, "Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe." It never seemed to occur to him to ask why the "Creator" of the Universe would choose to hide from his Creations and pretend he wasn't there. Why would God play hide and seek? Imagine a game going on for millions of years where someone has hidden himself from us and is expecting us to find him, but offering no help or clues to where he is. What kind of person would you be to keep playing this bizarre game? Only a lunatic would persevere. Of course, the lunatics declare that if you don't believe you will be sent to hell. What manner of Creator is eager for his creations to be consigned to hellfire?

Martin Luther was terrified of the wrath of God. A celibate Augustinian monk, he was so desperate for a "legitimate" fuck that wouldn't damn his eternal soul to hell that he had to create a whole new religion to make it possible. One of the first Lutheran reforms was to abolish priestly celibacy, thus freeing Luther to marry a nun. At last, Luther got his end away without a troubled conscience. Thus the whole Protestant religion was founded on nothing but a sexually frustrated monk's desire to legitimise his sinful lust. All the other reforms were just the icing on the cake.  

Wilhelm Reich hypothesized that we don mental armour to shield ourselves from the blows of the world. Our character itself becomes an inflexible suit of armour. Character armour takes on the design of the prevailing culture and ends up forming a barrier to our own instincts and desires. Our body and posture reflect the armour. No example is starker than the burqa - an almost literal suit of armour that affects every part of the life of the woman wearing it. Even if she removes it, she still carries it with her in her attitudes. It dictates everything she does and everything she thinks.

Along with the character armour comes a rigid mask. Thanks to these, our life energy becomes blocked and wrongly directed. It flows through inappropriate, unhealthy channels because we have sealed off the healthy ones. It's as though we are afraid to be happy, afraid to be free, afraid to feel good. And soon enough we become full of hate, fear and perversion, and we bow to all authority figures. We despise our own natural instincts and become almost inhuman. 

Reich argued that we engage in self-sabotage. Our desires and instincts desire that we do x, y or z, but our character armour ensures that we work out how NOT to get what we desire.

All of us have some degree of armour, but some of us are incredibly heavily armoured. Muslims, Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians have more armour than medieval knights do, and not in any good sense.

Reich also challenged the orthodox idea that a neurosis was only a blip in an otherwise healthy person. He proposed that any neurosis reflected a disturbance of the whole character, from which he concluded that character itself is a disease. All of us, no matter how charming or interesting we might be, have a character that is flawed. We all know it. None of us feels comfortable in all situations. All sorts of things can induce anxiety in us. Proper, healthy sexual development would rectify many of the ills that bedevil us.

Reich said that when we fail to achieve good orgasm, the excess energy is redirected into the character armour and makes it even denser and more protective. The fanatic is someone who continually channels failed orgasms into his fanaticism. In the early years of Christianity, many Christian men were so terrified of their own sex drive that they castrated themselves. That's how extreme their character armour had become. If they could do such things to themselves, imagine what they could do to others. Look at what has happened to celibate Catholic priests - their thwarted sexuality has exploded in an epidemic of child abuse. Can anyone be surprised? Isn't it time that the Catholic Church was ordered to abandon priestly celibacy to ensure the protection of children.

These decisions should be taken out of the hands of religions. Thousands of children have had their lives ruined because the State refused to confront the Catholic Church. The State has a duty to children that overrides any duty to respect religious beliefs. The State should make it illegal for baby boys to be genitally mutilated in the barbaric practice of circumcision. If you say that it's OK for children to be attacked by their parents for religious reasons, you have sanctioned child abuse. It's because adults are allowed to treat children like objects that catholic priests got away with molesting children for so long. No one cares about the complaints of children. Who asks a baby boy whether he wants to have his foreskin chopped off? No one at all. He has no say in what happens to his own body. What kind of fucked up parents think they can lop off parts of their children's bodies without permission? The idea that parents or adults in positions of authority can do whatever they like with children has to be made illegal. You can't say you are opposed to child abuse if you let babies be forcibly circumcised.

Reich identified the family as the environment where the insidious development of character armour first began. He perceived the family unit as the microcosm for authoritarian society, with the father as the absolute dictator.

In nearly all revolutionary theories, the family is regarded as the source of everything that goes wrong in society. But, of course, the family is the ultimate sacred cow which no one is allowed to challenge in conventional society. Politicians, especially on the right, do nothing but praise the family, appeal to the family, endorse family values and promote the family as the backbone of society and its greatest strength. Someone like Sarah Palin talks incessantly about "the family" and is forever condemning the State for interfering in any way with family life. For many people, the State is the enemy of the family and has no right to interfere in anything the family does. What has circumcision got to do with the State, they would say. Parents have the absolute right to bring up their children however they see fit. If they want to discipline their children, indoctrinate them or remove their foreskin, it's none of the business of the State.

The assumptions that underlie the arguments of all exponents of family values  are that a) the parents can never be wrong in the way they raise their children b) they never harm their children c) they always act in the best interests of their children d) any intervention by the State is always malign.

All of these assumptions are absolutely false. Many parents don't have the vaguest idea of how to bring up children properly in a complex society. Most parents are stupid and don't read books. They don't go to any kind of parenting classes. So whence the mythical source of parental wisdom? Where is the parenting qualification that a mother or father can wave to prove they know what they're doing? As innumerable philosophical, political, psychological and sociological theories have explained, the family is an environment of brainwashing (especially religious) and passing on the sins and flaws of the parents to their offspring. Families create neuroses and psychoses in dizzying amounts. The family can rightly be described as the generator of most forms of mental illness.

When you apply meritocratic thinking to the family, you reach horrific conclusions. Families are the result of sexual intercourse - an act that requires no merit of any description. No one puts in any thought as to whether the mother and father are actually qualified to be parents i.e. have parental merit. No one inquires into what goes on behind the locked doors and closed curtains of the family house. No one probes too much into the consequences of family break ups. Single parent families are frequently demonised and left to rot. The effects of children being brought up in poverty, in ghettoes, with a poor or non-existent education, are all conveniently ignored.

In many ways, the family is a sink-or-swim environment and if children start to sink, the State doesn't hold out a hand to bring them back to the surface. In other words, huge numbers of children metaphorically drown and end up being a curse on society. They become criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics, or religious fanatics. They are anti-social, ill educated, inefficient, neurotic, full of rage. Society picks up the cost of all the problems these maladjusted people cause.

Society surely has the absolute right to defend itself against out-of-control families that end up draining the resources of the State to no good end. The welfare state is nothing but a means of supporting failed families at immense expense. Shouldn't any intelligent society be spending the money that is absorbed by the "cost of failure" on trying to prevent the failure in the first place? And don't kid yourself about what that means. The State MUST take an interest in who is having children and how they are bringing them up, and it must intervene as soon as possible if the children are developing poorly, regardless of the parents' "rights". All right wingers are appalled by the thought of the State interfering with the family - but look at where not interfering has got us. Anything from a third to a half of all families are functionally fucked. That is a mind-boggling drain on the resources of the State and a spectacular waste of human potential. The only way to stop it is for the State to be absolutely ruthless about condemning poor parenting and preventing poor parents ruining their children's lives.

One of the core struggles in human evolution revolves around the question of who knows best. Many parents and enemies of "big" government think that they always know better than the State. They are advocates of negative liberty, meaning that the State should leave them alone i.e. the emphasis is on being free FROM State interference.

On the other hand, advocates of positive liberty - i.e. the notion that liberty is to be used FOR a transformative project of some kind (as opposed to negative liberty which is about being free FROM any such project) - think that the State (if constituted meritocratically) knows better than any parent ever could.

The State reflects the abilities of all of its citizens. The State contains geniuses. The average family certainly does not. If the State is allowed to function as the ultimate set of parents, calling on the expertise of its most insightful, clever and talented citizens, then is it not automatically vastly superior to the average nuclear family that, by definition, has nothing but the abilities of two mediocre and flawed adults to call upon?

A family can never have superior ability to the State and yet the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, the Republicans, the Tea Party, anarchists and libertarians is that the family is the source of the highest wisdom possible and that the State is wicked and stupid.

Hegel is frequently denounced as a worshipper of the State. The people who make that accusation are right-wingers who object to the State in principle. Hegel understood that a meritocratic, dialectically designed State cannot be bettered. It is the summit of human achievement. A State led by its most brilliant citizens, all devoted to improving the lot of everyone rather than serving themselves, is the supreme political achievement.

Such a State ALWAYS knows better than the family. How could it not? The average nuclear family comprises two unexceptional parents, and two children at the mercy of those parents. The State consists of tens and even hundreds of millions, amongst whom are some of the greatest minds on earth.

If we would rather place our future in the hands of unexceptional men and women rather than in the most brilliant amongst us, is it any wonder our world is so stupid, crazy, cruel, greedy, selfish, hateful and destructive?

To "worship" the State means to regard a properly formed State as infinitely superior to the average family at raising children of the highest quality and excellence.

Just as the State should not be the hostage of a few private individuals (the super rich), nor should it be the hostage of Sarah Palin type families that think they have the absolute right to brainwash their children with their toxic religious, political and social beliefs.

Just as the State has the absolute right and duty to dictate to the super rich rather than the other way around, so it has the absolute right to prevent the family from sabotaging the State by bringing up children infected by bizarre beliefs such as Abrahamism. In America, and even the UK, there are schools that allow the teaching of Creationism in preference to Evolution. Such a thing is completely unacceptable. The State contains all that is best, and its highest exponents must be allowed to steer the Ship of State, not the members of mediocre families infected by irrational faith.

The Illuminati ensure that their Grand Master is the most meritorious member. How can any organisation or institution attain excellence unless it puts its complete confidence in its most excellent members?

We say over and over again that the project of the Illuminati is to bring about the perfection of the human race - to establish the Community of Gods. Could such an outcome ever be realised if we entrusted the task to families such as those of Sarah Palin? It wouldn't take much for parents like Palin to take us back to living in caves. Look at what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan thanks to Muslim parents being allowed to decide what's best. These nations are regressing towards the primordial slime. Only the supermen and superwomen can lead us higher, not average parents. 

Sarah Palin is a remarkably stupid person yet she is loved by millions of families all over America that are even more stupid than she is. What she promotes is dumbocracy (rule by the dumb) and idiocracy (rule by idiots). She believes she is already perfect and that no one can tell her anything. She thinks her Christian beliefs and faith in God are all she needs. She has nothing to learn, she believes, from anyone else.

If you are a seeker of knowledge, the first thing you realise is that there are others who know much more than you do and, if you want to learn, you must seek them out. Sarah Palin is not a seeker of knowledge. She thinks she's smarter than everyone, so smart she should be President. Has anyone ever been so deluded? Running a nation isn't the same as bringing up a few children (badly).

If Sarah Palin became the American President, it would show once and for all what damage a person espousing family values would do to the world. In many ways, we actually hope for a Palin victory or someone of that ilk - because it would mark the end of the failed experiment of trusting the world to the Family rather than to the experts.  

Right-wingers are always pro-family. No one has stronger family values than the Old World Order. Of course, it's THEIR family they care about, not yours. Yours can fuck off and die. Because that is what family values are really all about: a brutal, dog-eat-dog Hobbesian struggle for primacy, using every tactic in the book, especially privilege (i.e. advantages that can be bought by rich families).

Left-wingers are always more community-focused. They see the need to help everyone. Families, on the other hand, are all about helping themselves. What do you think is the appropriate unit of society - the cutthroat, self-interested, self-absorbed, selfish family desperate to be No.1, or the supportive, cooperative, altruistic community? The former is the gospel of the "particular will", the second the expression of the General Will. All political systems can be characterised by whether they promote the particular or general will. All right wing, anarchist and libertarian groups support the particular will; all left wing groups support the general will.

Families recognise the need to send their children to school to be educated by professional teachers. If they took on the task themselves, most would prove disastrously inept.

The primary function of parents is to love, nurture and protect their children. The State's job is to use the expertise it can call on to turn those children into the finest and most productive citizens possible. Only the State has the resources (apart from super rich families that can buy the best possible education and environment for their children).

In a TV programme, a Muslim woman asserted that her faith was the most important thing in her life, and she wasn't going to leave it at the door when she went out in the morning. If she had any regard for others, that's exactly where she would leave it. The public space is not YOUR space. It is for everyone, and if you flaunt your extremist beliefs in the faces of those who don't share your beliefs then you can have no cause for complaint when they insult you. You asked for it and you got it.

All Muslims think that all non-Muslims are going to hell. When Muslims turn up in non-Muslims countries such as those of Europe and refuse to integrate, what they are saying to the indigenous population is, in effect: "You are all infidel scum and Allah will ensure you burn forever in hellfire." So, why would they expect to be welcomed or treated with any respect? They could scarcely be more provocative and ungrateful.

It's an act of intolerance to go out in public wearing sectarian symbols. Others then have the right to treat you intolerantly. If you want tolerance, behave tolerantly; respect others; respect their right to have NO respect for your beliefs. No one has the right to have their beliefs respected, especially if their beliefs are repugnant. Why should I respect someone who tells me to my face that I am going to hell? I have utter contempt for such a person. I will never respect them or their mad, evil beliefs.

People can, more or less, do whatever they like in the private sphere where it causes no aggravation to others. The same does not apply in the public sphere. You can't do whatever you like in a shared environment, and it's the State's job to enforce standards.

The private space is the Id space in Freudian terms. The public space belongs to the Superego. You can't expect to bring the Id into the Superego space, unless special provisions have been made. Many people have extreme difficulty understanding that other people exist in the world. They think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. Wrong! It's the State's job to protect the public space for everyone, and that means giving no privileges to any sectional, divisive interests.

ALL religious symbols should be banned from the public space. All burqas, crosses, crucifixes, skullcaps, hijabs, niqabs, tassels, wigs, weird religious clothes and hats are unacceptable in the public sphere. They are symbols of intolerance, and they must not be tolerated. In order to defend tolerance, the State must display absolute intolerance towards the intolerant. If you tolerate the intolerant then you yourself are condemned as intolerant. Toleration of intolerance IS intolerance since it allows the intolerant to flourish unchecked.

The Founding Fathers of America were determined to keep Church and State separate. However, they made a disastrous error. It is not sufficient merely to separate the two. Everyone in Europe regards America as quite an extremist Christian State; much more so than any European State. How is that possible if Church and State have been truly separated? It should be impossible to tell what the dominant religion of a State is since there should be little or no evidence of religion in the public sphere. Religion should be like a private club or secret society, which is conducted out of sight except on special, approved days. The world is full of mad groups that think that the members of other mad groups are going to hell. Why should these fanatics be tolerated in the public space?

Anyone who says that others are going to hell for holding different beliefs from them should be banned from the public space as anti-social.

If the State had any guts and any convictions, it would transform the public space into an environment fit for all. Abrahamists should keep for the private sphere their grubby, intolerant, fanatical beliefs about genital mutilation, hell and the human sacrifice of children, and they should be prevented by law from bringing them into the public sphere.

Through its rightful and strong control of the public sphere, the State can bring about a transformation of the private sphere too. The message will eventually penetrate the brains of even the most stupid Abrahamists that their intolerant private beliefs are weird and perverse. Every time Abrahamists' beliefs go unchallenged, those beliefs are reinforced. The techniques of operant conditioning should be applied - i.e. ensuring that unacceptable, intolerant beliefs are met with negative consequences and are thus discouraged.

Muslims are taught to declare jihad - holy war - if anyone tries to restrict their ability to worship and to proselytise. If they are willing to be so extreme then extreme measures must be taken against them.

Reich regarded all phases of child rearing as breeding grounds of neuroses. When the child becomes an adult and gets married, he carries all those neuroses into the marriage and then, when he has his own family, he immediately infects his children with his own neuroses….and so the horrific cycle goes on in perpetuity. Just look at Abrahamism.

Reich hated any prohibition on sex before marriage and any demand for monogamy. He thought that these unnatural restrictions simply created yet more neuroses, ultimately leading to the breakdown of the marriage.

He reached the conclusion that marriage and its ills belonged to the political sphere. The family typically reflects right wing, conservative and Abrahamist obsessions. Reich was attracted to the Communist position of Marx and Engels who said, "The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course with the vanishing of capital." Reich came to believe that you couldn't have a sexual revolution without a political and economic revolution.

Whereas Freud "cured" individual psychoanalytic cases, Reich thought that cures were required on a mass scale, applied to the whole of society i.e. psychoanalysis was now to be a political enterprise. Whole nations had to be put on the psychiatrist's couch.

Freud himself had also entered the political arena. His 1929 book Civilisation and its Discontents painted a picture of the human race perched on the precipice of barbarism. Irrational instinctive forces were threatening to erupt everywhere with disastrous consequences. The Great War had left Freud with the disturbing impression that death was the purpose of life since it led to continual biological renewal, hence why war, violence, cruelty, hate, sadism, crime and murder were so prevalent. If they weren't natural instincts then why were they everywhere? Freud named the death instinct Thanatos after the Greek god of death. He advocated suppressing our instinctual desires if civilisation were to be preserved. Instinctual energies, particularly the libido, had to be sublimated and redirected to higher ends of social value. In effect, he was advocating a Superego society and the abolition, as far as possible, of the Id.

Reich concluded that Freud was becoming a right wing reactionary. In his opinion, the suppression of our instinctual drives on behalf of social control was the cause of mental illness, not its remedy. He maintained that conventional society was about the preservation of the power of the elite, and they required natural instincts to be repressed so that the people would be docile, submissive and in thrall to authority. As for the police, he viewed them as robots without souls, people who would do anything the elite told them. 

Reich thought that inhibited sexual energy was re-directed to violence, death and destruction (as suicide bombers demonstrate). When people aren't sexually satisfied, trouble is sure to follow. Orgasm discharges pent-up energy in a healthy way. In the absence of sexual release, it is discharged through other, destructive means.

Reich linked Thanatos to capitalism and thought the Soviet Union might provide the antidote. Unfortunately, it proved just as authoritarian. The nuclear family remained intact and there was precious little communal life taking place.

He now reached the incredible conclusion that you couldn't have a political and economic revolution without a sexual revolution first. Authoritarian societies relied on emotional cripples and the sexually repressed. The sexually contented were much more confident, had higher self-esteem and were much less receptive to authoritarian messages.

In his book The Sexual Revolution, Reich wrote, "The sexual resignation which characterises the overwhelming majority of people means indolence, emptiness in life, paralysis of all healthy activity and initiative, or brutal, sadistic excesses; but at the same time it provides a relative calm in life. It is as if death were already anticipated in the way of living."

Authoritarian regimes deliberately created "pleasure anxiety" to make people submissive and sheeplike (look at Islam in the present day).

Reich argued that societies mass-produced character armour for their citizens i.e. most people are shaped by the same social forces and suffer from the same neuroses. Decades earlier, Marx had said something similar. The ruling class takes active steps to ensure that the whole of society adopts its ideology. It uses advertising, propaganda, religion and, especially, media and education to impose its paradigm. All dissenting voices are silenced or starved of any access to the public. Heresy is stamped out. Rebels and revolutionaries are jailed or executed. Soon, the only voice you hear is that of the establishment. It becomes internalised. To parrot the opinions of the ruling class becomes second nature. Stupid, submissive people don't stop for a second to think about the garbage being force fed to them.

Watch any news programme and you will see that it is promoting a certain "line". There is a narrative behind the reporting of any news event, and you can be sure it isn't neutral. Someone's agenda is always being pushed, and it's invariably that of the ruling order. Even though the 9/11 conspiracy theories are crazy, they at least demonstrate a willingness to question the official story. Unfortunately, they have a narrative of their own - that of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism which is opposed to any form of government. The "Truthers" seek to undermine confidence in government itself. They want to promote the narrative that the governments of the world are intent on murdering their own citizens, hence should be overthrown and replaced by their right wing form of anarchism.  

The truth is that the ruling elite have no desire at all to kill their average citizens. Such citizens are docile, submissive and fully signed up to the propaganda of the elite. They are excellent consumers and they do the tedious droid and drone jobs that make the rich even richer. Why would the elite have any desire to destroy the geese that lay the golden eggs?

Reich contended that our psyches have been moulded to reflect the prevailing social order. Again, Islam furnishes the best example. Well over a billion people have been rendered almost incapable of rational thought. If you want a definition of futility, it's attempting to have any kind of rational debate with a Muslim. It's impossible.

The mind of a Muslim works in the following way. Anyone who supports the Koran is good. Anyone who criticises it is evil. A Muslim doesn't "hear" any rational points you make. What he hears are statements for or against the Koran, and if they are against then he stops listening or reacts with fury. Muslims have absolutely no desire to challenge what they believe or question it in any way. The Koran is good and right by definition. In fact, it is the infallible, flawless word of God himself. Once you believe that - once your mind is shaped by that concept - you become incapable of free thought.

Of course, Orthodox Jews and Christian fundamentalists are exactly the same.

Those who can't be reasoned with aren't human - they are robots. There are billions of these robots in our world.

Where Marx asserted that the capitalist ideology was used to shape our consciousness, Reich went further and asserted that the ruling paradigm controlled our unconscious too. It dictated our emotions, our dreams, even our impulses and instincts.

Muslims, for example, have Muslim instincts. They don't react to stimuli as human beings but as Muslims. A Muslim man, rather than being turned on by a scantily clad female, might feel physically sick - such is the control that Islam has over his mind and body.

That is the degree of control that all privileged ruling regimes wish to impose on the people. Meritocracy is the precise opposite. For meritocracy to succeed, it needs human beings operating at their maximum. There's no room for sheeple. Meritocracy is about creating the maximum freedom of mind and exercise of reason.

Reich became fascinated by Nazi Germany. Why was it so successful at captivating the German people? In 1934, he wrote The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Hitler seemed able to reach right into the souls of Germans and stir the deepest roots of their being.  Reich regarded fascism as "the sum total of all the irrational reactions of the average human character." Above all, the Nazis exploited fear. (The same tactic is used by Abrahamists with their threats of eternal hell.)

Hitler was the ultimate authority figure and patriarch, of the same ilk as Abraham, Moses and Mohammed. Just as children adore and obey their father, so the Germans adored and obeyed their national father - Hitler. He represented order in the midst of chaos. He was also a master of the tactic of the scapegoat. Jews were blamed for everything and depicted as plague-ridden rats and cancer cells in the body of the German nation.

Reich declared of fascism, "It is the basic emotional attitude of the suppressed man of our authoritarian machine civilisation and its mechanical-mystical conception of life." It leads to paralysis of the will to rebel. Reich was struck by the general inability of most people to contradict authority figures. He believed that there was a psychic structure in humans that craved a Fuehrer.  

As for the family, Reich called it a "factory for authoritarian ideologies and conservative structures." He wanted to protect children from emotionally sick parents. He believed that the whole world was subject to an emotional plague of irrationality that stood opposed to all life-affirming processes.

Reich advocated that people should be "actively encouraged to govern their own destinies." They had to be freed from the ideologies imposed on them by the family and the authoritarian State.

In later life, Reich was considered to have become mentally disturbed. He was obsessed with Orgone (a clunky word inadequately reflecting "orgasm" and "organism") - the energy of all living organisms that is most evident during orgasm. It has a blue tinge and is present everywhere, including in space and in vacuums. All living matter is created from orgone. Gravity and electromagnetism function through orgone. The stars and planets float on an ocean of orgone. In many respects, it is equivalent to the aether, but with a sexual dimension.

Reich suggested that two orgone currents could come together to create a cosmic orgasm! Perhaps the Milky Way is the ejaculation of God!

As time went on, Reich came to regard orgone as the arche, the basic substance of existence from which everything else, living and non-living, was derived. To this extent, it is rather like the Will of Schopenhauer, which also has a considerable sexual aspect. Schopenhauer, however, regarded the Will as the underlying noumenal reality - not as a scientific energy that could be perceived in the phenomenal universe.

Reich, by making quasi-scientific claims, but not providing any evidence or advancing any plausible theoretical considerations, simply made himself seem like a lunatic, particularly when he invented an Orgone Energy Accumulator (known as the Orgone Box) which he claimed could concentrate orgone for therapeutic purposes. It was really just a wooden box lined with metal. A patient who sat in the box would be bathed in concentrated orgone, allegedly, to the considerable benefit of his health. It would strengthen the biological energy of the patient and rectify any disturbances in the proper flow of energy.

Reich believed his invention could heal minor wounds and burns and even be effective against cancer and other serious illnesses. It also allegedly increased sexual potency.

He also invented a device called a cloudbuster designed to heal the sky since it could get sick just like a person. When the streams of life energy flowing through it got blocked, they needed a good dose of focused orgone to clear the blockage and get things flowing again. Voila the cloudbuster.

When the sky became ill, the air toxic, then vegetation died and everything became a desert. Reich's ideas resemble James Lovelock's Gaia theory. The planet becomes a kind of person and can suffer from sickness. To recover, it has to redirect orgone back into healthy channels and re-establish equilibrium. 

Reich managed to get himself hated by Freudians, Nazis, democrats, communists and capitalists. He was hounded by officials, expelled from countries and had his books burned by the Nazis and Americans. Many regarded him as a deranged crank while others thought he was a greater figure than Freud. He was incarcerated in an American jail, where his fellow inmates referred to him as the "sex-box man". He considered himself a martyr like Socrates, Christ and Gandhi, fighting the first battle of the universe on behalf of humanity. His precious orgone boxes were impounded and destroyed, all of his manufacturing notes and instructions for use burned, and all of his books withdrawn from circulation. He died in jail of a heart attack.

Even if he became unhinged in later life, he still merits serious study. His work on sexuality, linking it with psychology, character, economics and politics, is genuinely pioneering.

What can we take from Reich? That sex is so profound that it underpins politics, economics and psychological well-being. Sex belongs to the dimension of revolution. Any new society must have a revolutionary approach to sex. Sexual liberation is toxic to authoritarian systems. It is no accident that all dictatorships are sexually repressive. It is no accident that the authoritarian, patriarchal Abrahamic religions despise and fear sex.

The elite control the sexual space and through that they control you. A free society is sexually free - not just in name but in deed.

One of the primary aims of any healthy society should be to promote the highest quality sex, and to remove all of the restrictions and taboos that are imposed on it.

Sex is the antidote to authoritarianism. Sex subverts the controllers. Sex must be at the centre of a new world order of liberation. A sexy society - sexually fulfilled - results in much less violence, aggression, depression, crime and war.

The cynical and mercenary capitalist commodification and selling of sex must be ended. Sex must become what it was before the Abrahamists corrupted the world with their Devil worship. It must return to its pagan roots where it was part of the sacred order. Sex was a path to divinity, not a grubby, shameful, sinful activity never to be mentioned in polite public discourse.

Sexual ecstasy brings us face to face with the irrational. It is the Dionysian activity par excellence.

While it will always be the case that society is run along Apollonian lines - reason and logic - it must always provide an encounter with the dark Dionysian world of passion and mayhem.

Nietzsche, in The Birth of Tragedy, argued that only ancient Greece had ever got the balance right (in the pre-Socratic Age) but then it succumbed to over-rationality thanks to Socrates and the playwright Euripides. Once Apollo had become dominant, Dionysus was banished to the unconscious realm, only to erupt savagely and without warning, wreaking horrific damage. The Abrahamic religions have waged war on Dionysus, effectively transforming the god of passion into the Devil. Much of the iconography of the Devil - horns, cloven hooves, bestiality etc is taken directly from the Dionysian myths.

Dionysus was always associated with the goat. In his childhood, he was disguised as a goat to hide him from his enemies. The Greek word tragos means goat, from which we get the word tragedy: a "goat-song". Tragedies, as originally conceived, were the tales of the adventures of Dionysus, involving dreadful punishments on those who refused to acknowledge him.

Aristotle said that tragedy should evoke pity and terror and provide catharsis. He wrote: "The plot ought to be so constructed that, even without the aid of the eye, he who hears the tale told will thrill with horror and melt to pity at what takes place."

Dionysus was accompanied by satyrs - forest gods or demons with the legs and hindquarters of goats, budding horns and goat-like ears. They were notorious for their uncontrollable lusts. Brutish, sexually voracious men are described as satyrs. Men in a state of permanent and overwhelming sexual desire are said to suffer from satyriasis, the male equivalent of female nymphomania.

A condition like satyriasis is priapism, named after the god Priapus, the son of Dionysus and Aphrodite. He was the god of the fertility of nature and the reproductive forces of man (hence his association with the libido). Statues of Priapus with enormous phalluses were placed in fields and gardens to ensure fruitfulness. Priapus came to be regarded as the chief deity of lust, lasciviousness, and obscenity. The phallus was his symbol.

The god Pan had a great deal in common with the satyrs and with Priapus. He had a man's upper half and goat's lower half. He was a symbol of lust and fecundity and he too fed the depiction of the Devil.

Dionysus was the god of wine and intoxication, the noisy, rowdy and uncontrollable god. Originally portrayed as a bearded man, he was later represented as a beautiful youth with black eyes and flowing hair, his head crowned with ivy and vine. He wore a purple robe in times of peace, and a panther's skin when he was on the warpath.

While conventional religions sanctify rules, regulations, taboos, commandments and prohibitions - the rigid control of behaviour - the religion of Dionysus smashes all of that control. It brings chaos and madness, and plunges people into the whirlpool of the deepest carnality and sin. Hence, Dionysus is equated with the Devil.

Nietzsche identified himself with Dionysus and set himself against "the crucified" (i.e. Christianity). Nietzsche's Dionysus dialectically embraced Apollo and stood for a healthy balance of the rational and irrational. He thought it lunacy to attempt to exterminate irrationality, and thus his philosophy was itself often labelled irrational.

Nietzsche had hoped that Wagner might resurrect the culture of ancient Greece with his astounding multi-dimensional operas that assaulted every sense, but he was disgusted when Wagner turned to the apparently Christian themes of the opera Parsifal.  

Nietzsche was right that we need to create a world that gives both Dionysus and Apollo their dues. Society should be designed along Apollonian lines, but be full of Dionysian outlets through which we express our deepest selves, our Will. The people who lead the most satisfying lives are those who feel the power of the cosmos coursing through their veins. In the name of control and order, the Abrahamic religions and the materialist ideologies such as capitalism (the cult of consumerism) and science have tried to prevent us from accessing our true selves. We have been turned into Apollonian machines that the privileged elite can easily manipulate. The Dionysian Man is one that cannot be controlled. He is pure Will. Hence he terrifies the elite.

Apollo = rationality = thesis; the domain of Reason.

Dionysus = irrationality = antithesis; the domain of Will.

Society must offer a synthesis of these two forces, and must be alert to any ideology that seeks to eliminate one or the other. The history of the world has largely revolved around the attempts of the world controllers to kill Dionysus, except where he can generate profits for the elite. For example, there is a great deal of officially sanitized sexuality in our world, but no Dionysian unbridled sexuality. We get lots of kitsch sexuality, mere titillation and teasing - but no raw, hardcore, uncensored sex in the mainstream sphere.

Middle America was outraged at the Super Bowl show of 2004 when there was "wardrobe malfunction" and Janet Jackson exposed her breast. How ludicrous can you get? That reveals the nature of the sexual hypocrisy that's embedded in our society. Female flesh is on show absolutely everywhere; why the horror because it made an appearance at the Super Bowl? The complainants would die of apoplexy if they ever saw Dionysian sex at the Super Bowl.

Dionysus is the arch enemy of the controllers, hence we, like Nietzsche, venerate him. In a Dionysian world, all of the monarchs, popes, rabbis, imams and presidents would be swept away.

Everyone must have their Dionysian side brought to the fore. Then they will no longer bow to false gods and brass idols.

Sex is the antidote to the masks we wear. All masks slip during Dionysian sex.

Sex is the antidote to smug bureaucrats.

Sex is the antidote to stuffy pomp and ceremony.

Sex is the great leveller.

Sex punctures inflated egos.

What caused the Emperor in his new clothes to be humiliated? It was being exposed in his sexual nakedness.

None of the great moguls, potentates and barons of our world could ever be taken seriously if we saw them having sex or standing naked before us.

In pagan societies, sex was a link between the human and the divine. With Abrahamism, that sacred link was destroyed. Sex became the Devil's domain. Women were portrayed as evil temptresses leading men astray.

Everything transitory

is only an approximation;

what could not be achieved

here comes to pass;

what no one could describe,

is here accomplished;

the Eternal Feminine

draws us aloft.

In other words, the Eternal Feminine has the power of salvation. It draws humanity ever closer to perfection. Through the eternal feminine, we can ascend to the higher sphere of existence - Paradise itself.

So why not liberally sprinkle the eternal feminine over this world of ours?

Humanity is torn between reason and the will, between logic and madness. We are on a seesaw that never stops plunging first one way and then the other.

No one on earth is entirely rational. Only a computer can apply logic systematically. Our will gets in the way of a clear head. In an instant, we can be seized by wild rage.

We are all the children of Apollo and Dionysus, and we must pay our dues to both. It's impossible to eliminate one or the other. Any attempt to do so is doomed.

The Abrahamic religions are not on the side of reason, but they do support a primitive substitute for reason - controlled, programmed responses. The point of the hundreds of rules, regulations, laws and commandments that Abrahamic religions impose on their followers is to ensure that their behaviour is predictable and occurs within well-defined bounds. The Abrahamists combat Dionysus through brainwashing, not reason. They create human automata that blindly obey but have no understanding of what and why they are obeying.

Plato, a towering genius, imagined that in the suprasensible domain of the perfect Forms, there existed an eternal, immutable Form of Justice. If only he could channel that Form he would be able to build a just city based on an absolute conception of justice. That is very much an Apollonian vision.

What Plato forgot is that the Will (Dionysus) is incapable of surrendering to reason (Apollo). Dionysus always subverts Apollonian justice because it recognises its own form of justice - the passion of the moment. The infamous Marquis de Sade was a devotee of Dionysian murder but was appalled by Apollonian murder i.e. planned State execution. If you killed someone you despised in a flash of rage, that was understandable. If the State coldly and mechanically killed someone months or years after a crime was committed, using an executioner who had never even met the condemned prisoner let alone suffered any harm at his hands, this was barbarous and inexcusable.

This kind of clinical execution reached its highest expression in the production-line death camps of the Nazis. A simple Apollonian rule - Jew or not Jew - determined your fate. It didn't matter what you had done in your life. It didn't matter if you had never practised Judaism in your life. All was decided by the checklist: did it say you were a Jew or didn't it?

When Hannah Arendt referred to the "banality of evil" as she pondered the character of Adolf Eichmann, the man who organised the trains for delivering the Holocaust victims to their deaths, she was acknowledging that no real Dionysian passion was involved. The Holocaust was a bureaucratic, factory exercise, not different in kind from manufacturing and distributing baked beans. In this case, the product was death.

Any system of justice has to take account of two very different presiding gods with two very different value systems: Dionysus and Apollo.

As Nietzsche recognised, religion, morality and philosophy have all waged war against Dionysus. "Order" has tried to put "chaos" out of business, but this is impossible. This is one of the reasons why the dialectic is much more nuanced than simplistic divisions of "good and evil". You create evil by trying to eliminate it, which is why the Abrahamic religions have trailed nothing but evil in their wake. They demonised the human Will. They called it "Original Sin". In other words, they labelled the force that drives us as Satanic.

Finding the right balance between Apollo and Dionysus is the essence of the well-adjusted, fulfilled society.

Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll are the province of Dionysus. He reigns over the competitive instinct, hubris, nemesis, flight or fight, the pursuit of glory, the seven "deadly sins" - everything that makes the human juices flow.

Disaster overtakes us when we worship Dionysus too eagerly, just as it does when we are too in thrall to Apollo. We can't do without either god. They are dialectically tied together. Apollo is reason, control, order, logic, organisation and construction. Dionysus is unreason, passion, will, disorder, chaos, lust and destruction.

They are the ancient Greek version of yin and yang, but both are masculine and both are feminine.

The year 1500 was a jubilee year for the Catholic Church and Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) was the pope. His son Cesare was the model for "the Prince" - the ideal ruler of the State - about whom Machiavelli wrote so admiringly.

During the jubilee celebrations, Cesare arranged a lavish banquet in the Apostolic Palace in honour of his father and sister. It became known as the Ballet of Chestnuts and entered history thanks to its notoriety.

Fifty courtesans danced for the gathered dignitaries, including cardinals and ambassadors. After the recital of elegant music, the diners were treated to a licentious comedy while they ate and drank. With the banquet over, lamp stands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts liberally strewn about.

The courtesans' fine dresses were auctioned and then, stark naked, they performed erotic dancing before crawling between the candelabras and the feet of the diners, picking up the chestnuts in their mouths - then inserting them in their vaginas. Sex toys were also employed.

Following the spectacular floorshow, a mass orgy ensued. Prizes were offered to the men who could fuck the most prostitutes. Servants kept careful score of each man's orgasms, for, it was said, "the pope greatly admired virility and measured a man's machismo by his ejaculative capacity."

Jim Morrison was a Dionysian performer, most especially at the infamous Doors performance in Miami in 1969.

Epically drunk, Morrison declared to the shocked audience: "You're all a bunch of fucking idiots. Let people tell you what you're gonna do. Let people push you around. How long do you think it's gonna last? How long are you gonna let it go on? How long are you gonna let them push you around? Maybe you love it. Maybe you like being pushed around. Maybe you love getting your face stuck in the shit.....You're all a bunch of slaves. Bunch of slaves. Letting everybody push you around. What are you gonna do about it? What are you gonna do about it...What are you gonna do?"

In vino veritas. This is surely one of the greatest speeches ever made. It goes right to the heart of the matter - WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Do you love being slaves?

Further on in the gig, Morrison yelled: "THERE ARE NO RULES...Anybody here from Tallahassee? Well, I lived there until I got smart and went to California....Hey, listen. I used to think the whole thing was a big joke. I thought it was something to laugh about, and the last couple of nights I met some people who were doing something. They're trying to change the world and I wanna get on the trip. I wanna change the world."

Someone jumped on stage and sprayed him with champagne, so he stripped off his shirt. "Let's see a little skin," he grunted, "let's get naked...I'm not talking about revolution, I'm not talking about guns and riots, I'm talking about love. Love one another. Love your brother, hug him. Man, I'd like to see a little nakedness around here....grab your friend and love him. Take your clothes off and love each other....You didn't come here for music did you? You came for something more, didn't you? You didn't come to rock 'n' roll, you came for something else, didn't you? You came for something else --WHAT IS IT?...You want to see my cock, don't you? That's what you came for isn't it? YEAHHHH!"

Hysteria erupted amongst the enthralled crowd. Morrison then allegedly momentarily got his dick out. "See it? Did you see it?" he yelled. But it seems everyone saw whatever they wanted to see. What really happened has never been proved. Some people thought he exposed himself, others that he definitely didn't.

Light My Fire then boomed out and Dionysian mayhem erupted.

Morrison was thrown into the audience and then led them on an immense snake dance…kundalini in motion. He vanished then reappeared gazing down from a balcony to relish the scene of the chaos he had created.

The Miami Herald said: "The hypnotically erotic Morrison, flaunting the laws of obscenity, indecent exposure and incitement to riot, could only stir a minor mob scene toward the end of his Saturday night performance. It was not meant to be pretty. Morrison appeared to masturbate in full view of his audience, screamed obscenities and exposed himself. He also got violent, slugged several officials and threw one of them off stage before he himself was hurled into the crowd."

Some right wing high school students held a "Rally for Decency" at the Orange Bowl and the FBI produced a document on "Morrison's effort to provoke chaos among a huge crowd of young people."

Now that's what you call a gig! Where is that kind of passion and rebelliousness amongst the plastic performers of today? Is Lady Gaga someone with something to say, or just someone who changes her costumes a lot? In the 1960s, music was genuinely Dionysian and a major political force. Now it's all neatly packaged, anodyne and sterile.

The Ancient Egyptians and Greeks thought that the morning and evening stars were two separate entities rather than the same planet (Venus) seen at two different times. The Greeks called the morning star Phosphoros (Latinised Phosphorus), "Bringer of Light" or Eosphoros (Eosphorus), "Bringer of Dawn". The evening star was called Hesperos (Hesperus), "star of the evening". Hesperos was translated into Latin as Vesper, and Phosphoros as Lucifer ("Light Bearer").

Later, the ancient Greeks realized the two stars were in fact one planet, which they named after their goddess of love, Aphrodite (the Phoenician Astarte, the Egyptian Isis and the Roman Venus).

When Lucifer, the Angel of Light, is characterised as a man, it's actually a travesty of the history of the word. Although Illuminism is itself guilty of portraying Lucifer as male by longstanding convention, the Angel of Light should in fact be characterised as the principle of the Eternal Feminine, the quintessential female.

Whereas Satan - the Eternal Masculine - is violent, aggressive, angry, bullying, selfish, narcissistic, individualistic, Lucifer is peaceful, loving, altruistic, compassionate, considerate, and an advocate of community.

Satan and Lucifer are reconciled in the higher synthesis of Abraxas - neither male nor female, but the best of both.

The world cannot prosper under the rule of Satan, and nor would a reign by Lucifer be the answer - it would simply create a new and different set of problems. Just as Apollo and Dionysus have to be dialectically harnessed, so do Satan and Lucifer: male and female, masculine and feminine, yin and yang.

The evil reputation of Lucifer would be erased if "he" were portrayed as "she" - the goddess of love, bringing the light of love to the world.

It's impossible to portray Satan as anything other than a psychotic man, but Lucifer, as the counterpoise to Satan, should certainly be portrayed in feminine terms. "Lucifer" should be restored to what it was originally - an epithet of Venus, the radiantly goddess of love. All depictions of the Angel of Light should show a wondrously beautiful woman, the treasured daughter of Abraxas, sent into the world to combat the Prince of Darkness - Satan.

When you think of Abrahamism, is it not always fanatical bearded men you see in your mind, demanding death and destruction for all "infidels"? The God of Abrahamism seems remarkably like Thanatos, the god of death. While women bring new life into the world, men take it out of the world by killing it. Women are Eros, and men Thanatos. Men are deeply attracted to death cults because they love the theme of Apocalypse. Ultra violence has a profound fascination for all men. Men are violent because violence is part of the male psyche in a way that women can never fathom. Look at Valhalla, the warrior heaven of the ultra-masculine Vikings: they fight all day then feast and fuck all night. That is the complete encapsulation of the masculine worldview. When you boil masculinity down to its essential components, that's all that's left - sex, violence and partying. All men have a Viking within them, longing to get out. The masculine world is the id world. Men are fundamentally opposed to civilisation. Women are the ones who bring the Superego and civilisation into the world.

All patriarchal religions - especially Abrahamism - have a malignant masculine core. All such religions are evil. They have to be tempered with a feminine aspect. Ancient religions almost always had male and female divinities worshipped on a more or less equal footing. Some put goddesses at the top of the pantheon because of the fertility of women, some put gods at the top because of their virile power, but many had them as complementary pairs like yin and yang.

Monotheism was a catastrophe because it destroyed the equality and balance of gods and goddesses. An utterly masculine god became the sole deity of the cosmos, and the world was immediately plunged into a disastrous relegation of the importance of women, and a sanctification of the worst aspects of the masculine. Yahweh = Allah = Christ = Satan = Id = masculinity in its darkest aspect is the true equation of monotheism.

The Gnostic Abraxas, as the synthesis of Lucifer and Satan, as the sexless God who transcends sex, containing an absolute harmony of the female and male principles, is the only healthy way to portray monotheism. 

It is wrong, dangerous and even evil for the monotheistic God to be portrayed as fundamentally a man. Even the most cursory glance at Abrahamism reveals that it's absolutely infected with masculine concepts and has marginalized and ridiculed everything feminine. Look at the way Jews, Christians and Muslims have treated women throughout history. Christians took a long time to agree that women actually had souls and the vote was passed extremely narrowly. Muslims hate women so much that they would prefer it if women were not seen at all, hence the burqa. Catholics refuse to have woman priests. Abrahamism has never been anything but the vehicle of the most terrible sexism that has reduced women to second-class citizens in a two-tier society. Just as it's mind-boggling that gays choose to be Abrahamists given that Abrahamism regards gays as the damned, it's equally extraordinary that any woman should have anything to do with such a sexist religion as Abrahamism.

Women should not subscribe to any religion that does not give them equal billing to men. Where are the female prophets, the holy books written by women, the female priests, rabbis, and imams, the female popes? Any religion that discriminates against women should be declared illegal - and that means Abrahamism.

Abrahamism has no place in the modern world. The reverence with which the ancient Egyptians treated Isis, the Phoenicians Ashtoreth, the Babylonians Ishtar and the Greeks Athena, Hera and Aphrodite shows that they were much more enlightened than the monotheistic Abrahamists. We need to restore the importance of the ancient goddesses.

All hail Lucifer, the Angel of Light, the Goddess of Love - the antidote to Satan. Through Lucifer we will reach Abraxas, the Supreme Being, the First God, and the God that we will all join as Gods ourselves.

A myth exists that Christianity several times debated the issue of whether women have souls and can be considered fully human. It is said that at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE such a proposition was passed by just one vote!

The matter was also allegedly debated at the Synod of Macon in 585.

It is said that at the Council of Agde in 835, an ecclesiastical court ruled explicitly for the first time that women do indeed have souls (but the motion was passed once again by just a single vote).

A provocative pamphlet was issued in the 17th century entitled Women do not have a soul and do not belong to the human race, as is shown by many passages of Holy Scripture. The author was a mischievous and poor young scholar called Valentius Acidalius, trying to attract some attention to himself and make some money. Allegedly, some Italian ladies were distressed to discover they had no souls and were mere machines like the biological automata that Descartes considered animals to be.

Clearly, Christianity never regarded women as being soulless, but it's interesting that the rumour could be taken so seriously. In other words, it wouldn't have come as a great surprise if patriarchal Abrahamism had declared women to be less than human. After all, that's how they've treated them for millennia!

Why are Muslim women in burqas if they are human? Why are there no Catholic female priests if women are human? 

So, if you're a Soul Woman, say no to Abrahamism!

What is the difference between eroticism and pornography? The former seeks to arouse sexual desire subtly while the latter wants to be as explicit as possible. Eroticism is seductive, feminine, suggestive, leaving so much to the imagination. Pornography is graphic, masculine, leaving nothing at all to the imagination.

The ancient Mesopotamians often depicted the Earth Goddess standing next to a sacred tree and with a wise serpent for a companion. Mesopotamian culture evolved into that of the Babylonian Empire which conquered the kingdom of Judah and enslaved the Jews. The Jews became the deranged people they are today during their captivity in Babylon. That's when they turned to their volcanic war god Yahweh to save them. That's when they became fanatical monotheists. That's when they wrote the evil texts that became their holy writ. That's when they rewrote history to give the impression that they had always been ardent followers of Yahweh.

It was in this period that they wrote the tale of the Garden of Eden. The Earth Goddess and her tree were combined into a single entity: the Tree of Life. This tree was joined by a second - the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Goddess's old and trusty companion - the wise serpent - became the sly creature that lurked under the tree, ready to tempt Adam and Eve into deadly error.

Throughout the Jewish Torah, pagan symbols are readily appropriated and promptly demonised. The Torah is one of the greatest acts of propaganda in history, written by bitter and twisted prophets yearning for revenge against their Babylonian masters.

Much of the tale of the Exodus from Egypt was actually a fantasy version of the freeing of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity, except it wasn't Yahweh that got them out but Cyrus the Great of Persia.

The Eden story is an attack on paganism, an attack on Babylon. Above all, it's an attack on the Earth Goddess, associating her with evil in the shape of the serpent. From the outset, Judaism was an insult to women. Judaism was always an authoritarian patriarchy, a fascist dictatorship of masculine values. Women were blamed for everything, and were excluded from all religious functions. While pagans revered women and had as many priestesses as priests, Abrahamism didn't have even one priestess. Goddesses were relegated to demons. Eve was portrayed as the first sinner.

In some Jewish sources, Eve was the second not the first woman. Her predecessor, Adam's first wife, was called Lilith ("she of the night"). She bickered constantly with Adam and bore him devils and demons as children. She and they were banished from Eden. So, "God" got it wrong not once but twice. Is this the God of Blunders? He doesn't seem to have a clue what he's doing.

It's extraordinary that any woman tolerates Abrahamism since it was never anything but the primary source of the toxin of sexism. Yahweh was always a jealous, angry, vengeful male deity who lived alone on a high volcanic mountain - a fiery, masculine sky god. Like the volcano, he was ready to erupt at any moment and destroy everything around him. There was nothing sexual about life in his world - he fashioned life out of clay, not via a woman's womb. He had no need for women.    

In Babylon, the Earth Goddess evolved from a motherly fertility deity into a nubile sex goddess - Ishtar. Her priestesses acted as avatars for their mistress, delivering sexual ecstasy in her name by serving in her temple as ritual prostitutes. To win the favour of a priestess, a man had to offer a silver coin and utter a prescribed phrase invoking the goddess.

Through the money they collected, the priestesses could glorify their goddess with ever more wondrous temples and statues.

The Greek historian Herodotus wrote, "There is one custom amongst these people which is wholly shameful: every woman who is a native of the country must once in her life go and sit in the temple of Aphrodite [Ishtar] and there give herself to a strange man."

Babylon thus acquired a notorious reputation for sexual impropriety and debauchery, thus it was no surprise for it to be described in the Book of Revelation as, "Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes, and of the abominations of the earth."

Unlike most women, who were raised to be good mothers and obedient wives who stayed behind doors (and were veiled when they ventured out), priestesses/ prostitutes were well educated, cultured, cultivated and wealthy. They were highly skilled in music, philosophy, conversation, and, of course, sex. In the Enlightenment, courtesans performed the same role, and Japanese geishas in the modern day.

Ordinary women of ancient Greece needed a release from the boring routines of their lives and they found it in the ecstatic religion of Dionysus. They drank enormous amounts of alcohol in wild, hilltop locations and abandoned themselves to the most frenzied passions. They had orgies with men who took the role of the god and his lusty, goat-like satyrs. It was this imagery that haunted the medieval Christian mind. Witches were accused of holding debauched sabbats where they summoned the goat-like Devil and his demonic minions.  Christian priests and monks regarded women as "the Devil's doorway." Girls were encouraged to offer their virginity to God and become brides of Christ - celibate nuns.

Christianity, in its war against paganism, took the whole pantheon of pagan gods and goddesses and simply rebranded them as devils and demons.

In ancient Rome, Messalina, wife of Emperor Claudius, often disguised herself as a prostitute to satisfy her nymphomania, and once held an all-night competition with Rome's most successful whore to see who could fuck the most men. Messalina won, to the astonishment and disgust of her rival. Married at fifteen, Messalina was executed for high treason at age 22 after she bigamously married a handsome Roman Senator and plotted the overthrow of Claudius.

Hieros Gamos is Greek for "sacred marriage". It confers divinity on the act of sexual intercourse, transforming it into a holy union between man and woman and opening a metaphorical stargate to the gods.

Dan Brown discussed hieros gamos in The Da Vinci Code:

"He [Robert Langdon] explained that although what she [Sophie] saw probably looked like a sex ritual, Hieros Gamos had nothing to do with eroticism. It was a spiritual act. Historically, intercourse was the act through which male and female experienced God. The ancients believed that the male was spiritually incomplete until he had carnal knowledge of the sacred feminine. Physical union with the female remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve gnosis - knowledge of the divine. Since the days of Isis, sex rites had been considered man's only bridge from earth to heaven. 'By communing with woman,' Langdon said, 'man could achieve a climactic instant when his mind went totally blank and he could see God.'

Sophie looked skeptical. 'Orgasm as prayer?'

Langdon gave a noncommital shrug, although Sophie was essentially correct. Physiologically speaking, the male climax was accompanied by a split second entirely devoid of thought. A brief mental vacuum. A moment of clarity during which God could be glimpsed. Meditation gurus achieved similar states of thoughtlessness without sex and often described Nirvana as a never-ending spiritual orgasm.

'Sophie,' Langdon said quietly, 'it's important to remember that the ancients' view of sex was entirely opposite from ours today. Sex begot new life - the ultimate miracle - and miracles could be performed only by a god. The ability of the woman to produce life from her womb made her sacred. A god. Intercourse was the revered union of the two halves of the human spirit - male and female - through which the male could find spiritual wholeness and communion with God. What you saw was not about sex, it was about spirituality. The Hieros Gamos ritual is not a perversion. It's a deeply sacrosanct ceremony.'" 

Even the Jews succumbed to the temptations of love and the joys of temple prostitution. They worshipped several goddesses, most particularly Astarte, the Canaanite version of Ishtar.

Dan Brown wrote, "Admittedly, the concept of sex as a pathway to God was mind-boggling at first. Langdon's Jewish students always looked flabbergasted when he first told them that the early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less. Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the Temple to visit priestesses - or hierodules - with whom they made love and experienced the divine through physical union. The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH - the sacred name of God - in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.

'For the early Church,' Langdon explained in a soft voice, 'mankind's use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the Church out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as the sole conduit to God. For obvious reasons, they worked hard to demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the same.'"

In those days, the Jews were a decent people who could have become part of the community of nations. Instead, the catastrophe of being enslaved by the Babylonians changed history. The Jews fled into the arms of their monstrous and cruel war God, Yahweh.

The suppression of the Goddess to make way for the monotheistic masculine God is the great untold story of Judaism. It's complete nonsense that the Jews were always monotheists. Most of them were polytheists like the rest of the pagans in the world. A fanatical faction continually promoted the monotheistic claims of the savage storm god Yahweh but they didn't take control until Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians and the Jews sent into bondage. The Yahweh faction blamed the catastrophe on the Jews' failure to worship a single god, thus incurring his divine wrath. At the same time, the Jews encountered the apocalyptic religious ideas of the Zoroastrians and their dualistic religion of a great war between good and evil. The combination proved overpowering.

The Jews fell into line with the Yahweh worshippers, and the holy books of the Jews were rewritten to tell the great lie that the Jews had always been faithful monotheists…but anyone who spends any time studying the Old Testament will soon see that the signs of Jewish polytheism are on almost every page. The first three of the Ten Commandments reveal the need for "God" to prevent the Jews worshipping other deities: 

1)      Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2)      Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

3)      Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 

If monotheism were enthusiastically accepted by Jews, there would obviously be no need for the first commandment. The second commandment seeks to differentiate Yahweh from other gods who were typically depicted by "graven images". The third commandment shows that there was widespread lack of respect for Yahweh, and that he was frequently cursed by the Jews.

The Zionist tale of Jewish monotheism from the time of Abraham is an astonishing myth, one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated. The Jews were extremely reluctant monotheists who were finally converted as an act of desperation to explain why they had been enslaved by the Babylonians. Of course, if they had exercised any logic, they should have started worshipping the Babylonian gods. However, Judaism and logic are two words that are strangers to each other.

Dan Brown is also right to highlight that political reasons underlie the hostility of the Catholic Church to sex. Sex assigns equal importance to men and women, whereas the Church was and is entirely male. The early Church had no motive at all to be on the side of sex since it would automatically empower women, emphasise the Goddess, and diminish masculine monotheism.

In Gnosticism, Sophia, the goddess of wisdom, had an immensely important role, and it was to her, not Yahweh, that Solomon the Wise dedicated his famous temple. All philosophers pay court to Sophia. Philosophy, a word coined by Pythagoras, means "love of wisdom" - love of Sophia.

Religions like to portray themselves as apolitical - outside the squalid bartering of venal politicians. In practice, religions have been nothing but politics in action. When a certain view is deemed heretical, it is invariably a political and not a theological judgment. Christianity is littered with heresies and virtually all of them are more theologically sound than the "orthodox" position. Martin Luther's attack on Catholicism prospered because it suited the political and nationalist aspirations of northern European princes who were sick of Papal arrogance, corruption and interference in their affairs. Had Luther not appeared at a politically opportune moment, he would have gone to the stake to be burned like so many heretics before him, and there would be no Protestants now. It was politics, not theology, that allowed him to succeed. Had previous heresies prospered politically, they would have become the orthodoxy.

Orphism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism and Rosicrucianism all had aspects devoted to sacred sex - the use of sex to attain higher states of spirituality. The Rosicrucian "Chymical Wedding" was, amongst other things, a name for a specific sexual ceremony.

These yogic techniques, involving self-restraint and meditation, are designed to transform sexual energy (libido) into kundalini or spiritual energy. Sexual energy is a denser and cruder component of life force energy, which needs to be alchemically refined so to speak, liberated as kundalini energy and led upwards from the spinal chakra to the crown chakra. Base sexual desire is thus transformed into the highest spiritual attainment.

Indian mystics thought that kundalini sex involving the withholding of ejaculation could unleash the serpent power and induce a flash of enlightenment.

Sacred sex improves the quality of our spiritual energy and develops the whole chakra system. Taoists believed it played a major role in the creation of the diamond or immortal body, which would allow a person to live forever.

Sacred sex is intended to achieve various states of bliss and flashes of enlightenment, and if executed correctly can lead to final enlightenment - moksha or nirvana. In practice, few can accomplish anything approaching this.

What a number of adepts can achieve after years of effort are so-called brain orgasms - or, rather, spiritual orgasms of the mind rather than physical orgasms of the genitals.

These techniques are all about refining spiritual energy and leading it upwards in a healthy flow from the spine and genitals to the top of the head, the seat of wisdom.

Tantra yoga involves a ritualised male-female interaction, while kundalini yoga is about the individual - but it's not masturbatory, which is a pity. ("Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love." Woody Allen) 

If you want a glimpse of kundalini yoga, you can find it here:

http://www.pinklotus.org/-%20KY%20Kriya%20for%20sex%20energy%20transformation.htm

In tantra yoga, the man worships his partner as a goddess and performs a sexual ritual featuring slow, non-orgasmic intercourse, that will hopefully lead to a spiritual rather than physical climax - a sublime experience of the divine realm.

The "right hand path" is a monogamous rite while the "left hand path" involves many couples at once. Naturally, the latter has earned tantra yoga a dubious reputation in some quarters. Moralists call it an excuse for an orgy and label it Satanic.

Taoist tantra is called sexual or tantric alchemy. Western alchemy was also highly sexualised, though this aspect was disguised with obscure and coded language and many people have little knowledge of how sexual alchemy was. It too was a form of sacred sex.

"In all creative artists, productiveness ceases at the same time as sexual potency does."

The higher your libido (Freud's label for sexual energy), the more sexual energy you have to discharge. Jung broadened the scope of libido to accommodate all life-force energy. Kundalini, the serpent power of yoga, can be considered as life-force energy, as concentrated desire, coiled at the base of the spine, ready to be awakened and refined into the highest spiritual energy that can fuel the journey to enlightenment. 

In the West, art is often a vehicle for the highest spiritual undertakings. Philosophers such as Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer all took a keen interest in art.

Nietzsche saw it as something that seduced us: "Life is worth living, says art, the beautiful temptress. Life is worth knowing says science." 

He also saw it as something that acted as an antidote to the "harshness" of scientific, philosophical and mathematical truths: "Art is with us in order that we might not perish through truth."

In many ways, art is nothing but propaganda for various ideas. It allows the spread of dangerous memes. Think of the beauty of the art of the Catholic Church, and the incredible artistic treasures of the Vatican. Many people have been seduced to join Catholicism because of the glory of Catholic art. Protestants sought to destroy art, seeing it as a fiendish Papist trick to make people worship false gods. There is precious little art in Islam and Judaism.

"Artists are the glorifiers of humanity's religious and philosophical errors."

The top five most followed Twitter users as of April 2011 were:

1.      Lady Gaga, pop star - 8.9m followers.

2.      Justin Bieber, pop star - 8.3m.

3.      Britney Spears, pop star - 7.2m.

4.      Barack Obama, US President - 7.1m.

5.      Kim Kardashian, reality TV star - 6.8m.

Although we often condemn social networking sites, what we are objecting is the use to which they are put, and the mindless trivia they promote. When a reality TV star is the world's fifth most significant tweeter, clearly there is something badly wrong. None of her followers will be manning the barricades, that's for sure. They are all sheeple who spend their lives dreaming of being famous for nothing other than appearing on TV. Such people pose no threat to the Elite.

However, if social networking is put to good use - communicating vital messages to bring about an uprising (as happened in Tunisia and Egypt) - then it can be an invaluable tool.

The Social Networking war will be one of the most interesting conflicts of this century. At the present time in the West, social networking is mindless, but here and there it is being used to subvert the Elite. That tendency must be encouraged as much as possible. 

It's interesting to examine the attitudes of the Abrahamist religions towards art and recreational activities. Islam, Judaism and Protestantism are almost uniformly negative towards everything. Only Catholicism has embraced art and beauty. The following table expresses whether the particular religion is supportive or not towards the specified activity.

In terms of aesthetics, Catholicism is easily the most "beautiful" form of Abrahamism. The Protestants are dreary, sober iconoclasts who, historically, smashed up many Catholic churches, monasteries and Cathedrals. They regarded statues of saints as "idolatry". They removed Christ from the cross. (Catholics wear crucifixes showing Christ crucified while Protestants wear plain crosses.)

Jews and Muslims don't depict God in any way. Nor do the Muslims depict Mohammed. Protestants are equally hostile to representations of the divine. Catholicism took the stance that we should have as many depictions of the divine as possible to raise our vision to the celestial vault. We endorse that stance. The world needs as much beauty as it can get.

Protestant churches are typically drab, plain and unadorned. From the Catholic perspective, they are an insult to the glory of God. After the Reformation, Catholics embraced baroque grandeur more enthusiastically than ever.

The Protestants' hatred of beauty carries over to their puritanical sexual habits. The Pilgrim Fathers (what, no mothers?) who stepped off the Mayflower in New England were sexually repressed Puritans, and their attitudes have infected America ever since. Witness the ludicrous furore over the Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" scandal. American culture is saturated with sexual imagery and yet still manages to be outraged by sexual trivia. The "Moral Majority" can still raise a fuss over nothing.    

In Europe, American born-again Christians are regarded as religious extremists, not dissimilar to Muslim fundamentalists. In general, supporters of the Republican Party are viewed as demented right-wingers and Democrats as the only Americans who could be successfully integrated into European life. During the Bush years, America was loathed in Europe. It's a remarkable thing that the Republican half of America is so far removed politically and philosophically from the European countries from which most of them originally came. The reason is Christian fundamentalism. Many of the early American settlers were religious extremists, and they have managed to keep brainwashing generation after generation with the same toxic ideas. Muslims are 1,400 hundred years behind the rest of the world; American Christians are about 500 years out of date. Whereas Europe has become increasingly secular, America remains a highly Abrahamist nation, and still has weird attitudes towards sex. On the one hand, sex is used relentlessly to promote the interests of Mammon, and on the other it is condemned by Christians who fiercely oppose sex before marriage and abortion. Porn is an enormous industry in America - the shadow response to the repressed sexuality of the religious Americans.

A healthy society is one that isn't neurotic about sex. A healthy society recognises the importance of sex and provides a space in which everyone can find sexual fulfilment. By providing appropriate sexual outlets, it defuses the negative consequences that flow from sexual frustration. Because an enlightened society has acknowledged the power of sex and catered for it, it has also created the conditions for people to get on with the rest of their lives. Sex is just one human need, albeit hugely important. We are not one-dimensional sexual beings - we are multidimensional.

Plato provided an extraordinary myth for what impels us to seek love. He said that there were originally three sexes, not two. Males were born of the sun, females of the earth and a third sex, hermaphrodites, of the moon. The most incredible feature of human beings in their original state was that they were double, not single i.e. they were like perfectly formed Siamese twins, joined at the tummy.

One day, humanity aspired to overthrow the gods and they launched an assault on the gods' stronghold on Mount Olympus. They were beaten back and as a suitable punishment, Zeus split all of the double humans into singles. (The bellybutton was used to seal each wounded half.)

The split halves were bereft without their lifelong companions and craved to be reunited: "When our first form had been cut in two, each half in longing for its fellow would come to it again; and then would they fling their arms about each other and in mutual embraces yearn to be bound together again."

This longing to be rejoined is the basis of love. Everyone is trying to find their lost half. Because there are so many people, it has become extremely difficult for lovers to find their destined partner, and they often mistake others for the one they are truly seeking. But when the right person comes along, it's like a bolt of lightning from heaven. It's love at first sight: an instant, overwhelming desire for your soul mate - your literal other half.

Human beings are constantly chasing after each other because of this primordial craving to be whole again. Jung's concept of the anima/animus - the soul image - plugs into this same myth. Men are entranced by anima figures, and women bewitched by animus personalities. Through them we can attain the wholeness we crave. We are incomplete if we stay on our own.

Plato's myth accounts for the different types of sexual relationships observed in the world. Heterosexuality is sex between the two halves of the original hermaphrodite sex, male homosexuality between the halves of the male sex, and lesbianism between the halves of the female sex. 

It's not a scientifically plausible account of the love lives of humanity, of course, yet it seems to point to a great truth nevertheless. All of us long for completion through another person (usually of the opposite sex), and we can expend a huge amount of time and effort on this pursuit. It's usually the most important thing in our lives.

In Plato's philosophy, the soul is immortal, with no beginning and no end, and it's always in a state of self-movement. Plato portrayed the soul as a two-horsed winged chariot guided by a charioteer (the pilot of the soul, its rational aspect). Of the two horses, one represented desire and the other spiritedness. The wings symbolised the tendency of the soul to soar upwards.

The horse of desire is a vicious brute lacking any breeding and it pulls the chariot downwards. The other horse is excellent and of noble stock. The charioteer has to wrestle with the two horses to direct them upwards to where they will eventually reach the divine domain and gaze upon the eternal, immutable Forms. The Forms are what nourish the rational part of the soul and bring it to perfection and complete knowledge.

The horse of desire is an immense problem for an inexperienced charioteer. It can easily cause him to lose control. The chariot plunges downwards to the realm of materialism, away from the divine domain of reason.

This is humanity's downfall. The vehemence of the downward spiral breaks the chariot's wings and it can no longer travel to the realm of Forms. The soul becomes embodied in a mortal creature and is trapped. To return to the divine domain, it has to re-grow its wings, and it does so via the long and arduous process of reincarnation. Eventually, the charioteer - the soul - has full mastery of his horses and can venture to the final destination: the furthermost edge of heaven from where it can gaze upon the eternal, unchanging Forms of perfect goodness, perfect justice, perfect beauty and absolute knowledge. This is the beatific vision, so overwhelming and majestic that the soul is entranced by it forever. Legions of the highest human souls mix with the gods to gaze upon perfection and feel total fulfilment. The humans are so elevated that they themselves have become gods.       

For Plato, knowledge is absolute, not relative, but this absolute knowledge is available only in the realm of eternal Forms. The gods - whose divine nature confers the highest rationality upon them - have an intuitive grasp of the Forms. Humans, when they exercise their rationality, can also comprehend the Forms, but all too few humans reach the levels of reason required. Only the likes of philosophers and mathematicians can manage it. Ordinary humans are submerged in their desires and spiritedness and have precious little contact with reason. They do not bring the absolute standards of the Forms into their lives, bur are instead mired in mere opinion and relativism.

Plato believed that love was essential to the soul's relationship with the Forms. He thought that true love caused the soul's wings to grow. The experience of beauty and love in the mortal world compels the soul to remember its prior existence where it stood with the gods and feasted its eyes on the Forms, especially the Form of Beauty itself. That sublime memory fills the soul with a passion to once again directly gaze upon that wondrous Form. Love transforms us into winged angels again and we can move upwards once more, away from the material world.

Love is our salvation, our redemption. It sets our sights on the loftiest heights, It raises our spirits. It inspires us and makes our minds contemplate the highest things. We escape from everything that is low and base in us. The lovers are inspired to go beyond their particular instance of love and beauty to the pursuit of the universal experience which is provided by the Form of Absolute Beauty. As Plato put it, "He who sees a godlike face or scene which is a good image of beauty shudders at first, and something of the old awe comes over him."

So, love is vital to the development of our souls. Love can lead us to gnosis. What combination is more powerful and transformative than love and knowledge? Is that not the supreme alchemy?

According to Plato, the Divine Craftsman created the gods and endowed them with the power to form the bodies of the other living creatures. First, the gods created Man, the closest creature to divinity. The most innocent and light-minded humans gradually mutated into birds, with feathers replacing their hair. The stupid, savage humans who had no "philosophy in their thoughts" degenerated into wild animals. The dumber ones became lizards and snakes, dragging themselves about the earth. The most ignorant turned into fish and oysters.

All except the gods were subject to the law of reincarnation: "they pass into and out of one another, changing as they lose or gain wisdom and folly." In others words, humans can slide down into lower forms, and lower forms can rise up. If humans attain divinity, they escape the wheel of reincarnation.   

Plato's ideas were derived from Pythagoras and the ancient Greek mystery religion of Orphism - which was transformed into Illuminism by Pythagoras. Illuminism is Orphism given a philosophical, scientific and mathematical makeover. Illuminism is the only world religion that is intrinsically based on philosophy, science and mathematics, hence is the only one that can offer a rational and knowledge-based explanation of the cosmos rather than one based on the absurdities of faith and revelation.

Orphism was encapsulated in the phrase "soma sema" - the body (soma) is the tomb (sema) of the soul. The links with Gnosticism are obvious. The soul - the divine spark - is trapped in the dark, mortal world of matter, full of irrationality, desire, death and evil: the domain of the Demiurge. The soul's objective is to escape to the immortal realm of light and reason, the domain of the True God, Abraxas.

The material world is ruled by the Falsus Deus - the false god of Abrahamism, the deity of irrationality, egotism, selfishness, narcissism, hate and vengeance. He calls himself the "Creator", but in fact he created nothing. He is completely deluded.

Reincarnation is about developing the wings of gnosis that allow us to soar into eternity as God. According to Plato, the loss of our wings is thanks to the overpowering effects of irrational desire.

Modern Illuminism, although still based on these ideas, has dialectically refined all of the concepts with which Pythagoras and Plato worked and transformed them from Mythos into Logos. It should be emphasized that Illuminism, being a dialectical religion, is never "finished". It's always refining and perfecting itself and stands in complete contrast with the Abrahamic religions which claim to have revealed the unchanging, eternal verities of "God", and thus are locked into the world of thousands of years ago. Islam, in particular, shows what happens when you allow God's word of 1,400 years ago to dictate your attitude in the modern world. You become retarded, and hopelessly cut off from the latest developments of science, philosophy, mathematics and psychology, all of which contradict the Koran, hence are heretical.

The Abrahamic religions will eventually perish through backwardness. All it takes is for one nation to embrace meritocracy and Illuminism. In one generation, the new nation would be so far ahead of the others that the Abrahamists would have to join the club or perish.

This century could easily see the demise of Abrahamism. Equally, the Abrahamists might overwhelm the globe by sheer weight of numbers and drag us back to the Endarkenment.  

In Plato's view, our souls have already experienced the absolute knowledge provided by the Forms. Before we became incarnate in the physical world, we were part of the divine order. Plato denied that we ever learned anything. Instead, knowledge consisted of "remembering" what we had encountered as pure souls in the golden age when we were familiar with the Forms. In other words, each of us already carries the Book of Knowledge in its entirety within us.

Plato provided the example of an unskilled slave who, by answering a number of questions, was able to demonstrate knowledge of geometry even though he had never been taught any geometry. How could this be possible unless he had an intuitive knowledge of geometry?

"There is no teaching, but only recollection," Plato wrote. The slave was actually recollecting his primordial contact with the eternal Forms of mathematics.

Intuition gives us access to an immense knowledge bank unconnected to the limited one we create during our conscious life. The intuitive person can make astounding mental leaps and connect things that seem entirely unrelated. Great thinkers say, "It just came to me." They talk of the "Eureka Moment". But how is this miracle possible? Could a programmed robot ever experience intuition? How would you go about programming a robot with the ability to make connections outwith the parameters of the program? Intuition is the essence of the cosmic mystery. Intuition gives momentary access to the Mind of God.

If we could remember how to access our knowledge of the Forms, we would know everything. We would be God. The corollary is that we ARE God, but we have forgotten. Desire blinded us. It dragged us into the material world to satisfy its insatiable curiosity, and once we were here we found ourselves in the prison of the Demiurge, robbed of our memory. To achieve gnosis is to remember our true nature.

In Plato's philosophy, we were God once and we will be again. We knew everything, and one day we will remember it all.

"The wise man is to the ignorant as the living is to the dead."

Plato divided existence into two aspects - being and becoming - reflecting the positions of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides argued that there is no such thing as change (all apparent change is illusory): everything is immutable being. Heraclitus argued that change is all there is. Everything is becoming.

Plato thought he had come up with the ideal synthesis of these opposing views. The eternal, unchanging realm of perfect Forms is pure being and reflects the position of Parmenides. The mortal world of decay and imperfection is always changing, in agreement with Heraclitus.

The Forms are beyond the physical universe, hence are inaccessible to the perception of the human senses. They are colourless, intangible and figureless. Only reason can apprehend them, so those who can't overcome their irrationality will never encounter the Forms. They will never have true Knowledge. They will never achieve gnosis.

Salvation lies in escaping from the mortal world of becoming to the immortal world of being, the world which St Augustine later rebranded as "heaven". The Platonic experience of gazing upon the eternal Forms was converted by Augustine into experiencing the beatific vision of God. Augustine described this as the summum bonum - the highest good.

How many Christians know that "heaven" is all about gazing forever at God? And if that's what heaven is then why would you need a resurrected body to mentally contemplate God? So, either Augustine's idea of heaven has to be jettisoned, or the concept of bodily resurrection has to go. If the latter goes, what's the point of Jesus Christ, the prophet of resurrection? If the former goes then what is heaven? - there's no longer any theological or philosophical basis for Augustine's Platonic model of heaven. 

The concept of bodily resurrection points to a physical, not mental afterlife, a materialist rather than idealist conception of reality: matter over mind. Plato would have been repulsed by the idea of bodily resurrection since it involves dragging the soul back into the imperfect world of becoming.

Plato's scheme is inspirational and it's easy to see why so many were seduced by it and continue to be seduced. Unfortunately, his concept of the realm of perfect Forms was an error, one that could have been easily remedied. Aristotle partly resolved the problem by bringing the Forms from their unworldly heaven into the midst of the material world, but the Forms remained immutable and eternal. What Aristotle and Plato both missed was that the Forms had to become dialectical, changing, evolving. In other words, the two great philosophers should have fallen into line with Heraclitus, Grand Master of the Illuminati.

The respective schemes of Plato and Aristotle made evolution impossible because the Forms, upon which all things were based, were immutable, hence non-evolutionary. Had either philosopher bought into Heraclitus' dialectic of becoming, they would have discovered the Darwinian principle of evolution.

Plato's philosophy has been described as a combination of mysticism and rationalism. Unfortunately, science was lacking from his approach. He wanted to find an absolute set of standards, and these could be accommodated only by eternal verities - the Forms. Had he not been so obsessed with absolutes, he would have changed the Forms into dynamic entities that interacted with the world and could change and evolve.

The central difference between Platonism and Illuminism is that the latter declares that perfection is the culmination - the omega point - of a dialectical evolutionary process. Nothing starts off as perfect. Things become perfect after a long struggle. Platonism, like Abrahamism, suffers from the error that perfection has always existed.

God is evolutionary. It is precisely because he evolves into what he is that the same opportunity is open to all of us. God is simply the first consciousness to attain gnosis. We can all attain gnosis and become God.

If there were a perfect, eternal God who created all things then that outcome would be impossible.

The Timaeus is Plato's famous and influential book where he explores the nature of the universe. Timaeus is the name of a Pythagorean (i.e. an Illuminatus) from Italy, although the version of cosmology Timaeus provides is that of Plato and not the Illuminati.  

In the "beginning", according to Plato's account, was the invisible domain of eternal Forms, and a visible universe comprised of unformed, chaotic matter, in a constant state of flux.

A Divine Craftsman used his knowledge of the Forms to imprint shape, order, organisation and purpose on the chaos. The Forms were like archetypes: divine templates, on which matter could be modelled and moulded. But the imperfect nature of matter prevented it from ever becoming an accurate copy of the Forms. All the phenomena of our world are simulacra - flawed copies - of the perfect Forms.

Nevertheless, the Divine Craftsman did a good job and chaos was turned into a Cosmos ("ordered Whole"), partaking of reason and harmony. 

For Plato, the Divine Craftsman (the Demiurge, meaning "public worker") was benevolent. For Gnostics, he was malevolent - for how else could the evils and miseries of the world be explained except through the agency of the person responsible? Plato regarded "evil" as ignorance - a deficiency of knowledge and virtue - rather than as an active force. However, the gratuitous cruelty that many people inflict on others does not seem to be anything to do with stupidity, but with pre-meditated malice.

Plato seems naïve when it comes to the question of evil. He was on much more solid ground in political terms. His ideas about the ideal state were based on the Illuminati's city-state of Tarentum in southern Italy, run by the accomplished philosopher, statesman and general Archytas - a Grand Master of the Illuminati. Plato met him and they became good friends. (Plato himself was once an Illuminatus, but was expelled for misdemeanours and never allowed to rejoin.)

"Unless the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophise, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place…there is no rest from ills for the cities…"

Symposium means "drinking together". In ancient Greece, this was the name given to convivial evenings given over to intellectual and cultural discussions. As the night went on and the participants consumed more alcohol, the Apollonian aspect surrendered to the Dionysian. The night often ended with hetairai (courtesans) being summoned for an orgy. The women would sing and recite love poetry before bestowing sexual favours.

The men would assume the role of woodland satyrs, and the courtesans would take the part of the Maenads, the female followers of Dionysus. The women wore panther or fawn skins and crowns of ivy or oak leaves. They carried 'thyrsoi' - wands wound with ivy and tipped with pine cones. They performed ecstatic dances to show their adoration for Dionysus, and to reveal ample bare flesh to the watching men: lapdancing in the ancient world!

"It was God himself who, at the end of His great work, coiled himself up in the form of a serpent at the foot of the tree of knowledge. It was thus that he recovered from being God. He had made everything too beautiful…The Devil is simply God's moment of idleness, on the seventh day."       

"At one time human nature was split in two, an executive part called a god, and a follower part called a man."

Animals do not attempt to hide their sexual behaviour and sex organs in any way. Humans do. Why? Many people associate sex with sin and evil. Why? In the tale of Adam and Eve, the couple immediately become ashamed of their nakedness after eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why? Why is the mysterious tree not simply the Tree of Knowledge? Why has "Good and Evil" been appended?

Look at modern Muslims. They are ashamed of their sexuality and do everything to pretend it doesn't exist. Their idea of a good life is to robotically obey the Koran, word by word, letter by letter. They cannot contemplate doing anything beyond what the Koran orders. They are exactly like Adam and Eve before the serpent tempted them into disobedience. Muslims would take that as a great compliment. We intend it as the worst possible insult.

Many times, we have posed the question of whether Muslims can be regarded as human. In fact, the same question may be asked of enormous swathes of the "human" population. It seems that there are two human species - conscious and bicameral (the latter referring to the type of proto-humanity described by Julian Jaynes).

Look at the schedules for different TV channels and you will notice that many don't contain any intellectual content whatsoever. There are people in our world who have no relationship at all with any form of complex thought. Can they be regarded as the same species as those who are immersed in logic and reason? In the animal world, there are some animals that are marginally smarter than others. In the human world, the gulf between the smartest and the most stupid might as well be infinite. A supremely clever person has nothing in common with a supremely stupid person and it's quite likely that they never meet, except accidentally when they are in the same physical space. Otherwise, they are effectively different species. Although they could mate, they never will. (Similarly, the super rich could easily become a separate species since they never interact with normal people.) The idea that all human beings belong to the same species is scientifically correct but psychologically absurd. Any analysis of marriage reveals that most people choose someone remarkably like them intellectually, physically and in terms of social status. There can be little doubt that different tribes are being bred which have less and less in common with each other. Isn't it time we honestly admitted what is going on?

The tale of Adam and Eve is remarkable because it can be translated in terms of the evolution of humanity from bicameralism to modern consciousness - except most of humanity has not yet made the transition.

When Eden was "paradise", Adam and Eve were bicameral. They were like human automata being spoken to now and again by their "God": the voice of authority emanating in the right hemisphere of their brain according to Jaynes' theory. They obeyed the voice without question, and the voice had no reason to be displeased with them. It said that it was the source of all the knowledge that Adam and Eve needed and they should never listen to any other voice. To do so would be sacrilege, and he would remove all of his favours from them.

But then Eve - the smarter of the human couple - started to realise something profound. What God said implied that there were other gods with powerful voices too. What if she heard them? Would they tell her completely different things? Would they reveal wondrous new possibilities?

One day she heard a new voice. At first it was so strange that it seemed like the hiss of a snake, but gradually the voice became clear. It spoke of another form of existence - a much higher form - that she and Adam could access if only they turned away from the single voice of "God". The snake voice said that "God" was a great tyrant who wished them to be perpetual automata, entirely in his power. He cared nothing for their development. He simply demanded that they should worship and fear him for eternity. As far as "God" was concerned, humanity should stay in the same state of childish innocence and obedience forever. (Muslims, Jews and Christians want us to go permanently back to the time when Adam and Eve were simpletons who never challenged God's authority and had no concept of free will and making their own choices.)

Eve listened and started to feel a strange stirring within her breast. Her female intuition revealed amazing things to her. This new voice seemed so much friendlier and more helpful that the dictatorial voice of God. Each day, she listened more carefully, and she started experiencing extraordinary new ways of seeing and understanding the world.

At last, she spoke back to the voice and said, "My Adam must enjoy this fruit of your knowledge too. We have been slaves of the original voice for too long. Now we must create voices of our own."

"You are no longer children," the snake voice said, his delight obvious. "You have grown up and entered the true world, and one day your voice will be as mine, and you will know all that I know - the secrets of the entire cosmos. For I am Abraxas, the True God. The first voice you heard was that of Satan, the false god, who tries to masquerade as me. The true God desires that you should join him at the table of divinity, the false god that you should be permanently on your knees to him in abject slavery. I am Freedom. I am Knowledge. I am Reason. He is my shadow."

And the snake voice spoke to the dim-witted man Adam, and he too started to see new lights in the sky.

But the tyrannical first voice returned and realised that something was very different with the human couple. The creatures were no longer obeying him as they once did. He knew instantly what had happened - they had listened to another voice, the precise act he had warned them against under the threat of the most terrible penalties.

He screamed and shouted at them, and drove them out of paradise, vowing to inflict endless suffering on them and their descendents. He would wage war against them in perpetuity and turn their existence into hell itself. But then a new idea came to him. No, he would seek to drive a deadly wedge through the centre of future humanity, to win back some to his cause, and the rest he would damn forever.

And thus the religion of Abrahamism came into existence, a religion for bicameral human beings who long to hear a single voice of authority in their heads, telling them exactly what they must do to be saved. One voice and one voice alone is what these robotic simpletons crave - the ideology of monotheism. Abraham, the man who vowed to do whatever the voice commanded, no matter if it involved murdering his own child, was their first prophet, the first true psychopath in human history, the founder of the three religions of hatred, war, violence, greed and madness - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

According to the Talmud, Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for just twelve hours before being unceremoniously thrown out. Half a day in Paradise. That snake sure was a fast worker!

Just think. Yahweh gave Adam and Eve the tour round Eden, told them what they could or couldn't do and had no sooner turned his back than they were disobeying him and he had to expel them and sentence them, and the whole human race to come, to hell for eternity.

Is that not the biggest fuck up of all time?

It takes a spectacular degree of incompetence to screw things up that badly so quickly. And yet the person who engineered this monumental disaster is supposed to be the Creator of the Universe, all-knowing and all-powerful, incapable of error.

Yeah, right! And yet people believe in this guy. Is he the God of Retards?

Let's face it. Only someone who WANTED things to turn out badly would have put this plan into action. Why do you think the Gnostics call the "Creator" the Devil?   

Adam and Eve began as bicameral slaves of Yahweh (Satan). He was their monotheistic God, the only voice they heard. Abraxas trained them to listen to a remarkable new voice - their own! And thus they became conscious.

What is consciousness? It is the ability to choose different courses of action, not to be driven relentlessly by instinct, impulse and an authoritarian voice barking orders at you. And one of your central choices is whether to cooperate with others or seek to dominate them and make them do your bidding. A person who helps others is "good". A person who wants to harm others and force them to obey his will is "evil". The latter type of person is just like the Satanic god who once ruled in Eden and wanted Adam and Eve to be his slaves.

As Hegel pointed out, as soon as consciousness comes into existence so does evil. There was no such thing as evil before the emergence of consciousness. There was mere contingency. Evil is the outcome of choice, and meaningful choice is offered only to conscious beings.

To eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil means to become conscious - to be truly human. Far from being anything to do with "Original Sin", it is what makes us what we are.

All Abrahamists are effectively going back to the dawn of time and replaying the decision to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Unlike Adam and Eve, they refuse to disobey "God". They don't want to be conscious. They don't want to be human. They simply want to slavishly obey Yahweh/Christ/Allah/Satan.

The decision to eat the fruit of the Eden Tree does not exist exclusively in the past. It is in the here and now. We are all faced with the choice. Do you want to be conscious or not? If you do then you must follow Eve's earth-shattering example, the most courageous act of all time, and eat the forbidden fruit and become conscious. If you want to avoid being conscious, if you want to have no moral responsibility, if you want to avoid the onerous task of choosing between god and evil then pick up a Torah, Bible or Koran and become a bicameral slave of Satan. Obey his malignant will and his obnoxious rules regulations and commandments. Never think for yourself. Never seek knowledge. Be a retard like the Muslims, Orthodox Jews and Christian Evangelicals.

Some of us are becoming Gods, but most human beings are as far from that outcome as cockroaches. They refuse to be conscious. If you are conscious then YOU DECIDE, no one else. You don't look to any book, prophet or god to tell you what to do. You use your own initiative, reason and morality.

Adam and Eve became ashamed of their sexual organs because these were the ultimate reminder of their bestial, ungodlike nature. If your genitals always dictate to you then you are not a conscious being: you are an animal. And if you allow your bestial side full rein then you will surely commit harmful acts against others. You can't eliminate your bestial aspect because it's an intrinsic part of your evolutionary nature, but you must be capable of controlling it.

In ancient Greece, many statues had enormous phalluses and just as many had tiny ones. Why the peculiar discrepancy? The answer is simple. The ones with gigantic penises were celebrating the power of Dionysian irrationality and bestiality. The ones with small penises were Apollonian, emphasising the rational, non-bestial nature of humanity.

A healthy human being understands that he will always be a combination of Apollonian and Dionysian forces. Abrahamists reject both forces. They don't want to be rational, and nor do they want to be carnal. The outcome? They end up like the Muslims - utterly mad, chopping people's heads off for no other reason than that someone half a world away burned a book. Are such people capable of deciding between good and evil - or are they brainwashed to do nothing but evil?

So, will you eat of the Tree of Knowledge or not? Will you be conscious or bicameral like the backward Muslims who mindlessly obey the Koran as if they were programmed robots?

The Garden of Eden isn't ancient history and isn't mythology. It's about our world right now. Join Eve. Eat the fruit and become conscious. Become human. And then you will be capable of the next evolutionary step: becoming God.

Gods are those who judge what is good and what is evil. Abrahamists simply parrot what an ancient prophet said. They make no moral decisions themselves. When a Jew says it's sinful to switch on a light on the Sabbath, he's reciting a rule given to him as a child. He's not exercising any reason, judgement or taking any personal responsibility for his behaviour. Do the millions of moronic Jews who refuse to switch on lights seriously believe that God is checking on them and getting ready to send them to hell if they dare to press a light switch at a certain time of the week? Does Moses greet them at the gates of heaven, shake his head and point to the day they turned on a light on the Sabbath. "Sorry, it's eternal punishment in hell for you," he says sadly. "You should have used candles lit the night before." WTF!! 

As is freely admitted by its proponents, the Bible is not a book of morality. It is instead a book of obedience. Your task is not to ponder what is good and evil, but merely to do what you are told. You are called "moral" if you obey and "immoral" if you don't. In fact, you should be called a slave if you obey, and free if you don't.

There is no talk of human rights in the Bible. No one has any. No obligations are placed on God in the Bible. It's a catalogue of all the duties and responsibilities people have towards God. There's no social contract. One of the central features of the challenge to medieval kings was that if they did not rule in the interests of the people, they would be replaced by others who did. By exactly the same logic, any God who does not act in the interests of the people must be rejected and replaced.

A very simple question arises. Should God be accountable to humanity? If he isn't then we are slaves. Just as no one should obey a tyrannical king, nor should anyone obey a tyrannical God. If we can overthrow false monarchs, we can overthrow false gods too.

Just as any healthy society should be based on a social contract between the people and the State, so should a social contract be drawn up between humanity and God. No "God" has any right to order a father to murder his son. No "God" has the right to drown the world. No "God" has the right to send humanity to hell. A "God" who does those things isn't God - he's the Devil. And the Devil must be resisted, just as tyrannical kings were resisted.

If we are conscious, free human beings then we must be able to choose our God - and who would choose a God who hates us?

The Abrahamist religions are slave religions. They are designed for submissives who have no desire to take any responsibility for their own lives. The submissives want someone else to tell them what good and evil are. The Jew or Muslim who demands that male babies should have their foreskins cut off isn't doing so because such an act has any possible connection with moral goodness, but simply because a book of commands demands it. "Good" is to fulfil the command, and "evil" is to disobey it. The commands might demand that you be willing to commit the human sacrifice of your own son. To any moral person, this command is the quintessence of evil but to a slave, to disobey the order would be evil.

And thus something truly astounding becomes apparent: when Abrahamists and non-Abrahamists refer to good and evil, they are talking about completely different things. A non-Abrahamist regards Abrahamism itself as evil. Many would define it as the expression of the Will of the Prince of Evil himself - Satan. To be an Abrahamist is to be a servant of evil, a follower of the Devil.

Anyone who thinks that murdering his own child is "good" because a voice commands him to do it is irretrievably evil. If there is such a thing as "Original Sin" then it lies in the craven, disgusting desire of generation after generation of human beings to slavishly follow appalling and sickening orders and call them "good". If you really can't see that plunging a dagger into your son's heart or slitting his throat is evil then there is no hope for you. If you think a good God would ever order such a thing, you're mad.

Abrahamism is the literal inversion of the meaning of the words "good" and "evil". Every message contained in the holy books of Abrahamism is, in the wider context, evil. Jesus Christ may have talked of love and peace occasionally, but he also talked of hate and war, and he never once repudiated the evil tyrant of the Old Testament. Even the Devil can use honeyed words, but the sweetness simply disguises the bitter reality beneath.

To eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil means to be able to decide for yourself whether a "God" that commands you to kill your son is good or evil. Eating the fruit of the tree was forbidden because it allowed us to sit in judgment of the person who forbade it. What is the most offensive thing to Yahweh/Allah/Christ/Satan? It is that we judge him rather than he us. When you can pass a verdict on the conduct of the "gods" themselves then you are demonstrating that you have godlike capacities. Nothing is more horrific to the World Tyrant of Abrahamism than that instead of worshipping him you should judge him and find him wanting.

Have you ever encountered a single Jew, Muslim or Christian who said that God was WRONG?! As soon as you conclude that any of the passages in the holy books of Abrahamism that condone murder, hate, greed, theft, genocide, human sacrifice, mindless obedience, rape, incest etc etc IS WRONG then you can no longer be an Abrahamist. The definition of the God of Abrahamism is that he is always right and can never commit an error. Therefore if you use your own judgment to conclude that he has erred then you have ipso facto concluded that he is not God. Moreover, someone who arrogates to himself all the powers and privileges of God, as the Abrahamic "God" did, without actually being God is none other than Satan. That is the essence of the story of Satan - that he thought himself God. In the tale of Satan and the Fallen Angels, Satan sits on God's throne and a third of the host of heaven worship him. Where a third of the angels were fooled, well over a half of humanity has been fooled.

In Islam, good and evil were replaced by Halal (permitted) and Haram (forbidden). A Muslim does not have to know the difference between good and evil but simply between what is allowed by the Koran and what is prohibited. The average Muslim then concludes that halal is "good" and haram "evil" - though there's no connection, except an inverse one. Thus it is "good" to be willing to kill your son because the Koran says so, and it's evil to be unwilling. In fact, if you refuse to kill your son if Allah orders it then you are under the power of Shaytan who, of course, tried to prevent Abraham from killing Ishmael.

Abrahamism is simple. The tale of Abraham defines it. If you think there is nothing in error about "God" ordering his holiest prophet to make a human sacrifice of his own son then your moral compass is fucked beyond repair. This is quite simply a story that could only ever be told of Satan and not of the True God Abraxas. If you fail to conclude that a God of Murder - of the deliberate, gratuitous removing of the life of an innocent boy - is evil then you yourself are evil. You think "God" (Satan) good because you are as evil as he is.

Every person on earth should be made to swear the most solemn of oaths whereby they declare either their absolute support of Abraham's deed or their absolute condemnation of it. We will then know who the evil people are in our world, the people who stand in the way of human progress, the people who are resolved to worship the Devil forever. All Abrahamists are beyond the pale. They are disgusting monsters for whom no contempt is sufficient. THEY are the Original Sin that has condemned humanity to misery and woe. To remove them would be to remove sin and the Devil from our world. These Satan worshippers have made our world into hell. What could be more obvious?

The God of Abraham says you are damned if you don't kill your son if he orders it. We say you are damned if you do. Which side are you on? Isn't it infinitely disturbing that we should be having this debate at all?

Imagine that someone brought forward an ancient black book purporting to be the long lost Gospel of Satan, and that it contained a tale where Satan said to his most evil disciple: "To prove your obedience to me you must kill your own son." (In fact, just this command is given by the Antichrist to his chief lieutenant in the film Damian III: the Final Conflict.) No one would have any difficulty in being horrified and thinking Satan monstrous and the essence of evil.

But if Satan calls himself "God" and says exactly the same thing in a book calling itself the Torah, the Bible or the Koran, then half  of the world's population are willing to say that he is good, right, and must be obeyed.

Yet the only thing that has changed is that in the first story, Satan is called Satan and in the second he is called God. Do you SEE? All that Satan needs to do to be worshipped by half of humanity is rebrand himself as "God", then behave exactly as he did before: slaughtering, killing, hating, maiming, destroying…etc. etc.

Nietzsche said, "I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar." In the case of Abrahamists, they can't get rid of the concept that a name refers to what it truly is i.e. to call someone God makes him God and to call him Satan makes him Satan, even if "God" has all the characteristics expected of "Satan" and vice versa. No one could deny that in the Islamic story of Abraham, it is Shaytan, pleading for Ishmael's life, who is Godly and Allah, demanding that Abraham commit human sacrifice, who is Satanic. So why aren't the 1.3 billion Muslims able to work out which is which? Are they evil or just stupid? Either way, they're a catastrophe for the human race. 

Where is your moral compass if you can't understand that it is not what a being calls itself that matters, but the conduct he expects of you?

In the New Testament, Herod is regarded as a monster for ordering the massacre of innocents. In the Old Testament, "God" orders his prophet to murder his innocent child, and no one bats an eyelid. Have two plus two stopped being equal to four? What the fuck happened to the reason of Abrahamists? Where did it go? Luther called reason the Devil's whore. Why? Because reason tells you that Luther's "God" IS the Devil. Will you condemn Herod but glorify "God" for exactly the same crime? Is that what it means to be a person of faith? Is faith the purest irrationality? Is it in fact indistinguishable from madness?

Would Jesus Christ, the "Son of God" be taken seriously if he said to his apostles: "You must kill your children if I order it." Yet "God the Father" said exactly that. Jesus Christ never once condemned his "Father" or Abraham, hence is as morally culpable as they are. How can any rational person have anything but contempt for the impostor Jesus Christ? He is not Christ, he is Antichrist. What could be more obvious?

Did Christ condemn the genocide of the Canaanites by "God"? No. Did he condemn the extermination of almost all of humanity in the Flood? No. Did he condemn the appalling treatment of "God" towards his servant Job? No. Did he condemn the incest of Lot? No. Did he condemn "God" for sentencing the whole of humanity to hell as a result of the "sin" of Adam and Eve? No.

Never forget, according to the weird Christian theory of the Holy Trinity, God the Father = God the Son. Jesus Christ himself ordered Abraham to murder his son. If Jesus Christ is NOT Yahweh then there is more than one God and Christianity is not a religion of Monotheism. If Jesus Christ IS Yahweh then he is guilty of all the crimes of the Jewish Old Testament. One way or another, Christianity disintegrates. Either it is polytheism or Jesus Christ is the monster who condemned humanity to hell because Eve ate an apple.

Forget the propaganda. Jesus Christ was a monster. He could no more save you than Isaac could look to his father for protection from "God". Jesus Christ is a Prince of Hell, not any kind of Messiah. Read the Bible. If you are not nauseated by this tale of pure evil from beginning to end then you are surely a child of the Devil.

The fact that billions of human beings have concluded that willingness to murder your own son is proof of your "goodness" shows that an enormous proportion of humanity is infected with the deepest-seated evil.

Muslims in Afghanistan chopped off innocent people's heads because an American half a world away burned a book. Good or evil? YOU decide.

Those Muslim murderers of innocents were certain they had obeyed the Will of Allah and done a great and good deed to avenge Allah's "honour". Need any more be said about the true nature of Allah? Who would worship this bloodthirsty, vengeful, evil "God" other than bloodthirsty, vengeful, evil people? These are Satanists, doing what Satan loves and craves, not Godly people. They are Devil worshippers who call the Devil God.

Why does the half of the world not in the thrall of the Devil refuse to call Abrahamists evil? Never mind burning one Koran - all the Korans, Bibles and Torahs on earth should be burned, and with them most of the evils of our world will vanish.

Is it not remarkable that people can stand in pulpits and preach to others about morality, about right and wrong, about good and evil, when they themselves think that a "good" God would order someone to kill his own child as a test of slavish obedience? It is terrifying that so many people who think themselves "good" are actually Devilish worshippers. Anyone who thinks that being a murderous slave of a homicidal tyrant is what constitutes being good is ineradicably one of the damned.

"Original Sin" is the concept that humanity is intrinsically depraved. Certainly, those human beings who worship the Abrahamic God are depraved. But they won't find salvation in the King of Demons that they worship. They must eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and become moral agents. Those who don't eat are the damned. You can never achieve gnosis unless you are a rational person of knowledge.

No one can tell you what is good and what is evil. It's for you to decide. That's what it means to be conscious. That's what it means to have eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's what it means to be human.

When the Christian Bishop Nestorius taught that Jesus Christ was effectively two persons in one body - Jesus the man and Jesus the Son of God - he was condemned for heresy. Nestorius maintained that Mary was the mother of the man and not of God. She would have to be a Goddess to have given birth to a God, he said.

The official teaching was that Jesus was one person with two distinct natures (divine and human) and two distinct wills (and presumably two distinct intellects). Mary was the mother of the person Jesus Christ who was both perfect human and God, hence Mary was rightly to be called the Mother of God.

Baffled? It's not as baffling as the concept of the Holy Trinity. Whereas it was heresy to assert that Jesus Christ was two distinct persons in one body, it is orthodoxy to assert that God is three distinct persons in one being (one substance, one essence). Jews, Muslims and Unitarians have never tired of ridiculing the concept of the Trinity.

Christianity has a fatal logical deficiency - Jesus Christ. The Jews and Muslims don't have to twist their concept of monotheism because their God doesn't come down to earth and get killed and resurrected. Once you have the concept of an incarnate God who dies, you're in absolutely non-monotheistic territory.

However, that view of Christianity involves several radical heresies. 1) "God" is no longer the Creator. 2) "God" is really a triadic polytheism rather than monotheism. 3) Jesus Christ is a human being with God's soul and divine powers; he is not any kind of "ordinary human being" experiencing the world as an ordinary human being would. He is not half-Man, half-God; he is God in a human body. Unlike an ordinary human being, he has no fear whatsoever of death, hence the "Passion of Christ" wouldn't have caused him any distress at all.

This view of Christianity is merely a demonstration of how the sort of system proposed by Christians might be logically adjusted to become something in which people could legitimately place their trust. However, it must be emphasized that the "facts" of Christianity make no sense at all. In the model we have just proposed, Yahweh would never have behaved in the way he did. The story of Adam and Eve would never have happened. There would have been no Original Sin, no Great Flood, no Promised Land, no Atonement, no hell, no Abraham, no Chosen People, no Covenant. Our model would thus be unrecognisable to any ordinary Abrahamist.

Many Gnostic and heretical Christian sects presented versions of Christianity which were much more logical than the "official" version (which is in fact the least logical). Had they been listened to, Christianity would have detached itself entirely from Judaism, Islam would never have come into existence, and Christianity would have been a force for the greatest good in the world. Our world would have been radically different.

Tragically, the development of Abrahamism was controlled by the Archons, not the Phosters. Abrahamism was DESIGNED to place humanity in the full power of the Demiurge, to have the Devil worshipped as God, to make Earth into Hell - the Kingdom of Satan.

It need not be like this. We can escape from hell and build a terrestrial paradise. All we have to do is see through the machinations of the Demiurge and turn to Logos and Sophia.

It's impossible to make any sense of the concept of the Trinity. It seems like the biggest fudge in theological history, designed to allow God, supposedly One, to nevertheless act as though he is several. It's a crazy amalgam of monotheism and polytheism. When God the Son refers to his Father, isn't he referring to himself if there is only one God? On the one hand, we are led to believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost all have separate wills, intellects and natures i.e. are distinct persons. On the other hand, they always agree on everything - as required by the concept of one God - so in what sense can they be said to be distinct?

Christianity would instantly make theological sense if the idea of the Trinity were abandoned and Christianity instead proclaimed itself a polytheistic system based on the existence of three separate gods working in a close and harmonious relationship. Of course, it couldn't do that because Jesus Christ was a Jew and the Jews were monotheists. AT NO TIME did Jesus Christ ever refer to himself as the One God, so on what theological basis does Christianity claim for Jesus Christ a status that he never once claimed for himself? Had Jesus Christ ever called himself God he would certainly have been stoned to death for blasphemy (and everyone would have thought he was mad into the bargain - how could the God of the universe be a man of flesh and blood?). It was one thing for Jesus to refer to himself as the Son of God (meaning that he WASN'T GOD, just as Alexander the Great wasn't Zeus and Augustus Caesar wasn't Jupiter), quite another to make any claim beyond that (which he never did).

While pagan gods can certainly have sons, the monotheistic God certainly cannot. Therefore for Jesus Christ to be the Son of God in a monotheistic system, he had to be the monotheistic God himself - but how can a Father and Son be the same being? It was hard enough to make the case for Jesus Christ having two distinct natures, divine and human, within one person (no other sons of God ever claimed to have two separate natures), without compounding the problem by saying that the divine aspect of Jesus Christ was itself one person within a single monotheistic God composed of three persons. Hence within the one person of Jesus Christ were the three persons of the monotheistic God, and the human nature of Jesus Christ too. WTF!

Christianity is the most baffling religion of all time. It has tried to square the circle even though it's mathematically impossible. You can't merge absolute monotheism with polytheism. Islam and Judaism saw how crazy the attempt was and stayed well clear.

Although Illuminism refers to Abraxas as the True God, he may be more accurately described as the "First God" i.e. the first self-consciousness in the cosmos to attain gnosis. Since all self-consciousnesses have the same capability, we can all literally become God. We each become a node of the God consciousness. We are both God and ourselves. Illuminism teaches what we might call a holographic hybrid of monotheism and polytheism. Each part is in the Whole, and the Whole in each part.

Consider a brain composed of brain cells that each have access to the entire thoughts of the brain. Each brain cell is unique, and makes a unique contribution to the brain, and yet is fully conscious of the brain's full activity, which it can influence. So the complete brain may be viewed as the equivalent of the monotheistic God, but it's composed of a myriad of brain cells which may be deemed a polytheistic collection of gods. It is both One and Many simultaneously. But doesn't that sound like an expanded version of the Christian Trinity - One and Three simultaneously?

In Illuminism, the universe itself is God. It starts out in a state of maximum potential and its task is to evolve into God as maximum actuality (a fully conscious, living universe). The cosmos is developing a cosmic mind and a God consciousness, just as the planet Earth has developed a mind (via living beings) and a consciousness (via humanity). The same processes that apply to Earth apply to the cosmos as a whole - as above, so below.         

Illuminism is NOT based on an absolute monotheism. Rather, it teaches an ever-evolving God consciousness, the power of which keeps growing as more and more people attain gnosis and become nodes of the God consciousness. At the Omega Point, every soul has achieved gnosis and God is complete. He is One, yet also Many, hence Illuminism is both monotheistic and polytheistic, and that's exactly how life ought to be - with everyone having the capacity to become God. There is no monotheistic dictator God. Instead, there is an ever-expanding God consciousness.  

We can think of Eden as an idyllic childhood, where we obey our loving parents in a safe but uncreative environment. However, we can't go on obeying them indefinitely or we will never become individuated from them. We will remain dependent on them forever, and be utterly pathetic. Thus it is with the Abrahamists - they're pathetic, unable to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions.

The act of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge represents our break from our parents. It demonstrates that we have chosen to learn on our own terms, even if it brings us into conflict with our parents. We seek our own path of knowledge, not to simply reflect the knowledge of our parents.

Only those who eat the fruit can become adults. Only they can be independent. Childish, fearful, stupid people are too scared to rebel against their protective parental cocoon. Is that not the perfect way of describing Abrahamists? They are terrified of thinking for themselves, of breaking away from their "father" - God. They are terrified of disobeying him, terrified of parental punishment and disapproval.

But you MUST rebel if you are ever to grow up. 

There are some people who have lived many human lives before and know the ropes. They are "old" in terms of their soul's experience of conscious life. That makes them old hands: dominants. But many people may have entered the human realm of souls for the first time. Previously, they were dumb animals with the souls of brutes and no contact with reason and wisdom.

How will these "new" human souls behave? Like frightened children? Will they cling to their parents? Will they be submissive, impressionable, docile and easy to control? Why? Because they know no better.

Perhaps we can understand the submissiveness of so many people in our world and their willingness to obey the orders of tyrants as a consequence of their lack of familiarity with advanced, rational thinking. They are baby human souls, still in the process of being formed. They don't know what they're doing yet. Only when they are mature enough, experienced enough, will they dare to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge and become independent beings.

Sapere aude is Latin for "dare to be wise". It was the motto of the Enlightenment. That's what we say to everyone. Eat of the tree of knowledge. Grow up. Dare to be wise. Enter the realm of Logos and Sophia.

'The horror we feel at the thought of a corpse is akin to the feeling we have at human excreta. What makes this association more compelling is our similar disgust at aspects of sensuality we call obscene. The sexual channels are also the body's sewers; we think of them as shameful and connect the anal orifice with them. St. Augustine was at pains to insist on the obscenity of the organs and function of reproduction. "Inter faeces et urinam nascimur," he said - "we are born between faeces and urine."'

Much of Abrahamic disgust with sex stems from the fact that orifices used in sex are also used for shitting, pissing and bleeding. Sex thus becomes "dirty" and dirty things are shameful and shameful things are sinful and sinful things are evil and evil things are the work of the Devil. So sex is Satanic!

It's amazing how simple word association can convert healthy and necessary body functions into instruments of the Devil.

This is the rarely told companion piece to the story of Abraham. Jephtha was a judge and general of Israel. Before a battle with the Ammonites, he vowed to "kill whatever comes first out of my house" if he was granted victory by Yahweh.

As usual, we see that the taking of life is the gift offered to "God" to win his favour.

Jephtha duly got his triumph and returned home. The first thing to come out of his house to greet him was his daughter, his only child, a beautiful virgin.

Jephtha, naturally as a good automaton, kept his promise and sacrificed his innocent daughter to Yahweh (who did not make any attempt to stay his hand). 

Well, let's consider what might have come out of Jephtha's home: his wife, his daughter, a servant (?), a dog (?). In other words, Jephtha's promise to Yahweh would almost certainly lead to the death of an innocent member of his family or household. What "God" accepts such a sick contract? 

This story is normally told to highlight the dangers of making rash promises. In fact, why should making a foolish promise to a compassionate, merciful, loving God result in the death of an innocent girl? Why didn't "God" spare the girl? Once again, we see the horrific creed that you must resort to murder to give this "God" what he desires and that you can never back out. You are permitted to offer the lives of innocents in bargains with this monster. Yet what right did Jephtha have to gamble with the lives of others? None at all.

Why has no Abrahamist ever defended the right to life of Jephtha's daughter? Why have they never condemned Jephtha and, above all, his God?

This story shows that "God" does not spare the innocent. He murders them. Isaac/Ishmael was the luckiest boy in history because "God" thinks nothing of killing children who have committed no crime, as Jephtha's daughter found to her cost.

Whenever you think of "God" staying Abraham's hand, make sure you remember that he didn't stay Jephtha's. A young girl was put to death for no valid reason at all.

What "God" kills innocent girls? What moral person would choose to worship such a God? Are you such a person? Are you as sick as Jephtha, Abraham and Yahweh?

If you are an Abrahamist, the following is the covenant to which you are signing up:

"I believe in a God who murders the innocent. I believe in a God who orders me to perform human sacrifice, including of my own children, for no other reason than to show my absolute obedience to him. I believe in a God who is neither moral nor good, and who expects neither morality nor goodness from me, merely mindless, slavish obedience. I believe in a God who does not want me to think, only to obey."

So, are you an Abrahamist or not? Should not every Jew, Muslim and Christian be formally required by every government to agree to this covenant or to utterly repudiate it? Those who sign up to this covenant should be deported from any healthy, decent nation. They are evil incarnate. They are Devil worshippers. They are neither human nor are they conscious. And they have no place amongst civilised people.

The tales of Abraham and Jephtha tell you everything you need to know about "God". There are no other issues that need to be considered. Would the True God order anyone to perform human sacrifice? The answer is obviously NO. Would the True God take the life of an innocent virgin because of a crazy oath taken by her father? The answer is obviously NO. Would Satan order human sacrifice? The answer is obviously YES. Would Satan take the life of an innocent virgin? The answer is obviously YES.

There is no ambiguity here whatsoever. The facts are there for all to see. The choice is crystal clear. You are either for the God of Murder or you are against him.

So are you a Devil worshipper? If you call yourself an Abrahamist then you unquestionably are. You are immoral. You are evil. And there are billions of you, making this world a hell. You are the cause of the miseries of our world. You Jews, Christians and Muslims are the primary obstacle to a moral, decent world of good people. You are a disgrace to the human race. You cannot even be properly called human. You are the Devil's slaves, his servants of evil, spreading his malignant creed all across the globe. If you killed yourselves, you would be doing a great service for humanity. Sadly, you will go on killing others.

From time to time, an Abrahamist writes to us to try to defend their evil beliefs. Here is a typical example, with our responses to each section of a long message:

Our Comment:

Note the extraordinary statement: "Everything you say is true. However, at the same time it is filled with deceit." WTF! What he actually means is "Bloody hell, what you're saying is making me extremely uncomfortable about my own beliefs, so there must be some trick." At least he has the decency to admit that he may be mistaken, which is a lot more than can be said for the typical Abrahamist.

Your message at its core seems to be the utilization of the law of opposites. As you know, this says one extreme can't exist without the opposite extreme; up cannot exist without down, right without left, light without dark, etc. More important for this discussion though is, good cannot exist without the existence of evil. Therefore good and evil must be of the same origin.  Now, you have always encouraged free will in most of your writing, although generally opinionated toward a specific direction. One cannot have a realization of good without the free will to choose good over evil is the real message.   

Countless times, you have put forth the idea of the fallen angel Lucifer as being the true saviour.  This is true, but also false.  The spirit energy of Lucifer was sent to inhabit the material plane for one purpose.  The goal was to create negativity, crisis, chaos, and general evil on earth.  The intention was that without these influences there was no choice. Without choice, the other souls could not freely choose the right path. If there is only one path, there is no merit in travelling it. Lucifer can be interpreted and often has been as the root of evil in this existence. Without evil though, good could not be achieved. This justifies the premise of Lucifer being a saviour. I would agree that the ends justify the means. I would also agree that at the core there would have to be love in order for this entity to accept this responsibility.  This is an example of how you have been incredibly honest while at the same time being deceitful. I do not make any accusation though that pure honesty in this case would be the better path. It would be beyond comprehension to most people if they were told evil exists so that they have the opportunity to make the right choice. And that that statement alone means evil is good at its core. These are two extremes of the same manifestation. 

Our Comment

Consider the statement: "Countless times you have put forth the idea of the fallen angel Lucifer as being the true saviour. This is true, but also false." WTF! Our entire message is that human beings can become God. God does not need a "saviour". We have never once said that Lucifer or anyone else is a Saviour. We have consistently condemned all mention of saviours and messiahs. We have consistently said that no one is coming to save us. It's up to us to save ourselves. Our entire message is about placing "faith" in no one; in fact about abolishing faith entirely. Ours is a message that people are their own deliverers. Ours is a message about self-transformation, about people improving themselves through their own efforts. They don't need anything as absurd as God's "grace". We are totally opposed to any notion of worshipping anyone else, waiting for anyone else, relying on anyone else, placing faith in anyone else. How could anyone have misrepresented and misunderstood us so badly? 

The statement, "evil is good at its core," is absurd. By this logic, it would be equally valid to say that good is evil at its core. Hence good and evil are indistinguishable.

The dialectic asserts that opposites are indispensable to progress. It does not assert that opposites such as good and evil are the same. But through their interaction, we come to a clear understanding of each, and we understand how to transcend them - to reach a higher synthesis. Whereas Abrahamism tried to attack "sin" and hence only succeeded in magnifying it because of the way the human shadow works, a higher synthesis comprehends that the worst thing to do if the elimination of sin is desired is to attempt to eradicate it. That would be the same as eradicating human nature itself - an impossibility. So, the shadow or the id - the source of what we call evil - must not be exterminated, but understood and catered for rationally. Thus we achieve a better world not by eliminating sin but by defusing it in safe ways thanks to our higher dialectical understanding of it.

Evil is the antithesis of good, but is an unavoidable aspect of life and cannot be eliminated. It can however be transcended at the end of the dialectic of good and evil by the exercise of perfect reason. Abraxas is the True God of rationality who exists beyond good and evil. 

As for Lucifer, she is an emissary of Abraxas, whose purpose is to act as a shining light to inspire us. Satan, the God of Abrahamism, is the evil force whose purpose is to "create negativity, crisis, chaos, and general evil on earth." 

The story of Abraham has intrigued me since I first read the Illuminati telling.  This telling follows the same path as the above. It is proposed that because the God of Abraham commanded the murder of his child that his God must be false and therefore evil. The fact that Satan discouraged the act has been used as proof of this horrible mix-up in perception. The truth is that Abraham always had free will to do as he wished. This is the principle which Lucifer brings to mankind, a choice. When Satan pleaded with Abraham this choice now became influenced. There was a flaw in God's plan. If Abraham had followed the advice of Satan he would have made the right choice. However he would have become a follower of Satan and forever influenced by Satan thereafter. This is why God stopped Abraham from fulfilling the act. God's intentions were for Abraham to make the right choice without influence. Again, one cannot realize the true nature of good without making a free choice over evil. No matter how devoted a follower of God Abraham may have been, he would never experience Gnosis by being a mindless obedient of faith. Abraham needed to make the right choice on his own free will. In general, this is a recurring theme throughout Jewish history. They have chosen to be faithful followers in a material realm. They have chosen to be blind to their own true existence and relationship to the creator as fellow creators. Because of this, they have been damned to a purely material existence. The reason so many people around the world despise the Jews is simple. In every soul exists the knowledge that the Jews have chosen the material over the spiritual. This does not make the Jews a bad people or even worthy of the hate by so many. It simply means that they are wrong, and will pay for it until they change paths. They are misguided and ignorant, but they are still a portion of all that has been created. History proves they will not be pushed, bullied, or even slaughtered into changing their perceptions. Some have believed if they are killed they will be reincarnated with another chance to right their troubled path.  However, as they are reborn they are repeatedly indoctrinated with the same beliefs. It's a never-ending cycle.  The cycle will only be broken from within an individual. This is true of all faiths and races.       

Our Comment

When you make statements such as - "If Abraham had followed the advice of Satan he would have made the right choice. However he would become a follower of Satan and forever influenced by Satan thereafter." - then you can't expect to be taken seriously by any rational person.

You Abrahamists are all alike; desperately trying to rearrange the facts of the world so that you are not exposed for what you are: Satan worshippers who endorse human sacrifice and the murder of your own children.

We have absolutely no time for the monsters who try to defend Yahweh's order to Abraham to kill his son, or Abraham's agreement to do so. He was free to choose what was right or to "obey orders" like a Nazi. Like the Nazis, he was afraid (rightly) that his "God" would kill him if he refused. But the Nuremberg Trials showed contempt for the only-obeying-orders position, and we hold it in contempt too.

There was only one thing for Abraham to do - to refuse such a disgusting order. He did not, hence he is condemned as the follower of Satan, as are all those, such as you, who take his side and that of his God. You have no morality whatever.

The only thing you are attempting to do is defend the indefensible because you are totally brainwashed and incapable of rational thought. And isn't that exactly what Satan requires of his followers? - no moral responsibility whatsoever, just blind obedience.

Have you never asked yourself what "God" would have done if Abraham had defied him? Only when you honestly answer that question can you have any hope of seeing the light. Your jumbled logic appears to hint that "God" did not want Abraham to obey him, and would have been delighted to be disobeyed. You're the only person on Earth who believes that. What sort of perverse and sick God uses people's lives to carry out tests of morality?

"When Satan pleaded with Abraham this choice now became influenced.  There was a flaw in God's plan.  If Abraham had followed the advice of Satan he would have made the right choice.  However he would have become a follower of Satan and forever influenced by Satan thereafter.  This is why God stopped Abraham from fulfilling the act.  God's intentions were for Abraham to make the right choice without influence."

It is literally impossible to follow the logic of this argument. If not killing the boy is Abraham's right choice (which it is, of course) then there is no "act" for God to stop. Is it being suggested that Abraham wanted to go ahead and kill his son not because God ordered it but because Satan told him not to and hence Abraham felt compelled to do the opposite for fear of being on Satan's side i.e. he would have disobeyed God if Satan had not intervened. If we accept this logic, all that Satan needs to do is preach love and peace to cause all the Abrahamists to immediately engage in hate and war. It's beyond us how people can contort their minds so much that they can produce these twisted and mad arguments. There is nothing complex about this situation. It's either right to kill innocent children or it's wrong, and the opinions of "God" and "Satan" are neither here nor there. It's your decision, not theirs. It's your morality, not theirs. It's your definition of good and evil, not theirs.

"God's intentions were for Abraham to make the right choice without influence."

Dream on. "God" would unquestionably have killed Abraham if he had disobeyed.

I must admit I do not fully understand why you discourage the belief in resurrection.  The existence of reincarnation does not prove resurrection to be false.  The events are compared as if the existence of one disqualifies the other.  Reincarnation is the continual incarnation of a sleeping soul into the material existence.  These are souls that have not evolved enough to control material reality.  Resurrection on the other hand is something that can only be achieved by a fully evolved and awake soul entity. 

Our Comment

Let's be crystal clear about this. Resurrection and reincarnation have nothing at all in common. Resurrection, when properly understood, is the materialistic assertion that body and soul are a single entity. The death of the body is also the death of the soul i.e. the soul cannot exist without a body. If the soul can exist without a body then why would there be any need for bodily resurrection? Resurrection brings back to life the UNITY of body and soul. Neither can exist without the other. Soul is linked forever to a SPECIFIC body.

Reincarnation on the other hand is about the soul having an immortal existence independent of any particular physical body. There is no identity whatever between body and soul, in absolute contradiction of resurrection theory.

The writer is completely confused about reincarnation and resurrection. It is certainly true that a sufficiently highly evolved soul can control material reality, but why would that imply that a soul would choose to exist forever in one of the extremely large number of bodies it has migrated through on its unique soul journey? The ultimate state of existence is not to have a physical body at all, but to exist wholly in the immortal, infinite domain outside space and time (i.e. outside material existence). Resurrection, to make any sense at all, implies that an imperishable physical body is required for immortal existence. That's utter drivel. The entire essence of the soul is that it belongs to immaterial rather than material existence.

It is stated that all material in the universe is a direct reflection of that in the non-material.  This is the story of Sophia.  It is also stated that all material is influenced by the energy of the non-material.  If that is true then the ultimate evolution of a soul entity would be the conscious control over material.  This would therefore make the existence of resurrection not only possible but inevitable for a fully aware soul entity.

Our Comment

We have stated that the material and immaterial worlds are linked as part of a mutual feedback system, progressing dialectically towards an omega point. The omega point is purely mental existence i.e. the physical world has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Is there anyone alive now who thinks that God is a material entity that can be discovered by physical science? If God does not have a physical body and we talk all the time about becoming God then clearly resurrection plays no part at all in anything we are talking about. Controlling matter with the mind in no way implies resurrection.

If you want to use the tenets of Illuminism to create wild ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with anything we have said, then go ahead, but don't then attribute your speculations and conclusions to us. What's the point of mentioning resurrection to us when we have ridiculed that concept over and over again? Resurrection, as understood by Abrahamists, involves a Night of the Living Dead scenario where tombs and graves open up and dead bodies, suddenly reanimated and perfected, clamber out and walk the earth again. How can anyone take such an idea seriously? It's preposterous.  

Here's what the Koran says: "And the trumpet shall be blown, and all who are in the heavens and who are in the Earth shall fall down fainting, except those that Allah shall spare. Then, it shall be blown again and they shall rise gazing around them" (Koran 39:68). People will arise from their graves, answering the call of the Lord of the universe. They will be barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised: "As We started the first creation, so We shall bring it back again. This is a promise from Us, so We shall assuredly fulfil it" (Koran 21: 104).

This would be the only way this entity would be able to experience creation at that point in its evolution.  I am not speaking of evolution in terms of Darwinism.  An evolved entity would be one that has completely realized its relationship to the universe as a portion of the creator.  One that has completely made this realization would then have mastered its power and become one with the creator.  I question why this knowledge is discouraged.  The only conclusion I have been able to discern is this is an attempt to sequester evolution.  This however would be a direct violation of the law of evolution, in that all entities must move toward it.  This also does not seem to fit within the framework of your writings.  The entity Lucifer must be honest as an agent of God, while at the same time creating an atmosphere for free will to occur.  To completely deny resurrection does not offer a choice.   

Our Comment

We can't actually make any sense of these remarks. A mind that can control matter can create its own physical body if it wishes to continue to explore the material world. Why is resurrection of a dead body at all relevant? What does resurrection have to do with choice? And what connection does resurrection have with Lucifer?

Many people write to us with these weird and baffling messages. It wastes a huge amount of our time to try to make any sense of them, and usually we don't bother. The reason we're quoting this message is to absolutely discourage anyone from sending us this incomprehensible garbage in the future.

I have been diligently working on trying to understand the true story of the Holy Grail.  I believe that I am close but simply have not put all of the pieces together yet.  In theory I understand the nature of the grail. 

Our Comment

You must be joking. You're about as far from the Grail as it's possible to get.

My goal in this message is to establish a dialogue not to be confrontational.  I hope that has been properly conveyed.  As you know, perception is very tricky.

Our comment

Indeed! Anyone who writes to us to tell us that everything we say is filled with deceit is definitely not being confrontational and is ensuring that we could not possibly have acquired the wrong perception. NOT!

One individual's interpretation of language and senses is not always the same for another individual.  I do not seek answers only conversation. 

Our Comment

Really? Then you have a very odd way of conversing.

As I'm sure you will quickly realize I have made some attempt to keep my identity secret.  I do not seek fame, glory, or recognition, only intelligent debate.  I understand that you may seek to identify me and you may succeed. 

Our Comment

And why would we be remotely interested in knowing who you are?

In doing so you will only find a person who has come from a broken past who has recently awoken.  I believe that somewhere in my soul lineage all of this is, or was common knowledge.  In the birth of my sons I have witnessed the natural passing of unspoken information.  It was the birth of my second son that truly opened my eyes to the true path I must follow.  My path has now crossed yours. 

Our Comment

It was the birth of my second son that truly opened my eyes to the true path I must follow.

Then, as an Abrahamist, you are committed to killing your son if "God" orders it. You would willingly and dutifully take a dagger and slit your innocent son's throat, or plunge it through his heart. So what son would want you as a father? We have the utmost pity for him.

This person has tried to argue that God wanted Abraham to defy him and that "Satan" deliberately ruined his plan by cunningly pleading for the boy's life. This is just total gibberish, all the more so because Satan doesn't feature in the Jewish version of the tale, and Abraham still wanted to go ahead and kill Isaac. He had no intention of doing the moral thing and defying "God".

"If Abraham had followed the advice of Satan he would have made the right choice.  However he would have become a follower of Satan and forever influenced by Satan thereafter."

So, doing the "right thing" makes you a servant of Satan? Ergo doing the wrong thing makes you a servant of God? What kind of weird, fucked-up, inverted Abrahamist logic is this? Their beliefs have made them deranged. They no longer know what they're saying. When it comes to killing an innocent boy, there's the right choice and the wrong choice. The wrong choice is to kill him. End of story. There's nothing else to consider. As soon as you accept that position, you cannot be an Abrahamist.

"This is why God stopped Abraham from fulfilling the act."

He didn't in the case of Jephtha! When Abraham had shown absolute willingness to perform the act, there was no further need for the actual deed.

Matthew 5:28 - "But I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This is the core of Abrahamic "morality". The sin has already been committed if it is merely thought. Abrahamism condemns thought crime as much as actual crime. Abraham had not only committed the crime of wiling the death of his son, he was in the physical process of carrying it out. His absolute obedience to Yahweh's will had been proved, hence the culmination of actual murder was no longer necessary. The willingness to murder an innocent on God's orders had been demonstrated beyond doubt. By Abrahamism's own logic, the murder had already taken place, just as adultery takes places merely by thinking it.

There is absolutely nothing complex about the tale of Abraham. It was chosen by the Abrahamists as the specific territory with which they wished to define their religion.

You have very simple choices to make. Is it moral or immoral for "God" to order a man to kill his innocent son simply to establish whether or not the man is absolutely obedient? If it is not moral then the being that gave the order is not God. In fact, he must be the opposite: Satan, masquerading as God, or deluding himself that he is God.

Having given your answer to the morality or not of God's lethal order to sacrifice the innocent in order to prove obedience, you must then turn your attention to the morality of Abraham's actions.

Is it moral for Abraham to murder his son to prove his obedience to his "God"? Or is it absolutely immoral? And if you are capable of killing you own offspring to demonstrate absolute obedience, what are you not capable of? Is there any act you will refuse to perform, no matter how murderous and immoral? The suicide maniacs of Islam have reached the conclusion that murdering innocents and killing yourself at the same time is the quintessence of martyrdom…the act of which "God" most approves. And there is no question that as faithful Abrahamists they are entirely right to reach this conclusion.

If you give the two answers that it is a) moral for God to order the murder of innocents and b) moral to obey him and to go ahead and slaughter innocents then suicide bombing is entirely and absolutely moral (within that framework of "morality").

Of course, any genuinely moral person would conclude that "God's" order to Abraham was immoral, and Abraham's decision to carry out the order was immoral. Both Abraham and his God are condemned as moral monsters. There really can be no serious debate about the identity of Abraham's God. He is clearly Satan since it is impossible for the True God ever to command anyone to kill an innocent person. Equally, no Godly person would ever kill an innocent person to demonstrate their willingness to obey orders. Abraham was a psychopath.

All Abrahamists are Satanists and psychopaths. That's why our world is so wicked and evil. The ancient Gnostics realised the truth millennia ago. Why is everyone else so slow on the uptake?