The Unspeakable Importance of
Nothing
Does the
concept of "nothing", the void, oblivion, fill you with dread? Do you
think it's to that state you will be going when you die? That's exactly where
you're heading, but we will now demonstrate to you why there is nothing more
wondrous than NOTHING.
"In
the history of culture the discovery of zero will always stand out as one of
the greatest single achievements of the human race."
-
Tobias
Danzig
It
has been said that the most fundamental question of all is why there is something
rather than nothing, but in fact that question already presupposes a definition
of nothing as the opposite state from something, its perfect antithesis. Yet
every fact of existence indicates that this simple definition is false. Quite
simply, there is no such thing as "nothing" if defined as the
opposite of something. It's an impossible state. It can never be.
The Rig Veda says, "In the earliest age of the gods, existence was born from non-existence." Well, how could it be? Existence can't NOT exist. It always exists. Like energy (which is the essence of existence), existence can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. The Rig Veda goes on to say, "There was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where?"
The Rig Veda says, "In the earliest age of the gods, existence was born from non-existence." Well, how could it be? Existence can't NOT exist. It always exists. Like energy (which is the essence of existence), existence can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. The Rig Veda goes on to say, "There was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where?"
This kind of statement
points to an inability to understand and define "nothing". The Greek
philosopher Lucretius said, "Nothing can be created from nothing." Is
that true, or is it a 100% false? It's only possible to decide if our
definition of "nothing" is fit for purpose.
According to Big Bang theory, the universe was born
from nothing, and most people accept this as though it were something
uncontroversial when, in fact, it's potentially the most far-fetched, absurd
statement of all time. Surely we should be damned sure what we mean when we say
that an entire universe was the product of "nothing"?
What if "nothing" is defined not as the opposite state from nothing but rather its antecedent state, the inevitable precursor of what we call something? If nothing is indeed the prior state of something then there is no mystery at all regarding why the Big Bang produced a cosmos from "nothing". Something comes from nothing only because nothing contains the seeds of something i.e. nothing and something are related and the latter is merely a transformation of the former and not an entirely different and incompatible state.
If we use mathematics - the only means of producing a precise, unambiguous definition - and define "nothing" as the number zero, the ultimate question becomes: What is the "physical" significance of zero i.e. does it have any reality in the physical universe? Is there any plausible candidate for a "something" that can genuinely exist and yet appear to be "nothing", something that can interact with the physical world yet not seem to be physical? The answer lies in the entity you are using as you read these words - your mind. You are thinking, yet your thoughts cannot be physically touched, seen, heard, smelt or tasted. Your physical senses provide sensory information to your mind, yet your mind stands beyond the reach of these same senses. Science futilely demands that mind make itself available to physical study, yet how can it if it does not exist in the physical world of our senses? (And the same goes for the "soul", of course.) Descartes famously defined mind as being "non-extended" i.e. having zero extension in relation to the material world. This is one of the most significant definitions in human history because it puts zero at the heart of existence.
If the physical significance of "zero" is that it is mind rather than matter, that it can participate in the physical universe without itself being physical in the ordinary sense, then everything is solved at once. The material universe comes from Zero, the cosmic origin, and the origin is Cartesian Pure Mind, with no physical extension.
Descartes, a brilliant mathematician as well as philosopher, unaccountably failed to link his mathematical innovation of Cartesian coordinates, by which we plot graphs of mathematical functions, with his dualistic philosophy of unextended mind and extended matter. What his graphs ought to have revealed to him is that there is NO dualism. If we plot a graph of the "Something Function", it will start at the origin - at zero i.e. at "nothing". Once it is understood that "nothing" is merely the value of the "something function" at its origin then it becomes obvious that there can never be any such thing as "nothing" (when defined as the opposite state from something).
Cartesian "unextension" - the domain of mind - is merely the aspect of the "extended" domain (matter) that is found at the zero origin. To look at it another way, the domain of extension is merely that which is created when we plot the value of the "something function" at values other than zero.
Extension and non-extension flow seamlessly in and out of each other via zero. They are not separate domains (even if we may often treat them as such for simplicity). They are absolutely, indissolubly and eternally linked. When the "something function" has values different from zero, it is dimensional: extended (matter), in space and time. When the "something function" has a value of zero, it is dimensionless: unextended (mind), outside space and time.
Thus we arrive at an astonishingly powerful description of reality as a single mathematical function that nevertheless has two distinct but connected zones: the zero and the non-zero, the dimensionless and the dimensional, the non-extended and the extended: mind and matter. Is it not a marvel of simplicity and elegance, and exactly what you would expect of divine mathematics?
We can now state precisely where the separate philosophical schools of idealism and materialism went wrong. Idealists believed that the "something function" could never have non-zero values while materialists believed that the "something function" could never have a value of zero.
Scientific materialism is manifestly wrong in relation to the most important number in existence: zero - NOTHING! Science has simply abolished the most vital number of all. It has asserted that it has no physical reality, and that there is simply no such thing as unextended, dimensionless existence outside space and time. Science has been brilliant at examining the "something function" at values far from zero - the classical world of deterministic physics. It should have realised that something was terribly wrong when relativity theory and, especially, quantum mechanics were discovered. Quantum mechanics is the study of the unimaginably small - of the "something function" at values extremely close to zero - and the reason why quantum mechanics is so seemingly baffling is simply because it is starting to partake of the properties of the mind domain rather than the purely material domain.
What if "nothing" is defined not as the opposite state from nothing but rather its antecedent state, the inevitable precursor of what we call something? If nothing is indeed the prior state of something then there is no mystery at all regarding why the Big Bang produced a cosmos from "nothing". Something comes from nothing only because nothing contains the seeds of something i.e. nothing and something are related and the latter is merely a transformation of the former and not an entirely different and incompatible state.
If we use mathematics - the only means of producing a precise, unambiguous definition - and define "nothing" as the number zero, the ultimate question becomes: What is the "physical" significance of zero i.e. does it have any reality in the physical universe? Is there any plausible candidate for a "something" that can genuinely exist and yet appear to be "nothing", something that can interact with the physical world yet not seem to be physical? The answer lies in the entity you are using as you read these words - your mind. You are thinking, yet your thoughts cannot be physically touched, seen, heard, smelt or tasted. Your physical senses provide sensory information to your mind, yet your mind stands beyond the reach of these same senses. Science futilely demands that mind make itself available to physical study, yet how can it if it does not exist in the physical world of our senses? (And the same goes for the "soul", of course.) Descartes famously defined mind as being "non-extended" i.e. having zero extension in relation to the material world. This is one of the most significant definitions in human history because it puts zero at the heart of existence.
If the physical significance of "zero" is that it is mind rather than matter, that it can participate in the physical universe without itself being physical in the ordinary sense, then everything is solved at once. The material universe comes from Zero, the cosmic origin, and the origin is Cartesian Pure Mind, with no physical extension.
Descartes, a brilliant mathematician as well as philosopher, unaccountably failed to link his mathematical innovation of Cartesian coordinates, by which we plot graphs of mathematical functions, with his dualistic philosophy of unextended mind and extended matter. What his graphs ought to have revealed to him is that there is NO dualism. If we plot a graph of the "Something Function", it will start at the origin - at zero i.e. at "nothing". Once it is understood that "nothing" is merely the value of the "something function" at its origin then it becomes obvious that there can never be any such thing as "nothing" (when defined as the opposite state from something).
Cartesian "unextension" - the domain of mind - is merely the aspect of the "extended" domain (matter) that is found at the zero origin. To look at it another way, the domain of extension is merely that which is created when we plot the value of the "something function" at values other than zero.
Extension and non-extension flow seamlessly in and out of each other via zero. They are not separate domains (even if we may often treat them as such for simplicity). They are absolutely, indissolubly and eternally linked. When the "something function" has values different from zero, it is dimensional: extended (matter), in space and time. When the "something function" has a value of zero, it is dimensionless: unextended (mind), outside space and time.
Thus we arrive at an astonishingly powerful description of reality as a single mathematical function that nevertheless has two distinct but connected zones: the zero and the non-zero, the dimensionless and the dimensional, the non-extended and the extended: mind and matter. Is it not a marvel of simplicity and elegance, and exactly what you would expect of divine mathematics?
We can now state precisely where the separate philosophical schools of idealism and materialism went wrong. Idealists believed that the "something function" could never have non-zero values while materialists believed that the "something function" could never have a value of zero.
Scientific materialism is manifestly wrong in relation to the most important number in existence: zero - NOTHING! Science has simply abolished the most vital number of all. It has asserted that it has no physical reality, and that there is simply no such thing as unextended, dimensionless existence outside space and time. Science has been brilliant at examining the "something function" at values far from zero - the classical world of deterministic physics. It should have realised that something was terribly wrong when relativity theory and, especially, quantum mechanics were discovered. Quantum mechanics is the study of the unimaginably small - of the "something function" at values extremely close to zero - and the reason why quantum mechanics is so seemingly baffling is simply because it is starting to partake of the properties of the mind domain rather than the purely material domain.
Similarly, the special theory of relativity
describes light as being massless, dimensionless and outside space and time
when viewed from light's own frame of reference (which, in fact, is the zero
domain of mind!). And the general theory of relativity points to the existence
of black hole singularities where distance vanishes and time stops i.e. where
we enter the dimensionless domain of mind. The Big Bang singularity from which
the whole material universe emerged is also outside space and time i.e. is
purely mental rather than material in nature. The Big Bang singularity is none
other than Zero, the cosmic origin.
The most brilliant scientists cannot reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity theory. They have come up with M-theory - the most complex theory of all time - to attempt to bring the two together, but they are doomed to failure. Why? Because M-theory continues to explicitly exclude the "something function" from having a value of zero i.e. it still refuses to accept the existence of mind.
Quantum physics will easily embrace relativity theory when both theories acknowledge that the "something function" can have a value of zero. That is the final problem that needs to be overcome before science can at last produce a grand unified theory of everything.
Yet as soon as science acknowledges the existence of zero, it is plunged into the "nightmare" of God, souls and afterlife - the domain of religion and metaphysics. Make no mistake - God, souls and the afterlife exist purely because of the "M-number" (Magic, Mystery) - ZERO. Only when M-theory embraces the M-number will science solve all of its outstanding problems.
Do not fear science. Do not be intimidated by it. Despite its successes, it's in error at the most fundamental level - the zero level. Science has NOT made the concept of God, souls and afterlife ridiculous. Rather, science is only now starting to probe the domain of the divine, and scientists still haven't woken up to that reality yet.
Science can't explain mind, life or consciousness. Why not? Because science has turned its back on zero which is where they exist. Zero is your mathematical guarantor of God, a soul and an afterlife. True religion is not some weird belief system, unsupported by any facts or evidence. True religion is the absolute and inevitable consequence of the real existence of the M-number - Zero. Zero is the answer to everything that has haunted the human mind. It is the answer to all the BIG questions.
What could be more outrageous? - the answer to "life, the universe and everything" is NOTHING. When you think about it, does it not become the most obvious and indeed the only possible answer? Zero - nothing - is the supreme paradox, the hidden answer to the cosmic mystery. It cannot be physically sensed. It is invisible. It seems not to be there and yet it is everywhere. It seems to have no reality and yet it is the only true and eternal reality. No wonder the human search for the answer has been so long and vain. What could be harder to find than nothing? If you were ordered to go and find nothing if you wanted to know the answer to the human mystery, where would you begin? You wouldn't have a clue. And that's exactly why it's the answer. If it were any other answer, we would have found it without any difficulty at all, and life would be rendered meaningless. Nothing IS meaning. Nothing - in the manner of the "One" of Plotinus - is something we can contemplate forever. We will be eternally dazzled by its mystery.
Scientific materialism, reaching its culmination in M-theory, amounts to an assertion that either a) you can have a coordinate system without an origin or b) every value in a coordinate system can have a real, physical meaning bar the origin. These are absurd positions to hold, especially for people who are supposedly mathematically literate.
The coordinate axes of reality intersect at zero, and rather than being considered unreal, the intersection point should be considered HYPERREAL, the very essence of reality, the sine qua non for everything else. The Big Bang started at the zero origin. The coordinate axes of space and time grew from the origin. Where else would they have come from? What could be more blindingly obvious?
Zero and its inverse twin, infinity, are the numbers that govern reality, and they are the two numbers that science finds incomprehensible.
Anyone who suspects that science is not the full story needs only to contemplate the areas where science itself admits that it falls apart, where it acknowledges that it is "incomplete" and needs some new factor to save the sinking ship.
Science disintegrates when division by zero takes place, leading to infinite results in quantities that scientists think must be finite. Therefore zero and infinity, the two numbers that strike fear and incomprehension into scientists, are the ONLY areas where God, souls and the afterlife can exist. Religion and metaphysics are nothing other than the study of zero and infinity. Thus we can provide a precise mathematical definition of where to find God, souls and the afterlife: the domain that lies beyond the grasp of science. It is the mysterious Origin, the primal Zero, the beginning, the Alpha.
In Kabbalah, the Aleph is defined as the point that contains all other points. This is the perfect definition of the Origin and, indeed, of God. The Aleph, the point containing all other points, is where everything begins.
The cosmos starts and ends with zero. Zero is the boundary of what can be. All the quantities of the cosmos ultimately equal zero or infinity. Existence is defined by zero and infinity and bracketed by zero and infinity.
Unlike Abrahamic religions, this is no crackpot, undefined system, contradicting science and mathematics and based totally on faith. You don't have to believe a single thing we've said. All you have to do is consider the mathematical and scientific truth of what we've asserted. This is not a debate about beliefs or metaphysics: this is an issue of pure mathematics and science. Anyone who understands mathematics and science can see exactly what we are saying, and follow the precise trajectory of Illuminism. There is no obscurantism, no avoiding the issue, no trying to fool people with jargon, no appeal to faith. It's all laid out for everyone to see, without any mystery or mysticism.
The whole of Illuminism revolves around the significance of just two numbers: zero and infinity. If they are real then so is a domain outside space and time where non-extended existence takes place, and from which "extended" existence can originate. If zero and infinity are unreal, as scientific materialism and M-theory assert, then there is no domain outside space and time, no God, no souls, no afterlife, no immortality and "something" must literally pop out of thin air since it can't come from zero since zero is not real in this view.
So, who's right? The scientists or us? Who has logic, mathematics and science on their side? Who has made crazy, unsustainable assumptions? Do you accept that existence comes from absolute nothingness, or do you accept that matter is a product of mind and originates in mind, hence something does not come from nothing but rather "material something" comes from "mental something."
The analysis provided by Illuminism is the final word on the nature of reality. There is no place left to go. The whole issue of existence and reality revolves around zero and infinity. We have provided the only possible unified and precise framework in which to discuss mathematics, science, religion, philosophy and psychology. All other systems are flawed and ridiculous, especially the revealed religions of Abrahamism. You literally need to be retarded and mentally ill to subscribe to these nauseating religions of complete human stupidity and ignorance.
The most brilliant scientists cannot reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity theory. They have come up with M-theory - the most complex theory of all time - to attempt to bring the two together, but they are doomed to failure. Why? Because M-theory continues to explicitly exclude the "something function" from having a value of zero i.e. it still refuses to accept the existence of mind.
Quantum physics will easily embrace relativity theory when both theories acknowledge that the "something function" can have a value of zero. That is the final problem that needs to be overcome before science can at last produce a grand unified theory of everything.
Yet as soon as science acknowledges the existence of zero, it is plunged into the "nightmare" of God, souls and afterlife - the domain of religion and metaphysics. Make no mistake - God, souls and the afterlife exist purely because of the "M-number" (Magic, Mystery) - ZERO. Only when M-theory embraces the M-number will science solve all of its outstanding problems.
Do not fear science. Do not be intimidated by it. Despite its successes, it's in error at the most fundamental level - the zero level. Science has NOT made the concept of God, souls and afterlife ridiculous. Rather, science is only now starting to probe the domain of the divine, and scientists still haven't woken up to that reality yet.
Science can't explain mind, life or consciousness. Why not? Because science has turned its back on zero which is where they exist. Zero is your mathematical guarantor of God, a soul and an afterlife. True religion is not some weird belief system, unsupported by any facts or evidence. True religion is the absolute and inevitable consequence of the real existence of the M-number - Zero. Zero is the answer to everything that has haunted the human mind. It is the answer to all the BIG questions.
What could be more outrageous? - the answer to "life, the universe and everything" is NOTHING. When you think about it, does it not become the most obvious and indeed the only possible answer? Zero - nothing - is the supreme paradox, the hidden answer to the cosmic mystery. It cannot be physically sensed. It is invisible. It seems not to be there and yet it is everywhere. It seems to have no reality and yet it is the only true and eternal reality. No wonder the human search for the answer has been so long and vain. What could be harder to find than nothing? If you were ordered to go and find nothing if you wanted to know the answer to the human mystery, where would you begin? You wouldn't have a clue. And that's exactly why it's the answer. If it were any other answer, we would have found it without any difficulty at all, and life would be rendered meaningless. Nothing IS meaning. Nothing - in the manner of the "One" of Plotinus - is something we can contemplate forever. We will be eternally dazzled by its mystery.
Scientific materialism, reaching its culmination in M-theory, amounts to an assertion that either a) you can have a coordinate system without an origin or b) every value in a coordinate system can have a real, physical meaning bar the origin. These are absurd positions to hold, especially for people who are supposedly mathematically literate.
The coordinate axes of reality intersect at zero, and rather than being considered unreal, the intersection point should be considered HYPERREAL, the very essence of reality, the sine qua non for everything else. The Big Bang started at the zero origin. The coordinate axes of space and time grew from the origin. Where else would they have come from? What could be more blindingly obvious?
Zero and its inverse twin, infinity, are the numbers that govern reality, and they are the two numbers that science finds incomprehensible.
Anyone who suspects that science is not the full story needs only to contemplate the areas where science itself admits that it falls apart, where it acknowledges that it is "incomplete" and needs some new factor to save the sinking ship.
Science disintegrates when division by zero takes place, leading to infinite results in quantities that scientists think must be finite. Therefore zero and infinity, the two numbers that strike fear and incomprehension into scientists, are the ONLY areas where God, souls and the afterlife can exist. Religion and metaphysics are nothing other than the study of zero and infinity. Thus we can provide a precise mathematical definition of where to find God, souls and the afterlife: the domain that lies beyond the grasp of science. It is the mysterious Origin, the primal Zero, the beginning, the Alpha.
In Kabbalah, the Aleph is defined as the point that contains all other points. This is the perfect definition of the Origin and, indeed, of God. The Aleph, the point containing all other points, is where everything begins.
The cosmos starts and ends with zero. Zero is the boundary of what can be. All the quantities of the cosmos ultimately equal zero or infinity. Existence is defined by zero and infinity and bracketed by zero and infinity.
Unlike Abrahamic religions, this is no crackpot, undefined system, contradicting science and mathematics and based totally on faith. You don't have to believe a single thing we've said. All you have to do is consider the mathematical and scientific truth of what we've asserted. This is not a debate about beliefs or metaphysics: this is an issue of pure mathematics and science. Anyone who understands mathematics and science can see exactly what we are saying, and follow the precise trajectory of Illuminism. There is no obscurantism, no avoiding the issue, no trying to fool people with jargon, no appeal to faith. It's all laid out for everyone to see, without any mystery or mysticism.
The whole of Illuminism revolves around the significance of just two numbers: zero and infinity. If they are real then so is a domain outside space and time where non-extended existence takes place, and from which "extended" existence can originate. If zero and infinity are unreal, as scientific materialism and M-theory assert, then there is no domain outside space and time, no God, no souls, no afterlife, no immortality and "something" must literally pop out of thin air since it can't come from zero since zero is not real in this view.
So, who's right? The scientists or us? Who has logic, mathematics and science on their side? Who has made crazy, unsustainable assumptions? Do you accept that existence comes from absolute nothingness, or do you accept that matter is a product of mind and originates in mind, hence something does not come from nothing but rather "material something" comes from "mental something."
The analysis provided by Illuminism is the final word on the nature of reality. There is no place left to go. The whole issue of existence and reality revolves around zero and infinity. We have provided the only possible unified and precise framework in which to discuss mathematics, science, religion, philosophy and psychology. All other systems are flawed and ridiculous, especially the revealed religions of Abrahamism. You literally need to be retarded and mentally ill to subscribe to these nauseating religions of complete human stupidity and ignorance.
*****
"I
am in a sense something intermediate between God and nought."
-
Descartes
Division
by zero is the final frontier for science. Until it knows how to perform this action, science
can make no further progress. Division by zero is problematic because it brings
the two domains together: the mental and the physical. When you divide a
physical quantity by zero your answer does not belong to the physical world but
the mental. That's why the answers make no sense to scientists and why they
think their equations have fallen apart. It's their physical interpretation
that's wrong, not the equations.
Scientists
have one final bridge to cross. Just as Einstein linked mass and energy, which
had hitherto not been considered equivalent, so scientists must now find the
equations linking mind and matter. Division by zero converts dimensional
matter-energy into dimensionless mind-energy. Only when scientists realise this
can they complete the Grand Unified Theory of Everything.
All of the profoundest issues of life revolve around the number scientists have deemed impossible: Nothing. Once you understand nothing, you understand EVERYTHING!
Is everything not exactly as it should be? You comprehend existence only when you comprehend nothing. Nothing is the supreme mystery, and the final answer.
We are all the children of NOTHING, and it couldn't be any other way.
Science and religion will at last be reconciled when scientists stop waging their crazy war against zero. One day soon they will see the light - light being the quintessence of the zero domain, as Einstein proved.
Because mind is outside space and time, it is not spatially or temporally localised. It is not individuated: it is everywhere at once. Mind appears to become localised in consciousness when it interacts with the individuated domain of space, time and matter and derives its informational input from the physical rather than mental domain. But none of this would be possible without the two numbers of supreme power and significance: zero and infinity.
If you want to understand all, contemplate zero and infinity.
This is the Gospel of the Illuminati.
All of the profoundest issues of life revolve around the number scientists have deemed impossible: Nothing. Once you understand nothing, you understand EVERYTHING!
Is everything not exactly as it should be? You comprehend existence only when you comprehend nothing. Nothing is the supreme mystery, and the final answer.
We are all the children of NOTHING, and it couldn't be any other way.
Science and religion will at last be reconciled when scientists stop waging their crazy war against zero. One day soon they will see the light - light being the quintessence of the zero domain, as Einstein proved.
Because mind is outside space and time, it is not spatially or temporally localised. It is not individuated: it is everywhere at once. Mind appears to become localised in consciousness when it interacts with the individuated domain of space, time and matter and derives its informational input from the physical rather than mental domain. But none of this would be possible without the two numbers of supreme power and significance: zero and infinity.
If you want to understand all, contemplate zero and infinity.
This is the Gospel of the Illuminati.
"The decisive question
for a man is: is he related to something infinite or not?"
-
Jung
"What is man in nature? Nothing in relation to the infinite, everything in relation to nothing, a mean between nothing and infinity."
-
Pascal
"Where there is the Infinite there is joy. There is no joy in the finite."
-
The
Chandogya Upanishad
So, there is no need at all to fear death. You are a child of zero
and when you die you will return to your zero state - your True Immortal Self.
Death assuredly brings you into the intimate embrace of nothing, a close
encounter of the third kind with zero. But, as we have shown, far from being
oblivion and eternal void, it is the heart of cosmic life and meaning where you
are connected with the entire universe and you can communicate with the True
Immortal Selves of all of your loved ones who died before you.
To overcome the terror of death, only one thing is required of you - that you should accept that zero, "nothing" - something you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch - is the origin of everything that you CAN see, hear, smell, taste and touch, and is the only plausible explanation of a Big Bang universe that originates in "nothing". When you die, it is to this realm of nothing that you return. In truth, you never actually left it. Your ego-consciousness is fooled into thinking it belongs to the mortal world because it receives sensory information from the mortal world. As soon as you die, all of that sensory input is instantly removed, and your ego-consciousness perishes, but your underlying Self, which has been receiving all of the information provided by your ego-consciousness, hasn't perished because it existed in the mind domain, not the physical domain.
Death, instead of being horrifying, is nothing but the portal to zero, the most wondrous and miraculous location in existence.
Like the Egyptians and Tibetans, the Illuminati have a "Book of the Dead" that describes everything that should be expected on the "other side". This is the Illuminati's second most important book (the first being the Book of Gnosis), but we will not be disclosing any of its contents since it is for the initiated only.
However, the Egyptian and Tibetan books will give you a fine starting point for your own research.
To overcome the terror of death, only one thing is required of you - that you should accept that zero, "nothing" - something you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch - is the origin of everything that you CAN see, hear, smell, taste and touch, and is the only plausible explanation of a Big Bang universe that originates in "nothing". When you die, it is to this realm of nothing that you return. In truth, you never actually left it. Your ego-consciousness is fooled into thinking it belongs to the mortal world because it receives sensory information from the mortal world. As soon as you die, all of that sensory input is instantly removed, and your ego-consciousness perishes, but your underlying Self, which has been receiving all of the information provided by your ego-consciousness, hasn't perished because it existed in the mind domain, not the physical domain.
Death, instead of being horrifying, is nothing but the portal to zero, the most wondrous and miraculous location in existence.
Like the Egyptians and Tibetans, the Illuminati have a "Book of the Dead" that describes everything that should be expected on the "other side". This is the Illuminati's second most important book (the first being the Book of Gnosis), but we will not be disclosing any of its contents since it is for the initiated only.
However, the Egyptian and Tibetan books will give you a fine starting point for your own research.
The
Mystery of the Monad
"Nothingness is being and being nothingness… Our limited mind cannot grasp or fathom this, for it joins infinity."
-
Azrael
of Gerona
As
we have demonstrated, the most important number of all is zero. Zero is a dimensionless point. How
many zeros, how many dimensionless points can be superimposed on one another?
The answer is an infinite number.
Leibniz referred to souls
as monads: energetic, immaterial, indivisible, unextended, imperishable,
uncaused, dimensionless points. There are infinite zeros - monads/souls - in
the universe, occupying no space and outwith time. They are pure mind, but they
are unconscious until such time as they can develop consciousness.
All of the monads together can be said to form a
single Monad, like brain cells comprising a brain. The Monad is God. But this
is no simplistic Abrahamic God. This is the God of the Holographic Principle.
How so? Each zero - monad - exists within the Monad, yet the Monad is still,
finally, itself just a dimensionless point, a Zero, and, as such, exists within
any ordinary monad. So the monad is part of the Monad and the Monad part of the
monad: each part is in the Whole and the Whole in each part. This is no weird
mysticism. This is pure mathematics, the logical outcome of the properties of
zero. So, if you want to understand the supreme mystery of life, there you have
it.
An infinity of souls inhabit the Cosmic Soul (God) and yet the Cosmic Soul also inhabits every one of those souls. Every individual soul is inextricably linked to the Soul of God. The only difference is in the property that Leibniz called "clearness" but which we would now call consciousness. God is the clearest of the monads but because he is inside each unclear (unconscious) monad, each of them is capable of becoming as clear as God i.e. fully conscious of all conceivable knowledge of the cosmos.
This is the essential nature of existence: the Monad and the monads ceaselessly interact with each other until each and every monad becomes as clear as the Monad itself, until the unconscious has been banished and everything is clear, until all is illuminated, all is light.
Scientific materialism denies the existence of the dimensionless, of the zero, of the monad, of the Monad - thus it denies God, souls and the afterlife. Yet how can science, built on mathematics, be so stupid as to dismiss the origin of all things? - zero, the basis of mathematics, without which Western science and mathematics floundered hopelessly for centuries. Calculus, invented by Leibniz (and Newton) is the cornerstone of science and mathematics and it is all about reducing the distance between two points to....ZERO. For scientists and mathematicians to wage war against the physical reality of zero is one of the strangest enigmas in history, given the supreme importance of zero to mathematics and science, and it's their denial of the reality of zero that makes them also deny the existence of God.
Never forget that scientists and mathematicians have form when it comes to denying the most important numbers. Not only were they shocked and appalled by zero for many centuries, they were equally resistant to the imaginary number and infinity. Now they accept the mathematical use of these numbers, but continue to deny their physical significance. They still have a last bridge to cross, and they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming, such is their long-standing revulsion of zero, infinity and the imaginary number. (The imaginary number is of immense significance because in a 6-dimensional universe consisting of three imaginary axes and three real axes it is possible to define a singularity where all distances are zero.). It has simply never occurred to scientists and mathematicians that these numbers, far from being the least real, are the most real and actually define reality. Sure, they are weird and baffling numbers. Why wouldn't they be given that they are the core of the cosmic mystery?
Zero and infinity are the province of God. Zero and infinity are the two numbers most feared by physicists. Zero and infinity are where science and religion collide head on. Religion accepts the "physical" reality of zero (i.e. zero actually exists, although of course it is strictly speaking mental and not physical), science does not. THAT, in a nutshell, is the fundamental question of existence. As Shakespeare's Prince Hamlet never quite said, "To be zero, or not to be zero: that is the question." There is nowhere to go beyond a dimensionless point outside space and time. It is the supreme boundary of existence.
An infinity of souls inhabit the Cosmic Soul (God) and yet the Cosmic Soul also inhabits every one of those souls. Every individual soul is inextricably linked to the Soul of God. The only difference is in the property that Leibniz called "clearness" but which we would now call consciousness. God is the clearest of the monads but because he is inside each unclear (unconscious) monad, each of them is capable of becoming as clear as God i.e. fully conscious of all conceivable knowledge of the cosmos.
This is the essential nature of existence: the Monad and the monads ceaselessly interact with each other until each and every monad becomes as clear as the Monad itself, until the unconscious has been banished and everything is clear, until all is illuminated, all is light.
Scientific materialism denies the existence of the dimensionless, of the zero, of the monad, of the Monad - thus it denies God, souls and the afterlife. Yet how can science, built on mathematics, be so stupid as to dismiss the origin of all things? - zero, the basis of mathematics, without which Western science and mathematics floundered hopelessly for centuries. Calculus, invented by Leibniz (and Newton) is the cornerstone of science and mathematics and it is all about reducing the distance between two points to....ZERO. For scientists and mathematicians to wage war against the physical reality of zero is one of the strangest enigmas in history, given the supreme importance of zero to mathematics and science, and it's their denial of the reality of zero that makes them also deny the existence of God.
Never forget that scientists and mathematicians have form when it comes to denying the most important numbers. Not only were they shocked and appalled by zero for many centuries, they were equally resistant to the imaginary number and infinity. Now they accept the mathematical use of these numbers, but continue to deny their physical significance. They still have a last bridge to cross, and they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming, such is their long-standing revulsion of zero, infinity and the imaginary number. (The imaginary number is of immense significance because in a 6-dimensional universe consisting of three imaginary axes and three real axes it is possible to define a singularity where all distances are zero.). It has simply never occurred to scientists and mathematicians that these numbers, far from being the least real, are the most real and actually define reality. Sure, they are weird and baffling numbers. Why wouldn't they be given that they are the core of the cosmic mystery?
Zero and infinity are the province of God. Zero and infinity are the two numbers most feared by physicists. Zero and infinity are where science and religion collide head on. Religion accepts the "physical" reality of zero (i.e. zero actually exists, although of course it is strictly speaking mental and not physical), science does not. THAT, in a nutshell, is the fundamental question of existence. As Shakespeare's Prince Hamlet never quite said, "To be zero, or not to be zero: that is the question." There is nowhere to go beyond a dimensionless point outside space and time. It is the supreme boundary of existence.
If zero actually exists then so does God, the soul
and the afterlife. If not then there is only the mortal domain of scientific
materialism. Zero - nothing - is the greatest mystery in the cosmos, around
which everything revolves. If zero exists, the Big Bang is easily understood -
"something" comes from zero (matter emerges and evolves from mind).
If zero doesn't exist, the universe miraculously pops out of absolute
nothingness. Which do you think is more plausible?
The Illuminati, and the Illuminati alone, have managed to reduce all of the mysteries of existence, all of the fundamental questions, all of the ancient debates concerning religion, science and philosophy to just a single mathematical question - does zero have actual existence or is it just a mathematical construct that never appears in reality? Zero - yes or no? That's the cosmic question. Everything else is moonshine.
Who would ever have thought that nothing offers us everything? Nothing is the key to life. It defines everything. In nothing we find ALL.
No wonder life is so mysterious. It's literally the child of nothing. Is that not the most wondrous idea of all? Without zero - nothing - existence would be impossible.
If you wanted to hide the mystery of the cosmos in one place, where would it be? There can be only one answer. You would hide it where no one can find it. They can't find it because it's nothing and nowhere. You would hide it in the Number Zero.
The reason why God, souls and the afterlife are so elusive and intangible is that they inhabit zero, nothing, the most secret domain in existence. Only there are they beyond the reach of science.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
God knew where to hide himself to ensure that the mystery of God is the greatest mystery of all. It is the mystery of the meaning of nothing, and how nothing becomes something, and how something returns to nothing.
"For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return."
"For nothing thou art, and unto nothing thou shalt return. And then thou shalt be God."
This is the Gospel of the Illuminati.
The Illuminati, and the Illuminati alone, have managed to reduce all of the mysteries of existence, all of the fundamental questions, all of the ancient debates concerning religion, science and philosophy to just a single mathematical question - does zero have actual existence or is it just a mathematical construct that never appears in reality? Zero - yes or no? That's the cosmic question. Everything else is moonshine.
Who would ever have thought that nothing offers us everything? Nothing is the key to life. It defines everything. In nothing we find ALL.
No wonder life is so mysterious. It's literally the child of nothing. Is that not the most wondrous idea of all? Without zero - nothing - existence would be impossible.
If you wanted to hide the mystery of the cosmos in one place, where would it be? There can be only one answer. You would hide it where no one can find it. They can't find it because it's nothing and nowhere. You would hide it in the Number Zero.
The reason why God, souls and the afterlife are so elusive and intangible is that they inhabit zero, nothing, the most secret domain in existence. Only there are they beyond the reach of science.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
God knew where to hide himself to ensure that the mystery of God is the greatest mystery of all. It is the mystery of the meaning of nothing, and how nothing becomes something, and how something returns to nothing.
"For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return."
"For nothing thou art, and unto nothing thou shalt return. And then thou shalt be God."
This is the Gospel of the Illuminati.
The
Soul Camera
This novel, originally due in 2009 and then 2010, will now not appear until 2012. 21 December 2012 has been pencilled in as its suitably portentous release date. One must always have an eye to "fulfilling the prophecies". After all, it took Jesus Christ a long way!
In 2009, the novel was assigned to a "ghost writer", but various issues arose and it has now been reassigned to one of the three Illuminists responsible for this site. It must therefore await the completion of this website. Moreover, it will be influenced by the political situation in the USA in the election year of 2012.
The Soul Camera will be the culmination of the Illuminati's current communication project to bring all interested parties to the same level of theoretical knowledge as any sixth Degree Illuminatus. No other secret society in history has ever made so much unique knowledge available, and all for free.
Why did the Illuminati choose to carry out this unprecedented act? Because the Grand Master of the Illuminati, the person most attuned to the cosmic dialectic, concluded that the moment had come when the Illuminati could provide a stunning new phase in the dialectic that would at long last pave the way for a New World Order and a metaphorical quantum leap forward in humanity's progress towards divinity.
The present Grand Master is a man of unparalleled genius, by far the most meritorious member of the Illuminati, and certain to join the list of Immortals in due course.
The ills of the world, and their cures, are listed below:
1) A world of privilege is a world of elitism and injustice. Meritocracy is the cure.
2) Capitalism, the creed of "Greed is good", is a disease. A new spiritual, artistic, creative and intellectual paradigm is the cure.
3) Abrahamism is a mental illness. Illuminism is the psychological cure.
4) The religious divide between East and West has held back global progress. Illuminism, a religion of enlightenment and reincarnation in common with Eastern thinking, yet steeped in the most profound Western thinking, is the bridge.
The human race has long laboured under a terrible dark shadow.
We are the cure.
We are the Illuminati, the enlightened ones. Ours is the religion of light, of cosmic evolution that allows all minds of a sufficiently high and noble calibre to achieve the supreme goal, the apex of existence, the culmination of the cosmic quest for the Holy Grail.
To become God.
GET WITH the PROGRAM.
GET WITH the GOD PROGRAM!
The
Sound, or not, of a Falling Tree
A
famous philosophical conundrum is: "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is
there to see it, does it make a sound?"
Parveen Kaler gave the following answer: "No. Sound is a mechanical wave created by an oscillation of pressure that creates a sensation by vibrating an organ. Both the mechanical wave and the vibrating organ are necessary. Assuming there is no vibrating organ present in this scenario then no sound is created."
A good answer, but Kaler doesn't mention the third required element - a mind to experience the sensation produced by the vibrating organ, a mind that interprets sound signals. A vibrating organ receiving a pressure oscillation does not of itself generate a sound. A sound is a subjective mental experience caused by an objective physical sequence of events.
Consider the advertising slogan for the movie Alien: In space no one can hear you scream." Why not? Because there is no air, no medium, to transmit the pressure oscillation. There is just a vacuum.
Thus "sound" is not something simple: it's a complex compound concept. It requires a triggering event that creates a pressure wave, a medium to convey the pressure wave, an organ to receive the pressure wave and a mind to interpret the data from the vibrating organ.
Hence, as we now see, the original question is complicated and challenging. Many factors must be considered to provide a complete answer. If any one of the four elements is absent, no sound will be heard. And, above all, no sound will be heard if there is no subjective mind. The cosmos without living, physical creatures would be utterly silent. Not a single noise would ever disturb eternity. Isn't that astounding? The Music of the Spheres would never be heard.
Ultimately, sound is a subjective phenomenon, experienced by a mind. No mind, no sound. Every tree in the universe could fall at once and yet this natural calamity would take place in complete silence if there were no minds to be aware of it. The first two components of sound would exist - the trigger event (the collapsing trees) and the resultant pressure wave - but not the vibrating organ (the workings of an ear) and a mind to make sense of the sensory data. So there would be no sound. The reason why it is so hard to imagine this is that we always implicitly place ourselves in the picture, and we have ears and a mind so we instantly "know" that we would hear a sound. Yet would a deaf person hear anything? The question would be radically different for them. In a deaf world, no sounds would be heard no matter what. The world would always be silent no matter how many trees fall in how many forests. And so it would be if no minds existed.
The real but hidden philosophical question is this one - is it possible to imagine a tree falling over without imagining yourself nearby, watching it and hearing it? Can you picture a tree without picturing yourself looking at the tree?
In fact, it's not just sound that poses problems, it's all the senses. If there were no creatures capable of hearing, seeing, tasting, touching and smelling would it be possible to say that the universe actually existed? Who would know? Who would see it? Who would interact with it? Wouldn't it be the most monumentally absurd entity, serving no purpose at all? Minds interpret light of different frequencies as different colours, but if there were no minds to perform that operation then there would be no colours in the universe. Not only would the universe have no colour, it would be invisible.
Consider all the dramatisations of the Big Bang that you have seen in science documentaries. These are all science fiction and indeed pure fantasy. Nothing of the kind took place. After all, human eyes can see only the "visible" part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The rest is invisible. If there are no human eyes at all, indeed no eyes of any kind, and no conscious, physical observers of any kind, then the Big Bang was an event that took place invisibly in absolute darkness. Because there was no medium for transmitting sound (and no ears to hear anything anyway), the Big Bang took place in absolute silence. It had no smell, no taste. And there was no one around to feel any heat against their skin.
So the Big Bang wasn't a Bang, and nor was it visible. It wasn't an explosion. It was just an immense unfolding of mathematical equations conducted in absolute silence and darkness. You can understand why that's no good as far as a TV documentary is concerned, but why don't scientists tell the truth about the "Big Bang" - or haven't they actually realised yet that the standard portrayal of the event is complete nonsense?
If all human beings were blind and deaf, would it ever occur to them that the Big Bang took place in anything other than darkness and silence? So, in a blind, deaf cosmos without any observers we can be certain that's exactly how it unfolded. Without observers, the cosmos is pure mathematics. There are no sights to be seen, or sounds to be heard. There are no smells or taste. Nothing is touched or felt. Equations simply unfold as they would in the microchips of a computer with its screen turned off. The Big Bang cosmos was nothing but a glorified computer until life-forms evolved and could start to make physical sense of the cosmic equations in which they were immersed. All of the sensations of life are actually nothing other than how minds attached to physical bodies interpret mathematical equations.
The false depiction of the Big Bang reveals a huge problem in terms of human thinking. Whenever we think of anything, we can't help placing a subject with senses in the picture. It's an automatic reflex. We imagine what the Big bang would be like if we were there watching it. But we weren't so what's the point of showing it as if we were? Is it possible for a subject to think non-subjectively i.e. to imagine objects but no subjects there to detect them?
The universe as a system of strict scientific materialism doesn't require anything to be visible, to make sounds, to have a smell, to have a taste, to produce any feeling of touch. When you strip away all of those things, you begin to understand just how mathematical the universe is. Without subjective minds, the cosmos is just a set of mathematical relations operating soundlessly in the dark. The cosmos doesn't look like anything, smell like anything, sound like anything, taste like anything or feel like anything.
Scientific materialism is a theory of objects (physical entities), not subjects (mental entities). Subjects are a superfluous hypothesis in scientific materialism. Objects interact with other objects according to the objective laws of physics, the laws of inexorable cause and effect. Such a system couldn't care less (so to speak) if the objects are visible or invisible. Visibility wouldn't alter a single thing. Smell wouldn't change anything, nor taste, nor touch nor sound. None of these things would make any difference at all to a cosmos of nothing but objects. So how did subjective experiences - the experiences we have all day every day - come to be produced by objects? How is it possible? Subjectivity means nothing at all in a strictly objective world so why would subjectivity suddenly emerge in such a cosmos? There is no possible reason for it, nor indeed a mechanism for it. How can objects become subjects? Where does a subject exist in relation to an object in a world of objects alone?
Scientific materialism tacitly acknowledges the philosophical position of epiphenomenalism. Wikipedia defines an epiphenomenon as "a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon."
It goes on to say:
Parveen Kaler gave the following answer: "No. Sound is a mechanical wave created by an oscillation of pressure that creates a sensation by vibrating an organ. Both the mechanical wave and the vibrating organ are necessary. Assuming there is no vibrating organ present in this scenario then no sound is created."
A good answer, but Kaler doesn't mention the third required element - a mind to experience the sensation produced by the vibrating organ, a mind that interprets sound signals. A vibrating organ receiving a pressure oscillation does not of itself generate a sound. A sound is a subjective mental experience caused by an objective physical sequence of events.
Consider the advertising slogan for the movie Alien: In space no one can hear you scream." Why not? Because there is no air, no medium, to transmit the pressure oscillation. There is just a vacuum.
Thus "sound" is not something simple: it's a complex compound concept. It requires a triggering event that creates a pressure wave, a medium to convey the pressure wave, an organ to receive the pressure wave and a mind to interpret the data from the vibrating organ.
Hence, as we now see, the original question is complicated and challenging. Many factors must be considered to provide a complete answer. If any one of the four elements is absent, no sound will be heard. And, above all, no sound will be heard if there is no subjective mind. The cosmos without living, physical creatures would be utterly silent. Not a single noise would ever disturb eternity. Isn't that astounding? The Music of the Spheres would never be heard.
Ultimately, sound is a subjective phenomenon, experienced by a mind. No mind, no sound. Every tree in the universe could fall at once and yet this natural calamity would take place in complete silence if there were no minds to be aware of it. The first two components of sound would exist - the trigger event (the collapsing trees) and the resultant pressure wave - but not the vibrating organ (the workings of an ear) and a mind to make sense of the sensory data. So there would be no sound. The reason why it is so hard to imagine this is that we always implicitly place ourselves in the picture, and we have ears and a mind so we instantly "know" that we would hear a sound. Yet would a deaf person hear anything? The question would be radically different for them. In a deaf world, no sounds would be heard no matter what. The world would always be silent no matter how many trees fall in how many forests. And so it would be if no minds existed.
The real but hidden philosophical question is this one - is it possible to imagine a tree falling over without imagining yourself nearby, watching it and hearing it? Can you picture a tree without picturing yourself looking at the tree?
In fact, it's not just sound that poses problems, it's all the senses. If there were no creatures capable of hearing, seeing, tasting, touching and smelling would it be possible to say that the universe actually existed? Who would know? Who would see it? Who would interact with it? Wouldn't it be the most monumentally absurd entity, serving no purpose at all? Minds interpret light of different frequencies as different colours, but if there were no minds to perform that operation then there would be no colours in the universe. Not only would the universe have no colour, it would be invisible.
Consider all the dramatisations of the Big Bang that you have seen in science documentaries. These are all science fiction and indeed pure fantasy. Nothing of the kind took place. After all, human eyes can see only the "visible" part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The rest is invisible. If there are no human eyes at all, indeed no eyes of any kind, and no conscious, physical observers of any kind, then the Big Bang was an event that took place invisibly in absolute darkness. Because there was no medium for transmitting sound (and no ears to hear anything anyway), the Big Bang took place in absolute silence. It had no smell, no taste. And there was no one around to feel any heat against their skin.
So the Big Bang wasn't a Bang, and nor was it visible. It wasn't an explosion. It was just an immense unfolding of mathematical equations conducted in absolute silence and darkness. You can understand why that's no good as far as a TV documentary is concerned, but why don't scientists tell the truth about the "Big Bang" - or haven't they actually realised yet that the standard portrayal of the event is complete nonsense?
If all human beings were blind and deaf, would it ever occur to them that the Big Bang took place in anything other than darkness and silence? So, in a blind, deaf cosmos without any observers we can be certain that's exactly how it unfolded. Without observers, the cosmos is pure mathematics. There are no sights to be seen, or sounds to be heard. There are no smells or taste. Nothing is touched or felt. Equations simply unfold as they would in the microchips of a computer with its screen turned off. The Big Bang cosmos was nothing but a glorified computer until life-forms evolved and could start to make physical sense of the cosmic equations in which they were immersed. All of the sensations of life are actually nothing other than how minds attached to physical bodies interpret mathematical equations.
The false depiction of the Big Bang reveals a huge problem in terms of human thinking. Whenever we think of anything, we can't help placing a subject with senses in the picture. It's an automatic reflex. We imagine what the Big bang would be like if we were there watching it. But we weren't so what's the point of showing it as if we were? Is it possible for a subject to think non-subjectively i.e. to imagine objects but no subjects there to detect them?
The universe as a system of strict scientific materialism doesn't require anything to be visible, to make sounds, to have a smell, to have a taste, to produce any feeling of touch. When you strip away all of those things, you begin to understand just how mathematical the universe is. Without subjective minds, the cosmos is just a set of mathematical relations operating soundlessly in the dark. The cosmos doesn't look like anything, smell like anything, sound like anything, taste like anything or feel like anything.
Scientific materialism is a theory of objects (physical entities), not subjects (mental entities). Subjects are a superfluous hypothesis in scientific materialism. Objects interact with other objects according to the objective laws of physics, the laws of inexorable cause and effect. Such a system couldn't care less (so to speak) if the objects are visible or invisible. Visibility wouldn't alter a single thing. Smell wouldn't change anything, nor taste, nor touch nor sound. None of these things would make any difference at all to a cosmos of nothing but objects. So how did subjective experiences - the experiences we have all day every day - come to be produced by objects? How is it possible? Subjectivity means nothing at all in a strictly objective world so why would subjectivity suddenly emerge in such a cosmos? There is no possible reason for it, nor indeed a mechanism for it. How can objects become subjects? Where does a subject exist in relation to an object in a world of objects alone?
Scientific materialism tacitly acknowledges the philosophical position of epiphenomenalism. Wikipedia defines an epiphenomenon as "a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon."
It goes on to say:
"An
epiphenomenon can be an effect of primary phenomena, but cannot affect a
primary phenomenon. In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that
mental phenomena are epiphenomena in that they can be caused by physical
phenomena, but cannot cause physical phenomena. In strong epiphenomenalism,
epiphenomena that are mental phenomena can only be caused by physical
phenomena, not by other mental phenomena. In weak epiphenomenalism,
epiphenomena that are mental phenomena can be caused by both physical phenomena
and other mental phenomena, but mental phenomena cannot be the cause of any
physical phenomenon.
"The physical world operates independently of
the mental world in epiphenomenalism; the mental world exists as a derivative
parallel world to the physical world, affected by the physical world (and by
other epiphenomena in weak epiphenomenalism), but not able to have an effect on
the physical world.
"According
to epiphenomenalism, free will having an effect on the physical world is an
illusion, as physical phenomena can only be caused by other physical phenomena.
In weak epiphenomenalism, there is free will to cause some mental effects,
allowing for mental discipline that is directed at other mental phenomena.
"Weak versions of behaviorism in psychology,
which admit for the existence of mental phenomena, but not to their meaningful
study as causes of any observable behavior in psychology, view mental phenomena
as either epiphenomena, or linguistic summaries, as instrumentalist tools for
examination of objectively observable physical behavior in others."
So, there we have it - free
will is an illusion. Mental states can have no impact on physical states.
Mental states are just a pointless subjective "add on" to the
objective world. So why did they come into existence in the first place if they
were so useless? Why did Darwinian natural selection choose them if they have
no effect? What would the mechanism be for selecting one non-effectual thing
over another? How could there be any way of telling the difference if they
produce no different effects? None of it makes any sense.
A world of objects is sterile and meaningless.
Scientific materialism can offer no account of how subjectivity entered the
cosmos. How could it have come from objects?
If subjects didn't come from objects then they must have pre-existed objects. Therefore objects must have come from subjects. That's exactly what Illuminism teaches.
The Big Bang universe of physical objects came from a mental, subjective cosmos. Objects are alienated subjects. Objects are dimensional while subjects are dimensionless. Subjects belong to the domain of zero, and objects to the non-zero domain.
Scientific materialism can't explain the existence of subjectivity or subjects, but these form the core of Illuminism. Without subjectivity, the world can have no meaning or purpose. Without subjectivity, the world can't really be said to exist at all. Who would experience it? Who would know it was there? The world would just be a bizarre machine in a permanently dark room.
It's astounding that scientists choose to conceive of a world lacking free will, lacking any form of meaningful mind, consciousness and subjectivity. They themselves would presumably never seriously doubt that they possess free will, mind, consciousness and subjective experiences, yet they try to deny that these things logically exist. Bizarre.
The world of subjectivity is the world of information, of information processing, of the pursuit of new information, of the need for information, of achieving power through information.
We live in an information universe. Information is its reason to be. Sight, sound, taste, touch and smell - what are they? They are information. What needs information? What feeds on information? - a mind, a subject. An object couldn't care less. How is love possible amongst objects? Only subjects can love.
The cosmos is an information generator. Its purpose is to maximise information, to experience information, to evaluate information. The cosmos doesn't want any old information, but the maximum quality of information, the maximum quality of experience. And the consciousness that represents the maximum ability to attain the optimal information and experience is the God-consciousness. We can all have that precise consciousness. We can have the greatest experience the cosmos has to offer.
If subjects didn't come from objects then they must have pre-existed objects. Therefore objects must have come from subjects. That's exactly what Illuminism teaches.
The Big Bang universe of physical objects came from a mental, subjective cosmos. Objects are alienated subjects. Objects are dimensional while subjects are dimensionless. Subjects belong to the domain of zero, and objects to the non-zero domain.
Scientific materialism can't explain the existence of subjectivity or subjects, but these form the core of Illuminism. Without subjectivity, the world can have no meaning or purpose. Without subjectivity, the world can't really be said to exist at all. Who would experience it? Who would know it was there? The world would just be a bizarre machine in a permanently dark room.
It's astounding that scientists choose to conceive of a world lacking free will, lacking any form of meaningful mind, consciousness and subjectivity. They themselves would presumably never seriously doubt that they possess free will, mind, consciousness and subjective experiences, yet they try to deny that these things logically exist. Bizarre.
The world of subjectivity is the world of information, of information processing, of the pursuit of new information, of the need for information, of achieving power through information.
We live in an information universe. Information is its reason to be. Sight, sound, taste, touch and smell - what are they? They are information. What needs information? What feeds on information? - a mind, a subject. An object couldn't care less. How is love possible amongst objects? Only subjects can love.
The cosmos is an information generator. Its purpose is to maximise information, to experience information, to evaluate information. The cosmos doesn't want any old information, but the maximum quality of information, the maximum quality of experience. And the consciousness that represents the maximum ability to attain the optimal information and experience is the God-consciousness. We can all have that precise consciousness. We can have the greatest experience the cosmos has to offer.
The
Anthropic Principle
Anthropic (from Greek anthropos, "human being"); adjective; of or pertaining to humans or the era of human life.
In science, the anthropic principle states that the laws of nature are such as to make life and consciousness possible i.e. whether by accident or design, the laws of nature are configured according to the very narrow set of possibilities consistent with the development of conscious life. The ways of configuring the laws of nature so that they do not create conscious life are overwhelmingly large, so how come we ended up in such an unlikely universe, so perfectly tailored for us, so exquisitely fine tuned, that it has been called the "Goldilocks universe".
The great Scottish philosopher David Hume said, "Numerous universes might have been botched and bungled throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out; much labour lost, many fruitless trials made, and a slow but continual improvement carried out during infinite ages in the art of world-making."
This would be consistent with the attempt of an unconscious universe to continually experiment until it had arrived at the precise formula for creating its objective - a universe in which consciousness can evolve.
The Strong Anthropic Principle, formulated by Brandon Carter, states: "The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est ("I think, therefore the world is such [as it is]")."
This can be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, that the existence of humans implies that the constants of physics are somehow constrained to have certain values - because if they did not have those specific values in preference to any random values then humanity would not exist. Secondly, that a cosmic Designer must have specifically designed the universe with incredible precision to ensure that humanity would evolve in it.
Physicist John Wheeler proposed the Participatory Anthropic Principle: "Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being."
Centuries earlier, Bishop Berkeley had declared: "To be is to be perceived." In other words, there can be no objects without at least one subject capable of perception. (Actually, Berkeley was an extreme idealist philosopher who completely rejected the existence of matter: objects were thus really thoughts/ideas. Berkeley argued that we exist as subjects only because God, our Creator and the supreme and ultimate subject, perceives us. So, for Berkeley, subjects and "objects" are nothing but ideas in the mind of God, and completely sustained by God. If he chose not to perceive the world, we would all instantly vanish.)
John Barrow and Frank Tipler proposed the Final Anthropic Principle: "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and once it comes into existence, it will never die out."
(Writer Martin Gardner called this the "Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.")
Physicist Paul Davies described a "life principle": "There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind." (This is the position of Illuminism - the dialectic applied to a teleological, unconscious cosmic mind will inevitably generate consciousness and finally cosmic consciousness aka "God Consciousness.")
The Anthropic Principle in its various forms is completely consistent with the concept of the cosmos as an unconscious mind seeking to become conscious.
It poses enormous problems to scientific materialists who are unable to offer any credible explanation of why our cosmos is so well designed for intelligent life. The physical constants that shape the universe are so astoundingly precise that tiny changes to those constants would result in life being impossible.
The only approach scientists have thus far come up with to address this issue is the concept of the "Multiverse". This consists of an infinite number of universes where every conceivable set of permutations of the universal physical constants exists, and we live in the particular universe where the specific values of the constants allow our existence.
In terms of Occam's Razor - the principle of economy ("Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.") - this is a preposterous approach to the problem. In order to exclude the possibility of any cosmic mind being at work, the Multiverse advocates have multiplied "entities" to an infinite extent, the most flagrant possible contravention of Occam's Razor. Why are these people so repelled by the concept of cosmic intelligence that they would go to literally infinite lengths to deny it?
The
Big Bang Impossibility
It has been pointed out by a number of scientists that the initial singularity of the Big Bang was an exceptionally improbable state. In fact, in terms of scientific materialism, it's actually difficult to see how the Big Bang was possible at all. To have an indefinitely large universe emerge from what scientists call nothing simply makes no sense in terms of probability. Entropy is a measure of how probable a state is. In terms of a physical universe existing in a state of absolute nothingness (as it must have done in order to have come from nothing), the entropy is formally zero: this is not a possible state for an exclusively physical universe.
Of course, no such difficulty exists if the physical universe emerges from a non-physical, mental universe. But no scientist has ever chosen to consider this solution.
Isn't it time scientists woke up and smelled the coffee? No one is asking them to believe in the absurd God of Abrahamism or to accept Eastern karma. Illuminism utterly rejects those things and yet has no difficulty at all with religion, God, souls and the afterlife. Illuminism is true science. It did not close itself off to the mind as scientific materialism did. Scientific materialism is a blinkered, fanatical ideology like Abrahamism. Illuminism is the truth.
*****
Illuminism can refute all other religions and philosophies. It can refute scientific materialism. None of them can refute Illuminism. Illuminism is the summit of human thought, the culmination of human genius and intuitive insight. It is Truth with a capital "T". There is nothing beyond it.
Once a religion has accounted for zero and infinity, the origin and the ultimate, the nothing and the everything, there is nowhere else to go. Illuminism is quite simply the last word in religion. There is no question that Illuminism has not addressed. There is nothing missing. Not one shred of faith is required. Faith is what people resort to in desperation when they lack knowledge. There is nothing to commend faith. It has no desirable qualities. It's a cynical formula for manipulating and controlling the gullible and credulous, the poorly-educated and desperate, the stupid and submissive. Faith is never anything other than nauseating and disgusting.
Protestantism - the religion of "justification by faith" - can certainly stake a claim to being the most evil religion of all time. No sane person would go near it. Never forget Martin Luther's central "insight": "Reason is the Devil's whore." In that case, the Illuminati are the Devil's whore, and proud to be so. But we would actually turn the statement around and declare that Faith is the Devil's whore. Faith leads you straight into the arms of Satan, while knowledge gives you the ammunition to resist.
Illuminism is a branch of idealism insofar as it acknowledges the primacy of mind, but it nevertheless acknowledges the reality of the material world.
Now and again people ask us to provide physical evidence of our teachings. Given that we define life, mind, consciousness, God and the afterlife as mental rather than physical, we are in no position to offer physical proof of the non-physical. It is absurd to even ask the question. It's impossible by definition.
Science can't find any evidence of the religious domain. How could it? The religious domain doesn't physically exist - it's mentally real, not materially real. Does that give scientists the right to declare religion absurd? The only thing that's absurd is their antipathy towards the number zero, upon which religion is based, and which is actually the foundation of science too if truth be told.
We have enormous amounts of "mental" evidence, but all such evidence would be challenged by skeptics. They would call it subjective, fabricated, a hoax, an illusion, a trick. We have no wish to play such games. All psychic phenomena have been dismissed by scientists. They simply refuse to even consider the possibility. They can see no scientific mechanism for how such phenomena are possible, so they ignore them and regard them as "mad".
We have gone to great lengths to show what the precise mechanism is for psychic phenomena. They all take place via the immaterial r = 0 domain outside space and time. Such a domain has been verified by the scientific phenomenon of quantum entanglement which reveals that correlated particles can interact instantaneously despite being separated by enormous distances. Scientists still haven't faced up to the implications of this astounding discovery.
Ultimately, the most complex phenomena possible in existence - those associated with the highest levels of consciousness - are subjective and unpredictable because they involve free will and emotional moods. They can't be done to order. They can't be repeated as if in a science laboratory. They can't be studied scientifically.
In terms of mental powers, only the most senior members of the Illuminati are able to reach the level of consistency that would convince scientists, but they are not the sort of people who would take the role of crash test dummies, performing clowns or the playthings of the men in white lab coats. They have no desire to be the focus of a media circus or to bring themselves to the attention of those who would do anything to destroy them.
Our task is to show you the mathematical, scientific and philosophical basis of the r = 0 domain. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. If you prefer a system of faith over one of knowledge that's your business. We have not concealed any of the intellectual foundations of Illuminism. You can go through every part of it and decide for yourself whether it's true or false, plausible or fantastical. At no stage do we say that if you don't agree with us, God will smite you and you will be sentenced to perpetual torment in hell. The religions that make such claims are evil pure and simple. They make no attempt to intellectually justify themselves. They simply demand that you should believe them because "God says so." Only a moron would entertain such ludicrous, embarrassing and wicked religions.
Most members of the Illuminati are from skeptical backgrounds. We accept Illuminism not because of the astounding things we have witnessed with our own eyes but because what we have witnessed is fully compatible with what we have been taught. It is the combination of theory and evidence that makes Illuminism so compelling and enables it to wield such an incredibly powerful hold over its members.
Christians believe in resurrection because someone in an old book, writing on the basis of hearsay, said that a tomb was empty and that a guy who didn't look anything like his old self appeared to his confederates and then ascended into the sky. There's no attempt at all to explain what the mathematical, scientific and philosophical basis is of this staggeringly improbable claim of resurrection. You're simply expected to take it on "faith" - and if you don't you'll go to hell!!!
Fuck that!!!!
Even though you have not seen what we have seen, you now have access to the same theoretical model to make sense of the world. Many of you have written to us concerning personal experiences you have had that are fully consistent with the framework we have presented. We have no doubt that many of you have glimpsed the higher world that awaits all of humanity. And the more you practise your own skills, the more experience you will gain of this transcendent reality.
SHADOW
II
The shadow is where we put the aspects of ourselves that we repress because they are unacceptable to our "ego ideal" - the perfect image we have of ourselves. The Shadow, as Jung wrote, is, "the thing a person has no wish to be". It's often represented as a dark double, a doppelganger, an evil twin, a mirror reflection, a parallel world version of ourselves. Although usually associated with negative and evil qualities, the shadow can also be positive. A positive shadow is created in repressive societies that try to stamp out many useful and creative aspects of our character. In a theocratic state such as Iran that tries to suppress all fun, and that even has "moral police", there are probably a multitude of positive shadows amongst the people.
When shadow possession takes place in a crowd, we get the phenomenon of lynch mobs, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, riots, looting and so on. Shadow possession can be particularly contagious and fuelled by alcohol, drugs, intolerance, xenophobia, religious fanaticism and fiery speeches of hate. Shadow possession is the essence of mob psychology. The mob is not rational. It's the unconscious running wild.
The "in" crowd frequently projects its collective shadow onto the "out" crowd. When the Old World Order look at the masses they see them as bestial and disgusting, unworthy of being treated as anything other than scum. But, in truth, it's the polluted contents of their own psyches that they are looking at.
It's vital that we integrate the shadow into consciousness so that we can harness its vitality and bring it under control. We can use sublimation to turn our dark side into something positive, creative and constructive. Shadow integration prevents us from projecting our shadow.
The simple fact is that people who do not have a strong sense of self and who are always looking to others to define them - submissives, in other words - are guided by the contents of their unconscious just as if they were still using the bicameral minds of old. They are astoundingly prone to projection and possession. Any human being who finds it acceptable to be called someone's "subject" - as all supporters of monarchy do - is clearly submissive, hence they collectively project onto the monarch their own unconscious contents: mana personalities or the Self.
The whole religion of Islam consists of grovelling slaves. The word Islam actually means "submission". All Muslims are submissives because any dominant person would be sickened by such a bowing and kneeling religion, where human beings are constantly begging for mercy. The Muslims collectively project their unconscious Self onto Mohammed and Allah. Muslims claim not to worship Mohammed, which is rather strange since the whole point of the Hajj pilgrimage seems to non-Muslim eyes to be nothing but the idol worship of Mohammed. Mecca, site of the Hajj, is Mohammed's birthplace. If Muslims don't worship Mohammed why are they treating his birthplace as a sacred site? Is he just a prophet, or a Messiah - a man-god - like Jesus Christ? Nothing about Islam makes any sense.
In a recent poll, Americans said there was nothing they admired about Islam. That's the right answer. Islam has nothing to offer the world, and nor do Judaism and Christianity. They are religions of the unconscious and particularly of the Shadow. They are slave religions for submissives, which is why they are so keen on debasing themselves in front of their God. The concept of "worship" is inherently submissive. No dominant person would ever want to worship anyone else.
The idea of treating a text as "sacred", as the Abrahamists do is also astoundingly submissive. To a dominant person, texts are just collections of words on paper and are valuable only to the extent to which they allow someone to increase their power. If God had wanted to make Arabs become Muslims, why didn't he simply gather them together and tell them? What's all this nonsense about getting an angel to appear to an illiterate tribesman and dictating the Koran to him, which he had to memorise and then recite to various scribes? If God wanted to get his message across, why did he choose such a bizarre means that all non-Muslims find absurd and indeed laughable?
Because of psychic balance, submissives have a dominant shadow, so when their Shadow possesses them they respond with ferociously aggressive violence. These people are exceptionally dangerous when ruled by the Shadow.
Nothing is more important than combating Shadow ideologies. They are responsible for most of the wars and conflict in the world.
Humanity, at core, is still bicameral. Most people are controlled by the silent voice of their unconscious. Most people aren't rational and most of them are barely conscious. They lack a strong identity, which is why others are so easily able to impose an identity on them. They can't help projecting the contents of their unconscious and they have no idea that they are doing it.
Our world is just one gigantic projection of the human unconscious. Arguably, the entire physical cosmos is just the projection of the unconscious cosmic mind. It pours its unconscious into the material world in order to see its own reflection and become conscious.
A conscious being is one that can recognise itself in a mirror. Consciousness is about self-reference. In order to know what you are you have to know what you're not. To create consciousness - the highest form of mind - the unconscious had to generate plurality. Gnosis is the moment when the conscious mind achieves perfect mastery over the unconscious and fully integrates all unconscious contents.
The whole purpose of the cosmic dialectic is to bring the unconscious into consciousness. But until a human being has a strong consciousness, he will be at the mercy of his unconscious.
Most people exist at the most elementary levels of individuation. They are driven by unconscious impulses rather than conscious reason. And they are hugely susceptible to manipulation of their unconscious, which is why advertising and public relations are so successful.
If you want to be free of brainwashing and mind control, make sure you have a strong sense of self, and make sure you are good at integrating your unconscious contents. When all human beings have achieved that, humanity will at last be free.
The
Psyche
Psyche is the word the ancient Greeks used for the soul. Jung defined it as the totality of the conscious and unconscious mind.
Just as there are laws of physics governing matter, Jung argued that there are laws of the psyche that govern mind. And just as there are structures in the material world - subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, compounds etc - so there are psychic structures, with the most complex being built up from simpler components. Consciousness, the highest and most complex product of mind, requires an enormous and intricate psychic underpinning. Consciousness is the psychic element uniquely capable of reflecting on its own existence. It can achieve this only in the presence of other consciousnesses: a lone mind can never become conscious. That's why the Abrahamic Creator God is impossible. That's why the single cosmic mind, locked in a domain outside space and time, had to create the domain of individual things in space and time in order to achieve consciousness.
No Hindu has ever explained the purpose of the veil of Maya, but we can do so without any difficulty - it's the only means through which the cosmos can become conscious. God needs Maya to act as the mirror in which he can see his reflection and know who he is. God is incomplete without Maya - the domain of space, time and individual things.
The unconscious cosmic mind breaks into many minds with the aim of becoming conscious through them. In other words, the unconscious One Mind becomes Many Minds, each of which becomes conscious, and which then recombine to become One Mind again. Thus the One Mind starts off as an unconscious mind, but with an inbuilt desire and drive to become conscious. It does so by becoming Many. Finally, the Many become One again. Thus the One has gone from unconsciousness to consciousness via being Many in the physical world of individuation. That is the cosmic cycle. The cosmic psyche is programmed to accomplish it.
The
Laws of Contiguity and Similarity
Jung believed that human beings are mentally guided by the two principles of contiguity and similarity. This means that as soon as you come into physical contact with something, it triggers an automatic response in your psyche depending on what the something is similar to. For example, when a baby comes into contact with a female nurturing figure it compares it to its inbuilt "mother" archetype and if the similarity is sufficiently close then the baby will respond to her as its mother, regardless of whether she is or not. Similarly, the physical presence of a baby will prompt a mothering response in a nurturing female.
The physical presence of a woman similar to a man's anima archetype will cause him to immediately have strong feelings towards her and perhaps even to fall in love "at first sight". Similarly, a man who reminds a woman of her animus will have a profound impact on her. Why did Marilyn Monroe and playwright Arthur Miller get married despite being so different? Monroe was an anima figure for Miller, Eros brought to life, and he was an animus figure for her, the Logos incarnate. Of course, once the anima/animus effect wore off, the relationship disintegrated.
Don't forget, it's all about contiguity and similarity. Any physical encounter that you have with a person or thing will prompt a response in your psyche, and it will be one based on what the person or thing is similar to in terms of your built-in archetypal programs. We always feel uneasy when something does not seem sufficiently similar to one of our programmed archetypes. For example, if we met someone with a young body and an old face, different archetypal responses would be triggered, causing confusion and hesitancy.
If you encounter a hero figure, it will trigger your own hero archetype, which is why we always feel more heroic when we watch a movie about a great hero, or why one brave person can make a whole group act more bravely.
Jung wrote, "The form of the world into which [a person] is born is already inborn in him as a virtual image." In other words, we come into the world already having the world programmed into us as an internal mental simulation, and we respond to the real world according to the rules of our internal archetypal programming. At all times, external reality is matched up to our internal program. We can even run simulations of what we would experience if we were in someone else's shoes. This is the basis of empathy.
Jung elaborated: "Thus the whole nature of man presupposes woman, both physically and spiritually. His system is tuned into woman from the start, just as it is prepared for a quite definite world where there is water, light, air, salt, carbohydrate, etc. The form of the world into which he is born is already inborn in him as a virtual image. Likewise, parents, wife, children, birth and death are inborn in him as virtual images, as psychic aptitudes. These a priori categories have by nature a collective character; they are images of parents, wife and children in general, and are not individual predestinations. We must therefore think of these images as lacking in solid content, hence as unconscious. They only acquire solidity, influence, and eventual consciousness in the encounter with empirical facts, which touch the unconscious aptitude and quicken into life. They are, in a sense, the deposits of all our ancestral experiences, but they are not the experiences themselves."
He continued, "All those factors, therefore, that were essential to our near and remote ancestors will also be essential to us, for they are embedded in the inherited organic system."
For Jung, the program that steers a person through life is encoded in the collective unconscious and comes in the form of a series of archetypes that cater for every situation we are likely to encounter in the world. Each archetypal program is triggered as and when the corresponding real-life situation occurs and the program guides us through the situation - if we let it. But if we suppress our unconscious then we suppress the archetypes and we lose their ability to show us the way. The mother-baby archetypal program is the one triggered most easily and successfully.
Any situation common to all of humanity has a relevant archetype to manage it. Situations peculiar to small groups or individuals do not, although even in these cases, budding archetypes may be starting to develop and will become more refined as time goes on.
An Optimal Human is one who knows exactly how to harness his inbuilt archetypal program.
Synchronicity
Jung defined synchronicity as: "A coincidence in time of two or more causally unrelated events which have the same or similar meaning."
Of course, in the domain of mind outside space and time, everything happens at the same time and is interconnected. In other words, synchronicity is the natural mode of function of the mind domain. The expression "causally unrelated" refers to causality in the physical world, not in the mental. In the mental domain everything is linked but some links are more powerful and meaningful than others.
Synchronicity is only possible in a continuum involving two domains, a physical one in space and time and a mental one outside space and time.
The domain outside space and time is the unus mundus (Latin for "one world"), the unitary reality that underlies all phenomena. Jung considered the archetypes the mediators of the unus mundus. They organised the psyche as well as governing the laws of physics that determine the behaviour of matter and energy in the physical world. Physicist Wolfgang Pauli thought that Jung had found the "missing link" between mind and matter, between physics and psychology, and even theology.
Archetypes should be considered in terms of a) Plato's Universal Forms, b) the additional "particular" Universal Forms of Plotinus and c) Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance.
Archetypes, we might say, are EVOLVING universals, linked to particulars in a synergic feedback loop. Think about the thoughts in your own head as you try to understand something complex. Your thoughts start off as vague, nebulous, and incomplete. As you continue to study and research, the thoughts become more "solid", more robust and more definite as more information and data are fed into them and you continue to contemplate. Eventually, you have fully grasped the subject in question. You can apply the knowledge and teach others. Your thoughts regarding the subject have evolved, and, if you become an absolute expert, they have reached their Omega Point. Your knowledge becomes a kind of mental program that can be applied over and over again i.e. it's a proto-archetype. It's potentially "universal" - in the right circumstances anyone could access it. In the case of the archetypes that govern human behaviour, these are genuine universal Forms into which all humans are plugged. They reflect the experiences of all human beings since the dawn of humanity. The more general a human experience is, the more archetypal it is.
Human experience feeds into the archetypes and the archetypes become more and more evolved. We, modern humans, are the beneficiaries of much more advanced and sophisticated archetypes than those to which the first humans had access. For them, the archetypes were primitive, hazy, still developing. For us, they are much more distinct and evolved. That's what evolution is all about.
But modern consciousness has changed the game and reduced the effectiveness of archetypes. Bicameral humans were the maximum beneficiaries of archetypal guidance. The "gods" - the archetypes - literally told them everything they needed to do.
The next stage of human evolution is to integrate the unconscious archetypes with modern consciousness.
As for the laws of physics, these are the archetypes that have evolved to govern the behaviour of matter. Thus there are two sets of archetypes: one that rules the domain of matter ("matter" archetypes) and another that rules the domain of the mind ("mind" archetypes). The two sets can interact since both exist in the domain of mind. Four different types of interaction are possible:
a) The matter archetypes can interact with other matter archetypes.
b) The matter archetypes can interact with mind archetypes.
c) The mind archetypes can interact with matter archetypes.
d) The mind archetypes can interact with other mind archetypes
Now we can see exactly how matter can influence mind and how mind can influence matter. It's all to do with archetypes. There is just one "substance" - archetypes. There is no mind/matter dualism as Descartes proposed. Although matter is separate from mind, the archetypes that govern matter are not separate from the archetypes that govern mind.
Synchronicity is never acausal as Jung claimed. Rather, it is always causal in the domain of the mind. If any mind is aware of a meaningful conjunction that it can engineer in the physical world then it will invariably do so - that's its inbuilt tendency. For example, Jung gives the example of a difficult female patient discussing a dream she'd had about a golden scarab beetle. At the same moment, Jung heard a tapping on the window. He opened it and caught the insect: a scarab beetle! Jung didn't see how there could be any causal connection between the two events, yet the coincidence was far too meaningful to be random. He was right about the second part and wrong about the first. There is no way this episode could be pure coincidence. The odds against it are simply enormous. But nor could the events be causally unrelated.
The truth of this situation was that the mind of
either Jung or the patient, or indeed both, were subconsciously aware of the
presence of the scarab beetle nearby and they summoned it using a suitable
archetypal mental function. Because the mental domain is outside space and
time, this process can be handled in a manner that would be impossible within
space and time. Physical cause and effect in space and time is not taking
place. Rather, it is mental cause - outside space and time - and physical
effect - inside space and time - that is occurring. Synchronistic events are
nothing less than direct proof of the existence of the mental domain beyond
space and time.
The laws of science should be replaced by the laws of science AND psyche. Only then can we finally arrive at the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. The laws of science and psyche are the laws of the interactions of matter and mind archetypes.
So, when people ask where the laws of physics are located, now they have their answer: they are located as archetypes in the domain of mind. In relation to the material universe, that domain is everywhere at once. Every particle in the material universe is linked to the relevant archetypes that dictate its behaviour. That's how particles "know" what to do. They have elementary archetypal minds that give them all of the information they require. None of this takes place at the level of consciousness. The vast majority of mental activity is unconscious. Consciousness is very much the tip of the iceberg, the highest expression of mind.
It's the unconscious that gives birth to consciousness. It's the domain of archetypes that provides the foundations of consciousness. Without that archetypal substructure of the unconscious psyche, consciousness would be impossible. The archetypes have evolved unconsciously, and yet there can be no question that they have always been striving to produce the highest quality of mental activity - and consciousness is precisely that.
Now, although we have provided a description of the archetypes that is more advanced than anything Jung ever actually described, this type of thinking is already implicit in the Enneads of Plotinus some 1750 years ago. Jung was an undoubted genius, but he was in most part simply giving clearer expression - albeit MUCH clearer in many cases - to many ancient ideas. But why, with the honourable exception of Pauli, have scientists been so dismissive of Jung and regarded him as a charlatan? Why are they so closed-minded?
Science is an extraverted thinking activity while Jung was an introverted intuitive type. Scientists always look outwards to external facts, data and evidence. They never look inside themselves, and that's why they have never appreciated Jung's brilliant work. Many scientists scoff at philosophy, psychology and religion for no other reason than that their mental constitution prevents them from engaging in the type of introspection these subjects require. Scientists never go off on imaginative fantasy journeys through their inner mind. They always make sure they are anchored to data in the external world. Thus they have cut themselves off from the inner visions of the greatest geniuses.
Unlike scientists, the Illuminati have the profoundest respect for Jung, and we would say that everyone should study his ideas in detail. Given slightly different circumstances, Jung might easily have joined the Illuminati, like his grandfather, and progressed to the highest role of Grand Master.
The laws of science should be replaced by the laws of science AND psyche. Only then can we finally arrive at the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. The laws of science and psyche are the laws of the interactions of matter and mind archetypes.
So, when people ask where the laws of physics are located, now they have their answer: they are located as archetypes in the domain of mind. In relation to the material universe, that domain is everywhere at once. Every particle in the material universe is linked to the relevant archetypes that dictate its behaviour. That's how particles "know" what to do. They have elementary archetypal minds that give them all of the information they require. None of this takes place at the level of consciousness. The vast majority of mental activity is unconscious. Consciousness is very much the tip of the iceberg, the highest expression of mind.
It's the unconscious that gives birth to consciousness. It's the domain of archetypes that provides the foundations of consciousness. Without that archetypal substructure of the unconscious psyche, consciousness would be impossible. The archetypes have evolved unconsciously, and yet there can be no question that they have always been striving to produce the highest quality of mental activity - and consciousness is precisely that.
Now, although we have provided a description of the archetypes that is more advanced than anything Jung ever actually described, this type of thinking is already implicit in the Enneads of Plotinus some 1750 years ago. Jung was an undoubted genius, but he was in most part simply giving clearer expression - albeit MUCH clearer in many cases - to many ancient ideas. But why, with the honourable exception of Pauli, have scientists been so dismissive of Jung and regarded him as a charlatan? Why are they so closed-minded?
Science is an extraverted thinking activity while Jung was an introverted intuitive type. Scientists always look outwards to external facts, data and evidence. They never look inside themselves, and that's why they have never appreciated Jung's brilliant work. Many scientists scoff at philosophy, psychology and religion for no other reason than that their mental constitution prevents them from engaging in the type of introspection these subjects require. Scientists never go off on imaginative fantasy journeys through their inner mind. They always make sure they are anchored to data in the external world. Thus they have cut themselves off from the inner visions of the greatest geniuses.
Unlike scientists, the Illuminati have the profoundest respect for Jung, and we would say that everyone should study his ideas in detail. Given slightly different circumstances, Jung might easily have joined the Illuminati, like his grandfather, and progressed to the highest role of Grand Master.
The
Unus Mundus
"All
the most powerful ideas in history go back to archetypes."
-
Jung
Jung and the alchemists characterised the unus
mundus as psychophysical, the arena where physicality and spirituality meet.
The unus mundus is the underlying unified reality from which everything emerges
and to which everything returns (like the "One" of Plotinus).
But Jung and the alchemists were wrong. The unus mundus has no physical aspect. Rather, it is purely mental, yet it is indeed "one world" insofar as ALL the laws governing both psychic and physical behaviour reside here. This is where the human mind can gain power over the material world and bring about astounding transformations, not unlike the powers that Neo develops in The Matrix.
Jung wanted to combine the physical and mental in a mysterious union, a "third thing", which underlies all things, but this can't be done. Mind and matter always remain distinct, mind being dimensionless and matter dimensional. The only way in which mind and matter can be combined is through the laws that govern them. Thus if a mind knows how to manipulate the laws governing matter, it has power over matter. An alchemist who has learned the secrets of matter has not merged with matter in some mystical way, yet he can do whatever he likes with it, like a god.
Via the unus mundus, where the archetypes reside, all subjects are connected to all objects, the observer is connected to all physical events and can bring human meaning to them (via synchronicity) i.e. minds can impose meaning on matter where it would otherwise be absent (as is the case of the purely scientific world).
Of course, anyone who achieves this level of mental mastery has attained apocalyptic powers, but, fortunately, only the wisest and sanest ever reach this stage. Even Satan, who possesses enormous power, knows how important it is not to destabilise the "force" (as the cosmic balance may be called). The more power you gain, the more cautious you are in exercising that power, which is why Phosters, archons and the highest level of the Illuminati, do not go around making childish, gimmicky use of their power. Anyone who wished to use their powers in that way would never be permitted to acquire them.
The controlling powers of the cosmos are committed to homeostasis i.e. to ensuring that the cosmos is self-regulating and balanced, that it maintains a constant, stable condition. Only from a stable platform can higher goals be attained.
The unus mundus is a true one world insofar as subject and object can merge here in a mental sense. Matter becomes an extension of mind, and mind can do whatever it likes with any physical object in the universe.
The laws of matter are intimately related to the laws of the psyche. It is through matter - physical bodies - that consciousness comes into being. The laws of matter and mind work in harmony to achieve the same goal: cosmic divinity.
The unus mundus is none other than the r = 0 domain. The laws of physics that control matter evolved here, and so did the laws of the psyche that dictate the evolution of the unconscious to consciousness: the ultimate expression of cosmic potential, the maximum actualisation, the Omega Point of existence.
Matter is fundamentally psychoid (mind-like) because it is the mental domain that controls it. It does not control itself. Mind is at the root of everything.
At the ultimate level of existence, subject and object merge mentally and it is impossible to tell one from the other. The True God is both the physical cosmos and the conscious cosmic mind. He is the Hegelian Absolute. Viewed this way, we are all part of God, all expressions of God, all made of God - so is it any surprise that we are all capable of becoming God? In fact, it is not so much a case of becoming God - because we are already God - but of becoming conscious that we are God, in our own unique way.
But Jung and the alchemists were wrong. The unus mundus has no physical aspect. Rather, it is purely mental, yet it is indeed "one world" insofar as ALL the laws governing both psychic and physical behaviour reside here. This is where the human mind can gain power over the material world and bring about astounding transformations, not unlike the powers that Neo develops in The Matrix.
Jung wanted to combine the physical and mental in a mysterious union, a "third thing", which underlies all things, but this can't be done. Mind and matter always remain distinct, mind being dimensionless and matter dimensional. The only way in which mind and matter can be combined is through the laws that govern them. Thus if a mind knows how to manipulate the laws governing matter, it has power over matter. An alchemist who has learned the secrets of matter has not merged with matter in some mystical way, yet he can do whatever he likes with it, like a god.
Via the unus mundus, where the archetypes reside, all subjects are connected to all objects, the observer is connected to all physical events and can bring human meaning to them (via synchronicity) i.e. minds can impose meaning on matter where it would otherwise be absent (as is the case of the purely scientific world).
Of course, anyone who achieves this level of mental mastery has attained apocalyptic powers, but, fortunately, only the wisest and sanest ever reach this stage. Even Satan, who possesses enormous power, knows how important it is not to destabilise the "force" (as the cosmic balance may be called). The more power you gain, the more cautious you are in exercising that power, which is why Phosters, archons and the highest level of the Illuminati, do not go around making childish, gimmicky use of their power. Anyone who wished to use their powers in that way would never be permitted to acquire them.
The controlling powers of the cosmos are committed to homeostasis i.e. to ensuring that the cosmos is self-regulating and balanced, that it maintains a constant, stable condition. Only from a stable platform can higher goals be attained.
The unus mundus is a true one world insofar as subject and object can merge here in a mental sense. Matter becomes an extension of mind, and mind can do whatever it likes with any physical object in the universe.
The laws of matter are intimately related to the laws of the psyche. It is through matter - physical bodies - that consciousness comes into being. The laws of matter and mind work in harmony to achieve the same goal: cosmic divinity.
The unus mundus is none other than the r = 0 domain. The laws of physics that control matter evolved here, and so did the laws of the psyche that dictate the evolution of the unconscious to consciousness: the ultimate expression of cosmic potential, the maximum actualisation, the Omega Point of existence.
Matter is fundamentally psychoid (mind-like) because it is the mental domain that controls it. It does not control itself. Mind is at the root of everything.
At the ultimate level of existence, subject and object merge mentally and it is impossible to tell one from the other. The True God is both the physical cosmos and the conscious cosmic mind. He is the Hegelian Absolute. Viewed this way, we are all part of God, all expressions of God, all made of God - so is it any surprise that we are all capable of becoming God? In fact, it is not so much a case of becoming God - because we are already God - but of becoming conscious that we are God, in our own unique way.
The
Milgram Experiment
If you want to comprehend just how submissive humanity is, you need only consider the notorious Milgram experiment of the 1960s: "A Behavioural Study of Obedience". Psychologist Stanley Milgram discovered that 65% of people were prepared to administer a fatal electric shock to another person if ordered to do so by a suitable authority figure such as a seemingly respectable scientist in a white coat.
This is the bicameral human mentality kicking in. People slavishly obey the "gods" as if they have no choice in the matter. This is the basis of the tyranny of the OWO. They command and we obey. We don't think we have a choice, but of course we always do.
The defence of the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials was that they were "only obeying orders". Again, we see the bicameral mentality. It takes only a few dominant people to set the rules and issue a few threats to back them up, and millions and even billions of others will then comply without question. In fact, many will go further. They will internalise the rules and believe that they agreed to them all along. They do this as an ego defence mechanism, to protect their idea that they are in control of their life. Anyone brave enough to admit that he was living his life according to someone else's rules would be brave enough never to have signed up in the first place.
So many people believe that they have no other choice than to do what they are told, and they rationalise it as best they can. These people are submissive. They are cowardly. They cannot conceive of standing up to authority, of resisting the "gods". That's why the OWO always win.
For the OWO to topple, their authority, which is purely psychological in nature because most of them are fat, unfit, decrepit old men, must be seen to be what it is: fallacious and fake. They have manufactured an illusion. Once you no longer accept the illusion you are free. If the whole world escaped the illusion, the reign of the OWO would be over.
Never bow to an external "God". God is internal, at your own core.
Never bow to a monarch, to a celebrity, to the super rich. Never bow to money.
Never bow to anyone or anything.
And when no one bows, the power of the tyrants is abolished.
Imaginary
Friends
It has been reported that
65% of children have imaginary friends i.e. the same percentage that "kill"
people in the Milgram experiment. What is an imaginary friend? It's unconscious
content that has such an impact on the conscious mind that it seems to become
real, another person no less. We might say that the imaginary friend is an
archetype that comes to the aid of a bored and lonely child seeking
stimulation. Just as Jung saw his imaginary spiritual adviser Philemon as a
real person, so do children see their imaginary friends as real.
These unconscious contents that seem to become real
as far as the person experiencing them is concerned are extremely persuasive
evidence for the existence of archetypes and bicameralism. The sort of person
who, as a child, could summon into existence a "friend" from his
unconscious is unlikely to lose that capacity in adulthood. But the imaginary
friend gets replaced by more adult characters: imaginary gods, for example.
(Also, the many people who report encounters with ghosts, spirits, aliens and
angels may simply be updating their imaginary companions to reflect adult
concerns.) God, for many people, may be nothing more than their childhood
imaginary friend that has been allowed, following religious brainwashing, to
grow into something enormously grander and more significant. Doesn't religion
function exactly like an imaginary friend for many unsophisticated people?
Aren't "angels" imaginary friends and protectors?
How can scientific materialism account for imaginary friends? It doesn't have a clue.
If imaginary friends turn hostile then perhaps they become the harsh voices that torment schizophrenics.
Imaginary friends may have astonishing significance for humanity. If they are taken seriously, as they certainly ought to be but rarely are, they demonstrate the human propensity to be highly influenced by unconscious contents that are allowed to take on a kind of real, conscious existence to the extent that people can, in effect, have a conversation with their unconscious as Jung did with Philemon.
That such a mechanism exists is breathtaking and offers astounding possibilities, yet also great dangers. The Milgram "killers" are people who have largely surrendered their conscious will and morality to another person - an authority figure - and the reason they do so is that they have an inbuilt tendency to defer to powerful "voices" from their unconscious, exactly as Julian Jaynes described as the central feature of the bicameral human mind.
Bicameralism, not consciousness, may be the main driving force of contemporary humanity, and that constitutes a revolution in our understanding of the human race and the world we inhabit.
How can scientific materialism account for imaginary friends? It doesn't have a clue.
If imaginary friends turn hostile then perhaps they become the harsh voices that torment schizophrenics.
Imaginary friends may have astonishing significance for humanity. If they are taken seriously, as they certainly ought to be but rarely are, they demonstrate the human propensity to be highly influenced by unconscious contents that are allowed to take on a kind of real, conscious existence to the extent that people can, in effect, have a conversation with their unconscious as Jung did with Philemon.
That such a mechanism exists is breathtaking and offers astounding possibilities, yet also great dangers. The Milgram "killers" are people who have largely surrendered their conscious will and morality to another person - an authority figure - and the reason they do so is that they have an inbuilt tendency to defer to powerful "voices" from their unconscious, exactly as Julian Jaynes described as the central feature of the bicameral human mind.
Bicameralism, not consciousness, may be the main driving force of contemporary humanity, and that constitutes a revolution in our understanding of the human race and the world we inhabit.
The
Horror Attraction
Why are werewolves so fascinating? They represent our bestial aspect.
Why are vampires so fascinating? They represent being seduced by our shadow, being lured away from our insufferable goody two-shoes persona.
Why are the films The Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Stepford Wives so fascinating? These represent the threat of being forced to conform with the group persona, having to wear the publicly acceptable mask.
Why are zombies so fascinating? These represent the feeling that the ego-consciousness is not the full story: that we are the "undead" in comparison with who we could be if we were electrified by finding our Higher Self.
Why are aliens so fascinating? They represent the mysterious, unknown contents of our unconscious, the embodiment of Otherness.
Why is the film noir femme fatale so fascinating to men? She represents the danger and excitement associated with the anima.
Why is the male "bastard", the "bad boy" so fascinating to women? He represents the dark and dangerous animus.
Why is the Invisible man so fascinating? He represents our ability to avoid moral censure by being undetectable.
The
Great Illusion
Derren Brown, a popular illusionist in the UK, bases much of his routine on the expert manipulation of unconscious cues. In essence, he seeds a mark's sensory environment with pointers to what he wants the mark to think and do. None of it is done in anything but the most subtle and subliminal ways. The mark has no idea what is being done to his mind.
The unconscious sucks up the information and when Brown asks the mark to do something, the mark is already unconsciously primed to act in the way he desires. He knows exactly what you will do because he has ensured that your unconscious is thinking of nothing else. Your conscious mind may seem to be offered a free choice, but your unconscious mind has been given no such choice. So, what does your conscious mind "freely" choose to do? Simple: it follows the path of least resistance and does what the unconscious prompts it to do.
Brown is a genius at providing the illusion of choice while ensuring that there is no choice at all. And, when you think about it, what goes into any conscious choice? How do we know to what extent it is being influenced by the unconscious? Most of the time, are we simply choosing to do what our unconscious has already decided? Our consciousness has no desire to admit it is the puppet of the unconscious, so it rationalises after the fact all decisions it makes and claims them for its own. In fact, the conscious mind is often nothing but the agent of the unconscious and when you study an illusionist like Brown you see just how powerful the unconscious is in our decision-making processes. If the conscious mind does not have its own reasons for doing something then it has no option but to accept the "reasons" of the unconscious and then try to make sense of them as its own.
The sleepwalking, autopilot human is the one Brown actually addresses in his show rather than the conscious person standing in front of him waiting to take part in a trick. Advertisers play the same game. They ignore the conscious "you" and appeal straight to your unconscious, to all of your hidden desires.
Consciousness is remarkable to the extent that it always seems to be in charge and taking the decisions, even though it is redundant much of the time. Imagine a situation in which your consciousness switched off every time it surrendered control to unconscious influences. You would discover yourself in a nightmare of intermittent consciousness, with long gaps in between each episode of consciousness. Think of a sleepwalker becoming conscious every now and then for a second or two then slipping back to autopilot. You wouldn't be able to function properly in that state. So, our consciousness has had to learn to dovetail with the unconscious. Above all, it has had to learn the art of post-rationalisation i.e. to let the unconscious take a decision and then, after the event, explain to itself why it, and not the unconscious, took the decision.
There's a lot of evidence that people become sad because they are crying and not the other way around i.e. crying precedes the sadness rather than sadness preceding the crying (see, for example, James-Lange theory). This implies that the unconscious has caused the tears, which then makes a person sad, necessitating the conscious mind to find something that caused the sadness. The pretext the conscious mind comes up with may have nothing to do with the genuine cause of the sadness. How would you ever know? All you care about is that you're sad and require a plausible reason for your sadness. You're not going to sit around probing your unconscious to discover the real reason for your sadness. A fake, persona solution always suffices in the short term. In the long term, if you don't resolve your issue properly, your sadness will get much worse and turn to depression. Intuitives are far more likely to determine the unconscious cause of their sadness.
Why are people such consummate story tellers and so immersed in stories? Why does our whole culture revolve around stories, around the "narrative"? It's because we are forever telling ourselves stories to account for what our unconscious has made us do. We are hard-wired story creatures. It's what keeps us sane. The trouble is that stories aren't truth. And the even bigger problem is that we usually prefer stories over truth. Abrahamism is believed purely because people find it a compelling story, and it has been ingrained in them by brainwashing. To overcome the brainwashing, the people would have to hear a much more compelling story.
The
Pet Test
Do you have a pet? If you have a dog you're probably an extravert. If you're an introvert you probably have a cat. Studies have shown that cat owners tend to be more intelligent than dog owners.
If you don't have any pets at all, you're likely to be INTJ or INTP. These are usually the most intelligent people in the world. They are also the most atheistic, sceptical, cynical and agnostic.
IQ
IQ is a woefully misunderstood concept. In relation to Jungian personality theory, it focuses on the thinking function and how effective it is. However, it doesn't even do this very well. Thinking is radically impacted by the type of environment within which it takes place. A person brought up in a world of computers and technology will have a different style of thinking from someone who has no experience of such technology. So, an IQ test designed for a technological environment will automatically fail to accurately measure the IQ of those raised in a non-technological environment. Cultural and environmental context is critical to accurately measuring IQ. Moreover, what about introverted thinking versus extraverted thinking? These can generate different types of results depending on how an IQ test is designed. On top of that, how does intuition or sensing feed into thinking IQ? No test is able to clearly differentiate what ingredients go into what is optimistically called "IQ", hence it is virtually meaningless.
What we need is an entirely different approach to IQ, one that shows what people's true strengths and weaknesses are. No one will have a high IQ in ALL of the following areas:
1) Thinking IQ
2) Sensation IQ
3) Intuition IQ
4) Feeling IQ (aka EQ - emotional intelligence)
5) Cultural/Environmental IQ (how does your IQ adapt to unfamiliar situations)
6) Extraversion IQ
7) Introversion IQ
8) Judging IQ
9) Perceiving IQ
10) Dominance IQ
11) Submissiveness IQ
If everyone had an IQ broken into all of these different components, they would have a far better idea of who they are, what their strengths and weaknesses are, what areas they need to develop.
Isn't it time we got real about IQ and psychometric testing? Let's do it properly. Once we have this type of information for everyone in society, we can start to design a Smart Society that plays to people's strengths and avoids their weaknesses, that makes them happy, confident and productive rather than miserable, hesitant and little more than useless. Round pegs never perform well in square holes. People are never happy when they are doing something that goes against what they are good at. People flourish when they are in their personal zone, doing the things that come naturally, easily and fluently to them, where they can genuinely excel and win the respect and admiration of others.
Everyone should be interested in working on their weaknesses, but they should not be in jobs that target their weaknesses because they will definitely fail.
A Smart Society is readily achievable. All we need to do is abandon the idea that all human beings should be treated as an amorphous mass. No education system on earth gives a hoot about anyone's psychological profile. No account whatever is taken of it. No part of the school curriculum is affected by it. Thus all of the unique individuality of each student is scandalously ignored. All that matters is to process as many people as possible as cheaply as possible. They are given nothing more than a rudimentary education. Schools and even universities are just sausage machines, squeezing out undifferentiated gloop at the end of the line.
Isn't it time we started giving everyone a tailor-made education, one explicitly designed to maximise their potential?
Want to know your own Myers-Briggs personality type?
Watch this short video and you should get a pretty good idea.
Monkey
Religion?
A study at Duke University revealed that male rhesus monkeys like looking at monkey "gods" and monkey porn. The monkeys were offered a choice between two screens: if they looked at one they got a squirt of fruit juice, and if they looked at the other they got nothing. Therefore, being big fans of fruit juice, they always looked at the first screen…except in two specific situations. One was "porn" - getting to look at the enticing hindquarters of female monkeys - and the second, and most desirable, was "worship" (rhesus religion!) - getting to gaze at portraits of the dominant members of the rhesus pack, the alpha males. For ordinary monkeys, these were the celebrities, the gods whom they wished to emulate or worship.
We can already see the glimmer of bicameralism here. If these monkeys were able to hear hallucinated voices and see hallucinated images, you can be sure they would be hearing and seeing the dominant males.
It has been said that it is this hard wiring that underlies the human obsession with celebrity culture. The celebrities are the dominant, the alphas, the human gods. They get most of the resources, the hottest partners, the best of everything. Everyone defers to them. People want to be with them to get the crumbs off their tables, the cast-offs, the groupies, the perks, some of the wealth sloshing around them.
Celebrity is a golden ticket, an access all areas pass to the good life. It allows you to overindulge every appetite you have ever had.
People go weak at the knees when they see paparazzi flashbulbs popping and know that the divine ones sprinkled in stardust are nearby. People switch off their critical faculties. They power down their suspension of disbelief.
So, if you're a big fan of celebrities, look in the mirror and try to see the inner monkey gazing back at you…you haven't evolved!!!
Celebrities are a joke. There's nothing "alpha" about them. Most of them are dumb, shallow actors, playing at being other people. Usually, it's a character they're playing that launches them into superstardom. People love the archetype and then assume that the celebrity partakes of the archetype. But they don't. They're blank canvases upon whom we project divine images, and then we worship them.
Isn't it time we started worshipping ourselves instead, turning ourselves into the gods we so admire?
The
Psyche Lab
We live in a global psychological laboratory. Psy ops are going on everywhere. The advertising industry is nothing but applied psychology to make you fall in love with the products they're advertising. Capitalism is psychology devoted to "brand" management and devious tricks to get you to buy. Religion is psychology - the aim being to control you according to the belief system the religion is promoting. Politics is psychology, aiming to get your vote and support. Education is psychology - getting you to buy into the educational paradigm that suits and sustains the elite. TV programmes are trying to seduce you into watching, Hollywood movies into buying a ticket for the multiplex. Celebrities use psychology to make us worship them, give them more money and make them more famous and powerful. Newspapers, magazines, plays, radio shows, songs…all trying to psychologically seduce you and deploying every trick in the book.
Everyone's at it. Everyone's using psychology. The mind manipulators captivate us, bamboozle us, seduce us, distract us, control us, misdirect us. They are the magicians of the mind. The ones who use the magic best become the richest, the most powerful and the most successful.
It's critical for everyone to know the psychological tricks of the trade. Once you learn the tricks and the cons you become resistant to them, and that's the worst nightmare of those who seek to manipulate you.
Arguably, psychology is the most important subject of all because it's the one that is most embedded in our world. Every activity conceivable has some relation to psychology. Hence, isn't it something of a mystery that psychology rarely gets taught at school? Why not? Is it because the powers-that-be don't want you to know what's going on, how they're mind controlling you?
A word to the wise - study psychology. Make yourself an expert. Then no one can control you.
Obedience
"We are puppets controlled by the strings of society."
-
Stanley
Milgram
Most people are deluded about themselves. They think it impossible that if they were in Nazi Germany they would have been zealous Nazis, yet they almost certainly would have been. They think they could never have been SS death camp guards, but they could easily have done it. They think they could never have dropped zyklon B pellets into the showers to poison hundreds of men, women and children, but they could.
If you don't think you're capable of these things, you've never looked into your shadow and seen its power. Paradoxically, you are therefore much more likely to do these things for real. The person who knows he's capable of it can rationally challenge himself and talk himself out of it. The person in denial will sleep walk into being a mass murderer if the circumstances arise, which they do in ruthless totalitarian regimes.
One of the people who took part in the original Milgram experiment remarked, "I just said to myself, I'm just gonna play this out and pretty soon we'll be out of here. I'm finishing this thing. I don't care what happens. Once you make the decision, you've made your decision. I want to go home. I want to get out of here, go and get a beer somewhere and go home. You know?"
Notice the complete lack of moral thinking. The person's main preoccupation is getting the task done then getting out of there to relax. No philosophy, no consideration of the other person, no questioning of the experiment or the scientist conducting the experiment. Just obey the orders then leave and get a beer.
This person should be congratulated for his honesty and candour because he has shown how most people would think and act in the same situation. They are thinking about THEMSELVES.
When asked if he thought he had killed the man being "electrocuted" in the experiment, he replied, "Yeah. When he stopped responding."
If someone can do that just by being asked to take part in an experiment, imagine what they are capable of when brainwashed to detest a certain group of people, given permission to do whatever they like to them, and threatened with being shot if they don't comply. Can there be any doubt about what will happen?
Two thirds of the population will go along with "kill" orders. Every time you see three average people, just remember that two of them are capable of working in a death camp. That's how close we are to a totalitarian state. That's why the OWO can control the world so easily.
People easily adapt to the roles they are asked to play, and they rapidly fall into line with the role others are playing. In another experiment on obedience, a fake doctor with a fake medicine was able to persuade, by phone, 21 out of 22 nurses to administer twice the stipulated maximum safe dose of the bogus medicine to a patient. This was despite a prohibition against accepting telephoned instructions. The nurses had simply robotically obeyed the appropriate "authority" figure. They didn't check the dose or the legitimacy of the medicine. Isn't that terrifying?
People have a staggering inclination to blindly follow orders. They refuse to think for themselves.
In another experiment, Milgram and his colleagues politely asked people on the New York subway to vacate their seat, without giving any reason. Over half of the people complied. Yet the people doing the asking were extremely uncomfortable. Why? Because they were breaking the social conventions. People hate to disobey the rules. They especially hate disobeying authority. Anything for an easy life. Anything not to be punished for disobedience. The rules are the rules.
People naturally follow the rules. They naturally defer to those in charge. Even when there are no explicit rules, there are implicit rules, and implicit authority figures, and these are obeyed as rigorously as the explicit authorities.
In recent times, a con man pretending to be a policeman phoned several fast-food restaurants and managed to talk the managers into strip-searching their staff for stolen goods, to make them strip in front of customers and jog naked round the restaurant. One manager said, "I didn't want to do it, but it was like he was making me." In other words, nothing but a persuasive, confident, dominant voice over the phone MADE someone do outrageous things. It might as well have been the voice of God himself.
Submissive humans are little more than ancient bicameral humans in thrall to the voice of the gods. The same people are the ones that hypnotists can easily put "under".
Amazingly, if you simply go up to people and order them to do something in a suitably commanding voice, and if you are wearing the guise of an authority figure, the vast majority will obey you. The best con men don't even need a uniform; they use their own natural authority.
Remember - two thirds of people are so submissive that they will kill if ordered to do so in a controlled environment by an authority figure. These people are a walking powder keg. The legions of Muslim suicidal maniacs are submissives who have been programmed to obey their masters when they order them to kill themselves. Muslims are particularly submissive, and their religion actually defines itself with respect to how willing Muslims are to submit to the will of Allah. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son, such was his zeal to obey.
One of the most astonishing and unbelievable trends in the UK is that many black Britons are converting from Christianity to Islam (and, of course, many black Americans have preceded them in this regard). Why would anyone in their right mind convert from one slave religion to an even worse one? But, of course, submissive people are highly attracted to slavery, to authoritarianism and dogmatism, and to any system that allows them to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives. And racism is also a major factor. Many blacks see Judaeo-Christianity as the religion of the "white man", hence they want to get the hell out of there. They're not tempted to try the exotic Eastern religions, so they settle for Islam which is seen as non-white and even anti-white. And thus they leap from the frying pan into the fire.
The Illuminati are
nauseated by human beings who volunteer for slavery, as all Muslims do. What
kind of person wants to be part of a religion called "Submission"?
You might as well get yourself branded with the stamp of your master. All black
people attracted to Islam need to snap out of its authoritarian spell. Sure,
get as far away from Judaeo-Christianity as you can, but not, for God's sake,
so that you simply run straight into the iron embrace of the Islamic death
cult. Use your minds, your reason, your imagination, your creativity. Create a
new religion that serves your ends, one that has absolutely nothing to do with
the past and with slavery and submission. If being a slave of psychopathic
white masters was horrific, being a slave of the cosmic tyrant, Allah, is even
worse.
What is the antidote? - the philosophy of Friedrich
Nietzsche and his gospel of the Superman. And, even more so, the philosophy of
the Illuminati and the gospel of becoming God. For God submits to no one, and
neither should any human being.
Consciousness is the antidote to the bicameral slave mentality, but most people, even now, are still barely conscious. They are still hearing the seductive whisper of the old gods. Now they must consciously harness and integrate the voice of the gods so that they themselves can become God.
So, here is wisdom. Here is a vital insight that will serve you well. Not all human beings are truly conscious. Nor are they truly bicameral. Rather, they are the "missing link" between the two types of mind, except they are not missing - they are the majority of the human race. 65% of the world's population are "bicameral+" i.e. bicameral with a weak layer of consciousness imposed on top. They are highly suggestible, easily hypnotised and mesmerised, easily ordered around, highly attracted to messiahs, dictators, fuehrers, tyrants, strong men, prophets, monarchs, celebrities, the super-rich, big bosses etc. They have a longing to be told what to do because then they don't have to make the hard choices themselves, and they are not really equipped for doing so anyway since their consciousness and reason are not sufficiently developed.
The type of world we currently inhabit is a deadly embrace between a small number of dominants and a large number of submissives who actively desire to be dominated. Dominants would never have succeeded if the vast majority hadn't been happy to let them.
5% of the world are dominant types. A major flaw of the personality classifications of Jung and Myers-Briggs is that they ignore the domination/submission axis. Be under no illusion, this is actually the defining force of our world. The world is the way it is because of the power relations between the dominant and the submissive.
The Old World Order and the Illuminati are both preoccupied with dominance but in the opposite sense. The OWO are dominant extraverts who lust after wealth, power and all of the earthly glories. Capitalism - a system based on the dominant few controlling the vast bulk of the capital - is their perfect economic system. Monarchy or oligarchy is their preferred form of government, but they have been perfectly happy with "democracy" which is simply a disguised oligarchy and plutocracy i.e. rule by the rich dominant elite. Abrahamism is the perfect religious system for them because they simply take over the earthly mantle of God/ Jehovah/ Allah/ Mohammed/ Moses/ Christ. The Pope calls himself the "vicar of Christ" meaning that he is Christ's substitute or representative on earth, hence to defy him is to defy God. Similarly, kings ruled by "divine right" and to oppose them was not just to commit treason but also the highest heresy. In our world, the Old World Order are the earthly gods who must be obeyed. The OWO lust for power over others, and they are totally materialistic.
The Illuminati are the polar opposite. The Illuminati are dominant introverts, dedicated to cosmic power - to idealism, spirituality, and ultimate knowledge. While the OWO look to the outer world, the Illuminati go instead to the inner world to find the answers to the outer world via the hermetic, alchemical principle of as above, so below. The OWO want to dominate others, the Illuminati to dominate themselves. The Illuminati seek self-mastery, self-overcoming, complete individuation in order to become God. The Illuminati aim to be cosmic divinities for all eternity, the OWO to be mortal, terrestrial gods.
This is the true War of the World. On one side there are dominant extraverts and on the other dominant introverts. The dominant extraverts are far superior at appealing to the submissive masses of bicameral+ types. Hence the Illuminati are committed to helping people become more conscious, more rational, more dominant and less submissive. The OWO conversely want people to be as submissive as possible and they want to keep increasing the numbers of submissives. TURN THE OTHER CHEEK is the absolute essence of submissiveness, and is music to the ears of the dominant masters who know that rather than fighting back, the submissives will just bow down even more.
The Illuminati want everyone to become Gods because that automatically means the end of the OWO and all tyrants.
If 5% are dominant and 65% submissive, 30% of the people are unaccounted for. They are not bicameral+ and nor are they dominant. They are the key to the world's future. At the moment, many choose to cooperate with the OWO because it offers them a comfortable, easy life, but they are spiritually dissatisfied and looking for something more. They want MEANING, which consumerism and materialism don't and can't offer. They are an alliance of skeptics, cynics, agnostics, freethinkers, atheists, Buddhists, experimentalists, hippies, alternatives, radicals, protestors, activists and creatives, but they have never found anything to which they can truly commit themselves.
And thus they may come our way. If they do, our victory is assured. The submissives will fall in line with whoever is on top, so they can be ignored, just like the Ignavi whom Dante wrote about, pursuing whatever banner was placed in front of them.
Facebook is a gigantic arena of submissives burning up time pointlessly. There is virtually nothing of substance on Facebook. It's other-directed, persona obsessed, fake and inauthentic to its core. Behind the scenes, the Zionists who run it just keep getting richer. Goldman Sachs is now funding it. They know a goldmine when they see one, a means of controlling the goyim and keeping them distracted and sedated. No one on Facebook is busy organising the Revolution. Too many drunken parties to sort out, too many trivial posts to send into the intellectual vacuum of cyberspace, too much Lady Gaga analysis to be carried out. As for Twitter, God Almighty - what is the world coming to? Should we Twitter the million words of this website in a continuous stream? Would it cause a global mental explosion as all the tiny 140-character minds of the Twitterati (or is it Twits?) spontaneously combust, simultaneously? Did you know that many celebrities are paid to tweet about commercial products? Another exercise in sheer cynicism and exploitation.
This is the harsh reality of our world. These are the brutal truths. Some people may be horrified by what we've said, but that's the way it is. That's the equation that anyone who wants to change the world must solve.
The odds are massively against us because the OWO control everything, but our vision, creativity and intelligence are massively superior to theirs, and that guarantees our final victory. We are the expression of the dialectic. Only we can deliver the higher humanity - the Community of Gods, the Society of the Divine - of which all thinking people dream.
So, whose side are you on?
Here's some advice. Time is precious. Don't waste it on people who are not fully conscious or rational. You won't ever have a worthwhile interaction with an Abrahamist or a capitalist, so ignore them. Abrahamists cannot be considered fully human. Rather, they are potential human beings who may become human if they are able to develop their reason and consciousness to the right level.
Seek out conscious, rational people who want to integrate their unconscious contents and become whole, individuated people. The quality of your life will improve a million-fold if you hang out with the right people.
Consciousness is the antidote to the bicameral slave mentality, but most people, even now, are still barely conscious. They are still hearing the seductive whisper of the old gods. Now they must consciously harness and integrate the voice of the gods so that they themselves can become God.
So, here is wisdom. Here is a vital insight that will serve you well. Not all human beings are truly conscious. Nor are they truly bicameral. Rather, they are the "missing link" between the two types of mind, except they are not missing - they are the majority of the human race. 65% of the world's population are "bicameral+" i.e. bicameral with a weak layer of consciousness imposed on top. They are highly suggestible, easily hypnotised and mesmerised, easily ordered around, highly attracted to messiahs, dictators, fuehrers, tyrants, strong men, prophets, monarchs, celebrities, the super-rich, big bosses etc. They have a longing to be told what to do because then they don't have to make the hard choices themselves, and they are not really equipped for doing so anyway since their consciousness and reason are not sufficiently developed.
The type of world we currently inhabit is a deadly embrace between a small number of dominants and a large number of submissives who actively desire to be dominated. Dominants would never have succeeded if the vast majority hadn't been happy to let them.
5% of the world are dominant types. A major flaw of the personality classifications of Jung and Myers-Briggs is that they ignore the domination/submission axis. Be under no illusion, this is actually the defining force of our world. The world is the way it is because of the power relations between the dominant and the submissive.
The Old World Order and the Illuminati are both preoccupied with dominance but in the opposite sense. The OWO are dominant extraverts who lust after wealth, power and all of the earthly glories. Capitalism - a system based on the dominant few controlling the vast bulk of the capital - is their perfect economic system. Monarchy or oligarchy is their preferred form of government, but they have been perfectly happy with "democracy" which is simply a disguised oligarchy and plutocracy i.e. rule by the rich dominant elite. Abrahamism is the perfect religious system for them because they simply take over the earthly mantle of God/ Jehovah/ Allah/ Mohammed/ Moses/ Christ. The Pope calls himself the "vicar of Christ" meaning that he is Christ's substitute or representative on earth, hence to defy him is to defy God. Similarly, kings ruled by "divine right" and to oppose them was not just to commit treason but also the highest heresy. In our world, the Old World Order are the earthly gods who must be obeyed. The OWO lust for power over others, and they are totally materialistic.
The Illuminati are the polar opposite. The Illuminati are dominant introverts, dedicated to cosmic power - to idealism, spirituality, and ultimate knowledge. While the OWO look to the outer world, the Illuminati go instead to the inner world to find the answers to the outer world via the hermetic, alchemical principle of as above, so below. The OWO want to dominate others, the Illuminati to dominate themselves. The Illuminati seek self-mastery, self-overcoming, complete individuation in order to become God. The Illuminati aim to be cosmic divinities for all eternity, the OWO to be mortal, terrestrial gods.
This is the true War of the World. On one side there are dominant extraverts and on the other dominant introverts. The dominant extraverts are far superior at appealing to the submissive masses of bicameral+ types. Hence the Illuminati are committed to helping people become more conscious, more rational, more dominant and less submissive. The OWO conversely want people to be as submissive as possible and they want to keep increasing the numbers of submissives. TURN THE OTHER CHEEK is the absolute essence of submissiveness, and is music to the ears of the dominant masters who know that rather than fighting back, the submissives will just bow down even more.
The Illuminati want everyone to become Gods because that automatically means the end of the OWO and all tyrants.
If 5% are dominant and 65% submissive, 30% of the people are unaccounted for. They are not bicameral+ and nor are they dominant. They are the key to the world's future. At the moment, many choose to cooperate with the OWO because it offers them a comfortable, easy life, but they are spiritually dissatisfied and looking for something more. They want MEANING, which consumerism and materialism don't and can't offer. They are an alliance of skeptics, cynics, agnostics, freethinkers, atheists, Buddhists, experimentalists, hippies, alternatives, radicals, protestors, activists and creatives, but they have never found anything to which they can truly commit themselves.
And thus they may come our way. If they do, our victory is assured. The submissives will fall in line with whoever is on top, so they can be ignored, just like the Ignavi whom Dante wrote about, pursuing whatever banner was placed in front of them.
Facebook is a gigantic arena of submissives burning up time pointlessly. There is virtually nothing of substance on Facebook. It's other-directed, persona obsessed, fake and inauthentic to its core. Behind the scenes, the Zionists who run it just keep getting richer. Goldman Sachs is now funding it. They know a goldmine when they see one, a means of controlling the goyim and keeping them distracted and sedated. No one on Facebook is busy organising the Revolution. Too many drunken parties to sort out, too many trivial posts to send into the intellectual vacuum of cyberspace, too much Lady Gaga analysis to be carried out. As for Twitter, God Almighty - what is the world coming to? Should we Twitter the million words of this website in a continuous stream? Would it cause a global mental explosion as all the tiny 140-character minds of the Twitterati (or is it Twits?) spontaneously combust, simultaneously? Did you know that many celebrities are paid to tweet about commercial products? Another exercise in sheer cynicism and exploitation.
This is the harsh reality of our world. These are the brutal truths. Some people may be horrified by what we've said, but that's the way it is. That's the equation that anyone who wants to change the world must solve.
The odds are massively against us because the OWO control everything, but our vision, creativity and intelligence are massively superior to theirs, and that guarantees our final victory. We are the expression of the dialectic. Only we can deliver the higher humanity - the Community of Gods, the Society of the Divine - of which all thinking people dream.
So, whose side are you on?
Here's some advice. Time is precious. Don't waste it on people who are not fully conscious or rational. You won't ever have a worthwhile interaction with an Abrahamist or a capitalist, so ignore them. Abrahamists cannot be considered fully human. Rather, they are potential human beings who may become human if they are able to develop their reason and consciousness to the right level.
Seek out conscious, rational people who want to integrate their unconscious contents and become whole, individuated people. The quality of your life will improve a million-fold if you hang out with the right people.
How
to spot Bicameral+ People
Those people who are scarcely more than ancient bicameral humans can be identified straightforwardly. Here are some of the characteristics they typically exhibit:
1) Submissive
2) Extravert sensation types
3) Extravert feeling types
4) Other-directed
5) Tradition-directed
6) Poor and badly educated
7)
Refer to the Koran, Bible or Torah as their authority (are not capable of
formulating their own opinions)
8) Faith is very important to them; they reject knowledge if it contradicts faith
9) They endorse dogmatism and authoritarianism
Extravert thinkers and extravert intuitives are unlikely to be bicameral+.
Conscious people are typically:
1) Dominant or partially dominant
2) Thinking types
3) Intuitive types
4) Inner-directed
5) Autonomous
6) Well educated
7) More likely to be introverted and introspective
8) Skeptical, cynical, agnostic
9) Free thinkers
8) Faith is very important to them; they reject knowledge if it contradicts faith
9) They endorse dogmatism and authoritarianism
Extravert thinkers and extravert intuitives are unlikely to be bicameral+.
Conscious people are typically:
1) Dominant or partially dominant
2) Thinking types
3) Intuitive types
4) Inner-directed
5) Autonomous
6) Well educated
7) More likely to be introverted and introspective
8) Skeptical, cynical, agnostic
9) Free thinkers
10)
Refer to science or philosophy as their authority, and are capable of
formulating their own stance
11)
Knowledge is very important to them; they reject faith if it contradicts
knowledge
12) They are undogmatic and
anti-authoritarian
So, are you conscious or bicameral+?
So, are you conscious or bicameral+?
The world needs new religions for conscious people
rather than old religions for bicameral+ people. A new religion for those who
are conscious requires no bearded prophets, no holy texts, no priests, pastors,
rabbis, imams, popes, prophets or Messiahs; no churches, temples, mosques or
synagogues; no calls for faith or slavish obedience; no calls to commit human
sacrifice to prove how committed you are.
A
new religion for conscious people must be about knowledge and self-development.
We have gone to immense lengths to justify
Illuminism mathematically, scientifically, philosophically, religiously and
psychologically. We have laid out most of the intellectual pillars on which the
edifice of Illuminism stands, and more will follow in the coming months. You
are not required to believe a single thing we have said. We do not claim to be
infallible. In fact, we explicitly endorse a dialectical process, the nature of
which is to summon forth contradictions, paradoxes, inconsistencies and
antitheses. Far from being alarmed by such things, we expect them and relish
them. With them we can create new syntheses that make Illuminism even more
robust. No new scientific findings have dented Illuminism. In fact the reverse
has been the case. All new scientific discoveries have been fully consistent
with Illuminism and simply proved how astoundingly powerful Illuminism
is.
For
thousands of years, Illuminism has attracted many of the finest minds of
humanity, and none of them have found it wanting.
We would never demand that everyone should accept
our entire system. You may like some parts and reject others. That's fine with
us. We won't sentence you to hell! Yet other religions would.
We
have no doubt that if well-informed, non-brainwashed people were allowed to
freely choose which religion they preferred from amongst the thousands of
religions on offer, they would choose Illuminism. Why? For one thing, it's the
only one that doesn't collapse under logical scrutiny. And the reason for that
is simple. Illuminism was from the outset based on mathematics, and mathematics
is the purest, most precise and most logical language of all. It's the
foundation of the cosmos, hence any religion that is not mathematical is
inherently false. A religion "revealed" by an "angel" to a
bearded prophet is absurd and only bicameral+ people could ever fall for such
nonsense.
Organised religion, especially Abrahamism, is
spiritual death. It's time for new religions, freed from the chains and
traditions of the past. No more bowing masses. No more priests and rabbis. No
more passivity and submission to "God".
No more Islamic homicidal
maniacs. These people are so demented that they actually plotted to massacre
the workers of a Danish newspaper that published some cartoons of Mohammed.
What kind of God demands mass slaughter in retaliation for a few funny
drawings? Is he "God" or a raving psychopath? Isn't it about time
that all Western governments declared Islam a dangerous mental illness? When
people start planning murder over something as trivial as cartoons, you know
you're dealing with a severe psychiatric disorder induced by bizarre and
perverted religious beliefs and an obscene and unacceptable "vision"
of the nature of God. Of course, the kind of God that demands that you should
be prepared to perform human sacrifice on your own children to show your
obedience to him probably WOULD go mad if someone poked fun at him and called him
a loony.
But what kind of people
choose to believe in such a hate-filled, psychotic God? Are they just
projecting their own hate and psychosis, and are they actively encouraged to do
so by their sick religion? No government would permit a deadly disease to
spread throughout a nation. They would impose a quarantine and eliminate the
disease. Isn't it time to face the facts regarding Islam - it's a lethal,
communicable virus. Many Muslims who ridiculously claim to believe in a
merciful and compassionate God, and who claim that Islam is about peace, spend
their whole lives plotting homicide and suicide. Islam is an apocalyptic death
cult that has no place in any civilised society. Over and over again it proves
that it is completely incompatible with the modern world and with any concept
of human rights. It actually maintains that all human rights are negated by the
Koran, an ancient book magically dictated by the "Angel Gabriel" to
an illiterate tribesman.
This is the 21st century. How much longer can we
tolerate retarded belief systems that convert human beings into brainwashed
killers?
Abrahamism is the organised
worship of the Shadow. Healthy religion is about the quest for the Self.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are Shadow
religions that spread darkness and horror wherever they go. Jews, Christians
and Muslims are Shadow people, spilling out the polluted contents of their
unconscious into the world at large.
The Abrahamists worship the
Falsus Deus - the False God - and are guided by false prophets. When will they
at last see the light of truth?
Revalue all values.
Islam and Bicameralism
It would be wrong to think
of Muslims as conscious
human beings in the modern sense. They are not. They are essentially bicameral
human beings, always listening to voices in their heads. The voices they hear
are those of Mohammed, the Angel Gabriel, the Koran and Allah. Remember,
Muslims pray five times a day every day, including in the depths of the night,
and they memorise the Koran in Arabic. This means that they never have any
downtime from their voices to think for themselves. They are not required to
have any thoughts of their own. You could never expect to have a rational
conversation with a Muslim because you would actually be talking to the voice
of Mohammed and the Koran, not to them.
Muslims are tradition-directed and voice-directed. They are brainwashed and mind controlled to a quite horrific degree. Arguably, Islam is the most successful brainwashing system ever devised, a lethal meme virus that can be stopped only by reason and logic, but these are never found amongst Islamic populations because they serve no function. The Koran has no use for freethinkers. The whole message of the Koran is that you must submit. That's it. There's nothing else to it. Only submissives find Islam appealing. It's the supreme religion of submissives. You abdicate all personal responsibility and hand it over to Mohammed and the Angel Gabriel.
Muslims, like Martin Luther and the Protestants, regard reason as the Devil's whore. To think is to be ungodly. To question the Koran is to court hellfire. So they never do. They are forever stuck in the past. While the rest of us are evolving, they are regressing to the primordial slime. And there's nothing anyone can do about it other than build a huge wall like the Jews, and place the Muslims on one side of it where they can listen to their voices forever without interfering with the rest of the human race. One can only hope that a great, enlightened Muslim Reformer will emerge. Sadly, such a person would probably be instantly assassinated by one of those acting under the control of the "voices". What is tragic about the human condition is that once it has gone haywire, reason cannot be used to bring it back to balance. Rather, a catastrophe, a revolution, a natural disaster, a pandemic or some such other destruction of the existing order is required if new ideas are to emerge.
Whenever Muslims refer to Mohammed or "the prophet", they say "Peace be upon Him". If you've ever listened to a Muslim saying this ten times during a two-minute TV interview you are instantly convinced that you are not dealing with a human being but a programmed robot. No conscious, rational person would abide by this nonsense - a ludicrous affection designed to show how good someone is at grovelling to Mohammed as if he were Allah himself (it is of course blasphemy and heresy to treat Mohammed as God, and yet all Muslims unquestionably worship Mohammed as Christians do Christ - don't expect any rationality or consistency from them).
The more fanatically Muslims adhere to the most severe strictures of Islam, the more power they gain in the Islamic community, and the more they are respected as "true" Muslims. Therefore Islam is a machine that automatically ensures that the most dangerous, deranged fanatics and maniacs rise to the top: the bearded nutcases, the people who detest the kafirs (infidels), those who think that virtually everything is haram (forbidden), those who demand that women wear burqas and who insist that girls shouldn't be allowed to attend school. The Muslims with the longest shadows guide Islam. Osama bin Laden - an extremely wealthy Westernised Muslim from an exceptionally privileged family - has cast his shadow across the entire globe. This is a man so tempted by the West, so in love with the West, so full of admiration for America that in order to suppress all of those feelings (so that he could be a good Muslim), he had to consign them to his shadow as unacceptable, evil, Satanic temptations, which he then projected onto America. America became the external symbol of his internal struggle and he had to attack it in order to root out the part of himself that was "unIslamic".
In many European countries, Islamic gangs "groom" vulnerable young white girls for sex, pump them full of drugs and alcohol and hand them out amongst Islamic men. While it would be unthinkable for a Muslim man to have sex with a Muslim woman until marriage, anything is permissible when it comes to white infidel "trash". Any degradation can be visited upon them because they'll all be going to hell anyway. Muslim men have a pathological contempt for scantily clad white women. Many Islamic terrorist plots have targeted nightclubs where "white sluts" (i.e. ordinary white girls on a night out) will be found dancing the night away. They are "legitimate targets" for Islamic attacks.
In Pakistan, to insult the prophet is to commit blasphemy and to merit the death penalty. A prominent Pakistani politician, the Governor of Punjab, was assassinated by his own bodyguard for daring to speak out against the blasphemy laws. You see how the maniacs cut down anyone who preaches enlightenment? These people are in the grip of the greatest endarkenment possible. All civilised nations should suspend all contact with them and let them regress to the caves and to the most primitive savagery, which is surely where they are heading.
"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene!" Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now
Muslims train their young men to murder people, but they won't allow them to tolerate free speech because it is blasphemous. The same themes keep being repeated. If Allah is happy with someone being murdered for opposing blasphemy laws then who can doubt that Allah is Satan? Why are Muslims so blind to something so obvious?
Islam is no kind of dialectical religion. It thinks the final truth of life was revealed 1400 years ago in a cave, so there's nothing to be done other than slavishly do what the Koran says. A million years from now, Muslims will still be metaphorically stuck in the Arabian desert of Mohammed's time. Theirs is a religion destined to die for the simple reason that it's already dead. It contains no life. It can't move, can't change, can't grow, can't develop, can't embrace new discoveries. All paths of progress are blocked off.
Islam needs reason in order to reform itself but Islam despises reason and kills anyone rational, hence Islam cannot be reformed. It's the classic Catch 22. Most of life is encapsulated by this brilliant insight of Joseph Heller.
A smart world is one that can reason its way out of difficulties. A dumb world is one that turns its back on reason for religious reasons. Guess which world we live in?
It's a tragedy that Muslims have cut themselves off from civilisation. It's an enormous waste of human potential: they could contribute as much as anyone else if they were given a chance, but that chance will never come because Islam itself makes it impossible. The Islamic religion despises the Islamic people. If it didn't, it wouldn't have cut them off from freedom and dignity. No brainwashed person, prevented from thinking whatever they want, can ever be a full human being and participate meaningfully in the human condition.
No religion should have to brainwash, coerce, threaten or intimidate its followers. Islam does nothing else. It's always threatening them with hellfire if they don't do what they're told.
Here's a challenge to ALL religions. If your message is so healthy, positive and wonderful then any sensible person will be attracted to it when they are mature enough to make up their own mind about it. So let everyone be free of religious affiliation until they are old enough to decide which religion is for them. Let no pressure at all be put on any child to follow any religion. Let children be taught about all religions, and let them also be taught about agnosticism, atheism and psychological religions (like Jung's). Why should any religion find this unfair? If they are as good as they say they are then surely they have nothing to fear from giving people a choice.
No one should be allowed to join any religion until they are 18. That should be the law of the land. Any religion that objects should be declared unlawful and be given no state support, acknowledgement, help, money or be allowed to establish any places of worship anywhere in the country.
Of course, that's one law that will never be enacted. The world's brainwashers and mind controllers would never allow their main instrument of control to be removed from them. The Jews, Christians and Muslims would kill to ensure that they are allowed to go on pouring their poison down their children's throats until they choke. These religions would be stone dead in a single generation if they weren't allowed to brainwash children. They would perish if just one generation were permitted the freedom to choose for itself.
Anyone who supports freedom and choice must campaign for children to be protected from religious brainwashing and religious mutilation via circumcision. If an adult chooses to be circumcised, that's his right. But no one has the right to mutilate a child without its consent. That should be a criminal offence. Why isn't it? If an adult man forcibly did it to another adult man, he would be jailed. If he does it to a helpless child, he's treated as a pillar of society. What kind of fucked world do we live in where it's fine to attack children in the name of God? It's Abraham and Isaac all over again. The child has no rights. His parents are allowed to kill him if God orders it.
Muslims are tradition-directed and voice-directed. They are brainwashed and mind controlled to a quite horrific degree. Arguably, Islam is the most successful brainwashing system ever devised, a lethal meme virus that can be stopped only by reason and logic, but these are never found amongst Islamic populations because they serve no function. The Koran has no use for freethinkers. The whole message of the Koran is that you must submit. That's it. There's nothing else to it. Only submissives find Islam appealing. It's the supreme religion of submissives. You abdicate all personal responsibility and hand it over to Mohammed and the Angel Gabriel.
Muslims, like Martin Luther and the Protestants, regard reason as the Devil's whore. To think is to be ungodly. To question the Koran is to court hellfire. So they never do. They are forever stuck in the past. While the rest of us are evolving, they are regressing to the primordial slime. And there's nothing anyone can do about it other than build a huge wall like the Jews, and place the Muslims on one side of it where they can listen to their voices forever without interfering with the rest of the human race. One can only hope that a great, enlightened Muslim Reformer will emerge. Sadly, such a person would probably be instantly assassinated by one of those acting under the control of the "voices". What is tragic about the human condition is that once it has gone haywire, reason cannot be used to bring it back to balance. Rather, a catastrophe, a revolution, a natural disaster, a pandemic or some such other destruction of the existing order is required if new ideas are to emerge.
Whenever Muslims refer to Mohammed or "the prophet", they say "Peace be upon Him". If you've ever listened to a Muslim saying this ten times during a two-minute TV interview you are instantly convinced that you are not dealing with a human being but a programmed robot. No conscious, rational person would abide by this nonsense - a ludicrous affection designed to show how good someone is at grovelling to Mohammed as if he were Allah himself (it is of course blasphemy and heresy to treat Mohammed as God, and yet all Muslims unquestionably worship Mohammed as Christians do Christ - don't expect any rationality or consistency from them).
The more fanatically Muslims adhere to the most severe strictures of Islam, the more power they gain in the Islamic community, and the more they are respected as "true" Muslims. Therefore Islam is a machine that automatically ensures that the most dangerous, deranged fanatics and maniacs rise to the top: the bearded nutcases, the people who detest the kafirs (infidels), those who think that virtually everything is haram (forbidden), those who demand that women wear burqas and who insist that girls shouldn't be allowed to attend school. The Muslims with the longest shadows guide Islam. Osama bin Laden - an extremely wealthy Westernised Muslim from an exceptionally privileged family - has cast his shadow across the entire globe. This is a man so tempted by the West, so in love with the West, so full of admiration for America that in order to suppress all of those feelings (so that he could be a good Muslim), he had to consign them to his shadow as unacceptable, evil, Satanic temptations, which he then projected onto America. America became the external symbol of his internal struggle and he had to attack it in order to root out the part of himself that was "unIslamic".
In many European countries, Islamic gangs "groom" vulnerable young white girls for sex, pump them full of drugs and alcohol and hand them out amongst Islamic men. While it would be unthinkable for a Muslim man to have sex with a Muslim woman until marriage, anything is permissible when it comes to white infidel "trash". Any degradation can be visited upon them because they'll all be going to hell anyway. Muslim men have a pathological contempt for scantily clad white women. Many Islamic terrorist plots have targeted nightclubs where "white sluts" (i.e. ordinary white girls on a night out) will be found dancing the night away. They are "legitimate targets" for Islamic attacks.
In Pakistan, to insult the prophet is to commit blasphemy and to merit the death penalty. A prominent Pakistani politician, the Governor of Punjab, was assassinated by his own bodyguard for daring to speak out against the blasphemy laws. You see how the maniacs cut down anyone who preaches enlightenment? These people are in the grip of the greatest endarkenment possible. All civilised nations should suspend all contact with them and let them regress to the caves and to the most primitive savagery, which is surely where they are heading.
"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene!" Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now
Muslims train their young men to murder people, but they won't allow them to tolerate free speech because it is blasphemous. The same themes keep being repeated. If Allah is happy with someone being murdered for opposing blasphemy laws then who can doubt that Allah is Satan? Why are Muslims so blind to something so obvious?
Islam is no kind of dialectical religion. It thinks the final truth of life was revealed 1400 years ago in a cave, so there's nothing to be done other than slavishly do what the Koran says. A million years from now, Muslims will still be metaphorically stuck in the Arabian desert of Mohammed's time. Theirs is a religion destined to die for the simple reason that it's already dead. It contains no life. It can't move, can't change, can't grow, can't develop, can't embrace new discoveries. All paths of progress are blocked off.
Islam needs reason in order to reform itself but Islam despises reason and kills anyone rational, hence Islam cannot be reformed. It's the classic Catch 22. Most of life is encapsulated by this brilliant insight of Joseph Heller.
A smart world is one that can reason its way out of difficulties. A dumb world is one that turns its back on reason for religious reasons. Guess which world we live in?
It's a tragedy that Muslims have cut themselves off from civilisation. It's an enormous waste of human potential: they could contribute as much as anyone else if they were given a chance, but that chance will never come because Islam itself makes it impossible. The Islamic religion despises the Islamic people. If it didn't, it wouldn't have cut them off from freedom and dignity. No brainwashed person, prevented from thinking whatever they want, can ever be a full human being and participate meaningfully in the human condition.
No religion should have to brainwash, coerce, threaten or intimidate its followers. Islam does nothing else. It's always threatening them with hellfire if they don't do what they're told.
Here's a challenge to ALL religions. If your message is so healthy, positive and wonderful then any sensible person will be attracted to it when they are mature enough to make up their own mind about it. So let everyone be free of religious affiliation until they are old enough to decide which religion is for them. Let no pressure at all be put on any child to follow any religion. Let children be taught about all religions, and let them also be taught about agnosticism, atheism and psychological religions (like Jung's). Why should any religion find this unfair? If they are as good as they say they are then surely they have nothing to fear from giving people a choice.
No one should be allowed to join any religion until they are 18. That should be the law of the land. Any religion that objects should be declared unlawful and be given no state support, acknowledgement, help, money or be allowed to establish any places of worship anywhere in the country.
Of course, that's one law that will never be enacted. The world's brainwashers and mind controllers would never allow their main instrument of control to be removed from them. The Jews, Christians and Muslims would kill to ensure that they are allowed to go on pouring their poison down their children's throats until they choke. These religions would be stone dead in a single generation if they weren't allowed to brainwash children. They would perish if just one generation were permitted the freedom to choose for itself.
Anyone who supports freedom and choice must campaign for children to be protected from religious brainwashing and religious mutilation via circumcision. If an adult chooses to be circumcised, that's his right. But no one has the right to mutilate a child without its consent. That should be a criminal offence. Why isn't it? If an adult man forcibly did it to another adult man, he would be jailed. If he does it to a helpless child, he's treated as a pillar of society. What kind of fucked world do we live in where it's fine to attack children in the name of God? It's Abraham and Isaac all over again. The child has no rights. His parents are allowed to kill him if God orders it.
Multiple
Personality Disorder (MPD)
If one ego-consciousness can emerge from the unconscious, is it possible that others could too? This is exactly what happens in the case of multiple personality disorder. The trigger is always a severe trauma, usually child abuse, rape, witnessing murder, or being involved in a horrific accident. The creation of alternative identities allows a person to compartmentalise their trauma. Rather than bury it in their shadow, they leave it behind entirely in their first ego-consciousness then create a new ego-consciousness that knows nothing about the first, hence knows nothing about the trauma. Once the mechanism has been established, they can start generating other identities whenever they feel threatened in some way. Each ego-consciousness can have an entirely different Myers-Briggs personality type, know completely different things, and have totally different memories. All sorts of different relationships can exist between the different ego-consciousnesses. Some might know about each other and cooperate with each other, or they might fight each other. Some might be dominant and some passive. Some might be male and some female. Some might be persona oriented, or shadow oriented, or anima/animus oriented. All of the elements of the psyche have become confused and stand in the wrong relations to each other. If you have ever encountered anyone suffering from MPD you will be aware of how distressing it is and also what a truly remarkable and fascinating condition it is.
Multiple Personality Disorder is what happens when the archetypal program for building the normal, healthy psyche goes horribly awry due to extremely traumatic experiences.
It's impossible for any scientific materialist to account for this disorder since they can't even account for single consciousness let alone multiple consciousnesses. However, it's easily explicable within the parameters of Jung's theory.
Multiple Personality Disorder is virtually proof that Jung is correct or at least on the right track. How could atoms in the brain subject to various deterministic scientific forces produce ten separate personalities? How would the atoms know which personality was in charge at any one time? How would they know when a switch from one to another had taken place? The fact is that MPD has nothing to do with atoms and atomic forces, and everything to do with the "atoms" of the collective unconscious - the archetypes. Just as there can be physical illnesses (disorders of collections of atoms), so there can be mental illnesses - disorders of archetypes.
The
Spagyric Art
Spagyric - adjective - "of or pertaining to alchemy; alchemical" - coined by the alchemist Paracelsus. An alchemist is a spagyrist, a practitioner of the spagyric art.
Spagyric comprises two words: "Spao" - to rend, tear apart, tear open, separate, stretch out and "ageiro" to collect together, join together, assemble.
Jung referred to his psychological approach as analytical psychology, to differentiate it from the psychoanalysis of Freud. He considered his approach an alchemical art rather than a science, hence he applied the adjective spagyric to his techniques.
The alchemists' Latin principle of "solve et coagula" (dissolve and coagulate, or separate and join together) expresses the same idea. As Jung said, "The alchemist saw the essence of his art in separation and analysis on the one hand and synthesis and consolidation on the other."
Jung's psychological technique involves differentiation followed by integration, analysis followed by synthesis.
We strongly encourage spagyric art and spagyric science - analysis and synthesis. In its fullest mode, the spagyric approach is none other than the dialectic.
Potemkin
Villages
The persona is an exterior designed to disguise a different underlying reality.
In the 18th century, Prince Potemkin, the consort of Catherine the Great of Russia was keen to pretend that the Crimea, a province of which he was in charge, was prosperous and thriving. Unfortunately, the reality was rather different. Not to worry - appearances can be deceptive. He ordered Potemkin villages to be built. These were fake villages, the buildings of which had elaborate facades, but no substance. They looked wonderful from a distance, like Hollywood stage sets. They worked a treat and successfully duped the Empress.
Our world is full of metaphorical Potemkin villages - fake constructions designed to fool people and give an advantage to the faker. Bernard Madoff built a financial Potemkin Village. It looked great from a distance but was rancid to the core. The global economy of 2007 was a Potemkin economy: completely fake, on the brink of total collapse, but shiny and impressive on the outside.
All people in power are hiding behind a Potemkin Village of some kind or another. WikiLeaks has proved excellent at revealing the Potemkin reality of the powers-that-be. All the ugliness is hidden away, like the picture of Dorian Gray, while only the Potemkin façade is on show. The New Orleans disaster exposed that America is a Potemkin nation that looks glossy on the outside but is concealing a mountain of ugly truths.
"Potemkin Numbers" are phoney numbers. They are fabricated, faked, invented, manipulated, given a spin, in order to bolster some argument or other. "Lies, damned lies and statistics" sums up how statistics are often Potemkin Numbers, completely unbelievable and designed to fool people. They are based on erroneous or imaginary calculations. They may be cherry picked, selectively distorted, built on false assumptions. In one way or another, they are knowingly used to provide fake support to a deceitful position.
The mask we don is our own Potemkin Persona, our fake self designed to fool others.
Facebook is an online Potemkin World, full of little Potemkins putting on the best show for everyone else. But what's behind the façade? Isn't that the real question?
Eros
and Thanatos
Freud asserted that there was a fundamental conflict going on within each of us: the struggle between the life force and the death drive. Borrowing from Greek mythology, he described it in terms of Eros (love) and Thanatos (death). Eros, the life instinct, is dominant in healthy people and fills us with the desire to form loving, enduring relationships and to make the world a better place. Thanatos, the death drive, kicks in when we are defeated by life, when we are sickened by all the lies, destruction, fakeness, injustice, cruelty etc. When the drive is turned inwards we are doomed to self-destruction; when outwards it results in aggression, violence, war and hate.
Religion, which is supposedly all about love, seems to have an uncanny ability to summon Thanatos instead. Christianity, the gospel of love and peace, of turning the other cheek, of loving your neighbour as yourself, has killed more people than any other ideology. Islam, the religion of peace and submission, of a loving, compassionate and merciful Allah, has turned itself into a global slaughterhouse and death cult. It is Thanatos walking amongst us.
Why does it never occur to these religions that they are the CAUSE of the violence and trouble? That the world would be much better off without them? The mainstream religions of the world are Potemkin religions. They have benevolent exteriors concealing murderous hearts. The sooner they are gone from our world, the better.
Jung
and Bicameralism
In relation to Julian Jaynes's hypothesis of the bicameral mind, we can say that the ego is the executive that obeys the Self: the human that obeys the God. The ego lives in the left hemisphere and the Self in the right. The ego is conscious, the Self unconscious. We experience the Self as a great inner mystery - a higher being - and it underpins our sense of the highest being of all: God. The Self is our link to divinity. But the Self is not imaginary; it's real. It's our authentic link to the Cosmic Mind of God. The ego is the Self's finest creation, its agent in the physical world. Each time we go to sleep, our ego finds itself in the strange domain of the Self - the dreamworld where the most profound things can happen. It's in dreams that most communication takes place between the ego and the Self.
Every time we wake up, our ego has to re-emerge from the unconscious where it was first born. In the days of bicameral humanity, before the ego became what it is now, our whole lives were conducted in a dreamstate, orchestrated directly by the Self, by God. Jung and Jaynes's theories merge perfectly.
Our task in the modern world is to reverse the loss of soul that has afflicted humanity, to address the absence of the sacred, holy and numinous. We must integrate the left and right hemispheres of our brain, thus integrating consciousness and the unconscious, ego and Self, man and God. And thus we will create the Society of the Divine rather than the Waste Land we currently inhabit.
That is what true religion is all about, not reading about a Jewish carpenter nailed to a cross or someone who spoke to a burning bush or someone who encountered an angel in a cave.
Jung recognised that increasing legions of humans find life rather pointless and unfulfilling. They have to continually distract themselves with gadgets and trivia. He wrote: "I have frequently seen people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life. They seek position, marriage, reputation, outward success or money, and remain unhappy and neurotic even when they have attained what they were seeking. Such people are usually confined within too narrow a spiritual horizon. Their life has not sufficient content, sufficient meaning. If they are enabled to develop into more spacious personalities, the neurosis generally disappears. For that reason the idea of development was always of the highest importance to me."
The Abrahamist texts - the Torah, the Bible and the Koran are all inherently bicameral. In the Torah, Moses is forever hearing the "voice of the Lord"; in the Christian Gospels, Christ is forever hearing the "voice of my father, the Lord", and the Koran is literally (ahem) dictated by the "Angel Gabriel" to an illiterate tribesman called Mohammed.
Any conscious person finds these tales ludicrous, sometimes comically dumb and often terrifyingly psychopathic. However, bicameral+ people (i.e. those who are barely more conscious than the bicameral humans of ancient history) are as smitten by these weird texts as they ever have been. They want to hear the gods talking to them, and that's what these books seem to deliver.
Most people don't want to think for themselves or have to use their reason and intelligence. They just want to hear someone authoritative ordering them to obey, and they will be more than happy to oblige. Think of the degree of bicameralism involved in a non-Jew worshipping the God of the Jews (Yahweh), of a non-Jew worshipping a Jew calling himself the Son of God (Jesus Christ), of anyone worshipping a bearded prophet (Mohammed) who claims to have been the medium for Allah to communicate with humanity via his messenger (the Angel Gabriel). No conscious, rational person would buy into any of this garbage. These are bicameral religions for bicameral+ people. Sadly, two thirds of humanity are bicameral+.
The
Exorcism of the God of Abraham
Jews, Muslims and Christians have been possessed by the Devil, so now they must be exorcised. The Devil has to be driven forth from them. Can we create a global ritual of exorcism to purify billions of deluded souls?
Put your minds to work. What would the sacred rite be like that released the Abrahamists from the Devil within?
Jung said of the Jews, "Are we really to believe that a tribe which has wandered through history for several thousand years as 'God's chosen people' was not put up to such an idea by some quite special psychological peculiarity?" Jung is right, of course. The Jews were first to be possessed by the Devil and they have remained his most loyal servants. One could just as easily call them the damned. The Jews have a responsibility to the rest of humanity to stop this ridiculous affectation of theirs that they are "chosen", or alternatively to confess that it was in fact Satan, not God, who chose them and that the Torah is a litany of Satan's crimes against humanity.
Freud, a Jew, wrote of the Jews, "There is no doubt that they have a particularly high opinion of themselves, that they regard themselves as more distinguished, of higher standard, as superior to other peoples…We know the reason for this behaviour and what their secret treasure is. They really regard themselves as God's chosen people."
There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth.
The
Collective Psyche
Just as archetypes are applicable to individual
humans, so they are
applicable to groups, societies, institutions, corporations and nations. But,
as with individuals, most of the archetypal programming that should allow
everything to run smoothly has become contaminated and corrupt. Most
institutions work against the interests of the people rather than for them.
Special interest groups have sprung up that make everyone else dance to their
tune. The Old World Order operate according to their particular wills, not the
General Will of the people. The archetypes work properly only when the
interests of all of the people are being served.
The
God Attractor
In dynamical systems, an attractor is the distinct
pattern that irreversibly
evolves when a system is left to its own devices. In a sense, the pattern
attracts the dynamical system towards it, hence the name. Chaos theory involves
so-called "strange attractors", with weather providing the most
famous and familiar chaotic system. A strange attractor arises when a bounded
chaotic system forms a long-term characteristic pattern, but not a simple
orbit, trajectory or single, fixed point.
An Attractor and a Strange
Attractor differ in that an Attractor represents a definite state to which a
system finally settles, while a Strange Attractor represents an intricate
trajectory that a system follows without ever settling down in any precise and
predictable way. Although the pattern the system will follow is known, the
precise trajectory through the pattern is unknown. A dynamic equilibrium is
created whereby the pattern keeps repeating, but chaotically. The entities
within the system never follow the same path around the strange attractor.
Chaotic systems are those that have sensitive
dependence on initial conditions i.e. tiny changes can have radically different
consequences, with the system developing in an entirely different way.
One feature of strange
attractors is that if the system has initial values outside the characteristic
attractor pattern, the system is nevertheless sucked into the attractor, and
then can no longer escape from the attractor (thus the attractor is almost like
a black hole). This is not true for all possible starting conditions. Rather,
there is a particular region known as the "basin of attraction" in
which systems invariably converge on the attractor. The trajectory of the
system until it reaches the attractor is called the "transient".
While anything inside the basin is pulled into the attractor, anything outside
is pushed away and tends towards a value of infinity.
The approach of a soul towards God might be considered
a strange attractor. Those souls that are in the basin of attraction are sucked
into the strange attractor of divinity and chaotically make their way around
the intricate pattern of the attractor, never repeating the same path. Every
reincarnated life represents a new trajectory, a new opportunity. The only way
to escape from the strange attractor is to achieve gnosis - ultimate
enlightenment - at which point you become God.
But what of souls outside
the basin of attraction? These are the souls of the damned. Rather than being
sucked into the strange attractor of divinity, rather than converging on God,
they are repelled, they diverge and are pushed infinitely far from God. But in
fact they then find themselves in the basin of attraction of another and
opposite strange attractor: the Satan Attractor. They enter into a chaotic
orbit around the endarkenment of the Dark Lord. They have no prospect of
gnosis. They are permanently trapped. Only at the end of time when the entire
physical universe is returned to its mental origins will they achieve
salvation.
The Old World Order belong to the Satanic Strange
Attractor, as do the religions of Abraham.
Illuminism is the religion of the divine strange
attractor, the Abraxas Attractor. Are you in the basin of attraction of the
divine? Are you already in a trajectory taking you around the Abraxas
Attractor? If so, gnosis is possible for you. If not, you have no prospect of
gnosis.
Note
that chaotic systems involve variables that depend on other variables. In order
to know one variable (x), you must know the values of the related variables (y
and z). But you can't know these until you know x, which you can't know until
you know y and z, which you can't know until you know x…and so on ad infinitum.
This interconnection and interdependence leads to chaotic solutions. The
variables follow each other in a ceaseless but characteristic dance, creating
the strange attractor where no solution ever repeats exactly, but may come very
close. Thus while the weather is never identical, it has characteristic
patterns and we can predict the weather quite well over short periods.
Long-term weather forecasts become harder and harder to call and end up as
little more than stabs in the dark. It has been said that the only computer
that can simulate the weather is the weather itself. Likewise, only the
universe can simulate the universe. No humanly constructed computer could ever
do the job.
The remarkable feature of chaotic systems is that
their unpredictable behaviour follows from completely predictable,
deterministic laws. If it were possible to precisely state the positions and
motions of all the atoms in the atmosphere at once, the weather could be
predicted perfectly, but even the slightest uncertainties in the starting conditions
build up and lead to spectacularly different potential outcomes, iconically
encapsulated by the "butterfly effect" where the mere flapping of a
butterfly's wings can change the starting conditions sufficiently to create a
hurricane on the other side of the world.
If
we view the butterfly effect in human terms we could say that just a few acts
performed by a few of us as individuals could be sufficient to change the human
"weather" of history and lead to the tempest that blows away the Old
World Order. So don't ever underestimate the impact your actions might have. We
can each be a butterfly and change everything.
Thanks to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and
the existence of infinitely long irrational numbers it's impossible to ever
know the precise starting conditions of any dynamic system, meaning that the
cosmic "weather" is inherently unpredictable. Even God cannot predict
the future. The idea that he knows the future is risible. No one does and no
one can. The mathematical nature of the cosmos makes it impossible.
Strange
attractors are dynamical structures yet also static in the sense that although
the variables within them are continually changing, the general form and
pattern never change. The fact that the pattern persists means that the
behaviour of strange attractors is predictable in statistical terms if not
deterministically. Regarding any small region of the attractor, a probability
can be stated of finding the system there, using the same sort of probabilistic
methodology used in quantum mechanics. If we know a particular state with any
accuracy, we can also accurately predict the next few states before chaotic
indeterminacy swamps the system.
Jungian
Psychology in a Nutshell
The ego is the consciousness we identify with. It's who we think we are.
We knowingly don a mask - the persona - when we wish to hide from others what
our ego is truly thinking. All human beings have a persona, hence all human
beings are fake, phoney, inauthentic and explicitly deceiving the world. That's
just a plain fact that ought never to be forgotten. We're all at it. No one is
exempt. You wouldn't be human if you weren't. Severe autistics are amongst the
few who have little or no persona, and they also have a deeply compromised ego.
They can't lie, can't love, can't empathize, can't play act, can't imagine the
future. In many ways, they have barely advanced beyond babyhood since all the
same things can be said of babies.
The idea that the average human being is in any way
truthful in public is laughable and absurd. No one can afford to be. If we told
everyone what we really thought of them, we would be made social outcasts. In
17th century France, La Rochefoucauld made several pertinent and alarming
observations: 1) "Social life would not last long if men were not taken in
by each other." 2) "We are so used to disguising ourselves from
others that we end by disguising ourselves from ourselves." 3) "At
times we are as different from ourselves as we are from others." 4)
"Some disguised deceits counterfeit truth so perfectly that not to be
taken in thereby would be an error of judgement." 5) "The weak cannot
be sincere." 6) "What the Italian poet has said of the virtue of
women, namely that it is often simply the art of looking virtuous, can be
applied to all of our virtues."
A French aristocrat, La Rochefoucauld was an expert
when it came to the persona. He lived in a society where everyone was faking it
all the time (not so different from today!). Facebook is the persona converted
into social networking software. No one looking for the truth of life would
ever venture there. If you wanted to study how phoney people are, you'd spend
all of your time on there. Most people spend most of their time living up to
their fake persona and trying to fool others in order to secure an advantage.
We are haunted by the part
of us we have disowned - the shadow - which unconsciously wreaks havoc with our
life and indeed with the lives of others. We are haunted in a different and
inspirational way by our soul-image, the anima/animus, that governs our
relationship with the other sex. Falling in love is such a powerful and
ecstatic experience because we feel as if we have come into contact with our
soul. We imagine we are completed, whole.
We have another, even deeper longing - for our true
Self that lies at the centre of our psyche, separated from our consciousness by
the entire radius of the personal unconscious and collective unconscious - the
greatest distance in the cosmos, even though it is no distance at all. Such is
the enigma of life.
Ego - our ordinary self.
Persona
- our false self.
Shadow - our evil self.
Anima/Animus - our missing
self.
Self - our True Self, our
Higher Self, our Right Self.
The secret desire of the ego, its deepest longing,
is to alchemically transmute itself into the Self, to metamorphose into the
supreme actualisation of all that was once mere potential within it. We have to
overcome our false self, confront our evil self, find our missing self and
finally transform our ordinary self into our True Self which, in the last
analysis, is none other than God.
To make the journey from
mortality to immortality, from the ordinary to the divine, from man to God, is
the essence of our existence. It's our teleology, our purpose, our destiny to
make that journey. When we are progressing well on our journey, we feel happy,
but when we falter and fail we are lost, aimless, purposeless, depressed, and
anxious.
The script is written for us archetypally, but most
of us are bad actors who can't read our lines. Only one person can be the hero
of our life - ourselves. If we make heroes of others - celebrities and the like
- we have failed. We will never become what we need to be. We have projected
what is holiest in ourselves onto others. That's why celebrity culture is the
road to perdition.
If we spend our lives
standing in the light of others, we will be forever miserable. We need to
generate our own light, find our own glory. If your life isn't fitting the
script, change your life. You MUST activate your hero program. When you do, you
will be filled with passion, with energy, with the conviction that you are
becoming who you were always intended to be. And eventually it will lead you to
the Philosopher's Stone itself - the sacred mystery of activating your God
program.
Transforming
Base Metal into Gold
Alchemists referred to the mysterious union of mind
and matter as unus mundus - One
World. The supreme challenge of alchemy was nothing other than to gain such
mental control over matter that one could change any physical substance into
another substance - transubstantiation.
Alchemy was the true
expression of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. When an
alchemist had attained the unus mundus, he became the master of
transubstantiation. Whereas Catholic transubstantiation was restricted to the
priest's transformation of the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the actual
body and blood of Christ (while maintaining the outward form of the bread and
wine), the alchemist's task was to transform himself into a God capable of
transubstantiating anything, and leaving no traces of the old substance. Lead
would be physically turned into true gold of the highest quality, and the
alchemist himself would be the spiritual equivalent of pure gold. Rather than
being about primitive chemistry, alchemy concerned the highest conceivable form
of mental control of physical reality.
Logos versus Mythos
Our
world is dictated by two approaches to thinking, one rational and based on high level abstract
thought - the domain of mathematics, science, philosophy, logic and fact - and
the other emotional and driven by stories: myths, legends, fantasies,
fairytale, folk tales, nursery rhymes, fables, parables and fiction. Jung
referred to Logos in the first case and Mythos in the latter.
Logos
is critical, skeptical, rational and logical. Mythos is uncritical, credulous,
irrational and emotional. The two principles are often characterised as
"science versus mysticism", "reason versus imagination" or
"conscious thinking versus the unconscious".
The
Abrahamic religions are based on Mythos rather than Logos. Hollywood is Mythos
over Logos. The entertainment industry is Mythos over Logos. Capitalism is
Mythos over Logos. Advertising is Mythos over Logos. Politics is Mythos over
Logos. The whole culture of the world is Mythos over Logos i.e. we live in a
world driven by unconscious contents.
Science, mathematics,
philosophy, engineering and technology are the areas ruled by Logos, and these
tend to be highly unpopular, particularly amongst women. Almost all of the
world's greatest abstract thinkers have been men.
Jung
regarded Logos as the masculine principle of rationality. Its feminine
counterpart he defined as Eros, and he regarded this as the primary driver of
female psychology.
The animus is a Logos
figure for a woman. The anima is an Eros figure for a man.
Women
seek love, accord, agreement, reconciliation, togetherness, intimacy,
relatedness. The world's most abstract thinkers on the other hand have tended
to be single men: arrogant, aloof, alone, dominant, aggressive, dismissive and
contemptuous of others, driven by a single-minded passion - an unquenchable
lust - for knowledge and power. Nietzsche is a perfect example. He was a genius
at an early age, remained single, had no luck with women, and became
increasingly isolated as his ideas drove him obsessively onwards into an
atmosphere in which only the finest minds are able to breathe the rarefied air.
He ended up going mad. Jung wrote, "If a man knows more than others, he
becomes lonely." Average people always have more friends than exceptional
people. After all, to whom can a genius talk but another genius, and there are
so few around.
It's practically impossible
to imagine a woman living the type of life Nietzsche chose for himself. What
characterizes the highest geniuses would appear to be their exceptional ability
to cut themselves off from normality, to spend inordinate amounts of time in
solitude and to keep going when the world has completely shunned them.
Nietzsche had no doubts about the importance of his work even though it was
virtually ignored by one and all. It was only when he had gone mad - and a
Mythos started to rise around him as a great prophet and tortured genius who
had risen to such intellectual heights that his proud mind finally cracked -
that the world began to pay attention to one of the greatest minds the human
race has ever produced.
It's
often said that we live in a world dominated by the left hemisphere of the
brain rather than the right - consciousness over the unconscious. But, via
Mythos, the unconscious plays a central role in the workings of the world. The
human race has radically lost its spirituality in the 21st century, but it's
more in thrall to Mythos - stories - than ever before. We are saturated with
stories. They are absolutely everywhere. Think of the difference between us and
the human race of 6,000 years ago. They had no books, no TV, no radio, no
movies, no advertising, no plays, no iPods, no internet, no video games, no
comics, newspapers or magazines. All they had were a few primitive artists,
some primitive songs and a few oral storytellers.
The modern problem is
certainly not with any lack of stories. The problem is that the stories are not
designed to make us spiritual but to control and exploit us, to frighten and
manipulate us, to make us bow, kneel, conform, buy things, respect the
establishment, go along with the ruling paradigm of the elite.
We need a whole new Mythos,
based on putting us back in touch with our spiritual side and our higher
selves.
The
Journey through the Solar System
"I am not speaking to the beati possidentes of faith, but to the many for whom the 'Light has gone out, the mystery vanished'. I am speaking to those to whom God is dead, for most of these there is no way out. The minister of religion is also aware that few of these people can be helped by being told, 'You must simply believe'."
-
Jung
To encounter the Self is the same as discovering God. The dialogue that results between the ego and the archetypal image of God is supremely transformative. It changes the individual's worldview once and for all and makes possible a new way of life, full of meaning, vitality and satisfaction. To encounter the Self in its truest form, is to directly experience God within, at the core of your own psyche, at the centre of yourself.
When the transformative energies of the collective unconscious are allowed to break through into consciousness, they bring about an overwhelming alteration and expansion of consciousness. When it happens in an uncontrolled way it can cause insanity, but when done as part of a painstaking method of enlightenment, it can lead to the attainment of the Higher Self, functioning at a far more advanced level than the old ego-consciousness was capable of.
The collective unconscious is one of the most remarkable ideas in history. It has been said that the collective unconscious contains memory traces of humanity's pre-human ancestry. But it goes back much further than that. It goes all the way back to the Big Bang, and then further still - to the spaceless and timeless epoch that preceded "Creation".
Jung pits the collective unconscious against the external world. They are opposites. One is connected, interlinked and outside space and time. The other is individuated, separated, in space and time. The observing ego-consciousness seemingly sits on the external side of the fence because it is from here that it receives sensory information. It uses the persona to act as its agent in the external world, and to deal with the others it finds there. It has its own personal unconscious - the shadow. Then it has the anima/animus - the soul-image -which is the bridge between the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. It is via the soul-image that we can embark on our great journey into the most mysterious realm of all - the deep collective unconscious, common to not just humanity but all of existence.
The ego is the centre of consciousness, but it is not who we really are and overcoming this misconception is one of our greatest challenges.
The ego is remarkable because it is through this that we can separate ourselves from the collective mind of the unconscious. On the collective side, everything is linked; on the external side everything is separate. In Hindu terms, Brahman is on the collective side and atman on the external side. For atman to join Brahman, it must find its way back to its Immortal Self through the collective unconscious.
The ego allows us to have a separate identity from others, hence is of supreme significance. It's the mental component that structures our psychological aspects and allows us to make sense of ourselves and our actions in the external world. It gives us our sense of uniqueness.
Yet there's something lacking with the ego. It fails to provide deep meaning. A typical story is that of the managing director who spent his thirties and forties focused on climbing the career ladder.
Turning fifty, he suddenly feels an overwhelming "so what?" He regrets that he devoted so much of his life to one small, dreary area. Why did he do it? Why didn't he live more fully, more expansively? Why didn't he find answers to the big questions? Now he's confronting the second phase of his life and he's adrift, unsure, directionless. He's lost himself. He questions the choices he made in his earlier life, the ones that brought him to this despair. He took so much for granted. He lived his life for others. His life choices weren't his own. He was on the tread wheel. He was one of the fastest rats, but it was still just a rat race. Who wants to win that? He wanted to be a "success" but now he doesn't know what that means. It didn't bring him happiness.
The Self is where true
meaning resides. It belongs to a higher, transcendent order. It encompasses
both consciousness and the personal and collective unconscious. It is the
centre of the psyche as the sun is the centre of the solar system. The
archetypes are the psychological components that orbit it like planets and
which are given order and organisation by it, and which are brought to life by
its energy. It unifies the entire system, which would collapse without it.
If
Planet Earth is the ego-consciousness then we might fancifully say that Mars is
the shadow, Venus the anima, Jupiter the animus, Mercury the persona and the
sun the Self. Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are mana personalities. Our
psychic journey is to visit each planet, discover its secret and bring the
knowledge back to earth. Eventually, once we have understood all of the
planets, we can venture to the sun itself, and rather than being consumed by it
we can become part of its light.
The Self, the sun, is the
goal of our life, because it is where our life originates. The earth is where
our consciousness resides, but not where our true, immortal self exists.
The
Self might be called the "God Spot" in our psyches. It is from here
that our spiritual sense is derived. We could say that "God" is
hard-wired into us. Even atheists have a notion of transcendence but they are
so locked into the ego-consciousness as the true reality that they have cut
themselves off from their own souls.
Jung said, "The Self,
like the unconscious, is an a priori existent out of which the ego
evolves. It is, so to speak, an unconscious prefiguration of the
ego."
In
fact, the Self is our immortal being outside space and time - our soul as some
would say - and the ego is its temporary agent in the mortal world. The ego
will certainly perish when the body dies, but the Self will go on, and will
soon enough generate a new ego in a new body in the process we call
reincarnation.
As TS Eliot said, "In
my end is my beginning."
"The
soul, if immortal, existed before our birth. What is incorruptible must be
ungenerable. Metempsychosis is the only immortality that Philosophy can hearken
to."
-
David
Hume
"By making the right
use of those things remembered from the former life, by constantly perfecting
himself in the mysteries, a man becomes truly perfect."
-
Plato
Religion:
Bicameralism versus Consciousness
The Abrahamic religions are bicameral religions. They are about "voices in the head" and ultimately the "voice of God", said to be communicated via a "holy" book by an ancient bearded prophet who could commune directly with the divine order. 65% of the world's population are poorly educated and still significantly bicameral in their mode of thinking. They are not properly conscious. These people find Abrahamism highly appealing because it puts them back in touch with their bicameral ancestry.
Christian Fundamentalists, Orthodox Jews and all Muslims are essentially bicameral. It is hard to define them as human in the modern sense. They are throwbacks to an earlier phase of human evolution.
Look at the new Pentecostalist Christian movement. This is pure bicameralism where people want to be taken over by the "Holy Spirit" and to speak in tongues without knowing what they are saying. For all they know they could be confessing to mass murder and the greatest perversions known to humanity, but bicameral people are interested only in form and not content. To gibber like a mad person is to show proof of possession - who cares what is being said, if anything at all?
A conscious person would want to know what is being said, but not a bicameral person.
Science and atheism are the products of advanced consciousness, but scientists and atheists have removed themselves so far from bicameralism that they have denied free will, the self, mind and indeed consciousness itself since they can't relate any of these to the laws of science, which they regard as the only reality.
Illuminism is a religion devoted to consciousness, but which seeks to integrate bicameral elements in a controlled and sensible way.
The Final World War will be the War of Final Freedom, and it will be a war between the conscious and the bicameral. Humanity cannot move on until it has purged itself of the most primitive bicameralism - seen in the Abrahamic religions - and converted bicameralism into the Jungian exploration of the collective unconscious via the method of individuation and making extensive use of the transcendent function.
Where do you stand? On the side of consciousness, or of bicameralism? Are you the puppet of the "gods" or are you their master, seeking to integrate them within your consciousness?
The most difficult challenge on earth is to make everyone fully conscious. Bicameralism retains an immense power over the human mind, as the Milgram experiments revealed so shockingly. Milgram didn't so much prove that humans are lethally obedient as that two thirds of the human race are still stuck in their bicameral past and crave authority figures to tell them what to do.
Stupid, poorly educated, submissive people - the cannon fodder of Abrahamism and capitalism - are the last barrier to a free world. When they become conscious, they will no longer be the slaves of the elite and of the old religions. For the first time, humanity will be genuinely free. Absolute human freedom marks the end of the human dialectic - "the end of history", or, rather, "old" history - and humanity can then begin a new history…of its progression towards divinity.
Any new religion must pass the consciousness test. The Western esoteric tradition consisting of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism and Alchemy has been nothing other than the pursuit of the highest level of consciousness possible - that of God. Only this tradition - which takes its highest form in Illuminism - has sought to scientifically, mathematically, philosophically, religiously and psychologically find God, the apex of consciousness. All other religions are false, evil, misguided, stupid, bicameral, deluded and futile.
It cannot be stressed enough that what appears to us as the collective unconscious is none other than consciousness of God. Moreover, if we can master the collective unconscious and integrate it into consciousness then we too would be God.
Reflecting on the Christian
ritual of Holy Communion, Jung wrote, "Slowly I came to understand that
this communion had been a fatal experience for me. It had proved hollow; more
than that, it had proved to be a total loss. I knew that I would never again be
able to participate in this ceremony. 'Why, that is not religion at all,' I
thought. 'It is the absence of God; the church is a place I should not go to.
It is not life which is there, but death."
Everything
Jung says is correct. All mainstreams religions are hollow. They are a total
loss. They are anti-spiritual, being far more interested in conforming to ancient
rules. They are not religion at all, but systems of mass mind control. God is
nowhere to be found in a church, synagogue or mosque. These are places of
death.
"There
is a God about whom you know nothing, because men have forgotten him. We call
him by his name: ABRAXAS."
-
Jung
In truth, we are bathed in the consciousness of
Abraxas. Our minds are part of the Cosmic Mind. We are being drawn ever onwards
and upwards by the God Attractor. For those with a sufficiently developed
consciousness, a mental tractor beam grips them and draws them inexorably
towards divinity.
Ours is a cosmos of wonders and nothing is more of an insult to it than the anti-consciousness religions of the Jew, the Christian and Muslim. They are all worshippers of ignorance and the Devil. They are a curse on humanity, a deadweight holding us back.
The Day of Salvation, the Day of the Divine Coming, is the day these evil religions perish.
Commenting on the difference between God and the Self, Jung wrote: "God himself has created the soul and its archetypes. What men so haughtily call a 'substitute' (Ersatz) is his creation. We are dealing with what is the image of God and is 'numinous' in God's own name. Trouble arises because my critics have not themselves experienced the numinous character of the archetype of the 'self'. By this experience we feel, in fact, as though touched by some divine power. Of course, our symbols are not God: the mandala, for instance, is only a human attempt to describe some transcendent experience, owing to an archetype which shows itself in some particular soul. I could say that the 'self' is somehow equivalent to God. To a theological mind, such an assertion must undoubtedly be disturbing, for it sounds as if some substitute for God had been made. But to a psychologist this interpretation seems equally absurd, and he can hardly believe anyone capable of such stupidity. This is how he understands these things: When (as a psychologist) I speak of 'God', I am speaking of a psychological image. Similarly, the 'self' is a psychological image of human wholeness, and it also is of something transcendental because it is indescribable and incomprehensible. We observe that both are expressed by identical symbols, or by symbols so alike as to be indistinguishable. Psychology deals with these images only as far as they come under our experience, and their formation and behaviour in the context of life can be studied by comparative methods. This has nothing to do with God as such. How could any sane man suppose he could displace God, or do anything whatever to him? I am not so mad that I should be suspected of intending to create a substitute for God. How could any man replace God? I cannot even replace a lost button through my imagination, but have to buy myself a new real one. The best I can do is to have a divine image, and I am not the idiot to say that the image I behold in the mirror is my real, living self. (Letter dated 13 January 1948.)
When Jung says that the Self is not to be directly equated with God, but is, rather a psychological image of God - the imago Dei - it seems that, uncharacteristically, he has lost his nerve and the strength of his convictions.
Jung's concept of the collective unconscious is functionally identical to the sacred trinity of Plotinus: the One, the Nous and the Psyche (higher, collective part), while the lower, fragmented part of Plotinus' Psyche corresponds to the Jungian persona, ego-consciousness and the shadow (personal unconscious).
Anyone who accepts that ultimate reality is mental draws no distinction between a "psychological image" and reality itself. If someone encountered God in the flesh, would it still not be an encounter entirely mediated by the mind, hence psychological? Since no human can escape from their own mind, or mind in general, how could there ever be such a thing as a non-psychological experience of God? Reality is mind. Reality is psychological. How could it be anything else?
Jung's difficulty was that, rather mystifyingly, he didn't acknowledge mind as the ultimate reality. He suggested that there were sufficient reasons to believe that "the psychic lies embedded in something that appears to be of a non-psychic nature." Additionally, he wrote, "The background of microphysics and depth-psychology is as much physical as psychic and therefore neither, but rather a third thing, a neutral nature which at most can be grasped in hints since in essence it is transcendental."
This was where Jung's lack of scientific and mathematical ability fatally let him down. The ultimate reality is expressed mathematically by just two numbers: zero and infinity. All of the greatest mysteries of existence are captured by these two numbers.
Zero, nothing, the origin, the Aleph, the alpha point is the One, the source of all. The One is the Monad. To talk of one point of origin for all things is to combine the numbers One and Zero (the binary system that underlies digital computing). The One Zero is the Pythagorean Monad. It is dimensionless. It is MIND. There is nothing beyond mind, no "third thing". Jung, it appears, thought that this third "dimension" was the province of God, hence a psychological understanding of God could never penetrate the final mysteries of God. In effect, he accepted the position of Plotinus that the One is forever unknowable and unthinkable, and that the Nous represents the furthest reach of thought.
But Jung was totally wrong in this regard, as indeed was Plotinus. Had he been an assiduous student of Hegel, Jung would never have made this error. Everything that is rational is real, and everything that is real is rational, hence everything can be understood by the ultimate rational mind: the Absolute Mind, the culmination of the Hegelian dialectic. The Absolute Mind is that which fully and rationally comprehends everything, especially the Jungian collective unconscious. This is the final level of reality; there is nothing outside it. Nothing can be beyond dimensionless existence. You can have dimensional and dimensionless existence, but you can't have a third type of existence. The dimensional emanates from the dimensionless and returns to it. That's the end of the cosmic story.
The Hegelian Absolute Mind, the Mind of Abraxas, is the cosmic full stop at the end of the greatest tale ever told. And it is our divine destiny to be uniquely part of that Absolute Mind.
Ours is a cosmos of wonders and nothing is more of an insult to it than the anti-consciousness religions of the Jew, the Christian and Muslim. They are all worshippers of ignorance and the Devil. They are a curse on humanity, a deadweight holding us back.
The Day of Salvation, the Day of the Divine Coming, is the day these evil religions perish.
Commenting on the difference between God and the Self, Jung wrote: "God himself has created the soul and its archetypes. What men so haughtily call a 'substitute' (Ersatz) is his creation. We are dealing with what is the image of God and is 'numinous' in God's own name. Trouble arises because my critics have not themselves experienced the numinous character of the archetype of the 'self'. By this experience we feel, in fact, as though touched by some divine power. Of course, our symbols are not God: the mandala, for instance, is only a human attempt to describe some transcendent experience, owing to an archetype which shows itself in some particular soul. I could say that the 'self' is somehow equivalent to God. To a theological mind, such an assertion must undoubtedly be disturbing, for it sounds as if some substitute for God had been made. But to a psychologist this interpretation seems equally absurd, and he can hardly believe anyone capable of such stupidity. This is how he understands these things: When (as a psychologist) I speak of 'God', I am speaking of a psychological image. Similarly, the 'self' is a psychological image of human wholeness, and it also is of something transcendental because it is indescribable and incomprehensible. We observe that both are expressed by identical symbols, or by symbols so alike as to be indistinguishable. Psychology deals with these images only as far as they come under our experience, and their formation and behaviour in the context of life can be studied by comparative methods. This has nothing to do with God as such. How could any sane man suppose he could displace God, or do anything whatever to him? I am not so mad that I should be suspected of intending to create a substitute for God. How could any man replace God? I cannot even replace a lost button through my imagination, but have to buy myself a new real one. The best I can do is to have a divine image, and I am not the idiot to say that the image I behold in the mirror is my real, living self. (Letter dated 13 January 1948.)
When Jung says that the Self is not to be directly equated with God, but is, rather a psychological image of God - the imago Dei - it seems that, uncharacteristically, he has lost his nerve and the strength of his convictions.
Jung's concept of the collective unconscious is functionally identical to the sacred trinity of Plotinus: the One, the Nous and the Psyche (higher, collective part), while the lower, fragmented part of Plotinus' Psyche corresponds to the Jungian persona, ego-consciousness and the shadow (personal unconscious).
Anyone who accepts that ultimate reality is mental draws no distinction between a "psychological image" and reality itself. If someone encountered God in the flesh, would it still not be an encounter entirely mediated by the mind, hence psychological? Since no human can escape from their own mind, or mind in general, how could there ever be such a thing as a non-psychological experience of God? Reality is mind. Reality is psychological. How could it be anything else?
Jung's difficulty was that, rather mystifyingly, he didn't acknowledge mind as the ultimate reality. He suggested that there were sufficient reasons to believe that "the psychic lies embedded in something that appears to be of a non-psychic nature." Additionally, he wrote, "The background of microphysics and depth-psychology is as much physical as psychic and therefore neither, but rather a third thing, a neutral nature which at most can be grasped in hints since in essence it is transcendental."
This was where Jung's lack of scientific and mathematical ability fatally let him down. The ultimate reality is expressed mathematically by just two numbers: zero and infinity. All of the greatest mysteries of existence are captured by these two numbers.
Zero, nothing, the origin, the Aleph, the alpha point is the One, the source of all. The One is the Monad. To talk of one point of origin for all things is to combine the numbers One and Zero (the binary system that underlies digital computing). The One Zero is the Pythagorean Monad. It is dimensionless. It is MIND. There is nothing beyond mind, no "third thing". Jung, it appears, thought that this third "dimension" was the province of God, hence a psychological understanding of God could never penetrate the final mysteries of God. In effect, he accepted the position of Plotinus that the One is forever unknowable and unthinkable, and that the Nous represents the furthest reach of thought.
But Jung was totally wrong in this regard, as indeed was Plotinus. Had he been an assiduous student of Hegel, Jung would never have made this error. Everything that is rational is real, and everything that is real is rational, hence everything can be understood by the ultimate rational mind: the Absolute Mind, the culmination of the Hegelian dialectic. The Absolute Mind is that which fully and rationally comprehends everything, especially the Jungian collective unconscious. This is the final level of reality; there is nothing outside it. Nothing can be beyond dimensionless existence. You can have dimensional and dimensionless existence, but you can't have a third type of existence. The dimensional emanates from the dimensionless and returns to it. That's the end of the cosmic story.
The Hegelian Absolute Mind, the Mind of Abraxas, is the cosmic full stop at the end of the greatest tale ever told. And it is our divine destiny to be uniquely part of that Absolute Mind.
The
"Fourth Wall"
In theatre productions, this is the invisible wall that is said to stand between the audience and the actors on stage. If members of the audience started shouting out, and the actors responded, the illusion of the hermetic world of the play would dissolve. No one would be able to suspend their disbelief.
Much of our society is based on the Fourth Wall, and much of the task of the ruling elite is to reinforce this wall as much as possible. They do so by such stratagems as building a "force field" of power around themselves. They surround themselves with personal assistants, public relations advisers, agents, managers, bodyguards etc - all designed to keep ordinary people away. People such as monarchs and presidents are surrounded by police and soldiers, and enormous pomp and ceremony.
It's as if they are in a stage play and the production manager has been tasked with how to make the fourth wall as impenetrable as possible.
The famous tale of the Emperor's New Clothes is all about how absurd the fourth wall can become, and how people can literally refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes because it would mean shattering the wall. It took a little boy to bring down the wall by shouting aloud that the emperor was stark naked. He alone was able to pierce the wall, the magic force field that the powerful construct around themselves.
As in the case of the naked emperor, the fourth wall works best when the people conspire with the powerful to keep the wall as robust as possible.
What was it that prevented the crowd from laughing when they saw the naked emperor? Part of it was vanity. They had been told in advance that the unique fabric of the emperor's exquisite clothes was invisible to anyone who was either foolish or unfit for his office. Another part was that they actively conspire with the powerful to protect them, just as the audience do with the actors to protect the sanctity of the play.
The British Queen is a talentless nobody, of no earthly use to the British nation, and completely unfit to be the head of state of a modern nation, yet tens of millions of British people conspire with her to construct the most perfect fourth wall around her. No ordinary person is allowed to approach her and say anything to her. And Britain is supposed to be a democracy where power resides with the people. What a joke.
For the good of the stage
plays, the fourth wall should be protected, but when it comes to the powerful,
there should be no fourth wall at all. It's a magic wall, designed to cast a
magic spell over us, and it's astoundingly successful, hence astoundingly
dangerous.
The
Law of the Gun
The attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has caused a furore in America. Left-wingers are accusing right-wingers of creating a climate of such toxic hate that an event such as this was inevitable. They are particularly condemning the Tea Party and its darling Sarah Palin, she of the famous rallying cry: "Do not retreat. Reload!"
In fact, this episode has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Consider these extracts from emails sent last summer by Lynda Sorenson, a community college classmate of the killer, Jared Loughner:
1 June, 1st day of class:
"One day down…We do have one student who was disruptive today. I'm not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go…Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon."
10 June:
"Class isn't dull as we have a seriously disturbed student in the class, and they are trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he does something bad, but, on the other hand, until he does something bad, you can't do anything about him. Needless to say, I sit by the door."
14 June:
"We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, 'Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird.' I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast…"
Ms Sorenson was horrifically prescient, and she wasn't alone in her prediction. A teacher also expressed the view that Loughner might run amok with a gun. Clearly, teacher and student were highly intuitive. They read the runes exactly. But while some thought of him as a ticking time bomb, others were shocked that he could do what he did (these were probably sensation and thinking types who couldn't read the "weather"). None of them mentioned his political views, but apparently he was a fan of conspiracy theories and believed that the American government was responsible for 9/11.
Loughner was suspended from class after a number of months, with the college citing anti-social behaviour and requiring him to undergo psychological evaluation. Loughner did not take any such evaluation and did not return to class. This episode could easily have precipitated a school massacre in retaliation. Instead, Loughner chose to perpetrate a different type of massacre.
Let's cut the political crap. The real issue here is the wisdom of allowing a mentally ill person to have a powerful gun. If you give disturbed people easy access to guns, you get massacres. There's no mystery about that. It's inevitable.
Many borderline crazies are shipped off to the army where they can carry out their mad outbursts under the cloak of legitimacy against "foreigners".
Check out this infamous WikiLeaks video of the American military doing their thing in Iraq.
Nice shooting!??? Would you like to be living next door to the soldier who said that? Would you feel safe? Never forget - the Americans in Iraq were an army of occupation, and naturally many Iraqis wanted to drive them out. Wouldn't you fight to get an occupying army out of your country? Who are the "bad" guys?
To make the Loughner killing spree into a political issue is ridiculous. It has almost no political dimension at all. If it were political, Loughner would have assassinated the Congresswoman and tried to escape. But he had no intention of escaping - he fully expected to die. And a "political" person certainly doesn't start shooting everyone nearby. Amongst the dead were two ladies and a man in their seventies. Worst of all, Loughner killed a 9-yr-old girl. What possible connection could a little girl have with doing political harm to Loughner?
No, this was a mentally disturbed person who hated society in general. He had a personal issue with Giffords that made her his focus, but his rage was in fact against everyone.
Americans have the legal right to bear arms. So do undiagnosed mentally ill Americans. Consequence? Massacres are guaranteed. If you don't want massacres, don't give people guns, or make a psychiatric evaluation a compulsory step before any gun is issued to anyone. And, of course, the evaluation would have to be repeated periodically. This is what the debate should be about. Everything else is irrelevant.
Sarah Palin isn't responsible for what happened, nor the Tea Party, nor right wing shock jocks. There's nothing wrong with vigorous debate in a society that advocates free speech. There's a lot wrong with the mentally ill going around armed to the teeth.
Obama's plea for the political rhetoric to be turned down is a self-serving disgrace by a man trying to escape the flak that will definitely, and deservedly, be heading his way because of his inept presidency. Obama is a persona President. We don't need a political discourse shaped by the persona: polite and respectful… and utterly fake and phoney, trying to sweep big problems under the carpet for the sake of appearances.
It was exactly the polite approach to Jared Loughner that gave him the scope to be a mass murderer. Why did the community college, which had such strong misgivings about him that they wanted him psychologically evaluated, not have any ability to enforce that request? Had this happened, the massacre might have been avoided, and six people wouldn't be dead now.
Jared Loughner himself was badly let down. If he had been raised in a system geared towards psychological well-being, he would never have become a crazed, suicidal killer. It's our mentally ill society that generates mentally ill killers. When will we turn to psychology as the way out of our disturbed society?
Christina Green, the 9-yr-old, was a remarkable little girl, born on September 11 2001. She was already an active member of society, and admirably taking an interest in politics by going to see her Congresswoman. Her father said she was good at making speeches and believed she could easily have become a politician herself.
Obama made a speech about her and wiped a tear from his eye, yet isn't he a total hypocrite? As an Abrahamist, he and his co-religionists think it's absolutely OK to kill children if God orders it. Loughner simply needs to say that God ordered him to shoot these people and he is then in an identical position to Abraham, so how could any Abrahamist find him guilty?
What kind of world do we live in where the President of the most powerful country refuses to unambiguously condemn human sacrifice by repudiating Abraham, the psychopathic founder of Judaeo-Christianity and Islam? This isn't mere rhetoric. If children are taught bizarre, psychologically perverse "Bible" stories, we can be absolutely sure that many of them will become adults harbouring extremely dangerous ideas - as we see in particular with the death cult of Islam. The most popular reading material of serial killers is the Book of Revelation.
Plenty of people supported Jared Loughner's right to have a gun and Loughner's right not to be psychologically evaluated against his wishes. Look what happened. Who looked after Christina's right to life, her right not to be cut down by a crazed, alienated gunman? Will anything be done? You already know the answer. Nothing will change.
The
Blood Libel
Sarah Palin was castigated for saying that she was the victim of a "blood libel" by those who were suggesting that she bore some culpability for the Arizona shootings. Historically, the expression "blood libel" refers to the frequent accusation made in the Middle Ages by Christians that Jews were in the habit of kidnapping Christian children, making a human sacrifice of them, then using their blood in unleavened bread at Passover.
Some liberal and pro-Jewish commentators have described the Medieval blood libel as a "sick" Christian fantasy. Don't these people know anything about Judaism? Didn't Abraham, the founding father of Judaism, stand over his son, dagger in hand, ready to make a human sacrifice of him? So, why would anyone be remotely surprised that Jews did indeed frequently do this to children to honour their God? It's central to their religion. It's not any kind of libel. It's a fact. Is it libellous to say that Abraham was an advocate of human sacrifice? Try reading the fucking Bible!!!!
(Of
course, mainstream Christians, like Palin and Obama, are also Abrahamists, so
they don't have a leg to stand on either.)
The Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex
"It's
all one big ownership class."
-
George
Carlin
"...the
infamous 'revolving door' between the Defense Department, the top military
contractors, their lobbyists and congressional staffers will continue to spin,
strengthening a commonality of viewpoint between the separate components of the
Military-Industrial-Congressional complex, and tightening the bonds of the
'Iron Triangle'."
-
Rupert
Cornwell
America has a bigger
military budget than the rest of the world put together. Why does America spend so much on
war? It's not as if it's likely to be attacked by any significant power. Is
Canada, Mexico or Russia likely to invade? America is protected by two
oceans. It's virtually invulnerable to conventional attack. If America
reduced its military spending to the same level as the No. 2 big military
spender - China - it would save $560 billion dollars per year. All of that
money could be invested instead in education and making America the smartest
nation on earth.
Who decides otherwise? The
"ownership class", of course. They make a fortune out of the war
industry, and they will use the army against the people if they have to. The
last thing they want is an educated population that doesn't take any shit
anymore.
America is always having
homecoming parades to welcome back as "heroes" soldiers who have
invaded foreign countries and killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and
children. Shouldn't they be greeted with utter silence and with the backs of
the people facing them?
No one in their right mind
supports the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. America should withdraw its armed
forces immediately. But of course, it's the military-industrial-congressional
complex that decides such things, and they aren't moving an inch.
PRIVILEGE
VERSUS MERIT
In the UK, seven percent of the population attend private schools, and all of the best jobs in the country are reserved for them. Twenty years ago, 1% of pop stars were privately educated. Now it's 60%. When even rock 'n' roll becomes the arena of the privileged you know the world is truly fucked. The UK now has one of the most privileged prime ministers in its history. The privileged are taking over everything. They want a return on their investment. The annual fees for attendance at Eton College, where the British prime minister was schooled, are higher than the UK average salary!
Those of us who did not attend private schools are facing a world rigged against us. We would have to be the biggest fools in history to go along with it, to allow the privileged to trample us into the ground, to price us out of the market. Those of us who were raised without social contacts or networks of the influential don't stand a chance in life. Our only chance is to activate our hero archetype and take what is rightfully ours. The Illuminatus Maximilien Robespierre said in 1792, "What scruples shall shackle your zeal?...The honour of nations consists of being free and virtuous, of striking down tyrants and avenging the people who have been debased. The glory of the National Convention consists of displaying strength of character and of sacrificing self-serving prejudices in the name of the sublime principles of reason and philosophy."
Those of us who have been denied the same opportunities as the privileged, not because we weren't smart or talented enough, but merely because our parents weren't rich enough, are debased if we allow ourselves to go on being second-class citizens. The disease of privilege - the tool that has built a two-tier society of those born into wealth on the one hand and those who are not on the other - cannot be endured. The rich have no right to better opportunities. They have no right to rig the system. If they do not provide equal opportunities then we will smash them into the ground, as Robespierre did. Privilege in any capacity is unacceptable and an insult to all of us who have enjoyed no privileges.
Those who stand in the path of meritocracy must be swept aside.
Privilege is a product of private dynastic wealth. Privilege is the "right" of rich parents to pass on their wealth to their children and to buy advantages for their children that are not available to the children of poor parents, which accounts for most of us.
We say that private wealth should never be allowed to destroy the chances of those who do not have access to it. We say that it is unacceptable for any society that advocates equal opportunities to tolerate privilege. Privilege and private wealth are incompatible with equal opportunities and meritocracy. You can choose either a meritocratic world or a privileged world; you can't have both. Everyone should be asked the question - are you for or against meritocracy? If you say you are against meritocracy then you have condemned yourself out of your own mouth and all meritocrats will unite against you and use their superior talent to destroy you. If you say you are for meritocracy then you must automatically agree with the position that dynastic private wealth and the ability of rich parents to purchase advantages are unacceptable since they bring intrinsically anti-meritocratic forces into society.
NO PARENT HAS THE RIGHT TO BUY A BETTER EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN. By doing so they are depriving other children of equal opportunities and no one has conferred on anyone the right to sabotage others. No Law of All and Law for All could ever allow rich members of society to deny poor members of society an equal chance. And government that supports the rich against the poor is a plutocracy, an oligarchy and a tyranny, and must be overthrown.
Meritocracy is very simple. It states that everyone should be given the same chances, and the most talented should come out on top and get the best jobs. Talent alone will determine the job you get, not the identity of your parents, or their wealth or their social connections. You will be judged on who you are, not on who your parents are.
The idea that children are appendages of their parents, whose entire fate is dependent on their parents', is anathema. Society and government should be explicitly constructed to smash any possibility of a child's life being at the mercy of its parents' progress in life.
If a parent wants to be a Jew, that's his business. He has no right at all to impose it on his child as if he were some petty tyrant. Children are not the glove puppets of their parents. They are people in their own right and must be treated as such. They must be protected from the brainwashing that brainwashed parents seek to inflict on them.
This is a question of basic freedom. Do all children have the right to develop in their own way without being forced to adopt their parents' viewpoints and beliefs? Yes, they absolutely do. Religions have been permitted to get away with murder in terms of the brainwashing influence they are allowed to exercise. They brainwash parents and then parents pass on the brainwashing to their children, ad infinitum.
The three greatest enemies of freedom are a) mainstream religion b) families and c) rich families of privilege. These are the three sacred cows of the ideology of the Old World Order and anyone who wants a new world must attack and destroy these pillars of the old, failed ways.
History has proved that religion, family and privilege have been a toxic breeding ground of neurosis and psychosis. Parents imagine that they "know" how to bring up their children better than anyone else. Really? Are they all psychological geniuses? Where are their parenting qualifications? How can they be sure that they are not inflicting huge psychological damage on their children? And if they can't be sure, shouldn't they be less arrogant about their "right" to do as they please with their offspring?
Revalue all values!
You are either for freedom or against it. If you are for it then you must support the abolition of the slave-like link that places children entirely at the mercy of their parents and makes them mere chattels. It was once regarded as perfectly acceptable for a husband to rape his wife since sex whenever the husband wanted it was his absolute right regardless of whether his wife wanted it. Wives were once regarded as the physical property of their husbands. If a wife was having an affair and ran off with her lover, the lover was then liable for the crime of theft! It took many centuries for these absurd laws to be overturned. Now the focus must turn from wives to children. Children must be given absolute protection from their parents. Why should a Devil-worshipping Jew, Christian or Muslim have an unquestioned right to impose Devil worship on his children? How can any child be free if no one objects to it being brainwashed from birth? How can parental indoctrination ever be compatible with freedom? Why is this critical subject absolutely never discussed by any politician?
The dialectic of freedom reaches its appointed end when no child is brainwashed and no child is penalised because of the failings of its parents. You are free when you are allowed to develop according to your own nature, character and personality without any interference from anyone else. You are free when you know that if you are talented enough, nothing will stop you from reaching the top of your chosen field.
That is the proper definition of freedom and the tragic reality is that not a single human being has ever been truly free. Not one of us has ever tasted authentic freedom. We have all been subjected to brainwashing and to the vagaries of the relative wealth of our parents. Our fate has never been in our own hands. Our relative merits have always been irrelevant in a society that operates according to the principle of privilege - that it's who you know and not what you know that counts. Isn't it time we did our duty and allowed future generations to be free? Isn't it time we smashed the levers of brainwashing, the webs of privilege, the networks of gatekeepers who decide who gets entry to the higher echelons of society and who doesn't?
Merit and merit alone should be the central criterion that shapes society. Merit can only be fairly established in a free society of unbrainwashed citizens, where no privilege exists and everyone is given an equal opportunity. Isn't it about time we built the Society of Freedom, the Society of Merit, the Society of Equal Opportunity?
Remember, the three opponents of such a society are religion, the rich and the family - the three untouchables.
Humanity's greatest challenge is to overcome the trinity that has hitherto been most sacrosanct, most beyond reproach, most protected from criticism or any form of censure, whose legitimacy has never once been called into question, whose "rights" have never been challenged. That is why this trinity is the supreme obstacle, the last and highest barrier in the road to freedom, the most difficult to overcome. In truth it is an unholy trinity.
Humanity can prove it is mature enough for divinity only when it at last confronts those elements it never dared to doubt. The trinity of religion, wealth and family is the great dragon that must be slain if we are all to become heroes.
Freud and Jung both spent a great deal of time analysing the profound moment when a child has to break free from its parents and make its own way in the world. What they didn't analyse was all the poison that parents are allowed to pour into their children to prevent them truly breaking away. Can it ever be said that a practising Jew has escaped his parents' beliefs, or hasn't he simply rebuilt the synagogue of his parents in his own home, and he in turn will then infect his own children with the same crazy beliefs?
Freud, a Jew, introduced the concept of the Oedipus complex - killing your father so that you can fuck your mother. Only a spoiled, mother-fixated Jew could have thought of something so absurd.
The truth is that many children only gain an illusory freedom from their parents. They are still hardwired to the same belief systems and cultural values. They are still trapped. They are like a virus spreading their parents' beliefs, who in turn spread their parents' beliefs, and so on back to the dawn of the religions of mass brainwashing and mind control.
To be free means to be free of this ancient and deadly poison. A parent's job is to lovingly raise free children, capable of maximising their potential and becoming heroes. It is never the job of parents to rigidly mould children in their own image. That is to treat children as a means to an end (so that a parent can narcissistically and selfishly gaze at its own reflection in its children) rather than as ends in themselves, free to become anything they want to be, regardless of parental approval.
To be free means to not be controlled. A free society is one that prevents anyone from controlling children. A free society is one that does everything to allow children to be all that they can be according to their own unique characters and talents.
William Wallace - "Braveheart" - fought to the death for freedom 700 years ago. If he were alive today, he would still be fighting. Despite all of the rhetoric of freedom and democracy, we have nothing but freedumb and dumbocracy. We are "free" to be suckers, manipulated by the mainstream religions, the wealthy and our parents.
"I know my actions
were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply."
-
Tiger
Woods
"Normal rules don't apply to us" should be the motto of the Old World Order. One rule for the rest of us (to our disadvantage), and a different set of rules for them (to their advantage). Isn't that how the system works? Why do we put up with it? Do we get off on being second class citizens in a two-tier society, the slaves of our masters?
We have a choice. We can stop at any time. We can reject all of their values and laws. What will the seven percent of privileged do when they the ninety-three percent of unprivileged and underprivileged no longer obey them?
Which side are you on?
All those advocates of inheritance who say they have an absolute right to their parents' wealth, that to prevent it would be to infringe their freedom and that of their parents, should ask themselves a very simple question: what if we were talking about parental debt rather than assets. Would your parents demand the "freedom", the "right", to saddle you with their debts - to make you and your children and your children's children have to keep paying off their debts (plus interest) in perpetuity? Then you would be yelling foul and saying that the debt dies with the debtor. So, why not the assets too, you hypocritical cunts? If your parents were sentenced to death but died before the sentence could be carried out, should you inherit their sentence for crimes you never committed? You would say that was insane. So why should you benefit from the hard work others did? Their hard work has as much to do with you as their crimes i.e. nothing at all. Those who want to inherit all of the benefits accrued by their parents but none of the liabilities are playing the age old game of the Old World Order. Namely, everything must always be to our advantage and nothing ever to our disadvantage. Fuck fairness, justice and logic. We support inheritance when it suits us, and condemn it when it doesn't. Well, dream on. The game is up. Your one-way bet is over. We're not falling for it any longer.
When CEOs get fired for disastrous performance that has cost shareholders and taxpayers billions, do they have to pay back the shareholders and taxpayers, or do they swan off to another job bearing a big swag bag containing an enormous "Golden Goodbye"? We all know the answer to that. In a Meritocratic Republic, these cosy arrangements would be illegal. Chief executives who are ruinously inept will forsake all of their wealth. What could be fairer and more sensible? If you reward failure you get even more of it. The simplest rule of all, which should be enshrined in law, is that reckless failure (as opposed to plain bad luck) should be penalised while success (based on hard work rather than pure luck) should be rewarded.
The
New Mafia - the Banks
All of a nation's legal money passes through the nation's banks. The banking network is the circulatory system of the economy, conveying the lifeblood (money) to every company and every person that comprises the economy, hence its health should be monitored and nurtured by the finest financial "physicians", not reckless quacks. The senior bankers who oversee this process are employed by private institutions, are unelected and are not publicly accountable. In other words, the health of the economy is in private hands. Should any sensible nation allow its economic health to be outside its own control? If we get boom and bust cycles caused by excessive greed on the part of individuals, is it any surprise? What do you expect if you put the nation's economic destiny in the hands of those who are incentivised to take massive risks with other people's money?
Because bankers are in charge of the money circulating in the economy, they can simply divert a lot of that money into their own pockets as their "fee" for doing such an important job. They can set pretty much any remuneration they like. Who's going to stop them? No one is authorised to rein them back.
By mere fact of being the closest people to the flow of money, they can help themselves. They can charge exorbitant fees, give themselves breathtaking financial packages and enormous bonuses, write stupendous contracts for themselves that guarantee golden handshakes, golden handcuffs, golden goodbyes, vast expense accounts, pension contributions and side benefits. Who's going to stop them?
And if anyone objects then they say that they will leave the country and go somewhere else where they are treated with more respect and less interference. As private institutions and private employees, there is nothing to stop them.
What they are doing is placing a gun against the head of the public and saying, "If you don't let us do what we want, we'll leave the country and destroy your banking system and your economy."
In other words, this is indistinguishable from a mafia protection racket, extorting money with menace. If you don't pay up, they'll ruin your life.
Why aren't these people in jail like any other mobster bosses? They're legalised gangsters. They might as well wear masks when they're holding us up. The "best" bankers are the best at enforcing their protection racket. They get the biggest bonuses, and hence wield the most power.
Of course, there's an easy way around the problem. A nation should be in charge of its own banks. Every banker should be a government employee. All of the bosses of banks should be public servants - just like generals and admirals. No one in their right mind would allow a private army to exist. So why is a private banking system tolerated? The military protect the nation from hostile foreign powers. The banking system should be about the protection and development of the economy, not about promoting the interests of private individuals.
Once the banks are removed from private control - from the Zionists and Freemasons - then a sensible form of capitalism can be implemented.
We are not communists. We do not advocate the abolition of capitalism. But who can doubt that a radically different form of capitalism is required from the one we have now?
End the protection racket. End the intimidation and threats from the "masters of the universe". Abolish the legalised gangsters, robber barons and racketeers. If we don't, we'll never be free.
You have to ask yourself why no mainstream political party in any major Western economy campaigns for public ownership of the banks. Why not? Because all political parties and leaders are owned by the rich and run by the rich for the benefit of the rich. Lobbyists for rich corporations tell governments what to do, what to think, what's acceptable and what's not. Lobbyists, corporations and the super rich determine national policy, not the voters.
A massive regulatory failure contributed to the Credit Crunch. The rich had demanded much looser regulatory control, and they got exactly what they wanted. Today, there is still no effective regulation and supervision. No lessons have been learned.
Our world is run by corporations and their super rich owners. Politicians are in their pockets. Democratic governments are run by private companies and private individuals, not by the people.
Isn't it time we implemented real people power?
Moral
Hazard
Moral hazard is the label applied to a situation where individuals or institutions are protected or insulated from bearing the consequences of their actions, hence they feel less concerned about taking reckless actions, particularly if their risky behaviour is highly rewarded. Other parties are left responsible for actions that were none of their doing.
The global financial crisis was a perfect example of moral hazard. Bankers made a fortune during the boom by running incredible risks. When the shit hit the fan, they didn't pick up the bill - the taxpayers did. Then, when bonus season came round, the money provided by the hard-pressed taxpayers was used to lavishly remunerate the failed bankers. Talk about Catch 22. The bankers won during the boom and they still won during the bust. The taxpayers got nothing during the boom and picked up the tab during the bust. Go figure. SUCKERS!!!!
The message that went out loud and clear was that no matter what, the taxpayers would be responsible for the private banking system, because otherwise the whole economy would collapse. So, the private individuals who run the financial system now know that they will always be allowed to prosper, and always be protected from the consequences of their own disasters. The clowns, the sucker, the marks - aka taxpayers - will always be there to dump the shit on.
Capitalism actually died in 2008. It was technically bust. The banking system was insolvent. A weird form of socialism was then used to resuscitate it. "Weird" because the people became responsible for the banks, but the banks remained completely controlled by private individuals. In normal socialism, the banks would have passed into the explicit control of the government (acting in the name of the people). Instead, government simply gave the banks enormous amounts of taxpayers money then allowed them to carry on exactly as before, and still paying themselves vast bonuses. How can people in insolvent organisations be getting awarded multi-million dollar bonuses? It's MAD!!!! But that's capitalism for you.
Isn't it time for the people to elect governments that take the banks into public ownership and run them for the public good? Why have fake socialism in relation to banks when you could have the real thing? Who in their right mind wouldn't want society rather than private individuals to be in charge of the economy? The very last people you would want in charge of your money are Zionists and Freemasons, the unholy alliance that forms the core of the Old World Order.
Who arranged for taxpayers to bail out the banks without getting a cent back, and without having any say over how the money was spent by the banks? You guessed it - the Old World Order. If ever you wanted to know what the Old World Order "system" is like in action, you saw it unfold right in front of your eyes during the height of the Credit Crunch. The financial powerhouses of the OWO sat around a plush table in a plush office and arranged for the dummies - the taxpayers - to be relieved of their money. They couldn't have been more blatant about it if they had put on masks, stood in the middle of the road with a gun held to your head, yelling, "Stand and Deliver! Your money or your life!"
The OWO have to be admired for the skill of their brainwashing tactics. They have made the word "socialism" - which means nothing more sinister than that the people should own most or all of the means of production - so toxic that there was no debate anywhere on earth regarding the possibility of governments running the banking system rather than inept private individuals whose greed and recklessness had brought the world to the verge of economic collapse. Rather than get rid of all these spectacular fuck-ups, these people who had failed in every regard, governments allowed them to decide what to do and then wrote them a massive cheque (in the name of the people) to pay off their debts.
Ever feel like you've been swindled?
Adam Smith, the Scotsman who founded free-market capitalism in the 18th century, had a far more sensible understanding of markets than the one that prevails today. He knew that markets only work properly if all parties to the market are approximately equal in power, wealth, knowledge and market information. Nothing like equality exists in the present day. Cartels rig the system. They get much quicker access to information than others. They have far more powerful computers. They have teams of highly paid analysts. They have incredibly sophisticated automated trading software. The whole idea of a fair market has been destroyed. Free-market capitalism is nothing of the sort. It's rigged-market capitalism for the benefit of the super rich.
In 2008, capitalism failed, just as communism had failed twenty years earlier. And just as the Soviet Union was bankrupt when the Berlin Wall came down, so was the capitalist banking system bankrupt when Lehman Brothers came down. The Old World Order turned to socialism - to the people - to bail them out. The people did so, or rather their political leaders did, with no questions asked.
So capitalism didn't die as it logically should have done, but was saved by the totally reviled ideology of socialism. Yet this was never officially called socialist intervention. Rather, it was described as "government support" for the banking system to prevent its collapse. Don't you feel cheated? Your money was used to save capitalism and you got nothing out of it. The rich fuckers who caused the disaster went on as before, as rich and privileged as ever, getting the same absurd bonuses as before.
If that isn't magic, what is? What does it take to make the people wake up? Even the death of capitalism right in front of our eyes didn't rouse us from our slumber. We saw the Judaeo-Christian resurrection taking place with our own eyes. A corpse - capitalism - was brought back from the dead.
And now we have a new global economic system: undead capitalism. When there are profits to be made, we call it capitalism and the profits are allocated to the super rich. When losses are being run up, we call it socialism and the debts are allocated to the people.
Never has there been any system so beneficial to the rich and so hostile to the people. It's the greatest financial con of all time. We must have fallen for it because that's the system we now have and no one has complained. The people haven't risen up in righteous anger. Instead, we have agreed, via our political leaders, to underwrite all the rich capitalist speculators.
We now have the ultimate system of moral hazard. The rich have won hands down. They can stick their snouts in the golden money trough without any worries at all. They can take any risks they like. They know what happens if anything goes wrong - the people pick up the tab. So they're going to be worse than ever. Their casino banking will be bigger and "better" than ever.
Ask yourself this simple question: who was it who decided that the people are unfit to run the banking system? Who decided that the task should be left exclusively to private, super rich individuals and, in particular, to Zionists and Freemasons? Weren't these the same people who were so inept that they nearly destroyed the economy? Who in their right mind would let them have another go? Yet we have.
Isn't it time we put a stake through the heart of the undead capitalist vampire before it sucks any more blood out of us?
In a Meritocratic Republic, this absurdity would at last come to an end. Banks would be run by people of the highest ability, in the name of the people and accountable to the people. There would be no private banks of any description. The rule of the super rich would be over once and for all. Isn't it time for meritocracy?
In the UK, an extremely wealthy man said in relation to public disgruntlement over excessive bonus payments in the banking industry that the people should "get over it" and "move on". Why should we? Why shouldn't we do something for a change?
Another extremely wealthy man - Bob Diamond, the American boss of the UK's Barclay's Bank, said, "Frankly, the biggest issue is how we put some of the blame game behind us. There was a period of remorse and apology for banks - that period needs to be over."
You think so, Bob? It hasn't even begun. There has been no apology. No one is ashamed of what they did. No remorse whatsoever has been expressed. Nothing has changed. Not a single thing.
The
Hip Hoppas - the Power of Hip Gnosis
Hip Hop is a cultural system that, like Illuminism, belongs to the tradition of the outsider, of the Other. Like Illuminism, it's radical, it's anti-establishment, it's creative. It doesn't rely on the old networks of privilege. It's Meritocratic.
It's uniquely driven by the African-American experience and it has millions of fans all over the world.
Pho' has suggested that Hip Hop is a suitable candidate for a new religion. What do you think? What would a world be like if it were run by Hip Hoppas? Would it be the "True World Order", as Pho' thinks possible?
A
Hip Hop world would be a drastic departure from the present system of
corruption, brainwashing and materialism, from the greedy, self-interested rule
by dynastic elites. Yet as soon as Hip Hop entered the mainstream, its nature
would change. Already, a major debate is going on in Hip Hop circles regarding
whether the original message of Hip Hop has been fatally compromised now that
it has been embraced by capitalism. Has it already started to sell out? Is it
sinking under the weight of bling? Are its richest bling kings already fakes
and phoneys, fully absorbed by the capitalist greed machine, and now with a
permanent eye on the loot rather than on authenticity?
This is a challenge faced by all outsider ideologies. What happens when you become insiders, when you start dancing with the Devil? Can you remain pure and true to your original vision? Or is that an unrealistic, impractical pipedream? It's all too easy for those who overthrow tyrants to become tyrants themselves.
If it wants to rule the world, Hip Hop would need to bring a "ruling" paradigm to the table rather than its present posture of protest against the existing World Order. You can't criticize the rulers if you're one of them. Obama looked good campaigning for the presidency; now he looks like an ineffectual fool. Obama's problem is that he has no idea of how to change the nation, no vision and no mandate for radicalism. All he had was rhetoric, and even that's gone now. He was always a second hand, second rate Martin Luther King. He studied the style and forgot the substance. Sarah Palin destroyed him when she cackled, "How's all that hopey, changey stuff coming along?"
The central question for Hip Hop would be the nature of this new paradigm it would of necessity have to embrace if it wanted to lead the human race forward to a new gold dream. It would need to be radical, smart, visionary, inspirational yet pragmatic and offer real, authentic change.
How about Hip Hop embracing the God Program? Hip Hop would be the brand new psychological religion the world needs to move beyond the old religions of dusty holy books and old bearded prophets. Hip Hop would be the cool, smart, cutting-edge dialectical religion that would transform everything.
Is it a runner? Should the Movement endorse Hip Hop as the religion of Now and the Future, the new religion that puts right all of the mistakes of the old, decrepit religions? Is Hip Hop the vehicle to bring the God Program to the world? A one-world religion, suitable for everyone, for both sexes and all races, designed to re-spiritualise the human race through music, art, culture, education and psychology.
Hip Hop! Why not?? It certainly couldn't be any worse than what we have at the moment, and it could be just the thing to transform everything. Rupert Murdoch, the Zionists, the Masons and the Monarchs wouldn't know what had hit them. For once, they would be totally out of the loop.
Something needs to be done to break the stranglehold of the Zionist/Masonic Elite and their Abrahamic mind control. Hip Hop, coming as it does from urban black culture, doesn't owe anything to the Establishment. The "Elite" is essentially a phenomenon of privileged white men from dynastic families, so the antidote must lie in non-whites, non-privileged whites and women. If Hip Hop can lead that alliance, it can be a real contender.
Let's have an independent Hip Hop political party based on meritocracy. Let's have a Hip Hop religion called Hip Gnosis that can appeal even to atheists, agnostics and sceptics because it's based on science, mathematics, philosophy and psychology rather than "revelation". Let's have rappers rather than rabbis in the pulpit. Let's have Hip Hop harmonies rather than gospel choirs.
What's the diagnosis? We need Hip Hop.
What's the prognosis? - extremely optimistic.
The Democrats and Republicans have failed in every way. America is crying out for something new. The right wing has given birth to the Tea Party. The left wing hasn't responded. Shouldn't the Hip Hop Party be the new left wing movement? Let's campaign to get Hip Hoppas into Congress. Think how different the world would be, how new, modern and creative it would be if all the old faces were swept away and Congress was full of those who have traditionally been outsiders.
The Hip Hop Party: the smart Party, the visionary Party, the artistic and creative Party, the "Main Street" (not Wall Street) Party, the Party of authentic change. The Hip Hop Party: the first global Party. Every country in the world can have its own Hip Hop Party. It can be the first internet Party, viral, meme-aware, committed to cyber freedom and intelligent e-crowdsourcing.
Wikipedia, enjoying its tenth birthday, has shown how cooperative crowdsourcing, involving people well-informed in their fields of specialisation, can generate something truly wondrous - an astonishing free repository of knowledge for humanity. We congratulate the founders and all who have freely given their time to this monumental and inspirational endeavour.
Imagine a political version of Wikipedia - a worldwide political collaboration based on the wisdom of the people. A worldwide movement. An unstoppable force. Delivering the General Will of the People rather than the Particular Will of the Elite. The Hip Hop Movement can be the new political force that changes the world.
The greatest cultural centre in human history was arguably Alexandria in Egypt in the Greco-Romano period, with its library of wonders: the first Wikipedia. In Alexandria, Africa (particularly in the shape of the superb knowledge of the Egyptians) came together with the wisdom of the East and West to produce an intoxicating brew which the Illuminati drank copiously for several centuries.
In the modern world, African Americans can lay claim to being the new Alexandrians. They are of African ancestry yet they are steeped in Western culture. Add an Eastern influence to Hip Hop and it becomes the new lighthouse of Alexandria, ready to illuminate the world.
This is a challenge faced by all outsider ideologies. What happens when you become insiders, when you start dancing with the Devil? Can you remain pure and true to your original vision? Or is that an unrealistic, impractical pipedream? It's all too easy for those who overthrow tyrants to become tyrants themselves.
If it wants to rule the world, Hip Hop would need to bring a "ruling" paradigm to the table rather than its present posture of protest against the existing World Order. You can't criticize the rulers if you're one of them. Obama looked good campaigning for the presidency; now he looks like an ineffectual fool. Obama's problem is that he has no idea of how to change the nation, no vision and no mandate for radicalism. All he had was rhetoric, and even that's gone now. He was always a second hand, second rate Martin Luther King. He studied the style and forgot the substance. Sarah Palin destroyed him when she cackled, "How's all that hopey, changey stuff coming along?"
The central question for Hip Hop would be the nature of this new paradigm it would of necessity have to embrace if it wanted to lead the human race forward to a new gold dream. It would need to be radical, smart, visionary, inspirational yet pragmatic and offer real, authentic change.
How about Hip Hop embracing the God Program? Hip Hop would be the brand new psychological religion the world needs to move beyond the old religions of dusty holy books and old bearded prophets. Hip Hop would be the cool, smart, cutting-edge dialectical religion that would transform everything.
Is it a runner? Should the Movement endorse Hip Hop as the religion of Now and the Future, the new religion that puts right all of the mistakes of the old, decrepit religions? Is Hip Hop the vehicle to bring the God Program to the world? A one-world religion, suitable for everyone, for both sexes and all races, designed to re-spiritualise the human race through music, art, culture, education and psychology.
Hip Hop! Why not?? It certainly couldn't be any worse than what we have at the moment, and it could be just the thing to transform everything. Rupert Murdoch, the Zionists, the Masons and the Monarchs wouldn't know what had hit them. For once, they would be totally out of the loop.
Something needs to be done to break the stranglehold of the Zionist/Masonic Elite and their Abrahamic mind control. Hip Hop, coming as it does from urban black culture, doesn't owe anything to the Establishment. The "Elite" is essentially a phenomenon of privileged white men from dynastic families, so the antidote must lie in non-whites, non-privileged whites and women. If Hip Hop can lead that alliance, it can be a real contender.
Let's have an independent Hip Hop political party based on meritocracy. Let's have a Hip Hop religion called Hip Gnosis that can appeal even to atheists, agnostics and sceptics because it's based on science, mathematics, philosophy and psychology rather than "revelation". Let's have rappers rather than rabbis in the pulpit. Let's have Hip Hop harmonies rather than gospel choirs.
What's the diagnosis? We need Hip Hop.
What's the prognosis? - extremely optimistic.
The Democrats and Republicans have failed in every way. America is crying out for something new. The right wing has given birth to the Tea Party. The left wing hasn't responded. Shouldn't the Hip Hop Party be the new left wing movement? Let's campaign to get Hip Hoppas into Congress. Think how different the world would be, how new, modern and creative it would be if all the old faces were swept away and Congress was full of those who have traditionally been outsiders.
The Hip Hop Party: the smart Party, the visionary Party, the artistic and creative Party, the "Main Street" (not Wall Street) Party, the Party of authentic change. The Hip Hop Party: the first global Party. Every country in the world can have its own Hip Hop Party. It can be the first internet Party, viral, meme-aware, committed to cyber freedom and intelligent e-crowdsourcing.
Wikipedia, enjoying its tenth birthday, has shown how cooperative crowdsourcing, involving people well-informed in their fields of specialisation, can generate something truly wondrous - an astonishing free repository of knowledge for humanity. We congratulate the founders and all who have freely given their time to this monumental and inspirational endeavour.
Imagine a political version of Wikipedia - a worldwide political collaboration based on the wisdom of the people. A worldwide movement. An unstoppable force. Delivering the General Will of the People rather than the Particular Will of the Elite. The Hip Hop Movement can be the new political force that changes the world.
The greatest cultural centre in human history was arguably Alexandria in Egypt in the Greco-Romano period, with its library of wonders: the first Wikipedia. In Alexandria, Africa (particularly in the shape of the superb knowledge of the Egyptians) came together with the wisdom of the East and West to produce an intoxicating brew which the Illuminati drank copiously for several centuries.
In the modern world, African Americans can lay claim to being the new Alexandrians. They are of African ancestry yet they are steeped in Western culture. Add an Eastern influence to Hip Hop and it becomes the new lighthouse of Alexandria, ready to illuminate the world.
Out with Obama, the puppet
of the Elite, and let's get the first Hip Hoppa President into the White House
to lead the world out of bondage. If you don't aim for the summit you'll never
get there. Hip Hop's time has come. It's time for the alternative voice to be
heard. It's time for the "Other" to get the chance to do the job the
in-crowd manifestly failed to accomplish. The King is dead. Long live the
People.
Who knows, in 100 years, Hip Gnosis, the religious wing of Hip Hop, might have replaced Abrahamism. The nightmare will at last be over. The world craves a new religion, a religion of consciousness rather than bicameralism, a religion that owes nothing to the past, a religion of freedom, of psychological well-being, a religion of music, of fun and creativity, of sexuality. A religion that aims for the stars, that strives to make humanity everything it's capable of being.
Martin Luther King was a Christian preacher man. Malcolm X spoke on behalf of Islam. Now we need Hip Hop Teachas singing a new song, bringing a new message.
No holy books. No prophets. No Commandments. Instead: psychology, health, positivity, self-actualisation, self-fulfilment, creativity, art, culture, science, mathematics, philosophy. A new dawn for a new world, a true world.
Hip Hop.
Meritocracy.
The God Program.
The Movement.
The True World Order.
The Formula for the Future?
Congratulations to all
involved in creating the Movement's inaugural PDF publication: The Medium. An excellent start. Anyone
who wants a free copy should send an email to:
And so it begins. The
Knights of the Movement are the new Templars. Will they also become Hip Hoppas,
the Knights of the Religion of the Future, of the True World Order, led by the
Teachas (the wisest of the Hip Hoppas) and by the most meritorious of the
Movement?It's your choice.
From Armageddon Conspiracy @ http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-God-Program-II%282251659%29.htm
For more information about Illuminism see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/illuminism
For more information about the bicameral mind see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/bicameral%20mind
Help This Unique Independent Site
Survive
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati
eBook!
Just click in the jar -
Images by R. Ayana – http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8322/8018831334_29e1de1993_h.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6430526909_d29b28eba5_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5030/5615218795_8d7cae658f_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5300/5432913443_732109fe5e_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6430528301_f7028a92d4_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7207/6926025347_0f7618625b_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5138/5573329143_8fe3faa15f_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5056/5433526622_2277bdeefc_b.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2034/2380892471_f7a7135bb6_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5069/5618703444_473d491889_b.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5210/5315368812_94ee426fb0_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8455/8069593289_2ae5aff4c4_b.jpg
For further
enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @ New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the
bottom of the page @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
And see
New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati
New Illuminati Youtube
Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed
The Her(m)etic Hermit -
http://hermetic.blog.com
The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com
(Be Aware! This link leads
to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)
This
site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an
individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work
& author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original
along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or
software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay
glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please
send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading
this far…
Live
long and prosper!
From the
New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
ivaray, sorry I am not the anonymous, but I cannot log-in via your system on my WordPress account, I do not why, it tells me I do not own my own identity...... A mess... Here is my contribution:
ReplyDeleteIt is said: "And so it begins. The Knights of the Movement are the new Templars. Will they also become Hip Hoppas, the Knights of the Religion of the Future, of the True World Order, led by the Teaches (the wisest of the Hip Hoppas) and by the most meritorious of the Movement?" Have you guys ever heard the "Laibach" group, their project the Iron Sky is really great, you might enjoy it :-) Here is the link for this amazing work of avant-garde art:
Laibach, "The Iron Sky," B-Machina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgqjnzkYPnA&feature=share&list=AL94UKMTqg-9BxNJogIE6CcVyComEuTA5Z
By the way, I recognized in this text many chapters from "Michael Faust's" book "How to Become God" in this article. The amazing writing project!