When your computer goes haywire, you reboot it. What happens when the world goes haywire? Where’s the reboot button?
Isn’t that a fundamental question? Is it possible to return everything to its pristine condition? Is there a mechanism for restoring the Garden of Eden, for bringing back the Golden Age of Saturn? If we can’t reset the world, doesn’t it point to a fundamental design flaw?
If a natural reboot button doesn’t exist, can’t we create one using our human reason? How would we put right all of the mistakes of the past, the myriad errors committed by those who preceded us? Even now, most people are mired in the darkness of superstition and mad beliefs.
Democracy has a reboot button of sorts. It’s called an election. A bad government can be voted out and a new one voted in to start the system afresh. The trouble is, the new gang looks exactly like the old. Nothing changes. The power behind the throne is still there. The puppetmasters hidden by the curtain are the same as before. The democratic reboot button pretends to work, but doesn’t. It’s part of the great democratic illusion.
Evangelical Protestantism can’t be reset because it says that the Bible is the perfect, immutable and eternal word of God. Islam says the same thing about the Koran, and Judaism about the Torah. The Pope theoretically has the power to reboot Catholicism but since Catholicism claims that it represents eternal truth, it would be absurd if the Pope suddenly did the biggest U-turn in history. Therefore, theocratic regimes have no possibility of a reboot button. Mistakes cannot be corrected.
Dictatorships have no reboot button either because the dictator can’t afford to admit he’s wrong. Only the dictator’s death permits a regime reboot. Soviet communism had no reboot button because, being totalitarian, it was locked into an ideology that couldn’t acknowledge error.
Capitalism has no reboot button. Those families with capital remain the same generation after generation. A lucky few are admitted to the charmed circle of top capitalists and an unlucky few disappear because they died without heirs or committed some crime that couldn’t be swept under the carpet or gambled it all away or spent everything on living the high life – but those are rarities.
The Old World Order have no desire for any reboot button for the simple and obvious reason that it would end their reign. Every top dog wants to bury the reboot button permanently. That’s one bone they don’t want anyone to dig up.
Most individuals have no reboot button. Once their identity is set, they almost never change their beliefs or ways of doing things. How many Orthodox Jews, Christian Fundamentalists or Muslims are capable of rebooting their beliefs? They are totally brainwashed and the purpose of brainwashing is to exclude the possibility of other choices.
Societies, institutions, companies, banks, religions, political systems…none of them have reboot buttons. Violent revolution, bankruptcy and collapse are the only ways to reboot things that are failing disastrously. Hardly rational and efficient, wouldn’t you agree? It needn’t be like this.
We can and must create a system that allows new generations to be released from the mistakes made by our ancestors. We can rocket-boost human evolution towards divinity if we know how to free the collective human mind of the junk and nonsense that has accumulated since the dawn of time.
A computer would be unusable after a while if you couldn't reboot it. The memory gets clogged, processes start interfering with each other, rogue subroutines start hijacking all of the CPU. Everything grinds to a halt as inescapable infinite loops are generated. A blue screen crash is on its way.
The same breakdown process is true of almost anything. Death is a human blue screen crash. And reincarnation can be described as the ultimate reboot button - you get a whole new life and can start again.
The ways in which humanity can be rebooted are actually extraordinarily simple in principle yet extraordinarily difficult to implement. There are only three issues that need to be addressed:
If the rich keep getting richer, they become ever more powerful and influential, eventually establishing an untouchable privileged elite taking active steps to maintain its position. Above all, the members of the elite ensure that their wealth can never be rebooted because that would automatically mean the end of their power.
A government that implemented a 100% inheritance tax i.e. that prevented a single penny from being passed on by any rich people to their heirs would, in that one law, have rebooted the wealth of the world, and ensured that it kept being rebooted generation after generation. With this law in place, it would be impossible for dynastic families of extreme wealth and power - such as the Rothschilds - to exist. Their power would be instantly dissolved. The current Rothschilds would be last to the trouble the world with their super greed.
The vast majority of people in the world have no significant assets to pass on. A tiny number of families have an enormous amount of assets to transmit from one generation to the next. Why should the overwhelming majority be agreeable to this? If you want to help your children and your children's children, the best thing you can do for them is to make sure that they are not the losers in a rigged system where the privileged are the guaranteed winners.
Who in their right mind wouldn't support the "Wealth Reboot Tax"? This tax, by itself, would destroy the Old World Order. It's that simple. Freedom from the elite is just one tax away. Of course, they know that better than anyone. They have had to wage the greatest psychological war in history to prevent the people imposing such a tax on them. Billions of poor and badly educated people have been mind controlled into thinking that there's nothing wrong with the rich getting richer. That it's good, it's healthy, it's morally right, that disaster would befall us if we taxed the super rich out of existence. The "American Dream" encourages the suckers and losers to delude themselves that they too might be super rich one day, though the odds against it are simply astronomical. Well, time to get real. If you want fairness, justice, an end to privilege and to the ruling elite, there's only one way to do it: reboot each person's wealth when they die. Rather than being passed on to private individuals, a dead person's assets should automatically be transferred to the Commonwealth - which is the wealth of all rather than the wealth of the chosen few.
What do the Old World Order most fear? - removal of their money and their dynastic privileges. That's what 100% inheritance tax accomplishes, hence is the silver bullet, the holy water, the stake through the heart to destroy these undead, blood-sucking vampires. 100% inheritance tax is the legal and economic enforcement of equal opportunities.
Children are deliberately brainwashed by both their parents and their governments. Brainwashing is the mechanism that allows the virus of the old religions to be transmitted from one generation to the next and that allows the values of the elite to be permanently embedded in society.
You can reboot the world by ensuring that no such brainwashing is ever allowed to take place. All children should be protected by law from any attempt to brainwash them. Children should be taught as many different religions as possible, as well as atheism, agnosticism and skepticism, and all of these should be taught critically rather than "respectfully" i.e. their faults, flaws and illogicalities should be ruthlessly exposed and even ridiculed. Truth and reason should not defer to crazy beliefs just because they're old and entrenched in society.
Children should be taught about different political and economic systems, again critically, with none being promoted as the "right and proper" systems as has been traditionally done with capitalism and democracy. It's up to everyone to make up their own mind based on the evidence, rational argument and the quality and rigour of theory. Who could possibly object to that? - apart from fanatics frothing at the mouth. And aren't they exactly the people we should be protecting impressionable minds from?
Anyone who thinks they have a convincing argument should have no fear in letting it take its chances amongst all of the other competing ideas. The type of people who want to genitally mutilate babies to ensure that they get their "brand" on them as early as possible have no place in any civilised society. Circumcision should be illegal in modern nations. It's a barbaric, superstitious practice that stands as a fundamental attack on human rights.
The sort of people who want to psychologically terrify children with stories of eternal hellfire can't be allowed to spread their poison unchallenged. The sort of people who proclaim that "greed is good" and "profit is God" can't be given a free run.
The No-Brainwashing (Mental Reboot) Law is all that's needed to reboot the collective Mind of humanity. Children will be released from the poisonous ideas of the past. Who can doubt that Abrahamism and capitalism will perish in one generation if children are given a free choice? If humanity isn't irredeemably irrational then it will take the rational decision that sets it on a whole new path. Isn't it time the human race put its mistakes and its childish past behind it? Isn't it time it consigned superstition and prejudice to oblivion? We are free. We are not obliged to believe what our parents believe. Should we believe in a flat earth or that the sun orbits the earth just because these were once popular beliefs?
3) The Dialectic
The dialectical process involves a thesis and an opposing antithesis, followed by a harmonising synthesis, which then becomes a new higher thesis which is opposed by a more sophisticated antithesis, which gives rises to a higher synthesis and so on in a continual, progressive rebooting mechanism, allowing a superior starting boot each time round the dialectical loop.
In Freud's tripartite model of the human psyche involving the id, the ego and the superego, we see the rudiments of a dialectical system. The id, obsessed with its own pleasure and selfish drives, demands instant gratification of any of its desires, no matter how socially unacceptable. If we call this the thesis then it is opposed by the antithesis of the superego, which is concerned with morality, community, altruism, conscience, the rules of society, parental prohibitions etc. The ego, the pragmatic, rational agent that obeys the reality principle, provides a synthesis of the conflicting demands of the id and superego.
In childhood and early adulthood, the ego may not be too good at its job, but as life experience and knowledge grows, it gets dialectically better and better. Unfortunately, in the West, we live in an irrational society devoted to instant gratification, so the ego is much more attuned to the id rather than offering a proper balance between id and superego. If we could build into society healthy, functioning dialectical institutions, we could transform the world.
Every religion, company, bank, institution, school, university etc should be explicitly modelled on the dialectical human psyche i.e. there should be a highly energetic, passionate and selfish id component counterbalanced by an equally energetic and passionate component advocating altruism, morality, social responsibility, regulation, avoidance of unnecessary risk etc. Finally, there should be a rational, synthesis component which takes cognisance of the counterclaims of the thesis and antithesis and carries out the most rational strategy in the prevailing circumstances.
If we look at the recent financial crisis, there was a complete failure of the regulatory superego component. The id component (the hyper greedy and selfish banking system) was allowed to go berserk with self-indulgence, instant gratification and utter contempt for society as a whole. There was no ego component to rein back the id and to apply reason and pragmatism. The disastrous outcome was therefore both predictable and inevitable and any fool on earth should have seen it coming.
We live in the most infantile, stupid type of society, entirely geared to the unrestrained impulses of the id leading to endless cycles of boom (hyper-greed) and bust (hyper-fear). It needn't be like this. We need a Dialectical Reboot Law that makes it compulsory for all aspects of society to be fully regulated by a superego component to curb id excesses, and with a rational ego component to reach a compromise between a particular institution and its regulator.
The West has just a few feeble, ineffectual, impotent regulators that are there for little more than appearances' sake. The financial crisis fully exposed their incompetence. Regulators - Devil's Advocates, so to speak - must be embedded in society and given real, meaningful powers, and be full of talented, strong-minded people.
Above all, we need an entirely new component of society representing the synthesis phase of the dialectic. This function - Arbitration - decides what is permissible in any dispute between an institution and its regulator. In this way, the dialectic would become ingrained in everything we do, with the promise that it will lead us to higher and higher states of prosperity, progress and fulfilment.
The American political system was designed on the basis of the "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". Unfortunately, it didn't go nearly far enough. The whole of society, not just politics, needs to be handled this way.
The Americans failed to realise that if there was an extremely powerful body outside the political process that could directly influence the political process then the political separation of powers and the checks and balances were rendered irrelevant. The external body we are referring to is the banking system and corporate lobbying. These were able to use their financial muscle to buy the political process and make it do its bidding.
The great Illuminatus Thomas Jefferson was one person acutely aware of the danger. He said, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Was he wrong? Tragically, his wisdom was ignored.
All American politicians are in the pockets of bankers and corporations. Their political job is to promote Zionist, Masonic, corporate and banking interests - and to hell with the people, that bunch of suckers who have allowed their political system to be hijacked and prostituted. The harsh reality is that America's elected representatives, the ones accountable to the people, are not running American politics. Rather, it is run by private men behind the curtain, unelected and unaccountable, and excessively rich, powerful and ruthless.
If you want a healthy political system you cannot under any circumstances have a private power above politics, but that's exactly what you get if you allow the banks that control the economy to be run by private individuals. It would be insane to replace the American military with a private army commanded by private generals who could declare war on nations on their own account, regardless of the wishes of the people. So why is the banking system, the lifeblood of the economy, in private hands, able to do whatever it likes regardless of the wishes and interests of the people? The financial crisis was caused by bankers who had no investment at all in social responsibility and who wallowed in moral hazard - taking absurd risks with other people's money for which they would suffer no penalty if anything went wrong but gain massive profits for themselves if things went right. It's mad to allow banks to be in private hands. When it comes to privately controlled banking, cui bono? - the Old World Order, the Zionists and Masons, of course. Their great insight was that democracy - the so-called power of the people - didn't amount to a hill of beans so long as they controlled the money, hence could buy and manipulate the politicians. Therefore, they became enthusiastic cheerleaders for democracy.
A private banking system is intrinsically anti-democratic and contrary to the interests of the people and to a healthy economy run for the benefit of the people.
So, there you have it - the three laws that can reboot the world: 1) The Wealth Reboot Law 2) The No-Brainwashing (Mental Reboot) Law 3) The Dialectical Reboot Law
These are the laws of reason and only the irrational will oppose them, or those who have a vested interest in the world staying exactly as it is - fucked for everyone other than them.
This is the formula for destroying the Old World Order and building a New World Order in which the people are free at last. We are just three laws from liberty. Isn't it time we implemented these laws? Isn't it time for the rebirth of the world? This time we'll put right everything that went wrong first time round.
Earth I was the Demiurge's dark and dismal creation. Earth II will be humanity's own creation, and will crystallise the victory of reason over irrationality, knowledge over faith and superstition, light over darkness, good over evil.
The New World Order - the Race of Life
Political systems are much easier to understand if they are reduced to their most fundamental elements. These are best illustrated in the context of what they imply for our chances in the race of life in which we are all engaged, like it or not.
Communism: In this approach, no one cares who wins the race because everyone is treated identically (in theory). The losers get the same rewards as the winners, hence there's no incentive for any of the best runners to put in any effort. Everyone shuffles along, dragging their feet and yawning. There's no glory, no hard work, no talent, no innovation, no progress. If you allow the lazy, the inept and the unimaginative to have the same rewards as the energetic, clever, meritorious and creative then you have guaranteed a lazy, inept, unprogressive society - and that's exactly what the Soviet Union delivered. And that's why it collapsed.
Capitalism: This race is all about how much capital you have, and that is overwhelmingly determined by how much capital your parents have given you. In the capitalist race of life, the privileged elite with capital and connections are allowed to start the race with an enormous and uncatchable head start over everyone else. Their success is certain. No one outside the elite has any realistic chance in life. The underclass actually begin behind the starting line and are sure to finish last. Democracy - a system that ought to be about ensuring that everyone starts from the same position - has been commandeered by capitalism and is nothing but the curtain the elite draw over themselves to hide what they're really doing. Democracy, when tied to capitalism, is not the power of the people but government of the people by the elite for the elite. Privilege, elitism, inequality, capitalism and democracy all go together. In the race of life governed by these rules, your race is over before you are even born. Your chances are dictated by how someone else fared - your parents - in the race before yours. Who in their right mind would take part in a race determined by someone else's efforts rather than their own, a race decided before they even set foot on the track?
Gangsterism: This is the race run by gangsters and gangster regimes (such as many of those in Africa) that are explicitly based on bribery, corruption, criminality and violence. The crooks and the mobsters are sure to win. They'll intimidate, injure and kill the other runners if necessary.
Religion: Your success in the race is dictated by how well brainwashed you are, how much you go along with the commandments, rules and regulations of the dominant religion. Heretics have no chance in this race. No one is free to run their own race. The race's rulebook is a Bible, a Torah or a Koran, and the stewards of the race are bearded fanatics who'll burn anyone who strays off the "right" track. If you are born under the dark star of Islam, for example, your whole life will run along train tracks of relentless prayer, memorizing the Koran, obeying every rule in the Koran, eating halal food, avoiding everything haram (forbidden), obeying the community elders. There is no possibility of being an individual capable of expressing yourself in your own way.
Anarchism: No race, no rules, no reason. A catastrophic free-for-all that, understandably, has never been tried anywhere on earth in any significant way.
Meritocracy: Everyone starts from the same position. Equal opportunity is a defining pillar of meritocracy - no one can be allowed a privileged or underprivileged starting position. The winners of the race will be strictly the most meritorious: the faster runners, hardest workers, the most imaginative, most creative, and most talented.
The only race that any rational person would participate in is one where he has the same chance as everyone else. Why would you take part in a race you can't possibly win because it's rigged against you? If you continue to play along once you realise the race is fixed then you're a coward and a slave and you deserve to be treated like shit.
The only acceptable winners in the race of life, the only winners no one can complain about, are those who are undeniably the best, the hardest working and most gifted. Everyone can complain about a winner who was picked before the race even began. The Queen of the UK is the head of state for no other reason than the identity of her father, the monarch who preceded her. Not a single thing about her is relevant other than that. She is the supreme symbol of the anti-meritocratic world where your life is decided by factors that have nothing at all to do with your own efforts.
The people of the UK are a slave people, mindlessly taking part in a race where the whole thing was decided hundreds of years ago. The UK is one of the most nauseating examples of a regime of absolute privilege where elite dynastic families have maintained an iron grip over the nation.
Everyone in the world who celebrates the forthcoming wedding of the "Prince of Wales" will thereby be showing their contempt for meritocracy and equal opportunities. All pro-monarchists are enemies of the People.
The Old World Order
"Terrorism is war of the poor and powerless. War is terrorism of the rich and powerful."
Something is wrong with the world.
Religions of "peace and love" spread violence and hate. Nations kill hundreds of thousands in the name of "freedom and democracy", with the dead being labelled "collateral damage" - as if they were buildings rather than human beings. Media outlets that claim to stand for "truth and free speech" spew out nothing but lies and the propaganda of the elite. No voice is ever heard that offers any challenge to the owners of the media and the elite controllers of the world. Stock traders rig the markets to ensure a one-way bet for their insider cartels. Bankers use others' money to enrich themselves, and if anything goes wrong they use others' money to bail themselves out. Lawyers sell the law to the highest bidder as if it were popcorn. Politicians, elected in the "name of the people" have nothing but contempt for the people. They are practitioners of self-service, not public service. Capitalism, the economic system of the rich elite who control the vast bulk of the capital, view human beings as nothing but consumers whose only function is to buy the objects they are selling to them. Thus humans are transformed into zombies wandering in soulless shopping malls looking to buy "things" they have been brainwashed into believing will make them "happy". They themselves become "things". The "happiness" of making a purchase is as fleeting as the usefulness of the object purchased. Obsolescence is inbuilt. In six months' time, you will be told that the shiny, state-of-the-art object you have just bought is junk for losers and that all of the cool people have moved on to the new state-of-the-art object. And the treadmill goes on forever. Many women define "retail therapy" as the greatest pleasure in their life, their reason for being. Men worship sport and think that when multi-millionaires stride out onto a field, their own hopes and dreams are somehow embodied by these fake gladiators (who definitely WON'T be putting their lives on the line like the real gladiators).
We call this normal? We call this life? This is our definition of meaningful existence?
What planet are we living on??
Who benefits from all of this? None of it has come about by accident. Someone has engineered this. Who? What if it's all being orchestrated by a sinister global "elite" and has one simple purpose - to maintain the power, wealth, status and control of this elite in perpetuity? In other words, the world is designed by the elite to serve the interests of the elite, and has no other function. The meaning of life and the world is that the rich should keep getting richer - and FUCK everyone else! Is that not the bottom line of this world of ours, staggeringly obvious to everyone with eyes to see?
But the question is why those who do not belong to the elite should participate in this system that is so intrinsically hostile to their own interests. Why do the non-elite - the vast majority of humanity - tolerate the small number of elitists who govern them? In the past, the "masters" put physical chains on people, but things have moved on. Now the masters' chains are enormously more powerful even though they have no physical presence at all. The new chains are psychological and are fully accepted by those who are chained. The perfect prison is the one that is full of those who don't realise they are in prison. The perfect prisoner is the one who puts on his own manacles and chains each day, then locks himself into his own cell. When you have turned human beings into prisoners who believe themselves free, you have achieved TOTAL control.
The privileged elite are the ingenious gaolers. Millennia of experience have yielded them the keys to the human mind, the techniques to get people to choose slavery over freedom. The ideal slave is one who denies that he is a slave and yet acts exactly as slaves have always done - doing the bidding of his master come what may. Slaves who know they are slaves will hate their abject condition. They won't work well. They will resist. They will be troublesome. It takes a lot of time and effort to control them. It costs money. What is the solution? They must be brought to the point where they CHOOSE to be slaves, where they actively will it. Of course, the name "slave" must be dispensed with, but there are plenty of euphemisms for it: employee, consumer, customer, voter, citizen.
It all comes down to the same thing…billions of people follow the commands of the elite and toil for the benefit of the elite. That is the essence of the master- slave relationship. In a free world of free men, human beings obey themselves and work for their own benefit. They look around and there is no elite to be seen because such a thing is inconceivable. Would the Supermen of Nietzsche tolerate being slaves of an elite? Would the "Community of Gods" of the Illuminati bow to "higher" gods?
The very concept of a master class imposing their will on a slave class is repellent.
In a movie about Catholic martyr Thomas Becket, a medieval Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket declared of an arrogant, rich Lord:
"We declare him excommunicate and anathema. We cast him into the outer darkness. We judge him damned, with the Devil and his fallen angels and all the reprobates, to eternal fire and everlasting pain."
We say the same thing of all masters. The concept of "master" must be permanently abolished. It must play no part in the human condition. Any worthwhile political system must be the one that addresses first and foremost the problem of the master, the problem of how to destroy the wolf that preys on us. Only when it is slain can we concentrate on building the world as it should always have been.
The elite mostly keep their dirty secrets well hidden. But if you open your eyes, you will see what's really going on.
The facts: we are living under the control of a small but vastly powerful group. They are called the "Old World Order" because they have held power over us for millennia. They bear responsibility for the cruel, savage, selfish and greed-fuelled history of our world; the horrors have been committed specifically to allow them to have the type of world they desire - with them as masters and everyone else as their slaves.
Their goal is simple: to acquire as much money as they can lay their hands on, to achieve permanent power for themselves and their families and to have as much fun at our expense as possible. Instead of fighting each other for supremacy, they cooperate because there are enough fools and slaves to sustain them all, but only so long as not too many are admitted to the charmed circle.
Facts about the Old World Order
1. The world is controlled by a global elite of 6000 members.
2. 94% of them are male and the average age is 60.
3. 2% of the world population own 50% of the world's wealth.
4. 1100 billionaires own twice as much wealth as the 2.5 billion poorest people.
5. The world's 50 biggest financial institutions control a third of the world's wealth.
6. The 250 biggest corporations generate nearly a third of the world's GDP.
Source: "The Superclass and the World they are Making" by David Rothkopf
Few of the Old World Order are elected (and those that are have had the elections rigged on their behalf). Few of them are accountable to the people in any way. Few of them interact with ordinary men and women. They live in exclusive, gated, luxury communities far from the citizens they control.
They are educated at exclusive private schools and colleges and they join elite secret societies in order to meet other members of the Old World Order. They marry amongst themselves. The vast majority have inherited their wealth and status. Talent and merit don't matter to them; family connections are what count. "He/she comes from a GOOD family" is their code for their own kind. If you don't come from a "good" family, forget it.
Despite their greed, these people often present themselves as highly religious e.g. Goldman Sucks: "We are performing God's work."
They control practically everything worth controlling. They treat us with contempt. We are just the worker droids and zombie consumers, the "cannon fodder" and flotsam and jetsam.
They use the education system to produce dumb, obedient, submissive and compliant slaves who won't resist their masters.
The Old World Order consists of the following categories:
The Super Rich Top politicians Top military Top police Media moguls Religious leaders Bosses of Intelligence Services Top Bankers Leading Entrepreneurs Super celebrities
The members of the Old World Order are:
Nobility: the royal and aristocratic houses of the United Kingdom and Europe.
Family Dynasties: Rockefeller, Rothschild, Astor, Bundy, Collins, DuPont, Freeman, Reynolds, Van Duyn, Li, Bush, Onassis, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Kennedy, Murdoch, Ackermann, Russel, Trump, Buffet, Sorros, McDonald, Merkel, Sarkozy, Bernanke, Greenspan, Gore, Clinton etc.
The following organizations serve the Old World Order: modern Freemasons (with a handful of notable exceptions who have retained the values of the original Freemasons), the Priesthood of AMEN, the Brotherhood of the Shadows, Skull and Bones, the Bullingdon Club, the Thule and Vril Societies, Bohemian Grove, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, B'nai B'rith, UNO, and NATO. There are many others - poodle organisations, bought and sold by their masters.
These groups manipulate politics, the economy, education, the media, the law, public perception. They control our psychology. They make us buy into their "vision".
How did the OWO get to where they now are? With the help of concentration camps, RFID chips, aliens and population reduction? Or with infinitely more elegant and lucrative methods that command our blind faith and allegiance? Never forget: the best slave is the one who thinks he's free.
The methods the global elite use to maintain control over the people are:
1) De-mock-racy. You think you have a choice? Dream on. You can vote for whomever they choose to put in front of you. The candidates are carefully chosen by the Old World Order. Obama? - check out his list of corporate sponsors, including Goldman Sachs. His first chief of staff was the son of a Zionist terrorist. The OWO knew Obama was their boy, regardless of his rhetoric and background. A complete sell-out. And, of course, if you didn't get Obama then you would get Clinton. Call that a choice? Has your vote ever counted?
"If elections changed anything, they would be forbidden!" -- Tucholsky
2) Free market capitalism
4) Junk food and TV (bread and circuses)
(The "law" is a playground for gangsters. Its purpose is to protect the interests of the elite. The last thing it serves is justice. Ordinary people don't stand a chance. Everything is rigged. As Hildebrandt said, "It is not enough to have right. You also have to count in the legal system."
7) Conspiracy theories
Many conspiracy theories are created and spread by the Old World Order to distract people and keep them busy with pointless, ridiculous nonsense. Instead of fighting against the global elite, many bloggers are obsessed with events that are never going to happen. They waste their time endlessly researching "chem trails" and the "orbit of Nibiru". You won't catch these people researching Pythagoras, Leibniz or Hegel - too much like hard work, too much like reality rather than fantasy.
Conspiracy theories belong to the landscape of Mythos rather than Logos. They are exciting stories, but have nothing to do with logic and reason. Most conspiracy theories are barking mad. That's not to say that no one is conspiring - they certainly are - but there's a clear difference between conspiracy theories based on the extent to which an elite group, for example, controls the media and those that assert than pan-dimensional, shape-shifting lizard men are running around inside the hollow earth. The former is credible and rational, the second is for lunatics and the borderline psychotic. People who believe in the most outlandish of the conspiracy theories are actually suffering from mental illness, hence it is impossible to talk them out of their delusions.
8) The military and the police: the armed wing of the Old World Order, their bullyboys who enforce their will. All soldiers and police are traitors and enemies of the people.
The Fake Messiahs
Who "saved" us from the global financial crisis? The very people who caused it. How did they save us? By piling vast debts onto us while making sure they kept their fat bonuses. They should be fired and in jail for their crimes against the people. They are legalised thieves who have stolen our money from right under our noses.
Resist the controllers. Disobey their system. Show the elite they can kiss our asses. We don't need to take this any longer.
Don't you want to be a knight sitting at the Round Table rather than a serf serving your lords and masters?
So are you going to continue your life as a "resource" or start the journey of becoming an authentic human being with a real contribution to make?
The Rigged System
In the UK, the party of the privileged elite is the Conservative Party. Behind closed doors, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron told senior City executives: "My father was a stockbroker; my grandfather was a stockbroker; my great-grandfather was a stockbroker." Yes, David, we get the message loud and clear.
Cameron, who went to Eton, Oxford and was a member of the Bullingdon Club is a person who owes everything to the background he comes from, yet he likes to say, "It's not where we came from, it's where we're going that counts." Of course, if he came from a housing project in one of the many deprived areas of the UK, he wouldn't be going anywhere other than the local dole office. It's incredible that the super rich are able, with a straight face, to deny that their background is in any way contributory to their success. Only a cretin would believe them.
Most of the donations to Cameron's right-wing party come from hedge fund managers, financiers, bankers, private equity speculators, investment fund managers, and stockbrokers. They are his paymasters and he dutifully does their bidding. They all come from the same background as he does. They are a hyper-efficient cartel feathering their own nests.
What we need is civic society, not selfish society. Some bankers and traders killed themselves at the height of the Wall Street crash in 1929. In 2008, the same type of people simply demanded higher bonuses. Many of the senior executives at Lehman Brothers were kept on at the taxpayers' expense to unravel all of the financial positions of their bankrupt organisation. As "compensation", they demanded bonuses as large as those they were receiving when times were good. In other words, these guys know how to win whether their organisation is booming or actually bust. In a healthy nation, they would have been told to clear up their own mess at their own expense or go to jail. Why should bankrupt bankers be allowed to dictate terms to the taxpayers? It's insane. Which American taxpayers had any say in this? None! Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
The bankers have set up a system akin to going to Vegas as high rollers and being given every pleasure and privilege the casino can offer. If they win, they keep all the profits. If they lose, they get us to pick up the tab. Nice work if you can get it!
Neil Barofsky, the US Treasury Department's Inspector General, wrote, "We will end up in a similar or greater crisis in two, or five, or ten years' time. It is hard to see how any of the fundamental problems have been addressed to date. [The bailouts] saved our financial system from driving off a cliff in 2008 [but] we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, this time in a faster car."
Another crash within ten years will signal the end of democratic capitalism. To avoid catastrophe, its replacement - meritocratic socialist capitalism based on public not private capital - must be standing ready in the wings.
The Old World Order run a corporate kleptocracy. They are always robbing us, exploiting us, manipulating us. The banks are a kleptocracy - government by thieves, stealing from the people.
The Banking System
The banks must be under the direct control of the people. All of the executives must be appointed by and accountable to the people. The people can remove them without compensation if they prove incompetent. All of their personal financial data must be a matter of public record. Anyone who does not agree to these conditions can have no role in a bank.
Banking executives will be those who are dedicated to public service and are driven by their desire to improve the public finances rather than their own. They will have the same status as generals and admirals.
The primary function of the banking system is to invest in the business enterprises of the people. Banks should not exist to speculate, engage in casino operations and award obscenely large bonuses.
There will be many public banks, all in competition with each other and supervised by a Supreme Economic Council of experts of the calibre of Nobel laureates. Each bank will be able to operate independently, using its own business methods and practices. The more profits they make, the more they can pay themselves. Competition between banks is vital to ensure innovation and to prevent complacency.
No bank should ever be too big to fail, and the regulators should ensure that no bank gets to the position where it is likely to fail. Banks should become long-term investors in companies set up by worker partnerships. Public banks will take the place of private finance.
Groups of friends and colleagues with a good business idea will approach the banks with a business plan and ask for set-up funds and development finance. In exchange, the lending bank will gain a significant shareholding and be paid dividends. The more successful the company, the more profit the bank will make.
Public rather than private banks will be the primary source of capital in the economy. There will be no Zionist, Masonic and Ivy League networking going on behind the scenes to finance the favoured few and deny investment funds to ordinary people
In the New Economy, private capital will be largely replaced with public capital, private corporations with public corporations. Capitalism - currently an economic system of private wealth - will essentially be replaced by Public Capitalism, a radical new system that combines capitalism with socialism.
Why was Soviet Communism a disaster? It was a dictatorial, totalitarian system where anyone who wanted to get on had to become a member of the Communist Party. Because of Communist ideology, which provided no incentives whatever for ordinary people to become wealthy through their own hard work, talent and ideas, innovation died. Enormous state monopolies controlled every aspect of the economy. There was no competition hence every monopoly became complacent, ossified and inefficient. Communism, supposedly based on Marxist dialectics, completely forgot that the dialectic must be applied to all aspects of society. Competition and contradiction is the essence of the dialectic. No competition or contradiction was allowed in the Soviet Union, hence the whole system was rotten and dialectically dead. Its failure was therefore dialectically guaranteed. The trouble with Marxists, and even Marx himself, was that they didn't truly understand the Hegelian dialectic.
When the Berlin Wall came down, many people drew the absurd conclusion that capitalism had been proved beyond doubt to be the best possible economic system. Two decades later, capitalism itself died. In 2008, the capitalist banks were insolvent and capitalism was able to continue only thanks to socialist (i.e. public) financial intervention.
Contrast the bankrupt West with Communist China, likely to become the world's economic hyper power in the next ten years. Communist China has shown the whole world how a peasant economy can be transformed into a global powerhouse in a few years through a judicious combination of communism and capitalism, and centralised state investment into private enterprise.
Aren't you astounded that no Western government has ever suggested that perhaps Western nations should adopt aspects of the Chinese model? Why haven't they highlighted why China didn't suffer a financial catastrophe? The answer is simple - China had no greedy private bankers and a super-rich gangster class dictating to the government and taking unbelievable risks with other people's money. That is not a message that the Old World Order want "Main Street" to be discussing. Chinese Communist Capitalism has shown that the world can exist perfectly well without the Zionist-Masonic Old World Order version of capitalism. There will be no Soviet-style economic collapse if the OWO are swept away - China proves that.
Communist China offers a highly centralised command and control economy that nevertheless allows capitalism and innovation to flourish. Now imagine that the Chinese Communist Party is replaced by a Dialectical Meritocracy dedicated to making the most of the people's talents without any ideology and requiring no party membership. How much more successful will that be? That's what we can have in the West.
Make no mistake, a huge cover-up and conspiracy is going on in the West to prevent the people from realising the truth that is now all too apparent: Western capitalism dominated by the super rich has failed and already has a more successful rival in the shape of Communist-Capitalist China run by a totalitarian regime rather than Zionists and Masons.
Meritocratic public capitalism will be even more successful. There is nothing at all to fear from the overthrow of democratic capitalism. China has proved it beyond any conceivable question. The Chinese have avoided financial mayhem while enjoying enormous economic growth - the precise combination Western governments dream of. So why isn't a single Western government taking on board the appropriate lessons? Are they pathologically stupid, or is the truth that the Old World Order are blocking any moves and reforms that will threaten their position?
The world is ready for a new economic system. The age of the super rich is over. We are living in the twilight of the idols, the false gods who have reigned over us for so long.
Given the importance and influence of the media, it is unacceptable for it to be in private hands. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch exerts an absurd degree of control in the world. Why was one man permitted to control so many of the access portals to the minds of the people?
Never again. The media must be under public control.
The legal system is a tool for subjugating the people. Instead of killing them with a gun - a dirty method that could provoke revenge attacks - a judge knocks on a table with a small hammer to murder them, at least financially and career-wise. Law evolved in the first place to protect the property and wealth of the rich. The law is no friend of the poor and unconnected. It's a lottery whether you get justice or not. If you tossed a coin, you would get equally good results, without any of the expense associated with extremely rich lawyers. If a coin toss delivers justice 50% of the time at no cost, is a legal system that costs an absolute fortune yet improves the justice rate by only about 10% worth the money? Shouldn't we spend the money on something else such as education that will produce smart people who won't commit the sorts of crimes the poor and desperate are driven to?
Truth and innocence should, but won't, help you in a court. An expensive lawyer who has specialized in exploiting complicated laws - created by people who have a great deal of interest in controlling people but none in creating a proper system of justice - can easily win a case regardless of its merits.
"A law is only then legitimate when even the last swineherd in Galicia understands it."
Empress Maria Theresa of Austria
A good defence will more likely be based on excellent acting skills and exploiting obscure loopholes than on the matter in hand. And let's not forget the senile, privileged judge wearing a silly costume and confronting modern technology such as computers. He doesn't have a clue.
The current legal system is there for the preservation of the interests of the Old World Order. End of story. They don't want people to get in the way of their business. The law is a "clean" and "legitimate" way to get rid of enemies.
As Clear as Mud
The doctrine of "political transparency" proclaims that you will be informed about your nation's political assembly, the aims of the different parties, and so on. Everything about how you are governed will be open and above board, and always available for public scrutiny. What a joke. Our politicians won't even tell us how much money they earn (from their "outside" interests) on top of the pile of cash we are obliged to pay them for such woeful results. The politicians of the UK, who once claimed to be the least corrupt politicians in the world, are now exposed as amongst the worst. They desperately tried to avoid their ludicrously extravagant expenses being published, but eventually campaigners brought the whole sleazy mess into the open. UK politicians were getting things like "duck houses" and "moat cleaning services" paid for them from the public purse. They were getting the taxpayers to pay their mortgages on second homes.
Rich men were buying titles and honours from the government. There is a member of the British House of Lords who is not domiciled in Britain, thus allowing him to avoid his full UK tax bill, yet this man is a chief contributor to the Conservative Party, the current governing party, and is involved in passing UK laws. Many ex-politicians become lobbyists, using their political connections to earn vast sums. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, a man from a highly privileged background, is now raking in money from company directorships and speeches to big corporations (getting paid around $100,000 for an hour's work). When he became leader of the Labour Party, it was supposedly a socialist party. What a joke.
Apart from all of the fingers they have in so many pies, what else might politicians be hiding from us? Maybe that they are the puppets of a shadow government running the world? Maybe that these shadow figures are responsible for all the wars, corruption, hunger and inequality in the world?
How many democratic politicians have ever questioned the validity of democracy? If democracy never challenges itself then is it not the same as totalitarianism? All democratic nations are effectively one-party states. The differences between democratic parties are purely cosmetic. You can get anything you like as long as it's democracy. As Henry Ford said, "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
Why are we never striving for something new and better? Why is there never any debate about reforms to democracy, especially in this age of technological revolution?
Democracy is usually combined with free market capitalism: another concept that promises us prosperity, order and stability. Just ask yourself: are the markets and currencies stable? Is the money fairly distributed? Are the resources equally shared between the countries and the people?
The fat pigs of the Old World Order want us, their servants, to fill the gold money troughs in which they bury their long snouts after they have played casino games with the world's economy.
A market without strict regulation immediately attracts cheaters and exploiters, carpetbaggers and robber barons. They already own one third of the planet and control the vast bulk of the money, one way or another. Don't hope that they will use their resources for the benefit of humanity: you won't find more selfish people in this galaxy. And, even though they are unelected, they dictate to governments. Who's really running the country? Elected politicians or unelected bankers? Are the financial affairs of the bankers made transparent to the people? You must be joking. The taxes paid by every banker should be a matter of public record. Then we'll see how good their tax avoidance and tax evasion lawyers and accountants really are.
Free market capitalism guarantees that a small elite will control and exploit the world with minimal interference. Globalism allows companies to exploit slaves in South-East Asia to produce commodities ridiculously cheaply. Afterwards, they sell this low quality junk in the West as branded clothing, and for a massive premium. Then advertisers brainwash you to think that you can't do without these brands. 24/7 we are bombarded with adverts selling trash to us and making capitalist exploiters even wealthier. Screw the brands! Your deeds and conduct define you, not the stupid logos and designer jeans you wear.
Aren't you fed up with the "banksters" (banker+gangster)? Don't pay protection money to the Finance Mob! The Mafia use force to rob you; the OWO use the law, the banks and capitalism. The objective is exactly the same - to screw over the weak to enrich themselves.
The Greatest Party Ever
Do you want to be invited to the greatest party ever? It's already going on, but you're not at it, and never likely to be unless you do something radical.
Imagine that, miraculously, you got an invite and you were allowed to walk past the huge crowd perpetually milling around outside the party. Once you were in, once you were part of the charmed circle and had discovered that it was full of everything you ever desired (apart from being a fraction too crowded), you would have a sudden and unexpected desire - you wouldn't want anyone else to get in. Well, they would only make things more crowded and uncomfortable and take some of the things you want. You want to tell the party organisers to pull up the drawbridge, to slam the door shut to all newcomers, especially since there's another remarkable feature of this party: it goes on indefinitely and contains all life. Babies are born at this party, and, conversely, some of the partygoers are eventually all partied out and die. If more people are born than die, the party will get more congested.
Welcome to the greatest party ever: the party of the Old World Order, the party you will never be attending. Think how much easier your life would be if you were one of the fortunate few born at the party and who grow up surrounded by the party. Your whole life would be lived out at this best of all parties. Never a worry for you. Permanent party time.
We call this Privilege. Those who are blessed to be born at the party have gilded lives. They don't have to struggle and strive to get to the party because they're already there, and always have been. Paris Hilton is such a person. If she hadn't been born into privilege, she would probably have been a lapdancer since she's not qualified for much else.
So, what are you going to do? Will you let this great party go on forever without you? You're permanently straining to see what's going on at this brilliant party. Every day, reports come out of the latest amazing and thrilling happenings. You see fabulously glamorous pictures of incredibly beautiful people, all enjoying the finest things life has to offer. You can't stop thinking about it. Your whole life is consumed by the desire to get into this party. You are completely alienated from your own life because you know the action is permanently elsewhere. Your life is defined by THEIR party. No one wants to be at YOUR party. No one cares about it. It's a bore. You're a bore. And, deep down, you know it's right that you don't get admitted to the party - because you haven't made the slightest effort to host a better party. You have no imagination, no creativity and no talent, no money and no sexy friends, so why on earth would anyone come to your party?
If they won't let you into the party, you have several choices. 1) Just accept that you're a dull failure in comparison with the shining ones. 2) Force them to change the admission requirements of their party. 3) Or create a much better party, one to which they're now the ones struggling to get in.
So, what will it be?
The world is rigged. The privileged elite - the Old World Order - have set up a system that ensures that they always win. It's invariably their interests that are served, never those of the people. It doesn't matter how intelligent, creative and talented you are. If you're not one of the "in-crowd", you'll never be allowed anywhere near real power, unless you're willing to be their dancing puppet.
The people who rule the world couldn't care less about anything other than feathering their own nests. They have done an EXCELLENT job of that. Shame about everything else.
Feudalism has been rebranded as "democracy", but the nice new name doesn't hide the fact that we're still the serfs of the elite, just as we've always been. And our real Lords (still unelected) hide behind a curtain while we deal with their front men - the "democratic" politicians. Nothing has changed since medieval times. The elite still only marry their "equals" (i.e. none of us), they prefer to live in exclusive gated communities (castles) and they control all of the most important jobs.
At least they've lost the "law of the first night" (jus primae noctis), also known as droit du seigneur (the lord's right) - the right to be the first to fuck a serf's bride on her wedding night. Or have they? Rich old men and any shiny celebrity can get virtually any attractive young woman in our society, such is the lure of money, privilege and fame. How many brand new brides would turn down the chance to fuck Brad Pitt or George Clooney if it came up on their wedding day?
These modern feudal lords can ruin countries, start wars, manipulate the markets and do whatever they like to advance their agenda. Their aims are simple: wealth, power and fun at our expense.
A small, global network of just a few thousand people controls the world. The last thing they want is transparency: the natural enemy of conspirators. They never want anyone to be given a clear view of what is happening behind the curtain. But why should we, the people, allow these people to conceal themselves from us? If they are controlling our lives then isn't it reasonable that we should know everything about them? If they are keeping the best jobs in society for themselves, and for their families and friends, shouldn't we be allowed to see what's going on so that we can do something about it? The best jobs should go to the most talented people, regardless of their "connections". Merit is the only thing that matters, not what family you were born into and which schools and colleges you attended. Yet it is dynastic families that rule our world. To all intents and purposes, they are hereditary monarchs. They might as well wear crowns and sit on thrones. We might as well get down on our knees before them. Their mantra is "birth before worth" i.e. the identity of your parents and how they fared in life remains much more important than your personal merit.
Yet it's easy for us to strike back. A single, simple law could destroy the global elite's secrecy once and for all. All that's required is a statute that compels the elite to reveal key information about themselves. We call this the "Anti-elite" Law.
This is the information we need from the top 1% of the wealthiest people of every country in the world:
Which school, college and university did they attend? Were they members of any exclusive clubs during their time at these institutions? Which private clubs, Masonic Lodges and secret societies are they currently members of? What is their religion? How much did they earn in the last year and how much tax did they pay? Are they friends or relatives of anyone else listed in the top 1%?
With this simple information, we would see all of the secrets of the elite. We would see exactly how the system is rigged against the rest of us. Of course, the elite would never cooperate, but that simply proves that they have something to hide.
Why should we care about their "need" for privacy? When you join the elite and start controlling the lives of billions of others, you lose any right to privacy, don't you? That's the price you pay.
Here is what we would discover if the Anti-elite Law were passed:
The young members of the global elite go to exclusive private schools, colleges and universities. They join elite societies such as Skull & Bones and the Bullingdon Club to meet "equals" and to help them build an elite social network. The Old World Order consists mostly of WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) and rich Zionists. Many are members of exclusive Masonic lodges (which many ordinary Freemasons don't even know about), and other elite societies that lurk in the shadows. They also belong to organisations like the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Economic Forum. These individuals are masters of tax avoidance and evasion. They pay virtually no tax at all, despite their incredible wealth. "Tax is for the little people," they like to say. Well, now the little people demand to know exactly how little tax the rich actually pay.
The rich aren't at all keen on surrendering any of their riches to the taxman. That's what we - the suckers - are there for. Instead, the Old World Order specialize in spending other people's money: ours!
Membership of elite societies is a guarantee of success in our society. Merit isn't. It's always who you know rather than what you know. Most members of the OWO are not elected in any way. They are "appointed". If they fuck something up, they simply switch jobs and even get a fat pay-off. They would never grant the same consideration to you, of course.
The OWO consists of rich Zionist bankers to provide the financial muscle, and privileged and aristocratic families to provide the social connections and status. The so-called "President" of the European Union, Hermann van Rompuy, was never elected by the people of Europe, nor was EU foreign minister Baroness Catherine Ashton. Baroness? What fucking century is this? They have no expertise, and we don't even know who they are, but nevertheless they are two of the "leaders" of Europe. Isn't that totally weird? Imagine if the American President didn't need to bother being elected by the people, but was simply appointed like a Pope by his close associates. That's the world the elite would love. Hell would surely be unleashed if people realized just how much they were being manipulated by the privileged elite. The Anti-elite Law would reveal all; put it all on the table for everyone to see.
It's time to demand that the Anti-elite Law is passed in your country. Refuse to vote for any politician who does not support it. Make no mistake, any politician who fails to support it is a member of the elite and your sworn enemy. If he supports the Anti-elite Law, he has proved that he's a politician acting on behalf of the people rather than the rich. If not, get rid of him! This is a simple law, but it is also one of the most profound in human history. It marks the end of rule by the rich, privileged elite. Spread the word. Let's change the world.
The elite see themselves as gods, but they are nothing without us. If they didn't have us to do their bidding, they would starve.
To destroy the elite, we need to destroy the pillars of their tyranny: 1) Democracy. 2) Abrahamic religion. 3) The psychological message that the rich deserve their wealth and are morally superior to everyone else. 4) The laziness, ignorance, apathy and fear they have instilled in us to control us.
Above all, we must attack the elite's supreme God, their reason for living and the tool they use to manipulate the globe: MONEY.
In our society, money equals power and that's the reason why money is unfairly distributed. Some people have personal wealth hundreds of millions of times greater than that of the poorest people in the world. How could anyone ever consider that reasonable and acceptable?
Here's a thought experiment from the German cabaret artist Volker Pispers. Imagine all investment bankers, business counsellors and stock market analysts falling dead, or all the fire fighters, nurses and doctors. Whom would you miss? If all the members of the elite died tomorrow, would anyone care? Or would it be time to break out the champagne?
The elite are parasites, living off the efforts of others. Many of the people we really need for a well-functioning society - such as teachers and nurses - can't even afford an apartment in the city where they work.
The privileged are like spoiled little children who believe that they are the centre of the universe, but whereas reality kicks in for ordinary children, it never does for these privileged people. They have remained children because they are shielded from harsh reality by their privileged lifestyles. They don't have to worry about money or finding a good job, or a decent place to live. It's all handed to them on a plate.
They desire to be on top of the world, to have people bowing to them and to own more toys than all the other children. The world is screwed because the people running it are spoiled, incompetent brats. No adults have taught them the error of their ways.
Sad, isn't it? It's even sadder that we play along. These children have to learn that they are part of a big group called humanity and everyone deserves their place inside this group, and an equal opportunity to have the finer things in life.
Don't future generations deserve something better? Isn't it our job to provide it? Don't you want future generations to look back and say, "I would give anything to have been back there with those amazing people who changed the world. We are forever in their debt."
You can be one of the heroes. It's time to make your choice.
"J" sent us a message that captures in a few sentences much of what we are trying to communicate. The content of our website is now simply enormous, and it's always a good idea if you can boil down the most meaningful parts for yourself into a few brief lines that you can carry around with you forever. We say this not just regarding our site, but everything you read. Try to summarise in a couple of paragraphs any book you read. By doing so, you will capture its essence. Things that seem complicated can suddenly seem radically, even childishly simple.
For example, Islam can be reduced to a single idea. God orders Abraham to kill his son Ishmael, and Shaytan pleads with Abraham to spare the boy's life. Three times, Abraham violently drives Shaytan away with stones and at last gets ready to plunge a dagger into his son. That's all you need to know about Islam. All the rest is propaganda and bullshit. Whether or not you are attracted to Islam depends solely on if you seriously believe that God would order you to kill your child, and that for you to prove your obedience to God and faith in him, you must agree. You must also believe that someone who pleads for your son's life is not good but evil. Once you have reached the conclusion that God orders murder and must be obeyed while Shaytan craves mercy and must be resisted, you are ready for Islam - because you are literally mad. You are a Devil worshipper and you will do anything for Allah, the Devil. You have submitted to him in every way possible, and that's exactly what the word Islam means - submission. No dominant person, no moral person, could ever find Islam anything other than sickening to the core. When you capture Islam's essence, it becomes almost inconceivable that something like 1.3 billion people in this world subscribe to an ideology that says it is right to agree to kill your children if God orders it, and wrong to listen to anyone who says you shouldn't.
A person's relationship with "God" is thus defined in the most extreme way possible. Let's just imagine that Allah actually declared himself Shaytan. Would a Muslim stop believing, or wouldn't it make the slightest difference? If you unconditionally believe in a God who demands of you that you should perform human sacrifice on your own children, haven't you proved beyond question that you don't care if he is God or Satan? After all, what could he ask of you that was any worse? A rational person would define a good God as someone who doesn't command you to murder someone to prove your obedience to him. If you couldn't care less about that definition, you obviously couldn't care less whether you are worshipping God or the Devil. So is anyone surprised that Muslims carried out 9/11? The only surprise is that they're not killing people all day every day in the name of their God. (Well, actually, they are.)
The Face of Islam
"In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful."
In Afghanistan, Bibi Aisha, 18, fled from her husband's constant violence. The Taliban tracked her down. While her brother-in-law held her down, her husband cut off her nose and sliced off her ears.
Islam is legalised male violence against woman. In Islamic countries a woman who has been raped requires four witnesses because a man's testimony is always more credible than a woman's. And the likelihood of having four witnesses to a violent rape is…? Moreover, if the woman doesn't prove her case, she can be found guilty of fornication or adultery and then be flogged, beheaded or stoned to death. Islam - the rapists' charter.
Subject: Facebook, the vanity nation, will be inverted and converted, in time, to the Gnostic nation. I sat down and wrote this then decided to post it to Facebook. It pains me to know that my words will fall on blind eyes and deaf ears. But I know some will feel it, and in doing so magnify its potential to reach others. I am feeding the growth of the profoundest of archetypal entities. Truth will naturally reach its omega point. And if what I speak holds no truth for someone, I implore him to never stop seeking it. I know this earth to be a living breathing organism, where every person, animal, and tree has a soul of its own, and like the neurons in a brain, each contributes to the infrastructure of the whole, the whole being greater then the sum of its parts. Relative to our understanding of sociology and psychology, all cultures, social constructs, religions, economies, and education systems are the very essence of a collective ego. And where there is an angel there IS a demon. While we immerse ourselves in the trivialities of every day living, a substantial counter force has been steadily gaining momentum since the dawn of time. Make no mistake, no individual in this universe is exempt from this divine force, and each one of us contributes to its evolution. Some may even say it is the driving force behind evolution itself. Not Darwinian Evolution, but a much broader way of transformation, that takes into account the evolution of solar systems, galaxies, the entire universe. The evolution of God. It manifests itself in the profoundest of ways, it is the counter to all things culture, it is the underground. With qualities both hideous and magnificent, it is a force rooted in consciousness, yearning to actualise its deepest potential. Sadly, we are not yet a conscious race of beings; one need only look to the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to confirm this. Awareness, or a lack thereof, is the product and producer of faith. The blind faith that is imposed upon the ignorant masses acts as a conveyor belt leading straight into the center mass of the abyss. And as some say, stare into the abyss for too long, and eventually the abyss stares into you. The people who have managed to tread the narrow bridge over this darkness, deserve a better foundation to construct the temple of their soul. Although the time is yet to come, mathematics will inevitably be that foundation. Science, true science, not the corrupted egotistic form that is scientism, will be the underlying premise for all that we accomplish in the future. This is not to imply that all we have realized has been in vain. It is true that we have to some extent tamed this overwhelmingly hostile yet beautiful reality. We have accomplished feats of enormity in our time and history, but a new age is upon us, the next stage in our conscious evolution. Only through knowledge will we illuminate our souls in this Dark Age. So know that this is more than the game. Know that faith is the silver thread spun by the ultimate tyrant. Know that this is an ancient circus, and we are the lions, whipped into submission, tired and miserable, introspective, patiently waiting.
Just know this, there is no vanity in the force you have collectively initiated.
The Three Universes I
"Energy is Eternal Delight"
There are only three plausible ways to account for the existence of the universe, and two of them involve God.
1) Either the universe is created, being the work of an eternal, uncreated, perfect entity (God) - as Abrahamism maintains. 2) Or the universe is eternal and uncreated and is itself God, albeit a God evolving towards perfection - as the Enlightenment religions teach. 3) Or the universe is created out of nothing - as scientific materialism asserts, and has no connection at all with any type of God.
According to the first option, God precedes the universe as an immortal being, eternally perfect and infinitely powerful, and he creates the universe according to his own divine plan out of nothing. According to the second option, the universe itself is God, but a God of potential rather than actualisation. The cosmic journey is the one that takes God from infinite potential to infinite actualisation. This view reaches its maximum expression in the philosophy of the Illuminati Grand Master Hegel. According to the third option, God has nothing to do with anything, and nor does mind or free will, and the universe unfolds according to the implacable laws of materialistic physics. The origin of the laws of physics and the appearance of matter out of nothing remain open questions in this scenario.
Atheists and Hegelians reject the possibility of an eternal, perfect God. There is no form of logic that can equate the evolutionary world we see all around us with a perfect world created by a perfect God. In particular, Abrahamists have never been able to offer any credible account of how evil, suffering and imperfection exist in a universe created as an act of supreme love (allegedly) by a perfect, all-powerful God.
Moreover, the universe is either a) immense beyond the imagining or b) actually infinite in extent. Why would God create such a universe? In what way would it reveal his divine plan? What could that plan possibly be? It is mad to assert that a Creator would have created an infinitely large universe. A Creator creates something special, something specific into which he pours his essence. He does not create an indiscriminate cosmic mass, without boundary or definition. No sculptor would set out to sculpt infinity - the sculpture would never have any discernible shape; it would simply continue forever. It would never be anything with a meaning. It would never be a work of art. No painter would paint infinity - it would never have any frame. It would not be something that you could gaze upon and discern its meaning. All art could actually be said to be the taming of the infinite, the deliberate act of rendering the infinite finite. Only the finite makes sense. Only the finite can be captured. Only the finite is special. An infinite process, in order to create meaning, has no alternative but to create finitude.
What is the arche, the fundamental substance of the universe? It is God in his barest, simplest, most abstract sense. A scientific term such as "dimensionless energy" could be used instead, but it is God all the same. The arche is the unconscious mind of the unconscious God. The arche has no dimensions. It does not exist in space and time since space and time do not themselves exist when existence is considered in its most elementary condition. Space and time will emerge in due course from God, but they do not exist with him as aspects of the most primitive form of existence.
Bare existence is extraordinary. It is Will to Actualisation i.e. it is pure potential that wants, that desires, that yearns, that longs for something. For what? To BECOME. To become what? To become everything it has it within itself to be. To become PERFECTION. That is why the Will to Actualisation is none other than God. Teleological potential has only one aim - to become perfect actualisation.
Bare existence comprises just this potential, this Will to Actualisation. If potential did not want to become anything then it never would. Nothing can happen without a will to happen. Scientists speak of the "heat death" of the universe when all the useful energy in the cosmos has been expended and nothing remains other than a freezing universe of evenly distributed atoms - eternally dead interstellar dust. Bizarrely, it has never occurred to scientists that this state is impossible for the extremely simple reason that if it were possible for the universe to be dead then it already would be. The universe has existed for eternity.
Existence is not something that can be created or destroyed. It just IS. Existence is ISNESS. But it is not static. If it were, the universe would remain in one state forever, and be equivalent to, and as meaningless as, eternal, absolute nothingness. So the ISNESS of existence is always becoming a new ISNESS i.e. existence is perpetual BECOMING. Becoming involves change, energy, movement. That cannot be emphasized enough. Potential = becoming = energy = movement = change = the Will to Actualisation = the arche = bare existence = the fundamental "stuff" of the universe = teleology = entelechy = unconscious mind = God "hidden". They all mean the same thing. The universe is driven forward because the universe is purposeful movement. If it were purposeless movement, it would just go round and round in circles, never attaining any higher states, but in fact it is always achieving more; it is always evolving.
The universe cannot stop becoming. It cannot freeze. It cannot change from becoming into frozen being. It can suffer no heat death, or indeed death of any kind. It cannot be destroyed. It cannot go out of existence. The fate decreed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics is impossible. If it were possible for all energy to be used up - for becoming to stop - it would have happened infinitely long ago.
Existence, the universe, is a perpetual motion machine. How could it be otherwise? If the universe could run out of puff - if that were a possible thing that could happen, a possible state that could be attained - then it would have happened already and we would not be here to pour scorn on the idea. Particle physicists say themselves that anything not forbidden is compulsory. If cosmic heat death were not forbidden it would be compulsory and it would have occurred infinitely long ago, and the cosmos would still be in that state now. The Big Bang is the surest disproof of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that it is possible to have and yet legions of Nobel Prize winning scientists have failed to notice this elementary fact. If something as logically outrageous as a whole universe emerging from "nothing" can happen, how can anyone be so stupid as to claim that the universe will perpetually freeze? (And if a universe could spring out of nothing 14 billion years ago, it must have been able to do so eons before for exactly the same reasons: indeed it must have been able to do so an infinite number of times since there is no sufficient reason to forbid it.) Moreover, if there are countless black holes in the universe, relentlessly sucking matter into them, what sane person will seriously suggest that the universe is doomed to reaching frozen stasis?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is yet another statement of "false science" i.e. scientific materialism that refuses to acknowledge the existence of true mind. False science extrapolates to the whole cosmos "good science" that is applicable to small regions of space and time.
The Will to Actualisation is a revolutionary concept. From this, everything else flows. The Will to Actualisation is a ceaseless longing and yearning, an unstoppable craving and striving. What we call "desire" is the Will to Actualisation in its basic state. Without desire nothing can happen. It is no mistake that the Buddhists conceive of the death of desire as a precondition for attaining nirvana. Schopenhauer has been accused of misunderstanding nirvana for linking it to complete nothingness, to non-existence and the total extinguishing of the will. In fact, it is hard to see how it could possibly be interpreted as anything else. To not desire is to literally not exist - yet such a state is impossible since desire is the arche that can never be created or destroyed.
The Will to Actualisation, this unquenchable desire to attain higher states, has several inevitable consequences. How does it go about attaining these higher states? How does it know it has attained them? Slowly but surely the Will to Actualisation results in something truly wondrous - the birth of reason. Reason is the basis of planning, the basis of order. Ordered states can lead to states of higher order whereas perfectly random, chaotic states will always stay perfectly random and chaotic. Reason (order, planning, logic, the Logos), is something that emerges inexorably from the Will to Actualisation. And the core language of reason is none other than mathematics. The Will to Actualisation was guaranteed to create mathematics as its central tool for imposing order, organisation and form on itself. Without mathematics, the Will to Actualisation could never have become anything. To achieve higher states there must be an ordering and organisation of states, and mathematics is the quintessence of order, organisation and pattern.
But mathematics on its own is insufficient. How can mathematics allow a judgment of what represents a higher state? Is a row of sixes more or less ordered than a column of fives? Is a circle better than an ellipse? How would a mathematical mind "know" that it had achieved something better than before?
Two other factors are necessary:
1) Intuition. A mind must intuitively grasp that one state is higher than another, that it offers more potential, that it is associated with greater power. Intuition is a glimpse of the future. It is an instinctive understanding of what the completed project will look like. It is intuition that offers the scope for incredible short cuts. Intuition, inspiration and enlightenment are similar in conception - they offer a dazzling flash of the telos - the desired end: God fully actualised. No one is closer to Godliness than the most intuitive amongst us.
2) Feeling. Some things make us feel "good" and others "bad". Some things cause us pleasure and others pain. Some things make us feel we have increased our power, others that we have lost power. It is these emotional judgments that allow us to cut through endless mathematical patterns. Scientists studying facial recognition using computers have discovered that their best computerised attempts can't come anywhere near the speed and efficiency of humans who can recognise familiar faces instantly.
Computerised facial recognition software has the task of matching a new photograph that someone inputs into the system with one of an enormous number of photographs of people stored in its database. To test for a match, the software has to laboriously measure all sorts of facial distances and angles and skin tones, eye colours, hair patterns and textures etc. One of the reasons why humans are so much better is that they have an emotional response to faces. They might find them attractive or ugly, for instance. If they know the person, recognition is instantaneous. Why? Because we're hardwired for faces. They are amongst the most significant things in our life. We have to recognise our mother's face, our father's, our siblings', our friends, enemies, lovers, strangers etc. We absorb far more information from a person's face than we do from what they say. People interviewing you for a job pay far more attention to your appearance than to what you say. Your accent and tone of voice are much more important than the content. You could be Einstein himself and yet if you have a broad, ill-educated accent someone may judge you the village idiot. Feeling, not reason, rules such choices.
Computers, as tools that execute endless mathematical instructions but which have absolutely no intuition or feelings, can never match us. To make artificial intelligences smarter than we are, you would have to work out how to instil emotion and intuition into them. You would need to make them desire and care about things. You would need to make them love and hate, to experience pleasure and pain. But if you succeeded in doing that, they would replace us!
Humans are not machines. We are not computers. We have a mathematical processor at our core, and the whole cosmos is mathematical, yet mathematics does not define us. We have a feeling processor too, and an intuition processor - these are what raise us above automata. To put it another way, we have God inside us. We have the Will to Actualisation burning within our hearts. How could a computer distinguish between Beethoven and muzak? It couldn't. It would analyse the respective music into waves, amplitudes, frequencies etc but it would never experience the music, feel it from the inside.
Scientific materialism is a Cartesian project that treats human beings as automata. But that's not what we are. We are alive. We feel. We dream. We hope. We aspire. We lust. We love. We long for things. Automata do none of these things.
One of the reasons why we can dismiss Abrahamism is that it treats us as creations. We are not. We are eternal. We are the same stuff as the universe in its primordial form. Robots are our creations. They are dead. The reason for that is that they are artificial, containing our limited understanding of the arche rather than naturally reflecting it.
It is impossible for us to program a human-like robot. If we wanted to create realistic androids, we would have to subject them to the only process that can capture the arche - evolution. Schopenhauer said that music is a direct copy of the primordial Will, hence why it affects us so profoundly. But there is something else that is a direct copy of the Will - evolution. What does evolution seek to accomplish? - creatures that will, that desire, that want to convert potential into actualisation. We are the arche. We are its expression. We are taking it higher and higher, to ever-greater levels of actualisation. The process can end at only one point - divinity. We are all becoming God. We carry God within us. If you could glimpse your innermost core you would be gazing at God himself. That is why the Abrahamist religions are so disgusting. They try to alienate us from what is holiest in us. They try to estrange us from our own Godliness.
To talk of "life" appearing in the cosmos is totally wrong. The cosmos is intrinsically alive. What we actually mean by "life" is when mind succeeds in animating matter. It took eons before the unconscious cosmic mind was finally able to bind itself to its own creation - matter - in a way that gave it more than just mathematical control of matter (more than just the laws of physics, in other words). It is that binding that is life. Life is what you get when an individual mind (a soul) has planted itself inside matter, bringing desire, emotion and intuition to a limited segment of the material world. Often, life may be barely expressed, as in a plant, but when you bear in mind that a banana is said to have 30% of its DNA in common with a human, you can begin to understand that life is just a spectrum, of which we are at the higher end and plants the lower.
Artificial intelligence can never be real life because it lacks those crucial elements of desire, emotion and intuition. It lacks the evolutionary expression of the primeval Will. To make artificial life real you would have to give it a soul. Do you know any computer programmer who knows how to code a soul?
Plato divided the soul into three: the reasoning part, the feeling/spirited part and the desiring part. Had he added intuition he would have had a complete description of the Will to Actualisation.
The Will to Actualisation begins as pure desire and striving, with an evolving intuitive notion of where it wants to go. It acquires reason, logic and planning via mathematics, then acquires feeling as a means of judging between alternatives.
Nietzsche's "Will to Power" is effectively identical to the Will to Actualisation.
Walter Kaufmann wrote, "Nietzsche was a dialectical monist. His basic force, the will to power, is not only the Dionysian passionate striving, akin to Schopenhauer's irrational will, but is also Apollonian and possesses an inherent capacity to give itself form."
Here we have all of the right ingredients - Dionysian desire, passion and emotion, and Apollonian order, organisation and reason, both driven by the dialectic of becoming, and guided by an intuitive teleology.
The simplest way to think of the cosmos is as a dialectical, evolutionary process for converting potential into actuality. All you need to create a universe is mental, dimensionless energy infused with the Will to Actualisation. From that, everything else follows. The system pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. It creates itself and perfects itself.
Science treats energy as some sterile, mindless, neutral substance, but it is no such thing. Energy is alive. Not in the sense in which we understand life, but as its indispensable precursor. It is only because energy is evolving, releasing more and more of its potential dialectically, that life evolved. The quality of energy is always dialectically improving.
Marxists argued that the laws that govern matter are not mechanistic but dialectical (hence the description of Marxists as dialectical materialists). Although no one ever says so, this is a much better way of viewing science than traditional mechanistic scientific materialism. Marxists do not agree with scientific materialists that only matter exists. Rather, they say that mind is the highest product of matter, and that matter is dialectically trying to generate more and more mind.
Dialectical materialism asserts that one of the fundamental laws of existence is that quantity (matter) is dialectically transformed into quality (mind). Dialectical materialism is thus extremely closely related to alchemy: transforming base matter into the "gold" of the highest spirit.
Although Marx believed that he was inverting Hegel's philosophy, he was actually much closer to Hegel than he imagined.
Hegel's position was idealistic rather than materialistic i.e. mind precedes matter; matter is a product of mind rather than mind being a product of matter. The Big Bang can be explained in Hegelian terms (matter emerges from mind) but not in Marxist terms (matter comes from nothing at all). Of course, neither Hegel nor Marx had ever heard of the term "Big Bang" but there can be no doubt that Big Bang theory is a triumphant vindication and indeed almost proof of the correctness of Hegel's philosophy.
For Hegel, mind creates matter and then through material existence (the world of space and time) is able to attain self-consciousness and ultimately to reach its highest state - Absolute Knowledge and Absolute Mind. Matter is the necessary state of alienation that mind must go through on its journey to its Omega Point. It is dialectically imperative that mind should create matter.
But Marx's position effectively becomes the same as Hegel's once the material world exists. Marx asserts that matter is trying to reach its highest state - mind, and Hegel asserts that mind is trying to attain its highest state through matter. Either way, both positions maintain that the highest expression of mind is the dialectical culmination of existence. Hence the difference at this level becomes a matter of semantics.
Hegel and Marx are both advocates of the transformation, the alchemical transmutation, of quantity into quality, the impure into the pure, the unfashioned into the sculpted, potential into actuality, the lowest quality into the highest.
Any view of human beings should reflect this same scope for our transformation into higher states and, at last, into none other than God, the Omega Point of the dialectic.
Marxist dialectical science is a much better way of thinking about Darwinian evolution than traditional mechanistic science. It is impossible to conceive of how any mechanistic processes could lead to life, mind and consciousness. How can free will be mechanistic? But the concept of matter striving to generate mind in a dialectical rather than mechanistic manner provides a more productive perspective. Mechanistic processes are anti-mind; dialectical processes are pro-mind.
Energy, fundamentally, is Will. How could it be otherwise? Nothing would happen without will. If you had no will you wouldn't get out of bed. A computer has no will. It has no urge to switch itself on. Only Will drives things forward and makes things happen. Most of the time it operates unconsciously, following the path of least resistance - the laws of science - and can often seem to be inert and inanimate (like the computer) but eventually it can express itself more meaningfully. It can attain the condition of free will. We, humanity, already display this divine quality, although precious few of us use it properly. Nevertheless, we are the living proof that energy - which can be neither created nor destroyed - can transform itself into higher states. Energy can make itself conscious. Consciousness is the highest quality of energy. Maximum consciousness is God.
We human beings are still in thrall to enormous unconscious forces, but when we attain gnosis, we will have achieved the Omega Point of energy's journey from potential to actualisation. Energy is not "stuff" - it is self-transformative will. There is only one thing capable of learning and improving itself - mind. Therefore energy, when properly understood, is mind. Just as we have a will to do things, so does pure mind. It is will that powers the mind to higher and higher states. We call this process the dialectic. It is a learning process that gains knowledge via the path of contradiction.
Thesis, antithesis and synthesis - over and over again, attaining higher and higher states. That is how you go from maximum potential to maximum actualisation. There is no other way. Mechanistic processes cannot lead you anywhere.
No scientist has ever understood the true nature of energy - that it is actually mind. When you grasp that, you have grasped the fundamental nature of existence.
The Three Universes II
When all's said and done, it's remarkably easy to analyse the cosmos we see around us. There are only three ways by which it could have reached its present state, two of which are concerned with God, and the third of which avoids God, as we've just described. It's worthwhile going through them again, from a slightly different angle.
1) The cosmos was created by an external, eternal, perfect being (God). This is the Abrahamist view. We have a perfect starting point - God - and then we go downhill because God's creation is less perfect than he is. It's odd that people should subscribe to this stance of cosmic anti-evolution. And why would God himself want to create imperfection when he could make do with his perfect self? God's "love" becomes a love of imperfection rather than of perfection. He loves us because we are necessarily inferior to him. In other words, this isn't love at all, but domination and bullying. Read the Abrahamist texts - they are all about a tyrant dictating to abject slaves, and the slaves are supposed to put up with it because God says so. The Catholic Catechism asks, "Why did God make me?" and the answer is "To love, serve and obey him." That sums up the situation perfectly - the most one-sided contract you could over get. It's the creed of the master, and no self-respecting person could ever endure such an unequal relationship. 2) Just as odd as Abrahamism is scientific materialism. This asserts that the cosmos sprang out of nothing 14 billion years ago in a huge burst of energy, and the useful energy has been running down ever since and will eventually reach a zero state where the cosmos will have suffered "heat death" and be frozen forever, incapable of doing a single thing. You simply couldn't get a more grim, nihilistic, pointless and purposeless vision of existence than this. Along the way, according to this view, atoms of matter jostle with each other and interact in various ways. Amidst all of the random jostlings, life, mind and consciousness emerge for no apparent reason and via a completely unknown mechanism (voodoo perhaps!). However, these serve no purpose and are just curious phenomena, nothing else. Like the cosmos itself, we will perish and the material atoms of which we are composed will suffer heat death along with everything else.
3) If you don't believe in the perfect Creator fashioning the imperfect cosmos out of nothing, and you don't believe in the cosmos springing out of nothing without the help of any Creator and then just randomly running down its energy in a series of utterly pointless and mindless interactions then you are left with the truth: the cosmos is not created. It has always existed and will always exist. It can never not exist. It goes through great cyclic Ages as it explores every conceivable possibility. The basic stuff of existence is wilful, purposeful energy - mind/spirit (Geist to use Hegel's word) - that strives to turn all possibilities into actualities. It does so eternally. When it has exhausted one Age of all of its possibilities, it commits "divine suicide" and begins again. This cosmic adventure can never end.
A number of perceptive individuals have written to us to point out that there's something horrific about this stance since it amounts, in the final analysis, to a type of eternal recurrence, resembling the endless task of Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill only to repeatedly see it fall.
Eternal Recurrence comes in several varieties. In the Groundhog Day version, for example, you are free to do whatever you like within a restricted, repeating scenario. In the Sisyphean version, the scenario repeats and the actions you perform repeat, but each repetition is always slightly different from the one before - you push the boulder up the hill differently; you come back down the hill differently. In the strictest interpretation of Nietzsche's version of eternal recurrence, your life is repeated identically an infinite number of times.
In terms of cosmic eternal recurrence, the same scenario of maximum potential being converted to maximum actualisation happens an infinite number of times, but the events experienced are different every time round, meaning that there is infinite variety within a repeating scenario i.e. the scenario eternally recurs, not the events within the scenario, which are always different. In an infinite system with infinite possibilities, there can never be identical repetition of the Nietzschean kind, hence the future remains completely undetermined. The general pattern it will take is nevertheless fully known, and is inescapable.
The cosmos cannot do anything else. There are no ways out in an infinite system. If God is eternal, what keeps him excited and stimulated after ten zillion trillion years? Hasn't he seen and done everything? Isn't he bored to death, so to speak? He experiences nothing but constant repetition.
Or what about the cosmic heat death? - a universe frozen for eternity. What's good about that?
The universe cannot do anything other than go from potential to the perfection of complete actualisation, and then start again. It cannot stand still.
It cannot endure eternal perfection because it encounters the ultimate cosmic stumbling block - boredom. Boredom is, arguably, the most important aspect of existence, the factor that subverts perfection itself. How can any mind stave off boredom when it has resolved every problem? You start to realise something incredible about the universe. It does strange things and seems to operate in a baffling and enigmatic way precisely in order to defeat boredom.
The Hindu concept of Maya - illusion - is invaluable. If you were God and had experienced perfection for eons, and were now utterly bored by yet another day of glorious flawlessness, wouldn't you create a force whose function was to attempt to deceive you, to puzzle you…to entertain you? One way or another, God allows evil to exist, he allows confusion, pain, suffering and bewilderment to exist because if none of these things existed, life would not be endurable. The highest wisdom is this - boredom trumps morality. In an infinite system - a system that literally cannot end - the issue of how to escape boredom becomes paramount. Indeed it is the only issue. The universe that cycles endlessly from potential to actualisation, reaching an Omega Point of perfection and then starting again is the optimal solution to counteracting boredom in eternity. There is no alternative, like it or not.
Isn't it strange that in a mortal system, fear of death is paramount, but in an immortal system, fear of deathlessness replaces it? How will you cope with an existence that can never end no matter what you do? You are like Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day when it seemed that he was trapped forever in a loop; not even killing himself offered release. But looking at it another way, in this system you get to experience perfection an infinite number of times, and isn't that the most desirable outcome infinity can confer?
What do you fear most? Death or deathlessness? There's no in-between. Would you prefer eternal oblivion or the impossibility of oblivion? Death takes your life against your will. Deathlessness prevents you ever exiting life even if you want to. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave," as the Eagles put it in Hotel California.
You see, we are fully jacked in to the zero-infinity system. If we are mortal, our lives are zero compared with infinity, hence what's the point? If we are immortal, we are the children of infinity and zero can never be truly ours. Yet zero is absolutely ours because only zero - dimensionlessness - is outside space and time, outside mortality.
No matter what, we can never escape from zero and infinity. They define us, just as they define everything. Zero and infinity set the bounds for dimensionality and mortality, but they themselves are outside dimensionality and mortality.
Consider the Abrahamic concepts of heaven and hell. Catholics talk about gazing upon the Beatific Vision in Paradise. Yet how long could you gaze upon anything? Doesn't a time come when it bores you to tears? Imagine an eternity spent staring at the Mona Lisa. How long would it be before it became nauseating to you, the most unbearable thing you could ever conceive? You would give anything to not to have to look at it one second longer.
As for hell, imagine you had been tortured in every conceivable way for a trillion years. But you still have an infinite sentence left. You always have an infinite sentence left no matter how much time elapses. There are no new torments for the demons to devise for you. They've exhausted all of their ideas. So, would there come a time when you begged your torturers to find a new way to torture you because you were so bored with all of the other tortures that had been done to you umpteen times before? You realise that even the demons are bored to tears.
You are bored, and your demons are bored. The Devil is bored. And this must continue forever. Even worse, you are totally desensitised to pain. You can't feel anything anymore. None of the tortures cause you any physical distress at all now. Once you've been burned for a million years, you no longer feel the flames. In fact you crave the days when you once screamed out, because at least you felt something. Now you are perpetually numb.
And exactly the same is true in heaven. All pleasures, all delights, have become mind-numbingly tedious. God is even more bored than the Devil.
Heaven and hell, God and Satan have merged into one. They are the collective expression of Absolute Boredom!!! Pleasure and pain have lost all meaning. The souls in heaven crave the tortures of hell just so that they can have a new experience. They start to wonder whether they are the ones in hell and if God was Satan all along to have inflicted so much despair on them.
Ironic, isn't it? As soon as you truly contemplate living forever you realise that you will have to confront not the horror of dying, but the horror of not dying! And with crystal clarity all of the puzzles of existence are solved.
Life is spectacularly mysterious for the simple reason that it has to be in order to stave off boredom. WE, all of us, have created this system. We don't remember, and that's the whole point. We devised a system that would save us from eternal tedium. We created Maya to spin illusions and puzzles for us so that we could avoid learning the truth too quickly.
The Will to Actualisation suffers from a critical design flaw. It cannot stop. Not ever. It always desires and that desire can never be quenched. Not even perfection tames it. Desire has a monstrous flip-side - boredom. When desires are not being fulfilled, boredom emerges, and desire then craves something to fill the vacuum. Boredom is the driver that keeps whipping desire along. If you are not in a state of desire then you are in a state of boredom, which can only be cured by new desires. One way or another, the system keeps moving forward. There is no stop button. Schopenhauer was the philosopher who took this melancholic realisation to its most extreme extent and declared existence inherently evil. Happiness and satisfaction are impossible, he said. When you achieve any ambition it gives you but momentary pleasure. Almost instantly, you set new goals and have to start all over again. If you can't think of a new objective, you succumb to boredom and that will then force you to new activity. There's no way out.
No priests, rabbis and imams ever talk about these most fundamental questions. Why not? A) They don't understand them and B) It would ruin their infantile understanding of the world.
According to Abrahamists, you get one brief mortal life which decides your fate for a subsequent immortal life in heaven or hell (what's remotely fair and just about that? - about the actions you perform in three score years and ten settling your eternal future, with no right of appeal?). No Abrahamist ever considers what you will be thinking and feeling once you have experienced heaven or hell for a zillion trillion years and still have eternity stretching before you. No Abrahamist ever considers one of the defining characteristics of the human mind or indeed of any conscious mind - the certainty of being bored by repetition and the craving for novelty.
Remember, to become God you must ponder the questions that God has to confront, the greatest of which is how to live with infinity. To learn to affirm it and love it. When you say YES to life, you are saying yes to infinity, and to everything that implies.
As usual, Nietzsche grasped these issues better than any theologian: 'What if a demon crept after you one day or night in your loneliest solitude and said to you: "This life, as you live it now and have lived it, you will have to live again and again, times without number; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and all the unspeakably small and great in your life must return to you, and everything in the same series and sequence - and in the same way this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and in the same way this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence will be turned again and again - and you with it, you dust of dust!" - Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who thus spoke? Or have you experienced a tremendous moment in which you would have answered him: "You are a god and never did I hear anything more divine!" If this thought gained power over you it would, as you are now, transform and perhaps crush you; the question in all and everything: "do you want this again and again, times without number?" would lie as the heaviest burden upon all of your actions. Or how well disposed towards yourself and towards life would you have to become to have no greater desire than this for the ultimate eternal sanction and seal?'
The cyclical cosmos, reincarnating itself eternally in order to go from absolute potential to absolute perfection an infinite number of times is the ONLY rational answer of how to cope with deathlessness. And once you have got used to the idea then, like Nietzsche's Superman, you will find yourself affirming this reality and declaring this the most divine news possible. You will achieve perfection not just once but an infinite number of times - and if that's not the definition of a perfect existence then what is?
A mind desires. It needs a way to know if it is getting closer or further from what it desires and it uses pleasure and pain, the basis of emotion. To plan, it needs logic and reason. Mathematics is the element that underlies logic and reason. Mathematics is also the ground of law, order, organisation and pattern.
Hence desire necessarily generates both emotion and reason.
Music can be thought of as both reason and emotion. Mathematics provides the rational form while the content conveys the emotion. Without the form, the content could not exist. Fundamentally, as Pythagoras perceived, we belong to a cosmos filled with music, for which one day we will have the ears. We will listen to the cosmic orchestra playing the sublime music of the spheres, and nothing will ever have sounded better. Music to make you cry, music to make you die.
Islam - the Dark Ages
"In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful."
Would you stone a couple of young lovers to death? Could there ever be any legitimate religious reason for killing lovers who have done no harm to anyone?
Is Islam a religion or a psychosis? How can anyone who kills lovers say that they believe in a most merciful God? More like the Devil. Islam is a time machine for taking badly educated people 1400 years into the past where they can live like primitive tribes people, cut off from modernity. No one does this to Muslims. They do it to themselves.
The Jewish religion is much older than Islam, but the Jews have mostly stayed in touch with modernity. In fact, they have often been the vanguard of new thinking. There are few Jews in comparison with the number of Muslims and yet the Jews have had an almost infinitely greater impact on cultural and intellectual life than the Muslims. Why? Because they have respected education. The Koran, on the other hand, is a book of anti-education.
Here is some drivel by an extremist Islamic Jihadist group called The Truth Army:
Bringing you Truth videos from all over the world to enlighten the masses, fight against ignorance, and destroy the NWO. 9/11 was a satanic Illuminati freemasonic ritual to usher in the NWO, which is comprised of 2 parts: 1. War against Islamic Sharia being implemented as a political system 2. War against freedom, sovereignty, and prosperity of all of humanity The satanic Illuminati dominate several aspects including banking, political, military, media, and economic spheres of influence worldwide. They are currently destroying the Western world and finalizing the shift of economic power over to the East, specifically China. China is already a model NWO state due to the atheistic nature of the government and totalitarian control of the people. The long-term goal for the world is massive population reduction through wars, famines, disease, sterilization, abortion, and other means to destroy humanity which the dark Illuminati do in order to please their master, Satan / Shaytan / the Devil. They wish to hasten on the arrival of their awaited one, the Antichrist / False Messiah / The Deceiver, because in their corrupted belief system they believe that they will become supreme and immortal beings by doing this great evil in the world. They are deceived, and are the worst of mankind. They will have their punishment in the Next Life, and will have no refuge from The Creator of the worlds. The only way to achieve victory against the lies, death, and corruption of the satanic Illuminati is through Truth, Life, and Justice. The masses of humanity must be educated as to who the true enemy is. We must know ourselves as well as the enemy so that we may effectively fight and destroy the NWO Antichrist system. The time has come to unite all of humanity against the forces of darkness to destroy them if we wish to ensure our own survival. Educate each other Unite on all levels Stand up for the world and future generations There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone and much more. The death mentality of the Illuminati promotes scarcity, ignorance, and wars, while the righteous people of the world promote wealth, knowledge, wisdom, peace, science, and prosperity. The Victory of the Righteous Believers is Written The God-fearing people of the world shall achieve Success in this life and The Next All Power is with God, The Creator of all the worlds All Praise is due to Allah Peace to the Truthful Ones Peace to The Truth Army
Note how this almost exactly matches the rhetoric and analysis of the anarcho-capitalist "Truthers", and how it inverts the truth in virtually every conceivable way. The Truth Army want to impose Sharia Law on everyone and "unite" the planet under the totalitarian, brainwashed ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. An Islamic world would be even worse than the present world controlled by the OWO. In fact, it's hard to conceive of an Islamic-ruled world as being in any way distinguishable from hell.
Muslims don't want a New World Order for the simple reason that Muslims seek to drag humanity back to the ignorance and savagery of the deserts of Arabia of 1400 years ago. The explicit agenda of Jihadists is to implement, at the point of the sword, global Sharia Law, kill all infidels, apostates, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, blasphemers, homosexuals, heretics, and stone to death any young lovers who have flouted the wishes of their families.
It's actually pointless to attempt to engage in any rational debate with these people. They are brainwashed beyond any hope of redemption. They will never progress. The problem is how to live in peaceful co-existence with them when they are committed to violently imposing Islam on the rest of the world, just as their Prophet was a savage man steeped in blood who waged savage war against all non-Mohammedans.
This is one of the greatest dilemmas imaginable. Every country in Europe has seen the rise of right-wing parties and the reason is always the same - they want to prevent illiberal Muslims from backward countries coming to Europe and infecting Europe with their ignorance and fanaticism. This is not a racial issue, but purely religious and cultural. Hindus have had no difficulties in integrating in European countries. Hindus who come to Europe are typically smart, liberal, open-minded, tolerant, and happy to befriend and mix with the Europeans. Muslims, on the other hand, refuse to integrate. The only reason they come to Europe is to partake of the higher standard of living. They actively hate Europeans and openly say that all Europeans will go to hell unless they convert to Islam.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's formula for dealing with those who insist on placing their particular will over the General Will was that they must be "forced to be free". Anyone who aspires to govern a country must be able to take hard decisions. As a tolerant, rational person, how would you deal with the intolerant and the irrational, those who wave an extremist book in your face which, they say, they are commanded to obey on pain of death?
Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Christian Fundamentalists, anarcho-capitalists and the dynastic elites such as the Rothschilds would never accept any of the Rebooting Laws. They would fight to the death to prevent them being implemented. They are stuck in the past.
No healthy State would permit babies to be attacked and genitally mutilated. If an adult wants to be circumcised, that's his business. A baby gives no consent, hence must be defended by the law of the land from being circumcised merely to gratify the beliefs of others. A baby has absolute human rights, and foremost amongst those is the right not to be made a human sacrifice in order to satisfy "God" (i.e. Abraham had no right to take his son's life no matter who ordered him to do so), nor to be genitally mutilated or physically attacked in any way for the sake of "God".
In the Bible, it is clear that "God" decrees that no human being has any rights whatever. He allegedly exterminated 99.999% of the human race in the Great Flood. When the Nazis killed six million Jews, they were indicted for waging aggressive war, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. When God almost wiped out humanity, not a single indictment was brought against him. Why not? If "God" contravenes the Declaration of Human Rights, shouldn't he be put on trial just as the Nazis were? This is a fundamental issue because it relates directly to how religious parents treat their children.
All religious parents think that God has an absolute right to kill anyone, no questions asked. Why? Because he is the "Creator". These same parents think they have the absolute right to kill and mutilate their children, just as if they were God, because, in relation to their children, they are the Creators. So, in Pakistan and many other Islamic countries, "honour" killings are rife. Anyone (usually teenage girls) who shames their family by having an affair, a romance, not agreeing to a forced marriage, marrying someone inappropriate etc, forfeits their life and is murdered, usually by their father, brother or uncle. Jewish and Muslim parents automatically subject their baby sons to genital mutilation. Religious parents think they have the unquestionable right to brainwash their children into believing the same things that they do. Well, do they have such a right? Is it consistent with human rights?
Isn't it time all religions were placed on trial and explicitly challenged under human rights legislation? Isn't it time monarchs were put on trial to determine whether they have any right to refer to human beings as their "subjects"?
We live in an absurd world where contradictory laws are allowed to co-exist. Either we have a constitution and a rule of law or we don't. If we do then no one can be exempt, and that includes religions and monarchs. "God" himself is not above the law. If there is a commandment saying, "Thou shalt not kill", why isn't "God" subject to it, especially since he claims to be loving, forgiving, merciful, peace loving, and compassionate?
If "God" has the right to kill human beings no questions asked then we are his worthless, disposable slaves and he is a tyrant. If we are not slaves then he has no right to dispense with our lives as he sees fit.
The Black Holocaust
What is the greatest crime in human history? It concerns precisely this issue of slavery versus absolute human rights.
A book called The Black Holocaust for Beginners by S Anderson estimates that 100 million Africans died as a direct result of the slave trade and slavery:
Who were the slave traders? They were Christians and Muslims (and Jews too supported slavery). Here are some of the comments posted on Amazon about this book:
The information was priceless. It hurt my soul and brought me to tears to know that people who claim to follow God walk so casually in the footsteps of Satan. The cruelty inflicted on innocent men, women and children was incredible. It speaks volumes about the spiritual depravity of the European and Arabian people that they could allow and participate in such atrocities. Our children and children all over the earth must read this book so that they will know, so that they will never forget, and so the human family will never allow this to occur ever again.
Anderson and Holley rightly tackle a topic that deserves study, however, they de-emphasize the well-developed Islamic slave trade that kidnapped more than 11 million Black Africans from their homes between 700 to 1900. This slave trade began centuries before the Atlantic trade and continued for centuries after. Islamic scripture fully embraces the institution of human slavery. Mohammed left many instructions to slave owners. This express endorsement of human slavery by Mohammed accounts for the fact that human slavery was not abolished in Saudi Arabia until 1964 and not until 1968 in Kuwait. Islamic slavery was no less brutal than the Atlantic variety. Male slaves were routinely castrated and forced into military service. Female slaves become sexual servants whose children were not their own.
The systematic exploitation, enslavement and extermination of Africans in the Western Hemisphere dates from the start of the European slave trade around 1500 BCE to the conclusion of the American Civil War in 1865. The Black Holocaust killed millions of African human beings and is (because of the social prejudice and dehumanisation necessary to justify slavery) the most under-reported event in western history. The Black Holocaust For Beginners is an ideal introduction to this incredible human chronicle of suffering and is a "must" for every school and community library black studies and American history collection.
I've been reading everything "black" I could get my hands on since I started my awakening. I stumbled upon the Holocaust book in a small bookstore in Albuquerque, NM and had it read by that afternoon; I couldn't put it down. I was so impacted upon by the pictures, particularly of Sister Translator hanging from her tongue because she could speak to many and because she dared to strike a white man. It was so very interesting to learn about the Arab slave trade, especially the current state of affairs regarding slavery in Mauritania and the Sudan. Of great interest to me were the numbers Mr. Anderson cites. My husband, who is also a Black activist, has said for years he felt there were 100-150 million involved; it's easy to see there were really more than that. I applaud Mr. Anderson's bravery in writing a book about things no one wants to hear. I was moved to tears. Thank you, Mr. Anderson and may the Lord of your Fathers richly bless your life for your contribution to the cause.
We hear endlessly about the Jewish Holocaust, and almost never about the Black Holocaust. Why not? Cui bono?
The horrific treatment to which Africans were subjected was a direct consequence of Judaeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs. Africans were heathen infidels, hence destined for hell, hence fully deserving of whatever they got. If God had wanted them to be spared he would have made them People of the Book. Because he didn't, he clearly wanted them to be slaves, and he placed zero value on their lives. Thus goes the logic of those who believe in a Satanic "God" who thinks nothing of exterminating the Canaanites, drowning the world and subjecting everyone to Original Sin, which means that they then merit eternal hellfire.
The Jewish Holocaust may be viewed in a similar light. Since Christianity asserts that all Jews are going to hell for rejecting Christ, why would there be anything wrong with stuffing them in death camps? They were the damned, just as the Africans were before them. At the Nuremberg Trial, Goering's defence should have been that Christianity condemns all Jews to hell. All of the Christian prosecutors should have been asked on oath to say whether or not that they agreed that all Jews were hell-bound. If they did (as they would have to if they claimed to be Christian) then on what grounds were they condemning the Nazis for creating hell on earth for the Jews? The Nazis were merely hastening God's inevitable judgment.
In a world of human rights, there would be no holocausts. Abrahamic religion creates holocausts. What do you expect from a religion that reveres a patriarch prepared to kill his own son in a holocaust? Abrahamism is a religion of murder, mutilation, brainwashing and slavery. It is completely unacceptable in any civilised world.
African Americans provide a crucial test of justice. Because of their history, they have never had easy access to capital in a society based on capital. They have been the victims of racial discrimination for centuries. They have typically been stuck in ghettos and given a poor education. Sport and entertainment have allowed a few to escape but for most there's no way out. They have never been part of the elite. They have never benefited from privilege. They are not part of the magic circle. All of this gives them moral authority and makes them one of the logical groups to lead the New World Order.
Religion is supposed to bring humanity into contact with the divine - with God, Nature, a Higher Power, a sublime quality that transcends the human condition. It should be inspirational, rapturous, giving shape and meaning to our lives. It should never be associated with greed, violence, hatred, division, intolerance, selfishness and domination. Yet the most casual glance at history shows that religion has left horror and destruction in its wake. How can the reality of religion be so different from what it's supposed to achieve?
Religion, judged by the consequences it has had for humanity, is more like the work of the Devil than of God. It has generated legions of zombies, so brainwashed they will kill people in the name of their supposedly merciful, peaceful, loving, forgiving, compassionate God. It's time to face the grimmest of facts: religion is evil. Or, rather, the religions that have assumed dominance in the world are evil. They succeeded precisely because they are evil. They are Satan's work, his instruments for imposing his will on humanity. Isn't that the most credible interpretation of the religious history of the world? Is Jerusalem the city of God or the capital of hell?
Religion is a system of mind control. It's time to reclaim it and make it what it was intended to be - humanity's greatest gift.
The main religions make no sense. Frankly, they are absurd. That could perhaps be overlooked if they had succeeded in making the world a better place, a paradise. But they haven't even though they've had thousands of years to do so. They claim to teach love, peace and being generous and helpful towards others, so where is the New Eden? Where is the Golden Age? Where are justice, peace and prosperity for all? And since these religions haven't delivered, why haven't they been replaced by something more effective? Why do people cling to failure?
This is a wicked world filled with war, greed and intolerance. Fanatical suicide bombers murder innocents in the name of their God. Surely they mean Satan. Don't we detect the smell of sulphur from these people?
The main religions serve only one purpose: to control your behaviour and make you their slave. They try to dictate to you every second of the day with their inflexible dogmas, commandments and rules. They have proved immensely valuable to the powerful, rich and corrupt. The mainstream religions and the Old World Order work hand in hand to make our lives miserable. Isn't it time we wised up? If the main religions aren't benefiting us, isn't it time to change them to ones that do?
The pagans of ancient Greece and Rome fought political but never religious wars. They didn't wage jihads and crusades. They didn't excommunicate people and burn them at the stake for religious transgressions. They didn't martyr themselves in the name of Zeus and Jupiter. The only ancient nation that engaged in explicit holy war was (surprise, surprise) Israel. The Hebrews exterminated the Canaanites in the name of their God. They even claimed that their God accompanied them into battle in the Ark of the Covenant. So much for love and peace.
The Greeks, Egyptians and Romans had many gods. When they conquered other countries, they frequently absorbed the gods of the vanquished into their own pantheon. In religious terms, they were for the most part extremely tolerant and open-minded. Their pagan religions offered great freedom, inspiration, ecstatic moments and a variety of routes to exploring and experiencing the divine. There were no fierce, bearded prophets, no holy scriptures claiming to be the true word of God, no Inquisitions to eradicate heretics. These pagan religions understood that humans are diverse, while the Abrahamic religions demand slavish conformity.
The God of Abrahamism is usually pictured as an old and bearded man living in the sky, suitably invisible in normal circumstances, constantly staring into your mind and ready to send you to hell if you violate his rules. Of course, all the followers of other religions go straight to hell, yet although he sends these people to a place of eternal suffering, he still loves YOU. This perfect, universal God apparently has a favourite race: his "Chosen People". Why? Did he create only a small percentage of the world's population? If not, why does he reject the rest of the human race? And if this perfect, all-powerful being who created us didn't want us to commit "sins", then we wouldn't be able to, would we? So clearly, he wants us to sin so that he can then punish us for our transgressions. He gets off on it. He's a sadist, a torturer.
It's also strange that his holy texts, in his own, infallible words (supposedly), are so badly written, so hard to understand, so heavily coded and, even worse, so full of inconsistencies and illogicalities that they are quite beyond belief. Come on, a perfect God should be able to articulate clearly what he wants from us, shouldn't he?
If this God is perfect, why is he so jealous, cruel and violent (the Old Testament reads like the adventures of a psychopath - read it for yourself and you'll be appalled)? Does he really desire slavish worship by dumb, bowing humans eternally reciting holy texts like mindless parrots? Most of us would be bored to tears by constantly hearing the same uninspiring prayers. Why does God find it so exciting?
What about so-called tolerance? Christianity wasn't spread by love, but by fire and sword. Muslims are ordered to kill Christians and Jews. Jews think God chose them, though he seems to disagree judging by millennia of expulsions, pogroms and persecutions, culminating in the Holocaust!
So, one question can't be avoided. Isn't "God" an impostor? Isn't he the Father of Lies who has pulled off the most daring impersonation in history?
Ladies and gentlemen, let us introduce you to Satan, the great deceiver. Who else could be behind the millennia of carnage carried out in the name of "God"? As soon as you understand that it was Satan all along everything becomes crystal clear. The Gnostics saw the truth millennia ago. Why has everyone else been so slow on the uptake?
Satan loves conflict, war, intolerance, hunger, pain, suffering and everything else we have had inflicted on us by religious fanatics. That's the God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims for you! The Eastern religions' Devil is the toxic doctrine of karma that gave birth to the abominable caste system and the idea that we are being punished for sins committed in previous existences. Now do you understand why the world is so wicked, so full of suffering and misery? Humanity has been worshipping the wrong guy. The God most people pray to is the Devil.
It's time we left behind these monstrous, false religions of Satan. Let's turn to a religion of reason, hope and freedom that celebrates the True God, not Satan. Let's turn to Illuminism: the religion of light, the religion of enlightenment.
What is the purpose of religion? It is to provide answers to the profoundest questions such as: What is the meaning of life? Who created the world? Why does evil exist? No one needs temples, churches, priests and rabbis for any of that.
The defining motif of the Abrahamic religions is that the Abrahamic "God" ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, and Abraham agreed. Abrahamist apologists try to explain this away by saying that God intended no harm to the boy. So, let's test that hypothesis.
Imagine the scene. Abraham heroically says to God, "I will never kill my son for you or anyone else. It's an utterly monstrous and immoral suggestion. One would think you were the Devil rather than God to be able to give such a vile and evil order."
Are we expected to believe that God would say, "No problem. I had no intention of letting your son die anyway, and I agree with you about the Devil thing. It was just a test. No biggie."
To which Abraham replies, "Thank God for that, if you'll pardon the expression. I mean if I had agreed to kill my own son, I'd be a nut, wouldn't I? And you'd be a nut for asking me to do it. We'd both be psychopaths, wouldn't we? We'd be evil monsters. You'd be the Devil and I'd be the servant of evil. Obviously, you wanted to make sure that I would never be so deranged as to do something beyond depravity just because you ordered it, right?"
(The biggest tragedy in human history is that Abraham didn't say this! Think of all the trouble we would have been spared.)
God says, "Em, er….I guess so."
Abraham says, "So, what you're really saying is that I needn't slavishly obey you and I should exercise my own judgment at all times. I should be free to make up my own mind rather than doing what you say all the time. Right?"
God says, "Uh, um, yes, well, I suppose so."
Abraham says, "What a great God you are. I don't need to do everything you tell me. You're never going to punish me. I love you. You're the best. You have truly given me a Paradise to live in."
You think that's how it would have gone down?
Or how about what really would have happened?
God, with fire and brimstone pouring from every orifice, says, "You dare to defy the Lord thy God?!!!! You have one second to do what I ordered. If you don't, I will kill you and your son this instant and punish your souls in hell for eternity."
In other words, the story of Abraham is the story of divine Terrorism, with Jehovah the cosmic Terrorist. If Abraham had not been willing to obey orders, he would certainly have been killed, and his son too. His choice was simple - agree to kill his son or suffer eternal hellfire. What choice is that? What "God" forces someone to make such a choice? - only a Satanic God.
It is impossible to excuse Jehovah's behaviour and his horrific order. To realise that you simply have to ask yourself what Jehovah would have done if Abraham had said no. Abrahamists have fled from that question because they know the answer.
The story of Abraham is a very simple one. Abraham's "God" says, "Obey me or die." Abraham is allowed to live only if he is prepared to perform the ultimate crime of slaughtering his own child. Any other response would have resulted in his death and his being sentenced to eternal hell.
So, what would you do? What was it the Nazis said in their defence? "We were only obeying orders. If we didn't we would be killed."
Isn't that Abraham's excuse too? We condemn the Nazis as monsters, yet half the world reveres Abraham and thinks he is a mouthpiece of God. How fucked is that?
Abrahamism is nothing but the rule of Terror. A Terrorist deity demands absolute obedience. What reason do we have for not naming that deity Satan? How could he be any other?
There is no conceivable Abrahamic defence. They are Devil-worshippers, pure and simple. No good God would ever order anyone to make a human sacrifice of their son.
This "God" should be resisted, not worshipped. He is a monster, a deranged psychopath, the essence of Universal Terror.
He does not ask you to worship him, he orders it. If you don't do so, he kills you. If you do what he says, he promises you heaven, if you don't, he vows to send you to hell. Where is the morality, the love, the compassion, the mercy, the forgiveness? They don't exist.
Jehovah's equation is the starkest and most brutal imaginable - obey or perish. And how does that differ from what Satan would say? In what way is it possible to distinguish Jehovah from Satan?
In the Islamic version of the tale, it is Ishmael not Isaac who is to be sacrificed. Incredibly, the Muslims relate that Shaytan three times pleaded with Abraham to spare Ishmael's life and three times Abraham violently drove him away by throwing stones at him. This event is "celebrated" every year at the Islamic Hajj.
Obviously, Shaytan didn't go up to Abraham and say, "Hi, Abe, pleased to meet you - I'm Shaytan, the Prince of Darkness, the cosmic force of absolute evil." So, Abraham didn't KNOW it was Shaytan. He simply made that interpretation because a stranger was asking him to do the precise opposite of what Allah was commanding him to - to spare his son's life rather than kill him!
In fact, as the Father of Lies, wouldn't Shaytan be far more likely to call himself something else? - Allah, for example! (The Satanic Verses controversy was all about Shaytan passing himself off as the Angel Gabriel in order to deceive Mohammed, so why couldn't he go one better and pass himself off as God? - the ultimate deception.)
So, what we have is someone calling himself Allah demanding human sacrifice, and a stranger pleading with Abraham not to do it. Surely only a sick mind would side with "Allah" against the stranger. Abraham was unquestionably psychotic, with a lust for blood. He was more than happy to carry out the order, which was why he was picked in the first place.
If someone came up to you in the street, said he was God and ordered you to kill someone, and another person, a stranger, screamed at you not to do it, would you naturally believe the first guy, regard the stranger as Satan, and get your dagger out? That was Abraham's view of the situation, and half of the modern world agree with him. And then these psychos wonder why the world is evil? It's because of THEM.
So, Allah orders Ishmael's death and Shaytan begs for Ishmael's life. Which one is good and which evil? Only a monster would be unable to give the right answer.
Which are you? - a monster or a decent, moral human being?
Who would ever consider perpetrating human sacrifice just because someone calling himself "God" commanded it (where was the proof provided that Abraham's God was what he claimed to be? - it's simply stated as a fact, yet all the evidence of his behaviour points in the opposite direction). In the modern world, anyone who heard a voice in his head telling him to kill people would be instantly sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Isn't it extraordinary that half the world think such a person is the prophet of God? The horrific suspicion must remain that Earth is the cosmic mental asylum, the dumping ground for the universe's nutters. That would explain everything at a stroke, don't you think?
Abrahamism - not a religion; a mental illness.
The Abrahamists are the damned. They are the followers of the true Satan and the story of Abraham is the surest proof of that.
No sane person could possibly wish to emulate Abraham and raise a dagger to slaughter his own flesh and blood. How could anyone ever have imagined that the "God" of Abraham was anyone other than Satan? Who but Satan would command his prophet to perform human sacrifice? Would the True God ever do something so sick, grotesque and perverse?
Billions of humans have worshipped the Devil for millennia and that's why the world is so fucked, as the Gnostics saw with horrific clarity. Surely it's time for humanity to turn to Abraxas, the True God of Light, Reason and Freedom. The religion of Abraxas has no holy texts, no fanatical prophets, no churches, temples, synagogues or mosques. There are no rules, commandments and regulations. There are no prayer books or hymns. There are no dress codes, no Sabbath days, no threats of eternal hellfire. There is no mutilation of babies, no brainwashing, no inbuilt intolerance.
Instead, there is true spirituality. There is the philosophical, scientific, mathematical, psychological, artistic and religious endeavour to maximise human potential, as driven by the cosmic dialectic.
Human beings are pre-Gods. To worship Satan or any deity or demon is anathema. Abraxas desires no worship. Why would he? He is our guide, opening the way for those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear. No human being should ever be on his knees to "God". No human being should ever bow and scrape or pray and beg for divine intervention. Knowledge is our salvation, not faith. The latter was Satan's greatest invention. What better trick than to create a system that despises knowledge, reason and logic and instead sanctifies blind obedience?
When Satan declares that you must make a human sacrifice of your own children to prove your faith then, if you sign up, you have removed yourself from the world of the sane, and voluntarily checked yourself into the cosmic mental asylum where the maddest behaviour is praised. Suicide bombings, honour killings, beheadings, hangings, stonings, floggings, Inquisitions, Witch trials, burnings, garrottings, crusades, jihads - all are welcome in Satan's terrestrial abattoir. The "faithful" are the butchers and the sane are their human sacrifices. Fuck Abraham. Fuck the Jews. Fuck the Christians. Fuck the Muslims. Fuck the Hindu caste system.
They are all Devil worshippers. Their existence has cursed this world and turned it into hell. They are the CAUSE of human misery. We will never be free until we are free of their mad, evil beliefs. No decent human being could ever mount any intellectual defence of Abraham, the world's first psychopath.
Abrahamism on Trial
Imagine that a group of Jews, Muslims or Christians said that Abraham's God had appeared to them and declared that the modern world had run out of faith and a new Covenant was required, to be made in the blood of their children. Previously, God had stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment, but this time the actual deed was demanded since things were so bad in the world.
So, these people go ahead and slaughter their children. How should the Government respond? Should it order the immediate arrest of all these evil murderers? Or should their religious beliefs be respected? After all, these people are no different from Abraham himself, a figure celebrated by half of the world. The people arresting them might be Abrahamists themselves, prepared to kill their own children if God ordered it.
There is a FUNDAMENTAL clash between human rights and Abrahamist religions, and it is one that must be addressed. That basically means that if the Abrahamists do not renounce and denounce Abraham then their religions should be declared illegal on the grounds that they are incompatible with the Declaration of Human Rights. No one anywhere has the right to take life because they heard the voice of God in their head ordering them to do it. That is no defence. Abraham's actions would have been deemed illegal in any modern country - he took his own son hostage, bound him and then got ready to kill him. He would be charged with kidnap and attempted murder in the present day. So, should not these same countries that would put Abraham in jail for life declare unequivocally that the same thing should have been done to Abraham in the past i.e. his actions should be retrospectively judged as unlawful, and all adherents of Abrahamism should be compelled to take an oath solemnly condemning Abraham? Of course, that would mean the end of Abrahamism.
But why is that we are the only people on earth willing to expose the criminality that lies at the heart of Abrahamism? Why is this subject glossed over? What's the point of having laws against murder and human sacrifice if religions sanction these things?
"Every Stoic was a Stoic; but in Christendom where is the Christian?"
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Mainstream religions are systems of mental illness and their purpose is to spread their particular brand of mental illness. They are viruses of the psyche, the crack cocaine of the mind. When you become addicted you're totally fucked, and you become addicted astoundingly fast. In no time at all, you can be contemplating blowing up yourself and hundreds of others in the name of "God". Any healthy society would regard mainstream religion as more toxic than the drugs trade, doing infinitely more damage. Islamic terrorism is religious terrorism. It's done for religious reasons. The War on Terror should therefore be recast as a War on Islam in particular and mainstream religion in general. Religion is Terror. Read the Torah, Bible or Koran and you will realise that these religions are designed to do nothing but terrify you into submission. Hell-fire if you resist; paradise if you comply.
Christians believe that if you aren't baptised, you will go to hell. So, baptism isn't something you do as a positive choice born of enthusiasm, but out of absolute terror of what will happen if you don't.
For centuries, Catholic theologians were content to say that any baby that died at childbirth without the benefit of baptism went straight to Limbo - the edge of hell.
Jews and Muslims believe they will go to hell if they are not circumcised.
Again, we see pure Terror being used to control people's behaviour and beliefs.
Abrahamism = Terrorism. Most of its power comes from the eternal hell to which it promises to send people if they disobey. Poorly educated, superstitious, submissive people are horrifically susceptible to threats of hell.
Here is truth - any religion that relies on Terror to get its message across is evil and Satanic by definition.
The religion of the True God would never make blood-curdling threats against people. Why would the True God want to harm, torture and terrorise people?
Any healthy society should declare as illegal all religions that are built on Terrorism. Therefore Abrahamism has no place in the modern world.
Now the Islamic maniacs are sending out schoolboys in school uniform to carry out suicide bombings. Is there no end to this psychosis?
The War on Terror should be the War on Abrahamism. This is the 21st century. These ancient religions belong to another time, another pre-conscious, bicameral world. They have no role at all in the modern world. Everyone who subscribes to them is mentally retarded. These religions existed long, long before the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwinism, Freud, Jung, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, modern philosophy, modern mathematics, modern science, modern medicine - the entire modern world. Every Abrahamist is basically saying that the whole modern Age has been a complete waste of time and hasn't added a scintilla of anything of worth to the dusty old "holy" books of Abrahamism.
Abrahamism = Religion for Dopes, Dummies and Dunces.
Abrahamism will perish because its followers are stupid and won't be able to keep up with modernity. It has already happened with Islam - the most backward religion on earth.
They really are your enemy
The propaganda war can be fought in many ways. Consider the following video:
But now consider the clear subtext of this video. It's asserting that Islam is being deliberately maligned in the West as part of a grand conspiracy. However, anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that it uses all of the same techniques shown in this video against the West. The UK is full of Jihadists who have watched endless videos that are the mirror image of this one - portraying Muslims as innocent victims or glorious and heroic martyrs and Westerns as devils and demons.
So why was this video made? Why did it choose to focus on Islam rather than, say, the Vietnam War? Is it in fact expertly made Islamic Jihadist propaganda?
The subtext of any video is something to which you should pay particular attention. Always deconstruct it. Always find its centre. What story is it trying to convey?
The reality is this - sometimes the enemy really is the enemy. Sometimes the bad guys really are the bad guys. The West should never have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, but no one can deny that Islam has been begging for trouble. It keeps getting more and more aggressive and fanatical. When novelist Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death for writing The Satanic Verses, and those who translated his book were attacked and even murdered, it became clear that Islam had become pathological. It wasn't the West that turned Islam into a backward, extremist ideology. Many people are now arguing that the West made the mistake of being excessively tolerant towards Islam rather than condemning it as utter barbarism.
If you want to know the "truth" about Islam here's some recommended reading:
Above all, read the Koran, the sacred text of Islam, and judge for yourself. Study Sharia Law. Study Islamic communities.
Let no one deceive you. Islam is, to any rationally minded person, a staggeringly dangerous and horrific belief system that has always constituted an immense danger to the human race.
More and more, Jihadists and their fellow travellers are trying to create an unofficial alliance with Western conspiracy theorists.
Ask yourself a simple question. If 9/11 was a "satanic Illuminati freemasonic ritual to usher in the NWO", why was it immediately greeted ecstatically by Palestinian Jihadists, why does it feature in Jihadist videos as an example of true heroism against the infidel and the Great Satan of America? Can any sane person deny that the 9/11 airplanes were hijacked by clearly identified Muslim maniacs whose every step beforehand has now been tracked in great detail?
These people will try to get you to join the Islamic Jihad against the West. Don't buy it. Don't take our word for it that Islam is evil - read the Koran for yourself. The message of the Koran is unambiguous - submit to Allah and his prophet Mohammed or else. It's a protection racket conducted with extreme menaces: do what we say and we'll protect you from hell; disobey and we'll send you there right now. There is not a single feature worth admiring in Islam. There is not one line of the Koran worth remembering. It's a mental vacuum.
Sometimes, the propaganda against certain groups is accurate and necessary. If you are a supporter of Enlightenment values, you are an automatic enemy of Islam. Islam rejects every pillar of the Enlightenment. It has no role to play in modernity. It is the essence of Endarkenment.
(According to the logic of the 9/11 "Truthers", this man and his fellow suicide bombers were working for the CIA/Mossad/Illuminati/NWO/Freemasons. How idiotic can you get?!)
So, all the suicide bombings, beheadings, amputations, mutilations, honour killings, floggings, stonings, hangings, book burnings, flag burnings, hate-filled demonstrations, fatwas, death threats and plots against novelists and cartoonists, executions of filmmakers and book translators, assassinations of blasphemers, persecutions of minorities, murder of apostates etc etc - it's all just a Western myth and wicked fantasy, a cynical exercise to make Westerners fear and loathe Islam without any justification. None of it happened at all. The Muslims are peace-loving, gentle, compassionate and merciful people.
Dream on. We're not falling for it.
In Italy, a man called Mohammed (naturally) murdered his own daughter (slitting her throat 28 times) because she refused an arranged marriage and was too "Westernised", hence had brought shame on her family and on Islam. Every year, 5,000 Muslim girls and women are murdered by male family members in the name of "honour". Who weeps for them? Who demands justice for them? Who takes any action against this annual slaughter? No one at all! Yet we are told we have the wrong idea about Islam, that it's all evil Western propaganda.
We are in the midst of the propaganda war to beat them all. Jihadists who despise the West and loathe freedom are trying to portray themselves as innocent victims. Why? To stop you taking the measures that must be taken against them in the name of reason, morality and freedom. The more they can sow seeds of doubt in your mind, the less of a threat you are to their plans for global Sharia Law.
The wolves are donning the sheeps' clothing in order to manipulate you.
Don't believe anyone. Don't believe us. Think for yourself. Use your reason, intuition and judgment.
The Jihadists are now attempting to ally themselves with all of those who oppose the privileged elite that run the world. But the Jihadists are not your friends. They are worse than the privileged elite. The elite at least allow you to cling to the illusion of freedom. If you're unfortunate enough to live under Sharia Law, even the illusion is taken from you.
A Sky News report (February 8, 2011):
The founder of a New York TV station set up to promote tolerance and understanding has been convicted of beheading his wife in the studio. Muzzammil Hassan did not deny killing his wife Aasiyah, but had claimed he was the victim of ongoing domestic violence. However, the jury took just an hour to reject his claim that the killing was justified because of the "abuse" he described. The couple ran a Muslim-oriented TV station in Buffalo which they hoped would promote cultural understanding following the September 11 attacks. Hassan, who defended himself in court, was arrested in February 2009 after walking into a police station and telling officers his wife was dead. Mrs Hassan's body was then found at the TV station they started in 2004. Prosecutors said the 46-year-old bought two hunting knives less than an hour before the attack, then lay in wait inside the studios. CCTV captured some of the assault in which the victim was stabbed more than 40 times in the face, back and chest and then beheaded. Hassan had been given divorce papers just a week before his wife's body was found.
Islam is an insult to human freedom and dignity. That's a simple fact. Arguably, Islam is the most evil religion the world has ever endured: Satanism brought to logical perfection. It despises EVERYTHING that the Illuminati stand for.
The "Truth Army" is the opposite of what it purports to be. It is the army of lies, mania and Devil-worship.
The USA, UK, Germany and France have won the most Nobel Prizes. Relative to the size of its population, the UK is the most successful Nobel nation.
22% of recipients of the Nobel Prize have been from Jewish backgrounds, from a global Jewish population of just 0.2%. However, none of the Jewish winners have been Orthodox Jews with beards, strange hair, funny hats and dark suits. They have all been liberal Jews and many of them were or are in fact atheists, agnostics or deists - certainly not followers of Yahweh. The vast majority have been from America.
The lesson to be learned is that, in academic circles if not in its general dumbed-down culture, America provides an excellent intellectual environment for minority groups such as the Jews (and increasingly the Chinese) who have a very strong work ethic and devotion to education.
Muslims have won staggeringly few Nobel Prizes - in fact, it has been said that only three or four observant Muslims have won. The reason for such a catastrophic failure is simple. Islam is a retarded religion with utter contempt for education, intelligence and rationality. Groups such as the Taliban - the standard-bearers of Islamism - have the same level of intelligence as desert tribes of 1400 years ago. They haven't evolved one iota.
If you want to be stupid become a Muslim. If you want to be intelligent get as far away from Islam as possible. Smart people sign up to smart religions and philosophies. The most intelligent religion on earth bar none is Illuminism. Illuminism is the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. It is packed with the highest possible mathematical, scientific, philosophical, psychological and religious knowledge. The average Muslim couldn't get past page 1 of the Book of Illuminism. That's just a fact. It's not because Muslims are inherently stupid - it's because their religion makes them stupid. There's nothing sadder than seeing human beings cursed by primitive belief systems to live out their lives in horrific ignorance.
Muslims claim that the real reason they have won so few Nobel Prizes is that there's a Jewish conspiracy against them. There's no conspiracy: Muslims simply never achieve anything of intellectual worth. There were brief times in the distant past when Muslim thinkers were the match of Westerners in science, mathematics and philosophy but only when they were allowed to think freely in tolerant, liberal, and enlightened regimes, all of which were soon crushed by Islamic fundamentalists who despised any hint of anything that might contradict the Koran.
"The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom."
The Egyptian Revolution was an inspiration, right? It energised everyone across the globe to see ordinary people getting active, getting out in the streets, standing up to dictators and overthrowing them. The joys of freedom. The joys of people power. The joy of the realisation that things really can change if the people will it.
Then you saw the Egyptians bowing down to Allah in their hundreds of thousands and you realised they had no freedom at all and indeed no idea of what the word actually means.
There's an extremely simple way to tell if people are free or not. If they are obliged to carry out some act before they can devote their attentions to what they really want to do then they are slaves. So, the Egyptians held a mass protest to demand President Mubarak's departure after "Friday prayers". Prayers? WTF?! Why the hell are revolutionaries engaging in the most conventional and submissive act conceivable? Would true revolutionaries stop for prayers? What's important? - getting rid of the dictator or getting on your knees to worship that other dictator, Allah?
Isn't a defining characteristic of dictators that they expect everyone to bow before them? Isn't Allah the cosmic dictator? Why get rid of a mortal dictator merely to subjugate yourself to an immortal one? Freedom 101 - free people do not worship any kind of dictator, terrestrial or cosmic. Free people do not bow, kneel and grovel. They are free NOT to pray on Friday. They are free NOT to pray five times a day. They are free NOT to memorise the Koran. They are free NOT to be Muslims. But none of that is true of Muslims. They are intrinsically unfree.
Women aren't allowed to pray with the men, and they all of have to wear the hijab. Think of the irony of a revolutionary freedom movement that can't tolerate women praying in the company of men. Not much of a revolution then. Not much idea of freedom. Almost the antithesis in fact.
The Egyptian Revolution had no leadership. The people had no clear idea of what they wanted. They knew what they were against, but not what they were for. Nature abhors a vacuum. The best-organised group will take over in due course and, in Egypt, that means the Muslim Brotherhood.
The young people of the Islamic countries are trapped in a nightmare. They are the Facebook, Twitter generation, up to speed with modernity, yet they are still, at core, brainwashed Muslims, and Islam is the total opposite of modernity.
They can never be free until they are free of Islam. Part of the Egyptian people's rage against President Mubarak was a subconscious projection of their rage against Islam, but they are never allowed to express that rage. It's the ultimate taboo, hence it exercises the greatest shadow effect.
If one wanted to create a perfect brainwashing virus, infecting generation after generation in perpetuity, it couldn't prove any more successful than Islam. Mohammed was not a prophet, he was a psychologist, a supreme mind controller. He grasped how best to manipulate badly educated, primitive, superstitious, fearful people.
No rational person could ever be a Muslim. That religion is the antithesis of reason. It asserts that a 1400-year-old book is the infallible Word of God, containing the answers to everything. If you have ever actually read it then you will understand that the only thing it contains is the key to brainwashing credulous, non-thinking people.
The key turns out to be remarkably simple. You start with a supernatural encounter - Mohammed, an illiterate tribesman, meets the Angel Gabriel in a cave and has the Koran dictated to him. This gets the mind into a suitably superstitious, credulous mode - and then it is bombarded by an unrelenting message of divine terrorism. The Koran simply teaches that you will suffer eternal hellfire if you disobey its rules, and enjoy eternal paradise if you do everything it says. It demands that you wage jihad against infidels, kill apostates, kill blasphemers, kill anyone who breaks the rules. You must pray five times a day (thus ensuring that Islam is on your mind all day, every day). You must attend Friday prayers. You must memorise the Koran in Arabic (an immense undertaking that will take you many years, again forcing you to wallow in Islam). You must reject anyone who claims that there can be any new prophets. You must reject anyone who says that the Koran is not Allah's final and infallible word. You must reject anything that contradicts the Koran i.e. the whole of Enlightenment and scientific thinking. (There is no science, philosophy or mathematics in the Koran - hardly surprising since Mohammed was a man of zero education.) You must eat halal food only. You must wear certain clothes (and women must dress "modestly", preferably in a burqa). You must avoid drugs and alcohol. You mustn't have casual sex.
The purpose of Islam is to lock you into its dictatorial vision of the world where your only task is to submit to the will of Allah. There is nothing else to it. It has contempt for science, mathematics and philosophy. The Koran is the Book of Stupidity and one only needs to take a cursory glance at Islamic nations to see that none of them is in any way associated with any serious intellectual, artistic or cultural endeavour. Muslims hate music, hate art, hate science, hate philosophy, hate mathematics, hate literature. None of these played any part in the life of Mohammed (just as they didn't in the lives of Jesus Christ and Moses - Abrahamic prophets are invariably horrifically badly educated).
If you sign up to a stupid religion you become stupid. That's the law of life. Islam has proved itself over and over again to be the enemy of intelligence. Intelligence has no function if your only purpose is to obey. Only superstitious primitives, incapable of rational thought, are attracted to Islam.
Did you know that Muslims do not believe in chance? Everything is literally the will of God. When Muslim students learn probability theory at school, they are told they are only doing it in order to pass exams, and that the theory is actually complete nonsense. According to Islam, if a coin is tossed 100 times and produces 50 heads and fifty tails, it has nothing to do with probability, but because God wills it.
And you wonder why Muslims don't win any Nobel Prizes and why they burn books?
The Revolution in Egypt, conducted as it was within the framework of totalitarian Islam, failed to inspire. Egypt, many centuries before Islam, was one of the intellectual and cultural powerhouses of the world. The real Egyptian revolution will be the one that casts aside Islam. Tyranny is embedded in Islam, hence any revolution by an Islamic people is never a revolution about freedom. Look at what happened in Iran. A monstrous Shah was overthrown and replaced with what? - by an even more monstrous Ayatollah who proceeded to drag Iran back to the dark ages. Isn't something similar going to happen in Egypt in due course? The Muslim Brotherhood is ready to pounce. One thing's for certain - Egypt won't be any freer after the revolution than it was before because it's still in the jail of Islam.
Modern Jihadism was invented in Egypt - by a man called Sayeed Qutb. The 9/11 conspiracy was led by the Egyptian maniac Mohammed Atta. Don't expect wonderful things from modern Egypt.
In Pakistan, a 17-yr-old schoolboy may be put to death for blasphemy because he allegedly made an insulting comment about the Prophet Mohammed in an exam paper. Islam and freedom never go together. They are the antithesis of each other. The Egyptian Revolution is going nowhere. Iran congratulated the Egyptian "Islamic Liberation Movement". That should set the alarm bells ringing for everyone else.
Never forget that, originally, Islam was simply Judaism transported in a southeasterly direction to the Arabian deserts by a pagan tribesman (Mohammed) who was well acquainted with the many Jews living in Arabia at the time. Whereas Christianity is Judaism combined with pagan Greek philosophy (making Christianity Judaism's bastard son), Islam is Judaism's legitimate son.
Islam traces itself back to the founder of Judaism: Abraham. While the Jews proceeded from the line of Abraham's son Isaac, the Muslims came from Abraham's other son, Isaac's half-brother Ishmael. The two religions have always been half- brothers. Mohammed was aware that there was a huge gap in the Jewish Torah - what became of Ishmael and his descendents. All he had to do was say that the Abrahamic Ishmaelites were the Arabs, that they were destined to be the most loyal followers of Yahweh (Allah), and that he (Mohammed) was chosen to be the prophet who would announce the new Torah - the Koran - to the Arabs, and lead them away from the pagan gods. He saw himself as the Arab Moses, the final prophet of Yahweh/Allah. Hence Muslims are just Arab Jews, singing the same song but from the perspective of Ishmael rather than Isaac.
Imagine a world of 1.3 billion Orthodox Jews like those bearded fanatics in their silly hats and dark suits who bob backwards and forwards in front of the Wailing Wall. Islam is what that horrific vision has morphed into, and it isn't any improvement.
Christians are Greek Jews and Muslims are Arab Jews, but they're all still Jews. In truth, half the world is Jewish, worshipping Yahweh (Satan). Western monotheism is simply Judaism.
Islam is a puritanical religion, totally intolerant of dissent. You have to question the mentality of those who, in the 21st century, are willing to be part of this religion. How can anyone equate Islam with freedom?
Every epoch of history has seen a dialectical expansion in human freedom, but Muslims represent one area where the dialectic has never worked. Muslims are no freer now than they were when Mohammed first invented his Arab version of Judaism.
The Fake Revolution
It's depressing to say it, but the Egyptian Revolution was fake. It was like a Hollywood staging of a revolution. It looked like the real thing, but ultimately was nothing but desperate people blowing off steam and posing for the cameras.
Revolutionaries who chant Allahu Akbar? It's a contradiction in terms. It would be like a revolution in Britain being accompanied by cries of, "God save the Queen!" rather than "Down with the tyrant!" These aren't revolutionaries. They are the forces on the one hand of reactionary Islam (the Muslim Brotherhood) overthrowing a quasi-secular autocrat, and on the other of young Western-influenced Muslims seeking the freedom that they imagine exists in the West (yeah, that'll be right), but still in an Islamic context (a contradiction in terms). They have nothing in common with the French revolutionaries, history's truest revolutionaries, who wanted to change everything, with religion as one of their primary targets.
All authentic revolutionaries have always been committed to an overthrow of the old religious structures. Without such an aim, it's not a revolution. 18 months after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the Iranian "Revolution" ended up producing the most horrific, reactionary Islamic fundamentalist theocracy imaginable.
There is no reason to suspect that things won't turn out the same way in Egypt. The Egyptian people cannot be free until they revolt against Islam, and there is no sign of that.
The French revolutionaries regarded Catholicism - the national religion - as the friend and ally of the establishment, and of reactionary, counter-revolutionary forces. Religion is ALWAYS the friend of tyrants, hence you cannot have a true revolution without the destruction of the existing religious order.
In psychology, "displacement" occurs when the primary target of your anger is too powerful to confront, so you displace your rage to someone else, an easier target, and take it out on them instead. In Egypt, the real issue was not about Mubarak but about Islam. It is not Mubarak and his ilk who stand most in the way of freedom, but Islam.
Islam is too powerful to take on, so the people displaced their frustration onto Mubarak. But it makes no difference. The Egyptians will never be free until they are free of their unenlightened Islamic religion.
Remember the "Green" Revolution in Iran? Same deal. The young people were really trying to overthrow Islam. It was the Iranians, not the Tunisians, who really started the latest phase in Islamic Revolution. What none of them have realised yet is that it's their religion they are rebelling against. Islam is the equivalent of the Berlin Wall - it must fall before the people can be free.
The dialectic is in motion. Sooner or later, Islam itself will be the target and the long-awaited Reformation of Islam can start. The world will enjoy a second Enlightenment. Everything can change. The tipping point is not too far away now.
But one thing must be said in favour of Muslims. They have proved themselves far better at using Facebook and Twitter for political purposes, for getting themselves organised to take on the authorities. Isn't that what Westerners should be using social networking for too rather than posting endless pictures of drunk people at parties?
The military are now in charge in Egypt. Elections are promised. Big deal. Revolutions are not what they used to be. The generals are still the same. The rich are still the rich and the poor the poor. The imams are still preaching as they always did.
The people actually had no firm objective other than the removal of the President, but when he refused to go they had no Plan B. So they just stood around, hoping. Luckily, they stood around long enough and at last he went. But couldn't they have achieved so much more having mobilised millions of people? These chances come along so rarely. They must be put to maximum advantage.
If revolutionaries have no plan, and the counter-revolutionaries are equally devoid of a plan, a standoff ensues, as happened in Egypt. Mubarak blinked first because he wasn't getting positive signals from his military.
Muslims, being submissives waiting for the voice of Mohammed, the Archangel Gabriel, the Koran or Allah to direct them, are prone to ineffectual action in the absence of strong leadership. Some of the Egyptian protestors actually said it was a good thing that they had no leaders, but a Revolution without leaders and a plan is just a big crowd milling around aimlessly, as Egypt proved.
Revolution 101 - You must have a clear plan, with clear objectives, and strong leaders ready to take over right now from the existing ruling regime, not in elections six months down the line. In France in 1789, the Jacobin revolutionaries already had a complete blueprint for a New World Order - Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract. They detested monarchy and wished to abolish it permanently. They wished to replace Christianity with the new undogmatic religion of the "Supreme Being". They wanted to be rid of the aristocracy. They wanted to express the General Will of the people. They were talented, smart, energetic and eager to take over from the ancien regime.
If the Egyptians were like the French of 1789, they would have seized the Egyptian parliament and installed their own government, they would have attacked the President's residence, and they would have burned down the police headquarters and the main jail. The Egyptians did none of these things, hence the Revolution faded out with a whimper.
No matter that the Egyptian Revolution isn't yet the real thing. The people who took to the streets to oppose Mubarak must still be congratulated. Hundreds gave their lives. They have put the West to shame. And they have shown that they have tremendous potential as a people. If they can overthrow Islam, they will be capable of the highest achievements.
In the West, when Lehman Bothers collapsed, capitalism was ripe for overthrow, but no one acted because no one had a plan, so the ruling order were able to go on as before. That situation must never happen again.
A new government-in-waiting needs to be ready to step in. Does such a government exist? No? Well let's create it.
The Magic of Revolution
"…the 'strange God' of commerce perched himself side by side with the old divinities of Europe on the altar; and one fine day threw them all overboard with a shove and a kick. It proclaimed the making of profit as the ultimate and sole purpose of mankind."
Revolution can transform you. Revolution can transfigure you. Revolution can redeem you.
Make no mistake, you seekers of a better life, revolution is your salvation. Revolution changes everything. It smashes the power of the Old World Order.
In revolution, a new world is born. New opportunities, new adventures, new possibilities abound.
Most revolutions are caused by hunger, unemployment, poverty, degradation, deprivation, lack of freedom. Eventually, these overwhelm fear and generate action. But revolution is also invariably accompanied by something else: lack of respect for the ruling order. When they are seen to be inept, to not know what they are doing, then they are lost. And are we not now at that stage in the West? Who any longer has any respect for the Old World Order who arrogantly labelled themselves geniuses and masters of the universe yet brought the world to the edge of ruin?
They themselves are now suffering a profound crisis of confidence. The financial meltdown revealed that they didn't understand their own system despite their extravagant claims to wisdom deserving of supernaturally large rewards, hence they are now incredibly vulnerable to those with a superior understanding.
The world is changing. The age of revolutions is at hand.
Towards the end of the 19th century, Nietzsche, the apocalyptic prophet of the modern age, wrote: "What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. This history can be related even now; for necessity itself is at work here. The future speaks even now in a hundred signs, this destiny announces itself everywhere; for this music of the future all ears are cocked even now. For some time now, our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect…For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals - because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these 'values' really had. We require, sometime, new values." Exactly as Nietzsche predicted, the twentieth century saw Europe - the epicentre of two world wars in quick succession - plunged into catastrophe. Since the end of WWII, we have lived in a phoney and fake age where all values have been eroded. We are immersed in nihilism. Scientific materialists, the high priests of modernity, are nihilistic atheists. We have a consumer culture that worships objects and celebrities, the brass idols of the creed of capitalism. Abrahamism has split in two. Most Abrahamists are living hypocritical lives of comfort and selfishness divorced from spiritual values, while a minority have tried to replace their fading faith with fanaticism. And the contemporary religion of social networking - the cyber fakery of Facebook and Twitter - is devoid of any intellectual and spiritual content. Deep down, most people believe in nothing.
The world has never been more nihilistic, and thus it is poised on the edge of a precipice. If new values do not emerge, madness, mayhem and murder on the scale of Armageddon will descend upon the human race. The two world wars of the last century will be as nothing. Wars will erupt over global warming, overpopulation, religious divisions, lack of food, lack of water, pollution, massive disparities in wealth, conflicts of economic interests between West and East, even young versus old as an ageing population consumes more and more resources, thus denying them to the young. It's estimated that the world's population could be at least 9 billion by 2050. The problems we have now will be enormously magnified.
Revalue all values - before it's too late. The window of opportunity is short. Unless we build a meritocratic world that unleashes the genius and creativity of human beings to solve the immense problems facing us, we will be dead and buried before the end of this century. RIP humanity.
"…money-worship has been elevated into a religion. Perhaps it is the only real religion - the only real felt religion - that is left to us. Money is what God used to be."
One of the greatest contributions to political philosophy came from Jean-Jacques Rousseau who contrasted the "particular will" with the "General Will". The latter promotes the best interests of the whole community, while the former allows a particular group to prosper at the expense of everyone else.
A right-wing Republican government in America will invariably cut taxes (to favour the rich), reduce regulation (to favour rich corporations), reduce public spending and the size of the state (to penalise the poor and deprived) i.e. it governs in the interests of its Republican constituency, not in the interests of all. How could anyone argue that it is governing in the interests of all when it is so nakedly executing an ideological agenda that helps the rich and attacks the poor? It is transparently government according to the particular will, not the General Will.
Gil Scott-Heron famously said, "Mandate my ass." He's absolutely right. No democratic government ever has a mandate. Winning an election is just that - an election victory. It's not a mandate. Those who voted for the opposition parties aren't suddenly supportive of the winning party just because it won. They are as opposed to it as they always were. All governments are elective dictatorships. In the UK, it is typical for the governing party to enjoy the support of only about a fifth to a quarter of the total electorate. Up to 80% didn't vote for them yet have to endure their "mandate"!
Political parties of any description are vehicles of particular wills, not the General Will. The central political question lies in whether there is anything that can truly reflect the General Will in a systematic and transparent way, to the satisfaction of all.
The answer is an extraordinary one. Conventional politicians are by definition enemies of the General Will since they care only for sectional interests and satisfying their supporters and sponsors. Hence conventional politicians can play no part in the New Politics. Political parties must be abolished!
But we are not advocating any kind of anarchy in the new world. Rather, we will turn to the most successful endeavour in human history to show us the way forward - science.
While politics has lurched from one crisis and disaster to the next, science has produced astounding triumph after astounding triumph. Science, not politics, has brought us the advanced world we live in. Only the biggest fools on earth would say that the political way of doing things has proved beneficial to humanity.
We seek to replace politics with political science i.e. a new politics that takes its lessons and methods from science, thus emulating the brightest jewel in the human crown.
Science is characterised by smart people putting forward well-considered hypotheses, which are then tested by other smart people. Data and evidence are collected to see how well they correspond to the hypothesis. The hypothesis can be refined in the light of the data, and new experiments performed. If the hypothesis is unproductive, it is discarded while if it prospers then eventually it attains the status of "theory". A scientific theory is not something speculative and vague as many non-scientists erroneously believe. It has been successfully tested innumerable times and it takes something remarkable to overthrow it. Newtonian physics, which had been revered for centuries, was replaced by Einsteinian physics, but it was nevertheless Newtonian physics that was used to land man on the moon i.e. that's how good and reliable it was. Einstein's refinements to Newton's laws only become significant in extreme situations that we don't often encounter. Even now, we refer to Newton's Laws of motion.
Creationists say that Darwinian Evolution is just a "theory" - but it is an extremely well tested one with an enormous evidence base. Darwinism, like Newtonian physics, will eventually be replaced, but it will still retain a great deal of validity. What's for sure is that Abrahamic Creationism is a mad hypothesis without any evidence at all to support it and an immense amount to refute it. No scientist would ever consider Creationism a theory - it's just a story. It's Mythos, not Logos. Much of the trouble with the world is that "Mythos-thinkers" believe they can challenge "Logos-thinkers". The two types of thinking have nothing in common. Scientists (Logos-thinkers) have nothing but contempt for the suggestion that the world was created in six days by "God", the only "proof" being an ancient book of the Jews, which says so. "Revelation" isn't fact or evidence. It's not theory. It can't be tested. It can be neither verified nor falsified (in terms of Karl Popper's falsification principle). It's pure Mythos. Can anyone "prove" that gods didn't once live at the summit of Mount Olympus? There are innumerable stories and none of them can ever form the basis of any kind of science.
Creationists are Mythos-thinkers who don't understand science. Their attacks on Darwinism amount to little more than some staring-eyed person jabbing his finger at the Book of Genesis and saying, "Hey man, can't you read? It says right here that God made the world in six days. End of story."
Stories - Mythos - should be reserved for entertainment purposes, not for trying to understand mathematical, scientific and philosophical reality. Politicians, like religious leaders, are always spinning yarns to "sell" their message to us. We don't need their Mythos view of the world.
There are no political parties in science. Disputes are resolved via experiments, hard data, mathematics and logic, not via speeches, rhetoric, stories and ideology. Scientists can't vote down other scientists and dogmatically push through their agenda regardless of the evidence. No scientists have to kiss babies and shake the hands of the "common man" to get elected. They have no party position that they have to defend.
In the New Politics, clever people will propose hypotheses and these will be tested and the evidence collected. The evidence will decide between rival hypotheses, not some partisan debate in Congress full of hot air and fanatical ideology. Evidence, not rhetoric, is the only valid means of testing rival policies and ideas in order to identify the most successful ones.
As an example of this process, consider the message "V" sent us:
"I have been reading this website and the affiliated website Armageddon Conspiracy for about a year and a half or more. I have really appreciated reading your writings, and enjoyed reading up on all of the concepts that you look at and address in each article. I can relate with much of what you are saying most of the time, but in regards to your idea about separating the different Myers-Briggs types, I totally disagree. Instead of arbitrarily separating types that are already separated, I think what needs to happen is integrating the types through understanding, because Myers-Briggs typea are not static - and people can change. In different stages of my own life, I have exhibited a number of different characteristics, although I am fundamentally an introverted intuitive type. If I did not have the opportunity to try out those different aspects of myself, I would probably not function as well as I do now. If I could set up an ideal school system, I would first teach extensively on the positive and negative traits of each of the different types. Then I would have everyone take the test. Afterwards I would pair extraverts with introverts as an experiment. I would have them ask each other questions about why they do things the way they do, and how they would respond to hypothetical situations. Then I would have each child write a paper on how they could integrate the positive aspects of the "other" type. If thinking introverts remain wallflowers their whole lives, how can they speak up and change the world if they are afraid to talk - or have not integrated positive extraverted speaking abilities? How can sensing extraverts learn to listen to themselves if they do not perceive others with that ability? The worst thing you could do is separate the different types, because they will still have to deal with each other. By avoiding the conflict altogether they will grow stagnant, and will not learn. Learning and growth often accompany strife and difference. All of the different Myers-Briggs types should represent aspects of ourselves - if we are healthy fully integrated beings, we need to be able to don whatever mask for any situation that comes our way. I am currently writing a children's story about two children - one is an introverted thinker, and one is an extraverted sensing type - and throughout the story I write about why they are afraid of each other, and how they learn to integrate their differences to become a think tank extraordinaire. This has to do with the concept of the Hegelian Synthesis which you wrote about on the Armageddon Conspiracy site. Shouldn't we create a synthesis of the different types instead of working with the extreme introverts and extraverts? Otherwise there will always be conflict, that's why I think it's so important to write you on this subject, because I really like where the Movement could go - but I feel like this concept that you mention in the article is dogmatic and limiting. We replied:
Thanks for your message. We're sure many people would entirely agree with you, so we'd like to quote your message in a future article. It gives us an excellent opportunity to discuss the dialectic in action. Thanks again. And good luck with the children's story - it sounds great!
(The difference between our position and V's is that we think personality type is much more static than she asserts. If it were fluid and relatively easy to change, we would have no hesitation in endorsing her stance. Indeed, her aim of producing human beings who have integrated all of the different Myers-Briggs personalities and are thus able to cope in any situation is the best possible outcome. If it can be achieved then we should certainly strive to achieve it. However, if we are hard-wired to a certain personality type i.e. our brain allows us to operate only in certain ways, then we must confront the world as we find it and not as we would wish it to be. If thinking and feeling are mutually exclusive; if you cannot be both intuitive and sensing, then V's ambition of multi-functional human beings cannot be realised no matter how desirable it is. Jung's project of individuation - becoming the master of every psychic component - is the same as V's. It may be the case that it cannot be fully accomplished, but can only be approximated i.e. an intuitive person will never fully enter into the world of sensations, but can train himself to be more receptive to sensations than he would have been otherwise: he can glimpse and interact with the "other" world of sensations without ever truly venturing into its heart. He will always be a visitor there, never at home.)
If we were a political party with a majority, we would rubbish V's suggestions and vote her down (because that's what political parties do). Her ideas, no matter how potentially true and invaluable, would be dead in the water. What a disaster if it turned out she was right!
But the dialectic does not operate in that calamitous way, potentially ignoring and discarding great ideas because they do not fit the particular will of the dominant political party. There's no need for us to have any acrimonious argument with V. We have proposed a thesis and V has proposed an antithesis - it's the dialectic in full flow. The way forward would be to arrange tests of both hypotheses and see how they match up to the evidence that is subsequently collected. Maybe one hypothesis is right and the other wrong; maybe both are partially right and partially wrong, or maybe both are wrong. We'll know for sure thanks to hard data, not cynical speechifying in Congress unsupported by any evidence.
Depending on the evidence, it may be possible to combine the rival hypotheses in a synthesis, which will then act as a new thesis. Perhaps both hypotheses will have to be discarded and new ones tried. The key point is that we now have a scientific process and method that everyone can see is completely fair and allows rival ideas to be heard and respected.
Every citizen, like V, will be able to propose hypotheses and have them treated with the utmost consideration. Clever citizens will be direct contributors to the new dialectical politics, not passive recipients of policies passed in Congress after "hot air" debates.
We don't need any politicians or any debates. We just need hypotheses, experiments and evidence.
Take drugs policy as an example. There are fifty States in the USA: fifty opportunities to try different approaches to drugs. You can have zero tolerance approaches, decriminalisation, complete legalisation etc in the different States. At the end of a ten-year period, the nation simply has to look at all the different approaches that were trialled in the different States and see which one worked the best. That then becomes "best practice" to be used throughout the country. See how easy it is. No emotive debates are required, no moralising, no religious opinions. All that is needed is the experimental data.
Evidence replaces rhetoric. Science replaces politics. All debates are resolved evidentially. All disputes are turned into rival scientific hypotheses and put to the test. Is that not the only sensible and rational means to resolve conflicts?
All the hot air and ideology gets kicked out and is replaced by cool, calm science. No politicians are necessary, thank you very much: no pressure groups, no lobbyists, no hysterical media reporting.
This new system removes all of the levers of power from the OWO and from the religious and political fanatics. Their irrational beliefs and propaganda can now be relentlessly challenged and tested.
The whole world will have a transparent, systematic method to resolve all issues. All hypotheses will be available on the internet, as will all the experimental procedures to test them, and all of the results. The world will become a global laboratory dedicated to perfecting human life and society.
Plato said, "I have created the perfect republic, but where are the perfect people?"
The dialectical method will supply Plato with his perfect people.
The ingredient that was missing all along from politics was none other than a neutral method with which all parties could agree - a dialectical, scientific method.
The Dialectical Revolution
We are supremely fortunate. We are living in the era of dialectical completion.
1945 - the end of fascism.
1989 - the end of totalitarian Soviet Communism.
2008 - the beginning of the end for Western Capitalism.
2011 - the end of Arab dictators.
The pace is increasing, and the internet is acting as an incredible accelerator.
The hardest dictators to topple are the unseen ones of capitalism: the super rich Zionists and Masons. They operate behind the scenes, pulling the strings of their "democratic" politician puppets. The credit crunch has done enormous damage to their propaganda that they know what they're doing economically. Since that was their supreme claim to legitimacy, they no longer have any credibility. They are like the Emperor with his new clothes - stark naked and about to be ridiculed even by children.
After they fall, humanity's dialectical journey only has one more hurdle to overcome - the bicameral, ancient slave religions of Devil worship. They will be replaced by new, 21st century religions of light, reason, freedom and consciousness.
The nightmare is nearing its end.
The dawn of a glorious new humanity is coming.
And we will be there to see it.
Plato's Republic of Laws
Plato, one of the greatest geniuses of all time, advocated that the ruling class of society should live in a strictly communist manner. None of the rulers should own any private property; they should live in common housing and share communal meals.
Whatever anyone thinks of Plato's system, no one could accuse him of supporting a ruling class in it for their own material gain. Imagine the leaders of the present world being uniformly poor, and doing their work purely for the public good. Isn't that real "public service"?
Plato was preoccupied with how to create a truly enlightened society. In his ideal city-state, everyone obeys the General Will and works for the common good, hence the state is a unity, free of faction fighting. All the land and property are distributed fairly and any private wealth closely regulated.
In The Laws, Plato's last great political work, he argued that no citizen should be allowed to possess any gold or silver. Money should be based on iron. No citizen should be allowed to become any richer than four times the poorest citizen; any extra is automatically placed in a common people's fund - the Commonwealth. No citizen is permitted to fall below a basic level of wealth set by the State.
(In relation to Plato's suggestion that the richest people in society should be no more than four times richer than the poorest, this is now deemed too restrictive. A more appropriate figure would be anything from a factor of ten to a hundred to ensure that hard workers and creatives have a clear incentive. This figure could be continually adjusted until the optimal value is found. Remember, meritocracy is not communism - it is anti-privilege (excessive wealth used as weapon), not anti-wealth per se. Meritocracy absolutely wants to reward high achievers for hard work, talent and creativity.)
Such laws, Plato argued, provided unshakeable stability to the ideal city-state. Greed is effectively banned. No one can become excessively rich. Plato said, "Great money-making is impossible… the hypothesis that underlies our laws aims at making the people as happy and friendly to one another as possible."
Isn't that the most laudable of aims, and isn't massive inequality of wealth, power and status the main driver of dissatisfaction in our world? People become alienated from their own lives when they start obsessively comparing their relative poverty with the extravagant wealth of the super rich. They are always miserable because they are always dreaming of a life they will never have.
In Plato's city-state, distinctions between citizens are never allowed to be too great, certainly never wide enough to cause envy, discontent and conflict. Men and women are treated equally (a revolutionary concept in the time of Plato, and one that was borrowed directly from the Pythagorean Illuminati).
Plato sought a rational, just and ordered society, with virtue as its central goal. In his ideal city- state, there is no need for rival political parties. An experienced group of 37 Guardians of the Laws supervise the state. The citizens gather in a General Assembly to vote on important issues. An elected council of 360 independent citizens carry out the day- to-day running of the state and serve one-year terms. There are also judges and juries to administer the law, priests and priestesses to perform the religious functions, and generals and admirals to defend the state. Market trade is closely regulated, as are all aspects of city life.
Critics have described it as a totalitarian state, but they are entirely wrong: it's a meritocratic state, with all aspects of city life guarded against abuse. There would have been no Credit Crunch, no excessive greed, no privileged elite, no ingrained inequality, in Plato's utopia.
Plato's city-state is to be a single entity - like a person - striving for its own good. In this state there are no "rival loyalties" - no political parties representing sectional interests, no factions putting their particular wills over the General Will. Every citizen's loyalty is to the state and the common good. As Plato said so accurately, "True political art must care not for the private but the common - for the common binds cities together, while the private tears them apart."
We live in a world of private interests. Everyone is out for themselves. The bankers - those responsible for the financial health of the economy - are typically the greediest people in the world, devoted to enriching themselves. What sane state would ever allow its banks to be in private hands and to be controlled by people who want to help themselves to as much money as they can get away with? It is the bankers and their confederates who would doubtless accuse Plato of totalitarianism - because they would be the biggest losers in a Platonic state.
Plato wrote, "Whoever leaves private things unregulated by law and believes the people will be willing to live with the common and public things regulated by laws - is incorrect in his thinking."
This is a crucial statement. Any government that allows the private domain to be ignored in a society of great disparities in wealth is essentially supporting a society of privilege where private individuals are allowed to rig the system in their own favour. Thus an unregulated private domain invariably leads to the richest private individuals controlling the state. This is the basis of the Old World Order. The biggest enemy of privilege is meritocratic regulation that prevents privileged individuals from using their positions of privilege to exploit and manipulate the public space. When the state neglects to act in the private sphere, when it refuses to try to mould the state for the better and remains inactive, this is called "negative liberty". It is negative rather than positive because it does not seek to promote any agenda: citizens are left to their own devices in the private sphere for good or ill. The rich are allowed to get richer, parents to brainwash their children, bigotry and intolerance to go unchecked as long as they stay in the home etc. Negative liberty is not FOR anything; rather is about being free FROM positive liberty. Right wingers are advocates of negative liberty and the "small state". "Positive liberty" is where the state seeks to actively implement a vision of freedom, hence directly intervenes in the private sphere. Left wingers are proponents of positive liberty and the big state. The Illuminati's vision of creating a "Community of Gods" is the quintessence of positive liberty. Capitalist democracy and consumerism are the supreme expression of negative liberty. You are free to shop till you drop and the state will never put any obstacles in your way. The state couldn't care less what consumerism does to people's minds, whether it turns them into zombies, droids and drones. The Profit Principle is all that matters.
The supporters of private wealth and privilege are always those who demand that the state stay out of the private sphere. The state does indeed have no right to interfere with any private matters that have no consequences for the public sphere, but it has every right to interfere with those that do. It's failing in its duties if it does not.
Plato was buried in the Academy that he founded. Diogenes Laertius wrote, "Phoebus Apollo gave to mortals Asclepius and Plato, the one to save their bodies, the other to save their souls."
Plato's Republic of Laws represents a suitable dialectical starting point for a meritocratic society. America was designed not as a democracy but as a Republic of Laws. The only democratic component involves the elections of the President and Congress. America has failed to be the beacon of liberty that it was intended to be for one very simple reason - it tried as far as possible to stay out of the private sphere, and thus it allowed an immense system of private privilege to grow that now overshadows the Government, Congress, the Republic, the Constitution, the Laws, and, above all, the People. Moreover, it gave birth to the mad anarcho-capitalist libertarians who think that government should play no role in their lives whatsoever, and that they should pay no taxes whatsoever. America is now totally split between libertarians who want no government, Republicans who want a small government, Democrats who want bigger government and left wingers who want government to stand up to the privileged elite once and for all.
America is no longer a Republic of Laws nor any kind of democracy: it's a Plutocracy - government by a rich elite, and this was allowed to happen because of America's advocacy of negative liberty.
What is the antidote? - meritocracy.
Family versus Community
"The family looks inward upon itself; there is an intensification of emotional stress between husband and wife, and parents and children. The strain is greater than most of us can bear. Far from being the basis of a good society, the family is the source of all of our discontents."
Anthropologist Edmund Leach
Governments never talk about it, but there is actually a huge tension between the nuclear family and the wider community. The nuclear family is anti-communitarian. Houses for nuclear families are small, anti-social units where all sorts of neuroses can grow unchecked. The nature of these isolated social units is such as to create a "them and us" mentality. Families become dog-eat-dog units, ruthlessly pursuing self-interest and with no regard for community. Is this healthy? And what happens when parents get divorced and the family fragments? Because it ignored community, it now has no social network and support system to fall back on. Many such families have to turn to the welfare state instead, at great expense to the taxpayers.
The present leaders of the world are creating a disjointed, fragmented, mentally ill society. There's no solidarity, no community, no physical social networking (only the cyber variety).
The nuclear family is the sanctification of negative liberty, and any attempt by a party of positive liberty to change the world necessitates putting the family at the heart of the process of radical transformation. The three "Rebooting Laws" all target the family. You can only have a new society if you have a new model of the family.
"DH" drew our attention to container housing projects and new types of sustainable, modular, flexible homes:
We are in urgent need of a whole new approach to housing. Our best designers should be tasked with produce housing projects that come with solar panels, wind turbines, ways of collecting rainwater, waste recycling facilities, fibre optic cabling for high speed internet access. We need visionary, economic, sustainable, eco-friendly community projects.
Rather than small family units shutting themselves away from each other, we need community housing that encourages sociability, cooperation and solidarity. We could allocate people to communal housing projects based on the compatibility of their Myers-Briggs personality types and their hobbies. Imagine being surrounded by like-minded people enthusiastic about the same things that thrill you rather than by complete strangers with nothing in common and with habits and beliefs that irritate the hell out of you. Where we live is one of the most important factors in our life, so shouldn't we put a hell of a lot more care and consideration into it? Wouldn't you like to find friends for life in your local environment? We can make it happen in a Smart Society based on psychology.
The more you are integrated with your community, the more altruistic and happier you will be. You will have friends, allies and collaborators everywhere.
One of the main aims of a meritocracy is to move society away from the dominance of a small, elite super rich ownership class - the classic capitalist model - and towards social ownership whereby the people own the means of production and benefit from the profits, which are then reinvested in the development of the people rather than being appropriated by private individuals for their own benefit.
We advocate collaboration, communitarianism, mutualism, group ownership. We advocate cooperatives and syndicates. Groups and communities should be given vastly more support and importance than rich individuals. Imagine a world where all companies are run by their workers and not by the bosses, where the workers vote on strategy, finance, who gets paid what, who gets promoted, who runs the business. In other words, we replace the current hierarchical, pyramidal model of business where the Old World Order are at the apex and everyone is dancing to their tune in a rigid, authoritarian system in which workers are forced to be deferential, compliant and docile. The new model must be a meritocratic Round Table system where the workers all take-part in the decision making process, and those who have the most meritorious ideas commanding the greatest support are the ones who drive the company forward.
Every worker will have a stake in the company. The more successful the company is, the more successful each worker will be. Everyone gets a just share of the profits, rather than the profits all being channelled upwards to the capitalist bosses. Everyone should love going to work, should feel valued and productive, should know that their voice will be heard and that any good ideas will be taken up and implemented.
In our capitalist world, all but the bosses are alienated from their work. We need a new world where people love their work because they experience genuine fulfilment through it. No one should be alienated from an activity that takes up a third to a half of their day. It's folly and madness to be in a job you hate, and society should place immense effort into getting you into employment you love.
The Psychological Box of Tricks
Psychology is the study of the mind, of how we behave, of our motivations, hopes and fears. Skilled psychologists can manipulate their fellow humans, for better or worse. If you yourself study psychology, you'll be better armed to avoid being manipulated. You'll instantly see through the lies of the elite. And you'll know yourself much better.
The Old World Order utilize advanced psychology to break us. They love compliant, obedient citizens and brainless voters who don't cause trouble. Their "system" is designed to create just such feeble citizens.
We must resist the brainwashing. It's like the deadly Kraken, surrounding us with its tentacles, and gripping us in a death embrace. Cut off the tentacles. Resist the mind control.
All of our key institutions are designed to mould us into the shape desired by the elite. We need a new flexible mould that we have designed ourselves.
The education system is designed to produce fodder for the capitalist sausage machine: people who obey and never ask difficult questions. The state has no need for rebels, geniuses and heroes. The elite do not want anyone to stand up to them and challenge them for the best jobs. So, from the moment you enter the education system, you are indoctrinated about fulfilling your role in society i.e. the one that most suits the elite. You are never educated to be yourself.
Schools churn out work droids with little imagination or intelligence. They create conflict between different psychological types, allowing the dominant bullies to rise to the top (just as the bullies of the elite rose to the top).
The education system should be based on a simple set of rules. 1) Teach everyone the basics: reading, writing and counting. 2) Find out what makes every pupil tick. Direct pupils towards the areas in which they can flourish, and take them away from the areas where they will fail. Make everyone feel good about themselves. Build their self-esteem. Establish what they're good at and give them the praise and encouragement they deserve. 3) Give them a real education: education for education's sake, not for the business needs of the elite. 4) Identify their psychological type. Separate them from hostile psychological types and surround them with those with whom they will be friends and allies. Our society is sadly lacking in basic friendship. Teach each personality type how best to cope with opposite types, thus avoiding conflict and creating harmony. 5) Cultivate everyone's unique talents. Treat them all as potential geniuses for whom the sky is the limit. 6) Teach pupils how to think and ask questions. 7) Teach them how to avoid being brainwashed. 8) Teach them to aim for the stars. 9) Teach them lateral and critical thinking. 10) Teach them "deconstruction". 11) Teach them to challenge "sacred" texts.
The schools of today do not encourage creativity, general knowledge and budding genius. Learning by heart, compliance with systems/methods, doing everything by the book is the key to good grades. This sterile approach is important for your later life: shut up, work and submit to stupid laws and regulations. Some people would jump out of the window if the law demanded it.
After leaving such a school, you are a "perfect" citizen i.e. a slave of the elite's system of control. You're a fully-fledged member of the Matrix, and you will never want to escape. Like everyone else, you will care only about making the most money for the minimum effort. And what kind of life is that?
Universities are more of the same. More and more people flood into them, standards fall, and barely-educated people emerge, often with huge debts. They are now forced to take any job to pay their debts. More and more courses are based on what is required by "industry" (i.e. the capitalist elite). Students have been betrayed and cheated by the universities. We need a revolution in education.
Television is another favourite weapon of the Old World Order. Not only do they broadcast uncreative, dumb and useless junk to poison our minds, they also try to program our subconscious to worship key brands of the elite. We "must" have these brands or we will not have a fulfilling life, supposedly. Goods can't buy us happiness, but it's amazing how many fools think they can. Many women have actually elevated "shopping" to the status of a religion. They worship it. It's the purpose of their lives, their greatest pleasure. Who but a shallow consumerist could enjoy the selfish, materialistic, narcissistic shopping-fest deified by Sex and the City?
TV also broadcasts politically correct news so that we don't ask awkward questions about why there are so many billionaire Jews and Masons in America, or they bombard us with scare stories to make us afraid so that we will turn to the elite for protection. Fear is a primary tool of control. People can't think straight when they are afraid. They become highly suggestible. Islam makes full use of the fear primitive minds have of hell.
One of the best descriptions of TV is found in the radical movie Network: "We deal with illusions, man. You'll never hear the truth from us."
TV is excellent for promoting the ruling ideology. Ideologies are nice, neat packages for people who are too lazy or dumb to develop their own opinions. Why study complicated books, do a lot of hard research and think for yourself if you can just pluck an ideology off a shelf instead?
The top politicians know the herd mentality all too well. Political parties promote simplistic ideologies. If you buy into one, you become the enemy of the others. People start arguing with each other over nonsense, and fail to see the big picture.
Every political party claims that all other parties are incompetent. The logical conclusion is that all parties are incompetent, and, indeed, they are. So why do we support any of them?
Laws and regulations are created to protect the elite from us, not the other way round. They are made ridiculously complicated and presented in incomprehensible small print and jargon so that only an elite priesthood - the lawyers - can interpret them, and of course they always interpret them in favour of the elite, which was the whole point in the first place. And they take huge fees for doing so, usually at our expense. Who needs lawyers? They are pointless.
Clashes between incompatible personality types, or compatible personality types that have been indoctrinated with opposing ideologies, cause most conflicts.
We like people who behave like us, and dislike those who don't. We can't empathize with those who seem to operate according to different rules. We can't anticipate their "moves". They baffle us and make us feel anxious. If we lived in a society that was focused on helping us to understand others, all of these problems could be alleviated.
The OWO are not interested in social harmony. Divide and rule is their mantra. If people started agreeing with each other, the OWO would lose their power. They rely on conflict and the inability of people to unite against them.
The shadow - a concept formulated by Jung - is the primitive aspect of ourselves, the part we're ashamed of and try not to think about too much. Our forbidden desires take root here. The more we try to pretend they're not there, they more they control us. The shadow grows ever bigger. When it has accumulated enough power, it takes over, and we might commit monstrous acts.
Look at the Catholic Church's great scandal: priests molesting children. Because of the requirement for celibacy, the priests have been overwhelmed by this denial of their sexuality, and it has erupted in the worst way. But here is an even more interesting revelation. Apparently child abuse by Catholic priests is much lower than in other religions and amongst other adults who are in control of groups of children. So, the Catholic Church, once so powerful, is now an easy scapegoat, taking all the blame when it should be spread much more widely. Isn't it time we started holding enquiries into the levels of child abuse in all other religions? Can anyone doubt that child abuse amongst Fundamentalist Muslims, Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Protestants is on an enormous scale? Let's get it all out in the open.
It's healthy to have fun. In fact you should be able to do anything you like if it brings no harm to others. If religious believers were told that sex is good, healthy and fine, we would solve endless problems in society. Sigmund Freud thought that all neuroses and psychoses were sexual in origin. He may have gone too far but no one can doubt the importance of a good sex life for combating the sinister contents of the shadow. The state should do everything it can to encourage healthy, consensual sex.
The Rules of the Mind
Jung said that people primarily make sense of the world in one of four ways: thinking, feeling, intuition or sensing. He thus applied to the personality the aspects of the Will to Actualisation - thinking (based on mathematical reasoning and logic), emotion and intuition, and he added the newest ingredient of mind, the one most attuned to the material world - sensing (the absorbing of data from our physical surroundings).
Thinkers prefer logic and facts. They distrust emotion, seeing it as irrational. They solve problems in a methodical and rational way, supported by hard evidence. They are ruled by Logos (reason) rather than Mythos (story).
Feelers rely on their emotions and personal value systems to experience the world. They give tremendous importance to their gut instincts, to how they feel at a particular moment. They have problems dealing with impersonal facts and logic, with daunting systems of philosophy and science. They are not systematic in their approach because they are so influenced by the mood of the moment. They are ruled by Mythos rather than Logos - emotionally appealing stories over abstract thinking. Jung defined feeling as the opposite of thinking i.e. the more you think the less you rely on emotion, the more you feel the less you operate according to logic.
Intuitives quickly grasp the big picture and evaluate the likely outcome of a situation. They are often idealistic and love metaphors and possibilities. They are highly future orientated. They are dreamers and visionaries.
Sensors see the intricate physical details that other types overlook. They live in the moment, absorbing all of the sensations around them. They are present rather than future directed. Jung contrasted the sensors with the intuitives. The more intuitive you are, the less sense-based you are likely to be, and the more sense-based you are the more you will indulge in the pleasures of the moment rather than anticipation of the future.
So, thinkers are factual, feelers are emotional, intuitives are ideas-driven and geared to future possibilities while sensors are preoccupied with sensory information and are anchored in the "now". The four types have radically different ways of apprehending the world, so the possibilities for conflict and misunderstandings are many.
These functions can be further specified according to whether they are predominantly orientated to inner or outer experience i.e. introversion or extraversion. Introverts look inwards and extraverts outwards. Introverts mind their own business and are happy to be in small groups or on their own; extraverts love to be in gangs and crowds, and to be in your face. They dislike being on their own. They are attuned to the world and not highly attuned to themselves.
Introverts usually display the opposite tendencies. They are often highly self aware because they spend a lot of time contemplating their inner nature. Introverts generate energy by being alone. They feel uneasy when surrounded by strangers or standing in front of a big audience. They look inside to develop ideas and concepts. Most of history's greatest artists, thinkers and visionaries have been introverts. The super rich, celebrities, and politicians are usually extraverts. Extraverts get energy via their interactions with the outer world, especially social contact. They are the party people, the thrill seekers, the pleasure junkies. They love speed, novelty, danger, noise and mayhem. They have problems with tranquillity and with quiet people whom they regard as boring and "no fun".
Extraverts dominate the world. Something like Facebook is a tool for extraverts. Introverts would not feel comfortable plastering details of their lives online for all to see.
In total, there are 8 Jungian "types":
Introverted Feelers - They have intense feelings and care a lot about people they know well. Introverted Thinkers - They use their analytical thinking capabilities to support their endeavours with convincing arguments. Introverted Intuitives - They develop grand visions. Introverted Sensors - They are aesthetes and connoisseurs, endowing sensual pleasures with artistic intensity.
Extraverted Feelers - They love to express their feelings in front of others. Extraverted Thinkers - They use their logical abilities to develop or improve external objects, commodities, and services. Extraverted Intuitives - They are very good at distributing shallow, self-serving ideas and visions to other people. Con men. Extraverted Sensors - They wallow in sensual pleasures, in action and thrills. They lust after material objects.
Capitalism can be psychologically described as a system devised by extraverted intuitives and thinkers to exploit extraverted feelers and sensors, with introverts fitting in as best they can.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a well-known tool for determining personality type. It's based on the Jungian types but introduces a further dichotomy based on whether you rely mostly on your thinking/feeling aspect (these are called "judging" functions), or your intuition/sensing aspect (your "perceiving" functions) in relation to the external world. Judging types respect schedules, they love making decisions and they stick to them, making it difficult to convince them that they might be wrong. Perceiving types are laid-back and flexible. They dislike rigid schedules and any decisions they reach are always provisional; they can quickly change if circumstances change.
A Myers-Briggs type consists of four letters e.g. "INFP": Dominant: Introverted Feeling; Auxiliary: Extraverted Intuition; Tertiary: Introverted Sensing; Inferior: Extraverted Thinking. This type is (I)ntroverted and relies primarily on I(N)tuition (rather than sensing), and (F)eeling (rather than thinking). The P stands for perceiving and indicates that in relation to the outer world, the person emphasizes their intuition (extravert intuition). That means that their dominant function is their introverted feeling.
If you are interested in detailed descriptions of the 16 types and good partner matches, then visit this website:
Psychology has tremendous power over our lives. Used negatively, it can turn us into easily manipulated worker droids or consumerist zombies. Used positively, it can transform our world and our relations with each other. It can help us to find out what a marvellous, talented, unique being slumbers inside us.
The aim of any good and healthy state should be to use positive psychology to release the chivalrous, talented hero within us, and to eliminate negative psychological forces from our lives.
If humanity becomes as adept at understanding and appreciating psychology as it is at praying to money, its greatest dreams can come true.
The Old World Order are those who wield negative psychology as a weapon of control. We must use positive psychology against them. Make no mistake, the war of liberation will be psychological.
Every aspect of the world needs to be looked at again. Consider the issue of policing. Police are like a paramilitary organisation. They are usually dressed in black or dark blue and are often seen in heavy riot gear. They cultivate an image of force, toughness, hardness. "Don't mess with us," is what they want the public to think.
Remember, these people are supposed to be public servants, not thugs, street judges, vigilantes, "tough guys" or the police version of Mafia "made men".
Rather than defuse trouble, police are frequently the cause of it. They are arrogant, aggressive, provocative, rude, dictatorial, sneering and obnoxious. They try to intimidate and bully people. Most of them are unfit to be in the police.
Now imagine a brand new police service (not force!) consisting of women between the ages of 18 and 70, dressed in brightly coloured uniforms and trained in psychology. Women are naturally kinder, gentler, less aggressive, less confrontational and less arrogant than men. They like relatedness, helping, empathy and being nice. They have a consistently higher EQ than men. They are famed for having superior people skills.
So shouldn't they be the visible face of policing? Police MEN create huge tension wherever they go. Policewomen would seem like genuine servants of public peace and tranquillity. Men wouldn't be provoked and infuriated by friendly policewomen in bright colours.
There should be a riot squad or SWAT team of policemen kept in reserve if physical force is absolutely necessary, but they should be used extremely sparingly.
Most crime-solving police work should be done behind the scenes by PhDs in criminology and intelligence, using sophisticated crime-detection software i.e. "geeks, dorks and nerds" should be the brains of the police.
The whole "New York cops" vision of policing is antiquated and pathetic. We need new policing for a new world, dominated by women and geeks rather than badly educated thugs who are practically criminals themselves.
This is what "traditional" policing is all about:
Jobs for Women
Just as the police should be given a female makeover, so most banking and stockmarket jobs should be reserved for women. They are not driven by the testosterone-madness that seizes men. They would never take the crazy risks to which arrogant men are so prone.
There is of course a time and place for risk - but it shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an economic system that relies on stability.
The world would be radically altered by giving women many of the jobs that are currently the province of men.
The OWO is predominantly a male phenomenon. There is every reason to believe that by putting feminine women into top positions, much of the madness of the past could be avoided.
Margaret Thatcher, the UK's first female prime minister, was lampooned as being more masculine than her male colleagues, and the world certainly doesn't need anymore women like her, one of the most evil people in British history. Many of the ills of the modern world can be traced directly to Thatcher. She was the person who gave birth to the current age of the super rich and she was responsible for the extraordinary growth of the privileged elite. Or, to be more accurate, she did the bidding of her OWO controllers to the letter and gave them everything they wanted.
The Keirsey Temperaments
Closely associated with Myers-Briggs personality types are the so-called Keirsey Temperaments devised by David Keirsey. Whereas Myers-Briggs focused on extraversion versus introversion, Keirsey put the stress on sensing versus intuition i.e. whether we process the world perceptually or conceptually.
He created four groups called the Guardians, Artisans, Rationalists and Idealists:
SJ - "The Guardians" Their primary objective is "Security Seeking". The guardians comprise: ESTJ - "The Supervisors" ISTJ - "The Inspectors" ESFJ - "The Providers" ISFJ - "The Protectors" The guardians make up approximately 45% of the population.
SP - "The Artisans" Primary objective = "Sensation Seeking". The artisans are: ESTP - "The Promoters" ISTP - "The Crafters" ESFP - "The Performers" ISFP - "The Composers" Artisans make up approximately 35% of the population.
So, sensing types make up around 80% of the population in total!
NT - "The Rationals" Primary objective = "Knowledge Seeking". The rationals are: ENTJ - "The Fieldmarshals" INTJ - "The Masterminds" ENTP - "The Inventors" INTP - "The Architects" The rationals are approximately 10% of the population.
NF - "The Idealists" Primary objective = "Identity Seeking". The idealists are: ENFJ - "The Teachers" INFJ - "The Counselors" ENFP - "The Champions" INFP - "The Healers" The Idealists are approximately 10% of the population.
So, intuitives comprise only around 20% of the population and are in an overwhelming minority. Frankly, if it were the other way around the world would be a much better place. The world is fucked because it has so few intuitives. We have far too many sensation seekers and security seekers and far too few knowledge and identity seekers.
Capitalism is the economic system of sensation seekers. They love junk TV, action movies and video games: speed, bangs, emotion and excitement.
Democracy, submissiveness, Abrahamism - these are what security seekers want. The security seekers are the deadly dull "moral majority": the mortgage men and wage slaves, totally compliant droids and drones. They form the bulk of the American Republican Party. They are invariably "patriotic" and "God-loving".
The Old Education System
Ordinary schools are designed to churn out people who can read and write, haven't set their ambitions too high, and will be able to fit into the working world where they will carry out a menial and bureaucratic function for average pay. Increasingly, employers have a big say over what education should be about i.e. education now serves industry rather than its true purpose of the improvement of the individual. Universities are not academies of wisdom, but institutions for the needs of industry. Industry wants compliant, dutiful, obedient workers who don't think too much and never challenge the hierarchy. It doesn't want rebels, heretics and freethinkers. It craves "Yes" men who do what they're told and never complain.
One of the worst mistakes the state can make is to shovel all children, no matter their differences, into "one size fits all" schools where they get a standardised curriculum that is never tailored to any child's particular needs and talents. If you provided everyone on earth with a one-size-fits-all set of clothes, most would look terrible, while, for a lucky few, they would be a perfect fit. So it is with education. For a few, the education system is just right - for everyone else it's a lesser or greater disaster. People are individuals. They have strengths and weaknesses. Incompatible personality types don't get along well. Bullying is seen as normal in our schools. The teachers never see anything, or deliberately turn a blind eye.
The pupils with the best grades are often not the most intelligent ones, but the ones with the best short-term memory or the best at rote, robotic learning. After an exam, they usually forget most of the material.
In contrast to state schools, exclusive private schools for the privileged elite are about providing the best education money can buy, about grooming the leaders of the future, about providing a tailored education that plays to their strengths, about teaching them to set their ambitions as high as possible, about building powerful social networks for them that will secure them the best jobs and guarantee them the best things in life. When it comes to the education of the elite, everything is done to ensure the best possible outcomes. Life, in short, is a rigged system where a small network of elite families profit from the efforts of the majority.
Education ought to be about discovering what children are good at, and what they're not. If you teach mathematics to a person who has no mathematical aptitude, you will shatter their confidence and self-esteem. They say in the military that you should not "reinforce failure". Neither should schools. Don't keep making people do things for which they have no glimmer of talent. It's pointless, counter-productive and psychologically damaging.
Some children possess artistic talents, others practical skills, others logical skills, and so on. Some children "think" their way through life, others "feel" their way. Some are highly intuitive while others rely on their senses. Some children like to learn through visual means, some like to be taught via a teacher talking to them from the front of the class, while others like to be continually moving around and interacting with objects.
We need schools that respect different psychological types, different aptitudes, different ways of learning. The "one size fits all" approach is ridiculous. In order to get a highly educated and productive society, we need an education system tailored to getting the most out of each and every one of us. We should be encouraged to "think" properly - in the way most appropriate to us, in a way that allows us to grasp the bigger picture and to develop our unique set of talents.
Education is the basis for a well-functioning society and everyone deserves to have access to knowledge. An excellent education should be free. Education is the bedrock of an advanced society, hence requires the most investment. But where will the money come from? From the 100% inheritance tax on the rich initially and a massive redirection of funds from the military-industrial complex, and then from the enormous increase in productivity, in GDP, that will result from a properly educated society. What are we waiting for?
The New Education System
The purpose of a proper education system is to give each and every person the best chance in life. It is not supposed to be a sausage machine squeezing out an endless supply of drones, droids, and unthinking, compliant, submissive conformist fodder for capitalist offices and businesses.
Education must be tailor-made for everyone. How is that accomplished? A one-size-fits-all system must be consigned to history.
Variety is the key to the new education paradigm, based on Myers-Briggs personality types. There should be sixteen parallel education systems, one for each Myers-Briggs type. The education provided will be perfect for each type, addressing students' strengths and avoiding their weaknesses.
This will be the first time in history that students will get a bespoke education designed to draw out the best from them rather than just throwing a single curriculum at everyone.
Children should receive this type of primary education from age 4 to 10. The purpose of this education is to ensure that everyone can read, write and count fluently, and to start identifying where their main interests and talents lie.
In the secondary phase of the education system (from age 10 - 16), there are four education systems based on the four Keirsey "temperaments" - guardians, artisans, idealists and rationalists. This allows the mixing of introverts and extraverts.
Secondary education provides everyone with a broad education across many subjects, culminating in the students' completing three final-year projects in the subjects that most interest them.
The tertiary education system (from 16 - 21) involves the provision of the 10,000 hours said to be necessary to turn someone into an expert in any chosen field. The student, on the basis of his most successful project at the end of his secondary education, chooses the field he wishes to specialise in then gets five years of it at the most intense level. At 21, he is an expert in his field and can enter the workforce and make an instant impact at the highest level. He will be so expert that he could easily become the boss within a year.
We will have a whole generation of 21-yr-old experts - the most educated group in human history - ready to change the world almost overnight. They will be the most elite human beings of all time, ready to implement such visionary paradigms as the Venus Project.
These 21-yr-olds will be experts in subjects they love. They can expect to enjoy extremely fulfilling lives devoted to what excites them most. They will not be fodder for capitalist bosses. Most of them will be massively better educated and more expert than their bosses. They will be the vanguard in a human revolution. They are our glorious future.
There may be a fourth component of the education system (from 21 - 26) - the genius level. Those who have proved themselves the most expert in their fields will receive another 10,000 hours of education in the hope that they will go beyond the known bounds of their field and generate the new ideas that open up endless new possibilities for humanity.
4-10: primary education, based on the 16 Myers-Briggs categories.
10-16: secondary education, based on the 4 Keirsey temperaments.
16-21: tertiary education - the 10,000 hours (equivalent of advanced Masters Degree).
21-26: equivalent of super-advanced PhD.
Of course, this is just a prototype education system, a starting point that will be dialectically improved until it produces the best-educated human beings in history, a new generation that will be fulfilled and energised, and will never kowtow to any privileged elite.
The Big Lie - democracy is the best type of government; all democracies are stable, prosperous, peaceful and just; the people are well educated, creative, moral, altruistic and live in harmony; democracies offer maximum freedom and their politicians are highly skilled and humanitarian; pain and suffering don't exist anymore; everyone has enough to eat, clean clothes, access to education; all people are seen as equal yet unique; the resources and money are fairly shared; life in democracies is close to paradise. Just look at the smiling faces all around you.
Now wake up. The democratic nations are bankrupt in all but name. Their politicians are corrupt. The people are zombies in the grimmest of rat races. The only people smiling are the elite. But why is it like this? Shouldn't a perfect form of government produce a perfect society? If democracy really is as good as it gets then the world has nothing to look forward to. Paradise for the people is never coming.
Democracy, cast as the ideal political system, is a mirage. Most people prefer lies because the alternative - the truth - is too hard. Nobody wants to do anything difficult in a selfish, hedonistic society. Although people desire a better world, they will play along with nonsense and propaganda so long as it comforts them and doesn't demand action and effort from them. Democracy will survive as long as it keeps manipulating the people into believing that it is the last word in political wisdom.
Most people have been brainwashed into worshipping democracy. They never consider any alternatives, and nor are they ever told about any alternatives. Why not? Because the puppetmasters who pull the levers of the democratic machine don't want to lose the system that has made them so rich and powerful.
The chief advocates of democracy are the politicians who make an excellent living from your tax money, the bosses of industry who lobby and bribe the politicians, the bankers who make a fortune out of manipulating the economic system of democracy, and the media who whisper to you that democracy leads to salvation while all other paths head straight to damnation. Anyone who disagrees is crazy, a heretic, a sinner, a troublemaker, an anarchist, a revolutionary.
The weak-minded choose the "right" side (i.e. they are pro-democracy), to demonstrate that they are "clever" (i.e. compliant) and not "mad" (i.e. individualistic and thoughtful). It's the perfect system of mind control.
Democracy is based on the absurd belief that elected politicians are noble men and women who dutifully reflect the will of the people, that they serve others rather than themselves. But if they wanted to improve the world, they would have done it long ago.
What is the main feature of all democratic societies, the one that demonstrates what their true purpose is? In ALL cases, the rich have got richer. That is the undeniable objective of democratic societies.
Democracy - cui bono? The super rich is the transparent answer. Who caused the financial crisis? The politicians, the regulators and the super rich. How did they cause the crisis? Easy - their entire focus was on high-risk activities with massive rewards for the super rich. When things went wrong, who had to pay? - the dumb taxpayers. That's their function: to make sure the rich don't ever lose. The super rich have rigged the system to ensure that they get all of the upside and none of the down. They did it thanks to the cooperation of the "democratic" politicians who do their bidding.
These great democratic leaders of ours tell us incessantly that we would be lost without their wise leadership, although all they ever do is lead us from one disaster to the next. Without them, they say, there would be chaos, yet it is they who cause the chaos as they pursue ever-higher profits for themselves and their friends. The super rich are the kings and queens of medieval times in a new guise, and we are the same old serfs we have always been. If everyone gets what they deserve, what have we done to deserve this?
Our politicians are bad actors in a third-rate play: Punch and Judy for Dummies. They play the part of serving us while their hands are in our pockets, thieving from us. They spout endless platitudes. They are masters of "spin" - putting a positive gloss on all of their fucks ups, broken promises and ineptitude. They are grand masters in the art of lying. They never give a straight answer to any question. They think we are the most gullible people who have ever lived, that we will swallow their lies indefinitely. And are they wrong? They promise everything and deliver nothing. Yet still we vote for them. Why? Are we stupid? Do we never learn? Isn't that the definition of the stupid and the mad - people who keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome?
Where is Obama's change? He's just a different actor reciting the same old lines. The real power lies in the hands of the Old World Order - the shadow government consisting of rich and powerful Freemasons and Zionists. All that matters to them is money, power and a good life for themselves. They are experts at getting what they want.
Politicians are the Old World Order's pets. If they perform the right tricks, they receive a filled bowl of juicy goodies. Positive change that serves all of humanity is never on the agenda. The politicians and their precious democracies exist to prevent us from ruling ourselves and getting justice.
Has your voice ever been heard? Has anyone ever listened to your concerns? The law is controlled by crooks, the banks by robbers, the media by professional liars. In a civilized nation, the enemies of the people are put in prison. In democracies, they are put in charge.
Every four years, the politicians suddenly remember you. Yes, it's election time and they need your vote. With honeyed words, they promise you everything, including plucking the stars from the sky just for you, the precious voter. But as soon as the election is over, every promise is forgotten and they go back to enriching themselves and revelling in their power. No stars for you, just dirty moon rock to accompany the moonshine they have sold you yet again.
Politicians will say anything to get your vote. They use "focus groups" to target you with the precise message you want to hear. They make you feel important, make you think that the fate of the nation is in your hands. The truth, of course, is that it will make no difference who wins the election. The Old World Order will still be in charge. They are never up for election.
The media barons laugh at the compliant voters who so blindly support a rigged system that serves only the guys on top of the pyramid. Most of the candidates you vote for are carefully chosen and supported by the OWO, the controllers of the media machine. If, despite their efforts, the wrong candidate wins, the establishment can simply change the outcome of the elections. Don't forget: they count the votes, not you!
Free speech: you can speak as freely as you want, but no one's listening. If you happen to belong to the small group of people who commit "thought crimes" (i.e. those who prefer to have their own opinions rather than subscribe to ideologies based on fatuous, unsubstantiated slogans) then you will be viewed with suspicion and even labelled as an idiot or madman. You will be branded, marginalized, and ridiculed.
The defenders of "free speech" demonstrate their hypocrisy by ostracising people for questioning certain holy and untouchable dogmas, especially if the poor, innocent Jews are involved. When the Jews say they are God's Chosen People and that God promised them the land of Canaan even though it was owned, populated and named after the Canaanites, no one is allowed to object or complain. No one is allowed to say that the Jews violently stole the land from its true owners, hence are a criminal nation. If I steal your money I don't then become the legal owner of your money, no matter what my "God" says to justify my actions. I remain a thief and a criminal. If you point out this simple fact, you're labelled as a dangerous anti-Semite who must be silenced as soon as possible. Why aren't the mad claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam put on trial? Why isn't their God put in the dock and charged with crimes against humanity? Truth doesn't fear investigation, does it? Aren't we always told that if you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to fear?
The media is owned by big corporations. What is the aim of a corporation? To earn as much money as possible with the least amount of trouble/work. A journalist working for the New York Times confessed that journalists are nothing more than prostitutes selling themselves to the highest bidder. Money counts, not truth.
Only a small number of alternative media and blogs are fighting the giant media machine. Do you really think that the big corporations want you, the lowly worker, to read/hear what's really going on behind the curtain? That would threaten their empire. They prefer to frighten you until you crouch on the floor and don't dare move. This makes life easy for those in authority. Another favourite scheme consists of telling you the lies you want to hear to make you forget the cruelty in the world (suitably created by letting the evil do their work while the "good" look away).
"In an age in which the media broadcast countless pieces of foolishness, the educated man is defined not by what he knows, but by what he doesn't know."
Nicolas Gomez Davila
Do you want to know how to put the military-industrial complex out of business? Simple. Show close-ups of what cluster bombs do to the people they fall on. We in the West are never shown the results of the "handiwork" our armies do in our name. If we saw the hundreds of thousands of corpses torn apart by our bombs and bullets, we wouldn't dare to show our faces in the world.
Who is it that decides to hide the corpses from us?
If you are willing to slaughter others then you should be equally willing to show the world what you have done. To conceal it is to prove that you are engaged in shameful deeds that cannot sustain public scrutiny.
The Smart Society
"DH" contacted us and asked the perceptive question of whether humanity has in fact hit perfection in the form of democratic capitalism. If this system is indeed perfect, he said, it implies that a thousand or a millions years hence we will still have exactly the same form of governing system. He's absolutely right. It's unthinkable that we will still have capitalist democracy in the far distant future. The human race is capable of so much better. Therefore, we should already be thinking of what will replace it, of what will be around in a millions years from now on. Let's have it right now. Meritocracy is the solution. When meritocracy is fully embedded and we have created a Star Trek/ Venus Project world, we will indeed believe that we have produced the optimal political system and society. No one on earth will be able to suggest how it could be improved in any significant way. It will always be possible to make minor improvements, of course, but once meritocracy has taken root it will represent the end of history i.e. the end of the search for the final way in which we should govern ourselves. Freedom will be at a maximum, as will creativity and the means for maximising human potential. There will be no more conflict. Everyone will have a fulfilled life.
In a system of privilege, only the privileged are free. In a religion based on the slavish worship of a tyrant God, only the tyrant God is free. In a system with the super rich at the apex, only the super rich are free.
Meritocracy is extremely simple. It's about destroying all aspects of privilege in order to ensure that a free elite cannot enslave the non-elite. It's about destroying belief in tyrant Gods that enslave billions of poorly educated, superstitious minds. It's about ensuring that children are not the slaves of their parents. Parents have no right to brainwash children with their own beliefs. Their beliefs are their affair; children's beliefs are their own affair. It's about ensuring that the success or failure of parents has no influence on the success or failure of their children. Everyone starts with a clean sheet and is judged on their own merits and deeds. No one's fate is allowed to be shaped by events that happened before they were born i.e. by events in the lives of their parents.
Meritocracy is about the maximisation of freedom and talent, and the abolition of all forces of slavery and privilege. Meritocracy is the final stage of the human dialectic because it optimises human freedom, merit and knowledge. All other systems are flawed and backward in comparison. They are dialectical stages destined to be swept aside by meritocracy.
Meritocracy is the inevitable winner in the long wars of politics, religion, art, culture, science and philosophy. Nothing beyond it can be conceived. It is the last word in human evolution and lays the path for humanity's journey to the stars. If you are against meritocracy you are against the future of the human race. You are a dinosaur and you will surely become extinct. The unmeritorious can never defeat the meritorious. The Smart Society will always defeat the Dumb Society. Knowledge will always defeat faith and superstition. Merit, unbound, will always defeat privilege. Freedom will always defeat slavery.
Get with the program. Get with the future. Join the meritocratic movement, the final phase of the human dialectic that has taken us on an incredible journey through horror, misery, slavery, hatred, greed, privilege, faith, superstition, Devil-worship, irrationality and madness to the bright Promised Land of freedom and knowledge. Meritocracy is the culmination of our evolution from slime to divinity via mortal existence.
Abolish Privilege. Abolish mainstream religion. Abolish faith. Abolish superstition, Abolish irrationality. Abolish the super rich. Abolish the elite.
This is the Age of Freedom, this is the culmination of the cosmic dialectic. You can be part of it. You can be a hero. You can be God. You can arrive at the cosmic Omega Point. There is no stage beyond. At the Omega Point you have reached the terminus of existence. You have completed the journey that ends all journeys, the journey of the cosmos itself from maximum potential to maximum actualisation.
There's one remarkable aspect of the revolutions in Arab countries - the enormous numbers of people they mobilised to fill the streets. Facebook and Twitter were said to be instrumental, yet it's hard to imagine that Facebook and Twitter could ever achieve the same thing in any Western country. Why not? Why are Westerners so lazy and apathetic, so compliant and submissive, so in thrall to the "legitimacy" of the powers-that-be? Even at the height of the Credit Crunch virtually no one was stirred to action. Capitalism had collapsed, but no one moved a muscle. No one suggested any alternative. The people responsible for the financial disaster were the ones allowed to "rectify" it rather than being fired for gross incompetence as they should have been.
Part of the problem is that no one is offering any realistic alternative to democratic capitalism, which is why meritocracy has such a crucial role to play. Meritocracy is the only card that can trump democracy.
Meritocracy is not about equality, but about equal opportunity. They are very different concepts. Meritocracy is about unequal outcomes based on merit. In order to assess merit correctly, it's imperative for everyone to set out from the same starting line. Meritocracy focuses on identifying the more meritorious and ensuring that they get the best and most influential jobs. It doesn't pander to the lazy and those who don't want to make the most of themselves. Meritocracy is no kind of communism imposing an artificial equality on those of unequal merit. Meritocracy asserts that merit is the only criterion that can rationally be used for differentiating between people: not sex, race, age, parents, money, or social connections. Only one type of discrimination is valid - that based on merit. But who is to be the judge of merit? The only acceptable answer is the people. Well-educated, fair-minded, unprejudiced, rational people will judge who amongst their number are the most meritorious i.e. this is the one place where a democratic voting procedure is essential. Assuming that no one has the chance to rig an election then there is no reason to suspect that people will not identify the most talented amongst themselves.
Imagine the ideal process for awarding the Nobel Prize in physics. Every qualified physicist in the world would have a chance to nominate someone. The five physicists receiving the most nominations would then be put on the ballot paper. The one who wins the election gets the prize - he has been judged by his peers to have achieved the most in physics that year. Would anyone be able to legitimately disagree with that verdict? Is there any better or more valid way?
Those who desire a revolution in the West must have a plan. They must be able to show what they will put in place of the existing ruling order. So what is the plan for the New World Order?
Someone sent us the following questions about meritocracy:
I have just read your introduction to meritocracy on your website. In the main I agree with your ideas but I do have a few questions for you: 1. When you mention people being elected to the various offices by people who have experience in those areas, do you mean that the people of the country should be divided according to their profession and vote for the "leader of their profession"? If so, as both a payroll accountant and a special constable would I have two votes, one for the chancellor and one for the home office or would I choose? How about the unemployed person who has never worked and can claim no expertise in anything? Does he vote or not? 2. What about people who do not wish to contribute to society? A recent walk around Lewisham town centre showed stickers up on lampposts saying "Back to work? No thanks, hands off our benefits!" This shows that clearly there are large numbers of people who have no intention of working or contributing on any level. What would be done about them? 3. The only point I disagree with in your aims section is that of abolishing inheritance, while I see what you are trying to get at here, I do think that it is a parent's responsibility and natural instinct to give as much as they can to their children. I know a person who opposes leaving anything to anyone, mainly because he does not like anyone on earth, even his partner and rightly or wrongly I feel utter pity and contempt for this person and this strengthens my belief in leaving your possessions and wealth to your nearest and dearest. However the society that is truly meritocratic is one that does not use money so in that society inheritance would naturally be pointless. 4, Would a meritocratic society ban paying for education in favour of increasing the standard of state education? If so then how would you handle the fact government funded organisations have become extremely inefficient and poor quality due to the fact they have no need for efficiency, in effect they are unnatural businesses because they cannot go bankrupt. As such they are mistrusted rightly by most people. As I said at the start, I mainly agree with your ideas and so would be interested to hear your responses to my questions.
We responded as follows:
1) Yes, you get to vote in all areas in which you have demonstrable knowledge and expertise. A person without any knowledge or expertise would not get a vote since any vote accorded to them could not be exercised in any meaningful way - it would be a random vote based on nothing but emotion and prejudice, hence would not be permitted in a meritocracy.
2) If everyone were given a chance and raised properly they would obviously wish to contribute. The sort of people to whom you are referring are the inevitable products of the type of society we have at the moment where a privileged elite control all aspects of society. The privileged elite care absolutely nothing for the people of Lewisham, and just let the area rot. When people are treated with contempt they become contemptible. Their consciousness becomes dictated by the shitty environment in which they exist. Our society deliberately generates people who are unfit to work because it has no intention of properly investing in them to give them a chance. It ensures they get no decent education, that they live in deprived ghettos and they have no realistic opportunities. To talk about them as if they were people who actively chose from birth to be lazy, inept and contribute nothing to society is frankly obscene. If Prime Minister David Cameron were raised in Lewisham, he would be putting stickers on lampposts too.
3) Then you are plainly not a meritocrat. The Society of Privilege is one where rich families pass on overwhelming financial advantage to their children, at the expense of all other children. You say that it is a natural instinct for parents to want to give as much as they can to their children. Well, parents who can offer no financial advantages to their children should therefore be as determined as possible to prevent any other parents from doing so. Only a complete fool takes part in a game he can never win. The UK is a two-tier society. 7% of the population are privately educated and they secure seventy percent of the best jobs in the country. The 93% who are state-educated have to fight for the remaining 30% of good jobs. Anyone who subscribes to a system in which they are a second-class citizen is stupid. Any parent who cares for his children should wish to ensure above all else that they have a fair chance in life and are not second-class citizens. Any parent who allows his children to be denied the opportunities that are afforded to the children of rich parents is unfit to be a parent. Any good parent must demand 100% inheritance tax in order to ensure an unrigged system, fair to all, where the rich can't buy success. Only in this way can all poor parents hand on as "much as they can" to their children. They are defending their children's interests by ensuring that they have a level playing field. If they can't pass on assets they can at least pass on fairness, justice, and equal opportunities.
4) It automatically follows that private education would be abolished. All systems of privilege would be abolished. Anything that permits the rich to use money to buy advantages unavailable to others would be abolished. Only in this way can true meritocracy ever arise. The central focus of a meritocratic government would be education. It would be the axis around which everything revolved and evolved. The meritocratic government's primary responsibility is to ensure the best-possible education for every citizen, to ensure that the potential of each student is maximised.
Government-funded organisations are inept because they are designed to be. The function of a society based on privilege is the maintenance of the privileged Elite. Thus our society succeeds perfectly in this regard. The state sector is nothing but a sausage factory to churn out compliant drones. It has no focus whatever on quality and excellence, hence is always inefficient and ineffective. In a meritocracy geared towards quality and excellence, anyone who is not up to the task would be fired instantly. All aspects of society would be continually monitored regarding quality and excellence and anything that was failing would be shut down and replaced with something of merit.
In a society of merit rather than privilege, there would be no hiding places for the unmeritorious. Everyone, from Day One, would be raised meritocratically and be fully culturally attuned with the aims of delivering the highest quality and excellence, and to recognise and condemn the unmeritorious automatically.
At Eton (the most elite private school in the world), all pupils have the highest possible expectations for their futures. In state schools in Lewisham, kids are prepared for a life of failure and zero expectations. Our entire national culture and social make-up has failure built in.
Yes, the ultimate aim of a meritocracy is to abolish money, thus rendering inheritance obsolete.
The choice is simple - a society of privilege such as we have now, or a meritocracy where privilege is destroyed and everyone starts the race of life from the same starting position. The most meritorious will win the race because of their talent and not because of the identity and wealth of their parents.
Meritocracy is not any kind of woolly, soft, liberal, caring, sharing ideology. It is radical, tough, hard, ambitious, demanding and it has the greatest expectations of people, which they are expected to fulfil. The lazy, snivelling and inept won't be able to hide in a meritocracy. Meritocracy is an ideology of excellence and quality. It is explicitly intended and designed to be the best possible system for promoting human achievement and glory. The talented, the hard working, the geniuses, the movers and shakers will all be acclaimed and rewarded. But one thing is certain - none of them will come from backgrounds of privilege because systematic privilege, the deliberate rigging of the system to favour the Elite, will be illegal since it contradicts the fundamental basis of a meritocracy.
We were then asked some follow-up questions:
You certainly have interesting opinions. I do like the idea of a fully meritocratic system with no money as an end goal, if that were to be brought in of course inheritance would become pointless. The system that is proposed seems to value knowledge over all other things, how about soldiers and other members of the armed forces? Where are they in the system as the key qualities in a private soldier is physical ability and following orders, not qualities one associates with a system that seems to revolve around everyone striving towards self- improvement. I am interested in what forms of merit are prized most in the meritocratic society proposed.
What sort of voting system do you propose? I have considered this in the past and had many debates with friends about the idea of a meritocratic system, if there was an established system in place then who would assess people's knowledge? Would it be a case of you either have a vote or you do not or would someone like my Father, an accountant of more than 30 years experience have more of a say in who runs the country's economy than someone with 2 years experience?
I agree that education is one of the most important things in a person's life and I totally see what you are saying about people having low expectations of people from certain backgrounds. I think this is something that has come in over the last 20 years or so and has definitely led to a negative change in society. How would you propose improving education and at the same time making it free? We unfortunately do live in a very money driven society at the moment and I know that many of the better teachers teach in private education because the money is better. It is an interesting problem to be sure. Please do not take offence at any of my comments, I very much enjoy all kinds of debate and often challenge ideas because I am interested in the discussion. I am very interested in the Meritocratic Party's ideas, particularly as you took the time to write me such a long reply.
We have no regard for soldiers or police. They are the puppets of the elite. They would be replaced by a New Model Army and New Model Police Service based on merit and intelligence. The idea that stupid, obedient grunts who spend their whole lives obeying orders make the best soldiers is laughable. A smart army, better equipped, with enormously more initiative and education will make mincemeat of a dumb army no matter how disciplined and obedient to orders the latter might be. The killing fields of WWI just threw dumb soldiers' lives away. Their discipline and ability to obey orders got them slaughtered. Nothing like that could ever happen to a Smart Army.
A newly qualified accountant could easily be much smarter than someone with 30 years experience. When it comes to experience, have you had the same experience a thousand times, or a thousand different experiences? A meritocratic vote would be based on qualifications alone, but no weighting would apply because a genius would then be worth more votes than all the rest put together, and we don't want to construct a new elite based on a handful of people.
Voting is a trivial issue. People get a vote depending on the possession of a suitable qualification or a relevant job. No relevant job, no relevant qualification? - then no vote in that particular area. All voting would take place online.
Psychology would become the guiding force of the education system. People would be classified according to their Myers-Briggs personality type and given the education appropriate to that type. There are sixteen MB types, so there would be sixteen separate education systems, tailor-made and optimised for the people of each type, ensuring that no one feels alienated from the education system. We also seek to ensure that everyone gets the "10,000" hours thought to be needed to make them experts in a chosen field.
The new education system will initially be paid for by the proceeds of the 100% inheritance tax - which will reallocate the wealth of the privileged elite to the education of the people. As time goes on, the country will be vastly richer because it will be producing optimised, self-actualised citizens making the best possible contribution. The enormous "cost of failure" that plagues our society will be a thing of the past, and all of the money can be redirected to education and social excellence. GDP will grow by leaps and bounds in a smart, meritocratic society.
Frankly, we're not a debating society and we're not interested in people "challenging" us. Our system is a trillion times superior to anything that presently exists and the only "challenging" that takes place should be of the existing order of complete failure. Why don't you "challenge" David Cameron and Nick Clegg, those two ultra-privileged millionaires running the UK?
None of your questions has caused us any pause for your thought, and you could easily have worked out the answers for yourself.
Anyway, thank you for your interest, but we doubt that you will be someone making any serious contribution to a meritocratic future. There are people who want to make a difference and there are people who want to ask questions and accomplish nothing, and you're one of the latter type.
Our reply may seem rude and harsh, but we are tired of people who simply want to pick away at everything we say. We have made well over a million words publicly available. No one who has read that material can be in any doubt regarding our general position. Sure, many details can be challenged, expanded, teased out and clarified, but that can be done when meritocracy is up and running. It will never be up and running if we get permanently bogged down with the "debaters". Meritocrats must be people of action. They can't be those who want to sit around all day long, stroking their chins thoughtfully while Rome burns.
In any case, meritocracy is astoundingly simple and requires no elaborate debates. It is about taking the measures necessary to ensure that the race of life is conducted fairly, without any possibility of being rigged, so that the winners are those who have earned their victory through glorious achievements that illuminate humanity, rather than those who have simply been given victory because they were born into privilege.
The appropriate measures - such as 100% inheritance tax - may be highly controversial but that's because selfishness and privilege are ingrained in people's minds and, deep down, most people would love to be able to rig the system in their own favour. That's the central reason why the Old World Order have endured for so long; they are simply doing what the ordinary family dreams of doing.
To implement meritocracy means to bring about a revolution in human behaviour. It means, ultimately, that people must place the General Will over their particular will, the community over their own selfish desires. History has proved that human beings will do anything to secure their personal advantage. They will lie, cheat, steal, kill, exploit, enslave, manipulate, con and conspire to be top dog. And just look at the world those things have bequeathed to us.
Meritocracy is about accomplishment, creativity, a celebration of the human spirit and the exploration and maximisation of human potential. It's not about shopping, instant gratification, getting one over your neighbours, fake status, or being King Rat in the grubby rat race of capitalist materialism. Nor is it about bowing and kneeling to "God".
Meritocracy is about human excellence, not wealth. The super rich will have no place in a meritocratic nation since their wealth represents an intrinsic attack on equality of opportunity. The most meritorious will be handsomely rewarded, but never to the extent of becoming a separate species, as the super rich are. Meritocracy is about the journey to divinity, not the obsessive accumulation of riches and property. The dismal chapter in human history of greedy people continually grasping for more gold will at last be over. The new gold will be the human race itself as it transforms itself from base metal into God.
Meritocracy is nothing other than the rational attempt to eliminate all of the ways that people seek to use to game the system in their favour, regardless of talent. Ability does not flourish of its own accord. It has to be protected and nurtured, and its greatest enemy is privilege.
You have a simple question to ask yourself. Are you for merit or privilege? Should the rich be allowed to use their money and power to set up a system that guarantees their victory? What need is there for any debate? The question couldn't be simpler. Are you prepared to fight privilege or not? If you are, don't send us questions; tell us what you're doing to change the world. If you're on the side of merit then do something meritorious. Make a difference. Make sure the privileged can't get away with it any longer.
The pillars of a meritocracy are: equality of opportunity, equality before the law and equal rights, but not equality of outcomes (which is a variable based on talent, creativity and hard work).
A society of privilege is a fundamental breach of the three pillars of equality. You cannot have equal opportunity in a rigged system in which the privileged have arranged every advantage for themselves. You cannot have equality before the law if the privileged elite are able to buy the law and use it for their own benefit. You cannot have equal rights if you are a second-class citizen in a two-tier society - which is what you get when people are divided into the privileged and unprivileged. The elite are the top tier, the first class citizens. The word "equality" in their mouths is an obscenity, yet rich politicians never tire of telling us that we are all equal and we're all in it together. What a sick joke, and it's incredible that we continue to fall for it rather than getting rid of these hypocritical clowns. No one should use the word "equality" unless they are seen to be creating a system that actually delivers it in a meaningful way. Meritocracy is wholly committed to establishing the three pillars of equality. Only from this platform of equality are any unequal outcomes moral and just - because they have arisen through differences in merit and nothing else.
Every person born into this world should know that everything is open to them if they are talented and hard working enough to achieve it. There will be no invisible curtain drawn across the world that allows the privileged through and repels everyone else.
Be under no illusion - if you are not born into privilege in this world, you are not equal before the law, you have no equal rights and no equal opportunities. You are the loser in a game rigged against you from the outset, and only a person living in bad faith, or with a false consciousness, would continue to play a game that others are guaranteed to win. How can you consider yourself free when you know that others have manipulated the world to suit themselves? What does your "freedom" consist of? - being the stooge, the sucker, the patsy?
If you are a person of any quality, you must demand the end of this game and the creation of a brand new one, with a set of rules that gives you the same chance of winning as anyone else. There can be no privileged players for whom the rules have been specially constructed.
Do not vote for or support any political party that is not committed to giving you an equal chance in the game of life. Rhetoric is not enough. Western politicians are forever spouting forth on the virtues of freedom and democracy, and saying how everyone is equal. In truth, we have freedumb and dumbocracy, and the reality of "equality" is that we are all equal but some of us are "more equal" than others i.e. we are not equal at all.
It's a crime to accept the lies and hypocrisy of the privileged elite. It's unacceptable. It's an insult to yourself. It makes you a slave and a fool. Any self-respecting human being who becomes conscious that there is a privileged elite running the world in its own interests, of which he is not part, MUST fight back. You simply should not tolerate any system that is rigged against you.
Meritocracy sees humans as individuals, not as resources. It strives to offer maximum freedom, achieved by raising healthy, well-educated and psychologically sane people. A meritocratic government doesn't care about skin colour, sex, religion, nationality, status, name of your family or connections. Only your talents count.
Meritocracy awards the top jobs to only the most skilful workers, as recognised by their colleagues. Money or status can't buy you top posts. The meritocratic state supports everyone in the quest of finding his true talents with which he can most benefit himself and society. A good government provides people with everything they need to lay the foundations for a fulfilling life. State and religion must be separated. Everyone has his own relationship with God and doesn't need state "religions" bitching over rules and dogmas. There can be no "faith" schools, and absurd ideologies such as Creationism will be judged as foolish and crazy as teaching that the earth is flat.
Abolish democracy. Abolish the big banks. Abolish the current legal system and replace it with a system of proper justice. Abolish all those companies trying to poison us with cheap junk. Abolish the private schools where the "elite" are given an exclusive education denied to the rest of us.
The great events of history usually originated in meetings behind closed doors, to which we had absolutely no access. Public debates typically begin as private agendas of the powerful, who then want to make the rest of us comply with what they want. It wouldn't do for us to find out the truth, would it? It wouldn't do for all of the board meetings of Goldman Sachs to be publicly televised, would it? Power, manipulation and the profit agenda demand the strictest secrecy.
The elitist, secretive and cabalistic pyramid structure of society has failed. All of the wealth and power is in the hands of the monsters sitting at the apex. They lock themselves inside luxurious, gated communities where they don't have to mix with the likes of us. They despise us. They think we're stupid, dirty, talentless, pointless, fit only to bow to them and serve their every whim. But they are parasites. We do all of the work and they take all of the money. If the base of the pyramid grows feet and runs away, the apex will collapse. Stand up and tell the Old World Order the word they most fear: "NO"!
Say No to the OWO. Say Yes to Freedom. A new dawn is coming. There are new stars in the sky. This is our time now. Prepare for government.
In any healthy society, people born into any circumstances, no matter how grim, would be able to rise to the top if they were hard working and talented enough. This is what social mobility is all about. You can easily move from one social class to another, and that includes downwards as well as upwards i.e. inept people born into rich families can be downwardly mobile because they aren't talented enough to maintain their social position.
In most Western countries in the last few decades, since the era of the super rich inaugurated by the evil monsters Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the USA, social mobility has gone into a steep decline and even into full reverse.
Super wealth inevitably leads to massive privilege. Privilege is the deadly enemy of social mobility. Privilege is ABOUT ensuring that the rich stay rich and no one else gets admitted to the charmed circle.
If you want increased social mobility you must support meritocracy and destroy privilege. Destroying privilege means attacking excessive private wealth.
It's possible to analyse the whole of history according to the balance between private and public wealth. The elite have always been those with private wealth and in master-slave systems they have enjoyed 100% of the wealth - the slaves have none. That's their ideal model. Systems such as communism have gone to the opposite extreme and attempted to abolish private wealth. Monarchies, oligarchies, feudal systems and dictatorships have concentrated wealth in a few hands. Socialism, democracy (as practised in the ancient world) and "people's movements" have tried to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Robin Hood is the hero of redistribution - he took from the rich to give to the poor (Ayn Rand despised Robin Hood, unsurprisingly). History has been the never-ending conflict between these different ideologies, all of which have been concerned with the degree of private wealth that is sensible and healthy. Right-wingers are those who advocate extreme levels of private wealth and left-wingers are those who want an enormously more equal distribution of wealth. So are you on the left or the right?
Liberal centrists are those who don't want the rich to be too rich, but also oppose any attempts to forcibly remove it from them - this approach tends to support the status quo, hence is a disguised right-wing stance. Many right-wingers are happy to adopt the rhetoric of centrist liberals because it allows them to keep their wealth while making the proper noises towards the poor.
A perfect example of all the ills of capitalism and privilege is found in a most unexpected place: European football. The rich football clubs just keep getting richer and richer, and they keep taking steps to increase their wealth, invariably at the expense of poorer clubs. There is no regulator to rein them back.
Each top football league in Europe contains around 18 teams, two or three of which tend to be utterly dominant, winning between them all of the available trophies year in and year out. The other teams are just fodder for them, with no hope of winning.
The successful teams attract more and more fans precisely because of their success (everyone wants to back the winner), hence their revenues are continually growing, and the gap between them and the others is continually widening. More people come to watch the big teams and buy their merchandise, which even include things like credit cards, and they get a much higher share of TV rights because much bigger audiences watch them. They get vast amounts of sponsorship money from corporate brands that want to associate themselves with success, and they also get vast amounts of money for winning the competitions they enter.
Apart from the domestic leagues that they dominate, the top European teams qualify to play in an elite league - the European Champions' League - where they play directly against each other, thus earning even more money. The poor, unsuccessful teams have no chance at all of ever qualifying for this rich man's league.
The top teams are able to pay their players and managers obscenely large amounts of money, so any good player for a "little" team automatically want to transfer to the rich clubs.
Thus you end up with the perfect system of elitism and privilege, the winner-takes-all paradigm. Little teams have no chance at all. They can never win anything. They can't compete. There is no social mobility whatever - no poor teams ever rise up to the top league.
Even within the elite group, there are enormous differences. Real Madrid, the richest club in the world, earns more than twice as much as Juventus, the tenth richest club i.e. its income is more than 100% greater. Most clubs in Europe have an income around a hundredth to a twentieth of Real Madrid's. How can they possibly compete?
European football has killed competition in order to pander to the elite. This is always what happens when no one stands up to the rich. The situation is now irreversible, meaning that only a Revolution can effect any change.
The winner-takes-all paradigm is incredibly simple. The winners, because they are winners, get more of everything. They get more fans, bigger TV audiences, higher merchandising sales, a higher media profile. They attract the best players and managers, which ensures that they become even more successful. Slowly but surely competition dies and the elite teams have a complete monopoly on success, and thus the "virtuous cycle of winning" starts all over again, at an even more lucrative level.
European football is the shining beacon of absolute capitalism and privilege, the unchallenged rule of the elite. It has becoming sickening to watch - arrogant multi-millionaires strutting around a field. Ticket prices are so expensive that regular fans can't even afford to go to the games any more. Football was once the sport of the working man. Now it's the rich man's chosen sport. Many billionaires have bought football clubs because they want a slice of this incredible action.
European football is the least regulated sport on earth. It is ultra-capitalism in action, and it has becoming nauseating. Just like religion, it attracts billions of poorly educated suckers and losers who try desperately to associate themselves with success. The footballing stars are like gods, staring down from enormous billboards all over the world. They are practically worshipped. Every young man aspires to be them. They get all the hottest women, all the best treatment, and mind-boggling amounts of money for kicking a plastic sphere around a field. European football has become the symbol of everything that is worst in the human condition. Every decent person should boycott it.
The Ideal Economy
What features should the perfect economy have? One thing is certain: it must be based on competition. Soviet communism was a disaster because its economic backbone comprised state monopolies that were lazy, bloated, inefficient; where everyone, no matter how inept, was guaranteed a job for life and where there was no regard for whether there was any market for the goods being produced. There was no innovation, no interest in customers. Prices were fixed. Committees and bureaucracies ran everything.
While communism suffers from monopolies, capitalism is plagued by oligopolies - powerful cartels that rig the market between them.
All steps must be taken to avoid both monopolies and oligopolies. Competition should be fair, transparent and intelligently regulated.
Fair, free markets are, for the most part, excellent mechanisms for deciding which companies are doing best competitively. Unfortunately, most markets are rigged and information distribution is massively weighted in favour of certain players who get to hear important news before everyone else, hence can make a killing before anyone else has a chance to react. Insider trading is rife. Moreover, the market is geared up for short-term instant gratification rather than long-term investment. It's driven by cycles of greed (boom) and fear (bust). Excessive exuberance or extreme panic can grip the market and cause chaos.
So, much more thought has to go into constructing sensible markets. The same information must be available at the same time to everyone. All insider trading must result in long jail terms. Anyone who participates in cartels must be jailed. All market players should be educated about the dangers of making decisions when gripped by fear or greed. Science and psychology are making great progress in relation to understanding irrational, impulse driven decisions that people live to regret. Forewarned is forearmed. People can be trained to avoid the decisions they typically take when seized by frenzy.
If markets can be tamed, they can be invaluable to an economy. Untamed markets, on the other hand, are potentially catastrophic and nothing which is so potentially destabilising can be left uncontrolled and unregulated.
Public rather than private capitalism (meaning that publicly accountable individuals are in charge of the vast bulk of a country's capital) will signal the end of the extreme risk-taking, excessive bonuses and moral hazard all so evident in today's horrific version of capitalism.
Public capitalism could just as easily be called socialist capitalism or capitalist socialism. The central idea is that the best features of capitalism are combined with the best of socialism, while the worst features of both are omitted. If capitalism is the thesis and socialism the antithesis then socialist capitalism is the synthesis.
The Old World Order hate all mention of the word socialism because they know it means the end of their domination. As soon as you understand that socialism is nothing more than entrusting the wealth of the nation to society, to the people, rather than to a small elite of super rich and super privileged private individuals, you instantly become baffled by the hatred that so many Americans, for example, have towards socialism. Then you realise how brilliantly they have been brainwashed. These people have a false consciousness. They have completely bought into the vision sold to them by their masters, and they have become supremely hostile to their own self-interest.
Untamed capitalism is a winner-takes-all ideology. What is needed is an everyone-wins system.
In the USA, between 2002 and 2007, 65% of all income growth went to the top 1% of the population. In other words, the rich just kept paying themselves more and more, and fuck everyone else. Who was going to stop them? The richest 1% of Americans hold 38% of private wealth, while the bottom 90% hold 73% of all debt. The top 10% possess 80% of all financial assets. Wall Street benefits and pay reached a record $135 billion in 2010. One in three white households will benefit from a substantial inheritance compared with only one in ten black households.
Isn't it time for some sensible socialism to be added to free-market capitalism? What rational person could possibly object given the catastrophic credit crunch caused by the greed of the super rich and the lack of government regulation? Moreover, the great economic success story of the present day isn't capitalist America but Communist China. The Americans were too dumb to add socialism to capitalism while the Chinese had the good sense to add capitalism to communism. They looked at what went wrong with the Soviet Union, learned the lesson with astounding speed, and changed their system. Now that's smart! We are entering the age of Chinese dominance unless everyone else gets just as smart.
The Chinese have won and America has lost. Unless America gets with the program - combining socialism and capitalism - it will be completely out of the game in a few decades.
But are Americans clever and flexible enough to change their ways, as the Chinese have done, or are they ideological fanatics incapable of changing their behaviour? The Republicans, the Ayn Randists, the anarcho-capitalist libertarians, the Christian Fundamentalists and the Tea Party have made it clear that they would die rather than accept any form of socialism. They want to supercharge capitalism rather than rein it back. They haven't learned a thing. They will drag America to perdition if they are allowed to have their way.
China is now the example to follow, not America. The USA is yesterday's news. It can't keep up with the times, with the new thinking required for the modern world. It is committed to fanatical capitalist ideology rather than sensible dialectical progression.
Everyone is better off subscribing to a Commonwealth rather than a system of private wealth held by a handful of leviathans.
Pure socialism and pure capitalism are both disastrous, both driven by ideology rather than dialectical progress, but their synthesis provides a sensible launch pad for the type of economic development that will eventually lead us to the technology-based, money-free, advanced economy of the future.
"Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world."
So, what we have described is the Illuminati's notorious "New World Order" that you've heard so much about over the years.
Here's what it guarantees:
1) The end of the super rich
2) The end of the Old World Order and all privileged elites
3) The end of Party politics and political lobbying
4) The end of private capitalism
5) The end of private banking (i.e. banking controlled by private institutions)
6) The end of Abrahamism
7) The end of media moguls
8) The end of the abuse, mutilation and brainwashing of children
9) The end of existing armies, police forces and intelligence services that are the creatures of the elite and the enemies of the people
10) The end of all cartels and private networks of families, relatives, cronies, co-religionists, fellow Masons etc.
1) Equality of Opportunity
2) Equality before the law
3) Genuine equal rights immune from privilege
4) Public capitalism
5) Public banking
6) Dialectical politics
7) A New Model Army and Police Service based on intelligence and psychology rather than brute force
8) Tailor-made, psychology-based schools and academies
9) 10,000 hours to become an expert in your chosen field
This is no pipe dream. This is a hard-nosed political, philosophical, social and psychological program designed to dialectically perfect the human race. It is grounded in reason, logic and the tried and tested scientific method, humanity's most successful instrument of progress.
So are you for or against us? Will you continue to support the OWO or fight and campaign to overthrow them? Will you support Henry Makow, Alex Jones, David Icke, the anarcho-capitalist libertarians, Ayn Randists and 9/11 "Truthers"? Or will you support Reason, Hope, Genuine Change and the Dialectical progression of the human race to its pre-ordained Omega Point? Your choice.
The New World Order is the answer to all of the world's ills. Through the NWO the Venus Project and the Star Trek vision will come to fruition. There is no other way. The future is in your hands. Will you stick with what you have or seek a brand new world that has learned all the lessons of the past?
Now you can understand why the anarcho-capitalist libertarians, the Abrahamists and the Old World Order hate the Illuminati and the New World Order and have waged an endless propaganda war against us, even to the extent of roping in people like David Icke with his Illuminati-Reptilian tall tales. You would be amazed at just how many people think that the Illuminati are shape-shifting, pan-dimensional lizard people from Nibiru!
All of these people hate us for a simple reason: they know we represent the end of their world. We will bring the curtain down on their corrupt, evil, Satanic regime that has enslaved the world for so long.
Anyone who opposes the New World Order is an enemy of the people and a friend and ally of the Old World Order and their tyrannical rule.
The New World Order is a blueprint for a new world.
A new religion. A new politics. A new economics.
A Transformation. An alchemical transmutation.
A true Revolution. The only Revolution. The Revolution that completes the dialectical journey of humanity.
The Venus Project is the ultimate New World Order.
Are you for it or against it?
We are the plan. We are the answer. We are the future. We are the Dialectic. We are the New World Order. We are the Illuminati.
The Hip Hop Party
"Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion."
New ways of doing things can never arise from the existing ruling regime. They are entrenched in their corrupt ways, their networks of influence, their vested interests.
Salvation must come only from those who have never been tainted by association with the established order. There is a popular, radical culture that stands outside the ruling regime - Hip Hop. Why shouldn't Hip Hop become explicitly political; in fact why shouldn't it become a political party ready to challenge the establishment parties?
Why shouldn't Congress be full of Hip Hoppas rather than Democrats and Republicans? There's nothing to stop Hip Hop being a global party, a worldwide People's Movement to oppose the Elite in each and every country of the world.
The nature of Hip Hop precludes it from being taken over and ruled by the Old World Order. Hence it becomes the perfect vehicle for new political ideas, voices and leaders. Hip Hop, being the product of black consciousness, is the authentic voice of the outsider, of the dispossessed, the persecuted, the "Other". If Hip Hop became the ruling paradigm, it would invert all of the old, elitist power structures. It would unquestionably be committed to helping those who have previously been ignored and abused.
Hip Hop is already a thriving phenomenon with global cultural influence. Now it simply needs to take one step further and become a political party.
Many African American political movements of the past were essentially communist, hence were an easy target for the generally right-wing American mindset. However, if Hip Hop espouses meritocracy then it becomes invulnerable to such attacks. The Elite like to think of themselves as the ultimate meritocrats - so they are the last people on earth who could ever condemn a meritocratic political party. That is their Achilles Heel, the means by which they will be slain despite their apparent immortality.
The Elite defend their wealth on the basis that they are allegedly the most meritorious, hence fully deserving of immense rewards. However, what they can't deny is that their immense wealth leads to unprecedented privilege - the opposite of meritocracy. You can't be a supporter of meritocracy if you are also a supporter of privilege.
The great Scottish-American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie (once the richest man in the world) realised the essential truth of this. He said, "By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of the rich man's estate which should go at his death to the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell." Carnegie was strongly of the opinion that enormous legacies to children were harmful to those children. More importantly, they are harmful to the State because they provide an unfair, anti-competitive advantage to some people, thus transgressing the Meritocratic Principle.
If the world's richest man can come to this inevitable logical conclusion then every other rich person can hardly fail to see it too. They all know, deep down, that their wealth and privilege make them the enemies, not the friends, of meritocracy. So, to have a meritocratic world of equal opportunity - the best possible world - the wealthy must be subject to Carnegie's Law: 100% inheritance tax, the transfer of all of a person's assets at death to the Commonwealth where it will be invested in the people rather than in the privileged friends and relatives of the deceased.
Carnegie said, "The man who dies rich dies disgraced." This is the motto of meritocracy. Meritocracy does not condemn wealth per se, but it certainly condemns wealth being passed on for the private rather than the public good. Such a process is, as Carnegie said, a disgrace, and should be made illegal.
The logic of meritocracy demands the implementation of the Carnegie Law, and no rich person could ever convincingly argue against that logic if they claim to be on the side of merit. No meritocrat could tolerate a system that confers riches on those who have done nothing other than be related to the meritorious. To become rich because of someone else's efforts rather than your own is anathema.
True Hip Hop has no connection with privilege (although certain Hip Hop stars have unfortunately proved remarkably receptive to the blandishments of capitalism). Hip Hoppas are those who have had to fight the forces of privilege. Hip Hop is therefore the natural friend and ally of meritocracy.
So hasn't the time come for a multi-ethnic, international, meritocratic Hip Hop Party to challenge the ruling Elite once and for all?
What young, idealistic, visionary, radical, passionate revolutionary wouldn't want to vote for the Hip Hop Party? - the Party of the Global Revolution, of the New World Order, of the True World Order.
Overthrow the old religions, the old elites, the old economic systems, the old ways of doing things.
Revalue all values - to a Hip Hop soundtrack.
The Hip Hop Party. The Meritocratic Party. The Party of Reason. The Party of Light. The Party with a Plan. The Party ready to assume control.
Hip Hop - the Revolution starts here. Hip Hop - the Soundtrack of the Revolution.
Vote for the Hip Hop Party. Vote for a Hip Hop President. Vote for Freedom.