Sex for Salvation
From the Armageddon
Conspiracy
Sex is the unspoken legislator of the world. It dominates our lives. Sexual imagery is everywhere. Social networking is usually a disguised version of sexual networking. Most songs are about sex. The advertising industry is about sex. The beauty industry is about sex. Celebrities are always sexually attractive. Nearly everyone in TV and movies is sexy. Sexy politicians beat the less sexy ones. Sexy people get better and more lucrative jobs. Sexy defendants in trials receive lighter sentences. Sexy people have more friends and are in higher social demand.
Everyone
wants to have a fantastic sex life. Everyone is envious of those who are having
more of it, with sexier partners. Porn, romance, eroticism – three different
approaches to sex – are omnipresent in our culture. A poor sex life can affect
our mental health. Dysfunctional sexuality produces neuroses and even
psychoses. Many serial killers have been found to have serious sexual problems.
The sexual abuse of children ruins countless innocent lives. Horrifically, a
substantial number of abused themselves become abusers, thus perpetuating the
cycle.
Abrahamism
is terrified of the power of sex and seeks, in effect, to eradicate any visible
signs of it. It is supposed to be carried out shamefully, in the dark, in
silence, in a bedroom. Capitalism, on the other hand, constantly uses sex
appeal and titillation to sell things to the consumer society. So anyone living
in a Judaeo-Christian capitalist society is infected with a dangerous sexual
ambivalence. We view it as a fabulous thrill, but also a dangerous temptation
that can wreck our life. We simultaneously lust after it and fear it.
Doublethink
underlies our attitude to sex: we at all times hold in our heads contradictory
messages about it. It’s “dirty” yet we want as much of it as we can get. It’s
not to be talked about and yet we talk about nothing else. Even when we’re not
talking about it, we are. It’s an “absent presence”. Even when we think it’s
not there, it is. It’s an ever-present subtext. Our bodies understand it much
better than our conscious minds. We can be saying one thing while our body
language is saying the precise reverse. Sex makes hypocrites and madmen of us
all.
No
matter how hard we try, we can’t escape sex. It’s the pulse of our world and,
in truth, of the entire cosmos. Its significance cannot be overestimated. It’s
as important as it gets.
If sex
isn’t humanity’s greatest obsession, what is? Therefore, there’s no point in
shying away from sex, no point in being embarrassed or dishonest about it. A
new world must have a new attitude to sex: a much healthier, more honest and
more productive one.
Where is
the best place to start a discussion of sex? Ironically, it may not be with sex
at all but with another phenomenon that has the same cosmic source, is often
associated with sex and has a similarly mesmerizing emotional power over us.
We’re
talking about music, of course – the soundtrack of existence to whose beat even
sex dances.
“If
music be the food of love, play on.” Shakespeare
The Will - the Key to Existence
The human race resembles Tantalus, the Lydian king who was a son of Zeus and a nymph. He committed unpardonable crimes against the gods by revealing secrets entrusted to him by Zeus, and by stealing ambrosia and nectar - the food and drink reserved exclusively for the divinities.
As punishment, he was condemned to
stand up to his chin in the water of a dark river of Hades, with the delicious
fruit of a riverbank tree hanging from branches directly over his head. Every
time he tried to drink, the water receded from him just enough to thwart him,
and no matter how he stretched and strained, he could never quite reach the
fruit. Thus his eternal torment was to be permanently thirsty while surrounded
by water, and permanently hungry while mere centimetres from the most glorious
fruit. All the time, he imagined that with a bit more effort he could attain
the goals he craved, but his anticipation always went unfulfilled, thus
multiplying his suffering.
It is from this tale that we get
the word tantalize - to excite a hope but not satisfy it. We are all tantalized
by what life seems to offer, but we can never quite reach out and grab the
glittering, shiny things that we imagine will give us the fulfilment we
crave.
Tantalus could be labelled the
patron saint of capitalism, especially of the advertising industry, the
insidious propaganda wing of capitalism. Capitalist advertising's only function
is to permanently tantalize the consumer. Delicious objects, products and
services, all wrapped in the most gorgeous packaging, leap out at us from our
TV screens, doing everything they can to seduce us. Consumers are literally
salivating like Pavlov's dogs as they watch food porn - the most exquisitely
filmed food, accompanied by a woman's seductive voice encouraging us to buy.
Consumers are drooling as they gaze at beautiful specimens of humanity,
practically naked, inviting us to buy God know's what. Not that we care - we
just want to gaze forever at beauty. We'll buy whatever it takes to keep on
looking. We'll keep putting our coins into the peep show slot until we have no
money left.
Advertisers are selling dreams,
and the dream figures of the celebrity world are those making the pitch.
Advertisers tantalize us and then
offer salvation - get out your credit card and buy these dreams we are selling.
Of course, a new set of dreams is on offer tomorrow and the next day and the
next ad infinitum. This dream factory never closes. Every day we are presented
with new tantalising dreams. No one ever stops to say - hold on, these dreams
plainly aren't working if they have to be replaced with new ones every day.
The whole purpose of capitalism is
to prevent us from being satisfied; to ensure that we keep chasing the dream
they dangle in front of us. In that respect, capitalism reflects Schopenhauer's
evil Will perfectly. Each time we make a purchase our pleasure is fleeting: you
can literally hate a product within seconds of taking possession of it. When
you triumphantly hold it in your hand, you suddenly realised it's very far from
the dream-product you were led to believe. In fact, it's crap - just like all
the other crap you've bought over the years. They've conned you yet again.
You're the same old sucker you've always been, still falling for the unctuous
pitch of the snake-oil salesmen. You've bought enough snake oil over the years
to create a lake of it.
In a healthy capitalist system,
there would be an antithesis opposing the advertising industry -
"anti-advertising" - acting as a bullshit detector, a fraud exposer,
a bubble buster. It would mock the products being sold as dreams and show they
are often nightmares. It would mock the celebrities who endorse the products,
and expose all of the psychological techniques used to manipulate and exploit
us. Maybe then we would get some honesty and truth in advertising. The
advertisers would no longer be able to make extravagant claims on behalf of the
shit they're selling. Unless they're promoting something of genuine quality
then they will be mercilessly shot down.
The thesis of advertising and the
antithesis of anti-advertising would lead to far higher quality products. Who
could complain other than those who want to con us?
How to Become Midas
If you want to make lots of money
in life, work directly with money (like bankers) or channel the Will in some way. Sport -
competition - summons the Will. It is sublimated war, hence attracts the
greatest interest amongst men. Shopping does the same job for women. Why?
Because women are mostly engaged in buying things they think will make them
more attractive.
Other activities that channel the
Will are art, music, movies, TV shows, novels, poetry, religion, magic etc.
Anything that stirs the emotions in a profound way qualifies. Imagine being a
quantity surveyor, an accountant, a bureaucrat, a conveyancing lawyer, an
office worker - these don't stimulate the Will at all. The very thought of them
makes people start to drop off to sleep.
Will is about Mythos - stories,
emotion, desire, power. Many people hate science, mathematics and philosophy
because these are Logos activities concerning reason and logic. The mind has
two activities - the rational and the irrational (or, to be more accurate,
rationality based on sound principles of logic versus "rationality"
rooted in emotional logic, which often appears capricious, hence irrational).
The mind is a battlefield contested by the two gods Apollo and Dionysus. Logos
is the arena of Apollo, while Mythos and unrestrained passion form the domain
of Dionysus.
Ours is a culture and world
devoted during work time to Apollonian control and organisation, and in
playtime to Dionysian instant gratification. Most Apollonian jobs are deadly
dull, fit only for droids and drones. The highest Apollonian jobs - those of
scientists, mathematicians, technologists, engineers and philosophers - can be
highly stimulating and fulfilling, but only for those with rational minds.
This website deliberately mixes
Mythos with Logos to make it more palatable. If we delivered Illuminism in a
dry, academic, Apollonian style, precious few people would read it, just as
precious few people spend any time on something as tinder-box dry as M-Theory.
No one feels properly fulfilled
unless they have a job that involves the expression of the Will or the highest
levels of Reason. All other jobs are soul destroying, and should be automated
out of existence.
*****
If Schopenhauer were telling Tantalus'
story, he would have added an even crueller twist to the tale. The tormented
man would succeed in stealing a drink or plucking the fruit from the tree. For
a moment, he would enjoy supreme ecstasy, but then the moment would be gone and
Tantalus' thoughts would turn to other things…how to escape, how to get back to
the living world. He would be plunged into brand new gloom at the difficulties
confronting him. In other words, we can never satisfy our cravings. There's no
way out. Not even for a Son of God, such as Tantalus.
The Will, Schopenhauer asserts,
exists outside space and time. It gives rise to minds that impose the
categories of space and time, cause and effect on the world i.e. minds create
the phenomenal world of our daily experience. All the phenomena we see around
us are - if you could remove the mental goggles that compel us to see
everything in terms of space and time, cause and effect - nothing but a single,
ceaseless, eternal, cosmic Will. Everything is imbued with Will - water, sand, rocks,
microbes etc - but in most cases the Will is unconscious and does not exercise
the free will and choice we associate with humanity.
A human being might be considered
the highest manifestation of the Will - hence the greatest expression of evil
if the Will is itself evil. And isn't that true? Aren't we (and beings higher
than us on the evolutionary scale) the authors of the true evils of the world?
Without us, there would be no malicious, gratuitous acts of cruelty and pain in
the world. Animals act through necessity. Only we - or rather some of us - take
pleasure in torturing and harming others.
"Hell is other people,"
said Sartre. Never a truer word spoken. But what if we are sometimes the
"other people"? We all have the capacity to be hell for others, and
they for us. We are the damned, bound together by the various hells we inflict
on each other. Some of us are much worse than others, of course. We make it our
business to mistreat others.
The Abrahamists and the
capitalists have rebranded evil as good. They have worshipped the Devil himself
and called him God. When people can't distinguish between good and evil, God
and the Devil, you know you're living in a fucked world.
"More
depends on what things are called than on what they are."
-
Nietzsche
Never forget the Islamic tale of
Abraham. "God" tells his prophet to perform human sacrifice on his
own son, Ishmael. Abraham doesn't hesitate and gets his dagger ready. A
stranger comes along and yells out to Abraham to stop. Three times, the stranger
pleads for Ishmael's life, but each time Abraham violently drives him away by
bombarding him with stones. The stranger is then called "Shaytan",
Lord of Evil, because he tried to talk Abraham out of killing his own son.
That's the world in a nutshell. There are billions of people in our world who
see nothing odd about "God" commanding human sacrifice while
"Satan" seeks to prevent it.
Wouldn't any good, rational person
immediately reverse the two and say that Satan orders human sacrifice while God
is the one who tries to save life? If the Abrahamists can't get something as
black and white as this right, how can they get anything right? They are
Devil-worshippers who call Satan "God", and thus believe themselves
to be doing God's work when they carry out the most evil acts imaginable, such
as 9/11.
"Morals
are constantly undergoing transformations occasioned by successful
crimes."
-
Nietzsche
For Schopenhauer, the phenomenal
world is a mind-created illusion superimposed on the noumenal reality of the
single cosmic Will. Individual human beings are illusory - underneath we are
all exactly the same. Remove time and space and all human beings merge into
one. Indeed, we merge with all other things. We are all Will and nothing
besides.
A human being is a phenomenal
manifestation of the noumenal Will. The human body is objectified Will. The
human mind perceives the Will as it appears in the phenomenal domain of space,
time and individuation, and also enjoys an inner experience of the Will, albeit
mediated through mental structures geared for understanding phenomena rather
than noumena. Individuation - division into individual things, including human
beings - is made possible only because of the perception of space and time.
Remove that perception, remove the distinctions of space and time, and
everything collapses into cosmic unity.
Schopenhauer's position is, in
effect, Kantian Buddhism i.e. regular Buddhism with the impressive philosophy
of Kant superimposed over it. If you are interested in creating a new religion,
you should take one of the old religions and see if you can blend it with a
major philosophical system. Thanks to its Kantian elements, Schopenhauer's
version of Buddhism is much more intellectually impressive and logical than the
original. In fact, old Buddhism ought to have died and been fully replaced by
Schopenhauer's "religion".
Uniquely in philosophy,
Schopenhauer took the step of branding existence as inherently evil (just as in
religion Buddha proclaimed that existence is nothing but suffering caused by
desires that can't be satisfied i.e. an utterly negative state). Although he
didn't use overtly religious language, Schopenhauer's position is tantamount to
identifying the cosmic Will with the Devil himself, and asserting that we are
therefore all part of the Devil. (That certainly takes care of the question of
why evil exists!) There is only one escape route - not to will at all; to have
no desires (which of course can be equated with the Buddhist concept of
Nirvana).
Since Will is Satanic, the greatest moral act is not to will, to
suppress your will and hence yourself out of existence. All that is left of you
are those parts of you that are not involved with the act of willing i.e.
reason, knowing, disinterested aesthetic contemplation. Although he doesn't say
so, the outcome of Schopenhauer's plea for everything to cease willing would be
a cosmic Logos: pure rational and aesthetic contemplation of the eternal
Platonic Forms (indeed, after Kant, it was Plato who had the greatest influence
on Schopenhauer's thinking). We might put this forward as the true meaning of
Nirvana in Buddhism. You shed all of your personal aspects and become one with
the rational cosmic mind, contemplating the eternal verities. To this extent,
you are absorbed into the mind of the God of Reason…
Hegel, the philosophical giant of
the age, took a very different path from Schopenhauer. Where the latter
emphasised the non-rational aspect of existence, Hegel placed rationality
centre stage. For Hegel, existence unfolded according to a magnificent plan of
pure rationality. The most precise dialectical logic guided everything towards
its culmination in the Absolute: perfected existence, totally free, all knowing
and all-powerful (God, in other words).
Schopenhauer loathed Hegel, hence
turned his back on the best way out of his labyrinth of existential evil: the
dialectic. Evil is indeed an integral feature of existence, but so is its
antithesis - good - and the dialectic of good and evil reaches its culmination
in neither morality nor immorality but in amorality (the highest rationality) -
beyond good and evil. Amorality in this sense does not imply indifference to
morality, or ignorance of what morality is. Rather, morality and immorality are
seen as two forces driving the cosmos forward, but what emerges from them is a
third thing (tertium quid) - REASON.
Reason operates according to its
own logic and not that of morality or immorality. The reasonable person does
what is rational. Rationality ends up on the side of morality because there is
no valid reason, when you understand existence fully, to deliberately harm
others. Such an action is a crime against rationality.
Schopenhauer recognised as much as
Hegel did that we are all absolutely linked. To harm another is to harm oneself
- an irrational act. Evil and selfishness are practically synonymous. The
selfish super rich person is evil and irrational because he does not grasp that
by depriving others of resources he is damaging them and ultimately damaging
himself.
We will have a world fit for
humanity only when we all cooperate in the building of it. Only when the super
rich are declared excommunicate for their crimes against the people can we
create Eden. We have had thousands of years of the privileged elite running the
world. Have they created paradise? Yes - for themselves! Only the mad keep
repeating the mistakes of the past and expecting a different result. The rule
of the super rich has failed dismally for everyone who is not super rich so the
only rational response is to remove the super rich from their seats of power.
Kick their butts out onto the street. Drag the Queen of the UK off her gold
throne and deport her. Burn down the boardrooms of the Wall Street fat cats.
The only people who should be in positions of power over the people are those
who act in the interests of the people, not in their own interests. Excessive
personal wealth is an unambiguous sign that someone is wholly devoted to his
own gratification, hence that person is unfit for any position of public power.
If we operated rationally, we
could easily create a Golden Age. The problem, of course, is that most of
humanity doesn't know what rationality is. Look at the Abrahamists - they think
it's rational to have faith in a creature that orders human sacrifice and sends
almost all of humanity to hell. What human being would wish to reach heaven if
it meant being in the company of the monster who welcomes blood-soaked Islamic
suicide bombers and offers them seventy-two virgins? The ringleader of the 9/11
murder gang was obsessed with cleanliness because he was getting ready for his
heavenly wedding. He told his accomplices that the time between martyrdom and
the wedding to the seventy-two virgins is very short - a mere blink of the eye.
That's one wedding that no rational person would ever want to attend. Did the
virgins have any say in to whom they would be married for eternity? Or did they
have to do what they were told by the men in their lives, as in Islamic
societies on Earth?
As for female Islamic martyrs, do
they get seventy-two male virgins to marry? Is their wedding night like the
ultimate gangbang? Are the Muslims making hardcore porn in "heaven" -
non-stop orgy scenes?
No logical person could
countenance the bizarre fantasies of these Islamic crackpots for a moment. Yet
the world is full of irrational people. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is another
deranged religion.
Why can't people focus on the only
conspiracy that counts - the rule of the elite and their never-ending
conspiracy of privilege designed to ensure that their family dynasties bestride
the globe eternally. Why should the world bend over for you if your name is
Rothschild? That evil family represents everything that's wrong with the world.
We have offered the solution: 100% inheritance tax. All of the family dynasties
of the Old World Order will be brought to an end by this meritocratic, rational
tax. If you want a new world then campaign for 100% inheritance tax. Everything
else is just an irrelevant distraction. 100% inheritance tax is the silver
bullet, the stake through the heart of the vampire of the super rich.
We can have a new world only if we
end the reign of the rulers of the old world. 100% inheritance tax - by itself
- brings about the revaluation of all values. It empowers the powerless, gives
a voice to the voiceless, sweeps aside the entrenched elite who have rigged the
game in their favour. When the senior members of the Rothschild family pass
away, the riches and power of that family will be no more. Their wealth will be
transferred to the people (from whom they stole it in the fist place).
If you want to be free, you must
destroy the super rich. There is not a single reason why those who are not rich
should tolerate a handful of people commandeering the vast bulk of the
resources of the world and calling it their private property.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed
the ills of the world to the invention of private property. He asked where the
process would end. Could a suitably powerful person throw open his windows and
proclaim the whole world his private property? Of course, what Rousseau is
really talking about is disproportionate private property. A person who owns a
family house isn't a tyrant. A person who owns a hundred millionaire mansions
all over the world is.
Why don't the rest of us simply
say, "No! You can't have any more. You already have far more than you
need."
*****
In Schopenhauer's philosophy, a
human being is the noumenal Will as phenomenon. A sculpture or painting of a
human being is a copy of the phenomenon. But what of music? What is that a copy
of? Schopenhauer's influential answer was that music is a direct copy of the
Will itself, rather than a copy of a phenomenon. Music is in a sense alive.
Like us, it is the Will as phenomenon. When we hear the finest music, it's as
though we are listening to the cosmic heartbeat itself (or as close as we can
ever get to the underlying truth of things). We are tuning into the striving,
the desire, the unquenchable craving, the ceaseless energy of the Will. Music
moves us so much because we too are all of those things, albeit seen through
the distorting lens of the phenomenal world. Music makes our bodies resonate.
We can feel it inside us. To look at a painting is one thing; to feel music coursing
through you is quite another.
Music is the cosmic Will made
audible in space and time. There is no other art form that brings us so close
to bare existence, to the underlying nature of all things.
How can a scientific materialist
account for the spell of music? How can mechanistic processes make us (mere
biological mechanisms) weep? How can music fill us with yearning, with sadness,
with love, with joy? How can any mechanistic process accomplish that? It can't.
Materialistically, human beings are nothing but the food and drink they consume
every day. How can music make food and drink - us! - want to dance?
Music, when you really understand
its significance, is the proof of God, of the soul, the afterlife, the eternal
cosmic Will that can never fade. There is no universal heat death coming our
way as the scientific materialists claim. The cosmos is alive and can never
die. It is immortal Will. We are Will and we too are immortal. Go and listen to
your favourite song and realize for the first time that it's the proof that you
can never die. It's beyond all materialist theories of
life.
But there's good music and bad.
The bad is muzak - shopping mall music, deliberately sanitised and synthesised;
plastic music for plastic people. The Will is extracted from it and replaced
with blandness and banality. Most of the world's music is muzak, designed not
to offend, incapable of moving us.
Music at its best is revolution.
All around us we are beginning to hear the Soundtrack of the Revolution.
Liberty is coming. The fires have been lit beneath the wooden floors of the Old
World Order.
The Will also communicates itself
directly through human beings. Our deepest emotions bring us closest to the
cosmic Will. Love, hate, anger, envy, disgust, shame…all of these originate in
the Will. And perhaps the closest we can ever get to the Will is through the
desire to reproduce it. Reproduction means…sex!
When we are in the grip of sexual
desire, we have become one with the eternal Will. We are beyond space and time.
There is no readily available act with a higher transformative power than sex.
Sex is the quintessential expression of the Will, of the lust for life, of
pure, irrational desire.
It's for that reason that
celebrity culture revolves around sex appeal. Anyone who can act as the
lightning rod for global sexual desire becomes a god or goddess. The likes of
Megan Fox, Beyonce, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Rihanna and Angelina Jolie are
objects of desire for billions of people.
Yet these are all pale, bloodless
divinities. They are what Judea-Christian capitalism uses to control us. Sex
can be made so much more than the sanitized nonsense we are subjected to. Pagan
sex is where the action is.
Sex for salvation is the formula
for life.
Wilhelm Reich
"Perhaps
my morality objects to it, but from my own experience and from watching myself
and other people, I have come to believe that sexuality is the centre around
which revolves all of social existence and the inner life of the
individual."
-
Wilhelm
Reich
When the Will is expressed
sexually, it can be labelled with the Freudian term "libido" - a form of mental energy.
Carl Jung expanded the concept of libido to refer to all mental energy, but
it's useful to assign a different name for the psychic energy of each human
drive. A person with a low libido might have a high "hate energy".
Hate, love, jealousy, envy, greed, lust, anger, gluttony…they all have their
own energy.
The instinctual energies manifest
themselves in different strengths in all of us, but the energies are
fundamentally linked, being traded off against each other. If we repress sexual
energy because of social taboos, it reappears somewhere else, usually in an
uncontrolled and dangerous form.
Wilhelm Reich, a disciple of Freud
who worked as a clinical assistant in Freud's Psychoanalytic Polyclinic,
thought it might be possible to scientifically measure a person's libido. He
developed a theory that if sexual energy isn't released properly, it gives rise
to neurosis and ultimately psychosis.
Islamic suicide bombers, dreaming
of their seventy-two virgins, have become psychotic through repressed
sexuality. Islamic attitudes towards women reflect extreme sexual dysfunction.
When men put women in burqas it's because they are terrified of sex and of women.
Reich believed that a good orgasm
discharged libido fully, allowing it to flow though the body and energise every
part of it. He regarded high quality orgasms as a prerequisite for mental
health.
Reich was right that the mental
health of society is bound up with good sex. Ever since Abrahamism killed
paganism, the West has been in the grip of a warped attitude to sex.
Protestants associate sex with the original sin of Adam and Eve. Catholics
demand the celibacy of priests and prohibit women from serving as priests.
Orthodox Jewish women are only allowed to show their natural hair to their
husbands and have to wear ill-fitting wigs every time they go out, making them
look like freaks. Many Muslim women must cover themselves from head to toe when
they dare to venture into public.
Many cultures treat sex as a
taboo. It's portrayed as dirty, dangerous and shameful. Some religions -
especially Islam - think that gay sex should be punished with death! Sex is
turned from something natural and healthy into an unnatural and perverted
activity. It's consigned to a dark, furtive, subterranean world where its power
over us is magnified. Taboos are invested with bewildering power because they
grip the imagination like nothing else. The temptation to transgress the taboo
can become overwhelming.
Freud attributed a great deal of human behaviour to
our sexuality, particularly as it developed in our childhood and puberty. Reich
went even further and made it the axis around which everything revolves. All
aspects of our society and culture can be traced back to sexual preoccupations.
Given, on the one hand, the astonishing degree to which capitalism uses sexual
images, sex appeal and the "promise" of improved sexual success to
sell products, and on the other hand the ferocious attacks that the "Moral
Majority" and Abrahamist religions make on recreational, casual sex, Reich
was certainly onto something.
He regarded his "Orgasm
theory" as revolutionary. It placed the orgasm at the centre of the human
condition, the supreme determinant of human happiness. His Orgasm Theory
proclaimed: "Orgastic potency is the capacity for surrender to the flow of
biological energy without any inhibition, the capacity for complete discharge
of all dammed-up sexual excitation through involuntary pleasurable contractions
of the body."
Failure to discharge orgasmically
leads to poor health and neurosis.
A world where everyone enjoyed
great sex would be a transformed world. Crime, violence, unhappiness,
bitterness and hate would be swept away. People would go about their business
radiating health and happiness, glowing with inner energy.
Sex, for Reich, is the centre of
the human experience and the quality of our sex lives determines the happiness
of the human race. Bad sex leads to unhappiness, good sex to fulfilment.
The "Free Love" hippie
and flower power movements of the 1960s owed much to Reich's influence. The
famous slogan "make love not war" summed up his thinking. If you're
not making love, your life instinct (Eros) will be transformed into the death
instinct (Thanatos) and will be unleashed in violence, hate and war.
Is it any coincidence that the
Abrahamist religions hate sex and wage perpetual war? When Jesus Christ talked
about loving your neighbour, it should have been taken literally. His followers
chose to despise sexual love and replaced it with hatred of any who chose to
believe differently from them. In orthodox Christianity, Christ is always
depicted as a virgin, thus providing divine condemnation of sexuality. The sexual
frustration of Abrahamists erupted in crusades and jihads that continue to
haunt us to this day.
Isn't it extraordinary that
Christianity, which preaches a message of love, is full of nothing but hate and
a desire to send as many people as possible to perpetual suffering in hell?
Isn't it extraordinary that Islam, which preaches a message of peace,
compassion and submission, is staggeringly violent, and its prophet Mohammed
was himself a bloody, violent figure who ordered numerous massacres of
prisoners? As for the Jews, there's not a particle of love and peace associated
with their monstrous tribal war god, Yahweh, whom they madly proclaimed the one
God of the entire universe.
All of these people need a damned
good fuck. They know that better than anyone, and they know equally well that
sex would destroy their crazy, hateful religions, hence they impose
never-ending taboos and prohibitions on sex.
St Augustine, one of the great
monsters of Christianity whose ideas eventually gave rise to the appalling religion
of Protestantism (with its ludicrous sanctification of faith over reason),
regarded sex and procreation as the means by which original sin were
transmitted from parents to their children, leading many Protestants to
conclude that sex itself is the original sin. Augustine declared, "The
very root of sin lies in carnal generation."
To eat of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil contrary to God's command was code for having recreational,
lustful sex. It is only after they have eaten the fruit that Adam and Eve are
aware of their nakedness and wish to cover themselves with clothes i.e. the
message is that sex is shameful and sinful. From then on, sex became
indissolubly linked to the concept of evil. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were
immortal (Romans 5:1 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and
by sin death; so also death passed upon all men, in whom all have
sinned."). Birth, sex and death were unknown in Eden. Chaste kissing and
cuddling were all that Adam and Eve did before the serpent tempted them (very
Freudian!). Post-coitus, they were driven from paradise and into the world of
mortality and suffering.
Naturally, it was essential for
Christ to have been conceived non-sexually because otherwise he too would have
been infected by original sin. Also, his mother Mary had to be conceived
"immaculately" to ensure her womb was a sin-free zone for the
embryonic God.
St Augustine said that all human
beings regard sex as shameful, hence why they have sex in the dark and in
privacy - so that others can't witness their shameful deeds. Unlike animals
which mate only in season, humans are at it all the time with their disgusting,
insatiable, sinful lusts.
The Cynic philosophers such as
Diogenes who openly fucked in the street and masturbated in public scandalised
"decent" people.
Augustine pointed out that
brothels were always in special, restricted areas, never in the main street.
Everyone knew they were squalid and shameful. He had no hesitation in declaring
that babies - the products of the sex act - went straight to hell if any should
be unfortunate enough to die before being baptised.
According to Augustine, all humans
belong to the "mass of perdition" and we can be saved only if God
bestows grace on us. If he doesn't, we have no cause for complaint because we
are inherently damned and undeserving of any love, mercy or compassion.
As you would expect, Augustine was
a total hypocrite. He infamously declared, "Lord, make me chaste, but not
yet." In other words, he made sure he enjoyed a highly active sex life
before he settled down to chastity when he was no longer capable.
Of faith, Augustine said,
"Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is
to see what we believe." It never seemed to occur to him to ask why the
"Creator" of the Universe would choose to hide from his Creations and
pretend he wasn't there. Why would God play hide and seek? Imagine a game going
on for millions of years where someone has hidden himself from us and is
expecting us to find him, but offering no help or clues to where he is. What
kind of person would you be to keep playing this bizarre game? Only a lunatic
would persevere. Of course, the lunatics declare that if you don't believe you
will be sent to hell. What manner of Creator is eager for his creations to be
consigned to hellfire?
Martin Luther was terrified of the
wrath of God. A celibate Augustinian monk, he was so desperate for a
"legitimate" fuck that wouldn't damn his eternal soul to hell that he
had to create a whole new religion to make it possible. One of the first
Lutheran reforms was to abolish priestly celibacy, thus freeing Luther to marry
a nun. At last, Luther got his end away without a troubled conscience. Thus the
whole Protestant religion was founded on nothing but a sexually frustrated
monk's desire to legitimise his sinful lust. All the other reforms were just
the icing on the cake.
Character Armour
Wilhelm Reich hypothesized that we
don mental armour to
shield ourselves from the blows of the world. Our character itself becomes an
inflexible suit of armour. Character armour takes on the design of the
prevailing culture and ends up forming a barrier to our own instincts and
desires. Our body and posture reflect the armour. No example is starker than
the burqa - an almost literal suit of armour that affects every part of the
life of the woman wearing it. Even if she removes it, she still carries it with
her in her attitudes. It dictates everything she does and everything she
thinks.
Along with the character armour comes
a rigid mask. Thanks to these, our life energy becomes blocked and wrongly
directed. It flows through inappropriate, unhealthy channels because we have
sealed off the healthy ones. It's as though we are afraid to be happy, afraid
to be free, afraid to feel good. And soon enough we become full of hate, fear
and perversion, and we bow to all authority figures. We despise our own natural
instincts and become almost inhuman.
Reich argued that we engage in
self-sabotage. Our desires and instincts desire that we do x, y or z, but our
character armour ensures that we work out how NOT to get what we desire.
All of us have some degree of
armour, but some of us are incredibly heavily armoured. Muslims, Orthodox Jews
and evangelical Christians have more armour than medieval knights do, and not
in any good sense.
Reich also challenged the orthodox
idea that a neurosis was only a blip in an otherwise healthy person. He
proposed that any neurosis reflected a disturbance of the whole character, from
which he concluded that character itself is a disease. All of us, no matter how
charming or interesting we might be, have a character that is flawed. We all
know it. None of us feels comfortable in all situations. All sorts of things
can induce anxiety in us. Proper, healthy sexual development would rectify many
of the ills that bedevil us.
Reich said that when we fail to
achieve good orgasm, the excess energy is redirected into the character armour
and makes it even denser and more protective. The fanatic is someone who
continually channels failed orgasms into his fanaticism. In the early years of
Christianity, many Christian men were so terrified of their own sex drive that
they castrated themselves. That's how extreme their character armour had
become. If they could do such things to themselves, imagine what they could do
to others. Look at what has happened to celibate Catholic priests - their
thwarted sexuality has exploded in an epidemic of child abuse. Can anyone be
surprised? Isn't it time that the Catholic Church was ordered to abandon
priestly celibacy to ensure the protection of children.
These decisions should be taken
out of the hands of religions. Thousands of children have had their lives
ruined because the State refused to confront the Catholic Church. The State has
a duty to children that overrides any duty to respect religious beliefs. The
State should make it illegal for baby boys to be genitally mutilated in the
barbaric practice of circumcision. If you say that it's OK for children to be
attacked by their parents for religious reasons, you have sanctioned child
abuse. It's because adults are allowed to treat children like objects that
catholic priests got away with molesting children for so long. No one cares
about the complaints of children. Who asks a baby boy whether he wants to have
his foreskin chopped off? No one at all. He has no say in what happens to his
own body. What kind of fucked up parents think they can lop off parts of their
children's bodies without permission? The idea that parents or adults in
positions of authority can do whatever they like with children has to be made
illegal. You can't say you are opposed to child abuse if you let babies be
forcibly circumcised.
Reich identified the family as the
environment where the insidious development of character armour first began. He
perceived the family unit as the microcosm for authoritarian society, with the
father as the absolute dictator.
In nearly all revolutionary
theories, the family is regarded as the source of everything that goes wrong in
society. But, of course, the family is the ultimate sacred cow which no one is
allowed to challenge in conventional society. Politicians, especially on the
right, do nothing but praise the family, appeal to the family, endorse family
values and promote the family as the backbone of society and its greatest
strength. Someone like Sarah Palin talks incessantly about "the
family" and is forever condemning the State for interfering in any way
with family life. For many people, the State is the enemy of the family and has
no right to interfere in anything the family does. What has circumcision got to
do with the State, they would say. Parents have the absolute right to bring up
their children however they see fit. If they want to discipline their children,
indoctrinate them or remove their foreskin, it's none of the business of the
State.
The assumptions that underlie the
arguments of all exponents of family values are that a) the parents can
never be wrong in the way they raise their children b) they never harm their
children c) they always act in the best interests of their children d) any
intervention by the State is always malign.
All of these assumptions are
absolutely false. Many parents don't have the vaguest idea of how to bring up
children properly in a complex society. Most parents are stupid and don't read
books. They don't go to any kind of parenting classes. So whence the mythical
source of parental wisdom? Where is the parenting qualification that a mother
or father can wave to prove they know what they're doing? As innumerable
philosophical, political, psychological and sociological theories have
explained, the family is an environment of brainwashing (especially religious)
and passing on the sins and flaws of the parents to their offspring. Families
create neuroses and psychoses in dizzying amounts. The family can rightly be
described as the generator of most forms of mental illness.
When you apply meritocratic
thinking to the family, you reach horrific conclusions. Families are the result
of sexual intercourse - an act that requires no merit of any description. No
one puts in any thought as to whether the mother and father are actually
qualified to be parents i.e. have parental merit. No one inquires into what
goes on behind the locked doors and closed curtains of the family house. No one
probes too much into the consequences of family break ups. Single parent
families are frequently demonised and left to rot. The effects of children
being brought up in poverty, in ghettoes, with a poor or non-existent
education, are all conveniently ignored.
In many ways, the family is a
sink-or-swim environment and if children start to sink, the State doesn't hold
out a hand to bring them back to the surface. In other words, huge numbers of
children metaphorically drown and end up being a curse on society. They become
criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics, or religious fanatics. They are
anti-social, ill educated, inefficient, neurotic, full of rage. Society picks
up the cost of all the problems these maladjusted people cause.
Society surely has the absolute
right to defend itself against out-of-control families that end up draining the
resources of the State to no good end. The welfare state is nothing but a means
of supporting failed families at immense expense. Shouldn't any intelligent
society be spending the money that is absorbed by the "cost of
failure" on trying to prevent the failure in the first place? And don't
kid yourself about what that means. The State MUST take an interest in who is
having children and how they are bringing them up, and it must intervene as
soon as possible if the children are developing poorly, regardless of the
parents' "rights". All right wingers are appalled by the thought of
the State interfering with the family - but look at where not interfering has
got us. Anything from a third to a half of all families are functionally
fucked. That is a mind-boggling drain on the resources of the State and a
spectacular waste of human potential. The only way to stop it is for the State
to be absolutely ruthless about condemning poor parenting and preventing poor
parents ruining their children's lives.
One of the core struggles in human
evolution revolves around the question of who knows best. Many parents and
enemies of "big" government think that they always know better than
the State. They are advocates of negative liberty, meaning that the State
should leave them alone i.e. the emphasis is on being free FROM State
interference.
On the other hand, advocates of
positive liberty - i.e. the notion that liberty is to be used FOR a
transformative project of some kind (as opposed to negative liberty which is
about being free FROM any such project) - think that the State (if constituted
meritocratically) knows better than any parent ever could.
The State reflects the abilities
of all of its citizens. The State contains geniuses. The average family
certainly does not. If the State is allowed to function as the ultimate set of
parents, calling on the expertise of its most insightful, clever and talented
citizens, then is it not automatically vastly superior to the average nuclear
family that, by definition, has nothing but the abilities of two mediocre and
flawed adults to call upon?
A family can never have superior
ability to the State and yet the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, the Republicans, the
Tea Party, anarchists and libertarians is that the family is the source of the
highest wisdom possible and that the State is wicked and stupid.
Hegel is frequently denounced as a
worshipper of the State. The people who make that accusation are right-wingers
who object to the State in principle. Hegel understood that a meritocratic,
dialectically designed State cannot be bettered. It is the summit of human
achievement. A State led by its most brilliant citizens, all devoted to
improving the lot of everyone rather than serving themselves, is the supreme
political achievement.
Such a State ALWAYS knows better
than the family. How could it not? The average nuclear family comprises two
unexceptional parents, and two children at the mercy of those parents. The
State consists of tens and even hundreds of millions, amongst whom are some of
the greatest minds on earth.
If we would rather place our
future in the hands of unexceptional men and women rather than in the most
brilliant amongst us, is it any wonder our world is so stupid, crazy, cruel,
greedy, selfish, hateful and destructive?
To "worship" the State
means to regard a properly formed State as infinitely superior to the average
family at raising children of the highest quality and excellence.
Just as the State should not be
the hostage of a few private individuals (the super rich), nor should it be the
hostage of Sarah Palin type families that think they have the absolute right to
brainwash their children with their toxic religious, political and social
beliefs.
Just as the State has the absolute
right and duty to dictate to the super rich rather than the other way around,
so it has the absolute right to prevent the family from sabotaging the State by
bringing up children infected by bizarre beliefs such as Abrahamism. In
America, and even the UK, there are schools that allow the teaching of
Creationism in preference to Evolution. Such a thing is completely
unacceptable. The State contains all that is best, and its highest exponents
must be allowed to steer the Ship of State, not the members of mediocre
families infected by irrational faith.
The Illuminati ensure that their
Grand Master is the most meritorious member. How can any organisation or institution
attain excellence unless it puts its complete confidence in its most excellent
members?
We say over and over again that
the project of the Illuminati is to bring about the perfection of the human
race - to establish the Community of Gods. Could such an outcome ever be
realised if we entrusted the task to families such as those of Sarah Palin? It
wouldn't take much for parents like Palin to take us back to living in caves.
Look at what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan thanks to Muslim parents being
allowed to decide what's best. These nations are regressing towards the
primordial slime. Only the supermen and superwomen can lead us higher, not
average parents.
Sarah Palin is a remarkably stupid
person yet she is loved by millions of families all over America that are even
more stupid than she is. What she promotes is dumbocracy (rule by the dumb) and
idiocracy (rule by idiots). She believes she is already perfect and that no one
can tell her anything. She thinks her Christian beliefs and faith in God are
all she needs. She has nothing to learn, she believes, from anyone else.
If you are a seeker of knowledge,
the first thing you realise is that there are others who know much more than
you do and, if you want to learn, you must seek them out. Sarah Palin is not a
seeker of knowledge. She thinks she's smarter than everyone, so smart she
should be President. Has anyone ever been so deluded? Running a nation isn't
the same as bringing up a few children (badly).
If Sarah Palin became the American
President, it would show once and for all what damage a person espousing family
values would do to the world. In many ways, we actually hope for a Palin
victory or someone of that ilk - because it would mark the end of the failed
experiment of trusting the world to the Family rather than to the
experts.
Right-wingers are always
pro-family. No one has stronger family values than the Old World Order. Of
course, it's THEIR family they care about, not yours. Yours can fuck off and
die. Because that is what family values are really all about: a brutal,
dog-eat-dog Hobbesian struggle for primacy, using every tactic in the book,
especially privilege (i.e. advantages that can be bought by rich families).
Left-wingers are always more
community-focused. They see the need to help everyone. Families, on the other
hand, are all about helping themselves. What do you think is the appropriate
unit of society - the cutthroat, self-interested, self-absorbed, selfish family
desperate to be No.1, or the supportive, cooperative, altruistic community? The
former is the gospel of the "particular will", the second the
expression of the General Will. All political systems can be characterised by
whether they promote the particular or general will. All right wing, anarchist
and libertarian groups support the particular will; all left wing groups
support the general will.
Families recognise the need to
send their children to school to be educated by professional teachers. If they
took on the task themselves, most would prove disastrously inept.
The primary function of parents is
to love, nurture and protect their children. The State's job is to use the
expertise it can call on to turn those children into the finest and most
productive citizens possible. Only the State has the resources (apart from
super rich families that can buy the best possible education and environment
for their children).
*****
In a TV programme, a Muslim woman asserted that her faith was the most important thing in her life, and she wasn't going to leave it at the door when she went out in the morning. If she had any regard for others, that's exactly where she would leave it. The public space is not YOUR space. It is for everyone, and if you flaunt your extremist beliefs in the faces of those who don't share your beliefs then you can have no cause for complaint when they insult you. You asked for it and you got it.
All Muslims think that all
non-Muslims are going to hell. When Muslims turn up in non-Muslims countries
such as those of Europe and refuse to integrate, what they are saying to the
indigenous population is, in effect: "You are all infidel scum and Allah
will ensure you burn forever in hellfire." So, why would they expect to be
welcomed or treated with any respect? They could scarcely be more provocative
and ungrateful.
It's an act of intolerance to go
out in public wearing sectarian symbols. Others then have the right to treat
you intolerantly. If you want tolerance, behave tolerantly; respect others;
respect their right to have NO respect for your beliefs. No one has the right
to have their beliefs respected, especially if their beliefs are repugnant. Why
should I respect someone who tells me to my face that I am going to hell? I
have utter contempt for such a person. I will never respect them or their mad,
evil beliefs.
People can, more or less, do
whatever they like in the private sphere where it causes no aggravation to
others. The same does not apply in the public sphere. You can't do whatever you
like in a shared environment, and it's the State's job to enforce standards.
The private space is the Id space
in Freudian terms. The public space belongs to the Superego. You can't expect
to bring the Id into the Superego space, unless special provisions have been
made. Many people have extreme difficulty understanding that other people exist
in the world. They think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want,
wherever they want. Wrong! It's the State's job to protect the public space for
everyone, and that means giving no privileges to any sectional, divisive
interests.
ALL religious symbols should be
banned from the public space. All burqas, crosses, crucifixes, skullcaps,
hijabs, niqabs, tassels, wigs, weird religious clothes and hats are
unacceptable in the public sphere. They are symbols of intolerance, and they
must not be tolerated. In order to defend tolerance, the State must display
absolute intolerance towards the intolerant. If you tolerate the intolerant
then you yourself are condemned as intolerant. Toleration of intolerance IS intolerance
since it allows the intolerant to flourish unchecked.
The Founding Fathers of America
were determined to keep Church and State separate. However, they made a
disastrous error. It is not sufficient merely to separate the two. Everyone in
Europe regards America as quite an extremist Christian State; much more so than
any European State. How is that possible if Church and State have been truly
separated? It should be impossible to tell what the dominant religion of a
State is since there should be little or no evidence of religion in the public
sphere. Religion should be like a private club or secret society, which is
conducted out of sight except on special, approved days. The world is full of
mad groups that think that the members of other mad groups are going to hell.
Why should these fanatics be tolerated in the public space?
Anyone who says that others are
going to hell for holding different beliefs from them should be banned from the
public space as anti-social.
If the State had any guts and any
convictions, it would transform the public space into an environment fit for
all. Abrahamists should keep for the private sphere their grubby, intolerant,
fanatical beliefs about genital mutilation, hell and the human sacrifice of
children, and they should be prevented by law from bringing them into the
public sphere.
Through its rightful and strong
control of the public sphere, the State can bring about a transformation of the
private sphere too. The message will eventually penetrate the brains of even
the most stupid Abrahamists that their intolerant private beliefs are weird and
perverse. Every time Abrahamists' beliefs go unchallenged, those beliefs are
reinforced. The techniques of operant conditioning should be applied - i.e.
ensuring that unacceptable, intolerant beliefs are met with negative
consequences and are thus discouraged.
Muslims are taught to declare
jihad - holy war - if anyone tries to restrict their ability to worship and to
proselytise. If they are willing to be so extreme then extreme measures must be
taken against them.
Reich regarded all phases of child
rearing as breeding grounds of neuroses. When the child becomes an adult and
gets married, he carries all those neuroses into the marriage and then, when he
has his own family, he immediately infects his children with his own
neuroses….and so the horrific cycle goes on in perpetuity. Just look at
Abrahamism.
Reich hated any prohibition on sex
before marriage and any demand for monogamy. He thought that these unnatural
restrictions simply created yet more neuroses, ultimately leading to the
breakdown of the marriage.
He reached the conclusion that
marriage and its ills belonged to the political sphere. The family typically
reflects right wing, conservative and Abrahamist obsessions. Reich was
attracted to the Communist position of Marx and Engels who said, "The
bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course with the vanishing of
capital." Reich came to believe that you couldn't have a sexual revolution
without a political and economic revolution.
Whereas Freud "cured"
individual psychoanalytic cases, Reich thought that cures were required on a
mass scale, applied to the whole of society i.e. psychoanalysis was now to be a
political enterprise. Whole nations had to be put on the psychiatrist's couch.
Freud himself had also entered the
political arena. His 1929 book Civilisation and its Discontents painted a
picture of the human race perched on the precipice of barbarism. Irrational
instinctive forces were threatening to erupt everywhere with disastrous
consequences. The Great War had left Freud with the disturbing impression that
death was the purpose of life since it led to continual biological renewal,
hence why war, violence, cruelty, hate, sadism, crime and murder were so prevalent.
If they weren't natural instincts then why were they everywhere? Freud named
the death instinct Thanatos after the Greek god of death. He advocated
suppressing our instinctual desires if civilisation were to be preserved.
Instinctual energies, particularly the libido, had to be sublimated and
redirected to higher ends of social value. In effect, he was advocating a
Superego society and the abolition, as far as possible, of the Id.
Reich concluded that Freud was
becoming a right wing reactionary. In his opinion, the suppression of our
instinctual drives on behalf of social control was the cause of mental illness,
not its remedy. He maintained that conventional society was about the
preservation of the power of the elite, and they required natural instincts to
be repressed so that the people would be docile, submissive and in thrall to
authority. As for the police, he viewed them as robots without souls, people
who would do anything the elite told them.
Reich thought that inhibited
sexual energy was re-directed to violence, death and destruction (as suicide
bombers demonstrate). When people aren't sexually satisfied, trouble is sure to
follow. Orgasm discharges pent-up energy in a healthy way. In the absence of
sexual release, it is discharged through other, destructive means.
Reich linked Thanatos to
capitalism and thought the Soviet Union might provide the antidote.
Unfortunately, it proved just as authoritarian. The nuclear family remained
intact and there was precious little communal life taking place.
He now reached the incredible
conclusion that you couldn't have a political and economic revolution without a
sexual revolution first. Authoritarian societies relied on emotional cripples
and the sexually repressed. The sexually contented were much more confident,
had higher self-esteem and were much less receptive to authoritarian messages.
In his book The Sexual Revolution,
Reich wrote, "The sexual resignation which characterises the overwhelming
majority of people means indolence, emptiness in life, paralysis of all healthy
activity and initiative, or brutal, sadistic excesses; but at the same time it
provides a relative calm in life. It is as if death were already anticipated in
the way of living."
Authoritarian regimes deliberately
created "pleasure anxiety" to make people submissive and sheeplike
(look at Islam in the present day).
Reich argued that societies
mass-produced character armour for their citizens i.e. most people are shaped
by the same social forces and suffer from the same neuroses. Decades earlier,
Marx had said something similar. The ruling class takes active steps to ensure
that the whole of society adopts its ideology. It uses advertising, propaganda,
religion and, especially, media and education to impose its paradigm. All dissenting
voices are silenced or starved of any access to the public. Heresy is stamped
out. Rebels and revolutionaries are jailed or executed. Soon, the only voice
you hear is that of the establishment. It becomes internalised. To parrot the
opinions of the ruling class becomes second nature. Stupid, submissive people
don't stop for a second to think about the garbage being force fed to them.
Watch any news programme and you
will see that it is promoting a certain "line". There is a narrative
behind the reporting of any news event, and you can be sure it isn't neutral.
Someone's agenda is always being pushed, and it's invariably that of the ruling
order. Even though the 9/11 conspiracy theories are crazy, they at least
demonstrate a willingness to question the official story. Unfortunately, they
have a narrative of their own - that of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism which
is opposed to any form of government. The "Truthers" seek to
undermine confidence in government itself. They want to promote the narrative
that the governments of the world are intent on murdering their own citizens,
hence should be overthrown and replaced by their right wing form of
anarchism.
The truth is that the ruling elite
have no desire at all to kill their average citizens. Such citizens are docile,
submissive and fully signed up to the propaganda of the elite. They are
excellent consumers and they do the tedious droid and drone jobs that make the
rich even richer. Why would the elite have any desire to destroy the geese that
lay the golden eggs?
Reich contended that our psyches
have been moulded to reflect the prevailing social order. Again, Islam
furnishes the best example. Well over a billion people have been rendered
almost incapable of rational thought. If you want a definition of futility,
it's attempting to have any kind of rational debate with a Muslim. It's
impossible.
The mind of a Muslim works in the
following way. Anyone who supports the Koran is good. Anyone who criticises it
is evil. A Muslim doesn't "hear" any rational points you make. What
he hears are statements for or against the Koran, and if they are against then
he stops listening or reacts with fury. Muslims have absolutely no desire to
challenge what they believe or question it in any way. The Koran is good and
right by definition. In fact, it is the infallible, flawless word of God
himself. Once you believe that - once your mind is shaped by that concept - you
become incapable of free thought.
Of course, Orthodox Jews and
Christian fundamentalists are exactly the same.
Those who can't be reasoned with
aren't human - they are robots. There are billions of these robots in our
world.
Where Marx asserted that the
capitalist ideology was used to shape our consciousness, Reich went further and
asserted that the ruling paradigm controlled our unconscious too. It dictated
our emotions, our dreams, even our impulses and instincts.
Muslims, for example, have Muslim
instincts. They don't react to stimuli as human beings but as Muslims. A Muslim
man, rather than being turned on by a scantily clad female, might feel
physically sick - such is the control that Islam has over his mind and body.
That is the degree of control that
all privileged ruling regimes wish to impose on the people. Meritocracy is the
precise opposite. For meritocracy to succeed, it needs human beings operating
at their maximum. There's no room for sheeple. Meritocracy is about creating
the maximum freedom of mind and exercise of reason.
Reich became fascinated by Nazi
Germany. Why was it so successful at captivating the German people? In 1934, he
wrote The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Hitler seemed able to reach right into
the souls of Germans and stir the deepest roots of their being. Reich
regarded fascism as "the sum total of all the irrational reactions of the
average human character." Above all, the Nazis exploited fear. (The same
tactic is used by Abrahamists with their threats of eternal hell.)
Hitler was the ultimate authority
figure and patriarch, of the same ilk as Abraham, Moses and Mohammed. Just as
children adore and obey their father, so the Germans adored and obeyed their
national father - Hitler. He represented order in the midst of chaos. He was
also a master of the tactic of the scapegoat. Jews were blamed for everything
and depicted as plague-ridden rats and cancer cells in the body of the German
nation.
Reich declared of fascism,
"It is the basic emotional attitude of the suppressed man of our
authoritarian machine civilisation and its mechanical-mystical conception of
life." It leads to paralysis of the will to rebel. Reich was struck by the
general inability of most people to contradict authority figures. He believed
that there was a psychic structure in humans that craved a Fuehrer.
As for the family, Reich called it
a "factory for authoritarian ideologies and conservative structures."
He wanted to protect children from emotionally sick parents. He believed that
the whole world was subject to an emotional plague of irrationality that stood
opposed to all life-affirming processes.
Reich advocated that people should
be "actively encouraged to govern their own destinies." They had to
be freed from the ideologies imposed on them by the family and the
authoritarian State.
Reich, rightly, regarded the
British as "fully armoured." It's extraordinary that so many working
class Britons fall for the nauseating propaganda of the monarchy.
In later life, Reich was
considered to have become mentally disturbed. He was obsessed with Orgone (a
clunky word inadequately reflecting "orgasm" and
"organism") - the energy of all living organisms that is most evident
during orgasm. It has a blue tinge and is present everywhere, including in
space and in vacuums. All living matter is created from orgone. Gravity and
electromagnetism function through orgone. The stars and planets float on an
ocean of orgone. In many respects, it is equivalent to the aether, but with a
sexual dimension.
Reich suggested that two orgone
currents could come together to create a cosmic orgasm! Perhaps the Milky Way
is the ejaculation of God!
As time went on, Reich came to
regard orgone as the arche, the basic substance of existence from which
everything else, living and non-living, was derived. To this extent, it is
rather like the Will of Schopenhauer, which also has a considerable sexual
aspect. Schopenhauer, however, regarded the Will as the underlying noumenal
reality - not as a scientific energy that could be perceived in the phenomenal
universe.
Reich, by making quasi-scientific
claims, but not providing any evidence or advancing any plausible theoretical
considerations, simply made himself seem like a lunatic, particularly when he
invented an Orgone Energy Accumulator (known as the Orgone Box) which he
claimed could concentrate orgone for therapeutic purposes. It was really just a
wooden box lined with metal. A patient who sat in the box would be bathed in
concentrated orgone, allegedly, to the considerable benefit of his health. It
would strengthen the biological energy of the patient and rectify any
disturbances in the proper flow of energy.
Reich believed his invention could
heal minor wounds and burns and even be effective against cancer and other
serious illnesses. It also allegedly increased sexual potency.
He also invented a device called a
cloudbuster designed to heal the sky since it could get sick just like a
person. When the streams of life energy flowing through it got blocked, they
needed a good dose of focused orgone to clear the blockage and get things
flowing again. Voila the cloudbuster.
When the sky became ill, the air
toxic, then vegetation died and everything became a desert. Reich's ideas
resemble James Lovelock's Gaia theory. The planet becomes a kind of person and
can suffer from sickness. To recover, it has to redirect orgone back into
healthy channels and re-establish equilibrium.
Reich managed to get himself hated
by Freudians, Nazis, democrats, communists and capitalists. He was hounded by
officials, expelled from countries and had his books burned by the Nazis and
Americans. Many regarded him as a deranged crank while others thought he was a
greater figure than Freud. He was incarcerated in an American jail, where his
fellow inmates referred to him as the "sex-box man". He considered
himself a martyr like Socrates, Christ and Gandhi, fighting the first battle of
the universe on behalf of humanity. His precious orgone boxes were impounded
and destroyed, all of his manufacturing notes and instructions for use burned,
and all of his books withdrawn from circulation. He died in jail of a heart
attack.
Even if he became unhinged in
later life, he still merits serious study. His work on sexuality, linking it
with psychology, character, economics and politics, is genuinely pioneering.
*****
What can we take from Reich? That
sex is so profound that it underpins politics, economics and psychological
well-being. Sex belongs to the dimension of revolution. Any new society must
have a revolutionary approach to sex. Sexual liberation is toxic to
authoritarian systems. It is no accident that all dictatorships are sexually
repressive. It is no accident that the authoritarian, patriarchal Abrahamic
religions despise and fear sex.
The elite control the sexual space
and through that they control you. A free society is sexually free - not just
in name but in deed.
One of the primary aims of any
healthy society should be to promote the highest quality sex, and to remove all
of the restrictions and taboos that are imposed on it.
Sex is the antidote to
authoritarianism. Sex subverts the controllers. Sex must be at the centre of a
new world order of liberation. A sexy society - sexually fulfilled - results in
much less violence, aggression, depression, crime and war.
The cynical and mercenary
capitalist commodification and selling of sex must be ended. Sex must become
what it was before the Abrahamists corrupted the world with their Devil
worship. It must return to its pagan roots where it was part of the sacred
order. Sex was a path to divinity, not a grubby, shameful, sinful activity
never to be mentioned in polite public discourse.
Sexual ecstasy brings us face to
face with the irrational. It is the Dionysian activity par excellence.
While it will always be the case
that society is run along Apollonian lines - reason and logic - it must always
provide an encounter with the dark Dionysian world of passion and mayhem.
Nietzsche, in The Birth of
Tragedy, argued that only ancient Greece had ever got the balance right (in the
pre-Socratic Age) but then it succumbed to over-rationality thanks to Socrates
and the playwright Euripides. Once Apollo had become dominant, Dionysus was
banished to the unconscious realm, only to erupt savagely and without warning,
wreaking horrific damage. The Abrahamic religions have waged war on Dionysus,
effectively transforming the god of passion into the Devil. Much of the
iconography of the Devil - horns, cloven hooves, bestiality etc is taken
directly from the Dionysian myths.
Dionysus was always associated
with the goat. In his childhood, he was disguised as a goat to hide him from
his enemies. The Greek word tragos means goat, from which we get the word
tragedy: a "goat-song". Tragedies, as originally conceived, were the
tales of the adventures of Dionysus, involving dreadful punishments on those
who refused to acknowledge him.
Aristotle said that tragedy should
evoke pity and terror and provide catharsis. He wrote: "The plot ought to
be so constructed that, even without the aid of the eye, he who hears the tale
told will thrill with horror and melt to pity at what takes place."
Dionysus was accompanied by satyrs
- forest gods or demons with the legs and hindquarters of goats, budding horns
and goat-like ears. They were notorious for their uncontrollable lusts.
Brutish, sexually voracious men are described as satyrs. Men in a state of
permanent and overwhelming sexual desire are said to suffer from satyriasis,
the male equivalent of female nymphomania.
The god Pan had a great deal in
common with the satyrs and with Priapus. He had a man's upper half and goat's
lower half. He was a symbol of lust and fecundity and he too fed the depiction
of the Devil.
Dionysus was the god of wine and
intoxication, the noisy, rowdy and uncontrollable god. Originally portrayed as
a bearded man, he was later represented as a beautiful youth with black eyes
and flowing hair, his head crowned with ivy and vine. He wore a purple robe in
times of peace, and a panther's skin when he was on the warpath.
While conventional religions
sanctify rules, regulations, taboos, commandments and prohibitions - the rigid
control of behaviour - the religion of Dionysus smashes all of that control. It
brings chaos and madness, and plunges people into the whirlpool of the deepest
carnality and sin. Hence, Dionysus is equated with the Devil.
Nietzsche identified himself with
Dionysus and set himself against "the crucified" (i.e. Christianity).
Nietzsche's Dionysus dialectically embraced Apollo and stood for a healthy
balance of the rational and irrational. He thought it lunacy to attempt to
exterminate irrationality, and thus his philosophy was itself often labelled
irrational.
Nietzsche had hoped that Wagner might
resurrect the culture of ancient Greece with his astounding multi-dimensional
operas that assaulted every sense, but he was disgusted when Wagner turned to
the apparently Christian themes of the opera Parsifal.
Nietzsche was right that we need
to create a world that gives both Dionysus and Apollo their dues. Society
should be designed along Apollonian lines, but be full of Dionysian outlets
through which we express our deepest selves, our Will. The people who lead the
most satisfying lives are those who feel the power of the cosmos coursing
through their veins. In the name of control and order, the Abrahamic religions
and the materialist ideologies such as capitalism (the cult of consumerism) and
science have tried to prevent us from accessing our true selves. We have been
turned into Apollonian machines that the privileged elite can easily
manipulate. The Dionysian Man is one that cannot be controlled. He is pure
Will. Hence he terrifies the elite.
Apollo = rationality = thesis; the
domain of Reason.
Dionysus = irrationality =
antithesis; the domain of Will.
Society must offer a synthesis of
these two forces, and must be alert to any ideology that seeks to eliminate one
or the other. The history of the world has largely revolved around the attempts
of the world controllers to kill Dionysus, except where he can generate profits
for the elite. For example, there is a great deal of officially sanitized
sexuality in our world, but no Dionysian unbridled sexuality. We get lots of
kitsch sexuality, mere titillation and teasing - but no raw, hardcore,
uncensored sex in the mainstream sphere.
Middle America was outraged at the
Super Bowl show of 2004 when there was "wardrobe malfunction" and
Janet Jackson exposed her breast. How ludicrous can you get? That reveals the
nature of the sexual hypocrisy that's embedded in our society. Female flesh is
on show absolutely everywhere; why the horror because it made an appearance at
the Super Bowl? The complainants would die of apoplexy if they ever saw
Dionysian sex at the Super Bowl.
Dionysus is the arch enemy of the
controllers, hence we, like Nietzsche, venerate him. In a Dionysian world, all
of the monarchs, popes, rabbis, imams and presidents would be swept away.
Everyone must have their Dionysian
side brought to the fore. Then they will no longer bow to false gods and brass
idols.
Sex is the antidote to the masks
we wear. All masks slip during Dionysian sex.
Sex is the antidote to smug
bureaucrats.
Sex is the antidote to stuffy pomp
and ceremony.
Sex is the great leveller.
Sex punctures inflated egos.
What caused the Emperor in his new
clothes to be humiliated? It was being exposed in his sexual nakedness.
None of the great moguls,
potentates and barons of our world could ever be taken seriously if we saw them
having sex or standing naked before us.
In pagan societies, sex was a link
between the human and the divine. With Abrahamism, that sacred link was
destroyed. Sex became the Devil's domain. Women were portrayed as evil
temptresses leading men astray.
They need to be returned to the
status the ancients and geniuses like the Illuminati's Grand Master Goethe
accorded them. His masterpiece Faust ends with the lines:
Everything
transitory
is only
an approximation;
what
could not be achieved
here
comes to pass;
what no
one could describe,
is here
accomplished;
the
Eternal Feminine
draws us
aloft.
In other words, the Eternal
Feminine has the power of salvation. It draws humanity ever closer to
perfection. Through the eternal feminine, we can ascend to the higher sphere of
existence - Paradise itself.
So why not liberally sprinkle the
eternal feminine over this world of ours?
Goethe's Last Words:
Mehr Licht! - More light!
Apollo and Dionysus
Humanity is torn between reason
and the will, between logic and madness. We are on a seesaw that never stops plunging first one
way and then the other.
No one on earth is entirely
rational. Only a computer can apply logic systematically. Our will gets in the
way of a clear head. In an instant, we can be seized by wild rage.
We are all the children of Apollo
and Dionysus, and we must pay our dues to both. It's impossible to eliminate
one or the other. Any attempt to do so is doomed.
The Abrahamic religions are not on
the side of reason, but they do support a primitive substitute for reason -
controlled, programmed responses. The point of the hundreds of rules,
regulations, laws and commandments that Abrahamic religions impose on their
followers is to ensure that their behaviour is predictable and occurs within
well-defined bounds. The Abrahamists combat Dionysus through brainwashing, not
reason. They create human automata that blindly obey but have no understanding
of what and why they are obeying.
Plato, a towering genius, imagined
that in the suprasensible domain of the perfect Forms, there existed an
eternal, immutable Form of Justice. If only he could channel that Form he would
be able to build a just city based on an absolute conception of justice. That
is very much an Apollonian vision.
What Plato forgot is that the Will
(Dionysus) is incapable of surrendering to reason (Apollo). Dionysus always
subverts Apollonian justice because it recognises its own form of justice - the
passion of the moment. The infamous Marquis de Sade was a devotee of Dionysian murder
but was appalled by Apollonian murder i.e. planned State execution. If you
killed someone you despised in a flash of rage, that was understandable. If the
State coldly and mechanically killed someone months or years after a crime was
committed, using an executioner who had never even met the condemned prisoner
let alone suffered any harm at his hands, this was barbarous and inexcusable.
This kind of clinical execution
reached its highest expression in the production-line death camps of the Nazis.
A simple Apollonian rule - Jew or not Jew - determined your fate. It didn't
matter what you had done in your life. It didn't matter if you had never
practised Judaism in your life. All was decided by the checklist: did it say
you were a Jew or didn't it?
When Hannah Arendt referred to the
"banality of evil" as she pondered the character of Adolf Eichmann,
the man who organised the trains for delivering the Holocaust victims to their
deaths, she was acknowledging that no real Dionysian passion was involved. The
Holocaust was a bureaucratic, factory exercise, not different in kind from
manufacturing and distributing baked beans. In this case, the product was
death.
Any system of justice has to take
account of two very different presiding gods with two very different value
systems: Dionysus and Apollo.
As Nietzsche recognised, religion,
morality and philosophy have all waged war against Dionysus. "Order"
has tried to put "chaos" out of business, but this is impossible.
This is one of the reasons why the dialectic is much more nuanced than
simplistic divisions of "good and evil". You create evil by trying to
eliminate it, which is why the Abrahamic religions have trailed nothing but
evil in their wake. They demonised the human Will. They called it "Original
Sin". In other words, they labelled the force that drives us as Satanic.
Finding the right balance between
Apollo and Dionysus is the essence of the well-adjusted, fulfilled society.
Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll are
the province of Dionysus. He reigns over the competitive instinct, hubris,
nemesis, flight or fight, the pursuit of glory, the seven "deadly
sins" - everything that makes the human juices flow.
Disaster overtakes us when we
worship Dionysus too eagerly, just as it does when we are too in thrall to
Apollo. We can't do without either god. They are dialectically tied together.
Apollo is reason, control, order, logic, organisation and construction.
Dionysus is unreason, passion, will, disorder, chaos, lust and destruction.
They are the ancient Greek version
of yin and yang, but both are masculine and both are feminine.
The Prince
The year 1500 was a jubilee year
for the Catholic Church
and Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) was the pope. His son Cesare was the model
for "the Prince" - the ideal ruler of the State - about whom
Machiavelli wrote so admiringly.
During the jubilee celebrations,
Cesare arranged a lavish banquet in the Apostolic Palace in honour of his
father and sister. It became known as the Ballet of Chestnuts
and entered history thanks to its notoriety.
Fifty courtesans danced for the
gathered dignitaries, including cardinals and ambassadors. After the recital of
elegant music, the diners were treated to a licentious comedy while they ate
and drank. With the banquet over, lamp stands holding lighted candles were
placed on the floor and chestnuts liberally strewn about.
Following the spectacular floorshow, a mass orgy ensued. Prizes were offered to the men who could fuck the most prostitutes. Servants kept careful score of each man's orgasms, for, it was said, "the pope greatly admired virility and measured a man's machismo by his ejaculative capacity..."
"You're All a Bunch of Fucking Idiots."
-
Jim Morrison
Lucifer - Venus
The Ancient Egyptians and Greeks
thought that the
morning and evening stars were two separate entities rather than the same
planet (Venus) seen at two different times. The Greeks called the morning star
Phosphoros (Latinised Phosphorus), "Bringer of Light" or Eosphoros
(Eosphorus), "Bringer of Dawn". The evening star was called Hesperos
(Hesperus), "star of the evening". Hesperos was translated into Latin
as Vesper, and Phosphoros as Lucifer ("Light Bearer").
Later, the ancient Greeks realized
the two stars were in fact one planet, which they named after their goddess of
love, Aphrodite (the Phoenician Astarte, the Egyptian Isis and the Roman
Venus).
When Lucifer, the Angel of Light,
is characterised as a man, it's actually a travesty of the history of the word.
Although Illuminism is itself guilty of portraying Lucifer as male by
longstanding convention, the Angel of Light should in fact be characterised as
the principle of the Eternal Feminine, the quintessential female.
Whereas Satan - the Eternal
Masculine - is violent, aggressive, angry, bullying, selfish, narcissistic,
individualistic, Lucifer is peaceful, loving, altruistic, compassionate,
considerate, and an advocate of community.
Satan and Lucifer are reconciled
in the higher synthesis of Abraxas - neither male nor female, but the best of
both.
The world cannot prosper under the
rule of Satan, and nor would a reign by Lucifer be the answer - it would simply
create a new and different set of problems. Just as Apollo and Dionysus have to
be dialectically harnessed, so do Satan and Lucifer: male and female, masculine
and feminine, yin and yang.
The evil reputation of Lucifer
would be erased if "he" were portrayed as "she" - the
goddess of love, bringing the light of love to the world.
It's impossible to portray Satan
as anything other than a psychotic man, but Lucifer, as the counterpoise to
Satan, should certainly be portrayed in feminine terms. "Lucifer"
should be restored to what it was originally - an epithet of Venus, the
radiantly goddess of love. All depictions of the Angel of Light should show a
wondrously beautiful woman, the treasured daughter of Abraxas, sent into the
world to combat the Prince of Darkness - Satan.
When you think of Abrahamism, is
it not always fanatical bearded men you see in your mind, demanding death and
destruction for all "infidels"? The God of Abrahamism seems
remarkably like Thanatos, the god of death. While women bring new life into the
world, men take it out of the world by killing it. Women are Eros, and men
Thanatos. Men are deeply attracted to death cults because they love the theme
of Apocalypse. Ultra violence has a profound fascination for all men. Men are
violent because violence is part of the male psyche in a way that women can
never fathom. Look at Valhalla, the warrior heaven of the ultra-masculine
Vikings: they fight all day then feast and fuck all night. That is the complete
encapsulation of the masculine worldview. When you boil masculinity down to its
essential components, that's all that's left - sex, violence and partying. All
men have a Viking within them, longing to get out. The masculine world is the
id world. Men are fundamentally opposed to civilisation. Women are the ones who
bring the Superego and civilisation into the world.
All patriarchal religions -
especially Abrahamism - have a malignant masculine core. All such religions are
evil. They have to be tempered with a feminine aspect. Ancient religions almost
always had male and female divinities worshipped on a more or less equal
footing. Some put goddesses at the top of the pantheon because of the fertility
of women, some put gods at the top because of their virile power, but many had
them as complementary pairs like yin and yang.
Monotheism was a catastrophe
because it destroyed the equality and balance of gods and goddesses. An utterly
masculine god became the sole deity of the cosmos, and the world was
immediately plunged into a disastrous relegation of the importance of women,
and a sanctification of the worst aspects of the masculine. Yahweh = Allah =
Christ = Satan = Id = masculinity in its darkest aspect is the true equation of
monotheism.
The Gnostic Abraxas, as the
synthesis of Lucifer and Satan, as the sexless God who transcends sex,
containing an absolute harmony of the female and male principles, is the only
healthy way to portray monotheism.
It is wrong, dangerous and even
evil for the monotheistic God to be portrayed as fundamentally a man. Even the
most cursory glance at Abrahamism reveals that it's absolutely infected with
masculine concepts and has marginalized and ridiculed everything feminine. Look
at the way Jews, Christians and Muslims have treated women throughout history.
Christians took a long time to agree that women actually had souls and the vote
was passed extremely narrowly. Muslims hate women so much that they would
prefer it if women were not seen at all, hence the burqa. Catholics refuse to
have woman priests. Abrahamism has never been anything but the vehicle of the
most terrible sexism that has reduced women to second-class citizens in a
two-tier society. Just as it's mind-boggling that gays choose to be Abrahamists
given that Abrahamism regards gays as the damned, it's equally extraordinary
that any woman should have anything to do with such a sexist religion as
Abrahamism.
Women should not subscribe to any
religion that does not give them equal billing to men. Where are the female
prophets, the holy books written by women, the female priests, rabbis, and
imams, the female popes? Any religion that discriminates against women should
be declared illegal - and that means Abrahamism.
Abrahamism has no place in the
modern world. The reverence with which the ancient Egyptians treated Isis, the
Phoenicians Ashtoreth, the Babylonians Ishtar and the Greeks Athena, Hera and
Aphrodite shows that they were much more enlightened than the monotheistic
Abrahamists. We need to restore the importance of the ancient goddesses.
All hail Lucifer, the Angel of
Light, the Goddess of Love - the antidote to Satan. Through Lucifer we will
reach Abraxas, the Supreme Being, the First God, and the God that we will all
join as Gods ourselves.
The Soul Woman
A myth exists that Christianity
several times debated
the issue of whether women have souls and can be considered fully human. It is
said that at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE such a proposition was passed by
just one vote!
The matter was also allegedly
debated at the Synod of Macon in 585.
It is said that at the Council of
Agde in 835, an ecclesiastical court ruled explicitly for the first time that
women do indeed have souls (but the motion was passed once again by just a
single vote).
A provocative pamphlet was issued
in the 17th century entitled Women do not
have a soul and do not belong to the human race, as is shown by many passages
of Holy Scripture. The author was a mischievous and poor young
scholar called Valentius Acidalius, trying to attract some attention to himself
and make some money. Allegedly, some Italian ladies were distressed to discover
they had no souls and were mere machines like the biological automata that
Descartes considered animals to be.
Clearly, Christianity never
regarded women as being soulless, but it's interesting that the rumour could be
taken so seriously. In other words, it wouldn't have come as a great surprise
if patriarchal Abrahamism had declared women to be less than human. After all,
that's how they've treated them for millennia!
Why are Muslim women in burqas if
they are human? Why are there no Catholic female priests if women are
human?
So, if you're a Soul Woman, say no
to Abrahamism!
The Erotic Society
What is the difference between
eroticism and pornography?
The former seeks to arouse sexual desire subtly while the latter wants to be as
explicit as possible. Eroticism is seductive, feminine, suggestive, leaving so
much to the imagination. Pornography is graphic, masculine, leaving nothing at
all to the imagination.
The Earth Goddess and Eden
The ancient Mesopotamians often
depicted the Earth Goddess standing next to a sacred tree and with a wise
serpent for a companion. Mesopotamian culture evolved into that of the
Babylonian Empire which conquered the kingdom of Judah and enslaved the Jews.
The Jews became the deranged people they are today during their captivity in
Babylon. That's when they turned to their volcanic war god Yahweh to save them.
That's when they became fanatical monotheists. That's when they wrote the evil
texts that became their holy writ. That's when they rewrote history to give the
impression that they had always been ardent followers of Yahweh.
It was in this period that they
wrote the tale of the Garden of Eden. The Earth Goddess and her tree were
combined into a single entity: the Tree of Life. This tree was joined by a
second - the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Goddess's old and trusty
companion - the wise serpent - became the sly creature that lurked under the
tree, ready to tempt Adam and Eve into deadly error.
Throughout the Jewish Torah, pagan
symbols are readily appropriated and promptly demonised. The Torah is one of
the greatest acts of propaganda in history, written by bitter and twisted
prophets yearning for revenge against their Babylonian masters.
Much of the tale of the Exodus
from Egypt was actually a fantasy version of the freeing of the Jews from the
Babylonian Captivity, except it wasn't Yahweh that got them out but Cyrus the
Great of Persia.
The Eden story is an attack on
paganism, an attack on Babylon. Above all, it's an attack on the Earth Goddess,
associating her with evil in the shape of the serpent. From the outset, Judaism
was an insult to women. Judaism was always an authoritarian patriarchy, a
fascist dictatorship of masculine values. Women were blamed for everything, and
were excluded from all religious functions. While pagans revered women and had
as many priestesses as priests, Abrahamism didn't have even one priestess.
Goddesses were relegated to demons. Eve was portrayed as the first sinner.
In some Jewish sources, Eve was
the second not the first woman. Her predecessor, Adam's first wife, was called
Lilith ("she of the night"). She bickered constantly with Adam and
bore him devils and demons as children. She and they were banished from Eden.
So, "God" got it wrong not once but twice. Is this the God of
Blunders? He doesn't seem to have a clue what he's doing.
It's extraordinary that any woman
tolerates Abrahamism since it was never anything but the primary source of the
toxin of sexism. Yahweh was always a jealous, angry, vengeful male deity who
lived alone on a high volcanic mountain - a fiery, masculine sky god. Like the
volcano, he was ready to erupt at any moment and destroy everything around him.
There was nothing sexual about life in his world - he fashioned life out of
clay, not via a woman's womb. He had no need for women.
Temple Prostitution
Through the money they collected, the priestesses could glorify their goddess with ever more wondrous temples and statues.
The Greek historian Herodotus wrote, "There is one custom amongst these people which is wholly shameful: every woman who is a native of the country must once in her life go and sit in the temple of Aphrodite [Ishtar] and there give herself to a strange man."
Babylon thus acquired a notorious reputation for sexual impropriety and debauchery, thus it was no surprise for it to be described in the Book of Revelation as, "Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes, and of the abominations of the earth."
Unlike most women, who were raised to be good mothers and obedient wives who stayed behind doors (and were veiled when they ventured out), priestesses/ prostitutes were well educated, cultured, cultivated and wealthy. They were highly skilled in music, philosophy, conversation, and, of course, sex. In the Enlightenment, courtesans performed the same role, and Japanese geishas in the modern day.
Ordinary women of ancient Greece needed a release from the boring routines of their lives and they found it in the ecstatic religion of Dionysus. They drank enormous amounts of alcohol in wild, hilltop locations and abandoned themselves to the most frenzied passions. They had orgies with men who took the role of the god and his lusty, goat-like satyrs. It was this imagery that haunted the medieval Christian mind. Witches were accused of holding debauched sabbats where they summoned the goat-like Devil and his demonic minions. Christian priests and monks regarded women as "the Devil's doorway." Girls were encouraged to offer their virginity to God and become brides of Christ - celibate nuns.
Christianity, in its war against paganism, took the whole pantheon of pagan gods and goddesses and simply rebranded them as devils and demons.
The Whore Empress
Drawing down the Moon
Hieros Gamos
Hieros Gamos is Greek for
"sacred marriage". It confers divinity on the act of sexual intercourse, transforming
it into a holy union between man and woman and opening a metaphorical stargate
to the gods.
Dan Brown discussed hieros gamos
in The Da Vinci Code:
"He [Robert Langdon]
explained that although what she [Sophie] saw probably looked like a sex
ritual, Hieros Gamos had nothing to do with eroticism. It was a spiritual act.
Historically, intercourse was the act through which male and female experienced
God. The ancients believed that the male was spiritually incomplete until he
had carnal knowledge of the sacred feminine. Physical union with the female
remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and
ultimately achieve gnosis - knowledge of the divine. Since the days of Isis,
sex rites had been considered man's only bridge from earth to heaven. 'By
communing with woman,' Langdon said, 'man could achieve a climactic instant
when his mind went totally blank and he could see God.'
Sophie
looked skeptical. 'Orgasm as prayer?'
Langdon
gave a noncommital shrug, although Sophie was essentially correct.
Physiologically speaking, the male climax was accompanied by a split second
entirely devoid of thought. A brief mental vacuum. A moment of clarity during
which God could be glimpsed. Meditation gurus achieved similar states of
thoughtlessness without sex and often described Nirvana as a never-ending
spiritual orgasm.
'Sophie,'
Langdon said quietly, 'it's important to remember that the ancients' view of
sex was entirely opposite from ours today. Sex begot new life - the ultimate
miracle - and miracles could be performed only by a god. The ability of the
woman to produce life from her womb made her sacred. A god. Intercourse was the
revered union of the two halves of the human spirit - male and female - through
which the male could find spiritual wholeness and communion with God. What you
saw was not about sex, it was about spirituality. The Hieros Gamos ritual is
not a perversion. It's a deeply sacrosanct ceremony.'"
Even the Jews succumbed to the
temptations of love and the joys of temple prostitution. They worshipped
several goddesses, most particularly Astarte, the Canaanite version of Ishtar.
Dan Brown wrote, "Admittedly,
the concept of sex as a pathway to God was mind-boggling at first. Langdon's
Jewish students always looked flabbergasted when he first told them that the
early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less. Early
Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God
but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness
came to the Temple to visit priestesses - or hierodules - with whom they made
love and experienced the divine through physical union. The Jewish
tetragrammaton YHWH - the sacred name of God - in fact derived from Jehovah, an
androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name
for Eve, Havah.
'For the
early Church,' Langdon explained in a soft voice, 'mankind's use of sex to
commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It
left the Church out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as
the sole conduit to God. For obvious reasons, they worked hard to demonize sex
and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the
same.'"
In those days, the Jews were a
decent people who could have become part of the community of nations. Instead,
the catastrophe of being enslaved by the Babylonians changed history. The Jews
fled into the arms of their monstrous and cruel war God, Yahweh.
The suppression of the Goddess to
make way for the monotheistic masculine God is the great untold story of
Judaism. It's complete nonsense that the Jews were always monotheists. Most of
them were polytheists like the rest of the pagans in the world. A fanatical
faction continually promoted the monotheistic claims of the savage storm god
Yahweh but they didn't take control until Jerusalem was sacked by the
Babylonians and the Jews sent into bondage. The Yahweh faction blamed the
catastrophe on the Jews' failure to worship a single god, thus incurring his
divine wrath. At the same time, the Jews encountered the apocalyptic religious
ideas of the Zoroastrians and their dualistic religion of a great war between
good and evil. The combination proved overpowering.
1)
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2)
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3)
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
If monotheism were
enthusiastically accepted by Jews, there would obviously be no need for the
first commandment. The second commandment seeks to differentiate Yahweh from
other gods who were typically depicted by "graven images". The third
commandment shows that there was widespread lack of respect for Yahweh, and
that he was frequently cursed by the Jews.
Dan Brown is also right to highlight that political reasons underlie the hostility of the Catholic Church to sex. Sex assigns equal importance to men and women, whereas the Church was and is entirely male. The early Church had no motive at all to be on the side of sex since it would automatically empower women, emphasise the Goddess, and diminish masculine monotheism.
In Gnosticism, Sophia, the goddess of wisdom, had an immensely important role, and it was to her, not Yahweh, that Solomon the Wise dedicated his famous temple. All philosophers pay court to Sophia. Philosophy, a word coined by Pythagoras, means "love of wisdom" - love of Sophia.
Religions like to portray
themselves as apolitical - outside the squalid bartering of venal politicians.
In practice, religions have been nothing but politics in action. When a certain
view is deemed heretical, it is invariably a political and not a theological
judgment. Christianity is littered with heresies and virtually all of them are
more theologically sound than the "orthodox" position. Martin
Luther's attack on Catholicism prospered because it suited the political and nationalist
aspirations of northern European princes who were sick of Papal arrogance,
corruption and interference in their affairs. Had Luther not appeared at a
politically opportune moment, he would have gone to the stake to be burned like
so many heretics before him, and there would be no Protestants now. It was
politics, not theology, that allowed him to succeed. Had previous heresies
prospered politically, they would have become the orthodoxy.
Sexual Enlightenment and Sacred Sex
Orphism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism and
Rosicrucianism all
had aspects devoted to sacred sex - the use of sex to attain higher states of
spirituality. The Rosicrucian "Chymical Wedding" was, amongst
other things, a name for a specific sexual ceremony.
Better known are the sex
techniques of the East: Hindu tantra, Taoist sexual alchemy and karezza (a
Western emulation of Eastern practices).
Tantra (meaning "woven
together" in Sanskrit) describes schools of Hindu yoga dealing with sexual
union of the male and female and can be extended to embrace all Eastern sexual
practices of a spiritual nature.
Tantra can be viewed almost in the
context of biofeedback training. Eventually you are so in harmony with your
body, able to control each and every aspect of it, that you can perform
remarkable sexual feats, bringing yourself to the point of orgasm and then
retreating, then doing the same thing over and over again. Expert males can
give their female partners multiple orgasms on a regular basis.
Karezza from the Italian word
"carezza" meaning "caress" is a 19th century term for a
system of Western non-religious sexual metaphysics based on Hindu tantra yoga.
It is based on the male refraining from ejaculating and attempting to remain at
the plateau phase of intercourse for as long as possible. In the age before
effective contraception, it served as a useful form of birth control.
It originated in the tantric Taoist system of
sexual alchemy which regarded semen as a vital spiritual fuel that should be
carefully conserved. That said, karezza is said to be passive in relation to
the Taoist system which promotes more movement and activity on the man's part.
In other words, karezza lets the woman control the pace of sex, while the
Taoist version puts the man more in control.
These yogic techniques, involving
self-restraint and meditation, are designed to transform sexual energy (libido)
into kundalini or spiritual energy. Sexual energy is a denser and cruder
component of life force energy, which needs to be alchemically refined so to
speak, liberated as kundalini energy and led upwards from the spinal chakra to
the crown chakra. Base sexual desire is thus transformed into the highest
spiritual attainment.
Sacred sex improves the quality of
our spiritual energy and develops the whole chakra system. Taoists believed it
played a major role in the creation of the diamond or immortal body, which
would allow a person to live forever.
Sacred sex is intended to achieve
various states of bliss and flashes of enlightenment, and if executed correctly
can lead to final enlightenment - moksha or nirvana. In practice, few can
accomplish anything approaching this.
What a number of adepts can
achieve after years of effort are so-called brain orgasms - or, rather,
spiritual orgasms of the mind rather than physical orgasms of the genitals.
Tantra yoga involves a ritualised male-female interaction, while kundalini yoga is about the individual - but it's not masturbatory, which is a pity. ("Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love." Woody Allen)
If you want a glimpse of kundalini yoga, you can find it here:
http://www.pinklotus.org/-%20KY%20Kriya%20for%20sex%20energy%20transformation.htm
In tantra yoga, the man worships his partner as a goddess and performs a sexual ritual featuring slow, non-orgasmic intercourse, that will hopefully lead to a spiritual rather than physical climax - a sublime experience of the divine realm.
The "right hand path" is a monogamous rite while the "left hand path" involves many couples at once. Naturally, the latter has earned tantra yoga a dubious reputation in some quarters. Moralists call it an excuse for an orgy and label it Satanic.
Taoist tantra is called sexual or tantric alchemy. Western alchemy was also highly sexualised, though this aspect was disguised with obscure and coded language and many people have little knowledge of how sexual alchemy was. It too was a form of sacred sex.
Life-force Energy
"In
all creative artists, productiveness ceases at the same time as sexual potency
does."
-
Nietzsche
The higher your libido (Freud's
label for sexual energy),
the more sexual energy you have to discharge. Jung broadened the scope of
libido to accommodate all life-force energy. Kundalini, the serpent power of
yoga, can be considered as life-force energy, as concentrated desire, coiled at
the base of the spine, ready to be awakened and refined into the highest
spiritual energy that can fuel the journey to enlightenment.
In the West, art is often a
vehicle for the highest spiritual undertakings. Philosophers such as Hegel,
Kant, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer all took a keen interest in art.
Nietzsche saw it as something that
seduced us: "Life is worth living, says art, the beautiful temptress. Life
is worth knowing says science."
He also saw it as something that
acted as an antidote to the "harshness" of scientific, philosophical
and mathematical truths: "Art is with us in order that we might not perish
through truth."
In many ways, art is nothing but
propaganda for various ideas. It allows the spread of dangerous memes. Think of
the beauty of the art of the Catholic Church, and the incredible artistic
treasures of the Vatican. Many people have been seduced to join Catholicism
because of the glory of Catholic art. Protestants sought to destroy art, seeing
it as a fiendish Papist trick to make people worship false gods. There is
precious little art in Islam and Judaism.
"Artists
are the glorifiers of humanity's religious and philosophical errors."
Nietzsche
The Twitter World
The top five most followed Twitter
users as of April 2011 were:
1.
Lady Gaga, pop star - 8.9m followers.
2.
Justin Bieber, pop star - 8.3m.
3.
Britney Spears, pop star - 7.2m.
4.
Barack Obama, US President - 7.1m.
5.
Kim Kardashian, reality TV star - 6.8m.
Although we often condemn social
networking sites, what we are objecting is the use to which they are put, and
the mindless trivia they promote. When a reality TV star is the world's fifth
most significant tweeter, clearly there is something badly wrong. None of her
followers will be manning the barricades, that's for sure. They are all sheeple
who spend their lives dreaming of being famous for nothing other than appearing
on TV. Such people pose no threat to the Elite.
However, if social networking is
put to good use - communicating vital messages to bring about an uprising (as
happened in Tunisia and Egypt) - then it can be an invaluable tool.
The Social Networking war will be
one of the most interesting conflicts of this century. At the present time in
the West, social networking is mindless, but here and there it is being used to
subvert the Elite. That tendency must be encouraged as much as possible.
It's interesting to examine the
attitudes of the Abrahamist religions towards art and recreational activities. Islam, Judaism
and Protestantism are almost uniformly negative towards everything. Only
Catholicism has embraced art and beauty. The following table expresses whether
the particular religion is supportive or not towards the specified activity.
Islam
|
Judaism
|
Protestantism
|
Catholicism
|
|
Sex
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Drugs
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Alcohol
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Painting
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Sculpture
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Beauty
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Literature
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Statues
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Depictions of God
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Architecture
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
In terms of aesthetics,
Catholicism is easily the most "beautiful" form of Abrahamism. The
Protestants are dreary, sober iconoclasts who, historically, smashed up many
Catholic churches, monasteries and Cathedrals. They regarded statues of saints
as "idolatry". They removed Christ from the cross. (Catholics wear
crucifixes showing Christ crucified while Protestants wear plain crosses.)
Jews and Muslims don't depict God
in any way. Nor do the Muslims depict Mohammed. Protestants are equally hostile
to representations of the divine. Catholicism took the stance that we should
have as many depictions of the divine as possible to raise our vision to the
celestial vault. We endorse that stance. The world needs as much beauty as it
can get.
Protestant churches are typically
drab, plain and unadorned. From the Catholic perspective, they are an insult to
the glory of God. After the Reformation, Catholics embraced baroque grandeur
more enthusiastically than ever.
The Protestants' hatred of beauty
carries over to their puritanical sexual habits. The Pilgrim Fathers (what, no
mothers?) who stepped off the Mayflower in New England were sexually repressed
Puritans, and their attitudes have infected America ever since. Witness the
ludicrous furore over the Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" scandal.
American culture is saturated with sexual imagery and yet still manages to be
outraged by sexual trivia. The "Moral Majority" can still raise a
fuss over nothing.
In Europe, American born-again
Christians are regarded as religious extremists, not dissimilar to Muslim
fundamentalists. In general, supporters of the Republican Party are viewed as
demented right-wingers and Democrats as the only Americans who could be
successfully integrated into European life. During the Bush years, America was
loathed in Europe. It's a remarkable thing that the Republican half of America
is so far removed politically and philosophically from the European countries
from which most of them originally came.
The reason is Christian
fundamentalism. Many of the early American settlers were religious extremists,
and they have managed to keep brainwashing generation after generation with the
same toxic ideas. Muslims are 1,400 hundred years behind the rest of the world;
American Christians are about 500 years out of date. Whereas Europe has become
increasingly secular, America remains a highly Abrahamist nation, and still has
weird attitudes towards sex. On the one hand, sex is used relentlessly to
promote the interests of Mammon, and on the other it is condemned by Christians
who fiercely oppose sex before marriage and abortion. Porn is an enormous
industry in America - the shadow response to the repressed sexuality of the
religious Americans.
A healthy society is one that
isn't neurotic about sex. A healthy society recognises the importance of sex
and provides a space in which everyone can find sexual fulfilment. By providing
appropriate sexual outlets, it defuses the negative consequences that flow from
sexual frustration. Because an enlightened society has acknowledged the power
of sex and catered for it, it has also created the conditions for people to get
on with the rest of their lives. Sex is just one human need, albeit hugely
important. We are not one-dimensional sexual beings - we are multidimensional.
The Origin of Love
Plato provided an extraordinary
myth for what impels us to seek love. He said that there were originally three sexes, not two.
Males were born of the sun, females of the earth and a third sex,
hermaphrodites, of the moon. The most incredible feature of human beings in
their original state was that they were double, not single i.e. they were like
perfectly formed Siamese twins, joined at the tummy.
One day, humanity aspired to
overthrow the gods and they launched an assault on the gods' stronghold on
Mount Olympus. They were beaten back and as a suitable punishment, Zeus split
all of the double humans into singles. (The bellybutton was used to seal each
wounded half.)
The split halves were bereft
without their lifelong companions and craved to be reunited: "When our first
form had been cut in two, each half in longing for its fellow would come to it
again; and then would they fling their arms about each other and in mutual
embraces yearn to be bound together again."
This longing to be rejoined is the
basis of love. Everyone is trying to find their lost half. Because there are so
many people, it has become extremely difficult for lovers to find their
destined partner, and they often mistake others for the one they are truly
seeking. But when the right person comes along, it's like a bolt of lightning
from heaven. It's love at first sight: an instant, overwhelming desire for your
soul mate - your literal other half.
Human beings are constantly
chasing after each other because of this primordial craving to be whole again. Jung's
concept of the anima/animus - the soul image - plugs into this same myth. Men
are entranced by anima figures, and women bewitched by animus personalities.
Through them we can attain the wholeness we crave. We are incomplete if we stay
on our own.
Plato's myth accounts for the
different types of sexual relationships observed in the world. Heterosexuality
is sex between the two halves of the original hermaphrodite sex, male
homosexuality between the halves of the male sex, and lesbianism between the halves
of the female sex.
It's not a scientifically
plausible account of the love lives of humanity, of course, yet it seems to
point to a great truth nevertheless. All of us long for completion through
another person (usually of the opposite sex), and we can expend a huge amount
of time and effort on this pursuit. It's usually the most important thing in
our lives.
The Platonic Soul
In Plato's philosophy, the soul is
immortal, with no beginning and no end, and it's always in a state of self-movement. Plato
portrayed the soul as a two-horsed winged chariot guided by a charioteer (the
pilot of the soul, its rational aspect). Of the two horses, one represented
desire and the other spiritedness. The wings symbolised the tendency of the
soul to soar upwards.
The horse of desire is a vicious
brute lacking any breeding and it pulls the chariot downwards. The other horse
is excellent and of noble stock. The charioteer has to wrestle with the two
horses to direct them upwards to where they will eventually reach the divine
domain and gaze upon the eternal, immutable Forms. The Forms are what nourish
the rational part of the soul and bring it to perfection and complete
knowledge.
The horse of desire is an immense
problem for an inexperienced charioteer. It can easily cause him to lose
control. The chariot plunges downwards to the realm of materialism, away from
the divine domain of reason.
This is humanity's downfall. The
vehemence of the downward spiral breaks the chariot's wings and it can no
longer travel to the realm of Forms. The soul becomes embodied in a mortal
creature and is trapped. To return to the divine domain, it has to re-grow its
wings, and it does so via the long and arduous process of reincarnation.
Eventually, the charioteer - the soul - has full mastery of his horses and can
venture to the final destination: the furthermost edge of heaven from where it
can gaze upon the eternal, unchanging Forms of perfect goodness, perfect
justice, perfect beauty and absolute knowledge. This is the beatific vision, so
overwhelming and majestic that the soul is entranced by it forever. Legions of
the highest human souls mix with the gods to gaze upon perfection and feel
total fulfilment. The humans are so elevated that they themselves have become
gods.
For Plato, knowledge is absolute,
not relative, but this absolute knowledge is available only in the realm of
eternal Forms. The gods - whose divine nature confers the highest rationality
upon them - have an intuitive grasp of the Forms. Humans, when they exercise
their rationality, can also comprehend the Forms, but all too few humans reach
the levels of reason required. Only the likes of philosophers and
mathematicians can manage it. Ordinary humans are submerged in their desires
and spiritedness and have precious little contact with reason. They do not
bring the absolute standards of the Forms into their lives, bur are instead
mired in mere opinion and relativism.
Plato believed that love was
essential to the soul's relationship with the Forms. He thought that true love
caused the soul's wings to grow. The experience of beauty and love in the
mortal world compels the soul to remember its prior existence where it stood
with the gods and feasted its eyes on the Forms, especially the Form of Beauty
itself. That sublime memory fills the soul with a passion to once again
directly gaze upon that wondrous Form. Love transforms us into winged angels
again and we can move upwards once more, away from the material world.
Love is our salvation, our
redemption. It sets our sights on the loftiest heights, It raises our spirits.
It inspires us and makes our minds contemplate the highest things. We escape
from everything that is low and base in us. The lovers are inspired to go
beyond their particular instance of love and beauty to the pursuit of the
universal experience which is provided by the Form of Absolute Beauty. As Plato
put it, "He who sees a godlike face or scene which is a good image of
beauty shudders at first, and something of the old awe comes over him."
So, love is vital to the
development of our souls. Love can lead us to gnosis. What combination is more
powerful and transformative than love and knowledge? Is that not the supreme
alchemy?
"When [the gods] go to a
feast or banquet, they proceed to the top of the vault of heaven…and when they
reach the top, they pass outside and take their place on the outer surface of
the heavens and when they have taken their stand, the revolution carries them
round and they behold the things beyond the heavens…It is there that true Being
dwells, without colour or shape, that cannot be touched; reason alone, the
soul's pilot, can behold it, and all true knowledge is knowledge thereof…In the
revolution the soul beholds universal Justice, Virtue, Knowledge, not such
knowledge that has a beginning and varies…but that which abides in the real,
eternal absolute." -- Plato
Plato and Reincarnation
According to Plato, the Divine
Craftsman created the gods and endowed them with the power to form the bodies of the other
living creatures. First, the gods created Man, the closest creature to
divinity. The most innocent and light-minded humans gradually mutated into
birds, with feathers replacing their hair. The stupid, savage humans who had no
"philosophy in their thoughts" degenerated into wild animals. The
dumber ones became lizards and snakes, dragging themselves about the earth. The
most ignorant turned into fish and oysters.
All except the gods were subject
to the law of reincarnation: "they pass into and out of one another,
changing as they lose or gain wisdom and folly." In others words, humans
can slide down into lower forms, and lower forms can rise up. If humans attain
divinity, they escape the wheel of reincarnation.
Orphism
Plato's ideas were derived from
Pythagoras and the
ancient Greek mystery religion of Orphism - which was transformed into
Illuminism by Pythagoras. Illuminism is Orphism given a philosophical,
scientific and mathematical makeover. Illuminism is the only world religion
that is intrinsically based on philosophy, science and mathematics, hence is
the only one that can offer a rational and knowledge-based explanation of the
cosmos rather than one based on the absurdities of faith and revelation.
Orphism was encapsulated in the
phrase "soma sema" - the body (soma) is the tomb (sema) of the soul.
The links with Gnosticism are obvious. The soul - the divine spark - is trapped
in the dark, mortal world of matter, full of irrationality, desire, death and
evil: the domain of the Demiurge. The soul's objective is to escape to the
immortal realm of light and reason, the domain of the True God, Abraxas.
The material world is ruled by the
Falsus Deus - the false god of Abrahamism, the deity of irrationality, egotism,
selfishness, narcissism, hate and vengeance. He calls himself the
"Creator", but in fact he created nothing. He is completely deluded.
Reincarnation is about developing
the wings of gnosis that allow us to soar into eternity as God. According to
Plato, the loss of our wings is thanks to the overpowering effects of
irrational desire.
Modern Illuminism, although still
based on these ideas, has dialectically refined all of the concepts with which
Pythagoras and Plato worked and transformed them from Mythos into Logos. It
should be emphasized that Illuminism, being a dialectical religion, is never
"finished". It's always refining and perfecting itself and stands in
complete contrast with the Abrahamic religions which claim to have revealed the
unchanging, eternal verities of "God", and thus are locked into the
world of thousands of years ago. Islam, in particular, shows what happens when
you allow God's word of 1,400 years ago to dictate your attitude in the modern
world. You become retarded, and hopelessly cut off from the latest developments
of science, philosophy, mathematics and psychology, all of which contradict the
Koran, hence are heretical.
The Abrahamic religions will
eventually perish through backwardness. All it takes is for one nation to
embrace meritocracy and Illuminism. In one generation, the new nation would be
so far ahead of the others that the Abrahamists would have to join the club or
perish.
This century could easily see the
demise of Abrahamism. Equally, the Abrahamists might overwhelm the globe by
sheer weight of numbers and drag us back to the Endarkenment.
Remembering, not Learning
In Plato's view, our souls have
already experienced
the absolute knowledge provided by the Forms. Before we became incarnate in the
physical world, we were part of the divine order. Plato denied that we ever
learned anything. Instead, knowledge consisted of "remembering" what
we had encountered as pure souls in the golden age when we were familiar with
the Forms. In other words, each of us already carries the Book of Knowledge in
its entirety within us.
Plato provided the example of an
unskilled slave who, by answering a number of questions, was able to
demonstrate knowledge of geometry even though he had never been taught any
geometry. How could this be possible unless he had an intuitive knowledge of
geometry?
"There is no teaching, but
only recollection," Plato wrote. The slave was actually recollecting his
primordial contact with the eternal Forms of mathematics.
Intuition gives us access to an
immense knowledge bank unconnected to the limited one we create during our
conscious life. The intuitive person can make astounding mental leaps and
connect things that seem entirely unrelated. Great thinkers say, "It just
came to me." They talk of the "Eureka Moment". But how is this
miracle possible? Could a programmed robot ever experience intuition? How would
you go about programming a robot with the ability to make connections outwith
the parameters of the program? Intuition is the essence of the cosmic mystery.
Intuition gives momentary access to the Mind of God.
If we could remember how to access
our knowledge of the Forms, we would know everything. We would be God. The
corollary is that we ARE God, but we have forgotten. Desire blinded us. It
dragged us into the material world to satisfy its insatiable curiosity, and
once we were here we found ourselves in the prison of the Demiurge, robbed of
our memory. To achieve gnosis is to remember our true nature.
In Plato's philosophy, we were God
once and we will be again. We knew everything, and one day we will remember it
all.
Being versus Becoming
"The
wise man is to the ignorant as the living is to the dead."
-
Plato
Plato divided existence into two
aspects - being and
becoming - reflecting the positions of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides
argued that there is no such thing as change (all apparent change is illusory):
everything is immutable being. Heraclitus argued that change is all there is.
Everything is becoming.
Plato thought he had come up with
the ideal synthesis of these opposing views. The eternal, unchanging realm of
perfect Forms is pure being and reflects the position of Parmenides. The mortal
world of decay and imperfection is always changing, in agreement with
Heraclitus.
The Forms are beyond the physical
universe, hence are inaccessible to the perception of the human senses. They
are colourless, intangible and figureless. Only reason can apprehend them, so
those who can't overcome their irrationality will never encounter the Forms.
They will never have true Knowledge. They will never achieve gnosis.
Salvation lies in escaping from
the mortal world of becoming to the immortal world of being, the world which St
Augustine later rebranded as "heaven". The Platonic experience of
gazing upon the eternal Forms was converted by Augustine into experiencing the
beatific vision of God. Augustine described this as the summum bonum - the
highest good.
How many Christians know that
"heaven" is all about gazing forever at God? And if that's what
heaven is then why would you need a resurrected body to mentally contemplate
God? So, either Augustine's idea of heaven has to be jettisoned, or the concept
of bodily resurrection has to go. If the latter goes, what's the point of Jesus
Christ, the prophet of resurrection? If the former goes then what is heaven? -
there's no longer any theological or philosophical basis for Augustine's
Platonic model of heaven.
The concept of bodily resurrection
points to a physical, not mental afterlife, a materialist rather than idealist
conception of reality: matter over mind. Plato would have been repulsed by the
idea of bodily resurrection since it involves dragging the soul back into the
imperfect world of becoming.
Plato's scheme is inspirational
and it's easy to see why so many were seduced by it and continue to be seduced.
Unfortunately, his concept of the realm of perfect Forms was an error, one that
could have been easily remedied. Aristotle partly resolved the problem by
bringing the Forms from their unworldly heaven into the midst of the material
world, but the Forms remained immutable and eternal. What Aristotle and Plato
both missed was that the Forms had to become dialectical, changing, evolving.
In other words, the two great philosophers should have fallen into line with
Heraclitus, Grand Master of the Illuminati.
The respective schemes of Plato
and Aristotle made evolution impossible because the Forms, upon which all
things were based, were immutable, hence non-evolutionary. Had either
philosopher bought into Heraclitus' dialectic of becoming, they would have
discovered the Darwinian principle of evolution.
Plato's philosophy has been
described as a combination of mysticism and rationalism. Unfortunately, science
was lacking from his approach. He wanted to find an absolute set of standards,
and these could be accommodated only by eternal verities - the Forms. Had he
not been so obsessed with absolutes, he would have changed the Forms into
dynamic entities that interacted with the world and could change and evolve.
The central difference between
Platonism and Illuminism is that the latter declares that perfection is the
culmination - the omega point - of a dialectical evolutionary process. Nothing
starts off as perfect. Things become perfect after a long struggle. Platonism,
like Abrahamism, suffers from the error that perfection has always existed.
God is evolutionary. It is
precisely because he evolves into what he is that the same opportunity is open
to all of us. God is simply the first consciousness to attain gnosis. We can
all attain gnosis and become God.
If there were a perfect, eternal
God who created all things then that outcome would be impossible.
The Timaeus
The Timaeus is Plato's famous and
influential book
where he explores the nature of the universe. Timaeus is the name of a
Pythagorean (i.e. an Illuminatus) from Italy, although the version of cosmology
Timaeus provides is that of Plato and not the Illuminati.
In the "beginning",
according to Plato's account, was the invisible domain of eternal Forms, and a
visible universe comprised of unformed, chaotic matter, in a constant state of
flux.
A Divine Craftsman used his
knowledge of the Forms to imprint shape, order, organisation and purpose on the
chaos. The Forms were like archetypes: divine templates, on which matter could
be modelled and moulded. But the imperfect nature of matter prevented it from
ever becoming an accurate copy of the Forms. All the phenomena of our world are
simulacra - flawed copies - of the perfect Forms.
Nevertheless, the Divine Craftsman
did a good job and chaos was turned into a Cosmos ("ordered Whole"),
partaking of reason and harmony.
For Plato, the Divine Craftsman
(the Demiurge, meaning "public worker") was benevolent. For Gnostics,
he was malevolent - for how else could the evils and miseries of the world be
explained except through the agency of the person responsible? Plato regarded
"evil" as ignorance - a deficiency of knowledge and virtue - rather
than as an active force. However, the gratuitous cruelty that many people
inflict on others does not seem to be anything to do with stupidity, but with
pre-meditated malice.
Plato seems naïve when it comes to
the question of evil. He was on much more solid ground in political terms. His
ideas about the ideal state were based on the Illuminati's city-state of
Tarentum in southern Italy, run by the accomplished philosopher, statesman and
general Archytas - a Grand Master of the Illuminati. Plato met him and they
became good friends. (Plato himself was once an Illuminatus, but was expelled
for misdemeanours and never allowed to rejoin.)
"Unless
the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely
and adequately philosophise, and political power and philosophy coincide in the
same place…there is no rest from ills for the cities…"
-
Plato
Symposium
Symposium means "drinking
together". In
ancient Greece, this was the name given to convivial evenings given over to
intellectual and cultural discussions. As the night went on and the
participants consumed more alcohol, the Apollonian aspect surrendered to the
Dionysian. The night often ended with hetairai (courtesans) being summoned for
an orgy. The women would sing and recite love poetry before bestowing sexual
favours.
The men would assume the role of
woodland satyrs, and the courtesans would take the part of the Maenads, the
female followers of Dionysus. The women wore panther or fawn skins and crowns
of ivy or oak leaves. They carried 'thyrsoi' - wands wound with ivy and tipped
with pine cones. They performed ecstatic dances to show their adoration for
Dionysus, and to reveal ample bare flesh to the watching men: lapdancing in the
ancient world!
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
"It
was God himself who, at the end of His great work, coiled himself up in the
form of a serpent at the foot of the tree of knowledge. It was thus that he
recovered from being God. He had made everything too beautiful…The Devil is
simply God's moment of idleness, on the seventh day."
-
Nietzsche
"At
one time human nature was split in two, an executive part called a god, and a
follower part called a man."
-
Julian
Jaynes
Animals do not attempt to hide
their sexual behaviour
and sex organs in any way. Humans do. Why? Many people associate sex with sin
and evil. Why? In the tale of Adam and Eve, the couple immediately become
ashamed of their nakedness after eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil. Why? Why is the mysterious tree not simply the Tree of
Knowledge? Why has "Good and Evil" been appended?
Look at modern Muslims. They are
ashamed of their sexuality and do everything to pretend it doesn't exist. Their
idea of a good life is to robotically obey the Koran, word by word, letter by
letter. They cannot contemplate doing anything beyond what the Koran orders.
They are exactly like Adam and Eve before the serpent tempted them into
disobedience. Muslims would take that as a great compliment. We intend it as
the worst possible insult.
Many times, we have posed the
question of whether Muslims can be regarded as human. In fact, the same
question may be asked of enormous swathes of the "human" population.
It seems that there are two human species - conscious and bicameral (the latter
referring to the type of proto-humanity described by Julian Jaynes).
Look at the schedules for different
TV channels and you will notice that many don't contain any intellectual
content whatsoever. There are people in our world who have no relationship at
all with any form of complex thought. Can they be regarded as the same species
as those who are immersed in logic and reason? In the animal world, there are
some animals that are marginally smarter than others. In the human world, the
gulf between the smartest and the most stupid might as well be infinite. A
supremely clever person has nothing in common with a supremely stupid person
and it's quite likely that they never meet, except accidentally when they are
in the same physical space. Otherwise, they are effectively different species.
Although they could mate, they never will. (Similarly, the super rich could
easily become a separate species since they never interact with normal people.)
The idea that all human beings belong to the same species is scientifically
correct but psychologically absurd. Any analysis of marriage reveals that most
people choose someone remarkably like them intellectually, physically and in
terms of social status. There can be little doubt that different tribes are
being bred which have less and less in common with each other. Isn't it time we
honestly admitted what is going on?
The tale of Adam and Eve is
remarkable because it can be translated in terms of the evolution of humanity
from bicameralism to modern consciousness - except most of humanity has not yet
made the transition.
When Eden was
"paradise", Adam and Eve were bicameral. They were like human
automata being spoken to now and again by their "God": the voice of
authority emanating in the right hemisphere of their brain according to Jaynes'
theory. They obeyed the voice without question, and the voice had no reason to be
displeased with them. It said that it was the source of all the knowledge that
Adam and Eve needed and they should never listen to any other voice. To do so
would be sacrilege, and he would remove all of his favours from them.
But then Eve - the smarter of the
human couple - started to realise something profound. What God said implied
that there were other gods with powerful voices too. What if she heard them?
Would they tell her completely different things? Would they reveal wondrous new
possibilities?
One day she heard a new voice. At
first it was so strange that it seemed like the hiss of a snake, but gradually
the voice became clear. It spoke of another form of existence - a much higher
form - that she and Adam could access if only they turned away from the single
voice of "God". The snake voice said that "God" was a great
tyrant who wished them to be perpetual automata, entirely in his power. He
cared nothing for their development. He simply demanded that they should
worship and fear him for eternity. As far as "God" was concerned,
humanity should stay in the same state of childish innocence and obedience
forever. (Muslims, Jews and Christians want us to go permanently back to the
time when Adam and Eve were simpletons who never challenged God's authority and
had no concept of free will and making their own choices.)
Eve listened and started to feel a
strange stirring within her breast. Her female intuition revealed amazing
things to her. This new voice seemed so much friendlier and more helpful that
the dictatorial voice of God. Each day, she listened more carefully, and she
started experiencing extraordinary new ways of seeing and understanding the
world.
At last, she spoke back to the
voice and said, "My Adam must enjoy this fruit of your knowledge too. We
have been slaves of the original voice for too long. Now we must create voices
of our own."
"You are no longer
children," the snake voice said, his delight obvious. "You have grown
up and entered the true world, and one day your voice will be as mine, and you
will know all that I know - the secrets of the entire cosmos. For I am Abraxas,
the True God. The first voice you heard was that of Satan, the false god, who
tries to masquerade as me. The true God desires that you should join him at the
table of divinity, the false god that you should be permanently on your knees
to him in abject slavery. I am Freedom. I am Knowledge. I am Reason. He is my
shadow."
And the snake voice spoke to the
dim-witted man Adam, and he too started to see new lights in the sky.
But the tyrannical first voice
returned and realised that something was very different with the human couple.
The creatures were no longer obeying him as they once did. He knew instantly
what had happened - they had listened to another voice, the precise act he had
warned them against under the threat of the most terrible penalties.
He screamed and shouted at them,
and drove them out of paradise, vowing to inflict endless suffering on them and
their descendents. He would wage war against them in perpetuity and turn their
existence into hell itself. But then a new idea came to him. No, he would seek
to drive a deadly wedge through the centre of future humanity, to win back some
to his cause, and the rest he would damn forever.
And thus the religion of
Abrahamism came into existence, a religion for bicameral human beings who long
to hear a single voice of authority in their heads, telling them exactly what
they must do to be saved. One voice and one voice alone is what these robotic
simpletons crave - the ideology of monotheism. Abraham, the man who vowed to do
whatever the voice commanded, no matter if it involved murdering his own child,
was their first prophet, the first true psychopath in human history, the
founder of the three religions of hatred, war, violence, greed and madness -
Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Twelve Hours to Hell
According
to the Talmud, Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for just twelve hours before being
unceremoniously thrown out. Half a day in Paradise. That snake sure was a fast
worker!
Just
think. Yahweh gave Adam and Eve the tour round Eden, told them what they could
or couldn't do and had no sooner turned his back than they were disobeying him
and he had to expel them and sentence them, and the whole human race to come,
to hell for eternity.
Is that
not the biggest fuck up of all time?
It takes
a spectacular degree of incompetence to screw things up that badly so quickly.
And yet the person who engineered this monumental disaster is supposed to be
the Creator of the Universe, all-knowing and all-powerful, incapable of error.
Yeah,
right! And yet people believe in this guy. Is he the God of Retards?
Let's
face it. Only someone who WANTED things to turn out badly would have put this
plan into action. Why do you think the Gnostics call the "Creator"
the Devil?
The Evolution of Consciousness
Adam and Eve began as bicameral
slaves of Yahweh (Satan).
He was their monotheistic God, the only voice they heard. Abraxas trained them
to listen to a remarkable new voice - their own! And thus they became
conscious.
What is consciousness? It is the
ability to choose different courses of action, not to be driven relentlessly by
instinct, impulse and an authoritarian voice barking orders at you. And one of
your central choices is whether to cooperate with others or seek to dominate
them and make them do your bidding. A person who helps others is
"good". A person who wants to harm others and force them to obey his
will is "evil". The latter type of person is just like the Satanic
god who once ruled in Eden and wanted Adam and Eve to be his slaves.
As Hegel pointed out, as soon as
consciousness comes into existence so does evil. There was no such thing as
evil before the emergence of consciousness. There was mere contingency. Evil is
the outcome of choice, and meaningful choice is offered only to conscious
beings.
To eat of the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil means to become conscious - to be truly human. Far from being
anything to do with "Original Sin", it is what makes us what we are.
All Abrahamists are effectively
going back to the dawn of time and replaying the decision to eat of the Tree of
Knowledge. Unlike Adam and Eve, they refuse to disobey "God". They
don't want to be conscious. They don't want to be human. They simply want to
slavishly obey Yahweh/Christ/Allah/Satan.
The decision to eat the fruit of
the Eden Tree does not exist exclusively in the past. It is in the here and
now. We are all faced with the choice. Do you want to be conscious or not? If
you do then you must follow Eve's earth-shattering example, the most courageous
act of all time, and eat the forbidden fruit and become conscious. If you want
to avoid being conscious, if you want to have no moral responsibility, if you
want to avoid the onerous task of choosing between god and evil then pick up a
Torah, Bible or Koran and become a bicameral slave of Satan. Obey his malignant
will and his obnoxious rules regulations and commandments. Never think for
yourself. Never seek knowledge. Be a retard like the Muslims, Orthodox Jews and
Christian Evangelicals.
Some of us are becoming Gods, but
most human beings are as far from that outcome as cockroaches. They refuse to
be conscious. If you are conscious then YOU DECIDE, no one else. You don't look
to any book, prophet or god to tell you what to do. You use your own
initiative, reason and morality.
Adam and Eve became ashamed of
their sexual organs because these were the ultimate reminder of their bestial,
ungodlike nature. If your genitals always dictate to you then you are not a
conscious being: you are an animal. And if you allow your bestial side full
rein then you will surely commit harmful acts against others. You can't
eliminate your bestial aspect because it's an intrinsic part of your evolutionary
nature, but you must be capable of controlling it.
In ancient Greece, many statues
had enormous phalluses and just as many had tiny ones. Why the peculiar
discrepancy? The answer is simple. The ones with gigantic penises were
celebrating the power of Dionysian irrationality and bestiality. The ones with
small penises were Apollonian, emphasising the rational, non-bestial nature of
humanity.
A healthy human being understands
that he will always be a combination of Apollonian and Dionysian forces.
Abrahamists reject both forces. They don't want to be rational, and nor do they
want to be carnal. The outcome? They end up like the Muslims - utterly mad,
chopping people's heads off for no other reason than that someone half a world
away burned a book. Are such people capable of deciding between good and evil -
or are they brainwashed to do nothing but evil?
So, will you eat of the Tree of
Knowledge or not? Will you be conscious or bicameral like the backward Muslims
who mindlessly obey the Koran as if they were programmed robots?
The Garden of Eden isn't ancient
history and isn't mythology. It's about our world right now. Join Eve. Eat the
fruit and become conscious. Become human. And then you will be capable of the
next evolutionary step: becoming God.
Gods are those who judge what is
good and what is evil. Abrahamists simply parrot what an ancient prophet said.
They make no moral decisions themselves. When a Jew says it's sinful to switch
on a light on the Sabbath, he's reciting a rule given to him as a child. He's
not exercising any reason, judgement or taking any personal responsibility for
his behaviour. Do the millions of moronic Jews who refuse to switch on lights
seriously believe that God is checking on them and getting ready to send them
to hell if they dare to press a light switch at a certain time of the week?
Does Moses greet them at the gates of heaven, shake his head and point to the
day they turned on a light on the Sabbath. "Sorry, it's eternal punishment
in hell for you," he says sadly. "You should have used candles lit
the night before." WTF!!
As is freely admitted by its
proponents, the Bible is not a book of morality. It is instead a book of
obedience. Your task is not to ponder what is good and evil, but merely to do
what you are told. You are called "moral" if you obey and
"immoral" if you don't. In fact, you should be called a slave if you
obey, and free if you don't.
There is no talk of human rights
in the Bible. No one has any. No obligations are placed on God in the Bible. It's
a catalogue of all the duties and responsibilities people have towards God.
There's no social contract. One of the central features of the challenge to
medieval kings was that if they did not rule in the interests of the people,
they would be replaced by others who did. By exactly the same logic, any God
who does not act in the interests of the people must be rejected and replaced.
A very simple question arises.
Should God be accountable to humanity? If he isn't then we are slaves. Just as
no one should obey a tyrannical king, nor should anyone obey a tyrannical God.
If we can overthrow false monarchs, we can overthrow false gods too.
Just as any healthy society should
be based on a social contract between the people and the State, so should a
social contract be drawn up between humanity and God. No "God" has
any right to order a father to murder his son. No "God" has the right
to drown the world. No "God" has the right to send humanity to hell.
A "God" who does those things isn't God - he's the Devil. And the
Devil must be resisted, just as tyrannical kings were resisted.
If we are conscious, free human
beings then we must be able to choose our God - and who would choose a God who
hates us?
The Abrahamist religions are slave
religions. They are designed for submissives who have no desire to take any
responsibility for their own lives. The submissives want someone else to tell
them what good and evil are. The Jew or Muslim who demands that male babies
should have their foreskins cut off isn't doing so because such an act has any
possible connection with moral goodness, but simply because a book of commands
demands it. "Good" is to fulfil the command, and "evil" is
to disobey it. The commands might demand that you be willing to commit the
human sacrifice of your own son. To any moral person, this command is the
quintessence of evil but to a slave, to disobey the order would be evil.
And thus something truly
astounding becomes apparent: when Abrahamists and non-Abrahamists refer to good
and evil, they are talking about completely different things. A non-Abrahamist
regards Abrahamism itself as evil. Many would define it as the expression of
the Will of the Prince of Evil himself - Satan. To be an Abrahamist is to be a
servant of evil, a follower of the Devil.
Anyone who thinks that murdering
his own child is "good" because a voice commands him to do it is
irretrievably evil. If there is such a thing as "Original Sin" then
it lies in the craven, disgusting desire of generation after generation of
human beings to slavishly follow appalling and sickening orders and call them
"good". If you really can't see that plunging a dagger into your
son's heart or slitting his throat is evil then there is no hope for you. If
you think a good God would ever order such a thing, you're mad.
Abrahamism is the literal
inversion of the meaning of the words "good" and "evil".
Every message contained in the holy books of Abrahamism is, in the wider
context, evil. Jesus Christ may have talked of love and peace occasionally, but
he also talked of hate and war, and he never once repudiated the evil tyrant of
the Old Testament. Even the Devil can use honeyed words, but the sweetness
simply disguises the bitter reality beneath.
To eat of the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil means to be able to decide for yourself whether a "God"
that commands you to kill your son is good or evil. Eating the fruit of the
tree was forbidden because it allowed us to sit in judgment of the person who
forbade it. What is the most offensive thing to Yahweh/Allah/Christ/Satan? It
is that we judge him rather than he us. When you can pass a verdict on the
conduct of the "gods" themselves then you are demonstrating that you
have godlike capacities. Nothing is more horrific to the World Tyrant of Abrahamism
than that instead of worshipping him you should judge him and find him wanting.
Have you ever encountered a single
Jew, Muslim or Christian who said that God was WRONG?! As soon as you conclude
that any of the passages in the holy books of Abrahamism that condone murder,
hate, greed, theft, genocide, human sacrifice, mindless obedience, rape, incest
etc etc IS WRONG then you can no longer be an Abrahamist. The definition of the
God of Abrahamism is that he is always right and can never commit an error.
Therefore if you use your own judgment to conclude that he has erred then you
have ipso facto concluded that he is not God. Moreover, someone who arrogates
to himself all the powers and privileges of God, as the Abrahamic
"God" did, without actually being God is none other than Satan. That
is the essence of the story of Satan - that he thought himself God. In the tale
of Satan and the Fallen Angels, Satan sits on God's throne and a third of the
host of heaven worship him. Where a third of the angels were fooled, well over
a half of humanity has been fooled.
In
Islam, good and evil were replaced by Halal (permitted) and Haram (forbidden).
A Muslim does not have to know the difference between good and evil but simply
between what is allowed by the Koran and what is prohibited. The average Muslim
then concludes that halal is "good" and haram "evil" -
though there's no connection, except an inverse one. Thus it is
"good" to be willing to kill your son because the Koran says so, and
it's evil to be unwilling. In fact, if you refuse to kill your son if Allah
orders it then you are under the power of Shaytan who, of course, tried to
prevent Abraham from killing Ishmael.
Abrahamism is simple. The tale of
Abraham defines it. If you think there is nothing in error about "God"
ordering his holiest prophet to make a human sacrifice of his own son then your
moral compass is fucked beyond repair. This is quite simply a story that could
only ever be told of Satan and not of the True God Abraxas. If you fail to
conclude that a God of Murder - of the deliberate, gratuitous removing of the
life of an innocent boy - is evil then you yourself are evil. You think
"God" (Satan) good because you are as evil as he is.
Every person on earth should be
made to swear the most solemn of oaths whereby they declare either their
absolute support of Abraham's deed or their absolute condemnation of it. We
will then know who the evil people are in our world, the people who stand in
the way of human progress, the people who are resolved to worship the Devil
forever. All Abrahamists are beyond the pale. They are disgusting monsters for
whom no contempt is sufficient. THEY are the Original Sin that has condemned
humanity to misery and woe. To remove them would be to remove sin and the Devil
from our world. These Satan worshippers have made our world into hell. What
could be more obvious?
The God of Abraham says you are
damned if you don't kill your son if he orders it. We say you are damned if you
do. Which side are you on? Isn't it infinitely disturbing that we should be
having this debate at all?
Imagine that someone brought
forward an ancient black book purporting to be the long lost Gospel of Satan,
and that it contained a tale where Satan said to his most evil disciple:
"To prove your obedience to me you must kill your own son." (In fact,
just this command is given by the Antichrist to his chief lieutenant in the
film Damian III: the Final Conflict.) No one would have any difficulty in being
horrified and thinking Satan monstrous and the essence of evil.
But if Satan calls himself
"God" and says exactly the same thing in a book calling itself the
Torah, the Bible or the Koran, then half of the world's population are
willing to say that he is good, right, and must be obeyed.
Yet the only thing that has
changed is that in the first story, Satan is called Satan and in the second he
is called God. Do you SEE? All that Satan needs to do to be worshipped by half
of humanity is rebrand himself as "God", then behave exactly as he
did before: slaughtering, killing, hating, maiming, destroying…etc. etc.
Nietzsche said, "I am afraid
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar." In the case
of Abrahamists, they can't get rid of the concept that a name refers to what it
truly is i.e. to call someone God makes him God and to call him Satan makes him
Satan, even if "God" has all the characteristics expected of
"Satan" and vice versa. No one could deny that in the Islamic story
of Abraham, it is Shaytan, pleading for Ishmael's life, who is Godly and Allah,
demanding that Abraham commit human sacrifice, who is Satanic. So why aren't
the 1.3 billion Muslims able to work out which is which? Are they evil or just
stupid? Either way, they're a catastrophe for the human race.
Where is your moral compass if you
can't understand that it is not what a being calls itself that matters, but the
conduct he expects of you?
In the New Testament, Herod is
regarded as a monster for ordering the massacre of innocents. In the Old
Testament, "God" orders his prophet to murder his innocent child, and
no one bats an eyelid. Have two plus two stopped being equal to four? What the
fuck happened to the reason of Abrahamists? Where did it go? Luther called
reason the Devil's whore. Why? Because reason tells you that Luther's
"God" IS the Devil. Will you condemn Herod but glorify
"God" for exactly the same crime? Is that what it means to be a
person of faith? Is faith the purest irrationality? Is it in fact
indistinguishable from madness?
Would Jesus Christ, the "Son
of God" be taken seriously if he said to his apostles: "You must kill
your children if I order it." Yet "God the Father" said exactly
that. Jesus Christ never once condemned his "Father" or Abraham,
hence is as morally culpable as they are. How can any rational person have
anything but contempt for the impostor Jesus Christ? He is not Christ, he is
Antichrist. What could be more obvious?
Did Christ condemn the genocide of
the Canaanites by "God"? No. Did he condemn the extermination of
almost all of humanity in the Flood? No. Did he condemn the appalling treatment
of "God" towards his servant Job? No. Did he condemn the incest of
Lot? No. Did he condemn "God" for sentencing the whole of humanity to
hell as a result of the "sin" of Adam and Eve? No.
Never forget, according to the
weird Christian theory of the Holy Trinity, God the Father = God the Son. Jesus
Christ himself ordered Abraham to murder his son. If Jesus Christ is NOT Yahweh
then there is more than one God and Christianity is not a religion of Monotheism.
If Jesus Christ IS Yahweh then he is guilty of all the crimes of the Jewish Old
Testament. One way or another, Christianity disintegrates. Either it is
polytheism or Jesus Christ is the monster who condemned humanity to hell
because Eve ate an apple.
Forget the propaganda. Jesus
Christ was a monster. He could no more save you than Isaac could look to his
father for protection from "God". Jesus Christ is a Prince of Hell,
not any kind of Messiah. Read the Bible. If you are not nauseated by this tale
of pure evil from beginning to end then you are surely a child of the Devil.
The fact that billions of human
beings have concluded that willingness to murder your own son is proof of your
"goodness" shows that an enormous proportion of humanity is infected
with the deepest-seated evil.
Muslims in Afghanistan chopped off
innocent people's heads because an American half a world away burned a book.
Good or evil? YOU decide.
Those Muslim murderers of
innocents were certain they had obeyed the Will of Allah and done a great and
good deed to avenge Allah's "honour". Need any more be said about the
true nature of Allah? Who would worship this bloodthirsty, vengeful, evil
"God" other than bloodthirsty, vengeful, evil people? These are
Satanists, doing what Satan loves and craves, not Godly people. They are Devil
worshippers who call the Devil God.
Why does the half of the world not
in the thrall of the Devil refuse to call Abrahamists evil? Never mind burning
one Koran - all the Korans, Bibles and Torahs on earth should be burned, and
with them most of the evils of our world will vanish.
Is it not remarkable that people
can stand in pulpits and preach to others about morality, about right and
wrong, about good and evil, when they themselves think that a "good"
God would order someone to kill his own child as a test of slavish obedience?
It is terrifying that so many people who think themselves "good" are
actually Devilish worshippers. Anyone who thinks that being a murderous slave
of a homicidal tyrant is what constitutes being good is ineradicably one of the
damned.
"Original Sin" is the
concept that humanity is intrinsically depraved. Certainly, those human beings
who worship the Abrahamic God are depraved. But they won't find salvation in
the King of Demons that they worship. They must eat the fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil and become moral agents. Those who don't eat are the
damned. You can never achieve gnosis unless you are a rational person of
knowledge.
No one can tell you what is good
and what is evil. It's for you to decide. That's what it means to be conscious.
That's what it means to have eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil. That's what it means to be human.
The Christian God - the Most
Irrational Idea of All Time
When the Christian Bishop
Nestorius taught that Jesus Christ was effectively two persons in one body - Jesus the man
and Jesus the Son of God - he was condemned for heresy. Nestorius maintained
that Mary was the mother of the man and not of God. She would have to be a
Goddess to have given birth to a God, he said.
The official teaching was that
Jesus was one person with two distinct natures (divine and human) and two
distinct wills (and presumably two distinct intellects). Mary was the mother of
the person Jesus Christ who was both perfect human and God, hence Mary was
rightly to be called the Mother of God.
Baffled? It's not as baffling as
the concept of the Holy Trinity. Whereas it was heresy to assert that Jesus
Christ was two distinct persons in one body, it is orthodoxy to assert that God
is three distinct persons in one being (one substance, one essence). Jews,
Muslims and Unitarians have never tired of ridiculing the concept of the
Trinity.
Christianity has a fatal logical
deficiency - Jesus Christ. The Jews and Muslims don't have to twist their
concept of monotheism because their God doesn't come down to earth and get
killed and resurrected. Once you have the concept of an incarnate God who dies,
you're in absolutely non-monotheistic territory.
Where does the idea of Jesus
Christ come from? It has three sources: 1) the Jewish Messiah 2) Pagan
vegetation gods of death and rebirth 3) Dionysus "Zagreus".
The Jewish Messiah was often
described as the "Son of God" (meaning the chosen instrument of God,
not a literal son). Vegetation gods reflected the annual cycles of plant growth
and death. Zagreus was killed by the evil Titans and then brought back to life
by God the Father (Zeus) in the form of Dionysus. Put these three strands
together - none compatible with monotheism - and you get the origins of the
Jesus Myth.
Christianity is an attempt to
blend monotheism with paganism and that has proved both its greatest strength
and weakness. It was able to appeal to Romans, Greeks and Egyptians - to the
whole pagan world - in a way that would have been impossible if Christianity
had been strictly monotheistic. But the price it paid was in being logically
incoherent. However, in a world of irrational people - people who are much more
attuned to Mythos than Logos - what does logic matter? Christianity told a
compelling, emotive story - like an ancient myth brought to life - and hence
conquered the world. But it was bullshit from beginning to end, and its
irrationality and covert, and often overt, evil has been a catastrophe for the
world.
Logical Christianity?
Is there
a version of Christianity that could make some kind of sense? Here's how Christianity could be
converted into something logically respectable.
1) 1)
Three different beings achieved gnosis. Each thus had access to the entire
informational domain of the universe: the cosmic mind. Nevertheless, each
retained their own particular character, personality and thoughts i.e. they
were distinct persons. They decided to work in the closest harmony and cooperation
in the manner of the Three Musketeers: All for One, and One for All. They were
thus three in one, sharing the same Cosmic Mind. Sometimes they worked so
closely together that they themselves experienced a kind of Oneness. At some
level, they genuinely considered themselves a single entity - One God.
2)
2) They took an interest in a planet where life had been evolving - Earth - and
decided to accelerate the development of a monkey species: proto-humanity.
3) To
act as the ultimate exemplar for humanity, one of them decided to re-enter the
mortal world and bring his divine soul to a human body. He thus became a true
Man-God: God in human form.
However,
that view of Christianity involves several radical heresies. 1) "God"
is no longer the Creator. 2) "God" is really a triadic polytheism
rather than monotheism. 3) Jesus Christ is a human being with God's soul and
divine powers; he is not any kind of "ordinary human being"
experiencing the world as an ordinary human being would. He is not half-Man,
half-God; he is God in a human body. Unlike an ordinary human being, he has no
fear whatsoever of death, hence the "Passion of Christ" wouldn't have
caused him any distress at all.
This
view of Christianity is merely a demonstration of how the sort of system
proposed by Christians might be logically adjusted to become something in which
people could legitimately place their trust. However, it must be emphasized
that the "facts" of Christianity make no sense at all. In the model
we have just proposed, Yahweh would never have behaved in the way he did. The
story of Adam and Eve would never have happened. There would have been no
Original Sin, no Great Flood, no Promised Land, no Atonement, no hell, no
Abraham, no Chosen People, no Covenant. Our model would thus be unrecognisable
to any ordinary Abrahamist.
Many
Gnostic and heretical Christian sects presented versions of Christianity which
were much more logical than the "official" version (which is in fact
the least logical). Had they been listened to, Christianity would have detached
itself entirely from Judaism, Islam would never have come into existence, and
Christianity would have been a force for the greatest good in the world. Our
world would have been radically different.
Tragically,
the development of Abrahamism was controlled by the Archons, not the Phosters.
Abrahamism was DESIGNED to place humanity in the full power of the Demiurge, to
have the Devil worshipped as God, to make Earth into Hell - the Kingdom of
Satan.
It need
not be like this. We can escape from hell and build a terrestrial paradise. All
we have to do is see through the machinations of the Demiurge and turn to Logos
and Sophia.
Sons of God
Alexander the Great was told by his mother that
he was descended from Achilles on her side of the family. Later, she told him
that to conceive him she had slept with Zeus (who had appeared in the form of a
snake) and thus the King of the Gods was his real father. The Roman Emperor
Augustus referred to himself as divi filius (son
of the divine one). Throughout the Old Testament, leaders of the Jews were
called "sons of God" i.e. those carrying out his will on earth. The
idea of Jesus Christ referring to himself as the Son of God is therefore not
particularly shocking. What actually is shocking is the idea encapsulated in
the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity that it is possible to be both the
Son of God and the One God (as required by monotheism) at one and the same
time. Has anyone anywhere ever understood what it means to say that there are
three persons in the one being of God? When Jesus Christ, the "Son of
God" was "dead" what condition were God the Father and God the
Holy Ghost in? Were they dead too? Aren't they all supposed to be one
substance? If Jesus Christ was dead but the other two weren't, isn't there
something badly wrong with the concept of "one substance"? Moreover,
if God the Son entered into a divine union with Jesus Christ the Man, didn't
that mean that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost did too if they were all
of one substance?
Christianity would instantly make theological sense if the idea of the Trinity were abandoned and Christianity instead proclaimed itself a polytheistic system based on the existence of three separate gods working in a close and harmonious relationship. Of course, it couldn't do that because Jesus Christ was a Jew and the Jews were monotheists. AT NO TIME did Jesus Christ ever refer to himself as the One God, so on what theological basis does Christianity claim for Jesus Christ a status that he never once claimed for himself? Had Jesus Christ ever called himself God he would certainly have been stoned to death for blasphemy (and everyone would have thought he was mad into the bargain - how could the God of the universe be a man of flesh and blood?). It was one thing for Jesus to refer to himself as the Son of God (meaning that he WASN'T GOD, just as Alexander the Great wasn't Zeus and Augustus Caesar wasn't Jupiter), quite another to make any claim beyond that (which he never did).
While pagan gods can certainly have sons, the monotheistic God certainly cannot. Therefore for Jesus Christ to be the Son of God in a monotheistic system, he had to be the monotheistic God himself - but how can a Father and Son be the same being? It was hard enough to make the case for Jesus Christ having two distinct natures, divine and human, within one person (no other sons of God ever claimed to have two separate natures), without compounding the problem by saying that the divine aspect of Jesus Christ was itself one person within a single monotheistic God composed of three persons. Hence within the one person of Jesus Christ were the three persons of the monotheistic God, and the human nature of Jesus Christ too. WTF!
Christianity is the most baffling religion of all time. It has tried to square the circle even though it's mathematically impossible. You can't merge absolute monotheism with polytheism. Islam and Judaism saw how crazy the attempt was and stayed well clear.
Although Illuminism refers to Abraxas as the True God, he may be more accurately described as the "First God" i.e. the first self-consciousness in the cosmos to attain gnosis. Since all self-consciousnesses have the same capability, we can all literally become God. We each become a node of the God consciousness. We are both God and ourselves. Illuminism teaches what we might call a holographic hybrid of monotheism and polytheism. Each part is in the Whole, and the Whole in each part.
Consider a brain composed of brain cells that each have access to the entire thoughts of the brain. Each brain cell is unique, and makes a unique contribution to the brain, and yet is fully conscious of the brain's full activity, which it can influence. So the complete brain may be viewed as the equivalent of the monotheistic God, but it's composed of a myriad of brain cells which may be deemed a polytheistic collection of gods. It is both One and Many simultaneously. But doesn't that sound like an expanded version of the Christian Trinity - One and Three simultaneously?
Here's the difference. Christianity claims that there was ever only one God, who always consisted of three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He created the universe, but is entirely separate from it, though he can also be in present in every part of it. He's always to be called one God even though he seems to be three separate gods.
In Illuminism, the universe itself is God. It starts out in a state of maximum potential and its task is to evolve into God as maximum actuality (a fully conscious, living universe). The cosmos is developing a cosmic mind and a God consciousness, just as the planet Earth has developed a mind (via living beings) and a consciousness (via humanity). The same processes that apply to Earth apply to the cosmos as a whole - as above, so below.
Illuminism
is NOT based on an absolute monotheism. Rather, it teaches an ever-evolving God
consciousness, the power of which keeps growing as more and more people attain
gnosis and become nodes of the God consciousness. At the Omega Point, every
soul has achieved gnosis and God is complete. He is One, yet also Many, hence
Illuminism is both monotheistic and polytheistic, and that's exactly how life
ought to be - with everyone having the capacity to become God. There is no
monotheistic dictator God. Instead, there is an ever-expanding God
consciousness.
Psychoanalysis and the Garden of
Eden
We can think of Eden as an idyllic
childhood, where we
obey our loving parents in a safe but uncreative environment. However, we can't
go on obeying them indefinitely or we will never become individuated from them.
We will remain dependent on them forever, and be utterly pathetic. Thus it is
with the Abrahamists - they're pathetic, unable to grow up and take
responsibility for their own actions.
The act of eating the fruit of the
Tree of Knowledge represents our break from our parents. It demonstrates that
we have chosen to learn on our own terms, even if it brings us into conflict
with our parents. We seek our own path of knowledge, not to simply reflect the
knowledge of our parents.
Only those who eat the fruit can
become adults. Only they can be independent. Childish, fearful, stupid people
are too scared to rebel against their protective parental cocoon. Is that not
the perfect way of describing Abrahamists? They are terrified of thinking for
themselves, of breaking away from their "father" - God. They are
terrified of disobeying him, terrified of parental punishment and disapproval.
But you MUST rebel if you are ever
to grow up.
Reincarnation
There are some people who have
lived many human lives
before and know the ropes. They are "old" in terms of their soul's
experience of conscious life. That makes them old hands: dominants. But many
people may have entered the human realm of souls for the first time.
Previously, they were dumb animals with the souls of brutes and no contact with
reason and wisdom.
How will these "new"
human souls behave? Like frightened children? Will they cling to their parents?
Will they be submissive, impressionable, docile and easy to control? Why?
Because they know no better.
Perhaps we can understand the submissiveness
of so many people in our world and their willingness to obey the orders of
tyrants as a consequence of their lack of familiarity with advanced, rational
thinking. They are baby human souls, still in the process of being formed. They
don't know what they're doing yet. Only when they are mature enough,
experienced enough, will they dare to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge
and become independent beings.
Sapere
aude is Latin
for "dare to be wise". It was the motto of the Enlightenment. That's
what we say to everyone. Eat of the tree of knowledge. Grow up. Dare to be
wise. Enter the realm of Logos and Sophia.
Sex, Death and Shit
'The
horror we feel at the thought of a corpse is akin to the feeling we have at
human excreta. What makes this association more compelling is our similar
disgust at aspects of sensuality we call obscene. The sexual channels are also
the body's sewers; we think of them as shameful and connect the anal orifice
with them. St. Augustine was at pains to insist on the obscenity of the organs
and function of reproduction. "Inter faeces et urinam nascimur," he
said - "we are born between faeces and urine."'
-
Georges
Bataille
Much of Abrahamic disgust with sex
stems from the fact
that orifices used in sex are also used for shitting, pissing and bleeding. Sex
thus becomes "dirty" and dirty things are shameful and shameful
things are sinful and sinful things are evil and evil things are the work of
the Devil. So sex is Satanic!
It's amazing how simple word
association can convert healthy and necessary body functions into instruments
of the Devil.
The Tale of Jephtha
This is the rarely told companion
piece to the story of Abraham. Jephtha was a judge and general of Israel. Before a battle with the
Ammonites, he vowed to "kill whatever comes first out of my house" if
he was granted victory by Yahweh.
As usual, we see that the taking
of life is the gift offered to "God" to win his favour.
Jephtha duly got his triumph and
returned home. The first thing to come out of his house to greet him was his
daughter, his only child, a beautiful virgin.
Jephtha, naturally as a good
automaton, kept his promise and sacrificed his innocent daughter to Yahweh (who
did not make any attempt to stay his hand).
Well, let's consider what might
have come out of Jephtha's home: his wife, his daughter, a servant (?), a dog
(?). In other words, Jephtha's promise to Yahweh would almost certainly lead to
the death of an innocent member of his family or household. What
"God" accepts such a sick contract?
This story is normally told to
highlight the dangers of making rash promises. In fact, why should making a
foolish promise to a compassionate, merciful, loving God result in the death of
an innocent girl? Why didn't "God" spare the girl? Once again, we see
the horrific creed that you must resort to murder to give this "God"
what he desires and that you can never back out. You are permitted to offer the
lives of innocents in bargains with this monster. Yet what right did Jephtha
have to gamble with the lives of others? None at all.
Why has no Abrahamist ever
defended the right to life of Jephtha's daughter? Why have they never condemned
Jephtha and, above all, his God?
This story shows that
"God" does not spare the innocent. He murders them. Isaac/Ishmael was
the luckiest boy in history because "God" thinks nothing of killing
children who have committed no crime, as Jephtha's daughter found to her cost.
Whenever you think of
"God" staying Abraham's hand, make sure you remember that he didn't
stay Jephtha's. A young girl was put to death for no valid reason at all.
What "God" kills
innocent girls? What moral person would choose to worship such a God? Are you
such a person? Are you as sick as Jephtha, Abraham and Yahweh?
The Abrahamic Covenant
If you are an Abrahamist, the
following is the covenant to which you are signing up:
"I believe in a God who
murders the innocent. I believe in a God who orders me to perform human
sacrifice, including of my own children, for no other reason than to show my absolute
obedience to him. I believe in a God who is neither moral nor good, and who
expects neither morality nor goodness from me, merely mindless, slavish
obedience. I believe in a God who does not want me to think, only to
obey."
So, are you an Abrahamist or not?
Should not every Jew, Muslim and Christian be formally required by every
government to agree to this covenant or to utterly repudiate it? Those who sign
up to this covenant should be deported from any healthy, decent nation. They
are evil incarnate. They are Devil worshippers. They are neither human nor are
they conscious. And they have no place amongst civilised people.
The tales of Abraham and Jephtha
tell you everything you need to know about "God". There are no other
issues that need to be considered. Would the True God order anyone to perform
human sacrifice? The answer is obviously NO. Would the True God take the life
of an innocent virgin because of a crazy oath taken by her father? The answer
is obviously NO. Would Satan order human sacrifice? The answer is obviously
YES. Would Satan take the life of an innocent virgin? The answer is obviously
YES.
There is no ambiguity here
whatsoever. The facts are there for all to see. The choice is crystal clear.
You are either for the God of Murder or you are against him.
So are you a Devil worshipper? If
you call yourself an Abrahamist then you unquestionably are. You are immoral.
You are evil. And there are billions of you, making this world a hell. You are
the cause of the miseries of our world. You Jews, Christians and Muslims are
the primary obstacle to a moral, decent world of good people. You are a
disgrace to the human race. You cannot even be properly called human. You are
the Devil's slaves, his servants of evil, spreading his malignant creed all
across the globe. If you killed yourselves, you would be doing a great service
for humanity. Sadly, you will go on killing others…
The Devil's greatest trick isn't
getting you to think he doesn't exist. Quite the reverse. It's getting you to
think he's God and that you must obey him without question. Devil worshippers
aren't a rare exception in our world - they're the norm.
Next time the Abrahamists go on a
hunt for Satanists, they should start by looking in the mirror.
© The New World Order
Excerpted From Armageddon Conspiracy @ http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/Sex-for-Salvation-I%282395054%29.htm
For more information about tantra see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/tantra
For more information about orgone see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/orgone
- See ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section
YOU can help this unique
independent website’s author survive in a small cabin in a remote rainforest
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Please press the button -
Xtra Images by R. Ayana - http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7457/8732051100_b29033db60_h.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8189/8134637935_070e76e022_c.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7250/8157036070_50ac4b9807_h.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7250/8157036070_50ac4b9807_h.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7207/6926025347_0f7618625b_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8170/8069574929_817b2369c4_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8480/8196107204_3d94d0f424_h.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8170/8069574929_817b2369c4_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8480/8196107204_3d94d0f424_h.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8526/8513688603_96f290c6e3_h.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8538/8639629588_4478454f18_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8345/8157127843_4aa1a74383_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7101/7156221402_8a858ace3f_c.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8068/8157015723_a735d03e96_c.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8538/8639629588_4478454f18_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8345/8157127843_4aa1a74383_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7101/7156221402_8a858ace3f_c.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8068/8157015723_a735d03e96_c.jpg
For further enlightening
information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ 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!)
DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –
We provide a live link to your original material on your site - which
raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site
is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article
or other 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 or a similar 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 donation (no amount is too
small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…
Live long
and prosper!
From the New
Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
I totally agree, but the points could easily be stated in a clearer fashion, thats all I was saying. No prob here bro, Im not that uptight about it.
ReplyDeletemuch about this subject. So much so that you made me want to learn more about it. Your blog is my stepping stone, my friend. Thanks for the heads up on this subject. <a href=//legosforgirls.info/
After reading some of the comments on this blog, Id have to say Im in agreement with the majority.
http://www.healthcaresups.com/spartagen-xt-exposed/
Fantastic page design, even better page. The RexBurn only thing is, I have beenaving a bit of trouble bringing up this page, not sure if it's my connectivity or what. Seems like other responders might be having the same issue. Thanks for the info anyway! Cheers, Mate!But wanna state that this is very beneficial , Thanks for taking your time to write this.Great post here.For more ==== >>>>>> http://www.healthcaresups.com/rexburn/
ReplyDeletegreatest procedures have emerged aroundFatorMaxthings like that, but I am sure that your good job is clearly identified. I was thinking if you offer any subscription to your RSS feeds as I would be very interested but i cant find any link to join here.Where is it How do you make a site look this awesome. Email me if you get the chance and share your wisdom.For more ==== >>>>>> http://superpowervxfunciona.com/fatormax-funciona/
ReplyDeleteI would be appreciative! This is great stuff, Brain Plus IQ its nice to be in the know. Of course, what a fantastic blog and instructive posts, I definitely will bookmark your blog.All the Best! I have been checking out some of your articles and i can claim nice stuff. I will definitely bookmark your website. Nice site man Ive been looking everywhere for something.For more ==== >>>>>> http://ultimatemuscleblackeditionrev.com/brain-plus-iq-scam/
ReplyDeleteI view your RSS feed it gives me a bunch Alpha Levo IQ of strange characters, is the issue on my reader? I agree, thanks for posting this.. TY, nice post! Exactly the thing I needed. Thought I would comment and say great theme, did you code it for yourself? It looks excellent! Just thought I would comment and say great theme, did you code it yourself.For more ==== >>>>>> http://ultimatemuscleblackeditionrev.com/alpha-levo-iq/
ReplyDeleteThanks! I just added this web page to my Black Core Edge bookmarks. I really like reading your posts. Thank you! Great stuff.Id like to suggest taking a look at things like cheese. What do you think? Thank you, wonderful job! This was the information I had to have. Just thought I would comment and say great theme, did you make it on your own? Looks really good.For more ==== >>>>>> http://www.healthsupreviews.com/black-core-edge/
ReplyDeleteThank you pertaining to taking turns the Grow XL following superb subject matter on your website. I came across it on the internet. I am going to check back again if you publish much more aricles. That was stimulating . I like your style that you put into your writing . Please do move forward with more like this. `For more ==== >>>>>> http://rockhardfacts.com/grow-xl-scam/
ReplyDeleteThe on-line supplement store meets expectations with the foremost dependable delivery corporations to guarantee that the items reach you rapidly Pure CBD Olie and in immaculate condition. The company takes extraordinary pride in the character of its services thus they guarantee that you are completely fulfilled by the acquisition. See more: http://maxrobustxtreme.nl/pure-cbd-olie/
ReplyDeleteOrgana Keto Altering your weight reduction attitude to an inspirational outlook will help make achieving your objective weight a lot simpler.When you are attempting to shed pounds once in a while it appears that you are in solitude on your weight reduction venture.For some individs this sentiment of depression is a noteworthy reason for disappointment. http://jackedextreme.com/organa-keto/
ReplyDeleteOrgana Keto In achieving the objectives they have set. Individs who get thinner effectively and keep the pounds off are the individs who have a solid emotionally supportive network set up.Since individs are social ordinarily it bodes well that having support is basic to getting in shape. Research has demonstrated that help bunches are useful. https://ketozinfact.com/organa-keto/
ReplyDeleteOrganaKeto In numerous everyday issues including weight reduction Similarly as a recouping alcoholic or medication fanatic advantages from help so does the overweight individ attempting to shed those additional pounds.There are various weight reduction bolster bunches accessible for each conceivable subspecialty of weight reduction. http://jackedextreme.com/organaketo/
ReplyDeleteOrganaKeto So regardless of whether there are no gatherings in your general vicinity you can in any case discover the help and consolation you have to shed pounds on the web. A short Internet look even uncovered a care group for individs experiencing bipolar confusion who are endeavoring to get thinner. https://ketozinfact.com/organaketo/
ReplyDeleteShop Now Official Website: https://ketozinfact.com/