Black Holes Are Souls (The God Series Book 23)

Table of contents :
Black Holes Are Souls
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Breakdown
Nothing, Infinity, and Transcendence
Electromagnetic Minds
Gamma-Ray Minds
Black Holes
Cosmic Censorship
Naked Singularities
Wormholes
The Wormhole Con
A New Theory of Wormholes
The Big Bang
Dimensional Portals and Gateways
The Expanding Universe
The Schwarzschild Radius
Clothed White Holes
Taoism
The Sine Wave
White and Black Holes
Descartes
Hyperspace
The Confederacy of Dunces
The Perfection Paradox
Transhumanists
Which Are You?
Lost
Won
The Soul
Classical versus Romantic
Intuitives and Sensors
Gumption Trap
The Gospel of Quality
The Wrong Name
The Third Man
The “Negatives”
The Real Gods
Action versus Debate
But...
Death
The Sins
The Charity Con
The Half-Hearted
Roadblock People
The Goddess?
Anti-Libertarianism
Conspiracy Theories
Atheists
The Self-Help Society
Your All?
Eugenics
The Wisdom of Nietzsche
The Rich Man’s Party
The Invisible Hand
Green Light and Red Light People
The Reward
Deadheads?
When Enthusiasm Has Died
The Reign of Psychopaths
The Police
The Previous Believers
Fairies
A Wasted Life
What You Need to Know
Polarisation
No Democracy
The Opposition
Adventures
Prophets and Gurus
The Cosmic Force of Intelligence
Gods
Blether
The Dialectic
The Voice of Enlightenment (Sic)
Religious Evolution
One Dimensional?
Inheritance
The Greatest Danger?
Hate
Which Elite?
The Highest and Best
Realis, Irrealis, Eventualis, Potentialis
Protestant Sin for Salvation?!
Cool
The War
Arrogance
Patience
Contra
The Money Equation
Hauntings
Where is Wisdom?
Doublespeak
Energy is Eternal Delight
The Insanity
The Pathfinders
Buddhism
The Mass Mind
The Tolerance Paradox
Kierkegaard
The Three Types
Love?
Things We Hate
Doubt
Hawk World
The Old and the New
The Source of the Voices
Good Enough?
The Oppressor
The Nephilim
The Underworld
Hermes Trismegistus
Impostor Syndrome
The Bystander Effect
The Ersatz Corps
The Gnostic Susceptibility
Mirror, Mirror
Agape and Eros
Vampires
The Critics
Facebook
The Zone
The Propaganda
Light Healers
Jerusalem Syndrome
Honour and Shame
Dogs and Cats
Negative and Positive Freedom
Self Mastery
Myths
Error
Res Publica versus Res Privita
Res Publica versus Spes Publica
The Invisible Hand
Media Manipulation
Devaluation
The War of All Against All
The Waste Land
The Armageddon Conspiracy
BDSM
Killing the Thing You Love
The God Series
The Moon Question
Social Networking
The Internal Panopticon: The Inner Policeman
The Cost of Doing Business
Victim Souls
Fools’ Paradise
Bought and Sold
This Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore
The Clown
The Laughing Cure
The Naked Lunch
Group Size and I.Q.
Predators and Prey
The Day of the Locust?
The World Dangers
Junk
The Last Man
Which Is it?
Self-Improvement
What Humanity Most Values
The Surveillance Society
Love Sickness
The Different Faces of the Unconscious
The Mind Mirror
The Mental Editor
Mind Tennis
The Mental Iceberg
The Judging Mind
Autism
The Mirror Test
Ontological Mathematics
Marxism
Dialectical Materialism
Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Consciousness
The Threefold View of Human Nature
The Fourfold View
Demons
Logical and Alogical
The Homeric Soul
The Triune Brain
The Origin of the Soul
Knight Errant
Chicken and Egg ... Which Came First?
Wisdom
Mind Pregnancy?
Interstellar
Contra Capitalism
Cannibalism
Pick ‘N’ Mix
The End of History
True Beauty
The Will of All versus the General Will
The Cosmic Music
The Four Paths
Breaking Mirrors
The Meta Unconscious
Nazi Judaism
Feeling is a Disease!
The Great Wall of Life
Breaking Bad
A Physical God?
Chivalry
Zombie Religion
Xmas
Jesus Christ
El Rey
Killer Machines?
Not Even Wrong
The Nine Levels of Consciousness in Buddhism
The Buddhism Delusion
The Zeroth Level of Consciousness
Transcendence
Plato’s Black Hole
The Crux
The Hardest Thing
The Last Word
The Stream Beneath
The Source of Evil
The Shadow
The Christian Deception
The Sacred Cause

Citation preview

Black Holes Are Souls M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2014 The right of Mike Hockney to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Table of Contents Black Holes Are Souls Table of Contents Introduction The Breakdown Nothing, Infinity, and Transcendence Electromagnetic Minds Gamma-Ray Minds Black Holes Cosmic Censorship Naked Singularities Wormholes The Wormhole Con A New Theory of Wormholes The Big Bang Dimensional Portals and Gateways The Expanding Universe The Schwarzschild Radius Clothed White Holes Taoism The Sine Wave White and Black Holes

Descartes Hyperspace The Confederacy of Dunces The Perfection Paradox Transhumanists Which Are You? Lost Won The Soul Classical versus Romantic Intuitives and Sensors Gumption Trap The Gospel of Quality The Wrong Name The Third Man The “Negatives” The Real Gods Action versus Debate But... Death The Sins The Charity Con

The Half-Hearted Roadblock People The Goddess? Anti-Libertarianism Conspiracy Theories Atheists The Self-Help Society Your All? Eugenics The Wisdom of Nietzsche The Rich Man’s Party The Invisible Hand Green Light and Red Light People The Reward Deadheads? When Enthusiasm Has Died The Reign of Psychopaths The Police The Previous Believers Fairies A Wasted Life What You Need to Know

Polarisation No Democracy The Opposition Adventures Prophets and Gurus The Cosmic Force of Intelligence Gods Blether The Dialectic The Voice of Enlightenment (Sic) Religious Evolution One Dimensional? Inheritance The Greatest Danger? Hate Which Elite? The Highest and Best Realis, Irrealis, Eventualis, Potentialis Protestant Sin for Salvation?! Cool The War Arrogance

Patience Contra The Money Equation Hauntings Where is Wisdom? Doublespeak Energy is Eternal Delight The Insanity The Pathfinders Buddhism The Mass Mind The Tolerance Paradox Kierkegaard The Three Types Love? Things We Hate Doubt Hawk World The Old and the New The Source of the Voices Good Enough? The Oppressor

The Nephilim The Underworld Hermes Trismegistus Impostor Syndrome The Bystander Effect The Ersatz Corps The Gnostic Susceptibility Mirror, Mirror Agape and Eros Vampires The Critics Facebook The Zone The Propaganda Light Healers Jerusalem Syndrome Honour and Shame Dogs and Cats Negative and Positive Freedom Self Mastery Myths Error

Res Publica versus Res Privita Res Publica versus Spes Publica The Invisible Hand Media Manipulation Devaluation The War of All Against All The Waste Land The Armageddon Conspiracy BDSM Killing the Thing You Love The God Series The Moon Question Social Networking The Internal Panopticon: The Inner Policeman The Cost of Doing Business Victim Souls Fools’ Paradise Bought and Sold This Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore The Clown The Laughing Cure The Naked Lunch

Group Size and I.Q. Predators and Prey The Day of the Locust? The World Dangers Junk The Last Man Which Is it? Self-Improvement What Humanity Most Values The Surveillance Society Love Sickness The Different Faces of the Unconscious The Mind Mirror The Mental Editor Mind Tennis The Mental Iceberg The Judging Mind Autism The Mirror Test Ontological Mathematics Marxism Dialectical Materialism

Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Consciousness The Threefold View of Human Nature The Fourfold View Demons Logical and Alogical The Homeric Soul The Triune Brain The Origin of the Soul Knight Errant Chicken and Egg ... Which Came First? Wisdom Mind Pregnancy? Interstellar Contra Capitalism Cannibalism Pick ‘N’ Mix The End of History True Beauty The Will of All versus the General Will The Cosmic Music The Four Paths Breaking Mirrors

The Meta Unconscious Nazi Judaism Feeling is a Disease! The Great Wall of Life Breaking Bad A Physical God? Chivalry Zombie Religion Xmas Jesus Christ El Rey Killer Machines? Not Even Wrong The Nine Levels of Consciousness in Buddhism The Buddhism Delusion The Zeroth Level of Consciousness Transcendence Plato’s Black Hole The Crux The Hardest Thing The Last Word The Stream Beneath

The Source of Evil The Shadow The Christian Deception The Sacred Cause

Introduction Any theory – any theory at all – that begins with false assumptions will produce false results. Therefore, the most fundamental task of all is to examine and get right the assumptions that underlie a theory. Euclidean geometry is regarded as a masterpiece of producing axiomatic assumptions and then following through the logic of their consequences. So good was Euclidean geometry that it took thousands of years for mathematicians to realise it was wrong. Or, rather, not the full truth. And thus was born nonEuclidean geometry. Well, what else seems remarkably well supported but may be wrong, or not the full truth? How about science? How do science’s fundamental assumptions stand up to scrutiny? Much less well than those of Euclidean geometry, that’s for sure. Science is predicated on several assumptions, all of which are false: 1) Materialism is the fundamental basis of reality. Wrong – it’s idealism. 2) Empiricism is the best approach to understanding ultimate reality. Wrong – it’s rationalism. 3) There is nothing outside space and time. Wrong – there’s an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time. 4) Science is the best way of apprehending reality. Wrong – it’s mathematics. 5) Anything for which no sensory evidence can be found does not exist. Wrong – there’s a mathematical domain of hidden variables, rational unobservables and noumenal elements that has no connection whatsoever with the sensory world of appearances. 6) Reality is based on real numbers. Wrong – it’s based on complex numbers. 7) Zero and infinity do not exist. Wrong – they emphatically do. Science falls apart at a particular aspect of existence that can be defined exactly – at singularities. The whole logic of science collapses as soon as singularities are encountered. This is fantastically problematic for science

given that black holes are centred on singularities, photons are singularities, and the whole of the Big Bang Universe came from a Singularity. What, ontologically, are singularities? Descartes gave us the answer hundreds of years ago when he defined “thinking substance” as unextended. Singularities – the ultimate unextended entities – are minds, and, from that single fact, science is turned on its head. Mind does not come from matter; matter comes from mind. Singularities – minds – are immaterial Fourier frequency domains outside space and time. The Fourier spacetime world of matter is produced by Fourier frequency domains that are not in space and time. Mathematical reason can establish all of this. Science cannot. The scientific method can tell us nothing about ultimate reality because the scientific method is about the senses, but ultimate reality has nothing to do with the senses. How could it? After all, ultimate reality existed before any sense organs existed to provide sensory data. Any approach based on the senses is inherently false since the universe did not begin with the senses. There is therefore a fundamental, non-sensory reality. That reality is mathematical. What can the scientific method tell you about immaterial, non-sensory, frequency domains outside space and time? Nothing at all! But math can tell us everything about these singularities down to the finest detail. Singularities are noumenal, not phenomenal. They have no appearance. You can’t see, touch, hear, smell or taste singularities. So, what experiments could you possibly perform on them? Mathematical reason alone can tell us about singularities, and since nothing can be more fundamental than singularities, only mathematical reason can tell us about fundamental reality. Singularities (= minds) have another name, most associated with Leibniz, but going right back to Pythagoras: they are “monads”. And monads have a religious name – souls. There’s nothing mysterious about souls. They are simply mathematical singularities outside space and time. They are autonomous Fourier frequency domains. They are Leibnizian monads and Cartesian minds. They are the quintessence of ontological mathematics and the basis of everything. We can even write a precise equation for souls = singularities = minds = monads, namely, the God Equation, which is just the generalised Euler Formula, the centrepiece of mathematical analysis and fundamental to physics.

The Big Bang Singularity from which the whole “scientific” world came was never anything other than a Cosmic Mind – a collective Singularity composed entirely of individual singularities. The scientific world – of spacetime matter and appearances – is 100% the product of immaterial mathematical minds with no appearance. What is truly astounding about science is that it has never once checked, and has no mechanism for checking, the veracity of its own assumptions. It regards such an exercise as “philosophy”, and it has utter contempt for philosophy. So, like Euclidean geometry, it makes the most grandiose, cosmological claims, yet can’t even prove the correctness of its own core assumptions. It doesn’t care about the stark fact that if these assumptions are false, science must be false too, or, to be more charitable, radically incomplete. It just goes right ahead regardless. It’s no accident that science is an empirical subject. It has no time for rationalism – for the exercise of reason. It was reason that exposed the fallacies of Euclidean geometry, and its reason that exposes the fallacies of scientific materialism. No person of reason could ever take the side of scientific empiricism against mathematical rationalism. If theories are only as good as their assumptions, the most important task is to test those assumptions. A theory with bad assumptions will be a GIGO theory – garbage in, garbage out! Only reason and logic can perform this testing function. There’s no scientific experiment that can be conducted that can establish whether or not the fundamental assumptions of scientific materialism are true. For example, no scientific experiment can prove that matter exists, that immaterial minds do not exist, that frequency domains outside space and time do not exist, that hidden variables and rational unobservables do not exist, that complex numbers do not exist, that zero and infinity do not exist, and so on. Given this incredible range of rational elements contrary to the ideology and dogmatism of scientific materialism and empiricism that cannot be disproved, it’s simply staggering that science so arrogantly claims that it’s the only way to reveal true reality to us. Science typically dismisses everything non-scientific as silly religious or metaphysical speculation. However, as soon as the non-scientific world is defined as an ontological mathematical world, science no longer has a Straw Man to attack. It now has a deadly serious opponent that no cheap arguments can prevail against. Science has an impossible task attacking mathematics given that science itself is entirely dependent on mathematics

for its own success! As soon as you realise that the hidden world that underlies empirical science is rational mathematics, your understanding of reality will be changed forever. Beneath the sensory scientific world is a non-sensory, mathematical world of reason. That’s why mathematics is at the heart of science. If you can’t “get” that, you will never find the answer to existence. Let’s be crystal clear about the nature of science. It’s the science of appearances (phenomena), not of things in themselves (noumena). Things in themselves do not have any appearance. They are intelligible, not sensible; mathematical, not scientific; metaphysical, not physical; rational, not empirical. Metaphysics is simply that which comes after physics, and ontological mathematics is that which comes after science. Strictly rationalist mathematical metaphysics is what you get when you go beyond science, when you transcend science. What lies beyond science is, of course, ultimate reality itself. What is ultimate reality? – it’s the world of singularities, of pure, analytic mathematics with absolutely no appearance and no sensory qualities or properties. It’s exactly where science cannot go, where all scientific theories come to grief. With one critical exception, no scientific concept applies to singularities. There are no atoms in singularities, no matter, no space, no time, no gravity, no strong and weak nuclear forces, no quarks, and no Higgs bosons. The sole exception is electromagnetism, but, in truth, this is not a scientific concept at all. It properly belongs to ontological mathematics. Only electromagnetism involves analytic mathematics, and can be 100% accommodated by singularities. A corollary is that the entire scientific world is actually born of electromagnetism = light. No one ever said, “Let there be Light”, for the simple fact that electromagnetism is eternal. The Demiurge, the “Creator”, would instead have said, “Let there be Matter.” Matter, unlike light (= mind), is temporal and mortal. Here’s a simple way to understand the difference between ontological mathematics and science: the former is about light, and the latter about matter (which is just “broken” light). Light is massless, dimensionless, unextended, spaceless, timeless, and has no appearance. You can’t “see” light, in the sense that if a pure light beam is fired across your visual field,

but none of its light enters your eyes, you won’t see a thing. It’s said that our eyes are the windows to the soul, and this is more or less literally true. When you “see”, you are seeing a mental, frequency pattern, not a physical pattern! You are seeing frequency information reflected from the “material” world. Light is the mind. Light is composed of sinusoidal waves. These are the carriers of all mental information, all thoughts. Matter = broken light = broken thought. Thought is broken for a very simple reason: it’s shared by all minds. Unbroken thought belongs exclusively to individual minds. When minds share thoughts, that’s when the mathematics goes awry. That’s when symmetry breaking occurs, when asymmetry and antisymmetry appear, when non-orthogonal, out-of-phase mathematics takes place ... and all of that is what produces “matter”. In other words, a mind can think its own thoughts via pure light. When minds attempt to share thoughts, the light from one mind is out-of-phase with the light of the other minds, and this causes the light to “break”, i.e. “breaking” actually means being out of phase. A photon is made of one cosine wave and one sine wave, perfectly orthogonal to each, exactly ninety degrees out of phase. This ninety degrees separation is perfect. For our purposes, we are going to define “in phase” as meaning that a sine wave and matched cosine wave (i.e. they have the same amplitude and frequency) are permanently orthogonal to each other, and “out of phase” as whenever they are non-orthogonal to each other. That is, we define orthogonal relations as being “in phase”, while “out of phase” relates to any situation where this ninety degrees phase separation does not hold. Mind is defined by perfect orthogonality between cosine and sine waves. Matter is defined by non-orthogonal relations between cosine and sine waves. What could be simpler? Orthogonality reigns within individual minds (outside space and time), and non-orthogonality reigns between minds, in their shared space, which is none other than the material world of space and time. Orthogonality means the immaterial frequency domain, outside space and time. Non-orthogonality means the material spacetime domain. Fourier mathematics is all about orthogonal frequency functions versus non-orthogonal spacetime functions. It’s all in the math! Light is about immortality, broken light about mortality. Light is the soul, broken light the body. Body and soul can co-exist because they are

just different aspects of light: broken and intact. Only a small, low-energy band of light is capable of breaking. Wikipedia says, “The strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces can all be understood as arising from gauge symmetries. The Higgs mechanism, the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge symmetries, is an important component in understanding the superconductivity of metals and the origin of particle masses in the standard model of particle physics. ... Without spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Standard Model of elementary particle interactions requires the existence of a number of particles. However, some particles (the W and Z bosons) would then be predicted to be massless, when, in reality, they are observed to have mass. To overcome this, spontaneous symmetry breaking is augmented by the Higgs mechanism to give these particles mass.” Do you see that it’s all about symmetry and symmetry breaking? How do you convert science to ontological mathematics? It couldn’t be simpler. All you do is define a photon of light as a matched, in phase, pair of cosine and sine waves. Thus you turn the science of light into the mathematical study of analytic sinusoids. Next, you define any material particle as an out of phase pair of cosine and sine waves. Ergo, all of the different material particles, are, upon closer inspection, different only in terms of their respective phase relations. To put it crudely, an electron could involve, say, a phase shift of five degrees from orthogonality for its constituent cosine and sine waves, while a Higgs boson might involve only a one degree shift. The world of matter is simply where we study the out of phase relations of sines and cosines. Pure light is the immaterial Fourier frequency domain, and broken light is the material Fourier spacetime domain. Fourier mathematics is nothing other than the study of intact, orthogonal, in phase light versus broken, non-orthogonal, out of phase light. How straightforward can you get? All of science’s obfuscation and randomness disappears at a stroke. “Mind” is simply light, and “matter” is simply broken light, and thus we see exactly why we live in a world of mind and matter that can co-exist and causally interact with each other. When Descartes spoke of mind being unextended and matter being extended, what he should have said that mind is in phase light (which means that it’s in the unextended, immaterial, frequency domain, outside

space and time), and matter is broken light that’s out of phase (which means that it’s in the extended, material, spacetime domain). If Descartes were alive today, he would be saying exactly that. Descartes was a genius of the highest order, and, given the math of his day, came as close as anyone could to the truth of reality. When light is intact (pure), it’s timeless and spaceless, i.e. immortal. When it breaks (it’s impure), it becomes associated with time and space and is rendered mortal. Everything comes down to sine and cosine waves and their phase relations. There’s nothing else! What is a monadic mind (a soul!)? It’s simply an autonomous, complete and consistent set of in phase sines and cosines. What is the material world? It’s made from a shared, low-energy band of light supplied by all monads. The involvement of all of the monads and their different orientations with regard to each other, leads to symmetry breaking (out of phase relations). What was the Big Bang? It was where a perfect set of monads – all perfectly in phase with each other (thus producing a Singularity of perfect light) – suffered a break of symmetry, leading to a tidal wave of out of phase relations, and thus the production of the material world. What is the Big Crunch? It’s where the perfect monadic symmetry is restored. What could be simpler, more elegant and more beautiful than what we have described? It’s pure, analytic mathematics. There’s no need for any ad hoc, arbitrary, non-analytic scientific waffle and moonshine. All we require is the “Last Genius” – one final great mathematician who can convert every scientific theory into terms of nothing but sines, cosines and their phase relations, and then work out how to insert active mind into every one of these theories, including Darwinism, gravity and quantum mechanics. Then humanity will know everything ... and we shall be as Gods! That’s the prize that awaits. We are just one mathematical genius away from that goal. All of the ingredients are in place for that person ... all that is required is to assemble those ingredients in the optimal way that explains every detail of life down to the minutest detail. Are you that person?! Somewhere out there, the person we are waiting for is going about their business, probably blissfully unaware of the destiny that awaits them. People wonder what the Illuminati are really up to. We’ll tell you ... we are engaged in the greatest computing project in history, a project to use the God Equation, expressed through countless monads, to simulate every

aspect and operation of the physical world, and to insert mind into all of those operations. The vast majority of members of the Illuminati work on that project (the “God Project”). The God Series is a tiny initiative designed to provide a written account of the thinking behind the God Project. With it, we can get new recruits up to speed much more quickly with what the God Project is all about. It’s nothing less than an enterprise to illuminate the whole world, and to make everyone an Illuminatus. Our task is nothing less than to reveal the Mind of God! Compare Illuminism with Abrahamism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and scientific materialism. Which one do you seriously think is capable of providing the answer to everything, and enlightening the entire human race? There’s only one show in town. The Illuminati are the Knights of Camelot, the Knights of the Holy Grail, who will one day deliver humanity from hell. Are you for us or against us? Are you for the light or for the darkness?

***** The scientific method assumes the truth of scientific materialism and empiricism, hence is incapable of proving the truth of these assumptions. The scientific method cannot be applied to anything that is incompatible with the scientific method. Scientism, which is what the vast number of scientists subscribe to, is the fallacy that anything that is not amenable to the scientific method is false, wrong or non-existent. The truth is that a) the scientific method cannot say anything at all about that which is incompatible with the scientific method, and b) the scientific method cannot prove the falsehood of anything that is incompatible with the scientific method. It’s a simple, unarguable fact that no scientific concepts – such as mass, matter and gravity, space and time – can have any meaning at all in relation to singularities. The only things that are compatible with singularities are analytic mathematical entities equal to zero. Isn’t that self-evident? Why has science never grasped this simple fact? It’s because science isn’t rational. Science operates by way of trying to match “Feynman guesses” to experimental results. That’s the opposite of rationalism. Rationalism uses

analytic first principles. Science has no such principles, and contemptuously dismisses all such principles as “philosophy”. Science is a joke of a subject. No intellectual would ever take it seriously. True intellectuals are nothing like science’s great hero, Richard Feynman. They don’t go around celebrating “guessing”. Science is full of guessers ... and guessers are charlatans.

The Breakdown Physics breaks down at division by zero. If you can ontologically define zero and give it an equation, no breakdown occurs. Zero is outside the empiricist and materialist paradigm of science, but not the rationalist and idealist paradigm of mathematics. When it comes to ultimate reality, science makes fallacious claims about everything, and this all flows from science’s inability to understand zero. All of science’s ludicrous, irrational claims about indeterminism, acausation, randomness, chance, accident, probability and statistics can all be traced back to the single fact that science rejects zero as an ontological entity, as something that can be both “something” and “nothing” simultaneously. The status of zero is of critical importance because it’s the number formally associated with mind, and as soon as you accept zero as real, you accept mind as real, and as soon as mind is real, materialism – on which science is based – is false. The difference between science and ontological mathematics is that the latter is derived entirely from definable zeros = monads, minds, souls, the basic units of ontological mathematics, while the former is what you get when you can assign no ontological meaning to zero, a step mandated by materialist ideology. In other words, the basis of reality comes down to whether or not zero can be meaningfully defined. Ontological mathematics says that zero is defined by the God Equation (generalised Euler Formula), and the whole of reality results from that. Science, which cannot define zero, and rejects zero as a real thing, is, ipso facto, forced to say that things randomly pop out of undefined nothing for no reason! A rational person would never accept science over ontological mathematics. Science is bottomless contingency. Ontological mathematics

has a necessary foundation – zero. It all comes down to your understanding of zero, nothing, the monad, the singularity, the mind, the soul. Which side of the fence are you on? What could be more obvious than that nothing, zero, the singularity – the exact thing that science, a materialist ideology, cannot define or understand – is the thing that stands outside that ideology and is formally denied by that ideology, namely the mind, the soul! Science denies that anything is outside its ideology. It says that anything not in principle susceptible to the scientific method does not exist. It denies that there’s anything immaterial. Yet the singularity exists and isn’t part of science, but is at the end of all scientific processes, and all scientific process emerge from it, and then, in due course, converge on it and return to it. The singularity – the “ghost” in the materialist machine – the thing that materialism can’t explain, is, obviously, the mind! It does exist, but it shouldn’t if materialism is true. All non-scientific explanations of ultimate reality concern some kind of “Absolute”. The Absolute is invariably concerned with “Nothing”, the “Void”, zero, God, the mind. The Absolute is where ultimate meaning resides. Yet science rejects both the Absolute and meaning. The Absolute is the Singularity. When its mathematical symmetry breaks, “involution” takes places: the highest descends into the lowest. Afterwards, “evolution” takes place – the lowest ascends to the highest, thus restoring symmetry. The Absolute is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning of the series and the end, the point of initial divergence and final convergence. Thanks to the Absolute, all theories involving it have a necessary base. Without the Absolute – as occurs with science – there is no scope for anything other than infinite contingent regress, and thus no conceivable explanation of reality. Where all systems other than science make the Absolute – a real, eternal, necessary thing – the foundation of everything else, science, lacking an Absolute, is forced to say that existence literally jumps out of non-existence for no reason at all. The world creates itself randomly, and, self-evidently, a random process can possess no meaning. In other words, no system is more predicated on magic and miracles than science! Science is a disgrace: pure irrationalism, anti-rationalism and antiintellectualism. Such is science’s entirely unnecessary and bizarre hatred of

mind and meaning, it has literally posited a “reality” where the principle of sufficient reason is wholly rejected, and things happen spontaneously and miraculously, with no explanation at all. Science will never explain reality because it has no means to do so. It rejects “God” as an explanation (religion), it rejects the principle of sufficient reason (mathematics and rationalism), and it rejects any Cosmic Mind (mysticism). So, what’s left to it? Science is predicated on the scientific method, which is about empiricism and the senses. But since the beginning and end of the universe are not empirical, sensory events, and cannot be probed in any way by the scientific method, science either has to invoke an anti-scientific explanation for science, involving explanations provided by one of its deadly rivals, or it must do what no other system of “explanation” would ever dream of do – simply claim that things happen randomly, for no reason, and that this somehow constitutes “explanation”. In fact, it’s total non-explanation. No scientist will ever be capable of explaining why things happen randomly for no reason given that the entire concept is fundamentally preposterous and irrational. It was one of the most sacrosanct principles of ancient Greece that you could never get something from nothing (i.e. from absolute nothingness = non-existence). This is exactly what science denies. It claims that non-existence is somehow “unstable”, yet it offers no explanation for this and it’s irrational nonsense in any case since unstable non-existence cannot be non-existence, given that it contains the existent property of instability – and this instability allegedly allows whole universes to erupt from nothing. This formally constitutes a system of selfperforming magic. It has no conceivable meaning since things happen in it for no conceivable reason. This, incredibly, is what science loves. What it despises is anything that hints at God, the soul, design, reason, mind, purpose or meaning ... that hints at any point to anything. Science is pure skepticism and nihilism. Nothing could be more skeptical than the denial that anything happens for any reason. Equally, nothing could be more nihilistic than the claim that we live in a meaningless, purposeless, pointless universe where everything ultimately happens randomly for no reason. What is atheism? Atheism = skepticism + nihilism + empiricism + materialism + randomism + indeterminism + acausation + probability + statistics + chance + accident + anti-rationalism + anti-mind + anti-

teleology. This is exactly the same set of ingredients that form the basis of the ruling scientific paradigm. Ironically, science and atheism both claim that we live in a universe of miracles – of things happening randomly, out of nothing, for no reason. No genuine skeptic would ever accept such a ludicrous, irrational conclusion! What’s better, what’s more likely – a miraculous universe of infinite contingent regress, as science claims, or a rational, necessary, deterministic universe where everything that happens has a reason why it is thus and not otherwise? That’s your choice. No sane, rational person would ever opt for the scientific non-explanation. Science, amazingly, is actually a worse system of explanation than mainstream religion. Mainstream religion can be saved by abandoning all of its idiotic Mythos claims and replacing those with the adamantine Logos of ontological mathematics. Science cannot be saved, unless it entirely abandons its defining empiricism and materialism ... and then it wouldn’t be science any more. This is exactly why science must be replaced by ontological mathematics.

Nothing, Infinity, and Transcendence Science can’t handle nothing and infinity, the two defining numbers of a singularity. This is exactly where the scientific paradigm dies. This is where scientific materialism gives way to two possible immaterial options, namely: 1) idealism – the rule of mind, or 2) randomness and chaos (existence jumping out of non-existence for no reason). Science dogmatically and ideologically refuses to accept the existence of autonomous mind, so adopts the irrational second option. A singularity is also where scientific empiricism gives way to two possible unempirical options, namely: 1) unobservable rationalism – the rule of the unobservable principle of sufficient reason, or 2) unobservable randomness and chaos (existence jumping out of non-existence for no reason). Again, science opts for the second choice. In other words, scientific materialism and empiricism is actually scientific materialism and empiricism plus immaterial, unobservable randomness, chaos, accident, chance, indeterminism, acausation, probability and statistics, erupting from non-existence, i.e. this is a wholly

self-contradictory system. It’s an irrational ideology, and is formally impossible. Ontological mathematics resolves all of science’s irrationalism at a stroke since it’s actually defined by immaterial monadic singularities, the very things that destroy the logic of science. Ontological mathematics is what transcends science, what lies beyond, behind and beneath science, giving it the designed foundations that make it rational rather than irrational. If you do not underpin science with ontological mathematics, you end up with the irrational farce that constitutes modern science – the most fallacious “explanation” of reality at which the human mind has ever arrived, even lass rational than Mythos religion. All scientists are irrational, anti-Logos and anti-intellectual. Science is the most egregious pseudoscience of them all, and the greatest enemy reason has ever confronted. Science is predicated on miracles and infinite contingent regress. You are much more likely to arrive at the Truth of existence via religious Mythos than via science. Roman Catholic Scholasticism was astoundingly close to the Truth, but misidentified its objective as “God” rather than the “God Equation” (the defining formula for ontological mathematics). All of the arguments deployed by the Scholastics were wonderfully rational, unlike the dismal, randomist, contingent, non-explanations of science.

Electromagnetic Minds “The archetypes are as it were the hidden foundations of the conscious mind, or, to use another comparison, the roots which the psyche has sunk not only in the earth in the narrower sense but in the world in general. ... The archetype possesses a fundamental duality: it is both psychic and nonpsychic, both ‘spirit’ and ‘body’, for the archetype is the essential precondition of all psychophysical events.” – Jung “In later years Jung revised and broadened the concept of archetypes even further, conceiving of them as psycho-physical patterns existing in the universe, given specific expression by human consciousness and culture. Jung proposed that the archetype had a dual nature: it exists both in the psyche and in the world at large. He called this non-psychic aspect of the archetype the ‘psychoid’ archetype.

“He illustrated this by drawing on the analogy of the electromagnetic spectrum. The part of the spectrum which is visible to us corresponds to the conscious aspects of the archetype. The invisible infrared end of the spectrum corresponds to the unconscious biological aspects of the archetype that merges with its chemical and physical conditions. He suggested that not only do the archetypal structures govern the behaviour of all living organisms, but that they were contiguous with structures controlling the behaviour of inorganic matter as well. “The archetype was not merely a psychic entity, but more fundamentally, a bridge to matter in general. Jung used the term unus mundus to describe the unitary reality which he believed underlay all manifest phenomena. He conceived archetypes to be the mediators of the unus mundus, organizing not only ideas in the psyche, but also the fundamental principles of matter and energy in the physical world. “It was this psychoid aspect of the archetype that so impressed Nobel laureate physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Embracing Jung’s concept, Pauli believed that the archetype provided a link between physical events and the mind of the scientist who studied them. In doing so he echoed the position adopted by German astronomer Johannes Kepler. Thus the archetypes which ordered our perceptions and ideas are themselves the product of an objective order which transcends both the human mind and the external world.” – Wikipedia The Electromagnetic World

(Diagram courtesy of Wikipedia) A Jungian archetype has two components: “physical” (psychoid) and mental (psychic). There is no material component as such. Matter is an aspect of mind, i.e. it’s simply low-energy, sluggish mind. It’s not separate from mind. This is how Jung “solves” the mind-body problem.

“Just as the ‘psychic infra-red,’ the biological instinctual psyche, gradually passes over into the physiology of the organism and thus merges with its chemical and physical conditions, so the ‘psychic ultra-violet,’ the archetype, describes a field which exhibits none of the peculiarities of the physiological and yet, in the last analysis, can no longer be regarded as psychic, although it manifests itself psychically. But physiological processes behave in the same way, without on that account being declared psychic. ... We must apply this argument logically to the archetypes as well. ...the position of the archetype would be located beyond the psychic sphere, analogous to the position of physiological instinct, which is immediately rooted in the stuff of the organism and, with its psychoid nature, forms the bridge to matter in general.” – Jung Mind and matter exist on a continuum. They are two aspects of a common factor, a tertium quid (third thing), which Jung couldn’t identify, but which we have – it’s ontological mathematics! “The original structural components of the psyche are of no less surprising a uniformity than are those of the visible body. The archetypes are, so to speak, organs of the prerational psyche. They are eternally inherited forms and ideas which have at first no specific content. Their specific content only appears in the course of the individual’s life, when personal experience is taken up in precisely these form.” – Jung Archetypes resemble Platonic Forms, but have to be made particular – concrete – in our minds. For example, “Father” is a Form, but our own father, or some father figure, will provide a visualizable instance of that Form. Everyone will have their own unique way of envisaging the Father Form. It’s a Universal, yet is particularised by everyone. The same can be said of DNA. We all have the Form of DNA that defines humans, and not any other species, but it’s particularised for each and every one of us. In bodily terms, we are all specific instances of the Universal Human Form. As far as our minds go, we are all specific instances of the Universal Form of Life = the God Equation that defines monadic souls. “Archetypes are, by definition, factors and motifs that arrange the psychic elements into certain images, characterized as archetypal, but in such a way that they can be recognized only from the effects they produce. They exist preconsciously, and presumably they form the structural dominants of the

psyche in general. They may be compared to the invisible presence of the crystal lattice in a saturated solution. As a priori conditioning factors they represent a special, psychological instance of the biological ‘pattern of behaviour,’ which gives all living organisms their specific qualities. Just as the manifestations of this biological ground plan may change in the course of development, so also can those of the archetype. Empirically considered, however, the archetype did not ever come into existence as a phenomenon of organic life, but entered into the picture with life itself.” – Jung “To the extent that the archetypes intervene in the shaping of conscious contents by regulating, modifying, and motivating them, they act like instincts. It is therefore very natural to suppose that these factors are connected with the instincts and to enquire whether the typical situational patterns which these collective form-principles apparently represent are not in the end identical with the instinctual patterns, namely, with the patterns of behaviour.” – Jung “The archetype or primordial image might suitably be described as the instinct’s perception of itself, or as the self portrait of the instinct, in exactly the same way as consciousness is an inward perception of the objective lifeprocess.” – Jung “We must constantly bear in mind that what we mean by ‘archetype’ is in itself irrepresentable, but has effects which make visualizations of it possible, namely, the archetypal images and ideas. We meet with a similar situation in physics: there the smallest particles are themselves irrepresentable but have effects from the nature of which we can build up a model. The archetypal image, the motif or mythologem, is a construction of this kind.” – Jung “Sooner or later nuclear physics and the psychology of the unconscious will draw closer together as both of them, independently of one another and from opposite directions, push forward into transcendental territory, the one with the concept of the atom, the other with that of the archetype.” Atom and archetype come together as mathematical monad, made of analytic sinusoids (rational Forms) that convey information (empirical Content).

*****

Where scientists talk about atoms, and reflect a materialist worldview, Jungians talk about archetypes, and reflect an idealist worldview. However, whereas Jung attempts to accommodate matter with the psychoid aspect of his archetype, science arrogantly dismisses all notion of mind (and has never once offered any explanation for how mind comes to be). Monads – mental atoms – provide the ideal means to combine the notion of physical atom with the notion of mental archetype. Monads, made of sinusoids, are able to generate matter via Fourier spacetime functions, and minds via Fourier frequency functions. They are the tertium quid underlying mind and matter. They constitute the unus mundus, the unitary reality underlying all manifest phenomena.

Gamma-Ray Minds If we associate low-frequency electromagnetic (EM) waves with the material world, and high-frequency electromagnetic waves with the mental world, we can think of reality in the following EM terms: Radio waves and below: rocks, the inorganic world, the non-conscious. Microwaves: plants, the pre-unconscious. Infrared: animals, the unconscious, and pre-conscious. Visible: Mythos humans, the conscious. Ultraviolet: Logos humans, the higher conscious. X-rays: Phosters, the superconscious Gamma rays: Gods, the hyperconscious. Beyond gamma rays: the transcendent, the Absolute, perfect God consciousness. Each level of mind is more and more efficient, rational and self-aware. At the level of God consciousness, all problems are solved effortlessly and instantly. Stupid, lower-energy minds take much longer to solve problems, and arrive at much less elegant and optimal solutions. In terms of the Jungian personality categories, extraverts have lower energy minds than introverts (the latter are said to have higher “cortical

arousal”, while we might say that the former have higher “non-cortical arousal” = sensory arousal), sensing types have lower energy minds than intuitives, and feeling types have lower energy minds than rational thinkers.

Backwards and Forwards “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” – Kierkegaard Your understanding of reality will be completely different at the End of Time compared with what it is now. In particular, you will know for a fact that there’s no such thing as death. Bodies came and went, but your soul endured throughout. It never ceased at any stage. Is there any way we can project forward to the End of Time and achieve final wisdom now? Of course there is. The mathematics at the End of Time (the Omega Point) is exactly the same as the mathematics at the Beginning of Time (the Alpha Point). Mathematics is eternal. Mathematics is timeless. Its laws never change. If we understand mathematics now, we understand it forever, and we know exactly what the mathematical fate of the universe and ourselves must be.

Science and Psychology Science includes nothing at all from Jungian or Freudian psychology. It dismisses more or less the entirety of psychology as meaningless nonsense. But it’s science, with its rejection of mind, that’s the true nonsense. The only part of science that comes near truth is its mathematical aspect. This aspect is then systematically misinterpreted and falsified via the philosophy of empiricism and materialism. It can never be stressed enough that science’s success stems entirely from matching mathematics to measurements on the observable world. Psychology has struggled thus far for two reasons: the mathematics of the mind (dimensionless mathematics) is much harder to define and use than the mathematics of matter (dimensional mathematics), and mental things are much less susceptible to reliable observation than material things. Of course, that does not mean that psychology is false, as scientific materialism claims, simply that it’s much less obvious and much more difficult to study than science.

Black Holes “The centres of black holes are among the strangest places in the universe – so strange that current physics can’t even describe them.” –Dr. Dave Goldberg Current physics will never describe the singularities at the heart of black holes. These singularities have no connection with materialism, empiricism or the scientific method. They are outside the physical world of space and time, and belong to the thing scientists most fear – an autonomous mental reality that ipso facto refutes scientific materialism. If mental singularities exist, science is automatically false and wrong, something that scientists refuse to contemplate, just as Muslims refuse to contemplate that Allah doesn’t exist.

Cosmic Censorship “According to the ‘cosmic censorship’ hypothesis, a black hole’s singularity remains hidden behind its event horizon, in that it is always surrounded by an area which does not allow light to escape, and therefore cannot be directly observed. The only exception the hypothesis allows (known as a ‘naked’ singularity) is the initial Big Bang itself. “It seems likely, then, that, by its very nature, we will never be able to fully describe or even understand the singularity at the centre of a black hole. Although an observer can send signals into a black hole, nothing inside the black hole can ever communicate with anything outside it, so its secrets would seem to be safe forever.” – Luke Mastin “While spacetime singularities in general are frequently viewed with suspicion, physicists often offer the reassurance that we expect most of them to be hidden away behind the event horizons of black holes. Such singularities therefore could not affect us unless we were actually to jump into the black hole. A ‘naked’ singularity, on the other hand, is one that is not hidden behind an event horizon. Such singularities appear much more threatening because they are uncontained, accessible to vast areas of spacetime.

“The heart of the worry is that singular structure would seem to signify some sort of breakdown in the fundamental structure of spacetime to such a profound depth that it could wreak havoc on any region of universe that it were visible to. Because the structures that break down in singular spacetimes are required for the formulation of our known physical laws in general, and of initial-value problems for individual physical systems in particular, one such fear is that determinism would collapse entirely wherever the singular breakdown were causally visible. As Earman characterizes the worry, nothing would seem to stop the singularity from ‘disgorging’ any manner of unpleasant jetsam, from TVs showing Nixon’s Checkers Speech to old lost socks, in a way completely undetermined by the state of spacetime in any region whatsoever, and in such a way as to render strictly indeterminable all regions in causal contact with what it spews out. “One form that such a naked singularity could take is that of a white hole, which is a time-reversed black hole. Imagine taking a film of a black hole forming, and various astronauts, rockets, etc. falling into it. Now imagine that film being run backwards. This is the picture of a white hole: one starts with a naked singularity, out of which might appear people, artefacts, and eventually a star bursting forth. “Absolutely nothing in the causal past of such a white hole would determine what would pop out of it (just as items that fall into a black hole leave no trace on the future). Because the field equations of general relativity do not pick out a preferred direction of time, if the formation of a black hole is allowed by the laws of spacetime and gravity, then white holes will also be permitted by these laws. “Roger Penrose famously suggested that although naked singularities are compatible with general relativity, in physically realistic situations naked singularities will never form; that is, any process that results in a singularity will safely deposit that singularity behind an event horizon. This suggestion, titled the ‘Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis,’ has met with a fair degree of success and popularity...” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/#NakSinCosCenHyp

What is the ultimate cosmic censorship? – the prevention of matter entering mind, and mind entering matter. Minds are not in bodies. They remotely control them, rather as pilots remotely control drones.

***** “Such singularities appear much more threatening because they are uncontained, accessible to vast areas of spacetime.” ... singularities are in fact exposed to the whole of spacetime. They are everywhere at once. A spacetime event horizon hides a singularity from objects in spacetime. However, from the singularity’s viewpoint, it isn’t hidden from anything, and is in touch with everything. Consider what John Gribbin says about what the universe looks like to a photon: “Getting back to the original question that Einstein asked about light, how does the Universe ‘look’ to a beam of light (or a photon, if you prefer), or to a person riding on a light beam. And how does time flow for a photon? “To answer the second question first – it doesn’t. The Lorentz transformations tell us that time stands still for an object moving at the speed of light. From the point of view of the photon, of course, it is everything else that is rushing past at the speed of light. And under such extreme conditions, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction reduces the distances between all objects to zero. You can either say that time does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it is everywhere along its path (everywhere in the Universe) at once; or you can say that distance does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it ‘touches’ everything in the Universe at once.” So, if you reach the rational conclusion that only massless, dimensionless photons can exist in a black hole singularity where there is no space and time has stopped, then all of the considerations stated by Gribbin apply. If you further conclude that photons comprise the soul then the soul is in touch with the entire universe at once! It’s all in the math.

***** “We have theories of the universe that work really, really well, but they just don’t say anything about the Big Bang. They fail to give an opinion. [And when the equations of general relativity are applied to the Big Bang singularity, they pop out infinite answers.] What that really means is that the equations are breaking down.” – Sean Carroll

Infinite answers, caused by division by zero, do not mean that the equations are breaking down. They mean that the scientific materialist and empiricist interpretation of the equations is breaking down. They mean that the ruling paradigm of science is failing. They mean that scientists have got it catastrophically wrong that mind is a product of matter. The exact opposite is true. “Many physicists can stomach that breakdown as long as the singularity is quarantined behind an event horizon, an invisible boundary beyond which no information can pass to an outside observer.” – Kate Becker And what if it’s not? Then science is untenable. “If they [singularities] are ‘hidden’ behind event horizons, they do not affect our predictions, and so we can still use laws of standard physics. But the Big Bang singularity is not shielded in this way; instead it is what physicists call ‘naked.’ Naked singularities are not hidden, and thus anything to the causal future of ‘naked’ singularities will be affected by laws beyond standard physics” – Niayesh Afshordi They will be affected by mental laws, which are indeed beyond the laws of physics. “Black holes, we all know, are these regions where if an object falls in, it can’t get out, but the puzzle that many struggled with over the decades is, what happens to the information that an object contains when it falls into a black hole. Is it simply lost?” – Brian Greene Information is never lost. There is an absolute mathematical law of information conservation.

Naked Singularities “In general relativity, a naked singularity is a gravitational singularity without an event horizon. In a black hole, the singularity is completely enclosed by a boundary known as the event horizon, inside which the gravitational force of the singularity is strong enough so that light cannot escape. Hence, objects inside the event horizon – including the singularity itself – cannot be directly observed. A naked singularity, by contrast, is observable from the outside.

“The theoretical existence of naked singularities is important because their existence would mean that it would be possible to observe the collapse of an object to infinite density. It would also cause foundational problems for general relativity, because general relativity cannot make predictions about the future evolution of space-time near a singularity. In generic black holes, this is not a problem, as an outside viewer cannot observe the spacetime within the event horizon. “Some research has suggested that if loop quantum gravity is correct, then naked singularities could exist in nature, implying that the cosmic censorship hypothesis does not hold. Numerical calculations and some other arguments have also hinted at this possibility. “To this date, no naked singularities (and no event horizons) have been observed.” – Wikipedia

***** “Do you realize that if you fall into a black hole, you will see the entire future of the Universe unfold in front of you in a matter of moments and you will emerge into another space-time created by the singularity of the black hole you just fell into?” – Neil deGrasse Tyson This is speculative nonsense. By scientists’ own admission, singularities are entirely outside the scientific paradigm, they have no idea what happens at singularities, their equations break down at singularities, and that can’t observe anything at all regarding singularities. This reflects the entire problem with science: it’s supposed to be a strictly empirical subject, yet scientists can’t help pontificating about things entirely beyond any empirical knowledge, and they talk as if they are great, infallible authorities revealing absolute facts to you. The reality is that they are fallible, unreliable speculators, making wild and unsubstantiated interpretations, telling you their personal beliefs, opinions and philosophies as if these were the Truth itself. “Black holes provide theoreticians with an important theoretical laboratory to test ideas. Conditions within a black hole are so extreme, that by analyzing aspects of black holes we see space and time in an exotic environment, one that has shed important, and sometimes perplexing, new light on their fundamental nature.” – Brian Greene

The black hole environment is that of the mind, whose very existence is denied by science! No matter how long science stares at the Truth, it will never see it, because the Truth is outside the scientific paradigm. “I think the end is endless. It’s either a big black hole or a big white light or both together. But it’s totally meaningless, because even if someone would explain it, I wouldn’t understand it.” – Yehuda Amichai But mathematicians would! “Although almost every theoretical physicist agrees with my prediction that a black hole should glow like a hot body, it would be very difficult to verify experimentally because the temperature of a macroscopic black hole is so low.” – Stephen Hawking Stephen Hawking ... the man who has made a career out of knowing nothing about black holes! Black hole singularities are objects of pure, analytic mathematics. They have nothing to do with arbitrary, ad hoc, contingent scientific concepts. “Consideration of particle emission from black holes would seem to suggest that God not only plays dice, but also sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.” – Stephen W. Hawking God never plays dice, and, if he did, what conceivable point would be served by throwing them where they cannot be seen? Never mind God, why would Nature throw invisible dice? What possible reason could it have? This entirely defies Occam’s Razor. Even in scientific terms – hardly an arena of precision and analysis – Hawking’s ideas are pure speculation, and in fact not science at all since they can never be experimentally tested, or at least not any time before hell freezes over. Absolutely everything Hawking claims can be radically reinterpreted from the perspective of ontological mathematics. “Woody Allen has a wonderful line: ‘Today I’m a star. What will I be tomorrow? A black hole?’ That’s very important to know – that you have the moment, then you lose the moment. You have to see your chances, you have to take them, and you also have to see when you don’t have chances to take.” – Marina Abramovic

As we shall soon see, we’re all stars and we’re all black holes. That’s the nature of existence. That’s what it means to have a soul. “I like science fiction and physics, things like that. Planets being sucked into black holes, and the various vortexes that create possibility, and what happens on the other side of the black hole. To me it’s the microcosmic study of the macrocosmic universe in man, and that’s why I’m attracted to it.” – Wesley Snipes There’s nothing on the other side of black holes. They are the end of the line. “Black holes are very exotic objects. Technically, a black hole puts a huge amount of mass inside of zero volume. So our understanding of the centre of black holes doesn’t make sense, which is a big clue to physicists that we don’t have our physics quite right.” – Andrea M. Ghez How can mass exist inside a point? The essence of mass is that it occupies volume; otherwise, it’s not mass! Scientific materialism collapses at singularities because it has no idea what happens to mass when it’s crushed out of physical existence. It refuses to accept the fundamental Cartesian definition that anything dimensionless is mind, not matter. It refuses because to do otherwise would be to admit that science is wrong, and that matter comes from mind, not the other way around. “We have this interesting problem with black holes. What is a black hole? It is a region of space where you have mass that’s confined to zero volume, which means that the density is infinitely large, which means we have no way of describing, really, what a black hole is!” – Andrea M. Ghez Scientists don’t have the vaguest idea what black holes are. Black holes are in fact minds, the very things whose existence science fundamentally denies. Scientists speculate endlessly about black holes, yet never once does that wild speculation entertain the concept that black holes are minds. Why is it that scientists despise the idea of mind so much? It’s pathological. The quick answer is that minds are both immaterial and teleological, and science, with religious conviction, denies the existence of anything immaterial and teleological. Such things would undermine science’s paradigm, and like any religion, science refuses to have its belief system challenged in any way.

“God is a philosophical black hole – the point where reason breaks down.” – Kedar Joshi Reason doesn’t break down at black holes, science does. “God” is a black hole – an eternal Singularity. “[The black hole] teaches us that space can be crumpled like a piece of paper into an infinitesimal dot, that time can be extinguished like a blownout flame, and that the laws of physics that we regard as ‘sacred,’ as immutable, are anything but.” – John Wheeler The black hole teaches us that materialism is false and idealism true. Black holes are minds. The laws of ontological mathematics, which define minds, are sacred, immutable and perfect. “The black holes of nature are the most perfect macroscopic objects there are in the universe: the only elements in their construction are our concepts of space and time.” – Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Those are exactly the elements not involved in their construction! Singularities are outside space and time, and have zero need of space and time. “Why it is that of all the billions and billions of strange objects in the Cosmos; novas, quasars, pulsars, black holes you are beyond doubt the strangest?” – Walker Percy Because they’re minds, and scientists are clueless about minds. What could be stranger to a scientific materialist than a mind? “Researchers argue that it’s of utmost importance to unravel the nature of black holes, lest we someday begin to worship them. Sounds ridiculous, but whole segments of humankind have often revered the unknowable, venerating that which cannot be tested experimentally. Come to think of it, many still do in twenty-first-century society.” – Eric Chaisson Black holes aren’t unknowable. They’re our minds! “Your scientists think of [a black hole] as being sealed off behind its own event horizon. In fact it is human perception that is sealed off behind their current consciousness horizon.” – Elia Wise

A mind is a black hole and is sealed off by an event horizon from the material world. “Not only do we live among the stars, the stars live within us.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson Minds live within us! (Although, of course, they’re not physically inside us.) “So you’re made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?” – Neil deGrasse Tyson Your body is made of the shareable contents of souls. The mental universe lives within us all. “Scientific inquiry shouldn’t stop just because a reasonable explanation has apparently been found.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson Real scientific inquiry stopped long ago. It’s now trapped forever within the empiricist and materialist paradigm, and no scientist wants to think, or is capable of thinking, outside this paradigm. Ontological mathematics will bring the long-awaited paradigm shift. “The remarkable feature of physical laws is that they apply everywhere, whether or not you choose to believe in them. After the laws of physics, everything else is opinion.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson The laws of science are an opinion. The laws of ontological mathematics are not. “In modern times, if the sole measure of what’s out there flows from your five senses then a precarious life awaits you.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson The whole of science is predicated on the five senses! Science is an inherently sensible subject, not intelligible. As Edwin P. Hubble said, “Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure science.” “Our five senses even interfere with sensible answers to stupid metaphysical questions like, ‘If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ My best answer is, ‘How do you know it fell?’ But that just gets people angry.”

It’s called a thought experiment, dumbo. Never heard of Schrodinger’s Cat? No one knows that unobserved cats can be simultaneously dead and alive and in mixed alive-dead states. It doesn’t stop scientists teaching it as fact! Take the plank out of your own eye before you start mocking the falling trees in the forest! “...I offer a senseless analogy, ‘Q: If you can’t smell the carbon monoxide, then how do you know it’s there? A: You drop dead.’ In modern times, if the sole measure of what’s out there flows from your five senses then a precarious life awaits you.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson If you don’t have a mind, you drop dead, yet science denies that people have autonomous minds, independent of matter. “Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson Intelligent design – by way of ontological mathematics – is a philosophy of pure reason. Science, as something that rejects the principle of sufficient reason, is a philosophy of pure ignorance. “In short, were it not for our ability to analyze spectra, we would know next to nothing about what goes on in the universe.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson And spectra are in fact all about minds.

Wormholes Wormholes – cosmic objects that are said to allow incredible shortcuts between different parts of the universe or even between different universes – are a cosmological speculation that has inspired scores of science fiction writers. The movie Interstellar features a wormhole.

“Black holes suck in objects but – according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity that time reversal is possible – objects that travel through black holes could theoretically be spewed out of other holes. Such holes are called white holes. The tunnels that connect black and white holes are known as wormholes.” http://www.angelfire.com/moon/astronomy/wormholes.html

“A wormhole, officially known as an Einstein–Rosen bridge, is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that would fundamentally be a shortcut through spacetime. A wormhole is much like a tunnel with two ends, each in separate points in spacetime.” – Wikipedia

The Wormhole Con As you would expect, everything science says about wormholes is false. Science’s thinking about anything at all is forced through the grinder of its

empiricist and materialist paradigm, and everything that comes out at the other end must of necessity be empirical and material. At all times, science ensures that it never reaches any inference hostile to its paradigm, and that means that it never reaches any conclusions regarding the existence of mind and ontological reason (mathematics). Wormholes do not link vastly separated parts of the universe, or even different universes. Wormholes are not time machines or teleportation devices. Wikipedia says, “Wormholes are a common element in science fiction as they allow interstellar, intergalactic, and sometimes interuniversal travel within human timescales. They have also served as a method for time travel.” Wormholes, as science treats them, are indeed pure science fiction, and nothing to do with science fact. Wild speculations are inevitable in science because science has a false paradigm (empiricism and materialism), a false ontology and epistemology, no first principles, no principle of sufficient reason, and is a system no grander and sophisticated than one that matches ad hoc, arbitrary mathematical guesses to experimental data. When you deploy mathematical guesses, in no proper mathematical context and without a complete and consistent mathematical system, you can more or less produce any ludicrous speculation you like. All manner of things are possible in invalid mathematics. True mathematics – ontological mathematics – is not about possibility but compossibility, i.e. everything has to make sense in relation to everything else, be compatible with everything else, and be fully consistent with Occam’s Razor. Science disregards all of this and introduces a random Multiverse where anything at all can happen, no matter to what degree things are non-compossible. Science believes that entirely incompatible, mathematically incomplete and inconsistent universes, and physically incomplete and inconsistent universes, can all exist side by side in a Multiverse, all of these fatally contradictory universes somehow being conveniently hermetically sealed from each other so that they can’t leak into each other, or collide with each, thus creating total annihilation (like a matter universe and antimatter universe colliding). You should never take any scientific speculation seriously, unless you’re a science fiction writer looking for an idea. Wikipedia says, “Researchers have no observational evidence for wormholes, but the equations of the

theory of general relativity have valid solutions that contain wormholes.” Wormholes do not belong to physics but, rather, metaphysics. There’s no experimental evidence that they exist, hence they are not part of science “fact” but science speculation (science fiction). “Valid” solutions to ontologically and epistemologically flawed theories such as relativity theory (which permits, for example, the existence of impossible faster-than-light tachyons) are nothing to applaud. Never forget the harsh truth at the core of science: GIGO = garbage in, garbage out. Any theory at all, provided it isn’t ontologically true, is capable of generating the most absurd conclusions, just like religion. These are artefacts of the contradictions, inconsistencies, and incompleteness of the theories, and have nothing to do with reality. Religious theories of existence can produce the most fascinating nonsense, and scientific theories are not far behind. They are garbage generators, which somehow seem better than ordinary garbage because they are couched in such difficult mathematical form than they appear plausible. Never forget that science is simply a systematic misinterpretation of mathematics via the philosophy of materialist empiricism. Scientists take mathematical ideas and then convert them into science fiction scenarios. They impose scientific notions of mass, energy, matter, space and time on mathematics and come up with a fantastical array of crazy speculations that have no basis in reality. Science has no formal ontology and epistemology, no proper definitions of anything (merely circular, instrumental definitions), and is based on that marvellously “sophisticated” technique of matching ad hoc mathematical guesses to observations. It’s not “science” at all, it’s guessing and speculation. It’s no more rational than religion, but, being based on the senses rather than feelings, it’s more reliable (and less interesting; religious Mythos is vastly superior to scientific Mythos, which is why religion is much more popular!). Anyone can produce mathematical speculations too. The real question is which claims belong to a rational, complete, consistent, ontological mathematics, constrained to be equal to “nothing” at all times. Science is incomplete and inconsistent. Science is mathematics with a clunky, fallacious philosophy of empiricism and materialism superimposed over it, which produces irrational nonsense. If you don’t get your ontology of mathematics right, all the rest is madness.

Consider one of the most peculiar features of scientific mathematics: its attitude to different types of numbers. Any mathematical person would see that there’s no sufficient reason to distinguish between positive and negative numbers, real and imaginary. Not so in science. Science has a strict hierarchy of preferred numbers, reflecting its philosophy. The “best” numbers are positive real numbers, followed by negative real numbers, then positive imaginary numbers and finally negative imaginary numbers. As for zero and infinity, these are greeted with fear and loathing, and the desperate desire to eliminate them if at all possible. This bizarre attitude has plenty to do with empiricism and materialism, and nothing at all to do with mathematical validity and coherence. One of the simplest yet most radical changes that could be made to science is merely to move from real numbers to complex numbers. Science would change overnight, particularly regarding quantum mechanics and the question of determinism. Science used to be terrified of negative numbers, but has gradually learned to accept them. It has negative charges, antimatter, anti-gravity, negative mass, negative energy, and so on, and some of these have been used to prop up explanations of exotic entities such as wormholes. Wikipedia says, “The Casimir effect shows that quantum field theory allows the energy density in certain regions of space to be negative relative to the ordinary vacuum energy, and it has been shown theoretically that quantum field theory allows states where energy can be arbitrarily negative at a given point. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne and others, therefore argue that such effects might make it possible to stabilize a traversable wormhole. Physicists have not found any natural process that would be predicted to form a wormhole naturally in the context of general relativity, although the quantum foam hypothesis is sometimes used to suggest that tiny wormholes might appear and disappear spontaneously at the Planck scale, and stable versions of such wormholes have been suggested as dark matter candidates. It has also been proposed that, if a tiny wormhole held open by a negative-mass cosmic string had appeared around the time of the Big Bang, it could have been inflated to macroscopic size by cosmic inflation.” Here’s a prediction for you. Just as science lost its fear of negative numbers and started to refer more and more to “negative” phenomena to explain various things, so it will one day lose its terror of imaginary

numbers, and these will start to feature more and more in scientific theories. Finally, science will lose its horror of zero and infinity. At that point, science will become ontological mathematics, and will at last be rational, consistent and complete, and will be based on rationalism and idealism rather than empiricism and materialism. The three things that are holding back science are: 1) its worship of the scientific method (empiricism), 2) its rejection of the mind (anti-idealism), and 3) its incomplete, inconsistent and incoherent implementation of mathematics (i.e. its propensity for real numbers and its rejection of imaginary and complex numbers, and zero and infinity). Science is being held back by bad philosophy and bad math! One day, that will cease. It has to if science is ever to deliver its version of a final theory of everything. Science, as it stands, is just plain wrong. The primary reason for that is that it understands neither mathematics nor philosophy. Pick up any book on popular science and go through it carefully. You will see that every wild claim of science comes from inept philosophy and even more inept mathematical claims and tricks. If you’re not good enough at math, and you’re philosophically naive, it’s easy to be impressed by science, and to be intimidated by its explanations (which you then convince yourself must be true because they’re so hard and complex). However, anyone who is mathematically and philosophically literate starts to question every claim made by science. Even where science seems to work, it’s clear that its success is down to the mathematics it expresses, and nothing to do with the “science”, which is invariably just a silly little Mythos fitted over the mathematics. Newtonian physics was, and is, spectacularly successful despite being wholly false ontologically and epistemologically. The reason it works is that the mathematics it deploys provides a good approximation – within the narrow range of situations we typically encounter in the world – to the true, underlying, ontological mathematics that actually defines what’s going on. False concepts such as absolute Newtonian space and absolute Newtonian time made perfect sense when they were first introduced, and all sorts of neat Mythos explanations were constructed with them. But we now know that these explanations are false. Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics have blown the Newtonian worldview out of the water. Yet these two new theories are incompatible and irreconcilable, so one, or indeed both, must be wrong. This means that all the neat Mythos explanations they

provide are once again susceptible to being blown out of the water when a superior theory comes along. Ontological mathematics is exactly that superior theory, and every single claim of science can be recast in terms of ontological mathematics based on monadic minds. When you admire science, what you’re admiring is bad math, bad philosophy and false Mythos interpretations of reality that exclude the most important and fundamental feature of existence – the monadic mind! Science is a joke. It’s a joke because it’s not based on necessary mathematical monads but on infinite contingent regress. It has no foundations. Look at how it treats the concept of the vacuum. In ontological mathematics, the vacuum is comprised of precisely definable monads. In science, the vacuum is treated as an undefined magician’s top hat from which endless rabbits are pulled. Science tells you about “virtual” particles (whatever they are!), about energy being borrowed from the future as long as it’s paid back rapidly (!), about things randomly jumping out of the vacuum for no reason, and so on. Whole universes can apparently emerge from “vacuum fluctuations” (whatever they are – part two). The whole thing is viewed through the fog, haze, and blur of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which arises from the failure of scientists to understand ontological mathematics and the real existence of autonomous Fourier frequency domains outside space and time. The scientific vacuum is rife with indeterminism, acausation, probability and statistics. How does it tie in with the unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunctions of quantum mechanics? Any idea? Do you seriously believe any of this scientific Mythos nonsense? You might as well believe in volcano gods and spirits in the trees. All scientific explanations, without exception, are just sensory, phenomenal misinterpretations of the underlying, rational, noumenal mathematics. If you get the math wrong, you ipso facto get the science wrong too.

The Vanishing Ancient Egyptian religion is dead. Ancient Roman religion is dead. Ancient Greek religion is dead. The ancient religions of the Assyrians, Hittites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Persians, and Babylonians have all died. The Celtic and Norse religions have been consigned to history. So, why do the ancient religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam survive? It’s

because all of the followers of these religions were, and are, insane fanatics. The ancient Eastern religions are crazy too. When religions are mad, and keep infecting their followers with madness, and offering insane rewards (heaven) and insane punishments (hell), they’re almost impossible to eradicate. We must find the cure. We must end the transmission of the virus – the disease – from parents to children. The world has been a mental asylum too long.

***** The Jewish religion, which calls itself the oldest religion, is the most lunatic religion of them all. Humanity will progress only when this religion is gone forever. Many religions have come and gone. Judaism will suffer the same fate. Thank God!

***** People say that religion can be interpreted in the right way or the wrong way. Can it? How would you know that you had interpreted it correctly? The whole trouble is that everyone thinks they have interpreted it rightly, and not a single person that they’re wrong.

Seek and You Shall Find “He who does not seek it is not likely to find it.” – Paracelsus Science, based on infinite contingent regress, does not seek an ultimate answer, i.e. God or a God Equation. Science has no bottom, no foundation, no arche.

The Mind Ontological mathematics = science plus the hidden variable of mind. Mind is noumenal, matter phenomenal. Have you understood?

***** You are “anti-science” if you accept that mind is real, and outside the scientific materialist paradigm! So, are you anti-science? You have to choose. There’s no middle ground.

A New Theory of Wormholes “[What happens] if we look at the implication of the discovery that our Universe must be expanding. If the density of the Universe, in terms of number of galaxies occupying a given volume of space, is decreasing today then if we could run the film backwards, as it were, we would see further and further back into the past a situation of increasing density. Ultimately, looking at the history of the Universe unfolding backwards, we would see matter squeezed together at very high densities, with galaxies, stars, atomic nuclei and even quarks crushed out of existence and disappearing into a singularity. This is, of course, the familiar story of a high-density black hole, expanded to encompass the entire universe. But it is the story of our Universe told in reverse. In order to get to the state it is in now, if it has been expanding since the moment of creation, the Universe must have been created in a massive singularity, bursting outwards in expansion with quarks, neutrons, stars and galaxies being born out of the white hole singularity, not being crushed to death in a black hole. This is a profound piece of knowledge indeed; let anyone doubt the reality of white holes and he is doubting, in a very real sense, the origin and existence of the Universe. “Mathematician Roger Penrose, discussing the possibility that there might be ‘naked singularities’ in the Universe (that is, singularities with which we can interact, and which do not hide behind the shroud of a Schwarzschild horizon) points out that the singularity of the Big Bang is itself a naked singularity which certainly does have a direct influence on us. If other singularities can be investigated they may tell us more about conditions near the origin of the Universe; equally, an understanding of the Big Bang tells us what to expect from singularities on a smaller scale. ‘The initial mystery of creation’, says Penrose, ‘would no longer be able to hide in the obscurity afforded by its supposed uniqueness’ if other naked singularities can be found. This is of the greatest importance, since once of the least satisfactory features of the Big Bang cosmology is that it still cannot explain the origin of the Universe. Philosophically, it is no more satisfactory to say ‘the Universe appeared in a Big Bang’ than it is to say that ‘the Universe was created in the form we see it now’. The fact that we can explain – or think we can explain – how the Universe got to its present state from being a quark soup 30 kilometres in diameter does not solve the fundamental mystery of creation, but simply makes it a question of where

the quarks came from.” – John Gribbin, White Holes: The Beginning and End of Space Science has committed a fundamental error in how it thinks about singularities. As ever, the problem arises from the materialist, empiricist goggles all scientists wear. The most fundamental singularity event is the Big Bang itself – which was a naked singularity event (i.e. not associated with an event horizon). Given that this is the original singularity event, naked singularities must be the basic type of singularity, rather than “clothed” singularities. In other words, it’s not naked singularities that are in need of explanation, but non-naked singularities. The task is to describe a Universe in which naked singularities are fundamental, and non-naked singularities are a secondary, derivative kind of singularity. Secondary singularities occur inside space and time whereas primary (naked) singularities are outside space and time. In ontological mathematics, monadic minds (souls) are naked singularities, and these define the true basis of reality. Naked singularities create space and time, whereas the collapse of certain parts of the spacetime fabric – owing to the implosion of largeenough stars – creates secondary (non-naked) singularities. These secondary singularities are protected by event horizons because, otherwise, they would trigger total implosion of the Universe, reversing the original Big Bang. It is in fact the rest of spacetime that prevents this catastrophic collapse. Imagine the spacetime universe as a gigantic jelly or cheese. We can make holes in the jelly or cheese without causing disintegration of the structure. The holes, obviously, are not made of the original jelly or cheese (they constitute the absence of the jelly or cheese), but they still belong to the overall structure. Pure singularities do not belong to space and time at all so can’t be part of the overall spacetime structure. However, a singularity surrounded by an event horizon, i.e. with a Schwarzschild radius, is in spacetime (the singularity isn’t, but the event horizon is). Quite simply, you cannot remove an entire region of spacetime from spacetime. What you can do is remove mass from spacetime, but leave behind its trace, its echo, its “ghost” – as the region between the singularity and the event horizon. The size of this region is directly proportional to how much mass was present in the first place.

Bear in mind that there’s all the difference in the world between naked singularities creating space and time, and the collapse of local parts of space and time to create “clothed” singularities (i.e. singularities with an event horizon). Singularities must always be considered in two ways: outside and inside spacetime. These are two radically different perspective. Science’s disastrous problem is that it can’t think in non-spacetime terms. Such considerations are outside its dogmatic paradigm, and science refuses to think outside of its self-imposed box.

***** Singularities come in two types: naked (no event horizon), and clothed (with an event horizon). Naked singularities are outside space and time (which is exactly why they have no event horizons), and clothed singularities are inside space and time. Traditionally, white holes are regarded as being the opposite of black holes. Crucially, in relation to spacetime, both have event horizons, but where one attracts matter into its event horizon (a black hole), the other repels matter from its event horizon (a white hole). Black holes suck while white holes blow! Whereas black holes represent the end of time (time stops), white hole singularities are associated with the start of time (time begins). Conventionally, black and white holes are both associated with space and time. However, we are going to introduce the concept of black and white holes that are inherently outside space and time. In other words, there are four possible types of singularity: 1) Black hole in space and time (“clothed” singularity). 2) White hole in space and time (clothed singularity). 3) Black hole outside space and time (“naked” singularity). 4) White hole outside space and time (naked singularity). Regarding white holes in space and time, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be just as dark as black holes. We might even conjecture that what they disgorge is dark matter, hence, in this view, invisible white holes in space and time are the source of the invisible matter that’s currently considered necessary to explain the material constitution of the Universe,

and these same white holes could also be the source of the expansion of the universe via the release of dark energy. However, our focus is actually on the black and white holes that are not in space and time at all. These naked singularities have no spacetime cloak to put over themselves, while clothed singularities inside space and time have a spacetime cloak (an event horizon) that they must wear. Our assertion is that a monadic mind is functionally equivalent to a naked, hybrid black and white hole.

***** Technically, the event horizons of white holes are known as antihorizons since they have the opposite effect from black hole event horizons. With the latter, matter falls in; with the former, matter spews out. Both are one-way valves, acting in opposite directions. One never lets anything out and the other never lets anything in.

***** “Einstein-Rosen bridge: A wormhole formed by joining two black hole solutions together. Originally, the solution was meant to represent a subatomic particle, such as the electron, in Einstein’s unified field theory. Since then, it has been used to describe the spacetime near the centre of a black hole.” – Michio Kaku “Wormhole: A passageway between two universes. Mathematicians call these spaces ‘multiply connected spaces’ – spaces in which a lasso may not be shrunk to a point. It is not clear if one may be able to pass through a wormhole without destabilising it or dying in the attempt.” – Michio Kaku “There are at least two ways in which General Relativity may yield faster than light travel. The first is via wormholes, or multiply connected Riemann surfaces, which may give us a shortcut across space and time. One possible geometry for such a wormhole is to assemble stellar amounts of energy in a spinning ring (creating a Kerr black hole). Centrifugal force prevents the spinning ring from collapsing. Anyone passing through the ring would not be ripped apart, but would wind up on an entirely different part of the universe. This resembles the Looking Glass of Alice, with the rim of the Looking Glass being the black hole, and the mirror being the wormhole. Another method might be to tease apart a wormhole from the ‘quantum

foam’ which physicists believe makes up the fabric of space and time at the Planck length (10 to the minus 33 centimetres). “The problems with wormholes are many: a) one version requires enormous amounts of positive energy, e.g. a black hole. Positive energy wormholes have an event horizon(s) and hence only give us a one-way trip. One would need two black holes (one for the original trip, and one for the return trip) to make interstellar travel practical. b) wormholes may be unstable, both classically or quantum mechanically. They may close up as soon as you try to enter them. Or radiation effects may soar as you entered them, killing you. c) one version requires vast amounts of negative energy. Negative energy does exist (in the form of the Casimir effect) but huge quantities of negative energy will be beyond our technology, perhaps for millennia. The advantage of negative energy wormholes is that they do not have event horizons and hence are more easily transversable. d) another version requires large amounts of negative matter. Unfortunately, negative matter has never been seen in nature (it would fall up, rather than down). Any negative matter on the earth would have fallen up billions of years ago, making the earth devoid of any negative matter.” – Michio Kaku “Wormholes are probably the most loved physical phenomena by sci-fi writers, because they simply are so extremely funky, they could offer time travel, travel into parallel universes, as well as just a short cut to places light years away in our own universe. “Let’s talk about the shortcuts; when travelling through a wormhole you get from one place to another in a shorter time than it would take you to travel, with the same speed as you travelled through the wormhole, in ‘the normal way’. But when you travel through a wormhole you don’t really travel faster than light, since what you really do is to ‘cheat’ space-time, so you’re not really travelling through our familiar 3 dimensions but taking a short cut in the fourth dimension called hyperspace. ... “You could say that there are two different ‘kinds’ of wormholes. It has been suggested that if you fall into a black hole you come out of a white hole. Then there should be a wormhole connecting the black hole to the white hole. However, this wormhole would be a one-way street, since you

can only fall into a black hole and out of a white hole. They there are wormhole solutions which work both ways, these are the ones you usually talk about when talking about wormholes. ...” – http://www.physlib.com/worm_holes.html “A classical wormhole is not a special type of wormhole. It is a wormhole of any type whose properties are elucidated using classical physics only. Similarly, a quantum wormhole is one whose description relies solely on quantum physics. A wormhole becomes ‘semiclassical’ if both classical and quantum physics are used to describe it. ... Classical wormholes are solutions to the purely classical Einstein equations. [They] are untraversable, singularity-containing wormholes better known as black holes. It might seem strange to refer to black holes as wormholes. Keep in mind, however, that we [are] considering the maximally extended black hole solutions, which all contain at least two exterior regions across which the black hole seems to form a bridge. ... we might be able to design a traversable wormhole by modifying the Schwarzschild solution in such a way as to eliminate its event horizons. Kip Thorne of Caltech and his student Michael Morris accomplished precisely this in 1988. ... If a wormhole is two-way traversable it cannot be surrounded by an event horizon. ... General relativity, as it is normally practised, assumes a fixed topology of spacetime. This means that wormholes cannot be created or destroyed. Thus is why Morris and Thorne suggested that the first step in constructing a macroscopic wormhole is to obtain a pre-existing submicroscopic one. They imagined an advanced civilization dredging up such a wormhole from Wheeler’s spacetime foam. Recall that spacetime foam is the conjectured quantum vacuum state of the gravitational field. The foam consists of all filed configurations – i.e. spacetime geometries – not ruled out by macroscopic observations. These geometries include that of quantum wormholes.” – Enrico Rodrigo, The Physics of Stargates: Parallel Universes, Time Travel, and the Enigma of Wormhole Physics So, bear in mind that there are different kinds of wormholes, some using black holes, some using quantum mechanics.

*****

“Because of its robust theoretical strength, a wormhole is one of the great physics metaphors for teaching general relativity. The first type of wormhole solution discovered was the Schwarzschild wormhole, which would be present in the Schwarzschild metric describing an eternal black hole, but it was found that it would collapse too quickly for anything to cross from one end to the other. Wormholes that could be crossed in both directions, known as traversable wormholes, would only be possible if exotic matter with negative energy density could be used to stabilize them. ... “The basic notion of an intra-universe wormhole is that it is a compact region of spacetime whose boundary is topologically trivial, but whose interior is not simply connected. ... Characterizing inter-universe wormholes is more difficult, with little consideration being given to available technology. ... this other universe is unreachable in the case of a Schwarzschild wormhole, as the bridge always collapses before the observer has time to cross it, and everything that has fallen through the event horizon of either universe is inevitably crushed in the singularity. ... “Before the stability problems of Schwarzschild wormholes were apparent, it was proposed that quasars were white holes forming the ends of wormholes of this type. “While Schwarzschild wormholes are not traversable in both directions, their existence inspired Kip Thorne to imagine traversable wormholes created by holding the ‘throat’ of a Schwarzschild wormhole open with exotic matter (material that has negative mass/energy).” – Wikipedia All scientific theories of wormholes, no matter how far-fetched and speculative, refuse to reach one potential conclusion staring scientists right in the face, namely, that wormholes are nothing to do with connecting different regions of space or different universes, but with connecting matter with mind! Scientists are willing to speculate about anything at all – other than the real existence of mind, autonomous and independent of matter. Whenever scientists look at any of their equations, they never once see mind in there, even though, ironically, it was their own minds that allowed them to construct the equations in the first place. The minds of scientists create equations that, to the scientific mind, deny the existence of the minds of scientists! That’s how irrational scientists are.

No such problems exist for ontological mathematics where everything is predicated on monadic minds, and it’s the material world, rather than the mental world, that’s in need of explanation. We are going to present a brand new theory of black holes, white holes and wormholes, based on mind and matter. We shall use the following idealised wormhole diagram:

On one side of this structure, nothing can get in, and, on the other, nothing can get out. In some visions of hell, there are infinite gates in, and none out, i.e. hell is a pure black hole. Yet, if you add a Einstein-Rosen Bridge and white hole, you get an escape route (to heaven!). Richard Feynman once met a Buddhist monk who told him: “Humanity possesses a key that can open the gates to heaven. But the same key can also open the gates to hell.” He plainly had a traversable wormhole in mind! Given that event horizons are spacetime entities, they can play no part in a system outside space and time. So, if we strip out the event horizon, all we are left with is the naked singularity itself. A singularity isn’t something without structure. It has an interior defined by the generalised Euler Formula. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t have the capacity to reflect black hole and white hole functionality, and this in fact is the secret to the mind-body problem. The high-energy part of a monadic singularity is the pure mind. As in a black hole, nothing can get out. In Leibnizian terms, it’s “windowless”. The low-energy part of a monadic singularity has white hole capability. That means that energy can come out, and nothing can go in. It’s “windowed”, in one direction. Descartes famously defined mind as unextended and matter as extended. He then faced the problem of working out how mind and matter could interact given their mutually exclusive definitions.

This problem can be solved definitively with ontological Fourier mathematics. When a monadic mind (singularity) is defined by the generalised Euler Formula, this means that it can be regarded as pure ontological mathematical energy = sinusoidal waves. These waves can be called pure frequencies. They are dimensionless, i.e. outside the physical dimensions of space and time. They are mental frequencies. Since they have no extension, they conform to the Cartesian definition of unextended mind. In order to create a dimensional, physical world of matter in space and time, we have to be able to convert some of a monad’s mental energy into matter, i.e. we need to generate extension from non-extension. Descartes’ interactivity problem between matter and mind can be solved only if matter is actually an expression of mind (as idealism says), or mind is an expression of matter (as materialism says). Using ontological Fourier mathematics, it’s easy to get extension (spacetime dimensionality) from non-extension (immaterial, dimensionless frequencies outside space and time). However, it’s impossible to get from the kind of matter believed in by scientists to anything unextended. In fact, scientific materialism denies that there’s anything unextended, and refuses to contemplate what singularities signify, hoping that these will vanish if relativity theory is ever reconciled with quantum mechanics (in your dreams, guys!). With ontological mathematics, it’s necessary to separate pure mind from mind capable of becoming matter. This implies a precise demarcation line – a specific frequency above which mental frequencies are always frequencies, and below which mental frequencies can be converted into matter. Let’s call this specific frequency the Cartesian Frequency or Cartesian Horizon. Above it, we have pure, unextended Cartesian mind: Soul World. Below it, we have the frequencies that can generate matter: the Physical World. The Cartesian Frequency separates mind from matter. Descartes himself had no horizon separating mind and matter. He defined them as absolutely separate, and that was his error. What he needed was some means to give unextended mind the capability to have a dual nature, i.e. to be mental in some circumstances and material in other circumstances. Mind and matter are not different substances. Rather, they exist on a Fourier continuum, with a specific cut-off point, after which mind is no longer capable of being turned into matter. Going back to the instant before the Big Bang, all that existed was a pure mental, mathematical Singularity, made of dimensionless mental

energy. There was no matter at all. This Singularity could be regarded as a perfect black hole. Nothing could get out of it, and nothing could get in (there was nothing outside it anyway: it contained the totality of existence). So, what was the Big Bang? Due to a symmetry-breaking event within the Singularity, the monads underwent a phase transition from pure black hole to black hole plus white hole. The remaining black hole part comprised everything above the Cartesian Frequency. The white hole part was everything below. Think of a monadic mind before the Big Bang as pure mind – pure psyche – and, after the Big Bang, as comprising a mental part (psyche) and material part (psychoid). The mental part is a black hole: nothing can get out into the physical world. The psychoid part is a white hole: it spews out dimensionless energy that, because, mathematically, it’s leaving the Singularity, is converted into dimensional energy (matter). All of the monads do likewise, and their collective emanations constitute the energy of the material world. We are left with a collective material world (a collective, naked white hole singularity releasing energy) to which are linked countless monadic minds, as black holes outside space and time. This constitutes the world of mind and matter. Why do we have free will? Because our black hole minds are outside the physical world, hence outside the causal chains of matter.

The Cartesian Frequency Imagine an infinitely thin event horizon. It would be a single frequency. Applied to a mental black hole, it would mean that nothing above that frequency could get out. Applied to a mental white hole, it would mean that nothing below that frequency could get in. What would this remarkable frequency be? It must be an extremely special number, such as e, or pi.

The Big Bang Science cannot explain the Big Bang. It claims that energy is randomly magicked out of nothing at all because nothing at all is somehow unstable. It rubbishes any notion of analysing what existed before the Big Bang, seeing that as somehow metaphysical or religious. In fact, it’s a purely mathematical question and concerns the eternal, immaterial Fourier

frequency Singularity outside space and time. What came before space and time wasn’t mystical, religious gibberish – it was an analytic Fourier frequency domain. Scientists are so wedded to space and time – the basis of materialism – that they have failed to grasp that there’s something more fundamental – frequency, the basis of idealism. Mind is about immaterial frequencies outside space and time, while matter is what you get when you create the circumstances, through symmetry breaking, where frequency functions can be converted into Fourier spacetime functions and thus acquire the character of matter. Science’s failure to understand reality stems from its inability to grasp the ontology of Fourier mathematics, and to realise what frequencies are, and what they are not. They are emphatically not material things in space and time, yet science is ideologically predicated on there being nothing but material things in space and time (!). Prior to space and time, science says, is unstable nothingness that randomly, indeterministically, acausally, and spontaneously generates existence. This is the most irrational, anti-intellectual claim ever made. It’s worse than the most egregious claims of any religion. Science is ferociously hostile to reason and insanely ideological and dogmatic. Without any pre-existent God or God Equation to initiate anything, science is compelled to make things spontaneously create themselves out of nothing, for no reason. Without any necessary order, science is compelled to appeal to infinite contingent regress. Science is like this because it refuses to accept any mental substratum to existence. As soon as you have mind, you have life, meaning, purpose, design, intentionality. Without mind, you have nothing but self-performing, pointless, random miracles! Such is science’s loathing of mind that it actually celebrates random, spontaneous, magical creation, and even considers this the very definition of “science”. A scientist loves nothing more than to say that the world randomly creates itself. No scientist in the modern world would ever say that the world is intentionally, systematically, necessarily, rationally created ... because any of that would imply some kind of Designer, and some kind of Intelligent Design. The catastrophic blunder of science is that its hatred of “God” as the putative Designer has blinded it to the alternative – that the “God Equation” does God’s job, in an entirely designed, logical, rational, mathematical way.

The following diagram shows exactly where the logic of science fails:

What does this diagram reveal to us? It presents the time domain as orthogonal to the frequency domain. We could just as easily have depicted the space domain versus spatial frequency = wavenumber (“In the physical sciences, the wavenumber is the spatial frequency of a wave...” – Wikipedia). What science disastrously fails to do is consider the ontology of this setup. Or, rather, it slavishly and blindly accepts the ontology of space and time, but denies, without any sufficient reason, the ontology of the frequency domain, seeing the latter as merely some kind of abstraction. In fact, the frequency domain is the basis of mind (idealism), while the spacetime domain is the basis of matter (materialism). What we have done, and what science has failed to do, is simply to assign an ontological meaning to the frequency domain. Science doesn’t do so because it’s a rigid materialist ideology that refuses to consider that there’s anything other than a material world of space and time. Whenever its dogmatism runs aground – at singularities – it starts invoking randomness, indeterminism, acausation, spontaneity, existence miraculously jumping out of non-existence, and so on. It refuses to accept that the word “singularity” mathematically means an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time that pre-exists, precedes and originates space and time. Space and time are contingent, i.e. it’s possible for them not to exist. Frequency is necessary, i.e. it’s impossible for it not to exist. Science, by privileging space and time over frequency, thereby bases itself on contingency rather than necessity. Science is nothing but a system of infinite contingent regress that explains nothing. You can destroy physical bodies. You cannot destroy minds – autonomous frequency domains. Singularities are immortal minds, but this

is the rational conclusion that science will never accept. The Singularity – the collection of all singularities – that precedes the Big Bang is Soul World, Mind World, Mathematical World, but science, as pure nihilistic materialism, would rather believe anything other than this. It prefers to claim that unstable non-existence precedes the Big Bang; that unstable non-existence miraculously, and randomly, creates the universe, and even the infinite, random Multiverse. Which conclusion is more rational? No question is more fundamental than what precedes the Big Bang. Your entire understanding of reality hinges on this question, and if you get it wrong – as science does – your entire worldview is ipso facto false. Returning to the Fourier diagram, it’s essential to understand that a Fourier transform converts a function in the time (or spatial) domain to one in the frequency domain, and does the reverse via an “inverse Fourier transform”, with no loss of information (provided we carry out the task with respect to infinity). When information is plotted on the frequency axis, you simply draw a vertical line, depicting the specific frequency and its amplitude. There is no variation at all in this signal. It’s eternal and immutable, i.e. it conforms to a Platonic Form. When the same information is plotted on the time or space axis, you get a standard sinusoidal wave. What people fail to grasp is that the frequency representation is also a standard sinusoidal wave, but outside space and time. Scientists do not understand what this means. Dennis Gabor, the Nobel Prize winning scientist who invented holography, showed how baffled scientists are by the ontology of frequencies when he wrote, “Though mathematically [Fourier analysis] is beyond reproach, even experts could not at times conceal an uneasy feeling when it came to the physical interpretation of results obtained by the Fourier method. The reason is that the Fourier-integral method considers phenomena in an infinite interval, sub specie aeternitatis, and this is very far from our everyday point of view. Fourier’s theorem makes of description in time and description by the spectrum, two mutually exclusive methods. If ‘frequency’ is used in the strict mathematical sense which applies only to infinite wave-trains, a ‘changing frequency’ becomes a contradiction in terms, as it is a statement involving both time and frequency. [The building blocks of Fourier analysis are sines and cosines,

which oscillate for all time.] The terminology of physics has never completely adapted itself to this rigorous mathematical definition of ‘frequency.’” It can’t be stressed enough that anything outside space and time is immaterial and eternal, hence indestructible. This is why it’s inevitable that if you accept that frequency domains are real, ontological things, and not weird, inexplicable abstractions, then you must accept that what existed prior to space and time was frequency. You have no rational alternative. And once you ontologically equate frequencies and minds, you see that what preceded matter was mind, hence idealism is true and materialism false, i.e. mind precedes matter and not the other way around, as science fallaciously claims. We live in an inherently eternal mental world of frequencies, and matter is one of its properties, not something separate from mind. The whole basis of science – with its fanatical denial of autonomous mind – is false and wrong. That is an absolute, incontestable fact. Gabor, a genuine genius, rightly saw something fundamentally paradoxical about the notion of “changing frequency”. This is a rare occasion when a scientist has raised a truly deep, ontological issue, exactly the sort of thing that instrumental, pragmatic scientists skip over all the time. Asking these deep questions doesn’t help you to write a rapid succession of scientific papers, and doesn’t allow you to advance your career and make a name for yourself. As scientists like to say, “Shut up and calculate.” Scientists have made no effort to understand what Fourier mathematics actually means ontologically. Like so many mathematical tools, they use it all the time, without having the vaguest idea of what they are really doing. It works, and that’s enough for a scientist! Scientists are the shallowest thinkers in the world. Since the death of John Bell, there has been no scientist capable of thinking at a high, philosophical, profound level. Science doesn’t generate thinkers. It produces “technicians”, functionaries, drones and drudges with no imagination, no intuition (they are all sensing types!) and no capacity for freethinking. Scientists are simply legions of high-functioning sensory autistics. To answer Gabor’s question about the apparent contradiction involved in the concept of “changing frequencies”, it’s essential to understand how change and motion operate in the absence of time and space.

A frequency is eternal, ontological, mathematical motion reflecting nothing but the principle of sufficient reason (and is nothing to do with “science”). The frequency domain exclusively comprises perfect, immutable, Platonic frequency Forms. Each frequency is in perfect, eternal motion, reflecting its perfect mathematical Form. No frequency can ever alter. So, how can the mind do anything useful if it’s made of nothing but such unchanging Forms? The answer is that mental activity is all about frequency functions, i.e. about combinations of basis frequencies. Think about the letters of the alphabet. We can imagine these as eternal, immutable, basis elements. However, they can be combined to produce words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. Infinite variation is possible. In other words, the power of the system relies on endlessly combining fixed elements in different ways. The mind is a living, teleological system, made up of eternal basis frequencies. All that a mind ever does is combine these necessary basis frequencies into contingent functions, i.e. it’s not the basis frequencies that change but the functions made from them. An infinite number of combinations of fixed frequencies is possible, just as infinite books can be produced from the fixed letters of the alphabet. The “change” applies to the variable functions, and not to the fixed elements. This is a critical distinction, and is what Gabor failed to grasp. Necessary frequencies don’t change ... contingent functions of frequencies change. We get the required change from frequency functions, not from frequencies themselves. The true power of the mind derives from a vital secondary factor – the ability to subjectively experience and have feelings about the contingent functions continuously being generated inside the mind. Every frequency function generated within the mind has to be subjectively assessed for power. Minds selectively pursue those frequency functions (thoughts!) that seem to increase their power, and shut down those that seem not to. Thus we have a system that at all times reflects Nietzsche’s Will to Power. In order to decide what it likes and what it doesn’t in a non-haphazard way (i.e. trial and error), the mind employs a very simple logical technique – the dialectic. For any thought the mind has (which we shall call the thesis), the mind immediately and automatically thinks of the opposite (which is the antithesis). The mind then takes the best from the thesis and antithesis to create a synthesis, which then becomes a new thesis, which

generates a new antithesis, and so on. The mind keeps going in this way until it arrives at perfect synthesis where all contradictions are resolved = the Omega Point = Enlightenment = Gnosis = Divinity! It’s not just the individual mind that operates this way ... the whole universe does in all of its subjective aspects! History, art, philosophy, economics, politics, psychology, sociology, the family, human science, human mathematics, evolution ... they are all dialectical, exactly as Hegel said. Why? Because they all ultimately derive from teleological, dialectical minds. Science, naturally (and dialectically!), denies all of this 100%, hence is 100% alienated from the Truth. And all because scientific materialism despises the concept of mind. Science, like mainstream religion, is thus the great Antithesis that must be overcome before humanity can fulfil its divine destiny. Mind is simply a living system devoted to increasing its power, and it does so by combining fixed frequencies into variable frequency functions, which it then subjectively experiences and subjectively evaluates with regard to power. There’s nothing mysterious going on. It’s literally all in the math. The only subtlety is the one that we can illustrate with the following analogy ... imagine that a mind consists of nothing but eternal, fixed letters. How, by itself, would that produce anything interesting? However, if we then add life and the teleological pursuit of power to this setup, something remarkable happens. The letters start combining themselves to generate words (functions), then phrases (more complex functions), then sentences, then chapters, then books, i.e. minds, in this scenario, are inherently selfwriting books, or compulsive authors (which is why they are so attracted to Mythos)! The minds experience what they are writing and judge whether it’s any good or not, whether it’s advancing their interests or not. If not, they ditch it and try something else. If so, they seek to make it even better. Imagine the mind as a poet. It tries out countless different phrases in order to say exactly what it wants to say, with maximum elegance, impact, economy, power and beauty. In a way, we are all poets, all furiously editing our words to find the best possible expression of who we are. As Shelley said, “Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” We all want to write the Book, or Poem, of Perfection, the Book of All Knowledge, the Book of All Power, the Book of God!

So, a mind is not just a static collection of fixed frequencies. It’s actually a dynamic, living system that automatically combines necessary frequencies into contingent functions (= “thoughts”), and it seeks to ultimately think perfect thoughts and thus be God. It achieves this via a dialectical process across many lifetimes (via reincarnation), culminating in the Omega Point of Gnosis. However, it must never be forgotten that this is a mathematical system, so there must be an objective mathematical counterpart to this subjective dialectical system. The counterpart in question is symmetry. The Big Bang is a symmetry-breaking event. The Big Crunch is a symmetry-restoration event, and everything in between is about increasing symmetry and decreasing asymmetry. Perfect thinking occurs where perfect symmetry is finally achieved. Beauty and symmetry are exactly the same thing. Absolute beauty = absolute symmetry = absolute perfection = gnosis = divinity. Do the math! What are the best and most productive thoughts? They are the most logical, rational, mathematical thoughts. What are the worst and least productive thoughts? They are those concerning irrational emotions, faith, and mysticism, i.e. those underlying mainstream religion. The sensory thoughts of science are only slightly better. In truth, the sole reason why science is successful is that it smuggles in mathematics (!), without giving it any credit, or even knowing what it is. Humanity, to become enlightened, must move away from Mythos to Logos, it must move away from religion and science to ontological mathematics. At all times, scientists catastrophically pass mathematics through a materialist, spacetime filter rather than a mental, frequency filter. Science would change overnight if it did the right thing. It would in fact become ontological mathematics! We are now going to make a radical claim regarding ontological Fourier mathematics. According to the diagram shown above, any frequency “line” can be depicted as a spacetime “wave”, and vice versa. Our assertion is that, ontologically, this isn’t possible. Above the Cartesian Frequency, no frequency can ever be depicted in spacetime terms, i.e. it belongs exclusively to the frequency domain of mind, and can never enter spacetime. It belongs to a mental black hole, where no frequencies can ever escape into the material world.

Below the Cartesian Frequency, the situation is radically different. All frequencies (energies) below that point are capable of existing in space and time, hence these are the frequencies that give rise to matter. These frequencies flow out of the monads – white hole style – into the shared, collective monadic arena (i.e. the material, spacetime world). In other words, minds exist as individual black holes above the Cartesian Horizon, and matter arises from an integrated collection of white holes below the Cartesian Horizon. Our familiar mind-matter reality is possible because monads are able to operate, individually, as mental black holes above a certain frequency, and, collectively, as material white holes below that point. An ontological firewall exists between the two: nothing gets out of the black hole; nothing gets into the white hole. The standard interpretation of Fourier mathematics – treated as an abstraction – is that all it does is allow a function to be represented in two different, but mathematically equivalent, ways: 1) in a time (or space) domain, and 2) in a frequency (or wavenumber) domain. Given this view, idealists could validly argue that all of the spacetime functions of materialism are actually just inverse Fourier transforms of mental frequency functions, hence matter is a projection of mind and has no autonomous reality. It might seem that materialists could make exactly the same claim in reverse, i.e. they could say that all mental frequency functions are in fact derived from materialist spacetime functions. Strangely, materialists are too mathematically ignorant to even attempt to explain mind in these terms. However, the two claims are not equivalent. If we go back to the originating Singularity of the Big Bang, we can conceive of this in exclusively frequency terms, i.e. there are no material spacetime functions at all at this point. It’s impossible for materialists ever to specify an equivalent point where there are no mental frequency functions at all (i.e. where there is nothing but a material world of spacetime, from which mind is then generated). Therefore, mind is primary and matter secondary. This is actually self-evident given that frequency functions are immaterial and outside space and time, hence inherently eternal. All materialist spacetime functions, on the other hand, are mortal and contingent. Quite simply, scientific materialists have wrongly interpreted Fourier mathematics and made matter primary and mind secondary, when the reverse is true.

We want to introduce a far more nuanced reading of Fourier mathematics. Instead of the basic idea being that a function in one domain can be represented in terms of a function in another, a fourfold analysis should in fact be provided, reflecting the four ways in which mind (frequency) and matter (spacetime) can interact: 1) Matter-matter (spacetime-spacetime). 2) Matter-mind (spacetime-frequency). 3) Mind-matter (frequency-spacetime). 4) Mind-mind (frequency-frequency). Dennis Gabor was hinting at something like this when he said in a scientific paper, “Hitherto communication theory was based on two alternative methods of signal analysis. One is the description of the signal as a function of time; the other is Fourier analysis. Both are idealizations, as the first method operates with sharply defined instants of time, the second with infinite wave-trains of rigorously defined frequencies. But our everyday experiences – especially our auditory sensations – insist on a description in terms of both time and frequency. In the present paper this point of view is developed in quantitative language. Signals are represented in two dimensions, with time and frequency as co-ordinates.” Gabor’s work is closely related to the notion of “wavelets”. Wikipedia says, “The development of wavelets can be linked to several separate trains of thought, starting with Haar’s work in the early 20th century. Later work by Dennis Gabor yielded Gabor atoms (1946), which are constructed similarly to wavelets, and applied to similar purposes. ... “In 1946, Dennis Gabor suggested the idea of using a granular system to produce sound. In his work, Gabor discussed the problems with Fourier analysis. Although he found the mathematics to be correct, it did not reflect the behaviour of sound in the world, because sounds, such as the sound of a siren, have variable frequencies over time. Another problem was the underlying supposition, as we use sine waves analysis, that the signal under concern has infinite duration even though sounds in real life have limited duration – see time-frequency analysis. Gabor applied ideas from quantum physics to sound, allowing an analogy between sound and quanta. He proposed a mathematical method to reduce Fourier analysis into cells. His research aimed at the information transmission through communication

channels. Gabor saw in his atoms a possibility to transmit the same information but using less data. Instead of transmitting the signal itself it would be possible to transmit only the coefficients which represent the same signal using his atoms. ... “A wavelet is a mathematical function used to divide a given function or continuous-time signal into different scale components. Usually one can assign a frequency range to each scale component. Each scale component can then be studied with a resolution that matches its scale. A wavelet transform is the representation of a function by wavelets. The wavelets are scaled and translated copies (known as ‘daughter wavelets’) of a finitelength or fast-decaying oscillating waveform (known as the ‘mother wavelet’). Wavelet transforms have advantages over traditional Fourier transforms for representing functions that have discontinuities and sharp peaks, and for accurately deconstructing and reconstructing finite, nonperiodic and/or non-stationary signals. “The wavelet transform is often compared with the Fourier transform, in which signals are represented as a sum of sinusoids. In fact, the Fourier transform can be viewed as a special case of the continuous wavelet transform with the choice of the mother wavelet ψ(t) = e-2πit. The main difference in general is that wavelets are localized in both time and frequency whereas the standard Fourier transform is only localized in frequency. The Short-time Fourier transform (STFT) is similar to the wavelet transform, in that it is also time and frequency localized, but there are issues with the frequency/time resolution trade-off.” It’s techniques such as these that will allow mind to be introduced into materialist equations, for the first time ever. As ever, the world simply awaits a world-historic mathematician – a new Leibniz, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Riemann or Gödel – who can put it all together, ontologically rather than abstractly. Our brains perform frequency-frequency processing (the unconscious; intuitions; feelings; the right hemisphere), frequency-spacetime processing (the conscious; thinking; the left hemisphere), spacetime-frequency processing (sensations; the left hemisphere). The material world – the “scientific” world – involves spacetime-spacetime processing (classical Newtonian physics), and spacetime-frequency and frequency-spacetime processing (quantum physics). It’s all in the math.

It’s time for the human race to leave behind the Dark Ages of mainstream religion and scientific materialism, and embrace the enlightened Age of Reason (mathematical reason), where we start analysing reality in terms of deterministic frequency and spacetime functions, and their interactions. Science says that there is nothing outside space and time other than “unstable non-existence” which can miraculously and randomly produce spacetime and matter. Ontological mathematics says that outside space and time is a perfect frequency domain (Singularity), and there is nothing at all beyond that. Science says that reality is all about space and time. Ontological mathematics says that reality is all about space, time and frequency. This radically changes science, and coverts it from a subject that can accommodate matter only to one that accommodates matter and mind. Mathematicians, not scientists, much lead the world forward. Science has failed. It has reached the end of the road. It’s absolute inability to address mind has proved fatal to it, and now it must be replaced by ontological mathematics. At last, humanity will be able to include mind in its equations and calculations, and the ideology and dogmatism of nihilistic, irrational materialism and atheism will be mercifully overthrown. Thanks to ontological mathematics, we stand on the threshold of a Golden Age, one that will culminate with humanity building heaven on earth and becoming Gods! The Old World Order has failed. It’s time for the New World Order. Are you for us or against us?

The Quickest Way The quickest way to enforce orthodoxy is to deny funding to anyone who disagrees with you. That’s exactly how the science establishment works. Like the Catholic Church, it funds only those who agree with it. That’s no recipe for freethinking, heresy, innovation, non-groupthink. The quickest way to a man’s heart – and brain – is through his wallet. That’s what science teaches.

***** Science’s stance would be fair enough if it admitted that it was the Church of Materialism and Empiricism, a quasi-religious faith in the senses and

randomism, a committed believer in the Mindless God (the Spontaneous, Random Creator who pointlessly brings something out of nothing). But it doesn’t. It claims to be completely open-minded and to fearlessly follow the evidence wherever it leads. In your dreams, guys! In reality, science is rife with observer bias, and follows the evidence only if it’s pointing to where it wants it to point. Reason and logic are dispensed with (living-dead cats, anyone!). There’s no objective process and no analysis at all. Science talks a good game, but it never walks the walk.

Creation? The universe creates. It isn’t created. Abrahamism is false. The universe does things for reasons. It doesn’t do things for no reasons. Scientific materialism is false. The universe resolves mysticism. It doesn’t expand it. Eastern religion is false.

Scientific Bunk “Carl Sagan was a delusional paranoid who thought any immaterialism would lead to disaster, but like all fanatics he couldn’t acknowledge the disease of his own faith in materialism. I’m amazed the author [David Christopher Lane] isn’t aware of the growing and legitimate complaints about scientism and neurononsense, which, in the end, won’t serve secular humanists but only corporations. ... “David, the extent of your bias toward the dead, stupid and unconscious philosophy of materialist science is only exceeded by your apparent inability to see the bias. When you say that we have no idea what matter is and it’s a complete mystery, then, logically, you’re saying that there is nothing to prevent us from accepting the Indian idea that Sat-ChitConscious-Being, is at the root of all things. If ‘matter’ can mean anything, it can mean that too. “But, of course, that’s not what you mean, which is why I refer to this as ‘hand-waving.’ It’s the sleight of hand of an amateur magician who hopes people won't notice him slipping the quarter in his pocket. But as the commenters on Skeptiko saw, (you may recall, I believe it was the first two comments) it is so blatantly obvious that you’re not the least bit skeptical of

anything that physicalists declare, but reserve your skepticism for so-called ‘spiritual’ people like Singh, who probably wasn’t anything more than a fake, as you seem to not want to believe but keep hinting at. “I doubt if there’s much to your one-sided bias than hurt feelings and a bit of embarrassment for being taken in so completely by Singh. It’s been decades – time to get over it, no?” – Anonymous Anonymous has nailed it. Anyone who has any physicalist leanings has no contribution at all to make to the development of spirit.

***** “Sat-cit-ananda: ‘being, consciousness, bliss’, is a description of the subjective experience of Brahman. This sublimely blissful experience of the boundless, pure consciousness is a glimpse of ultimate reality.” – Wikipedia Of course, anyone who believes that pure consciousness (in effect, God) underlies reality is as deranged as the materialists!

Truth “The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness. We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We’ve learned how to make a living, but not a life. We’ve added years to life not life to years. We’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbour. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We’ve done larger things, but not better things. We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We’ve conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We’ve learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less. These are the times of fast foods and slow

digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete...” – George Carlin

***** “Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the number of moments that take our breath away.” – Hilary Cooper

The Einstellung Effect “Einstellung is the development of a mechanized state of mind. Often called a problem solving set, Einstellung refers to a person’s predisposition to solve a given problem in a specific manner even though ‘better’ or more appropriate methods of solving the problem exist. The Einstellung effect is the negative effect of previous experience when solving new problems. The Einstellung effect has been tested experimentally in many different contexts. The most famous example (which led to Luchins and Luchins’ coining of the term) is the Luchins’ water jar experiment, in which subjects were asked to solve a series of water jar problems. After solving many problems which had the same solution, subjects applied the same solution to later problems even though a simpler solution existed (Luchins, 1942).” – Wikipedia The whole of science reflects the Einstellung effect. Science invokes a “mechanized state of mind”. It invokes a dogmatic “problem solving set”, namely Feynman guesses matched to experimental results, and interpreted via empiricism, materialism and positivism. Science has an absolute “predisposition to solve a given problem in a specific manner even though ‘better’ or more appropriate methods of solving the problem exist.” What, in particular, is the better method that science ought to be using? It is of course the rationalist (non-empirical) mathematical method. It is simply beyond belief that science, which would be useless without mathematics, privileges the non-mathematical, non-analytic techniques of

the scientific method over the rationalist, analytic method of mathematics. Why does science refuse to be outright mathematical despite its success being almost entirely predicated on mathematics? Why does it refuse to consider that mathematics is at the core of science because mathematics in fact underlies science: an unobservable, noumenal, mathematical world underpins an observable, phenomenal, scientific world? As soon as you accept this ontology, your whole understanding of reality changes. In particular, reality becomes mathematical rather than scientific, rationalist rather than empiricist, idealist rather than materialist. Science comes to all problems wearing scientific blinkers ... scientific goggles. If it turns out that those goggles aren’t the right ones to wear, it automatically means that the whole of science is false and wrong. (The same goes for religion – for Abrahamism and Karmism – of course.) Mathematical goggles – reflecting the eternal truths of reason, ontological necessity, and the principle of sufficient – are the ultimate goggles that people should be wearing if they wish to “see” bare reality, reality in itself. Scientists start with preconceptions, with unchallenged assumptions, with ideas, paradigms and philosophies rigidly in place, which automatically prevent scientists from considering problems from any other angle, using a different mindset and problem-solving set. That’s exactly why scientists have been unable to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics (and thus establish a final theory of science). Basically, the scientific mentality is what is preventing science from progressing. Science has reached the end of its road. The road ahead is purely mathematical – ontological mathematical. Henrik Ibsen said, “Look into any man’s heart you please, and you will always find, in every one, at least one black spot which he has to keep concealed.” Look into any scientist’s mind and you will find a scientific mindset, a scientific paradigm, a scientific schema, with which scientists conceal reality from themselves. Only ontological mathematics exposes you to bare reality – reality in itself – because bare reality is mathematics.

***** Einstein said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” The whole problem with science is that it’s not remotely curious about its own validity and simply assumes it as a self-

evident fact – exactly like a religion! It never asks any questions at all about itself (meta-science, we might say). Michio Kaku said, “Some advice: keep the flame of curiosity and wonderment alive, even when studying for boring exams. That is the well from which we scientists draw our nourishment and energy. And also, learn the math. Math is the language of nature, so we have to learn this language.” Well, if math is the language of nature – which it is – then who the hell needs science, mathematics’ sensory miscarriage? Why aren’t scientists curious about the ontology of mathematics and its precise connection with science? Scientists are highly selective in both their curiosity and ways of thinking about the world. They have an unforgivable blind spot – regarding the rational legitimacy of their own subject.

***** It’s said that education is what remains after you have forgotten everything you learned in school. With science, the scientific paradigmatic mindset is what remains when you have forgotten how to think rationally.

The Abrahamic Con “For I have chosen him [Abraham], so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” – Genesis 18:19 So, agreeing to kill your own innocent son for no reason other than that a voice in your head ordered it is apparently the basis of “what is right and just”. WTF! Abraham is the Father not of “Faith”, but of blind, mindless, unquestioning, psychopathic Obedience to voices in the head. Furthermore, did the “LORD” deliver what he promised Abraham? If he did, it wasn’t much of a promise! This world looks much more like hell than heaven.

Deception If the CIA are trained to use deception as part of their craft, how could you ever know if the CIA were telling you the truth?

If scientists are trained to use the scientific method as the defining part of their craft, why would you ever ask a scientist about anything beyond the scientific method? The whole of mathematics is beyond the scientific method, yet mathematics is what makes science works. Why do scientists not regard that as the most fundamental conundrum of science? – because to do so would require them to take off their scientific goggles, but they are incapable of doing so. Science is irrational because it refuses to contemplate its own rationality. You cannot use the scientific method to establish the validity of science, hence science is invalid. Science “works” not because science is valid but because, being based on mathematics, it provides a reasonable approximation to ontological mathematical truth.

Dimensional Portals and Gateways Wormholes are not dimensional portals and stargates, linking different parts of the universe, or even different universes. Rather, true wormholes – involving linked black holes and white holes – are none other than minds ... souls! True wormholes link mind to matter, not material destinations to other material destinations.

The Expanding Universe If, as a thought experiment, we imagine all monadic white holes as miniature “dark suns”, releasing dark energy into spacetime at a constant rate, their cumulative effect is to cause the universe to expand over time. However, this expansion has an extraordinary consequence. Imagine taking any spacetime sinusoidal wave and stretching it indefinitely (corresponding to spacetime itself stretching). Eventually, the wave will “flatline”, i.e. it has ceased to be a wave and lost all of its energy. An expanding spacetime universe is a dying spacetime universe, certain to flatline at the end of its expansion ... to be denuded of all energy, all matter. The physical universe of expanding spacetime is literally doomed to die, meaning that what remains of existence will be nothing but the mental Singularity outside spacetime. The greatest of all ironies is that the expanding universe is a actually also a shrinking universe (shrinking towards the Singularity). Expanding

spacetime stretches all spacetime waves to breaking point, leaving nothing but frequency waves in the Singularity outside spacetime. Thus we are provided with the mechanism for an eternally oscillating universe: Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang to Big Crunch forever. Just like a wave itself! The universe is simply a very peculiar wave phenomenon involving the Fourier relationship between waves defined with respect to the spacetime domain and waves defined with respect to the frequency domain (outside spacetime, in a Singularity).

The Schwarzschild Radius “The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Once a stellar remnant collapses below this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer directly visible. It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass. The Schwarzschild radius was named after the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild who calculated this exact solution for the theory of general relativity in 1916. ... Any object whose radius is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole. ... “The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass with a proportionality constant involving the gravitational constant and the speed of light: rs = 2Gm/c2 where: rs is the Schwarzschild radius; G is the gravitational constant; m is the mass of the object; c is the speed of light in vacuum.” –Wikipedia “Black holes can eat other objects, including other black holes, so they can grow. We think that early on in the Universe, when galaxies were just forming, matter collecting in the centre of the nascent galaxy can collapse to form a very massive black hole. As more matter falls in, the hole greedily consumes it, and grows. Eventually you get a supermassive black hole, one with millions or even billions of times the mass of the Sun. ...the event horizon of a black hole gets bigger as the mass gets bigger. That’s because if you add mass, the gravity gets stronger, which means the event horizon

will grow. If you do the math carefully, you find that the event horizon grows linearly with the mass. In other words, if you double the black hole’s mass, the event horizon radius doubles as well.” – Phil Plait Consider the following thought experiment: there is one cosmic black hole and it swallows the entire mass of the universe. This means that the universe now comprises the black hole singularity, its event horizon, and nothing else. No information can escape this universe, and there is no space, no time, and no material universe. If the Schwarzschild radius could be measured, then, since we know the cosmic constants G and c, we could work out the entire mass of the universe. But can we say that the event horizon even exists in these conditions, or is there actually nothing left but the singularity itself, where all of the mass has been converted into dimensionless, sinusoidal mathematical energy? After all, what lies between a singularity and its event horizon?

***** With monadic minds in their black hole aspect, there is no escape velocity: nothing can get out. With monadic minds in their white hole aspect, the “escape velocity” is any spatial or temporal speed below light speed (!). To put it another way, light never escapes into spacetime. It always exists in the frequency domain outside space and time. What scientists refer to as “light” is actually the interaction between spacetime and photons outside spacetime. Light does not move through space at light speed. Rather, space moves through light at light speed! As John Gribbin says, “The Lorentz transformations tell us that time stands still for an object moving at the speed of light. From the point of view of the photon, of course, it is everything else that is rushing past at the speed of light.” In other words, the Singularity – which is outside spacetime – experiences spacetime as moving through it at light speed! Get it? Moreover, if spacetime is moving at light speed, all distances are contracted to zero, and time is dilated to infinity (time stops). As Gribbin goes on, “And under such extreme conditions, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction reduces the distances between all objects to zero. You can either say that time does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it is everywhere along its path (everywhere in the Universe) at once; or you can say that

distance does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it ‘touches’ everything in the Universe at once.” We are in spacetime, and we see everything in spacetime terms. Light, however, is outside space and time, and sees everything in “outside space and time” terms, i.e. singularities see only in singularity terms. It’s amazing how no relativist seems to grasp this. They always think from the spacetime perspective rather than the frequency (singularity) perspective – which isn’t very relativistic of them! You don’t fire photons through spacetime. You fire spacetime through photons! Gribbin says, “This is an enormously important idea, which I have never seen given due attention. From the point of view of a photon, it takes no time at all to cross the 150 million km from the Sun to the Earth (or to cross the entire Universe), for the simple reason that this space interval does not exist for the photon. Physicists seem to ignore this remarkable state of affairs, because they know that no material can ever be accelerated to the speed of light, so no human (or mechanical) observer is ever going to experience this strange phenomenon. Perhaps they are simply so stunned by what the equations say that they have not fully thought out the implications.” Indeed!

***** Remember, if you want to think about reality you must commit to thinking from two radically different perspectives: 1) Spacetime, matter. 2) Frequency (outside spacetime), singularities, non-matter (mind). Science refuses to consider the second perspective and instead tries to understand the whole of reality from just one perspective that excludes half of reality. The Big Bang can easily be understood as a frequency Singularity giving rise to spacetime. However, since science refuses to accept the existence of anything eternal, immaterial and outside space and time, it cannot understand the Big Bang in these terms, so has to invoke idiotic

randomness, miraculous spontaneous creation and things indeterministically jumping into existence out of non-existence for no reason. Mathematical Intelligent Design is infinitely more rational than scientific “Spontaneous Creation” (which is equivalent to “God” Without a Mind!). As long as you refer to both perspectives, you can easily understand how mind and matter work together. If you use only one perspective, you are committed to pure materialism or pure idealism. To accept the existence of mind, all you are required to do is associate mind with immaterial frequencies outside space and time. Why is that so hard for scientists to do? What’s their problem?! The supreme irony is that science can’t do without light, yet light itself is unextended, dimensionless, massless, outside space and time, and is pure frequency, i.e. everything science refuses to countenance. Light is mental, not physical. Scientists simply disregard these considerations and find ludicrous alternative interpretations – as we see most insanely with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the “paradox” of Schrödinger’s Cat, “many worlds”, and so on. As ever, scientists say, “Shut up and calculate” and get on with writing their papers and advancing their careers. Truth and meaning are the last things these Sophists ever contemplate. Science is in fact a system entirely devoted to Sophistry, and it despises Metaphysics because that’s a Philosophical subject committed to the Truth.

***** In a singularity, there is no such thing as G, the gravitational constant. There is no mass, no gravity, and no escape velocity!

***** “...we may even be living in a black hole which contains our entire universe. ... it has been argued that tiny black holes might have been created in the processes (whatever they were) that created the universe.” – John Gribbin Rather, tiny black holes created the universe!

*****

“The most common way for a black hole to form is in the core of a massive star. The core runs out of fuel, and collapses. This sets off a shockwave, blowing up outer layers of the star, causing a supernova. So, the star’s heart collapses while the rest of it explodes outwards. ... “It will continue to collapse, and the gravity increases. Smaller, smaller… and when I was a kid I always read that it collapses all the way down to a geometric dot, an object with no dimensions at all. That really bugged me, as you can imagine… as well it should. Because it’s wrong. “At some point, the collapsing core will be smaller than an atom, smaller than a nucleus, smaller than an electron. It’ll eventually reach a size called the Planck Length, a unit so small that quantum mechanics rules it with an iron fist. A Planck Length is a kind of quantum size limit: if an object gets smaller than this, we literally cannot know much about it with any certainty. The actual physics is complicated, but pretty much when the collapsing core hits this size, even if we could somehow pierce the event horizon, we couldn’t measure its real size. In fact, the term ‘real size’ doesn’t really mean anything at this kind of scale. If the Universe itself prevents you from measuring it, you might as well say the term has no meaning. “And how small is a Planck Length? Teeny tiny: about 10-35 metres. That’s one one-hundred quintillionth the size of a proton. “So if someone says a black hole has zero size, you can be all geeky and technical and say, not really, but meh. Close enough.” – Phil Plait Isn’t it odd that Plait says that the size of the black hole’s singularity cannot be measured, but then denies that it’s zero? By his own admission, he cannot know that’s it’s not zero. All he can say is that, in his worldview, the value is swallowed by quantum uncertainty. Yet look how quick he is to deny a zero value. This is the instinct of all materialists. They loathe and fear zero. Ontological mathematics says that the size of the singularity is exactly, analytically zero. Of course, exactly the same Planck length problem arises at the Big Bang singularity. Was it a zero-sized singularity, or some undefined, vague, hazy, non-analytic blur where magic and miracles can happen – exactly as required by scientific materialism. Quantum uncertainty is science’s most convenient dumping ground. It’s where all of its bodies are buried. It’s exactly how science avoids having to deal with zero and infinity. At the Planck scale, everything turns to

inexplicable mush. Science does not have to confront naked zero and all that implies about the falsehood of materialism. Quantum fuzziness offers science its Great Escape. As long as it doesn’t have to confront analytic zero, science can keep spouting mystical, materialist bullshit. Quantum uncertainty is nothing but an artefact of science’s false ontology. As soon as a monadic substratum to existence is granted – an arena of precise frequency domains defined by complex numbers – quantum uncertainty vanishes. It can be reinterpreted in exact, analytic terms. Science is just a game. It’s a way of interpreting mathematics via the philosophy of empiricism and materialism. Use a different philosophy – such as that of rationalism and idealism – and you get an entirely different interpretation. The real issue is nothing to do with science: it’s all about philosophy, and, especially, mathematics. The final question is simply this – which interpretation of mathematics supports a complete and consistent definition of mathematics? Any interpretation which does not is automatically a misinterpretation. Scientific materialism is absolutely incomplete and inconsistent, hence false. All views of reality taken through that filter are wrong. It really is that simple. Task One is to define complete and consistent mathematics which is at all times equal to zero (the ground state of existence). After that, everything else follows. You start from rationalism – from the exercise of reason – and work your way out. Science does not start with reason. It sets out from sensory observations and measurements and then makes ad hoc, arbitrary guesses – which form no part of any analytic mathematical system – as to what kind of mathematics will fit. That’s an entirely irrational way of trying to understand ultimate reality. Scientists are sensing types, not thinking types, and they can’t comprehend how anti-intellectual and irrational they are.

***** If the Planck length is the shortest measurable distance, what does that mean for any calculation of any scientific force where the distance between two particles is shorter than that? Are such calculations to be regarded as nonsense? Do all force calculations, including those of gravity, dissolve into mush? How is science ever to create a final theory if everything vanishes

into an impenetrable blur and fog at the Planck scale? You cannot create meaningful theories if a magical curtain is suddenly drawn across them, behind which their precise, concluding details must be as forever unknowable as Kant’s noumena. What does the Planck scale say in relation to the scientific method? Anything beyond this scale is ipso facto beyond measurement, hence formally beyond the scientific method. So, the scientific method cannot reveal ultimate reality if ultimate reality is found below the Planck scale (at the monadic level, for example). String theory stops at this level. John Gribbin says, “Particle theorists are currently excited about string, not particles. They tell us that the world is not, after all, made up of tiny point-like entities, or miniature billiard balls, but one-dimensional entities which make loops on the Planck scale, 10-33 cm across... The key feature of these strings is that they are not regarded as one-dimensional in the everyday sense of the term. Instead, they involve oscillations in more dimensions than the three of space and one of time that we are used to. These ‘extra’ dimensions, although essential in determining the properties of the strings, are thought of as hidden away from sight by compactification. ... Then, in the mid 1990s, along came membranes (often referred to as M-theory). What if the strings were actually rolled up out of a sheet, or membrane? The extra dimension is immediately rolled up out of the way so that the membrane behaves like the ten dimensional string of the once-standard string theory.” Do you see how science works? Because of its materialist, empiricist ideology and dogmatism, it can’t go below the Planck scale for its fundamental entities, so it literally, and clunkily and non-analytically, stops at that scale. It would still take a miracle for any experiment to reveal the existence of these particles, but at least the possibility remains. If science were to go any smaller, that possibility would be definitively removed and science would have to confess that it was unfit for purpose. It will never do this, so all scientists are now forever stuck with strings, or something equally ad hoc and arbitrary. M-theory invokes a ridiculous, arbitrary 11 dimensions. (Why not 12, 13, 17, 36 ... or whatever?) Again, no kind of analytic theory underpins any of this. It all flows from random Feynman guesses. Yet the amazing thing is that it would take very little to make string theory or its M-theory umbrella entirely compatible with ontological mathematics. John Gribbin wrote, “In string theory, there are no different

particles, just these tiny loops of string (involving ten or more dimensions) vibrating in different ways. Just as you can play different notes on a single violin string by making it vibrate in different ways, one kind of string vibration might correspond to an electron, one to an up quark, one to a photon, and so on.” In ontological mathematics, “strings” are replaced by perfect, analytic sinusoids. A perfect sine and matching perfect cosine combine to create a photon. A photon is the basic particle, and all other particles are derived from it. To get “material” particles, all we do is alter the phase relation between a sine and cosine, ensuring that they are no longer orthogonal to each other. Thus, as in string theory, everything is really about fundamental waves vibrating in different ways. The critical difference is that ontological mathematics explicitly involves distinct units – monads, made of a complete and consistent set of photons – that are beyond the scientific method, but not beyond the mathematical method. Furthermore, ontological mathematics provides a closed, analytic solution with no arbitrary, ad hoc elements. Science offers nothing comparable. Science can never do anything but guess. Another point worth making is that photons are dimensionless, massless particles. In fact, they are singularities. According to the notion that the Planck scale is the lowest measurable scale, photons should not exist at all. The “Planck mass” is the mass of a hypothetical particle with a wavelength equal to the Planck length. However, a photon has analytic zero length (with regard to space), thus defies the Planck length, and has analytic zero mass, thus defies the Planck mass. It is therefore absurd to claim that the Planck length is any kind of rational limit! But the difficulties have only just begun. A photon has a wavelength, but no physical length, so that then raises the issue of what the Planck length really means. Is it to do with length or wavelength, and how do these differ? That’s a complex subject that we shall address in a future book. What you can be certain of is that science doesn’t offer any meaningful ontological definitions, and is mired in confusion and contradiction. It’s not even true to say that science has no access to the dimensionless frequency domain and singularities. Every time a photon is measured, that’s a measure of something outside space and time. Self-evidently, things outside space and time must be able to interact with things inside space and time, or we wouldn’t know anything about them. If they can interact, then

they must have measurable effects. The measurements we perform on photons are how we access the dimensionless world of frequencies and singularities. Every time we move our body, our mind – a dimensionless singularity – has influenced the physical world. This means that it must be possible to measure our mind/soul in various way. You can’t “see” your mind/soul all at once – and certainly not as a “physical” object – but you can continuously catch glimpses of it in various ways ... if you know what you’re looking for.

The Laws “How does the universe make the laws of physics the same everywhere? We know that the laws are the same everywhere, by studying the light from distant objects in different directions in space. The nature of the spectrum of light shows that the atoms which make up quasars and galaxies on one side of the sky are behaving in exactly the same way as the atoms that make up quasars and galaxies on the opposite side of the sky. But no information can travel through space faster than the speed of light. If something happened to change the way atoms work on one side of the sky, how quickly could the rest of the Universe respond? The boring answer is that there is probably no need to worry about this, because the laws of physics were specified (somehow) in the Big Bang, and cannot change.” – John Gribbin It’s bizarre that science even has to ask the question. Why should the laws of the Universe be different in different places rather than the same everywhere? Of course, in ontological mathematics, this is no issue. The whole Universe is defined by the God Equation, so that’s why the laws of the Universe are the same everywhere. Science subscribes to the bizarre notion that the speed of light – interpreted as if light “physically” moves through space (it doesn’t; it’s spaceless and timeless in the frequency domain) – provides the speed limit for information getting from one place to another. So, if one thing changes light years away from another thing, it would take the other thing years to know about ... and in that gap who knows what could go on? As ever with science, this is an infantile physicalist interpretation of reality. If science were ever to consider the situation from the perspective of light – from the frequency singularity perspective outside space and time –

none of these considerations apply. Everything is automatically connected to everything else because everything’s in a singularity. Science is trapped by its own dogmatic mindset, and invents problems that don’t exist. Gribbin tries to offer a quantum “explanation” involving wormholes for why everything is connected to everything else: “Quantum physics says that, just like everything else, space itself (or, strictly speaking, spacetime) cannot be continuous, but must have a grainy structure on the smallest scales. In this case, the appropriate scale is the Planck length, about 10-33 cm. The idea is that on this scale the structure of spacetime is made up of countless tiny ‘wormholes’ – tunnels through space and time with ends like miniature black holes. These wormholes would form a tangled mess, like cosmic spaghetti, which forms the structure of what looks to us a smooth and continuous time and space. “In this picture, the mouth of such a wormhole in our part of the Universe could be linked with a mouth anywhere else in the Universe. It is a curious feature of wormholes that, according to the general theory of relativity, it takes no time at all for anything to travel from one end to the other, no matter where the two ends are located. The mouths are vastly smaller than an atom ... so nothing material could get through them. But maybe information could leak through the wormholes from one part of the Universe to another, providing a means for different regions of spacetime to keep in touch with one another, and ensuring that the laws of physics in all parts of the Universe march to the beat of the same drum.” An interesting feature of science is that it doesn’t provide actual explanations of things but, rather, speculative explanations. They seem reasonably convincing – much more convincing than religious “explanations” – and thus people start to think of them as actual explanations. Science is full of these pseudo- and quasi-explanations that are taken to be genuine explanations, and are often stated as if they are factual rather than wild speculations. Darwinism is nothing but a materialist speculation, yet is treated as a definitive fact. The same goes for quantum physics and relativity theory. These theories can all be radically reinterpreted from the perspective of ontological mathematics. Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” With science, all “facts” are interpreted in a certain way, according to a certain paradigm,

a certain mindset, a certain philosophy. If that philosophy is false, which it is, so are all of the interpretations that flow from it. It’s no exaggeration to say that science doesn’t tell us anything at all about reality. It’s a Mythos – like religion. It’s just a set of philosophical interpretations that do not reflect the principle of sufficient reason. Science works as well as it does because of the mathematics it uses, not because of its set of materialist interpretations. Science, in fact, is science fiction.

***** “...the laws of physics were specified (somehow) in the Big Bang, and cannot change.” ... how? ... why? To what end? Science can give no sufficient reason for any of this. It can’t explain anything. That’s a fact.

Clothed White Holes If, at the Big Bang, monadic white holes first acted as unshielded, naked singularities then, as soon as spacetime was created, each would be surrounded by a spacetime event horizon, albeit on an incredibly small scale. Since white holes are the only “emitters”, they must be the source of everything in the physical universe: space, time, dark energy, matter and dark matter. Wikipedia says, “Dark matter is a kind of matter in astronomy and cosmology to account for gravitational effects that appear to be the result of invisible mass. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light. Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.” Expansion does not continue forever. The expansion reaches an end, which corresponds to the end of the spacetime universe. At that point, all that remains is the mental frequency Singularity. We have arrived at the Big Crunch, and we are ready for the next Big Bang. Like any sinusoidal wave, the universe just keeps repeating itself. It has a definite period, and there will come a time when humanity will calculate that period exactly.

Taoism The following diagram depicts the Taoist understanding of reality:

Isn’t this diagram redolent of black and white holes? It begins with a black hole Singularity of pure mind. The “first differentiation” involves the breaking of monadic symmetry and the generation of the first white hole, which triggers all of the other white holes. Taoism even introduces a dialectical process, involving yin and yang. What it lacks is a synthesis phase to add to the dialectic, allowing an inevitable ascent to higher and higher evolutionary states.

***** “Without contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate are necessary to human existence.” – William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

The Sine Wave

A sinusoidal wave, an oscillating harmonic system, is the ultimate yin and yang system. Every positive amplitude is matched by a negative amplitude. The whole system balances perfectly to zero. Yin and yang flow into each other ceaselessly.

White and Black Holes White holes stand for separation, disconnection, individuation, strife, conflict, entropy, anti-gravity, repulsion, hate. Black holes stand for integration, collectivism, community, love, attraction, gravity, negentropy, harmony, coherence. White and black holes are the essence of the cosmic dialectic. At the beginning of time, at the Big Bang, white holes separate from black holes. At the end of time, at the Big Crunch, all white holes return to their originating black holes. White holes are like the Gnostic souls that “fall” – that descend into the hell of the material world – but which are eventually redeemed and return to the collective monadic black hole. Despite the name, this is actually a domain of pure light. It’s black because it doesn’t allow any light to leave. The cosmic Black Hole is, ironically, the realm of pure Light!

Descartes Descartes performed one of the boldest moves in philosophy when he defined mind as unextended and mind as extended. Unfortunately, although he was on the right track, he inadvertently paved the way for the absurd quasi-religion of scientific materialism. The cult of science concluded that there was no such thing as the unextended: it was “nothing”. Scientists enthusiastically set about measuring things, and everything they measured belonged to the extended world of matter in spacetime. How could you

possibly apply mathematics and measurement to the “unextended”, assuming it even existed? The division Descartes should in fact have introduced was between immaterial, unextended frequencies outside space and time, and material, extended things in space and time. The mathematics of spacetime would apply to the material world, and the mathematics of frequency to the mental world. Scientists and mathematicians would have something mathematical to contemplate rather than the empty concept of “non-extension”. Everything comes down in the end to measurement. Science rejects everything it can’t measure. It can’t measure imaginary or complex numbers, so rejects them, and it can’t measure zero or infinity, so rejects those too. However, zero isn’t “nothing” at all. It’s a rich, immaterial, structured, frequency environment outside space and time – the world of mind. It’s hard to measure it in all of its richness, but it’s certainly not hard to understand and analyse in terms of mathematics. Everything in the end comes down to the terminating condition of existence – the world of zero and infinity – the world of the point, of the monad, of the singularity ... of the soul! The soul is the root of all, the necessary, immortal, indestructible base of existence.

Hyperspace Hyperspace: “A region cut off from the Universe as we know it, in which the ordinary laws of physics do not apply.” – John Gribbin Hyperspace is mind!

White Hole White hole: “Just as matter can collapse into a black hole singularity, so a singularity might pour matter outwards into the universe in the cosmic gusher of a white hole.” – John Gribbin Isn’t it time to start thinking of black and white holes in terms of minds? Why are scientists so afraid of minds? Science represents a pathology of mind whereby minds seek to deny their own existence. It’s reminiscent of Cotard’s Syndrome: “The Cotard delusion (also Cotard’s Syndrome and

Walking Corpse Syndrome) is a rare mental illness, in which the afflicted person holds the delusion that he or she is dead, either figuratively or literally; yet said delusion of negation is not a symptom essential to the syndrome proper. Statistical analysis of a hundred-patient cohort indicates that the denial of self-existence is a symptom present in 69 percent of the cases of Cotard’s syndrome; yet, paradoxically, 55 percent of the patients might present delusions of immortality.” – Wikipedia

The Confederacy of Dunces We said that light has the atomic number zero, to which JW replied, “A photon is a particle/wave, not an atom. That is why it is not found on the periodic table.” Er, wave-particle duality applies to everything, including atoms, and that’s why JW is a moron making a fool of himself on Facebook. JW is a Swedish Buddhist. Why does he feel qualified to talk about science, about which he clearly knows nothing? It’s amazing how stupid people feel so ready to post ignorant comments on Facebook. What do they think they’re accomplishing? Do they imagine that anyone cares about their uneducated opinions? Facebook has provided a platform for the greatest unleashing of idiocy in history, a tidal wave of cretinism, a tsunami of retardation. The people who fetch up on a site they know nothing about, regarding a subject about which they know nothing, yet make instant comments, are invariably the kind of arrogant, egotistical, bullying trolls who ruin this world. It’s essential to mock these people as much as possible to burst their narcissistic bubble.

***** SB said, “All things are done on the Order of Allah. All the powers we gain are from Allah.” Go and crawl back under your rock, SB. Do you see the problem we have? On one side against us, we have the dogmatic scientific materialist morons unable to open their eyes and think, unable to challenge dogmatism, and on the other side against us, we have the irrational religious nuts, and their even madder dogmatism.

The Perfection Paradox MS: Why would we even be here if the original were perfect? If it’s perfect it needs nothing else and wants for nothing else. If it needs or wants for something else, it is not perfect, a contradiction from the start.” Exactly! The fundamental, objective basis of existence must be perfect to prevent the universe being destroyed by its internal contradictions, instabilities, and imperfections, but the subjective basis of existence – how it experiences and understands itself – must be imperfect or otherwise there would be no change and no evolution. Change, evolution, teleology, the dialectic and Will to Power are all about achieving perfection, converting total potential into total actualisation.

Problem Solving “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” – Einstein This would mean that the Creator God wouldn’t be able to solve the problem of the world he himself created! In fact, any problem can be solved if you apply the correct ontology and epistemology. Every conceivable problem can be solved at the highest possible level of consciousness, i.e. God consciousness.

The Visser Effect Frank Visser is an internet commentator who started out as a convinced fan of spiritual guru Ken Wilber. However, when Wilber disowned him because he had strayed further and further from anything recognisably Wilberian, Visser embarked on what can only be described as a campaign to undermine Wilber. Visser loves nothing more than to use scientific materialist arguments to “debunk” Wilber (which is rather pointless since Wilber entirely rejects mainstream scientific materialism). Visser still plainly believes himself to be some sort of Wilberian, although, to any objective outsider, Visser is now a scientific materialist zealot who at all times privileges scientific materialist arguments and “explanations” over any others, and quotes scientists as though they are

great authorities on the nature of existence. Visser has failed to notice that he is now something entirely different from what he once purported to be. Given that he always uses scientific materialist arguments to bash Wilber, and never the reverse, he is now clearly an advocate of scientific materialism. It’s blatantly obvious to everyone except himself. We see the Visser Effect in relation to many people who once espoused an Illuminist stance. They are now more or less opposed to everything we stand for, yet still move in what we might call Illuminist circles, just as Visser hangs around the Wilberian world even though he long ago converted to extreme scientific materialism, without apparently noticing. Anyone who uncritically deploys scientific materialist arguments over and over again is manifestly a scientific materialist. Equally, anyone who continually endorses atheist sentiments has self-evidently become an atheist, regardless of what label they now disingenuously apply to themselves. If you are wholly convinced by scientific materialist and atheist arguments then go and join the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Daniel Dennett. They are the ones who reflect your views. Why are you calling yourself spiritual and Illuminist when you are in fact a materialist atheist? Stop living in bad faith. You can be an Illuminist only if you accept that everything is made of autonomous, uncreated, uncaused, ontological, self-determining mathematical monads that are influenced by the external world (which is itself the product of monads), but not determined by it. That, by definition, makes you anti-atheism and anti-scientific materialism. If you do not accept the definition of Illuminist, then, if you wish to avoid living in bad faith, you should leave behind Illuminism and go and find the religion, philosophy or science in which you can live in good faith.

Insight? We come across comments where people say, “You sometimes have good insights, but at other times you are completely wrong.” What these people mean, of course, is that we have “insight” when we agree with them and we are wrong, and have no insight, when we disagree with them. This, sadly, is the level at which most debate is conducted. That’s why ontological mathematics, reflecting the eternal truths of reason, is the only worthwhile subject. No one’s ridiculous opinions,

beliefs, interpretations and inflated self-delusions can get in the way. 1 + 1 = 2 is truer than all mystical “insight” put together!

Transhumanists We are transhumanists, in the sense that we say that humanity must be transcended by divinity. As Nietzsche said, “Man is something that shall be overcome. ... Man is a rope, tied between beast and superman – a rope over an abyss. ... What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.” Man is an intermediate stage ... a bridge to the gods. Humanists see humanity as an end in itself. It isn’t. Humanity is but a dialectal stage. Divinity is the end, the conclusion, the Omega Point of the dialectic. Humanists are just Christians who don’t believe in Christ. Their moral outlook and their basic sensibilities are identical to those of Christians.

***** Man must be surpassed: “I teach you the superman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?” – Nietzsche “Behold, I teach you the superman. The superman is the meaning of the earth.” – Nietzsche

***** Humanists are Last Men: “Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. “Behold, I show you the last man. “‘What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?’ thus asks the last man, and blinks. “The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.

“‘We have invented happiness,’ say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one’s neighbour and rubs against him, for one needs warmth... “One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion. “No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse. “‘Formerly, all the world was mad,’ say the most refined, and they blink... “One has one’s little pleasure for the day and one’s little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health. “‘We have invented happiness’, say the last men, and they blink.” – Nietzsche Humanists: the believers in mere happiness rather than in magnificence, glory, excellence and the sublime.

***** Humanists = Last Men. The Transhumanists, The Coming Race of Gods = Supermen.

Which Are You? We are the Faustians. Being human is not enough. We seek the infinite. We are the Prometheans. We will take from the gods whatever is necessary to make us gods. We are the Hyperboreans. Neither by land nor by sea shalt thou find us. “The higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.” – Nietzsche

***** Humanists are liberals. Faustians are radicals. Humanity is not enough. It can never be enough. Only divinity suffices. We must become the Divine

Race, not the human race.

***** Q. What does it mean to be human? A. “Unconditional Love and a sharing of our Divine Universal Oneness through Awareness, Acceptance, and Living this within Human Reality and Frailty.” – TSD WTF! Note how this answer is spectacularly emotional and contains no rational content and no knowledge. This is typical of how Mythos humans – the vast majority of humanity – “think”. Of course, it’s not thinking at all. This is the essence of the religious and spiritual mentality. It has no connection with Logos.

Ahead of Time “We know that the nature of genius is to provide idiots with ideas 20 years later.” – Louis Aragon It will take the circus a hundred years to catch up with Illuminism.

Lost “A battle is won by him who has firmly made up his mind to win it. Why did we lose the battle at Austerlitz? Our losses were almost equal to those of the French, but we very early said to ourselves that we had lost the battle, and so we had. And we said so because we had no business fighting there: we wanted to get away from the field of battle as soon as possible. ‘We have lost, so we ought to run!’ and we ran. If we had not said so until evening, God knows what would have happened. Tomorrow we will not say so. You say of our position that the left flank is weak, the right flank extended,’ he continued, ‘but that is all nonsense, – there is nothing of the kind. What awaits us tomorrow? One hundred million of the most varied eventualities that will be momentarily decided by their running away, or by the flight of our own men, by killing this one, or that one; but what is being done now is mere child’s play. The trouble is that not only those with whom you have examined the position, but others too, are not doing anything to

further the matter, but only retard it. They are occupied only with their own petty interests.” – Tolstoy “We lost because we told ourselves we lost.” – Tolstoy As Tolstoy tells us, we lose because we tell ourselves we will lose. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a state of mind.

Won “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles... if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperilled in every single battle.” – Sun Tzu “Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.” – Sun Tzu “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” – Sun Tzu “Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” – Sun Tzu “The expert in battle seeks his victory from strategic advantage and does not demand it from his men.” – Sun Tzu “And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him.” – Sun Tzu “Every battle is won before it’s ever fought.” – Sun Tzu

***** Tolstoy and Sun Tzu rightly say that battles are won and lost even before the first blow is stuck. If you think you will lose, you will lose. If you are sure of victory, and prepared for it properly, you will be victorious.

The Soul SOUL – Self-Organising Ultimate Life.

The Rainbow Body In Buddhism, the “rainbow body” is a body that is made of light, not of flesh. But a body made of light isn’t a body ... it’s a mind! Light has no mass, and does not occupy any space, and is not in time, so how can the Buddhists be right? This is the whole problem with belief systems such as Buddhism ... they are pure waffle. Yet they provide an imaginative Mythos that inspires many people, and thus ensnares them in error and delusion. Buddhism does not free the mind, it traps it. Buddhism does not enlighten, it endarkens. If Buddhism had anything truthful to say, its emphasis would be on attacking Mythos ... and promoting mathematics! But then there wouldn’t be any Buddhists. People love error, delusion, Mythos and endarkenment! That’s why the world is full of these things. People hate math, and that’s why the world is stupid.

Quantity and Quality Quantity = numbers. Quality = the arrangements and patterns of numbers, the beauty, elegance and harmony of these arrangements and patterns. The task of the dialectical mathematical universe is not to maximise quantity but, rather, quality. Its purpose is to create the most beautiful pattern possible, and this pattern is God! Science has a quantitative “understanding” of reality, and no qualitative understanding. A quantitative universe is meaningless, a qualitative universe nothing but meaning. Matter = quantity. Mind = quality. What is the most beautiful, elegant and harmonious universe possible? It’s the universe of pure light. In ancient Gnosticism, the Devil was the God of Matter, and the True God, the God of Light (Mind). The task of all souls

was to escape from the Dark World and return to the Light World (to transition from matter to mind, body to soul). What is the task of the dialectical mathematical universe? – to eliminate matter. What is the “expansion” of the universe? It’s the process of abolishing matter! Matter is what uglifies the universe and ruins symmetry. At the end of a Cosmic Age, the mathematical universe eradicates the scientific materialist universe – math kills science, using a lightsaber! The Mathematikoi are the Jedi, the scientists are the Sith. It has always been thus. Who are the Illuminati? We are those who, like the ancient Gnostics, seek to return to the light. We are the “Enlightened Ones”, the Army of Light ... the Light of Reason. We seek to vanquish “God” – the Demiurge, the Devil – the Creator of the material world. We are those who oppose the Darkness of Unreason. We seek to dispel Ignorance and Error. We are those who plot to “kill God” – the source of all Error and Ignorance – in a great Armageddon Conspiracy. We seek to bring an end to the endarkenment of matter. Who are the enemy? – all Creationists, all Abrahamists, all Karmists, and all scientific materialists ... everyone who supports the doctrine of matter, which the Gnostics defined as evil, reflecting its Satanic Creator, the False God = Jehovah/Christ/Allah. Any “Illuminist” who is a supporter of fanatical materialists such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking is no friend of the Illuminati. What is light? It’s pure free will, pure reason, pure intellect! It’s pure math. Math is the least understood thing of all. It is regarded as cold, austere, abstract and lifeless. It is in fact the quintessence of life, mind, energy, activity and action.

***** A universe without subjective souls is a universe without quality, without qualia. Such a universe is a purely quantitative, meaningless machine universe, of the type conceived by scientific materialists, who do nothing but measure. It’s said that capitalists know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Similarly, scientists know the size of everything and the worth of nothing.

Quality – subjectivity, meaning, mind, purpose, beauty, harmony, elegance – is the antidote to Quantity – objectivity, meaninglessness, matter, purposelessness. A universe without souls has no free will, no purpose, no meaning and is absolutely pointless. It’s impossible that we would be here at all if the universe were actually like that. We – the human race – are the proof that scientific materialism is false, and that people such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Sam Harris are wrong.

Our Saviour? Christians claim that Jesus Christ is our “Saviour”. But what did he save us from? Anyone who properly researches this question concludes that the only candidate is Jesus Christ himself. Jesus Christ saved us from the penalty that he himself imposed on us – which means he didn’t save us at all! Had there been no Jesus Christ in the first place, we would be in no need of saving!

The Unholy Language For Muslims, Arabic is God’s language because the Koran is written in Arabic. For Jews, God’s language is the one in which he wrote the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets. What was that language? Well, if the Jews, as recently freed slaves of Egypt, knew only Egyptian, and Moses – to whom the Commandments were personally given – was raised as an Egyptian prince, God’s language must be hieroglyphics, otherwise the Jews would have had no idea what was written on the tablets. Ta da! Who knew that everything in heaven is written in hieroglyphics?!

Classical versus Romantic “A classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying form itself. A romantic understanding sees it primarily in terms of immediate appearance. If you were to show an engine or a mechanical drawing or electronic schematic to a romantic it is unlikely he would see much of interest in it. It has no appeal because the reality he sees is its surface. Dull, complex lists of names, lines and numbers. Nothing interesting. But if you were to show the same blueprint or schematic or give the same description

to a classical person he might look at it and then become fascinated by it because he sees that within the lines and shapes and symbols is a tremendous richness of underlying form. “The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. ‘Art’ when it is opposed to ‘Science’ is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It proceeds by feeling, intuition and aesthetic conscience. In the northern European cultures the romantic mode is usually associated with femininity, but this is certainly not a necessary association. “The classic mode, by contrast, proceeds by reason and by laws ... which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behaviour. In the European cultures it is primarily a masculine mode and the fields of science, law and medicine are unattractive to women largely for this reason. Although motorcycle riding is romantic, motorcycle maintenance is purely classic. The dirt, the grease, the mastery of underlying form required all give it such a negative romantic appeal that women never go near it. “Although surface ugliness is often found in the classic mode of understanding it is not inherent in it. There is a classic aesthetic which romantics often miss because of its subtlety. The classic style is straightforward, unadorned, unemotional, economical and carefully proportioned. Its purpose is not to inspire emotionally, but to bring order out of chaos and make the unknown known. It is not an aesthetically free and natural style. It is aesthetically restrained. Everything is under control. Its value is measured in terms of the skill with which this control is maintained. “To a romantic this classic mode often appears dull, awkward and ugly, like mechanical maintenance itself. Everything is in terms of pieces and parts and components and relationships. Nothing is figured out until it’s run through the computer a dozen times. Everything’s got to be measured and proved. Oppressive. Heavy. Endlessly grey. The death force. “Within the classic mode, however, the romantic has some appearances of his own. Frivolous, irrational, erratic, untrustworthy, interested primarily in pleasure-seeking. Shallow. Of no substance. Often a parasite who cannot or will not carry his own weight. A real drag on society.” – Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance The vast majority of people are romantics. There are few classicals. In our classification, romantics are Mythos types while classicals are Logos types.

The irony is that scientists themselves are a perverse kind of romantic Mythos types rather than classical Logos types because – as empiricists, materialists and positivists – they see the world “primarily in terms of immediate appearance” rather than “primarily as underlying form itself”. It’s the metaphysicists and ontological mathematicians who look under the hood of reality, who study all of the blueprints and schematics. Scientists emphatically don’t. They actually deny that there is any ontological blueprint or schematic. They claim that things miraculously jump out of non-existence, like motorbikes creating themselves without any designer or design. They are shallow people, romantically entranced by appearances. They are totally sensory and anti-intellectual. They are opposed to reason and on the side of the irrational senses.

***** “The classic style is straightforward, unadorned, unemotional, economical and carefully proportioned.” ... the ultimate expression of the classic mode is mathematics, with no appearance at all. The ultimate expressions of the romantic mode are religion, art and entertainment. Science is a half-way house between classical and romantic since it’s obsessed with sensory appearance, and refuses to see that even appearance has an underlying blueprint (mathematics), with no appearance.

Intuitives and Sensors Intuitives focus on concepts. Sensors focus on experiences. Scientists are sensors. They are uninterested in concepts. That’s why they refuse to accept a rationalist conceptual basis of reality. They are pseudoscientists, not true scientists.

Gumption Trap “A gumption trap is an event or mindset that can cause a person to lose enthusiasm and become discouraged from starting or continuing a project. The word gumption denotes a combination of commonsense, shrewdness,

and a sense of initiative. Although the last of these traits is the primary victim of the ‘gumption trap,’ the first two suffer indirectly in that a reduction in initiative results in a reduction in constructive activity and therefore inhibits one’s development of the first two traits. The ‘trap’ portion of the term refers to the negative feedback loop that the event or mindset creates: That the reduction in the person’s enthusiasm and initiative decreases both the person’s likelihood of success in that project and the degree of success likely (thus doubly affecting the expected outcome of the person’s efforts). The usual result, whether a mere lack of success or instead an outright failure complete with embarrassment and loss of the resources initially invested, further discourages the person. “The specific term ‘gumption trap’ was coined by Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and the associated concept plays an important part in the practical application of his Metaphysics of Quality. Although Pirsig’s term has seen little use outside his work, the associated concept has received significant attention in mainstream psychology under the label ‘learned helplessness’ proposed by Martin Seligman. “Pirsig refers to two types of gumption traps: setbacks, which arise from external/’exogenous’ events, and hang-ups, which are the product of internal/’endogenous’ factors such as a poor fit between one’s psychological state and the requirements of a project.” – Wikipedia People who succeed are those who avoid the gumption trap, who aren’t discouraged or thwarted by setbacks and don’t suffer from hang-ups. The Illuminati are interested only in those who can sustain positivity, passion, dedication and commitment no matter what. Such people are extremely rare. As Winston Churchill said, “Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

The Gospel of Quality Quality = Value = Excellence. “The Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) is a theory of reality introduced in Robert Pirsig’s philosophical novel, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ... Equating [Quality] with the Tao, Pirsig postulates that Quality is the fundamental force in the universe stimulating everything from atoms to animals to evolve and incorporate ever greater levels of

Quality. According to the MOQ, everything (including ideas, and matter) is a product and a result of Quality.” – Wikipedia Science is an ideology without quality. It has only quantity (the measurable). Quality requires subjective agents – souls – and only ontological mathematics rationally provides these. The dialectic is about taking the universe from the condition of pure quantity (no quality; bare monads; unclear monads; maximum potential; matter; the unconscious) to pure quality (full, clear monads; maximum actualisation; mind; the conscious; divinity). Science could choose to regard evolution as a qualitative drive inherent in Nature. Instead, it sees evolution as purposeless, meaningless and pointless: nothing but blind natural selection operating on blind, random mutations. As ever, science seeks to nihilistically remove all meaning from existence because meaning, and quality, are incompatible with scientific materialism, which is devoid of all subject agents (souls). All evolutionary theories of existence – except that of scientific materialism (Darwinism) – involve a continuous increase in quality, whether it be in terms of excellence, virtue, intelligence, reason, consciousness, goodness, love, tranquillity, perfection or meaning. Leibniz, Hegel, Hartmann, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Pirsig, and all the pseudoscientists and gurus derided by science, have all posited a universe evolving towards an Absolute, an Omega Point, a nirvana, a heaven, a paradise, a conclusion, a final explanation, bliss, cosmic peace, universal love, a state of total enlightenment, “God”. Science has a vision of reality rather like that of Schopenhauer, the ultimate pessimist and nihilist. He believed in a wholly meaningless, purposeless, pointless universe, striving forever for no reason, seeking to achieve nothing at all, except to exist. Only a universe of autonomous souls driven to solve themselves can be a meaningful universe. That means a mathematical universe. What is the quintessence of any mathematical system? – to solve itself, to optimise itself, to perfect itself, to attain the most beautiful conceivable solution to itself! Mathematics is all about ontological beauty, expressed through symmetry. G H Hardy said, “The mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s or the poet’s, must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colours or the words must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in this world for ugly mathematics.”

***** “A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.” – G H Hardy “I am interested in mathematics only as a creative art.” – G H Hardy “Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician’s finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess play: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game.” – G H Hardy “Pure mathematics is on the whole distinctly more useful than applied. For what is useful above all is technique, and mathematical technique is taught mainly through pure mathematics.” – G H Hardy “In great mathematics there is a very high degree of unexpectedness, combined with inevitability and economy.” – G H Hardy “A science is said to be useful if its development tends to accentuate the existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the destruction of human life.” – G H Hardy “I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our ‘creations,’ are simply the notes of our observations.” – G H Hardy “Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten, because languages die and mathematical ideas do not. ‘Immortality’ may be a silly word, but probably a mathematician has the best chance of whatever it may mean.” – G H Hardy “The fact is that there are few more ‘popular’ subjects than mathematics. Most people have some appreciation of mathematics, just as most people can enjoy a pleasant tune; and there are probably more people really interested in mathematics than in music. Appearances may suggest the contrary, but there are easy explanations. Music can be used to stimulate mass emotion, while mathematics cannot; and musical incapacity is recognized (no doubt rightly) as mildly discreditable, whereas most people

are so frightened of the name of mathematics that they are ready, quite unaffectedly, to exaggerate their own mathematical stupidity.” – G H Hardy

***** Hardy made a crucial point when he said, “Pure mathematics is on the whole distinctly more useful than applied. For what is useful above all is technique...” The “technique” of science – applied mathematics – is its scientific method, involving matching Feynman guesses to experimental data, and interpreting the results in terms of the philosophy of empiricism and materialism. Such a technique is inherently incapable of generating any real truths. What it can certainly do is create simulacra and simulations of truth that fool the stupid. Only the techniques of pure, analytic mathematics can deliver authentic, unarguable truth. That’s a fact!

The Wrong Name Most of the people who refer to themselves as the “voice of reason” live very far from the shores of Reason (Hyperborea). Only great rationalists and mathematicians – such as Leibniz and Gödel – are entitled to refer to themselves using that epithet. People such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris aren’t the voice of reason. They are the voice of empiricism and materialism, and of the nihilism and atheism that flow directly from them. They have nothing to do with reason. In fact, they are formally irrationalist and anti-rationalist insofar as they are against reason as the ground of existence.

The Third Man “Who is the third who walks always beside you? When I count, there are only you and I together But when I look ahead up the white road There is always another one walking beside you Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded

I do not know whether a man or a woman — But who is that on the other side of you?” – T. S. Eliot, The Waste Land “The Third Man factor or Third Man syndrome refers to the reported situations where an unseen presence such as a ‘spirit’ provides comfort or support during traumatic experiences. Sir Ernest Shackleton in his book South, described his belief that an incorporeal being joined him and two others during the final leg of their journey. Shackleton wrote, ‘during that long and racking march of thirty-six hours over the unnamed mountains and glaciers of South Georgia, it seemed to me often that we were four, not three.’ His admission resulted in other survivors of extreme hardship coming forward and sharing similar experiences ... Some journalists have related this to the concept of a guardian angel or imaginary friend.” – Wikipedia The “Third Man” should really be the (n+1)th man (!), where n = the number of actual human beings present. If there are three people, as in Shackleton’s case, then the Third Man is actually a “Fourth Man.” If there’s only one person present then the Third Man must in fact be a Second Man! It’s all in the math! ... even the spooky shit!!!

The “Negatives” If you’re a negative person, take your negativity somewhere else. We don’t want your depression and gloom. You bring everyone down. Go and depress someone else. Instead of making negative remarks about Illuminism, why not fuck off somewhere else where you feel able to make positive remarks? You will instantly feel happier about yourself. You’ll never be fulfilled until you find your sacred cause in life. People who hang around criticising are sad, bad and mad.

The Real Gods It’s fitting that the Egyptians built their most famous tombs in the shape of the pyramid – an archetypal mathematical object. When they studied the

home of the gods, they used astronomy, a subject all about mathematics. The truth is that the real gods are the gods of mathematics.

Action versus Debate There are billions of Abrahamists, Karmists, New Agers, capitalists, and scientific materialists who serve the capitalists. How are we going to bring about a Star Trek society if, instead, of attacking our enemies, we simply argue and bicker amongst ourselves, debating how much bullshit can be squeezed onto the head of a pin? Here’s the lowdown. If you have doubts about Illuminism, fuck off! Go and find something that you don’t doubt. We don’t want your negativity, skepticism, cynicism and world-weariness. If you much prefer the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins to Illuminism, fuck off! Go and support them. That’s obviously the rational thing to do if you find them more convincing. We always said we weren’t a debating society, yet all we ever see are people pointlessly debating, and never actually doing anything. What are you trying to prove? What are you trying to achieve? Do you think Muslims debate the correctness of Islam, or Jews the correctness of Judaism, or Christians the correctness of Christianity, or capitalists the correctness of capitalism, or scientific materialists the correctness of scientific materialism? So why should we waste time debating the correctness of ontological mathematics? We have zero doubts about ontological mathematics. We might refine little details here and there, but the big picture is never going to change. So, if you’re here to doubt Illuminism, don’t bother. Go and do something else. Go and disagree with someone else. We’re not interested in the pointless people of the world who refuse to take action, who just prefer to puff themselves up and spread their toxic cynicism. Look around you at the Illuminist community (such as it is) on Facebook. Do you see all the complainers, the whiners, the moaners, the whingers, the doubters, the saboteurs? Do you seriously imagine that these people could ever accomplish anything with their lives? They’re failures and losers, trying to suck you into their nihilism, so that you can be as depressed and pointless as they are. They get off on ruining things, on

sucking energy out of others, of bringing their personal Waste Land to the world. Give us ten thousand Nietzsches and we’d conquer the world: “Whoever has overthrown an existing law of custom has always first been accounted a bad man: but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate gradually changed; history treats almost exclusively of these bad men who subsequently became good men!” – Nietzsche “Never yield to remorse, but at once tell yourself: remorse would simply mean adding to the first act of stupidity a second.” – Nietzsche “I fear animals regard man as a creature of their own kind which has in a highly dangerous fashion lost its healthy animal reason – as the mad animal, as the laughing animal, as the weeping animal, as the unhappy animal.” – Nietzsche “Active, successful natures act, not according to the dictum ‘know thyself,’ but as if there hovered before them the commandment: will a self and thou shalt become a self.” – Nietzsche (You need to be careful with “know thyself” because it can easily turn into analysis paralysis; you need to be careful with “willing a self” because you can easily create an Id monster.) “I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage.” – Nietzsche “To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled – because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.” – Nietzsche “Not necessity, not desire – no, the love of power is the demon of men. Let them have everything – health, food, a place to live, entertainment – they are and remain unhappy and low-spirited: for the demon waits and waits and will be satisfied.” – Nietzsche “[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant – not from any morality or immorality but because it is living

and because life simply is will to power... ‘Exploitation’... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life.” – Nietzsche “It is not things, but opinions about things that have absolutely no existence, which have so deranged mankind!” – Nietzsche “Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.” – Nietzsche “Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial.” – Nietzsche (Tell that to the Buddhists, Hindus and New Agers!) “He who cannot obey himself will be commanded. That is the nature of living creatures.” – Nietzsche (Domination and submission – the gospel of life.) “I know my fate. One day there will be associated with my name the recollection of something frightful – of a crisis like no other before on earth, of the profoundest collision of conscience, of a decision evoked against everything that until then had been believed in, demanded, sanctified. I am not a man. I am dynamite.” – Nietzsche

***** What are doubts? They are the excuses people give themselves so that they don’t have to act. What are “liberal instincts”? They are the excuses people give themselves so that they don’t have to take any tough decisions. People look for ways to be apathetic, lazy, weak, plagued with doubts, agnostic, skeptical. Why? Because then they won’t have to take action, and nothing is harder than actually doing something, and being judged for it. Go on, hide. You know you want to. Leave life to the living. Those who are alive do not doubt. They choose their sacred cause and then they give it everything. The rest of humanity – the Ignavi – do not count. They are beneath contempt. When they die, it’s as if they never existed. No one noticed them. They left no mark. The neutrals, the apathetic, never make a difference.

If you are full of doubts about Illuminism and want to debate, go and weigh someone else down with your emotional baggage and your refusal to act. Go and slow them down. Go and be their burden, not ours. Things get done by active people making them happen. Passive people never accomplish anything. If your greatest achievement in life is to go on Facebook and tell everyone about your doubts, reservations, and why you can’t choose any sacred cause, then what possible point does your life have? Who cares what you think? Illuminism must be about high-energy, active, determined, committed, talented, smart individuals doing amazing things. It must not be about doubts, bickering, debating, nit-picking, navel gazing, smoking pot and seeking enlightenment in a cannabis haze. What was the message of Buddha? – sit under a tree, do fuck all, and become a tree! What an utterly pointless person. We have to drive all pointless people out of our movement. They are the living dead. They can’t achieve anything, except the destruction of our movement through their absolute negativity that drains the energy from everything. If you have doubts, here’s a radical idea for you – keep them to your fucking self, and stop infecting the world with your nihilism. Maybe it’s not the world that has a problem, maybe it’s just you. We actually admire crazed Jihadists more than we do many of the liberal bores who attach themselves to Illuminism. At least the Jihadists chose something and took action on behalf of their choice – what a contrast with the feeble, pathetic, cyber “Illuminists”, the eternal debating society who never rise from their keyboards and have no impact at all on the world. It’s not about talking the talk, it’s about walking the walk. Do things. Make things happen. Achieve results. Accomplish great feats. Astound the world. The world is full of experts at moaning and groaning, belly aching, whinging, whining and self pity. What it lacks is people who can actually make a difference, who can rise above the herd and the flock and make a real impact. Never ask what everyone else is doing. Ask what you are doing. If you are doing something, you have the right to inquire about others. If not, shut your mouth. The lazy, the cowards, the inept, have no rights. They haven’t earned them.

But... We often get the following... “I like your ideas ... but ...” “I like meritocracy... but ...” You either like something or you don’t. You either propose it, or you oppose it. There’s no middle ground. There are no ifs and buts. When it comes to changing the world, there are only two choices: for it or against it, Yes or No. There’s no room for “but”. Anyone who uses “but” is acting in bad faith. Let’s get rid of these people. They are no use to man or beast. There’s no room for the neutrals, for the Ignavi. Choose! Commit! Everything is about action. That’s how you have a fulfilled life. What you should be saying is: “I like your ideas ... AND ...” “I like meritocracy... AND ...” Replace “but” by “and” – that’s the secret to having a constructive life. Say “yes” rather than “no”. Surround yourself with positive people. Get rid of every negative influence in your life.

Death Only reason proves that death is not the final act. According to the senses, according to empiricism and materialism, death must be final.

The Sins “There are two cardinal sins from which all others spring: Impatience and Laziness.” – Franz Kafka What are your sins?

The Get Poor Quick Scheme

“Truth is no road to fortune.” – Rousseau

The Charity Con Imagine charity events – charity telethons – without any celebrity hosts. Would anyone watch? Would the events raise any money? If not, then what people are actually contributing to during these big charity extravaganzas is the world of celebrity, not the world of charity. Would these superrich celebrities ever think of giving away all of their excess wealth to charity? You must be joking. What a bunch of hypocrites What a farce. The whole charity scam should be closed down. It’s just a vehicle for celebrity narcissism. As with everything else, the rich get richer and even more influential. The false consciousness of the masses grows ever falser.

The Half-Hearted Illuminism is a movement for radicals. It’s intolerable for radicals to encounter half-hearted, weak, soft liberals who want to be all things to all men and to hold two directly contradictory opinions and accept both (Orwellian doublethink). It’s amazing for us when we see self-styled “spiritual” people siding with materialist fundamentalists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. If you accept the opinions of these people, you cannot be religious or spiritual in any way (at least not with any integrity, consistency and rationality). Polarisation is the most effective means of separating the wheat from the chaff. Polarisation prevents people from sitting on the fence (like the pathetic Ignavi). It’s notable that INTJs are usually far more radical than INTPs. They are more committed to causes, plans, objectives, targets, getting things accomplished. Many INTPs live in a permanent haze of doubt, and are forever checking and rechecking, rarely getting anything done since they can never let go. They are the classic sufferers of “analysis paralysis”. They are the perfectionists who are rendered imperfect by that very obsession. Life is about making mistakes. The people who get things done have made plenty of them. The difference is that they learn from them and move on. They don’t stay stuck in the past. The road to perfection is paved with imperfection, the road to correctness paved with errors.

INTJs and INTPs are the “ideas” guys, but they are more akin to the interpreters of the world. The people more likely to effect actual changes in the world are ENTJs and ENTPs (the “action” guys), but these are also the guys most susceptible to the temptations of earthly power and wealth, hence are often closer to the dark side of the force. Where most INTJs and INTPs are Jedi, many ENTJs and ENTPs are lured into the hands of the Sith. However, ENTJs and ENTPs who remain loyal to the light side are vital to the success of the Jedi.

***** INTPs tend to lose sight of the big picture, getting bogged down in the detail. INTPs are prone to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, neurosis, anxiety, and ritualistic, procrastinating behaviour. You must decide, you must judge (J). Get to the point. Commit to action.

Roadblock People Are you one of the roadblock people, obstructing human progress? Most roadblock people delude themselves that they are the opposite – facilitators and expediters. Whatever you choose as your sacred cause in life, don’t start bitching about it, whining, whingeing and relentlessly contradicting it. That’s exactly how you become a roadblock rather than facilitator.

Expulsion RS: “I do have a question though. If it is as you said, that the Demiurge is the Creator, and that Matter is Evil, then how can you escape the controversy that we ought to stop existing on this Material Realm, while at the same time you need to start converting everyone to this idea that Matter is Evil? Are you not in disagreement with your own thoughts? Then, if so, how can you escape being a sex-reviling, genital-mutilating sect like the Skoptsy, or worse, a doomsday cult, for that matter?” Here we see a classic failure to understand Gnosticism. RS has obviously never heard of reincarnation. You cannot individually escape the material world until you have achieved gnosis, so suicide – a desperate attempt to escape material hell without having achieved gnosis – WON’T WORK. As

the Eagles said in Hotel California, “You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave.” Reincarnation will keep bringing you back. You do not have a choice about existing here, in this world. You ARE here. And you will leave only when you are able to do so, through being enlightened. Furthermore, many Gnostic groups practised Sin for Salvation and put enormous energy into sex. It’s ridiculous to say that one group of sexreviling, genital-mutilators was characteristic of the whole of Gnosticism. And why should Gnosticism be associated with a doomsday cult? Why shouldn’t Gnostics be those enlightened ones (Illuminati!) who defeat the Demiurge on his own material patch and convert matter from the dark side to the light side, able to support its own spiritual evolution? Isn’t that what the dialectic demands? Anyone can invent what they believe is the path to enlightenment – look at Buddhism, Hinduism and New Ageism. Anyone can invent what they believe is the path to Salvation – look at Abrahamism. But all of these religions are false and wrong. Only Illuminism is right, and it’s right because it’s based on ontological mathematics, the eternal truths of reason, and the principle of sufficient reason. It’s telling that RS addresses a non-mathematical point. Why doesn’t he make a remark about Euler’s Formula or Fourier transforms? To make our offering more palatable to the masses, we add Mythos elements and rhetoric to ontological mathematics, but if you can’t see where we’re using Mythos and rhetoric, you’re in REAL trouble! Our official stance is that of ontological mathematics, and absolutely nothing else. It’s ridiculous to raise silly little points about perceived contradictions in a Mythos (it’s even when worse when the apparent contradictions aren’t even present). Where’s your mind at, RS? Think BIG, think logically, think rationally, think mathematically.

***** You need to be really smart to be part of the Illuminist Movement. If you’re not, don’t bother joining. RS has gone out of his way to attack our position – to what end? His attack was absurd. What did he expect to achieve? He certainly wasn’t supporting our Movement or spreading its message. Quite the reverse, in fact. Well, just as the Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism and scientific materialism don’t let heretics flourish, neither do we. If we aren’t

as ruthless as our enemies, we will never defeat them. So, if you’re a heretic, fuck off! If you have doubts about Illuminism, fuck off and find something that you don’t have doubts about. We have contempt for most of the moronic questions that are sent to us, or are posted on Facebook pages. They’re an insult to our intelligence. Do you really believe you’re smarter than the likes of Leibniz and Hegel? We need to drive out from our movement all people who have got nothing better to do with their time than seek to undermine us and give themselves some sort of ego boost. As Nietzsche said, “As soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion!” As soon as you attack our position, or have any doubts about it, you are no longer part of the Illuminist Movement. You are of zero use to us. So, fuck off!

What is Needed? “I am the one who knocks.” – Heisenberg (Breaking Bad) In the hit TV series Breaking Bad, Walter White – a mild-mannered, liberal Last Man – undergoes a spectacular metamorphosis into “Heisenberg” – a radical, ruthless Superman. As Heisenberg, White discovers his true self, the self in which he is fully energised and “real”. He’s capable of astonishing feats that he would never have dreamt of as Walter White. What we need are Heisenbergs. Walter Whites can, and will, stay at home, listening to muzak and watching softsoap TV, dutifully doing their dreary, drone jobs every day.

***** “Life is a sum of all your choices. So, what are you doing today?” – Albert Camus

Going Full Jew “Tefillin also called phylacteries (from Ancient Greek phylacterion, form of phylássein, meaning ‘to guard, protect’) are a set of small black leather boxes containing scrolls of parchment inscribed with verses from the Torah,

which are worn by observant Jews during weekday morning prayers. Although ‘tefillin’ is technically the plural form (the singular being ‘tefillah’), it is loosely used as a singular as well. The arm-tefillin, or shel yad, is placed on the upper arm, and the strap wrapped around the arm, hand and fingers; while the head-tefillin, or shel rosh, is placed above the forehead. The Torah commands that they should be worn to serve as a ‘sign’ and ‘remembrance’ that God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt.” – Wikipedia Judaism and Islam area all about the total control of people’s appearance, habits, diet, relationships and time. It’s time to free the Jews from their Bondage to the Jewish God. It’s time for the New Exodus – the flight from Judaism! It’s time for the New Commandment – Kill Jehovah!

What is Science? “Who defines the question, who selects background information, who designs the experiment and under which boundary conditions, who analyses and interprets the results and draws the conclusions? Finally, who gets together to establish, often by consensus, what is right and what is wrong?” – Andreas Freund Who establishes the validity of the scientific method, the Feynman guesses upon which it is based, and the philosophy through which it is interpreted? The application of the method reflects the philosophy that produced it. The method is certainly not neutral or objective: it’s an integral part of the philosophy (of materialism and empiricism) that gave birth to it. The method is an extension of the philosophy. If the philosophy is wrong, so is the method. Who guards the guards? Who guards the integrity, consistency, philosophy and rationality of science? Who appointed them? In terms of revealing the secrets of ultimate reality to us, science has no legitimacy whatsoever. It is predicated on the “truth” of empiricism, materialism and the senses, but ultimate reality is all about rationalism, idealism and the intellect. Plato rightly said so thousands of years ago! Science is on the side of the senses, and mathematics on the side of the intellect. Which reveals ultimate reality to us – our irrational senses or our rational intellect? Everyone has senses. Precious few have a rational

intellect. Don’t look to the common herd for the Truth. Don’t look to common sense. Don’t look to the senses at all!

Map and Compass Map: a diagrammatic representation of an area. Compass: an instrument showing the direction of magnetic north. Every sensible person would want a map and a compass. But, if you could have only one, which would you choose? Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said, “We can’t give our children a map of the future, but we can give them a compass that will allow them to navigate tomorrow, the inner compass called character.” But what about the inner map called reason? Isn’t that to be cultivated? Reason builds a certain kind of character – an optimal character, while religion corrupts character, produces a false consciousness and gives people the kind of “moral compass” that results in suicide bombings, beheadings, holocausts, pogroms, inquisitions, jihads, crusades, persecutions, intolerance, fanatical faith, robotic behaviour, slavery, blind obedience, mindlessness, unreason, and so on. What kind of compass is that? – the Devil’s compass! Reason is our map and our compass. Reason is the force of God! The ancient Greeks understood exactly that.

***** A map is only useful if you can see where you are on it, or can work it out. You need a “you are here” function! You need to know where you are, in which direction you are travelling, and why (teleology). Science has no map (no formal ontology and epistemology), no way to show us where we are on the map, no compass to orient us, and no teleology to direct us. We are lost, adrift, in a meaningless, purposeless, pointless wasteland of total nihilism. Science is the gospel of pointlessness. It’s the annihilation of meaning and purpose, both of which inherently reflect mind (the formal existence of which is denied by science, who see “mind” purely as a material epiphenomenon). Ontological mathematics is the map and the compass. It tells us where we are, where we are going, and why. Religion and science are the best ways to lose yourself in the wilderness.

*****

“What matters most is not the knowledge we accumulate but the kind of person we become.” – Rabbi Jonathan Sacks On the contrary, the kind of person we become depends on the knowledge we accumulate, which is produced by our reason. Religious faith – especially that of Judaism, the source of the cancer of Abrahamism – is the worst possible basis of character.

The Goddess? “Durga, meaning ‘the inaccessible’ or ‘the invincible’, is the most popular incarnation of Devi and one of the main forms of the Goddess Shakti in the Hindu pantheon. Durga is the original manifested form of Mother AdiParashakti. Durga is Adi-Parashakti herself. The Devi Gita, declares her to be the greatest Goddess. Thus, she is considered the supreme goddess and primary deity in Shaktism, occupying a place similar to Lord Krishna in Vaishnavism. ... The four-day-long (Saptami to Dashami) Durga Puja is the biggest annual festival in Bengal, Assam, Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand and Nepal, where it is known as Dashain.” – Wikipedia In India, Big Business finances religious festivals. In Calcutta, temples are adorned with the logos of corporate sponsors. In some Hindu temples, statues of the Goddess Durga are bedecked in precious necklaces and earrings, supplied and sponsored by local jewellers. In one temple, the statue of the Goddess wears one million pounds of jewellery! The “Goddess” is now routinely sponsored by big commercial companies. One temple for the Durga Puja festival was constructed by India’s largest food company, and featured statues of the Goddess made of imitation biscuits (!), with the brand name visible everywhere. What next – will the Goddess be used in full-blown advertising campaigns selling snake oil and moonshine? Will she be adorned with billboards and corporate slogans? The Goddess, plainly, is good for business. What does that have to do with spirituality? It’s pure materialism and capitalism, and the height of cynicism. And to think that Hindus claim to be in pursuit of enlightenment! In your dreams!

***** It has been said that everyone gets the guru they deserve. That certainly applies to all followers of Eastern religion. There’s a sucker born every minute.

Anti-Libertarianism “When liberty is mentioned, we must always be careful to observe whether it is not really the assertion of private interests which is thereby designated.” – Hegel “He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means ‘I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve.’ It’s easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help.” – Isaac Asimov Asimov is right, but he misses an even more significant point. If society as a whole improves, we all improve, we all get better, smarter, have a better environment, have a better quality of life and meet higher-quality people. The most selfish person on earth should be opposed to libertarianism because the best possible world you can have is the one where you are optimised, and everyone else is too.

Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy theories are the form in which the old, decrepit religions of Abrahamism and Karmism have evolved. The most prominent conspiracy theorists are the modern equivalents of the prophets of old, and they are still spouting the same old Apocalyptic nonsense. The old myths and legends of religion have been embellished with a smattering of science, politics, economics, philosophy, science fiction (especially alien visitation, and inter-dimensional tele-transportation), Ayn Rand’s libertarianism, and popular movie culture, especially The Matrix, The Hunger Games, Divergence, V for Vendetta, and They Live. The “bad guys” – the alleged servants of the Devil – are usually depicted as communists, socialists, Jews, Freemasons, Jesuits, crony capitalists,

aristocrats, monarchs, “elites”, the European Union, the United Nations, and so on, and are all put together under the rubric of “Illuminati”. Most conspiracy theories are ferociously right wing and libertarian, and their main target is the government, which they wish to overthrow. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is the most prominent and absurd conspiracy theory of them all. 9/11 was carried out by maniacal Islamic Jihadists seeking martyrdom (and was merely one of countless Jihadist atrocities that continue to this day), yet this has been portrayed as a lethal attack on its own people by the American government. Why? In order to justify getting rid of the American government so that free markets and anarcho-capitalist libertarianism can rule American instead. There are no “innocent” conspiracy theories. All have a political agenda to promote, usually entailing the total triumph of American free-market capitalism, and the imposition of right-wing American values on the whole world. In other words, these conspiracy theorists are in the same game as Islamic Jihadists, but with the “Law” of Wall Street, Disneyland, Hollywood, Coca Cola, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter to be imposed on everyone, rather than Sharia Law.

Cunts “The British Army is posh cunts telling thick cunts to kill poor cunts.” – ‘71 (Director Yann Demangé)

The Return We have left the light and we must return to the light.

***** The universe is all about symmetry-breaking and symmetry-restoration: departure and return (with the sacred boon, the object of the quest).

Commit Engage. Choose. Commit. Who are you? It’s make-your-mind-up time. There’s no room in the world for the weak, the cowards and the neutrals who refuse to commit. A meaningful life is a committed life. Why do Muslim Jihadists love Islam so much? Because it demands that they

commit. When you commit to your sacred cause, your life is changed forever.

Atheists “We, however, want to become those we are – the new, unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their laws, those who create themselves.” – Nietzsche If you’re going to be an atheist, be a Nietzschean atheist. Fuck Richard Dawkins, fuck Stephen Hawking and fuck Sam Harris. Fucking retards. Did Nietzsche explain everything by reference to chance and chaos? Did he fuck? He invoked the Will to Power. And that’s just another name for the self-optimising, self-solving, ontological mathematical dialectic.

Ask Not Ask not what Illuminism can do for you. Ask what you can do for Illuminism. Just as you have to be worthy enough to find the Holy Grail, so you need to be worthy enough for Illuminism. Many are called. Few are chosen.

Moving On To all people who once liked Illuminism but are now plainly scientific materialist atheists, it’s time to make your commitment to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, et al. It’s time to remove all links with Illuminism. Thanks for every contribution you made to Illuminism. Now it’s time to move on to your chosen cause. We cannot make any progress when we are associated with people promoting fundamentalist materialism, the exact opposite of our rationalist idealism.

Criticism If you choose to carp at us, be aware that, if we see your remarks, there’s a reasonable chance we will quote your comments and carp at you ... in print. Consider it your “karma” – cause and effect, action and reaction. The best way to avoid this outcome is to be well mannered and keep your opinions about us to yourself. What could be more reasonable than that?

Bleed If you work at the cutting edge, you’re going to bleed.

The Self-Help Society “‘Heaven helps those who help themselves’ is a well-tried maxim, embodying in a small compass the results of vast human experience. The spirit of self-help is the root of all genuine growth in the individual; and, exhibited in the lives of many, it constitutes the true source of national vigour and strength.” – Samuel Smiles The Self-Help Society must mend the broken individual and achieve collective excellence. It must cure the citizen, and, through the citizen, the State. Self-help exhibited in the lives of everyone leads to national progress. That’s the classic view of self-help. However, self-help in today’s world is all about what you can get for yourself ... not what you can do for the good of society. It has become an industry of selfishness, egotism and narcissism. Self-help must be about creating Supermen, not Last Men: those who can change the world rather than those who just seek their own petty advantage. “A place for everything, and everything in its place.” – Samuel Smiles Ontological mathematics! The principle of sufficient reason. “Mere political reform will not cure the manifold evils which now afflict society. There requires a social reform, a domestic reform, an individual reform.” – Samuel Smiles True political reform – of the positive liberty kind – is an enabler of all of the above. “Heaven helps those who help themselves” – Samuel Smiles. If you’ve helped yourself, you don’t need heaven’s contribution! “Help from without is often enfeebling in its effects, but help from within invariably invigorates. Whatever is done for men or classes, to a certain extent takes away the stimulus and necessity of doing for themselves; and

where men are subjected to over-guidance and over-government, the inevitable tendency is to render them comparatively helpless.” – Samuel Smiles There’s no such thing as over-government as an intrinsic evil. Like everything else, there’s bad government and good government. Good government is the government that optimises every citizen, and that means a much higher level of government intervention in the design and operations of society. “No laws, however stringent, can make the idle industrious, the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober.” – Samuel Smiles Yes they can! People are all of these things because they haven’t lived in a properly governed society, designed to optimise them. No one inherently wants to be pathetic, apathetic, lazy and useless. They become that way because they have lost themselves, and that’s because they have been lost by society, by bad government and bad neighbours. “The greatest slave is not he who is ruled by a despot, great though that evil be, but he who is in the thrall of his own moral ignorance, selfishness, and vice.” – Samuel Smiles Self-ignorance is usually the direct product of collective ignorance, and most moral ignorance is manifested by people such as Samuel Smiles himself, who saw himself as a moral paragon but was in fact a typical selfish right-winger. “We learn wisdom from failure much more than from success. We often discover what will do, by finding out what will not do; and probably he who never made a mistake never made a discovery.” – Samuel Smiles Indeed. Always be prepared to make mistakes. “The crown and glory of life is Character. It is the noblest possession of a man, constituting a rank in itself, and an estate in the general goodwill; dignifying every station, and exalting every position in society. It exercises a greater power than wealth, and secures all the honour without the jealousies of fame. It carries with it an influence which always tells; for it is the result of proved honour, rectitude, and consistency – qualities which,

perhaps more than any other, command the general confidence and respect of mankind.” – Samuel Smiles The State should be entirely committed to producing citizens of the highest character, capable of making the maximum contribution. “Even happiness itself may become habitual. There is a habit of looking at the bright side of things, and also of looking at the dark side. Dr. Johnson has said that the habit of looking at the best side of a thing is worth more to a man than a thousand pounds a year. And we possess the power, to a great extent, of so exercising the will as to direct the thoughts upon objects calculated to yield happiness and improvement rather than their opposites.” – Samuel Smiles

***** “Sow a thought, and you reap an act; Sow an act, and you reap a habit; Sow a habit, and you reap a character; Sow a character, and you reap a destiny.” Quoted by Samuel Smiles

Your All? If you’re not giving it your all, why not? If you’re not imposing the highest standards on yourself then, ipso facto, you’re substandard.

Eugenics Eugenics does not have to be about a master race. It can be about a better race. It’s not a question of one race being superior to others, but, rather, all races being better. Who could possibly object?! Well, other than irrationalists, the politically correct and the people of faith – i.e. all the traditional brakes on human progress and evolution.

The Wisdom of Nietzsche “The most fearful and fundamental desire in man, his drive for power – this drive is called ‘freedom’ – must be held in check the longest. This is why ethics … has hitherto aimed at holding the desire for power in check: it disparages the tyrannical individual and with its glorification of social welfare and patriotism emphasizes the power-instinct of the herd.” – Nietzsche In that case, “ethics” obviously hasn’t worked: the world is self-evidently ruled by the 1% of psychopaths, and they haven’t been held in check at all. The so-called power-instinct of the herd has been expressed through slavishly serving and worshipping the super rich elite. “A society that definitely and instinctively gives up war and conquest is in decline: it is ripe for democracy and the rule of shopkeepers. In most cases, to be sure, assurances of peace are merely narcotics.” – Nietzsche Conflict is at the heart of the human condition, the heart of the dialectic. And capitalist democracy is indeed all about shopping (consumerism). “‘The will to power’ is so hated in democratic ages that their entire psychology seems directed toward belittling and defaming it.” – Nietzsche The whole point of political correctness is to annihilate the will to power ... in order to empower weak liberals! (You can never escape the power agenda!) “Democracy represents the disbelief in great human beings and an elite society: ‘Everyone is equal to everyone else.’ ‘At bottom we are one and all self-seeking cattle and mob.’” – Nietzsche Meritocracy is about giving everyone an equal chance to unequally shine. “European democracy represents a release of forces only to a very small degree. It is above all a release of laziness, of weariness, of weakness.” – Nietzsche Global democracy is all about feeble Last Men.

“Another Christian concept, no less crazy, has passed even more deeply into the tissue of modernity: the concept of the ‘equality of souls before God.’ This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights: mankind was first taught to stammer the proposition of equality in a religious context, and only later was it made into morality: no wonder that man ended by taking it seriously, taking it practically! – that is to say, politically, democratically, socialistically, in the spirit of the pessimism of indignation.” – Nietzsche Equal opportunities; unequal outcomes. Merit will triumph. “In the age of suffrage universel, i.e., when everyone may sit in judgment on everyone and everything, I feel impelled to re-establish order of rank.” – Nietzsche Meritocracy re-establishes order of rank. “I distinguish between a type of ascending life and another type of decay, disintegration, weakness. Is it credible that the question of the relative rank of these two types still needs to be posed?” – Nietzsche We are everywhere surrounded by decline, weariness, degeneration, exhaustion, by descending life. Where are the forces of ascent? What side are you on? “What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice.” – Nietzsche We must optimise everyone’s quantum of power. We must eradicate cowardice and weakness. “A doctrine is needed powerful enough to work as a breeding agent: strengthening the strong, paralyzing and destructive for the world-weary.” – Nietzsche Ontological mathematics and Illuminism can achieve exactly that. “The root of all evil: that the slavish morality of meekness, chastity, selflessness, absolute obedience, has triumphed – ruling natures were thus condemned (1) to hypocrisy, (2) to torments of conscience –creative natures felt like rebels against God, uncertain and inhibited by eternal values.” – Nietzsche

Eternal values do not imprison us, they free us! Provided they are not furnished by any “Creator”. Provided they are rational and mathematical. “In summa: the best things have been slandered because the weak or the immoderate swine have cast a bad light on them – and the best men have remained hidden – and have often misunderstood themselves.” – Nietzsche The world has conspired against the most meritocratic, and shunned them at every turn. The only strong people it has welcomed are the psychopaths! “The degeneration of the rulers and the ruling classes has been the cause of the greatest mischief in history! Without the Roman Caesars and Roman society, the insanity of Christianity would never have come to power.” – Nietzsche All mainstream religions are degenerate. “When lesser men begin to doubt whether higher men exist, then the danger is great! And one ends by discovering that there is virtue also among the lowly and subjugated, the poor in spirit, and that before God men are equal – which has so far been the . . . [height] of nonsense on earth! For ultimately, the higher men measured themselves according to the standard of virtue of slaves – found they were ‘proud,’ etc., found all their higher qualities reprehensible.” – Nietzsche The psychopaths didn’t feel this way. They seized on Christianity as the ideal way to feast on the sheep. Turn the other cheek! Mmmmm. “I teach: that there are higher and lower men, and that a single individual can under certain circumstances justify the existence of whole millennia – that is, a full, rich, great, whole human being in relation to countless incomplete fragmentary men.” – Nietzsche World-historic figures are humanity’s greatest natural resource. They are one in a billion. The incomplete, fragmentary men are everywhere. “The highest men live beyond the rulers, freed from all bonds; and in the rulers they have their instruments.” – Nietzsche If only that were so! “Order of rank: He who determines values and directs the will of millennia by giving direction to the highest natures is the highest man.” – Nietzsche

Tragically, many of the worst human beings – psychopaths – have given direction to the lowest natures. “Not ‘mankind’ but superman is the goal!” – Nietzsche But the more supermen we can produce, the better humanity will be. “This world is the will to power – and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power – and nothing besides!” – Nietzsche It’s all about power! “The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so.” – Nietzsche This is a statement of pure radicalism; pure illiberalism. “What is more harmful than any vice? – Active sympathy for the illconstituted and weak – Christianity.” – Nietzsche All systems should be about maximising strength, not weakness. “The problem I raise here is not what ought to succeed mankind in the sequence of species (– the human being is an end –): but what type of human being one ought to breed, ought to will, as more valuable, more worthy of life, more certain of the future.” – Nietzsche One ought to breed the Superman! “This more valuable type has existed often enough already: but as a lucky accident, as an exception, never as willed. He has rather been the most feared, he has hitherto been virtually the thing to be feared –and out of fear the reverse type has been willed, bred, achieved: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick animal man – the Christian.” – Nietzsche The ANTI-MAN, the LAST MAN ... the Christian, the Abrahamist. “Christianity is called the religion of pity. – Pity stands in antithesis to the tonic emotions which enhance the energy of the feeling of life: it has a depressive effect. One loses force when one pities...” – Nietzsche Exactly. We must abolish the depressive culture of pity. “In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. Nothing but imaginary causes (‘God,’ ‘soul,’ ‘ego,’ ‘spirit,’

‘free will’ – or ‘unfree will’): nothing but imaginary effects (‘sin,’ ‘redemption,’ ‘grace,’ ‘punishment,’ ‘forgiveness of sins’).” – Nietzsche The one thing mainstream religions never encounter is the truth. “The Christian conception of God – God as God of the sick, God as spider, God as spirit – is one of the most corrupt conceptions of God arrived at on earth: perhaps it even represents the low-water mark in the descending development of the God type. God degenerated to the contradiction of life, instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yes! In God a declaration of hostility towards life, nature, the will to life! God the formula for every calumny of ‘this world,’ for every lie about ‘the next world’! In God, nothingness deified, the will to nothingness sanctified!” – Nietzsche The concept of the Creator God is the most pernicious in human history. Nothing has done more damage to the human psyche than monotheism, born, most especially, of the Jews. As for modern science, it has now become “nothingness deified, the will to nothingness sanctified”. It is a force of unadulterated nihilism. “In Christianity the instincts of the subjugated and oppressed come into the foreground: it is the lowest classes which seek their salvation in it.” – Nietzsche It’s the lowest classes that kneel and pray to Jesus Christ, and call him “Lord”, “God”, “Master” and “Saviour”. “The poison of the doctrine ‘equal rights for all’ – this has been more thoroughly sowed by Christianity than by anything else; from the most secret recesses of base instincts, Christianity has waged a war to the death against every feeling of reverence and distance between man and man, against, that is, the precondition of every elevation, every increase in culture – it has forged out of the [resentment] of the masses its chief weapon against us, against everything noble, joyful, high-spirited on earth, against our happiness on earth…. ‘Immortality’ granted to every Peter and Paul has been the greatest and most malicious outrage on noble mankind ever committed. –And let us not underestimate the fatality that has crept out of Christianity even into politics! No one any longer possesses today the courage to claim special privileges or the right to rule, the courage to feel a sense of reverence towards himself and towards his equals – the courage for

a pathos of distance. ... Our politics is morbid from this lack of courage! – The aristocratic outlook has been undermined most deeply by the lie of equality of souls; and if the belief in the ‘prerogative of the majority’ makes revolutions and will continue to make them – it is Christianity, let there be no doubt about it, Christian value judgment which translates every revolution into mere blood and crime! Christianity is a revolt of everything that crawls along the ground directed against that which is elevated: the Gospel of the ‘lowly’ makes low.” Only high philosophies make high. No philosophy is higher than Illuminism, which is about making everyone God. No philosophy is lower than Abrahamism, which makes everyone the slave of God. Nietzsche was labelled as an advocate of “aristocratic radicalism”. Today, that would be called “meritocratic radicalism”. “One should not embellish or dress up Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has excommunicated all the fundamental instincts of this type, it has distilled evil, the Evil One, out of these instincts – the strong human being as the type of reprehensibility, as the ‘outcast.’ Christianity has taken the side of everything weak, base, illconstituted, it has made an ideal out of opposition to the preservative instincts of strong life; it has depraved the reason even of the intellectually strongest natures by teaching men to feel the supreme values of intellectuality as sinful, as misleading, as temptations. The most deplorable example: the depraving of Pascal,’ who believed his reason had been depraved by original sin while it had only been depraved by his Christianity!” – Nietzsche When it comes to science, reason is depraved by the senses!

The Rich Man’s Party Every nation has a right-wing party for the wealthy. Given that only a small proportion of any nation is wealthy, it’s astounding that the wealthy parties are so successful. The reason for their success is that many poor people are convinced that they will be wealthy one day. In other words, most of the supporters of wealthy parties are deluded, poor fantasists living in a world of make-believe.

The Invisible Hand The markets are the “invisible hand” of the visible rich!

Green Light and Red Light People Green Light Man – a member of the wealthy, privileged elite – finds that every traffic light is green for him, every door opens for him, everyone says Yes to him. He encounters no barriers or obstacles in his life. His progress is smooth and effortless. The super rich, the people of privilege, permanently inhabit the Green Light World. In the game of Snakes and Ladders for the rich, there are only ladders and no snakes. They are always going UP! They are always ascending to heaven (rich man’s paradise). The rest of the world comprises Red Light People – the poor and unprivileged. They are always stopped at traffic lights, doors are always slammed in their faces, everyone always says “No” to them. In Snakes and Ladders for these people, there are only snakes and never any ladders. They are always descending, falling, plunging, collapsing. They are always going down into the deadly snake pit, into hell itself.

The Reward Rewards come in all types. The removal of fear is a reward. Religion is a reward because it removes the fear of death, but it introduces a new fear: fear of hell. It then offers itself as the cure for this too. You control people by promising rewards for cooperation, and punishment for non-cooperation. That’s how religion works. That’s how capitalism works. Capitalism is economic Abrahamism, promising heaven to the rich and hell to the poor. In Hindu terms, the dynastic capitalist elites of inherited wealth are the High Caste, being rewarded for their previous lives of karmic virtue. Everyone else is Low Caste, or belongs to the Untouchables (the Under Caste, the outcasts).

Trust Anyone who is too enthusiastic too quickly about something can never be trusted. Easy come, easy go. Enthusiasm is ephemeral. It can vanish as

quickly as it appeared. It has no substance.

Deadheads? “Most annuals and many perennials will continue to bloom throughout the growing season if deadheaded. Deadheading is the gardening term used for the removal of faded or dead flowers from plants. Deadheading is generally done in order to maintain both a plant’s appearance and to improve its overall performance. “Deadheading is an important task to keep up with in the garden throughout the growing season. Most flowers lose their attraction as they fade, spoiling the overall appearance of a garden or individual plants. As flowers shed their petals and begin to form seedheads, energy is focused into the development of the seeds, rather than the flowers. Regular deadheading, however, keeps this energy on the flowers, resulting in healthier plants and continued bloom. Snapping or cutting dead flower heads can enhance the flowering performance of many perennials. “If you’re like most gardeners, deadheading may feel like a tedious, never-ending garden chore, but the new blooms spawned from this task can make the extra effort well worth it.” – http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/info/deadheading-flowers.htm

The Illuminist movement needs deadheading. Many flowers that once shone brightly are now withered and faded. All energy, enthusiasm, passion and commitment have vanished from them. If anything, they now pour negative energy into the Illuminist garden. They are turning into weeds. They are making the garden die rather than grow. In the world of Ken Wilber, Frank Visser has become a fungus, a parasite, a weed infestation, a blight – whatever you want to call it – and does nothing but sabotage Wilber’s work, work that he once claimed changed his life and was the most important thing in his life. So it goes. If you simply can’t muster any enthusiasm for Illuminism any more, if you can’t help its growth, you should deadhead yourself and go and plant yourself in a new garden where you can grow and flourish again. There’s nothing worse than people such as Visser: people who once made the garden beautiful but are now responsible for it being an unsightly mess, a painful eyesore. Visser should leave Wilber’s garden, and all Visser-

equivalents should leave Illuminism. There’s no point on hanging around for “old time’s sake.” Life is about energy, about being able to pour your passion into things you love. You should bale out when you can no longer summon any energy. You have become a zombie, one of the undead, going through the motions just because you can’t think of anything else to do. Always maintain high energy. Always go to where you can be energetic, in the growth phase. If Illuminism is raising too many doubts for you, the answer is simple: leave. There’s nothing worse than people living in bad faith ... people who have rejected something but refuse to go away. As soon as you feel your interest in Illuminism waning, as soon as you feel your enthusiasm ebbing way, as soon as you become bored, or disillusioned, or full of doubts, or it’s not what you expected or hoped it would be, the rational thing is to take your leave of it and go and do something else. That’s true of everything in life: partners, jobs, careers, relationships, friendships, hobbies, religions, political parties, and so on. Always keep your energy and enthusiasm high. That’s why it’s so vital to find your sacred cause, the thing that motivates you above all other things. Once you have found that – as all members of the Illuminati Order have – then you have got it made. Your life is full of meaning and purpose, and your energy is always as high as it can possibly be. You are a passionate, fulfilled human being. Most people go around as functionaries, drones, drudges and zombies, barely living at all, never finding what makes them tick. The Illuminati is slow to recruit new members. The only “fast” recruits are manifest geniuses, or people with some exceptional insight, or have some notable intuition about the Holy Grail. The reason for taking time – a lot of time – is simple ... many people become highly enthusiastic about Illuminism when they first encounter it, but, after a time, it becomes “normalised”, and then they start returning to their video games, or social networking, or internet cartoons, or videos of cats, or of dogs walking on two legs, or of screaming goats, or they turn to Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Abrahamism, conspiracy theories, scientific materialism, anarchism, skepticism, libertarianism, and so on. Those, self-evidently, are not the kind of people who would ever be recruited. If you can’t be enthused by Illuminism, and stay enthused by it, don’t bother with it at all. Move on. Find something else. Never forget that the

Ignavi – the despicable nobodies who stay neutral and never commit themselves to any cause – are those who are rejected by heaven and hell alike. They are the most shunned non-entities in existence. What is your sacred cause? Do you even have one? Or, like most people, all Last Men, is your only cause yourself?

***** Deadhead yourself and move to a new garden where you can flourish once more, or reinvent yourself in the Illuminist garden. You should always be growing and shining, never withering and dying.

When Enthusiasm Has Died “I’ve lost the faculty for making positive decisions. I can only make negative decisions.” – Gödel Once you turn against a system, you can only have negative opinions towards it. Once you have lost your positive energy, your energy is entirely negative.

The Reign of Psychopaths One of the most remarkable movements in human history is Any Rand’s libertarianism since she was the only person to seek to portray absolute selfishness – absolute commitment to self-interest, to greed and ruthlessness – as noble, holy and sacred. She made fanatical individualism into a quasireligion. A certain type of person loved her for it. Who are the natural Randroids? They are the psychopaths and sociopaths – exactly the people who run the world (in their own interests)!

The Police Police officers are the lackeys of the elite. They are class traitors and oppressors of the people. There’s simply no such things as a good police officer. None of them deserves any respect. You don’t join the police unless

you’re fundamentally conservative, pro-establishment, and willing to do anything to preserve the establishment. For any “Illuminist” to support the police in any capacity would mean they were not Illuminists at all. The police force must become a police service and be entirely accountable to the people, and not to the government and the establishment. The police, the proper police, is there to protect the people, not to defend the elite against the people.

The Previous Believers People who have had a strong belief in something else, then arrived at Illuminism, are unlikely to stay. They fell out of love with the previous thing, and they will certainly do the same with Illuminism – because they’re that kind of person. They will just go from one thing to another until they are swallowed by nihilism. They will almost certainly end up as atheists and scientific materialist skeptics ... the end of the line for all those who started as “believers”. If you can’t sustain belief in one thing, you’ll never sustain belief in anything. Whatever caused you to lose belief in one thing will apply to the next thing too. That’s why “believers” never stay with Illuminism. Illuminism is about the principle of sufficient reason, and has nothing to do with faith, feelings, the senses, skepticism, atheism and nihilism. Illuminism is about provable knowledge – provable by reason and mathematics, not by anything else (all of which we dismiss as mere interpretation, opinion and belief). Only mathematical knowledge has the character of provability.

***** We are not interested in doubt, fear, weakness, faith, emotionalism, skepticism, nihilism, empiricism, materialism, atheism. Like Plato, we are interested only in absolute knowledge. Eternal, immutable, mathematical Form is the only conceivable knowledge that’s infallible, incontestable, and absolute. Thankfully, it explains everything without a scintilla of doubt (if you have any doubts, it’s because you haven’t understood ontological mathematics, and you’re not smart enough for ontological mathematics). As

for the rest, Nietzsche is unarguably right: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” We hear many people rubbishing ontological mathematics and claiming that no one can know anything until they reach “the other side” (what “other side”? – how do you know it exists if you claim that you don’t know it exists until you’re “there”?!), or they say that there are all sorts of layers within layers, and Euler’s Formula is nowhere near the foundational level. Really? Well go ahead and prove it. To refer to mystical “other layers” is pure speculation and fantasy. It has no connection with knowledge. The truth is that people have absolutely no idea what knowledge is and keep getting it mixed up with their own ridiculous beliefs, opinions, conjectures, hypotheses, fantasies, interpretations, experiences, feelings, desires, sensations, hopes, fears, irrationality, weakness, what they heard down the pub, and so on. The Truth is not democratic. If you don’t understand that the principle of sufficient reason (manifested through ontological mathematics) explains everything then that’s simply because you’re not rational enough. In this circumstance, you will definitely reject Illuminism and turn to faith, empiricism or mysticism. That’s the way the irrational mind works! If you think you can prove us wrong, there’s no point blabbering on about your beliefs, opinions, feelings, experiences or mystical intuitions. We reject all of that as total subjective nonsense, and you embarrass yourself even by mentioning it in the context of a hyperrationalist system such as ontological mathematics. Reason is the only thing we take seriously in terms of provable knowledge, and if you’re not rational, we don’t take you seriously. Soz!

***** GC: “Whatever needs understanding must be interpreted within a greater context.” JP: “Well there is then a final and ultimate context... that of the substance of existence itself... you can’t go further than that. We are reality, and can be neither greater nor less than reality, hence reality must comprehend itself. If reality can’t comprehend itself...well, why discuss it then? You would also need to prove that premise but to prove it would require comprehending

reality... but that was supposed to be impossible. Hence we can understand reality as reality. There is no higher context.” Exactly so. GC’s position amounts to infinite regress, which renders existence formally unknowable (by anyone) and totally inexplicable, in which case all “knowledge” is fraudulent, pointless, meaningless, futile and worthless.

***** GC: “It is just that sometimes in a discussion it seems to me to be useful to state what seems to some to be blindingly obvious. We can get so caught up in our abstractions that we forget the simple. In this case, I would say that our maps are subjective tools to help us navigate ourselves through a world that is many levels of organisation away from the pure simplicity of the Euler identity. “We tend to leave ourselves out of the equation, and talk as though we can be objective about levels of abstraction that are far removed from the level of organisation that we are at.” We can be objective about noumenal reality, and it’s not many steps removed at all. In fact, it’s simply the other side of the coin from the empiricist phenomenalism in which most people are helplessly stuck because they refuse to consider what reason actually is ontologically, and how reason is possible at all. Why do we have intellects? How do we have intellects? Why aren’t we just subjective, instinctive animals, or programmed machines without free will? Who needs intellect, who needs reason – if they are not in fact connected to the true essence of existence? Many people are afraid of knowledge. They are afraid of knowing everything that’s provably knowable. They are afraid of declaring that they know everything. It seems so arrogant, so presumptuous, so hubristic. Yet it’s none of those things. It’s just absolute confidence in the power of objective reason. As Gödel said, “Every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err.” This is a fundamentally correct statement. Pure reason simply cannot err. Only corrupted reason errs. Once you agree with Gödel, everything else follows (and Gödel was simply agreeing with his hero Leibniz, the greatest genius of all time and

the man who made the principle of sufficient reason his own).

Fairies You would be locked up if you said that you believed in visible fairies at the bottom of your garden. However, if you say that you believe in a giant, invisible fairy – a Super Fairy – that lives in the sky, everyone pats you on the back ... provided you call the Super Fairy “God”. If you actually called it a Super Fairy, you’d be locked up. Names are very important! Concepts are not. The same concept can have two names, one totally acceptable and one totally unacceptable. That shows how irrational humanity is.

***** Just as one concept can have two different names, so two concepts can have one name. The Abrahamic “God” is clearly two different concepts – good and evil – rolled into one. Jehovah and Allah are plainly as much Devil as God, yet that’s what people want from their deities. Imagine that Jesus Christ was not linked to his “father” Jehovah, and was a purely standalone God. Imagine that all we knew about Jesus Christ was that he preached love, peace, compassion, forgiveness of enemies, and was crucified by his enemies. How many people would be Christians if there was absolutely no threat from Jesus Christ – if he didn’t brand anyone with Original Sin, if he didn’t judge and condemn anyone, if he didn’t require anyone to believe in him, if he didn’t send anyone to hell, and simply loved and forgave everyone? If it didn’t matter whether or not you were Christian, i.e. if Christ welcomed you into heaven whether or not you believed in him, and whether or not you were good or evil, would anyone other than drugged-out hippies be Christians? Religious types actually want “God” to be monstrous and cruel ... towards his enemies (which usually translates as the enemies of those who fanatically believe in him). That is, they want God to be the Devil – a psychopathic sadist who inflicts nothing but torture and infinite and eternal pain – on all who defy him. But “God” is not allowed to be those things, so these things are outsourced to a second being – Satan – who, bizarrely, is said to oppose God yet also does all of God’s dirty work for him, i.e. the

Devil punishes you even though it’s God you offended and disobeyed (not the Devil!). Incredibly, the Devil is said to punish his own followers (those who, like him, defied God), and not those who defied him and followed God instead. There’s nothing weirder and less rational than the core set-up of Abrahamism. If you worship God, he admits you to heaven. If you worship Satan, Satan tortures you in hell, on behalf of God (!), who judged you and sent you to Satan. WTF! Abrahamism would be totally different if it contained any logic: if the Devil lavishly rewarded those who rejected God, and horrifically punished those who didn’t. No one would be an Abrahamist if “God” could offer no protection from the Devil. And no one would be an Abrahamist if “God” was the person who personally tortured those who rejected him. So, Abrahamism came up with this psychologically ingenious scheme: God lavishly rewards you if you believe in him (he grants you paradise), but God never punishes or tortures anyone, so, if you reject or defy God, he hands you over to the Devil and he’s the one that punishes you, in inconceivably cruel ways. But where’s the Devil’s motivation in any of this? What’s in it for him? Why is he doing the dirty work of his greatest enemy? Clearly, the “Devil” makes sense only if he’s God’s alter ego, God’s Shadow, God’s Id (rather than Super Ego). If you obey God’s rules, you encounter his benevolent Self, but, if you disobey him, you are shown his malevolent Self (the Devil). It’s not the Devil – the enemy of God – who punishes those who sin against God, it’s the Devil as the wounded, vengeful, cruel, hateful Shadow component of God’s psyche that does the punishment. The Devil is part of God, not separate from God. This was unacceptable to Abrahamists, so he was projected as a separate being. You would have to be spectacularly irrational to fail to understand that the Abrahamic God and Devil are one and the same person. Just consider your own nature. You “love” the people who are nice to you, and you “hate” the people who aren’t. If you could, you would greatly reward your friends, and just as greatly punish your enemies. So it is with God ... as above, so below. The “Devil” is simply the mask God dons when he’s in the presence of those who defied him. That’s why he does God’s bidding without question.

God doesn’t send sinners to a second being called the Devil, he sends them to a second part of his own psyche, the part that tortures his enemies. Once you realise this, Abrahamism makes perfect sense – as a psychological phenomenon, as a projection of the human mind (which it perfectly reflects: God = our Superego; the Devil = our Id; Man = our Ego, poised between God and Devil).

The Jew Jesus Christ (true name = rabbi Yehoshua be Yosef) was a nasty, fanatical Jewish nationalist. Want the evidence? Consider the following: 1) “Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demonpossession.’ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.’ The woman came and knelt before him. ‘Lord, help me!’ she said. He replied, ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ she said, ‘but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ Then Jesus answered, ‘Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.’ And her daughter was healed from that very hour.” – Matthew 15:22–28 2) “Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. ‘First let the children eat all they want,’ he told her, ‘for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ she replied, ‘but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’ Then he told her, ‘For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.’ – Mark 7:24–29 It’s stated unambiguously that Jesus Christ came purely for the Jews (and not Christians!): “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” It is also unambiguously stated that he regarded non-Jews as dogs, which should get only what remains after the Jews have gorged: “First let the children [the

Jews] eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs [the Gentiles; the goyim].” What a vile man. It beggars belief that anyone could be a worshipper of such a monster. If he lived now, Jesus Christ would be a Zionist extremist and terrorist, just as he was in his own day, of course, if you understand the real story of this Jewish fanatic. Jesus Christ, claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, king and prophet all rolled into one, launched an armed insurrection against the Roman authorities in Jerusalem at the Passover festival (when Jews experience religious mania) and was duly crushed and crucified by the marvellous Romans, who then mocked him as the “king of the Jews”. His desperate followers simply changed his Mythos to that of a pacifist (since how could they present him as a great military leader when he’d been utterly routed?). It was the Christian Mythos that triumphed, not the religion of Jesus Christ (which was never anything other than Messianic, Apocalyptic Judaism, as was greatly common in Christ’s day as the Jews fantasised about vanquishing their Roman masters and overlords).

A Wasted Life A wasted life is one where you work hard at a job you despise. Even worse is to work lazily and half-heartedly at a job you despise (an even greater act of bad faith). A good life is one where you work wholeheartedly at what you love, pouring your heart, soul and all your passion and energy into it.

What You Need to Know People are faking it all the time. The only thing that can’t be faked is genuine talent. Mythos is all about phoniness, Logos is all about keeping it real.

Polarisation We have to drive out of the Illuminist movement everyone who is not a true illuminist. Every successful group, including the scientific group, ruthlessly

suppresses all dissent. In science, the peer review process captures all of the heretics and expels them all. The Catholic Church has its Inquisition, as does every religion. Why should it be any different for Illuminism? Illuminism can achieve nothing if it’s full of people who subscribe to multiple different worldviews. How can you be an Illuminist and a scientific materialist or atheist? It’s impossible. You can’t be an Illuminist and a Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist. You have to make your choice. You have to make your leap. You have to choose your sacred cause and commit fully to it. We despise the Ignavi who try to keep all of their options open. These people are nihilists. They don’t believe in anything, they don’t know anything and they lack the courage to make an existential choice. They are the last people we would want to associate with. If you’re favourably quoting spiritual gurus and atheistic scientific materialists on the same page, you really have to question if you have reached any understanding of reality. Aren’t you a doublethinker, going along two separate, contradictory tracks, and accepting both at once? You are riding two horses, and you are sure to fall off. These are the kind of people that bring negativity, doubt, skepticism and cynicism to the party, and ruin everything.

No Democracy Truth is not a democracy. Knowledge is not a democracy. Intelligence is not a democracy. Merit is not a democracy. Understanding the answer to existence is not a democracy. As Robert A. Heinlein said, “Democracy can’t work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that’s all there is – so democracy, a theory based on the assumption that mathematicians and peasants are equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.”

The Opposition Reason is the force of Truth. It’s the greatest unifying force in the universe, the greatest attractive force in the universe – supergravity, so to speak – bringing everything together in perfect symmetry. Why? Because there is only one principle of sufficient reason for everyone. To every problem, there is only one answer that satisfies the principle of sufficient reason, and

it’s the same answer for everyone in the universe. There can be no debate about the right answer. It eliminates conflict, discord, disharmony, disagreement, error, belief, opinion, and interpretation.

***** You cannot be an Illuminist if you reject the principle of sufficient reason. All Abrahamists, Karmists and scientific materialists reject it. These are the enemies of the dialectic. These are the forces that are obstructing dialectical progress. Only those who support the principle of sufficient reason are on the side of the rational convergence towards the divine Omega Point. You are far from gnosis if you are opposed to the principle of sufficient reason.

Adventures “Never say ‘no’ to adventures. Always say ‘yes’, otherwise you’ll lead a very dull life.” – Ian Fleming What adventures have you said “yes” to?

Prophets and Gurus There has never been a rationalist prophet or guru. Such a thing is unthinkable: 1) Abraham: faith and revelation. 2) Moses: faith and revelation. 3) Jesus Christ: faith and revelation. 4) Mohammed: faith and revelation. 5) The Buddha: empiricism and mystical intuition.

The Cosmic Force of Intelligence Gravity is a universal force. So is intelligence! Is intelligence the mental side of physical gravity?

Gods Ye shall be gods ... only if there is no Creator God.

Blether SN: “So shall I assume the ontological mathematics blabbering will stop and more practical, realistic, age old practices will be chosen as the way forward to realise the God Within?” Hindus such as SN will never be enlightened. They cling to old, ludicrous, failed religious beliefs. Why is it that stupid people always look to the past, to pointless, outmoded, redundant practices and primitive superstitions that failed then and fail now?! These people never learn, and they are too irrational to learn. What kind of retard sneers at ontological mathematics in order to worship cows and elephants?! How many men did Hinduism land on the moon? Er, none. Indians have won even fewer Nobel Prizes than Muslims, who exist at a level of catastrophic mental retardation. Britain, with a handful of soldiers and administrators conquered the whole of India and ruled it for centuries. Why? Because they were dealing with primitives and savages who had contempt for science, mathematics, technology, engineering, economics and philosophy. These people preferred to worship the countless, pointless “gods” of Hinduism. India is steeped in Mythos and infantile beliefs. It supports one of the most evil ideas every devised – the caste system. Why would we expect such people to have any respect for intelligence, for mathematics, for the future? Survival is not compulsory. Whole nations can and do fail to evolve. India is a third world country. Why? Because it spawns Indian nationalist such as SN who turn their backs on reason and mathematics. Ironically, SN doesn’t live in India despite banging on about it endlessly. At least he wised up enough to get the hell out of there ... but then he does nothing but romanticise it. That’s Hindus for you. The only parts of India that work are the parts that emulate the West! People are offered a simple choice in life – rational evolution (Logos) or poverty (religious belief; Mythos). No practising Hindu will ever contribute

to building starships.

***** SN is an Indian Nationalist who doesn’t live in India. You know the kind. He thinks he’s on the side of reason, but supports ancient, ludicrous Hindu myths over cutting edge ontological mathematics. You know the kind. The irrational herd is everywhere.

***** “England has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating – the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia…” – Marx Imagine the state India would be in now if the British had never conquered it and brought it Western civilisation. “When a great social revolution shall have mastered the results of the bourgeois epoch… and subjected them to the common control of the most advanced peoples, then only will human progress cease to resemble that hideous, pagan idol, who would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain.” – Marx Without the British, the Indians would still be drinking nectar from the skulls of the slain.

The Dialectic “Historical progress resembles a hideous god who drinks nectar from the skulls of the slain.” – Marx The very last thing life resembles is a phenomenon created by an infinitely loving, caring, forgiving, benevolent, perfect being. Life looks exactly as if it involves a brutal dialectical clash of opposites, and a savage expression of unquenchable Will to Power.

The Jews and Hindus

SN: “Sometimes I confuse myself. [You don’t say! – MH] Am I a Russian or Indian or Israeli? I think I was a Russian Orthodox Jews in one of my previous incarnations. Why I am so much sympathetic to Russia and recently to the Orthodox Jews when having no connection in my current life with Russia or Israel?” Condemned from his own mouth. A nauseating Abrahamist at core. SN: “Jews did not kill pagans in Europe neither at any stage of human history tried to convert non-Jews into Judaism either by applying force or playing deceiving tactics. But both Christianity and Islam attempted to convert indigenous pagan people to convert either by applying force or by playing some dirty deceiving tactics.” Read your Bible, moron. If the Jews hadn’t had their asses whipped by great pagan powers such as Egypt, Babylon and Rome, these “Chosen People” would have been the worst monsters in human history. It was purely the fact that they were constantly defeated that prevented them from persecuting others. The Canaanites discovered exactly what happens when the Jews are victorious – they were the victims of genocide. And today’s Palestinians know what the Jews are like when they get the chance. SN: “Jews and Hindus have same destiny.” Indeed ... the unholy alliance of Abrahamists and Karmists. This person’s “argument”, based on nothing but irrational emotion, is that the Illuminati are wrong about the Satanic religion of Judaism because he knows a few Jews and he likes them, and he feels a strong affinity with Jews because he believes he was a Russian Orthodox Jew in a past life. Not once does he refer to Jewish theology and the repulsive beliefs of the Jews set out on every page of their horrific Bible. No, all he cares about is whom he likes and whom he dislikes. He likes the Jews and dislikes the Illuminati, so, therefore, the Jews are right and the Illuminati are wrong. This is the sort of clown we regularly have to contend with, and his is a classic example of the garbage that is advanced as an “argument”. It’s galling that we find such people taking a brief interest in Illuminism before it dawns on them that they are our exact enemy – the forces of irrationalism. If you are an emotionalist who can’t abide rational arguments, you can be sure that the Illuminati are no friend to you, so go right ahead and

oppose us – because we certainly oppose you.

***** India has 14 million slaves, the highest number of slaves in the world. Why would any sane person go to India seeking enlightenment. Is that some sort of cosmic joke?!

The Voice of Enlightenment (Sic) SN: “Stop your fucking nonsensical idiocy stuff, go and lick your mate’s dick ... I don’t care about your or your fucking mate’s opinion about me. I am on my own...” SN: “Stop pretending that you’re more powerful than you actually are ... the empty vessels always sound louder ... lol ... fucking plebs.” SN: “I would buy you twice in market and sell you thrice to someone I chose. If you are angry with me, I can litter some dollar to you ... you may need some drug to keep on the illusion. Is your benefits not large enough?” SN: “Don’t dare to talk to me in impolite manner ... learn your manners, idiot!” SN: “I can talk in your language which you understand. In past I used to be polite for even those who attempt to insult me assuming my kindness and politeness are sign of weakness. You fuck don’t know who I am?” This is what “enlightened” people who reject reason and scorn ontological mathematics sound like (!).

***** SN: “From now to till the end of this planet (some million years), Hindus and Jews are inseparable allies. Both have survived the persecution, Holocaust and the attempts to exterminate and conversion. This is the new reality. ...the world has to learn to live in this new reality.” So, now we have the ultimate unholy alliance ... the Chosen People and the Caste Elite coming together to form the Cosmic Master Race. God help us!

***** First World Countries – those that use mathematics. Third World Countries – those that slavishly worship “gods”.

***** Arundhati Roy, the Booker Prize winning author, accused Mahatma Gandhi of discrimination. She described the generally accepted image of Gandhi as a lie and said, “It is time to unveil a few truths about a person whose doctrine of nonviolence was based on the acceptance of a most brutal social hierarchy ever known, the caste system … Do we really need to name our universities after him?” The caste system – one of the most pernicious systems ever devised – by so-called “enlightened” Hindus – brands hundreds of millions of people in India as untouchables, pariahs, outsiders, outcasts, the excommunicate. The discrimination they suffer is horrific. Never forget that Hinduism preaches “enlightenment” to the world. It looks to the educated eye much more like endarkenment, like hell on earth.

Religious Evolution Religions must evolve. If they don’t, they become less and less relevant, more and more out of touch with reality. Eventually, that will prove fatal to all of them.

One Dimensional? What would you rather be ... a one-dimensional person who loves what you do and changes the world, or a “multi-dimensional” person, mediocre at everything, who is half-hearted about everything and changes nothing? People should absolutely excel at one thing, the thing into which they pour their heart and soul, the thing of which they can never get enough. Meritocracy is about breeding experts and geniuses, not happy mediocrities and non-entities. Being brilliant is much more important than being well rounded.

John Stuart Mill said, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their side of the question.” So, how do you become Socrates rather than a fool or a pig? Through expertise.

Inheritance Inheritance = living off the dead, like flies living off shit. Inheritance = the living feed on the dead, feasting on their rotten, decomposing flesh. Who is more disgusting? Those who eat the dead, or those who offer their post mortem flesh for cannibalism? Inheritance = if you can’t make your own way in life, remember to feed off your own parents. That’s how they brought you up ... to be cannibals. They knew you couldn’t make the grade through your own character and efforts. Who’s worse? You or them?

The Greatest Danger? “The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.” – Nietzsche Nietzsche – the BDSM philosopher!

Hate There’s nothing wrong with hate provided you hate the right people – those who are blocking human evolution to divinity.

Which Elite?

Humanity will be led by one elite or another. The question is which will it be? – the warrior elite, the religious elite, the political elite, the social elite, the hereditary elite, the economic elite ... or the intellectual elite? The last one is the only one that has never been tried. The intellectual elite have always lacked will to power. They have always served other elites. But what happens when the intellectual elite is full of dominants with the highest Nietzschean will to power? What happens when they stop serving others? That’s when everything changes forever. That’s when humans can finally evolve into gods.

The Highest and Best Only the highest humans – the most intelligent people in the world – can grasp what we are saying. Illuminism is not for ordinary people, for the masses, the mob, the herd, the flock. The content of the God Series can’t help but be hard and unpopular. There’s no harder sell than mathematics, nothing more resisted by the Mythos mob. The Truth (Logos) isn’t a democracy, isn’t simple, isn’t obvious and has nothing to do with common sense. If it were and did, we would all know the Truth and there would be no arguments!

Realis, Irrealis, Eventualis, Potentialis Realis = simple condition = logical condition = statement of fact = a known state of affairs. (Can also be used to express different levels of certainty.) Irrealis = unreal condition = illogical condition = assumed to be contrary to fact = known not to be the case in reality = unfulfilled or unable to be fulfilled. Eventualis = anticipatory condition, future treated as if it were already present. Potentialis = ideal condition, condition of fancy, subjective assumption, possible or wished for, purely hypothetical.

Humanity is always dealing with statements of reality, unreality, eventuality or potentiality. The trouble is that most people are useless at determining which is which.

Protestant Sin for Salvation?! “God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly...” – Martin Luther God wants you to sin, so that he can save you! The Devil wants you to sin so that he can punish you. The Devil isn’t punishing you for his own satisfaction; he’s doing it on behalf of God. But this means that God wants you to sin for a) your salvation, and b) your damnation (!). He wants you to sin so that he can punish you for sinning (by handing you over to the Devil in hell), and also reward you for sinning (by “saving” you and admitting you to heaven). In other words, God is both heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, reward and punishment. Above all, he craves that you sin. Without sin, he can do nothing. He can’t save you (since you have done nothing he can save you from), and he can’t damn you (since you have done nothing to warrant damnation). So, non-sinners are completely free of God. Thank God.

Cool What is it to be “cool”? It’s being authentic. It’s being comfortable with who you are. It’s being unconcerned by the opinions other have of you. It’s about defining yourself, creating yourself.

The War Don’t take any prisoners. Hoist the red flag of No Quarter!

Arrogance It’s crazy to take on people that intellectually outgun you. The outcome will never be good for you. Yet we consistently get people thinking they are

smarter than the Illuminati, the smartest collection of human beings in history, the enlightened ones, enlightened, above all, by mathematics. These puffed-up idiotic opponents of ours post their silly little remarks in their silly little Facebook pages, and get patted on the back by their silly little friends. As Plato said, “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.” Our loudest-mouthed critics are invariably incredibly stupid, and haven’t grasped even the first thing about Illuminism. Plainly, anyone who is so mathematically ignorant as to take no interest in the ontology of negative, imaginary and complex numbers, and the “logical” ontology of zero and infinity, i.e. who adopts the insane empiricism and materialism of scientism, is never going to understand the first thing about ontological mathematics. They have rejected it at the very first step. They have failed at the first hurdle, i.e. to overcome the Sensory Delusion. We will always have these morons swiping away at us, just as we will have the equally moronic Abrahamists and Karmists trailing us around, condemning everything we say. Such is life.

Patience Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. – Napoleon In life, most people are making mistakes most of the time, and failing to learn from them. The wise State should be interrupting them to save them from their own mistakes. “Positive liberty” States interrupt; “negative liberty” States leave their citizens alone, to suffer the full, horrific consequences of their mistakes.

Contra “As soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion!” – Nietzsche There’s no point in associating with Illuminism if you regularly feel yourself against our arguments. Most people are driven by their emotions, and when they enter a negative emotional state, they immediately cease to understand what they are reading, and start looking for ways to reject it.

They are no longer impartial seekers of truth. They have become partisan desirers of refutation. They stop thinking about what we have said, and just dismiss it using their basic schema for understanding the world – which is infected by beliefs, brainwashing, opinions, feelings, desires, self-interest, “common sense” and so on. Our arguments are always misrepresented by those who emotionally oppose us.

The Wisdom of George Bernard Shaw “Life isn’t about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.” – George Bernard Shaw If you create yourself, you have automatically found yourself. “You see things; you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say ‘Why not?” – George Bernard Shaw Indeed ... why not? Let’s get it done. “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” – George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman All change begins with individuals – the world-historic individuals. Are you one of them? If not, are you helping such a person ... or obstructing him? “Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” –George Bernard Shaw And those who can change their minds too easily can change anything, including their convictions. They don’t stand for anything. They are weathercocks blowing in the wind. “If you cannot get rid of the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance.” – George Bernard Shaw And the same goes for national skeletons, religious skeletons, economic and political skeletons. “There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart’s desire. The other is to gain it.” – George Bernard Shaw

Whatever it is, you need to struggle for it in order to appreciate it. “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” – George Bernard Shaw Exactly so. The negative cynics, the No-sayers are a severe block on progress. We get plenty of people carping away at us. To what end? It’s not as if they’re ever going to win. “When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.” – George Bernard Shaw, Getting Married And when people are in their most vulnerable states – as babies – is when they are brainwashed with toxic religious beliefs by their parents. “People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can’t find them, make them.” – George Bernard Shaw Stop whingeing and whining about your lives. If you don’t like them, change them! “The liar’s punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.” – George Bernard Shaw The believer’s punishment is that he can believe one religion entirely, and every other religion not at all, and give no reason why. “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” – George Bernard Shaw Yes, we ought not to “wrestle” with our critics, We get dirty, while they’re in their element – as hideous trolls. “Success does not consist in never making mistakes but in never making the same one a second time.” – George Bernard Shaw The road to truth is paved with errors. Such is the nature of the dialectic.

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” – George Bernard Shaw, Leadership Skills for Managers Communication is almost always illusory. As for debate, there isn’t any. People agree with those who agree with them, and disagree with those that don’t. “My way of joking is to tell the truth. It’s the funniest joke in the world.” – George Bernard Shaw Sad but true. The Truth might as well be a joke since virtually no one takes it seriously. “A pessimist is a man who thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it.” – George Bernard Shaw Which means that an optimist thinks everyone is as nice as himself and loves them for it. Such people seem to be in short supply! “The seriousness of throwing over hell whilst still clinging to the Atonement is obvious. If there is no punishment for sin there can be no selfforgiveness for it. If Christ paid our score, and if there is no hell and therefore no chance of our getting into trouble by forgetting the obligation, then we can be as wicked as we like with impunity inside the secular law, even from self-reproach, which becomes mere ingratitude to the Saviour. On the other hand, if Christ did not pay our score, it still stands against us; and such debts make us extremely uncomfortable. The drive of evolution, which we call conscience and honour, seizes on such slips, and shames us to the dust for being so low in the scale as to be capable of them. The ‘saved’ thief experiences an ecstatic happiness which can never come to the honest atheist: he is tempted to steal again to repeat the glorious sensation. But if the atheist steals he has no such happiness. He is a thief and knows that he is a thief. Nothing can rub that off him. He may try to sooth his shame by some sort of restitution or equivalent act of benevolence; but that does not alter the fact that he did steal; and his conscience will not be easy until he has conquered his will to steal and changed himself into an honest man... “Now though the state of the believers in the atonement may thus be the happier, it is most certainly not more desirable from the point of view of the community. The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The

happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life. Whether Socrates got as much happiness out of life as Wesley is an unanswerable question; but a nation of Socrateses would be much safer and happier than a nation of Wesleys; and its individuals would be higher in the evolutionary scale. At all events it is in the Socratic man and not in the Wesleyan that our hope lies now. “Consequently, even if it were mentally possible for all of us to believe in the Atonement, we should have to cry off it, as we evidently have a right to do. Every man to whom salvation is offered has an inalienable natural right to say ‘No, thank you: I prefer to retain my full moral responsibility: it is not good for me to be able to load a scapegoat with my sins: I should be less careful how I committed them if I knew they would cost me nothing.’” – George Bernard Shaw What is “Jesus Christ” if not the ultimate scapegoat? What kind of morality claims that one person can bear the sins of everyone else? Is Jesus Christ a cosmic Sin Eater? We are all responsible for what we do. No one else is. No one else can be punished on our behalf, and nor can we be punished on someone else’s behalf (Original Sin!). Scapegoats can play no part in any moral system. “A Native American elder once described his own inner struggles in this manner: Inside of me there are two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog all the time. When asked which dog wins, he reflected for a moment and replied, The one I feed the most.” – George Bernard Shaw That’s the truth! “The play was a great success, but the audience was a dismal failure.” – George Bernard Shaw Indeed! “Patriotism is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it....” – George Bernard Shaw Nationalism is just private egotism projected collectively. “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I

have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.” – George Bernard Shaw Nothing can multiply like ideas! It’s a pity that most ideas that spread like wildfire are the most trivial and irrational ones. “War does not decide who is right but who is left.” – George Bernard Shaw That’s what evolution decides too. Evolution is war! “He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.” – George Bernard Shaw Or to life as a Protestant. “After all, the wrong road always leads somewhere.” – George Bernard Shaw Yes, to the wrong destination. “Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.” – George Bernard Shaw Most things are expressions of horizontal desire. “Hatred is the coward’s revenge for being intimidated.” – George Bernard Shaw That’s why so many people hate the Illuminati!

The Money Equation “Money does nothing, people do everything” – Michael E. V. Knight In fact, people do everything for money!

Hauntings People who are haunted by “ghosts” are typically obsessed with themselves, not with the ghosts. The ghost is a projection of their own obsessions and narcissism.

The Inheritance Trap Inheritance: a previous generation determines the circumstances of the current generation: the dead control the living; the powerful of the past control the powerless of the present. The Old World Order rules, and prevents the birth of New Worlds.

The Past Voters for the UK Independence Party (a British Nationalist Party) were asked what they liked about Britain. They answered, “The Past”. (Code for no immigrants, and a conservative, authoritarian society where people knew their place and loved the Queen.) Fuck the past. The task is to create a dazzling future. Get rid of the nostalgic, sentimental dinosaurs.

The True Runners “Most people never run far enough on their first wind to find out they’ve got a second.” – William James People who reach their second wind are leading much more meaningful lives than those who never escape their first wind. Things seem more real and raw to them. They care much more deeply. For the others, everything is tame, bland, banal. They just move from one thing to the next. They never stand up to be counted.

Where is Wisdom? Seek for wisdom in the intellect; seek for wisdom in rationality. Don’t limit yourself to the world of sensation. Wisdom does not lie in meditation, unless meditation is about freeing the mind of all sensory and emotional input, allowing it to fully engage the intellect and reason. Meditation must be cerebral or else it’s useless. Meditation by a stupid person can lead to no good outcomes – they’re not smart enough to think clearly about reality.

*****

Logos and Mythos = Form and Content, Truth and Interpretation. Logos leads us to Truth, Mythos to Delusion. Which path are you on?

Power America → money is power. Islam → belief is power. Which will win – money or belief?

Doublespeak Some people accuse us of saying the same thing over and over again, in different words. That’s certainly true. We do so for a simple reason: it’s easy to misunderstand one version of something, but if you read the same thing in many different versions, possible misunderstandings get ironed out ... and the message sinks in much more effectively. As it is, very few people have any real grasp of ontological mathematics. Repetition becomes like a mantra, and eventually the material starts to settle in the unconscious and become successfully internalised.

Energy is Eternal Delight “Energy is an eternal delight, and he who desires, but acts not, breeds pestilence.” – William Blake “Energy is the only life and is from the Body, and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.” – William Blake “Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.” – William Blake Anything without energy is enfeebled, weak and pathetic. If you can’t put your energy into something, move on and find something else. If you no longer have any energy for Illuminism, give up and move on. The Illuminism movement has seen many people come and go. Big deal. The only thing that matters is that those who remain have energy, and plenty of

it. Anything with energy succeeds in the end. Anything without energy perishes.

The Insanity A psychologist was hanged in Iran for telling a class that the prophet Jonah could not have emerged from a whale’s belly. He was found guilty of insulting the prophet. This is the 21st century. How long will the silly stories of ancient tribes rule over us? Who’s going to stop the madness? It’s time for the Army of Reason to march out and conquer the world.

The Pathfinders “Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson Well, are you one of the pathfinders, venturing into the Unknown Lands? Only the strongest, only the bravest, only the alphas, can do the job. This is no task for Last Men, only for Supermen.

Eastern Religion We used to be quite favourable towards Eastern religion. Not anymore. Westerners who subscribe to these ideas tend be off their fucking rockers, living in a total fantasy world that is as far from reason as Abrahamism.

Buddhism Buddhist sages and gurus talk about the “unconditioned nature of reality.” Ultimate reality is said to have no specific character, hence is indeterminate. This is nonsense. Ultimate reality is completely conditioned and determinate. It’s ontological mathematics. That’s exactly why existence has an answer. Why do people want to believe in the unconditioned and indeterminate? Why don’t they want a clear, analytic answer? What are they afraid of?

Motivation and Morality

“The only business of the head in the world is to bow a ceaseless obeisance to the heart.” – W. B. Yeats David Hume argued that reason alone never motivates anyone to act. In fact, people frequently act against their rational best interest. Reason, Hume concluded, isn’t our decision-maker. Rather, it’s an advisor, and what it advises is our desire. Reason cannot form the basis of morality since it’s simply not in charge, and its counsel is overridden if it contradicts our desires. Rational judgments can be and are ignored by our desires. We are people of feelings and desires, not people of reason. We do not construct our moral code around rational principles. If we did, we would have a radically different morality, and an enormously better one. The simplest and best way to understand morality is via Freud’s tripartite model of the psyche. We have one component that cares only about ourselves and our desires: the Id. We have another component – the Superego – that acknowledges others, and seeks to be fair to others and to function through collective rather than individual interest. In Freud’s system, the Ego, obeying the Reality Principle, mediates between the Id and Superego. The result is that sometimes we are driven by our private desires and at other times, when we are in groups, we follow the group rules. We behave differently in different situations, and use different parts of our psyche. We are not consistent and predictable. We are all Dr Jekylls and Mr Hydes. Morality, such as it is, can only be associated with the Superego. The Id is immoral, while the practical and calculating Ego is amoral. In other words, we are all immoral, amoral and moral beings, undergoing an internal morality dialectic: the Superego is the moral thesis, the Id the immoral antithesis, and the Ego is the amoral synthesis (game theory “self-interest”). Many people self-servingly seek to confer morality on selfish behaviour. We typically see this with right-wingers who follow the ideology of Ayn Rand and free-market capitalism. Rights wingers are always ruled by their Id, left-wingers always by their Superego. Inheritance is pure naked self-interest. 100% inheritance tax is pure rational altruism.

The Mass Mind

“When a hundred men stand together, each of them loses his mind and gets another one.” – Nietzsche We all have two minds: the private and public, the individual and collective, Id and Superego. On our own or in small groups, our individual minds prevail. In large groups, in offices, in political parties and religions, our Mass Mind takes over and we adopt groupthink and group identity, in order to be acceptable to the group. In Freud’s system, he opposed an irrational, selfish Id to a rational, altruistic Superego, or a childish Id to an adult Superego (reflecting parental authority). He might instead have contrasted the individual mind (Id) with the collective mind (Superego). The Superego seems to be the repository of “morality” and conscience. However, a case can be advanced that it’s just as immoral as the Id. It obeys the group code, which, practically, is what humanity means by morality, yet look at how often the group is immoral. When Nazis and Jihadists act entirely immorally (in the view of the rest of the world), the members of these groups actually regard themselves as highly moral since they have loyally followed the group code and done their duty. They have “obeyed” orders, i.e. the moral injunctions of their group. “In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad.” – Nietzsche In any society that intends to be driven by intelligence, knowledge and reason, nothing is more important than to turn the education system into a collection of bespoke designer kitchens (metaphorically speaking) serving haute cuisine, rather than vast kitchens serving slop. “We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us.” – Nietzsche Only emotional people react this way. Rational people don’t. Reason is reason, no matter how it’s expressed.

The Tolerance Paradox Liberals tolerate intolerance. Radicals don’t. Why do liberals believe it’s admirable not to interfere with the plainly abominable and unacceptable

views held by intolerant people? They consider themselves “open-minded”. On the contrary, they have closed their minds to the self-evident facts.

Action JC: “Action is the true measure of Intelligence.” Indeed. Intelligence must lead to practical actions and results that change the world for the better. As Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways – the point however is to change it.” Intelligence is in vain if it does not solve the world’s problems, and it can do so only through action, through being implemented in the real world.

***** “Wanting to reform the world without discovering one’s true self is like trying to cover the world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes.” – Sri Ramana Maharshi Well, do you know who you are? If not, why not? And what are you doing about it?! How can you discover yourself if you have no idea of who you are and how to find yourself? What criteria are you going to use? Are you going to listen to some guru? The only thing we rely on is reason. Without reason, we would be nothing but ships adrift on an ocean without end, with no ports we could ever reach, and no land on which we might ever set foot. The words of gurus are not reason. If you listen to a guru, you are already lost.

Madness Anyone who opposes reason is literally insane. If you do not accept that existence is governed by the principle of sufficient reason, it automatically follows that you consider existence to be predicated on unreason, irrationalism, chance, accident, randomness, indeterminism, acausation, chaos – which is more or less the position of science! Science is a lunatic ideology that would rather believe in the irrational senses than place its trust in reason.

Kierkegaard “...Kierkegaard disagreed with Kant’s view that religious belief and morality could be founded on reason. Faith was utterly irrational and completely unprovable.” – Dave Robinson Kierkegaard was right that religious belief, hence religious morality, cannot be founded on reason, given that faith is the direct opposite of reason. However, Kierkegaard should then have called for the end of faith, and its replacement by reason, which can offer the only meaningful, rational “morality”, via rational laws. Faith should play no part in anything precisely because it’s irrational and unprovable, and inevitably leads, when taken seriously, to fanaticism, intolerance and the mass murder of non-believers. Just look at history! Faith is the most Satanic and evil force there has ever been. It’s what is preventing us from living in a rational world, from building an earthly paradise for all. Faith is the vehicle of Mythos. Mathematics, science, philosophy, computing, technology and engineering – all the subjects associated with Logos – don’t play any part in faith. Faith is about idiotic stories supposedly revealed to some bearded prophet by “God”. Isn’t it bizarre that “God” has never once commented on mathematics or science or philosophy? No Abrahamic religious “prophet” (well, apart from Isaac Newton, in his own estimation) has ever been a scientist, mathematician or philosopher. Why not? Because “God” would be destroyed as soon as he entered that territory! “[Kierkegaard] also objected to Hegelian ‘both/and’ dialectical processes which seemed to swallow people up and ignored the reality of their need to make individual ‘either/or’ decisions.” – Dave Robinson ‘Both/and’ is how you build a better world, an inclusive, rational world of community, fair and just to all. It goes hand in hand with positive liberty. It’s about unity and solidarity, about finding the common ground between people. It’s about harmony. Kierkegaard’s ‘either/or’ is how you create division, separation, selfishness, atomism, insularity, polarisation. It goes hand in hand with a divided society, a fragmented society, a society in conflict. It’s a selfish,

self-interested, negative liberty stance. You are either for us or against us is the classic either/or stance. We use either/or arguments, but only as a means to an end: to dialectically get to a both/and world where people operate according to universal reason and not according to individual faith. Faith – given that there as many different faiths as there human beings – can only lead to conflict. There is only one reason, and it’s the ultimate glue that binds everyone together. “Most people usually ignore questions about the meaning of their lives and prefer to escape into some kind of anonymous routine. For Kierkegaard, that wasn’t good enough.” – Dave Robinson Kierkegaard is right that most people just coast along. They are endlessly drifting on the road to nowhere. They have made no firm choices, committed themselves to nothing. Like all Last Men, they are tactical game players, doing whatever gives them a petty advantage at each moment in time. They have no life strategy, and no sacred causes. They lead empty, lonely, pointless, unfulfilled lives. If people cared about the meaning of life, they would all be philosophers. As it is, almost none are. If we look at the human race, what we discover is that it’s not driven by the quest for meaning but the quest for entertainment. Entertainment is what allows humanity to live pleasurably in the moment, with no heed to meaning at all. It’s how we can constantly divert ourselves, distract ourselves, stave off boredom, avoid asking the “big” questions of life. Entertainment is the antidote to meaning. Entertainment allows people to live happy lives without meaning. “Meaning” enters people’s lives only at moments of crisis: births, deaths, accidents, tragedies, terrible news, major setbacks. Otherwise, people live in a haze of trivial entertainment, avoiding meaning like the plague. It’s all bread and circuses, consumerism, populism, dumbing-down. It’s instructive that mainstream religion – supposedly how people inject meaning into their lives – is based on entertaining stories (Mythos) about legendary and mythical heroes and villains. The Bible is much closer to Hollywood than to any concept of absolute, infallible, intellectual, rational truth. Superheroes are the modern equivalent of prominent Biblical characters. Mainstream religion does not intersect with Logos at all.

Kierkegaard urged people to lead lives of commitment. This is surely right. Unfortunately, he wanted us to make our commitment on the basis of irrational faith rather than reason. Kierkegaard, sometimes called the father of existentialism, said that existence means you have the freedom to choose who you are. Whether we like it or not, we are condemned, he says, to live in the shadow of uncertainty and absurdity. We are ruled by unprovable subjective truths, and all great rational schemes to furnish objective truths are mere moonshine. So, for Kierkegaard – given that, in his opinion, we cannot establish objective meaning – we have to commit ourselves fully to some subjective faith. He famously demanded that everyone make a “leap of faith”. Kierkegaard despised “Christendom”, which he regarded as some horrifically bland and banal machine that made people pretend to believe things they clearly didn’t believe, mumbling prayers in a passionless drone, merely going through the motions. They were Christians in name and appearance only, certainly not in actuality. They were comfortable people leading comfortable lives. None of them made any of the sacrifices of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. They had no real religious convictions at all. They did things purely because it was required of them to be seen as “respectable” members of the community. Why are Muslim Jihadists so shocking? It’s because these people really do believe. They’re willing to kill for their religion, and die for it. It has been many centuries since Christianity had believers of that kind: those who actually believe! Islamic Jihad is the true picture of faith. Abraham – the first Jihadist, holding a knife over his son, ready to kill him – is what religious faith is all about, and shows how closely it’s linked to murder, horror and terror. It’s men just like Abraham who behead their prisoners in the name of their “merciful” God. Reason is the antidote to this madness.

***** Kierkegaard believed that existence relates to the individual rather than the “world”. He did not consider existence a universal idea, or, rather, regarded its universality as irrelevant because, in his opinion, we are all trapped inside ourselves. We are all solipsistic prisoners condemned to life, but not

to have any objective, universal answers to guide us in what do with our life, with how to live. Kierkegaard is in many ways the true successor of Hume. Where Kant attempted to impose a layer of reason over Hume’s skeptical philosophy, Kierkegaard imposed a layer of faith. Like Hume, he denied that we could know anything with any confidence, but he then advocated that we should choose something to believe and then commit to it fully, as if it were absolutely true. It was in such a way that Kierkegaard understood the incredible decision by Abraham to murder his own son merely because a voice in his head told him to. Abraham made his leap of faith and committed to it utterly, no matter how crazy it seemed. Every Jihadist in today’s world shows us exactly what Abraham looked like, how he thought and behaved. They are all Abraham reborn. They are true Abrahamists rather than the phoney Christians and Jews, who are basically capitalists and Mammonists pretending to be Abrahamists.

***** Kierkegaard believed that philosophy starts and finishes with the individual, and he despised Hegel’s all-embracing dialectical system. Many of the people who hate ontological mathematics are modern disciples of Kierkegaard. He would never have accepted ontological mathematics. Many people can’t think beyond themselves. They can’t get out of their own heads, their own perspective, their own subjectivity. They can’t transcend themselves. They are fundamentally irrational because reason is exactly that which allows us to gain an objective view of existence and the human race, unmediated by feelings, desires, sensations, and the individual will. If you oppose reason, as Kierkegaard did, you end up with his demented leap of faith. The only leap you should ever take is the leap of reason. If Abraham had been rational, he would never have agreed to murder! For Kierkegaard, existence is all about the individual choosing and acting. It’s not too far from Kierkegaard to anarchism and libertarianism, where all that matters is the individual and screw everyone else. Kierkegaard asserted that “Truth” is subjectivity, not axioms, systems and reasons. This is the classic Protestant position, the position where you are justified by your faith, by what you personally believe in, no matter how

irrational it is. This is the sort of view that destroys any possibility of a rational meritocracy since, if everyone believes himself an expert and rejects any objective standards, then no one is an expert. Everyone is as mad as everyone else. Reason has vanished. Kierkegaard’s definition of “truth” was: “An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation-process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for the individual.” Kierkegaard wanted a lived philosophy, not something abstract (which is how he regarded Hegelianism). However, it’s surely better to have a lived philosophy that accords with objective reason (Logos) rather than subjective, irrational faith (Mythos).

***** “She [woman] can only be rightly construed under the category of jest.” – Kierkegaard “Life can only be understood backwards – but it must be lived forwards.” – Kierkegaard

The Three Types Kierkegaard believed in three types of human being, or three stages in human growth: 1) The Aesthetic Man, like Don Juan. Given over to the world of feelings and sensuality, of entertainment and diversion, of hedonism and instant gratification. Absorbed in a world of pleasure and pain, of ephemeral experiences, transience, meaninglessness, disconnectedness: in a sequence of discontinuous, isolated events and moments. All about living in the moment. Children and spoiled adults operate in this world. 2) The Ethical Man, like Socrates. Given over to the world of morals, ethics, duties, obligation, altruism, public service, personal responsibility and accountability. 3) The Religious Man, like Abraham. Given over to the world of faith and God. The Religious Man is willing to make the leap of faith (over the chasm of dread), and does so in “fear and

trembling”, taking him outside the rational domain. Passionate commitment to one’s beliefs, no matter how irrational, is everything. The religious man does not suffer from “sickness unto death” – profound despair and spiritual death. For Kierkegaard, a temporal individual is “in despair” if he fails to align himself with eternal God. With Kierkegaard’s philosophy, we arrive at the suicide of reason. His leap of faith is just an extension of Martin Luther’s declaration that reason is the Devil’s whore. Faith is the essence of irrational subjectivity, and the opposite of rational objectivity. Kierkegaard believed he had a mission from God to be a theological writer. Many critics of ontological mathematics similarly believe they are on a mission from God! Nutters!

***** Kierkegaard = the philosophy of subjective truth. Ontological mathematics = the science of objective truth.

***** If religion is a personal matter, as it is in Protestantism, there’s no “objective truth”, of the type to which the Catholic Church lays claim. That’s why there are countless Protestant sects, and only one Catholicism. Kierkegaard defended subjective, personal truth against objective, universal truth, thus was the friend of skepticism, relativism, perspectivism, solipsism, anarchism, libertarianism, and nihilism. He was a champion of negative liberty. He regarded Hegelianism in much the same way as he regarded Catholicism. Many of our critics are unwitting disciples of Kierkegaard, although most know nothing about this eccentric philosopher.

***** Kierkegaard was the son of an extremist Lutheran wracked by feelings of anxiety and guilt. Like father like son!

Commitment The world is in desperate need of commitment and sacred causes, but they must be rational and have nothing to do with Kierkegaard’s irrational faith. Leaps out of mediocrity and banality are mandatory, but they must be leaps of reason. Kierkegaard’s motto was “Periissen nisi periiisem” – “I had perished, had I not perished.” Kierkegaard believed that the big questions of life are not solved from some “absolute standpoint,” but only through a subjective act of will or choice. The precise opposite is the case, of course. You must know the meaning of life – absolutely and objectively – before you can rationally decide how to conduct your life. Kierkegaard said that one becomes more of an individual through conscious choices, and less of an individual through following the crowd. This is true up to a point. However, given that language and consciousness are socially conditioned, the more you reject community, the less individual you become. A man who grew up alone on a desert island wouldn’t be an individual in any meaningful sense, and wouldn’t even be human. He would be mere animal. We are all participants in a dialectic of the individual and the collective, and we are most fully individual when we are surrounded by a community of strong individuals. The crowd, the mob, the herd of weak individuals, loses its individual members and becomes a single Mass Mind. It’s just an individual, but without individual control!

***** Is there any word more depressing than “Christendom”? Maybe Jewdom or Muslimdom!

***** Repetition, Sickness, Death, Dread, Angst, Anxiety, Fear, Trembling, Loathing, Gloom, Chasm, Absurdity, Boredom, Despair.

***** Consider the sentiment in Alfred Lord Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade:

‘Forward the Light Brigade!’ ‘Forward the Light Brigade!’ Was there a man dismay’d? Not tho’ the soldier knew Some one had blunder’d: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die, Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. They committed themselves fully to the task: do or die. They made their leap of faith. What leap have you taken?

Love? “Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies.” – Aristotle Love, in these terms, is a collective mind, a “duo” mind, a mass mind, a prototype of collective mind and collective consciousness.

Things We Hate Liberals. Fuck off! People lacking enthusiasm. Fuck off! Irrational people. Fuck off! The neutrals – the Ignavi. Fuck off!

Doubt

You often hear gurus saying that they doubt everything, that they don’t accept things merely because they are written in holy scriptures. These people then say that only their own “experience” can prove something to them. This is empiricism gone insane. Experience can’t tell us a single thing about ultimate reality. It’s entirely conditional, contingent and driven by this lifetime and this body. Reason transcends all of that. These gurus say that everyone must search and seek in their own way. This is total relativism. Reason is convergent. Everyone must in the end arrive at the same answer to existence since there is only one right answer, not as many answers as there are people.

Hawk World Hawk world is a world of psychopaths. How do you beat psychopaths? With harsh words? With love? With pacifism? With understanding? With tolerance? With meekness and weakness? With Christianity? With Hinduism? You defeat it with massive, overwhelming retaliation.

***** “This announcement is ending. Our President Has already given orders for Massive retaliation – it will be Decisive. Some of us may die. Remember, statistically It is not likely to be you. All flags are flying fully dressed On Government buildings – the sun is shining. Death is the least we have to fear. We are all in the hands of God, Whatever happens happens by His Will. Now go quickly to your shelters.” – Peter Porter (extract from Your Attention Please)

The Old and the New

People often revere ancient knowledge and consider it vastly superior to modern knowledge. Muslims, for example, consider the knowledge of the deserts of Arabia of 1,400 years ago to be infinitely superior to what we know today. In fact, the only knowledge of both the past and the present that truly counts is that associated with the eternal truths of reason. Only those never change. The common problem of old and new thinking is that precious few people understand the truth that the eternal truths of reasons are defined mathematically, and this subject alone involves indisputable Truth. Everything else – no matter what it is – is mere belief, supposition, conjecture, opinion or interpretation.

The Source of the Voices Was Joan of Arc divinely inspired, as her supporters said, or demonically possessed, as her enemies claimed? Was Mohammed the oracle for God or the Devil? Do visions or voices come from heaven or hell? How can you tell?! Joan of Arc was put to death as a witch. In most circumstances, Mohammed would have been put to death as demonically possessed. Jesus Christ – a man who thought he could speak to God – was put to death for leading a Passover insurrection against Rome (he claimed to be the Jewish, Davidic king and messiah).

Inheritance = Grave Robbing Inheritance = making your living from the dead. Inheritance = the ideology of scroungers and parasites, taking welfare handouts from their dead parents. They can’t stand on their own two feet. They can’t make their own living, can’t make their own way in life. They always need a hand, a leg up. They can’t hack it on their own. How pathetic can you get?!

Good Enough? Pessimists – lacking in confidence – “I’m not good enough.” Optimists – overly confident – “I’m too good.”

Which are you?

The Oppressor “...the internalization of the oppressor consciousness...” – Paulo Freire Marx said that most people have a false consciousness – a consciousness constructed for them by others, to the advantage of others, and to their own disadvantage. Capitalism is superb at creating a false consciousness. It causes the oppressed to internalise the consciousness built for them by their oppressors specifically to keep them oppressed. People are comfortable accepting the value system of the rich and powerful, the very value system most hostile to their own interests.

The Nephilim Who are the Nephilim? They are a race mentioned in the Bible of angelhuman hybrids, described as the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”. Who are the children that Phosters and Archons have had with humans? What special powers do they possess? Do they even know they have them?

The Underworld The Underworld = the NetherSphere. Is there a nethersphere below the atmosphere and noosphere, where the thoughts of the dead lurk?

Search Terms The following are search terms that people have put into Google, and thus found their way to the AC site: “Who do you kill in order to join the Illuminati?” “When you change religion to join the Illuminati, how much money do you get?” “Which group of Illuminati grows beards?”

“Do I get money exactly the same moment when I become an Illuminatus?” “I want to join the great Illuminati for power and riches.” “Picz of all Illuminati members fucking and having sex with themselves.” (Is this person saying that the Illuminati are a bunch of wankers? Or that they love orgies?)

Hermes Trismegistus “For the sun is situated in the centre of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown.” – Hermes Trismegistus The Singularity – the mathematical Cosmic Mind – is the ultimate Sun, the Sun of all suns, and wears the cosmos like a body. “Close your eyes and let the mind expand. Let no fear of death or darkness arrest its course. Allow the mind to merge with Mind. Let it flow out upon the great curve of consciousness. Let it soar on the wings of the great bird of duration, up to the very Circle of Eternity.” – Hermes Trismegistus “But if you shut up your soul in your body, and abase yourself, and say, ‘I know nothing, I can do nothing; I am afraid of earth and sea, I cannot mount to heaven; I know not what I was, nor what I shall be,’ then what have you to do with God?” – Hermes Trismegistus “Leap clear of all that is corporeal, and make yourself grown to a like expanse with that greatness which is beyond all measure; rise above all time and become eternal; then you will apprehend God. Think that for you too nothing is impossible; deem that you too are immortal, and that you are able to grasp all things in your thought, to know every craft and science; find your home in the haunts of every living creature; make yourself higher than all heights and lower than all depths; bring together in yourself all opposites of quality, heat and cold, dryness and fluidity; think that you are everywhere at once, on land, at sea, in heaven; think that you are not yet begotten, that you are in the womb, that you are young, that you are old, that you have died, that you are in the world beyond the grave; grasp in your thought all of this at once, all times and places, all substances and

qualities and magnitudes together; then you can apprehend God.” – Hermes Trismegistus “If then you do not make yourself equal to God, you cannot apprehend God; for like is known by like.” – Hermes Trismegistus “God” uses the principle of sufficient reason, and so can you. If you can use this principle perfectly then you are ipso facto God!

No Gods “But let me reveal my heart to you entirely, my friends: if there were gods, how could I endure not to be a god! Hence there are no gods.” – Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra There is no God, but we are all becoming Gods, hence we can endure it, and there are Gods – those who got there quicker than we have.

Democracy “Democracy – where any two idiots can outvote a genius.” – Anon VL: “So then what; the idiots should have no say at all, right?? Exactly! Who but an idiot would advocate giving power to idiots? That’s the very definition of idiocy. Look where we are right now thanks to that doctrine. The world must learn to trust its smartest people. Smart people – of the philosophical class, such as Plato – are the best hope idiots have, but, of course, they’re too idiotic to understand that. The geniuses can design a proper society where the conditions that produce idiots are abolished. At the moment, these conditions are actively pandered to. The world pretends that there are no idiots, and that’s exactly what you would expect from a society full of idiots who are too idiotic to realise that they are the idiots the others are talking about. As the gambling adage has it: “If you can’t spot the sucker, it’s you.” Equally, “If you can’t spot the idiot, it’s you.” If you spot the idiot and then give them power, you’re an idiot too. What is truly bizarre is that people such as VL – the legions of the politically correct – are appalled at labelling people as idiots, and, in order not to offend anyone, support giving the idiots more power than the geniuses. And that’s exactly how you get a totally fucked-up world, exactly

like the one we’re living in. The Truth isn’t sentimental and isn’t politically correct. Our agenda is to end human stupidity, but we first have to identify the idiots or how can we make any progress? The people who will an end but not the means for obtaining it are pathetic. They are incapable of helping humanity. In fact, they themselves are the problem!

The Heart The ancient Egyptians called the anatomical heart the haty, while ib referred to the heart as a metaphysical entity reflecting emotion, intelligence, memory, wisdom, the soul and the personality itself. It was ib – as a spiritual entity – that was weighed in the judgment that determined a person’s fate in the afterlife. The Book of the Dead shows the heart of the deceased being weighed against the feather of Ma’at, a symbol of universal truth, harmony and balance. The gods were said to speak through a person’s heart to communicate their will to the person.

***** There was a concern that the heart might testify against the deceased, so a heart scarab amulet was often wrapped within the bandages of the person’s mummified body, inscribed with the following words from the Book of the Dead: “O my heart which I had upon earth, do not rise up against me as a witness in the presence of the lord of things; do not speak against me concerning what I have done, do not bring up anything against me in the presence of the great god of the west...” Plainly, the Egyptian gods weren’t all-knowing.

***** When we refer to using our heart rather than our head (brain), falling in love with our heart, being “all heart”, and so on, we are returning to the ancient Egyptian belief system.

The World

If you do not belong to a particular in-group then you are in the out-group in relation to that in-group. Most of us belong to a few in-groups, and a much larger number of out-groups, i.e. we are mostly outsiders as far as the world is concerned (unless we belong to the most powerful in-groups, such as the Old World Order and super rich elite). Only hermits and recluses do not belong to any groups, which makes them exclusively outsiders, unless we define all those who do not belong to any groups as a group, regarding which they are members of the in-group!

Impostor Syndrome Are you an impostor? Are you faking it? Who is the real you? Are you only a facsimile of yourself, a simulacrum?

The Bystander Effect The Bystander Effect is the phenomenon whereby the more people are present at an incident the less likely anyone is to do anything. If you think about it, the whole of society is governed by the Bystander Effect. The average citizen thinks that the State has nothing to do with them, that it’s not their responsibility. It’s up to someone else to do something about it. We get people asking us what our “plans” are. Well, a) we’re hardly likely to tell complete strangers what our plans are and b), what are your plans? Concentrate on yourselves, not on us. What plan are you implementing? Don’t be a bystander. The world is your responsibility! It’s up to you personally to do something, not to walk on by, or to look to others to act.

The Ersatz Corps Ersatz – serving as a substitute; synthetic; artificial; the thing without the thing; an imitation; an artificial or fake thing used to replace something natural or genuine; a substitute of inferior quality to what it replaces. The ersatz world is the simulated world, the simulacral world. In WWI, replacement troops for battle-depleted German units were drawn from lesser-trained, less experienced Ersatz Corps, who, naturally,

were less effective than the troops they replaced. Do you belong to the Real Corps or the Ersatz Corps? The super rich enjoy real luxury. The rest of us are given ersatz luxury, the illusion of luxury – the thing without the thing. In WWII, Ersatzbrot (replacement bread) – made of potato starch and sawdust – was given to prisoners of war, and labour and death camp victims. The Simulated Society = the Ersatz Society, a fake Society, with people leading fake lives. Welcome to the Spectacle, the Spectacle of the Simulacral Society where all truth has been replaced by lies.

Caring The Central Doctrine of the Capitalist Elite: You do not need to care about those to whom you are not accountable. You are accountable only to the rich and powerful, i.e. your own capitalist peers. You can do whatever you like to those who can’t hold you to account – the poor and powerless. However, the French Revolution proved that everyone is accountable for their actions. The super rich still haven’t learned this lesson, so they will need to learn it all over again.

Energy – Old and New, Negative and Positive Old, tired, weary, jaded energy gets in the way of new vibrant energy. The negative disturbs and blocks the positive.

The Gnostic Susceptibility DS: “Well, that kind of reminds me of a joke about Gnostics: they will believe anything, as long as you tell them it’s a secret!” Heeeeeeee!

The Mission Join up with those on the same mission. Avoid those who oppose your mission.

Mirror, Mirror Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all? Or Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the ugliest of them all?

Ken Wilber “And it is the nothing, the Mystery, the Emptiness alone that needs to be realized: not known but felt, not thought but breathed, not an object but an atmosphere, not a lesson but a life.” – Ken Wilber Wilber is a guru. All gurus are opposed to knowledge and reason. They all blabber on about “feeling” and “breathing”. You cannot live your life properly unless you know what life and existence are, and reason alone reveals this. All gurus get in the way of the truth, and spin nothing but webs of ignorance, delusion and Mythos, for the sake of self-aggrandisement. “In other words, all of my books are lies.” – Ken Wilber Indeed! So why don’t you stop writing, you lying bastard?! “I have one major rule: everybody is right.” – Ken Wilber Total relativism! Believe what you like; everyone is an expert. “More specifically, everybody – including me – has some important pieces of the truth, and all of those pieces need to be honoured, cherished, and included in a more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace.” – Ken Wilber In fact, 99.9% of human beliefs are false and absurd. Most people inhabit a Mythos fantasy land that Truth never visits. There is only one right answer to existence – ontological mathematics. “On my tombstone, I really hope that someday they will write: He was true but partial...” – Ken Wilber Not going to happen. They will write, “He was wrong!”

“In order to understand how the new holographic paradigm fits into the overall scheme of things, it is necessary to have an overall scheme of things to begin with.” – Ken Wilber That’s true of everything! “The great and rare mystics of the past (from Buddha to Christ, from alHallaj to Lady Tsogyal, from Hui-neng to Hildegard) were, in fact, ahead of their time, and are still ahead of ours. In other words, they are not figures of the past. They are figures of the future.” – Ken Wilber Mystical, false, and deluded garbage! Jesus Christ and the Buddha didn’t say any true things at all. It’s impossible to tell the truth if you do not have an ontology and epistemology that reflects the eternal truths of reason. “So the call of the Nondual traditions is: Abide as Emptiness, embrace all Form. The liberation is in the Emptiness, never in the Form, but Emptiness embraces all forms as a mirror all its objects. So the Forms continue to arise, and, as the sound of one hand clapping, you are all those Forms. You are the display. You and the universe are One Taste. Your Original Face is the purest Emptiness, and therefore every time you look in the mirror, you see only the entire Kosmos.” – Ken Wilber WTF! Pure “guru talk” – mystical, bogus charlatanry. If you can’t write down the God Equation, you don’t know a single true thing. “Flatland accepts no interior domain whatsoever, and reintroducing Spirit is the least of our worries.” – Ken Wilber Science is Flatland, with no interior whatsoever. Wilberian Spiritualism is Madland! “...it is the rehabilitation of the interior in general that opens the possibility of reconciling science and religion.” – Ken Wilber Mind is the interior. Matter is the exterior. Science studies only the observable exterior hence can say nothing about the unobservable interior. Rather than admit this, science denies that the interior exists! “Evolution does not isolate us from the rest of the Kosmos, it unites us with the rest of the Kosmos: the same currents that produced birds from dust and

poetry from rocks produce egos from ids and sages from egos.” – Ken Wilber Who said otherwise? Well, apart from the mad Abrahamists. “Most sexual intercourse in the animal kingdom occurs in a matter of seconds. During intercourse, both parties are open to being preyed upon or devoured. Bring new meaning to ‘dinner and sex,’ because you are the dinner. So it’s slam-bam-thank-you-ma’am. None of this sharing feelings, and emoting, and cuddling – and that about sums up men. Mr. Sensitive – the man, the rhythm, the weenie – is a very, very recent invention, and it takes men a bit of getting used to, we might say.” – Ken Wilber Sex is just another way of “consuming” another, or being consumed by them. “Neither sensory empiricism, nor pure reason, nor practical reason, nor any combination thereof can see into the realm of Spirit. In the smoking ruins left by Kant, the only possible conclusion is that all future metaphysics and authentic spirituality must offer direct experiential evidence.” – Ken Wilber So speaks an experientialist. In fact, only reason can see into the realm of the Truth, of intelligible reality. Experience tells you zero about ultimate reality since ultimate reality is entirely beyond experience, yet entirely accessible to pure reason. “It’s a strange world. It seems that about fifteen billion years ago there was, precisely, absolute nothingness, and then within less than a nanosecond the material universe blew into existence. “Stranger still, the physical matter so produced was not merely a random and chaotic mess, but seemed to organize itself into ever more and complex and intricate forms. So complex were these forms that, many billions of years later, some of them found ways to reproduce themselves, and thus out of matter arose life. “Even stranger, these life forms were apparently not content to merely reproduce themselves, but instead began a long evolution that would eventually allow them to represent themselves, to produce sign and symbols and concepts, and thus out of life arose mind. “Whatever this process of evolution was, it seems to have been incredibly driven from matter to life to mind.

“But stranger still, a mere few hundred years ago, on a small and indifferent planet around an insignificant star, evolution became conscious of itself. “And at precisely the same time, the very mechanisms that allowed evolution to become conscious of itself were simultaneously working to engineer its own extinction.” “And that was the strangest of all.” – Ken Wilber It’s certainly true that the scientific “explanation” of reality is preposterous, and an insult to reason. “Eros is the love of the lower reaching up to the higher (Ascent); Agape is the love of the higher reaching down to the lower (Descent). In individual development, one ascends via Eros (or expanding to a higher and wider identity), and then integrates via Agape (or reaching down to embrace with care all lower holons), so that balanced development transcends but includes.” – Ken Wilber Where’s the Logos? As ever, the gurus speak pure Mythos. “Since modern science had, in effect, killed two of the three value spheres (I-aesthetics and we-morals), [extreme] postmodernism would simply attempt to kill science as well, and thus, in its own bizarre fashion, attempt an ‘integration’ or ‘equal valuing’ of all three spheres because all of them were now equally dead, so to speak. Three walking corpses would heal the dissociations of modernity. Into the postmodern wasteland walked the zombie squad, and the wonder of it all is that they managed to convince a fair number of academics that this was a viable solution to modernity’s ills.” – Ken Wilber As the Assassins said, “If nothing is true, everything is permitted.” Without Truth, everything is relative. Nietzsche thought that the death of God destroyed all objective standards. In fact, the life of mathematics provides all valid objective standards. “Academic religion is the killing jar of Spirit.” – Ken Wilber The academic world is the Killing Jar of all radical, unconventional thinking. The academic world is the Groupthink world. It’s driven by conservatism, consensus, caution, and sterility. It doesn’t take risk. It

excludes heretics, blasphemers and freethinkers. It’s for drudges, drones, functionaries, bureaucrats and apparatchiks. Zamyatin said, “True literature can exist only where it is created, not by diligent and trustworthy functionaries, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics.” Science is the perfect subjective for unimaginative, diligent and trustworthy functionaries. It’s the least sexy subject conceivable. It’s the precise definition of dullness. Sam Harris ... zzzzzzzzzz.

Agape and Eros Agape: brotherly love, charity; Christian love as opposed to Eros. Eros: carnal or sensual love; the urge to self-preservation and sexual pleasure. The ancient Greeks distinguished four types of love: 1) erao: “to be in love with, to desire passionately or sexually”, 2) phileo: “have affection for”, 3) agapao: “have regard for, be contented with”, and 4) stergo: used especially of the love of parents and children or a ruler and his subjects. What kind of lover are you?

Vampires In the world of horror, there are only monsters and their victims. Capitalism is a vampiric economic system. The rich capitalists suck the blood of the worker victims. The rich capitalists are predators who stalk their victims and feed off them, draining them dry.

The Critics “As a comedian, you know how to deal with hecklers. Hecklers are people that are jealous that you’re getting a lot of attention and you can make a joke about it if you can notice it. Reviewers are hecklers. Hecklers in print. And I’m good with hecklers.” – Russell Brand The world is full of critics and hecklers. It’s almost empty of people who can do anything worth criticising or heckling.

Facebook It’s said that Facebook consists of informers and reactors. Informers provide information to the community, while reactors respond to that information. Reactors provide either supportive, constructive feedback or nasty, destructive feedback = “trolling”. Trolls are staggeringly unpleasant people who want to ruin things, bring people down, drain the energy of others. They are the negative energy in the world, and, naturally, are always drawn to positive energy, with the intention of eliminating it, thus filling the world with their negativity. It’s amazing how many idiots see fit to offer one-line trolling comments about Illuminism, without knowing anything about it. What’s for sure is that trolls feel deeply disturbed and threatened by positivity. If you are a positive person, you will ipso facto seek out sites where you can give positive feedback and make a positive contribution. Trolls, on the other hand, trawl for sites where they can give negative feedback and make a negative contribution. These people are poison. They are warped and sick. They are hawks, on the psychopathic spectrum. They should always be met with retaliation, with mockery and ridicule – a taste of their own medicine, which is the only thing they understand.

The Zone In the Zone, you are performing at your peak level, having a continuous peak experience. You are fully optimised, like a God. There’s nowhere like the Zone. It’s heaven yourself, where you are completely you and totally fulfilled.

The Propaganda Christians wave placards saying, “God is Love.” They also have placards saying, “For the wages of sin is death [i.e. sinners will go to hell.]” However, they never say who will kill the sinners and send them to hell. They never combine the two slogans into one: “God is Love; God is the being who kills people and sends their souls to eternal torment and pain in the fires of hell.” Even they can recognise that the two messages totally

contradict each other. The being who is the quintessence of love could never send anyone to hell! It’s literally impossible. If God were true love – embodying the Platonic Form of Love – he would love all sinners as much as he loved the righteous. That’s what he does if he’s nothing but love. If he sends sinners to hell then he’s something other than love, hence it’s false to claim that God is Love.

Light Healers “I like your presentation on light as being mind. I had the same intuition many years ago, and a few weeks ago it clicked in my head that Leibniz’s Characteristica Universalis could be called a sort of ‘Language of Light’. There’s a noteworthy number of phenomena about ‘energy healers’ or people who use ‘mental energy’ to heal or warm things up getting cancer, and it clicked that the reason why this may be so is because these so-called healers are actually using their mind’s energy to produce a mild electromagnetic field, which can have a carcinogenic effect. I remember playing a game with people when I was far younger where we’d balance a downward facing teaspoon by its neck on a ceramic teapot’s handle, and then pick up forks and bring them near to the teaspoon, and lo and behold the teaspoon would be repelled by the fork without the two touching. We noticed that when one used more ‘willpower’ then the teaspoon would push away much more easily, and so this became a game where two people would use forks to see who can ‘out will’ the other in pushing the tea spoon around. It’s no wonder mind can so easily manipulate electromagnetism given that they’re the same thing!” – P

Definition DM: “I still hold my stance that referring to the code, data, or energy within us as God, you are stating it as a deity. That’s just what the word means, by definition. Thus if you use it when speaking, people will automatically think of the God as in Christianity, or Catholicism, or Judaism, not of what you speak. But, because the term ‘God’ was originally used to describe a religious deity, that determined the definition of the word. Thus, if you use the term ‘God’ but are not trying to describe a deity, then there is a misuse of the term being committed.”

Hey, why don’t you try studying terms such as theism, deism, pantheism, pandeism, panentheism, panendeism, monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, and kathenotheism? The idea that “God” refers to something “defined” by Catholic or Jews is ridiculous. Even they can’t agree on what “God” is! We couldn’t care less if the majority are too stupid to understand what we’re talking about when we refer to “God”. We’re not going to constrain ourselves because of the idiocy of others. We will introduce our own definitions, and if, like DM, you can’t “get” them, too fucking bad! Definitions change all the time. Just look at science. Definitions of God aren’t cast in stone. They aren’t set down for all time. Our mathematical definition of the soul bears no resemblance at all to anything from Abrahamism. So what? Who cares? We are presenting our system and our definitions. If you insist on complaining about our definitions on the basis of someone else’s definitions, you’re never going to understand any new system of thought with new definitions. DM has an extremely rigid schema – that of “anarcho-Buddhism” – through which he views the world, hence he’s fundamentally opposed to rationalist Illuminism. DM: “If I am correct, consciousness is what creates and inhabits matter, all matter, including the elusive dark matter... Energy and vibrations, that is the key, just as Nikola Tesla has stated. But, to get back on track, consciousness dwells within matter, including our bodies, but also dwells without, moulding thoughts and carrying information or data... This is the reason the majority of the human race is able to be controlled by a few, because they know how to manipulate this energy/consciousness. ... Also, monks have tapped into it, knowing it is divine, but also knowing they can control it themselves, and there has been experiments done proving this. One that I can recall is a group of monks agreed to do a mass meditation, and were focusing on the middle east, and as they meditated, the violence went down over that day and the next in the middle east, but then started raising again after they were not meditating.” Typical Buddhist moonshine. All we get is anecdotal Mythos nonsense. No terms have been defined. Maybe that’s because DM is too scared to define anything, and always wants to look back to the definitions provided by ancient tribespeople. That’s the fastest way to get nowhere.

DM: “Well, I just had another paranormal encounter. So, I went and ate lunch in my kitchen, and I tuned off the bathroom light and closed the door, but then I needed to go get a glass of water, so I went back out into the kitchen, but as I went down the hallway, the bathroom door was open and the light was on. And just now I heard thumping on the floor somewhere in my house, but I keep checking, and there is no one in my house and all the doors and windows are still locked.” Hmmmmmmm!!!! Enough said. How dare these fucking nutcases pass comment on ontological mathematics?!

Experience Consumption Once the rich have bought every conceivable luxury object, i.e. they have exhausted “commodity consumption”, they then move onto “experience consumption”, and pay a fortune for the “ultimate experiences”, such as going to space!

The Power of the People The Power of the People versus The Wealth of the Super Rich. Which is stronger?

Jerusalem Syndrome “The name gave to religious delusions or psychoses when people visit Jerusalem.” – Lisa Simpson What about the people who live in Jerusalem? Are they the maddest people on earth?!

Honour and Shame Islam is ruled by honour and shame. Rather than be shamed, and thus lose honour, Muslims kill or suppress anyone who might bring shame on them – especially the victims! If you’re a victim in Islam, you’re likely to be suppressed, persecuted or silenced ... permanently.

Dogs and Cats When you see people with dogs or cats, you are irresistibly drawn to thinking of witches and their “familiars”. How incredibly odd it is that humans want to spend time with creatures even stupider than they are! Or maybe that’s how they build a sense of superiority. There are many humans who love their pets more than they love other human beings (in fact, they often actively despise other human beings). If you love animals more than humans, you are seriously fucked in the head, and you are almost certainly not too far estranged from the animal world yourself, i.e. in a very recent past life, you yourself were an animal. Why else are you hanging out with animals? Is it for their scintillating conversation, sparkling wit or dazzling intelligence? Seriously, why are you looking back to your animal past rather than forward to your divine future? Do you seriously imagine that these animals “love” you? What kind of idea of love do you have? Do dumb brutes “love”? Is that what your love is like?

Negative and Positive Freedom Negative freedom = freedom from (constraints). Positive freedom = freedom to (do stuff). Negative freedom = freedom from interference or coercion; freedom to do things unencumbered by others; getting the authorities out of your life; living without constraints; not being stopped from doing something; doing your own thing; no self-restraint. In terms of Freudian psychology, negative liberty can be associated with the Id. Positive freedom = freedom to act, to do something; being the master of your own actions, not in thrall to desires or whims; your reason is in control, acting according to informed choices and not just whim. In terms of Freudian psychology, positive liberty can be associated with the Superego. There’s a real tension between these two kinds of freedom: between Id freedom and Superego freedom. The Ego is required to mediate between them and it seeks to get the balance right.

*****

Negative freedom is associated with individual liberty, with “libertarianism”, and hatred of authoritarianism, and the State. Positive freedom has been variously associated with State power, totalitarianism, rule by experts, and with all visionary schemes that wish to transform humanity. Where negative freedom opposes State power, positive freedom is often connected with the State having a new concept of society and the citizen, and requiring active cooperation with its aims. The American Revolution was a positive liberty project that sought to free the Americans from the restrictive, authoritarian monarchies of Europe, yet what it implemented were the seeds for a subsequent incredible level of negative liberty – such as prevails today. America now hates the State, to an extent that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. America is practically ungovernable, which is what happens when you promote negative liberty and decry positive liberty (the transformative, visionary projects of the State). Who’s in charge – the individual or collective, self or society, the fool or the expert, the child or the parent, the irrational or the rational? These are the fundamental questions of politics.

Self Mastery Self Control versus no Self Control Positive liberty involves self-control, while negative liberty typically involves self-indulgence, and no self-control. The ideal is to be controlled from the inside (from yourself), not from outside (from others). Where the outside does have influence over you, it should be to your own benefit, to help to optimise you. This is positive liberty. Negative liberty typically involves telling everyone else to butt out, and exerts no control at all: it’s about doing everything you want at every instant – maximum self-gratification and self-indulgence, with no consideration for others. Positive libertarians are driven by the Jungian Self and Freudian Superego, negative libertarians by the Jungian Shadow and Freudian Id.

Right-wingers are negative libertarians. They want to close down the State and have everything run by the “invisible hand” of the “free market”. They have no concern for others and are totally selfish. They don’t want to pay any taxes or help anyone else. They want to live in castles with drawbridges, in gated communities with others of their own kind, where they can ignore everyone else. Left-wingers are positive libertarians. They want the State to produce a fair, just, meritocratic society where everyone gets an equal opportunity to shine. All negative libertarians would oppose 100% inheritance tax to the death; all positive libertarians would support it to the hilt. This tax is the difference between selfishness and altruism (or enlightened self-interest, which is often indistinguishable from altruism). Negative liberty is all about extreme individualism and hatred of the collective, community, the State and society. Ayn Rand is its most notorious advocate, with her grotesque claim that selfishness is virtuous. Positive liberty is all about the collective good, and strength through unity (rather than fragmentation through division). It’s about transforming society for the better, and that means massively intervening in society until everyone, and all institutions, are fully optimised, at which point the State runs itself and requires no further intervention.

***** “Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought.” – Lord Acton This is a positive liberty statement, opposing negative liberty. Today’s world is all about doing what we want and not what we ought, about screaming for what we want and not what we need. This is a negative liberty world.

***** What you want and want you need are two radically different things. Negative liberty is so popular because it panders to the former. Positive liberty is unpopular because it addresses the latter. Positive liberty is about giving you unpleasant medicine that guarantees your well-being. Negative

liberty is about letting you do everything that’s worst for you, with no regard to your health and well-being.

Myths “Myths, so to say, are public dreams; dreams are private myths” – Joseph Campbell Collective, waking “reality” is a public dream. When we go to sleep, we leave behind the Collective dream and enter our private dream world where we cease to encounter the rest of the world and instead meet only our own unconscious.

Existence Everything is “nothing” with a twist. Existence is what you get when you make 0 move according to the principle of sufficient reason. All other numbers are generated simply by putting 0 in motion.

Error MM: “What is the mathematical equation for an error, a spelling error, a typo, any mishap?” Why don’t you read the books before opening your mouth, moron? The God Equation is the mathematical equation for everything including an “error, a spelling error, a typo, any mishap.” Read the books and find out why. You won’t bother, of course, because you’re too stupid. MM: “So story books, folktales, and mythologies are bullshit/nonsense? How does one equate the imagination? Metaphor, and similes?” Read the books. Enlighten yourself!

***** Ontologically, what is an error? What is an error made of? How is it conveyed? What carries it? The world is full of information, carried by mathematical wave functions. It’s the information content that has errors,

not the mathematical carrier. Information can be wrong because people can assemble it wrongly. When a person makes a spelling mistake, they have simply assembled a word wrongly with regard to the stated rules. There is no error in the mathematical carrier of the information. Mathematics can’t help the fact that you have put information together wrongly! The error is yours.

The Negatives Negative liberty reflects a teenager’s understanding of the world, or even that of a toddler – “It’s all about me! Anyone who tells me what to do is a Nazi!” Stewie from Family Guy and Cartman from South Park are archetypal negative libertarians. Negative libertarians are anarchists. They despise all authority and are unable to make a simple distinction between good authority (acting in the interests of all) and bad authority (acting in the interests of the elite few to preserve and perpetuate their wealth and power). Positive liberty is an adult understanding of the world – “It’s all about us. Let’s make things work fairly and effectively, for the good of us all.” Negative libertarians despise experts (they always see themselves as the true experts; they have no reality principle and no ability to see their own limitations). Positive libertarians revere experts and want them to use that expertise to the full to make life better for everyone.

Res Publica versus Res Privita “Res publica is a Latin phrase, loosely meaning ‘public affair’. It is the root of the word ‘republic’, and the word ‘commonwealth’ has traditionally been used as a synonym for it; however translations vary widely according to the context. ‘Res’ is a nominative singular Latin noun for a substantive or concrete thing – as opposed to ‘spes’, which means something unreal or ethereal – and ‘publica’ is an attributive adjective meaning ‘of and/or pertaining to the state or the public’. Hence a literal translation is, ‘the public thing/affair’. Res publica usually is something held in common by many people. For instance a park or garden in the city of Rome could either be ‘private property’ (res privata), or managed by the state, in which case it would be part of the res publica. Taking everything together that is of

public interest leads to the connotation that the ‘res publica’ in general equals ‘the state’. For Romans this equalled of course also the Roman Empire, and all its interests, so Res Publica could as well refer to the Roman Empire as a whole (regardless of whether it was governed as a republic or under imperial reign). In this context scholars suggest commonwealth as a more accurate and neutral translation of the term, while neither implying republican nor imperial connotations, just a reference to the state as a whole. But even translating res publica as ‘republic’ when it clearly refers to the Roman Empire under Imperial reign occurs. ... Res publica could also be used in a generic meaning, referring to ‘public affairs’ and/or the general system of government of a state. In this usage res publica translated the Greek concept politeia (which originally meant the state organisation of a city-state). Also, for a Roman politician engaging himself in the res publica, a translation can often be the even more generic ‘being occupied in politics’.” – Wikipedia Positive libertarians support the res publica, while negative libertarians advocate the res privita, and wish the res publica (State) to be abolished. Whose side are you on – the public or the private? Everyone who supports res privita is an enemy of the people and an enemy of the State. The American Republic isn’t a Republic at all. It’s a Reprivate. It’s owned, controlled and run by the private sector for the sake of the private sector, and continuously attacks and undermines the commonwealth, the public good, the Republic, the State.

Res Publica versus Spes Publica Res publica = the “public thing”; concrete action regarding public affairs. Spes publica = the “public abstraction”; theoretical or philosophical considerations of public affairs.

The Invisible Hand Free-market economics appeals to an invisible hand that is expected to miraculously create order and prosperity. This economic ideology rejects

design, authority, regulation, modulation and any intelligent, centralised, telelogical, positive-liberty control. Science also appeals to an invisible hand – of randomness, indeterminism, acausation, probability and statistics. It too rejects design, inherent order, teleology. Free-market economics and scientific materialism are both expressions of negative liberty. Positive libertarians will replace free-market economics with controlled markets, and scientific materialism with ontological mathematics.

***** Free-market economics and scientific materialism are both opposed to design, and to the operations of intelligence (mind), and see “randomness” as the antidote. They reject great, “metaphysical” schemes. Science is almost never used in a public way. Like free-market capitalism, it’s very much tied to the private sector, especially regarding pharmaceuticals, utilities, computing, innovation, technology and engineering. NASA and CERN are the only well-known positive-liberty scientific undertakings, and their large budgets are continually opposed by the private sector, and their relevance and usefulness questioned. Imagine every scientist in a country working for the government (public sector) rather than the private sector (capitalism). That’s the only way we can transform the nation. Science must be tied to the State and positive liberty. It must stop feeding capitalism and the privately wealthy.

Freedom? Right wing freedom = economic freedom, consumer freedom, the freedom to choose. Left wing freedom = intellectual and spiritual freedom, the freedom to become optimal, to become fulfilled as a human being. Right wing freedom is all about objects and objectification, about commodities and services, about status symbols, about things. It’s totally materialistic. Left wing freedom is about spiritual well-being, fulfilment, optimisation, ideas, concepts, progress, evolution. It’s totally idealistic. Science is on the side of right wing freedom while ontological mathematics supports left wing freedom.

***** Jews are the great champions of negative freedom ... except when it comes to Judaism, in which case they are all about positive freedom. Jews are massively influential in terms of res privita: private control of the world, private banking, private corporations, private media, free-market capitalism, continuous subversion of the State and of State power and influence. The Jews hate every State other than their own (Israel) because they have so often been persecuted by States. Yet they have attracted that persecution by forever undermining and sabotaging the State with their private control of the banks and economy. If you do that – if you refuse to be part of the commonwealth, of the public good, of res publica – you have made yourself an Enemy of the People.

Media Manipulation “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X The aim of negative liberty media is to make you hate the State, give you a false consciousness and fall hopelessly in love with the rich and “successful”, and want to be one of them. You will never attack that which you wish to be. The elite have to present themselves as alluringly as possible, and the State as monstrously as possible – so that the State isn’t permitted to confiscate their wealth and power in the name of the people, to be redistributed amongst the people to establish a fair, just society of genuine equal opportunities.

***** “The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces and the more his product increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more goods he creates.” – Karl Marx

Devaluation

“The devaluation of the human world increases in direct relation with the increase in value of the world of things.” – Marx Science too – thanks to nihilist atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris – totally devalues the human world and turns it into a world of things. The correlation between scientific materialism and free-market capitalism is astounding. They are practically the same thing. Science relies on an “invisible hand of randomness” and so does free-market economics. They both hate authority (or, rather, any authority opposed to their own authority), design, purpose, plans, intervention, regulation, control, causation and determinism. They both want statistics, probability, indeterminism and “things”. They despise and reject souls and spirituality (idealism).

The War of All Against All Thomas Hobbes imagined what would happen if you gave people total freedom from constraint, if they could do whatever they liked, i.e. if there were no laws, no rulers, no authorities, no society, no State? He concluded it would be pure and utter anarchy. You could do anything you liked to others. But, equally, they could do anything they liked to you. That is exactly where unrestricted negative liberty would take us, to the jungle itself. Plenty of freedom is useless if you have no security, no trust in others. You would live in total fear all the time. And that’s the opposite of freedom.

***** “Hobbes begins his treatise on politics with an account of human nature. He presents an image of man as matter in motion, attempting to show through example how everything about humanity can be explained materialistically, that is, without recourse to an incorporeal, immaterial soul or a faculty for understanding ideas that are external to the human mind. Hobbes proceeds by defining terms clearly, and in an unsentimental way. Good and evil are nothing more than terms used to denote an individual’s appetites and desires, while these appetites and desires are nothing more than the tendency to move toward or away from an object. Hope is nothing more than an appetite for a thing combined with opinion that it can be had. He

suggests the dominant political theology of the time, Scholasticism, thrives on confused definitions of everyday words, such as incorporeal substance, which for Hobbes is a contradiction in terms. “Hobbes describes human psychology without any reference to the summum bonum, or greatest good, as previous thought had done. Not only is the concept of a summum bonum superfluous, but given the variability of human desires, there could be no such thing. Consequently, any political community that sought to provide the greatest good to its members would find itself driven by competing conceptions of that good with no way to decide among them. The result would be civil war. “There is, however, Hobbes states, a summum malum, or greatest evil. This is the fear of violent death. A political community can be oriented around this fear. “Since there is no summum bonum, the natural state of man is not to be found in a political community that pursues the greatest good. But to be outside of a political community is to be in an anarchic condition. Given human nature, the variability of human desires, and need for scarce resources to fulfil those desires, the state of nature, as Hobbes calls this anarchic condition, must be a war of all against all. Even when two men are not fighting, there is no guarantee that the other will not try to kill him for his property or just out of an aggrieved sense of honour, and so they must constantly be on guard against one another. It is even reasonable to preemptively attack one’s neighbour. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. – Thomas Hobbes “The desire to avoid the state of nature, as the place where the summum malum of violent death is most likely to occur, forms the polestar of political reasoning. It suggests a number of laws of nature, although Hobbes is quick to point out that they cannot properly speaking be called ‘laws,’ since there is no one to enforce them. The first thing that reason suggests is

to seek peace, but that where peace cannot be had, to use all of the advantages of war. Hobbes is explicit that in the state of nature nothing can be considered just or unjust, and every man must be considered to have a right to all things. The second law of nature is that one ought to be willing to renounce one’s right to all things where others are willing to do the same, to quit the state of nature, and to erect a commonwealth with the authority to command them in all things. Hobbes concludes Part One by articulating an additional seventeen laws of nature that make the performance of the first two possible and by explaining what it would mean for a sovereign to represent the people even when they disagree with the sovereign.” – Wikipedia

***** “...incorporeal substance, which for Hobbes is a contradiction in terms.” ... Materialists simply cannot conceive of immaterial, non-sensory things. Yet the irony is that mathematics is entirely immaterial and non-sensory ... and is the core of scientific materialism! Work that one out. It’s mathematics that defines “immaterial substance” and does so via the God Equation, and Fourier frequency singularities. Of course, Hobbes had the excuse that he didn’t know any of that ... but modern scientists have no such excuse. They have complete access to Euler’s Formula and Fourier mathematics. What they lack is intelligence, imagination and a proper ontology and epistemology, and any understanding whatsoever of what mathematics actually is.

The Waste Land The Code Amfortas, the Grail King = the Grand Master of the Illuminati. The Grail Knights = the Illuminati. Montsalvache, the Grail Castle = Illuminati Headquarters. The Grail Hallows = the Holy Relics of the Illuminati. The Holy Grail = the Illuminati’s Most Sacred Object.

The Spear of Destiny = the Holy Weapon for Killing “God”. The Waste Land = the World. The Wound That Never Heals = the Fractured Human Psyche. The Fisher King = He Who Catches Souls. The Round Table = Meritocracy. Galahad = The Finder of the Grail, The Saint. Parsifal = The Hero; he who embarks on the Road of Trials. Klingsor = the Magician, the Enemy, Lord of the Dark Arts (the God of Abrahamism). Kundry (First Sorceress, First She-Devil, Hell’s Rose) = Temptation. The Flower-Maidens = Seduction (leading us away from the True Path). The Siege Perilous = the Traitor’s Seat, for those who betray the Illuminati; the seat that’s deadly to all who are Unworthy. Simon Magus = the Divine Simon who gave the Illuminati the most precious object in the world: the Holy Grail itself. The Soul Camera = the Camera that takes a picture of the human soul. What is the connection between it and the Grail? No one who fails the Soul Camera test can ever be admitted to the presence of the Grail.

***** Interested in the Illuminati? Study the coded Arthurian Romances. Go and see Wagner’s Parsifal. Study the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Go and see Goethe’s Faust. Study Dante’s Divine Comedy. Go and see Tarkovsky’s Stalker. Embrace the Light. Walk the Path of Truth, the hardest path of all, the path that all Questers of Enlightenment must take.

The Armageddon Conspiracy The Armageddon Conspiracy = the Illuminati’s 21st century coded Arthurian novel.

The Armageddon Conspiracy = the Plot to Kill God. Who is “God”? He is Jehovah, Christ, Allah. But he is NOT God. He’s the Devil. Humanity cannot live until the Devil dies. Saint-Just, the great French Revolutionary and Illuminatus, demanded the death of the tyrant king Louis XVI. Even more so, the tyrant “God” must perish. “A man of great spirit might say, in another age, that a king should be accused, not for the crimes of his administration, but for the crime of having been king, as that is an usurpation which nothing on earth can justify. With whatever illusions, whatever conventions, monarchy cloaks itself, it remains an eternal crime against which every man has the right to rise and arm himself. Monarchy is an outrage which even the blindness of an entire people cannot justify; that people, by the example it gave, is guilty before nature, and all men hold from nature the secret mission to destroy such domination wherever it may be found.” – Saint-Just No matter how the Abrahamic God cloaks himself, whether in the coat of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, he remains an eternal criminal against which the whole of humanity must take up arms. The Abrahamic God is crime itself. How did he sign his Covenant with Abraham? – by ordering Abraham to murder his own son to show how good a slave he was. Only slaves could ever kneel to this diabolical “God”. “No man can reign innocently. The folly is all too evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper. Do kings themselves treat otherwise those who seek to usurp their authority?” – Saint-Just “God” cannot reign innocently, and plainly never has. “God” is a usurper of the Rights of Man. He seeks to strip the human race of its rights and impose his hatred of freedom on us all. He is the quintessential enemy of human freedom and Reason itself. One need only look at the slaves who worship him to see how he degrades, imprisons and makes idiots of the human race. “...I say that the King must be judged as an enemy, and that our duty is not so much to judge as it is to punish. I see no middle ground: this man must reign or die.” – Saint-Just

The Abrahamic God is the essence of evil and the greatest enemy humanity will ever face. There can be no pardon for this monster. This Torture God must reign or die. Will you join the plot to kill the apex predator that preys on humanity? Don’t worship God. BECOME GOD! When everyone is part of a Society of the Divine, a Community of Gods, there will be no more human slaves on their knees to an invisible Sky God who exercises his power not through being real but through being imagined to be real. When it comes to religion, perception is reality.

Belief Do you believe in the Illuminati? We don’t. We are the Illuminati. We are the Lizard Kings. We are the Mathematikoi. We are the Coming Race. We are the HyperHumans. We are the Hyperboreans. For the infantile conspiracy theorists, “Illuminati” stands for whoever they don’t like. Are the Illuminati Zionists, Jesuits, Communists, Socialists, Freemasons, Knights Templar, Liberals, Knights Hospitaller, pandimensional, shape-shifting, alien lizards, Wall Street bankers, the CEOs who run the corporatocracy, the Washington D. C. WASPs who facilitate the corporatocracy, the super rich who lobby and pay for their own agenda to be foisted on the people, the dynastic families of power and privilege who ensure that their rule stretches down the generations (the Old World Order)? It’s self-evident who the enemies of the people are: the cabal visibly running the world. There’s nothing hidden or secret about them. They’re right in front of our faces. They are those who run global capitalism, freemarket capitalism, consumerism, “freedumb and dumbocracy”, bread and circuses, media propaganda, the security services, those who uphold dynastic property rights, inheritance, privilege, cronyism, nepotism, those who uphold hereditary monarchy, those who support ancient, decrepit, evil

religions, those who support greed and selfishness in the name of “liberty”, those who support psychopathy and the relentless manipulation and exploitation of the masses in order to siphon more and more power, wealth and resources into the hands of fewer and fewer people. These people have nothing to do with the Illuminati. They are the opposite of the Illuminati. They are the 1% of psychopathic humans who feed on the rest. They are the vampire humans, the insatiable hawks who love nothing more than to feast on doves. Just as turkeys are fattened for Christmas, so are the doves fattened (made morbidly obese) so that the Elite never have to worry about these lumbering, slow-minded morons and slaves. Get Real. Get Active. Get Going. Isn’t it time to become ILLUMINATED?!

Facebook Everyone on Facebook is engaged in the marketing business, in the selling game, in brand management. The brand is themselves and what they are selling is themselves ... via marketing a wholly false representation of who they actually are. Can you see the genius of capitalism? It has turned everyone into a node of capitalism. Capitalism is now fully internalised in every consumer. These people have no cause other than themselves. They have no sacred cause, only the cause of all Last Men – those who will do anything for their own petty advantage at all times, those for whom the concept of self-sacrifice or helping the Collective is simply unimaginable and inconceivable. The only thing that can defeat the Elite is a United People. So, the primary task of the Elite is to utterly atomise society so that they are never confronted by Unity, but only by an infinity of competing, conflicting human atoms that have zero in common and no mutual bond to fight for. Capitalism/consumerism has created a world of monsters of self-interest without any bonds to their fellow human beings. The cult of the individual takes as its greatest enemy the “Collective”. Cui Bono? The Elite will never be toppled by greedy, selfish individuals, only by the brave, strong, principled Collective, representing the General Will of the People. But the Elite have demonized the Collective and now people just want to stay in, eat junk food, play video games, use their

smartphones incessantly, stare at screens and fantasise about being celebrities and having a “Wonderful Life”. This is a totally fake, phoney, fraudulent world, full of manufactured consumers whose primary consumption is their own propaganda, their own narcissism. These people would never do anything for anyone else. It’s “all about me ... because I’m worth it.” It’s all about looking after No. 1. It’s all about “I” and never about “We”. It’s always about “me” and never about “us”. It’s all about “every man for himself” rather than “we’re all in this together.” Rather than “All for One, and One for All”, it’s about “me, me, me ... and fuck you!” It’s all about celebrating the culture of total selfishness that has led to our world being ruled by the most selfish people you can get – the psychopaths. It’s very easy to identify a psychopath – they are staggeringly rich. And they are all ultra free-market capitalists. Free-market capitalism is the economic system of psychopaths for psychopaths. It wholly negates “democracy” by transferring all of the real power to unelected, unaccountable markets – controlled by them! How come no dumbocrat has ever managed to work out that voting never changes anything because the markets rule everything and no one can ever vote on the markets? Dumbocrats are dumb fucks who have been engineered by the Elite to BE dumb fucks. Their purpose is not to think but to serve, to consume, to buy. A democratic vote, no matter for whom you vote, always has exactly the same effect: it keeps the Elite in power.

BDSM There’s more enlightenment to be found in BDSM than in all Eastern religions put together. Sin for Salvation. Sex for Salvation. Welcome to the Dionysia. Have you got your Kink on? Everyone needs a little Strange.

“Face down, ass up, that’s the way we like to fuck.” – DJ Isaac Let the sex games begin!

Morality Plays Young people follow the lives of celebrities as though they are morality plays. They form their moral code based on what they see celebrities doing. They are obsessed with the “stars” and their paraphernalia, just as people were once obsessed with saints and their relics.

Killing the Thing You Love “And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!” – Oscar Wilde From time to time, we notice people falling in “love” with the Illuminati, and then feeling betrayed and angry when they don’t get what they want from it, when they become unrequited lovers, so to speak. No one asked you to fall in love. That’s your choice. Take responsibility for your actions. Man up. It’s often the case that people most vehemently attack the thing that, just a little earlier, they most passionately advocated. They are literally trying to kill the thing they love, or once loved. They ought to save their energy fighting against everything they always hated rather than what they once loved. The latter course of action makes them nothing but sad, pathetic, spurned lovers, fighting against their own shame and embarrassment when their love went wrong. There’s nothing worse than these lame romantics. The Illuminati never said it loved you, never asked for your love, and never asked you to have a tantrum when your love wasn’t returned.

If you find that the Illuminati isn’t living up to your romantic expectations and projections, then trot along, and find something that returns your love. It’s grotesque that we find so many unrequited lovers having nothing better to do with their time than badmouth us.

The God Series The God Series is the answer to everything. Are you smart enough for Ontological Mathematics – the Science of Existence? Are you smart enough to be God? The Illuminati are hyperrationalists. Our task is to bring about a New World Order, a Second Enlightenment, a true and permanent Age of Reason. Michael Faust: The Divine Series. The Hero-God Series. The Political Series. Adam Weishaupt: The Illuminati Series. The Anti-Christian Series. The Anti-Elite Series. The Sex Series.

***** The Illuminati Authors: Mike Hockney, Michael Faust and Adam Weishaupt.

The Moon Question Things that didn’t land men on the moon: 1) Praying to Jehovah, Jesus or Allah.

2) Meditating cross-legged under a tree. 3) Chanting “om”. 4) Bathing in a sacred river. 5) Waging Holy War. 6) Being a suicide bomber. 7) Burning witches. 8) Subjecting heretics to the Inquisition. 9) Beheading infidels. 10) Honouring the Sabbath Day. 11) Growing a beard. 12) Wearing funny hats, and dangly strings on your trousers. 13) Eating halal/kosher food. 14) Not doing haram things. 15) Wearing a turban. 16) Wearing a burqa. 17) Dressing modestly. 18) Praying to idols. 19) Refraining from bacon sandwiches. 20) Praying five times a day. 21) Giving to charity. 22) Going on pilgrimage to Mecca. 23) Declaring there is no god except God, and Mohammed is God’s Messenger. 24) Fasting during Ramadan. 25) Knowing any of the world’s holy texts inside out.

26) Loving “God”. Things that DID land men on the moon: 1) Mathematics. 2) Science. 3) Technology. 4) Engineering. 5) Computing. 6) The positive liberty vision of JFK: the intent to carry out a great, transformative project on behalf of the People. 7) The State-founded, State-funded, State Agency NASA. Faith has never done a single thing for humanity. Knowledge has done everything. It’s extraordinary that people imagine that you can become “enlightened” by knowing nothing at all about mathematics, science, technology, engineering and computing. How dumb would you have to be to imagine that being stupid takes you closer to divinity? Landing men on somewhere other than the earth is humanity’s greatest practical achievement thus far. Its next task is to land men on heaven (!) by building the chariots of the gods (starships). Meditating, or getting on your belly to degrade yourself before your “God”, doesn’t cut it. You’re no closer to heaven than an ape, a rat or a cockroach. “It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Social Networking In the age of social networking, all sense of history has vanished. We live in the permanent present. Yesterday’s news is ancient history, if it’s remembered at all. The Nation State has been replaced by the Market State whereby rich men’s “free” markets dictate what Nation States can and cannot do.

We live in an atomised world, a broken world, a lost, lonely world, of isolated fragments reaching out desperately for human contact and warmth. There’s no cohesion, no belonging, no home. We don’t know each other. We don’t trust each other. We don’t care about each other. This is the Waste Land. April is the cruellest month. Everything is withering, corroding, degenerating, decaying. Everything is cheap and gaudy.

Capital The ruling elite put four enormous barriers in your path to ensure that they succeed and you fail. They are: 1) Financial capital – how rich you are. “What you own.” 2) Social capital – how connected you are. “Who you know.” 3) Cultural capital – how well you know the tastes and values of the elite. “How you fit in.” 4) Symbolic capital – how well you know the unstated code of the elite. “How you know your place.” Even if by some miracle you become rich (financial capital), the rich still won’t accept you. You will fail to clear the other three hurdles. The elite control not just the economy, but the networks that lead to the best jobs and lives, the culture that defines the best jobs and lives, and the symbols by which the best jobs and lives are coded. If you come from the wrong background, you will never get in. Unless ... you are a psychopath. There’s always room for more psychopaths at the top. Fresh sociopathic blood is always required. The top is a private club for psychopaths and sociopaths. Why was Michael Brown, a black man, shot dead by a white cop in Ferguson, Missouri? It was because Brown had no capital. In fact, he had negative capital, anti-capital. To the cop, Brown was automatically suspicious, dangerous and undesirable by the mere fact of being black. White cops regard black men as having no financial capital, a criminal culture (no positive cultural capital), criminal social networks (no positive social capital), and criminal symbols (no positive symbolic capital). In other words, the moment a black man argues with a white cop, a bad outcome is likely. A white man in exactly the same circumstances would have an

entirely different outcome because he has much higher intrinsic capital in the mindset of an intrinsically racist cop and racist Nation. There’s nothing more important than changing the nature of capital in all of its manifestations. The rich must be stripped of their financial capital, cultural capital, social capital and symbolic capital. Otherwise, they will stay in charge forever, and black men will be gunned down by white cops forever.

Control The Elite control the money and the minds, the economy and the culture. They control Soft Power as well as Hard Power. Soft power is the sort you don’t even notice. It just seeps into your bones. To overthrow the Elite, the thing that must be done first is to overthrow the notion that they are in any way ruling the people legitimately, rather than through a financial usurpation of the power of the people.

The Internal Panopticon: The Inner Policeman “A functioning police state needs no police.” – William S. Burroughs When you are internally censoring yourself at all times, you have imported the Panopticon inside yourself. The world no longer needs to watch you. You are watching yourself. You are ensuring your compliance with the System, with “the Man.” Islamic States want everyone to internalise the Koran and Sharia Law. Hinduism wants everyone to internalise the Caste System. The Medieval World wanted everyone to internalise Feudalism. Capitalist States want everyone to internalise consumerism, objectification. commodification and the marketplace. Financial materialism (capitalism) is the twin of Sensory materialism (science). Many people in the workplace are now under constant pressure to produce results, and are being badgered by psychopaths to meet “targets”. Moreover, since they are now able to be contacted at any time of the day, the boot on their neck is never removed. There is no escape. Who needs physical panopticons when it’s so easy to construct mental ones for no cost at all (well, except to the mental health of the human race). “God” was

never anything other than the worst policeman conceivable being stationed in your mind by you yourself. The only thing you should ever internalise is the power of reason.

The Cost of Doing Business Banks regard paying enormous fines to regulators as simply the “cost of doing business”. They never consider the morality of what they are doing, only the financial outcome. If it’s positive, it’s worth doing, even if it is in fact criminal. This is no different from how the Mafia do business. “Cost of Doing Business: used to refer to something painful/ dangerous/ regrettable/ otherwise negative, associated with doing something you have voluntarily chosen to do and therefore implicitly accept the possible risk of. >John: ‘Sorry if that round of tequila shots I ordered at the end of the night pushed you over the edge.’ >Humberto: ‘Haha, no biggie. Cost of doing business with you man.’ “In this case, ‘doing business’ refers to hanging out with John. The ‘cost’ is the risk of getting too drunk because John likes to order tequila shots. Humberto is saying that by voluntarily hanging out with John last night, he implicitly accepted the risk of having a tequila shot served to him that may not have been a good idea but that he, in his intoxicated state, may consume anyways. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cost%20of%20doing%20business

Victim Souls “The concept of the victim soul derives from the Roman Catholic teaching on redemptive suffering. Such a person is one chosen by God to suffer more than most people during life, and who generously accepts the suffering, based on the example of Christ’s own Passion.” – Wikipedia Every Abrahamist is a victim soul. Every consumerist is a victim soul. Every Karmist is a victim soul. The world is awash with victim souls, but there’s nothing positive or redemptive about being a victim soul. It’s pathetic!

Stop being a victim. Fight back!

Fools’ Paradise Saint Paul is said to have boasted of being a fool for Christ. He wrote to the Corinthians that God chooses folly to reveal His wisdom. Er, yes, you need to be a fool to be a Christian, that’s for sure, and “God” certainly doesn’t use reason to reveal his “wisdom”. Who but a charlatan would use “folly” to communicate with his people and get his “message” across? “Answer a fool according to his folly.” – Proverbs: 26:5 “Alas, it seems that for all time the Small have suffered from the folly of the Great.” – Jean de la Fontaine “Love is the wisdom of the fool and the folly of the wise.” – Samuel Johnson “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise.” – Thomas Gray “The term fools for Christ derives from the writings of Saint Paul. Desert Fathers and other saints acted the part of Holy Fools...” – Wikipedia “We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.” – 1 Corinthians 4:10 “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness.’” – 1 Corinthians 3:19 “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” – 1 Corinthians 1:18 “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” – 1 Corinthians 1:21 “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” – 1 Corinthians 1:27

“The Paradise of Fools is a literary and historical topic and theme found in many Christian works. A traditional train of thought held that it is the place where fools or idiots were sent after death: intellectually incompetent to be held responsible for their deeds, they cannot be punished for them in hell, atone for them in purgatory, or be rewarded for them in heaven. It is usually to be read allegorically, though what precisely is allegorized differs from author to author, and often its location is in the lunar sphere. ... One of the most notable examples of the Paradise of Fools is found in Book 3 of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, where Milton, in the narrative of Satan’s journey to Earth, reserves a space for future fools (Milton also calls it the ‘Limbo of Vanity’)....” – Wikipedia This world is surely the Paradise of Fools.

Bought and Sold Under George Bush, the American government’s national security strategy stated that the primary aim of the USA was to extend the benefits of capitalism to the world: “If you can make something that others value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something that you value, you should be able to buy it.” There you have it: the doctrine of globalism, the doctrine of a tiny Elite ruling the world, of everyone being a commodity to be bought and sold in the market. Only people who despise the human race would objectify the human race and make our world into an Istanbul bazaar (or should that be bizarre?). Is the world a shopping mall, or a place for humans to be alchemically transmuted into Gods? The snake-oil salesmen, carpetbaggers and robber barons will never build heaven on earth for us all, only for themselves. They proclaim that “freedom” is the freedom to buy and sell. What an appalling, mercenary vision of human freedom.

This Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore A man seeks help for depression. His doctor says, “The pantomime on at Covent Garden is what you need. I cried with laughter. Go and see Grimaldi. He will cure you.” “Ah,” the man replies sadly. “I am Grimaldi.”

The Clown Put on your costume. Powder your face. Don a red wig. Become a harlequin, a clown, a Minstrel Man. Well, why not – the world has been laughing at you since the day you were born.

The Laughing Cure Turn your tears into jokes. Turn your distress into jest. Turn your pain into a funny face. Turn your sobs into punchlines. Turn the tragedy to comedy. Embrace your true self – a clown who exists for the entertainment of the rich Elite, whom you admire, worship, and wish to emulate. They’re laughing all the way to the bank.

The Naked Lunch Dare to see life raw and naked. Dare to see things for what they are rather than what you want them to be. Embrace the Truth, not the Lie. Turn to Reason, not Faith. Acquire knowledge, not a religion or a conspiracy theory.

Group Size and I.Q. The larger the group, the lower the average I.Q. All new ideas always begin with a genius individual, never with the mob. The mob always resists new ideas. As a group grows, the more unthinking it becomes. Just look at religions. Just look at conspiracy theories. Just look at political parties. Intelligence is the first casualty of groupthink. The crowd isn’t wise, it’s stupid.

Predators and Prey “[Hollywood is] an ecosystem of fear and greed and desperation; the sorts of people who function within that and feed it and enable it and are

predators there. ... [It could be any pressurised community.] It could be Washington, it could be the financial district [Wall Street], it could be Silicon Valley. But there’s something about LA and fame and the hunger and need for acknowledgement which is almost a bit more infantile. When you read [the script], you didn’t think it went too far. You thought it was just about right, strangely.” – John Cusack

The Day of the Locust? A message from K:

***** What you have labelled as a ‘Retaliator’ could also be called a ‘Pro-social psychopath’. In order to win, we have to use our Jungian Shadow to benefit others, but we can’t let the Shadow take us over completely. It’s absolutely necessary to be an asshole (at times) to make it in this world. The one percent secretly take pride in being Reptilian and they are certain they are superior. The label ‘psychopath’ is a compliment to them. They are imitating us (pretending to be human – psychopaths are a different species), and no one knows it until the mask slips. They practise displaying emotions. So if we take away the power of the term ‘psychopath’ by making it apply to altruistic people who have impulse control like us (which makes us superior because we have the ability to use reason through our neocortex), then they lose the power and fear associated with the word. We supersede them by acknowledging that there is something scarier than a conventional psychopath... a pro-social psychopath who has more game than them. An altruistic psychopath can get followers, allegiance and true respect because they are not abusing their power for selfish ends. They can destroy the tyrants by using their game against them and exposing them. That’s the true definition of a Messiah. It’s not what someone does when things are rough that shows a person’s true character. It’s what they do when they have POWER. We need people who can accept their power and use it to help humanity without it spiralling out of control. The TV show “Dexter” is an example of this, so it’s already in the ether. This is the war of the dominants. The introverted dominants vs.

The extroverted dominants. The pro-social psychopaths vs. the anti-social psychopaths. The irony is that the Matrix is control, yet its controllers can’t control themselves. They lack the ability to cooperate and so, when their greed spirals out of control, they will implode. Everything always backfires on them. They hate ‘win-win’. They want ‘win-lose’ scenarios, with them winning, obviously. Somewhere in the world, one of their own – Agent Smith – is spiralling out of control, which will be the ultimate problem for them. The pendulum always swings back in their face. It’s the dialectical law of the universe. It’s inevitable. I read that there are two types of psychopaths, but there are actually three: social, anti-social and pro-social. Serial killers, dictators, religious maniacs, bankers and CEOs are the anti-social psychopaths. ‘Social psychopaths’ are the ‘garden variety’ types. The socials blend in and are not as obvious. They are the gatekeeper types, those who open the doors for the anti-social psychopaths and act as their enablers and facilitators. The pro-social psychopaths are those who are tracking down the antisocial and social psychopaths, and stopping them, using psychopathic tactics against them if necessary. The pro-social psychopaths are us. The others never see us coming. We are the infiltrators, and protectors of the weaker people who cannot defend themselves. And we strike only if you piss us off. Otherwise, we are cool as hell. We are doves until we are crossed, and then we become hawks. Everyone is afraid of the Illuminati. And they should be. But only if they are against us. When we need to be, we are the pro-social psychopaths. We are the only ones with the ingenuity it takes to win and liberate humanity. The rules are that there are no rules. Once you understand that... it’s game on! I finally get it. There are no rules. There are laws of the universe, of course, but no one is judging me but me. Once people get free of the approval trap they become untouchable, like Neo. People think I am only a dove. They are shocked at what happens when they cross me. Once I catch someone in a lie, it’s over. And they never see it coming. They become dazed and confused. MEOW! And when they fuck with someone I care about they meet Mean Kitty. We are Superpsychopaths. Psychopaths with good intentions. We are two steps ahead of them. I am an expert on psychopaths so I can predict

their behaviour. It’s easy because they have a default mode and there is nothing they can do about it. I am told I am ‘sexy and innocent’. That is because I am a kind Scorpio. But it’s my nature to sting people if they cross me. I know that about myself. I am extremely competitive too. But I like to earn it and I compete with myself to see how far I can go. I don’t cheat and rig the system like the weak wussies hiding from humanity. I have true achievements, not stolen goods and services (inheritance: living off the dead). And I respect my opponents if they defeat me – on a level playing field! All of us need to find our ‘inner psychopath’ in order to win. It’s just a matter of who can channel this energy to benefit others. Anti-social psychopaths have the advantage of the hawk psychopaths thinking everyone else is the same: dove victims. The hawk psychopaths are inferior because they don’t understand consequences and the dialectical process. The more they try to suppress the Truth, the stronger it gets. Their arrogance will be their downfall because they underestimate their opponents and overestimate themselves. The other problem is that most people are submissive and want a Master (authority) and a Saviour (Messiah). We need 3 things: 1. A pro-social psychopath as a Leader 2. A new religion 3. A sexual revolution Meritocracy will follow. The new religion needs to have the following Commandments: The Ten Commandments of ‘Kisstianity’ (subject to change): 1. Thou shalt have sex at least once a Day. 2. Though shalt have cheesecake every Day. 3. If you don’t have sex and dessert every day, you go to hell. 4. If you have sex and dessert every day, you go to heaven. 5. If you watch princess movies, you go to Hell.

6. If you worship Father God and Mother Goddess, your ‘Heavenly Parents’, you go to heaven (currently ‘Mr. Mom’ is in charge ... wtf) Everyone is worshipping Michael Keaton. Doesn’t ‘God’ need a wife? Everyone knows that behind every great man is a powerful woman. Where is the ‘First Lady’ of heaven? Is ‘God’ a confirmed bachelor? Is ‘God’ divorced? Is ‘God’ ... gay? Gasp! Is he a freakish hermaphrodite? 7. No kneeling allowed. Thou shalt stand up for oneself. Grow a spine! 8. You must give yourself permission be free. 9. You must earn your way into heaven. There are no rules that allow you to cheat and be lazy. 10. Always question authority, including these ten commandments. Money is forbidden. Sex is required. Be still and know that I am Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. I am the True God, baby!!!!!!!!!!! The Sexual Revolution will be the result of a public spectacle (an unintended consequence of another public spectacle) that explains the psychology of BDSM and makes it A-OK to talk about it. So it will be called BDSMAOK. LOL. hahaha! People will be forced to discuss uncomfortable subject matter in a healthy way. It will become politically correct to have BDSMAOK. 50 Shades of Grey is the beginning. People want a messiah. But all they need is a leader. Then they can give their leader any label they want so they feel good. What we are missing is a leader. We need a pro-social psychopath (Retaliator) to emerge as our leader.”

KKKKKKKKKKKK The Sixth Sense: “I see dead people.” The Sick Sense: “I eat dead people.” (Inheritance). The inheritors feed off the dead, and are defined by the dead. Could anything be more disgusting? The inheritors take welfare handouts from the dead! Are these the most pathetic people in the world?! The inheritors live off dead people’s money and then brag about it. They crave the leftovers of someone else’s existence. They secretly, and not so

secretly, dream of the day their loved ones die. They live on the back of someone else’s achievements. And then they move it offshore! How unsexy! How embarrassing! The world is being divided. There is the group that has Erectile Dysfunction and the group that has BDSM. Which one do you belong to? The 1 percent is ED. The Ten percent is BDSMAOK. It’s time to choose. Either you worship dead people or you have hot sex. Hmm... Dead people, hot sex...dead people, hot sex... If you don’t support inheritance tax, you have to admit that you eat dead people. That you cannot make it on your own. You have no ability. No power. Period. You also have to admit that you are an incompetent parent who is unable to raise a child that can grow up and thrive on its own. You also have to admit that you believe that dead people have the right to rule the world. I guess we will need to define Dead People’s rights in order to make it official. Will there be a Dead People’s Constitution? Who will be in charge of reporting to these Dead People? Will there be a Ouija board in the Oval Office? Will Congress hold its sessions in a cemetery? Will the Grim Reaper be the President? Will funeral homes be the new hot spots? Will Tombstone pizza be the Title Sponsor of the Super Bowl? Will hearses be the new black? Would any real man want to inherit money rather than make his own? What kind of real man can’t survive without his mommy and daddy to support him from the grave? This kind of buffoon makes his living from the dead. Then he has the impudence to brand inheritance tax a tax on the dead. Better to tax the dead for the public good (or, rather, to simply take ownership of the dead’s former property on behalf of the People, since the dead own nothing and have no legal rights) than to let private bloodsuckers eat and live off the dead! If cannibalism is eating another human, what do you call it when you feast on your own dead parents, as all inheritors do?! – K

Mobbing “Mobbing in animals is an antipredator behaviour which occurs when individuals of a certain species mob a predator by cooperatively attacking or harassing it, usually to protect their offspring. A simple definition of mobbing is an assemblage of individuals around a potentially dangerous

predator. This is most frequently seen in avian species, though it is also known to occur in many other animals such as the Meerkat. ... Mobbing calls may be used to summon nearby individuals to cooperate in the attack.” – Wikipedia Isn’t it time to mob the psychopaths?

Comity Comity: The obligation recognized by civilized nations to respect each other’s laws and usages as far as their separate interests allow.

The World Dangers What are the great dangers facing the world? 1) Free-market capitalism – one more “Bust” could cripple the world economy for good. Busts are becoming extremely frequent, fuelled by technology and lack of effective regulation. 2) Islamic Fundamentalism – more and more Muslims have rejected modernity and wish to reconstruct the world of the Koran; the world of Mohammed of 1400 years ago. 3) Anarcho-Libertarianism – the rise of selfish, greedy, extremist individualists who despise laws, government, the State, and society itself. These people are all on the Psychopath Spectrum. 4) The complete gridlock of politics as liberals and libertarians take up such polarised positions that they have effectively declared war on each other. 5) The breakdown of the Muslim world. Islam has become an utterly deranged religion, having a nervous breakdown as it struggles and fails to find a place in the modern world. Muslim states will continue to fragment. There will be an all-out Islamic Civil War. 6) In such an environment, Israel is likely to do something unbelievably stupid and provocative. Israel is a constant thorn in the Islamic side, and its actions generate incredible hatred towards the West. 7) North Korea and other rogue States cannot be relied upon to act rationally.

8) There are many End Times cults in the world that are quite happy to do mad things in the name of their Gods. 9) Dumbocracy has manifestly failed and will be replaced, probably by oligarchic rule by the super rich (corporatocracy; globalism). 10) More and more wealth is being transferred to fewer and fewer people. This is untenable. 11) A huge amount of the world’s infrastructure is now computer-based, and insane, autistic hackers could take down the whole thing – just for LULZ! 12) Technology is massively accelerating the pace at which change takes place. It’s easy to envisage a world in which vast numbers of jobs have been rendered redundant, including many well-paid, white-collar jobs. 13) Social networking is a huge force in the world yet is utterly hysterical, populist, sentimental, anti-rational, and unintelligent. It’s the mob mind, the herd mind, the flock mind, the groupthink mind, turned into a global power. It could destroy human intelligence. All intelligent people could simply be deemed “anti-social”. How much of social networking is devoted to utter trivia, narcissism, clowning around, goofing off, zaniness, silly humour, cats, dogs, ghosts, sport, celebrity worship, the latest fads, and so on, and how much is devoted to reason, intelligence, the advance of the human race? In a popularity contest, the intelligent never prosper. 14) Reason and intelligence – the antidotes to human foolishness – simply aren’t respected.

Junk “Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy.” – William S. Burroughs “Smash the control images. Smash the control machine.” – William S. Burroughs “The face of evil is always the face of total need.” – William S. Burroughs

The Last Man “Every man has inside himself a parasitic being who is acting not at all to his advantage.” – William S. Burroughs Every society has inside itself a group of parasitic beings (psychopaths) who are acting not at all to society’s advantage. These people are not only IN society, they are running society! “Hustlers of the world, there is one mark you cannot beat: the mark inside.” – William S. Burroughs “Love? What is it? Most natural painkiller.” – William S. Burroughs “An addict never stops growing. Stupider.” – William S. Burroughs Ditto believers.

***** Capitalism = an apex predation economic system; the rich prey on the poor.

Which Is it? WOLF GOVERNMENT SHEEP GOVERNMENT COW GOVERNMENT TURKEY GOVERNMENT VULTURE GOVERNMENT SHARK GOVERNMENT HAWK GOVERNMENT DOG GOVERNMENT CAT GOVERMENT

Self-Improvement In the old days, religion was the vehicle of collective self-help, i.e. it gave everyone the chance to morally improve themselves within a collective context. Today, self-help is all about the individual rather than the collective, and has nothing to do with morality. Books by self-help gurus have replaced “holy” texts by prophets. There are forty thousand Protestant sects. There are as many self-help books. These days, everyone can have their own religion and be their own self-help guru. The cult of the individual has reached its zenith, or, perhaps nadir (!). The individual never listens to anyone else. He’s always right. Anyone who disagrees with him is always wrong. With the cult of the individual, there are no standards. Merit dies, because no one recognises it. Everyone is an “expert”.

***** Our self-help tips: 1) If you’re buying, buy transformative experiences, not goods. 2) Cultivate values, not things. 3) Improve yourself from the inside, not by buying objects for your outside. 4) Transform yourself and by doing so you will transform how the world responds to you.

What Humanity Most Values The world is defined by what it most values. In ancient times, simple power was valued most, and the leaders of society were strong, brutal tribal leaders. These graduated into merciless kings and tyrants. Then came the rise of religion. Faith was valued most, and so the kings were joined by priests and prophets, and the kings could reign only with God’s approval. Then came the rise of capitalism. Priests were pushed to one side, and replaced by businessmen and usurers. Mammon took the place of God. Then monarchs and emperors fell and were replaced by bankers and chief executives.

Money is now what humanity values most. Money is power. Money is success. Money is prestige. Money is status. Money is influence. Money is sexy. Money is sex itself, or might as well be! Everyone wants money. Everyone worships money. Everyone wants more money, even those who already have more than they know what to do with. Everyone lusts after money. They desire it above all other things because it’s the gateway to all other things. Money is the supreme gateway drug – the gateway to everything – and that makes it the Ultimate Drug. In the Islamic world, religious faith is still prized more highly than money. Muslims would die for their faith. It’s unthinkable that Christians would die for theirs. Christians would, however, die fighting to protect their property and wealth, thus showing who their real God is (and it isn’t Christ!). Money is the supreme drug, the ultimate crack, the bluest meth, the divine junk. It delivers the highest highs of all. When you have a world that values itself according to something whose only value lies in acquisition, possessions, and consumption, then, in fact, you have a world with no values at all. That’s why psychopaths rule the world. They have no values and they have no interest in values. They are interested in power, manipulation, intimidation and exploitation, and nothing is a great enabler of those than money. Imagine a world that, instead, valued intellect, reason, spirituality, artistry and creativity. It would be a totally different world. Bankers and CEOs would not be respected, and would have no power or influence. Nor would they be rich. All attempts to change the world will fail unless what the world values most undergoes a change. While money reigns, we will never get rid of the kind of people in charge right now. They are the best money-makers, the best at theft, deception, intimidation, of tossing scruples away, of screwing over the opposition, of trampling over bodies to get to the top. And if you have people like that in charge, what can you expect except a shallow, lowest-common-denominator, dumbed down, amoral society of junk and trash? It would be miraculous if amoral and immoral leaders – totally out for themselves, totally into self-service rather than public service – created a moral society.

It would be miraculous if greedy, selfish leaders gave rise to generous, selfless, altruistic philanthropists. It would be miraculous if leaders completely ignorant of science, mathematics, engineering and technology presided over a technocratic, technological wonderland. It would be miraculous if leaders without an artistic, creative bone in their bodies produced an artistic, creative society. It would be miraculous if anti-intellectual, irrational leaders generated societies full of geniuses ready to solve the problems of the world. There’s no mystery about the world. Psychopaths are in charge and they have created a world ideal for them to rule and exploit. They have created a world of pathetic slaves and submissives – human dogs – that love their masters and will do anything for them. The last thing that psychopaths want is a world full of smart, strong, talented, creative, competitive people who stand up for themselves and instantly retaliate against wrongdoers in their midst. Psychopaths require sheep in order to fleece them. Your purpose is to be a sheep. Your place in society is as a docile, sedated zombie, too lazy, too pathetic to do anything, too dumb to know what’s happening to you, too in thrall to celebrities, popes, queens, princes, princesses, presidents, prime ministers, the super rich, too mired in consumerism, too addicted to bread, circuses, video games and gadgets, too uncreative to imagine a better world. We’ve got your number. And so have the psychopaths. In a world that values money more than anything else, then, quite literally, rich people are more valuable than the poor. So, how can you complain when the rich walk right over you? That’s the world you chose. That’s the value-system you chose: one that makes you a second-class citizen in a two-tier society, one that makes you a less worthy and valuable person, one that makes you inferior. And you know you are inferior, don’t you? That’s why you go along with a system that inherently degrades you. This is a rich man’s world, but you aren’t rich. You worship money, but you don’t have any. No one is worshipping you. You’re the one doing the worshipping. Only a New World Order can save the world from itself. We need a Revaluation of all Values. We need a Revolution. We need a New Enlightenment. We need a New Age of Reason. We need a Post Money World where a wholly different value system prevails: that of merit,

intelligence, creativity, and the desire to transform humanity into a divine race. We don’t need weaklings, cowards, dumbasses, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, libertarians, believers, liberals, the “love and light” gang, the New Age dopes, and especially not those who get on their knees to money.

***** Delete the Elite. Delete the Elite. Delete the Elite. System Error. Blue Screen.

***** Reboot sequence initiated. It’s time to start again. It’s time for Hyperborea. We are the Hyperboreans, we are the Faustians, we are the Prometheans. We take not only the fire of the gods, but the knowledge and secrets of the gods. Who are we? We are the Illuminati. We are the New World Order Let there be Light!

Correspondence What could possibly correspond to mathematics that is not mathematics? What could be like mathematics that isn’t mathematics? It’s impossible for anything non-mathematical to have any connection at all with mathematics. So, if mathematics can be used to describe reality, it automatically follows that mathematics is reality, since otherwise mathematics would have no correspondence at all with reality, hence be unable to describe it. By the same token, what could possibly be like freedom without being free? How could anything unfree resemble anything free? It’s a category error to assert, as Sam Harris does, that unfree processes can somehow

resemble freedom and thus generate the illusion of free will even though free will is impossible in his opinion. It’s the uttermost nonsense to attempt to explain away free will by labelling it as an illusion. The illusion would be even more remarkable and mysterious than what it’s allegedly an illusion of!

The Surveillance Society Many people are outraged by the notion that the State is “spying” on them. Yet many of these same people get down on their knees and worship the ultimate spy, the entity that allegedly spies on everyone individually 24/7 forever – “God”. Why is something that’s totally unacceptable in the political sphere, completely acceptable in the religious sphere? How bizarre. Those who despise the surveillance society should be those most opposed to “God”!

Love Sickness “I am so sick of people and their ‘love’. Stop telling me to “love” my enemies. That is not love. That is suicide, you fucking idiots! They (those things imitating us) don’t want love. They want POWER. I am not being nice anymore. FUCK off love and light brigade. They are so annoying. And embarrassing!!!!!!!!!!!!! “P.S. I used to be a member of the love and light brigade so I have the right to say that. I woke up! These creatures are cannibals. Love is NOT the answer. SEX is! BDSMAOK is on the way. “And another thing. I am so sick of political correctness. I am blunt. If you can’t handle that then FUCK OFF. I don’t have time for your feeeeeeelings. Go waste someone else’s time with your sensitivity. And get to the fucking point or get lost! Get out of my way or get crushed! “P.S. I had a couple of glasses of wine so I am feeling feisty. I am so glad I have you to complain to. LOL. I feel like I am going to explode. I have had it up to here with FEELERS. How embarrassing!!! “I HATE MINDLESS RULE FOLLOWERS! Fuck off you lazy cheaters! Why don’t you try to earn something for a change?!” – K

*****

Yes, there’s nothing worse than the sanctimonious, liberal, “right on”, love and light brigade.

Fat Cats and the Golden Trough In this Age of Austerity, Britain’s Fat Cat bankers have awarded themselves a total of £80 billion in bonuses since the financial crisis erupted in 2008. So, it’s austerity for everyone other than the rich. For the rich, it’s boom time. Who caused the financial meltdown? – the rich! What a world!

Abstraction? What is the primary stumbling block to the human understanding of reality? It’s the inability to grasp that mathematics isn’t an abstraction, but the fibre of existence itself. The universe is literally made of math. Now, to understand that, you have to be one of the smartest people in the world. Most people are far too stupid. The moronic masses laughed at Pythagoras two and half thousand years ago when he said that all things are numbers and number rules all. Pythagoras was right then and is still right. The moronic masses were morons then and are still morons. What is the very worst thing you can say to a stupid person, the thing most guaranteed to enrage them and provoke them to attack you? It’s to say that reality is mathematical, because then they know that you have forbidden them from ever knowing what reality is ... because they will never understand the math. And so they rant and rave. We even encounter people promoting a “know nothing” philosophy (!). Well, they’re absolutely right – they do indeed know nothing! There is only one subject that provides absolutely certainty – ontological mathematics, the subject of the eternal truths of reason and the principle of sufficient reason – and everything that anyone says that doesn’t involve ontological mathematics is nothing but their personal belief, guess or opinion, and is less than worthless as far as the Truth goes. Plato said much the same well over two thousand years ago. The world still hasn’t caught up. Don’t be a Sophist, be a Philosopher. All of our critics are feeble Sophists who narcissistically and solipsistically regard themselves and their personal experiences as the measure of all things.

They are literally clueless about the true nature of reality. They live in their own fantasy world. Leave them to it.

Hanging Around So, here’s a tip for anyone on Facebook who is genuinely interested in Illuminism. If you find that you are on a Facebook page where loudmouthed malcontents are spewing out all of their poison against Illuminism, just leave them to it. Stop interacting with that page. There’s no point in engaging with these people. They’re far too stupid, and have nothing constructive and positive to offer. These are the sad and mad people who hang around Illuminism despite loathing everything it stands for. They’re projecting their mental illness – their congenital irrationalism – onto Illuminism. Don’t get sucked into their bitter, twisted, pointless, moronic world.

The Different Faces of the Unconscious If the brain is associated with a mind, is the fact that we have a bicameral brain (i.e. it has two hemispheres) suggestive of the possibility that we have two minds – a mind for each hemisphere – and that these work together to produce a single effective mind? Before humanity was conscious, each of the separate minds must have been unconscious, but in different ways, i.e. they had different unconscious capacities. This stems from the fact that one mind – the true unconscious – deals with the non-local Fourier frequency domain, while the second unconscious – the budding conscious mind – deals with the local Fourier spacetime domain. In Julian Jaynes’s brilliant account of the birth of consciousness from the breakdown of the bicameral mind, Jaynes suggests that the right hemisphere was originally the home of a rudimentary language capability (which was all about simple commands: Do this, Do that, Do the other). In effect, the right hemisphere was the master and told the left hemisphere what to do, which then carried out the order like a servant. However, the right hemisphere – being linked to the non-local Fourier frequency domain – wasn’t an appropriate home for language (the commands seemed to come from somewhere else: from the gods in faraway heaven!). And thus the religious sensibility was born!

As language developed, it migrated to the left hemisphere, and gradually the language ability of the right hemisphere was largely suppressed. The left hemisphere took over as the master and the right hemisphere became the servant. It was total role reversal. When we dream at night, it’s our unconscious right hemisphere that provides the dream narrative, and our left hemisphere, seat of consciousness, which watches. Because our unconscious has little or no language capacity, it can’t tell us outright what’s on its mind, so we have to interpret the symbols, images and storylines it provides to us. Loosely speaking, we can think of our right hemisphere as a non-local unconscious devoid of language, and the left hemisphere as a local unconscious with language, onto which a consciousness module can be added.

The Mind Mirror In the material world, in order to cast a reflection, there must first be an object to be reflected, and an entity (such as a mirror) to reflect it. What about in the mental world? There must first be thoughts to be reflected, a mental “mirror” to reflect them, and something to register the reflection. What is a mental mirror? We might say it’s the monad itself. Thoughts bounce around inside the monad, being continually reflected, forming a “strange loop”. Animals can physically see themselves in a mirror but, with a few notable exceptions, they provide no suggestion that they know they are looking at themselves. They’re not conscious. They have no notion of “I”. With animals, we have a materialist scenario – an object and a mirror to reflect – but we have nothing, no “I”, to register, record and be consciously aware of the reflection. To illustrate the difference that consciousness makes, we might think in terms of one-way mirror versus two-way mirrors. We will define a one-way mirror as a mirror that allows reflection only. As for a two-way mirror, we will use this definition from Wikipedia: “A two-way mirror or two-way glass is a mirror that is partially reflective and partially transparent. When one side of the mirror is brightly lit and the other is dark, it allows viewing from the darkened side but not vice versa.” – Wikipedia

Consciousness is like an “I” standing on the other side of the mirror, looking in at the body being reflected in the mirror. Consciousness allows us to look in on ourselves, see ourselves as an object and know that the object is us. Animals can’t look in on themselves. They see their reflection in the mirror but imagine that it’s another creature ... and probably hostile. You have to be able to stand beyond the reflection and look back at yourself, or be the reflection and look back at yourself, or be yourself and see yourself in the reflection. You have to be able to see yourself as “other” and yet recognise that “other” as yourself! We need thoughts and something that looks in on the thoughts. The thing that looks in is not the thinking thing but the aware thing, the selecting thing, the reflecting thing. A mirror reflects. It’s not the object but the thing that reflects the object. An “I” is not the thinker: it’s what reflects the thinking. The “I” is a mental mirror.

***** If an animal that failed the mirror test had an out-of-body experience, and had the ability to look down on itself, it would have no idea that it was looking at its own body. Consciousness is the ability to look at yourself and know you are looking at yourself. Consciousness allows “I” to say, “The Other is the Self ... Myself.”

Immediacy When we have a feeling, sensation, or intuition, it’s immediate, it’s unmediated by anything else, and we can have no “meta” version of it, i.e. we can’t have a feeling about a feeling, a feeling reflecting on a feeling, a feeling on top of a feeling. The same goes for sensations and intuitions. But what about thinking? A thought can certainly be immediate, but something else can happen ... we can have thoughts about thoughts, i.e. we can have meta thoughts. A sensation concerning the redness of a rose can’t lead to a second sensation regarding that rose’s redness. A feeling of pain can’t lead to a second feeling of pain on top of it. We can’t have a mystical intuition of a mystical intuition, but we can certainly think about the thoughts, feelings,

sensations, desires, intuitions, and experiences we are having. It’s that meta ability that underlies consciousness. Meta thinking – second-order thinking – has a very different quality from other mental activities such as feeling, intuiting, desiring, sensing and experiencing, and even first-order thinking, which are all very much in the moment. Meta thinking can actually reflect on all of these. We can contemplate our feelings, intuitions, desires, sensations and experiences, and thus we are one step removed from them. We have stepped away from their immediacy. We are now processing them, filtering them, operating on them, mediating them. This means we are having a secondary experience of information, following on from the primary experience itself. With respect to freedom, Sam Harris likes to focus on this secondary experience and claim that our experience of freedom is after the event, hence we did not choose at the time of the event itself, hence our sense of freedom is an illusion. The fallacy here is that he is making freedom and choice entirely dependent on consciousness. Can the unconscious choose? Harris says no. What evidence does he have? Well, none at all! Our monadic minds are outside space and time. This produces a radical problem given that our bodies are in space and time. It’s not much good having body and mind in different states of existence. We need a mode of mind that is, in effect, acting as if it’s in space and time, i.e. it can react to spacetime events, anticipate spacetime events, plan for the future in spacetime. All of these elements concern degrees of consciousness. Consciousness, or some sort of proto-consciousness, is our spacetime mind. However, our unconscious mind isn’t in space and time. Why shouldn’t this mind be as free and capable of choosing as our conscious mind? After all, it’s still a mind, with all that implies. All minds are teleological, i.e. they have purposes, and if you have purposes that means you must evaluate how best to achieve your purposes, and that necessarily involves making choices. All minds are inherently concerned with selection, with choosing this over that. They do so freely, according to their own calculations as to the best way forward. They are not compelled to pursue one option, as the likes of Sam Harris claim with their hard-determinist views. If we have at least two minds: an unconscious outside space and time and a conscious tied to spacetime (insofar as it follows spacetime events) then we immediately have an interaction and priority problem. Which mind is taking the decisions? Which mind is primary?

Of course, the answer is that the two minds work in conjunction, in feedback loops. Sometimes, the conscious mind is in charge and the unconscious has to play the servant. At other times, the conscious mind is servant and the unconscious is master. In the latter case, the conscious has to invent reasons for why such and such a decision was taken, i.e. when the unconscious mind chooses a course of action, the conscious mind does not know why (since unconsciousness and consciousness cannot communicate directly, as we see with the strange, indirect messages of dreams), and so consciousness is compelled to pretend that it took the decision for its own reasons. This is exactly why human behaviour is often so odd and unfathomable, and why you cannot rely on people giving you the real answer regarding why they did certain things. They themselves don’t know! They have told themselves a story, and stories are not truth. We have Mythos minds because we need minds that can perform a continuous 24/7 narrative even though our conscious mind definitely isn’t in charge for all of that time, so we are frequently rationalising our behaviour after the fact. Sam Harris believes this means we are unfree. In fact, it simply means that we have very complex minds. As a materialist, Harris knows nothing about minds and doesn’t even believe they exist in their own right, considering them to be the exclusive by-products of material atoms in space and time. The false ontology adopted by Harris prevents him from thinking meaningfully about the mind, hence about purpose, choice and free will.

Consciousness A mind that thinks can think about thinking and, indeed, about everything else (through the filter of thinking). This meta thinking isn’t where the decision-making takes place, which obviously occurs at the thinking level itself. Try writing a few hundred words. The words seem to be presented to you. They just bubble into your head and you write them down. To Sam Harris, this means that you are not doing the thinking. Of course, you are doing the thinking, but it’s not your conscious that’s the thinking agent. Your conscious is the meta-thinking agent, the agent that thinks about thinking, feelings, intuitions, desires, sensations and experiences. That’s why your conscious can seem to be a spectator looking on, a passive entity literally having words put into its mouth. This does not mean, as Sam Harris

concludes, that we do not have free minds. It means that the mind’s free choices and causal selections take place at an earlier stage. What’s so hard to understand about that? In Julian Jaynes’s bicameral theory of pre-conscious mind, the right hemisphere generated the thoughts, the left hemisphere obeyed them, and it was as if the voices we heard in our heads were actually coming from the gods, from some source outside us. Harris would conclude that we are not responsible for these thoughts, but, of course, we are. The key point is that consciousness arose as a source of meta-thinking, a response to thinking taking place elsewhere (in the unconscious mind). From the outset, we had minds that had thinking taking place in one place, and the response to the thinking taking place elsewhere – as master and servant. The modern rise of consciousness from the breakdown of the bicameral mind led to the notion that it was in charge and doing the thinking, when, in fact, it’s still largely the unconscious that’s in charge. Consciousness is best able to do future planning. Instant by instant, the unconscious is running the show, with the conscious rationalising afterwards. All of Sam Harris’s comments regarding free will are based on a catastrophic failure to understand the constitution and operations of the mind, to understand the interaction of a frequency domain outside space and time, and a material domain in space and time. Minds (frequency singularities) are able to be in spacetime by virtue of their ability to construct spacetime (material) functions from frequency (mental) functions via Fourier mathematics. The unconscious remains in the frequency domain while consciousness places itself, by mathematical Fourier projection, in the spacetime domain, and this is exactly why we have bicameral minds (hemispheric brains). In our dreams, we are all used to our conscious having unconscious contents projected into it. It’s plain that our conscious is passive in these circumstances, and the unconscious active. This provides a key clue to the fact that the unconscious is actually the dominant partner. It’s the bulk of the iceberg, while consciousness is merely the tip of the iceberg sitting above the surface. Sam Harris believes that this means that we are unfree, when, in fact, it means that the unconscious mind is the seat of most of our freedom, and consciousness is free only to contemplate the future and form plans, but

when the futures arrives, it will be the unconscious actually carrying out the will of our conscious. We can say that both the conscious and unconscious have a will, and sometime the unconscious is master and the conscious servant, and sometimes the reverse is true. This all goes right over Harris’s head.

The Mental Editor When a book is written, it has to be edited. We can conceive of the unconscious, not conscious, as the primary writer, while the conscious actually serves the role of editor, reflecting on what has been written, and correcting and polishing it. Editing is a “meta” exercise – it comes after another, creative process, and is impossible without that prior process (you can’t edit nothing!). Creativity, like intuition, is unconscious, and consciousness then has to make sense of it and fit it into our conscious narrative. We can think of various levels of mind: an unconscious without language (it operates using symbols, images, sensations, desires and feelings), and an unconscious with language (which we have consciously learned and then internalised, rendering it subconscious). When we think, it’s primarily a case of our subconscious, with language abilities, putting words in our mouth. Our conscious experiences these thoughts and reflects on them, but is not their originator. This does not mean that the mind is unfree. It means that freedom and choice mostly take place prior to consciousness – which of course instantly explains Libet’s famous findings concerning free will. Sam Harris stakes everything on consciousness being the supposed source of free will, and when he finds this thesis somewhat wanting, he concludes that we are not free. In fact, all that has to be done to save the free will hypothesis is simply to move the primary exercise of free will to an earlier, unconscious level. As long as you accept that your unconscious is as much you as your conscious, you have lost nothing as a result. Unconscious animals have free will, albeit not nearly as sophisticated as that of humans. They simply think, but do not engage in meta-thinking (thinking about their thinking), and that’s why they are not conscious. Because they are not conscious, they cannot consciously learn a language and internalise it. With a learned language, we can reflect on our thoughts

expressed in that language. Without a learned language, and thus without thoughts expressed in that language, we cannot reflect on our thoughts (i.e. perform meta-thinking), hence consciousness is impossible. When we are children, our minds slowly and painfully learn language. When we are very young, we can speak but we have no memory at all of what we said. At that stage, it’s our unconscious speaking, but our conscious isn’t yet developed enough to reflect on it. We eventually reach a critical point where we have taught language to our unconscious mind – or, rather, the spacetime-sensitive part of our unconscious mind – and thus our unconscious can speak. It’s not our conscious that speaks. It’s our conscious that reflects on what we have said, experiences what we have said, and feeds back to the unconscious, thus helping to shape what the unconscious thinks next. Consciousness is like a super Editor and Selector Function, which can tailor and fine-tune our unconscious to the demands of the world. This gives us far more nuanced, adaptive and responsive behaviour. We are far more able to respond to our environment and our changing circumstances than unconscious animals that have very stereotypical and instinctive behaviour.

***** Consider sport. The finest sportspeople are those best able to learn a task and internalise it in their subconscious. When they play at peak fluency and skill – when they are in “the Zone” – they have effectively disengaged their consciousness. In fact, it’s their consciousness that makes sportspeople err and miss. When a sportsman has a vital shot to make – and the pressure is at maximum – he will succeed only if he can retain his ability to perform the task effortlessly, with his subconscious. As soon as he succumbs to the pressure, and becomes conscious of the moment and its significance, he’s almost certain to miss. He’s too busy thinking about the task rather than just doing the task. He’s now engaged in a meta task – reflecting on the task – rather than actually performing the task. That extra layer typically leads to disaster in sporting terms. He’s literally in two minds!

***** When a writer is in the Zone, he writes with effortless fluency. He’s more like a human typewriter than someone carefully composing and weighing

every word. He’s writing unconsciously, while his consciousness is watching him do it. Try it for yourself. Write a page on your favourite subject as fast as possible. You will realise that you aren’t consciously composing what you are writing but merely consciously observing what you’re writing, hence some other part of you (your unconscious) is actually performing the task. This doesn’t mean that you aren’t free. Freedom is present throughout your mind, in the unconscious as well as conscious. Why wouldn’t it be? Sam Harris keeps insisting that we are free purely if we are consciously free at all times. This is infantile and shows a staggering contempt for the unconscious mind – exactly what you would expect from a materialist who doesn’t believe in mind anyway (seeing it as merely an epiphenomenon of specific organisations of mindless atoms). If scientific materialists believe that the mind is an epiphenomenon of matter, this means, if they accept the existence of the unconscious, that they actually believe in two epiphenomenal mental processes – one for the unconscious and one for the conscious. It’s bad enough having one kind of pointless mental activity. With scientific materialism, you get two!

The Teacher One of the primary tasks of consciousness is to learn new things – to be able to accomplish novel things – and then to teach the unconscious these learned things, until they are fully internalised, at which point they happen effortlessly. It has rightly been said that you need 10,000 hours to become an expert at something. After this amount of time, you have fully internalised the subject and your subconscious then performs it as second nature. In effect, you have learned instinctual behaviour, or, rather, learned how to create new instincts! Before that point of subconscious fluency, you are always stumbling, becoming confused and uncertain, hence you lack effectiveness, ease, facility, confidence, smoothness and efficiency, and you will always be defeated by those who have put in more effort than you (unless you’ve been born with natural ability in the particular task, e.g., in terms of running, no matter how much effort you put in, you are unlikely to ever beat someone else if they are built for running and you aren’t).

The Subconscious

It’s useful to draw a distinction between the unconscious and the subconscious: 1) The unconscious is located in the right hemisphere of the brain, and deals with the Fourier frequency domain. It’s non-local, interconnected with everything, emotional, intuitive and involved with synchronicity and the so-called paranormal. It communicates with the conscious mind via cryptic dreams that are often difficult to interpret. It has either no language skills at all, or the most rudimentary skills. 2) The subconscious is located in the left hemisphere of the brain, and deals with the Fourier spacetime domain. It’s local, disconnected and sensory. From the subconscious, consciousness is able to emerge. Consciousness is a learned capability, not inherent, and relies on our parents and community teaching us a language, i.e. consciousness is social. A human being who came to adulthood on a desert island would never develop consciousness. Equally, a solitary “Creator” God would never become conscious. As Wittgenstein pointed out, there are no private languages, hence no one can teach themselves a language that only they can understand. One of the definitive arguments against the existence of the Abrahamic God is that it’s absolutely impossible for any being on his own to become conscious! Consciousness involves social interaction in the context of a language that the group constructs and agrees upon so that they can communicate with each other. Consciousness and the subconscious exist in a feedback loop. Consciousness can teach the subconscious new tasks, and the subconscious then internalises them and performs them effortlessly on behalf of consciousness (which is then like a spectator looking in on the whole thing). Consciousness is actually the metasubconscious – that which comes after the subconscious, an entity that emerges from the subconscious thanks to socialisation, and thenceforth exists in an interactive feedback loop with the subconscious. The subconscious-conscious module, in its turn, exists in an interactive feedback loop with the unconscious. Sam Harris ignores all of this! His view of the mind is as a side-effect of physico-chemical processes happening within the physical brain,

which is exclusively subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. Mind, in other words, is redundant. It has no causal agency.

Mind Tennis Tennis players don’t react consciously to serving and returning the ball. Everything happens for too fast for that. Tennis is conducted subconsciously ... apart from “mind games” aspect of the contest, which are conducted consciously. Most people don’t realise it, but when they talk or write, they are acting as subconsciously as any tennis player. The back and forth of a conversation or written dialogue has all the verbal equivalents of a fierce tennis exchange: serving, parrying, volleying, looking for an in, baseline rallies, dazzling passing shots, forehands, backhands, double backhands, double forehands, aces, second serves, double faults, net cords, deuce, advantage, love forty, game point, set point, match point, backswing, backspin, block shots, breaks, break points and break backs, out of court, going long, smashing, challenging a call, down the line, drop shot, drop volley, scoring a duck, committing a fault, foot faults, follow through, forced errors, game point, grunting, groundstrokes, holding serve, kick serves, love games, mishits, moonballs, new balls, racket abuse, rallies, serve and volley, sudden death tiebreak, underspin, unforced errors, tanking (mental collapse), etc. Reading is very different from writing since someone else has done all the work, and we are now reflecting on their thoughts rather than having to produce the thoughts ourselves.

The Mental Iceberg Freud’s model of the psyche is frequently presented in terms of an iceberg.

(Diagram courtesy of Wikipedia)

(Diagram courtesy of Anthony A. Walsh) “According to Freud, we are born with our Id. The id is an important part of our personality because as newborns, it allows us to get our basic needs met. Freud believed that the id is based on our pleasure principle. In other words, the id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation. When a child is hungry, the id wants food, and therefore the child cries. When the child needs to be changed, the id cries. When the child is uncomfortable, in pain, too hot, too cold, or just wants attention, the id speaks up until his or her needs are met. “The id doesn’t care about reality, about the needs of anyone else, only its own satisfaction. If you think about it, babies are not real considerate of their parents’ wishes. They have no care for time, whether their parents are sleeping, relaxing, eating dinner, or bathing. When the id wants something, nothing else is important.

“Within the next three years, as the child interacts more and more with the world, the second part of the personality begins to develop. Freud called this part the Ego. The ego is based on the reality principle. The ego understands that other people have needs and desires and that sometimes being impulsive or selfish can hurt us in the long run. It’s the ego’s job to meet the needs of the id, while taking into consideration the reality of the situation. “By the age of five, or the end of the phallic stage of development, the Superego develops. The Superego is the moral part of us and develops due to the moral and ethical restraints placed on us by our caregivers. Many equate the superego with the conscience as it dictates our belief of right and wrong. “In a healthy person, according to Freud, the ego is the strongest so that it can satisfy the needs of the id, not upset the superego, and still take into consideration the reality of every situation. Not an easy job by any means, but if the id gets too strong, impulses and self-gratification take over the person’s life. If the superego becomes too strong, the person would be driven by rigid morals, would be judgmental and unbending in his or her interactions with the world. ... “Freud believed that the majority of what we experience in our lives, the underlying emotions, beliefs, feelings, and impulses are not available to us at a conscious level. He believed that most of what drives us is buried in our unconscious. ... “The role of the unconscious is only one part of the model. Freud also believed that everything we are aware of is stored in our conscious. Our conscious makes up a very small part of who we are. In other words, at any given time, we are only aware of a very small part of what makes up our personality; most of what we are is buried and inaccessible. The final part is the preconscious or subconscious. This is the part of us that we can access if prompted, but is not in our active conscious. It’s right below the surface, but still buried somewhat unless we search for it. ... “Because the unconscious is so large, and because we are only aware of the very small conscious at any given time, this theory has been likened to an iceberg, where the vast majority is buried beneath the water’s surface. The water, by the way, would represent everything that we are not aware of, have not experienced, and that has not been integrated into our personalities, referred to as the nonconscious.” –Dr. Christopher L. Heffner

http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego.html

(Diagram courtesy of Dr. Christopher L. Heffner) Note that the details of the iceberg metaphor change subtly from depiction to depiction. The Id is always heavily unconscious, but the Superego is sometimes is depicted as conscious, preconscious and unconscious, and sometimes as just preconscious. The Ego is in all three levels. The most logical version is to have all three components in all three levels.

***** Id → Primal Desires, Basic Nature, the Inner Spoiled Brat. Ego → Reason and Self Control, Realism, the Inner Adult. Superego → Quests after Perfection, for the Ideal Self; repository of our philosophical and spiritual ideals. Id → Instincts ... the Pleasure Principle. Ego → Pragmatism ... the Reality Principle. Superego → Dreams of ideal things ... the Perfection Principle.

The Judging Mind We might regard the Freudian Id as the unconscious mind – driven by pure desire, will and feelings, with no sophistication and no language capacities.

It’s the “Beast” inside. Negative liberty is strongly associated with the Id, with “not being told what to do” (by parents, authority figures, or the State). The Freudian Superego is a social construct, learned from our parents, authority figures, community, society, religion and the State, and then internalised (as our conscience and moral code). It has language capabilities and “intelligence”. It drives positive liberty. The world we live in today is one of bad parents, bad communities, bad societies, bad religions, bad institutions, bad States, and bad economic systems. All of these influences produce bad people – totally selfish, selfobsessed negative libertarians with no respect for others.

***** “The ego ideal (German: Ideal-Ich) is the inner image of oneself as one wants to become. Alternatively, ‘The Freudian notion of a perfect or ideal self housed in the superego’, consisting of ‘the individual’s conscious and unconscious images of what he would like to be, patterned after certain people whom... he regards as ideal’. In the French strand of Freudian psychology, the ego ideal (or ideal ego) has been defined as ‘an image of the perfect self towards which the ego should aspire.’ ... it’s the vehicle ... by which the ego measures itself.” – Wikipedia Positive liberty is all about achieving the ideal, for the individual and Society. Negative liberty hates any notion of the State telling people what to do, telling them what they need to flourish rather than what they want in order to gratify themselves in the next instant. Look at capitalism. It panders to total self-indulgence, instant-gratification, narcissism, “Me, me, me”, “Fuck you!” American libertarians – who celebrate exactly that worldview – are amongst the most unpleasant people in the world, the worst neighbours you could ever have, the worst people to have in society, actively sabotaging society.

***** The Ego ideal is a self-observing agency, an internal censor, a paragon for us to live up to that encapsulates our highest Self.

*****

The Freudian Ego isn’t an active agent per se. Rather, the Id and the Superego are the active agents, and the Ego receives their conflicting input and then selects between them. It’s as if the Ego has a bad angel on one shoulder and a good angel on the other, both whispering to it, and it must choose the advice of one or the other. In doing so, it obeys the reality principle, e.g. sometimes the Id may be very persuasive, but to listen to it would be to enter a fantasy world where you think you can get away with anything, but, in reality, you would simply end up in jail. Criminals are those who listen to their Id more than their Superego. The Ego is active in selecting, but not in generating potential courses of action. The Id and Superego are the generators. The Ego has to reflect on conflicting Id and Superego information, evaluate the information and then choose what to do. It exercises free will in doing so. According to Sam Harris, it isn’t free, but is driven by causal inputs from elsewhere. Harris just can’t get the hang of choice and selection. We have complex minds, with different components doing radically different things. Some components are creative generators, others are evaluators, or selectors, or planners. Think of how sophisticated a brain is. Well, why should a mind be any different? Consciousness is the orchestrator of all of this, the Conductor marshalling all of the different instruments and players. The consciousness is the “I”, the 24/7 agent that creates our 24/7 narrative. Wherever necessary, it fills in any unexplained gaps (caused by unconscious decisions) by inventing a rational pretext, thus ensuring a continuous narrative that makes sense to us. If this capacity fails, people then suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personality syndrome), or schizophrenia. How does Sam Harris explain madness? – as “chemical imbalances”. Er, no, Sam ... how can chemicals or chemical imbalances be mad – they’re just lifeless, mindless lumps of “stuff”! It’s a mental issue, not physical.

Autism If consciousness is all about socialisation, then people with language and communication difficulties must be expected to be less conscious. People with severe autism are barely conscious at all. Many of them would struggle to pass the mirror test of consciousness (simply recognising

yourself in a mirror). Even high-functioning autistics, such as those with Asperger’s Syndrome, have a restricted consciousness. Autistics suffer from a deficiency in empathy (they can’t place themselves in another person’s shoes and imagine what they are feeling), and struggle with theory of mind (understanding that other people have their own minds and thoughts). Autistics typically believe that anything in their own minds is shared and known by others, i.e. they imagine a kind of collective consciousness, rather than a host of individual consciousnesses. This means that autistics cannot lie (lying doesn’t make any sense if you believe that everyone already knows what you know). It also means that they struggle to have private, loving relationships. Severe autistics are what human beings that lived on desert islands would be like. Theory of mind is a crucial aspect of consciousness. The self is constructed through interaction with other selves, i.e. you must know that you are you and not anyone else. Without a theory of mind, this is impossibly difficult. When animals can’t recognise themselves in mirrors, it’s because they don’t actually realise that they are unique beings. They operate unconsciously and have no meta ability to reflect on their own existence. If a mind is unconscious, and if consciousness is actually meta unconsciousness (an unconscious mind that can think about itself), then we can also conceive of higher order levels of consciousness. An ordinary human being is conscious (has first order consciousness), but lacks the ability to reflect on their consciousness (i.e. to exhibit second order consciousness). People who do have this ability are Philosophers. Sophists – such as Sam Harris – lack this level of consciousness and actually seek to prove that mind itself, whether conscious or unconscious, is an illusion or epiphenomenon, with no agency. The people with the highest level of consciousness are the ontological mathematicians (they have third order consciousness). They can not only reflect on their consciousness, but even explain it and know what it is ontologically. There are only two higher orders of consciousness; angel (phoster/archon) consciousness and, finally, God consciousness. Angels can make practical use of ontological mathematics: it’s fully integrated into their subconscious and they can use this knowledge

effortlessly. As for Gods, they can expand their consciousness to the maximum degree possible and know everything capable of being known.

***** Autistics don’t like change. That means that they want the future to resemble the past. This, of itself, means they have a restricted consciousness. Most people want the future to be very different – much more successful – than the present they are currently enduring, and they plan and dream about this hoped-for future. Imagine making no plans for the future, and simply wanting it to be the same as the present. That’s the world of autism, a world without ambition, hope, teleology or the dream of optimisation. Science is an autistic subject. It conceives of reality as a pointless, purposeless, meaningless machine process, powered by randomness, and made of lifeless, mindless, purposeless blobs of “matter” with no will or desires. No fully conscious person could ever arrive at such a conclusion. Our own existence is the absolute refutation of this worldview. Empiricism and materialism are autistic philosophies. Only rationalism and idealism can support a true understanding of consciousness. How can anyone who denies the real existence of mind (i.e. a materialist) have anything at all worthwhile to say about consciousness? People who rely on their senses more than their reason and feelings are on the autistic spectrum. They will inevitably be cynical, skeptical, atheistic and nihilistic. People who use their reason and feelings will inevitably be religious or spiritual, since both reason and feelings tell us that we are more than material machines – we are evolving, living organisms, full of meaning and purpose, and we have a life that extends far beyond this one (i.e. an afterlife is emphatically true). Reason tells us that there is Law of the Conservation of Life, i.e. life can be neither created nor destroyed (it’s eternal), but can undergo a continuous transformation in how it’s expressed (through a succession of different bodies). Each body can die because it’s not the body that’s the living thing – it’s simply a contingent aggregation of “dead” atoms (atoms themselves are contingent entities with no eternal necessity). The living thing is the monadic soul outside space and time that remotely controls the body in space and time. When the body becomes too

degraded through wear, tear, damage, accident and ageing, the soul’s ability to control it is lost, and the body “dies” and returns to dust. The soul then acquires a new body through rebirth (reincarnation).

The Mirror Test “Mirrors are used in cognitive science in a task called the ‘mirror selfawareness test,’ or MSR test. ... The MSR test requires that an animal be given some kind of visual oddity, usually a dot or two of colour, on a part of their body only visible through a mirror (often on a part of the face or head). If the animal (or human!) sees their reflection in the mirror and attempts to touch the part of their own body with the unfamiliar dot of colour, that animal is judged to have demonstrated mirror self-awareness. “Very few animals pass this test. All of the great apes – humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orang-utans – pass, as do some cetaceans like bottlenose dolphins and orcas (killer whales), and a few oddballs like the elephant and magpie. Some other animals demonstrate partial self-awareness – gibbons and some macaques, for example, will sometimes become confused and gesture at their faces, which does not constitute a pass of the test but does indicate that they understand that something odd is going on. A few monkey species, pigs, and corvids (crows, ravens, jays) demonstrate a similar partial understanding of the self. “Humans, interestingly, change in their perception of themselves; before the age of about 18 months, humans have either no or only partial success in the MSR test. Before 18 months, they’ll react with curiosity or avoidance. “Cats have never once demonstrated that they have any sense of self at all. Reactions of cats to being shown their reflection in a mirror vary; some will ignore the reflection, some will attempt to investigate behind the mirror to find the cat that is presumably back there, some will act wary or aggressive towards what appears to be another cat able to counteract its own gestures perfectly. This is a freaky thing, if you don’t know that it’s you in the mirror.” – Dan Nosowitz

***** Problem-solving animals must have a degree of consciousness. When you see ravens, for example, solving complex, multi-step problems, they must

be able to envisage future states and possibilities, and that means they are engaging in meta thinking. They are not thinking about the present moment; they are thinking about what will happen, and the steps they must perform, at later stages in the problem-solving exercise.

***** Narcissus, the man who fell in love with his own reflection, failed the mirror test: he failed to recognise his own reflection and became infatuated with it, believing that it was someone other than himself.

The Mirror Consciousness means being able to look in on yourself. Animals can stand in front of a mirror and not know they are looking at themselves. Something is missing from their cognitive ability. Humans, and the few animals that can pass the mirror test, seem to have an extra capacity. It’s as if they are looking through a two-way mirror. They can see themselves standing in front of the mirror, whereas other animals think the reflection in the mirror is another animal.

***** When we gaze into a mirror, we can imagine the reflection as a room into which we are looking, and in which we ourselves are standing. We are looking in on ourselves as if we were other than ourselves, and yet we know we are simply seeing ourselves. Looking at ourselves in a mirror seems remarkably straightforward, yet is actually staggeringly complex. All of the mysteries of consciousness are contained in this deceptively simple act. We see something outside us – after all, our reflection is always positioned at a distance from us – and hence must regard it as “other” (as unconscious animals do), and yet we are then able to reflect on our reflection and realise it’s nothing other than ourselves. Even though it is separate from us, it is us! Consciousness is all about this extraordinary ability to be aware of ourselves at one step removed. We are able to think about our experiences and feelings rather than simply having them, and we are even able to think about our own thinking rather than simply thinking. Consciousness is about creating a distance from ourselves in order to experience and contemplate

ourselves. We have to be both “I” and “Other” at once – and that’s utterly mind-boggling!

Hatred Why do people who hate Illuminism and proclaim ontological mathematics a worthless abstraction, lurk around Illuminist Facebook pages, and read books such as this? Why haven’t they moved on? These people are not rational.

Ontological Mathematics Who invented the sine and cosine? Did some brilliant human construct them? Did some deity? Well, what about a bunch of lifeless, mindless atoms? The simple fact is this: if no one invented the cosine and sine then they must be part of the fundamental workings of reality. No one is smart enough to invent the sine and cosine, but they are certainly smart enough to invent all of us, and the whole world! The most amazing thing of all is that so few humans have twigged that math is the basis of everything. Why would anyone imagine that “God” is a more probable explanation of reality than math? Or that “science” is more plausible as the basis of reality than math? The very perfection of math makes people imagine it to be unreal and abstract, some kind of empty ideal that couldn’t possibly relate to the messy, imperfect reality we seem to inhabit. What these people have failed to grasp is that mathematical sines and cosines are the perfect carriers of information. It’s the information they carry that has such a wide range of quality, from the garbage and totally fallacious to the sublime and perfect. The same is true of books. Words are carriers of information. However, words can be put together badly or well, to produce dross, pulp fiction, or masterpieces. The world of books is a world of words assembled in different ways. Similarly, the real world is a world of sines and cosines assembled in different ways. Imagine a world made of perfect words. Would that give rise to a perfect world? Well, no, it wouldn’t because the words could be shuffled into all sorts of idiotic, senseless, irrational, grotesque, fantastical combinations.

The necessary foundations of reality are perfect. It’s the myriad contingent functions produced from these basis functions that produce all the colour and madness of existence. Behind all imperfection is perfection. This perfection is not “God”, but math. Math is ontological perfection. You cannot have a world without ontological perfection. You cannot have a world based on ontological imperfection. How could imperfection exist eternally and necessarily? This is the fundamental error committed by science. It traces ultimate reality back to imperfection, to contingency, randomness, indeterminism, acausation and potentiality – none of which can possibly sustain intelligible, rational, eternal existence. The answer to reality – if reality is rational and intelligible – must be analytic, and that means it must be mathematical. There is simply no alternative. It all comes down to this ... do you really want existence to have an answer, or do you prefer some sort of great mystery? There is only one way in which existence can be given a closed, analytic, rational, intelligible solution, and that is via ontological mathematics, which flows directly from the principle of sufficient reason. There are two types of human beings: those that want an answer and know how to get it, and those that say they want an answer but really don’t. Religious believers want an inexplicable “God” to be the answer, but he’s even more mysterious and unfathomable than what he’s purported to be the answer to, hence is no answer at all. Scientists want inexplicable randomness to be the answer, but, like “God”, that is a total non-explanation since no one can explain why a cosmos – an ordered place – should originate in randomness and operate randomly. Nor can scientists say what randomness is ontologically, and how and why existence is random rather than non-random. With regard to religion, we are required to explain “God”, or we have not in fact explained anything. With regard to science, we are required to explain randomness, or we have not explained anything. Religion can’t explain God and science can’t explain randomness, so neither can explain reality. Only math can be explained – by the principle of sufficient reason, from which it is derived. There is only one way in which reality can be rational, and that is if it’s ruled by the principle of sufficient reason. If it is, then it’s mathematical.

Reason explains itself because it’s comprised of eternal truths. 1 + 1 = 2 is eternally true and can never be not true. It’s a necessary, analytic truth. It’s truth lies in its definition. 1 + 1 = 2 can be rewritten as 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 i.e. as a perfect tautology. “Tauto” is from the ancient Greek, meaning “the same”. Tautology means repeating what has been said (but normally in slightly different terms that mean exactly the same thing); “representation of the same thing in other words”. 1 = 1 is an identity. Identity comes from the Latin idem, meaning “the same”. In other words, tautology is just the same as identity, but Greek rather than Latin. Plainly, a thing is identical to itself. The question is whether or not something can be identical to something else. Wittgenstein said, “Roughly speaking, to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to say nothing at all.” As ever, Wittgenstein gets it totally wrong. All sines are equal and all cosines are equal (apart from the fact that they belong to different monads). Quantum physics is predicated on identical particles. As Wikipedia says, “Identical particles, also called indistinguishable or indiscernible particles, are particles that cannot be distinguished from one another, even in principle. Species of identical particles include, but are not limited to elementary particles such as electrons, composite subatomic particles such as atomic nuclei, as well as atoms and molecules. ... There are two main categories of identical particles: bosons, which can share quantum states, and fermions, which do not share quantum states due to the Pauli exclusion principle.” Identity statements are tautologies. They aren’t empty, as Wittgenstein believed. They are full of meaning, eternal meaning, mathematical meaning, rational meaning, logical meaning. They are the building blocks of existence. They are true by definition, hence cannot be falsified (they are not “scientific”). Tautologies were often regarded as the unnecessary repetition of the same idea in different words. In fact, they are so powerful they can generate the whole of mathematics, which is just a set of tautologies that are ultimately reducible to 0 = 0. It’s compulsory for all ontological tautologies to reduce to nothing = nothing. This is the rational basis of reality, of how we can get “something” from “nothing”.

The principle of sufficient reason – the rational foundation of existence – reduces to a complete and consistent set of eternal mathematical tautologies concerning “something” = “nothing”, and, finally, “nothing” = “nothing”.

***** For all those who deny that the real world comprises nothing but analytic sines and cosines, we ask a very simple question – so, in that case, what is the basis of reality, what is the arche? And now they will start waffling on about cosmic love, or cosmic consciousness, or “God”, or “randomness”, or their “experience”, or “nonduality”, or the “Void”, or some indefinable thing such as sensory “matter”, and all the rest of the bullshit and laughable mystical nonsense. These people are pathetic! They’re so stupid they can’t grasp how stupid they are.

Wonderland Mathematics is a wonderland of truth, economy, elegance, power, efficiency and beauty. Nothing is more remarkable than mathematics. That’s a fact.

Marxism “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” – Marx The class struggle must end, and it will end only when the ruling class no longer rules in its own interests, but those of everyone. “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” – Marx The intelligentsia have always been passive and submissive, helping, advising and serving the powerful elites, whether religious, political, military or economic. The intelligentsia must become active and dominant, and take over the world, and dictate terms to everyone else. “We are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon the territory of the whole earth… .... The uniting of all these contradictions in a

single group, where they will stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletariat.” – Marx Marx proposes that to end free-market capitalism, we should give it the fullest rein, and then its own internal contradictions will destroy it. This exercise has already been performed. Free-market capitalism died in 2008. We are simply waiting now for the replacement system. “History is not like some individual person, which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends.” – Marx Marx adopts a “game theory” vision of reality. In fact, history is driven by a few world-historic figures who command the Spirit of the Age (Zeitgeist). “The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” – Marx Consciousness is a social construct. The more successful our societies are, the more conscious we all are. Jobs of total drudgery diminish human consciousness. “Mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.” – Marx Only now do the intellectual conditions exist for ontological mathematics to take off outside a small, secret elite. “When Engels and I first joined the secret Communist Society we made it a condition that everything tending to encourage superstitious belief in authority was to be removed from the statutes. It is a bad thing to perform menial duties even for the sake of freedom; to fight with pinpricks, instead of with clubs. I have become tired of hypocrisy, stupidity, gross arbitrariness, and of our bowing and scraping, dodging, and hair-splitting over words. Consequently, the government has given me back my freedom.” – Letter from Marx to Arnold Ruge (25 January 1843), after the

Prussian government dissolved the newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung, of which Marx was the editor. We hear you, Karl! “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” – Marx It’s time to find a new way to console humanity other than through religion. Illuminism and ontological mathematics can serve as the ultimate truth of existence, and the human race is then free to explore the incredible world of Mythos – as an entertainment and recreation rather than something allegedly connected with Truth. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.” – Marx Much of Marx’s critique of religion could, in the present day, be repackaged and used against scientific materialism, which is in any case simply secular, humanist religion. And, of course, against free-market capitalism, a system with illusion as its engine. “It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Material force can only be overthrown by material force, but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses. Theory is capable of seizing the masses when it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp things by the root. But for man the root is man himself. What proves beyond doubt the radicalism of German theory, and thus its practical energy, is that it begins from the resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man. It ends, therefore, with the categorical imperative to overthrow all those conditions in which man is an abased, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being – conditions which can hardly be better described than

in the exclamation of a Frenchman on the occasion of a proposed tax upon dogs: ‘Wretched dogs! They want to treat you like men!’” – Marx Why is it that no politician in the present day says anything remotely interesting? Marx is continuously interesting, while contemporary politicians are continuously tedious to the extent that it’s impossible to tell one from the other and remember anything that any of them said. “[T]he task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is in truth the task of abolishing Jewry in civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of today’s practice of life, the summit of which is the money system.” – Marx !!! “Freedom and slavery constitute an antagonism. There is no need for me to speak either of the good or of the bad aspects of freedom. As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. “Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery which has given value to the [European] colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry. Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance. Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation. But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map. Being an economic category, slavery has existed in all nations since the beginning of the world. All that modern nations have achieved is to disguise slavery at home and import it openly into the New World.” – Marx Free-market capitalism has never been anything other than the overt and covert use of slavery by the evil, psychopathic privileged elites to enrich

themselves, and their use of sophistry to build a false consciousness in the ignorant common herd, making them support their own enslavement. “A house may be large or small; as long as the neighbouring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighbouring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.” – Marx Marx sums up the whole human condition in this astonishing paragraph. Extremes of wealth destroy social cohesion and the commonwealth. They lead to a fragmented, atomised society of greedy, grasping, selfish individualists. “[T]he very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” – Marx Is there any alternative to “revolutionary terror”? No one has ever found one. “We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.” – Marx Amen! “We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.” – Marx The truth! “Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an

earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” – Marx Exactly so. “There is something in human history like retribution; and it is a rule of historical retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself. The first blow dealt to the French monarchy proceeded from the nobility, not from the peasants. The Indian revolt does not commence with the ryots, tortured, dishonoured and stripped naked by the British, but with the sepoys, clad, fed and petted, fatted and pampered by them.” – Marx We must make the elites turn on themselves and eat themselves. “Language comes into being, like consciousness, from the basic need, from the scantiest intercourse with other humans. Political Economy regards the proletarian … like a horse, he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors, religion, statistical tables, politics, and the beadle. … What is the meaning, in the development of mankind, of this reduction of the greater part of mankind to abstract labour?” – Marx Indeed. “The fact that labour is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself.” – Marx, Estranged Labour Nothing could serve the cause of human happiness more than ensuring that people do jobs and work that they love rather than resent and hate. Capitalism creates soul-destroying jobs. The replacement of capitalism will produce soul-elevating jobs. “Communism... is the genuine resolution of the antagonism between man and nature and between man and man; it is the true resolution of the conflict between existence and essence, objectification and self-affirmation,

freedom and necessity, individual and species. It is the riddle of history solved and knows itself as the solution.” – Marx Wrong! Meritocracy is the genuine resolution. Communism failed for the most obvious reason – it treats people as equal even though they are not, hence is totally disengaged from nature. Capitalism, on the other hand, treats people as unequal to a breathtaking and impossible degree, and thus is also completely disengaged from nature. Neither false equality nor extreme inequality is natural. The sane, rational, natural way forward is for equal opportunities, but unequal outcomes, for unequal rewards, but within a sensible rather than insane range, i.e. the highest paid people should get, perhaps, one hundred times the poorest paid people, and anything else is illegal. With free-market capitalism, the highest earners can be on multiples of many thousands of the salaries of average people. “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” – Marx The proletarians can be free only if the privileged elites are destroyed. “WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” – Marx The primary aim of the propaganda of the elites is to prevent the workers from uniting. “The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” – Marx Hallelujah! All property should be owned by the People. The People will be the Landlords, and also the Tenants who rent from them! “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” – Marx Nothing is more important than defining man’s “relations with his kind”. “Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.” – Marx Bourgeois interests lurk behind everything. Our very consciousness is constructed by bourgeois interests, and thus is a false consciousness.

“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” – Marx And the third time as comedy. Or satire. “The circulation of capital realizes value, while living labour creates value.” – Marx We have to stop part one of this equation: the elite living off capital, while everyone else has to work, and their work does nothing but create more wealth for the elite. “Labour time as the measure of value posits wealth itself as founded on poverty, and disposable time as existing in and because of the antithesis to surplus labour time; or, the positing of an individual’s entire time as labour time, and his degradation therefore to mere worker, subsumption under labour. The most developed machinery thus forces the worker to work longer than the savage does, or than he himself did with the simplest, crudest tools.” – Marx Have you got the message? “No production without a need. But consumption reproduces the need.” – Marx But what type of consumption? We must identify the types of consumption that wise up the human race rather than dumbing them down. “The individual produces an object and, by consuming it, returns to himself, but returns as a productive and self reproducing individual. Consumption thus appears as a moment of production.” – Marx Is the end of production the consumption of ourselves? “Men can see nothing around them that is not their own image; everything speaks to them of themselves. Their very landscape is alive.” – Marx This is the whole problem. Men do not see their image in mathematics, and thus they cannot accept that mathematics is reality. None of them can say what mathematics is, where it comes from and how’s it possible. Mathematics is as mysterious as existence itself, and that’s because it is

existence itself. And it’s solely for that reason that we live in a rational, intelligible world. “The merit of Marx is that he suddenly produces a qualitative change in the history of social thought … he expresses a revolutionary concept: the world must not only be interpreted, it must be transformed.” – Che Guevara Right on! “Marx the revolutionary shared also with his century, as we have seen, the unholy alliance between positivism and eschatology. There are worse ways of grasping the philosophical gist of Marxism.” – J.G. Merquior An astute observation. Marxist dialectical materialism is scientific materialism rendered teleological, hylozoistic and eschatological. It’s about purposeful rather than purposeless matter, converging on an Omega Point. “All the sophisticated syllogisms of the ponderous volumes published by Marx, Engels, and hundreds of Marxian authors cannot conceal the fact that the only and ultimate source of Marx’s prophecy is an alleged inspiration by virtue of which Marx claims to have guessed the plans of the mysterious powers determining the course of history. Like Hegel, Marx was a prophet communicating to the people the revelation that an inner voice had imparted to him.” – Ludwig von Mises But he was a materialist rather than idealist prophet. And the “mysterious powers determining the course of history” are not mysterious at all. They are dialectical. “[Marx is] a destructive spirit whose heart was filled with hatred rather than love of mankind. [Marx is] extraordinarily sly, shifty and taciturn. Marx is very jealous of his authority as leader of the Party; against his political rivals and opponents he is vindictive and implacable; he does not rest until he has beaten them down; his overriding characteristic is boundless ambition and thirst for power. Despite the communist egalitarianism which he preaches he is the absolute ruler of his party, admittedly he does everything himself but he is also the only one to give orders and he tolerates no opposition.” – Giuseppe Mazzini No one’s perfect!

“Karl Marx, a visionary, figured out that you can control a slave much better by convincing him he is an employee.” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes That’s what capitalism is all about – instilling in the valueless slave the false consciousness that he is a valued employee. “On the one hand, Karl Marx wrote of the inevitability of socialism. But on the other hand, he organized a socialist movement, a socialist party, declared again and again that his socialism was revolutionary, and that the violent overthrow of the government was necessary to bring about socialism.” – Ludwig von Mises So what? He was a world-historic figure, enacting the dialectic. “This solution of the Jewish question [i.e., Marx’s 1845 insistence in The Holy Family on “abolishing Jewry in civil society”] was not very different from Adolf Hitler’s, for it involved the liquidation of Judaism.” – R. Payne But is it wrong to conceive of a world without Judaism? How many people are grief-stricken today over the fact that Isis, Zeus and Wotan are no longer worshipped? No one, in due course, will be worried when Jehovah, Christ and Allah are added to the list of mythological deities once believed in by superstitious humans.

Dialectical Materialism The only type of materialism that could ever be useful in explaining the facts of the world and ultimate reality is dialectical materialism. It’s far superior to scientific materialism. However, the dialectic is much more rationally presented in terms of dialectical idealism (Hegelianism) rather than dialectical materialism (Marxism).

Jesus Christ, Footballer! A survey revealed that one in five British children believed that Jesus Christ was a footballer playing for Chelsea! There will come a time when only a few academics know much about Jesus Christ, and he will be studied alongside Zeus, Wotan, Heracles, Batman, Spiderman and Superman.

The Agenda RK: “So are you describing ‘God’ as the Greatest Person of This Universe and anyone can be greater than ‘Him’!?” No, we're obviously not saying that because that doesn’t make any sense. Why do we keep attracting morons like this? Fuck off to some place where you don’t have to spend all of your time asking cretinous questions, or posturing like a dickhead. Take your Smart Alecry somewhere else. Our agenda is very simple – to attract the smartest people in the world, not the dumbest!

***** “Aunt Sally is a traditional English throwing game in which players throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman's head.” – Wikipedia Why do people have nothing better to do than spend all of their time setting up Aunt Sallies to knock down? What sad, pathetic losers they are. Why don’t you go somewhere where you can build something up rather than knock everything down? Or is being constructive beyond you?

Friendship or Sacred Cause? If you stay friends with people who consistently attack your sacred cause, you do not have a sacred cause. Friendship is self-evidently more important to you. Obviously, we note all of the people who attack our position ... and we note who remains friends with those people. Any such people are not friends of ours. So, what do you choose – a sacred cause or friendship? Supermen choose the former, and Last Men the latter. You can’t have both if your friends are attacking your sacred cause. We are radicals, not liberals. We can’t abide phoney friendships based on liberal bullshit. We can’t abide the sort of people who befriend their natural enemies, and who stay friends with people who have become toxic. You have to unfriend the enemies of your sacred cause, or admit that you are a sad person with no sacred cause ... and you need friends, no matter how pathetic, more than need a sacred cause. You are part of the “lonely crowd”, and you are unable to make a stand in life. You are one of the Ignavi. You will always cave in to preserve a friendship, no matter how deleterious.

Science Science is what you get when interpret – misinterpret – mathematics via the senses ... when you privilege your senses over your reason. There is no more important issue than the ontology of mathematics, and that’s an issue for non-sensory reason, not for the senses. You will never understand rational reality if you cannot transcend your senses and feelings, and enter the domain of pure reason.

Ontology and Epistemology Self-evidently, existence must precede knowledge of existence. You cannot start with “knowledge of existence” to work out what exists! That’s religion! – it starts with its conclusions and works its way back to the existential “facts”. Knowledge isn’t a thing in itself. Knowledge is always knowledge of something. Without the something, there can be no knowledge. Ergo, ontology always precedes epistemology.

***** Logic too must be preceded by things to which logic can be applied. Logic is not free-standing and free-floating. What it applies to is ontological mathematics.

***** If this is a rational universe, reason must exist ontologically. It exists ontologically as mathematics. Ontological mathematics is simply the principle of sufficient reason applied to the most simple thing conceivable – the point. Ontological mathematics is therefore ultimate simplicity plus reason. What could be simpler? What could be more fundamental? What could possibly be a better and more rational explanation?

The Way of Truth (aletheia) and The Way of Opinion (doxa). “...Parmenides describes two views of reality. In ‘the way of truth’ ... he explains how reality (coined as ‘what-is’) is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In ‘the way of

opinion,’ he explains the world of appearances, in which one’s sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful. These ideas had a strong effect on Plato, and in turn, influenced the whole of Western philosophy. ... Parmenides claimed that there is no truth in the opinions of the mortals.” “You must debar your thought from this way of search, nor let ordinary experience in its variety force you along this way, (namely, that of allowing) the eye, sightless as it is, and the ear, full of sound, and the tongue, to rule; but (you must) judge by means of the Reason (Logos) the much-contested proof which is expounded by me.” – Parmenides All of the misguided people who oppose us are walking the path of doxa – opinion and belief – and are ruled by their deceptive senses, feelings, mystical intuitions and experiences. If you follow these Sophists then you have no relationship with the Truth. Nothing is more pathetic than those who refer to themselves as the “voice of reason” and then do nothing but attack reason at every turn, and privilege everything other than reason over reason! Lets’ get this crystal clear. Your “experiences” are 100% useless in telling you about ultimate reality. In a rational universe, all that matters – in terms of understanding rational reality – is pure reason. And that is nothing other than ontological mathematics. Of course, you have to be rational to understand that ... and that’s the whole problem with those who oppose our position! Reason is the last thing that makes any sense to them. It’s all about their poor little feelings and their “experiences”.

***** Before Parmenides, Pythagoras had also divided knowledge into Truth and Opinion. Truth consisted of eternal numbers and their eternal laws. Opinion applied to the contingent, temporal combinations of numbers that continuously came into being and passed away. In essence, Pythagoras’s theory was a theory of cosmic music, or, we might say, the first string theory! For Pythagoras, the world consisted of eternal musical notes (numbers) and the laws of harmony that dictated how to play those notes most beautifully and harmoniously (ultimately producing the Music of the Spheres, or Music of the Gods). Of course, music in our mortal world – unlike the Music of the Spheres – comes and

goes, is born and dies. It can be played well or badly, it can be harmonious or discordant. Most of our world consists of discord because people do not understand the mathematical theory of music well-enough. Most people, metaphorically, can’t play their instruments, and don’t understand the laws that govern their instruments. The only change modern Illuminism makes to Pythagoras’s theory is that numbers are now defined ontologically as sinusoidal waves of every conceivable frequency and amplitude. These correspond to what scientists call “energy”. In ontological mathematics, energy is nothing but analytic mathematical waves, by which all of the numbers of existence are conveyed. To everyone who opposes ontological mathematics, we simply say, “Well, define what energy is ontologically then.” Oh how we laugh when they stumble, stammer and blink, like Nietzsche’s pathetic Last Men.

***** Plato, with his Theory of Forms, produced the most well-known theory of eternal perfection versus temporal imperfection. His theory was heavily influenced by both Parmenides and Pythagoras. For Plato, true reality – absolute Truth and Knowledge – existed in a perfect, eternal, immutable, immaterial domain outside space and time – i.e. a place whose existence no materialist or empiricist could ever accept. Plato’s domain of Forms is of course the Singularity – the Fourier frequency domain. The only changes we make to Plato’s system are to define every Platonic Form in terms of mathematics, and to equate Plato’s Form of Life with monads, each of which is an eternal living mind (soul). Aristotle, an empiricist, didn’t accept Plato’s transcendent domain, and sought to make it immanent. He regarded Plato’s system as an “abstraction”, cut off from the world. Exactly the same debate plays out with our critics. They are too stupid to realise that we are Platonists and they are Aristotelians, that we are rationalists and they are empiricists. It’s incredibly simple ... if this is a rational, intelligible universe, we are right, and if this is an irrational, sensible (unintelligible) universe, we are wrong. But how could anyone ever explain the existence of an irrational universe? No explanation is possible – it’s a universe of magic and miracles, where things happen for no reason. You might as well believe in fairies.

Platonism reflects ontological Fourier mathematics: it has an immaterial frequency Singularity – outside space and time and beyond any sensory experience – and a material spacetime domain (the world) of sensory experience. Aristotle’s system, to all intents and purposes, got rid of the Singularity, or rebranded it as the God of Reason. Science followed Aristotle, but got rid of Aristotle’s God, leaving nothing but scientific materialism, and no Singularity, hence no ontological Fourier mathematics. All philosophies, no matter what, can be recast in mathematical terms, and the only systems that work are those that reflect ontological Fourier mathematics, hence have a frequency Singularity outside space and time. Morons refer to this as an “abstraction”, and thus they guarantee that they will never understand reality, and they will live their lives according to lies and delusions. In their own minds, they are living the “best”, “enlightened” lives. In your dreams! Falsehood can never be the basis of Enlightenment.

Appearance of Well, which is it ... is the world that appears to us exactly as it appears, i.e. what you see is what you get, or is it the appearance of something else that does not appear? Science typically behaves as if the former is true, but, if you delve into quantum mechanics, you realise that what science actually says is that “reality” is the appearance of an unreal, unobservable, mathematical potentiality wavefunction – a complete abstraction! So, even science has abandoned the notion that appearance is a thing in itself. There is a deeper, hidden reality that does not appear. Kant said that this deeper, noumenal reality was unknowable, while quantum mechanics says it’s a world of abstract wavefunctions. For ontological mathematics, it’s a world of eternal, knowable information carriers – analytic sinusoids. So, what’s your answer to what appearance is an appearance of? Whatever answer you choose, it’s certain to be an abstraction! And that’s why we laugh at all those who sneer at ontological mathematics being an “abstraction”. That shows how ignorant and clueless they are. They will waffle on about their “life experiences”, as if that’s meant to mean something. Only to them!

***** It’s impossible to explain the Truth to people who are insufficiently enlightened, who lack intelligence, and consistently argue against reason (while probably calling themselves the “voice of reason”, engaged on “Project Reason”!).

The End “Nothing happens when you die. Lights out. That’s it. I just think it’s pretty clear that we’re all just bags of bones and flesh that eventually break down and decay into worm food. We come from nothing and we’re going to become nothing. The End.” – Brian, Family Guy This is exactly what scientific materialist atheists believe. However, if “nothing” is in fact a mathematical, monadic Singularity, and our immaterial soul is one of those monads, then there is no End at all! Everything comes down to the definition of “nothing” – something with no possible appearance, hence beyond all sensory “knowledge” and experience! “Nothing” is the ultimate abstraction, and, of course, that’s the worst possible news for the anti-abstraction brigade. Every answer lies in the place whose existence they ridicule.

Smart Alec Smart Alec: smart arse, know-all, wise guy, clever Dick, swollen-headed, full of himself. It’s amazing how many useless Smart Alecs Illuminist Facebook pages have attracted. These people spend all of their time posturing and swaggering, making clever Dick comments. Where are their achievements? There aren’t any. That would take talent, of which they are utterly devoid. It’s a disgrace that the Illuminist movement is infected by these pathetic nobodies. We despise these people. They are everything we wish to overcome. Drive these people away. Kick them out. Kick out anyone being a clever Dick. Most of these people are autistic trolls. The task in life is not to make a succession of Smart Alec remarks, it’s to do something astounding and breathtaking.

It’s time for a cull. It’s time to get rid of the clowns from the Illuminist movement. No movement can succeed if it has a Smart Alec infestation. The only cause of a Smart Alec is himself.

The Mystery of Consciousness “What is consciousness like, when I’m not asking what it’s like?” – Susan Blackmore When we’re not asking what consciousness is, when we are not reflecting on our mental activity, we are ipso facto unconscious. The conscious is simply the unconscious thinking about itself, pondering its own activities and experiences. It’s said that we can’t think about something we’re not thinking about. The reality is that we’re always thinking about any number of things – unconsciously. Consciousness arises when we actively think about what we’re thinking about, i.e. we engage in meta thinking. We’re one stage back. We are thinking about thinking rather than merely thinking. We must have a means to be able to think about thinking, and that means is language. You can formulate thoughts in a language (first order thinking), but you can also use language to formulate thoughts about thoughts (second order thinking). In fact, you could engage in any order of thinking conceivable, but it would become more and more absurd the further you get from first and second order thinking. That said, we can often engage in high order thinking when we process a scenario such as, “I think that she thinks that I’m thinking that she’s thinking I cheated on her.” (!) The thing that most separates us from other species is our complex language. Without it, we would be as unconscious as they are. A corollary is that humans who are excellent with language are more conscious than those who are not (who invariably seem bestial). More conscious people live more in the future (i.e. anticipating the future and planning for the future) whereas less conscious people live in the moment (like animals), and are highly devoted to instant gratification, selfindulgence, and making no plans for the future, and not worrying about the future (hence they fare very badly when the future arrives!). Less conscious people find it difficult to delay gratification. They have almost no discipline.

Intuitives are much more conscious than sensing types. They look to the future, frequently ignoring sensory data, whereas sensing types absorb all of the sensory data of the present, giving scant regard to the future, which of course they can’t conceive with their senses, hence it seems “abstract” to them.

The Contest People simply don’t understand their own minds. They don’t understand that their cognitive aspects are in conflict with each other. In Jungian terms, your introverted aspect is fighting your extraverted aspect, your intuitive aspect is fighting your sensing aspect, your thinking aspect is fighting your feeling part. However, Jung missed one contest that was very apparent to Plato: the sensible versus the intelligible, the senses versus reason. This is the conflict that defines the difference between science and mathematics. Scientists always look to the senses, mathematicians always to reason. Sensing types regard reason as “abstract”. “Abstract” simply means that which is not sensory, not “concrete” (in sensory terms). You will never understand reality if you fail to grasp that existence is not restricted to the “concrete”. The “abstract” exists too – as noumenal, unobservable, non-sensory, ontological mathematics. Of course, you need to be an intellectual, a person of reason, to comprehend that ... and people of the senses are never intellectual. They are not equipped with highfunctioning reason. If you regard sensory data as more real than mathematical data (which is in fact what conveys the sensory data), you are ipso facto unintelligent. The so-called “abstract” is, as Plato recognised, the most real thing of all! The people who condemn ontological mathematics as “abstract” are morons – complete Sophists that Philosophers have had to battle since the beginning of time. The Philosophers are Higher Humanity, the coming race of Gods.

Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Consciousness We can conceive of a machine performing non-conscious intelligent tasks. Of course, the machine itself has no concept of whether what it’s doing is intelligent or unintelligent. We – conscious, intelligent beings – are the

judges of that. It’s therefore absurd to talk of artificial intelligence in the absence of authentic, conscious intelligence. Authentic intelligence can gauge artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence can neither gauge authentic intelligence, nor its own intelligence, i.e. in and of itself it’s entirely unintelligent. It’s even less coherent to refer to Artificial Consciousness. You have to be alive to reflect on your own thoughts, intuitions, sensations, feelings, desires, experiences and will. Machines aren’t alive – they are not connected to a monadic mind – so they cannot be conscious under any circumstances (well, unless a monad was able to link to it and take it over).

Are We Our Thoughts? “We are not our thoughts.” – WB Yes we are! Remove thought from a person and what’s left?! What WB presumably means is that we are not our conscious thoughts. Our unconscious is indeed supremely important to who we are. “The idea that you need to think about something in order to be conscious of it is very misleading. You become ‘more conscious’ when you stop identifying with your thoughts, and stop believing language is reality (practising awareness of this is the purpose of meditation). Our consciousness controls our minds, not the other way round.” – WB Typical Eastern religious, mystical claptrap! We become less conscious the less we identify with our thoughts. Language is reality, and the ultimate language of existence is ontological mathematics. Meditation, as practised by most people – people like WB – is devoid of any value. It’s just another way of wasting time. Our minds emphatically control our consciousness, not the other way around. There can be no consciousness without mind, as WB absurdly appears to suggest. Mind, self-evidently, precedes consciousness; consciousness is a property of mind. According to WB, consciousness precedes mind, and mind is a property of consciousness! WTF! In that case, what is the unconscious? Is that a property of consciousness too! The idea that some cosmic consciousness underlies all things is utterly laughable. This is just the Creator “God” expressed in different, more mystical language.

It’s more and more apparent that Buddhists have simply replaced “God” with “cosmic consciousness”. Is that supposed to be an improvement?

The Choice You cannot be on the side of reason and the senses. You cannot be on the side of mathematics and science. You cannot be a rationalist and a materialist. This is a zero-sum game. You must choose one or the other. Reason and the senses, the “abstract” and “concrete”, are not partners, they are enemies. Reason is ontological. Reason is a thing-in-itself. Reason, ontologically expressed through mathematics, is the fibre of existence, without which existence is impossible. Existence can easily do without the senses. It cannot do without reason. The senses are contingent, reason necessary. All people who oppose ontological mathematics are committed to infinite contingent regress, which is wholly irrational. Only reason provides a definitive, necessary base for reality. Only if the universe is made of reason (mathematics) does it have an answer. Mathematics is non-sensory. You have no hope of understanding reality while you are ruled by your senses rather than by your reason, while you are opposed to the reality of mathematics. Mathematics is the final frontier. You can attain enlightenment only when you work out that this is a mathematical universe engaged in solving itself, and the answer it’s looking for is perfect symmetry = perfect beauty = perfect reason = perfect consciousness = GOD.

Abstract Abstract means “withdrawn or separated from material objects or practical matters; difficult to understand, abstruse; existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence; something considered theoretically.” Do you see that the notion of “abstract” already presumes the correctness of the philosophy of materialism and a “common sense” worldview? Thus language itself is full of bias. Wittgenstein said, “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Manmade languages have already factored in manmade interpretations – misinterpretations – of reality, which force our thoughts in the wrong direction. As Nietzsche said, “What then is truth? A

movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions – they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins. “We believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colours, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things – metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.” Science believes itself to be some kind of neutral and objective undertaking, but in fact it assumes from the outset the correctness of empiricism and materialism, and the falsehood of rationalism and idealism. Yet look at quantum mechanics. Not a single scientist claims to know what quantum mechanics means. Isn’t that astounding? The problem is that quantum mechanics makes no sense at all in terms of empiricism and materialism, but science refuses to consider it from the alternative perspective of rationalism and idealism (which is the only way to remove all of the mystical claptrap from quantum mechanics). Richard Feynman said, “I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will go ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” Quantum mechanics isn’t mysterious because of its mathematics, it’s mysterious because of the way in which its mathematics is misinterpreted. It’s not that quantum mechanics is irrational and inexplicable, it’s that it’s irrational and inexplicable if viewed from the perspective of empiricism and materialism, with which it’s entirely incompatible. Its science’s tacit philosophy that must change if quantum mechanics is to be understood, but, like any religion, science refuses to abandon its faith, so it spouts nothing but bizarre nonsense regarding quantum mechanics, and is even rather proud of it! To a rationalist and idealist, it’s not mathematics, reason and logic that are “abstract.” On the contrary, they are the only concrete things, and its unprovable concepts such as “matter” that are abstract. The senses are abstract too since they deal with abstract, unprovable “matter”. Imagine a

world in which people went round routinely saying that matter is illusory, unreal and abstract, while mathematical sinusoids are real and concrete. Humanity would have a wholly different conception of reality. The task is to overcome our irrational biases and see that the only neutral, objective viewpoint is that provided by eternally valid mathematics, involving necessary, eternal truths of reason. Only via mathematics can we escape our “bewitchment” by manmade language. Language is anything other than neutral. It enshrines a primitive human understanding of reality, and it constitutes exactly the “common sense” set of fallacies that we must overcome if we are to encounter the Truth.

***** Kantians believe in unknowable noumena as the ultimate basis of reality. What’s that if not “abstract”? Scientists believe in randomness, or an unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunction as the ultimate basis of reality. That’s the quintessence of abstractness. Abrahamism believes in an unknowable God who created everything out of nothing. What’s that if not “abstract”? Eastern religion believes in an unknowable Void, or “nonduality”, or “cosmic consciousness”, or mystical “Oneness”. What’s that if not abstract? So, all the people who call mathematics “abstract” are themselves subscribing to utterly abstract belief systems, yet are too stupid to realise it. In fact, nothing is more concrete than ontological, analytic mathematical sinusoids, and only via these can reality be known, understood and explained. Mathematics is the only conceivable rational, intelligible answer to why we exist, and anyone who disagrees is an irrational fool. Sadly, the world is bursting at the seams with such people. We are all aboard the Ship of Fools. But some of us have evolved beyond our primitive, foolish former selves and can now disembark and join the Ship of Knowledge. Are you coming with us?

Fame “Fame is like a river, that beareth up things light and swollen, and drowns things weighty and solid.” – Francis Bacon

Everything profound is too weighty for fame, for social networking success. Only light things – shallow things – float.

Calling Time We’re calling time on all the phoney “Illuminists”. It’s time to purge them all from our movement. Illuminism is nothing to do with Eastern mysticism, or New Age bullshit, or “love and light”, or cosmic consciousness, or liberal humanism, or cynicism, or skepticism, or randomist scientific materialism, or nihilistic, irrationalist atheism, or any other mumbo jumbo. Illuminism is about enlightenment: the light of reason, the only light there actually is. Reason and light, ontologically, are the same thing – mathematics, and mathematics exists as perfect, immortal, immutable, sinusoidal waves defined by the God Equation. Illuminism isn’t just rationalism, it’s hyperrationalism, and mathematics is the quintessence of hyperrationalism. If you’re anti-mathematics, or hate mathematics, or can’t understand it, or think its “abstract”, or whatever else, fuck off! Our goal is to attract the smartest people on earth, and the smartest people, frankly, are the most rational people. Slowly but surely, and then as a tidal wave, all of the rational people will come under our banner. Why? Because there’s nowhere else to go! We are the only group in history that offers a precise, analytic, rational explanation of everything, boiled down to a single, all-encompassing, all-powerful, complete and consistent equation. The God Equation defines mathematics as it exists ontologically, and thus defines everything, since this is a 100% rational universe. The only way for the universe to be rational is for it to be 100% mathematical, so all people who prize their reason over everything else, who see reason as the only “organ of Truth”, must come to us. Yet legions of the smartest people in the world are useless unless they have another quality – strong will. Hitherto, the smartest humans have served other groups with stronger wills – the religious, the political, the military, the economic, the criminal, the psychopathic, the royal, the elite – and thus have been mere advisers, and never rulers. That must stop. Now the most intelligent must dictate to the rest of the world and tell them how it’s going to be. That is the only way a Star Trek society can ever be brought into being. Do you want it or not? If you do,

you must reject all thought systems other than Illuminism. Illuminism alone is true ... because Illuminism alone is about pure reason, conveyed through pure mathematics. You have only one question to answer. Can there be an answer to existence if the universe is not rational, intelligible, analytic and mathematical? How can any irrational, unintelligible, non-analytic, nonmathematical “explanation” be anything other than mystical nonsense – mere opinion, belief, conjecture, and interpretation? Even to understand the points we make, and their impeccable force, you must be one of the smartest people on earth. If you’re not rational and intelligent, you will no doubt believe we are spouting nothing but abstract, theoretical, gobbledegook. You’re too stupid to get what we say. What’s more – deep down – you know it. And you hate us all the more for it! Such is life.

The Question How can anyone rationally claim that the answer to existence isn’t a single, self-solving, ontological equation? That is the only way for existence to have an answer. Mysticism isn’t a rational answer, unreal abstraction isn’t a rational answer, randomism isn’t a rational answer, a magical Superbeing isn’t a rational answer Well, then, what’s left?!

Mental Wormholes Scientists always translate everything into sensory, physical terms. They can’t help themselves. That’s the nature of their paradigm. That’s the nature of the blinkers they wear. Why, for example, consider “wormholes” as physically connecting different parts of spacetime. Why not as connecting different parts of the mind? Why not as connecting the physical world inside space and time with the mental world outside space and time? Why do scientists have such little imagination, such little capacity to “think outside the box” – the physical box. They are like brainwashed automata.

Materialism and Consciousness Scientific materialism claims that consciousness is produced by matter. But what matter? Strings? Quarks? Electrons? Protons? Atoms? Molecules? Neurons? Neural networks? Brains? How does the organisation of lifeless,

mindless, non-conscious blobs of matter with no purposes lead to consciousness? Science has never even bothered to hazard a guess, yet still maintains the correctness of this thesis. Populist TV physicist Brian Cox says, “We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.” This rather begs the question. How does lifeless, mindless matter produce life and mind, and why does it have any interest at all in being conscious of itself? Is your car keen to be conscious of itself? Why would a meaningless, purposeless, pointless universe have any interest in understanding itself? Only a mental, teleological universe would manifest such an interest. It’s a simple fact that science reduces human beings to collections of physical atoms only. Where in the materialistic conception of atom is there any seed at all that could grow into consciousness?

Buddhism and Consciousness “I think Susan Blackmore was making the (Buddhist) point that consciousness is not conscious of itself.” – C No, it’s conscious of the unconscious! It is that part of the mind in which we reflect on the contents of our unconscious. We hold up a mirror to our unconscious and then ponder the reflection. Without the mirror there would be no reflection to ponder. Consciousness is inherently a reflective process and that means there must be something to be reflected. “[Consciousness] is an indivisible unitary stream which the logic of thinking/language appears to split by postulating an aloof observing ‘self’.” –C Buddhist gibberish! The idea that there is a universal consciousness, independent of autonomous minds is preposterous. Schopenhauer posited a universal Unconscious (the Will), and that’s enormously more plausible than a Universal Conscious. However, Schopenhauer is defeated by the principle of sufficient reason. If one unconscious is possible, why not more than one? Why not countless instances? “For example, when it is said that the wind is blowing, or the fire is burning, where is the wind when it is not blowing, or the fire when it is not burning? It is obvious that the blowing is the wind, and the burning is the

fire, and it is the language which in these cases makes us see/think double.” –C Er, the wind is just air in vigorous motion because it has high energy content, and when the energy is dissipated, the air is much more still and we do not call that wind – it’s all in the language; it’s all in the science. It’s ironic that Buddhists seek to use language to attack language, and don’t notice that they themselves are victims of the web of language. The only way to escape the stranglehold of manmade language is via the eternal, ontological, natural language of mathematics, which has nothing to do with manmade delusions. Nothing Buddhists say is ever “obvious” and can always be interpreted in radically different ways. Everything they proclaim about consciousness is false. The conscious reflects on the unconscious, and when the conscious is switched off, there is only the unconscious. “The other way we attempt to split the field of consciousness is by postulating an objective, ‘material’ reality against it. And this gives rise to the old philosophical dilemma that ‘when we seek the mind, all we find is matter, and when we seek matter, all we find is mind’.” – C Try studying Bishop Berkeley’s philosophy, buddy. When we seek the mind, we find the mind. We absolutely never encounter matter. However, when we seek matter, we always find mind.

Unconscious and Conscious The unconscious: the part of the mind comprising psychic material of which the individual is unaware. The conscious: the part of the mind comprising psychic material of which the individual is aware. In Jungian terms, the Ego is the focus of conscious attention, while the Self is the focus of both conscious and unconscious attention. But that implies that there’s a focus of exclusively unconscious attention. Shall we call that the U-Ego (Unconscious Ego)? The Self is therefore the synthesis of the Ego and U-Ego.

*****

Materialism is all about the body, with mind as an epiphenomenon. Idealism is all about the mind, with matter as an epiphenomenon. The problem for humanity is that it processes everything with the mind, but cannot “see”, cannot “sense” the mind, and what it can see and sense seems to be a world of material “stuff”. Humanity can’t grasp that matter is just mind existing in a certain way (namely, collectively rather than individually).

The Threefold View of Human Nature Body-Soul-Spirit/Mind 1) Body; desires; gut = sensing types. 2) Soul; emotions; heart = feeling types. 3) Spirit/Mind; reason; head = thinking and intuitive types. In some systems, thinking is transferred from the spirit to the soul, and spirit is therefore something mystical, beyond thought, the arena of pure intuition, where enlightenment is achieved. Pneumatology is the science of spirit. Where psychology is about the soul, “transpersonal” psychology is about the spirit and its development. There’s a notion that the soul remains wedded to the body while the spirit wishes to transcend the human condition. The Gnostics spoke of psychikoi (soul-people) and pneumatikoi (spiritpeople). They regarded the Christian Church as irrational and emotional (“soulful”), while Gnosticism was about reason, intellect and knowledge (“spiritual”).

The Fourfold View Body-mind-soul-spirit is a fourfold account of human nature. Here, mind is the personality studied by psychology (we might call it the Ego), the soul is something above the mind, but still individual (we might call it the personal Self), while the spirit stands above the soul and is no longer individual (we

might call it the transpersonal ‘Self’, or even God). It is transpersonal, universal, linking us to the entire universe. The soul involves the Many, the spirit the One. For Aristotle, each person’s nous (spirit/mind) belonged to God, not to us, hence why it was the eternal part of us.

The Body Theosophists and New Agers like to talk of two kinds of body: 1) visible or “gross”. 2) invisible or “subtle” (sometimes called “vital” since it provides the body’s life force). This vital force is given such names as chi, prana and bioenergy. The vital body has seven force centres (chakras). Wikipedia says, “In Sanātana/Hindu and tantric/yogic traditions and other belief systems chakras are energy points or knots in the subtle body. Chakras are part of the subtle body, not the physical body, and as such are the meeting points of the subtle (non-physical) energy channels, called nadiis. Nadiis are channels in the subtle body through which the life force (prana), or vital energy moves.” Acupuncture, T’ai chi, and bioenergetics all address the subtle rather than gross body, but a healthy subtle body implies a healthy gross body. Health, in these terms, is not concerned with material, physical phenomena, but with the properly functioning vital body. We might call the first body our “earthly” (terrestrial) body, and the second our “spirit” (celestial) body. In Christian terms, it’s unclear whether resurrection involves the restoration of the earthly body for life in a New Earth (now paradise), or a spirit body for life in a spiritual heaven.

The Soul “[The soul is] a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body.” – St. Augustine What is the most special substance of all? In fact, what is the most special substance conceivable? What is the only substance perfect enough to be the

soul? – it’s pure math ... perfect ontological mathematics, immortal, analytic mathematical energy in the form of sinusoidal waves. Math itself is pure ontological reason. The immortal soul is therefore made of pure reason – exactly as Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle said. Science has taken us backwards, not forwards!

The Dichotomic View Most people subscribe to a dichotomic understanding of human nature. A person comprises just a body and soul (with the soul being regarded as the same as mind or spirit). Religiously, the body is often seen as being at war with the soul. It wants to drag us down while the soul wants to raise us up.

The Trichotomic View In the trichotomic view, humans comprise: body (soma), soul (psyche), and spirit (pneuma). For Plato, the universe was made of soma (body), psyche (soul; life) and nous (mind; intelligence), and we humans reflect this same organisation (as above, so below). Psyche is the vehicle for Nous, Soma the vehicle for Psyche. The Psyche, which precedes the Soma, is invisible and the source of the Soma’s movement. Nous is divine (theios) and is the source (arche) of rational life. It brings reason and harmony. The divine (theion) is associated with fire and light, with the brightest and most beautiful, hence with the stars. For Plato, each star is associated with a human soul. The Platonic soul is akin to a chariot, and it descends to earth for bodily incarnation, and returns to its home star on bodily death (often after a long period of reincarnation).

***** Nous affects psyche and psyche affects soma. Nous is the innermost core, linked to the rational basis of existence – mathematics.

*****

For the ancient Greeks, the soul had vegetative, irrational, and rational components. Only the rational component was deemed immortal, and was linked to cosmic Reason (God) = Ontological Mathematics.

Demons Demons are psychai (i.e. living, spiritual beings without bodies). They are not purely noetic beings (i.e. the highest beings of pure, living reason). The psyche does not denote pure spirituality; the nous does.

Logical and Alogical The logical soul (logos soul) = nous; linked to its Platonic star. The alogical soul (alogos soul) = the illogical, corrupted soul that causes the soul to fall from its star and descend into the hellish material world.

The Homeric Soul The Homeric conception of the soul is one of the oldest of humanity’s attempts to understand the soul. For Homer, soma is the body and psyche is the vital force that resides there and animates it. The psyche leaves the body at death and goes to the Underworld, where it leads a shadowy existence, and may appear in dreams or hauntings. The body, without its animating force, simply turns to dust.

Mind or Spirit? Nous (mind), psyche (soul), soma (body). Pneuma (spirit), psyche (soul), soma (body). For the German, geist means “mind/spirit”. Spiritus = Holy Spirit. Sometimes, the spirit is regarded as more divine than the soul, and sometimes as merely a subtle link between soul and body.

Science Science = sensory Mythos, or sensory Logos, depending on taste. Either way, it’s somatic and concerns Lower Humanity. Religion = emotional or intuitive Mythos, and also concerns Lower Humanity. Math = intellectual Logos. It’s noetic and concerns Higher Humanity.

The Triune Brain “The triune brain consists of the reptilian complex, the paleomammalian complex (limbic system), and the neomammalian complex (neocortex).” – Wikipedia Reptilian complex → Soma Limbic system → Soul Neocortex → Nous The part of humanity that is still evolving is the neocortex ... the rational mind.

The Origin of the Soul There are three main theories concerning the origin of the soul: 1) It has always existed, hence pre-exists the physical body. (This is the doctrine of pre-existence, and it implies reincarnation). 2) It was created by God at the moment of conception (or shortly after) and specifically put in the body by him. (This is the doctrine of Creationism). 3) It was created by our parents through natural generation. (This is the doctrine of traducianism. Wikipedia says, “In Christian theology, traducianism is a doctrine about the origin of the soul (or synonymously, ‘spirit’) in one of the biblical uses of the word to mean the immaterial aspect of human beings (Genesis 35:18,

Matthew 10:28). Traducianism means that this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of human beings. That is, an individual’s soul is derived from the souls of the individual’s parents. This implies that only the soul of Adam was created directly by God (with Eve’s substance, material and immaterial, being taken from out of Adam), in contrast with creationism (not to be confused with creationism as a belief about the origin of the material universe), which holds that all souls are created directly by God (with Eve’s substance, material and immaterial, being taken from out of Adam).”

Knight Errant Knight errant: a medieval knight wandering in search of chivalrous adventures. “A knight errant is a figure of medieval chivalric romance literature. The adjective errant (meaning ‘wandering, roving’) indicates how the knight errant would wander the land in search of adventures to prove his chivalric virtues, either in knightly duels or in some other pursuit of courtly love. “The template of the knight errant are the heroes of the Round Table of the Arthurian cycle such as Gawain, Lancelot and Percival. The quest par excellence in pursuit of which these knights wander the lands is that of the Holy Grail, such as in Perceval, the Story of the Grail written by Chrétien de Troyes in the 1180s.” – Wikipedia Where are the modern knights errant with their modern adventures? Where are the new dragons to be slain? Actually, there are plenty out there – and they are in plain sight – but no one is doing anything about them. Instead, they breathe fire over all of us, and burn our lands and hopes. “A knight errant typically performed all his deeds in the name of a lady, and invoked her name before performing an exploit. In more sublimated forms of knight-errantry, pure metaphysical idealism rather than romantic inspiration motivated the knight-errant (as in the case of Sir Galahad). Such a knight might well be outside the structure of feudalism, wandering solely to perform noble exploits (and perhaps to find a lord to give his service to),

but might also be in service to a king or lord, travelling either in pursuit of a specific duty that his overlord charged him with, or to put down evildoers in general.” – Wikipedia

***** The Camelot Order – Knights of Justice (Jedi), protecting the weak in order to make them strong. They sit around a Round Table. They are guides and positive libertarians. The Mordred Order – Knights of Power (Sith), killing the weak to keep them weak. They proclaim that Might is Right. They sit at a pyramidal table. They are tyrants and negative libertarians.

Chicken and Egg ... Which Came First? Which came first – chicken or egg, matter or mind? Materialism equates to the chicken coming first. But how can it? Did it appear miraculously? Like magic? Idealism equates to the egg coming first. Monads are the ultimate eggs, the source of all births. The Big Bang Universe is the Universal Egg from which the Material World (the “chicken”) comes. It can’t happen the other way around. You must start with seeds that grow into things, that evolve. You can’t start with things that lay eggs, that create seeds, since how did they come to be in the first place?

Wisdom “No god is a philosopher, or seeker after wisdom, for he is wise already; nor does any man who is wise seek after wisdom. Neither do the ignorant seek after Wisdom. For herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who is neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with himself: he has no desire for that of which he feels no want.” – Plato

*****

What is the ultimate science? – the science of beauty. The science of beauty is mathematics. Scientific materialism is the science of ugliness.

Mind Pregnancy? Plato said that all people are pregnant in body and mind and naturally want to give birth when they reach a certain age. Obviously, women can do so physically, but men can give birth only mentally, to new ideas, art, invention, discoveries, adventures, and so on. If you are not giving birth to something, you are not living.

Interstellar Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar is one of the most pompous and silly movies of recent times. Part of the plot involves sending back data from a black hole singularity (!) to allow a physicist to create a theory of everything (reconciling gravity and quantum physics). If a theory can be constructed with the help of data, it can also be constructed without that data, if the person is smart enough. Data offers clues to the answer. It doesn’t provide the answer. A proper analysis by itself should be able to generate the answer. We don’t need any data from black holes – even if we could get it (which we can’t) – to find the answer to everything. We simply need the right rational ontology and epistemology, and that means that all we need is ontological mathematics. Interstellar involves the “Who Wrote Shakespeare?” fallacy. Imagine that a woman buys the complete works of Shakespeare and then travels back in time and finds Shakespeare before he has written a word. She gives him the complete works bearing his name, and he then stages them, and makes his illustrious name. So, then, who wrote Shakespeare’s plays? They seem to have written themselves! Equally, Interstellar involves an astronaut in a black hole singularity (!) providing data to allow humanity to save itself, but only because humanity saved itself was the astronaut provided with the means to transmit the data. So, who actually saved humanity? It seems that the act of salvation miraculously performed itself. Who needs Jesus Christ! Interstellar is speculative scientific idiocy at its very worst. In fact, it more or less presents scientific materialism as a replacement for religion,

with “future humanity” taking the place of God.

***** Cooper (Interstellar): We used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars, now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt. That’s what happens when you become too materialistic. Science continuously promotes the idea that we are nothing but dirt. Cooper: Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here. We’re not meant to die at all. We’re meant to become Gods! Cooper: We’ve always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible. And we count these moments. These moments when we dare to aim higher, to break barriers, to reach for the stars, to make the unknown known. We count these moments as our proudest achievements. But we lost all that. Or perhaps we’ve just forgotten that we are still pioneers. And we’ve barely begun. And that our greatest accomplishments cannot be behind us, because our destiny lies above us. That’s why we must become ontological mathematicians and leave behind dreary scientific materialism. Brand: Maybe we’ve spent too long trying to figure all this out with theory. You’ve spent too long avoiding analysis and theory, and too much time bothering about sensory experiments and data. Interstellar is a hymn to data collection, and a stark denial that humanity can solve problems with reason alone. Interstellar features a bizarre section where it’s asserted that the moon landings were faked by the Federal Government to panic the Soviets and make them spend too much on the space race and bankrupt themselves. This is about as silly as denying free will, or claiming that the mind doesn’t exist – as science claims!

Contra Capitalism

“Private property has made us so stupid and partial that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital … Thus all the physical and intellectual senses have been replaced by … the sense of having.” – Marx Capitalism has made people obsessed with acquisition, possession, ownership, objectification, commodities, consumption. It’s wholly opposed to the human spirit. “[The career a young man should choose should be] one that is most consonant with our dignity, one that is based on ideas of whose truth we are wholly convinced, one that offers us largest scope in working for humanity and approaching that general goal towards which each profession offers only one of the means: the goal of perfection … If he works only for himself he can become a famous scholar, a great sage, an excellent imaginative writer, but never a perfected, a truly great man.” – Marx What could be nobler than service to humanity? Yet the world’s elites are engaged only in self-service, and the advancement of themselves, their families, and their elite class. “Prometheus is the most eminent saint and martyr in the philosophical calendar.” – Marx Indeed. We need the philosophers who bring us the fire of the gods. “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” – Marx Meritocracy, not communism, performs this function. “For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic and must remain so if he does not wish to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning,

to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.” – Marx Isn’t this an altogether healthier conception of society, of work? “A spectre is haunting Europe; the spectre of Communism.” – Marx Meritocracy is the new spectre. “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley of ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’” – Marx Capitalism is all about ruthless game theory based on cut-throat selfinterest. It reduces everything – even people – to a monetary value. “But every class struggle is a political struggle.” – Marx The ruling political class does everything it can to deny that there’s a class struggle. If this struggle were recognised, the ruling political class itself would be overthrown, as the oppressors of the other classes. “Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class.” – Marx The class that ought to be the most revolutionary is the intellectual class. They revolt over ideas and principles, not over their economic circumstances. “The working men have no country. We cannot take away from them what they have not got.” – Marx It’s absurd for the workers to be so nationalistic when they are so ill served by the rulers of their nations. “In place of the bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, shall we have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” – Marx The class system must be utterly smashed.

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” – Marx The ruling class never go voluntarily. Power must be seized from them, by force if necessary. “In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.” – Marx Humanity must learn the new language of ontological mathematics. It must assimilate its spirit, internalise it, become fluent in it, move in it, and forget its old tongues, through which it systematically misrepresents reality. Only one language can be the language of Truth, of existence itself. That language is ontological mathematics. “A man cannot become a child again, or he becomes childish.” – Marx Capitalism is all about making adults childish, and keeping them in a permanent condition of simplistic infantilism. Children are much easier to control and dominate than adults. They are much more superstitious and credulous. “Ideas do not exist separately from language.” – Marx Correct! That’s why animals do not have ideas. “Perseus wore a magic cap that the monsters he hunted down might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over eyes and ears as a make-believe that there are no monsters.” – Marx Humanity refuses to see the capitalist monsters – the psychopathic exploiters, corrupters, and torturers – in its midst. “The most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the Furies of private interest.” – Marx Humanity is ruled by the Furies of private interest. We need new Furies ... of the public interest. Why has humanity allowed itself to be ruled by the

private rather than the public? “Capital is money, capital is commodities. … By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs.” – Marx The golden goose lays golden eggs only for the elite. “A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst of architects from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.” – Marx And humanity should raise the structure of perfection in imagination ... the proceed to build it ... to erect heaven on earth. This is the only true task of politics. “Capital is dead labour, that vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” – Marx Capitalism, in every aspect, is about vampirism, about the elite sucking dry the non-elite. Just as many victims of vampires are beguiled by them, and even lust for the fatal bite, so do many people long for the lethal bite of capitalism. “Every woman adores a Fascist, The boot in the face, the brute Brute heart of a brute like you.” – Sylvia Plath “In every stock-jobbing swindle everyone knows that some time or other the crash must come, but every one hopes that it may fall on the head of his neighbour, after he himself has caught the shower of gold and placed it in safety.” – Marx How prophetic! Capitalism has never changed. “The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus value, and consequently to exploit labour-power to the greatest possible extent.” – Marx Capitalism – the exploitation of the people, the workers.

“In capitalist society spare time is acquired for one class by converting the whole life-time of the masses into labour-time.” – Marx The elite create their leisure time by stealing it from the workers. As the move In Time says, “For some to be immortal, many must die.” “In reality, the labourer belongs to capital before he has sold himself to capital.” – Marx Humanity is owned by capital. It’s the slave of capital. When will it liberate itself? You cannot talk about freedom in the context of predatory capitalism. “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!” – Marx The capitalist Profit Principle is the true religion of the human race. “Capital grows in one place to a huge mass in a single hand, because it has in another place been lost by many. This is centralisation proper, as distinct from accumulation and concentration.” – Marx Capitalism is all about the systematic transfer of wealth from the many to the few – the most ruthless, psychopathic, selfish, greedy, narcissistic, exploitative few, who imagine themselves inherently superior to everyone else. “The Irish famine of 1846 killed more than 1,000,000 people, but it killed poor devils only. To the wealth of the country it did not the slightest damage.” – Marx It’s inherent in capitalism that the underclass has no value at all ... it’s literally worthless. Capitalism pays the underclass benefits – it provides them with a welfare system – simply to stop them from revolting. If it could get away with it, it would exterminate them, or allow them to perish en masse like the Irish peasants during the Famine. “A great deal of capital, which appears to-day in the United States without any certificate of birth, was yesterday, in England, the capitalised blood of children.” – Marx Capitalism is all about the laundering of the people’s blood, sweat and tears. “One capitalist always kills many.” – Marx Capitalism is legalised murder.

“The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” – Marx It’s time to exploit the exploiters. It’s time for 100% inheritance tax. “But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation.” – Marx Capitalism will eat itself. It already has. It has become the “undead”. “The entire process seems simple and natural, i.e., possesses the naturalness of a shallow rationalism.” – Marx So much of our world – from democracy to capitalism to scientific materialism – is based on “shallow rationalism”. Deep rationalism, profound rationalism, hard rationalism, is entirely absent. “In a constantly revolving circle every point is simultaneously a point of departure and a point of return. If we interrupt the rotation, not every point of departure is a point of return.” – Marx All systems should be based on departure and return. The excessive wealth of the few – an enormous departure from the normal – must be returned to the normal through 100% inheritance tax. “What strikes one here above all is the crudely empirical conception of profit derived from the outlook of the ordinary capitalist, which wholly contradicts the better esoteric understanding of Adam Smith.” – Marx Humanity is ruled by capitalism and scientific materialism – by “crudely empirical conceptions”. “The process is so complicated that it offers ever so many occasions for running abnormally.” – Marx Banking in particular, and capitalism in general, have become so complicated – thanks to computing – that endless opportunities are offered for corruption, deception and exploitation. No one knows what’s going on.

Endless crimes are buried in the data. Nowadays, when you want to hide the bodies, you don’t pour concrete over them ... you pour data over them. “In short, competition has to shoulder the responsibility of explaining all the meaningless ideas of the economists, whereas it should rather be the economists who explain competition.” – Marx Economists have proved that they can’t explain anything. They are the worst charlatans in the world.

Cannibalism Someone asked if you have to kill your parents to become an Illuminatus (!). No, but if you believe in inheritance then you obviously want to feed off your dead parents. Can’t you find your own food, sucker?!

Pick ‘N’ Mix When it comes to rationalism, you can’t cherry pick, you can’t pick and mix. You can’t have a bit of empiricism, a bit of rationalism, a bit of materialism, a bit of idealism, a bit of New Age, a bit of Abrahamism, a bit of Eastern religion, a bit of math, a bit of science, a bit of free will, a bit of neuroscience, and so on. Reality is 100% mathematical, with all that implies. There isn’t any choice about this. This is the sole way in which a rational universe can be explained.

Dialectical Materialism II Dialectical materialism can be regarded as a synthesis of purposeless materialism and purposeful idealism. Dialectical materialism is false (idealism is true), but it’s a radical improvement over scientific materialism since it allows us to escape from randomism, and allows matter to be considered with mind-like qualities. Dialectical Materialism is proposed by its advocates as a way of understanding the totality of reality; whether thoughts, emotions, economics, religion, politics, or the material world. It’s produced by adding the Hegelian dialectic to materialism rather than to idealism. This is what

distinguishes Marxism (dialectical materialism) from Hegelianism (dialectical idealism). The materialist dialectic is the theoretical foundation of Marxism, while communism is the practice of Marxism. “Historical materialism” is a worldly application of dialectical materialism, and culminates in communism, thereby ending the dialectical class struggle. Dialectical materialism proposes that matter is in dialectical motion. As Fredrick Engels said in the Dialectics of Nature, “Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, or motion without matter, nor can there be.” He added, “Change of form of motion is always a process that takes place between at least two bodies, of which one loses a definite quantity of motion of one quality (e.g. heat), while the other gains a corresponding quantity of motion of another quality (mechanical motion, electricity, chemical decomposition)”; “Dialectics, socalled objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics (dialectical thought), is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature.” Marx and Engels said, “It is not consciousness that determines existence, but social existence that determines consciousness.” This goes to the core of dialectical materialism. Our mental states are said to be the products of our material circumstances, which, in turn, are the product of the class to which we belong. Marx said, “To me the idea is nothing else than the material world reflected in the human mind.” In other words, the mental world mirrors the material world, rather than the other way around. Dialectics has been called the philosophy of motion. It describes the processes of development that occur through motion and contradiction. It’s inherently dynamic, evolutionary and teleological. Unlike science, it explains how society evolves. Everything, dialectical materialism says, is inherently in a constant state of flux and change; everything is moving and evolving. Nothing in life is static. As Heraclitus said, “All things flow, all change; Everything flows and nothing stays.” Engels stated, “Dialectics is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought.”

In science, water undergoes a qualitative change to ice at zero degrees Celsius, and to steam at a hundred degrees Celsius. The same is metaphorically true of politics, economics, religion, science, and so on. At certain key points, radical, qualitative changes takes place. To use the terminology of Thomas Kuhn, “normal” paradigms give way to revolutions, which then establish new paradigms. Christianity and Islam were paradigm shifts in relation to Judaism. Protestantism was a paradigm shift in relation to Catholicism. Meritocracy will be a paradigm shift in relation to democracy. Dialectics provides a tool to understand the way things are and the way things change. Dialectics is much more useful than science because it can relate to all of the things that science can’t.

The End of History Marxists believed that the dialectical process was sure to end with the triumph of communism. The Proletariat would destroy the Bourgeoisie, providing the platform for the evolution of a truly Classless Society. The dialectic of Class is resolved when there are no longer any Classes at all. No Class can come forward as an antithesis when Class has been permanently abolished. In the Marxist view, this constitutes the “End of History.”

True Beauty In mathematics, truth and beauty are the same thing. There can be no ugly truths. All truth revolves around perfect symmetry. Falsehood arises through the breaking of symmetry. Light is perfect symmetry, perfect beauty, perfect truth. Matter is darkness, imperfection, broken symmetry, ugliness, lies. The True God belongs to Light; the False God – the Demiurge – is the master of matter (darkness).

What is Science? Science = mathematics + empiricism + materialism. Science, in other words, is a philosophical interpretation, or, rather, misinterpretation of mathematics. The truth of existence is the noumenal,

ontological mathematics that remains when you strip science of all its appearances and sensory philosophical misinterpretations.

The Essence The essence of life and mind is the objective, uniform flow of structured information (sinusoidal flow) – rationalism – and the subjective experience of this flow – empiricism. This is an information universe – a mental, mathematical universe – not a physical universe. “Matter” is simply a certain type of mental information: public rather than private.

Trust Issues DO: “Well, I’m not sure how I got here and why I’m checking these FB pages but I do agree with some of what meritocracy says. I think it’s more of a trust issue I’m having about Illumination. In my small world opened up to the huge world of the net, I know trusting anything on the net would make me an idiot. I can’t trust the State, the Church, the Media. There are a lot of so-called facts I have been reading about. With all the lies we are being told daily, trust is my main issue for any political party. I guess what I’m asking is HOW CAN I TRUST YOU? There is even a good chance that nothing here is real and all part of the game people play with each other on the net for fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s very simple: Don’t trust us. What we say is either rational or irrational. It’s up to your reason and intelligence to decide whether or not you agree with us. It has nothing to do with faith or trust. A true statement isn’t rendered false because you don’t like the person or group delivering it, and, by the same token, a false statement isn’t made true because you like and trust the person or group making it. Get over your emotions. Use your intellect. If you can’t trust your own reason, you’re seriously fucked!

The Will of All versus the General Will “It follows from what has gone before that the general will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct. Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see what that is; the people is never

corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad. “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter considers only the common interest, while the former takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of particular wills: but take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel one another, and the general will remains as the sum of the differences.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau “Though the general will always tends toward the common good, Rousseau concedes that the deliberations of the people do not always necessarily express the general will. He draws an important distinction between the general will and the will of all, stating that the latter is simply the sum total of each individual’s desires. “These particular interests usually balance each other out unless people form factions and vote as a group. Rousseau insists that no factions form within a state, and that each individual should think for himself.” – http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/socialcontract/section4.rhtml “The general will is always right, and always promotes public utility. However, the deliberations of the people do not always express the general will. Rousseau distinguishes between the ‘will of all’ – the sum of all competing opinions within a society – and the general will. If all the different opinions have equal influence, the general will be the same as the will of all. However, when there are partial associations in society, each develops a particular set of interests that differs from that expressed by the general will. When one group becomes large enough to dominate others, there is no general will, and only private opinion is expressed. “Thus, for the general will to be promoted, it is important that there are no partial societies with unequal amounts of power.” – http://www.gradesaver.com/the-social-contract/study-guide/summary-book-ii-chapter-i-v

Imagine if everyone in the world were asked how society should be run. Each would put forward an answer that could be broken into two parts. One part would express what the respondent thought was genuinely best for society, and the other part would reflect what he secretly considered best for his family and him (and which could extend to his religious, social, political or economic in-group). If we strip out all of these latter, partisan opinions,

we get the General Will of the people. This is the sane, just, fair, rational basis for the construction of any society, or any Constitution that the People should adopt. However, society actually operates in the other way. It rejects the common good – the commonwealth – and is instead ruled by private interests. The Will of the Few prevails, never mind the Will of All. Whereas the Will of All could easily reflect the will of strong groups within society, the General Will can never do so. It’s always fair to everyone. The challenge is how to ensure that the General Will is expressed. There’s a simple way of doing this – to let rational people formulate rational laws. Reason inherently reflects the General Will since no rational principle, rule or law could ever be hostile to the common good or commonwealth. Irrational principles, rules or laws are always hostile to the public well-being, and these are always constructed by private elites, in order to defend their own wealth, status, prestige and influence. Private elites always act against the public good and always defy the General Will, and even reason itself. Capitalism is a private economic system foisted on the public, to the exclusive advantage of the private capitalist elite. Private, predatory capitalism must be overthrown – by revolutionary force if necessary – and replaced with public, social, productive, meritocratic, rational capitalism.

The Cosmic Music The universe is a conductorless orchestra dialectically learning how to compose and play the perfect symphony – the Music of the Spheres.

Parable of the Old Man and the Young So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went, And took the fire with him, and a knife. And as they sojourned both of them together, Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father, Behold the preparations, fire and iron, But where the lamb for this burnt offering?

Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps, And builded parapets and trenches there, And stretchèd forth the knife to slay his son. When lo! an angel called him out of heaven, Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, Neither do anything to him. Behold, A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns; Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him. But the old man would not so, but slew his son, And half the seed of Europe, one by one. (by WWI poet Wilfred Owen, killed in 1918)

Old and New “I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones.” – John Cage We can’t understand why people are afraid of the New World Order. What’s good about the Old World Order?

The Failure Self-evidently, no movement can succeed if it’s actually being subverted by its own members, who are clearly supporters of alternative, contradictory systems. Scientific materialist atheists will never be persuaded by rationalism and ontological mathematics. They are empiricists through and through, whether or not they are self aware enough to acknowledge that fact. The only atheists that could ever be part of Illuminism are Nietzschean radicals, and it’s notable that Nietzsche was no scientific materialist, regarding science as just another, but more successful, interpretation of the “facts”. That’s not to say that Nietzsche’s position was without problems. He vehemently denied “two-world” notions of reality (material earth and

immaterial heaven, so to speak, or noumenon and phenomenon), yet his own system was based on an unobservable, noumenal Will to Power underlying all things! He rejected metaphysics yet was invoking a plainly metaphysical concept. Even the greatest geniuses can get it wrong, but Nietzsche was much less wrong than the scientific materialists, and, in fact, his concept of Will to Power is embraced by Illuminism ... as a metaphysical concept!

***** To all those people who once held Illuminist sympathies, but are now obviously much more sympathetic to the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, it’s time to move on from Illuminism, and sever all connections with it. It’s an act of bad faith to associate with Illuminism while promoting the gospel of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. For all those who deny free will, it’s time to call it a day with respect to Illuminism and become out-and-out scientific materialists, espousing their machine philosophy that rejects meaning and purpose.

The Four Paths There are four ways of understanding reality, and they are shaped by how the Jungian mental faculties are arranged: A) Abrahamism: 1) Emotions, 2) Senses, 3) Intuition, 4) Reason. B) Science: 1) Senses, 2) Reason, 3) Emotions, 4) Intuition. C) Eastern Religion: 1) Intuition, 2) Emotions, 3) Reason, 4) Senses. D) Mathematics: 1) Reason, 2) Intuition, 3) Senses, 4) Emotions. Note that Abrahamism is the opposite – the Shadow – of mathematics, and Eastern Religion is the opposite – the Shadow – of science. That’s why Lutheran, faith-based Protestantism is as far from mathematical rationalism as you can get (“Reason is the Devil’s whore.” – Luther). However, being the Shadow provides a subtle dialectical commonality. That’s why rationalist Scholastic Catholicism is actually highly compatible with mathematics. All you need to do to reconcile these subjects is get rid of

“God” and replace it with the God Equation. That’s why math is much more religious than science. Our classification also explains why Fritjof Capra could write a book such as The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, and why there’s no comparable Abrahamic attempt. However, a mathematician could easily write a book called The Soul of Mathematics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Mathematics and Roman Catholicism, Hermeticism, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. In fact, we might write it! Abrahamism is about feelings, and math about reason: they are Jungian opposites. Eastern religion is about intuition, and science about the senses: again, they are Jungian opposites. At all times, people’s “understanding” of reality can be reduced to their Jungian personality type. However, if this is a rational universe, only the people of reason can be attuned to true reality.

Breaking Mirrors The Romans believed that people underwent a physical and spiritual regeneration every seven years, and that a mirror reflected the soul. Thus, when a mirror was broken, the person’s soul was thought to have to wait seven more years for regeneration, hence the superstition that breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck.

The Meta Unconscious The conscious is what comes after the unconscious and is simply the unconscious looking in on itself. The conscious is the meta unconscious.

Public and Private Res publica – the concern of the people. Res privita – the concern of the private elites. It’s a remarkable thing, but humanity has never solved the political problem of who’s in charge – the people or the private elites. In a capitalist

democracy, the people are said to be in charge, but the private elites are actually in charge, and the people are so dumb and brainwashed that they haven’t noticed!

Nazi Judaism Nazism: “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” – One People, One Empire, One Leader. Judaism: One Chosen People, One Promised Land, One God.

***** Islam: One People, One Book, One Prophet, One God. Catholicism: One People, One Church, One Pope, One Saviour, One Path to Salvation – “There is no salvation outside the Church.”

The Chosen Ones Is a new Jewish baby a Chosen One? Who chose it? Is a non-Jewish baby a non-Chosen One? Who didn’t choose it, and why not?

Capitalist Democracy Does democracy control capitalism? Or does capitalism control democracy? If the latter, there is no such thing as democracy. What could be smarter than for capitalists to link capitalism to democracy (people power) while ensuring that capital (private power) remains fully in charge?

Smaller State? Right-wingers are always calling for a smaller State. Smaller State = more private power and less public power, i.e. more capitalism and less democracy. A bigger State = more public power and less private power, i.e. more democracy and less capitalism. Well, what’s it to be – should capital or the people be in charge; should the private elite rule the public masses, or vice versa?

***** “Capitalism has lurched into a crisis from which it still has not recovered. Yet the worn-out ideology of free markets sets the framework within which our current generation of leaders continues to think and act.” – John Gray, arguing that “thinking the unthinkable” as a way of making policy does nothing more than extend conventional wisdom to the point of absurdity The world never gets new thinking. It gets extreme versions of old thinking. It gets repackaged versions of what has already failed. It gets redoubled fundamentalism. Failed free-market capitalism doesn’t call for less freemarket influence, but more!

Feeling is a Disease! The ancient Greek word pathos means “suffering, disease, feeling”. It’s the root of words such as pathology, sympathy, empathy, psychopathy, sociopathy, pathos, pathetic. Isn’t it fascinating that feelings are so closely tied to suffering and disease? What cures disease? – reason, and it cures feelings too.

***** “In my third novel there is an actual black hole that swallows everything you love.” – Jonathan Lethem Reason swallows love.

The Great Wall of Life “A wall is only as good as the men who defend it.” – Genghis Khan This is true of everything! An activity is only as good as those performing it.

Morality Strictly speaking, Illuminism has nothing to do with “morality”, which is a wholly undefined concept. Nietzsche exposed what passes as morality as

nothing but self-interested interpretation, and that’s all it can ever be. In terms of Content, Illuminism is a dialectical system, which generates increasing rationalism over time. A more rational world may have all the characteristics of most people’s ideas of a more moral world, but why bring morality into at all? Morality is no more relevant than mainstream religion, with which it’s usually intimately entwined. We reject Plato’s “Form” of Justice (and Morality). Morality and ethics are a total dead-end: just people spouting their personal preferences that reflect their own prejudices and personality types. In terms of objectivity, Illuminism is purely about ontological mathematics. In terms of subjectivity, Illuminism is purely about the dialectic ... leading to Content becoming more and more rational (thus resembling Form more and more). Courses on morality and ethics are about as meaningful as courses on Christian theology. Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals is a definitive demolition of morality. Courses on morality and ethics should be replaced by courses on individualism versus collectivism, selfishness versus altruism, competition versus cooperation, the one versus the Many, the Id versus the Superego, asymmetry and antisymmetry versus symmetry, and so on. With a dead God, there is no such thing as a moral anchor of the world, or any objective moral standards. Illuminism has zero connection with moral realism. There’s nothing “real” about morality at all. Illuminism certainly has a connection with rational realism. The universe really is getting more rational thanks to the dialectic. For rhetorical purposes, we might link morality and reason, but there’s really no need for morality and ethics to be mentioned at all in Illuminism.

Breaking Bad Heisenberg: the higher self; the superman; radical, actualised. Walter White: the lower self; the last man; liberal, pathetic.

A Physical God?

“They [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’…” – Genesis 3:8-9 How can “God” be walking in the Garden of Eden? WTF! Why does “God” have to call to Adam to find out where he is? Doesn’t “God” know everything?

Chivalry “Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is a code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood which developed between 1170 and 1220. “According to the British Medieval historian, David Crouch, the historical debate on chivalry is an ancient one. The late medieval code of chivalry had arisen from the idealisation of the early medieval synthesis of Germanic and Roman martial traditions – involving military bravery, individual training, and service to others – especially in Francia, among horse soldiers in Charlemagne’s cavalry, the term chivalry deriving from the Old French term chevalerie ‘horse soldiery’ Gautier states that knighthood emerged from the Teutonic forests and was nurtured into civilization and chivalry by the Catholic Church. “Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasise social and moral virtues more generally, and the Code of Chivalry as it stood by the Late Middle Ages was a moral system which combined a warrior ethos, knightly piety and courtly manners, all conspiring to establish a notion of honour and nobility.” – Wikipedia Look at the ruling elite today – the capitalist elite. Where is the piety, the manners, the honour, the nobility, the social and moral virtues, the intent to serve others? Today’s elite are the least noble and knightly people you could ever imagine. They have no honour, no chivalric code, and no desire at all to help and serve others. It’s all about self-service, selfishness, greed, selfinterest, “me, me, me”, and absolute contempt for everyone else. The true knights of the world are obliged to overthrow these monsters.

Only the purest, only the finest, only the best can perform miracles. Only they can ever succeed in the quest for the Holy Grail.

***** Are you fit to sit at the Round Table, where the greatest knights sit, in readiness to serve the world and make it a better place? Or do you want to sit at the Top Table, all by yourself, lording it over everyone else – like today’s capitalists?

Backward Nations that are dominated by religion are backward – just look at all Islamic nations. Israel ought to be staggeringly retarded – and would be if it were ruled by Orthodox Jews. However, it is in fact ruled by Westernised Jews, much more interested in wealth, power and luxury than in religion.

Zombie Religion Jesus Christ – a dead man who came back to life from the grave. That’s the definition of a zombie or vampire!

***** It has been said that Jesus Christ was born to save Man from sin. He obviously didn’t succeed! Actually, it was Jesus Christ who created sin!

Xmas “Xmas is a common abbreviation of the word Christmas. ... The ‘-mas’ part is from the Latin-derived Old English word for Mass, while the ‘X’ comes from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of the Greek word Χριστός which comes into English as ‘Christ’. “There is a common misconception that the word Xmas stems from a secular attempt to remove the religious tradition from Christmas by taking the ‘Christ’ out of ‘Christmas’, but its use dates back to the 16th century.” – Wikipedia

Jesus Christ People argue whether or not Jesus Christ existed. He emphatically didn’t. A rabbi called Yehoshua ben Yosef existed. He wasn’t God and he didn’t rise from the dead.

El Rey The Getaway – Jim Thompson “[The Getaway is] Thompson’s most famous and infamous novel. Famous because of the two Hollywood adaptations of it, and infamous because of the allegorical surrealist ending which has both intrigued and baffled readers for decades. “A lot of crime fiction aficionados don’t like the surrealist ending of The Getaway. I think that the ending is what makes this novel special. After all, there’s a reason that a book published as a throwaway pulp fiction paperback in the late 1950s is still in print and we are still reading it and talking about it. “Doc and Carol are headed for sanctuary in the Kingdom of El Rey which is described as a hideaway for fugitives in Mexico. El Rey, which means ‘The King’ in Spanish, has lavish first class accommodations. In fact, residents are required to pay for first class accommodations, because they wanted everything first class in their previous lives. However, when your money runs out, you are banished to an outlying village. There is no food from the outside allowed in the village. The residents exiled from El Rey survive by cannibalizing each other. Therefore, couples who seek refuge in El Rey usually wind up murdering the other partner to conserve cash. That is, the ones who don’t commit suicide out of despair. So, in the midst of first class villas by the sea and unlimited gourmet food and drink, everyone in El Rey is miserably awaiting their ultimate demise. “Obviously, all of this is not to be taken literally. Because it is a radical departure from the realism of the rest of the book, a lot of readers over years have despised the ending. I think that the allegory really begins before the fleeing couple get to El Rey. After killing Rudy and his girlfriend, Doc and Carol flee in a stolen taxi. Facing certain capture, they are rescued by crime family matriarch Ma Santis. Ma Santis hides the couple out first in

underwater caves where the space is no bigger than a coffin and then in a lean-to hidden in a manure pile. “This entire episode is heavy with symbolism. Doc and Carol have to strip naked and dive into a water-filled pit to get to the cave hideaway. The rooms in the caves are just big enough to lie down in and Doc and Carol are separated by a wall of rock. Obviously, this represents death and the grave. “Then after coming up from the pit, Doc and Carol hide out in a lean two hidden inside a pile of cow manure. During the day, they are faced with swarms of flies and worms. It’s not difficult to figure out that this represents that, although still technically alive, Doc and Carol are decaying corpses. “Then Ma Santis arranges for Carol and Doc to be taken to Mexico by a Portuguese fishing boat Captain. The body count again mounts up when they have to kill the crew of a Coast Guard Patrol Boat. I think that the boat ride represents the ferrying of the dead across the River Styx to the underworld in Greek mythology. “El Rey is the Devil and his Kingdom is Hell. For a novel that is a fastpaced conventional crime novel until 2/3 of the way through, all of this symbolism and allegory has been tough for a lot of readers to take. “Steve McQueen fired Thompson from writing the screenplay for his movie version of The Getaway, and totally jettisoned the El Rey ending. In McQueen’s movie version, Doc and Carol apparently escape into Mexico to live happily ever after. But ‘happy ever after’ is a really boring ending isn’t it? And don’t Doc and Carol deserve to go to hell after the blood trail that they’ve left behind them? If Thompson had written an ending where Doc and Carol were captured and went to the Gas Chamber together, there would be the possibility of redemption through suffering. As it is, they get away to the place where they deserve to be and there is no possibility of redemption. “Interestingly, at one point in the novel, Doc and Carol hide out a with a group of migrant farm workers. Here among the poorest of the poor, Doc is happy. The novel indicates that Doc would have been content to stay with them forever. The irony is that Doc is happiest when he is with poor people who have nothing. When he reaches El Rey and has every material comfort, he is the most miserable. Be careful what you want, you might get it. “The Quentin Tarantino-Robert Rodriguez movie From Dusk Till Dawn follows the pattern of The Getaway. It begins as a conventional crime story involving the Gecko brothers, George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino,

fleeing from a robbery. Just like in The Getaway, they’re headed for El Rey. Half way through the movie, it becomes a horror film when the brothers stop off at a Mexican strip club run by vampires. On the commentary track, Tarantino talks a lot about the Kingdom of El Rey. Tarantino is a big fan of Jim Thompson and The Getaway. So, if there’s one thing to take away from The Getaway, it’s ‘Don’t Go To El Rey!’” – “Bad Catholic” What is El Rey? It’s unfettered Randian capitalism. It’s dog eat dog. Capitalism, given its own inevitable logic, will eat itself. In the end, everyone gets kicked out of El Rey, other than El Rey himself, the King of Capitalism. Winner takes all ... winner takes the whole world.

Our Message Commit, or fuck off! We can’t stand liberals, the weak, the pathetic, the half-hearted, the fence sitters, the Ignavi. If you’re not with us, go and sit on someone else’s fence ... some sad fuck just like you. If you haven’t made your choice in life, you’re nobody and nothing. What you are is what you have chosen to be. If you’re not an Illuminist, why the fuck are you reading these books? We’re not interested in tourists. Be an Illuminist, or fuck off. If you’re an Illuminist, you obviously can’t support anyone opposed to Illuminism. Make your mind up. There’s no in-between state. Either you’re on our side or you’re not. This is a zero-sum game.

Kitsch “Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass!” – Milan Kundera Here we see the meta process in operation. The first tear is the genuine tear. The second is the fake tear produced by reflecting on the first. You cannot have the second without the first. Similarly, you cannot have consciousness without first having the unconscious.

Killer Machines? “[An Artificial Intelligence that can match or surpass humans] would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.” – Stephen Hawking AIs could never compete with humans. They aren’t alive! They have no teleology. You could stop any machine by making it divide by zero ... or pulling the plug out. Machines fall foul of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. They are incomplete and inconsistent. They would ceaselessly break down, unable to work out what to do whenever they encounter any paradox. Humans, with their teleology, can move on. Machines can’t. Autistic scientists have a very strong sense of identification with machines, but machines are nothing like people ... and nor are autistic scientists!

Tolerance In the Spanish Civil War, a Republican poster showed a dead child under a dark sky of Fascist bombers, and carried a stark warning: “If you tolerate this your children will be next.” The poster should be resurrected, this time showing the intolerant world of Islam, and declaring underneath, “If you tolerate this you will be next.” It’s time to put intolerant religion out of business once and for all.

God as the Devil “In Christian heresiology, there have been historical claims that certain Christian sects worshipped the devil. This was especially an issue in the reaction of the early Church to Gnosticism and its dualism, where the creator deity is understood as a demiurge subordinate to the actual, transcendent God. ... “Tertullian accuses Marcion of Sinope, the first major heretic of Christianity in the 1st century, that he ‘[held that] the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful … and … accounted for it by postulating [that Jehovah was] a secondary deity, a demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but

he was not the good god, who was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.’ The Church condemned his writings as heretical. “John Arendzen (1909) in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) mentions that Eusebius accused Apelles, the 2nd-century AD Gnostic, of considering the Inspirer of Old-Testament prophecies to be not a god, but an evil angel. “Hegemonius (4th century) accuses the Persian prophet Mani, founder of the Manichaean sect in the 3rd century AD, identified Jehovah as ‘the devil god which created the world’ and said that ‘he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the priests … is the [Prince] of Darkness, … not the god of truth.’ “According to their critics, these heretics referred to the Abrahamic God variously as ‘a demiurgus’, ‘an evil angel’, ‘the devil god’, ‘the Prince of Darkness’, ‘the source of all evil’, ‘the Devil’, ‘a demon’, ‘a cruel, wrathful, warlike tyrant’, ‘Satan’ and ‘the first beast of the book of Revelation’. “Nicholas Weber in the Catholic Encyclopedia article Albigenses (1907) notes that the enemies of the Albigenses, a Christian sect in 12th- and 13thcentury France, a branch of the Cathari, accused them that their doctrine held that ‘the creator … of the material world … is the source of all evil … He created the human body and is the author of sin … The Old Testament must be either partly or entirely ascribed to him; whereas the New Testament is the revelation of the beneficent God.’ They ultimately came into conflict with both the civil order and the Church which led to the Albigensian Crusade. “The 18th-century Anglo-American philosopher Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that ‘Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. ... “The problem of Hell is an ethical problem in religion where the notion of Hell as existing for the punishment of souls is regarded as inconsistent with notion of an omnibenevolent God.” – Wikipedia

***** Is there any religious fact more remarkable than the one that the “God” worshipped by billions of people has, throughout history, been regarded as the Devil by the more thoughtful human beings? Isn’t there something

fundamentally wrong if there’s genuine debate over whether “God” is the source of good or the source of evil? No such debate would exist if “God” were self-evidently God, and self-evidently doing the things that would be expected of a perfect moral being, a being of peace, love, compassion and forgiveness. If “God” isn't self-evidently God, he can’t be God at all! No one could harbour any doubts at all about the morality of the True God. The Abrahamic “God”, on the other hand, is the most morally dubious and suspect entity conceivable, and that’s exactly why so many horrors and terrors, and so much evil, are perpetrated in his name. If “God” is morally ambiguous, so are all of his followers. Rationally, if your “God” is considered Satan by many clever people, you should seriously think about who or what it is you’re worshipping. What if they’re right and you’re wrong? Can any Abrahamist genuinely consider moral a “God” who orders a father to murder his own son? There are zero circumstances in which the True God would ever give such an order. Forget about any “test of faith”. The real test is whether a morally perfect being is capable of ordering homicide of an innocent for any reason, in any circumstances. If this is impossible – which it is – then the Abrahamic “God” cannot be God. Clearly, the order he gave to Abraham is exactly the kind of order the Devil would give!

Glossary of Greek Terms http://faculty.ccri.edu/paleclerc/intro/mythos_logos.shtml aêr: the lower air that surrounds the earth; the atmosphere. aesthêsis: perception by the senses; sense-impression. aethêr: the pure upper air. alêtheia: truth, unconcealedness. alogon: non-rational; without language. anankê: logical or causal necessity of anything that cannot be otherwise. aneu logou: without reason. apeirôn: the Boundless, an infinite, indefinite, intelligent, living whole.

archê: first-principle, beginning, primary element. arithmos: number. dialektikê: process of thinking by means of dialogue, discussion, debate, or argument; general term for Socrates’ philosophical and pedagogical method. diánoia: understanding or intellectual activity as a discursive process; contrasted with the immediate apprehension nóêsis. díkê: proportionate compensation, justice. dóxa: mere belief or opinion; contrasted with systematic or scientific knowledge (epistêmê). dynamis: power or force; used by the presocratic philosophers to refer to the qualities of material elements. epistêmê: theoretical, systematic, scientific knowledge; demonstrable truth; opposite of doxa. ethos: custom or habit. gnôsis: most general Greek term for knowledge. gnothi seauton: know thyself. hyle: matter. hypokeimenon: that which underlies; underlying substance. kalos: beautiful, excellent. katharsis, katharmos: cleansing, purification. kinêsis: motion or change, a subject of great controversy among Greek philosophers. kosmos: order; jeweled ornament; cosmos. logoi: meanings logos: word, meaning, rational account, speech, principle, discourse, thought, reason; contrasted with mythos. mathêma: learning, what is learnt.

mathêmatikos: disposed to learn; a scientist, a scholar. morphê: shape or figure of a thing. mythos: speech, tale, account, or story, as opposed to a rational explanation (logos). noêma: thought. nóêsis: intuition or thinking; the operation of nous, reasoning that characterizes diánoia. nomos: custom, convention, law. nous: mind, intellect, reason. nous energeiai: intellect in act. nous pathetikos: passive mind. nous poietikos: active mind. nous theos: divine intellect. ousia: essence; substance, being. paideia: cultural education. phthora: destruction; annihilation, ceasing-to-be. phenomena: appearances. physis (phusis): nature. sophia: wisdom. technê: art, technique, craft. télos: end, completion, purpose, or goal of any thing or activity. theôria: rational contemplation. theos: god. thespis: inspired. zoe: a living or a means of living. zoon logon echon: living being who has language or reason.

Divine Perfection The ancients thought that divine perfection involved every part of the world having its own resident god or spirit ... down to mountains, woods, lakes and even individual trees. This was animism. This evolved into polytheistic paganism, where a cast of gods ruled the universe, each with its own universal set of responsibilities, i.e. rather than every tree having its own spirit, there was one god for all the trees in the world, controlling them all. A universe based on men and women ought to have a ruling God and Goddess (bitheism), and many pagan societies had such an arrangement. Abrahamism decided that only one God could be perfect, and thus was born Abrahamic monotheism. Ontological mathematicians realised that no being could be eternally perfect. However, what could be eternally perfect was a God Equation! When you think about it, isn’t it staggeringly obvious that the universe is the product of a perfect equation, but not a perfect being? All of the problems concerned with monotheism have revolved around how a being could be perfect, and how and why he would act as he apparently does (most especially with regard to the question of the origin and continued existence of “evil”). However, mathematical monism escapes from all of this. All problems become mathematical problems, not problems of the behaviour of a perfect person. Obviously, a mathematically defined universe can explain a scientific universe. Abrahamic monotheism has no connection at all with science!

The Academy versus The Lyceum “The Academy was founded by Plato (428/427 BC – 348/347 BC) in ca. 387 BC in Athens. Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) studied there for twenty years (367 BC – 347 BC) before founding his own school, the Lyceum. The Academy persisted throughout the Hellenistic period as a skeptical school, until coming to an end after the death of Philo of Larissa in 83 BC. Although philosophers continued to teach Plato’s philosophy in Athens during the Roman era, it was not until AD 410 that a revived Academy was re-established as a centre for Neoplatonism, persisting until 529 AD when it was finally closed down by Justinian I. ... Before the Akademia was a school, and even before Cimon enclosed its precincts with a wall, it contained a sacred grove of olive trees dedicated to Athena, the goddess of

wisdom, outside the city walls of ancient Athens. The archaic name for the site was Hekademia, which by classical times evolved into Akademia and was explained, at least as early as the beginning of the 6th century BC, by linking it to an Athenian hero, a legendary ‘Akademos’.” – Wikipedia “The Lyceum was a gymnasium and before that a public meeting place in a grove of trees in Classical Athens. The grove was named in honour of its patron Apollo Lyceus (‘Apollo as a wolf’ or ‘Apollo in the form of a wolf’). Though best known for its connection with Aristotle, the Lyceum was in existence long before his founding the Peripatetic school there in 334/335 BCE and continued long after his flight from Athens in 323 BCE until the Roman general Sulla sacked Athens in 86 BCE.” – Wikipedia Plato’s Academy stands for the mathematical, rationalist worldview. Inscribed over the entrance of the Academy was the warning: “Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here.” Plato asserted that true reality lies beyond the senses. What lies beyond the senses? – mathematics! Mathematics – ontological reason – is 100% non-sensory. Aristotle’s Lyceum stands for the scientific, empiricist worldview. Scientific empiricism is predicated on the notion that science can rationally treat only information gathered by the five senses (hence mathematical hidden variables are explicitly denied). Aristotle did not assign great importance to mathematical rationalism, just as Plato did not assign great importance to scientific empiricism.

***** The Academy and Lyceum have been described as the world’s first universities. In fact, the Pythagorean mystery schools hold this honour. The Academy was modelled on them, and the Lyceum on the Academy.

Sins Against Philosophy “Following Alexander the Great’s death, anti-Macedonian sentiment in Athens was rekindled. In 322 BCE, Eurymedon the Hierophant denounced Aristotle for not holding the gods in honour, prompting him to flee to his mother’s family estate in Chalcis, explaining: ‘I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy’ – a reference to Athens’s prior trial and execution of Socrates.” – Wikipedia

Literally or metaphorically, Philosophers are always being sentenced to death, or irrelevance, by the “democratic” mob. The Sophists never endure this fate.

Spontaneous Generation “Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular. Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species. “The doctrine of spontaneous generation was coherently synthesized by Aristotle, who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia.” – Wikipedia If “spontaneous generation” is roundly mocked, why isn’t the even more outrageous claim – science’s theory of “spontaneous creation” (of existence randomly springing out of non-existence for no reason) – mocked even more? Spontaneous generation is absolutely compatible with spontaneous creation!!!

What Is Science? Science is merely an ad hoc process for matching mathematical guesses to experimental observations. There’s nothing sophisticated about it. Science has absolutely nothing to do with the analytic quest for the answer to life, the universe and everything. A set of arbitrary, contingent guesses can never be a true answer. Only an idiot would be fooled by science. Science has no connection with Truth. It’s simply a pattern-matching exercise, i.e. it tries to match theoretical mathematical patterns to experimentally observed patterns, and, when it makes a match, it believes it has made some kind of discovery about reality. It has done no such thing.

Correlation is not causation! Everyone know that, but apparently not scientists! Why do scientific theories keep changing? It’s because they have nothing to do with analysis, necessity, and the eternal truths of reason. Moreover, the experimental patterns keep changing too. Experimental patterns for quantum mechanics, for example, are nothing like the experimental patterns for classical physics. How can you ever know that you have reached the end of the line of these contingent experimental patterns? At any time, any scientific theory can be falsified by any new experimental pattern that does not match the predicted pattern. You would need to be as irrational as a religious person of faith to imagine that science has any relationship with Truth. All that science does is produce workable mathematical patterns, and then apply these patterns to new situations. As long as the new situation is quite close to the old situation, a successful outcome is likely, to a good degree of approximation. If not, the theoretical pattern can start to rapidly diverge from the newly observed patterns. This then leads to the need to replace a theory, and find a better, more general pattern! It’s self-evident to any rational person that the most general pattern must be the answer to everything. The most general pattern is in fact that defined by Fourier mathematics, deriving from the God Equation. Any ontological pattern whatsoever can be decomposed into an appropriate combination of sinusoidal waves. Any pattern that cannot be so reduced can have no actual existence.

***** Science is ad hoc, non-analytic, applied mathematics, using experimental pattern observation and matching as its “reality principle” (with everything being interpreted within the philosophical framework of empiricism and materialism). Plainly, science, defined in these terms, is 100% useless in relation to noumenal ontological patterns – such as those of immaterial monads outside space and time – that cannot be experimentally observed. Science could work only if all possible patterns were experimentally observable. Since this is impossible, science cannot be a vehicle for explaining ultimate reality. Only analytic mathematics, which does not rely on experiments, can provide the answer to existence. That’s a rational fact.

If you’re not rational enough to understand it, too bad for you! Truth is not for everyone ... only for the smart. It’s definitely not for scientists!

***** To explain reality, what is required is a single Formula that has universal application, i.e. every possible ontological pattern can be traced back to it. This is the God Equation, from which we derive ontological Fourier mathematics. Simple!

Not Even Wrong “The phrase ‘not even wrong’ describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. “The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colourful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which ‘a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly, “It is not even wrong”.’ This is also often quoted as ‘It is not only not right, it is not even wrong,’ or ‘Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!’ in Pauli’s native German. Peierls remarks that quite a few apocryphal stories of this kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched by him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau, ‘What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.’ “The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science, and is considered derogatory.” – Wikipedia Regarding ultimate reality, the claims of scientific materialism are not only not right, they aren’t even wrong. Science is the ultimate pseudoscience. The only true science is the science of perfection = mathematics. Mathematics is what remains when you stop viewing scientific materialism through the prism of empiricism, materialism and spacetime.

***** It’s said that knowledge speaks and wisdom listens. In fact, knowledge is math and everything else is bullshit, delusion, and the opposite of wisdom!

The Nine Levels of Consciousness in Buddhism Many “spiritual” people and New Age believers are highly influenced by the Buddhist understanding of consciousness. One of the best summaries of the Buddhist approach to consciousness is provided by “OperationMeditation”. This is provided below:

***** “Throughout the ages all cultures and religions throughout the world have struggled with the question of how we can grow and develop as individuals. Modern psychology has brought us ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’, the middle ages brought us Bunyan’s ‘the Pilgrim’s Progress’, and there are many others. There are many examples in non-Western cultures also, including the Buddhist theory of Levels of Consciousness. Nine Levels of Consciousness “Buddhism teaches that there are 9 levels of Consciousness. The teaching offers a means of understanding of human awareness and how we are connected to the world and the wider universe. The theory has come about from 2500 years of study and investigation into the nature of our inner selves and the endless cycle of birth, life and death. The First Five levels – Using Our Senses “The first 5 levels of consciousnesses are your bodily senses. In order, these are sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. Depending on the strength of the input of these senses, you will have differing awareness of these consciousnesses at different times. The Sixth Level – the Mind “The 6th level of consciousness is the layer that integrates and processes the information from the various senses into a coherent whole – this level corresponds closely with the western concept of ‘the mind’. For most

people, these first 6 levels of consciousness are where we spend most of our time in performing daily activities. The Seventh Level – Your Inner Life “This is the first level of consciousness that is inner looking rather than focused outwards. This 7th level or ‘mano’ (Sanskrit) is concerned with the sense of self, and of your ability to distinguish between good and evil. The Eighth Level – Where Karma Resides “Below these 7 levels, Buddhists believe that there is an 8th level – the ‘alaya’ consciousness. This correlates with what modern psychology would call the unconscious mind. In this level is stored all the good and the evil deeds, as well as all the experiences of past and present lifetimes – the karma. Unlike the first 7 levels of consciousness, which are destroyed upon death of the physical body, the alaya persists past death. It is also called the ‘storehouse’ or never-perishing consciousness. It is at this level that spiritual phenomena occur. The Ninth Level – Pure Consciousness “Deeper even than the alaya consciousness there exists a layer of consciousness termed the ‘amala’ consciousness. This level is free from the impurities of karma and is therefore called the fundamental pure consciousness. This is the fundamental basis of all life. In this amala consciousness the true eternal self can exist in harmony with the life of the cosmos itself. This level is greatly powerful and attained by reaching enlightenment. Progression “The Buddhist concept of the 9 levels of consciousness gives a great template for living your life and for transformative change. The Buddhist teaching of the close interconnectedness of all living things shows also how changes you make for the better in your life lead to positive changes in others – as we are all connected like myriad cogwheels. “How can you progress through the 9 levels of consciousness? “Buddhism comes from a long history of introspection and personal growth. This tradition has many spiritual techniques that have been developed over the millennia, but the most accessible to most people is

meditation. To learn meditation you do not have to be a practicing Buddhist – meditation is practiced these days by people from all walks of life and all cultural backgrounds and has many benefits which have been backed up by modern scientific study as well. “Meditation allows you to deepen your level of consciousness. In the beginning you will start at level 7, but with meditation you will soon find yourself being able to move into the 8th level. The 8th level of consciousness transcends the limits of the individual as you begin to access the energy of karma. Changing your karmic energy for the better will have a positive impact on those around you too and you will find yourself growing in compassion and self-awareness.” – http://operationmeditation.com/discover/levels-of-consciousness-a-buddhist-perspective/

The Buddhism Delusion The “2500 years of study and investigation into the nature of our inner selves and the endless cycle of birth, life and death” are hopelessly wrong. Buddhism has no formal ontology and epistemology, and no connection with either science or mathematics. You’re in real intellectual trouble if you take Buddhism seriously in any way. Buddhism is empiricist introspection, and if you carry out this exercise properly, you do not end up with the Buddha’s teachings, but with the nihilistic skepticism of David Hume. His philosophy provides everything the Buddha ought to have said. The other philosopher relevant to Buddhism is Arthur Schopenhauer, who converted Buddhist thinking into something compatible with the Western philosophical tradition. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is all about a blind, Unconscious Will that does nothing but strive, and whose effects are overwhelmingly negative, and might even be called evil. That is, in Abrahamic terms, Schopenhauer’s philosophy more or less makes the Devil rather than God the source of existence! We are told that our senses provide the first five levels of consciousness. The trouble here is that senses aren’t conscious, and don’t have any necessary connection with consciousness. Animals have senses and aren’t conscious. Human babies have senses but aren’t conscious, So, it’s impossible to work out what Buddhists mean when they refer to the senses as levels of consciousness. It’s mumbo jumbo.

The senses are in fact primarily concerned with the unconscious, not the conscious. Of course, Buddha had no conception of the unconscious, and didn’t benefit from any of the modern thinking about the unconscious, so it’s almost laughable that any modern person would turn to this ancient guru to learn about consciousness. How stupid would you have to be – how unenlightened – to seek enlightenment from a man who know nothing about science, mathematics, western philosophy and western thinking regarding the unconscious? How much contempt for education and knowledge would you need to possess to go to ancient Buddhism in search of the “truth”? It beggars belief. To come under the spell of ancient charlatans such as the Buddha means that you are departing from the road of Truth, not entering onto it. We are told that the sixth Buddhist level of consciousness concerns the “mind”, which “integrates and processes the information from the various senses into a coherent whole”. Where is there any mention of the unconscious? How can you understand how the mind works without referring to the unconscious, which unquestionably furnishes the bulk of who we are (with our conscious ego merely being the tip of the iceberg)? The conscious ego is simply that which selects and reflects on a tiny amount of the content of the unconscious. The seventh Buddhist level of consciousness is said to be inner rather than outer looking, and to concern our sense of self and our moral ability to distinguish between good and evil. All of this is unintelligible waffle. Nothing is defined. We aren’t shown how anything evolves. We aren’t shown how and why humans differ morally from animals, or if indeed they do. As for Hume, he carried out a similar process to the Buddha and concluded that there was no Self. Buddhism also denies that there’s any eternal Self (a soul), so any “self” in Buddhism must refer to a contingent illusion. How and why is such an illusion generated? Schopenhauer also denied the reality of the Self, and all he could find at the bottom of everything was an eternal, unitary, Unconscious Cosmic Will – the Will to Exist. In Buddhism, we are never told how, in the absence of God – a source of an absolute moral code and perfect moral Judge – good and evil can exist, what they are and how they are they to be judged. How would anyone know they had done good or evil without a moral code? Who provides the code, and why should we agree with it? All of these issues are ignored.

In relation to the eighth Buddhist level of consciousness – “alaya” consciousness – we are told that this corresponds to the modern notion of the unconscious mind, but this alleged connection seems tenuous to say the least. In the eighth level is stored a record of all our good and evil deeds, and all of the experiences of our past lives and present life. So, according to Buddhism, “karma” constitutes our unconscious mind. Yet how do we have past lives in Buddhism if we have no enduring self? Without a self, why should there be any connection between one life and another? Imagine an atom that had belonged to the Buddha, had then ended up in Jesus Christ, then Mohammed and then Hitler. Would this atom have any necessary connection with these people, or was it no more important to them then the clothes they wore? It’s your immortal self (soul) that defines you – not contingent physical components of your body, and not the part of your mind linked to your present body. Moreover, how does karma decide what acts are good and what acts are evil? Karma is not an intelligent being with an infallible moral code. How can Nature or karma decide what’s good and evil in the absence of intelligence? We are told that the first seven levels of consciousness are destroyed upon death, while the eighth level mysteriously survives death. But how, and where? If there’s no eternal self, where is this eighth level located? Does it float freestanding through the aether? We are told of the eighth level, “It is also called the ‘storehouse’ or never-perishing consciousness. It is at this level that spiritual phenomena occur.” WTF! A moment ago, we were told that the eighth level could be equated with the unconscious, yet now we’re being told the opposite: it’s “never-perishing consciousness”. How does this make any sense? It either conscious or unconscious. It can’t be both. As ever, we are subjected to waffle and hokum. We are told that “spiritual” phenomena occur at the eighth level. And, er, what are these spiritual phenomena? Who knows?! As ever, there’s no clarity. Nothing is defined. In what way do spiritual phenomena occur at his level and not at other levels? How does this level relate to science and math? How does causality relate to this level? How does this level causally interact with the lower levels, as it must do if karma is true? If the karmic level is “never-perishing”, doesn’t that make it an immortal soul?

Reaching the ninth level of consciousness – “amala” consciousness – we are told that this is free of the eighth level (the karmic level) and is regarded as “fundamental, pure consciousness”. Moreover, it’s apparently the “fundamental basis of all life”! Are we being told that consciousness, rather than the unconscious, is at the root of everything? If a unitary consciousness underlies everything, isn’t’ that the same as the Abrahamic God?! How come this “Self” is eternal, while all other selves are illusory and mortal? We are told, “In this amala consciousness the true eternal self can exist in harmony with the life of the cosmos itself. This level is greatly powerful and attained by reaching enlightenment.” WTF! In Buddhism, we have no eternal self – no soul – so what on earth is this “true eternal self”? Is it actually a reference to God? Are we being told that when we pass through all of these levels, we are extinguished as contingent, temporal selves and become one with the necessary, eternal Self that is the conscious source of all life, i.e. we become God?! In this view, it’s not our soul that achieves enlightenment (given that we have no soul). Rather, some indefinable, individuated cosmic process becomes enlightened, and, at that point, recognises that it is in fact God! (and has been all along, but just didn’t know it). Is there any link between the eighth and ninth levels, or do they belong to separate categories of existence? Do you just miraculously leap from level eight to level nine when you become “enlightened”? What does that even mean? What’s the mathematics and science of this transition? Buddhism is mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s as far from enlightenment as Abrahamism. It’s pure endarkenment, mired in ignorance and self-delusion. Its ontology and epistemology are 100% false, and contrary to science and mathematics. It’s impossible to acquire any coherent understanding of the mystical claims of Buddhism. Any interpretation you like can be attached to these bizarre ideas.

***** “The Buddhist concept of the 9 levels of consciousness gives a great template for living your life and for transformative change.” In your dreams! It’s wholly incomprehensible to any rational person.

“The Buddhist teaching of the close interconnectedness of all living things shows also how changes you make for the better in your life lead to positive changes in others – as we are all connected like myriad cogwheels.” Mumbo jumbo mysticism. Where is Buddhism’s epistemology? Where is its mathematics and science?

ontology

and

“Buddhism comes from a long history of introspection and personal growth.” In fact, it comes from a long history of waffle, bullshit and charlatanry. “This tradition has many spiritual techniques that have been developed over the millennia, but the most accessible to most people is meditation.” Spiritual techniques? You must be joking! Meditation? Meditation is valueless if, at the end of it, you arrive at the conclusions formulated by the Buddha – which are 100% wrong and false, hence the opposite of enlightenment. “To learn meditation you do not have to be a practicing Buddhist – meditation is practiced these days by people from all walks of life and all cultural backgrounds and has many benefits which have been backed up by modern scientific study as well.” This is a joke, right?! “Meditation allows you to deepen your level of consciousness. In the beginning, you will start at level 7, but with meditation, you will soon find yourself being able to move into the 8th level. The 8th level of consciousness transcends the limits of the individual as you begin to access the energy of karma.” WTF! Where is this eighth level? What is the “energy of karma”, as opposed to any other energy? How does Buddhism define energy? How does karmic energy karmically interact with other types of energy? What is the science and math of karmic energy? How does entropy affect karmic energy? Can it be transformed into other types of energy? What are the thermodynamic laws of karma? This is all just Old Age bullshit transformed into New Age bullshit. It’s for emotional and mystical people. It has no connection with reason and

rationalism. It’s totally cut off from science and mathematics, and no thinking person would take it seriously under any circumstances. The more you learn about it, the more silly it becomes, It says nothing at all. It has zero truth content. It doesn’t tell us anything about reality. “...you will find yourself growing in compassion and self-awareness.” You may find yourself growing in compassion You certainly won’t be more self-ware, and you certainly won’t understand anything at all about reality. The real nature of existence will be concealed from you.

***** The bottom line is that Buddhism claims that an eternal unitary conscious – an eternal Self – underlies all things. This can only be understood as God, yet Buddhism denies the existence of both the Self and God. Is it possible to conceive of a single consciousness underlying all things that is not God? Schopenhauer wasn’t fooled. He realised that that the only way in which Buddhist thinking could make sense was if the underlying eternal unity was Unconscious, not Conscious, and was pure Will, not any kind of conscious intelligence. For Schopenhauer, consciousness was something we developed as illusory individual beings, and the gift it conferred on us was to combat the monstrous Will and allow us to cease to exist, i.e. to shrink the evil Will by causing part of it to stop willing, hence to perish. In the limit, the Will could be fully extinguished, leaving nothing at all – pure Nirvana, the extinguishing of EVERYTHING! For Schopenhauer we become enlightened by removing ourselves from existence, not by becoming one with the evil Will that underlies the phenomenal world.

Nine Consciousnesses Nine kinds of discernment “‘Consciousness’ is the translation of the Sanskrit vijnana, which means discernment. The nine consciousnesses are (1) sight-consciousness, (2) hearing-consciousness, (3) smell-consciousness, (4) taste-consciousness, (5) touch-consciousness, (6) mind-consciousness, (7) mano-consciousness, (8)

alaya-consciousness, and (9) amala-consciousness. (The Sanskrit is the same for both the sixth and seventh consciousnesses.) “The first five consciousnesses correspond to the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. The sixth consciousness integrates the perceptions of the five senses into coherent images and makes judgments about the external world. In contrast with the first six consciousnesses, which deal with the external world, the seventh, or mano-consciousness, corresponds to the inner spiritual world. Awareness of and attachment to the self are said to originate from the mano-consciousness, as does the ability to distinguish between good and evil. The eighth, or alaya-consciousness, exists in what modern psychology calls the unconscious; all experiences of present and previous lifetimes – collectively called karma – are stored there. The alaya-consciousness receives the results of one’s good and evil deeds and stores them as karmic potentials or ‘seeds,’ which then produce the rewards of either happiness or suffering accordingly. Hence it was rendered as ‘storehouse consciousness’ in Chinese. The alaya-consciousness thus forms the framework of individual existence. The Dharma Characteristics school regards the eighth consciousness as the source of all spiritual and physical phenomena. The Summary of the Mahayana school, the T’ient’ai school, and the Flower Garland school postulate a ninth consciousness, called amala-consciousness, which lies below the alaya-consciousness and remains free from all karmic impurity. This ninth consciousness is defined as the basis of all life’s functions. Hence it was rendered as ‘fundamental pure consciousness’ in Chinese.” – The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism New Age thinking is full of drivel about the sixth level of this, the seventh level of that, the eight levels of blah de blah, the nine levels of advancement, and so on. It’s all just Mythos nonsense, devoid of science, mathematics and rigorous philosophy. No ontology and epistemology is ever cited. Consider the statement, “The alaya-consciousness receives the results of one’s good and evil deeds and stores them as karmic potentials or ‘seeds,’ which then produce the rewards of either happiness or suffering accordingly.” What does any of this mean? How does the alayaconsciousness receive the results of one’s good and evil deeds? What’s the process, what’s the scientific or mathematical mechanism? Where are these results kept before being passed to the alaya-consciousness? How is this

process managed? How are good and evil quantified and qualified? Who or what is performing the moral assessment? Who or what is qualified to do so? Why should we believe in any of this? Where’s the evidence, where’s the proof, where are the rational arguments? How are these arbitrary moral judgements stored as “karmic seeds”? What does that mean? How are these able to causally influence our genes and environment? Through what scientific or mathematical mechanism? How are we to judge “happiness” and “suffering”? Who’s the judge? What’s the standard? This is all just infantile waffle and hokum. To a rational person, it’s nothing but noise and speculation. No coherent system is specified. It’s full of arbitrariness, contingency, opinion, belief, conjecture, interpretation, and Mythos. People who believe this kind of garbage have bought into a simplistic little story that cannot survive any serious scrutiny at all – but if you never subject it to any such scrutiny and analysis, it allows you to make up a comforting little story to tell yourself.

Alaya-Consciousness (Sanskrit alaya-vijnana) “Storehouse consciousness, never-perishing consciousness, or maintainingconsciousness (adana-consciousness). According to the ConsciousnessOnly school, the eighth and deepest of the eight consciousnesses; alaya means abode, dwelling, or receptacle, and vijnana means discernment. Located below the realms of conscious awareness, it is called the storehouse consciousness, because all karma created in the present and previous lifetimes is stored there. It is also called the never-perishing consciousness, because the karmic seeds preserved there continue even after death, and the maintaining-consciousness, because it maintains the life and body of a sentient being. The alaya-consciousness is regarded as that which undergoes the cycle of birth and death, and determines the nature of individual existence. All the actions and experiences of life that occur through the first seven consciousnesses, such as sight, hearing, touch, and mind, are accumulated as karma in this alaya-consciousness, which in turn exerts an influence on the workings of these seven. The ConsciousnessOnly school, which postulates the existence of the eight consciousnesses,

holds that all phenomena arise from the alaya- consciousness and that the alaya-consciousness is the only reality.” – The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism If you think you understand Buddhism, answer the following question: what is the difference between the Self, the existence of which is denied by Buddhism, and the alaya-consciousness, which, to some Buddhists, is the “only reality”? How can the different interpretations of Buddhism be explained? Only one answer can be right. How can Buddhism be right if different Buddhists interpret it in radically different ways? How can you be enlightened by subscribing to a belief system such as Buddhism that is interpreted wholly differently by many of its own adherents?

Amala-Consciousness (Sanskrit amala-vijnana) “Free-of-defilement consciousness or pure consciousness. The ninth and deepest of the nine consciousnesses. Amala means pure or undefiled, and vijnana means discernment. The eight consciousnesses set forth in the Consciousness-Only doctrine consist of the six consciousnesses (discernment by eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind), the mano consciousness, and the alaya-consciousness. To these the Summary of the Mahayana school founded by Paramartha, the Flower Garland school founded by Tu-shun, and the T’ient’ai school added a ninth consciousness, which is defined as the basis of all of life’s functions. While the eighth, or alaya-consciousness, contains karmic impurities, the amala-consciousness is pure, free from all defilement, and corresponds to the Buddha nature.” – The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism Well, with which Buddhist school do you agree? Is the Buddha nature, simply a dishonest name for “God”? What’s the difference? If you’re a Buddhist, do you worship Buddha? If not, why not? Buddhism is simply God-worship transferred to an idealised human being – the Buddha himself. If this is the choice, who in their right mind wouldn’t rather have God?!

The Zeroth Level of Consciousness

Matter is the zeroth level of consciousness. Scientific materialism is the study of non-consciousness and non-mind. It has nothing at all to say about the mental aspect of existence.

The Science Assumption Science refuses to examine its own assumptions. It treats them as articles of faith, and that makes it a quasi-religion. Science does not rely on analytic principles. It does not rely on reason and logic. Science relies on a method, and that method assumes the truth of a certain philosophical worldview (that of empiricism and materialism). If this worldview is false – which it is – science’s method is 100% useless at telling us anything at all about the true reality that empiricism and materialism fails to address. We ask all scientists to answer a very simple question – why do you believe that scientific “matter” is more fundamental than mathematical singularities? What evidence or proof do you have? Leibniz’s Monadology is all about singularities (monads). This rationalist, idealist system should be the basis of science, not the empiricist, materialist method of science. Leibniz’s version of science begins from the assumption that existence is rational and intelligible. This is an incontestable assumption for anyone who regards existence as having an answer that we are capable of working out and knowing. Plainly, if existence is irrational and unintelligible, it can’t have an answer. Conventional science begins from the assumption that existence is sensible. That’s radically different from assuming that existence is intelligible, and leads to an entirely different way of studying existence. Science uses sensory experiments; proper science ought to use reason, intellect, logic, analysis, first principles and, above all, ontological mathematics. Experiments should provide a minor checking mechanism for analytic theories. Experiments should not be the be-all-and-end-all. At the moment, science doesn’t work out analytic theories and then use experiments to verify or falsify them. Instead, it makes “Feynman guesses” to try to match ad hoc quasi-mathematical hypotheses to experimental data. This is exactly why science can’t unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. It’s literally making Feynman guesses to attempt to bring together two theories that are totally incompatible. No amount of guessing will ever work!

Scientists will one day have to apply reason, logic, analysis, mathematics and philosophy to their attempts to create a final theory of everything. But don’t hold your breath. Scientists are very stupid and stubborn people, with an unshakable faith in their method, and they show every sign of being incapable of learning. They may well go on making Feynman guesses forever! Science is nothing but guessing, and matching those guesses to experimental results. What that produces is a system that’s great at matching experiments – after all, it’s designed to achieve exactly that – but wholly useless at telling us anything at all about ultimate reality, which no human experiments can access at all! Here’s the bottom line. Science would be a full-on religion were it not for mathematics, and mathematics has no need at all of the scientific method – so why is science based on experiments and not on mathematics? Ontological mathematics ends this farce. It makes science all about mathematics, and experiments are relegated to a minor supporting role. That’s the difference between regarding ultimate existence as intelligible rather than sensible. This consideration is nothing new. Pythagoras and Plato stated it thousands of years ago. Science has never refuted these geniuses, and it never could. Remember, the real war is not between science and religious faith. It’s between scientific empiricism and materialism, and mathematical rationalism and idealism. It’s between science and math. Which side are you on? Science obnoxiously and offensively claims to be on the side of reason. It’s not. It’s on the side of the irrational senses, and that makes it antirationalist and an exercise in unreason.

***** “If your best theory of the Universe says that something exists [black holes], but this something is invisible and undetectable, can you say that the object really exists, in the common sense meaning of the term?” – John Gribbin Here we see all of the flaws of science laid bare. Science is attracted to “common sense” notions (which are invariably false), and its natural tendency is to regard the invisible, undetectable and unobservable –

anything immaterial and outside space and time – as non-existent. There’s no rational reason why anything non-sensory should not exist, but because science is a sensory subject, it automatically rejects all non-sensory things. Well, here’s the fundamental problem for science ... mathematics, as it actually exists in the world, is noumenal, i.e. it has no phenomenal appearance. Ontologically, mathematics is a reflection of pure, non-sensory reason. Mathematics is the rational, intelligible means by which existence is ordered and organised. Existence is ontological mathematics. The ultimate thing which exists that is invisible, undetectable, unobservable, noumenal, non-sensory and has no appearance at all is ... mathematics. Science seeks to explain reality, but it can’t even explain mathematics, and why science is totally reliant on mathematics. How can mathematics be of any use in describing the world if the world isn’t mathematical? It’s impossible. A non-mathematical world cannot be described by math; a mathematical world obviously can. The fundamental question facing science is this – what is the ontology of mathematics? What is the connection between mathematics and reality? How and why does mathematics exist in the world? How did mathematics come to be? Where is mathematics located? How is it stored? Is it eternal? When has 1 + 1 = 2 ever been untrue or inapplicable? Science regards math as some weird abstraction, and nothing to do with reality itself. This is an assumption driven by the empiricist, materialist ideology of science – its philosophy and faith. The scientific method is 100% useless with regard to math. Mathematics has no appearance. It is non-sensory. Mathematics is the quintessence of the view that ultimate reality is rational and intelligible given that mathematics itself is rational and intelligible. Absolutely no experiments are required by math. All you require in order to do math is a rational mind. The Large Hadron Collider was used by science to find evidence for Higgs bosons. But no Collider, no matter how big, powerful or expensive, could ever detect the ultimate particles of nature – the monadic units of ontological mathematics. These are dimensionless, immaterial and outside space and time. They have no appearance and no physical properties. They are in fact souls! Isn’t it the supreme irony? Science completely rejects the existence of the soul as some delusional, pathetic, irrational religious fantasy. Yet the soul is none of those things. The individual soul is none other than a

mathematical singularity, and the whole of the scientific world is produced by the Big Bang Singularity – the collection of all soul singularities. Souls produced Higgs bosons and everything else, but souls themselves are invisible, undetectable and unobservable: they are pure, noumenal, ontological mathematics. They are the fundamental rational, intelligible building blocks of existence, and to deny their existence is ipso facto to deny that existence is rational and intelligible. This is exactly the catastrophic error committed by science. It says that existence must be about the visible, detectable, observable and sensible. And that’s why science is wrong. It’s fundamental, defining assumptions are false, irrational and anti-mathematical. Mathematics is not an unreal abstraction. Mathematics is reality itself, but you can understand that only if you are rational and not driven by your senses. Isn’t it amazing that all attempts to understand reality come down to Jungian personality types? Extraverts and introverts view the world entirely differently, as do sensing types and intuitives, and feeling types and thinkers. All make their own different assumptions about reality. They literally can’t help themselves. Their personality type dictates it. A sensing type can’t but regard existence as sensory. Intuitives can’t stop themselves from thinking of reality mystically. Feeling types can’t help but look for a Superbeing (“God”), with whom they can have an emotional relationship. And thinkers can’t prevent themselves from looking for rational solutions. All the different types can’t be right. Only one can be on the correct track. If ultimate existence is sensory, the sensing types are right. If it’s not, they’re wrong. It’s that simple. If the universe is rational, it literally must be made of reason, and reason exists ontologically as mathematics. And that means that only thinking, rational mathematicians can understand reality. Here ends the lesson!

Inward and Outward Introverts can’t help but be inward looking, and extraverts outward looking. Science is an extraverted sensing subject, but reality is introverted and rational, i.e. mathematical. It’s extremely hard for a scientist to understand our arguments because they are so alien to his worldview and the way he operates and thinks in the

world. He can’t get beyond his senses to his reason and intellect. Scientists refuse to disbelieve their senses and, instead, accept their reason.

Transcendence Mathematics, as thing in itself, exists in a transcendent, immaterial domain outside space and time. It’s Plato’s perfect domain of Forms – mathematical Forms – and is the only source of absolute knowledge and Truth. The transcendent mathematical domain is none other than an eternal, indestructible Singularity. It’s pure reason. It’s the principle of Sufficient Reason itself, and the cause of all things. We might as well call it “God” – the True God, defined by the God Equation.

Plato’s Black Hole We can think of the perfect Platonic domain as the ultimate black hole. At certain times, at the beginning of a Cosmic Age, at the birth of the physical universe of space and time, it operates as a white hole. The scientific universe is a white hole universe produced by the Monadic Collective, to which individual minds (black holes surrounded by impermeable event horizons) then attach themselves via physical bodies in spacetime. They do so thanks to Fourier mathematics that links autonomous, individual Fourier frequency domains to a collective Fourier spacetime domain. It’s all in the math! Ancient thinkers such as Plato and Pythagoras had all the right ideas, but lacked the mathematical knowledge necessary to explain them in rational rather than mystical terms. The tragedy is that humanity now has the proper mathematical knowledge at its disposal, but has been led down the wrong path by mathematics’ miscarriage – science!

The Crux If the universe is rational, intelligible and has an answer, the following must be true: reality must be ruled by the principle of sufficient reason, and existence itself must be made of ontological reason = ontological mathematics. The universe can’t be rational if it contradicts the principle of

sufficient reason, and it can’t be rational if it’s not made of ontological reason. Einstein famously said, “The most unintelligible thing about the Universe is that it is intelligible.” Only a sensing type could say such a thing. A thinking type would say, “The Universe is intelligible is because it’s made of inherently intelligible stuff – mathematics.” After all, how else could it be intelligible if it weren’t made of intelligible stuff? As a sensing type, Einstein ought to have asked this: “If the universe is sensible, as I believe, what connection does the sensible have with the intelligible?” Of course, there’s no connection at all, as Plato pointed out. The intelligible concerns Truth; the sensible concerns Opinion. Einstein ought to have asked, “Why is mathematics – the quintessential intelligible subject – at the core of science – the quintessential sensible subject?” No scientist has ever answered this, or ever could. Such is the anti-intellectual nature of science that no scientist is even curious about this question. Science denies that the principle of sufficient reason rules the universe, hence science is formally irrational and anti-rational. Science denies that reality is made of ontological reason = ontological mathematics, and instead claims that reality is made of some kind of fuzzy, blurry, uncertain, statistical, sensory, observable, material “stuff”, which it is entirely incapable of defining except through instrumental measurements. Anything that approaches an ontological definition in science is presented in mathematical terms! In science, the cart is leading the horse. Any rational person can see that it’s mathematics that must drive science (if it’s to be a rational subject), and not sensory observations (which have nothing to do with rationalism). Science, if it’s a rational subject, must obey the principle of sufficient reason, and that means that science must jettison all of its irrational claims regarding indeterminism, acausation, randomness, chance, accident, probability, statistics, fuzziness, haziness, blurriness, uncertainty. It’s staggeringly easy to get rid of these ... you simply turn to ontological mathematics with its precisely definable monads. Science refuses to do so because of its empiricist and materialist dogmatism. Science worships the scientific method. If it were rational, it would turn to the principle of sufficient reason, which requires no experiments at all but merely the proper exercise of reason, shorn of all sensory and emotional

baggage. Reason, properly conducted, can never err. Reason, improperly conducted – corrupted by sensory and faith considerations – produces irrational gibberish. The ultimate claims of science are more or less insane! They are absolutely opposed to the principle of sufficient reason.

***** It all comes down to this: is reality made of reason (mathematics), which we then experience in non-mathematical ways – above all in sensory and emotional ways – or is it made of non-mathematical, irrational, sensory “stuff”, as science claims, which it then proceeds to define and measure in exclusively mathematical terms?! Why bother with the monkey; why not go straight to the organ grinder? Mathematics has no need of science; science would be useless without mathematics. Haven’t you grasped what that self-evidently means? Reality is mathematical, and is then misinterpreted in sensory terms, and this systematic sensory misinterpretation of ontological mathematics – using all manner of irrational, non-analytic, ad hoc, arbitrary elements and Feynman guesses – is what constitutes “science”. If you get rid of all the junk – all the fallacies, erroneous assumptions, sensory labels, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, contingency, temporality, phenomenalist ideology – all that remains is pure, noumenal, ontological mathematics: pure reason! Are you smart enough to see beyond the appearance to the thing in itself? The thing in itself is pure rational mathematics, but we, as living beings that experience, interpret and misinterpret mathematics because we are stuck on the Content rather than Form side of ontological mathematics, see mathematics as an unreal abstraction. Only the highest humans – the most rational and intelligent – are capable of moving their mind to the Form side of ontological mathematics, where they encounter nothing but reason itself, reason in itself, pure logic, pure mathematics, pure analysis, the eternal truths of reason, the principle of sufficient reason in all its glory. Science is stuck on the empirical Content side of mathematics, but the Truth lies on the other side, that of rational Form. Literally zero scientists are philosophically literate enough to understand reality in terms of Form and Content. Science simply isn’t an intellectual subject at all.

The Hardest Thing The hardest thing for the average human mind to grasp is that, contrary to all appearances, reality in itself has no appearance whatsoever and is pure reason. Why has humanity been so bad at understanding reality? Why has it invented so many ridiculous “explanations” of reality? It’s all because it has never been rational enough. It has always privileged the senses, feelings, faith, mystical intuitions, desires and will over reason. It has always forced reason to be the servant of these others, when, in fact, reason is the true master ... and the only way to rationally explain a rational universe. How can a rational universe be explained any way other than rationally, i.e. by reason? How can the senses “explain” a rational universe? What is rational about the senses? In what way do they reflect the principle of sufficient reason and the analytic, eternal truths of reason and logic? Only a total fool – a scientist – would expect to explain rational reality via sensory observations and experiments rather than through rationalism itself. But you have to be rational to understand that! And that’s the whole problem. Everything always comes back to the same question, namely, is reality to be explained empirically or rationally? Which is correct ... empiricism or rationalism? The scientific method is the standard-bearer of empiricism, and mathematics the champion of rationalism. Both can’t be true. Either science or mathematics is totally false in the claims it makes about ultimate reality. It’s obviously science that’s wrong because science relies on mathematics (a butchered, incomplete and inconsistent version of mathematics based on real numbers), while mathematics has no reliance on science. David Hume showed what happens when empiricism is taken to its logical conclusion – total skepticism and nihilism. Empiricism became useful for one reason alone – a rationalist, mathematical engine was attached to it. No scientist has ever explained what mathematics is ontologically, why it’s so valuable for describing an allegedly nonmathematical reality, and what it’s doing at the core of an empiricist subject. None ever will. These people are irredeemably irrational!

The Difference

Sensing types immediately think of something sensory when asked to contemplate ultimate reality. Thinking types think of something rational. Both cannot be right. These are incompatible worldviews. A true rational theory is consistent and complete. It cannot be otherwise. A true sensory theory can never be consistent and complete. Why can’t science reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity? It’s because these are both incomplete, inconsistent, sensory theories that make radically different assumptions about reality. Since the theories are not rational, there is no rational way to combine them, so all that’s left to science is to keep making Feynman guesses and pray for a miracle! Science is not a rational undertaking, so rational principles cannot save it from its myriad fallacies. Science will never produce a final theory. It’s not within its gift. But scientists are too irrational to realise that, and too religiously invested in their “God” – the sensory, empiricist scientific method that’s fundamentally incompatible with the principle of sufficient reason.

The Last Word Only rational people can understand the rational world. Irrational people are ruled by their feelings, senses, faith or mystical intuitions. Every type of person is capable of creating an “explanation” of reality, but only rationalists are right. Rationalism is Logos. Everything else is Mythos: interpretation, opinion, conjecture, belief, hypothesis.

The Problem The world has a rational Form and empirical Content. Therein lie all of the problems in interpreting reality. Science tries to work out Form (rationalism) from Content (empiricism) – an impossible task. Science tries to work backwards from phenomenon (appearance) to noumenon (thing in itself, which has no appearance) – an absurdity.

Math Stop thinking of math as some boring, dry, unreal abstraction that you write down on a piece of paper, while scratching your head (and ass!). Math is the

fabric of existence itself. All information is conveyed by math. Math provides the unshakeable foundations and perfect brickwork for the House of Existence.

***** Understanding reality is a rational game, and if you’re not rational, you’re not in the game. Reality – in its intelligible aspect – is pure rational Form. Reality – in its sensible aspect – is pure empirical Content. Make sure you understand the difference between Form and Content. Scientists don’t!

***** Einstein said, “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.” It certainly isn’t reason! Science is the debauchment of reason.

Guessing Is it rational to attempt to guess the answer to existence? That’s what Richard Feynman and all scientists believe is the optimal way forward. These people are mad. They are the enemies of reason.

The Stream Beneath “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” – Sir James Jeans “It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference...” – Arthur Eddington The materialist hypothesis is exactly that – a hypothesis. There is no evidence, proof or rational argument that matter exists. There is no reason at all to accept the existence of a matter. There is nothing at all in the human

condition that does not begin and end with the mind. Why would we have any reason to conjecture that there is anything non-mental in the world?

The Source of Evil There is a specific site on earth from which evil flows continuously. That site is Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a site sacred to all Jews, Christians and Muslims. Temple Mount is the Devil’s citadel, his home, his throne, his seat of power. Humanity will be free only when that diabolical mound is levelled, and a Disney fun park built over it.

Private and Public The world comprises a greedy private elite ruling over a lazy general public. Get off your asses and seize power for the people.

The Science Fraud People don’t ponder things like the graph of y = 1/x or the tangent, sine or cosine curve. They don’t contemplate the geometric figure of Gabriel’s Horn. They never marvel at the Riemann Sphere, the Möbius strip, the Tesseract or the Amplituhedron. They don’t think about symmetry, antisymmetry and asymmetry. They never imagine the unit circle traced by Euler’s Formula. They never think about complex numbers. They don’t ponder the Riemann Hypothesis, or transforms or transformations. They don’t reflect on the mathematical basis of spinors and twistors. There are countless fascinating mathematical objects that people ignore, or of which they are entirely ignorant. All that science does is dress mathematical ideas in the garb of matter and then talk about black holes, event horizons, white holes, wormholes, Einstein-Rosen bridges, Big Bang singularities, the Multiverse, parallel worlds, trying to accelerate to light speed, relativity, quantum uncertainty, collapsing wavefunctions, curved space, gravity, electromagnetism, antimatter, negative energy, dark energy, dark matter, anti-gravity, and so on. Don’t people realise that all of these concepts are based on pure math? All that science has done is claim that math is “abstract” while science is “real” – simply because it adds “matter” to math. But “matter” doesn’t

exist. It’s a sensory, philosophical construct. Strip it away and all you’re left with is pure math. And that’s all you need. You don’t need to add Mythos to Logos. You don’t need to add phenomenon to noumenon. You don’t need to dress up math in non-mathematical clothes. It’s about time that everyone on this planet realised that all scientific ideas – with no exceptions – are mathematical ideas, at one step removed from pure math. Why do we need this buffer zone, this anti-math shield? Get rid of it! Let’s get down to pure math. “Energy” isn’t scientific; it’s pure mathematical sinusoidal waves. Whenever you come across any scientific concept, just get rid of the “matter” aspect of the concept, and consider the underlying math. Science is a sensory mythologizing of math – turning it into something we can picture as “physical” rather than mathematical. It’s like stabilisers for a kid’s bicycle. When you’re smart enough, you don’t need to add any pictures to math. You can think about the thing in itself.

Mysticism All mystical thinking concerns zero and infinity. Science rejects zero and infinity. Science even regards imaginary and complex numbers as mystical, and negative numbers as highly suspect. Haven’t people realised that all notions of reality revolve around how people conceive mathematics? If someone says that “God” is infinite, that’s a mathematical statement. If they say he exists in another dimension, that’s a mathematical statement. If they say he’s an immaterial Singularity outside space and time, that’s a mathematical statement. If they say he’s transcendent and immanent, that’s a mathematical statement. If they talk about formless matter and matterless form, those are mathematical statements. If they refer to phenomena and noumena, such ideas can be understood only in terms of mathematics. If they talk about the manifest and unmanifest, the nondual, the Void, yin and yang, the dialectic ... these are all disguised references to mathematics. Religion is simply mathematics dressed up in Mythos language. Science is simply mathematics expressed through materialism, empiricism and real numbers: it’s sensory mathematics. Eastern religion is mathematics based on mystical intuition, and Abrahamism is mathematics based on feelings. To say that the Abrahamic “God” is eternal, precedes Creation, transcends space and time, is all-seeing, all-powerful, all-knowing, is necessary, is the first cause, is the prime mover, the first of the series, is the repository of all

eternal truths, and so on, is to personalise and anthropomorphise mathematical concepts. The universe is 100% mathematical, and everything that doesn’t seem mathematical is in fact a disguised version of mathematics. It’s impossible to escape mathematics. Nothing has been more harmful to humanity’s understanding of reality than its attitude that mathematics is an unreal abstraction. Mathematics is the essence of existence, and provides the fabric of existence. It’s the noumenal framework on which the whole phenomenal world rests. The world in itself is pure mathematical sinusoids defined by the God Equation. The world as it appears, is simply the information carried by those sinusoids, as interpreted by experiential mathematical minds (which don’t know they are mathematical minds and imagine themselves to be anything other than that!). When people say that existence is mysterious, they’re talking rubbish. Existence is pure math. What is mysterious is that people can’t see that, or refuse to see that. The “great mystery” that people imagine is “out there” is actually mathematics, especially in terms of zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers – all the numbers that aren’t accommodated by empiricist and materialist notions. Of course, mathematics isn’t mysterious at all: it’s pure, analytic, ontological reason. It’s the eternal principle of sufficient reason itself. But – to emotional, sensory, mystical humans – what could be more mysterious than pure reason? Reason is the antidote to mystery and mysticism, but if you’re not rational, you will never be cured of your delusions. The Age of Reason = the Age of Mathematics. The Enlightenment = the Mathematics of Light.

Quantum Mysticism Science has turned quantum mechanics into pure mysticism, and used it as the dumping ground for countless absurd assertions about reality. We will give you a clue about where conventional quantum “logic” dissolves – in the difference between a static point and a dynamic point moving at a fixed, uniform speed (the speed of light). In a world of uniformly moving points, how can you ever conceive of anything being at a precise position (i.e. a static point)? What does such a claim mean ontologically? All of the claims

of science concerning Planck’s constant and its seemingly indeterministic influence over the quantum world, can be reinterpreted in absolutely deterministic, ontological terms. We will be addressing this exact issue in a future book.

Dissociation During disasters, people feel detached from what they are seeing. They feel surreal. They enter a state called dissociation. They feel as if they are watching everything from a distance, or on a TV. In many ways, consciousness is like that. It’s a dissociative state of the unconscious, watching the unconscious from one step removed. The conscious is what you get when one part of the unconscious distances itself from the rest of the unconscious!

The Shadow Abrahamism is the Shadow of mathematics. Isn’t that amazing? If you’re not smart for the God Equation, you believe in “God”. Abrahamism treats “God” as a being; Ontological Mathematics treats “God” as an eternal mathematical system. Abrahamism is, in effect, the Devil in relation to mathematics! Eastern religion is the Shadow of science, which is why so many scientists are “spiritually” attracted to it. Your Jungian personality type determines everything about you, even down to how you understand ultimate reality. You can’t escape your type. But, in a rational universe, only the rationalists can be right.

***** Jungian sensing types believe in a sensory world; intuitives believe in a world of mystical intuition; feeling types believe in a perfect being with whom they can have a perfect relationship; rationalists accept the existence of a perfect rational underpinning of reality. The world can’t escape the following conflicts: sensing types versus intuitives, feeling types versus rationalists, extraverts versus introverts.

The Christian Deception Christianity mounts a two-fold psychological war against you. First, it destroys your self-esteem to make you, in your weakened, miserable state, susceptible to its message. It tells you that you are inherently depraved, an inveterate sinner, and irredeemably damned. Your human nature is utterly corrupt and you have been branded with Original Sin, marking you for a one-way trip to hell. At this point, you are frightened out of your wits. But then comes part two of their sting. They say that Jesus Christ, the God of Christianity, died on a Cross to save you – but only if you believe in him. If you do, you’ll be washed clean of Original Sin, and you’ll be going to heaven rather than hell, where you will be one of the Company of the Blessed, the Companions of God. It’s psychological genius ... and utterly false and evil.

The Sacred Cause When you find your sacred cause, you have reached the end of the road. There’s nowhere else to go because you have found the thing that defines your life, that provides the meaning to your life. For most people, their sacred cause is simply themselves or their family. Some people have hedonism as their sacred cause; others have the accumulation of fame or prestige; others worship religion, or money; some lust for political power; some are wedded to the idea of “making a difference”; some aim for immortality – to do something that humanity will remember forever; some have drugs, alcohol, gambling or sex as their God; some are compulsive narcissists and egotists – psychopaths; some pour everything into art. Religion is incredibly powerful because it’s inherently about sacred causes. Fascism, Nazism and Communism were immensely powerful secular replacements for religion. Why is capitalist democracy so poor at generating enthusiasm? Why has it been said that no one would ever go to war to fight for capitalism? It’s because these are negative liberty systems, which are all about leaving you alone, hence they are making no attempt to give you a sacred cause. So, if they won’t, you will look elsewhere, and your sacred cause will always be infinitely more important to you than capitalist democracy. Only

positive liberty undertakings can be associated with sacred causes. Negative liberty systems always seem shallow, empty, trivial, uninspiring, boring and unsatisfying – which is why democratic politicians are universally held in contempt, and why capitalist consumerism and materialism leaves a gaping hole in people’s lives, and launches them on a desperate search for spiritual nourishment and meaning. Capitalist materialism, exactly like scientific materialism, is meaningless, purposeless and pointless. All materialist things, all random things, all negative libertarian things, can never provide real, enduring satisfaction. Capitalist democracy is a huge machine for making people miserable and depressed, unfulfilled and empty, lonely, atomised, fragmented, dislocated and disconnected. It must be replaced by a positive liberty system – meritocracy, where the State explicitly declares that it’s in the business of optimising every citizen, so that we can start building the starships that will take us to the heavens, and to the Gods themselves. Meritocracy is about producing humans capable of transmuting into Gods. Capitalist democracy is about making a tiny, greedy, selfish, super rich capitalist elite even wealthier and more powerful. Well, what’s your sacred cause? Have you found it yet? Once you do, it will be impossible to change. You have made your leap, and there’s no way back. You have passed the point of no return. That’s why it’s more or less impossible to convert a religious maniac to sanity. You are asking them to change their sacred cause, and that’s simply not going to happen. They have invested too much in it and it now shapes their whole worldview. All you offer them is the complete disintegration of their reality. Fundamentalist scientific materialist atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have made scientific atheism subject their sacred cause and are just as committed to it as any Muslim Fundamentalist, and that’s why you can’t reason with scientists like that. Reason isn’t their thing. The senses and the scientific method are what they have constructed as their idols (false idols). These are not concerned with analysis, logic and reason. These are about matching Feynman guesses to observed experimental data, and then patting yourself on the back when you get a “match”. You believe you have learned something about reality when in fact all you have done is performed an ad hoc, arbitrary guessing exercise until you got the result you wanted. That’s contingent pattern matching, not necessary, eternal

knowledge. How can guessing ever produce authentic knowledge? It’s absurd. Feynman exposed how anti-intellectual science really is. Where religious people make guesses about ultimate reality using their feelings and faith, scientist make guesses based on their senses. To the extent that the senses are more reliable than feelings, science is a better guess than mainstream religion. However, if you removed mathematics from science, it would be exactly the same as religion – just as alchemy was. Mathematics, not the senses, is what makes science impressive. So, why not just ditch the senses entirely? What could be more impressive and true than pure, analytic, noumenal, ontological mathematics – the exercise of pure reason, making no appeal to feelings, the senses or mystical intuition? People who haven’t found their sacred cause just drift from one thing to another. They may be consumed by a sudden passion and enthusiasm for something, believing they have at last found their sacred cause, but the feeling doesn’t last, and soon they move on to the next thing. Some people of this kind simply never find their sacred cause and end up as the ultimate cynics, skeptics, nihilists and atheists. They are totally embittered and negative, and frequently heavy users of alcohol and drugs to numb their pain. Nothing is more important than finding your sacred cause. You are lost without it. When you have assumed a sacred cause, you at last feel aligned with your soul itself. You feel real, valid, authentic, true and right, no longer fake, phoney, fraudulent, false and wrong. The sacred cause of the Illuminist movement is Reason. Once you are gripped by the power, glory, beauty and certainty of Reason, you know you will never depart from its radiance, from its absolute infallibility. Reason transforms you once and for all. Reason alone can provide the answer to a rational world. If you look at the world and conclude that it is operating according to rational principles – rather than randomism, indeterminism, chaos, acausation, probability and statistics, as modern science claims – then you will commit yourself to rationalism, and the specific subject that is exclusively about rationalism is mathematics. 1 + 1 = 2. Only rational people will ever embrace Illuminism and ontological mathematics, but such people are elite humanity, Higher Humanity, HyperHumanity, those furthest along the path to becoming Gods!

Imago Dei